weekly hansard - Queensland Parliament - Queensland Government

PROOF ISSN 1322-0330 

WEEKLY HANSARD 

Hansard Home Page: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/hansard/ 

E-mail: hansard@parliament.qld.gov.au 

Phone: (07) 3406 7314 Fax: (07) 3210 0182 

51ST PARLIAMENT 

Subject 

CONTENTS 

Tuesday, 23 August 2005 

Page 

ASSENT TO BILLS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2535 

PRIVILEGE ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2535 

Answer to Questions on Notice .......................................................................................................................................... 2535 

PETITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2535 

PAPERS ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2536 

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 2537 

Morris Inquiry ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2537 


Broncos Sponsorship ......................................................................................................................................................... 2538 


Drought ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2539 


Public Report of Ministerial Expenses ................................................................................................................................ 2539 


Sale of Telstra .................................................................................................................................................................... 2540 


Economic Growth ............................................................................................................................................................... 2540 


Gateway Motorway Upgrade .............................................................................................................................................. 2541 


Redlands, Community Cabinet ........................................................................................................................................... 2541 


Gympie Country Music Muster ........................................................................................................................................... 2542 


Greenslopes Private Hospital ............................................................................................................................................. 2542 


Tree Clearing ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2543 


Gold Coast Stadium ........................................................................................................................................................... 2543 


Administrative Arrangements ............................................................................................................................................. 2543 

BY AUTHORITY 

L.J. OSMOND, CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER—2005

Table of Contents — Tuesday, 23 August 2005 

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...........................................................................................................................................................2544 

Ideas Festival ......................................................................................................................................................................2544 


Water Subsidies ..................................................................................................................................................................2544 


Broncos Sponsorship ..........................................................................................................................................................2545 


Export Solutions ..................................................................................................................................................................2546 


Integrated Offender Management Strategy ........................................................................................................................2546 


Teacher Aides .....................................................................................................................................................................2547 


Queensland Ambulance Service ........................................................................................................................................2547 


Invasion of Privacy Act, Photographic Images ....................................................................................................................2548 


Queensland on Stage—Asia 2005 .....................................................................................................................................2548 


International Trade Show Assistance Program ...................................................................................................................2549 


Child Protection Workers, University Courses ....................................................................................................................2549 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION ..........................................................................................................................................................2550 

Comments by Minister for Transport and Main Roads .......................................................................................................2550 

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE ......................................................................................................................................................2550 

Annual Report .....................................................................................................................................................................2550 

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ................................................................................................................................2550 

Report .................................................................................................................................................................................2550 

OFFICE OF THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION ........................................................................................................................2551 

Report of Expenses ............................................................................................................................................................2551 

OFFICE OF THE LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY .................................................................................................................2551 

Report of Expenses ............................................................................................................................................................2551 

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...........................................................................................................................................2551 

Redcliffe and Chatsworth By-Elections ...............................................................................................................................2551 

Sale of Telstra .....................................................................................................................................................................2551 

Queensland Ambulance Service, Kingaroy ........................................................................................................................2552 




QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...................................................................................................................................................2554 

Health System ....................................................................................................................................................................2554 

Health System ....................................................................................................................................................................2554 


Health System ....................................................................................................................................................................2556 

Infrastructure Development, South-East Queensland ........................................................................................................2556 

Health System ....................................................................................................................................................................2557 

Triple Organ Transplant ......................................................................................................................................................2558 

Health Portfolio ...................................................................................................................................................................2558 

Water Resources ................................................................................................................................................................2559 

Child Protection (Recognition of Relative Carers) Bill .........................................................................................................2559 

Federal Road Funding ........................................................................................................................................................2560 

Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Scientific Reports .......................................................................................2561 

Industrial Relations Reforms ...............................................................................................................................................2561 

First Responders, Rural and Remote Communities ...........................................................................................................2562 

Motorcycle Accidents ..........................................................................................................................................................2562 

Queensland Ambulance Service ........................................................................................................................................2563 

Household Water and Energy Efficiency ............................................................................................................................2563 

Bundaberg, Mental Health Services ...................................................................................................................................2564 

MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE .................................................................................2564 

Matter of Privilege ...............................................................................................................................................................2564 

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ................................................................................................................................................2565 


Home and Community Care Awareness Week; Seniors Week ..........................................................................................2567 

International Conference on Engaging Communities .........................................................................................................2568 

Timber Industry ...................................................................................................................................................................2569 

Death of Mr RJ Briskey AM .................................................................................................................................................2569 

Maryborough Base Hospital ...............................................................................................................................................2570 

VP60 Celebrations; Cultural Fest ........................................................................................................................................2571 

Bundaberg Base Hospital; Bundaberg-Burnett Mental Health Services .............................................................................2572

Table of Contents — Tuesday, 23 August 2005 

BreastScreen Queensland, Nambour; Domestic Violence ................................................................................................. 2573 

Health System .................................................................................................................................................................... 2574 

Public Transport, Springwood Electorate ........................................................................................................................... 2575 

CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ....................................................................................... 2576 

First Reading ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2576 

Second Reading ................................................................................................................................................................. 2576 

TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ....................................................................................................................... 2577 

First Reading ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2577 


HOUSING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ............................................................................................................................. 2582 

First Reading ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2582 


EDUCATION (QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS) BILL ................................................................................................ 2583 

First Reading ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2583 


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ............................................................... 2585 

First Reading ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2585 


SUCCESSION AMENDMENT BILL ............................................................................................................................................... 2586 

First Reading ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2586 


QUEENSLAND COMPETITION AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL .............................................................................................. 2589 


Consideration in Detail ....................................................................................................................................................... 2600 

Third Reading ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2600 

RACING VENUES DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BILL ............................................................................................................ 2600 



Third Reading ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2610 

PLUMBING AND DRAINAGE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ....................................................................... 2611 



Third Reading ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2629 

CHILD SAFETY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ................................................................................................................... 2629 


ADJOURNMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2641 

Toowoomba Mental Health Services .................................................................................................................................. 2641 

Torres Strait Islands, Erosion ............................................................................................................................................. 2642 

Health System .................................................................................................................................................................... 2642 

Safe Youth Parties Task Force .......................................................................................................................................... 2643 

City West Car Carriers ....................................................................................................................................................... 2643 

Death of Mr W Carpenter ................................................................................................................................................... 2644 

Police Community Forum, Currumbin Electorate ............................................................................................................... 2645 

Seniors Week, Aspley Electorate ....................................................................................................................................... 2645 

Asbestos ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2646 

King, Ms S; Watts, Ms A ..................................................................................................................................................... 2646

23 Aug 2005 Legislative Assembly 2535 

TUESDAY, 23 AUGUST 2005 

Legislative Assembly 

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. T McGrady, Mount Isa) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 am. 

ASSENT TO BILLS 

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have a message from the Governor. I have to report that 

I have received from Her Excellency the Governor a letter in respect of assent to certain bills, the 

contents of which will be incorporated in the records of the parliament. 

19 August 2005 

The Honourable A. McGrady, MP 

Speaker of the Legislative Assembly 

Parliament House 

George Street 

BRISBANE QLD 4000 

I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly that the following Bills, having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and having 

been presented for the Royal Assent, were assented to in the name of Her Majesty The Queen on the date shown: 

Date of Assent: 18 August 2005 

"A Bill for An Act to amend the Housing Act 2003, the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 and the 

Local Government Act 1993 and for another purpose" 

"A Bill for An Act to amend Corrective Services Act 2000" 

"A Bill for An Act authorising the Treasurer to pay amounts from the consolidated fund for departments for the financial 

years starting 1 July 2005 and 1 July 2006" 

"A Bill for An Act authorising the Treasurer to pay amounts from the consolidated fund for the Legislative Assembly and 

parliamentary service for the financial years starting 1 July 2005 and 1 July 2006" 

"A Bill for An Act to amend the Industrial Relations Act 1999" 

The Bills are hereby transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, to be numbered and forwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment, in 

the manner required by law. 

Yours sincerely 

Governor 

PRIVILEGE 

Answer to Questions on Notice 

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that the Deputy Speaker will be giving his decision 

on the matter of privilege that I delegated to the Deputy Speaker last sitting week at 11.30 am today 

following question time. 

PETITIONS 

The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation— 

Adult Entertainment, CMC Report 

Mr McArdle, 2 petitions, from 5 petitioners in total, requesting the House to reject any recommendations within the Crime and 

Misconduct Commission’s report entitled "Regulating Adult Entertainment: A review of the live adult entertainment industry in 

Queensland" which expands the scope of this industry through legalisation of illegal activities, including Recommendations 7, 12, 

15, 18 and 26, and to endorse recommendations from the report which protect minors and the community through enhanced 

regulation, enforcement and penalties. 

South East Queensland Regional Plan 

Mr Wellington from 931 petitions requesting the House to remove the investigation area at Bridges (Yandina) from the South East 

Queensland Regional Plan for Industry. 

The following honourable members have sponsored e-petitions which are now closed and presented— 

Land Development, Elliottt Heads 

Mr Messenger from 47 petitioners requesting the House to see that the objectives of the strategic plan items 11.5.2 and 11.5.5(2) 

be adhered to in relation to the development of land on The Esplanade of Elliott Heads with all developments on coastal 

foreshores and, if necessary, resumption of foreshore land should be considered by State and Local Governments.

2536 Papers 23 Aug 2005 

PAPERS 

PAPERS TABLED DURING THE RECESS 

The Clerk informed the House that the following papers, received during the recess, were tabled on the dates indicated— 

19 August 2005— 

• Replacement page 46 (Version: 10/08/05) and page 45 for the Code of Ethical Standards: Legislative Assembly of 

Queensland (September 2004 booklet) 

• Report on a decision by the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women (Ms Boyle) regarding a 

call in of a development application under the Integrated Planning Act 1997—development application for the Dreaming 

Festival held at the Woodford Folk Festival site at 87 and 97 Woodrow Road, Woodford by Queensland Folk Federation 

Pty Ltd 

22 August 2005— 

• Letter, dated 19 August 2005, from the Premier and Treasurer (Mr Beattie) to the Clerk of the Parliament enclosing a copy 

of a letter from the Commonwealth Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties listing proposed international treaty 

actions tabled in the Commonwealth Parliament on 9 August 2005 and the National Interest Analyses for each of the 

proposed treaty actions listed 

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 

The following statutory instruments were tabled by the Clerk— 

Gold Coast Motor Racing Events Act 1990— 

• Gold Coast Motor Racing Events Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 176 

Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2004— 

• Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 177 

Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994, Integrated Planning Act 1997— 

• Transport Planning and Coordination Regulation 2005, No. 178 

Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994— 

• Transport Operations (Marine Safety-Commercial Ships and Fishing Ships Miscellaneous Equipment) Interim Standard 

(No. 2) 2005, No. 179 


• Transport Operations (Marine Safety-Designing and Building Commercial Ships and Fishing Ships) Interim Standard (No. 

2) 2005, No. 180 


• Transport Operations (Marine Safety-Qualifications for Accreditation for Ship Designers, Ship Builders and Marine 

Surveyors) Interim Standard (No. 2) 2005, No. 181 


• Transport Operations (Marine Safety-Recreational Marine Driver Licence Approvals) Interim Standard (No. 2) 2005, No. 

182 


• Transport Operations (Marine Safety-Recreational Ships Miscellaneous Equipment) Interim Standard (No. 2) 2005, No. 

183 

Transport Infrastructure and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2005— 

• Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 184 

Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999— 

• Transport Infrastructure (Ports) Regulation 2005, No. 185 

State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994, 

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995— 

• Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2005, No. 186 

State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995— 

• Transport Operations (Road Use Management-Accreditation and Other Provisions) Regulation 2005, No. 187 

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, Tow Truck Act 1973, Transport 

Infrastructure Act 1994— 

• Transport Operations (Road Use Management-Mass, Dimensions and Loading) Regulation 2005, No. 188 

Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994— 

• Rural and Regional Adjustment Amendment Regulation (No. 8) 2005, No. 189 

Prostitution Act 1999— 

• Prostitution Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 190 

Health Legislation Amendment Act 2005— 

• Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 191 

Health Act 1937— 

• Health Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 192 

Nursing Act 1992— 

• Nursing Regulation 2005, No. 193

23 Aug 2005 Ministerial Statement 2537 

Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003— 

• Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 194 

Motor Vehicles and Boats Securities Act 1986— 

• Motor Vehicles and Boats Securities Regulation 2005, No. 195 

Forestry Act 1959, Nature Conservation Act 1992— 

• Forestry and Nature Conservation Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2005, No. 196 

Building Act 1975— 

• Building Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 197 

Integrated Planning Act 1997— 

• Integrated Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2005, No. 198 

Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002— 

• Plumbing and Drainage Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 199 

Casino Control Act 1982— 

• Casino Gaming Amendment Rule (No. 1) 2005, No. 200 

Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995— 

• Workplace Health and Safety (Codes of Practice) Amendment Notice (No. 3) 2005, No. 201 

Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982— 

• Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2005, No. 202 

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Acts Amendment Act 2004— 

• Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 203 

Small Claims Tribunals Act 1973— 

• Small Claims Tribunals Regulation 2005, No. 204 

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991— 

• Anti-Discrimination Regulation 2005, No. 205 

Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990— 

• Superannuation (State Public Sector) Amendment Notice (No. 1) 2005, No. 206 

University of Queensland Act 1998— 

• University of Queensland (Statute No. 2 Repeal) Statute 2005 

University of Queensland Act 1998— 

• University of Queensland Statute No. 1 (Election of Elected Members of Senate) 2005 

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT 

Morris Inquiry 

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.34 am): This morning 

the Deputy Premier, Anna Bligh; the health minister, Stephen Robertson; and I met with Commissioner 

Tony Morris QC to discuss the time frame for the Bundaberg Hospital Commission of Inquiry. The 

Director-General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Leo Keliher; the Director-General of 

Queensland Health, Uschi Schreiber; Terry Wall, the Deputy Director-General of Policy Division of the 

Department of the Premier and Cabinet, as well as counsel assisting the commission, Damien Atkinson, 

attended. We all agreed that the government must urgently launch into full-throttled reform of the health 

system, and that we need a report from the royal commission as soon as is practicable. The government 

always intended that we would receive final reports from the royal commission and the Queensland 

Health Systems Review, led by Peter Forster, on 30 September, enabling us to start unfettered 

systematic reform from 1 October. 

We have now agreed with Mr Morris on a timetable that will allow urgent improvements to Health 

while ensuring that the commission can provide natural justice and complete a hearings schedule that is 

busier than we originally expected. We have agreed that the commission will deliver two reports. Report 

1 will cover systemic health issues and will be provided to me by the original deadline of 30 September, 

which is the same as the Forster review deadline. The government will then develop a blueprint that will 

be implemented. Report 2 will cover any findings on matters requiring natural justice and will be 

delivered by no later than 14 October. Commission hearings will continue until no later than Friday, 16 

September. Originally the hearings were to wrap up this Friday, 26 August. 

The new timetable is expected to add $401,400 to the inquiry cost, which my department advised 

last week is an estimated $5.6 million to the end of September. These expenses are more than we 

expected when the government announced this inquiry and the Forster review. They include costs of 

representation in the Supreme Court for the bias case brought by Darren Keating and Peter Leck, costs 

which were unforeseeable at the start of this process. They also include the Director of Public 

Prosecution’s costs for advising the Queensland Police Service on matters surrounding Jayant Patel.

2538 Ministerial Statement 23 Aug 2005 

Today is the royal commission’s 47th sitting day. It has heard from more than 80 witnesses in 

three cities and more than 300 exhibits have been tendered. On 10 June I tabled an interim report from 

the commission, which enabled the government to act immediately on high-pressure issues demanding 

legislative and administrative changes. Thanks to the commission’s work, improvements are in train. 

I confirmed by letter to Tony Morris this morning the arrangements. In the interests of public 

accountability, I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard for the information of all Queenslanders. 

Leave granted. 

Queensland Government 

Premier of Queensland 

Mr Anthony Morris QC 

Commissioner 

Bundaberg Hospital Commission of Inquiry 

PO Box 13147 

GEORGE STREET QLD 4003 

Dear Tony 

I am writing to confirm our revised arrangements in relation to the final weeks of the Bundaberg Hospital Commission of Inquiry: 

1. Report 1 about the Terms of Reference relating to systemic or prospective health issues will be provided by 30 September 

2005; 

2. Commission hearings will be extended to no later than 16 September 2005; and 

3. Report 2 about findings on matters that require natural justice to be afforded to individuals (including those arising out of 

the events at Bundaberg Hospital) will be provided to Government no later than 14 October 2005. 

I stress that I am very keen to commence reforms of the health system from 1 October 2005 as a result of your recommendations 

in Report 1 and Peter Forster’s recommendations in his final report on the Health Systems Review. 

The health system is under considerable pressure at the moment, which has a significant impact on the many dedicated people 

working in our hospitals and other health services. It also affects the confidence of Queenslanders in the services available to 

them. As a result, I am unable to countenance any delays of these reforms and am grateful that you have agreed to provide 

Report 1 by 30 September 2005, despite the time constraints this places on you. 

Obviously Justice Moynihan’s decision in relation to the applications to the Supreme Court is still outstanding. Nonetheless, I am 

determined to make all the arrangements necessary to progress the urgent reforms that the Queensland health system now 

requires. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter and I look forward to receiving your reports. 

Yours sincerely 

(sgd) 

PETER BEATTIE MP 

PREMIER AND TREASURER 


Broncos Sponsorship 

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.37 am): This morning I 

have spoken to Bruno Cullen from the Brisbane Broncos, and we have mutually agreed to transfer our 

current government sponsorship from Queensland Health to the Department of Transport. The 

sponsorship is worth approximately $334,000 a year, and there are two years left to run on the 

agreement. There is no doubt that the arrangement with Queensland Health has proven beneficial as 

some of Queensland’s fittest and most popular athletes, the Broncos, have been a wonderful asset in 

helping us get the message across about the benefits of a healthy lifestyle. They have done a great job, 

and I thank them for their efforts. 

However, while I stand by what we have done, there has been recent criticism of the program. I 

do not want anything to distract from the work we need to do to fix the problems in Queensland Health. I 

also do not want anything to distract from the Broncos’ run to the premiership. That is why I have spoken 

to Bruno, and we have agreed to transfer the sponsorship to the Department of Transport. While the 

exact details will be worked out in consultation with the Broncos, the money will be spent wisely to 

promote messages such as responsible behaviour for young drivers as well as the benefits of public 

transport. 

The Broncos have a huge fan base; at least 8.5 million viewers tune in to watch their games every 

year. This will provide our government with a great medium to reinforce the message about safety on 

our roads. Transferring this sponsorship means that no further money from the Health budget will be 

spent on that promotion.



Drought 

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.38 am): Today I want to 

talk about drought and water. South-east Queensland is in the grip of the second worst drought on 

record. If our dams do not receive significant volumes of water in the next six months the region will sink 

into the worst drought ever. Cabinet yesterday discussed the latest projections on drought and dams. 

Modelling by South East Queensland Water shows that under the worst case scenario Wivenhoe, 

Somerset and North Pine dams will strike what is known as ‘dead’ storage levels—that is, five per 

cent—in December 2006. That would apply without water restrictions; restrictions would push the ‘dead’ 

levels date to February 2007. Under the more realistic scenario of a repeat of 2004 rainfall patterns, 

dead levels will hit in October 2007 without water restrictions, or in September 2008 if there are 

restrictions. 

Water management is a feature of the South East Queensland Regional Plan and program, 

including upgrading and building new water infrastructure. The data presented to cabinet by the Minister 

for Natural Resources and Mines, Henry Palaszczuk, shows we must take the lead on water reform in 

Australia’s fastest growing region. With more than 1,000 new residents flocking to the region every 

week, and climate change a scientific fact, we have no time to waste. As an immediate step, we will 

accelerate infrastructure developments on the Logan, Albert and Mary Rivers under the South East 

Queensland Infrastructure Plan. Regarding Wivenhoe Dam, South East Queensland Water is well 

advanced with the upgrade of the spillway which is essential to urban water supplies in south-east 

Queensland. 

I advise the House today that the government has given south-east Queensland a commitment to 

subsidise the cost of the upgrade and we are honouring this commitment with a payment to assist with 

the upgrade. We will also bring forward $10 million in subsidies to local governments for water 

conservation measures, such as pressure reduction and reducing water distribution losses. The 

government is also examining the feasibility of desalination and exploring water purification and reuse 

proposals. We will reinforce capital works and maintenance initiatives with more robust laws, cracking 

down harder on people who repeatedly breach restrictions. We will also fast-track a proposed review of 

institutional arrangements. This will ensure that the arrangements for ownership and control of dams 

and water supplies serve the best interests of south-east Queenslanders. The region has 19 dams 

owned by 10 different organisations. 

The south-east Queensland arrangements contrast with those in other states, where government 

owned corporations, not local councils, manage dams, water treatment, bulk and retail water delivery 

and waste water services for the entire state or for large metropolitan areas. The south-east 

Queensland arrangement can lead to baffling anomalies. For instance, in recent years Gold Coast 

swimmers had to leave the beach without taking a shower, but there was nothing to stop Brisbane 

people hosing down their driveways. The Gold Coast draws water from Wivenhoe Dam, which is at 

38 per cent capacity, while Hinze Dam is more than 80 per cent full. We will work with local 

governments, other water service providers and the community to make such anomalies a thing of the 

past. 

We will speed up the review of institutional arrangements to ensure everyone has equitable 

access to water. The stronger laws that we propose will impose tougher penalties on people who flout 

water restrictions. A domestic water user who breaches water restrictions currently faces an on-the-spot 

fine of $75 each time they offend. We propose to significantly increase fines, particularly for repeat 

offenders, and to have much bigger penalties for corporate and industrial offenders. We also propose 

on-the-spot fines for anyone who takes water from firefighting systems and hydrants without approval. 

Further, we propose to give the state reserve powers to impose restrictions if local governments 

refuse to do so. I hope the government will never need to apply any of these emergency powers. 

However, we need to hold them in reserve to ensure that the population and economy of south-east 

Queensland can continue to flourish with confidence. 


Public Report of Ministerial Expenses 

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.43 am): I wish to table 

the public report of ministerial expenses for the period 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005. Since becoming 

Premier in 1998 I have been determined to ensure that my government is open and accountable with 

the public of Queensland. The public report gives maximum transparency to the community regarding 

the expenses of ministers, parliamentary secretaries and their officers. This report shows how my 

government has continued to maintain expenses at reasonable levels.


The increase in expenditure year on year is only 1.65 per cent. This is far less than increases in 

the consumer price index over this period. While enterprise bargaining pay increases have pushed 

salary costs up, there have been substantial savings in both telecommunications costs as well as 

computer costs. My government has continued to be responsive to community needs, and the new 

portfolio structure I have recently put in place will ensure that we address the big issues and continue 

implementation of the Smart State initiatives to build our future. The substantial work of my government 

continues to be done in a cost effective way. I table that report for the information of the House. 


Sale of Telstra 

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.43 am): There are a 

number of matters that I wish to report on briefly. One relates to the proposed Telstra sale. As members 

know, my government remains totally opposed to the sale of Telstra. I seek leave to incorporate in 

Hansard the reasons. 


With arrogant disregard for telecommunications users and taxpayer-shareholders, the Federal Government intends to sell Telstra. 

People are having problems getting a decent broadband service sometimes only 12 to 15 kilometres from the centre of the city, let 

alone in the bush. 

Broadband coverage in Australia is not keeping up with world best practice. 

• Australia’s broadband penetration rate is well below that of other industrialised countries. 

• As at June 2003, Australia ranked 20th out of the 30 OECD countries, compared to 18th the previous year. 

• More recent analysis suggests only 32% of homes have broadband, compared with 67% in Canada, 65% in Singapore 

and 46% in the United Kingdom. 

An innovative, competitive telecommunications market is critical to Queensland’s and Australia’s future economic growth. 

We need a review to address the best way of ensuring services (including repair times, installation, mobile coverage and 

broadband) will allow all Australians to be part of the global village. 

In particular, the best way to deliver broadband must be considered. 

Broadband is most commonly delivered via ADSL, cable or satellite (one or two way). 

Satellite provides 100 percent coverage, but ADSL is only available to approximately 75 percent of Australia’s population and 

cable is only available in parts of the capital cities, Newcastle and the Gold Coast. 

Dial up internet, which is more commonly available, is capable of speeds of up to 56kps, but in reality is often slower. 

This technology is not suitable for business and is also frustratingly slow in rural areas where the Federal Government has set the 

mandated minimum speed at 19.6 kps for the Universal Service Obligation. 

Also, it is more prone to drop-outs and customers cannot use their telephone line at the same time as they use the Internet as they 

can with broadband. 

Despite the fact the Commonwealth has a clear constitutional responsibility in telecommunications, the Queensland Government 

has maximised opportunities to ensure regional Queenslanders have better, affordable services. 

Yesterday Cabinet endorsed the Queensland Telecommunications Strategic Framework 2005-2008, to enhance competition and 

improve telecommunications in Queensland 

This builds on earlier initiatives, such as a $117.5M five year agreement with Optus to support the installation of alternative 

broadband infrastructure in Queensland. 

This facilitated the construction during 2000-2001 of 1,820 kilometres of optical fibre cable in the Brisbane to Cairns rail corridor, 

passing through nine regional centres. 

It reduced charges for broadband services between Brisbane and Cairns by up to 70%. 

In 2003 we used our buying power as big consumers of mobile phone services to cut deals with Telstra and Optus that have led to 

scores of new mobile phone towers in rural and remote areas. 

Now we are seeking improved mobile coverage for a highway gap between Winton to Cloncurry. 

We have also committed $42 million per annum over five years for Optus products and services, in exchange for broadband 

infrastructure in 30 regional towns and optical fibre infrastructure in the business districts of Cairns, Townsville and Rockhampton. 


Economic Growth 

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.44 am): I am happy to 

report that recent figures show the Queensland economy continues to go from strength to strength. As I 

informed the House on 12 August, the July unemployment figure was for the ninth consecutive month at 

five per cent or below. I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. 


And the latest figures from the ABS Wage Price Index show Queenslanders with a job are on a better wicket with total hourly pay 

rates in Queensland growing 0.7% in the June quarter to be 3.9% higher than a year ago.


In the housing market, trend dwelling approvals rose by 2.8% in June compared to national increase of just 1.2%. This is the fourth 

consecutive monthly rise. 

The growth in exports has been more dramatic. 

The nominal value of Queensland overseas merchandise exports increased at an annual rate of 33.7% in the June quarter to total 

of $7.9 Billion. 

This rise was driven largely by continued strong rises in the value of coal exports which increased by 87.7% over the period. 

Mr Speaker, the good news just keeps coming. 

Just yesterday the Australian Bureau of Statistics released figures showing 18,481 new motor vehicles were sold in Queensland 

last month. This is an 8.5% increase over last year and easily eclipses the national figure of 2.9%. 

These figures underscore the strength and confidence of business and consumers in the Smart State. 

We are the shining light of the national economy. 


Gateway Motorway Upgrade 

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.44 am): In relation to the 

Gateway land I want to report that all the land needed for the $1.6 billion Gateway upgrade is now in 

public ownership following Gazettal on 12 August. I thank Paul Lucas, the Minister for Transport and 

Main Roads. This ensures a clear run for the biggest road project in Queensland’s history. I seek to 

incorporate details in Hansard. 


Seventy-one properties were involved, most was commercial or industrial, and owners were consulted at every stage of the 

process. 

The Gateway Upgrade Project will duplicate the Gateway Bridge and upgrade 20km of the Gateway Motorway. 

Most of the land acquired is north of the Gateway Bridge and will be used for the new northern deviation of the Gateway Motorway 

which will greatly improve the alignment between the bridge and Nudgee Road. 

With the old airport runways no longer in use, the motorway will be realigned, creating a safer, more direct route. 

We’re getting on with the business of building big infrastructure projects, to deliver better lifestyles and more jobs to 

Queenslanders. 

This project is a vital part of the $55 billion South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and will create up to 6000 jobs during 

construction. 

When the project is complete, it will dramatically improve the transport, safety, lifestyle and business for many thousands of 


I thank local industry and the community for co-operating and working with us on this very important project. 

Main Roads Minister Paul Lucas said the Department of Main Roads will continue to work closely with property owners and 

tenants to ensure their needs are met. 

Next month we will call for tenders to design and build the project and we expect to award contracts in the third quarter of 2006 

and start construction late in 2006. 


Redlands, Community Cabinet 

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.45 am): State Cabinet 

returns to the Redlands/Cleveland area next month for its seventh community cabinet of the year. This 

is about the government continuing to go to the people to hear first-hand of their issues. This will be our 

86th community cabinet. I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. 


This might be our 86th Community Cabinet since election in 1998, but it is again another ideal chance to front up to 


It is a chance for the people of the Redlands/Cleveland regions to meet Ministers and Directors-Generals. 

We will meet with, listen to and respond to Queenslanders wherever they live and work. 

We will continue to meet with them on their turf and on their terms. This will be the Government’s third Community Cabinet in the 

Redlands region. 

In November 2002 when last at Redlands we set a new mark with 160 formal deputations for a Community Cabinet. 

That is now regularly bettered, but I am sure that the region will respond again with big numbers. 

Redlands MP John English, Cleveland MP Darryl Briskey and Capalaba MP Michael Choi as well—are delighted with today’s 

announcement and agreeing that the two-day gathering will again be an excellent opportunity for the region’s residents to meet 

first-hand with the State’s key decision makers. 

Informal Community Cabinet proceedings will occur on Sunday 11 September from 1.30pm to 3.30pm, at the Victoria Point State 

High School Sports Hall 93—131 Benfer Road, Victoria Point.


Formal deputations will follow at the Victoria Point State High School Sports Hall from 3.30pm to 5pm that day. 

On Monday 12 September, Cabinet will meet from 9.30am at the Redlands Community Cultural Centre, 2 Middle Street, 2 Middle 

Street, Cleveland. 

Deputations can be booked by filling out request forms available from: 

Electorate Office, Member for Redlands, John English MP, Redlands Corner, Cnr Cleveland-Redland Bay Road & Colburn 

Avenue, Victoria Point. Phone: 3207 6910 Fax: 3207 6897. 

Electorate Office, Member for Cleveland, Darryl Briskey MP, “Kramer Place”, 19 Waterloo Street, Cleveland. Phone: 3286 

2726 Fax: 3286 5418. 

Electorate Office, member for Capalaba, Michael Choi MP, Shop 60, Capalaba Park, Mount Cotton Road, Capalaba. 

Phone 07 3245 6950 Fax: 3245 4871. 

Cabinet Secretariat on 1800 448 377 or 1800 448 378; 

Redland Shire Council (Customer Service Centre), Corner Bloomfield and Middle Streets, Cleveland. Phone: 3829 8999 

Fax: 3829 8765. 

Deputation request forms must be received by noon on Thursday 1 September. 

Cabinet has in the past 12 months met at: Queensland Art Gallery, the Whitsundays, Brisbane Convention Centre (Ausbiotech), 

Caboolture, Charleville, Ipswich, University of Queensland (Smart Queensland launch), Kawana, Gold Coast (Gaven) and the 

Ekka. 


Gympie Country Music Muster 

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.45 am): The state 

government has signed a $130,000 sponsorship deal to provide emergency services on site at this 

week’s Toyota Country Music Muster in Gympie. I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. 


During the past 24 years the muster has grown to become one of Australia’s greatest celebrations of the rural spirit. 

This annual festival of music and poetry has become a major tourist drawcard for south east Queensland, with about 25,000 

people from all over Australia and overseas expected to attend this year. 

The musters are organised by the Apex Club of Gympie and since 1982 they‘ve raised more than $9 million for charitable and 

community organisations throughout Australia, a tremendous effort from an organisation with just over 40 members. 

The venue for the festival and the satellite city is the remote and beautiful Amamoor Creek State Forest Park, which is why the 

whole range of emergency services has to be available onsite. 

Without State Government sponsorship organisers say that we would not be able to meet the level of police, ambulance and fire 

and rescue standards needed to effectively service the festival. 

The 24th Muster is scheduled to begin TODAY (Tuesday, August 23) and run through to Sunday, August 28. 

The Toyota Country Music Muster is a great example of what can be done when a vibrant service club harnesses willing 

volunteers—in this case, 1,500 of them—to work together to produce a showpiece event that benefits so many organisations. 


Greenslopes Private Hospital 

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.46 am): Last Saturday 

was an important day for Health in Queensland. I had the pleasure of joining the member for 

Greenslopes, Gary Fenlon, to officially open the new plastic and reconstructive surgery facility at 

Greenslopes Private Hospital. We are working increasingly in partnership with the private sector to 

provide health services to Queenslanders. I thank the member for Greenslopes for his support of this 

facility. I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. 


There is clearly a benefit to patients in having facilities like the modern, high tech centre at Greenslopes which has under the one 

roof the full range of services including diagnostic, surgical and post operative. 

The centre does everything from screening moles through to major surgical procedures, and covers all conditions ranging from 

emergency to highly elective procedures. 

Reconstructive surgery can be an extremely significant benefit to patients after cancer or major injuries, as well as those with birth 

deformities. 

It can literally change their lives for the better. 

I was particularly pleased to accept the request to do this official opening knowing that overseas patients in the Operation Smile 

program, started here by Dr Richard Lewandowski, would also benefit from the services at Greenslopes. 

Richard was named one of our Queensland Greats last year for his work as Co-founder and Chairman of Operation Smile. 

Operation Smile brings new hope to children from developing countries, who were born with cleft lips or cleft palates. It’s an 

outstanding program.



Tree Clearing 

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.46 am): While an elected 

member of the National Party described Queensland’s tree-clearing laws as communism, judges who 

live in a rational world are handing out awards for the scientific foundations of those laws. I seek leave to 

incorporate details of that in Hansard. 


Rod Fensham and Russell Fairfax this month won one of Australia’s highest scientific honours, an Australian Museum Eureka 

Prize, for research which is the scientific basis of our changes to vegetation management laws (which the Liberal Party 

supported). 

Fensham and Fairfax, from the Queensland Herbarium, won the $10,000 Sherman Eureka Prize for Environmental Research on 9 

August. 

Australian Museum Trust President Brian Sherman said their work “represents a significant increase in our understanding of how 

to protect bush and grasslands”. 

He said: "Fensham and Fairfax looked outside the square. 

Starting with explorers’ reports, old diaries, half a century’s worth of aerial photos and many other sources, they were able to 

identify the real changes that had occurred in natural vegetation and to search for the causes of those changes. 

Along the way, the researchers dispelled some myths. They showed that climate cycles drove the appearance of woody weeds 

and that bush clearing would not stop the spread of these weeds. 

And they proved that clearing is a net producer of greenhouse gas, clearly outweighing any reduction associated with vegetation 

thickening.” 

I congratulate Rod Fensham and Russell Fairfax for winning one of the prestigious Eureka prizes (which are sponsored by 

organisations including the Federal Government and the CSIRO). 

I thank them for helping to explode myths—and to amplify the message that Queensland is the Smart State. 

We base our resource management laws on the best available science, and that is what we will continue to do. 


Gold Coast Stadium 

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.46 am): As we near the 

climax of the 2005 National Rugby League season I can tell everyone on the Gold Coast how we plan to 

ensure that there will be a Gold Coast stadium waiting for the start of the 2008 season. I seek leave to 

incorporate details in Hansard. 


On 28 April this year my predecessor as Sports Minister announced that the Queensland Government would construct a 

rectangular stadium on the Gold Coast. 

On 25 July the Department of Public Works invited proposals from five architectural companies with demonstrated experience in 

recent significant sports stadium projects. 

The closing date for submissions is 29 August. 

We will be aiming for a stadium of about 25,000 seats. 

We expect to select an architect by the end of next month. 

By the end of October we expect to be selecting a managing contractor. 

By June next year we want to have in place the design development, sub-contract documentation, early works tendering and site 

establishment by the managing contractor. 

Construction is due to take place between July 2006 and December 2007. 

Commissioning will follow from January 2008 to February 2008, with the opening expected in late February 2008. 


Administrative Arrangements 

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.46 am): I wish to inform 

the House that on 18 August 2005, in accordance with the Constitution of Queensland 2000, her 

Excellency the Governor, acting by and with the advice of the Executive Council, approved the 

Administrative Arrangements Amendment Order (No. 3) 2005 and I seek leave to incorporate details in 

Hansard. 


Ministerial responsibility for the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001; the Misconduct Tribunals Act 1997; the Ombudsman Act 2001; 

and the Witness Protection Act 2001 have been transferred from my portfolio to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. 

These relate to the operation of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, Misconduct Tribunals and the Ombudsman.


A copy of the relevant notification from the Queensland Government Gazette will be tabled. 

I sought the Governor in Council’s approval to transfer responsibility for these groups, so I can focus more time and energy on 

working with the Health Minister, Stephen Robertson, to improve the health system. 

Upholding accountability is central to this government and I will continue to keep a watch on matters of integrity and transparency. 

However after years of building accountability and openness in the wake of National Party corruption, I have faith in the machinery 

that upholds integrity in government. 

On the other hand it is crystal clear that we must work very hard to rebuild Queenslanders’ confidence in the health system. 

I have said since the reshuffle that I would use my position as Treasurer to focus on health, and would work closely with Stephen 

Robertson—who is performing extremely well as our new Health Minister. 

The CMC, Misconduct Tribunals and Ombudsman operate independently of government. 

They monitor and oversee the integrity, transparency and accountability of the Queensland public sector. 

The Attorney-General and Minister for Justice is responsible for the administration of the justice system and for the operation of 

other similarly independent bodies, such as the courts and the Director of Public Prosecutions. 

It makes sense to transfer responsibility to Mrs Lavarch, because she and her agencies have the expertise to support these 

accountability watchdogs. 

This arrangement is consistent with arrangements for the Australian Crime Commission and the Western Australian Corruption 

and Crime Commission. 

Arrangements have been made between the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Department of Justice and Attorney- 

General to ensure a smooth transition of administration. 


Ideas Festival 

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (9.46 am): Eight months 

before the 2006 Ideas Festival Queenslanders are already showing a strong appetite for the thought 

provoking lectures. At 6 pm tomorrow night, that is Wednesday, 24 August, international commentator 

John Ralston Saul will give an ideas lecture at the Cremorne Theatre, Queensland Performing Arts 

Centre, and I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. 


All tickets sold more than 2 weeks in advance. 

Saul is a Canadian with a reputation for stoking debate about issues including democracy and globalisation. 

Whether you love his ideas or oppose them, it can’t be denied that he has influenced thought and debate around the world. 

This will be his only Queensland lecture on a tour to discuss his new work, The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the 

World’. 

Through the Ideas Festival we are able to attract to Queensland leading international thinkers to present their ideas and foster 

debate. 

In June a sell-out audience of more than 800 people heard a lecture by internationally renowned historian Jared Diamond. 

The enthusiastic response to the lead-in events presented by the Ideas Festival shows that people in the Smart State are keen to 

hear and debate new and challenging ideas. 

The calibre of people presenting these lead-up lectures gives a taste of what we can expect from the full Festival in 2006. 

The Queensland Government is presenting the Ideas Festival, with major sponsors are Griffith University and Brisbane Airport 

Corporation. 

The Ideas Festival will run from 29 March—2 April 2006 at South Bank. 

For more information visit www.ideasfestival.com.au. 


Water Subsidies 

Hon. H PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) (9.46 am): The 

Queensland government is taking the lead on the urban water problems in south-east Queensland, but 

everyone—local councils, industry and householders—all have a part to play. We cannot make it rain, 

but we can make sure we get the best possible value out of every drop of water that is available. 

We have to look at the short, medium and long-term initiatives and we cannot wait until we are in 

the middle of a crisis to act. We have to get ahead of the game and that is exactly what our government 

is doing. Our local governments and the state government have already done an enormous amount of 

work on south-east Queensland’s water problems. We estimate that the state government will contribute 

around about $380 million over the next five years to south-east Queensland local authorities as part of 

our subsidy scheme. This is more than trebling the $113 million in subsidies that the state government 

has made to the councils over the past five years. 

As part of this commitment to boost subsidies we are bringing forward an additional $10 million 

for the 2005-06 year to assist local governments to implement water conservation measures such as


pressure reduction and reducing water distribution losses from leakage. South-east Queensland is 

staring down the barrel of the worst drought in recorded history. Instead of just hoping for rain we are 

getting on the front foot. 

The Department of Natural Resources and Mines will be working with the Co-ordinator General to 

speed up work on the Cedar Grove Weir on the Logan River, the Mary River Weir and other dam 

proposals. This includes advancing investigations, land purchases and planning for the Wyaralong Dam 

on the Logan River and the Glendower Dam on the Albert River. 

South-east Queensland is currently experiencing its second worst drought on record and if 

significant rainfall is not received in our water catchment areas by around February 2006 the current 

drought would then become the worst on record. The south-east Queensland water storages of 

Wivenhoe, Somerset and North Pine were last full in February 2001—and that is only three years ago— 

and only minimal inflows have been received in the past 12 months. 

Storage levels in these dams, which supply more than 70 per cent of south-east Queensland’s 

water, are currently just above 38 per cent. However, the outlook for this summer is better than it has 

been for some time with climate modelling showing that over the next 10 months there is a probability of 

close to average or slightly below average rainfall. While we hope these predictions for reasonable 

rainfall are correct, we cannot afford to take chances. 

The measures being put in place by the state government, in partnership with local governments, 

South East Queensland Water and our consumers should ensure sufficient water to get through this 

drought and secure our medium and long-term water needs. I will be reporting back to cabinet by the 

end of October on efforts to fast-track other elements of our water reform agenda and will ensure that 

parliament and the community are kept informed of the progress. 


Broncos Sponsorship 

Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (9.50 am): As the Premier stated 

earlier, Queensland Health will withdraw from its three-year sponsorship of the Brisbane Broncos. We 

have cancelled this sponsorship based on a clear need for Queensland Health to focus on its core 

service obligation of providing excellent health care to Queenslanders. In the face of a growing national 

shortage of medical staff and specialists, this government needs to find better and more innovative ways 

to deliver health care. 

Queensland’s public health system is the largest single network in Australia, but it is also the 

world’s most decentralised system. It would be difficult to imagine that from Brisbane one would choose 

to run a hospital in Melbourne. But that is how far away our hospitals are in Queensland’s far north. 

Mr Johnson interjected. 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! 

Mr ROBERTSON: So this morning I am announcing that we will redirect the savings from the 

cancellation of the Broncos sponsorship and invest more than half a million dollars to fund a new way to 

put young children with critical health conditions in touch with the best medical specialists around the 

state. 

I was struck by an article by Madonna King in last Saturday’s Courier-Mail regarding the 

telepaediatric service at the Royal Children’s Hospital. The telepaediatric service is a partnership 

between the Royal Children’s Hospital and the University of Queensland’s Centre for Online Health and 

it is showing incredible results. Imagine that we can put a doctor in rural and remote Queensland in 

touch with a specialist in Brisbane who can immediately assess a sick child online and in real time. That 

means a heart specialist can watch a real-time ultrasound of a baby’s heart and make an immediate 

decision on their care—one that could be life saving. A child in Bundaberg who needs urgent 

assessment of a critical ear or throat problem can be examined using a video-otoscope and the images 

can be sent in real time to the Royal Children’s Hospital for assessment by a specialist to determine if 

they need treatment. In many cases this new technology allows a specialist to seek, almost immediately, 

the reassurance of a second opinion. So far this technology has been used on almost 3,000 occasions, 

and mostly to help children in regional and rural areas of Queensland. 

One of the issues that Madonna King highlighted in her article was that this wonderful service had 

to date been provided with federal government funding of some $350,000. She advised that the federal 

government has cut that funding—reduced funding by $350,000. 


Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gregory! 

Mr ROBERTSON: We will not let this service wither as a result of a reduction in grant funding 

from the federal government.



Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Gregory under standing order 253. 

Mr ROBERTSON: That is why we are redirecting the funding from the Broncos sponsorship to 

ensure that this telepaediatric service can continue to operate for the benefit of young people, 

particularly children in the rural and remote communities of Queensland. 


Export Solutions 

Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Minister for Finance and Minister for 

State Development, Trade and Innovation) (9.53 am): I am very pleased to advise the House that since 

the government launched its five-year trade strategy called Export Solutions in October 2001, 

Queensland exports have continued to perform strongly and to deliver excellent export outcomes. One 

of the government’s key targets in the strategy was to have 600 more Queensland companies exporting 

by 30 June 2006. I am pleased to advise the House that as at 31 July 2005 Queensland had registered 

an additional 596 new exporters. We are obviously well on track. As at July this year we are only four 

short of next year’s target. We will obviously achieve the target much earlier than we expected. 

We also want to ensure that the Smart State broadens its export base. While our mineral and 

agricultural sectors are the backbone of our export sector, we are now starting to make greater inroads 

into overseas markets with an increasing number of sales of Queensland’s knowledge intensive 

products. Since the commencement of the trade strategy, we have recorded an increase of $378 million 

or 16 per cent in the value of knowledge intensive exports for the period 2000-01 to 2003-04. In the 

same period, Australia overall recorded a decrease in the same sorts of exports of 2.4 per cent. 

Queensland’s goods exports have delivered a stellar performance in 2004-05 with a 30 per cent 

increase, or $6.075 billion, over the previous year. 

The government established a new trade and investment office in Seoul, Korea, in March 2001 

and opened the India office in Bangalore, in the state of Karnataka, in September 2004. A Queensland 

government representative also commenced work in Doha in the Middle East in March 2004. These 

officers and representatives are working hard with Queensland businesses to make Queensland’s 

exporters even more successful. 

The government has also initiated export projects for Vietnam and South America. Since the 

commencement of the dairy industry development project in Vietnam in 2001 export outcomes have so 

far totalled $19.58 million. The South America mining initiative, launched in 2001, has delivered 

$32.4 million in exports of mining products and services. This would have created jobs, particularly in 

regional Queensland, in an industry that is suffering a severe skills shortage. Despite the effects of 

drought, terrorism and a high performing Australian dollar, Queensland exporters have delivered for the 

state, and the Queensland government looks forward to continuing to assist Queensland companies in 

overseas markets and to celebrating their successes. 


Integrated Offender Management Strategy 

Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (9.56 am): 

I wish to provide details of yet another move by the Department of Corrective Services to increase 

community safety by improving the way Queensland’s prisoners are managed. Last week the 

department’s new Integrated Offender Management Strategy went live. IOMS, as it is called, is a new 

computerised system that charts the programs, security and progression of offenders through the 

correctional system. IOMS provides a consistent and integrated approach to offender management, 

both in our jails and in the community. 

It has cost almost $11 million to develop and has been three years in the making. It replaces the 

Correctional Information System, and was rolled out statewide across the department last Monday. 

Essentially, IOMS allows the Department of Corrective Services to quickly identify high-risk offenders 

while they are still under our control and make the necessary adjustments to their supervision. This is 

about further improving our prisoner management and enhancing community safety for all of us. 

The Integrated Offender Management Strategy will minimise the chances of early release for 

prisoners who are identified as posing a high risk of reoffending. I regard any recidivism rate as too high. 

However, the latest report on government services data shows that Queensland has the lowest overall 

recidivism rates in Australia. Efforts to reduce recidivism involve focusing on targeting offenders who are 

at risk of reoffending; knowing what factors influence offending, such as drug or alcohol addictions or


offender attitudes; structuring interventions for responsivity; and monitoring and supporting an 

offender’s progression through the system back into the community. 

What IOMS will do is manage all of this type of information about an offender from the time they 

are brought into the corrective services system to the time they are released. It means at the click of a 

button an offender’s corrective services history can be tracked. While this information has always been 

available on request on a case-by-case basis it will now be available instantly and automatically to those 

who need it. 

This will give Corrective Services staff an opportunity to monitor the offender’s attitude to program 

participation, institutional behaviour, risks to the community and criminal history. It provides an even 

greater capacity for the Department of Corrective Services to communicate with other criminal justice 

agencies. For example, if an offender is under community supervision and is charged with another 

offence, both police and the courts will have ready access to that person’s corrective services history. 

This will further assist when they need to make an informed decision regarding community risk before 

granting bail or remanding them in custody. 

I understand IOMS has attracted interest from other Queensland government and interstate 

criminal justice agencies. This government is committed to meeting the community’s expectations of a 

safer Queensland. This new information tool will enhance community safety as it will provide accurate 

and timely information and will share it with other law and order agencies. Given the interstate interest, it 

could also potentially deliver financial benefits to Queenslanders through the sale of its intellectual 

property. 


Teacher Aides 

Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Minister for the Arts) (9.59 am): 

The introduction of a statewide prep year in 2007 will be one of the most significant changes made in 

Queensland education. I am pleased to say that much of the work for this change has been put into 

place by my predecessor, the Deputy Premier. Substantial resources are being allocated to ensure the 

successful implementation of this foundation year. To that end, I am pleased to advise members today 

that our government will be allocating more teacher aide positions to support the introduction of the prep 

year in 2007. This is about giving students the best possible start to their school life. 

Over 80 per cent of Queensland primary schools will have more teacher aide hours. These 

resources will boost the implementation of the prep year and ensure that students in years 1 to 7 retain 

their current level of support. The extra hours will be the equivalent of 260 full-time jobs. A formula has 

been developed to ensure that the allocation of the extra teacher aide hours is done fairly across all 

Queensland schools. The changes recognise that prep class sizes will vary considerably from school to 

school. They ensure that teacher aide time will be provided in proportion to the number and needs of 

prep students in each class. Dedicated support will also be given to teacher aides to assist them in 

adjusting to the changes to their work as a result of the shift to the new prep year arrangements when 

preschool ends in 2006. 

The introduction of a full-time prep year is an exciting time for education in Queensland. Our 

government is committed to making this new year of schooling highly successful. Apart from our 

commitment to extra teacher aide hours, we are undertaking the biggest Education capital works project 

in the state’s history to prepare facilities for the introduction of the prep year. About 1,600 state school 

classrooms will be either built or refurbished to accommodate prep classes. We will employ more than 

100 new teachers, with first preference being given to early childhood teachers. I am pleased to say that 

the prep year is an historic investment in our children that promises them a better chance of success at 

school and in their future lives. 


Queensland Ambulance Service 

Hon. PD PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.01 am): The 

Queensland Ambulance Service is on the move—so much on the move that if you go to an ambulance 

station for patient treatment like you may have in days gone by you may find nobody there. Our 

paramedics are quite literally on the road. Just as importantly, as an organisation, the service is on the 

information and technology super highway as well. The technology and training that the service is 

adopting is world class and the decisions that QAS management have been taking is ensuring that 

prehospital emergency care being delivered in Queensland is amongst the highest in the world.


The Beattie government is committed to, and is delivering, 350 extra paramedics who now have a 

jointly run Queensland Ambulance Service/Queensland University of Technology degree program 

available to them, ensuring all paramedics have the best science based tertiary education anywhere in 

the country. The Ambulance Service is also releasing its paramedics from cumbersome paperwork to 

concentrate on patient care with the introduction of electronic ambulance report forms. In the near 

future, these computers will be linked via wireless networks to access patient records and send patient 

conditions instantly to the hospital of destination. 

The service is about to roll out the use of 12-lead electrocardiogram machines for all advanced 

care paramedics. The service is also looking at a new computer aided dispatch system for the entire 

state. Paramedics in Queensland are getting more patients in better shape to Queensland’s emergency 

departments than ever before. As a member of the local Balmoral Ambulance Committee for many 

years and now the minister in charge of this progressive organisation, I can say that I am extremely 

proud of the Queensland Ambulance Service’s achievements. I was at two functions on Sunday 

where ambulances had to be called for a couple of seniors. They were there very promptly—within the 

five minutes—and did a very professional job. I stood back and watched them. I was very proud to 

watch them, and those patients were in the best of care.. 


Invasion of Privacy Act, Photographic Images 

Hon. LD LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (10.04 am): 

I have recently become aware of a gap in the law in Queensland regarding the secret filming or taking of 

photographs of adults engaged in private activities. Under current Queensland law, there is no 

prohibition on the use of various forms of surveillance, except the use of listening devices. The Invasion 

of Privacy Act 1971 regulates the use of listening devices only, not photographic images. Currently, 

there is nothing to prevent a person secretly videorecording the activities of another adult in situations 

where that adult would expect to have their privacy or indeed have their modesty protected—for 

example, in changing rooms, toilets and other private spaces. 

This is clearly an area of the law that needs strengthening. That is why I am pleased to announce 

today that the Beattie government intends to close this loophole. As soon as I became aware of this 

issue, I asked my department to provide advice on ways to protect Queenslanders in situations where 

they would and could expect to have their privacy or modesty protected. I want to put proposals for 

reform to the Queensland cabinet as soon as practicable so the law can be changed without delay to 

protect Queenslanders’ privacy. Likely options may involve amendments to the Invasion of Privacy Act 

1971 or an amendment to the Criminal Code. 

In Queensland, children are already protected from being photographed in a sexual or offensive 

manner under the Criminal Code (Child Pornography and Abuse) Amendment Act 2005. Also, earlier 

this month I called for public submissions on options to tackle the problem of unauthorised photographs 

being published on the internet. Submissions on the proposed changes close on 14 October. Rapidly 

evolving new technologies such as digital cameras, mobile phones and the internet are challenging us 

and authorities around the world. We need to protect the privacy of all Queenslanders. 


Queensland on Stage—Asia 2005 

Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry 

Development) (10.06 am): The Beattie government rolls out the red carpet for top level Asian tourism 

buyers this week in yet another first for Queensland. Queensland will be on show to our major Asian 

markets in an exciting new initiative that I am sure will produce impressive results and be expanded to 

take in other regions in Queensland. We will be hosting 180 influential buyers—the biggest delegation of 

Asian buyers to visit Queensland outside the Australian Tourism Exchange. They are here from 

tomorrow for Queensland on Stage—Asia 2005, a seven-day expose of our holiday destinations. They 

will visit south-east Queensland, the tropical north and Fraser Island. We hope to expand the program in 

future years to include other regions. 

Asian markets are vital to our tourism industry, and we need to constantly build and rebuild 

knowledge of our destinations with the people who buy our tourism product. Queensland on Stage 

targets buyers from China and Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Korea and 

the Philippines. We will offer participants information, resources and experiences that will boost their 

understanding of Queensland’s many top destinations and attractions. The more that buyers know 

about Queensland’s tourism product and experiences, the better they can sell it to their customers in


Asia. The visit is a massive undertaking by the Beattie government through Tourism Queensland and 

relevant regional tourism organisations. Itineraries have been individually tailored for market buyers. 

None of this would have been possible without tremendous backing from the Beattie government 

and the industry, given that the visit requires a total of 1,260 nights accommodation, a large number of 

tours and meals. The visit will culminate in a series of workshops and functions on the Gold Coast, 

providing an excellent opportunity for industry to discuss existing and new product. I am confident that 

the program will play an important role in forging closer ties with our key trade partners. This will 

contribute to more international tourists and more jobs for Queenslanders. The objectives of 

Queensland on Stage—Asia are twofold: to exceed the expectations of our partners and to show 

flexibility in packaging the perfect Queensland holiday experience. That should be easy given the 

Beattie government’s strong support of our tourism industry and the magnificent diversity of 

Queensland’s tourism destinations. 


International Trade Show Assistance Program 

Hon. CP CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (Minister for Small Business, Information Technology 

Policy and Multicultural Affairs) (10.09 am): The Beattie government is helping take ICT and 

biotechnology products and services to the global market through the International Trade Show 

Assistance Program—ITSAP. We provide subsidies of up to $5,000 for individual companies to exhibit 

at international trade shows and related events and registered ICT clusters can apply for up to $10,000. 

Since developing the program in 2000 the government has helped 114 companies to present their 

products and services to international audiences resulting in immediate export sales of more than 

$5.3 million and projected future export sales of $297 million. The 114 companies assisted so far expect 

to create an additional 1,043 new jobs over the next three years. These are largely ICT related jobs that 

will help to expand this Smart State growth industry. Applications for the next funding round open on 

August 30 and I encourage ICT and biotechnology firms to apply for funding so we can help them sell 

Smart State products and services to an even wider international audience. 

Brisbane based companies GroundProbe and Vigil Systems have already met with success in the 

global marketplace. GroundProbe’s ITSAP grant enabled the company to attend MINExpo in Las Vegas 

last September where it displayed its new slope stability radar that detects potential rock failures in 

open-cut mines. This invention is saving lives around the world. It is used here in Australia, the United 

States, South Africa, Indonesia and Zambia. 

Vigil Systems also met with success after attending the International Bus and Para-transit 

conference in Colorado in the United States last May. The company achieved immediate export sales of 

more than $200,000. The company’s hardware and software for an on-road driver training system is 

designed to improve the safety and performance of bus operators, reducing the costs and risks 

associated with poor driving skills and behaviour. This can help transport authorities all over the world 

who spend millions of dollars each year on the costs of accidents and constantly rising insurance and 

litigation costs. 

Vigil Vanguard has already been adopted by Brisbane Transport, which operates Australia’s 

second largest suburban transit bus fleet with 1,500 drivers and 700 buses, and also Singapore’s 

ComfortDelgo group, which operates a total of 36,000 vehicles. The company’s technology has been 

snapped up by the Los Angeles County Metro, the second largest transit operator in the United States. 

In November this year the company will mount an exhibit at a major transport expo in Canada with 

further support from ITSAP. This is obviously money well spent in creating jobs and exports in 

Queensland, the Smart State. 


Child Protection Workers, University Courses 

Hon. MF REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (10.12 am): The child 

protection system has entered a new and exciting era of professionalism in the Smart State. I am 

delighted that a project that I instigated early last year to improve the skills of university graduates 

entering the important field of child protection has come to fruition. I asked Queensland universities to 

develop specialised child focused university courses for undergraduates in psychology, social work and 

other human services and that will now happen from the beginning of next year. My department 

provided seed funding of $250,000 to five universities for child protection curriculum development in 

what is truly a significant milestone in the government’s partnership with Queensland’s key education 

providers.

2550 Scrutiny of Legislation Committee 23 Aug 2005 

The Department of Child Safety had specified areas and course details that it wanted included in 

university courses, and five Queensland universities were willing to oblige and embrace a new working 

partnership with the department. Last week I met with the University of Queensland, the Queensland 

University of Technology, Central Queensland University, Griffith University and James Cook 

University—the five universities spearheading this very important work. 

Curriculum changes in 2006 will combine key theoretical and practical learning on child safety 

policy and practice and as a result Queensland’s next generation of graduates will be better prepared 

than ever for front-line child protection work. This specialised stream of undergraduate courses in child 

safety will further assist the department with its recruitment of well-trained and highly qualified child 

safety officers. The improvements will also include the development of compulsory curricula related to 

practice with Indigenous children, families and communities. 

Earlier this year I announced Queensland’s first postgraduate courses in child protection, namely 

a graduate certificate in human services at the University of Queensland and a postgraduate certificate 

of child protection practice at James Cook University. Today I am pleased to announce that 70 people 

have undertaken these courses at both UQ and JCU. This includes 58 child safety professionals from 

government and non-government organisations who were awarded Department of Child Safety 

scholarships. By working more closely with our tertiary institutions we are improving child protection 

curriculum at the undergraduate and postgraduate level and we have a better chance of ensuring the 

most vulnerable children in our community are protected. 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION 

Comments by Minister for Transport and Main Roads 

Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (10.15 am): During the last sittings of parliament and in the 

debate on the Industrial Relations Amendment Bill I spoke on 11 August clearly supporting the bill. I 

stated— 

I do not believe that the federal government should be trying to take the responsibilities away from the states. 

In the contribution from the member for Lytton, the Minister for Transport and Main Roads, on 12 

August he blatantly misrepresented me by saying— 

The great states’ righters in One Nation—the great people who worried about our systems—are now prepared to cooperate with 

the federal government taking over our industrial relations system. 

This is a blatant lie and shows that this minister has little regard for the truth or for what is 

recorded in Hansard in this House. I would hope that he would be man enough to apologise and— 

Mr SPEAKER: Member for Tablelands, please withdraw the word ‘lie’. 

Ms LEE LONG: I withdraw. 

Mr SPEAKER: That is withdrawn. Thank you. 

Ms LEE LONG: Misrepresentation. 

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 

Annual Report 

Mr LIVINGSTONE (Ipswich West—ALP) (10.16 am): I lay upon the table of the House the Public 

Works Committee annual report 2004-05. I thank all those who have assisted the committee with its 

inquiries during the year. I also thank my committee members for their assistance and support. I also 

thank the committee staff for their assistance. I commend the report to the House. 

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 

Report 

Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP)) (10.16 am): I lay upon the table of the House the 

Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s Alert Digest No. 9 of 2005.

23 Aug 2005 Private Members’ Statements 2551 

OFFICE OF THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION 

Report of Expenses 

Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.17 am): I lay upon 

the table of the House a report of the public expenses of the Leader of the Opposition for the year ended 

30 June 2005 and refer to the statement by the Auditor-General— 

Dear Mr Springborg 

I have completed my review of the Public Report of the Office Expenses of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition for the year 

ended 30 June 2005 and I have certified this Report in accordance with the requirements of The Opposition Handbook. Please 

find attached my audit certificate in relation to the Public Report. 

OFFICE OF THE LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY 

Report of Expenses 

Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (10.17 am): I also lay on the table of the House the public report of the 

expenses for the Office of the Leader of the Liberal Party provided by the Auditor-General in 

Queensland. I also attach his certificate. 

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS 

Redcliffe and Chatsworth By-Elections 

Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.18 am): On the 

weekend the voters of Chatsworth and Redcliffe delivered this government a resounding report card on 

its lack of performance. The voters of Chatsworth and Redcliffe said on behalf of all Queenslanders that 

they have had an absolute gutful of this government’s carry-on and the fact that it has not addressed the 

basic issues that are important to the people of Queensland—a health system that works, that actually 

saves patients, that provides surgery to people on time and that does not put people on secret waiting 

lists like 108,000 Queenslanders have been, never to be seen again. They want things such as 

asbestos in our schools dealt with, they want a road system that works and they want a government that 

is accountable. 

On the weekend the voters of Redcliffe and Chatsworth said that this government must pull up its 

socks. They have had a gutful of the charades, they have had a gutful of the promises, they have had a 

gutful of the games and they want the government to focus on the basics. That was the resounding 

result on the weekend and something which this government must listen to. 

What have we seen from the Premier post that drubbing on the weekend? We have seen 

‘Mr Unaccountability’ come into this place and say that he is not going to extend the commission of 

inquiry into Queensland’s crumbling health system past 30 September. It cannot not go beyond 30 

September to look at issues other than natural justice. 

Mr BEATTIE: I rise to a point of order. It is untrue. It is offensive. There was agreement between 

Tony Morris and me. I seek it to be withdrawn. 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Withdraw, Leader of the Opposition. 

Mr SPRINGBORG: I withdraw. 

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. Continue your speech. 

Mr SPRINGBORG: The decision today by the government to not effectively extend the time for 

the royal commission beyond 30 September— 

Mr BEATTIE: I rise to a point of order. It is untrue. It is offensive. I ask for it to be withdrawn. 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Withdraw, Leader of the Opposition. 

Mr SPRINGBORG: I withdraw. This decision today is about reducing the pain for the government; 

it is not about reducing the pain for Queensland patients. 


Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (10.20 am): In recent times we have seen much in the media 

about Telstra and the proposed sale of Telstra on the basis that Telstra services to the bush and to the 

regions are satisfactory. I would like to inform this House of the unsatisfactory nature of Telstra services, 

particularly in the regional areas that I represent.

2552 Private Members’ Statements 23 Aug 2005 

If I drive six kilometres outside Rockhampton towards Emu Park, there is no mobile phone 

service. Do not worry about broadband! There is no mobile phone service. 

Mr Horan interjected. 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Toowoomba South, I warn you. You have been sitting there all 

day making those sorts of interjections. I warn you under standing order 253. 

Mr HOOLIHAN: If I drive further towards Emu Park, which is 42 kilometres away, I do not get any 

mobile phone service until I get within two kilometres of Emu Park. From Cawarral, Keppel Sands, 

Mount Chalmers right through to The Caves there is no mobile phone service. This is within 20 to 25 

kilometres of a major regional city. There are even spots in Rockhampton where there is no mobile 

phone service. Telstra should not be sold. Telstra should put all of its funding into improving our 

telephone services, including our mobile phone services. I call upon the federal government to call off its 

sale of Telstra until we do get decent services in regional and country areas. 

Queensland Ambulance Service, Kingaroy 

Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (10.22 am): The wives of ambulance personnel in Kingaroy have 

become whistleblowers. They are reporting to me—I have letters here, but due to the confidentiality that 

I promised them I will not table them today; in due course I may very well do so—that four out of seven 

officers are off on stress leave, fatigue leave or for other reasons. The QAS is not replacing the staff, so 

that has left only three qualified officers to cover the area. One officer has been off for two years and 

reportedly is not coming back. Three other officers are off on stress leave. Two more officers are 

undergoing counselling at the moment, and it has been suggested by their counsellors and their doctors 

that they should, in fact, be away from work. That would leave only one officer—if everyone did their 

maths. 

Officers are refusing to take leave because of the consequences for the community, as they 

believe the ambulance station would be left totally unprepared to deal with emergencies in the area. 

There are certificate IIIs, which is just above honoraries, but that means that they cannot go out by 

themselves and take the place of qualified paramedics. There are two PDOs and they have been put on 

but they only ferry the patients between hospitals. 

These wives are under so much stress that they have put everything in writing. One of the wives 

states— 

On Monday— 

This was yesterday— 

Another officer is going on holidays which will only leave two paramedics on call for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and the 

Kingaroy QAS with two paramedics will be serving a population of 12,000 people. How long before these two officers are 

incapacitated by tiredness and ill health? 

Another wife states— 

Four other officers are off work because of stress and fatigue and two others are being counselled. 

It is has been going on for too long and needs correcting. 

Time expired. 


Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (10.24 am): I am thinking of taking lessons in how to spell 

‘help’ using a smoke signal because, once the Howard government sells off its remaining shares in 

Telstra, that may well be the quickest way to make contact with many parts of my electorate. The other 

option may be to purchase carrier pigeons. I know what you are thinking, Mr Speaker: our federal 

National Party member De-Anne Kelly has a reputation for standing up to the Howard government— 

surely she would never support the full sale of Telstra and is no doubt standing side by side with 

Barnaby Joyce sending a loud message to her political masters in Canberra. After all, Bob Katter was 

quoted in one of De-Anne’s own election pamphlets as saying— 

De-Anne does not change political parties or her principles to suit the time. 

De-Anne herself said in an article in the Daily Mercury, dated 28 May 2002— 

There is no indication whatsoever from rural and regional constituents that they would agree to a further sale of Telstra. 

Yet only yesterday I heard De-Anne on ABC Radio saying that she backed Howard’s proposals 

for the full sale of Telstra. What could possibly have led to this remarkable change of heart? According 

to Mrs Kelly, her constituents have told her that it is okay. Yes, it sounds unlikely, but Mrs Kelly insists 

that this is what has prompted her conversion on the road to Canberra. What actually transpired was 

that Mrs Kelly included a survey in one of her taxpayer funded publications that asked a range of 

questions including some that related to Telstra. She represents over 135,000 people across the 

electorate of Dawson.

23 Aug 2005 Private Members’ Statements 2553 

Mr Copeland interjected. 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Cunningham, you have been learning over the weekend when 

I asked you to leave the chamber. I warn you under standing order 253. 

Ms JARRATT: With just 117 survey responses, she extrapolated a position on behalf of the 

remaining 134,883 of us that we want to get rid of Telstra. The only problem is—and I quote from her 

own publication— 

... on the question of a further sale of Telstra, 81% of those who responded said there should be no further sale. 

That does not sound like a ringing endorsement to me, let alone a reasonable sample. In fact, the 

only ringing I hear is the sound of hollow promises and fading hope. 

Time expired. 


Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (10.26 am): On Saturday the voters of Chatsworth and Redcliffe 

delivered a stinging rejection of this government. They looked behind the personality smokescreen, they 

looked behind the slick media presentation, they looked behind the political stunts, and they made a 

judgment on the performance of this government. The performance of this government was judged by 

those people to be lousy, not worthy of their support on Saturday. 

This government has wasted the trust and confidence that was placed in it 18 months ago by the 

people of Queensland. The people of Redcliffe and Chatsworth did not like the secret waiting lists in our 

hospitals, they did not like the slow replacement of asbestos roofs in our schools, they did not like the 

continuing traffic snarls in Brisbane and the poor transport performance in the south-east corner of the 

state. They made a judgment based on the issues that were of concern to them. 

They were not fooled by the distractions drawn across the election trail by a desperate Premier 

and a desperate ALP government in the four weeks of the campaign. They could not fool the people of 

Chatsworth and Redcliffe. They were intelligent enough not to be spooked or scared by a campaign 

based on something that might happen three or four weeks down the track. They knew that industrial 

relations and a range of other issues were not the real issues in the election campaign. They looked at 

the record of this government and found it wanting. 

Will this government take any notice? Not on your life, because what did the Premier do the very 

day after the by-elections? He pulled another stunt. He went out and said, ‘I’m going to lighten my 

workload. I’ll get rid of a couple of jobs that I have, give them to someone else and everything will be 

hunky-dory.’ He did not even understand what the lesson of the election campaign was. So do we have 

any confidence that this government will change? Not at all! 

The people of Chatsworth and Redcliffe got it right on the weekend. They want this government to 

lift its game and to concentrate on the real priorities of the people of Queensland, not the priorities of the 

Labor Party, not the internal machinations of the government. 

Time expired. 


Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (10.28 am): Last Wednesday will go down in history as 

Australia’s day of infamy. It was the day when, in our national capital, the federal Nationals voted with 

their Liberal cronies to agree to the sale of Telstra. As the Premier’s advisor on western Queensland, I 

was particularly appalled by this decision, not just because it represented poor policy, not just because 

on polls 75 per cent of Australians want Telstra to remain in public hands, but because it represented a 

foul and treacherous betrayal by the Nationals of their historic constituency—the bush. And for what? 

After $2 billion is put away in a trust fund, only $1 billion is to be spent over three years to improve 

current services and provide online and health services. This is a pittance. Put it into context with what 

the state spends. 

Mr Rickuss interjected. 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Lockyer, you sit there and you interject all of the time. I am 

warning you under standing order 253. If you continue this you will be marching out. 

Mr SHINE: Mr Speaker, it represents, for example, less than one-fifth of the state’s annual 

expenditure on Health; a quarter of the annual Education expenditure in Queensland. Does anyone 

really think it is sufficient to provide mobile coverage in country Queensland? The people of country 

Queensland need protection. The federal National Party has sold them out. Senator Joyce has gone 

from an ardent advocate for 75 per cent of Queensland to jettisoning their wishes and taking the money. 

I will not abuse him like Tuckey or Schultz. That is not my style; I am not a Liberal. But, as one paper 

said, from hero to zero in record time. Even the Courier-Mail said that his move from strident opposition 

to haggling over the price has been surprisingly rapid. Yes, he stood up and he sat down.

2554 Questions Without Notice 23 Aug 2005 

Senator Joyce’s latest position is that it is up to the National Party state management committee 

to decide. He seems to believe that subservience to this faceless gaggle somehow satisfies his 

constitutional duty as a senator. Nevertheless, as most state MPs are on this body, this makes the 

Queensland National Party a very important player in the fate of the Australian icon. Will they save 

Telstra? Are they up to the challenge? Will they be strong enough? 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for private members’ statements has expired. 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 

Health System 

Mr SPRINGBORG (10.30 am): My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. I 

refer to evidence provided to the Morris inquiry regarding the hidden waiting list to get on the waiting 

lists. As the evidence provided to the inquiry was for data compiled to June last year, and given that the 

Premier has promised yet another era of listening, openness and accountability following the weekend’s 

by-election defeats, will the minister now provide the parliament with the up-to-date hidden waiting list 

information? 

Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. With respect to the so-called 

hidden waiting lists that were presented to the Morris inquiry, it was made clear that the figures 

presented represented a snapshot. It was also made clear that Queensland Health has not 

systematically kept that data to date. However, a project is now under way to commence the collection 

of that data systematically and consistently across all hospitals in Queensland Health. So for the first 

time we will be able to track the so-called hidden waiting lists or the waiting lists for appointments with 

specialists through our public hospital system, and that will provide a new level of transparency to the 

extent that no other government in Australia currently provides. 

I mentioned last time we sat, and I will reiterate, that with respect to the data currently provided by 

Queensland Health—that is, the waiting list data—that was a data collection that commenced under the 

opposition when it was in government. They were nationally consistent guidelines. That is, every 

government in Australia collected the same statistics using the same parameters so that appropriate 

comparisons could be made with respect to Queensland vis-a-vis New South Wales, Victoria and South 

Australia. That is the system that was set up under a National-Liberal Party government. This is the 

same system that those opposite now criticise. When it comes to the Hippocratic oath—or perhaps we 

should call it the ‘hypocritic’ oath—no surgeon, no-one, stands more condemned than those opposite 

with respect to their rank hypocrisy. 

The simple fact is that the data we produced year in, year out was nationally consistent data. We 

are now moving to a new phase with the collection of data across Queensland towards improving the 

level of transparency with respect to how Queensland Health is performing. 

Miss Simpson interjected. 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Maroochydore, I warn you for the last time. 

Mr ROBERTSON: No other government provides this level of data, and I look forward to being 

able to present this information in the future. 

Health System 

Mr SPRINGBORG: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. I refer to the Premier’s 

pressure on Commissioner Morris to conclude his report on Queensland’s crumbling health system by 

no later than 30 September this year. How is it that the inquiry into the Queensland racing industry was 

extended by six months and lasted seven months, and yet the Morris royal commission into the most 

crucial issue for all Queenslanders—their health—is not to be extended beyond five months? Is it not a 

fact that this decision to conclude this inquiry is more about reducing the pain on the Premier’s 

government than it is about reducing pain on Queensland patients? 

Mr BEATTIE: I do not believe that anybody, regardless of who they are, could possibly argue 

about the independence of Tony Morris. So let me start that as point No. 1. What did Tony Morris ask for 

when I, the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Health met with him? He asked for an extension to 14 

October to complete his hearings. We have agreed to that. There is an extension of two weeks until 14 

October to complete his public hearings in relation to individual matters and matters pertaining to people 

in Bundaberg. That is what he asked for. We agreed to what he asked for. 

In terms of 30 September, there will be an initial report from the commission that will deal with 

systemic issues. So there will be two reports. One will deal with systemic issues. It will be completed on 

time, as planned, by 30 September. There will be a second report from the commission, and we have 

agreed to a two-week extension today to 14 October. The second report will deal with Bundaberg and 

individual matters. We have agreed to an extension. I say that again: we have agreed to an extension as 

sought by Tony Morris.

23 Aug 2005 Questions Without Notice 2555 

The people of Queensland have to make a choice on this matter, and the choice is very simple. 

We have here the Leader of the Opposition attempting to misrepresent what Tony Morris has put to the 

government and what I have said to this House today pursuant to the meeting that took place. We have, 

on the one hand, the usual deceit and dishonesty— 

Mr SPRINGBORG: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. I find those— 

Mr BEATTIE: I withdraw. The people of Queensland have the option to either believe the 

inference in the question put by the Leader of the Opposition today, which is that the government has 

not agreed to a request by Tony Morris, or to believe Tony Morris. It is a very simple choice. I know who 

they will believe: they will believe Tony Morris. 

I have made it clear, and I am delighted to see that Tony Morris shares this view—he shared this 

view with the Deputy Premier, the Minister for Health and me this morning in our discussions—that we 

need to get on and start fixing the system. What the Leader of the Opposition and the National Party 

want is for the problems to continue for political reasons. We want this fixed, and that is why we set up 

these inquiries. It is not true to suggest, and it is dishonest to suggest, that there has been any further 

request for an extension beyond 14 October. We had a communication suggesting there needed to be 

an extension to finish matters. There were discussions that took place and out of those discussions it 

was agreed that 14 October was suitable. Now that is the way you do business. The commissioner 

indicated that he wanted an extension. We negotiated a sensible agreement with him and he has 

agreed to the 14th. I agree with him and I stand by our extension. 


Ms JARRATT: My question is directed to the Premier. There has been a lot of discussion about 

the full sale of Telstra. Could the Premier detail to the House how much of the money from the full sale 

of Telstra will be returned to the bush? 

Mr BEATTIE: I have to say that it is really hard to find out. I am intrigued by the dishonesty going 

on in the National Party. We had Barnaby Jones— 

A government member: Joyce! 

Mr BEATTIE: Joyce. Well, it could be Barnaby Jones. The way he is going, I know whom the 

locomotive is going to run over. The locomotive is going to run right over him. 

Mrs Lavarch: That was Casey Jones. 

Mr BEATTIE: Well I don’t care; they are still part of the family. There have been some numbers 

bandied around such as $5 billion. That is what he said on the Channel 9 Sunday program. I will table 

that for the information of the House in case someone wants to argue about it. Then on 17 August at a 

press conference the Prime Minister, John Howard, said that the package was worth $1.1 billion plus 

$2 billion in a trust fund, which means a total of $3.1 billion, which is what the package is worth. I notice 

that the Nationals managed to snow Queensland Country Life. It said that the Nationals have all but 

accepted a $6 billion package to bolster regional telecommunications despite polling showing that most 

Australians are still against privatisation. I table that. 

Then, of course, we have the Australian, which states— 

Telstra is about to be sold after the Nationals won a $3.2 billion package for additional services to the bush. 

Then the Australian of 19 August—the poor old Leader of the Opposition could not work it out, either; he 

was scratching his head—stated— 

Nationals state leader Lawrence Springborg questioned the size of the trust fund for future services, saying federal leader Mark 

Vaile had suggested $2 billion, Senator Joyce $5 billion and a think tank $7 billion. 

I table that report. The truth of it is that it is $3.1 billion. Frankly, it amounts to 30 pieces of silver. 

No-one should be in any doubt about this: if the National Party supports the sale of Telstra it supports 

selling out the bush and the regions for 30 pieces of silver. I listened to the member for Whitsunday and 

her concerns. There are areas in the city with problems. The other day I was driving down Raymont 

Road in the Grange and my mobile phone dropped out. The member for Stafford is my neighbouring 

member; he has the same problem on the same road. 

Mr Terry Sullivan: We haven’t got broadband in Stafford. 

Mr BEATTIE: Exactly. Let us move on, and let us look at what the people in the bush are 

saying—not what the sell-out merchants from the National Party are saying. AgForce president Peter 

Kenny made a point last week on PM with Lisa Millar. He said— 

It’s amazing that the government have started with two billion, and it’s like an auction system, as far as I can see. As far as 

AgForce is concerned there doesn’t seem to be any basis upon which they’re coming up with this funding. 

And who’s to say what $3 billion will look like in 10 to 15 years time, and we’re talking about an organisation that’s going to have to 

serve rural and regional Queensland for the next God knows how long, but certainly well into the future. 

The New South Wales Farmers Federation said that it does not believe the money pledged to fix phone 

services in the bush is enough. Do members remember the heritage trails system? Billions were thrown 

away on that.


Health System 

Mr QUINN: My question is to the Premier. I refer the Premier to the Fitzgerald inquiry into police 

corruption, which had no fixed date for reporting to allow Commissioner Fitzgerald to fully investigate all 

the issues and to do the job properly, and I ask: given that health is clearly the No. 1 priority in the minds 

of Queenslanders, can the Premier give a non-political reason why this inquiry should be bound by fixed 

reporting dates? 

Mr BEATTIE: As I understand it—and I will go back and check this—on a number occasions 

there were changes. They related particularly to the terms of reference of the Fitzgerald royal 

commission. 

There is no big deal about this. In relation to both the racing inquiry and the Bundaberg Hospital 

inquiry there were requests by the commissioners for extensions. Both of those have been granted. 

Today we have agreed to a two-week extension. I say to the Leader of the Liberal Party that the 

commissioner himself is happy with the arrangements. Why is it that the member for Robina or the 

Leader of the Opposition seem to know more than the commissioner does? The reality is that the 

commissioner has agreed with the time lines. 

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the member for Robina is wanting to pursue this, other 

than for some cheap political agenda. If Tony Morris is saying that 15 October gives suitable time to 

meet the natural justice requirements and to hear witnesses, what sort of wisdom does the member 

have that is stronger than that of Tony Morris? The member has to ask himself that. For the life of me, I 

cannot see a sensible, logical point to the member’s argument other than the fact that there is some 

political agenda. 

Let me just repeat: today the government has agreed to extend the Morris royal commission by 

15 days. That was mutually agreed between us. 

Mr Messenger interjected. 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Burnett, I warn you. You sit there and you interject all of the 

time. I warn you under 253. 

Mr BEATTIE: I say to the Leader of the Liberal Party: I know that when you were in government— 

An opposition member interjected. 

Mr BEATTIE: Let us talk about the Connolly-Ryan inquiry. Let us talk about the Leader of the 

Liberal Party’s form on this. When he was in government he set up a process to destroy and shut down 

the CJC through the Connolly-Ryan inquiry. There has been none of that from us. That inquiry was in 

exactly the same position: the member opposite wanted to shut it down. It is the height of hypocrisy for 

the member for Robina to come in here and attack us, bearing in mind that we have set this inquiry up 

and that we have agreed to a two-week extension, as requested by the commissioner which we agreed 

after discussion. But the member really has a bit of a hide when we consider what happened to the CJC 

inquiry and the Supreme Court action in relation to Connolly-Ryan. The member knows that as well as I 

do. 

These two questions have been based on politics, not on what is in the interests of patients. I 

need to be very clear to this House: there needs to be a day when the inquiries are finished and we get 

on with the business of improving and repairing the health system. That is exactly what we will do. That 

is why on the 30th we will deal with the systemic issues—we will have both Peter Forster’s and Tony 

Morris’s recommendations in relation to systemic issues—and then Tony Morris will have an extension 

of two weeks to deal with witnesses pertaining to Bundaberg. 

I conclude my remarks by congratulating the member for Robina on the success in Chatsworth 

and Redcliffe on the weekend. I did not enjoy it, but I can say to you: well done. 

Infrastructure Development, South-East Queensland 

Mr REEVES: My question without notice is to the Premier. South-east Queenslanders are aware 

of the state government’s infrastructure plans to deal with the influx of a million people over the next 20 

years to south-east Queensland, but can he inform them what the Liberals, particularly those based in 

Brisbane and south-east Queensland, are contributing? 

Mr BEATTIE: I was intrigued to read today’s Courier-Mail, as I always am, which carried the 

headline ‘Libs try to hush Newman on roads’. What a serious indictment of liberalism in this state. The 

Liberal Party has the strongest representation perhaps in the history of federal parliament. I am not sure 

about that, but it is very strong. It has 22 out of 28 seats. In Brisbane it has the lord mayor. When the lord 

mayor tries to get some money to deal with public transport and roads, what do they do? They try to 

hush him up and shut him down. Then they try to bully him into remaining silent. I just say to Campbell


Newman: keep up the fight because, frankly, you will continue to be supported by the people of this city 

while you are. 

The lord mayor is seeking $400 million over 15 years to fund his tunnel network. To his credit, he 

also says that federal funding is needed for the Gold Coast, the Pacific Motorway, Logan and the Bruce 

Highway north of Caboolture. What can we say other than, ‘Hear, hear! We agree with the lord mayor’? 

Queenslanders have voted for 14 federal Liberal MPs in the south-east of Queensland. People 

would expect them to back the lord mayor. Not once have they done so. What about these four Liberal 

senators who sit around in Brisbane, taking money under false pretences? All they do is back Canberra. 

Never once have they backed they lord mayor. When they met last week at Liberal headquarters, did 

the senators pat the lord mayor on the back? They did not pat the lord mayor on the back; they stabbed 

him in the back. They stabbed the lord mayor in the back because he is out there trying to get some 

money for a road project. 

In 2005-06 alone, the Queensland government is spending $2.83 billion on transport and main 

roads including $760 million for rail infrastructure and $538 million for ports. We are committed to the 

$55 billion 20-year South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan. The Commonwealth government has 

cut real spending on infrastructure in half over the past 10 years. We are the ones, at a state level, who 

are trying to build roads and who are trying to do things about buses, public transport and the railway. 

Who do we have supporting us? The only person who is giving us any sort of support is the Liberal lord 

mayor. Who is trying to knife him in the back? It is the Liberal Party. What a sordid group of people! 

When it came time for the preselection for the ward vacated by Mr Caltabiano, what did they do? 

The lord mayor nominated his candidate. What happened? Senator Santoro and Mr Caltabiano then 

stabbed the lord mayor in the back and he did not even get the candidate he was promised. I am 

starting to feel sorry for the Liberal lord mayor, I have to tell members. All I can say to Campbell is: keep 

on fighting, Campbell, because in the end you will find that the Liberal Party has no backbone. 

Health System 

Mr COPELAND: My question is to the Minister for Health. Visiting medical officers at the Royal 

Brisbane and Women’s Hospital and at the Nambour and Gold Coast hospitals have rejected the 

government’s proposed enterprise deal and intend to resign, and there is every likelihood that the VMOs 

at Princess Alexandra, the Prince Charles and the Mater public hospitals will resign also. Given that the 

visiting medical officers perform more than 70 per cent of the surgical procedures and are responsible 

for more than 70 per cent of the training conducted in the public health system, when will the minister 

stand up for these doctors and force the Treasurer to recognise that more patients will die when the 

public health system collapses? When will the minister force Treasury to recognise that public hospitals 

will lose their accreditation as tertiary training facilities if they lose the services of VMOs? 

Mr ROBERTSON: The opposition spokesperson makes a relevant point, that is, that with respect 

to the current campaign by VMOs and their representative, who sits on the AMA, at the end of the day, 

with respect to waiting lists—and the AMA have been quite outspoken about the issue of waiting lists, I 

have noted, in the state—not one extra patient will go through our hospital systems if the resignations 

that have been collected so far by the VMOs’ representative are tendered to Queensland Health. How 

will that be of benefit to the waiting lists? How will that benefit Queenslanders who are wanting 

operations done through our public health system? To put it simply, it will not. 

I have made it clear now on a number of occasions that last Friday week I met with the VMOs’ 

representative, Dr Cartmill. He laid down a number of demands. He was quite stringent about them. He 

said, ‘This is make or break time.’ He laid out A, B, C, D and on each of those points I reached 

agreement with him; on each and every point I reached agreement with him. He went away from that 

meeting having received everything that he asked for. It is a strange set of negotiations, I think, when 

one actually sits down with a representative of a group of employees and agreement is reached on 

everything that they put forward—and No. 1 was, ‘Minister, I demand that you get rid of that directive.’ I 

said, ‘Yep,’ got in touch with Minister Barton, got in touch with the Premier and said, ‘We have to get rid 

of the directive. Let us put in place an interim industrial agreement,’ which was agreed to by Dr Cartmill. 

Yet these are the very points that Dr Cartmill says are unacceptable to VMOs. 

I am confused. I am confused when a representative comes to me and makes a series of 

demands and I agree with them and he then goes away and holds meetings and says that what we 

have agreed on is unacceptable. How can you possibly do business like that? It is about time that there 

was some responsibility taken here. It is about time that there was a bit of trust and honesty here. 

Because what I have also noted is that on each and every occasion that the VMOs have met, the story 

seems to change. Last night on the Gold Coast money was not the issue; last week at the other 

hospitals it was because they are not being paid enough. There has to be a consistent message here. 

The Premier and I will be meeting with the VMOs this week because it is time that we put this campaign 

to rest.


I want the record to show that last Friday week when the VMOs’ representative came to see me I 

agreed with him on each and every point that was put on the table and reached agreement with him and 

I expected that agreement to be reflected in the meetings that occurred with VMOs. It is about time Dr 

Cartmill accepted some responsibility for his negotiations and meetings with me and with Queensland 

Health. That is how you establish trust, that is how you establish good, sound relations into the future 

and that is what I am committed to. 

Triple Organ Transplant 

Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: My question is also directed to the Minister for Health. The opposition 

continues to refer to Queensland’s health system as being of a Third World standard. In contrast, my 

constituents—indeed all Queenslanders—are proud of the achievements of the Prince Charles Hospital, 

which treats patients from all over Queensland suffering from serious heart and lung diseases. Can the 

minister inform the House of any recent milestone in the achievements of this world-standard 

cardiothoracic hospital? 

Mr ROBERTSON: Can I thank the honourable member for the question and the quite insightful 

reflection on what the opposition has been saying over the last number of months. Yesterday at the 

Prince Charles Hospital I was delighted to meet Lucinda Winnem, Australia’s first ever female recipient 

of a triple organ transplant—that is, heart, lung and liver. The 12-hour operation was done by a 

combined surgical team from the Prince Charles Hospital and the Princess Alexandra Hospital. It was a 

tremendous outcome for Lucinda and her family and I wish her good health and best wishes for the 

future, particularly with her forthcoming marriage to her fiance, Damon. 

Her surgery showcases the exceptional skills and dedication of our nurses and doctors in our 

public hospital system. It is another example of Queensland’s public hospital system working at its 

absolute very best. It is also another medical first for Queensland. The surgical technique used to 

perform the triple organ transplant was developed by Dr John Dunning, the Prince Charles Hospital’s 

leading heart and lung surgeon, who had overall responsibility for the operation. Queensland Health’s 

surgeons also performed Australia’s first ever triple organ transplant in 2003. 

Mr Terry Sullivan: Young Jason Grey. 

Mr ROBERTSON: I take that interjection. These operations also identify the importance of organ 

donation and donors throughout Australia. Without this special gift from donors, transplants such as 

Lucinda’s would not have been possible. Currently there are some 1,600 Australians, including 50 

children, waiting for life-saving organ transplants. I encourage more people to think about becoming an 

organ donor and making a difference to someone else’s life. Once a decision has been made to become 

an organ donor a person should let their family know. Certainly people interested in becoming an organ 

donor should contact the Australian Organ Donor Register on 1800 777 203 or pick up a brochure at a 

Medicare office. 

What this operation demonstrates is the world-class skills that are inherent in our public hospital 

system here in Queensland. If we are to have a debate about our health system it is about time we had 

a balanced debate. Sure we have problems, and they must and will be addressed, but at the same time 

we should celebrate excellence, we should celebrate commitment and we should celebrate the 

dedication of the 65,000 people who make up Queensland Health. Unlike the opposition, we are going 

to be around to rebuild the system. We have to rebuild it with each and every one of those 65,000 

people. That is why we should be celebrating achievement, that is why we should be celebrating skills, 

that is why we should be celebrating dedication and that is why we should be celebrating outcomes like 

we see at the Prince Charles Hospital with Lucinda Winnem. 

Health Portfolio 

Dr FLEGG: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. The Premier has told 

Queenslanders that fixing the health system is his priority and that he has learnt the lessons from the 

tragedies that Queenslanders have seen. The Liberal Party called on the Premier to show that health 

was his priority by taking the Health portfolio. Given that the Premier did not take the Health portfolio but 

was quite happy to take on the Treasury portfolio, how can Queenslanders believe his assertion that 

health is his priority? 

Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for his question. As we all know, there are many 

aspects to improving the health system in Queensland. One of them does relate directly to the allocation 

of funds. I advised my cabinet colleagues yesterday that the Cabinet Budget Review Committee—which 

includes the Minister for Health, of course, the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Transport—will 

allocate next year’s surplus towards funding health. 

As Treasurer I think that I can make a very significant contribution to ensuring that health is 

funded and that the recommendations that will come from Peter Forster—and Peter Forster’s report is 

on time—and the recommendations from part 1 of the Morris report, which again will be in by 30 

September, can be appropriately funded and implemented. I think that strategically the Premier of the


day should be in a position to ensure support for the Minister for Health and I will work very closely in 

partnership with him. I have enormous regard for the job he has done in the short time that he has been 

there and I will continue to give him that support. 

I thank the member for Moggill for his question. We are in the position where Tony Morris’s inquiry 

has gone well. It is on schedule, except for the two-week extension we have granted, to give us 

recommendations in relation to systemic issues, as has Peter Forster. Individual findings, of course, will 

be dealt with in a separate report. We will work through those reports and there will be a government 

blueprint which we will then implement. We will have the appropriate mechanisms in place to implement 

those recommendations and I can advise the member for Moggill that we are well advanced in 

discussions about the implementation model. I can advise the member for Moggill that the Minister for 

Health and I will be key players in the implementation of those recommendations in partnership and in 

support of one another. 

I just say to the member for Moggill that there are many ways to get involved in reforming an area 

like health, and that is the way that we will do it. I think that is the best way to do it. I think that is the most 

effective way to do it, and that is exactly what we will do. I do accept the other tenets in the question— 

that is, that I regard health as No. 1. I think a very clear message was sent to us by the people of 

Chatsworth and Redcliffe that they want us to improve those areas in health that need improving and 

fixing. We have received that message loud and clear. I believe that was one of the reasons that the 

Liberal Party won both those seats and did well in both those seats, for which I congratulated the leader. 

We have got that message. We need to now move on. We need the reports from these inquiries so we 

can move on to fix it. That is exactly what we will do. We remain committed to what I said. 

Water Resources 

Mr BRISKEY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines. Can 

the minister please explain to the House what he is doing to ensure that every Queenslander in southeast 

Queensland has an equitable supply of our most precious resource—water—during the current 

drought conditions? 

Mr PALASZCZUK: I would like to thank the honourable member for the question and 

congratulate him on his very strong representations for his region and his perceptiveness in terms of this 

very important issue. We need to explain to the people who live in south-east Queensland that we have 

19 water storages facilities which are controlled by 10 different organisations. That would have been 

okay in the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s when we had regular rainfall. 

I will give an example for the benefit of all members of the House. In very close proximity but in 

different catchments on the Gold Coast we have the Hinze Dam, which is at just over 80 per cent 

capacity, and the Somerset Dam, which is at around 38 per cent capacity. This would not have 

happened in the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s but it is happening now. We could have had the 

ridiculous situation, unless we entered into meaningful institutional reforms, of certain councils having 

excess water while other councils have no water. Then we would have conflict arising because people in 

one street would be able to use a sprinkler and people in the next street would not be able to use a 

sprinkler or have a bath. We have to take all that into consideration. 

We need one overarching authority to manage water in south-east Queensland. That is what we 

intend to do. We will not be doing this alone. We have to work in very closely with the local government 

authorities. I had a brief conversation with the Lord Mayor of Brisbane yesterday on another issue, but I 

spoke to him about institutional arrangements and he assures me that there is goodwill towards that 

proposal. As minister I am going to work with the councils to make sure that those new arrangements 

are in place. 

We also have to make sure that those recalcitrant people who do not obey the law are taken care 

of. We are going to do that by increasing our fines not only for people who water, sprinkle and misuse 

water but also for other persons who tap into fire hydrants and take water to sell. We are going to make 

sure that that does not happen as well. To do that we are going to increase fines. I believe those fines 

will assist councils when they move to the next level of water restrictions. At the end of the day, we have 

to take the community along with the government and the councils. We intend to do that as well. 

Child Protection (Recognition of Relative Carers) Bill 

Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the Premier. By way of introduction, I thank the Premier and 

the Leader of Government Business for not requiring that last sitting we debate the Child Protection 

(Recognition of Relative Carers) Amendment Bill. We understand that this will come on for debate 

tomorrow. I thank the Premier and the Leader of Government Business, Mr Schwarten, for that. Will the 

Premier allow his backbench members and all members of his government to have a conscience vote 

when this Child Protection (Recognition of Relative Carers) Amendment Bill comes on for debate 

tomorrow evening?


Mr BEATTIE: I know how genuine the member for Nicklin is about this issue. I know that 

tomorrow night’s debate will be important. Any government needs caucus solidarity. That means that the 

caucus will take a decision and they will vote accordingly in relation to the member’s private member’s 

bill. The issues raised in it are very serious. I put on a recent COAG agenda and raised with the Prime 

Minister the need for changes in federal government legislation which we believe is the answer to this. 

We do not believe that we can resolve this at the state level. I think that is absolutely essential. 

If I recall correctly—and I am happy to check this for the member Nicklin because I know he is 

genuine about this issue—this issue was referred off to the relevant ministers to examine what 

recommendations they would make in relation to the funding of grandparents who raise their 

grandchildren. 

Mr Johnson: There is a bill before the House. 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a bill before the House. I ask the Premier to be careful with his 

comments. 

Mr BEATTIE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate any guidance. I am trying to answer the 

honourable member’s question. Let me talk about COAG because that is broader than the bill and that 

is the way through this. At that COAG discussion there was support for the appropriate funding of 

grandparents who raise their grandchildren, but it has disappeared into the ether since then. 

I am happy to say to the member that I will again write to the Prime Minister to remind him of the 

COAG decision and to try to get the various ministers to respond to supporting grandparents who take 

on that responsibility. They do a good job. Without wishing to be melodramatic, I have a lot of affinity 

with this argument. I was raised by my own grandmother. I know exactly what it means. Grandparents 

are often the ones who are literally left carrying the baby. I have seen tragic cases, for example, of drug 

affected mothers who can no longer care for their children and those children being raised by 

grandparents. 

The difficulty at a state level is that we require, if I remember correctly, those children to be taken 

into some form of care. Grandparents do not like that because they believe that they should be given the 

responsibility for care without that necessary process being followed. Once children come into state 

care we have responsibilities—for example, to ensure that they are not abused sexually or physically 

and so on. Many grandparents, quite rightly, resent that because these children are their grandchildren. 

Therefore, the only way that we can resolve this properly is to get the Commonwealth to pay the 

grandparents an appropriate allowance so that they can get on with the job of being a grandparent and 

carer. That is the only way it can be done. It does not fit in at the state level. It does not work that way. 

That is why we think there should be a variation in federal allowances. I respect the member’s position 

on this, but, of course, I expect my team to vote in accordance with the caucus decision. 

Federal Road Funding 

Mrs ATTWOOD: My question is to Minister for Transport and Main Roads. In view of the millions 

of dollars being ripped off by the Commonwealth government in petrol taxes, is the Howard government 

delivering a fair share of federal road funding to Queensland? 

Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for her question. It was very instructive reading the 

Courier-Mail this morning to see the Liberal Party bash-up, get-square squad attack their largest head of 

government at a non-federal level in Australia, Campbell Newman. I was particularly interested to note 

that the federal member for Moreton, Gary Hardgrave, accused the Queensland government of a lack of 

leadership on infrastructure. 

The lack of leadership that he is referring to must be the $35 billion out of $55 billion in 

infrastructure in the south-east Queensland plan being spent in the Transport and Main Roads portfolio. 

He must be referring to the $1.6 billion Gateway Bridge duplication with no federal contribution even 

though it is National Highway, the $149 million Houghton Highway duplication, the $220 million 

improvements to the Centenary Highway, the $600 million for Sunshine Coast roads projects including 

duplicating the Maroochy Bridge, the CAMCOS corridor including the Landsborough to Beerwah 

upgrading of the rail network, the east-west link to Caboolture, the $460 million for the inner northern 

busway, the $530 million for the northern busway, the upgrades to the Logan Motorway and the Mount 

Lindesay Highway, the rail crossing grade separations, the Coomera interchange and half the money 

that we want for the Pacific Motorway upgrade. They are the sorts of things that we are doing and have 

funded in the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan. 

We are working with Campbell Newman in relation to the north-south tunnel and the airport link 

and, in fact, putting in $16 million of the $21 million for the feasibility study. We will put our money where 

our mouth is. He is accused of badgering local members. If only the apologists on that side of the House 

would do their job as well. Why is it that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party 

are not telling the federal government to give us a fair go? Motorists pay 38.1 cents per litre in fuel tax 

and we get about 18 per cent returned to our roads in Australia. We have the worst National Highway 

system.


We are waiting for federal funding for the Ipswich Motorway—$1.1 billion. We are waiting for 

funding for the Gateway project. Nothing has been given so we have to hit motorists for higher tolls. The 

Brisbane urban corridor project and the road-rail overpass at Beaudesert Road, Acacia Ridge are 

others. I have spoken with a number of members of the National Party about the second range crossing 

in Toowoomba and I am getting good cooperation from them about it. However, the Leader of the 

Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party have not called on the federal government to do anything 

about it. 

Queensland has about one-fifth of Australia’s population. Queensland’s share of the Telstra 

proceeds would be $4.1 billion. Sure, we need to spend money on telecommunications in the bush, but 

what about roads in the bush? What about the Toowoomba range upgrade that will benefit people in the 

bush? What about that part of the ownership that the people in south-east Queensland have of Telstra? 

Those opposite ought to get on their high horse and tell the federal government to do something in 

terms of federal funding for Queensland roads as well. Under the first five years of AusLink we got 

$574 million. That is a drop in the ocean compared to what we need done on federal roads and a drop in 

the bucket compared to what we are doing on our state roads. We have spent $1.6 billion on the 

Gateway upgrade alone. Instead of pillorying Campbell Newman, it is about time that those opposite 

actually congratulated him and emulated him. 

Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Scientific Reports 

Mr SEENEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines. 

Minister, I table for the information of the House a leaked departmental document which sets out the 

‘process for the approval of scientific publications prepared by NR& M staff’. I also quote from the 

document, where it says— 

There is a duty of care for NR&M staff to ensure that any published scientific article presents science of a high quality and is not 

inconsistent with the policy direction of the NR&M. 

Why is it necessary for the minister to censor his department’s scientists to ensure that their 

publications are in accord with the government’s political policies? 

Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the honourable member for the question. I would need to have a read 

of this. However, from my interpretation of the member’s interpretation of this document relating to the 

tenet of his question, I do not agree with that. I will have a look at the document and make further 

comment to the member later on. 

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Broadwater, I recognise in the gallery the teachers, 

parents and students of Kilkivan State High School and welcome them to Parliament House. 

Industrial Relations Reforms 

Ms CROFT: My question without notice is to the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial 

Relations. The Howard government is still to tell people exactly what industrial relations reforms will be 

included in the legislation it will introduce next month. Minister, apart from reading tea-leaves, how can 

the average member of the public gain any insights into what is actually planned based on what John 

Howard and his unfortunate minister, Kevin Andrews, are saying? 

Mr BARTON: I thank the member for Broadwater for the question, because as demonstrated by 

the debate here a fortnight ago, the member actually knows from first-hand experience just what the 

implications of those proposed reforms are. We have confusion and chaos reigning supreme even 

within the federal Liberal ranks and opposition ranks. One day Kevin Andrews announces one thing. 

Soon after, John Howard backtracks or hedges on the proposal. Meanwhile, concerns about the thrust 

of the reforms keep growing, with small business now pushing for financial help and tax breaks to offset 

the costs of incorporating, according to an article in the Australian Financial Review yesterday. 

Today we see that 64 national women’s organisations have joined up to investigate the effects of 

the workplace and welfare changes on women in the work force. It is very clear that these politically 

driven reforms, to the extent that anyone can glean any real information about them, are divisive, 

unnecessary and unworkable. But even federal government ministers and MPs are confused and 

concerned. One day we have workplace relations minister, Kevin Andrews, backing a Senate inquiry. 

The next day it is all off because it is not supported by the Prime Minister, John Howard. Then we have 

Queensland Liberal Senator George Brandis who calls the proposal stupid. 

The federal government claims that the campaigns against the reforms are scare tactics, and that 

is laughable. Not only is the federal opposition concerned, but many of John Howard’s own MPs have 

expressed their doubts, along with Western Australian and South Australian Liberals and presumably 

the Queensland Nationals, although it did not back its viewpoints when it had the opportunity to vote that 

way, along with the churches. Thanks to a brilliant trade union publicity campaign, workers are 

becoming increasingly concerned and now business is coming out with its reservations.


The confusion also extends to every facet of the proposed changes. Smokos, meal breaks and 

public holidays have been ruled up for grabs by Peter Costello. They could be traded away despite the 

National Party’s leader and Deputy Prime Minister, Mark Vaile, telling the parties at the Queensland 

annual conference that they would be protected as minimum conditions of employment. Mr Andrews 

then said that ordinary working hours would be 40 per week, only to be overruled by the Prime Minister 

who said it is 38. Peter Costello also says that unfair dismissal laws should be removed completely. But 

the Prime Minister says, ‘No, only for companies with up to 100 employees.’ We then saw Kevin 

Andrews defending the move to allow workers to cash in up to two weeks annual leave each year only 

to backflip the next day and say that that is not on the cards. These types of inconsistencies and 

turnabouts have been repeated on a range of issues, including long service leave, minimum pay and 

uncertainty over awards. 

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Darling Downs, when I welcomed the students from 

the Kilkivan State High School I omitted to mention that they come from the electorate of the Deputy 

Leader of the Opposition. I apologise for that, Mr Seeney. 

First Responders, Rural and Remote Communities 

Mr HOPPER: My question is to the Minister for Emergency Services. Will the minister allow first 

responders in rural and remote communities to become nominated ambulance drivers, or does he think 

that it is acceptable for an injured person to wait 22 hours before arriving at the treating hospital, such as 

the situation that recently occurred at Greenvale? 

Mr PURCELL: I thank the member for the question. Twenty-two hours for anybody to get 

anywhere is unacceptable for any service. First responders will get there as soon as they possibly can. I 

do not know all of the information about the Greenvale matter, and I will endeavour to get that 

information for the member as quickly as I possibly can. First response ambulance officers, given the 

opportunity to get there, get there in a timely manner. With regard to first responders, I do know that they 

have to be trained to drive the ambulances correctly. We must make sure that they can do that safely. 

We are training numerous people to be able to do that, and I will get back to the member with that 

information. 

Motorcycle Accidents 

Ms MALE: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. 

Minister, the number of motorbike accidents on our roads is on the rise. Could the minister advise the 

House how police are working with the community to help reduce the number of accidents? 

Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for Glass House for the question. I know that she is very 

concerned about road safety issues in her electorate and for all Queenslanders. Sadly, last weekend 

was the blackest weekend on Queensland’s roads since 2002. In fact, from Friday to Monday morning, 

12 people died on Queensland roads as a result of motor vehicle accidents. While we have heard a lot 

about that dreadful accident that happened in Townsville over the weekend, every single one of those 

accidents is certainly a tragedy that in most cases could have been avoided. 

I thank the member for bringing to the House’s attention the issue of motorcycle accidents, 

because in fact three people died in motorcycle accidents on Friday alone. Those accidents occurred at 

Mount Nebo, Advancetown and Maroochydore. It turns out that, in terms of motorbike accidents, 2005 is 

shaping up to be Queensland’s worse year. So far this year, 41 motorcyclists have been killed on our 

roads. This compares to the whole of 2004 where there were a total of 48 motorcyclists killed in 

Queensland. Police advise that the major contributing factors associated with fatal motorbike crashes to 

date this year are as follows: inattention was the cause of 37.5 per cent of the cases, speed in 17.5 per 

cent of accidents, alcohol and drugs were a factor in 12.5 per cent of crashes, 7.5 per cent of crashes 

involved fatigue, another 7.1 per cent involved an illegal manoeuvre, and 12.5 per cent involved 

inexperience, with over 5.4 per cent including wet roads as a major contributing factor. As members can 

see, many of these accidents are preventable. But I just want to give the House a few more statistics 

and look at how motorbike registrations have increased in Queensland. 

In fact, they have risen from 74,000 five years ago to 99,000 today. They, of course, remain 

overrepresented in terms of road toll statistics. For example, in 1998 motorcycle fatalities accounted for 

nine per cent of the Queensland road toll. In 2000, they accounted for 10.4 per cent of fatalities. This 

year, they have already contributed to 20.8 per cent of our fatalities. Given that motorcycles represent 

three per cent of Queensland’s registered vehicles, they are certainly overrepresented in terms of 

fatalities. 

So what are the police and the Queensland government doing about it? We acknowledge that we 

have a role to play in educating the community about road safety and particularly about motorcycle 

safety. The Queensland police recently had a very successful day at Brookside Shopping Centre. It was 

a day called Talk to the Blue where they got motorcyclists out there to talk to them about these issues. I 

congratulate the Police on this very important initiative.


Queensland Ambulance Service 

Mrs PRATT: My question is to the Premier. Acknowledging that this is not his portfolio, but in his 

position as Premier of this government will he guarantee the wives and partners of ambulance 

personnel who are wanting to become whistleblowers due to the stress understaffing has placed on 

their families that anyone employed within the Ambulance Service will not be penalised through job loss, 

demotion or lack of promotion for the actions of their concerned partners? 

Mr BEATTIE: I am sensitive to ensure that people who have legitimate complaints within the 

public sector have an opportunity to air them. In the Health area, for example, one of the 

recommendations I am hopeful that will come forward from both Peter Forster and Tony Morris is better 

ways of dealing with complaints from people within Health, including whistleblowers. There is always a 

fine line between people who are genuine and people who are mischievous. We all know that. Not every 

whistleblower or person who claims to be a whistleblower is fair dinkum. There are people with political 

agendas, there are people with genuine axes to grind, there are personality conflicts—there are all sorts 

of things. That is just life. Each one of the departments is a microcosm, if you like, of life generally. In 

terms of people who are fair dinkum whistleblowers, the answer is that as a government we support 

them, we support the whistleblowers legislation and we are supporting in both the health inquiries a 

better mechanism to deal with them. 

In terms of the particular cases that the member referred to, I understand the minister has been 

across to talk to her to try to get copies of the letters with the names crossed out. I do not know whether 

the member knows this, but any member on this side could have moved this morning that she table the 

letters she had in her hand. Under the standing orders, the member would have had to have done that. 

We did not do that, frankly, out of courtesy to the people who had written to the member who we regard, 

until we know otherwise—and I do not know why we would end up with an ‘otherwise’—as genuine. We 

did not seek to either embarrass the member or embarrass them. 

If the member is asking me ‘Are genuine whistleblowers protected?’, the answer is yes. In terms 

of some of the matters that the member has raised locally—and she is talking about current staffing 

issues—I have talked to the minister about this because I heard what the member said this morning in 

her two-minute speech and about the letters. He says that there are some issues due to staff sicknesses 

and annual leave at the Kingaroy Ambulance Station. Indeed, there is one officer in charge who has 

been on extended sick leave. One paramedic has recently accepted medical retirement. There is 

another paramedic who is on sick leave as well whilst awaiting processes at WorkCover. 

So there are a number of people who are ill at the station at the moment, which is putting 

pressure on the station. The minister has indicated to me that he will follow these matters up and do the 

best he possibly can to support the employees and work through these issues with the member. I have 

a longwinded set of facts here and all sorts of other things with which we can make ourselves as a 

government look terrific. I am not going to do that. What I am simply going to say to the member is that 

there are some issues due to sick leave at the station she referred to. If the people whose names she 

read out are the partners of those officers, then I urge the member to provide copies of the letters, 

without referring to who they are, to the minister and let us see if we can give them the support they are 

entitled to. We will support them. We are not interested in trying to victimise or punish anybody. We 

actually want to ensure that the people who are providing lifesaving services are supported and that is 

what the minister will do. 

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Capalaba, can I on behalf of every member of this 

House welcome into the gallery the veterans and friends from the Gaythorne RSL Club in the electorate 

of Ferny Grove. They are here today as part of Seniors Week. Welcome to you all. 

Household Water and Energy Efficiency 

Mr CHOI: My question without notice this morning is to the Minister for Environment, Local 

Government, Planning and Women. In light of the worsening drought in south-east Queensland and the 

government’s commitment to take the lead on this issue, can the minister advise the House what is 

being done to encourage household water and energy efficiency? 

Ms BOYLE: I thank the member for Capalaba for the question. He is a member who has taken a 

particular interest in sustainability and particularly water issues, I might say. On the topic of water, we 

know that pretty much everyone in south-east Queensland and in many other spots around the state 

knows that water and energy need to be conserved. 

I am sure that many members of the House have noticed that the Beattie government has 

announced yet another plank in its sustainability agenda with the requirement from 1 March next year 

that all new homes in Queensland will have greenhouse efficient hot-water systems, energy efficient 

lighting, AAA rated shower roses, dual-flush toilets and water pressure limiting devices. There are those 

who want to minimise the contribution that householders can make house by house around Queensland 

and they do so in error. The water savings really do add up. Using a AAA rated shower head saves

2564 Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee 23 Aug 2005 

15,000 litres of water a year compared to a standard shower head in one house. A dual-flush toilet 

saves 33,000 litres a year compared to a single-flush toilet. 

We know that many new homes already use AAA rated shower heads and dual-flush toilets, but 

the mandate will capture all new homes. For people in areas with high water pressure, water pressure 

limiting devices will save 8,600 litres a year per home. The savings continue to stack up when rainwater 

tanks are considered. Using a rainwater tank for outside purposes, such as gardening or washing the 

car, saves 63,000 litres a year per home. 

These are real savings. There is much discussion around the state of Queensland on the supply 

side of water, but really we have to think, too, of what we can do on the demand side. If we are to use 

rainwater tanks, if we are to take up these simple measures not only through the mandating of them in 

new housing but also voluntarily through refurbishments in all housing, then we can make a very 

significant difference. Some councils have already led the way. I offer congratulations particularly to the 

Gold Coast, Brisbane and Toowoomba councils which have not only asked for these measures to be 

mandated; they are also promoting them to householders already and they are providing incentives for 

refurbishments of existing homes. 

The energy savings are also considerable. Using a solar or electric heat pump hot-water system 

will reduce energy use by about 30 per cent and save householders about $200 a year on their energy 

bills. After 12 years savings from all new houses will be the equivalent to a small coal-fired power 

station. 

Mr Mickel interjected. 

Ms BOYLE: I can hear the minister for energy cheering in the background. 

Bundaberg, Mental Health Services 

Mr MESSENGER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to 

the arbitrary closure of the Bundaberg mental health in-patient facility where once again Bundaberg and 

Burnett residents’ lives are being placed at risk. Who made the decision to play Russian roulette with my 

constituents’ lives? Will the minister now advise if any community consultation took place regarding this 

decision, which forces families to travel hundreds of kilometres each week to visit their loved ones? 

Mr ROBERTSON: I reject the premise advanced by the member for Bundaberg. The Bundaberg 

Integrated Mental Health Service has not been able to provide in-patient service for involuntary 

inpatients from Wednesday, 17 August— 

Mr SPEAKER: Sorry, minister, he is the member for Burnett. 

Mr ROBERTSON: Sorry. This has been brought about by the resignation of a principal house 

officer on 3 August, which has caused a staffing issue. I can assure the member that recruitment of a 

suitably qualified medical officer is continuing as a matter of urgency. But in the meantime I am informed 

that four involuntary in-patients have been transported to the Sunshine Coast integrated mental health 

service to ensure that patients in the member’s area receive continuing care. That is obviously a 

responsible thing to do. 

I am informed that the level of services to all community based patients has been reviewed and 

enhanced if clinically required, and discussions have commenced with local general practitioners to help 

support community based care in both the short and the long term. It is unfortunate in terms of what has 

happened with respect to mental health services in Bundaberg. We are committed to the continuation of 

those services. That is why we are pulling out all stops to ensure that a new appointment can occur in 

the shortest possible time. That is why I reject the premise advanced by the member for Burnett. These 

matters are outside our control. But, importantly, the hospital administration in Bundaberg has moved 

quickly to ensure that patients requiring ongoing treatment can continue to receive it in the short term. 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is the end of question time. 

MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE 

Matter of Privilege 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Honourable members, on 10 August 2005 the member for 

Warrego wrote to the Speaker alleging that the Speaker, in his former capacity as the Minister for State 

Development and Innovation, deliberately misled Estimates Committee B by omitting to supply details of 

the Financial Innovation Growth Program in answers to questions on notice relating to grants funding 

and programs. The Speaker delegated decision making in this matter to me. 

A complaint for deliberately misleading the House or a committee of the House must provide 

some basis for demonstrating not only that an omission has been made but also that the omission is

23 Aug 2005 Matters of Public Interest 2565 

misleading and that the intention was to mislead. I have considered the material available and find that it 

discloses no basis to find a prima facie contempt of deliberately misleading the House and I intend to 

take no further action in respect of the matter. 

Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (11.31 am): I move— 

That the matter be referred to the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. 

The minister clearly misled the estimates committee under standing order 266(2) of this 

parliament. The minister was asked to provide— 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You cannot debate the motion. I have to put the question. 

Mr HOBBS: Are you sure I cannot? 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is the advice from the Clerk. I am happy to listen to good advice, 

and I have got that from the Clerk. 

Question put; and the House divided— 

AYES, 25—Copeland, E Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, 

Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, E Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey. Tellers: Hopper, Malone 

NOES, 59—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, N Cunningham, English, 

Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McNamara, Mickel, 

Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N 

Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wellington, Wells, 

Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Nolan 

Resolved in the negative. 

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST 


Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.38 am): I intend to 

confine my comments today generally to the issue of the fallout from the Redcliffe and Chatsworth byelections. 

Before moving into that area, I would like to correct something that the Attorney-General said 

in this place this morning. The Attorney-General rose to make her first ministerial statement and gave an 

indication that, as soon as she became aware of the problems of prying eyes and spying devices which 

have been illicitly used, she indicated to her department that legislation should be put in place and that 

she was going to move to correct this. I refer the Attorney-General and the parliament to a comment by 

Rod Welford in a major story in the Sunday Mail on 4 July 2004, some 13 months ago. The article 

states— 

‘We need new laws to catch up with technology that is creating these types of offences,’ Mr Welford said. He hoped to see new 

laws regarding secret spying on private activities and communications in the workplace introduced this year. 

We did not see legislation introduced last year. I ask the Attorney-General to go back and see 

what is happening in her department because the former Attorney-General gave a commitment to bring 

legislation to the parliament on those matters last year. 

Mrs LAVARCH: I rise to a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is referring to an article in 

relation to workplace surveillance. I was talking about private places. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! That is not a point of order. 

Mr SPRINGBORG: Is it not interesting that this morning in this place, in the media yesterday and 

every time he could since last Saturday’s by-elections we had a confession from the Premier that he has 

heard the message, that he is going to listen, that he is going to act and that he is going to do all sorts of 

things, but there has been nary a word from the Premier in state parliament today on how he is going to 

do it. He came into this place today and all he did was say, ‘We’re not going to extend the commission of 

inquiry in Queensland. It is still going to have to report on the fundamental issues of what is wrong with 

Queensland Health by 30 September this year. But if it is a matter of natural justice it may be able to 

have another 14 days to 14 October.’ 

Is it not at least passing strange that when it comes to concern about the racing industry in 

Queensland—the inquiry into which was supposed to conclude its activities in about six weeks—the 

state government goes about the business of extending that inquiry’s terms of reference and time frame 

by some five to six months? Yet when it comes to the most important and crucial matter for 

Queenslanders—their health—Tony Morris is supposed to forensically analyse every hospital in 

Queensland and all of the problems about Queensland Health that are coming to him in the space of 

five months. This goes to show that actions speak louder than words when it comes to this 

government’s lack of concern about, and the priorities given to, the issues that are very important to 

Queenslanders.

2566 Matters of Public Interest 23 Aug 2005 

When it comes to the racing industry we had a seven-month inquiry costing millions of dollars, but 

when it comes to the issue of Queensland Health—something which is more important to all 

Queenslanders—we have a five-month inquiry. We know that there are still problems in Hervey Bay. 

There are issues in Mount Isa that have to be addressed. There are problems on the Gold Coast. There 

are a whole range of people who need to tell their story. We hear that at some time in the not-too-distant 

future we are going to see both former ministers for health in the dock giving evidence before the Morris 

royal commission, but are we going to hear from the former director-general, Dr Stable? No doubt he 

would have a very interesting story to tell as well. 

It is as simple as this, and make no mistake about it: this decision to truncate and pressure Tony 

Morris into concluding this inquiry by the end of September is about reducing the pain on the 

government; it is not about reducing the pain on patients in Queensland. The political pain was 

exemplified by the good voters of Redcliffe and Chatsworth on the weekend. They were the lightning rod 

that delivered a very strong message to this state government that it needed to pull its socks up. They 

were sick of the promises, they were sick of the Premier’s crocodile tears and they were sick of the 

government admitting that it caused a problem which it says it is going to fix but nothing ever changes. 

They wanted something to change and they said to the government on the weekend that they would 

change something for the government, and certainly in the case of those two members of parliament 

they did. 

I congratulate Michael Caltabiano and Terry Rogers on being successful on the weekend—two 

well-run campaigns and two very good candidates who will make an outstanding contribution to this 

parliament. It is as simple as this: if those swings are replicated across Queensland at the next general 

election, it is bye-bye to about 25 members of parliament who sit on the other side. Bye-bye to the 

member for Whitsunday. Bye-bye to the member for Broadwater. Chris Cummins is already saying that 

he does not know if he is going to go bye-byes but he could go bye-byes, and if it is going to be byebyes 

he will be the first one to find out about it. We have had the member for Burleigh saying that she 

was worried about it. 

Mr Reeves interjected. 

Mr SPRINGBORG: It is even bye-bye to the member for Mansfield. We hear a lot of cockiness 

from the members opposite who come into this place and see themselves as completely invincible and 

completely invulnerable. As those particular voters in Redcliffe and Chatsworth said on the weekend, 

‘You are not invincible.’ They said to the government, ‘You are not invulnerable.’ What we have had 

seen today from this government is more promises about fixing the problems of Queensland Health. 

I ask members to cast their minds back to what happened in Queensland when Peter Beattie 

became health minister in 1995. He put out a press release and said that he was going listening. He put 

on the ears and he was going listening across Queensland. He was going to every region to listen. He 

said in his press release at the time that, as part of his preliminary listening process, he had already 

identified that a lot of staff were not happy about the growth in bureaucracy in Queensland Health and 

about how resources were being malapportioned and he was going to fix it. Not only that; he put out five 

listening books. That is what happened as a result of 100 days of listening. They are not picture books, 

though they may as well have been. We have listening book No. 1—a vision for the next five years. We 

have listening book No. 2—maximising health in Queensland. We have listening book No. 3—a focus 

on people. We have listening book No. 4—reforming the health system in Queensland. This is the now 

Premier’s blueprint for listening. In 1995 we had a consultation paper. That is what you produce after 

you have listened. You strap on the big ears and you run out there and you listen, listen, listen. It is onetenth 

of a century later and we have been listening all over the place. We have more listening and more 

promises and nothing is really happening. 

Let us look at listening book No. 3—a focus on people; cutting red tape and freeing up our 

greatest resources. Who has been warning this government about problems with bureaucracy and 

administration in Queensland Health over the years? Our side of politics. The Nationals have been 

warning the government about it. We had Commissioner Morris identify about three administrators for 

each clinical person in the health system in Queensland, but that quietly snuck by the Premier. He had 

no idea about that. As part of his listening and his five listening books, he was not able to do any of 

those sorts of things. Really interesting stuff! Once again, we have a sense of deja vu. In listening book 

No. 1 on page 2 he says this— 

I know when I started I said I would spend 100 days consulting before I made any major decisions but in some instances I could 

not wait. Along the way some of the needs became so obvious and pressing that I had to get on with it and fix them there and 

then. 

That is what the Premier said. That is what he did with his listening books. Some of those issues 

that he referred to, such as oncology services in Townsville, still have problems today. What did he do 

with these listening books when he became Premier, some seven years ago in Queensland? Throw 

them in the bin? Ignore them? All of the issues were exposed here. This was nothing more than a public 

relations farce. It is the same sort of thing that we have seen with his treatment of the Morris royal 

commission in Queensland and the outcomes from the Morris royal commission in Queensland.


This is a government that is not about serious action. This is a government that only talks about 

listening and when it comes to the basics nothing ever changes. The people of Redcliffe and Chatsworth 

said on the weekend that they want things to change. They are sick and tired of this rambling rubbish 

from a person who wobbles around Queensland and says that he is going to fix all of these things. They 

have seen it before. Those people are not going to take any notice. 

Home and Community Care Awareness Week; Seniors Week 

Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (11.49 am): Mr Speaker— 

Mr Seeney: How was the preselection? 

Mrs MILLER: Very well, thank you. 

Mr Seeney: How are the numbers? 

Mrs MILLER: Very good. Mr Speaker, this week marks two important awareness events for 

celebrations and promotion for Home and Community Care Awareness Week and also Seniors Week. 

The Home and Community Care Awareness Week—or HACC Awareness Week, as it is known— 

highlights the crucial work that our HACC service providers carry out on a daily basis. 

The Home and Community Care—HACC—program is a joint Australian state and territory 

government initiative that operates under the Home and Community Care Act 1985 and the Home and 

Community Care Amending Agreement 1999. The primary purpose of the Home and Community Care 

program is to purchase basic support and maintenance services to support older, frail and younger 

people with moderate, severe or profound disabilities and their carers. 

The program also recognises that within the overall HACC target population there are several 

special needs groups that find it more difficult than most to access services. These groups include 

people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 

people, people living with dementia, financially disadvantaged people, and people living in remote and 

isolated areas. Most importantly, these services are designed to support HACC eligible clients to remain 

in their own homes for as long as possible and avoid premature or inappropriate admission to residential 

care. The program subsidises, rather than necessarily meeting, the full cost of these services. 

Queensland Health manages the Queensland HACC program. It receives 64.4 per cent of the 

funding from the Commonwealth, and the Queensland government contributes 35.36 per cent of 

funding. The program subsidises the cost of a broad range of direct services delivered in communities 

across the state, all of which continue to experience a high and growing level of demand. In addition, the 

program supports a range of indirect projects and initiatives to support eligible people in the community. 

The vast range of direct, home and community care services include domestic assistance, social 

support, personal care, home nursing care, meals, centre based day care, respite care, transport, allied 

health care, home maintenance, home modification, counselling and support, and information and 

advocacy. Over 800 separate providers deliver services across the state and include large providers 

such as Blue Care and Ozcare. Other providers are very small and are often volunteer based services 

such as Meals on Wheels. I would particularly like to recognise my local Meals on Wheels service, 

which is the Woogaroo service based at Redbank. 

The friendships formed through the HACC service providers are sometimes the only contact our 

older generation has with the community. The service providers often take on many additional roles in 

providing support to those residing alone or caring for their partner. A friendly face and a kind word or 

two from Meals on Wheels volunteers can make all the difference in a person’s life. The tireless and 

crucial services that Home and Community Care providers and volunteers undertake on a daily basis 

deserve the highest level of praise for their dedication and passion in helping people. These wonderful 

people are to be congratulated. I urge all members of the House to take the time in Home and 

Community Care Awareness Week to visit, meet and become involved with their local HACC providers 

and volunteers. 

As part of Seniors Week, aged care is highlighted as integral in our seniors’ quality of life and 

health. While the vast events around the state for Seniors Week are being celebrated, many of our 

cherished seniors are unwell and in care. Dedicated staff, carers and volunteers, including HACC 

providers, are sometimes the only link that many seniors have to the community, particularly when they 

are unwell. For example, these volunteers provide random acts of kindness at day respite centres that 

our older generation attend on a daily basis for interaction with other people in similar situations. I have 

one of these centres at the Redbank Day Respite Centre, and quite often I have morning tea with the 

senior citizens. 

Many of the organised events for this week are an opportunity for our seniors to socialise, 

celebrate and feel appreciated for their contributions, volunteering, caring, wisdom, knowledge and love 

that they provide to their families, friends and others. Today I will be having lunch with the National 

Seniors of Redbank and Goodna at the Wolston Park Golf Club, and I hope to celebrate with them our 

Seniors Week. Their special week is very important in our local community, and it is important right


across Queensland. I encourage all people to join in, have some fun, laughter and enjoyment with our 

seniors. 

I hope that our seniors will obviously have good health and improve in their health outcomes. As a 

person who is only three years away from being a senior, I hope that, along with my colleagues, we will 

have a long and healthy retirement hopefully free of ailments, disease and disability. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! Before calling the member for Algester, I say that 

I am already a senior so I can absolutely understand what you are saying. The member for Algester. 

International Conference on Engaging Communities 

Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (11.54 am): Last week I was pleased to speak at the 

Queensland government and United Nations first International Conference on Engaging Communities at 

the Brisbane convention centre. I would like to begin by congratulating the organisers of this event, 

particularly the Department of Communities and the organising committee. It was a huge success. It 

was an amazing conference with more than 1,800 delegates from all over the world including a very 

sizable contingent from Asia, India, Sri Lanka and other such countries. It was great to see so many 

people coming to this first international event. 

What struck me was that many people from all over the world were discussing ways in which 

citizens can be more actively involved in democracy and in decision making, but many millions of people 

from those countries do not even have a decent roof over their head. They do not even have decent 

access to water or food. They do not have jobs and incomes. There were lots of differing needs 

discussed because in Queensland we have a Department of Communities and we have a Community 

Engagement Division. We have high-level processes for consultation and engagement that are the envy 

of many overseas people. It is very hard to reconcile where we are at with our processes and where 

other countries are at, with many of them being so oppressed. In Zimbabwae and other countries, for 

instance, the people do not have a say in government at all. That government uses violence to stop 

people from voting. The differences are very stark. But it is a great credit to the Queensland government 

and the Department of Communities that we have very solid processes in place. We have one of the 

most advanced and stable democracies in the entire world. 

As the Premier has outlined in this parliament before, we have had over 31,000 people attend our 

community cabinet meetings. That is a brilliant concept. The response by participants at the community 

engagement conference to this concept was amazing. They could not believe that leaders of the 

government, including the Premier, would face the music in the way that they do every four to six weeks 

in a public forum of that nature. Where people from other countries do not even get to say at all—where 

they are violently oppressed from having a say—they found these processes so amazing and 

something they would probably never dream of in their own lifetime. 

They were in awe of our regional forums and all those sorts of activities that we have here such 

as the e-democracy processes. Twenty-two thousand people have signed e-petitions. Eight thousand 

people attended the first regional parliamentary sitting in Townsville in September 2000, and we are all 

very confident that a similar number of people will attend the upcoming Rockhampton parliamentary 

sitting. Again that is an opportunity for people in regional areas in Queensland to meet and greet 

members, to have a very direct say and to have an opportunity to talk with the Premier, the ministers 

and other members of the government. Importantly, our strategies ensure that all people from all walks 

of life have an opportunity to have their say, including people who come from marginalised and 

disadvantaged backgrounds. 

Today Queenslanders have unprecedented access to their government and ministers. It was 

just amazing to see the differences in governments. In fact, I felt very proud of what we are achieving 

here. I know there are always problems. No government ever reaches out in the way that all people 

would like, and no government makes decisions that all people would like because people differ in their 

own views, but we certainly have processes for consultation and processes for engagement that are the 

envy of the world. 

One of the greatest challenges though, and what I spoke about, was the need for people to 

actually participate actively in political processes including political parties. In Australia and throughout 

the world, party membership has declined. For instance, in the sixties it stood at about four per cent of 

the population in Australia. This has declined to two per cent. That is the common trend across OECD 

countries. The greatest challenge is getting young people involved. A survey of young people in 1987 

found that those aged 18 to 24 said that they had not much or no interest in politics. In 2000 that figure 

had risen to more than 50 per cent. I look forward to the findings of the parliamentary inquiry that we are 

having into how we can all better engage with young people. These findings will be very important 

because it is certainly young people’s voices we need to hear more of, and it is young people’s voices 

that need to be included in the decision making. We certainly have a lot of work to do in that regard.


Timber Industry 

Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (11.59 am): It is clear that Queenslanders are becoming fed up with 

the Premier’s political spin. Queenslanders do not want lies; they want substance and action. I refer to 

the Premier’s Queensland Greats. He recognised Dr Aila Keto as a Queensland Great due to her 

contribution to the closure of the timber industry and the locking up of vast areas of land which included 

1.25 million hectares in the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement and, more recently, her 

involvement in locking up a further one million hectares of the western hardwood region. 

Significant areas were locked up, without any credible scientific basis, on the recommendations of 

Dr Keto. In fact, the federal government would not recognise the South-East Queensland Regional 

Forest Agreement and funding was withheld due to the unethical method of assessment. Now it is 

proposed that a further one million hectares of western hardwood be locked up. This includes cypress 

pine areas, even though the cypress pine review has not yet commenced. In the past there has been a 

cypress pine review which found that that area has been quite significant and very sustainable. 

My statement today is not a reflection against Dr Keto, who is a committed conservationist, but 

against the Premier, who chose to downgrade the Queensland Greats by claiming false environmental 

credits. I recently visited Tasmania and inspected some of their forest practices. They have proved 

beyond doubt that clear felling in some old growth silviculture is generally the best option. ‘Clear fell’ is 

defined as ‘the removal of all trees on a harvesting coupe in a single operation’. I have here pictures that 

show what actually happens when a coupe is harvested. The picture at the bottom shows the same view 

14 years later—an absolutely magnificent stand. There is no doubt that the first picture looks 

devastating, but the reality is that it does come back. We have very much a renewable resource in our 

timber industry. 

Mr Shine: Who wrote this? 

Mr HOBBS: This is from the Tasmanian government. 

Mr Shine: No, your speech. 

Mr HOBBS: The member is hearing it direct—straight from me. This can also apply to other, 

faster growing forests. Work was done on other methods, such as aggregation, retention and single tree 

selection, as well as dispersed retention. The forest industry is worth about $1.1 billion to Tasmania’s 

economy. It employs 8,300 Tasmanians directly and many more in support industries. 

The Queensland government does not rate the forest industry as a significant industry. I do not 

know why it does not rate it as a significant industry, because it is. It seems that all this government 

wants to do is keep closing it down. We saw what happened with the south-east Queensland RFA and 

we are seeing it again in relation to the western hardwoods. Let us look at the western hardwoods. This 

review has recommended that 25 per cent of wood be taken away from millers and a million hectares be 

locked up. When the government was asked at one stage where this one million hectares would be, it 

said that the conservationists had not told it yet. The Beattie government is only interested in trying to 

get green votes and to hell with everyone else. This is a further reason to question the Queensland 

Greats award given for destroying our forest industry. 

The minister recently announced that Queensland Forestry had received world accreditation for 

sustainable management. One wonders why on earth we suddenly have to protect it even more. I do not 

doubt that we can always do a bit more to improve our management of anything, but this has received 

accreditation, and so it should. Our forests have been managed well over many years. But locking them 

up will not necessarily be best for the environment, the forest, the forest workers or even the 

Queensland economy. Australia is now a net importer of wood, yet we have this renewable resource 

that keeps on growing all the time. It has been well managed and we can continue to do that. Why on 

earth would we want to bring in timber from unsustainable forests overseas? Timber is coming in from 

Indonesia, South America, as well as other places. What we are seeing here is extraordinary. We are 

locking up our forests and we are dragging in timber from other areas. 

Time expired. 

Death of Mr RJ Briskey AM 

Mr BRISKEY (Cleveland—ALP) (12.04 pm): My father, Bob Briskey, passed away on 18 July. He 

was born on 25 December 1929 at Roma, the son of William Briskey and Elsie, nee Logan. He had eight 

siblings, three older and five younger, and he often joked that being born on Christmas Day was not 

much good as all his brothers and sisters received both a birthday and a Christmas present and he 

received only one present a year. Growing up as one of nine children during the Great Depression and 

the Second World War was very difficult and, to make matters worse, his mother died when he was only 

17. 

Like many of his era, Bob finished school at a young age. As a youth, Bob took up boxing and 

played League for the Cities Football Club in Roma. Bob also played cornet in the Roma Brass Band 

and often said that his grandchildren’s musical abilities were as a result of his good genes. He worked


for a short time in the local garage before becoming a telegram boy. In 1950 he went to Brisbane and 

attended the Postmaster-General’s linesman training school. He became a member of the Tallebudgera 

Surf Lifesaving Club and would travel to the coast on the weekends. 

It was in 1951 on one of these trips to the coast that he met Beverley Phillips, the only daughter of 

Jim and Muriel. Upon completion of his training, Bob returned to Roma and the romance blossomed. 

Bob married the love of his life on 8 August 1953. Bob and Bev would have been married for 52 years 

on 8 August which is an amazing and wonderful achievement. 

After their marriage Bob and Bev went to Gayndah for a short time where Bob was employed as a 

linesman before returning to live in Roma. In 1954 a daughter, Karen, was born and I was born in 1955, 

50 years ago tomorrow. In 1957 Bob built their first home in Wyndam Street, Roma. Bob sought 

promotion within the PMG and studied to become qualified as a technical officer which meant a transfer 

to Brisbane. The family rented a property in Kangaroo Point while their new home was built in Gloriana 

Street, Morningside. 

In 1965, soon after their third child, Anne-Maree, was born, Bob was sent to New Guinea where 

he spent nine weeks, mostly in rugged, mountainous regions. Not long after, he took a job as an 

instructor at the linesman training school at Chermside. After some years at the school he applied for 

and was promoted to another position within the PMG. It was in this new position that he came to the 

attention of Frank Waters, the state secretary of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union of Australia, 

later to become the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union, APTU. Frank was impressed with 

this young man and asked him to come into the union office and see if he liked the job. 

In November 1972 Bob was elected onto the state executive of the union and, upon Frank 

Waters’s retirement, was appointed as acting state secretary of the union. On 20 February 1973 he was 

appointed as state secretary and remained in that position until he retired in 1987. He was also elected 

as assistant general secretary from 1975 to 1984 and as general president from 1985 to 1987. These 

latter positions meant that he spent a lot of time in Melbourne. The then general secretary, George 

Slater, asked Bob to move to Melbourne and take over as general secretary; however, this was not to be 

because Bev did not want to leave her grandchildren. After his retirement from the union Bob worked for 

Australia Post, when required, as chairman, board of reference. 

In 1968 Bob had opened savings accounts for each member of the family in a little-known credit 

union called the Queensland Postal Cooperative. This small credit union was later to become Credit 

Union Australia, which is now one of Australia’s largest credit unions. Bob became a director of Credit 

Union Australia in 1982 and in 1987 became chairman of the board until his retirement in 2001. Bob was 

a key figure in Credit Union Australia’s growth and development over the years. He was instrumental in 

securing the merger with the CPS Credit Society in 1997 which at the time was the largest merger to 

have been undertaken in Australian credit union history. In recognition of Bob’s work with the union 

movement he was awarded an Order of Australia Medal on 26 January 1989. 

Bob was diagnosed with cancer in December 2003, and the last few months were difficult as it 

became much harder for him to breathe. During this period there was not a lot that he could do except to 

watch sport on TV—especially Rugby League—play cards and occasionally go out. Without a doubt, 

Bob’s favourite place to visit was the Treasury Casino, where he could play the pokies and spend his 

children’s inheritance. 

On Monday, 18 July 2005, Bob, while playing a machine, collapsed and, after attempts were 

made to revive him, died. He is survived by his wife, Bev, three children and seven grandchildren. A 

large number of mourners attended his funeral at Star of the Sea Catholic Church in Cleveland on 25 

July 2005. I take this opportunity to thank all honourable members who came along to that funeral and 

also all honourable members who have said so many wonderful things to me and my family on the 

passing of my father. 

Maryborough Base Hospital 

Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (12.09 pm): History helps retain pride in our 

achievements and Maryborough Base Hospital has a proud history. Maryborough Base Hospital was 

opened by Sir Samuel Griffith, the then Premier of Queensland, in April 1885. Under the act of 1925 the 

government took over responsibility for the hospital and the first Maryborough hospital board was 

appointed. 

There have been many hardworking people through the years who have dedicated their lives to 

patient care at this fine establishment. Two Maryborough Base Hospital nurses, nurses Bauer and 

Wiles, are hailed as saving the nation from the plague and gave their lives in the course of duty. It is no 

wonder that the citizens of Maryborough fiercely defend what has come at such a great price. 

Subsequent to the building of Hervey Bay’s new hospital, the Beattie government funded a 

$17 million redevelopment of Maryborough’s mental health unit and the central block. Most people 

would remember the distress and anger shown by Maryborough residents during that time as they saw 

services being surreptitiously eroded. The public rally and the meeting in the city hall was a genuine


outpouring of disgust at the machinations of government without thought to local issues. It was no renta-crowd. 

It was a situation that demanded action from the highest level. 

At this time the Beattie government assured the public of Maryborough that the opening of 

Hervey Bay Hospital would not cause a downgrade of services at Maryborough. Mr Beattie gave his 

personal guarantee that the hospital would maintain maternity services, intensive care services, a 

private ward, 24-hour operating theatre services, paediatric services and acute medicine. 

In 2005, just seven years later, every one of those promises has been broken. From 2002 the 

health district took the approach that, in order to maintain two hospitals under one district budget, it 

would be necessary to rationalise services. Though this was contrary to the spirit of the promises that 

were made, everyone could see that the government was continuing to erode services to Maryborough 

through stealth and that this was the only way to move forward without the support the government had 

promised. 

The need for the two hospitals not to duplicate services but to complement each other was 

accepted and understood by both the staff and the public. Unfortunately, from 2002 until around April 

2005 we have seen in Maryborough the loss of birthing services, the 24-hour operating theatre close, 

the ICU downgraded to a high-dependency unit and the private ward closed. From Monday to Friday the 

operating theatre, far from being open 24 hours, has become an elective surgery site only. However, the 

public still had access to accident and emergency services at level 1, antenatal care, paediatrics and 

acute medicine. 

I know that most members of this House would be acutely aware of the fallout from the 

Bundaberg Hospital situation. But what they may not be aware of is that Maryborough Base Hospital 

has probably suffered more than any other hospital across the state as a result. In the three months 

since the crisis in Bundaberg the Maryborough Hospital has been reduced to a primary care facility. The 

accident and emergency department is now operating at a primary level. There has been a reduction in 

the operating theatre from level 2 to primary level. There is no longer a high-dependency unit. There are 

no acute medical admissions and no acute paediatric admissions. 

I ask the Premier: is this acceptable for an area with a population in excess of 35,000 people? 

There are many Maryborough residents who now have to drive past our own hospital to get the medical 

treatment they need. Others are taken as far afield as Nambour and Brisbane for treatment previously 

available in Maryborough. It is quite ironic that some patients are even being transferred to Bundaberg. 

As well as this, the nearby tourist attractions generate many thousands of tourists annually. It 

seems a little short-sighted that the government has seen fit to downgrade the more than adequate 

facility in Maryborough when the waiting times at Hervey Bay are so badly stretched already. We have 

undertaken community forums and held community rallies but still Mr Beattie is not listening. 

We want the government to assist us more meaningfully in recruiting medical staff. We want 

Queensland Health to rotate medical staff from metropolitan hospitals throughout the regional areas. We 

want Queensland Health to adequately resource our health district so that the strategies devised from 

2002 to 2005 can be fully implemented. We want the government to keep its promise to maintain 

services at Maryborough Base Hospital. We want Mr Beattie to listen and act in our interests. 

Time expired. 

VP60 Celebrations; Cultural Fest 

Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (12.14 pm): Townsville has once again excelled itself 

as a place where big events achieve overwhelming support from the local population. Over the last two 

weekends people have turned out in their tens of thousands for last weekend’s VP60 and this 

weekend’s Cultural Fest. On Saturday, 13 August it was estimated that about 75,000 people were 

attracted to the VP60 celebrations on The Strand. From Friday, 12 August, the day the Sunlander pulled 

into Townsville station, through to the peace announcement re-enactment the following Monday the city 

was awash with excitement and sentiment. As far as I am aware, the exact number of people who 

attended from interstate and overseas is not available but accommodation places were full. 

Looking back over the years to other stand-out celebrations, public response in Townsville has 

never faltered. I have said in this place before that if a spitting competition were held in Townsville 

people would turn out in droves. It has always been welcoming and full of enthusiasm. I refer to such 

occasions as the opening of the reconstructed Strand in October 1999, VP50 10 years ago, the 50th 

anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea in 1992 and the 5th Festival of Pacific Arts in 1988 involving 

over 1,700 participant from 24 countries. 

Despite the unbridled success of VP60 in Townsville it was somewhat disappointing that it did not 

receive the media attention away from the city that it warranted. Of course, there was coverage by the 

bucket load locally but it never translated to coverage anywhere else in Australia. The critical role played 

by the Townsville in World War II as a supply and deployment centre for allied troops should have 

placed the city at the centre of attention for VP60. That did not appear to happen outside the garrison 

city.


I commend the organisers of VP60, the Townsville City Council and the sponsors and volunteer 

supporters who presented such a memorable few days. I also applaud the Beattie government and 

Queensland Rail on the complimentary rail journey from Brisbane to Townsville for the veterans and 

their families. 

Following hot on the heels of VP60, the three-day Cultural Fest last weekend was also 

outstanding. The 11th annual celebration of cultural harmony in Townsville, supported by an annual 

Queensland government $60,000 Multicultural Assistance Program grant, attracted a terrific turnout at 

The Strand Park. After VP60 one may have thought Townsvillians would be celebrationed out. That was 

actually far from the case. 

The Migrant Resource Centre of Townsville and Thuringowa again produced a first-class nonstop 

program mix of cultural diversity through stage entertainment, international food and global stalls. 

The event is a classic demonstration of friendship between races and nationalities. The fact that 

Townsville embraces it so enthusiastically really speaks volumes for the city. 

I am pleased to report that the Beattie government is committed to the Cultural Fest in 2006 and 

2007 with a further $60,000 in grants. Having said that, I sincerely hope that the Greek Festival, another 

much loved and supported annual Townsville community event which did not happen this year for 

financial reasons, will gain the monetary backing it needs to resurface in 2006. Townsvillians really miss 

the Greek Festival. It has become very much a part of our community. It was good to have the Deputy 

Speaker visit Townsville recently to attend the Greek debutante ball and spend a bit of time in 

Townsville. 

Finally, can I offer my condolences to the families of the four young teenagers who were tragically 

killed in a road accident coming back from Cultural Fest on Saturday. They were driving out to 

Pallarenda. We have had seven deaths over the last few days in Townsville but none has affected our 

community as much as this absolute tragedy involving 15-, 16- and 17-year-olds. All were known to the 

local community. They were entering the prime of their lives. They have been tragically lost. To those 

families I offer my sincere sympathy. 

Bundaberg Base Hospital; Bundaberg-Burnett Mental Health Services 

Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (12.18 pm): As members know, it has been quite a while since 

I was allowed to visit the Bundaberg Base Hospital. Members may remember that I tried to visit when 

the tilt train ran off the rails late last year at Rosedale, but the previous minister for health refused my 

request to visit the survivors and medical staff. I cannot think of any reasons why he was reluctant to 

allow me access to the hospital. It is not like he or the Premier were trying to cover up anything. If he 

had let me visit, I could have possibly met Dr Patel just before he was made employee of the month and 

given a pay rise. For the record, I have my tongue firmly jammed in my cheek. 

I do, however, have to compliment the new Minister for Health, Minister Robertson, who allowed 

me to tour the Bundaberg Base Hospital last Friday. At least he is showing a little more courtesy and 

political commonsense than the minister he replaced. That, unfortunately, is where the difference has 

stopped. The new health minister has continued the great Labor tradition of running down even further 

health services in Bundaberg and the Burnett. 

According to the manager of the Bundaberg Mental Health Unit, there are approximately 400 

people suffering from mental illnesses and being cared for by community mental health workers. Those 

people now no longer have the option of in-patient mental health care at Bundaberg, because the new 

health minister has closed the in-patient beds—that is, approximately 16 beds. This Labor government 

says that it is a temporary closure, but the people suffering from mental illness and their families who are 

supporting them do not believe the Premier or the new health minister. The mental health workers 

themselves do not believe this Labor government. This service must be reactivated immediately or else 

lives will be needlessly placed at risk once again. 

In the past week I have met with or spoken to many mentally ill people who are afraid of what is 

going to happen to them and their families. What is going to happen to the young man who drives every 

weekend from Bundaberg to Toowoomba to see his partner, who requires intense psychiatric care? How 

is he going to afford the $300 trip when he is trying to pay off a mortgage and only earns $600 a week? 

What about the Bargara lady who cannot bear the thought of being separated from her partner because 

her mental illness has reduced her waking hours to a horrible nightmare and she just keeps telling you 

that she wants to lay down in her partner’s arms and die? What are we going to do for these people? 

How is the partner of that Bargara woman going to cope with taking care of his school-age children and 

his sick partner, who will most probably have to be transferred to Nambour? 

What about the woman who is suffering from a bipolar disorder who told me that she was 

physically ill when she heard on the TV that the Bundaberg in-patient facility was to be closed? I note 

that there was very little consultation with the community or, most importantly, with the patients. This 

person knows just how important this service is to our community. The lady with a mental illness I spoke 

to on Saturday knows just how many lives are saved by this mental health in-patient unit in Bundaberg.


I would also like this House to consider the plight of our returned servicemen, especially the 

Vietnam vets of Bundaberg and Burnett, who are more susceptible to mental health illnesses than most 

groups in our community. I am told by sources very close to the vets that over half of the ex-Vietnam 

vets in my electorate are on antidepressant medicine and occasionally when they do run off the rails or 

have an episode they and their families rely heavily on the mental health facility in Bundaberg. Why 

should their family members be forced to travel four hours to visit them when they run off the rails? Do 

the vets not deserve a bit of special care? Yes, they do. To quote the words of Vietnam vet and Pardre 

Stewart Law in one of his poems— 

That’s why we get some special care. 

Because we paid for it out there. 

We did our bit and took our chance, 

And paid for it well in advance. 

Labor is robbing those vets of their special care. I have spoken with many mental health service 

providers, and the general consensus is that Bundaberg is a needy area for mental health services, 

even more so now with the 2,000 former patients and families of Dr Patel still struggling to cope. 

Time expired. 

BreastScreen Queensland, Nambour; Domestic Violence 

Ms MOLLOY (Noosa—ALP) (12.24 pm): Earlier this year I had the honour of opening 

Queensland Health’s BreastScreen Queensland Nambour service. It was my very great honour to 

represent the minister. I was able to of course offer his apologies, and that was to my delight because 

there is a certain empathy and understanding that I think women alone share. I can say from personal 

experience that when one has to go for a breast screen, with or without symptoms, it is a little unnerving, 

and of course if one has prior experience of cancer it can be a daunting experience. Having had my own 

woman’s journey through the health care system and having experienced myriad health care settings— 

from being the mother of newly arrived infants right through the parenting spectrum to the point where 

the fledgings are leaving home—I feel qualified as a consumer, and what I experienced on the morning 

of this launch leaves me in no doubt that this facility will be a most remarkable asset to health care on 

the Sunshine Coast. 

I was met by Ms Jennifer Muller, Director of the Cancer Screening Services Unit; Ms Ronne 

Wildman for Mary Prosser, Chair of the Sunshine Coast District Health Council; and Dr Chris Galbraith, 

Medical Director of BreastScreen Queensland at the Nambour service. The community was strongly 

represented, creating a warm and caring atmosphere. Our master of ceremonies was Ms Jennifer 

Muller, who asked our Indigenous elder, Aunty Merle Tilbrook, to officially bless the building. That 

blessing was followed by my speech. Aunty Merle and I then cut the ribbon for the official launch and 

were treated to a tour of the facility and refreshments. 

The building itself is beautiful, with state-of-the-art equipment in place to provide for screening, 

and is accommodated in a delightful garden setting. I reflected on what a lovely building with very 

pleasant decor the women on the Sunshine Coast were to be treated to. Clients are able to enjoy and be 

treated in the same high level of care that does not discriminate on the ground of how much money one 

does or does not have. For those women attending the centre it can be a very stressful experience, as I 

said, especially if they have had cancer in the past, have found a lump, are attending for a follow-up 

appointment or face the possibility of being diagnosed with breast cancer. Even if one attends for a 

routine check-up, it is certainly a time of taking stock of one’s life and of course a few moments of 

reflection. 

Because women find themselves in different situations, BreastScreen Queensland services have 

provided separate waiting rooms, displaying an enormous level of sensitivity and consideration, 

especially for those who may be confronted with a positive BreastScreen result. I was especially 

touched when I met the group of volunteers who work with BreastScreen Nambour, and it is my 

pleasure to thank those ladies for their loving kindness to all who enter the door. Congratulations and 

thank you to all of those lovely ladies: Mrs Glenis Dodd, Mrs Joan Niland, Mrs Linda Bernard, Mrs Jill 

Black, Mrs Anne Dennings and Mrs Marg Lithgoe. While the facility is designed to make women feel 

more comfortable and relaxed when attending appointments, I believe the love they share heals all 

manner of human pain beyond the physical realm as we know it. I would like to thank Leonie Deighton, 

the clinical nurse consultant, and Rosalie McEnery, the Executive Director of the Division of Community 

and Oral Health, as well as the Sunshine Coast Health Council and Ms Cathy Apelt. 

While I was there to open a new building, I was also announcing a new, modern and expanded 

breast-screening service across the coast, providing satellite services in Caloundra and Caboolture as 

well as a relocatable service travelling to smaller centres on the Sunshine Coast and hinterland. In 

Queensland, breast screening is free through the BreastScreen Queensland program. The program’s 

access to screening has improved, reducing death and illness. Survival rates for women diagnosed with 

breast cancer are improving. On the brighter side, I want to remind members that Mrs Elizabeth Rivers,


the first person to be diagnosed with breast cancer at Nambour in 1993, was also at the launch. She is 

alive and well and clear of cancer and is a living testimony of courage to all women everywhere. 

Today the trend is very encouraging in that survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer 

are improving. The five-year survival rate for women aged 50 to 69 years diagnosed with breast cancer 

has improved to nearly 90 per cent and can be attributed to screening, improvements in management 

and treatment, and advances in drug therapy. Death rates from breast cancer have been decreasing by 

nearly three per cent per year. By contrast, more women are now dying from lung cancer than breast 

cancer, with the rate increasing by 2.8 per cent per year. I call on the federal government to fund a 

nationwide antismoking campaign directed at the advertisers’ target market—young girls. The health of 

Queensland women is of paramount importance to this government, and I would like to see the federal 

government run a nationwide anti domestic violence campaign to eradicate this scourge that impacts on 

the lives of women and girls. Given the high incidence of domestic violence and the impact it has on 

women’s health, it stands to reason that the Howard government, instead of finding new ways to 

oppress women, as it is with its imminent industrial laws—because it will be women who are most 

affected—needs to invest in improving the lives of women and girls, as does this government. In closing, 

I want to give a heartfelt thanks to Dr Chris Galbraith— 

Time expired. 

Health System 

Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (12.30 pm): Queenslanders can expect to hear a lot more from the de 

facto health minister, the Premier, claiming that he has learned his lesson, he has listened to the 

community, he has taken on board Morris’s findings and he is fixing the health system. Tragically, this 

government has learned nothing out of the health crisis, apart from efforts to save its own political skin. 

After months of resisting calls to release Queensland’s secret waiting lists and pretending that 

they did not exist, the government was forced to provide information to the Morris royal commission that 

it had collected and kept secret since 1 July 2004—108,000 Queenslanders on secret waiting lists. 

These are Queenslanders the government pretended did not exist—patients who had already been 

assessed by a doctor and had been referred largely to surgeons in the public hospital system. The 

government used outpatient departments as a filter to ensure that published elective surgery waiting 

lists gave them the political outcome they sought. 

We had the amazing statement by the health minister claiming that this information had been 

collected only as a one-off on 1 July 2004. What an embarrassment! With 108,000 people waiting for 

predominantly surgical treatment, the government not only pretended they did not exist but also then 

claimed that it did not even bother to look at how many people were stuck on these waiting lists. The 

failure of the government to publish honest and complete waiting lists for Queensland costs more lives 

than the tragedy of Dr Patel in Bundaberg as thousands of patients and their doctors who advise them 

have absolutely no idea how many people are ahead of them on the queue or how long they must wait. 

This government has learned absolutely nothing and is still continuing to follow its tired and failed way of 

administering the health system, and that is to produce political outcomes, sanitise waiting lists, deceive 

patients and their doctors and hide information of vital importance from the community in Queensland. 

Another of the major lessons to come out of the Morris inquiry that this government has not 

learned is that decisions relating to the medical care of patients must be made by doctors and nurses 

and that the clinical work force must be empowered so that they are in a position to make these choices 

for their patients. The backbone of the medical work force has always been the visiting medical officer. 

They are our most senior specialists. They are charged not just with treating patients but with 

supervising more junior doctors and with training the next generation of specialists. We cannot have an 

effective public hospital system without a strong representation of senior medical staff as visiting 

medical officers. The target for this state for visiting medical officers should be at least 75 per cent of all 

the specialists in the state. These are people who can then make a contribution in the public hospital 

system. Yet we have seen the work force decimated as an act of deliberate government policy to the 

point where we are down to around 30 per cent of the state’s specialists making a contribution as 

visiting medical officers. 

Once again we see the government failing because it has no understanding of how to deal with 

the professional staff who deliver health care. The end result is that we have driven VMOs out of the 

system in droves. We have replaced one former union official health minister with another former union 

official health minister who can see industrial relations only in terms of unions where the membership is 

expected to do what it is told to do by the union leadership. The government gazetted directives to 

VMOs despite an agreement already having been reached previously with Queensland Health. Now the 

government wants to insist on an interim agreement until next year before protracted negotiations can 

even begin, effectively leaving the VMO work force of Queensland without any agreed terms of 

employment for a protracted period. 

What is really burning at the ranks of senior medical staff and the major reason they are deserting 

Queensland’s public hospitals in droves is the total disfranchisement of doctors in relation to matters of


clinical importance to their patients. The VMOs were not told, let alone consulted, that secret waiting 

lists were being introduced. Senior VMOs sitting in specialist outpatients in Queensland hospitals found 

out when patients turned up with letters telling them that they had been placed onto the secret waiting 

lists. These are the doctors who are responsible for the lives and health of patients, yet they have no 

opportunity to have input into that. 

Public Transport, Springwood Electorate 

Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (12.34 pm): The other day I was again reminded of the bus 

services Logan had under a National Party government. People would stand on the Pacific Highway and 

flag down a Greyhound bus. People’s choice of destination was the Gold Coast or Brisbane city. Shailer 

Park residents have told me that where the Logan Hyperdome stands today is where the people of 

Shailer Park would flag down a Greyhound bus or perhaps a Pioneer bus on its way to the Gold Coast 

or to Brisbane. Today, the Logan Hyperdome has a bus interchange and can now boast an $800,000 

upgrade to that bus interchange. That $800,000 will be spent on improvements to the Logan 

Hyperdome bus interchange, which will include better seating, shelter, information, accessibility and 

safety. 

There is even more good news for public transport in the Springwood electorate. Logan and 

Beenleigh residents will benefit from a $4 million boost to public transport services over the next three 

years. The boost to services, added to an existing four-year commitment of more than $7 million for new 

infrastructure, is good news. This is in addition to the ongoing yearly funding of $1.9 million to maintain 

public transport service improvements. 

So what does this mean to services on the ground? This upgrade represents a 60 per cent 

increase in services. It means an extra 1,560 services per week in the region, including many new peak 

services to Brisbane CBD. Logan now has another 11 new low-floor, airconditioned buses in operation, 

providing a more comfortable journey for passengers. Another 185 bus stops have been added to the 

transport network. In other words, an additional 20 per cent of the Logan City Council local government 

area will be serviced by public transport. 

The new services came about through a consultation program offered during the development of 

the draft TransLink network plan. The consultation program included various meetings at bus stations 

and shopping centres, meetings with Logan city councillors and deputations to the council. Logan City 

Council was also represented on the public transport network plan working group, which had convened 

on a regular basis since 2003. Yet when the new bus services were about to start, what did Logan city 

councillors do? They went to the media asking for these changes to stop the week before they were 

about to start because they needed to be consulted. Then we heard the cries that they were getting 

hundreds and hundreds of calls because the network was all wrong and the new services would not 

work. 

I am the first to agree that, of course, with a change as big as this there would be problems. Of 

course the first few weeks would identify connections not working, changes in destinations that would 

affect some people and, of course, changes in bus service times that would also affect some people. 

But what was more important was that TransLink was there to listen to these people’s concerns, 

improve the changes and assist these people. With only four days to go before the implementation date, 

I was at the Logan Hyperdome with TransLink officers discussing the new timetable with commuters to 

ensure that the changes would go smoothly for them. It was then that we had a problem pointed out to 

us with regard to a connection to get people into suburban streets in Shailer Park in the evening. 

TransLink immediately took that request on board and began looking at the new timetable to try to solve 

this problem. I went straight to the Logan City Bus Service office and spoke to the Clark family. They 

immediately started looking at bus schedules and driver rosters to see if there would be any buses in 

their fleet not being used. That afternoon they had come up with a solution to this problem. 

I have had about 30 complaints in all since the changes. TransLink has met with me on several 

occasions and there have been changes to assist many of these residents. Some matters are still 

outstanding and TransLink and I will continue to work out a solution to these problems. The Logan city 

councillors scream that they have received hundreds and hundreds of complaints. The mayor, the 

member for Woodridge, Logan City Council staff and I met with the minister—who I am pleased to say is 

in the House—and TransLink officers to investigate these complaints. I did not see pages and pages of 

complaints, as the councillors have stated. What I did see was a concern from the mayor about a small 

number of problems that had been discovered since the implementation of the changes and new 

requests from residents at that meeting. I also witnessed the willingness of TransLink to work with the 

mayor to get the best result for Logan commuters. The outcomes of that meeting are now being 

progressed. 

Never has Logan seen such a change or such an enormous increase in bus services. As I said 

earlier, the Greyhound bus running up and down the highway was the only service we had before the 

Clarks came along. For over 25 years they had to grow and adapt from being a mum and dad operation 

that was established to get schoolkids to school to now having quite a fleet of buses with a large local

2576 Constitutional and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 23 Aug 2005 

work force. What has not changed is that they are still a family-run operation and a business that 

supports Logan. I thank them for this service. 

There have been approximately 19,000 more passengers since the changes. There has been a 

30 per cent increase in patronage on buses in Logan. The Logan City Bus Service moves around 

200,000 people a month. That is more than the number of people who live in Logan City. This 

government will continue to keep monitoring and reviewing bus routes to ensure better transport 

outcomes for Logan. As the member for Springwood, I give this guarantee to constituents: I will continue 

to represent their views and ideas for public transport. I will make sure those views and ideas are fed to 

TransLink in order to continue to implement successful changes and improvements. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 

First Reading 

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (12.39 pm): I present a bill 

for an act to amend the Constitution of Queensland 2001, the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 and 

the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000, and for other purposes. I 

present the explanatory notes, and I move— 

That the bill be now read a first time. 

Motion agreed to. 

Second Reading 

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (12.40 pm): I move— 

That the bill be now read a second time. 

Today we are seeing the culmination of several years of detailed examination of issues of 

constitutional reform in Queensland, dating back to the Queensland Constitutional Review Commission 

which I established in 1999. 

I am pleased to introduce the Constitutional and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. The 

bill amends the Constitution of Queensland 2001 and the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 to give 

effect to the government’s response to the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee’s 

reports Nos 36, 41 and 42. My government tabled its response to these three reports on 27 April 2004. 

There were 11 recommendations that were accepted which required amendment of the Constitution of 

Queensland 2001 and a total of three recommendations requiring amendment of the Parliament of 

Queensland Act 2001. 

I now turn to the bill. The bill is largely modelled on the government’s tabled response. 

Specifically, the bill clarifies constitutional conventions relating to the functions of the Executive Council, 

the Governor’s rights and powers, and the appointment and dismissal of the Premier and ministers. This 

includes following the Commonwealth model for the appointment of executive councillors. This provision 

will also be linked to the Commonwealth policy for use of the title of ‘The Honourable’. We have not 

followed the Commonwealth model before; we now will. 

The bill provides the option for members of the Legislative Assembly, ministers and judges to 

make an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the Crown. It requires the Legislative Assembly to meet 

soon after a general election, which is pretty obvious I would have thought but, nevertheless, needed. It 

clarifies the role of the parliamentary secretaries; expressly includes the retirement age of judges and 

formalises the process by which judges may be removed from office; extends the objects of the statutory 

committees of the Legislative Assembly to include extending democratic government and the 

transparency of public administration; extends the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review 

Committee’s area of responsibility regarding legal reform to include considering whether Queensland 

law has sufficient regard to Aboriginal tradition and Torres Strait Islander custom; implements the 

government’s response to the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee report No. 64 

regarding members transacting business with the state; and clarifies the definition of ‘state’ under the 

Constitution, as it relates to a department’s authority to engage in commercial activities. 

The bill removes section 9(3) of the Parliament of Queensland Act, which allows documents 

tabled, submitted or presented to the Assembly, a committee or an inquiry, which were brought into 

existence for another purpose, to be impeached or questioned in relation to that other purpose, if the 

Assembly or committee has authorised its disclosure. The provision was intended to address concerns 

that witnesses could potentially table documents in committee proceedings, and attract parliamentary 

privilege, which may later be relied upon in criminal court proceedings. This section may give rise to an 

unintended consequence that parliamentary privilege may not apply to documents under section 

9(2)(d). The possibility of the exemption being used is low and does not justify the exception to 

fundamental principles of parliamentary privilege.

23 Aug 2005 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2577 

The bill introduces new salary sacrifice arrangements for members of the Legislative Assembly 

and clarifies procedures for tabling of documents when the parliament is expired, dissolved or 

prorogued. On behalf of all members, I commend the members and staff of the Legal, Constitutional and 

Administrative Review Committee of the 50th Parliament for their invaluable contribution to this bill. 

This bill represents the last stage of the committee’s consideration of reform issues, as 

recommended by the Queensland Constitutional Review Commission in its 2001 report. The bill also 

includes minor amendments to the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 

2000, which was substantially amended by the Commission for Children and Young People and Child 

Guardian Amendment Act 2004 following the review of the employment screening provisions in 2003- 

04. 

The amendments, which implemented the recommendations of this review, took effect from 17 

January 2005 and made significant changes to the blue card scheme, providing enhanced employment 

screening processes to complement Queensland’s strengthened child protection system. 

The bill inserts additional transitional provisions to clarify the effect of that amending act in relation 

to blue card applications and information relevant to cancelling suitability notices, as they were 

previously known, received prior to 17 January 2005, but which were undecided by the commissioner at 

that date. 

The bill protects the rights of individuals as applications and information received prior to 17 

January 2005 will be considered in accordance with the Commission for Children and Young People 

and Child Guardian Act 2000 as it existed prior to the 2004 amendments. However, this is subject to a 

specific exception—namely, where the commissioner received police or disciplinary information on or 

after 17 January 2005. In this limited circumstance, the amended act will apply. The impact upon the 

rights of individuals in these cases is justified on the basis that any notification of changes in police or 

disciplinary information after 17 January 2005 would have required a reassessment of an individual’s 

blue card status under the amended legislation. 

The bill also clarifies that the commissioner may provide a report to me in relation to employment 

screening issues, including details about individuals, without being in breach of confidence. The 

improved information-sharing provisions will ensure that I have the necessary information to make 

informed decisions about the legislation. 

However, the rights of individuals will still be protected as I, my staff, chief executive officer and 

departmental officers who are privy to this information will be required to treat it in accordance with the 

confidentiality provisions prescribed by the Commission for Children and Young People and Child 

Guardian Act 2000. These amendments are considered necessary to protect the best interests and 

safety of children and are consistent with my government’s ongoing commitment to strengthening 

protective measures for children. 

I commend the bill to the House. In doing so, I add that there is one other area of constitutional 

reform that is still on the government’s agenda, and that is four-year fixed terms. The cabinet considered 

that at its meeting on Monday. There are issues that we need to address, but I do not want anyone to 

think it has slipped off the agenda. It has not. My view is that if we held a referendum on that issue at the 

moment we would probably lose but, nevertheless, the government is still committed to four-year fixed 

terms. 

Debate, on motion of Mr Messenger, adjourned. 

TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 

First Reading 

Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (12.47 pm): I present a 

bill for an act to amend particular acts administered by the minister for transport, and for other purposes. 

I move— 




Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (12.47 pm): I move— 


This bill amends seven acts administered by Queensland Transport and the Department of Main 

Roads and includes consequential amendments to two other acts. The use of transport 

legislation amendment bills allows the consolidation of various amendments to my portfolio’s legislation 

into a single bill.

2578 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 23 Aug 2005 

The bill will improve safety on our roads and at sea. It will reduce the pollution of Queensland 

waters. It will enhance existing legislation to protect the most vulnerable in our society, and it will 

introduce minor changes to clarify or improve existing legislation. The acts to be amended are: the 

Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, the Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995, the Transport 

Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994, the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994, the 

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, the Transport Planning and Coordination Act 

1994, the Transport (South Bank Corporation Area Land) Act 1999, the Commission for Children and 

Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000, the Integrated Planning Act 1997, the South Bank 

Corporation Act 1989 and the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994. 

The Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 provides for the efficient management of transport 

infrastructure. The amendments to this act clarify or improve existing legislation. They do not change 

the intent of the legislation. In broad terms, the changes relate to tolling, port authorities, busways, 

miscellaneous transport infrastructure and non-rail corridor land. I will deal with each of these issues in 

turn. 

Tolling 

The new tolling provisions remove any doubt that gazetted toll charges only provide for the 

maximum that can be collected by toll operators and do not prevent a lower toll being collected. This 

does not reflect a change in policy. Occasions have arisen, and no doubt will continue to arise, where 

there are good reasons to impose less than the maximum amount in certain circumstances—for 

example, to encourage more people using toll roads off peak. 

I would like to make it clear that the amendment will not allow toll operators to collect tolls above 

the gazetted amount. It will only offer the operators the flexibility to collect amounts less than the 

toll amounts that are notified by gazette. The amendments will enhance the amenity and safety of road 

users. New South Wales has adopted a similar approach in its tolling legislation as it specifically 

provides that the amount of any toll may not exceed a prescribed amount. 

Port Authorities 

Let me turn to the changes in the bill dealing with port authorities. A port can be established as a 

body corporate under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 or as a government owned corporation. 

Currently, all ports are government owned corporations. However, when we amalgamated the 

Gladstone Port Authority and Rockhampton Port Authority last year to form the Central Queensland 

Ports Authority, the assets and liabilities had to be transferred under both the Transport Infrastructure 

Act 1994 and the Government Owned Corporations Act 1993. The bill will clarify that TIA provisions for 

establishment and abolition of a port authority do not apply where a port authority is a government 

owned corporation. The only exception relates to the transfer of management of the port, which cannot 

be achieved under the Government Owned Corporations Act 1993. 

The bill will also remove any reference to specific port authorities in the definition of ‘port 

authority’. This will enable a port authority to be restructured or its name changed by regulation without 

the need for further amendment to the act. 

Busways 

The bill introduces a number of amendments relating to busways. One change will clarify that 

various types of land held by the state may be declared to be ‘busway land’. Currently land may be 

declared to be busway land only if it is acquired by the state or the chief executive for busway purposes 

or is a road. It is not clear that it includes other land already owned by the state. I seek leave to have the 

remainder of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. 


This amendment will clarify that a broader range of land can be declared busway land, including land that the State already holds 

for busway purposes, but originally acquired for purposes other than busway. The amendments also make provisions for common 

areas for busways and roads. 

Currently, the Transport Infrastructure (Busway) Regulation 2002 provides for the appointment and powers of busway safety 

officers. This Bill places these provisions in the Act as well as clarifying other powers of busway safety officers for general 

consistency with the powers of authorised persons in other transport legislation. 

The role of busway safety officers includes ensuring the orderly movement of people on the busway, managing busway traffic in 

accordance with speed limits, removing obstructions from the busway and generally ensuring the busway is safe for commuters 

and all other busway users. These powers are consistent with the powers of authorised persons but are restricted to the busway 

transport infrastructure and are generally more limited. For example, busway safety officers are not intended to have an 

enforcement role on buses and do not validate or check tickets like authorised persons. 

For those of you who use the busway, these are the men and women in green shirts with the red busway logo who attend busway 

stations and patrol the busway. They answer the help phones, assist distressed or worried passengers and keep an oversight on 

what is actually happening on the busway stations and busway. 

Busway safety officers can reach any point on the busway within five to ten minutes of a call or alarm. 

The amendments now ensure that busway safety officers have fundamental powers like authorised persons, to request name and 

address details of offenders, are protected from liability and include a specific offence for impersonating and obstructing a busway 

safety officer. To reflect current drafting, the provisions about busway safety officers are now included in the Act to ensure there is 

a clear legislative basis for their appointment and powers.


The Bill also inserts a new definition of an ‘authorised busway user’. This amendment clarifies that a maintenance vehicle or bus 

providing a public passenger service may be authorised to operate on a busway as well as another person authorised by the chief 

executive. 

Minor administrative amendments will introduce consistency in references to the terms "busway" and "busway transport 

infrastructure". 

Miscellaneous transport infrastructure 

The definition of "miscellaneous transport infrastructure" in the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 will be amended by this Bill. The 

Transport Infrastructure Regulation 1995 is due to expire on 1 September 2006. As part of the review of that regulation, the 

definition of "miscellaneous transport infrastructure" will be moved from the regulation to the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994. 

This is in line with current best drafting practice. 

Non-rail corridor land 

In relation to "non-rail corridor land", there is currently a definition of that term in the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994. The 

definition will be extended to include land that was part of a rail corridor where the lease of the land has been surrendered by a 

railway manager. This will enable the chief executive to retain the land in the perpetual lease for future use as part of a transport 

corridor, on the same status as for existing non-rail corridor land. 

Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995 

The Bill also amends the Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995. 

The purpose of this Act is to implement at a state level the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships which 

protects Queensland’s marine and coastal environment by minimising deliberate and negligent discharges of ship sourced 

pollutants into coastal waters. 

Queensland has a proactive approach to the protection of the marine environment through its maritime pollution legislation and 

the state maintains a recognised role in developing world’s best practice in this area. 

The protection of our marine environment is of paramount importance to the state, for tourism, the economy and the enviable 

waterway activities that all Queenslanders can enjoy. 

There are four amendments to this Act, dealing with the issues of shipboard waste management plans, monitoring transfer 

operations, the position of Marine Pollution Controller and the powers of Maritime Safety Queensland to deal with "potential" as 

opposed to "imminent" dangers. 

Shipboard waste management plans 

Existing legislation requires shipboard waste management plans to be carried on all ships with a measurement of at least 400 

gross tons. 

This requirement has proved impractical and difficult to enforce because many owners and masters do not know the gross 

tonnage of their ship. The amendment will refer to a ship’s length overall rather than gross tonnage. A vessel with an overall length 

of at least 35 metres or designed to sleep at least 15 persons will be required to have a shipboard waste management plan. 

Monitoring transfer operations 

Mr Speaker, the Bill introduces an obligation on a ship’s crew to monitor transfer operations. Transfer operations include things 

such as filling the ship’s tank with fuel. Ships’ crews are not currently required to monitor transfer operations. This has resulted in 

spills in Queensland coastal waters from overfilled tanks. Similarly there have been spills from burst hoses or loose couplings. 

These could have been prevented at a very early stage if proper monitoring had been in place. 

For example in 2000, substantial spills in the Brisbane River, and again in 2003 at Thursday Island resulted from poorly 

maintained fuel couplings on commercial vessels. These incidents would not have happened if the fittings had been regularly 

maintained and a crew member had been actively monitoring the couplings for overfilling and leaks. 

Marine Pollution Controller 

This Bill introduces a statutory basis for the position of the "Marine Pollution Controller". Maritime Safety Queensland is the lead 

agency for responses to oil spills from ships. The position of the Marine Pollution Controller is recognised and acknowledged 

tacitly across agencies. The position is established under the National Plan for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil and 

Other Noxious Hazardous Substances. Given the increasing importance of the role, as was seen during the groundings of the 

Bunga Teratai Satu in 2000 and the MV Karma in 2003, the position needs to be formalised. The amendments will establish the 

role of the Marine Pollution Controller and its functions, thereby providing certainty and direction during major responses to ship 

sourced pollution within Queensland waters. 

Powers of MSQ to deal with "potential" as opposed to "imminent" dangers 

The Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995 will also be amended to give Maritime Safety Queensland greater ability to 

act if a ship presents a "potential" danger to the Queensland coastal and marine environment. This will ensure that Maritime 

Safety Queensland can take action to prevent an incident at an earlier stage than is currently possible. 

The grounding of the MV Karma demonstrated clearly the need for the State to be able to intervene before the currently "grave 

and imminent" danger threshold is reached. With this amendment, as soon as a potentially serious threat is presented, the full 

powers of the State to intervene to prevent and minimise a discharge will be activated. 

Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 

I will now address the proposed amendments to the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994. That Act achieves an 

appropriate balance between regulating the maritime industry to ensure marine safety and developing the effectiveness and 

efficiency of the Queensland maritime industry. The changes proposed by this Bill include identifying the legal owner of a vessel, 

the temporary closure of pilotage areas, the creation of exclusion zones around ships, the sharing of fishing vessel data, the 

recovery of costs incurred by the State in salvage operations and allowing criminal history checks for marine licence examiners 

and training providers. 

These changes, and the amendments to the Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995, are in direct response to a number 

of issues identified as a result of recent marine safety and ship sourced pollution incidents. These amendments are the first stage 

of a larger program being undertaken by this government to strengthen our legislative scheme to prevent the loss of life and 

minimise harm to the marine environment.

2580 Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 23 Aug 2005 

Identifying the legal owner of a vessel 

Due to the complex ownership arrangements that apply in shipping, there have been problems with identifying the owner of a ship 

when it is lost, abandoned or stranded, particularly where an operator walks away from their responsibilities. This is exactly what 

happened with the grounding of the MV Karma at Agnes Water in late 2003. This meant that the state had to bear the costs of 

response and removal of this wreck because the state could not give directions to the owner or recover costs when action had 

been taken because directions were not followed. The amendments will deem the owner of the ship to be the person who was the 

registered owner of the ship immediately before it was lost, abandoned or stranded, and ensure that persons operating ships do 

so responsibly. 

Temporary closure of pilotage areas 

Harbour masters can currently close pilotage areas if the closure is urgently required for a limited period to ensure safety. The Bill 

will allow the temporary closure of pilotage areas or part of a pilotage area to ensure safety without an emergency situation having 

to be in place. For example, closing part of a pilotage area around particular ships, or during ship to ship transfers of pollutants to 

minimise wash disturbance from passing vessels. 

Creation of exclusion zones around ships 

Another amendment will enable the general manager of Maritime Safety Queensland to declare a temporary exclusion zone 

around a ship involved in a marine incident for a period up to 28 days. Before declaring such a zone, the general manager must be 

reasonably satisfied that the safety of vessels, persons, infrastructure or the environment is jeopardised. 

Often onlooking vessels and the media place themselves in danger to be near a casualty and are an impediment to safe clean up 

or salvage operations. 

The amendment creates an offence for failure to comply with the declaration of an exclusion zone by the general manager and a 

penalty for entering a declared exclusion zone without reasonable excuse or permission of the general manager. 

Sharing of fishing vessel data 

Changes proposed by the Bill will enable data collected by the Queensland Fisheries Service under their vessel monitoring 

system to be used by Maritime Safety Queensland to enhance navigational safety and in search and rescue response. This data 

is already collected by Queensland Fisheries in relation to catch monitoring. Access to this data by Maritime Safety Queensland 

and, when necessary, search and rescue agencies will improve both traffic monitoring information and rescue capabilities. This 

will provide better information about commercial fishing vessels and maritime traffic information in the Torres Strait and Great 

Barrier Reef region. 

Since 1999, investigations into six collisions in shipping lanes involving ships and fishing vessels or small craft have shown a 

major contributing factor to be a failure to maintain an appropriate lookout on fishing vessels, and that these vessels are hard for 

the crew of big ships to see on radar. 

This amendment will significantly enhance safety at sea by enabling warnings to be given to shipping about commercial fishing 

vessel activity in their transit area and by narrowing search areas in the event of a marine incident. 

This amendment to enhance safety has been welcomed by the Queensland Seafood Industry Association on behalf of its 

members. 

Recovery of costs incurred by the State in carrying out Harbour Master’s directions 

Mr Speaker, the Bill also facilitates the recovery of costs incurred by the State in carrying out a harbour master’s direction or for 

damage to an aid to navigation. Where a ship is a hazard to navigation, and needs to be moved, a Harbour Master can give a 

direction to remove the ship. If no action is taken, the Harbour Master may then remove the obstruction, which means the State 

has to bear the cost. The Act is to be amended to give courts the power, in the prosecution for an offence against the Act, such as 

failing to obey a Harbour Master’s direction, to order the recovery of costs incurred by the State from the owner of the ship. 

Currently, any action for recovery must be pursued in a separate civil action making more work for the courts. This amendment 

streamlines this process and complements the amendment to ascertain an owner for the purposes of determining who is 

responsible for costs and the operation of a vessel. 

Allowing criminal history checks for marine licence examiners and training providers 

The final change to the Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 will enable criminal history checks to be undertaken on 

licence examiners and training providers who perform work on behalf of Maritime Safety Queensland. When approving persons or 

entities to provide training or conduct examinations, Maritime Safety Queensland must be satisfied that the person or entity is 

appropriately qualified and suitable. This amendment is consistent with other transport provisions including the Transport 

Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994. 

For example, school children in this State can undertake marine studies as part of their school studies. These studies mean that 

they can then undertake an examination for a recreational marine driver licence in a training course. This examination is provided 

by individuals or organisation that are not part of the school system and such persons or groups should meet the same 

requirements as any others who deal with vulnerable persons. This amendment is consistent with other transport provisions 

including the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport Act 1994). 

Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 

I would now like to turn to the proposed amendments to the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994. That Act 

regulates public passenger transport to promote efficiency, equity and safety. The principal changes are in relation to driver 

disqualifying offences and TransLink service contracts. 

Driver disqualifying offences 

There are a number of changes to clarify provisions on driver disqualifying offences. 

Over time, some serious child-related sexual offences in the Criminal Code of Queensland have been re-categorised or renamed 

as other offences. 

The amendment will remove any doubt that any person convicted of one of these offences will remain ineligible to hold a driver 

authorisation, even though the offence may now be renamed or categorised differently. 

The Bill will also correct an anomaly that possession of a large amount of a drug may be considered a less serious offence than 

possession of a smaller amount of the same drug. 

Drivers are required to notify the chief executive of Queensland Transport if they are charged with a driver disqualifying offence. 

However, there is no requirement on operators to notify the chief executive if they believe one of their drivers has committed a 

driver disqualifying offence. The amendments will introduce such a requirement. This will remove any doubts that operators are 

required to pass on such information if it comes to their attention.


TransLink service contracts 

The Bill also corrects minor errors in provisions relating to public passenger services in the TransLink area. 

Consequential Amendments 

There will also be consequential amendments to the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 and the Transport 

Planning and Coordination Act 1994 to update references made to the "Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child 

Guardian" following the changes made to that position’s name through the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2004. 

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 

The Bill also amends the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 which promotes the safe and efficient use of 

roads. 

Some of those amendments are merely clarifications of existing provisions or technical amendments while others are more 

significant. 

In relation to the first category—that is, the clarifications and technical amendments—the Bill will insert a reference to the 

appropriate Australian Standard that applies when a police officer is using a laser-based speed detection device. It also inserts the 

appropriate Australian Standard that applies to the testing of a radar speed detection device. 

The Bill lengthens, to 6 months, the period during which a testing certificate for a stop watch, speedometer or vehicle 

speedometer accuracy indicator can be presented to a court as evidence of the accuracy of that device. The Queensland Police 

Service uses these devices in the detection of speeding offences and the current testing requirements are tying up valuable police 

resources unnecessarily. The new 6-month interval is based on the intervals recommended by the National Association of Testing 

Authorities and will ensure these devices remain accurate. 

The Bill will insert new definitions of "bicycle" and "wheeled recreational device" into the Act. In line with Queensland’s 

commitment to nationally uniform road rules, these definitions are taken from the national model legislation, the Australian Road 

Rules. 

Finally, the Bill will clarify that offences for unlawfully tampering with identifying numbers on a motor vehicle include tampering with 

a vehicle identification number or "VIN". In recognition of the importance of reducing vehicle theft and the re-birthing of written-off 

vehicles, the current maximum penalty of $3,000 or six months imprisonment for this offence is being increased to $7,500 or one 

year imprisonment. 

I will now talk to the more significant changes: 

Driver offences and appeals against licence suspensions 

There are a number of amendments aimed at changing driver behaviour to improve road safety. 

We are constantly reminded of the dangers associated with speeding. However, excessive speed remains a major contributing 

circumstance in approximately 17 percent of fatal crashes each year in Queensland. Speeding also contributes to numerous 

crashes involving serious injury and increases the severity of crashes. Speed related crashes place a high cost on the 

Queensland community through hospital and health care costs, lost productivity in the workplace and the use of emergency 

services. 

It is essential that the penalties relating to speeding offences are consistent and send a clear message to the Queensland 

community that speeding is a dangerous driving behaviour. A review of infringement and administrative penalties for speeding 

was conducted in 2003. This review saw the introduction of harsher penalties for this dangerous practice. However, wide 

variations in sanctions imposed by courts for these offences have lead to another examination of the issue. 

The Act currently provides for a six-month suspension of a driver licence where a person is caught driving at more than 40km/hour 

over the speed limit. Typically, the person will receive an infringement notice and the suspension will automatically be imposed. 

The matter may, however, proceed to court if the person elects a court hearing or if the intercepting officer believes that the 

circumstances warrant a Notice to Appear in court rather than an infringement notice—for example, if the speeding offence is 

combined with other offences. Where matters do proceed to court, Magistrates can, and regularly do, exercise their discretion to 

order shorter disqualification periods. To bring about greater consistency in the penalties for these high speed offences, the Act 

will be amended to clarify that when a court elects to impose a disqualification for a speeding offence of driving more than 40km/hr 

over the speed limit, this must be for a period of at least 6 months. A court will still have discretion to impose a longer period if it 

believes that is appropriate but it is important that the sentences handed down reflect the seriousness of these offences. 

While everybody is familiar with on-road enforcement of speeding by way of radars and speed cameras, there is another 

dangerous behaviour occurring in the community which can potentially have much more serious ramifications. I am referring to 

racing and speed trials on roads, or more commonly known as drag racing. These are inherently dangerous activities, often 

involving vehicles travelling at high speed. 

This dangerous practice has received much media attention in the last 12-18 months and appears to be on the rise. 

Some of the media in recent times has highlighted the inconsistencies in penalties handed down by the courts for these offences. 

Given the dangers of this offence, a similar penalty to that imposed on drivers doing more than 40km/h over the speed limit is 

warranted. The Bill will therefore introduce a minimum six-month disqualification period for those convicted of conducting or 

participating in racing or speed trials on roads. Again, a court will have discretion to impose a longer period if it believes that is 

appropriate. 

Other amendments within the Bill relate to administrative driver licence suspensions. 

Administrative licence suspensions are automatically imposed following the accumulation of excessive demerit points or a 

conviction for a high speed offence. 

The purpose of licence suspensions is to encourage individuals to take more responsibility for their driving behaviour and act as a 

specific deterrent to road safety offences. 

Research shows that licence suspensions are generally regarded as the most effective form of legal sanction for repeat offenders 

and an effective deterrent to illegal driving behaviour. Such suspensions are applied following the accumulation of demerit points 

or a conviction for the offence of speeding more than 40km/hr over the speed limit. Currently a person may appeal to a court on 

the grounds of extreme hardship to keep a licence that would otherwise be suspended. If they are successful they have their full 

driving privileges returned without any limitations or conditions imposed. The process is in direct contrast to that which applies for 

drink driving offences where a person may be eligible to apply for a restricted or work licence. Such a licence has strict limitations 

imposed upon its use. 

Approximately 80% of appeals against administrative licence suspensions are successful resulting in no significant deterrent 

being imposed. This is a disturbing statistic as well as a clear sign that the current process is not working. Drivers who

2582 Housing Legislation Amendment Bill 23 Aug 2005 

successfully appeal a suspension are unlikely to have learnt from the experience and modified their driving behaviour. This is 

evidenced through the statistics which also show a number of drivers appealing suspensions on several occasions within a few 

years. Clearly, these people are recidivist offenders and are not changing their driving behaviours as they see no serious 

consequences from their actions. 

It is apparent that the current appeals process does not reflect the necessary road safety benefits associated with licence 

suspensions. Therefore, this Bill introduces a new scheme for appeals against driver licence suspensions. This new scheme will 

be known as special hardship orders. These orders will only be granted by courts where the person or their dependants would 

suffer extreme hardship if that person was unable to drive at all. These orders will be available where, for example, the person 

needs their licence for work activities. It would also be available in other special circumstances—for example, where a person 

needs their licence to drive an invalid relative to receive medical treatment. This should not be seen as an extension of an ability 

to drive after a traffic conviction—in fact, it is a significant tightening up of the current appeal process. 

The court will also consider other factors such as a person’s traffic history when deciding to grant an order. If the court grants the 

order they will have the discretion to impose conditions on the person’s licence such as only allowing them to drive on certain 

days, in specific areas or at particular times. 

It is imperative that we encourage individuals and the Queensland community to take more responsibility for their driving 

behaviour. Tightening up this appeals process will continue to provide an avenue of appeal for those people with a genuine need, 

but it will also send a clear message to the community that those who abuse the privilege of holding a driver licence and who put 

lives in danger will be dealt with appropriately. 

Recording marine licence information on driver licence 

A new head of power is being inserted which will allow for information to be recorded on a motor vehicle driver licence, which does 

not relate to the driver licence. This power will initially be used to record information relating to licences granted under marine 

safety legislation. This will make it easier for the holder of a marine licence to demonstrate to others that they hold that licence. For 

example, if a person goes to a boat hire company wanting to hire a motorboat, the hire company will want to quickly establish that 

the person holds the appropriate licence. Under these amendments, once the appropriate regulations have been put in place, the 

person will simply need to present their driver licence. 

Crossing supervisors 

Mr Speaker, there are approximately 1700 Queenslanders employed as child crossing supervisors to help our children safely 

cross busy and dangerous roads. The current legislative provisions dealing with crossing supervisors need to reviewed and 

updated to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place to regulate this valuable scheme. 

In particular, the legislation needs to provide guidance on who is appropriate to act as a crossing supervisor. It needs to clearly set 

out the procedures to be followed when responding to a person who has applied to become a crossing supervisor. It needs to 

ensure that, where necessary, the appropriate disciplinary action can be taken against a crossing supervisor. And it needs to 

ensure that crossing supervisors are afforded procedural fairness at all times. 

In any situation where the safety of our children is entrusted to adults, we need to ensure that there are appropriate safeguards in 

place. This Bill inserts those safeguards by adopting a new legislative scheme for crossing supervisors. As a result of this new 

scheme the Bill also makes a minor consequential change to the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian 

Act 2000. 

Transport (South Bank Corporation Area Land) Act 1999 

There will also be an amendment to the Transport (South Bank Corporation Area Land) Act 1999. Land surveys of the South East 

Busway are now finalised. These provisions will clarify the exact boundaries of land to be excluded from the South Bank 

Corporation area. These amendments also enable the registration of the plans of subdivision and issue of certificates of title for 

other land required by the State for the busway. 

Minor and consequential amendments 

There are also minor amendments to the South Bank Corporation Act 1989 and the Integrated Planning Act 1997. 

I commend the Bill to the House. 


HOUSING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 

First Reading 

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) 

(12.51 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Housing Act 2003 and the Housing (Freeholding of 

Land) Act 1957. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— 





(12.51 pm): I move— 


Honourable members will recall I introduced to this House in May 2003 a bill for new housing 

legislation for Queensland. The commencement of the Housing Act 2003 on 1 January 2004 has 

resulted in a more contemporary and flexible system for the administration of the state’s housing 

programs. 

Today I am pleased to introduce the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. This bill amends 

the Housing Act 2003 and the Housing (Freeholding of Land) Act 1957 to provide for the accelerated 

divestment of residential perpetual town leases administered by the Department of Housing.

23 Aug 2005 Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Bill 2583 

The provisions of this bill will assist remaining residential lessees to achieve outright home 

ownership. This is consistent with the original intent of this scheme and the focus of the Department of 

Housing on providing contemporary products that meet contemporary housing needs. I seek leave to 

have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard. 


Residential perpetual town leases are one of this State’s original home ownership schemes. The leases were issued from 1924 to 

1985 as a means of reducing the costs of home ownership for working families. More than 7,000 leases were issued to eligible 

home loan applicants over this time. As of 30 June 2005, there were only 262 leases remaining. Of these remaining leases, less 

than 30% are held by the original lessees or their descendants. All the original home loan agreements have been finalised. 

Consequently the remaining leases continue in perpetuity on a land rent only basis until lessees choose to freehold. 

To achieve outright ownership lessees may elect to convert their leases over State land to freehold by paying the purchase price of 

the land to the State through the chief executive, Department of Housing. 

These amendments give the remaining leaseholders a greater incentive to freehold. Divesting the leases will also reduce the 

administrative costs to government of maintaining this leasehold system. 

While the divestment strategy includes incentives for lessees to convert it also includes disincentives to remaining a lessee in the 

longer term. The freeholding incentives are applied before any disincentive measures are introduced. 

Under the proposed amendments, lessees may continue as lease holders, and they may choose when to convert to freehold, as 

long as their leases are retained in the existing ownership. 

The freeholding incentives provided by the Bill will encourage lessees to convert and make outright home ownership a more 

attractive option than continuing to pay an annual land rental to the State. 

The Bill provides that, with minor exceptions, from a date to be prescribed by regulation (but not before 1 July 2009), any leases 

that remain will automatically convert to freehold upon a change of ownership. 

As the Bill is to commence on 1 July 2006 and the automatic conversion provisions not before 1 July 2009, lessees are provided 

with sufficient time to consider their options. In the first instance this involves considering whether to take up the freeholding 

incentives or to leave conversion of the lease to a future buyer or beneficiary. 

The Department of Housing notified lessees in June this year that a strategy for completing the original objectives of the perpetual 

town lease program was under development. Lessees were advised this was expected to include a freeholding incentives 

package and other changes to promote the conversion of the leases to freehold. Lessees were invited to contact the Department 

of Housing for more information. This engagement with lessees will continue throughout this process. 

To give effect to the divestment strategy the Bill seeks to reduce the purchase price for the conversion of the leases to freehold. It 

does this by basing the purchase price on a percentage of the unimproved value of the leased land. This directly benefits lessees, 

as the present system is based on what a person would be willing to pay for the land, as if it were freehold (a market value). 

In the first few years of the strategy, additional concessions will be applied to the purchase price, as prescribed by regulation. 

On or after 1 July 2009, automatic conversion provisions will apply. These provisions of the Bill provide that following a change of 

ownership, the lease will automatically convert to freehold. To secure the costs of converting the lease to freehold a charge in 

favour of the chief executive, Department of Housing will be registered over the freehold title. The conversion costs become 

payable within 2 years for an ordinary transfer and 5 years where the registered owner is a beneficiary of a deceased lessee. 

When these provisions take effect, with minor exceptions, all changes in ownership will cause a lease to automatically convert to 

freehold. 

This Bill provides the opportunity for the completion of a program under which a group of Queenslanders, who have been on the 

road to home ownership for some time, will be able to finally realise that goal. 

Mr Speaker, I commend this Bill to the House. 


EDUCATION (QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS) BILL 

First Reading 

Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Minister for the Arts) 

(12.53 pm): I present a bill for an act to establish the Queensland College of Teachers, to confer 

functions on the college including functions about the registration of teachers in Queensland and related 

matters, to establish the Office of the Queensland College of Teachers, and for other purposes. I present 

the explanatory notes, and I move— 



Mr Deputy Speaker read a message from Her Excellency the Governor recommending the 

necessary appropriation. 


Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Minister for the Arts) 

(12.54 pm): I move— 


The College of Teachers bill responds to the needs of a modern, changing education system. The 

changes contained in this bill represent a major overhaul of teacher registration which will raise

2584 Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Bill 23 Aug 2005 

professional standards and provide new levels of student safety. There will be a new Queensland 

College of Teachers to replace the Board of Teacher Registration. This Queensland College of Teachers 

will oversee the most comprehensive changes to the registration of teachers in our state’s history. 

In March last year our government commissioned a review of teacher registration by Professor 

Marilyn McMenniman, Pro-Vice Chancellor (Arts and Education), Griffith University. The outcome of that 

review, entitled The report of the review of the functions and powers of the Board of Teacher 

Registration, was tabled in this House. It made 84 recommendations for change. 

This bill now provides for the implementation of those recommendations of the review requiring 

legislation. There has been extensive consultation as part of the review and the preparation of this bill. 

There was a reference group comprising all major stakeholders, and during the consultation period 

forums were held throughout Queensland with teachers, peak stakeholder bodies and the general 

public. 

The bill, amongst other things— 

• requires renewal of teacher registration every five years; 

• requires teachers to prove that they: 

- are suitable to teach (including criminal history checks); 

- have maintained an adequate connection with the profession and, if so; 

- have undertaken continuing professional learning. 

• allows the Queensland College of Teachers to hear and deal with complaints about a teacher’s 

conduct or practice and to conduct investigations to determine whether a matter should be taken 

to a disciplinary body; 

• establishes a committee of the board of the college, the Professional Practice and Conduct 

Committee, to enable investigations and low-level disciplinary matters to be dealt with efficiently 

and in a timely manner; 

• establishes an independent Teachers Disciplinary Committee to hear and determine serious 

disciplinary matters. 

I seek leave to have the remainder of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. 


A new Queensland College of Teachers will replace the Board of Teacher Registration with enhanced responsibility for developing 

professional standards and registration of teachers, including conduct of criminal history checks, approval of entry courses and 

conduct of disciplinary processes. 

The primary focus of the Queensland College of Teachers is to uphold the standards of the teaching profession, maintain public 

confidence in the profession and protect the public. 

A key function of the new College will be the development and implementation of Professional Standards. They will describe the 

abilities, experience, knowledge and skills expected of teachers. 

These standards will become the benchmarks for granting provisional and full registration and for renewal of registration. 

They will also be the key to identifying acceptable pre-service teacher education programs, re-entry programs and teaching 

experience requirements for full registration. 

These requirements will also give teachers a personal opportunity to update their skills, gain personal professional development 

opportunities and for Queensland’s teaching profession to maintain and renew its teaching excellence. 

Persons who are not registered to teach in Queensland will not be permitted to teach in schools without receiving a ‘Permission to 

Teach’ in specific circumstances which replaces the current ‘authorisation’ process. 

The Bill also introduces a two-tiered approach for dealing with disciplinary issues: 

The ‘Professional Practice and Conduct Committee’: 

This is a committee of the Board of the College that will hear matters that could result in a low-level sanction such as cautioning, 

reprimanding the registrant, or entering into an undertaking. 

And the ‘Teachers Disciplinary Committee’: 

This is an independent committee that will hear matters that could lead to high-level disciplinary sanctions such as suspension or 

cancellation of registration. 

It will be chaired by a legal practitioner, with additional membership drawn from registered peers, and other persons representing 

the community. The independence of this Committee is achieved by ensuring there is no common membership with the Board of 

the College. 

The ability to refer cases to such an independent disciplinary body parallels our legal system by separating the roles of those who 

investigate and prosecute from those who make a final determination. 

The College will have the ability to investigate complaints in relation to a teacher’s eligibility or suitability to be registered where a 

ground for disciplinary action can be established. 

The Bill also ensures the ongoing safety of Queensland children by: 

• The immediate cancellation of a teacher’s registration where they are convicted of a serious sexual offence involving a 

child and a custodial sentence or disqualification order is imposed. 

• The discretionary power to suspend a teacher’s registration if they are believed to pose an imminent risk of harm to 

children.

23 Aug 2005 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2585 

• A non-discretionary suspension of registration when charged with a serious sexual offence, until the independent 

disciplinary committee determines whether continued suspension is necessary to ensure the protection of children. 

• A mandatory requirement of all schools to advise the College when it undertakes an investigation into allegations of 

"harm" to a child and subsequently, the outcomes of the investigation. 

In the situation where a registration is suspended the teacher will be provided with the opportunity to show the Teachers 

Disciplinary Committee that the matter is an exceptional case in which the best interests of the children would not be harmed if the 

suspension were ended. 

The Bill also has enhanced appeal provisions which provide for the internal review of a range of decisions made by the College 

through a review committee process. 

The College will also be able to obtain relevant criminal history reports, police investigative information and other information. It 

will have the power to allow the police to regularly check new police information against the names of those registered, but it also 

incorporates a range of protections regarding the use of the information it receives. 

These provisions are necessary to ensure individuals are suitable in a profession that has a close, ongoing association with 

children. 

The Bill contains a mandatory requirement that all schools notify the College of any dismissals of teachers on the ground of 

incompetence. 

Mr Speaker, our Government has demonstrated a strong commitment to the children of Queensland and to advancing the 

professional standards in teaching. The Queensland College of Teachers Bill 2005 is another significant step. 

The Bill will support a profession that needs to be responsive to a changing environment, and ensure that public confidence in the 

profession is, and remains high in the Smart State. 

I commend the Bill to the House. 


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 

First Reading 

Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and 

Women) (12.57 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1994, and for 

other purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— 





Women) (12.57 pm): I move— 


The Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 makes 

essential amendments to several pieces of environmental legislation in Queensland. As foreshadowed 

by the government in June, this bill allows for the staged rehabilitation of working mines. When mining 

activity ceases in one section it can be rehabilitated while another area of the mine is worked. With this 

approach the impact on the environment is lessened and the company will have certainty of its 

responsibilities through a certification process. 

Amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1994 will assure mining companies that 

rehabilitation requirements will not change for those areas where rehabilitation has been completed 

early in the life of a mining project. These changes to mining regulations have been undertaken in 

response to requests from the mining industry for legislative certainty on rehabilitation, and this is being 

delivered. I seek leave to have the remainder of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. 


The reforms will provide greater certainty to the industry and encourage mining companies to speed up their rehabilitation 

schedules so more sites can become conservation or farming areas sooner. 

Each year more than $50 million is spent on mine rehabilitation in Queensland, and more spending on progressive rehabilitation 

will create job opportunities in regional, rural and remote Queensland. 

The bill provides for companies to provide additional financial security to the government to ensure taxpayers do not foot the bill if 

rehabilitation fails or is not completed. 

The Bill also provides for minor amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1994 to ensure there is an adequate response to 

submissions and clearer time frames in the environmental impact assessment process. 

Mr Speaker, as a further example of the Government implementing its commitments this Bill provides for the continued access by 

horse riders to some future national parks (recovery) in South East Queensland up until 24 November 2013 whilst alternative trails 

are identified. 

This delivers on our promise to recreational horse riders to minimise impacts whilst alternative trails are identified and developed. 

We are also delivering on our promise to reduce red tape by removing the need for a permit to traverse.

2586 Succession Amendment Bill 23 Aug 2005 

The Government has made substantial progress on the identification of these alternative trails, with proposals currently out for 

consultation for the Noosa and Beaudesert and Gold Coast Regions. 

In addition to the South East Queensland Forest Agreement transfer process, the Government committed in 2001 to a State-wide 

Forests Process to resolve native forest logging on land outside South East Queensland. 

As many members know this can be a complex undertaking that requires extensive consultation and therefore this Bill amends the 

Nature Conservation Act 1992 to extend the operation of the Forest Reserve Tenure until 31 December 2025. 

This means that as logging ceases and land becomes Forest Reserve, existing uses can continue whilst the other issues are 

resolved. 

This time frame will be needed to implement commitments under the SEQFA. In addition, forest reserve tenure could be used as 

an interim tenure as part of negotiations for the State-wide Forest Agreement Process. 

The Bill also allows stock grazing permits issued under the Forestry Act 1959 to be granted up to 31 December 2024 for a limited 

number of existing entitlement holders suffering financial hardship, prior to dedication to protected area tenure in South East 

Queensland. This provides adequate time for entitlement holders to adjust their business to compensate for the reduction of 

income from loss of their lease. 

Mr Speaker, with increased coastal development and problems with erosion there is a need to reduce the risks to the public from 

structurally inadequate and unsafe tidal works and clearly define ongoing maintenance responsibility. 

The Bill amends the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 to provide for improved safety obligations for all structures that 

require a development permit for tidal works. The Bill also amends the Integrated Planning Act 1997 to provide for improved safety 

requirements for emergency coastal tidal works. 

These amendments address the Coroner’s recent recommendations arising from the tragic Flying Fish Point sea wall collapse 

near Innisfail. 

The Bill also makes minor technical, administrative and consequential amendments and corrections to the Brisbane Forest Park 

Act 1977, the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995, the Environmental Protection Act 1994, the Forestry Act 1959, the 

Integrated Planning Act 1997, the Marine Parks Act 2004, the Mineral Resources Act 1989, the Nature Conservation Act 1992, the 

Petroleum Act 1923, the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004, the Queensland Heritage Act 1992, the Statutory 

Instruments Act 1992, and the Wet Tropics World Heritage Protection and Management Act 1993. 

The Government has undertaken extensive consultation on these amendments. Key stakeholder groups consulted include: 

government agencies, AgForce, the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society, the Environment Institute of Australia and New 

Zealand, the Environmental Defenders Office, the Local Government Association of Queensland, the Queensland Conservation 

Council, the Queensland Environmental Law Association, the Queensland Farmers Federation, the Queensland Law Society, and 

the Queensland Resources Council. This feedback was considered and the Bill amended. 

Mr Speaker, the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 will improve the effectiveness and 

efficiency of Queensland’s environmental legislation, provide important linkages with interrelated legislation and streamline the 

transition of forest reserve lands to protected areas whilst delivering on our promises to affected Queenslanders. 

Mr Speaker, I commend this Bill to the House. 

Debate, on motion of Mr Hobbs, adjourned. 

SUCCESSION AMENDMENT BILL 

First Reading 

Hon. LD LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (12.59 pm): 

I present a bill for an act to amend the Succession Act 1981. I present the explanatory notes, and I 

move— 




Hon. LD LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (12.59 pm): 

I move— 


Succession laws, or laws relating to wills, were imported into the Australian colonies from English 

law. Over time, the succession laws applying in each jurisdiction changed and diverged, with the result 

that there was little consistency between succession laws across the states and territories. 

Consequently, in 1991 the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, SCAG, initiated the Uniform 

Succession Laws Project. The objective of this project has been to develop model legislation to be used 

as the basis for reform by Australian states and territories with a view to each jurisdiction adopting 

uniform, or at least consistent, succession laws. 

In 1995, the National Committee for Uniform Succession Laws, chaired by the Queensland Law 

Reform Commission, was established to examine four discrete areas of succession law—the law of 

wills, family provision, intestacy and estate administration. This bill amends the Succession Act 1981 to 

implement the national committee’s recommendations regarding the law of wills. 

In December 1997, the national committee presented a final report to the SCAG on the law of 

wills. This report contained a model wills bill for introduction in each jurisdiction. The report and model

23 Aug 2005 Succession Amendment Bill 2587 

bill were based on the draft Victorian Wills Act 1994, which drew on Queensland’s Succession Act. 

Consequently, many of the amendments contained in the model legislation were either identical to, or 

substantially the same as, corresponding provisions of the Succession Act. However, the model 

legislation simplified and modernised the language used and introduced some significant changes to the 

law of wills, such as the concept of court authorised wills for minors and people who lack testamentary 

capacity. 

In December 1997, the Queensland Law Reform Commission released report No. 52 on the law 

of wills. This report assessed the extent to which the model legislation represented a change in existing 

law under the Succession Act and recommended several departures from the model legislation. The bill 

implements the model legislation with several modifications recommended by the commission’s report. 

The bill does this by replacing part 2 and other miscellaneous provisions of the Succession Act which 

deal with the making, revocation, formal validity, interpretation of wills and powers of personal 

representatives. The bill brings the law of wills into the 21st century. I seek leave to have the remainder 

of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. 


I would like to highlight some of the key changes made by the Bill that bring the law of wills into the 21st century. 

Changes regarding a minor’s capacity to make a will 

Mr Speaker, the Bill extends the current law in relation to a minor’s will-making capacity. Until now, an unmarried person under the 

age of 18 years has not been able to make a valid will. This means that if a minor dies before reaching 18, his or her estate is dealt 

with according to the intestacy rules that govern what happens to a person’s estate when they die without a will. 

The Bill enables a minor to validly make, alter or revoke a will in contemplation of marriage to a particular person—the will takes 

effect if and when that marriage is solemnised. This complements the law relating to a minor’s ability to marry under the Marriage 

Act 1961 (Cth). 

In addition, the Bill expands the Supreme Court’s succession law jurisdiction to enable it to authorise a minor to make, alter or 

revoke a will. This recognises there are circumstances in which it is desirable for a child to make a will. For example, a child who 

is suffering from a potentially fatal illness or injury may have received a significant inheritance or damages and may want their 

estate to be distributed other than in accordance with the intestacy rules which might benefit only the child’s parents. The child 

may want their estate to go to one parent only, for example where the minor is estranged from the other parent, or the minor may 

wish to benefit another person eg. a particular sibling or a carer. 

Before exercising this jurisdiction, the court must be satisfied that the minor understands the nature and effect of the proposed will, 

the extent of the property to be disposed under it and that the will reflects the minor’s intentions. The Registrar of the Supreme 

Court must be a witness to the will and must retain it in safe custody. 

Court-authorised wills for persons lacking testamentary capacity 

Mr Speaker, the Bill further expands the court’s succession law jurisdiction to enable it to authorise the making, alteration or 

revocation of a will on behalf of a person who lacks testamentary capacity. I consider this to be the most significant and innovative 

aspect of the bill. Queensland will join jurisdictions including the United Kingdom, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and the 

Northern Territory in establishing the concept of a statutory will. 

Testamentary capacity is essential to the making of a valid will—it requires a testator to know and understand the nature of what 

they are doing. The testator must also understand the extent of the property they are dealing with by will and be able to 

comprehend and appreciate the claims to which they ought to give effect. 

A person who lacks testamentary capacity may never have had the capacity to make a will or they may have lost capacity, for 

example, due to injury or disease. Currently when the person dies, their property is distributed according to the intestacy rules. In 

the case of a person who has lost capacity, the person may have previously made a valid will which is no longer appropriate due 

to a change of circumstances eg. the subsequent birth of a child not mentioned in the will. In these circumstances, the child would 

have to bring a family provision application for a share of their parent’s estate. 

The statutory will provisions offer a solution in situations where a person’s known intentions would not otherwise be given effect 

because of unforeseen circumstances or events eg. accident or illness. 

There is no restriction on who can apply for a court-authorised will for a person lacking testamentary capacity. Having regard to 

interstate experience, it is anticipated that most applications will be made by the person’s spouse, family member or guardian. 

The Bill establishes a two-stage process whereby an applicant must first seek leave of the court to apply for an order. the 

requirement for leave is intended to perform a screening function to allow only adequately-founded applications to proceed. A 

leave application must be accompanied by comprehensive material including evidence of: 

• The person’s lack of testamentary capacity and the likelihood of acquiring or regaining it; 

• The size and nature of the person’s estate; 

• The person’s testamentary wishes; 

• The terms of any previous will; 

• The likelihood of someone bringing a family provision application in respect of the person’s estate; 

• The circumstances of any other person for whom the person lacking testamentary capacity might reasonably be expected 

to make provision for under a will; 

• Any other persons who might be entitled to claim on intestacy. 

Requiring the applicant to provide such detailed information at this stage will enable the court to gauge the dimensions of the 

application at an earlier stage of the process. There will be an opportunity for persons with an interest in the proceedings eg. the 

person alleged to lack testamentary capacity, family members etc to be represented and heard at an application for leave hearing. 

The court cannot grant leave unless satisfied that: 

• The applicant is an appropriate person to make the application; 

• Adequate steps have been taken to allow all persons with a proper interest in the application to be represented; 

• There are reasonable grounds for believing the person does not have testamentary capacity;

2588 Succession Amendment Bill 23 Aug 2005 

• The applicant’s testamentary proposal is or may be what the person would have done if he or she had testamentary 

capacity; and 

• It is or may be appropriate for an order to be made in relation to the person. 

Once leave has been granted, the next stage is for the court to consider the actual application. In this regard, the Bill allows for the 

merger of the leave application and the application proper. 

Before it makes an order, the court must be satisfied that the person is in fact incapable of making a will and that the proposed will 

reflects what he or she would have done if they had capacity. The court must also be satisfied that appropriate steps have been 

taken to allow representation of all persons with an interest in the application. 

The will must be signed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court and retained by the registrar until further court order, or the person 

dies or acquires or regains testamentary capacity. 

This new aspect of the court’s jurisdiction also applies to minors—it is intended to complement the court’s jurisdiction in respect of 

competent minors. This means the court can make a statutory will for a minor to whom the court cannot otherwise give 

authorisation because the minor lacks the requisite degree of understanding, eg. because of immaturity or because of a particular 

incapacity. 

Mr Speaker, many aspects of the Bill shift the emphasis from matters of ‘form’ to the intent of the testator—it moves us from a 

system where formalities were paramount to one where the court has greater discretion to interpret the testator’s intentions. This 

underlines the policy thrust of the Bill that the greatest possible effect should be given to the testator’s intentions. 

Court’s power to dispense with formal execution requirements—testamentary intention test 

Under the current Act, a failure to make a will that conforms with the formal execution requirements, however slight, will generally 

result in the will being invalidated. Formal execution requirements can only be relaxed where the Supreme Court is satisfied that 

there has been substantial compliance with them. 

This test has proved extremely onerous, with very few substantial compliance applications being successful. It has created 

inequitable results—an oversight or an inadvertent error by the testator or an attesting witness can invalidate a document that for 

all intents and purposes would otherwise constitute the testator’s will. The testator’s obvious testamentary intentions are thwarted 

and the testator dies intestate with their property being distributed according to the intestacy rules, which may benefit people the 

testator had no intention of benefiting under the terms of his or her will. 

To address this and provide a more equitable result, the Bill replaces the substantial compliance test with a testamentary intention 

test. Under this test, the court will be able to admit a document to probate if it is satisfied the document embodies the testamentary 

intentions of a deceased person, even though it does not comply with the formal requirements for executing a will. In deciding the 

deceased person’s intentions, the court may have regard to statements made by the deceased person about their intentions. 

Relaxation of certain formal execution requirements 

Mr Speaker, the Bill also relaxes certain formal execution requirements by removing the current requirement that a will must be 

signed ‘at the foot or end thereof’. Until now, this requirement has meant that where a signature is unconventionally placed on a 

will, all gifts that appear below it are invalid. The Act will now require that the signature of the testator is made with the intention of 

executing the will but it is not essential that the will be signed at its foot. 

The Bill retains the current requirement for at least two attesting witnesses to witness the will in the testator’s presence, but no 

longer requires them to do so at the same time. 

Admission of extrinsic evidence to assist in the interpretation of wills 

For the first time, Queensland will have a statutory provision that permits a court to admit extrinsic evidence to assist in the 

interpretation of a will. The provision will extend the admissibility of evidence of the testator’s actual intention where, on its face, 

the will is meaningless, ambiguous or ambiguous in light of surrounding circumstances. 

New rules about beneficiaries and interpreters who witness wills 

The Bill changes the interested witness rules which operate to disqualify an attesting witness or interpreter for the will (or their 

spouse) from benefiting under the will. These rules are usually justified on the basis that allowing a beneficiary or spouse of a 

beneficiary to witness or interpret a will provides an opportunity for the person to exert undue influence over the testator. 

Unintended consequences flowed from the application of these rules eg. wills have been witnessed by persons who were not 

contemplated at the time of execution as being a potential beneficiary, but who through the passage of time became a beneficiary 

because others died before the testator. The rule meant that any dispositions to these witnesses failed. 

To address this, the Bill provides that a gift to an attesting witness or interpreter for a will is void unless: 

• The court is satisfied that the testator knew and approved the making of the gift and the gift was made freely and 

voluntarily; or 

• All of the people who would benefit if the gift to the witness was void, consent to the witness receiving the gift; or 

• There are at least two other witnesses to the will who do not receive a gift under the will. 

The Bill also abolishes the rule that a gift to the spouse of an attesting witness or interpreter is void. 

New rules about the effect of marriage on wills 

Under the current Act, a person’s will is revoked when they marry, unless the will was made in contemplation of a specific 

marriage. 

The Bill changes this by providing that a gift to a person to whom the testator is married at the time of his or her death will not be 

revoked. 

In addition, an appointment of the person to whom the testator is married at death as executor, trustee or guardian will no longer 

be revoked. 

The Bill will also preserve those wills that have been made in contemplation of marriage generally (as opposed to a specific 

marriage) provided the testator subsequently marries. 

New rules about who is entitled to see the will of a deceased person 

As a general principle, only a named beneficiary has a right to see the will. 

The Bill inserts a new provision in the Act that will require the person who has custody or control of a will of a deceased person to 

allow certain categories of people to inspect the will and copy it. The entitlement extends to a part of a will and to purported wills 

and revoked wills (and parts thereof), as well as copies. These testamentary instruments can be significant to the determination of 

questions concerning, for example, the testator’s capacity, undue influence or interpretation.

23 Aug 2005 Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill 2589 

The provision is intended to ensure that persons with a proper interest can see the contents of a will prior to the will’s admission to 

probate (upon which, it becomes a public document) or in the event that probate is not sought and the estate is administered 

informally. Providing individuals with a right to see the will may assist those who wish to make a claim against the estate, eg. 

dependants of the deceased person who wish to make a family provision application. 

The categories of persons eligible to access a will represent persons considered to have a proper interest in the will eg possible 

beneficiaries or other claimants against the deceased’s estate (such as a person entitled to make a family provision application). 

The provision will apply to all wills, regardless of when they were made. 

Conclusion 

Mr Speaker, this Bill reforms and modernises the law of wills in Queensland. It also represents a step closer to achieving 

consistency of succession law across Australia. It is my hope that more Queenslanders will be encouraged to make wills which, as 

a consequence of these reforms, are more likely to give effect to their actual intentions. 

Acknowledgements 

This Bill is the product of a lot of consultation and detailed examination over a long time. I would like to acknowledge the 

considerable work of the Queensland Law Reform Commission (particularly the commission’s Director, Claire Riethmuller), in 

coordinating the uniform succession laws project. 

I commend this Bill to the house. 

Debate, on motion of Mr Hobbs, adjourned. 

Sitting suspended from 1.02 pm to 2.30 pm. 

QUEENSLAND COMPETITION AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL 


Resumed from 9 August (see p. 2214). 

Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (2.30 pm): I am pleased to talk to the Queensland Competition 

Authority Amendment Bill 2005. This is an important bill that we will be supporting. The Queensland 

Competition Authority Amendment Bill is primarily designed to address the situation we witnessed 

recently at Dalrymple Bay. Essentially, because the company concerned was leasing the facility and 

was not the actual owner of the facility, the existing competition authority act did not give the 

Queensland Competition Authority the power to enforce agreements about the upgrade of the site. 

Rather, the law as it stood meant that the QCA had to rely solely on contractual provisions that had been 

entered into with the company to enforce contractual arrangements. It is for that reason alone that the 

opposition will be supporting this bill. 

The bill also addresses two other areas that I think should be touched on briefly, those being 

information sharing and compliance monitoring. The bill proposes giving the QCA the additional role of 

compliance monitor and dispute resolution arbiter. The existing legislation currently precludes the QCA 

from undertaking such a role. In particular, I believe it is important that the QCA be tasked with the job of 

monitoring the compliance of parties to the voluntary codes of conduct that are in place. In the 

explanatory notes it states— 

The proposed amendments provide the QCA with the capacity to perform this role, if required by Ministers. 

That is interesting in that no longer can ministers of this government say they did not know; it is 

their job to know. That is what they are there for, and it is their job to make sure that the Queensland 

Competition Authority is doing its job. I will come back to that point a little later. 

The other major change relates to information sharing. Changes to the existing act will allow the 

Queensland Competition Authority to share commercially confidential information with the relevant 

departmental coregulator without having to first obtain the consent of the relevant regulated entity. The 

opposition hopes that this amendment, in reality, will result in better coordination between all levels of 

government so that we do not find ourselves in a situation in the future where another crisis emerges in 

our state and it turns out that it was the result of one arm of government not talking to another arm of 

government. This is a situation that often develops. We want to make sure that this does not occur. 

Hopefully this legislation may resolve that. 

However, it is interesting to note what actually transpired here. The reality is that the Beattie 

government was once again caught out on its ability to ensure that the state’s infrastructure is up to 

scratch and to plan for the future of our state. We faced a massive bottleneck blocking our ability to 

export the state’s coal at a time when international markets were screaming out for our product. Given 

that Labor has governed Queensland for all but two of the last 15 years, one would think that they would 

have done something to ensure that we actually had the capacity to sell our products to the world but, 

typically, it took a crisis to bring about any action. There are other issues such as a lack of water to 

supply the coalmines in that region. We are going to find ourselves in a crisis situation. In due course we 

are not going to be able to provide the product to meet contracts that those mines have already entered 

into because there has not been enough long-term planning. 

In the best tradition of Beattie Esq. politics, the Premier woke up one morning to find that there 

was a crisis with a queue of ships lined up at Dalrymple Bay waiting and waiting to get access to our 

coal. What did Premier Pete do? The first thing the Premier always does is find a culprit, and it is never

2590 Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill 23 Aug 2005 

him or his government. Secondly, having established in his own mind that he is not responsible, the 

Premier then apologises and announces that he is going to fix it. He has pulled this stunt so many times 

that the members opposite do not recognise it anymore, but I will give them a reminder. Do the 

members opposite remember the electricity crisis? No-one knew there was a crisis—not Paul Lucas, the 

minister responsible for energy, and not Pete—no-one! But when the network’s failure became apparent 

to all and sundry in the summer of 2004, all of a sudden Pete came to the rescue of Queenslanders; he 

saved them from themselves! As it turned out, according to the Premier, it was not the government’s 

fault for not ensuring its government owned corporations were investing enough in the network, and it 

was definitely not the fault of the government for stripping out billions of dollars in dividends. 

This legislation allows the Queensland Competition Authority to share information with the 

regulated entity, but it should not be forgotten that the GOCs that run the electricity industry in this state 

already had that authority to communicate. We have a situation where the government is playing catchup 

with this legislation. However, let us hope that in the future some sort of a signal comes from 

somewhere that allows the government to get in early rather than wait for a crisis. As it turned out, 

according to the Premier, the crisis in the electricity industry was the fault of everyday Queenslanders 

who were encouraged to buy airconditioners. 

We had a situation in north Queensland, particularly at Dalrymple Bay, where there was an 

enormous cost in terms of demurrage because of the number of ships that were waiting. Believe it or 

not, demurrage was costing in the vicinity of $876 million a year. If members wanted to work it out, for 

instance, it is $60,000 per ship per day by 40 ships—which there were—by 365 days, which makes it 

$876 million a year that was actually wasted because we could not load those ships. That backlog has 

been reduced. Prime has been able to get on with the job now and has put some infrastructure in place. 

That has increased the capacity of the port, so we have seen an improvement. 

I flew over there a few months ago. I think even at that stage there were still 22 ships sitting 

around waiting. The interesting thing was that some of them were situated out almost beyond the 

horizon. It is still a problem and it needs to be addressed. At the time we were told that there was a holdup 

with the Queensland Competition Authority. I could not get my head around that. How could that hold 

up loading? Obviously the situation occurred because Prime was only leasing the port and did not 

actually own it. That is how we ended up in that situation. At that stage the number of ships waiting to be 

loaded was increasing and the demand for coal was increasing. The mines knew that the demand was 

there. It is quite extraordinary that it went on for so long. Something should have been done sooner. 

However, this legislation may help to alleviate that situation. 

We have seen the same type of crisis management style being adopted recently in relation to the 

health system. According to the Premier, it is not his fault. According to the Premier and his expert panel 

of spin doctors, it is the fault of everyday Queenslanders who are rather inconveniently getting sick—the 

taxpayers—that our health system is so bad. 

We have to make sure that we do not need to find excuses in the future. We have to make sure 

that this legislation is workable—and we have to make it work—because our future is at stake. If 

members recall, the federal Treasurer said at the time—and it was quite a talking point around the whole 

nation—that Queensland was holding up the nation’s economy, and it really was. Those ships were out 

there waiting to get loaded. That was not the only place where there were delays, but that was the worst 

example. That was why attention was focused on Queensland. With those comments, we support the 

legislation. 

Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (2.39 pm): The Liberal Party will be supporting the legislation principally 

because we do not want to see a repeat of the experience where over 40 ships were anchored off 

Dalrymple Bay trying to load coal and unable to do so in a timely manner. That image flashed around the 

world to our coal importing nations, our customers, would have been vastly negative and would not have 

shown this state in a good light for the future. 

Much has been said in the past about how this impasse arose in terms of the Dalrymple Bay 

facility, one of the largest coal exporting facilities in the world. Suffice it to say, it should not have got to 

the stage where we had that backlog of ships waiting over the horizon to start with. The government 

should have been more proactive in trying to resolve the situation as quickly as possible. It certainly, as 

I said, sent a negative message around the world. We will support the legislation because we do not 

want to see that happen again. There is no doubt in my mind that we need to make sure that the QCA 

legislation is up to speed in terms of its impact upon privately leased pieces of state government owned 

infrastructure and make sure that that does not happen again. As I said, we will be supporting the 

legislation. 

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Mount Coot-tha, I recognise and welcome in the 

gallery the teachers and students from St Patrick’s primary school at Bundaberg in the electorate of Nita 

Cunningham. Welcome to Parliament House. 

Mr FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (2.41 pm): I rise to support the Queensland Competition 

Authority Amendment Bill 2005, which provides for three important reforms to the competition legislation 

that we have in this state. All three of these reforms will enhance the record of micro-economic reform


that was commenced with the competition policy reforms of the nineties. Principally the amendments 

before the House today provide for three further enhancements that will ensure that the state’s critical 

infrastructure will be utilised in a manner that is most beneficial to the broader public good and provide 

for an efficient use of that state infrastructure. 

The key amendment, which has been addressed by the two members who have spoken already, 

relates to an amendment which gives effect to the original intention of the legislation in providing for 

access to infrastructure that has monopolistic tendencies, and that is that, in relation to one particular 

asset being a piece of infrastructure—the Dalrymple Bay coal terminal—the owner of that facility is now 

different from the operator. I think it is somewhat strange that we get people in this debate criticising the 

decision to provide private sector opportunity to participate in the provision of infrastructure and then 

immediately turn on their dial in a sort of chip wrapper effort at economic philosophy and then decry that 

circumstance as causing all these problems when, in fact, they are the champions of providing these 

sorts of opportunities. Once we have provided that opportunity for private sector involvement in the 

provision of infrastructure they immediately join the debate only to decry it as something that is 

ineffectual and causative of problems which, of course, it is not of itself. 

These amendments will obviously have application in the context of the Dalrymple Bay coal 

terminal but they are certainly not confined or aimed only at that. The provision of private sector 

opportunities within infrastructure will continue to be something that the government fosters, and 

properly so. In those circumstances these amendments to the competition legislation have a much 

broader application. 

The other amendments that are contained in this bill are also worth mentioning. They provide for 

a greater flow of information between regulated entities and the regulators, which can only enhance the 

information upon which regulatory decisions are made, and I think axiomatically improve the regulatory 

environment within which these assets operate. 

Finally, the third amendment relates to, in particular at this stage, providing for the Queensland 

Competition Authority to have a role in mediating, arbitrating and participating in the implementation of 

voluntary codes of conduct as an alternative to more heavy-handed, if you like, regulation of such 

assets. 

In that regard, these three amendments are important and provide for a continuation of an 

agenda that says that we are about enhancing productivity and prosperity in the state. There can be no 

question that the effort of the state government in providing the essential infrastructure for the state 

stands in stark contrast to that of the federal government. That is the daily grind and the daily grist of this 

parliament. Again the stark difference was apparent in question time today between the efforts that we 

are putting into our capital works budget and the provision of essential infrastructure now and into the 

future and the fact that the Commonwealth government has vacated the field. I commend the bill to the 

House. 

Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (2.44 pm): The Premier has stated— 

The first component of the bill amends the state’s third party access regime framework to ensure the state’s competition 

framework is keeping pace with the multitude of contractual relationships utilised by modern business. The state’s third party 

access regime establishes a legal right for competing firms to share certain infrastructure services. This enhances competition and 

benefits Queensland consumers. 

I feel that at this present moment this is an important issue. I had a meeting at Clermont with the 

Blair Athol mine manager and his concern was that they are actually decreasing production because 

they cannot get their coal out to Abbot Point and Dalrymple Bay quick enough. They are decreasing 

production but the mine is extending for another year. I do not believe that this is good for the local 

economy and local business. I believe that it is very important that that missing railway link between 

Goonyella and Newlands mine is built to take pressure off one particular harbour. 

As members would be aware, that region produces over $6 billion in gross revenue. I believe that 

is a very important issue. It also provides about $1 billion to the government in state revenue. I quote 

again— 

Under arrangements where an infrastructure owner contracts out the operation of infrastructure, the bill ensures: 

... the state’s regulator is able to enforce access undertakings and manage access disputes directly against access providers, 

when they are not the owners of facilities, without having to rely on contractual provisions in agreements between an owner and 

an access provider. 

I believe that this is an important issue. Being a railway employee for 19 years I actually played a 

part in building many access lines and opening up new lines. Our fathers and forefathers built 

Queensland Rail. It is through their work and toil that it has been a wonderful service provider for rural 

and regional Queensland in the past. I still cannot see the logic that we have built a railway track, 

Queensland Rail employs Queensland Rail employees to maintain that track, to keep it up to scratch, 

and yet there are now other companies that can ride over Queensland Rail tracks. I just cannot see the 

logic in that. It is a state government asset; it is Queensland Rail. We built it and then we have these 

other companies that say they can compete and can haul coal and containerised freight cheaper than 

Queensland Rail. Meanwhile we are paying for the upkeep of this rail.


I wish to provide an example. My partner and I buy a cattle property. We fence it, put in dams, 

provide the infrastructure, pay the rates and so on. Another company comes along and puts its cattle on 

our property, does not pay for the upkeep and does not pay for the fences. All of a sudden it says that it 

is competing against us and it sells its cattle cheaper than our cattle. Well, of course they will be able to 

compete because they are not paying for the upkeep or the expenses. This is exactly the same as what 

is happening in relation to Queensland Rail at this present moment. 

Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (2.49 pm): Through the budget process and support for 

effective and socially responsible implementation of national competition policy, the Queensland Labor 

government has demonstrated its economic credentials and its commitment to the continued economic 

development of the state. The results speak for themselves. For the 10th successive year our economy 

will outperform the nation. 

Economic growth in 2004-05 is estimated to be 4.25 per cent—more than double the two per cent 

estimated for the rest of the country. Unemployment is at record lows and is expected to average around 

five per cent for the next two years. Consumer spending is forecast to be strong over the next two years, 

as is public and private sector capital investment. All of these factors result in a higher standard of living 

for Queenslanders. 

It is an interesting footnote in our history that some of the most significant and lasting economic 

reforms have been implemented by Labor governments, particularly at the national level. Freeing up our 

financial markets, floating the dollar, active trade engagement with Asia and the implementation of 

national competition policy reforms are a few of the more significant. 

I have to confess that in 1995 when the agreement was reached between the states and 

territories and the Commonwealth to implement national competition policy I, along with many, was 

unconvinced that it was going to deliver the economic benefits promoted by its proponents. The Hilmer 

report was the subject of significant public debate prior to the formal adoption of national competition 

policy in 1995. Like many on both sides of this House, I raised a number of criticisms and concerns 

particularly about the way in which national competition policy was being implemented. 

I think it is fair to say that there was an ideological agenda being pursued by some which resulted 

in undesirable outcomes in some instances. However, I am pleased to record that the Queensland 

government, under the leadership of our Premier, was instrumental in ensuring that national competition 

policy was and is now implemented in a more socially responsible way. In particular, it introduced a 

fairer public benefits test which takes account of the impact national competition policy might have on 

employment and other social factors. 

After 10 years of its implementation and the opportunity to observe the outcomes, I now firmly 

believe that national competition policy has been the major contributor to our state’s and our nation’s 

much-improved economic performance. I am also convinced that it is essential that we remain 

committed to the continued implementation of the policy. 

As in 1995, there is now a need to continue the debate about further economic reforms in this 

country and about the appropriateness of any proposed reforms. With the increasing globalisation of the 

markets in which we operate there is a need for continuous improvement in the way in which we 

manage our state’s and our nation’s infrastructure. As a state and a nation we are relatively small fry in 

international economic terms. For example, we produce about one per cent of world output, compared 

with the 30 per cent produced by the United States. 

In order for us to maintain and improve our standard of living we must engage in trade with other 

nations and also encourage appropriate investment in productive assets. For that to happen our major 

infrastructure, including our ports, roads and railways, must operate efficiently and effectively and we 

must have the appropriate structure and procedures in place to achieve this. This will help contain costs 

and facilitate the delivery of resources and products to where they need to be. 

It is for that reason that bills of this nature, although relatively procedural in nature, are an 

important step in the continuing process of reform. This bill has as its major aim to facilitate a better 

regulatory outcome for our major pieces of infrastructure. It will enable the independent regulator of 

competition in Queensland—the Queensland Competition Authority—to more effectively perform its 

role, particularly in instances where major pieces of infrastructure are leased by third parties. As the 

independent regulator of competition in the state, the QCA plays a very important role in the 

development of our resources by overseeing government monopoly business activities, third party 

access arrangements, the competitive neutrality complaints process and the regulation of gas and 

electricity distribution businesses. 

This bill proposes to address three areas which are important to this process. Firstly, the current 

state based access regime does not allow the QCA to directly enforce access undertakings against and 

manage disputes in cases where a facility is leased by an operator—that is, where the operator is not 

the owner of the asset. Currently, undertakings may only be enforced indirectly via contractual 

arrangements between the owner and the lessee. Changes proposed under this bill will enhance the 

QCA’s enforcement capabilities and will give it the discretion to take action against access providers 

who are not the actual owners of the assets concerned.


Secondly, the bill also provides for an additional monitoring and dispute resolution role for the 

QCA. Currently providers of monopoly assets are able to introduce voluntary codes of practice with 

regard to their pricing policies and allocation of resources. In order to ensure the credibility of the 

voluntary codes of practice, the QCA will be given the capacity to act as an independent compliance 

monitor and/or dispute resolution arbiter. Codes of practice can be used to tackle market power by 

imposing behavioural constraints on a business rather than the QCA using the sledgehammer approach 

of price regulation. 

The third area of attention is the area of information sharing. The bill proposes amendments 

which seek to improve information flow between the QCA and its departmental coregulators in the rail, 

energy and water sectors. Under current arrangements the directors-general of the relevant 

departments undertake some regulatory functions in concert with the QCA. At the moment the 

information flow between the QCA and DGs is stymied by the need for it to gain the permission of the 

regulated entity before passing on commercially confidential information. 

These amendments will address that inefficiency and provide a better outcome for industry and 

ultimately consumers. Overall, these amendments will improve the regulatory environment for some of 

our state’s major strategic assets. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (2.56 pm): I rise to speak in the debate on the Queensland 

Competition Authority Amendment Bill 2005. This afternoon my colleague the member for Charters 

Towers made reference to the issue of Queensland Rail jobs and the security of those jobs. I can see 

that the honourable member for Charters Towers’s heart is in protecting railway jobs for Queensland 

railway employees. 

I say at the outset that I was the minister when, in conjunction with my then colleague the 

honourable Treasurer and Deputy Premier of the day Joan Sheldon, we split the track of Queensland 

Rail to allow third party access so we could obtain payments from the federal sphere and let our state 

become a party to national competition. We now see operations like Freightcorp and Pacific National 

coming into Queensland. Queensland Rail is using the New South Wales operations, especially down in 

the Hunter Valley where it is hauling coal. 

This brings me to the importance of having a long-term vision. Mr Speaker, as you are a former 

minister for resources, mines and energy you would probably know more than most in this House about 

the importance of having very good integration of road, rail and port facilities when it comes to coal. 

Queensland Rail hauls something like 135 million tonnes of coal a year. This goes out of ports like 

Gladstone, Hay Point, Dalrymple Bay and Abbot Point. For too long I believe that our vision has not 

been right in relation to the missing link in the Bowen Basin. 

That is one area that I believe we should look at. When we talk about national competition policy 

we are talking about coal-mining operations, whether they be in the Bowen Basin, the southern basin or 

wherever. The other argument I always put is that the missing link also provides a duplicated route to 

the main coastal line. I think it is important to recognise that. 

The first component of the bill amends the state’s third party access regime framework to ensure 

the state’s competition framework is keeping pace with the multitude of contractual relationships utilised 

by modern business. Nothing is more accurate and nothing is truer than that. When we see the 

multinational coal conglomerates in Queensland bringing significant benefits to their shareholders and 

to the economy of this state, it is absolutely paramount that governments work in a cohesive way with 

those multinationals. We know the worth of the coal industry to Queensland, and we know what it is 

going to be worth in many years to come, especially around the Collinsville area, the Bowen Basin and 

the Surat Basin, where millions of tonnes of coal are still being explored and found. We are sitting on a 

real wealth of coal resources that will be advantageous and beneficial to the growth and the economics 

of this state for a long time to come. 

That brings me back to Hay Point and Dalrymple Bay. With the vision and knowledge that the 

departments have had in the past of that explosion in the coal industry, those loading facilities should 

have been seen to in years gone by rather than looking at the problem now. I heard the member for 

Warrego make reference this afternoon to the number of ships on the horizon. Someone very close to 

me counted 60 one day—60. When one multiplies that by, say, $20,000 to $40,000 a day demurrage, it 

adds up to a bit of chaff at the end of the year. I do not know how many coal-loading terminals we could 

have built for that sort of money. 

The real issue is competition. If we are going to have companies like Pacific National, 

Freightcorp, Queensland Rail and whoever else entering into the marketplace in Queensland, we have 

to ensure that we have in place a visionary infrastructure plan that will cater for the future growth and 

future viability of not only the coal industry but also the electricity industry, the water industry and other 

resources as the list goes on and on. 

Procrastination today is death in government—death in anything at all. The old saying is that he 

who hesitates is lost. It is very important that this legislation is passed in the parliament. At the same 

time, we should recognise the needs of enhancing competition benefits to Queensland consumers. Our 

exports are very competitive in the marketplace—whether it be coal or whatever. However, we need 

sophisticated enterprises to enhance the opportunity of those companies to not only benefit their


shareholders and their own asset base but also create wealth for the state. I cannot emphasise enough 

the importance of us being party to it. If members go through the Hansards of years gone by they will 

see that I was one firm, harsh critic of national competition policy in its early days because I thought the 

way it was done was unfair. That is why we have had to work it through together, to ensure that there is 

fairness in the equation and fairness in competition for our competitors and for the companies that are 

taking advantage of it. With that small contribution, I support the legislation and commend the bill to the 

House. 

Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (3.03 pm): This bill is part of a vast and complex set of rules, 

regulations and laws imposed on us for the sake of economic rationalism. That theory and its mutant 

children—national competition policy, free trade, privatisation and so on—are anathema for the bush. 

They are bad for all of Queensland. Even the Premier admitted this on 21 April last year when he stood 

up in this place and supported a motion that this place convey its concerns to the Prime Minister in 

relation to the impact of national competition policy and privatisation proposals on Queensland business 

and industry and the devastating effects being felt by Queensland families. He took the chance to attack 

the federal National Competition Council, particularly because of the penalties it imposed on 

Queensland over its refusal to introduce full contestability in electricity. 

In relation to a range of issues, the Premier said that Queensland considers the National 

Competition Council’s demands totally unacceptable and without justification. Yet this bill before us 

today is designed in part to free up our third party access regime—that is, to make it easier for 

competition in our essential infrastructure areas such as electricity, water and transport. The 

disquiet amongst ALP ranks over this economic dogma is deep. In the same debate, the transport 

minister said of national competition policy— 

Most of all, it is a study in hypocrisy. 

Is that so? One may wonder how, in that debate, the minister said that he did not agree with 

competition for competition’s sake and used the electricity industry as an example, yet today we have a 

bill providing for easier access for competitors to use our electricity infrastructure. Hypocrisy indeed, one 

might think! 

Taking the Premier’s lead, in that debate last year his government voted in support of the motion 

attacking national competition policy and its surrounding economic mantra. It is in detail a very 

complicated issue, but stepping back it is actually simple in its intent, and that is to increase profits for 

the big end of town. Those profits have to come from somewhere, and it is inevitably the pockets of 

average Queenslanders. I believe there are potential problems inherent in this bill, in particular 

provisions allowing the QCA to make access determinations requiring access providers who are not 

facility owners to make facility expansions. In plain English, that looks like a government policeman 

being able to mug operators using government owned electricity, water or transport infrastructure by 

requiring them to fund additions to that infrastructure. How that helps boost investor confidence is an 

open question at best. 

This bill will also bring in an authority for the QCA to act as a policeman for voluntary codes of 

conduct. These codes are seen as being an alternative to regulatory control, which is simply presumed 

to be somehow less acceptable. I am not convinced a voluntary code carries much weight. Certainly 

they do not now, and I wonder how much difference a monitoring authority will make. I have no problem 

with the provisions allowing the QCA to disclose commercially confidential information to the minister, 

QCA members or brother or sister organisations across Australia. The infrastructure involved is owned 

by the people of Queensland. Its elected representatives, particularly ministers, should have as-of-right 

access to all information relating to that infrastructure, to how it is being used and to commercial 

arrangements surrounding it. I think it is wishful thinking to expect these changes to come at no cost. 

The explanatory notes indicate that no implementation costs are expected, but with additional 

demands placed on the QCA I think it is reasonable to expect extra resources will be needed to meet 

those demands. Finally, I will emphasise the way this bill does nothing for anyone in Queensland as any 

economic benefit it may bring will be soaked up by the profit-hungry corporations. There is nothing in 

this for average Queenslanders, and for that reason I do not support it. 

Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (3.07 pm): I rise to speak briefly in support of the Queensland 

Competition Authority Amendment Bill brought to the House by Terry Mackenroth and now followed 

through by the new Treasurer, who is also the Premier. Before I turn to the bill, I want to respond briefly 

to, to some extent, the pretty much incomprehensible words from the member for Tablelands, who at 

some stage spoke in support of the bill but indicated that she was in fact going to oppose it. I do not 

want to go into some kind of deep lesson in economics, but I just make this point: the member for 

Tablelands has come in here over a prolonged period and opposed all elements of what she calls 

globalisation and economic rationalism. She has done that from the perspective of representing the 

people in the bush. I just make this point to the member for Tablelands: most of the rural producers in 

her electorate are exporters. They grow crops and they sell them for a living. These people are 

exporters. They make their money—they make a living—out of a globalised economy. 

What this member has come in here and done over a period of time is said that we should close 

our economy, we should shut it down, we should make Australia pretty much self-sufficient in everything


and we should shut off trade. Our economy would stop, but where it would first impact—where it would 

hit absolutely hardest—would be in the bush. If these people who vote for the member for Tablelands 

could not export their produce, we would not be selling things anymore. Some 85 per cent of our sugar 

crop, for instance, is exported. Imagine the impact of shutting down agricultural exports. The member for 

Tablelands, in seeking to represent her constituents, has to understand that her constituents only make 

a living because Australia is part of an open world economy. That is not rocket science; it is just dead 

basic economics. 

There are three basic aspects of this bill. The first is that it makes QCA determinations applicable 

to the lessees of assets even when they are not the owner. That is the case with the much talked about 

Dalrymple Bay where the state owns the assets, but it is leased to Prime Infrastructure which, in turn, is 

owned by Babcock and Brown. Secondly, the bill increases the QCA’s role in arbitration and dispute 

resolution. That is, it can get the parties talking. Thirdly, it allows the QCA to share information with 

relevant Queensland government departments that are coregulators. 

I want to again touch very briefly on some of the debate that has gone around matters to do with 

the QCA in recent times. In particular, I want to touch on the abject hypocrisy of the federal government 

on these matters. In May the now former Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, described the 

bottleneck of coal exports at Dalrymple Bay as a national disgrace. He was particularly hard on the 

Queensland government for having allowed this to happen. The hypocrisy of this situation is surreal. We 

have the members of the Liberal Party, who are great advocates of privatisation, now trying to open up 

the market in industrial relations. They are the free market gurus who want to bash up the state for 

leasing an asset to a private provider. 

Members have to ask: in this debate, which side are they on? Do the members of the Liberal 

Party think that the state should own and operate all of our infrastructure, which is what they were 

suggesting, or do they think that it should be privatised and leased to the private sector? In this debate 

we can have it only one way or the other. The federal government, in fact, supported very much what we 

had done in leasing Dalrymple Bay to Prime Infrastructure. But it saw the opportunity to take a kick at us 

when there were problems. That is just rank hypocrisy. It is the most short-term political opportunism. I 

really think that a government that completely lacks an abiding philosophical base on economic issues 

can never be trusted. But I guess we already know that about John Howard and the federal government. 

Of course, the real problem was not the bottleneck at Dalrymple Bay. The real problem was that 

Australia’s current account deficit had reached seven per cent—an absolutely shocking level—and the 

federal government was casting around looking for someone to blame. It decided that the fact that we 

could not dig up our coal and ship it offshore at a rapid rate was as good a point to start as any. 

Members then have to ask: why is Australia’s current account deficit so high? That is a really serious 

economic question. The reason Australia’s current account deficit is so high is not that we cannot dig up 

our coal and ship it out fast enough; the reason we have this serious structural flaw in our economy is 

that the federal government does not have a particular economic strategy for where we are going in the 

future. 

In the debate on the industrial relations legislation a week ago I talked about the fact that we do 

not have a strategy on integrating the environment with our economic policy. We do not have a strategy 

for genuinely creating a knowledge nation. At a national level we do not have any strategy except to 

open up our economy more and more and more. That is not good enough. While that is our only 

strategy, we will deregulate, we will lower our wage costs and we will need to dig up our dirt and our 

rocks and our coal and ship them out as fast as we can because we do not have any kind of higherorder 

aim. That is the major failing of the Howard government. That is why it has been casting around 

looking for excuses over things such as Dalrymple Bay. That is where the federal government needs to 

do better. That is where we contrast with the federal government so greatly. We have a Smart State 

agenda. That is where we show them the way. That is where we continue to lead them on economic 

policy. Today, this debate touches on those issues because the federal government bought into it over 

Dalrymple Bay. I very much support the bill. 

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.13 pm): In rising to speak to the Queensland 

Competition Authority Amendment Bill, I wish to raise several matters and to seek clarification on a 

couple of matters. The QCA was established to allow competition to be examined within the 

Queensland context. At the time the enacting legislation was to be presented to this parliament I can 

remember expressing some concerns in a briefing on it. I was told that without the QCA legislation the 

competition matters would be assessed, considered and decided by the national competition authority, 

which would take an Australia-wide view, if you like, and would not know some of the detail and the 

information that related specifically to Queensland. On that basis, it was possible for Queenslanders to 

be significantly disadvantaged. So the idea of the QCA was to establish a competition authority that 

would look after the best interests of Queenslanders and ensure that monopoly entities, in their decision 

making, would make decisions that were favourable in terms of service provision to our communities. 

I have to say that, although I do not have a lot to do with many of the decisions of the QCA, one 

or two of them have generated a deep concern within my electorate. It is on that basis that I have some


misgivings when the QCA is given more power and more authority. A little township called Mount 

Larcom in my electorate had a water pricing issue. The QCA reviewed the Gladstone Area Water Board 

for the second time in two years, although those reviews were supposed to be undertaken only on a 

five-yearly cycle. In that review the QCA recommended that Mount Larcom consumers pay something 

like $8 a kilolitre for water. That was an increase of over 1,000 per cent per kilolitre of water that was 

currently supplied. There appeared to be no public benefit test applied and the decision was made 

purely on an economic basis, that is, the cost of the line and the rate of return that was appropriate, 

according to the QCA, for the Gladstone Area Water Board. 

At the time the Calliope council raised a concern about the way in which the QCA reached its 

conclusions and asked for clarification of the basis on which its decision was made. To my knowledge 

that information still has not been forthcoming from the QCA. The QCA appeared not to have taken into 

account an historical agreement with Cement Australia about the company carrying the operation and 

maintenance costs of the line where water is taken off for Mount Larcom. Certainly, there was no 

consideration given of the ability of that community to pay the exorbitant price that was to be the ceiling. 

I also found the QCA unaccountable in that process. It put forward this recommendation of a 

ceiling price. The Mount Larcom community was devastated. Most people said, ‘We won’t be able to 

afford to pay for water. We’ll have to go off line. We won’t be able to sell our properties because no-one 

else will buy them because the cost of water is so high. The QCA has effectively left us with nowhere to 

go.’ The QCA then reviewed its figures and the increase was something like the increases in the CPI 

plus the current costs. But in the interim, there had been months of concern and heightened distress by 

residents who lived there, a public meeting and a great deal of publicity. The QCA refused to send a 

representative to the public meeting to explain its process. The QCA sent a letter which effectively 

blamed everyone else but the QCA. So I express concern when the QCA is given additional power, as 

this legislation proposes. 

As the member for Ipswich said, there are three elements to this legislation to ensure that the 

legislative provisions in the Queensland Competition Authority Act are workable and enforceable 

against access providers where those access providers are not the owners of the declared facility. The 

example that has been used is Dalrymple Bay. Certainly, if a private entity has leasehold power over a 

strategic piece of infrastructure such as a port, it should be subjected to the same rules, requirements, 

obligations and constraints that a government entity would have to work through and work with. 

The second element allows the Queensland Competition Authority to undertake an additional 

monitoring and/or dispute resolution role for government business voluntary codes of conduct. Although 

that will apply to some of the major infrastructure for government business—and I looked at local 

government infrastructure to see where it might apply—it may apply to regional landfills and the like 

where the QCA will have some powers. 

It is the third element that I would seek the Premier’s advice on: to allow the QCA to share 

relevant confidential information with the state departmental coregulators for electricity, rail and water 

without the regulated entities’ consent. My concern is that it could establish a situation where openhanded 

communication could be put at risk. The explanatory notes state— 

The Act does not allow the QCA to disclose commercially-confidential information to another person without the provider’s 

consent, except in those circumstances where the recipient of this information is a Minister, a QCA member or an entity that 

performs similar functions to the QCA ‘under a law of the Commonwealth, another State or a foreign country.’ 

They go on to state— 

The amendments will allow the QCA to share confidential information, relating to the State’s regulated rail, energy and water 

entities, with the relevant departmental co-regulator (namely, the Directors-General of Transport, Energy and Natural Resources 

and Mines, respectively) without the need for first obtaining the relevant regulated entity’s consent. 

Is that the extent of the power, that it allows for confidential information sharing between QCA, the 

shareholding minister and the departmental directors-general? How far through that organisation will it 

allow confidential information to be transported? I ask this because confidential information could 

include the price, the terms of a contract, whether the contract has been subject to a dispute, the nature 

of the dispute and information in relation to the dispute resolution or lack of resolution. I would be 

interested to know how that information will be contained within the departments, whether those same 

confidentiality obligations will apply to the directors-general and, if the Premier says later that it will be 

extended to other office holders, whether confidentiality will apply to them. 

I would also be interested to know whether the Premier sees this as undermining the open 

communication that, I believe, currently exists between most entities and their shareholding 

departments. It is my understanding that there is a free flow of information between, for example, QR 

and the transport department and area water boards and the Department of Natural Resources and 

Mines. I expect that there would be a free flow of information. If there have been problems, I would be 

interested to know the types of problems that have been encountered. But, in particular, I would like to 

know the breadth of that information—how far through the departments the information will go. Will it just 

go to the minister and the director-general or will it go to other office holders within those respective 

shareholding portfolios? I look forward to the Premier’s response.


Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (3.22 pm): With pleasure I rise to support the Queensland 

Competition Authority Amendment Bill. From the outset I would like to talk a little about the twin ports of 

Dalrymple Bay and Hay Point, as they are in my electorate. There is some confusion from time to time, 

and the ports are confused one to the other, and I would like to allay that confusion. Dalrymple Bay is 

owned by the Ports Corporation. It currently exports about 53 million tonnes of coal per year. With 

upgrades in the next three to four years, the expectation is that it will export in the vicinity of 85 million to 

90 million tonnes per year. 

The Hay Point terminal, side by side to the south, is owned and operated by BHP Billiton and 

partners. It exports currently in the vicinity of 35 million tonnes. It is currently upgrading its facility to 

export somewhere between 65 million and 70 million tonnes in the next two to three years. I note that 

the Premier was there recently when one billion tonnes of coal had just been exported through Hay 

Point. Hay Point was obviously the first port to be established in that area. 

There has been much talk about 60-plus ships anchored off the ports. That is a fact. Some of 

those ships were obviously anchored there for BHP Billiton, but mostly those ships were tied up to 

export coal through Dalrymple Bay. The issues were numerous and rather complicated. At that time 

there was a need to export. There was a requirement for a lot of coal to be shipped offshore—there was 

a huge demand. Quite a number of ships were being directed to the port without any prior knowledge or 

without being ordered to carry coal. That maximised the number of ships out there. Quite a number of 

those, as I have said, were turning up from time to time on the off-chance that they might be loaded over 

a period of time. That exacerbated the whole issue, and it became national news, and international 

news for that matter. 

Members of parliament will recollect that probably four years ago the Queensland government, 

through the Ports Corporation, leased Dalrymple Bay to Babcock and Brown and, more importantly, to 

its offshoot, which was called Prime Infrastructure. It is interesting to note that Prime Infrastructure has 

reverted to the original parent company of Babcock and Brown. That lease was for 51 years, and the 

upfront payment on demand was about $580 million for the 51 years. I was not privy to the contract, as 

members would be well aware, but I understand that there was a requirement for the infrastructure at 

Dalrymple Bay to be kept in an acceptable condition over the period of the lease and that, when the 

lease options were taken up for the other 49 years, there would be a sign-off on the state of the 

infrastructure on site. 

I would have thought that within the contract there would be a requirement for Prime 

Infrastructure to upgrade the infrastructure in line with the demand by the users. The user group is 

comprised of a number of companies that export out of Dalrymple Bay, and they are numerous. 

Obviously, six or eight months ago, when those ships were sitting off the port, the users were 

demanding a greater capacity through the port. The port was keen to access the coal boom and export 

more coal. The customers were desperate to get coal and were paying hugely inflated prices for spot 

cargoes of coal. So there was a willingness of all parties, I believe, to come to an agreement as quickly 

as possible. 

My understanding is that the problem came about when QCA became involved and could not 

make a decision on a price to the users. Indeed, off the top of my head, there was a dispute for probably 

close to a year over what the users should pay to utilise the port and what the port required to upgrade 

its infrastructure. Pleasingly, that dispute has now been overcome, and there is a clear plan to upgrade 

the port over a number of stages over the next two to three years. Indeed, estimates vary. It appears 

that somewhere between $900 million and $1.5 billion could be spent at Dalrymple Bay to upgrade it to 

export 85 million to 90 million tonnes per year. 

That brings us to the issue of the rail links between the coalmines to the west and the port 

facilities. Currently there is a dual track from Moranbah to Hay Point or Dalrymple Bay. The train traffic 

on that line is quite substantial now. Sooner or later it will get to the stage where it will be impossible to 

put more coal on the line. There is some talk of building another access line to the south of the current 

dual line because that line has to come down Connors Range, which is quite steep. Some members of 

parliament will recollect that there was a substantial derailment at Black Mountain some years ago when 

both lines were closed for quite a considerable time. 

It is just a matter of time before there is another disaster on the range. Due to the number of trains 

travelling the track, it is becoming very difficult to maintain the track. I speak regularly with railway 

maintenance workers on the line and they are saying that the line has never been in worse condition. 

With that in mind, it is just a matter of time before there is another derailment that will close the line to 

the port for some period of time. Let us hope that none of the drivers are hurt in the episode. 

That brings to mind the point raised by the member for Gregory in relation to the missing link. 

Currently there is a line that connects Abbot Point to Newlands, and that is a non-electrified line. 

Newlands and Abbot Point are under capacity, particularly Abbot Point, and the missing link has the 

opportunity of lifting the accessibility to extra coal through that port fairly easily. However, there is a need 

to join the missing link, as it is called, between South Walker and Newlands. About 60 to 70 kilometres 

of line has to be built and there will have to be some upgrades to make that happen. I understand that 

there is an infrastructure task force looking at that currently. However, it will not happen tomorrow and it


is going to cost quite a bit of money to upgrade the line and get more coal going out through Abbot Point 

to relieve some of the pressure on Dalrymple Bay. 

With respect to the bill, I think some opportunities have been missed. Take as an example the 

contract signed with Prime Infrastructure that did not give it the opportunity to increase the price to the 

extent that it was able to upgrade the infrastructure. I think it is a sad indictment on the government that 

it was not able to foresee the amount of coal that would be required to go out of that port in a short 

period of time. With those few comments, I support the bill. 

Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (3.31 pm): I rise to speak to the Queensland Competition 

Authority Amendment Bill 2005. The strength of the Queensland Competition Authority lies in its 

independence. To quote from the QCA’s own literature, the QCA seeks to provide a recognised avenue 

whereby both government and third parties can rely on an independent, objective appraisal of the issues 

that are subject to its review. It also seeks to produce sensible, forward-looking solutions and 

recommendations which are capable of practical implementation and which would also facilitate 

compliance within Queensland with the principles of national competition policy. 

The amendments contained within this bill should, I believe, further strengthen the QCA’s power 

and enhance its role as an independent arbitrator. It is important that the QCA continues to fulfil its main 

responsibilities of ensuring that third party access to essential infrastructure is maintained; that when 

government business competes with the private sector it does so fairly; and that private and public 

monopolies do not abuse their market power. 

Most major infrastructure development has a significant and necessary government component. 

The provision of rail and port facilities is of paramount importance in Queensland, especially in the north 

of the state, and cannot be left entirely to purely commercial interests. As the member for Gregory rightly 

described, transportation of the huge tapped and untapped resources of coal is paramount and very 

important to the state economy, as is the public and private transport structure that has come into place 

within the railways. 

The member for Mirani has also described the problems associated with Dalrymple Bay and the 

transport of this coal. Most major infrastructure development has a significant and necessary 

government component. Likewise, the provision and delivery of essential services such as power and 

water are directed by more than just expected rates of return. 

The Premier referred to the Dalrymple Bay coal terminal to illustrate the importance of the 

proposed amendments and what benefits will accrue from them. He could equally have used the QCA’s 

2003 assessment of the services provided by SunWater to irrigators in the Burdekin River irrigation area 

within the Burdekin Haughton Water Supply Scheme as an example of how the authority operates. 

Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are no doubt aware, the Burdekin Haughton Water Supply Scheme 

has supplied water to irrigators and other users in the Burdekin region, which of course is south of 

Townsville, and this has been happening since the 1950s. Scheme infrastructure includes the Burdekin 

Falls Dam, which was completed in 1987, a number of weirs on the Burdekin and Haughton rivers and 

three major distribution channel systems including pumping stations and a drainage network. The 

scheme supplies the Burdekin River irrigation area, the north and south Burdekin water boards and NQ 

Water. 

In October 2000 dollar terms, actual capital expenditure on the scheme was approximately 

$587 million. Water is currently provided to over 400 farms covering 50,000 hectares in the BRIA. In 

addition, water is provided to the north and south Burdekin water boards, which service 500 water users 

on more than 55,000 hectares. On 17 January 2002, the Premier and the Treasurer, under section 10(e) 

of the Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997, directed the Queensland Competition Authority to 

assess gazetted prices for channel and river irrigators receiving water infrastructure services, which 

includes harvesting, storage, distribution and reticulation provided by SunWater within the Burdekin 

Haughton Water Supply Scheme. 

The four criteria were to determine the capital contributions made by each, if any, of the irrigators, 

the Commonwealth, state governments or other parties; to determine the appropriate weighted average 

cost of capital, WACC, that could be incorporated in the price of providing those water infrastructure 

services; to determine whether the current price paths incorporate any excess return on capital based 

on the above analysis; and to advise under what circumstances it would be appropriate for an entity to 

charge a positive rate of return on scheme assets. 

The final report was delivered in April 2003 and it is a comprehensive analysis of this scheme, but 

the report did not find favour in all quarters. This dissatisfaction was recognised by the authority and was 

attributed by the authority to being a consequence of the ministerially dictated limited terms of reference. 

The report stated— 

It is important for all stakeholders to recognize that the Authority may only respond to the terms of the Direction given to it. In light 

of that, it is important to outline two particularly important matters which lie outside the Authority’s remit and thus are not 

addressed in the Report. The Authority is unable to address the validity of lower bound costs. The Ministerial Direction expressly 

directs the Authority to accept the lower bound costs included in the relevant prices. This also precluded the Authority from 

assessing whether local management would result in a decrease in lower bound costs.


The authority now takes pains to explain itself further. The report further states— 

Whilst such an approach is consistent with the Direction, the Authority notes that these are important issues for irrigators and that 

the failure to be able to address issues relating to lower bound costs perpetuates concerns relating to the appropriateness of 

gazetted prices for services provided by SunWater to irrigators in the Burdekin, irrespective of the Authority’s findings. Secondly, 

the Authority was not directed to determine the level of prices which should be levied on irrigators. That is, the Authority was not 

directed to reset current price paths based on current conditions or the particular circumstances of the Burdekin. 

Just as there is no doubt that the Queensland Competition Authority complied with the ministerial 

directions, there is also no doubt that the authority was hamstrung by those same directions and was 

prevented from addressing what many of the stakeholders saw as the predominant issue. 

The predominant issue was that of fair and equitable pricing. This is the weakness in the system. 

It is not in or part of the QCA itself. Rather, it is with how it is instructed to proceed. It can only operate 

within the dictated guidelines. We must remember that, while it is not subject to government direction in 

relation to the conduct of investigations, reports or access to services, it is subject to the written 

directions of the ministers in performing its functions. 

I support this bill because I believe that it will enhance the Queensland Competition Authority’s 

capabilities and ensure that it can continue to fulfil its role. However, ultimately, the integrity and 

credibility of the QCA lie with the ministers. If they are not held accountable and responsible, 

the amendments that will be passed here today will achieve nothing. 

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (3.40 pm), in reply: Let me 

start by thanking all members for their contributions to the debate. I also thank the National and Liberal 

parties for their support for the bill. This government is a reforming government, and we will not shy 

away from fixing problems as they arise. Problems arise, and the measure of a government’s worth is 

how they are responded to. That is what leadership is about as well. 

Let us get away from the myth that the queue of ships at the Dalrymple Bay coal terminal was due 

to the state government or the regulatory framework. The queue of ships was not due to the regulatory 

process, despite what Mr Costello and all those seeking to play pretty crude politics were saying. There 

was a massive spike in the market value of coal, and coalminers were sending ships to Dalrymple Bay 

in the hope that they would be loaded. Given the price of coal at the time, it was cheaper for them to 

book ships and pay demurrage than to hold off. That is basically what happened. It is not rocket science 

to work out exactly what was going on. Opposition speakers have tried to link these amendments with 

the media circus around the proposed expansion of the Dalrymple Bay coal terminal. I guess that is the 

nature of politics—people might as well stretch the bow as wide as they possibly can—but what they 

said was, frankly, nonsense. 

I would like to clarify for the record some gross inaccuracies by the members opposite on this 

issue that continue the misrepresentations of the federal government. To begin with, the amendment is 

proactive; it is not a reactive amendment. The amendment will only need to be used if there is a breach 

of the undertaking between the Queensland Competitive Authority and the access provider. It is forward 

looking in that sense. The member for Mirani at least got that right. He should explain that to his 

colleagues. However, the amendments we are dealing with today have nothing to do with that situation. 

This government’s record on expanding port infrastructure is second to none, and the expansion 

of Gladstone is a clear example of that. The member for Gladstone would be aware of that. We are 

spending a small fortune expanding the port facilities at Gladstone. 

Mrs Liz Cunningham interjected. 

Mr BEATTIE: That may be so, but I say to the member for Gladstone that there are alternatives. 

We happen to have chosen Gladstone because of its beauty—I should say ‘beauty’, because it is a 

beautiful city—and its natural assets as well. 

Ms Jarratt: Bowen’s got a good harbour, Mr Premier. 

Mr BEATTIE: I highlight to the member for Gladstone the competition that exists. No-one could 

ever accuse us of having a one-eyed view of the world. People in Gladstone have not voted for us for a 

long time, as the honourable member for Gladstone would know, but they have voted for us in 

Whitsunday and Mackay. I know that the members for Whitsunday and Mackay— 

Mr Wallace interjected. 

Mr BEATTIE: Thuringowa does not have a port, but Townsville does. That was a get-square, 

Mr Deputy Speaker. 

Mr Wallace: Some call it Thuringowa East. 

Mr BEATTIE: Thuringowa East indeed! I will get back to the script. I am being distracted here. 

What is conveniently forgotten by the members opposite is that the government is no longer 

involved in operating the Dalrymple Bay terminal. I do not know how many times we have to explain this. 

Again, it is fairly basic. The member for Mirani still thinks that Dalrymple Bay is still somehow linked to 

the Ports Corporation of Queensland. That is not correct. The government has leased the asset to a 

publicly listed company—that is, a private company; I say again that it is actually a private company, and 

‘private’ means private not public—in what is effectively a transfer of ownership for 49 years with an 

option on another 50 years. It is a lease.

2600 Racing Venues Development Amendment Bill 23 Aug 2005 

During the lease tender process, the coal companies asked for Dalrymple Bay to be regulated by 

the QCA when the asset was leased to the new private sector operator. In responding to their wishes, 

the government in fact agreed. Because the coal companies and Prime Infrastructure could not agree to 

the timing and extent of an expansion of the terminal, the parties referred the matter to the QCA. The 

QCA responded accordingly and, ultimately, an access price was determined. Prime now says that the 

expansion will commence. That is basically what happened. 

I would hate to disappoint the member for Warrego, but there has not been any physical 

expansion of the terminal over recent months. The queues have not reduced because of some phantom 

expansion. The member for Mount Coot-tha summed it up well when he noted the opposition cries 

about government inaction on a privately leased facility—a privately leased facility and, for the third 

time, a privately leased facility. 

We lease the asset to the private sector and then the hypocrites opposite say that we should go 

and fix it up. Well, what rot! I would like to see us charged with the responsibility of running around fixing 

up every private facility or private piece of infrastructure. Since when is that the go? 

Mr Schwarten: Every private house in Queensland. 

Mr BEATTIE: Members can imagine that everyone will want me, or more to the point the Minister 

for Housing, to come around and paint each one of their privately owned homes! I do not think the 

Minister for Housing would want to see them agree. 

I note the matters raised by the member for Gladstone and the local area water board. I will 

respond to what the member raised. They are not matters directly related to this bill, but I note that water 

is a sensitive issue and we expect the QCA to consult appropriately. That is what we would expect. In 

relation to the amendment concerning enforcement powers, the bill does not grant the QCA any new 

powers, per se. The bill ensures that existing powers are applied to all types of commercial transactions. 

In relation to information-sharing concerns, which the member for Gladstone raised, normal 

obligations imposed on public servants, imposed under the Public Service Act, will apply. Those normal 

obligations will apply. That applies equally to a director-general and more junior officers alike. It applies 

universally. Again, I highlight the relevance of that. 

In terms of confidentiality, in relation to the issues raised by the member for Gladstone, in 

essence I think the member was asking whether the confidentiality of information provided to the QCA 

would be jeopardised by allowing it to be shared with departments. Let me go through this again so we 

are clear. While the act does not allow the QCA to disclose commercially confidential information to 

another person without the provider’s consent, it makes exceptions for ministers, QCA board members, 

the Commonwealth and other state or international regulators. That is the disclosure. 

Notably, as these exceptions do not include Queensland regulators the QCA cannot currently 

share confidential information relating to the state’s rail, energy and water entities with the relevant 

departmental coregulators without the need to first obtain the relevant regulated entity’s consent. 

The amendments will address this anomaly to allow the QCA to share confidential information relating 

to the state’s regulated rail, energy and water entities with the relevant departmental coregulator— 

namely, the respective directors-general of Transport, Energy or Natural Resources and Mines—without 

the need to first obtain the relevant regulated entity’s consent. This will allow other Queensland 

regulators to make informed regulatory decisions and therefore provide the best overall regulatory 

outcome for industries and consumers. 

That basically covers all of the issues that were raised. I do not think there are any matters that 

were raised with me by members that I have not responded to. Again, I thank members for their 

contributions and I commend the bill to the House. 


Clauses 1 to 32, as read, agreed to. 

Consideration in Detail 

Bill read a third time. 

Third Reading 

RACING VENUES DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BILL 


Resumed from 9 August 2005 (see p. 2206). 

Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (3.50 pm): The opposition will be supporting the Racing 

Venues Development Amendment Bill. Under the Racing Venues Development Act 1982 trustees can 

be appointed to control and develop land as a racing venue and for other purposes connected with

23 Aug 2005 Racing Venues Development Amendment Bill 2601 

racing. Currently only the Parklands Gold Coast Trust has been appointed to control the Parklands 

greyhound and trotting venue on the Gold Coast. Whilst the government states that no further trusts are 

likely to be appointed due to their policy of transferring ownership of racing venues to racing bodies, the 

potential does exist to use this legislation in the future in new venues. The trustees, in an attempt to 

maximise revenue to support the activities of Parklands, have rented the venue for a variety of other 

purposes, for example, as an indoor sports centre, for the Big Day Out concerts et cetera. Normally 

such rentals have not interfered with the conduct of harness and greyhound racing at those venues. We 

all know that our race clubs are usually a very, very great facility; they are usually a very good asset 

sometimes in the very middle of a town or a major city. I know that country race tracks are also used for 

many other events. Usually country race tracks are where the showgrounds are. Many country towns 

include every sporting facility at those facilities. 

Doubts have arisen as to whether the actions of the trustees in undertaking these revenue-raising 

activities have been operating strictly within the terms of the act. There is a potential argument that 

these activities are not for purposes strictly connected with racing. Accordingly, the bill has been 

prepared to ensure that the actions of the trustees in renting the venue to raise revenue do not infringe 

the act because a strict definition is applied. The opposition will support this attempt to permit the 

trustees to seek to maximise revenue from the land comprising a racing venue. The opposition is, 

however, a little concerned that the revenue raising should not distract from the fundamental purpose of 

ensuring that the venue is always primarily used for racing purposes—not another function instead of a 

race day. That is where we are a little bit worried. If a race club had a big popular event, such as a singer 

or an event of great significance, it could impact on the actual plan of that race club. We do not want to 

see any race days shifted because a race club gets into outside entertainment and that sort of thing. 

That is the point I am trying to raise. 

Accordingly, an amendment will be moved by us to ensure that the trustees must always give 

priority to the use of that venue for the purpose of racing rather than other fundraising activities. We are 

not trying to stop any fundraising activity; we just want to protect racing within that club. The opposition 

is concerned about this because of the actions of the government appointed harness and greyhound 

control bodies in seeking to reduce or eliminate greyhound and harness racing in vast areas of the state, 

such as is currently occurring in Townsville and has occurred in Toowoomba and is currently planned for 

Albion Park. There is a real concern that Parklands will be sought to be transferred into a general 

purpose venue rather than a dedicated racing complex, which is the fundamental reason it was 

established in the first place. Given the level of development that is occurring on the Gold Coast, there is 

every reason to fear that the development pressure for access to such a large area of relatively 

undeveloped land will grow in the future. The opposition seeks to ensure the continued survival of 

Parklands fundamentally as a racing venue for harness and greyhound racing. We have heard the 

Premier speak many times in the House about over a thousand people moving to Queensland every 

week. No doubt that will put pressure on places like the Gold Coast. There is massive real estate down 

there and many people are moving to that area. The opposition is fundamentally trying to protect the 

racetrack itself. 

Under this government we have seen the closure and decline of numerous racing venues in all 

three racing codes. We have seen the closure of Townsville harness racing, and the Albion Park 

harness and greyhound venue is under threat again. Parklands is situated in the heart of the Gold Coast 

and it is a major source for potential land development. It must be protected from the potential of having 

its use transformed either by being sold, as is proposed for Albion Park, or by having the trustees slowly 

but surely change it from a racing venue to some other purpose as a result of pressure over the years. 

The only thing that saved the exhibition grounds in Brisbane from falling into the hands of 

developers is that the RNA actually owns the exhibition grounds. In discussing this bill with my 

colleagues we looked at some major clubs in our cities and if some of those clubs could perhaps build a 

venue to bring in outside money I think it would be an excellent idea. We will be supporting this bill and I 

would ask the minister to closely look at my amendment as I bring it forward later because I think it is a 

darn good idea. 

Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (3.55 pm): Since the Parklands Gold Coast racing venue 

commenced operation in 1988 it has been developed by the trustees to include showground pavilions, 

an indoor sports centre, a car park and food and beverage canteens of a high standard. That indoor 

sports centre also includes an indoor cricket facility which is a very popular facility in my electorate. 

Due to its unique design the Parklands Gold Coast racing venue is recognised as the best dual 

purpose harness and greyhound venue in Australia. As well as the harness and greyhound clubs, the 

tenants of Parklands Gold Coast include the Gold Coast Show Society, which holds its annual show 

each September, and the managers of the indoor sports centre. The trust was originally constituted 

under the Land Act 1962, which was later repealed and replaced by the Land Act 1994, and was subject 

to a deed of grant in trust under which the trustees were permitted to use the land for racing, recreation 

and showground purposes. Between 30 June 2005 and 3 July 2005 the trust was reconstituted under 

the Racing Venues Development Act 1982 with the cancellation of the deed of grant in trust and the 

vesting of the freehold title of the land with the state of Queensland. It was intended that the trustees


would be able to continue with their previous activities following the reconstitution of the trust under the 

act. However, concerns have been raised that the wording of the legislation could be read restrictively 

thus inhibiting the activities of the trust. This amendment will remove any doubt regarding the trustees, 

uses of the land following its transfer pursuant to the act. 

The amendment gives the Governor in Council a broad discretion to approve the use of land for a 

variety of purposes, including purposes not directly connected with racing, to maximise the benefits from 

the large amount of capital tied up in the venue, both for racegoers and for the community as a whole. 

This would include events like the Big Day Out. I think they also have caravan shows there and suchlike. 

The Parklands Gold Coast venue is a great entertainment facility which is capable of staging 

large events, as I have mentioned. The trustees have successfully managed the venue for the benefit of 

the community and it is essential that they continue to do so. This bill will enable them to carry out their 

responsibilities under the act. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (3.57 pm): Talking to the Racing Venues Development 

Amendment Bill 2005 gives me an opportunity to examine legislation which affects the third-largest 

employer in regional Queensland. The legislation before this place, as pointed out last year by the 

member for Toowoomba South, Mr Horan, is pertinent and important to all rural and regional 

communities that rely on race meetings for fundraising for their schools, hospitals and local charities. It 

is legislation which affects an industry which is still trying to come to grips with the loss of approximately 

200 meetings from our state’s annual racing calendar. 

Mr SPEAKER: Can I refer the member for Burnett to the actual bill itself. What you are saying is 

not really relevant to the bill. Please come back to the bill. Thank you. 

Mr MESSENGER: The objective of this bill is to give the Governor in Council, as we have heard, 

a broader discretion to approve the use of land by trustees appointed under the act for any purposes 

including purposes that are not directly connected with racing. 

It has come to my attention that many race clubs in my area are looking to use racing land for 

other purposes—for example, camel racing. This is so that they can resume their races and social days. 

It is that issue that I would like to speak to in this debate. Probably the best race meeting I have ever 

been to is the Mount Perry Race Club meeting. I know that that race track is in the member for Callide’s 

electorate. 

Mr SPEAKER: The member for Burnett, I have ruled that you have to address your remarks to 

the bill. Please make your comments relevant to the bill. 

Mr MESSENGER: As I have pointed out, the objective of this bill will allow trustees appointed by 

the act to use land for any purposes, including for purposes that are not directly connected with racing. It 

is to this that I wish to speak. I would like to direct my comments to the Mount Perry racing authority, 

which has had a tradition of racing in Mount Perry for at least 100 years. 

Mr SPEAKER: The member for Burnett, for the third time this is about Parklands at the Gold 

Coast. It has nothing at all to do with other country race meetings. This is your last warning. Make your 

comments relevant to the legislation. 

Mr MESSENGER: It was my understanding that this legislation would and could affect country 

racing. 

Mr SPEAKER: I am afraid you are wrong. Do you want to continue? 

Mr MESSENGER: In light of being told that my remarks are not relevant to this legislation, I will 

not continue. 

Mr POOLE (Gaven—ALP) (4.01 pm): I rise to speak in the debate on the Racing Venues 

Development Amendment Bill before this House. The only purpose of this bill is to remove an anomaly 

that possibly could have dire consequences if not amended. Presently the act allows the trustees of the 

Gold Coast Parklands Trust to use the grounds for the sole purpose of racing. This amendment relates 

only to the Parklands Gold Coast Trust and to no other venue. 

The trust was established way back in 1994 under the Land Act and was subject to a deed of 

grant in trust for the purpose of greyhound and harness racing and, of course, a showground. As time 

has shown, having only these attractions could not possibly be viable and other operations needed to be 

sourced. Where Parklands is located makes it a suitable venue for a host of activities and attractions, 

including the Gold Coast’s famous Big Day Out, which attracts live bands and singers from all parts of 

the world, including, I believe, Coldplay. Chris Martin actually performed there. 

All these other non-racing activities bring in more than 70 per cent of the total operating income 

which in turn then subsidises racing operations at Parklands. Without this amendment it would actually 

leave the trustees without the power to authorise events other than racing or showground activities. I 

support this amendment to the bill. 

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (4.03 pm): The Racing Venues Development 

Amendment Bill 2005 is an important bill for Parklands. There are some principles involved which apply 

to a number of showgrounds and racing venues around the state. Parklands was developed at a time 

when the Gold Coast Show Society had to look for another site and harness and greyhound racing were


popular and doing well on the Gold Coast. They developed one particular area. I knew the secretaries 

who ran the Gold Coast Show Society and greyhound racing during the time I was general manager of 

the Toowoomba Showgrounds and the Toowoomba Greyhound Racing Club. They had a very good 

secretary of the greyhound racing club down there who ran it very successfully. 

Mr SPEAKER: You were quite good yourself. I remember you came to Mount Isa once. 

Mr HORAN: That is right. I was brought up to Mount Isa to have a look at the possible relocation 

of the showground. It was a very enjoyable visit. I remember it well. 

With changing times there is a need for race club venues—and in this case the harness racing 

club and the greyhound racing club on the Gold Coast—to be profitable and well used. I think it is very 

important to make good use of venues. Today showgrounds are used for many things. The Toowoomba 

Showgrounds has hundreds of events every year like home shows, motor shows, various indoor and 

outdoor events, horse shows, dog shows, hobby and craft shows, family reunions and other receptions. 

The list goes on. That makes good use of the venue rather than it being left idle throughout the year. 

When we moved the Toowoomba Showgrounds from the centre of city, where it was partly deed 

of grant in trust and partly freehold, a bill went through parliament called the Toowoomba Showgrounds 

Act. We had to convert the 245 acres that we bought for the new showgrounds from freehold to a deed 

of grant in trust. I believe those deeds of grant in trust are a very good title. Generally they are for suchand-such 

show society and show society purposes. That term ‘show society purposes’ enables them to 

stage various events which raise funds for the venue. 

That is what will happen in this particular case. The deed of grant in trust in this case is for the 

purposes of the Parklands Gold Coast Trust. It believes that it is not explicit enough to cover it for the 

many other events that it runs there. Therefore, it believes that it needs to have this particular piece of 

legislation to give clarity and enable the Governor in Council to make decisions on what can and cannot 

be run there. 

There has to be strong protection of the fact that the original core business of this site related to 

the show society, the harness racing club and the greyhound racing club. Any events put on there 

should be put on by the trust specifically to raise funds to be able to continue to maintain and develop 

that site to its absolute maximum. Then it will not simply be the harness racing club, the greyhound 

racing club and the show society that bear the brunt of the costs for improvement and so forth. 

As other members have said, the Big Day Out was held there. Those sorts of events can bring in 

money that enables the further capital development of a site. It is useful to the people of that area. It is 

also important for the ongoing maintenance and repairs and continual good looks of the place such as 

the gardens, the drainage and roads. For that reason, I think this is very important. 

This bill refers particularly to Parklands. Most other racetracks, particularly those in southern 

Queensland, have in recent years been transferred from a trust arrangement to a freehold arrangement. 

I know that happened specifically in the case of Toowoomba, Ipswich, Doomben, Gatton and others. In 

the case of the Toowoomba Turf Club it was freehold. In the 1940s the committee feared being sued. It 

handed it over to the government to be leased back as a trust for the protection of the committee at the 

time. In recent times things have changed so it is freehold again. If I could slip one thing in about the 

Toowoomba Turf Club: one of its innovations for patrons—this is about patrons—is that it has introduced 

narrowband radio coverage so that the people of Toowoomba and surrounding areas are able to get 

coverage 24 hours a day from the TAB radio station. That is an excellent service. It is very innovative. I 

compliment it on that. 

Having run a showground that was under a DOGIT, I know that it is virtually as good as freehold 

because it actually specifies what a place can be used for and that it cannot be used for anything other 

than that. It was Bob Katter in the past who brought in the DOGIT to some of the Aboriginal 

communities, because it gave them security of title for the particular reason of them living there and that 

being their community. In the same way, the DOGITs that apply to show societies are for show society 

purposes. The one that applies to Parklands is for the purposes of parklands. This bill clarifies that if any 

other types of events are put on at this place there is a proper head of agreement or principle under 

which those other events can be run there. 

The point that the shadow minister made is a good point: we must never forget that the purpose 

of those grounds, and the reason funds were put into those grounds, was the Gold Coast Show, the 

harness racing club and the greyhound racing club. That is the core reason for the existence of that 

ground and why the funds were put in there in the first place. I think it was Russ Hinze who developed 

that ground when he was the minister. Those three things were the core reason for that. Times change 

with history and so forth, but if those three entities want to run their particular sport and recreation that 

should be the abiding principle and the cornerstone of that trust arrangement. 

The shadow minister was saying that he would like to see in this bill—and he will be moving 

an amendment in this regard—a guarantee that if something massive comes up the trust cannot very 

easily overrun the dates or the arrangements for one of those particular events. It could have been in the 

past that the Beatles or someone of that nature wanted to come out and suddenly the trust would say, 

‘This will make so much money that we’re better off to put that on and stop having the Gold Coast Cup


or some other harness racing event,’ or, ‘Let’s try to get the show society to move its dates.’ There has 

to be a protection in there, because it might well be that the trust wants to run an event that happens 

regularly. I am not sure which night it holds the greyhound racing, but let me use that as an example. Let 

us say that the greyhound racing is held on a Wednesday night. The trust could say, ‘We can run a 

market every Wednesday night and we should push the dogs out. They should go to another night 

because we can run a market every Wednesday and we can make a certain amount of money.’ 

There has to be some balance between the core reason for the provision of public funds to build 

that facility and ensuring that they are not overtaken by what we are doing. What we are doing today is 

a clarification. It is the Governor and the Governor in Council who will be making the decisions on some 

of these, if you like, extended uses for which this facility can be used. It must always be borne in mind 

that the key reason for the existence of this ground is those three organisations, and those three 

organisations have to be protected. 

Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (4.12 pm): I have pleasure in rising to speak in support of the 

Racing Venues Development Amendment Bill. The Parklands Gold Coast Trust is the only trust 

constituted under the act and therefore this amendment will only affect the Parklands Gold Coast Trust. 

The Parklands Gold Coast is a great entertainment facility which is capable of staging large events. The 

trustees of the Parklands Gold Coast have for a number of years hired out the venue for high-profile 

events such as the Big Day Out festival, which attracts approximately 55,000 people. I admit that I have 

been one of those 55,000 people on several occasions and speak in great support of the minister’s 

legislation today to enable the Big Day Out to continue at this great venue. The Big Day Out, as I said, 

attracts so many people to the Gold Coast and ensures that our tourism remains sustainable as well. Of 

course, all of those people have to stay somewhere and eat somewhere. It is great to see not only 

young people supporting live music but also people from all over Australia coming to the Gold Coast to 

attend the Big Day Out. 

The site has also been used for the Gold Coast Show, and the Gold Coast Show kicks off next 

week. I understand that last year the show attracted almost 64,000 people and this year it has a special 

event happening called ‘Heroes: Ordinary People Doing Extraordinary Things’. There is an actionpacked 

program guaranteed for all. I look forward to attending the Gold Coast Show. I know that my 

Labor colleagues have a stall planned and that many of them will be making themselves available to 

meet with the Gold Coast community at the Gold Coast Show. I will be looking forward to wandering 

around the Gold Coast Show and visiting all of the agricultural parts of the show, and in particular I 

would not miss sideshow alley at all. 

Ms Keech: Plus the Queensland wine exhibit. 

Ms CROFT: Looking forward to it, Minister. The minister informs me that there is also a display of 

Queensland wines. That will be very interesting, and I encourage all Gold Coasters to head there and 

support our Queensland wines. 

The trustees have successfully, as I have mentioned, managed the venue for the benefit of the 

community, generating business and tourism to the Gold Coast. Historically, in excess of 70 per cent of 

the total operating income of the Parklands Gold Coast Trust has been derived from non-racing 

activities such as catering, car-parking facilities, ground and pavilion rental, indoor sports centre 

management fees, advertising and show society rent. I recall the days when I was at Griffith University 

and always having to park at Parklands. It was the best place to park. It was the cheapest place to park 

as well, so I am pleased that it is still able to supply that facility for the students at Griffith University. 

Obviously these activities have been used to fund the racing facilities and to supplement the 

income generated from greyhound and harness racing. The trust was originally constituted under the 

Land Act 1962 and was transferred to the Racing Venues Development Act 1982 in 2003. Since 

reconstitution of the trust, I understand that concerns have been held that the wording of the legislation 

may inhibit the purposes for which the land had previously been used. These amendments to the act 

are enabling amendments only and do not of themselves vary the purposes for which the land may be 

used, but through a separate submission and approval by the Governor in Council permitted uses may 

be extended. 

At the time of deciding on extended permitted uses of the land, the Governor in Council will 

consider the views of relevant stakeholders. This process enables the act to be applied in a consistent 

yet flexible manner to ensure the views of all stakeholders may be taken into account when determining 

the most appropriate permitted uses for the land. Maximising the purposes for which the Parklands Gold 

Coast venue may be used will enhance the trustees’ ability to generate revenue and attract more people 

to the Gold Coast and of course ensure that we have another Big Day Out for 2006. I congratulate the 

minister and commend the bill to the House. 

Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (4.14 pm): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the 

Racing Venues Development Amendment Bill and, in doing so, indicate the Liberal Party’s support for 

this bill. The racing industry is one of the biggest industries in Queensland and provides for the 

livelihoods of thousands of Queenslanders and their families. I have been and will continue to be an 

ardent supporter of the racing fraternity and the product it provides.


This bill is one that amends the Racing Venues Development Act 1982 to give the Governor in 

Council greater discretion to approve the use of land by trustees appointed under the act, and this 

includes discretion to make decisions with regard to purposes that are not directly related to the racing 

industry. It does this by omitting from section 4(1B) of the Racing Venues Development Act the 

requirement that the discretion only extends to racing related decisions and places in the act the more 

broad term ‘for any other purpose’ as the test that must be satisfied under this discretionary power. As I 

said at the outset, there is no problem with this on the face of it. Trustees of any club—and racing clubs 

are no exception—have certain obligations, and this piece of legislation does not lessen these 

obligations in any way. While there is always a need to keep an eye on these types of things to ensure 

the extended power is not abused by trustees, there are plenty of safeguards in the legislation and there 

is no need to object to any of the provisions. 

I also notice that one of the groups consulted was the trustees of the Parklands Gold Coast Trust. 

I also take this opportunity to congratulate all of the people who have contributed and continue to 

contribute to making Gold Coast greyhound and harness racing what it is. I have had people come to 

me praising the facilities there. I have gone along to the odd night meeting when I have had the chance, 

and anyone would be hard-pressed to find a provincial track anywhere in Australia with comparable 

facilities, infrastructure and ease of access. My family and I are also, as are other Gold Coast 

members—the member for Southport and the member for Broadwater—looking forward to the Gold 

Coast Show. It is like a mini Ekka but without the dramas of getting there and the associated crowds. 

Also, it does not quite have the selection of show bags, which is good for indecisive children, and I have 

three of those. I commend this bill to the House. 

Mr FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (4.19 pm): It is my pleasure to contribute briefly to the 

debate on the Racing Venues Development Amendment Bill, which provides for land provided on trust 

for racing purposes to be utilised for other purposes provided that that use goes to the ultimate benefit 

for which that land has been granted—to that end, racing. This amendment is an enabling amendment. 

As such, it does not of itself change the use of the land but it provides that the Parklands Gold Coast 

Trust land, which is presently constituted under the Racing Venues Development Act, can be used for 

purposes other than racing, provided that that use goes to the ultimate benefit of the original purpose of 

the grant, which is racing. 

I am happy to be frank and tell members the reason for my short contribution to the debate on this 

bill. Many of us in this job are often asked why we go into politics. At the age of 26, I nominated to enter 

politics. At that time a lot of people asked me what I thought I could achieve by going into politics. 

Mr Hopper interjected. 

Mr FRASER: I say to the member for Darling Downs that today, at the ripe old age of 28, I still get 

asked that question a lot. I represent—and I am proud to represent—a very dynamic and very young 

electorate. One in five people who vote in my electorate are aged between 18 and 24. To them I say that 

the reason I am in politics is today I am voting for legislation that means that the Big Day Out can occur 

in 2006. Certainly, those people may think it is quizzical that we need to pass this legislation to do that. 

But I am sure they would not think it was quizzical if by the happenstance of legislation the Big Day Out 

was prevented from occurring in 2006. Like the member for Broadwater, I admit to sinfully attending the 

Big Day Out, in what might be described as, a few years ago. I do not want to press my luck by talking 

about ‘back in my day’ at this point. 

Nevertheless, this bill is important because it provides for a sound legal basis upon which the Big 

Day Out can occur. That of itself speaks volumes about the relevance of politics—the relevance of 

government—and how it touches people in their everyday lives. To the good young folk who live in my 

electorate, I say to them that this afternoon I got to vote for the Big Day Out. That is a touchstone of why 

they should take politics seriously, why they should turn up to vote, and why they should think about the 

way they exercise their vote. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (4.21 pm): I am pleased to speak to the Racing Venues 

Development Amendment Bill 2005. As other members have mentioned, this bill removes the 

requirement for any future activity on land set aside for the Parklands Gold Coast Trust to be connected 

with racing. Presently, the only trust established under the Racing Venues Development Act is the 

Parklands Gold Coast Trust. The minister stated in his second reading speech that ‘at this stage’ 

any amendments to this act affected only the Parklands Gold Coast Trust. Applications could be made 

by another club. The question is: which club could that be? The minister did not say ‘never’; he said ‘at 

this stage’. So there is the possibility that this legislation could affect other areas. It is highly unlikely that 

it would, but it could. I think that is an important point to note. 

Some of the uses of this land by third parties that are permitted by the trustees are now 

inconsistent with the purposes of the trust. That also often occurs with leasehold land. Often there are 

arguments about the activities that can occur on such land. So it is appropriate that the act is amended 

so that trusts that operate under it can operate legally. Otherwise there could be some implications. 

Currently, the situation is that 70 per cent of the income generated by that trust comes from nonracing 

activities. That indicates that the act needs to have flexibility. But it also should ensure that racing 

takes priority. With 70 per cent of the income generated by that trust coming from non-racing activities, it


is easy to see how some decisions could be based on the economic return of the trust and not based on 

the original purpose of the trust. The member for Toowoomba South also made that point in his 

contribution. The member for Darling Downs also made the point in his contribution that the bill should 

be amended to show that, in any decision that is made, racing takes priority. Sure, the trust will work that 

out and make that decision, but the possibility exists that trusts could be taken over by various interest 

groups that may decide that other functions would take priority over racing. If that occurs, an area that 

for a long time has been allocated for racing purposes could end up being used for racing in only a 

minor way. 

Most race clubs that I know of hold many functions on their grounds. I am sure the Speaker would 

be aware that race clubs in his area—as do most race clubs in bush areas—hold all sorts of functions on 

their grounds. In that regard I do not know of any complications that could occur, but I ask the minister to 

give the assurance that other race clubs that are not trusts constituted under the Racing Venues 

Development Act 1982 do not have any concerns about the type of activities that occur on their 

grounds. 

Basically, the government has handled racing fairly poorly. That is acknowledged throughout the 

industry. I know the minister does not agree with that. The other day he said in this House that we have 

had full fields at country tracks and, therefore, all is well. But that is not so. The reason the fields are full 

is that so many race meetings have been cut. That is the simple reason. 

Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Deputy Speaker— 

Mr HOBBS: The minister has a glass jaw. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! There is a point of order. 

Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Deputy Speaker, there has been a ruling made from your chair this 

afternoon about relevance. There is no relevance whatsoever to the Parklands— 

Mr Hobbs: It’s not a point of order at all. 

Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am asking you to rule on the relevance of this. 

Mr Hobbs: Who’s the Speaker here? 

Mr SCHWARTEN: I beg your pardon? Mr Deputy Speaker, I am asking for your ruling on the 

relevance of what the honourable member is putting here. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Thank you, Minister. I will give the member a couple 

of minutes to come back to the bill. 

Mr HOBBS: You have got a bit of a glass jaw, mate. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! You will direct your comments through the chair. 

Mr HOBBS: Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was just thinking that he has a glass jaw. 

Mr SCHWARTEN: With respect— 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! 

Mr HOBBS: He has. 

Mr SCHWARTEN: The rules of this parliament include one of relevance. I make no apology for 

standing here and asking for the rules of the parliament to be upheld. I know the member holds them in 

contempt—we know that—but I am asking for that to be ruled on. 

Mr HOBBS: This bill before the House today is important. It offers us an opportunity to talk about 

the racing industry and the issues that are of concern to us. This legislation before the House could 

involve any racing club at all. The minister said in his second reading speech ‘at this stage’. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There has been a ruling made on relevance. We are not 

debating the ruling. Please come back to the bill. 

Mr HOBBS: I am back at the bill. I am saying that the Parklands Gold Coast Trust is the only trust 

established under the Racing Venues Development Act. The government is saying that at this stage that 

is the only trust that is affected by this legislation. Others could be affected. I am saying to the minister 

that other clubs could experience complications because of this legislation. That is why there is a need 

for the legislation to be amended. In the minister’s second reading speech he said that 70 per cent of 

the income generated by the Parklands Gold Coast Trust came from non-racing activities. I make the 

point that if racing is strong, a higher percentage of income will come back to the race clubs, particularly 

the smaller race clubs and the regional race clubs. 

So what I am talking about has absolute relevance. Because of the way in which the minister is 

driving racing, we have fewer race clubs and they are becoming less viable. Yes, in the past we have 

had some very successful race meetings. But the reason we have had successful race meetings is not 

more horses on the field; the minister has reduced the number of race meetings that are held in 


Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Deputy Speaker— 

Mr HOBBS: If the minister cannot take it—


Mr SCHWARTEN: This a repetition of why I rose on a point of order the last time. It is exactly the 

same set of words and it is irrelevant to the bill. This bill is about the Parklands Gold Coast Trust and 

only the Parklands Gold Coast Trust. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! There is no point of order. The member was talking 

about racing. He did not specifically mention country racing. Again— 

Mr Lawlor: This has got nothing to do with racing. 

Mr HOBBS: It is to do with racing. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Southport, I am controlling this House, not you. 

Mr HOBBS: That is quite correct. We are talking about racing in general. Those opposite can try 

to isolate these issues— 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We are not discussing racing in general, so please do not 

confuse what I am saying. We are discussing Parklands and the issues surrounding that, not racing 

generally. Come back to the bill. 

Mr HOBBS: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought we were discussing the Racing Venues Development 

Act 1982. At this stage it relates to only one club. However, it could go broader. 

Government members: No. 

Mr HOBBS: Why not? Can someone say why it cannot go broader? The reality is that it can, and 

those opposite know that it can go broader. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! 

Mr HOBBS: Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is about the Parklands development. The title of the bill is 

broad; the bill is specific. You will come back to the contents of the bill. Do not try to kid me that you want 

to extend it further. Please come back to the bill. 

Mr HOBBS: I am not extending it further. I am saying exactly what it is. Members have previously 

talked in this debate about the Big Day Out. It is important to have various functions at race clubs. If the 

facilities are there and they are good facilities, that is fine. The point is that if eventually the vast majority 

of income for the trusts is coming from non-racing events then we have some cause for concern. I think 

we need to amend this bill to ensure that that does not happen. As the shadow minister said, we will be 

supporting this legislation. 

Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (4.31 pm): I am pleased to rise in support of the Racing 

Venues Development Amendment Bill and to specifically point out again for the benefit of all members, 

and in particular the member for Warrego, that, as is stated in the honourable minister’s second reading 

speech, the Parklands Gold Coast Trust is the only trust established and constituted under the Racing 

Venues Development Act 1982. Therefore, this legislation only involves the Parklands Gold Coast Trust, 

which is recognised as the best dual-purpose harness and greyhound racing venue in Australia. The 

income received by the trust has been used to enhance the facilities at the venue. They include 

showground pavilions, an indoor sports centre, a car park and a food and beverage canteen. They are 

great facilities and are used for a variety of both racing and non-racing purposes and maximise the 

benefit of the Parklands Gold Coast venue to the community. 

I know other honourable members have mentioned the Big Day Out, which is a particular 

favourite event of mine that is held at Parklands showgrounds every year. But Parklands also hosts a 

number of other shows—20 to 25 shows, in fact—covering home shows, caravan shows, boat shows, 

various pavilion clearance events for clothing and sporting goods, charity book sales nearly every year 

and farmers’ markets. One hundred to 120 weddings are held at the venue every year as well as 21st 

birthdays and conferences. It provides a venue for examinations for Griffith University as well as 

overflow parking for the university. There is an indoor cricket stadium that operates seven days a week. 

The Gold Coast show is held at the Gold Coast Parklands and 55,000 people attend the Big Day Out. 

So it is a great facility that has real community benefit. 

The cross-subsidisation of the trust’s racing activities, with revenue from non-racing activities, 

allows the Parklands Gold Coast Trust to maintain the venue to a high standard, and the venue is 

currently undergoing some refurbishment to further improve the indoor facilities. The purpose of 

the amendment is to enable greater discretion in permitting uses of the Parklands Gold Coast venue 

than otherwise may have been the case under the current provisions of the Racing Venues 

Development Act 1982. This amendment resolves any ambiguity involved with the Parklands Gold 

Coast Trust’s use of the venue following its transfer to the Racing Venues Development Act 1982 in 

2003. It is essential that the potential uses of this venue are maximised for the benefit of the community 

as a whole, and the amendment facilitates the occurrence of this. 

I congratulate the trust on the work that it does. I recently attended a harness racing night. It was 

a great evening and was most enjoyable. It had a great atmosphere and provided something for people 

of all ages and of all budgets. There was a range of catering arrangements. It was also a good family 

night. It is a shame that more people do not go to harness racing because it really is fun and enjoyable. 

If one just works on the punt, it does not need to be an expensive night either. Do not follow my racing


tips, because they are not very successful. I want to congratulate the Parklands Gold Coast Trust on its 

commitment to providing a top quality venue, its support of a wide range of community events, including 

many charity events, and its entrepreneurial vision as well. I thank the minister for recognising the need 

to introduce this legislation today. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (4.35 pm): I rise to support the Racing Venues 

Development Amendment Bill and to commend the minister for his actions in giving protection to the 

trustees of this DOGIT. The fact that the DOGIT was established with a restricted use reflects more the 

time of its institution than acts by trustees since they are outside the terms of the DOGIT. 

The activities that have been represented in the minister’s second reading speech—and they 

have been referred to by other speakers—such as the catering, the car parking and the fees charged in 

relation to car parking, the ground and pavilion rental not only at show time but also throughout the year, 

the indoor sports centre and the management fees for various sporting groups that use those facilities, 

rent, advertising and the show society rent, show, I think, a very holistic approach to the use of a built 

facility. I believe that, at the risk of being called out of order, it is a pattern that can be applied right 

across the state in terms of multiuser facilities where horse racing or, in this case, harness racing and 

greyhound racing is the major tenant but it receives support from incorporating non-conflicting activities 

that can be established in conjunction with the racing interests. 

I commend the Parklands Gold Coast trustees for seeing the opportunities over the years to 

improve the venue’s viability and to invite and include complementary activities in the space. The fact 

that it is now outside the terms and conditions of their DOGIT, as I said, is more a result of time 

progressing than an intention on the part of the trustees to do anything that is inappropriate. I commend 

the minister. I hope that this organisation continues to be economically sound. I look forward to the 

principles of the Parklands Gold Coast Trust being applied to other racing venues across Queensland. 


(4.38 pm), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions, with the exception of the 

member for Warrego for his usual irrelevant and childish antics here today. 

Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order. I find the minister’s words offensive and I ask that they be 

withdrawn. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lee): Order! Minister, withdraw, please. 

Mr SCHWARTEN: I am happy to withdraw. The reality is that all members can judge the 

relevance of the honourable member’s remarks and contribution to this parliament. 

Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order. I find the member’s words offensive and I ask that they be 

withdrawn. 

Mr SCHWARTEN: That is okay. I will withdraw and honourable members of the parliament can 

make up their own minds about the honourable member’s performance. 

Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order. 

Mr SCHWARTEN: That is all right—keep going. 

Mr HOBBS: I find the minister’s words offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Again, there is no point of order because he did not refer to you. 

Mr HOBBS: He did. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister said, to the best of my recollection, that members of the 

House can make their own judgment. You were not referred to. 

Mr SCHWARTEN: I am happy to withdraw. The member for Burnett similarly showed irrelevance 

in the debate. I congratulate the shadow minister on his efforts and, indeed, the shadow spokesman for 

the Liberal Party and the contributions made by all the other members, except the previous two to which 

I have referred. 

The fact is that this is a matter only and solely about Parklands. I think the member for 

Toowoomba South made the reference to Russ Hinze. That is absolutely a matter of history. That is why 

there is some anxiety by the harness race club at the Gold Coast. It feels as though it has been badly 

dudded by the late Russ Hinze in that regard, and that to some extent is why the amendment is here this 

evening—to try to guarantee once and for all its place in the sun. 

Mr Hobbs interjected. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Member for Warrego! 

Mr SCHWARTEN: I do have some sympathy with the club’s view that it was dudded all those 

years ago by Russ Hinze. There is no doubt about that. Members only have to ask club members about 

that. They are still very angry about it, and understandably so, but we cannot turn back the clock. 

Mr Hobbs interjected. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Warrego under standing order 253. 

Mr SCHWARTEN: As to the relevance of it, the Speaker when he was in the chair ruled in favour 

of hearing the very excellent contribution made by the member for Toowoomba South where he talked


about Russ Hinze. The fact is that a lot of the history of this goes back to those times when the club was 

dudded by Russ Hinze. There is no doubt about that. If members ask the club, it will give testament to 

that today. But we cannot turn back the clock. All we can do is make sure that it remains viable, and that 

is exactly what this is about. This is about viability. It is not a nefarious motive to give clubs an 

opportunity to do something other than the mainstays of harness racing, show societies and greyhound 

racing. The reality is that that is what pays the bills. 

I acknowledge the admissions of the member for Mount Coot-tha and a couple of other members 

that they have been to the Big Day Out. I am a little bit too old for that, but my son has been there. When 

it was put to me as a suggestion, I was thinking very carefully about whether or not I might bring this 

legislation forward because I am not too sure that I want my next bloke going down there and getting 

sunburnt and all the other antics that they get up to down there. 

Mrs Reilly: It’s very safe. 

Mr SCHWARTEN: I take that interjection. I suppose I am something of an old nark. It is pleasing 

that we have young, progressive members of parliament here to keep us on track. The reality is that the 

relevance of the Big Day Out and all of those events is that until now the trustees did not have the power 

to do that, and that is all this bit of simple legislation is about. It is about enabling those trustees to do it. 

I note the very sensible contribution of the member for Surfers Paradise, who said that trustees 

are put in place to do just that. There is no necessity whatsoever to prescribe to the trustees how they 

might go about their business. If the day arrived that the trustees were not doing what they are there to 

do, and that is to ensure that harness racing, dog racing and the show are all viable and underpinned by 

these other events, then they would be removed. If it needs to be changed, then the act—for those who 

have read it and understand it—is very specific in talking about how the Governor in Council has a role 

in doing that. I thank all the members for the sensible contributions that have been made, with the 

exception of the member for Warrego, and I commend the bill to the House. 



Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. 

Clause 3, as read, agreed to. 

Insertion of new clause— 

Mr HOPPER (4.44 pm): I move the following amendment— 

1 New clause 3A 

At page 4, after line 13— 

insert— 

‘3A Insertion of new s 17A 

After section 17— 

insert— 

‘17A Trustees must give priority to purpose connected with racing 

‘In dealing with land under their control, the trustees must give priority to a purpose for which the land may be 

used that is connected with racing over another purpose for which it may be used.’.’. 

I spoke on this issue in the second reading debate, and I think the minister got the gist of it from 

my speech. The reason we put this amendment forward is that in dealing with land under their control 

we emphasise that the trustees must—and I emphasise ‘must’—give priority to a purpose for which the 

land may be used that is connected with racing over another purpose for which it may be used. Do not 

get me wrong, the opposition agrees that if the club is struggling outside money should be brought in. 

Government members talked about the Big Day Out. I talked about the Big Day Out as well. But 

what will happen if a major event comes forward and the race dates have been set in a calendar 12 

months in advance? This is what we want to protect. We want to protect this club—and any future 

clubs—from any outside interference. As they start to raise more money from outside, what will happen 

to those calendar dates? We all know how hard it is with different betting. Racetracks and race clubs 

cannot possibly attract the numbers of people that they used to years ago. On a Saturday 30 years ago 

Eagle Farm and Doomben used to have 30,000 and 40,000 people there. That does not happen 

nowadays, and racetracks are no doubt turning towards outside money. This is exactly what we are 

trying to protect—those calendar dates. We would really ask the minister to support this amendment 

today. 

Mr SCHWARTEN: I hear what the honourable member is saying, and again I refer him to my 

earlier comments and to the comments of the member for Surfers Paradise. I notice that the member for 

Gaven is in the chamber. His race dates are set. On Friday, 19 August 2005 we had the Robert Poole 

Pace Race 5 at the Gold Coast Harness Racing Club. How did that date arrive? It was set by the 

Queensland Harness Racing Board. The control body establishes the dates and that is done in


consultation with all the other events. This is not the tail wagging the dog; this is about cooperation. 

Those trustees know what their job is. 

I hear what the honourable member is saying. It has been suggested to me before by people from 

the Gold Coast Harness Racing Club and so on that they think the big dog is eating the little dog. I do 

not see that. Those trustees are set up there for a very good reason. Back in the old days when that was 

set up—and I am not going to go there—those trustees were appointed to ensure that harness and dog 

racing remained viable. Perhaps if a few National Party people took a leaf out of the book of the Labor 

Party and sponsored a few race meetings we might have a few more of them down there. 

Mr HOPPER: I table the explanatory notes. 

Mr HOBBS: I note that the minister recognises there is an issue here, and I think there is, too. 

Unless there are some safeguards inserted into this legislation, this particular race club at the Gold 

Coast could have a vast majority of its income—it has a majority now—such as 90 per cent of its income 

coming from other sources. 

We think that there needs to be some sort of checks and balances. A while ago the minister 

acknowledged the fact that, yes, there could be a bit of an issue, and he thought there were some 

mechanisms there. Can the minister explain again quite clearly what he thinks the safeguards are to 

stop a major racing event being overshadowed by some other non-racing function? 

Mr SCHWARTEN: I am only going to explain this once. Let us take the Robert Poole harness 

race last week sponsored by the Australian Labor Party on the Gold Coast, as an example. Let us say 

that the trustees decided that they did not want the Labor Party to have a race meeting last week. Let us 

suggest that the harness racing people on the Gold Coast supported it but the trustees did not; the 

trustees were all members of the National Party and did not want it happen. I know that would never 

happen, but let us just use that— 

An opposition member interjected. 

Mr SCHWARTEN: This is the sort of scenario that the member opposite is talking about where 

the trustees act improperly. The first thing that would happen is that Robert Poole’s branch of the Labor 

Party, who sponsored this race, would complain to the Harness Racing Board. The very next thing that 

would happen is that the Harness Racing Board would complain to me and those trustees would be out 

of a job. That is the first thing that would happen because they are acting contrary to what the 

established legislation has them doing, and that is to look after racing. The other point is that if the 

trustees want to change some other event or get rid of racing on the Gold Coast, then they are going to 

do that in only one way, and that is to go through the Governor in Council. They are the safeguards. 

They are no different to any other trustees. Trustees are put there because they are trusted. To hogtie 

them and suggest that this is tied up and tie up that and tie up the rest of it defeats the purpose of having 

trustees. 

I know the member opposite has no faith in trustees. The member really is sailing close to the 

breeze, as far as I am concerned, in attacking the character of those people who have been appointed. 

However, the reality is that the safeguard is in the government of the day appointing the people who are 

there. If the member does not have faith in his own ministers if they were there to appoint trustees, then 

that is his doing, but I have faith in the trustees that we have at the moment. 

Mr HOPPER: In the minister’s statement just then he said that we might be attacking the 

character of the trustees. In no way at all are we doing that. He has read this totally wrong if that is his 

attitude. The reason that we put the amendment forward is, as the minister stated before, that the big 

frogs are swallowing up the little frogs. We do not want that to happen. We do not want any threat to the 

actual race club itself as this club may get bigger and better with outside functions. What we are trying to 

put in place through this House is a mechanism that will protect the actual race dates and race clubs 

and the members in it, and that is rightfully so. The harness board could get rid of the trust if that was not 

the case. We can legislate this today by passing this amendment and putting it into solid law. 

Question—That Mr Hopper’s amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— 

AYES, 18—Copeland, E Cunningham, Foley, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Lee Long, Lingard, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, 

Rickuss, Rowell, Seeney, Springborg. Tellers: Hopper, Malone 

NOES, 62—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, N Cunningham, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, 

Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Langbroek, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Male, McArdle, McNamara, 

Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Quinn, Reeves, Reilly, 

Reynolds, E Roberts, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, C Sullivan, 

Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Nolan 

Resolved in the negative. 

Clause 4, as read, agreed to. 

Schedule, as read, agreed to. 


Third Reading

23 Aug 2005 Plumbing and Drainage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2611 

PLUMBING AND DRAINAGE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 


Resumed from 9 August 2005 (see p. 2206). 

Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (5.02 pm): It is with some pleasure that I rise to speak on the 

Plumbing and Drainage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. This bill is a step in the right 

direction. I would contend that it is probably not a big enough step, but it certainly moves the legislation 

in the direction in which it must go in the next few years. 

As the Premier said in this House this morning, Queensland is probably facing one of its driest 

periods in 100 years. The requirement for householders to save water is becoming urgent. Indeed, the 

sustainability of cities on the Queensland coast remains in doubt while we are unable to supply a 

sustainable water supply. 

One of the ways in which we can overcome that is with this type of legislation. However, the 

opposition contends that it probably does not go far enough. We should also consider issues such as a 

subsidy on rainwater tanks, et cetera, which can actually have a big impact and allow our cities to supply 

their own water to a certain extent. 

The primary reason for the bill is to provide a legislative framework for the use of household grey 

water to water gardens in sewered areas. Previously, all grey water generated in sewered areas had to 

be discharged into a sewer. That has been the case for a long time. As I said, the drought conditions 

across Queensland have generated a great deal of interest in other options for water conservation and 

reuse. The grey water provisions in this bill provide a framework for the use of grey water in urban 

settings, with sensible constraints that manage any potential public health and environmental impacts. 

The objectives of the bill are achieved by the amendment of a number of existing approval, 

enforcement and offence provisions to include provisions for on-site sewerage facilities, and the 

introduction of a new provision which allows local governments to approve grey water use systems in 

sewered areas. It is important that local governments control this. I would contend that some of the 

enforcement provisions are a bit over the top. For example, once enforcement officers gain access to a 

property they have extended powers. We are seeing more and more of this written into the legislation of 

this government. However, in the context of this bill, I do not see a real problem with it but from the point 

of view of local government it puts an extra onus on their obligations to the general community. 

The bill includes the introduction of new provisions, including offence provisions to place sensible 

constraints on the use of grey water and to manage potential impacts on public health and the 

environment. It amends the PDA to address and clarify some issues, including providing investigative 

and disciplinary powers for the Plumbers and Drainers Board to investigate complaints against 

plumbers, clarifying some definitions and addressing other minor legislative matters. It amends the 

Water Act so that it is not illegal to use grey water to irrigate garden and sewered areas. It also amends 

the Local Government Act so that it is clear that all fees charged under the PDA are regulatory fees and 

must only cover the cost to the local government of providing the service. 

I would like to speak briefly on some of the provisos and the reason for the legislation. I think most 

members of parliament would be well aware of them. By way of background, it has been reported that 

Australians consume more water than any other people across the world. Indeed, for example, in May 

2005, the Brisbane City Council estimated that Brisbane residents and businesses drew around 

525 million litres of water daily from the Wivenhoe, Somerset and North Pine dams. The extent of this 

usage will soon present a problem for Queensland because its annual rainfall is about 10 per cent 

lower—and that is probably a conservative estimate—than 30 years ago. 

Adding to the problem is the fact that around 40 per cent of good quality drinking water is used on 

the garden rather than for drinking. Significant population growth in recent years has added a new 

pressure. Brisbane residents and Queenslanders in a number of regional areas are already facing water 

restrictions. Obviously, that is happening right across the state. 

In regional centres there has been a history of poor rainfall in recent years and a subsequent fall 

in dam water levels. Again, that has been highlighted in parliament today. In general, there has been a 

renewed interest in recycling, rainwater tanks and the reuse of grey water for irrigating gardens. The 

issue is very topical. Indeed, the opposition supports the legislation wholeheartedly. However, it would 

like further incentives put in place to allow for support of people who wish to do this. As most members 

realise, to retrofit a system which allows the use of grey water to a greater extent in established homes 

would be almost impossible and the cost would be unmanageable. The only way that this legislation will 

have any great impact is in new homes, where it is estimated that it will probably cost around $1,600 to 

$2,000 to fit the system. 

What we are talking about is a system that will probably only be used in homes being built and 

possibly homes with suspended floors such as two-storey houses or high blocked houses. It would be 

almost impossible to do for houses built on a pad. They would have to destroy some of the flooring to

2612 Plumbing and Drainage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 23 Aug 2005 

get to the pipes that are actually embedded in the concrete under the floor and separate the water pipes 

from the sewerage system. There are constraints on this. We would contend that to make this effective 

there needs to be some sort of subsidy. 

I will look at the situation in other states. I am sure the minister has done this. In South Australia 

the reuse of grey water for underground or above-ground disposal is permitted and grey water reuse is 

referred to as an alternative on-site waste water system which is not covered under the existing codes. 

With individual assessment and approval from relevant authorities a grey water reuse system may be 

used. In South Australia there is an opportunity to use the system without any provision for licensing et 

cetera. 

Most other states have a similar situation. In Western Australia the reuse of grey water is 

permitted if it is in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. A rebate of up to $500 or 50 per 

cent of the purchase and installation cost, whichever is the lesser, is available for approved grey water 

reuse systems installed by a licensed plumber. In Western Australia there has been a real move towards 

this. Western Australia is one state that is probably slightly ahead of us in having to deal with the dry 

conditions that we are currently experiencing across Australia. I refer to the Hansard of Estimates 

Committee D of 2004. I asked the minister— 

In relation to your government’s recent commitment to legislate to allow grey water to be used to water gardens via an 

underground irrigation system, will your department be providing councils with any funding to provide training to officers for the 

application of this legislation? Will householders be able to apply for a subsidy to install a grey water system as is the case in 

Victoria ... 

I obviously got that wrong. The minister indicated— 

... that it is appropriate that the government encourage those systems to go in despite the cost. How we might do that and whether 

through some kind of rebate system is not to my knowledge decided at this point. 

In 2004 the government was looking very closely at this. The opposition commended the 

government for this. I stress that in the short term we need to be looking at substantial increases in 

activity in using grey water and conserving the water that runs off our roofs. This would help support 

the amount of water that we are using in our communities. 

I would think that in the future in the more enlightened subdivisions we might see a two-pipe 

system whereby potable water is distributed to the housing estate and the grey water is used for the 

irrigation of parks and gardens et cetera in the estate. I actually saw an estate in Western Australia 

where that method was being used. All the water that ran off in that estate was collected in storage 

tanks and distributed across the estate over a 12-month period. There was a dam that they were able to 

pump water into and take water out of whenever they needed it. 

The opposition contends that this is the start of a long journey. We support the government in this 

move. We would encourage the government to go further and move quicker in terms of conserving 

water in Queensland. 

Ms MOLLOY (Noosa—ALP) (5.14 pm): The Queensland government, in response to nature’s 

hiccup of drought, has come up with a solution to ease the burden of garden irrigation in urban areas. 

The Plumbing and Drainage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 will amend the Water Act 2000 

to provide a framework in which local government will approve and monitor grey water use. This bill will 

also make approval processes for on-site sewerage work the same as for any other plumbing and 

drainage work, thus ensuring the same accountability standards apply to all work. The Plumbing and 

Drainage Act 2002 will be amended to provide the Plumbers and Drainers Board with investigative and 

disciplinary powers to respond to complaints against plumbers, ensuring better consumer protection 

from less-than-satisfactory plumbing services. 

I want to speak on this great leap into the world of grey water. The Plumbing and Drainage and 

Other Legislation Amendment Bill is introducing new provisions to allow local government to approve 

household grey water use in sewered areas. Previously all grey water in sewered areas had to be 

flushed down the toilet—that is, discharged to the sewer. Not all grey water has been found to be 

harmful to the environment or public health. Upon consultation with many state agencies and other key 

stakeholder groups, the Beattie government has defined grey water as a viable option for water 

conservation and reuse that will improve garden irrigation in urban settings. Obviously, constraints will 

be placed on grey water usage to protect public health and the environment. 

The bill provides a framework in which local government can approve grey water use. Grey water 

use will be limited to premises that use less than 3,000 litres per day. To give an indication of how much 

3,000 litres is, an average washing machine uses approximately 150 litres per load. I have heard of 

households that water their gardens with their laundry water and have been told of the beautiful 

condition their gardens are in year round. I believe that the Beattie government has shown great 

foresight in planning for future water resource restrictions and curbing the conditions that drought brings 

to Queensland. 

Noosa is lucky as it is renowned to be located in what is known as the green belt. We rarely seem 

to encounter drought to the same extent as other areas. But to other urban areas where every drop is 

precious it will be a great gift of the Beattie government to amend the Plumbing and Drainage Act to 

allow households to water their gardens with grey water. I am sure that there will be many gardeners 

applauding the efforts of the government. I commend the bill to the House.


Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (5.17 pm): I am delighted to rise to speak in support of the 

Plumbing and Drainage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill which is before the House. It is an 

important piece of legislation on a number of fronts. On the face of it it simply makes it possible for 

councils to approve grey water use for the irrigation of home gardens in sewered systems. I think all 

members of this House will support that. 

Wide Bay Water, under the leadership of Tim Waldron, the CEO, has been doing groundbreaking 

work and internationally renowned work in all forms of water management such as leak management 

and demand management. He has been trialling the use of grey water for the commercial irrigation of 

cane farms for a number of years with great success. I am sure that Wide Bay Water, along with the 

Hervey Bay City Council, will welcome the opportunity to expand this program. 

As members may be aware, Hervey Bay has suffered from substantial difficulties in keeping the 

water supply up to a very strongly growing population. We have some 50,000 people in Hervey Bay 

now. Some 65,000 are expected to be there within 10 years. Wide Bay Water has worked hard to try to 

keep the water supply up to that growing population. 

The minister is well aware that Wide Bay Water is in the final stages of collecting approvals for the 

raising of Lenthals Dam by another two metres. This is the immediate solution to the immediate 

problems. There are a few small approvals still outstanding with the department of natural resources 

and the department of environment which the minister is well aware of. I have spoken to her on a couple 

of occasions about tidying up those loose ends to allow us to get on with it. 

I want to put on the record that it is not my view that dams are the way forward in water 

management for growing regional and urban populations. They are perhaps the last of the old 

technology. If we are going to go into the future we must absolutely embrace the better use of water. We 

really need to embrace a paradigm shift in the way we value things in this country. For too long we have 

simply asked what it has cost in dollars. The cost in dollars of any economic decision is a very shallow 

measurement. 

It has been my view for a while now that everything that we do needs to be measured in terms of 

what it costs in water and what it costs in energy. Until we get those measurements right—until we 

understand that the price of something gives us no guide to the worth of something—we will continue to 

make some poor decisions about how we build cities and how we build roads and how we allocate the 

resources to build a society. The mere fact that we can pay for it in dollars does not actually mean that it 

is sustainable at all in the long term. 

I am of the view that this legislation looks simple but is extremely important, because it again says 

that water is very valuable, very valuable indeed—too valuable to be simply flushed away, too valuable 

to be lost in any way. It is one of the pieces of legislation that picks up the value of water—the real value 

of water. I am greatly encouraged by that. I congratulate the minister for bringing this legislation to the 

House. I hope that this is the start of a much longer trend in how we run our society to ask what does it 

cost in energy to do this? What are the alternatives that are available? What does it cost in water? What 

are the alternatives that are available? I commend the bill to the House. 

Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (5.20 pm): I rise this afternoon to add my support to the Plumbing 

and Drainage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. As we heard in this House this morning, 

south-east Queensland is in the grip of the second worst drought on record, and the time to act is now. 

We desperately need rain. Whilst we cannot control that part of the water cycle, we can put processes 

and plans in place to create better storage facilities, to control and reduce the water we use and to better 

utilise the water we have. Part of that planning must include the reuse of grey water. 

The primary purpose of this bill is to allow the use of grey water for watering gardens in sewered 

areas. Amendments to the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002 will, for the first time, allow local 

governments to approve home owners using grey water to water gardens. I think this is an excellent 

proposal, and with the checks that will be put in place through local government compliance procedures 

it is a safe and effective way of utilising our precious water resources in a beneficial manner for the 

environment. To manage any risks to public health, grey water systems will have to use subsurface 

irrigation with pipes installed at least 100 millimetres below the surface. This avoids human contact with 

waste from laundries and showers, which can at times include traces of human waste. 

An important matter to note is that there will not be any storage of grey water allowed and 

systems can only be approved for domestic homes where grey water generated is less than 3,000 litres 

per day and with sufficient land to distribute the water. Whilst local governments will have the option as 

to whether or not they allow grey water reuse systems, I would encourage them to investigate the many 

benefits that the reuse of grey water can provide. Many people have asked me if the water from kitchen 

sinks will be allowed to be discharged, and the decision has been taken to exclude kitchen grey water 

due to the problems of kitchen grease clogging filters and pipes. We want a recycling system that is 

easy for home owners to operate and one that is not going to create a huge maintenance issue. 

The legislative framework for grey water use in sewered areas has the following elements: the 

Department of Local Government and Planning, Sport and Recreation will be responsible for approving 

type specifications for grey water systems; appeal against these decisions will be to the Building and


Development Tribunal; all grey water systems must comply with the Standard Plumbing and Drainage 

Regulation; local governments will have day-to-day administrative responsibility and will assess and 

approve applications, as well as impose conditions about the ongoing operation and maintenance of 

any such system; local governments will be able to declare that part of their area is not suitable for grey 

water use, and this decision will be based on criteria in the regulations and code and will take into 

account factors such as density of development and soil profiles; applicants will be able to appeal to a 

Building and Development Tribunal against local government decisions to refuse an application or 

impose conditions on an approval; local governments will maintain a register of grey water use systems 

and will be responsible for monitoring the impact of approved systems; appropriate licensing 

requirements will apply for related work and a licensed plumber will be required to install the plumbing 

portions of a grey water use system; and a licence will not be required to install subsurface irrigation 

systems but this work must be inspected and approved by local government before a compliance 

certificate is issued for the facility. 

The minister has consulted widely on the issue of grey water use, including a consultation draft of 

the bill which was released for public comment in January this year. I am advised that the minister 

received 58 submissions from local governments, unions, industry organisations and other state 

government agencies. It was pleasing to note that there is broad support amongst these stakeholders 

for the proposed reforms. 

In the time I have left, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate a company that is based in 

Maleny and has production facilities in the Nudgee electorate. Biolytix Technologies Pty Ltd received a 

Premier’s Smart State Award for its innovative waste treatment technology. Biolytix Technologies is a 

fine example of the application of a new technology to solve an age-old problem. It has developed a 

chemical-free system to turn household waste water, including kitchen, bathroom and laundry grey 

water, into irrigation water. The Biolytix waste treatment system uses soil organisms and microbes to 

convert waste into humus which is used as a filter to cleanse the waste water. The system can be 

installed to service a single home, clusters of homes or larger developments. It is pleasing to note that 

Biolytix, our Smart State Rising Star Award recipient, will be able to apply its technology in exactly the 

manner we are legislating for today. 

Mr English: They’re using it on Macleay now. 

Ms MALE: Indeed they are. I congratulate it for persevering in the development of this technology 

which has national and international implications for the sustainable treatment of grey water and black 

water. As I have said previously, this is sensible legislation which will facilitate the reuse of grey water 

from homes which sometimes comprises up to 34 per cent of the water used in a household. The longterm 

beneficial environmental implications of this legislation are another plank in this government’s suite 

of water-saving initiatives. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (5.25 pm): I rise to speak in the debate on the Plumbing and 

Drainage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 and, in doing so, advise that we will be supporting 

this bill. I commend the minister and her officers for the content of the bill and the way it was put 

together. At the outset I want to say that the bill in fact acknowledges the importance of water in our 

society as an infrastructure item not just for the current population but for those who come in the future 

together with industry as a whole and the population—or the public—in particular. It also highlights the 

critical use of existing water resources and how careful we need to be when the resources are placed 

for public disposal. Thirdly and most importantly, it highlights the vital nature that waste water has and 

will have in the future as to how its utilisation will impact upon the saving of what I may term pure water 

for other needs and aspirations. 

At the public level, this bill has a very important application in that it will use grey water for 

gardens in sewered areas with the option resting with local government authorities to utilise grey water if 

they deem it suitable. It is hard to conceive of a local authority not agreeing to the terms of the bill and 

not seeing the beneficial use to which it could be put in their own areas. As we have heard today in this 

House from the Premier and the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, water levels throughout 

Queensland are at their lowest for some considerable period of time. In fact, the dams of Wivenhoe, 

Somerset and North Pine were last full in February 2001 and there have only been minimal inflows in 

the last 12 months into those dams and catchment areas. Therefore, we face in this state, and in 

particular the south-east corner, a growing critical issue dealing with water and the need to utilise it in a 

beneficial manner for all the public. 

The bill itself, as I said, does have a number of components in it. The first is the right of local 

government authorities to utilise grey water if they deem it sufficient, amendments to the Plumbing and 

Drainage Act appointing investigators and giving them certain powers of entry to premises and the right 

to obtain a warrant if such entry is refused or the power to enter a premises is refused, and also the 

provision of penalties for wrongful discharge of black and grey water waste by individuals or companies. 

The bill itself, as the member for Mirani indicated quite strongly, is the start of a long-term process. 

As I said, we commend the minister for the work that she has done in this area. There are of 

course other issues that do need to be taken on board. As has been stated before, rainwater tanks and 

the use of rainwater are also issues that need to be on the agenda throughout this state if we are going


to attempt to redress the loss of water or at least the usage of water at current levels. The second point 

that we should be considering, too, of course is ongoing education of the public in relation to the 

importance of water—not just the public as adults but at school as well. In many other areas we have 

used education as a tool to enlighten the public as to the need to address a matter or the need to 

change an attitude, and I would urge the government to take on board the educational needs regarding 

water in the years to come. 

Desalination plants have often appeared in the public arena to be the saving grace of water 

consumption. We all know that desalination plants are exceptionally expensive but, of course, as time 

goes by it may well be that such plants will become economically viable. It may even be the case that as 

time goes by they will become the favoured option for greater water storage and consumption. In 

addition, we need to consider the construction of weirs and dams. I also acknowledge that the 

government is looking hard at all issues in relation to water consumption, water retention and the use of 

water in years to come. 

Might I say that water and sewerage will continue to be possibly the major infrastructure issues 

facing this state in the years to come. From those two items flow a lot of our residential, commercial and 

industrial development. In fact, without water and sewerage we could grind to a halt. Recently I attended 

a seminar at which a real estate agent highlighted the needs of the Sunshine Coast. He pointed out that 

the two major infrastructure items that need to be addressed are water and sewerage. So although I 

certainly applaud the government for the contents of the bill, I also add a word of caution that there is a 

very long road ahead. The bill starts the process, but it will be a difficult road. I commend the bill to the 

House. 

Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (5.30 pm): Water is a finite resource. In 2005, that is not an 

overly earth-shattering statement to make. However, the road that has brought us to this point has been 

long and arduous. Historically, we have not thought about water as a finite resource. Our treatment of 

water reflects that. Historically, water has been utilised very, very poorly. This legislation is certainly no 

magic wand, but it is a movement towards improving our awareness and utilisation of water. This bill is 

designed to allow local governments to approve and authorise the use of grey water in sewered areas. 

I certainly commend the minister for bringing the bill before the House. It is amazing that it has 

taken us this long to come to the realisation that water is too valuable, too important to our society, just 

to flush down the drain. At home we regularly do our washing and water that has only washed some 

dirty clothes is pumped down the drain. That water can be recycled and used again for watering lawns 

and for other uses. 

The member for Glass House referred to a company called Biolytix. Biolytix is installing a number 

of their plants as part of a trial that is being undertaken on Macleay Island, which is located in my 

electorate. Water is being pumped from a number of houses, treated and then used to water the golf 

course on Macleay Island. I certainly recommend the Macleay Island golf course to any member of the 

House who wants to go across to the island and have a hit. This trial recognises that water is too good 

to waste. It is a valuable resource, and this government is taking steps towards improving the situation. 

Yes, councils need to take greater responsibility. I would like to congratulate the Brisbane City 

Council on its rainwater tank rebate scheme. Many residents in my electorate ask me whether the 

Redland Shire Council will offer a rebate on rainwater tanks. I certainly encourage the Redland Shire 

Council to consider that. Historically, the Redland Shire Council has had a very, very poor attitude 

towards water. It has a great supply of water at Stradbroke Island. That has led to an attitude that water 

is in infinite supply—we have this big resource sitting under Stradbroke Island. Unfortunately, that is not 

correct. The Redland Shire Council is now coming on board in that it understands the finite nature of this 

resource on Stradbroke Island. Again, I congratulate the minister and honourable members on 

supporting this bill, which really highlights to people the value of this great resource. 

Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (5.34 pm): I want to briefly put on the public record my support for this 

legislation. I congratulate the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women on 

having the good sense to bring this legislation into the House. I think it is good legislation that will assist 

those of my constituents who live in the more urban parts of my electorate such as Port Douglas, 

Mossman and particularly a small part of the greater city of Cairns. Like me and like the member for 

Barron River, the minister, as member for Cairns, would have heard the calls by the Mayor of Cairns, 

Kevin Byrne, to build another dam. He is constantly harping at us to build another dam when the current 

one is full. I think legislation such as this which is before the House will prevent or put back the need for 

us to build a dam in far-north Queensland. We need to put in place strategies to defer the need to 

construct that sort of infrastructure—not just because it is expensive to build but also because of the 

damage that it causes to the natural environment and the downstream effect it has on the fishing 

industry. 

I also want to take the time to congratulate the member for Barron River who, on behalf of the four 

Labor members of far-north Queensland, has taken up the debate in the local area. She has been 

persistent in calling for a least-cost planning study to reduce the demand for water and making the 

council look at its practices to reduce the amount of water that is used, such as reducing the pressure in 

its water systems so that there is less spillage.


Ms Nelson-Carr: A very good local member. 

Mr O’BRIEN: She is a very good local member. I know that the member for Barron River is eager 

to speak to this bill today because in far-north Queensland she has been leading the debate on putting 

in a Smart State strategy to reduce the need for this massive infrastructure, which has detrimental 

effects. She knows—and I support her in this—that by being smart, such as by introducing legislation 

such as this, and through other measures we can reduce the need to install damaging infrastructure like 

dams. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (5.37 pm): Like my colleague the member for Cook, I will 

keep my comments brief because this is a commonsense bill introduced by a commonsense 

government. As the previous speaker mentioned, this bill makes a lot of sense. I know that we are all 

suffering from one of the greatest droughts in our state’s history. We have to think of the future, and this 

bill will go a long way towards helping households contribute in some small way to water conservation. I 

congratulate the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women on bringing this 

legislation before the House. In her short term so far as the minister she certainly has done very well. 

Many local governments across Queensland that I speak to sing Desley’s praises. She should be 

congratulated. 

Mr O’Brien: Hear, hear! 

Mr WALLACE: I take that injection from the member for Cook. He, too, knows the wonderful work 

that the member for Cairns is doing in her portfolio. I also thank the minister for her interest in some grey 

water matters in the Thuringowa-Townsville area and my plan to pipe treated sewage, which is currently 

flowing into the Great Barrier Reef lagoon, to Queensland Nickel so that water can be used in its 

processing plant. That will reduce Queensland Nickel’s reliance on the underground water supply in the 

Black River catchment, which in turn will assist the many residents in the area who wish to sink bores. 

On behalf of the residents of that area, I thank the minister for her help in getting that project up, which 

will hopefully be running in the coming year. 

I have seen grey water in action. When I was a kid I remember Dad leading the hose from the 

washing machine out to his vegie gardens. When I was a kid at Home Hill we lived in an unsewered 

area. Dad always had A1 vegetables. Maybe it was the grey water that he used to water the beans, the 

peas and the pumpkins that we ate when we were kids. They were A-grade produce. When I was a kid I 

also remember being encouraged to have a pee under the bush lemon tree in the morning because it 

was considered quite good for the bush lemon tree. 

Mr Choi interjected. 

Mr WALLACE: It still does. I take the member for Capalaba’s interjection. Being Chinese, he has 

a very green thumb. I have eaten some of the produce in China which I am sure has been fertilised in a 

similar manner. 

Turning back to the bill before us, I again reinforce that it is a sensible reuse of our resources. 

Water is becoming more and more precious. I take the member for Cook’s point about no more dams in 

far-north Queensland. I can heartily agree that it is a beautiful part of the world. We might take his 

expenditure, though, on stage 2 of the Burdekin Dam at some stage in the future, if that is all right with 

him. 

This bill gives local governments the ability to play a role in this process, to have a look at 

individual applications and refuse them where they are not suitable. There are types of ground clay soils 

where this would not be suitable, but I know that there are many types of soil in the Thuringowa area 

where the reuse of grey water would be not only useful but also desirable. With those few words, I 

commend the bill to the House. I again commend the minister and urge my fellow members to support 

the bill wholeheartedly. 

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.40 pm): I rise to support the Plumbing and Drainage 

and Other Legislation Amendment and, in doing so, I will probably echo a lot of the comments that have 

already been made. In rural and regional Queensland the use of grey water in unsewered areas has 

been beneficial. The previous speaker talked about using it on gardens around the home, on both 

vegetable gardens and ornamental gardens. Providing people are conscious of what they use in their 

systems, particularly ensuring that for their washing they use non-phosphate detergents and other 

protective mechanisms, there is no reason why there should be a problem with any build-up of any 

unwanted residues in the garden. 

I do not think there would be too many towns in Queensland that have not been affected by 

drought over the last 10 years. We have quite a significant dam structure which has recently been 

augmented. Just before Christmas 2003 there were first-tier restrictions on industry, and they were 

looking at second-tier restrictions, which would mean 50 per cent restrictions on water allocation. It was 

quite a significant impost on those companies. Many of them had been forced to look at water 

alternatives. One of the benefits was that QAL negotiated with the Gladstone City Council to use its 

treated effluent through the industrial process, and that is a long-term benefit to the Gladstone city area. 

Calliope shire has recycled its treated water for many years and has particularly used it as irrigation on


non-contact playing fields. So there has been, and for a long time as far as Calliope is concerned, no 

discharge to the waterways and for the last couple of years no discharge in Gladstone in terms of 

treated waste. The ultimate beneficiary is the community and, importantly, the environment. 

It is welcome that the minister has given the right of veto to local governments. I think everyone 

here like me who has been a local councillor at some time has felt the pressure of legislation enacted 

outside of the council’s jurisdiction but pushed on to it, requiring the council to enforce the legislation 

often without financial support. This legislation is giving local councils the freedom to embrace the 

proposal or, if they are in an area that the councils feel is problematic—perhaps because of topography, 

soil types, demographics—they will have the freedom to refuse to accept applications for grey water 

usage. I would hope that most local councils treat this as a positive opportunity and that the majority of 

people who have the foresight and vision to recycle their grey water will receive favourable 

consideration by the local council involved. 

The minister stated that all grey water systems will require council approval and councils will be 

able to refuse approval for premises where land is considered unsuitable. Approved systems will need 

to comply with the Queensland Plumbing and Wastewater Code and irrigation pipes will be required to 

be installed below surface level to avoid human contact. My concern would be that those systems that 

will be approved are cost effective. It would be a tragedy to see a wonderful principle lost to cost. With 

the flexibility of using polypipe as an irrigation mechanism, it should not be too expensive. That is one 

issue that I would reiterate not only to state government but also to local councils, that in implementing 

the legislation they do not price it out of the reach of many landowners who would be very interested in 

being involved in this type of water reuse. 

The exclusion of kitchen grey water is probably something that can be argued as a positive or a 

negative. Certainly, it is important if people are going to reuse kitchen grey water to incorporate grease 

traps and the like. However, as a first step, it is probably a wise move to take it slowly and use grey 

water from areas where the contaminants are likely to be less—grey water from showers, washing 

laundry and those sorts of areas where the contaminants can be controlled by the users, the domestic 

home owners, in terms of the types of washing powders, soaps and detergents that they use in their 

bathrooms and laundries. But it would be important to reserve the use of kitchen grey water as an option 

for future consideration, particularly when there is technology to extract grease in perhaps less dense 

urban areas. 

I remember at a local government council conference we were talking about the recycling of grey 

water. A concern that comes up at all levels of government but particularly in local government is where 

a landowner knowingly or unknowingly lacks consideration for his or her neighbour. There could be 

problems with houses built on slopes where the neighbour can be the recipient of water flowing from 

other premises. The council’s involvement in that area is important. The fact that this first stage excludes 

kitchen grey water is important so that we can see how the community responds and perhaps, as I said, 

kitchen grey water will be an option in the future. 

I commend the minister for this step. I believe that as a community we can only be advantaged by 

it because recycling of such an important commodity will allow our communities to be a little more 

drought-proofed in years to come when we have been promised that rain will become even less 

common. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (5.47 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Plumbing and 

Drainage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Australia is perhaps the driest continent on earth, and 

we as a Western advanced civilisation live here. We are seeing more and more the results of the 

exigencies of dry cycles and long weather cycles the longer we live on this continent. Indeed, we live on 

a continent that was magnificently looked after prior to white settlement. We come now with a very 

different approach and with its own fallout in many ways as we use the magnificent resources of this 

country. 

We are increasingly conscious as a society, as a community, of these realities, especially as we 

see the water levels in our dams go down. I know by the number of constituents who readily wish to 

speak to me regarding their concerns about water that this is a very, very significant issue for people in 

the wider community. People are genuinely concerned about our future on this planet, especially as we 

live long term with our families in the south-east corner of Queensland and, indeed, throughout the rest 

of the Queensland. People are increasingly concerned about the use of our resources overall, but water 

is certainly foremost in people’s minds. 

This is an important piece of legislation in terms of trying to ensure that water resources are 

conserved. It is legislation that is premised upon perhaps that water going through the general 

sewerage system and being discharged as waste. That is an interesting premise in itself which might 

presuppose that using this water in a different way in our backyards is a better alternative. 

Therefore, in future when considering the licensing of systems in backyards it is important and 

very incumbent upon councils to consider a very fundamental point. Would those water resources be 

better processed at the outlet of the entire sewerage system and used in a constructive way, as we have 

heard the member for Thuringowa talk about previously? I have taken a great interest in the scheme


that will operate in Townsville to process water for a far more constructive industrial use without using 

potable water. As a collective community, we have to confront whether it is better to use on-site systems 

for some other purpose, as opposed to bringing all of the water into a general processing arrangement. 

That is the fundamental threshold question that councils must consider when deciding if they should 

engage in widespread licensing and allow those systems to be promulgated. 

I think the member for Gladstone also touched upon the issue of whether backyard systems will 

be cost effective and, indeed, environmentally effective. On the face of it, this does have great merit, but 

a fundamental evaluation has to take place. It is important to consider this issue in terms of our overall 

resources if, as a community, we have spent a large amount of resources on piping and other devices 

that might be required, such as aeration and filtration mechanisms, as well as the resources required to 

dig out relevant pits and so on, but then in the end that water simply drains into the ground. Perhaps it 

would be better to spend X-amount on the installation of that sort of equipment in, say, 100 houses. The 

water from those houses might be processed far more economically in one unit, even if it was 

specifically for the use of only those 100 houses, or indeed at the sewerage and water outlet for the 

entire city. That is an important calculation and it has to be made for the entire system if we are to use a 

lot of scarce resources on this—resources such as PVC pipe and so on. That is an important calculation 

that will have to be made by councils for the entire system. 

Indeed, we need to know whether the water will be used effectively and, again, that comes down 

to the economic and social calculations of the entire process. Will the water be used effectively in the 

backyard? Will it drain directly into the ground? Perhaps it will. Perhaps also, it will have some 

interchange with ground water systems and water systems that are useable and pure, such as potable 

water. Indeed, I suspect that the sorts of systems we are talking about will not be readily used for 

growing cabbages and lettuces in our backyards, as much as we would like them to be. Those systems 

will require deep subsurface irrigation. As such, the only root systems that I would expect would be able 

to have contact with those systems are certain varieties of trees and vegetation that would be properly 

set in place and grown in order to survive the environment where those drainage areas occur and where 

those trees could properly be promulgated and thus grow good produce. It would be delightful to think 

that where the systems are put in place we will be able to grow some decent mandarins and even some 

of the lemons that the member for Thuringowa might assist with. These are important considerations. If 

we can see good produce and good outcomes from the backyard systems, that becomes part of the 

social and economic equation that councils will have to confront when considering whether the systems 

are appropriate and viable. 

Important technology has to be applied to ensure that the systems work well. I have great faith in 

councils’ ability to properly evaluate those technologies. I say that because when we are talking about 

grey water we are not talking about materials that we can treat lightly. Scientists and experts who have 

knowledge in this area have advised me that grey water can be quite a dangerous substance because 

of the human skin that may be contained in grey water outlets. In conjunction with other soaps and 

substances that are contained in those outlets, that can be a very lethal substance. We have to ensure 

that public safety is paramount. Comments have already been made about residential areas with small 

blocks. In such cases we would have to make sure that neighbouring premises are not affected, 

especially where drainage might be affected by slopes et cetera. Those are real concerns that councils 

will have to confront. 

This is a great initiative for Queensland. However, there will be a great deal of variation in the way 

that it might be adapted and dealt with throughout Queensland, that is, from council to council. Each 

council will have to confront its own communities and, indeed, will have to confront different issues. For 

example, new estates might be the subject of installation as opposed to existing premises that may 

require retrofitting to bring the systems online. Therefore, it is important that the new systems have 

integrity. The councils will bear a great deal of responsibility for making sure not only that the individual 

systems have integrity but also, most importantly, that the venture as a whole has environmental and 

cost integrity in terms of conserving Queensland’s very scarce water resources. I commend the bill to 

the House. 

Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (5.58 pm): I am pleased to support this legislation, which will amend 

the investigative and disciplinary powers of the Plumbers and Drainers Board, as well as clear the path 

for the use of grey water. While I acknowledge the importance of changes relevant to the Plumbers and 

Drainers Board, I intend to focus on the legislation with regard to its impact on grey water. 

We have all been guilty of taking water for granted. This is a worrying trend given the 

preciousness of the resource and the fact that we live on the driest continent on earth. It is 

heartbreaking to drive around communities and see flooded lawns, water running down the gutters and 

hoses left on as people wash their cars on their driveways. We hear of people taking long showers and 

taps running and not being fixed. It is heartbreaking to see that happen. As a representative of the bush, 

I have seen how hard the current drought has hit and the toll it has taken on those who make their living 

from the land, their families and the local communities. I am sure, Mr Speaker, you would have seen that 

in the electorate of Mount Isa as well.


When people travel the highways like I do, they would see an increasing number of water tankers 

on the road. I talk to land-holders who have empty farm storages and underground water supplies that 

are depleted. Something that has been brought to my attention in recent times is the fact that because 

the dams and on-land waterholes are drying up, the bird life is finding those waterholes that are still in 

existence and actually polluting the water so it is no good to the farmers anyway. A lot of these 

waterholes are dams that supply water to the farm itself and the residence where farmers live. 

While there is nothing that we can do to bring the rains, there is much that can be done in the 

area of curbing excessive water usage and recycling this precious commodity. The government must 

provide the impetus in investigating and implementing methods that enable us to reduce water 

consumption as well as make water recycling a sustainable reality. This bill is a step in the right direction 

as it provides the framework through which grey water in sewered areas can be reused. Studies suggest 

that around about 50 per cent of all household water becomes grey water; that is, waste water that has 

not yet come in contact with toilet waste water, which is known as black water. 

When we talk in terms of recycling grey water we mainly refer to household waste water that 

originates from baths, showers, basins and laundries. Kitchen waste water is usually left out of the 

equation as it can be problematic with solids often present such as fat and grease. When someone 

washes up as many times as I do, they get an understanding of what goes down the drain. We have to 

be able to keep that water isolated from the water that comes through the showers and the washing 

process. Grey water—the end result of nearly half of all household water consumption—offers 

enormous potential for its reuse in garden irrigation and other sustainable purposes. The obvious 

benefits from grey water use include reduced demand on traditional water supplies, reduced loading on 

existing sewage collection and treatment systems and, of course, savings for householders in their 

water bills. 

We are aware that there are potential health risks associated with grey water as even bathroom 

and laundry water can have pathogens or pollutants present. We have to be alert to that. The bill 

provides that grey water can only be used for subsurface irrigation distributed via pipes located below 

ground level to ensure that human contact is avoided. The issue of potential flooding has also been 

addressed by the requirement of grey water systems to retain a sewer connection so that if the ground 

becomes waterlogged the water can be returned to the sewer system. 

I am pleased to note that the state is not looking to impose grey water systems on local 

authorities. Local authorities already have a lot on their shoulders. We are not forcing councils to take on 

grey water. We are not forcing it on ratepayers. Rather, councils will have the final say on any approvals 

for grey water recycling schemes. That is the way it should be because councils are best placed to 

consider the local issues that can affect the viability of the grey water systems in their areas. When 

members have as many communities in their electorates as I have in mine, and they get around and see 

the different soil types and the locations of communities on slopes, they would get an understanding of 

the impact we are having on subsurface potable water supplies. That is something that we have to be 

very, very careful about protecting because it is a commodity that is also becoming a great concern to 

people in the country. 

Even though I do get asked about grey water use from time to time—people often come into the 

office and ask about grey water use—it may be that existing householders might not immediately rush to 

embrace grey water recycling systems. Waste water drains and pipes in current housing do not 

separate grey water from black water, which is an important part of this legislation, and the need for 

repiping could prove to be fairly costly for householders. I would see that as a big deterrent for what is 

an effective initiative. 

However, legislative clearance for grey water use is an exciting initiative for new urban 

developments, which have the potential to install separate grey water and black water systems from the 

start that will allow grey water reuse. It will be part of new constructions in the future. That is the most 

effective way of slowly introducing this new way of dealing with grey water. Over the years, as more and 

more houses come on line, a greater percentage of the population will actually enjoy the benefits of the 

system that is being introduced in this legislation. Developers should be encouraged to look at grey 

water options as more and more Australians are embracing the idea of living in environmentally friendly 

housing. It is a very good selling point for houses in the future. 

Clearing the path for grey water usage goes hand in hand with the Beattie government’s recently 

announced sustainable housing initiatives. It has had a positive response, and it shows that the Smart 

State is moving forward. Greenhouse efficient hot-water systems, energy efficient lighting, dual-flush 

toilets and water pressure limiting devices will ensure that all new homes in Queensland will use less 

water and energy from 1 March 2006. That is good and positive. It is smart thinking. It shows that this 

government is committed to supporting a workable water recycling strategy which holds the key to 

managing our water resources efficiently and sustainably. Enabling the usage of grey water in sewered 

areas provides another rung in the ladder of that strategy. 

If we are to protect our environment and conserve our precious resources for today’s 

Queenslanders and future generations, it is vital that we take these steps today and that we set the 

standards to preserve water and energy for the future. In light of the benefits that will flow from this 

legislation, I am pleased to commend the bill to the House.


Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (6.06 pm): It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the 

Plumbing and Drainage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. Australia is the driest continent of 

the world with the lowest percentage of rainfall as run-off, the lowest amount of water in rivers and the 

smallest percentage of area of permanent wetland. On average, only 12 per cent of rainfall run-off in 

Australia is collected in rivers. In five of Australia’s drainage divisions the run-off is less than two per 

cent. In two of the most substantial drainage divisions—being the tropical monsoonal division of the 

Timor Sea and the Gulf of Carpentaria—the run-off exceeds a healthy 20 per cent. The remaining 

88 per cent of rainfall is accounted for by reparations, water use by vegetation and water held in 

storages including natural lakes, wetlands and ground water aquifers. 

The drought that happened in this nation between 2001 and 2003 focused the thinking of much of 

the Australian community towards our dependence on the nation’s limited water resources. Australia’s 

land management has been progressively adapting to our environment as our understanding of it 

increases and as we recognise the need to better manage our water resources and what we take from 

and return to those resources. 

In the early 1990s the Australian states began to develop their own environmental protection 

agencies and to establish policies on monitoring and licensing waste management, including waste 

water discharges from sewage treatment plants. That interest has intensified in the first few years of this 

millennium. Yet five years on in the new millennium, Australia is now experiencing a widespread 

drought. Water restrictions in most capital cities brought home to the urban population that water is 

indeed a very limited resource. It was revealed that, whilst some of our treated sewage effluent was 

being recycled for agricultural use, that had not of itself reduced the demand for mains water. Most of 

the water used for agriculture and around half of the water being used for industrial and domestic 

purposes does not need to be water of drinking quality. 

Increasingly, waste water, stormwater and rainwater are seen as recycleable resources rather 

than simply as a disposal problem. All levels of government—local, state and federal—and water 

agencies have come to recognise that in a dry country such as ours, waste water, effluent, stormwater 

and rainwater are complementary additional water resources rather than a disposal problem. However, 

the maintenance of confidence and trust between water agencies and consumers is essential. The 

community has high expectations for the security and safety of its water supply and is extremely 

sensitive to any health risk. 

Australia has the third highest per capita consumption of water, after the USA and Canada, of all 

OECD countries. Australian cities consume as much water per capita per hectare as irrigation areas. 

We use 320 litres per person per day. Our consumption is the second highest in the world after the 

United States. Although the introduction of a demand management pricing structure has temporarily 

slowed the increasing trend of domestic consumption in the major cities, these trends are likely to 

continue to grow as urban populations continue to increase. 

Having said all of that, the Queensland government is showing leadership on those issues. In 

2001, it established the Queensland Water Recycling Strategy, with implementation by the Queensland 

Environmental Protection Agency, which enables Queensland to use recycled water far more efficiently 

and effectively. This legislation is an outcome of that strategy. The strategy defines water recycling as 

the sustainable and beneficial use of appropriately treated waste water, urban stormwater and rainwater 

in ways that safeguard public health and environmental values, and the quality of the water must be 

matched to its purpose. 

The primary purpose of this bill is to provide a legal framework for grey water usage by home 

owners in sewered areas. As we speak, all grey water generated in sewered areas has to be discharged 

through the sewer. The grey water provisions of this bill allow, in the future, for grey water from baths, 

showers, basins and laundries to be used by households to irrigate gardens. Black water, which is 

waste water containing human waste, cannot be used. Kitchen grey water is also not to be recycled. 

There is certainly community awareness of the need to better manage Australia’s water 

resources. Waste water, effluent, stormwater and rainwater should be seen as complementary water 

resources which are of value rather than a problem to be disposed of. A clear platform for greater 

consideration of water recycling opportunities is evident in this bill. 

Last but not least, I congratulate the minister and her team for putting this wonderful piece of 

legislation together. I commend this bill to the House. 

Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (6.12 pm): I am delighted to rise in the House today in support of 

the Plumbing and Drainage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. This is incredibly important and very 

timely legislation. I take this opportunity to thank the minister and her department for bringing this 

legislation before the House. 

Australia has climatic conditions that make life in this country quite harsh. We were initially 

populated by migrants from Ireland, England and parts of Europe. Some people say that the Irish who 

were sent here were selected by the best of the British judiciary. Regardless of why or how people came 

here, they brought with them the techniques for gardening, the lifestyle choices and the agrarian 

traditions that were quite common in Europe. Many of these traditions have persisted to this day.


In Europe it rains a lot. This lends itself to particular types of gardening and particular types of 

agriculture that are absolutely and totally unsuitable in Australia. In this country we live in very arid 

conditions. We have, by and large, poor soil and we are very poor when it comes to the quantities of 

water available to us. That is why we need to conserve water in this country. This important piece of 

legislation does just that. This bill helps to save water. 

The Queensland government is working cooperatively with local councils to ensure that 

Queensland has a workable legislative framework that facilitates this process. The bill provides greater 

flexibility to local councils by allowing grey water use in garden irrigation. 

I believe that the member for Hervey Bay was quite correct when he spoke earlier in this House 

about people in this country not understanding the true value of water. I think it was Oscar Wilde who 

defined a cynic as a person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. I think it is fair 

to say that many Australians simply do not understand the true value of water. In this country, water is 

scandalously undervalued. 

The problem was identified quite adequately by the CSIRO. Its land and water unit explained that 

Australia’s major water resources are in northern Australia and Tasmania, whereas most of our 

agriculture and people are in south-eastern and mainland Australia. The CSIRO also estimates that the 

largest consumption of water in this country is in the production of meat and wool. It believes that 

production of a kilo of beef—and this is quite stunning—requires between 50,000 and 100,000 litres of 

water, while production of a kilo of clean wool requires a staggering 170,000 litres of water. The figures 

are even higher when one begins to factor in the amount of water that is lost through drainage and 

the amount of water that is required for delivery. 

Some of the crops grown in this country are major water users. The production of a kilo of wheat 

uses between 715 and 750 litres of water. The production of a kilo of maize uses between 540 and 630 

litres of water. Rice production uses far more—between 1,500 and 2,000 litres of water. Figures like 

these necessitate a serious debate and re-examination of whether we are properly using our water 

resources. I think these figures make it incredibly clear that we are not. The way in which Australians 

use water, quite frankly, is nothing short of silly. We need to improve this and to do that we need to 

educate people. 

I want to speak very briefly about a resource I visited in Sydney. It is a joint initiative of the City of 

Sydney and the Marrickville local councils. It is called the Watershed Sustainability Resource Centre. It 

is an absolutely wonderful facility which is situated on King Street in Newtown. A watershed is a ridge or 

crest line that divides two catchment areas. King Street, in fact, divides two catchment areas such that 

the rain that drains to the north of King Street flows to Sydney Harbour while the rain that drains to the 

south of King Street flows to Botany Bay. This area deals with some significant urban water issues and 

because of the way in which the drainage works, stormwater pollution is a major challenge. 

The reason this great resource was named the Watershed is that one meaning of ‘watershed’ is a 

definitive change or a turning point. Those involved believe that this initiative should provide an 

inspiration for positive action in the community and are working towards a sustainable future. They have 

set up a shopfront that provides not only resources but also some wonderfully experienced staff to 

advise on simple and cost-effective ideas that support sustainable ways of living and the sustainable 

use of water. 

One thing that struck me—and I did not fully understand it until I had visited the Watershed—is 

the problems that can arise if local authorities do not appropriately regulate grey water use. After a lot of 

rain, a very nasty situation can arise where the local area becomes, quite simply, waterlogged with the 

type of water one does not necessarily want bubbling back up through the garden. That is why the 

legislation now before us provides councils with an appropriate way of regulating grey water use in 


I suggest that members who visit the City of Sydney web site should look at the Watershed 

Sustainability Resource Centre. It is the sort of facility that local authorities throughout Queensland 

should invest in. It is a wonderful initiative and one that I would love to see replicated throughout 

Queensland. This is a wonderful piece of legislation and I am delighted to support it. 

Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (6.19 pm): It is my pleasure this evening to rise to speak in 

support of the Plumbing and Drainage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. I know that 

residents, particularly at my end of the Gold Coast, have been concerned for some time about our ability 

to conserve water and the issue of drought on the Gold Coast. Mr Speaker, I know that, coming from 

Mount Isa and the outback, you, like I, would have had instilled in you that you shower quickly, that you 

do not waste any water and that if your grass is bone dry it does not matter as long as you do not waste 

any water. 

On the Gold Coast people try to keep their gardens green. They like to wash their cars to keep 

them clean. Over the last couple of years we have had to adhere to very strict restrictions that were 

enforced by the Gold Coast City Council. A number of people have come up to me during my mobile 

office meet-and-greets asking about the possibility of introducing the use of grey water and how they 

could use that to reduce their use of water and reduce the cost of their water use.


The primary purpose of this bill is to allow the use of grey water for watering gardens in sewered 

areas. The amendments to the Plumbing and Draining Act 2002 will, for the very first time, allow local 

governments to approve home owners using grey water to water gardens in areas served by a sewer 

system. 

As has been mentioned by many members of the House, some risks in the use of grey water 

have been identified, and managing those risks has been taken into account in this legislation. To 

manage any risks to public health grey water systems will have to use subsurface irrigation with pipes 

installed at least 100 millimetres below the surface. This avoids human contact with waste from 

laundries and showers which can carry traces of human waste. To manage any potential impact 

on amenity, no storage of grey water will be allowed. I understand that odour can be a problem if grey 

water is allowed to pool. 

To manage environmental risks, councils will have to approve all systems and assess whether 

land is suitable for grey water irrigation. Systems can only be approved for domestic homes where grey 

water generated is less than 3,000 litres per day and where there is sufficient land to distribute the 

water. It will also be possible for individual councils to decide whether they wish to receive applications 

for grey water systems. It is possible that some councils will decide to focus their resources on other 

water conservation and reuse initiatives such as water recycling. 

The Gold Coast City Council has done a lot to encourage residents of the Gold Coast to recycle 

water and to cut down on their use of water. I attended the Gold Coast City Council’s launch of its latest 

water futures campaign, which features a young girl. The campaign is called ‘When Kate is an adult will 

we have enough water?’ It is ironic that the day that I went to the breakfast launch was the first day of 

the rain that we had. I hope that it was a good sign for the Gold Coast. We did get a lot of rain out of that 

downpour over a week or so. 

We must not be complacent. We must continue to adhere to the restrictions that the council has 

enforced. I understand that this legislation will give local councils the power to enforce grey water use. 

There are a number of areas that local government will be responsible for in terms of the usage of grey 

water. This legislation goes into greater detail on those. 

I wanted to comment on what the Gold Coast City Council has done in the past. The previous 

council and the previous mayor did push their concern about water issues. I understand that the Gold 

Coast City Council has had great communications with the minister’s office and her department. I would 

assume that they have been quite supportive of this legislation. I hope that the council will take on board 

all the recommendations in this legislation and that residents on the Gold Coast look forward to using 

grey water as another alternative to saving water. I commend the bill to the House. 

Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (6.25 pm): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak in the 

debate on the Plumbing and Drainage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. It provides a 

legislative framework for local governments to allow the diversion of grey water from showers, baths and 

washing machines to underground water systems for irrigating gardens in urban sewered areas. The 

implementation of this long-awaited legislation has the capacity to significantly increase the efficiency of 

our use of water. It is only one of a range of demand measurement measures that need to be 

implemented if we are to use our water resources responsibly and sustainably. 

As the member for Cook indicated earlier in this debate, I have taken a particular interest in 

achieving this goal for the Cairns region in the face of a mayor whose only solution to achieving a 

reliable water supply for Cairns is to build another dam. In 2003 I, with the support of the relevant 

ministers at the time, initiated a series of water forums in Cairns that were targeted at council, at the 

community and at industry. One of the important recommendations to come out of those water forums 

was that Cairns needed to have a least-cost water planning study which focused on the situation in 

Cairns and how we could move forward in a cost-effective manner. It has been a long time coming, but 

the Cairns least-cost planning study was released in June of this year. I would like to spend time in my 

contribution to this debate making reference to this, because it is such an important document for Cairns 

and very much relates to our sustainable use of water which is a goal of the legislation we are debating 

here tonight. 

The study, carried out by MWH Australia Ltd, was a joint initiative of the EPA, Cairns Water and 

the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. I am very pleased to say that the government 

contributed financially to this report, indicating our commitment to this area. The study examined the 

options available on both the supply and the demand side with particular emphasis on the economic 

costs and benefits related to demand management options. Overall, the study aimed to define the leastcost 

program of supply augmentations and demand management initiatives for the Cairns water supply 

to 2044. I think it is really important to emphasise that this study takes us to 2044. It is quite clear that 

there is no need for a dam in that time frame. I will come back to the question of a dam later in my 

contribution. 

A separate study was undertaken during the course of this least-cost planning investigation to 

review and refine business-as-usual options for system augmentation. I would like to make clear the 

objectives of a least-cost plan. It is important that people do understand that its objectives are to develop


a program of demand management options that will allow the most cost-effective delivery of water 

services to Cairns city, to develop a framework and a model for least-cost planning and demand/supply 

side options and to provide recommendations that will integrate planning to allow cost-effective decision 

making, which of course is in the best interests of not just the environment but also the ratepayers, who 

are going to be the ones who will fund any initiatives that come from this study. 

I would like, then, to turn to the conclusions and recommendations of this report. I said that it was 

long-awaited. One of the reasons it took such time to come to fruition was that negotiations had to be 

undertaken between the state government and the Cairns City Council. I must say that these at times 

were torturous. I am pleased to say that we have come to a resolution in terms of the way forward. I 

would like to commend Minister Desley Boyle for her involvement in achieving that outcome. It is vitally 

important that there is agreement between the state government and the city council as to how we 

proceed in this regard. I would like to make particular reference to the conclusions and 

recommendations from the study. 

Sitting suspended from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm. 

Dr LESLEY CLARK: Before I describe the conclusions and recommendations of the least-cost 

planning study, however, I must explain that demand analysis has been made very difficult by the poor 

quality water consumption data supplied to the consultants by Cairns Water. The study revealed that 

Cairns Water does not actually know exactly where all of its water is going. The water consumption 

records show that the total consumption at times exceeded production—a miracle not even the best 

local government could achieve—and then there is a lack of any sort of regular seasonal pattern in the 

records of each sector. The consultants put the missing water that could not be accounted for at 20 per 

cent. It was an estimate, but it was the best they could do. But of that 20 per cent, they also estimated 

that half of that amount was due to system losses—that is, leakages. Based on the amount of water that 

is consumed every year in the Cairns city area, that means that approximately 2.5 billion litres of water 

is likely to be leaking out of the system every year. No wonder Cairns residents who are on permanent 

water restrictions are angry at that situation and it clearly points, as the consultants did, to a need to 

address that situation as a matter of urgency and develop better data records. 

Turning to the conclusions and recommendations—I want to read this into the Hansard record 

because it is so important—the conclusion states— 

Based on the assessment of least cost options for the Cairns Water supply it is concluded that: 

1. Analysis of the demand trends over the past five years indicates that the per capita demand reduced by 10% following the 

introduction of a two part tariff, but has rebounded by approximately half this amount over the past two years (after climate 

correction of demand). 

2. Per capita demand over the past three years averages 510 L/day including non-revenue water. This equates to an 

average of 26,000 ML/a of total demand. 

3. It is estimated that the total population served ... will grow to 252,000 to the year 2044. Bulk water supply of approximately 

48,000 ML/a will be required to cater for this population at current levels of consumption. 

4. Demand analysis was hampered by lack of quality customer database data. Resulted in difficulty in estimating the level of 

NRW— 

that is, non-revenue water— 

and the level of seasonal use in each consumer category. 

5. Constant per capita baseline has been assumed, but this should need to be monitored carefully in the coming years to 

ensure that any increase is identified and the appropriate adjustments made to the demand and supply programs. 

6. A range of demand management scenarios, consisting of groups of initiatives was assessed using an economic model to 

determine cost effectiveness. It was found that a program consisting of the following elements would best meet the 

objectives of the program: 

• Community education 

• Fixture efficiency code for new development 

• Showerhead retrofit program 

• Non-residential water audits 

• Non-residential external audit program 

• Mandatory fixture labelling 

• Minimum performance standards for water using fixtures and appliances 

• Establishment of Pressure Management Areas and District Metering Areas 

7. The Least Cost Plan for Cairns Water was found to be a combination of: 

• The development of the Mulgrave Aquifer as the next source of supply 

• Demand Management Program as outlined in Section 7.4.3. 

8. Cairns Water should also consider different options with respect to customer billing which would include inclining block 

tariffs and more frequent billing, with both access and usage charges on the one bill. The use of a ‘free’ allowance should 

be reconsidered in the context of a price signal to the customers. 

9. It is estimated that the implementation of the demand management program ... would cost approximately $3m over the 

next five years, at which stage the effectiveness should be fully reviewed. This approach will save approximately 7% over 

the baseline forecast, which will rise to 12% when taking account of recently implemented national water efficiency 

standards.


10. A performance tracking and monitoring program should be developed to more effectively understand the program’s 

performance. 

I turn now to the recommendations, and here I need to explain that, with regard to the finding of 

the least-cost plan for water in terms of supply, whilst it was the development of the Mulgrave aquifer as 

the next source of supply, there has been further work done on that issue. The recommendations then 

relate to that, too. The recommendations state— 

The assessment of water resources options (refer to Appendix A) recommended that CCC— 

that is, the Cairns City Council— 

adopt the following strategy for the development of the Cairns water supply (to be completed in the next 18 months): 

1. Undertake investigations of the Mulgrave aquifer to confirm the assumptions in the work to date and address the following 

issues: 

- Safe yield 

- Water quality and required water treatment processes 

- Impact of extraction on Mulgrave River flows 

- Possibility of agricultural contamination 

- Potential for salt water intrusion 

- Impact on the development of the Gordonvale area 

- Assets required to integrate the aquifer supply into the distribution system 

- Operational optimisation of the water resources. 

2. Progress the approvals for the Barron River scheme. This should include: 

- Review of the required treatment process ... 

- Possibility of agricultural contamination 

- Assessment of the appropriate sizing of the intake and WTP. 

3. Conduct market investigations as to the availability and cost of water allocations to be purchased from existing water 

entitlement holders in the Barron scheme. 

4. Investigation of the feasibility of upgrading the dead storage at Copperlode Dam: 

- Options for the replacement of the lower intake valve 

- Assessment of the treatment plant upgrading required to treat lower quality water from the dam. 

Based on the outcomes of the Least Cost Planning Study it is further recommended that: 

1. Cairns Water commence a demand management program aimed at reducing demand through a combination of water 

conservation initiatives, improved water efficiency in new development. Scenario 3a is the preferred strategy for demand 

management in Cairns Water. A key step in this process will be the development of a Supply System Loss Management 

Plan. 

That is, to reduce leaks. The recommendations continue— 

2. Cairns Water produce a tri-annual water balance reconciling: 

- Total water production; 

- Total water consumption; and 

- Total wastewater collected. 

3. Cairns Water further review options related to recycled water and rainwater tanks in future greenfield areas. 

4. Cairns Water investigate the cause of the inconsistencies in the data from the customer database. This will enable 

calculation of the water balance to WSAA standards. 

I am very pleased to say that the council has adopted the thrust of these recommendations, but it 

is absolutely vital that there is a method whereby the community can monitor the progress made in their 

implementation. I have read the recommendations into the record to give people some appreciation of 

the complexity of the issues that we are dealing with here, and we really need to have either the council 

or the state government provide a user-friendly residents guide, if you like, to this report so that they can 

understand its findings and understand its recommendations so that the community can be informed 

and make decisions about how well the council is actually implementing this report, because it is 

absolutely vital for our future that we do hold the council accountable for implementing this report. 

The mayor is still on record as saying that we do need another dam. I want to clarify that, when he 

says that we need another dam, it is not another dam to provide Cairns with water; it is actually another 

dam that can provide the irrigators with water—that is, the proposed use for the Nulinga dam—which 

would then free up the Tinaroo Dam and Barron River to be utilised for Cairns city. It is important that I 

provide that understanding for people. For the long term, though—again, this is something on which I 

have worked with the previous minister for water resources—we are in the process of preparing a 

regional water supply strategy for the whole far-north Queensland area, just like the one that has been 

prepared for south-east Queensland and central Queensland. That is going to look at the long-term 

water supply issues. That, of course, is post 2044, which is when the least-cost plan will take us to, so 

we are looking at another 39 years before we actually need to look at anything beyond the Barron River 

and the Mulgrave aquifer. I am on record as saying that another dam may indeed be needed, but I do 

not believe that it is inevitable.


I come back to the legislation that we are debating today and this whole question of the use of 

recycled water. I do believe that by the time we are looking for another water supply to put into our 

system, technology and community attitudes will have changed towards this question of the use of 

recycled water. It is very timely that today in the Courier-Mail there is a very interesting article by Dr 

Philip Williams, who is a senior lecturer in the School of Environmental Engineering at Griffith University. 

The article makes the point very well that there are more opportunities for water recycling, and that is 

the reuse of treated waste water, both the grey water we are talking about and black water, which is the 

sewage. The article states— 

Only a relatively small fraction of our wastewater is recycled now—for golf courses, industry and agriculture. The community is 

strongly in favour of these types of uses, presumably because the benefits are obvious and there is no personal contact. 

‘Indirect potable reuse’ is another possibility, where treated wastewater effluent would be piped back to the water supply source. 

This is well down the list of water recycling priorities and virtually is not practised in Australia—primarily because of adverse public 

reaction. 

The usual response to proposed schemes or any possible hint that wastewater effluent is linked to drinking water is an immediate 

case of the ‘yuk’ factor (faecal aversion, in more scientific terms). 

I have certainly encountered that myself. The article continues— 

Unfortunately, few people are bothering to think about the issues. Singapore is an overseas exception where a small amount of 

treated wastewater is mixed into the water supply lake. 

That is something that I have been aware of for some time. I can only commend that particular 

approach. I think we will need to consider, both in south-east Queensland and across the state, putting 

recycled water back into our dams. Then we have all of the processes of water treatment to ensure the 

quality of the water we have already put in the dam, which would be very high. 

Mr Shine interjected. 

Dr LESLEY CLARK: I am glad to hear the member. I take that interjection, because I think that is 

the future. It is not some airy-fairy, pie-in-the-sky idea; it is used in other countries. It can be used here. 

Just yesterday I was speaking with the minister for natural resources about this very issue. I am 

encouraged by his willingness to consider this option and to take the community with us as we discuss 

these opportunities. Hopefully, we can get beyond the ‘yuk factor’ which, as I say, we have seen in the 

US where these schemes have been scuttled. People have run scare campaigns on ‘toilet to tap’. That 

is really a gross exaggeration. It does not reflect at all what can be achieved with this sort of technology. 

I believe that, with this legislation and with a raft of other initiatives that this government is 

bringing forward, we will move into an era of a much more sustainable use of our water supply. We will 

be able to meet the challenges of the droughts that we are experiencing and climate change—all of 

those issues that we face in the future. 

I encourage all local authorities to continue to work really closely with the government. Again, I 

commend the minister for her dual portfolios of Environment and Local Government. As she knows, that 

places her so well to deal with these issues now and into the future. I look forward to us in Cairns 

grappling with these issues in a way that is good for the environment and good for the ratepayers’ 

bottom line. With those words, I commend the bill to the House. 

Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (7.43 pm): I rise to speak briefly in support of this bill brought to the 

House by the minister for environment. It is long-awaited. I know that the minister has been doing some 

good work on this bill for a while now. It is really good to see it culminate, because this minister for 

environment made it a priority and made it happen. So I really congratulate her on that. 

The bill should be seen in conjunction with the Sustainable Housing Policy which, in terms of 

water use, mandates dual-flush toilets and AAA rated shower roses, which have the capacity to save us 

about 16,000 litres of water per household per year. The Sustainable Housing Policy also mandates 

water pressure limiting devices. 

In the period of just a couple of generations our attitudes towards the environment and our use of 

resources have changed enormously. This is going to sound very down home, but it is also pertinent. I 

talked to my grandma about what it was like when she grew up. My grandma grew up just outside 

Warwick. It is hardly the end of the earth. She is now just over 80. When my grandma was a young 

woman her family did not have a car, so she would walk or ride a horse to wherever she wanted to go. 

Going into Warwick was an enormously big deal. There was no electricity at her home. So the only 

refrigeration was by means of an icebox. When my grandma was growing up, once the water tank at 

their farmhouse went dry that was it; there was simply no more water. So my grandma grew up—and 

this is only two generations ago; it is hardly a particularly long time ago—in an environment where the 

maintenance and protection of limited resources were absolutely central to the way in which all people 

lived their lives. 

In two generations, those attitudes have changed enormously. By the time of my mother’s 

generation, we were so resource rich that the waste of resources such as oil, water and paper in the 

office became almost a celebration of affluence. I know people who are my mother’s age who really 

object to the notion of recycling paper in an office because it is somehow an imposition on those signs of


affluence. So there was an enormous generational change in a short period. To have to save things, to 

have to protect resources, almost made it seem as if a person was poor. Not all people changed in that 

way—I am not putting down a whole generation—but in just one generation we reached a point where 

waste came to be seen virtually as a sign of affluence. 

Now, by my generation, we are very much changing back the other way. We have become 

conscious that the resources we have such as oil, water and forms of energy are very much finite and 

very much need to be protected. I think we can watch the legislative path alongside those generational 

changes. It was in the generation before this one that we did what now seems a bizarre thing to do; that 

is, legislate to specifically prevent people using grey water from their washing or from their showers—or 

wherever it might have been from—on their gardens. We now need to go very much the other way. 

We now need to recognise that huge aspects of the life that we lead are fundamentally 

unsustainable. We use more oil than the next generation will begin to imagine using. We use more 

electricity than the next generation will begin to imagine is possible. We use more water than the next 

generation will even dream of. So these changes—the Sustainable Housing Policy and the use of grey 

water—are very much the first steps in what will be a serious and long journey down the path of 

sustainability in our households. 

I urge the government to consider these initiatives as first tentative steps down that path. Indeed, 

we need to go much, much further, because the way we use water now is simply unsustainable. We 

have just released the South East Queensland Regional Plan for a population that will be far greater 

than the population we have now. We all need to understand that when south-east Queensland’s 

population doubles, if we are still using the amount of water that we use now we simply will not have 

enough water. 

Some people think that we will build new dams. Building new dams will not create more water in 

south-east Queensland. Then some people turn to the idea of desalination, but desalination is 

enormously energy intensive. There is only one way to make sure that we have enough water for the 

population that south-east Queensland will have in the future and that is not to create more water 

somehow, not to dam more water and not desalination; it is simply to use far less water. 

I am hugely supportive of these steps that the government is taking, but I think we have to 

understand that these are teeny steps just at the beginning. I urge the government to keep in mind and 

start talking to the community about the fact that we are going to have to go further. We are seriously 

going to have to look at mandated water use targets for most households. I urge the government to 

keep in mind the possibility of mandating rainwater tanks for all households, because I simply think we 

are going to have to go there. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House. 


Women) (7.50 pm), in reply: I thank all honourable members who have participated in the debate on the 

Plumbing and Drainage and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. Since 2001, many communities 

across Queensland have been living with drought, and water resources have been scarce in coastal 

centres as well as rural and remote regions. The current drought is particularly harsh and nationally 

widespread, but history tells us that drought is not an exceptional event in Australia; rather it is a natural 

and recurring phenomenon, and a major drought can be expected in Australia on average every 20 

years. Queensland’s climate history tells the same story. We live in an environment where water is a 

scarce and precious commodity, with fast-growing regions putting additional pressure on water 

resources. It is important, therefore, that Queensland takes action now to promote water conservation 

and to create a legislative environment that allows the safe reuse and recycling of water. 

The main objective of this bill is to allow for greater use of grey water by Queensland home 

owners. The amendments in the bill provide for the use of grey water in urban areas to irrigate lawns 

and gardens. Grey water use in sewered areas was not allowed in the past due to concerns about 

impacts on public health and the environment. This bill amends Queensland’s plumbing and drainage 

legislation so that local governments can now approve grey water use facilities in sewered areas, with a 

number of sensible constraints that will address these concerns. All grey water systems will require 

council approval, and councils will be able to refuse approval for premises where land is considered 

unsuitable for grey water irrigation. Also, individual councils will be able to decide whether or not they 

wish to receive applications for grey water systems. Some councils may decide that resources are best 

used to investigate other options for water conservation and reuse, such as water recycling schemes. 

In addition to grey water legislation, the bill includes amendments to make the approval process 

for on-site sewerage work consistent with approval processes for other plumbing and drainage work. 

On-site sewerage work was treated differently when it was first incorporated into the PDA because it 

had been administered under different legislation. The amendments in the bill will improve integration 

and ensure that the same accountability standards apply to all work. 

The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee considers that the bill raises two issues within the 

committee’s terms of reference. Firstly, the committee notes that the bill confers on investigators certain 

powers of entry which extend beyond situations where the occupier consents or where a warrant has 

been obtained and draws parliament’s attention to these entry powers. The powers of entry provisions in


the bill are, in fact, extremely limited, and entry other than by consent or warrant is only to public places 

where members of the public are entitled to enter under ordinary circumstances. Suitable safeguards in 

relation to entry and post-entry powers are included in these provisions. 

Secondly, the committee notes that the bill inserts two definitions incorporating terms of external 

and government generated documents which are not subordinate legislation. The incorporation of these 

documents is considered appropriate in these circumstances to standardise terminology consistent with 

nationally agreed codes. The Plumbing Code of Australia is a national code developed by the National 

Plumbing Regulators Forum that documents nationally agreed performance requirements for plumbing 

and drainage. It also contains product authorisation and certification processes that underpin national 

standards. This code is adopted in whole or in part by each state and territory. A similar arrangement 

applies with the Building Code of Australia. 

I now turn to the issues raised by members during the debate. I thank the honourable member for 

Mirani for his support in general for the bill and I thank him for his comments with which for the most part 

I agree. Insofar as his comment about the enforcement provisions is concerned and a question that he 

raised, in his tone at least, as to whether they are a bit over the top, the enforcement powers in the bill 

are really quite constrained when examined more closely, and they are only what is needed to make 

sure operators are complying with the legislation. 

The bill also contains suitable safeguards against the misuse of enforcement powers. This issue 

was brought to my attention in one of my early meetings with the Plumbers and Drainers Board. The 

Plumbers and Drainers Board—which is, indeed, a valiant organisation and, I might say, hardworking— 

meets infrequently but, nonetheless, gets on with the business of ensuring that there are proper 

standards in the plumbing and drainage work done around Queensland. 

The board has a significant role in the licensing of plumbers and drainers. Members of the board 

expressed to me their concerns that the health risks and the safety risks of Queenslanders would be 

considerable were we to have unlicensed people or people with licences performing work of a lower 

standard. Should the board receive reports that seem to have some substance alleging that work is 

substandard or being done by somebody who is not properly licensed, then it needs powers in 

exceptional circumstances to investigate and ensure that the standards are being maintained. 

I also take this opportunity to let members know that Mr Jorgen Gullestrup from the Plumbers 

Union—a man whom I know only too well is devoted not only to dealing with the issues of the day for 

plumbers and drainers but also to ensuring that there are good career paths for plumbers in years to 

come and, I might say, is putting his mind to the issue of more women in the industry—has been 

concerned, as all good professionals are, to make sure that all of the good operators in the field are not 

in any way besmirched, as it were, by poor practice by the occasional individual. I thank him for his 

general support for this bill and I give recognition to the important work that he and all of the members of 

the union do all over Queensland. It is work that many of us in our households and in our businesses 

take for granted. 

The member for Mirani raised the issue of what other states of Australia have done with regard to 

grey water reuse. In most other states—New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia and 

Tasmania—there are processes in place to regulate the installation of grey water facilities. However, I let 

honourable members know that in Victoria, where grey water usage has not been so strictly controlled, 

they have had a problem with grey water causing an environmental nuisance, and they are now moving 

in Victoria to introduce stricter controls. The member also raised the issue of whether incentives should 

be in place to encourage grey water facility installation. He quite rightly made the point that the cost of 

installation will be difficult indeed for those retro-fitting houses on slabs. There is no doubt that the cost 

will be considerable in those circumstances. 

Funding at this point is being provided. However, this is in the first instance to support local 

governments in implementing the legislation, in assessing applications, in training and in making sure 

that the system is working. It is anticipated that, with the introduction of this legislation, builders will in 

future fit piping to houses, even houses on slabs, so that they are grey water ready. While that does not 

address the problem of retrofits, I think, nonetheless, that it is sensible in government to make one 

significant change such as this and to allow some time for that system to be in place to see how it works. 

Also of relevance on this particular issue is that all over the state of Queensland we are getting 

the message that we will pay for our water one way or another and that, because it is so important, we 

must use it wisely. We are getting the message that the precious resource of water will have to be paid 

for, perhaps by reducing our use of potable water and putting our money instead into recycling initiatives 

or grey water, through the councils via our rates or through various water bodies. 

The member asked what is being done to train council officers. I am able to tell him that an 

extensive training program is proposed that will assist councils to understand the proposed legislation 

and the new Plumbing and Wastewater Code. The new code for grey water use will assist councils 

understand the grey water technical requirements. The government has allocated significant funds for 

training and public information. Nonetheless, this needs to be an optional matter for local governments 

not only for soil variation reasons and even resourcing and training capacities within councils but also


because some councils have gone ahead with unique recycling schemes and amazing initiatives where 

grey water systems may become superfluous. 

The member also asked what we are doing to conserve water and to promote reuse. Of course, 

that is a job not only for the government and members of the opposition but also for all Queenslanders. 

Therefore, I take the opportunity to mention that, as well as the grey water legislation that we are 

debating tonight, the government is working on a number of additional initiatives to improve water use. 

Recently, I was pleased to announce sustainable housing initiatives that will promote the installation of 

rainwater tanks and water conserving technologies within Queensland homes. 

I thank the member for Caloundra for his support. Quite rightly he makes the point that this is just 

the start and that much more needs to be done. In fact, the Queensland government agrees. We 

recognise that a broad approach will be needed to change water consumption trends. Significant 

funding has been directed through the Climate Smart Communities to support many related initiatives. 

Those projects will support local governments in driving other initiatives such as stormwater harvesting, 

dual reticulation and public awareness. They will also support education initiatives of the sort described 

by the member, which can change the way Queenslanders think about water as a resource and, 

hopefully, change their behaviour. If members had not noticed it in the budget allocation, they will be 

pleased to hear that under the Climate Smart Communities heading, $600,000 has been allocated to 

Building Codes Queensland specifically to support grey water use over the next three years, and 

$3 million has been allocated to Building Codes Queensland over four years for a range of water 

conservation reforms. 

The member for Gladstone made a substantive contribution. She particularly mentioned the issue 

of irrigation systems, which she said will add expenses to the installation of grey water facilities. That is 

true. It is recognised that requiring subsurface irrigation piping will represent a significant proportion of 

the cost of systems. However, subsurface irrigation is vital to avoid public contact with water that may 

contain pathogens. In terms of health and safety, we are taking a conservative approach in introducing 

permission for grey water to be used around Queensland and we recognise that there are certain costs 

that go with that. However, those are costs in relation to health and safety and they are appropriate. At 

the same time, costs have been minimised by allowing for irrigation systems to be installed by home 

owners rather than by licensed plumbers. 

The member for Gladstone also raised the issue of kitchen grey water not being discharged 

through treatment systems. She rightly points out that, in future years, legislation will need to evolve 

further to accommodate and promote the uptake of innovative technologies. We have structured this 

legislation to remove the absolute prohibition on grey water use and, in the years to come, it will be 

possible to quite easily respond legislatively to new options for grey water management. 

I thank all the honourable members of the government team who have supported this legislation. 

Many spoke with some passion. Clearly they and their electorates have a history of showing strong 

interest in water conservation and sustainability in general. I thank the member for Noosa and the 

member for Cook, and also the members for Hervey Bay, Glass House, Thuringowa, Redlands, Fitzroy, 

Capalaba, Broadwater and Ipswich for their contributions. Mr Speaker, I also note that before you held 

your present position you too made a worthy contribution. 

The member for Greenslopes raised some significant issues that I would like to address. He was 

concerned that we ensure that grey water is used carefully in backyards so as not to cause a nuisance 

or in any way put at risk our health. He is quite right to be concerned. I can let him know that we have 

insisted on the subsurface piping irrigation system to safeguard against such things as ponding in 

certain areas or children who are playing in their backyard gaining direct access to grey water. 

Additionally, the design of systems and council approval processes will ensure that the water is safely 

distributed through the subsurface system. Filters on diversion devices will limit the flow of lint and solids 

through pipes. Councils will be able to assess whether or not soil profiles on premises are suitable for 

grey water irrigation. Finally, offence provisions will make it possible for councils to address any 

situations where systems are not effectively managed. 

I thank the member for Fitzroy for his generally supportive contribution. He raised the good issue 

of the expense of repiping, particularly involving the separation of grey water from black water. I am 

pleased to reassure him on this issue. While it sounds like that would be an expensive and difficult 

repiping job, in actual fact grey water can be easily diverted by the installation of a diversion device to 

laundry and/or bathroom piping before it discharges to the sewer. I particularly mention the contribution 

of the member for Ipswich who spoke, of course, about the various other options that we have for 

conserving water, including the exploration of desalination. 

I mention my geographic colleague, Lesley Clark, the member for Barron River. Over many years 

in the broader Cairns area she has kept the community and, I might say, to some degree the council 

honest on issues of water supply and water demand management. This has not always been popular. 

While wise and well based in science and sensible consideration, her words have not been welcomed 

by all sections of the community. Therefore, she has shown some courage to persist. Over more recent 

years, as many more of us have realised the importance of conserving water, we are now taking

23 Aug 2005 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2629 

account of many of the things that she has been saying for a good long time. I join the honourable 

member in recognising that the time is not too far away when we will surely see systems whereby 

indirect recycled potable water is part of our Queensland water supply. Of course, we have that already. 

Communities that take water from water sources downstream are using some water that has already 

been recycled through outfalls that are often further upstream. Doing this more deliberately and via a 

large body of water such as a dam will undoubtedly be necessary. 

I take this opportunity to also congratulate Mayor Di Thorley on her tremendous courage and 

absolute determination to ensure that residents of Toowoomba and the broader area will have a good 

potable water supply in the years to come, despite the predictions of a drier area due to climate change. 

She has been unreasonably criticised by many, rather than recognised for her courage and her 

leadership. 

As I bring this to a close, I thank all of those who have worked for quite a long time on this bill. A 

lot of detail needs to be addressed to balance the interests of local government and health and to, at the 

same time, make sure that the system is going to be workable and as affordable as it can be. I 

particularly thank the managing director of Building Codes Queensland in the department of local 

government and planning, Mr Ain Kuru. He has led this program and many other programs in the 

department. I thank him for his leadership, his determination and his good advice. On occasion he has 

even needed to redirect my thinking in an appropriate direction, as it were, when I have not been clear. 

Unfortunately, he has decided that now it is the time for change. He is moving to another position, still 

connected to local government but not in Building Codes Queensland. He will be sorely missed. I 

recognise his need for change, and I thank him. He has been a great asset to me as minister for local 

government over these last 15 months or more. 

I thank all others who have worked on the grey water systems and on the plumbing and drainage 

bill before the House tonight. The work of Local Government and Planning has been supplemented— 

value has been added—by the Environmental Protection Agency. This is another example of the 

benefits of having Local Government and Environment working together. I commend the bill to the 

House. 



Clauses 1 to 48, as read, agreed to. 


Third Reading 

CHILD SAFETY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 


Resumed from 24 May (see p. 1568). 

Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (8.12 pm): I rise to present the opposition’s position in relation 

to the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. This bill before the House is the third tranche of 

legislation in response to the recommendations of the Crime and Misconduct Commission’s Protecting 

Children report. In commencing on this legislation, it is important to put the foster care report into 

perspective because this is a matter that the minister avoided in his second reading speech. 

I need to remind this House that the inquiry came about because of information released to the 

media by the Leader of the Opposition in 2003 which proved that foster-children had been suffering 

ongoing abuse with the knowledge of the department of family services over many years. It is important 

to realise that this information came to light despite the existence of the Commissioner for Children and 

Young People and Child Guardian and the provision of specific legislative provisions that were 

continually ignored by the then minister for families. The public record will show that the Premier and the 

minister resisted calling an inquiry until the evidence produced by the opposition and the media made 

that position untenable. 

I would also like to remind the House that the QPSU had also been warning the government that 

the department was failing because of case workers being inundated with files to the extent that the 

system became dysfunctional. Unfortunately, again, the minister at the time failed to respond to these 

concerns and continually refused to provide to this parliament information requested by the opposition 

regarding case loads. I regret to advise the House that, unfortunately, this is the same position now 

being taken by the current minister. I would refer those with a real interest in child safety and not spin to 

read the proceedings of Estimates Committee B.

2630 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 23 Aug 2005 

To overcome the deficiencies identified by the CMC, the Beattie government committed to 

implement the 110 recommendations of the CMC in line with the recommendations of the blueprint for 

implementation developed by Peter Forster. 

The legislation we are considering addresses the third-phase legislation which, in accordance 

with the Forster blueprint, is supposed to address recommendations 8.5 and 8.6, to refine the 

Indigenous child placement principle; 7.11 and 9.2, to address regulating voluntary placements; 8.11, 

dealing with consulting Indigenous agency stakeholders; and, finally, 7.1 and 9.2, regulating all carers. 

This legislation relates to four specific aspects of the child safety legislative regime. These are the 

regulation of voluntary placements, the regulation of all carers, consultation with Indigenous entities and 

refining the Indigenous child placement principle. 

The CMC made four recommendations for specific legislative changes; namely, recommendation 

9.1 in relation to notifications, 9.2 in relation to the approval of individual carers, 9.3 to require case 

planning and, finally, 9.4 in relation to a report on implementation. Recommendations 9.1 and 9.3 have 

been addressed, to some degree, by previous amending legislation, and 9.2 is to be addressed in this 

bill, as I just indicated. Recommendation 9.4, which requires a legislative provision for a report on the 

implementation of this report to be provided to the CMC within two years of the report, has not been 

included in this legislation. As the minister has referred to this as being the final tranche of the legislation 

required by the inquiry report, the minister must tell the parliament why he is ignoring this quite specific 

recommendation of the commissioner. It will not be good enough for the minister to say that he is going 

to report anyway, because the commissioner has made a specific recommendation in this regard. He 

wanted to see quite specific recommendations for the same reason that the opposition does. That is, he 

obviously did not trust the government to do what it says, and nor should he. 

The whole protecting children inquiry would not have been necessary if this government could be 

trusted to do as it said. Therefore, I am indicating to the minister that I shall be moving an amendment to 

this bill which will give effect to recommendation 9.4 of the CMC report which the minister was happy to 

let fall through the cracks. The minister has frequently spoken about the need to fix the culture in the 

department that owes its genesis to previous administrations. As this House is aware, the destructive 

culture of the department was strongly criticised by the CMC. I simply make the observation that the way 

to fix the culture that continues to exist within the department is by honesty, openness and accountability 

and that the actions of the minister to gild the lily, to obfuscate and to avoid accountability only 

perpetuate the culture of deceit within the department. I believe that the minister is genuine in his 

concern for reform, so I take this opportunity to ask the minister to be more critical of the advice that he 

receives and to actually practise what we hear him telling us so often. 

The minister is well aware of the opposition’s concern that the department routinely uses privacy 

and other legislative restrictions to avoid accountability. I appreciate that this is a complex issue and that 

there is a genuine need to protect privacy and the identity of children in care. The problem for members 

of this parliament is that we are unable to represent the concerns of constituents who are engaged with 

the department. When we are asked by a constituent to raise concerns at their treatment by the 

department, we get the routine response that the department has been advised of the concerns and if 

the constituent wants further information they should contact the relevant person in the department. As 

the minister well knows, it is often the actions of that same relevant person that are the cause for 

concern in the first place. This is a classic catch-22. 

I hasten to add that I know these issues are often very complex and emotive and that there are at 

least—at least—two sides to a story, and often many sides to a story. However, when we, as local 

members, are never apprised of the other side of the story, what are we to do? I refer this issue to the 

minister because I believe that there should be a more open and accountable system. I believe that 

there has been a genuine attempt in this bill to redress some of the deficiencies and I shall refer later to 

that particular provision. 

As the minister well knows, during previous debates in this House about the earlier phases of this 

legislation, I raised concerns about the reporting arrangements regarding the monitoring role of the 

Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, particularly as reports to the minister 

do not have to be reported to this parliament. One can only presume that this monitoring is occurring 

because, until an annual report is provided to this House, there is no way of knowing what is actually 

happening. I ask the minister to advise this House in his summation if he has actually received any 

reports from the commissioner in relation to issues identified by them. 

It is very instructive to look at the progress thus far in implementing the recommendations of the 

CMC report. The minister has claimed that 50 of the recommendations of the commission have been 

implemented thus far. The minister is very proud of this accomplishment and has been spending 

taxpayer funds to tell the world about it. Of course, as we have come to expect from this government, 

the truth is often entirely different. In reality, 87 of the recommendations are supposed to have been 

implemented to date. Is it any wonder that the legislative provision for reporting progress has apparently 

been conveniently omitted from this legislative package. Contrary to the picture painted by the minister 

in his second reading speech, the reforms in relation to child safety are not on track. The reality is that 

the reforms are behind schedule.


However, of even greater concern is that the situation is rapidly deteriorating. In recent weeks we 

have had confirmation that category 1 notifications have gone unactioned for longer than the acceptable 

standard, staff of the department have protested against the minister and there have been strikes by 

caseworkers in Ipswich, Toowoomba, Inala and in other offices. There has been serious industrial unrest 

at the Sunshine Coast, and I am personally aware of serious unrest in the minister’s own electorate of 

Townsville and at other regional offices around the state. Recently, not-for-profit carers expressed their 

concern at the department’s inadequate ability to cope. 

I signal quite clearly to the minister that the opposition is growing very concerned at the 

government’s failure to bring about the anticipated changes in the department. Before the minister says 

so, we did not and we do not think that it was possible to achieve the necessary changes overnight. 

However, the signals thus far are not good. 

In particular, I refer again to the recommendations of the CMC report and to two specific 

recommendations. CMC recommendation 5.3 requires the adoption of a verifiable means of calculating 

workloads and projecting future staffing numbers. This recommendation, due for implementation in 

December 2004, is still overdue. Unless the department is able to ensure the ongoing allocation of the 

necessary resources to the new system, the mistakes of the past are likely to be repeated. 

I have already mentioned the current unrest in various offices of the department which deal with 

case back loads and case loads. This recommendation by the CMC is critical to the success of the 

reform process. The simple logic of this recommendation is unavoidable. If there is no proper way of 

determining how many staff are needed for the system to work, it will not work. It is no good the minister 

going to the media, as he did recently, and saying that the government is going to allocate more money 

in the next budget unless we know that those funds are enough. 

The staffing recommendations contained in the Forster blueprint were also based on an audit of 

case loads undertaken by the implementation unit, which identified a backlog of some 5,000 initial 

assessments and estimated an annual increase of 14 per cent in notifications. This audit also identified 

an average case load of 32 cases per CSO, compared with the 15 suggested for resource planning by 

Gwenn Murray and the CMC, and the international benchmark of 10 which was identified by the Kibble 

committee in New South Wales in 2003. As the minister knows, the increase in notifications in some 

offices is about 40 per cent, not 14 per cent, and the consequences to the system are inevitable. 

Much of the reform agenda is also dependent upon the implementation of an integrated case load 

computer system, which is scheduled for implementation in the blueprint by June next year. That is 

recommendation 5.17. This system was identified in the CMC report as a matter of the highest priority. 

The carer directory element of this system was due for implementation by February this year. That is 

recommendation 7.6. It is already behind schedule. In the Courier-Mail of 20 June 2005, under the 

heading ‘Foster Care Fix Too Expensive’, a spokesperson for the minister stated, ‘Due to the cost of 

delivery of some requirements, a range of alternative options are being explored.’ All the opposition can 

say is: we told you so. 

In its submission to the CMC, the opposition expressed concern at the build-it-ourselves 

approach taken by the department to the development of this computer system. I predict that it will result 

in further delays and performance difficulties so that the target date of June next year may be missed. 

The opposition has supported the government in its reform of the child-care system but it has reserved 

the right to be critical, if necessary. The criticism of delays in implementing these vital recommendations 

is valid and we are keen for the minister and the department to respond positively. 

The first aspect of this legislation relates to the considerable amount of work the department does 

in relation to voluntary care; that is, care that is arranged without a child protection order. The minister 

has informed the House that approximately 30 per cent of the department’s work relates to care in this 

category. Quite obviously, the same concerns that were identified in the foster care inquiry can also exist 

in the voluntary system. 

This bill amends chapter 2 of the act to provide a new part 3B, which will regulate voluntary care. 

Primarily, voluntary care arrangements will be formalised by a care agreement that parents will enter 

into with the chief executive of the department. I note that these arrangements will also permit the child’s 

views to be taken into consideration and the ongoing involvement of the parents in the child’s life and 

care must be encouraged and facilitated. In addition, the arrangements regarding contact between the 

child and the parents must be stated in the agreement. 

In this regard, I raise with the minister my concern that this agreement document, particularly in 

relation to contact arrangements, has the potential of being too prescriptive. If the agreements are on a 

voluntary basis, I encourage the minister and the department, in its application of this legislation, to 

include, by default, minimum contact arrangements. I appreciate that in some cases it may also be 

appropriate to consider practical maximum contact arrangements. However, I suggest that these be 

considered only in specific cases and not be default arrangements. 

I also commend the provision that one of the primary considerations is that the intention of these 

agreements is the expectation that parents will be able to resume care at the conclusion of the 

agreement. This, of course, is the ultimate aim in all child-care arrangements. Similarly, I note that


children subject to these agreements will be afforded the same rights and privileges as a child under the 

existing child protection order regime. 

This proposal also requires that the first option for care to be considered is placing the child with 

the extended family if appropriate. I really welcome the proposal that the definition of the extended 

family is to be amended to introduce the concept of kin and kinship. While I recognise that this is 

important from a cultural perspective with Indigenous groups, I believe that it will also recognise other 

social relationships where families often have close relationships with individuals who are not actually 

related. I am sure many of us have grown up calling someone uncle and aunty when in reality they are 

just good family friends and not relatives at all. 

I would like to take the opportunity provided by this legislation to deal with the issue of care by 

extended families. The minister is well aware that in many cases relations of the birth parents take 

responsibility for the upbringing of children and do so at considerable personal and social cost, not just 

financial cost. These arrangements are not just best for the child, as identified in this legislation, but also 

save the state an enormous financial burden. It is in this context that I raise with the minister the matter 

of carer payments to grandparents or other family members like uncles and aunts. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! I remind the member for the Burdekin that that bill is 

before the House. 

Mrs MENKENS: I would like the minister to comment on clause 28 which amends section 91 

dealing with appeals against decisions. The intention of this clause is to exclude from the appeal 

mechanism appeals against a decision to remove a child from a carer who is placed under a care 

agreement. As the minister has stated, these care agreements are a consequence of an agreement 

between the chief executive and the child’s parents. Further, the time frame for placements under care 

agreements are limited to an initial 30 days. The explanatory notes then go on to indicate that if the 

circumstances leading to the removal of the child result in a cancellation, suspension or amendment of 

the approval these are reviewable decisions. I ask the minister to explain what process is used if a child 

is to be removed with the parents approval? Is it that if the parents withdraw the approval for the care 

order it just becomes null and void and therefore is not appealable? 

An essential aspect of this proposal is the introduction of a certificate of approval for carers. This 

requires that the department undertake the necessary checks on the antecedents of not only the 

proposed career but also other adults who reside in the residence where care is to be approved. It is a 

reality that these checks are not just desirable but sadly in today’s society essential. I note that because 

of the emergent connotations of these voluntary arrangements there is a provision for provisional 

certificates to permit the full process to be undertaken whilst care arrangements are established. 

As the minister has mentioned, the CMC report made specific recommendations regarding the 

care of Indigenous children who represent almost 25 per cent of children in the child protection system. 

Obviously, this overrepresentation of Indigenous children is a symptom of underlying societal 

disadvantage, which is a challenge for government at all levels to address. Unfortunately, this legislation 

also has the challenge of dealing with the realities uncovered by the CMC foster care inquiry and 

accordingly provides for the recognition of recognised Indigenous organisations or individuals so that 

Indigenous children can receive culturally sensitive care. 

The minister is well aware of previous difficulties that have occurred in the administration of 

Aboriginal and Islander child-care agencies, the ACCAs, and the resultant defunding of many of these 

groups. While the opposition supports the proposals in relation to the involvement of recognised 

Indigenous entities, I must emphasise recommendation 8.5 of the commission which addressed one of 

the key failures of the department of families and requires that the Indigenous child placement principle 

specifically states that a placement decision can only be made if it is in the best interests of the child. 

I have noted the comments by the Minister for Energy and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait 

Islander Policy who, because he supported this recommendation that may result, in some cases, in 

Indigenous children being placed in the care of white carers, was accused of supporting another stolen 

generation. This is just inflammatory radical scaremongering. I support Minister Mickel. I presume and 

have no doubt that the minister opposite does as well. All this legislation says is that the safety of the 

children must be the primary focus. The attitude expressed by some that any care must be with 

Indigenous carers regardless is exactly what caused the circumstances that led to the previous scandal 

with foster-carers. I take this opportunity to remind the minister and the department of other provisions in 

the principles relating to administration of the act—in particular, that families have the primary 

responsibility for the upbringing, for the protection and for the development of their children and that the 

preferred way of ensuring a child’s wellbeing is through the support of the child’s family. 

As an introduction to my further comments may I also emphasise subsection 5(2)(d), which states 

that powers conferred under this act should be exercised in a way that is open, fair and respects the 

rights of people affected by their exercise. This bill introduces a provision that will enable the chief 

executive or a delegated officer to release confidential information subject to specific child focused 

criteria. With the recognition of the kinship arrangements in this legislation, it is obviously appropriate 

that they be provided with the necessary information if they are to participate in the decision-making


process. Obviously, a person receiving such information will be prohibited by the confidentiality 

provisions from using or disclosing this information to anyone else. 

Minister, I again raise the impossible situation that the opposition finds itself in in ensuring 

adequate oversight of the department. As I stated earlier, the department, and for that matter the 

minister, steadfastly refused to provide information regarding the administration of particular cases. As 

the representatives of constituents we are powerless in seeking any redress on behalf of constituents 

as, in the first place, they are prohibited from disclosing information to us as is the department in 

responding to concerns raised. It is an unfortunate fact that some clients of the department require 

assistance in making representations to the various review bodies, including the Commissioner for 

Children and Young People and Child Guardian. 

I find it rather incongruous that this House is approving the supply of information to a broader 

range of people and that an army of bureaucrats have access to the information. But people from whom 

the family seek assistance in their communications with the department are excluded from such access 

even though exactly the same sanctions regarding unauthorised release could apply to a member of 

parliament just as it would a public servant. 

I also note the amendment that has been circulated by the minister. As I understand it, 

the amendment clarifies the operation of the notification system for a change in a person’s police 

history. I look forward to a further explanation of this from the minister at a later date. 

During the estimates committee hearing I asked the minister about the implementation of a carer 

directory. In this question I outlined the case of a constituent who had her children taken into care by the 

department. In the weeks following the removal she was constantly rung by the department asking her 

to take on foster care children. She is a foster-carer. The minister rightly asked me whether I had 

brought this situation to his attention. My answer was no, that I had not. I still have not. 

The reason I have not is that I use this case to illustrate a problem in the system, and I add that it 

is not a problem with the staff. The information that is coming to me from within the department—the 

information that is coming to me that is really distressing me—is that the intimidation amongst the 

workers from management is appalling, and I believe this is a matter of grave concern. There is no way 

that I would identify that particular situation I spoke of earlier because I believe there is full truth in it and, 

at the end of the day, I have no doubt that it would be the staff involved who would be severely 

disciplined and it is not their fault. It is because systems are not in place, and matters such as this are 

still falling through the cracks. I am also told that many staff have been leaving and there is no process 

in place for exit interviews to occur. Those staff who have asked for exit interviews have been greeted 

with a ‘whatever for?’ comment. Staff who genuinely want to provide input into why the system is not 

working are being blocked in being able to provide useful, critical appraisal that could further develop 

the efficiency of this very important department. 

Also during estimates I asked the minister if all 24-hour response cases were being responded to 

within the time frame, if he was aware of any that were not and what the consequences were. His 

response was that, in terms of 24-hour responses, the department was absolutely committed to keep 

them and that it used partners in Police, Health and Education in that regard. He also said that he has 

indicated to the director-general that they must be attended to within 24 hours. He said— 

That is our requirement. If over the last two or three years one has not occurred in that way, that is unacceptable—absolutely 

unacceptable. 

The opposition has been extremely worried about the increasing number of unattended 

notifications that are coming to light, and I refer to a letter the Leader of the Opposition recently received 

from Ms Elizabeth Fraser, the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. In this 

letter she states that on 24 May 2005 she informed the director-general of the child safety department of 

her intention to commence an audit to identify whether there are any systemic issues related to 

unallocated and/or incomplete initial assessments across the various child safety service centres. 

Mr Deputy Speaker Wallace, I put to you that it is obvious that the minister was aware of this audit at the 

time of estimates. He was aware that the commissioner had sufficient concerns to instigate an audit, but 

he chose to ignore answering this question. I also note that the Children’s Commissioner may ask the 

minister to table a report of this audit to the parliament when it has been completed. 

This debate is not about politics. It is not about which party I represent. Regardless of which side 

of the chamber I sat on, my objective would be the same: to have a Department of Child Safety that 

works, to see the children at risk become the focus of the department rather than its current fixation with 

legitimising and explaining its failures. The minister in the past has tried to deflect my criticisms of his 

and the department’s inability to discharge their duty of care as criticism of the individual staff members 

within the department. Nothing could be further from the truth. My admiration for those staff members 

and caseworkers forced to work in a culture reminiscent of the health department knows no bounds, and 

I want to place this admiration on record. The blame lies not with the staff; it lies squarely at the feet of 

the minister. 

While I do believe that the minister does have the interests of the children at heart—I know that 

he has the interests of the children at heart—the simple fact is that at this stage the job is not being 

done. He is not able to reduce the number of notifications. He is not able to reduce the number of


renotifications. He is not able to reduce the number of children re-experiencing harm. How much time 

does the minister and the department need before we can see further results? Every day my office and 

all other members’ offices receive calls from people with family and child safety based concerns. 

In amongst these concerns I am hearing more and more cases of child abuse and, more horrendously, 

many allegations of sexual molestation of children. I have no doubt that the minister’s office gets many 

more calls than I do, and I have absolutely no doubt that the minister and his staff share my concern— 

our concern—our horror and dismay at these allegations. Staff in the department are working with these 

situations every day and they have my total admiration. 

This is the Department of Child Safety. That is the crux of what the department is about. But my 

real anger—and I say ‘anger’—is that there are far too many cases of substantiated allegations of 

sexual harm to children, allegations that are passed through to the agencies of the law, and that seems 

to be the last that is heard of them. Parents and children are desperate to get some closure, but 

perpetrators are still out there in droves and nothing seems to be happening. It is being swept under the 

carpet. I cannot blame the child safety department for this, because I am aware in many cases that it is 

out of its hands—it is virtually out of its hands—and I have no doubt that the minister and his staff must 

be just as frustrated as we are. I am sure that they share the same feelings I have. I also have no doubt 

that there are many police officers who are absolutely shocked at some of the stories that are brought to 

them, but the current legislation and lack of ready evidence in so many cases is such that they cannot 

move. This is an all-of-community problem. Until the whole community confronts these problems, as 

well as government departments and agencies, children’s safety cannot be guaranteed. In the words of 

Desmond Tutu, it takes a whole village to raise a child. This will take community support and much 

stronger legislation to finally acknowledge and defeat these horrendous practices from subhuman 

people. 

The child safety department cannot be allowed an extended time frame for the implementation of 

reforms. Because we are talking about the safety of our children, we do not have time. We do not have 

the time to wait for the minister to get around to implementing the integrated client management system. 

We have seen very little progress on this in the last 12 months. I am told by people within the 

department how much this is needed and how good it will be but that it is a huge process and seemingly 

a long, slow one. While we wait, children are suffering. Families are suffering. We do not have time to 

wait for the minister to realise that he needs to employ more people on the front line, not more managers 

and administrators—office staff who are paid far more highly than the vitally important frontline 

caseworkers. We do not have the time to wait. This is not a theoretical exercise in logistics management 

that can be modelled with a scoping study or explained by interdepartmental reports. This is real life, 

and real children are suffering now. 

I am sure that I speak for every member of this chamber when I say that even one case of child 

abuse is one too many. We all realise the devastating effects this abuse has on the lives of the children 

and their families and the complexities involved. Again, I am sure that I speak for everyone when I say 

that implementing the CMC reforms of the Department of Child Safety is of the highest priority. We gave, 

and continue to give, unqualified bipartisan support in seeing those reforms implemented. But the 

government is using our bipartisan support as a shield for itself. Our bipartisan support has become a 

cover for its ineptitude in implementing the recommendations of the CMC report. What we do not give 

unqualified support to is the continuing inability of the minister to administer his department. 

In summary, the opposition welcomes this third stage of the legislation and, subject to 

the amendment I propose, will be supporting this legislation. I have voiced my concerns at the progress 

of reform to date and my doubts regarding the department’s ability to meet the enormous challenges 

ahead. These are challenges that must be met, and I look forward to the minister’s response to the 

issues I have raised. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (8.49 pm): It is very gratifying to hear the words that have just 

been delivered in this House by the member for Burdekin, the shadow minister for child safety—a 

woman who has certainly undertaken a great deal of study on this matter and who has come up with I 

believe one of the better speeches in relation to child safety in Queensland. I congratulate her on that. 

At the outset, can I say that there is nothing more sacred than a child. Regardless of whose child it is, 

that child’s safety is not negotiable. When I say a child’s safety is not negotiable, I mean the safety of 

every child—not only in Queensland but also in our country. 

I am a member of the Palm Island Select Committee and I have seen some of the things that 

have happened on Palm Island and in other parts of the state. That has made me even more passionate 

about looking after the children of our state. I will give members an example. A few weeks ago I was in 

Townsville. I had occasion to go into the car park of a shopping centre. I pulled up there. I had the 

windows of my car up and I was speaking on my mobile phone. A van pulled up beside my car and in it 

were a couple with three kids. Out of the back of the van came the three little ones, ranging in age from 

about eight down to about four. The mother got out, as did the father, and he walked off somewhere. 

They were great little kids. They were beautiful little kids. The mother started brushing one child’s hair. 

She looked at the child and said something to the child. The next minute she gave that child an almighty 

slap across the face. She nearly knocked that child’s head off. I thought, ‘God, what am I in for here?’ I


sat there and I thought, ‘I’m not going to wear this for much longer.’ In the next half a minute she is 

brushing another kid’s hair and she gave that child a lunging, too. She just smashed those kids across 

the face. It got too much for me so I wound the window down and said, ‘Ma’am, I am sorry, but I have 

just witnessed that.’ She said, ‘Oh, I didn’t know you were there.’ I said, ‘It doesn’t matter if I’m here or 

not. I know it is your child, but if that is how you treat your child in public, how do you treat your child at 

home?’ 

This is what we are up against. We do not know what happens to kids in some homes. We do not 

know why it happens to kids. I have to say that it just rocks me to see people do that. Last Friday 

morning I was at the Brisbane airport to catch the early flight to Longreach. A couple were there with 

their little four-year-old. She was crying. I suppose she was tired because she had been dragged out of 

bed at 4 o’clock to catch a plane. The mother raced over and grabbed her. She reefed her up and nearly 

tore her arm out of the socket. A lot of other people standing in a line saw it. I thought, ‘Is this modernday 

Queensland, 2005—the 21st century? Is this how people treat their children?’ 

I have four little grand-daughters. I am the most protective grandparent in the world. I think every 

member of this House is protective of their children and cares about children. But I say to the minister 

that he has a pretty tough portfolio. I know there has been a lot of criticism levelled at the minister about 

it and he is going to cop a lot more criticism about it, too. I believe that some of the people who work for 

the Department of Child Safety do not have the professional expertise to know precisely what their 

charter is. This department was created to protect less than two per cent of the children of the state. 

Whether they are in foster care or not in foster care, they are kids from dysfunctional families. 

I know that we are debating the implementation of the third stage of the Crime and Misconduct 

Commission’s report on child protection, but the thing that really gets to me is that every day people in 

the department are confronted with the abuse of children in our state. We talk about 25 per cent of these 

kids coming from Indigenous communities. The other 75 per cent of them come from non-Indigenous 

communities. We should be looking after kids. I represent an area which has a high population of 

Indigenous people. I know that those black kids are treated very fairly by their relatives and by other 

people in their communities. I think that Indigenous people have a better recognition of family values 

than do some of our white people. It appals me to think that 25 per cent of these abused kids are 

Indigenous and 75 per cent of them are white. But I will say that in those Indigenous families the elder 

women are the protectors. They are the ones who are doing a good job. They have reared their families, 

but they see those kids in crisis. It comes back to substance abuse or alcohol abuse. Mr Deputy 

Speaker, I have to say that this issue is the responsibility of all of us. I just hope and pray that, through 

this legislation, we will get genuine outcomes and these kids will be protected, regardless of the 

community they live in—whether they live in my electorate, your electorate or in one of the other 87 

electorates throughout Queensland. 

I get pretty emotional about this issue. I believe we should all be emotional about this issue. We 

should also all be realistic about it. Will some kids have tucker in their bellies every day? Will they be 

able to get up in the morning and put on clean clothes for the day? Will they be able to go to school and 

play with other kids in a clean, happy environment? Mr Deputy Speaker, you know and I know that that 

is not happening for some children in Queensland today. I hope, through this legislation, we will see 

genuine outcomes and that will happen. 

About 18 months ago—at about the time the Department of Child Safety was created—I learned 

about a young lady who worked within the area of child safety. She had to go out into the far western 

reaches of my electorate and bring back to Emerald a little infant to put into foster care. This child was 

on the bottle. At various stages on the trip between Winton and Emerald this young lady had to pull up 

and feed the child. These are some of the issues that our child safety workers are subjected to. That 

lady was probably 20 years old. She probably did not have a child of her own. This issue goes back to 

the training of people within the department who have to carry out these jobs. I know the pressures that 

these people are under. It is an horrific job and it is one that all of us have to share. At the end of the day, 

we have to be more realistic about how we go about fixing the problem. The minister referred in his 

second reading speech to the— 

... functions and powers of the Child Guardian...to a child’s birth about the risk of harm to that child after birth. 

I really think that, first and foremost, we have to weigh up the rights that come with being a parent. 

We have to monitor that very closely. The minister said the following in his second reading speech— 

A new chapter 5A was inserted into the Child Protection Act 1999. It provides for information exchange between agencies that 

provide services to children and families while ensuring confidentiality and the coordination of service delivery. Individuals who 

share information under this chapter are now protected from liability. 

I have a concern about that. We have to protect people, but when we see some of these children 

who are harmed and damaged, I wonder whether the police ever get to find out about it. I wonder 

whether some of these people in the Department of Child Safety ever find out about it. There is a 

bullying mentality in some of these family environments or some of these foster care environments. The 

children are intimidated, there is a fear factor and a report is never compiled on those children. That 

concerns me. I think that concerns every Queenslander and I believe that it concerns every member of 

this parliament.


I know in my area—and I think this is applicable to every member of this parliament—when I see 

a child born in my community, that little child becomes a part of my life. I know that child’s mum and dad. 

I see that child grow up. I watch the child go to preschool and then to school. The next thing the child is 

in year 8 at high school. That child then becomes a young adult, leaves school and then goes on 

through life. That is what it is about. That child is a part of our life regardless of whether it is my child or 

your child, or somebody else’s child. As Australians and as members of the Queensland community, we 

have to be aware and observant of other people’s children. 

Members might ask: where is this bloke coming from? But, at the end of the day, there is more to 

life than money. Money is the ruination of a lot of people, but we have to have money to help people 

through life. People put too much emphasis on wanting material things, and they forget about the value 

of their children and their family unit. It is about nourishing their child, clothing their child, caring for their 

child and educating their child. As I said before, I have grandchildren. As grandparents, we watch out for 

those kids all the time. We watch them grow and we watch that they are cared for. We are not trying to 

do the work of their parents, but we are looking out for them. I believe that that is what every community 

should be doing: looking out for children regardless of who their parents are. If we see a child in the 

street, and the child might be with their parent, we should keep an eye on that child to see that they do 

not run onto the road or that something is not going to harm them. I believe that as a parent and as a fair 

dinkum citizen we need to do that all the time. 

I want to go back to my area of responsibility—and that is Indigenous affairs. Being the shadow 

minister for Aboriginal and Islander policy, this is something that is pretty close to my heart. I really 

believe that as members of parliament, regardless of whether it is the Minister for Child Safety or the 

minister for Indigenous affairs, we have a big responsibility in this state to try to correct the anomalies 

that currently exist in Indigenous communities where children are abused, whether it is because of 

alcohol or substance abuse. The key to this is educating the young people. We have to grab them at 

school. We have to make certain that they are given the opportunity at school to learn what hygiene is 

all about, to learn what diet is all about and to learn what looking after themselves is all about. I mention 

the Palm Island issue again, but it comes back to learning about what the problems are. I hope that we, 

together, can correct some of the anomalies that are out there. They are in Queensland. They are in the 

Territory. They are in Western Australia. They are in western New South Wales. They have reached 

epidemic proportions in some areas. 

I was in Western Australia a couple of years ago at Docker River, on the Western Australia- 

Northern Territory border. The place was absolutely dysfunctional due to petrol sniffing. By 

‘dysfunctional’ I mean that kids and adults were walking around and they did not know whether they 

were in Australia, in China or on the moon. They were off the planet because they were all sniffing 

petrol. There were a couple of social workers and others there trying to keep the place together. That is 

what we are up against. 

Whether we have a Labor government or a conservative government in Queensland and whether 

we have a conservative government or a Labor government in Canberra, we have to address this issue. 

We have to take it by the throat and do something about it. When we go up into the cape areas and the 

gulf areas, we can see the problems. Those problems are our problems, whether we sit on this side of 

the House or on that side of the House. I cannot emphasise that enough. I am ashamed to be a 

Queenslander in 2005 and to know that that is going on in our state. It is something we have to do 

together. It is no good passing the buck and saying, ‘You’re in government. Do something about it.’ I 

believe that we have to show more leadership on this issue and to make sure that we control it. It is 

about education. It is about health. We have to give those kids those opportunities. 

I have heard the Premier talk about the lost generation, and I have talked about it myself. I will tell 

members about the lost generation. A lot of the mothers of those kids are in prison because of the 

abusive system, the culture, that lies within those communities today. The Minister for Police and 

Corrective Services is in the House tonight. During the budget estimates debate I raised the issue of 

$100 million in funding to build a new Stuart women’s prison. That is all very well, but let us look at how 

we, together, could correct the problem. The amount of $100 million could probably go a long way 

towards assisting some of those women in those areas by putting in place some protection for 

themselves and their children. 

I know that housing is also an issue. I know that there are a lot of other issues and problems with 

the culture, but we have to deal with them together. There are issues in south-east Queensland. A lot of 

members here represent electorates in which there are people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. 

A good Aboriginal friend of mine from Quilpie was in the gallery this morning with his two daughters. He 

lives at Inala, and he was telling me about some of the problems that their families are subjected to out 

there—problems with housing, employment and the list goes on and on. The problem starts at a very 

young age. We have not addressed it properly yet, but I think we are slowly but surely starting to 

address it. 

We talk about Indigenous communities. We can talk about non-Indigenous communities, too. We 

see kiddies at schools in our own areas and we wonder if those kids are getting fed at home. We know 

for a fact that some of those kids do not get pocket money to share in tuckshop days. These sorts of


things are happening. It saddens me to think that this is happening in both cultures right throughout our 

state. 

I urge the minister to make certain that we have more professional people trained in the field of 

child safety so that we can get some expertise out there—people who understand what it means to look 

after these children. They have a terribly difficult task. Whether they are nurses in a hospital, social 

workers or whoever, those people are trained professionals. I do not think they get paid enough. But, at 

the same time, we cannot put people in positions of looking after children in a professional capacity if 

they have not been trained professionally to deal with the issues. 

We talk about foster-carers. There are some very, very good foster-carers out there who are 

committed to being foster-carers. We talk about people who are acceptable under the blue card system. 

I do not believe the blue card system is worth two bob—that is my honest opinion—because, at the end 

of the day, somebody could violate their position just like that. That comes back to the issue of trust. 

Most of the time we know the people in our communities whom we can trust. 

I say to the minister here this evening that there is one issue that really worries me. There are a 

lot of people within the minister’s department who live in fear that they might be reprimanded if they say 

something because they do not have the numbers on the ground or whatever. The minister should treat 

those people as professionals. 

We need to help all of those people in need. Whether we are opposition members or government 

members, it is about trying to get value for our dollars so that we can assist those people in need. We 

are talking about two per cent of the kids in the state. Those two per cent need the minister, they need 

me, they need everybody to make certain that we are implementing the right policies and programs to 

assist them and to keep them protected from the evil grubs in society so that those kids can grow up 

with somebody who cares for them and loves them, whether it is with their grandmother or their aunt or 

their uncle. This is a very important situation and one that needs to be closely monitored. 

Time expired. 

Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (9.10 pm): Child safety is a community imperative. It is 

an absolute basic right for all children to receive love and nurture, and to grow up in a safe environment 

where they are able to enjoy their childhood and grow into mature adults contributing to their community. 

I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. Today, we 

herald the introduction of phase 3 of the CMC recommendations into our child protection system in 

Queensland. Many of the 110 recommendations are now in process and today will see the 

implementation of a further three, plus contribute in part to a further five of the recommendations. 

The Department of Child Safety is a work in progress. Whilst undertaking the restructure of the 

department, employment of additional staff and their training, setting up of a number of new offices and 

putting in place computer services to ensure greater efficiency in handling cases, they must not lose 

sight of the primary focus of the department: the protection of vulnerable children. We should never let 

processes get in the way of the main game. 

I would like to mention just a few points in this bill. It makes provision for the voluntary placement 

of children with an out-of-home carer when the parents have sought help from the department. It also 

addresses the placement of Indigenous children with non-Indigenous carers. In Logan, we have a 

number of very experienced Indigenous foster-carers. They work in collaboration with one another, they 

assist and support one another and they have very strong views that Indigenous children should, 

wherever possible, be placed with Indigenous foster-parents. However, we all realise that there are 

times when this may not be possible. This bill undertakes to ensure that, in those cases, the fostercarers 

do all in their power to maintain the child’s contact with their family and cultural group. In this way 

they will ensure the child’s sense of identity and belonging. 

Here I have to commend my Indigenous elders group. They have been strong advocates for good 

parenting and support families in the area. Workers from the local area office of child safety regularly 

attend their meetings and much discussion has occurred regarding the operation of the department 

when Indigenous families are involved. They very much believe in early intervention and wish as much 

as possible to work with parents in their homes to ensure that problems do not escalate to the stage 

where children need to be removed from the home. 

Three of my respected Indigenous organisations have received recognised agency status and 

have been charged with the task of liaising with the department on issues involving Indigenous families. 

I find their council to be wise and understanding. Ganyjuu Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 

Corporation for Family Support Services, Nutcha Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporation for 

Economic and Community Development and Murrigunyah all have extensive experience in the Logan 

area and are well respected in the wider community. Consultation is the key. 

Provision is also made to regulate the assessment and approval of all carers, including kinship 

carers. Once these amendments are effective, the department will have the ability to provide ongoing 

assessment, training, respite and support for all carers. To assist with this, $717,000 has been allocated 

in 2005-06 and a further $3,298,000 in 2006-07. The support offered by the department is in the case 

management when a child is placed in care.


Keeping our children safe requires constant vigilance on the part of community, teachers, health 

workers, police and, basically, all who have contact with children. Sadly, we live in a world where such 

things as relationship breakdowns, domestic violence, drug taking, mental illness, financial stress and 

so many others can place children in danger from adults. Very sadly, often that adult is a parent. 

However, this child safety legislation has at its very heart and its paramount principle to do what is in the 

best interests of the child. 

Many times it has been demonstrated that given love, encouragement, nurture and support 

children can respond and be healed. Foster-parents have big hearts. I want to commend the hundreds 

of parents and individuals who have love and care to share with those children who often need a lot of 

extra reassurance and love. There are many people involved in caring for those children. In closing, I 

would like to congratulate the minister, our department and the vast number of people who just look out 

for others, especially little people. I commend the bill to the House. 

Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (9.15 pm): I rise in the House tonight to foreshadow the Liberal 

Party’s support for the third stage of the legislative reform program of the Child Safety Legislation 

Amendment Bill for the implementation of the Crime and Misconduct Commission’s report Protecting 

children: an inquiry into abuse of children in foster care. 

From the outset I state that the second stage of these reforms, which were passed in the House in 

October 2004, are yet to be fully implemented. It is to be hoped that this third stage of reforms is 

employed more swiftly. I request the minister to provide the House with a time frame for the 

implementation of the third stage of these reforms. 

This bill is aimed at closing gaps in the Child Protection Act 1999 and includes regulating 

voluntary placements, the assessment and approval of all carers, consultation with recognised 

Indigenous entities and refining Indigenous child placement principles. Realistically, though, from the 

countless media articles concerning the Department of Child Safety it would appear that there are still a 

number of cracks that the state government needs to glue together as a matter of urgency. While I do 

appreciate that the new Department of Child Safety was born a mere 18 months ago and, like any 

toddler, will no doubt experience teething problems, it is imperative that we remember that the Premier 

stated his reason for calling the 2004 election was the promise of putting children first. This promise has 

not been fulfilled according to some industry stakeholders. 

In fact, over the past several months it has been widely reported that many community 

organisations working in the area of child protection feel that the children of Queensland are no better 

off than before the 2003 CMC inquiry into foster care. In March of this year, the Courier-Mail reported 

that Queensland admitted more children to care than any other state but spent less than the national 

average on their management. There is no dispute that the state government has injected a 

large amount of money into this area, but most of that money went into establishing the new Department 

of Child Safety and did not filter through to the grassroots level of helping children in need. 

This scarcity of help at the grassroots level could not be more evident than in figures from the 

Toowoomba and Ipswich offices, as reported by the Courier-Mail in April 2005. The Toowoomba Child 

Safety Service Centre had 432 unallocated initial assessments awaiting action. That is nearly double 

the number of 220 reported as outstanding in November 2004. Down the range, the Ipswich office was 

struggling to investigate 100 new notifications a month. In March the team had a backlog of 376 cases, 

with 157 not even having a case officer allocated. If service centres are only getting an estimated one 

and a half extra employees, a large number of vulnerable children will still be left in undesirable if not 

unsafe situations. 

Other concerns draw attention to the failure to deal with priority 1 cases within the 24 hour 

requirement. Those cases are generally related to a child being at high risk of sexual abuse, violent 

abuse, torture or suicide. In the December 2003 quarter, the department received 3,668 notifications 

involving 6,822 children, compared to the December 2004 quarter in which there were 589 notifications 

involving 9,791 children. This is a staggering 39 per cent increase in notifications and an even greater 

43 per cent increase in the number of children coming into contact with the department. Recently, 140 

community organisations involved in child protection said that the system was geared up to be punitive 

rather than preventive. Notifications were increasing and record numbers of children were being taken 

into care. 

These are serious allegations being raised, and the state government needs to listen to this and 

respond accordingly, not simply use the mantra that organisations are being unfair in their criticisms and 

that the department is on track with its three-year reforms. This whole system failed children miserably 

in the past, and we owe it to children to protect them with active and effective legislation. 

I do commend the amendment of clause 4 in part 2 of the act to provide for kinship carers. 

Kinship carers include not only relatives of significance to the child but also persons of significance to 

that child. This definition departs from the narrow concept of relative and is much more culturally 

inclusive and in sync with today’s changing family structures and should be the preferred option in terms 

of the child’s emotional stability.


The Liberal Party supports the family as a fundamental institution for the raising and nurturing of 

children and for making each individual an integral part of society. When circumstances dictate that it is 

no longer appropriate for a child to be with his or her immediate family, the emotional stability of the child 

is far better addressed through placement with a relative who is familiar with the child rather than with 

strangers. In particular, grandparents should be recognised as being the preferred foster-carers when a 

child is removed from his or her parents and the grandparents seek custody. In such a case it should be 

up to the department to demonstrate why the child’s best needs would not be served by being placed 

with grandparents. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in Australia in 2003 there were 

22,500 families where grandparents were the guardians of their grandchildren. Today’s grandparents 

are healthier and living longer than generations before them, and many have proven their ability to be 

well and truly up to the task of raising children in their retirement years. After all, they were parents 

themselves in years gone by. 

Grandparents should receive the same financial assistance from the state government that is 

available to other foster-carers. The current provision for foster-parents’ names and addresses to be 

given to people from whom the child was removed is, in my view, an unacceptable and dangerous 

practice. Talking to local residents who have dedicated many years to fostering children in this state, I 

learned they have decided that they can no longer be foster-parents as the availability of their name and 

address is an unacceptable risk to their own safety and to the safety of children in their care. This was 

an extremely difficult decision for them to make as they genuinely loved the role they had previously 

played in displaced children’s lives. When we think about it, who would want their address given out to 

potentially abusive and angry people who may resort to any lengths to take their children back? It is 

certainly not in the best interests of the child. After becoming settled in a new environment, the sudden 

appearance of emotion-charged parents making demands upon foster-parents would be confusing and 

upsetting to many children. Perhaps the minister will take this issue on board and comment on it in his 

summary. 

The training of foster-carers was a major concern of the CMC report. During Foster Care Week in 

March the minister announced the new foster care training package the government had implemented. 

However, reports continue to emerge that the minimal training received by foster-carers is inadequate to 

cope with the complexity of issues that arise. A first-hand example came through my office from a fosterparent 

who had been promised extra training to cope with dealing with a child who had experienced 

sexual abuse. The situation became intolerable, and the foster-carers had no choice but to ask for the 

child to be removed from their care. I emphasise that this was after months of asking the department for 

counselling for the child and additional training for themselves which, sadly, never eventuated. 

Improvements in this area are urgently required. 

Clause 5 in part 2 of this bill outlines new reforms for Indigenous child placements. This is the key 

part of this legislation causing concerns within the wider community. It seems that a trend of placing 

Indigenous children with non-Indigenous foster-parents is becoming the norm instead of the exception. 

A spokesperson for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women’s legal service was noted as saying 

that the growing number of interventions was creating ‘a new wave of stolen generation children’. 

Indigenous elders are up in arms about a recent episode where a midnight raid on a Brisbane 

house caused a toddler to suffer the secondary effects of capsicum spray. A delegation is asking for an 

inquiry into these events as well as this child protection legislation which assists in allowing Indigenous 

children to be placed with non-Indigenous foster-carers. I do believe it is important that the state 

government tracks the frequency of these placements and makes the data available to Indigenous 

elders and leaders. 

In recognising the shortage of suitable carers, it would be prudent to make a concerted and 

urgent effort to encourage Indigenous people to become registered carers. It is imperative that 

Aboriginal children do not lose their cultural identities and are able to remain within their community with 

either a relative or another respected member of their society. 

The minister has repeatedly stated his wish to double the number of foster-carers in Queensland. 

An increase in carer numbers would certainly provide more protection for children, but it is preventive 

measures and early intervention that must also be a priority. Such measures were not only 

recommended in the CMC’s report but also promised by the Beattie government. To date there is little 

evidence of the supposed whole-of-government framework as touted previously. Action is required now. 

As I previously stated, the concept of kinship carers is one that I view with keen interest and 

support. However, there are several stages within the proposal that seem to contradict other parts of 

stage 3. Firstly is the requirement of kinship carers to have a separate certificate for each child as this 

seems to work against the preferred model of keeping siblings together who are under protection or 

voluntary orders. This appears to be even more self-defeating for Indigenous children. Perhaps the 

minister would be kind enough to point out the reasoning behind this clause. 

As has already been mentioned earlier in my speech, the majority of Australians acknowledge the 

significance of keeping Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in their own cultural environment 

whenever possible, and I commend the bill’s recognition of this. Surely streamlining the kinship concept


where these communities are concerned would be an advantageous move towards meeting the special 

needs of these children. 

Secondly, while I applaud the introduction of voluntary care orders as one means of preventing 

child safety issues, I would like to know how this measure is going to be actioned. It has been repeatedly 

reported in the media that priority 1 cases—where children are considered to be at an extremely high 

risk of sexual or violent abuse, torture or suicide—are not being investigated within the required 24-hour 

period. If the government budget cannot extend to employing sufficient staff within the department to 

meet this most urgent situation, how will the department possibly find the staff or have the time to 

undertake the complex process of not only deciding what preliminary measures may prevent having to 

take out a protection order but also facilitating such actions. 

On the issue of staff, I was deeply concerned to read an article in the Courier-Mail on 4 August 

that showed case workers receive low, uncompetitive pay rates compared to administration officer and 

receptionist positions in the same department. The article went on to say that the Queensland 

government web site was advertising five jobs for case workers and specified that tertiary qualifications 

in social work or behavioural sciences were a must. When one considers the toughness of the job 

undertaken by case workers and the poor pay rates, it must be difficult to attract staff with seniority and 

experience. I would also appreciate the minister’s response in this regard. 

I applaud the amendment circulated by the minister today. Section 142D(2)(d) has been added to 

allow the transfer of information between the Queensland Police Service and the Commissioner for 

Children and Young People and Child Guardian of offences or alleged offences of any person who 

applies for a certificate of approval or licence. This amendment is designed to make certain that the 

commissioner has the latest information on every applicant. No doubt the question whether this is an 

encroachment upon human rights will be raised by some in the community, but I am sure that 

honourable members will agree that the safety of our children is paramount. It is good to see the 

minister is tightening up some of the loopholes remaining in this important bill. 

In summation, many of the recommendations of stage 2 are yet to be implemented. There are 

budget and time frame blowouts surrounding the new integrated client management system and an 

ongoing failure to apply sufficient funds at a grassroots level. The Beattie government must now honour 

its promises to protect our most precious gifts in life—our children. Rather than merely rolling out this 

final stage, the government needs to continually check the successes and the failures of what has 

already been implemented. Nonetheless, the concept behind stage 3 of the Child Safety Legislation 

Amendment Bill is well intentioned and offers hope to shattered young lives. With that I commend the bill 

to the House. 

Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (9.29 pm): We all know how important child 

safety is. I rise to speak tonight specifically about how this bill will improve outcomes for children who 

are in contact with the child protection system. This bill is the third stage of legislative reform to support 

implementation of the recommendations of the CMC report, Protecting Children: an inquiry into abuse of 

children in foster care. The opposition spokesperson would have us rush through these 

recommendations. However, that is not the answer. These problems are ongoing and we are looking for 

the best outcomes and sometimes this takes time. 

Stage 3 addresses the regulating of voluntary placements, the regulating of all carers, refining the 

Indigenous child placement principle and consulting indigenous agency stakeholders. 

These amendments, which are expected to commence in April 2006, are directed at improved 

outcomes for children in the following ways. 

Firstly, the regulation of voluntary placements will enable the chief executive to enter into care 

arrangements, without a child protection order, with a child and a child’s parents. Care agreements 

emphasise working cooperatively with families to support and help them undertake their parenting 

responsibility to care for their children safely. This may include placing a child in alternative care with kin 

or a foster-carer. 

A care agreement for the child cannot extend beyond 30 days unless a written case plan has 

been developed for the child. This means that the department must pay careful attention to the child’s 

needs while the department is working with the child and his or her parents. Care agreements will not be 

extended without a review of the progress made under the child’s case plan. 

Secondly, regulating all carers is based on the presumption that all children placed by the 

department in out-of-home care are entitled to the same standard of care in accordance with the 

statement of standard in section 122 of the Child Protection Act 1999. Whether a child is placed with an 

approved kinship carer or foster-carer or, for a period, with a provisionally approved carer, the carer and 

adult members of their households will be screened for suitability to care for a child. Foster and kinship 

carers will also be assessed, including by interview, home visit, checks on employment history and 

health status, and personal references. All carers will be required to meet the statement of standards, 

including respect for the child’s rights, dignity and culture, and meeting the child’s emotional, physical, 

health and educational care needs. The statement of standards prohibits corporal punishment or other 

behavioural management techniques which would cause emotional harm to the child.

23 Aug 2005 Adjournment 2641 

Thirdly, the Indigenous child placement principle will be refined by amending section 83 to 

address circumstances in which an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child cannot be placed in the care 

of a person who is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. In these cases, the chief executive must give 

proper consideration to whether the proposed non-Indigenous carer is committed to facilitating contact 

between the child and his or her parents and other family members, helping the child to maintain contact 

with the child’s community or language group, helping the child to maintain a connection with the 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture, and preserving and enhancing the child’s sense of 

Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander identity. 

Lastly, amendments to the requirement to involve Indigenous recognised entities will also help 

improve outcomes for children. The bill clarifies and strengthens the chief executive’s obligation to work 

in partnership with an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander recognised entity for a child when making a 

significant decision about that child. It must be ensured that the recognised entity for the child is 

informed and given the opportunity to participate in the process of making significant decisions about 

the care and protection of the child. For other decisions about an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 

child, the chief executive must consult with the appropriately recognised entity before making the 

decision. If it is not possible to comply with these provisions because of an urgency or impracticality, the 

chief executive must consult as soon as practicable after making the decision. 

The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee noted that the proposed amendments adversely affected 

the rights and liberties of carers. However, they are considered reasonable, taking into account the 

following: the nature of the department’s work and the overriding need to safeguard the welfare of 

vulnerable children; the decision to become a carer rests with the applicant carer; the commitment 

carers accept along with the protection of children in their care; the close domestic connection between 

vulnerable children and carers and other members of their households; and the Commissioner for 

Children and Young People and Child Guardian applies similar suitability screening arrangements for 

people seeking or holding a blue card to work with children. 

This bill continues to reform the child protection system and provides real benefits for 

Queensland’s most vulnerable children and young people. I congratulate the minister and his staff on 

their ongoing commitment to implementing the recommendations of the CMC report. I commend the bill 

to the House. 

Debate, on motion of Mrs Carryn Sullivan, adjourned. 

ADJOURNMENT 

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Leader of the House) (9.34 pm): I move— 

That the House do now adjourn. 

Toowoomba Mental Health Services 

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (9.35 pm): I want to speak tonight about a matter of great 

concern in Toowoomba, that is, the decline of the mental health services in the acute mental health unit 

at Toowoomba. We have heard today about the closure of the mental health services at Bundaberg and 

the absolute disgrace of the Beattie Labor government’s failure to provide basic health and medical 

services in our hospitals. 

I will tell members tonight how serious the situation is in Toowoomba. That unit is supposed to 

have eight psychiatrists to look after an area from Gatton, right out to Birdsville, right down to Stanthorpe 

and up to Kingaroy. It is a most important job to look after the hospital, the community services and the 

outreach services for that vast area and the hundreds of thousands of people who live in it. That unit will 

be down from eight psychiatrists to four. Two people have already left and another two resignations are 

in place. That leaves four psychiatrists, one of whom is part-time, one of whom is full-time and the other 

two are deemed specialists because of the area of need. 

The situation is so serious that the nurses at that acute unit have sent a detailed letter to the 

executive director of the Toowoomba health services district acute and community mental health 

service. They have listed the most serious shortcomings that one can imagine. They have listed six 

points relating to questionable ethical and legal management decisions. They have listed nine points 

relating to concerns, generally and specifically, about medical staff. They have listed seven points 

relating to patient rights. They have listed six points relating to administrative and bureaucratic 

impediments to quality patient care. They have listed eight points relating to consultants, both deemed 

and qualified. They have listed another two points relating to questionable ethical and legal 

management decisions and another two points relating to concerns in relation to medical staff. 

The poor medical staff is flat strap because of the shortage and their huge workload. They are not 

being looked after by this government and this incompetent health minister. I don’t know who the health 

minister is this week or who it will be next week. I will tell members what they have done. They have put 

a ban on press cuttings at that hospital on the notice boards. The eight consultants are down to four.

2642 Adjournment 23 Aug 2005 

One patient waited 17 days before being seen by a senior consultant, even though they were a patient 

in intensive care. 

What is happening in mental health services is an absolute tragedy for our health system. If there 

is one area that the government should look after, it is health—mental health, maternity, accident and 

emergency, medical wards and providing surgery on time—not all the PR stunts that the Beattie 

government goes on with. We are seeing the results of this in the closure of hospitals, the service level 

at Bundaberg Hospital, and now the disgraceful level of service that is being provided at the mental 

health service in Toowoomba. This government has totally failed the patients of Toowoomba, the Darling 

Downs and south-west Queensland when it comes to the provision of mental health services. Unless it 

pulls up its socks and provides some staff and provides decent levels of doctors, then it will only get 

worse. 

Time expired. 

Torres Strait Islands, Erosion 

Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (9.38 pm): The islands of the Torres Strait are slowly being recognised 

by a greater number of visitors as an exceptional and unique tourist destination. The islands of Yorke, 

Warraber and Coconut are amongst the most beautiful locations in Australia and each has developed 

infrastructure to deal with tourism. Some of the accommodation, like the cabins built at Coconut Island, 

is of a four or five star standard. There are self-contained cabins at Loweta Lodge on Yorke Island or 

Masig. Warraber Island has also recently received funding for resort style accommodation. 

Unfortunately, however, these three of the centrally located sand cays have experienced 

significant sand erosion in recent years. The situation was made considerably worse late last month 

when a combination of storms, high tides and strong winds saw large chunks of the islands disappear. 

These islands are only a few square kilometres in area and the erosion is causing great 

concern amongst the 300-odd locals who live on each of the cays in question. 

When visiting Warraber Island on 4 August I noticed that the southern tip of the island had 

retreated a further 20 metres and a long stretch of the eastern side had retreated by 10 metres. Roads 

have been washed away and a further catastrophic event will threaten the island’s water storage facility. 

On Yorke Island the church of St John the Evangelist, which should probably be on Queensland’s 

heritage register, was threatened by storm waters despite being situated nearly 50 metres from the 

normal high tide mark. Coconut Island has also felt the effects of the event. It has also lost roads and is 

in danger of losing the cabins I mentioned earlier. The smallest of the Torres Strait sand cays, Coconut 

has the least leeway before other infrastructure, like houses, is threatened. 

State and federal agencies must act immediately to assist the island councils with short- and longterm 

solutions before these wonderful places are washed away. Whether we fast-track natural disaster 

relief fund money or find money through the Natural Heritage Trust, we must act quickly to support these 

communities. In the long run there can be no doubt that the Australian government must start taking the 

very real issue of global warming seriously. 

These three islands are only a couple of metres above sea level. If the conservatives are wrong— 

and the weight of scientific opinion suggests they are wrong—and they take no action to address global 

warming, I fear for the future of these cays and the culture they house. The ongoing erosion on the 

island cannot simply be put down to normal weather patterns. There has been steady erosion over the 

last few years and, as I said, a more marked event last month. Historically there has been a circulation 

of sand around the islands. This time large chunks have disappeared completely. I urge those with the 

power and the resources to intervene on behalf of Warraber, Poruma and Masig. 

Health System 

Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (9.41 pm): We all know that the state of Queensland Health is 

so serious that it is in a state of near collapse—a category 1, so to speak. A constituent in a coastal part 

of my electorate near Innisfail has contacted me and disclosed the prostate problems he has had to 

endure over a long period of time—10 years in fact. It began in 1995. I will read a letter he has written to 

me. It states— 

It is with interest I see the current ads/information on TV about the ‘be a man’ and have your prostate checked. What is the point 

of pushing the ‘be a man’ and have your prostate checks if there is no follow through for patients that have been checked and 

have a problem! I have been on the waiting list to have something done since 1995! In 1995, I saw a specialist in Brisbane who 

said something needed to be done. 

He goes on to say that he was put on Minipress, a blood pressure tablet, to help him pass urine. 

He says that he can only pass very small amounts of urine at a time and has to go to the toilet 

frequently, trying from 18 to 22 times a day. He says that at no time is he able to empty his bladder 

completely and only passes the overflow. He says— 

This leaves me in distress and discomfort constantly! Last year I was admitted to my local hospital and had a catheter put in. The 

pressure from having the problem for so long caused leakage around the catheter which was embarrassing and uncomfortable as 

well as demeaning to my self esteem.


I have seen two doctors in Cairns, over the last few years when the ultrasound showed my prostate was 90cc in size. The average 

size is 20cc! 

My last appointment was about two years ago. However, a week before I was due for my last appointment, I was told I was no 

longer on the waiting list by staff. 

Last year in October 2004 my GP told me ‘by the way, you are still on the waiting list.’ A prioritised waiting list! 

I have been told I have to go to Brisbane for treatment! Surely there is a urologist in either Cairns or Townsville for public patients 

who are not in a private health fund. 

How many other men/patients are in the same position as myself and have been waiting for years for follow up treatment after 

their initial examination. 

This man is right when he says that it is a joke to be urged to be more responsible for one’s own 

health when the Beattie government shows no lead and does not even provide basic health care for its 

own people. Health care in Queensland is fast sliding down to fifth world standards. Queenslanders 

have had enough of smart talk and now demand smart action. 

Safe Youth Parties Task Force 

Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (9.44 pm): The safe youth parties task force, which 

was established in May by the police minister, Judy Spence, is investigating ways of preventing youth 

parties from getting out of hand and how to respond when they do. This issue was highlighted again last 

month when out-of-control parties caused great concern in several Queensland communities. In July 

police were called to unsafe and out-of-control parties in Cairns, Palm Beach, Buderim and Elanora. 

These events all raised safety concerns and generated fear among neighbours, parents and other 

members of the public. Recently the media reported on an 18th birthday party in Ipswich that was 

gatecrashed by 200 uninvited young people. These kinds of gatherings put people’s safety at risk and 

take the fun out of being young and celebrating with friends. 

Members of the task force are continuing to seek feedback from young people, parents or 

neighbours who have been involved in youth parties that have become disruptive. I am pleased to 

advise the House that many people have taken the opportunity to write to the task force with their ideas 

on how to manage young people’s parties. 

A popular way for people to make submissions has been through the ConsultQld web site, which 

went live for task force submissions on 7 June. People have been able to email their submission in, no 

matter where they live, and at the same time read the contributions made by other people on this issue. 

The deadline for online submissions was 12 August. However, at a recent meeting of task force 

members we agreed to extend the deadline until the end of September. As the task force chair, I will 

continue to accept written and verbal submissions until November. Young people are now able to 

complete a survey online. Additional information will also be drawn from interviews, a survey of young 

people and from police records. 

The issue here is that unsafe youth parties and gatherings affect every community. There needs 

to be a balance between fun and safety so that parties and gatherings can take place peacefully on 

private properties and in public spaces such as parks. This is a great opportunity for the community to 

help shape the government’s response to this issue. I encourage people of all ages to get involved. All 

feedback will help the task force investigate the problem and develop workable solutions, which may 

include educational approaches, early intervention strategies, legislative aspects and police responses. 

I look forward to submitting the task force’s report to Minister Spence when it is finalised on 30 March 

next year. 

City West Car Carriers 

Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (9.46 pm): Mr Peter Chapman from City West Car Carriers 

has made contact with me. City West Car Carriers has been in business for 13 years in Dalby. For the 

last 10 years it has been car carrying for major dealerships such as Black Toyota, Parry Ford, Johnson’s 

Holden, Southern Cross Automotive Group, Roma Motors and also for other four-wheel drive 

dealerships in western areas. 

Based in Dalby, City West Car Carriers is the sole car-carrying company west of Brisbane, 

transporting from Brisbane into the western region. The ratio of sales for four-wheel drive vehicles to 

passenger vehicles is six to one. Due to the high demand for four-wheel drive vehicles in western areas, 

City West Car Carriers runs a road train operation from Dalby to the west, transporting 10 four-wheel 

drive vehicles and two passenger cars per load. This road train operation has been conducted for the 

past two years, delivering into Roma two to three times per week. City West Car Carriers supplies all 

four-wheel drive vehicles to this western region and also transports all four-wheel drive trade-ins back to 

the city. 

Each year they have been issued with a 12-month renewable excess dimension permit to exceed 

the height of 4.6 metres to 4.9 metres from ground level, as is required. Unfortunately, the last permit 

renewal was refused. They attempted to continue their business in the manner they have for so many


years. The only other option left was to close down. However, in attempting to continue, they were 

intercepted by Queensland Transport twice in one week, thus receiving fines for being over the usual 

height limit of 4.9 metres. They were forced to unload vehicles on the edge of the road. They had to 

continue to the destination with only half a load. They had to return from some distance to collect the 

unloaded vehicles from the side of the road and get them back to the delivery point in order to keep their 

customers satisfied. 

In order to be able to transport the four-wheel drive vehicles, the only option left to continue their 

business was to double the price of transporting the four-wheel drive vehicles as they now carry only 

half as many legally, due to the height restrictions placed upon them which previously the permit 

covered. The western dealerships have indicated that this will detrimentally affect their businesses as 

they are having to remain competitive with the city dealers on the pricing of vehicles. Therefore, they 

have advised that they are not prepared to pay this additional cost to transport four-wheel drive vehicles, 

as it is uneconomical for them. They will opt to drive these vehicles, instead of having them carried by 

their transport company. This is due to the extremely high freight costs because of the height restrictions 

they are now required to adhere to. 

Regrettably, this action will leave this company with no option but to close down, making six 

employees, with families settled to the area, redundant. Closing down City West Car Carriers will greatly 

affect the car dealerships they conduct business with. They currently transport 150 cars per week. City 

West Car Carriers has successfully transported four-wheel drive vehicles at 4.9 metres from ground 

level— 

Time expired. 

Death of Mr W Carpenter 

Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (9.49 pm): Bill Carpenter was born at Wallaroo, 

South Australia, on 18 March 1921. He was christened William Stanley Carpenter by his parents Robert 

James and Ivy Maude Carpenter. Bill began his working life as a carpenter and on 1 September 1938 at 

the age of 17 Bill entered full-time service with the Royal Australian Navy. He initially signed up for 12 

years and his first posting was on the Cerberus from 7 September 1938 to 26 May 1939, making two 

tours of duty. Bill then served on a succession of ships including the Canberra, Penguin, Adelaide, 

Voyager, Penguin II, Wilcannia, Platypus, Mountien, Sarangau, Rushcutter and more. Around this time, 

Bill qualified as a diver and spent most of his diving career removing mines to ensure safe passage for 

other ships. He was also involved in a large amount of underwater salvage work in New Guinea, Cairns 

and Yaampi generally. 

His service history sheet from that time records that Commander Batterham considered Bill had 

shown marked ability in magnetic mine clearance and in conducting searches using the grid method up 

to 25 fathoms on both a rough coral and mud base. Bill also assisted in the salvage work on the HMS 

Warrnambool using oxyhydrogen gear to cut into compartments. The ship had recently been located 

lying on her starboard side in 120 feet of water. At the end of the war, Bill married Roberta Marjorie 

Jefferies and they had three children: Glen, Jill and Robert. I did not meet Bill until he retired to 

Donnybrook but he was never one to simply relax, so he immediately became involved in the local 

community. In fact, most non-profit groups benefited at some point from Bill. 

Bill was active in the local bowls club where he was past president and up until a few weeks prior 

to his sudden death on 12 May 2005 at the age of 84 years he could be regularly seen selling raffle 

tickets at the club on a Friday night. Bill was one of the instigators in getting the community hall project 

established and was also active in the local rural fire brigade and Neighbourhood Watch. Every year Bill 

played Santa Claus to the children of Donnybrook and had a great deal of respect for the younger 

members of the community, helping establish youth discos in the hall. He also made sure that his war 

comrades were well remembered at Anzac Day celebrations, and I was privileged to be asked by him to 

read the community speech each year. This year when Bill heard about the Caboolture Cadets Unit 123 

which formed the catafalque party at the service having to pay for their own transport, he immediately 

set out to help raise money to assist them in future years. Bill died before the raffle was drawn, but it 

raised $1,200 and he deserves some credit for it. 

Bill’s commitment resulted in him being awarded the Centennial Medal in 2003 for service to the 

community. Councillor John McNaught, Stephen Beckett, members of the Donnybrook community and I 

organised a surprise 80th birthday party for Bill and presented him with a medallion in appreciation of his 

tireless efforts. Bill Carpenter was a member of the Labor Party. He was instrumental in many a good 

campaign. He worked for many years for Labor candidates like my husband Jon and myself. He was 

also dependable. Rain, hail and shine, you knew that you could always rely on Bill to set up an election 

booth at Donnybrook! Bill is survived by his children Glen, Jill, Robert and their families and his ex-wife, 

Bobby. He will be sadly missed by all of his relatives, friends and colleagues as well as those countless 

community members and volunteers he worked with. It was a privilege to have known Bill, and I extend 

my deepest sympathies to his family.


Police Community Forum, Currumbin Electorate 

Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (9.52 pm): Over 100 people attended a police community 

forum held on Thursday, 14 July at the Currumbin RSL. In addition, residents circulated a petition calling 

for an increased police presence in the Currumbin, Elanora and Palm Beach area. This forum came 

about as a result of general public disquiet over an increase in antisocial behaviour, particularly by local 

youth. In recent months there had been a marked increase in complaints from the general public about 

vandalism, hooning, graffiti and youth street parties. Tragically, two young high school students from the 

Currumbin electorate lost their lives when a car in which they were passengers crashed. Mindful of the 

needless loss of these lives, prior to the forum my office generated a 14-part questionnaire entitled ‘How 

to Improve the Safety of Young Drivers’ which was circulated to year 12 students at Palm Beach, 

Currumbin and Elanora state high schools. 

As it is our youth’s behaviour that is the cause of much angst in the community, I felt it was critical 

to involve them in the decision-making process, particularly with regard to driving practices. This survey 

was seeking youth input as to how to improve current licence requirements to ensure safer 

practices amongst young drivers. Some 122 year 12 students from these high schools took the time to 

fill in the questionnaires. Around half of the questions resulted in students giving fairly equal yes and no 

responses. However, there were topics where students were almost unanimous in their replies. A large 

contingent of police officers headed by Acting Superintendent Brett Pointing made themselves available 

for questions and the sharing of information relating to police activities in the Currumbin electorate. 

Jason McCoomb, the officer at the new Elanora Police Beat, outlined his role. I seek leave to table a 

non-conforming petition with 100 signatures. 


Mrs STUCKEY: I also seek leave to table my report on this combined police and community 

exercise. 


Mrs STUCKEY: Some of the suggestions from the forum included the possibility of school based 

police officers at our two high schools; better advertising of the Party Safe program and police register; 

continuation of the police beat officer lectures to youth about drugs, drink-driving and alcohol; increase 

our Neighbourhood Watch groups; reform the community consultative committee; more frequent and 

targeted police patrols; provide venues for youth to participate in events; review the legislation regarding 

parent accountability; an increase in police resources; and the need to improve police response. 

This forum and youth survey were a much-needed first step towards gathering information and 

ideas and setting in place the foundations for a positive working relationship with our police. I am keen 

to continue this process and am committed to working with the police and engaging as many interested 

individuals as possible to make Currumbin a happier and safer place to live. My sincere thanks are 

extended to anyone who contributed with input and assistance. 

Seniors Week, Aspley Electorate 

Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (9.55 pm): I rise to acknowledge that we are in the middle of Seniors 

Week celebrations and to highlight in particular the contribution that seniors in the Aspley electorate 

make to my local community. Seniors are very active throughout the Aspley electorate in work, 

community and family endeavours. As I have often told the House before, the Aspley electorate has one 

of the largest retirement village populations in the state, and that is not surprising because Aspley is a 

lovely place to live and seniors are attracted to the convenience, safety and accessibility of the area. It 

would not surprise honourable members to know that Aspley seniors have been very busy this week. 

With the assistance of the Department of Communities, a number of groups in my electorate have 

been celebrating this year’s seniors theme—‘Ageing: Everybody’s Doing It’. As a strong supporter of 

seniors, I have been pleased to attend a number of events during Seniors Week. I was the Acting 

Speaker in the parliament for the Older People Speak Out group mock parliamentary debate that was 

held here where a team of under 25s and under 65s joined forces to argue the rights of both groups to 

be heard in our society. As one of the few people present at the debate who were described as the 

‘mediocre middle aged’ in the group, I confess to being a little bit intimidated by the wonderful 

partnership of youth and seniors who debated on that day, and indeed under 25s and over 65s will be 

heard such is their talent and commitment to do so. 

I also attended the Aspley Memorial Bowls opening day of its Seniors Week celebratory carnival. 

Again, I was outpaced by both the youth and the seniors and was absolutely intimidated by the bowling 

skills of my eight-year-old niece, who made my bowling look quite shabby indeed. The event was 

sponsored by the Department of Communities, North Lakes Retirement Resort and the Commonwealth 

Bank and was a great success, and I commend the club for its efforts during this week. I have also 

recently been advised that Aspley Classes for Seniors has won a Department of Employment and 

Training Adult Learners Award for Seniors Week. It is a worthy organisation that provides a raft of 

education classes for the enthusiastic senior students of my electorate.


Finally, I was a guest speaker at the Older Women’s Network celebrations of 100 years of the 

women’s vote and look forward to working closely with this group. It indeed engaged me in a very lively 

discussion across a raft of issues. So this week to date I have enjoyed a vast array of Seniors Week 

events and declare that to date the week has been great. I want to congratulate the minister and the 

Department of Communities on their support for groups locally and all across Queensland. I know that 

Seniors Week will go from strength to strength. 

Asbestos 

Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (9.58 pm): Asbestos is the silent killer and the number of 

people diagnosed with asbestos related diseases will not peak until the year 2020. By then, there will be 

13,000 cases of mesothelioma and up to 40,000 cases of asbestos related lung cancer—that is, 53,000 

cases of incurable cancer caused by asbestos over the next 20 years. Once again on the media tonight 

we saw an asbestos expert remind this Labor government that there is no safe level of exposure to 

asbestos. I repeat that again: there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. All it takes is one fibre. This 

was rammed home to me graphically about six months ago when I was invited around to a 

whistleblower’s house. I call that person an asbestos whistleblower. This person sat me down at his 

kitchen table and showed me examples of asbestos that he discovered in different buildings around 

Queensland, buildings including schools. 

The examples ranged in size from simple crayons to mineral sample kits in which there was raw 

asbestos. There were tiles where the insulation was 100 per cent asbestos right through to insulation 

and matting that we often find in school science laboratories. The one picture that he showed me that 

had a dramatic impact on me was an electron microscope picture of a piece of asbestos. It was 

compared against the human hair. The human hair looked about as thick as my middle finger. 

Juxtaposed beside it was an asbestos fibre. This fibre was, in fact, the size of a human hair. So he 

showed me graphically the difference between the human hair and the asbestos fibre. He said that once 

an asbestos fibre is released at ceiling height in a room, under normal conditions it will take 24 hours to 

float down to the ground—plenty of time for that asbestos fibre to be inhaled by schoolchildren. 

I visited Wavell Heights State School. I know that there is an asbestos replacement program 

going on at that school, but I have been told that the asbestos around the soffit, or the overhang of the 

school, is not being replaced. The roof is being replaced, but basically they are doing half a job. They 

are missing the asbestos on the soffit—the overhang—and also in some insulation in the roof. So we 

have to see a real commitment on behalf of the education minister— 

Time expired. 

King, Ms S; Watts, Ms A 

Hon. NI CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (10.01 pm): I would like to place on record in this 

parliament the outstanding achievements of two very special Bundaberg students. Sara King is now in 

year 12 at Shalom College in Bundaberg. Sara, who is disabled, wrote her story, titled Lesson of a 

Lifetime. It covers her years at school and was recently featured at the launch in Brisbane of Catholic 

Education Week in Queensland. Sara spoke of being made to feel like a starlet on her first day at school 

because she was the first student with special needs to attend that school. She was surrounded by 

photographers, reporters, lots of excitement, the school community and her very proud family: mum, 

dad and brothers Luke and Jordan. Sara said she felt as normal as any other student, except she had 

her own walk, a cool wheelchair and a few extra adaptations. Sara described her school life as a journey 

full of memories, experiences and life’s lessons—an emotional roller-coaster filled with laughter, tears, 

heartache, love, pain, hope, disappointments, anger, frustration, joy, ambition and faith. Sara is an 

inspiration to other students and to disabled people of all ages and she is a credit to her parents. 

The second student, Alison Watts, was last night recognised in the Smart Women—Smart State 

awards here at Parliament House. Alison, a student of Kepnock State High School in Bundaberg, was 

awarded the Secondary School Student’s Award, placing her among the state’s smartest women 

achievers in science, engineering and information and communication technology—all pursuing 

interests in non-traditional roles. 

Alison was recognised for her work in leading the team that has developed an electronic 

borrowing system for a toy library in Bundaberg. As one of only two girls in an information technology 

studies class of 20, Alison may be outnumbered but she is not outsmarted. She is a high achiever, using 

her technical ability to make a real difference in our community at such a very young age. 

Congratulations are due to Sara and Alison, both outstanding students. Proudly, they are both from 

Bundaberg. 


The House adjourned at 10.03 pm.

weekly hansard - Queensland Parliament - Queensland Government

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?