29 Feb 2000 Legislative Assembly 3 TUESDAY, 29 FEBRUARY 2000 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. R. K. Hollis, Redcliffe) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 a.m. ELECTORAL DISTRICTS OF BUNDAMBA AND WOODRIDGE Resignation of Members Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I have to report that I have received letters of resignation from the Honourable Robert James Gibbs, member for the electoral district of Bundamba, and William Theodore D'Arcy, member for the electoral district of Woodridge, which I will now table. Issue of Writs Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I have to report that writs were issued by His Excellency the Governor for the election of members to serve in this House for the electoral districts of Bundamba and Woodridge as follows— Issue of writs—Monday, 10 January 2000; Cut-off day for electoral rolls—Friday, 14 January 2000; Cut-off day for nominations—Monday, 17 January 2000; Polling day—Saturday, 5 February 2000; Return of writs—Monday, 6 March 2000. I lay upon the table of the House the said writs. Return of Writs Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I have to report that the writs issued by His Excellency the Governor on 10 January 2000 for the election of members to serve in the Legislative Assembly for the electoral districts of Bundamba and Woodridge have been returned with a certificate endorsed thereon by the returning officer of the election on 5 February 2000 of Jo-Ann Miller and Michael Hans Kaiser to serve as such members. Members Sworn Mrs Miller and Mr Kaiser were introduced, took the oath of allegiance, and subscribed the roll. ASSENT TO BILLS Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I have to report that I have received from His Excellency the Governor a letter in respect of assent to certain Bills, the contents of which will be incorporated in the records of Parliament. GOVERNMENT HOUSE QUEENSLAND 21 December 1999 The Honourable R.K. Hollis, MLA Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 Dear Mr Speaker 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 dates shown: "A Bill for an Act to apply certain laws of the Commonwealth relating to the New Tax System Price Exploitation Code as laws of Queensland, and for other purposes" (8 December 1999) "A Bill for an Act to amend the Forestry Act 1959" (14 December 1999) "A Bill for an Act to amend the Gaming Machine Act 1991 and certain other Acts" (14 December 1999) "A Bill for an Act to amend the State Counter-Disaster Organisation Act 1975" (14 December 1999) "A Bill for an Act to amend certain legislation administered by the Treasurer" (14 December 1999) "A Bill for an Act to amend legislation about education, and for another purpose" (14 December 1999) "A Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 and other Acts" (14 December 1999) "A Bill for an Act to amend the Queensland Law Society Act 1952" (14 December 1999) "A Bill for an Act to regulate prostitution in Queensland, and for other purposes" (14 December 1999) "A Bill for an Act to amend the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1974 and the Freedom of Information Act 1992" (14 December 1999) "A Bill for an Act to amend the Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990" (14 December 1999) "A Bill for an Act to amend the Water Resources Act 1989" (14 December 1999)
Transcript
29 Feb 2000 Legislative Assembly 3
TUESDAY, 29 FEBRUARY 2000
Mr SPEAKER (Hon. R. K. Hollis, Redcliffe)read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 a.m.
ELECTORAL DISTRICTS OF BUNDAMBAAND WOODRIDGE
Resignation of Members
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourablemembers, I have to report that I have receivedletters of resignation from the HonourableRobert James Gibbs, member for the electoraldistrict of Bundamba, and William TheodoreD'Arcy, member for the electoral district ofWoodridge, which I will now table.
Issue of Writs
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourablemembers, I have to report that writs wereissued by His Excellency the Governor for theelection of members to serve in this House forthe electoral districts of Bundamba andWoodridge as follows—
Issue of writs—Monday, 10 January 2000;
Cut-off day for electoral rolls—Friday, 14January 2000;
Cut-off day for nominations—Monday, 17January 2000;
Polling day—Saturday, 5 February 2000;
Return of writs—Monday, 6 March 2000.
I lay upon the table of the House the saidwrits.
Return of Writs
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourablemembers, I have to report that the writs issuedby His Excellency the Governor on 10 January2000 for the election of members to serve inthe Legislative Assembly for the electoraldistricts of Bundamba and Woodridge havebeen returned with a certificate endorsedthereon by the returning officer of the electionon 5 February 2000 of Jo-Ann Miller andMichael Hans Kaiser to serve as suchmembers.
Members Sworn
Mrs Miller and Mr Kaiser were introduced,took the oath of allegiance, and subscribedthe roll.
ASSENT TO BILLSMr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable
members, I have to report that I have receivedfrom His Excellency the Governor a letter inrespect of assent to certain Bills, the contentsof which will be incorporated in the records ofParliament.
GOVERNMENT HOUSEQUEENSLAND
21 December 1999The Honourable R.K. Hollis, MLASpeaker of the Legislative AssemblyParliament HouseGeorge StreetBRISBANE QLD 4000
Dear Mr Speaker
I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly thatthe following Bills, having been passed by theLegislative Assembly and having beenpresented for the Royal Assent, were assentedto in the name of Her Majesty The Queen onthe dates shown:
"A Bill for an Act to apply certain laws ofthe Commonwealth relating to the NewTax System Price Exploitation Code aslaws of Queensland, and for otherpurposes" (8 December 1999)"A Bill for an Act to amend the ForestryAct 1959" (14 December 1999)
"A Bill for an Act to amend the GamingMachine Act 1991 and certain other Acts"(14 December 1999)
"A Bill for an Act to amend the StateCounter-Disaster Organisation Act 1975"(14 December 1999)"A Bill for an Act to amend certainlegislation administered by the Treasurer"(14 December 1999)
"A Bill for an Act to amend legislationabout education, and for another purpose"(14 December 1999)
"A Bill for an Act to amend the CriminalLaw Amendment Act 1945 and other Acts"(14 December 1999)"A Bill for an Act to amend the QueenslandLaw Society Act 1952" (14 December1999)
"A Bill for an Act to regulate prostitution inQueensland, and for other purposes" (14December 1999)
"A Bill for an Act to amend theParliamentary Commissioner Act 1974 andthe Freedom of Information Act 1992" (14December 1999)"A Bill for an Act to amend the Trading(Allowable Hours) Act 1990" (14 December1999)
"A Bill for an Act to amend the WaterResources Act 1989" (14 December 1999)
4 Parliamentary Library 29 Feb 2000
"A Bill for an Act to amend theSuperannuation (State Public Sector) Act1990" (14 December 1999)"A Bill for an Act to amend various Actsabout superannuation" (14 December1999)
"A Bill for an Act to amend the MotorAccident Insurance Act 1994" (14December 1999)
"A Bill for an Act to amend Actsadministered by the Minister for Mines andEnergy" (14 December 1999)
"A Bill for an Act to provide for the transferof the assets and liabilities of bodies underthe Primary Producers' Organisation andMarketing Act 1926 and the FruitMarketing Organisation Act 1923 toincorporated bodies that are not publicauthorities, to amend the Meat IndustryAct 1993, and for other purposes" (21December 1999)
"A Bill for an Act to amend the PropertyLaw Act 1974 to facilitate the resolution offinancial matters at the end of a de factorelationship, and for other purposes" (21December 1999)"A Bill for an Act about the management ofvegetation on freehold land" (21December 1999).
The Bills are hereby transmitted to theLegislative Assembly, to be numbered andforwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment,in the manner required by law.
Yours sincerely
(sgd) Peter Arnison
Governor
PRIVILEGE
Referral of Matter to Members' Ethics andParliamentary Privileges Committee
Mr PAFF (Ipswich West—CCAQ)(9.35 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Atthe time of my 21-day suspension, Iunderstand that the Chairman of theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee wasin possession of a report by Ms Julie Dick, SC,which completely exonerated me. Thequestions arising from the actions of themember for Lytton are: why were salient factswithheld from this Parliament; and what powerdoes the member for Lytton have as Chairmanof the PCJC to withhold pertinent informationfrom every member of this House, therebyreducing the effective function of theParliament and perverting its deliberations? Inso doing, the member for Lytton has misledthis Parliament, and I seek leave of the Houseto have the matter referred to the Members'
Ethics and Parliamentary PrivilegesCommittee.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the member forIpswich West seeking leave to have it referredto the committee, or is he moving that it bereferred to the committee?
Mr PAFF: I move that motion,Mr Speaker.
Question—That the matter of privilege bereferred to the Members' Ethics andParliamentary Privileges Committee—put; andthe House divided—AYES, 38—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, E. Cunningham, Dalgleish, Davidson, Elliott,Feldman, Gamin, Goss, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan,Johnson, Kingston, Laming, Lester, Lingard, Mitchell,Paff, Pratt, Prenzler, Quinn, Santoro, Seeney,Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Springborg, Stephan,Turner, Veivers, Watson. Tellers: Baumann, Hegarty
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourablemembers, I have to report that under StandingOrder 327 I have approved the loan of tableddocuments to the Supreme Court Library for itsrare books display during the month ofFebruary 2000.
PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourablemembers, the Parliamentary Library is currentlybeing refurbished as part of the generalupgrade of fittings and furnishings throughoutthe annexe. Research and reference staffhave been operating from temporary premisesin the library foyer since the House rose inDecember. It is unlikely they will be in therefurbished office area until early April. Librarystaff will do their best to provide normalservices during this dislocation, but access tosome research materials is quite difficult andmay temporarily add to the time required toprovide members with information. It has alsobeen necessary to rearrange the members'reading area on level six to accommodatestaff. The patience and understanding of
29 Feb 2000 Motion of Condolence 5
members during this process would beappreciated.
PANEL OF TEMPORARY CHAIRMEN
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourablemembers, I have to report that Mr MichaelHans Kaiser, MLA, has been appointed to thepanel of temporary chairmen.
MOTION OF CONDOLENCE
Death of Mr B. P. Hansen
Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.44 a.m.), by leave, withoutnotice: I move—
1. That this House desires to placeon record its appreciation of thecontribution made to Queensland by thelate Brendan Hansen, former councillorand State and Federal parliamentarian.
2. That Mr Speaker be requested toconvey to the family of the deceased theabove resolution, together with anexpression of the sympathy and sorrow ofthe members of the Parliament ofQueensland for the loss they havesustained.
I would like to acknowledge in the gallerythe presence of Brendan's wife Moira, sonTim, daughter-in-law Kerrie and daughtersMaureen and Kate. Brendan Hansen was bornin Maryborough on 21 August 1922, the sonof a shipwright and the second of five children.He attended the Granville State School andcompleted his schooling at the ChristianBrothers High School in Maryborough. Prior toentering politics, Brendan worked as ashipwright, loftsman and carpenter and wasapprenticed at Walkers shipyards inMaryborough. He also worked in Newcastle,Canberra, Melbourne, Port Moresby andBrisbane.
Brendan's diverse political career includedrepresenting his constituents across the threetiers of government, which is unique, as we allknow. Firstly, he was a councillor for theMaryborough City Council from May 1961 untilMay 1964. Secondly, he was the Federalmember for Wide Bay from December 1961until May 1974. Thirdly, he was the DeputyMayor and councillor of the Maryborough CityCouncil from May 1976 until November 1977.Fourthly, he was the State member forMaryborough from November 1977 untilOctober 1983. Brendan was also a memberand office holder of various unions and LaborParty branches and was the campaign director
for several Queensland electorates between1957 and 1972.
In his maiden speech to the House ofRepresentatives on 1 March 1962, BrendanHansen said—
"This nation needs action, not words,to achieve its full greatness—action thatimplies a positive desire to put back towork those who are jobless and to findpermanent employment for thethousands who are leaving school eachyear."
As Mr Speaker would appreciate, they aresentiments that are echoed in the policies ofmy Government. While in Federal Parliament,Mr Hansen served as Government Whip.Some of his most noted achievements inFederal Parliament include—and this is only asample—representing the AustralianParliament at the inauguration of the PapuaNew Guinea House of Assembly in 1964,representing the Australian Parliament at theopening of the 10th Council of the NorthernTerritory Legislative Council in 1969, being amember of the parliamentary delegation toLatin America in 1965 and being a delegate tothe Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference atThe Hague in 1970.
Brendan won the State seat ofMaryborough in November 1977. In hismaiden speech to this Parliament he said—
"The Australian Labor Party wasformed because men and womenrealised that Parliament was the place inwhich changes should be made. TheAustralian Labor Party believes thatnecessary changes can be made throughevolution and through democraticprocesses by convincing the people of theneed for change."
I think all of us would share that view. Brendanwas the Opposition Whip between January1981 and October 1982. During his time inoffice, he was the Opposition spokesperson forlands, forestry and water resources; works andwater resources; commerce and industry;industrial development and ports; and, industryand administrative services. Brendan Hansen'spolitical career showed incredible commitmentnot only to his constituents but also to thebroader political process. His advocacy ofParliament as the venue for effecting socialchange is well documented and hiscommitment to the common man and womanis widely known.
After the Labor Day march inMaryborough in 1998, Brendan Hansencollapsed in Queens Park. It was the day the
6 Motion of Condolence 29 Feb 2000
High Court decision on the MUA dispute washanded down. It is well known that whenBrendan regained consciousness some hourslater in hospital his first words were, "What'sthe time and who won?" We can see the levelof Brendan's commitment. After leaving publicoffice, Brendan continued to work for hiscommunity and his service was recognisedwith the naming of a park in Granville in hishonour. That is quite appropriate. Next month Iwill have the pleasure of opening the BrendanHansen Building in Pialba, Hervey Bay. ThisGovernment office building will serve asanother testament to Brendan's contribution tohis local community.
Brendan was an executive member of theMaryborough and District Housing ActionGroup for 15 years, and was patron of severalcommunity clubs. He initiated the ALPGranville Bursary, an encouragement awardgiven to a Year 7 Granville State Schoolstudent each year. In 1982 Brendan wasmade a life member of the Australian LaborParty.
In 1960 Brendan married. He and hiswife, Moira, have three sons and fivedaughters. He is survived by his wife andchildren.
I knew Brendan Hansen very well. He wasa good friend of a number of friends of mine,including Manfred Cross, who also haddistinguished service in the FederalParliament. Brendan Hansen was one of thosepeople one could describe as a truegentleman. He was committed. He wasdedicated not only to his community but alsoto his family. He was a true family man whowas strongly committed to advancing hischildren and advancing the people whom herepresented. He was one of the most decentpeople that I have ever met in politics, and Ipersonally pass on to his family mycondolences, as well as the condolences of allmembers of this House. On behalf of theParliament, I extend my sympathy and that ofthis House to his family and friends.
Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (SurfersParadise—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition)(9.53 a.m.): In seconding this motion movedby the Premier, I am pleased to join with him,and in doing so I anticipate the remarks ofother members who will speak later in markingthe life of the former member forMaryborough, Brendan Hansen.
Everybody in this place will be saddenedby his passing. Everyone, I believe, can learnfrom the life of Brendan Hansen and his recordof service to the people whom he represented.I think it is fair to say that there would not be a
large number of members in this place whoserved with Brendan. I had that privilege, and Ialways found him to be an absolutegentleman, dedicated to his party, dedicatedto his electorate, and dedicated to his family.
He was—and this is something that wehear from all sides of politics—genuinely oneof nature's gentlemen. He had a built-incourtesy, the sort of courtesy that was neverdismissive, that always found time to listen tothe views of others, and he balanced that witha good dose of humour, an essential elementin human affairs, especially in politics. He waspositive. I suspect that he actually did notsuffer fools gladly, but he was too much of agentleman to make that obvious.
Brendan Hansen was a true Labor man.He served the people as he thought best, andhe did it well, at all three levels of Government.He was twice a Maryborough City alderman,from 1960 to 1963, and from 1976 to 1977.He served for 13 years as the Federal memberfor Wide Bay, and was Government Whip inthe House of Representatives during theperiod of the Whitlam Government, holdingthat position from December 1972 to May1974. That was a time in Federal politics thatwould have tested the strength of hiscommitment to courtesy, and he passed thattest, of course.
Brendan Hansen served in this place fromNovember 1977 until October 1983, six yearsof sterling service to the electors ofMaryborough and to the wider Queenslandcommunity. He was a staunch Catholic and astrong supporter of the church inMaryborough, where he was a leading light inthe work to refurbish St Mary's Presbytery. Hewas also president of the MaryboroughMarykana Festival.
As the Premier mentioned, he was ashipwright and a loftsman—skills which, in theMaryborough of his youth, would have stoodhim in good stead—and began his working lifeas an apprentice with that great local firm,Walkers Ltd.
To Moira, whom he married on 11 June1960, and to their eight children, we on thisside of the House can only say that we aredeeply saddened by the passing of a fineman, a fine Queenslander and a fineAustralian. Brendan Hansen is assured of hisplace in the story of Queensland.
Dr WATSON (Moggill—LP) (Leader of theLiberal Party) (9.56 a.m.): I rise to speak onthe condolence motion for the late BrendanHansen moved by the Premier and secondedby the Leader of the Opposition.
29 Feb 2000 Motion of Condolence 7
Mr Hansen was a former member of thisHouse as the State member for Maryborough,a former Federal member for Wide Bay andformer alderman for the Maryborough CityCouncil. Mr Hansen was a shipwright, loftsmanand carpenter before being elected as amember of Parliament for the Australian LaborParty. He was, I understand, actively involvedas a campaign director for several QueenslandLabor candidates during the watershedelection of 1957. Mr Hansen was elected asan alderman for the Maryborough City Councilin 1961. That same year, Mr Hansencontested the Federal seat of Wide Bay andwon it, entering the House of Representativesin December that year. In his maiden speech,Mr Hansen spoke vigorously about the needsof the Wide Bay area, including bettertransport and water infrastructure. It appearsthat some issues never change.
In 1974 Mr Hansen lost Wide Bay, andreturned to local government in 1976. In 1977Mr Hansen successfully contested the seat ofMaryborough and held it until 1983. In hismaiden speech to the Queensland Parliament,Mr Hansen recounted his experiences of theGreat Depression. He believed thatGovernments had to provide jobs in times ofhardship. In fact, he stated that if a project wasphysically possible, it should have beenfinancially possible.
Mr Hansen was a man who left schoolduring the Depression and watched as hispeers lined up for jobs, 20 or 50 in a queue. In1939 most of those young men joined theArmy as an escape from unemployment. It isin fact a cruel irony that unemploymentremained stubbornly high during the 1930sand the solution lay primarily in another worldwar. Mr Hansen found it a great pity thatmoney could be found in a time of war, but notin times of peace, for important developmentalprojects.
When he was elected to the QueenslandParliament, Brendan Hansen became part of avery small group of people who have served atall three levels of Government. That in itself isquite a commitment to public service.
On behalf of the Liberal Party, I join withthe Premier and other members in passing onour sincere condolences to his wife, Moira, andhis family.
Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Minister for Communication andInformation, Local Government and Planningand Minister for Sport) (9.59 a.m.): I join withother members in passing on my condolencesto Moira and to the family of the late BrendanHansen. I am the only member of the Labor
Party who actually served in the Parliamentwith Brendan. We both got elected to theState Parliament in 1977, and Brendan servedwith us for six years. At that time, he was avery valuable resource for us, because in 1977we had 23 members. Eight of those werepeople who had returned from the previousParliament; the rest of us were new, butBrendan had a wealth of experience in theFederal Parliament and was able to helpyoung members such as myself a great dealto really come to grips with being a member ofParliament and learn the ropes of how onewent about it.
I heard someone mention Brendanhaving been a Whip. We always used to jokewith Brendan about how he counted, becauseif people knew Brendan, they would know thathe had a couple of fingers missing, and wewould make a joke with him about that.
Brendan was a great person to serve with.I know that at the time that he served here, hisbest mate was Jim Blake from Bundaberg. It isprobably the only time that I have served inthe Parliament that we have not seen greatrivalry between Maryborough and Bundaberg,because they used to be able to go to the barat night-time, have a couple of drinks and sortout any problems that they had betweenthemselves. We never once, in that six yearsthat they were here, saw a fight in theBundaberg or the Maryborough newspapersabout what was happening in State politics inrelation to who was getting the better end ofthe bargain. I think, since then, that sort offighting has never stopped. So they were ableto work very closely together, and I know that ifJim were here today he would be saying thathe has lost one of his best mates, becausethey certainly were inseparable in the time thatthey were serving in this Parliament. They wereso close that we used to call them Ada andElsie. I went away on a fishing trip with themfor a few days and—
Mr Bredhauer interjected.
Mr MACKENROTH: That is okay. Detailsof the trip were mentioned on the front page ofthe then Sunday Sun—
Mr Bredhauer interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: No, I think it was the
Sunday Sun. We went on a fishing trip for afew days and—
Mr Schwarten: Ten men in a boat.
Mr MACKENROTH: Ten men in a boat;that was it. One of the members on the trip felta little vulnerable with regard to his job. Earliertoday, we had a joke with David Watson, themember for Moggill, and we all know how he
8 Motion of Condolence 29 Feb 2000
feels. The member in question wentdownstairs on the boat and had a sleep. Whilehe was asleep, we went ashore at HeronIsland and picked up the Sunday Sunnewspaper. An article on the front pagereferred to 10 men on a boat plotting thedownfall of this politician. The politician inquestion was on the boat. He wanted to knowwhat we were doing while he was asleep.Brendan, as one of the politician's supporters,tried to allay his suspicions and said that wewere not trying to get rid of him. As a truepolitician, it did not matter what Brendan said,the member was convinced that every time hewent to sleep we would talk about him.
Brendan was a great member ofParliament, and a great mate. It is very sad tosee his passing. I pass on my condolences tohis family.
Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—ALP)(Treasurer) (10.02 a.m.): I wish to join in thismotion of condolence to the family of BrendanHansen. I am pleased to see his wife Moira,together with members of his family, in theChamber this morning.
Brendan was a great mate. I did not havethe privilege of serving in the Parliament withBrendan, but I knew him quite well. As hasbeen mentioned by previous speakers,Brendan was first elected to the FederalParliament in 1961 during what was known asthe credit squeeze election. That was theelection where the Menzies Government heldonto office as a result of gaining CommunistParty preferences. Jim Killen claims credit forthat.
In Brendan's maiden speech in 1962 heexpressed his deep-felt concern aboutemployment. Brendan was a great stalwart ofthe Labor movement and a great traditionalistwith regard to both the political and industrialwings of the party. Brendan was a greatFederal member. Wide Bay has never beenan easy seat for the Labor Party, but Brendanheld the seat for five elections from 1961. Hefinally lost the seat in the 1974 election.
The Wide Bay area has beenexperiencing considerably change over thepast two or three decades. There is no betterexample of this change than in Brendan'shome town of Maryborough. Maryborough wastraditionally a very safe Labor seat. The seat ofMaryborough was lost to the Labor Party in theby-election which occurred in 1970 or 1971 asa result of the death of Horrie Davies. Whobetter to take up Labor's cause and try andwin back the seat of Maryborough thanBrendan Hansen, who had served with such
distinction in the Federal Parliamentthroughout the 1960s? Brendan won the seat.
Maryborough has proved to be a verymarginal seat. I have no doubt that it wasBrendan Hansen's strength of character thatenabled him to continue to win the majority ofvotes in that electorate. Brendan retired in1983. Representation in this Parliament for theseat of Maryborough has tended to moveabout a bit between parties since then.
Brendan was a real stalwart of the localcommunity. He was well respected inMaryborough. Both Brendan and Moira havebeen involved in numerous facets ofcommunity life. The honourable member forChatsworth referred to a fishing expedition. Iremember having consultations with Brendanand Moira a few years ago in a building inElizabeth Street. I believe this occurred on 17March of that year. I found my way to thosepremises as a result of being lured by thesmell of a black potion of which I am ratherfond. I found myself at the Irish Club. I do notrecall whether it was Brendan or Moira whowas wearing a rosette which said "Kiss me; I'mIrish".
An honourable member interjected.
Mr HAMILL: Of course I did. All sorts ofcompliments were exchanged, as well as acouple of pints of the black stuff. To Moira andher family, Pat and I extend our deepestcondolences. Brendan was a great fellow andwill be long missed.
Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham—NPA)(10.06 a.m.): As one of the members on thisside of the House who served with BrendanHansen, I would like to echo the remarks ofthe member for Moggill. However, I would liketo add a few things. Brendan was a man whohad that quiet dignity which very few peoplehave. He certainly was one of nature'sgentlemen.
Earlier this morning one honourablemember mentioned Jimmy Blake. I had a lotof time for Jimmy Blake. Brendan Hansen,Jimmy Blake and Brian Davies used to begreat mates. Brian Davies used to sit just overthere and he would turn around and say,"Bark, bark, bark, bark." He would continuallyinterject during speeches. However, there wasno malice in him. He used to give me a hardtime because I was once a harvestingcontractor. A photograph of one of mymachines appeared in the Hastings Deeringmagazine—or some such magazine—and heplayed around with this photograph on thephotocopy machine and stretched thephotograph out until it was quite wide. The
29 Feb 2000 Motion of Condolence 9
machine looked as if it was 50 feet wide. Anytime I got into him, he always came back atme about my harvesting business.
Jimmy Blake, Brendan Hansen andothers were what I call true Labor men; theywere truly interested in people who worked withtheir hands for a living. Very few people realisethat when I first left school I was a member ofthe Australian Workers Union. That was at atime when I was working in the woolsheds.
An honourable member interjected.
Mr ELLIOTT: They have never forgivenme for it. Brendan and I had a lot in commonand we often used to yarn about things. Oneof the great things about this place in the olddays was the camaraderie that existedbetween members. A lot of this camaraderiestemmed from the days when we resided inthe Bellevue Hotel. Some interesting thingsused to occur at that hotel. I will not recountthem all.
Neil Turner was with us at the BellevueHotel. He used to take on all comers atstanding jumps. He would stand at the bottomof the stairs and see how many stairs he couldjump at one go. No wonder his hips gave way!Everyone used to be involved in these capers.I can assure honourable members that thisHouse was a lot better as a result of thatcamaraderie. That personal contact betweenmembers disappeared when we moved intothis building.
We used to sit in the common room atthe Bellevue Hotel and watch football ontelevision. We used to have great argumentsabout whether we would watch football orsome honourable member's special program.Miss Glennie would come out and put in hertwo bob's worth.
I would like to say to Brendan Hansen'sfamily that Brendan will be much missed. It isvery unusual for someone to serve in all levelsof Government. I never had a cross word withBrendan Hansen. I do not know of any peoplewho had cross words with him. However, that isnot to say that Brendan did not stand up forhis beliefs. He would put forward his views asstrongly as any other member. BrendanHansen put forward his views without themalice that some other honourable membersdemonstrate from time to time. I believe wecan all learn something from the actions ofBrendan Hansen.
I join with other honourable members inpassing on my condolences to his family andfriends—and I know he has many of those.
Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove—ALP)(10.09 a.m.): I also would like to take part in
this condolence motion on the passing ofBrendan Hansen. I am sure that Terry wouldremember that in 1977 I was also in this placewith him. As Terry said, at that time there were15 new members in a caucus of 23. I foundBrendan to be an absolutely thoroughgentleman. As the previous speaker said, hehad a quiet dignity and he was a greatresource for the new faces that came into theLabor Party.
Brendan Hansen believed that a true testof a democracy was the extent to which weminimised social disadvantage. Brendanunderstood quite well what it was like to haveLabor roots and what it was like to have gonethrough the Depression and to not have hadthe opportunities that my children and I havehad. However, he rose above that and gaveservice in three levels of government. Between1977 and 1983, I was privileged to haveserved in this Parliament with BrendanHansen. Today, when I saw Jim Blake in thepublic gallery and watched him nod at whatmembers have said, I felt that I had to add towhat those other members have said.However, nothing more can be said: it has allbeen said and it was all sincere. Sometimescondolence motions are the only times whenwe have the opportunity to say something niceabout someone who has passed. Today, I amconvinced that all that has been said aboutBrendan Hansen has been said from theheart, because he was a man of the heart andhis passing leaves a hole in our State.
Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (10.10 a.m.):Today, I wish to pay my condolences to thefamily and friends of the former member forMaryborough, long-serving Federal memberfor Wide Bay and Deputy Mayor ofMaryborough, Mr Brendan Hansen. I considerit an honour to have known Brendan Hansenwho, as all speakers have said, was widelyrespected in the Wide Bay community.
I first met Brendan Hansen in the lead-upto the 1989 State election when I was sent toMaryborough to help organise the campaignfor Maryborough and the then State seat ofIsis. One would say of Mr Hansen that he wasinstantly likeable, with a thorough knowledgeof the concerns of his local community. He wasa person who had a great love for the LaborParty. He never missed a function and nevermissed his chance to contribute to the successof the Labor Party long after his time in publicoffice had ceased. Mr Hansen would not say itof himself, because he always exhibited amodesty and an innate commonsense—whichis a commodity in great demand but at timesin short supply—but he was a record breaker.
10 Papers 29 Feb 2000
Many of us in public life will have the honour ofrepresenting people at one level ofgovernment. Brendan Hansen performedadmirably at all three. As I said, he was arecord breaker in that in winning the Federaldivision of Wide Bay he was the first and onlyLabor member since Andrew Fisher to holdthat seat. In 1977, he was perhaps the onlyLabor person who could have won back theState seat of Maryborough.
The concerns Mr Hansen raised in theFederal Parliament and in the StateParliament are the concerns of regionalQueensland today: the need for amanufacturing base in regional areas andongoing concerns about water supply.Perhaps with some foresight, in 1962 hementioned that his electorate had 100sawmills and that they were working belowcapacity. At that time, he also expressedconcerns for their future. As a member ofParliament, Mr Hansen was concerned aboutthe people of the Maryborough district afterthe Fraser Government closed down FraserIsland sandmining with minimal compensation.However, in Mr Hansen's maiden speech in1977 in this place, he was also concernedabout the proper processes of Parliament. Atthat stage, he held grave fears for the properprocesses that were then under way in thisplace.
Mr Hansen's life was shaped by the GreatDepression and the misery that accompaniedit. In the great Labor tradition, he was of IrishCatholic background and, with it, he had agreat love of his family and also of workingfamilies. I got to know his son, Tim, whoworked with me during the Goss Government.It is a privilege to have known him but it wasalso a great privilege to know his late father.
To the Hansen family and friends, I passon my condolences to a man who, in his quiet,affable way, served his city and his district withgreat distinction. At all times he remained aman of the people without resorting to theshallow histrionics that can sometimesaccompany that. For the inspiration he gave tothe people of Maryborough, we say thanks; tothe joy he gave us all, we simply say thanks fora job well and truly done.
Dr KINGSTON (Maryborough—IND)(10.14 a.m.): I would like to endorse brieflywhat has been said about Brendan Hansen. Igrew up in Maryborough when he wasMaryborough's representative in bothParliaments. I have never heard a badcomment about Brendan. In fact, the onlycomment I have ever heard was that he wasone of nature's gentlemen and, on his
passing, he will be very sadly missed inMaryborough.
Motion agreed to, honourable membersstanding in silence.
PETITIONS
The Clerk announced the receipt of thefollowing petitions—
Bus Travel, Pialba and Kawungan StateSchools
From Mr Dalgleish (49 petitioners)requesting the House to provide free bus travelfor children who have attended Pialba andKawungan State Schools to date, inclusive ofother children in the families concerned, toallow the parents of these children the choiceto leave them at their current school withoutbeing financially disadvantaged.
Burrum River System
From Mr Dalgleish (5,936 petitioners)requesting the House to confine allprofessional fishing and prawning activities inthe Burrum River system to the areadownstream of the mouth of the GregoryRiver.
Petitions received.
PAPERSPAPERS TABLED DURING THE RECESSThe Clerk informed the House that thefollowing papers, received during the recess,were tabled on the dates indicated—
13 December 1999—
Parliamentary Criminal Justice CommitteeReport No. 51—A report on aninvestigation by the Parliamentary CriminalJustice Commissioner into the allegedunauthorised disclosure of confidentialinformation concerning an investigation ofallegations made by Jack Kelvin Paff MLAMount Isa Water Board—Annual Report1998-99
Late tabling statement by the Minister forEnvironment and Heritage and Minister forNatural Resources (Mr Welford) relating tothe Mount Isa Water Board Annual Report1998-99
14 December 1999—
Greyhound Racing Authority—AnnualReport 1998-99Late tabling statement by the Minister forTourism, Sport and Racing (Mr Gibbs)relating to the Greyhound RacingAuthority Annual Report 1998-99
29 Feb 2000 Papers 11
Grain Research Foundation—AnnualReport 1998-99Late tabling statement by the Minister forPrimary Industries (Mr Palaszczuk) relatingto the Grain Research Foundation AnnualReport 1998-99
Addendum to the Chicken Meat IndustryCommittee Annual Report 1998-99 tabledon 15 November 1999
16 December 1999—
Department of Employment, Training andIndustrial Relations—Annual Report 1998-99
Late tabling statement by the Minister forEmployment, Training and IndustrialRelations (Mr Braddy) relating to theDepartment of Employment, Training andIndustrial Relations Annual Report 1998-99
17 December 1999—
Members' Ethics and ParliamentaryPrivileges Committee Report No. 39—Report on a matter of privilege—Allegedobstruction of a parliamentary committee'sinquiry by officers of a GovernmentOwned Corporation
Late tabling statement by the Minister forEnvironment and Heritage and Minister forNatural Resources (Mr Welford) relating tothe Dumaresq—Barwon Border RiversCommission Annual Report 1998-99
Vocational Education, Training andEmployment Commission—Annual Report1998-1999
23 December 1999—
Legal, Constitutional and AdministrativeReview Committee—non confidentialsubmissions relating to its Inquiry intoissues of Queensland Electoral Reform
South East Queensland Water Board—Annual Report 1998-99
Late tabling statement by the Minister forEnvironment and Heritage and Minister forNatural Resources (Mr Welford) relating tothe South East Queensland Water BoardAnnual Report 1998-99
Ergon Energy Corporation Limited—Annual Report for the period ended 29June 1999 (compiled on behalf of thefollowing electricity Government OwnedCorporations which ceased to exist on 30June 1999:
Capricornia Electricity CorporationLimited (CAPELEC)Far North Queensland ElectricityCorporation Limited (FNQEB)
Mackay Electricity CorporationLimited (MEB)
North Queensland ElectricityCorporation Limited (NORQEB)South West Queensland ElectricityCorporation Limited (South WestPower)Wide Bay-Burnett ElectricityCorporation Limited (WBBEC)
Capricornia Electricity Corporation Limited(CAPELEC), Far North QueenslandElectricity Corporation Limited (FNQEB),Mackay Electricity Corporation Limited(MEB), North Queensland ElectricityCorporation Limited (NORQEB), SouthWest Queensland Electricity CorporationLimited (South West Power), Wide Bay-Burnett Electricity Corporation Limited(WBBEC)—Statements of CorporateIntent 1998-99Late tabling statement by the Minister forMinister for Mines and Energy andMinister Assisting the Deputy Premier onRegional Development (Mr McGrady)relating to the Ergon Energy CorporationLimited Annual Report for the periodended 29 June 1999, compiled on behalfof the following electricity GovernmentOwned Corporations which ceased toexist on 30 June 1999:
South West Queensland ElectricityCorporation Limited (South WestPower)Wide Bay-Burnett ElectricityCorporation Limited (WBBEC)
24 December 1999—Gold Coast Hospital Foundation—AnnualReport 1998-99Late tabling statement by the Minister forHealth (Mrs Edmond) relating to the GoldCoast Hospital Foundation Annual Report1998-99
7 January 2000—Explanation from the Minister for Health(Mrs Edmond) regarding the granting of anextension of time for the tabling of the1998-99 annual reports of the Council ofthe Queensland Institute of MedicalResearch and the Queensland Institute ofMedical Research Trust
10 January 2000—
Queensland Competition Authority—Competitive Neutrality Complaint—Complaint by Coachtrans Australia AgainstQueensland Rail Findings andRecommendations June 1998
12 Papers 29 Feb 2000
Queensland Competition Authority—Competitive Neutrality Complaint—Complaint by Robin Russell andAssociates Against the Wide Bay-BurnettElectricity Corporation Findings andRecommendations February 1998
13 January 2000—
Explanation from the Acting Minister forEnvironment and Heritage and Minister forNatural Resources (Ms Spence) regardingthe granting of an extension of time for thetabling of the 1998-99 annual report of theJondaryan Shire River Improvement Trust
14 January 2000—The Council of the Queensland Instituteof Medical Research—Annual FinancialStatements 1998-99
Queensland Institute of Medical ResearchTrust—Annual Report 1998-99
Late tabling statement by the Minister forHealth (Mrs Edmond) relating to TheCouncil of the Queensland Institute ofMedical Research Annual FinancialStatements 1998-99 and QueenslandInstitute of Medical Research Trust AnnualReport 1998-99
21 January 2000—
Travelsafe Committee Report No. 31—Report on the Symposium on InternationalVisitors and Road Safety in Australia, 14May 1999
Transcript of Travelsafe Symposium onInternational Visitors and Road Safety inAustralia, 14 May 1999Australian Transport Safety Bureau—International Visitors and Road Safety inAustralia: A Status Report
31 January 2000—Legal, Constitutional and AdministrativeReview Committee—non confidentialsubmissions received in relation to itsreview of the role of the QueenslandParliament in treaty making
Legal, Constitutional and AdministrativeReview Committee—additional nonconfidential submissions received inrelation to its review of Queensland'sFreedom of Information Act 1992
2 February 2000—Explanation from the Minister for Health(Mrs Edmond) regarding the granting of anextension of time for the tabling of theRoyal Women's Hospital Research andDevelopment Foundation Annual Report1998-99
8 February 2000—
Legal, Constitutional and AdministrativeReview Committee—Freedom of
Information in Queensland, DiscussionPaper No. 1
14 February 2000—
Mount Isa Mines Panel AssessmentStudy—Report No. 4, 13 August 1999 to12 February 2000
17 February 2000—
Royal Women's Hospital Research andDevelopment Foundation—Annual Report1998-99
Late tabling statement by the Minister forHealth (Mrs Edmond) relating to the RoyalWomen's Hospital Research andDevelopment Foundation Annual Report1998-99
18 February 2000—
Report of Board of Inquiry established bythe Queensland Government to considercertain matters relating to riding schools
The President of the Industrial Court ofQueensland in respect of the IndustrialCourt of Queensland, the QueenslandIndustrial Relations Commission and theIndustrial Registrar's Office—AnnualReport 1998-99
25 February 2000—
National Trust of Queensland—AnnualReport 1998-99
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
The following statutory instruments were tabledby The Clerk—
Audio Visual and Audio Links Amendment Act1999—
Proclamation—the provisions of the Actthat are not in force commence 1 March2000, No. 14
Government Owned Corporations Act 1993— Government Owned Corporations(Brisbane Market AuthorityCorporatisation) Regulation 1999, No. 313
Health Act 1937— Health (Drugs and Poisons) AmendmentRegulation (No. 3) 1999, No. 326
Health Act 1937, Radiation Safety Act 1999— Radiation Safety Regulation 1999, No. 330and Explanatory Notes and RegulatoryImpact Statement for No. 330
Health Legislation Amendment Act 1999— Proclamation—part 4 of the Actcommences 20 February 2000, No. 25
Health Practitioners (Professional Standards)Act 1999—
Health Practitioners (ProfessionalStandards) Regulation 2000, No. 24 Proclamation—the provisions of the Actthat are not in force commence 7 February2000, No. 327
Health Practitioner Registration Boards(Administration) Act 1999—
Proclamation—the provisions of the Actthat are not in force commence 7 February2000, No. 328
Irvinebank State Treatment Works (Sale andOperation) Act 1990—
Irvinebank State Treatment Works (Saleand Operation) Agreement Order 1999,No. 314
The following responses to parliamentarycommittee reports, received during the recess,were tabled by The Clerk—
response from the Premier (Mr Beattie) toReport No. 44 of the Public AccountsCommittee entitled Review of the Reportof the Strategic Review of the QueenslandAudit Officeresponse from the Attorney-General andMinister for Justice and Minister for TheArts (Mr Foley) to Report No. 18 of theLegal, Constitutional and AdministrativeReview Committee entitled Issues ofelectoral reform raised in the Mansfielddecision: Regulating how-to-vote cardsand providing for appeals from the Courtof Disputed Returns
response from the Minister for Health (MrsEdmond) to Report No. 61 of the PublicWorks Committee entitled Public SectorBackflow Prevention Programs
interim response from the Minister forTransport and Minister for Main Roads (MrBredhauer) to Report No. 29 of theTravelsafe Committee entitled DrugDriving in Queensland
MINISTERIAL RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
The following responses to petitions, receivedduring the recess, were tabled by The Clerk—
Response from the Premier (Mr Beattie) to apetition presented by Mr Grice from1 petitioner, regarding the Heiner Inquirydocuments—
Thank you for your letter of 29 October1999, in relation to the petition receivedby the Parliament from Mr KevinLindeberg, which was lodged with you byMr Allan Grice, MLA, Member forBroadwater.
I have attached a copy of my response toMr Lindeberg. It would be appreciated ifyou would arrange for this response to betabled on my behalf.
23 DEC 1999Mr Kevin Lindeberg20 Lynton CourtALEXANDRA HILLS QLD 4161
Dear Mr LindebergI refer to your petition, addressed to theHonourable the Speaker and Members ofthe Legislative Assembly of Queensland,drawing the attention of the House to theHeiner Inquiry documents.
I believe that the issues raised in yourpetition have been the subject ofexhaustive investigations, and I do notintend to take any further action.
If you wish to raise this matter with HisExcellency the Governor of Queensland, Isuggest that you write directly to theGovernor's Official Secretary.
Response from the Minister for Communicationand Information, Local Government andPlanning, and Minister for Sport (MrMackenroth) to a petition presented by DrPrenzler from 186 petitioners, regarding adevelopment proposal in Gatton Shire—
Thank you for your letter of 25 November1999 enclosing a copy of a petitionconcerning a development proposal inGatton Shire recently received in theHouse.From discussions between Departmentaland Gatton Shire Council officers, theissue concerns a development applicationproposing the construction of a 2400m2
produce packing shed on a 2.7 hectareproperty at Gatton-Clifton Road. Thebuilding is intended for processing corninitially but would be available for use for arange of crops potentially operating formuch of the year. The proposal hasgenerated concern particularly forresidents on the opposite side of the roadin proximity to the subject site. A trend ofnew packing shed construction has beenapparent in the shire in recent years due tothe need for better packing conditions anddust free sheds reflecting, in part, qualityassurance requirements, especially forexport markets.
The application was submitted to Councilon 29 October 1999. To date, Council hasnot formally considered the application. Arequest for further information has beenissued by Council seeking detailsconcerning the proposed operation of thefacility, the need for the development andother matters. Advice has also beensought from State Government agencies,including the Department of NaturalResources. It is understood, followingdiscussions between the projectconsultant and the State agencies,modifications to the project design arebeing considered.
16 Papers 29 Feb 2000
The application will be publicly advertisedfollowing Council's receipt of a responseto the information request. The originalapplication and additional informationreceived from the applicant and referralagencies will be available for publicinspection during the public notificationperiod. Formal objections to theapplication can be made to Council at thattime, which give rise to appeal rights in thePlanning and Environment Court.The petitioner has referred to the status ofthe land as good quality agricultural landbeing category A under the 'StatePlanning Policy 1/92 Development andConservation of Agricultural Land' and hasrequested the House enforce the StatePlanning Policy and advise theDepartment of Natural Resources to directGatton Shire Council to convince theapplicant to seek alternative Category Cland.
State Planning Policy 1/92 seeks toconserve and manage good qualityagricultural land in the longer term. Thekey principle of the State Planning Policyconcerns whether an overriding need interms of benefit to the community can bedemonstrated for a development at aparticular location that leads to a loss ofgood agricultural land.Under the assessment process applying tothe application, the Department of NaturalResources has no formal role. TheDepartment can provide advice to GattonShire Council about the application butthe Department's advice has'recommendation' status only. It isunderstood, officers of the Department ofNatural Resources have been activeparticipants in the processing of theapplication to date, with discussionshaving taken place between Departmentalofficers and the project consultant.
The issue is a local government matterwith the responsibility for determining theapplication lying exclusively with Council.In this process, Council will be required toweigh up a range of issues with anyCouncil decision potentially subject toappeal. Under the planning scheme,Council in considering the applicationwould assess whether there is anoverriding need in terms of public benefitfor the proposal or whether the proposalcould be located on alternative sites oflesser agricultural quality. Other issuesconsidered could include traffic andassociated noise issues.I trust this information is of assistance toyou.
Response from the Minister for Communicationand Information, Local Government andPlanning, and Minister for Sport(Mr Mackenroth) to a petition presented by
Mr Mackenroth from 437 petitioners, regardingthe proposed industrial development at 284Fleming Road, Hemmant—
Thank you for your letter of 10 December1999 regarding the petition received bythe House on 8 December 1999 from Ms JScherrer on behalf of citizens ofQueensland regarding the proposedindustrial development at 284 FlemingRoad, Hemmant.
The petition requests:(i) the protection of all wetland areas in
Queensland from development withlegislation;
(ii) the placement of a full protectionorder on Brisbane's last remainingWorld War II ammunition magazines;
(iii) I not approve the rezoning of RuralResidential zoned land to Generaland Light Industry zoned land; and
(iv) the protection of residential areasfrom industrial developments.
(i) Protection of Wetland AreasThe importance of managing andprotecting coastal wetlands is reflected atNational and State levels. TheCommonwealth Government released theWetlands Policy of the CommonwealthGovernment of Australia in January 1997and the Queensland Government releasedthe Strategy for the Conservation andManagement of Queensland Wetlands inFebruary 1999. The State Government isalso preparing a State CoastalManagement Plan which will provide forthe avoidance of further loss ordegradation of coastal wetlands. A numberof regional coastal management plans willresult from this Plan.
In relation to the proposed industrialdevelopment at Hemmant, Brisbane CityCouncil (BCC) advises it is currentlyundertaking an investigation into theimpacts the proposed development mayhave on the adjoining wetland.(ii) Protection of the World War IIAmmunition Magazines
The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) has recently received a nominationto place the World War II Batteries on tothe Queensland Heritage Register. If theEPA accepts the nomination, BCC willhave to consult with the EPA on thepotential impacts of the proposeddevelopment mentioned in the petition onthe Magazines. The applicant mentioned inthe petition is currently negotiating withthe EPA to ensure the proposeddevelopment has minimal impact on theMagazines. BCC is awaiting advices fromthe EPA on this matter.
(iii) Rezoning of land from Rural Residentialto General and Light Industry Zone
29 Feb 2000 Papers 17
Under the Integrated Planning Act 1997(IPA), land cannot be "rezoned".Development which would previouslyhave required a rezoning now goesthrough the impact assessment processfor a material change of use through theIntegrated Development AssessmentSystem (IDAS) under the IPA. Councilmust assess and decide the application onits merits and any submitters under thepublic notification stage of IDAS haverights of appeal to the Planning andEnvironment Court. As Minister I havelimited powers to intervene in thisinstance.(iv) Protection of Residential Areas fromIndustrial Developments
Local government planning schemesgenerally provide for the protection ofresidential amenity through variousplanning measures. Under the IPA, adevelopment application of this type isassessed and decided by localgovernment, in this case BCC. In someinstances, the EPA may also be involved ifthe proposed development is likely tohave an adverse impact on theenvironment. Council will assess thedevelopment and take into account anyeffects the proposed development mayimpose on the surrounding residentialareas. As Minister I have limited powers tointervene in the Council's assessment ordecision-making on applications of thistype.I trust this information is of assistance. Ifany further information is required, do nothesitate to contact this office.
Response from the Minister for Communicationand Information, Local Government andPlanning, and Minister for Sport (MrMackenroth) to a petition presented by MrBeanland from 214 petitioners, regarding issuesraised by landowners of the Southern MoretonBay Islands—
Thank you for your letter of 10 December1999 regarding the petition received bythe House on 8 December 1999 from Mr JAbrahamson on behalf of the landownersof the Southern Moreton Bay Islands.
The petition from Mr Abrahamsonrequests:
(i) the Honourable P Beattie MP,Premier instruct myself to dismiss theRedland Shire Council and appointan Administrator;
(ii) the immediate cancellation of theSouthern Moreton Bay Islands LandUse and Development Study and acomprehensive, independent, publicinvestigation into the Study,consultation with landowners,devaluations and associated landdeals; and
(iii) to halt any sales of public land onthese Islands by the Council at"devalued" unimproved capital valuesuntil after an inquiry.
(i) Dismissal of Redland Shire CouncilUnder the Local Government Act 1993,the Governor in Council may dissolve alocal government and appoint anadministrator only if I am satisfied that thelocal government(a) has acted unlawfully or corruptly; or(b) has acted in a way that puts at risk its
capacity to exercise properly itsjurisdiction of local government; or
(c) is incompetent or cannot properlyexercise its jurisdiction of localgovernment.
I have no evidence to suggest theRedland Shire Council meets one or moreof these criteria and therefore am unableto recommend any action to dismiss theRedland Shire Council.(ii) Cancellation of the Southern MoretonBay Islands Land Use and DevelopmentStudy (SMBILUDS) and an independent,public investigation into the SMBILUDS,consultation with landowners,devaluations and associated land dealsThe SMBILUDS is a joint initiativebetween the Redland Shire Council andthe State Government. The purpose of theSMBILUDS is to produce a "Strategy" toguide ecologically sustainabledevelopment and management of land onthe Islands in response to the history ofinappropriate subdivision which hasoccurred, and the potential majorenvironmental impacts on the surroundingwaters of the Moreton Bay frominappropriate development on the Islands.The draft Strategy is aimed at resolving anumber of long standing land use andservicing issues as well as to put in place aframework to manage future developmentand conservation of the Islands.Independent consultants were appointedin 1996 to undertake a range of studiesand investigations leading to thepreparation of the SMBILUDS and itssubsequent draft Strategy. TheSMBILUDS consultants, Gutteridge,Haskins and Davey, completed the draftStrategy and a Background Report (basedon the technical investigations) whichwere then presented for public commentin late 1998. The draft Strategy was theresult of two years of intensive technicalinvestigations and more than 3,000previous public responses.The SMBILUDS program also involved acomprehensive consultation process,including the:• mail-out of four newsletters to
landowners;
18 Papers 29 Feb 2000
• establishment of a CommunityReference Group;
• organisation of a series of workshopsand discussion days on each of theIslands and on the mainland toenable issues to be raised byresidents and landowners andcomments made on a number ofpossible land-use scenarios;
• release of a series of media articlesand advertisements;
• organisation of an Island Summitconducted over 31 October 1997and 1 November 1997;
• establishment of a call centre withinthe Council to receive publicsubmissions and provide advice tocallers on the draft Strategy andBackground Report (679 enquirieswere received); and
• establishment of a specific web sitefor the draft Strategy document(which resulted in 811 landsearches).
The overall consultation process for theSMBILUDS comprised a significantcomponent of the SMBILUDS budget andrepresented a detailed and comprehensiveconsultation process.
Following the public display period, asubmission report was prepared. Thereport provided a detailed review of allwritten submissions which had beenreceived during the display period. It alsoincluded suggested amendments to thedraft Strategy in response to certainissues raised in the written submissions.The draft Strategy provides a frameworkfor the future development of the Islandsto ensure the features that make theIslands special are retained for existingand future generations. Part of therecommended draft Strategy involves theremoval of lands which are floodable orsubject to tidal inundation fromdevelopment, and the public purchase oflands which form part of significantconservation value areas on the Islands. Ifimplemented this public purchase programis intended to limit the developmentpotential and population growth on theIslands by reducing the number of existingsubdivided lots available for developmentthereby reducing the potential level ofundesirable environmental impacts.However, I advised the House on 29 April1999 I do not support compulsoryacquisition of land on the Islands toreduce the potential population.
The SMBILUDS is a genuine attempt torecognise current land use and servicingissues on the Southern Moreton BayIslands which have been a long-standingproblem for the Redland Shire Council and
Island residents. It has involved: acomprehensive, well-structured studyprogram undertaken by an independentspecialist consultancy firm; substantialcommitment of financial and in-kindresources from the State Government andthe Redland Shire Council; and significantpublic input from residents and absenteelandowners alike.At this point in time the Strategy remainsas a draft under consideration by the StateGovernment and no implementationactions have been initiated by Stateagencies. The draft Strategy (as with anyland use planning document of a similarnature) contains recommendations whichdo not accord with the wishes or theunrealised expectations of each and everystakeholder involved. This however is noreason to cancel the SMBILUDS orundertake an independent public enquiry.
In relation to the issue of devaluation,advice previously provided by theRegional Service Director, Valuations,Department of Natural Resources (DNR), isvaluations are determined on a localgovernment by local government basis ontwo main criteria:(i) information provided by the local
government on planning and buildingcriteria on each lot; and
(ii) recent sales information, specificallywhether there is a demand for thetype of lot.
Investigations indicate the value ofresidential land on the Islands has steadilydecreased over a five year period with nodirect correlation between when theSMBILUDS commenced (1996) or whenits draft recommendations were published(late 1998). It is understood thesevaluations reflect decreasing valuesresulting from the oversupply of land forsale, and planning information provided byRedland Shire Council including theidentification of land that may be subjectto drainage or other physical constraints.It also appears there has been a steadydecline in both residential land sales andthe total value of land sales for most of the1990s for all of the Islands other thanKarragarra.
DNR advice indicates recent sale pricesfor lots on the Islands are very low(except for foreshore lots and othersoffering views to the Bay), reflecting arealistic market appreciation of the limitedfuture development potential of differentareas on the Islands and the limitedavailability of services and infrastructure,including the decision in the early 1990snot to construct bridge access from themainland. Expectations of such bridgeaccess in the 1980s appears to havefuelled speculative land purchase activities
29 Feb 2000 Papers 19
at that time which resulted in higher landvaluations.
In relation to the 'associated land deals'referred to, it is my understanding any landtransfers occurring on the Islands haveeither been: sales initiated by landowners,land surrendered to Council bylandowners in lieu of rates, or landacquired by Redland Shire Council forrates in arrears under the LocalGovernment Act 1993.
(iii) The halt of any sales of public land onthese Islands by the Council at "devalued"unimproved capital values until after aninquiry.
With regard to the sale of public land at'devalued' unimproved capital values, theLocal Government Act 1993 provides alocal government may only dispose ofpublic land by auction or public tender.Under the tender process, if a localgovernment decides to accept a tender, itis required to accept the tender mostadvantageous to it. Where a localgovernment attempts to dispose of landby public auction or tender and the landdoes not sell, a local government maydispose of the land in any way it desires. Ihave no powers to intervene in suchmatters.
Notwithstanding, officers of myDepartment are not aware of anysignificant land disposal programme beingundertaken by Redland Shire Council inrelation to public land on the Islands.
I trust this information is of assistance. Ifany further information is required, do nothesitate to contact this office.
Response from the Minister for Health (MrsEdmond) to a petition presented by MrDalgleish from 972 petitioners, regarding theuse of the old Hervey Bay Hospital—
Thank you for your letter of 2 November1999 forwarding a copy of a petitionobjecting to the use of the old Hervey BayHospital as a drug assessment facility.
As you may be aware, I recentlyannounced that the proposal to locate amethadone clinic on the campus at the oldHervey Bay Hospital would not proceed.This announcement was reported in thelocal Hervey Bay papers.
Queensland Health is now considering anumber of options in relation to provisionof methadone services to the FraserCoast. However, no final decision has yetbeen made.
It is evident that the above developmentshave resolved the objection raised in thepetition. The need to address the Houseon this petition, therefore, does notappear warranted.
Thank you for bringing this issue to myattention. I trust this information is ofassistance.
Response from the Minister for Health (MrsEdmond) to a petition presented by MrsLavarch from 95 petitioners, regardingabortion—
Thank you for your letter dated 3December 1999 regarding the Petition(number 3050) received by theQueensland Legislative Assembly onabortion.The decision to continue or terminate apregnancy is a medical decision. There areprovisions in Section 282 of The CriminalCode which allow the termination ofpregnancy. Justice McGuire's 1986 rulingin the case of The Queen v. Bayliss andCullen allows for the provision oftermination of pregnancy services wherein the opinion of the medical practitioner arisk to the physical or mental health of thewoman existed at the time. These servicesare provided to women where continuingwith the pregnancy would place thephysical or mental health of the mother atrisk.
As to the issue of removing the referenceto abortion from The Criminal Code, I amadvised that the Attorney-Generalestablished a Taskforce chaired byVirginia Sturgess titled The Taskforce onthe Impact of the Criminal Code onWomen. I am also advised that theAttorney-General has submitted thefindings and recommendations of theTaskforce to Cabinet. It is for this reasonthat I suggest the petition also be broughtto the attention of The Honourable MattFoley, MLA, Attorney-General and Ministerfor Justice and Minister for The Arts.Abortions are available in the public healthsystem, although the majority of abortionsare provided in the private sector and areeligible for a Medicare rebate.
Thank you for bringing this matter to myattention and I trust that the aboveinformation is of assistance.
Response from the Minister for Transport andMinister for Main Roads (Mr Bredhauer) to apetition presented by Mr Hollis from 4,587petitioners, regarding public transport links toRedcliffe—
I refer to your letter to the Honourable theMinister for Transport and Minister forMain Roads dated 17 September 1999regarding a petition from the Triple BayDevelopment Company concerning adirect rail link into the Brisbanemetropolitan rail network and theupgrading of the Houghton Highway,rather than a rail corridor to Petrie.
In accordance with Standing OrderNo. 238A of the Queensland Legislative
20 Papers 29 Feb 2000
Assembly, the Minister has provided aresponse to the principal petitioner.
The Honourable the Minister hasrequested that I provide the response toyou for tabling. Accordingly, I haveattached the response provided to theHonourable the Speaker and thesubsequent response provided to theprincipal petitioner. An electronic copy ofthe body of the response is also provided.
Yours sincerely
(sgd) R Hillier
(R D Hillier)
Manager (Cabinet and MinisterialServices)
18 Oct 1999
Hon Ray Hollis MPSpeaker—Queensland ParliamentMember for RedcliffePO Box 827REDCLIFFE QLD 4020
Dear Speaker
I refer to the petition from the Triple BayDevelopment Company which wasreceived by the Legislative Assembly on16 September 1999 and referred to me bythe Clerk of the Parliament on 17September 1999. The petition raises theissues of the construction of a dedicatedpublic transport link to Redcliffe and theupgrading of the Houghton Highway.
As you may be aware, the IntegratedRegional Transport Plan for South EastQueensland (IRTP) was produced toensure that the region's transportproblems were adequately addressed inan integrated and sustainable way. TheIRTP was prepared with the benefit ofsignificant community input on the type oftransport needed. It seeks to find abalance between private motor travel,public transport, cycling and walking. Itrecommended the examination of theprovision of a dedicated line haul publictransport system for the Petrie to Kippa-Ring area.
Queensland Transport will shortlycommence the Petrie to Kippa-Ring PublicTransport Corridor Study. This study willdetermine the feasibility, location andpreferred development of the Petrie toKippa-Ring public transport corridor,including the most appropriate transportmode. The study is expected to takeapproximately 18 months to complete.
The proposed corridor would form thebackbone of an integrated public transportsystem for the area, to link established andgrowth areas between Redcliffe andPetrie, and beyond. The study willspecifically develop a vision of an
integrated public transport system for thearea, including feeder services fromRedcliffe and other areas adjacent to theproposed corridor.
The prospect of upgrading the HoughtonHighway to include a rail corridor was notidentified as being required in either theIRTP or the recently developed draft IRTP2007 Vision document.
The current traffic volume on theHoughton Highway is 33000 vehicles perday and the growth rate is relatively low.Notwithstanding the effects of trafficincidents, the bridge has sufficientcapacity to cater for expected growth.Therefore major investment in theduplication or provision of additional laneson the existing bridge structure does nothave a high priority due to the largeinvestment required to undertake suchwork and the competing priorities acrossthe overall road network.
The principal of the Triple BayDevelopment Company, Mr RobMcJannett, has written on a number ofoccasions suggesting possible transportsystems to operate between Brisbane andRedcliffe, including Maglev and monorailtrain systems. Mr McJannett's letters willbe treated as formal submissions to thePetrie to Kippa-Ring Public TransportCorridor Study and will be passed to thestudy consultants, once appointed, forconsideration.
Yours sincerely
STEVE BREDHAUER
Minister for Transport and Minister forMain RoadsMember for CookMr R McJannettDirectorTriple Bay Development Co.60 Henzell StreetKIPPA RING Q 4021
Dear Mr McJannett
Further to my letter of 5 October 1999,please find enclosed for your information acopy of the reply from the Hon SteveBredhauer MLA.
As stated by the Minister your writtensuggestions on possible transportsystems to operate between Brisbane andRedcliffe will be treated as formalsubmissions to the Petrie to Kippa-RingPublic Transport Corridor Study.
Yours sincerely
(sgd) Ray Hollis
HON RAY HOLLIS MPSpeakerQueensland Parliament21 October 1999
29 Feb 2000 Committee Appointments 21
Response from the Minister for Environmentand Heritage and Minister for Natural Resources(Mr Welford) to a petition presented by MrMackenroth from 437 petitioners, regarding theproposed development at 284 Fleming Road,Hemmant—
Thank you for your letter of 10 December1999 concerning a petition received bythe Queensland Legislative Assembly forthe proposed development by MasterButchers Limited of 284 Fleming Road,Hemmant.
The application for the industrialdevelopment has been submitted to theBrisbane City Council under theIntegrated Planning Act 1997. Theassessment role of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) is concurrencedue to the site being listed on theEnvironmental Management Registerunder the Environmental Protection Act1994 (Part 9). The Council, the applicantand officers from the EPA are presentlydiscussing ways to endeavour to achievesustainable outcomes on the application.
Thank you for bringing this matter to myattention and I trust this information is ofassistance.
MINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THECLERK
The Clerk tabled the following paper, receivedfrom the following Minister during the recess—
Letter dated 11 January 2000 from theMinister for Environment and Heritage andMinister for Natural Resources (MrWelford) to Mrs Lavarch, Chair of theScrutiny of Legislation Committeeregarding the Environmental ProtectionAmendment Regulation (No. 2) of 1999
MINISTERIAL PAPERS
The following papers were tabled—
(a) Minister for Communication andInformation, Local Government andPlanning and Minister for Sport (MrMackenroth)—
Local Government and Electoral andBoundaries Review Commission—
Report on the limited reviewableLocal Government matter affectingMurilla Shire/Bendemere Shire—Changes to the external boundariesof the area of the Shire of Murilla andthe area of the Shire of Bendemere—November 1999
Review of composition—AramacShire Council—Final determination—January 2000
(b) Minister for Health (Mrs Edmond)—
Report on official visit to China from 12 to22 December 1999.
CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESAppointment of Hon. J. Fouras
Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (10.17 a.m.) by leave, withoutnotice: I move—
"That the Honourable Jim Fouras beappointed as Chairman of Committees ofthe Whole House."Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—
ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.17 a.m.): Isecond the motion moved by the Premier.
Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (SurfersParadise—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition)(10.17 a.m.): I move the followingamendment—
"That Mr Fouras' name be deletedand that Mr Laming's name be inserted."
Resolved in the negative.Motion (Mr Beattie) agreed to.
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTSHon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—
ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.24 a.m.): byleave, without notice: I move—
"(a) That the Honourable Jim Fouras bedischarged as a member of theScrutiny of Legislation Committeeand that Mrs Miller be appointed tothat Committee;
(b) That Dr Clark be discharged as amember of the ParliamentaryCriminal Justice Committee and thatMr Wilson be appointed to thatCommittee; and
(c) That Mr Wilson be discharged as amember of the Legal, Constitutionaland Administrative Review
22 Questions Without Notice 29 Feb 2000
Committee and that Mr Pitt beappointed to that Committee.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTChanges in Ministry; Appointment of
Parliamentary Secretaries
Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (10.25 a.m.), by leave: I wish toinform the House that on 14 December 1999His Excellency the Governor accepted theresignation of Robert James Gibbs as Ministerfor Tourism, Sport and Racing and acceptedthe resignation of Robert James Gibbs as amember of the Executive Council.
I lay upon the table of the House a copyof the Queensland Government GazetteExtraordinary of 14 December 1999 containingthe relevant notifications, which isattachment A.
I also inform the House that (a) on 16December 1999 His Excellency the Governoraccepted the resignations of Terence MichaelMackenroth as Minister for Communicationand Information and Minister for LocalGovernment, Planning, Regional and RuralCommunities; Henry Palaszczuk as theMinister for Primary Industries; and Merri Roseas the Minister for Emergency Services; and(b) appointed Terence Michael Mackenroth asMinister for Communication and Information,Local Government and Planning and Ministerfor Sport; Henry Palaszczuk as Minister forPrimary Industries and Rural Communities;Merri Rose as Minister for Tourism and Racingand Stephen Robertson as Minister forEmergency Services; and (c) appointedStephen Robertson as a member of theExecutive Council.
I also inform the House that, inaccordance with the Constitution Act, on 16December 1999 the appointment of StephenRobertson as Parliamentary Secretary to theDeputy Premier ended. His Excellency theGovernor, acting by and with the advice of theExecutive Council, appointed Dr Lesley AnneClark as Parliamentary Secretary to theMinister for Health.
I lay upon the table of the House a copyof the Queensland Government GazetteExtraordinary of 16 December 1999 containingthe relevant notifications, which isattachment B. The Queensland GovernmentGazette Extraordinary also contains a copy ofHis Excellency the Governor's proclamationmade under the Officials in Parliament Act1897 on 16 December 1999.
I also inform the House that, inaccordance with the Constitution Act 1867, on2 February 2000 the appointment of DarrylJames Briskey as Parliamentary Secretary tothe Treasurer ended. On 3 February 2000 HisExcellency the Governor, acting by and withthe advice of the Executive Council, appointedDarryl James Briskey as ParliamentarySecretary to the Minister for Education.
Finally, I inform the House that, inaccordance with the Acts Interpretation Act1954, the Constitution Act 1867 and theOfficials in Parliament Act 1896, His Excellencythe Governor, acting by and with the advice ofthe Executive Council, approved AdministrativeArrangements Order (No. 1) 2000. I lay uponthe table of the House a copy of theQueensland Government Gazette of 25February 2000, which is attachment C.
NOTICE OF MOTION
Tree-clearing Guidelines
Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (SurfersParadise—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition)(10.29 a.m.): I give notice that tonight I shallmove—
"That this Parliament supports therepeal of the Beattie Government'smandatory tree-clearing laws and thedevelopment of scientifically based,voluntary regional tree-clearing guidelinesfor freehold land by local land-holder andland care groups."
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Job Creation
Mr BORBIDGE (10.29 a.m.): I have aquestion for the Minister for Employment,Training and Industrial Relations, who was inthe Chamber. I assume he was called outbriefly.
Mr Elder: That has destroyed the gameplan for today.
Mr Beattie: Not that that would be hard.
Mr BORBIDGE: We like to see Ministersin the Chamber for question time. I refer theMinister to the demolition of his Government'sdismal job creation record by MorgansStockbroking chief economist, Michael Knox,who has determined that job creation hashalved under his stewardship from in excess of60,000 new jobs per year under the coalitionto below 30,000 per year under hisGovernment, and I ask: why has job creationin Queensland halved under Labor?
29 Feb 2000 Questions Without Notice 23
Mr BRADDY: It is amazing that we get aquestion such as this from the Opposition,which has continually attacked our labourmarket and job creation programs for theunemployed and the apprentices and traineesof this State. When members opposite were inGovernment, they cited figures from severalyears before. By the time they leftGovernment, the job creation level was notthat which the Leader of the Oppositionclaimed. We have continued to create jobs forthe long-term unemployed. As we go aroundthe State, we are complimented by formerNational Party members of this House andNational Party mayors, such as the Mayor ofPine Rivers, Yvonne Chapman, for the jobsthat we are creating and the way in whichcouncils are offered the opportunity to workwith us. We have created thousands andthousands of jobs for trainees andapprentices.
Mr Santoro: The figures don't show it.
Mr BRADDY: The figures do show it. Thefigures show that the greatest number of newapprenticeships in Queensland's history werecreated over the past 12 months under thisGovernment. If we had the participation rate inQueensland that the other States have, ourunemployment rate would be down 2%.
Mr Santoro: Our participation rate fell lastyear.
Mr BRADDY: The net migration rate isrising. Under the stewardship of membersopposite, net migration into Queensland hadceased. Under this Government, it is againincreasing. We will continue to createprograms for the long-term unemployed andalso for the trainees and apprentices of thisState. Therefore, that will have an impact overtime on the net figures for both jobs growthand the number of unemployed. We willcontinue to do that. We now see that we havealready had great success in relation toapprentices and trainees—the most successful12 months in Queensland's history. For aslong as we are in Government, jobs growth willcontinue right across the spectrum.
Job CreationMr BORBIDGE: I draw the attention of the
Minister for Employment, Training andIndustrial Relations to the fact that at theheight of the Asian economic downturn underthe previous coalition Government twice asmany jobs were being created than are beingcreated now, and I ask: does he stand by theelection promise of his leader to reduceunemployment to 5% or has he abandoned it?
Mr BRADDY: The election commitment ofour leader, which the Labor Party stands by,was that over five years we would doeverything in our power to get theunemployment rate down to 5%.
Mr Santoro: It was four years.
Mr Borbidge interjected.
Mr BRADDY: I heard the Leader of theOpposition, the honourable member forSurfers Paradise, speaking a half-truth aboutfour years. Everybody in this State, includingthe honourable member, knows that the aimwas to achieve a 5% unemployment rate overfive years. But he tries to weasel his wayaround it with a half-truth. I have been in thisplace since 1985 and I know of no-one whoplays around with the truth and the facts morethan the member for Surfers Paradise. Whatwe have is a commitment to which weadhere—a commitment laughed at bymembers opposite and all other conservativesin this country and a commitment now madeby Peter Costello, the Federal Treasurer. Wewill continue to strive for that. We promised afive-year commitment, and we are workinghard. Would we have the $283m Breaking theUnemployment Cycle if the ragtag lot oppositewere in Government? There certainly wouldnot be such a program. The unemploymentrate in this State would have risen considerablyhigher than it is now if they had stayed inpower. We would not have record numbers ofapprentices in this State if the honourablemember for Surfers Paradise was still thePremier of this State. We maintain ourcommitment to go for a 5% unemploymentrate over five years, and we are proud of ourcommitment. We are still working hard at it.
FloodsMr SULLIVAN: I refer the Premier to the
fact that Queenslanders have seen on theirtelevision screens the extensive damage tolarge areas of Queensland caused by torrentialrain in the central west and by Cyclone Stevein the far north, and I ask: what has theGovernment done to help Queenslandersaffected by the floods?
Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourablemember for Chermside for his question,because I am sure all honourable membersare concerned about the implications of theflood and the damage to large parts of thisState. This Government has acted quickly anddeterminedly to ensure that all possibleresources are devoted to helping peopleaffected by flooding and to get the State backto normal as soon as possible. Emergency
24 Questions Without Notice 29 Feb 2000
Services Minister Stephen Robertson haspersonally superintended the response to thefloods in central Queensland and thedevastation caused to far-north Queenslandby Cyclone Steve. As many honourablemembers would know, last week I visitedWinton and Longreach to speak to thoseaffected by the floods and to those working sohard to help them. I was accompanied by theMinister for Mines and Energy, the member forMount Isa.
The Commonwealth/State natural disasterrelief arrangements were put in place andinclude disaster relief assistance schemes forindividuals and families suffering personalhardship, concessional loans to primaryproducers and small business, counter-disasteroperations and the restoration of public assets.I know the Minister for Primary Industries alsowould have explained that during his visit tothe west. I draw the attention of the House tothe fact that last week I launched the Premier'sDisaster Relief Appeal to help Queenslandersin need of additional assistance as a result ofthe floods and the cyclone. People can donateto the Premier's Disaster Relief Fund at anybranch of the Commonwealth Bank or theycan ring 1800 150411 between 8 a.m. and6 p.m. Monday to Friday. The StateGovernment launched the appeal with a grantof $50,000, and the Commonwealth Bank,which is handling donations from the public,gave $5,000.
One of the lasting impressions that I willhave from my time in this role is that of my visitto Winton and Longreach—and I know themember for Gregory will share this—where Isaw great Australians working together underenormous difficulties. People turned up to helpfamilies move out of houses. They had nevermet them before, but they all worked togetheras Australians to overcome the enormousdifficulties created by the floodwaters. I knowthat I speak on behalf of all honourablemembers when I say that it was great to seethose Australians working together toovercome this adversity.
I wish also to pass on my condolencesand those of all other honourable members tothe family of a 17 year old youth discovereddrowned in Five Mile Creek, south of Cardwell,at 6 p.m. yesterday. The deceased had beenwhitewater rafting on tyre tubes in the creekwith five friends when he was reported missingat about 3.45 p.m. The deceased is from ahighly respected family in Cardwell involvedwith the local supermarket. That family wouldbe distressed. I want them to know that allhonourable members are thinking of them atthis time. There is nothing that we can say or
do that will ease that pain. Unfortunately, thetragedy cannot be erased, but we do have anopportunity to pass on our condolences. Inconclusion, we will work with theCommonwealth to ensure that the peopleaffected by the floods are supported properly.
Unemployment
Dr WATSON: I refer the Treasurer to hisBudget forecast of 7.75% unemployment forthe year 1999-2000. I also refer to the latesteconomic update by Queensland Treasury,which confirms that the State's annualemployment growth is just 2%, compared with2.8% for the rest of Australia. In other words,according to his own department the State'semployment growth rate is now only 70% ofthe national average. I ask: can the Treasurerinform the House whether Treasury revisedQueensland's unemployment forecast when itrevised Queensland's economic growthforecast from 3.75% to 4% earlier this month?If it did not, can the Treasurer assure theHouse that the Government will achieve itsBudget forecast of 7.75%, despiteunemployment of 8% or more for five of thepast seven months?
Mr HAMILL: I am pleased that the Leaderof the Liberal Party has not only survived hisrecent leadership travails but is able to ask thisquestion today. Yes, we have just had themid-year Budget review and QueenslandTreasury has just reviewed its economicforecast for the year. With respect to thelabour market, there are a number of findingswhich have been drawn to my attention. For astart, Queensland continues to have thestrongest labour force growth of any State inthe Commonwealth. Whilst we have seen verysubstantial jobs growth—
Dr Watson interjected.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forMoggill has asked the question. The memberfor Moggill will cease interjecting.
Mr HAMILL: I know why the member forClayfield wanted to get rid of him; he neverlistens to what people are saying about him.
We have seen strong labour force growth.We have also seen strong employmentgrowth. I might say, just to understand theenormity of labour force growth, that for theyear ending January, which is the time framethat the Leader of the Liberal Party wasseeking to inquire about, labour force growth inQueensland was 2.1%, exceeding the growthof labour force for the whole of the country by0.2%. It is also the case that at 65%, theparticipation rate in Queensland is the highest
29 Feb 2000 Questions Without Notice 25
recorded for over a year. It is also significantlyabove the national participation rate asindicated by the Minister for Employment in hisanswer to the question asked of him by theLeader of the Opposition.
In answer to the matter that wasspecifically referred to by the member forMoggill, yes, Queensland Treasury hasreviewed the unemployment figure for the yearand the most recent advice to me from theforecasters is that Treasury stands by theBudget forecast of unemployment averaging7.75% across the whole of this 12-monthperiod.
Virgin Airlines
Mr PURCELL: I refer the Premier to theQueensland Government's success inattracting the Australian headquarters of VirginAirlines to Brisbane, and I ask: will he spell outto the Parliament the benefits of Virgin locatingin this State?
Mr BEATTIE: I am only too happy to dothat. I thank the honourable member for thequestion. This is the sort of activity we get outof a can-do Government: 750 new jobs atVirgin's headquarters and a call centre,maintenance base and operations centre. Weare delivering for Queensland. Of those jobs,150 will be at a call centre which could besituated in regional Queensland. There will bea third national airline based at BrisbaneAirport that will offer low cost travel. That will bethe greatest boost—a most significantboost—to the Queensland tourism industry ina generation. There will be a large increase inthe number of tourists arriving in Queensland,which means more jobs for our second biggestindustry. It is a major signal to business all overthe world that Queensland is a can-do Statesuitable for company headquarters.
Together with the major Boeing presenceand other developments, we will now beviewed as a major aviation centre in the world.Virgin has indicated to us that it will beinvesting $40m a year for each of the next fiveyears. But just as importantly, Virgin has alsosignalled that it will be looking at usingQueensland as a base for other commercialactivities. We can expect that even more jobswill flow from this. Virgin is also active in theentertainment and communication areas.
I table for the information of the Housesome news reports published prior to our beingsuccessful in attracting Virgin, all indicating thatMelbourne was going to be the successfulbidder until we intervened and won this forQueensland. Let me give honourable
members an update, because it is importantthat they know the facts. There was a verylimited incentive package provided. Thoseincentives were largely related to training andset-up costs. The substantial part of thepackage entails the forgoing of revenue to theGovernment over a given period, provided thecompany meets job targets as agreed to. Inthis case there is no cost to the taxpayer,because the revenue that is being forgonewould not have been received if Virgin had notlocated here. This is a small investment for anenormous return for Queensland, including thejobs that I have spelt out.
There was no bidding war. TheQueensland business proposal was put in theabsence of any knowledge of what the otherStates were offering. It was the strength of theQueensland business case, of whichGovernment incentives were only one part,which determined the company's decision tocome here. The CEO of Virgin Australia, MrBrett Godfrey, is to take up residence inQueensland next week. The company isalready recruiting staff and is scheduled toopen its call centre in April. The company hasalready located premises in Fortitude Valleywhile it waits for its new premises to beconstructed at Brisbane Airport. The companyis aggressively addressing the requirements forits airline operations licence, and weunderstand that the company plans tocommence operations prior to the SydneyOlympics. This Government is delivering forQueensland.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling themember for Maroochydore, I ask the CCAmembers to have their meeting outside,please.
Waiting Lists
Miss SIMPSON: I ask the Minister forHealth: given that Premier Peter Beattie canreceive his urgent treatment for basal cellcarcinoma in the private sector, what is theMinister doing to ensure that otherQueenslanders can receive the same urgenttreatment on time, and how does she justifyK. Phillips of Gin Gin having to wait longer thanthe recommended maximum 30 days for asimilar procedure?
Mrs EDMOND: Maybe this has somethingto do with the fact that the Premier is goingprivate. When we consider that more fundshave been poured into the private healthsystem to bolster it up than theCommonwealth Government puts into theentire Queensland public health system,maybe that is where the member for
26 Questions Without Notice 29 Feb 2000
Maroochydore should be lobbying to startgetting Queenslanders a fair deal.
Let us have a little look at this. Alreadythe Commonwealth has admitted that it isgoing to cost $1.6 billion to prop up the privatehealth system and put in more private healthservices. That is now expected to be morethan $2 billion and it cannot say how muchmore it will be. It has attracted something like80,000 new members, but at what cost? At$20,000 per new member! They could havenot only had their skin cancer out; they couldhave had bypass surgery, a couple of hips andwhatever else they wanted at the same costas the propping up of the private healthsystem. Most of that benefit went to existingmembers such as, presumably, the Premier. Itwould have been cheaper for theCommonwealth Government to have paid forevery person over the age of 65 to have basicprivate hospital cover. I just want honourablemembers to think about that—every personover the age of 65 could have had basicprivate hospital cover for the amount of moneythat has been poured into propping up theprivate health system.
I am interested in the comments that themember makes, because there has been noreduction in the workload of the publichospitals. But even so, what are the figuresshowing in relation to waiting times? As at July1997 there were 4,565 Category 2 semi-urgentpatients who had waited more than thepreferred time of 90 days. Now—in Februarythis year—there was a quarter of thatnumber—1,093 patients. The other thing,though, was that as at July 1997 tragicallythere were 513 Category 2 semi-urgentpatients who had waited for longer than ayear. In January this year that number was 20.
So we are working on waiting lists. No-onecan deny that. The fact that the Oppositionnow has to dredge around in Category 3—thenon-urgent, the ones that often actually curethemselves if they wait—means that—
Miss SIMPSON: I rise to a point of order.This is Category 1, urgent surgery. We aretalking about urgent surgery.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forMaroochydore will resume her seat.
Mrs EDMOND: Members of theOpposition do not like the facts. They simplydo not like to hear the facts. That is what I amgiving them. These are the facts. They arenow trying to change the debate from what isneeded for urgent and semi-urgent, which iswhere our success is notable, to the non-urgent.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling themember for Logan, I inform members that thisyear I will no longer accept the taking offrivolous points of order during question time. Iam going to put the pause button on—stopthe clock. Time for questions will be lostthrough the taking of those points of order. Icall the member for Logan.
Regional Forest Agreement
Mr MICKEL: My question is to the DeputyPremier and Minister for State Developmentand Minister for Trade. Can the DeputyPremier tell the House of the timber industry'sreaction to the Federal Government's lack offinancial support for Queensland's proposal fora regional forest agreement.
Mr ELDER: I thank the member for thequestion. What we have seen in the past weekis the final proof that for the coalition inCanberra the RFA has been about politicsrather than jobs. That is a sad fact and a sadreality. The timber communities in south-eastQueensland have been sold out badly by theLiberals and the National Party. The currentOpposition in Queensland could not deliver anRFA outcome when they were in Government.Their Federal colleagues could not deliver anRFA outcome. What is more sinister in relationto the coalition's effort is the betrayal by thesell-out six, the Federal members whorepresent those rural communities, the peoplein the bush.
Our RFA was endorsed by the timberindustry, the conservation movement, thecommunities and the mill owners. It is a roll ofhonour, or should I say a roll of dishonour.There is Cameron Thompson, the member forBlair. This is not the first time he has sold outthe member for Caloundra and formerTreasurer to Canberra. There is also PaulNeville, the member for Hinkler; Mal Brough,the member for Caboolture; Kay Elson, themember for Ford; Alex Somlyay, the memberfor Fairfax; and Ian Macfarlane, the memberfor Groome. They are the sell-out six. Theyshould wear their membership of the coalitionlike a crown of thorns.
What those six Federal members did wasgo to John Howard and say, "We don't wantany money for this RFA and our communities.We don't want you to fund the rural andregional communities and the rural andregional timber industries and their workersand families in our electorates." This wouldhave to be the most abysmal sell-out that Ihave ever seen by Federal members ofParliament in the time that I have been in
29 Feb 2000 Questions Without Notice 27
Parliament. It is the worst sell-out that I haveseen by Federal members of Parliament.
The timber industry is unimpressed. Myword they are unimpressed, and they have agood right to be! The industry unanimouslyendorsed our plan. It was the hardwooddivision that unanimously endorsed the plan,and it is the hardwood division that has 90% ofCrown reserves. They are hardly the big end oftown, as those in the Opposition have beentrying to prove. We set up those long-termagreements. It has had endorsement fromevery player in the industry in Queensland.The only people who have been negative inrelation to the outcome have been those sell-out six and the Federal Minister for Forestry,Wilson Tuckey.
Wilson Tuckey has been a real fly in theointment in relation to this issue. He has beenmore concerned about his position in WesternAustralia than he has about the interests ofthe industry in Queensland. He has been moreconcerned about outcomes in his own State.That has overridden his decision-makingprocesses right across Australia. We wouldhave had a much better chance of gettingfunding for an RFA if Stan Howard had been atimber mill owner in the South Burnett. It isabout time those opposite looked after theirrural constituencies.
Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommissioner
Mr PAFF: My question is to the Premier.Do the Premier and his Government respectand support the position of the ParliamentaryCriminal Justice Commissioner, Ms Julie Dick,SC?
Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourablemember for his question. I read a number ofcomments in Saturday's Courier-Mail in relationto this issue. Like all matters that are raised inthe public domain, I studied them with keeninterest. I subsequently had discussions withthe Attorney on these matters. Somemembers would be aware that we have beengoing through a detailed assessment of theCriminal Justice Act. In conjunction with theMinister for Police and Corrective Services, weare examining issues relating to the CrimeCommission.
I have indicated publicly—and I repeat itin this House today—that we believe that theCriminal Justice Commission and the Act thatgoverns it are largely supported in their currentposition. There may be some amendments tothe Criminal Justice Act, but they will be donein consultation with the Criminal Justice
Commission. The same will apply in relation tothe Crime Commission. So we are talkingabout modest change. We are talking aboutchanges to bring together the roles of theCrime Commission, the CJC and the PoliceService so that they do what they are requiredto do by statute, that is, serve the communityand respond to particular objectives set inlegislation. They will be modest changes. Weare taking our time in doing it because we willbe doing it through a long consultationprocess. We will not be rushed.
In terms of the particular issue that themember raised—I believe it is appropriate thatthat be considered as part of that review. TheAttorney and I discussed this issue onSaturday following the report which appearedin the editorial of the Courier-Mail. We haveagreed that that will be considered as part ofthat review. At the appropriate time, we willtake something to Cabinet. That will obviouslybe brought into this House for futureconsideration.
I point out that I have not had a chanceto study the details of the circumstances. Wetook a particular position in relation to thismatter when the Borbidge Governmentintroduced this legislation in the House. Therewere certain matters that we opposed at thattime, which members will recall. If membersstudy the record, they will see that. I do havesome concerns about aspects relating tosecrecy, because I believe—and it is clearlyillustrated in the track record of thisGovernment—in a very open process. All ofthat will be considered as part of that review.So the answer to the member's question isthat we will be studying carefully as part of thereview the current role, how it has worked andwhether any changes are necessary.
State Accounts
Ms BOYLE: I refer the Treasurer to therecent release of the Queensland StateAccounts, and I ask: what do those figuresmean for the Queensland economy?
Mr HAMILL: The member for Cairns hasshown a particular interest in the economicperformance of Queensland since her electionto this Parliament. I am pleased to report thatthe recently released State Accounts showthat the Queensland economy continues toperform well above the performance of thenational economy as a whole. In fact, thegrowth in the September quarter, to which thehonourable member refers, was a 1.6%increase in Gross State Product, a fullpercentage point above the growth in thenational economy during the same period.
28 Questions Without Notice 29 Feb 2000
Contributing to that growth has been ahigh level of household consumption and ahigher than expected volume of net exports.However, I might also say that, in terms of thecontribution to overall State growth, the verysubstantial growth in the volume of exportshas been countered, to some degree, by thecontinuing difficulties that many of ourexporters are facing with commodity prices.Also, the fact that our domestic economy isgrowing strongly has a tendency to suck inimports, counteracting the contribution thatexports might make to overall growth. Therehave been strong tourism numbers. There hasalso been some strength in the housingmarket. However, in relation to that, I have tosay that that may well be the storm before thelull which will come with the goods and servicestax in the middle of this year.
Nevertheless, in terms of the StateAccounts, Queensland Treasury has revisedthe State growth forecast for the year. Ithought that this might be a matter that maybe of some interest to the member for Moggill.He has certainly been eager to have StateTreasury downgrading forecasts. I am sure themember for Moggill will rejoice with othermembers in the House to know that Treasury'smid-year review of economic forecasting hasdetermined that, on the basis of a variety ofindices, GSP growth in the State this yearlooks set to exceed the Budget forecast.
Dr Watson: I said that—4%.
Mr HAMILL: Yes, it is 4% growth, which ishigher than the forecast that the FederalTreasury has made for Australia as awhole—higher, indeed, than what was forecastwhen the Budget papers were presented inthis Parliament last year.
Just to make the Opposition feel reallygood, though, I commend to them a recentstatement in the State of the States reportreleased by Solomon Smith Barney, themerchant bank. It is always good to find athird-party endorsement. That report stated—
"By any measure Queensland is thestrongest state, fiscally, in Australia.Indeed, it would be hard to find a nationalor sub-national government anywhere inthe world that has a superior financialposition to Queensland."
Game, set and match.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling themember for Toowoomba South, I advise that Ihave given permission for the Courier-Mail totake some file photographs. I thought I wouldlet members know so that they can comb theirhair, if necessary.
Police Traffic Infringement QuotasMr HORAN: I refer the Minister for Police
and Corrective Services to the denial of theexistence of a quota system or kill sheets byCommissioner O'Sullivan in a letter to theeditor of the Sunday Mail on 13 February, thesubsequent Statewide ban on quotas byDeputy Commissioner McGibbon on 17February, the Minister's denial of the existenceof quotas on ABC radio on 22 February, and,finally, his admission on 23 February thatquotas did exist, and I ask: isn't this bizarre trailof denials and admissions positive proof thatthe Minister has totally lost touch with hisportfolio, that he does not have a clue what ishappening, and that the Police Service nolonger has the confidence even to tell himwhat is happening?
Mr BARTON: I suppose this is thequestion that had to be expected. I am verypleased that it came, because it gives me theclear opportunity—yet again—to state theposition of the service at its seniormanagement level, the position of thisGovernment and the position of myself asMinister.
When this issue was first raised inJanuary, my colleague the then Acting Ministerfor Police, Robert Schwarten, made it veryclear that this Government's position was onein which we were not accepting quotas andthat there was no such thing as kill sheets thatwere endorsed by this Government, by him asthe Acting Minister, by me as the Minister or bythe Police Service. My colleague MrSchwarten then called on anybody who hadsuch information to bring it forward, becausewe would do something about it, and—surprise, surprise—nobody did.
In terms of a document that was partlypublished by the Courier-Mail last week, I havesince had a good look at that document, and Ihave discovered that it is from the FortitudeValley Police Station. Both myself and thePolice Commissioner, shoulder to shoulder ata press conference early last week, made itclear—yet again—that if such activities werebeing undertaken or anything that could beconstrued as such, then they were notendorsed by the service and they were notendorsed by the Government, and certainlynot by me. At that point in time, I certainly hadnot seen the Fortitude Valley one, and it isfairly clear that the Fortitude Valley one, whichis the acknowledgment, could be construed asa kill sheet. I had an absolute denial from thePolice Service that there were such things askill sheets out there, or such a system ofquotas in existence.
29 Feb 2000 Questions Without Notice 29
It is very clear from looking at the fulldocument from Fortitude Valley that its primaryrole is to do what even the shadow Ministeracknowledged in a column yesterday needs tobe done: if the service is going to properlyaddress offending behaviour in terms ofspeeding, then such occurrences need to bereported back, and the service needs to beanalysing where that is taking place so that itcan address it properly.
There is no such thing as me changingmy position. There is a very clear position fromthis Government that it is opposed to quotas,that it is opposed to kill sheets, if in fact theyexist—
Mr Horan: Four examples.Mr BARTON: I keep hearing about four. I
have seen one. I want to make this very clearto the shadow Minister and to anybody else: ifthere are any more, get them to me, becauseI will make sure, as will the PoliceCommissioner, that they do not occur. Wecannot look over every police officer's shoulderevery day—nor should we—but the instructionsfrom myself and the instructions from thePolice Commissioner are very, very, very clear,and it will be a very foolish police officer whowill go against the instructions of hiscommissioner, when backed so solidly by hisMinister and this Government.
Floods
Mr PEARCE: I refer the Minister forEnvironment and Heritage and NaturalResources to the flood conditions in westernand north Queensland and ask: whatmeasures is this Government taking to protectcommunities from the impacts of floods in thefuture?
Mr WELFORD: I thank the honourablemember for his question. It is fortuitous that,just before these recent floods, theGovernment had already anticipated thepotential problems and impacts caused byflooding, particularly in rural and regionalQueensland. Therefore, we recentlyannounced funding for 16 flood mitigationprojects throughout the State. This is part ofthe Regional Flood Mitigation Program, whichis a joint initiative between the Queenslandand Commonwealth Governments. OurGovernment will be implementing this programthrough a partnership with local governmentthroughout the State.
Queensland is more flood prone than anyother State, and what our Government isdoing will ensure that communities are betterprepared to cope with any natural disaster. At
present, about 100,000 homes throughoutQueensland are vulnerable to the effects offlooding in a one-in-100-year event. About$50m is spent every year under Nationaldisaster relief arrangements recovering fromflood impacts. So the $6.5m we are spendingon these 16 flood mitigation projects acrossQueensland will significantly reduce thepotential impacts of flooding on both lives andproperty.
Seven flood warning or alert systems willimprove the capability for response to floodsfor about 22,000 homes and properties. Innorthern Queensland, $76,000 will be spenton new telemetry stations to upgrade theCairns flood and tide alert warning system.Telemetry stations will also be installed at siteson the Barron and Mulgrave/Russell Rivers,the major source of flooding in the Cairnsregion. We saw just in today's papers thetorrential flooding of the Barron River. Fundswill also be used for a telemetry tide guide toassist in monitoring cyclonic storm surge atTrinity Inlet.
In western Queensland, $170,000 will bespent to conduct detailed planning and designfor the construction of a compacted earthlevee along the Warrego River at Charleville.Honourable members will recall that Charlevillehas been hit hard by flooding in the past, andthese funds will be a valuable investment inthe town's future ability to withstand majorflood events.
A further $30,000 will be spent on thedesign of a levee bank for the southern side ofthe Warrego River at Augathella. In all, sevenlocal governments will undertake worksprograms involving retention basins, levees,flood bypass and stream and channelimprovements, and this will mitigate theimpacts of flooding on about 4,000 properties.
Towards the middle of the year, a furtherround of grants will be assessed and awardedby our Government, because our Governmentcontinues to place a high priority on protectinglives and properties from the tragedy thatfloods can often bring.
Police Traffic Infringement Quotas
Mr SPRINGBORG: I ask the Minister forPolice and Corrective Services: was he at anytime informed, orally, in writing or by email, ofthe action of Deputy Commissioner McGibbonin issuing a Statewide ban on trafficinfringement quotas? If so, when was heinformed and how? Further, can the Ministerguarantee to this Parliament that no direction,either oral or written, has been given by him to
30 Questions Without Notice 29 Feb 2000
the senior officers of the Police Service toincrease the amount of revenue earned fromtraffic infringements?
Mr BARTON: Once again, I thank thismember for the question, because it allows usto spell out yet again—for I do not know howmany times—that there are no instructionsfrom this Government to ensure that the PoliceService raises revenue through traffic fines. Infact, it is exactly the opposite.
In terms of trying to get his question in theproper sequence, I cannot recall at which pointI became aware of Deputy CommissionerMcGibbon's instruction, because I understandthat that instruction was first given when I wason leave and the Minister for Public Workswas—
Mr Horan: 17 February—you were back.
Mr BARTON: There were instructionsgiven, and those instructions have beencontinuously made clear. I certainly was madeaware at some point of a number ofinstructions that have been given, becauseeach time it is raised the Police Service atState level makes its position very clear to itsregions, and it expects those instructions to befollowed to the letter.
In terms of the reference to 17 Februaryas the date of one of Mr McGibbon'sinstructions—I can certainly recall, whensomebody raised the issue that speedcameras were being deployed inappropriately,that I had a discussion with the commissionerand the deputy commissioner. My recollectionis that it was at the official opening of thepolice exhibit at the Motor Show in very earlyFebruary. In terms of any instructions, it wassimply me making my position clear—not aformal instruction, but making my positionclear—that the integrity of all of our systemsregarding speed controls was sacrosanct, thatwe had to make sure that the computerprogramming for the deployment of speedcameras was totally abided by, that we couldnot have people deciding to redeploy themelsewhere, and that all of our assistantcommissioners needed to be made very awareof that. The same position has been takeneach time it has been raised, and it was raisedin late January when my colleagueMr Schwarten was the Acting Minister. It hasbeen raised on three or four occasions now,but the answer is always the same.
The shadow Minister asked for anabsolute guarantee. Let me give a guarantee:there are no instructions from this Governmentto use speed camera devices for revenueraising; nor will there be.
Community Cabinet MeetingsMr PITT: My question is directed to the
Honourable the Premier. I refer to theGovernment's highly acclaimed CommunityCabinet program, a program which hasrestored the faith of people in accessibility toGovernment and its accountability to theelectorate. I ask: when will the next CommunityCabinet meeting be held, and where will it beheld?
Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourablemember for Mulgrave because, as he knows,the first Community Cabinet meeting was heldin his electorate and he has taken a keeninterest in the subject ever since. I thank himfor that.
My Government is holding a CommunityCabinet meeting in Roma this coming Sundayand Monday. This is the 23rd CommunityCabinet meeting, and it is well worth notingthat, including the Roma Community Cabinetmeeting, there have been 12 such meetingsheld in non-Government seats. I am delightedto learn that the Leader of the Opposition isalso booked into Roma. My Governmentinvites anyone to attend Community Cabinetmeetings. We look forward to all the farmerscoming because we want everyone to comeand hear exactly what good work my can-doGovernment is doing. I am happy to take adeputation from the Leader of the Opposition.
The Community Cabinet is yet anotherexample of how this Government is governingfor all Queenslanders and is a Governmentthat listens. We have a fine record of going outand listening to people in the regional andremote areas of Queensland. As honourablemembers would be aware, we have been toLongreach, Barcaldine, Mount Isa, Atherton,Cooktown, Kingaroy, Charters Towers andWinton. Now we go to Roma.
Many Queenslanders have taken theopportunity to talk to the Government at oneof these Community Cabinet meetings. Todate, there have been more than 2,200 formaldeputations, and that is more than 2,200appointments that have been made byindividual groups to meet with Ministers or theirrepresentatives at a Community Cabinetmeeting. In addition, there have been 1,500informal deputations and meetings withindividuals and groups who have not made anappointment. That is how open thisGovernment is. We will take appointmentsfrom people who walk through the doorbecause we are determined to be accessibleand we are determined to listen.
All in all, there have been more than 900hours of deputations. That is an example of a
29 Feb 2000 Questions Without Notice 31
hard-working Government. This amounts to900 hours of listening and, in a large numberof cases, 900 hours during which problemshave been solved on the spot. There is also aquestion and answer time where members ofthe community can ask questions of myselfand my Cabinet Ministers.
Of course, Community Cabinets are notjust about meetings; they are about gettingout and about, about listening, and aboutseeing what is happening in Queensland.Ministers and their departmental officers takethe opportunity to visit departmental officesand sites and locations where there may be anissue. This does not occur solely in the hostCommunity Cabinet town. Where possible,Ministers visit nearby communities.
My Government is a Government thatlistens. It is a Government for allQueenslanders. In Winton, the Ministers and Istayed at the Sunday night meeting to theend. We answered every question, and wewere amongst the last to leave. In Roma thisweekend we will be taking questions. We havea major function organised for the Sundaynight. There will not be a repeat of the Sundaynight public hearing, but we will be there allday Sunday. Rod Welford will be there onSunday morning.
Time expired.
Police Headquarters Staffing
Mrs SHELDON: My question is directed tothe Minister for Police and Corrective Services.I refer to the recent horrific incident in whichMelanie Isaacs was turned away from policeheadquarters while she was attempting toreport the vicious attack on Peter Cribb. Willthe Minister apologise to the House for thegrief caused to Ms Isaacs and the danger inwhich Mr Cribb was placed, explain why apolice officer was not on duty at the policeheadquarters counter and explain why therewas not a dedicated direct line to the policecommunications unit upstairs in theheadquarters building for use by the securityofficer at the front door?
Mr BARTON: This question deserves ananswer. That was a very traumatic set ofcircumstances for that young woman, andcertainly one that should not have occurred.The Queensland Police Service has made theposition very clear: this incident should nothave occurred. I have previously made myposition very clear, and I make it again: thatset of circumstances certainly should not haveoccurred.
I am very sensitive to the fact that anapology certainly is owed to that young womanwho came to Brisbane police headquarters.We need to understand that policeheadquarters is not an operating police stationas such, but that does not excuse the fact thatthere should have been an operational policeofficer on duty at headquarters. What occurredwas inconsistent with instructions which hadbeen issued by the Police Commissioner some18 months ago that at all times, 24 hours aday, seven days a week, the front counter atthe police headquarters building at UpperRoma Street should have had at least oneoperational police officer present. That did notoccur.
On the Sunday morning, as soon as Ibecame aware of the fact that that incidenthad occurred, I asked for an urgentinvestigation by the Ethical StandardsCommand of the Queensland Police Serviceto begin straight away. It did. I have not seenthe final outcome of that investigation as yet,other than the fact that the commissioner'sinstructions that uniform police must be inattendance at that counter at policeheadquarters, 24 hours a day, seven days aweek, have been enforced. I understand thatthe investigation is looking at thecircumstances in which the security officergave certain advice to the young womaninvolved. That advice was not appropriate.
I believe we all know that, incircumstances where life is at risk—and thiswas certainly one of those occasions—therecould have, and should have, been certainaction taken immediately to have policedeployed to that site. It is a matter of regret tothe Queensland Police Service and to myselfas Minister that this incident occurred. It shouldnot have occurred. I am certainly prepared toapologise to the young lady and the youngman involved because, frankly, this is one areawhere the service slipped up because theinstructions of the Police Commissioner werenot followed through. He has made that clear.
I can assure honourable members thatthis is not a case of putting the blame onanyone else. The Police Service will befollowing the commissioner's instructions in thefuture.
Child Immunisation, Mackay
Mr MULHERIN: I direct a question to theHonourable the Minister for Health. I refer herto the Mackay community's outstandingsuccess with our rates of childhoodimmunisation. I ask the Minister: how does
32 Questions Without Notice 29 Feb 2000
Queensland's immunisation rate compare withthat for the rest of Australia?
Mrs EDMOND: What a good question! Ithank the honourable member for the questionand for his keen interest in health in theMackay electorate. Keeping up to date withimmunisation is probably the single mostimportant thing that a parent can do to protectthe health of their child. We need to reinforcethat message as children head off to newschools, playgroups, kindergartens and childcare centres around the State. Mackayparents and the Mackay Division of GeneralPractice are to be congratulated forconsistently reaching the highest levels ofchildhood immunisation coverage inQueensland and for consistently beingamongst the highest achievers inimmunisation coverage in Australia.
This is a good example of how and whatwe can achieve in protecting and promotinghealth if all parties work together. Mackay'sconsistently good rates are the result ofcollaboration and partnership between localGPs and Queensland Health's Tropical PublicHealth Unit. Queensland as a whole is alsodoing very well compared with the rest ofAustralia.
Using data from the Australian ChildhoodImmunisation Register, 89.86% of Queenslandchildren aged 12 to 15 months are fullyimmunised. This is not only above theAustralian average of 87%, but it is the highestranking of all the States. Queenslandconsistently ranks in the top three States forcoverage of this age group. In age group 24 to27 months, 79.36% of Queensland childrenare fully immunised. This again is well abovethe Australian average of 74.9%.
In the fight against measles, 90.19% ofQueensland children in this age group havebeen immunised. This is above the Australianaverage of 88.95%. I cannot stress enoughthat immunisation is vitally important if we areto protect our children and control outbreaks ofvaccine-preventable diseases. Parents areencouraged to ensure that children havereceived all their age-appropriateimmunisations, to know when their children aredue for immunisation and to keep goodrecords of what immunisations their childrenhave been given.
This Government is committed to workingwith parents, health professionals and localcouncils to achieve this end. The introductionof the Vaccination Information and VaccinationAdministration System in 1994, and theincreased emphasis placed on immunisationsince that time, has seen a steady
improvement in immunisation rates. Well doneto everyone concerned!
Young Prisoners
Mrs PRATT: I ask the Minister for Policeand Corrective Services: is it a fact thatyouthful offenders, including youngsters underthe age of 18 years, have been and are beingheld in the maximum security prison, the SirDavid Longland Correctional Centre and that,contrary to legislation, some of these 17 yearold children are housed in the same unit asadult protection prisoners? Does the Ministerfeel that this is an acceptable situation?
Mr BARTON: Some young prisoners—notjuveniles; they are adults—compared to mostof the other inmates of the centre are held in awing at the Sir David Longland CorrectionalCentre. At that centre, there is a programwhereby at times some older prisoners are withthose young prisoners for mentoring purposesso that they are not just left by themselves. Interms of those people who are adults—eventhough they are young adults—if they offendand are sentenced to prison by the courts,then it is to prison that they will go. In thecontext of the current debate, I am ratheramazed that someone would be objecting topeople, who are adults and who have beensentenced to prison by the courts, actuallybeing put in prison.
I can assure the member and theParliament that it is an area that, again, we aresensitive to—to make sure that young people,in their first visit to a correctional centre, do notbecome corrupted to the extent that they learnonly the tricks of the trade of being a criminalbut that we work very hard to make sure thatthey get as much support as they can.
Tourism Industry
Mr ROBERTS: I direct a question to theMinister for Tourism and Racing. The LaborGovernment has recognised the enormouspotential benefits of attracting majorconventions to Queensland and in 1998 itadvanced $2m a year for four years for themarketing and promotion of this importantsector of the tourism industry. I ask: can theMinister advise the House if we are gettingvalue for money from this investment?
Mrs ROSE: I thank the member for thequestion. I can advise the House thatconventions are big business and that we aregetting great value for money. Queensland'sconvention tourism industry is riding the crestof a wave with a 23% increase in delegatesand almost double the number of delegate
29 Feb 2000 Questions Without Notice 33
days in the 1998-99 financial year over theprevious financial year. That provesconclusively that this Government's $8minvestment in convention tourism is producingrich results. Compared with benchmark studyresults for the 1997-98 financial year, thenumber of delegates to Queensland increasedin 1998-99 by around 23% to 383,532: 17% ofdelegates were international and 45% werefrom elsewhere in Australia, while Queenslanddelegates accounted for 38% of the total. Thenumber of delegate days increased by 93% to1.83 million and the total number of meetingsheld in Queensland grew by 3% to 2,830.
The excellent results capped a year thatsaw Queensland successfully host twoprestigious international tourism conventions:the 1999 Association of British Travel AgentsConvention and the annual travel academy ofone of Germany's largest tour wholesalers,Dertour. Queensland will also hostmegaconventions, such as the RotaryInternational Convention, which will attractmore than 25,000 delegates when held inBrisbane in 2003.
The hosting of events of this magnitudehighlights the State's appeal andcompetitiveness in the internationalconventions marketplace. Queensland boastsconvention facilities second to none and wehave the additional benefit that this is a greatplace to visit. The research is the first from anongoing study conducted by TourismQueensland in conjunction with conventionbureaus on the Gold and Sunshine Coasts,Brisbane, the Whitsundays, Townsville, Cairnsand tropical north Queensland regions.
The convention industry is important toQueensland as it provides another means ofattracting new visitors. Our research showedthat around three-quarters of delegates wouldnot have visited Australia had their conventionnot been held here. Often there is increasedvisitation by delegates, who return toQueensland as tourists, as well as pre andpost touring, which significantly increases theirtotal spend. Often delegates fly first class orbusiness class. Therefore, they representpotential high-yield business for airlines. Theconvention business also allows Queenslandregions to gain economic benefits whileminimising the impact of tourist traffic andstimulates tourism business to destinationsduring seasonal troughs.
The bureaus receive $2m annually from aspecial marketing grant by QueenslandTreasury, which began in July 1998. It ismatched by the convention industry partners,
making an annual $4m total for internationaland domestic marketing.
Police Headquarters Staffing
Mr JOHNSON: I refer the Minister forPolice and Corrective Services to the recenttragic attempts by Melanie Isaacs to seekassistance at police headquarters after herfriend Peter Cribb was bashed and left floatingin the Brisbane River. In response to aquestion earlier today, the Minister said that 18months ago Commissioner O'Sullivan ordereda 24-hour roster at the headquarters counter. Iask: why, just like the kill sheet instructions,was this order not complied with? Is this atragic example of the inadequate and pitifulbudget forced on police by the Minister withthe resultant cutbacks and service cuts?
Mr BARTON: It seems to be amultipronged question, but I am pleased tohave the attention today of the Opposition. Letus get this very clear: I made that statement inanswer to the previous question about a set ofcircumstances that were clearly unacceptable.To date, the only good news that has comeout of this is the fact that the police havecharged a number of people in relation to thatassault. In that regard, the police haveresponded as well as they can.
Let us get back to the real facts. Aninvestigation by the Ethical StandardsCommand into the whole set of circumstancesof that incident is taking place. I for one amprepared to wait until I get an explanation fromthe service as to why they believe thoseinstructions were not carried out. Within 24hours of that tragic incident, the PoliceCommissioner himself made it very clear thathe had issued those instructions and howupset he was at the fact that his instructionshad not been carried out.
Mr Horan interjected.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forToowoomba South!
Mr BARTON: From time to time in thevery best organisations there will be tragicresults when someone does not followinstructions.
Mr Horan interjected.Mr SPEAKER: The member for
Toowoomba South will cease interjecting.
Mr BARTON: I get back to the issue thathas also been raised about police budgets orlack of direction. Last year, the Police budgetwas increased by some 4.5%. In fact, it wasincreased in real terms and we made sure thatthe money went out to the regions, to the
34 Matters of Public Interest 29 Feb 2000
cutting edge of police services. It did not gointo other fancy activities; it went back out tothe cutting edge. I for one am very confidentthat that will continue, because in the firstBeattie Government Budget we had a majorincrease in the Police budget and last year weincreased the regional budgets by between6% and 16.5%. The regions have adequatefunds.
Mr Horan interjected.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will
cease interjecting.
Mr BARTON: The member asked a rangeof questions.
Mr Horan interjected.Mr SPEAKER: I warn the member for
Toowoomba South under Standing Order123A.
Mr BARTON: If it comes back to why thecommissioner's orders were not complied with,I have explained already that there is aninternal investigation being undertaken by theEthical Standards Command. I do not knowthe answer to that as yet, but I can assure themember that when that investigation iscompleted, I will know. The facts are that thePolice Service is in good shape and it is ledvery well. Whenever there are slip-ups, I canassure the member that we address themvery, very, rapidly.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time forquestions has expired.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTERESTEmployment Policy
Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—LP)(11.29 a.m.): The January unemploymentstatistics show very clearly the failure of theBeattie Labor Government on the jobs front—the very area that it has made its icon policywith the Premier's election promise to bringunemployment down to 5%. On the figures ofthe national statistician, the Australian Bureauof Statistics, Queensland, with only 19% ofAustralia's population, has over the 12 monthsto January created 12.5% of all jobs created inAustralia. That is far below the performancerecorded during the coalition's term of officefrom 1996 to 1998.
The figures clearly expose Premier Beattieand his Government as non-performers on theemployment front. The fact is that, under MrBeattie and Labor, Queensland is just notperforming on the employment creation front.All Labor's rhetoric, all the Premier's jobs, jobs,jobs mantra, is powerless against Labor'srecord—a record of policies unfriendly to
business, particularly small business, and theaccommodation of the demands of its backersin the union movement. This is really bad newsfor Queenslanders, who face a static and fartoo high unemployment rate of 8% and aGovernment that is apparently unable to offeranything other than false hope to remedy this.
Relevant figures from the AustralianBureau of Statistics show that Australia had atotal employment figure of 8,900,900 inJanuary 2000 compared with 8,677,700 inJanuary 1999; an increase over the year of223,200, or 2.5%. Queensland's equivalentfigures were 1,664,600 in January 2000compared with 1,636,500 in January 1999; anincrease of 28,100, or 1.7%. Not only isQueensland under Beattie Labor failing toperform in employment creation in step with itspopulation share—surely the absoluteminimum any objective observer would regardas acceptable—but under Labor we are failingby a margin of nearly 1% even to keep pacewith the rest of the country.
So much for Queensland's accustomed,and we on this side of the House believe bothnatural and rightful, place at the forefront ofAustralian economic growth and job creation.So much for the Premier's tiresome promotionof his and his Government's self-proclaimedexcellence. He says that he is the can-doPremier. The national statistics conclusivelyshow that he is the can't do Premier.
Last week we saw one unpleasant resultof this historic failure. The Premier got thesulks with the author of an independent studyof his Government's record on buildingemployment. We have seen it all before, ofcourse, from this acting Premier, this thespian-in-chief. Unfortunately, we have seen it toooften. It is interesting that the word the Premieris getting from some of the headkickers andthe hardheads in the Labor Party is that heshould tone down the circus performance thatclearly these days is over the top. Making anappearance at the opening of every envelopeand dispensing good cheer and friendly adviceto all and sundry is not a substitute for action.
The Premier's mantra is jobs, jobs, jobs.But he must deliver, and to date he has not.On all the evidence available—independentevidence, I stress—he will not. His record is,when in trouble or in doubt, to run in circlesand scream and shout. The Premier has goneeven further on occasions. When the memberfor Brisbane Central is in trouble or in doubt,he has a dummy spit and shoots themessenger.
We saw that last week. The Premier didnot like hearing some home truths about
29 Feb 2000 Matters of Public Interest 35
Queensland's economy and employmentbuilding performance under his Government.He did not like hearing from his FederalLeader, Kim Beazley, that Labor's ownacademic navel gazers have concluded that5% unemployment is an awfully long waydown the track. That is nationally, not justQueensland. He did not like hearing that hispromise—his promise—to the people ofQueensland that 5% unemployment wasachievable on an eight or four-year time framewas not achievable under Beattie Labor policyimplemented via legislative and administrativeBeattie Labor Government driven initiatives.
Mr Beattie did not have a go at MrBeazley, though. He would not do thatbecause Labor mates stick together throughthick and thin—unless they are LordMayors—the thin edge of the wedge, that is.Last Friday the Premier found the consideredviews of the chief economist of Morgan'sStockbroking, Michael Knox, unacceptableand he said so on ABC Radio. That is fairenough if he genuinely thinks that is the case,even though what Mr Knox was saying wasessentially borne out by QueenslandTreasury's own reporting of the case in theFebruary edition of its publication QueenslandEconomic Update, and even though thatmaterial was available on the Government website on Friday—the day the Premier took to theairwaves to argue that, when it came to hisGovernment's employment record, black waswhite—and must therefore have beenavailable to the Premier well before that date.
Was it that Mr Five Per Cent was so busyorganising his latest public relations coup thathe forgot the need to acquire some sharpereconomic analysis from that which wasavailable to him from within his own office? Ibet he would not have been so unfair to MrKnox or so damning of his assessment ifMorgan's chief economist had been preparedto spout the Government line.
On radio last Friday, when the Premierwas under pressure because he could see hischickens coming home to roost in a big way,when he could just imagine them pooping allover his parade, the Premier tried to say thathe had created the lowest level ofunemployment in 10 years. He tried to say thatthe participation rate was up—and thereforeskewing the unemployment figure because theparticipation rate measures people in work plusthose actively looking for work. And he tried toblame the GST—the GST that is still fourmonths away and was five months away whenthe figures over whose analysis he wascomplaining were compiled.
Wrong, Mr Premier. These are the facts:Queensland's unemployment rate was staticyear on year January 1999 to January 2000. Itwas static at more than 8%. So much for MrFive Per Cent's progress towards the promisedland that he promised Queenslanders. Wrongagain, Mr Premier. These are the facts:Queensland's participation rate fell over the 12months to January. Australia's participationrate has risen. Queensland was 65% inJanuary 2000 against 65.2% in January 1999.Australia was 63.2% in January 2000 against63.0% in January 1999.
Queensland's natural lead over the rest ofAustralia—as the growth State we always werebefore the Labor wreckers Goss and Beattiegot their way—is being steadily eroded. Wrongagain, Mr Premier. These are the facts: theGST has not yet come into operation. To theextent that it is having any antenatal negativeeffect on business—and that is debatable ifone remains objective and unswayed byLabor's continual invitations to everyone topanic or lose confidence—then the Premier isone of the leading influences on thatnegativity.
The Premier never shuts up about whathe sees as the negatives of the GST and allthe bad things that he claims it is going to do.He never speaks about the positive aspects ofthe GST and all the good things it is going todo—things like putting more money intopeople's pockets because of income tax cutsand substantial concessions; things like givingQueensland and all the States the first realgrowth tax they have ever had, so thatGovernments can plan properly and pay forexisting and future services and infrastructure.
He never speaks about his rush to getwith the program when the Commonwealth putthe money on the table in the Cabinet room inCanberra and invited the Premiers to collect.Or that Queensland will benefit by somethingof the order of $1.6 billion extra—give or take aDemocrat or three and the Beazley LaborOpposition in Canberra—by the time GST isfully in play as part of the tax picture. Or that ina growth economy, a consumer economy suchas ours—Queensland's and Australia's—aconsumption tax provides self-generatingrevenue growth and an end to the beggingbowl approach to Canberra.
If he were to be honest, he would have tosay that. But why should he buck the habit ofa political lifetime? The Premier and thoseopposite are policy flakes. He knows that thereal cause of business unease with hisGovernment is the open door it has given theunions to walk in on any business, whether
36 Matters of Public Interest 29 Feb 2000
that union has members in that business ornot. He knows that business is grosslyunhappy about rising levels of interference incompany operations—about the drain onprofitability and incentives and confidence thatLabor's industrial relations, workerscompensation and other anti-business policiesrepresent.
If honourable members are fair dinkumabout the GST, they should call on Mr Beazleyto make a commitment to abolish it if hecomes into Government. Of course they willnot because they know that Mr Beazley will notdo that. That would embarrass him as anotherpolicy flake, another policy fraud, if he in factrose to the bait of that exhortation which Iknow is not coming.
During the coalition's term of Government,the Asian economies upon which the Statedepends so much were in total disarray. Todayunder this Government the same Asianeconomies are in full recovery. We should beenjoying far greater economic andemployment growth in this State. But what ishappening? The dead hand of the BeattieLabor union-dominated Government inQueensland is stifling initiative and stiflingconfidence, and is denying hundreds ofthousands of young Queenslanders and olderQueenslanders the opportunity to get jobs.
This Opposition has been warningmembers opposite and the Premier for 12months. The chickens are going to comehome to roost. In the end, well before the nextelection, the biggest test that the Premier sethimself, the employment test, will have beenwell and truly failed by him and all those whoso mindlessly and blindly support him.
FloodsMr REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP)
(11.39 a.m.): The monsoonal trough whichdumped buckets of rain over the State inrecent weeks certainly made its presence feltin the north Queensland region over the pastweek, with about 50 houses in Townsvilleinundated by floodwaters and an estimated$5m worth of damage caused to the city.Today I wish to speak in particular about oneelderly couple who became trapped insidetheir utility as floodwaters from Stuart Creek,just south of Townsville, rose around them. Bythe time two Townsville City Council workersfreed the couple from their utility, the waterinside the cab was so high that the couplewere almost completely under the water andonly just able to breathe. I commend thebravery and quick thinking of the two councilworkers who saved the lives of those elderly
Burdekin residents. The Mayor of Townsville,Councillor Tony Mooney, has indicated thatthe two Townsville City Council workers whowere central to Friday's rescue of this Burdekincouple will be recommended for a TownsvilleCity Council award and will also be endorsedfor a State bravery award. Those two workers,Ian Croker and Christopher Esteves, are up forstaff recognition awards within the council inrecognition of acts above and beyond the callof duty. The Mayor has also indicated that hewill be endorsing an application for the pair toreceive a higher honour for their efforts. ThisBurdekin couple, Jim and Ines Monti, cheateddeath last Friday when their car was caught infloodwaters. I commend the bravery and quickthinking of those two council workers, whorisked their own lives in saving the lives ofthese two elderly Burdekin residents.
In Townsville the flooding was not asextensive as it was in January 1998. On 10January 1998 we had 600 millimetres of rain,which caused major damage in the City ofTownsville. The flood that we had last Fridaywas still a major event. Falls of more than 220millimetres between 3 a.m. and 9 a.m. lastFriday resulted in extensive damage,particularly to road and drainage infrastructure.The Townsville City Council's Director ofEngineering Services, Dawson Wilkie, hasadvised the council and me that up to $5mworth of damage has been done to the city.
Last Friday the Bruce Highway and manysuburban streets were absolutely impassable,with a sea of water in the suburbs of Idalia,Cluden, Wulguru and Stuart causing problemsfor traffic in and out of Townsville on thatsouthern side of the city. Stormwater drainagepipes overflowed and generally failed to copewith the torrential downpour, especially in theolder or low-lying suburbs. Landslides werealso recorded in places around the city. Muchto everyone's dismay, some of the palm treesthat had been newly planted along ourmagnificent Strand fell over and at the localrubbish tip a retaining wall collapsed. Thoseare just a few examples of the damage on thatday. The Ross River Dam was well and trulyoverflowing, with one resident commentingthat in 27 years she had never seen so muchwater pouring over the spillway. The CivicTheatre and the new museum also sufferedsome water damage. As the TownsvilleBulletin put it so succinctly, the one silver liningin Friday's dark cloud was the absence of aking tide.
As the Premier's Representative in NorthQueensland, I was very concerned about theextent of the damage and personal hardshipbeing experienced. On Friday I contacted the
29 Feb 2000 Matters of Public Interest 37
mayors and the chief executive officers of thelocal authorities in the region from Bowen toHinchinbrook to see how they were faring. Iwas able to pass on the good news thatdisaster relief arrangements had beenactivated in the wider region between Cairnsand Sarina by the Minister for EmergencyServices, Mr Stephen Robertson, under theCommonwealth/State Natural Disaster ReliefArrangements. In respect of my area, theMinister's announcement included MagneticIsland and Palm Island as well asTownsville/Thuringowa, Hinchinbrook, Bowenand the Burdekin. Flooding and water damageon the two islands was extensive, with thePalm Island airstrip partially closed and onlyable to be negotiated by small aircraft withlimited loads. I am delighted with the responsefrom Queensland Transport, which answeredour urgent call for emergency repairs to theairstrip. The repairs will be carried out as soonas weather permits. $40,000 has beenallocated by Queensland Transport. That workwill be carried out on the Palm Island airstrip assoon as the weather conditions are such that itis feasible for that work to take place. I wasvery pleased that the Department ofEmergency Services acted very quickly inresponse to the emerging disaster. TheMinister, who is in the Chamber today, can bepleased with and proud of the efforts that theDepartment of Emergency Services continuesto make in relation to emergencies in the northQueensland area.
The department sent the Deputy Directorof Disaster Operations, Graeme Nicholas, toTownsville to work alongside Paul McAlonan,the Townsville District Manager, Counter-disaster and Rescue Services, in assessing thedamage and meeting with community leadersto discuss their concerns and the assistanceavailable under the natural disaster reliefarrangements. I was very pleased to see thatMr Nicholas took the first available plane andwas on hand that day to discuss the needs inthat area. The natural disaster reliefarrangements provide a mechanism for theState Government to receive Commonwealthfunding to offset the costs of relief measuresactivated to assist the re-establishment ofdisaster affected communities. Thearrangements are triggered when Stateexpenditure on eligible relief measures willexceed $200,000.
Earlier on Friday morning I advised localauthorities that the natural disaster reliefarrangements had been activated by theMinister to cover counter-disaster operations,primary producers and the restoration of publicassets. However, by mid afternoon, following
my meeting with Townsville Mayor TonyMooney, staff of the Department ofEmergency Services and staff of theDepartment of the Premier and Cabinet inTownsville, it was obvious that thosecategories needed to be broadened to includeemergency assistance to individuals andfamilies suffering personal hardship, such asdamage to dwellings, as well as smallbusinesses and non-profit organisationsneeding concessional loans to carry on. Atelephone hotline was also established toensure that the correct advice regardingassistance was readily available to those whoneeded it. Again, I thank the Minister forEmergency Services for the very quick actiontaken on Friday in that regard.
Overall I believe that the StateGovernment and the individual localgovernments in that north Queensland regionresponded well to the crisis and coordinatedtheir counter-disaster activities with a greatdeal of finesse. I am very aware that theresponse given to Townsville was also given toCairns, where 160 km/h winds from CycloneSteve left a trail of destruction causing poweroutages, road blockages, landslides, floodingand significant damage to buildings andinfrastructure. All of us in Queensland, butparticularly those of us in north Queensland—in Townsville, Mackay, Cairns and the areas inbetween—have experienced cyclonic weatherin the past and we understand full well whatSunday night must have felt like for far-northQueensland residents. On Sunday night ourhearts went out to those who fared the worst.
Last Friday I urged publicly that insurancecompanies dealing with claims from peopleaffected by cyclonic and monsoonal weathermake sure that they take individualcircumstances into account. I have also calledpublicly on the insurance companies to do theright thing and clear claims as early aspossible. People should rest assured that I willmake it my business to see that that happens.Townsville has been through the January 1998floods and disaster, when a number ofinsurance companies lagged in their response.Over the past week Townsville received itsentire yearly rainfall—within the first twomonths of the year. Townsville has received991 millimetres of rain so far this year, with 830millimetres in February alone. Our average isabout 1,144 millimetres. Honourable memberscan see how abnormal that rainfall is and thedamage it has done. Again, I commend theMinister for Emergency Services, thedepartment, all of the officials and the localauthorities involved for their response. It was agreat response in the Townsville region. I
38 Matters of Public Interest 29 Feb 2000
again commend those who were involved inacts of bravery during that flooding.
Mr and Mrs Whipps; Life Education Funding
Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—IND)(11.49 a.m.): I rise to speak on behalf of ayoung couple in my electorate who, at a timewhen they should be excited and lookingforward to a significant event in their lives, wereleft on Friday very disappointed, angry anddisillusioned. On 19 August they signed acontract with G. J. Gardner Homes for a hometo be built and they paid $1,500. On 18October they paid a further $3,092 off thedeposit of $6,445.85, which left an amountoutstanding of $1,853.82. All of their progresspayments were met by the Wide BayCapricorn Building Society in Bundaberg. On18 February this year G. J. Gardner sent thema letter saying—
"The house is reaching handoverand so we ask that you makearrangements for your final payment nowto prevent delays."
The amount claimed—the final payment—was$19,337.55. The company organised in thisletter for the building supervisor to meet Mrand Mrs Whipps at their home to carry out afinal inspection and to ensure that the homewas completed as per contract. The inspectionwas set down for 9 o'clock on Friday morning.The Whipps organised with the Wide BayCapricorn Building Society to forward thatcheque, and the cheque was forwarded onFriday morning.
The Whipps initially came to see mebecause they were concerned about defects inthe home that they had contracted. Some ofthese defects were significant and they hadhad the BSA and subsequently the MasterBuilders Association out to have a look atthem. Overall, I think the parties agreed thatthere was work that had to be done.G. J. Gardner, however, contacted the Whippsand refused to hand the keys over. In fact,they actually went to the house the day beforeand locked it up like Fort Knox and said that,until the Whipps paid the final $7,000, theywould not be able to get the keys. This wasnot set out in any correspondence thatG. J. Gardner had sent to the Whipps or to thebank. The bank had no record of outstandingamounts and had, in fact, forwarded to theclients some additional money that was in thefund. The Whipps have never alleged orclaimed they would not pay the money;however, they were quite happy for there to besome retention money because of the faultyworkmanship.
I have found the representative ofG. J. Gardner in Rockhampton, Mr Mills, to bevery difficult to contact. When I did manage tocontact him, he was either rude or arrogant.This left the Whipps in a very, very difficultsituation. Mr Whipp is self-employed. They areonly a young couple and they are struggling tomake a go of it. He was going away for threeweeks' work and Mrs Whipp was to be left withtwo small children. They wanted to move inover the weekend to allow them to settle inprior to Mr Whipp leaving for work. For thewhole weekend they have been fighting to getaccess to the home that they have paid for.However, they have made no mention of notpaying that retention money.
In their situation I would be looking atsome guarantee to ensure that the buildercomes back and rectifies these significantbuilding faults. As of last night, they wereunable to access the home that they havepaid for and which G. J. Gardner had said theycould have possession of on Friday. I wouldcall on Mr Mills to honour the undertaking thathe had given to that family and allow themaccess to the home that they have saved sohard to have built.
There is another building matter that Iwanted to raise as well—the building of lives ofour young people in Queensland. I say withsome disappointment that the funding for LifeEducation has been cancelled throughoutQueensland. The Life Education caravanshave been a feature of education for manyyears and they have done some tremendouswork. Life Education centres have ensuredthat they have kept up with technology to allowfor stimulation of those young people whoaccess them. They are given a lot of importantinformation and their imagination is fired, whichis the sole focus of giving them thatinformation.
I know that the Education Minister andthe Premier have proposed that the classroomteacher or the phys. ed. health teacher beable to pass on that anti-drugs information.However, I can identify one flaw in that—thereare probably a lot more—that is, if the teachersthemselves are smokers or drinkers, thestudents may know that and that places theinformation that that teacher is passing on in aslightly hypocritical light. I am not saying thatindividual teachers do not have the right topursue their lifestyles as they choose, but theLife Education educators are either peoplewho are experienced in the area of abuse andare reformed drug users or people whothemselves have been specially educated.The manner in which they went forward withthe education was sound, that is, each year
29 Feb 2000 Matters of Public Interest 39
they built on the information that was given theyear before.
It is acknowledged that the Life Educationvans only visit the schools once a year.However, if this Government continues topursue the current notion that school teachersor phys. ed. health teachers will take on themantle of drug education, I wish thoseteachers well. Teachers of all disciplines inState schools are already overwhelminglycommitted not only to core subjects but also tothe subjects that they are responsible forteaching, and that creates additional stress forthe teachers. To add drug education on top ofthat is tantamount to diluting the effect of thateducation on the individuals.
In the Executive Summary of the 1998-99Evaluation of Programs, in relation to Years 5to 7, 99% of the teachers' responses were thatthe Life Education program provided greaterawareness of the impact of drugs, over 87% ofteachers believed that the program quality wasvery good, and an overwhelming 99% of Year6 teachers believed that the students had agreater awareness of the impact on personalhealth of smokers after participating in theprogram. The Life Education educators arequalified and experienced teachers who haveundergone intensive training in drug educationand bring to the classroom a range ofexperiences and knowledge.
How much is spent on drug education inQueensland is hotly debated in thecommunity. Those who are critical of therecent decision say that it is 50c per student inQueensland. If that is the case, then we havea lot to be ashamed of. One of the greatestchallenges to parents as they raise theirchildren is how to combat the constantonslaught of alcohol, smoking or druguse—alcohol through general advertising.Smoking has been widely advertised over along period, although that has been tightenedup. But drug use is something that isproliferated not only by adults, unfortunately,but also by a child's peer group. There mustbe a focus on educating and re-educatingchildren about the impact of drug taking notonly on them socially but also physically. LifeEducation did that well.
Conversely, the Minister for Education hasstated that we spend $82 per student on drugeducation. If that is the truth, it is verycommendable. I have asked today where thatmoney is allocated and how it is spent so thatwe can see the tremendous input byGovernment if, indeed, $82 per student isspent on drug education. But the two arepoles apart—50c versus $82. Given that drug
taking claims something like 4,000 lives in thisState every year, if only 50c per student isspent on drug education, it is lamentable.
I received a delegation from my local LifeEducation committee, and I am sure thatmany people in this Chamber have receiveddelegations from Life Education committees intheir areas. These committees operate withoutreceiving any income themselves. They raisefunds. In my area they had to raise $20,000on top of what they received from theGovernment. They have had to go out andcanvass industry, businesses and individualsto raise $20,000 to keep those vans going. Inmy area alone they are now going to have toraise an additional $10,000 to $12,000 if theGovernment funding is not reinstituted.
I think that most members wouldunderstand and acknowledge that fundraisingin small communities—in any community—isdifficult. There are a lot of worthy causes inrelation to which people go to the communityand to big business looking for funding. All ofthe groups that do that have a great cause.So adding over 50% in additional funds thatthose committees will have to raise is a burdenthat they should not have to carry, given thegreat work that the Life Education caravanscarry out. I call on the Government to review itsremoval of that funding, to recognise the valueof Life Education to students in our communityand to recognise the value of it to youngpeople as they grow into adulthood.
Liberal Party Senate CandidateMr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (11.59 a.m.):
The Liberal Party has requested twomonths—that is, until 16 May—to find aSenate candidate to fill the vacancy caused bythe resignation of Warwick Parer. To thedisappointment of this Parliament and Isuspect to the majority of the Queenslandparliamentary Liberal Party, the member forClayfield has said publicly he will not fill thisplum job. It is this spirit of self-sacrifice whichhas made the member for Clayfield the muchloved and revered figure that he is in themodern Liberal Party.
A Government member: And so popular!Mr MICKEL: Yes, and so popular.
However, I want to assure honourablemembers that he will have another opportunitysoon when the next vacancy occurs with theresignation of Senator Herron. Now that theLiberal Party has months to trawl through itsdispirited ranks to find a replacement, onewould think that it would go about this with fairand proper preselection processes. Indeed,
40 Matters of Public Interest 29 Feb 2000
one assumes that that is the reason theLiberal Party State President gave when heasked for the election of a new senator to bedeferred until May, which is a gap of threemonths in replacement time. But the WeekendAustralian blew the lid on the real reason forthe delay. It said—
"The chances of Mr Brandis, alreadyseen as a front runner to replace MrParer, have received a further boost witha new F.E.C. being formed in the Federalseat of Rankin with all its 10 delegatesexpected to back him in the contest."
The Federal seat of Rankin currently overlapsmy State seat and the neighbouring seat ofWoodridge held by my friend and colleague,Mr Kaiser. As anyone can attest, and themember for Woodridge knows only too well,the Liberal Party in Woodridge and Logan isnot just an endangered species. In fact, it isextinct. During the recent Woodridge by-election, the Liberals had to cast around forweeks to find someone—in fact, plead withanyone—who would run and then their onlyrole was to be dragged out before theunsuspecting TV crews and then disappear forthe rest of the day. They had no on-the-ground support and no money.
The Liberal Party has had no organisationin Rankin. Some time ago, in desperation theyamalgamated the few remaining people in theRankin Federal division with the nearbyMoreton Federal division. But what hashappened in the past couple of days?Suddenly, like Lazarus, the Liberal Party inRankin has risen from the dead and produceda whole new Federal electorate council. Why?Is it because their vote in Woodridge did notget to double figures? Is it because theyachieved the lowest vote since the party wasformed 50 years ago? No! It is because, withinits own council, Rankin will have 10 delegateswho can vote in the Liberal Party Senatepreselection contest. That is the only reasonthe Liberals needed more time for thechoosing of the candidate. It has nothing to dowith the search for a quality candidate. It is allabout branch stacking.
Members will recall that I told this Houselast year that, along with the artificial bloatingof the branch membership in the Federal seatof Ryan, the seat of Moreton was undergoingmajor change with the sudden influx ofTaiwanese branch members. Under the crankrules of the Liberal Party, members not only donot have to reside in the electorate in whichthey vote but do not even have to reside inAustralia. As an added bonus, they do noteven have to be an Australian citizen.
Overseas visitors to Queensland can drop inand visit their relatives, enjoy a bus trip toLogan and Woodridge and vote for thedelegates to choose the Queensland LiberalParty Senate candidate. What a touristpackage deal! The only way the Liberal PartyFederal division has been resurrected soquickly is the moving of 100 members of aTaiwanese branch from the Federal seat ofMoreton and re-registering them within theFederal seat of Rankin. So a party whichneeds months to find a candidate only tookdays to rort a preselection. This breathtakinglycynical exercise is being rushed through inrecord time to boost the chances of Mr GeorgeBrandis.
Members might recall that last year MrBrandis was put in charge of a committee toreview the party's constitution. In other words,they put in charge of the review someone whohas a vested interest in never bringing down areport. It is like putting Christopher Skase incharge of a review of Spanish extradition laws.No wonder the Liberal Party in Queenslandhas not moved more quickly to clean up whatare the most crooked and shabby preselectionrules in Australia. A solution to the problem isnot in the best interests of theunrepresentative few who control the LiberalParty. At the same time, the Liberal Party istreating ethnic groups with contempt. Themass recruitment of ethnic groups into theLiberal Party has everything to do withfactional power games inside the Liberal Party.It is not a genuine desire for activeparticipation by them.
Ethnic groups are being moved aroundlike pawns on a chess board by the LiberalParty rather than being sought out for anypositive contribution they can make. I am surethat these decent and hardworking people areunaware that they are being manipulated likethis. I urge them to resign in protest at theirshabby treatment and stick with people with aproven track record of looking after them andtheir interests—people such as the member forSunnybank, the Honourable the Minister forEmergency Services, and his colleague thecouncillor for Acacia Ridge, Kevin Bianchi, bothof whom have had their best interests at heartfor some time.
The Liberal Party stabbed ethnic groupsin the back with the preference deal with OneNation at the last election. In the Bundambaby-election, I am told by reliable sources thatthe party President, Con Galtos, held secretpreference discussions with Heather Hill beforehe was flushed out by the Labor Party StateSecretary and now member for Woodridge. Asa result of that flushing out exercise, Con
29 Feb 2000 Matters of Public Interest 41
Galtos backed away from it. In other words,they would have ratted on ethnic groups againgiven half a chance. The Liberal Party StatePresident, Con Galtos, and the member forClayfield, Santo Santoro, are serial branchstackers. They have form as long as my armand they show no signs of remorse orrehabilitation.
It amazes me that the Prime Minister hasnot intervened to save the Liberal Party fromthe embarrassment of having to wait threemonths to fill a Senate vacancy whilst it isconvulsed with ethnic branch stacking. Thefact of the matter is that John Howard doesnot have the support of the Queenslandbranch, so he has nothing to lose by movingon them, anyway. The only forays intoQueensland by the Federal Treasurer, PeterCostello, are for fundraisers for the member forClayfield. I am told that the member forClayfield then uses the money to buy votes inethnic branch stacking exercises to undermineJohn Howard's supporters.
Mr McGrady: Will he be paying GST onthat?
Mr MICKEL: He will be paying GST on it.The pleasant thing about it is that, as a resultof the GST which the member for Clayfield justso stoically defended, he will have fewerbranch members to stack because it is goingto cost a lot more. The fact of the matter isthat it is time the Prime Minister intervenedand imposed some decency on this waywardQueensland branch of the Liberal Party.Queensland should not be denied a senatorbecause the Liberals are still stackingbranches. We need someone who can go toCanberra and stand up for Queensland so wecan get a fair share of funds for the RFA.
Above all, we need someone who willmake the Federal Government see the error ofits ways with the GST, because it is quite plainfrom the speech made this morning by themember for Clayfield that he does notunderstand the policy of the GST. In fact, it ishis secret plan to become leader. He will standby the GST until every other Liberal but him iswiped out. By that process of elimination, hewill become the leader of the Liberal Party inthis place. I assure members of the LiberalParty holding marginal seats that he will fightfor the GST till the last drop of blood inmarginal seats. He will stand there and fighttoe to toe until they all disappear under thatwave of public indignation at the GST. Weneed a senator who will go to Canberra andfight the Federal Government and fight theGST. The elderly and the smallbusinesspeople who believe in the Liberal
Party and who have been the traditionalbackbone of the Liberal Party deserve muchbetter than what is being offered at present.
GST Impact on Tourism
Mr HEALY (Toowoomba North—NPA)(12.10 p.m.): The Premier's astonishing recordin shooting the messenger when the news isbad—bad for him and the publicity-frenziedGovernment that he leads—has recently beengiven added relevance by his attack on Fridaylast on the motivations and theprofessionalism of Morgans Stockbrokinganalyst Michael Knox. In that instance, MrKnox was saying some things that wereinjurious to the reputation of "Mr Five Per CentUnemployment". I am sure that everyone inthis Chamber is as shocked and as surprisedas we are on this side of the House that thePremier's promises so often turn out to besomething less than he has billed them to be.But that is an issue for another time.
Today I wish to draw the attention of theHouse to another instance of thisGovernment's inventiveness with forecasts,promiscuity with promises, and ill temper—absolute ill temper—when challenged byindependent assessments. This Government,for the basest of political motives, is running ahuge scare campaign over the GST. There isno more evidence of that than the contributionmade by the member for Logan in his speechto the House during this debate. The BeattieLabor Government is prepared to take themoney, the money that will give Queenslandand the other States the first real growth taxthat the States have ever had, and then theGovernment does a runner, and in particular, arunner over tourism, a mainstay of theQueensland economy and a growth industry inits own right.
The Government has long beenclaiming—and, indeed, still is, if membersrecall, through "Hollywood" Bob's replacementas Tourism Minister, the member forCurrumbin, as late as this month—that theGST will hole Queensland tourism below thewaterline. It has long been using TourismQueensland—the Government agency thatcan hardly do anything other than play thePremier's trumpet when he wants it played, inwhatever key he demands—to make theseclaims. It has also been using QueenslandTreasury as part of its each-way bet on theGST.
But let us go back to MorgansStockbroking. According to a Morgans studylate last year, a report on the effects of theGST on tourism prepared by the Treasury is
42 Matters of Public Interest 29 Feb 2000
fundamentally flawed. It states—and this wecan certainly believe, since everything aboutthis Government is oversold—that the fearsexpressed in the Treasury report "appear to beexaggerated". Hyperbole rules! But the fact ofthe matter is that hyperbole does not createjobs or tourism dollars. Sustainable jobsdemand sound economic policy. Employmentgrowth requires hard choices, and, mostimportantly for the tourism industry, touristswant value for money.
In the context of value for money, theGST has become the whipping boy of a LaborParty, here in Queensland and nationally, thathas grabbed at something it can really try toput the egg-beater through. It is after votes, ofcourse, plus 10%. Here at home inQueensland, the Beattie Labor Governmentand its army of in-house promoters havejumped on the bandwagon, shamelesslybeating the drum to shore up their own politicalfortunes, and they want us to believe they aredoing it for Queensland. They want us tobelieve they are doing it for the betterment ofthis State. What an absolute racket!
I would like to take the House throughsome of the latest extravagances from themember for Currumbin, the Minister forTourism, who represents a Gold Coast-basedseat, mind you. One would think that shewould be boosting the coast's premiumindustry rather than inviting it to commitharakiri. A media release issued by theMinister on 25 February stated—
"Ms Rose said 39% of 1,100 peoplesurveyed by KPMG Consulting as part ofTourism Queensland's secondQueensland 2000 Barometer studybelieved the GST would have an adverseeffect.
'This is a significant increase on the22% of domestic consumers who wereconcerned about the GST when surveyedin October and indicates that uncertaintyis building all around—even within FederalGovernment ranks', she said."
She goes on further to say—
"'The KPMG study into the combinedeffect of the GST and the SydneyOlympics on Queensland tourismforecasts a decline"—
a decline—"of up to 67,000 domestic visitors toQueensland this year ...
'An increasing number of Australiansare now factoring the impact of the GSTon their holiday plans as the tax'sintroduction looms closer', she said.
'Because the GST is so complex, it isdifficult for anyone to have a clear idea ofhow they will be affected ...
'I am sure once the GST hits the hippockets of the average Australian, we willfind these figures become morepronounced.' "
That is a scare tactic. It is fantasy land. Infact, as we can all surmise, the GST is highlyunlikely to persuade 67,000 domestic touriststo drop Queensland from their holidayitineraries on a permanent basis. In fact, as weall know, the GST will not hit the pockets of theaverage Australian with the sort of impactsuggested by the Minister's tame team ofassessors. The average Australian will begetting extra dollars from the income tax cuts,an average of $47 a week—the same incometax cuts that Mr Beazley wants to get rid of inrollback. Does the Labor Party supportMr Beazley in this regard? Does the LaborParty say to the people of Australia, "I amsorry, you can't have that $47 extra in yourpocket, because if we win the next Federalelection, you won't have those tax cuts. We willincrease income tax"?
The average Australian will find that he orshe has additional money for discretionaryspending. The fundamental truth is evident inthe Morgans study of the GST's impact ontourism, and I urge honourable members tograb hold of the Morgans study and to study itvery, very carefully indeed, because, as I saidbefore, it blows absolute holes in the Treasuryreport. According to Morgans, a reportprepared for Queensland Treasury last yearoversold the demerits of the GST and itsnegative impact on tourism by playing withcalculations centred on a claim that the realAustralian exchange rate against the Americandollar would rise by 4.5%. Morgans' own reportsaid their findings were that the GST shouldhave no negative impact on Queenslandtourism. It said this was consistent withinternational experience. Morgans alsoconcluded that an additional 2,100 tourismjobs would be built by the GST, which is hardlya reversal of fortunes of the magnitude theMinister, the Premier, the Treasurer andsundry other wolf-criers would like people tobelieve.
Of course, we remember when theprevious Minister for Tourism grabbed hold ofthat Treasury report and stood in theParliament proclaiming doom and gloom forthe Queensland tourism industry, predictingthat thousands of jobs would be lost becausethousands of tourists would not come toQueensland because of the effects of the
29 Feb 2000 Matters of Public Interest 43
GST. That, of course, was another example ofthe scare tactic that was aimed to send ashiver through the tourism industry of thisState. Let me say that the tourism industry ofthis State will not be fooled. It has seen theMorgans report, and now it has seen the otherside of the story to that told by the spin doctorsof the Beattie Labor Government.
But there is another issue here. It is thatthe Beattie Labor Government, theGovernment that wants the people to believe itis the epitome of virtue and political probity,has used the Public Service to generatepolitically motivated documents. The PublicService is supposed to be independent. Itshould never be used to produce convenienteconomic analysis to further the partisan goalsof the Government of the day.
Good government is about receivingexpert advice and acting on it. Badgovernment is about receiving politicallyconvenient advice and misusing it. Really badgovernment is about running scare storiesabout things that are neither scary nor withinthe remit of the Government doing the scaring,and that is exactly what happened when thisreport was released. Of course, in that report,there was no mention of the benefits to thetourism industry once the tax reform packagecomes in. The tax reform package will reducebusiness costs for tourism operators throughthe abolition of the wholesale sales tax, thereduced transport costs and the progressiveabolition and/or reduction by the States andTerritories of a range of inefficient taxes,including financial institutions duty, bank debitstax, various stamp duties—all of those. Therewill be shopping benefits for tourists. AnAustralian travelling overseas will be able toclaim a refund for GST paid on goods. Thereduction in transport costs will be a hugebenefit to the tourism industry. So let us hearno more of the scare campaign that is beingrun by the Labor Party on this issue ontourism, because the Queensland tourismindustry is too important to be affected by ascare campaign of this Beattie LaborGovernment.
Cyclones in CairnsMs BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (12.20 p.m.): I
am disappointed this afternoon to rise tospeak, not as I had planned, with the news ofthe tremendous and positive events that havestarted the year in Cairns, but instead to informmembers of events of the last several days. Irefer, of course, to the impact and theexperience of Cyclone Steve in Cairns and thefar north.
In fact, this is the third direct hit by acyclone that Cairns has sustained in the lastfour years, and it certainly should put paid tothose old timers' stories that the mountainsbehind Cairns will protect us from the worst ofa cyclone.
The cyclone was a large cyclone and atough cyclone. The wide eye crossed over thenorthern half of the city somewhere between6 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. on Sunday night. Itwreaked its more severe damage on thenorthern beaches and along the Marlin Coast.The winds were severe and, in fact, at theCairns Airport were the second most severewinds in recorded history. The winds reached143 km/h at 6.45 p.m. on Sunday night. Theonly wind gust ever recorded that was higherthan that was 146 km/h during Cyclone Agnesback in 1956. This is important information, butit should be kept in mind that wind speeds ofup to 180 km/h have been recorded in otherplaces. Wind speeds in excess of 160 km/hwere recorded at Green Island earlier lastSunday afternoon.
Not only do we have wind damage but wehave tide and water damage as well. In fact,on Monday during this cyclonic experience thewater levels in the Barron River reached an 80-year high. The Queensland Rescue helicopterairlifted 16 people, including a pregnantwoman, from the tops of their houses asfloodwaters swirled below. It was, indeed, avery serious cyclone and a very serious eventfor Cairns, with its impacts still apparent,though unevenly so.
It is important for those who have notexperienced cyclones to realise that cyclonesare indiscriminate in the damage that theywreak. They are also somewhat illogical.Houses and gardens which are severelydamaged can stand alongside others whichare undamaged. Some suburbs of Cairnshave been very much damaged whilst othersuburbs retained their supplies of power andwater and, though a little anxious, were able torelatively enjoy the excitement while watchingfrom the sidelines.
I am pleased to be able to tell honourablemembers that experience over many years inthe far north of Queensland, as well as thegood sense and hard work of keyorganisations such as the State EmergencyService, mean that we were warned quite earlyabout the cyclone's likely early arrival. It meantthat, on Sunday, all the people in the urbanareas surrounding Cairns knew that it was timeto get in the necessary supplies, to battendown the hatches, to clean up the yard and toprepare for the loss of power and water which
44 Matters of Public Interest 29 Feb 2000
is likely to occur during a cyclonic event. I ampleased to inform honourable members thatthe great majority of the population of the farnorth behaved with great good sense.
In fact, last Sunday, families cametogether. Although this action was occasionedby the emergency of the cyclone, it wassomething which was of indirect benefit. Therewas nowhere else to go in Cairns buthome—to be with the people that one lovesand cares about. In sharing the nuisance ofcleaning up the yard, of getting the candlesand of preparing the safest spot in the housein case of the worst during the disaster,families set aside their daily bickerings,annoyances and distractions that sometimesprevent family life from being as warm and asclose as it should be.
Yes, there were plenty of people whowere optimists and who stopped in at thevideo shop and hired some videos in casethey maintained electricity. I noticed, too, thatthere was fair trade at the local bottle shops. Afew beers and a couple of bottles of wine toget through the evening were part of theexperience for many of us in suburbs. Whilstmaking the best of the circumstances andmaking preparations, nonetheless there wasstill a lot of anxiety. As the cyclone comescloser and closer the severity of the windsaround one's home is somewhatunpredictable. Some people felt quite anxiousand panicky.
I am very pleased to report to the Housethat the sophistication of planning, experienceand training in the Disaster CoordinationCentre in Cairns meant that communicationlines were open to those who just needed tohear a voice or to have someone to talk to.Ten years ago we told people in Cairns thatthey were to stay off the telephone linesunless the matter was an emergency. On thisoccasion we were able to keep the telephonelines open. In this way we were able toencourage those who were anxious, alone,inexperienced with cyclones or uncertain as towhat to do next. On this occasion thosepeople had someone on the other end of theline to whom they could speak.
It is important to give recognition to thetremendous skills of our radio broadcastersand their support staff in the far north. It isimportant to realise that more than 100,000people are listening to every word ofinformation which is being broadcast. In mostcases it is the public's only line ofcommunication during such times. I commendthe radio broadcasters for their sense ofbalance in giving us the information and
stressing the emergency, while at the sametime providing humour, comfort and a local linkwhich hit the spot. This service gave us thecomfort that we needed during the hours whenwe were most at risk.
In particular, I pay tribute to Steven Yatesand Michael J. Bailey from 4CA FM and toJason Hagen from the ABC. I also pay tributeto the broadcasters on other radio stationswho made our situation less difficult than itmight otherwise have been.
I would also like to recognise the after-cyclone contribution that our local televisionstations and newspapers made. Theydelivered balanced reports of what happenedin Cairns during the cyclone. We had somedifficulty with the southern media which wantedto report only a short amount—namely theworst of the damage—about the cyclone.Cairns is a city which is based around tourism,and it is essential that what is reported iscorrect.
We must not forget those people who arestill cut off by floods, the people who still donot have electricity supplies and the canefarmers on the Atherton Tableland whosecrops are in chaos. I am pleased to report thata substantial part of the Cairns urban area isback at work and at school. Tourism operatorsare operating today. In fact, honourablemembers might be interested to know that aBritish cruise vessel, the Saga Rose, did notallow Cyclone Steve to interrupt its schedule.The ship came into Cairns yesterday. It hasnow been decided that the ship will stay longerin Cairns than had been previously planned.
I particularly commend our famous Skyrailin Cairns which is, because of the roadblockages to the tablelands, offering localsspecial discounts for using the cableway totravel morning and afternoon between thetablelands and Cairns.
The real heroes, of course, are not thepeople of Cairns who stayed in their homesand battened down and did the right thing, butthose who went out and looked after us.These people went out in the most dreadfulweather at some risk to themselves. They arestill working for the community.
At the top of the list are the StateEmergency Service and all those volunteerworkers who, by yesterday lunchtime, lookedpretty much the worse for wear. Some of themwere taking five minutes to sit and have a cupof coffee before they returned to the fray. Icommend the Cairns City Council workers inthe Disaster Coordination Centre and out onthe roads. I commend the electricity workersfrom Ergon, the Queensland Ambulance
29 Feb 2000 Ministerial Statement 45
Service, the Queensland Police Service, theQueensland Fire and Rescue Authority, theArmy and Queensland Health. We thank themall. Their planning, preparation, skill, trainingand experience over the years really paid offthis time in Cairns. Despite the severity ofCyclone Steve, we have had relatively littledamage. We suffered no loss of life and noreal harm to any person. Although we may feelsome irritability as we clear the vegetation andmop up the water, at the same time we thinkof the place in which we live. It is called theWet Tropics. We have rainforests, we haverain trees and we have cyclones. That is theprice we have to pay for living in Cairns.
SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Report
Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP)(12.30 p.m.): I lay upon the table of the Housethe Scrutiny of Legislation Committee AlertDigest No. 1 of 2000. I move that it be printed.
Commission ReportHon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—
ALP) (Premier) (12.31 p.m.), by leave: It is mypleasure today to table a report by theQueensland Constitutional ReviewCommission into possible reform of theQueensland Constitution. This report is asignificant milestone in the review of theQueensland Constitution because it is the firstin-depth analysis of reform issues. It alsorepresents my Government's continuingcommitment to constitutional reform.
Prior to the 1998 State election, Laborpromised to undertake a process to—
1. consolidate the Queensland Constitutionalong the lines recommended by theLegal, Constitutional and AdministrativeReview Committee; and
2. review the Constitution through a majorprogram of community consultationconducted by a constitutional reviewcommission.
This report is another example of thisGovernment delivering on its electioncommitments.
In April 1999, the Legal, Constitutionaland Administrative Review Committee tabledits final report on consolidation of theQueensland Constitution, which recommendeda Constitution of Queensland Bill 1999 and a
Parliament of Queensland Bill 1999. In Maylast year, the Government established theindependent Queensland ConstitutionalReview Commission to conduct communityconsultation and research and investigatewhether there should be changes to theQueensland Constitution. In July, theGovernment released its response to theLegal, Constitutional and AdministrativeReview Committee report—the discussiondrafts—Constitution of Queensland Bill andParliament of Queensland Bill (DiscussionDrafts).
The discussion drafts were largelymodelled on the Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee draft Billsand were distributed by the independent groupto aid in the public consultation phase. Theextensive research and communityconsultation conducted by the QueenslandConstitutional Review Commission is to becommended. The commission released acomprehensive issues paper in July 1999,which was distributed widely. All members ofthe Legislative Assembly, public libraries andall local government and Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander councils received copies.
The issues paper was also madeavailable on the Queensland ConstitutionalReview Commission's Internet site and itsrelease was advertised in metropolitan andregional newspapers. From October, 10 publichearings and meetings were held acrossQueensland. Prior to each meeting or hearing,an ad was placed in the local newspaper anda display unit publicising the inquiry was placedin major shopping centres. Local councils werealso approached to promote the hearing intheir areas. In all, the QueenslandConstitutional Review Commission received 34public submissions and its web site recorded21,200 hits.
On the basis of its communityconsultation and research, the QueenslandConstitutional Review Commission prepared itsreport and draft legislation. The report includes49 recommendations covering a wide range ofreform issues, including entrenchment, four-year terms, the recognition of certain statutoryoffice holders, a preamble and civic education.These recommendations are based onconsultation and research, but they have notbeen considered in detail or endorsed byGovernment. In line with my Government'scommitment to this exercise and in recognitionof the important role played by the Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee in this matter, I table this report forthe Legal, Constitutional and AdministrativeReview Committee's consideration and
46 Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Feb 2000
reporting and for the information of allmembers of the House.
The Government will also consider thesechanges in due course. However, we will waituntil the Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee hasdelivered its findings before finalising anylegislation designed to amend the QueenslandConstitution, although I have indicated toCabinet that the Attorney-General and I will bebringing submissions to Cabinet in relation tothe Government's response on these matters.There will be a separate submission in relationto four-year terms. That is a matter thatCabinet will exercise its judgment on and thatmay or may not be before the committeebrings down its report. I have not finalised myattitude in relation to timing on that issue. It iswell known that I am committed to four-yearterms. I believe that is important for goodgovernment. This Government has alreadyintroduced legislation for four-year terms forlocal authorities from next month, and I amkeen to see that implemented at a State level.To this end, I look forward to the Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee's comments on the report.
The report will be widely available to thecommunity. The report can also be accessedon the Queensland Constitutional ReviewCo m m i s s i o n ' s we b si te a twww.constitution.qld.gov.au. This morning, Ihad a meeting with the chairman of thecommittee, Professor Colin Hughes, andJackie Huggins. We agreed that this reportshould be made available today on the website, and it is now available.
The tabling of the QueenslandConstitutional Review Commission's reporttoday represents a significant step towards theconsolidation and review of the QueenslandConstitution. To date, the Legal, Constitutionaland Administrative Review Committee, theGovernment and the independentQueensland Constitutional ReviewCommission have embraced the ideal of publicconsultation to progress the review process. Iencourage all members to read the report andbe prepared to constructively contribute todebate in the future final stages of the reviewprocess. I urge all members of this House totry as much as is humanly possible to developa bipartisan approach to as many of therecommendations of the report as possible.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHERLEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Minister for Communication and
Information, Local Government and Planningand Minister for Sport) (12.35 p.m.), by leave,without notice: I move—
"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend certain localgovernment legislation, and for otherpurposes."
Motion agreed to.
First Reading
Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, read a firsttime.
Second Reading
Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Minister for Communication andInformation, Local Government and Planningand Minister for Sport) (12.36 p.m.): I move—
"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."
The purpose of the Bill is to give effect tocommitments of the Government to ongoingreform in the areas of National CompetitionPolicy and integrated State planning and tothe autonomy and accountability of localgovernments.
To summarise, the Bill deals with thefollowing matters. Firstly, it clarifies the legalrequirements where local governments arerequired to consider reform of their water andsewerage services. The Bill provides forretrospective validation of water charges,where uncertainty has arisen for councils as aresult of a recent Supreme Court case whichinvalidated water charges imposed by LoganCity Council on a company in the 1998-99financial year. The proposed amendments willnot affect or change the Supreme Court'sdecision on this case.
Secondly, it provides for retrospectivevalidation of rate notices in certaincircumstances where the relevant localgovernments may not otherwise be able toenforce the payment of rates that becomeoverdue.
Thirdly, it continues the State'scommitment to reform urban water boardsunder National Competition Policy, in particularin relation to the creation of the South EastQueensland Water Corporation. The Billcontains amendments of a minor technicalnature to ensure that the facilitating legislationpassed last year accurately reflects theintended distribution of transfer proceeds toshareholding local governments.
29 Feb 2000 Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 47
The opportunity is also being taken tocarry forward the consequential legislativeprogram implementing the planning reformsbegun with the creation of the IntegratedPlanning Act 1997. It gives effect to theintegrated planning and building reformprogram in respect of ports, public housing,enforcement of standards for Crown buildingwork and private certification and removesother anomalies and corrects minor textualerrors in the Integrated Planning Act 1997.
Finally, the Bill contains a number ofminor technical amendments to several Actsaffecting local government, includingamendments to enable the Brisbane CityCouncil to continue to deal with variousoffences in Brisbane's pedestrian malls.
The policy objectives of this Bill permit thetimely ongoing implementation of the currentreform programs as they affect localgovernments and other statutory and industrybodies.
Logan City Council and Supreme Courtdecision on water charges The Bill includes provisions to address anumber of issues that have arisen from aSupreme Court decision in November 1999which invalidated water charges levied byLogan City Council in 1998-99 on one of itscommercial customers, Hume Doors andTimber (Qld) Pty Ltd.
While the court decision only affected onecompany in the Logan City Council's area,uncertainty has arisen about the implicationsof the decision for other water charges leviedby Logan City Council and for other councilswhich have decided to apply a two-part tariff.
The Local Government Association ofQueensland wrote to me on 30 November1999 advising of its concerns about theuncertainty these councils face. For thatreason, on 8 December 1999 I indicated to theParliament my intention to introduce legislationearly in 2000 to ensure that local governmentslevying water charges based on a two-parttariff could continue to do so, and to validatecharges which as a result of the court decisionmay be questioned. This Bill fulfils thatcommitment.
The amendments do not overturn theSupreme Court's decision to invalidate LoganCity Council's utility charges for water serviceslevied on Hume Doors in 1998-99. Logan CityCouncil has lodged an appeal against theSupreme Court's decision and it is a matterthat will be resolved by the courts in duecourse.
The primary purpose of the amendmentsis to remove uncertainty about other watercharges levied by Logan City Council and byother councils affected by the water reformrequirements in chapter 10 of the LocalGovernment Act 1993. Chapter 10 wasinserted in the Local Government Act in 1997to apply to local governments the nationalwater resource policy adopted by the Councilof Australian Governments in 1994. While theamendments to the acts set out therequirements in very broad terms, matters ofdetail were addressed in subordinatelegislation.
For local governments affected by chapter10, the main requirements of chapter 10 are toapply full cost recovery to their water andsewage services and to apply some form ofconsumption charging to water services. Inaddition, there is a requirement to consider theintroduction of a two-part tariff as the basis forwater charges where cost effective.
A two-part tariff is made up of acomponent for access to the system, the'access component', and a component foreach unit of water consumed, the'consumption component'. A two-part tariff isjust one way of implementing the consumptionbased charging requirements for waterservices under chapter 10. The chapter 10requirements apply to local governments withwater and sewerage services that aresignificant business activities as defined in theAct. At present, there are 18 localgovernments in this category, including LoganCity Council.
Under chapter 10, the affected localgovernments must conduct an assessment ofthe cost effectiveness of applying a two-parttariff. However, the decision on whether or notto apply such a tariff is at the discretion of theindividual councils. Local governments whichdecide to apply a two-part tariff would thenimplement this by making utility charges forwater services under chapter 14 or, in the caseof the Brisbane City Council, under part 3 ofthe City of Brisbane Act 1924.
Logan City Council undertook its cost-effectiveness assessment on two-part tariffs in1998 and introduced a two-part tariff as thebasis for utility charges for water services in1998-99. For Hume Doors, its water chargesincreased from $810 in 1997-98 to a total of$25,000 in 1998-99, although Logan CityCouncil subsequently offered approximately$9,000 in transitional rebates. The increasewas based on a scale of charges thatdepended on the diameter of the service pipe,
48 Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Feb 2000
with no discount being allowed for a large butrelatively unused firefighting service pipe.
In July 1999, Hume Doors applied to theSupreme Court to have the water chargeslevied on it declared invalid. On 26 November,the Supreme Court decided to invalidate thecouncil's utility charges for water services leviedon Hume Doors in 1998-99. As a result of thedecision, there has been uncertainty about thevalidity of other water charges made by theLogan City Council and the actions of othercouncils under chapter 10. It is important thatcouncils be provided with certainty in relation toutility charges they have levied and will levy inthe future. This certainty is also important toconsumers. The amendments have aretrospective element, because it is importantto provide certainty to councils and to enablethem to continue to implement reformsadopted prior to the court decision.
For councils affected by chapter 10 thathave already resolved to apply a two-part tariff,the amendments provide that failure to complywith the procedural requirements of chapter10, in relation to two-part tariffs, consumptioncharging and the other pricing requirements forwater services, does not and never hasinvalidated their utility charges for waterservices. However, the Bill provides that thisretrospective validation does not affect theSupreme Court's decision to invalidate theLogan City Council's utility charges for waterservices levied on Hume Doors in 1998-99.
For councils affected by chapter 10 in thefuture, the amendments provide that failure bya local government to comply with any of therequirements of chapter 10 does not invalidateutility charges made under chapter 14 or, inthe case of the Brisbane City Council, underpart 3 of the City of Brisbane Act 1924.
For any future two-part tariff assessmentsrequired under chapter 10, the amendmentsalso clarify that assessing the costeffectiveness of a two-part tariff only requiresassessing the cost to the water business ofapplying a two-part tariff. It does notnecessarily require a local government toassess the implications of a two-part tariff forall consumers. This is a matter each councilmay take into account in considering whetherto apply a two-part tariff. In addition, theamendments clarify that the consumptioncharging requirement of chapter 10 does notprevent a two-part tariff from including anaccess component that is based on a factorother than consumption.
In summary, these amendments addressthe areas of uncertainty that have arisen forlocal government. The amendments are also
necessary to enable the State Government tocontinue to meet its obligations under theCouncil of Australian Governments' waterresource policy, the source of the requirementsin chapter 10.
Local governments have the autonomy tomake rates and charges. However, localgovernments should ensure that their powersare exercised responsibly after carefuldeliberation, not only in relation to watercharges but in all cases.
Much of the disquiet about the Logan CityCouncil water charges seems to have relatedto sudden and substantial increases in watercharges for businesses. I have asked LoganCity Council to review its water charging, andthe council has advised that it intends to doso. Ratepayers can also seek review of ratesand charges on the grounds that they areunreasonable.
This Bill does not disturb the rights ofratepayers to seek judicial review of thequantum of rates levied. In addition, legislationis being prepared to provide a mechanism forindependent review of monopoly pricingpowers of local government through theapplication of the Queensland CompetitionAuthority's system of prices oversight to thewater and sewage services of localgovernments affected by chapter 10.
Validation for particular rate noticesThe Bill also contains another
amendment in relation to local governmentrating. The Local Government and OtherLegislation Amendment Act 1999, assentedon 16 June 1999, gave local governmentsgreater flexibility to decide on the period withinwhich rates must be paid.
These amendments first applied in the1999-2000 financial year. However, some localgovernments did not make the necessaryprocedural and administrative changes andlevied rates, as if the amendments had notbeen made. Subsequently, uncertainty hasarisen as to whether these councils have thepower to recover rates levied in 1999-2000because they did not make changesnecessitated by the 1999 amendments.
The amendments in this Bill will rectify thissituation by validating rate notices issued forthe 1999-2000 financial year, before localgovernments encounter any debt recoveryproblems or problems due to unenforceablerate notices.Reform of the South East Queensland WaterBoard
Other amendments make furtherprovision regarding the conversion of the
29 Feb 2000 Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 49
existing South East Queensland Water Boardto a new incorporated body known as theSouth East Queensland Water CorporationLtd—SEQWCo. The South East QueenslandWater Board is a statutory authorityestablished under the South East QueenslandWater Board Act 1979 with 12 localgovernment customers. It owns and operatesthe three main south-east Queensland urbanwater storages—the Wivenhoe, Somerset andNorth Pine Dams. These dams supply bulkwater to half of Queensland's population. Theboard is also important in flood mitigation forthe Brisbane Valley.
The South East Queensland Water Board(Reform Facilitation) Act 1999 was passed inSeptember 1999 with bipartisan support. Itprovides facilitating mechanisms for convertingthe board into a public company, which will benamed the South East Queensland WaterCorporation Ltd—SEQWCo. The new watercorporation will be jointly owned by the Stateand the 12 local governments under theCorporations Law. This Bill makes a minorlegislative amendment to the South EastQueensland Water Board (Reform Facilitation)Act 1999 to facilitate the settlementtransaction. It sets out the distribution oftransfer proceeds to ensure the legislationaccurately reflects the intent of the transaction,whereby 80% of the transfer proceeds are tobe distributed to shareholding localgovernments, with 20% being returned to theState. The proposed amendment is supportedby shareholding local governments as itprovides certainty as to their receipt of thetransfer proceeds.
Continuation of the Planning Reform ProgramBegun with the Introduction of the IntegratedPlanning Act 1997
The Bill amends the Integrated PlanningAct 1997—IPA—and related legislation to carryforward the consequential amendmentprogram, and to address operational issues,particularly in the forthcoming integration intothe Integrated Development AssessmentSystem—IDAS—of development by the State.The IPA fundamentally reformed the wayplanning and development is administered inQueensland. IDAS is the system at the core ofthe Act for integrating the many differentdevelopment related approval systemsadministered by the State and localgovernments into a single legal administrativesystem. When fully implemented, IDAS willcreate a single system for the administration ofall development-related assessment inQueensland. The achievement of this singlesystem, however, involves the consequentialamendment of a substantial number of Acts
and regulations, which to date has includedthe Building Act, the Environmental ProtectionAct, the State Development and Public WorksOrganisation Act, the Prostitution Act, theVegetation Management Act and theTransport Infrastructure Act. This Bill continuesthe consequential amendment program byfurther amending the Transport InfrastructureAct 1994 to integrate development on portlands into IDAS. This will provide for aconsistent approach to the assessment ofdevelopment on equivalent port and non-portland.
The Bill also amends the provisions forpublic housing in the Act and provides for thetransition of development by the Stategenerally into the IDAS system. Public housingwill continue to be exempt from planningschemes. However, after 30 March 2000,public housing will be subject to specialrequirements which provide for proposalsinconsistent with the planning scheme to bepublicly notified, and for consultation with therelevant local government. The provisions asoriginally drafted were limited to the activities ofthe Queensland Housing Commission. Theamendments more accurately define publichousing and allow for other State entitiesproviding public housing to operate under theprovisions.
Development carried out by or on behalfof the State will become subject to planningschemes as from 30 March 2000. This will endthe two-year transitional period since thecommencement of the Act during which State-related development has been exempt fromregulation by planning schemes.
The Act contains a designationmechanism to allow State and othercommunity infrastructure development thatmeets the public benefit criteria to beexempted from planning schemes, after anappropriate consultation and environmentalassessment process. However, refinement isneeded to address the use of premises whereworks for that use are commenced but notcompleted before 30 March 2000. In thesecases, the Act is amended to allow agenciesto use development for the purpose intendedwithout obtaining any local governmentapproval or designating the land. This isconsistent with rights applying to privatedevelopment already contained elsewhere inthe Act.
The Bill also amends a range of otheroperational issues to improve the workability ofthe Act, including the enforcement ofstandards for Crown building work andrefinement of the operation of privatecertification.
50 Police Powers and Responsibilities Bill 29 Feb 2000
I shall particularly mention only two othermatters, both of which are transitional innature. Under the repealed Act, approvalswere given as a "package" encompassing arange of development assessable under theplanning scheme, including changes of use,building works and other works. Applicants hadno choice but to obtain the complete package.Under IDAS, applicants have the flexibility toapply for this development separately if theywish and the application form makes provisionfor the applicant to nominate the aspects ofthe development they are applying for. Manyapplicants and assessment managers haveconfused the term "material change of use"under the IPA with the package of approvalspreviously obtained under the repealed Act. Asa consequence the appropriate developmenthas not been indicated on the application formeven though the material supporting theapplication clearly implies approval is soughtfor development other than just the change ofuse. To address this issue, the Bill contains aretrospective provision to allow for adevelopment application or an approval to becorrected where the applicant hasunintentionally failed to nominate the full rangeof intended development. The proposedamendment removes the uncertaintysurrounding this matter, which has thepotential to lead to unproductive litigation.
Another difference between the old andthe new systems causing difficulties for localgovernments has been addressed in the Bill.Under the repealed Planning and EnvironmentAct, local governments could take land for anypurpose of the planning scheme. However,under the IPA the power to take land is linkedto achieving the desired environmentaloutcomes for the planning scheme. This is aconcept for IPA planning schemes notaddressed in transitional schemes. Theproposed amendment reinstates the previousprovisions for transitional schemes.
Minor Technical Amendments
Finally, the Bill contains minor technicalamendments to the Building Act 1975, the Cityof Brisbane Act 1924, the Integrated PlanningAct 1997, the Local Government Act 1993, theLocal Government (Chinatown and The ValleyMalls) Act 1984 and the Local Government(Queen Street Mall) Act 1981. Amongst otherthings, these amendments will enable theBrisbane City Council to continue to effectivelyregulate the city's pedestrian malls by theissuing of infringement notices.
Consultation on the Bill has occurred witha range of Government agencies as well asthe Local Government Association of
Queensland, the Brisbane City Council andrepresentatives of the development industryand environmental and communityorganisations. The proposals have receivedbroad support, and the Local GovernmentAssociation of Queensland has advised that itdoes not object to the Bill. I commend the Billto the House.
Debate, on motion of Mr Beanland,adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to2.30 p.m.
POLICE POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIESBILL
Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP)(Minister for Police and Corrective Services)(2.30 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move—
"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act about the powers andresponsibilities of police officers, and forother purposes."
Motion agreed to.
First Reading
Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Mr Barton, read a first time.
Second Reading
Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP)(Minister for Police and Corrective Services)(2.30 p.m.): I move—
"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."This Bill is the product of some 10 years
of consultation and preparatory work. Thehistory of the Bill will recount that itspredecessor, the Police Powers andResponsibilities Act, was passed with Labor'ssupport in 1997. Unfortunately, the time linesset by the previous Government did not allowfor a full and proper consolidation of policepowers. The 1997 Act was little more than amilestone in a lengthy and arduous legislativeprocess. Therefore, this Government was leftwith the task of reviewing the success of the1997 Act—and it is a success—whileamalgamating police powers from myriad otherQueensland Acts into this one Bill.
The consolidation process thisGovernment has undertaken culminates todayin the Police Powers and Responsibilities Bill2000. When Parliament passes this Bill,Queensland will be the only jurisdiction inAustralia, if not the Western World, with such a
29 Feb 2000 Police Powers and Responsibilities Bill 51
comprehensive police powers andresponsibilities statute. I am sure thathonourable members will agree that theBeattie Government can yet again say thatQueensland is leading the way. In fact, theBeattie Government has set a precedent forthe rest of Australia with this legislation.
At the outset we set the followingobjectives—
to consolidate and rationalise the powersand responsibilities that police officershave for investigating offences andenforcing the law;
to provide powers necessary for effectivemodern policing and law enforcement;
to provide consistency in the nature andextent of the powers and responsibilitiesof police officers;to standardise the way the powers andresponsibilities of police officers are to beexercised;to ensure fairness to, and protect therights of, persons against whom policeofficers exercise powers under this Bill;and
to enable the public to better understandthe nature and extent of the powers andresponsibilities of police officers.
This Bill achieves each of thoseobjectives. They are reflected in the purposesof the Bill at clause 4. No longer is there alibrary of Acts dealing with police powers.Instead, the Bill provides a central referencepoint for police and the general community,enabling them both to understand the natureand extent of police powers. This consolidationresults in the added benefit of consistencyboth in the extent of police powers and in therespective safeguards.
I do not intend to address each and everyclause of the Bill in this speech as they aremany and the Explanatory Notes adequatelycover them. Therefore, I will confine mycomments to a number of issues which are ofparticular significance.
It is to be noted from the outset thatmany sections have altered from the presentAct in terms of the circumstances in which apolice officer may exercise a power. Forexample, the clauses in the Bill dealing withthe search of a person or vehicle now extendto the likes of gaming, racing and betting, andcorrective services offences. The extension tothe current Act has been necessary toaccommodate the consolidation of policepowers. Consequently, although a clause mayappear at first glance to be wide reaching, one
must take into account that the power isgenerally found in the statute from which it wasderived.
To complement the consolidatedprovisions of the Bill, clause 9 seeks to limit theeffect other Acts have on the Bill. This is toensure that there is no doubt as to which Act isto take precedence insofar as police officersare concerned. The clause states that anyinconsistency between the provisions of the Billand another Act is to be resolved by givingpreference to the provisions contained in thisBill. In this Bill the Government is offeringpolice the proper tools to perform their duty.Parliament must not discourage theperformance of that duty by regressing to anendless series of Acts that police must poreover in order to find a power to use in a givensituation.
While I am the first to acknowledge thathonourable members cannot limit thelegislative competence of future Parliaments,we can give a clear indication of the intent ofthis Parliament. However, no one Act canhope to provide a remedy for all ills which apolice officer may face in the line of duty.Therefore, the Bill provides that a police officermay continue to do things that he or she canlawfully do other than provided for in the Bill.For instance, the Bill does not in any wayprevent a police officer, not otherwiseauthorised under this Bill, from entering aprivate place to save the life of a persondrowning in a swimming pool.
Additionally, removing police powers fromother Acts and providing a centralised sourceof reference will not mean that assistancecurrently provided to public officials by policewill wane. The Bill allows a police officer toutilise his or her powers and, where necessary,to assume any unique powers of a publicofficial while assisting that public official. Forexample, if there is a need to quarantine anarea because of the outbreak of an infectiousdisease in stock, police will assist DPIinspectors to establish quarantine roadblocksunder the Exotic Diseases in Animals Act.
Nevertheless, the powers provided in theBill are counterbalanced by adequatesafeguards to ensure their proper use. Theybegin as early as clause 5, which states that itis Parliament's intention that police officersshould comply with this Bill in exercisingpowers and performing responsibilities under it.To ensure compliance with Parliament'sintention, a police officer who contravenes thisBill may be dealt with as provided by law.Action may range from cautioning to theimposition of criminal penalties, depending
52 Police Powers and Responsibilities Bill 29 Feb 2000
upon the seriousness of the breach. Havingsaid that, I do wish to stress that it is not theintention of the Government to instigate awitch-hunt on the vast majority of honest andhardworking police officers. Those performingtheir duty within the parameters of the law willreceive the Government's and especially myfull support and assistance, as the passage ofthis Bill indicates.
On that point, a power provided to policeunder the 1997 Act allows them to direct aperson to move on in circumstances where theperson's presence or behaviour causes anxietyto another person. I am pleased to note thereis little, if any, recorded abuse of the power onthe part of police officers. Moreover, the historyof the use of the move-on power has clearlyindicated to the Government that it is aneffective, preventive tool in minimising criminaldisturbances, particularly assaults.
It is essential to good Government thatlaw-abiding citizens are free to utilise publicfacilities without fear of harassment,intimidation or assault. Therefore, as part ofthe consolidation process, police will beauthorised to use the move-on power in theinterests of public safety at the followingadditional places—
at a mall;
at a racing venue;
within the South Bank Parklands; and
at a place where unlawful soliciting forprostitution is occurring.
Honourable members will be aware thatQueensland is to host more than 100 Olympicteams who will undertake training inpreparation for the Sydney 2000 OlympicGames and Brisbane will host a number ofOlympic soccer matches. Next yearQueenslanders will benefit from the GoodwillGames and the Commonwealth Heads ofGovernment Meeting.
It is essential to maintain Queensland'sreputation as a safe environment forinternational spectators and visitors to specialevents. Therefore, it is necessary to provideour police with specific powers to minimise therisk of criminal threats arising at these events.Consequently, this Government hasspecifically designed special events legislationwhich has been incorporated in this Bill. Itprovides necessary provisions for thepreservation of public order and safety ofpersons involved in special events and thesafety of other persons at special event sites.The legislation can only be activated by theGovernor in Council for the duration of special
events. A further prerequisite requires that theMinister must also be satisfied that there is areasonable likelihood that the event may bedisrupted if—
the special event powers are notexercised;
the exercise of the powers is necessaryfor the protection of persons involved inthe event; or
the exercise of the powers is required as acondition of the holding of the eventbeing held in Queensland.
Notice of a declaration will be published in anewspaper generally circulating throughoutQueensland. Additionally, the organiser of aspecial event will be required to provideinformation to the public of the limits of arestricted area at the special event site. Forexample, the accommodation block of athletesat a major sporting event may need to bedeclared a restricted area for security reasons.
There will be a condition of entry to aspecial event site that a person must not takeinto or possess in the site a prohibited itemand if asked must permit a search of theirpersonal property or permit a frisk search oftheir person. If the need arises, provision hasbeen made for the Commissioner of Police toappoint authorised persons to assist police inmaintaining security arrangements at specialevents. However, the powers that may beexercised by an authorised person will not beas broad as a police officer's powers and willbe restricted by the terms of the appointment.An authorised person will be required to carryand display or produce an identity card.
Division 5 of the Part provides the powerswhich may be exercised at a special event site.The initial part of the Division deals with theentry of persons to special events andprovides security-related powers. It is intendedthat the powers be used in a structured andstaged process ensuring the leastinconvenience to genuine spectators.Consequently, a police officer or an authorisedperson may request a person to state theirreason for entering or being in a special eventsite. While the clause is not aimed at genuinespectators who wish to enjoy the event, it isdesigned to establish whether a person maybe entering the site in order to causedisruption to the event. Therefore, if theperson fails to comply with the request, thepolice officer or authorised person must warnthe person that they may be removed from orprevented from entering the special event siteunless they have a reasonable excuse forfailing to comply with the request.
29 Feb 2000 Police Powers and Responsibilities Bill 53
As an additional security measure and ina similar fashion to those deployed at airports,a police officer or an authorised person mayutilise a walk-through detector or hand-heldscanner or ask a person to pass theirbelongings through an X-ray. An additionalsearch power, again similar to that in use at anairport, is provided for occasions where it isreasonably considered necessary. Thisprovision allows a police officer or authorisedperson to request that a person entering orwho is on a special event site to do one ormore of the following—
allow a police officer or authorised personto inspect the person's belongings;
request the removal of one or more outergarments, such as jackets or coats, wornby the person and allow a police officer orauthorised person to inspect thegarments;allow a police officer or authorised personto remove and inspect all items from theclothing of the person;allow a police officer or authorised personto open and inspect all items;
allow a police officer or authorised personto open and inspect a vehicle or part of avehicle; and
allow a police officer or authorised personto remove and inspect an item from thevehicle.
These are not considered intrusive powers asthe person is not physically touched during theinspection of items of clothing or belongings.Clearly, the volume of people entering aspecial event will not permit security personnelto conduct a search of each person.
It is acknowledged that occasions willarise where it is necessary to conduct a morecomplete search of an entrant to a specialevent. On those occasions, a police officermay request a person in or entering a specialevent site to permit a frisk search being madeof the person by a police officer of the samesex as the person. Non-police securitypersonnel will not be provided with this power.It is of note that a person may refuse toprovide information or submit to any of thesearches outlined. If this is the case, then apolice officer or authorised person is entitled torefuse entry to the person or remove theperson from the site.
I do, however, wish to make it clear thatthis law does not provide an out for a personwho is reasonably suspected of being inpossession of an unlawful item such as afirearm. Threats of this nature to the security ofa special event will not be tolerated. The
person will not be given the opportunity toleave the special event site and thus avoidprosecution for an offence. In these instances,a police officer may exercise a general powerto detain and search the person withoutwarrant. Should the person have violated otherlaws concerning the possession of weapons,for instance, he or she may be arrested anddealt with in a similar fashion as if the offencewere committed in any other place.
The special events legislation, bynecessity, contains offence provisions. Theseare of limited number but are essential to thegood conduct of an event. Therefore, it will bean offence—
to enter or remain in a special event siteunless the person has paid the entry fee,if any, has the consent of the organiser oris otherwise authorised to enter or remainat the special event site;
to enter or remain in a restricted area of aspecial event site without a reasonableexcuse;
to disrupt, interfere with, delay or obstructthe conduct of the special event or anassociated activity or interfere with thereasonable enjoyment of the specialevent or associated activity;
to take a prohibited item onto or possessa prohibited item at a special event sitewithout a reasonable excuse; and
to assault or obstruct an authorisedperson exercising a power under this Part.
In addition to the special eventslegislation, there is a need for a general powerto allow police to take immediate action toprotect life and property where there is a threatwhich may or may not be associated with aspecial event. I refer to incidents which we toooften witness through media accountsinvolving terrorist acts being committed on thepassengers of transport vehicles, and inparticular aircraft. Unfortunately, the holding ofa special event increases the likelihood ofthese types of threats becoming a reality.Even where the threat turns out to be no morethan the act of a crank, it is essential thatimmediate action be taken in the first instanceto ensure there is no risk to life or property.
As honourable members wouldappreciate, the Queensland Police Servicedoes not have the luxury of taking a calculatedrisk concerning action to be taken where aperson's life may be in danger. Therefore, theadditional provision provided in the Bill atclause 77 allows for the search of a transportvehicle without warrant where there is a risk tolife or property such as a report of a bomb on
54 Police Powers and Responsibilities Bill 29 Feb 2000
an aircraft. All the powers of a search warrantapply, including the additional power to searchany person connected with the transportvehicle, that is, a passenger. A transportvehicle is defined as an aircraft, a boat, a busor a train.
There are two further issues I will addressbefore concluding. The first relates to thesearch of persons in custody. Clause 232 ofthe Bill allows for the search of a person incustody. The clause is not new and is merelybeing transferred from the 1997 Act. However,it is essential to the safety of prisoners thatpersons who come into police custody eitherby arrest or under sentence of imprisonmentbe subject to a search. An initial search isusually conducted following arrest to seizeanything from a person that a police officerreasonably suspects may provide evidence ofthe commission of an offence. Additionally,police officers have a duty of care to personsin their custody.
Consequently, there is a need to allow forthe search of a prisoner to ensure that they donot have possession of anything that may beused to harm themselves or other personswhile in custody or which may be used for thepurpose of escape. Also, items of value inpossession of a prisoner are kept in safekeeping while the person is in custody toensure they are not damaged or stolen byother prisoners.
As unfortunate as it may be, there is aneed for the legislation to allow for the removalof a person's clothing for the purpose of somesearches. However, while allowing thesesearches, commonly known as strip searches,to be conducted, the Bill also providesconsiderable safeguards—1. a search is to be conducted in a way
providing reasonable privacy for theperson searched;
2. the police officer must, if reasonablypracticable, inform the person theywill be required to remove clothingduring the search and why it isnecessary to do so;
3. unless an emergency exists, a policeofficer who conducts a search is tobe the same sex as the person beingsearched;
4. the police officer must also, ifreasonably practicable, give theperson the opportunity to remainpartly clothed during the search;
5. the search is to be conducted asquickly as possible with the personbeing allowed to dress as soon asthe search is finished;
6. the police officer is not to makecontact with the genital or anal areasof the person but may make a visualinspection;
7. if clothing is seized during the searchthe person must be left with or givenreasonably appropriate clothing;
8. if a video camera monitors the areawhere a person is to be searchedthen it must be turned off or thesearch is to be conducted out of theview of the camera unless the personviewing the monitor is a police officeror the same sex as the person beingsearched; and
9. if the person to be searched is a childor a person who may not be able tounderstand the purpose of thesearch then a support person isrequired to be present.
Finally, I will deal with aspects of the issueof discontinuation of arrest, but first let me sayhow pleased I am with the success of thenotice to appear scheme. When the schemecommenced it attracted the usual detractorswho hypothesised doom and gloom andabuse by police. Based on Criminal JusticeCommission research figures, what it hasachieved, however, is a reduction of 40% inthe number of persons taken to a watch-house. Offenders are still being charged andfacing the courts, but without the need to firstplace them in custody.
I wish to draw attention to a significantalteration found in clause 173 which allows forthe arrest of a person to be discontinued. Theclause previously imposed a limited duty on apolice officer to discontinue an arrest at theearliest reasonable opportunity if the person isno longer reasonably suspected of committingthe offence. Uncertainty arose where therewas insufficient evidence to charge a personbut a police officer still suspected the personwas responsible for the offence.
To clear up any doubt, subclause (2)requires a police officer who has arrested aperson for an offence to release that personwhere the police officer considers there isinsufficient evidence to bring the person beforea court for the offence. It may be the case thatat the conclusion of an interview orinvestigation, a police officer may not considerthat there is sufficient evidence to continue theproceeding even though the police officer stillsuspects the person committed the offence.The duty on the police officer is to release theperson.
29 Feb 2000 State Housing Amendment Bill 55
As I have previously said, the processundertaken which culminates in this well-balanced Bill shows that the BeattieGovernment is committed to being tough butfair on law and order issues. It is a policy whichis reflected in this Bill by not only making thepowers and responsibilities of police officersclear and easy to understand but consolidatesall these powers into one piece ofgroundbreaking legislation.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Debate, on motion of Mr Horan,adjourned.
STATE HOUSING AMENDMENT BILL
Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister forHousing) (2.54 p.m.), by leave, without notice:I move—
"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend the State HousingAct 1945."
Motion agreed to.
First Reading
Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Mr Schwarten, read a firsttime.
Second Reading
Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister forHousing) (2.55 p.m.): I move—
"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."
The State Housing Act 1945 establishesthe Queensland Housing Commission as astatutory body through which the Departmentof Housing delivers housing services. Theseservices include housing loan assistance forlow to moderate income Queenslanders whoare unable to borrow sufficient funds from theprivate sector to enter into home ownership.
Australia is experiencing a general trendaway from home ownership, with the 1996Census showing Queensland's average of64% was below the national average at 67%.In some key regions, ownership rates wereeven lower:
far-north Queensland, 54%;
north Queensland, 60%;
Mackay/Whitsunday, 58%; and
central Queensland, 61%.
While the Department of Housing is notseeking to compete with private sector lendersfor home loan business, there are someQueenslanders who are unable to accesshome ownership through the private sector. Itis fundamentally important that Governmenthousing loan assistance is offered in formsthat better help our borrowers, and suit theirhousing loan needs. As the State Housing Act1945 stands today, it does not allow forflexibility in the design of products to addressborrowers' needs.
The proposed Queensland State HousingLoan provides a perfect example of why theState Housing Act 1945 requires change. Thisnew product, which I first announced on 29October 1999, differs from previous lendingproducts offered through the Department ofHousing. This is because it has beenspecifically designed to protect borrowers fromsharp increases in repayments when interestrates rise rapidly, and allows borrowers tobenefit from reductions in interest rates insome circumstances.
Considerable research and developmenthas been undertaken in designing a wellstructured home loan product to assist currentpublic rental tenants, waitlisted applicants andother eligible Queenslanders to purchase ahouse to be used as their home. However, theQueensland State Housing Loan will not beoffered until such time as the Bill is enacted,because under the existing provisions of theState Housing Act 1945 the interest ratemethodology cannot be guaranteed for the lifeof every loan.
Accordingly, the primary aim of the StateHousing Amendment Bill 2000 is to provideflexibility to offer a broader range of housingloans, which is achieved by inserting newinterest rate setting provisions in the StateHousing Act 1945 for future housing loans.
Under the proposed amendment Bill, astandard interest rate policy, detailing thepolicy by which fixed and variable interest ratesare set, will be prescribed by regulation. TheMinister for Housing will then, from time totime, declare both fixed and variable interestrates following the standard interest rate policy.These will be notified to the public bynewspaper advertisement, in a way similar tothe banks and other private sector lenders.This will lead to administrative efficiency, andallow the Minister to respond far more quicklyto review the fixed and variable interest rateswhen there are fluctuations in the market.
The Bill also provides for interest on loansoccurring after its commencement to bepayable on the unpaid balance at the rate
56 Child Protection Amendment Bill 29 Feb 2000
stated in individual agreements. Under thecurrent provisions interest rates are alwayssubject to alteration by the Minister or, in somecases, the Governor in Council. For futureloans the interest rate must be stated in thoseindividual agreements, either by reference tothe standard fixed and variable interest ratesdeclared by the Minister, or as a formula thatrefers to the standard interest rates. This willprovide the Department of Housing with theflexibility to develop and offer products thathave linkages with the standard interest rates.This will enable the Department of Housing tobetter assist identified groups of borrowersachieve their goals of obtaining homeownership, by tailor making products andinterest rate setting mechanisms to suit thetarget market.
I emphasise that these changes will onlyapply to loans made after the newamendments become law. The current interestrate setting arrangements for existingborrowers will continue as before.
The Bill also proposes a minoramendment to align the existing delegationsprovisions of the State Housing Act 1945 inline with those contained in the Public ServiceAct 1996, to enable the commission to bemore flexible in its administration andoperations. This will enable the delegation ofthe commission's powers in a similar way tothe chief executive of a Governmentdepartment.
A further minor amendment relates tosection 89 of the Criminal Code Act 1899. Thissection provides for prosecution of PublicService employees where they enter into anycontract or agreement in a private capacitywith the department for which they work. Theamendment is to ensure that Public Serviceemployees who are in fact eligible for housingassistance under the State Housing Act 1945are able to access that assistance without fearof prosecution under the Criminal Code.
I commend the Bill to the House.Debate, on motion of Mr Laming,
adjourned.
CHILD PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILLHon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP)
(Minister for Families, Youth and CommunityCare and Minister for Disability Services)(3 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move—
"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend the ChildProtection Act 1999 to provide forinterstate transfers of certain orders andproceedings, and for other purposes."
Motion agreed to.
First Reading
Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Ms Bligh, read a first time.
Second Reading
Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP)(Minister for Families, Youth and CommunityCare and Minister for Disability Services)(3.01 p.m.): I move—
"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."
Since the passage of the Child ProtectionAct 1999 last year, this Government hasreaffirmed its strong commitment to theprotection of children through finalising anhistoric agreement between the QueenslandGovernment, the other Australian States andTerritories and New Zealand. Through theCommunity Services Ministers' Council it hasbeen agreed to implement reciprocallegislation which will enable the interstatetransfer of child protection orders and childprotection proceedings in a way that has not,until now, been possible.
The Child Protection Act 1999, as itstands, will protect Queensland's children whilethey are living in this State. Its ability to protectthem if they move interstate is limited to theadministrative transfer of some guardianshiporders. Once children in need of protectionmove interstate—often for reasons related totheir best interests—they need the fullprotection of the child welfare law of that Stateor Territory.
The reciprocal legislation agreed by allStates and Territories is designed to allowsmooth transition from the protection of oneState to the protection of another for a childwho moves. It recognises that a child's welfareand protection is best managed by thejurisdiction where the child is living, even if thechild was originally placed under a protectionorder in another jurisdiction.
This Bill will add a new chapter to theChild Protection Act 1999. This chapter willform part of reciprocal legislative arrangementswith New Zealand and the other AustralianStates and Territories. It will ensure theongoing protection of children under childprotection orders, or involved in child protectionproceedings, when they move interstate oracross the Tasman.
The numbers of children affected by thispart of the Bill are not a large percentage ofchildren under orders. At 30 June 1999, therewere 3,326 children under Queensland childprotection orders. During 1998-99, court
29 Feb 2000 Child Protection Amendment Bill 57
proceedings for 700 child protectionapplications occurred. Compared to thesefigures, at 30 June 1999 there were 98children and young people under Queenslandchild protection orders living interstate. Thisfigure nevertheless represents a considerablenumber of children and young peoplepotentially protected by this Bill. These childrenare interstate for a variety of reasons. Theymay have been placed interstate to live with arelative. They may be living interstate withfoster carers who have moved temporarily forwork-related reasons.
All these children are potentially at riskwhilst outside the area of jurisdiction of theQueensland child protection order. When theyare interstate, the Queensland order cannotprotect them from possible abduction, orensure that they receive the services theyneed. Despite administrative arrangementsbetween the State authorities, they may notreceive adequate attention from the Statedepartment where they are living if no localorder exists to direct the work of the local childprotection agency.
The Bill, together with reciprocal legislationin other States, Territories and New Zealand,will assist these children in the following ways.It will be an offence to remove a child under achild protection order from their carer, eventhough the child is living in a State other thanwhere the order was made. It will allow theappropriate State Children's Court to decide anapplication for a child protection proceeding,even if the proceedings started in Queenslandbefore the child moved. It will help ensure thatthe appropriate State department administerseach child protection order, rather than theorder being administered by a department inanother State from which a child has nowmoved. It will provide a process for transferringchild protection orders and proceedings whichacknowledges the need for children to havestability in their lives. To this end, the Billshortens some judicial appeal periods.
The ongoing consultation between theStates, Territories and New Zealand resulted inan agreement that each jurisdiction wouldimplement reciprocal laws which include thesetypes of provisions. Thus, a child under aVictorian order who moves to Queensland willbe able to have the Victorian order translatedinto a Queensland order.
The amendments represent a significantachievement by Queensland and the otherStates and Territories and New Zealand incooperating to achieve sufficient consistencybetween the differing child protectionjurisdictions to enable this reciprocal scheme to
work. This will ultimately benefit one of themost vulnerable groups of children in oursociety. It is my understanding that NewZealand has already passed its legislation andthat most of the other Australian States andTerritories will have legislated before the end ofthe year. Upon proclamation of the ChildProtection Act 1999 on 23 March 2000,Queensland will be the first Australianjurisdiction to implement the reciprocalscheme.
This Bill also delivers on the Government'scommitment to implement therecommendations of the Forde Commission ofInquiry into the Abuse of Children inQueensland Institutions. It amends the ChildProtection Act 1999 to implement part of theGovernment's response to the Forde inquiryrecommendations. These amendments aim toensure the safety of children placed inresidential facilities for the care of childrenunder the custody or guardianship of the chiefexecutive of my department. Theamendments include: an obligation upon thechief executive to regularly inspect licensedresidential care facilities to ensure thatadequate standards of care are met; anobligation upon persons employed inresidential care facilities and officers of theFYCCQ to report any suspected harm causedto children within such facilities; and anobligation on the chief executive to ensureaccess by children in licensed residentialfacilities to advocacy services.
These amendments will further protectchildren who have already suffered harm andas a result are in the care of the State. Theyplace specific obligations on the State inrelation to children in residential facilities. Otherresponses of the Government to therecommendations of the Forde inquiry will beput into effect through regulations under theChild Protection Act 1999.
Finally, the Bill will also amend the ChildProtection Act 1999 to correct some minoranomalies in the Act which were identifiedduring preparation work for its implementation.This preparation work has included a majortraining program targeting all departmentalofficers, police officers and community welfareworkers who will have responsibilities under thenew Act. In addition, it also involved setting upthe new jurisdiction for the Children's Court.These undertakings have brought to attentionsome minor anomalies and omissions whichthe Government considered it prudent torectify prior to proclamation of the Act.
Examples of these amendments includethe following. Clause 17, regarding contact
58 Land Court Bill 29 Feb 2000
with a child in school or child care toinvestigate allegations of serious harm, hasbeen reworded in the Bill to put beyond doubtthat entry to the school or centre must be withthe consent of the principal or person incharge. The existing wording was consideredunclear on this point. The definition of "parent"used in relation to court proceedings under theAct has been redrafted to more clearly reflectthe intent that it include relatives who havebeen awarded custody under a child protectionorder. The unintended omission of thiscategory of "parent" would have meant thatthe relatives with protective custody of the childcould not be party to court proceedings aboutthe child.
The Bill will also amend the Act in relationto costs of court. Currently the Act includes thefollowing provision—
"The parties, other than the child, toa proceeding in the Children's Court for anorder must pay their own costs of theproceeding."
The words "other than the child" were includedin this clause by way of amendment moved bythe member for Indooroopilly during debate inCommittee prior to the passage of the Act.The member moved this amendment in goodfaith and the Government accepted it in goodfaith.
However, subsequent advice hasindicated that insertion of these words mayhave unintended consequences whereby theGovernment—or the respondents to anapplication for a child protection order, i.e. thechild's parents—would have to pay the child'slegal expenses in all circumstances, despitethe child being legally aided. Omission ofthese words will not result in children having tomeet their own legal expenses, as all children,unless they have substantial independentfinancial means, are legally aided.
Another significant amendment containedin the Bill will ensure that the offenceprovisions of the Children's Services Actrelating to tattooing of children will not berepealed along with the rest of that Act whenthe Child Protection Act 1999 is proclaimed. Itwill remain illegal, as now, to tattoo a child.However, it is the intention of the Governmentto give further consideration during 2000 topublic policy in relation to this and relatedissues such as body piercing of children.
The passage of this amending legislationwill ensure that the Child Protection Act 1999as it comes into force on 23 Marchencompasses all the legislative improvementswhich have been developed during the past
year to further the interests and protection ofour children. I commend the Bill to the House.
Debate, on motion of Mr Beanland,adjourned.
FISHERIES (EAST COAST TRAWL)MANAGEMENT PLAN 1999, SUBORDINATE
LEGISLATION No. 289Disallowance of Statutory Instrument
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Nelson-Carr): I call the member for Burdekin, who isnot here. Is there a mover for this motion?There being no mover for this motion, themotion lapses.
LAND COURT BILLSecond Reading
Resumed from 25 August 1999 (seep. 3481).
Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA)(3.10 p.m.): We have to be ready.
An honourable members interjected.
Mr LESTER: Yes, I have been around awhile. Some think that is a good idea, somedo not. The Land Court was established inQueensland more than a century ago by theLand Act 1887. The Land Court is presentlyestablished under the Land Act 1962. TheLand Act 1994 repealed the Land Act 1962but continued the provision in the 1962 Actrelating to the Land Court and its immediateappeal court, the Land Appeal Court. Theseprovisions were not incorporated into the LandAct 1994 because of uncertainty that thenexisted as to the precise future of the LandCourt. Their retention in the Land Act 1962was designed as an interim measure until thefuture of the Land Court was decided. Thefuture of the Land Court was canvassed in anumber of reviews dating back to the early1990s. At one stage, proposals were made forthe integration of the Land Court with otherbodies, such as the Planning and EnvironmentCourt, but did not come to fruition. The LandCourt has continued to be established underthe 1962 Act.
The Land Court Bill 1999 establishes theLand Court and the Land Appeal Court underseparate legislation. The Bill makes littlesubstantive change to the present law in that ithas retained many of the substantiveprovisions relating to the Land Court, the LandAppeal Court and the Land Act 1962 asamended. The Bill also introduces a number ofchanges in the operation and procedure of theLand Court, some of which reflect similar
29 Feb 2000 Land Court Bill 59
changes made in other Queensland andinterstate courts.
The Land Court and the Land AppealCourt provide a mechanism for the resolutionof interrelated matters. The Land Court hasjurisdiction over more than 30 State Acts tohear and determine matters relating toappeals and referrals under those Acts. Themajority of matters heard by the Land Courtare appeals against the determination of thechief executive of the Department of NaturalResources in matters relating to the ValuationsAct 1994, the Land Act 1944, the Land Act1994, the Water Resources Act 1989 anddispute claims for compensation following theresumption of land under the Acquisition ofLand Act 1967.
The Land Court is a comparativelyinformal court. Its procedure is governed byequity, good conscience and the substantivemerits of the case before it. It is not bound bystrict rules of evidence. The report of a reviewof land policy and administration inQueensland—the Wolfe report—released in1990 made the observation that land-holders,particularly those involved in rural industry, arecomfortable appearing before the Land Courtand impose great confidence in that process.
The Land Court further allows persons toappear before it in person, or to berepresented by a lawyer or agent. At present,the vast majority of appeals in valuationmatters are conducted by self-representedpersons, whereas almost all claimants forcompensation under the acquisition of LandAct 1967 are represented by a lawyer. TheLand Court comprises up to six members,including a president. The president must be abarrister or a solicitor of at least five years'standing. In contrast, there are no qualifyingrequirements for members. Members areappointed for renewable terms of five years.
The current legislation makes provision fora rehearing of Land Court matters onapplication where a party is aggrieved by theLand Court's decision. In most matters,appeals from a decision of the Land Court liein the Land Appeal Court, which is constitutedby a judge of the Supreme Court and twomembers of the Land Court, excluding themember who pronounced the decision.Appeals from the Land Appeal Court on thegrounds of error or mistake of law or lack ofjurisdiction can be made to the Court ofAppeal. Funding for the Land Court isallocated through the Department of NaturalResources, although the court operatesindependently of the department.
Since the early 1990s, a number ofreviews have discussed the future of the LandCourt. In August 1993, the Electoral andAdministrative Review Commission—EARC—released the report on the review of appealsfrom administrative decisions. As part of agreater review of the system of appeals fromadministrative decisions in Queensland, EARCreviewed the jurisdiction and work of the LandCourt, the Land Appeal Court and thePlanning and Environment Court. As aconsequence of that review, the commissionrecommended the disbandment of the LandCourt and the consolidation of alldevelopment, environment and land mattersinto one body called the development,environment and land tribunal. In November1993, a discussion paper released by theMinister for Housing, Local Government andPlanning described the proposals for newdevelopment and planning legislation inQueensland. One of the reforms proposedwas the amalgamation of the Planning andEnvironment Court, the Land Court, andbuilding tribunal into a consolidated landplanning and environment court comprisingboth judges and non-judicial assessors.
In May 1995, the Parliamentary Electoraland Administrative Review Committee—PEARC—completed a report in response tothe reforms of administrative law advocated byFitzgerald and recommended by the Electoraland Administrative Review Commission. Thecommittee noted that at one stage the GossGovernment proposed to create a land,planning and environment division of theDistrict Court. It further noted that, in relation toprocedures, the proposed court would sharemany of the features of EARC's proposeddevelopment, environment and land tribunal.In May 1995, the Goss Government releasedan exposure draft of new planning anddevelopment legislation, the Planning,Environment, Development and AssessmentBill, for public comment. In the exposure draftit was noted that the proposal to amalgamatethe Planning and Environment Court, the LandCourt and building tribunal into a land,planning and environment court was to beimplemented under separate legislation.
The Planning, Environment Developmentand Assessment Bill was never enacted,however, due to a change in the StateGovernment. The incoming Borbidge coalitionGovernment subsequently enacted theIntegrated Planning Act 1997 in place of thePlanning, Environment Development andAssessment Bill. The Integrated Planning Act1997 continued the Planning and EnvironmentCourt. The Planning and Environment Court
60 Land Court Bill 29 Feb 2000
has jurisdiction to hear and determine matters,including planning, development andenvironmental protection matters. This newlegislation did not affect the operations of theLand Court, which continued as before underthe provision of the Land Act 1962.
A Report on a Review of the Powers,Procedures and Rules of the Land Court wasreleased in October 1996. The summary ofrecommendations from the 1996 report iscontained in appendix B to the bulletin. Theprimary focus of the review was to suggestways in which court-supervised casemanagement could be facilitated whileretaining flexible procedures.
One of the issues dealt with in the 1996report concerned whether the Land Court andthe Land Appeal Court could be establishedunder separate legislation. The 1996 reportsupported the concept that the legislationrelating to the Land Court should be containedin separate legislation rather than the Land Act1994. In this context it was noted that NewSouth Wales and South Australia haveestablished specialist courts dealing with arange of planning, environmental,developmental and land-related matters undertheir own legislation.
The 1996 report also proposed a schemeof new rules and procedures, similar to casemanagement processes in the District Court orthe Supreme Court, which could be adopted inthe Land Court to improve the pre-hearingprocess. It identified a need for precisedefinitions of issues at an early stage followedby a compulsory preliminary conference or thelike in order to avoid a "trial by ambush".
The present system of appeals fromdecisions of the Land Court was alsocanvassed in the 1996 report. It suggestedthat the current procedure of the Land AppealCourt hearing an appeal from the Land Courtas a fresh hearing with limits on the admissionof new evidence should be changed. As analternative, the 1996 report proposed thatappeals to the Land Appeal Court ought to beby way of re-hearing on the lower court recordonly. It would thereby exclude the admission ofany new evidence. A party wishing to introducenew evidence could opt to have the matterreheard in the Land Court by the originalmember rather than appeal to the LandAppeal Court. This option also would notpreclude the party from exercising their normalrights of appeal.
The 1996 report also noted instanceswhere the judicial review process had beenused to deal either with matters within thetraditional jurisdiction of the Land Court or
arising under an Act which did not confer aright of appeal from the Land Court to theLand Appeal Court. To overcome this problem,the 1996 report proposed that an appeal tothe Land Appeal Court be available from allmatters within the Land Court jurisdiction.
One of the recommendations made in the1996 report was that the present entitlementof a party to appeal as of right to the Court ofAppeal on a point of law from a Land AppealCourt decision should be removed. Instead,such an appeal should be by the leave of theCourt of Appeal only. A furtherrecommendation in the 1996 report was theappointment of a semi-judicial officer toconduct many of the preliminary proceduresproposed in the review. The 1996 reportsuggested that it was neither cost effective norappropriate for a member of the court to beinvolved in these stages.
According to the Explanatory Notes, theLand Court Bill 1999 is designed to provide ashort, separate piece of legislation to governthe constitution, composition, jurisdiction andpowers of the Land Court. It also constitutesand continues the Land Appeal Court with thepower to hear appeals from the Land Court.Further provision is made for appeals onquestions of law only to be taken to the Courtof Appeal. The Bill is also designed to providethe legislative foundation for extensive newrules and procedures to modernise andstreamline the court's operation.
Under clause 4(1), the Land Court isestablished as a specialist judicial tribunal. Ithas jurisdiction as given to it under the Act.Under clause 5, such jurisdiction is exclusive tothe Land Court. The Land Court consists ofthe president and other members. The court isconstituted by a single member sitting alone,unless the court is required under an Actconferring jurisdiction on the Land Court, to beconstituted in another way.
Clause 16 provides for the appointment ofthe president and other members on thecommission of the Governor in Council. Thepresident, but not the members, must be abarrister or a solicitor of the Supreme Court ofat least five years' standing.
Clause 17 provides for the ex officioappointment of members of the Aboriginal andTorres Strait Land Tribunals as members ofthe Land Court. The Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee has noted in its report on the LandBill 1999 that the Bill does not provide anyexpress guidance on the nature of theexpertise required to be possessed by personsappointed as Land Court members other thanthe president. The committee contrasted the
29 Feb 2000 Land Court Bill 61
recently enacted Land and Resources TribunalAct 1999 as an example of legislation whichspecifies eligibility requirements of knowledgeor experience for appointment as anappointed non-presiding member and areferee non-presiding member. I understandthat the Minister is making some moves in thatarea. That is very good.
Clause 20 imposes the requirements thata member must not practise in, or have adirect or indirect interest in the practice of, abusiness or profession if the practice or interestis likely to conflict with his or her duty as a courtmember. For example, a member should notpractise as a valuer or retain an interest in aprivate valuation firm of which he or she wasformerly a partner. This requirement, however,does not apply to an acting member or amember appointed on a part-time basis byvirtue of being a member of a land tribunal.
Further, a court member must resign hisor her position with the court if elected as amember of the Legislative Assembly ofQueensland. A member must retire at 70years of age. However, a member who starts ahearing before reaching 70 may continue withthe hearing until such time as it ends. Amember can be removed from office by voteof the Parliament only for incapacity ormisbehaviour. If the Parliament is not sitting,the Governor in Council may suspend themember. The grounds for suspicion must belaid before the Parliament within seven sittingdays after the suspension. Parliament maythen confirm or lift the suspension.
As to some of its powers, the Billexpressly confers numerous powers on theLand Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction.These powers include the power to adjournproceedings; to issue a subpoena to a personto attend court and to produce relevantdocuments; to punish a person for contemptof the Land Court; to make any order, giveleave or do anything else it is authorised to doon the terms the court considers appropriate;to rehear a matter on the application of anaggrieved party; to stay proceedings; and tomake declarations.
Clause 9(1) details the list of acts thatconstitute contempt of the Land Court. Amember of the Land Court has the samepower to punish a person for contempt of theLand Court as a Supreme Court judge forcontempt of the Supreme Court. At commonlaw, superior courts possess jurisdiction topunish contempts of court wherever theyoccur, whereas the jurisdiction of inferior courtsis limited to punishing contempts committed inthe face of the court. In its report on the Land
Court Bill 1999, the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee noted that the powers to punish forcontempt conferred on the Land Court underclause 9 extend well beyond the powersconferred by common law. The committeequeried the appropriateness of conferring onLand Court members the same powers topunish for contempt exercisable by a SupremeCourt judge. The committee noted also that,although the Land Appeal Court hasequivalent powers to punish for contemptunder clause 72, with one exception aSupreme Court judge would always be sittingon the court.
The authority of the Land Court to reheara matter is carried over from clause 12 of theLand Act 1962. The provision provides analternative to appealing the decision to ahigher court. If practicable, the same memberwho made the declaration must rehear thematter. According to the Explanatory Notes,the circumstances in which the power to reheara matter is likely to be used would be relativelyrare. For instance, it could occur when therewas a valid reason for not submitting evidencein the initial hearing but where the absence ofthat evidence had an important bearing on thedecision. The present experience of the LandCourt is that applications to have a matterreheard by the Land Court are rarely made.When a party has made an application tohave a matter reheard, the Land Court canstay the decision made up until the time theapplication is refused or the matter is reheard.Clause 33 gives the court the power to makedeclarations about actions taken or proposedto be taken under Acts giving jurisdiction to thecourt and the interpretation of an Act for thepurpose of proceedings in which the court hasexclusive jurisdiction.
As to some of the rules, one of the majorreforms proposed in the Report on the Powers,Rules and Procedures of the Land Court wasthat there should be new procedural rules togovern the operation of the Land Court andLand Appeal Court. Under clause 21 of theBill, the Governor in Council, with theconcurrence of the Chief Justice and the LandCourt president, is authorised to make newprocedural rules concerning the operation ofthe Land Court. The rules are expressed to besubordinate legislation. Notably, clause 21(4)provides that the rules may be uniform rulesthat apply to other courts. Uniform CivilProcedure Rules for the Supreme, District andMagistrates Courts came into operation on 1July 1999. According to the Explanatory Notes,the new Land Court Rules to follow this Bill willbe consistent with such uniform rules as far aspossible. Some areas such as alternative
62 Land Court Bill 29 Feb 2000
dispute resolutions, disclosure and service ofdocuments can be adopted by reference withlittle or no change. However, due to thespecialist nature of the Land Court, it isanticipated that additional provisions will benecessary in the Land Court Rules. Where amatter about Land Court procedure is notcovered by the rules, clause 22 authorises theissue of directions of a general nature orrelating to a particular case.
In relation to judicial registrars, anothermajor reform proposed in the Report on thePowers, Rules and Procedures of the LandCourt in 1996 was the introduction of theposition of a semi-judicial officer in the LandCourt to supplement the position of thepresident and other members. The Bill createsthe new position of judicial registrar of theLand Court. A similar position of judicialregistrar in the trial division of the Supremeand District Courts is provided for under theUniform Civil Procedures Rules 1999. Underclause 29(1), the judicial registrar's function isto hear and decide prescribed matters listed inthe Land Court Rules. It is envisaged thatthese matters will include new proceduralprocesses, such as case management,alternative dispute resolution and mediation.Further, it is anticipated that the positionshould relieve some of the workload presentlyplaced on our full-time members.
In its Report on the Land Court Bill 1999,the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee notedthat the Bill does not expressly indicate theintended nature of the judicial registrar's role.The committee has recommended that theMinister consider amending the Bill to specifyin more detail the tasks that it is intended thejudicial registrar may be authorised by rules toperform. We will await the Minister's commentson that. Under clauses 29(2) and (3), indetermining a matter, the judicial registrar canexercise all of the jurisdiction and powers ofthe Land Court but does not have the powerto punish a person for contempt. Clause 32enables a judicial registrar to exercise a judicialor quasi-judicial power granted to the registrarunder any Act. A member of the court mayalso exercise any of the powers of a judicialregistrar. In order to be appointed as a judicialregistrar, a person must be eligible foradmission as a barrister or solicitor in theSupreme Court. Similar to members, theretirement age for judicial registrars is 70 yearsof age.
A number of provisions provide for theindependence of the position of judicialregistrar. A judicial registrar is appointed by theGovernor in Council and may be removed by
the Governor in Council only for provenincapacity or misbehaviour. Furthermore, theappointment of a judicial registrar is under theproposed Act rather than the Public ServiceAct 1996. When exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial power, a judicial registrar is not subjectto direction or control other than as providedunder the proposed Act. A party to aproceedings who is dissatisfied with the judicialregistrar's decision in the matter may, with theleave of the Land Court as constituted by amember, have the matter reheard by amember of the Land Court. Conditions may beplaced on the rehearing.
As to other Land Court officials, provisionis also made under the Bill for the appointmentof a registrar, deputy registrar and otherofficers of the Land Court. In contrast to thejudicial registrar, these officials are to beemployed under the Public Service Act. Itshould also be noted that, unlike members orjudicial registrars, the registrar and deputyregistrar must not exercise a judicial or quasi-judicial power. The registrar, deputy registrarand other officers of the Land Court are alsoexpressed to hold their equivalent positions inthe Land Appeal Court.
As I noted earlier in dealing withpreliminary conferences, the report on thereview of the rules, procedures and powers ofthe Land Court suggested the incorporation ofpreliminary conferences into the casemanagement procedures used in the LandCourt. A similar suggestion was also made inthe Wolfe report released in 1990. Theadvantage of a preliminary conference is that itallows the issues in a matter to be furtherdefined and perhaps resolved at an earlierstage of proceedings with consequent savingsin court resources at the time.
For the past two years, the Land Courthas offered court supervised preliminaryconferences to parties in proceedings beforethe court. The conferences are currentlyconducted by one of the members of the LandCourt. Under the current legislation, the courtdoes not have the power to direct the partiesin a proceeding to participate in a preliminaryconference. The conferences, therefore, areconducted with the agreement of the parties ina proceeding on the understanding that, if theparties do not achieve a resolution, then theyretain their rights in respect of the courtproceedings. In the 1997-98 financial year, aresolution rate of about one in three wasachieved for matters in which preliminaryconferences were held. The majority of mattersthat were settled were appeals under theValuation of Land Act.
29 Feb 2000 Land Court Bill 63
Under clause 36 of the Bill, the court mayhold preliminary conferences in an attempt tonegotiate a settlement between the parties ina dispute. A party can be represented by alawyer or an agent at the conference, but therepresentative must have the authority tosettle the matter on any issue raised. If amatter does not settle at a preliminaryconference, the member or judicial registrarpresiding at the conference may take adecision on the matter if the parties agree.
If the matter proceeds further, tworestrictions apply unless the parties consent.Firstly, the member or a judicial registrar whopresided over the preliminary conferencecannot hear the matter at a future stage incourt. Secondly, any evidence given oradmission made at the preliminary conferencecannot be raised at the further proceedings.Similar disqualifications exist in the SouthAustralian legislation relating to the LandResources and Development Court in SouthAustralia. These types of provisions aregenerally felt to encourage frank discussions atthe preliminary conferences.
In relation to alternative dispute resolutionprocedures, one of the key proceduralchanges in the power and procedures of theLand Court made by the Bill is the introductionof court connected alternative disputeresolution—ADR—processes, such asmediation and case appraisal. Mediation is aprocess whereby a third party from a positionof apparent neutrality assists those who are indispute towards an agreed outcome betweenthem. The role of the mediator does notextend to deciding the outcome. Caseappraisal in the present context is a processunder which a case appraiser provisionallydecides a dispute. Unless a party is dissatisfiedwith the case appraiser's decision, it elects tocontinue to have the dispute go to trial orotherwise be heard. The case appraiser'sdecision is binding on all parties.
In the last decade there has been a shiftin emphasis in the wider court system towardsthe resolution of disputes by means other thanlitigation. The integration of ADR processes inLand Court procedures follows that precedent.Clause 37 of the Bill incorporates the ADRprocedures and those contained in theSupreme Court of Queensland Act and theUniform Civil Procedures Rules in 1999 into theprocedures of the Land Court. The provisionsmainly relate to mediation and case appraisal.
Clause 37(4) enables the president toapprove a member or a judicial registrar as amediator or case appraiser for the ADRprovisions. This provision alleviates the
necessity to appoint an external mediator atthe cost of the parties but still allows theparties to nominate an external mediator atthat time if that is their choice.
In relation to appeals, the Bill retains thecurrent two-tiered appeal structure of the LandCourt and the Court of Appeal in the appealprocess with some minor proceduralamendments. The Land Appeal Court,established under clause 53, is a court ofrecord. Like the Land Court, strict rules ofevidence do not apply in the Land AppealCourt. It must act according to equity, goodconscience and the substantial merits of thecase without regard to legal technicalities.
Under clause 54, the Bill confers a right ofappeal to the Land Appeal Court from alldecisions of the Land Court. Previously someof the Acts under which matters can bereferred to the Land Court prohibited any suchLand Court decision from being appealed.According to the Explanatory Notes, aggrievedpersons who have wanted to further appealmatters arising under those Acts have usedthe process of judicial review as an alternativemechanism to further litigate the case. Theconferral of a right to appeal in all cases isdesigned to overcome the problem.
The Land Appeal Court is constituted by aSupreme Court judge and two members otherthan the members who made the decisionappealed against. If an appeal is made from aland tribunal, at least one member of the landtribunal other than the initial decision makermust sit on the Appeal Court if practical.Clause 65 states that a party intending toappeal any Land Court decision must servewithin 42 days of that decision a notice ofappeal, stating the grounds of appeal, on theother parties and the registrar of the LandCourt. Clause 56 confers on the Land AppealCourt the discretion to allow new evidence onan appeal if three conditions are met—
the admission is necessary to avoid graveinjustice;
there is adequate reason as to why theevidence was not previously given; and
the application to have the evidenceadmitted is made prior to the hearing ofthe appeal.Instead of finally deciding the matter itself,
the Land Appeal Court can remit a matter tothe Land Court or tribunal because of an erroror mistake in law or for the matter to beredetermined with or without further evidence.The Land Appeal Court can stay an appealdecision for a period up until the time theappeal is decided in order to secure the
64 Land Court Bill 29 Feb 2000
effectiveness of the appeal. Clause 72enables certain provisions applying to theLand Court to apply to the Land Appeal Court.These provisions relate to contempt, rules,directions, costs and subpoenas.
Clause 74 provides that an appeal fromthe Land Appeal Court to the Court of Appealmust be on an issue of law and requires theleave of the Court of Appeal or a judge ofappeal. The requirement for a party to obtainleave to appeal is new and is designed toensure that only issues of sufficient meritproceed to full appeal, given that any casetaken to the Court of Appeal will already havebeen through two levels of hearing. Thischange is consistent with the appeal provisionsin the Integrated Planning Act relating toappeals from the Planning and EnvironmentCourt to the Court of Appeal.
There are indeed no provisions in the Billfor the Land Appeal Court, of its own motion orat the request of a party to the appeal, to statea case on a point of law for the opinion of theCourt of Appeal, as is currently the case undersection 45A of the Land Act 1962. The Courtof Appeal can remit a case to the Land AppealCourt to make a decision in accordance withthe Court of Appeal decision; it may substituteits own decision; or it may make any order itconsiders appropriate.
In relation to representation, a party isentitled to appear in person or be representedby a lawyer or agent in an appeal before theLand Court. In this context, an example of anagent could be a valuer.
In relation to court records, the registrar isrequired to keep minutes of the proceedingsand records of its decisions. Notably, anyperson—not limited to a party to aproceeding—may see and take copies ofnotes of evidence and of any documentsproduced in evidence to the court.
In relation to costs, under the currentlegislation the Land Court has a generaldiscretion to award costs as it thinks fit in anymatter in which it has jurisdiction. The Billrestates the general rule that each party to aproceeding in a court bears their own costs.The court, however, may also make an orderas to costs as it considers appropriate. Thecourt has the discretion then to order costs incases where it considers the general ruleshould be displaced. A costs order may bemade an order of the Supreme Court andenforced in the Supreme Court.
The Bill retains the references under theAboriginal land legislation. As noted above,clause 17 provides for the appointment ofmembers of the land tribunals established
under the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 or theTorres Strait Islander Land Act 1991 or on anex officio basis. There are no provisionsrelating to the Queensland Native Title Tribunalin the Bill as the Land and Resources Tribunalestablished under the Land and ResourcesTribunal Act 1999 now covers that aspect.
The Bill contains consequentialamendments to various Acts that referdisputes to the Land Court. A uniform timeperiod of 42 days in which to lodge an appealto the Land Court is provided, except inrelation to the Land Tax Act, which retains the30-day time limit. The change is to avoid userconfusion and promote uniformity. Further,restrictions in the Water Resources Act 1989(Qld), the State Housing (Freeholding of Land)Act 1957 (Qld) and the Soil Conservation Act1986 (Qld) which had prevented any furtherappeal from a decision of the Land Court havebeen lifted.
Mention is made of what happens inother States. The Opposition at this point willindeed be supporting this Bill. I understandthat the Minister has taken up the majoramendment as recommended by the Scrutinyof Legislation Committee. We will see whathappens in the Committee stage.
Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP)(3.53 p.m.): I rise to support the Land Court Bill1999. In doing so, we have only to think of therange of economic theories that have beenespoused over the years to realise theimportance of land as a factor of production inour economy. Land figures very prominently inany of those theories as a very importantaspect of value and as a factor of production.As such, it is a very important aspect in termsof generating wealth. Associated with landwithin this jurisdiction is the valuation of waterresources to a very large degree. We haveonly to look at economic theories associatedwith the Asian mode of production to see justhow important water associated with land is asa factor of production.
The fact is that we have to provide a veryresponsible and balanced process ofregulating our land. Regulating its value, itstransactions, its acquisition and other factorsthat arise in relation to the valuation of land interms of the fixation of taxes and rates are allfactors which are of very great economicimportance in the processes that are nowbefore the Parliament relating to the fixation ofthose values and how those values thencontribute to the economic processes we haveoperating in our economy.
The original Land Act, which the Billbefore the Parliament seeks to amend, is a
29 Feb 2000 Land Court Bill 65
very old Act. As such, we have had a fairlyconservative and traditional approach to theway in which the Act has operated and theassociated court process. This is a processthat goes back to the foundation of this State.The appropriation and allocation of land hasbeen one of the most important andfundamental aspects to the development ofthis State over more than a century. This is avery important Bill to the economic wellbeing ofthe State. The Bill retains the court as aseparate court and gives it its own enablinglegislation. Indeed, it used to be part of theLand Act 1962, which was replaced by theLand Act 1994. The Land Court was neverdealt with at that time.
Perceptions by the public in relation to themachinery we are dealing with are often verynegative. Historically, it has been such. It is aperception of a very unwieldy and impersonalsystem. That is a very unfortunate situation.This is an issue which touches the lives of somany Queenslanders within not only businessbut also the domestic sphere—that is,implications of rating increases that can flowfrom valuation changes. It is an issue whichbegs for an approach to enable citizens toaccess the system in a broad sense—particularly for citizens who are not legallyqualified and who do not have the finances toformally proceed through the court system—and access it in a way that is very consistentwith other lay jurisdictions. That prospect iscertainly a very central part to this legislation.
The changes have meant that some ofthe modern techniques used to deal with legalcases could not properly be applied, and Irefer there to the conciliatory stages that nowfigure within the court system. It is a processthat has been applied in the past, but thislegislation will certainly provide for greaterformality and legal impetus to back up thoseconciliatory processes.
The important point about this—and I askthe Minister to continue to take cognisance, ashe has—is that the way in which the court willdeal with these conciliatory processes in thefuture is also very closely interdependent withhow land valuation issues are dealt withthrough the more bureaucratic stages. Whatwe hope in terms of the future developmentand future reviews of this legislation is that thiscourt gets less business. We hope that fewercases end up at this court. The way in whichthat can be achieved, we hope, is via a farmore conciliatory process in the earlier stages,a process which enables disputes andgrievances to be settled in relation to issuessuch as valuations, and that is one which
opens up a very important spectrum, that is,the way in which information is provided.
I am very pleased that, in response tosome recent concerns, especially from my ownelectorate, the Department of NaturalResources has been very responsive in termsof trying to provide more information at thisparticular juncture where the aggrieved party,the aggrieved citizen, is simply wantingexplanations about valuations, for example,from the department before they proceed tomore formal processes. We as a societycertainly need to avoid the spectre of citizensen masse going through those formalprocesses, so the more effectively we can dothat at the bureaucratic stage, at thedepartmental stage, where the citizen isdirectly interacting with the department, thebetter off we will be.
The reference groups that I have set up inmy own electorate, which are currently groupsof citizens who have been appointed fromopen public meetings within my electorate,have been working with me on exactly thesesorts of questions. Those reference groupshave been looking at the current operation ofthe Act, not only in terms of how it serves thepublic but also its future review.
In terms of the current review of the Act,they are certainly very interested in ensuringthat a correct balance of information isprovided at the outset, that at that point of theformal notification of a valuation, for example,appropriate information is provided. I am verypleased to be informed by officers of thedepartment, as recently as last night, that anew approach will be taken this March uponthe notification of valuations in terms of adifferent letter and different accompanyinginformation being provided to citizens inrelation to their valuations.
This is a very important and difficultbalance to achieve, because some citizenswould like to have spelt out exactly whatproperties were looked at in terms of theirvaluations—exact locations, et cetera—but itcertainly would be going too far to provide thatinformation en masse. We might have to lookmuch further and much wider, and I draw theattention of members to the discussion paperon freedom of information that is currentlycirculating as a result of the deliberations ofthe Legal, Constitutional and AdministrativeReview Committee. That is a paper whichraises a specific alternative in the overall publicadministration in this State, and it is analternative which goes to the heart of whatinformation is provided automatically tocitizens. An option that we may have to
66 Land Court Bill 29 Feb 2000
advocate and consider in this State is onewhich provides more open access toinformation, for example, regarding propertyvaluations. In this age where Internet access isbecoming very commonplace the prospect ofproviding more information about valuationsand the valuation determination process mayin fact be a real consideration so that, ratherthan bog down the governmental system inrequests and inquiries and people phoning thesystem for more information, we may in facthave a more streamlined system by makingthis information more readily available.
Indeed, the other side to this coin is theprospect that the department may wish to stillsell this information. That is certainly a veryimportant consideration. But a more automaticrelease of this information to individual citizensmay still be feasible, while at the same timemaintaining the commercial value of thatinformation to be sold as full data packageswhich might be manipulated and used bypeople such as those in the real estateindustry. These are important questions toevaluate in the future, in terms of how westreamline this process and minimise—again,"minimise"—the prospect of citizens having togo through this far more formal process ofobjection through the department, appeals tothe Land Court and then perhaps evenappeals beyond that to the Court of Appeal.
I believe we need a far more creativeapproach, an open approach, and I welcomethe responses that are already coming fromthe department in terms of its preparedness toprovide this information, but I hope in futurewe can encapsulate that approach within onewhich seeks to provide a far more automaticrelease of information in a more efficient wayand one which does not bog down the system.
The advantage of this Bill and theframework it creates for procedural rules willenable a more streamlined, modern andprofessional approach to land issues, and infact, in doing so, it reflects the very specialistnature of this jurisdiction, and that is certainlywhat is required. The concept follows the newuniform court rules which came into operationin the wider court system as from 1 July lastyear, and the amendment to the Bill to bemoved by the Minister at the Committee stagerequires any committee to have specialist skillsand qualifications appropriate to thejurisdiction. No special qualifications arecurrently required.
There are a number of general points ofwhich we also need to be aware in terms ofthe background to this Bill. There is support forthere being separate legislation for the court
because of the highly specialised subjectmaterial under its jurisdiction—for example,land valuations and resumptions themselves—and the need for an appropriate framework toenable it, as a separate jurisdiction, to operateefficiently and effectively.
We have to stand back and consider justwhat valuation is. I believe it is a verysophisticated balance of art and science. It isone which tries to develop the objective andthe subjective. It is one which requires greatexperience, because of the very wide range ofpermutations and combinations that valuersstrike in their daily work, especially in terms ofworking with properties.
The other aspect that really complicatesthe valuation process is the sheer dynamics ofit, and that is a matter of which valuers need tobe cognisant all the time and which brings itinto such a specialist domain. The fact thatproperty prices in a city like Brisbane move ona daily, weekly, monthly or yearly basisprovides for certain trends that becomeapparent over time. Certainly, citizens inelectorates such as mine have a great deal ofdifficulty recognising the way in which valuerssometimes take into account those trends,and much frustration arises from it. The landvaluer ultimately comes back to the marketand is constrained then by the black and whitewords printed in the legislation, which requirethe valuer to take fundamental cognisance ofthe unimproved value of the land.
This matter has been of great concern toconstituents in my electorate because theyfind that this very tight concept of unimprovedvalue is not one which recognises the widerdynamic which is occurring within the landmarket. I am grateful that the Minister hasindicated a preparedness to listen to thereference groups that I have assisted in settingup in my electorate. I believe that thosegroups will provide valuable assistance to theMinister. These people are well read and arewell acquainted with the issues. They are veryenthusiastic and earnest about the prospectsof changing the law in order to betterrecognise the specific concerns of the citizensof Brisbane. They are concerned with regard tothe process of reaching a fair valuation of theirproperties as a basis for rate fixation.
The Land Court is a specialist court whichshould be staffed by specialist lawyers, valuersand/or related land professionals. This will leadto a separate and distinct jurisdiction which cantake those dynamics and those specialconcerns into account. Because the strict rulesof evidence do not apply to the Land Court,more flexible procedures can be adopted to
29 Feb 2000 Land Court Bill 67
accommodate the wide range of appellants.This is necessary because we are not simplydealing with commercial and industrial land butare increasingly dealing with land in a domesticcontext. It is a fundamental right of citizens tohave access to a system which allows them tobe heard. The conciliatory processes which willbe underpinning this Bill will enhance theaccess of citizens to the Land Court. People ofall ages and from all sorts of backgrounds maybecome frustrated with the valuation processand seek to have access to the Land Court.
People appreciate the flexibility andfriendlier environment of the Land Court.Without this legislation, some of theinnovations informally applied by the courtcould not be strictly enforced. This woulddisadvantage many people who bring mattersbefore the court. It is necessary that we havethe conciliation aspect of the court process.Any citizen who is unhappy with a valuationcan go through the objection process with theDepartment of Natural Resources and canthen take the matter to the Land Court. Somepeople may want to argue about the ratingvaluation and others may want to argue aboutthe level of compensation which is paid by aresuming authority.
This Bill, by giving the court its ownenabling legislation, recognises the rights ofpeople to have their matters heard byspecialists. This leads to a more consistentoutcome for Queenslanders. People can stillappeal against decisions of the Land Court bygoing to the Land Appeal Court, which ischaired by a judge of the Supreme Court.Although it is a specialist court, the Land Courtis still subject to the supervision of the widercourt system.
Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—LP)(4.13 p.m.): At the outset, Mr Deputy Speaker,may I congratulate you upon yourappointment to the high office of DeputySpeaker of this House.
The Land Court is a very significant courtfor the people of this State. It has a majoreffect on the everyday lives of Queenslanders,no matter where they reside in this great Stateand no matter whether they own land or not.There are two reasons for this. The first issueconcerns valuations. When valuations arecarried out by the Department of NaturalResources through its State Valuation Service,the citizen has an avenue of appeal.
Valuations are important in three areas.First of all, valuations are used as the basis forland tax. Secondly, valuations are used bylocal government for the purpose of rating.
Valuations are also used where minimum ratesare fixed with regard to water and relatedmatters. Valuations also have an effect onproperty sales.
Another important matter is the issue ofcompensation as a consequence of landacquisition. I think it is fair to say that thisaspect affects a great number of citizens ofthis State. People are affected by theconstruction of roads and dams. Another areaof concern is the provision of corridors for suchthings as gas pipelines.
There are two major reasons why this Billis so important. The Land Court is aspecialised court. It has been with us fordecades. In spite of attempts to abolish it, wefind that the Land Court is still with us. At onestage in the early 1990s there was talk ofabolishing the Land Court and setting up in itsplace a development, environmental and landtribunal. That concept further developed intoproposals for a land, planning andenvironment court. However, those proposalshave not seen the light of day. We arekeeping the specialised Land Court and thespecialised Planning and Environment Court.There are considerable differences betweenthe two courts. They make decisions in regardto completely different matters. I believe bothcourts work extremely well under the currentarrangements.
Many citizens appear in person before theLand Court in regard to valuations. Sometimesthey may need to be accompanied by avaluer, but the people are able to understandthe proceedings of the Land Court. I believethat the procedures which are now beingimplemented will greatly simplify the situation. Irefer in particular to the Uniform CourtProcedure Rules. The simplification ofprocedures will instil greater confidence inpeople who find it necessary to appear incourt, particularly in an era when people say,"The legal process is too complex. We have toresort to lawyers and experts. Why can't werepresent ourselves?"
This is an area in which people can quiteeffectively represent themselves. There havebeen many instances when a citizen has beenawarded judgment against the Valuer-General's Department in the Land Court. Thepublic feel very close to these issues becausevaluations affect property sales. Someproperties finish up with very low valuations. Iwill not take time at this stage to discuss thesouthern Moreton Bay islands, but a valuationof $60,000 today can drop to $500 or $1,000in six months' time. People look at thevaluation notices and ask, "What gives? Are
68 Land Court Bill 29 Feb 2000
there other reasons? Why has the valuationchanged?"
We all know that the valuation issupposed to be based on the unimprovedvalue of the land. Relevant sales in theneighbourhood are taken into account. I havehad a great deal to do with this issue overmany years. I had dealings with these matterswhen I was formerly an alderman of theBrisbane City Council. So I think that this is avery important issue for the people ofQueensland. I think that it is fair to say thatlocal governments like to blame the Valuer-General for increased valuations, therebygetting themselves off the hook. There is nodoubt that, at times, valuations go up verysignificantly. Nevertheless, local governmentscan assess that themselves and can reducethe rate in the dollar considerably so that, inthe end, the increased valuation will have littleeffect. Although there are some hiccups in thesystem that are very hard to iron out, generallylocal government can level out those increasesin valuations.
As I said, there is also the issue ofcompensation in relation to corridors which, aswe all know, is a growing concern. People tendto feel badly done by. In some cases they are;in some cases they are not. However, inrelation to large-scale acquisition by the Crownto build a dam, to construct roads or transportcorridors, for corridors for natural resourcesgenerally or for some other State purposesuch as the acquisition of land for the SouthBank precinct—for whatever reason—somepeople feel aggrieved and wish to go beforethe Land Court. I must say that having expertsin the Land Court, having the system ofappeal to a Supreme Court judge and then, ifnecessary, the right of appeal to the Court ofAppeal for technical legal reasons providespeople with the ability to see that they aregetting some justice out of the system.
Over recent years, preliminaryconferences have been held in relation todispute matters. In fact, I am going to assist aconstituent with one in the near future prior tothis legislation taking effect. However, thislegislation takes the process further andincludes case management and alternativedispute resolution, which are offered by theSupreme, District and Magistrates Courts. It isgood to see that this legislation will enablethose further steps to occur. We all know that,at the end of the day, it does not matter howstrong people believe their cases to be, for allsorts of reasons when they go to court theycan just as easily lose the case as win it.Therefore, I think it is important to offer peopleboth case management and then alternative
dispute resolution so that they can try to ironout matters which in many instances do notnecessarily involve matters of great momentbut are merely misconceptions. In that way, anagreement can be reached to the satisfactionof both parties. That procedure enables thecourts to reduce their workload and theirbacklog. It is a far better situation than thosepeople having to go to court, with the expenseand uncertainty that that involves.
I notice on page 2 of the ExplanatoryNotes reference to uniform time limits of 42days for the lodgment of appeals under thevarious Acts conferring jurisdiction. I think thatis great. Whatever the time limit, wheneverything is all over the place and no-one istoo sure, the situation becomes very difficult. Ican assure the Minister that, even with thatuniform time limit, some people will still end upgetting it wrong. I know that the Minister hasdone the best he can. However, I ask theMinister: why has Treasury requested a 30-daylimit to remain in regard to any appeals to thecourt from Acts that it administers? I notice inthe consequential amendments at the back ofthe Explanatory Notes it states—
"First, a uniform time period (42 days)in which to lodge appeals is provided(except with Land Tax Act where the limitof 30 days is retained)."
Perhaps the Minister might give me thereasons for that in his reply.
I understand that the Land Tax Act is avery significant piece of legislation that comeswithin the ambit of the Land Court. It affectsmany members of the public. However, I thinkwe ought to have tried to include that Act inthe 42-day time limit. Perhaps there is goodreason for exempting the Breakwater IslandCasino Agreement Act 1984, the CentralQueensland Coal Associates Agreement Actand the Queensland Nickel Agreement Act,but I do not think that the same can be saidfor the Land Tax Act. In that regard, I can seesome confusion occurring. I do not see a verygood reason for not bringing that Act in withthe rest of the legislation. We all know that attimes Treasury likes to be different, but I donot believe that there is justification forexempting the Land Tax Act.
The legislation is designed to modernisethe laws that govern the powers, jurisdictionand the composition itself of the Land Court.As the Explanatory Notes set out, thislegislation will provide a basis for the use ofnew rules and procedures to streamline thefunctions of the court. The former coalitionGovernment undertook a major updating andmodernising of the operations of the Supreme,
29 Feb 2000 Land Court Bill 69
District and Magistrates Courts rules, whichcame into effect on 1 July last year. In manyinstances, these new uniform civil procedurerules will be used as well as case managementand alternative dispute resolution. There willhave to be some amendments made to thoseprocedures, and that was always envisaged. Imust say that, when I thought about thoseprocedures, I envisaged that they would applyeventually to the Land Court but that therewould have to be some amendments. I seethat that will be worked out between thepresident of the Land Court and the ChiefJustice—which is reasonable—as other courtrules go through that process.
It is good to see that we are bringing inuniform civil court rules and procedures intothis area as they apply to the three maincourts of this State—the Supreme, District andMagistrates Courts. I believe that greatbenefits flow from the changes to those rules.Of course, those benefits are not only thesimplification, updating and modernisation ofprocesses that will allow the public generallygreater access to the courts but also theintroduction of judicial registrars. I believe thatthat will free up the time of the members of theLand Court. Those members are paid salariesunder the Judges Salaries and AllowancesTribunal. Their conditions also fall within theprovisions of the Judges (Pensions and LongLeave) Act. So similar provisions apply tothese judges and members of the Land Court,except for the superannuation provisions thatapply to judges of the Supreme Court andDistrict Court of Queensland. I have noticedthat the same situation applies with respect tothe dismissal procedures, which need aresolution of the Parliament. The onedifference is that members here, as distinctfrom Supreme Court judges, are appointed for15-year terms. I recollect that was the situationpreviously.
My comments highlight the independenceof the Land Court. I believe it is terriblyimportant to ensure that this court maintains itsindependence if it is to continue the great workwhich it has done in the past and if it is tocontinue to have the confidence of the generalpublic. At the end of the day, it is terriblyimportant that that occur. Once tribunals orcourts lack the confidence of the generalpublic, one finds that they tend to fall intodisrepute, whatever one does to try toovercome that situation.
The member for Warrego, who did a lot ofwork when he was Minister to update andmodernise this legislation, tried to overcomethe then huge backlogs in the court. Certainly,
with all the procedures that are now in place,there should not be any justification for anybacklog. Perhaps the Minister can give theHouse an indication of the current situation. Iunderstand that there are virtually no delays atthe moment, but I would like to hear from theMinister in relation to that. My informationmight be wrong and I stand to be corrected ifthat is not the case.
There is certainly a need to have speedyaccess to the court. As I am sure the Ministerand you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, oneof the worst things one has to face is aconstituent who is very angry or unhappy overhis or her valuation or a compensation matterand who wants to get to the Land Court tohave the case heard but cannot do sobecause of delays. Constituents can becomevery concerned. I look forward to a responsefrom the Minister in relation to those mattersthat I have raised.
As I said at the outset, I believe thislegislation will be of significant assistance instreamlining and modernising this wholeprocess. It is in the interests of the people ofQueensland, whether or not they happen tobe landowners and irrespective of whatdirection they are coming from. At the end ofthe day, this legislation will streamline andimprove those processes as far as the public isconcerned.
Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP)(4.35 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure tosupport the Land Court Bill. It is yet anotherexample of the reform agenda of the BeattieLabor Government, moving to tidy up the lawin the important area of litigation concerningland valuation and resumption and otherissues falling under the Land Act.
The chief details regarding the legislationhave been well canvassed by my colleaguethe member for Greenslopes, and I shall notrecite all of them again. Suffice to say that anumber of the key benefits of this Bill are thatproceedings before the Land Court, nowcreated as a separate part of our judicialsystem, are greatly streamlined from what theywere before. Secondly, there is a lower costinvolved in parties litigating before the LandCourt. Thirdly, the Land Court is made intomore of a specialist tribunal that brings greatexpertise to bear on the factual circumstancesregarding valuation and resumption matters.
Overall, it is greatly welcome reform in thisarea of the law. It makes access to the legalsystem that much easier and quicker forordinary people in the community. After all,that is what the legal system should do. Itshould provide not only justice in the resolution
70 Land Court Bill 29 Feb 2000
of disputes but also easily accessible andspeedy resolution of those disputes.
There is one area in my electorate in theSamford Valley which I very much hope neverhas to make use of this greatly improved LandCourt system. The matter which I want to drawto the attention of the House arises from ameeting of the Samford State School P & Cwhich occurred about 10 days ago. At thatmeeting a report was given on progress beingmade by the subcommittee of the schoolP & C to build at the Samford State School anew school building and a large communityhall that will hold about 1,000 people and willalso provide a venue for sporting activitiessuch as basketball.
The key issue which remains to beresolved, and which is presently standing inthe way of the commencement of constructionand then finalisation of this school andcommunity hall, is a fairly complex landtransfer between the Pine Rivers Shire Council,Education Queensland and the Department ofNatural Resources. It is my understanding thatfairly sound progress has been made by all ofthe parties concerned to effect a simultaneoustransfer of rights to property between theseparties to create a new, enlarged block of landupon which the school and community halland a large car park will be built.
If that simultaneous transfer of rights isnot able to take place in a timely fashion or atall, it may be that the parties involved have toreach agreement about an alternative meansby which interests in the relevant parcels ofland that are involved in this complex situationare transferred. If that were to happen, thatwould probably involve valuation of the parcelsof land, particularly the land owned by theDepartment of Natural Resources. It wouldalso raise questions as to what is anappropriate market value for the land so thatnegotiations could then proceed about thetransfer, perhaps at market price. That wouldsignificantly increase the total cost of the halland, therefore, the transfer of land interests atmarket price before this project could beconcluded. I would hazard a guess that, if thisalternative course had to be pursued—heavenforbid that we have to go down this track—there would be a lot of controversy about theappropriate valuation of the parcels of land inquestion.
The purpose of my raising this matter inthe debate about the broader question of theLand Court is to impress upon the House theimportance of the resolution of thissimultaneous transfer of title taking place in atimely fashion and to impress upon the
Minister for Natural Resources and the Ministerfor Education, both of whom are sitting in theHouse today, how vitally important it is thattheir respective departments process veryquickly the remaining steps that need to betaken before this transfer of land can occur.
I want to provide some background,because this is an extremely important issue inmy area, so I ask that members are attentivefor a couple of moments. I know that membersare well aware of the important issues thataffect their constituents and how they see thisplace as providing an opportunity to draw tothe attention of other parliamentarians theneed to fix those problems.
The Samford State School andcommunity hall project has been under way forabout two years. The project was initiatedthrough local community and schoolfundraising activities. Similar to all good, stronglocal communities, everyone in the localcommunity of Samford Valley has joinedtogether, put their shoulder to the wheel andworked hard to progress the local community.Community fundraising activities, such as atalent quest, a Christmas raffle and manyothers, have been conducted by the SamfordRotary Club. The Samford ReconciliationCommittee also conducted a successfulfundraising activity in cooperation with theSamford State School and other groups,including the Samford Valley Steiner School,which has also raised money for this hall. Ithas been a great focal point for drawingtogether the local community and engagingthe public to raise money for this worthwhileproject. In total, over the past two yearsapproximately $25,000 has been raised fromthese sorts of activities. In addition, EducationQueensland has agreed to contribute thestandard contribution available for these typesof buildings across the State, namely,$125,000, and up to $30,000 is also beingmade available to help defray the costs ofseating in the hall. As I said, that is thestandard figure available to primary schoolswhen building school halls.
Another hall is being built by the FernyGrove State School, which is in themetropolitan part of my electorate. Similarly, itwill benefit ultimately from the QueenslandGovernment's Statewide program whichprovides $125,000 for capital costs and up to$30,000 for seating. This financial year thePine Rivers Shire Council has budgeted for a$500,000 contribution towards the Samfordschool hall. A reasonable sum of money stillneeds to be raised to complete the totalpackage of funding for this worthwhile project.
29 Feb 2000 Land Court Bill 71
However, because the simultaneoustransfer of interests in property held by threedifferent entities is critical to the continuation ofthis project and its finalisation, I am raising thisissue in the context of the debate on the LandCourt Bill. The parties involved do not wish toend up before the Land Court—albeit aremarkably improved structure as a result ofthis Bill—fighting over the market valuation ofthe land parcels involved. The community hasworked very hard to put together the fundingfor the project. It does not need to be put onthe back foot through having to look foradditional funding from whatever source tohelp pay for increased costs associated withthe land transfer.
The timing over the next several weeks iscritical, because tenders have been called anda successful builder for this large project will beselected within the next seven to 14 days. Theplans for the school hall and the large car parkhave been approved by the Pine Rivers ShireCouncil and also by the Department of PublicWorks, as I was advised today, and are readyto go. They are being retained by theDepartment of Public Works, working inconjunction with the Facility Services Section ofthe Department of Education, pending theconclusion of the land transfers. Once thebuilder is selected in up to 14 days' time, I amadvised that the builder will be given a shorttime before he is authorised to commencework. Under the contract, the construction workis planned to take approximately 26 weeks tocomplete, including all of the associatedaccess roads and the car park that I spokeabout earlier. It is anticipated that four to sixweeks will be spent on site preparation beforeactual construction of the school hall can start.I am told that they hope to turn the sod tosymbolise the commencement of constructionin May.
As I said, the potential for a logjam toexist within the Departments of Education andNatural Resources over this complex landtransfer was raised with me for the first timeabout 10 days ago at the P & C meeting.When it was raised, I willingly indicated to themeeting that I would be very happy to assistthe parties in expediting a resolution to thisproblem if they thought that I could give themany assistance and if they made contact withme after the meeting. That has sincehappened and I organised a meeting for thismorning. It is foremost in my mind that I bringthis matter to the attention of the House andto the attention of the two relevant Ministers,to whom I have spoken, so that I can getthings moving and clear this logjam.
Tonight there will be a meeting of theparties involved and tomorrow there will beanother meeting with the Pine Rivers ShireCouncil, which has had carriage of the issue ofland transfers up to this point. In relation to myability to assist as the State member for FernyGrove, having been invited by the P & C, Iindicate that I am happy to lend a hand to thePine Rivers Shire Council to assist in finalisingthis important remaining problem that exists ata State level. At the meeting I had thismorning I was advised that, following themeeting tomorrow with the Pine Rivers ShireCouncil, the parties will contact me with furtherdetails about the stage at which the matterhas reached with the Department of Educationand the Department of Natural Resources sothat we can convene a meeting of the relevantofficers, a representative from the offices ofthe Minister for Education and the Minister forNatural Resources and I so that this mattercan be finalised as expeditiously as possibleand with an outcome that is satisfactory to allinvolved.
It is a complex matter. The Land Court,about which this Bill is concerned, is designedto handle not just straightforward matters butalso complex matters. That is why theproceedings before the court have beenstreamlined as far as possible. This complexmatter involves, firstly, the transfer of a largesection of land owned by the Pine Rivers ShireCouncil to the ownership of EducationQueensland and, secondly, and at the sametime, the creation of an easement by theDepartment of Education over an existingsection of land owned by the Department ofEducation. Thirdly, and at the same time, itinvolves the creation by the Department ofNatural Resources of an easement over alarge portion of its land that abuts theEducation Department's land such that, at theconclusion of the simultaneous transfer ofinterests in those three parcels of land, there isan enlarged and consolidated block of landthat will hold the school and community hallstructure, together with an expanded car park.
As members would know, from time totime in this House I have raised matters inrelation to the Samford Valley. The otherreason why it is so important to finalise thismatter as quickly as possible and avoid anylitigation or recourse to the Land Court is thatlast year the State Government—this BeattieLabor Government—made a very welcomedecision to spend approximately $2m on amajor redevelopment at the Samford StateSchool. The first stage of that redevelopmenthas just been concluded—in late January.That was the building of a second preschool
72 Land Court Bill 29 Feb 2000
unit at the school. That has been very, verywarmly received by the local community and isnow being well and truly used by the schoolcommunity. The development work, includingfinal plans, community and school communityconsultation for the development of theremainder of the enlarged State schoolcomplex that is going to be built at that site isnow proceeding apace.
The school and community hall that isbeing developed and will be built on the site isgoing to be augmented by a marvellousredevelopment project for the Samford StateSchool. So at the end of the day, we will havea very significant educational and communitycampus in the Samford Valley: 710 students inthe Samford State School and approximately100 students in the two preschool units.Measured against the average standardsacross the State, that is a very large Stateschool. The Samford area is growing apace.Overall, this is a very, very significantdevelopment.
I commend this legislation to the House,and I trust that the members of the coalitionwill wholeheartedly support this legislation sothat the streamlining amendments to changethe way in which the Land Court functions canbe put in place as quickly as possible. As I saidearlier in my contribution, I hope that theparties that I have been working with recentlyon this issue of land transfers in the SamfordValley never have to have recourse to thisgreatly improved Land Court system, becausecommonsense and cooperation will continueto prevail amongst the officers of theDepartment of Education and the Departmentof Natural Resources in arranging for a speedyresolution of the land transfer issue with thePine Rivers Shire Council and me. I commendthe Bill to the House.
Dr PRENZLER (Lockyer—CCAQ)(4.52 p.m.): I will take only a few minutes ofthe time of the House this afternoon. In doingso, I give my support to the Land Court Bill of1999. There is no doubt that our legal systemwas, and still is, in need of some tidying up.The present structure leaves many in a stateof confusion as to which court to deal with andwhich court must be attended to for differentmatters. There is much uncertainty andinsecurity. The Minister has stated that theintention of this Bill is to remove some of thatinstability by placing the legal basis of theLand Court into its own Act, reorganising theappeal system and modernising the court'sprocesses and functions.
There have been many changes over theyears with regard to the issues dealt with by
the Land Court. The native title fiasco and theresulting confusion would surely have placedthe Land Court in an uncertain position. I ampleased that, with the passing of this Bill,native title issues will be dealt with separatelyby the Land and Resources Tribunal, ratherthan cluttering up and complicating thefunctions of the Land Court.
Although I will not be speaking for long, Ifeel it necessary to comment on the newappeal arrangements as outlined in this Bill.The new appeal arrangements are importantand an improvement on the existingprocesses. A balance is required betweenallowing the calling of new evidence and theseeking of justice. If new evidence is allowedinto any appeal proceedings, it immediatelydevalues the initial case of the litigants. This,of course, is unacceptable and denigrates thestature of the courts themselves. It wouldreduce the timeliness of outcomes andincrease the expenses. On the other hand,however, justice may be thwarted if a particularpiece of new evidence is not considered. Ibelieve that this Bill would create some sort ofbalance in this regard.
A number of speakers here this afternoonhave raised concerns regarding landvaluations under the Department of NaturalResources system and their relationship to therates paid on many landowners' properties. Iwould just like to raise one point, which is thatthis system of land valuation is causing someuncertainty and problems, particularly in thoserural areas that abut our expanding cities.Those areas are now being valued at muchhigher figures and causing many, manylandowners in those areas to pay exorbitantrates to shire councils.
I would also like to point out to theMinister that a lot of those areas, particularlyon escarpments, are very environmentallysensitive. Because of this and particularlybecause of the provisions of the newVegetation Management Act, manylandowners will not be able to use their landsas they would wish. Consequently, they aredeemed to be environmentally insensitivelandowners. This is causing a lot of problems,particularly with rising land valuations and theincreasing rates that those people have topay.
I would like to impress on the Minister thatthis is becoming a festering sore in someareas. One example in my own electorate is inthe Flagstone Creek area, which abuts the Cityof Toowoomba. Many of the people who live inthis area own land that has been in their familyfor many generations. Because of the
29 Feb 2000 Land Court Bill 73
expansion of the City of Toowoomba, theirvaluations are rising astronomically—they aregoing through the roof—and their rates arerising accordingly. Many of these people areelderly people who wish to retire on their land.However, they are being forced off the landbecause of the exorbitant valuations and risingrates.
I would like to impress on the Minister thatat some time in the near future theseproblems with land valuations and their effectson the councils' rating systems will have to belooked at to try to provide a buffer for thesepeople against these problems because, as Isaid, they are becoming a festering sore.
Before I finish, I would like to express thesupport of my colleagues and I for this LandCourt Bill. We think it is a step in the rightdirection. We think that the Minister has donea good job with this Bill and we believe that itwill improve the purpose and functioning of theLand Court itself.
Mr NELSON (Tablelands—IND)(4.56 p.m.): I also do not intend to rehash allthe issues that have been placed before theHouse today. I will support the Bill because ofits intended purpose. One issue that has beenraised with me with regard to the Land Court isthat of delay. It is not only how long it takes toget a hearing but also the determination ofthat hearing and the length of time that canpass between those two points. I know that itis not something that is endemic to the LandCourt; I know that it is an issue throughout alljurisdictions, whether it be the MagistratesCourt or the Supreme Court.
Just recently I was informed about aperson who is awaiting trial on a charge ofmurder who has been on bail for two years.That is totally unacceptable. So I know thatdelay is not an issue that applies only to theLand Court. I think that the delays that havebeen reported to me could be easily dealt withby listing more sitting days or longer hearingtimes or by appointing more members to thecourt. Again, these are problems to which I donot have the answers. I do not know howmuch it costs to run the Land Court and soforth, but the issue of delays is something thatI would like addressed in the near future. I amlooking at private members' legislation withregard to the judiciary.
The point I would like to make in relationto this Bill is that there are unreasonabledelays within the judicial system. I have notbeen able to find that issue addressedanywhere in the Bill, but it must be addressedin the future. With those comments, I supportthe Bill.
Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (4.58 p.m.): Iam pleased today to speak to the Land CourtBill. The Land Court has been an integral partof the administration of Queensland for 103years. It is an important part of the State'slegal structure. It deals with matters such asland valuations, water licences, landcategorisation, and compensation claims.There are some 32 different statutes that referdisputes to the court for resolution. Of course,these days the court handles multimillion-dollarcompensation claims involving, in many cases,senior barristers and large numbers ofwitnesses, as well as allowing lay people toconduct their own valuation appeals.
On taking over the portfolio of NaturalResources in 1996, I was quite horrified to findthat the Land Court had basically beenabandoned by the Goss Government. All thatwas left was really a shell of a once proudorganisation. As at January 1996 there was abacklog of something like 1,030 cases. Peoplein the department were demoralised. Thedepartment was underresourced.Appointments had not been made. There wasspeculation that the Government was headingtowards a Land and Environment Court andthat, therefore, the Land Court was beingwound back.
Coupled with that—and this is veryimportant—in the six years of the Goss LaborGovernment something like $90m, or$300,000 a week, was chalked up in potentialcompensation claims before the Land Court.That is quite an extraordinary record that Ihope is never broken. It stemmed from a lot ofcompensation claims from landowners whoclaimed that the Government had actedunfairly in relation to acquisitions of their landand from developments that had beenknocked on the head. Basically, theGovernment, generally speaking, was trying towalk over land-holders. It was a very serioussituation.
The valuations situation was also quiteserious. Hearings were so far behind that newvaluations were issued before the disputesover the old ones were resolved. In manycases disputes over valuations were won bythe land-holders. Then the new valuationsissued would be higher again. So the land-holders won the first case, yet the valuation onwhich their rates were based was higher again.We were heading towards total chaos.
As soon as we got into Government, welooked at the situation and appointed twoadditional members, former Land Courtmember Harry Carter and former SurveyorGeneral Neil Divett. That certainly helped to
74 Land Court Bill 29 Feb 2000
relieve the backlog. The backlog went from1,030 cases to 647 cases in just over sixmonths. We were working after that to try toget the number of cases down to somewherebetween 300 and 400. We were happy withthat because, in many cases, sometimesplaintiffs have their own delays and their ownreasons for not pursuing the case. The courtneeded to have some cases up its sleeve, andwe believed that was about the right number.
We also set up at that time an alternativedispute resolution or mediation system. NeilDivett was set the task of doing that. He did agreat job. I was very happy with the amount ofwork that was done to reduce the workload ofthe Land Court system. The mediation systemwe put in place at that time was a forerunnerto what is now proposed in this legislation. Insome cases, that mediation process was ableto arrive at a solution for people who were nothappy with the original departmental decision.They were able to get some more advice andperhaps a better understanding of where theywere going, plus the fact that sometimes thedepartment was able to negotiate a solution.That prevented a logjam of cases building upbefore the Land Court.
In November 1996 I implemented areview of the court and its powers, rules andprocedures to be undertaken by Mr BarryO'Connor who, at the time, was a principallegal adviser of the Department of NaturalResources. I believe that review had bipartisansupport across-the-board. It is pleasing to seethat some outcomes of that review are nowbeing put in place. It is good that we have acommon aim to try to put in place a systemthat will serve the people. One of the problemswe had in the past was the fact that the LandCourt in many instances was a trial byambush.
People who went to that court as laypeople to try to fight their case in a democraticprocess found that the aces were stackedagainst them even though there were not a lotof barristers and other professional peoplethere. The reality was that the department keptall the information to itself and would not letanything out, except at the last minute orunder some discovery process. I believe wedid break down the system to a certain degreeto make it a fairer system that gave lay peoplean opportunity to feel confident that they weregetting a fair hearing and were able to taketheir case to a court without costing them agreat deal of money.
The Bill deals with a lot of issues. I will notgo through all of them because they havebeen covered by other speakers today, but I
will refer to the issue relating to the uniformtime limits for lodgment of appeals. The Actsays 42 days, but the Explanatory Notessay—and perhaps the Minister can answerthis—that "Treasury have requested a 30 daylimit remain with any appeals to the Court fromActs they administer". Does that mean that theLand Court will have only 30 days for thoseActs or is it a full 42 days for the whole lot?
One of the problems we had before wasthat in some cases people were using everymeans at their disposal to create delays andlooking for a trial run, in some instances byusing judicial review, to try to manipulate thingswith every possible tactic. That stifled thingsand did not really help in the overallprofessional running of the Land Court. Theamendments that have been put in place hereappear to fix some of those problems. Let ushope they do. We will be watching it veryclosely. There certainly has been a need forsomething to be done, and this may resolvesome of those problems.
The judicial registrar position, which dealswith new case management and alternativedispute resolution issues, follows on from whatwas in place before. I think that is quite good.That will certainly help. It will allow the court'smembers to be able to get through the cases.But there is a problem that needs to bepointed out, particularly in relation toadministration costs. The Bill's ExplanatoryNotes state—
"While no precise costings of theproposals—to be largely implemented inthe Rules—have been attempted, it wouldseem there is potential for savings for anumber of reasons."
There should be savings under this system,except for the fact that the overall policies ofthis Government will once again—in a verysimilar way to what happened under the GossGovernment—drive people back to the courts.I am talking particularly about the tree clearingepisode, the proposed water allocationmanagement legislation and generalGovernment policy. The way this Governmentimplements these policies will again jam thecourts with legitimate cases where peoplebelieve that they have not been given a fairgo. I give the Government that warning,because the cost savings the Governmentthinks it may get out of this will not be therebecause the court will be jammed with manyadditional cases. I support the Bill. I ampleased to see that we are progressing. I amsure the House will welcome this legislation.
Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP)(Minister for Environment and Heritage and
29 Feb 2000 Land Court Bill 75
Minister for Natural Resources) (5.09 p.m.), inreply: I thank all honourable members for theircontributions to the debate on the Land CourtBill. This Bill, as members have indicated,basically consolidates and updates the lawrelating to the administration and constitutionof the Land Court. The Land Court hasperformed a range of functions which I thinkjustify the court remaining separate from otherjurisdictions. As some members commented, afew years ago some consideration was givento whether the functions of the Land Courtmight be appropriately amalgamated withother planning jurisdictions such as thePlanning and Environment Court. I formed theview that the role of the Land Court isappropriately a discrete role and that, providingthe court functions effectively and efficiently, itis unlikely that an amalgamation of the LandCourt with any other court of similar jurisdictionwould yield any substantial benefits.
The Land Court, in effect, does functionvery similarly to the Planning and EnvironmentCourt, the Planning and Environment Courtdealing with appeals under the IntegratedPlanning Act and the Land Court dealing withmatters arising under the Land Act and otherlegislation in regard to valuations and waterresources in relation to compensation matters.The Land Court is very much a specialisttribunal in both its form and its functions, and,of course, a component of the court deals withAboriginal land matters, although not nativetitle matters, which will go to the new Land andResources Tribunal.
Appeals from the Land Court are to theLand Appeal Court, and also from that court tothe Court of Appeal, but only by leave. Thisputs in place a more appropriate system ofappeals than was previously available andavoids the need for people to forum hunt forother options or avenues of appeal such asjudicial review.
I think one of the most innovativecomponents of the new legislation is indeedthe case management arrangements whichare now formally incorporated in theprocedures of the Land Court, following thereform of conciliation processes, which, as themember for Warrego mentioned, were initiatedby Neil Divett, who is a member of the court,and the president of the court, Mr JohnTrickett. The case management process willnot only make the court's proceduressubstantially consistent with the uniform civilprocedure rules that will apply in other courtsbut also enable the judicial registrar to exerciseall the powers of a member of the court toorganise alternative dispute resolution
processes and deal with minor matters, otherthan contempt of court.
A number of issues were raised by theScrutiny of Legislation Committee, and I willdeal with those in a moment.
The preliminary conference procedure isprovided for, and, as mentioned by a numberof members, this provides an opportunity formediation to occur. It is mediation on the basisthat both parties have a commitment to seekto resolve the dispute, and can be effectiveonly where there is that voluntary commitmentby both parties. However, there has beensignificant success in the informal conciliationprocesses that have been implemented so far,and up to one third or more of all courtapplications have been able to be resolved bythat process.
The member for Greenslopes referredspecifically to the issues arising in hiscommunity affecting valuations, and I havehad constant contact and representations fromhim in regard to the occasional anomalies thatarise in relation to the valuation system,particularly in urban areas, where the task ofassessing unimproved value on propertieswhere there are very few vacant land salesoccurring is a complex task. We are, however,addressing the issue of apparent disparities ofvaluation between different districts to ensurethat there is some parity between thevaluations in one district compared to othersin, for example, the southern side of Brisbane.
The member for Greenslopes has set upa community reference group, which isconsulting with him on issues in relation to landvaluation and the particular complexities of itas it relates to unimproved value in his area,and I look forward to the ideas andsuggestions that will come out of thoseconsultations.
The member for Indooroopilly alsomentioned the valuation process and the issuein relation to the conciliation or alternativedispute resolution mechanisms provided for inthe Bill. The precise details in relation to therole of the judicial registrar are specifically notspelt out in the Bill, because the rules of court,which have yet to be resolved between thepresident of the Land Court and the ChiefJustice, will provide more detail in relation tothose day-to-day procedures of the court.
The member for Indooroopilly and themember for Tablelands both raised issues inrelation to delays in the court. I am pleased tosay that the appointment of two temporarymembers of the court has assistedconsiderably in the reduction of the number ofoutstanding matters before the court. I am not
76 Land Court Bill 29 Feb 2000
currently aware of the precise state of thepending matters list, but in my last discussionwith the president of the court, I recall therewere in the vicinity of 75 outstanding matters,but that the turnover time was around aboutthree months, and many of those matterswere likely to be resolved by mediation inadvance of formal hearings. Nevertheless,there has been a recent retirement ofMr Carter, a member of the court, which leavesus now with one temporary additional memberof the court and the consideration of the needfor new members having regard to theworkload of the court. Any anticipated increasein that load will be something that theGovernment will consider as part of the Budgetreview process.
As the member for Indooroopilly and themember for Warrego pointed out, the LandCourt Bill now provides for a consistent oruniform time limit on the lodgment of appeals,so that appeals from the Land Court to theLand Appeal Court and thence to the Court ofAppeal are all brought into line to provide for a42-day appeal period. Most of the legislationadministered by my portfolio, such as theWater Resources Act and the Valuation ofLand Act, currently similarly provide for a 42-day time limit on lodgments of appeals to theLand Court. However, as the ExplanatoryNotes mention, the time for an appeal againsta land tax decision under the Land Tax Act iscurrently 30 days, and the Department ofTreasury has asked for that time limit to remainfor the time being, because it happens to beconsistent with other appeal periods in relationto revenue legislation administered by theTreasury Department. But subject to those taxand Treasury revenue matters, all other appealperiods will now be brought into line with theappeal periods that are standard in the rules ofcourt of other courts, and that will be the 42-day period.
The member for Ferny Grove has been avery keen representative of his electorate andis aware of a number of issues relating to landmanagement in the Samford Valley area. Heis currently working with me and mydepartment in order to negotiate suitablearrangements with land-holders and the PineRivers Shire Council to give effect toappropriate land exchanges for the benefit ofcommunity facilities—in particular in relation tothe Samford State School. I will continue towork with the member for Ferny Grove toachieve a successful outcome. Matters maycurrently be difficult to resolve pending thelocal council elections, but I am sure that in theforeseeable future we will be able to addressthe issues which the member for Ferny Grove
has been so dedicated in pursuing on behalfof his constituents.
The member for Lockyer again raised theissue of valuations and the difficulties thatpotentially arise for people in areas where,because of encroaching urban development,we have significantly increased landvaluations. This situation is not unique to theFlagstone Creek area to which the honourablemember referred; it is something that alsooccurs in the inner city areas of Brisbanewhere some of the most rapid land andproperty value increases have occurred inrecent times.
I am certainly conscious of the difficultiesthat this issue imposes particularly on elderlypeople, or people who have lived on aproperty for a long period of time and who donot necessarily derive a very high income fromthat property, or whose income, for any otherreason, is fixed—perhaps in their retirement.Because of the increase in valuation of theirproperty, these people see a potentiallysignificant increase in the rates that are leviedby local government against those properties.
The Valuation of Land Act provides forland to be valued at the market value of itsunimproved status; so it is the unimprovedvalue at current market rates. That valuation isdesigned to provide a consistent andlegitimate application of market values ofunimproved land across the State. Althoughthat has implications for the way in whichcouncils levy rates, the primary responsibility—and I guess many members have heard thisfrom me before and I apologise for repeatingthe obvious—for levying rates and ensuringthe equity of the rating system rests with localgovernments.
Unfortunately, there are many localgovernments that shirk this responsibility andwhen there are anomalies in the rates leviedbetween different constituencies, arising fromchanges in demographics and land values andso forth and increases in demand forproperties in some areas compared with lessdemand for properties in other areas, it tendsto distort the rating system of different localcouncil areas.
Local councils can address this issue in anumber of ways. They can provide fordifferential ratings for different areas. They canalso provide for a smoothing of the ratingeffect by assessing the rates according to anaveraged value over three or four or five yearsso that any impact of any rapid increase invaluation is delayed and is incrementallyadjusted over a longer period of time. In thatway, in most cases, a person's income can
29 Feb 2000 Land Court Bill 77
accommodate some increase in that person'srates.
But the rating process is fundamentally aprimary responsibility of local governments. It isvery difficult for the State, unless we are todecide on some kind of differential valuationsystem for discrete areas, to identify a fairersystem than one that values propertiesaccording to a consistent principle, and thatprinciple currently is market unimproved value.
We are, however, in the process ofdiscussing this very issue with the LocalGovernment Association of Queensland. Weare looking at whether there are ways in whichlocal governments can take greaterresponsibility for valuations in their local areas.In this way, councils which are uniquelypositioned to adjust either the valuation or therating system can do so in a way that meetsthe needs of their local communities, residentsand ratepayers.
It is something that I have under activeconsideration. As I say quite openly andhonestly, I am not sure what the answer is, butwe are looking at it and we are currentlydiscussing it with local governments. It iscertainly one of the things about whichMinisters for my department, both now andpreviously, have regularly receivedcorrespondence—occasionally from localgovernment representatives, but, more oftenthan not, from local ratepayers who areconcerned at the potential impact of valuationshifts in their areas on the rates that they arerequired to pay.
The member for Warrego raised the issueof a review of the legislation which was startedsome years ago by Mr Barry O'Connor fromthe Department of Natural Resources. MrO'Connor is a very dedicated public sectoremployee and has carried that task from itsinception right through to the Bill that we havebefore the Parliament today. I would like tothank Mr O'Connor and the other staff of theDepartment of Natural Resources who havebeen involved in the extensive consultationswhich have brought this Bill to fruition. Theyhave liaised with the president and membersof the Land Court. I acknowledge thecontribution of the president and members ofthe court. We are in the situation where wenow have a Bill which fits neatly with the otherActs which constitute the other courts in ourState, and one which will be seen to be a solidfoundation for the administration of the LandCourt into the future.
The Land Court receives a great deal ofrespect from the community. It provides anavenue for people to appear on their own
behalf, or through a representative, on a wholerange of issues which are very close to theinterests of individual citizens. It provides ameasure of formality and access for which thecourt system as a whole, I suppose, is not wellregarded. It also is seen in rural communitiesas a way in which the occasional excesses ofbureaucratic decision making can beaddressed in a fair, independent and impartialmanner.
The Land Court has a long history and, byvirtue of that history, has earned a great dealof respect across the Queensland community.This respect is well established in regional andrural communities.
The Scrutiny of Legislation Committeehas raised three issues in its report on the Billand I thank the committee for drawing thosematters to my attention. The main issue thatthe committee raised was the failure of the Billto identify the qualifications necessary forappointment to the court. The Bill did notcontain a requirement for specific qualificationsand experience. I am pleased to advise theHouse that I will be moving an amendment atthe Committee stage to address that issue.Under that amendment, a person will berequired to have specific legal experience, orother experience as a professional valuer, or tohave operated in a related discipline.
The Scrutiny of Legislation Committeealso queried whether it was appropriate for aLand Court member to have the power topunish for contempts of court. It is true thatother tribunals of the various institutions ofGovernment have a more limited power.However, in these circumstances, the courtoperates in a quasi-judicial manner. Although itoperates in most respects as informally aspossible and as accessible as possible toordinary members of the community, itoperates in a manner that I think requiresthose who appear before it to show theappropriate respect to the court and to the lawthat the court administers. For that reason, Ithink that it is appropriate to retain the powerof the court to deal with contempt.
I think that is reinforced by the steps that Iam taking to specifically define thequalifications for members of the court. Byspecifying the qualifications required for aperson to be a member of the court, itdemonstrates the level at which the court isexpected by the Parliament to operate and thelevel of respect that the community shouldgive to the court in those circumstances. Ofcourse, it needs to be remembered that thepresident of the court is and must be a lawyerand, for that reason, has the capacity to give
78 Land Court Bill 29 Feb 2000
counsel to members in the administration ofany matter that gives rise to the exercise of thecontempt power.
However, I might mention that it is more inthe existence of that power than in its exercisethat the value of the power has effect. In otherwords, simply having the power to exercise isoften sufficient in order to achieve the properfunctioning of the court that all of us in thisHouse would expect. It is very rare—ifever—that the power would, in fact, need to beexercised by a member of the court.
The final issue related to the power of thejudicial registrar, which the Bill creates to dealwith preliminary conferences under clause 36and alternative dispute resolution under clause37. There are no specific heads of power inthe Bill itself in relation to the role of the judicialregistrar as distinct from other members of thecourt. I do not think it is necessary to deal withthat in the Bill, because those proceduralissues will be dealt with in more detail in therules of the Land Court, which, as I mentionedearlier, have been the matter of discussionbetween the president of the court and theChief Justice. As I understand it, currently theyare before the Office of Parliamentary Counselfor final drafting and will be tabled in thisHouse in due course.
I think that those matters respond to thelegitimate and valuable contribution of theScrutiny of Legislation Committee and, in thatregard, I thank that committee for itsassistance. As I mentioned, at the Committeestage I will be moving an amendment that hasbeen circulated in the House. I thank theOpposition spokesperson for his cooperation inthe introduction and debate on this Bill. Iappreciate the support of the Opposition forthe passing of this Bill, because it will usher ina new era of streamlined operations of theLand Court and, in a very real sense,rejuvenate the Land Court as a court thatplays a very valuable and up-front role as akey component of our courts system inaddressing the needs of ordinary Queenslandcitizens for justice on a range of fronts. I thankall members of the House for theircontributions to today's debate.
Motion agreed to.
Committee
Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP)(Minister for Environment and Heritage andMinister for Natural Resources) in charge of theBill.
Clauses 1 to 15, as read, agreed to.
Clause 16—
Mr WELFORD (5.36 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—
"At page 12, lines 3 and 4—
omit, insert—
'(4) A person may be appointed as amember only if the person is—
(a) a barrister or solicitor of the SupremeCourt of at least 5 years' standingwith extensive experience in land-related matters; or
(b) a valuer, or a person professionallyqualified in another land-relateddiscipline, with extensive litigation orquasi-judicial experience.
'(4A) A member may be appointed aspresident only if the member satisfiessubsection (4)(a).'."
As I mentioned in the second-readingdebate, this amendment addresses the issueraised by the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee in relation to the qualifications ofmembers of the Land Court. The Bill specifiesthe formal qualifications necessary for theappointment of the court president but noqualifications are specified for the appointmentof members of the court. The purpose of thisamendment is to ensure that that issue isrectified.
As I say, the appointment of president isdealt with in the legislation. Currently, theprovisions provide for the Governor in Councilto appoint both the president and othermembers, and appointments are for up to 15years. This confirms the arrangement that wasin place previously. As the Bill is draftedcurrently, a member may be appointed aspresident only if the member is a barrister orsolicitor of the Supreme Court of at least fiveyears' standing.
The Scrutiny of Legislation Committeehas suggested that it may be appropriate tonow specify qualifications in accordance withmore recent models, such as appointments tothe Land and Resources Tribunal. I accept themerit of their suggestion and accordingly nowpropose an amendment requiring that personsshould have the following qualifications andexperience for appointment as Land Courtmembers. To be a member of the Land Court,a person should be a barrister or solicitor of atleast five years' standing, with extensiveexperience in land related matters, or a valueror a person professionally qualified in a landrelated discipline with extensive litigationexperience or extensive quasi-judicial
29 Feb 2000 Land Court Bill 79
experience. The amendment I moveaddresses that issue accordingly.
Mr SULLIVAN: The Minister said that thisclause dictates certain formal qualifications. Iam not sure what is meant by the experiencethat is required of persons who are going to becovered by this amendment.
Mr WELFORD: The clause as currentlydrafted requires that a person be a barrister ora solicitor of the Supreme Court of at least fiveyears' standing. That is a fairly commonrequirement for the appointment of people tojudicial office. In this case, we obviously requirepeople who have experience that is related tothe work of the Land Court. So it is desirablethat a person have some experience,particularly in relation to property and landrelated matters.
It will be a matter for the Governor inCouncil to determine whether the experience isof a nature to satisfy the provisions that we areproposing. By "extensive experience" wesimply mean someone who has had an activelegal experience in their practice, whether as asolicitor or a barrister, in property related law ina commercial environment.
I should make it clear to the Committeeand to those who may wish to interpret thisprovision in the future that it may or may notrequire experience in the Land Court itself.Obviously it would be preferable for a personwho is appointed as a member of the tribunalto have had some contact with the operationsof the court or to have appeared before thecourt in some representative capacity and tohave done that on a number of occasions.However, "extensive experience" in thiscontext does not necessarily mean that it hasto be all of the five years for which a personhas practised or, indeed, a majority of thosefive years. It simply means that the personmust have had sufficient experience inproperty and land related matters, in the caseof a barrister or solicitor, to enable them todeal with the issues which the Land Courtdeals with under either the Valuation of LandAct, the Water Resources Act, the Acquisitionof Land Act or the Land Act itself.
Obviously, many of the issues that comebefore the Land Court—indeed, the majority ofthem—relate to valuations. The alternativequalification of a person who is a valuer—thatis, a valuer registered as such in the State ofQueensland—is also open as a qualificationfor appointment. Similarly, a person who maynot be a registered valuer or a practising valuerbut who nevertheless is professionally qualifiedin a land related discipline—that is, a disciplinewhere they have received some formal training
in relation to property, real estate or propertymanagement matters—may well have theappropriate experience.
In those circumstances, a person with thatkind of property market or propertymanagement experience would also need tohave had some reasonable exposure to courtprocesses of some kind. Again, it need notnecessarily mean that the person has specificexposure to the Land Court or its operations,but the person does need to have hadexperience in litigation or the quasi-judicialenvironment to some reasonable extent.
Obviously these appointments made bythe Governor in Council are made afterextensive deliberations. In some respects theword "extensive" in this amendment will besuperfluous, because only people withconsiderable experience in the field are likelyto satisfy the needs of the Governor in Councilfor appointment in the first place. But, forexample, someone who has worked—andthere have been appointments to the LandCourt of this nature in the past—for theDepartment of Natural Resources or in theadministration of the court but who has notappeared as an advocate or representativebefore the court may also have sufficientqualifications and experience to deal with thematters here.
What we are trying to ensure is not onlythat the issues raised by the Scrutiny ofLegislation Committee are adequatelyaddressed but also that the president of thecourt is supported by members who aremembers of substance and, as is the casewith other legislation such as the Land andResources Tribunal, provide the opportunity forthe appointment of people who by statutehave minimum qualifications.
This provision will also give guidance tothe Governor in Council in the selection andthe consideration of potential appointees tothe position of members of the Land Court.That will be a matter which the Governor inCouncil will need to perhaps address in the nottoo distant future, depending on the changingdemands of the court's workload and thecurrent consideration of the court's budgetarycircumstances.
I think this is a significant improvement onthe Bill. It is an improvement that was notpicked up in the normal process of the Bill'sdrafting. I think it demonstrates the great valueof parliamentary committees. Committeessuch as the Scrutiny of Legislation Committeecan play a constructive role in identifyingimprovements to legislation that comes beforethe Parliament, albeit minor adjustments, but
80 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 29 Feb 2000
improvements that nevertheless improve thequality of law making of the Parliament andthe quality of the law which guides institutionssuch as the Land Court and its functions.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 86, as read, agreed to.Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to.
Bill reported, with an amendment.
Third Reading
Bill, on motion of Mr Welford, by leave,read a third time.
NATURAL RESOURCES AND OTHERLEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
Resumed from 23 November 1999 (seep. 5158).
Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA)(5.49 p.m.): The Natural Resources and OtherLegislation Amendment Bill seeks to amendthe Body Corporate and CommunityManagement Act 1997, the Land Act 1994,the Land Title Act 1994 and the IntegratedPlanning Act 1997 to make important policyand administrative changes. The amendmentsto the Body Corporate and CommunityManagement Act are designed to achieve twothings. The first amendment retrospectivelyvalidates orders made in particularcircumstances by the adjudicators under thedispute resolution provisions of the BodyCorporate and Community Management Act1997. The second amendment to the BodyCorporate and Community Management Act1997 will establish the capacity to delegate theinvestigate powers of an adjudicator under thatAct.
I advise the Government that theOpposition has been through this Bill verycarefully and is supporting it. However, there isone issue in relation to the road closureprovisions, which will also be amended toremove the limitation that only owners of theland immediately adjoining a road may seek aroad closure. I would be grateful to the Ministerif he could explain a little more about theseroad closures. One always seems to get manyquestions on that issue. I believe the Ministerhas tried to address this issue as best he couldin the Explanatory Notes, but furtherexplanation would be helpful.
It certainly seems to me that thelegislation does not require me to speak at anygreat length. It is plainly for the most part
housekeeping. The amendment to the BodyCorporate and Community Management Act1997 corrects the situation whereby anadjudicator's order was determined to beinvalid because the report of a departmentalcommunity titles inspector did not have theauthority because that officer did not have aproper delegation. There is no suggestion thatthis was anything other than a technicalshortcoming, and an amendment fixes that. Arelated amendment concerns retrospectivityand protecting decisions of the adjudicatorsbased on reports where the same shortcomingexisted in relation to the titles inspector.Ordinarily, retrospectivity in legislation is highlyundesirable. In the context of any othersituation, I would certainly be taking a muchcloser look at it. However, in this instance itgoes simply to the issue of delegation, not tothe issue of the standing of a report where theissues taken are unrelated to the question ofthe delegation. Therefore, the Opposition hasno problem with that.
Similarly, there does not appear to be anyproblem with the amendment to this Actenabling the delegation of the investigativepowers of an adjudicator. The amendments tothe Land Act are for the most part simplestreamlining that is to be welcomed. Anythingthat reduces the time it takes for clients andline departments to achieve a particularservice—and, importantly, that is what we aretrying to do—and which makes the applicationof the law clearer and simpler is to bewelcomed by the Opposition. The Oppositiondoes not intend to waste the time of theHouse in speaking any further on thislegislation. We support the Bill.
Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP)(5.53 p.m.): In speaking to the NaturalResources and Other Legislation AmendmentBill, I make the observation that we are notmaking full use of the land alongside the roadsand lanes in rural areas. Were we to drivethrough western Queensland, we would seehow much unused land there is between roadsand fences in rural areas. The Bill shouldaddress the fact that the land and resourcesout there are going to waste.
Mr Seeney: Give us a break.
Mr PURCELL: Given the noise mycolleague opposite is making, I can onlyassume that he does not put to full use theland alongside the lanes around his property.Something should be done about the timberthat grows, dies and falls to the ground on thatland. It should be harvested. For example, thelanes could be leased and in return for thosetimber resources the lessee could be
29 Feb 2000 Tree-clearing Guidelines 81
responsible for keeping out the rubbish andmaintaining them. That would be a usefulexercise that would produce much-neededrevenue for the State. It would also preservethe State's revenue, because at the moment itcosts money to control noxious weeds in thoseareas. The land-holders along those roadswould probably welcome this initiative,because it would mean that weeds would notspread onto their properties. Some noxiousweeds are spread very easily. When grazierstake their cattle or sheep from one part of theirproperty to another via a lane or a road, theseeds from weeds along the roadway get intothe fleece of sheep or onto the tails or legs ofcattle and are spread to other areas of theproperty. Graziers then face the added cost ofremoving those weeds from their properties.
Following the spread of the recentlyintroduced viral infections among rabbits, thereare probably not many rabbits left. Rabbitshave been a problem for many years.However, I note that Inglewood is trying toencourage Australians to farm enough rabbitsso that Akubra hats can once again be fullyAustralian made. At present, rabbit skins areimported into Australia to make those hats.That is probably something that not manyhonourable members know about. It is ashame that Australian hats are no longer fullyAustralian made; fur from overseas is used inthose hats. About seven rabbit skins areneeded to make one felt hat. I have spokenwith the Minister for Primary Industries aboutsetting up an experimental rabbit farm andabattoir. Perhaps one day rabbit meat mighteven become as popular as chicken meat istoday. When I was a kid, we had chicken twicea year—Easter and Christmas. We were luckyto get it. We probably only had chicken if wehad a few chooks out the back and we bowledthem over ourselves. These days, chicken hasbecome a very popular meat, and I thinkrabbits could be similarly as popular. Theconcern of some producers that rabbits mayescape from the areas where they were beingfarmed would not be justified if concrete floorsand netting were used to enclose them.
Returning to the Bill, there could be anumber of benefits to producers from havingthe lanes and roads around their propertiesleased out. As I said, they could also grazetheir flocks or herds along them. Thousandsupon thousands of acres in Queensland arelying unused beside the roads. That land couldbe put to use and it could be a very importantrevenue raiser for the State. It would alsoassist in the control of noxious weeds.
Debate, on motion of Mr Purcell,adjourned.
TREE-CLEARING GUIDELINESHon. R. E. BORBIDGE (Surfers
Paradise—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition)(5.59 p.m.): I move—
"That this Parliament supports therepeal of the Beattie Government'smandatory tree-clearing laws and thedevelopment of scientifically based,voluntary regional tree-clearing guidelinesfor freehold land by local land-holder andland care groups."
I think it is becoming increasingly obviousthat the Government and, in particular, thePremier have made a monumental mess-upon the issue of tree clearing on freehold land.The Opposition is saying to the Premier and tothe Government tonight that they should admitthat they have got it wrong; they should goback to the negotiation table; they shouldforget about the cosy little deals they havedone with people such as Imogen Zethoven;and they should address this issue in asensible, scientific way. The lesson of all theseissues right through history is that, unless aGovernment brings the people with it, it will notwin. If it tells the key stakeholders—thelandowners of Queensland—that in thisparticular debate they do not matter butImogen Zethoven does, then it is contributingmightily to the city/country divide.
In recent years we have seen a numberof issues that have contributed to thatenormous divide. We see the lessons ofhistory where the previous Goss LaborGovernment thought it would be a good ideato close down one third of the Queensland Railsystem. We saw how that revolt, that rebellion,went from the country right into the city. Wesaw the rebellion against the GossGovernment's treatment in respect ofleasehold land and tree-clearing arrangementsthere. We remember fiery meetings and fierydemonstrations. I just make the point that itwas the coalition Government that introducedguidelines in respect of leasehold land andthose guidelines, which by and large hadbroad industry and land-holder support, havecontributed to a situation in which today—18months down the track—the extent of landclearing on leasehold land has declined bybetween 12% and 15%.
I also want to say to the House that themeasurement of greenhouse gas emissionsas a result of tree clearing is very much aninexact science. In fact, the AustralianGreenhouse Office in its Greenhouse Notes ofSeptember 1999 stated—
"Land clearing emissions currentlyare not included in the national total due
82 Tree-clearing Guidelines 29 Feb 2000
to continuing uncertainty in the estimates.The current best estimate of land clearingemissions in 1997 is 65"—
carbon dioxide equivalents—
"down from 103 ... in 1990. (The estimateof emissions in 1990 has been revisedsince the previous inventory using thelatest methodology and data)."
So on the inexact science that we have,according to the Australian Greenhouse Office,there has been a substantial improvement. Ofcourse, what this Government will not accept,what Imogen Zethoven will not accept andwhat the extremists in the environmentalmovement will not accept is that inQueensland we have particular issues relatingto regrowth. If people do not clear thatregrowth, then they cannot farm. Of course,the extremists in the debate use the regrowthclearing in terms of the total clearing statistics.So they are manipulating the statistics. Theyare manipulating the figures.
We have seen the Government'shandling of this particular issue look like a traincrash. We have had the VegetationManagement Advisory Committee request theDPI to do an assessment on the economicimpact of this legislation. We know whathappened. On the last sitting day of theParliament when the Opposition revealed theexistence of that report and the fact that thatreport estimated a cost to local authoritiesacross Queensland of at least half a billiondollars, the Premier, the Minister for PrimaryIndustries and the Minister for NaturalResources ridiculed that report and then,realising that the Opposition had lodged afreedom of information request for thatparticular report, took it to Cabinet so it wasFOI exempt.
Mr Springborg: Thirty years.
Mr BORBIDGE: It will be 30 years beforewe can get it. That is another example of whypeople in rural and regional Queenslandsimply do not trust this Government.
In the meantime we have draft work byABARE which estimates that the cost of thisparticular legislation could be in the vicinity of$380m. So we have ABARE saying $380m,we have the DPI saying half a billion dollarsand we have the member for Brisbane Centralsaying $100m. Why would we believe themember for Brisbane Central? Of course, asthe Government has sunk deeper and deeperinto the mire, it has been using the Beattiedoctrine, "everyone else's fault". The firstexcuse was, "We had to do it because ofKyoto." Let us look at the record. Australia is a
signatory at Kyoto. The Kyoto Accord has notbeen ratified by the Australian Government.Kyoto has not been ratified by the chiefproponent, the United States of America, andit will not be ratified this side of the presidentialelection. If the Republicans win the WhiteHouse, there is a fair chance it will not beratified at all.
Now we have the other excuse from theGovernment, "You are better off having Statebased legislation, because if you do not theevil Senator Robert Hill will come in and, inrespect of his biodiversity Act, override theState Act and bring in and activate Federallegislation." That was a porky if there ever wasone. The fact is that tree clearing wasspecifically excluded from theCommonwealth's Environment Protection andBiodiversity Conservation Act as a matter ofnational environmental significance that wouldallow the Commonwealth to intervene. Itpurposely was not included in that legislationfollowing negotiations between theCommonwealth and the States. That hasbeen confirmed by Senator Hill in the Senateon 17 February. He said—
"... Honourable Senators will recall thatland clearing was not included in theCommonwealth's ... legislation as amatter of national environmentalsignificance that would allow theCommonwealth to intervene, that wouldtrigger that legislation. And it purposelywas not included after negotiations withthe states, because we made thedecision that although a good naturalresource management outcome forAustralia is vitally important, theresponsibility for land clearing legislationshould clearly remain with the states: inthe case of Queensland, withQueensland."
Senator Hill went on to say—"So it wasn't included. In fact, we
were condemned by the Greens, and bysome others for not including it."
So that is another excuse, another fib, anotherlie from this Government in respect of thislegislation that it pushed through theParliament on the final sitting day of last year.The fact is that there has been lie after lie afterlie. In fact, the Premier indicated publicly thatthis legislation would not be proclaimed at all ifthe Federal Government did not come goodwith compensation. The Federal Governmenthas not come good with compensation, andthe latest Labor lie is that parts of thelegislation relating to endangered species willnow be proclaimed. So we have another lie
29 Feb 2000 Tree-clearing Guidelines 83
with regard to this particular legislation and thisparticular issue.
The bush is burning. Mr Beattie shouldnot underestimate the depth of feeling on thisparticular issue. We are saying to theGovernment that from time to time allGovernments make mistakes. When theymake mistakes it does not hurt now and thento admit it and to go back to the negotiatingtable, not to present the key stakeholders witha draft Bill as a fait accompli just before it isintroduced into the Parliament and guillotinedthrough this place. The Government will neverever deal with this issue unless it takes thepeople with it. I end as I started mycontribution to this debate: if the Governmenttells the very people it needs—if it tells theland-holders across Queensland—that they donot matter, then it is treating them and thisissue with contempt.
Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA)(6.09 p.m.): Is it any wonder we have had suchdemonstrations as happened in Winton andare going to happen again in Roma in the nottoo distant future! It is because the tree-clearing legislation was not treated in thisParliament with the true respect that it wasdue. One thing bush people have is respectfor authority and respect for one another. Butthey were not given respect in this Parliament.The tree-clearing legislation was virtuallyguillotined well before it started, and it wasguillotined because some held the point ofview that the Bill presented to the Parliamentwas structurally unsound. It has not been ableto work. It was not worked out properly with therelevant stakeholders. As a result, we areseeing one of the worst debacles I have everseen.
The Beattie laws attack the right ofprimary producers to manage their freeholdproperties. It must be remembered thatgraziers and land-holders have paid a lot ofadditional money to freehold their land. Whenthey will pass that land on to their families forgenerations to come, do those opposite thinkthey are going to allow that land to bedegraded? Do those opposite think they aregoing to mess their land up? Of course theyare not. No way in the world! They are going tolook after their land, yet this Governmentbrings in the tree-clearing laws. I really believeit is all about politics. That is why theGovernment has done it. It has not caredabout the people in the bush who contributeso much in order to feed the people in thecities.
This situation has been brought about inan effort to appease an agreement the
Government made with the Greens. That iswhat this is all about. The Government hasprobably worked it out that, no matter what itdoes, many of the seats affected in the bushwill not vote for the Labor Party anyway. TheLabor Party is going to run Queensland on apolitical basis. That is very wrong. Our trust inthis Government is going to suffer in a verybad way. It must be remembered that land-holders are willing to work with the Governmentand develop a sensible tree-clearing policy.They have already indicated that. Yet, theBeattie-Welford Government has not botheredeven to pay lip service to them on this issue.The Government met with them and that isabout where it was left.
The Government has set arbitrary figuresand restrictions that cannot be justifiedscientifically. Labor members are laughingabout what is happening to people in thebush. It is either that or they are having aprivate joke of their own. I am not sure which itis, but that is probably what they aredoing—having a private joke of their own whenwe are discussing these issues that are soimportant for people in the bush. That is reallywhat it is about. These laws rely on the bigstick rather than the carrot. That is what it is allabout. They are based on the falseassumption that freehold land-holders want todegrade their land. They are based on theassumption that the Government knows best.This Government knows best about the bush!They do not even listen to the people in thebush. That is what it is about.
I believe the Beattie Government shouldlook at its own land management record. Letus look at the absolutely dreadful record of theGovernment managing Crown land. Look atsome of the national parks. The Governmenthas made a big issue in this place aboutbuying a national park, but then it has goneaway and forgotten all about it. What hashappened? It has allowed parthenium weed,rat's tail grass and feral animals into theseparks in abundance. That is what it is about.The Government does not even look after itsown parks. It does not know how to, yet itexpects that graziers who have paid extramoney for their land will let it degrade. No wayin the world! The Government does not careabout the people. It does not even want to setan example.
If the Government wants to do the rightthing, it would carry out an audit of themanagement of national parks to make surethere are sufficient people to look after them.Believe it or not, but $6,500 per annum is allthat is budgeted to look after Hellhole NationalPark near Adavale. How do those opposite
84 Tree-clearing Guidelines 29 Feb 2000
think the people on properties near that parkare coping with feral animals, weeds and everyother thing coming from this most magnificentpark—or what would be a magnificent park if itwere looked after?
Time expired.
Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (6.14 p.m.): I move—
"Delete all words after 'Parliament'and insert—
'commends the State Government for thehistoric south-east Queensland ForestAgreement which protects timber workers,their communities and the environment;
and further,
this Parliament supports the StateGovernment's plan to proclaim thosesections of the Vegetation ManagementAct that protect areas containingendangered vegetation types on freeholdland, and the Government's strategy touse regional vegetation managementplans to oversee the protection of areascontaining "of concern" vegetation typeson freehold land.' "
In recent months, there have been twokey initiatives that further demonstrate myGovernment's commitment—
Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order.Mr Speaker, I submit that an amendmentdealing with the RFA is inconsistent with thewording of the motion and is therefore out oforder. It brings in new subject matter. It dealswith matters that are not mentioned in theoriginal motion.
Mr SPEAKER: There is absolutely nothingin Standing Orders to say that that is the case.I call the Premier.
Mr BEATTIE: I want the record to notethat the Leader of the Opposition is seeking toreduce the time I have to respond in thisdebate. In recent months there have been twokey initiatives that further demonstrate myGovernment's commitment to delivering thebest possible outcome for rural and regionalQueenslanders and the environment. First,there was the historic forestry agreementcovering south-east Queensland. Morerecently, my Government introducedvegetation management legislation.
Honourable members would be awarethat I went to Canberra on Monday of lastweek for a meeting with the Prime Minister toseek financial contributions from theCommonwealth to the forestry agreement andthe vegetation management packages. After
that meeting, the Prime Minister said hisforestry Minister, Wilson Tuckey, and sixFederal coalition backbenchers still hadconcerns with our RFA. I am assured by thesenior Queensland public servants who workedwith their Federal counterparts for about threemonths that Queensland's agreement did fitthe Commonwealth model. In that meeting,the Prime Minister also agreed that it fitted themodel. Even the National Party in Victoria issaying that that State should adoptQueensland's model, my Government'smodel. So the National Party in Victoriasupports us. As I told the Prime Minister lastweek, my Government will push ahead withimplementing our forestry agreement. We willmeet the full costs ourselves—that is, $80mworth of commitment from the QueenslandGovernment to timberworkers, theircommunities and the environment. That is notone cent worth of commitment from theHoward Government.
The other major initiative relates tovegetation management. Much has beenwritten and said about my Government'svegetation and management legislation sinceit was passed by the House last December.Most of this comment has been wrongbecause of the fear and smear campaignwaged by members opposite and their croniesin Canberra. I table this advertisement fromthe National Party which shows that it is tryingto score cheap political points at the expenseof farmers and the environment. It is trying toturn Roma into a political stunt. I table it for theinformation of the House and I draw it to theattention of farmers, who are being used bythe National Party as cheap election fodder.
Tonight I want to set the record straight.Last December my Government releasedproposed new rules for vegetationmanagement of freehold and leasehold landacross Queensland. These rules evolved overnine months of protracted negotiationsbetween many stakeholders with stronginterests in and even stronger philosophies onthis issue. For the benefit of membersopposite, let me outline the facts. The vastmajority of freehold land-holders will not beaffected by the vegetation managementlegislation. The section of the legislation that Iintend to proclaim will apply to endangeredplant communities and vegetation types foundon only 925,000 hectares, or 0.25%, of theState. Protection of such areas is evensupported by the Queensland FarmersFederation. The QFF stated during last year'sconsultation period that the organisation seeksto "comprehensively protect endangeredregional ecosystems from not only clearing but
29 Feb 2000 Tree-clearing Guidelines 85
also, for instance, the invasion of pests andweeds".
The formulation of these laws was startedunder the previous State coalitionGovernment, with the then Premier, RobBorbidge, signing an agreement with thePrime Minister, John Howard, andEnvironment Minister Senator Robert Hill toreduce tree clearing in Queensland, particularlyon freehold land. The Leader of theOpposition can try to deny this, but here is theagreement and here is a copy of a report inthe Courier-Mail of 17 December 1997 whichsays that the Borbidge Government plannedto introduce tree controls on freehold land in1998. I table all the documents, including theone signed by the Leader of the Opposition,for the information of the House, and I will behighlighting this to farmers at Roma.
This all flowed from the agreement signedby the Opposition Leader, the then Premier.This agreement specifically required that adramatic reduction in tree clearing inQueensland had to be enforced by legislation.The then Premier even established a top-ranking task force to make sure that thishappened. So much for the Leader of theOpposition now trying to portray himself as afriend of the bush!
Mr SPEAKER: The Honourable Premier'stime has expired.
Mr BEATTIE: I just note for the recordthat I was denied speaking time by aninterjection and a useless point of order by theLeader of the Opposition.
Hon. J. P. ELDER (Capalaba—ALP)(Deputy Premier and Minister for StateDevelopment and Minister for Trade)(6.19 p.m.): I second the amendment movedby the Premier. As far as the arguments overtree clearing go, it is the tired old re-run of afamiliar scenario: the Labor Party, inGovernment, facing up squarely to theproblem created by years of National Partyneglect; not afraid to take our case to the bushand not afraid to argue our case in the bush;prepared to work with whatever level ofgovernment is prepared to work with us to sortout the situation; not putting the problemsaway, but facing up to those problems andfacing up to them fairly and squarely. We haveseen that the National Party is unable to doany of this. It put off everything that wascontentious till after the election.
As the Premier just said, the Leader ofthe Opposition signed a partnershipagreement with the Federal Government in1997 which committed the QueenslandGovernment to have "effective measures in
place to retain and manage vegetation,including controls on clearing".
Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order.There do not have to be hard and fast rules,the way the Deputy Premier is interpreting it.
Mr ELDER: Caught out! As I said, in 1997the then Premier signed an agreement tohave effective measures in place to maintainand manage vegetation, including controls onclearing. He signed that Federal agreement. Iwould like to know: what were being put inplace in terms of controls on clearing? Whatwere members opposite contemplating? Thesimple fact is that they put off everything thatwas contentious till after the election, andthere must have been many membersopposite who breathed a sigh of relief whenthey lost the election, because it meant thatthey did not have to introduce or deal with anyof those contentious measures. But the bushknow it, and don't they know it, because themember for Surfers Paradise was in Winton,and he went there expecting that crowd ofangry farmers to rally against us. He expectedto go there and be right beside them, rallyingagainst those socialists from the city. Instead,he found he was about as popular as a motelowner from Surfers Paradise with them. Whenthe member for Surfers Paradise was up there,didn't they give it to him!
Mr BEANLAND: I rise to a point of order.Mr Speaker, I refer you to page 346 ofParliamentary Practice by Erskine May, whichstates that amendments are to be relevant tothe subject matter.
Mr SPEAKER: I know exactly what themember is talking about, and this is relevant tothe subject matter.
Mr ELDER: I have not seen this muchcowardice since this morning in question time,you bunch of pussy cats!
Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order.
Opposition members interjected.Mr ELDER: Have the guts to debate the
issue, then, you wimps. What a bunch ofwimps!
Mr Hobbs interjected.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forWarrego!
Mr Johnson interjected.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forGregory will cease interjecting. That is my finalwarning.
Mr Seeney interjected.
Mr SPEAKER: The member for Callide willcease interjecting. That is my final warning.
86 Tree-clearing Guidelines 29 Feb 2000
There is a point of order from the Leader ofthe Opposition.
Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, I seek youradvice in respect of the reference in ErskineMay. Could you explain how the RFA isrelevant to a motion being moved on theVegetation Management Act?
Mr SPEAKER: I am not going to allow thisdebate to continue with frivolous points oforder. I have made my ruling. If the Leader ofthe Opposition wishes to dissent from it, hemay do so. I call the Deputy Premier.
Mr ELDER: We see when membersopposite are caught how they squirm. Theysigned agreements with the FederalGovernment that they never delivered on.
The member for Surfers Paradise wasreally popular in Winton. I can recall being inthe bar in the hotel talking with the member forCallide and with the member for Gregory, andwith the people to whom I was talking—whowere all National Party supporters; they werenot mine—about the Leader of theOpposition's popularity in Winton, and he wasnot all that popular. In fact, he was anembarrassment. We went up there and wedebated the issue with those people.Members opposite will not debate those typesof issues with our constituency. The biggerissue on the night, which actually got thePremier a cheer, was the GST. Those in thebush are waiting for the Leader of theOpposition, and they are waiting for him on thegoods and services tax.
Mr Seeney interjected.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I now warn the
member for Callide under Standing Order123A.
Mr Hobbs interjected.Mr SPEAKER: I also warn the member for
Warrego under Standing Order 123A.Mr ELDER: Members opposite walk away
from their responsibilities in terms of landclearing and they walk away from theirresponsibilities in terms of the RFA, becausethey are cowards and they are playing politicson it. They are cowards and they are desertingtheir constituency on it. But they will notescape the GST. I found that the turningmoment was when the Premier said to theLeader of the Opposition, "Do something andgo and talk to John Howard about the GST."There was a great cheer from the crowd, whowere not necessarily our supporters.
I suspect that, due to their lack ofcompassion for the bush, after the nextelection not too many of the membersopposite will be sitting in this House.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call thehonourable member for Warwick.
Mr Borbidge interjected.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of theOpposition will cease interjecting.
Mr ELDER: I rise to a point of order. I findthat remark offensive. I did not go to the hotellate in the day, but I went in the company ofthe member for Gregory and the member forCallide, and they spoke long and loud aboutMr Borbidge's leadership.
Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. Ifind the suggestion that I would go to the pubwith the Deputy Premier offensive, and I askthat it be withdrawn.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forCallide will resume his seat. Thecommencement of the 1999 sittings was theonly time that this House was brought intodisrepute by the media. I am not going to copthat this year. I am telling members now that ifthis behaviour continues, they will all find someplace outside this Chamber to make theirnoises and yell and scream. I now call themember for Warwick.
Mr Johnson interjected.
Mr SPEAKER: I now warn the member forGregory under Standing Order 123A.
Mr SPRINGBORG (Warwick—NPA)(Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (6.26 p.m.):The original motion moved by the HonourableLeader of the Opposition must and should besupported by all members of this Parliamentwho have a conscience. The reason for thatwill be made quite clear during the course ofthis debate.
Last year in this Parliament thisGovernment, without any proper considerationof scientific guidelines or foundations or properconsultation with rural industry leaders or ruralgroups or other interested stakeholders,brought into this Parliament the VegetationManagement Protection Bill, which was allabout sucking up to the rabid conservationistsin this State without any proper considerationwhatsoever for the interests of private propertyin this State, particularly freehold land. It wasthe most gross attack on private property rightswe have ever seen.
To try to dispel some of the humbugwhich has been trotted out around this Stateby honourable members opposite and also theconservation movement, not only in the lastfew months but also in the last few years, Iwant to point out to honourable memberstonight the real issue with regard to treeclearing in this State. Do members know who,
29 Feb 2000 Tree-clearing Guidelines 87
historically, has been responsible for most ofthe tree clearing in this State, and why? It hasresulted from conditions laid down bysuccessive State Governments dating back100 years or more. That has been the issue.Until the late 1980s and virtually into the1990s, we had a situation in which it wasaccepted by Government—and, most of thattime, by the Labor Party—that if a leaseholderdid not clear their land, down to 10% in manycases, they lost it. It was a condition of theirlease. They had absolutely no room tomanoeuvre in most cases, and that went fromthe boundary fence to the river. They lost it ifthey did not clear 400 or 500 acres a year, andGovernment members know it.
What Government members are doing,irresponsibly and disgracefully, is placingcontemporary values on past actions whichwere mostly caused by Governments in thisState, but they do not have the courage tostand up in this place and talk about that sortof thing. Fortunately, in that time, land-holdersthemselves had the commonsense to leaveshade clumps and shade lines. Nobody goesout there to deliberately degrade their land,because what they would be doing is flushingtheir asset down the toilet. That is virtually it;they would be degrading it for futuregenerations. So tree clearing in the past hasbeen a result of the actions of Government. Tosay now that it is due to the actions of land-holders going out there unscrupulouslyclearing is completely and absolutely wrong.
The point is that we have a set ofguidelines in this State that must be thrownout. The Premier is talking about partiallyproclaiming something. The legal guru overthere who claims to be an Attorney-Generalwould know the Acts Interpretation Act. TheActs Interpretation Act says that legislationwhich is assented to will, unless otherwiseexpressly altered by the Government,automatically be proclaimed one year and oneday later. Other than that, it is two years andone day. The Attorney-General knows that, sothere is absolutely no option whatsoever—
Mr Foley: Where does it say that in theActs Interpretation Act?
Mr SPRINGBORG: The Attorney-Generalknows where it is. There is absolutely noalternative. If the Government is serious aboutstopping this whole Act being proclaimed, itmust support this motion. The Attorney-General knows that, and the legal expertsknow that, and when the Governmentappoints the Attorney-General to the SupremeCourt, he might even find that out. TheAttorney-General comes into this House and
gives the impression that we are going to beprotecting some endangered species and thatthe other species will be okay. That is notcorrect, and the Attorney-General knows that.There is automatic proclamation.
The other matter that has beenmentioned is that farmers want compensation.They do not want compensation; they wantthe right to be left alone to manage their landresponsibly. Members on this side of theHouse have nothing against trees. Whenthose lease conditions on clearing were inplace in this State, Labor was in Governmentand was enforcing them. Those are the thingsto which this Government aspires. ThisParliament has absolutely no choice. If itwants—
Time expired.Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP)
(Minister for Environment and Heritage andMinister for Natural Resources) (6.30 p.m.):There is no point in my repeating what theDeputy Premier said about the Opposition'scowardice when it comes to dealing withdifficult issues. This is just one of a string ofmatters that the Opposition failed to deal withwhen it was in Government—a matter which ithad a clear obligation to address.
This Government is prepared to face upto this and we are prepared to deal openly andhonestly with people in rural Queenslandabout the real challenges that we face tomanage our land for a sustainable future. Wehave to look after the land so that in the next100 years we can ensure that futuregenerations derive the same benefit from theland that we did over the last 100 years.Already, both State and Federal Governmentsare spending tens of millions of dollars everyyear on land repair. That does not happenwhen people are not making mistakes.
No-one is criticising rural people for themistakes of the past, but we are trying to avoidthe mistakes of the future. The mistake of thefuture that we will all make—
Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for
Warrego! This is my final warning.
Mr WELFORD: We must ensure that weachieve the obligations that the NHTpartnership agreement signed by the Leaderof the Opposition commits us to—namely,managing vegetation on land throughout theState in an effort to reduce the overall level ofclearing. The Federal Government demandedthis of our Government in that partnershipagreement which those opposite ran awayfrom and hid from—and are still running away
88 Tree-clearing Guidelines 29 Feb 2000
from and hiding from as a matter of cheappolitical expediency. The reality is that theFederal Government, through that partnershipagreement and through its continued pressureon our State, wants that issue addressed.
The proposition that this can be dealt within a voluntary way is contradicted by theNational Party's own actions. Under the LandAct, the National Party introduced guidelineson clearing on leasehold land. Theseguidelines now have the force of law.
Mr Borbidge interjected.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of theOpposition will cease interjecting.
Mr WELFORD: The Opposition ran awayfrom the proposition of dealing with freeholdland. The Opposition set up a committee, andthat is all it did. The matter was never finalised.It was never dealt with by the Opposition. TheOpposition carried through what we startedwith regard to leasehold land and made it law.Those opposite made it law because theyknew that there need to be minimumstandards. That is all that this Government isproposing.
I have made sure that we will haveconsultation with rural communities. Weconsulted with rural industry right throughoutlast year. We agreed on most of the issues. Itis only at the margins where we did not havefinal agreement. We have legislated accordingto the substantive provisions which wereagreed. Now we are taking the matter to thepeople in the rural communities. In the last twoweeks I have personally conducted forums inBundaberg, Mackay, Charters Towers,Atherton, Beaudesert, Augathella andEmerald. There will be further forumsthroughout the State where I will be openlytalking with rural communities. I will be talkingwith 150 to 200 people at a time in regionaltown halls. We will work through these issues.Most people understand that we needminimum standards.
The proposition that one should be ableto do whatever one likes on one's land is notsomething that rural people who are genuinelyconcerned about land care subscribe to.People on the land want flexibility, and they willhave that flexibility. The only thing we arelooking to achieve is to protect endangeredecosystems. If the Opposition proceeds with itsmotion tonight, it has to be prepared to standup and say to the whole Queenslandcommunity that it does not care if endangeredecosystems are driven to extinction. That is theproposition that the Opposition will beasserting if it opposes what our Government isdoing.
What this Government is doing withregard to freehold land is protecting nothingmore than those ecosystems which havealready been fully cleared down to their last10%. That is the only minimum standard thatthe Premier is now requiring to be protected bylegislation. Beyond that, it will be up to theregional process involving regional committeesand the local community to come up withguidelines for protecting vegetation onparticular properties.
Let this be heard loud and clear: if theOpposition opposes what our Government isdoing, it is advocating the freedom for peopleto drive ecosystems to complete extinction. Allthis Government is protecting are theecosystems that are most endangered.
Mr Borbidge interjected.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of theOpposition will cease interjecting. That is myfinal warning.
Mr WELFORD: If the Opposition is reallygenuine and really believes that endangeredecosystems should be protected across theState, those opposite would join with us andget Federal Government support to make surethat the protection of those ecosystems doesnot render anyone non-viable.
Time expired.
Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (6.36 p.m.): Inotice that the Premier is not in the House. Hedoes not have the courtesy to come into theChamber and listen to the debate. At Wintonthe Premier said, "We had to bring in the treeclearing guidelines because of the Kyotoagreement." Let me make it clear that that isnot the case. I challenge the Premier toindicate where in the Kyoto protocol it saysthat Australia must reduce tree clearing. Thereis no such thing. That is another lie.
The Premier also said that it had to bedone because of salinity. There is no clearevidence that salinity is a problem. TheMinister for Environment wrote to me and saidexactly the same thing. He said that hechallenged the report of the Murray-DarlingCommission. I wrote back to the Governmentand asked, "Where is the data that you usedin determining that salinity was bad inQueensland?" The Government wrote back tome and said, "We haven't got data. We got itfrom Mr Welford." Mr Welford eventually wroteto us and said, "Oh, we have some preliminarydraft material which cannot be used. It is notreliable. It should only be used in a verypreliminary manner." The information that theGovernment is using in order to scare peopleis inaccurate.
29 Feb 2000 Tree-clearing Guidelines 89
The Premier told land-holders that theymust accept the advice of the experts in thedepartment. Adrian Jeffreys, a former Greenactivist, for heaven's sake, is the manager ofvegetation management for DNR. We virtuallyhave Dracula in charge of the blood bank. ThePremier also said in Winton, "We had to bringthis in because Robert Hill's Bill is worse thanmine." Senator Hill has made it quite clear thathis Bill does not apply. I do not know how thePremier can continue to say these things thatare totally untrue. The Premier should notkeep on saying those things because thepeople do not believe him any more.
There are a lot of other issues concerningthe DPI report. However, the issue in this caseis that the Premier has talked aboutconsultations between the State Governmentand the Commonwealth Government in orderto work out what compensation will be paid tofarmers. There has been no indication of anyconsultations with the stakeholders. How muchdo the farmers need? What compensation isrequired? The Premier has not spoken to thefarmers. He has had discussions with ahandful of people.
The people involved will have theirincomes reduced. They will have their rightsreduced. However, the Premier is not talking tothose people. The Premier says that $100m isall he wants. The Premier knows as well as Ithat the ABARE report contradicts him.
Members opposite must realise this: thisvegetation clearing legislation is not based onany scientific data. It is not based on bestpractice. It is not based on what is best for theland. It is purely a political decision which hasbeen arrived at for political purposes.
No-one would want to go out and destroyendangered species or eco-systems. I ask theMinister to name the eco-systems which are indanger of dying. I ask him to name anyendangered areas that have been lost toQueensland in the recent past. TheOpposition, when in Government, undertook alot of work in relation to vegetationmanagement. Earlier this afternoon theMinister for Environment said that theOpposition did nothing. The Opposition had tofix up the mess left by the Goss Governmentwith regard to leasehold guidelines. TheOpposition was able to introduce a satisfactorymethod to clear up that mess.
A lot of land-holders have written to usabout the issues and the way they see them.One land-holder from Quilpie wrote—
"I hope you can use my commentsto convince the uninformed public to usetheir common sense and defeat this Bill."
She stated further—
"The main concern with this Bill is itgives ultimate control over landmanagement to the hand of theGovernment. These people have nopractical working knowledge of the landthey are governing, so rely on what theirobservers tell them. In previouscircumstances of this type of control, ithas proved to be a dangerous way tomanage affairs.
Please don't run out and persecutethose honest business owners, with thefalse hope of punishing those very fewdishonest ones. This legislation is notdesigned to catch criminals, it is designedto make more criminals and then try tocatch them."
A lady from Nebo also wrote and stated thefollowing—
"We only have the division of theconservative vote and the impossiblecompulsory and optional preferentialvoting system in Queensland to thank forhaving a Labor Government in power.One Nation voters gave us the BeattieGovernment, and they are now carryingout the vendetta of eliminating countrypeople by economics."
Time expired.
Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP)(Minister for Primary Industries and RuralCommunities) (6.40 p.m.): This evening, inrising to support the amendment moved bythe Premier, I would like to highlight one of themajor projects that the Department of PrimaryIndustries is progressing in partnership with theLandcare groups in the Burdekin catchment.Earlier this month in Charters Towers, Iannounced State Government seed fundingfor a Burdekin rangelands/reef initiativecovering a catchment of 13 million hectares.Of course, the honourable member forCharters Towers would be fully aware of what Iam talking about. In December last year at theState Government's Community Cabinetmeeting at Charters Towers, followingrepresentations from the Dalrymple Landcarecommittee and other communityrepresentatives, the $100,000 seed fundingcontribution from the department was finalised.
The Department of Primary Industries isdeveloping a whole-of-Government approachto the initiative and driving the social andeconomic development envisaged across thecatchment from the rangelands to the reef.The Burdekin rangelands/reef initiative is anexciting proposal that will promote broad
90 Tree-clearing Guidelines 29 Feb 2000
community involvement. I believe that it willdemonstrate the win-win outcomes that apositive partnership between industry andGovernment at all levels can achieve.
However, it is critical that the FederalGovernment be involved, and already therehave been preliminary discussions with theGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Therangelands/reef initiative is about achievinglasting solutions to deliver long-term benefits tocommunities across the catchment now and inthe future. The Department of PrimaryIndustries' funding will focus on theimplementation on the ground to achieve long-term outcomes. The department will supportthree pilot projects: establishing a modelproperty, a pilot in the Dalrymple Shiredemonstrating woody weed control andsustainable grazing land managementpractices; a pilot in the lower catchmentfocused on the restoration of a fish habitat;and the development of the proposal into abroad community development initiative for theBurdekin catchment. The pilot programs aim todevelop business plans and outlinemanagement strategies required for long-termsustainability and economic viability to benefitthe whole community.
I note also that the Minister for NaturalResources said that the experience andknowledge of primary producers was vital tothe development of regional plans. Iunderstand regional committees will be formedover the next two months. The Minister hasbeen discussing the issues with land-holdersface to face at a series of vegetationmanagement forums, to which I referredpreviously. That face-to-face contact issomething that I as Minister have tried tomaximise. I believe that it is very important todiscuss matters with the industry organisationsbut I also value my contact with individualproducers. To that end, I also praise the workof Government MPs in ensuring that the viewsof their constituents are heard. TheGovernment's Community Cabinet andregional forum processes are playing a vitalrole in giving Queenslanders greater access toGovernment. I am looking forward to theRoma Community Cabinet meeting thisweekend because, once again, it will be theGovernment talking about relevant issues withmembers of the community in the Roma area.I understand that further vegetationmanagement forums are due to be held inAugathella, Inglewood, Roma and Miles overthe next two weeks.
With reference to the RFA, that is, theSouth-East Queensland Regional ForestAgreement, the State Government achieved
an historic outcome for Queensland. Thisagreement protects jobs, regional communitiesand south-east Queensland's native forests.The agreement gives confidence in the futureof the industry and the sustainability of theindustry. A sustainable timber industry providessustainable timber jobs. The regional forestagreement is a win-win for timberworkers, thetimber towns and the environment. Theregional forest agreement for south-eastQueensland creates new jobs while preservingareas of high conservation value.
In conclusion, let me put an end to the liethat has been perpetrated by honourablemembers opposite in relation to a report ontree clearing commissioned by the Departmentof Primary Industries. I refer to a Courier-Mailarticle last year, which dealt with a letter fromthe DPI's Director-General, Dr Warren Hoey, tothe Premier regarding the DPI report. I will readfrom that article—
"In particular, it presumed all farmswere of equal size and the whole ofQueensland was suitable for clearing. Aletter obtained by the Courier-Mail fromDPI director-general Dr Warren Hoey to MrBeattie said the report's finding had to be'treated with extreme caution'. DoctorHoey's letter says the report's author, aDPI officer, 'considerably overestimates'the amount of uncleared land."
Time expired.
Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (6.45 p.m.): Irise to support the original motion that wasmoved by the Leader of the Opposition. I notethat the Deputy Premier is again not in theHouse. He scuttled out of here just like hescuttled out of the meeting in Winton terriblyembarrassed by the performance of theMinister for Natural Resources and hisvenerable leader, the Premier. As each lie gotbigger to cover the previous lie until he got tothe desperate situation of blaming the GST forthe tree-clearing legislation, the DeputyPremier—and anybody else in theGovernment who had half a brain—was downthe pub hiding in the corner with a minder oneither side of him, which is where the memberfor Gregory and I found him later in the night.
It is also interesting to note that theMinister for Primary Industries just took fiveminutes of the time of this House and couldnot even bring himself to address thelegislation. That is a measure of theembarrassment that all members opposite feelat the position that they have been put in bythe Minister for Natural Resources. He hasmade a complete fool of all the membersopposite, and they know it.
29 Feb 2000 Tree-clearing Guidelines 91
From the very start, the VegetationManagement Act was dishonest and deceitful.It was preceded by a consultation process thatwas a sham and an insult. It was accompaniedby a dishonest and deceitful media campaignthat was designed to split Queensland. It wasdesigned to sway public opinion againstQueensland land-holders by unfairly portrayingthem as environmental vandals. Thelegislation was forced through this Parliamentin a dishonest and deceitful manner with noproper debate allowed and no opportunity toexamine the detail involved.
The Vegetation Management Act hasquite rightly been rejected totally by land-holders across Queensland. This dishonestand deceitful legislation has failed before it haseven begun. It should be repealed, and itshould be repealed immediately. It has failedto achieve any degree of acceptance by theland-holders who are affected by it, and it hasand will continue to fail to achieve any degreeof compliance in the future.
This legislation has produced anunprecedented response of anger andrejection across Queensland—a response thatwas expressed by over 1,000 land-holders whotravelled many miles to attend a protest rally atWinton, and that anger at and rejection of thislegislation will again be expressed at Roma.This legislation fails totally to recognise thatthere is an inalienable difference betweenfreehold and leasehold land. By the Minister'sown statements, he illustrates that he does notunderstand that particular difference. It is thatpoint more than any other that is at the verycore of the angry rejection that the vegetationmanagement legislation has suffered.
The distinction between leasehold andfreehold land has been recognised by land-holders for generations, and that differencehas been reflected in land values. Thislegislation ignores completely the rights offreehold landowners. It ignores completelythose rights that landowners have paidconsiderable amounts of money to acquire.This legislation was forced through thisParliament without debate by an ideologicallydriven Minister in pursuit of his own personalvision. It will never be accepted by Queenslandland-holders, no matter how big the lies thatare perpetrated by the Premier and the DeputyPremier to try to recover the unrecoverablesituation.
Mr ELDER: I rise to a point of order. I findthe remarks offensive. I ask that they bewithdrawn.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member willwithdraw.
Mr SEENEY: I withdraw. Such has beenthe angry reaction across the State, the onlyway to achieve a resolution is to start again.The Minister for Natural Resources shouldaccept that his attempts to bludgeon the land-holders of Queensland have failed. They haveproduced a stand-off that will never bereconciled. He should recognise that thisdraconian legislation will never be accepted byland-holders and is likely to produce abacklash against sensible and sustainablepractices.
The Premier and the Deputy Premiershould recognise that their attempts tomisconstrue the facts in a bid to defend thislegislation have likewise failed. They havefailed in their silly attempts to focus the debateon getting Canberra to meet their childishdemands for money. The Premier's lies failedto justify this legislation at the Winton meeting,and his absurd contention with his nosepressed up against the window of theGovernment jet at 40,000 feet will long beremembered by the land-holders he accused.
This Parliament should be supporting thismotion tonight. This Parliament should berepealing the legislation. This Parliamentshould be urging the Minister for NaturalResources to cease his blind pursuit ofideology and begin some meaningful dialoguewith the land-holders of rural Queensland. TheMinister must support the development of aworkable system that gives encouragementand support to land-holders rather than thedraconian regulation and the over-the-toppenalties enforced by the tree police.
Time expired.
Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (6.55 p.m.): Itis a pleasure to join this debate tonightbecause it gives us a chance to clear up a fewmatters. This is not about tree clearing; this isabout clearing out the Opposition. If one looksat today's Courier-Mail, one will see that thoseopposite have not got their story straight. Whatthey are trying to tell us is that the Queenslandlegislation is too tough. If one looks at theCourier-Mail, one will see what Senator Hill ison about. The Federal Government is sayingthat our legislation is not tough enough. Thoseopposite have not got their story worked out.They have not got it worked out because theFederal Government is about to clear thoseopposite out at the next State election on anumber of issues which I am going to raise ina few moments.
Opposition members have to get theirstory right. It is okay to stand up in Winton, butwhen those opposite go down to Canberrathey are arguing a different story. Why could
92 Tree-clearing Guidelines 29 Feb 2000
they not stand up for the Queensland farmersand argue for decent compensation? What isunarguable, what is undeniable, is that therewas no money for Queensland, not a cent. Myfriend the member for Burdekin is back with us,all the way from the USA. Remember he wasnot going to go anywhere. I bet they werepicking his brain and all they got was theexercise.
There has been no compensationawarded to Queensland—not a cent. All wehave got is the GST. If honourable membersopposite think that their constituency want theGST, they should go back and look at thefootage from Winton. Sure they were angryfarmers. Sure they were upset. But what wasthe basis of their anger and their rancour? Itwas the GST.
Mr Johnson: I rise to a point of order. Ifind the remarks of the honourable member forLogan objectionable, and I ask that they bewithdrawn. The farmers at Winton certainlywere not pushy.
Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point oforder.
Mr Johnson: I am sticking up for thosepeople. They were good, honest citizensstanding up for what they believe in, MrSpeaker.
Mr SPEAKER: The member for Gregorywill resume his seat.
Mr MICKEL: Mr Speaker, I have noargument with the remarks of the member forGregory. Those farmers were upset. They aredecent people and they would not have a barof the GST.
Can any of those opposite who haveaccepted that rubbish from the FederalGovernment tell me what the price of petrol isgoing to fall by in country areas under theGST? They have swallowed it hook, line andsinker. They have been dudded in the sameway that Queensland was dudded over treeclearing and compensation money.
If those opposite want confirmation of whythey were dudded, have a look at the six dudswho did us in on the RFA. Those six Federalmember duds convinced Wilson Tuckey not togive Queensland a cent on the RFA. It is allabout little acronyms—GST, RFA, both ofthem poisonous to the Opposition. It is notabout tree clearing; it is about clearing out theState Opposition. And that is what is going tohappen.
The sawmillers of south-east Queenslandhave been offered for the first time ever long-term, compensatable wood supplyagreements at current allocation levels. These
agreements will underpin investment,employment and economic security for thesawmills and the 35 rural communities thatdepend on them.
An honourable member interjected.Mr MICKEL: I heard the interjection from
the honourable gentleman saying that hedoes not believe it. I was quoting from a pressclipping from Rod McGuinness from theQueensland Timber Board. Have membersopposite become so out of touch that theyhave even fallen out with the QueenslandTimber Board now?
The Liberal and National parties are sellout merchants when it comes to Queenslandcountry towns. For a series of coalitionmembers to come out and say that it is not agood deal, that the communities do not like it,absolutely amazes me. Do those guysunderstand what is going on? That is whatMcGuinness had to say in the OakeyChampion of 23 February. See how out oftouch those opposite are with their ownconstituency!
The only thing the coalition members bothFederal and State have ever done for ruralpeople is make a good living out of them.They have never stood up for them here or inCanberra—never once have they stood up forthem. They cannot tell them what is going tohappen with the RFA. They did not get a centfrom them and they are selling them out whenit comes to the GST. The RFA would haveprovided employment for 471 extra people. Itwould have planted 10 million trees over fiveyears as part of an $18 million softwood andhardwood plantation program. It would haveprovided a $10 million incentive package.
The numbers being equal, Mr Speakercast his vote with the Ayes.
Resolved in the affirmative.
SPEAKER'S RULING
Motion of DissentMr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—LP)
(7.05 p.m.): I rise under Standing Order 117. Imove—
"That Mr Speaker's ruling that theamendment to the motion moved by thePremier was relevant to the subject matterof Mr Borbidge's motion be dissentedfrom."
ADJOURNMENT
Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Leader of the House) (7.05 p.m.): Imove—
"That the House do now adjourn."
Mobile Phone Towers; Milpera State HighSchool
Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—LP)(7.06 p.m.): This evening I wish to touch on acouple of matters, the first of which is mobilephone towers. With competition in thetelecommunications industry hotting up thesedays, companies want their owntelecommunications towers. This means thatlocal government is faced with myriadapplications under town planning laws andordinances from the varioustelecommunications companies, which arerequired under local government townplanning laws to advertise tower proposals andenable local residents to object if they so wish.In many instances, communities do object,because they already have a number of
telecommunications towers in theirneighbourhood. The increasing number oftelecommunications towers in suburbs isquickly becoming a major eyesore. This isoccurring not only in Brisbane but in manyother cities and towns throughout Queensland.
Clearly, these towers should be co-located. Some companies are endeavouringto do that, but others appear to be a littletardy. I believe it is necessary for the Ministerto look at this situation with a view to givinglocal government more powers to ensure that,where possible, the towers used bytelecommunications companies are co-located. There will always be instances wherethat is not possible. However, I haveencountered situations where, even if there isalready a tower in one neighbourhood,another company wants to put one down theroad. This is a growth industry. There are moreand more telecommunications companies,and with them come more mobile phonetowers. Over the months and years ahead wewill see an explosion in the number oftelecommunications companies, which will allwant their own towers. This will mean thatresidents will be faced with the problem ofretaining the character and aesthetics of theirsuburbs, towns and cities. It is a growingproblem. However, I believe there is a simplesolution.
Greater consideration needs to be givento co-locating these towers; otherwise our citiesand towns will become eyesores, with towerssome 25 metres high littering the skyline. Theyare not like a television tower. Mobile phonetowers are much taller and stand out againstthe skyline. I appreciate that localgovernments take a close, hard look at theseapplications and in many instances go furtherthan that and refuse them. When thathappens, the companies have the opportunityto appeal to the Planning and EnvironmentCourt. The actions with which I have beenassociated to date have achieved successfulresults for residents. However, that does notmean that this will continue in the future.Therefore, I urge the Government to toughenup the provisions in this area in relation to localgovernment.
The second issue that I wish to touch onis that of the Milpera State High School—amagnificent high school in my electorate. Itspecialises in teaching students English as asecond language. It is one of only a fewschools in Queensland that deals specificallywith this subject. We have experienced a largeincrease in the number of people coming fromoverseas who do not have English as asecond language and who need to go through
94 Adjournment 29 Feb 2000
this school. In particular, the school deals withpeople in the 13 to 18 year age bracket, ofwhich there are growing numbers.
I made reference to this issue oncebefore in this Chamber and I am somewhatshocked to find that the Minister has not takenup my concerns in relation to this school.There is a need to replace some of theclassrooms and to provide upgraded facilities,in particular a multi-purpose hall. This school isnot like normal high schools in that it does nothave a P & C committee. The students andtheir parents, if they have parents here, attendthe school for only a few months. This meansthat there is no ongoing commitment to theschool through a P & C. There is no parentsand citizens committee at all to support theschool. I have raised this matter before incorrespondence with the Minister. I again urgethe Minister to give further consideration toproviding assistance for the school in relationto building a multi-purpose hall for thesepeople from a range of ethnic origins. Frommemory, the school attracts students from 54countries. Students with origins right across theinternational community attend this school.This is a one-off situation; it is not to be foundelsewhere in Brisbane or Queensland. Otherhigh schools have the ongoing support of P &Cs. The Milpera State High School does nothave that support. I urge the Minister forEducation to give this school greater support.The Federal Government provides much moresupport than does the State Government.
Australian Coal Exports
Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (7.11 p.m.):The Federal Government's continuing refusalto take control of Australia's coal exportcontracts means that the Queensland coalindustry is yet again facing another round ofjob cuts, the possible closure of small mines inparticular and further downsizing of the coaltowns. All these factors contribute to asignificant economic impact on the centralQueensland region.
The recent walkout by BHP coal workersin New South Wales and Queenslandattracted the same rhetoric of previous yearsfrom the Queensland Mining Council, theFederal Government and the QueenslandOpposition. We heard them make claimsabout production losses and the impact thesewould have on the State and nationaleconomies in a campaign aimed at attractingpublic sympathy. They used this opportunity asa smokescreen to hide from scrutiny thebloody-mindedness of the Australian coalproducers and a Federal Government that is
committed to the destruction of the Australianway of life.
The blame for the continued erosion ofcoal prices falls at the feet of the FederalGovernment and coal producers who haveallowed themselves to be outsmarted by theJapanese steel mills who have always boughtcoal as a cartel. The Federal Government hasfailed dismally in protecting Australia's interestsin its valuable coal resources. Prime MinisterHoward is telling us that the GST is good forthe nation. Minister Reith tells us that noworker is worse off under his IR policy and theyendorse the sell-off of our resources for anever declining financial return to our nation!Ordinary Australians are the losers, sufferingthe consequences of fewer Commonwealthdollars for education, health, roads, legal aidand other Government services.
As far as I am concerned, the FederalGovernment and the likes of Howard, Costelloand Reith are traitors to this nation. They areparty to job losses, breakdown in family unitsand the destruction of rural towns. The FederalGovernment abandoned the only effectivemeans of protecting the interests of its citizenswhen it withdrew its right to control exportmarkets. The Federal Government lacks theability to recognise the real problem and takecontrol. After decades of exporting coal,Australia has learnt nothing about how to dobusiness in Asia, especially with Japan. Doingbusiness with Japan is not the same as doingbusiness with Europe or North America.
Robert Koerner, a senior lecturer instrategic management at Griffith University,wrote an article—I believe last year—about theJapanese cartel, which he estimates hasprobably cost Australia about $10 billion inbelow market prices during the past 30 years.Mr Koerner is spot-on when he says thatexport controls could at least keep some checkon destructive competition among Australianproducers. I would like to quote from the articlethat this gentleman wrote because the wordsthat he has used are spot-on and summariseexactly what is happening. There could not bea better way of describing this unsustainablesituation. The article states—
"Australia, Canada and the UnitedStates provide four-fifths of the world-traded coking coal, with Australiaexporting half this amount. The strategyof Japan's buying cartel limits Australia'smarket share to about half of their totalimports. Our producers have been upagainst this ceiling for more than 20 yearsnow. This means that they competeamong themselves for Australian
29 Feb 2000 Adjournment 95
producers, rather than for a share ofJapan's total imports.
Formerly officials kept track of pricesand quality for coal export contracts. Theycould refuse export approval when blatantexamples of destructive price competitionoccurred. This effort would have beenmore effective if similar information hadalso been collected for Canadian andAmerican competitors.
Then comparisons could have beenmade between the worth of Australiancoking coals to Japanese steel mills,relative to the major internationalcompetition.
The former controls at leastdiscourage coal companies fromaccepting low prices offered by the cartelin return for a larger share of theAustralian 'quota'. Now there are nochecks on our weakest players and theJapanese cartel is very skilled at exploitingthese weaknesses."
During my time in the coal industry, I havebeen privy to what has happened on manyoccasions when our coal producers have goneto Japan to try to sell coal to the Japanesemarket. It is quite evident that one of thethings that they set out to do from the verystart was to try to find a benchmark.
Time expired.
Ultraviolet Radiation
Mr HEALY (Toowoomba North—NPA)(7.16 p.m.): Given the amount of publicity thatwas given last Sunday in the Sunday Mail tothe Premier's forthcoming operation to removea cancerous growth from around his eye andhis comments about the importance of properprotection from the harmful effects of UVradiation, I think that it is timely to raise anissue that may be of interest to both thePremier and hopefully every other member ofthis House. Tonight I wish to bring to theattention of the House the excellent researchwork that is currently being conducted at theUniversity of Southern Queensland inToowoomba by two men in particular. Dr AlfioParisi and Michael Kimlin are physicists whorun the Centre for Astronomy and AtmosphericResearch at the university and are engaged ingroundbreaking research into ultravioletradiation measurements and its effect onhuman and plant life. So good is the researchthat the centre, through more than 36research papers, 15 or more conferencepapers and numerous other articles—allpublished—have seen the centre recognised
as one of the leading institutions of its kind inthe world.
As most of us know, here in Australia wehave one of the highest levels of year-roundUV radiation levels in the world. This,combined with our skin types, warm climateand our outdoor lifestyle, has led to Australiahaving the highest incident rates of skin cancerin the world. In response to this situation, theUniversity of Southern Queensland isinvestigating the research areas of humanultraviolet dose measurement, themeasurement of ultraviolet radiation on plants,and the distribution of ultraviolet and visibleenergy with wavelength. Ultraviolet radiation isstrongly linked to the degradation of organicmaterials, both natural and synthetic, and thedamaging and ageing of human skin and eyetissue, including skin cancer. UV is also linkedto diseases in animals, including eye damage.
An increase in UV levels has motivatedthe development of the expertise in UVresearch at the Centre for Astronomy andAtmospheric Research at the University ofSouthern Queensland. Alfio Parisi and MichaelKimlin have conducted some importantresearch into such things as the effects ofsolar UV exposure on schoolchildren in south-east Queensland during meal breaks andduring the summer months. Other topics thatthey have researched include the effect ofsolar ultraviolet exposure on outdoor workers,the effect of solar UV exposure while driving acar and the penetration of high levels of UVthrough the windows and windscreens of amotor vehicle. Serious research has beenconducted into the effects of solar UV onpeople participating in various sports, even ona fairly cloudy day.
It all sounds like good news in the fightagainst skin cancer, but unfortunately it is not.For some strange reason, the centre is battlingto maintain its level of research due to ashortage of funds—funds that would see thepurchase of valuable equipment to carry outfurther experimentation and detailed analysis.It does seem strange that the front page of aweekend newspaper, and indeed two wholepages inside, could be dedicated to theharmful effects of UV radiation and yet thevery research that is needed to assist with theprevention of such effects is being hampered.As I understand, Queensland Health did assistwith funding for the centre some time ago, butthe policy priorities changed somewhat tosome other focus and that funding is no longeravailable.
Mrs Edmond: Most of the funding forresearch comes from the nationalGovernment.
96 Adjournment 29 Feb 2000
Mr HEALY: Given his commitment to thecause and his personal experience with skincancer, I have written to the Premier todayrequesting that he take a personal interest inthis centre. I have asked that officers from thePremier's Department contact the centre toavail themselves of further information on theimportant work being carried out there. I alsoissue a challenge to the Sunday Mail toinvestigate the work that is being done at thisvery important centre in Toowoomba. This isthe type of project that any Governmentshould be taking an active interest in. Far toomany Queenslanders, like the Premier, arenow paying the price for not knowing theharmful effects of UV radiation when they wereyoung. That important research is now beingdone. High skin cancer rates and the possibleincrease of skin cancer incidence in the futurehighlight the need for a reduction in UVexposure.
Looking to our future, skin cancer is goingto be a greater killer in our society than it istoday. We are all guilty of being too slackwhen it comes to protecting ourselves. At theend of the day, this Government—and, in thefuture, any Government—has to get fairdinkum about this issue and start directing thebureaucrats to hop off their favourite agendasand get focused on the issues that reallymatter. This will be a test for the Premier andthis Government or any future Government toprove that they are serious about this issue.
Illegal Refugees
Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP)(7.21 p.m.): The recent arrival of a largernumber of boat people on our shores and theCommonwealth Government's response putsAustralia in a dilemma. On the one hand, weneed to protect our borders from smugglers,including those who traffic in people. On theother hand, we are a humanitarian, democraticsociety committed to human rights and relatedinternational conventions, as well as playingour part in the processing and settlement oflegitimate refugees. There are currentlyroughly 23 million refugees in the world, andthe number is continuing to rise. While manycome from areas experiencing war andconflict, others escape conditions ofpersecution or discrimination which are moresubtle. This does not mean that their need tofind a home elsewhere is not just as great.
Jason Koutsouki's report in the Age on 16February this year reported that—
"... the arrest of more than 3500 peopletrying to enter Australia illegally by boat
since January last year—1200 inNovember alone—and the media reactionthat followed, has created the commonmisconception that our borders aresuddenly under siege from foreigninvaders."
The recent wave of boat arrivals is the largestever to reach our shores in such a short time.Just 3,227 illegal boat arrivals came between1989 and 1998. However, let us have a closerlook at all illegal arrivals.
The Commonwealth reports that boatarrivals make up only a small percentage ofthe 53,143 people living in Australia illegally,most of whom arrived via our airports. Most ofthese people overstay their visas—be theytourist, temporary resident or student visas—and are among the millions who come hereeach year. Compared to the USA and the UK,our apparent illegal entry problems appearinsignificant. The USA illegal entry populationis growing by some 275,000 each year. Lastyear, there were in excess of 51,500 peopleseeking political asylum in the UK. The cost toAustralia in the 1998-99 financial year oflocating, removing and detaining people whoarrived illegally and those working illegally was$128m. It will be more in the next financialyear.
The Commonwealth Government utilisesthe capabilities of Coastwatch, the Navy andCustoms to ensure border controls. On 25November last year the Federal Parliamentpassed the Border Protection Bill, whichprovides for interception, boarding, searchingand chasing ships in Australian or internationalwaters and requesting aircraft to land forboarding and searching. In addition, theCommonwealth has introduced penalties forpeople smugglers, including a 20-year jail termand fines of up to $220,000.
Honourable members will be interested toknow that boats are by no means the only wayin which people try to come to Australiaunlawfully. In the last financial year, in excessof 2,000 people were refused entry atAustralia's airports. This year's figure is not yetavailable, but obviously a jump in numbers isexpected. In the same year, over 3,500people were admitted to Australia'simmigration detention centres, only 26% ofwhom were boat people. TheCommonwealth's efforts to prevent and dealwith unlawful entry must be supported,particularly those aimed at smugglers who areprofiting from human misery. The more recentarrivals of boat people from the Middle East isa new development for our country. Peopleare fleeing repressive regimes in Afghanistan
29 Feb 2000 Adjournment 97
and Iraq. It is highly likely that many boatpeople will definitely be legitimate refugees.
We as a nation have internationalobligations under the 1951 convention and the1967 protocols relating to the status ofrefugees to permit anyone who is likely tosuffer persecution in his or her own country tolodge an application for asylum and beprovided with protection. We also need torecognise that, no matter how many illegalarrivals we get, there is an internationaldilemma. So many people are on the move,many fleeing persecutions. Most regrettable,of course, is the negative image of Australiaprojected overseas as a result of theCommonwealth Government's response. Weshould have learnt from previous experienceswith the waves of refugees we havesuccessfully settled. Refugees are the mostmotivated citizens, because they havenowhere to go but forward. If treated well byus, they are grateful and put a lot of effort intocontributing to their new country.
Time expired.
Sydney-Mooloolaba Yacht Race
Mr LAMING (Mooloolah—LP) (7.26 p.m.):I rise to bring an important issue to theattention of this House. It is important to sportand to Queensland in general and to theSunshine Coast in particular. I refer to theannual Sydney-Mooloolaba Yacht Race. Therace has a 27-year history, but is in extremejeopardy thanks to a move by MooloolabaYacht Club's race partners of long standing,the Middle Harbour Yacht Club. In theirwisdom, they have gained the support of NSWTourism, several other sponsors and mediarepresentatives to run a regatta to CoffsHarbour at the usual time of the Sydney-Mooloolaba Yacht Race, possibly soundingthe death knell of Mooloolaba's time-honouredrace.
In 1999 the race attracted 64 entries,including a large proportion of the majorplayers in the ill-fated Sydney to Hobart race.This number of boats equates to 700 sailorsplus their families visiting Mooloolaba and theSunshine Coast at race end. The mainingredients in the running of any race, the boatowners and sailors, have indicated that theywish to continue the tradition. However, thethreat of this NSW-based Coffs Harbourcompetition places this year's race at risk. Toensure future races to Mooloolaba are assuccessful as those in previous years, aconcerted effort needs to be put into thisyear's event so that the competition from NSWdoes not get off the ground.
The Mooloolaba club has approached theCruising Yacht Club of Australia, who areresponsible for the famous Sydney to Hobartrace, with a proposal to form a partnership inthe running of what is Australia's second mostimportant ocean race. Several attempts havebeen made to secure a race sponsor,including an approach to Tourism Queensland.All have so far been unsuccessful, mainly dueto the short time frame brought about by theMiddle Harbour Yacht Club's failure to adviseMooloolaba of their Coffs Harbour intentions.Our concern is that, should Queensland nottake up the offer of the CYCA and find aQueensland sponsor for the race, a wonderfulopportunity will be lost to the State, particularlywhen we consider the future. This threat hasmade us realise how easily our major eventcould be lost and the effect it would have onthe Mooloolaba Yacht Club, the surroundingbusiness community and Queensland ingeneral.
It is an ill wind indeed that does not blowsome good. This change has seen theemergence of a far more active partner in theCruising Yacht Club of Australia. This movehas provided the Mooloolaba Yacht Club withenormous commercial opportunities that theyhave not had the opportunity to fully developin the past. We as Queenslanders now have aonce only opportunity to cement this event intothe Australian yacht racing calendar, and wehave only six weeks in which to do it. TheMooloolaba Yacht Club, of which I am anactive member, is committed to thedevelopment of the race and has greeted theCYCA's forward thinking and enthusiasm withgreat anticipation.
To this end, I am calling on theGovernment, whether through the Departmentof Tourism, Tourism Queensland, theDepartment of State Development orQueensland Events, for assistance with thepromotion of this year's race as Queenslandstrives to avoid losing a major sporting event toa southern State and to set in place animpenetrable barrier against future attacks.The New South Wales Premier has evidentlyalso lent his name to the New South Walesevent which, according to Yachting News, willbe known as the Premier's Cup. This could wellbecome a battle of the Premiers. I seek thesupport of all members, particularly thePremier, who is the Honorary Commodore ofthe Mooloolaba Yacht Club, to ensure thatQueensland's most important yachting icon isnot lost to New South Wales.
