Full transcript - Final - Queensland Parliament - Queensland ...
Full transcript - Final - Queensland Parliament - Queensland ...
Full transcript - Final - Queensland Parliament - Queensland ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
9 Mar 1999 Legislative Assembly 299<br />
TUESDAY, 9 MARCH 1999<br />
Mr SPEAKER (Hon. R. K. Hollis, Redcliffe)<br />
read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 a.m.<br />
MEMBERS' STATIONERY ENTITLEMENTS<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable<br />
members, recent press reports have been<br />
called to my attention. In these reports, a<br />
member states his intention to flout the spirit of<br />
the stationery entitlements outlined in the<br />
Members Office Support Handbook.<br />
I remind all honourable members that the<br />
Standing Committee on Members<br />
Entitlements vested the responsibility of<br />
monitoring use of stationery in the Speaker. I<br />
take this responsibility seriously and will<br />
continue to be vigilant on behalf of the<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> and the taxpayers.<br />
PETITIONS<br />
The Clerk announced the receipt of the<br />
following petitions—<br />
Bribie Island Bridge<br />
From Mr Feldman (4,159 petitioners)<br />
requesting the House to take appropriate<br />
action to satisfactorily provide suitable lighting<br />
on the Bribie Island bridge and safety railing<br />
for the pedestrian walkway on the Bribie Island<br />
bridge.<br />
Crime Victims, Confidentiality of Records<br />
From Dr Kingston (224 petitioners)<br />
requesting the House to introduce a new Act<br />
or amend an existing Act to protect the<br />
confidentiality of records of victims of crime, in<br />
particular sexual assault victims, by preventing<br />
access to them, in both common and criminal<br />
law.<br />
National Senior Citizens Week<br />
From Mrs Rose (1,696 petitioners)<br />
requesting the House to combine in a National<br />
Senior Citizens Week, to be held annually in all<br />
States at the same time.<br />
Petitions received.<br />
PAPERS<br />
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS<br />
The following statutory instruments were tabled<br />
by The Clerk—<br />
Animals Protection Act 1925, Dairy Industry Act<br />
1993—<br />
Primary Industries Legislation Amendment<br />
Regulation (No. 1) 1999, No. 19<br />
Griffith University Act 1971—<br />
Griffith University (Statutes Repeal)<br />
Statute 1999, No. 17<br />
Health Act 1937—<br />
Health Amendment Regulation (No. 2)<br />
1999, No. 13<br />
Integrated Planning Act 1997—<br />
Integrated Planning (Zoning of Closed<br />
Roads) Transitional Regulation 1999,<br />
No. 12<br />
Justices Act 1886, Traffic Act 1949—<br />
Traffic Amendment Regulation (No. 1)<br />
1999, No. 20<br />
Nature Conservation Act 1992—<br />
Nature Conservation (Protected Areas)<br />
Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1999,<br />
No. 18<br />
Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act<br />
1994—<br />
Transport Operations (Marine Safety)<br />
Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1999,<br />
No. 15<br />
Transport Operations (Road Use Management)<br />
Act 1995—<br />
Transport Operations (Road Use<br />
Management) Amendment Regulation<br />
(No. 1) 1999, No. 14<br />
University of Southern <strong>Queensland</strong> Act 1998—<br />
Proclamation—the provisions of the Act<br />
that are not in force commence 8 March<br />
1999, No. 16<br />
MINISTERIAL RESPONSES TO<br />
PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS<br />
The following responses to parliamentary<br />
committee reports, received during the recess,<br />
were tabled by The Clerk—<br />
response from the Minister for Health (Mrs<br />
Edmond) to a report of the Public Works<br />
Committee entitled Townsville Hospital<br />
redevelopment; and<br />
response from the Minister for Health (Mrs<br />
Edmond) to a report of the Public Works<br />
Committee entitled Redevelopment of the<br />
Maryborough Hospital.<br />
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT<br />
Leaders Forum on Drugs<br />
Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—<br />
ALP) (Premier) (9.34 a.m.), by leave: About<br />
600 Australians are dying from illegal drug<br />
overdoses each year. They are 600 compelling<br />
and tragic reasons why our present methods
300 Ministerial Statement 9 Mar 1999<br />
of dealing with this problem are not working.<br />
Make no mistake; no family is exempt from the<br />
risk of losing a member to heroin addiction.<br />
That is why we must think again about how we<br />
try to prevent our young people from<br />
becoming addicts, how we try to help addicts<br />
and how we tackle the dealers in death.<br />
The Leaders Forum on Drugs attended by<br />
the Premiers on Friday, 5 March, in<br />
Melbourne, provided an impressive bipartisan<br />
and whole-of-Government approach to the<br />
illegal drug trade. All leaders were<br />
wholehearted in their search for new solutions.<br />
We looked in detail at new approaches to:<br />
harm minimisation; awareness and treatment;<br />
criminal justice; research; and Government<br />
response. I stressed the need for education to<br />
be added to the harm minimisation framework<br />
and for there to be an aggressive approach in<br />
this area. This was accepted by the other<br />
leaders.<br />
Victoria and the ACT decided to go ahead<br />
with heroin trials. I made it clear that I do not<br />
support heroin trials but that <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
would organise a parallel trial using<br />
buprenorphine and naltrexone with identical<br />
arrangements where possible so that it can be<br />
determined which of the treatments offers the<br />
better results—and done on a clinical basis.<br />
Both Western Australia and <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
voiced concern about the vast coastlines we<br />
have and the problems that Customs has in<br />
detecting illegal drug importations due to lack<br />
of personnel and resources. There was no<br />
criticism of Customs; it was simply an issue of<br />
resources. The forum agreed to seek a<br />
proactive role for the Australian defence forces<br />
in protecting our coast.<br />
In examining criminal justice options, the<br />
forum agreed to evaluate work camp options<br />
to focus on lifestyle, activity and discipline. But,<br />
of course, it would have to be part of<br />
rehabilitation. It also agreed to consider<br />
introducing nationally the civil forfeiture of drugrelated<br />
assets. Altogether, some 30 initiatives<br />
were suggested for future action. Now the<br />
Prime Minister must find the money, in our<br />
view, to fund these proposals, and they will be<br />
put to the meeting of Premiers with the Prime<br />
Minister on 9 April.<br />
It is a national problem which needs<br />
national funding. The Commonwealth should<br />
provide the funding for the drug trials which are<br />
being mounted. The Prime Minister and the<br />
Federal Government should provide funding<br />
as well for any drug courts that go ahead and<br />
which are currently being evaluated in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>. The Commonwealth should<br />
provide funds for treatment and rehabilitation.<br />
I am hopeful that, at the Premiers<br />
Conference on 9 April, there will be significant<br />
funds forthcoming from the Commonwealth. I<br />
table for the information of the House the<br />
outcome of the Leaders Forum on Drugs.<br />
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT<br />
International Women's Day<br />
Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—<br />
ALP) (Premier) (9.37 a.m.), by leave: It is with<br />
great pleasure that I inform the House of the<br />
support my Government is giving to the 70th<br />
anniversary celebrations of International<br />
Women's Day, which was yesterday.<br />
Yesterday, I jointly hosted with Minister Judy<br />
Spence, on behalf of the <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
Government, a function at <strong>Parliament</strong> House<br />
to celebrate the 70th anniversary of<br />
International Women's Day in <strong>Queensland</strong>.<br />
The special guest was writer and women's<br />
activist Merle Thornton. Merle remarked on the<br />
irony, saying that last time she was treated to<br />
refreshments at <strong>Parliament</strong> House was 34<br />
years ago, when she was lobbying to change<br />
a law that prevented her from drinking at the<br />
public bar of <strong>Queensland</strong> hotels simply<br />
because she was a woman. Well, she must<br />
have felt that she did not receive a proper<br />
hearing, because the next day she and<br />
colleague Ro Bogner chained themselves to<br />
the rail of the public bar at the Regatta Hotel. It<br />
took another 10 years of lobbying by women<br />
such as Merle Thornton before the law was<br />
changed and women were permitted to join<br />
men in <strong>Queensland</strong>'s public bars. Thanks in<br />
part to these pioneering feminists,<br />
Government attitudes to women's policy have<br />
changed radically.<br />
Today, I table the first <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
Government Annual Action Plan for Women: A<br />
Partnership Between Women and<br />
Government. I urge all members to read this<br />
plan, because it commits my Government to<br />
advancing women by listening to their ideas<br />
and concerns. The plan outlines strategies in<br />
eight key areas for women, including improving<br />
safety and justice, enhancing opportunities for<br />
women in rural and remote areas, and creating<br />
job and business opportunities.<br />
An important feature of the action plan is<br />
the Premier's Council for Women, announced<br />
yesterday. Twelve high-calibre <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
women have been appointed to the council,<br />
which is now the Government's primary<br />
advisory body on women's issues. It was<br />
approved yesterday in Cabinet, being brought<br />
there by the Minister. I assure members of this<br />
House that we will be listening to that voice<br />
and that voice will be heard.
9 Mar 1999 Ministerial Statement 301<br />
The council members, who bring a<br />
diversity of experience in women's issues to<br />
their roles, are: the chair, Cathy Miller,<br />
manager of the Logan Women's Health<br />
Centre and Sexual Assault Service; the deputy<br />
chair, Lynette Palmen, founder and managing<br />
director of Women's Network Australia; Elaine<br />
McKeon, managing director of Koutha<br />
Aboriginal Development Corporation Ltd;<br />
Patimah Malone, regional manager of the<br />
Department of Immigration and Multicultural<br />
Affairs in the Torres Strait; Frances Harding,<br />
the co-owner of Hotel Corones at Charleville;<br />
Christine Scott, a Charters Towers first-aid<br />
instructor; Madeleine McPherson, a University<br />
of Southern <strong>Queensland</strong> librarian; Jeannie<br />
Mok, the foundation principal of the Asian<br />
Pacific Institute; Gail Armstrong, principal of<br />
the Loganlea State High School; Grace Grace,<br />
assistant general secretary of the ACTU<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Branch; Mary Magee, former<br />
chair of the Ministerial Advisory Council for<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Women; and Dr Kay Saunders,<br />
reader in history at the University of<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>.<br />
I look forward to working with these<br />
women to improve the position of all women in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>.<br />
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT<br />
Art Built In<br />
Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—ALP)<br />
(Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and<br />
Minister for The Arts) (9.40 a.m.), by leave:<br />
Today the Premier will launch Art Built In, the<br />
most comprehensive, integrated and visionary<br />
public art policy ever undertaken in Australia.<br />
This policy—which is a whole-of-Government<br />
policy endorsed by Cabinet—allocates 2% of<br />
major public capital works budgets in the State<br />
to integrated art and design in public buildings.<br />
It honours a key election commitment in<br />
Labor's New Directions Statement for the Arts<br />
1998. It also heralds a new era for<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>, with long-term cultural and<br />
economic benefits to our State and to the lives<br />
of all <strong>Queensland</strong>ers, now and in the future.<br />
As the first cultural policy ever to be<br />
implemented by every State Government<br />
department, it is also the fruition of long and<br />
careful consultation with my Cabinet<br />
colleagues, local government and key sectors<br />
of the construction, design and arts industries<br />
in <strong>Queensland</strong>.<br />
In general, the 2% will apply to capital<br />
works building projects in excess of $250,000,<br />
excluding Government fees and charges,<br />
WorkCover, and the cost of capital equipment.<br />
It is not mandatory for Government owned<br />
corporations or commercialised business units<br />
of Government. However, they are<br />
encouraged to use their best endeavours to<br />
implement this policy. A number of exemptions<br />
are specified in the policy, such as for prisons<br />
and for public housing intended for private<br />
use. It will apply in the 1999-2000 financial<br />
year, although some Government<br />
departments are already implementing the<br />
policy in current projects.<br />
An example of State and local<br />
government working together is the Cairns<br />
Esplanade project, which demonstrates the<br />
benefits to the community when a policy is<br />
integrated: that is, built in to the growth and<br />
needs of that community through community<br />
and industry consultation from the drawing<br />
board stage onwards. This visionary policy also<br />
ensures job opportunities for <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
artists and designers and, in particular, young<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>ers who will gain apprenticeships<br />
and training through public art projects. For the<br />
first time, all <strong>Queensland</strong>ers will be given a say<br />
in the shaping of their environment so that it<br />
reflects the inclusive, modern multicultural<br />
realities of our State.<br />
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT<br />
Pacific Motorway<br />
Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP)<br />
(Minister for Transport and Minister for Main<br />
Roads) (9.43 a.m.), by leave: This is a can-do<br />
Government focusing on jobs and job security.<br />
Through a series of major infrastructure<br />
projects we are improving <strong>Queensland</strong>'s<br />
transport and roads and creating jobs, jobs,<br />
jobs: over 1,200 jobs in a $240m upgrade of<br />
the rail line between Rockhampton and<br />
Townsville; 2,000 jobs on the South East<br />
Transit Project; between 400 and 500<br />
construction jobs on the Brisbane light rail<br />
project with up to 80 jobs in the operational<br />
phase; 300 jobs on the Airtrain airport rail link;<br />
300 jobs on the new diesel tilt train between<br />
Brisbane and Cairns; over 500 permanent jobs<br />
for fixed-term employees in <strong>Queensland</strong> Rail<br />
with a further 150 to come; and 17,500 jobs<br />
throughout the State over the life of the $5.3<br />
billion, five-year Roads Implementation<br />
Program.<br />
But today I want to talk about the Pacific<br />
Motorway. Construction work on the motorway<br />
is at its peak and over 1,750 people are<br />
directly employed on the project. As well,<br />
around 4,000 others are indirectly employed in<br />
providing goods and services to Main Roads<br />
and contractors. Quite a number of these<br />
people live along the motorway, which means
302 Ministerial Statement 9 Mar 1999<br />
that the project is creating economic benefit for<br />
the areas that it passes through.<br />
Construction along the Pacific Motorway<br />
from the Logan Motorway to Nerang is<br />
intensifying, with sections of the new motorway<br />
already in use. Many motorists do not realise it<br />
but they are driving on the new asphalt and<br />
concrete pavements in Beenleigh and around<br />
Pimpama, Coomera and Oxenford. The<br />
motorway is being built at around twice the<br />
speed of most road projects. This is made<br />
possible by having six contractors carrying out<br />
construction right along the 43 kilometre<br />
motorway and, of course, by the patience of<br />
south-east <strong>Queensland</strong> motorists.<br />
The Pacific Motorway is setting new<br />
standards in construction, such as keeping two<br />
lanes open in each direction during daytime<br />
hours and maintaining a posted minimum<br />
speed of 80 kilometres per hour. Travel time<br />
between Logan and Nerang is monitored by<br />
vehicles that enter the traffic stream at set<br />
times each week. On average, the 43<br />
kilometre trip takes only around five minutes<br />
longer now than it did a year ago when<br />
construction had just commenced. The<br />
number of accidents reported along the<br />
motorway actually decreased when<br />
construction started in 1998, compared with<br />
the previous year. Just as importantly, the time<br />
taken to clear vehicles after an incident has<br />
gone down from an average 75 minutes to<br />
around 45 minutes.<br />
The majority of motorists have been<br />
extremely patient during construction and the<br />
cooperation of the driving public and local<br />
communities was especially evident during the<br />
Christmas/New Year holiday period. There was<br />
a significant reduction in accidents along the<br />
motorway in December and January. We are<br />
hoping for a similar response as the Easter<br />
holiday period draws near.<br />
As occurred over the Christmas period,<br />
most construction work will stop over Easter.<br />
However, the lack of construction will not mean<br />
that motorists should become complacent.<br />
Although the road is starting to open up more,<br />
with road shoulders rather than the constraints<br />
of concrete barriers, the alignment is changing<br />
week by week as new sections open and old<br />
off-ramps close. It is important to remember,<br />
too, that many holidaymakers will not have<br />
driven the road for some time and will need to<br />
pay extra attention to the new arrangements.<br />
The motorway is on target to be opened<br />
to traffic in March next year. Recent wet<br />
weather is not expected to adversely affect this<br />
date. At the end of January, almost 20% of<br />
the motorway pavement had been laid or was<br />
under construction. Of the 90 bridges and<br />
major culverts, 36 were complete and work<br />
had commenced on another 34. The Pacific<br />
Motorway project includes construction of 46<br />
kilometres of service roads and 29 kilometres<br />
of that total have already been built.<br />
The Pacific Motorway is another example<br />
of this Government getting on with the job and<br />
delivering—delivering on transport<br />
infrastructure, delivering on jobs and delivering<br />
on job security.<br />
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT<br />
Commercial Activity in Schools<br />
Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP)<br />
(Minister for Education) (9.46 a.m.), by leave:<br />
In late 1997 the previous Government<br />
amended the Education (General Provisions)<br />
Act and the Education (General Provisions)<br />
Regulations which removed certain statutory<br />
and regulatory restrictions on commercial<br />
activities in State schools. Whilst we all know<br />
that for many years so-called commercial<br />
activities such as advertising on the back of<br />
school newsletters had occurred, this change<br />
in 1997 would have resulted in an "open<br />
slather" for all types of commercial activity to<br />
take place in and by schools. The potential for<br />
inappropriate commercial activity was<br />
significant. After tremendous pressure was<br />
brought to bear on the then Minister by my<br />
colleague, the then shadow Education Minister<br />
and now Minister for Transport, a working party<br />
was finally established to look at the whole<br />
area of commercial activity in schools in 1997.<br />
Immediately after taking office in July<br />
1998, I reviewed the terms of reference of the<br />
working party and advised the chair of the<br />
working party of the need to include the<br />
following essential guidelines—<br />
1. There must be no "free go" or "open<br />
slather" in terms of commercial<br />
activity in schools.<br />
2. Any commercial activities that may<br />
take place in schools must be<br />
consistent with the image, ethos and<br />
core business of State education.<br />
3. There must be no impact on Stateprovided<br />
funding for education.<br />
4. Schools are to report via their<br />
compulsory school annual reports, in<br />
an open and transparent way, to the<br />
school community and public in<br />
general on any commercial activities<br />
that they undertake.<br />
5. The draft guidelines were to be<br />
widely circulated for general
9 Mar 1999 Ministerial Statement 303<br />
consultation to parents and staff and<br />
modified as appropriate in<br />
accordance with the results of that<br />
consultation.<br />
Additionally, I insisted that there was to be one<br />
additional point that was not open for debate. I<br />
insisted that there are to be no inappropriate<br />
billboards, advertising outside schools or other<br />
unacceptable practices by commercial<br />
operators within schools. The golden arches<br />
will not be rising over the tuckshops in any<br />
State school.<br />
I have now received the final report of the<br />
working party. It satisfies the requirements<br />
placed on the committee and which I have just<br />
outlined. In the near future, and after due<br />
processes, my director-general will<br />
communicate to all school communities a new<br />
Education <strong>Queensland</strong> policy guideline<br />
covering these issues. I table the report.<br />
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT<br />
Public Housing<br />
Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—<br />
ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister for<br />
Housing) (9.50 a.m.), by leave: I wish to inform<br />
the House of the outcomes of a meeting of<br />
State and Territory Housing Ministers held in<br />
Hobart last Friday. I also want to outline the<br />
potential impact a goods and services tax will<br />
have on public housing programs in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> and their flow-on effects to the<br />
State's building industry.<br />
Last Friday's meeting had been<br />
scheduled to negotiate the next four-year<br />
Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement with<br />
the Federal Minister for Housing, Senator<br />
Jocelyn Newman. Shortly before last week's<br />
meeting, Senator Newman indicated she<br />
would not be attending if the question of the<br />
GST were to be raised. The Federal Minister<br />
did not turn up on Friday, despite the fact that<br />
she was in Hobart. It seemed odd to me that<br />
Housing Ministers saw the GST issue as so<br />
important that they flew to Hobart from as far<br />
away as Darwin, yet Senator Newman could<br />
not cross the street to discuss it.<br />
Based on information available so far, the<br />
Department of Housing calculates that a 10%<br />
GST would add $30m a year to its cost<br />
structure. The GST is expected to apply for<br />
three of the four years of the next CSHA,<br />
costing the housing budget $90m. But, over<br />
the full four-year term of any future CSHA, it<br />
would mean a loss of $120m, a cut of 800<br />
dwellings from the building program and the<br />
consequent loss of 1,300 jobs in the building<br />
industry.<br />
In addition to the GST, States and<br />
Territories face further cuts in funding through<br />
the Federal Government's unwillingness to<br />
index CSHA funds and its imposition of a 1%<br />
"efficiency dividend". It is estimated that the<br />
lack of indexation of even 2% in the next<br />
agreement could reduce housing funds by<br />
$37m over four years. The efficiency dividend<br />
will cost a further $18m over the life of the<br />
agreement. So, all up, <strong>Queensland</strong> stands to<br />
lose $175m over the full four-year term of any<br />
future CSHA. That translates to a loss of 1,170<br />
dwellings from the construction program and<br />
the loss of an estimated 1,400 jobs.<br />
It is significant that the concerns I have<br />
about the GST were shared by all Ministers<br />
present in Hobart, Labor and conservative<br />
alike. It was agreed that unless compensation<br />
for the effects of any GST is forthcoming, then<br />
all States and Territories—I repeat: all States<br />
and Territories—may have to consider selling<br />
off housing stock to meet the shortfall. In<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>, that would mean disposing of the<br />
most saleable assets, largely our newer<br />
houses and multiple-dwelling projects. I stress<br />
that all Minsters regarded this possibility as a<br />
last resort. I hope it does not come to that and<br />
that the Federal Government does offer all<br />
States and Territories adequate compensation<br />
for the GST and agrees to index future CSHA<br />
funds and remove a pointless efficiency<br />
dividend.<br />
Last Friday's meeting ended with all<br />
States and Territories—Labor and<br />
conservative—agreeing to a united approach<br />
to secure additional funds under the next<br />
CSHA and compensation for the effects of the<br />
GST on housing programs. All Ministers—<br />
Labor and conservative—agreed that they<br />
would not sign the next CSHA in its present<br />
form and would continue to press for<br />
compensation for the effects of the GST.<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> has a significant role to play<br />
in preparing the case for compensation.<br />
Ministers agreed last Friday that the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Department of Housing would<br />
prepare detailed estimates of the impact of the<br />
GST on housing as well as the lack of<br />
indexation and the efficiency dividend. This<br />
information will be provided to all Premiers and<br />
Chief Ministers prior to the next Premiers<br />
Conference on 9 April.<br />
All Housing Ministers agreed that they<br />
should meet again following the Premiers<br />
Conference. That meeting is scheduled for 21<br />
April in Adelaide. I hope that Senator Newman<br />
can find the time to attend on this occasion. In<br />
conclusion, I stress that all State and Territory<br />
Housing Ministers are united in their fight for
304 Ministerial Statement 9 Mar 1999<br />
compensation for the GST and a commitment<br />
to indexation under the CSHA. Indeed,<br />
Housing Ministers from conservative States are<br />
among the strongest critics of the Federal<br />
Government's approach.<br />
It is a pity that members of the coalition in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> are not as vocal. Last week<br />
before flying to Hobart I appealed for a<br />
bipartisan approach to this issue from the<br />
Opposition. All I received was silence. It seems<br />
that that is still the case. I just wonder who the<br />
Opposition will start criticising when we have to<br />
start selling off our stock and putting people<br />
out of their employment in <strong>Queensland</strong>.<br />
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT<br />
Wollemi Pine Project<br />
Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP)<br />
(Minister for Primary Industries) (9.53 a.m.), by<br />
leave: As I address the House this morning, in<br />
Sydney the New South Wales Government is<br />
making an announcement about the rare plant<br />
pictured in this photograph. The plant is so<br />
rare that few people on the planet can claim to<br />
have ever seen it. It is regarded as a living<br />
fossil with its closest relatives dating back more<br />
than 100 million years.<br />
The plant in the picture is the Wollemi<br />
pine, named after the only place in the world<br />
where it has been discovered, the Wollemi<br />
National Park, 150 kilometres north-west of<br />
Sydney. This morning's announcement<br />
confirms a <strong>Queensland</strong> tender has secured<br />
the exclusive world rights to propagate and<br />
commercialise Wollemi pine. It is a threatened<br />
species and commercialisation has been<br />
recommended as the best way to preserve it.<br />
The successful <strong>Queensland</strong> tender, proposed<br />
by the Department of Primary Industries and<br />
Brisbane's Birkdale Nursery, will generate new<br />
jobs and new exports for <strong>Queensland</strong>. In the<br />
development phase alone, 50 jobs will be<br />
created with a multimillion-dollar export boost<br />
each year. Late last year, the New South<br />
Wales Royal Botanic Gardens selected the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> tender ahead of 13 other<br />
interstate and international proponents.<br />
This joint arrangement combines the<br />
world-renowned research and development<br />
expertise of the Department of Primary<br />
Industries with the international marketing skills<br />
and excellence of the Birkdale Nursery. As a<br />
New South Wales Government spokesman<br />
said in the Sydney Morning Herald this<br />
morning—<br />
"It's certainly something that is living<br />
on Sydney's doorstep but at the end of<br />
the day it's important that the most<br />
capable group gets the job."<br />
The Department of Primary Industries will<br />
invest $6m into the development of Wollemi<br />
pine with two million plants planned to be sold<br />
annually into the new millennium. Birkdale<br />
Nursery, which in recent years has developed<br />
export markets in North and South-East Asia,<br />
Europe, the Middle East and the Pacific<br />
islands, will market the plants domestically and<br />
abroad.<br />
Wollemi pine was discovered five years<br />
ago and consists of two natural stands with a<br />
total of 40 mature individuals and 200<br />
seedlings. The exact location of the Wollemi<br />
pine has not been publicly revealed and there<br />
are tight controls on all plant material removed<br />
from these natural stands. Birkdale Nursery<br />
director——<br />
Mr Welford: Good electorate, that.<br />
Mr PALASZCZUK: Certainly. Barbara<br />
McGeoch sums up the commercial<br />
opportunities for her company and our State<br />
very well—<br />
"Not only will the Wollemi pine<br />
provide us with an exciting business<br />
opportunity, but we will be able to offer<br />
the global marketplace a chance to share<br />
the enjoyment of owning, nurturing and<br />
conserving an ancient, endangered<br />
plant."<br />
Where else can local expertise and<br />
innovation be used to ensure a very rare and<br />
endangered plant, discovered hundreds of<br />
kilometres away, be preserved for future<br />
generations while commercialising it, creating<br />
new jobs and new exports? I ask the question:<br />
where else but <strong>Queensland</strong>?<br />
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT<br />
Cyclone Rona<br />
Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP)<br />
(Minister for Emergency Services) (9.57 a.m.),<br />
by leave: <strong>Queensland</strong>ers in the south-east,<br />
south-west and far north of the State continue<br />
to mop up in the wake of widespread flooding<br />
and Cyclone Rona. I spent a great deal of time<br />
inspecting damage at Kilcoy, Esk,<br />
Toogoolawah, Caboolture, Gympie, the<br />
Sunshine Coast, Maryborough, Cairns,<br />
Innisfail, Ingham, the Daintree, Mossman and<br />
Tully.<br />
I was overwhelmed by the response from<br />
emergency service workers and volunteers and<br />
local residents to those communities hit by<br />
flooding and cyclonic weather. From<br />
sandbagging, to mopping up, to risking their
9 Mar 1999 <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Criminal Justice Committee 305<br />
own lives to save others, these men and<br />
women excelled. The cooperation between all<br />
arms of emergency services, local government<br />
and local residents was absolutely magnificent.<br />
Both the preparation and clean-up was a real<br />
team effort, involving thousands of SES<br />
volunteers, firefighters, police officers,<br />
ambulance officers, surf lifesavers, helicopter<br />
rescue crews and local residents. Everywhere I<br />
went people were full of good humour and<br />
cheer despite the tragedy and devastation<br />
surrounding them. It made me proud to be a<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>er.<br />
Many stories of incredible bravery and<br />
sacrifice have emerged from the muddy waters<br />
of the floods. There was the surf lifesaving<br />
helicopter crew who, incredibly, flew under<br />
powerlines to pluck a man from raging<br />
floodwaters. There were the SES volunteers<br />
who risked their lives to tie down two tankers<br />
full of ammonia which floodwaters threatened<br />
to sweep away outside of Gympie. There were<br />
the volunteer, auxiliary and permanent<br />
firefighters who, on their days off, came from<br />
Hervey Bay, Maryborough, Tewantin,<br />
Caloundra and other places in between to<br />
assist with the clean-up in Gympie and<br />
Maryborough. Then there were the rural<br />
volunteers who helped the clean-up in other<br />
towns. There were those who knew their own<br />
homes were in danger of flooding but still put<br />
others first.<br />
It is impossible to single out particular<br />
people for praise—every person involved is a<br />
hero in their own way and each deserves our<br />
gratitude. Without them, things would have<br />
been a great deal worse. Both the Governor-<br />
General of Australia, Sir William Deane, and<br />
the Governor of <strong>Queensland</strong>, Major General<br />
Peter Arnison, have written to this Government<br />
expressing their admiration for the bravery and<br />
commitment displayed by these men and<br />
women.<br />
Emergency services were well prepared<br />
for both the floods and Cyclone Rona, and<br />
counter disaster operations went according to<br />
plan. The credit for this rests squarely with the<br />
people on the ground who worked around the<br />
clock to minimise damage and ensure people<br />
were out of danger. We cannot forget,<br />
however, that six people lost their lives as a<br />
result of flooding in south-east <strong>Queensland</strong>.<br />
There were many other close calls and<br />
amazing rescues. The great tragedy is that<br />
many of these deaths could have been<br />
avoided.<br />
I cannot stress enough the need for all<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>ers to exercise extreme care<br />
during floods, cyclones and storms. Parents<br />
must keep a watchful eye on adventurous<br />
children who may see flooded creeks and<br />
streams as a playground. Motorists should not<br />
attempt to cross waterways or flooded<br />
causeways and roads during heavy rain.<br />
People who do not heed the warnings are<br />
gambling with their lives and the lives of their<br />
rescuers.<br />
While the worst is now over and people<br />
have started to pick up the pieces, it is vital<br />
that we do not become lulled into a false<br />
sense of security. The cyclone season is far<br />
from over. The Bureau of Meteorology has<br />
warned that there may be more severe<br />
weather in store. Not even heavily populated<br />
areas like the Gold and Sunshine Coasts are<br />
immune from the ravages of cyclonic forces,<br />
including storm surges. Every <strong>Queensland</strong>er<br />
needs to do their bit to prepare for cyclones<br />
and storms by cleaning debris from around<br />
their homes, clearing gutters and storm drains,<br />
or preparing an evacuation or action plan.<br />
Prepared and aware communities suffer the<br />
least in natural disasters. As we have seen<br />
recently, an ounce of calm and commonsense<br />
preparation now could save the burden and<br />
heartache of major property loss and injury in<br />
the future.<br />
SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE<br />
Report<br />
Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP)<br />
(10.02 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House<br />
the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee's Alert<br />
Digest No. 2 1999, and move that it be<br />
printed.<br />
Ordered to be printed.<br />
PARLIAMENTARY CRIMINAL JUSTICE<br />
COMMITTEE<br />
Report<br />
Mr LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (10.02 a.m.): I<br />
lay upon the table of the House pursuant to<br />
section 4.7(4) of the Police Service<br />
Administration Act 1990 the report of the<br />
Commissioner of the Police Service, Mr J. P.<br />
O'Sullivan, being a certified copy of the register<br />
of reports and recommendations made to the<br />
Minister for Police and Corrective Services<br />
under section 4.6(1)(a) of the said Act,<br />
including all ministerial directions given in<br />
writing to the commissioner for 1998 pursuant<br />
to section 4.6(2) of the Act, together with the<br />
comments of the Chairman of the Criminal<br />
Justice Commission, Mr Brendan Butler, SC.<br />
Mr Butler reports that he has no comments to<br />
make in respect of the register. I advise that<br />
the report was received by the committee on
306 Community-Based Referendum Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
25 January 1999 and is therefore tabled within<br />
a period of 14 sitting days as prescribed by<br />
section 4.7(4) of the Act.<br />
OVERSEAS VISIT<br />
Report<br />
Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (Surfers<br />
Paradise—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition)<br />
(10.03 a.m.): I table a report to the <strong>Parliament</strong><br />
on my recent visit to North America, Argentina,<br />
the United Kingdom and Denmark.<br />
NOTICE OF MOTION<br />
Health Portfolio<br />
Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA)<br />
(10.03 a.m.): I give notice that I shall move—<br />
"That this House notes with concern<br />
the massive $50m budget blow-out hitting<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>’s public hospitals which is<br />
resulting in severe cuts to patient services,<br />
the closure of hospital beds and a<br />
blowout in waiting lists, and condemns the<br />
Health Minister’s gross mismanagement<br />
of the health system and her disgraceful<br />
attack on the dedicated senior staff who<br />
work in our hospitals."<br />
COMMUNITY-BASED REFERENDUM BILL<br />
Mr FELDMAN (Caboolture—ONP)<br />
(10.03 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I<br />
move—<br />
"That leave be granted to bring in a<br />
Bill for an Act to enable the people of<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> to initiate and vote on<br />
legislative proposals."<br />
Motion agreed to.<br />
First Reading<br />
Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and<br />
Bill, on motion of Mr Feldman, read a first time.<br />
Second Reading<br />
Mr FELDMAN (Caboolture—ONP)<br />
(10.04 a.m.): I move—<br />
"That the Bill be now read a second<br />
time."<br />
It is a great privilege to introduce the<br />
Community-Based Referendum Bill 1999. The<br />
purpose of this Bill is to enable the electors of<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> to have the opportunity to<br />
participate in the decisions that affect their<br />
daily lives. The essence of a democracy is that<br />
people have a right not only to elect persons<br />
to represent them in the Legislative Assembly<br />
but also to have a direct input into the laws<br />
that affect their lives. This is a fundamental<br />
right in a democracy, and is often called<br />
participatory democracy. The process is often<br />
called the popular initiative and referendum,<br />
and will enable the people of <strong>Queensland</strong> to<br />
exercise a constructive and positive role in<br />
making this great State a better place to live,<br />
and will positively enhance individual and<br />
collective community responsibility.<br />
The Bill will enable the electors to<br />
positively address areas of community<br />
concern. It does so only after a proposal to<br />
address the concern is lodged with the<br />
Electoral Commission where it will be<br />
scrutinised to determine whether it is a<br />
proposal that may be addressed by a<br />
proposed law.<br />
The Bill provides for the screening of<br />
proposals to ascertain whether they<br />
contravene the rule of law and the rules of<br />
natural justice, which are proposals that the<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> can properly address by way of<br />
legislation. There are several matters that may<br />
not be addressed by a proposal under this Bill.<br />
For example, no proposal can be accepted by<br />
the commission if it proposes to block Supply.<br />
The Bill recognises that administrations do<br />
need moneys assured to them to perform their<br />
functions. Following acceptance of a legislative<br />
proposal, registration of that proposal may<br />
follow if there is sufficient support from<br />
electors. This Bill provides for matters of broad<br />
and substantial community concern to be<br />
presented to the Legislative Assembly<br />
following signature of a popular request by a<br />
broad and representative number of electors<br />
of the State. This requirement for a broad and<br />
representative expression of community<br />
concern promotes an environment for the<br />
community to work together positively, in<br />
consultation with each other and for factual,<br />
non-emotional discussion on matters of<br />
common concern.<br />
There is a great need for our institutions<br />
to be people friendly. Participatory democracy<br />
is what people are looking for. The times have<br />
changed. We have one of the best educated<br />
populations in the world, and people want to<br />
be positive contributors to a better State. A<br />
healthy democracy means an active, positive<br />
community that works together, and<br />
institutions that enable people to work<br />
together.<br />
The outstanding exponent of participatory<br />
democracy or community-based democracy,<br />
through the kind of process set out in this Bill,<br />
is the renowned Ted Mack. The people of the
9 Mar 1999 Community-Based Referendum Bill 307<br />
North Sydney Council responded when they<br />
knew that not only would they be treated with<br />
respect, they knew that they would be listened<br />
to and could vote on and decide issues that<br />
they considered important. In consequence,<br />
North Sydney boomed. Not only were<br />
important community assets not sold off, there<br />
was no need for them to be sold off. In fact,<br />
rates were able to come down, with community<br />
services going up because people—real<br />
people—were being listened to.<br />
There are very important reasons why the<br />
process set out in this Bill is very important for<br />
re-establishing community confidence in our<br />
institutions. The last <strong>Queensland</strong> election saw<br />
vast numbers of electors so disenchanted that<br />
they voted for a change towards more<br />
accountability. They also voted to have a direct<br />
say on matters that needed to be addressed<br />
and that were not being addressed by the<br />
Legislative Assembly. The election result<br />
should have come as no surprise. The people<br />
felt that they had been ignored for far too long,<br />
and that no one was really listening to them or<br />
to their genuine community concerns. Unless<br />
the process of participatory democracy is<br />
available to enable the electors, where<br />
necessary, to have a direct vote on matters<br />
that they consider important, it will not be long<br />
before we see a repeat of the situation in New<br />
South Wales where one ballot paper will be<br />
the size of seven newspaper tabloid pages in<br />
present estimations.<br />
Many people believe that they are not<br />
being heard. Under the processes provided by<br />
this Bill, electors will have the opportunity to<br />
determine whether there is sufficient<br />
community concern for a common legislative<br />
proposal. Presently, genuine community<br />
concern is often ignored by elected<br />
representatives and the administration for<br />
various reasons. The biggest concern is the<br />
deficit in democracy. To quote the words of a<br />
famous <strong>Queensland</strong> Premier, this Bill will<br />
enable the "free and direct expression of the<br />
will of the people". He could not have said it<br />
clearer.<br />
This proposal to recognise democracy is<br />
not new to <strong>Queensland</strong>. It lies at the very heart<br />
of democracy. There is an urgent need to<br />
reassure the people of this State that they will<br />
be heard, and taken seriously, that the<br />
community is more important than unelected<br />
lobby groups, etc., and that there is a need to<br />
provide for balanced and necessary input from<br />
the community—the real people. There is no<br />
substitute for democracy. There are<br />
alternatives to it, none of them satisfactory.<br />
It goes without saying that representative<br />
democracy cannot really work if any unelected<br />
organisation can come between the elected<br />
representative of the people of the electorate,<br />
their parliamentary representative and<br />
themselves. If passed, this Bill will carry forward<br />
the democratic ideals and visions of a<br />
democracy which inspired the great T. J. Ryan,<br />
who had a profound confidence in the good<br />
sense and good judgment of the people.<br />
The Popular Initiative and Referendum Bill<br />
1917 was passed in this very Assembly not<br />
merely once but more than once, and the then<br />
Legislative Council also passed it with some<br />
amendments. These amendments did not<br />
affect the ordinary application of its provisions.<br />
Similar Bills were also passed in 1913 in the<br />
Western Australian Legislative Assembly, and<br />
in 1916 in the South Australian House of<br />
Assembly, only to be knocked back by the<br />
Upper Houses, which in those days opposed<br />
the concept of direct democracy.<br />
This Bill in effect recognises the Upper<br />
House of the people themselves directly,<br />
providing the necessary checks and balances<br />
from the community and ensuring community<br />
access to the democratic process, as the<br />
community does not surrender its democratic<br />
rights. Quite simply, if the required number of<br />
electors sign a popular request, this is<br />
evidence of substantial community concern.<br />
The requirement to submit verified monthly<br />
returns to the Electoral Commission<br />
demonstrating the quantity of support or lack<br />
of it will enable both the public and<br />
parliamentarians alike to assess the popularity<br />
or degree of support for the legislative<br />
proposal. This assessment may well lead to<br />
the <strong>Parliament</strong> addressing the issue before a<br />
referendum is held—a process that will<br />
enhance the democratic and parliamentary<br />
process. The whole of the process will reinforce<br />
open government in a democracy.<br />
Mr Terry Gygar, a former member of this<br />
Assembly, made a personal investigation of<br />
the process and reported its beneficial<br />
contribution to good government in<br />
Switzerland, where the <strong>Parliament</strong> benefited<br />
from being credibly informed of genuine<br />
community concerns, demonstrated by the<br />
signing of the required number of electors. He<br />
reported that 60% of proposals saw legislative<br />
or appropriate action being taken to address<br />
these community concerns, with the result that<br />
no referendum was necessary.<br />
The same process is what democratically<br />
spirited people of this State want to see. This<br />
is the only way in which there can be free and<br />
direct expression of the will of the people on
308 Community-Based Referendum Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
any particular matter of concern—to enable it<br />
to be positively addressed by a direct vote.<br />
This direct vote on the specific issues<br />
presented by the electorate is called "direct<br />
democracy". The people of <strong>Queensland</strong> had<br />
wanted for years to have their say on daylight<br />
saving. This Bill would have allowed the people<br />
to put that specific issue on the referendum<br />
ballot paper, and would have resolved it years<br />
earlier. People take the long-term view of what<br />
is in the best interests of the State as a whole.<br />
They are not vying for the perks of office, and<br />
they are not trying to get into power. In a real<br />
democracy they do not have to.<br />
Under this Bill, a legislative proposal would<br />
be set in Bill form following professional<br />
drafting by the <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Counsel.<br />
Naturally only the highest standards of drafting<br />
apply. The legislative proposal will be<br />
thoroughly checked for compliance with all<br />
fundamental legislative principles by the<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>ary Counsel. It will then be tabled by<br />
the Speaker in the Assembly, and then<br />
examined by the Scrutiny of Legislation<br />
Committee, comprised of members of the<br />
Assembly, who will draw attention to any<br />
matters of concern in the legislative proposal,<br />
having regard to the criteria set out in the<br />
Legislative Standards Act 1992.<br />
Similar to its great predecessor in this<br />
House, the Popular Initiative and Referendum<br />
Bill 1917 of the T. J. Ryan administration, this<br />
Bill does comply with fundamental legislative<br />
principles, which relate to legislation that<br />
underlies a parliamentary democracy based on<br />
the rule of law. It provides for proper<br />
recognition of the rights and liberties of<br />
individuals by ensuring that no legislative<br />
proposal is to be accepted if it contravenes the<br />
rule of law, the rules of natural justice, or which<br />
could not be properly made by the <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
In so doing it provides an up-front screening<br />
process which automatically applies the<br />
principles set out in the Legislative Standards<br />
Act 1992. There is no fear that this Bill would<br />
enable nuisance or vexatious proposals even<br />
to be accepted. The Bill also has sufficient<br />
regard to the institution of <strong>Parliament</strong>. The<br />
ability of the <strong>Parliament</strong> to legislate is in no<br />
way impaired under this Bill.<br />
It is important to confirm what this Bill<br />
does and does not do, to ensure that there is<br />
no misunderstanding. This Bill does not—<br />
seek to radically change our present<br />
governing systems.<br />
seek to interfere with the right of<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>s to legislate.<br />
seek to remove the incentive of elected<br />
representatives in the <strong>Parliament</strong> to show<br />
initiative.<br />
seek to slow or impede the legislative<br />
processes.<br />
seek to drive division between<br />
parliamentarians and electors.<br />
seek to damage our system of<br />
representative democracy.<br />
seek to be able to remove individuals<br />
from office.<br />
However, this Bill does—<br />
seek to enhance the accurate<br />
representation of Governments.<br />
seek to ensure a credible voice for the<br />
community given the undue influence that<br />
non-elected individuals or groups may<br />
have with respect to <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
have a genuine desire to see <strong>Parliament</strong><br />
take the initiative in legislation.<br />
seek to encourage the awareness of<br />
matters political within the community.<br />
seek to achieve a better working<br />
relationship between electors and<br />
parliamentarians.<br />
seek to increase the involvement, with<br />
knowledge, of the community in the<br />
decision-making processes.<br />
seek to make decision making of<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>s both easier and more<br />
representative.<br />
allow for a greater input of ideas from the<br />
community.<br />
help to make the community more<br />
responsible for its decisions.<br />
encourage debate, thereby airing points<br />
of view that otherwise might not be<br />
presented.<br />
remove the heat from genuine debate.<br />
remove the energy-sapping pressure of<br />
non-genuine groups, and non-genuine<br />
issues from the genuine parliamentary<br />
process.<br />
In short, the provisions of this Bill will<br />
enable the community to express its concerns<br />
on matters with broad representative support.<br />
This Bill will enable the Government and<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> to make decisions knowing whether<br />
or not there is a substantial and representative<br />
mandate from the community on matters of<br />
expressed concern. In this way the process,<br />
because of its openness and consultative<br />
spirit, enhances the betterment of the entire<br />
community.
9 Mar 1999 Community-Based Referendum Bill 309<br />
The community should have a set of reins<br />
to guide Government back onto the track if it<br />
should deviate too far from the purpose for<br />
which it was elected, particularly if that<br />
deviation was caused by minority pressure<br />
groups or non-elected powerbrokers who may<br />
desire to bring unreasonable or self-serving<br />
pressure to bear on members of <strong>Parliament</strong>, or<br />
who may attempt by various means to<br />
manipulate <strong>Parliament</strong>. The provisions of the<br />
Bill reflect the desire of the community to have<br />
a greater input into the decisions that affect<br />
the community than is presently available.<br />
Other important provisions ensure that the<br />
processes are accessible to the community. At<br />
first the criteria of 2% of electoral enrolment<br />
would seem low. However, this does mirror<br />
Liberal and Democrat policy.<br />
Honourable members interjected.<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much<br />
audible conversation in the Chamber.<br />
Mr FELDMAN: Mr Speaker, I will accede<br />
to the wishes of the House. I ask that the<br />
remainder of my speech be incorporated in<br />
Hansard.<br />
Leave granted.<br />
This Bill provides the added safeguard of<br />
ensuring that the support must reflect the<br />
wishes of electors spread throughout the state.<br />
A minimum of 2% of electors on the electoral<br />
roll in a majority of electoral districts is an<br />
essential to demonstrate a geographical spread.<br />
This ensures that only proposals with<br />
widespread community support throughout the<br />
State could qualify. Further, it ensures crosssection<br />
support, ensuring that the proposal is a<br />
genuine issue. It avoids "city versus country"<br />
arguments, and it should be mentioned that the<br />
required support to trigger a referendum is<br />
among the highest in the world.<br />
This Bill has been developed over a period of<br />
many years specifically for Australian<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>s and it combines the best features of<br />
all the direct democracy systems in the world.<br />
The process is not at all new to this State. We<br />
had local option polls under the Liquor Acts, in<br />
which the people of the area were able, on<br />
consideration of all the issues, to determine<br />
what kind of environment they wished for their<br />
community. For example, the people of<br />
Buderim twice rejected a hotel, but welcomed<br />
the tavern which is still there and doing well.<br />
They were concerned justifiably also with<br />
reducing the death toll and accidents given the<br />
state of the roads up and down the mountain.<br />
The community was the clear winner through<br />
this very same kind of process.<br />
We also had similar provisions in the Local<br />
Government Act for complete enfranchisement<br />
of the electors by direct democracy from 1920.<br />
It is now time to restore that direct democracy<br />
back to the electors so that they can fully<br />
participate in the promotion of what they<br />
consider to be in the best interests of the whole<br />
of their community.<br />
The cost of a referendum held at the same time<br />
as a State election or a State referendum poll is<br />
minimal. The provision of 5% of electors is a<br />
"safety valve" which would enable the holding<br />
of a poll at an earlier time, if the concern were<br />
not sooner addressed by the <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
Approval requires the vote of a majority of<br />
electors of the State voting in favour of the<br />
legislative proposal, which will have already<br />
been thoroughly scrutinised by the Scrutiny of<br />
Legislation Committee, and subjected to any<br />
appropriate amendments. In addition, a majority<br />
of electors voting on the proposal in a majority<br />
of electoral districts is necessary for approval.<br />
Proposed legislation can become law only with<br />
the assent of the Governor, which presently<br />
depends on the advice of the Premier to assent<br />
to any Bill, and the passage of this Bill would<br />
not change that situation. If, however, the<br />
electors approved at referendum an amendment<br />
to the Constitution to require the Premier to<br />
recommend the giving of assent, that would be<br />
a different matter.<br />
The Bill will enable the community to address<br />
matters it considers important. Notwithstanding<br />
that the clear vote of the community is not<br />
formally binding on the Premier to advise<br />
assent, It would be a brave Government indeed<br />
to ignore a successful referendum.<br />
A local community referendum poll in New<br />
South Wales saw a council reposition a waste<br />
disposal facility which would have had the<br />
potential to contaminate the Darling and Murray<br />
Rivers with carcinogens all the way to the<br />
Adelaide water supply. The local votes were so<br />
decisive that the council repositioned the<br />
facility to a suitable location. The people were<br />
concerned not for themselves but for their<br />
fellow human beings, and this vote persuaded<br />
the council to do the right thing in repositioning<br />
the facility. This is a simple illustration of how<br />
minimum expenditure avoided irreversible harm,<br />
including the very real possibility of birth<br />
defects. It only happened because the people<br />
were able to exercise their "free and direct<br />
expression" on this matter that had been<br />
concerning them for years. Democracy saved<br />
the day, and in this instance the poll was held<br />
informally with the State election and did not<br />
cost the Government a cent!<br />
The proposal contained in this Bill has strong<br />
support of well-known Australians. These<br />
include Bryce Courtenay, Thomas Kenneally,<br />
Morris West, Colleen McCullough, Reg Murray,<br />
Kate Carnell, Cheryl Kernot, Peter Reith, and<br />
former Senators, Colin Mason and Michael<br />
Macklin. Russell Cooper declared his<br />
unequivocal support for the proposal, and is<br />
sure to honour his word. Ted Mack enjoyed the<br />
positive support of Frank Walker, former
310 Private Members' Statements 9 Mar 1999<br />
Attorney-General of New South Wales in the<br />
Federal <strong>Parliament</strong>, whose community backed<br />
him to represent them following his genuine<br />
support of direct democracy. What is important<br />
is that there is very strong widespread support<br />
for the principle and the process in the<br />
community, as well as from members of<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>. Barry MacKinnon of Western<br />
Australia has also publicly stated his support.<br />
The principle of direct democracy was strongly<br />
espoused by Sir John Grey, then Prime<br />
Minister of New Zealand, but previously<br />
Governor of South Australia and of New<br />
Zealand. It was also strongly supported by Sir<br />
Isaac Isaacs, Mr Higgins, Mr Deakin and Dr<br />
Maloney who were prominent and far seeing<br />
democrats of the time. Alexander Fisher also<br />
supported it for inclusion in the Governor-<br />
General's speech. It is necessary to ensure that<br />
representative Government remains<br />
representative.<br />
The Italian people, through this process, broke<br />
the back of corruption that was so entrenched<br />
that one-third of the politicians went to jail for<br />
corruption. The trigger in Italy was 1. 1 % of the<br />
number of persons eligible to vote, and the<br />
vote in every electoral district was well over<br />
90% to get rid of the corrupt electoral laws<br />
which enabled the corruption of the <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
This process empowers ordinary people<br />
against those who can bring undue influence to<br />
members of <strong>Parliament</strong>. It ensures openness<br />
and accountability, and ensures that decisions<br />
have to be explained to the people. Surely this<br />
is overdue.<br />
It is asserted by some that sufficient community<br />
consultation is now occurring through Cabinets<br />
holding court at various places through the<br />
State. This is only token community<br />
consultation, and also costly.<br />
The process set out in this Bill will operate with<br />
less expense, and will ensure that real<br />
community concerns are presented from the<br />
real community. It is necessary to ensure that<br />
the community is not continually disadvantaged<br />
against professional and special interest lobby<br />
groups whose objects and goals are in many<br />
cases quite adverse to the views of the whole<br />
of the community of this State. Such activities<br />
are in no way a substitute for the people<br />
themselves being able to determine and<br />
address the issues - issues which might<br />
otherwise be missed.<br />
It is a fact that even the best of elected<br />
representatives get out of touch at times with<br />
the community that sent them to the <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
This accounts for the changes in electoral<br />
representation in this State at the last election -<br />
proof positive that the electors felt that their<br />
previous representatives were not sufficiently in<br />
tune with what the community wanted.<br />
The process set out in this Bill is entirely<br />
compatible with, and a valuable adjunct to, our<br />
system of representative democracy. There will<br />
be very many positive benefits. The electors<br />
will be able to exercise their democratic rights<br />
to determine what they want, as well as who<br />
they want to represent them in the <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
At present a good member of the <strong>Parliament</strong><br />
could be rejected at the polls because of<br />
association with some issue. It will greatly<br />
enhance stability and confidence in the<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> because as issues are resolved<br />
separately and with community confidence,<br />
good members will not have to be turned out of<br />
office on single issues. Further, the process of<br />
this Bill enables single issues to be dealt with<br />
and democratically addressed as single issues,<br />
without spilling over into unrelated areas.<br />
The Bill recognises democracy as an inalienable<br />
right of the people of <strong>Queensland</strong>.<br />
I commend the Bill to the support of the House,<br />
and also to the people of <strong>Queensland</strong>.<br />
Debate, on motion of Mr Foley,<br />
adjourned.<br />
PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS<br />
Minister for Health<br />
Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA)<br />
(10.17 a.m.): Today, Health Minister Wendy<br />
Edmond stands condemned for her<br />
disgraceful and weak decision to remove the<br />
district manager, the director of medical<br />
services and the director of nursing at the<br />
Toowoomba Hospital. In common with many<br />
hospitals across the State, the Toowoomba<br />
Hospital is facing a massive $7m budget blowout<br />
this financial year. Instead of taking<br />
responsibility for the financial crisis that is<br />
gripping <strong>Queensland</strong>'s public hospitals, the<br />
Health Minister has decided to make senior<br />
hospital staff the scapegoats for her gross<br />
incompetence. It is an absolute disgrace that<br />
dedicated senior hospital staff are now being<br />
sacrificed by the Health Department to prop up<br />
the most abysmal Health Minister this State<br />
has ever seen.<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> now has a Health Minister<br />
who, in just six months, has almost doubled<br />
the long waits for semi-urgent elective surgery,<br />
a Health Minister who in the first quarter of this<br />
financial year could spend only $77m of the<br />
$621m Hospital Rebuilding Program budget, a<br />
Health Minister who, after inheriting the best<br />
public hospital system in Australia, has already<br />
put the State's hospitals $50m in the red, and<br />
the budget blow-out is continuing to grow.<br />
While the hospital budgets blow out and public<br />
hospitals continue to cut services and reduce<br />
surgery, this Minister looks around for<br />
someone else to blame. The buck stops with<br />
the Health Minister and it is about time that the<br />
Premier took action and appointed someone<br />
to the Health portfolio who is up to the job,
9 Mar 1999 Private Members' Statements 311<br />
because clearly this Minister is well and truly<br />
out of her depth.<br />
maintain the rage and continue to fight for<br />
justice for women and children.<br />
International Women's Day<br />
Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP)<br />
(10.19 a.m.): Yesterday was International<br />
Women's Day—a celebration in Australia of 70<br />
years of struggle to reach some level of<br />
equality. International Women's Day is also a<br />
day of reflection not only to applaud our past<br />
sisters for their stamina and courage but also<br />
to reflect on the continued atrocities to women<br />
that still occur in Australia and around the<br />
world. Although women in Australia have come<br />
a long way in achieving their goals, there is still<br />
a long way to go. If any message were to be<br />
received loudly and clearly from the Townsville<br />
women it would be that we should celebrate<br />
the solidarity and collective anger of women<br />
and be politically active in standing up against<br />
male cruelty and violence.<br />
The tragic death of Maria Giannikos was<br />
lamented by Dr Betty McLellan, who spoke for<br />
Maria. She stated that Maria was killed by her<br />
husband because she was a "bad, unfaithful,<br />
uncaring wife and mother", who goaded her<br />
"poor" husband into killing her. The daily<br />
media reports presented Maria's husband,<br />
Nick, as a "good upright citizen" who was<br />
hardworking and caring but whose patience<br />
was stretched beyond endurance by his<br />
faithless wife. Bad Maria, poor Nick. Nick was<br />
telling the story; Maria was dead.<br />
Nick was found not guilty of murder but<br />
guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter, for<br />
which he will serve three years in prison.<br />
Everyone spoke for Nick, both publicly and<br />
privately. Maria was rendered irrelevant and<br />
invisible. The psychiatrist, in his professional<br />
opinion, said that poor Nick—wait for it—was<br />
suffering from fragmentation. Is that not a<br />
pathetic defence for murder? As a mother, I<br />
constantly feel fragmented, but I do not kill<br />
anybody.<br />
What about the Victorian woman and her<br />
adult son who were charged with the murder of<br />
their husband and father? After 13 years of<br />
continued and horrific violence at the hands of<br />
her husband, Heather Osland and her son,<br />
David, killed Frank Osland after another<br />
particularly bad night of violence and abuse.<br />
David, who struck the blow which killed his<br />
father, was found not guilty—a just decision.<br />
Heather was found guilty of murder and is<br />
presently serving 14 and a half years in prison.<br />
On International Women's Day in<br />
Townsville women united in thinking of Maria<br />
and Heather and the thousands of women like<br />
them, and renewed their determination to<br />
Minister for Health<br />
Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA)<br />
(10.21 a.m.): Before I rose to speak, the<br />
former Minister for Health asked me if I was<br />
going to speak about women's issues today. I<br />
have to say that I am intend to talk about one<br />
woman on the other side of the House<br />
today—the Health Minister, Wendy Edmond.<br />
This Minister has been very, very quick to open<br />
hospitals around rural and regional<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> since becoming Minister, but in<br />
an unfinished state.<br />
A Government member interjected.<br />
Mr JOHNSON: I heard the interjection<br />
from the other side of the House. Under the<br />
administrations of the Premier and the Deputy<br />
Premier—former Health Ministers—money was<br />
rolled over for six years. It was under Health<br />
Minister Horan that we saw hospitals built in<br />
rural and regional <strong>Queensland</strong>. I will table for<br />
the information of the House photos of the<br />
Emerald Hospital in an incomplete state. That<br />
hospital was opened on 11 February this year<br />
by the incompetent Health Minister. She<br />
opened the Barcaldine Hospital on 1 February,<br />
and the same thing is applicable to Moranbah<br />
and Clermont in the electorate of the<br />
honourable member for Charters Towers. The<br />
one thing I do want to say here today is that in<br />
December last year——<br />
Mrs Edmond interjected.<br />
Mr JOHNSON: Just sit back and listen,<br />
you.<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Order!<br />
Mr JOHNSON: I will withdraw that, Mr<br />
Speaker, because I only have half a minute. In<br />
December last year we nearly had a fatality at<br />
the Emerald Hospital because nitrous oxide<br />
was put through the pipes instead of oxygen,<br />
and you know the situation there—a<br />
deregistered plumber——<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will<br />
refer to the Minister as "the Honourable<br />
Minister".<br />
Mr JOHNSON: The Honourable Minister, I<br />
am sorry, Mr Speaker. I will just quote from the<br />
Minister's letter in reply to my letter. This is<br />
from Wendy Edmond. It states—<br />
"I am aware of the circumstances<br />
that occurred concerning Mrs Pritchard's<br />
operation. As a result I have taken action<br />
to ensure that the appropriate regulatory<br />
bodies are reviewing their legislation to<br />
ensure that all work undertaken in
312 Private Members' Statements 9 Mar 1999<br />
connection with medical gas supplies is<br />
performed at the highest safety levels."<br />
I table these three letters to show how<br />
incompetent the Minister is.<br />
Time expired.<br />
Clean Up Australia Day<br />
Mr ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP)<br />
(10.23 a.m.): I take this opportunity to<br />
congratulate the organising committees for<br />
Clean Up Australia Day, which was held last<br />
Sunday, 6 March. I also thank the many<br />
volunteers who turned up all over <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
to join with thousands of other Australians in<br />
cleaning up our parks, streets and waterways.<br />
This year I participated for the fifth time and<br />
assisted a willing band of workers at Nudgee<br />
Beach, which is adjacent to the Boondall<br />
Wetlands.<br />
Clean Up Australia Day is a unique event.<br />
It is probably unparalleled in the world and it<br />
should receive our continued and increasing<br />
support. This year marked the 10th<br />
anniversary of the event, which was originated<br />
by Ian Kiernan, who highlighted the need for a<br />
coordinated strategy to clean up the<br />
environment in which we live. It is timely,<br />
therefore, to make some comment about<br />
Clean Up Australia Day which I hope will be<br />
taken as a constructive criticism and in an<br />
endeavour to involve more <strong>Queensland</strong>ers in<br />
the annual clean-up.<br />
While it might have been a pleasant 21<br />
degrees in Melbourne last Sunday, throughout<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> it was a sweltering 30 degrees<br />
plus up and down the coast, and in the mid<br />
thirties in our inland centres. Calling on<br />
volunteers to toil in the sun in such<br />
temperatures is a big ask, particularly given our<br />
campaign to limit exposure to the sun during<br />
the hotter months. It is time for the national<br />
organising committee for the Clean Up<br />
Australia campaign to reconsider the timing of<br />
this great event. I suggest that the event be<br />
moved to at least the end of March or another<br />
month when the temperatures in <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
would be much milder. <strong>Queensland</strong>ers have<br />
rallied behind this event since its inception. A<br />
cooler time of the year would hopefully<br />
encourage more people to volunteer their time<br />
and effort to clean up this wonderful country of<br />
ours.<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Health<br />
Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—LP)<br />
(10.24 a.m.): It has come to my attention that<br />
certain employees of <strong>Queensland</strong> Health are<br />
being threatened and intimidated by being told<br />
that they are not to discuss any issues<br />
pertaining to public health with their elected<br />
representatives. This overbearing practice is<br />
particularly prevalent on the Sunshine Coast.<br />
It has got to the stage where health<br />
workers employed in our hospitals and in the<br />
community, regardless of their professional<br />
standard, are fearful of losing their jobs if they<br />
seek to speak to their member of <strong>Parliament</strong><br />
regarding legitimate concerns they have<br />
regarding the provision of adequate health<br />
services, the provision of adequate<br />
infrastructure and the timeliness of service<br />
provision. Evidently, the Health Minister,<br />
Wendy Edmond, has issued a directive to her<br />
regional managers that, should any<br />
employees exercise their democratic right and<br />
speak to their elected representatives, they<br />
face losing their job. I was unaware until<br />
recently that we were living in what can only be<br />
described as a Nazi State.<br />
When I have questioned this overriding<br />
practice I have been referred to the code of<br />
conduct for <strong>Queensland</strong> Health effective 11<br />
November 1998. I have perused this<br />
document in detail and it would be drawing a<br />
very longbow to suggest that any of the<br />
principles outlined therein would support this<br />
action. I understand union officials and their<br />
membership in public health are similarly being<br />
threatened and intimidated, and I refer to the<br />
Sunshine Coast District Health Service report<br />
of January 1999 signed by Philip Cleaton,<br />
District Manager, on 4 February 1999, in which<br />
he says that he has ensured that the newly<br />
released code of conduct is understood clearly<br />
by AWU members.<br />
This code is in line with the Public Sector<br />
Ethics Act of 1993. It is not intended to be<br />
used as an instrument of intimidation.<br />
Perusing the contents, I find that there is no<br />
mention of restrictive access to members of<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>, although at page 8, under<br />
principle 3 Integrity, item 7 states that—<br />
"Employees should observe official<br />
protocols when communicating with<br />
members of <strong>Parliament</strong>."<br />
I ask the Minister: what is an official protocol?<br />
Does that mean that one does not go and see<br />
a member of <strong>Parliament</strong>?<br />
I also draw attention to page 7 under<br />
principle 3 Integrity, item 3, which says—<br />
"When disclosing official information<br />
employees must ensure lawful authority."<br />
Is this an item which may be used to control<br />
employees?<br />
Time expired.
9 Mar 1999 Questions Without Notice 313<br />
Police Beat Shopfront, Garden City<br />
Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP)<br />
(10.27 a.m.): Prior to the election last year, the<br />
Labor Party and I campaigned strongly on<br />
community policing. To be effective in crime<br />
prevention and management, we must put<br />
police on the beat where the people are. While<br />
we did not specifically promise it in the election<br />
campaign, I am proud to say that the first<br />
Police Beat shopfront opened under the<br />
Beattie Government has been opened in<br />
Garden City in my electorate.<br />
With over 200,000 people using Garden<br />
City per week, it makes sense to put our police<br />
where the people are. Here is an example of<br />
our Labor Government delivering on our<br />
election commitments. Just after being elected<br />
in June last year, I was approached by the<br />
Garden City management, AMP, to investigate<br />
the possibility of having a Police Beat<br />
shopfront in its centre. All past attempts to talk<br />
to the previous member for Mansfield<br />
regarding the possibility of having a Police<br />
Beat shopfront appeared to fall on deaf ears.<br />
The previous member continued the line of the<br />
then Police Minister, Russell Cooper, the<br />
member for Crows Nest, to only pay lip-service<br />
on community policing and not be fair dinkum<br />
about the matter.<br />
So I am pleased to informed the House<br />
that, while the previous Government put<br />
community policing on the backburner, Police<br />
Minister Barton has put it at the forefront in the<br />
tackling of crime. I believe that having greater<br />
police presence and visibility will have a<br />
positive effect on the crime rate, and that is<br />
why I have worked hard and lobbied the Police<br />
Minister to ensure that Garden City gets this<br />
shopfront.<br />
It is interesting to note that Garden City<br />
was the very first shopping centre to have a<br />
Police Beat shopfront back when the Goss<br />
Labor Government introduced them. That was<br />
obviously a mobile shopfront which went from<br />
shopping centre to shopping centre, but it was<br />
launched initially at Garden City. So I am<br />
proud to say that now a permanent shopfront<br />
is situated at Garden City. Having the police<br />
shopfront where the community shops and<br />
socialises and from which they commute<br />
breaks down many of the barriers that people<br />
have of feeling uncomfortable if they need<br />
assistance or advice. This initiative is<br />
particularly helpful to local business owners<br />
worried about security in their shops.<br />
I am pleased to work with organisations<br />
such as AMP which do not just look at what it<br />
costs but how they can assist the community.<br />
I want to thank the Police Minister, Tom<br />
Barton, not only for recognising the need for<br />
such a police shopfront at Garden City but also<br />
for what he is doing for community policing<br />
throughout the length and breadth of this<br />
State. The Police Minister is delivering on the<br />
commitment that we would put community<br />
policing at the forefront in the tackling of crime.<br />
Time expired.<br />
Drug Abuse<br />
Mrs GAMIN (Burleigh—NPA)<br />
(10.29 a.m.): A national heroin trial is not the<br />
solution to the ever-increasing problem of drug<br />
abuse in this country. A heroin trial will not<br />
assist heroin addicts to kick the habit. Instead,<br />
it will guarantee that participants will remain as<br />
heroin addicts. The New York experiment with<br />
zero tolerance certainly worked for that city,<br />
although more work needs to be done to see if<br />
it will work in Australia. Zero tolerance will get<br />
drug dealers out of concentrated problem<br />
areas, but may shift the problem to other<br />
localities. As much of our drug dealing culture<br />
is imported from overseas, it would be better to<br />
aim any zero tolerance problem to shifting that<br />
culture offshore and out of this country.<br />
Drug courts are a step in the right<br />
direction, provided proper rehabilitation<br />
programs are adequately funded, and this<br />
should be a whole-of-Government initiative,<br />
not just a bit of a bite out of the limited<br />
budgets of Health or Corrective Services. The<br />
State Government needs to fund more antidrug<br />
and substance-free rehabilitation<br />
agencies, such as Mirikai, the Gold Coast Drug<br />
Council's establishment at West Burleigh.<br />
Mirikai provides residential and outreach<br />
programs for people who want to kick the drug<br />
habit and who want to turn their lives around<br />
from drug dependency and its attendant<br />
health and social problems.<br />
Time expired.<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for Private<br />
Members' Statements has expired.<br />
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE<br />
Toowoomba Hospital<br />
Miss SIMPSON (10.30 a.m.): I refer the<br />
Minister for Health to her decision to sack the<br />
district manager, director of medical services<br />
and director of nursing at Toowoomba Hospital<br />
due to the hospital's projected budget blow-out<br />
of more than $7m. Given that Royal Brisbane<br />
Hospital is now $14m over budget, Redcliffe<br />
and Caboolture Hospitals are $2m over<br />
budget, Nambour Hospital is $2.5m over
314 Questions Without Notice 9 Mar 1999<br />
budget, the Prince Charles Hospital is $1.8m<br />
over budget and Bundaberg Base Hospital is<br />
$1m over budget, will the Minister guarantee<br />
senior staff at those hospitals that they will not<br />
be sacked to hide her gross incompetence as<br />
Health Minister?<br />
Mrs EDMOND: I thank the member for<br />
the question. I was waiting for this question<br />
last week so that I could lay the ground rules<br />
for what is happening in Toowoomba, but she<br />
would not ask it; she was not game. The<br />
reason she was not game to ask this question<br />
last week is that she knows the facts, because<br />
they were all in the Estimates papers and the<br />
changeover briefs she has as part of the<br />
freedom of information process of this<br />
Government. The member for Maroochydore<br />
well knows the issue and the problem. We<br />
inherited a diabolical budget. Why? It was<br />
because of the incompetence and the coverup<br />
of the member for Toowoomba South.<br />
What did he do? He ran around this State<br />
saying, "The budget's great. There are no<br />
budget overruns. We only have negative<br />
carryovers." That is what we had. We had<br />
negative carryovers!<br />
Miss SIMPSON: Mr Speaker, I rise to a<br />
point of order. Is the Health Minister saying<br />
that her own Estimates budget papers were in<br />
fact incorrect when they said that the budget<br />
was balanced?<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of<br />
order.<br />
Mrs EDMOND: There is no point of order,<br />
because it was all listed in the Estimates<br />
papers. I said at the time of the Estimates that<br />
we had this problem with the budget largely<br />
because of the unfunded enterprise bargain<br />
that was brought in—$27m of unfunded EB<br />
that hospitals had to find out of savings when<br />
the coalition had already ripped out $125m in<br />
the previous two years in compulsory savings.<br />
While the coalition tried to hide it until after the<br />
election, it was there, and it is in the Estimates<br />
papers. If the member for Maroochydore had<br />
listened during the Estimates hearings she<br />
would know that I highlighted it about 25<br />
times. But she is so silly that she did not listen.<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will<br />
withdraw that comment.<br />
Mrs EDMOND: I withdraw. We do have a<br />
problem across this State with budgets<br />
because of that. Toowoomba was an<br />
exception because Toowoomba was given a<br />
carte blanche and told that it did not matter,<br />
that it could build a Taj Mahal but not look<br />
after the patients' airconditioning. It could build<br />
fancy private specialty suites but not look after<br />
the patients. The patients came last in<br />
Toowoomba. It does not matter that there has<br />
been significant support put into Toowoomba<br />
Hospital; there has been no progress.<br />
This Government has a responsibility to<br />
ensure that health funds are well spent. I will<br />
do that. I will take the hard decisions when<br />
they need to be taken. Every hospital<br />
management in this State gets support. We<br />
have given incredible support to all of them,<br />
including Toowoomba, over the past eight<br />
months, but the time has come when, for the<br />
sake of every other hospital in <strong>Queensland</strong>,<br />
changes have to be made at Toowoomba. I<br />
am quite confident that the new team going in<br />
there will do a lot to improve services. I am<br />
also committed to the fact that patient services<br />
are not going to suffer, and nor are the staff.<br />
Time expired.<br />
Roma Street Goods Yard Redevelopment<br />
Mr SULLIVAN: I refer the Premier to the<br />
Beattie Government's promise to redevelop<br />
the Roma Street goods yard, and I ask: will the<br />
Premier inform the House of the timetable for<br />
this major project?<br />
Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable<br />
member for Chermside for his question. Like<br />
me, he is interested in driving jobs and seeing<br />
a great future for the capital of this State.<br />
This is one of the most exciting<br />
developments in Brisbane. It is part of our<br />
strategy to put Brisbane on the international<br />
map. There is a joint task force of the State<br />
Government and the Brisbane City Council<br />
which is to have the first and major stage of<br />
the redevelopment of Roma Street ready prior<br />
to the Goodwill Games in 2001. As we know,<br />
the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing is<br />
pursuing the Goodwill Games in an energetic<br />
way that, again, will help to put this city and<br />
this State on the world map.<br />
We are seeking not only to make Roma<br />
Street the lungs of the city but also to make<br />
certain that, with the light rail system, the<br />
redevelopment of the South Bank site and all<br />
those sorts of activities in conjunction with the<br />
Roma Street site, we will end up with a city that<br />
will enable promotion of the whole of the<br />
State.<br />
We know that when the Goodwill Games<br />
are held there will be a focus on Brisbane and<br />
on <strong>Queensland</strong>. That is why the light rail<br />
project, which is under way from the Minister<br />
for Transport, is such an important part of that<br />
strategy, as is the development of South Bank<br />
and the pedestrian bridge across the Brisbane<br />
River. All of those will provide the opportunity
9 Mar 1999 Questions Without Notice 315<br />
to highlight the leisure and the lifestyle of<br />
Brisbane.<br />
When we think of some cities of Australia<br />
and about how they are positioned overseas,<br />
we realise that Sydney has the advantage of<br />
the Opera House and the Sydney Harbour<br />
Bridge. We need to present Brisbane as the<br />
gateway to <strong>Queensland</strong>, in many respects.<br />
The way to do that is to highlight our lifestyle,<br />
to highlight our openness. That is why the<br />
redevelopment at Roma Street is so important.<br />
There is a very strong partnership<br />
between my Government and the Brisbane<br />
City Council. That partnership will continue and<br />
it will bring the redevelopment of Roma Street<br />
to fruition. As I said, it will be the lungs of the<br />
city.<br />
Nambour Hospital<br />
Dr WATSON: I refer the Minister for<br />
Health to the financial report for January 1999<br />
of the Sunshine Coast Health Service, which I<br />
will table. It shows that Nambour Hospital is<br />
$2.5m over budget. Taking account of the<br />
Minister's answer to the question asked by the<br />
member for Maroochydore, that is nearly $1m<br />
over any rollovers included in her budget. I<br />
also remind the Minister of Labor's promise to<br />
create jobs, jobs, jobs, which the Premier has<br />
just reiterated. I ask: is it a fact that the<br />
Minister has taken a decision to deliberately<br />
leave 25 nursing and administration jobs at<br />
Nambour Hospital unfilled in order to try to<br />
fund the hospital's budget blow-out?<br />
Mrs EDMOND: I do not involve myself in<br />
the day-to-day running of the hospital, so I do<br />
not know what positions are unfilled. What I do<br />
know is that we are employing extra nurses,<br />
extra social workers and extra health workers<br />
across the State.<br />
Mr Cooper interjected.<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for<br />
Crows Nest will cease interjecting.<br />
Mrs EDMOND: Our budget included<br />
sufficient increases to create something in the<br />
order of 900 new jobs across the State. While I<br />
do not have the specifics of Nambour, I do<br />
know that across the State we are employing<br />
more nurses, employing more doctors and<br />
providing more services.<br />
Opposition members interjected.<br />
Mrs EDMOND: Those opposite should<br />
calm down. Let us just look at the situation<br />
under the previous Government. In the May<br />
Budget the coalition promised $2m across the<br />
entire State as the increase in hospitals'<br />
recurrent budgets. We increased that to $63m.<br />
Also, the coalition was going to take back<br />
$2.5m last year and $25m next year with<br />
Horan's hospital tax. Where was that going to<br />
come from? What do those opposite think that<br />
was going to do to the employment of nurses<br />
in this State? Every backbencher on the other<br />
side should know that every hospital budget<br />
which involved hospital building would be<br />
losing a minimum of $2m. The Royal Brisbane<br />
would lose $25m in recurrent funding—each<br />
and every year—to pay for Horan's picture in<br />
the paper. It was about Horan's health tax to<br />
pay for his picture in the paper.<br />
We have also heard this nonsense about<br />
only $77m being spent in capital works. It<br />
really makes me despair. I agree with John<br />
Howard that there is an urgent need for<br />
numeracy skills in the Opposition.<br />
Unfortunately, it cannot be backdated. Those<br />
opposite are looking at one small thing, such<br />
as contracts signed. They ignore the fact that<br />
there are many works under way. We are not<br />
signing new contracts, because we signed<br />
huge ones just a month before. That was for<br />
one quarter of the year.<br />
Nothing could be further from the truth.<br />
The Capital Works Program is up and running<br />
and will be fully expended—not $77m. In<br />
January, $288m was expended, which was<br />
about twice the figure expended in the<br />
previous year. We are in a much better<br />
position to spend all of that funding. We are<br />
creating jobs across the length and breadth of<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>. We are also providing extra<br />
health services across the length and breadth<br />
of <strong>Queensland</strong>—not just in the Tory<br />
electorates, as occurred before, but from<br />
Coolangatta to the cape.<br />
Leaders Forum on Drugs<br />
Mr PURCELL: I refer the Premier to the<br />
Leaders Forum on Drugs held in Melbourne<br />
last Friday and the announcement that the<br />
Government is planning to run special<br />
treatment trials involving buprenorphine and<br />
naltrexone for heroin addicts, and I ask: why is<br />
the Government taking this action?<br />
Mr BEATTIE: I appreciate the question<br />
from the member for Bulimba, and I thank<br />
him. There has been a great deal of debate in<br />
this country about heroin trials. At the Leaders<br />
Forum on Friday, which was a very bipartisan<br />
forum in which all Premiers sought to come up<br />
with solutions to this very difficult problem, the<br />
Victorian Government and the ACT<br />
Government indicated that they wanted to<br />
continue with heroin trials. I signalled at that<br />
meeting that what was important in all this was<br />
that there was some comparative clinical
316 Questions Without Notice 9 Mar 1999<br />
analysis, or some clinical comparison, between<br />
how the heroin trials would go, and their likely<br />
success, compared with trials of other drugs.<br />
As we know, buprenorphine and<br />
naltrexone are drugs designed to get people<br />
off heroin. They are designed to break the<br />
heroin cycle. So their purpose is totally<br />
different from the heroin trials, which I have<br />
indicated that I do not support and the<br />
Government does not support. My view was<br />
that if the Victorian Government and the ACT<br />
Government want to go ahead with heroin<br />
trials, that is entirely a matter for them.<br />
However, having said that, if they are going to<br />
go ahead with them, then in a clinical sense<br />
and at the same time we need to do trials of<br />
buprenorphine and naltrexone.<br />
I had a discussion with Professor David<br />
Pennington when I was in Melbourne in<br />
relation to how buprenorphine and naltrexone<br />
could be trialled in conjunction with each other<br />
to get people off heroin and to break the<br />
heroin cycle. So what we are seeking to do, in<br />
a nutshell, is to have parallel trials at the same<br />
time but obviously in different States. In<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> we would be trialling<br />
buprenorphine in conjunction with naltrexone,<br />
but we would be using the same number of<br />
people who were being used in, say, Victoria<br />
or the ACT, and the same number of support<br />
services would be available.<br />
Often, it is not just the drug, it is the<br />
number of support services that go with the<br />
drug that can get people off heroin to begin<br />
with. There needs to be a determination in<br />
these clinical trials as to whether it is the<br />
drug—whether it be buprenorphine or<br />
naltrexone—that is getting people off heroin,<br />
or the support services that go with it that are<br />
helping people to get off heroin. So all these<br />
tests need to be done. As I said, this<br />
argument has raged for some time about<br />
whether we go down the road of heroin trials or<br />
whether we go down the road of<br />
buprenorphine and naltrexone. We need to<br />
have a clinical test to determine which is the<br />
best way to go. In a nutshell, that is what we<br />
are seeking to do.<br />
One of the other things that came out of<br />
the meeting on Friday—and I have tabled the<br />
full details for the House—was a national<br />
approach to assessing the causes of social<br />
breakdown resulting in drug use, suicide and<br />
depression. I mention that because we really<br />
have to get to the causes of drug abuse, as<br />
well. One of the biggest problems confronting<br />
Australia at the moment is depression. As we<br />
all know, about one in five people suffer from<br />
some form of mental disease during their life.<br />
Depression is becoming a lot more prevalent in<br />
the community, and we need to find out why.<br />
Mental Health Services<br />
Mr BEANLAND: I refer the Minister for<br />
Health to the case last month of a Brisbane<br />
man who threatened to kill his wife and then<br />
attempted to take his own life. I also refer to<br />
the fact that doctors could not place this<br />
particular patient into a mental health bed in<br />
Brisbane for more than a week, and I ask:<br />
given the danger that this man was to himself,<br />
other patients and staff, does the Minister<br />
believe that it was acceptable that there was<br />
no mental health bed available in Brisbane?<br />
And secondly: is it not true that the lack of<br />
mental health beds highlights her gross<br />
mismanagement of the State's public<br />
hospitals, which has resulted in budget blowouts<br />
and cuts to patient services?<br />
Mrs EDMOND: I do not discuss individual<br />
patient histories if I can help it. However, I can<br />
say that this Government has done more for<br />
mental health services in the past six months,<br />
and before the change of Government in<br />
1996, than the coalition opposite.<br />
Some of us actually remember Ward 10B.<br />
Some of us actually remember what conditions<br />
were like for mental health patients in Ward<br />
10B and other institutions around this State.<br />
Some of us remember the Burdekin report and<br />
the recommendations that came out of it. That<br />
is why, in our pre-election commitments and in<br />
our Budget last year, we committed the<br />
biggest increase to mental health funding that<br />
this State has ever seen: $29m worth of extra<br />
services.<br />
Mr Speaker, you were one of the people<br />
who approached me about the desperate lack<br />
of mental health services in Redcliffe. As you<br />
know, we are addressing that. But that $29m<br />
is being used. We advertised across<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>, across Australia and<br />
internationally for an extra 200 mental health<br />
staff to work in the community, in the hospitals,<br />
etc. That is something that was desperately<br />
needed.<br />
Miss Simpson: There are no beds in<br />
Brisbane.<br />
Mrs EDMOND: Members opposite say,<br />
"No beds". Nothing has changed in the beds<br />
situation since they were in Government. We<br />
have opened new mental health beds, yes. In<br />
fact, I actually have information on that. The<br />
fact is that there have been only a very, very<br />
small number of occasions when beds have<br />
not been made available. Four emergency<br />
mental health beds are kept for emergencies,
9 Mar 1999 Questions Without Notice 317<br />
if they are needed. According to the mental<br />
health services, only about twice in the last six<br />
months have those beds actually been<br />
needed to be used.<br />
We have seen a huge increase—and<br />
there will be a continuing huge increase—in<br />
community mental health services, because<br />
most people are better off in their<br />
communities, in their homes, with the services.<br />
But instead of going around trying to whip up<br />
fear and loathing of mental health patients,<br />
members opposite should be recognising the<br />
fact that something like one in five people will<br />
suffer from a mental illness during their<br />
lifetimes. Most of those people are better off<br />
being treated at home with the support that<br />
they need, and that is what we are providing.<br />
There is no indication of a shortage of mental<br />
health beds in south-east <strong>Queensland</strong>. We are<br />
providing more than there ever have been.<br />
Official Party Status for One Nation<br />
Mr WILSON: I refer the Premier to a<br />
report in today's edition of the Australian<br />
newspaper in which it is claimed that former<br />
One Nation members considered an alliance<br />
with their former colleagues to qualify for<br />
official party status and, therefore, get extra<br />
taxpayer funded resources, and I ask: will the<br />
Premier inform the House whether he was<br />
aware of this reported conspiracy?<br />
Mr BEATTIE: I was not aware of the<br />
document that has been reported very widely<br />
in today's Australian newspaper under the<br />
heading "Rebels reject a return to the fold",<br />
which says—<br />
"Former One Nation <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
MPs considered forming an alliance with<br />
their old colleagues, 'with just enough<br />
agreed common ground' to qualify for<br />
party status and to claim extra taxpayerfunded<br />
resources, according to a<br />
confidential briefing document obtained<br />
by The Australian."<br />
It goes on—<br />
"The document, prepared by an<br />
adviser to former One Nation deputy<br />
leader Dorothy Pratt, was used to brief the<br />
five new Independents late last week as<br />
they prepared to lobby Premier Peter<br />
Beattie for funding."<br />
According to the article, the document was<br />
prepared by Ms Pratt's adviser, Bruce Bell, and<br />
marked "strictly confidential". It says some of<br />
these things—<br />
"Option Three<br />
We have (hopefully all) five 'new<br />
independents' join with Bill Feldman's<br />
crew on a limited, strictly agreed basis.<br />
Get this very clear"—<br />
and I am quoting—<br />
"Limited, strictly agreed. Just enough<br />
agreed common ground to qualify for<br />
'Party' status and the more than forty<br />
thousand dollars in extra funding, to be<br />
used to fight what those who elected you<br />
wanted you to fight—the unrepresentative<br />
swill who are the old established parties."<br />
I have to say that I am appalled by this<br />
document. I am appalled by the suggestion<br />
that people would get together to conspire to<br />
obtain public funds in this way. Talking about<br />
entitlements, another part of the overview says<br />
this—<br />
"The manual is a big fat book full of<br />
goodies and blank cheques with which to<br />
procure them. You can have whatever<br />
you want"——<br />
Mrs Pratt: I rise to a point of order. I find<br />
that whole document totally offensive and ask<br />
that the Premier withdraw it.<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of<br />
order.<br />
Mr BEATTIE: I totally agree with the<br />
honourable member. I find it absolutely<br />
offensive. I have referred to an article which<br />
appeared in the Australian, which I table in the<br />
House for the benefit of those who have not<br />
read it. These are not my words; they are the<br />
words reported in the Australian from a report<br />
prepared, supposedly, for the honourable<br />
member.<br />
This afternoon I am meeting Mr Bill<br />
Feldman, the leader of One Nation, about<br />
these issues. My ancestors came from<br />
Scotland in 1884 and I have a very strong<br />
tradition of Scottishness in me. Let me tell this<br />
House that there will be not one cent of<br />
taxpayers' money wasted on any attempt to<br />
get money from the taxpayer under what I<br />
believe are false pretences. It will not happen<br />
because taxpayers' money should be used to<br />
look after people and provide services. I<br />
believe those Independents should be<br />
explaining to the people of <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
exactly what this document was designed to<br />
achieve and why they were putting it in this<br />
way.<br />
Royal Women's Hospital<br />
Mrs GAMIN: In directing my question to<br />
the Minister for Health, I refer her to the case
318 Questions Without Notice 9 Mar 1999<br />
of a Brisbane woman who last month suffered<br />
the grief of losing her baby. I also refer the<br />
Minister to the fact that this particular patient<br />
was forced to endure five hours of bleeding<br />
and severe pain at the Royal Women's<br />
Hospital while waiting for a medical specialist to<br />
remove the placenta. The woman and her<br />
husband were informed by hospital staff that<br />
the five-hour wait was due to cuts in the<br />
number of doctors and nurses working at the<br />
hospital. I ask the Minister: will you now admit<br />
that the financial crisis gripping <strong>Queensland</strong>'s<br />
public hospitals is severely affecting patient<br />
care?<br />
Mrs EDMOND: Again, I do not deal with<br />
individual patient histories in this place—or at<br />
least I do so very rarely. However, there is one<br />
case that I will talk about that involved the<br />
Gold Coast Hospital. There has been a similar<br />
claim that a lack of funding led to some poor<br />
unfortunate chap waiting for 28 hours to<br />
undergo surgery to his badly cut right arm. We<br />
had the member for Maroochydore and the<br />
so-called president of the AMA on the Gold<br />
Coast running around and saying on radio and<br />
TV, "This is outrageous. This poor man had to<br />
wait."<br />
Why did he have to wait? Well, there was<br />
a very good clinical reason why he had to wait.<br />
It is totally dangerous and it is totally counterproductive<br />
and risky to operate on someone<br />
who is inebriated. The hospital staff had to wait<br />
until some of the fumes evaporated. As I said,<br />
I do not often do this, but——<br />
Mrs GAMIN: I rise to a point of order. My<br />
question did not refer to that patient; it referred<br />
to a woman who had lost her baby. She was<br />
not drunk.<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of<br />
order.<br />
Mrs EDMOND: All of us here would be<br />
very sympathetic to the loss of a baby. I<br />
cannot comment on the circumstances<br />
surrounding that case. It is always a tragedy to<br />
lose a baby. It is also a tragedy to see people<br />
trawling over such a tragic event to score<br />
cheap political points. Over the weekend there<br />
were attempts to score cheap political points.<br />
There were suggestions that three children<br />
who had come to the hospital in need of<br />
urgent orthopaedic surgery as a result of<br />
accidents should have had their treatment<br />
postponed so that staff could operate on this<br />
patient. This man would have been put at risk.<br />
We have the member for Maroochydore<br />
making clinical decisions about who should be<br />
operated on and what the priorities should be.<br />
Miss SIMPSON: I rise to a point of order.<br />
The Health Minister is wrong and offensive. I<br />
ask that those wrong and offensive comments<br />
be withdrawn.<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has<br />
asked that the Minister withdraw those<br />
comments.<br />
Mrs EDMOND: I withdraw whatever she<br />
wants. However, let me clearly say that she<br />
has been trying to make clinical decisions on<br />
behalf of the hospital over which patients<br />
should receive priority. In this case she has<br />
suggested that hospital staff should have<br />
operated on an inebriated patient even though<br />
it would have put him at risk.<br />
Miss SIMPSON: I rise to a point of order.<br />
I have at no time said that. That is wrong and<br />
offensive. The Health Minister is out of touch<br />
and out of her depth.<br />
International Trade Outlook<br />
Mrs LAVARCH: I ask the Minister for<br />
State Development and Minister for Trade: can<br />
he advise of the recent performance of<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> business in international trade<br />
and any outlook for the future?<br />
Mr ELDER: I can, actually. As members<br />
would be aware, <strong>Queensland</strong> and Australia as<br />
a whole are facing a very hostile international<br />
environment, one described by the Federal<br />
Treasurer, Peter Costello, as the worst since<br />
the Second World War. Of course, one of the<br />
greatest problems concerns our trading<br />
partners in South-East Asia. Our concern—and<br />
I would like to think the concern of all members<br />
of this House—should be on how these<br />
problems will impact on our export<br />
performance.<br />
In the first six months of this financial<br />
year—July to December 1998—<strong>Queensland</strong>'s<br />
exports totalled $8.67 billion, compared with<br />
$8.4 billion over the equivalent period of the<br />
previous year. That represents an increase of<br />
3.2% over the previous year, which reflects<br />
very favourably on the efforts of our exporters.<br />
I must inform the House, however, that<br />
forecasts by both the Federal Government and<br />
my own Department of State Development<br />
show that we are in for a tough time. I quote<br />
from the Federal Government's report on trade<br />
outlooks—<br />
"The present international economic<br />
problems, which originated in east Asia,<br />
rank with the oil price rises of the 1970s<br />
as the most significant external shock<br />
Australia has experienced since the<br />
Second World War—this has major<br />
implications for Australia's trade and<br />
economic interests."
9 Mar 1999 Questions Without Notice 319<br />
In January this year our exports were<br />
down some 6% on those of last January.<br />
However, even though our exports were down,<br />
they grew in value by just under 1%. I would<br />
like to point out that <strong>Queensland</strong> is not facing<br />
this situation alone. It is a situation that is<br />
reflected in every State's trade performance.<br />
Australia registered a record trade deficit in<br />
January when our national exports dropped by<br />
5%.<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> increased its exports<br />
marginally while New South Wales dropped by<br />
some 10% in the same period, Victoria by 5%<br />
and South Australia by just under 2%. We<br />
have an unfavourable outlook for our<br />
commodity prices, given that we are a State of<br />
price takers in the commodity area. A good<br />
example of that is coal. We started the<br />
financial year in a strong position but, given<br />
the newly negotiated prices on thermal and<br />
export coal, I suspect we will see a drop with<br />
respect to that commodity.<br />
I believe we can hold this slight increase<br />
in performance that we saw this year. The<br />
Government is responding to this concern. I<br />
have commenced a complete review of our<br />
trade operations to make sure that we have a<br />
very sharp focus, particularly at this end, on<br />
where we trade and how we trade. We have<br />
set up Asia Link to assist <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
companies in their trade relationships,<br />
particularly in Asia. As we know, Asia is going<br />
through a difficult period. We are looking at<br />
new trade operations and we are also<br />
diversifying our trading patterns in the Middle<br />
East, South Africa, South America and India.<br />
As I said, we have seen an increase of 3.2%.<br />
We will make every effort to keep ahead and<br />
ensure that we maintain that lead.<br />
Nambour General Hospital<br />
Mrs SHELDON: In directing a question to<br />
the Minister for Health, I refer to a report from<br />
the manager of the Sunshine Coast District<br />
Health Service of January 1999 which states—<br />
"Action aimed at reining in the<br />
increasing over budget result has been<br />
approved by the Office of the Director<br />
General and the Minister's Office. These<br />
include the closure of beds at Nambour<br />
General Hospital and a range of other<br />
actions."<br />
The report further states—<br />
"Basically, the problem has arisen<br />
due to a reduced budget in real terms in<br />
1998/99."<br />
I now ask: will the Minister now admit that she<br />
sanctioned the closure of 36 beds at Nambour<br />
Hospital? Will she also inform the House how<br />
many of those beds are still currently closed?<br />
Can she detail exactly when all the beds at<br />
Nambour Hospital will be fully operational?<br />
Mrs EDMOND: Once again, can I say that<br />
I leave operational matters to the people who<br />
are paid to manage hospitals. Can I also say<br />
that Nambour Hospital has not had a reduced<br />
budget. Not only that, every single district in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>—all 39 of them—received an<br />
increased budget under our Government; they<br />
would not have got that under the coalition<br />
Government.<br />
Mr Elder: Look at the member for<br />
Caloundra's last Budget.<br />
Mrs EDMOND: Yes, the member for<br />
Caloundra brought down and approved a<br />
Budget that would have given an extra $2m to<br />
that hospital's recurrent spending. The fact is<br />
that we gave Nambour Hospital more than<br />
$2m—not all of <strong>Queensland</strong>'s hospitals, but<br />
Nambour Hospital—which was $2m more than<br />
what was in the May Budget that the member<br />
for Caloundra approved.<br />
Mr Hamill: And she was going to take it<br />
away again.<br />
Mrs EDMOND: The member was going to<br />
take it away again with the Horan health tax<br />
that we were going to have. Of course, when<br />
the Nambour Hospital was rebuilt, that would<br />
have been a further impact from the Horan<br />
health tax to pay for the media pickies. That is<br />
what we had under the coalition.<br />
Hospitals are always under pressure,<br />
particularly when we have seen significant<br />
drops in private health cover, which the Prime<br />
Minister's $1.5 billion seems not to have done<br />
anything about. At this time, I place on record<br />
something that really worries me, because it<br />
keeps being repeated by those opposite. Any<br />
moves in the cost of private health cover will<br />
not help in the slightest anyone who is on a<br />
waiting list. Anyone who is on a waiting list has<br />
a pre-existing illness. Even if people join a<br />
health fund tomorrow with the rebate, they will<br />
have to wait more than a year before they can<br />
have their surgery. I hear people opposite<br />
saying, "The Prime Minister has solved the<br />
waiting list problem by the private health cover<br />
slush fund", but it will not do one thing.<br />
In the meantime, we are providing more<br />
services in Nambour and more operations. In<br />
the past six months, we have done 4,000<br />
more operations than the previous<br />
Government did.<br />
Mr Horan: More social workers and close<br />
the beds.
320 Questions Without Notice 9 Mar 1999<br />
Mrs EDMOND: We have provided an<br />
extra range of community health services. I am<br />
pleased that the member for Toowoomba<br />
South has indicated that, because we are very<br />
proud of all of the extra mental health<br />
community workers that we have on the<br />
Sunshine Coast and across-the-board.<br />
We have heard it all again about how<br />
there were no beds closed. However, the<br />
Premier and I were in Nambour and<br />
photographed the beds that were supposedly<br />
not closed under the previous Government.<br />
We photographed them; we took the TV in<br />
there, and the member for Toowoomba South<br />
was shown to be the hypocrite he is.<br />
Time expired.<br />
Goods and Services Tax<br />
Mr PITT: I draw the Treasurer's attention<br />
to media reports this morning that <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
is refusing to sign off on the Federal<br />
Government's proposed tax reform package,<br />
and I ask: what is <strong>Queensland</strong>'s position on<br />
the GST ahead of next month's Premiers<br />
Conference?<br />
Mr HAMILL: <strong>Queensland</strong>'s position on the<br />
GST ahead of next month's Premiers<br />
Conference is the same position we had last<br />
year, the year before that and the year before<br />
that. We recognise that a GST will be only<br />
detrimental to <strong>Queensland</strong>'s service-based<br />
economy. The economic modelling that has<br />
been presented to the Senate inquiry<br />
demonstrates the negative impact on jobs the<br />
GST will have.<br />
However, the substantive issue is whether<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> is prepared to accept the patently<br />
unfair proposals of the Federal Government in<br />
distributing revenue which it wishes to raise<br />
through the imposition of a goods and services<br />
tax. That was the issue for us at the Premiers<br />
Conference last year when, after lengthy<br />
discussion, the Prime Minister and the Federal<br />
Treasurer, Mr Costello, sought to have State<br />
Premiers and Chief Ministers sign off on a<br />
heads of agreement.<br />
At that time, we made it clear that not<br />
only we did not support the GST but also we<br />
could not support an arrangement whereby<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> taxpayers would face increased<br />
taxes and <strong>Queensland</strong>ers would not receive<br />
their fair share of the GST revenue that was<br />
being generated. In case anyone has<br />
forgotten, the magnitude of that figure was<br />
$465m, which is a very considerable sum of<br />
money indeed to our State Budget, even if it is<br />
not such a considerable sum to the<br />
Commonwealth.<br />
So we have continued to press our case<br />
on behalf of <strong>Queensland</strong>ers—<strong>Queensland</strong>ers<br />
who are being asked to pay 25% more tax<br />
under the GST than they do now. Taxpayers in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> are being asked to subsidise the<br />
removal of financial institutions duty and bed<br />
tax in New South Wales and Victoria and other<br />
States—taxes that we do not have now. We<br />
will continue to press this case and we will<br />
press it in every forum available to us, whether<br />
it is the Premiers Conference or whether it is<br />
before the Senate inquiry, because our<br />
position has not changed. While we do not<br />
support the GST, we certainly will not sign an<br />
agreement—any agreement—that robs<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> of its fair share.<br />
The Commonwealth Government has<br />
said that the GST revenue pool should be<br />
distributed according to a Grants Commission<br />
formula. If that is the way that it should apply,<br />
then it should apply according to that formula<br />
from day one. <strong>Queensland</strong> should not be<br />
quarantined for three years and be denied our<br />
fair share of a revenue pool to which, after all,<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>ers have been asked to make a<br />
considerable contribution.<br />
Premier's Department<br />
Mr BORBIDGE: I refer the Premier to the<br />
growing crisis in <strong>Queensland</strong> hospitals under<br />
his Government, including cost overruns and<br />
insufficient resources, and I ask: why did it cost<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>ers $8.6m more—an increase of<br />
70%—to run his department for the<br />
September quarter of this financial year? Why<br />
is the Premier's Department soaking up $8.6m<br />
more that could be allocated to hospitals and<br />
other core services in this State?<br />
Mr BEATTIE: I thank the Leader of the<br />
Opposition for his question. I guess I kept too<br />
many of those people such as Wendy<br />
Armstrong and Greg Goebel—all of those sorts<br />
of people—who, had the Leader of the<br />
Opposition been the incoming Premier and<br />
they had been Labor equivalents, would have<br />
been sacked.<br />
My department is run very efficiently. This<br />
morning, we have seen from the National and<br />
the Liberal Parties—and it is interesting to note<br />
that the Leader of the Opposition has asked<br />
his question towards the end of question<br />
time—an attempt to try to turn health into a<br />
political plus. Why are they doing this? For two<br />
reasons: one, they are trying to cover up their<br />
incompetence in the time that they were in<br />
office.<br />
An Opposition member: What a memory.<br />
Mr Schwarten: Well remembered.
9 Mar 1999 Questions Without Notice 321<br />
Mr BEATTIE: Exactly. We have got to<br />
remember that we have been in office for just<br />
over eight months now. The Budget problems<br />
that we inherited from the previous<br />
Government are significant.<br />
While we are talking about money, since<br />
the Leader of the Opposition has raised it, I<br />
am happy to advise the House that the<br />
transition to Government costs between the<br />
different sides of politics are interesting. When<br />
the Borbidge Government came to office in<br />
1996, it cost $4,732,768.98 for the transition<br />
to Government. When my Government came<br />
to office it cost $1,830,387.<br />
Mr Borbidge: You spent 70% more in<br />
one quarter.<br />
Mr BEATTIE: We saved taxpayers $3m. I<br />
am happy to talk about costs in the Premier's<br />
Department. When I became Premier, I found<br />
out that there was a weekly invoice for fresh<br />
flowers that arrived every week. That was $35<br />
for each flower arrangement to the Premier's<br />
office. Over the time that the coalition and Mr<br />
Borbidge were in office, it cost almost $5,000<br />
for those fresh flowers. So what did I do? I<br />
introduced some native flower arrangements<br />
and I saved $5,000. I know that the Leader of<br />
the Opposition may want to have fresh flowers<br />
every day, but I saved the taxpayers some<br />
money because that Scottish ancestry of mine<br />
would not allow me to have fresh flowers sent<br />
every day like the former Premier did just so<br />
that he could smell nice.<br />
The bottom line is that my Government<br />
has pursued tough administrative<br />
arrangements. I am quite happy at any time to<br />
talk about the sort of expenses that we had<br />
when the former Premier was in office.<br />
Mr BORBIDGE: I note that the Premier<br />
cannot explain to the House why he spent<br />
$8.6m more in one quarter.<br />
Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to answer that<br />
question. That is the second question.<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Was that the second<br />
question?<br />
Mr BORBIDGE: I have not asked it.<br />
Mr SPEAKER: It was not a question?<br />
Was that the question to the Premier?<br />
Mr BORBIDGE: No.<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Could we have the<br />
question, please?<br />
Member for Fitzroy<br />
Mr BORBIDGE: My second question is to<br />
the Premier. I refer to the member for Fitzroy's<br />
stated intention to return to the Gordonstone<br />
picket, and I ask the Premier: is he aware of<br />
comments attributed to his colleague in the<br />
Rockhampton Bulletin where he claimed that<br />
the Emerald business community should be<br />
wary if it believed it would reap the benefits<br />
from Rio Tinto's proposed new work force? The<br />
honourable member was quoted as saying—<br />
"Rio Tinto will tell the community of<br />
Emerald anything they want to hear. Rio<br />
Tinto don't give a stuff about the people<br />
of Emerald. Their only interest is the deunionism<br />
of the mining industry."<br />
I ask the Premier, and I notice the support that<br />
the honourable member has receive from——<br />
Government members interjected.<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the<br />
Opposition will just ask the question.<br />
Mr BORBIDGE: I ask the Premier: will he<br />
now, at long last, publicly dissociate himself<br />
and his Government from this assessment of<br />
Rio Tinto's corporate credentials by his<br />
Government colleague the member for<br />
Fitzroy?<br />
Mr BEATTIE: Throughout this debate, I<br />
have made it absolutely clear that my<br />
Government welcomes investment in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> from Rio Tinto. More to the point,<br />
not only have I made it clear in <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
but I went to London and also made it<br />
absolutely clear to Rio Tinto. Let there be no<br />
argument here or anywhere else about<br />
whether or not we want Rio Tinto's investment.<br />
Of course we want Rio Tinto's investment in<br />
this State.<br />
Having said that, it is appropriate for a<br />
member of <strong>Parliament</strong> to be concerned—and<br />
we have heard the Minister talk about these<br />
issues—about whether a work force will fly in or<br />
fly out. That is what this is about. There is an<br />
ongoing debate in <strong>Queensland</strong> about whether<br />
mining projects benefit the local community or<br />
whether the work force flies in or out.<br />
Mr Johnson interjected.<br />
Mr BEATTIE: Like the Federal member<br />
for Kennedy, the member for Gregory should<br />
be concerned about a lot of mining operations,<br />
particularly those in the north-west province.<br />
We have all heard the Minister talk about this<br />
and we are trying to do something about it.<br />
The member ought to be concerned about<br />
mining projects that do not deliver enough to<br />
the local community. The honourable member<br />
for Fitzroy has quite legitimately raised the<br />
concern about benefits to local communities. I<br />
say to all mining operations—whether it is Rio<br />
Tinto, BHP or Mount Isa Mines—that this<br />
Government wants as much benefit to flow to
322 Questions Without Notice 9 Mar 1999<br />
the local communities around the mine as is<br />
humanly possible.<br />
Let us deal with some other issues that I<br />
think are of importance. The Leader of the<br />
Opposition has sought to reassert himself<br />
today. On the weekend I was intrigued to see<br />
an article in the Gold Coast Bulletin that<br />
stated—<br />
"The dust is not quite settling on the<br />
recent challenge to Rob Borbidge's<br />
Opposition leadership.<br />
The word is there's still bad blood<br />
between two parties—"<br />
it is the Horan camp and the Borbidge camp;<br />
here we go again—<br />
"over the range of 'shadows', one of<br />
whom played a leading role in thwarting<br />
any possibility of a direct challenge by the<br />
other."<br />
However, I reckon that the honourable Doug<br />
Slack, the member for Burnett, takes the prize.<br />
On 18 January, the News-Mail stated—<br />
"Mr Slack said division in politics was<br />
not the way to win back government.<br />
'We don't want to fragment the<br />
conservative side of politics,' he said. 'The<br />
public is looking for cohesion, not<br />
division.'"<br />
And he is right.<br />
Goods and Services Tax<br />
Mr FOURAS:: I refer the Treasurer to<br />
claims by the Federal Government that<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> is looking for a windfall from<br />
proposed tax reform, and I ask: what is this<br />
alleged windfall and is there any substance to<br />
the claim?<br />
Mr HAMILL: The member for Ashgrove is<br />
citing some remarks that were made by the<br />
Federal Treasurer in relation to <strong>Queensland</strong>'s<br />
just claim for a fair distribution of any proposed<br />
GST revenue. The argument that is being run<br />
by the Federal Treasurer goes something like<br />
this: it does not matter that <strong>Queensland</strong>ers are<br />
being asked to pay higher taxes and it does<br />
not matter that <strong>Queensland</strong>ers are being<br />
asked to subsidise the removal of taxes<br />
interstate because, somehow or other, down<br />
the track <strong>Queensland</strong> will get some additional<br />
revenue through the imposition of a goods<br />
and services tax. Therefore, <strong>Queensland</strong>ers<br />
should just happily pay up, pay up, pay up for<br />
three years and then maybe get some little<br />
return to the State.<br />
Mr Purcell: That's if they don't change<br />
the rules.<br />
Mr HAMILL: That is a real concern not<br />
only for the <strong>Queensland</strong> Government but for<br />
every other State and Territory Government.<br />
We have a real concern that the Federal<br />
Government may seek to use any increase in<br />
GST revenue to remove specific purpose<br />
payments from the States. Already, financial<br />
assistance grants are to be removed in return<br />
for GST payments. Every State and Territory<br />
Government is concerned that the<br />
Commonwealth may wish to wind back other<br />
payments to the States under the GST<br />
package.<br />
We made it clear to the Senate inquiry<br />
that the <strong>Queensland</strong> Government has no<br />
intention whatsoever of benefiting from any<br />
windfall revenue should <strong>Queensland</strong> get its fair<br />
share of a GST pool distribution based on the<br />
Grants Commission formula, which, after all, is<br />
the formula that the Federal Government says<br />
is fine for the future distributions of any GST<br />
revenue. We went further: our submission to<br />
the Senate inquiry—a submission that we<br />
have made public—stated quite clearly that<br />
the <strong>Queensland</strong> Government was happy to<br />
use any revenues to which we were entitled to<br />
accelerate the removal of the very imposts on<br />
business that the Federal Government wants<br />
to see removed under its tax reform package. I<br />
am talking about conveyance duty and stamp<br />
duty. Last week, the Opposition asked me<br />
questions about stamp duty on insurance<br />
policies. Sure, we would love to see them go<br />
and we would be happy to see them go, but<br />
we can only do that if we get a fair share of<br />
revenue distribution from the Commonwealth.<br />
Furthermore, <strong>Queensland</strong>'s population<br />
base continues to grow strongly. Not only do<br />
we see taxation reform as important but we<br />
also see the provision of high quality services<br />
as equally important. We told the Senate<br />
inquiry that we would use the funds that we<br />
were entitled to out of the increased taxes that<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>ers would pay under a GST to<br />
provide improvements in health and education<br />
services.<br />
Dingo Bounty<br />
Dr PRENZLER: I ask the Minister for<br />
Environment and Heritage and Minister for<br />
Natural Resources: when one considers that it<br />
is economically impossible—I repeat,<br />
economically impossible—to raise, keep and<br />
breed dogs to receive a paltry $5 bounty for<br />
pups and a $10 bounty for adult dogs, will he<br />
give an unqualified apology to the graziers of<br />
regional <strong>Queensland</strong> for his inexcusable<br />
allegation last week that he knows people who<br />
are breeding dingoes for bounty, or will he give
9 Mar 1999 Questions Without Notice 323<br />
an undertaking to the House to name the<br />
people who are breeding dingoes for bounty?<br />
Mr WELFORD: The honourable member<br />
does himself no credit in joining the National<br />
Party to attribute such an absurd suggestion to<br />
me. That suggestion was never made by me.<br />
Nothing I said last week, as will be shown by<br />
Hansard, referred to graziers, rural land-holders<br />
or other hardworking people on the land. What<br />
I said last week in <strong>Parliament</strong> was directed at<br />
an improved pest management plan to<br />
operate right across the State to protect<br />
graziers ,whose hard-earned income is levied<br />
to pay for the current dingo bounty, which is<br />
not working.<br />
Members opposite are asserting falsely<br />
that this Government has abolished the<br />
bounty, as the member for Callide did recently<br />
in the Bundaberg News-Mail. The Government<br />
has done nothing of the sort. However, the<br />
Government is reviewing the legislation to see<br />
whether there are better and more effective<br />
ways to comprehensively address what the<br />
Government acknowledges is a widespread<br />
problem. The proposition that I ever cast a slur<br />
upon any hardworking rural land-holders or<br />
graziers is an absolutely dishonest<br />
misrepresentation of the facts and honourable<br />
members opposite know it.<br />
Free Ambulance Subscriptions<br />
Dr CLARK: I direct a question to the<br />
Minister for Emergency Services. The<br />
Government promised to implement free<br />
ambulance subscriptions for pensioners,<br />
Seniors Card holders and their dependants as<br />
of 1 January this year. That policy has been<br />
implemented and our promise fulfilled. I ask:<br />
could the Minister please outline the<br />
community response to this significant<br />
initiative?<br />
Mrs ROSE: I thank the honourable<br />
member for the question and also<br />
acknowledge the interest that she has shown<br />
in the delivery of ambulance services in the<br />
Cairns area since she returned to the House.<br />
As the member said, at the last election this<br />
Government gave a commitment to provide a<br />
free ambulance service to pensioners, Seniors<br />
Card holders and their dependants. I am<br />
delighted to inform the House that this policy<br />
came into effect on 1 January.<br />
The policy had a very smooth transition<br />
and has been well received across the State.<br />
After its implementation, refund cheques were<br />
posted to 215,000 <strong>Queensland</strong>ers who had<br />
prepaid their subscriptions until after the<br />
implementation date. Both the staff at the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Ambulance Service and I were<br />
overwhelmed when many of the cheques were<br />
returned in the form of donations to the QAS. I<br />
am sure that every member of the House will<br />
be amazed when I tell them that almost half a<br />
million dollars was returned to the QAS by<br />
more than 34,000 <strong>Queensland</strong>ers. Many<br />
people even included extra donations with<br />
their refund cheques. For example, one<br />
Brisbane woman included a cheque for $500.<br />
She has been a QAS subscriber for 55 years<br />
but has never used the service in all that time.<br />
On behalf of the Government, I thank the men<br />
and women of <strong>Queensland</strong> for their<br />
generosity; it will help to save lives. I assure<br />
people that their money will be well spent on<br />
essential ambulance equipment and on<br />
helping others.<br />
Many pensioners and Seniors Card<br />
holders who returned their cheques said that<br />
this was their way of saying thankyou to the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Ambulance Service for the<br />
wonderful service that it has provided to<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>ers for over 100 years. I thank<br />
subscribers for supporting the Ambulance<br />
Service. I reiterate that Seniors Card holders<br />
and pensioners can continue to have a close<br />
relationship with the Ambulance Service<br />
through their local ambulance committees.<br />
The local ambulance committees are<br />
community based and do a wonderful job of<br />
raising funds on behalf of their local<br />
ambulance station for vital lifesaving<br />
equipment.<br />
Water Backflow<br />
Mr LAMING: I refer the Minister for Public<br />
Works and Minister for Housing to a report in<br />
this morning's Courier-Mail about the serious<br />
health risks posed by water backflow and the<br />
fact that his department has identified 1,192<br />
sites as having the potential to cause loss of<br />
human life. I refer the Minister also to the fact<br />
that only 200 of those deadly sites have been<br />
rectified and that apparently no money has<br />
been set aside for the remaining 992 sites. I<br />
ask the Minister: does he stand by the<br />
commitment that he gave to the Estimates<br />
committee in which he stated, "I am pleased<br />
to say that we are on top of those issues"?<br />
What urgent action is he taking to rectify this<br />
situation, given that his department has<br />
identified so many potentially deadly sites, and<br />
when was he made personally aware of the<br />
situation?<br />
Mr SCHWARTEN: <strong>Final</strong>ly, we have a<br />
question. I thought the Opposition might have<br />
asked about the 1,400 jobs that we stand to<br />
lose thanks to the GST, and I note the<br />
Opposition's continued silence on that issue.
324 Questions Without Notice 9 Mar 1999<br />
However, I am happy to deal with the issue of<br />
backflow, because it is a very important one.<br />
The Opposition chose to downgrade this issue<br />
in its last couple of Budgets. The last time a<br />
Labor Government was in power in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>, $3.6m was set aside for the<br />
correction of backflow. Since then a figure of<br />
$1.5m or $1.8m has been made available.<br />
Over that time, $8.58m has been spent on this<br />
very serious and troubling issue.<br />
Some 232 sites have been identified as<br />
requiring urgent and immediate rectification.<br />
That has been done. Some 1,192 sites were<br />
tested, and varying degrees of intervention<br />
have been recommended and have taken<br />
place. The majority of those are well and truly<br />
in hand through workplace prevention<br />
methods. If the member is looking to score a<br />
cheap point on this issue, he is looking in the<br />
wrong direction. I could have easily given him<br />
that answer over the telephone this morning,<br />
had he bothered to take any sort of interest in<br />
this matter aside from just reading what was in<br />
the pages of today's Courier-Mail.<br />
This Government will have to continue to<br />
address this problem because of the former<br />
Government's downgrading of this problem in<br />
its last Budgets. However, I stress to the<br />
House that this is not an urgent problem;<br />
people will not need to boil their water in<br />
saucepans. In reality, although backflow is an<br />
issue that can confront every single<br />
householder in <strong>Queensland</strong>—anybody who<br />
has a pipe leading into their yard potentially<br />
faces the risk of backflow—it is an absurdity for<br />
anybody to suggest that there is an immediate<br />
problem or that the world will fall apart in the<br />
next couple of days. As a result of the<br />
passage of the Sewerage and Water Supply<br />
Act a few years ago, we are now more mindful<br />
of this issue. Under 32 years of National Party<br />
rule in <strong>Queensland</strong>, no backflow devices at all<br />
were installed under the Building Act.<br />
An Opposition member interjected.<br />
Mr SCHWARTEN: I am glad the member<br />
said that, because 1992 was the first time ever<br />
that any Government in the history of this<br />
State did anything about backflow. Of all the<br />
issues for members opposite to raise, they<br />
picked an area where they lead with their chin<br />
once again. This Government will get on with<br />
the job of trying to repair all of the neglect that<br />
members opposite left us with. We were<br />
starting to do something about this issue in our<br />
last year in office. Regrettably, members<br />
opposite have downscaled that work since<br />
then. As a result of that, we will again have to<br />
ramp up the program.<br />
Tourism<br />
Mr REEVES: I refer the Minister for<br />
Tourism, Sport and Racing to the inquiry<br />
established by the Federal Immigration<br />
Minister to look at imposing bonds on people<br />
from certain countries seeking visas to enter<br />
Australia, and I ask: what impact would<br />
imposing bonds on international visitors have<br />
on the <strong>Queensland</strong> tourism industry?<br />
Mr GIBBS: The report yesterday that the<br />
Federal Minister, the Honourable Philip<br />
Ruddock, is considering imposing an additional<br />
bond, or a form of taxation, on overseas<br />
visitors is a disturbing factor to all State<br />
Tourism Ministers. What we have seen is a<br />
typical knee-jerk reaction from Mr Ruddock in<br />
reply to some cases highlighted last week of<br />
illegal immigrants being arrested in the fruitpicking<br />
areas of the southern States of<br />
Australia.<br />
Honourable members need to be aware,<br />
firstly, that this sort of a plan, unfortunately, is<br />
aimed at two of our major emerging markets,<br />
the first one, of course, being China. This<br />
Government and the previous Government<br />
have put a lot of work into China over the past<br />
couple of years. It is one of our major<br />
emerging markets. In fact, this financial year,<br />
our Government, through the <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
Tourist and Travel Corporation, or Tourism<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>, as it is now called, will spend<br />
about $1m on cooperative advertising<br />
campaigns in both China and India. The last<br />
thing we need are imposts put up by the<br />
Federal Government that will deter people<br />
from coming into this country.<br />
Figures from the Federal Department of<br />
Immigration show that at the moment<br />
overseas overstay rates are less than 1%.<br />
Less than 1% of visitors who come to<br />
Australia, particularly from China, are<br />
overstaying. Interestingly, it was only some<br />
months ago that Australia was one of only two<br />
Western nations to be designated as<br />
approved destinations for tourists from China.<br />
It is a disturbing factor that at this stage Mr<br />
Ruddock has failed to sign that agreement<br />
with China. That is already having an adverse<br />
effect not only on future trade for our country<br />
but also on the number of overseas tourists.<br />
This year, short-term arrivals from China to<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> have risen by an amazing 31.4%<br />
to 10,292 persons in the year to November<br />
1998. Given the sort of buffoonery being<br />
displayed by the Federal Government, we<br />
have to query its intelligence. The Tourism<br />
Forecasting Council of Australia predicts that<br />
visitor arrivals from China to Australia will<br />
increase to over 600,000 annually by the year
9 Mar 1999 Matters of Public Interest 325<br />
2006. That is a huge potential market for our<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> tourist industry.<br />
The Minister's reaction is not only an insult<br />
to our overseas business but also a deterrent<br />
in that a lot of the visitors from China are<br />
people who do not have a lot of disposable<br />
income. They spend it to come here to have a<br />
look at our country. The notion of putting an<br />
additional imposition on them is foolhardy.<br />
Water Backflow<br />
Mr DAVIDSON: I refer the Minister for<br />
Health to an article in this morning's Courier-<br />
Mail outlining a serious and possibly deadly<br />
water risk in State buildings, including<br />
hospitals, because of the backflow of<br />
contaminated water into pipes transporting<br />
drinking water. I ask the Minister: does she<br />
regard the risk of backflow to patients, staff<br />
and visitors at <strong>Queensland</strong> hospitals as a<br />
serious problem requiring urgent attention?<br />
What actions have the Minister and her<br />
department taken to address what appears to<br />
be a very serious health problem?<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for<br />
questions has expired.<br />
MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST<br />
Premier<br />
Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (Surfers<br />
Paradise—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition)<br />
(11.30 a.m.): The "can't do" tag is obviously<br />
getting to the Premier. This was very obvious<br />
last week, as we saw him retreat time and time<br />
again into his office to write down on bits of<br />
paper that he tabled in this place, "This is a<br />
can do Government. I am a can do Premier."<br />
He even tried to give us a list of his<br />
achievements, and he started out detailing his<br />
achievements by referring to the fact that the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> economy has generated some<br />
35,000 jobs in the first seven months of the<br />
year, which he said was in excess of the<br />
30,000 forecast in the Budget. Of course, he is<br />
right, because what he did in his September<br />
Budget was drop the expectation from the<br />
40,000 new jobs that we had projected in the<br />
Budget that we handed down in this place in<br />
May. So if he dropped the target, of course he<br />
stands a reasonable chance, even if he is a<br />
can't do Premier, of beating that particular<br />
target.<br />
Even that number—our more positive<br />
number in relation to the performance of the<br />
private sector in its ability to deliver new<br />
jobs—was heavily down on 1997-98's 60,000-<br />
plus new jobs because Treasury was<br />
estimating at that time a far greater impact<br />
from the Asian crisis. That impact up until now<br />
has been relatively modest. So twisting the<br />
numbers does not really serve the can't do<br />
Premier's cause. If he sets a target that is<br />
down a quarter—a cut of 25%—on the target<br />
of his predecessors, then he is giving himself<br />
some leeway, plenty of room for failure. He<br />
drops the target, he then exceeds it, then he<br />
runs around <strong>Queensland</strong> saying, "Aren't we<br />
great? Aren't we achieving enormous things?"<br />
But the real fact is that under this Premier<br />
and this Government failure is the name of the<br />
game. The real measure in the jobs issue is<br />
how <strong>Queensland</strong> is performing relative to the<br />
other States because our strength has been in<br />
leading the nation in jobs growth. During the<br />
life of the coalition Government, <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
was generating about 40% of all new jobs<br />
created around Australia. A State with just shy<br />
of 20% of the population was delivering almost<br />
half the jobs. In the first six months of the<br />
Government of the member for Brisbane<br />
Central we manage just 22% of the new jobs<br />
in the country—almost a population base<br />
number. That means that the rate of<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>'s job growth has stalled under this<br />
can't do Premier. Our performance relative to<br />
the rest of the country has slipped, and slipped<br />
dramatically.<br />
While the can't do Premier acts, others<br />
are performing. That is really the core issue in<br />
relation to this Government's performance on<br />
jobs—not that the Premier can exceed a<br />
deflated target, but that <strong>Queensland</strong> is no<br />
longer out in front. The can do State is back in<br />
the pack under its can't do Premier.<br />
Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order. The<br />
Leader of the Opposition is deliberately<br />
misleading the House. The job data that you<br />
state——<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr D'Arcy):<br />
Order! There is no point of order.<br />
Mr BORBIDGE: In fact, another claim was<br />
that this Government has started the stalled<br />
Capital Works Program. In fact, the capital<br />
works programs under the coalition were the<br />
largest in the history of the State. There was<br />
nothing stalled. But according to the latest<br />
Midwood report, construction work<br />
plummeted—and that was the very word<br />
used—in <strong>Queensland</strong> in the September<br />
quarter last year. The only stalling in the<br />
Capital Works Program has been the stalling<br />
that has occurred under the can't do<br />
Government of the member for Brisbane<br />
Central. There was just $77m in health project<br />
starts in that quarter, backing up on $500m in<br />
the last quarter of the coalition.
326 Matters of Public Interest 9 Mar 1999<br />
Another of the achievements the Premier<br />
claimed last week was winning the Goodwill<br />
Games. Of course, the Goodwill Games were<br />
won for <strong>Queensland</strong> by the coalition. All this<br />
Government did was achieve an excuse for an<br />
early trip for "Bollinger Bob" to go and sign a<br />
few documents. There was no doubt—never<br />
any doubt—he would be the first to lift off. The<br />
fact that Olympic teams were coming to<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> for pre-Olympics training was<br />
another alleged achievement of this<br />
Government. Of course, the major teams had<br />
been locked up and announced by the<br />
coalition, not by this can't do Government<br />
which simply gets more blatant by the day in<br />
trying to claim the credit for projects that it has<br />
had nothing to do with.<br />
A couple more examples of this were the<br />
Premier's references to the airport-rail link and<br />
to what he cannot bring himself to call Briztram<br />
in the hope that people will not see the eerie<br />
similarities between what he proposes and the<br />
long announced coalition initiative. I would<br />
remind honourable members of some of the<br />
Premier's own words on that very topic, uttered<br />
when he thought he might lose out on $65m<br />
of project specific funding from the<br />
Commonwealth that was linked to Briztram.<br />
This is what he said on the Caroline Tucker<br />
program. He said—<br />
"I mean, the whole purpose is the<br />
same. It's in the same city, it's generally in<br />
the same location although there are<br />
some changes in terms of not having a<br />
cross river link near the university, but it's<br />
the same thing."<br />
"It's the same thing", he said when he was<br />
scared he was going to lose the Federal<br />
money. But now, of course, he has got the<br />
Federal money and it is a different project. It is<br />
a bigger project. It is a better project. It is a<br />
Labor project. It is nothing of the type, by the<br />
Premier's own admission. Like almost<br />
everything else he claimed last week, it is not<br />
the can't do Premier's at all.<br />
Another furphy claimed by the Premier<br />
last week was that this Government had<br />
revamped the electricity industry. The reality is<br />
that the Government has dealt with one corner<br />
of the industry by removing from rural and<br />
regional <strong>Queensland</strong> any autonomy and any<br />
input into distribution issues. A restructure was<br />
rejected by the previous Coalition Government<br />
on the basis that it would cost jobs. But what<br />
was missing in this Government's<br />
restructuring? Only the centrepiece: the breakup<br />
of the generators! That was the motivation<br />
for the entire restructure. The generators had<br />
to be broken up, but the couldn't do Premier<br />
couldn't do it.<br />
He said the generators had to be broken<br />
up to fix the maintenance problem: the<br />
maintenance regime that had given<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> power station availability at the<br />
absolute cutting edge of world's best<br />
practice—90% plus, more than 10% better<br />
than the world average. Of course,<br />
someone—finally someone—somewhere in<br />
that well-oiled unit opposite worked out that<br />
Wayne Goss had signed off on National<br />
Competition Policy and they could not break<br />
up the generators anyway, except at massive<br />
cost. Of course, they should have known that<br />
in the first place. One would think that one<br />
member of the Government would have<br />
remembered what Wayne Goss had done.<br />
Of course, then there is Expo—the<br />
symbol of the can't do credentials of this<br />
Premier and the can't do credentials of this<br />
Government. They wanted it until it was<br />
offered to them. Then they had their second<br />
chance—the big chance to host the 2002<br />
event. The Premier in 1999 begged off<br />
because he said he would not have enough<br />
time. He said he could not do it. He said it was<br />
all too hard. He said it was all too difficult and<br />
he orchestrated this stunt trip to Paris to<br />
orchestrate reasons why the can't do Premier<br />
couldn't do Expo.<br />
But then there are a host of other<br />
examples. Instead of a new power station in<br />
Townsville, we are going to have half a power<br />
station. In Roma Street we are back to where<br />
we were two years ago. In fact, the big<br />
announcement from the can't do Premier<br />
yesterday: they did not even have any<br />
drawings, any plans, any schematics in terms<br />
of the press conference, because the can't do<br />
Premier thought he should announce<br />
something. We had the Millennium Gardens.<br />
We had the opportunity for an international<br />
garden exposition to showcase Brisbane and<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>, but it was too hard for this can't<br />
do Premier and this can't do Government.<br />
In fact, the only people this Premier can<br />
do anything for are the striking union picketers<br />
at Gordonstone and his other trade union<br />
mates, with the industrial relations legislation<br />
that is just around the corner. With regard to<br />
everything else, this is a Premier and a<br />
Government without substance and without<br />
performance—a Government led by someone<br />
who does not know the difference between<br />
performing and acting, a can't do Premier<br />
leading a can't do Government that is taking<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> back to the middle of the pack<br />
instead of leading this great State of ours in
9 Mar 1999 Matters of Public Interest 327<br />
terms of job creation and economic<br />
development, a Premier who this morning<br />
stood up for a member of his Government who<br />
had attacked a major corporation that wants<br />
the privilege of spending in excess of $4 billion<br />
in this State.<br />
Time expired.<br />
Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road<br />
Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP)<br />
(11.40 a.m.): Today I will make the House<br />
aware of the No. 1 issue in my electorate. I,<br />
along with the members for Mount Gravatt,<br />
Sunnybank and Archerfield, have great<br />
concerns regarding the increasing number of<br />
trucks using Kessels Road, McCullough Street<br />
and Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road.<br />
The introduction of the southern bypass a<br />
couple of years ago sought to reduce the level<br />
of truck usage of Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road,<br />
but obviously this has not been achieved. As I<br />
have my electorate office on Mt Gravatt-<br />
Capalaba Road and live close by, I know what<br />
the residents are going through and I know<br />
about the number of trucks using this route to<br />
get to the Gateway Motorway. Not only is the<br />
traffic build-up a major problem but also the<br />
noise is causing heartache for the residents.<br />
While the problem is not new, it has been<br />
escalating slowly over the past few years and<br />
now is at a critical point.<br />
Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road was never<br />
really a busy road prior to the construction of<br />
the Gateway Motorway some 13 years ago.<br />
Not only does it now carry more traffic from the<br />
Cleveland and Redlands areas as a result of<br />
the development that has occurred there, but<br />
it is also carrying the extra traffic generated by<br />
the Gateway Motorway. Mt Gravatt-Capalaba<br />
Road was never designed to take the traffic<br />
that it carries currently. To see that, one has<br />
only to look at the gradients of the road and at<br />
its many declines and bends.<br />
I am extremely concerned about the<br />
current action by the Federal Government,<br />
aided and abetted by the member for<br />
Moreton, Gary Hardgrave. It is my<br />
understanding that the Federal Government is<br />
trying to get the road declassified as a<br />
federally funded road. Mr Hardgrave has said<br />
at great length that that will stop trucks using<br />
the road, but all declassification will mean is<br />
that the State is left to fund Mt Gravatt-<br />
Capalaba Road—the problem the Federal<br />
Government has created. This will do nothing<br />
to reduce truck usage on this road.<br />
Declassification will be used by the member for<br />
Moreton only as a political selling point; it will<br />
do nothing to improve the quality of life of the<br />
residents who live close by.<br />
I am sure that my parliamentary<br />
colleagues will go to great lengths to ensure<br />
that the people of the Moreton electorate<br />
know that Mr Hardgrave is passing the buck<br />
politically. What the people of Moreton want,<br />
particularly those who live on Mt Gravatt-<br />
Capalaba Road and close by, is some longterm<br />
planning that will see their quality of life<br />
improve.<br />
I have been working with the other three<br />
State representatives of the area to try to<br />
come up with some options. The options we<br />
have been discussing are all for a long-term<br />
solution—not a short-term remedy just to make<br />
it politically saleable. I and the other relevant<br />
State members of <strong>Parliament</strong> have not been<br />
developing these options in isolation. I have<br />
met with the community on this matter. I have<br />
had very fruitful discussions with members of<br />
the QRTA, particularly those who have many<br />
trucks that use Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road. I<br />
thank the QRTA and its members for being so<br />
constructive in their discussions regarding Mt<br />
Gravatt-Capalaba Road and Kessels Road.<br />
The No. 1 disincentive for trucks in using<br />
the southern bypass is the toll. I think we need<br />
to get a bit smarter in encouraging trucks and<br />
others to use the southern bypass because,<br />
let us face it, the function of a bypass is to<br />
have people bypass major residential areas.<br />
Encouragement such as incentive-based tolls<br />
could have a major impact.<br />
The problem at present is that when the<br />
major truck companies get their bills at the end<br />
of each month, they see large amounts for the<br />
southern bypass toll and nearly have heart<br />
failure. While using the southern bypass might<br />
have advantages in terms of truck<br />
maintenance, the maintenance bills do not<br />
look as horrific as does the monthly toll bill.<br />
The other major problem is that probably<br />
50% of the users of Kessels Road and Mt<br />
Gravatt-Capalaba Road are owner/operators<br />
coming from Toowoomba and Ipswich. These<br />
owner/operators work on percentages, not on<br />
time, so there is no incentive for the<br />
owner/operators to use the southern bypass if<br />
it is going to cost them $7, or $14 for a round<br />
trip, compared with no cost to use Kessels<br />
Road and Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road.<br />
I am reliably informed that trucks using<br />
the southern bypass take about 35 minutes to<br />
travel from Redbank to the Gateway Motorway<br />
at Mansfield. Those using Mt Gravatt-<br />
Capalaba Road and Kessels Road in nonpeak<br />
times take about 40 minutes. The<br />
difference in kilometres is minimal. The big
328 Matters of Public Interest 9 Mar 1999<br />
difference is the toll of $7, or $14 for a return<br />
trip. It is quite obvious that we must come up<br />
with an incentive for the truck owners and<br />
operators to use the southern bypass.<br />
To simply say that the trucks should not<br />
use Kessels Road and Mt Gravatt-Capalaba<br />
Road does not recognise the reality of the<br />
situation. Many of the major truck companies<br />
are based around Rocklea, Fairfield,<br />
Archerfield and Acacia Ridge. To say to them<br />
that they have to go backwards to go forwards<br />
would be farcical. To think that they would do<br />
that is ridiculous.<br />
It has become apparent from<br />
conversations that I have had with truck<br />
owners that many use Ipswich Road and the<br />
Story Bridge to get to the Sunshine Coast,<br />
particularly early in the morning. If any ban is<br />
placed on trucks using this route by the city<br />
council or by us the ramifications for Kessels<br />
Road and Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road will be<br />
horrific. The increase in usage by trucks would<br />
be almost doubled, particularly in the morning,<br />
and the quality of life of those who live along<br />
those roads will be further diminished. Another<br />
major disadvantage of Mt Gravatt-Capalaba<br />
Road compared with other roads on the route<br />
is that people live on both sides of the road,<br />
and large housing estates at Upper Mount<br />
Gravatt and Wishart are very close to it.<br />
Another option that warrants further<br />
investigation is a truck restriction lane, which<br />
would allow trucks to travel in only one of the<br />
three lanes on Kessels Road or Mt Gravatt-<br />
Capalaba Road. It is my understanding that<br />
this system works very effectively in Perth.<br />
Another problem spot that needs to be<br />
reviewed is the intersection of Mains and<br />
Kessels Roads. It is quite obvious, because of<br />
not only truck use but also car use of the<br />
intersection of Mains and Kessels Roads, that<br />
a grade separation must be undertaken. The<br />
longer we leave it, the more the problem will<br />
escalate and the higher the costs will be. I<br />
believe it is essential that this review occurs<br />
sooner rather than later.<br />
Another option that requires examination<br />
is a truck turning lane from Kessels Road onto<br />
the freeway and onto the Gateway Motorway.<br />
This would ensure that the problems at the<br />
intersection of Logan, Kessels and Mt Gravatt-<br />
Capalaba Roads would be improved<br />
dramatically. The golf links estate in Upper<br />
Mount Gravatt, in the electorate of Mount<br />
Gravatt, would have greatly improved access.<br />
This action would have the greatest single<br />
effect on the usage by trucks of Mt Gravatt-<br />
Capalaba Road. The quality of life for all those<br />
who live along and close by the road,<br />
especially in the suburbs of Upper Mount<br />
Gravatt and Wishart, would improve<br />
dramatically. Unless those options are<br />
implemented, the problems of Mt Gravatt-<br />
Capalaba Road and their effect on people's<br />
lifestyles will not go away. In fact, they will<br />
increase.<br />
I have informed the Transport Minister<br />
that I believe those options must be keenly<br />
investigated. I believe that an incentive in<br />
relation to the toll on the southern bypass<br />
should be introduced immediately. Prior to<br />
doing that, a movement study should be<br />
undertaken to calculate how many trucks<br />
coming from Ipswich and Toowoomba are<br />
using Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road and how<br />
many are using Ipswich Road. After the<br />
introduction of an incentive, a study could be<br />
done to determine its effect. An educational<br />
and promotional package must be developed<br />
to encourage truck drivers, particularly<br />
owner/operators, to accept the proposed<br />
incentive. Once it is put in place, consultation<br />
about the other three options should start<br />
immediately.<br />
My greatest concern regarding those<br />
options relates to funding. I firmly believe that<br />
the longer we leave it, the higher the price will<br />
be, so action must be taken now. However,<br />
the actions of the member for Moreton in<br />
trying to get this road declassified will have a<br />
major bearing on this issue. If Mr Hardgrave<br />
has his way in passing the buck, we will be left<br />
holding the bunny. What Mr Hardgrave is up to<br />
is ensuring that the blame can be placed on<br />
the State Government, when in fact it was the<br />
Federal Government that created the mess.<br />
Mr Hardgrave is in the papers, week in and<br />
week out, complaining about the trucks using<br />
Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road, yet now he is<br />
trying to wash his hands of the whole affair,<br />
not willing to put his money where his mouth<br />
is.<br />
I put it to the member for Moreton that<br />
the people who live in Wishart and Upper<br />
Mount Gravatt are not as silly as he thinks.<br />
Both levels of Government must be<br />
responsible for the long-term future of these<br />
areas. We must quickly review those options<br />
and come up with the funding packages to<br />
implement a solution to the problem. The<br />
quality of the life of people who live in Upper<br />
Mount Gravatt, Wishart and Mansfield depend<br />
on it. I will go to any lengths to ensure that this<br />
issue does not just get swept under the carpet<br />
by the Federal Minister or in fact by our own<br />
department.
9 Mar 1999 Matters of Public Interest 329<br />
Minister for Health<br />
Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA)<br />
(11.49 a.m.): This is a can't do Government.<br />
We have a Government that will not take<br />
action to get rid of a Health Minister who is<br />
dangerously out of control. If Government<br />
members were not appalled by the Health<br />
Minister's performance this morning during<br />
question time, they need some medical<br />
treatment as well.<br />
There is approximately a $50m budget<br />
blow-out, and we know that, in the seven<br />
months since this Government took over,<br />
surgery waiting lists around <strong>Queensland</strong> have<br />
nearly doubled in the semi-urgent surgery<br />
classification. We know also that, after what<br />
this Government did to Toowoomba, it will stop<br />
at nothing to look for a scapegoat for its Health<br />
Minister and the mistakes that she has been<br />
making. The Royal Brisbane Hospital has<br />
something like a $14m budget blow-out; the<br />
Prince Charles Hospital has something like a<br />
$1.8m budget blow-out; Caboolture/Redcliffe,<br />
$2m; Nambour, $2.5m; and the Toowoomba<br />
Hospital, $7m.<br />
What happened at Toowoomba? That<br />
hospital was on budget—within budget—when<br />
we were in Government, and it was within<br />
budget up to the election. But since the<br />
change of Government, what has happened?<br />
There has been a $7m blow-out, elective<br />
surgery waiting times are going through the<br />
roof and the Health Minister's action is to look<br />
for a scapegoat. I happen to know that the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Nurses Union is very concerned<br />
about what has happened and is having<br />
discussions with the Health Department today.<br />
I believe that the rest of the staff at that<br />
hospital would be quite rightly concerned—very<br />
concerned—because unless the Health<br />
Minister is going to put more money into that<br />
hospital, it will continue to have problems.<br />
Let us have a look at the language used<br />
to describe that bloodbath in Toowoomba.<br />
This Government called it "an administrative<br />
restructure" of the Toowoomba District Health<br />
Service. Perhaps it is time for the Premier to<br />
have an administrative restructure of his front<br />
bench. In this press release, the Government<br />
talks about how confident it is that the<br />
restructure will bring about a new era of health<br />
care. The only way to deal with that problem is<br />
to give the hospital more money. Or is the<br />
Government proposing to chop jobs? That is<br />
why the staff are worried and, quite<br />
understandably, very worried.<br />
Members on this side of the House have<br />
already outlined earlier today the sleight of<br />
hand that this Government has employed at<br />
the Nambour Hospital. It has not filled some<br />
25 full-time equivalent positions—permanent<br />
positions. Those positions have not been filled<br />
with permanent people. They have not been<br />
advertised. That has been a deliberate ploy of<br />
this Government. I will be seeking to talk to the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Nurses Union about that as well.<br />
A lot of its members are badly affected. Under<br />
this Minister, they have been put into casual<br />
positions, or there has not been the<br />
opportunity to take on that permanent work.<br />
I am talking about a major hospital which<br />
has a $2.5m budget overrun. I have the<br />
Budget papers here, and they show clearly<br />
that that overrun is owned by this current<br />
Government, not by the previous Government.<br />
The Nambour Hospital is a very fast growing<br />
hospital. But the Health Minister, vaguely and<br />
suddenly, does not know about those 25 fulltime<br />
equivalent positions. I have the<br />
documentation, and I am happy to table the<br />
documents that show clearly that the Health<br />
Minister was well aware that 36 beds were<br />
closed at that hospital. Or has she been<br />
signing other letters that she has not been<br />
reading? Members saw the Health Minister's<br />
performance here in <strong>Parliament</strong> this morning.<br />
This is a do-nothing Government with a donothing<br />
Minister who does not even know what<br />
she signs. Those 36 beds were closed, and<br />
they are still closed. I challenge the Minister<br />
right now: get your television cameras and let<br />
us go in there and have a look at those beds.<br />
They are still closed.<br />
Surgery waiting lists at the Nambour<br />
Hospital are going through the roof. I have<br />
letters from constituents who are in pain<br />
waiting for surgery, particularly for orthopaedic<br />
surgery, for which the list is extremely long. For<br />
the benefit of the record, I will get the exact<br />
figure for the semi-urgent waiting list for<br />
orthopaedic surgery as at 1 July 1998, which<br />
was the last period for which figures were<br />
available when the coalition was in<br />
Government. For orthopaedic surgery, the<br />
figure was 1.7% for long waits for semi-urgent<br />
surgery. Under this Government, that figure<br />
has jumped to nearly 30%. That represents a<br />
lot of people on the semi-urgent surgery<br />
waiting list who are waiting for very necessary<br />
operations. That situation is continuing to get<br />
worse. I have letters from constituents. It is real<br />
people who are paying that price.<br />
Even the district manager, in his reports,<br />
has said that, in real terms, they have gone<br />
backwards with their budget. So all this talk<br />
about having increased budgets is just a load<br />
of baloney. Under the coalition Government,<br />
something like half the percentage of people<br />
were waiting too long for semi-urgent surgery.
330 Matters of Public Interest 9 Mar 1999<br />
But under this can't do Government, what has<br />
it done? In fact, it has doubled the percentage<br />
of people who are waiting too long for that<br />
surgery. The district manager's report states—<br />
"Action aimed at reining in the<br />
increasing over budget result has been<br />
approved by the Office of the Director-<br />
General and the Minister's office. These<br />
include the closure of beds at Nambour<br />
General Hospital and a range of other<br />
activities. The bed closures have already<br />
generated media attention."<br />
Let us get the cameras in and go and see the<br />
beds that are still closed. The Government<br />
tried to claim at the time that it was seasonal.<br />
If it was seasonal, it is now March, those beds<br />
are still closed and people are still waiting.<br />
I now want to address the mental health<br />
issue and the Minister's appalling response<br />
during question time this morning. She said<br />
that there was no indication of a lack of acute<br />
beds in south-east <strong>Queensland</strong> for mental<br />
health patients. Who on earth does she talk<br />
to? Who on earth is briefing the Health<br />
Minister? She certainly is not listening to the<br />
psychiatrists in the AMA. The AMA put out a<br />
press release last week in which it said—<br />
"A not uncommon scenario is for a<br />
patient to be sent from the Brisbane area<br />
to Nambour because none of the<br />
Brisbane Hospitals have acute psychiatric<br />
beds available."<br />
In a question this morning, the member<br />
for Indooroopilly outlined an example of a man<br />
who had threatened to kill his wife and himself.<br />
He had OD'd. He was taken to the hospital.<br />
They could not get him a mental health<br />
bed—once he was cleaned up after having<br />
OD'd—and he had to go into a medical ward in<br />
a public hospital. I am talking about a man<br />
who had threatened to kill himself and his wife.<br />
If Government members think that is<br />
appropriate, and if their Government thinks<br />
that is appropriate, and if the Health Minister<br />
thinks that is appropriate, then that is a<br />
disgrace.<br />
Psychiatrists from the AMA and the Royal<br />
Australian and New Zealand College of<br />
Psychiatrists have been asking for a number of<br />
months for a review of mental health beds in<br />
south-east <strong>Queensland</strong>. But the Health<br />
Minister stood in the House today and claimed<br />
to know nothing about it. I think that she had<br />
better start talking to those people who have<br />
been calling for that. There is a need for a<br />
review. Members on this side of the House<br />
outlined an example of that this morning.<br />
There are other examples.<br />
Obviously, the Health Minister was not<br />
listening to the media last week when the AMA<br />
put out a press release about a bed crisis for<br />
psychiatric patients. The AMA went on to<br />
say—<br />
"A lack of beds in south-east<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> hospitals means at times<br />
acute psychiatric patients are not being<br />
admitted to psychiatric units."<br />
There is something terribly wrong. This Health<br />
Minister has no idea. She is out of control, and<br />
the Government and the Premier are going to<br />
do nothing about her performance.<br />
Members would also be aware of the<br />
situation on the Gold Coast. The Health<br />
Minister obviously still thinks it is acceptable for<br />
someone to wait 28 hours for surgery. There is<br />
a problem on the Gold Coast. They still need<br />
additional money and additional staff. But the<br />
Health Minister thinks that that waiting time for<br />
surgery is acceptable. As I understand it,<br />
medical staff on the Gold Coast have said that<br />
it would take about six hours for a person who<br />
was inebriated to be ready for anaesthesia.<br />
Yet a person in those circumstances still had<br />
to wait more than 20 hours for very important<br />
surgery. Obviously there is a problem when<br />
there are not enough people in accident and<br />
emergency and on the operating staff to be<br />
able to deal with a situation like that and the<br />
other priorities that are coming through the<br />
door. That that person had to wait so long is<br />
an absolute disgrace. The Minister has not<br />
taken responsibility. She will obviously be<br />
looking for a scapegoat there, as well.<br />
Then there is Bundaberg. We all know<br />
that the Health Minister does not read her mail<br />
about Bundaberg, because she signed off on<br />
the closure of the general outpatients clinic in<br />
Bundaberg. She sent me a letter three days<br />
before she went up there and the media<br />
asked her about it. She went all vague,<br />
because she does not know what mail she<br />
signs. Services in our regional hospitals are<br />
being reduced. This Government is failing to<br />
fund those regional hospitals. It is also failing<br />
to fund the hospitals in Brisbane.<br />
This Health Minister is out of control. She<br />
does not know what is going on. There is a<br />
$50m blow-out in the Health budget. Surgery<br />
lists are going through roof. And when it<br />
comes to people's real issues and real<br />
problems, she does not know what is going<br />
on. Furthermore, in light of the Health<br />
Minister's claims that there were budget<br />
overruns carried into this financial year, and<br />
despite the Minister's Budget papers stating<br />
that "as expenditure was within the approved<br />
budget no budget supplementation was
9 Mar 1999 Matters of Public Interest 331<br />
necessary", the question will continue to be<br />
asked of the Minister: if she is claiming that<br />
there were budget overruns, is she still going<br />
to pay her director-general his $60,000<br />
performance bonus?<br />
Time expired.<br />
Cardiac Catheter Laboratory, Calvary<br />
Hospital<br />
Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (12 p.m.): I rise<br />
to speak about an innovative and very<br />
important new health service for the people of<br />
Cairns and the far north of <strong>Queensland</strong>. It is<br />
an initiative of <strong>Queensland</strong> Health and one on<br />
which I happen to be well informed. I refer to<br />
the establishment of a cardiac catheter<br />
laboratory at the Calvary Hospital in Cairns.<br />
Through a contract which has now been<br />
signed, this facility will serve both public and<br />
private patients.<br />
As the former chair of the regional health<br />
authority, I am aware of two earlier proposals<br />
put to the Health Department for a cardiac<br />
catheter laboratory in Cairns. Neither of those<br />
proposals was successful. In fact, on both<br />
occasions cardiac catheter laboratories were<br />
approved for Townsville. This has been a fairly<br />
difficult pill for the people of Cairns and the far<br />
north to swallow.<br />
We understood why the first laboratory<br />
was established in Townsville. It is<br />
geographically more central and we<br />
understood that the first facility should go there<br />
so that people in the northern half of our State<br />
could have access to this important diagnostic<br />
and treatment facility. It was harder when the<br />
second proposal for Cairns and the far north of<br />
the State was lost. It appeared to us that<br />
people in Brisbane do not realise that it is not<br />
just a matter of people in Cairns having to go<br />
to Townsville for treatment, but people from<br />
the far-flung communities of Cape York, the<br />
Gulf of Carpentaria and the Torres Strait.<br />
These people have difficulty accessing<br />
services in Cairns and they are particularly<br />
disadvantaged by being required to spend<br />
further time travelling to Townsville.<br />
Another difficulty that will now be solved<br />
by the establishment of this service in Cairns is<br />
the problem of the waiting list. Yesterday a Mrs<br />
McGilvray of Cairns was prepared to tell her<br />
story in the Cairns Post about how she has<br />
been waiting since December for an<br />
angiogram at the cardiac catheter laboratory in<br />
Townsville. Twice her test has been delayed<br />
and her best guess at the moment is that it will<br />
be May, if she is lucky, before she is able to<br />
travel to Townsville.<br />
Mrs McGilvray's situation is, unfortunately,<br />
common. It has been a common problem in<br />
areas of small populations. In having to wait<br />
for specialised services, people have to put up<br />
with periods of considerable disruption to their<br />
lifestyle. They are unable to make plans until<br />
the diagnosis has been completed and<br />
treatment undertaken. As we all understand,<br />
people in such a situation live with a level of<br />
anxiety. This is difficult for not only the patients<br />
but also their families.<br />
It is good news that, having a facility in<br />
Cairns, people in the far north of the State<br />
should not have to endure such waiting<br />
periods in the future. I understand that the<br />
start date for the cardiac catheter laboratory in<br />
Cairns is July. However, that is a matter for the<br />
authorities at the Calvary Hospital to<br />
determine.<br />
This unit is only proceeding on the basis<br />
of a contract between <strong>Queensland</strong> Health and<br />
Calvary Hospital. These public/private<br />
arrangements are easy to support in principle,<br />
particularly in regional areas where the<br />
population base will not support some of the<br />
sophisticated and costly health services that<br />
we would all like to have close to home. Our<br />
present health system cannot afford such<br />
facilities. Patients in the Cairns area can use<br />
this public/private facility and this is obviously a<br />
positive and appropriate direction for the<br />
department to take.<br />
The public/private arrangement means<br />
that patients can be looked after closer to<br />
home. They are with their families and are not<br />
worried about having to travel elsewhere for<br />
diagnosis and treatment which are likely to be<br />
speedier. Disruption to people's work, social<br />
and family life will be minimised. There will also<br />
be a reduction in anxiety and concern over a<br />
patient's future health.<br />
The public/private arrangement is a cost<br />
effective arrangement, though a difficult one to<br />
negotiate. The benefits for the private health<br />
sector—in this case Calvary Hospital—are<br />
apparent, particularly as we have seen a<br />
decline across Australia in the membership of<br />
private health insurance funds. As a result of<br />
the decline in membership many private<br />
hospitals have faced funding difficulties.<br />
Australians wish to have a choice between<br />
private and public health services. In this case<br />
the two services will work together and, as a<br />
result, Calvary Hospital will benefit and at the<br />
same time the public patients will be cared for.<br />
In negotiating a contract between public<br />
and private health services we need to<br />
recognise that they are two different systems.<br />
The private health system is smaller and much
332 Matters of Public Interest 9 Mar 1999<br />
more segmented, but is much quicker,<br />
therefore, in making decisions. It is much more<br />
based on the private business paradigm of<br />
getting on with the job without the imperatives<br />
of accountability and size that the public sector<br />
must face. It is easier for a private health<br />
business, such as Calvary, to reach a future<br />
plan and to have the details ready for<br />
negotiation than it is for the public sector. In<br />
making such an arrangement, the public<br />
sector has the normal concerns of ensuring<br />
that proper standards are met. This is<br />
particularly important when we are dealing with<br />
people's lives and wellbeing.<br />
However, in making these arrangements<br />
between public and private sectors there are<br />
particular imperatives that the Minister has had<br />
to take into account, including: ensuring<br />
access for all people from across the far north;<br />
ensuring access to the facility regardless of<br />
income or any other socio-demographic factor;<br />
ensuring that the approach offered by a<br />
private sector institution will be suitable to<br />
public sector clients; ensuring that there are no<br />
differences in the services provided and the<br />
way the services are provided to public and<br />
private sector clients; ensuring that the costs<br />
are reasonable for the public sector to bear;<br />
and ensuring that there are sufficient numbers<br />
to support a contract that will last well into the<br />
future.<br />
These negotiations have taken some<br />
time. Several times I have been disappointed<br />
with the comments of Mr Frank Tuohy of<br />
Calvary Hospital when he has expressed his<br />
frustration over the time being taken in the<br />
negotiations by <strong>Queensland</strong> Health. I believe<br />
that his frustration, so expressed, reflects his<br />
understandable ignorance of the public system<br />
and of the important standards of<br />
accountability with regard to service and<br />
financial management. These standards are<br />
far more difficult for the Minister than they are<br />
for Mr Tuohy, who has only a single hospital<br />
under his management. Nevertheless, those<br />
comments of frustration about how long the<br />
negotiations have taken have spoilt the news,<br />
to a degree, for people in Cairns and far-north<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>.<br />
The situation is as follows. We have a<br />
negotiated contract for the Calvary Hospital to<br />
provide public patients as well as private<br />
patients with the services of a cardiac catheter<br />
laboratory. So long as Calvary Hospital's plans<br />
run to time, this service will commence in July<br />
this year. This is great news not only for people<br />
such as Mrs McGilvray who are suffering<br />
difficulties and require diagnostic tests and<br />
treatment but also for their families and many<br />
others of us who know that the time will come<br />
when we or those close to us will require these<br />
services. It is great news for the people of<br />
Cape York and the Torres Strait because it<br />
brings the services closer to them.<br />
I congratulate the bureaucrats in Brisbane<br />
who have negotiated this contract with Calvary<br />
Hospital; they deserve the commendation of<br />
all people in far-north <strong>Queensland</strong>. I<br />
particularly thank the Minister for Health,<br />
Wendy Edmond, who has insisted that this<br />
contract proceed, despite the difficulties, in full<br />
awareness of the advantages of this advance<br />
for the people of far-north <strong>Queensland</strong>. On<br />
behalf of very many people in north<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>, I thank the Minister and her staff.<br />
This facility will be well received.<br />
Sugar, Banana and Pawpaw Industries<br />
Hon. T. R. COOPER (Crows Nest—NPA)<br />
(12.09 p.m.): <strong>Queensland</strong>'s $2.2 billion sugar<br />
industry is in dire straits. In just over 12<br />
months, world sugar prices have collapsed due<br />
to the 50% currency devaluation in Brazil, the<br />
world's biggest sugar producer and exporter.<br />
The New York futures contracts have fallen to<br />
US5.7c a pound from an average of US8.7c a<br />
pound in 1998 and US12.1c a pound in 1997.<br />
The price collapse comes on the back of<br />
extensive damage as a result of Cyclone<br />
Rona, Cyclone Sid and Cyclone Justin. Last<br />
year, Cyclone Sid hit the Ingham, Tully and<br />
Townsville areas very hard and Cyclone Justin<br />
hit Innisfail very hard, causing enormous<br />
damage. Of course, Cyclone Rona has caused<br />
damage on top of that.<br />
The article by Gordon Collie in today's<br />
Courier-Mail about the sugar industry is<br />
commendable. It is the sort of publicity that is<br />
needed for these industries that have been hit<br />
and hit hard so that the State and the nation<br />
can know that there is a problem of major<br />
proportions in the north of this State. There<br />
should be more coverage about these issues.<br />
Canegrowers in the far north have also<br />
endured declining commercial sugar content<br />
levels, which have slashed growers' viability.<br />
The industry estimates losses of the order of<br />
$200m from weather damage and low sugar<br />
content. With the price downturn, those losses<br />
are estimated at $500m this year. Sugarcane<br />
is <strong>Queensland</strong>'s most significant primary<br />
industry, worth some $2.2 billion, supporting<br />
some 6,500 canefarmers, most of whom are<br />
family farmers, and providing over 20,000 jobs.<br />
The slump will have a huge negative impact<br />
on the viability of those family farms, those<br />
jobs and, of course, the <strong>Queensland</strong> economy<br />
as well.
9 Mar 1999 Matters of Public Interest 333<br />
It is not only that the sugarcane industry<br />
has been hit and hit hard over the past two or<br />
three years, but also the banana industry. This<br />
year, the banana industry is valued at about<br />
$160m. The losses for that industry alone are<br />
$100m. The pawpaw industry has also<br />
suffered losses of about $10m. Those farmers<br />
have suffered from three cyclones and price<br />
downturns over three years. As a result of all of<br />
those losses, we should look at the issue of<br />
crop insurance—that old thing again. The<br />
State Government charges 8.5% stamp duty<br />
on crop insurance. As an example, one farmer<br />
paid a $30,000 premium on crop insurance for<br />
banana losses. The State Government's cop<br />
out of that is $2,550—8.5%. The New South<br />
Wales Government charges only 2.5% and the<br />
Victorian Government charges virtually nothing<br />
at all. The Borbidge Government abolished<br />
stamp duty on crop insurance and the Beattie<br />
Government put it back. I know that we have<br />
talked a lot about this issue, but we are going<br />
to keep on talking about it until it is gone.<br />
Although people may think, "What is $2,550<br />
out of a $30,000 premium?" I can say that to<br />
any farmer, be they banana growers, pawpaw<br />
growers, or sugarcane growers—it does not<br />
matter what—$2,500 is a lot of money. It<br />
sends a message to them that the<br />
Government does not care about them,<br />
whereas when they are in such dire straits they<br />
should be getting the message that the<br />
Government does care and will do something<br />
about it.<br />
I worry also about the effect that the 13-<br />
year low in the price of sugar is having on the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> economy. To its credit, the sugar<br />
industry hedged its sales from last year to this<br />
year, so it was able to take advantage of<br />
higher sugar prices through some risk<br />
management, for which it should be<br />
commended. However, with the price now<br />
having dropped to such a low, there is not<br />
much that the industry can do about it and the<br />
growers are going to feel it. The member for<br />
Hinchinbrook, Mr Rowell, has made very strong<br />
representations to both the Leader of the<br />
Opposition, Mr Borbidge, and me. To that end,<br />
we will be again touring the area right<br />
throughout the north. We will be talking not<br />
only to all of those people who have been hurt<br />
but also to people in small business, the local<br />
authorities, big business and the various<br />
groups and organisations. Most certainly, we<br />
will be talking to those family farmers on the<br />
ground who have been hurt and hurt hard. I<br />
commend the member for Hinchinbrook for his<br />
representations. Obviously, it is a massive part<br />
of the State and it is of major importance.<br />
Quite often, people in that area feel cut off<br />
from the south—be it the south of the State or<br />
the south of the nation. We must maintain the<br />
links that we have with the northerners to<br />
make sure that they are included.<br />
I believe that we are looking at a major<br />
natural disaster. It did not spring up overnight.<br />
Apart from the natural disasters caused by the<br />
cyclones, the 50% currency devaluation by<br />
Brazil, which is the largest sugar producing<br />
nation in the world, has had a massive effect<br />
on prices. Therefore, we have a crisis that I<br />
believe involves all Governments, local, State,<br />
and national. I do not want to hear any more<br />
talk from the Government in this State or<br />
anyone else making excuses and saying that<br />
the Government in Canberra should do more.<br />
All Governments can do more. As the<br />
Government of the day, the members<br />
opposite should show us a strategy—a policy<br />
and a full rescue package—that outlines fully<br />
what is going to be done for those growers so<br />
that they know what sort of support they might<br />
be in line to receive.<br />
Apart from abolishing the 8.5% stamp<br />
duty, which should be a fait accompli, I believe<br />
that the State Government should also<br />
consider providing rates relief for those people,<br />
especially those in the Johnstone Shire but<br />
also for those in other shires as well who, even<br />
last year, could not pay their rates. Those<br />
people could not pay their rates then, so I<br />
cannot see how they are going to pay them<br />
now they are in an even worse situation. So<br />
rates relief is something that I believe can go<br />
on the list of what the State Government can<br />
do. We also need to get away from this<br />
business of saying, "They can just apply<br />
through QRAA for a loan." The Minister knows<br />
and I know only too well that anyone applying<br />
for a QRAA loan cannot fit within the<br />
guidelines.<br />
Mr McGrady interjected.<br />
Mr COOPER: I am not talking about me, I<br />
am talking about the growers in north<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> and those other people in the<br />
south-west of this State—people who have<br />
been hit hard: grain growers, banana growers,<br />
pawpaw growers, horticulturalists and<br />
sugarcane growers. It does not matter who<br />
they are; I am talking about people who have<br />
been hard hit by things that the member<br />
cannot understand. That is the problem.<br />
Mr McGrady interjected.<br />
Mr COOPER: No, he does not. That is the<br />
problem. That is why those people are not<br />
receiving any help from the Government,<br />
because it does not know what to do or how to<br />
do it. I am telling the members opposite what
334 Matters of Public Interest 9 Mar 1999<br />
to do and how to do it so that those people<br />
can be helped. Whether the Government<br />
members like those people or not—and they<br />
do not like them—they are still human beings,<br />
they are still productive people and can be and<br />
will be productive in the future. The main thing<br />
is that we maintain them.<br />
I return to the loans. The fact is that those<br />
people cannot fit within the guidelines. QRAA<br />
says either, "No, you are not viable. Therefore,<br />
you do not qualify", or, "No, you are too viable.<br />
Therefore you do not qualify."<br />
Mr Musgrove interjected.<br />
Mr COOPER: That character<br />
opposite—God knows what electorate he is<br />
from—is so insignificant that he does not really<br />
matter. The fact that he is from the city<br />
indicates how hopelessly ignorant he is on<br />
such an issue.<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr D'Arcy):<br />
Order! The honourable member for<br />
Springwood should not interject from other<br />
than his correct seat.<br />
Mr COOPER: All that members opposite<br />
can do is disparage and rubbish the people of<br />
north <strong>Queensland</strong>, particularly in their hour of<br />
need. I am going to continue to support those<br />
people in their hour of need and spell out their<br />
needs very, very clearly. I am saying that there<br />
is a national crisis in the making, because<br />
those people up there have suffered for up to<br />
three years now through no fault of their own.<br />
They have tried risk management—they tried<br />
all of those various methods for which they<br />
should be commended—and after one natural<br />
disaster after another they are in trouble.<br />
There has to be a coming together of the<br />
Federal and State Governments so that a<br />
strategy can be devised that will rescue these<br />
people. In time, those people always come<br />
back and pay their taxes. Time and time<br />
again, that has been proven.<br />
Mr Pitt: You raised a very serious point<br />
before about the crop losses the banana<br />
industry has had. I spoke to some banana<br />
growers and they've suggested that perhaps<br />
with the labour-intensive nature of the<br />
industry——<br />
Mr COOPER: This is a long interjection. I<br />
have only one minute to go.<br />
Mr Pitt: It is very important.<br />
Mr COOPER: I know that the industry is<br />
very important. That is why I am speaking out<br />
in favour of it. I dare say that the member has<br />
also done plenty of talking about it. However, I<br />
doubt that his Government is doing nearly<br />
enough for those industries. We need to make<br />
sure that we focus our attention Statewide and<br />
nationally on those people who are now<br />
suffering enormously, as I said, through no<br />
fault of their own. There has to be a coming<br />
together of the Governments. We cannot<br />
continue with the rhetoric that we hear<br />
constantly from members opposite about what<br />
other Governments should do. We should be<br />
spelling out clearly what the State Government<br />
can do. I have spelled out three points.<br />
A Government member: What did you<br />
do?<br />
Mr COOPER: Every time these situations<br />
occurred, the previous Government acted. I<br />
am telling the members opposite what they<br />
can do. They can start by abolishing stamp<br />
duty on crop insurance. The previous<br />
Government did that; the current Government<br />
put it back. That is just one thing. The<br />
Government can offer rates relief for those<br />
people who are in dire trouble. There are<br />
many, many things that the Government can<br />
do.<br />
Time expired.<br />
Regional Communities Program<br />
Dr CLARK (Barron River—ALP)<br />
(12.20 p.m.): Governments that lose touch<br />
and stop listening to the community are voted<br />
out of office. The Beattie Government has<br />
learnt that lesson, and it has learnt it well. The<br />
Cabinet now meets in regional centres every<br />
three weeks and local people have<br />
unprecedented access to the Premier and his<br />
Ministers. The success of that initiative, which<br />
commenced in July of last year in the seat of<br />
Mulgrave in far-north <strong>Queensland</strong>, is<br />
indisputable and I commend the Premier for<br />
the initiative.<br />
Another program that I want to talk to the<br />
House about today will also ensure that the<br />
voice of people in regional <strong>Queensland</strong> is both<br />
heard and responded to. That program is now<br />
under way. Last Friday in Cairns I joined the<br />
Minister for Local Government, Planning,<br />
Regional and Rural Communities, Terry<br />
Mackenroth, my parliamentary colleagues<br />
Desley Boyle and Warren Pitt, and over 500<br />
people from the Cairns community at a<br />
community conference to launch the Regional<br />
Communities Program in far-north<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>. This program is an initiative of<br />
Minister Terry Mackenroth. It complements the<br />
regional Cabinet meetings and the existing<br />
work of the Office of Rural Communities, which<br />
provides a communication channel to<br />
Government for people living and working in<br />
rural and remote communities.
9 Mar 1999 Matters of Public Interest 335<br />
The Regional Communities Program<br />
involves eight regional centres throughout the<br />
State. It will provide a means for regional<br />
communities to identify and prioritise their<br />
specific issues and needs, and will influence<br />
the Government decisions affecting their<br />
regions. Ministers will hear first-hand how<br />
people in regional <strong>Queensland</strong> want the<br />
Government to respond to their needs.<br />
I refer to a Cairns Post article that was<br />
published on the Saturday after the<br />
conference, which referred to some comments<br />
that were made by the Minister. The article<br />
states—<br />
" 'I am here to listen to what you say,'<br />
he told the 500 delegates from all over<br />
the Far North. 'What should the<br />
Government do?'<br />
Mr Mackenroth agreed it was no<br />
longer good enough to tell people what<br />
the issues were.<br />
'These days you want to work<br />
together with us to achieve outcomes,' he<br />
said.<br />
The minister said later the program<br />
would give the regions 'a direct line to the<br />
executive building in Brisbane'."<br />
That is the kind of influence and involvement<br />
that people in regional <strong>Queensland</strong> are looking<br />
for.<br />
One of the key features of the program<br />
will be four quarterly ministerial forums that will<br />
be held in each region each year. Two<br />
Ministers will attend each forum, together with<br />
20 local community delegates who will<br />
represent the various social, business and<br />
Government sectors that make up the<br />
community. Those members will be selected<br />
by local community leaders who will<br />
themselves have been nominated by the local<br />
community. This process will be genuinely<br />
driven by the community rather than by the<br />
Government. The forums will not just be<br />
talkfests or an airing of grievances, because<br />
the Government knows that it is not good<br />
enough to just listen; it needs to act on what it<br />
hears and it needs to deliver to regional<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>. The Ministers will report back<br />
either before or at each of the forums,<br />
describing the action that the Government has<br />
taken concerning the issues or projects that<br />
were raised at the previous forum.<br />
The agenda for the first ministerial forum<br />
in each region will be set by the outcomes of<br />
community conferences such as the one just<br />
held in Cairns. At the Cairns conference,<br />
members of the community had an<br />
opportunity to select one of eight specific<br />
interest areas and then, in a small group<br />
setting, generate ideas and issues and report<br />
back on their group's deliberations. I<br />
congratulate the manager of the program, Nick<br />
Ryan, and his team who did an outstanding<br />
job of facilitating the process throughout the<br />
State. Certainly the feedback I received in<br />
Cairns was overwhelmingly positive, even from<br />
people who regularly attend functions such as<br />
this and who, I can assure the House, are<br />
quite discerning when it comes to methods of<br />
consultation.<br />
I would like to share with members some<br />
of the highlights from the reports of those eight<br />
interest sectors to give members a feeling for<br />
and a better understanding of the priorities of<br />
our region. These are only some of the issues<br />
that have been selected from a whole range<br />
that were presented by each group. They<br />
certainly do not comprise all the issues and<br />
priorities that the groups raised.<br />
The business and industry group<br />
proposed that within two years all State<br />
Government decision-making policies and<br />
practices be allied with the region's own<br />
identified economic destiny. The community<br />
development group proposed the building of<br />
an academy of sport and the arts in the region<br />
by the year 2000 to develop the potential of<br />
young athletes and performers in far-north<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>. I will come back to that issue and<br />
discuss it in further detail at another time. The<br />
community support group's priority was to<br />
establish regional one-stop shops for<br />
information referrals and issues advocacy, to<br />
bridge gaps between clients, services and<br />
Government and to promote service<br />
development, to be in place by the next<br />
Budget.<br />
The education group referred to the need<br />
to develop a strategic direction that has broad<br />
bipartisan support. It proposed that the<br />
Minister should set up a task force to develop<br />
a strategic direction for education for the next<br />
5 to 10 years. The environment group called<br />
on Government to address sewage and waste<br />
infrastructure, eliminate the impact on the<br />
environment, and investigate and implement<br />
innovative technology. The health group called<br />
for the provision of equitable health services<br />
throughout the far-north <strong>Queensland</strong> region by<br />
outreach strategies such as community<br />
consultation, the review and prioritising of<br />
funding resources and the establishment of a<br />
task force to compare health needs and<br />
resources.<br />
The law, order and justice group, including<br />
emergency services, wishes to see the<br />
utilisation of a broad range of programs and
336 Motor Accident Insurance Amendment Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
new innovative strategies to positively reduce<br />
the actual crime rates and prison populations.<br />
The group also called for classroom education<br />
in responsibilities involving personal, family,<br />
community and safety issues. That group also<br />
proposed the broadening of public education<br />
programs of emergency services to enable<br />
citizens to obtain a better understanding of<br />
their roles and their responsibilities to<br />
themselves and their communities. It was<br />
particularly encouraging that the law, order and<br />
justice group really seems to have received the<br />
message about how important it is to actually<br />
combat the causes of crime, that we must<br />
involve the community in doing that and that<br />
we need to develop innovative strategies. The<br />
primary industries group, which obviously<br />
represents a very critical sector in our part of<br />
the world, recommended that there be<br />
recognition of the importance of primary<br />
industries as the backbone of Australia's<br />
economy, remote regional infrastructure<br />
development and improved access to<br />
education and training.<br />
That should give members a good<br />
understanding of the range of issues that<br />
people in regional <strong>Queensland</strong>, particularly<br />
Cairns, are concerned about. I look forward to<br />
being involved in the forums as they progress.<br />
As I said, two Ministers will be present at each<br />
of those forums and local members will be<br />
invited to attend them. I will certainly take<br />
advantage of that opportunity. I will liaise with<br />
people in the various industry and sector<br />
groups to ensure that they raise the issues<br />
that are important to them. It is essential that<br />
communication takes place, so that people<br />
understand what the Government is doing and<br />
how it responds to those initiatives.<br />
In conclusion, again I congratulate the<br />
Minister on this $7m program. Officers will be<br />
stationed in each of the eight regional<br />
community centres. Each office will have a<br />
staff of three to facilitate the process and to<br />
ensure that it delivers results for the region. At<br />
the conference, the Minister gave something<br />
of a warning that I think needs to be repeated<br />
to ensure that there is a degree of realism in<br />
this process. The Cairns Post states—<br />
"However the minister had a warning<br />
for anyone being too enthusiastic in their<br />
demands.<br />
'Remember, the Government has to<br />
pay for what you want and that means<br />
ultimately you the taxpayer has to pay.' "<br />
It is important that people do not think that<br />
there is a bottomless bucket of money. We are<br />
saying to people, "This is the amount of<br />
money that we have to spend, so what are<br />
your priorities? What should the Government<br />
be doing with your money to make sure that it<br />
really meets your needs?" I will leave the<br />
matter on that note. As I said, I shall take up<br />
some of those particularly important regional<br />
matters at another time.<br />
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT<br />
Answer to Question Without Notice;<br />
TABCorp<br />
Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Bundamba—ALP)<br />
(Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing)<br />
(12.29 p.m.), by leave: In October last year, in<br />
answering a question without notice I sought<br />
to make an example of the predatory<br />
behaviour of the Victorian wagering company<br />
TABCorp in the <strong>Queensland</strong> club and gaming<br />
market. On Wednesday, 14 October 1998, an<br />
article appeared in the Toowoomba Chronicle<br />
naming TABCorp as a likely financial backer of<br />
a new club venture involving the Toowoomba<br />
Clydesdales. In the opinion of the<br />
Government, this arrangement, which has<br />
subsequently been legislated against by the<br />
Treasurer, is against the spirit in which the<br />
gaming licence was granted to TABCorp by<br />
the previous Government.<br />
It is a well-known fact that Mr Healy, the<br />
honourable member for Toowoomba North,<br />
had been chairman of the Toowoomba<br />
Clydesdales during 1998. On 20 October last<br />
year my office telephoned the Toowoomba<br />
Rugby League to seek details about the<br />
TABCorp/Clydesdales issue raised in the<br />
newspaper article. My office specifically asked<br />
who the chairman of the Clydesdales was. A<br />
female staff member of the Toowoomba<br />
Rugby League said that we should contact Mr<br />
Healy or alternatively Mr John Barrett, who was<br />
chairman of the South West Division of the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Rugby League. On that premise,<br />
it was assumed by my office staff and by me<br />
that Mr Healy was still in fact at that stage the<br />
chairman of the Clydesdales club. It has come<br />
to my attention that that was not the case, and<br />
I wish to formally apologise to the honourable<br />
member for any embarrassment that I may<br />
have caused him.<br />
MOTOR ACCIDENT INSURANCE<br />
AMENDMENT BILL<br />
Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—ALP)<br />
(Treasurer) (12.31 p.m.), by leave, without<br />
notice: I move—<br />
"That leave be granted to bring in a<br />
Bill for an Act to amend the Motor<br />
Accident Insurance Act 1994."<br />
Motion agreed to.
9 Mar 1999 Motor Accident Insurance Amendment Bill 337<br />
First Reading<br />
Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and<br />
Bill, on motion of Mr Hamill, read a first time.<br />
Second Reading<br />
Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—ALP)<br />
(Treasurer) (12.32 p.m.): I move—<br />
"That the Bill be now read a second<br />
time."<br />
In 1936 <strong>Queensland</strong> introduced<br />
compulsory third-party—CTP—motor vehicle<br />
insurance to this State. In so doing it ensured<br />
that those people injured on our roads as a<br />
result of negligence were guaranteed<br />
compensation and, likewise, the legal liability<br />
of owners and drivers was fully protected. In<br />
1994, in recognising the lengthy delays in the<br />
settlement of claims and the lack of<br />
rehabilitation assistance for injured claimants,<br />
the scheme was redesigned and new<br />
legislation in the form of the Motor Accident<br />
Insurance Act 1994 was introduced. With the<br />
objective of early resolution of claims, the new<br />
legislation introduced strict time frames on<br />
both insurers and claimants. The scheme's<br />
focus on personal injury management has<br />
been of immense benefit to those negligently<br />
injured in motor vehicle accidents.<br />
This amendment Bill brings about some<br />
technical amendments to the operation of the<br />
scheme, but its main feature is to provide for<br />
optional six-monthly registration/CTP<br />
insurance, an initiative previously announced<br />
by the Government, with a planned<br />
implementation of early April 1999. As the<br />
former Minister for Transport, I am only too<br />
familiar with the financial burden on families of<br />
an annual combined registration and CTP<br />
insurance bill. For those motor vehicle owners<br />
who elect to take the half-yearly option, minor<br />
administration fees will apply. However, motor<br />
vehicle owners are expected to welcome the<br />
opportunity to split the annual bill. The<br />
surcharge will comprise a small additional<br />
premium of $8 for the CTP component, to<br />
cover the loss of investment income and<br />
added administration costs, plus just a $6 fee<br />
associated with the extra work and loss of<br />
income by <strong>Queensland</strong> Transport in relation to<br />
the registration component.<br />
The Bill also makes changes in respect of<br />
the premium review process. If the scheme is<br />
going to continue with private sector<br />
underwriting and with the premium determined<br />
by Government, it is incumbent on the<br />
Government to ensure that the premium is<br />
determined in a fair and independent manner.<br />
The Bill seeks to improve the process by<br />
providing a degree of flexibility in the timing of<br />
reviews, enabling the Insurance Commissioner<br />
to review the levies, administration fee and<br />
premiums at such times as warranted by<br />
scheme experience. Such an action would<br />
only be taken more than once a year if the<br />
scheme experience dramatically altered.<br />
The amendment Bill also addresses a<br />
shortcoming in the legislation in respect of the<br />
Government's handling of the Insurance<br />
Commissioner's recommendation. The 1998-<br />
99 premium review highlighted a serious<br />
deficiency whereby the former Borbidge<br />
Government, just prior to a State election<br />
being called, avoided its responsibility by<br />
taking no action on the commissioner's<br />
recommendation. On the change of<br />
Government in July 1998, as the responsible<br />
Minister, I finally had to act on the<br />
commissioner's advice and increase the<br />
premiums, whilst at the same time also<br />
imposing a $3 loading on motor vehicle<br />
owners to cover the losses attributed to the<br />
late introduction of the premium adjustment.<br />
Such a gross mishandling of administrative<br />
responsibility, for purely political purposes, is<br />
deplorable. This amendment in the Bill will help<br />
stop such irresponsible actions, as displayed<br />
by the former coalition Government, from<br />
occurring in future.<br />
The Bill also provides in special<br />
circumstances for a temporary gratuitous<br />
insurance. Under legislation it is an offence to<br />
drive an uninsured motor vehicle on a road or<br />
in a public place. A vehicle stopped by<br />
enforcement officers and found to be<br />
unregistered/uninsured should not be moved<br />
until the vehicle complies with all requirements.<br />
An enforcement officer, though, can authorise<br />
the transport of a vehicle to a secure location.<br />
However, if the driver is involved in an accident<br />
causing personal injury, the driver could be<br />
faced with the cost of the damages claims.<br />
Hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs are<br />
not beyond possibility.<br />
The amendment in this legislation will<br />
provide the necessary insurance cover through<br />
the Nominal Defendant scheme. The cover will<br />
be restricted to the terms and conditions<br />
authorised by the enforcement officer under<br />
the provisions of the Transport Infrastructure<br />
(Roads) Regulation 1991. Conforming with the<br />
authorisation under this regulation, cover has<br />
an absolute limit of 24 hours. The intention is<br />
to provide sufficient time for the driver to take<br />
the vehicle home or to a safe place, as<br />
authorised. However, if it is later discovered<br />
that there was a CTP policy of insurance in<br />
force at the time, the gratuitous insurance<br />
should have no effect. It is not intended that
338 Corrective Services Legislation Amendment Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
the gratuitous insurance should lead to a<br />
situation of dual insurance with any proportion<br />
of liability attaching to the Nominal Defendant<br />
Fund.<br />
Another technical amendment contained<br />
in the Bill relates to the appointment of<br />
referees. From time to time disputes arise<br />
between insurers over matters such as liability<br />
between tortfeasors or which insurer is to act<br />
as the claim manager. This situation is more<br />
likely to occur in the event of a multi-vehicle<br />
accident and it can be the reason for stalling<br />
the claim process, impacting on an injured<br />
party's claim settlement. The amendment in<br />
the Bill will specifically identify the appointment<br />
of a referee as a function of the commission.<br />
I would also draw the attention of the<br />
House to clause 16 of the Bill. This is a<br />
transitional arrangement. With the proposed<br />
introduction of six-monthly registration and<br />
insurance in April of this year, there is not<br />
sufficient time to undertake the procedural<br />
steps specified in the legislation. For several<br />
months now the Motor Accident Insurance<br />
Commission, the insurance industry and the<br />
Department of Transport have been working<br />
together to put in place the necessary<br />
mechanisms for the system to be available for<br />
motor vehicle owners. Stakeholders have not<br />
been disadvantaged by the non-compliance<br />
with the procedural steps set out in the<br />
legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.<br />
Debate, on motion of Dr Watson,<br />
adjourned.<br />
CORRECTIVE SERVICES LEGISLATION<br />
AMENDMENT BILL<br />
Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP)<br />
(Minister for Police and Corrective Services)<br />
(12.38 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I<br />
move—<br />
"That leave be granted to bring in a<br />
Bill for an Act to amend the Corrective<br />
Services Act 1988 and the Corrective<br />
Services (Administration) Act 1988, and<br />
for other purposes."<br />
Motion agreed to.<br />
First Reading<br />
Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and<br />
Bill, on motion of Mr Barton, read a first time.<br />
Second Reading<br />
Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP)<br />
(Minister for Police and Corrective Services)<br />
(12.38 p.m.): I move—<br />
"That the Bill be now read a second<br />
time."<br />
The objective of this Bill is twofold—first, to<br />
abolish the <strong>Queensland</strong> Corrective Services<br />
Commission and the Government owned<br />
corporation <strong>Queensland</strong> Corrections and their<br />
boards; and, secondly to provide a head of<br />
power for the management of maximum<br />
security prisoners within the correctional<br />
system.<br />
I would like to provide the House with a<br />
brief summary of the report titled Corrections in<br />
the Balance—a Review of Corrective Services<br />
in <strong>Queensland</strong>. This report, prepared by Mr<br />
Frank Peach and his team, was tabled on 9<br />
February 1999 and fulfils obligations to review<br />
the operation of the Corrective Services<br />
(Administration) Act 1988 and the Corrective<br />
Services Act 1988. The report made 58<br />
recommendations for improvements to the<br />
corrective services system.<br />
It was recommended that the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Corrective Services Commission<br />
and <strong>Queensland</strong> Corrections be abolished and<br />
replaced by a Government department. All<br />
assets, liabilities and staff of the two agencies<br />
will be transferred to the new department. It is<br />
important to note that, in making these<br />
changes, the Government has made a<br />
commitment that no permanent staff will lose<br />
their job as a result of the restructure.<br />
In the course of the review, Frank Peach<br />
and his team undertook extensive consultation<br />
with staff about the operation of the<br />
corrections system and their role within it. As<br />
Minister, I spoke personally with most staff<br />
across the State in a series of meetings and<br />
telephone link-ups in relation to the<br />
recommendations. I have told staff that I am<br />
determined that these changes will be made<br />
with the least possible disruption to ensure<br />
safety for the community through the<br />
continued efficient operation of the correctional<br />
system and stability for staff.<br />
As recognised by the Peach review, the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Corrective Services Commission<br />
board had accomplished the outcomes it had<br />
been designed to achieve. Before the<br />
commission's establishment in 1988, the<br />
prison system was in crisis. The current<br />
commission and board structure was designed<br />
to increase community input into reforms to<br />
overcome that crisis. The board's work was an<br />
important part of preparing our correctional<br />
system for the 21st century.<br />
But times have changed. Today there are<br />
many more opportunities for community input<br />
into the system, for example, freedom of<br />
information, judicial review legislation and
9 Mar 1999 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (<strong>Queensland</strong>) Bill 339<br />
regular stakeholder meetings—to name just a<br />
few. The proposed Bill will further enhance<br />
these remaining avenues of community input<br />
through the establishment of a ministerial<br />
advisory council, which will be broadly<br />
representative of stakeholders. From a political<br />
perspective, this structural amendment<br />
reinstates clear lines of accountability between<br />
the prison system and the Minister responsible<br />
for that system.<br />
At the end of the day as Minister, the<br />
people of <strong>Queensland</strong> hold me responsible.<br />
As it stands, if there is an escape or a death in<br />
custody, it is not the board—the policy<br />
makers—who are responsible; it is me in my<br />
role as Minister. Indeed, the Leader of the<br />
Opposition appears to agree. In the Courier-<br />
Mail on 24 October 1998, Mr Borbidge was<br />
reported to have said—<br />
"There has been a tendency in<br />
recent years for Governments to hand<br />
control of the public administration of<br />
certain policies to unelected commissions<br />
or councils."<br />
He continued—<br />
"They are not interested if the<br />
Government of the day has delegated<br />
responsibility to someone else because,<br />
at the ballot box, the someone else is not<br />
accountable."<br />
He further said—<br />
"Governments have not had their<br />
hands on the levers and have paid the<br />
ultimate political price."<br />
We are now regaining hold of the levers and<br />
restoring the direct lines of accountability to the<br />
Minister.<br />
I would now like to turn to the<br />
amendments to the Corrective Services Act<br />
1988 that provide a head of power for the<br />
management of maximum security prisoners.<br />
The Bill outlines conditions necessary for a<br />
prisoner to be placed on a maximum security<br />
order and then accommodated within a<br />
maximum security facility. The purpose of<br />
these facilities is to provide intensive<br />
supervision and management of prisoners who<br />
have been assessed as highly disruptive within<br />
the correctional system.<br />
Of the group presently accommodated<br />
within the maximum security unit at Woodford,<br />
55% have committed murder. Of those, 15%<br />
are multiple murderers and 45% have been<br />
convicted of, or are under investigation for,<br />
murders within a prison. This "hard core" group<br />
of prisoners have a propensity for violence and<br />
must be managed accordingly. And 75% of<br />
prisoners in the maximum security unit have<br />
either tried to escape and succeeded—many<br />
on more than one occasion—or have put staff<br />
in danger through their involvement in<br />
attempts to escape. The proposed<br />
amendments also set out the basis for a<br />
maximum security order to be authorised.<br />
These orders will be limited to six months'<br />
duration. However, consecutive orders can be<br />
made.<br />
These provisions are required urgently, as<br />
are all of the above amendments. We need a<br />
system that keeps pace with the demands<br />
confronting it, a system that cannot afford to<br />
relax in the eyes of the community, yet a<br />
system that has a responsibility to rehabilitate<br />
and integrate offenders as best it can to<br />
ensure the community's safety. <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
needs a system that improves on the<br />
successes of the past, a system which<br />
provides the security in our prisons which the<br />
public demands and is entitled to expect.<br />
I commend the Bill to the House.<br />
Debate, on motion of Mr Horan,<br />
adjourned.<br />
TRANS-TASMAN MUTUAL RECOGNITION<br />
(QUEENSLAND) BILL<br />
Second Reading<br />
Resumed from 6 August 1998 (see<br />
p. 1724).<br />
Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (Surfers<br />
Paradise—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition)<br />
(12.45 p.m.): I am in the somewhat unusual<br />
position of speaking or responding to a Bill that<br />
I had the privilege of introducing into this<br />
place. Needless to say, I find this splendid<br />
piece of legislation somewhat difficult to<br />
criticise. However, I would like to make certain<br />
comments and certain remarks, because this<br />
is an important piece of legislation that has<br />
taken some time to be debated in this place.<br />
There is broad bipartisan support for the<br />
principles embodied in the closer economic<br />
relations arrangements which bring Australia<br />
and New Zealand together in what is still the<br />
world's best and most effective example of a<br />
common market. In an uncertain world<br />
economic climate, <strong>Queensland</strong> can only<br />
benefit from its entrenched place within the<br />
Australasian market created by CER. Our<br />
interests are directly served by strengthening<br />
the community of interest between Australia<br />
and New Zealand.<br />
Recent events have produced an impetus<br />
to look beyond the former almost exclusive<br />
focus on East Asia. Japan remains deeply<br />
mired in an economic morass from which it will<br />
extricate itself only by the application of
340 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (<strong>Queensland</strong>) Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
political and fiscal measures for which,<br />
regrettably, it has so far shown little taste.<br />
Other East Asian markets, while beginning to<br />
climb back from the depths to which they<br />
plumbed last year, are also looking at the<br />
medium term at best for full recovery.<br />
The North American Free Trade<br />
Agreement countries—the United States of<br />
America, Canada and Mexico, and,<br />
increasingly, Argentina and Chile in South<br />
America—are looking to round out their<br />
substantial advances within market free trade.<br />
CER stands as an example, albeit a small one,<br />
of the real benefits of ever closer cooperation<br />
and market convergence.<br />
This Bill, which, as I indicated earlier, the<br />
Opposition fully supports, gives effect to the<br />
international treaty binding Australia and New<br />
Zealand into further development of the CER<br />
process. Indeed, I was a signatory to that<br />
particular arrangement post Premiers<br />
Conference with the Prime Minister, with the<br />
New Zealand Government and with the other<br />
State Premiers. In the new international<br />
environment it is no longer impractical to view<br />
linkages between CER and trans-Pacific<br />
markets as a viable policy option that could be<br />
explored.<br />
The New Zealand link is important to<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>. It represents an additional de<br />
facto domestic market of more than three<br />
million consumers. It may not be going too far<br />
to suggest also that it is an important<br />
balancing agent in the otherwise overwhelming<br />
influence of the southern Australian market<br />
where <strong>Queensland</strong>, with its unique perspective<br />
and position in the Australian Federation, is<br />
concerned.<br />
This Bill was introduced a year ago by the<br />
coalition Government in the first full session of<br />
State <strong>Parliament</strong> for 1998. Commonwealth<br />
and New South Wales legislation was enacted<br />
in late 1997. New South Wales had lead<br />
jurisdiction duties among the States. I notice<br />
that when the Premier introduced the Bill he<br />
was somewhat critical that the coalition<br />
Government had not progressed this<br />
legislation prior to the State election. I respond<br />
by saying to the Premier that it is a pity the<br />
new Government's priorities in the spring<br />
session of 1998 did not include facilitating<br />
passage of necessary <strong>Queensland</strong> legislation<br />
relative to CER and its ongoing development. I<br />
would not have raised this if the Premier had<br />
not been critical of my administration, but I<br />
make the point, which I am sure he will take in<br />
good faith and the manner in which it is<br />
intended, that debate on this issue was<br />
adjourned on 6 August last year. Obviously<br />
there has also been a delay under the Labor<br />
Government in this State.<br />
In response to some of the concerns<br />
raised by the Premier at the time of his<br />
introduction of the legislation, I say that the<br />
Commonwealth legislation did attract some<br />
interest in the Senate which prolonged the<br />
process in that particular jurisdiction. Indeed,<br />
one senator in particular took it upon herself to<br />
substantially delay the passage of that<br />
legislation. I think that is a pity and something<br />
the Democrats might like to take on board in<br />
the light of the very special relationship we<br />
enjoy with New Zealand and the fact that this<br />
had the support of all State Governments, as<br />
well as the Federal Government and the<br />
Government of New Zealand. Despite that, we<br />
had this prolonged activity in the Senate which<br />
led to some delays in enacting the legislation.<br />
The effect of the <strong>Queensland</strong> Bill, which<br />
mirrors the Commonwealth and New South<br />
Wales legislation, is that if goods may be<br />
legally sold in Australia they may be sold freely<br />
in New Zealand, and vice versa. The<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> legislation provides for some<br />
sensible restrictions on these freedoms so that<br />
important elements of existing State<br />
regulations continue to offer <strong>Queensland</strong>ers<br />
the protection they are entitled to and which<br />
has long been part of our regulatory framework<br />
in this State. For example, the liberal rules we<br />
are passing through the <strong>Parliament</strong> do not<br />
affect <strong>Queensland</strong> laws regulating the manner<br />
of sale of goods, transport, storage or handling<br />
of goods under health, safety or environmental<br />
regulations, nor do they impact on inspection<br />
of goods under the same provisions.<br />
The Opposition shares with the<br />
Government the desire to facilitate and<br />
promote increased trade between <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
and New Zealand and the generation of new<br />
private sector jobs that will flow from increased<br />
trade. A stronger economy will add a further<br />
layer of protection for <strong>Queensland</strong> against the<br />
increasing difficulties that affect many<br />
economies around the world, particularly in our<br />
region.<br />
The Australia/New Zealand common<br />
market is a powerful economic engine in the<br />
regional framework. However, it is important<br />
that all Governments proceed with caution<br />
where competition policy and free trade<br />
particularly are concerned. We must always<br />
ensure that the playing field really is level and<br />
that we are not allowing a situation to occur, as<br />
has occurred in the past, whereby Australian<br />
industries and Australian jobs are sacrificed to<br />
devout economic rationalism, where major<br />
trading partners have not played the game
9 Mar 1999 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (<strong>Queensland</strong>) Bill 341<br />
and reciprocated to the extent that<br />
Governments on both sides of the political<br />
fence in Australia have been prepared to do<br />
over a number of years.<br />
National Competition Policy has been an<br />
element of Federal economic policy which the<br />
Commonwealth has used to increase its<br />
financial control over the States. It is now clear<br />
that across the political spectrum there is a<br />
great deal of sympathy for the view that it is<br />
time for some serious rethinking of National<br />
Competition Policy, and I take this opportunity<br />
to welcome the Federal Government review<br />
into National Competition Policy at this time.<br />
That is long overdue and I express the hope<br />
that we will see responsibility for National<br />
Competition Policy taken from the National<br />
Competition Council and Mr Graham Samuel<br />
and given to the appropriate body, which in my<br />
view is the Council of Australian Governments,<br />
that is, the Premiers sitting down with the<br />
Prime Minister and the Federal president or<br />
chairman of the Australian Local Government<br />
Association.<br />
In the context of the ongoing review of<br />
CER, we must use this opportunity to examine<br />
progress and ensure that measures adopted<br />
through national policy or through international<br />
treaties, now properly subject to State<br />
influence through the Treaties Council, are<br />
genuinely beneficial to all parties to the<br />
agreement.<br />
I think one of the significant initiatives of<br />
the Howard Government probably has not<br />
been given the degree of attention that it<br />
deserves. That is, over a number of years we<br />
had Governments running around the world<br />
signing international treaties, and those<br />
international treaties never had to go to<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>. Those international treaties in<br />
many cases were deemed by the High Court<br />
of Australia to carry the force of law. We ended<br />
up in a situation where the Australian people<br />
essentially had been bypassed in that<br />
particular process. The Howard Government<br />
established the Treaties Council, which<br />
comprises the Prime Minister, the Premiers<br />
and the Chief Ministers. It is a very worthwhile<br />
and appropriate forum. For the first time we<br />
now have access by the States to the<br />
decision-making process that determines<br />
whether the Federal Government of Australia<br />
will sign an international treaty. I think that is a<br />
significant change.<br />
Having said that, in my view CER has<br />
been an outstanding success. It has not been<br />
without its problems over the years, but it has<br />
been an extremely worthwhile exercise. It is<br />
important that we support the ongoing<br />
development of CER and that we accept that<br />
this legislation comes to this place today with<br />
the support of the major parties in the<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>, who share a bipartisan approach<br />
in dealing with this matter. It is good<br />
legislation—I could not have drafted it better<br />
myself—and I look forward to its speedy<br />
passage through the House.<br />
Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (12.57 p.m.): I<br />
also support the Trans-Tasman Mutual<br />
Recognition (<strong>Queensland</strong>) Bill. Before I make<br />
some comments about the Bill, I will correct for<br />
the House something I said last Thursday<br />
night. I came into possession of a document<br />
which purported to be an apology from AAP<br />
about its coverage of statements by former<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Cabinet Minister Pat Comben.<br />
While speaking during the debate I quoted<br />
from this document, saying that AAP accepted<br />
that Mr Comben's comments had been<br />
reported inaccurately and inappropriately. My<br />
statement was made in good faith and based<br />
entirely on the document. Since then it has<br />
become clear that my statement was<br />
inaccurate. I therefore unreservedly apologise<br />
to the House and to AAP for inadvertently<br />
misleading this House. It is clear that AAP had<br />
nothing to do with the preparation of the<br />
document.<br />
This Bill is modelled on mutual recognition<br />
legislation in the European Community<br />
introduced in 1992. The completion of this<br />
mutual recognition regime makes the Closer<br />
Economic Relations agreement the only<br />
regional trading arrangement outside the<br />
Economic Union which takes into account<br />
mutual recognition standards.<br />
The bilateral relationship has as one of its<br />
most enduring aspects the free movement of<br />
citizens of both countries, who may now live,<br />
work and study in either country without visas<br />
and permits. It will eliminate tariffs on virtually<br />
all trans-Tasman trade. This finalises a process<br />
of tariff reduction begun not just by the<br />
Borbidge Government but in 1992, when tariffs<br />
on 129 items were reduced to the preferred<br />
British rate.<br />
The current CER agreement was initiated<br />
in 1983 and concerned itself with the reduction<br />
of tariff and non-tariff barriers against goods<br />
entering each country from the other. The<br />
second stage, between 1988 and 1990,<br />
accelerated the movement to free trade. This,<br />
then, is the third stage. It covers initiatives to<br />
widen the trade and economic relationship to<br />
encompass a single aviation market and<br />
mutual recognition of standards for goods and<br />
occupations.<br />
Mutual recognition was modelled on the<br />
mutual recognition legislation in the European
342 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (<strong>Queensland</strong>) Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
Community introduced in 1992. This Bill will<br />
make the CER agreement the only regional<br />
trading arrangement outside the Economic<br />
Union that accommodates mutual recognition<br />
standards.<br />
Australia has been the frontrunner in<br />
forging open trade groupings. <strong>Queensland</strong> is<br />
the centrepiece for a very significant trade<br />
round which will help our great primary<br />
industries. The group, which formed in<br />
Cairns—appropriately named the Cairns<br />
Group—consists of Australia, New Zealand,<br />
Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia,<br />
Fiji, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and<br />
Thailand. This group was significant in the<br />
Uruguay Round negotiations on agriculture,<br />
which will benefit <strong>Queensland</strong> primary<br />
producers. The Cairns Group met in Sydney in<br />
April 1998 to work on a strategy for the next<br />
round of World Trade Organisation<br />
negotiations on agricultural trade, to begin this<br />
year. These groupings give Australia and New<br />
Zealand a clout they could never achieve if<br />
acting individually.<br />
The forum in our region which closely<br />
resembles CER is the APEC forum, begun in<br />
1989, focusing primarily on promoting open<br />
trade and economic cooperation as a<br />
cornerstone of Australia's regional trade policy.<br />
Sitting suspended from 1.01 p.m. to<br />
2.30 p.m.<br />
Mr MICKEL: Under the Bogor Agreement,<br />
APEC members are committed to achieving<br />
free and open trade by 2010. The Bureau of<br />
Industry Economics——<br />
Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order.<br />
Unless my eyes are misleading me, we do not<br />
have a Minister in charge of the business<br />
before the House.<br />
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Clark):<br />
Order! Indeed, we do not. The Leader of the<br />
Opposition is quite correct. I will just consult<br />
with the Clerk. The member for Logan may<br />
continue.<br />
Mr MICKEL: The Bureau of Industry<br />
Economics has forecast that the reforms<br />
contained in the Bogor Agreement could add<br />
another $3.6 billion per year to Australia's<br />
agricultural exports. Movements towards freer<br />
trade create winners as well as losers.<br />
Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. It<br />
is unprecedented in this place for—I see that a<br />
Minister has just arrived. I was just going to<br />
make the point that it is unprecedented in this<br />
place not to have a Minister in charge of<br />
legislation before the <strong>Parliament</strong>. I just make<br />
that observation.<br />
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The<br />
member should continue.<br />
Mr MICKEL: We, as legislators, must be<br />
sensitive to the adjustment process being felt<br />
by the communities who lost. We need a<br />
commitment to retraining displaced employees<br />
as well as developing an industry policy which<br />
looks at opportunities for industry. In<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>, I think we had a traditional focus<br />
on primary industries. Some might say that it<br />
was over-focused on these to the exclusion of<br />
the development of an industry policy. The<br />
Goss Government gave us a regional focus<br />
when it opened a number of trade offices in<br />
the Asian region. And to its credit, the<br />
Borbidge Government continued with this and<br />
expanded it with the Indonesian office. The<br />
Beattie Government's State Development<br />
Department correctly brings the business<br />
development sectors into a trade focus.<br />
I think it is fair to say that what has been<br />
missing from our business sector throughout<br />
this century has been a trade ethos. We have<br />
produced for the domestic market. Australia's<br />
multicultural policy, so often derided by our<br />
opponents, actually strengthens our ability to<br />
develop an export culture. It enhances the<br />
prospects, because it can tap into networks<br />
between chambers of commerce and business<br />
groups. My colleague the member for<br />
Sunnybank has reaffirmed that with me, with<br />
experiences in his own electorate.<br />
In applying this to New Zealand, a House<br />
of Representatives Standing Committee on<br />
Primary Industries, Resources and Rural and<br />
Regional Affairs had this to say—<br />
"New Zealand is an impressive role<br />
model with its strong export focus in its<br />
agricultural sector."<br />
New Zealand, with three million people, has<br />
had to export. South Africa, with about six<br />
million people who could afford to buy most<br />
fruits and vegetables, had to export. The same<br />
is the case in South America. With 18 million<br />
people in Australia, it is a good-sized domestic<br />
market, and that is where many people stay<br />
focused. However, a better trade emphasis<br />
and a better trade focus is occurring. Trade<br />
liberalisation Bills such as this are in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>'s long-term interests. Tariffs can<br />
protect jobs in the short term but cannot<br />
provide job security in the long term. They also<br />
impose costs that reduce opportunities and<br />
jobs in other more efficient and competitive<br />
industries.<br />
Members of this House have implied that<br />
people do not mind paying a bit more for<br />
highly protected goods. I am advised that the<br />
facts are that tariffs lift the costs faced by
9 Mar 1999 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (<strong>Queensland</strong>) Bill 343<br />
Australian exporters by around 3%. Even<br />
conservative estimates suggest that, in the<br />
past decade, the average Australian family<br />
has gained around $1,000 a year from tariff<br />
reductions. Families have access to a wider<br />
range of affordable and high-quality products.<br />
For instance, imported motor vehicles would<br />
cost around 25% more if the 1988 tariffs still<br />
applied. That represents an extra $5,000 on a<br />
$20,000 motor car. And clothing and footwear<br />
would cost around 14% more, that is, an extra<br />
$300 for the average family to maintain its<br />
dress standards.<br />
In the confidence motion debate, the<br />
member for Crows Nest, in a state of perhaps<br />
high emotion, and certainly hyperbole, said—<br />
"Once upon a time we could actually<br />
build a car. Weren't we terrific! Now, we<br />
cannot build anything—everything has to<br />
be imported from everywhere."<br />
I have spoken to the member for Crows Nest<br />
about that, and what he was referring to, of<br />
course, was the perception that is held in the<br />
community. Perception it is, but it is certainly<br />
not factual. Let us look at the facts.<br />
Holden Australia is now the most<br />
productive General Motors plant for medium<br />
volumes and the centre for engineering<br />
excellence in the region. World exports could<br />
exceed $1 billion by the year 2000. Toyota in<br />
Australia is now more efficient, and exports are<br />
up from $47m in 1990 to $329m in 1996.<br />
Mitsubishi has expanded its export production<br />
in Australia. If we look at component<br />
manufacturers like PRR Automotive, Air<br />
International, Bosch and VDO—Australia<br />
requires local car manufacturing to make<br />
production in Australia viable, but all are very<br />
much export oriented due to the small and<br />
mature Australian market.<br />
In the textile industry, which people<br />
believe is nonexistent, Bradmill, which<br />
produces cotton and denim, Blundstone,<br />
which produces boots, and Gosh Leather have<br />
built export bases, whilst YAKKA and RM<br />
Williams have developed niche domestic<br />
markets. Firms like ATCO, Incat and Austral<br />
Ships, which construct ferries, ERG, Keycorp,<br />
which is influential in IT, and Air International,<br />
which is involved in vehicle airconditioning,<br />
have expanded and created jobs. In the<br />
primary industries sector, Australian food<br />
producers like Australia Meat Holdings, Kiwi<br />
Orchards, Ardmona, which specialises in<br />
canned deciduous fruit, the Sumich Group,<br />
which specialises in fresh and processed fruit<br />
and vegetables, and Tassal, which specialises<br />
in Atlantic salmon, are doing well.<br />
In <strong>Queensland</strong>, with groups such as<br />
Cotton <strong>Queensland</strong> and Cotton Australia, the<br />
cotton industry is one of the great success<br />
stories. It exports 95% of its product. This year,<br />
its production will exceed one million bales. I<br />
understand that it has even taken over one of<br />
the mills in the southern parts of America. The<br />
cotton gins in Goondiwindi provide significant<br />
regional employment. Now entrepreneurs are<br />
getting into textile manufacture. I praise<br />
particularly people like Sam Coulton and the<br />
people of Goondiwindi for their efforts in<br />
working with the TAFE colleges and getting<br />
this industry under way. I am very pleased to<br />
show the House today one of the fine-quality<br />
products made at Goondiwindi with<br />
Goondiwindi cotton.<br />
Mr Robertson: Table it.<br />
Mr MICKEL: I do not want to table it; I<br />
want to wear it. That company gave one to the<br />
Premier, and even managed to produce one<br />
in his size. <strong>Full</strong> credit goes to the <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
industry. These things are happening right<br />
here in <strong>Queensland</strong>. It is a fine, outstanding<br />
product, and one that is providing employment<br />
in regional <strong>Queensland</strong>. I would be delighted if<br />
we had a spinning mill here in <strong>Queensland</strong> as<br />
a direct result of the cotton industry.<br />
I also want to mention the Australian dairy<br />
industry. This year, it will provide over $2.2<br />
billion in exports, which is a phenomenal<br />
performance by any measure. Closer<br />
economic relations with New Zealand have<br />
provided additional competitive pressures on<br />
Australia's domestic and export market<br />
activities. The current Domestic Market<br />
Support Scheme, which will phase out by 30<br />
June 2000, places our industry at a<br />
disadvantage to New Zealand. The DMS does<br />
not require the New Zealand Dairy Board to<br />
pay the domestic product levy for New Zealand<br />
products sold on the Australian domestic<br />
market. The majority of Australian dairy<br />
companies believe that this places them at a<br />
competitive disadvantage to New Zealand<br />
dairy products marketed on the Australian<br />
domestic market. This arrangement, I must<br />
stress, is not a result of this legislation. I<br />
understand that some processors did not want<br />
the levy imposed on New Zealand. I raise it<br />
because we have to be very careful not to<br />
disadvantage ourselves in the name of<br />
competition. I must say in passing, too, that<br />
New Zealand prides itself on being totally<br />
deregulatory in dairying, yet it still retains a<br />
single-desk seller, the New Zealand Dairy<br />
Board, for its products, and it still has a big<br />
residual access into Europe under the last<br />
GATT round. There are many <strong>Queensland</strong>
344 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (<strong>Queensland</strong>) Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
dairy farmers who would welcome that type of<br />
access.<br />
There are pressures coming on the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> dairy industry. There will be some<br />
shake-out in the <strong>Queensland</strong> industry as the<br />
post-farm gate deregulation comes into effect<br />
Australiawide next year. I want to praise the<br />
Minister for Primary Industries for urging<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> dairy farmers to take out business<br />
plans to see exactly where they stand currently<br />
in their operations and the price of milk that<br />
they will need to make a profit.<br />
Nevertheless, there is in <strong>Queensland</strong> at<br />
the moment significant investment by dairy<br />
processors, such as Parmalat and National<br />
Foods, which gives us room for confidence. In<br />
other words, my appeal to everyone is this: let<br />
us talk up <strong>Queensland</strong> and Australian<br />
prospects. Certainly, in some cases, factories<br />
have closed as a result of reforms, but in food<br />
processing and a range of elaborately<br />
transformed manufactures, education, tourism<br />
and other services are performing well.<br />
Contrary to the public perception, Australia's<br />
manufacturing sector has increased its export<br />
growth. From 1986-87 to 1996-97, exports of<br />
manufactures grew by an average of 12% per<br />
year in real terms, compared with an average<br />
of 6% from 1976-77 to 1986-87. Of special<br />
note, growth of exports in elaborately<br />
transformed manufactures, that is, those with<br />
a high value-added component, has increased<br />
strongly over the past 10 to 15 years.<br />
Manufactured exports have grown at nearly<br />
twice the rate of all other exports over the last<br />
10 years.<br />
Trade liberalisation, on its own, is not<br />
enough. It will need a coordinated policy<br />
approach, including financial and employment<br />
packages targeting affected areas. Microeconomic<br />
reform, including the labour market,<br />
has already shown its capacity for flexibility and<br />
good management in the public and private<br />
sectors. This Bill is another step along the path<br />
which <strong>Queensland</strong> and Australia have to travel<br />
to become a world competitive nation.<br />
Dr PRENZLER (Lockyer—ONP)<br />
(2.41 p.m.): The Trans-Tasman Mutual<br />
Recognition legislation will allow any goods<br />
sold in New Zealand to be sold in Australia,<br />
and will allow any person practising an<br />
occupation in New Zealand to also practise in<br />
Australia. How will we get unemployment down<br />
in <strong>Queensland</strong> by opening the floodgates to<br />
cheap New Zealand labour and imports?<br />
What is <strong>Queensland</strong>, or Australia for that<br />
matter, supposed to get out of this<br />
agreement? It is a far better deal for New<br />
Zealand to have open slather on Australia's 18<br />
million strong market than it is for us to have<br />
access to New Zealand's tiny market of three<br />
million. I wonder whether the Labor member<br />
for Fitzroy will oppose this Bill. He is rightly<br />
concerned about the jobs of his union<br />
members. This Bill can only make things<br />
worse. I wonder whether the Labor member for<br />
Mulgrave will oppose this Bill. He condemned<br />
the casualisation and globalisation of the<br />
Australian work force and he spoke very<br />
strongly against the National Competition<br />
Policy and the damage that it has done. This<br />
Bill can only exacerbate the problem.<br />
Do these Labor politicians realise that<br />
Labor Governments have been responsible for<br />
much of the damage that they are<br />
complaining about? Likewise, coalition<br />
members should understand that their parties,<br />
along with the Labor Party, are responsible for<br />
all the bad policies inflicted on the Australian<br />
people over the years. As has been proved<br />
over time, when it comes to economics, both<br />
Labor and coalition Governments have almost<br />
the same policies. This Beattie Bill is identical<br />
to the Borbidge Bill introduced into the<br />
Legislative Assembly on 17 March 1997. What<br />
is the difference between conservative and<br />
progressive politics in <strong>Queensland</strong>? In this<br />
case, absolutely nothing!<br />
When it comes to changing <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
laws to comply with Commonwealth law or<br />
international treaties, Labor and coalition<br />
Governments alike trip over themselves in<br />
appeasement. The Trans-Tasman Mutual<br />
Recognition Bill is only one of a multitude of<br />
tangled bilateral and multilateral treaties that<br />
Australia has signed and which continue to<br />
overrule our domestic laws.<br />
This Bill has been made necessary in<br />
order for <strong>Queensland</strong> to comply with the<br />
Commonwealth Trans-Tasman Mutual<br />
Recognition Act 1997. This Act in turn was<br />
derived from the Trans-Tasman Mutual<br />
Recognition Agreement which emerged from<br />
the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic<br />
Relations Trade Agreement of 1983. Going<br />
back a little further, we find the inspiration for<br />
the Closer Economic Relations Trade<br />
Agreement to be the Australia-New Zealand<br />
Free Trade Agreement of 1965. Before the<br />
Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement<br />
we had the Australia-New Zealand Agreement<br />
of 1944.<br />
What do all these treaties have in<br />
common? They are all supposed to be good<br />
for us. By eliminating tariffs and globalising our<br />
industries, employment is supposed to<br />
increase and a better standard of living is<br />
assured for all. One of the main objectives of
9 Mar 1999 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (<strong>Queensland</strong>) Bill 345<br />
the Australia-New Zealand Agreement of 1944<br />
reads as follows—<br />
"There should be cooperation in<br />
achieving full employment in Australia and<br />
New Zealand and the highest standards<br />
of social security both within their borders<br />
and throughout the islands of the Pacific."<br />
How miserably they have failed! Politicians can<br />
rattle off all the statistics they like about how<br />
many jobs they created when they were in<br />
office but they cannot ignore the reality. The<br />
reality is that there are about 2.5 million<br />
unemployed or under-employed people in<br />
Australia, and I believe that in New Zealand<br />
the situation is not much better.<br />
Despite the thousands of treaties that<br />
Australia has signed, unemployment keeps<br />
getting worse, crime is getting worse, drug<br />
abuse is getting worse, and the Trans-Tasman<br />
Mutual Recognition Bill will not make a bit of<br />
difference. The increase in centralisation of<br />
law-making and the shifting of power from the<br />
State Government to the Federal<br />
Government—of which this Bill is an<br />
example—is reducing the justification for State<br />
Governments. The tendency for Australian law,<br />
and by extension State law, to be increasingly<br />
derived from international agreements means<br />
that less and less backbench parliamentary<br />
scrutiny is necessary or desirable.<br />
This is possibly why this Bill and the<br />
parent Commonwealth Act both contain Henry<br />
VIII clauses which allow the Act to be<br />
amended by regulation made by the Executive<br />
arm of Government, completely bypassing the<br />
House. The Governor-General has the power<br />
to change a Commonwealth Act by regulation,<br />
and therefore by virtue of section 109 of the<br />
Constitution the State law as well, completely<br />
bypassing the <strong>Queensland</strong> <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee is<br />
rightly suspicious about the Henry VIII clauses<br />
included in this Bill. The predecessor to the<br />
Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, the<br />
Subordinate Legislation Committee, had this<br />
warning about Henry VIII clauses—<br />
"The solution to this problem lies in<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>'s own hands, for as long as<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> permits the inclusion in Bills of<br />
clauses which allow the amendment of<br />
Acts by Orders in Council, it will continue<br />
to place the scrutiny and control of its<br />
legislation outside its own power."<br />
Clause 4(1) of this Bill adopts the<br />
Commonwealth Act under Section 51 Part 37<br />
of the Australian Constitution. The more power<br />
the <strong>Queensland</strong> Government gives to the<br />
Commonwealth, the less justification that<br />
remains for the existence and considerable<br />
expense of State Governments.<br />
I see that in Schedule 4 of the Bill medical<br />
practitioners are lucky enough to be exempt<br />
from the operation of the Act. What is the<br />
justification for this exemption? I would think<br />
that dentists, veterinary surgeons, actuaries<br />
and even bricklayers and shearers will all be<br />
cranky when they discover that they now have<br />
to fight New Zealand competitors for a slice of<br />
the business pie.<br />
I notice that the High Court has just<br />
decided that New Zealand television programs<br />
are now classified as Australian content. The<br />
High Court said that our obligations under<br />
international treaties override our domestic law.<br />
I will say it again: the High Court has decided<br />
that international treaties override our<br />
Australian law.<br />
Let there be no doubt in our minds that all<br />
international treaties have legal force and they<br />
override our domestic laws. Even if <strong>Parliament</strong><br />
does not enact legislation to comply with the<br />
treaties, the courts consider them valid, as<br />
numerous decisions of the High Court prove.<br />
Because of this objectionable agreement,<br />
Australia may now have to accept potentially<br />
substandard food and other imports from New<br />
Zealand. These products may contain<br />
pesticides, heavy metals and anything else<br />
that the Australia-New Zealand Food Authority<br />
will permit. I wonder whether people are aware<br />
that the regulations governing the purity of our<br />
foods must now be lowered to meet our treaty<br />
obligations with New Zealand. Our presently<br />
low cadmium limit in foodstuffs must be raised<br />
because the Australian-New Zealand Food<br />
Authority says so.<br />
Australia and New Zealand now have<br />
mutual recognition of occupations and<br />
professions, common food standards, and<br />
even television programming. Suddenly the<br />
concept of a common currency does not seem<br />
so far-fetched. But the question begs to be<br />
asked: just how far will economic and legal<br />
harmonisation be carried with New Zealand<br />
and other countries? At least New Zealand is<br />
an English-speaking nation, fairly similar to our<br />
own. But what will happen when we are forced<br />
to harmonise our laws with foreign countries<br />
which have nothing in common with us and<br />
whose people do not speak English?<br />
This Bill is just one more step in the<br />
creation of a single global monolithic entity in<br />
which Australia is being forced to discard any<br />
valuable consumer protections in the emerging<br />
"one size fits all" world economy. For these<br />
reasons we express our opposition to such a<br />
Bill.
346 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (<strong>Queensland</strong>) Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP)<br />
(2.48 p.m.): I rise to support this Bill. The<br />
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Bill is a<br />
logical step in the continued integration of the<br />
Australian and New Zealand economies. The<br />
objective of this Bill is to eliminate regulatory<br />
barriers to the movement of goods and service<br />
providers between Australia and New Zealand.<br />
In his second-reading speech, the Premier<br />
highlighted that this Bill will promote an<br />
increase in trade between <strong>Queensland</strong> and<br />
New Zealand which should, on all accounts,<br />
increase job opportunities for <strong>Queensland</strong>ers.<br />
For <strong>Queensland</strong> businesses considering or<br />
participating in trade with New Zealand, red<br />
tape and costs will decrease and trade should<br />
be more vigorous.<br />
Access to a larger market coming and<br />
going across the Tasman will, of course,<br />
increase competition and suppliers of goods<br />
will need to ensure efficiency to cope with that<br />
increase. However, for the consumer greater<br />
competition means more choice. In allowing<br />
for mutual recognition of registered<br />
qualifications, the Bill will also make<br />
appointments easier between the two regions.<br />
As with the mutual recognition scheme<br />
covering Australia, occupations are considered<br />
equivalent if the activities authorised to be<br />
carried out under each registration are<br />
substantially the same, whether or not this<br />
result is achieved by the means of the<br />
imposition of conditions. The Commonwealth<br />
Administrative Appeals Tribunal may make a<br />
declaration that occupations carried on in two<br />
jurisdictions are not equivalent if certain facts<br />
exist. Alternatively a Minister from New<br />
Zealand and a Minister from each one or more<br />
Australian jurisdictions may jointly declare that<br />
specified occupations are equivalent or<br />
describe conditions that will achieve<br />
equivalence.<br />
I want to take the opportunity today to<br />
look at a matter of which I have a particular<br />
interest. In my contribution today, I want to<br />
recap and review mutual recognition in<br />
Australia in relation to the legal profession. The<br />
legal profession is covered under the<br />
Australian mutual recognition scheme and will<br />
be covered by the proposed trans-Tasman<br />
scheme. Under the Australian scheme, lawyers<br />
who are admitted to practise in one State or<br />
Territory are deemed to be allowed admission<br />
in others despite the fact that different<br />
admission requirements for lawyers still exist<br />
from State to State. If one looks at each<br />
State's admission requirements for lawyers,<br />
one finds the following: in <strong>Queensland</strong>, we still<br />
have a divided profession.<br />
A law graduate intending to practise as a<br />
solicitor in <strong>Queensland</strong> must serve either two<br />
years' articled clerkship to a solicitor or<br />
complete the one year legal practice course<br />
conducted by QUT. Persons who complete<br />
that one year course receive a conditional<br />
admittance and must serve as an employed<br />
solicitor for one year in order to obtain a full<br />
practising certificate. In New South Wales, a<br />
law graduate must complete one of the<br />
practical training courses recognised by the<br />
Legal Practitioners Admission Board. In<br />
Victoria, a law graduate must complete either<br />
a period of one year as an articled clerk or the<br />
course on practical training run by the Leo<br />
Cussen Institute. In Western Australia, a law<br />
graduate must complete one year as an<br />
articled clerk before gaining admission. In<br />
South Australia, a law graduate must complete<br />
the five-month graduate certificate in legal<br />
practice to qualify for admittance. In Tasmania,<br />
a law graduate must either complete the sixmonth<br />
legal practice course followed by a oneyear<br />
articled apprenticeship or complete two<br />
years as an articled clerk. In the Australian<br />
Capital Territory, a law graduate must<br />
complete the five-month legal workshop<br />
course to qualify for admission. <strong>Final</strong>ly, in the<br />
Northern Territory, a law graduate must<br />
complete one year as an articled clerk before<br />
being admitted. As members can see, there is<br />
a great variance in the admission requirements<br />
between the States and the Territories.<br />
As a practical matter, the admission of a<br />
solicitor or barrister in <strong>Queensland</strong> under the<br />
mutual recognition laws is more of a paper<br />
admission rather than an initial admission to<br />
enter the roll. Under standard initial admission<br />
procedures, a graduate who qualifies for<br />
admission by completing the legal practice<br />
course, articles of clerkship or, for a barrister,<br />
the bar practice course, is admitted by the<br />
Supreme Court under the Supreme Court<br />
rules. Where an interstate admitted solicitor or<br />
barrister applies for admission to practise in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>, under the mutual recognition<br />
laws this admission is authorised by the<br />
Supreme Court registrar upon the receipt of<br />
the correct forms and fee without any<br />
formalities.<br />
I understand that at the time mutual<br />
recognition of the legal profession was first<br />
discussed, the Australian legal profession was<br />
presented with a choice: it could either<br />
formulate a national uniform standard or be<br />
forced under the mutual recognition legislation<br />
to recognise and work with colleagues from<br />
interstate who may have been admitted in<br />
their own States with so-called lesser<br />
qualifications. For many of the professions, this
9 Mar 1999 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (<strong>Queensland</strong>) Bill 347<br />
trend is the impetus behind moves to create a<br />
uniform national admission standard.<br />
However, what has been implemented for<br />
the legal profession is merely a national<br />
acknowledgment of 11 core subjects that must<br />
be completed in a law degree to satisfy the<br />
academic admission requirements of any<br />
State and Territory. Aside from requiring that<br />
these core subjects are studied, the admission<br />
requirements still vary from State to State. At<br />
present, there is no uniform national admission<br />
standard aside from the 11 core subject<br />
requirement. Further, in response to the threat,<br />
the Law Council of Australia presented to the<br />
Council of Australian Government proposals<br />
for a national legal services market. The<br />
proposal was a detailed document titled The<br />
Blueprint for the Structure of the Legal<br />
Profession, a National Market for Legal<br />
Services. The general principles in this<br />
blueprint were developed by a network of<br />
committees and working parties established by<br />
the law council and its constituent bodies in<br />
July 1994. The focus of the law council's work<br />
was to establish the key elements of a national<br />
legal services market in which there could be<br />
easy mobility of practitioners between<br />
jurisdictions. The objective was to establish a<br />
system whereby a lawyer who is admitted and<br />
has a right to practise in a State or Territory will<br />
be entitled to practise anywhere in Australia<br />
without having to meet any further<br />
requirements.<br />
In a letter to the then Prime Minister and<br />
other COAG members, the then Law Council<br />
President, Stuart Fowler, said that for a<br />
national legal services market to operate<br />
efficiently it was essential for a lawyer who<br />
practised in more than one State or Territory to<br />
be subject to the rules and regulations which<br />
were substantially similar throughout Australia.<br />
To further this aim, the Law Council developed<br />
its blueprint for a national market, which aimed<br />
to keep the standards and practice at a high<br />
level. It includes uniform requirements for<br />
practical legal education before and after<br />
admission, the establishment of a national<br />
committee to accredit the nation's law schools<br />
and a uniform code governing legal practice<br />
throughout Australia. There was also a<br />
national specialist accreditation scheme<br />
proposed.<br />
Concerns expressed regarding mutual<br />
recognition were that it might encourage a<br />
levelling down to the lowest common<br />
denominator. A national model may alleviate<br />
that problem. New mutual recognition<br />
legislation for the legal profession would need<br />
to be enacted for the Law Council's blueprint<br />
proposal to be implemented and its reforms<br />
are far too advanced to fit under the existing<br />
mutual recognition regime. Although mutual<br />
recognition has gone some way towards<br />
facilitating a national market for legal services,<br />
considerable barriers remain. Admission and<br />
entitlement to practise in one jurisdiction do<br />
not entitle a practitioner to practise in all other<br />
jurisdictions. Rather, interstate practitioners<br />
must apply for recognition and pay for<br />
admission and practising rights in each State<br />
where recognition is sought.<br />
I have been and continue to be a keen<br />
advocate of a national legal profession. Since<br />
its inception in colonial Australia, the legal<br />
profession has been organised around each<br />
State's jurisdiction. Before mutual recognition,<br />
the argument against the mobility of the<br />
profession was that each State had its own<br />
laws and each State's laws are different. More<br />
and more we are seeing uniform legislation<br />
being initiated from a Federal level and<br />
enacted in each State. Many areas of law are<br />
now covered by Federal courts.<br />
This leads me to the last point that I<br />
wanted to make in today's debate, and that is,<br />
the ability of the <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Scrutiny of<br />
Legislation Committee to adequately scrutinise<br />
Commonwealth legislation. I know that<br />
previous committees have continually raised<br />
this point and it has been raised again by my<br />
own committee. Bills that form part of the<br />
national scheme legislation impact upon the<br />
institution of the State's <strong>Parliament</strong> bringing in<br />
that legislation. In fact, I understand that<br />
scrutiny of national scheme legislation is a hot<br />
topic for a number of States. Of course, the<br />
reality is that once legislation is passed in the<br />
Federal <strong>Parliament</strong> there is little or no<br />
opportunity for a scrutiny of legislation<br />
committee in a State to determine whether the<br />
Act meets fundamental legislative principles for<br />
that State.<br />
The objective of this Bill is to make<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> a participating party in the trans-<br />
Tasman mutual recognition arrangement by<br />
national scheme legislation via adopting the<br />
Commonwealth Trans-Tasman Mutual<br />
Recognition Commonwealth Act 1997. The<br />
Commonwealth Act implements the mutual<br />
recognition principles. However, under the<br />
Commonwealth Act these principles are<br />
subject to a number of exclusions and<br />
exemptions. These are on the grounds of<br />
public health and safety and protection of the<br />
environment.<br />
In addition, the Bill sets out in detail that<br />
this mutual recognition scheme will not affect<br />
the operation of <strong>Queensland</strong> laws regulating<br />
the manner and sale of goods; the
348 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (<strong>Queensland</strong>) Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
transportation, storage or handling of goods<br />
and directed at protecting health and safety or<br />
preventing environmental pollution; or the<br />
inspection of goods if the inspection is a<br />
prerequisite to sale and the laws are directed<br />
at protecting health and safety or preventing<br />
environmental pollution. It also restricts sales<br />
to goods that can only be sold legally in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>.<br />
The Bill also makes several attempts to<br />
ensure that any future changes affecting the<br />
operation of the scheme in <strong>Queensland</strong> will<br />
not occur without the consent of the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> <strong>Parliament</strong>. Predetermined<br />
legislation and predetermined amendments to<br />
State legislation have raised strong objections<br />
from State <strong>Parliament</strong>s.<br />
It has also been essential to the<br />
argument that there should be a process<br />
whereby the States have input into the scrutiny<br />
of the head Commonwealth legislation. This is<br />
an evolving concept and, no doubt, the<br />
Scrutiny of Legislation Committee of the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> <strong>Parliament</strong> will be making its<br />
contribution to the national debate. Having<br />
said that, I still welcome the legislation and<br />
look forward to a new and more mature<br />
arrangement and interactions with our trans-<br />
Tasman neighbour. I commend the Bill to the<br />
House.<br />
Mr SLACK (Burnett—NPA) (3 p.m.): It had<br />
not been my intention to speak to the Bill,<br />
because I expected the House to be universal<br />
in its support for it. However, I was prompted to<br />
speak after listening to the contribution of the<br />
member for Lockyer who, for some reason or<br />
other, sees great dangers in the Bill before the<br />
House and feels that we may be swamped<br />
with imports from New Zealand. Over many<br />
years, we have had a strong two-way trading<br />
relationship with New Zealand that has<br />
presented many opportunities for us. That will<br />
continue to be the case. This legislation can<br />
only further those opportunities. I cannot<br />
understand anybody in this House having such<br />
a regressive and negative attitude towards the<br />
potential strengthening of ties with a country<br />
that can give <strong>Queensland</strong> increased<br />
opportunities for jobs and prosperity.<br />
We are a trading nation and over 80% of<br />
what we produce is traded. We must enhance<br />
all opportunities to further our ability to export<br />
what we produce. For example, my own area<br />
of Bundaberg has many horticultural producers<br />
who export to New Zealand. I cannot for one<br />
moment understand how anybody can feel<br />
that we cannot compete if we are going to<br />
operate in the marketplace with New Zealand.<br />
I pay every tribute to New Zealand exporters.<br />
They have done very well. They can show us a<br />
thing or two; we can learn from them. They<br />
perform very well in the international<br />
marketplace and they are very good at<br />
packaging. In certain areas, I have looked at<br />
them with some respect. However, at the end<br />
of the day any cooperation that we can<br />
engender between New Zealand and<br />
ourselves can only be to the benefit of both.<br />
We are talking about a mutual<br />
understanding—a Bill of cooperation—to<br />
ensure that we maximise our opportunities in<br />
the marketplace, not just for Australians and<br />
New Zealanders but also for the rest of the<br />
world. This is particularly so for Asia.<br />
While Asia has its problems, it is still a<br />
major outlet for Australian and New Zealand<br />
products. Together, we can penetrate that<br />
market. We can learn from each other and<br />
benefit from the fact that we have had a long<br />
association. We are ANZACS; broadly<br />
speaking we have a similar history, we have<br />
similar laws and a similar outlook on life. We<br />
want to see each other prosper. I think that<br />
anybody who stands in this House and says<br />
that we should take a regressive step in our<br />
relationship with New Zealand is not living in<br />
the 21st century. Unfortunately, such a person<br />
must be living in the 17th or 18th centuries.<br />
That has certainly not been my view from my<br />
experience in the trading area.<br />
I do not want to knock One Nation,<br />
because obviously that party has some<br />
supporters who feel that jobs would be under<br />
threat through increased imports from<br />
wherever it may be. However, I return to the<br />
point that 80% of what we produce is<br />
exported. There are many opportunities to<br />
export to New Zealand as there would be<br />
opportunities for New Zealanders to export to<br />
Australia. Surely <strong>Queensland</strong>ers can compete<br />
in the marketplace, which is what we are being<br />
asked to do. We should have every<br />
confidence that we can do that.<br />
If we do not have the confidence to<br />
compete in the New Zealand marketplace,<br />
how can we have the confidence to compete<br />
in the marketplace in Japan or the US, where<br />
we are doing very well, thank you very much.<br />
For the information of the Premier and the<br />
House, I state that we took the initiative to<br />
diversify our trade into markets other than<br />
Asia. That move meant no disrespect to Asia,<br />
but the reality was that we saw that it was<br />
unwise to have, as some people say, all our<br />
eggs in one basket. We also realised that we<br />
are competitive in the US and European<br />
markets. Australians and <strong>Queensland</strong>ers can<br />
take pride in the fact that our products are as<br />
good as any products from anywhere else in
9 Mar 1999 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (<strong>Queensland</strong>) Bill 349<br />
the world, and I defy anybody to say<br />
differently. For example, the backdrops that<br />
are produced in <strong>Queensland</strong> for the movie<br />
industry are equal to or better in quality than<br />
those produced in California and they are<br />
cheaper. One will find the same thing in the<br />
European market. What we produce is as<br />
good as anything that the Europeans produce<br />
and it is cheaper. Of course, the problem is the<br />
Asian market, where our goods may be a little<br />
more expensive but our quality is better, so it is<br />
a matter of weighing quality against quantity.<br />
At the end of the day, the <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
coalition Government took the decision to<br />
diversify into markets such as Europe and the<br />
US and, as the Deputy Premier mentioned this<br />
morning, the UAE and other Arab countries.<br />
Last year I led a delegation to the UAE, which<br />
resulted in very positive signs for increased<br />
trade with the UAE. I also led a delegation to<br />
the US, which also had very positive results. I<br />
do not have the figures in front of me, but<br />
trade to those countries has expanded quite<br />
substantially. Africa and India are also<br />
potential outlets for <strong>Queensland</strong> trade. There<br />
are plenty of trade opportunities, but we have<br />
to be very positive about approaching those<br />
opportunities. If we adopt a negative attitude,<br />
we will find ourselves going backwards. People<br />
will find themselves out of work and the<br />
farming communities that export their produce<br />
will lose their international markets if we<br />
approach this issue in a haphazard or a timid<br />
way.<br />
While I am on my feet I shall speak a little<br />
about tariffs, because there is some fear that<br />
Australia, being a low tariff country, is at the<br />
mercy of other countries. The fear is that those<br />
countries will look after themselves and will<br />
increase their tariff barriers or will enforce tariffs<br />
that we cannot compete with. The reality is<br />
that tariffs throughout the world are coming<br />
down. It is easy to say that Japan, China and<br />
elsewhere have not reduced their tariffs<br />
significantly and that they still have tariffs of<br />
50% or 100%. However, in many cases over<br />
the last few years tariffs have been halved. In<br />
the future, we need to position ourselves to<br />
take advantage of the lowering of tariffs<br />
throughout the world. Currently, we are not<br />
taking advantage of them to the extent that<br />
we should be.<br />
I know that the problems that, for<br />
example, Korea is facing are putting it under<br />
pressure. It is the same with Japan, China and<br />
other Asian countries. However, as yet I have<br />
not seen any signs that they are not<br />
progressing with their program of lowering<br />
tariffs. Early in the next century we will see<br />
quite a significant lowering of tariffs, to the<br />
extent that countries such as Korea will have<br />
virtually no tariffs. As a country that exports<br />
80% of our goods, that can only be to our<br />
advantage. We need to encourage trade<br />
cooperation between countries. As I have said,<br />
we have already diversified into Europe, the<br />
Arab countries, Africa and the US. We must<br />
diversify wherever we can. We need to foster<br />
close cooperation between all of the countries<br />
with which we have built up a strong trading<br />
relationship. In other words, we should not<br />
forget Asia. We should maintain those markets<br />
in their time of need. Having said that, now is<br />
not the time to be regressive or to even think<br />
about not endeavouring, as best we can, to<br />
have closer cooperation with New Zealand.<br />
Mr ROBERTSON (Sunnybank—ALP)<br />
(3.09 p.m.): I rise to support the Trans-Tasman<br />
Mutual Recognition (<strong>Queensland</strong>) Bill and<br />
some of the statements made by the<br />
honourable member for Burnett, in particular<br />
his response to the member for Lockyer's<br />
disgraceful contribution to this important<br />
debate. When I put my name onto the list of<br />
speakers for this debate, I noticed that no One<br />
Nation members intended to make a<br />
contribution. Although we hear a lot of bluster<br />
from One Nation members about the reduction<br />
in tariff barriers destroying the country, when<br />
push came to shove they did not show. Given<br />
the contribution of the member for Lockyer, it<br />
would probably have been a better option for<br />
One Nation not to have put any names onto<br />
the speakers list.<br />
Today in this House, in respect of a vitally<br />
important issue, we yet again heard a<br />
contribution from One Nation without any basis<br />
in fact whatsoever. During his contribution, the<br />
member for Lockyer admitted that he does not<br />
want to know the true position or what the<br />
statistics show, because that does not suit<br />
One Nation's argument. Statistics can be cited<br />
proving that over the past 10 years since the<br />
CER was signed exports from Australia to New<br />
Zealand have increased by 300% and imports<br />
from New Zealand to Australia have increased<br />
by 250%. However, One Nation members do<br />
not want to know about those facts, because<br />
they do not suit their position.<br />
As the member for Burnett said, I do not<br />
know how we can achieve a 300% increase in<br />
exports and at the same time not generate<br />
jobs. That defies logic. For example, I do not<br />
know how we can increase exports of motor<br />
vehicles manufactured in Australia from a<br />
value of $2,719m in 1986-87 to $11,300m in<br />
1997-98—a 400% to 500% increase—and not<br />
create jobs in our economy. I recommend to<br />
the member for Lockyer an interesting<br />
quarterly publication by the Australian Bureau
350 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (<strong>Queensland</strong>) Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
of Statistics titled International Merchandise<br />
Trade. That publication not only outlines our<br />
export and import performance country by<br />
country, it also examines and puts a value on<br />
every other category of Australian production<br />
and exports. The December quarter 1998<br />
edition shows how our export performance has<br />
grown dramatically over the past 10 years.<br />
However, for its own very narrow and ignorant<br />
purposes, One Nation does not wish to talk up<br />
the victories and improvements in Australian<br />
export performance under both Labor and<br />
coalition Governments; it wants to talk us down<br />
all the time and tell untruths about the effect of<br />
tariff reductions.<br />
Mrs Lavarch: They don't understand.<br />
Mr ROBERTSON: As my friend the<br />
member for Kurwongbah said, they simply do<br />
not understand.<br />
However, I do not wish to speak only<br />
about One Nation in my allotted time; I wish<br />
also to speak about another trade initiative<br />
that will prove to be extremely beneficial to<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>. Entering into trade agreements is<br />
only part of the equation in improving<br />
Australia's and <strong>Queensland</strong>'s export<br />
performance. It also takes imagination by both<br />
Government and industry to explore new ways<br />
to establish strong trading relationships. To this<br />
end, I will mention a new initiative by the<br />
Graduate School of Business at QUT, which<br />
has the support of Rotary, the Australian<br />
Industry Group, the <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
Confederation of Commerce and Industry and<br />
the Department of State Development, to<br />
leverage trading opportunities over time from<br />
the international students who come to<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> to study for their MBAs.<br />
QUT recognised that these students, who<br />
come from all over the world—India, the South<br />
Pacific, China, other parts of Asia, America<br />
and Europe—more often than not come from<br />
families with significant business interests in<br />
their countries of origin. It also recognised that<br />
the experience of students while studying in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> was overwhelmingly positive. A<br />
couple of months ago, one of the lecturers at<br />
the QUT School of Business, Mr Ken Gilbert,<br />
approached me with the idea of placing these<br />
students with <strong>Queensland</strong> industry as a means<br />
to gain practical experience and establish<br />
contacts and partnerships which could be<br />
developed further when these students<br />
returned home. With the help of the<br />
Department of State Development this pilot<br />
scheme, although still in its infancy, can<br />
provide an additional means to promote<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> overseas and create new trading<br />
opportunities.<br />
I wish to read into Hansard a letter that I<br />
received from one of those students who<br />
comes from India. He was speaking about the<br />
value of this initiative, as he saw it, in<br />
establishing a closer trading relationship<br />
between his family's company in India and<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> companies. He states—<br />
"We thank you all for the concern<br />
shown, and for giving us the platform to<br />
present our products and ourselves. We<br />
have representatives in the areas of<br />
Textiles, Plastics and chemicals, Food<br />
Industry, Handicrafts, Minerals, Electronic<br />
goods. We have reasons to show that we<br />
are interested in building constructive<br />
trade relationship with Australia."<br />
He goes on to speak about his interests in<br />
developing trade relationships with<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>. Of his family's company, he<br />
states—<br />
"... we have representatives who have<br />
their own manufacturing base in India, as<br />
also we have agents as representatives<br />
for Indian firms, it would be easier to<br />
negotiate and have face-to-face<br />
communication"—<br />
as a result of coming to <strong>Queensland</strong> to study<br />
for his MBA. Yes, he is talking about exporting<br />
goods from India to Australia, but that is the<br />
nature of trade. Trade cannot be one way. If<br />
we want to expand our trade horizons, we<br />
have to expect that potential trading partners<br />
will want to do the same. I know it comes as a<br />
surprise to One Nation, but that is how trade<br />
works. He then stated—<br />
"Some of us are interested to<br />
promote Australian products in India<br />
because of the superior quality or better<br />
technology, especially to cater to the<br />
needs of growing discerning customer<br />
profile."<br />
He is obviously talking about the emerging<br />
middle class in India. He goes on to speak<br />
about some specific opportunities. These<br />
opportunities arise from the fact that this<br />
young man is studying an MBA at QUT. His<br />
family owns businesses in India and,<br />
interestingly enough, they also speak English.<br />
I appreciate that the fact that they may not<br />
speak English was a difficulty that One Nation<br />
expressed earlier in respect of closer economic<br />
ties. However, when he was talking about the<br />
land of the stranded diphthong, I perhaps was<br />
with him for a while.<br />
The way forward for Australia is to pursue<br />
this initiative and use our contacts at whatever<br />
level and supplement them with international<br />
trade agreements. There is no other option.<br />
We cannot put up the walls again and hope
9 Mar 1999 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (<strong>Queensland</strong>) Bill 351<br />
that the rest of the world will go away. It does<br />
not work that way, and not one job will be<br />
created by taking the path that One Nation<br />
suggested today.<br />
Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—<br />
ALP) (Premier) (3.19 p.m.), in reply: I thank<br />
honourable members for their contribution to<br />
this debate. In particular, I thank the<br />
Opposition for its support for the Bill. I will not<br />
respond to the point that the Leader of the<br />
Opposition made about the delay with this Bill.<br />
I think he waited two years before he<br />
introduced it, but those trivial matters do not<br />
deserve to be raised in this House. As he<br />
knows, I promised new standards and I do not<br />
intend to raise those sort of issues.<br />
Having said that, the Leader of the<br />
Opposition did raise some interesting points in<br />
relation to National Competition Policy, and by<br />
and large I share his view in relation to them. I<br />
think I should advise the House that I have<br />
written in the strongest terms to the Prime<br />
Minister, urging him to review the role and<br />
authority of the National Competition Council. I<br />
have implemented policies which ensure that<br />
only those competition reforms which pass a<br />
public benefit test will be implemented. I have<br />
maintained <strong>Queensland</strong>'s position in respect of<br />
major reforms to achieve our competition<br />
payments without selling off all our assets, as<br />
they have in Victoria. This is a very important<br />
point.<br />
In many respects the sale of public assets<br />
in Victoria, such as the electricity industry, is<br />
going to deprive future generations of their<br />
opportunity to control that industry in their own<br />
State. My concern is that it will be controlled by<br />
the boardrooms of New York and London, and<br />
I do not think that is in the interests of regional<br />
development or Australian development. In<br />
particular, I think National Competition Policy<br />
works very much against States such as<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>. If one considers that Melbourne<br />
has something like 70% of Victoria's<br />
population, one sees that changes that can be<br />
made in smaller States—and in a sense it is<br />
almost a city State, if you look at the size of<br />
Melbourne—cannot be made in States such<br />
as <strong>Queensland</strong>, where only approximately<br />
46% of the population live in the capital city.<br />
Therefore, when one is trying to maintain<br />
services to regional and country <strong>Queensland</strong>,<br />
there must be Government control of natural<br />
assets or resources, such as the electricity<br />
industry. Water is another one. At the moment<br />
we are constantly battling with the<br />
Commonwealth over water. As the former<br />
Premier will know, this was an issue that he<br />
had to deal with. I know the difficulties that he<br />
had from what I have seen; we are having the<br />
same difficulties, because we do not want to<br />
see people out there paying for water which is<br />
going to undermine their ability to survive.<br />
The honourable member for Burnett<br />
spoke about this—one of the things that I put<br />
on the hold. Had the National Competition<br />
Policy gone ahead in letter form, a lot of<br />
farmers around Bundaberg—and I know the<br />
member for Bundaberg would share this<br />
concern as well—would have been the first hit.<br />
I would not, and the Cabinet would not, let it<br />
go ahead for that very reason. We were<br />
concerned about what it meant. We have<br />
written to the Prime Minister. There have been<br />
some changes in terms of the implementation<br />
program, and I want other changes in terms of<br />
National Competition Policy so the farmers in<br />
the honourable member's area are not<br />
disadvantaged. They do not generally support<br />
my side of politics. That has nothing to do with<br />
it. This is bigger than politics; this is about<br />
getting a system of Government where we, in<br />
fact, control it.<br />
I totally agree with one of the things that<br />
the Leader of the Opposition said. It will stun<br />
him as much as it will stun other members of<br />
this House. The control of National<br />
Competition Policy should be taken back to<br />
the Premiers. It should not be handled by<br />
some independent body over which the duly<br />
elected people have little control. We have to<br />
remember in all these things that National<br />
Competition Policy on its own can lead, as it<br />
has in Britain, to large private monopolies in<br />
the control of water and other natural assets, if<br />
one wants to put it in those terms. What is the<br />
point of having water in the control of a private<br />
monopoly? How does that improve the lot of<br />
people's lives? It does not.<br />
At least if someone is unhappy about the<br />
electricity supply they are getting or unhappy<br />
about the quality of the water, what do they<br />
do? They can get on to their local member of<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>, they can turn it into a public issue<br />
if it is of such significance and they can<br />
change Government. Governments have been<br />
changed on the basis of the provision of these<br />
sorts of services—important, life threatening<br />
services in some circumstances, or certainly<br />
services that impact on people's quality of life.<br />
Governments have been changed on the<br />
basis of them. That is the ability of an<br />
electorate to change the Government if they<br />
do not like the services they are getting.<br />
National Competition Policy removes the<br />
control, and we need to do something about<br />
that. I have to say that it is time that all sides<br />
of politics in this country at a State and Federal
352 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (<strong>Queensland</strong>) Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
level rewrote the national competition rules<br />
and laws as they exist. I have to say that we<br />
are doing everything we can to achieve it. I<br />
was delighted to see the unanimous resolution<br />
of this <strong>Parliament</strong> last year in relation to<br />
National Competition Policy. We have used<br />
that extensively in contact with the Federal<br />
Government and we will continue to use the<br />
unanimous resolution of this <strong>Parliament</strong> to try<br />
to get those national competition rules<br />
changed.<br />
Mr Paff interjected.<br />
Mr BEATTIE: I did not hear the<br />
interjection.<br />
In terms of the point that the Leader of<br />
the Opposition made in relation to treaties, I<br />
think it is important to say that, while Mr<br />
Howard, the Prime Minister, certainly did<br />
introduce new treaty arrangements in 1996, it<br />
is my understanding that the Honourable Paul<br />
Keating was responsible for developing those<br />
processes for the Commonwealth. I think it is<br />
regrettable that to date only one meeting of<br />
the treaty's council has been held. It should<br />
meet annually, and I will be encouraging the<br />
Prime Minister to maintain his commitment to<br />
the treaty's process.<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> has led the development of<br />
the treaty's protocol for States and Territories.<br />
Officers of my department coordinate State<br />
and Territories' input to the standing<br />
committee on treaties. That is an issue that we<br />
will keep an eye on. The Trans-Tasman Mutual<br />
Recognition Arrangement is a very good<br />
example of cooperation between the<br />
Commonwealth and all States and Territories<br />
in the development of a treaty under the<br />
protocol. The TTMRA is dependent for its<br />
success on the support of the States and<br />
Territories. I thank the Leader of the<br />
Opposition for his contribution.<br />
I think it is important that we address<br />
those issues raised by the member for Lockyer<br />
because they should not be allowed to be on<br />
the public record without being addressed,<br />
although I understood that the member for<br />
Burnett made some appropriate remarks a<br />
little earlier. I note the concern expressed by<br />
the member for Lockyer about freeing up trade<br />
with New Zealand. The point about all this is<br />
that he is too late. I think the member for<br />
Logan made some reference to these issues<br />
as well, and so did the member for<br />
Sunnybank. The issue is that the member for<br />
Lockyer is too late.<br />
New Zealand is one of Australia's major<br />
trading partners. We sell lots of products in<br />
New Zealand and they sell lots of their<br />
products here. At one stage in the early part of<br />
the history of Australia and New Zealand, they<br />
were talking about New Zealand becoming the<br />
seventh State.<br />
Mr Schwarten: It's closer than Perth.<br />
Mr BEATTIE: It is closer than Perth.<br />
Mr Borbidge: They were nearly part of the<br />
Federation.<br />
Mr BEATTIE: That is exactly the point.<br />
They were going to be the seventh State and,<br />
as the Leader of the Opposition says, they<br />
were nearly part of the Federation.<br />
New Zealand is <strong>Queensland</strong>'s second<br />
largest market for international tourists. Yes,<br />
we have to recognise their product standards,<br />
but it is increasingly the case that those<br />
standards are jointly determined between our<br />
countries. That is the bottom line. The member<br />
for Lockyer unfortunately is confused when he<br />
refers to the High Court case involving<br />
television content. The High Court ruled that in<br />
terms of the Closer Economic Relations<br />
agreement, Australian and New Zealand<br />
products in a number of sectors would be<br />
considered as one. There is nothing new in the<br />
ruling and it works to Australia's advantage. It<br />
works to our advantage, particularly for<br />
consumers, who end up with greater choice in<br />
relation to purchasing products, including<br />
television.<br />
The bottom line is that—and we have to<br />
appreciate this—there are trade blocs forming<br />
in the world. The European Union with 480<br />
million people now has the Euro. We have the<br />
cooperation in the United States between the<br />
US, Canada and Mexico and its trade alliance.<br />
We need to have trading partners with whom<br />
we can trade. That is the bottom line. Australia<br />
is trying to enhance that with New Zealand—a<br />
long-term relationship. The world is so<br />
competitive we cannot do it on our own. It is<br />
that simple.<br />
I think it is worth making this point. Our<br />
difficulty—and this is reflected in a number of<br />
Government policies—is this: there are only 18<br />
million of us. We do not have the huge market<br />
that the United States does of 240 million plus<br />
their partnerships with Canada and Mexico.<br />
Europe has 480 million people. What do we<br />
do when we have a small domestic market?<br />
First of all, we have to use our brains, which is<br />
why we keep talking about smart State, about<br />
education and about training; but we export.<br />
That is the key to it because export means<br />
jobs. The most valuable thing that we can do<br />
to be competitive in the world of exports is to<br />
have a well-educated, well-trained work force.<br />
That is the competitive edge. Any smart<br />
economist in the world will tell honourable
9 Mar 1999 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (<strong>Queensland</strong>) Bill 353<br />
members that. What we then need to do is to<br />
find those things that we can export.<br />
One of the things the Government has<br />
been trying to do is value add when it comes<br />
to primary produce, to find whatever value<br />
adding opportunity we possibly can. In some<br />
senses the previous Government pursued this<br />
policy, too. <strong>Queensland</strong> Governments have<br />
been pursuing this for some time. We have<br />
added to it.<br />
Mr Mickel: Value added cotton.<br />
Mr BEATTIE: Cotton is a good industry. I<br />
know that the cotton industry is in the middle<br />
of a debate about spraying, but cotton is a<br />
relatively new industry that is worth $500m to<br />
this State and $1 billion to New South Wales.<br />
It is a $1.5 billion industry.<br />
Things are changing. I know that my old<br />
home town of Atherton now has sugar where<br />
there used to be tobacco. The strategy is to<br />
value add to primary industries—to value add<br />
to raw materials. The light metals industry—the<br />
Teksid foundry, the smelter at Stanwell and so<br />
on—is so important to us because it is value<br />
adding down the line. Of course, we also want<br />
to continue to do well with tourism.<br />
We are trying to do the traditional things<br />
well, but then we get to the second part of the<br />
strategy, that is, we are trying to do something<br />
about increasing opportunities in technology.<br />
The regional headquarters of Dascom is<br />
something the coalition was pursuing for<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> and that is now a reality. This<br />
State is trying to get high technology ventures.<br />
No more will the technological engineers be<br />
going to work in Silicon Valley. As I understand<br />
it, the head of Dascom is an Australian who<br />
went to Silicon Valley and has now come back<br />
to head up Dascom on the Gold Coast. So the<br />
brain drain that was going on a few years ago<br />
is being reversed.<br />
The next stage in all of this is finding new<br />
industries, such as biotechnology. The<br />
University of <strong>Queensland</strong> has some of the<br />
leading people in the world when it comes to<br />
biotechnology. Not only do we have to do the<br />
traditional things well and value add to those;<br />
we have to get to the next stage, and that is<br />
find the future industries, the industries of the<br />
next century. That is what we have been<br />
seeking to do.<br />
A number of members on the<br />
Government side referred to trade<br />
opportunities, as did members on the other<br />
side. In all of this we have to remember that<br />
trade means jobs. That is the bottom line. The<br />
former Minister for Trade, the honourable<br />
Doug Slack, made some reference to what he<br />
did when the previous Government was in<br />
office. We supported the opening of the<br />
Shanghai office and we have kept it open.<br />
Why? Because it was a good decision. I<br />
supported him when I was in Opposition. Now<br />
that Labor is in Government, we support the<br />
Shanghai office. In the same way, when the<br />
coalition reopened the Los Angeles office I<br />
went there and we did it in a joint fashion.<br />
Why? My Government and I are committed to<br />
trade, because trade means jobs.<br />
We will continue to have an aggressive<br />
approach to trade opportunities. That is why I<br />
have been to China. I went to northern Italy to<br />
talk to Teksid, I went to Germany to talk about<br />
film and about coal opportunities, and I also<br />
went to London. Honourable members know<br />
that the German coal industry is removing the<br />
subsidies and moving away from the nuclear<br />
industry. For the first time in a generation there<br />
is an opportunity to get into a new coal market.<br />
I spoke to the Mining Council about this the<br />
other night. It recognises that opportunity.<br />
These are the sorts of things we have to do.<br />
Teksid is something we have to pursue. It has<br />
been around for a while—I accept that—but<br />
we have to get out and pursue those sorts of<br />
opportunities.<br />
I put this very clearly on the record today:<br />
honourable members will see under this<br />
Government a very aggressive attitude<br />
towards trade opportunities overseas. We do<br />
have to lead trade delegations. I led a trade<br />
delegation to Europe. The honourable<br />
member for Burnett led trade delegations. Not<br />
once did he get criticism from me about it. Nor<br />
did the member for Surfers Paradise when he<br />
went on those trips as Premier of this State,<br />
because they were valuable trips. We will be<br />
doing the same and we will be taking every<br />
opportunity. We will be looking at the United<br />
States. We will continue our relationship with<br />
Asia.<br />
I agree: of course we have to maintain<br />
our presence in Asia. That presence has to be<br />
maintained during the difficult times, because<br />
if we are friends during the difficult times we will<br />
be even better friends during the good times.<br />
Asia will come back. No-one should be under<br />
any illusions about that. South Korea is<br />
coming back faster than most people think.<br />
Sure, there is still a year or 18 months to go.<br />
Taiwan has held up very well. China has held<br />
up very well. All the pundits who said that the<br />
Chinese currency would be devalued were<br />
wrong. Hong Kong has had its ups and downs,<br />
but it is still solid. Japan has not done as well<br />
as most people would like to think, but it has<br />
bottomed out and is slowly starting to come<br />
back, and the world's second biggest economy
354 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (<strong>Queensland</strong>) Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
has held up—not as well as we would like, but<br />
it has held up.<br />
Sure, there are some problems in<br />
Indonesia, but we have a particular<br />
responsibility as well as a particular relationship<br />
with Indonesia which means that we have to<br />
do what we can to develop those trading<br />
partners. Thiess Contractors are there in a big<br />
way. So is Telstra. There are a large number of<br />
Australian investors in Indonesia and they<br />
have to remain.<br />
The member for Sunnybank made some<br />
points about India, as did the member for<br />
Burnett. India is our third biggest importer of<br />
coal. It is a big future market for us with its<br />
emerging middle class. Malaysia is on the way<br />
back. It has some political issues and<br />
problems, but the economy is solid. Thailand is<br />
starting to come back. As I indicated to the<br />
House, I had lunch with Jeff Kennett and the<br />
Prime Minister of Singapore and the Premier<br />
of South Australia in Melbourne last Friday.<br />
We can see Singapore's optimism. While the<br />
Prime Minister of Singapore was very glowing<br />
in his view of the Australian economy he<br />
knows that, while we are solid, they are solid<br />
as well.<br />
What does all of that mean? That means<br />
that we are on the doorstep of the biggest<br />
market in the world—Asia. We can understand<br />
Ford's enthusiasm when we talk about light<br />
metals. We can understand magnesium<br />
opportunities. We can understand Teksid's<br />
interest, because as the middle classes<br />
emerge in India, in China, in Indonesia, in<br />
Malaysia and in Thailand—you name it—the<br />
demand for cars of the future, lighter cars<br />
admittedly, which is what this is all about, will<br />
grow. Certainly the opportunities for us are<br />
significant.<br />
We have enormous opportunities to take<br />
advantage of that. There is bipartisan support<br />
for and agreement on these sorts of<br />
agreements because this is the way to the<br />
future. I say to the member for Lockyer that we<br />
have to not think of yesterday. We have to<br />
think of today and of tomorrow. We have to<br />
plan these things. If we do not have some<br />
future industries, if we do not plan for the<br />
future, then my children and his children will<br />
not have jobs. We cannot simply be insular in<br />
these matters or there will not be a future for<br />
any of us.<br />
As the House can see, the economic<br />
strategy I have set out, in a thumbnail sketch, I<br />
guess, will give some idea of what we are<br />
trying to do. It is the only way ahead. That is<br />
why we have to be aggressive and get out in<br />
the world. As I said before, while I have the<br />
honour of being the Premier of this State I will<br />
be knocking on every door I possibly can—in<br />
Asia, in Europe and in the United States.<br />
I ask the House to let me be political for a<br />
minute. One of the things that disappoints me<br />
about the Federal Government is that the<br />
Prime Minister is a stay-at-home Prime<br />
Minister. That is not good enough. The Prime<br />
Minister of this country should be out there in<br />
the world, selling our opportunity. Outside of<br />
what we are trying to do—we are a new<br />
Government—do honourable members know<br />
who does more selling of Australia than<br />
anyone else? It is Jeff Kennett. People in<br />
some parts of the world would think he is<br />
Prime Minister! Kennett should be doing what<br />
he is doing. We will be doing that sort of thing.<br />
I know that other State leaders—Bob Carr and<br />
others—are still trying to do it as well, but the<br />
Prime Minister and the Federal Government<br />
need to play a more aggressive role in selling<br />
Australia to the world.<br />
In many respects we are a long way away<br />
from the rest of the world. Distance is getting<br />
shorter. If we want that long-term structural<br />
development, if we want the Teksids to come<br />
here and invest in our light metals industries<br />
and if we want to develop joint ventures into<br />
Asia, then we have to get off our tails and do<br />
it.<br />
I have to say—I have told the House<br />
this—that I was disappointed when I visited<br />
Italy a couple of weeks ago. When I sat down<br />
with the Australian equivalent of Austrade and<br />
they were talking about coming to Australia,<br />
they were talking about going to Sydney and<br />
Melbourne. Members can imagine how well<br />
this went over with me.<br />
Mr Schwarten: We want them to come to<br />
Rocky.<br />
Mr BEATTIE: We will do this in stages. I<br />
said that that was simply not good enough. I<br />
made it very clear that we would be going<br />
back. I am not necessarily talking about me,<br />
although I would love to if the opportunity were<br />
available. In September we will be having an<br />
exhibition of <strong>Queensland</strong> companies—<br />
Australian companies, but obviously<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> companies—in Milan to showcase<br />
what we can do. We will be inviting a range of<br />
Italian companies to come here in the lead-up<br />
to the Olympics next year because the Italian<br />
Olympics team is, in fact, training in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>. We will use that as a leg-up to<br />
highlight the opportunities that exist in this<br />
State.<br />
Those are the sorts of things we have to<br />
do. We have to be in those places. Frankly, it<br />
is about time that we in this State and in this
9 Mar 1999 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 355<br />
country accepted that political leaders actually<br />
have to get out there and promote their States<br />
or their countries in the world. The ones who<br />
stay at home achieve nothing. That is why,<br />
when the Leader of the Opposition went<br />
overseas on his recent trip, I refused to be<br />
critical when some wanted that, for the very<br />
simple reason that I think it was a valuable trip.<br />
It was an important trip. The alternative<br />
Premier of this State should be out visiting<br />
various countries to be equipped to deal with<br />
those sorts of issues. The Premier of the day<br />
should be out there selling the State, as well.<br />
As Doug Slack, the member for Burnett,<br />
knows, not once did I criticise one of his trips<br />
overseas, because I saw that as promoting<br />
this State. That is why we should lift the<br />
blinkers and the nonsense we hear about<br />
leaders going overseas. If there is an actionpacked<br />
itinerary, and people are out there<br />
doing their bit to promote jobs, then that<br />
should be the agenda that everyone<br />
understands is important. In terms of primary<br />
produce—and a number of members opposite<br />
represent electorates where there are<br />
significant primary sector opportunities—we<br />
have to get out into the world and sell those<br />
opportunities, as well.<br />
This legislation does have bipartisan<br />
support. I did not intend to speak so long, but I<br />
thought that, after the contribution of the<br />
member for Lockyer, it had to be put in<br />
context. If we do not put it in context, we end<br />
up with a nonsense debate which does not<br />
advance this State one bit. I am not prepared<br />
to allow that to happen.<br />
Mr Schwarten: It's going to cost us jobs.<br />
Mr BEATTIE: It will cost us jobs, because<br />
trade means jobs. I will say that again: trade<br />
means jobs.<br />
Motion agreed to.<br />
Committee<br />
Clauses 1 to 8, as read, agreed to.<br />
Bill reported, without amendment.<br />
Third Reading<br />
Bill, on motion of Mr Beattie, by leave,<br />
read a third time.<br />
LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL BILL<br />
Second Reading<br />
Resumed from 19 November 1998 (see<br />
p. 3459).<br />
Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (Surfers<br />
Paradise—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition)<br />
(3.43 p.m.): The Opposition will not be<br />
opposing this legislation, but we do have some<br />
concerns which I will raise during this speech.<br />
However, I understand that the Government,<br />
by way of amendment at the Committee<br />
stage, may well be addressing a number of<br />
the concerns that I will be raising. I thank the<br />
Premier for his courtesy in advising me earlier<br />
today of those proposed amendments.<br />
The need for a State-based alternative to<br />
a Perth-based, Commonwealth-run, national<br />
Native Title Tribunal handling native title<br />
matters in this State and land matters in this<br />
State has been clear for a long time. The<br />
current Premier's Labor predecessor wanted to<br />
establish a State-based tribunal as long ago<br />
as the immediate wake of the passage of the<br />
totally unworkable Native Title Act way back in<br />
late 1993. He did not do so because he could<br />
not reach agreement with the then Labor<br />
Prime Minister on funding and related matters.<br />
The coalition could not do so in Government<br />
because of Labor's delays in the Senate over<br />
the response to the Wik judgment of the High<br />
Court.<br />
Native title, which had been a mess under<br />
the original Mabo-based Native Title Act,<br />
became a farce after the Wik case, which<br />
affirmed the doubts we on this side of the<br />
House had long been seeking to make clear to<br />
the people of this State. We were parodied for<br />
that stance by honourable members opposite,<br />
but history and time proved that we were right.<br />
Now, finally, almost seven years after the<br />
Mabo judgment, Labor is at last moving on<br />
this significant side-bar issue in dealing with<br />
native title matters. It comes an inexcusable<br />
nine months after Labor finally let a very<br />
compromised Wik response through the<br />
Senate. The template was there in July. The<br />
Native Title Unit within the Premier's<br />
Department had done the work. There is<br />
absolutely no reason why this legislation could<br />
not have been on the statutes many months<br />
ago. It is, frankly, staggering that it has taken<br />
this Government so long to respond to this<br />
issue specifically, and that it has chosen to do<br />
so in such a piecemeal approach. In the<br />
Northern Territory and in Western<br />
Australia—the other two parts of this country<br />
where native title issues are a major concern<br />
for Government—legislation was put before<br />
the respective <strong>Parliament</strong>s in a coordinated<br />
fashion. We have had to put up with a<br />
situation in <strong>Queensland</strong> in which each leg of<br />
the response has been dealt with separately.<br />
This is the third—and not the last—time<br />
we have debated native title under this
356 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
Government. We should have got it over and<br />
done with in one go. Even after this, we will be<br />
revisiting the topic again when we deal with the<br />
heritage issues. I warn the Premier today that<br />
we will not be as helpful next time if the<br />
confidential draft plan on heritage matters is<br />
even approximately reflected in the final<br />
version, which may yet be many months away.<br />
That draft showed it is very clear that the<br />
intention of the Government is to provide an<br />
extraordinarily broad definition of cultural<br />
heritage matters that will simply deepen the<br />
bureaucratic nightmare confronting almost any<br />
land issue in the State these days, as a result<br />
of the Labor Party's determination to seek the<br />
edge of the envelope for the extension of the<br />
reach of native title at every turn.<br />
So with that timetable behind us, and with<br />
the work still to be done, it is just ridiculous for<br />
the Premier to claim that he has fixed native<br />
title, as he contends he has. Of course, he has<br />
not. He is dawdling his way through it with a<br />
quite biased approach that will ultimately bite,<br />
and bite hard. The delays that have been built<br />
into land management in this State by the<br />
rush by Labor politicians and their fellow<br />
travellers—the Greens, the Democrats and<br />
Senator Harradine among them—to maximise<br />
its impact are still with us. Certainty in the<br />
pastoral industry is therefore still a very long<br />
way off. Certainty for the mining industry is still<br />
a very long way off. We are nowhere near as<br />
far down the track as we should have been.<br />
Very pointedly, the establishment of this<br />
tribunal is a precursor to Commonwealth<br />
approval of the alternative State provisions<br />
related to sections 43 and 43A of the<br />
amended Native Title Act—the right to<br />
negotiate provisions. Until this tribunal is up<br />
and running, the alternative State provisions<br />
cannot come into play. We dealt with 43 and<br />
43A last year, when we had the extraordinary<br />
decision of the Government to maintain a fullblown<br />
right to negotiate for mining on pastoral<br />
land—a decision which is going to slow<br />
development in this State and cost us jobs.<br />
Even though we dealt with that last year, it is a<br />
dead letter until this Land and Resources<br />
Tribunal is up and running. So that is the cost<br />
of this piecemeal approach. That is the cost of<br />
a can't do Government. The Opposition<br />
supports both the establishment of an<br />
independent State-based tribunal and the<br />
amalgamation of the Wardens Court with the<br />
new body.<br />
It is no secret that there is considerable<br />
dissatisfaction in some quarters with the<br />
operation of the Wardens Court. This<br />
dissatisfaction is best exemplified by the<br />
decision of the Court of Appeal in late 1997<br />
which found that the Mining Warden had<br />
denied natural justice to a central <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
pastoralist. The court found that the warden<br />
had taken evidence from South Blackwater<br />
Coal after closing public hearings and without<br />
notifying the pastoralist, Mr Edward Wall.<br />
There is no doubt that many in the pastoral<br />
industry were heavily critical of the Wardens<br />
Court and believed that its decisions were<br />
biased towards mining companies. I do not<br />
wish to pick sides in that dispute, but whenever<br />
there is a situation in which a court has lost the<br />
confidence of many in the community,<br />
remedial action is required.<br />
In February last year, the Department of<br />
Mines and Energy, at the direction of the then<br />
Minister, the then member for Tablelands,<br />
released a discussion paper on the court. That<br />
document outlined a number of worthwhile<br />
reforms aimed at bolstering the court and<br />
tackling some of the major concerns that<br />
industry bodies had.<br />
This reform process has been overtaken<br />
by the need to establish a State-based body<br />
to deal with native title issues affecting the<br />
mining and pastoral industry, and I am sure<br />
that amalgamating the bodies is sensible and<br />
will hopefully help to build bridges to persons<br />
and groups who felt that they were not getting<br />
a fair go. One step that will help in this process<br />
is the explicit requirement that the tribunal<br />
must observe the rules of natural justice.<br />
A similar requirement is absent from the<br />
Minerals Resources Act, and although there is<br />
most probably a common law requirement that<br />
the Wardens Court observes this basic<br />
element of procedural fairness, it is better that<br />
it be made explicitly clear in the legislation<br />
establishing the new body. Landowners, in<br />
particular, should be very pleased that their<br />
concerns about not having a fair go, and being<br />
treated fairly, are, in part, being addressed.<br />
Section 26 of the Commonwealth Native<br />
Title Act provides that the right to negotiate<br />
applies to the creation of a right to mine. As<br />
the Premier pointed out when introducing this<br />
Bill, that includes not just mining leases but<br />
also tenures that allow exploration and<br />
prospecting and the extraction of petroleum or<br />
gas. However, the activation of the right to<br />
negotiate is avoided if the Commonwealth<br />
Minister approves alternative State provisions<br />
that comply with sections 43 and 43A.<br />
One of the key elements of obtaining<br />
Commonwealth approval for alternative State<br />
provisions is the establishment of an<br />
independent body which will hear objections,<br />
which body will include a member of the<br />
national Native Title Tribunal. In addition, an
9 Mar 1999 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 357<br />
independent State body is required to be<br />
established pursuant to section 24MD to deal<br />
with disputes concerning compensation for the<br />
compulsory acquisition of native title rights and<br />
interests.<br />
I will not repeat at any length the<br />
Opposition's concerns with the way in which<br />
the Beattie Labor Government failed to<br />
address the real concerns of the mining<br />
industry with the alternative State provisions<br />
enacted to deal with section 43A situations.<br />
The right to negotiate process that will be<br />
inflicted on the mining industry under the State<br />
Act was unnecessary, will add extra costs and<br />
uncertainty to the industry and generally is<br />
counterproductive. However, that Bill has been<br />
passed and we have to deal with the merits of<br />
this Bill independently.<br />
One matter on which I would appreciate<br />
clarification is the relationship between the<br />
presiding and the non-presiding members of<br />
the tribunal. I note that the Premier has been<br />
called from the Chamber, but I trust that the<br />
Minister in charge of the House and the<br />
officers are taking notes of these particular<br />
issues. I suspect that they may be dealt with,<br />
as I indicated earlier, in some of the<br />
amendments that the Government is<br />
proposing.<br />
The Premier has indicated that this new<br />
body is not a court. It is subject to ministerial<br />
override. Its presiding members are not judges<br />
of the Supreme or District Courts. Yet the Bill<br />
provides that members of the Land Court will<br />
be non-presiding members. Following the<br />
recent High Court decision in Kable's case, I<br />
have some doubts about the legality of this<br />
arrangement. Certainly Land Court members<br />
are judicial officers, yet under this Bill they are<br />
being treated differently and poorly in<br />
comparison with the presiding tribunal<br />
members. I would like the Premier to address<br />
this issue in his reply, and in particular whether<br />
there are any legal or constitutional problems<br />
in having Land Court members sitting with<br />
members of this tribunal in an inferior capacity.<br />
Under this Bill the president of the tribunal<br />
will be treated in all respects as a Supreme<br />
Court judge and the deputy presidents as<br />
District Court judges, even though they will not<br />
be members of the Supreme or District Courts.<br />
Appointees will have lifetime tenure and will<br />
only be able to be removed in the same<br />
manner as if they were either respectively a<br />
Supreme or District Court judge.<br />
I certainly support every effort to make the<br />
tribunal an independent body, and for that<br />
reason I support the transfer of responsibility<br />
for the administration of this statute and this<br />
body to the Attorney-General and the<br />
Department of Justice and Attorney-General.<br />
However, I would say to the Premier that this<br />
body is not a court. It cannot operate as a<br />
court and I am not convinced that the<br />
president of this tribunal should have equal<br />
status to a Supreme Court judge, especially as<br />
the person holding that position will not be a<br />
judge of that court.<br />
The Supreme Court is the superior court<br />
of this State, and this or any Government<br />
should exercise suitable restraint before<br />
creating ad hoc tribunals and investing their<br />
members with a position and status the<br />
equivalent of the superior court of this State.<br />
There is no requirement in the Federal Native<br />
Title Act that we do this, and I would be<br />
interested to know what motivated the<br />
Government in elevating the president to this<br />
status. I formally request that the Premier, as<br />
the responsible Minister, responds to these<br />
concerns in his summing-up. I would also be<br />
interested to know whether the Attorney-<br />
General consulted with the Chief Justice on<br />
the matter and whether the Chief Justice is in<br />
concurrence.<br />
A further matter which requires some<br />
comment is the fact that, although hearings of<br />
the tribunal must be open to the public,<br />
proceedings may be heard in camera if the<br />
tribunal believes that it is in the interests of<br />
justice to do so or it would allow culturally<br />
sensitive issues to be appropriately dealt with.<br />
This is a provision that will be needed from<br />
time to time. Nevertheless, in the Western<br />
Australian legislation there is a provision that<br />
its equivalent body may take account of<br />
cultural and customary concerns of Aboriginal<br />
peoples but not so as to unduly prejudice a<br />
party to the proceedings.<br />
I am sure that before the tribunal<br />
exercised its discretion under clause 48 to hold<br />
hearings in camera it would try to avoid<br />
prejudicing other parties. But I think that there<br />
is considerable merit in putting this matter<br />
beyond doubt. I would suggest to the Premier<br />
that consideration be given to clarify the Bill in<br />
due course to ensure that, in exercising this<br />
discretion, appropriate consideration must be<br />
given to the prejudice that may be caused to<br />
other parties. I would also specifically request<br />
that the Premier addresses this issue in his<br />
response.<br />
The success or otherwise of the tribunal<br />
will in large part be determined by how quickly,<br />
simply and effectively it deals with matters<br />
which are currently heard by the mining<br />
warden. It will be essential that the rather<br />
complex nature of this tribunal, with presiding
358 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
and non-presiding members, and with various<br />
referees performing different tasks, does not<br />
prevent non-native title matters being<br />
processed effectively. As important as native<br />
title is—and I should add cultural heritage<br />
issues as well—it would be an absolute<br />
tragedy if we forgot that this tribunal has to<br />
deal with all of the various matters that were<br />
previously dealt with by the Wardens Court<br />
under both the Mineral Resources Act and the<br />
Fossicking Act.<br />
I recognise that the Premier has indicated<br />
that day-to-day proceedings will be able to<br />
heard by single member panels and that as<br />
minimal a disruption as possible will be caused<br />
to current processes under the Mineral<br />
Resources Act. Just last December, the<br />
Government decided to appoint a second<br />
mining warden with a third in reserve. The<br />
Minister for Mines and Energy said, and I<br />
quote—<br />
"There is an urgent need now to start<br />
clearing the backlog of cases which have<br />
accumulated over the last couple of<br />
years. It is time to firmly address this<br />
matter with action."<br />
No-one in this Chamber would disagree with<br />
those sentiments, but it would be a retrograde<br />
step indeed if the new tribunal did not give<br />
sufficient time or priority to non-native title<br />
matters. I seek some information from the<br />
Premier as to how, administratively, the<br />
tribunal will be structured so that proper priority<br />
occurs and general mining and fossicking<br />
issues are dealt with in a timely manner.<br />
The Premier pointed out that the<br />
Commonwealth Native Title Act requires that a<br />
member of the national Native Title Tribunal<br />
must participate in the determination of an<br />
objection under the alternative State provisions<br />
regime. He indicated also that the<br />
Government's preferred position was that<br />
presiding members of the tribunal become<br />
members of the national Native Title Tribunal.<br />
No doubt discussions with Commonwealth<br />
officials have taken place about this matter,<br />
and, if that is the case, I wonder whether the<br />
Premier can indicate the attitude of the<br />
Commonwealth. Is the Commonwealth<br />
minded, as a matter of principle, to appoint<br />
members of the proposed State tribunal also<br />
as members of the national Native Title<br />
Tribunal? I raise this point because if the<br />
Commonwealth does not agree, there are a<br />
range of financial, administrative and logistical<br />
issues that then have to be addressed if the<br />
State tribunal is to operate efficiently and<br />
effectively.<br />
If the Commonwealth does not agree and<br />
a member of the national Native Title Tribunal<br />
participates in tribunal matters, who pays the<br />
expenses of that Commonwealth member? Is<br />
it the State or the Commonwealth? Has this<br />
matter been raised and resolved, and if it has,<br />
what is the outcome? The Premier said in his<br />
speech that <strong>Queensland</strong> officers are<br />
negotiating with their Federal counterparts<br />
funding assistance issues, so I assume that, if<br />
these are live issues, then they would have<br />
been discussed thoroughly in that context, and<br />
in that regard I would welcome the Premier's<br />
advice to the House.<br />
When in Government I directed that all of<br />
the native title policy and legal areas be<br />
amalgamated into one division within the<br />
Department of the Premier and Cabinet. I did it<br />
with the clear appreciation that it is essential<br />
that the Premier's Department take charge of<br />
high-level discussions with the Commonwealth<br />
on native title. In particular, I was acutely<br />
cognisant of the need for high-level<br />
coordination when it came to issues of<br />
financial assistance, as this will be essential if a<br />
State-based regime is to be set up and<br />
function properly. It is with this background in<br />
mind that I raise these issues, because without<br />
a proper understanding at the outset of the<br />
respective roles of State and Federal tribunal<br />
members and who is going to pick up the tab,<br />
there is the potential for ongoing problems as<br />
well as Federal/State disagreements. I would<br />
ask the Premier to inform the House when the<br />
next series of Bills relating to native title and<br />
cultural heritage matters will be introduced into<br />
this Chamber.<br />
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of<br />
native title knows that there is an ongoing<br />
overlap with cultural heritage matters. Ever<br />
since Justice Evatt issued her report on the<br />
review of the Commonwealth Aboriginal and<br />
Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act a<br />
little over two years ago, there has been a<br />
considerable amount of debate as to the<br />
future of <strong>Queensland</strong>'s Cultural Record<br />
(Landscapes <strong>Queensland</strong> and <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
Estate) Act. Ideally, there is merit in having a<br />
single, cohesive approach to native title and<br />
cultural heritage, with miners and pastoralists<br />
not being confronted with different processes,<br />
different principles and different litigation.<br />
There is also no argument about having<br />
proper legislation in place to prevent improper<br />
interference with burial remains and cultural<br />
heritage sites and places. In the past, the<br />
mining industry has attempted to properly<br />
negotiate with indigenous representatives<br />
cultural heritage management strategies that<br />
protect important sites of significance to
9 Mar 1999 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 359<br />
indigenous peoples but at the same time allow<br />
legitimate exploration, mining and<br />
infrastructure placement activities to occur.<br />
I say to the Premier that there is growing<br />
uncertainty and unease in the mining and<br />
pastoral industries about the way in which the<br />
State is proceeding with its review of<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>'s cultural record legislation. Any<br />
reforms to cultural heritage laws and practices<br />
will have to be handled very carefully indeed.<br />
Already the mining industry is looking offshore<br />
for opportunities in a way that we would never<br />
have envisaged a decade ago. This<br />
Government must be vigilant and not put in<br />
place any further legislative or administrative<br />
barriers to job creation by the mining or<br />
pastoral industries. Subject to what I have<br />
outlined, and subject to the response to the<br />
concerns that I have raised in the Premier's<br />
reply, the Opposition will be supporting the Bill.<br />
Hon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—<br />
ALP) (Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait<br />
Islander Policy and Minister for Women's<br />
Policy and Minister for Fair Trading)<br />
(4.04 p.m.): I believe that it is truly an historic<br />
day in the <strong>Queensland</strong> <strong>Parliament</strong> as the<br />
coalition offers its support to one stage of the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Government's native title<br />
legislation. It is also an historic day because at<br />
lunchtime today the Government hosted a<br />
Women in Reconciliation lunch. That is the first<br />
time that such an event has occurred in the<br />
precincts of the <strong>Queensland</strong> <strong>Parliament</strong>. It was<br />
truly a wonderful lunch. Two women who were<br />
at the forefront of reconciliation and the native<br />
title debate spoke to us about what the<br />
process meant to them, and I refer to Auntie<br />
Ethel Munn and Camilla Cowley who, I believe,<br />
showed the rest of Australia just what could be<br />
achieved in the spirit of cooperation, goodwill<br />
and preparedness to listen. They really taught<br />
us all a lesson about native title and tolerance.<br />
Other speakers at the lunch included Jackie<br />
Huggins, a number of elders from the Brisbane<br />
and <strong>Queensland</strong> communities, and some<br />
Waanyi women from the Northern Territory.<br />
Reconciliation takes many forms.<br />
Sometimes it is about public events where<br />
people have the opportunity to openly<br />
demonstrate their feelings with respect to<br />
reconciliation, sometimes it is about the<br />
Government listening to the needs of<br />
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>ers, and sometimes it is about<br />
enacting legislation such as we are doing<br />
today.<br />
I am pleased to speak to the Land and<br />
Resources Tribunal Bill 1998, because I<br />
believe that this Bill establishes a sound and<br />
fair State-based regime for dealing with mining<br />
activity affecting native title rights. I understand<br />
that this legislation has caused some concern<br />
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people<br />
who have specified the need for an effective<br />
and truly independent arbitral body in<br />
determining the issue of land rights.<br />
What I will outline today demonstrates<br />
that, through this Bill, this Government will<br />
achieve an independent, fair and just tribunal.<br />
Of equal importance, the legislation sets out<br />
clearly the rights of indigenous people,<br />
including sensitivity to their culture in the<br />
workings of the tribunal. The Land and<br />
Resources Tribunal is not about ensuring that<br />
the mighty mining dollar wins at all costs. It will<br />
make fair decisions about the rights of<br />
indigenous people and their legally recognised<br />
rights to their traditional lands. The Bill will<br />
promote and protect those rights.<br />
This Government recognises the<br />
fundamental cultural importance of<br />
maintaining the strong links between<br />
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people<br />
and their traditional lands. We respect the<br />
common law recognition of native title reflected<br />
in the Wik and Mabo decisions of the High<br />
Court. We are committed to reconciliation and<br />
to improving equity and fairness for all<br />
indigenous <strong>Queensland</strong>ers. This Government<br />
also recognises the need to give the mining<br />
industry a clear process so that it can proceed<br />
with projects with confidence—a move that will<br />
have a positive effect on job creation in this<br />
State.<br />
I think that it is important to put the<br />
Government's position on native title in<br />
perspective and outline the substantial inroads<br />
that we have made since coming to office just<br />
eight months ago. In July last year, the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Government established a Native<br />
Title Task Force to prepare its response to<br />
amendments to the Commonwealth Native<br />
Title Act. Premier Peter Beattie chaired this<br />
task force to demonstrate the seriousness with<br />
which this Government takes the issue of<br />
native title. It was a difficult challenge and was<br />
of critical importance on two fronts: firstly, the<br />
native title issue had created a great deal of<br />
community division that had been born from a<br />
campaign of misinformation and political point<br />
scoring combined with some genuine<br />
misunderstanding and fear; and, secondly, it<br />
was vital for the State's job creation policy to<br />
give industry a straightforward and clear<br />
process so that development projects could<br />
proceed with confidence.<br />
That led us to a critical shift in policy from<br />
a system based on litigation to one that was
360 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
underpinned by negotiation. It was a<br />
fundamental shift that allowed the<br />
Government to get all interested stakeholders<br />
involved in developing a process for future<br />
development activity. That was significant, as it<br />
was the first time all parties had been brought<br />
together anywhere in Australia to find a<br />
cooperative solution to the conflict that had<br />
surrounded native title for so long. It was three<br />
months of intense consultation and<br />
negotiation, but finally we formulated a<br />
response that was built on the principles of<br />
acknowledging native title rights and giving<br />
industry a clear, less costly and less time<br />
consuming process. That led to the<br />
development of three pieces of legislation<br />
which would underpin the new native title<br />
regime. These are the Native Title<br />
(<strong>Queensland</strong>) State Provisions Act, the Native<br />
Title (<strong>Queensland</strong>) State Provisions<br />
Amendment Act (No. 2) and the Land and<br />
Resources Tribunal Bill. I will speak in detail<br />
about the Land and Resources Tribunal Bill in<br />
a moment, but I think it is important that I put<br />
the whole package in perspective by<br />
explaining a bit about the first two pieces of<br />
legislation.<br />
In line with the Commonwealth<br />
amendments, the Beattie Government's first<br />
piece of legislation passed in September<br />
confirmed the extinguishment of native title on<br />
all tenures granting exclusive possession as<br />
per the detailed schedule included in the<br />
amended Federal legislation. It also<br />
guaranteed the validity of the intermediate<br />
period land management actions taken by the<br />
State between 1 January 1994, when the<br />
national Native Title Act began, and 23<br />
December 1996, when the Wik judgment was<br />
handed down. This gave pastoralists,<br />
fishermen, miners and other leaseholders<br />
complete security that their tenures were<br />
legally valid. This Act also made it clear that<br />
native title holders whose rights and interests<br />
were extinguished were entitled to<br />
compensation. Negotiations are continuing<br />
between <strong>Queensland</strong> and the Commonwealth<br />
to secure financial assistance in paying this<br />
compensation.<br />
The second Act goes to the heart of<br />
native title management in future mining in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>. Finding a way through the<br />
impasse which had stalled activity in the<br />
mining industry—a major driving force of the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> economy—was and remains<br />
critical to the Government's stated No. 1<br />
priority of job creation. However, we also<br />
recognised that mining activity, particularly<br />
large-scale development, could profoundly<br />
affect native title rights and interests. The<br />
legislation, which was passed by this<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> in November, promotes negotiation<br />
over litigation. It sets out clearly a number of<br />
detailed processes to apply in different<br />
circumstances, depending on the type of<br />
activity proposed and the type of land tenure<br />
involved. For instance, some exploration<br />
activity has minimal impact on land and water.<br />
In those cases, the legislation provides for a<br />
simpler, faster process with an obligation on<br />
developers to consult traditional owners.<br />
For a major development that has the<br />
potential to impact seriously on native title<br />
interests there are a range of procedures to be<br />
followed. These include a limited right to<br />
negotiate for native title holders on most land<br />
and a full right to negotiate on unallocated<br />
State land. The requirement for proper<br />
notification and negotiation in each case is set<br />
out in detail, with the maximum time for any<br />
proposal to be finally determined set at 12<br />
months. There are built-in provisions to militate<br />
against any attempts to stall or subvert<br />
negotiations. This second piece of legislation<br />
also provided for the establishment of an<br />
independent tribunal to make final<br />
determinations on whether a mining activity<br />
should proceed in cases where negotiation<br />
fails to secure agreement between the native<br />
title holders and the miner.<br />
As part of the package of legislation<br />
dealing with native title, the Land and<br />
Resources Tribunal Bill was introduced to this<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> in November to meet the Federal<br />
requirement for an independent tribunal. The<br />
tribunal will absorb the functions of the Mining<br />
Wardens Court, as well as taking on<br />
responsibility for native title matters, including<br />
hearing objections, making determinations and<br />
ruling on compensation where there is any<br />
dispute. It will be headed by a president at the<br />
level of a Supreme Court judge, with two<br />
deputies at District Court judge level. All<br />
presiding members must have particular<br />
knowledge or experience of indigenous issues.<br />
The independence of the presiding members<br />
will be upheld by aligning their tenure, pension<br />
and leaves of absence to that of the judiciary.<br />
Tribunal members will be assisted by<br />
three referees, one of whom will be<br />
indigenous, with specific expertise in certain<br />
areas but without voting rights on the tribunal.<br />
The indigenous referee will advise on cultural<br />
heritage and indigenous issues, which will<br />
ensure that the tribunal observes sensitivity<br />
and confidentiality in its dealings with native<br />
title holders. This referee will also focus on<br />
specific processes for dealing with the cultural<br />
heritage aspects of any application. The<br />
indigenous referee, like the other two referees,
9 Mar 1999 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 361<br />
will be highly qualified in their respective areas<br />
of expertise. The mediation referee will ensure<br />
that the State's negotiation and litigation policy<br />
remains at the forefront of the tribunal's<br />
process. The mining referee will replace some<br />
of the dispute resolution functions of the<br />
current mining warden and will advise the<br />
tribunal about those functions previously<br />
performed by the warden.<br />
The tribunal is designed to operate in a<br />
quick and cost-effective manner for noncontentious<br />
matters, but will provide full and<br />
expert consideration of all issues when<br />
complex legal matters and rights are involved.<br />
The particular needs of Aboriginal and Torres<br />
Strait Islander people have largely directed the<br />
way in which the tribunal is shaped and the<br />
processes it will follow. The tribunal promotes<br />
and protects the rights of Aboriginal and Torres<br />
Strait Islander people in the following ways.<br />
Consistent with the Commonwealth approach,<br />
the <strong>Queensland</strong> Government intends that the<br />
tribunal will be independent. This is central to<br />
the administrative workings of the tribunal and<br />
will ensure that the impartiality of proceedings<br />
cannot be questioned. This is particularly<br />
important for Aboriginal and Torres Strait<br />
Islander people who have concerns—and I<br />
would say they are legitimate concerns, based<br />
on the treatment of this issue by the previous<br />
administration—that the person heading the<br />
tribunal and other members of the tribunal<br />
have no vested interest in a particular<br />
outcome. The tribunal will report separately to<br />
State <strong>Parliament</strong> through the Attorney-General<br />
and Minister for Justice. Indigenous people<br />
can feel assured that there will be no external<br />
influences when decisions are being made<br />
and the tribunal will make its decisions based<br />
on the facts, the law and fairness.<br />
It is the clear intention of the <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
Government that there will be no possibility of<br />
members of the tribunal having a conflict of<br />
interest. The legislation sets down strict<br />
guidelines outlining the management of<br />
pecuniary interests and possible conflicts of<br />
interest. This will ensure that presiding and<br />
non-presiding members do not have a bias in<br />
determining the outcome of proceedings and<br />
carry out their responsibilities with<br />
independence. Members of the tribunal must<br />
fully disclose any pecuniary interests or any<br />
conflicts of interest. This disclosure ensures<br />
that natural justice will be upheld.<br />
The legislation provides that a member of<br />
the National Native Title Tribunal can be a<br />
member of the tribunal and also requires that<br />
a National Native Title Tribunal member take<br />
part in any determinations. Importantly, the<br />
tribunal will ensure that its processes and<br />
hearings are culturally sensitive. All parties<br />
involved in proceedings may have legal<br />
representation, but this is not required. Also,<br />
hearings will be open to the public except in<br />
the interests of natural justice or to allow<br />
culturally sensitive issues to be dealt with<br />
appropriately. It is specified that the tribunal<br />
must observe natural justice and that it is not<br />
bound by the rules of evidence. This stems<br />
from the need to maintain informality and<br />
reach decisions that are more acceptable to all<br />
parties. For example, evidence will often need<br />
to be taken outdoors in remote locations, on or<br />
near land that is the subject of the hearing.<br />
Knowing that Aboriginal culture and<br />
knowledge is partly contained within oral,<br />
dance and pictorial form, I am confident that<br />
this relaxation of evidentiary rules may allow<br />
for: indigenous people to provide oral histories<br />
and laws passed from generation to<br />
generation; groups to give evidence and to<br />
hear evidence from witnesses who are expert<br />
according to local customary laws; the tribunal<br />
receiving performances of ceremonial activities<br />
as evidence; and any lack of fluency in English<br />
of some indigenous witnesses to be taken into<br />
account and interpreters used if needed. This<br />
may also lead to increased sensitivity about<br />
possible misunderstandings arising from<br />
differences in language between indigenous<br />
and non-indigenous people. An appropriate<br />
degree of protection for culturally sensitive<br />
evidence will be given to indigenous witnesses<br />
and those who cannot speak about matters<br />
that are not traditionally disclosed. The tribunal<br />
will have mediation proceedings, which will be<br />
confidential in all respects, should any party<br />
have a particular grievance that they want<br />
heard.<br />
The <strong>Queensland</strong> Indigenous Working<br />
Group has asked for clarification of a number<br />
of matters relating to the Bill to be recorded in<br />
Hansard, and I now do that as a member of<br />
the Cabinet subcommittee that has considered<br />
the native title legislation. Firstly, the cultural<br />
heritage review that is now under way may well<br />
yield recommendations relating to the<br />
operation of the Land and Resources Tribunal<br />
that may require subsequent amendment of<br />
this legislation. Similarly, the petroleum<br />
industry is not included in the tribunal's<br />
jurisdiction at this stage, as the Petroleum Act<br />
is currently the subject of review. Once that<br />
review is completed, the new Petroleum Act<br />
will no doubt include provisions that amend the<br />
legislation now being debated. Secondly, there<br />
has been concern that this Bill does not<br />
provide a mechanism that will allow urgent<br />
interlocutory orders to be obtained. The State<br />
believes the provisions of the LRT Bill in fact
362 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
do provide such a mechanism for urgent<br />
interlocutory relief to protect cultural heritage at<br />
risk.<br />
The Land and Resources Tribunal will<br />
ensure that the interests of Aboriginal and<br />
Torres Strait Islander people are at the<br />
forefront of decisions about land in this State.<br />
It will provide a process that is fair to all parties.<br />
It is a model that is an effective resolution to<br />
the substantial cultural and legal issues<br />
surrounding native title. I support the Bill.<br />
Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP)<br />
(4.19 p.m.): Today it gives me great pleasure<br />
to speak on the Land and Resources Tribunal<br />
Bill, which represents another solid<br />
achievement under the Premier's Native Title<br />
Strategy. It is important to remind all members<br />
of this House of what has taken place under<br />
this Government in respect of the critical issue<br />
of native title.<br />
In July of last year, shortly after coming to<br />
Government, the Premier established and<br />
chaired the Native Title Task Force,<br />
acknowledging the complexity and the difficult<br />
challenge that native title issues present. The<br />
Premier recognised that it was necessary to<br />
end the community division which had grown<br />
up around misunderstanding of the issue, and<br />
it was vitally important to the State's job<br />
generation policy to give industry a<br />
straightforward, unambiguous process so that<br />
development projects could proceed with<br />
confidence.<br />
The Premier's response reflected the<br />
fundamental shift in policy away from litigation<br />
to the promotion of negotiated agreements as<br />
a practical way of managing the native title<br />
issue. Interestingly, as has been commented<br />
on many times in this House, this was the first<br />
time that all interested parties had been<br />
brought together anywhere in Australia to<br />
develop a cooperative solution to the native<br />
title issue. As members of the House would be<br />
aware, after three months of intensive<br />
consultation and negotiations, the<br />
Government formulated its response, which<br />
was built on the following two propositions:<br />
firstly, a principle acknowledgment of native<br />
title rights which included a limited right to<br />
negotiate over a proposed mining<br />
development; and, secondly, the clear<br />
understanding that the mining industry<br />
required a process that was straightforward,<br />
less costly and less time consuming.<br />
This Government then moved quickly to<br />
introduce the three pieces of native title<br />
legislation that would establish the native title<br />
regime in this State. The first piece of<br />
legislation that was introduced into this<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> was the Native Title (<strong>Queensland</strong>)<br />
State Provisions Bill, which provided for the<br />
validation of the "intermediate period acts".<br />
This legislation achieved a level of certainty by<br />
validating those leases and confirming that<br />
native title on those leases was extinguished<br />
either totally or partially depending on the<br />
nature of the pastoral lease involved, which<br />
had been thrown into doubt by the High Court<br />
in the Wik decision. That then gave miners,<br />
fishermen, pastoralists and other lease and<br />
permit holders the complete security that their<br />
tenures were legally valid. In addition, this Act<br />
makes it clear that native title holders whose<br />
rights and interests were extinguished are<br />
entitled to compensation.<br />
The second piece of legislation which<br />
flowed from the Premier's Native Title Task<br />
Force was introduced into this House on 21<br />
October last year. The Native Title<br />
(<strong>Queensland</strong>) State Provisions Amendment Bill<br />
integrated the way in which the State deals<br />
with native title matters into the Mineral<br />
Resources Act. Once again, this piece of<br />
legislation was the result of the Premier's<br />
comprehensive process of consultation with all<br />
major groups. This legislation provided the way<br />
through the impasse that had stalled activity in<br />
the mining industry, which is a major driving<br />
force of this State's economy and will be critical<br />
to this Government's desire to achieve its<br />
stated priority for job creation—a priority which<br />
every member of this House no doubt would<br />
support.<br />
That second piece of native title<br />
legislation provided for an appropriate balance<br />
between principled respect for native title<br />
holders and their rights and interests, and a<br />
commonsense acknowledgment of the mining<br />
industry's practical need for a fair and<br />
unambiguous process with strict time lines. As<br />
has been stated in the literature that has been<br />
produced to assist an understanding of what is<br />
a fairly complex piece of legislation, the<br />
legislation states clearly the detailed processes<br />
that are to apply in the different circumstances<br />
depending upon the proposed activity and the<br />
type of land tenure involved. Central to this<br />
piece of legislation is the establishment of an<br />
independent tribunal to make final<br />
determinations as to whether an activity should<br />
proceed where negotiations between the<br />
native title holders and the miners have failed<br />
to secure an agreement.<br />
That now brings me to the Land and<br />
Resources Tribunal Bill. The Commonwealth<br />
Native Title Act ensures that any State based<br />
regime for dealing with native title will include<br />
an independent body that hears objections<br />
and makes the final determinations as to
9 Mar 1999 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 363<br />
whether a proposed activity can proceed.<br />
Importantly, the Land and Resources Tribunal<br />
will absorb the functions of the Mining<br />
Wardens Court and will also take on the<br />
responsibility for native title matters, including<br />
the hearing of objections, the making of<br />
determinations and the ruling on<br />
compensation where no agreement is<br />
reached.<br />
The tribunal will be headed by a president<br />
who, in addition to having to meet the same<br />
qualifications as someone who can be<br />
appointed to the Supreme Court of this State,<br />
must have particular knowledge or experience<br />
of indigenous issues. In addition to the<br />
president, there will be two or more deputy<br />
presidents, who also must be able to meet the<br />
qualification tests to be appointed as a judge<br />
of this State. Again, they must have particular<br />
knowledge or experience of indigenous issues.<br />
The Bill provides that within this group of<br />
presiding members there will also be<br />
knowledge and experience of mining,<br />
petroleum or land issues. The previous<br />
speaker mentioned the composition of the<br />
tribunal, namely, the three referees. I do not<br />
intend to go into that in detail other than to reemphasise<br />
that there will be an indigenous<br />
referee, a mediation referee and a mining<br />
referee, each with their own particular<br />
expertise, as was outlined by the previous<br />
speaker. Further, strict deadlines are provided<br />
for the tribunal's determinations, with no matter<br />
anticipated to take longer than six months to<br />
be decided. The tribunal's decision is subject<br />
to ministerial override, but only where it can be<br />
demonstrated clearly to be in the best interests<br />
of all <strong>Queensland</strong>ers.<br />
The Land and Resources Tribunal is a<br />
concrete step in the development of this<br />
Government's response to the native title issue<br />
over the past nine months—a response which<br />
is based on fairness of principle and fairness in<br />
process. I commend the Bill to the House.<br />
Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA)<br />
(4.28 p.m.): In spite of the constant opposition<br />
of the Labor Party at both Federal and State<br />
levels, one of the main virtues of the<br />
Commonwealth Government's native title<br />
reforms last year was to give to those States<br />
that wished to take it up the opportunity to<br />
craft legislation within just parameters that<br />
would advance job creation projects by cutting<br />
through the bottlenecks caused by the right-tonegotiate<br />
process.<br />
The so-called alternative State provision<br />
clauses have enabled those jurisdictions with<br />
an historically expanding minerals industry to<br />
legislate to ensure that this industry is given<br />
the necessary legislative and administrative<br />
framework to continue to prosper and create<br />
jobs and wealth. It is a matter of considerable<br />
regret that last year, when this House debated<br />
the second stage of the Beattie Labor<br />
Government's native title legislation package,<br />
what was passed was in fact a job retarding<br />
Bill.<br />
From a Government that constantly<br />
drones on about jobs, jobs, jobs we see an<br />
unremitting litany of legislation and<br />
administrative directions that will have the<br />
opposite effect. We see a job destroying and<br />
job inhibiting Government that seeks with ever<br />
growing desperation to cover up its abysmal<br />
failure with self-praise and glib media sound<br />
grabs. This Bill is merely a continuation of the<br />
Beattie Government's failed native title<br />
strategy. However, it does have some merits,<br />
but it is constructed on a base of failed and<br />
half-baked decisions and has elements which<br />
should cause concern.<br />
I will deal first with the elements of the<br />
legislation which are positive. First, it is clear<br />
that, if any alternative State provisions are to<br />
be approved by the Commonwealth Minister,<br />
there must be an independent person or body<br />
in place to hear any objection by any native<br />
title claimant objecting about the doing of an<br />
act that affects their registered native title<br />
rights and interests. The legislation that we are<br />
debating will establish such an independent<br />
body, and its passage is an essential<br />
prerequisite to the Commonwealth agreeing to<br />
any alternative State provisions. Yet for a<br />
Government that is so keen to help the mining<br />
industry, the snail's path progress of the<br />
Premier's native title legislation is a matter of<br />
regret.<br />
The Premier knows full well that until such<br />
time as this Bill is properly debated and<br />
passed by this <strong>Parliament</strong> the Federal<br />
Government is not in a position to finally deal<br />
with the Stage 2 alternative provision<br />
legislation which we debated last November.<br />
Some four months have elapsed since the<br />
Stage 2 legislation was debated by this House,<br />
and yet in that four months this Bill has<br />
languished on the Notice Paper. Four months<br />
of valuable time has been squandered<br />
because the Premier could not get his act<br />
together last year and produce for this House<br />
a comprehensive package of native title<br />
reforms.<br />
The Governments of the Northern<br />
Territory and Western Australia were able to do<br />
so, and yet this Government was not. It tries to<br />
hide its ineptitude behind claims that it is a<br />
consultative Government. It tries to make a
364 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
virtue out of necessity. Yet it is all too clear that<br />
this Government and this Premier have<br />
approached native title reform just as they<br />
have approached most other matters—with an<br />
indecisiveness and lack of vision. This is a<br />
Government more interested in buying off the<br />
various pressure groups knocking at its door<br />
than in developing legislation that is in this<br />
State's interests.<br />
So while the Opposition is pleased that an<br />
independent body is being established, it is<br />
less than impressed by the failure of the<br />
Government to present this Bill at the same<br />
time as the Stage 2 legislation. If the<br />
Government had done this, not only would<br />
there have been a better parliamentary<br />
debate; the reform agenda could also have<br />
been advanced by at least four months.<br />
The second positive feature of this Bill is<br />
the replacement of the Wardens Court. Over<br />
the past couple of years there was a growing<br />
concern in the rural community that the<br />
Wardens Court was not operating in a fair and<br />
even manner. There was a widespread<br />
conviction that the court favoured the interests<br />
of the mining community over the interests of<br />
landowners. All of these pent-up concerns<br />
came well and truly out into the open when the<br />
Court of Appeal ruled in November 1997 that<br />
the mining warden, Mr Frank Windridge, had<br />
denied natural justice to central <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
grazier Mr Edward Wall.<br />
The Court of Appeal found that the<br />
mining warden had taken evidence from South<br />
Blackwater Coal after closing public hearings<br />
and without notifying Mr Wall. Apparently the<br />
mining warden had contacted the mining<br />
company through a Mines Department officer<br />
and then attended a meeting in the<br />
company's office to hear new material. After<br />
that decision was handed down, various rural<br />
representatives said publicly that they had lost<br />
confidence in the court and no longer had an<br />
expectation that they would get a fair go. In<br />
these circumstances it is most probably good<br />
that the slate is wiped clean and that there is a<br />
fresh start.<br />
Now there is the opportunity for a onestop<br />
shop arrangement, with the one body<br />
dealing with both native title and mining<br />
matters. So it makes sense that there be an<br />
amalgamation of the two processes and that<br />
we have a new body that can drive this<br />
process forward and, hopefully, rebuild bridges<br />
to the landowners. Whether this tribunal will in<br />
fact be able to achieve this is a moot point.<br />
From the wording of the legislation, already<br />
there are some matters that should raise<br />
doubts about how the tribunal will operate.<br />
The third positive aspect of the legislation<br />
is that the Bill now provides that when<br />
conducting a tribunal hearing the tribunal must<br />
observe natural justice. It is appropriate to say<br />
that following the Court of Appeal's decision it<br />
is a positive and proper step to enshrine in the<br />
legislation the obligation on tribunal members<br />
to observe procedural fairness. While all<br />
judicial and quasi-judicial officers should do so<br />
as a matter of course, it does no harm to put<br />
the matter in the legislation for all to see, read<br />
and obey.<br />
The final matter which I find positive about<br />
this Bill is the fact that it will be transferred from<br />
the Mines portfolio to that of Justice. Unless<br />
there are compelling reasons to the contrary,<br />
all tribunals should be within the Justice<br />
portfolio and their performance the<br />
responsibility of the Attorney-General and<br />
Minister for Justice. The Department of Justice<br />
and Attorney-General has considerable<br />
expertise in courts administration and is in a far<br />
better position to oversee the operations of<br />
this new body. In addition, it will help to<br />
overcome any perceptions of conflict of duty<br />
and interest.<br />
In the past, when the Mining Wardens<br />
Court was under the Department of Mines and<br />
Energy, there were constant suggestions that<br />
the department was too close to the mining<br />
industry. No such suggestion could be made<br />
about the Department of Justice and Attorney-<br />
General. However, there are a number of less<br />
than satisfactory aspects to the legislation.<br />
The tribunal is composed of at least three<br />
presiding members. Each of the presiding<br />
members is supposed to be appointed until<br />
attaining 70 years of age. The president will<br />
receive the salary, allowances and rates of<br />
allowances payable to a Supreme Court judge,<br />
and the deputy president will get the same<br />
salary and allowances package as a District<br />
Court judge. There is absolutely no<br />
requirement in the Commonwealth Native Title<br />
Act that the tribunal be composed of persons<br />
who are elevated to the same status, though<br />
not the position of, Supreme and District Court<br />
judges.<br />
Over recent years the judiciary has, quite<br />
rightly, become increasingly concerned about<br />
the proliferation of tribunals. Tribunals, as the<br />
Attorney-General knows full well, should be<br />
established only as a matter of last resort. The<br />
reason for this is very simple. The greater the<br />
number of tribunals, the more that justice is<br />
made uneven and the greater the risk that the<br />
jurisdiction and stature of the courts of our<br />
nation are undermined and marginalised. I<br />
accept that setting up a tribunal in this
9 Mar 1999 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 365<br />
instance is justified, but what I find totally<br />
unacceptable is that the presiding members<br />
are being elevated to the same status as the<br />
judges of the superior courts of <strong>Queensland</strong>.<br />
By giving the tribunal members the same<br />
status as Supreme and District Court judges,<br />
this Government is creating an unhealthy<br />
precedent. Why give these members a status<br />
which is not required? Why give these<br />
members a status equivalent to justices and<br />
judges who are required to deal with the most<br />
complicated of civil and criminal matters and<br />
across the total spectrum of the law? I hope<br />
that this is not a case of mates' rates. There<br />
will be quite a degree of cynicism in the<br />
community that this Government is<br />
establishing an ad hoc body with a status for<br />
its presiding members above and beyond what<br />
is necessary and one to which it will be<br />
tempted to appoint its supporters.<br />
The Opposition's concern is heightened<br />
by the wording of clause 8, which sets out the<br />
eligibility for appointment as a presiding<br />
member. The clause requires that a presiding<br />
member must, amongst other things, have<br />
knowledge or experience of indigenous issues<br />
and one or more of three other matters. One<br />
of these is mining or petroleum issues. Yet the<br />
clause goes on to oust from judicial review the<br />
appointment of presiding members insofar as<br />
they fail collectively to possess any knowledge<br />
of mining or petroleum matters.<br />
Quite rightly, in Alert Digest No. 1 of 1999<br />
the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has<br />
questioned whether this is appropriate, but<br />
there is an even bigger issue here. The<br />
Government is abolishing the Wardens Court,<br />
yet at the same time it is sending a clear<br />
message that, although knowledge of<br />
indigenous and land issues is absolutely<br />
essential for appointment as a presiding<br />
officer, knowledge or experience in mining or<br />
petroleum matters is not.<br />
Again and again the Premier claims that<br />
he is doing everything he can to encourage<br />
mining investment, yet we see in this Bill a<br />
totally blinkered approach to this essential<br />
industry. How can this tribunal operate<br />
effectively if none of the presiding members<br />
has any experience or knowledge of mining or<br />
petroleum matters?<br />
Let me repeat: this tribunal will be hearing<br />
more than simply native title matters. It is the<br />
primary body for matters arising from both the<br />
Mineral Resources Act and the Fossicking Act.<br />
In these circumstances, to legislatively oust<br />
judicial review from appointments because<br />
none of the presiding members has any<br />
knowledge or experience in mining matters is a<br />
retrograde step and has the potential to<br />
undermine the tribunal's effectiveness from the<br />
outset. If this clause is not amended, the<br />
Premier needs to give an undertaking to this<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> that at least one of the presiding<br />
members will have the requisite knowledge or<br />
experience of mining and petroleum matters.<br />
In this context, it is also to be borne in<br />
mind that the decisions of this tribunal are<br />
subject to ministerial override. This fact is<br />
highlighted in the Premier's speech, and<br />
examples of the override are set out in the<br />
Scrutiny of Legislation Committee's Alert<br />
Digest. In fact, the committee pointed out that<br />
there is no reference in the Bill to the existence<br />
of the override and pointed out that this<br />
omission could lead to a misunderstanding in<br />
the community of the status of the tribunal's<br />
decisions.<br />
The committee recommended that the Bill<br />
be amended so as to make it clear to the<br />
community and litigants that decisions of the<br />
tribunal are subject to ministerial override. This<br />
is a sensible recommendation and one that I<br />
would hope the Premier and the Government<br />
would take up. It is only reasonable that they<br />
do so. It would put plain English into the<br />
legislation in an eminently relevant way,<br />
making the legislation a document which<br />
ordinary people could use.<br />
I think the more significant element is that<br />
this tribunal, unlike the Supreme or District<br />
Courts, is subject to overriding political<br />
decisions. It is not a body which is<br />
independent of the policy process. It is not a<br />
body of either unlimited or almost unlimited<br />
jurisdiction or even a body whose decisions<br />
have to be accepted and followed as of right.<br />
It is a very limited body in almost every sense.<br />
In these circumstances, to elevate the<br />
presiding members to, in effect, the status of<br />
justices and judges of the superior courts is<br />
totally unjustified. I suggest strongly to the<br />
Premier that he reconsider this aspect of the<br />
legislation. I ask the Premier whether the views<br />
of the Chief Justice or the Chief Judge of the<br />
District Court were sought and, if so, whether<br />
they were in concurrence with this proposal.<br />
Another troubling matter is the very limited<br />
appeal rights granted. The Bill limits a party to<br />
a proceeding before the tribunal to appeals on<br />
questions of law. I ask the Premier: why are<br />
appeal rights so circumscribed? Would there<br />
be any harm in allowing appeals on questions<br />
of fact? While there may be good reasons for<br />
limiting grounds of appeal, there is no logic in<br />
further hamstringing the process by requiring<br />
that when the appeal is against a decision of a<br />
Land Court non-presiding member or a mining
366 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
referee such an appeal can only be instituted<br />
with the permission of the president of the<br />
tribunal.<br />
The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee<br />
has noted that no grounds are set out in the<br />
legislation for the granting of leave. The<br />
committee has queried whether leave to<br />
appeal is necessary when appeal is confined<br />
to questions of law. It is not as if this tribunal<br />
were the High Court and special leave was<br />
needed before appeals were launched. There<br />
is, on its face, absolutely no good reason that<br />
litigants should have their rights so limited and<br />
so dependent on the exercise of broad and<br />
totally unlimited discretions.<br />
The committee has recommended that if<br />
the Government believes leave to appeal is<br />
necessary it should give consideration to<br />
prescribing grounds for the granting of leave. I<br />
ask the Premier whether he will outline to this<br />
House the reasoning behind the current<br />
requirement for leave to appeal. If there are no<br />
good reasons, then I believe that this limitation<br />
on litigants' rights should be withdrawn<br />
forthwith. However, if there are good reasons<br />
then I support the committee's call for some<br />
legislative guidance, rather than leaving the<br />
granting of leave in a totally unregulated and<br />
vague state.<br />
One final matter on which I seek some<br />
clarification relates to the provisions dealing<br />
with possible conflicts of interest by tribunal<br />
members. First, I agree that it is prudent to<br />
provide that a member must not hold or be<br />
entitled, directly or indirectly, to the benefits of<br />
an interest in a mining tenure. Having regard<br />
to the nature of most proceedings before the<br />
tribunal and the perception problems that the<br />
Wardens Court has faced, such a clause in the<br />
Bill would be desirable.<br />
I wonder why the drafters of this<br />
legislation have gone out of their way to focus<br />
just on mining activities. It is not very difficult to<br />
imagine a host of other conflicts that could<br />
arise or which could raise perceptions of<br />
conflict. One area of risk relates to the<br />
indigenous issues referee. The qualifications<br />
for appointment to this position are very<br />
precise and are set out in clause 18. I would<br />
suggest to the Government that extreme care<br />
will have to be taken in this area as well, lest<br />
the same type of perception problems that<br />
arose with the mining warden crop up here.<br />
If it is appropriate—and I think it is—that<br />
very specific prohibitions on mining interests<br />
are prescribed in clause 26, I would be<br />
interested to know why other detailed conflict<br />
provisions are also not included. I suggest that<br />
if a person is appointed as the indigenous<br />
issues referee and loses the confidence, for<br />
example, of the mining industry or landowners<br />
because of his or her links with indigenous<br />
organisations, then it will undermine the<br />
credibility of this tribunal. I ask the Premier<br />
whether any consideration was given to<br />
providing greater guidance in the Bill——<br />
Time expired.<br />
Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP)<br />
(4.48 p.m.): This is the third occasion since last<br />
July that the <strong>Parliament</strong> has had before it a<br />
major legislative initiative on native title. This<br />
tells us two things. Firstly, it tells us that native<br />
title raises complex issues requiring extensive<br />
effort on the part of the Government and the<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> to implement a fair and effective<br />
regime. Secondly, it tells us that <strong>Queensland</strong>,<br />
of all the States and Territories, is leading the<br />
way in tackling the issues thrown up by the<br />
Federal amendments to the Native Title Act.<br />
Both facts are a tribute to the Premier, as he<br />
has not only shown strong leadership for the<br />
State on a difficult question but also shown<br />
that he is willing to lead the nation. This is in<br />
stark contrast to the Leader of the Opposition,<br />
who is struggling to convince even his own<br />
party that he has the leadership qualities to<br />
keep his job, let alone lead this State.<br />
The genesis of the Land and Resources<br />
Tribunal is found in two sources. Firstly, and<br />
most importantly, there is the need for<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> to establish a State tribunal to<br />
carry out functions prescribed by the Federal<br />
Native Title Act. Without a State tribunal,<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> would not be able to take up the<br />
opportunity to introduce a flexible system to<br />
deal with the needs of the resource sector fully<br />
within the State's Land Management System.<br />
Secondly, there is a need to reform the role of<br />
the Mining Wardens Court within the State<br />
resources regulatory system. The need to<br />
reform this court arose out of extensive<br />
criticism of the fairness of the Wardens Court<br />
processes by landowners and a review of the<br />
court by the Department of Mines and Energy.<br />
In November last year, the <strong>Parliament</strong><br />
passed the second stage of the State native<br />
title regime. The innovation of the State<br />
regime is that it focuses on the nature of the<br />
mining interests being sought by the resource<br />
company rather than the statutory tenure over<br />
which the interest is to be granted. Now, let me<br />
explain the significance of this.<br />
As members would be aware, the Wik<br />
decision was centred on the question as to<br />
whether a pastoral lease granted to the<br />
pastoralist a right of exclusive possession to<br />
the land. By finding that a pastoral lease did<br />
not grant exclusive possession, the High Court
9 Mar 1999 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 367<br />
concluded that native title rights were not<br />
necessarily extinguished by a pastoral lease,<br />
and native title and pastoral rights could<br />
coexist. This decision then led to the native<br />
title debate—in the eyes of economic<br />
stakeholders at least—turning solely on the<br />
effect that various statutory land tenures will<br />
have on native title and how this intersects with<br />
the future act provisions in the Native Title Act.<br />
There was concern that the Native Title<br />
Act may have rendered invalid a range of<br />
activities which pastoralists undertook on their<br />
leases, such as the construction of dams or<br />
fences. In reality, these concerns were<br />
overstated and fed by some dreadful<br />
misrepresentation of the facts by people such<br />
as the Leader of the Opposition. Nonetheless,<br />
the Howard Government reacted by proposing<br />
changes to the law which graduate the<br />
procedural rights provided for the protection of<br />
native title depending on the statutory land<br />
tenure involved. The most visible manifestation<br />
of this is the way in which the Native Title Act<br />
creates different procedural regimes for mining<br />
over unallocated State land and land subject<br />
to pastoral lease. For unallocated State land,<br />
the right to negotiate applies. For land subject<br />
to pastoral lease, a right of consultation and<br />
objection applies. Not surprisingly, many<br />
indigenous leaders view the distinction in the<br />
regimes applying to unallocated State land<br />
and pastoral lease land when mining is<br />
proposed to be artificial. By this reasoning,<br />
native title rights should be afforded equal<br />
respect and equal protection regardless of<br />
whether or not statutory interests have been<br />
granted in the land.<br />
From a legal analysis, it is understandable<br />
why a distinction is drawn. In the case of<br />
pastoral leases, there exists not only another<br />
interest holder in the land but, under common<br />
law and statute, this other interest holder, that<br />
is, the pastoralist, has rights which prevail over<br />
the rights of native title holders. In such a<br />
case, the native title rights must, by definition,<br />
be impaired to some extent—probably a great<br />
extent—and hence, should be afforded<br />
procedural rights no greater than those<br />
afforded to the pastoralist. Equally, from a<br />
pragmatic political point of view, it is much<br />
easier to argue that coexisting interest holders,<br />
that is, native title holders and pastoralists,<br />
should have equivalent rights rather than try to<br />
explain the finer points of legal and<br />
jurisprudential theory, which indicates that the<br />
right should be treated differently. As we know,<br />
native title does not lend itself to snappy 15-<br />
second grabs on television news.<br />
What the Premier faced when putting<br />
together the State native title regime was a<br />
daunting mixture of stakeholder self-interest,<br />
misinformation, competing legal theory and<br />
alternate assertions of moral high ground. In<br />
devising the solution, the Government, in<br />
essence, created a process which applies<br />
equally to unallocated State land and pastoral<br />
lease land and only draws a distinction for the<br />
purposes of compliance with the provisions of<br />
the Federal Native Title Act. This means that<br />
time frames and processes for notification,<br />
negotiation and arbitration are similar<br />
regardless of the statutory land tenure<br />
involved. In contrast, a clear distinction is<br />
drawn between exploration and production<br />
tenures. Exploration tenures trigger a bare<br />
bones procedural process which reflects that,<br />
generally, the disturbance to the land flowing<br />
from exploration will be significantly less than<br />
for actual mining.<br />
In summary, the <strong>Queensland</strong> approach<br />
has genuinely integrated into the land and<br />
mining systems of the State the recognition<br />
and protection of native title rights. The Bill<br />
before the House continues that process. A<br />
number of the provisions of the<br />
Commonwealth Native Title Act require that<br />
the State provide an independent personal<br />
body to carry out various functions if the State<br />
is to take up the opportunity to enact its own<br />
regime to replace the right to negotiate<br />
administered by the National Native Title<br />
Tribunal. The Land and Resources Tribunal will<br />
be this independent body. This means that the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> tribunal will take over from the<br />
National Native Title Tribunal the future act<br />
determination role in cases of applications for<br />
the grant of mining tenures over native title<br />
land and the compulsory acquisition of native<br />
title for non-Government purposes.<br />
Consistent with the State approach of<br />
land management integration, the new tribunal<br />
will also assume the jurisdiction of the Mining<br />
Wardens Court. This results in one single<br />
forum for all energy resource based projects<br />
irrespective of native title considerations. The<br />
tribunal is also to be granted jurisdiction to<br />
hear matters arising under agreements<br />
reached under the State native title regime<br />
and also actions brought under the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> cultural records Act to protect<br />
indigenous cultural heritage.<br />
In relation to the Mining Warden's<br />
function, the tribunal will incorporate the<br />
Government's response to the 1998<br />
discussion paper on the administrative<br />
processes and functions of the Wardens Court<br />
produced by the Department of Mines and<br />
Energy. In short, this discussion paper<br />
recommended the replacement of the<br />
Wardens Court with a new Mining and
368 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
Petroleum Tribunal, the greater use of<br />
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to<br />
resolve disputes, and rules of evidence and<br />
procedure which move from an adversarial<br />
model towards an administrative model or<br />
inquisitorial model.<br />
This review was done in isolation to the<br />
native title debate but, interestingly, the<br />
recommendations which focus on the need for<br />
greater levels of expertise within the Wardens<br />
Court and a mediation framework for dispute<br />
resolution sit well with the thrust of the native<br />
title reforms. Accordingly, the tribunal will be<br />
constituted by members with backgrounds and<br />
experience able to determine matters involving<br />
indigenous issues, mining and petroleum,<br />
dispute resolution and native title issues. There<br />
is considerable flexibility in the make-up of the<br />
tribunal between presiding members, nonpresiding<br />
members and referees. Each have<br />
specific functions and designated expertise<br />
which should ensure that there is a matching<br />
of expertise within the tribunal to the issue<br />
being confronted. These issues may involve<br />
native title and, in many instances, will not.<br />
There is one notable area where the<br />
tribunal will not have jurisdiction, and that is the<br />
determination of native title. The process of<br />
deciding whether native title claimants actually<br />
hold native title and the nature of the rights<br />
held will continue to be the role of the Federal<br />
Court and the National Native Title Tribunal.<br />
The Western Australian Government, in<br />
contrast, has proposed that all native title<br />
functions, including the determination process,<br />
be vested in State bodies. I believe that the<br />
approach adopted by the <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
Government is preferable, as it ensures that<br />
the future act provisions of the Native Title Act<br />
are handled within the land management<br />
systems of the State. There is no need for the<br />
determination process to be replicated at the<br />
State level. In fact, a better outcome will be<br />
achieved by maintaining a national standard.<br />
I note in passing that Mr Graham Neate<br />
has been appointed to replace Justice French<br />
as President of the National Native Title<br />
Tribunal. I wish Mr Neate well in his new and<br />
important role. I hope also that the<br />
Commonwealth will consider moving the<br />
principal registry of the National Native Title<br />
Tribunal to Brisbane, as <strong>Queensland</strong> will have<br />
the greatest call on the tribunal's services,<br />
given the decision of the Western Australian<br />
Government to effectively move all native title<br />
matters to the State system.<br />
<strong>Final</strong>ly, I would like to speculate on what<br />
the future of the native title regime may be in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>. The first thing is to note that<br />
there will be a further two legislative additions<br />
to the native title regime during the year, the<br />
first being an extension of the regime to the<br />
petroleum industry as part of the review of the<br />
Petroleum Act. Recently, a discussion paper<br />
on the reform of the Petroleum Act was<br />
released. The reform will, in part, have to make<br />
decisions on how the issue of petroleum<br />
tenures and the operation of pipelines will<br />
intersect with the State native title provisions. It<br />
will certainly see the Land and Resources<br />
Tribunal accept jurisdiction for petroleum<br />
matters. The Government excluded the<br />
petroleum industry from Stage 2 reforms<br />
largely because of the arguments of the<br />
industry that it faced quite different issues from<br />
those faced by the mining industry.<br />
The second addition will flow from the<br />
review of the Cultural Records Act. This<br />
legislation governs the protection and<br />
management of the so-called <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
estate. This means the physical and cultural<br />
heritage of the State, both indigenous and<br />
non-indigenous. There are a number of<br />
shortcomings with this legislation.<br />
From an indigenous perspective the major<br />
shortcoming is that the law does not actually<br />
mandate that indigenous people are to be<br />
involved in the identification of indigenous sites<br />
of importance. While this is now required as a<br />
matter of departmental administrative practice,<br />
it would be best if the regime provided<br />
expressly for indigenous involvement in the<br />
identification of indigenous culture.<br />
From an industry perspective, a lack of<br />
certainty has meant that the law has been<br />
used on occasions as a negotiating tool for<br />
matters which have little relationship to the<br />
actual protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage.<br />
While the use of the law in this way reflects a<br />
failure in the relationship between Aboriginal<br />
people and a developer, it nonetheless<br />
undermines support for cultural heritage<br />
protection measures.<br />
The Government has established a<br />
working party to review the Cultural Records<br />
Act and this working party has recently<br />
released an issues paper to help focus public<br />
submissions on the review of the law. Beyond<br />
the legislative developments which will occur,<br />
the future will see major issues emerge under<br />
three broad categories. The first is the further<br />
resolution by the courts of significant legal<br />
issues. The second concerns the impact of<br />
structural changes to the processes applying<br />
to the native title regime. The third relates to<br />
the extent to which native title and economic<br />
developers will strike agreements largely
9 Mar 1999 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 369<br />
outside of the formal supervision of the State<br />
or Commonwealth native title regimes.<br />
There are a number of important legal<br />
issues about the recognition of native title<br />
which are going through a process of judicial<br />
development. The High Court will, over the<br />
year, hear appeals from the Federal Court<br />
decisions in the cases of Croker Island,<br />
Miriuwunga Gajerronga and Yorta Yorta.<br />
These cases involve the existence of native<br />
title in offshore areas, the Kimberley region of<br />
Western Australia and the border area of New<br />
South Wales and Victoria respectively. All<br />
represent significant Federal court decisions<br />
which, in the case of the first two decisions,<br />
have extended or strengthened the position of<br />
native title holders, and in the third decision<br />
found that native title had been washed away<br />
by the tide of history.<br />
Each of the decisions raises important<br />
matters concerning the relationship of native<br />
title to various statutory titles and the rights of<br />
native title holders to resources. It is likely that<br />
these issues, together with a consideration of<br />
what "just terms" means for the compensation<br />
for the loss or impairment of native title, are<br />
likely to significantly shape native title law.<br />
More than likely there will be calls for further<br />
legislative amendment at the Commonwealth<br />
level following the High Court's decision.<br />
The second area of development involves<br />
the impact that the procedural and structural<br />
changes implemented by the 10-point plan<br />
have on the operation of the native title regime<br />
on the ground. Important in these changes is<br />
the new registration test being applied by the<br />
Native Title Tribunal and the recently<br />
announced shake-up of the boundaries of<br />
Aboriginal land councils. It was universally<br />
recognised that there needed to be law reform<br />
to ensure that only those native title claims<br />
which were well founded were able to access<br />
the procedural rights afforded by the Native<br />
Title Act. While the original Native Title Act<br />
contained a threshold test for registration, as a<br />
result of court decisions this test became<br />
virtually inoperative.<br />
Already the Native Title Tribunal has<br />
commenced the process of checking existing<br />
claims against the new registration criteria. It is<br />
to be hoped that the outcome of this process<br />
will ensure that all claims contain sufficient<br />
information so that indigenous and nonindigenous<br />
interests alike are able to proceed<br />
with clarity and certainty as to exactly who is<br />
asserting native title rights over what area.<br />
Aboriginal representative bodies play an<br />
important role in the native title regime. Last<br />
week the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs,<br />
Senator Herron, announced changes to the<br />
geographic boundaries for the coverage of<br />
land councils throughout Australia. There is no<br />
doubt that there needed to be reform to the<br />
operation of Aboriginal representative bodies.<br />
Indeed, this was clearly pointed out by an<br />
examination undertaken of Aboriginal bodies<br />
by the Office of Indigenous Affairs within the<br />
Department of the Prime Minister during the<br />
previous Federal Labor Government.<br />
However, the concern I have with Senator<br />
Herron's reforms is that they appear as much<br />
motivated by a desire to reduce the power and<br />
influence of some Aboriginal leaders as they<br />
are by any logical assessment of the needs of<br />
Aboriginal people. It will prove utterly<br />
counterproductive to play politics with<br />
Aboriginal organisations. It will certainly do<br />
nothing for the relationship between economic<br />
developers such as the resource industry and<br />
traditional owners if superimposed upon<br />
negotiations is renewed conflict about where<br />
power rests within Aboriginal land councils.<br />
Mr Bredhauer interjected.<br />
Mrs LAVARCH: Exactly. The third area to<br />
be watched closely is the extent to which<br />
agreements will be used in order to resolve<br />
native title issues. To this end it is pleasing to<br />
note that <strong>Queensland</strong> has seen a number of<br />
milestone agreements reached. These include<br />
the Hope Vale agreement, which represents<br />
the first negotiated permanent determination<br />
of native title under the Native Title Act.<br />
Recently, <strong>Queensland</strong> also settled the<br />
Western Yalanji claim. This is an important<br />
agreement as it represented a finding of native<br />
title co-existing with pastoral rights.<br />
More recently there has been an agreed<br />
native title determination involving Saibai<br />
Island in the Torres Strait. Historically, the<br />
Attorney-General appeared before Justice<br />
Drummond in the Federal Court and<br />
consented to the native title determination.<br />
This determination recognises the ongoing<br />
native title rights over four Torres Strait islands<br />
but notably excludes any determination over<br />
the waters of the Torres Strait.<br />
It is the thrust of the <strong>Queensland</strong> reforms<br />
that negotiated agreements be reached on<br />
native title matters. Indeed, the Stage 2<br />
legislation requires that genuine efforts be<br />
made to reach agreement, and to this end<br />
assistance is given by specifying the matters<br />
that are to be discussed in the negotiation and<br />
consultation process.<br />
In conclusion, it is fair to say that<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> is making strong progress in<br />
putting together the legal framework which will<br />
assist practical outcomes to native title and
370 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
development issues. Further, the Government,<br />
through its native title services section in the<br />
Department of the Premier, can provide<br />
assistance to parties in reaching agreements.<br />
Undoubtedly, the establishment of the Land<br />
and Resources Tribunal will also be important<br />
for on-the-ground outcomes in the State.<br />
In the final analysis, however, the<br />
Government can only do so much. Outcomes<br />
that benefit <strong>Queensland</strong> require more than<br />
good laws—it requires goodwill. It is to be<br />
hoped that the next time the <strong>Parliament</strong><br />
considers further additions to the native title<br />
regime we can report that this goodwill has<br />
become the hallmark of relationships in the<br />
State.<br />
Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—LP) (5.09 p.m.):<br />
It gives me great pleasure to be able to join in<br />
the debate on the Land and Resources<br />
Tribunal Bill and particularly to support the<br />
comments that have been made so far by the<br />
honourable member for Surfers Paradise and<br />
Leader of the Opposition and the honourable<br />
member for Keppel. They have made very<br />
sensible contributions. Whilst supporting the<br />
Bill, they also expressed reservations, which I<br />
think in some cases are worth reiterating.<br />
Two of the stated objects of this Bill are to<br />
implement Stage 3 of the Premier's native title<br />
strategy by providing for the establishment of a<br />
tribunal to deal with future acts which might<br />
affect native title with respect to mining and<br />
provide for an independent body required<br />
under the alternative State provision sections<br />
of the Commonwealth Native Title Act. To the<br />
extent that unless this Bill is passed and an<br />
independent body is established no alternative<br />
State provisions can commence, the<br />
Opposition supports it.<br />
However, with this Bill we again see a<br />
graphic example of how this Government<br />
cannot get its act together and produce timely<br />
legislation. This Bill should have been<br />
introduced simultaneously with the alternative<br />
provisions Bill. It should have been debated<br />
with that Bill and it should have been<br />
submitted to the Commonwealth Government<br />
co-jointly with it. The Premier knows that, until<br />
this House passes legislation setting up an<br />
independent body, neither the Commonwealth<br />
Government nor the Senate can deal with the<br />
Stage 2 legislation that we passed in this place<br />
in November.<br />
The Premier knows that, despite all of his<br />
never-ending rhetoric about decisive action to<br />
tackle native title and create jobs, this Bill has<br />
sat around now for almost four months. This<br />
Government has allowed four valuable months<br />
to slip away and it has done so because last<br />
year it could not even present a<br />
comprehensive package of native title<br />
legislation to this Chamber. Instead, we are<br />
subject to a death of a thousand cuts with a bit<br />
of legislation here and there and, while the<br />
Government dithers, economic growth and<br />
jobs are put at risk. Just last week, we saw this<br />
Government introduce only one new Bill for<br />
debate. This <strong>Parliament</strong> has not sat since<br />
November, yet in the first sitting week the<br />
Government could not come forward with more<br />
than one solitary Bill. Whether we look at<br />
infrastructure projects, legislation or<br />
administration generally, it is a shocking<br />
indictment that we witness a Government that<br />
has not got what it takes.<br />
One would think that with an issue as<br />
central as native title, the Government could<br />
have acted more quickly, more decisively and<br />
with more sense of direction. The Premier<br />
knows that the Governments of the Northern<br />
Territory and Western Australia were able to<br />
present to their <strong>Parliament</strong>s a comprehensive<br />
package of native title reforms. If those<br />
Governments can do so, why can this<br />
administration not match their achievement?<br />
There is no doubt that this <strong>Parliament</strong> needs<br />
to enact legislation establishing an<br />
independent body that meets the<br />
requirements of the Commonwealth Native<br />
Title Act. Until we do so, the alternative State<br />
provisions, which this <strong>Parliament</strong> has already<br />
passed, will remain in a state of limbo. So<br />
putting in place an appropriate independent<br />
body to hear matters under the Native Title Act<br />
is a matter towards which we should all be<br />
working.<br />
Nevertheless, when I look at this Bill I can<br />
see a number of problems that need to be<br />
raised and debated properly. Firstly, in<br />
common with other members, I question the<br />
status being granted to the presiding members<br />
of the tribunal. This tribunal is not the Supreme<br />
Court, it is not the District Court; it is a tribunal<br />
of quite limited jurisdiction. I would readily<br />
concede that the matters that the tribunal will<br />
have to decide will be important, but I can see<br />
no justification whatsoever in giving to the<br />
presiding members of this body the status, in<br />
effect, of either a justice of the Supreme Court<br />
or a judge of the District Court.<br />
The Supreme and District Courts deal with<br />
all manner of civil and criminal law. In most<br />
cases, any person who is dissatisfied with a<br />
decision of either court has the ability to<br />
appeal to the Court of Appeal and, from that<br />
body, possibly as far as the High Court. In<br />
comparison, the legislation that we are<br />
debating is merely establishing a tribunal—and<br />
I repeat that: a tribunal—and not a court of
9 Mar 1999 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 371<br />
law. It is a body which, as I will discuss shortly,<br />
is subject to wide powers of ministerial override<br />
and so far as some non-presiding members<br />
are concerned, there is no right of appeal on<br />
matters of fact and only discretionary rights of<br />
appeal on matters of law. In short, it is a body<br />
that lacks true independence, is of limited<br />
jurisdiction and operates largely on its own. So<br />
to give to presiding members of this body the<br />
same entitlements as judges of the Supreme<br />
and District Courts is not only not necessary<br />
but also strikes at the status of judges of the<br />
superior courts of <strong>Queensland</strong>.<br />
I suggest to the Premier that if this<br />
Government is establishing a body to which it<br />
thinks it can appoint people whom it favours,<br />
then that will not only undermine the credibility<br />
of this tribunal but also the whole judicial<br />
system. In his reply, I ask the Premier to<br />
explain to this House why he has overseen the<br />
drafting of legislation that elevates presiding<br />
members to that status while there is<br />
absolutely nothing in the Commonwealth<br />
Native Title Act that would require it.<br />
As I said, this tribunal is not a body with<br />
self-executing decision-making powers; it is<br />
subject to broad powers of ministerial override.<br />
This point is made abundantly clear by the<br />
Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in<br />
Alert Digest No. 1 of 1999. The committee<br />
recommends that the Bill be amended to<br />
make it clear to readers that decisions of the<br />
tribunal are subject to ministerial override. As a<br />
firm believer in plain English drafting of<br />
legislation, I support this suggestion and I<br />
hope that at the Committee stage the Premier<br />
will be moving a minor amendment to give<br />
effect to this sensible suggestion.<br />
However, the other point that needs to be<br />
made is that this tribunal is really an integral<br />
part of the native title policy process. Whilst it is<br />
a quasi-judicial body with a degree of<br />
independence, it is certainly not a court of law<br />
in the sense that most people would<br />
understand that term. It is incumbent on the<br />
Premier and this Government not only to<br />
amend the Bill to highlight this basic fact but<br />
also to ensure that a perception is not allowed<br />
to arise that this tribunal has members of<br />
equal status and authority to judges of the<br />
Supreme and District Courts. I emphasise this<br />
point, because I am very concerned that this<br />
Bill and this tribunal should in no way derogate<br />
from the status, authority, independence and<br />
good reputation of our courts of law.<br />
As I mentioned, there is also no<br />
automatic right of appeal on questions of law<br />
from decisions of the tribunal to the president<br />
when it is constituted by a Land Court nonpresiding<br />
member or a mining referee. The<br />
leave of the president is required, but the Bill is<br />
silent on the matters that have to be taken into<br />
account in determining whether leave should<br />
be granted or refused. The Scrutiny of<br />
Legislation Committee has queried whether<br />
leave should be required when appeal rights<br />
are confined simply to questions of law. The<br />
committee has also suggested that if there are<br />
good reasons for not allowing an automatic<br />
right of appeal, that the legislation should be<br />
amended to prescribe grounds for the granting<br />
of leave.<br />
I cannot understand why litigants' rights<br />
are so narrowly regulated by this Bill. While in<br />
most instances hearings of the tribunal will be<br />
open to the public and the rules of natural<br />
justice must be observed, nevertheless the<br />
legislation requires the tribunal to—<br />
"Act as quickly, and with as little<br />
formality and technicality, as is consistent<br />
with a fair and proper consideration of the<br />
issues before it."<br />
However, in order to achieve this goal, this Bill<br />
provides that the tribunal is not bound by the<br />
rules of evidence, may inform itself of anything<br />
in the way it considers appropriate and may<br />
decide procedures to be followed for the<br />
proceeding. In short, litigants' rights are very<br />
much dependent upon the way in which the<br />
presiding or non-presiding member or<br />
members conduct the proceedings.<br />
One would think that in circumstances<br />
such as these that it would be absolutely<br />
essential that a dissatisfied litigant be able to<br />
appeal as of right to the president. The<br />
matters that this tribunal will be hearing could<br />
involve projects worth hundreds of millions of<br />
dollars, or even more. With so much at stake,<br />
it is simply not good enough that people's<br />
rights are handled in this way. From reading<br />
parts of this Bill, one would think that we were<br />
dealing with the Small Claims Tribunal and not<br />
the Land and Resources Tribunal, or that the<br />
matters it would be hearing involved a dispute<br />
over two weeks' rental bond money and not<br />
whether, for example, a mine could proceed or<br />
not. The tribunal is granted by the Bill exclusive<br />
jurisdiction to resolve disputes over negotiated<br />
settlements and to prevent acts adversely<br />
affecting a matter of cultural significance—in<br />
other words, all the sorts of disputes that go<br />
right to the heart of most mining activity in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>. So I say to the Premier that<br />
action should be taken to protect litigants'<br />
rights by amending the Bill and allowing an<br />
automatic right of appeal on questions of law<br />
and a discretionary appeal on questions of<br />
fact.
372 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
When I read the Bill, I was struck by the<br />
complexity of how the tribunal is to be<br />
constituted from time to time. There are<br />
presiding and non-presiding members. Of the<br />
non-presiding members, there is to be a Land<br />
Court non-presiding member, a land tribunal<br />
non-presiding member, an appointed nonpresiding<br />
member and a referee non-presiding<br />
member. Of the referee non-presiding<br />
members, separate qualifications are set out<br />
for the mining referee non-presiding member,<br />
mediation referee non-presiding member and,<br />
finally, the indigenous referee non-presiding<br />
member. If all of this were not complicated<br />
enough, there is also the requirement that a<br />
member of the Native Title Tribunal also be<br />
party to various hearings.<br />
I will not confuse this House by setting out<br />
the very complicated provisions dealing with<br />
the composition of various tribunal panels,<br />
except to say that it will take some time before<br />
people will get used to how this tribunal is<br />
constituted and how it will work. Perhaps there<br />
is a pressing need to constitute the tribunal in<br />
this way and, in that regard, I would simply ask<br />
the Premier if he could outline to the House<br />
why the provision relating to this tribunal has<br />
been drafted in this very complicated manner.<br />
Nevertheless, two issues flow from the<br />
manner in which the legislation is drafted.<br />
Firstly, I note that Land Court members are<br />
deemed to be non-presiding members, and on<br />
a panel do not decide questions before the<br />
tribunal. Their role is to advise the presiding<br />
member or presiding members about matters<br />
within his or her knowledge and expertise that<br />
are relevant to a question and to help the<br />
presiding members in the conduct of the<br />
proceeding in a way the presiding members<br />
consider appropriate.<br />
I have some concerns about co-opting<br />
onto the tribunal members of the Land Court<br />
and then relegating them to, in effect, an<br />
advisory role only. Not only is this bad as a<br />
matter of policy, as it strikes at the heart of<br />
those members' independence and status, but<br />
it is possibly illegal. I do not hold myself out as<br />
a constitutional expert, but the recent High<br />
Court decision in Kable's case may have some<br />
relevance to the question as to how far a State<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> can go in interfering with the<br />
operation of courts in general and judicial<br />
officers in particular. Therefore, I ask the<br />
Premier whether the issue of Land Court nonpresiding<br />
members has been carefully thought<br />
through and whether the Land Court is in<br />
agreement with this arrangement.<br />
The second matter that arises concerns<br />
the National Native Title Tribunal. It is clear that<br />
there are two broad types of tribunal panels: a<br />
standard panel and a National Native Title<br />
Tribunal panel. As its name suggests, a<br />
National Native Title Tribunal is one on which a<br />
member of that body sits as a member. The<br />
Bill provides that a member of this tribunal can<br />
also be a member of the National Native Title<br />
Tribunal. In his speech, the Premier indicated<br />
that he hoped that there would be crossmembership<br />
of the two bodies and, from the<br />
viewpoint of convenience, there is much to be<br />
said for such a proposition. Obviously,<br />
however, whether that scenario eventuates is<br />
dependent on the attitude of the<br />
Commonwealth Government. It would be<br />
helpful to know whether discussions with the<br />
Commonwealth have commenced on this<br />
issue and, if they have, whether the<br />
Commonwealth has indicated a position. If the<br />
Commonwealth will not, for whatever reason,<br />
appoint a member of the State tribunal as a<br />
member of the national tribunal, an issue that<br />
will immediately arise is who will be picking up<br />
the tab for the member of the national tribunal<br />
travelling to <strong>Queensland</strong> and around the State<br />
when he or she is on a panel. Like so much of<br />
the debate on native title, it often comes down<br />
to an issue of funding. I would be interested to<br />
know just how far this issue, if it is one, has<br />
advanced.<br />
A number of other issues could be raised.<br />
Some of the more technical ones are set out<br />
in the Alert Digest of the Scrutiny of Legislation<br />
Committee. On the whole, I am in agreement<br />
with the suggestions that the committee has<br />
made. The success or otherwise of the<br />
alternative State provisions will in large part be<br />
dependent on how this tribunal operates.<br />
However, as I said, the jurisdiction of this body<br />
goes further than that.<br />
With the abolition of the Wardens Court,<br />
many issues of a non-native title and noncultural<br />
heritage nature will be coming before<br />
it. Currently, the Wardens Court hears<br />
applications for mining leases and makes<br />
recommendations on the grant of such leases<br />
to the Minister. The court has jurisdiction in<br />
relation to mining claims and claims for<br />
compensation by an affected landowner when<br />
the parties cannot agree on the amount of<br />
compensation that is to be paid. It conducts<br />
inquiries into deaths or injuries occurring as a<br />
result of mining related accidents. It also has<br />
jurisdiction under the Fossicking Act. I know<br />
that there is a fair degree of unease about the<br />
proposed tribunal insofar as it will deal with<br />
non-native title issues. Over the past few years<br />
there has been quite a degree of<br />
dissatisfaction with the Wardens Court.<br />
However, at least that body was a specialist
9 Mar 1999 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 373<br />
court that was focused on one area and over<br />
the years had built up quite a lot of expertise.<br />
There were problems, both actual and<br />
perceived.<br />
There is merit in having a one-stop shop<br />
tribunal. So much can be conceded, but what<br />
a number of people are saying is that the<br />
proposed tribunal may not be the right body<br />
for the task and great care will have to be<br />
taken in the future to ensure that problems do<br />
not arise. Far too much is at stake to allow<br />
industry and community dissatisfaction to<br />
arise. I ask both the Premier and the Attorney-<br />
General to take particular care to ensure that<br />
the non-native title work of the tribunal is not<br />
relegated to second place and that the<br />
concerns of the various industry bodies are<br />
taken on board should problems arise.<br />
Before concluding, I reflect briefly on<br />
some of the comments made by the<br />
honourable member for Kurwongbah,<br />
particularly in relation to the Federal Minister<br />
for Aboriginal Affairs. In concluding her<br />
contribution, assisted via interjection by one of<br />
the Ministers sitting in the Chamber, the<br />
honourable member suggested that perhaps<br />
the Federal Minister was motivated by partisan<br />
and political reasons when he sought to<br />
change some aspects of jurisdiction in relation<br />
to land councils. Recently I had discussions<br />
with the Federal Minister. In fact, two<br />
weekends ago the entire coalition joint party<br />
room had discussions with the Federal<br />
Minister. The Federal Minister went through in<br />
great detail the changes that he was<br />
introducing within the regulations and the<br />
legislation that are to be enacted by the<br />
Federal <strong>Parliament</strong>. I reject out of hand any<br />
suggestion—and it was a scurrilous suggestion<br />
by the honourable member for Kurwongbah—<br />
that Dr John Herron, the Federal Minister,<br />
could in any way be politically motivated in this<br />
area of policy formulation, which should be<br />
bipartisan.<br />
Dr Herron is highly regarded and much<br />
loved by those members of the Aboriginal<br />
communities who know that he is trying to<br />
make the whole system of administration and<br />
funding of Aboriginal affairs accountable to the<br />
very people who are most affected by policies<br />
and funding arrangements, that is, the<br />
Aboriginal communities themselves. The<br />
Honourable Federal Minister is seeking to<br />
make that part of his portfolio very responsive<br />
to the genuine needs and aspirations of<br />
ordinary members of the indigenous<br />
community of this nation. Like me, he abhors<br />
the growth of the Aboriginal industry that sucks<br />
up so much of the resources that should be<br />
directed straight into the communities and<br />
straight towards those people who are most<br />
affected by the problems that we often hear<br />
described by members opposite.<br />
Mr Reeves: You just want him to leave so<br />
that you can take his seat.<br />
Mr Reynolds: This is real Alice in<br />
Wonderland stuff.<br />
Mr SANTORO: On behalf of my Federal<br />
parliamentary colleague, who obviously is not<br />
in this place to do so, I rebut the scurrilous<br />
suggestions of the honourable member for<br />
Kurwongbah and others in this<br />
Chamber—including those members opposite<br />
who interject inanely but do not have the<br />
courage to place themselves on the list to give<br />
either a prepared or an ad lib contribution. I<br />
have said what I think should be said. Again, I<br />
reject out of hand any suggestion that Dr<br />
Herron, the Honourable Federal Minister, is<br />
acting in a political and partisan manner.<br />
I support the Bill with the reservations that<br />
I have expressed. I support the comments<br />
made in the beginning of the debate by the<br />
Honourable Leader of the Opposition.<br />
Mrs NITA CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—<br />
ALP) (5.26 p.m.): I join my colleagues on this<br />
side of the House in unreservedly supporting<br />
the Land and Resources Tribunal Bill. This Bill<br />
is a significant piece of legislation because it<br />
will allow the State's alternative State<br />
provisions, under the Commonwealth Native<br />
Title Act, to receive the determination of<br />
the Commonwealth Attorney-General—<br />
determination that is essential for the State's<br />
alternative State provisions to be able to<br />
commence.<br />
As honourable members would be aware,<br />
the Commonwealth Attorney-General must be<br />
satisfied under section 43A that objections are<br />
heard by an independent person or body. A<br />
similar provision requiring an independent<br />
body to hear objections is also found in section<br />
24 and section 26 of the Commonwealth<br />
Native Title Act. The Land and Resources<br />
Tribunal Bill provides the tribunal that will be<br />
that independent body. It is important to<br />
recognise that the legislation establishing the<br />
tribunal must ensure that the tribunal is<br />
embodied with characteristics necessary for it<br />
to be seen to be independent as well as, in<br />
practice, acting independently. At clause 5 the<br />
Bill explicitly provides that the tribunal, in<br />
exercising its jurisdiction, is not subject to the<br />
direction of the Minister.<br />
The Bill provides, as the combined effects<br />
of clauses 7 and 9, that presiding members,<br />
that is, the president and deputy president, are<br />
appointments for life and will only cease upon<br />
the member retiring on reaching 70 years of
374 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
age, resigning, or, in the unfortunate set of<br />
circumstances, being terminated in precisely<br />
the same way and for precisely the same<br />
reasons as a Supreme or District Court judge<br />
may be.<br />
Importantly, the drafting of the Bill<br />
provides that a high-quality candidate will be<br />
appointed as a presiding member of the<br />
tribunal. It requires any person who may be<br />
appointed as a presiding member to be<br />
capable of being appointed as a Supreme<br />
Court judge of this State. In addition, the<br />
successful candidate must have particular<br />
knowledge or experience of mining or<br />
petroleum issues, land issues or something<br />
else considered by the Governor in Council to<br />
have substantial relevance to the duties of a<br />
presiding member.<br />
In addition to the presiding members, the<br />
Land and Resources Tribunal Bill provides for<br />
the appointment of non-presiding members to<br />
the tribunal. By this legislation, a person may<br />
be appointed as an appointed non-presiding<br />
member of the tribunal only if that person has<br />
experience of not less than five years at a high<br />
level in industry, commerce, public<br />
administration, industrial relations, the<br />
practices of a profession, the services of a<br />
Government or an authority of a Government.<br />
Alternatively, a person may be appointed<br />
as an appointed non-presiding member if that<br />
person has, in the opinion of the Governor in<br />
Council, particular knowledge or experience of<br />
two or more of the following categories:<br />
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander<br />
communities, dispute resolution, valuation,<br />
mining or petroleum issues, land use issues,<br />
indigenous issues, cultural heritage, the<br />
environment, industrial relations, native title<br />
issues, or something else considered by the<br />
Governor in Council to have substantial<br />
relevance to the duties of an appointed nonpresiding<br />
member. These requirements are<br />
not complex, but they will ensure that<br />
appropriately qualified non-presiding members<br />
will be available within the tribunal to assist the<br />
presiding members in the hearing of matters<br />
before it.<br />
In addition to addressing the appointed<br />
non-presiding members, the Bill also sets out<br />
the qualifications for three referees. Once<br />
again, those lists of qualifications will ensure<br />
that the presiding members and the tribunal<br />
are appropriately equipped with the necessary<br />
expertise on tap to deal with what might be at<br />
times complicated, sensitive and difficult<br />
issues.<br />
That this Government is putting expertise<br />
into native title through this Bill is a reflection of<br />
the Premier's forward-looking approach to<br />
native title. By adopting commonsense<br />
solutions and a vision that brings all<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>ers on board, real progress is<br />
being made for this State. This was no more<br />
evident than in Mackay last Friday, when<br />
indigenous leaders stood emotionally with the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Government, the local authority<br />
and other stakeholders as a visionary<br />
agreement was entered into, and again last<br />
month when the Premier agreed through<br />
negotiation to two determinations of native title<br />
on Saibai and Moa Islands.<br />
This Bill reflects the Premier's visionary<br />
native title position and is deserving of the<br />
support of members on both sides of the<br />
House. I commend the Bill to the House.<br />
Mr REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP)<br />
(5.31 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise in the<br />
House to support the Land and Resources<br />
Tribunal Bill. In doing so, I acknowledge the<br />
Premier's great and progressive leadership in<br />
respect of this Bill—something that a number<br />
of other speakers from the Government side<br />
have acknowledged today.<br />
Mr Borbidge interjected.<br />
Mr REYNOLDS: That is especially so,<br />
given that the honourable member for Warwick<br />
was the next speaker on the list.<br />
With respect to the tribunal, what we see<br />
in this Bill would be in stark contrast to what we<br />
would have seen had the Opposition been in<br />
Government today. A trilogy of legislation has<br />
been put before the Chamber since the<br />
Beattie Government has been in power. That<br />
this Government has addressed those three<br />
areas of concern in relation to native title<br />
indicates that it has been willing to bring<br />
together the different stakeholders to ensure<br />
that we have a just, equitable and balanced<br />
legislative program. The parties involved have<br />
worked together in a spirit of cooperation to<br />
ensure that the State's development continues<br />
and is balanced with indigenous rights.<br />
I come from an area of north <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
where the development of the mining industry<br />
is paramount. The Carpentaria/Mount Isa<br />
minerals province is potentially the most<br />
exciting and challenging mineral development<br />
province in Australia. It will offer development<br />
opportunities for many decades to come. In<br />
my previous role as the chairman of the<br />
Townsville Port Authority, I know that we were<br />
able to exploit many opportunities. For<br />
example, I cite BHP's Cannington project, and<br />
also the Western Mining Corporation project<br />
that will soon see one million tonnes of fertiliser<br />
coming through the port of Townsville. That<br />
reflects the great wealth of the
9 Mar 1999 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 375<br />
Carpentaria/Mount Isa minerals province and<br />
our area's potential to assist its development.<br />
That potential for development will be<br />
balanced with the important native title<br />
principles acknowledged in this Bill. The<br />
Premier's Land and Resources Tribunal Bill<br />
provides a balance in respect of the<br />
membership of the tribunal. There is a<br />
recognition that this body will take its place in<br />
the community when there is a need for it to<br />
examine matters pertaining to the mining<br />
industry and native title interests. I am very<br />
pleased that the Land and Resources Tribunal<br />
Bill, as part of the trilogy of legislation that has<br />
been introduced into the Chamber, will have<br />
an important role to play in the resolution of<br />
issues in the mining industry and which also<br />
pertain to native title.<br />
Earlier the member for Bundaberg<br />
mentioned the events that took place in<br />
Mackay last Friday. As the <strong>Parliament</strong>ary<br />
Secretary to the Premier in north <strong>Queensland</strong>,<br />
I was very honoured to represent the Premier<br />
on that historic occasion, when four native title<br />
holders and groups in Mackay—the Mackay<br />
City Council and the Mackay Surf Lifesaving<br />
Club—cooperated with the <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
Government in allowing development to go<br />
ahead on unallocated State land. The historic<br />
and emotional ceremony in the Mackay City<br />
Council chambers last Friday illustrated the<br />
cooperation between the different<br />
stakeholders in reaching and signing the<br />
agreements. It also illustrated that the Beattie<br />
Government's approach to native title<br />
contrasts with that of the Opposition Leader,<br />
who over the past two years has run all over<br />
the State of <strong>Queensland</strong> whipping up a frenzy<br />
among miners and pastoralists. We can<br />
contrast that approach with the Beattie<br />
Government's role in the legislation we saw in<br />
the House last year and which we see in the<br />
House today in the form of the Land and<br />
Resources Tribunal Bill.<br />
The Opposition is not interested in<br />
achieving a balance and ensuring justice and<br />
equity for indigenous people, miners and<br />
pastoralists. It is interested in taking a<br />
sledgehammer approach to native title. The<br />
Bill before us today is a very good example of<br />
the Premier's excellent leadership in bringing<br />
together all of the stakeholders. This third<br />
aspect of native title is a very important<br />
component of the legislation required in the<br />
State of <strong>Queensland</strong>. I commend the<br />
approach that the Premier has given to us as<br />
a <strong>Parliament</strong>. His leadership has seen<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> leading the way for every other<br />
State in Australia.<br />
I know that, given the make-up of the<br />
Land and Resources Tribunal, this State will<br />
take into account the very important<br />
development opportunities—for example, the<br />
Carpentaria/Mount Isa minerals province and<br />
other opportunities around the State—and<br />
that, importantly, the rights of indigenous<br />
people will be balanced with that development.<br />
This Bill has my support, and I commend it to<br />
the House.<br />
Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP)<br />
(Minister for Mines and Energy and Minister<br />
Assisting the Deputy Premier on Regional<br />
Development) (5.39 p.m.): I am pleased to rise<br />
in the <strong>Parliament</strong> today to support this Bill,<br />
which is the third piece of legislation introduced<br />
by this Government to deal comprehensively<br />
with native title in our State. The Bill proposes<br />
the establishment of the tribunal as<br />
contemplated by the Native Title (<strong>Queensland</strong>)<br />
State Provisions Amendment Act (No. 2) 1998.<br />
This Act amends the Mineral Resources Act<br />
1989 by incorporating alternative State<br />
provisions to the "right to negotiate" for grants<br />
of exploration and mining tenures.<br />
Members will recall that that legislation,<br />
which was passed by this House on 11<br />
November last year, provides different<br />
processes to protect the rights of native title<br />
holders, depending on the type of activity and<br />
the type of land involved. It provides separate<br />
procedures for applications for prospecting,<br />
low-impact exploration, high-impact<br />
exploration, mining on non-exclusive land—<br />
pastoral leases—and mining on unallocated<br />
State land. In effect, the legislation contains<br />
13 separate schemes. The legislation<br />
establishes clear and fair processes for<br />
allowing mining companies to explore for and,<br />
indeed, exploit mineral resources. The Land<br />
and Resources Tribunal will be the<br />
independent body which will hear objections to<br />
proposed grants of tenures where consultation<br />
and negotiation do not result in agreements.<br />
Passage of the Land and Resources Bill<br />
is critical to allow the Commonwealth Minister<br />
to consider and approve these alternative<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> provisions. The independence of<br />
the tribunal is, of course, central to achieving<br />
the relevant determination of the<br />
Commonwealth and will also be necessary for<br />
the continued operation of the tribunal and the<br />
alternative State provisions. The Bill is<br />
meticulous in this regard.<br />
The Bill abolishes the Wardens Court<br />
under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 and<br />
transfers its functions—except the penal<br />
provisions, which will be transferred to the<br />
courts—into the Land and Resources Tribunal.
376 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
The tribunal will have jurisdiction also in relation<br />
to hearings under the alternative State<br />
provisions established under the Native Title<br />
(<strong>Queensland</strong>) State Provisions Amendment<br />
Act (No. 2) of last year and any ongoing issues<br />
relating to agreements created under them.<br />
The Wardens Court has served the<br />
community well for over 100 years in solving<br />
disputes and setting conditions on mining<br />
activities within our State. But the present<br />
complexity of many mining applications<br />
requires a greater perspective and a broader<br />
understanding of issues, including native title<br />
issues, in determining if and how mineral<br />
development will take place in <strong>Queensland</strong>. It<br />
is extremely important for the economic growth<br />
of <strong>Queensland</strong> that we can develop the<br />
mineral resources of the State and, by doing<br />
so, create investment and, of course, jobs.<br />
This Government recognises that new<br />
mineral developments must take many<br />
interests into account in deciding if and how<br />
the resources can be extracted. It is no longer<br />
the case that if the minerals are in the ground<br />
then automatically they should be produced<br />
and, as such, this legislation takes this into<br />
account. Modern day issues are complex<br />
involving land-holder rights, native title rights,<br />
environmental issues, planning considerations<br />
and the economic needs of the State.<br />
The tribunal also will have jurisdiction<br />
under the Cultural Record (Landscapes<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> and <strong>Queensland</strong> Estate) Act of<br />
1987 and the Government's forthcoming new<br />
indigenous cultural heritage legislation. The<br />
tribunal will comprise a president, two<br />
additional presiding members, three nonpresiding<br />
members, a registrar and deputy<br />
registrars. Complex cases and any cases<br />
involving native title are to be heard by a<br />
multiple member panel.<br />
The Commonwealth Native Title Act of<br />
1993 requires that a member of the National<br />
Native Title Tribunal participate when the<br />
tribunal is determining objections by native title<br />
parties to grants of tenures on unallocated<br />
State land. The president of the tribunal is a<br />
position equivalent to a Supreme Court judge<br />
and the deputy presidents' positions are<br />
equivalent to that of a District Court judge.<br />
Presiding members are appointed for life<br />
unless they retire or their positions are<br />
terminated. This will ensure that the tribunal will<br />
be a highly respected body, which is in<br />
keeping with the importance of the mining<br />
industry to our State.<br />
A mining referee will also be appointed for<br />
a five-year term. The mining referee will hear<br />
and determine many of the procedural matters<br />
arising from small mining leases and mining<br />
claims, prospecting permits, exploration<br />
permits and fossicking. Referees will be<br />
eminently qualified, but will not have voting<br />
rights on the tribunal. In addition to being<br />
eligible for appointment as a Supreme Court<br />
judge, a mining referee must have mining<br />
industry knowledge and experience, as well as<br />
experience in land title and land uses or other<br />
relevant expertise. This will ensure that the<br />
mining referee is familiar with industry practice.<br />
More than one mining referee may be<br />
appointed under this legislation.<br />
The Wardens Court was characterised by<br />
its presence on the mining fields and by an<br />
ability to decide a matter quickly and fairly.<br />
Those characteristics are retained in the<br />
structure of this tribunal with the position of the<br />
mining referee. These hearings will be in towns<br />
near the mining fields so that the miners and<br />
landowners involved do not incur unnecessary<br />
costs. The Bill provides that compensation<br />
hearings, which are currently heard by the<br />
Wardens Court, will be heard by the tribunal<br />
composed either as the mining referee or a<br />
single land court non-presiding member.<br />
The Government prefers the parties to<br />
reach agreement on the terms and conditions<br />
for development, and I expect this will still<br />
happen in the majority of cases. We will be<br />
providing mediation assistance to resolve<br />
disputes at all stages of the application for<br />
mining tenures. In addition to the mediation<br />
offered by mining registrars in the early stages<br />
of mining tenure applications, the tribunal will<br />
have a mediation referee and trained<br />
mediators to assist parties in resolving their<br />
issues at various stages in the process. But in<br />
those cases where agreement cannot be<br />
reached, there is a need for a well-resourced<br />
and highly respected arbitral body—which the<br />
Land and Resources Tribunal certainly will be.<br />
Such an increased status of the tribunal has<br />
long been asked for by most parties involved<br />
in this industry—mining companies,<br />
landowners, environmental groups and local<br />
governments. The issues in competing land<br />
uses are becoming more and more complex,<br />
and the ability of one person to determine this<br />
wider range of issues has been increasingly<br />
questioned.<br />
Where the Wardens Court had jurisdiction<br />
for a proceeding under the Mineral Resources<br />
Act 1989 immediately before the<br />
commencement of section 83, the tribunal has<br />
the jurisdiction to finish the proceeding. The<br />
tribunal will be sufficiently resourced to enable<br />
it to travel to regional centres to hear cases<br />
and make determinations. This will be<br />
important for its credibility and profile. By
9 Mar 1999 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 377<br />
providing quick and cost-effective hearings<br />
where the subject matter of the proceedings is<br />
not complex, the legislation minimises the<br />
disruption of existing processes under the<br />
Mineral Resources Act 1989. In other cases, it<br />
provides access to a more prestigious forum<br />
with appropriate expertise for resolution of<br />
native title and other complex issues.<br />
The mining industry, the indigenous<br />
community and landowners support this<br />
approach. The Government is proud of its<br />
record, over only a few months, in introducing<br />
native title legislation which is more<br />
comprehensive, more effective, more<br />
integrated and fairer than that introduced or<br />
even contemplated by any other State or<br />
Territory jurisdiction in this Commonwealth. It<br />
will prove to be durable legislation which<br />
establishes the proper balance between the<br />
rights of miners and native title holders and<br />
which provides a sound basis for getting the<br />
industry in <strong>Queensland</strong> back on its feet. This<br />
outcome is in the interest of all<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>ers. I commend the Bill to the<br />
House.<br />
Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP)<br />
(5.49 p.m.): Members on this side of the<br />
House welcome the consideration of the Land<br />
and Resources Tribunal Bill today because it<br />
represents the new way forward—a way<br />
forward which has been determined after<br />
extensive consultation with all parties by a<br />
Premier who gets things done. Under the<br />
previous Government, the State's<br />
administration of native title issues was<br />
bogged down because its way forward was to<br />
litigate everything. This was a policy destined<br />
to fail, and the record of those opposite in<br />
solving native title issues is testament to that<br />
failure.<br />
Members opposite might ask how the<br />
Beattie Labor Government has been so<br />
successful in an area in which their record is so<br />
abysmal. There are three factors which the<br />
Beattie Labor Government took into<br />
consideration which have been the hallmark of<br />
its success when it comes to native<br />
title—consultation, negotiation and, finally and<br />
most importantly, respect for the indigenous<br />
person.<br />
I think it is important that all members<br />
understand why the three factors which have<br />
been taken into account by the Beattie Labor<br />
Government have delivered it successful<br />
outcomes on native title. As to the first factor,<br />
consultation, the formation by the Premier of<br />
his Native Title Task Force brought together<br />
the diverse interests of those affected by the<br />
native title issue. For the first time, the Premier<br />
was able to get a complete understanding of<br />
all parties' perspectives on all of the issues. I<br />
understand that at times this was not the most<br />
pleasant experience, but it was important to<br />
obtain a full understanding of what people<br />
thought and where they thought the answers<br />
might lie.<br />
In line with the extensive consultations<br />
that have been undertaken with every single<br />
piece of native title legislation that has been<br />
considered by this House, the Premier has<br />
ensured that his policy of negotiation has been<br />
incorporated wherever possible. This has<br />
included extensive negotiations over the<br />
provisions of native title legislation with<br />
organisations such as the <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
Indigenous Working Group, the <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
Mining Council and the United Graziers<br />
Association. Involving these organisations in<br />
the preparation of legislation has resulted in<br />
better quality legislation, which means more<br />
workable legislation and, as a result, legislation<br />
that everyone can live with.<br />
When honourable members examine the<br />
alternative State provisions, the primacy that<br />
has been given to consultation and<br />
negotiation is self-evident. For example, the<br />
alternative State provisions in relation to lowimpact<br />
exploration provide for consultation<br />
between the explorer and the native title<br />
parties prior to entry onto land where native<br />
title may exist. Consultation must relate to the<br />
impact of the activities on the land.<br />
Similar procedures exist in relation to<br />
prospecting permits and low-impact mineral<br />
development licences. These procedures<br />
ensure, in accordance with the Commonwealth<br />
Native Title Act, that native title parties are<br />
properly consulted prior to these activities<br />
being undertaken on land where native title<br />
might exist. It will be this factor, amongst<br />
others, which will ensure the success of the<br />
alternative State provisions.<br />
The final factor that has ensured the<br />
success of the Premier's native title strategy is<br />
that we on this side of the House respect<br />
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons<br />
and are committed to the goals of<br />
reconciliation and the improvement of quality<br />
of life for all indigenous <strong>Queensland</strong>ers. The<br />
creation of the Department of Aboriginal and<br />
Torres Strait Islander Policy and Development,<br />
which was delinked from the Department of<br />
Family Services, is evidence of our<br />
commitment to these goals. These three<br />
factors, which have ensured the success of<br />
this Government, have been integrated into<br />
the Land and Resources Tribunal.
378 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 9 Mar 1999<br />
The final form of this legislation has been<br />
the result of extensive consultation with all<br />
interested parties. The role of agreement<br />
through negotiation is central to the alternative<br />
State provisions, from which the majority of the<br />
tribunal's jurisdiction will be derived. The<br />
tribunal is designed to be informal, flexible and<br />
responsive to the needs of parties who come<br />
before it.<br />
<strong>Final</strong>ly, the Land and Resources Tribunal<br />
Bill acknowledges and respects indigenous<br />
culture through making provision within the<br />
tribunal structure for the appointment of an<br />
indigenous issues referee and the capacity to<br />
deal appropriately with culturally sensitive<br />
issues. Also, all presiding members must have<br />
particular knowledge or experience of<br />
indigenous issues. I commend the Bill to the<br />
House.<br />
Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP)<br />
(5.53 p.m.): I welcome this opportunity today<br />
to contribute to the consideration of the Land<br />
and Resources Tribunal Bill. I do not think any<br />
member of this House can underestimate the<br />
complexity of the native title issue. Indeed, for<br />
the previous Government this complexity was<br />
an excuse to do nothing. Unlike the Borbidge<br />
Government, the Beattie Government has not<br />
avoided the difficult issues. Close to the top of<br />
these difficult issues has indeed been the<br />
issue of native title.<br />
Almost immediately on coming to<br />
Government, the Premier announced the<br />
formation of his Native Title Task Force. The<br />
Native Title Task Force, which the Premier<br />
personally chaired, involved in the consultation<br />
process for the first time the various and<br />
diverse interest groups that were and continue<br />
to be affected by the issue of native title.<br />
Importantly, from the outset the Government<br />
adopted the approach that fighting out native<br />
title issues in the courts did not provide the<br />
way forward. Whilst litigation has its place, the<br />
Government has built its approach to<br />
formulating a new process for dealing with<br />
native title issues on a commitment to<br />
encourage all players in the process to work<br />
together to reach agreement.<br />
Litigation has been hugely expensive for<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> taxpayers. It has dragged on for<br />
years and ultimately failed in practical terms to<br />
clarify the day-to-day impact of native title. The<br />
decisions in Mabo, Waanyi and Wik left<br />
indigenous people still without any clear<br />
guidance as to their rights and interests in land<br />
management in this State. It is ironic that the<br />
Bjelke-Petersen Government had such a<br />
strenuous role in creating these precedents.<br />
Where dramatic breakthroughs and<br />
concrete outcomes have been achieved, it has<br />
not been through litigation but, instead,<br />
through solution-based agreements<br />
negotiated in good faith and with the goodwill<br />
of all interested parties. The Beattie Labor<br />
Government approach has shifted the focus to<br />
encouraging and facilitating these<br />
agreements, particularly in the light of the new<br />
stature afforded to the agreements under the<br />
Commonwealth Native Title Act. Indeed, I<br />
understand that in a number of cases the<br />
officers of the Directorate of Native Title<br />
Services are assisting parties to native title<br />
disputes to resolve these issues through<br />
indigenous land use agreements. I would<br />
encourage both land-holders and indigenous<br />
parties to seriously consider the benefits that<br />
these agreements can provide to all parties.<br />
It is in this atmosphere of negotiation and<br />
not litigation that the tribunal we are debating<br />
today must be considered. Whilst the presiding<br />
members and non-presiding members of the<br />
tribunal will be eminently and suitably qualified<br />
to undertake these responsibilities—and in the<br />
case of the presiding members qualified to be<br />
appointed to a Supreme Court—it is important<br />
to note that the tribunal is not a court but a<br />
tribunal. As a tribunal the organisation will be<br />
far better able to ensure that its processes and<br />
hearings are culturally sensitive.<br />
The tribunal must observe the rules of<br />
natural justice, but it is not bound by the rules<br />
of evidence. That characteristic will allow the<br />
tribunal proceedings to be conducted in an<br />
informal manner and will permit decisions<br />
which will be more acceptable to all parties. As<br />
the Premier has stated, it is envisaged that the<br />
tribunal will not be a Brisbane-bound body but<br />
will conduct hearings throughout the State of<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>.<br />
As noted by the report of the Scrutiny of<br />
Legislation Committee, in its remarks on<br />
whether the Bill has sufficient regard to<br />
Aboriginal tradition and island custom, the<br />
tribunal will take into account such issues as:<br />
its degree of formality in procedures; the<br />
degree to which it relaxes the strict evidentiary<br />
rules; the taking of group evidence from<br />
indigenous witnesses; the exercise of taking<br />
evidence in a culturally sensitive manner; the<br />
way in which the tribunal deals with indigenous<br />
witnesses who may not have the same fluency<br />
in English as do the members of this House;<br />
and, finally, a recognition that the framing of a<br />
question to an indigenous witness, given their<br />
mode of response to such questions, will be<br />
influenced by cultural factors. How it does this<br />
will ultimately be the test of the success of the
9 Mar 1999 Health Portfolio 379<br />
tribunal. In all these things the Bill achieves the<br />
necessary balance.<br />
The Premier's native title strategy also<br />
recognises the important role that mediation<br />
will play in his "negotiate, not litigate" solution<br />
to the native title issue. The Bill recognises the<br />
importance of mediation through the office of<br />
the mediation referee. The mediation referee<br />
must be legally qualified and have, in the<br />
opinion of the Governor in Council, a high level<br />
of knowledge or experience in two or more of<br />
the following: dispute resolution, mediation,<br />
land title and land use issues, or something<br />
else considered by the Governor in Council to<br />
have substantial relevance to the duties of the<br />
mediation referee.<br />
Debate, on motion of Mr Fenlon,<br />
adjourned.<br />
HEALTH PORTFOLIO<br />
Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA)<br />
(6 p.m.): I move—<br />
"That this House notes with concern<br />
the massive $50m budget blow-out hitting<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>’s public hospitals which is<br />
resulting in severe cuts to patient services,<br />
the closure of hospital beds and a<br />
blowout in waiting lists, and condemns the<br />
Health Minister’s gross mismanagement<br />
of the health system and her disgraceful<br />
attack on the dedicated senior staff who<br />
work in our hospitals."<br />
The cracks in the edifice of the do-nothing<br />
Beattie Labor Government are widening.<br />
Apparently, it is the Premier's decision to do<br />
nothing about an unrepentant Health Minister,<br />
whom he continues to defend. Something is<br />
desperately wrong with a Government that<br />
allows a senior Minister—Health Minister<br />
Wendy Edmond—to go unchastised for<br />
abusing patients and staff for problems within<br />
the State's hospitals. Never has a State<br />
Government had so much Federal funding for<br />
hospitals—a record amount of funding—but<br />
already we have seen semi-urgent wait times<br />
nearly double under this Government.<br />
I am absolutely appalled that this Minister<br />
is so desperate to cover up the problems in<br />
the hospitals that she would slander a man<br />
who presented for treatment at the Gold Coast<br />
Hospital with a slashed arm and had to wait 28<br />
hours for surgery. This is a real person who<br />
has suffered because of the breakdown in the<br />
health system. The Minister has lost the plot<br />
by failing to see the impact on a young man<br />
who may not regain the full use of his arm.<br />
The Minister fails to acknowledge the<br />
unacceptability of such an extremely long<br />
delay for surgery in emergency circumstances.<br />
Yesterday at Toowoomba, the Minister<br />
sacked the hospital's top executive and<br />
announced an "administrative restructure",<br />
which is a pseudonym for a massacre. Once<br />
again, when a hospital is in trouble, her answer<br />
is to look for scapegoats. She sacks the<br />
executive team and then does not announce<br />
any additional funding for that hospital, which<br />
is servicing a major region. I say to the<br />
Minister: your Government spent an extra $8m<br />
to run the Premier's Department in one quarter<br />
than Premier Borbidge, but you cannot seem<br />
to find the money for Toowoomba and other<br />
hospitals around the State. I think you and<br />
your Government have got your priorities<br />
wrong. The Beattie do-nothing Government is<br />
all about doing fancy PR rather than the hard<br />
yakka in delivering in such key service areas as<br />
health. You are simply not up to the task.<br />
After the Toowoomba massacre, there will<br />
be a lot of other hospital administrations and<br />
their staff who will be shaking in their shoes.<br />
Aside from the executive staff, how many<br />
other staff at Toowoomba will be sacked, and<br />
how many full-time positions will covertly not be<br />
advertised, with a growing legion of casuals left<br />
wondering about their job security? And what<br />
about the other hospitals? The Royal Brisbane<br />
Hospital has a $14m budget overrun. I<br />
understand that that hospital also has about<br />
30 closed beds, despite running near capacity,<br />
and it is also not filling permanent positions<br />
under this Minister. Will Dr John Menzies, the<br />
district director, be the next to fall under the<br />
poisoned sword of this Government? What<br />
about the Prince Charles Hospital, which is<br />
$1.8m over budget? And what about those<br />
other highly efficient teams at the Caboolture<br />
and Redcliffe Hospitals and the Nambour<br />
Hospital which, respectively, are struggling with<br />
a $2m and a $2.5m budget blow-out? What<br />
will they be thinking after the Toowoomba<br />
episode?<br />
Then there is the Bundaberg Hospital and<br />
its $1m budget blow-out. I acknowledge that<br />
the Minister tripped along to Bundaberg the<br />
other day and gave the hospital a million-dollar<br />
bail-out package, but she has not promised<br />
the same again next year. The highly<br />
respected medical superintendent at that<br />
hospital has recently resigned, and that<br />
hospital has also seen nearly a doubling of the<br />
percentage of semi-urgent long waits for<br />
surgery since Health Minister Edmond took the<br />
helm. It is another hospital that has had a<br />
downgrade in hospital services with the closure<br />
of the general outpatients clinic. And in case<br />
the Minister had forgotten—the Minister
380 Health Portfolio 9 Mar 1999<br />
approved this closure, just like the bed<br />
closures at the Nambour Hospital. But she<br />
could not remember doing so when she visited<br />
Bundaberg. I will come back to her memory<br />
problems later.<br />
Altogether, there is about $50m in budget<br />
overruns in the Health Department at this<br />
moment. I have listed just a few of the<br />
hospitals that are struggling because of the<br />
cutbacks to elective surgery funding alone. All<br />
this is at a time when the State Government<br />
has received a record amount of money from<br />
the Federal Government for hospitals and<br />
surgery. There is an extra $1.3 billion available<br />
to this Government that was not available to<br />
the coalition Government. There is also $103m<br />
in windfall funding that came because<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> signed early. That agreement<br />
also meant that <strong>Queensland</strong> would get a<br />
share of any bigger offers if other States<br />
subsequently were offered more—as they<br />
were. That is the best Medicare deal a State<br />
Government in <strong>Queensland</strong> has seen. Yet this<br />
Government, right at the start of a five-year<br />
Australian Health Care Agreement, still cannot<br />
manage the budget. It still cannot maintain the<br />
budget. It still cannot maintain the coalition's<br />
trend for falling wait times for elective surgery,<br />
nor can it show a bit of compassion for people<br />
who are suffering as a result.<br />
We also saw in the <strong>Parliament</strong> this<br />
morning another example of the Minister's lack<br />
of compassion and grasp of her portfolio. I am<br />
happy to give the Minister the details of the<br />
young couple who wrote to me about the<br />
tragic loss of their unborn child and the<br />
compounding of their grief through the<br />
treatment they received at the Royal Women's<br />
Hospital. The mother had suffered the grief of<br />
losing a baby, but she was forced to endure<br />
five hours of bleeding and severe pain while<br />
waiting for a medical specialist to remove the<br />
placenta. This couple very strongly wished this<br />
issue to be brought to the attention of the<br />
Minister and gave me their approval for the<br />
matter to be raised in the <strong>Parliament</strong>. They<br />
also wanted to clearly make it known that they<br />
were not criticising the staff; they only had<br />
praise for the hospital staff who, despite the<br />
work pressures they were under, treated them<br />
compassionately. The problem, this couple<br />
said, was a lack of staff. Once again, the<br />
Minister, in her answer to a question on this<br />
issue, showed her complete lack of<br />
compassion or ability to understand that these<br />
are the real concerns of real people.<br />
If there is any doubt that this Minister has<br />
made a habit of attacking staff when the going<br />
gets tough, do not forget the incident with Dr<br />
Matthew Scott-Young on the Gold Coast—a<br />
well-respected surgeon who resigned because<br />
of the difficulties that the Gold Coast Hospital<br />
was having in getting adequate funding. The<br />
people were marching in the streets over the<br />
Gold Coast dilemma. Perhaps the Minister<br />
wishes to abuse those people as well.<br />
Then there is the Nambour Hospital. Like<br />
the Gold Coast, that hospital is experiencing<br />
tremendous growth but, contrary to the<br />
Minister's claims of an increased budget, the<br />
documentation shows that it has, in fact,<br />
experienced a reduced budget. What is the<br />
Minister going to do? Is she going to abuse<br />
the staff for being some of the most efficient in<br />
the State? At Christmas time, the Minister<br />
approved the closure of 36 beds at the<br />
Nambour Hospital, but today in question time<br />
she seemed to have forgotten that. There are<br />
also some 25 full-time permanent positions at<br />
the hospital that have been deliberately left<br />
unfilled because of the budget problems. The<br />
Minister has a convenient memory because,<br />
despite her district manager's report confirming<br />
her involvement in the bed closures, in the<br />
House this morning the Minister said that she<br />
did not get involved in operational matters.<br />
Well, it is about time that the Minister did get<br />
involved in managing the department, rather<br />
than having her bureaucrats manage her. I<br />
renew my challenge to the Minister: why does<br />
she not allow Sunshine Coast media to inspect<br />
the 36 beds which are still closed well after the<br />
Christmas break? The Health Minister should<br />
hang her head in shame for her lack of<br />
compassion that was shown this morning,<br />
when she slandered a patient who had had<br />
the misfortune to wait so long for surgery.<br />
Then there are the mental health issues. I<br />
would like to quote the Minister, who thinks<br />
there is not a problem with acute mental<br />
health beds in south-east <strong>Queensland</strong>. The<br />
Minister stated—<br />
"There is no indication of a shortage<br />
of mental health beds in south-east<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>."<br />
The Minister also went on to talk about how<br />
emergency beds were available and that,<br />
according to the mental health services, those<br />
beds had been accessed only about twice in<br />
the last six months. I think that the Minister<br />
had better stop listening to her close circle of<br />
bureaucrats and start talking to the doctors<br />
and psychiatrists who are dealing with this<br />
issue at the coalface. When I talked to Dr<br />
Eileen Burkett, who last week issued a press<br />
release from the AMA, she said that she and<br />
staff members spent hours ringing around<br />
looking for beds for mental health patients.
9 Mar 1999 Health Portfolio 381<br />
That is hardly the best use of time for treating<br />
psychiatrists.<br />
The College of Psychiatrists has also<br />
been calling for some months for a review of<br />
the current number of acute mental health<br />
beds. In light of the Minister's answer this<br />
morning, it is obvious that she has not realised<br />
that there are problems with access to mental<br />
health beds. Even when there is a suicidal<br />
man who threatens to kill himself and his wife,<br />
he is unable to get a mental health bed for<br />
more than a week. If the Minister does not<br />
think that something is wrong, there is<br />
obviously something wrong with her<br />
management. Furthermore, it is also wrong to<br />
have psychiatrists who are being paid, say,<br />
$100 an hour, or their registrars, having to<br />
spend hours ringing around looking for where<br />
these beds are supposed to be.<br />
The Minister has to undertake that review,<br />
and she must put in the coordinators who can<br />
do that work instead to access these beds<br />
which are supposed to be available. But this<br />
Minister cannot do anything, because she is a<br />
Minister in a do-nothing Government, and they<br />
continue to ignore the problems and the<br />
reductions. This is a do-nothing Government, a<br />
can't do Government, which continues to<br />
reduce services. It has not delivered in this key<br />
area of health.<br />
Time expired.<br />
Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—LP)<br />
(6.10 p.m.): I rise to second the motion moved<br />
by the member for Maroochydore.<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Health is in total disarray. In 1993<br />
the health crisis was described in the<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> <strong>Parliament</strong> as a ship without a<br />
rudder going from crisis to crisis under a Labor<br />
Government. Now, some six years later, we<br />
are facing the same situation with yet another<br />
Labor Government.<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>ers are having to suffer the<br />
trauma of an endless series of Labor health<br />
plans and a Minister incapable of running the<br />
State's health system. In previous years under<br />
a Labor Government we saw a system that<br />
strangled true health care delivery with failed<br />
plans that started the bed and theatre closures<br />
whilst waiting lists were growing and growing.<br />
Discontent amongst staff grew to disturbing<br />
levels. Today under the Beattie Government<br />
we are reliving this nightmare.<br />
The question needs to be asked: what is<br />
the state of <strong>Queensland</strong> Health today? Well, it<br />
appears that the Minister cannot manage the<br />
Health budget. From her answers this morning,<br />
she obviously does not know. Toowoomba,<br />
Nambour, Redcliffe, Caboolture, Prince<br />
Charles and Bundaberg Hospitals all have<br />
massive budget blow-outs. The Government<br />
was forced to rescue Bundaberg Hospital with<br />
a $1m cash grab redirected from other areas<br />
of the Health budget. This is just one example<br />
of fundamental mismanagement in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Health.<br />
Will the mismanagement of our hospital<br />
system create a domino effect? Let us have a<br />
look at some other instances of poor actions<br />
that have been forced upon <strong>Queensland</strong>ers.<br />
There has been the termination of contracts<br />
with private facilities, leaving patients to join<br />
already unbearably long waiting lists. If the<br />
budget blows out this Minister will just close it<br />
down.<br />
We have recently seen the closure of the<br />
drug and alcohol unit at the Toowoomba Base<br />
Hospital. This unit offered detoxification and<br />
rehabilitation services to Government agencies<br />
and the general public since 1982. Where to<br />
now for those who so desperately need its<br />
services? Toowoomba Hospital has a budget<br />
blow-out of more than $7m. The Government's<br />
reaction to this situation was to restructure,<br />
which is just another fancy name under this<br />
Government for the sacking or redeployment<br />
of key staff. Where are the Labor members<br />
standing up and speaking about this? Where<br />
are the union people? Where are you, Jim<br />
Fouras?<br />
The Minister is using the staff as<br />
scapegoats for her lack of control. Does she<br />
believe the same of Toowoomba Hospital as<br />
she stated today in this House about the<br />
situation at Nambour General Hospital—that<br />
she leaves the operational matters to the<br />
people who are paid to manage hospitals? It<br />
would seem not.<br />
But it is not just Toowoomba Hospital that<br />
is in crisis. Nambour Hospital is $2.5m over<br />
budget. Should its staff and the public fear<br />
restructure? Redcliffe Hospital is $2m over<br />
budget. Should its staff and the public fear<br />
loss of vital front-line services? Caboolture<br />
Hospital is $2m over budget. Prince Charles<br />
Hospital is $1.8m over budget. Bundaberg<br />
Hospital is $1m over budget. It seems that the<br />
list is never ending. Once again we are seeing<br />
a Labor Government that is not capable of<br />
running the health system in this State. There<br />
is gross incompetence—or as those opposite<br />
call it "budgetary problems"—evident at every<br />
corner turned.<br />
An issue that particularly concerns me is<br />
the Caloundra Hospital redevelopment<br />
scheme. This scheme has now been on the<br />
boards for a number of years. It was contained<br />
in two coalition Budgets. It has still not been<br />
delivered by this Minister. At the moment "they
382 Health Portfolio 9 Mar 1999<br />
are grading roads". That is as far as it has<br />
gone. I would like to quote from the manager's<br />
report to the Sunshine Coast District Health<br />
Services. He reported that work would be<br />
commencing very shortly. That has been said<br />
for the past two years. He reported—<br />
"Whilst the project planning is<br />
advanced the project has been estimated<br />
to be considerably over budget. A<br />
meeting was held at Capital Works and<br />
Asset Management Branch on 12<br />
January 1999 and as a result of this<br />
meeting a revised plan was developed<br />
which maintains the integrity of all<br />
services."<br />
I spoke to the previous Minister about the<br />
delays that were occurring at Caloundra<br />
Hospital. The management services branch<br />
that was looking after the plans kept changing<br />
the plans. In the Budget we had $14.8m. The<br />
plans were signed, sealed and delivered. We<br />
are talking about last May. The plans are still<br />
being revised and we still have nothing<br />
happening at the hospital. Meanwhile, I know<br />
that the $14.8m has been used by this<br />
Minister to prop up other capital works in other<br />
hospitals—most probably in Labor electorates.<br />
I notice the Minister nods. The Minister actually<br />
nodded; she agreed with my statement. That<br />
will go down very well on the Sunshine Coast.<br />
What we are seeing here is deliberate<br />
delaying tactics so that the Minister does not<br />
have to use that capital works money. This<br />
was money that was previously allocated by<br />
the coalition Government. There is no doubt<br />
that the Caloundra Hospital redevelopment is<br />
yet to proceed.<br />
Time expired.<br />
Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—<br />
ALP) (Minister for Health) (6.15 p.m.): I move—<br />
"That all words after 'concern' be<br />
deleted and the following be inserted—<br />
'the increased pressure placed on<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> public health services by<br />
the decrease in private health<br />
insurance, an ageing population and<br />
increased expectations and also<br />
notes the range of new health<br />
services being provided in the record<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> health budget by<br />
dedicated <strong>Queensland</strong> Health staff.'."<br />
I thank the member for Maroochydore for<br />
moving the motion because it gives me<br />
another opportunity to remind <strong>Queensland</strong>ers<br />
that this Government introduced, and this<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> has approved, a record Health<br />
budget. The budget of $3.772 billion is<br />
$128.8m—or 3.6%—more than the coalition's<br />
budget proposal for this year and $288m—or<br />
8.4%—more than the budget approved by the<br />
coalition last year. The new initiatives alone<br />
that we have introduced as part of this record<br />
spending are worth more than $93.8m.<br />
The motion today also gives me the<br />
opportunity, through my amendment, to<br />
remind <strong>Queensland</strong>ers that public health<br />
services in <strong>Queensland</strong> are under increasing<br />
pressure from a range of sources. How ironic<br />
that a coalition, which in Government could not<br />
come up with any new ideas or any new<br />
initiatives in Health, is now trotting out the<br />
same tired, old bleatings. In Health, the<br />
coalition was well and truly a never-never<br />
Government. It never did anything to improve<br />
the Statewide health situation. Possibly the<br />
only change the coalition made was replacing<br />
budget overruns with budget carryovers or<br />
negative carryovers. Some achievement! The<br />
coalition also never came to terms with the<br />
issues confronting health service delivery in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>.<br />
We have seen the mathematically<br />
challenged member for Maroochydore trying to<br />
claim that the Commonwealth gave<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Health more than $100m extra to<br />
reduce waiting lists this year. I wish the<br />
Commonwealth had done that. I do indeed<br />
wish that the $103m in CUT money, to which<br />
she refers, could be divided by five<br />
years—because it is spread over five<br />
years—and that we would still get $100m a<br />
year. Even on my mathematics that does not<br />
add up. However, it might add up under the<br />
coalition's mathematics.<br />
Let us have a look at the facts. Last<br />
year's second <strong>Queensland</strong> Health budget—the<br />
one that was proudly brought down by<br />
Labor—was $288m more than the previous<br />
year's budget brought down by the coalition,<br />
and $129m more than the coalition's May<br />
budget. The increased funding brought down<br />
by Labor for this financial year has allowed us<br />
to proceed with a range of new initiatives that<br />
have significantly boosted health services<br />
across the State in palliative care, in accident<br />
and emergency, in parenting support, in<br />
adolescent health, in mental health and in<br />
surgery. These initiatives are all about<br />
increasing and improving health services for<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>ers.<br />
We also abolished the Horan health tax<br />
which would, over years, have sucked out the<br />
bulk of growth funding—$2m this year, $25m<br />
next year and up to $80m a year for ever and<br />
ever thereafter. We have continued the<br />
elective surgery strategy started by Premier<br />
Beattie when he was Health Minister and
9 Mar 1999 Health Portfolio 383<br />
which was taken up by the previous Minister,<br />
the member for Toowoomba South, and<br />
claimed as his own. He is someone who has<br />
never had an original thought in his head.<br />
The difference is that we have been open<br />
and honest about it. What do the figures for<br />
waiting lists really show? We do not see the<br />
manipulated data that we used to see. This<br />
year we see that there are half as many<br />
waiting as there were at the same time last<br />
year. More importantly—because this is what<br />
people want to know—more than 4,000<br />
patients, or nearly 6% more, have had their<br />
surgery since the Labor Government came in<br />
compared with the same period in the previous<br />
year. Unlike the previous Government, we<br />
have full Treasury funding for the EB 3<br />
agreement which is on the table at the<br />
moment. We are not going to cut any services<br />
in order to meet the increase in pay for our<br />
dedicated hospital workers. This is in contrast<br />
to the $25m of unfunded commitment given<br />
by the previous coalition Health Minister. He<br />
gave the staff a rise but the hospitals were<br />
expected to cut services and staff to get it. Of<br />
course, they did not. They could not.<br />
This is the money which we have had to<br />
find within existing budgets. But even after<br />
making adjustments for one-off payments we<br />
were still able to increase funding to every<br />
single one of the 39 health districts. Despite<br />
the inaccurate claims made by the Opposition<br />
earlier, this includes the Sunshine Coast with a<br />
4.3% budget increase, the Gold Coast with a<br />
similar rise and Townsville with a 7.1%<br />
increase.<br />
I remind members opposite that, in<br />
January 1998, 14 districts were foreshadowing<br />
budget overruns. This year, in January, 11<br />
districts are forecasting budget overruns<br />
totalling not the way-out figures that the<br />
member opposite is saying, but the $33m that<br />
I have indicated already, and of which $25m<br />
appears to be the unrealised EB 2 savings.<br />
However, that needs to be kept in<br />
perspective. With more than $33.5m still to be<br />
allocated this financial year, there is no crisis.<br />
Of course, Health budgets are always tight.<br />
One could always spend more, but clearly the<br />
Health budget is far from any crisis situation.<br />
Time expired.<br />
Mr SULLIVAN (Chermside—ALP)<br />
(6.20 p.m.): I rise to support the amendment<br />
moved by the Health Minister. We now know<br />
why the former Deputy Leader of the<br />
Opposition, the former Health Minister, failed in<br />
his leadership challenge against the<br />
Opposition Leader, Rob Borbidge. He<br />
anointed the member for Maroochydore as his<br />
number-cruncher, and it is glaringly obvious<br />
how bad she is with numbers. On radio,<br />
television and even here in the Chamber this<br />
morning, the member for Maroochydore<br />
proved just how mathematically challenged<br />
she is. She has been repeating the fallacy that<br />
only $77m out of the $620m allocated this<br />
year has been spent so far. She has no<br />
understanding that the $77m to which she<br />
refers is a figure only for new contracts signed,<br />
not an actual total expenditure for the whole<br />
period—new contracts, not total expenditure.<br />
Here are some of the facts. The<br />
appropriated expenditure for the <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
Health capital works program this financial<br />
year, including joint State/Commonwealth<br />
programs, is $621m. As of 31 January this<br />
year, I am advised that the actual expenditure<br />
by the Health Department on capital works is<br />
$288m. All the indications are that we will<br />
spend all of the allocated $620m this year.<br />
To show where this confidence comes<br />
from, I ask members to consider the following:<br />
at the Royal Brisbane/Royal Women's<br />
redevelopment site, the budget estimate this<br />
year was an expenditure of $53m. We are on<br />
track to spend slightly more than that figure.<br />
The Princess Alexandra Hospital rebuilding<br />
program is 12 weeks ahead of time and on<br />
budget. In my own electorate of Chermside, it<br />
was anticipated that we could spend $42m. In<br />
fact, we will probably spend closer to $49m this<br />
year at the Prince Charles Hospital.<br />
I ask members to contrast that level of<br />
capital works with what happened in the past<br />
financial year under the Borbidge Government.<br />
Departmental records show that the coalition<br />
Government's budget allocation for the 1997-<br />
98 financial year was $557m but their actual<br />
expenditure amounted to only $475m. That<br />
leaves a massive shortfall of $82m not spent<br />
by Opposition Leader, Rob Borbidge, and the<br />
member for Toowoomba South, Mike Horan,<br />
when they were in the positions of Premier and<br />
Health Minister. That $82m could have been<br />
spent on improving <strong>Queensland</strong>'s health<br />
facilities and giving <strong>Queensland</strong>ers jobs.<br />
The Beattie Government's Capital Works<br />
Program spending this financial year has<br />
created about 9,000 jobs. Add to these jobs<br />
the jobs of 600 additional workers who are<br />
delivering health services as a result of the<br />
Beattie Government's health initiatives, and<br />
the people of <strong>Queensland</strong> will see what a cando<br />
Government the Beattie Labor Government<br />
is.<br />
It is timely also to remind members,<br />
particularly the new members opposite, that<br />
the <strong>Queensland</strong> Capital Works Program, which
384 Health Portfolio 9 Mar 1999<br />
contains one of the largest public hospital<br />
rebuilding programs of its type in the world,<br />
was a Labor Government initiative. That<br />
initiative contrasts starkly with the coalition's<br />
record of 32 years during which it allowed the<br />
hospital system in <strong>Queensland</strong> to run down.<br />
Every single member in this Chamber knows<br />
what a shambles the Royal Brisbane Hospital<br />
was. Members opposite have been into some<br />
of those buildings that should have been<br />
condemned in the 1950s, yet they were still<br />
allowed to operate as supposedly tertiary level<br />
wards up until Wayne Goss and a Labor<br />
Government said, "No. Enough is enough. We<br />
need $1.5 billion over 10 years to change it."<br />
However, under the coalition the Capital<br />
Works Program stalled, and stalled badly. That<br />
is an undeniable fact. That is how we explain<br />
part of the $82m underspent just in one year<br />
under the former Health Minister. Fortunately,<br />
under Labor it is back on track. Under Labor,<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>ers across the State will have<br />
world-class hospitals and community health<br />
centres. We will do it without the Horan health<br />
tax that would have ripped $554m out of<br />
hospital budgets over nine years. I ask<br />
members: do they remember the Horan health<br />
tax? I say to Mr Horan that some of the new<br />
members do not, but we do. That was where<br />
the member for Toowoomba South, as<br />
Minister, handed out capital works money with<br />
one hand and then took it back from the<br />
hospitals in a capital works repayment in the<br />
other. What a neat trick! "We will give you<br />
some money to build things but we will take<br />
money back in the Horan health tax." That is<br />
something that is not being done now. That<br />
was abolished under Labor.<br />
The member for Maroochydore is so out<br />
of touch. In a media release of 3 March, when<br />
referring to the Townsville Hospital<br />
redevelopment she even confused the Public<br />
Accounts Committee with the Public Works<br />
Committee. However, that is just one of the<br />
many, many mistakes she has made. She was<br />
wrong again there.<br />
In the few seconds remaining to me, I<br />
remind the member for Toowoomba South<br />
that the people of Brisbane's north side have<br />
not forgiven him for ripping out the community<br />
hospital facilities at the Prince Charles Hospital.<br />
I will detail further how the member caved in to<br />
the medical mafia at the Royal Brisbane<br />
Hospital and, through ripping out the facilities<br />
at the Prince Charles Hospital, not only<br />
deprived the people of Brisbane's north side of<br />
services but also added tens of millions of<br />
dollars of extra costs to the rebuilding of the<br />
Prince Charles Hospital. The member's<br />
performance as Minister was a disgrace. I<br />
support the current Minister.<br />
Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA)<br />
(6.25 p.m.): What a tragedy it has been for<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> to be hit again with a Labor<br />
Government in charge of the hospitals of this<br />
State. We all have to ask the question: where<br />
has all the money gone? We saw this happen<br />
before under the Goss administration and we<br />
are seeing it again now: $103.5m of sign-on<br />
money obtained under the Medicare<br />
agreement—one-off, up-front, sign-on money<br />
obtained through the Medicare agreement on<br />
top of the huge rise that was negotiated in the<br />
ordinary year-to-year funding over the five-year<br />
term of the agreement. Where has that money<br />
gone? All we see are hospitals with budget<br />
crises. Where has the money gone? Has it<br />
gone into the hospitals? Has it gone into<br />
elective surgery?<br />
In terms of elective surgery, all we have<br />
seen is a massive blow-out. After two years of<br />
hard work by the staff in organising Surgery on<br />
Time—the doctors, the nurses, the technical<br />
and support staff—to get the semi-urgent wait<br />
times down to around 10% across the State,<br />
that wait time has now doubled—blown<br />
out—to just on 20%. What an absolute<br />
tragedy for this State!<br />
During this debate, I have heard Labor<br />
members interject asking, "Where are you<br />
going to get the money for all of this?"<br />
Everyone wants more money for health. What<br />
did the members opposite do with the money?<br />
We received the biggest Medicare increase<br />
ever seen in history—a $1.35 billion increase<br />
over five years and we got $103.5m of the<br />
$120m sign-on money that was available<br />
across Australia. We in <strong>Queensland</strong> got the<br />
lion's share. What has happened to all that<br />
money? Where on earth has the money<br />
gone? That is the question that should be<br />
asked in this <strong>Parliament</strong> as we see hospital<br />
after hospital in financial crisis.<br />
We see the situation in the Toowoomba<br />
Hospital of the $7m budget overrun. However,<br />
what about the Royal Brisbane Hospital, which<br />
has double the budget of Toowoomba<br />
Hospital but also has double the budget<br />
overrun—a $14m budget overrun? Are there<br />
going to be any scapegoats in the Premier's<br />
electorate? Is the district manager going to get<br />
the sack, along with the medical super and the<br />
director of nursing? Or is it just because<br />
Toowoomba happens to be a regional town<br />
and Labor thinks that it can do it that way?<br />
Mr Sullivan: You know what you did.<br />
Mr HORAN: The member represents an<br />
electorate on the north side of Brisbane. What
9 Mar 1999 Health Portfolio 385<br />
does he think about the situation at the Royal<br />
Brisbane Hospital—a $14m budget overrun?<br />
The Government will do nothing about that. It<br />
will probably bail out the hospital like it bailed<br />
out the Bundaberg Hospital because it<br />
happened to be in a Labor electorate.<br />
Today, we have heard plenty about some<br />
of these overruns: Nambour Hospital, $2.5m<br />
and 36 beds at the Nambour Hospital still<br />
closed; Prince Charles Hospital, $1.8m;<br />
Bundaberg Hospital, $1m; Toowoomba<br />
Hospital, $7m; the Royal Brisbane Hospital,<br />
$14m; and Redcliffe and Caboolture Hospitals,<br />
$2m. I ask the question—and I am going to do<br />
so over and over again tonight—where has all<br />
the money gone? What on earth has the<br />
Government done with the money? Certainly,<br />
it is not spending it on the hospitals, which are<br />
at the front line of service.<br />
The Government is certainly not looking<br />
after the elderly people. Tonight we have<br />
heard some stories about not being able to<br />
get a mental health bed. In terms of mental<br />
health, the coalition Government put in place a<br />
system of emergency beds that would be<br />
available so that that problem could not occur.<br />
We put it in place in conjunction with the<br />
various psychiatrist and psychologist groups.<br />
At the moment, a Treasury razor gang is<br />
going through Health, but there are all of these<br />
unfunded promises that Labor made during<br />
the last election campaign. When the coalition<br />
came to power, it had to fix up the capital<br />
works budget when it found a $1.2 billion<br />
shortage. When Premier Beattie was the<br />
Health Minister, in one of the most scurrilous<br />
campaigns I have ever seen he travelled<br />
throughout the State of <strong>Queensland</strong> going to<br />
hospital after hospital saying, "We will build<br />
you an $80m hospital", when he knew that<br />
there was only $40m in the budget. He did<br />
that in the week after the Mundingburra byelection.<br />
It was one of the most scurrilous<br />
campaigns that this State has ever seen. I will<br />
never forget the low-grade hypocrisy of that<br />
particular campaign.<br />
Tonight there is going to be a real test for<br />
the member for Nicklin. Before he slithers<br />
across the carpet, he ought to think about<br />
whether he stands for the people of his<br />
electorate. What about the 36 beds of the<br />
hospital in his electorate? What about the staff<br />
of that hospital? What about the budget<br />
overrun of that hospital? Now is the time for<br />
the member to stand up—to be a bit proactive<br />
on behalf of his own hospital and not be a<br />
captive of the Labor Government who used<br />
him when it wanted to. What do we see? Is<br />
there going to be a bailout for the Nambour<br />
Hospital like there was a bailout for the<br />
Bundaberg Hospital? I bet there will not be.<br />
If there is one thing that we have to<br />
concentrate on in this debate tonight, it is that<br />
once again we are seeing a Labor<br />
Government squandering precious health<br />
money. This Labor Government was left with a<br />
department that was absolutely awash with<br />
money after the Medicare agreements, with<br />
the sign-on money and the recurrent increase<br />
over five years. What on earth is happening in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> to all the money that was left in<br />
the Health Department?<br />
Time expired.<br />
Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP)<br />
(6.30 p.m.): I am pleased to support the<br />
amendment moved by the Minister for Health.<br />
If members opposite truly cared about the<br />
health of <strong>Queensland</strong> citizens and if they truly<br />
cared about our hospitals, they would not be<br />
playing personality politics; they would be<br />
getting behind our push for a better health<br />
funding deal from the Commonwealth<br />
Government, which is formed by members<br />
from their own side of politics. If the member<br />
for Maroochydore wants to do something<br />
constructive, she should speak to her Federal<br />
colleagues. If members opposite truly cared<br />
and if they wanted to do something<br />
constructive—if they were not just in it for the<br />
short-term political gain, to get a 15-second<br />
grab on TV to get better known—they would<br />
pressure their Federal colleagues to ensure<br />
that <strong>Queensland</strong> is not short-changed $465m<br />
by the Commonwealth Government. They<br />
would join forces with us on behalf of all<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>ers.<br />
If members opposite were of a view—as<br />
they should be—to join forces with us and<br />
lobby their Federal colleagues, that would give<br />
our prospects a little bit more oomph than<br />
when they were in Government. One of the<br />
most appalling things that happened when<br />
those opposite were in Government was their<br />
response when the Commonwealth withdrew<br />
the dental health program. At that time, the<br />
member for Maroochydore said—<br />
"I regret to say that the<br />
Commonwealth dental health program will<br />
continue only until 31 December 1996.<br />
...<br />
I am very disappointed that the<br />
Federal Government has pulled the<br />
money out of that particular program."<br />
The shadow Minister for Health should have<br />
been outraged, but all she said was, "I am<br />
disappointed."<br />
Miss Simpson interjected.
386 Health Portfolio 9 Mar 1999<br />
Mrs LAVARCH: Yes, the previous<br />
Government did continue it, but at what cost?<br />
What service is there for our dental patients?<br />
The waiting list to get an appointment for a<br />
check-up blew out to 27 months.<br />
Mr Sullivan: They had a waiting list for<br />
the waiting list.<br />
Mrs LAVARCH: Yes, they did have a<br />
waiting list for the waiting list. Then the<br />
honourable member buried her head and<br />
would not address the issue. All she would say<br />
was that the former Government kept the<br />
service going, but I am afraid that it could not<br />
be called a service.<br />
I wanted to make a positive and<br />
constructive contribution to the debate tonight.<br />
I am pleased to say that, in spite of increased<br />
pressure, the Government can justly be proud<br />
of its record in health generally and in mental<br />
health particularly. I will focus on mental health<br />
for a very good and simple reason: one in five<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>ers will experience a mental illness<br />
or serious mental health problem at least once<br />
in his or her life. This startling statistic makes it<br />
imperative that we provide high quality mental<br />
health services and facilities throughout<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>, otherwise there is the capacity for<br />
mental illness to impose a significant burden<br />
on the health system. Recognising the<br />
importance of this situation, in its very first<br />
Budget the Government injected a record<br />
$29m into mental health. That massive<br />
increase will allow the State Labor Government<br />
to expand and upgrade services in community<br />
and hospital settings, particularly in regional<br />
and rural areas, mobile intensive treatment,<br />
child and youth services and services targeting<br />
indigenous people. It also provides for the<br />
implementation of the second national mental<br />
health plan in communities throughout the<br />
State.<br />
This represents a significant and<br />
fundamental difference from the position of<br />
the members opposite, who would rather see<br />
mental health kept in the background and<br />
service consumers who are locked away,<br />
literally and figuratively. The proof is in the<br />
words and actions of members opposite. While<br />
claiming a shortage of mental health beds, the<br />
Opposition is holding up the development of<br />
new supported mental health accommodation.<br />
In particular, I point to the appalling behaviour<br />
of the member for Mooloolah, who is trying to<br />
obstruct the provision of appropriate<br />
community-based mental health services on<br />
the Sunshine Coast. I am advised that,<br />
despite numerous briefings, the member for<br />
Mooloolah has been actively agitating against<br />
the development of the community care unit<br />
for long-term mental health consumers in his<br />
electorate. Shame on the member for<br />
Mooloolah! This is despite the fact that the<br />
people involved——<br />
Time expired.<br />
Mrs GAMIN (Burleigh—NPA) (6.35 p.m.):<br />
This morning in this place I asked the Health<br />
Minister to explain why a young mother and<br />
her husband were forced to suffer a five-hour<br />
wait for a medical specialist at the Royal<br />
Women's Hospital, an enduring and lengthy<br />
wait while the poor young woman was<br />
suffering immense pain and blood loss. In the<br />
husband's words, the treatment was—<br />
"... five hours of what I can only describe<br />
as cruel and inhumane."<br />
In an effort to explain the unnecessary delay,<br />
the woman and her husband were informed by<br />
hospital staff that the five-hour wait was due<br />
to, and once again I use the husband's<br />
words—<br />
"A lack of staff because the<br />
administration had increased in number<br />
and departments were fighting for<br />
operating rooms while the powers that be<br />
were sacking the doctors and nurses."<br />
Instead of the Minister apologising for yet<br />
another case of the Beattie Government's<br />
gross mismanagement of the health system,<br />
the Minister displayed the ultimate lack of<br />
compassion and elected to discredit a patient.<br />
The Health Minister slandered a patient to<br />
justify the unnecessary delays and to cover up<br />
the incompetent management of the health<br />
system.<br />
The Health Minister's performance was<br />
appalling and unethical. The ease with which<br />
the Health Minister displayed a total lack of<br />
compassion and indulged in unethical<br />
behaviour displays, once again, that the<br />
Premier has no control over his Ministers nor<br />
the standards that they employ. The Health<br />
Minister's performance was disgraceful and it<br />
reflects the sham that the Beattie Government<br />
has become. I can only hope that the Minister<br />
has dashed off a sincere statement of<br />
apology, begging forgiveness for her lack of<br />
sound judgment and her substandard method<br />
of operation.<br />
That poor woman and her husband have<br />
had to endure not only a traumatic and tragic<br />
event. The loss of a baby after 18 weeks of<br />
excited anticipation of a healthy birth and a<br />
long life together as a family is one of the most<br />
traumatic experiences that anyone can<br />
endure. My heart goes out to them. I know<br />
that my fellow members of <strong>Parliament</strong> who<br />
have a sense of compassion will join me in
9 Mar 1999 Health Portfolio 387<br />
commiserating with the husband and wife and,<br />
similarly, with the Gold Coast patient who the<br />
Health Minister found it necessary to<br />
denigrate. I am very sorry that that patient's<br />
plight was not given the courtesy and privacy<br />
that a patient in a <strong>Queensland</strong> hospital should<br />
expect.<br />
I must admit that I was surprised to hear<br />
the Health Minister's outburst this morning, for<br />
I recall only too well her infamous memo to her<br />
Labor caucus colleagues that encouraged<br />
State Labor members to look out for waiting<br />
list victims who could be used politically against<br />
the former successful Health Minister, Mike<br />
Horan. I recall the slogan, "a victim a day<br />
keeps Horan at bay". Sadly, we now look at<br />
the unfortunate way in which the current<br />
Health Minister treats the true victims of the<br />
current health system.<br />
Referring again to the incident that<br />
occurred at the Royal Women's Hospital, the<br />
problem is not with the nurses and doctors; it is<br />
clearly the responsibility—or should I say the<br />
irresponsibility—of the management of the<br />
hospital and the health system. Since 1938,<br />
the Royal Women's Hospital has provided a<br />
tremendous service to <strong>Queensland</strong> women<br />
and their families. The women's hospital is a<br />
highly regarded facility. Over the past 60 years<br />
it has been staffed and managed by some of<br />
our most respected nurses and doctors. Some<br />
455,000 <strong>Queensland</strong>ers have been born at<br />
the hospital since it opened. I feel confident<br />
that the mothers and fathers of those 455,000<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>ers would be more than pleased<br />
with the treatment that they received as,<br />
indeed, I was myself when I had my first baby<br />
there almost 40 years ago.<br />
However, when management cuts the<br />
budget to restrict staff numbers, sadly we<br />
witness tragedies such as I outlined earlier.<br />
Hopefully, those tragic circumstances, in<br />
conjunction with the current redevelopment of<br />
the Royal Women's Hospital, will provide us<br />
with the opportunity to significantly improve<br />
facilities at the hospital. This major upgrade will<br />
give staff the tools they need to continue<br />
providing first-class care into the next century.<br />
However, I remind the Health Minister that<br />
hospitals are not about just buildings and<br />
equipment. The lifeblood of any hospital is the<br />
staff—the nurses and doctors—who provide<br />
care to patients every day of every year. For<br />
the Health Minister's benefit, I point out that it<br />
is her job to ensure that the correct staffing<br />
levels are employed at the Royal Women's<br />
Hospital and at every other public hospital<br />
under her jurisdiction.<br />
Unfortunately, as we have witnessed<br />
many times previously, a Labor Government<br />
cannot manage and, whether we are talking<br />
about a health system or a financial system, it<br />
makes a mess of the operation. The coalition<br />
Government was committed to giving<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>ers a health system that they<br />
wanted and deserved no matter where they<br />
lived. The coalition Government delivered on a<br />
range of health services throughout the State,<br />
which overcame the six years of<br />
mismanagement and procrastination under a<br />
Labor Government. The coalition's goal in<br />
health was to get it back to basics——<br />
Time expired.<br />
Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (6.40 p.m.):<br />
Tonight I am pleased to support the amended<br />
motion and decry the original motion of the<br />
Opposition spokesperson for Health and the<br />
comments of the former Minister for Health.<br />
They pretend to believe that health is only<br />
about hospitals. They know in their hearts and<br />
heads that there is much more to health than<br />
just hospitals.<br />
Tonight in the debate they ignored the<br />
trends towards day surgery, shorter stays in<br />
hospital, changes to bed allocations,<br />
community-based health services, and<br />
palliative care, such that in their pain and<br />
sometimes while suffering terminal illness,<br />
people can remain in their homes. They ignore<br />
the trend towards community-based support<br />
for mental health services in the community,<br />
which will provide support to prevent<br />
hospitalisation. They ignore the trend towards<br />
early intervention programs and to the broader<br />
education and health promotion programs,<br />
which are the programs that will lead us into<br />
the new century. Instead they concentrate on<br />
a hospital system that has been, but which is<br />
no longer, sufficient as a direction for<br />
addressing the health of all <strong>Queensland</strong>ers.<br />
Their focus on hospital beds is irresponsible.<br />
They are also irresponsible in causing division<br />
in the community based on people's pain and<br />
anxiety, when funding from the<br />
Commonwealth is the true problem.<br />
This evening the former Minister for<br />
Health, Mr Horan, dared to criticise this<br />
Government's Health funding even though we<br />
have increased the Health budget. He was the<br />
one who took the additional $15m in<br />
Commonwealth sign-on money and distributed<br />
it to his favoured areas around the State prior<br />
to the election rather than joining with us in a<br />
clear plea to the Federal Government to give<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> Health funding a fair go.<br />
The former Minister would know where<br />
that increase in Health funding has gone, and
388 Health Portfolio 9 Mar 1999<br />
I am pleased to say that Cairns has had its<br />
share. It has gone towards palliative care<br />
services—the $10m program recommended to<br />
Minister Horan and which he funded with half a<br />
million dollars. Instead our Minister has<br />
progressively increased the funding to the full<br />
$10m amount of the program. The increased<br />
funding has gone towards a quarter of a<br />
million dollar increase for local councils'<br />
immunisation programs. It has also gone<br />
towards the establishment of the 15 PPP<br />
parenting programs that are up and running<br />
around the State, with a further 15 to be up<br />
and running by the middle of this year.<br />
In so many debates this week and last<br />
week we have heard how members on both<br />
sides of the House understand that crime<br />
prevention requires early education in the<br />
home and a focus on family values and the<br />
importance of parenting. Our Health Minister<br />
introduced that initiative as soon as she<br />
became the Minister.<br />
The funding has gone towards test drives,<br />
as we are calling them, of a new style of child<br />
health delivery involving support groups for<br />
parents and the delivery of child health<br />
services into the home. It involves advice,<br />
referrals and joint initiatives with other<br />
Government departments. An example can be<br />
found at the Smithfield and Edmonton health<br />
centres in Cairns.<br />
The money has gone towards innovative<br />
school nurse programs that address with<br />
young people the very issues that frighten all<br />
of us in this House—suicide, drug use,<br />
violence and despair. I am pleased to say that<br />
the Cairns State High School and Yarrabah<br />
are part of that program. I am proud to be on<br />
the Minister's health team and proud that our<br />
Minister is leading the shift to a broader<br />
delivery of health services—a delivery suited to<br />
the nineties and the new century—rather than,<br />
as the shadow Health Minister suggests,<br />
basing health services purely on hospitalfocused<br />
funding, a system that on its own is<br />
insufficient.<br />
I am amazed that tonight the shadow<br />
Minister for Health alleged abuse. She alleges<br />
abuse after abuse—and the Hansard record<br />
shows this—when in fact all members of this<br />
House know today that the abuses that we<br />
heard about are those that have poured from<br />
her own lips. What have we heard from the<br />
Opposition in terms of constructive<br />
suggestions? Nothing! What have we heard in<br />
terms of alternative health policies? Nothing!<br />
Where have we heard it offer, as the people of<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong> would wish, a joint non-political<br />
effort to secure the proper share of<br />
Commonwealth health funds? Again, it offers<br />
no help. All it offers is destruction, criticism,<br />
abuse—nothing that is constructive. It will not<br />
wash with the public.<br />
By contrast, Minister Edmond has<br />
increased <strong>Queensland</strong> Health funding, sped<br />
up the rebuilding program, broadened the<br />
focus of Health and led with new initiatives. I<br />
extend my congratulations to her.<br />
Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (6.45 p.m.):<br />
Tonight I rise to speak in favour of the motion<br />
moved by the member to Maroochydore,<br />
which represents a very fair and responsible<br />
response to the record of this can't do Labor<br />
Government and another can't do Labor<br />
Health Minister, who in seven months have<br />
proven themselves totally incapable of running<br />
the State's health system. In that short time<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>'s most incompetent Health<br />
Minister ever has demonstrated her inability to<br />
manage the State's Health budget.<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>'s most incompetent Health<br />
Minister ever has shown a complete lack of<br />
understanding of the basics of budgeting and<br />
financial management.<br />
The results are quickly becoming<br />
apparent, and no amount of repetition tonight<br />
can dull this Minister's shocking litany of<br />
failure—Redcliffe Hospital, $2m over budget;<br />
Nambour Hospital, $2.5m over budget;<br />
Bundaberg Hospital, $1m over budget; Prince<br />
Charles Hospital, $1.8m over budget;<br />
Caboolture Hospital, $2m over budget; and<br />
the Toowoomba Hospital, an incredible $7m<br />
over budget. These figures indicate<br />
mismanagement and incompetence of<br />
mammoth proportions. That mismanagement<br />
and incompetence strikes at one of the most<br />
basic human rights of every <strong>Queensland</strong>er—<br />
the right to adequate health care.<br />
The tragedy of this mismanagement and<br />
incompetence is that it strikes at individuals. It<br />
strikes at all of us, and it does so when we are<br />
most vulnerable. When people need and<br />
deserve health care, they find that the millions<br />
of dollars in budget overruns that the Minister<br />
talks about in this place translate into real pain<br />
and suffering for them as individuals.<br />
Unnecessary pain, needless suffering and<br />
unfair inconvenience along with a lack of<br />
treatment and lack of services are becoming<br />
all too common in <strong>Queensland</strong>'s health<br />
system, and many examples have been given<br />
in the House today. There are many examples<br />
that affect real people in my electorate—real<br />
people with a real need for health services, not<br />
meaningless statistics to be manipulated for<br />
the latest press release from the Minister's<br />
office.
9 Mar 1999 Health Portfolio 389<br />
The health debacle affects people in<br />
larger regional hospitals, in larger regional<br />
communities and in small rural communities. It<br />
affects people everywhere. However, it is in the<br />
small communities that the lack of services<br />
caused by this Minister's sheer incompetence<br />
in financial management is, in my opinion,<br />
most cruel. The Monto Respite Centre is one<br />
of the many real examples—one of the many<br />
cruel examples.<br />
An application for recurrent funding from<br />
the Monto Blue Nursing Service to establish<br />
centre-based respite care has this week been<br />
rejected by the Minister and her department.<br />
An application for just $60,000 in recurrent<br />
funding for a badly needed service in a<br />
community that has done more than most to<br />
help itself has been rejected by the Health<br />
Minister because of a lack of funds—funds<br />
that obviously have been needed to prop up<br />
failing budgets and to provide rescue<br />
packages for a health system failing due to<br />
mismanagement. It is the Minister's<br />
incompetence that has led directly to the<br />
underfunding of these services across the<br />
State. It is these ancillary services that are the<br />
easiest to cut back in the short term as a<br />
panic-stricken Minister struggles desperately to<br />
contain the ever-increasing budget blow-outs.<br />
It is worth looking at the example of the Monto<br />
Respite Centre, because it illustrates the<br />
effects of the budget blow-outs on real<br />
people—the people who are trying to deliver<br />
services and the people who desperately need<br />
those services.<br />
The Monto Blue Nursing Service brought<br />
together groups across the community—carer<br />
support groups and disability support<br />
groups—and in a remarkable display of<br />
community cooperation they raised funds,<br />
obtained a suitable building and arranged to<br />
outfit it for respite care. What they have been<br />
so cruelly denied by the Health Minister at the<br />
last minute is the necessary recurrent funding<br />
to make the service a reality.<br />
In Monto, like in so many other<br />
communities, respite care is desperately<br />
needed for the frail aged, for the younger<br />
people with disabilities and especially for the<br />
carers. At present in Monto, hospital beds and<br />
the local shire hall are being used for short<br />
periods for respite care for some patients. The<br />
volunteers who make up the Monto Blue<br />
Nursing Hospital Committee and, more<br />
especially, the people they are trying to help<br />
are the real victims of the Health Minister's<br />
woeful lack of financial management. These<br />
vulnerable people are the real losers from the<br />
horrific budget blow-outs which have become<br />
all too apparent after only seven months of<br />
Labor administration.<br />
Elective surgery waiting lists Statewide are<br />
similarly unacceptable. Up to 25% of patients<br />
are now waiting more than ninety days for<br />
Category 2 surgery. This has more than<br />
doubled since last June, when the worst<br />
Health Minister in <strong>Queensland</strong>'s history began<br />
her maladministration of our health system.<br />
The answer to this debacle is in the proper<br />
financial management and proper submission<br />
of budget expenditure.<br />
Time expired.<br />
Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP)<br />
(6.50 p.m.): Far from criticising this<br />
Government's contribution to health services<br />
on the Sunshine Coast, members opposite<br />
should be praising us for the high quality of<br />
services we are providing in the region and the<br />
new initiatives we have taken which are<br />
benefiting all Sunshine Coast families. Let me<br />
list some of them for those opposite to refresh<br />
their memories.<br />
This financial year Nambour Hospital<br />
received a $3.2m boost in funding in<br />
recognition of the areas of special needs. This<br />
included $1m for 12 new mental health beds<br />
and $2.2m to address the immediate concerns<br />
in areas including intensive care, renal dialysis<br />
and special surgical services. We have the<br />
crocodile tears of the former Treasurer, who<br />
whipped $4m out of the Nambour Hospital's<br />
capital works budget to pork-barrel her own<br />
electorate and in the same process then<br />
agreed to the Horan health tax.<br />
I am sure the parents of the 2,000<br />
children at Burnside and Nambour State High<br />
Schools are incredibly pleased with the<br />
Government's school nurse initiative. Those<br />
students now have a health professional they<br />
can come to know and trust and who can give<br />
them advice on medical services available in<br />
their local community. The school nurses can<br />
also get to know the young people and pick up<br />
the early signs of problems such as eating<br />
disorders or mental disturbance.<br />
Another great boost for the families on<br />
the Sunshine Coast is the Government's early<br />
intervention and parenting support initiative.<br />
Nambour and Maroochydore are two of the 15<br />
locations around <strong>Queensland</strong> which will benefit<br />
from this positive parenting initiative, which is<br />
enormously important to parents with young<br />
families. We are giving them the skills they<br />
need to develop close and meaningful<br />
relationships with their children. This will work<br />
well throughout their lives.<br />
The Sunshine Coast is also getting the<br />
opportunity to trial new-style child health
390 Health Portfolio 9 Mar 1999<br />
centres. This is an important back-up service to<br />
help parents and families. The Sunshine Coast<br />
centre will expand the services currently<br />
available from the existing Nambour and<br />
Maroochydore community child health centres.<br />
Mental health services have also been<br />
expanded on the Sunshine Coast as part of<br />
the State's record boost to mental health<br />
services. The Sunshine Coast has gained<br />
another child and youth mental health worker<br />
since this Government came to office.<br />
I turn now to another health district and<br />
the management of the Toowoomba District<br />
Health Service, which has been a major cause<br />
of concern for some time. Let us look clearly at<br />
what those opposite are saying: the Minister is<br />
fully responsible for the public hospitals but<br />
should not do anything to rectify problems<br />
occurring in them. It is like telling the West<br />
Indian cricket team's selectors that it is all their<br />
fault for the collapse this morning, but they are<br />
not allowed to improve the team by changing<br />
it.<br />
While the Toowoomba Hospital has an<br />
excellent staff and provides a high quality of<br />
care to those treated at the hospital, it has the<br />
worst financial record of any hospital in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>. It completed the 1997-98<br />
financial year $2.3m in the red and the budget<br />
has continued to blow out during this financial<br />
year to an unacceptable and unsustainable<br />
level. It has become clear that a restructure<br />
and change of direction are needed to<br />
introduce modern management practices to<br />
increase the amount of surgery performed at<br />
the Toowoomba Hospital each year. It is<br />
estimated by <strong>Queensland</strong> Health that, for the<br />
dollars spent on health services in<br />
Toowoomba, an additional 500 Toowoomba<br />
people should have received surgery during<br />
the past 12 months.<br />
That is the full measure of the<br />
incompetence of the former Health Minister<br />
and member for Toowoomba South, who<br />
allowed archaic management practices to<br />
thrive in Toowoomba under his stewardship.<br />
When he was the Minister, the member for<br />
Toowoomba South closed beds quicker than<br />
West Indian wickets fell this morning. That is<br />
not surprising when this member was the<br />
champion of the budget blow-outs. He would<br />
have done Christopher Skase proud.<br />
Managers do have a responsibility to<br />
manage their budgets without cutting the<br />
range of services or reducing the number of<br />
permanent staff. In some exceptional<br />
circumstances, such as high growth areas like<br />
the Gold Coast, we have taken steps to<br />
compensate for high population growth and<br />
extra pressure on the hospital. For example, a<br />
special working party investigated problems at<br />
the Gold Coast Hospital late last year. It made<br />
a series of recommendations, including that an<br />
additional orthopaedic surgeon and a full-time<br />
paediatrician be appointed at the Gold Coast<br />
Hospital. It also recommended additional beds<br />
for winter this year and the expansion of local<br />
community health services.<br />
So honourable members can see from<br />
this brief survey that each hospital and health<br />
district is different. Each of them has its own<br />
problems and challenges, and we respond to<br />
those challenges in the way that best meets<br />
the needs of the local area. The bottom line is<br />
that we are in the business of providing high<br />
quality health services to all <strong>Queensland</strong>ers.<br />
Question—That the amendment be<br />
agreed to—put; and the House divided—<br />
AYES, 44—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle,<br />
Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Clark, E. A.<br />
Cunningham, J. I. Cunningham, Edmond, Elder,<br />
Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Hamill, Hayward,<br />
Kingston, Lavarch, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady,<br />
Mickel, Mulherin, Musgrove, Nelson-Carr,<br />
Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Reeves, Reynolds, Roberts,<br />
Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Spence, Struthers,<br />
Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Sullivan, Purcell<br />
NOES, 40—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Connor,<br />
Cooper, Dalgleish, Davidson, Elliott, Feldman, Gamin,<br />
Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth,<br />
Laming, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, Malone,<br />
Mitchell, Nelson, Paff, Pratt, Prenzler, Quinn, Rowell,<br />
Santoro, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack,<br />
Stephan, Turner, Veivers, Watson, Wellington.<br />
Tellers: Baumann, Hegarty<br />
Pairs: D'Arcy, Goss; Nuttall, Springborg<br />
Resolved in the affirmative.<br />
Question—That the motion, as amended,<br />
be agreed to—put; and the House divided—<br />
AYES, 46—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle,<br />
Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Clark, E. A.<br />
Cunningham, J. I. Cunningham, Edmond, Elder,<br />
Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Hamill, Hayward,<br />
Kingston, Lavarch, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady,<br />
Mickel, Mulherin, Musgrove, Nelson-Carr,<br />
Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Reeves, Reynolds,<br />
Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Spence,<br />
Struthers, Turner, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers:<br />
Sullivan, Purcell<br />
NOES, 38—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Connor,<br />
Cooper, Dalgleish, Davidson, Elliott, Feldman, Gamin,<br />
Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth,<br />
Laming, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, Malone,<br />
Mitchell, Nelson, Paff, Prenzler, Quinn, Rowell,<br />
Santoro, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack,<br />
Stephan, Veivers, Watson, Wellington. Tellers:<br />
Baumann, Hegarty<br />
Pairs: D'Arcy, Goss; Nuttall, Springborg<br />
Resolved in the affirmative.
9 Mar 1999 Adjournment 391<br />
ADJOURNMENT<br />
Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—<br />
ALP) (Leader of the House) (7.05 p.m.): I<br />
move—<br />
"That the House do now adjourn."<br />
HOME Assist/Secure Program<br />
Mr LAMING (Mooloolah—LP) (7.05 p.m.):<br />
I rise to speak on the issue of security in the<br />
home for <strong>Queensland</strong>'s seniors. Honourable<br />
members will recall a series of disgusting<br />
attacks on elderly women late last year and<br />
earlier this year. There are very few incidents<br />
that could equal the depravity of cowardly<br />
attacks on the elderly. Housing Department<br />
units seemed to be the main, if not only, target<br />
in this particular instance and it is to be hoped<br />
that the good work of Housing Department<br />
personnel and police will result in a conviction<br />
and safer streets for all residents, but<br />
particularly our elderly.<br />
The Minister for Public Works and<br />
Housing responded to the situation in January<br />
by initiating an audit of security at public<br />
housing seniors units in the Brisbane<br />
metropolitan area. I understand that a problem<br />
was identified that in some cases security locks<br />
or doors that had been fitted were not always<br />
used or keys were sometimes left in locks. I<br />
believe the initial audit also identified other<br />
initiatives which could enhance existing<br />
security, including such things as the<br />
installation of security plates adjacent to<br />
security screen door locks which would make it<br />
difficult for people to unlock the door from the<br />
outside and the provision of hooks on the wall<br />
near security doors to encourage tenants not<br />
to leave keys in locks but have them ready in<br />
case of evacuation. I add that such hooks<br />
would perhaps be better placed behind the<br />
solid door so as not to be visible to potential<br />
intruders.<br />
I understand that the audit also identified<br />
a need to reduce the amount of thick shrubs<br />
around units where intruders might hide from<br />
view. Several other security issues were also<br />
identified during the audit. I support all of<br />
those initiatives and commend them to all<br />
householders as sensible initiatives.<br />
I am sure that all honourable members<br />
would agree on the importance of security<br />
measures, not just in seniors accommodation<br />
but in all homes. But it is the senior citizens in<br />
our community who feel the most threatened,<br />
which is understandable due to their inability in<br />
many cases to defend themselves.<br />
Last year a survey called the Conference<br />
for Older Australians was conducted by the<br />
Federal Government right throughout<br />
Australia. Many <strong>Queensland</strong> centres were<br />
visited, including Townsville, Cairns, Mackay,<br />
Caloundra and other regions, as well as<br />
Brisbane. Although the report covered a<br />
number of issues such as health, education,<br />
transport, communications and carers,<br />
isolation, security and safety came through as<br />
very important issues. I quote a section of the<br />
report—<br />
"Maintaining strong links with family<br />
or friends in their community can help<br />
prevent older people from becoming<br />
isolated. However it was strongly<br />
emphasised in the consultations that a<br />
number of factors can contribute to the<br />
feelings of isolation (including physical,<br />
geographical, social and emotional). It<br />
was also recognised that isolation means<br />
different things to different people and<br />
can be quite different from someone who<br />
'wants to be alone'.<br />
Even though the statistics reveal that<br />
older people are less likely to be victims of<br />
crime or personal violence than those of<br />
any other age group, there is a very real<br />
perception among older people that they<br />
are at risk. Not surprisingly, there was a<br />
considerable discussion at the<br />
consultations about how to improve safety<br />
and security for older people, and a<br />
number of practical suggestions were<br />
made. Overall, participants at the<br />
consultations recognised that the level of<br />
crime for older people was comparatively<br />
low, however they strongly believed that<br />
the worry about safety was something<br />
which could very much inhibit the lifestyle<br />
of older people and prevent them from<br />
undertaking activities that they enjoy."<br />
The Minister's initiatives, although<br />
commendable, should be extended by<br />
increasing funding to the HOME Assist/Secure<br />
scheme to ensure that all qualifying senior<br />
citizens are provided with increased security.<br />
The elderly living in private homes should be<br />
afforded the same degree of protection.<br />
Although any increase in funding for the<br />
security of public housing, such as security<br />
screens being fitted to windows and doors<br />
accessible from walkways, trees or meter<br />
boxes, is commendable, the Government<br />
should also extend such security provision to<br />
those in private homes who qualify under the<br />
HOME Assist/Secure program. People living in<br />
private residences should be afforded the<br />
same degree of protection and should not be<br />
disadvantaged. I call on the Minister to extend<br />
the HOME Assist/Secure program to achieve<br />
just that.
392 Adjournment 9 Mar 1999<br />
Zillmere Community Sport and Recreation<br />
Centre<br />
Mr ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP)<br />
(7.10 p.m.): I am pleased to have the<br />
opportunity to speak about a momentous<br />
initiative for my electorate. Sports Minister Bob<br />
Gibbs has approved funding of $1m to<br />
construct an indoor sport and recreation centre<br />
at Zillmere. The Brisbane City Council has also<br />
agreed to provide around $100,000 in<br />
assistance towards this project. The funding<br />
has been provided through the State<br />
Government's Community Sport and<br />
Recreation Facilities Program.<br />
The Zillmere sport and recreation centre<br />
will be a great asset for the northern suburbs<br />
and will have features such as indoor playing<br />
courts, a stage and community meeting<br />
rooms. It will provide a much-needed boost to<br />
the district and give hope to local youth and<br />
families and to our elderly community.<br />
I thank the Minister, his department and<br />
the many individuals and organisations that<br />
have given this project strong support over the<br />
past three years. I particularly congratulate the<br />
board of management of the North Star Sports<br />
Club for having the foresight and courage to<br />
take on this initiative on behalf of the Zillmere<br />
and surrounding communities. I particularly<br />
mention its secretary/manager, Barry Hardie,<br />
and president, Wayne Yule. I also thank the<br />
Brisbane City Council for its support,<br />
particularly Councillor Terry Hampson and Lord<br />
Mayor Jim Soorley.<br />
This sport and recreation facility will<br />
service the needs of many north side suburbs,<br />
including Zillmere, Boondall, Geebung, Taigum<br />
and Aspley. It will also be an attractive<br />
alternative venue for schools and community<br />
groups as far afield as Banyo and Nudgee.<br />
People in these communities currently travel<br />
as far as Sandgate to access a decent facility<br />
to conduct events such as school presentation<br />
evenings and performances. This is a matter<br />
upon which I have been campaigning since<br />
my election in 1995. I take particular pride in<br />
being a part of a great decision of a true Labor<br />
Government. Quite simply, if it was not for a<br />
Labor Government, that facility would not be<br />
built.<br />
The guidelines for the Community Sport<br />
and Recreation Facilities Program provided for<br />
up to 50% of funding for eligible projects.<br />
However, the Minister has exercised his<br />
discretion in this matter and decided to provide<br />
100% of the funding for the project. This<br />
decision is based on the significant and<br />
genuine needs of the Zillmere community.<br />
These needs have been identified in a range<br />
of Government studies which acknowledge<br />
Zillmere as an area of high social need. I have<br />
argued strongly that if the 50% funding<br />
guideline was applied in this instance, the<br />
people of Zillmere and surrounding suburbs<br />
would never be able to construct the facility<br />
they so desperately need.<br />
In 1995, the then Department of Tourism,<br />
Sport and Youth identified Zillmere as the area<br />
in Brisbane most in need of community facility<br />
development. It was also ranked in the top 10<br />
areas of need in the State. In acknowledging<br />
the reality of Zillmere's needs and agreeing to<br />
wholly fund this project, Bob Gibbs has proved<br />
the Government is truly committed to fairness<br />
and equity—fairness and equity which could<br />
only be delivered by a preparedness to<br />
recognise that sometimes bureaucratic<br />
guidelines need to be modified when basic<br />
decency requires it. This decision is a great<br />
victory for the Zillmere, Boondall and Geebung<br />
communities. It demonstrates a genuine<br />
commitment to fairness and, in my opinion, is<br />
indicative of a real Labor Government at work.<br />
The campaign for this facility began in<br />
1995, when I established a small community<br />
working group to progress an application for<br />
funding under the Goss Government's<br />
Community Recreation Facility Program. The<br />
working group had its hopes raised when Clem<br />
Jones, who was heading the unit responsible<br />
for the program, visited Zillmere in February<br />
1996 and advised that his committee was<br />
keen to work towards a facility in the Zillmere<br />
district. Soon after that visit, the Goss<br />
Government lost office to the coalition which,<br />
in its next Budget, abolished that very<br />
worthwhile program.<br />
Despite an acknowledgment from the<br />
coalition Government of Zillmere's needs,<br />
there was no funding program put in place to<br />
address those needs. In the lead-up to the<br />
1998 election, Labor announced that it would<br />
introduce a new Community Sport and<br />
Recreation Facilities Program should it be reelected.<br />
As a pre-emptive move, I met with<br />
representatives of the North Star Sports Club<br />
in early 1998 to ascertain their interest in<br />
applying for funding on behalf of the local<br />
communities. They agreed, Labor was reelected,<br />
and the rest is history.<br />
Throughout the campaign to secure this<br />
facility, I have stressed to the North Star Sports<br />
Club the need to provide a facility which is<br />
accessible by a wide range of community<br />
interests—a place for activities for our youth,<br />
families and our elderly population. The club<br />
has supported this approach and is keen to<br />
ensure appropriate community input into the
9 Mar 1999 Adjournment 393<br />
development and management of the facility.<br />
A consultative process will be put in place to<br />
inform the community of what is proposed at<br />
the centre and to seek feedback on how best<br />
to ensure that as many community needs as<br />
possible are met. I look forward to working with<br />
the community and the North Star Sports Club<br />
to achieve that objective and to ensure that we<br />
get the best value for the $1.1m that will be<br />
allocated for this project. In many respects, this<br />
is a dream come true for Zillmere and the<br />
surrounding suburbs. I am particularly proud to<br />
have played a part in securing this decision for<br />
my constituents.<br />
In my first speech in September 1995, I<br />
spoke of the need for this facility and<br />
committed myself to working with the<br />
community to achieve it. We now have what<br />
we want and need. Let us now work together<br />
to ensure that the Zillmere sport and recreation<br />
centre delivers great and positive benefits for<br />
our community.<br />
Petford Training Farm<br />
Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—LP)<br />
(7.15 p.m.): Last week, the Minister for<br />
Families, Youth and Community Care and<br />
Minister for Disability Services tabled in the<br />
House the Petford Training Farm report of<br />
October 1998 prepared by Sydney-based<br />
consultant Mr Peter Daffen. This report is<br />
clearly a character assassination of Mr Geoff<br />
Guest and his wife, Norma. The report, which<br />
contains a number of unfounded, untested<br />
allegations, smears Mr Guest, the operator<br />
and manager of Petford. Many of these<br />
allegations had been investigated by the<br />
police who, upon investigation, took no further<br />
action.<br />
The Minister, in the process of tabling the<br />
Petford report, indicated that she, the Minister,<br />
had relied upon a number of departmental<br />
and police reports. Yet again, none of these<br />
reports—without identifying particulars of the<br />
young people—has been tabled in this House.<br />
Clearly, what we have here is a situation in<br />
which Mr Guest, having been afforded no<br />
natural justice whatsoever in this matter, has<br />
certainly had his character assassinated by this<br />
process. Mr Guest is a hardworking<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>er who received the Order of<br />
Australia in recognition of his services to<br />
Aboriginal youth and the Petford Training Farm<br />
for Boys. In addition, he received the Paul<br />
Harris Award from the Rotary Clubs of Cairns<br />
and has been praised by judges for his work<br />
with those with behavioural problems that led<br />
them to commit offences.<br />
These are things which we should not<br />
forget. It is very important to remember that Mr<br />
Guest, who has an enormous amount of<br />
practical experience and is highly motivated,<br />
has adopted a very commonsense approach<br />
to the problems of young people with<br />
behavioural problems who have offended<br />
against the State. Yet we have a situation in<br />
which someone who has done a tremendous<br />
amount of work for our community is suffering<br />
from a character assassination contained in<br />
this report. Mr Guest is not university trained in<br />
behavioural issues, nor does he possess an<br />
accounting qualification. Therefore, Labor<br />
does not believe that he is appropriate to do<br />
that work. However, he has life skills—<br />
wonderful life skills, in fact—and a rapport with<br />
the type of young persons who have been<br />
sent to Petford with behavioural problems that<br />
have led them to commit offences.<br />
I call on the Minister to reconsider and<br />
provide further funding together with<br />
appropriate services for Petford. I say this<br />
because, after all, it is well known that Mr<br />
Guest has for some time been asking the<br />
department to supply a bookkeeper.<br />
Unfortunately, those who took on that role did<br />
not remain at Petford. In recent times, no-one<br />
was supplied to do that sort of work.<br />
It should be remembered that Petford is a<br />
former station in the far-north <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
hinterland, in rugged terrain and outback living<br />
conditions. It can hardly be compared to a city<br />
lifestyle and modern, comfortable capital city<br />
living. I think that we sometimes forget this<br />
when we talk about a place such as Petford. It<br />
is not some comfortable suburban household<br />
around Brisbane, the capital city. Petford is, in<br />
fact, in the rugged terrain of the hinterland of<br />
far-north <strong>Queensland</strong>. I have been there—<br />
unlike the Minister. I went there some time<br />
ago. I understand that Minister Bligh<br />
summoned Mr Guest to Cairns to see her<br />
some weeks before Christmas. Yet the<br />
Minister has not made the effort to visit Petford<br />
herself. That is a great shame. Should she do<br />
so, she would see that it is vastly different from<br />
the sort of establishments one might find<br />
around this city.<br />
Over 2,000 young people have passed<br />
through that facility for a range of offences,<br />
including petrol sniffing. It is little wonder that it<br />
has received such rave reviews from so many<br />
people. From the comments of local Labor<br />
members, in fact, it is obvious that they have<br />
no confidence in their own Government and<br />
the Minister on this issue. I notice that,<br />
according to an article in the Cairns Post, a<br />
number of them have tried to distance<br />
themselves from the Minister on this particular
394 Adjournment 9 Mar 1999<br />
issue. There is quite a lengthy article, in fact, in<br />
relation to this matter.<br />
Dr CLARK: I rise to a point of order. The<br />
member is misrepresenting our position. Local<br />
members have indicated quite clearly that the<br />
Minister had to act on the information she<br />
received.<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of<br />
order.<br />
Mr BEANLAND: I will read what the<br />
member said in the Cairns Post in a moment.<br />
But if the member is supporting it, that is fine.<br />
If the member for Barron River is saying that<br />
she is against Petford and supporting the<br />
Minister, that is fine by me—whatever she<br />
wants to say. I want to get back to my speech,<br />
though. Clearly there has been no natural<br />
justice. I am glad to hear that the member for<br />
Barron River has now stated her true position.<br />
It is not what was portrayed in the Cairns Post.<br />
Dr CLARK: I rise to a point of order. Again<br />
my position has been misrepresented by the<br />
member. I have made it very clear that I<br />
acknowledge the contribution Mr Guest has<br />
made but I support the Minister's action.<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of<br />
order.<br />
Mr BEANLAND: The member cannot<br />
bring herself to decide which side to support.<br />
The Minister ought to resign.<br />
Time expired.<br />
Debt; Diesel Fuel Rebate Consultant<br />
Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (7.20 p.m.): I<br />
have a couple of matters that I wish to draw to<br />
the attention of the House. The first issue is<br />
one that we in this place need to take more<br />
seriously. I refer to the silent but real increase<br />
in the number of <strong>Queensland</strong>ers who are<br />
finding themselves running into serious<br />
problems with debt. Not only do we hear about<br />
the troubled farm sector with a national farm<br />
debt of $21 billion but we are now hearing<br />
about more and more businesses closing and<br />
people being forced into bankruptcy because<br />
they are unable to service their debts.<br />
I believe that the upward trend in<br />
unserviceable debt has not reached the levels<br />
to attract public attention because of low<br />
interest rates and the perception of a healthy<br />
economy. Any upward movement in interest<br />
rates would have an immediate and more<br />
visible impact than that which is occurring in<br />
the current economic climate. In my opinion,<br />
the reason for the increase in debt is the rapid<br />
growth in casual or part-time jobs. The income<br />
of families is slashed by the stroke of a pen.<br />
Job uncertainty is causing unknown social<br />
problems in the way of family breakdown and<br />
lack of confidence. People are not prepared to<br />
spend on anything but the basics. Cash flow in<br />
the community slows and this affects business<br />
and jobs. The cycle continues.<br />
The policies of the Federal Government<br />
will drag all workers back to the days of master<br />
and servant. Unfortunately, most Australians<br />
choose to ignore what is happening to<br />
standards of employment until it happens to<br />
them personally. That is when they become<br />
concerned. Any member who is in touch with<br />
the electorate would realise that the gap<br />
between rich and poor has widened. The top<br />
20% of earners are paid 10 times more than<br />
the bottom 20%. The gap has increased by<br />
4% over the past two years. One in four<br />
employees is a casual. The number of full-time<br />
jobs is on the decline.<br />
Australia has one of the highest<br />
proportions of part-time employment in the<br />
developed world. Between 1994 and 1997,<br />
one in 15 workers was retrenched. Those<br />
numbers are increasing. Only 36% of workers<br />
now feel that their jobs are secure. Those at<br />
the bottom end of the income scale are now<br />
caught up in the social welfare safety net. This<br />
group is fast being overtaken by the working<br />
poor as minimum wages—the actual takehome<br />
pay—are lowered. No wonder<br />
bankruptcy is on the increase. No wonder<br />
families are walking away from mortgage<br />
contracts. We have family breakdowns and<br />
marriage breakdowns which are causing a<br />
great deal of concern in the community.<br />
The other matter I wish to bring to the<br />
attention of the House reminds us of the lowlifes<br />
who prey on decent citizens in our State. I<br />
am aware of a rip-off whereby rural producers<br />
have engaged the services of a diesel fuel<br />
rebate consultant for the purpose of lodging<br />
applications for the diesel fuel rebate with the<br />
Australian Customs Service. The diesel fuel<br />
rebate system is based on self-assessment of<br />
the amount of diesel fuel that a producer has<br />
used or intends to use in activities that are<br />
eligible for rebate.<br />
Although I intend to protect the identity of<br />
my constituents, I will be naming the<br />
consultant who has deliberately ripped off an<br />
elderly couple who live in isolation on their<br />
property in central <strong>Queensland</strong>. These two<br />
down-to-earth central <strong>Queensland</strong>ers have<br />
struggled through drought and have felt the<br />
pain of living the life of a rural producer. I say<br />
without any disrespect towards these two<br />
lovely people that they are victims of a<br />
conman who has exploited their trusting nature
9 Mar 1999 Adjournment 395<br />
and lack of understanding of paperwork. As a<br />
result, the conman has been able to convince<br />
them to sign documentation without an<br />
explanation and left no copies of the<br />
documentation.<br />
He convinced my constituents to<br />
authorise payment of the rebate into a bank<br />
account at Tweed Heads. That payment in<br />
excess of $2,000 was made as per an<br />
Australian Customs Service diesel fuel rebate<br />
scheme payment advice in mid-November. All<br />
attempts to contact this conman have failed.<br />
He is not in, he is not available, is sick or is<br />
away on business.<br />
Mr John Corbett, a diesel fuel rebate<br />
consultant, advertised in the <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
Country Life and attracted the attention of my<br />
constituents. They contacted him in good faith.<br />
The address on his business card is Suite 33,<br />
Chateau Royale, 23 Garrick Street,<br />
Coolangatta. He credits himself as a former<br />
senior inspector, diesel fuel rebates. He forgot<br />
to add that he is a thief and a man who lacks<br />
compassion and an understanding of the<br />
impact of his actions.<br />
Time expired.<br />
Crime, Gulf Country<br />
Mr FELDMAN (Caboolture—ONP)<br />
(7.25 p.m.): Crime is a major problem in<br />
<strong>Queensland</strong>, but in the Gulf Country violent<br />
crime and crime against the person is among<br />
the highest in the State. This was highlighted<br />
in the recent CJC report entitled A Snapshot of<br />
Crime in <strong>Queensland</strong>. In this area where<br />
rainforest and bush is the dominant feature,<br />
the <strong>Queensland</strong> Government cannot even<br />
afford a fit and proper Aboriginal tracker to<br />
hunt down criminals on the run, to seek out<br />
growers, manufacturers and producers of<br />
drugs, or to locate lost and stranded tourists<br />
and would-be adventurers.<br />
The whole situation is a debacle of major<br />
proportions, especially for the police who are<br />
responsible for controlling crime in this area<br />
and for the local Aboriginal population who<br />
depend upon the police to crack down on<br />
crime and chase to ground those who have<br />
taken to the bush after a criminal escapade.<br />
As I understand the present situation, the<br />
police station at Laura is a one-man station.<br />
This officer must police 45 cattle stations, 280<br />
kilometres of main highway and some 170,000<br />
tourists who pass through the region in one<br />
year.<br />
Quite frequently, the single policeman has<br />
to break up brawls of upwards of 10 to 20<br />
men. As the <strong>Queensland</strong> Police Union general<br />
secretary has warned, this situation is a threat<br />
to the safety and wellbeing of <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
police officers involved in this and similar<br />
situations. In fact, many citizens will be quite<br />
surprised to know that in <strong>Queensland</strong> there are<br />
still some 60 one-officer police stations. This<br />
poses special problems for law and order.<br />
The Police Minister astounded many<br />
when he claimed that no further police were<br />
needed at Laura. That was news to the Laura<br />
Progress Association. What we have not been<br />
told is that there is a refusal to reinstate the<br />
prestigious position of tracker so that the<br />
residents of Laura, Lakeland and Drumduff on<br />
the gulf could see some muscle imposed upon<br />
the activities of criminals in the north. The<br />
Minister obviously does not appreciate that the<br />
position of tracker is a position of stature<br />
among these gulf communities where the<br />
Aboriginal heritage is so important.<br />
What the Minister also does not realise is<br />
that a tracker is vital in this rugged <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
police division of some 63,000 square<br />
kilometres. Indeed, searches for lost tourists<br />
and visitors are a regular occurrence and a<br />
tracker is essential for a successful outcome of<br />
any search in heavy bush.<br />
The Laura Progress Association has<br />
protested strongly about the loss of a paid<br />
professional tracker, a person who is covered<br />
under an Australian Workers Union award. The<br />
filling of this position is supported strongly by<br />
the indigenous community. The Government's<br />
act in depriving this gulf community of a<br />
professional tracker is both inappropriate and<br />
morally indefensible. Steps should immediately<br />
be taken to appoint a tracker.<br />
The media has added insult to injury by<br />
exposing the unusual situation whereby the<br />
local nurse at a Cape York community had to<br />
take over the job of the police in road<br />
accidents and murder-suicides while the officer<br />
was away on other duties in neighbouring<br />
Coen. Something is deplorably wrong up north<br />
and the Government has a duty to solve some<br />
of the problems that have shown up at Laura.<br />
What does the local community at Laura<br />
have? The police are under undue stress.<br />
There has been no tracker for some seven<br />
months. Now it is proposed to replace a<br />
working tracker with a police liaison officer—a<br />
social worker. Recently, the community was<br />
forced to employ a 79-year-old tracker in the<br />
absence of a working tracker when a vital<br />
search operation was conducted. The progress<br />
association complained that there was no<br />
appreciation, no recognition and no thanks<br />
given to this 79-year-old man.
396 Adjournment 9 Mar 1999<br />
The tracker did a great job, but it is the<br />
height of folly to ask a man nearing 80 years<br />
of age to risk his health trudging through the<br />
hot and steamy bush seeking out criminals for<br />
a Government which is not prepared to<br />
appreciate what he has done. The progress<br />
association also believes that the community<br />
faces a major crisis involving crime. There has<br />
been a $10m drug raid, murder-suicides, riots,<br />
arson, common assault, domestic violence<br />
and drunk and disorderly problems. But these<br />
are only the tip of the iceberg.<br />
Time expired.<br />
Motion agreed to.<br />
The House adjourned at 7.30 p.m.