hansard 31 october 2001 - documents.parliament.qld.gov.au

31 Oct 2001 Legislative Assembly 3189

WEDNESDAY, 31 OCTOBER 2001

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. R. K. Hollis, Redcliffe) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 a.m.

PETITIONSLiquor Licences

Mrs Edmond from 45 petitioners, requesting the House to (a) introduce an amendment to the Liquor Act 1992restricting licences in existing and/or historic residential precinct areas to a closing time of 2.00 am, (b) introducelegislation which will require any licence holder to submit a full and comprehensive list of benefits andcompensation to the community and reasons for extending a licence beyond 2.00 am, (c) renew such licencesunder Section 121A of the Act to include the ability of objectors to be heard formally, under this section of the Actand (d) seriously undertake an investigation into the social impacts and crime related statistics caused by latenight gambling and liquor trading hours in residential suburbs in Queensland.

Maryborough, Skate Park

Dr Kingston from 1418 petitioners, requesting the House to match the $50,000 which the Maryborough City Councilhas budgeted for the construction of a skate park, built to the design already agreed on by the skateboardingcommunity in Maryborough and request that this money be made available as a matter of urgency.

Mackay, Brothel Applications

Mr Malone from 600 petitioners, requesting the House to amend the legislation to provide for either (a) our councilto have the same rights as smaller communities to reject applications for brothels or (b) a plebiscite on this issueby the residents of Mackay City Local Government Authority.

Pumicestone Passage, Jet Skis

Mrs Sheldon from 62 petitioners, requesting the House to (a) totally ban jet skis from the Pumicestone Passage toprotect the delicate ecosystem of the marine national park and return the safe, peaceful amenity to the residentsand ratepayers of the area, (b) ban the use of houseboats in this marine national park area until sewage and refusedisposal stations are established to cope with the present and future demand and (c) provide adequate resourcesand manpower to police the current and future legislative requirements.

PAPERSMINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK

The Clerk tabled the following ministerial paper—

Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria MineralsProvince (Mr McGrady)

Report by the Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on theCarpentaria Minerals Province in compliance with section 56A(4) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992

MINISTERIAL PAPER

The following ministerial paper was tabled—

Premier and Minister for Trade (Mr Beattie)—

Office of the Governor—Annual Report for 2000-2001.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Premier's Export AwardsHon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.34 a.m.), by

leave: One of the priorities of my government has been to aggressively pursue and promoteexport opportunities for Queensland to help make Queensland the Smart State. We are also verypleased to recognise exporters who have succeeded, and encourage those who are taking upthe challenge.

The Premier of Queensland's Export Awards presented awards to 12 businesses andindividuals at a function at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre on 24 October. Arecord 93 Queensland exporters entered the awards, and each of them deserves congratulationsas outstanding examples of the world-class exporters we have in Queensland and for thecontribution they make to the Queensland economy and making Queensland the Smart State.Exporters have helped generate almost a quarter of Queensland's gross state product and

3190 Legislative Assembly 31 Oct 2001

directly or indirectly supported almost 375,000 jobs—that is one in five jobs, a proportion that risesto one in four in regional Queensland. Queensland export revenue reached $26.1 billion for theyear to March, beating the previous year's total by 23 per cent.

The winners excelled in export in a range of areas, including high technology, Queenslandflora, environmentally friendly waste disposal, Olympic weight experts, mining, sport andacademia. The Queensland exporter of the year and winner of the award for large advancedmanufacturers is Filtronic Comtek. This company designs, manufactures and exportssophisticated radio frequency products for use in mobile telephone systems in Asia and theUnited States.

Mr Lucas: World class.Mr BEATTIE: Indeed it is world class. The Queensland content is more than 70 per cent, and

more than 450 high technology manufacturing jobs exist in Australia, mostly in Queensland,because of Filtronic.

A special award winner was Pat Rafter. Pat has won worldwide respect for his ability as atennis player and for his behaviour on and off the court. The regional exporter of the year wasRussell Mineral Equipment of Toowoomba, which supplies mineral equipment to the remotestcorners of the globe, from the Andes to Alaska and the Sahara. I will be visiting them inToowoomba next Tuesday with the local member, the member for Toowoomba North, KerryShine. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the full list of winners for the information of theHouse.

Leave granted.FINALISTS AND WINNERS

AGRIBUSINESS

Winner: Cedar Hill Flowers and Foliage

From its base on the Sunshine Coast hinterland, Cedar Hill Flowers and Foliage exports on a daily basis nativeflowers and foliage to markets around the world.

Finalists: Miandetta Fresh FoodsTender Plus

Miandetta Fresh Foods is the marketing arm of family-owned Miandetta Farms and export agent for almost 10Warwick asparagus and pork rural producers.

ARTS/ENTERTAINMENT

Winner: Krome Studios

Brisbane computer game developer Krome Studios creates video games for the PC and next generation consolesand exports through international publishers Disney Interactive, Ubisoft and Mattel.

Finalists: Cutting Edge PostWarner Roadshow Movieworld Studios

Cutting Edge Post is Queensland's largest film and television postproduction house with facilities at South Brisbaneand opposite the Movieworld Studios at Oxenford. The company's main export market is the United States where ithas forged relationships with the major movie studio companies.

Warner Roadshow Movieworld Studios at Oxenford is one of the largest film and television production studios inthe Southern Hemisphere, generating export income from the American film and television industry.

EDUCATION

Winner: Central Queensland University

Central Queensland University provides higher education offshore, online and at its network of Australiancampuses to students from the Asia Pacific, Africa, Europe and Central and South America.

Finalists: University of Queensland Institute of Continuing & TESOL EducationBecker Helicopters

The University of Queensland Institute of Continuing & TESOL Education, has been providing English languagetraining and continuing professional education programs for 20 years with current markets in Asia, Latin America,North America, Europe and the Middle East.

Becker Helicopters products a helicopter pilot training book, helicopter training videos and trains helicopter pilotsout of the Maroochydore airport on the Sunshine Coast. The company has attracted a large number of overseasstudents from Europe, the UK and Asia.

EMERGING EXPORTER

Winner: AWS Clinical Waste

AWS Clinical Waste at Cleveland exports steam sterilisation technology and automation for clinical and quarantinewaste treatment to Asia Pacific, North and South America and the European Community.

Finalists: WMC FertilizersWestern Exporters

31 Oct 2001 Legislative Assembly 3191

WMC Fertilizers has a large scale, fully integrated phosphate mine and ammonium phosphate manufacturingfertilizer complex in the North West province around Mt Isa, exporting product to South East Asia and SouthAmerica.

Situated in Charleville in South West Queensland, Western Exporters provides frozen goat and mutton meat forexport markets in over 20 countries.

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY

Winner: Mincom

Local Queensland information technology company Mincom exports integrated software solutions and professionalservices to customers in capital intensive industries in more than 40 countries.

Finalists: OpcomAmlink Technologies

Opcom of Toowong designs and develops transport and distribution-related software systems for clients includingNew Zealand Post and Virgin Trains, Royal Mail and regional public transport call centres in the United Kingdom.

Amlink Technologies develops and supplies events management software and its core product is now used inmore than 35 countries.

LARGE ADVANCED MANUFACTURER

Winner: Filtronic Comtek

Filtronic Comtek designs, manufactures and exports sophisticated radio frequency products for use in mobiletelephone systems in Asia and the United States.

Finalists: Heat and ControlNu-Lec Industries

Long-term exporter Heat and Control has been selling industrial food processing and packaging equipment andsystems to food manufacturers in Asia, Europe, Africa and the Middle East for two decades.

MINERALS

Winner: Australian Premium Coals

Australian Premium Coals manages the Coppabella coal mine west of Mackay on behalf of an international jointventure which exports coal to Japan, Korea, United Kingdom, Europe and Brazil.

Finalists: BHP CanningtonQueensland Magnesia

BHP Cannington is the world's single largest and lowest cost mine producer of silver and lead from its undergroundsilver-lead-zinc mine, near Cloncurry in North West Queensland. Lead and zinc concentrate products are shipped tocustomer smelters both in Australia and overseas, including Japan, Korea and Germany.

Queensland Magnesia mines and processes the mineral magnesite into a range of magnesia products for industrialand agricultural use. Its chief export markets are Europe, North America, Asia, New Zealand and Africa.

SERVICES

Winner: Brisbane City Enterprises

Brisbane City Enterprises implements a strategic, export-focused marketing program to sell the expertise andtechnologies of Brisbane City Council to countries in the Asia Pacific, Africa and the Middle East.

Finalists: Brisbane Convention and Exhibition CentreCox Rayner Architects

Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre is a leading edge international convention centre which earned morethan $4 million in export income in 2000/01.

Brisbane architects and urban designers Cox Rayner Architects provides specialist services to Asia in healthplanning, exhibition and convention centre design, urban waterfront development and cultural facility design.

SMALL TO MEDIUM MANUFACTURER

Winner: Ranger Instruments

Last year's Queensland Emerging Exporter of the Year, Ranger Instruments designs, manufactures and exportselectronic instruments used in weighing installations primarily to Germany, England, the USA and Asia.

Finalists: Oz Electronics ManufacturingRME Holdings (Russell Mineral Equipment)

Oz Electronics manufactures telecommunications and other advanced electronic componentry for export to Asia,Europe and North America.

RME Holdings is a world leader in mineral-grinding mill relining technologies and designs and manufacturersmining and mineral processing equipment.

SPECIAL AWARD WINNER Pat Rafter

REGIONAL EXPORTER OF THE YEAR Russell Mineral Equipment

QUEENSLAND EXPORTER OF THE YEAR Filtronic Comtek

Mr BEATTIE: All Queensland winners automatically become finalists in the 2001 AustralianExport Awards, to be held for the first time in Brisbane on 29 November. I am sure that allmembers will wish them well.

3192 Ministerial Statement 31 Oct 2001

Our exporters are doing very well, but I have challenged them to do even better. At theawards night I urged the private sector to increase the number of exporters by 20 per cent overthe next five years, and I encouraged the private and public sectors to increase the value ofknowledge intensive exports by 50 per cent over the next five years. My government will workclosely with exporters to expand their operations. Indeed, later this year I will visit China, Koreaand Japan as part of our export push. Part of that will be leading a delegation from CommerceQueensland.

To help achieve these targets I have launched a special trade strategy called ExportSolutions. I table a copy of this strategy. All members will very shortly receive a copy of it for theirinformation. I urge them to read it. There are now about 3,000 direct exporters in Queensland. Iwant to see that number grow by 600 new exporting companies within five years. I know that thatis a massive challenge, but I believe our exporters are up to it.

The strategic initiatives include: creating a state of origin network of Queensland expatriatesand other friends of Queensland overseas to provide support, advice and contacts forQueensland exporters in overseas markets; establishing an integrated program that helps createa step-by-step pathway for business wanting to become exporters; helping Queensland exportersto break into major international supply chains and buying hubs using Internet and clientmanagement technology to create a system that will get the right overseas market information tothe right businesses quickly; and promoting the formation of partnerships between Queenslandbusinesses that will increase their chance of winning business overseas.

I am proud, as I hope all members are, of what our exporters are doing. They are showinghow to do smart exports. They are exporting a greater range of products. We will continue to workwith them to deliver Smart State exports and those things that will drive jobs.


Indigenous Communities, Far-North Queensland

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.38 a.m.), byleave: I report to parliament on another positive step forward in creating training, jobs and self-esteem in Aboriginal communities in far-north Queensland. In May last year I launched mygovernment's partnership blueprint for a better quality of life for indigenous communities in CapeYork. The partnership blueprint is a bold breakthrough in terms of dealing positively with a lifestyleproblem which has defeated everyone else who has grappled with it. I said then that it was up toeach indigenous community to seize the initiative and work with us to provide a better quality oflife for their residents. And I challenge big business to help by working in this partnershipconcept—not just big business but business generally.

Today I congratulate the Australian Agricultural Company Ltd, one of the world's largestcattle companies, and the Morr Morr Pastoral Company, Australia's largest Aboriginal pastoralcompany, for forging a partnership of mutual respect which will create jobs for Aborigines in theGulf Country.

On 19 October I joined Australian Agricultural Company chief executive Peter Holmes aCourt, Morr Morr chairman Fred Pascoe, Noel Pearson, Minister Tony McGrady and local memberand representatives of the local Aboriginal community under some trees in the backyard of theDelta Downs homestead to witness and sign a statement of recognition. The AustralianAgricultural Company's statement recognises the valuable contribution of indigenous employeesto itself and the rest of the agricultural sector over the last 175 years. And it acknowledges thebenefits that have come from this relationship and seeks to work meaningfully and respectfullywith indigenous people to build on this historical foundation.

Fred Pascoe, an indigenous person who was born, brought up and educated in the GulfCountry, spoke movingly about the plight of Aboriginal people who had become seduced by alifestyle where they receive money for doing nothing. The Morr Morr Company which he headshas only one white employee and regularly makes a large profit. But he wants to take advantageof the superior training that the Australian Agricultural Company can offer Aboriginals. NoelPearson thanked Fred for joining him in speaking out against the existing system and backing hiscall for change.

The Australian Agricultural Company has demonstrated it not only has a long history but thatit has the vision and positive attitudes to continue to grow in this century. These agreements fitfully into the spirit of what I was calling for to provide new hope and a new way of life for Aboriginal

31 Oct 2001 Ministerial Statement 3193

communities. That is why I travelled 3,340 kilometres, along with Tony McGrady, to put myname—on behalf of the Queensland government as Premier—to this document. It is furthertangible evidence that black and white Australia can work together and create a bridge ofunderstanding and acceptance. And it backs up the leadership position the Queenslandgovernment has taken on reconciliation and mutual understanding of our two cultures.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTRegional Events Program

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 a.m.), byleave: As members would know, I love honouring election commitments, especially when theyinvolve regional and rural Queensland. Last Tuesday in Toowoomba I was in the magnificentQueen's Park along with the local member, Kerry Shine. Queen's Park is to be the venue for theAustralian Gospel Music Festival next Easter. This is an event worthy of support and one growingin popularity. But like so many events, it needs support.

An honourable member interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: No, Kerry and I are not singing. Members can all relax. We are notsinging—although I think that Kerry should be invited. What a great tenor he would be.

Assistance in the vital regional events market is not only good in a social sense for thecommunities involved but there is job creation and tourism potential involved as well. As anelection commitment I said we would launch a $3 million program this term to assist regionalevents. We have. We have established the Queensland Events secretariat in Townsville andhave now placed our first round of funding into the community—only the first round; there is moreto come. In all, on Tuesday we announced more than $330,000 of support for 16 regionalevents. There had been 84 applicants in the first round. I call on all present to become involved inchasing up their community groups and organisations to make application for the second andthird rounds.

I deliberately chose Toowoomba to launch the program—apart from it having been namedas winning two successful events in round 1—to highlight the commitment my government has tothe economic development of the regional community and to this program. The Queen's Parkannouncement followed an earlier trip to Wallangarra. I will come back to that trip. Some of thegroups or organisations funded include: Gayndah's Year of the Outback Legends of Racing andRodeo in Gayndah; the Mackay Festival of Arts in Mackay; the Food and Wine in the ParkFestival 2002 in Kingaroy; the Porcupine Gorge Challenge and Dinosaur Festival at Hughenden;the International Mining Challenge in Mount Isa; the Richmond Fossil Festival in Richmond; theGinger Flower Festival in Buderim; the Australian Gospel Music Festival in Toowoomba; theGarden Fest in your Backyard; the Toowoomba Carnival of Flowers in Toowoomba; theAustralian-Italian Festival in Ingham; the Greek Festival in Townsville; the Paddling ThroughHistory Festival in Airlie Beach; the Castrol Summer Championships 2002 in Ipswich; the DroversCamp Festival in Camooweal; the Magnetic Island Jazz Festival at Magnetic Island; and Easter inthe Outback, covering Winton, Longreach, Barcaldine and Ilfracombe.

As I said, the Queen's Park announcement followed an earlier trip to Wallangarra. LastTuesday, 23 October, was a grand day for Wallangarra. More than 1,000 people were on handfor a day to remember. Such a crowd in that proud tiny border town was indeed a magnificenttribute to the significance that Wallangarra, the Granite Belt and the Southern Downs have playedin this State's history. The spectacle—combining troops from the Army, Navy and Air Force; ourown Queensland Mounted Police and pipe band; the combined choir of local primary schoolchildren, and we had one of those schools here yesterday; and the gentle chug of a steamengine to the earth-shattering crack as a low-level F111 zoomed in low overhead—all made foryet another Centenary of Federation success.

Mr Springborg: Precision.

Mr BEATTIE: My speech was very precise. As the member knows, I finished it just as the jetwent over.

The day was a re-enactment of a defining moment in the nation's history. It was nearenough 112 years to that day that Sir Henry Parkes, the member for Tenterfield, passed throughWallangarra by train on his way from Brisbane to Sydney to deliver his famous Federationspeech. The poignant moment was when the restored steam train pulled by TEN 79 rolledtriumphantly into Wallangarra truly highlighting the significance that rail has played in this State


and nation's history. Trains were—and still are—the very heartbeat that played and continue toplay such an important role in building this great nation and great state. The member forSouthern Downs, Lawrence Springborg, was present for this magnificent event.

On the state's behalf and honouring the contribution that Wallangarra played, I wasdelighted to detail that a $3.3 million tourist attraction has been established at the railway stationthere, and it will provide unlimited opportunities for parties on either side of the border. With anestimated 1.5 million people travelling the New England Highway each year, there is greatpotential for major historical and tourism development. It was a grand day, and I am sure that MrSpringborg joins me in congratulating all involved. It was indeed a thrill to re-enact history and tobe part of its making.

The Minister for the Arts is pursuing a heritage trail program on behalf of the stategovernment. It is going to see the most significant injection into rural tourism for many, manyyears—perhaps ever. I hope that members would follow very carefully what the Minister for theArts and the Minister for Employment is doing in relation to the heritage trails. They will beproviding jobs for the bush and jobs for the regions.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTTriple R School Maintenance Program

Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (9.48 a.m.), by leave: Ishare the Premier's enthusiasm for announcing the delivery of election commitments, and in thatregard I am pleased to inform the House of more than $11.3 million for 194 state schools underthe second round of the state government's Triple R school maintenance program. The 194schools are from right across Queensland, including Rockhampton, Redlands, Tablelands,Gladstone, Darling Downs and Bundamba, to name just a few. This delivers, as I said, on aBeattie government election commitment to spend $50 million over three years on the Triple Rrepainting, reroofing and water reticulation program.

$16.7 million will be injected into our schools under the program this financial year, includingapproximately $1.3 million for non-government schools. Over the life of this program, more thantwo-thirds of Queensland state schools will benefit from improved school environments, restoredand preserved buildings and reduced potential health risks. The money for this program is awelcome boost for these schools, the appearance of which will now reflect the high standard ofeducation delivered in their classrooms.

Of course, maintenance is about much more than simple appearance. A leaking roof or ablocked toilet can pose significant health risks, and delays in fixing such problems can have animpact on learning and school environments. The exact start dates for the work in this round ofthe program will be negotiated with each school to ensure minimal disruption to normal schoolroutines. Education Queensland is working collaboratively with Q-Build to program the work, and Iwould like to take the opportunity to thank not only the Minister for Public Works but his officers fortheir enthusiastic support for this important program.

These latest works follow the announcement of more than $3 million in projects in July thisyear for 31 schools. Triple R complements existing school maintenance programs and will becoordinated with other Education Queensland maintenance and capital works to provide a cost-effective and integrated approach. A Smart State needs smart facilities, and that is what theTriple R maintenance program is helping to deliver.


Queensland Biennial Festival of Music; Brisbane FestivalHon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and

Minister for the Arts) (9.50 a.m.), by leave: At a time when festivals elsewhere in Australia arestruggling with record deficits and other problems, the Queensland Biennial Festival of Music andthe Brisbane Festival have achieved outstanding artistic and financial success.

Mr Beattie: Hear, hear!Mr FOLEY: I thank the Premier for his strong support for festivals generally and for the arts. I

am pleased to announce that the Brisbane Festival recorded a surplus—not a loss, a surplus—of$1,050,000, while the Queensland Biennial Festival of Music recorded a financial surplus of$47,000.


The 2000 Brisbane Festival and the 2001 Queensland Biennial Festival were successful for anumber of reasons. Firstly, both festivals had outstanding chairs in Graham Hart and ElizabethJameson respectively, supported by excellent boards. The artistic program lies at the heart ofevery festival and the quality and balance of the program largely determines a festival's successor failure. Queensland is fortunate to have two quite extraordinary people leading theprogramming of Queensland's two pre-eminent festivals. Once again, Tony Gould, that Diaghilevof the South Bank, constructed an accessible but challenging festival program, while LyndonTerracini scaled new heights in his inaugural year as the artistic director of the 2001 QueenslandBiennial Festival of Music. It therefore gives me great pleasure to announce Mr Terracini'sreappointment as the artistic director of the 2003 Queensland Biennial.

These festivals had record sponsorship, ticket sales, critical acclaim and audienceacceptance. In total, the Queensland Biennial Festival of Music presented 110 events over a 10-day period, playing to more than 150,000 people across Queensland. The Queensland BiennialFestival of Music is a big festival for a big state. In fact, one might say it is a smart festival for aSmart State. More than 60 per cent of the music played was Australian, including 12 worldpremieres and 10 Australian premieres, including the very first symphony ever composed for anAustralian city, namely, the Rockhampton Garden Symphony.

I am pleased to say that the Brisbane Festival was similarly diverse and comprehensive in itsprogramming. Estimated attendances were in excess of 252,000; paid attendances hit $109,000;gross box office receipts reached $3.6 million; and corporate sponsorship was $1.28 million. Thefestival had an estimated economic benefit of $17.75 million and employed approximately 3,000arts workers and volunteers. The Queensland government, through Arts Queensland, provided $2million for the Queensland Biennial Festival of Music and $3.8 million for the Brisbane Festival.

The Queensland government's investment in the Queensland Biennial Festival of Music andin the Brisbane Festival provides a wonderful return to the people of Queensland. Artistic Director,Tony Gould, ensured the Brisbane Festival program was enormously accessible, especially withevents like the Military Tattoo, which attracted people from near and far. As a result of thesuccess of the Brisbane Festival, the government has been able to redirect funding of some$640,000 to other arts companies across the state. I am sure the House will join with me incongratulating the respective festival chairs, boards and management teams for theseoutstanding results.


Royal Brisbane Hospital, Bone Marrow Transplant Unit

Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting thePremier on Women's Policy) ( 9.52 a.m.), by leave: Today we read of the news of the tragic deathof a leukaemia patient awaiting bone marrow transplant. My sincere sympathy goes out to thefamily. It is always distressing when a loved one dies. I am not at liberty to discuss the details ofthis case. However, I can advise that last Friday I arranged for the family to receive a briefing fromsenior clinicians about the complexities and the difficulties of this particular case.

My whole working life before politics was involved in treating and diagnosing cancer patients.I understand the complexities of care and the anguish that families are going through as theyface not only life-threatening illness but traumatic treatment programs and uncertain outcomes. Ihave made it a priority as Health Minister to improve cancer services in Queensland. Last year Iannounced our $25 million radiation oncology services plan, which includes a brand new $8million radiotherapy unit at the Princess Alexandra Hospital. Since coming to government, fundinghas been also provided to expand the bone marrow transplant program with new services at theTownsville Hospital and the Royal Children's Hospital.

Bone marrow transplants are complex procedures that have the added difficulty of findingcompatible donors when the families are unable to assist. I am advised by the clinicians involvedthat the average time internationally from the initiation of the search to the location andpreparation of a suitable donor is six months. Once a compatible donor is located, acomprehensive process of medical assessment and counselling needs to take place.Unfortunately, there is no guarantee of a compatible donor for every patient awaiting a transplantor that the potential donor is still able to proceed. Most patients need to be in remission, stabilisedand well enough to undergo the arduous procedures prior to enduring transplantation. I amadvised that unfortunately not all patients will reach this stage.


The Royal Brisbane Hospital is Queensland's major bone marrow transplant centre and oneof the largest in Australia. More than 100 transplants are performed each year. This year the unitis on target to maintain this throughput with 26 transplants already performed in the first quarter ofthis financial year. The unit has 12 designated transplant isolation beds, of which I am informed10 are presently able to be staffed, eight for complex transplants and two for simpler transplants.

While the RBH is experiencing a temporary shortage of specialist nurses, we have instigateda number of measures such as skills enhancement of local staff, sponsorship of expert nursingstaff from overseas and extensive recruitment strategies including Internet advertising. Twoexperienced bone marrow transplant/haematology registered nurses from the United Kingdomare due to commence work in January 2002. Eight new graduate registered nurses for the bonemarrow transplant/haematology ward will commence employment between January and Marchnext year. A further eight new graduate registered nurses have been recruited to fill vacancies inthe two oncology wards commencing 17 December 2002, as patient care needs permit.

The RBH has also provided a business sponsorship of an experienced bone marrowtransplantation and haematology registered nurse from the United Kingdom to work in 9Ehaematology and medical oncology day therapy unit. Two experienced oncology registerednurses have been transferred to the bone marrow transplant/haematology ward and those nurseshave received intensive education in bone marrow transplantation and haematology nursing.Suitable haematology patients are being accommodated in the two oncology wards to maximisethe utilisation of bone marrow transplant experienced registered nurses in the bone marrowtransplant ward.

Once again I extend my sympathies to all families facing this most difficult situation and Icommend the efforts of the staff who are working in the unit.


Small Business, Franchising

Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for State Development) (9.56 a.m.), by leave:Last week I was pleased to chair the Queensland Small Business Advisory Council, or QSBAC,meeting. I was very ably assisted by the deputy chair, the member for Kurwongbah, in that role.This advisory council was established in May 1999 to act as a grassroots link between smallbusiness and the government. It comprises representatives from a range of industries whoidentify and investigate key small business issues and provide advice and practical solutions tothe government. It further reinforces the strong relationship between government and business,working together to develop strategies and implement policies that work for business.

Already the council has some runs on the board. For instance, my department will bereleasing a new franchising strategy today—a study that was commissioned by the SmallBusiness Advisory Council at the end of last year to assist Queenslanders in overcoming some ofthe problems experienced in franchising. Franchising is a major small business sector inQueensland with considerable growth potential. For instance, out of the 700 franchisors Australia-wide, more than half, or 400 of them, operate in Queensland, managing 7,000 franchisees.Queensland franchising employs approximately 84,500 people.

However, research has indicated key issues in the franchising sector, such as lack ofunderstanding within the sector and of business generally about the principles of franchising. Thefirst stage of the franchising strategy has been completed, including the training of regional staff.And a very successful series of workshops on franchising has been held around Queensland inconjunction with the Franchising Council of Australia.

This strategy is but one example of how this Small Business Advisory Council is working tohelp Queensland's small business. This council provides a critical link in establishing ongoing andmeaningful dialogue with the small business community. Members of the council arerepresentatives from industry associations such as the AIG, Commerce Queensland, the MotorTraders Association of Queensland, the Queensland Retail Traders and ShopkeepersAssociation, academia from the Queensland University of Technology and small businessoperators from around Queensland. These are all highly experienced and knowledgable people inthe small business sector.

This council identifies key issues of priority to small business and provides practical advice oninitiatives that will assist small business. And importantly, it demonstrates this government'scommitment to the views and opinions of small business.



Rainfall Projection

Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities)(10.00 a.m.), by leave: Queensland's traditionally dry winter has exacerbated the dry conditionsfacing much of Queensland. Twenty-four shires and another part-shire of the state are officiallydrought declared, but the dry conditions have been felt in many other parts of the state.

I can inform the House that the forecast by the state government's Queensland Centre forClimate Applications offers more positive signs for rainfall over the next three months. The latestQCCA forecast indicates that the probability of receiving median rainfall for the next three monthsis about 50 per cent to 60 per cent over most of Queensland. I refer to the map that has beenprepared by the Queensland Centre for Climate Applications. If we look at the broad band of thestate starting from the south-east corner through to the Gulf of Carpentaria and up to the tip ofthe cape, we see that the probability of exceeding median rainfall is about 60 per cent. Withinthat broad band, we have areas of the South Burnett, central Queensland and north Queenslandwhere the probability there is around about 70 per cent of exceeding median rainfall. So that isgood news for many of our producers who have been suffering pretty tough times. However, thelatest long-range forecast follows some good falls of rain across the state last week. The rain waspatchy, but it was welcome. For instance, rain fell opportunely for the planting of peanuts in theSouth Burnett, with the industry forecasting a 20,000-hectare crop in the coming season.

As honourable members would know, QCCA is a joint initiative of the Department of PrimaryIndustries and the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. It is a world leader in long-rangeclimate forecasting. The rainfall probabilities are based on the latest patterns of the SouthernOscillation Index, or SOI as it is commonly referred to, and sea surface temperatures. The SOI isthe index that measures the differences in air pressure between Tahiti and Darwin. The SOI isnow in a near zero phase. Whilst the forecast is promising, real relief will occur only when rainactually does fall.


Gold Coast City Council IPA Plan

Hon. J. I. CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Planning)(10.02 a.m.), by leave: As members would be aware, many Queensland councils are now welladvanced in the process of preparing new planning schemes that are compliant with theIntegrated Planning Act. Part of the process involves my signing off on the plan, subject to anyconditions addressing matters of state interest, before the relevant council can publicly exhibit theplan and allow its residents the chance to provide input.

Recently, I signed off on the Gold Coast City Council's IPA plan, subject to some 170conditions. It was to be expected that a plan of the size and complexity of the Gold Coast's wouldrequire a number of final changes to address matters of state interest. My approval was subject toa number of changes being made to the plan before it was released for public consultation.Yesterday, it was brought to my attention that the plan had been released before a large numberof those changes had been made by the council. It is extremely unfortunate that the councilallowed this to occur. But leaving the plan on public display without the conditions having beenmet would lead to confusion and uncertainty as to the legal status of the plan. Under thecircumstances, I believe there is no alternative but to direct the council to withdraw the plan frompublic display and to make the necessary changes.

I have written to the council this morning, directing that the plan be withdrawn. I have alsoasked the council to undertake a rigorous review to ensure that the plan fully complies with theconditions of my approval before the plan is made available for public consultation again. It isregrettable that the Gold Coast city plan's progress has been delayed, but I cannot allow theprocess to proceed when the result could ultimately mean additional cost and confusion forratepayers and possible legal challenges to the validity of the plan. Once the council has madethe necessary changes, the notification period can begin over again, allowing the Gold Coastratepayers a chance to have their say. My department will work closely with the Gold Coast CityCouncil to ensure that the conditions are met and that the plan is put back on public display asquickly as possible.


MINISTERIAL STATEMENTFirefighters

Hon. M. F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services and MinisterAssisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.05 a.m.), by leave: Queensland's capacity torespond quickly to a range of major emergencies, such as earthquakes, building collapses,landslides and similar disasters, has been significantly enhanced with 63 firefighters from acrossQueensland now trained to international urban search and rescue standards. In fulfilling our 1998election promise, significant funding has been allocated directly towards improving the QFRA'stechnical response capability with new, specialised equipment and training packages. The result isthat the Queensland Fire and Rescue Authority now has the capability to assemble an urbansearch and rescue task force within two hours of notification. Within six hours, a team equippedwith rescue gear and supplies can be dispatched to anywhere in the world.

Queensland firefighters trained in vertical, trench, confined space, swift water and urbansearch and rescue can now take their place in a highly skilled task force of international disasterresponders. Indeed, they recently showcased their USAR competencies during Fire AwarenessWeek with displays of confined space and swift water rescue equipment at Kangaroo Point. Moregraphically, firefighters demonstrated a vertical rescue from the top of the cliffs at Kangaroo Point.

Such is the standing of our technical rescue experts that members of the QFRA recentlyattended a United Nations familiarisation course in Victoria, which schooled them in how toconduct risk assessments to assist the UN in responding international search and rescue teams toincidents. Such is our level of expertise that Queensland was able to offer personnel to be part ofa multi-agency response team to assist in the aftermath of the New York terrorist attack, shouldAustralia's offer have been taken up by the Americans. I am sure members would join with me incongratulating the Queensland Fire and Rescue Authority on this significant achievement.

Our firefighters' professionalism and dedication was starkly demonstrated as recently asyesterday. Members will recall that it was a very hot day and that walking out into the south-westerlies was like walking into a wall of heat. What was merely an inconvenience and source ofdiscomfort to us was serious business to our firefighters yesterday and to those whose propertywas threatened. Rural and urban fire units were called to more than 40 fires in the Brisbanesouth-east region yesterday and many, many more around the state. Water bombing was carriedout at Advancetown and Bonogin in the Gold Coast hinterland late yesterday afternoon. Themember for Mudgeeraba has discussed with me how we fight those fires and how well we do it.

Rural volunteer firefighters have been at fires in the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coasthinterlands all night. Some have been relieved by urban and other volunteer crews this morningafter back-burning during the night to protect homes. Can I say that some are still out therefighting those fires. A large fire flared up this morning south of Mackay. Poor visibility caused bysmoke led to an accident between two semitrailers.

I stress that people should be as cautious as they can as the fire season engulfs us. Theyshould ensure where they can that fire hazards are minimised, that cigarette butts and other firesources are properly extinguished. They should be particularly careful if smoke is obscuring visionon the roads.

Can I say that, yet again, our firefighters, including thousands of our rural volunteers, havedone us proud and I am sure they will continue to do so for the remainder of the fire season.


Industrial Relations Act

Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.09 a.m.), byleave: A new report prepared by the Department of Industrial Relations reveals that Queenslandbusinesses and their employees have been operating under a fairer and more balanced industrialrelations system since the introduction of Labor's new laws in 1999. The new report, entitled TheOperation of the Queensland Industrial Relations Act 1999: The first two years, was prepared aspart of this government's ongoing commitment to ensuring our industrial relations systemcontinues to promote economic prosperity and social justice, and meets the needs and values ofthe community. The report is proof of the success of our state industrial system with employers,employees and our community. It is proof that we have met our objectives of balancing andmeeting both economic and social needs for Queensland workplaces.


Under our new laws, twice as many employers have chosen to register their agreementsunder the state system rather than under the federal system, with almost 30 per cent ofQueensland employees covered by a collective state agreement compared to just 13.5 per centunder the federal jurisdiction. The new system has given Queensland employers and employeesa greater choice of agreements to suit the different needs of industries and workplaces, includingmulti-employer, single workplaces, project and new business agreements. As a result, bargaininghas continued to spread into new industries, in particular in the construction and hospitalityindustries and the health and community sector. These new agreements have added to thosealready in favour in the manufacturing, retail and transport industries, as well as in the educationand government sectors.

At the same time as collective agreements are growing, Queensland workplace agreementshave reduced to a mere 0.05 per cent of Queensland employees, demonstrating that individualbargaining has failed to take hold in the Queensland jurisdiction. Our state award system has alsocontinued to provide a strong and secure safety net for the one-quarter of the work force whohave remained dependent on minimum award rates of pay. In addition, the current review ofstate awards will assist employers and, in particular, small businesses by encouraging theadoption of efficient and productive work practices and a fair and flexible level playing field.

Industrial disputation has reduced, with the latest ABS data on industrial disputes showingthat the Queensland jurisdiction has one of the best industrial climates in Australia. Lost workingdays in the state have been cut by almost two-thirds under the Queensland Labor government,compared to the time under the coalition. Of those strikes that have occurred in Queensland, thevast majority have been in workplaces regulated by federal laws. For instance, disputes in coalmining—operating under the federal system—accounted for half of all of the working days lost inQueensland during the first six months of this year.

Applications for unfair dismissals under Queensland's new laws have fallen by five per cent inthe last financial year and are down 22 per cent from their peak in 1996. It is significant that, withhalf of the Queensland work force operating under the state system, less than 0.1 per cent of allemployees lodged an application for unfair dismissal during the last financial year. The newprocedures introduced in 1999 have ensured that businesses are better protected againstfrivolous and vexatious applications and that invalid applications are weeded out in the firstinstance.

The new mandatory three-month probationary period, where all businesses are exempt fromthe dismissal laws, has also ensured that employers can confidently trial employees in theworkplace and that employees are treated equitably and fairly. Under the new system, there hasbeen responsible wages growth in line with Australia as a whole, while there is marginally lesswage inequity between high and low-income earners in Queensland, compared to the situationnation wide.

It is clear from these key indicators that Queensland businesses and employees haveenjoyed greater stability and security under our new industrial laws. With the strengthened powersand role of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, the Queensland community alsohas benefited from a focus on industrial harmony and conciliation, rather than confrontation andarbitration. This report, which was undertaken after two years of the operation of the IndustrialRelations Act 1999, demonstrates that our laws are working well and that they are fair anddecent. I table the report for the information of the Parliament.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTSale of Telstra

Hon. P. T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Innovation and Information Economy)(10.14 a.m.), by leave: All members will be aware that the federal coalition has sold half of Telstra,thereby redistributing its ownership and profits from all Australian taxpayers to merely some ofthem. The federal government received $30.3 billion from this windfall, and used a fraction of theproceeds— just $421 million—to fund the Networking the Nation program. Networking the Nationprovides funds for community-based projects to improve telecommunications and ICTinfrastructure in regional areas.

Opposition members interjected.

3200 Private Members' Statements 31 Oct 2001

Mr LUCAS: Mr Speaker, they are upset and angry because they know that the people of thebush will get ripped off if the Howard government is re-elected. They know that the other $30billion will go into a bottomless pit.

Applications for the 10th round of funding for NTN closed in August. In Queensland, 50organisations submitted funding bids, from areas such as Maryborough, Mareeba, Sarina and theSouth Burnett. Officers in my department helped many organisations in the submission of theirapplication. The board met in September to consider applications. The paperwork was completedsoon after, but the federal government did not announce the successful projects prior to callingthe federal election.

Mr Johnson interjected.Mr LUCAS: The member for Gregory can go in there and tell them how he wants to sell it.

That is what they want to do: rip off the people of the bush.

When officers from my department sought advice from the secretariat on the fate ofQueensland projects, they were told that they had been instructed to neither confirm nor denyinformation about specific bids. They also said they had been told Senator Alston would observethe caretaker convention and not make any formal funding announcement during the electioncampaign.

Several media releases have been jointly issued by Senator Alston and other coalitionsenators announcing Networking the Nation funding to various regions. All of the nine previousNTN projects are found on the Federal Department of Communications web site, but the 10thround is found in Liberal party press releases. That is not on. It is not observing the caretakerconvention that is supposed to apply. The battlers of the bush deserve to have every confidencethat their federal government is acting in rural Australia's best interests, not in some desperatepower grab to play politics with their lives.

SITTING HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESSHon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (Leader of the House)

(10.16 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move—That notwithstanding anything contained in the standing and sessional orders, for this day's sitting, the House cancontinue to meet past 7.30 p.m. Private members' motions will be debated between 6 and 7 p.m. The House canthen break for dinner and resume its sitting at 8.30 p.m. Government business will take precedence for theremainder of the day's sitting, except for a 30-minute adjournment debate.

Motion agreed to.

NOTICE OF MOTIONFreedom of Information; Secret State

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.17 a.m.): I give noticethat I will move—That this parliament condemns the Beattie government for making Queensland the secret state and for itsarrogance and lack of commitment to accountability.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Aged Care

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.17 am): The Beattiegovernment is not only secretive and arrogant, but it is also heartless. The secret police of theHealth Department are now going around to old people in Queensland, particularly in theToowoomba area, telling them that they cannot have the carers who have looked after them for,in some cases, many, many years. In some cases, people in their eighties, who have had thesame carers for six to eight years, are now being told by the Queensland Health Department thatcarers will be rotated on a 12-month or less basis. I know of an 88-year-old lady, who is legallyblind, who has had the same carer for six years. She has been told that that person will no longercare for her. Where is the holistic approach to health when looking after our elderly people?Where is the government's heart?

In addition, when people write to the department and mention things such as personalvalues and religious beliefs, they receive a reply that says, 'I would ask that in future

31 Oct 2001 Private Members' Statements 3201

communications, references are not made to religious beliefs and personal values.' That is howthis government callously treats the old people of the state. The government is heartless andarrogant. It does not care about the elderly or whether they are looked after by people whom theytrust and consider to be their friends.

This is another example of political correctness gone wrong. It is an example of the Left Winglunatic side of Labor politics in this state. Next they will want to get robots in to talk to thosepeople, because that will take out all human aspects of care. It is about time that we showed a bitof compassion and care in the Health Department in this state. It is about time that the elderlypeople of the state got some decent treatment. They should be able to continue being cared forby the people whom they know and trust—people who have become their friends.

In addition, they are also about to slash—Time expired.

Violence Against Nurses

Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (10.20 a.m.): The first step in eliminating violence in ourworkplaces is to accept that we should not tolerate it under any circumstance. Simply put, beingsubjected to violence at work is not what a worker should expect as part of their job. The secondis to have in place strategies that work effectively to eliminate the threat of violence and provide asafe workplace. The third is for society to understand its obligations in ensuring that our workersare not subjected to violence.

According to the Institute of Criminology, nurses and health workers are the workers mostaffected by violence in Australia. Nurses understand that their job requires the ability to perform inoften unpredictable circumstances with the need for great skill, knowledge and understanding.Caring for a diverse age group and for people and families whose physical and mental health isunstable is at times precarious work. Nurses recognise this. But the right to a violence freeworkplace is absolute.

Today marks a day of action by nurses in Queensland in which they will wear stickers tohighlight the message that they will no longer remain silent or tolerant of violence in any healthcare setting. The day of action is part of a campaign by the Queensland Nurses Union designedto raise public awareness about violence against nurses. The campaign was launched by theMinister for Health and supported by Queensland Health.

I congratulate the Queensland Nurses Union and its members on this proactive approach tothe problem of violence at work. I congratulate the minister and Queensland Health for thestrategies already in place. Nurses are important to this government and their safety is paramountto us. Zero tolerance to violence in the workplace is achievable, and I encourage honourablemembers to spread the message on behalf of nurses and all workers.

Motor Vehicle Seizure

Mr BELL (Surfers Paradise—Ind) (10.21 a.m.): I am indebted to the Minister for Transport forinvestigating a matter which I have drawn to his attention. We thought that the horrible practice ofwheel clamping on the Gold Coast was a thing of the past. However, it has re-emerged underanother name.

A Mr Purdy, a man of questionable ancestry, claims to have found a loophole in the TowTruck Act. He places inflatable bags under vehicles, inflates them, places a trolley beneath themand then removes the vehicles. He claims that this is lawful. I very much doubt that it is. He thendemands $250 for every vehicle so seized. He will enter into no correspondence or discussion,and people do not get their vehicle back until they pay $250.

This matter came to my attention recently when I was told that he had seized five vehiclesduring one weekend from one building alone. At $250 a pop, five vehicles from one building isnot a bad amount to make through extortion of the Gold Coast public. This matter came to myattention specifically when my electorate officer's vehicle, which was lawfully parked—I havechecked this; it was lawfully parked—was seized. The electorate officer was given no option otherthan to pay $250 and was told to pay up or else.

I am told that the industry is working on a code of conduct, which it will be presenting to theminister for consideration, with safeguards and advisory committees. I could probably support that

3202 Private Members' Statements 31 Oct 2001

if it is done properly. In the meantime, however, miserable grubs continue to extort the GoldCoast public.

Domestic Violence Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (10.23 a.m.): Domestic violence knows noeconomic boundaries and pervades all levels of our society. It encompasses a wide range ofbehaviour which can be categorised as emotional, sexual, physical, social or financial abuse. InLogan City, community renewal funding has enabled our Police Service in conjunction with ourWorking Against Violence Support Service, known as WAVSS, to implement an innovativesupport program. It was readily identified that domestic violence was an issue that our communityreference groups wish to address.

In 1999 the Police Service received its first funding to conduct this pilot project, and presentstatistics indicate very successful outcomes. When a domestic violence report is received either byphone or in person at the Logan police, the victim is asked whether they wish a worker fromWAVSS to make contact to support them. Those who agree sign an authorisation form which isthen faxed to WAVSS for follow-up. A safe time is then found for contact and a support plan putinto action.

So successful has this service been that a new phase has now been devised to have follow-up with the perpetrator by Youth and Family Services—another highly successful support servicein Logan. These services are forging new partnerships in our community and offering supportservices to a very needy group in our society. I wish to congratulate our Police Service officerswho all undergo training in handling these issues, as well as Detective Inspector Gil Aspinall andSergeant Maree Foelz for their leadership. Our thanks must also go to Gabe Scattini, coordinatorof WAVSS, and Iona Cominos, our Fax-back project worker, who deals sensitively with each case.

Time expired.

Firefighters

Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (10.25 a.m.): Today I wish to express my concerns over therecent psychometric test forming part of the Queensland Fire and Rescue Authority recruitmentprogram. Recently, 120 candidates in Cairns undertook this test, with more than 58 per cent ofcandidates not passing the test—58 per cent—yet the majority of these men are experiencedfirefighters. I do not dispute the fact that we need experienced people working within our FireService, yet my concern lies with the fact that candidates can be ruled out of service based on apsychometric test completely ignoring their level of experience. This is bureaucracy gone mad.

Recently, I was contacted by a firefighter with five and a half years experience, 10 work-related certificates, such as breathing apparatus, road accident rescue, hazardous materialmanagement, incident command, confined space entry procedures (industrial), high entry rescuelevel 1, senior first aid and advanced resuscitation. This man has fought major structural fires,grassfires, bushfires, attended road accident rescues, chemicals spills and many other types ofincidents. He has been involved in public education programs, such as Fire Education forChildren, Operation Safe Home and the Road Accident Awareness and Prevention Program withschool students.

This man is now being told that he is not fit to serve as a firefighter within the QFRA because'the outcome of your psychometric assessment did not match the established requirements forthe QFRA firefighter profile'. I would like to know whether the director-general and the ministerhave undertaken psychometric assessments to see whether they are fit to serve in theircapacities. Auxiliaries who have failed the recruitment process because of the results ofpsychometric testing are outraged, and I can well understand their feelings. They have said that ifthey had failed because of lack of numeracy or literacy skills or physical fitness they wouldunderstand. But they did not.

Time expired.

Tourism, DayboroMrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (10.27 a.m.): There is no doubt that dairy farmers are

facing changes and challenges within their communities. The farmers of Dayboro within theKurwongbah electorate are no exception. However, I am delighted with and proud of how the

31 Oct 2001 Questions Without Notice 3203

Dayboro farming community has not shied away from challenge. In fact, they are rising above itby embracing the concept of Queensland being the Smart State.

As deregulation changes the face of the dairying industry, the people of Dayboro are notfloundering. Instead they are turning to tourism. They have recognised the beauty and thepotential of their district and are out to lure city dwellers to their historic town and its surroundingareas. South-east Queensland's best kept secret will soon be known as one of the region's toptourist attractions.

Dayboro has now launched its own web site—dayborovalley.asn.au. It is a magnificentaddition to the Internet and it proudly displays the attractions, achievements and the breathtakingbeauty of Kurwongbah's farming community. The site was created by Paul Ferry of CPD Software,who incidentally is a local resident, and it is maintained by the Dayboro Progress Association. Itinforms not only Queenslanders but also the world of the district's natural beauty, its history andits unique attractions and points of interest.

For those sceptics who thought Queensland has not even joined the 20th century when therest of the world has entered the 21st, this web site will change their mind. I am proud andhonoured to represent these fine ambassadors of the Smart State, and I commend their efforts inadapting to a changing lifestyle. The community is taking and making opportunities to give theirrural farming district opportunity and a new lease of life. In fact, on 16 November they will beshowcasing the Dayboro community and attractions at an expo to be held at King George Squarein Brisbane City. To the people of Dayboro I offer my congratulations and to the other ruralcommunities can I say that there is a lot to be learnt from this fine example.

Time expired.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for private members' statements has expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICEMrs R. O'Callaghan; Home Care

Mr HORAN (10.30 a.m.): I refer the Minister for Health to the case of 82-year-old RuthO'Callaghan, who has received a letter from the minister's department advising that her carer ofsix years will be rotated as part of a new policy to prevent patients from developing friendshipswith carers or becoming dependent on them. In correspondence between Mrs O'Callaghan andthe Health Department, which reveals just how much Mrs O'Callaghan relies on her carer,mindless bureaucracy takes over and she is told that she cannot give her carer anything morethan a box of chocolates and she should not refer to religious beliefs or personal values in herletters. On top of that today we learn that carers' hours in Toowoomba are to be slashed by up to50 per cent. I ask the minister: is this not a case of her health police taking the care out of healthcare, and will she immediately scrap this heartless policy so that old people can again have somesecurity and some stability in their lives?

Mrs EDMOND: I thank the member for the question because it does give me the chance tohighlight something that has been seriously troubling me, and that is the fact that under theCommonwealth rules Queensland must do—

Mr Seeney interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Callide will cease interjecting. That is my final warning.Mrs EDMOND: Members opposite do not understand that the HACC agreement, about

which we are talking, is a Commonwealth-state agreement. Under the rules laid down by theCommonwealth, Queensland must undertake a full review of all clients' eligibility according to thevery strict rules set down by the Commonwealth. It really sticks in my throat that we have to spend$2.5 million a year out of the HACC budget to carry out this process to meet the Commonwealth'srequirement. In fact, I have objected to it. I actually asked about it and I was advised that I haveno option; if we do not do this we will lose the Commonwealth's funding. I would much ratherspend the money on elderly patients' carers and needs.

Mr HORAN: I rise to a point of order. The minister is misleading the House. It is actuallyunder her code of conduct from the year 2000.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat.

Mrs EDMOND: I remember a similar thing happening when the member opposite was theMinister for Health and it was under the same requirement. I objected to it then. I am appalled at

3204 Questions Without Notice 31 Oct 2001

the amount of money that we have to put into these reviews because, as I said, I would muchrather this funding go into patient care and the delivery of services.

Honourable members interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I intend to hear the answers to the questions. The interjections are toonumerous and are being made by too many people. I will now listen to the Minister for Health.

Mrs EDMOND: On the other issue, I think some vulnerable people believe that they need toreward people who are being paid to deliver a service. So, yes, we do have guidelines that makeit clear that they do not have to do that and that it is not expected—and nor should people expectit—that carers should accept payments other than what they are getting to deliver that service. Itwas exactly the same in the 1960s when I started training in health: we were not allowed toaccept anything more than a box of chocolates or a Casket ticket and the person who gave usthe Casket ticket had to put their name on it, too. That has not changed. It is to protect vulnerablepeople from believing that they have to pay or give things in order to receive a service.

Lang Park Trust

Mr HORAN: I refer the Honourable the Treasurer to the numerous occasions when he andthe Premier have claimed that the Lang Park redevelopment project will not cost Queenslandtaxpayers any more than $280 million, and I ask: why was the $16 million of accumulated debtowed by the Lang Park Trust to Queensland Treasury Corporation excluded from the commercialfeasibility analysis of the redevelopment project? I note that in a letter dated 19 July 2000 to theUnder Treasurer, the Director-General of the Department of Sport reported that 'discussions arecontinuing on how to resolve the accommodation for the Lang Park Trust debt'. I also ask: will henow be perfectly clear and tell this parliament how this debt will be paid or whether it will beincluded in the $280 million allocated to Lang Park? I table the letter I referred to.

Mr MACKENROTH: I am certain that nobody other than the Leader of the Opposition couldinclude into the building project costs—and we have talked about $280 million—a cost which isassociated with a building that was built some eight years previously. I do not believe that eventhe Courier-Mail, which continually criticises this redevelopment, would try to do that. How couldwe possibly expect anybody to include a debt that is already there, one which we have not tried tohide and which we have said is there, in the costs of a building that is going to now be built by adeveloper?

The $280 million is the cost of the redevelopment of Suncorp Metway Stadium—the bottomline. During the last sitting week I read out exactly what is involved in that $280 million. TheLeader of the Opposition should go back to what I read out then and he will see what that costincludes. It is ludicrous for him to come into this place today and to try to say that in some way weare hiding a debt relating to an existing building. I know that he is the shadow Treasurer, but thebest thing he could do is to go back into coalition and let David Watson handle this portfolio.

Tourism Industry

Mr LAWLOR: I refer the Premier to the government's six point plan to help the tourismindustry through its current turmoil, and I ask: what response has been stimulated by thegovernment's rapid action to keep the industry on its feet?

Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Southport for his question because I knowthat he has a keen interest in, and supports, the tourism industry. There has been a tremendousresponse from the tourism industry to the help offered by my government. In just 15 days ourtourism relief hotline has received a total of 120 inquiries. The impact of international events andthe Ansett collapse have had varying effects on different regions. That is reflected in the regionaldistribution of the hotline callers, with 57 per cent of hotline inquiries coming from tropical northQueensland. The Gold Coast—the member's area—is next highest, with 15 per cent of hotlineinquiries.

The hotline responded to mostly tourism operators and accommodation businesses, withsome retail and transport operators also seeking some help. In the last week alone 78 businessescalled the hotline seeking access to the low interest loans we have made available. I remind theHouse that up to $100,000 is available to help tourism businesses to manage their cash flow. Theinterest rate is fixed at four per cent for up to three years and the repayments can be interest onlyfor up to two years.


There is also strong interest in the cooperative marketing campaign coordinated by TourismQueensland whereby individual businesses can have their product included in advertisingpackages being sold both in Queensland and interstate. Merri Rose, the Tourism Minister, and Ihave previously launched that. As Merri has indicated to all tourism operators, they are welcometo participate, and that is working well.

I am pleased that the tourism industry has grasped the opportunities my government hasoffered to get it through these difficult times. We need it to act immediately to spark a visitor ledrecovery in the tourism sector, and we have done that. The campaign of almost $4 million invalue that has been waged in advertising is proving to be a success. In a Smart State, businessexpects a government that can anticipate problems and fix them before they get out of hand,and that is what happened here.

For the information of the House, I am also delighted to confirm—and the Tourism Minister,Merri Rose, and I announced this formally today—that Virgin Blue has announced that it willdouble its daily services between Sydney and the Gold Coast and introduce a new daily servicebetween Melbourne and the Gold Coast before Christmas. In effect, this means an additional1,080 seats a week into the Gold Coast from those two southern states. That is potentially anadditional 1,080 tourists or businesspeople flying north and that is potentially, of course, bigbusiness dollars for the Gold Coast. Virgin Blue now flies into the Gold Coast, Brisbane,Townsville, Mount Isa and Mackay, and I know the airline is considering new routes. Weencouraged Virgin Blue here. It was a Smart State initiative to ensure that we enhanced andsupported the state's second biggest industry—the tourism industry. Through the advertisingcampaign and low interest loans, we have got behind this industry in its time of need. We willcontinue to support it.

Suncorp Metway StadiumMr JOHNSON: I refer the Treasurer to his answer to my question on 18 October in which he

provided a list of transport infrastructure to service the new Lang Park stadium. I ask: will he nowplease indicate whether funding has been allocated for the following infrastructure to service thenew stadium which was excluded from his answer: firstly, a commercial break-out point precinct onPetrie Terrace allowing patron dispersal; secondly, a suspended footbridge from Lang Park to theRoma Street Transit Centre; and, thirdly, the bus tunnel proposed by the Brisbane City Councilbetween Roma Street and Lang Park?

Mr MACKENROTH: Of course they are excluded because they have nothing to do with theSuncorp Metway redevelopment. Let me tell the House that there will not be a bus tunnel. Themember should get his facts right. Whoever is leaking information to him is missing the pocket.

Regional Exporters

Mr PEARCE: I refer the Premier to the fact that the state government is continuing to showsupport for regional Queensland. I ask: while efforts with regard to regional events—and hedetailed those earlier this morning—and the first ever Townsville parliament are most welcome,what can be said for our regional exporters?

Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Fitzroy for his question, because he takesa keen interest in this area. After all, he is well aware of our $100 million plus efforts with the AMCproject and the massive potential that sits with it. Indeed, there is also the success of theComalco project, which is now going ahead in Gladstone, a project which other governmentstalked about and which we are delivering. However, the question relates to regional exporters.Last week in the 12th annual Premier's Exports Awards regional exporters were to the fore, andespecially pleasing was the depth and prominence of regional winners. Toowoomba's own RMEHoldings, Russell Minimal Equipment, won the Regional Exporter of the Year title, and I will bevisiting it shortly. RME Holdings was also named one of three finalists in the small to mediummanufacturer category, while Warwick's Miandetta Fresh Foods was named one of the threefinalists in the agribusiness category.

Two central Queensland exporters found themselves in the spotlight. The CentralQueensland University at Rockhampton took out the top award in the education category whileQueensland Magnesia, which exports central Queensland magnesia around the globe, wasnamed a finalist in the minerals category at the Exports Awards. Australian Premium Coals, APC,was named best minerals exporter. APC manages the Coppabella coalmine west of Mackay on


behalf of an international joint venture which exports low volatile coal to Japan, Korea, the UnitedKingdom, Europe and Brazil. Three diverse western Queensland exporters were named amongstthe best. WMC Fertilisers, which has a complex near Mount Isa in north-west Queensland, andWestern Exporters at Charleville in south-west Queensland were finalists in the Emerging Exportercategory while BHP Cannington, located 195 kilometres south-west of Cloncurry in north-westQueensland, is a finalist in the minerals category.

Queensland flower power has propelled Nambour based Cedar Hill Flowers and Foliage tovictory at the Export Awards, and the member for Nicklin has been a strong supporter of it.Indeed, he would appreciate the significance of that award. Cedar Hill, which has penetrated thediscerning fresh flowers markets of Europe and the United States with Queensland national flora,won the agribusiness export award. Another Sunshine Coast high achiever, Becker Helicopters,was named one of the three finalists for the education export award for the second consecutiveyear. As well, the regional Queensland lad, Pat Rafter, was named the winner of the Premier'sSpecial Award.

The success of these awards is not just recognition within the business community; it reflectsthat the awards are not solely about living in the south-east corner. The profile of these greatQueenslanders is also important. All of our exporters are contributors to more jobs and energisethe communities in which they live, none more than those in our regional communities. I thankthe member for his question and remind all that we need to always remember those in regionaland rural communities. The member asked about a growing trend; it is indeed a reality and weare more and more a government for all, unlike those opposite, who attack Townsville for simplyholding parliament.

Gladstone Port Access RoadMrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I refer the Minister for Transport to the recent statements reported in

the Gladstone Observer that indicate the government's position may have changed in relation tothe Port Access Road, or route D. In June 2001 the minister was on the record stating that thefunding breakdown of $15 million was given as the federal government contributing $7.5 million,the Gladstone Port Authority contributing $4.5 million and Main Roads via TIDS contributing$1.5 million, leaving a $1.5 million shortfall. The remaining funds plus responsibility for the roadwas to remain with the Gladstone City Council. I ask: is the government intending to change thisstated position and, if so, in what way?

Mr BREDHAUER: I thank the honourable member for the question. The short answer to thequestion is no. However, I have given an indication to both the Gladstone Port Authority and theGladstone City Council that I am prepared to work with them to try to resolve this issue. TheGladstone Port Access Road has been identified as an important long-term piece of infrastructurefor both the Gladstone City Council and the Gladstone Port Authority. When majorannouncements are being made by the government to do with things like the development of thenew Comalco alumina refinery in Gladstone and all the other potential that Gladstone shows tocontinue to be one of Australia's leading industrial cities, it is important that the state governmentworks with other stakeholders to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to provide the kinds ofservices that are required.

My indication to Peter Corones as the mayor is that I am prepared to continue to work withhim to try to resolve this issue. I do believe, though, that the Gladstone City Council should makea contribution towards the cost of constructing the road. It will in fact be a local road. I point outthat, as a result of a decision taken by this government, port authorities throughout the state ofQueensland now pay substantial rates to local government for commercial land which is in portprecincts. Since that decision was made, my advice is that that has increased rate revenue to theGladstone City Council by about $700,000 a year. In relation to that $700,000 a year over a$1.5 million contribution, a small portion of that could be used by the Gladstone City Council tohelp pay off the contribution which I believe it should be prepared to make towards the cost ofbuilding the new access road to the port of Gladstone.

The important thing is that I as the minister and we as the government have given anindication that we do believe that this is an important piece of long-term infrastructure. I have triedto work with the Gladstone Port Authority and the city council to find a mechanism by which wecan deliver it. I give a commitment today that I will continue to work on that. I think there is apolitical problem in the council itself. As the member for Gladstone would know, there are somepeople who support the road and there are some people who do not support the road. There are


some people who support the road but are not prepared to stick their hand in their pocket to showtheir support. However, I am confident that we can, in a reasonable time frame, reach anagreement between all of the stakeholders that will deliver this infrastructure, but I do expect thatthe Gladstone City Council should be prepared to come to the party in some way.

Networking the NationMr TERRY SULLIVAN: I ask the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy: can he

provide some information to the House on where members of the public might find informationabout the latest round of Networking the Nation funding?

Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am absolutely shocked andoutraged by what the Liberal Party is doing during this federal election campaign—that is,completely throwing out the caretaker convention. If a person in regional or rural Queenslandwants to look at the success of round 10 of Networking the Nation funding, where would theythink they might go? If they went to the federal Department of Communication's web site, whichcontains the pictures of three federal members, they would see that it states—Please note that election-related material is not available on this website. If you wish to see information about theforthcoming federal election, you may wish to visit the following websites: http://www.liberal.org.au/ orhttp://www.nationalparty.org/.

That is where they will find it.

Information on the previous nine funding rounds for Networking the Nation can be found onthe Commonwealth web site, but people have to go to the Liberal Party web site to findinformation on the current round. I have here a couple of relevant media releases, which have on thebottom of them the web address of www.liberal.org.au/media/campaign/alston/alstonprqldfunding.That is where all of the information is. That is the political track the federal colleagues of thoseopposite are taking us down. Media release after media release, jointly issued by Senator Alstonand his federal colleagues, contain information about funding for round 10 of Networking theNation.

Officers from my department have spent weeks trying to access information from thesecretariat of the Networking the Nation program about how Queenslanders' bids went. We had50 Queensland organisations submitting funding bids from areas such as Maryborough,Mareeba, Sarina and the South Burnett. But when officers from my department sought advicefrom the secretariat on the fate of the Queensland projects, they were told by the officers thatthey had been instructed to neither confirm nor deny information about specific bids. They alsosaid that they had been told that Senator Alston would observe the caretaker convention and notmake any formal funding announcement.

Mr Bredhauer interjected.Mr LUCAS: He absolutely observed it. The Liberal Party did it for him.

This Liberal Party site contains details of all 24 successful Queensland bids. To add insult toinjury, this web site reveals that Senator Alston's parliamentary secretary announcedQueensland's share of the NTN funding while visiting Beechmont on Tuesday of last week. That isan absolute outrage.

The federal government is keeping community organisations in the dark for its own tawdrypolitical ends. Information on the previous nine funding rounds could be found on thedepartment's web site, but this time it is on Liberal Party and National Party web sites. That is notobserving the caretaker convention, that is being rude and arrogant. It is yet another example ofa mean and tricky government that will find out exactly what the electorate thinks of it inNovember.

Information Commissioner; Freedom of InformationMr SPRINGBORG: My question is directed to the Honourable the Premier. I table a letter

from the Information Commissioner which expresses concern that he was not consulted regardingproposed changes to Queensland's FOI laws. Why was the Information Commissioner notconsulted regarding proposed changes to Queensland's freedom of information laws? Is thisscant regard for the views of the Information Commissioner, as the independent statutory reviewofficer, just another example of the arrogance confronting Queenslanders under the Premier'ssecret state regime?


Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the Premier that the Freedom of Information Amendment Billis on the Notice Paper. The Premier should not refer to the bill.

Mr BEATTIE: Technically, I could take an objection and not answer the question, but I willnot. In the interests of openness—we are the most open and accountable government—I amalways happy to answer any question at any time in any place. That is just how open we are.

The issue of charging is a matter for government. The Information Commissioner has aparticular role, but charging in relation to FOI is a matter for government. Accordingly, we havemade a decision to ensure that money is not taken out of the Health budget or the Educationbudget. We are ensuring that those budgets are properly supported. Let us talk about what weare doing here. A piece of legislation has been introduced, which I will not deal with. I will put it inthese terms.

Mr Springborg: I am asking about consultation.

Mr BEATTIE: Can I ask the member to give me the opportunity to answer his question? I willgive him an answer.

The bottom line is that, as I understand it, every state in Australia and the Commonwealthhave an hourly charge. If those opposite are going to criticise this government for introducing thatcharge, then they will have to criticise John Howard and John Anderson, because they do itfederally. They will have to criticise Jeff Kennett, because a charge was introduced when he wasPremier of Victoria. They will also have to criticise John Olsen—or whoever is the new Premier ofSouth Australia.

Let us be clear about this. Certain matters are matters for government. This is one of them. Itis important for us to have an open debate about it, which we have had. We made anappropriate decision, we announced it and we have highlighted to the community what we aredoing. It is not a matter—

Mr Horan interjected.Mr BEATTIE: It is not a matter—

Mr Horan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will hear the answer.

Mr BEATTIE: You are so rude.

Mr Horan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. That is my final

warning.

Mr BEATTIE: If he wants to win 'rudey of the year' award, he is doing well. Opposition members interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: All I ask is that I get a chance to answer the question.

The bottom line is that this is a matter for government. Government has quite rightly madethe decision and we will implement it. It is that simple. There is nothing arrogant or improper aboutit. We are ensuring that Queensland is in step with the rest of Australia and that we do not takemoney out of any of those other budgets. It is not a matter for the Information Commissioner tofund FOI, it is a matter for government to fund FOI—and we are funding it and we will continue tofund it.

The extraordinary thing about all of this is that there have been no significant changes madeto the position on FOI since the Goss years. The opposition can do all it likes to try to beat up thisissue, but the reality is that what we are doing in terms of openness and accountability has notchanged and the charges are a matter for government, not the Information Commissioner.

Re-entry of Women to the Work Force

Ms BARRY: I refer the Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Artsto the particular needs of women wishing to re-enter the work force, and I ask: is the Queenslandgovernment supporting initiatives to assist women back into the work force?

Mr FOLEY: Yes, we are supporting initiatives to help women re-enter the work force. We arealso supporting unemployed women who are taking steps to assist themselves and to assistothers. Through the Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative my department is supporting a


group of unemployed Queensland women who are putting together an expo on how women suchas them can return to work. We are backing it with a $150,000 grant.

One of the key issues here is that it is often very hard for women to return to the work forceafter a lengthy absence. Child rearing, caring for family members and a host of other events cantake them away from their careers and away from the continual learning that occurs in theworkplace. If we want a Smart State, we need the resources in order to ensure that all job seekersget a fair go. To put it another way, as Chairman Mao said, women hold up half the sky.

This project is about helping women to re-establish that connection with the workplace sothat they are able to pick up where they left off. Important work is being carried out by themember for Cairns, Desley Boyle, on the report Beyond the pink collar, in order to ensure thatwomen get a fair go in employment. This project, which is being funded, is being run by theWomen Re-entry to Work Association of Southport and will employ 13 unemployed women. Theproject team will develop and coordinate a women's training and employment exposition forBrisbane in March 2002. The expo will provide access to information on returning to work, careerdevelopment and training choices for women seeking to enter or re-enter the work force. It willbring together working women, employers and training organisations, all of whom can effectchange for women returning to work. This expo will also provide career development strategiesand short training options for women who are currently denied training because they areemployed in industries with high rates of casual employment and therefore limited training. Wehave to do better for all those women employed in highly casualised industries who are on atreadmill it is very hard to get off.

While the participants are organising the expo for other women they will be gaining the skills,confidence and career guidance to make their own transition into the work force. The participantswill learn about event management, sponsorship, recruitment, corporate relations, marketing,ticketing, administration and bookkeeping. Significantly, they will receive accredited training inoffice technology and frontline management.

We need to ensure that women get a fair go. Part of attacking the problem ofunemployment is ensuring that those who are disadvantaged in the labour market get assistanceand a fair go. This is a very good example of unemployed women helping themselves, and thegovernment means to back them.

Rail Wagons

Ms LEE LONG: I direct a question to the Minister for Transport. We were told some monthsago that Queensland Rail was constructing an additional 350 new livestock wagons. Producersare anxious to know how many of these have been completed and where they have been placedin Queensland. Will we see any on the line north of Townsville?

Mr BREDHAUER: The KOJX cattle wagon construction project is producing about 310 newcattle wagons in the Townsville railway workshops. Approximately 200 of those have already beenconstructed—somewhere between 180 and 200. I apologise that I do not have the exact numberthat have come out of the workshops as of this morning, but it is somewhere between 180 and200, and they have been put into service throughout the state of Queensland.

There has been an issue in recent months about the availability of rolling stock to shift cattle,particularly from saleyards in Queensland. I have actually discussed that issue in here in theparliament in the past. I have had meetings with industry groups, and I have had a number ofmeetings with QR. Part of the problem is related to the fact that there has been unprecedenteddemand for railing cattle this year because they have had a good season, which I think is a greatthing.

The honourable member needs to understand that Queensland is the only state in Australiathat still rails livestock. Therefore, the commitment that we have made to provide additionalservices through additional rolling stock and that kind of thing is an important initiative. But, withthe demand, we have carted something like 30 per cent more cattle this year than we did lastyear, notwithstanding the fact that there have been some concerns expressed from within theindustry about the availability of rolling stock. So we are working hard to try to meet the demand.

Notwithstanding the fact that we rail cattle, QR's movement of cattle accounts for only about25 per cent of livestock movements. So 75 per cent of livestock movements in Queensland stilloccur by road, and road will continue to have the lion's share of the modal split in livestocktransport. Nevertheless, we are continuing to try to provide better services. There have been


occasions in the past when people have basically ordered decks of cattle wagons to go tosaleyards not knowing whether they are actually going to complete a sale, and we have haddecks of cattle wagons lying idle; they have gone out to a saleyard and come back empty, andthat resource effectively has been wasted. So this year we have tried to put in place a moresensible approach to moving livestock. We are trying to meet cattleyard sales where wecan—where we do not have other confirmed orders—and we are also trying to do it in a way thatgives both industry and QR the opportunity to better predict where the demand might be so thatwe can provide the services to the greatest extent possible.

We will continue the program of the construction of additional wagons over approximately thenext 12 months, so the additional 100-odd wagons will be finished over the next 12 months. Igive a commitment that I will continue to work with QR and the industry to try to ensure that we doour best to meet the demands of the livestock industry.

Entrepreneurial Skills Development

Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN: I ask the Minister for State Development: what is this governmentdoing to encourage entrepreneurial thinking among the state's youth?

Mr BARTON: The member takes a very keen interest in this issue in her own electorate. Thatis why today I am pleased to announce that my Department of State Development will provide atotal of $90,000 in grants to 26 schools to foster entrepreneurial thinking about Queensland'syoung people. The grants are being awarded to schools under my department's highly successfulenterprise education model projects grants program, and through this project we aim toencourage business prowess and enterprise thinking by providing seed funding to select school-based business initiatives. My department is particularly keen to encourage the development ofan entrepreneurial culture at school and university, rather than waiting for those young people togo out into the business world and learn by trial and error there, sometimes with devastatingresults.

Of course, we also need to recognise that this program is all about helping tomorrow'sbusiness leaders to come forward at an early stage. So I am pleased to note that the 2001program which was launched in July received more than 50 applications from both public andprivate schools from all over the state, and a total of 26 projects have been successful. Theyrange from a hydroponics business by school students at Mabuiag Island in the Torres Straitislands across to the Dalby State High School for a project involving the purchase and rebuildingof old motorcycles.

Another splendid example is in the electorate of the member for Pumicestone. There theBribie Island State School is receiving $6,000 in funds to assist it to create a business producingquality photo ID cards for Bribie Island schools, clubs and other businesses. That fills a need thathas been identified for the Bribie Island community, and I am sure that the member and hersupporters of that will be very glad to see that this has been successful.

Another one is the Townsville State High School, which will receive $10,000 for its GoodIdeas Make Jobs program for small student-owned businesses for the manufacturing ofinventions and the marketing of those inventions. This allows students to learn from a real hands-on approach. It is part of a program that has seen $260,000 distributed to schools across thestate of Queensland—right across the state from the very south-west corner through to the TorresStrait—since the program began last year. It is all about fostering business skills in the educationsystem—both private and public schools—and fostering a whole concept of enterprise andbusiness in today's youth.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Callide, I welcome to the public gallerystudents and teachers from the Biloela State School in the electorate of Callide.

Mining Industry; Indigenous Land Use Agreement

Mr SEENEY: I, too, would like to extend a welcome to the students and teachers from theBiloela State School. It is good to see the kids from regional Queensland being given anopportunity to visit parliament.

I refer the Premier to his failure to deliver on his commitment to introduce a statewideindigenous land use agreement by the end of last year to clear the backlog of 1,700 outstandingexploration permit applications. I also note that the so-called agreement now being proposed isnot supported by all land councils or the Queensland mining industry, and I ask: is it the Premier's


intention to off-load responsibility for this native title mess in a hospital pass to the Minister forNatural Resources, and will that be an admission of his own personal failure to deliver on hisrhetoric?

Mr BEATTIE: The issue of native title has been a complex and difficult one. I am delightedthat my Native Title Unit has succeeded in a number of things; firstly, in getting federalaccreditation of Queensland legislation. We are the only state to have a state-based regime. Thatis the first thing. Others have tried and failed.

Secondly, as members would be aware, there have been a number of significantagreements, and those agreements have been brought about through negotiation andagreement between mining interests and native title interests supported by the Queenslandgovernment. Members would be aware of, and they would have seen, the signing of the ILUA forthe region around Mount Isa—the north-west province region—the Kalkadoon agreement. Thatcame about with the Kalkadoon people as a result of the ILUA process being pursued by NativeTitle Services. That was a very significant breakthrough—one of the most significantachievements of any Queensland government in breaking through the native title nightmare.

Opposition members interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: Would members please allow me to answer the question? If they want tocontinue to be rude, that is fine, but let me answer the question.

The trouble is that when we explain what we are doing opposition members do not want tohear the truth, because they know that the Kalkadoon agreement provided mining certainty forexploration in one of the most significant mining areas in the world, not just in Queensland. So isour approach to ILUAs and native title working? You bet it is! And that is what the ILUA with theKalkadoon people demonstrates.

Thirdly, in relation to the statewide ILUA, that is being consulted on at the moment. It has thesupport of the native title organisations—the indigenous organisations. It has the support of asignificant section of the mining industry. And I am hopeful that we will be able to bring closure tothat very shortly.

My government is investing an extra $4.7 million in 2001-02 to attract mining exploration. Afurther $2.5 million will be spent on programs to attract new mining exploration investment,making it easer for companies to access exploration reports and scientific data. A further$1.8 million will be used to establish a departmental digital company report system, allowingmineral and petroleum exploration companies to electronically submit and access explorationreports, including geoscientific data. This system will enable companies to access informationmore easily, boosting their prospects. Another $700,000 will be used to support a number ofprojects. The ILUA program is working.

Ludowici Mineral Processing EquipmentMs LIDDY CLARK: I refer the Premier to the success of Queensland exporters reported by

him to the House today and to the success of Banyo-based company, in the electorate ofNudgee, Ludowici Mineral Processing Equipment Pty Ltd. Could the Premier share the news ofthis success with the House?

Mr BEATTIE: I am delighted to do that. This government is making a difference when itcomes to mining, which was evidenced by the major Comalco project. Other governmentspromised Comalco; we delivered it. That is a major, long-term $4 billion industry. That is what thisgovernment delivers.

Ludowici Mineral Processing Equipment has broken into the competitive mining equipmentmarket of South America with the help of the Queensland government. I am delighted that mygovernment has been able to support Ludowici. It has secured its first three export orders, worthmore than $A3 million, with leading Latin American miners. Ludowici's success is a great exampleof a company that has kicked export goals through its determined export focus, a defined marketstrategy, good timing, a good agent and using a targeted program from my government'ssupport.

In June the Department of State Development launched its Latin American mine supportexport development strategy. Ludowici had the foresight to take advantage of this strategy. I amdelighted that it is reaping the rewards of our efforts and initiatives so soon after its launch. Thestrategy is designed to help Queensland mining support companies secure a foothold in the LatinAmerican market. Members may recall that I visited Mexico earlier in the year to make this


announcement. An important part of the strategy was to tap into local knowledge and make thisavailable to Queensland companies. To this end, the Queensland government and the AustralianIndustry Group engaged three Queensland representatives on the ground in Chile, Peru andArgentina's mining industries. The representatives have the job of developing new markets inSouth America for Queensland products and services in conjunction with Austrade. Another facetof the strategy was the government's encouragement for Queensland's mine equipment supplierssuch as Ludowici to participate in the Queensland exhibition at Extemin 2001, a mining exhibitionheld in Arequipa, Peru last month.

This is the outcome from a Smart State export strategy. I have distributed a couple ofdocuments in the House this morning and I table another one for the information of the House.Those documents show that this government has a Smart State strategy for exports that isworking. Ludowici demonstrates quite clearly the success of that report.

This government has allocated $700,000 to support a number of projects aimed atincreasing exploration investment in Queensland, including a minerals exploration investmentconference, collecting new geoscientific data in areas identified as high priority by industry,scanning DNRM's existing collection of 32,500 hard copy company reports into digital format andconducting industry oriented workshops to promote DNRM services and explain legislativerequirements. The funds that have been allocated to assist mining to remove the backlog areproducing results. The whole strategy behind the ILUA approach, which I referred to previously, isdesigned to remove that backlog, and that is being achieved. It is always going to be a difficultarea but it is working and the government needs the support of members in this House toencourage it.

Goodwill Bridge; Freedom of Information Mr QUINN: I refer the Premier to his admission this morning that he issued instructions thatall documents relating to the Goodwill Bridge be collected from all departments for listing in asubmission to the Cabinet Budget Review Committee. I ask the Premier: of the many thousandsof documents estimated by the Information Commissioner to have been collected by the cabinetsecretariat on his personal instructions, how many did he personally read to inform himself aboutthe bridge?

Mr BEATTIE: Let me be very clear what happened in relation to the FOI. We determinedthat the problems that existed in relation to the bridge were going to be fixed, and fixed theywere. I made absolutely certain that every necessary piece of information was provided to theCabinet Budget Review Committee, the most important cabinet committee, for the reason that wewere determined to fix the problem and, you bet, we fixed that problem.

The adjusted timetable and the adjusted budget were both met; the bridge is now open.Tom Barton and I opened it. We don't muck about. This government gets on with the job; cabinetis there to lead. I wanted every one of those documents accessible to the Cabinet Budget ReviewCommittee so that we could make a determination on any technical matter that needed to beconsidered. All documents that were relevant were needed. Every one of those documents wasavailable for perusal by the CBRC; every document was there as part of the process. Let memake it clear: while I am Premier, the cabinet of this state will lead on matters where it shouldlead. That means that if we have a problem, we seize it by the throat and we fix it. We do notstand around gazing at our navel, as happened under the Borbidge government. Thisgovernment is a can-do government that delivers.

Speaking of delivering, let's talk about some of the things this government has delivered inthe eight months since the election. The Roma Street Parkland—do people love it? They love itall right—600,000 people. The people of Queensland have embraced the Roma Street Parkland.What about the busway? Let's talk about the busway. There has been a 30 per cent increase inpatronage on the busway. What a forward-thinking Minister for Transport we have; what a can-dogovernment.

The Goodwill Bridge; is it one of the most popular bridges in this city? You bet it is. There is asteady stream of people using it almost 24 hours a day. People love the Goodwill Bridge. Is thisgovernment delivering for Queensland? You bet we are. Let's talk about the Goodwill Games. Itwas one of the most successful Goodwill Games ever held in the history of the Games. Is that thesort of outcome produced by a good government? You bet it is. Let's talk about the Indy. It washeld on the weekend and Joe Heitzler, the head of CART, said it was the most successful Indy


ever held anywhere in the world. Where else but Queensland? As the old song goes, 'You ain'tseen nothin' yet'. We are going to continue to deliver. We will deliver for Queensland.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker, we 'ain't seen nothing yet becauseevery time we ask, we can't get the bloody answer.

Cairns Southern Access Road Ms BOYLE: My question is to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads. Thefederal coalition continues to claim that it is committed to upgrading the Cairns southern accessroad. My question is this: what actual funding commitments have been given and whatdiscussions have there been between the Federal Transport Minister and the Minister on thatmatter?

Mr BREDHAUER: I thank the honourable member for the question. The answer to thequestions are none and none. I caution honourable members from all sides of the House to takewith a grain of salt commitments that are being made by the coalition government in Canberra inrelation to road funding during the build-up to the election campaign and particularly any claimsthey may make that they have reached agreement with the Queensland government in respectof funding those road upgrades. I might mention just briefly the Douglas Arterial in Townsville,where they claim they have reached agreement with the state government. John Anderson hasnot spoken to me about that road in Townsville. The federal government said that the Stategovernment would contribute $1 million towards the upgrade of the Mount Morgan to Kabra road,which was mentioned the other day. Those people need to know that John Anderson has neverapproached me about funding part of the upgrade of that road; there is no agreement from thestate government.

The Cairns southern access road is one of the most important road issues for the people ofCairns, as the member for Cairns and the member for Mulgrave in particular are aware. But therehas been no discussion with me about it. In fact, a couple of months ago I wrote to the DeputyPrime Minister and Minister for Transport about this issue and the first assistant secretary of theTransport Department wrote back to me last week—or to Terry Wood, my senior policyadviser—saying that the minister did not get a chance to get to that issue before the election wasannounced and that, due to the caretaker convention, it would have to wait until after theelection. It would seem that at least some ministers comply with that convention.

But let me tell members of my disappointment the other day when the coalition governmentin Canberra released the Howard government's Keeping Australia moving, which is meant tooutline what they will be funding for the next three years on the national highway. I table a copy ofthe cover sheet and the section that deals with the national highway. It states that it will spend$3.1 billion on upgrading and maintaining the national highway between 2001-02 to 2004-05.The document lists $356 million for the Western Sydney Orbital, $306 million for the CraigieburnBypass in Melbourne, the upgrading of the Caboolture Motorway outside Brisbane, theconstruction of an extra 17 overtaking lanes on the Sturt Highway between Gawler in SouthAustralia and the Victorian border, and new bridges in the Kimberleys. But what is missing fromthe list is $11 million to upgrade the southern access road into Cairns to six lanes, for which theDepartment of Main Roads has done all the necessary planning and design work. If we had thego-ahead from the Commonwealth government on this, then we could begin work immediatelyafter the wet season.

Queensland Main Roads has done all it can. As the minister, I have done all I can, and thelocal state members have done all they can. The person who is sitting on his hands is the federalmember for Leichhardt. He has done nothing. Last week he put out a press release saying thathe had an ironclad guarantee. Frankly, I say to Mr Entsch that I do not give two hoots about hisironclad guarantee; I want to see the colour of his money, because I will not trust that the federalgovernment will fund these projects until it has agreed to fund them.

Fisheries Tribunal; Williams Family

Mr ROWELL: I refer the Minister for Primary Industries to the recommendation by theFisheries Tribunal that his department should make an ex gratia payment to cover the costs ofthe Williams family's appeal regarding their allocation of effort units under the East Coast trawl


plan. I ask: given that the tribunal found that flaws and sloppy drafting within the minister's 1999legislation contributed to the appeal being dismissed, why has he refused to make that payment?

Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the honourable member for the question. As honourablemembers would know and realise, the Fisheries Tribunal is an independent tribunal far removedfrom the government. It has made a decision. The government is abiding by the decision.

Mr Rowell interjected.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has asked the question.

Mr PALASZCZUK: Yes, but my understanding is that further legal action is pending on thiscase and I do not intend to comment any further.

Centrelink

Mrs CHRISTINE SCOTT: I ask the Minister for Families: is she aware of the impact onregional Queensland of changes by Centrelink? Can the minister tell the House how this isaffecting rural and regional areas?

Ms SPENCE: I thank the honourable member for the question. I know that she is well awareof how the policies and procedures of Centrelink are hurting rural and regional Queenslanders.Indeed, I am sure that any member of this parliament who has knowledge of what is going on intheir communities cannot escape the thought that these policies are in fact hurting manyQueenslanders.

I think we would all agree that the federal government has a duty to ensure that those whotruly cheat the system are breached. But a lot of people have a genuine reason for failing to meetCentrelink's requirements and, subsequent to being breached, they lose their income and theyfall irrevocably into the poverty trap. I am concerned about this issue, which is why I recently wroteto the federal Minister for Community Services, Larry Anthony. I have yet to receive a reply.

What is happening in rural and regional Queensland? Firstly, people can be breached for notturning up to scheduled interviews. But the federal government has made no allowance forcontingent issues, such as letters not arriving on time, mail not being received because peopleare travelling or moving, or people in remote areas not having access to transport to travel to theirplace of interview. Community workers tell me that attempts to advocate on behalf of their clientsor to negotiate with Centrelink staff are frustrated by a system that does not take intoconsideration the difficulties being faced by people in rural and remote Queensland. Letters aregenerated in Sydney rather than in their local offices. Centrelink does not take into account delaysin mail deliveries. Responses appear to be based on metropolitan delivery services. All in all, thatmeans that if someone's letter arrives late and they do not turn up for the scheduled interview,they are breached and lose their Centrelink payments.

Why is this of great concern to the state government? It means that the call on our resourcesis bigger then ever. Each year we allocate $1.5 million in relief funding. That is meant for food,clothing and emergency bill payment. It is not meant to provide funds to people who lose theirincome because they have breached some Centrelink requirement. That is what is happening atpresent. Also, because these people are on the marginal levels of the economy in our society,they very quickly become homeless. Recently, at a meeting in Tara, community workersexpressed their concern to me about this issue. Social workers on the Gold Coast who work withyoung people are concerned. Domestic violence workers in the west of this state are alsoconcerned, because people without an income are turning up to receive their services.

Nurses, Car Parking

Mr WELLINGTON: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. It has come to myattention that many nurses have to park some distance from hospitals, leaving the nursesvulnerable to attack when leaving or starting night shifts. I ask: what action has the minister takento ensure that the state government hospital management committees provide protection in theform of security guards to act as escorts for these nurses?

Mrs EDMOND: Throughout the state we have been implementing a whole range ofprocedures to help nurses and other staff get access to safe parking by providingparking—undercover parking and lit parking—so that they do not have to walk long distances.Just at the moment I am not sure what the member is referring to. Perhaps he is referring toparking being restricted because of the building work that is going on in the redevelopment of the

31 Oct 2001 Crime and Misconduct Bill 3215

hospitals. I know that in some hospitals, such as Townsville Hospital, part of the hospital is up andfunctioning while other parts are still being rebuilt. Building people are working on the site and thathas restricted parking. Those issues are temporary and we are working through them.

However, we have put in place throughout the state a system of increasing the numbers ofcontact points where nurses can hit duress buttons, et cetera. Of course, the member would beaware that earlier this week I made a ministerial statement about no tolerance to violence in ourhospitals as part of the QNU campaign to highlight that issue. We need to get across that it issimply not acceptable to the health system for violence or other inappropriate behaviour to takeplace against any staff member. We will do everything that we can to enforce that—recognising,of course, that there will be times when patients do not know what they are doing and are notcapable of responding accordingly. But we are working with the Queensland Nurses Union onthat.

We are working with the hospitals to improve the safety of nurses to give them the skills toaddress difficult situations and perhaps defuse difficult situations, because sometimes it is a lackof experience that allows a situation to get out of hand.

Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Albert, could I welcome to the public gallerystudents and the teachers from the Kolan South State School in the electorate of Burnett.

Department of Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading

Mrs KEECH: My question is directed to the Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister forFair Trading. We regularly hear of examples in which there has been the blatantmisrepresentation of goods to Queensland consumers. I ask: can the minister advise the Houseof a recent incident in which quick-thinking Fair Trading inspectors provided police with their bestlead in relation to a long-running scam?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired.

CRIME AND MISCONDUCT BILLResumption of Committee

Resumed from 30 October (see p. 3181) on clause 5—

Mr HORAN (11.30 am): When we concluded yesterday, the Premier was discussing someaspects of how the CMC would operate. To reiterate, we strongly believe that this is a backwardstep. In the mid-90s we moved forward by separating one function from the CJC and giving it tothe Queensland Crime Commission. We strongly believed that we could get a far better result ifthe Crime Commission operated as a specialist organisation and the Criminal Justice Commissionoperated as a specialist watchdog, as each would know exactly what it was about.

Yesterday I said that it is important that we aspire to those principles. Any savings inadministration costs to be made by bringing the two bodies together are not nearly as importantas having two separate bodies that can better perform their functions. Probably among the mostimportant functions that the government has to undertake are to keep our state corruption andmisconduct free, and to investigate successfully major crime and paedophilia.

When these two organisations are brought together we will create one organisation that hasa responsibility for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct and corruption againstthe Police Service. Yet that same organisation will supposedly work closely with the QueenslandPolice Service in investigations of major crime. Very often, it will undertake investigations inpartnership with the Queensland Police Service, so the two bodies have to have a very goodworking relationship and absolute trust in each other. There could well be an underlyingdiscontent among members of the police service, if officers have to work with an organisation thatalso investigates them.

In today's paper, an issue was raised involving what I call the proposed baiting of police. It isa system whereby temptation is put before police officers to see whether or not they respond tothat temptation, as an integrity test. That is a dreadful thing to do to young police officers. If theCMC is to work in conjunction with the police to bust major organised crime or major paedophiliarings—but particularly organised crime where drugs and money are involved—officers involvedmight be concerned that some form of temptation test is going to be put before them in theirnormal day-to-day operations. That is an example of the folly of trying to put the two organisationstogether.

3216 Crime and Misconduct Bill 31 Oct 2001

Yesterday, a media release was issued by the CJC about the arrest of a police officer. Theynamed that police officer. One of the charges was indecent assault and all the charges that hewas arrested on were outlined. My understanding is that indecent assault is a prescribed sexualassault under the Sexual Offenders Act and, therefore, the person cannot be named untilcommitted for trial. If my information is correct, it is of concern to the police that the CJC hasnamed this person, although that would not happen normally to another person. I give those twoexamples of situations that could lead to underlying unease.

I think it makes a lot of sense to have the Criminal Justice Commission operate on its ownwithout fear and favour and to have the Crime Commission totally separate so that it does its job.Both should be specialised and separate bodies. That way, we will get maximum efficiency andmaximum results.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Mickel): Order! Before calling the Honourable Premier, Iask honourable members to acknowledge in the public gallery the students, teachers and parentsfrom the Beachmere State School in the electorate of Pumicestone.

Mr BEATTIE: I welcome the school students here. It is great to see them at ParliamentHouse. I hope they enjoy their stay.

The Leader of the Opposition raised two issues, the second relating to the naming of apolice officer. I am not aware of the details of that case. Notwithstanding the merits or otherwiseof the argument, it has absolutely nothing to do with the bill. It is totally irrelevant. He may wellhave raised it simply to get it in the media; I have no idea. It has nothing to do with the bill.

Mr Horan: It's relevant to my argument.

Mr BEATTIE: It has nothing to do with the argument. It is totally irrelevant. Secondly, withrespect, I have already explained to the House in my second reading speech and yesterday in myresponse that there will be two different divisions. There will be two assistant commissioners whowill run two separate divisions. They will operate in the same way as they operated when theywere separate bodies. Nothing has changed.

The argument about concern with the police is not only unjustified but also, in a word, it isnonsense. It is not true. We have worked with both organisations to achieve that outcome andboth organisations support it. Why do they support it? Because they know that separation works.Why did both heads of the CJC and the Crime Commission support the legislation? Because theyknow that there are two different divisions within the new body, which will ensure that what theLeader of the Opposition refers to does not happen. They are both independent people. Theyhave both shown that they are prepared to make public comment to defend their organisations. Ifthey did not share my view, they would have said so. What the Leader of the Opposition isputting forward is a nonsense argument that shows a clear misunderstanding of the legislation. Iurge him to get some grasp of what this legislation is all about.

In summary, clause 5 provides that the act's purposes are to be achieved primarily byestablishing a permanent commission with investigative powers beyond those of other agenciessuch as the Police Service. The commission is to help units of public administration to dealeffectively and appropriately with misconduct by increasing their capacity to do so while retainingpower to investigate cases of misconduct, particularly more serious cases of misconduct itself,and by investigating more serious cases of misconduct itself. It is intended that this emphasis oncapacity building and on concentrating on more serious misconduct is to apply to how thecommission conducts its misconduct functions. It is incorporated in principles provided in thesubsequent clause for the commission to have regard to in conducting its misconduct functions. Ido not know how I can assure the Leader of the Opposition, other than simply to say, 'Read thebill.'

Mr HORAN: I reiterate our particular concerns.Mr Beattie: Oh!

Mr HORAN: I have the right to continue to put this forward. The Premier well knows thatwhen the Criminal Justice Commission held all of these functions under one umbrella, it failed.That was the reason we moved forward to have a division. We moved forward to have twospecialised organisations. Regardless of who says they support this legislation, I am presentingour view and we have seen this approach fail in the past. Even though the CJC had differentsections to deal with paedophilia and major crime, they were not dealt with adequately. The workwas not up to the standards expected by the people of Queensland, and particularly the familiesof children who may have been affected by paedophilia. It was more effective to have a separate


organisation that just dealt with major crime and paedophilia, which worked carefully and in trustwith the Queensland Police Service.

Again, it is far more effective to have a watchdog organisation that acts on its own for noother purpose than investigating corruption and allegations of misconduct or official misconduct.This bill brings those two together so that the roles are merged, despite the fact that there are twodivisions. It did not work before under the one roof. Again, it will not work as well as it worked astwo separate organisations. That is our belief. We are going backwards. We are not givingQueenslanders the chance to have the very best because of two specialist organisations thatconcentrate on the one aspect together.

The Premier asked why I raised that particular issue. I was raising a couple of examples ofhow underlying mistrust can exist. That is one of the reasons that we do not believe that this isgood for an organisation that has to work carefully, closely and in a trusting partnership with theQueensland Police Service on major crime investigation. The police should not be left thinking,'This same organisation that we work with investigates us and perhaps puts in place integritytests'—all of those sorts of things—whilst they are supposed to work in an atmosphere of trust.

Mr Beattie: People who get charged get named every day.

Mr HORAN: Yes, but under the sexual offenders legislation. I said my information was thatunder the sexual offenders legislation—

Mr Beattie: It says including bodily harm, extortion. When is that a sexual offence?

Mr HORAN: Indecent assault. I just made the point that the information I have is thatproscribed sexual assault under the sexual offenders legislation is indecent assault. So theynormally cannot be named until the committal. I just put that forward as an example.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I just wish to put on the record, at the risk of the Premier's ridicule,that I share the concern of the previous speaker that there could be a diminution of ability for thecombined commission to cover all of the aspects of responsibility that it will again assume. Thecreation of the Queensland Crime Commission in 1997 was triggered in part because of anincident to do with paedophilia whereby the CJC at the time, in response to questions not onlyfrom the media but also others, said that it just did not have the time to investigate paedophiliaproactively. This will come up a bit later on in relation to clause 355. However, I wish to put on therecord, too, my concern that children in our community will receive a diminished level ofassistance and surveillance as far as paedophilia is concerned. I am not saying that because thenew commission is inefficient. I am saying that based on the previous history and experience ofthe CJC in 1997 and before.

Mr BEATTIE: Let me make a couple of points. The assertions by both the member forGladstone and the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the role of the organisation are simplynot true. I will say this again, because it will come up during the debate; I think having said it onceis enough for the purposes of the debate on the clauses. The reality is this: we are puttingtogether an organisation where there are two assistant commissioners. The Crime Commissionrole is headed up by an assistant commissioner. It is exactly the same role that exists now. Ifthere are failures in paedophilia now, there will be failures in any new body. If there are notfailures now—and the member is saying there are not—there will not be failures in the new body.

It is taking the Crime Commission and putting it in there with an assistant commissioner atthe head of it. The unit is the same. The powers are the same with one addition to it. So we havea body which is operating under the head of an assistant commissioner with the same referencepanel determining references sitting there. We have enhanced their power to tackle paedophilia.It is better off where it is, because it will have access to greater resources. It is the absoluteopposite to what both the member for Gladstone and the Leader of the Opposition are saying. Itwill have the opportunity to get better intelligence and resourcing and it will have the samestructure headed by the same system, except that it will be part of a broader organisation. And itis determined to operate separately. That is why it is defined that way.

In terms of reference based paedophilia investigations, the Crime Commissioner requested achange to allow greater focuses on serious offences. The member should not accuse us ofmaking that suggestion. We did not. We accepted what the Crime Commissioner has said—aCrime Commissioner who has had plenty of time to tackle paedophilia. He said that it is better todo it on that basis—reference based paedophilia. We have accepted his advice, because he isthe one who has been tackling paedophilia in this organisation that both members havesupported. If he says it is a better way to do it, I would have thought we should all support it.


Secondly, the police will continue to investigate child sex offences. The reference committeecould give the crime function a standing reference if it thinks it is necessary, and it has the samedollars. So nothing is lost in relation to it. I wish to stress again that we have two organisationsbeing brought together, but they are both under two assistant commissioners and they will end upwith better outcomes with shared information.

In relation to the media release put out by the CJC, which the Leader of the Oppositionreferred to, I do not know any of these details, but it states that a certain sergeant was arrestedon 16 charges, including grievous bodily harm, indecent assault, extortion, entering premises withintent, fraud and assault. Like anyone else, if they get charged they get named for thoseoffences. There is no difference in that. There is nothing untoward in that statement. With duerespect to the Leader of the Opposition, for the life of me I cannot understand his point aboutthat.

But can I assure the member for Gladstone that in relation to the issue of paedophilia—Iknow she takes this issue seriously and I know she has pursued this in the past—under thislegislation we have enhanced the Crime Commission's ability to deal with paedophilia. It can nowbug computers. This was one of the major recommendations of Tim Carmody. Tim Carmody hasno fear about the role that the Crime Commission will play in this new organisation; he hassupported it. Tim Carmody, like Brendan Butler, is a fiercely independent person. If they believedthat this was not in the interests of the Crime Commission, they would be saying so. Both of themhave supported this publicly.

In the two years of consultation in which I have been involved, I have gone to great lengthsto ensure that the fight against paedophilia continues. I share the member's abhorrence ofpaedophilia, which is why I reluctantly but in the end willingly agreed to Tim Carmody's argumentabout extra bugging powers. If the member looks at the definition as to how they can accesscomputers to track down paedophilia, she will see that we have given them extensive powers todo just that. In my view, the scum who are involved in paedophilia should be pursued and theyshould be pursued relentlessly. This body enhances the ability to pursue those scum who areinvolved in paedophilia.

I respect both of the views that are taken. I just hope members understand that the concernsthat the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Gladstone have raised have been takeninto account in the preparation. We believe quite strongly that we have overcome any of theconcerns that the members have. The members are entitled to a different view. I respect that. Iwant the members to understand that we have worked through those issues. We have beenconcerned about them, too. We believe this model is a much, much better model than havingboth of them separate. There were problems in the past—I do not want to go through them—inrelation to the fact that the CJC could not deal with certain matters.

In terms of organised crime, there were definitional issues. I can recall that when I waschairman of the PCJC they argued to us that there were definitional issues about organised crimewhich limited their ability. If I recall correctly, that is why when the Crime Commission came in itwas given particular additional changes. Those changes have been embraced in this legislation.

The member argued that the Crime Commission fixed some of the problems aboutorganised crime and elsewhere. If that is true, those changes that the member implementedwhen his party was in government have been brought in and embraced in this legislation. So weare not worse off. There were definitional and resource problems in the past. They have beenresolved here.

Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clauses 6 and 7, as read, agreed to.

Clause 8—Mr HORAN (11.49 a.m.): I still want to speak on this clause even though the Premier

probably touched on it in his previous comments. This clause relates to the crime referencecommittee. I want to speak about the standing reference of the investigation of paedophilia. Iunderstand that there had been a standing reference which enabled the Crime Commission toundertake investigations at all times into whatever cropped up. The Premier is intimating that thesystem is now going to be on individual references. Is there still a capacity, if necessary, to have afull standing reference so they can have that brief at all times? I do think it is important. I do thinkthat there may be times when they need to move straight away on something rather than havingto go through the process of getting another particular reference.


Mr BEATTIE: I think I have partly answered what the Leader of the Opposition asked. Thereference committee could give the crime function a standing reference if it thinks it is necessary.It can easily do that. That is a matter for it. It is not a matter that we would interfere in becausethere is a reference group that makes those decisions. Nothing in this legislation impedes its fightagainst paedophilia or organised crime; rather, it enhances it. As I indicated, the CrimeCommissioner requested the change. So we have gone along with it.

In terms of the reference committee, having individual references works well for major andorganised crime. That is the important thing. That is what it is designed to do: to work better formajor and organised crime. It can do a quick reference and has the power. It enables it to focuson the use of the compulsory powers as well. The same goes for paedophilia. In a nutshell, itmeans that they are better off.

Clause 8, as read, agreed to.Clauses 9 to 26, as read, agreed to.

Clause 27—Mr HORAN (11.51 a.m.): I just want to go through this matter of referrals to the commission.

This clause states—The reference committee may refer major crime to the commission for investigation—

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) if asked by—

(i) the commissioner of police; or

(ii) the assistant commissioner, crime.

Say there is a serious matter that wants to be brought forward by an individual. I assume thenthat the process has to be that they have to take that matter to the police or to the CrimeCommission itself. There is no way, is there, that an individual can go to the referencecommittee? It is a normal process that people make their complaints to the police and the policedetermine whether or not they are serious enough to go to that level. I just want someclarification.

Mr BEATTIE: The Leader of the Opposition is quite correct. I simply say yes for the record.He is quite correct.

Clause 27, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 28 to 31, as read, agreed to.Clause 32—

Mr BEATTIE (11.53 a.m.): I move amendment No. 1—1. Clause 32—

At page 30, line 15, 'With the approval of the reference committee, the'—

omit, insert—

'The'.

As I indicated in my reply yesterday, a number of matters came out of detailed consultation withthe CJC and the Crime Commission. This amendment makes the entering into operationalagreements a commission decision rather than one for the reference committee and it isconsistent with the intention that the reference committee not have a managerial role. That issomething that it has asked for. It is consistent with the rest of the legislation and it is not a matterof any great policy.

Mr HORAN: I thank the Premier's staff for the briefing we received yesterday. I just want toget some clarification on this clause. This amendment relates to subclause (3) of that clause. Itdeletes 'with the approval of the reference committee'. It means that the CMC may enter intooperational agreements with other entities without the approval of the reference committee. Wasthat approval required in the past? If the Queensland Crime Commission wanted to enter into anoperational arrangement with, say, the NCA—they are the sort of people you would be lookingat—it had to have that approval. Why is it now being taken out? Is it just purely for ease ofoperational arrangements—one less step that it has to undertake?

Mr BEATTIE: In a nutshell, the answer to that is yes. It is just that the reference group, asthe Leader of the Opposition may recall, used to be the group that not just agreed to thereferences but also had a managerial role. That managerial role is now taken by the overall body,and the Crime Commission is happy about that. There is not a problem here. The reference


group, therefore, continues to do the references, but any agreement that is done beyond thatgoes to the management committee.

The old management committee had management functions. Now the reference committeefocuses on references, and management has gone to the commission. That is simply how thenew body has been put together. To pick up on what the member said—say, for example, youhave got an agreement with the National Crime Authority; the overall body makes thatagreement, not just one part of it. That is the only separation.

Mr WELLINGTON: I would just like to speak to this amendment and put on the public recordagain my thanks to the Premier and his staff for making himself available to give me and othermembers a briefing about the amendments once he formed the decision to move theamendments. Also, I think it is a precedent in this House to issue explanatory notes that go withthe amendments. I think it is very important that members on both sides of the political fence areinformed as soon as possible as to the reasons for those amendments. So often in the past wehave seen that amendments have been introduced and are left in the hands of the minister or hissenior staff to advise us what that is all about. I thank the Premier again.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.Clauses 33 to 51, as read, agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Mickel): Order! Before I call the Leader of the Opposition,I welcome the students from the Forest Lake College in the electorate of Algester.

Clause 52—Mr HORAN (11.57 a.m.): Clause 52 is the clause that sets out the research functions of the

new organisation, the CMC. It sets out the various functions—(a) to undertake research to support the proper performance of its functions;

(b) to undertake research into the incidence and prevention of criminal activity;

(c) to undertake research into any other matter relating to the administration of criminal justice ... ; and

(d) to undertake research into any other matter relevant to any of its functions.

It then goes on to say that they may undertake research into—(a) police service methods of operations; and

(b) police powers and the use of police powers; and

(c) law enforcement by police; and

(d) the continuous improvement of the police service.

I ask the Premier for clarification of this matter that he mentioned in his second reading speech.Although it is not specifically mentioned in this legislation, I understand that this is the actualclause that allows him to take the research unit into the Premier's Department. Because it is adeletion from the previous act, this is the clause by which he is endeavouring to take the researchunit to the Premier's Department.

The Premier's second reading speech makes for some interesting reading. It says that theCriminal Justice Research Unit will be located within government and will inform government policyand resource decision making. So it is obviously this discrete unit that has been a part of theresearch unit of the CJC that is being transferred holus-bolus to his department. The CriminalJustice Research Unit will be relocated. That is what the second reading speech says. It states—The criminal justice research unit will be located within government ... The purpose of this unit is to have betterinformed decision makers, not to somehow cover up information on the criminal justice system ...

At the moment the Justice Department, Police and Corrections all have databases that mostly serve their ownpurposes. This unit will draw from that vast bank of information and actively encourage information sharingbetween criminal justice agencies.

I ask: with the transfer of this unit from the Criminal Justice Commission to the Premier'sDepartment, what right is there for those in that department to access the databases of theDepartment of Police, the Department of Justice and the Department of Corrective Services? Iwould have thought that there should be a legislative requirement in order for that to happen. Iask for the Premier's comments in that regard.

Mr BEATTIE: In a nutshell, let me recap, and I will do this briefly. The large majority of theCJC's research functions are retained by the commission. Only about three or four personnel areaffected. I indicated yesterday that the latest advice I had was that there are about 28 personnelin this area and we are talking about three or four. That has not yet been determined, and I make


that clear, but it is roughly three or four. The commission will focus on core functions, which iswhat it should do. Those people within the research unit in my department will have access tostatistical information and non-operational information.

I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition was trying to make the point that this issome discrete unit. I am not aware that it is a discrete little unit within the CJC; rather, I just thinkthey are researchers as part of a broader group. That is all. The Policy Coordination Unit in mydepartment researches all sorts of stuff all the time and looks at statistical information. It does nothave access to operational information. To answer the question, it does not have access tooperational matters or operational information. Like anyone else, it has a research capacity.People who work for the Leader of the Opposition or anywhere else will have access to statisticalinformation. That is what they will have. They will not have access to operational matters, which isthe concern of the member opposite. Let me make it very clear that they will not have access tooperational matters.

This clause basically confirms that the research functions of the commission will remain.These research functions have been reformulated from the CJC's research functions to focusthem more clearly on providing support for the commission's core functions, which include majorcrime. The commission retains responsibility for research into the incidence and prevention ofcriminal activity. The ability to conduct research on broader criminal justice system issues will berelocated to a unit within government. So it is something we are forming—although it is part of theDPC anyway—to better inform whole-of-government decision making on criminal justice issuesand to facilitate the achievement of criminal justice coordination. It gives the ability to undertakeresearch into any matter relevant.

Research can be conducted across criminal justice system agencies, research such as howto address indigenous overrepresentation and the effects drug courts will have on corrections andthe courts. That is properly a matter for government and properly a matter for the PolicyCoordination Unit. However, they will not have access to operational matters so there is no headof power, to answer the question, and one is not needed, because they do not get that access.They are just researchers, like the member and I have.

Mr HORAN: A reading of the second reading speech gives another impression, because itdoes talk about the Criminal Justice Research Unit and it does talk about the vast bank ofinformation it will draw from. It also says that it will be drawing from the databases of the JusticeDepartment, the Police Department and the Corrective Services Department. As a result, I want toinquire further about this issue.

Because of the information contained on the databases of Police, Corrective Services andJustice, they are generally handled by sworn officers. They do not contain the normal sort ofresearch, as the Premier referred to, where, say, a researcher from the opposition goes into alibrary to get the information available. Even during the normal processes of research people inthose departments have to handle a huge amount of sensitive data and often times have tofollow very strict protocols as to what they can access and what they can transfer to otherdepartments. My concern is that a research unit undertaking particular research in the CJC ismoving to the Premier's Department after having had access to this vast amount of information.What protocols will apply to these people to restrict them to the normal statistical information thatis available to the Parliamentary Library or to any other such open and accountable source? Arethey going to be able to access information that is not normally available to, say, the oppositionoffice researchers that the Premier mentioned?

Mr Beattie interjected.

Mr HORAN: I will keep going then. Will any sort of register be kept of the type of databasesthey are allowed to use? We do have some concerns in transferring people from the CJC whohave had fairly intensive powers of research within the CJC to a government department, thePremier's Department. We are just expressing our concerns as to the extent that they will be ableto access this research.

There is another aspect to this issue. In the past, the people undertaking broader criminaljustice research within the CJC were unfettered by political constraints—or should have beenunfettered by political constraints—within an independent body and were able to research,announce and publicise any of these broader criminal justice issues that they felt were necessary.However, it is now within a political atmosphere. As a result, if the research is not good, it can becensored or withheld. For example, there may be research into the incidence of repeat break andenters to property, say, in Beenleigh and those sorts of things. If that research showed that there


was a disturbing trend with no improvement, it could well be that that information could becensored.

I know I am moving to a different clause, but I discussed the matter of the Criminal JusticeCommission and its media release. It has now issued a correction which clarifies what the Premierand I said. It states that, since the charges against the man involved a number of alleged sexualoffences, his name should not have been used. So my information was correct, and I make thatpoint. It has now admitted that it was a mistake. I just wanted to put that on the record.

Getting back to the clause before the chair, the points I have raised relate to our concerns.Firstly, we have a concern about the fact that this legislation moves a research unit undertakingtasks on broader criminal justice issues from an independent statutory authority into agovernment departmental office in the political atmosphere. Secondly, when compared to swornofficers or solicitors who take an oath, we have a concern that people within the Premier'sDepartment will be able to undertake research in these various databases when there is noinformation as to what controls there are, what limitations there are or what registers there are.

Time expired.

Mr BEATTIE: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for clarifying what the CJC has said. Thatis a matter for it. If it has admitted that it made a mistake, then I am delighted. That is one of theproblems of having a debate in this chamber when we are not all fully informed.

This is a very complicated and detailed bill. I appreciate that because of the bill's complexity itis easy for some things to be misunderstood, so I will be really clear. The interpretation by theLeader of the Opposition of this matter—I am not being critical—is a misunderstanding of what weare doing. There is no unit in the CJC that we are plucking out and putting into my department.We are simply saying that the commission should continue research on law enforcementissues—that includes break and enters—as part of its core business. That is what it should do andit will continue to do that. However, there are some matters the government needs to look at. Ireferred earlier to the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system andto the effect drug courts will have on corrections and the courts. They are properly matters forgovernment.

Obviously, if government is going to carry out that role and the CJC is going to concentrateon core business, there are three or four researchers who are not needed. We could easily havesaid that those three or four researchers have to be sacked by the CJC because they are notwanted anymore. Rather, we said that government has a role to play here and therefore we arehappy to take them into the Premier's Department.

As I have indicated, the large majority of researchers are being retained. With CJC research,several functions are necessary. Independent research can still be referred to the commission bythe government. We can ask for independent research to be done. Research relating to policydevelopment and the matters we have referred to will be conducted within government itself. Isaid in my second reading speech—The criminal justice research unit will be located within government and will inform government policy andresource decision making. The purpose of this unit is to have better informed decision makers, not to somehowcover up information on the criminal justice system...

At the moment the Justice Department, Police and Corrections all have databases that mostly serve their ownpurposes. This unit will draw from that vast bank of information and actively encourage information sharingbetween criminal justice agencies.

That will happen internally, but it may well be that something needs to be published. That has notbeen determined. Rather than stifle information on the criminal justice system, the unit will make itmore accessible and intelligible.

One of the big tasks within government—the Leader of the Opposition understands this—ismaking sure that all of the different agencies work together to effect a whole-of-governmentapproach. When it comes to the Premier's Department, these people will be normal researcherswithin the Policy Coordination Unit. They will make recommendations to cabinet. They will be justlike normal public servants and we will act or otherwise on their recommendations.

This policy role in DPC is the normal role that DPC carries out. As I said before, there will beno access to operational information. The point made by the Opposition Leader is correct in thatthe level of access by the department will not be the same level of access by the opposition,because the department should find out how many indigenous people are in prisons and come togovernment with a policy that it should then act on.


Government departments provide access to one another now, and the cabinet processalready provides information from various government databases. That is what happens everyday. For example, government briefs itself on the backlogs in relation to native title, on what ishappening with indigenous education or on what is happening with kids in our schools. Theopposition can access that information through FOI or whatever, but that database informationgoes into cabinet for normal cabinet decisions. I think that basically responds to the issues raisedby the Opposition Leader.

Mr HORAN: There is one issue I raised that I do not think the Premier has responded toadequately. Are these databases normally accessible by staff in the Premier's Department? If thisis just a straight transfer of people who will have no special powers, will the researchers just go tothe Premier's Department and do the same things other officers do now—access databases thatare freely available to researchers in his department?

Mr Beattie: The same as it is now.Mr HORAN: Then why does the Premier mention that they will be able to draw from that vast

bank of information? Will they be able to access any more information than is currently accessibleby other staff of the Premier's Department?

Mr BEATTIE: The answer to that question is no. Basically, we are getting a bettercoordination of criminal justice information. As the Opposition Leader knows—he was a seniorminister in the government for a while, so he would know this—often departments are veryprotective of their information. We have tried to get a whole-of-government approach which runsacross a number of the key agencies. That includes Justice, Police and Corrective Services. Theywill have no more access than government has now.

The truth is that we could get this information out of any of those databases tomorrow, butwe do not have a dedicated group of people who simply research in the criminal justice area.There are a number of people who work in this area, but they do not have a dedicated role toactually produce information which government needs to act on. That is all we are trying to do.We are actually trying to improve the quality of government.

Having gone back and read the comments I made in my second reading speech, I realisethat perhaps I could have gone on and given a more detailed explanation of these things. Thatmay have been more helpful, and I have now tried to give that to the member. These officers willnot get access to any of those protocol areas that are limited now. We are giving them the normalaccess government gets now.

Clause 52, as read, agreed to.Clauses 53 and 54, as read, agreed to.

Clause 55—Mr HORAN (12.17 p.m.): This clause is about sharing of intelligence information. It states—

(1) The commissioner of police must give the chairperson access to intelligence information held by the policeservice as required by the chairperson...

It also states—(2) The commission must, in the performance of all of its functions, give intelligence information to the entities it

considers appropriate in the way it considers appropriate.

(3) The commission must limit access to information in its database of intelligence information to those personsthe chairperson considers have a legitimate need to access the information.

This follows on from the concerns I expressed in relation to clause 52. The Premier has said thatthe researchers will no longer be CJC-type researchers, that they will be ordinary researchers in hisdepartment. Can the Premier confirm that this means they will not be in a position to apply to thecommission for access to particular information? What fences will be put around theseresearchers when they come under the Premier's Department? We have a concern and suspicionin that regard, following on from the previous clause we debated.

Mr BEATTIE: Instead of taking these three or four people from the CJC, we could havesimply advertised and hired three or four additional people, stuck them in that section and said,'Research these areas for government.' We could have done that, but because I wanted thetransition to the new body to be smooth we agreed to take these researchers and employ them inthe Premier's Department. That is the simplest way to put it. We could have said to the CJC, 'Overtime you have to get rid of these people,' but we thought, 'They are valuable researchers. Whywould we lose them?'


We can now request information from all three agencies—the ones I referred to before whentalking about justice. We can do that now—any government can. If the member were thePremier, he could do that. In the future the research unit can put together the information for allthree agencies. It is an enhancement, but there will be no more access. We will get betteroutcomes, but no more access than exists now. I understand the Leader of the Opposition'spoint, but what I am saying is that there is no foundation to his concern, and I think I havereassured him of that.

Mr HORAN: These people are coming over because their function at the CJC no longerexists. The CJC is no longer researching broader criminal justice issues. That function is beingtransferred to the Premier's Department. I want to know why they are redundant. Has the role thatthey had before been deleted?

Mr BEATTIE: We believe—and so does the CJC—that they should concentrate on corecriminal justice issues and issues relating to the legal system within the CJC. There are broaderissues that really are a matter of policy.

Let me give the example of a sensitive issue: abortion. In my view, that is a matter forpoliticians. It is not a matter for the CJC. That is my view. I believe that those strong social issuesshould be determined by government or, if there are matters of conscience, determined by thisparliament. That is what this is all about. It is about the CJC sticking to core criminal justicebusiness, which is what it ought to do. But when it comes to broader social issues, they arematters for government or matters for this parliament. The Leader of the Opposition will stand ona platform of his view on some of those things and so will I. The people can then determinewhether they want him or me to be the Premier. And based on the commitment we give to thepeople, that will be the determination. That is what it is about.

It is also about another thing, that is, that there are some areas that have not been properlyresearched. Those are broader issues. The number of indigenous people in the prison system, forexample, is too extensive. I do not have the figures with me, but indigenous people are a tinypercentage of the community and they are a huge percentage of the prison system. What I amsimply saying is that that is a matter that government needs to deal with through a whole series ofthings, including the partnership plan in north Queensland and our program in the arts area. Therecent launch of the publication Gatherings was about encouraging self-esteem amongstindigenous people. In my view, that is a matter for government, bearing in mind that the CJC didnot research those areas.

One of my staff has just helped me with some indigenous statistics, and I will go throughthem for the record. Indigenous people represent 2.3 per cent of the population and 23 per centof people in prison. That is in anybody's language a bloody disgrace—an absolute disgrace. Thatis a matter for government. No successive governments of any political persuasion have donevery well at it. With those sorts of statistics, everyone in this House—and ourpredecessors—should hang their head in shame. That is the reality.

This is the sort of thing I am talking about. I want to know from the key departments what weare doing about putting in place strategies to prevent those crimes and get indigenous people outof the prison system or prevent them from going in there. I am not saying that if they break thelaw they should not go to jail. What I am saying is that we have to deal with that problem. It doesnot make sense that they represent 2.3 per cent of the population and 23 per cent of the prisonpopulation.

There is a need for evidence based criminal justice research across the entire criminal justicesystem to better inform government decision makers and achieve a coordinated approach. Thisapproach is not new. Both New South Wales and South Australia have established specialistcriminal justice units within government to produce high-quality research. That is all we are doinghere to solve problems. And as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, we could have done this inone of two ways. We could have said that the government will do this from now on, and we couldhave employed new people. But we felt that, in the spirit of bringing both organisations together,if there were three or four researchers, why leave them out on a limb? Let us take them into thegovernment. That is all that has happened here. Maybe we should have spent more timeexplaining this. A number of people have misunderstood what we are doing. There is no secretagenda here. This is simply about the government doing its job better.

Mr HORAN: The Premier has just explained that this legislation basically takes the broadercriminal justice issues over to government so that the CJC could concentrate on its core business.But in the course of this debate we have heard the Premier confirm that these researchers will


have less ability to go into databases than they did before. I presume that while they are in theCJC researching broader criminal justice issues they would have a broader and better database toaccess so they could come up with better research. If they go into the Premier's Department, theywill be limited to the available statistical research and have fewer databases or less informationavailable to them to do that research. It does not make a lot of sense.

I understand some of the Premier's arguments about some of those issues that we shoulddeal with here. I accept that that is our responsibility. But in the past it has been an independentorganisation which has had fairly extensive powers and abilities to look into information anddatabases upon which to base its research so that that research can be in depth and thorough.Now all these people are going to the Premier's Department, and the actual responsibility and roleof doing broader criminal justice will be within the Premier's Department and they will not have thesame independence or access to data as they had when they were doing that research in theCJC.

Mr BEATTIE: I do not have all the material in front of me, but my understanding is that theCJC has been concentrating only on core research for some time. It has not been looking atissues like indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system, for example. No-one hasbeen doing that to the extent that it should be done. I am actually insisting that it be done,because that is one of the ways in which we can solve this problem, and that is what is important.

Secondly, researchers at the CJC would have had access—like any person within the broadgovernment ambit—to databases within departments. I do not know how they worked internally interms of intelligence. They would have had access to that which they will no longer have, that is,CJC intelligence. But over time the CJC has struggled to get information from governmentagencies. Information sharing in government is easier. So maybe we will get better outcomes.

But in terms of access or anything secret that they would have had that they do not havenow, that would apply only to something in their own internal intelligence databases. They wouldhave had access to all the other departmental databases in the same way as the governmentdoes. That has not changed. I do not know what access they would have had internally, becauseit is an independent body. The only thing they would possibly lose—on the Leader of theOpposition's argument—would be access to internal operational or intelligence matters. Theycertainly will not have that anymore; that is true. And it is also true that they will be just normalresearchers.


Clauses 56 to 72, as read, agreed to.

Clause 73—Mr BEATTIE (12.29 p.m.): I move amendment No. 2—

2. Clause 73—

At page 57, line 3, 'section 77'—

omit, insert—

'section 80 1'.

1 Section 80 (Commission officer to consider claim of privilege)

This amendment simply replaces an incorrect section reference. That is all it refers to.Amendment agreed to.

Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 74, as read, agreed to. Clause 75—

Mr BEATTIE (12.30 p.m.): I move amendment No. 3—3. Clause 75—

At page 59, line 23, 'section 77'—

omit, insert—

'section 80 2'.

2 Section 80 (Commission officer to consider claim of privilege)


Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.



Mr BEATTIE (12.31 p.m.): I move amendment No. 4—4. Clause 110—

At page 80, lines 1 and 2, 'warrant, section 130'—

omit, insert—

'search warrant, section 117 3'.

3 Section 117 (Return of seized things)

This clause replaces an incorrect section reference.

Amendment agreed to.Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.



5. Clause 112—

At page 81, line 4, after 'chapter,'—

insert—

'other than under a covert search warrant,'.

This clause clarifies that the requirement to give a receipt does not apply under a covert searchwarrant where evidence is seized by officers entering a premises covertly.




6. Clause 121—

At page 86, line 28, '(4)(d)'—

omit, insert—

'(4)(e)'.

This clause replaces an incorrect section.



Clause 125—Mr HORAN (12.35 p.m.): Clause 125 stipulates what must be stated on a surveillance

warrant. Amongst other things, a warrant must state the type of surveillance device which may beused under it. Is this the clause where the addition of electronic monitoring that may occur withcomputers is set out?

Mr BEATTIE: Yes, it is.Mr HORAN: That is not actually stated here; it just states that the type of device should be

specified. I presume it is in a schedule or a document which lists electronic surveillance orcomputer-type surveillance. I understand that this bill allows for the type of device which capturesone side of an electronic transmission through a computer system by a tapping mechanism andthat it can overcome the encryption.

Mr BEATTIE: Yes.

Mr HORAN: I ask the Premier to explain how this bill specifically states what devices can andcannot be used, because it is not outlined in the legislation. Further, on the topic of telephoneinterception—which I raised in my speech in the second reading debate and which the Premieraddressed in his reply—I understand that it is used by other states, so what is the problem forQueensland? The Premier referred to a Commonwealth issue. It is regarded as an important toolof modern investigation and modern policing and, provided that people's rights and civil liberties


are respected and it is not abused, it is important for police officers and investigative officers in theQCC to have recourse to these methods.

Whilst the point that it does not exist in Queensland has been made quite clearly in thisHouse, if a person is involved in a major crime ring or on drugs, all they need do is use a mobilephone and they know it is all right. They now know that their computers can be tapped into.However, there is that one avenue which is a nice big, easy loophole here in Queensland. I askthe Premier to comment on whether or not phone tapping is available in the other states.

Mr BEATTIE: By way of assistance, on page 253 in schedule 2 there is a definition of'surveillance device'. In relation to a crime investigation it refers to a listening device, a visualsurveillance device, a tracking device, a device containing any combination of the devicesmentioned in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) and a data surveillance device, and, for a misconductinvestigation, a listening device.

Moving from page 253 to the amendments to schedule 2—which I will be dealing withlater—a 'data surveillance device' will be defined at page 246, after line 8, by the addition of thefollowing words—'data surveillance device' means any instrument, apparatus, equipment, program or other thing capable of beingused to record or monitor, other than through visual recording or monitoring, the input of information into, or theoutput of information from, a computer.

To answer the honourable member's question, it is covered in schedule 2, amendment 26. Atpage 246 after line 8 that definition is inserted and it is referred to in the definition section of'surveillance device' on page 253. Page 7 of the amendments relates to the addition at page 246after line 8 of a definition for 'data surveillance device'. If both of those are combined, there is thedefinition. Clause 125 provides the matters that must be stated in the surveillance warrant,including any conditions imposed by the judge in the order of its issue. The definitions providedthere are what must be included in the warrant.

In terms of phone tapping, which was the last issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition,members would be aware that the Federal Police have that power. Members would also be awarethat the Prime Minister, John Howard, has indicated a wish to discuss with the states varioustransfers of powers in relation to police powers and so on. I do not know who will win the federalelection—we will all know Saturday week—but I have no doubt that this will be a national issue.This government has taken a particular view in relation to phone tapping, which I have explainedin the past. We have extended powers for bugging computers. We will see what happens. It maywell be that this issue is debated further at a national level. However, members know now that theFederal Police have phone tapping powers and use them on a regular basis in Queensland. It issimply operated by the Federal Police.

Mr Horan: Don't the other states have phone tapping? Mr BEATTIE: But all of these agencies work together. I do not have the list of the other

states with me. If there is a matter relating to organised crime and it is a matter for the FederalPolice, they just simply work together. So they achieve the outcome that they want anyway.

Mr SPRINGBORG: Just on that point: that assumes, of course, that there is some sort ofjoint operation. But there can very well be situations where the state authorities might want to andmight be acting independently of any involvement with the National Crime Authority or the FederalPolice. That power for telephone interception or data interception—I know that data interception isavailable in some prescribed way in the bill—

Mr Beattie: Some of the lights just went out.

Mr SPRINGBORG: The Premier should bring back his mate Joh. He will put them back onagain.

Mr Schwarten: Isn't he your mate?Mr SPRINGBORG: I am not saying that he is not my mate, but he is certainly a good friend

of the Premier—or the Premier reckons that he is a good friend, at least for political advantage.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Mickel): Order! The honourable member will get back tothe bill.

Mr SPRINGBORG: I think that the lights are starting to go out in preparation for the darkmoment that is going to descend on this parliament when the FOI bill is debated later today.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member will get back to the clause.


Mr SPRINGBORG: I have been distracted by interjection and I am only seeking to defendmyself.

My concern relates to the fact that, quite independent of any joint operation with the NationalCrime Authority or the Federal Police, other law enforcement jurisdictions in Australia havetelephone interception powers. I am a little bit concerned that the Premier, by saying that theCommonwealth government has indicated that it wants to look at reconstituting the authority ofthe state and the Commonwealth in this area, seeks to give the impression to this parliament thathe has to wait for it to be delegated down. I just cannot understand the linkage. It may not havebeen deliberate, but I think it probably glossed over what we are trying to drive at, and that is whyother authorities, quite independently, have the capacity for data and telephone interception, yetthe Premier will not provide that to this new entity in Queensland.

I think that is a legitimate issue. There are some problems when we are relying upon anotherjurisdiction to consent or work with us, whether it is the National Crime Authority or the FederalPolice, in giving that consent or that access to telephone interception in Queensland. I just thinkthat there are situations quite independent of that where it would be advantageous for the currentCrime Commission or the Crime and Misconduct Commission to have that power quite separately.That is all I am trying to drive at.

Is the issue a civil libertarian argument? If that is the case, I might not agree, but I canaccept it. But what is a good reason to say that we should not have the power in Queenslandwhen other places have, because it could speed up the process? There are checks andbalances, whether that be a Public Interest Monitor or Supreme Court consent, where telephoneinterception powers would be quite effective in Queensland quite independent of the FederalPolice or the National Crime Authority.

Mr BEATTIE: Yesterday I dealt with some of these issues, if I recall correctly, in my reply.Basically, my point in relation to John Howard is that it has been put on the federal agenda. Whoknows who is going to win the federal election, but I think that it will stay there. It came out of theissue of terrorism. Obviously, I have indicated that we will cooperate with the federal governmentin any sensible arrangement with regard to terrorism. We do not believe that we need to give upstate powers to achieve that. But bearing in mind that that has been placed on the agenda, let ussee what happens in the federal election. The Prime Minister has indicated that he is going to getthe states together to talk about it. So let us see what happens.

As the member knows—and I mentioned this yesterday—in terms of the Public InterestMonitor, those safeguards are not possible in Queensland because of constitutional issues. Wecannot use the Public Interest Monitor in that way, simply because it is not constitutionallypossible.

Mr Springborg: That's legitimate. Maybe a Supreme Court judge.

Mr BEATTIE: No, we cannot. I am just saying that the Public Interest Monitor cannot beused for constitutional issues.

In terms of the Commonwealth agencies, Queensland can get interception informationthrough Commonwealth agencies or enforcement agencies only if it is operating in theCommonwealth jurisdiction. That is quite true. But these days, organised crime, or major crime,does not stop at borders; it crosses borders. There are a large number of joint operations with theFederal Police. We just believe—and this is the answer to the member's question—that thecurrent policing powers are adequate. We continue to monitor these things, but we believe thatthe current policing powers are adequate. Let us see what comes out of discussions with PrimeMinister John Howard or Prime Minister Kim Beazley after the election. We just have aphilosophical difference to it, that is all.

Mr HORAN: What has really come out of this debate is that those involved in organisedcrime and paedophilia in Queensland have an advantage over the investigators that they do nothave if they are located in other states of Australia. Other states have a state based system oftelephone interception. They have their ways of ensuring that civil liberties are protected.

One of our suggestions was to use the Public Interest Monitor system, or something similar.The Premier has used that suggestion to say that that does not fit in with the constitution. Thatmay well be, but there would be other ways in which it could be done. The shadow minister forjustice has suggested the Supreme Court.

But the other states have a system of protection and we do not. I think one of the greatshortcomings is that we set people this enormously difficult task of investigating paedophilia and


major crime, yet they simply do not have one of the key modern tools of police investigation. Inthis bill we have added the power to intercept computers. Of course, that is one sided. In relationto the way in which the system works, we can get only the message that is being sent, not themessage that is being received. It is a real shame that our investigators are handcuffed and arenot able to use the full range of tools that should be available to modern investigators.

Let us bear in mind that at times the investigators are dealing with very sophisticated andhighly organised groups. The only way in which they can use telephone interception is if it is anational case or a cross-border type of case when approval to do it can be given. They do it inthose limited number of cases. The Premier says that he has a philosophical problem with it, yethe allows it in those circumstances but not in circumstances in which these criminal groups areoperating solely within our borders. I make the comment that it is a very serious shortcoming forthe crime investigation division within the CMC that it does not have this ability. It means that inQueensland we are not smart; we are just behind the eight ball compared to the other stateswhen it comes to having the full range of modern investigative tools available.

Mr BEATTIE: Let me make the point about paedophilia. I have some disagreements withthe Opposition Leader's argument, and I will come to that. Under his argument—or under anyargument—that cannot be said about paedophilia, because we are bugging computers. A lot ofpaedophilia activity involves access to the Net and to computers. For the first time we are allowingthe bugging of computers. This was a request from the Crime Commissioner, who deals withpaedophilia. So we believe that paedophilia, both within our boundaries and outside ourboundaries, is more than adequately covered by the bugging of computers, which this bill willallow.

We have provided many enhancements for law enforcement agencies. We have introducedlegislation relating to undercover operations and witness protection. We are consideringintroducing legislation relating to the civil confiscation of the proceeds of crime. There is alsoelectronic data surveillance legislation. No-one should treat lightly this extra power we are giving tothe CMC. We are giving a considerable extra power to bug computers. The other powers that wehave given police in recent times relate to DNA. If we add up all of those powers, we find that theyare substantial.

We have serious issues in relation to the protection of the community in terms of buggingphones. We do not believe that there are adequate safeguards. We believe that individualsshould be protected. But having said that, let me go on and point out to the member that anymajor operation, whether it includes organised crime or paedophilia, goes across borders. Thereare regular joint operations between the CMC, as it will be called—the current CJC—the policeand National Crime Authority figures and the Federal Police. As the situation exists currently underthe federal arrangements, they get bugging powers. We are not short-changed because thesedays, by virtue of the very nature of organised crime and other crime, any major activity goesacross borders.

Mr HORAN: It is a bit of a cop-out to say that any major crime goes across borders. There isno doubt that there is major organised crime that is Queensland based, Queensland specific anddoes not go into other states. There has to be. One cannot say that all organised crime—

Mr Beattie: We believe the current powers are adequate.

Mr HORAN: The Premier says that the current powers are adequate. He has said that he isconcerned about the protection of the community and then, in the next breath, he says that he isquite happy to undertake telephone interception in conjunction with the federal government.Obviously, he is happy with the public protection that is afforded under that federal legislation,because he participates in it—

Mr Beattie: We don't have Public Interest Monitor protection in Queensland because of theconstitution. That's the point I make

Mr HORAN: Our point is that if there was the will other ways could be found to do it in thisstate. The other states are doing it through different systems. I reiterate my point that we can useDNA testing and the bugging of computers, and I take the Premier's point about paedophilia inparticular. However, for those who are conducting major drug rackets, the phone would be aprimary device in the operation of that organised crime. It is an absolute shame that there is not aconcerted effort being made by the government to find a way of providing protection for thecommunity so that the police and the Crime Commission can have the necessary tools to combathighly organised and sophisticated criminals. Those criminals know that if they are Queenslandbased and they use a phone their calls cannot be intercepted and used as part of an


investigation against them. In modern policing, it is frustrating for police officers and investigatorsto know that they are up against sophisticated techniques and that they lack particular tools todeal with them.

Philosophically, the Premier is prepared to be involved in telephone tapping with theCommonwealth, but there needs to be a will and a determination to provide that service to ourpolice officers when investigating a Queensland-specific major crime or paedophilia reference.They do not have that power and they need it. The community needs that protection. No doubt,such a thing is possible because the other states are using it.

Clause 125, as read, agreed to.Clauses 126 and 127, as read, agreed to.


7. Clause 128—

At page 91, after line 7—

insert—

'(iA) power to remove a thing to another place to install a visual surveillance device in the thing; and'.

This clause clarifies that the power to remove a thing to another place to install a device applies tovisual surveillance devices as well as tracking and listening devices. This allows the commission, ina crime investigation only, to, for instance, remove a vehicle to install a visual surveillance devicewhere they cannot do so discreetly.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Mickel): Order! Before I call the Leader of the Opposition,I wish to acknowledge the second part of the Forest Lake College in the electorate of Algesterand the Beachmere State School from the electorate of Pumicestone.

Mr HORAN: We do not have any problem with this amendment. I understand it. Forexample, if they want to take someone's car or take a piece of furniture from a place and put alistening device into it, it provides that additional power. We have no disagreement with that.

Mr BEATTIE: The Leader of the Opposition is quite correct; that is what it means.



Clause 154—Mr BEATTIE (12.54 p.m.): I move amendments Nos 8 and 9—

8. Clause 154—

At page 104, line 7, 'and any order made on it'—

omit, insert—

'or an extension of a covert search warrant and any order made on the application'.

9. Clause 154—


insert—

'(4) Nothing in this section prevents a person who was present at a proceeding on an application for a covert searchwarrant or an extension of a covert search warrant from giving oral evidence to a court about things that happenedat the proceeding.'.

These and the next three amendments are technical amendments to allow submissions to bemade in court by legal representatives, notwithstanding there is an offence for recording or writingdown anything said in court in these court applications. The first amendment inserts words inclause 154 to clarify that it extends to an application to court for the extension of a covert searchwarrant. This clarifies that the oral submissions in subsequent court proceedings are notprohibited. This second amendment amends clause 154 to correct a technical omission to ensurethat persons making submissions in a hearing about warrants are not prohibited from repeatingmatters heard in courts in later proceedings.

Amendments agreed to.



Clause 164—Mr BEATTIE (12.56 p.m.): I move amendments Nos 10 and 11—

10. Clause 164—

At page 108, line 14, 'and any order made on it'—

omit, insert—

'or an extension of an additional powers warrant and any order made on the application'.

11. Clause 164—


insert—

'(4) Nothing in this section prevents a person who was present at a proceeding on an application for anadditional powers warrant or an extension of an additional powers warrant from giving oral evidence to a courtabout things that happened at the proceeding.'.

The first amendment inserts words in clause 164 to clarify that it extends to an application for theextension of a covert search warrant. The second amendment amends clause 164 to correct atechnical omission to ensure that persons making submissions in a hearing about warrants arenot prohibited from repeating matters heard in courts and later proceedings.

Amendments agreed to.


Clause 178—Mr HORAN (12.57 p.m.): This clause deals with who must conduct hearings. Firstly, it states

that the chairperson must conduct a public hearing. I ask for the Premier's comment on the factthat the bill is about the chairperson only conducting a public hearing. What happens if a publichearing goes on for months, as can happen, and another very important matter arises that needsa public hearing? Does it stay on the waiting list? A current hearing may well take six or ninemonths, as has happened.

Secondly, it says that, if for any reason the chairperson is unable to conduct a public hearing,the Governor in Council must appoint a person qualified to be the chairperson to conduct thepublic hearing. In that circumstance, it really gives to the government of the day the power tomake the decision on who will hold a public hearing. The decision is not being made by thecommission. In the past, any decisions on who undertakes a hearing have been decided upon bythe commission.

Mr Beattie: With the approval of the PCJC.Mr HORAN: With the approval of the PCJC?

Mr Beattie: They have to consult with the PCJC. Mr HORAN: So it has been an independent decision. For example, let us take theShepherdson inquiry. If for any reason the chairperson was unable to conduct that inquiry, thePremier's government, through the Governor in Council, would have decided who would conductthe public hearing.

Mr Beattie: Or they do it by private hearing.

Mr HORAN: But we are talking about a public hearing, not a private hearing. Those are thetwo things that I am concerned about. If a public hearing is under way and it takes months andmonths, how can another public hearing run parallel? Secondly, this clause allows, in a particularcircumstance, the Governor in Council to appoint the person who will undertake a public hearing.

Mr BEATTIE: In relation to public hearings, the chair can adjourn a long-running hearing todeal with another issue if he wants. It is highly unlikely that there would be two major hearings.That has never happened yet, and they have been in existence for 11 years. That is unlikely tohappen.

In terms of how the CJC operated and how the CMC will operate, we have left considerablediscretion for the chairman to appoint people for private hearings. That is very important. Privatehearings are where most of the work is done. Whenever there are public hearings there areprivate hearings as well. We are talking about people's reputations.

Up until the creation of the CJC there was not a standing royal commission in this state. Itnever existed. Executive council always appointed the head of an inquiry. For example, Tony


Fitzgerald was appointed by executive council, as the member knows. That is how that cameabout. He was not appointed by an independent body. The independent body has a chairman.That chairman can conduct public hearings. All we are simply saying is that, if we are going tohave public hearings under a standing royal commission that has the power to destroy someone'sreputation, it should be consistent; it should be the head of that body and not anyone else.

In relation to private hearings, they have more discretion. If I recall correctly—and I am goingon memory now—what I approved was that the assistant commissioners can do that or someoneeligible to be appointed as chairman. In other words, Shepherdson or someone like that can beappointed in that role, but for the private hearings. The public hearings should be conducted bythe head of the commission. That is because of the enormous powers they have. As I saidyesterday in my summing-up, someone can be called, the rules of evidence do not apply andthat person can be required to answer questions. We think they should be dealt with sparingly. Interms of executive council, I do not see that as being anything that is other than in compliancewith the normal traditions of this state.

Clause 178, as read, agreed to. Clauses 179 to 184, as read, agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 1.02 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) in charge of

the bill.

Clause 185—

Mr WELFORD (2.30 p.m.): I move amendment No. 12 standing in the Premier's name—12. Clause 185—

At page 120, line 4, '181.'—

omit, insert—

'194.4 '.

4 Section 194 (Presiding officer to decide whether refusal to answer questions or produce documents or thingsis justified)

This simply replaces an incorrect section reference, replacing section 181 with the correct sectionto which it should refer, section 194.

Amendment agreed to. Clause 185, as amended, agreed to.


Clause 220—Mr HORAN (2.32 p.m.): Clause 220 deals with the establishment of the Crime and

Misconduct Commission. This was the crux of our objection to this bill and why we voted against itduring the second reading stage. Although I have stated this a number of times, I will put it on therecord again whilst debating this clause. We have very serious concerns that this is a backwardstep. We know that previously the Criminal Justice Commission, when it encompassed all of theroles that it had originally, was not successful in addressing paedophilia and major crime. Thatwas the fundamental reason we brought about an improvement by dividing it in two and putting inplace the Queensland Crime Commission. We were then left with one organisation that couldspecialise in being the state's watchdog over corruption, official misconduct and misconduct andanother organisation, the Queensland Crime Commission, the newly established organisation,that specialised in investigation into major crime and paedophilia.

At the same time, one of the benefits of that was that we then had that new organisation,the Queensland Crime Commission, that was able to work very closely with the QueenslandPolice Service because it had no role whatsoever in investigating individual members of the PoliceService itself in any matters to do with alleged corruption or alleged matters of misconduct orofficial misconduct. So it was a very harmonious and successful partnership and a proven way ofbeing able to achieve both of those objectives. We are now going back to the old pattern. I knowthat over the years Labor governments have always wanted to cut back the CJC, because it hasbeen a nuisance for them at times. This is its way of doing that.

Ms Struthers: You were the people who wanted that.

Mr HORAN: Don't you worry about that. It has been a nuisance to the Labor Party, too.


In the future, there will be one budget. There has been a lot of talk about savings inadministration. When the Premier was in the chamber earlier on, I pointed out that whateversavings are made in administration are really secondary to the principles the government wants toachieve and how it can best achieve them. It might cost more to employ a few moreadministrators to achieve better investigation of major crime and paedophilia and to providecomplete watchdog services, but that would be a better way to go, that is, to have them separate.

The budget for this organisation, the CMC, will be approximately $30 million—roughly$25 million for the CJC, as is the case currently, and $5 million for the Crime Commission. If wecombine that for a total of $30 million, mix it up into an amorphous mass, suddenly, and withoutanybody really knowing about it, we can cut back the CJC's budget to $15 million and have$15 million for the Crime Commission; it is all mixed up and nobody really knows what ishappening. Or this might be done a little more gradually. We are strongly of the belief that extrafunds for the Crime Commission are well deserved. We would support that, because we see it ashaving a particularly important function. This parliament and those who follow it should be awarethat there is now a way in which we can more subtly cut the legs off the CJC without attracting anyadverse public reaction or comment.

The minister might be able to tell us, since he has taken over in a caretaker role from thePremier, whether in the budget papers the figure would be broken down to the point where wecould see how much is provided for the crime investigation division and how much is available forthe criminal justice division. That should be a fairly simple thing to show in the budget papers sothat we in the opposition can see just to what extent the Criminal Justice Commission's role isbeing cut back by virtue of funding.

The other interesting point I make is that the Premier has made much of saying that this is away of ensuring that things are lean and mean and that there is a saving on administration.Interestingly, although there is a saving on administration because a half a dozen researchers willnot be required, they will go across to the Premier's Department and add to the huge village ofpeople living there who undertake all of the publicity, promotion and so forth that goes on in thatexpanded department. So another six or so positions will go over to that already large set-up.

We can see the way the government operates. It concentrates heavily on publicity,brochures, strategies and so on. However, the real nuts and bolts of good service delivery are notalways there. We have a very strong objection to this. We voted against this principle during thesecond reading debate. I do not intend to divide the chamber again on this issue, because wemade it very clear throughout the debate that we opposed its establishment. We do not believe itwill achieve its purpose as well as it has been achieved through having these organisationsseparate. We have come a long way over the past 10 or 11 years. We have heard a lot ofspeeches in this debate on the bill about the Criminal Justice Commission and its establishment.My party put the Fitzgerald inquiry into place, one of the results of which was the Criminal JusticeCommission as a watchdog. It has been a difficult process for us during that time. However, Ithink most politicians have come to the realisation that in modern government we need awatchdog in place.

We do not believe we need a watchdog that has multiple tasks. We believe we need awatchdog that is a watchdog only so that the public knows what it is and they do not get confusedby other things that occur. Its role should be quite clear and it should do nothing else butinvestigate corruption, misconduct or official misconduct; endeavour to prevent officialmisconduct; and endeavour to prevent corruption by the education of various governmentdepartments, the Police Service, Corrective Services and any other organisations that are coveredby the legislation. It should become a specialist in that role and do it well. Sadly, we are mixing itup with other major responsibilities and we are losing that single function that is so important topeople's perception of our watchdog in Queensland and in the single-minded and single-focusedrole of that watchdog.

Mr WELFORD: I will do my best to respond in some respects to some of the issues raised bythe Leader of the Opposition. The Premier, of course, has already commented on why thegovernment believes this new commission will be a more effective process. We take with goodfaith the Leader of the Opposition's interest and concern in ensuring that the roles of officialmisconduct investigation and crime investigation are done properly. I do not think it follows,however, that having totally separate agencies necessarily means that it is done any better or anyworse. Ultimately, it depends upon the quality of the people involved in the respective functionsand the independence they exercise, not only from executive government but from one another,in the performance of those functions.


As the Premier has pointed out, the nature of the new arrangement is in many respects quitedifferent from the CJC, with which he is comparing it, because the crime division and themisconduct division will each have their own assistant commissioner. They will operateindependently but share some core resources—some core administration costs, corporateservices type costs. They will also share some intelligence, which I think is sensible in thecircumstances. For example, some forms of major crime do not simply exist separately from whatconstitutes official misconduct. As the Leader of the Opposition would know, official misconduct isdefined as crime of certain kinds as well in this legislation.

By having them under the one roof but operating with some independence and sharingintelligence we will avoid separate commissions potentially investigating similar or the samethings, tripping over each other or, in the worst case scenario, actually interfering unwittingly ineach other's investigations. There are some real synergies from an investigatory point of view inhaving them under the one roof, while ensuring that, under the assistant commissionerresponsible for the separate divisions, they function substantially independently. We believe thatthat independence, that focus on the specific function that the member wants to occur, can stillbe achieved with this structure but with the added benefit of ensuring that they are alsocoordinated in their work.

In terms of resourcing for the respective divisions, I would expect that the member oppositewill see how they are resourced in the commission's annual reports. Of course, as an independentcommission, the commission will submit its own annual report to the parliament. In that annualreport he will see precisely how the commission allocates its resources according to the demandsfor investigation.

The focus on major crime and paedophilia is not weakened—on the contrary. As the Premierindicated prior to lunch, it was at the specific request of the Crime Commissioner, Mr Carmody,that we have crafted this so as to give the Crime Commission the flexibility to focus on thoseaspects of paedophilia and major and organised crime which are identified through thecommission's intelligence work as the priorities that require attention at the time. In some respectsthis is in response to the issues raised yesterday by the member for Gladstone, which I noted.Rather than having a standing reference on any particular form of crime, regardless of whetherthere is identified by the commission a substantial problem in that field, we are letting thecommission—still identifying paedophilia as one of the issues to be focused on—decide to whatextent it focuses its resources on crime at various levels. If it identifies in its intelligence work thatpaedophilia networks in Queensland are a major emerging problem, then it will have the flexibilityto focus on that. If drug or other major or organised crime is identified as a particular problem at atime in Queensland's history, then those are the resources that it will independently be able toapply to it.

I assume that the Leader of the Opposition is being a little flippant when he says that thegovernment is seeking to weaken or somehow wind back the functions that were separated—onthe contrary. He mentioned the Fitzgerald report. In a sense this is closer to the Fitzgerald modelthan the separate organisations model. In that respect if he wants to quote the Fitzgerald report, Ican tell him that this is much closer to the Fitzgerald model than the separate functions.

Apart from the overlap and coordination question that I mentioned, I actually think that thereis cause in principle for concern. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned having a commissionwith multiple tasks versus what I might describe as multiple commissions. We have a police forcein Queensland and, as this new act makes more clear, the primary function for investigatingwrongdoing is the responsibility of the Police Service. Matters that should go to the Crime andMisconduct Commission are matters that are exceptional or exceptionally serious. In addition, theCrime and Misconduct Commission in dealing with those more serious forms of crime or officialmisconduct will, I would imagine, provide a sort of template example of investigation standardsand performance to the Police Service so that the Police Service will draw from the commission'sown work, investigative styles and investigative techniques which are developed with a higherlevel of expertise in the commission itself. That was the intention that Fitzgerald had for theoriginal CJC: that the CJC would not just be a watchdog over police or public officers but that itwould actually conduct its own investigations in a way that provided a role model for qualityinvestigation of all offences in the state. I think that bringing together the experience of the twotypes of investigation will help the new commission create that role model.

I think there are potential risks to society generally, which this parliament obviously has aresponsibility to monitor, of having in effect multiple royal commissions standing out around theplace. Keeping these things operating according to established principle and established


protocols, making sure they report to a parliamentary committee and making sure they report tothe parliament, I think are important ways of ensuring that any commission with wide royalcommission type powers operates in the public interest.

From the government's perspective, we do genuinely want to respond to the opposition'sconcerns about ensuring that the focus, the quality of the investigation and the attention given tomajor crime, paedophilia and official misconduct is not lost in any respect by these newarrangements. But we do hope that the synergies that come from sharing some resources willenable both arms of that organisation to deliver more with the same dollars and as the dollarsincrease over the years, obviously like any other part of the Public Service. There are benefits inthe combined operation sharing some resources, including benefits of the research division.

The member opposite has raised some concerns about a handful of research staff comingacross to the Premier's Department. As I understand it, these people will work almost exclusivelyon criminal justice issues—that is, policy issues. They will not have access to any of theintelligence databases of the commission. Their role is to do what the shadow Attorney-Generalhas been asking the government to do in his questions in parliament over recent months—that is,get the government's act together in ensuring that across government we have data that gives ussome insight into how we deal with crime as a problem.

As members may know, there is already the Crime Prevention Unit within the Premier'sDepartment which focuses on the crime prevention strategy. Developing that strategy further andinnovating in terms of dealing with the broader crime problem in the community requires access todata. At the moment, there is not enough coordination across government—and there has neverbeen—for us to get the right sort of statistical information as distinct from criminal intelligenceinformation so that we can design better crime prevention strategies and crime prevention policiesacross government. That is the role of these expert researchers who have developed their skills inwhat is widely regarded as a very good research unit and who will continue to do that in aresearch division of the new commission that will continue to retain its independence andcontinue to report fearlessly and without favour on issues important to the functions of thecommission.

At the policy end, it is the responsibility of the government to respond with policy proposalsthat address what is happening in the community in relation to crime. That is what we are trying toachieve by getting some expertise into the Premier's Department. That will be available forwhoever may be in government at any time, but in the unit proposed in the Premier's Departmentwe need a mechanism in order to better coordinate the Justice Department, Corrective Services,the Police Service and any other statistical data that gives us an insight as to the characteristics ofthe crime problem in our state and how government can deal with it.

I simply say again that we are genuinely seeking to do precisely what those opposite aretrying to do. I understand their concerns. They will continue to press them, as is their right asmembers of the parliament, but they should not think for one moment that we are seeking in anyway to diminish the focus on these issues that may have existed under the separate bodies. Onthe contrary, as I have indicated, we are setting this system up to not only keep all the benefits ofthat independent operation of those respective roles but also to garner some additional benefitsthat will hopefully benefit each of those divisions with additional resources from the efficienciesthat can be achieved.

Mr HORAN: I appreciate the further explanation the minister has given. However, he did notanswer one question I asked—that is, in the budget papers will there be a delineation of howmuch money is provided to the two divisions? It would seem to me to be a fairly simplearrangement, because basically the commission is at the top and below the commission are thecrime division and the misconduct division. There needs to be proper scrutiny of that budgetprocess so that we can see what the misconduct division—basically, the CJC—gets so that wecan compare it to the $25 million it got previously. I want to know that.

I also want to make comment as to why these roles were split into two organisations in the1990s. I have a couple of excerpts from the Courier-Mail from December 1997. An article headed'Paedophile Files Held for Years' states—The CJC held on to alleged dirt files on possible paedophile activity for seven years before giving them to a specialpolice task force investigating paedophilia, the Kimmins inquiry was told yesterday.

That was one example. The member for Gladstone referred to a number of these issues. PeterCharlton also wrote an article at the same time and made the comment—


There seems little doubt that the CJC was hugely uninterested in paedophilia, believing it to be either outside itscharter or a matter for investigation by the police.

When we separated the organisations into two, the role of the Queensland Crime Commissionwas quite clear. I think that brought the spotlight and focus on the Crime Commission to attend tothat very identifiable task, as it did with the CJC.

The buck now stops at the top. Under this legislation there will be a chairperson and acommission that will have to oversee, manage and analyse double what they had to oversee,manage and analyse before. They will be assisted by two assistant commissioners who do nothave a voting right but who are able to sit on the commission. At the end of the day, instead offocusing purely on official misconduct and corruption they will have to focus on a far morecomplex and broad band of responsibilities. However, we on this side of the chamber will stick toour guns in believing that Queensland would be better served with two separate organisations,and I know that those opposite have a different point of view. We voted against this bill at thesecond reading stage. That will be the end of it. We are not going to divide on this clausebecause we have made our point and there is no point in dividing any further.

Mr WELFORD: Firstly in relation to the budgeting issue, we will take some advice fromTreasury about the appropriate way to present line items in the budget papers. However, my initialimpression would be that it is not at all common for a budget to be allocated for any governmentagency which then separately identifies divisions of that agency with separate budgets as such.The way to get that information—which, obviously, we will want as much as those opposite, andwe do not have any problem with it being public—is in the annual report of the agency.

When budgets are allocated to departments, occasionally there is a line item dealing withsome statutory authority that is attached to that agency or some separate allocation. The fundingwithin that agency, statutory authority or commission is not normally then broken down in thebudget paper itself. Rather, that comes out through the annual report. Be that as it may—and Iam saying that that is only my impression—we are happy to take Treasury advice, but I can onlyassume that it will be presented in a way that is proper and appropriate for the budget papers.There are standard formats, as the member knows, for how things are to be presented in thebudget papers. In terms of the main point the member made—namely, how is the budget beingallocated—we will want to know that, as will the responsible minister, currently the Premier, inorder to review its financial performance in the next couple of years.

Obviously, if the government of the day at any time thinks there is an inadequate focus onany particular issue it reserves the right to address that, whether by legislation or other appropriatemeans. We share the member's concern that none of the focus on the issues currently beingaddressed by the separate commissions is lost in their amalgamation. I am not sure of theveracity of the claims reported in the newspaper, referred to by the member, about the CJChaving not attended to paedophilia as an issue for a number of years or about information theCJC may have held in that regard. With the CJC, the Crime Commission, the Crime andMisconduct Commission or any other agency, I suppose there is always the risk of allegationsbeing made that there is some aspect of crime that is not being adequately addressed.

The attention paid to these issues is a function of the performance of the people, not afunction of structure. The structure does not determine whether those issues are promptly andadequately addressed. This legislation gives the crime division and the misconduct division of theCMC ample power to focus on all of those issues the member believes are important. We alsobelieve they are important. We do not believe there is anything in the nature of this structure thatwould inhibit that in the way that perhaps was the case with the CJC, because we believe thatwas quite different. Separate investigatory attention was not given to the issues of misconduct onone hand and organised crime, major crime and paedophilia on the other. That will be preservedunder this model. The CJC was set up at a time when the focus was predominantly on officialmisconduct. It came out of the Fitzgerald inquiry. It is understandable that at that time attentionwas primarily paid to misconduct within government, government agencies, the Police Serviceand so on, rather than to organised crime and major crime generally.

Under the new model we intend to preserve the benefits the member says were achieved byseparating the organisations. We agree with him about that, which is why we have beenespecially careful in crafting this new model to retain those separate, identifiable functions andretain the assistance of the assistant commissioner for the crime division—to maintain the focuson major and organised crime and paedophilia. That is why the legislation retains the referencesto those issues for that function.


I have done my best to persuade the Leader of the Opposition. He may harbour somecontinuing doubt. I assure him that we believe that all the things he wanted to achieve byretaining separate commissions will be delivered—and better—under the combined function.

Incidentally, this particular clause is inserted primarily to indicate from a statutoryinterpretation perspective that the two bodies continue as the new body. This provision ensuresthat there is transitional continuity. For example, where there is reference in Commonwealth orother legislation to the CJC or the Crime Commission it will be read as a reference to the newbody. That is the purpose of this clause. I have done my best to address the other issues raisedby the Opposition Leader.

Clause 220, as read, agreed to.Clauses 221 to 226, as read, agreed to.Clause 227—Mr HORAN (3.04 p.m.): Clause 227 deals with advertising and nominations for appointment.

I understand that this position has already been advertised. Could the minister confirm whetherthat is correct?

Mr Welford: I understand that it has been.Mr HORAN: I think that is a bit rich. The bill has not even been passed by the parliament.

There is no such position until this legislation is assented to. I guess the minister is banking onhaving it passed at the vote.

Mr Welford: We promise not to appoint anyone if the bill does not go through.

Mr HORAN: I have had a win. I have extracted that out of the minister. I understand that thegovernment is advertising already out of convenience and to maintain continuity, but this actiondoes show some disregard for the parliament. The government probably tends to think that it hasthe numbers and so the legislation will be passed, but I think the people who represent theelectorates of Queensland deserve at least the opportunity to debate and vote upon thesecontentious issues before the government moves ahead to the appointment process.

The appointment process could start virtually from the time of enactment. I can certainlyunderstand the need to put arrangements in place in a fairly timely fashion, because we aredealing with a fairly intense organisation that needs a head and assistant commissioners. Iunderstand the need to move quickly on these matters, but the parliament should be respected.

Mr WELFORD: We do respect the parliament, of course. The Leader of the Opposition isright on the hammer when he says that the reason for advertising promptly is to ensure continuityand to get on with making sure at least that a list of people is available should the legislation bepassed. We cannot and will not appoint anyone prior to parliament's consideration of the bill.

The advertisement itself specifically states that the filling of the position is subject to thepassage of the bill. We have acknowledged in the advertisement that the bill is yet to be passedby parliament. Obviously its effect proceeds subject to parliament's determination of the bill.

Clause 227, as read, agreed to.Clauses 228 and 229, as read, agreed to.Clause 230—Mr WELLINGTON (3.08 p.m.): I move amendment No. 1—

1. Clause 230(2)—

At page 146 line 19—

omit 'at least'

At page 146 line 20—

insert after section 225(a)—

'where the applicant has a demonstrated interest in civil liberties'.

Yesterday during the debate on this bill I asked the Premier to clarify the intent of the wordingused in clause 230(2). The Premier's comments are recorded in Hansard. As a result of that Imove the amendment.

Mr WELFORD: The government will accept the amendment moved by the member forNicklin. As the Premier pointed out, this clause was drafted to ensure that there was at leastsomeone among the part-time commissioners who would draw attention to issues affecting thecivil liberties of the citizens of the state. That is understandable for a commission with suchexceptional powers. The powers exercised by this commission, as is the case with the ones that


currently exist, are far beyond the normal police powers that are exercised on a day-to-day basisin the investigation of crime. Where these exceptional powers are used, I think it is veryappropriate that we have, across what is in effect the board of the commission, people with abreadth of experience in a number of areas, including civil liberties and citizens rights. I do notthink that the honourable member for Nicklin would disagree with that, but I understand theconcern he may have in relation to how many such people might be appointed. Given that thePremier has already indicated that it was only ever this government's intention to appoint oneperson in that form or representation anyhow, we are happy to accept the amendment.

Amendments agreed to.Clause 230, as amended, agreed to.Clauses 231 to 233, as read, agreed to.Clause 234—Mr WELFORD (3.10 p.m.): I move amendment No. 13 standing in the Premier's name—

13. Clause 234—

At page 148, lines 7 and 8—

omit, insert—

'(1) The commission may grant leave to a commissioner in accordance with entitlements available to thecommissioner under the commissioner's conditions of office.

'(2) However, only the Minister may grant extended leave to a commissioner.

'(3) In this section—

"extended leave" means—

(a) for the chairperson—leave of more than 10 business days; or

(b) for a part-time commissioner—leave of more than 20 business days.'.

This provides for the responsible minister to approve extended leave for the chairperson or part-time commissioners for periods of more than 10 or 20 business days respectively. It clarifies thatshorter-term leave—whether it be sick leave or annual leave—does not require ministerialapproval but longer-term leave does.

Mr HORAN: I wonder why this needs to be included. It seems a bit back to front. It seemsthat the commission can grant what the minister described as short-term leave and that only theminister may grant extended leave. Extended leave simply means leave of more than 10business days. How does the chairperson get a break of more than 10 business days? It justdoes not seem to make sense. Does he mean other than normal leave or normal long serviceleave? What is the point of this?

Mr WELFORD: I will clarify this a bit further for the Leader of the Opposition. The existingclause 234 basically says that the minister may grant leave of absence to a commissioner on theterms the minister considers appropriate. That would mean that every time a part-timecommissioner or the chair wanted one day off the minister would have to give approval. What weare saying here is that they have to get ministerial approval only when the leave is for longer than10 business days—that is effectively two weeks—for the chair or four weeks for a part-timecommissioner. So for short periods of leave the commission will be able to grant leave. This willsimply ensure that the minister needs only to deal with the matter to make sure that people keeptheir minds on the job and so that there are not extended periods of leave taken without someministerial oversight.

Amendment agreed to.Clause 234, as amended, agreed to.Clauses 235 to 239, as read, agreed to.Clause 240—Mr WELFORD (3.14 p.m.): I move amendment No. 14 standing in the Premier's name—

14. Clause 240—

At page 150, line 9, 'qualified'—

omit, insert—

'is qualified'.

It is obvious that the word 'is' was omitted from the bill before the House.Amendment agreed to.Clause 240, as amended, agreed to.





omit, insert—

'(2) Sections 242 and 243 5 do not apply to the appointment of a person to act as an assistant commissioner.'.

5 Sections 242 (Advertising and nominations for appointment) and 243 (Consultation before nominating personsfor appointment)

Again, this simply corrects incorrect references to sections and clarifies application of the clause tothe assistant commissioners.



Clause 257—Mr WELFORD (3.15 p.m.): I move amendment No. 16 standing in the Premier's name—

16. Clause 257—

At page 156, line 4, '254(4)'—

omit, insert—

'255(4)'.

Again, this is a correction of a section reference.


Clause 258—



omit, insert—

'(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to commission officers seconded under section 255 or engaged undersection 256.'.

This amendment simply corrects a technical omission. It clarifies that the superannuationschemes established by the commission do not apply to seconded officers, because they will becovered by their substantive position in the agency from which they are seconded. I think it is self-explanatory in that respect.



Clause 272—


At page 162, lines 9 to 13—

omit, insert—

'(2) The chairperson may authorise a police officer who is a member of a police task force established undersection 32 6 that is undertaking an investigation in cooperation with the commission to perform the functions of,exercise the powers of, or for any purpose to be, an authorised commission officer under a provision of this Act oranother Act.

'(3) An authorisation may be given on conditions and may impose limitations on the exercise of powers.'.

6 Section 32 (Police task forces and other operational agreements)

This section clarifies that police officers who are undertaking investigations with the commission ina task force are only authorised commission officers if the chairperson authorises them to be. Inother words, when they come onto a task force they get a special authorisation from the chair to


exercise the special powers that the new commission will have. It also provides that any limitationson those powers can be declared by the commission, as well as any other conditions.

The position currently in the bill would have meant that when someone came onto a taskforce they would have been automatically regarded as a commission officer at all times. And ofcourse, that would not be appropriate if their role with the commission was only on a temporarybasis. So this just clarifies that coming onto the task force does not empower them with all thepowers of the commission forever; it only gives them the right to exercise those powers allocatedto them by the commission for the period in which they participate in the task force.

Amendment agreed to.Clause 272, as amended, agreed to.Clause 273—Mr WELFORD (3.18 p.m.): I move amendment No. 19 standing in the Premier's name—

19. Clause 273—


insert—

'(5) In this section—

"commission officer" does not include—

(a) a police officer who is a member of a police task force established under section 32; 7 or

(b) a person engaged under section 256.8 '.

7 Section 32 (Police task forces and other operational agreements)

8 Section 256 (Engagement of agents)

Again, this follows on from the previous clause and clarifies the requirement to provide an identitycard. It does not apply to task force officers or persons engaged only temporarily to provideservices within the commission.


Clause 273, as amended, agreed to.Clauses 274 to 278, as read, agreed to.Clause 279—Mr WELFORD (3.19 p.m.): I move amendment No. 20 standing in the Premier's name—

20. Clause 279—

At page 165, lines 9 and 12, 'a person'—

omit, insert—

'an appropriately qualified person'.

This simply inserts the words 'an appropriately qualified person' in paragraphs (3) and (4) of thisclause. It clarifies that any delegate of the Commission for Children and Young People or theNational Crime Authority on the reference committee must be of a sufficient seniority andappropriately qualified. It ensures that all members of the crime division's reference committee willbe people with sufficient seniority to participate there.

Mr HORAN: Does this in any way prescribe those sorts of qualifications? The Commissionerfor Children and Young People would have been appointed through a prescriptive and selectiveprocess. While the person who will be nominated will be 'suitably qualified', as is stated here, doesthis legislation or schedule address the matter of suitable qualifications, or is that left to thediscretion of the Commissioner for Children?

Mr WELFORD: As is evident from the wording, we have simply flagged to those independentbodies that they should send someone who is appropriately qualified. In the case of theCommissioner for Children and Young People, it may well be the commissioner personally.However, we did not want it confined in that way because obviously in the case of the NationalCrime Authority we could not necessarily direct that the commissioner attend personally. However,we wanted to indicate or at least signal in the legislation that delegates nominated for thereference committee from those agencies should be people who are considered to beappropriately qualified, having regard to their functions and their contribution to the referencecommittee.

Amendment agreed to. Clause 279, as amended, agreed to.


Clauses 280 to 294, as read, agreed to. Clause 295—

Mr WELFORD (3.22 p.m.): I move amendment No. 21 standing in the name of thePremier—21. Clause 295—

At page 171, lines 22 and 23, after 'commission officer'—

insert—

'or former commission officer'.

After the words 'a commission officer' in paragraph (1), the additional words 'or former commissionofficer' are inserted. This simply ensures that if the parliamentary committee has to deal with theconduct of an officer of the commission, the mere fact that the officer has resigned does not putthe matter outside the jurisdiction of the parliamentary committee.



Clause 329—



insert—

' "commission officer" includes former commission officer.'.

This amendment has a similar effect, except that it relates to the duty to notify improper conduct.The duty applies not only to current commission officers but also to former commission officerswho would have reason to notify improper conduct from information gained while serving as anofficer.



Clause 355—


At page 201, lines 19 to 23—

omit, insert—

'(1) Each referral to the crime commission by the management committee under the repealed Crime CommissionAct 1997 is taken to be a referral of major crime to the commission by the reference committee under this Actsubject to any limitations imposed by the management committee under the repealed Crime Commission Act 1997.

'(2) However, the standing reference to investigate criminal paedophilia mentioned in section 46(7) of the repealedCrime Commission Act 1997 ended on that Act's repeal.'.

This amendment ensures that during the period of transition to the new agency the references ofthe Crime Commission will be maintained. In other words, the mere creation of the new Crime andMisconduct Commission does not allow the existing Crime Commission to cease performing anyfunctions or any projects in which it is currently engaged. I think that clarifies the primary point.

Mr HORAN: One matter that needs to be placed on the record relates to the standingreference. This amendment deletes the standing reference on paedophilia which has been inplace. The transition from the act covering the Queensland Crime Commission to this actspecifically deletes or ends the standing reference. I questioned the Premier about this during thedebate on previous clauses and I think he said that it was a recommendation of the CrimeCommissioner that the commission look at specific references all the time.

A standing reference must have been put in place for a good reason. Paedophilia exists allthe time and I would have thought that a standing reference would provide the commission withthe immediate ability to investigate something that has been brought to its attention or allow it tohave ongoing, non-stop investigation of paedophilia throughout the state. I wonder whether the


elimination of this standing reference will reduce in any way the effectiveness of investigations orthat standing ability to undertake whatever investigations are necessary into paedophilia at anytime. It is a matter of concern to me. The standing reference must have been a useful tool for thecommission in its fight against paedophilia. However, that standing reference has gone. I thinkthe Premier said that there is the ability to bring it back, but I am somewhat concerned about thisand I would like to hear the minister's comments.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Continuing on this same matter, I also heard the Premier say thatthe deletion of the standing reference was done at the request of the Crime Commissioner. WhilstI would not undermine or in any way criticise the work that he has done or the basic backgroundfor his comments, speaking on behalf of the community I would have to say that the majority ofpeople would support the retention of that standing reference.

Paedophilia is insidious and its existence is well known and, in some cases, documented.The reason for the original standing reference was not to allow the Crime Commission toinvestigate it but to place an obligation on the Crime Commission to investigate it. Prior to thattime, the problem with the Criminal Justice Commission was that its other responsibilities hadtaken up its time and there was no opportunity for it to concentrate on paedophilia. In the interim,quite serious incidents had occurred. Fortunately, they had been uncovered and charges hadbeen laid. However, the reason for the standing reference was to put in place an obligation, and Isupport the retention of that obligation.

The intention to repeal that standing reference is probably one of the more disappointingaspects of this bill. The Premier said that there is the opportunity for the committee to reinstate areference for paedophilia. I believe that the standing reference gave that crime against childrenthe importance that it deserved and the focus that it deserved, and I firmly believe it should beretained.

Mr WELFORD: I understand the point that the member for Gladstone and the Leader of theOpposition make on this matter. It is understandable also, in a general sense, that they see thisissue as serious and important. But I will make a couple of comments to, hopefully, clarify whatwe are doing. The first thing to say is that the Crime Commissioner, Mr Carmody, specificallyasked that we draft this legislation in this way to ensure that all current references, includingpaedophilia references, are retained. Any current work being done in relation to paedophiliacrimes will continue and are preserved by this particular section. All it simply says is that, as amatter of statutory drafting, there is not to continue a standing reference in the legislation,because all references should be made—whether that be paedophilia or any other equallyimportant crime problem in the community—from the reference committee which, of course, asthe members know, consists of all the significant people involved in surveillance and who areaware of, or likely to be aware of, the major crime problems.

The other aspect is that the reason for the standing reference previously was not so much tooblige the Crime Commission to investigate it in an ongoing way but to specifically trigger itsinvestigation of that issue at a time when the parliament believed that not sufficient attention wasbeing given to it. So a specific reference was made to paedophilia in the legislation to create thatinitial trigger. That trigger and all its benefits will not be lost, because all the things that thecommission is currently doing will be retained as references by paragraph 1 of this section, exceptthat any new work that it does in relation to paedophilia or anything else will be the subject ofspecific reference from the reference committee.

I want to reinforce to the parliament and place on record that in no way does the differentdrafting in this legislation indicate any intention for the new CMC to take its eye off the game forone moment in terms of making sure that this issue that the member raised is addressed. It issimply a different drafting mechanism that is seen by the Crime Commissioner himself to be abetter way for the commission to be able to identify areas of need and to ensure that all of thoseon the reference committee address it by specific reference rather than simply having it as astanding investigation.

To the extent that the commission cleans up some of these issues with existinginvestigations, it may or may not have an investigation right here and now to pursue. So in thatregard, having a standing reference in the legislation really does not have much benefit. It cannotbe obliged, to use the member's words, to investigate something of which it does not haveinformation. But it is understandable that in the previous legislation we put it in as a separatestatutory standing reference, because at that time we wanted to trigger a specific intention notonly to investigate individual cases of this problem but also to look at it systemically.


As the member knows, the Crime Commission submitted a report—at least one report—inrelation to the general nature of the problem and how to address it. It did a research project inrelation to the problem as well. That was in response to that initial statutory reference. All theintelligence that it has gathered in relation to that research and in relation to the investigationsthat it is pursuing—and which, by this legislation, it is expressly required to continue, becausethose references are continuing—it will continue to have access to and draw upon to makeimmediate references from the reference committee when it identifies that further investigationsare required. In that respect, all the concerns that the member has about ensuring that the issueremains prominent to the reference committee's attention will be allayed. Certainly, that is whatthe Crime Commissioner has indicated by requesting this legislation to be drafted in this way.

Mr HORAN: I thank the minister for that explanation, but I would just like to pursue this a littlefurther. I would like the minister to tell us what the advantage is of a standing reference onpaedophilia as compared to a system of individual references. I would have thought that, in termsof paedophilia, that needs to be investigated generically all the time. It might not necessarily bereported through that strata of systems—through the reference committee—that paedophilia isout there. If this organisation has a standing reference, then it would be investigating paedophiliaall the time through whatever channels paedophilia may be operating. I do not know which linesthe investigators would take, but maybe they would have in place all the time a trawlingmechanism.

A standing reference probably gives Queensland and our children a greater chance ofprotection, because the investigation is going all the time. However, with individual references, aninvestigation is undertaken when a particular allegation or complaint has been made and hascome through the system. Could the minister confirm that that is the advantage of a standingreference—that it means that at all times they are investigating? They might not have a casebefore them, but they might then be trawling through certain computer systems, certainpublications or whatever other avenues that the experienced investigators say that they should begoing through to act as a deterrence so that the paedophiles know that that investigation is on allthe time in Queensland.

Mr WELFORD: The first point is this: when the parliament put the statutory provision for astanding reference on paedophilia in the original Crime Commission Act, that was done notbecause it was seen to have any particular benefit over any other way of dealing with that issue,that is, that the management committee under the existing Crime Commission Act could havemade that reference. But at the time, obviously, the Crime Commission and its managementcommittee, operating independently, could not be compelled by the government of the day toaddress paedophilia. The only way that it could be required specifically to address that was bystatutory reference.

Of course, some things have happened since then. The Crime Commission has reported onProject Access, the Forde inquiry has reported and, as a result, we have established theCommission for Children and Young People. We believe that the combination of work done on aday-to-day basis by the Police Service and the systemic work done by the Commission forChildren and Young People will do those ongoing trawling functions that the member identified.

It should be remembered that in this legislation we are reiterating that the primaryresponsibility for the day-to-day investigation of crime should be with the Police Service. Wherethe special powers of the CMC are required, they will still be able to be activated promptly toaddress any issues that are identified by the Police Service, whose representative is on thereference committee to the Crime Commission, or the Commission for Children and YoungPeople, whose delegate will be on the reference committee.

Now that those things are on the agenda, I think that the legal effect is that there is noadvantage of a statutory standing reference. At the time the original legislation was formulatedthere was an advantage, because that was the only way we could guarantee that it would get onthe agenda because we, the parliament, could not direct the management committee. But nowthat that issue is already on the agenda, now that there is a separate Commission for Childrenand Young People established with an obvious role in monitoring that on an ongoing basisthrough its research and community based activities and the Police Service still has a role, thenany additional work that is required can be triggered by the reference committee at any time,because that reference committee will have the benefit of the Police Service delegate and theCommission for Children and Young People delegate on the reference committee.

That is why the Crime Commissioner, Mr Carmody, suggested that it was no longernecessary for it to be a statutory reference, because it is on the agenda. We had a statutory


reference before because that was the only way that it could be put on the agenda in a formalsense. I suppose that the government of the day could have left it to the managementcommittee and then written and asked it to put paedophilia on the agenda. The one sure way toget it onto the agenda was to specify it as one of its responsibilities in the act. That is notnecessary now. The Crime Commissioner does not think it is necessary. The other agencies arethere to ensure that any new or emerging problems are put on the agenda. This legislationprovides the mechanism for that to occur through the reference committee.

Mr HORAN: The minister has given a good explanation. As he explained, there was a timewhen a standing reference was necessary. There was a feeling in the community and in thisparliament that the task of investigating paedophilia was not being undertaken satisfactorily inaccordance with the wishes of us, the people's representatives. We hold Mr Carmody in highregard and we take note of that. However, ultimately we have a responsibility to put in place thethings that we think are necessary. The minister's explanation has been sound. I would like toknow whether there is still an opportunity for a standing reference, if it is required. Under thislegislation, does the reference committee itself have the ability to do that or can it be done only ina legislative way by inserting it into the bill as an amendment? Is there the capacity to again havea standing reference if it is ever felt necessary by delegates to the reference committee, thecommission itself or this parliament?

Mr WELFORD: Certainly the delegates to the reference committee can, by a decision of thereference committee, make it a standing reference. Normally, the term 'standing reference' arisesonly because it is put in statute. If the Leader of the Opposition means the practical effect ofensuring that it remains a constant issue for the commission to investigate and monitor, underthis legislation the reference committee certainly has the power to do that, yes. That reinforces mypoint: because it is already on the agenda and the reference committee can make it a standingitem on its agenda for ongoing monitoring and investigation, the reference in the legislation is nolonger necessary.



Insertion of new clause—

Mr WELFORD (3.44 p.m.): I move amendment No. 24 standing in the Premier's name—24. After clause 376—


insert—

' 376A Transitional provision about change in way powers may be exercised

'(1) This section applies if, before the commencement, an officer of the criminal justice commission or theQueensland crime commission was authorised under any Act or law or rule of practice to exercise a power inrelation to a person or thing and this Act—

(a) changes the way the power may be exercised; or

(b) provides that the power may be exercised by a commission officer, however described.

'(2) The exercise of the power after the commencement is not unlawful only because the officer—

(a) exercises it in accordance with the Act, law or rule of practice in force immediately before thecommencement; or

(b) has not been formally authorised or appointed under this Act to exercise the power as a commission officer.

'(3) This section expires 14 days after it commences.'.

This amendment inserts new clause 376A, which is drawn from a similar transition clause used inthe Police Powers and Responsibilities Act to ensure that there can be no doubt about theexercise of powers of commission officers for a short period of 14 days. This provision allows forpowers to be exercised in a period while the commission executes the paperwork for all officers tobe appropriately authorised under the bill. In effect, it provides that if an officer is appropriatelyqualified, they continue to be so qualified for all purposes under this new legislation and for thepurposes of the new commission. This is particularly important in areas such as witnessprotection, which, of course, is an ongoing function required to be carried out seven days a week.It means that once this legislation comes into effect, if there is any residual paperwork required forthe commission to specifically authorise functions or powers to any of its officers, their existingpowers will continue until the paperwork finishes, so long as it is done within 14 days. It gives


them 14 days to make sure that all the paperwork is done so that they can continue their currentfunctions.

Mr HORAN: I put on record that this seems a sensible transitional provision. It is aboutprotecting the officers of the commission when undertaking their duties over a period of 14 days.Hopefully in that time every 'i' will be dotted and 't' crossed. It means that they can continue inconfidence that what they are doing is in accordance with the transitional provisions of thelegislation that we are currently debating.

Amendment agreed to.Clause 377, as read, agreed to.

Schedule 1—Mr WELFORD (3.46 p.m.): I move amendment No. 25 standing in the Premier's name—

25. Schedule 1—

At page 241, line 12, 'on'—

omit, insert—

'of'.

This is a straightforward correction of a word. The amendment changes the word 'on' to 'of', whichobviously it should be when one reads the definition of 'witness protection officer'.


Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.Schedule 2—

Mr WELFORD (3.47 p.m.): I move amendments Nos 26 and 27 standing in the Premier'sname— 26. Schedule 2—


omit, insert—

'(f) a police officer authorised by the chairperson under section 272(2).9 '.

9 Section 272 (Authorised commission officer)

27. Schedule 2—


insert—

' "data surveillance device" means any instrument, apparatus, equipment, program or other thing capable of beingused to record or monitor, other than through visual recording or monitoring, the input of information into, or theoutput of information from, a computer.'.

Again, this is consistent with the previous amendments that we have discussed. It ensures that atask force officer is authorised only to the extent that they have specific authorisation from thechair. It clarifies that the extent of their authorisation is as defined by the chairperson. It makes itconsistent with the previous amendments we have discussed.

Mr HORAN: I want to be absolutely sure about amendment 27. The Premier referred to thisearlier in the debate when I asked him where there was reference to the fact that we have newinterception powers for computer systems. I believe that this deals with that.

Mr Welford: That is right.

Mr HORAN: The amendment states—"data surveillance device" means any instrument, apparatus, equipment, program or other thing ... other thanthrough visual recording or monitoring, the input of information into, or the output of information from, a computer.

From memory, I think it went with something further along in the schedule on page 253. Itreferred to—

Mr Welford: Surveillance device.

Mr HORAN: The data surveillance device, on line 15 of page 253. That is satisfactory.

Mr WELFORD: Just for the record, the Leader of the Opposition has correctly identified thatthis definition of 'data surveillance device' is inserted for the purpose of making clear what thereference is to that type of device in the second schedule's definition of 'surveillance device',which for crime investigation also includes other things such as a listening device, visualsurveillance device, tracking device and so forth.

3246 Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 31 Oct 2001

Amendments agreed to. Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Third ReadingBill, on motion of Mr Welford, by leave, read a third time.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AMENDMENT BILLSecond Reading

Resumed from 17 October (see p. 2911). Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (3.51 p.m.): At the outset, I indicate in the

strongest possible terms that the opposition will be completely opposing the bill before theparliament, and we do so because it is regressive legislation that winds back the clock inQueensland such that, basically, we will have no real access to freedom of informationwhatsoever.

Government members interjected.

Mr SPRINGBORG: Interestingly, at some stage in their metamorphosis to a Laborparliamentary career government members probably believed in openness andaccountability—and even civil liberties—yet today they will vote en masse to wind back freedom ofinformation access in this state for a whole range of people who have been able to make use ofthat over a long period. Cabinet members opposite, who probably sat impotent in cabinet andwatched this go through, ought to be ashamed of themselves. And no doubt they will try toexplain this away in all sorts of weird and wonderful ways, but I am afraid the explanations arefalling on deaf ears in the community. The media, community organisations and individuals donot believe them. There is no other way of stating it: this legislation is significantly curtailing theaccess of the people of Queensland to freedom of information.

Ms Boyle: How?

Mr SPRINGBORG: What about time charging? I am very surprised that somebody whoprofesses to be as worldly as the member for Cairns would be asking, 'How?' The simple reality isthat charging somebody $20 an hour for the search for and compilation of information will curtailtheir access to freedom of information. There is no doubt about that. The concerns raised in thecommunity are legitimate and deserve to be taken into consideration.

The Beattie government was elected in this state, just as the Goss government was, Isuppose, on the bandwagon of providing a new start. A lot of things that happened when WayneGoss came into power in Queensland in 1989 were already starting to be put into place followingthe Fitzgerald process—the Criminal Justice Commission, the Electoral and Administrative ReviewCommission and also the precursors to freedom of information. At that stage, it was felt that,whilst these things might have been some sort of impediment to government in the way it hadoperated at that stage, these accountability and transparency mechanisms needed to be put intoplace. This winds them back. Whilst there were legitimate and justifiable exemption provisions inthe Freedom of Information Bill which became legislation in this parliament originally—and I thinksome of that had been abused—it has continued to offer reasonable access to information notonly for individuals in the community but also for organisations and the media. I do not believethat in any way we should be concerned about providing information to the community. It is notthe release of the information which is the problem; it is the attempt to cover up that informationwhich is the real problem.

During the course of my contribution I intend to outline some of the abuses which havehappened through the FOI process but they were not as bad as the abuse we are going to seeperpetrated on the people of Queensland today by the introduction of this time chargingarrangement, which will wind back access to freedom of information. I ask members opposite fortheir support for an amendment I will move later today. I am not silly enough to stand in this placeand concede that the government does not have the numbers to pass this legislation. The six toone rule will ensure that that will happen. Of course, the backbenchers are prepared to see thathappen, because they are intoxicated by the power and the extraordinary opportunity that theysee forthcoming with an absolute majority—an unhealthy majority in this parliament. However, ifthey are going to pass this legislation today, they should consider those people who currently

31 Oct 2001 Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 3247

have FOI applications before the various government agencies and quasi-government agenciesaround Queensland. Those people should not be impacted upon retrospectively by the bill we aredebating today.

I will be moving an amendment to make sure that the provisions of the bill will apply only toapplications lodged after the date of commencement. That is something which is not clear. Thereal problem that I see—it is unclear; I do not think it is picked up at all in the bill—is that, quiteconceivably, with the passage of this bill there is still a capacity for those people who havesubmitted applications in good faith prior to the date of commencement of the operation of thislegislation to be charged at $20 an hour or whatever the final prescribed fee might be. Thereshould be no doubt whatsoever that the provisions of this bill, which will become legislation today,tonight or perhaps even tomorrow will not apply to those applications. If government membershave any honour whatsoever, they will support that amendment. I have circulated myamendment. It should be on the Attorney-General's desk now. I asked for it to be circulated at thestart of my contribution so that the government has time to consider it. I believe it is drafted insuch a way that it meets the aspirations and objectives I have outlined.

From the concern which has been raised in the community and also in the media over thelast couple of months we do know that there is a great degree of concern about theseamendments and what they might deliver. The government has professed a degree of public andgovernment consultation on these amendments and has so sought to justify its passage. Thoseindications of consultation do not in any way indicate to me a great degree of effusive publicsupport. Certainly, there is not a great degree of support in the media, either. The reason for thatis that the bill curtails the real and reasonable access of people to information.

The letter that I tabled in the parliament this morning bears some degree of study byhonourable members. It indicates that the Information Commissioner was not consulted and thatthe Information Commissioner has a great number of legitimate concerns that should have beenconsidered by this government before bringing forward the amendments to the freedom ofinformation legislation before the House. For the benefit of honourable members, I intend to readevery single word of that letter into Hansard so that people who sit back and critically analysetoday's debate have the opportunity to understand what has been said by a range of people, andparticularly the Information Commissioner, who is the circuit-breaker to ensure that thegovernment does not abuse the various exemption clauses available in the Freedom ofInformation Act.

We are dealing here with the independent statutory officer who has the responsibility toensure that all of those exemption clauses are in no way abused. I also have other letters herewhich would indicate that, notwithstanding a reasonable argument from the InformationCommissioner in his remonstrations to freedom of information officers to consider releasingcertain information under section 28—things that have been declared not available for releaseunder section 36, which is the cabinet exemption because they were superfluous or not reallyconsequential to the cabinet process—the FOI officers, no doubt acting in accordance with theintent of the government, had very much ignored that. I think that is very, very sad.

In regard to the abuse of the freedom of information process, over the past few months inthis state we have seen the government refuse to release any documents whatsoever dealingwith transition to government—some 6,000 or more documents in the Premier's Departmentalone, and all of the other documents in the other government departments. Despite the fact thatwhen he became Premier in 1998 Peter Beattie said there was no way on earth that he wouldassent to those particular transition to government documents being taken to cabinet andtherefore locked up for 30 years, that is precisely what happened after February of this year. Wehave now seen a litany of the same sort of thing with regard to the footbridge—and I havedocumentation here that I will refer to if I have time—and also with regard to Lang Park. In thecase of Lang Park, the Local Government Minister and her colleagues took 700-odd documents,which are probably superfluous to the cabinet process, to cabinet to keep them free from publicand media scrutiny.

I do not know how members of the government can sit there and think that that isacceptable. The cabinet process and the cabinet exemption process are very important parts ofgovernment insofar as freedom of information is concerned, because we need to be able to havefree and robust debate and discussion within cabinet. But that does not mean that thegovernment should abuse the process and virtually wheel into the cabinet room any number ofdocuments on trolleys and wheelbarrows just to take them away from public scrutiny. Whilst in 30


years time it is going to be superfluous to today's debate, the government has breached a very,very important principle.

In his letter to the Attorney-General dated 29 October the Information Commissioner said thisabout the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill—

Mr Welford interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: No, this was released legitimately, as I understand it, through LCARC.

Mr Welford interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: This was released legitimately with the consent of that particular

committee. I think it is important.

I note what the Premier said this morning. He said that the views of the InformationCommissioner are probably superfluous to government consideration because we are dealingwith policy matters on charging and those sorts of things. That is a view I do not accept. I haveread the Information Commissioner's concerns. I think he puts a legitimate case as to why thatshould not be accepted, as to why he had a legitimate role in advising the government on issuesof concern that it should consider when implementing a time charging regime with regard tofreedom of information. He said—I anticipate that you are prepared to consider submissions from interested parties while the Freedom of InformationAmendment Bill 2001 ... lies on the table of Parliament. I would like to draw your attention to a number of issuesconcerning the FOIA Bill. I note that, although the explanatory notes to the ... Bill state that there has beenconsultation within Government on the Bill, the Office of the Information Commissioner ... was not afforded theopportunity for consultation.

The OIC has an interest in principled policy with respect to the Freedom of Information Act 1992 Qld ... and theFreedom of Information Regulation 1992 Qld ... and also in making sure that amendments to the FOI Act and FOIRegulation provide for a scheme that can be effectively administered. Ensuring that the scheme will work from thestart is better than the OIC having to draw attention (in subsequent decisions, or reports to Parliament) to practicaldifficulties in the administration of the FOI Act.

So therein is a very strong case for the involvement of the Information Commissioner from theoutset, that is, that he or his successor—and it could be a lady at some future time—has to dealwith issues that might arise. They have to adjudicate on those particular matters. Therefore, theyare aware of the practical issues and should at least be consulted. The letter goes on—It is not possible for me to gain a full perspective on the nature of the changes proposed to the fees and chargesregime, or to fully assess their effectiveness, without access to the proposed consequential amendments to the FOIRegulation.

I am surprised that honourable members can sit over there and guffaw and say that this is notgoing to adversely affect them, particularly when they argue that they are on the side of thebattlers and people who can ill afford these sorts of charges. The letter goes on—I should be most grateful for the opportunity to examine, and offer comment upon, the terms of proposedamendments to the FOI Regulation when they are available. In the meantime, I respectfully submit the followingremarks on the FOIA Bill for your consideration.

...

The proposed new s.109(3)(e) and s.109(4)(b) contained in cl.6—

and I am not talking specifically about the clauses, but this is the only way that I can get this letterinto Hansard—

Mr Welford: You could ask the Speaker about incorporating it.

Mr SPRINGBORG: I have an hour.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr McNamara): Order! I understand that the member has consulted

the Speaker and has been declined leave to incorporate it, but he can use his time now as hechooses.

Mr SPRINGBORG: All I was going to do by incorporating it was save talking for an hour. But Iam happy to read it, plus a few little titbits about the commissioner's report. That will probably takeall of my time. The letter goes on—The proposed new s.109(3)(e) and s.109(4)(b) contained in cl.6 ... expressly contemplate that search and retrieval,third party consultation, decision-making et cetera must be charged at a single hourly rate. The Premier has beenquoted as saying that charges would be levied at the rate of $20 per hour. Cl.6 of the FOIA Bill (specifically thewording of the proposed new s.109(4)(b) of the FOI Act) would appear to preclude the implementation by regulationof any charging regime inconsistent with one based on a fixed hourly rate.

I think the commissioner points out good reason for the consideration of this. It goes on—


The proposed changes are apparently modelled on the charging scheme under the Freedom of Information of Act1982 Cth ... and the Freedom of Information (Fees and Charges) Regulations Cth ... notwithstanding the considerablecriticism of that scheme contained in Chapter 14 of the joint report "Open government: a review of the federalFreedom of Information Act 1982" by the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Commonwealth AdministrativeReview Council. The joint report recommended an alternative charging regime using a fixed scale of chargesaccording to the number of documents to which access is granted. (The scale would be set to reflect the averagetime involved in processing a request for differing numbers of documents by a competent FOI administrator in anagency with reasonably efficient records management systems.)

As you know, the Legal Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee ... of the Legislative Assembly has areference to review the operations of the FOI Act, including fees and charges.

I respectfully suggest that it would be preferable for the government to request LCARC to submit to the LegislativeAssembly and to yourself, as soon as possible, a separate report on item (vi) (fees and charges) of the Terms ofReference for LCARC's current review of the FOI Act, and for the government to reconsider cl.5, cl.6 and theSchedule to the FOIA Bill in light of LCARC's report and recommendations in respect of fees and charges. (Clauses1-4 of the FOIA Bill could proceed through Parliament in the meantime.)

In the event that the government is not prepared to consider alternative charging regimes at this time, I recommendthat the proposed s.109(4) be amended to allow for other charging regimes such as one based on the number ofdocuments sought. This will allow the government to consider other charging regimes should the hourly chargeregime prove inequitable.

I also recommend the addition of a clause to the FOIA Bill to introduce an amendment to the FOI Act which mirrorss.3(2) of the Commonwealth FOI Act, viz

(2) It is the intention of the Parliament that the provisions of this Act shall be interpreted so as to further the objectset out in subsection (1) and that any discretions conferred by this Act shall be exercised as far as possibleso as to facilitate and promote, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost, the disclosure of information.

By that, the Information Commissioner is indicating that it is not clear enough that the chargingregime is not going to be a detriment or a deterrent to those people reasonably seeking access tofreedom of information in Queensland. The letter continues—Such a provision should discourage agencies from charging for an exorbitant number of hours of search becausethey have inadequate records management and retrieval processes or inefficient FOI decision makers.

...

Relevant decisions of the superior courts have held that only natural persons (as distinct from bodies corporate)are capable of having 'personal affairs' as that term is used in the context of the FOI Act, and have also drawn adistinction between the affairs of an individual that compromise his/her 'personal affairs', and those which do not.(The relevant authorities were collected and analysed in Re Stewart and Department of Transport (1993) 1 QAR227.)

While there is a considerable grey area at the margins of what is comprehended within the ambit of 'personalaffairs', in general the term 'personal affairs' refers to the private aspects of a person's life, rather than to any publicactivity or occupation in which a person engages. Thus, an individual's business or employment affairs ordinarilyfall outside the ambit of his/her 'personal affairs'.

While it is appropriate for the term 'personal affairs' to be the touchstone for provisions aimed at protection of anindividual's privacy interest (i.e., s.44 and Part 4 of the FOI Act), the employment of that term in the two othercontexts in which it is used in the FOI Act (i.e., s.6, and the fees and charges regime) is unnecessarily restrictiveand productive of disproportionate uncertainty, confusion and disputation in the administration of the FOI Act.

No problem is posed when a body corporate is the applicant for access under the FOI Act since a body corporate isincapable of having personal affairs, and hence no documents to which it seeks access are capable of beingdocuments concerning the personal affairs of the body corporate.

However, the experience of the OIC has been that the majority of access applications are made by individualsengaged in a dispute with government (including grievance/disciplinary matters involving public sectoremployees), or in a dispute with other individuals or organisations in which the government has become involved(usually in a law enforcement, regulatory, or other complaint-handling role). The documents to which they seekaccess most commonly comprise some documents which concern the applicant's personal affairs and some whichdo not. Under the charging regime proposed in cl.5 and cl.6 of the FOIA Bill, agencies would be entitled to chargeby the hour for processing the latter group of documents, but could make no charge for processing the former. Eachdocument covered by the terms of an access application would have to be carefully examined to ascertain whetheror not it contained any information about the applicant's personal affairs: see Re Price and Surveyor's Board ofQueensland (1997) 4 QAR 181 at p. 190. This represents a considerable demand on the time of primary leveladministrators and review officers.

Unfortunately, many members of the public who use the FOI Act have considerable difficulty in understanding oraccepting:

(a) that the courts have distinguished between documents relating to an individual's 'personal affairs' (as thatterm is used in the context of the FOI Act) and those relating to other affairs of the individual such as businessor employment related matters; and

(b) the fact that a document of general application, which has been applied in such a manner as to affect anindividual's affairs, does not thereby become a document that concerns that individual's personal affairs.

Understandably, many applicants believe that if a document is about any aspect of their affairs, or is a document ofgeneral application that has been applied in a way that has personally affected them, they should be entitled toaccess the document free of charge.


That means that people believe that if they have been mentioned in a document and it is apersonal matter they should be able to access it for free. The letter continues—In the past eight and a half years, this has usually only given rise to disputes over whether or not a $30 applicationfee is payable, but the OIC has still averaged about a dozen cases a year disputing agency decisions in thatregard. I anticipate—

and these are key points—a very substantial increase when substantially higher amounts of money are at stake, i.e., When applicants arenotified that they have to pay $20 an hour for the processing of documents which they believe concern theirpersonal affairs.

It is recommended that individuals (as distinct from bodies corporate) should be entitled to obtain access, free ofcharge, to documents containing information about their affairs (not just their 'personal affairs', as presentlyinterpreted by the courts).

It is submitted that such a scheme is to be preferred for the following reasons:

it would be fairer to citizens,

it will result in considerable savings in the time and resources that need to be expended by FOIadministrators in deciding whether or not fees and charges are properly payable,

it would remove a significant source of disputation and claims of unfairness in the administration of the FOIAct,

it would, in practical terms, be consistent with the position under the Commonwealth FOI Act, which definespersonal information to mean any information about an identifiable individual.

It would appear from that that the Commonwealth regime, which has been quoted by thePremier, the Attorney-General and others in parliament and outside to justify what thegovernment is doing, is far fairer in its application of fees for work performed by agencies than thislegislation. The letter continues—The Commonwealth Act provides for a differential charging regime based on whether an access application relatesto a document that contains personal information about the applicant. However, it would be preferable not tointroduce the terminology of 'personal information' into the Queensland FOI Act for so long as it is proposed toretain 'personal affairs' as the touchstone for the application of s.44(1) and the Part 4 amendment provisions.

To implement my proposal, it would be necessary to amend cl.5 of the FOIA Bill so that the proposed new s. 29 ofthe FOI Act was in the following terms:

29. Fees and charges for access to document

(1) a regulation may require—

(a) an individual who applies for access to a document that contains no information about his or her affairs;and

(b) a person other than an individual who applies for access to a document;

to pay:

(i) an application fee at the time the application is made; and

(ii) a charge at the time required under the regulation.

(2) A fee or charge may be waived or remitted only under this Act.

There would also need to be consequential changes wherever the term 'personal affairs' is used in the FOIA Bill.

The current s. 27(5) of the FOI Act should be amended rather than omitted.

The Schedule to the FOIA Bill would add to s. 7 of the FOI Act a definition of 'charge' which provides that 'charge'does not include an application fee under s. 29(1) of the FOI Act. The Schedule would also omit s. 27(5) of the FOIAct.

It appears to be an intended consequence of inserting the definition of 'charge' that the proposed new s. 29A, s.29B,s.29C and s.29D would not apply to an agency decision requiring the payment of an application fee.

In these circumstances, s.27(5) of the FOI Act should not be omitted, but should be amended to confine its ambit toa requirement that, where an application fee has not been tendered as required, agencies and Ministers must notifythe access applicants that the application fee is payable. The current s.27(5) required such notification to be givenin respect of both application fees and access charges: see Re Allanson and QTTC (1997) 4 QAR 219 at paragraphs11-19. I recommend that the Schedule to the FOIA Bill should amend s.27(5) as follows:

(5) If the agency or Minister decides that the applicant is liable to pay an application fee under s.29(1) inrelation to an access application, the agency or Minister must notify the applicant in writing of the decision torequire payment of an application fee.

The Information Commissioner indicates—General

I do not know if the consequential amendments to the FOI Regulation are to be modelled on the Commonwealth FOIRegulation. Whether they are or not, I should be grateful for the chance to examine the proposed amendments to theFOI Regulation and to comment upon their effectiveness from the perspective of:

fairness to applicants


reducing resource demands on FOI administrators

suggesting other improvements to the scheme based on the experience and expertise of this Office.

I and my senior staff would be happy to discuss any of the issues raised in this letter with you, and/or yourDepartmental officers with responsibility for the FOIA Bill.

I intend to forward a copy of this letter to the Chair of LCARC so that LCARC is aware of the issues I have raised inrespect of the FOIA Bill.

Yours faithfully

DJ Bevan

Information Commissioner

I believe that the Information Commissioner has raised a number of extremely legitimateconcerns which have not to date been addressed by government. I hope that in his reply to thedebate the Attorney-General will at least attempt to address some of those issues, because theyare valid.

The Information Commissioner is a person who has a very clear and proper interest in thislegislation, and I am most concerned that the government has not seen fit to consult with himdirectly during the drafting of this bill being considered by parliament today. It is totallyinappropriate that the government did not afford him the common decency of an opportunity torespond in any sort of meaningful way.

Accountability and transparency in government are things we all say that we subscribe to. Atthe end of the day, it is our actions which are judged. The actions of this government will not bejudged very favourably as a result of what it seeks to do through this legislation. What is wrongwith providing the people of Queensland with an opportunity to continue to enjoy the current levelof access to information? I have not heard one legitimate argument from the government as towhy we should be seeking to curtail people's access.

The government talks about fishing expeditions on the part of applicants. Some people maymake frivolous or vexatious applications, but those sorts of people do exist in the world. Themajority of people who use the freedom of information process do so to gain information whichthey should justifiably have access to. What is wrong with that? There must be other ways to getaround the problem of frivolous or vexatious applications. The government could have tightenedsection 28 or section 29 to limit the encumbrance on government of frivolous or vexatiousapplicants. I do not think we should be casting the net so broadly that it catches not only thosepeople the government indicates are its justification for doing this but also the community at large.

I, as a member of the opposition, have used and continue to use the freedom of informationprocess to gain access to documentation which I may not otherwise have access to. A couple ofmonths ago the Minister for Local Government stood in this place and spoke about an applicationby the Leader of the Liberal Party, Bob Quinn. She said that it had cost the departmentsomething like $15,000 to seek all of the information requested and that it was an absolutedisgrace. The honourable member had a perfect right to request that information. What was thegovernment hiding? The member was forced to go through that process because thegovernment was not prepared to come forward with a lot of that information. The same situationapplies to the Lang Park redevelopment and the Goodwill Bridge. These are exactly the samesorts of issues.

We have to be prepared to consider that freedom of information, as a modern accountabilityand transparency tool for the community at large, will cost the government of the day a degree ofmoney. There is no doubt about that, and we should be prepared to pay that. The governmentsays that the cost is something like $7.5 million. I will come to that point a little later, because inhis report the outgoing Information Commissioner raises some serious questions about themotivation behind that. Freedom of information is a cost the government has to bear. It is a verysmall cost in order to afford the community the opportunity to keep the government andgovernment agencies honest. I think in some cases ministers themselves are very surprised bythe information released under FOI.

Is there anything to be achieved by a government department, a government agency, aquasi-government agency or local government taking that information and effectively locking itaway? If the government continues to think it can put a lid on these sorts of things and that theywill not come back to haunt it, the pressure cooker will just pressurise a little more. And when itblows, it will blow in a far more significant and serious way. That will be the result of thegovernment's proposed time charging regime.


A lot of people out there who have a reasonable and justifiable right to go through the FOIprocess will not even bother. Others will believe that they cannot afford it and will not bother.Another aspect of concern with this legislation is that there is no real definition of financialhardship and who it will apply to. That is a real concern. A range of community groups andindividuals would seek information. Currently an FOI request costs $31—that is, the applicationfee for a non-personal matter. Let us say that it takes 10 hours to fulfil the request and theinformation is deemed to apply to them, which in most cases it will. In that case it will cost them$31 plus $200. That is an extraordinary amount of money. More complex searches could costmany hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. That is a real worry to me.

The other concern I have is that the government is seeking to sell back to the people ofQueensland as a great new innovation and opportunity the rights they currently have under theexisting freedom of information legislation. Principal amongst those is the right to access personalinformation for free. The government has talked about this. That is a right that is currentlycontained in legislation. I do not even know why that issue has been thrown in to muddy thisdebate.

The government talks about the opportunity for freedom of information designated officers tonegotiate with applicants to compress the breadth of their search, to cut to the chase and savethe department resources in fulfilling that request. Anyone who has made an application underFOI would be aware that that process currently exists. A few months ago I submitted anapplication with regard to dingoes on Fraser Island. I thought I had constrained it reasonably well.It was not a scatter-gun request. I think some 200-odd documents were identified. In dealing withthe officer responsible for that, I was able to confine the request to just a few documents. So thatis something which currently exists.

Prior to that process, the freedom of information officer still had to do the departmentalsearch to find the documents, to identify the documents, to work out how many documents couldbe released in full and how many could be released in part, and to identify how many of thosedocuments were exempt from being released as per the provisions of the Freedom of InformationAct. As the Information Commissioner quite properly points out, the time charging regime will beaffected by the information retrieval and identification systems which currently exist in thosedepartments. I think that is a big concern. When a person submits an application, they do notknow if it is going to take 10, 15, 20 hours or whatever. They might want just a few documents.The department then has to go forward and gather those documents.

As I understand it, this legislation contains a capacity to require an applicant to pay adeposit. I would like to hear more from the Attorney-General about this. The deposit mayrepresent half, a quarter or 80 per cent of the overall amount to gather all of that informationtogether. I think the government needs to inform us about how it will set that rate and how it willprescribe its collection.

I would like to take this opportunity to refer to some sections of the InformationCommissioner's report, which was tabled in this parliament yesterday. I believe that some partsdeserve to be read into Hansard. Quite frankly, as the first law officer and the guardian of thepublic interest in this state, the Attorney-General ought to be ashamed of his sitting over thereand scoffing as he has done. It is a very sad indictment on his tenure as a minister and as theAttorney-General of this state.

In section 3.6 on page 13 the Information Commissioner says—However, the clearest example of failure to embrace open government principles lies in the passage in March1995—

a Goss government amendment, I might say—of the amendments to the s.36 (Cabinet matter) and s. 37 (Executive Council matter) exemptions in the FOI Act,which extended the coverage of those exemptions far beyond what was reasonably necessary to protect theconfidentiality of deliberations by Cabinet or Executive Council.

He then refers to his comments in previous reports—One of the concerns I have previously raised is that s.36 and s. 37 in their present form allow scope for the'manufacture' of an exemption claim by giving blanket exemption to documents placed before Cabinet or ExecutiveCouncil—

and that is something which we have seen happen this year in the cases that I have outlined—even for documents that were not prepared for the purpose of submission to Cabinet or Executive Council, andindeed even for documents which have previously been published. The centrepiece of the FOI Act, the conferral bys. 21 of a legally enforceable right of 'access to documents of' agencies and official documents of Ministers(subject only to limited exceptions designed to protect the private and business affairs of members of the


community, and essential public interests: see s. 5(2) of the FOI Act) has been reduced, in practical terms, to a rightof access subject to Ministerial veto.

That is a concern. That is what the debate in this state since 1995 has been all about. Hecontinues—In my 1995/96 Annual Report, I noted that the prospect of public scrutiny deters officials from impropriety andencourages the best possible performance of their functions.

I heard a government member refer earlier to a secret state when referring to issues prior to 1989.I concede that if we do not have these openness and accountability mechanisms it makes peoplein government feel 10 feet tall and 10 miles wide and they believe that they are absolutelyuntouchable until they burst. That is the real concern about these sorts of things; they just keepthe lid on things. The Information Commissioner continues—If that prospect can, in effect, be evaded (as it can be under s. 36 and s. 37) and the disclosure of embarrassing ordamaging information prevented, one of the chief objects of the FOI Act—accountability of government—is defeated.

On page 14 the Information Commissioner stated—In a recent case that attracted some comment in the news media, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Horan, made FOIaccess applications to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the Department of State Development, the Officeof the Minister for State Development, and the Southbank Corporation, seeking documents relevant to theconstruction of the pedestrian footbridge across the Brisbane River between Southbank and the QueenslandUniversity of Technology's Gardens Point campus, in particular, information relating to technical problems that hadbeen encountered, and cost overruns. A senior officer in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet appears tohave given instructions to junior staff to co-ordinate the collection and delivery to the Cabinet Secretariat of everydocument relating to the Southbank pedestrian footbridge from all agencies that had had any involvement with it.

So that was a deliberate and calculated action on the part of a government agency to gather upall the documentation and send it off to cabinet. The report continues—The Cabinet Budget Review Committee ... was scheduled to review and discuss the problems encountered with thefootbridge. It was perfectly proper and legitimate that it should do so. What appears to have been more contrivedwas the addition to the submission prepared for the CBRC of a schedule describing by file/folder all the documentscollected from agencies, which were to be made available for inspection at the relevant meeting of the CBRC. On aconservative estimate, they must have numbered many thousands of documents, most of them technical in nature,and duplicates of many documents would appear to have been held by more than one agency. It appears that noattempt was made to cull the documents for particular relevance or value to the deliberations of the CBRC.

I went to one CBRC process in the very brief time that I was a minister. Ministers here go beforethe CBRC. We know that copious quantities of documents do not get perused there; it is thesame as cabinet. Basically, they are dealing with cabinet documents and a bit of additionalinformation for the minister if they are required to explain something in more detail to the cabinet.Most of the ministers are not at all interested in that sort of stuff; they are interested in whatrelates to their portfolios. They are not going to flick through thousands of pages—no way onearth. It is nothing but a cover-up exercise. The Information Commissioner continues—The emphasis with respect to preparation of Cabinet and committee submissions in past and present QueenslandCabinet Handbooks has been toward brevity and precision in briefing members of Cabinet or Cabinet committees.

That underlines the point which I made. He continues—For example, section 5.4.11 of the current Queensland Cabinet Handbook states that: 'Where an attachment islonger than 10 pages, departments should critically examine whether the full attachment is required and if it couldmore appropriately be attached in a summarised form or merely cited if readily available'.

Those are key points. We know that with the amount of information which comes across ourdesks today—and it is the same in cabinet and the same in this place—too much superfluousinformation is, quite frankly, useless. It is in no way valuable to the deliberative process and, inmany cases, it makes one's eyes glaze over. The report continues—It strains credulity to accept that the proper processes of Cabinet government require the scrutiny, or even theavailability for possible scrutiny, by Cabinet or a Cabinet committee of every document that mentions a topic likethe Southbank footbridge, or, say, the Lang Park redevelopment. The government employs officials, usually withrelevant technical expertise, to deal with the minutiae of details that need consideration in a large publicdevelopment. It is difficult to accept that it is an appropriate or practical role for Ministers (who have anoverwhelming number of important duties) to sit down at a Cabinet or Cabinet committee meeting to make, or beguided through, a productive examination of thousands of documents, or even samples of them relevant toparticular issues.

On page 16 at section 3.15, with regard to the abuse of the process, the InformationCommissioner outlines—Until such amendments are made, there is another mechanism by which agency decision makers can ameliorate(as appropriate, having regard to the circumstances of each particular case) the unnecessarily broad reach of thes.36 and s. 37 exemptions. Cases such as those discussed above could be remedied by judicious exercise of thediscretion conferred on agencies and Ministers by s. 28(1) of the FOI Act (a discretion which it is not open to the


Information Commissioner to exercise on external review because of the specific provision made by s. 88(2) of theFOI Act).

Further, under the heading 'Cost of the FOI process' the Information Commissioner says—In light of recent public and parliamentary discussion concerning the cost of the FOI process in Queensland, Iconsider it useful to reiterate the comments that I made about the topic in my 1995/1996 Annual Report:

... FOI legislation was not primarily intended to confer direct benefits on the executive branch of government—

anything but—(though a host of indirect benefits for the executive government are frequently claimed for it, by supporters of FOIlegislation). It was enacted for the benefit of citizens, with a view to fostering more responsive and accountablegovernment, and a healthier, more robust and more participative democracy, by conferring legal rights on citizensthat are enforceable against the executive branch of government. Unless these are no longer objects that theQueensland Parliament desires to achieve, claims from within the executive branch of government that the FOI Act,and similar Fitzgerald-inspired accountability mechanisms, have 'gone too far' and constitute an expensive andinefficient distraction from the performance of the main tasks of government, ought to be regarded by theParliament with a healthy scepticism. In this regard, it is again apposite to quote from the essay by Mr JusticeThomas on 'Secrecy and Open Government' (at pp. 184-185):

At the heart of the problem of secrecy in government is the question of power. Power and information areinextricably linked. Unequal access to information confers unequal power, so that the Executive, which possessesthe information and the ability to make selective disclosure in the form and at a time to suit the government,continues to have an advantage over the public.

The move towards open government can be perceived as an attempt to redress the imbalance in power by securingfor the citizen greater access to official information. Open government, therefore, is essentially about a shift inpower from the government to the people, so that the democratic sovereignty of the people is not diminished bybeing reflected imperfectly in the machinery of government. In essence, the sovereignty of the people is eroded tothe extent that they are not privy to the information possessed by their elected representatives.

This perspective explains the drive for greater openness in government and reflects the people's desire to hold thegovernment accountable for what it does in their name and on their behalf. The impulse of the governed for greateraccountability ensures that the demand for a system in which government is truly open will be insistent. It tends tobe more intense following the revelation of government maladministration which, it is thought, might have beenavoided but for the secrecy which prevailed, or of unsuccessful attempts to cover up maladministration.

Demand for more openness in government is also manifest in the wake of the discovery of corruption committed bygovernment officials or agencies, the public's instinct correctly perceiving that public vice and impropriety aremore likely to take root under the shelter of structures and procedures which are protected from the light of publicscrutiny. Aware that undue secrecy allows politicians in government to pursue what is seen as their own endswithout ostensible regard to the public interest, the public are alert to the fact that political expediency may favouran attempt to conceal mistakes or abuses.

Of equal concern to the government's stockpile of information is the fact that it is the government that controls theform in which information is released and the timing of its release. Exclusive possession of official informationenables a government to determine when and how it will lift the veil of secrecy. The scope for the manipulation ofinformation by presenting it in a limited or sanitised form or delaying its release to further the government'sinterests is plain to see.

It is a great pity that time does not permit me to continue. There is a good deal more juicyinformation contained in this report. I advise honourable members opposite, if they are soinclined—and not completely ashamed of what they will do in this House in a few hours' time—toactually pick it up and read it.

Mr Barton: We are listeningMr SPRINGBORG: Members are listening. Members are a lot more knowledgeable but no

wiser. Is it sinking in? I am not sure.

Section 3.27 on page 21 is relevant to what the government is saying about the process ofdiscovery used by legal counsel and the fact that they may be abusing the FOI process for courtadvantage. This is what the Information Commissioner says regarding that particular issue—

Applications by individuals or business organisations seeking information for use in pending or proposedlegal proceedings represented 6 per cent of all cases. This low figure continues to run counter to the argument thatlawyers (and their clients) seeking cheaper and less formal access to government-held information, as analternative to court-based disclosure, are disproportionate beneficiaries of the public resources devoted to theadministration of the FOI Act (at least in so far as the use of the external review mechanism is concerned).

According to the Information Commissioner, very few cases come before him for external reviewwhich involve the seeking or disclosing of information. The Information Commissioner makes avery good point regarding the government's contention that $7.5 million is an extraordinary costfor the public purse to bear to provide free and open access to the community. To precis thosecomments, what is the cost in comparison to that of the government's own media unit? Whetherit is the Premier's Department or other ministerial offices or departments, what is the budget, in


general, for the government getting out into the community and spreading the information itwishes to spread? It probably runs into tens of millions of dollars each year.

This government engages in blatant self-promotion. It seeks to place its own particular spinon its policies and the way it sees those policies advancing the people of Queensland. Yet it isnot prepared to concede that it is a worthwhile investment in openness, accountability andtransparency for $7.5 million of public funds to provide the same members of the public with anopportunity to scrutinise closely not only the decisions of the government but also what thegovernment proffers as the advantage that it is bestowing on the people of Queensland. That iswhere this becomes terribly unbalanced. At the end of the day, this regime will cost thegovernment very little for the administration and operation of FOI in Queensland and it will costthe taxpayers twice. The taxpayers will fund the government to promote itself through the variousmarketing facilities available to it and to give the people of Queensland the information that itbelieves they should have. However, the community is not provided with the opportunity toscrutinise those things; that is where this becomes extremely unbalanced. That is an issue thegovernment should properly consider in relation to the matter being debated today.

Earlier today I mentioned the issue of the abuse of cabinet confidentiality in that copiousquantities of government documents have been taken before cabinet for no reason other than toexempt them from public scrutiny. In recent times, the Blair Labour government in the UnitedKingdom has been wrestling with this issue. I understand that government is not completelysatisfied with its legislative response to this issue, but it is looking at ways of overcoming thisconcern. I am the first to admit that there need to be exemption provisions for a range of matters.Issues relating to the privilege of this parliament and the correspondence of its members needfurther scrutiny. However, that should not extend to exclusion of information from the community.

One way to overcome some of these problems is to put in place an independent person, orto extend the powers of the Information Commissioner, who has the opportunity to say yea or nayto the information to be taken to cabinet. In the United Kingdom, the Blair Labour government isconsidering that course. It would be a positive advance in good public policy in this state. It wouldensure that there is little controversy over the value of documents taken to cabinet and that thecabinet exemption which exists under legislation is properly applied—that is, genuine documentswould be able to be taken off to cabinet. Further, it would ensure a greater degree of confidencewithin the community in the government. Members would concede that discussions on this topicby the general public—these things are not just whipped up by the Opposition, they are theconcerns of the community—do nothing but tear away at the foundations of public confidence inthe administration of good government in this state. There is no doubt about that. That isbecause these types of actions are seen as the government being tricky and sneaky. There is noother way of looking at it. I would implore the Attorney-General to consider a real process ofoversight by the Information Commissioner, who would have the responsibility of looking at all ofthose types of documents before they go to cabinet to ensure that they are genuinely andjustifiably going before cabinet. Of course, it would be important to have a right of appeal for thegovernment, but I believe that this sort of thing would be very worth while and do a lot to advancepublic confidence in the administration of good government in this state.

The minister has to concede, and I will concede, that abuses of the FOI cabinet exemptionprocess have occurred in this state regardless of who is in government. But the fact is that it isgetting worse. There is no way that the minister can stand up and categorically and credibly denythat it is not getting worse, because it is. I refer to the number of documents that are going tocabinet—wheelbarrows full. So the minister needs to have a very close look at what the BlairLabour government is doing in the United Kingdom to see whether that could have a similarapplication in Queensland in terms of the section 36 exemption.

Basically, today is a very sad day for the parliament of Queensland. No doubt the membersof the government back bench and the Attorney-General in his reply will seek to justify this andsay that a mechanism that is going to place exorbitant costs on members of the public seekinginformation is a positive reform, that it is all about making sure that there is a cost-sharingarrangement so that people can get the information that they want, that it is all about ensuringbetter government and good government in Queensland. It is not true. I sat on the governmentbenches for a couple of years. It was not very long.

Mr Cummins: Two.

Mr SPRINGBORG: 28 months, in actual fact.Mr Cummins: And how many years have you sat over there?


Mr SPRINGBORG: That is a very, very long time. But I say to the member that I have beenin this place for almost 12 years, and let us see him do the same.

Mr Cummins: See if you do as long as me from here, mate.

Mr SPRINGBORG: We will see what happens. To start with, the member has to keep hisseat.

I heard all of those sorts of things—that this is the greatest thing that will ever happen. All theassurances that the backbenchers have been given such as, 'No, it is not going to impact on thebattlers' and, 'The FOI officers, using their discretion, are going to ensure that the workload is keptto a minimum and therefore a huge cost is not going to be foisted on people' are absolutenonsense. The members opposite will find that, as a result of what they are doing here today,there are going to be some significant miscarriages of administration. There is no sense in themembers opposite standing up in this place and seeking to justify what is a reduction of the bestFOI regime in Australia down to the level of the Commonwealth legislation or that of other statesby saying that that is the way we have to go. They cannot reduce what is the best to beingamong the mediocrity. They cannot take away from people something that they enjoy. Generally,the greatest majority of people use the FOI legislation extremely responsibly to exposedeficiencies in the government.

The thing that should weigh on members' minds when they vote today for this legislation isthat it is a reduction in the opportunity for the people of Queensland to be able to have free andopen access to government and the justification for government decisions. That is what themembers opposite are doing with this legislation. So when they vote for it, they should considerthose points. I urge the members opposite to think twice about what they are doing. However, ifthey are going to vote for the legislation, I ask them to support the amendment that theopposition will move.

Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (4.51 p.m.): Over the past day or so there has beenmuch discussion in the community about what should be the message on Queenslandnumberplates. The Premier has now announced that the message on Queensland numberplatesis to be a choice between 'The Sunshine State' and 'The Smart State'. My preference is 'TheSmart State', because I see it as an important symbol telling us and the rest of Australia how weview our defining feature as a state. Yet because of this bill, the Courier-Mail and the opposition,with its silly stunts, think that the slogan on our numberplates should be 'The Secret State'. That isabsolute nonsense.

If members read the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill they would see that it changesthe state's FOI laws in three ways. Despite the protests of the member for Southern Downs, it isnot taking anything away from anybody. The FOI laws will be changed by allowing governmentagencies to negotiate with FOI applicants to narrow widely defined and voluminous applications;by enabling charges for processing applications for access to non-personal information; and byallowing a waiver of charges on financial hardship grounds.

It is the capacity to charge fees somewhat more akin to the actual cost of identifying andsupplying information that has raised the ire of the Courier-Mail and the opposition. This proposedamending legislation, together with the alleged overuse of the cabinet in confidence exemption, isthe basis of the charges by the Courier-Mail and the opposition that we have created a secretstate and moved Queensland back towards the 'Don't you worry about that' days of the pre-Fitzgerald inquiry National Party government. In compounding the FOI secrecy charges, it isalleged that since the last state election the government, and the Premier in particular, havebecome at the very least dismissive of the media, if not supersensitive to media criticism.

Front and centre in the allegations stakes, but not exclusively so, is the Courier-Mail's chiefpolitical reporter, Matthew Franklin. On Monday night, I caught part of the ABC TV's MediaDimensions program. In part, the program dealt with the Courier-Mail's case that the Premier hadbecome particularly manipulative of the media. I saw Mr Franklin being interviewed. He spokebravely of his determination not to be intimidated by the Premier and he stated that Queenslandmust never be allowed to return to the days of Sir Joh's inappropriate relationship with the media.

By way of balance, the ABC program also carried snippets of an interview with the Premierand comments by Paul Syvret of the Bulletin magazine. In that interview, the Premier pointed outthat he and the government were accessible to the media and that he subjected himself to longand extensive media conferences on a regular basis. Mr Syvret, for his part, observed that thePremier's relationship with the media was no different from that which he believed existedbetween governments and media anywhere in Australia at any given time.


So what are we to make of all of this? Is this bill part of a general emergence of secretivepractices in Queensland? The government rejects completely that there has been anyemergence of secretive practices, yet in some parts of the media they continue to make theseclaims. Given this conflict, it is important to explore what is the role of the media in scrutinising andreporting on the activities of executive government. Does the media's right to scrutinise and reportcarry with it some commensurate obligations? If so, what are these responsibilities? To answerthose questions, it is necessary to deal firstly with the scope of the provisions of the bill. Inessence, the Queensland laws will be brought into line with the corresponding Commonwealth lawon the point of charging applicants for finding and compiling information. That this should be thecase is no great surprise, as the Queensland law is modelled on the Commonwealth Freedom ofInformation Act. It is important to note that the change applies to non-personal information, thatis, information that does not go to the individual circumstances of the applicant.

In truth, it will impact on media outlets that use FOI laws to seek information about a range ofexecutive government activities. It will impact on the likes of News Limited, the Fairfax press, thecommercial television networks and the ABC to name but a few. It will impact on mediacorporations to the extent that some of the $7.5 million that is expended annually to administerthe FOI scheme will now come from those major users of the scheme. It has to be borne inmind—and it cannot be stressed enough—that the changes do not limit the right to access theinformation held by the government in any sense. There is no proposal to increase the scope ofexemptions. There is no proposal to decrease the right to obtain information. All the provisions dois give the government an ability to recover costs on a user-pays basis.

While all businesses regardless of size need to be aware of costs, I do not think that NewsLimited, one of the world's largest media groups and the owner of the Courier-Mail, will bedissuaded from using the FOI processes because of these amendments to the scheme. All thatthese changes mean is that the shareholders of, say, News Limited instead of the taxpayers ofQueensland will foot the bill for a media fishing expedition.

Mr Hayward: Mr Murdoch might ask one day why they're wasting money.

Mrs LAVARCH: He may well do. Indeed, the Courier-Mail has editorialised in favour of thelegislation by stating—So long as cost recovery or a genuine fee for service is the aim and there is a ready appeal mechanism available,there can be no fundamental objection to Queensland imposing reasonable charges for FOI material.

The bill features a proper process to allow agencies subject to an FOI application to negotiate withapplicants to narrow the scope of particularly wide fishing expedition-style applications to focusthem on the material actually sought. Equally, hardship provisions apply to ensure that the FOIprocesses are not denied to individuals or groups on the grounds of cost. On that score, the billmeets the Courier-Mail 's own criteria.

In contrast, the opposition calls the bill an accountability tax. In an opinion piece publishedlast week, the Leader of the Opposition picked up the secrecy theme and concluded thatQueensland was entering a new dark age. Of course, it is always a bit galling to be criticised bythe National Party on issues of accountability—the same National Party that opposed FOIlegislation for decades, the same National Party that refused to develop the parliamentarycommittee system, the same National Party that is singularly unable to use the estimatescommittee process to undertake any proper examination of government programs and policy yearafter year. But I will not dwell on their shortcomings and hypocrisy.

Mr Horan's article, no doubt written for him by a staff media officer, makes the ambiguousreference to FOI and other systems being introduced by governments in the 1990s, 'so that weshould be able to say we have an accountable, open and honest government.' Of course, as MrHoran knows, the governments of the 1990s that did such things were Labor governments underWayne Goss. The sum total of the National Party's contribution in this period was to try to neuterthe CJC and its high point of accountability was the Connolly-Ryan inquiry.

In contrast, I take media concerns about government secrecy more seriously. The role of themedia in a parliamentary democracy needs both to be recognised and protected. However, likethe governmental and parliamentary institutions and processes it reports on and investigates, themedia also carries rights and corresponding duties. Since the nineteenth century, the media hasbeen described as the fourth estate. The other three estates in this model are the parliament, theexecutive and the judiciary. Each estate has a separate role and power, and the constitutionalbalance is achieved by the separation and diffusion of power between the four estates.


The media's role in the democratic framework is given some indirect support by the HighCourt's decision in Nationwide News Ltd v. Wills, the so-called political broadcasts case. In thisdecision, Justice Brennan cites with approval the comments of the House of Lords in theAttorney-General v. Times Newspapers, and I quote—The first public interest involved is that of freedom of discussion in a democratic society. People cannot adequatelyinfluence the decisions which affect their lives unless they can be adequately informed on facts and argumentsrelevant to the decisions. Much of such fact-finding and argumentation necessarily has to be conductedvicariously, the public press being a principal instrument.

The Nationwide case and the later decisions on the implied constitutional freedom of politicalexpression recognise that a democracy can only work in a practical sense if the public hasinformation about government and executive actions. The media plays an essential role inensuring that information and an analysis of that information, not just government propaganda,reaches the public.

However, we all recognise that free speech and media freedom are not absolute. They aresubject to a number of restraints which go to balance other issues in the name of the publicinterest. Those restraints go to matters like defamation, or the operation of the criminal law. AsChief Justice Mason noted in the case of Australian Capital Television v. The Commonwealth, theimplied constitutional guarantee of political free speech 'does not postulate that the freedom mustalways and necessarily prevail over competing interests of the public.'

It is not unexpected nor unreasonable that the media collectively resist proposals bygovernments which place further constraints on both the free expression of views by mediaoutlets or the capacity of the media to collect information upon which stories might be written orbroadcast. In the debate about competing public interest between free expression and anotherpublic benefit, the media will inevitably plug for free expression. As the old adage goes, alwaysback a horse called Self-interest for at least you know it will be trying.

The difficult issue is how public interest is to be judged and by whom. A proposal to amendFOI laws might be argued to benefit the government of the day if it can in any way be said to leadto less use of the FOI process. This argument is put on the basis that the self-interests of thegovernment will always tend towards the restriction of access to information which might lead topolitical embarrassment, exposure of incompetence or corruption. Of course, the public interest isthat such failures of public administration should be exposed. Equally, however, the self-interestsof the media will always be for free access to information and full opportunity to publish,irrespective of the harm this may cause to an individual or another equally recognised publicinterest; for instance, the conflict which occurs regularly between the media and those involved inthe criminal justice system, including the courts.

Public interest is an elusive concept. There are no absolutes here, only relativities. Thejudgment of the public interest is also difficult. I do not think that it is unreasonable that an electedparliament should believe itself capable of judging public interest. Equally, an executivegovernment might also reasonably claim to make such an assessment. Both the parliament andthe executive are rightly subject to the scrutiny of such decisions by both the parliament and,ultimately, the people. Importantly, as the fourth estate, the media should also critically analysesuch judgments on the public interest.

However, being the fourth estate brings with it some responsibilities as well. When discussingthe role of the media in a democracy, and recognising the power it yields and the necessity forthe media to be accountable for their exercise of power, the Communications Law Centre makesthe point—... journalists and media executives also have responsibilities. One is to be accountable for their exercise ofpower. An aspect of accountability is the provision of fair and reasonable opportunities for access to the mediathey control. Media hold the critical power of disclosure and the fact that they operate privately owned outlets andare neither elected nor appointed by those who are elected (as are judges or the heads of public agencies) does notrob them of a public role with public power.

The point being made is that all power should be accountable. This is the same point that theCourier-Mail in fact makes. In particular, Matthew Franklin recently made the point that it is aworrying trend towards secrecy on behalf of the government. However, the power of Mr Franklinand the media outlet he represents also need to be accountable. I do not believe that theAustralian media generally and the Courier-Mail, in particular, meet the standards of accountabilitythey properly demand of the parliament and the Beattie government.

Brisbane is a one-newspaper town. Concentration of media power in Australia is an oftenremarked upon feature and, despite the growth in the Internet, the Courier-Mail dominates print


media in Queensland. The other daily newspapers circulating, the Australian and the SundayMail, are also News Limited papers. Even the dominant suburban chain, the Quest Group, isowned by News Limited. I do not argue that there is some common editorial line or that RupertMurdoch sends missives to control the contents of the papers, but then again I do not know.However, I can say that I am not one for conspiracy theories. Rather, my point is that power isconcentrated in print media in Brisbane and accountability standards should match the level ofthe power held.

The Australian Press Council is a self-regulatory body which aims to safeguard goodjournalistic standards in the print media, and it is a useful body. However, the council does have asomewhat split personality in that its basic charter is to argue for freedom of the press. This is notalways consistent with critical analysis when the freedom is alleged to have been abused. Weneed a starting point where a journalist can and clearly does separate fact from comment.Journalists should write commentaries, but not under the guise of a news report. In my mind, thereporter becoming an active player in the debate blurs this important distinction.

Ethical standards should be fully defined and made enforceable. I believe that complete self-regulation for the fourth estate is now probably unsustainable. A soft touch coregulation model willgive the public greater confidence in the integrity of the media. This might involve a negativelicensing system whereby a journalist found guilty of unethical conduct by a panel of eminentpeers, chaired by an independent, might be precluded from the profession for a time or otherwisesanctioned for breach of their code of ethics. Possibly a mandatory form of continuing educationcould be introduced and implemented by major outlets. Such ongoing education is standardacross a range of professions and journalism should be added to the list.

In conclusion, accountability is a key issue for government. The criticisms that there has beena failure by the Premier and this government to be accountable are totally and utterly rejected.Frankly, they are just nonsense. Certainly it is stretching things to fairly regard this bill as ameasure that lessens accountability. However, all power should be accountable and that includesmedia power.

It is hoped that the raft of measures which improve the structural accountability of theparliament and the executive in this state post-Fitzgerald might be matched by an opening up ofthe accountability of the media. Freedom of the press should not be a wall behind whichjournalists, editors and proprietors hide their own lack of transparency. The Courier-Mail will havesome greater credibility in my mind when I pick it up one morning and read some debate aboutmeasures to ensure balance, fairness and openness in the way it operates in this state. This billdeserves our support and I commend it to the House.

Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (5.09 p.m.): In rising to speak against this bill, Iindicate that I think we just heard the real reason behind why this government is trying to push itthrough. We have just heard a media bashing exercise. We heard all sorts of excuses about whythe media, and in particular one media institution, should not have access to information. It wasstated that the government should be accountable, but at the same time this legislation makes itharder and more expensive to obtain information.

The previous speaker brought home the fact that this bill is more about trying to make itharder to get information. Ernest Titterton stated that in order for democracy to flourish the peoplemust be properly informed. In order for the people to be properly informed they have to haverelatively free access to information and they also need the fourth estate. They need an activemedia that has access to that information, as do members of the opposition, non-governmentmembers and community organisations. They are not covered under the definition of 'personalaffairs'.

I can say from experience that when going after information on behalf of constituents aboutsporting organisations, freedom of information has been very important in looking at theassessment process, particularly with respect to sporting grants. This government has very dirtyhands in relation to its allocation of sporting grants. On the basis of some of the documents that Ihave been able to access under FOI, we find that the government has either not released all ofthe information when it comes to why certain groups that have not performed as highly havereceived sporting grants while others with a higher assessment have lost out. We have to ask: ifthey have an excuse for that, why was that additional information and recommendations notcontained in the information released under FOI?

Freedom of information is something that is far broader in need for the community than justthat very narrow definition of 'personal affairs'. It is sporting organisations, community


organisations and members of parliament who are trying to get that information, and it is also themedia. That this government is trying to close down access by making the process moreexpensive is just outrageous. This will hang around the necks of Labor government members inthe years to come. People will begin to find out that it will potentially cost them hundreds of dollarsin order to access basic information from government. When they try to argue that this is personalinformation, they will find that the definition of 'personal information' is a narrow and incorrectdefinition and it will make it very hard for people to find out information pertaining to their affairs.

The recommendation of the Information Commissioner needs to be looked at in this regard.When dealing with personal affairs, a number of court precedents have been set where the layperson's understanding is very different from the legal interpretation. I am totally appalled thatLabor members who speak about civil rights and about how they are a pure, open andaccountable government can then bring this legislation into the parliament and say that it is forthe betterment of Queensland. That is rank hypocrisy.

The Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee of the parliament is stillreviewing the Freedom of Information Act under a reference from this parliament. That is still to befinalised. A letter released for publication by the Information Commissioner, David Bevan,recommended that LCARC bring forward this aspect of the report. Unfortunately, because of therushed time frame of this Labor government, there is no time to bring forward this aspect of thereport in regard to the charging component that this government is proposing.

What charges will people face when submitting an application? For example, what wouldhappen if somebody discovers that a road is to go through their area and the information is notcovered under the technical definition of 'personal affairs'; that in order to obtain the informationas to the process behind the decision making of government they will be up for potentiallyhundreds of dollars? There is a fat chance that this government will say, 'Hardship provision. Youcan have this information for a nominal amount.' I do not believe that will happen, because that isnot the intention behind the drafting of this legislation.

Pre-eminent law reform commissions have said that they do not agree even with the existingcharging regimes of other jurisdictions, and now we see the Beattie Labor government sayingthat, if it is good enough for the others, it will do it, too, except that it is not even putting in aprovision in regard to unreasonable costs or providing any incentive to keep unreasonable coststo a minimum. So there is no incentive here for bad bureaucracies that want to deliberately loseinformation, that have lousy information storage practices and that just want to be downrightunhelpful, to try to narrow their focus and not have unnecessary duplication of documents. Thereis no incentive for them to find an efficient way of bringing forward information into the publicarena or to the individual who makes an application.

The point was well made in the outgoing Information Commissioner's report to the parliamenttabled the other day. He stated that if we look at the cost to government of media people who putout the government's spin—that was not his word, but it is certainly my interpretation of what hesaid—we would find that it paled into insignificance; it would be far greater than the cost ofrunning an open and accountable freedom of information service.

This government has been very good at trucking loads of documents into cabinet that neverget to see the light of day. We know that thousands of documents supposedly go through thecabinet review process and are exempted. We know this government has actively tried to blockaccess to documents by abusing the cabinet exemption. But in a more recent innovation it hasdecided that parliamentary privilege has extended over a wider range of documents than haspreviously been the tendency. That exemption has also been more widely applied in order toblock legitimate access to documents that really are in the public interest.

There is a very strong argument that the information that is held by government, with a fewexceptions, really belongs to the people of Queensland. They are custodians; they are not theowners of that information. While there are appropriate exemptions that must apply in relation toprivacy and certain elements of cabinet documentation in order to allow appropriate decisionmaking to take place, these exemptions have been abused. These exemptions have been usedin a way that the original legislation was never intended to be abused. This government hasmade an art form of it.

I have mentioned before that I have had personal examples where FOI has been useful ingetting behind the so-called decision-making process when it comes to sporting applications.Groups in my area have done far better on scoring than groups in other areas that have endedup receiving grants. That is the value of freedom of information to members of parliament, to


members of the community and to the media. To potentially have to pay hundreds of dollars justto get basic information like that is outrageous and just another way of trying to block information.

This arrogant government is very keen to spend money on media advisers, communityengagement exercises and spinning its own story about what it is doing for people. However,when it comes to people asking for information in relation to the affairs of state, when it comes topeople having access to documentation so that they might be properly informed about thedemocratic processes or things that might be affecting their lives but not strictly captured by the'personal affairs' definition, this government does not want them to have that. This is a bad move.It is a backward move. This is not the move of a progressive government, it is the move of asecret state. It is to the shame of all of the Labor members opposite who voted for this in caucusthat they would allow this to go forward. It is a backward step that will see a lot of people deniedjustice, access to information and the opportunity to bring issues forward.

I heard the previous speaker talking in a self-righteous way about how terrible it was formedia outlets to go after this information and that they are corporations with interests other thanthe public interest. I remind that member that information such as that about the hundreds ofchildren who are waiting to be assessed and potentially get assistance from a department like theDepartment of Families and information about people and children at risk all came out throughthe use of the freedom of information legislation.

I have no doubt that this government will make it as expensive and as difficult as possible forthat legitimate information, which is in the public interest, to come forward and will make it harderfor media outlets, freelance journalists, members of parliament, whether it be individually orcorporately, to try to get their hands on information that really belongs to the people ofQueensland and in respect of which there is no legitimate reason for it not to be released. It is ashame that these Labor members have put through this legislation and that the Labor Premier,Peter Beattie, could say that it is really in the public interest. That is a lie, it is wrong and it is not inthe interests of Queensland.

Mr FLYNN (Lockyer—ONP) (5.20 p.m.): I believe that these amendments to the freedom ofinformation legislation strike at the very heart of what the legislation is designed to protect,namely, the right of citizens to access information that affects them either personally or as part ofa class application. Having said that, the government is—quite reasonably in myopinion—endeavouring to reduce the number of frivolous and vexatious applications costingtaxpayers dearly. While I understand this particular goal, my reply to the government on this issueis: such is the cost of democracy. In other words, democracy must be subsidised to be effectiveand it must be available to rich and poor. To some people, $30 is what $300 is to others—or even$3,000. To state that hardship cases will be fee free puts the government in a position of powerto decide who can or cannot make an application. In saying that the government is quitereasonably trying to reduce frivolous and vexatious applications, I mean that I support theconcept but not the method. Even the concept becomes a difficult issue to resolve if in any waythe citizen's right of access to information is restricted.

Freedom of information is not about making a profit, nor is it about breaking even. It is moreof a moral duty to provide a service to the people on the part of the government and its satellites,who are supposed to represent the people. I am not sure if I know the answer to the conundrum,but I am working on it. Therefore, even if this bill is passed, I am certain that an amendment tothe act will be anticipated at a later stage. In any case, it is quite clear to me that the governmentis attempting to install itself as the judge and jury about what is or is not important and relevantand who can access information, coupled with how much it will cost. Clearly, a compromise mustbe reached. The government is using its numbers to ram through inequitable law, even though itobviously considers that its motives are pure.

An agency or minister may refuse access to documents asked for in an application if itappears that the work involved substantially and unreasonably diverts the resources of theagency from their use by the agency in the performance of its functions or, similarly, by therelevant minister. It is a very broad sword for the government to assume that it knows what maybe of vital importance to applicants but that the regulations do not so regard. Clearly, there arematters that cannot from time to time be made available, either because they are commercial-in-confidence or because they relate to matters of state or national security. Even then there mustbe a time limit on the ability to hide information for whatever reason because it might beembarrassing to the government in power at that time.

We are all subjected to the ridicule of the media with their often successful attempts to gaininformation about MPs' activities when in parliament. Although I realise that such matters should


be private—matters such as how large my parliamentary bill is and whether I have paid itrecently—I would nevertheless forgo such protection if, in fact, it would enable the public at largeto gain the information to which I believe they have a basic right. That is a brief address, but I donot believe in rhetoric for the sake of it. I think I have addressed two matters that are particularlyimportant to the public.

Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (5.24 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the bill and also tocorrect the record. There really has been a little bit of—one could kindly say—exaggeration in themedia and among the opposition about the effect that this will have on accountability andopenness of government in Queensland.

FOI is certainly at the heart of government—I would say equally—for two reasons. Firstly, itprovides individuals with information that the government holds about them and allowsgovernment decision-making processes to become more open. Secondly, it fundamentally makesthe government accountable. I think the shift from having a situation in which there is no FOI tothe introduction of FOI represents a fundamental philosophical shift about how governmentworks. I think that in Queensland it has dramatically improved the openness, the accountabilityand the quality of our decision-making processes.

These changes are fairly minor and will not affect the majority of applicants. I support thechanges because they place some value on FOI and they place responsibility to pay firmly onthose who can. There have been times, as we know, when media outlets have sought extensivesearches and have not bothered to even collect them. I think that is quite a serious abuse of theFOI process and of the time of public servants, which really should be dedicated to providingservices to Queenslanders.

We come, though, to the issue of the opposition and the question of whether they shouldhave to pay for FOI. During the last sitting week, when the opposition asked a questionspecifically about this issue, I thought that they looked tremendously self-serving. The membersopposite asked whether they would be affected and they acted in their own interests rather thanin the community's interests. I really thought that, in asking a question that related solely tothemselves, the members opposite looked like children stamping their feet and saying, 'Whatabout me?'

I believe that the question of whether or not the opposition should pay is a valid one. Afterall, the opposition do have a legitimate role to play in ensuring government accountability. But,ultimately, does the question of whether the opposition should pay really matter? As long as theopposition is sufficiently resourced it is a bit of a moot point, because the money does a circuitfrom the Premier's Department through the opposition and then into whichever governmentdepartment the opposition is applying to for FOI. The only point I would make is that, ifgovernment is going to charge the opposition for FOI, it must be committed to properly fundingthe opposition. I believe that this government is appropriately committed. I would say, though,that over time that commitment must continue.

In this debate the members of the National Party sought to present themselves as thedefenders of freedom of information and the protectors of all of our liberties. What hypocriticalgarbage! Let us look at the National Party's record on FOI. In their 32 years of government theyfailed to introduce FOI legislation, despite the fact that it was introduced in the Commonwealth in1982 and was progressively introduced in the other states after that. While they talk aboutopenness now, they made no moves to open up the FOI regime when they were in governmentbetween 1996 and 1998. So for all of the National Party's moralising, they have never, ever oncemade a positive change to FOI in Queensland.

I am a fervent supporter of FOI, possibly because I am probably one of the few people herewho has worked in opposition in a jurisdiction that does not have any FOI legislation, as I did inthe Northern Territory under the fairly shady CLP government. The frustration of existing inopposition when you cannot get your hands on any information is enormous. The absence of FOIor unworkable FOI allows shady deals to flourish, just as they did here under the National Partygovernment and in the Northern Territory under the CLP.

These amendments do not change the workability of FOI. They do bring us into line withother jurisdictions. On the issue of costs, I believe it is important that community organisationsseeking non-personal information should have easy access to FOI. For instance, if the JacarandaStreet community group in Ipswich wanted to make an FOI application to the Ipswich City Councilto find out what the council's plans were for their street, there should not be particularimpediments in their way. So I would ask the government and other affected bodies such as


councils to generously apply the financial hardship provisions when it comes to communityorganisations.

The bill also includes widened provisions for departments to knock back voluminousapplications and provisions that allow applicants and government to negotiate applications tobetter define what a person is looking for and hence save the department time and the personinvolved unnecessary costs. The introduction of negotiation is a big step forward, but I believe itcan go further. FOI would be made more accessible and less administrative for everyone ifdiscussion of what the applicant wants was entrenched in the process. I often feel that ingovernment we write too much but communicate too little. We can go a long way towardsimproving the workability of FOI if we entrench those processes of actually talking to people aboutwhat it is they are after. These changes to the FOI Act are not revolutionary. They are true to theobjects of accountability and openness and are sensible rather than secretive. I commend the billto the House.

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.30 p.m.): Today weenter one of the dark hours of this parliament as we debate the accountability tax beingintroduced by the Beattie Labor government. If one went through the records of this place andread what all the civil libertarian proponents from the other side said when the FOI legislation wasintroduced, one would see that, a few years down the track, the Beattie Labor government isdoing everything it can to put one more hurdle in the way of people who want to legitimatelyaccess freedom of information. Today we have heard all sorts of arguments from previousspeakers in this debate, from attacks on the media to attacks on the previous National Partygovernments. However, one can tell from the sheepish way that members opposite arepresenting their arguments that they do not like this, that they have acquiesced, that they havefollowed like a mob of sheep at caucus and accepted this proposal put forward by the Premierand the executive of this government who find FOI a nuisance.

Politicians do find FOI a nuisance. Bureaucrats find FOI a nuisance. After time in this place orin administration, those opposite will learn that FOI has a real purpose, and it is a purpose thatsometimes takes a while to understand. FOI ensures that at every possible level of governmentdecision making—be it at the executive level or at the various levels of administration—people aremindful that they are working in an open, honest and accountable way to ensure that at any timethe work that they undertake and the decisions that they make may be subject to public scrutiny.That allows the public to have confidence in the political process and the administrative process.

People are always sarcastic and cynical about politics. It is about time we started tounderstand what the cornerstones of open, true, honest and accountable government are andhow they work. Yes, they can be a nuisance, but they do have a real purpose. Thosecornerstones are the Criminal Justice Commission or an anti-corruption and anti-officialmisconduct watchdog, the Ombudsman and the system of freedom of information. If we acceptthat and accept that there is a cost, we will begin to understand that that will be part of the budgetevery year. But to hear the Premier stand up in this House and say, 'I want to save some moneyand use it for health and education' is just a spin he wants to put on the issue so that he cancover up the very fact that in Queensland we are now going to have an accountability tax. Howdoes one put a value on some of the information that is unearthed through the freedom ofinformation system by the opposition, media, organisations or associations?

Mrs Edmond interjected.

Mr HORAN: We hear more cynicism from the Minister for Health, who is not even sitting inher right seat, and neither is her mate next to her. They show their usual disregard for theparliamentary rules.

The Health Minister is the one person who should not be interjecting, let alone from herwrong seat. The Health Minister would be aware of a recent refusal for an FOI request from usrelating to the Nambour Hospital, and I use that as an example. How can one put a value onfinding out information about staffing levels and systems that provide for adequate staffing of aparticular hospital? How can one put a value on that? How can one put a value on freedom ofinformation applications to the Department of Families and whether there is a waiting list ofchildren seeking assessment in order to receive care and protection? How can one put a value onsome of those things if the pressure of FOI brings about an improvement in staffing levels, bringsabout an improvement in the assessment of those children or brings about a more open andaccountable system which shows how corporations or businesses received assistance to starttheir businesses and how that can be honestly and equally applied to other organisations aroundthe state?


Today we are in this House to debate the accountability tax. Over recent months we haveseen this government do everything it possibly can to circumvent FOI applications by taking truckloads of data and documents through the parliament.

Mr Mickel: Just like you used to when you were Health Minister.

Mr HORAN: If the member opposite wants to blame the past and believes that we shouldnot improve in the future, why doesn't he go and live in the past? He is always big-noting himselfand flouting the rules of the House and yelling out to whomever he likes, but when he gets intothe chair it is a different matter, isn't it? He has two standards. The government has doneeverything it possibly can to put these hurdles and barriers in front of FOI applications. Thislegislation not only proposes a process of pricing but also makes it as difficult as possible to gothrough the process. The process can take up to 105 days in certain circumstances, so there isevery difficulty for the average person to access FOI. In all likelihood, they will then say that it is alltoo much trouble.

We often talk in here about levels of performance. One of the greatest pressures relating tolevel of performance by members of parliament, departments and the government is publicpressure. In some cases, it is public shame. We have heard a bit of media bashing here today. Inhis spin the Premier spoke of the multimillionaire or multibillionaire barons who own particularnewspaper chains. However, no matter where one works—even if that is in a particular editorialdepartment—everybody knows that all businesses have a certain budget and that they try to workwithin that budget. There have been some exposés by the media that have made a difference tocertain issues in Queensland. Examples are the marketeering issue and the pressure that hasbeen brought to bear on the Department of Families regarding the lack of assessment and thewaiting lists of 2,000 little children who are at risk of sexual and physical abuse and who requirecare and protection. They are just a couple of examples of exposés. We have submitted FOIapplications for issues such as the footbridge, Lang Park, Virgin Airlines and the NambourHospital, just to name a few.

I heard the previous speaker in this debate talk about the time when she worked for anopposition in the Northern Territory and how frustrating it was not to be able to use the tool offreedom of information because it was not even in existence. Under this legislation, there will be asimilar situation here. She also mentioned the opposition's costs in relation to this issue and actedas if we are acting on our own behalf and not on behalf of the people we represent. We are theopposition for Queensland. We represent a number of seats throughout the state. We advocateissues on behalf of many people who are disgruntled or unhappy with situations in their Laborelectorates. One of the key tools we have which costs us money will be put out of our reach. Thatis a nobbling of the opposition, and that is a backwards step.

In the past three months we have made approximately 25 applications for FOI. Under this billwe will have to pay some hundreds of dollars, and perhaps in a couple of cases thousands ofdollars. We have a limited budget. Our budget is controlled by the Premier's Department, so thePremier's Department controls us financially. Our budget was slashed by one-third in the wagescomponent in opposition which took away one-third of our staff. Despite that, we have a non-Labor component in our budget. In that we have a limited amount we can use for things likefreedom of information. This is going to put a real handbrake and a real check on what theopposition in the Queensland parliament is able to undertake.

We do not have access to any further funds unless the Department of the Premier andCabinet decides at cabinet budget review time to provide us with extra funds to undertakefreedom of information applications. I do not think that that is likely to happen, although thePremier said that we can put forward that request. However, in this regard the Premier'sDepartment has direct control over us because it controls our finances and we have to stay withinbudget. We are going to be financially controlled so that one of the most important tools ofmodern government will be denied to us. Our opportunity to undertake FOI requests that wedeem necessary will be denied to us.

In an average parliamentary sitting week we are allowed to ask five questions. We can eachask a question on notice. There are certain limitations to what we can do. Often we ask aquestion and in his or her allotted three minutes the minister skates around the question and thengives some sort of an answer in the final 30 or 45 seconds. Freedom of information gives us theopportunity on behalf of the people we represent to delve into matters and investigate themthoroughly and deeply.


I have said before that the Freedom of Information Act has become a nuisance to this Laborgovernment. The Freedom of Information Act was designed to extend as far as possible the rightof the community to have access to information held by the government. Subject to exceptionsprovided under the act, everybody has a legally enforceable right to be given access to anydocument of an agency or official document of a minister. It is a right that has been extendedsince the inception of this act.

The exceptions provided for under the act recognise that there are competing public andprivate interests which may warrant non-disclosure of some government held information.Representatives of this government recognise that, too. In introducing the Freedom ofInformation Bill in December 1991, former Attorney-General the Hon. Dean Wells said—The object of this Bill is to extend as far as possible the right of the community to have access to information heldby Queensland Government agencies.

He went on to say—Freedom of information legislation throughout Australia enshrines and protects three basic principles of a free anddemocratic Government, namely, openness, accountability and responsibility. The reasons for enactment offreedom of information legislation have been set out in the Bill, and are as follows—

'Parliament recognises that, in a free and democratic society—

(a) the public interest is served by promoting open discussion of public affairs and enhancing government'saccountability;

(b) the community should be kept informed of government's operations, including, in particular, the rulesand practices followed by government in its dealings with members of the community; and

(c) members of the community should have access to information held by government in relation to theirpersonal affairs and should be given the ways to ensure that information of that kind is accurate,complete, up-to-date and not misleading.'

It is so interesting to see that within a decade this Labor government is setting about makinginformation held by the government more difficult to obtain, either by restricting access or bymaking the process less affordable.

Freedom of information was recommended by Fitzgerald for the Electoral and AdministrativeReview Commission. The Fitzgerald report outlined in part—The Commission consider and, where appropriate, make recommendations for electoral and administrative reformotherwise identified in or arising out of this report, including:

(a) the preparation and enactment of legislation on:

(i) freedom of information

(ii) administrative appeals

(iii) judicial review of administrative decisions

Freedom of information legislation was considered and recommended by the Electoral andAdministrative Review Commission after it carried out a review process culminating in the releaseof its report on FOI. EARC's report actually included the draft FOI bill. In fact, the original FOI actwas modelled on the draft supplied by EARC. Today would be a dark day for Tom Sherman,EARC's first chairman, as he sees the dismantling of those principles of the Fitzgerald reformprocess and as he witnesses the serious limitations being placed on the public's access toinformation held by government, which directly affects openness, accountability and responsibility.

To be true to the principles of Fitzgerald as well as to the core values of democracy, thegovernment has to walk the responsible line between accountability and independence. However,this government has fudged those lines of responsibility and accountability. In a recent article inthe Courier-Mail by DeMaria entitled 'Freedom from Information', it was revealed that thegovernment's FOI bureaucrats have said no to requests for government documents some163,088 times. The departments of Natural Resources; Communication and Information; LocalGovernment and Planning; Sport; Families; Education, Training and Youth Affairs; StateDevelopment; and Health were the most secretive agencies last year—eight of them. Togetherthey accounted for half of the decisions to refuse access to information under the FOI act. TheDepartment of Natural Resources recorded 10,129 refusals, claiming that the information relatedto trade secrets, business affairs or research. On top of all of those refusals—the trundling oftruckloads of information through the cabinet process, the dodging and weaving and the playingof hide and seek with information that this government goes on with—we will now have a financialhurdle to freedom of information in the form of the accountability tax.

It is interesting to observe that the office most affected by this FOI legislation, the Office ofthe Information Commissioner, was not consulted on the amending legislation. That was not an


oversight—it was deliberate—and it shows the arrogance that has seeped through thisgovernment, from the Premier through to the middle ranked bureaucrats through to thisparliament with its huge majority.

To reiterate, under FOI legislation access to government held documents is meant to be astatutory right of everyone. However, this government is making it more difficult by not grantingapproval to access documentation. Probably most menacing is this proposed tax onaccountability and the fees to be charged at an hourly rate.

We have been hearing about a fee of $20 an hour. As well as the cost of $20 an hour forprocessing, a supervisory fee of $20 an hour can be charged. So the cost could actually be $40an hour. How often will there be a supervisor? One hundred per cent of the time? Eighty per centof the time? No doubt that will be at the whim of the department. There is actually a possibilitythat the cost will be about double the estimates some of us have made and that we will see amassive charge of $40 an hour for processing and supervision. If we look at the way the knock-backs have been coming through, we see that plenty of senior bureaucrats will make the decisionto ensure that there will be supervision as well. So there could well be a cost of $40 an hour.

I have talked about the fact that the opposition does not have a discretionary budget andthat we have to work within our budget. Democracy in this state will suffer because we as anopposition will be limited in our use of FOI. These charges will be an effective handbrake on theopposition—another part of the deliberative process of the Beattie Labor government to screwdown any opposition and any free and open democracy in this state. This comes on top of theone-third cutback in staff numbers for the opposition office.

In 1997 Justice Kirby of the High Court said—There is undoubtedly a cost (of freedom of information). But it is the cost of running the kind of government thatrenders authority accountable to the people. It would be a sad irony if FOI were attained at a price which frightenedoff deserving users.

I think that is the whole point of this legislation. What about those people who for so long werefighting against the decision of the government to redevelop Lang Park? A group such as that willbe made to jump through the hoops of applying, getting a decision and waiting for a review. Theentire process could take up to 105 days and they are likely to have the charge of $20 or $40 anhour applied to them. What about ratepayers groups who might be concerned about a highway?What about progress associations or organisations concerned about decisions on quarries orsomething else that affects their amenity?

How can we put a price on democracy? How can we put a price on this overarching systemthat ensures that everybody does things honestly, truly, genuinely and accurately? It ensures thatthere are no favours for any particular organisation, that taxpayers' money is being used in aproper way, that there are no special deals, that there are no favours. How can we put a price ongetting FOI information that ensures that hospitals are working better, that schools are workingbetter, that the justice system is working better, that the welfare services we provide to childrenare working better, that decision making in providing government grants is fair and honest?

The Premier talks about trying to save a few dollars to put into health or education. In fact,through a proper FOI system we could probably bring about many millions of dollars inimprovement, not only in the quality but also in the amount of service that is provided by adepartment. Maybe the FOI process shows the priorities of a government and how much itspends on matters that are not important as compared with matters that are very important. AnFOI inquiry may bring pressure to bear and lead to a reprioritisation so that more important thingsare done.

Maybe FOI inquiries can bring to light the fact that parts of the state are being continuallyneglected in favour of other areas, which may lead to the provision of the sort of governmentfunding and support that is needed. Maybe FOI inquiries can lead to a better justice system.Maybe they can ensure that capital infrastructure tenders or purchasing arrangements are fair,are honest and are not circumvented. Maybe FOI inquiries can ensure that the entire process ofappointing people on merit is true and honest. All of that leads to a state of honest andaccountable government.

What we are seeing here tonight is a dark hour for Queensland. We are seeing here tonightthe introduction of an accountability tax. We are seeing the arrogance personified of thisgovernment, which will do everything it possibly can—while it has a big majority in theparliament—to stop access to information, to hamstring the opposition, to hamstring communitygroups that are not satisfied with decisions, to hamstring the media, and to do everything it can to


run along on its merry way, to do what it likes and to selectively give us what it wants us to haveso that it can keep the bad news to a minimum.

I say once again: shame on members opposite who have given away the opportunity tocontinue to provide this state with fair and open accountability by trying to introduce this tax oninformation to which the public are entitled.

Time expired.Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (5.50 p.m.): A hallmark of a great government—a good

government—is one that has a strong regime of FOI and a strong anti-corruption regime. That iswhat this government has. It was members of this government—members who are still heretoday—who fought hard during the eighties to get rid of a corrupt government, a government thatdid not have an FOI system, did not have an anti-corruption system, but was riddled withcorruption. Some members of the opposition were around then. Even if they were not in electedroles, they were in their party roles. They did not fight for an FOI regime. It is members of theLabor government who willingly and eagerly introduced this system, which was one of the firstmajor reforms of the Goss Labor government. Members opposite have such a hide to come inhere and call us a government that is trying to undermine FOI in this state. Many members havespoken tonight about that very important historical fact, and I just want to remind members that itwas this government—a Labor government—which fought hard for this and, let me say again,willingly and eagerly introduced this system and will continue to fight to maintain this system.

I support personally a fair system of fees and charges for FOI applications. The system mustenable ready access to information for individuals and organisations and must not be costprohibitive. At the same time it must build in incentives for applicants to focus the scope of theirrequests. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the fishing expedition applications—the verybroad applications—can take agencies many weeks or months to process. There are better waysto use the time of agency staff and to use taxpayer funds. There are better ways to actuallymanage this process.

There are two key strategies that I want to talk about tonight. The Leader of the Oppositioncommented earlier that this government has a lazy tail—a bunch of caucus members who alwayssay yes to the Premier. In fact, there is a very talented bunch of backbenchers here who are veryfree thinking, lively and dynamic members of the backbench. We are not toadies. In fact, thereare a couple of issues that I have raised with the Attorney-General, and I will raise them heretonight.

There are two key ways of managing this problem that I want to touch on tonight. One ofthose is having a reasonable processing charge as well as a well-managed system of negotiationand communication between agencies and applicants. If an applicant has requested all records,for instance, on a topic over a 10-year span, one can imagine the nightmare that would create forthe agency staff member who is given that retrieval task. It does not make sense to do that andallow a free-ranging process of applications. It is costly, and it is probably a most unnecessaryburden.

In many ways many of these applications can be managed better. And as members havesaid tonight, many of the applicants are large commercial organisations that should be paying.Taxpayers' money should not be used for them to find out information that, in many cases, leadsto their having some commercial gain. In many cases there is evidence to suggest that peopleare using the FOI regime rather than the usual legal discovery processes. So there are manyreasons why we should in fact have a reasonable system of charging.

It is apparent that unnecessary processing work can be minimised if applicants and agencystaff are required to negotiate to produce a common understanding of the specific informationrequired. This will help to narrow the scope of the application. A further incentive to do this isgiving applicants an estimate of the cost that is involved so that they know up front what it is likelyto cost, not only in terms of specific departmental activity but the monetary value and themonetary cost of that. It is important that cost estimates are provided to applicants upon makingtheir applications. People may say that this is unnecessary, it is prohibitive. But there is one thingthat I have not heard members speak about tonight, and it is an important consideration.

It is important that we maintain a culture in this state amongst agency staff that FOI isimportant. One of the things that seems to be creeping into the system is that people arebecoming very cynical in processing these applications. That is human nature. That is a reality.We cannot deny that. One of the very important ways of avoiding that risk is by being more

3268 Freedom of Information; Secret State 31 Oct 2001

reasonable in how these applications are negotiated and narrowing their scope so that we do nothave so many unnecessary fishing expeditions.

The Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee, which I chair, is finalising amajor review of the FOI act. During the course of this review, LCARC members have had theopportunity and the benefit of over 170 submissions and a great deal of research. One of theissues we have been canvassing is the matter of fees and charges. In the research that LCARChas had before it there is overwhelming support for the retention of a free system of access topersonal information for individuals, and I commend the minister for remaining firm on thisposition and for introducing the financial hardship provisions. The LCARC position on fees andcharges is not yet finalised. It is intended that the report on our review will be tabled in Decemberthis year.

I want to flag to the minister, though, some of my concerns about a fixed hourly chargeregime. One concern is that each government agency has different record management andretrieval systems. Many are very efficient, but there will be some that are not so good. Applicantsshould not be paying for delays or inefficiencies that are the responsibility of individual agencies,nor should applicants pay for the processing of information that ultimately they may not receive.That may not be an issue that is taken up by the minister, but I think it is certainly one that isworthy of consideration.

The Australian Law Reform Commission and the Commonwealth Administrative ReviewCouncil in a joint report titled 'Open Government: A review of the Freedom of Information Act1982'—the federal act—and other commentators have been critical of a time based charge,preferring an output based charge for the number of documents released to applicants. While allagencies ought to be required in the legislation to exercise their duties promptly and at the lowestreasonable cost, this may not always be the practice.

Clause 6 of this bill seeks to amend section 109—regulations—to provide for the charge forthe activity to be calculated at a single hourly rate. I caution against locking into this hourly rate inthe statute. If the practice of a fixed hourly rate were to be problematic, it would be helpful to beable to readily introduce new charging options. The LCARC report will include a comprehensiveanalysis of FOI charging regimes. I encourage the minister not to set in concrete the fixed hourlyrate at this stage but certainly to proceed with other aspects of the bill. I certainly welcome theconsideration of the LCARC report later in December this year.

Debate, on motion of Ms Struthers, adjourned.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION; SECRET STATEMr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.58 p.m.): I move—

That this parliament condemns the Beattie government for making Queensland the secret state and for itsarrogance and lack of commitment to accountability.

Over the past decade the parliament in this state has gone through a lot of processes and a lot ofpain to try to bring itself forward to a modern, accountable government. In the space of a fewmonths since the election of the Beattie Labor government we have seen this state slide backinto a secret state status. We have seen it show an arrogance—an unbridled arrogance attimes—in this parliament, and we have seen a complete disregard for accountability. Thisgovernment is using every possible means at its disposal to keep information from people. It goesalong on its merry way, it is doing what it likes, and it is starting to disregard the very importantprinciples that have been put in place over the past decade.

I will commence by speaking about the Fitzgerald inquiry and how the subsequent reportdealt at length with the issue of government secrecy. It is so important, I will read it to theparliament—A government can deliberately obscure the processes of public administration and hide or disguise its motives. Ifnot discovered, there are no constraints on the exercise of political power. The rejection of constraints is likely toadd to the power of the government and its leader and perhaps lead to an increased tendency to misuse power.

The ultimate check on public maladministration is public opinion, which can only be truly effective if there arestructures and systems designed to ensure that it is properly informed. A government can use its control ofparliament and public administration to manipulate, exploit and misinform the community or to hide matters from it.Structures and systems designed for the purpose of keeping the public informed must therefore be allowed tooperate as intended.

Secrecy and propaganda are major impediments to accountability, which is a prerequisite for the properfunctioning of the political process. Worse, they are the hallmarks of a diversion of power from the parliament.

31 Oct 2001 Freedom of Information; Secret State 3269

That is this parliament in which members work in representation of their constituents. Queenslandhas been down the secrecy path. We have dealt with the costly Fitzgerald inquiry, which resultedin the National Party government implementing accountability measures lock, stock and barreland at great cost to the party. Ironically, within a decade we witnessed the dismantling of theFitzgerald reforms which were originally put in place by a National Party government. Today wehave debated legislation that is an assault on freedom of information. That legislation is beforethe House and I am not entitled to discuss that, so I will not touch on that.

There has been a massive assault on the Criminal Justice Commission and the QueenslandCrime Commission. The opposition has raised issues with the way in which the Criminal JusticeCommission, which was designed to be the watchdog for the state, is to be amalgamated withthe Queensland Crime Commission, including its investigative powers, with the result that there isno longer a watchdog which stands alone. If members believe in having a corruption watchdog, itis important for this state to have a Criminal Justice Commission that just performs that watchdogrole and nothing else. Its power and its position have been weakened by legislation passed bythis parliament.

On the issue of electricity, the Premier attempted to initiate a competition policy debate in theshadows of the federal election. He used a report prepared by independent consultants, PAConsulting, to support his argument. However, he was not prepared to table that document, sohow can members know the truth of the information the Premier conveyed to the House?Instead, according to the Premier, a special Treasury document was prepared to provide ananalysis of what the consultants meant to say.

Queensland Health has refused various applications for access to information, such asdocuments relating to the Nambour Hospital's maternity department. The opposition wasendeavouring to obtain information relating to staffing levels and other matters of importance toparents. The Queensland Nurses Union was refused access to information on budgets and theperformance of district health services, thereby leaving the union unable to effectively negotiateenterprise bargaining agreements.

Members have seen what happened with the Department of Families when information wassought that would have been of benefit particularly to children on the waiting list for assessment.Those attempts were frustrated and access to information was denied until eventually it wasflushed out of this government by force.

We have seen the GST Treasury report, leaked research that was conducted for the stategovernment, showing that all Queensland public servants are better off under the goods andservices tax. That is secret research the government had done. Does this government comeclean and release the research? No! It is hidden away; it is to be used for the government's ownpurposes. At the same time the Labor government runs around claiming that the GST is terrible,even though the Premier rushed to Canberra to be the very first person to sign it. As I said, thegovernment has research that shows that public servants are better off under the GST, but itkeeps that secret so that it can be used in enterprise bargaining negotiations.

Lang Park papers have been kept secret despite all the attempts by the opposition andothers to endeavour to find out what is actually happening.

In relation to the blow-out from $12 million to $24 million in the cost of the pedestrian bridge,every possible attempt has been made to acquire those documents, but the government hasbeen successful in keeping them from the public. In a scathing report the QueenslandOmbudsman—the Information Commissioner—has demonstrated clearly how this government,through its bureaucracy, has collected every document it possibly can and trundled those into thecabinet process to protect them from freedom of information applications and to keep theinformation away from the public. The opposition and the media have quite legitimately madeefforts to find out the cost of that bridge, how the cost overruns occurred and what problems wereencountered. Gaining that information might have been very useful in preventing similar problemsin the future, but access to that information was denied.

What about the commercial-in-confidence that was relied upon to stop us at looking at thedeals involving Dalrymple Bay, Virgin Airlines and Flight West, and the scathing report of theAuditor-General? All of that was to no avail. The avoidance of consultation is another goodexample of the arrogance of this government. Even when considering changes to freedom ofinformation legislation it did not consult with the Information Commissioner, the very statutoryauthority that ought to have been consulted to obtain some sort of advice. No, this governmentjust goes on its merry way and does whatever it wishes.


The numberplates issue has incensed the people of Queensland. One day this governmentsuddenly and arrogantly announces that it does not care if people like their numberplates, theywill be changed and the community will have no say in it. The government might as well havesaid, 'It might be your car, but that is too bad. We want to put our slogan on your car.' There wasno consultation; the government does whatever it likes. That is another example of thegovernment's arrogance and lack of consultation. This government treats this parliament and thepeople of this state like a dirty doormat.

Through the parliamentary process, and again and again through the estimates process, theopposition attempted to gain answers to proper and decent questions, but there was never adecent or proper response. Ministers refused to answer questions. They carried on until only 30seconds of their time remained and then provided a response of sorts to the question. We haveseen the arrogance displayed by the large number of legislative amendments moved in theHouse. Until the opposition pulled up the government, after our shadow minister had spoken thegovernment would circulate amendments to the bill under debate. What arrogance! Once againthis place was treated like a dirty doormat.

The cause behind the arrogance, the contempt and the secrecy of this government is thefact that it has a massive majority. It serves as a warning to the people of Queensland that if thishappens again, this arrogance and this contempt for the principles of freedom of information andfor open, accountable and honest government will once again rise to the surface. I think thepeople of Queensland are starting to see that we have slid back into being a secret state. All thatthe people on the other side have fought for and all that we in the National Party brought infollowing the Fitzgerald inquiry is gradually subsiding under the arrogance of this government as itmoves to control the parliament and the freedom of information, and as they move to frustrateevery attempt made by the media, the opposition, community groups and individuals to accessinformation that is rightly theirs.

There are three cornerstones of democracy and we ought to face up to the fact that they area necessity and that they have a cost. The first is the Criminal Justice Commission. It will now bemixed in with the investigation of organised crime and paedophilia and will not be a stand-aloneunit in which the public can have total and absolute confidence as an organisation thatdemonstrates to Queenslanders that corruption has stopped, official misconduct has stopped andmisconduct itself has stopped.

We see the nobbling of freedom of information through the cabinet process and through anyother way that the government can put a hurdle in front of people. The legislation currently beforethe House provides for the imposition of a cost of up to $40 an hour to process informationrequests. Queenslanders probably shake their heads with disbelief and shame when they seewhat is happening to our state—when they see all the money that is being put into the Premier'sDepartment for staff to undertake research and to generate publicity and propaganda to promotethe government when money is not available for important things like health and education.

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (6.08 p.m.): I rise tosecond the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition that this parliament condemns theBeattie government for making Queensland the secret state and for its arrogance and lack ofcommitment to accountability. This evening, the Leader of the Opposition canvassed a series ofissues in relation to accountability and in relation to the secret state. He mentioned Lang Parkand the pedestrian bridge. I will mention a few more. I refer to the tilt train to Cairns. Yes, it is aninitiative of the Beattie government to build a tilt train to Cairns, but we have never, ever receivedthe true facts.

Ms Bligh interjected.

Mr JOHNSON: I will come to the Minister for Education in one-half of one minute. The point Imake is that the tilt train concept is supposed to be going to cost $132 million. I havedocumentation signed off by the chief executive of QR to say that the cost would be nothing shortof $850 million, maybe $1 billion. At the end of the day, we have to have the rolling stock. I referto the main north line upgrade of $650 million. That was started by the government in its first termand the coalition government finished it.

Mr Beattie: Oh!

Mr JOHNSON: The Premier can toss his head and laugh and grin, but he cannot walk awayfrom accountability. That may be his way of dealing with it, but the people do not see it that way. Isay to the Premier that if he can give the truth sometimes, the real facts of the matter, he wouldbe a better bloke for it. But he cannot face the reality.


I refer to consultation. If the government had listened to the dilemma that Flight West was inin earlier days, we probably would not have had that debacle on our hands. I refer to other issuesrelating to the DPI and Natural Resources in Queensland. Today, the member for Callide raisedthe issue of small mining leases and native title. As the Leader of the Opposition said rightly just amoment ago, nobody opposite will answer the questions. Today, the Premier did not answer thatquestion asked by the member for Callide in relation to native title. He spoke about the smallminers wanting their leases granted, of waiting for them, and then a lot of them mining illegally.

I hear the Minister for Education laughing. I say to the minister that this is no laughingmatter. We have in our Queensland schools the lowest rate of literacy and numeracy of any state.

Ms Bligh: Oh!Mr JOHNSON: Yes, the minister can jump around and jive, but I suggest that she travel to

some of those schools in those country areas and see some of the hardships and difficulties thatpeople are talking about.

I have to say that the real issue is accountability. The dilemma that this government findsitself in—and it is not able to face the reality—is the Flight West subsidy. That issue should havebeen addressed. The FOI document obtained by the opposition showed that the governmentknew six months beforehand that Flight West was in trouble. What did the Beattie governmentdo? Absolutely nothing! How smart is that? Not real smart at all!

When the Premier first came into this place in 1989, which is also the first time that I cameinto this place, he held up the Fitzgerald report and read from it all the time. Now, he is walkingaway from it. The Fitzgerald report states—Whatever the expertise required, the solution to any problem is something about which people can and doreasonably differ. The best result will be produced from rational debate by those with opposing views. Thecommunity is entitled to such a result.

The report goes on to state—Parliament can easily be prevented from properly performing its role by being denied time and resources. AnyGovernment may use its dominance in the Parliament and its control of public resources to stifle and neutereffective criticism by the Opposition.

That is exactly what this Premier is trying to do.Mr Horan interjected.

Mr JOHNSON: Absolutely. There is no doubt that the staff was cut by one-third. At the sametime—

Mr Beattie: Oh!Mr JOHNSON: The Premier should just hang on a second. At the same time, there are

issues out there now—

Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! I want to hear the member.

Mr JOHNSON: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for protection. Sometimes the truth hurts.

I say to the Premier that it is about time he got back on the front foot and started telling thepeople of Queensland the real facts, the real truth of the matter, and say that they are the oneswho are paying, and that they deserve the answers.

Time expired.

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) Premier and Minister for Trade) (6.14 p.m.): Imove—Delete all words after 'parliament' and add—

'Acknowledges that the Queensland government is committed to openness and accountability.'

This is the most accountable government Queensland has ever had in its history. I ask membersto consider the amount of money that we spend on accountability. In the year 2000 I was given abrief that set out the following figures: the Criminal Justice Commission, $25,182,000; theQueensland Crime Commission, $4,378,000; the Office of the Public Service Commissioner,$1,312,500; the Auditor-General, $16,681,000; the Ombudsman and Information Commissioner,$5,554,000; the Anti-Discrimination Commission and Tribunal, $1,240,470; the Children'sCommission of Queensland, $1,699,000; freedom of information—which was an estimate at thattime, March 2000—$6,090,128 and now it has reached close to $8 million; and judicial review,the cost of which was not possible to estimate at that time. The total bill for those bodies was


$62,137,098. That figure, which is the amount that we put into accountability, is now in excess ofthat, because those were March 2000 figures.

I will talk about accountability. I will not change the FOI laws to in any way impede the role ofcabinet to lead on issues. That is important and I have made that clear. Cabinet needs to leadand it will. FOI was never meant to impede the ability of cabinet or one of its key committees, theCabinet Budget Review Committee, which is the most important cabinet committee, from doing itsjob. This state needs strong leadership and under my government they will get strong leadership.The bottom line is that we have not changed the FOI laws since the Goss days. Although there islegislation before the House that relates to cost, outside of that we have not changed it. We havenot changed the laws and they are in accordance with interstate practice.

In opposition, Labor applied for waiting lists for elective surgery. They are now publishedquarterly and available on the Net. To avoid giving the Labor opposition access to waiting listdocuments, the Borbidge government took truck loads of documents into a cabinet meeting atMount Isa. I wonder who the Minister for Health was at that time? When Labor came togovernment, we found out why the coalition government hid those documents: ToowoombaHospital had one of the worst waiting lists!

In response to the Opposition Leader's comments about opportunities for the opposition toget information from government, my government has put a three-minute time limit on answersprovided by ministers to questions. When the coalition was in government, the Opposition Leaderwas famous for long-winded answers—often seven or eight minutes and sometimes as long as15 minutes. The Leader of the Opposition and Santo Santoro were the biggest windbags that thisparliament had seen.

I will be blunt about this. When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Health, hehad the worst track record of any minister in the history of this parliament in hiding material fromFOI. One of the things that Australians hate are hypocrites. In government, the Leader of theOpposition was the worst abuser of FOI in the history of this parliament.

Mr Horan interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: When in government, the Leader of the Opposition would not even releaseelective surgery lists. He hid them. Yet he has the absolute audacity to come into this place andbe critical of the government about FOI legislation. He has no credibility at all. One member whoshould not have the hide to participate in a debate on FOI legislation is the Leader of theOpposition. He has the worst track record of any minister.

The issues that address FOI, which are covered in the current legislation before this House,were identified by people such as Tom Gilmore. I table for the information of the House somecomments that Tom Gilmore made in Hansard on 8 July 1997. I also table for the House somecomments made by Bob Quinn on 1 June 1997. Those comments highlight the waste of moneyand the abuse of FOI at that time. At that time, both of those members—a National Party ministerand a Liberal Party minister—in this House addressed the same concerns that are addressed bythe FOI legislation before this House. They cannot have it both ways. When the coalition was ingovernment, two of their ministers, one Liberal, one National, were critical of the FOI position,because they were being abused. We are fixing that, because we are not going to see moneypulled out of the Education or Health budget and being put into FOI. We are putting in excess of$60 million into accountability. We stand by that. This is the most accountable government in thehistory of Queensland and we will be judged for that.

Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (6.20 p.m.): Tonight thecoalition is right about one thing. It is right when it asserts that, in a healthy democracy, oneneeds accountability mechanisms, and checks and balances. You need those checks andbalances on the bureaucracy, on the agencies of government and on the parliament itself. Whatthe coalition fails to mention is that in the state of Queensland almost every check and balancethat we have in our system has been an initiative of a Labor government. Coalition memberscome in here snivelling, with their hands on their hearts, proclaiming their undying love foraccountability. Where is the evidence of it?

In our system, what are some of the mechanisms that protect us against bureaucraticexcesses and poor decision making? On issues related to the Judicial Review Act, the FOI Actitself and the provisions of the Public Service Act that ensure merit appointments and equalemployment opportunity, where was the coalition? Every single one of those initiatives was put inplace by a Labor government. Where was the coalition's undying love for accountabilitythroughout the 1980s when every other government in the country brought in freedom of


information acts? The Commonwealth brought in the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Actin 1982. The National Party in Queensland had seven years to bring in such an act and it refused.

Mr Johnson: We are talking about since Fitzgerald.

Ms BLIGH: I am sure that the member would much rather do that. Let us talk about that. What are some of the mechanisms that we rely on to put checks and balances into the

parliament? First of all, there is the parliamentary committee system. Who in Queensland willforget the National Party's view of parliamentary committees? So desperate where they to avoidthe scrutiny of a Public Accounts Committee that they split the coalition in 1983. As was the casein every other parliament in the country, in order to avoid the scrutiny of an all-party committeethey were prepared to split with the Liberals. They did not repair the coalition for another six orseven years.

Mr Foley: How is the coalition going now?Ms BLIGH: I have to say that the coalition does not seem to be as healthy as it might be. All

other parliamentary committees were an initiative of the Goss Labor government. The OppositionLeader has complained about estimates committee questions. When could ministers first bequestioned by estimates committees? That occurred under the Goss Labor government, and ithas been maintained under this Labor government.

The Premier has talked about question time. It is important for the people who are new tothis place to understand that, prior to the election of the Beattie government in 1998, there wasno check or balance in question time that required ministers to restrict their answers to areasonable time. Therefore, a government seeking to avoid scrutiny simply made sure that aminister got onto his feet and talked for 10 or more minutes. In that way, only three, four or fivequestions could be asked.

Mr Horan interjected. Mr Beattie: You were the worst.

Ms BLIGH: I concur with the Premier's view that the current Leader of the Opposition was theworst. I understand from a staff member that on one occasion he gave a 14-minute answer. Onedoes not need to do much maths to work out that that does not allow for many questions to beasked. Santo Santoro gave a 10-minute answer, and so on.

Where did the pecuniary interests register come from, which required parliamentarians todisclose their interests? Who put that in place? A Labor government. What about some of thewatchdogs that we rely on? This coalition is made up of a number of people who, for two yearsunder the Borbidge government, devoted their time almost completely to bringing down the onewatchdog that was in place at the time, the Criminal Justice Commission. Their government cameundone because of its absolute obsession with bringing down the CJC. It spent millions of publicdollars on the Connolly-Ryan inquiry, which was subsequently found to be biased by the SupremeCourt. For the entire time that they were in government, they were obsessed with getting rid of theCJC. Now they come in here professing to be its champion.

This afternoon we have heard a bit about the Information Commissioner. Because of theaccountability measures that were put in place by this government and previous Laborgovernments, the Information Commissioner can make comment with impunity. Can any memberremember what happened in Queensland to public servants who raised concerns?

A government member: : They got sacked.Ms BLIGH: Yes, they were sacked. That is what happens in a closed society. That is what

happens in a secret state. People in Queensland know what it is like to live in a secret state. Theylived in such a state throughout the sixties, the seventies and the eighties. When a Laborgovernment came into power in the nineties, that was the end of secrecy in Queensland. I amproud of our record. It stands for itself. The record of those opposite is one of shame anddisgrace.

Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (6.24 p.m.): On 13 July last year, thisgovernment was embarrassed by a leaked memo. That memo revealed this government'sstrategy for marketing its achievements or otherwise. It said, 'Don't let on what you knowinternally. Just laugh it off.' What we are seeing from the government today is exactly the samething. Its strategy is that if it is scrutinised by the opposition, it will just laugh it off. Since theelection of the second Beattie Labor government, it has hidden behind a veil of secrecyunparalleled in the history of Queensland.


We have heard the Premier stand up for integrity. He is the man who made good use of hismembership of Actors Equity when he met Joh behind the cowshed at Bethany in 1987. Now heis walking out of this place because he is so absolutely embarrassed by what he has foisted onthe people of Queensland since being elected to a second term in government.

The Premier told this House that he brought in wonderful parliamentary reforms such aslimiting ministers to three minutes when answering questions during question time. He tried toapportion some blame to the former Borbidge ministry for that move. I came into this place in1989 and I remember being subjected to 23-minute answers from Ed Casey. We used to besubjected to 25-minute answers from the Premier of the day, Wayne Goss. Governmentmembers tend to forget about those sorts of things. Isn't it amazing how time makes them smellof roses and dresses them in virginal white. Their past is not very good at all.

The Premier who has walked out of this place tonight is the same Premier who, only a fewmonths ago, refused to release the quantum of performance bonuses for CEOs in Queensland.There is no such liberty for CEOs in the general business community, but there is for the CEOs ofthis particular government. Where is their accountability now? Where is the Premier now? He ishiding in his office like a dingo! He does not want to confront these issues.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! That phrase was unparliamentary. I ask themember to withdraw it.

Mr SPRINGBORG: I withdraw. He may have gone to attend to a call of nature and I mayhave been too harsh on him. Certainly he is not here to answer that criticism.

Government members have talked about the decent way that they treat public servants. Assoon as they came into government in 1989, they rounded up a whole lot of public servants andGulaged them; they shamed them and they wore them down until they resigned. They put themin a Gulag. This was done by people who claim to be the workers' mates and who claim to stickup for the battlers.

Do members know what happens in my electorate now? I have been written to bysubsequent Ministers for Natural Resources informing me not to talk to my local Department ofNatural Resources about constituent issues. Under the Goss government and our government, Icould always pick up the phone and sort out problems. Now there is an absolute control mentalityin Queensland so that one cannot even deal with local constituent issues in district and regionaloffices. That is what is happening under a government that is supposed to be all about reform. Itis not about reform.

I turn to the issue of money spent on accountability. Today, the Premier sought to make avirtue out of necessity by taking credit for things that have existed in Queensland for a long timebefore he became Premier or even entered this place. The Ombudsman, that is, the InformationCommissioner, has been around for a long time. That accountability mechanism did not happenunder this Premier. He is seeking to take credit for those sorts of things. The Criminal JusticeCommission was introduced by an National Party government. Those sorts of things are a part ofthe ongoing course and process of government and they ensure a degree of accountability. Onecannot come into this place and take credit for them. The real test of a proper government is howit exercises itself in the face of those checks and balances. That is where this government doesnot come up very well. That is where this government falls down.

A moment ago the Premier indicated that his government does not use the cabinetexemption process in an unfair way. Only a few months ago, the Leader of the Oppositionapplied to the Department of State Development and kindred departments for informationregarding the Goodwill Bridge. That was denied to him. The Information Commissioner looked atthe issue and said that there was no value whatsoever in the documentation as far as the cabinetdeliberative process was concerned. He advised them that they should consider the section 28exemption capacity to release the information. They did not. They wrote back and said to theInformation Commissioner, 'No, we won't do that.' The South Bank Corporation, the Departmentof the Premier and Cabinet, and the office of the Minister for State Development abused thatprocess. Even the Information Commissioner indicated that there was little value whatsoever inthat documentation not being released.

Time expired.Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (6.30 p.m.): I rise to support the amendment to the

motion, as I expect will all fair-minded members when we vote later on. I know the Leader of theOpposition feels bound to attack the government if only to hold off the inevitable challenge to hisposition by the member for Southern Downs. Ironically, this sort of ill-conceived nonsense will only


hasten his demise. The member for Southern Downs knows that plenty of Labor backbenchers'money is on a wager that he will take over before the middle of next year. However, for theLeader of the National Party to choose to take on the Beattie government on issues of openness,accountability and arrogance indicates a disregard for history exceeded only by his lack of politicalnous. He has a blind spot of amazing proportions. It is the Big Pineapple of blind spots; we haveto admire it just for its sheer size.

Mr Seeney: Who gave you this to read?

Mr McNAMARA: I am about to praise the member for Keppel. After a generation in thisplace, the member for Keppel can be forgiven for repeating the odd speech occasionally. Buthow lazy and arrogant is it for the Nats to repeat the untruth that they care a tinker's cuss aboutaccountability? Where is the Liberal Party on this issue? Where do they stand on the rubbishbeing served up by the Leader of the Opposition?


Mr McNAMARA: They are hiding. Have they learnt from the wasted and compromised yearsin coalition with the Nationals which have led them to today's low ebb? Have they learnt from theDenver Beanland debacle? They need to take a stand on issues that are important. They talkabout daylight saving. Where are they on the subject of accountability?

The Liberals should remember, because the people of Queensland certainly do and thevoters of Indooroopilly definitely do, that the then Attorney-General in the Borbidge governmentrefused to resign after losing the confidence of the people's House. What arrogance! Was losinggovernment in 1988 enough of a wake-up call for the Liberals? Was losing Indooroopilly to Laboryoung gun Ronan Lee in 2001 a clear enough message for the Liberal Party? They say you can'tput brains in a monument. The Liberal Party has become a monument to out-of-touch arrogance.Where are they?


Mr McNAMARA: Yes, the only one who is still thinking of turning up the next time around. The people of Queensland want openness and accountability. They hate arrogance. That is

why the National Party has only 11 seats in this place and the Labor Party has 66. That is why theLiberal Party has only three seats in this place and two of those are eyeing all of the availableexits. But imagine, most incredibly of all, the National Party choosing to fight on the battlegroundof accountability. This is the party that gave us Terry Lewis as Police Commissioner and thespecial branch with its secret files on ordinary Queenslanders. This is the party which used thepolice force as political muscle against its opponents.

Mr Johnson: Tell us about some of your colleagues. Where are they?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order!

Mr Johnson: Where are they?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Gregory under standing order 123A.The member will not disregard me. We have been hearing this debate quietly tonight and I think itis fair enough that everybody be heard. I ask that everybody be heard.

Mr McNAMARA: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. But we all understand that he is veryspecial.

This is the party that gave us 'Don't you worry about that' instead of a Freedom ofInformation Act. The Leader of the National Party is as ridiculous—

Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order. I have been warned under standing order 123A andI cannot reply to a comment like that one. If I do reply, are you going to throw me out of here? Iask him to withdraw that comment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. What was the comment?

Mr McNAMARA: That he is special. I withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat.

Mr Johnson interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I think the member is

being very unreasonable.

Mr McNAMARA: I was unaware of the sensitivities of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Iwill take his sensitivities into account in the future. I had not realised.


The Leader of the National Party is as ridiculous as the emperor in new clothes standing heretonight talking about arrogance and accountability. The Beattie government has introduced anupdated purchasing policy to make sure that suppliers of goods and services to governments geta fair go. Contrast that with the white-shoe brigade cronyism and suitcases full of money in theJoh days. The Beattie government has introduced country cabinets and regional communityforums and next year is taking parliament to Townsville in order to bring open government to thepeople. Contrast that with Russ Hinze's ministerial rezonings and government access restricted toan elite circle of National Party knights.

The Beattie government moved this year to relax the sub judice convention to allow forgreater latitude in the debate—a move specifically opposed by Premier Borbidge in the NationalParty's brief appearance in government in the 1990s. The Leader of the Opposition demonstratesa capacity for self-deception in his motion that is breathtaking in scale. One could rest in theshade of the National Party's self-delusion, so detailed and elaborate is it. It is staggering that aparty that still takes its daily riding instructions from the Police Union could condemn anyoneabout openness and accountability. I urge the opposition to have a look at the half dozenIndependents who now sit behind them. They are tangible proof of what happens when they donot care about accountability.

Time expired.Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA) (6.34 p.m.): The member for Hervey Bay made various

comments about some people who might have done the wrong thing when we were ingovernment. I do not believe this is the place for that sort of thing, because every party has theirbad eggs. I will not go any further. We all know who they are, and I do not believe we need tomuddy this debate with that sort of comment.

As the longest serving member in the House, I have seen many governments of variousforms from either side of the political debate. I am very disappointed to say that this is the firsttime in my experience that public servants have been fearful of speaking to non-governmentmembers. Unfortunately, this is the case in many instances. Public servants, in some instances,are getting directives that they are not even to give freely available public information to theopposition. That is a very poor state of affairs. I am incensed to think that, as electedparliamentarians who should have access to all of the information we need, that information is cutoff from us because someone wants to be political.

I have made a number of courtesy calls on various departments, particularly in country areas.In some instances, public servants are happy to talk with me. However, others tell me that theyhave to be careful about what they say and that I should not tell anyone that I have been talkingto them; they are frightened that the conversation might get back to the minister and that they willbe dealt with. Public servants are trying to do their best to be apolitical and to get promoted.Obviously, if they have a directive from above to be careful about what they say to us inopposition, a public servant will think very carefully before he or she gives us information that weneed.

I say to members opposite that we do not live in a totalitarian state. This is or should be ademocracy. Freedom of speech and freedom of association are rights read into the AustralianConstitution. I ask that this be granted to all members of society. We should allow public servantsto serve the public. That is what they want to do. That is their charter. It is their charter to beapolitical. One can imagine how they feel when we, as politicians, do the right thing and call in toa department. They are put ill at ease. That the member for Southern Downs has been advisedthat he is not to call on certain people is wrong and should never, ever happen.

In my area, within the Education Department—perhaps the minister might be kind enough tolook at this for me—I have had instances where the P&C has got on to me about an issue at aschool and, suddenly, the principal has found himself in trouble for trying to get hold of me to fightfor the school over some issue or other. That has happened on more than one occasion.

The Minister for the Arts came to my area recently, fully informed me and got me veryinvolved in the political process. For that I congratulate him and say thank you. I do not think thepublicity we got hurt either of us. People were very well taken by the fact that there were twopeople trying to do the right thing by the community. Unfortunately, there are a lot of peoplearound the minister who take the opposite view. Those are the people who are not doing the rightthing by any of us.

I say simply that, as members of the opposition, all we ask for is a fair go. We ask for equalrights. We ask to be treated in this manner not because we want to be treated this way, but


because we represent people. Those people have chosen to vote for us. Therefore, we have theright to speak for them about whatever problems they have.

Time expired.

Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (6.40 p.m.): They were very noble words from themember for Keppel, but this debate has already been slightly muddied. How can the NationalParty in all seriousness call this government the secret state? How can those National Partymembers who are still in this House having come from a corrupt regime have such audacity? Itappears that journalists and the National Party are the only ones complaining in this debate.What short and selective memories they have. FOI never existed until Wayne Goss becamePremier. Those people over there kept opposing it time and time again. What cheek andhypocrisy they have.

The Beattie government is the most open and accountable government that we have everseen. Never before have we had estimates like we have now. Never before have we hadcommunity cabinets like we have now. Never before have entire cabinets met with the people inthe true listening style of this government. This is called openness. This is called transparency andaccountability.

Mr HORAN: I rise to a point of order. I do not want to interrupt. I take offence to that. We had24 country cabinets.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! There is no point of order. The member willresume his seat.

Mr HORAN: We put the process in place.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order and the member knows it. He istaking up the time of the House. He will resume his seat or I will warn him.

Ms NELSON-CARR: With all due respect, the National Party met with National Party stooges.They were not community cabinets like we have now. I think the National Party is suffering frommental aberration.

Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order. I find that totally offensive.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr HOBBS: We had cabinet meetings all over the whole country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I warn the member.Mr HOBBS: I do not care what you do, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is about time this Labor

government realised that we in fact did have country cabinet meetings.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I think this is disgraceful behaviour. I am on my feet. There isno point of order again. The member is out of order. That is disgraceful. The next person whoraises a frivolous point of order I am warning now in advance.

Ms NELSON-CARR: I feel sorry for them because they really are suffering mentalaberrations, or maybe their understanding of secrecy has been lost, just as they lost the lastelection.

Let us get a bit of historical perspective. It was not that long ago that Terry Lewis wasappointed as the political arm of the National Party—the Police Commissioner, a position heobtained coming from a level of obscurity, the highest position for the police force. He wasappointed by the Premier, Sir Joh. We know what happened to him. Our National Partycolleagues remember what happened to him as well because they were there.

What about one of the most bitter episodes in recent Queensland political history when theCarruthers inquiry faced repeated allegations of bias, a Supreme Court challenge, a furore overthe intrusive bugging of a witness and disinformation campaigns? This inquiry showed thepotential to tear the National-Liberal Party coalition apart and bring down the government. Dohonourable members remember the media reports and the reports that revealed a secret dealbetween the Police Union and the coalition, which would go on to reduce the powers of the CJC,get rid of the Police Commissioner and weaken police disciplinary measures? I could go on andon about that, but it is history. Despite the facts, the Premier at the time and his Police Ministerwere cleared of any wrongdoing.

Russell Cooper was then in a position in which he could actually claim some of the credit forthe Liberals winning Mundingburra, and he was probably right. The chances are that the PoliceUnion campaign, supported as it was by the concerned citizens of Mundingburra and a so-called


independent Green all of whom were associated with Russell Cooper either directly or through hisagent Heery, did contribute to the Liberal win. The probability is that the memorandum ofunderstanding helped keep the Police Union campaign on track.

Yet the opposition howls vehemently today about the secrecy of this government. This singleact by its very nature was an attempt to dismantle significant post-Fitzgerald reforms. Who couldforget Sir Joh's attempt to curtail the use of the Parliamentary Library? He wanted resources fromthe Library to be used by only his backbenchers so that they could debate. He was very critical ofthe library, and why? Because he wanted to be a one-man band!

What about the Land Act that was wrongly used to resume crown land illegally so that manypeople and businesses lost their homes? These people, mostly elderly and none of whomwanted to sell, were cheated because they were forced to sell under the threat of resumption andwere paid compensation only on the basis of the status of the property rather than on the basis ofdevelopment. The land was sold to mates. We could go on and on. There was the ministerialrezoning by Russ Hinze, as the member for Hervey Bay said.

It is absolute hypocrisy for the opposition to use examples like the Goodwill Bridge and FOIto illustrate their pathetic line of secrecy. It is exactly that: pathetic. The public knew the costs ofthe bridge. They know the outcomes. The very people who time and time again opposed theintroduction of FOI in this House are the same ones who have taken the moral high ground. Thisside of the parliament—the Labor government—introduced FOI to continue its tradition of open,frank and accountable governance and they are in line with other jurisdictions.

Time expired.Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (6.44 p.m.): Sadly, tonight we have been treated to a repetition

of myth and regurgitation of history in an attempt to justify the government's current position.There can be no doubt that there is something seriously wrong with the way this government isapproaching the issues of accountability and freedom of information and those types of thingsthat are important to the people of Queensland. Tonight members opposite had an opportunity tocome into this parliament and establish some moral authority for the way they are handling thatparticular issue, and they have failed dismally to do so. They have elected to come into thisparliament and repeat over and over half-truths and Labor Party myths. They made no attempt atall to justify their position.

The government is always going to win this debate. The government is always going to win adebate in this parliament unless the whips are totally incompetent and the members do not turnup. The purpose of this parliament, the purpose of the debate in this place, is to establish somemoral authority for what the government is able to do using its majority. The government hasrefused to even try to do that tonight. The last two or three government speakers haveregurgitated a whole lot of rubbish going back years. Half of it was Labor myth and half of it wasdirty washing. As the member for Keppel said, they have some dirty washing, too. I am not goingto play that game and stand up here and tell the government about some of its more infamousmembers who have done the wrong thing in this House. It is sad that this debate has been usedfor that purpose tonight.

Government members have refused or squibbed the chance to establish some moralauthority for the way this government is handling the task that it has been given by the people ofQueensland. That in itself indicates that they have something to hide. That in itself indicates thatthey are not prepared to justify their actions. They are not prepared to come into this parliamentand justify to the people of Queensland—not to us—the way that openness and accountability isbeing treated by this government. It is our job to come in here and challenge them. We havedone that tonight. It is their job to respond and to justify to the people of Queensland that theyare doing the right thing. They have not been able to do that.

Mr McNamara interjected.

Mr SEENEY: What a disgraceful contribution the member for Hervey Bay made. Whenpeople read that in the Hansard tomorrow they could well be excused for thinking that thisgovernment has something terrible to hide in terms of its accountability and its preparedness tobe open with the people of Queensland. That sort of contribution is the way that they respond toan opportunity to establish some moral authority in this parliament.

Tonight we have seen proof in itself that there is a problem—that this government is havingdifficulty handling the fact that it has a huge majority, that it has this arrogant attitude developing,that it is not open to question, that it is not accountable to scrutiny. It is becoming increasinglyobvious that not only the Premier in particular but also the whole government and the cabinet


itself hate scrutiny. They seem to think that they no longer have to explain. Because of whathappened in the last election and because of the huge majority they have, somehow or otherthey think that that gives them the right to proceed without taking the time to explain and withouthaving their actions scrutinised by the people of Queensland. That will not be. The people ofQueensland will not have it that way.

Irrespective of the contributions we have heard from some Labor backbenchers tonight, theconcept of accountability and openness will be demanded by the people of Queensland in time.We have heard a number of examples pointed out by speakers on this side of the House which inthemselves deserve some rebuttal. They deserve some explanation. The Goodwill Bridge is aclassic example. In that case, thousands of documents were taken to cabinet. The member forRobina asked a question this morning as to how many of them were read. Nobody answered it.The Premier did not answer it. Nobody in this debate tonight chose to stand up. None of the half-smart backbenchers who rode into this parliament on the tide of the government's popularitychose to stand up and justify the Goodwill Bridge.

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth andMinister for the Arts) (6.50 p.m.): I am honoured to serve in a Labor government that is respectfulof the rule of law in letter and in spirit. I am one of a generation that grew up in a society chokedby the arrogance of a government presided over by the National Party and the Liberal Party—agovernment which was repugnant to the rule of law and which operated a secret police throughthe special branch which was absolutely ruthless in its treatment of dissent.

Those opposite speak of accountability. The most fundamental accountability in this place isaccountability to the people of Queensland through a fair electoral system. And why do we haveit? We have it because a Labor government smashed away that rotten, corrupt system which theNational Party held in place for so long. We did it not just in state government but in localgovernment, which the National Party relied upon for so long as the font and origin of the corruptsystem that it ran in this state for too long. They speak of accountability. Let them speak of theright of free speech, of the generations of people who were locked up because its corrupt policeforce locked them up in order to do the political bidding of the will of the government of the day.Why? In order to cover up the joke. This government operates under the rule of law and inparticular the Peaceful Assembly Act. Even when the issue of CHOGM arose, this governmentstood open and accountable and respectful of people's right to peaceful assembly.

The rule of law depends upon an independent and fearless judiciary, and that is why weintroduced the Judicial Review Act. Let us not forget who put the knife in the back of JusticeDouglas because he voted Labor. Because he voted Labor, he was banned by the National Partyand Liberal Party government of the day from being appointed as Chief Justice. Let us not forgetthat it was the Labor Party that introduced the Freedom of Information Act. Let us not forget thatit was the Labor Party which introduced the Legislative Standards Act. I have heard much of thestandard of accountability to the parliament. The most fundamental way to do that is through theoperation of acts of this parliament, and that is why the Legislative Standards Act introduced byLabor is so important. The Anti-Discrimination Act had to be established by Labor and continuedunder this government because the corrupt basis of the National Party machine—

Mr Horan interjected.

Mr FOLEY: It is not just in ancient history, and I will come to you, Mr Horan. I will come toyou. That had to be swept away by introducing a system of law based on human rights. We hadto introduce the Whistleblowers Protection Act. But this motion the House is debating tonight hasbeen moved by a man who sat in cabinet—

Ms Bligh: Seconded by another.Mr FOLEY: Yes, it was moved and seconded by men who sat in the cabinet which made the

decision to establish a commission of inquiry with one purpose: to frustrate the rule of law bynobbling the CJC inquiry into Premier Borbidge and Police Minister Cooper.

Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order.Mr FOLEY: That was an act of infamy for which they shall be deeply ashamed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! What is the point of order? The minister did notmention the member.

Mr JOHNSON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I think I have the right to rise to a point of order.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat.


Mr JOHNSON: He did mention me.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Mr JOHNSON: He did mention me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask the minister to withdraw thatstatement because I find it offensive. We never tried to do what he just said.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will withdraw.

Mr FOLEY: I withdraw. I draw the attention of the House to the finding by the Supreme Courtfor the first time in the history of the common law when it struck down a commission of inquirybecause of political bias. Why was that set up? It was set up because those opposite sought tofrustrate the rule of law and sought to frustrate accountability. They could not get away with it withtheir secret memorandum of understanding with the police designed to sabotage the CJC. Thankgoodness a Labor government is prepared to stand up for the rule of law, for openness and foraccountability in this state.

Mr Springborg interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Southern Downs! I would like to be heard. Ithink that is the purpose of this place. I think all members would like to be heard.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided—AYES, 52—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Cummins, J. Cunningham,Edmond, Fenlon, Foley, Hayward, Jarratt, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady,McNamara, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Reilly, Reynolds, Robertson,Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells,Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves

NOES, 20—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Malone, Pratt, Quinn,E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, Springborg

Resolved in the affirmative.

Question—That the motion as amended be agreed to—put; and the House divided—AYES, 52—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Cummins, J. Cunningham,Edmond, Fenlon, Foley, Hayward, Jarratt, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady,McNamara, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Reilly, Reynolds, Robertson,Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells,Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves

NOES, 20—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Malone, Pratt, Quinn,E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, Springborg

Resolved in the affirmative.Sitting suspended from 7.05 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.

OFFICE OF THE SPEAKERStatement of Recurrent Expenditure

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Male): Honourable members, I lay upon the table of theHouse a statement of recurrent expenditure for the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly for theperiod 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingResumed from p. 3268.

Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (8.30 p.m.): In rising to speak on the Freedom of InformationAmendment Bill I indicate at the outset that the Liberal Party will not be supporting the bill for anumber of reasons. We will not support the bill because it significantly reduces the government'saccountability and openness in terms of its commitment to providing information to the generalpublic.

There is no doubt that freedom of information in all of its forms is particularly uncomfortablefor the government. Having been a minister myself, I can testify to that. But that is the price wepay for democracy. We as members of the government or opposition are in this chamber asguardians of the power of the people. For various reasons, there need to be brakes and checksand balances on that power. It is critical that freedom of information legislation provide a way forthe public to access, at reasonable cost, the information they need to make sure there is no


abuse of that power. Any move to limit the access of the public to the information it requiresrepresents a lessening of accountability and openness which casts a shadow on the governmentof the day.

As I said, all governments do not like freedom of information. That is a given. I am indebtedto the Premier for jogging my memory about certain issues that arose when the coalition was ingovernment. Earlier today, during debate on the private member's motion, the Premier tabledpart of the transcript of an estimates committee hearing held during the coalition's time ingovernment and when I was Minister for Education. He said that this supported his reason forputting in place additional financial barriers in terms of the public's ability to access documentsheld by the government.

During that estimates committee hearing I provided information on a factual basis about thenumber of applications made, the number of documents sought, the time it had taken FOIofficers to access, collate and provide those documents, and the financial resources required.When members read my answer they will see that, from a ministerial or departmental point ofview, the process is onerous, time consuming and somewhat of a burden. But nowhere in theanswer that I gave did I advocate changes. I think that needs to be noted. So I do not supportthe Premier's view on this particular matter—far from it.

As I said, I am indebted to the Premier for jogging my memory about this issue. It wasaround this time that I and one or two other then ministers had our own ministerial expensessubjected to an FOI application and put into the public arena. We would be part of only a verysmall handful of ministers to have ever provided complete access to all ministerial expenses. I canremember that when the application was made and the information was collated it did cause mesome angst, because never before had a minister had their own ministerial expenses subjectedto an FOI application. The process revealed to the person making the application—the thenshadow minister—all of the expenses I was responsible for: travel arrangements, accommodation,taxi fares, expenditure incurred by officers on the ministerial staff, meals, entertainment and insome cases alcohol.

I can remember feeling somewhat apprehensive about how this information would play out inthe public arena. However, I did not take the avenue that has been taken by this government. Idid not take that material through cabinet in order to hide it. My view was that the application wasmade fairly. The person making the application had a right to the information and it went acrossaccordingly. There were some anxious moments. I can remember that I was asked a questionduring the estimates committee hearing about some of that expenditure. It was a sharp questionfor which I had to provide the information. At the end of the day, the information was provided.

I reiterate this because some of these requests can be uncomfortable. At the end of the day,because the government of the day holds power on behalf of the people of Queensland it has aresponsibility to the people to provide the necessary information to allow them to make ajudgment about whether the power invested in the government is being exercised appropriately.This debate is all about the right of the public to put a spotlight on government actions and theway in which it exercises power, spends money and makes decisions.

The critical thing here is for the public to be confident that decisions made by governmentare not made in the interests of the government of the day, cabinet members or politicians but inthe interests of the public. This gets back to the government holding power on behalf of the publicand the public having trust in the government. We cannot abuse that trust. One way of makingsure that that trust is not abused is to have effective FOI laws in this state. Any move to lessenthat accountability and openness detracts from the high standard of accountability we need in astate with only one chamber of parliament. Freedom of information is a burr under the saddle ofgovernment, but it is a burr that must be tolerated. Any move to restrict freedom of informationreduces openness and accountability.

The reason given by the Premier for moving down this track is that large multinationals suchas the Courier-Mail and other media organisations are using FOI to trawl through governmentdepartments and find information about government activities and government decisions. Thatmay very well be so. The Premier's move to sharply increase the costs associated with FOIapplications is made on the basis that these large companies can afford to pay the hourlycharges involved. That ignores the fact that also making applications are large numbers ofcommunity and not-for-profit organisations who act on the behalf of the general community.

There may be applications from interest groups who want to make sure that when agovernment puts a road through a particular portion of land it is the most suitable avenue for that


road and that the government is not making a decision on behalf of some landowner, some of itsmates or for some other self-interested reason. To say that this is being done to block the Courier-Mail or other journalists from accessing the information ignores the other side of the coin—thatthere are other interests in the community who also have a right to information and who cannotafford the costs this government will now charge for FOI applications.

In his report to parliament tabled yesterday, the Information Commissioner highlighted, Ithink quite rightly, the reason we need an affordable FOI regime. Much of that report has alreadybeen read into Hansard and I do not intend to repeat it. The Information Commissioner putforward a clear, cogent argument based on Mr Justice Thomas, who highlighted the nexusbetween the reason governments hold power and their obligation to provide information to ensurethat the power is not abused. He drew the conclusion that we should not put a ceiling on thecosts of running parliament, we should not put a ceiling on the cost of running elections, and weought not do that with FOI, as well, because it is in the same basket; it is a mechanism designedto enhance accountability and democracy in this state.

I said before that one of the options open to any government that receives an unwelcomeFOI application is to bundle up the documents and take them through cabinet. This governmenthas a sorry history of doing that. If there is one thing that will militate against a proper, workableFOI regime in this state it is a government that abuses the spirit of the legislation. And nothingcan stop that except the integrity of the government of the day. What has happened here in anumber of cases is that the government has abused the legislation. The InformationCommissioner has highlighted one of those cases in which an application was lodged in respectof what is now called the Goodwill Bridge. The documents were bundled up. The Premier himselfhas admitted calling for all documents held by various agencies, listing them on the cabinetsubmission and then putting them through.

When I asked the question today of the Premier as to how many documents he actuallyread of the thousands estimated by the Information Commissioner that would have gone throughthe Cabinet Budget Review Committee, he could not or would not answer. And it defies belief thatany cabinet could call for thousands of documents and then make a judgment, based on readingthose documents, or a decision that needs to be made on a particular issue. It just defies belief,as the Information Commissioner quite rightly pointed out.

So the government can abuse the legislation. When an FOI application is made, thegovernment can frustrate that FOI application by calling for the documents, putting them throughthe cabinet process and putting them out of reach of the applicant. That is an abuse of power, itis an abuse of the legislation, and it certainly does not enhance democracy when we have agovernment that is willing to do that.

That is just one example. The other example I want to use is one in which I lodged an FOIapplication on documents relating to Lang Park. We lodged the application, 45 days expired, butthere was no access to the documents. We were fobbed off by the minister and the department.Three months expired, but still there was no access to the documents—three months over time.So not only did they go through the 45-day period as required under the legislation, they thenfobbed us off for another three months saying, 'We couldn't find the documents. We had toconsult a whole range of other things.' And then, in order to frustrate the application, the whole lotwent through cabinet again. Thousands of documents went through cabinet. That is what I meanabout not complying with the spirit of the legislation. We can have the legislation. We can have allthe requirements in it—which are not, by the way, mandatory; they require the government to actin the spirit in which the legislation is intended—but at the end of the day, if the government doesnot want to do it, then it will frustrate the applicant. Those are two examples of how thegovernment has abused the process and acted in a deceitful way. And that will not engenderpublic confidence in open and transparent government in this state.

I also want to address the ways in which I think we can improve the whole FOI process. Atthe moment we seem to have a paper based process within the departments. Whereasdepartments do have document tracking systems to find—as one would expect—where certaindocuments are, who has access to them, what status they are up to, and so on, there are othercountries around the world which have embraced technology to make access to these documentsmore easily available. If we were to harness technology and make public registers of documentsavailable, as occurs in other jurisdictions, the applicants themselves could look through thedocuments, decide which ones they needed, narrow the scope of their search and, in the longerterm, save departments a lot of money, a lot of resources and a lot of time in terms of searchingfor relevant documents.


That is the way we ought to be going in Queensland. We have document tracking systemsalready. Surely it is not too much, in terms of a leap of technology, to put in place public accessregisters whereby people who want to see what documents are available on a certain issue cango into a department—or even gain access through the Internet—and see the range ofdocuments that exist and then indicate which ones they want. That would narrow the time framesand allow the applicants themselves to narrow their search parameters.

If we are going to have a Smart State we need to start moving in that direction. We need tobe harnessing technology within government to make sure that the accountability of governmentis enhanced, and that is one way in which I believe technology can improve the accountabilityand openness of governments. We ought not be afraid to embrace it. If we are to be a SmartState then we ought to be going down this track, not relying upon the old paper based systemsthat we have at the moment, with documents being collected materially in their paper form andcollated. We should allow people to see the registers of documents and make their own choice.As I said, that would alleviate a lot of the concern, but at the end of the day it will not improve thegovernment's attitude to the spirit of the legislation. It will still require the government to act in thespirit of the legislation.

As I said, for those reasons we will not support the legislation, because it lessensaccountability and openness, and the government has not acted in a number of key areas in thespirit of the legislation. I think this is a backward step. It may have full cost recovery or partial costrecovery. It may improve a department's ability to fund other programs. For instance, in theestimates committee that I participated in as minister, the cost of the department then wasroughly $140,000 or $150,000. It has probably increased since then because, as I understand it,the number of FOI applications has increased over the past four or five years. There may be asaving or an offset to government. But at the end of the day, when we have a state budget of$10 billion, $11 billion or $12 billion—whatever it is—providing $8 million for FOI applications to besuccessfully processed is a worthwhile investment in terms of being open and accountable and,at the end of the day, improving democracy in Queensland. So we will be opposing this legislationfor those reasons.

Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (8.47 p.m.): I am pleased indeed to rise and support the Freedomof Information Amendment Bill 2001. There is no doubt, as other honourable members havesaid, that freedom of information is an essential tenet in a social democracy. It is, we have beenreminded, one of a raft of mechanisms that go towards ensuring such high standards of integrityand accountability as can be found. It is one of the many mechanisms that show the openness ofgovernment in Queensland and have over the past decade.

There is a remark made in the Fitzgerald report in section 3.2.2 which applies—Information is the linchpin of the political process. Knowledge is quite literally power. If the public is not informed, itcannot take part in the political process with any real effect.

Since the introduction of this amendment bill to the House there have been some interesting andimportant articles written, particularly in the Courier-Mail. I have been keen to read these and toconsider the opinions expressed.

It is important that we in government who may be using every spare hour we can to bepreoccupied with the business of our electorates, to be preoccupied with the core business ofgovernment—which in the case of state government is the delivery of services in health,education, housing and the environment and in association with local government, the police andso on—do not lose sight of another level of our responsibility, and that is the confidence of thepublic in their access to government information about themselves or about topics of concern orissues of conflict. No doubt, in an ideal world, these days a government would have allinformation easily available through information technology. The system would be excellentlycross-referenced and it would take people only a matter of minutes to access the information thatthey wanted, whether it was historical information or present-day information.

However, we do not have that level of excellence in the system of the Queenslandgovernment, nor, I dare say, does it exist in any government in the world. Those of us who havebecome more and more immersed in government understand why that is so. State governmentshave a tremendous breadth of operations and a tremendous amount of interaction betweendepartments and subsections of departments. Over the past 10 years, community consultationhas been a major feature of government practice and there are a wealth of documents interactingwith all of the departments that bear on this consultation. Of course, while we are trying to set upan excellent system to tap into all of that historical government material, day by day we are


producing more and more documents and information that the public, in this ideal world, maywish to access.

Nonetheless, it is essential that we open government processes to examination, to scrutiny.While adopting that principle—and, certainly, in recent weeks some members have written about,and other honourable members have spoken about, the high and lofty principles of freedom ofinformation—in practice we have discovered that at the same time we must protect the privacy ofindividuals. While the government should be open to scrutiny, individuals who have correspondedsometimes with the government or who have expressed their concerns, often about personalmatters, should not be, as it were, put on display. That principle has provided us with somenecessary and continuing limitations on access to information through the state government.

I note the concerns expressed by many about the sanctity of freedom of information. Iagree. However, it is interesting to note that that is not really the issue that is under examinationas we debate this legislation tonight. In fact, the core issue of this legislation is about recoveringsome of the spiralling costs of FOI administration. It is not about creating a new charge, as itwere. Rather, it is about deciding who pays and changing who pays for certain kinds ofinformation.

To understand the present position of the FOI legislation, it is relevant to refer to some of thehistory of it. The original Freedom of Information Act 1992 was an important marker inQueensland's history. It followed the changes that arose out of the Fitzgerald report and the newera of enlightenment that was dawning in Queensland with the appointment of the Laborgovernment. It has been good legislation. That has been demonstrated by its workability over thepast nine years. We were guided in the development of that legislation by the Commonwealthlegislation, and I remind honourable members that not only in Queensland but also in Canberra itwas Labor governments that introduced FOI legislation.

At the time of the introduction of FOI legislation into Queensland, I was the chair of a healthauthority in the peninsula, in the Torres Strait region. I saw at close hand the excitement as wellas the confusion of people who had access to health-related information. I saw at close hand thetraining that was needed and the new systems that were required for people within QueenslandHealth and people new to the health system to be able to negotiate the sensible procedures thatwould allow for timely access to information whilst protecting patient confidentiality and personalprivacy. It was simply a matter of practice and training and it was no more than one to two yearsbefore the system was working well.

At that time, I saw up close, too, how the attitudes within Queensland Health changedtowards providing information, how skills were developed in assisting people and the change inculture of providing as much information as could be provided as quickly as possible. I noticed,too, some of the changed administrative processes that allowed for much information to besimply available and it became no longer necessary for freedom of information applications to bemade in order for that information to be accessed.

However, more recently my experience with freedom of information has come through mymembership during the previous term of this government of the Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee. I participated in a thorough review that was commenced duringthat term, and I understand that it is to be completed shortly. Through that review process, I metwith many of the freedom of information officers from various agencies and departments of thestate government. I was impressed by their attitude, their energy and enthusiasm for theimportance of their task and by their bias, if I could detect any, towards serving the individual whohad made the request or the organisation that needed the information. On no occasion did Idetect any bias towards hiding in some protective way information to somehow shore up adepartmental position.

However, through the experience of that review, I was also confronted with how much we areall paying for the privilege of freedom of information. Back in 1993, it was less than $1 million.This financial year, it was $7.7 million. That is a very substantial cost, and it does not stand aloneif the costs of the other mechanisms that aim high to protect our standards of integrity andaccountability are added. If that is done, the costs spiral. I refer to the added costs of the freedomof information administration for the CJC, for the Crime Commission, for judicial review, for theOmbudsman, and for the Anti-Discrimination Commission. It is apparent that a significantproportion of our budget is spent to ensure openness and accountability for the people ofQueensland.


However, that money comes from the big bucket that is the state government's budget. Ifthat money is being put into these agencies—important as they are—then it is not being put intohealth, housing, police, or emergency services. For a backbencher in my position, that creates avery difficult decision. Some people who have written loftily about how important it is to keep thestandards of freedom of information high do not sit at desks where they are confronted daily withprojects, with a desire to provide services for the people of Queensland that cannot presently befunded. They are not people who have to compare and contrast the various needs of theircommunities and decide which deserves priority within the constraints of today's budget.

That is what this amendment bill comes down to: who should pay? Should it be, as it ispresently, a cost to all the taxpayers of Queensland? In my view, that is certainly the case andremains the government's view in the case of individuals accessing personal information. Itcertainly remains that way after this bill is passed for people who have limited means. But whatabout private sector organisations, which have been using the system of freedom of informationas a research facility at no cost to themselves? Should their requests be subsidised by all ofQueensland's taxpayers? The reality is that, for a private business, such as the Courier-Mail, thecost of trawling, of speculating, of finding out whether or not there may be matters of interest tobe uncovered, has been next to nothing. It is no wonder that such businesses have beenencouraged to make requests to a great extent—and some might even say to an excessivedegree.

There is no doubt that, although it might be important for journalists employed by theCourier-Mail to present information to the public—to put the issues and the debate fairly andsquarely before the public—for the owners of the Courier-Mail, the very reason for the paper'sexistence is to make a profit. In the end, money is placed first. From time to time journalistsemployed at the Courier-Mail or other media outlets may do a good job in exposing to publicscrutiny some public sector practices, inefficiencies and mistakes in government, and evenoccasionally corrupt practices. Nonetheless, they must face the fact that they work for a profit-making organisation that, nationally and internationally, is making a very good profit. Therefore,should I and all of the taxpayers of Queensland pay for them to have a free research facility?Tonight we are saying that the answer is no. Should they wish to undertake trawling exercises andspeculative searches for what may turn out to be a story, it is appropriate that they pay. Theyhave the capacity to pay and they should do so. Similarly, although on a much smaller scale,some solicitors have been in the habit of letting taxpayers foot their bills for conducting searchesthrough freedom of information on behalf of clients who are paying them for their services.

With the costs spiralling, the time has come for the government of the day, the Beattiegovernment, to decide who should pay and to make some changes, which is what we are doingtonight. Nonetheless it is important to note that the fees that will be instituted are no greater thanthe fees already existing in other states of Australia and nationally.

Another issue that I would like to address tonight is applications from individuals and largeorganisations for fairly diffuse and wide-ranging information. Such applications can be extremelytime consuming and costly. Sometimes, the application has not been specific because theapplicant has not known how to properly word or direct their search. That problem can be easilyfixed through the provisions in this bill that encourage negotiation and communication betweenthe applicant and the administrative FOI provider, allowing information to be accessed as quicklyand as simply as possible.

There are those who say that the attitudes of some people in the public sector, particularly atsenior management levels, towards freedom of information are resistant. They are not ascooperative as they should be. Therefore, I am pleased that the bill strengthens the provisionsrequiring agencies to consult with applicants. Particularly in cases where an applicant signals thatcomplex or large amounts of information are required, things can be done much better if theparties sit down at a table to negotiate, to discuss how much time it is likely to take and, ofcourse, to recognise the costs that will be involved.

I have no doubt that this legislation will lead to improvements. Therefore, I have no doubtabout supporting the bill. I have no doubt that the freedom of information in this fine state ofQueensland will be enhanced and not diminished by the actions that we are taking tonight.

Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (9.02 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Freedom of InformationAmendment Bill 2001. I have grave concerns that this bill will discriminate against ordinaryQueenslanders who genuinely wish to access information under this act. I acknowledge that, asindicated by the explanatory notes, among other things the bill 'provides for decisions to be madeabout the waiving of charges on ground of financial hardship'. I also note section 29C is the


applicable section dealing with an applicant relying on the financial hardship clause. However, thebill does not set out clearly and concisely how this financial hardship clause will apply. In theminister's second reading speech, all he said by way of an explanation of the implication of thissection was—Importantly, the bill allows for charges to be waived where the applicant is experiencing financial hardship.

It appears to me that the bill and the explanatory notes supporting it are silent when it comes tosetting out the guidelines that must be followed. In fact, I could not find any definition on whatconstitutes financial hardship.

This lack of clear guidelines could severely disenfranchise community organisations bycausing them to abandon freedom of information requests because of the cost. Queensland is arapidly growing state with several major projects on the drawing board, many of which will requirethe cooperation of government, developers and environmentally focused community groups. Formany years environmental action groups and community associations have relied on the freedomof information law to access information from relevant state government departments. The right ofthose community organisations and groups, which often have limited finances at their disposal,must be protected. The bill and the minister's explanatory notes do not clarify how theapplications from those organisations and from ordinary Queenslanders are to be considered.This is a major stumbling block to my support for this bill

Another concern I have is that there has been no consideration in this bill of a person's rightto access material about themselves when that material has been taken to cabinet forconsideration. The cornerstone of the freedom of information principle is that an individual is ableto access information about himself or herself. This is certainly not the case when that informationis hidden in cabinet.

There are numerous examples on the public record where public servants have attempted tofrustrate freedom of information applications in order to prevent the release of information of asensitive or embarrassing nature to the government. I recognise that, at times, it is necessary forthe government to take highly sensitive documents to cabinet. However, I am disappointed thatthis government appears to hide documents in cabinet simply to avoid embarrassment and notbecause of commercial or legal implications.

Before I could support this bill I would like to see the principles of freedom of informationacted upon to allow any person access to information about themselves, whether or not thatinformation has gone to cabinet. While I recognise the necessity to protect Queensland taxpayersfrom fishing and research expeditions, I cannot support the bill in its present form.

Before resuming my seat in the chamber, I take this opportunity to put on the public recordthe reason why I did not support the government's amendment in the previous debate when thegovernment moved an amendment, the substance of which was to acknowledge that theQueensland government was committed to openness and accountability. My reason for opposingthe government's amendment is contained in my contribution to the debate on this bill.Accordingly, I await the minister's response to my question.

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (9.06 p.m.): In rising tospeak in the debate this evening, I reiterate what has been said by the shadow spokesman, themember for Southern Downs: we are totally opposed to this legislation. The National Partyopposition opposes this bill in its entirety. It is offensive to democracy and open and accountablegovernment.

During the 6 o'clock debate, I made reference to the Fitzgerald inquiry. This is an area that,unfortunately, I believe the government has overlooked in recent months. This bill marks thebeginning of a dark age for accountability in Queensland. The central aspect of this bill is theintroduction of FOI processing charges at the rate of $20 an hour. Members should make nomistake: those charges are an accountability tax. They are a direct attempt by the government toavoid accountability by taking it out of the financial reach of ordinary Queenslanders. Thegovernment says that ordinary Queenslanders will not have that impost put upon them. However,I bet that when it comes to the day of reckoning and questions are asked about costs, ordinaryQueenslanders will find that it will be out of their reach.

This is a direct attempt by the government to avoid accountability by taking it out of thefinancial reach of people for the obvious reason that it does not want to be seen to be what it is.The Premier has tried to say that people will not be charged for information concerning theirpersonal affairs. That is no concession at all. FOI applications concerning people's personal affairs


are already free of fees and charges. I say to the Premier: there are no accolades at all for givingpeople what they already have.

I turn to the Premier's explanation of why the charges are being introduced. He says that FOIis too expensive for government to operate. If it is too expensive for this government to beaccountable, open and honest with the general public, that is a total abuse of the democraticprocess that is so sacred to the state. During the 6 o'clock debate this evening, members talkedabout what happened in the past under former National Party governments. As the member forKeppel said, both sides have probably been guilty of wrongdoings in the past. It is time that wegot on with open and accountable government so that the people of this state can trust thepoliticians—the legislators we are supposed to be—to do our job properly for the benefit of allpeople.

However, this government does not see a $23 million footbridge or a $280 million footballfield as being too expensive. These are very important pieces of infrastructure to the social fabricof the city and the wider community of Queensland. However, it is also important that the peopleof Queensland are able to find out about any facts hidden behind these developments. That isexactly what the opposition has endeavoured to do over recent weeks. What the Premier reallymeans is that it would be too expensive and would jeopardise his government's political survival ifthe truth were totally revealed to the general public.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I refer you again to a document that has been sacred to thePremier. Point 3.4.3 on page 129 states—Allied to these improvements in administrative laws has been the concept of freedom of information.

Freedom of Information Acts, along the lines of the United States model, have been adopted to grant a general rightof access to documents held by Government and Government agencies.

The professed aim of such legislation is to give all citizens a general right of access to Government information.Appeals are allowed to an external independent review body when a request for information is refused in whole orin part, or when a person objects to a decision to release information about their affairs, or when the accuracy orcompleteness of personal information held by Government is disputed by the person it concerns.

It is true that, where such legislation has been enacted in Australia ... there has been criticism. Governmentagencies say that answering requests has been costly and disruptive. Applicants claim that some agencies areobstructive, and that the exemptions are too wide or are abused, and that increasing charges make the costs ofrequests prohibitive.

The importance of the legislation lies in the principle it espouses, and in its ability to provide information to thepublic and to Parliament. It has already been used effectively for this purpose in other Parliaments. Its potential tomake administrators accountable and keep voters and Parliament informed are well understood by its supportersand enemies.

Under the headings of 'The Administration' and 'Politicization', it states—The Westminster system of parliamentary democracy is based on the proposition that Governments answerable tothe people decide policy, and public servants implement it. There are conceptual and practical difficulties with thismodel, but it essentially states the basic constitutional position.

That is from the Fitzgerald inquiry document, which one would have thought would have beenlooked at by this government as it went about making changes to this legislation. Is it tooexpensive for the people of Queensland to have an accountable Beattie government in office? Itis bad enough that the government's entire list of priorities is dictated by photo opportunities forthe Premier, but for him to claim that he is accountable while at the same time introducing thesecharges is taking hypocrisy to a new height, or is it a new depth?

This regime is devoid of substance, and that is what this government continues to resist: theprovision of substance and accountable decision making for the benefit of the entire community.We cannot prosper if we make policy on the run. It seems to me that policy on the run isdetrimental to achieving the real function of a democratically elected government. Because MrBeattie cannot stand being questioned on anything, his usual stunt is to wheel thousands uponthousands of documents through the cabinet room. But he was not content just to use that secrettactic. Whilst I know there is a cost involved in providing access to information, the provision ofthat information has a purpose. It goes to the accountability of government and electors beingable to find out for themselves what is going on. That is paramount for the ongoing maintenanceof the democratic process. Obviously, the Premier's paranoia over the exposure of hisgovernment's incompetence is so high that he now feels the need to make the FOI processfinancially prohibitive. In real terms that is a shutdown on accountability.

I have listened in disgust to the Premier's other red herrings on the reasons for theintroduction of these charges and to his claim that a vendetta is being waged by the Courier-Mail.The member for Cairns referred to the Courier-Mail. It is appropriate that the media questions the


government. The government may not like it. We in the opposition have been questioned by themedia. I think we are all subjected to that. If the Premier is going to try to stop the Courier-Mailand other media outlets from engaging in fishing expeditions, that represents another attempt toshut down the democratic process. This is another angle to stop democracy from workingproperly; it tries to stifle or silence the media's examination of the democratic process. That sort ofquestioning is another form of probity. In this country we enjoy freedom of speech and freedom ofthe press. Woe betide us the day that we no longer have that. They are sacred to this nation; Itrust that that will be so forever and a day. These supposed justifications for the introduction ofthe charges are not justifications at all. This is a Premier who, enamoured of his own mediaimage, cannot stand any contrary opinion and cannot tolerate the truth.

One of the greatest tragedies of this bill and Mr Beattie's focus on its application to themedia is that he has completely forgotten that the central section of the FOI Act, section 21,creates a legally enforceable right for every person, not just the media, to access governmentheld documents. Ordinary Queensland people will not be able to afford to exercise their legallyenforceable right. So much for the openness and accountability of this government! Governmentdoes not exist for the benefit of the media, it exists for the people who put it there. Mr Beattie hasshown with his bill the true contempt in which he holds the people of Queensland—the widerelectorate—many of whom voted for his government.

Some weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition asked the Premier in the House if he wouldexempt the opposition from these FOI processing charges. Mr Beattie said that he would look intothe matter. I can assure the people of Queensland of the unfortunate truth, and that is that wehave not heard any further from the Premier on this matter. He seems to have forgotten about it.However, if the Premier does decide to magnanimously, if somewhat belatedly, grant theopposition exemption from these FOI charges, I advise the people of Queensland that theopposition will happily accept their FOI applications and make them on their behalf. We will beopen for business to take public FOI applications. We believe that is a fair part of the democraticprocess; it is a function of the parliament and a function of the representation of the people of thisstate regardless of which end of the political spectrum they come from.

However, there is a more meaningful solution to this accountability farce, and that is that ingovernment the National Party will scrap entirely these time based processing charges for FOI.They will be gone indefinitely. Under a National Party government accountability will not besomething only for the financially able. Under a National Party government accountability will bewithin the reach of every person, not just the media. Under a National Party government,accountability will not be a dirty word.

In the meantime, Queenslanders can rightfully be ashamed that this Beattie Laborgovernment has made Queensland the secret state. I have said it before and I will say it again:this is a dictatorship free from scrutiny. If that is the way this government wants to operate, Ibelieve the people of Queensland will adjudicate on it come the next state election. One thing wewill certainly do is show the people of this state precisely what they have been deprived of interms of this FOI process, which is one of the tools of the Westminster process that we should beable to enjoy in this great state and nation.

Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (9.20 p.m.): It is a great pleasure to rise in support of thisbill and, in doing so, to support the range of amendments that it contains. All I can say is roll onthe further reforms of the LCARC process that is currently under way that will ultimately bedelivered to this parliament and roll on further reforms to this act.

This is an important first wave of reform. It certainly does require fairly wide-ranging reforms.Why do I say that? Because it is very clear that this act is a very old act. But just because it is oldis not a single reason to throw it out or to embark on large and wide-ranging reforms. However,the context in which this act was first instituted indicates that it was certainly a very early draft inthe sense of the reforms to FOI legislation in the Western World at that time. This act went backto the early 1990s—1992. It is an act which is essentially based on the frameworks that were inplace interstate, nationally, et cetera and went back to international models. In fact, it really wentback to the 1970s. They were the first acts in place in the Westminster system.

In that sense, it was a real experiment for its time. We are still living with that experiment inproviding wide-ranging information rights to wide-ranging information within government within theWestern World. We are still seeing the development of that experiment. It is right that we revisitthat experiment and make sure that it is working well. That does not deny the fundamentalprinciples that the FOI legislation attempts to fulfil, but it certainly indicates that we need to revisit


those principles and ensure that they are being applied in a proper way, in a fitting way, in thecontext of the current Westminster system and in this Westminster system in Queensland.

This reform is truly needed and, indeed, is a good first wave. I wish LCARC well in completingthis process that it is currently embarking on. We can blame the former Attorney-General, themember for Yeerongpilly, whom I note is in the House at the moment, for this very long processbecause it was he who moved the motion in this House—which is on the parliamentaryrecord—that instituted this current inquiry. If we revisit that particular motion we see just how wideranging that was in terms of reflecting changes in the current system—changes that we haveseen just in the past decade in terms of, for example, the emergence of a great deal ofcorporatised enterprise within government. There was a major change in how we handle thatwithin government and, indeed, the approach to FOI. There has also been a change to theextent to which governments are more directly involved in commercial enterprises and in dealingwith commercially sensitive information, et cetera, and changes in information technology havealso affected it. I hope that a revisitation of those terms of reference will give us an indication ofwhere we can go and should go in terms of further reforms.

This legislation reminds me also of the man who had to carry four watermelons, two sheetsof galvanised iron and a set of encyclopedias up a hill. Why is that so? Because this legislation isreally quite a juggling act, quite a balancing act. It is an act which seeks to achieve a balancebetween some very strong and countervailing principles, particularly those principles of a right toobtain information versus a right in the public interest to deny the release of information. Thoseprinciples will continue to apply, but those principles will always continue to require sometempering in terms of balancing what is appropriate in the circumstances, balancing what isappropriate from department to department, from ministry to ministry right across government andachieving a balance which can be applied over time, which can be applied to adapt to thechanges that we do not even know about that are around the corner in terms of moderngovernment. We will have to cope with those changes as they arise. Maybe this act will requirefurther revisitation in the future to deal with those changes in our structure of government in thedecisions that we have to make and the processes of government.

And what of those reforms? The central aspect of these is the recovery of some of theexpenses of freedom of information. Here I have to take exception to a part of the secondreading speech of the Attorney-General. I think the Attorney-General is a person who issometimes overpolite and overconsiderate in terms of dealing with the opposition and the ways inwhich they have handled this legislation. I refer particularly to the section of the second readingspeech which states—FOI applications which seek access to voluminous quantities of documents have also caused serious problems forthe administration of freedom of information since its inception.

What an understatement! A better way to describe this than voluminous is absolutely obscene.The sorts of applications that have been around for years that are now legend acrossdepartments are really obscene. They are obscene in terms of their degree and obscene in termsof the arrogance with which some members have treated the department, the government andthe public purse. Some of those members have had no regard for the public purse in the sensethat they have not even bothered to pick up the information that they have sought, even thoughit cost the taxpayer many thousands of dollars. Those stories are well established and legendacross the public service, and I will not cite some of the well known members or former membersof this place who were responsible for those types of actions.

Whilst the Attorney-General has rightly described those applications as voluminous, theywere obscene. Those members and other people involved in undertaking such applications whohad no regard for the public purse should be condemned. They are directly responsible for ourhaving to take this action tonight. They are responsible for us as legislators having to stand backand say, 'We have to find a new balance in this legislation. We have to find a better way ofensuring that this legislation is not abused.' That is what this legislation is fundamentally about. Itis about finding a new balance which ensures that such abuses cannot occur. These provisionswill do that whilst at the same time implementing mechanisms that provide for outcomes thatallow appeal, et cetera, that allow for the maintenance of the principle of private information to befree. But where people are going to embark on directionless fishing expeditions, they will have topay for it themselves.

I challenge anyone who wants to argue with that principle to come out to any of my P&Cs,P&Fs or any other local organisation and tell them that their interests are better served by suchapplications and such use of the public purse compared with some of the demands from my local


communities. I know what sort of an answer those people will get, because my communities knowthe best way for the dollar to be spent. I know exactly where my communities would stand if theyknew some of the detail of the examples that are around of people ripping off the system, usingthe system to great disadvantage to the taxpayer. I know exactly what they would tell opponentsto this particular clause.

The new provisions are indeed appropriate in that they also seek to establish themselves ata commensurate level with interstate standards. They also set out to accomplish a new directionin this legislation. I hope that this is a signal of better things to come in terms of consultation.Historically, this legislation has been framed as one which sets the parties to it in an adversarialsituation which lends itself to legislative rather than conciliatory outcomes. These provisions willallow greater opportunities for applicants and departments to work their way through theapplications. Often people know what they want but do not articulate it well in their writtenapplication. This legislation will provide mechanisms for those people via conciliation to find a waythrough it in relation to the detail they are seeking to minimise their own costs, costs to thetaxpayer and the inconvenience to the departments. That conciliation will extend itself over a timeframe applicable to those applications. I welcome those measures. I am sure that all people withexperience in the FOI area will welcome those changes as well in that they provide a far morereasonable and anti-litigation approach to the administration of this legislation.

That brings me to a further point in relation to the administration of this legislation. FOIofficers are very central to this process. FOI officers are the pillars of this system. They are greatpeople who aspire to very high professional standards. For this system to work, we will have to relyon those people even more in a number of areas. I call on the Attorney-General and thegovernment to give great consideration to these people in the implementation of this legislationon three fronts—that is, to ensure uniformity regarding the implementation of this legislationacross departments to ensure principles are applied appropriately, to ensure that the highprofessional standards that those officers aspire to are maintained and that they are given everyopportunity to develop themselves and to adequately service this legislation with their professionalstandards, and to allow them to develop their skills to implement this legislation, because it willrequire greater dexterity at an administrative level in order to bring the relevant parties together tofind appropriate outcomes in that conciliatory framework.

Finally, these reforms need to be kept in perspective in terms of Queensland's history inrecent years and particularly in terms of the Fitzgerald reforms, reforms that other speakers havereferred to tonight. The Fitzgerald reforms were the start of this process. We need to understandhow those reforms were started through those processes which led to the setting up of freedomof information and to see what a new phenomenon these laws are to Queensland. They are stillin a trial stage. As a system, a government and a state we are still working out the best way tofind an appropriate level of accountability in Queensland to ensure that our public standards aremaintained to a high level. Therefore, we need to keep sight of those most fundamentalprinciples in terms of accountability and good government that were at the genesis of these FOIreforms.

The integrity that is maintained in this legislation leads me to conclude that those standardscertainly are being upheld in this legislation. These amendments can only lead to an even greaterupholding of those standards by ensuring that the system is not abused, that the system is usedwell and that all persons who have an interest in using the system have far more user-friendlyaccess to it and access that allows participants to talk, to explore opportunities, to explorealternatives and to get appropriate outcomes in terms of public accountability. I have greatpleasure in supporting this bill.

Miss ELISA ROBERTS (Gympie—ONP) (9.35 p.m.): I rise to speak against the Freedom ofInformation Amendment Bill. Every citizen in this state should have free access to information.That is their right, yet the people's basic civic freedom is once again being disregarded with thisgovernment's intentions to make it more expensive and therefore more difficult for people to gainaccess to information. The word 'freedom' in this bill really needs the adjective 'no' preceding it togive it its true meaning.

In the minister's second reading speech he made mention of the fact that FOI agency staffshould be able to refuse to deal with applications which it deems to be substantially orunreasonably diverting the resources of an agency from its other responsibilities. The agency'sresponsibility is to obtain information for the public should it be requested. This is just a fact of life.It is not and should not be up to the agency to decide whether or not the information is important,valid or appropriate enough to gather for the person or persons applying for the information. No


agency should have the right to say, 'Oh, this is too hard. There is too much work involved inretrieving this information, so we will deny the applicant his or her rights to the information.'

Mr Reeves interjected.

Miss ELISA ROBERTS: Oh, shut up! How can a few public servants make the decision—Mr Reeves interjected.

Miss ELISA ROBERTS: You are such a gentleman, aren't you?Mr Reeves: Gympie Hospital.

Miss ELISA ROBERTS: Yes, Gympie Hospital exactly. How can a few public servants makethe decision as to whether the applicant's concern is a fishing expedition or not? The acquisitionof the information may be of extreme importance to that person or persons. This governmentshould be working to increase the amount and type of information available rather than increasingthe cost of obtaining the sparse amount to which people are currently entitled.

As an example, a patient is not entitled under the FOI Act to obtain documentation relatingto his own medical treatment simply because the hospital at which he received his treatment isprivate. This is ridiculous. Why should medical staff who work in a private facility be exempt frompublic scrutiny? If they do the wrong thing, then they have to take responsibility for it and beaccountable for it, just like those in the public sector. Why protect them from possible litigationand not others? Transparency should include everyone and not just the chosen few.

The provision of information to the public should be a service provided by this government.This government will happily waste outrageous amounts of money on footbridges and stadiums,for example, which are not public necessities; rather, they are classed as luxuries. But when itcomes to supplying the majority of the people with necessities such as freedom of informationand adequate health care and disability services, it turns its back. This government needs to seekout just what things are important to the people of Queensland and what they regard as priorityissues and not assume that the government knows, because this bill clearly proves that it doesnot.

When it comes to transparency, this government is working towards Queensland becomingthe 'secret state'. I wonder what colour that numberplate will be, or maybe it will be a secret!Queensland does not want to emulate post-revolution Russia. Queensland is not a state basedon a George Orwell novel, nor do we want the documentation we are able to access to end upamounting to a telegram from Catch-22 with the only visible words being 'and', 'but' or 'if'. This billis not only about restricting public access to information but also about revenue raising. Thisgovernment has to raise revenue somehow to cover its financial blow-outs, and it has determinedin its wisdom that the best way to do this is to get the poor unsuspecting public to do it withanother tax. The only people who wish to make information more difficult to obtain are those witha preference for information control and those who have something to hide. The Premier spoke inthis House about this bill helping people to get what they want, but what he failed to say was thatthe people will get what they want 'only if we decide they can have it'. End of story. Bad luck.

It is becoming increasingly clear that this government is growing more and more insular. In itsendeavours to reduce the amount of information allowed for public scrutiny, this government isalienating itself further from the democratic people of Queensland. Not only is the Beattiegovernment now using cabinet to deny public scrutiny and accountability; it is also attempting toextend this cover-up mentality to the community. What someone should tell the Premier and hisgovernment is that freedom of information is about our inherent freedom and rights. It is notabout paranoia or vendettas, and I am sure that the Courier-Mail would agree with me about that.

Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (9.40 p.m.): I appreciate the opportunity to make some briefcomments in the debate on the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill. The detail of theopposition's objection to this bill has been outlined by the shadow minister responsible, themember for Southern Downs. I have no intention of repeating any of the excellent contributionthat he made. I will confine my comments to a small observation about the government's attitude.

I think this piece of legislation, more than any other we have seen in this House for quite awhile, illustrates just how hypocritical this Labor government can be. It can come into this Houseor go out into the media and say one thing and then introduce legislation that does completelythe opposite. Time and time again we hear claims from the Premier, his ministers and some ofthe backbenchers that this government is somehow the most accountable governmentQueensland has seen and that they are steadfast in their determination to be accountable, openand open to scrutiny.


It cannot be argued that this legislation does anything but restrict the information available topeople. It cannot be argued that this legislation does anything but reduce accountability andopenness. We can argue about the degree to which this legislation restricts access to informationand people's scrutiny of the government, but there can be no argument that it does restrict it insome way or other. In terms of accountability and openness it is a backward step. The memberfor Brisbane Central looks a lot better sitting on the backbench than where I normally see him.

Mr Beattie: It's all right, mate. You'll never see it.

Mr SEENEY: There can be no argument that this legislation is a backward step in terms ofaccountability and openness. We can argue about the extent and significance of this legislation,but nobody can stand up in this House and say that this does not represent a restriction on theinformation available to people. While you philosophise about how you want the government tobe open to scrutiny and how you want to be accountable to the people, you cannot defend—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr McNamara): Order! I remind the member that the chair is at thisend of the room. It would be helpful if he addressed his comments through the chair.

Mr SEENEY: It is that contradiction in terms which best illustrates the hypocrisy of thegovernment. The Premier and his media spin doctors are very good at putting one message outin the public arena, in that medium that works on a 30-second grab for people with an attentionspan that is probably very short. However, when we get into the detail of this legislation we findthat the complete opposite is the reality. As I said, it cannot be argued that this legislation doesnot restrict the flow of information to the public. The only argument is about to what degree thatinformation is restricted and how significant that restriction is.

I am tempted to make some comments directly to the member for Greenslopes, but I willaddress my remarks through the chair. The member for Greenslopes spoke about freedom ofinformation applications being obscene and about their being a demonstration of the arroganceof the people who make them. I put it to the House that nothing could be considered moreobscene in terms of the whole concept of freedom of information than the government's actionsin relation to the Goodwill Bridge.

Thousands and thousands of documents were taken to cabinet simply so the governmentcould avoid the scrutiny of the general public. What an obscene misuse of the whole concept offreedom of information! What an arrogant use of the cabinet provisions that allow thosedocuments to be hidden from scrutiny. Members of a government that is prepared to do thatcome into this House and talk about applications made by other people being obscene andarrogant. How obscene and arrogant is it to take thousands of documents—boxes and boxes ofdocuments; documents from every department that could conceivably have an interest—tocabinet, specifically for the purpose of exempting them from freedom of information applications?

Today the member for Robina asked how many of those documents were actually read. Hedid not get an answer, but we all know the answer. We all know that none of them were read.Ministers did not even read the labels on the boxes. That is an obscene use of the freedom ofinformation provisions. Before the member for Greenslopes starts accusing other people of usingthe freedom of information provisions in an obscene way, he should, if he wants his accusationsto have any moral authority, stand up in this place and defend the actions of his governmentcolleagues. Nobody has been prepared to do that.

The member for Greenslopes and other backbenchers have repeatedly talked in this placeabout how wonderful the government's record is in this particular area. None of them have beenprepared to refute or argue about the report of the Information Commissioner tabled in this Houseyesterday. Not one single speaker has been prepared to illustrate how that report fits with thespeeches they have been prepared to deliver. They have completely ignored it because it isindefensible. It cannot be defended, so nobody tries. Nobody tries, from the Premier to the mostinsignificant backbencher. Rather, they come in here and spout rhetoric that sounds good and fitswith the message the spin doctors sell in the media—in the headlines and in the 30-second grabsfor television—but that we all know is completely different from the reality.

This bill is the reality. It restricts access to information. It is the true indication of thisgovernment's approach. Despite the passionate comments of the Premier and the member forYeerongpilly when they were in opposition—

Mr Reeves interjected.

Mr SEENEY: I do not need any help from the member for the Brisbane busway.


The comments made by the Premier and the member for Yeerongpilly when they were inopposition are very different from those made in government. They set out to restrict the flow ofinformation as much as they possibly can while maintaining the facade in the public arena thatthey are doing just the opposite. That is the reality, and this legislation illustrates that reality.

The other fallacy that I would like to deal with briefly, and one which has been raised by anumber of members, is the fallacy about cost savings; that somehow or other this legislation isgoing to save money that can then be spent on schools and hospitals—as the member for theBrisbane busway said. What a nonsense that is in reality. If the number of freedom of informationrequests is reduced by 10 per cent or whatever, is anybody seriously going to suggest that thebudget for the Department of Health is going to be reduced by whatever that equates to in publicservants' wages? Is anybody seriously going to say that if we can reduce by 10 per cent thenumber of freedom of information requests that the Department of Health has to deal with thenthat will equate to so many thousands of dollars and the Minister for Health will voluntarily havethat sliced off her budget? Garbage! Absolute rubbish! All government members know that that isnot the way it works in reality. The people who deal with these freedom of information requestsare employed by the department, and they will continue to be employed by the department.

Mr Quinn interjected.Mr SEENEY: Exactly. If they were not doing this they would be doing something else. If the

people who handle the freedom of information requests in the Premier's Department were nothandling the freedom of information requests, they would be doing something else; they wouldbe part of the community engagement group, wet-nursing all the backbenchers whom they aretrying to get back here. That is the real function of the community engagement group in thePremier's Department. They ought to call that group the backbenchers wet-nursing group,because that is what it is for. And if they were not dealing with freedom of information requeststhey would be busy trying to save some of these oncers who were elected at the last election andwill not be back again after the next election.

But I digress, so I will come back to the legislation. I spoke about the extraordinary problemthat the Premier has with scrutiny. It is an attitude that extends right throughout the government. Iam particularly glad that the Minister for Emergency Services is in the House, because there is anexample right at grassroots level which illustrates well the paranoia that this government has withscrutiny and the paranoia that this government has with any sort of questioning of itsadministration. In my electorate, I sent out a form letter to a particular town. I will not tellhonourable members which one it is. There are about 24 in my electorate.

Mr Reynolds: It's a secret.

Mr SEENEY: No. I will not tell the minister which one it is, because he and his goons willfrighten people.

Mr Reynolds: We're not in South Africa now.Mr SEENEY: Wait until I tell members the story. I sent out a form letter to tell people in that

particular town that, as the local member, I was going to visit that particular town on a particularday. Obviously, one of those form letters went to the officer in charge of the ambulance station inthat particular town. I was told that the process was that it had to be forwarded up the line to theregional office and consequently from there to the minister's office. I got a letter from theminister's office to say that I was not allowed to visit that particular ambulance station without theminister's approval. What an absolute joke! That town is in my electorate. These are myconstituents. And the Minister for Emergency Services, like the rest of the government members,is so paranoid about any sort of scrutiny of their activities that he even tried to prevent a localmember from speaking to his constituents. Let me tell the House tonight that the Minister forEmergency Services can go jump in the lake. I will speak to my constituents whenever andwherever I want to, and he will not stop me irrespective of how paranoid he may like to be.

He is not the only minister to do this. The same thing applies to the Minister for NaturalResources. There are examples in my electorate and amongst other members of the ministertrying to do the same thing. The Minister for Mines actually chastised a constituent of mine forinviting me to a function that they put on because he did not have ministerial approval for that.How absurd is that? An employee of the department—albeit indirectly—put on a function in thetown where I live, and I was invited, and that particular employee was chastised because he didnot seek ministerial approval. That is an indication of the paranoia that exists in this government.Those are indications at a grassroots level of a paranoia that grips this government from the topto the bottom. It is a paranoia that is illustrated by the Premier's approach in this House, it is a


paranoia that the backbench has been sent in here to defend tonight, and it is a paranoia that isillustrated by this particular piece of legislation.

The other issue that I want to address relates to the charges that this particular piece oflegislation sets out to establish. In that respect the government says 'trust us' when it comes tocharges. There is no indication in this legislation of what the charges are going to be. The Premierhas given some indication in the media—some loose sort of indication in the media—but thereare no parameters set in this legislation about what the charges are going to be. There is aprovision for people who are in so-called financial hardship to apply for an exemption, but there isno definition of that financial hardship. There is nothing in this legislation to define how ajudgment is going to be made as to whether or not a person is genuinely in financial hardship.And in that respect, and in respect of not defining the charges, the government is simply saying'trust us—pass this legislation, accept this legislation as law and trust us.'

I do not think that concept is good enough in terms of any legislation. I certainly do not thinkit is good enough in terms of this legislation, whereby people will be seeking to access informationabout a government and then will be left at the mercy of the government in regard to how muchthat will cost them. That is simply bad legislation. It is simply a terrible concept to incorporate intoany particular piece of legislation, and it should be rejected wherever it is. Irrespective of theparticular worth of the legislation, we cannot have that type of 'trust me' concept encapsulatedwithin a piece of legislation.

The other point that I want to make and which has not been made widely in this debate isthat the freedom of information provisions do not apply just to state governments. It is not justaccess to information about the state government that will be affected. I have no doubt that thislegislation is motivated to protect the state government, but it will also protect a whole range ofother entities out there in the community that are currently subject to freedom of informationrequests by members of the public—and so they should be. Local government is probably a goodexample. There are probably as many freedom of information requests in terms of localgovernments as there are in terms of state governments. So let us not come in here and restrictthis debate simply to how it affects the state government. It also affects a whole range oforganisations, from state governments and GOCs to other entities that use public money.

I will conclude where I started by saying that this legislation illustrates to me the hypocrisy ofthis government. I have to concede that the government has been very successful in creating afalse image and doing something completely different. We have seen it do that across a wholerange of administrative activities. It creates one image in the media, but in reality does somethingelse completely. That is what this legislation does. The spin doctors write the speeches that thebackbenchers read about how this legislation is somehow going to increase accountability andincrease the opportunities that people have to access information when, in fact, it is going to dothe complete opposite. When we consider the detail of this legislation, there can be no argumentthat it is going to restrict the flow of information to the public. Simply because of that, thislegislation should be rejected by this parliament.

Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (10.00 p.m.): I rise to support this bill because it is sensiblelegislation that balances the rights of individuals with the costs to taxpayers that are associatedwith freedom of information. The original FOI laws that were introduced in 1992 were designed toimprove openness and accountability for the state government, and they have achieved thoseaims. This bill does not change those aims. If this legislation is passed, people will still be able toaccess exactly the same number and type of documents as they can now. Nothing has changedthere. People will still be able to access documents about their personal affairs at no cost. Nothinghas changed there. People will still have the same rights of appeal to the InformationCommissioner as they have now. Nothing has changed there.

This bill endeavours to reduce the escalating financial burden that some open-ended FOIrequests place on the public purse. We have all seen these requests. There must be somemanual somewhere that lists the words, or someone has passed around one letter and everyonehas adapted it to suit their purposes. This letter usually reads something to the effect of, 'I requestall documents, including briefing notes, handwritten notes, emails, letters and othercorrespondence, decision papers and draft notes relating to such and such a decision or project.'No attempt is made to limit the request or specify documents. It is just anything and everythingthat mentions the particular decision or project.

Most conscientious FOI officers try to negotiate with the person making the request to narrowtheir search. But their attempts are usually met with a blank no. The FOI officer then dutifullycopies everything that makes even a passing reference to the subject and the taxpayer is left with


the bill. The object of these exercises is usually to unearth a document that supports the views orarguments of the person or organisation making the request. The only difference this bill makes isthat the person or organisation has to pay the full cost for their fishing expedition. I make nobones about it: they are just expensive fishing trips that usually catch fish so small that they haveto be thrown back.

Members of the National Party have thrown their hands up in the air in mock horror at thislegislation. Yes, the paragons of openness and accountability, the Queensland National Party!Last night while watching the ABC news I was amused to hear members of the National Partycontradicting themselves in the space of a mere couple of minutes. One story had the DeputyLeader, Vaughan Johnson, on his high horse about secrecy in government and claiming thatQueensland was a dictatorship. The next story had Opposition Leader, Mike Horan, attacking thePremier for listening to public appeals and changing his decision on the Smart Statenumberplates. Come on, guys—

Mr Lawlor: Get your lines right.Ms MALE: That is right, they should get their lines right. Either we have a dictatorship or we

have a Premier who listens to the people and is willing to change his mind.

One wonders what the opposition discusses at their strategy meetings every morning beforeparliament. Obviously, it is nothing particularly constructive. Maybe they just read excerpts fromVince's travel journals or reminisce about the good old days of Joh, Russ and Don, the days whendinosaurs once ruled. But I digress into the fantasy world of the opposition, which is onlyappropriate since it is Halloween. This bill comes down to a question of how much people wanttaxpayers' funds diverted into FOI requests. As the Attorney-General pointed out in his secondreading speech, the cost of FOI has grown from just under $1 million in 1993 to $7.7 million lastyear, a rise of almost $7 million in seven years. Most departments would like to see asimilar percentage increase in their budgets. I know what I could do with $7 million a year in myelectorate, as would other members of the House. Would opposition members like the $7 milliona year spent on FOI, or would they prefer to have that money spent on schools, hospitals orroads in their electorates? What could the member for Gregory do for the roads in his electoratewith $7 million a year? What could the member for Toowoomba South do for the Toowoombaemergency ward with $7 million a year? What could the member for Mirani do with $7 million ayear for ambulance services in his area, which he complained about during the last sitting.

This bill is about getting priorities right. The worst part about the expensive fishing expeditionsabout which I have spoken is the fact that they are usually requested by organisations such asthe Courier-Mail that can easily afford to pay for the full cost of them. The Courier-Mail, amonopoly newspaper, is a renowned champion of the free market system. It goes to greatlengths to support things such as longer shopping hours and frowns upon any form of tariff orsubsidy. It is about time the Courier-Mail paid the full market price for FOI and did not rely on thisFOI subsidy for its supposed attempts at investigative reporting.

The least that these large organisations can do is focus their requests on what they want.Departmental FOI officers are talented, but they are not mind-readers. So if people give themsome idea of what they want, those officers are not only willing but legally bound to follow therequest. This bill sets out the process that is necessary to narrow the request down to the coresubject. It is a sensible amendment, as are all the other amendments in this bill. It is acommonsense, balanced piece of legislation. It neatly marries the responsibility of government tobe open and accountable with its responsibility to guard against unnecessary public expenditure.It deserves the full support of every member here and I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (10.06 p.m.): I would like to contribute to this debate on theFreedom of Information Amendment Bill, but I really think that it is 'freedom from information'.Tonight, basically we have heard an argument from members opposite that money should not beput into giving information to the citizens of the state because it is costing us too much. In point offact, we have a unicameral parliament; we have a government with a very large majority and it isvery arrogant about that majority; we have a government that is becoming more secretive anddoes not believe that it should be questioned by anybody—the media, the opposition or people inthe community. So, as a means of stopping any information getting out, the government isputting up the fee for FOI to the point at which it is pretty prohibitive for most people andorganisations, particularly community organisations, which really do not have a lot of money butoften need information about government processes.


I think that it would be fair to say that if the government was more open about what it isdoing there would not be nearly the number of requests for freedom of information that there are.Day after day, week after week we sit in this House and the opposition and the Independentmembers ask questions to which no answers are given. How do people gain information from thisgovernment? They have gone through the legal procedures, at a cost to them—although not asprohibitive as this legislation will make it—to find out the facts. However, the Beattie government ispretty good at making sure that those facts are not available for freedom of information officers inthe various departments.

I think the absolute nonsense that we have seen about the pedestrian bridge, the so-calledGoodwill Bridge over the Brisbane River, exemplifies that. Today the Premier was asked howmany of the thousands of documents that he said the Cabinet Budget Review Committeeneeded he had actually read. He would not answer the question. I bet he had not even sightedany of them except in a bundle sitting in the corner of the room. It beggars belief to say that anyCabinet Budget Review Committee is going to look at thousands of documents. Indeed, thegovernment has good and trained bureaucrats who go through documents and brief cabinet onthem. If a particular document is required by a minister, the minister can ask for it and get it. Thedocuments come to the Cabinet Budget Review Committee before cabinet actually deliberates onthe issue. That is an absolute nonsense and the Premier knows it. I would say that paranoia wasriding high. The government was wondering what documents were there, what could be foundshowing the inefficiencies of this government in regard to that bridge, and it made sure that nodocument about it could get out or, indeed, be leaked from any department. That is not openand accountable government, it is a government running scared, trying to protect itself andfeeling that it should not be in a position to be questioned at all.

The Goss Labor government enacted the Freedom of Information Act in 1992. However, itwas amended in 1995 and that made it much more draconian than when it was first introducedfollowing the recommendations of Fitzgerald. The benefits of the process as they stand are that, iffreedom of information is properly enacted, it is a good check and balance against what can be,and in this case is, a closed and secretive government.

As a society, we have public funding for elections and we fund our parliaments. As the statehas a budget of approximately $20 billion, $7 million is a drop in the bucket when one looks at theinformation that people can access or should be able to access through the legislation. Of course,that has become a waste of time because the documents are not there to be accessed. Thepublic also needs to see that government decisions are made in the people's best interests, andnot necessarily in the political interests of the government of the day. Without that access andwithout the ability to pay for that access, people are going to be very disadvantaged. Saying thatthe costs have increased and that we have to meet those costs is just a cynical exercise. That isnot fair on the taxpayer, as it is the taxpayers who want the information and who have every rightto have it.

Undoubtedly, this is happening because the opposition parties, the Courier-Mail and theother media outlets have exposed a number of things that have been embarrassing to thegovernment; for instance, understaffing in the Families Department, the continuing practice ofpolice evading speeding fines and the use of a 1940s fire engine by volunteer fire brigades. Itwas interesting to hear the minister's comments about volunteer fire brigades. I have some verygood fire brigades in my electorate and I know of their continuing need for equipment. Also, thereis the continued and previously unreported extent of the Queensland fire ant problem. Those area few of the things that have come to light. We also managed to get some information from theHealth Department, although I must admit that it was not much. Again, we were told that it wouldnot be in the public interest for that information to be released. This government is not talkingabout the public interest; it is talking about its own interest.

It is also very important that environmentalists have said that they were refused access todocuments about a proposed dam near Bundaberg. They wanted to know the effect that thatdevelopment would have on the environment. Unless there was a negative there, why could thepapers not be released? There was no reason why the documents should have been exemptedunder the cabinet rules.

I believe that certain documentation must go to cabinet and must be kept sacrosanct togovernment. A government has to make decisions based on information. At times, the release ofthat information would not be helpful to important government decisions. That is very different tosending truckloads of information to cabinet so that it cannot be accessed. The information would


probably never be looked at by a cabinet minister anyway, because they would not have the timeto go through it.

I would like to comment on the report of the Queensland Information Commissioner. As themember for Callide said, no government member has actually referred to that report. If one readsit, one can see why. In the executive summary on the very first page, Fred Albietz, the formerInformation Commissioner, spoke about the increased output that was achieved by his office,notwithstanding a decrease in professional and full-time staff over the course of the reportingperiod. He went on to say that more and more demands are being put on the office, becauseobviously more and more cases are unresolved and more and more people are asking for adviceon appeal against government decisions not to release documents under FOI.

Mr Albietz made some general observations on the operation of the FOI Act in Queensland.He draws attention to deficiencies that he perceives with the cabinet and executive councilexemption provisions, and the potential for agency decision makers to remedy those deficienciesby exercising the discretion that they have to grant access to matters that technically qualify forexemption but the disclosure of which would not prejudice the public interest. That point is veryvalid.

It is in chapter 3 that he makes comments that are very damaging to this government. Hesays that he feels that there is a great lack of sympathy demonstrated towards the FOI Act andopen government principles generally by some segments of the public sector. He states—While it is fortunately still the exception rather than the norm, hostility is not infrequently manifested (sometimes byofficials who have spent a large part of their careers enforcing laws against citizens) ...

One has only to look at some of those bureaucratic decisions to see what he is talking about—... towards the use by a citizen of a legal right to enforce access to information from and about a governmentagency or official.

He goes on to quote the case of the Gardens Point campus bridge. He said—A senior officer in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet appears to have given instructions to junior staff ...

In fact, today on the ABC the Premier said that he had directed that junior officer—... to co-ordinate the collection and delivery to the Cabinet Secretariat of every document relating to the Southbankpedestrian footbridge from all agencies that had had any involvement with it. The Cabinet Budget Review Committee(the CBRC) was scheduled to review and discuss the problems encountered with the footbridge. It was perfectlyproper and legitimate that it should do so. What appears to have been more contrived was the addition to thesubmission prepared for the CBRC of a schedule describing by file/folder all the documents collected fromagencies, which were to be made available for inspection at the relevant meeting of the CBRC. On a conservativeestimate, they must have numbered many thousands of documents, most of them technical in nature, andduplicates of many documents would appear to have been held by more than one agency. It appears that no attemptwas made to cull the documents for particular relevance or value to the deliberations of the CBRC.

I think that is fairly indicative of what is happening across-the-board generally when questions areasked and often documents have been taken to cabinet subsequent to information requestsbeing made.

Mr Albietz speaks about the Cabinet Handbook that this morning the Premier said he hadwritten. No doubt he had a large input into it, but certainly when we were in cabinet that book wassent to all ministers for their approval. They were asked if there were any questions that they feltshould be added to it and a review took place. It was not autocratically written by the Premier ofthe day with a full stop at the end.

Mr Albietz quotes the Cabinet Handbook, which states—Where an attachment is longer than 10 pages, departments should critically examine whether the full attachment isrequired and if it could more appropriately be attached in summarised form or merely cited if readily available.

That makes commonsense. Indeed, a cabinet or, indeed, a cabinet committee would not be ableto function if they had to have the full documentation of every decision that was being made infront of them to go through. That is why there are large and expensive bureaucracies, often withvery able people who help advise the ministers of the day. Obviously, it is open to the minister toask for more information, but that is why they are there.

Mr Albietz mentions a few cases where he feels every document has been taken, such asthe South Bank bridge and the Lang Park redevelopment. I notice that the government is veryskittish about answering any questions on that project. He points to the issue of credibility. Hesays that, to his mind and to the mind of the public, it is quite ridiculous to have all of these thingsdragged into cabinet. It is purely a farce that the government says that it is open andaccountable, while it is indulging in these practices.


The whole premise of this amendment that we are recouping moneys because it is costingthe government too much is a nonsense. It is another example of secrecy being put in place byan executive arm of government that controls the parliament. There is no doubt about that. Thatis not the way that a democracy should be run, and it is a very sad day for Queensland that thatis the way that this place is run. I will certainly not be supporting this sham of an amendment.

Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (10.20 p.m.): Tonight I am pleased to speak to the freedom ofinformation legislation before the House. FOI was designed to give the community access toinformation held by government, that is, state government departments, the offices of ministers,statutory authorities and, of course, local government. I support what has been said today andtonight by the opposition. The shadow minister very eloquently stated our suggestions forimproving FOI and the errors of this government's ways in relation to this legislation. I do not useFOI extensively, although I probably should. However, I wish to inform the House about a coupleof experiences that I have had.

In the very early stages of the tree-clearing debate, I became aware of a report held by theDPI on the social and financial impact on land-holders in relation to what was proposed for treeclearing in Queensland. The Premier made statements along the lines that the report was notworth the paper it was written on and that it was totally wrong and of no relevance.

Mr Springborg: It's an example of bureaucratic capture.

Mr HOBBS: It was along the lines that it was an example of bureaucratic capture, as thehonourable member for Southern Downs said. I made an application under FOI for thatstatement. It cost me $30. And guess what? It was taken to cabinet after I put in the application.So it cost me $30 for a document that the Premier said was not worth the paper it was written on,and I still have not got it. And I still haven't got my $30 back.

Mr Springborg: Do you know what? He said the reason he was taking that was because hewanted to show other ministers an example of bureaucratic capture.

Mr HOBBS: That could be right. Anyway, I still did not get it. That was an example. ThePremier says time after time that he does not take documents to cabinet. Yet this document thatwas supposedly not worth the paper it was written on was taken to cabinet.

Mr Springborg: The real reason was that it was going to cost land-holders $500 millioninstead of 100.

Mr HOBBS: Yes, it was along those lines; that is right.

Tonight many honourable members have spoken about the footbridge, and I will not go backover that issue. However, the point is: how many of those documents were in fact read?

In another case I put in an application to a department on 12 June. On 12 July, when the 30days was up, I had not heard anything back, and I did not hear a thing for a further 61 days. Aftersome 91 days since the application had been made, my office received a call from a person whotried to talk us into withdrawing the application—something we did not want to do. We were onlyafter 15 lousy pages of documents. We were not even talking about going to a third party. It wasjust simple departmental information, yet I still do not have it. I do not think that people got a fairshake under the old system. What will happen under the new one with its associated costs andso on?

From listening to the debate tonight in relation to secrecy and FOI, one would think that theLabor Party was the only party in Australia or certainly Queensland that has a mortgage onaccountability. We keep hearing about the Fitzgerald inquiry which took place 13 years ago. Wewere in government when the Fitzgerald inquiry was on—

Mr Horan: We put it on.Mr HOBBS: And we put it on. It seems as though there is a time warp somewhere, and we

are not the ones in it. We are debating an issue that is current today, yet all we heard in theprevious debate tonight related to something that happened 13 years ago. We heard about ittime and time again.

Mr Springborg: At least they have got over the Boer War, anyway. Mr HOBBS: They have got over the Boer War. That is an important point. Why can't we

debate the issues of today? There is no doubt that the government is hiding information. ThePremier spoke about taking truckloads of information to Mount Isa. I do not think that was us. Ithink it was the ALP government that met in Mount Isa on that occasion. I could be wrong, but Ido not recall going to Mount Isa for a cabinet meeting.


Mr Welford: No, you wouldn't. Mr HOBBS: That is right.

Mr Springborg: You would have slept through it.Mr HOBBS: The minister would have slept through it. He has been asleep all night. I am

sorry I woke him up.

Mr Welford: You put me to sleep in the first place. Mr HOBBS: The minister was already asleep. I am sorry I woke him up. The Premier talkedabout Mount Isa, but I think they will find, if they check their records, that it was probably theirgovernment that took the truckloads of documents to the Mount Isa cabinet meeting.

Interestingly, yesterday the report from the Information Commissioner came down. In mytime in parliament I do not think I have seen a more damning report about a government from anInformation Commissioner or anyone similar—

Mr Mulherin: Like Tony Fitzgerald. Mr HOBBS: Yes, Tony Fitzgerald. But let us not forget that this is the year 2001. This is a

report on today. We did not raise the issue of the Shepherdson inquiry. We did not talk about thefact that the government has cabinet ministers who got through only because of the statute oflimitations. We did not talk about that, did we?

Mr Springborg: We did not talk about paedophiles.Mr HOBBS: We did not talk about paedophiles and all those sorts of things. We can drag

them all out. If members opposite want a debate in the gutter, we will give them one any old timeof the day. But that will not serve the purpose—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! Members will keep the debate relevant.

Mr HOBBS: I am sorry. I agree entirely. We should keep the debate relevant. Mr Seeney: We forgot about Net Bet.

Mr HOBBS: Was that a secret business or not? A government member interjected.

Mr HOBBS: A government member said that we are pathetic. This debate tonight is inrelation to freedom of information and secrecy—

Mr Horan: Old Donnie was going to win lotto with Net Bet. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the speaker.

Mr HOBBS: We can talk about those sorts of things, but at the end of the day we have to tryto get down to the real issues. One of the things that I wanted to speak about tonight in particularrelated to the Queensland Information Commissioner's report. He made a couple of importantpoints. He stated—Moreover, it is doubtful whether the cost of administering FOI legislation is any greater than the amounts of publicmoney spent by governments of all political persuasions on government media officers, information units, publicrelations campaigns and the like. The legitimacy of the executive government spending substantial sums of publicmoney on telling the community what it wants the community to know about government administration, initiativesand achievements is not frequently questioned from within government (though, on the potential for abuse, see theFitzgerald Report pp.141-142, and the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission's Report on Review ofGovernment Media and Information Services) ... There seems a certain elementary fairness and balance in havingpublic funds subsidise the costs of the government responding to members of the public who seek to enforce theright conferred by the FOI Act to obtain government-held information which is of interest or concern to them.

I do not know whether many honourable members have read this, but I commend it to them forcareful reading and in-depth study. They might learn something from it.

Mr Seeney: Somebody might come in and talk about it. Mr HOBBS: Somebody might come in and talk about the real issues.

Mr Seeney: Nobody wants to talk about it. Mr HOBBS: That is right.

Mr Horan: I would have thought everyone from the other side would have had that in theirdebate.

Mr HOBBS: They should have; they should have been waving it around. I thought theywould have.


Mr Horan: They are all for open and accountable government.Mr HOBBS: Yes. It goes on—

In his essay, 'Secrecy and Open Government', Mr Justice Thomas suggests an interesting perspective on thisissue ...

... democracy and open government go hand in glove. This nexus derives from the sovereignty of the people.Government is delegated with the authority and power to act on the people's behalf, and the officialinformation it gathers and holds pursuant to that devolution of power is gathered and held on the people'sbehalf. For representative government to be responsible and accountable, it must make that informationavailable to the people. They do have a "right to know" ... Other essential features of a democracy areimplemented irrespective of the cost or burden they might impose. No-one suggests, for example, that freeand regular elections should be dispensed with simply because they are enormously expensive. Nor is itcontemplated that parliament as an institution should be curtailed in the interests of more efficient andinexpensive government. If greater openness in government is regarded as a democratic imperative, shouldnot the same approach be applicable?

So there are numerous quotes in there that we really could talk about in depth tonight. It isdisappointing that we did not have a real debate earlier on. In summary, I might just say that youcan fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (10.30 p.m.): I am very pleased to speak in support of theFreedom of Information Amendment Bill 2001. I have had a keen interest in administrative lawand administrative review since first working in this area in the Commonwealth Public Service inCanberra in the late 1970s, several years after the wave of federal administrative law reforms,including the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Ombudsman, judicial review and others. Later,of course—in 1982—freedom of information was introduced federally.

In Queensland, except for the Ombudsman, which was established in 1974, it had been leftto Labor governments in the last decade to introduce administrative review reforms such asEARC, freedom of information, the Criminal Justice Act and the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee—just to name a few. I had the opportunity to consider issues affecting FOI, amongother things, whilst a member of the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committeeof the 49th Parliament. Previous government members have addressed the broader issues andprinciples that are embedded in the principal act, the Freedom of Information Act 1992. I wish tofocus specifically on the amendment bill.

Honourable members might ask: what is the problem or what is the defect that is attemptedto be cured by this amendment bill? The member for Caloundra said only a moment ago that thepeople of Queensland wanted access to all of these documents that are being accessed orattempted to be accessed by news organisations and others. I wonder whether the Queenslandpublic wanted access to these documents. I have been provided with advice from the Departmentof Industrial Relations through the minister that there was an application by the Courier-Mail to theDepartment of Industrial Relations seeking documents relating to workplace health and safetyinvestigations in Police, Corrective Services, Health, Education, Sport and Emergency Servicesfrom 1 January 2001 to the date of the receipt of the application. The application was lodged on1 March 2001. It took 36 hours, or the equivalent of one person working for one week, to locateand collate the documents. That was at a cost of $1,900. Six agencies had to be investigatedinvolving 10 investigations. The total number of documents was 242.

When the Courier-Mail was contacted on 20 July 2001 in relation to its application to advise itthat it had been completed and to further clarify the request, the informant of the Courier-Mailadvised that the Courier-Mail reporter had left to go overseas so the data was no longer required.That is the information that the member for Caloundra so strenuously argued that the people ofQueensland wanted to know. That is only one of the many stories that can be told about theabuse of freedom of information legislation in Queensland today.

Let us consider the foreshadowed $20 an hour prospective fee to be charged for non-personal applications. If we divide the 36 hours into $1,900, which was the cost on this occasion,that comes to an average of $53 an hour—nearly three times the prospective hourly fee of $20that is going to be charged for non-personal access to documents. If the real hourly cost forproviding access to these documents to commercial applicants were charged, it would besignificantly greater than the $20 that has been foreshadowed. The difficulty is that many of thesenon-personal applications are indeed from commercial organisations. There is no problem withpersonal applications and there is no change made in this amending bill to the provisions in theprincipal act that apply to personal applications. It relates to non-personal applications principallydriven by commercial organisations. In many cases the terms of the application are very wideranging. They seek to unearth, collate and have access to voluminous documentation. There is


often no specific issue or topic identified by the applicant. They seek to obtain the information forbroad-ranging research. In some cases the terms of the application are so expansive and illdefined that they cannot be described as anything other than a fishing expedition.

Even in a court of law, when an application is made for a subpoena to be issued, thedefendant can at least go to the court and argue that the subpoena should be struck out orsignificantly amended in its terms, that it is so wide and generalised that it should be treated asoppressive to the proceedings and an abuse of process. So why in this arena can the samestandards and same discipline not be applied to the commercial organisations that access thisinformation, particularly when the information they are seeking is for use in the normal course oftheir profit-making business? They want the taxpayer to subsidise their normal course of conduct,their normal business functions, which are profit motivated.

I reiterate that there is no change being made to personal applications; it relates only to non-personal applications. The fee charged will more closely reflect the workload involved inprocessing applications but will not fully cover the cost. There is clear precedent for this. TheCommonwealth legislation, which has been in place since 1991 and was based on a 1987Senate report, provides that applications in the Commonwealth jurisdiction attract an hourlyprocessing fee of $20. Indeed, Queensland is presently the only state that does not have anhourly processing fee. Why do commercial organisations that make these non-personalapplications want to be treated in the Australian context as an exception? It has taken usarguably 10 years to catch up to the standards set in other jurisdictions.

The other thing that I want to draw attention to is this: if honourable members look at thefigures that have been published by the government covering the FOI costs for state governmentdepartments and agencies for the financial years 1992-93 up to 1999-2000 they will see thatthere are some very interesting statistics. For personal applications over this eight-yearperiod—between 1992 and the year 2000—there has been a 40 per cent increase inapplications. In the non-personal category over the same period there has been a 333 per centincrease in the number of applications. The total cost to all government agencies in providingaccess to personal and non-personal applications over that eight-year period has increased by127 per cent. The net cost has seen about the same percentage increase. In terms of the costsrecovered over that period, in the financial year 1992-93 1.2 per cent of the actual costs incurredin recovering those documents were recovered by the fees that were taken in on the applicationfee. In the financial year 1999-2000 the cost recovered had increased to a staggering 2.36 percent!

I will now outline some critical features which come out of those statistics. If we look at theproportion of personal to non-personal applications measured in terms of the overall cost of allapplications, in 1992-93 the cost of personal applications was 70 per cent of that total while thecost of non-personal applications was 30 per cent. In 1999-2000, the cost of personalapplications as a proportion of the total cost was 43 per cent while the cost of non-personalapplications had gone up to 57 per cent. So there is nearly a total reversal of the proportions. Themajor proportion in 1992-93 consisted of personal applications while only a small minority—that is,30 per cent—consisted of non-personal applications. By 1999-2000, there was a total reversal ofthose statistics when virtually 60 per cent of the cost of FOI applications was attributed to non-personal applications.

As I have said, many of those applications relate to commercial organisations. Thesecommercial applications principally involve news organisations. For example, they involveorganisations like Queensland Press, which made a profit in 1998-99 of $68.89 million. It controlsthe Courier-Mail, the Sunday Mail, the Cairns Post and the Gold Coast Bulletin. They also involveother organisations such as News Corporation. It is an applicant under our system, as it is in otherstates. I do not have its profit figures, but it is rated as the fourth largest of the top 1,000corporations in Australia. Its revenue in 2000 was estimated at $22.5 billion, which one mightthink is a sizeable revenue. Also, John Fairfax Holdings was rated at No. 132 out of the top 1,000companies in 2000. Its revenue for that year was a trifling $1.3 billion! I do not know how it makesends meet!

It is companies like that making FOI applications in Queensland which are largely responsiblefor the bulk of the cost of non-personal applications. However, those organisations are quibblingat the fact that this government is amending the legislation to enable a truer cost recovery fornon-personal applications and is overcoming the anomaly that presently exists in that this state isthe only state that does not charge an hourly rate. This move will bring us into line with the rest ofAustralia where a rate similar to $20 an hour is charged. They quibble about that fact, yet News


Corporation and John Fairfax access government departments in all other states of Australia andpay $20 an hour because that is the prevailing regime, yet they would be happy for the anomalyto continue in Queensland and for the taxpayer, in effect, to subsidise those organisations in thepursuit of their normal business activities.

However, there are better ways to spend taxpayers' money, and I will give the House anexample. A better way to spend that money would be to buy computers for schools. Earlier thisweek the Minister for Education spoke in this House about the additional computers programbeing run throughout Queensland. Some $5 million has been allocated across 593 schools whichwill provide 2,817 computers. In my electorate alone, approximately $60,000 will go to six schools,benefiting about 3,000 primary school students.

One feature coming out of the statistics I referred to earlier is that during that eight-yearperiod there was a 40 per cent increase in the personal applications category and a 333 per centincrease in the non-personal applications category. If one assumes that the rate of increase innon-personal applications over that period maintained the same rate as the personalapplications—that is, 40 per cent—and one does some calculations and moderated the$7.7 million it cost in the last financial year to recover non-personal application documents tomatch the 40 per cent increase in personal applications, we would save about $3 million.

In other words, if the rate of increase of non-personal applications over the last eight yearswas the same as for personal applications, it would have cost us $3 million less than what it costus this last financial year. That amount of money would provide 1,690 computers across those593 schools—that is, three extra computers for every primary school benefiting from the computerprogram currently in place. That is a better way to spend those taxpayers' funds. For every schoolbenefiting under the current computer program three extra computers would be available if thetotal cost of the non-personal applications was moderated to the extent of the personalapplications, saving around about $3 million. They are rough figures just to give the House somesense of what the alternative options are for expending scarce resources known as taxpayers'funds.

Another way to look at it is that the average cost in the last financial year of all applicationswas about $944 each. On the basis of the computer program that is being rolled out now acrossschools, that works out at about $1,775 extra per new computer. So for every two commercialapplications for access to non-personal records, we are throwing away one computer for primaryschool kids in our schools. These figures mean that every two wasteful applications like the one Ireferred to at the beginning of my contribution—that is, where the Courier-Mail cost the state andthe taxpayers of Queensland $1,700 yet when we rang, it said that it did not need the documentsanymore because the reporter had gone overseas—equate to an extra computer for our schools.If we multiply those instances across the state, of which there are many, for every two wastedapplications like that we are throwing away one extra computer for a school in ourelectorates—not just government electorates but all electorates throughout Queensland.

That is the tragedy of this situation. That is the issue that needs addressing in thisamendment bill—not all of the other principles found in the principal bill and the complaints by theopposition about the alleged 'secret state' that it says is being run in Queensland. Instead, theissue it needs to address and the issue it has failed to address is why taxpayers should be puttingthese dollars into the pockets of organisations such as the Courier-Mail and other newspapers inQueensland rather than into schools in the form of extra computers to supplement a program likethe one in place now. Why aren't those dollars being spent in health, police or other needy areasfor the benefit of Queenslanders rather than subsidising commercial organisations seeking toaccess documents in the normal course of their business solely to make profits and not for adirect public benefit? I support the bill and commend it to the House.

Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (10.50 p.m.): I became a member of this House in 1998. Sincethen I have sat in this chamber and listened to the Premier and other members continuallyespouse how this is an open and accountable government. I have watched them twist and turnsituations into pro-government statements, conveniently leaving out the blunders they have madejust to look good, and I have watched the media and others swallow it hook, line and sinker. Ihave listened to statements as to why figures and answers could not be revealed to those on thisside of the House or to the media because of commercial-in-confidence or because documentshad been wheeled into cabinet. Open and accountable? This government? To whom? Open andaccountable? I think not. This government treats the revealing of the whole truth as a game. Ittreats the people of this state as fools.


I rise with grave concerns about the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2001, whichappears to do the exact opposite of the original bill's intention. FOI laws were enacted to makeinformation easier for individuals to obtain when they believed that information held by a thirdparty concerning them was inaccurate, allowing them an opportunity to endeavour to have itcorrected. As was stated, this is still possible, but what of other information which has beenclassified as non-personal?

It would appear that there is very little which does not come under this non-personalcategory. What is the definition of personal and non-personal information? Many members of thepublic would state that anything which affects them is personal and that personal informationwould encompass a lot more than their name, age and personal details as defined by this bill.Most people would put a wider interpretation on personal affairs and would say that they includean individual's business and employment affairs. All of this information would be classified in thelegislation as non-personal. Therefore, just about everything anyone would want to know or askabout would incur the $20 per hour charge.

The government has proposed a cost which will in many cases prohibit people from obtaininginformation regarding their lives, unless they are prepared to pay and, in some cases, pay verydearly. It is not inconceivable that people's costs to retrieve these documents, often with themajority of the documents blacked out, will rise into the hundreds. The $20 an hour is added tothe $31 application fee. And what will the charge be for supervision? Can the minister tell us that?When the applicant is told that his request spills over into non-personal information, who willestimate the cost? It will be only an estimate, because no-one will know exactly how much time itwill take to process the request. Will that cost be the very catalyst to stop people pursuing thatinformation? For many applicants, having to pay a very small amount of money could stop them.The process would be too expensive and they would give up. Who will stop the estimated pricebeing inflated because the applicant is disliked by the officer and that officer is hoping to put theperson off? What if the price is inflated because of the ineptitude or lack of knowledge of anofficer as to how to access the information?

Who has the right to say whether a person is being repetitious or vexatious in theirapplications? I am not saying that repetitious or vexatious applications are not made, but who arewe to judge if a person is being repetitious or vexatious when their life has been made a living helland they need information to help them obtain closure? It may be that they know of a particularincident which took place and of a document which should exist but are unsure of the exactlocation of it. Hardship measures have been put into this legislation to address this problem area,but members should forgive me for being sceptical. I would like to see this put into practice beforeI commend the government on its generosity.

This whole exercise will be seen for exactly what it is: the key that will be used to keepinformation out of the hands of those who should be accessing it—the people. Informationconcerns the people and belongs to the people. The government is only a custodian of thatinformation. Taxpayers' funds are spent on infrastructure and in many other areas, and it is not aresponsible government that does not spend wisely.

If something does cause a blow-out in a budget, like a bridge which doubles in price, whatexactly does the government fear from making the information public? Everyone already knowsthat the blow-out occurred. If the figures announced by government are correct, then what is thebig deal? Did government actually lie to the people? If there were some other impropriety I couldunderstand the government not wanting information to be revealed, but all moving documentsinto cabinet does is make people very suspicious. And perhaps there is just cause for thatsuspicion. Perhaps we will never know.

What good does that serve when we can all see the bridge and we all read about the fiascoas it was being built? What exactly does that bridge have to do with the running of thegovernment, except to show that it is incompetent, that it lacks intestinal fortitude because itcannot handle the truth about its ineptitude and that it is dishonest because it is like the kid whotries to clean up his room by kicking things under the bed. The truth is that it will all come out inthe end.

For some people, trying to bury things under more and more delaying tactics is as good aslying. Others would say that technically there is a difference. One thing governments shouldrealise is that they are only in power temporarily and all will be revealed. Now that the bridge iscompleted, the government should consider releasing all of the documents. I challenge thegovernment to table them, although they might fill this room as there are so many out of ourreach.

3304 Adjournment 31 Oct 2001

While I am speaking about the bridge, I tell the House that I have in fact twice taken theopportunity to walk across the bridge and I have enjoyed both walks. I know that there weredesign faults and that the bridge was not initially designed for wheelchair access. Even withalterations and attempts to rectify the situation, I would not like to be pushing a wheelchair acrossthe bridge. It is definitely not disabled friendly.

This bill seems to be targeted at the media, and the Premier's words in this chamber havebeen targeted at the so-called fishing requests and the cost of those requests to FOI agencies. Ican say only that government pays dearly for the spin doctors who pump out the press releaseswhich verge very precariously on the edge of truth. Quite frankly, I believe it is in the public interestthat the media be permitted access to FOI, if for no other reason than to counteract the spinmerchants and give the whole story. No individual would watch so closely what governments doand nor would they be inclined to do so. The media are effectively the watchdogs of the people.Like the media or not, they do keep the public informed. Cost should not be a factor as this is ademocracy, and the price of vigilance has always been and will always be very high.

So much for an open and accountable government! Yes, the cost may be high, but whatprice may we pay in the future without someone to keep us all honest? It would appear that this isclose to an admission from the Premier that there is something to hide—something that thepersistence of the media may very well reveal. The media are, and perhaps will always be, thewatchdogs of the people. Very few people would be willing to spend time delving into archives tofind out where the government has erred or done what it has done if they were not personallyaffected. The bigger issues would not be researched and revealed. The media are in fact thewatchdogs for the general public, and I for one am grateful that they exist. Although many wouldfind them an intrusion, like them or hate them they do keep us well and truly informed and thegovernment wary and on its toes.

One thing that surprises me is the revelation that the head of this particular area, the Officeof the Information Commissioner, was not even consulted on this bill—not even invited to givewhat should have been a very knowledgeable and valuable opinion. In an interview I heard that asenior official in the Premier's Department had asked for every document involving the bridge tobe collected and taken into cabinet. It has also been stated by the Premier that it was done at hisdirection. The Premier's reported response that he was in charge and that he wrote the handbooksmells more and more like the dictatorship that he is fast becoming head of. I guess it isappropriate that the Premier starts to see himself as many people already do, that is, powerhungry and a control freak.

Slowly but surely the government is endeavouring to stop scrutiny of the job it is doing.Research staff numbers for opposition and Independent members have been cut, librarycutbacks are being considered or modified and this information-at-a-price legislation has beenbrought before the House. There may very well be reasons to instigate charges, and anythingbad can be sold as good at various times. Bin Laden managed to convince many that the deathsresulting from the twin towers being hit by planes were just. Although this is an extreme example,it shows how anything can be justified to some.

Members have often referred to the past and continually harp on about what went before.The actions of previous governments in this House may very well be questionable, but the past isjust that. It is the past. We are discussing this bill and its effect on thousands of people now andinto the future. I can do nothing but oppose this bill.

Debate, on motion of Mr Welford, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT

Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice)(11.00 p.m.): I move—That the House do now adjourn.

Hospital Waiting ListsMrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (11.00 p.m.): Long waiting lists to see a doctor, to receive an

operation in hospital or to seek dental attention are just a case of there not being enough medicalstaff, particularly in regional, rural and remote Queensland. The Department of Health has startedcampaigns to rectify this problem, like the campaign to educate more ICU nurses, and I do

31 Oct 2001 Adjournment 3305

applaud the minister for this initiative. However, despite all of Minister Edmond's and herdepartment's efforts to bring down waiting list times, it still is not good enough.

At the moment at one hospital in my electorate there is a four-year waiting period for dentalcare. The waiting list at the dental clinic, which is part of the Kingaroy Hospital—this is a waiting listfor people who want work done on natural teeth—is 49 months long, that is, four years and onemonth. The denture waiting list is 14 months long. This is a much shorter waiting list becauseevery year a dentist and technician come to the area for a three-moth period and, according tothe dental clinic, shorten the waiting list by approximately 10 months in a three-month period.

The general anaesthetic waiting list is separated into two different categories at the KingaroyDental Clinic: priority 1 and priority 2. The waiting time for priority 1 patients is 11 months. Priority 2patients have to wait 25 months. The orthodontist's waiting list is very short compared to the otherlists, at only six months, and according to the Kingaroy Dental Clinic a visiting orthodontist will visitthe hospital on average two days a month. The re-call waiting list, which is for a check-up visitafter the dentist has completed work, is up to date, meaning that there is no waiting list for thesepatients.

I have had cases of people walking into my office—people who are losing theirteeth—because they cannot get in to see a dentist quickly enough. One constituent has statedthat he was in such pain that he was taking three pain killers every two hours. He was told that hecould only get help if he went to the dental clinic at a certain time. He was told that the waiting listthree years ago was almost three and a half years long. It has now blown out to four and isgetting worse by the month. This man has lost three teeth since 1996 due to the fact that he didnot receive medical attention. Each tooth has fallen out by itself, and the pain that he hassuffered is a result of this government not getting its priorities right.

Why is this happening? Australia is not supposedly a Third World country. Money that shouldbe going to the public health system is going to sporting fields and pedestrian bridges. Nearlyevery party platform is to improve health for regional, rural and remote Queensland, and yet I donot remember seeing any major budget funding going to any facility west of Toowoomba. Thattown is not the be-all and end-all of the great south-west of this state.

Several suggestions have been made, including placing more dentists in the region.Requests have been made to the Health Minister and the Premier's office requesting that thegovernment place a dental facility at Nanango Hospital to help drastically cut the over four-yearwaiting lists at the Kingaroy Dental Clinic.

Samford Road, Ferny GroveMr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (11.02 p.m.): I wish to bring a very serious problem to the

attention of the House. The intersection of three roads, Samford Road, Ferny Way and ArborStreet, in the suburb of Ferny Grove is a major intersection which experiences enormouscongestion and requires remedial action as soon as possible. This intersection, built many yearsago, suffers from significant design deficiencies. Nowadays, it carries a very large volume of trafficfor most times of the day. It is the key transit point for traffic moving between the 5,000 homes inthe Samford Valley, the Bunya area and the hills district of the Pine Rivers shire and the suburbsof Ferny Grove and Upper Kedron within the Brisbane City Council. Much of the traffic to theBrisbane CBD from this area passes through this intersection.

Traffic lights are installed at only one point of what is really a double intersection. Theintersection is immediately surrounded by large local institutions or facilities—the sizeable FernyGrove Railway Station and associated car park, a major service station, the Ferny Grove Tavern,the Ferny Way shops and the Ferny Grove medical centre and shops. People wishing to accessthese places must pass through this intersection, and many thousands do so daily. For example,approximately 2,000 commuters catch a train at the Ferny Grove station between 6.30 and 8.30in the morning each working day. Add to this the parents and teachers travelling to and from thenearby 1,500-pupil Ferny Grove State High School, the 700-pupil Ferny Grove State School andthe 400-pupil St Andrew's Catholic school. The intersection is absolutely choked with trafficbetween 7.30 and nine in the morning and three and six in the afternoon most days of the week,causing considerable delay and frustration to drivers. There is also a very high risk of seriousaccidents. Worse still, police and emergency service vehicles are at times severely obstructed. Ihave had instances of road rage reported to me from time to time.

As the Minister for Main Roads and the metropolitan regional officers of DMR know, I havebeen lobbying now for several years to bring forward the proposed Samford Road upgrade


project. This intersection is definitely the most pressing component of that project. I have referredto the importance of the project on previous occasions in debates in this House. I believe myconstituents have been extremely patient. The community has been actively involved inconsultation over the plans for the entire project.

The problems at the Samford Road, Ferny Way and Arbor Street intersection are the mostserious and require action as soon as possible. The intersection needs to be totally reconfiguredwith double traffic lights synchronised between the two parts of the intersection. I understand theplans for the whole project are finalised. I call upon the minister and the government to urgentlyconsider bringing forward the construction work proposed for this intersection as part of theSamford Road upgrade project.

School Nurse Program; School Chaplaincy Program

Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (11.05 p.m.): Queensland schoolchildren of a youngerage are increasingly finding themselves being confronted with society's undesirable socialproblems and temptations. Current research highlights that the temptations of drugs and alcoholare increasingly being experienced at a primary school level. It is also generally accepted thatserious forms of mental illness, including depression, become firmly established during thisvulnerable period. Consequently, to ensure their future wellbeing it is vital that we are able toreach these children with professional guidance and assistance before these problems progressand lead to tragedies in later life, such as addiction and suicide.

Our schools are at the coalface of these social problems and temptations. Therefore, it isvery important that significant steps are taken to ensure that our state's primary schools areadequately equipped to offer guidance and counselling as young students encounter theseproblems for the first time. A significant step towards meeting these growing problems amongstprimary children is to extend the highly successful School Nurse Program into primary schools.P&C associations in my electorate have approached me expressing their frustration at not havingaccess to the services of a school nurse. School nurses are able to assist teachers by educatingstudents in sensitive mental and physical health issues as well as human relations education.

The use of school nurses in high schools has had a very beneficial effect, with more than10,000 students reported to have confided in school nurses last year alone. A second andequally important step is to make a firm financial commitment towards the chaplaincy program inschools and ensure that this service is rolled out to all state schools in Queensland. Currently, theschool chaplaincy program is optional and not a financial responsibility of Education Queensland.State schools are forced to squeeze money out of already tight budgets or raise funds throughthe community in order to run this program.

The chaplaincy program has been hugely beneficial in my electorate, providing extensivecounselling and guidance for students and staff. State government financial support would seethis benefit extended to schools across the state. Access to a chaplain and nurse for even oneday a week for school students would help to establish a comprehensive approach to studentwelfare in our primary schools. The two positions complement each other in that a chaplain canprovide valuable life skills, emotional counselling and pastoral care, while a nurse can focus oneducating and counselling students on health issues such as substance abuse, as well asproviding general health care. Both positions would also be instrumental in implementing andteaching human relations at a primary level.

I urge the state government to take these important steps and deliver sufficient fundstowards extending these two valuable programs in schools across the state. The future mentaland physical wellbeing of young Queenslanders must be effectively secured. Proven programsthat are implemented early in schooling life can reach out and protect children as they meetsociety's many challenges and many temptations.

International Year of the Volunteer

Mr RODGERS (Burdekin—ALP) (11.08 p.m.): I take this opportunity to enlighten membersabout a celebration in my electorate that will remain in the memories of locals for many years tocome. The 2001 International Year of the Volunteer awards day held in the Burdekin's beautifulAnzac Park was everything myself and co-host the Burdekin Shire Council hoped it would be andmore.


From the announcement of the state government's 2001 International Year of the Volunteerinitiatives grew a pile of nominations in my office. People from all sectors of the Burdekin werenominated for their volunteer contributions to local sporting, cultural, welfare, educational andenvironmental groups within the community.

After much organising of our appropriately named 2001 International Year of the Volunteercommunity celebration, the day finally arrived and award recipients began their march down themain street of Ayr. Vintage cars transported the more elderly volunteers during the march, andlocals clapped and cheered as the mass of volunteers passed by. Following the march, whichended at Anzac Park, an array of patriotic entertainment, tucker and fun for the kids kept thecrowds pleased. The official awards ceremony soon began and it was certainly the highlight of theday. To present the Queensland government 2001 International Year of the Volunteercertificates, badges and medallions to people who invest so much of their time, skills andkindness in their community was a very rewarding experience.

Although each volunteer made a significant contribution to our community, one person whostands out is Gertrude Farmer. Gert, as she is affectionately known, is a long-term workingmember of the Australian Red Cross. Now aged 81, Gert still works in the local Red Cross shop.She also visits the hospitals and the homes for the aged, and gives magazines, gifts and love toall. At Easter and Christmas she takes gifts and spreads her joy to all the hospitals. Such simpleacts of kindness have a very positive impact on the lives of the sick and elderly in our community.For that, Gert certainly deserved her 2001 International Year of the Volunteer medallion. In fact,the 2001 International Year of the Volunteer can be described only as a complete success, as itprovides each volunteer with the respect and recognition that they deserve.

I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the quiet achievers in thecommunity—those people who were not nominated but whose efforts are appreciated by thecommunity. It is certainly a great year to recognise all of the volunteers in our community. It is atribute to all of those people, their families and their children who give up their time to care fortheir parents and loved ones.

Time expired.

Miami State High School Special Education Unit

Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (11.11 p.m.): The desperate circumstances that face children withdisabilities attending the special education unit at Miami State High School have been brought tomy attention. Although this high school is not in my electorate, the parents of those studentsapproached me and outlined their concerns.

This special education unit caters for hearing-impaired students, vision-impaired students,and latterly students with speech and language impairments. The problem is that, since theadditional disability was added to the speciality of the unit last year, the physical size of the unithas not expanded. In that period, the number of students in that unit has increased fromsomething in the order of 16 to 22 students to over 30 and almost 40 students.

The teachers and the parents are really concerned about the lack of facilities at this particularspecial education unit. At the moment, the unit has four teachers and up to 30 students with thefull range of those disabilities that I mentioned attempting to teach and learn within one and ahalf rooms. Certainly, owing to the space constraints there is an inability on the part of teachers toutilise adaptive technology and other disability-specific resources. Of course, that has led to highworkload levels on teachers, who have tried new work programs specifically written for thestudents to accommodate the lack of available specialist facilities and overcrowding.

There is no practical kitchen, there are no wet areas, there are no workshops. Of course, ahigh percentage of these students are non-academic and require life skills and/or work-educationoriented curriculum. Certainly, those facilities are not available for these students. There is also notime-out room and for students with such a range of disabilities, quite often there are behaviouraloverlays and additional space is needed for time out—for problem students to have a break fromtheir usual classroom activities.

In terms of the facilities, quite often there are other constraints. Because of those constraints,parents and teachers have agreed to start school early. The students actually start at about 7.30in the morning to try to make do with the limited range of facilities. They have a reduced socialinteraction with the other students at the school because of the need to use the room in certainways. Of course, that all impacts upon the quality of learning that these students receive.


As I mentioned, the parents are really concerned about the overcrowding and the risk tostudents, parents and teachers who are placed in these conditions. The lack of a time-out room isa real concern. There is no sick bay for students. Quite often, these students need to have a sickbay or a room—

Time expired.

Caboolture Social Infrastructure Program; Beerwah and District Youth Activity Centre

Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (11.14 p.m.): I rise to speak about an important program atCaboolture, the Social Infrastructure Program. Tonight, I am really pleased to be able to mentionthat the Beattie Labor government has funded it for another $50,000 to take it through to the endof June next year.

The Social Infrastructure Program is an innovative project that was started by the FamiliesDepartment. It has brought together all the sectors of the entire Caboolture shire. They worktogether on projects, they meet every month, and they discuss issues. They have undertaken avery important mapping project of the shire, where they have looked at the types of services thatare available and what they can do to improve them, where they need to go for governmentfunding and all the rest. The sectors that are working together are the aged, people who have anon-English speaking background, youth, families, people with disabilities, rural communities,indigenous people, and women.

The group is pulled together by a fantastic social planner who works at the shire council,Howard Buckley. For over five years now he has been driving the program. He has worked verycarefully with the people to bring them all together. We have a harmonious group that usesmoney to fund projects for which they may not otherwise be able to obtain funding. They work oncommunity empowerment and make sure that volunteers have every opportunity for training sothat they can work within their communities to build better communities. They have worked veryclosely with Robert Schwarten's Community Renewal Program. That have tapped into thatprogram so that they can make sure that their communities are going very well.

However, I find it very disappointing that the local council, which auspices the program, is notputting any money into it. Although they provide some of Howard Buckley's time, they are notactually putting money into the program. The reason I am so disappointed with that is that often alot of the social problems that our communities experience are due to poor council planningdecisions. That is very much the case in this shire. However, I have worked very hard to help thisgroup obtain that $50,000, so I am happy to see that happen.

The other thing that I want to talk about very briefly is a program called BADYAC—theBeerwah and District Youth Activity Centre. We have managed to obtain funding for their twoworkers who run the flexischool, which is for kids who cannot fit into the normal high schoolprocess. They work through distance education. Those kids have very dedicated volunteers andstaff who help them complete their secondary education. When the centre started in 1999, onestudent went through to the year 10 stage. In 2001, the centre managed to help 10 students toget their year 10 certificates and another 10 have almost completed it. That is all due to thefantastic work that is done by Barbara Eccles and Lucy Bygate, all under the direction of MichelleLecky. That is a magnificent achievement.

The other night I went to the centre's AGM. It was very encouraging to see two young peopledeciding to go on the committee to help guide the whole school. The BADYAC is just going fromstrength to strength. We are working to get the centre funding for next year. Hopefully, thatalternative education will continue.

Atherton Maize Festival

Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (11.17 p.m.): Atherton held its 39th annual Maize Festivalwith a wonderful program of events. The Maize Festival has been a yearly event since 1962,when the first post-war festival was held. Originally, the 1962 Maize Festival was organised toraise funds for the Queensland Ambulance Transport Brigade. That year, four girls were chosento represent the industries of maize, peanuts, dairying and timber. They each had a committee,which worked tirelessly for nine months raising funds for the ambulance centre. Fundraisingevents included a boxing tournament, barbeques, dances, cake stalls, gambling nights andraffles.


Up until the last couple of years, the festivals did not incorporate fundraising by the MaizeQueen entrants themselves. However, that aspect of the festival has been reintroduced and thereis now a Charity Queen prize as well. This Centenary of Federation year saw 18 girls competing.Businesses also took part in the celebrations by decorating their premises and supporting thefestival in various ways. Decorative displays brought out some of the most innovative and comicalideas.

This year, the festival kicked off with an art exhibition in the foyer of the Atherton ShireCouncil office displaying artworks by some of our very talented locals. The devil's triangle 1,500metre fun run was held on the Sunday morning. Teams of 13, each running 1,500 metres,started at the Tolga Lions Park, ran through the Tolga scrub to Atherton, continued along GroveStreet to Maunds Road, ran along Tinaroo Falls Road to Kairi and then back to Tolga.Participants from around the district and local schools took part in the fun run. The sameafternoon, the Maize Queen entrants attended the Rocky Creek War Memorial Park for theVictory of Peace celebrations. Huge crowds attended from various northern districts. The 18queen entrants were presented at a cocktail party attended by local dignitaries and businesssponsors.

At the Mardi Gras on the Friday night, there was fun for all with the barrow dash for cash inthe main street, junior and senior corn husking championships, wood chops and a tug of war. Aprocession consisting of 50 floats was one of the best for a long time, with the theme beingAussie images. Pretend cassowaries performed to the delight of the children and crowds liningthe streets. The costumes for the cassowaries were made locally and the humans who wore themperformed like real cassowaries. The police joined in the fun with their radar guns, judging howfast children were able to throw a ball.

Restructuring of the Maize Festival this year saw the return of a ball at Merrilands Hall, wherethe winner of the queen competition was crowned. A crowd of about 500 attended the ball andcapped off a very busy and pleasant week of festivities. Atherton has always been considered asolid town and, even with the setbacks of the past few years with industries in disarray, the peoplealways find what it takes to keep festivals such as this alive.

University Places, Gold Coast

Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (11.20 p.m.): I again draw the House's attention to theneglect of the Gold Coast by the federal coalition government. This neglect is more obvious thanever with the pork-barrelling that is going on during this election campaign. On 17 October in thisplace, I mentioned the fact that the Gold Coast needs an extra 3,000 university places by 2002just to bring it up to the national average. To get it up to the average equivalent of Canberra,Newcastle or Wollongong, we need an extra 6,000 places. But what did we get from the coalitiongovernment? Three hundred places, which is 10 per cent of the 3,000 that is required. That issimply not good enough for the Gold Coast. This shortfall forces families to send their childrenaway to other cities to gain a university education and undermines efforts to build a knowledge-based sector of the Gold Coast economy.

The demographics of the Gold Coast are not as strongly skewed towards the elderly ascommonly thought. The figures for the 15- to 24-year age group are the same as the nationalaverage. A Griffith University survey of 1998 revealed that only 52 per cent of university studentswith a Gold Coast home location were studying on the Gold Coast Griffith campus. Another37 per cent were studying at other Queensland universities and the remainder were studyinginterstate.

The Leader of the Liberal party in this House has been racing around whipping up apathyabout daylight saving, but what has he had to say about the need for more university places onthe Gold Coast? He has not said a word! I heard on the radio the other day that the federalgovernment is giving millions of dollars to the Sunshine Coast University, and good luck to it. It isgreat that that university is getting the money. I suppose the fact that Longman and Fairfax aremarginal Liberal seats would have nothing do with that. The federal government is also allocating$1 million to the sinking of the Brisbane.

The federal government's pork-barrelling was highlighted by the Mayor of the Gold Coast,Gary Baildon, in this morning's Gold Coast Bulletin. Councillor Baildon, who is no sympathiser ofthe Labor Party, yesterday said that he was bitterly disappointed that the coalition was pork-barrelling in the highly marginal Tweed seat of Richmond, yet no money had yet been promisedto the Gold Coast, a conservative stronghold. He called on the Liberal and National parties to


'show us the money' before the November 10 poll. We are unlikely to see that money. What dowe get out of the Liberal leader in this House? Absolutely nothing! We do not hear one word. As Isaid—

Time expired.

Charleville Wool Shed

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.23 p.m.): Last Fridayweek I had the pleasure of being present at the opening of the Charleville Wool Shed, a facilitythat was built by Bob and Tracey Tully of Charleville in conjunction with people like Kay Waltonand many others from around Charleville. This project was a vision of Tracey Tully and KayWalton. They wanted to provide shearer training for young people who want to be a part of theromance, the culture and the heritage of the shearing industry which has developed over somany years in western Queensland. Those two ladies see the purpose in such a facility for thetraining of young people who want to participate in this great industry.

The Honourable Bruce Scott, the federal member for Maranoa and the Minister for VeteransAffairs, and Senator Ian Macdonald, the federal Minister for Local Government, officiated on theevening. The event was very well attended and supported by the wider community. I pay tributeto Neil Duncan from Western Exporters, which supplies the sheep for the young people to learn toshear on. I pay tribute to Agforce and the many other people who have made the projectpossible. It is a fantastic facility.

Anybody who goes to Charleville should visit this first-class facility. Tracey is seeking fundingto further promote and upgrade the facility so that young people can take better advantage of itsoperation. Whilst money is needed to upgrade the facility, we also need to further promote it andto get more hours for the industry. Agforce is currently pursuing that issue. I trust that theMinisters for Training and Industrial Relations will support us in our endeavours to get more hoursfor the industry. If Charleville can be the recipient of such aid, it would be absolutely fantastic.

I hope that everybody who goes to Charleville will visit the facility, because it will be veryadvantageous in promoting the shearing industry and putting it back on the footing that it shouldbe on. Over many years it has been a very integral part of the operation of Charleville. Irecommend to all members that they visit the facility if they go to Charleville.

In closing, I send my sincere congratulations to Tracey Tully, Bob Tully, Kay Walton and allthe people who have made this possible. I certainly do not say that lightly. I trust that, if there isextra money available, the government can see fit to inject it into this great facility.

Queensland Liberals

Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (11.26 p.m.): Several weeks ago I pointed out that theQueensland Liberals had been forced to take in washing and ironing in an attempt to drum upthe hard-nosed cash that they need to run the show. Then the Premier sunk the boot in. He blewthe gaffe on them when he pointed out that they could not even run a raffle. The Santoro factionmight control the branch, but they have run the finances into the ground. In fact, they are morebroke than a new year's resolution. It is no wonder that Graham Jaeschke took flight and headedoff to South Australia before the liquidators were brought in. What a wise choice that was.

Someone with the Queensland Liberals' best interests at heart has kindly given me a copy ofthe riches that Mr Jaeschke has walked into. In a document that I am happy to table in theHouse, so that the Liberal leader, the member for Robina, can tap into the donors' list, I have thefundraising plan for the South Australian Liberals. They plan to raise $350,000 for the federalelection, but $1.5 million for their own state election. That is $350,000 for the feds and$1.5 million for their own state election. It is as obvious that they think as much of John Howardas we do. They need $400,000 to run the show. From the list that I have, they will raise$1.279 million from past donors, $200,000 from fundraising events and $100,000 from the fishingindustry, leaving them with a shortfall of $670,000. At least they have that much in common withthe Queensland Liberals!

The other thing that struck me is that the South Australian Liberals can benefit fromKnowledge Nation, because the document reveals just how bad the South Australian educationsystem must be. With all the untold wealth that they hope to raise, the Liberals managed tomisspell the word 'invited' and have the apostrophe in the wrong place in the word 'presidents'.


But the member for Robina should not despair. The whole document was drawn up for the re-election of the Olsen government, which has now left the scene.

In the spirit of bipartisanship, I now seek leave of the House to table this document so thatthe Queensland Liberals can tap into these well known and well-heeled South Australian donors.

Leave granted.Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 11.29 p.m.

hansard 31 october 2001 - documents.parliament.qld.gov.au

Documents