hansard 4 december 2002 - documents.parliament.qld.gov.au

4 Dec 2002 Legislative Assembly 5321

WEDNESDAY, 4 DECEMBER 2002

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

PRIVILEGE

Answers to Questions on Notice

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.30 a.m.): Irise on a matter of privilege in relation to questions on notice. In this morning's Courier-Mail it isreported that Beattie government ministers were avoiding fair public scrutiny by failing to meet adeadline for answering more than 20 questions asked of them in parliament. Mr Horan accusedthe ministers of delaying the answers to try to avoid scrutiny. Let me make it clear that I expectmy ministers, as much as is humanly possible, to answer questions on notice in time. Busy workschedules do from time to time mean unavoidable delays. That applies to both sides of theHouse.

I advise the House that both sides could perhaps do better in relation to questions on notice.Bearing in mind what the Opposition Leader said about public scrutiny, let me advise the Housethat Mike Horan, when he was Minister for Health, answered 30 questions on notice late. Therewere four questions on notice that were 11 days late, three questions on notice 10 days late, onequestion on notice five days late, 10 questions on notice four days late, four questions on noticethree days late, three questions on notice two days late and five questions on notice one daylate. Vaughan Johnson, the then Minister for Transport, had 22 questions late; Howard Hobbshad two questions late; Joan Sheldon, the then Treasurer, had 24 questions late; Bob Quinn, thethen Minister for Education, had 98 questions late; and Kevin Lingard, the then Minister forFamilies, had five questions late.

Mr Lingard: Are you saying the opposition didn't pick it up?Mr BEATTIE: Well, one question on notice from Mr Lingard was 19 days late, one question

on notice from Mr Lingard was 16 days late, one question on notice from Mr Lingard was fourdays late, one question on notice was two days late, one question on notice was one day late. Inthe case of Mr Quinn, five questions on notice were 25 days late. I just simply make the point thatwe do everything we can to answer these questions on time and that people in glass housesshould not throw stones.

PRIVILEGESuncorp Stadium

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister forSport) (9.33 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. I refer to page 10 of the notes to and formingpart of the financial statements of the Stadium Redevelopment Authority annual report 2001-02.It has been brought to my attention that this page contains certain anomalies; specifically, aninterest rate of 4.2 per cent recorded on that page was incorrect. The correct figure was 6.45 percent. I table for the House an amended version of this page certified by the Auditor-General. Ialso table a letter from accounting firm GPS Business Services which prepared the financialstatements for the Stadium Redevelopment Authority for the period ended 30 June 2002. Inrelation to the anomaly in the figures, the letter in part states—This was a clerical and checking error which was not identified in the final review of the financial statements. Wetake responsibility for the error.

PRIVILEGEMinister for Police and Corrective Services; Answer to Question

Mr SPEAKER: I note the member for Callide's matter of privilege raised in the House on 28November 2002 in relation to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services's answer to aquestion without notice. Further, I note the minister's matter of privilege yesterday clarifying hisstatement. Following this clarification, I therefore advise the House that there is no matter ofprivilege.

5322 Ministerial Statement 4 Dec 2002

PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE QUESTIONNAIREMr SPEAKER: A parliamentary service questionnaire has been distributed to each member

this morning in the chamber. The questionnaire is an important performance managementdocument for the Parliamentary Service and this year includes a section on the arrangements forthe sitting of parliament in north Queensland. I encourage all members to complete thequestionnaire and return it to the Clerk.

PETITIONSThe following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation-

Summary Offences BillMs Bligh from 201 petitioners requesting the House to (a) not include offences like disorderly behaviour, indecentlanguage, use of abusive or insulting words, insufficient lawful means of support, begging, and habitualdrunkenness in the Summary Offences Bill in preparation; (b) establish instead properly funded diversionarysystems to treat substance abuse, depression and despair, and psychological trauma, that are the historicallegacy of the country's treatment of Indigenous communities, (c) act to reduce over-policing of Indigenous people,particularly urban youth, as this oppresses Indigenous communities and leads to provoked offences; (d) adoptgenuine negotiations as equals with each Indigenous community, and sub-communities as necessary, as theappropriate process to achieve long-term progress on the issue of over-imprisonment of Indigenous people.

Mental Health Act; Criminal Offences

Mrs Carryn Sullivan from 1,913 petitioners requesting the House to change current legislation under the MentalHealth Act so that persons who have committed such heinous offences as murder and attempted murder, who areconsidered by the Mental Health Court to be of unsound mind at the time of the offence, have a conviction recordedagainst them.

Refundable Deposits on ContainersMr Johnson from 764 petitioners requesting the House to introduce container deposit legislation, using theguidelines of that of South Australia and overseas examples, and that a refundable deposit of ten cents beimplemented, as recommended by the recent Review of Container Deposit Legislation in New South Wales.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTGreat Barrier Reef

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.35 a.m.):The Great Barrier Reef is one of Queensland's most treasured assets. At this time of year, withthe wet season looming, the fish spawn in full swing and the coral spawn just passed, the reef isboth spectacular and sensitive. The importance of a long-term, cooperative approach to reefprotection is as pronounced as it ever will be. One of my government's milestones for 2002 wassigning an agreement with Prime Minister John Howard to protect the reef from land basedpollution. The agreement, announced in August, included a joint commitment to 'no regrets'actions that would be—and I quote from the memorandum of understanding—'relatively low costand have broad environmental, social and/or economic benefits beyond the benefit of protectingthe reef lagoon’. In this context, 'no regrets' means no significant cost to land users, communitiesor industries involved.

I am pleased to advise the House that the state government has begun funding a range ofno regrets actions, and I am also pleased that the federal government is doing its share. Thestate government recently signed off on funding totalling $358,100 towards no regrets initiatives.This includes $200,000 from the Environmental Protection Agency—and I thank the Minister forEnvironment, Dean Wells—to develop and promote farming codes of practice. Codes of practiceencourage industries to improve environmental management and planning and to auditproducers' environmental performance. The Department of Natural Resources and Mines isproviding $100,000 to encourage land users to be more efficient in their use of farm chemicals. Ithank the Minister for Natural Resources.

Tests have found chemicals may be harming seagrasses and other organisms and buildingup in fish stocks. The funding will develop an accreditation system to minimise needless chemicaluse. It will also ensure safe application, storage and disposal and will stem chemical run-off. TheDepartment of the Premier and Cabinet has earmarked $30,000 to give Smart State scientificadvice to regional natural resource management bodies. The advice will help set water qualitytargets to reduce downstream impacts on the reef. We are also providing $28,100—matched bythe Commonwealth—from the National Action Plan on Salinity and Water Quality. This will help

4 Dec 2002 Ministerial Statement 5323

pinpoint catchment areas with high levels of sediment and nutrient. It will also enable land usersto identify sources of sediment and nutrient run-off and find ways to reduce it.

The Smart State is home to some fine scientific minds that are focused on preventingenvironmental damage to the reef, this world wonder. I have just outlined the beginning of afunding roll-out that will meet commitments linked to our memorandum with the Commonwealthand to Queensland's own Reef Protection Plan. The government's focus is long term. I want thereef and the communities and industries it supports to continue thriving long after I and others inthis place have retired and perhaps gone fishing.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTCherbourg Food Processing Company

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.39 a.m.):Last week in this House I made reference to how meat processing in this state was returning tostrength. Four years ago processors were looking at heading elsewhere. Last week I detailed howAMH was investing and expanding at Dinmore. Today I am delighted to detail the substantialprogress and success of the Cherbourg Food Processing Company.

The Cherbourg Food Processing Company was formed in 2000 as a wholly owned Aboriginalcompany to operate the council's abattoir facilities. This replaced an unsuccessful joint venturebetween the council and a group of private investors. Initial support to upgrade abattoir slaughterequipment was upgraded through a $300,000 grant which was a joint initiative between theDepartment of State Development and the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderPolicy. As well, there was a $36,166 grant for the business plan under the Regional BusinessDevelopment Scheme.

There has since been an increase in Aboriginal workers from four to as high as 28. In short, itmeans at least 19 of those people no longer claim monies under the Commonwealth'sCommunity Development Employment Program, which is a good thing. I am told that this is asource of great pride and self-esteem for the 19 Aboriginal workers as well as local producersknowing they have an excellent reliable facility in their community. The minister, Judy Spence,visited the facility only recently. There is also another upside, with TAFE links meaning thatthrough the Cherbourg's TAFE and the Southern Queensland Institute of TAFE 29 of the 52workers currently hold certificates. This is a Smart State outcome for all the workers, thecommunity and the state. I thank all four of the ministers involved. The good outcomes arereflected with processing numbers increasing from 400 to 1,000 goats a day. The Cherbourgcompany is now providing a good quality product for export, particularly for the United Statesmarket where the product commands a premium selling price.

It gets better. Overall employment has increased from 36 to 52 and the company is nowbeing used as a success example for others to follow. Keeping to the old maxim that nothingsucceeds like success, the outlook for the next three years looks great for the Cherbourgcompany. Plans include expansion of freezer capacity, value-adding of product and increasingproductivity through new and innovative upgrades. It is envisaged that with investment of$1.7 million there is set to be increased revenue in the order of $4 million and the potential toemploy 28 more people in the Cherbourg region. Turnover has risen from $600,000 a year topresently be $3 million.

Such has been the Cherbourg company's success, Lawn Hill and Riversleigh PastoralHoldings Company is considering modelling a possible slaughter house project on it as it setsabout providing long-term economic benefit to Aboriginal communities in the far north-west. Thisis an excellent outcome for all. Most of all, it is a clever smart support mechanism that hasdelivered not just in economic terms; the social benefits are an example that through a caring,considered approach self-esteem and confidence come as well. It is also the perfect example ofus as a government striving to offer indigenous people worthwhile self-esteem producingoutcomes in the Smart State. We are ensuring all Queenslanders benefit from the Smart Stateregardless of where they live geographically or what their circumstances are.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTTrade Mission to Papua New Guinea

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 a.m.):Later today I am meeting the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Sir Michael Somare, and a10-member delegation here at Parliament House with the Minister for State Development, Tom


Barton. Sir Michael was elected Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea in August this year, the thirdtime he has held this office since Papua New Guinea achieved independence in 1975. SirMichael Somare has outlined three objectives for his government that provide considerable scopefor the Queensland government to present itself as a partner in PNG development. The threeobjectives are ensuring good governance, economic recovery led by exports, infrastructureprovision and social development.

The time is right for Queensland to position itself to take advantage of the opportunities onoffer in Papua New Guinea, and this meeting will be a precursor to a trade mission which I willlead to Papua New Guinea on 9 and 10 December, that is next week. I want to send a clearsignal to our northern neighbours that Queensland places a high value on its relationship withPapua New Guinea and continues to actively pursue opportunities such as the PNG gas pipeline.

Queensland enjoys a unique relationship with Papua New Guinea and we intend to doeverything we can to expand on it. Recently Tom Barton visited PNG on behalf of thegovernment. Yesterday I held a prebriefing with 12 business leaders who will be accompanyingme as well as members of my ministerial committee who will also be accompanying me. Today Ioffer an open invitation to any representatives of the opposition who would like to accompany meon this two-day visit to Papua New Guinea. They are most welcome. PNG is our closest neighbourand we need to engage it in business. In light of time, I seek leave to incorporate the rest of myministerial statement.

Leave granted. There are regular cultural exchanges between Queensland and PNG particularly in the Torres Strait where manycommunities enjoy regular contact with their PNG counterparts.

According to 1996 ABS data, there were around 12,000 PNG-born people living in Queensland.

Papua New Guinea is the only country in the world where rugby league is the national sport, and the entire countrycomes to a halt for State of Origin. The Brisbane Broncos are revered, as are Mal Meninga and Wally Lewis, who both travelled through PNG earlierthis year attracting huge crowds.

Our economic ties are strong; Papua New Guinea was Queensland's 16th largest export destination in 2000/2001with merchandise exports totalling $A374 million.

Exports included machinery and transport equipment, mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials, manufacturedgoods, food and live animals.

The trade is not all one way; PNG is Queensland's fourth largest source of imports.

Despite the massive social and economic challenges facing PNG, it remains a major market for Queensland withparticular potential for growth in areas such as education and transport.

During next week's trade mission, I expect to sign a revised version of our Memorandum of Understanding withPapua New Guinea.The Memorandum which was first signed in 1992, established the PNG-Queensland Business Cooperation Groupwhich comprises senior private and public sector representatives who work to expand bilateral trade andinvestment.

The Group's Tenth Annual meeting was held in March 2002.

Key agenda items included fire services, investment, education, fisheries and transport.

The next meeting is scheduled for February 2003.

Next week I intend to explore opportunities for adapting Queensland export and business skills developmentprograms, such as the 'Export Pathways' program, for use in PNG.

The Queensland Government's expertise in managing infrastructure projects and privatisation, in particular, thePublic Private Partnership Policy, may be of interest to the PNG Government.Assistance could also be offered in respect to collaborative export efforts to access tertiary markets in the Pacific.

PNG is heavily reliant on international aid and Queensland's private and public sector organisations are active inthis area.

We want to capitalise on the potential for increasing Queensland's involvement, particularly in the areas ofeducation, health, infrastructure development, and governance.

I'll be using my meetings here and in PNG with the Prime Minister to highlight Queensland's role as the mostrelevant source of expertise in these areas.

Mr Speaker, this trade mission presents the opportunity to extend Queensland's collaboration with PNG in a rangeof activities in education, transport, health, policing and border security and agriculture.

During his visit to PNG last month, State Development Minister Tom Barton held discussions with PNG's Ministerfor Petroleum and Energy, Sir Moi Avei, members of the PNG Chamber of Mines and Petroleum, PNG members ofthe Business Co-operation Group, and representatives of Exxonmobil, the operator of the proposed PNG GasProject.In October, the PNG Minister for Transport and Civil Aviation was in Queensland to sign an MOU with MainRoads/Queensland Transport in respect to cooperation on transport management of the PNG Gas Pipeline project


I will be making it clear during next week's trade mission that my Government is a strong supporter of this project.The east coast of Queensland is experiencing significant industrial growth and there are significant opportunitieshere for the proponents of the PNG gas pipeline.

Mr Speaker, I look forward to using next week's trade mission to strengthen the ties between PNG and Queenslandand to pursue opportunities in the areas of trade and education which will benefit all of us.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Hospital Rebuilding Program

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.44 a.m.): AllQueenslanders are entitled to first-class health care regardless of where they live. We cannot bethe Smart State if we do not look after the health of the people who live here. Queensland hasset the standards for the rest of the country to follow in terms of hospital and community healthfacilities. We have achieved this through our statewide health rebuilding program. Next week, theHealth Minister, Wendy Edmond, and I will mark the end of that program by officially openingWest Block at the Royal Brisbane Hospital. When I do that, I will be thanking and congratulatingthe Minister for Health on a job well done. It is a tough job being Minister for Health. There is noposition in government tougher and she has done a brilliant job. I want to put that on the record.

Originally, $1.5 billion was set aside for this ambitious program, which has been the largest ofits kind ever undertaken in the Southern Hemisphere. The aim was to refurbish and upgradeexisting hospitals, which in many cases had less than world-class facilities, and establish newhospitals where needed. The original plan and vision was subsequently enlarged and enhanced,with final expenditure totalling $2.8 billion.

In many cases we have provided Queenslanders with facilities and services they werepreviously unable to access outside metropolitan Brisbane. Most major health facilities withinQueensland have experienced a major project on their site. In fact, there are approximately 50major sites worth over $5 million each and more than 100 minor projects. The geographicalspread is enormous, with the program including projects within four kilometres of the PNG borderand 10 kilometres of the New South Wales border.

For example, the Royal Brisbane Hospital was the largest component of the rebuildingprogram, with works totalling $510 million over an eight-year period. The Herston hospital complexredevelopment provided for construction of the Ned Hanlon Building, which houses the RoyalWomen's Hospital, East Block and West Block. West Block accommodates oncology, infectiousdiseases, the bone marrow treatment unit and five linear accelerators for the provision of radiationoncology services. East Block, which I opened in October along with Wendy Edmond,accommodates the new emergency department, the burns unit, coronary care and corporateservices.

The list goes on. A total of $353 million was spent on the Princess Alexandra Hospitalredevelopment over a long period. There was redevelopment at Thursday Island, at the CairnsHospital, at the Townsville Hospital, at the Mackay Hospital, at the Rockhampton Hospital, at theNambour Hospital, at the Prince Charles Hospital, at the Toowoomba Hospital, at the IpswichHospital, at the Logan Hospital, at the Redland Hospital, at the Beaudesert Hospital, at the MaterChildren’s Hospital and at the Gold Coast Hospital. There was work associated with the mentalhealth program, community health centres, specific private sector projects, health technology andthe list goes on.

The planning, development and delivery of the statewide health rebuilding program is amajor achievement for Queensland Health and for my government, which has led it. As a formerHealth Minister I am proud of what we have achieved here and I am proud of what WendyEdmond has done. We have taken rundown, neglected hospitals and transformed them intoworld-class facilities which are the envy of the other states. We have set the standards in hospitalsand community health facilities. I place on record my thanks to everyone who has been involvedin this program over the last 10 years. In light of the time, I seek leave to incorporate the detail ofeach one of those projects in Hansard.

Leave granted. Major elements of the Princess Alexandra Hospital redevelopment include:

• new Main Hospital building of clinical and support services• new Main Hospital extension of research facilities and pathology services• new Central Energy Facility• refurbished Spinal Injuries Unit including Eye Bank


• refurbished building for Ambulatory & Renal Transplantation Services• refurbished building for Biological Research Facility• refurbished building for Information Services and other support services• new Staff Dining facility

Thursday Island and Associated Redevelopments

$31 million was spent on the construction of a new 38 bed acute facility at Thursday Island plus significantresidential staff accommodation and a new primary health centre in the town centre.

A further $13.2 million was spent on construction of new primary health care facilities on Badu and Boigu Islandsand the establishment of a new community health centre at Bamaga and a new replacement acute care facilityknown as the Northern Peninsula Area Hospital.

Cairns Hospital Redevelopment

The redevelopment cost approximately $117 million and occurred over a seven-year timeframe.

Works included the construction of a 40 bed acute Mental Health Unit, a new Pathology/Engineering buildingconnected to a new Clinical Services Building (Block C), plus significant refurbishment and upgrading of Blocks A &B together with other associated works/services on the campus.

The Hospital has also close links with the James Cook University Medical School and has established anintegrated education facility, which is a feature within the Hospital.

Townsville Hospital Redevelopment

$182 million was spent on the construction of a new Townsville Hospital at Douglas over a six-year period.

This facility is the major referral and Tertiary Hospital for North West and Far North Queensland.

The new hospital has brought together expanded and upgraded services which were previously provided at theformer Townsville General Hospital at North Ward and Obstetric, Neonatal and Gynaecology services from theformer Kirwan Hospital for Women.

The new hospital functions as the principal teaching and research centre for North Queensland with the JamesCook University medical School, integrated with the Hospital's clinical services and facilities.

The hospital also has one of the largest hyperbaric chambers in Australia and in the Southern Hemisphere.

Mackay Hospital Redevelopment

Some $28.35 million was spent on providing upgraded facilities at Mackay over a 5 year period and included theprovision of a new women's and children's unit, the provision of a rehabilitation unit, a new allied health unit,accident emergency department and the upgrade of engineering services within the facility along with otherassociated support areas.

Rockhampton Hospital Redevelopment

Works cost $26.2 million over a six-year period.

Works include full and partial renovation/refurbishment of existing floors within the medical services building andthe demolition of a former Administration and Pathology Building plus minor associated works.

The new clinical services building provides accommodation for 4 theatres, day surgery, CSSD, Allied health, a newmain entry and foyer, hygiene and waste handling area, plus a new mortuary.

Nambour Hospital Redevelopment

The $26 million redevelopment of Nambour Hospital provided for a new four-level Clinical Services Building.

A new $3.1 million MRI facility was also recently completed at Nambour Hospital.

The Prince Charles Hospital

The Prince Charles Hospital is the largest cardiac hospital in Australia and a world leader in cardio-thoracicresearch and treatment.

The $117 million redevelopment of The Prince Charles Hospital involved the construction of a new main AcuteBlock, plus extensions to the Cardiac Intensive Care Wing, and a new Extended Care & Acute Mental healthbuilding.

The project was completed in May 2000.

Toowoomba Hospital Redevelopment

Redevelopment of the Toowoomba Hospital campus comprised a range of major new capital developmentsincluding a six level acute block at a cost of $60 million dollars and a community health village, car park and AcuteMental Health Unit costing a total of $14.95 million.

Ipswich Hospital

The $72 million redevelopment involved the construction of a new acute block, a new acute mental health block, anextension to the intensive care and coronary care building, additional theatres, plus a new Day Procedures area,and expansion of the Dental Clinic.

Logan Hospital

The $68 million redevelopment involved the construction of a new ward block, a major extension to the clinicalservices block, plus refurbishment of existing wards and clinical service areas.

Redland Hospital

The $47 million redevelopment involved the construction of a new main block plus refurbishment of the existinghospital building for mental health and rehabilitation services.


Beaudesert Hospital

The $10.5 million redevelopment has provided an integrated health service with both acute care and communityhealth functions within the one building.

It has enhanced provision of a wide range of health services, including medical, surgical, maternity and paediatric;the High Dependency Unit; Emergency Services; Outpatients; and Medical Imaging, plus physiotherapy, AlliedHealth and Community Health services.

Mater Children's Hospital

The Queensland Government provided a grant of $50 million for construction of a new facility accommodating 6new theatres and a 12 bed recovery area, as well as beds dedicated for paediatric intensive care, surgical,medical, babies, haematology, endocrine and child & youth mental health services.

Gold Coast Hospital Redevelopment

The $55 million Gold Coast Hospital Redevelopment comprised upgrading of the Tower Block at approximately$35 million and construction of the new four level $20 million "Rehabilitation" building.

Mental Health Program

The $100 million state-wide Mental Health Building Program involved construction and refurbishment works to alarge range of mental health services throughout Queensland. The program has included acute care services,rehabilitation, community care, high and medium secure units, psycho-geriatric care, plus acquired brain injuryservices.

Redevelopment projects were completed in Charters Towers, Townsville, Logan, Sandgate, Toowoomba, Nambour,Redcliffe-Caboolture, Ipswich, and Wynnum, as well as inner Brisbane.

Two major facilities upgraded as part of the program were Baillie Henderson Hospital at Toowoomba, and WolstonPark Hospital.

Community Health Centres

In the past eight years, Queensland Health has completed construction and extensive refurbishment works to over30 different community health centres at a cost of well over $120 million.

These facilities have been established and or located in both the metropolitan and regional and rural areasthroughout the state.

Specific Private Sector Projects

Throughout the Statewide Health Building Program, the opportunity has been taken to optimise service and financialoutcomes through partnerships with the private sector in financing and operating ancillary infrastructure.

Among the projects undertaken in this manner are patient, visitor, and staff car parks at Herston and The PrinceCharles Hospital; Central Energy plant at Redcliffe, Toowoomba, and Townsville; hospital cafeterias at Toowoomba,Townsville and Rockhampton; collocated private hospitals at The Prince Charles Hospital and Redland; and asupport facilities building at Townsville.

Health Technology

The Health Technology Capital Program is a continuum of planning and Capital Investment.

An ongoing identified capital spend of $80-90 million per year has been recognised for replacement medicalequipment to maintain health service delivery needs.


Education Delegation to China

Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (9.48 a.m.): Earlier thismonth I led the most senior education delegation ever to visit China from Queensland. Thedelegation included the chancellors of Griffith University and Queensland University ofTechnology, the vice-chancellors of Central Queensland and James Cook universities, the deputyvice-chancellors of James Cook University and Queensland University of Technology, and seniorstaff from the University of the Sunshine Coast and the University of Queensland.

China is currently Queensland's sixth largest source of international university students. By2010 it is estimated that China will be the largest source of international students for bothQueensland and Australia. These students are very welcome here. Their presence in oureducational facilities can only enhance the important ties between our countries. They offer ourstudents the chance to meet and study side by side with young people from a vastly differentculture. These students then become ambassadors for Queensland on their return to China andthe relationships they form here can last a lifetime. Importantly, they are also significantcontributors to our economy.

The international education industry overall generated more than half a billion dollars for theQueensland economy in 2001. The international activities in the sector provided jobs for anestimated 5,000 Queenslanders. In broad terms, the purpose of my mission was to support andfurther develop the higher education sector's activities in China. This was achieved. Already the


visit has paid off for TAFE. Today I am hosting a lunch for a Chinese delegation led by the ViceMinister for Vocational Education in China, Mr Wang. The delegation will be visiting the TAFEOpen Learning Institute and Brisbane State High School later today.

China is one of Queensland's most important partners. Strong government relationships arecrucial to ensuring that Queensland benefits from the opportunities that China presents. This visitto China reiterated the importance of the relationship that Queensland has developed in this mostimportant country. It was a particularly good time for my delegation to be in China. The 30thanniversary of diplomatic relations between China and Australia was widely acknowledged andcelebrated. It was also an historic time. The visit coincided with the 16th Party Congress of thePeople's Republic of China, which is held once every five years, and has just elected a newgeneration of leaders, headed by Mr Hu Jintao. I look forward to continuing to build this importantrelationship with this significant country in our region.


Arts—2002 Major Achievements and 2003 Future Highlights

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth andMinister for the Arts) (9.51 a.m.): 2002 has been a tremendous year of growth and achievementfor the arts in Queensland as part of building the Smart State. It has seen the launch of thegovernment's new cultural policy, Creative Queensland; the appointment of the architects for thenew Gallery of Modern Art and the expansion of the State Library of Queensland through theMillennium Arts Project; the opening last month, with government assistance, of two new soundstages for Warner Brothers on the Gold Coast with potential for an additional 2,500 jobs; theopening of a new home for the Queensland Theatre Company; and the opening of the 2002Asia-Pacific Triennial of Contemporary Art.

The launch in October of the government's new cultural policy, Creative Queensland,provides the first whole-of-government framework to underpin the government's significantinvestment in arts and cultural development. It also recognises that cultural development is a keycomponent of the Smart State through its contribution to the social and economic wellbeing ofQueenslanders.

2002 has also seen the creation of more than 575 jobs to date through the Art Built-in Policy,with 38.6 per cent of these jobs going to regional Queenslanders. Film production in Queenslandtopped $130 million in production expenditure in 2001-02 resulting from the work of the PacificFilm and Television Commission.

Significant growth has also occurred in the museums sector with improvements to the Cobband Co. Museum in Toowoomba and the opening of the $20 million Workshops Rail Museum inIpswich. In the far north, the first five Indigenous Knowledge Centres were launched in NewMapoon and Lockhart River in Cape York, Erub and Mabuiag islands in the Torres Strait, andWujal Wujal.

2002 also saw the release of the Smart Libraries Build Smart Communities: Future directionsof the State Library of Queensland Policy and the library's 100th anniversary; the provision ofmore than $22 million through grants to 524 individuals and organisations; and the release of theInvesting in Cultural Enterprise creative training partnership between Arts Queensland and theDepartment of Employment and Training. By the end of the year, 25 of the Queensland HeritageTrails Network's 43 projects will have opened to the public, with the remainder on target to open in2003.

2003 will see a further period of dynamic development of the arts in Queensland—namely,two new Queensland works will be premiered in the Queensland Theatre Company's Billie BrownStudio; the Queensland Art Gallery will present the major exhibition Story Place: Indigenous Art ofCape York and the Rainforest; new Indigenous Knowledge Centres will be established in Poruma-Coconut Island, Aurukun and Pormpuraaw; the ENCompass digital program will be implementedwhich will provide public access via the Internet to a wide range of State Library digital collectionsand the Picture Queensland project which includes a selection of historical and contemporaryQueensland photographs; and key initiatives in Creative Queensland will be implemented such asthe Creative Fellowship which recognises leading Queensland artists and the Business Start-UpProgram which is designed to support innovation, export and economic development in thecultural sector.


MINISTERIAL STATEMENTPrisoners, Community Projects

Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services andMinister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (9.54 a.m.): It is with greatdelight that I rise today to discuss a new way in which Queensland prisoners are giving back tothe community, and in particular helping many families struggling as a result of the currentdrought. I can advise that, following a request from Red Cross, the government, through theDepartment of Corrective Services, will provide 1,000 Christmas puddings to help brighten thefestive season of drought-affected families throughout Queensland. The puddings will be madeby inmates from Borallon Prison.

As we all know, this has been a tough year for rural Queensland and I think there is a needfor us to come together as a community to offer whatever help we can. In this regard, we are onlytoo willing to help by getting prisoners at Borallon to make these Christmas puddings. They will beprovided to the Queensland division of Australian Red Cross to distribute to needy familiesthroughout the state. As a government, we are ensuring that prisoners repay their debt to societyin a way which helps them gain skills and contribute something meaningful to the community.

The work program is a fine example of how prisoners are participating in essential communityprojects in rural and remote areas. In fact, we have programs right across the state in whichprisoners assist charities such as assisting Riding for the Disabled in central Queensland and theZoe's Place charity here in Brisbane. One of the best ways to help prisoners reintegrate is toensure they have skills which will lead them to employment upon their release. If people have ajob they are far less likely to reoffend. Through our programs we are not only ensuring prisonersgain new skills, we are also ensuring they contribute something back to the community as part ofthis process. I am also pleased to see that this will extend to helping drought-affected familiesthroughout rural Queensland this Christmas.


Heavy Vehicle Offences and ProsecutionsHon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads)

(9.57 a.m.): The Queensland Government continues to lead the nation with tough legislation andpractices aimed at reducing heavy vehicle offences. Queensland's chain of responsibility regimeallows for a careful targeting of heavy vehicle offences, including fatigue and overloading,wherever in the transport supply chain they occur. Rogue operators who flout the law byoverloading vehicles, or insisting that drivers drive when they are tired, will continue to beprosecuted. Since the introduction of chain of responsibility legislation in 1998, a total of 56companies have been convicted of procuring or encouraging illegal activity in the transportindustry. Convictions have resulted in companies being fined up to $270,000 for a range ofbreaches.

Information received in 1999 led to one company carrying sand from a Moreton Bay Islandbeing convicted and fined $17,250 for 165 overloading offences. The eight drivers concernedwere also convicted and fined a total of $17,250. A further incident involving 592 offences andeight transport operators carting rock from a Brisbane quarry to the Redcliffe foreshore has seendrivers convicted and fined $92,810. Charges against the operators are still being finalised withfines so far of $16,000. The Queensland government has been actively reviewing existinglegislation in a continuing bid to crack down on irresponsible operators and drivers. Amendmentsto the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995, passed by this House last week,will further boost Queensland Transport's ability to pursue transport operators who pressure heavyvehicle drivers into breaking the law. The amendments will very significantly improve QueenslandTransport's ability to target and prosecute transport operators who force drivers to travel whenfatigued or when in breach of mass limits.

However, a key component of the Queensland government's approach will always beeducation. Queensland Transport staff regularly make presentations to consignors, packers,loaders, drivers, transport operators and receivers. Educational material focuses on theimportance of compliance with Queensland's laws. It is supported by strong legislation andenforcement powers already contained in the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act1995. Information and education sessions conducted by Queensland Transport are aimed atensuring transport industry operators, and others within the supply chain, are left with a clearunderstanding of their obligations under chain of responsibility provisions. Heavy vehicle owners,


operators and drivers who flout the law present a danger not only to the driver of the vehicleconcerned but all other road users. Where illegal activity exists, we will hold all responsible links inthe chain accountable.


Baker Johnson; Complaints Against Lawyers

Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (9.58 a.m.):Today I want to report on action I have taken to address public concern about the system forhandling complaints against solicitors. The Queensland justice system parallels the very best oflegal systems anywhere in the world. It is built on a strong foundation and underwritten by anextremely capable judiciary and legal profession. As I have said in this place before, publicconfidence in our legal profession is paramount. Queenslanders must feel confident that they willreceive fair, honest and professional legal services. They need to have confidence that anycomplaint against a lawyer will be dealt with fairly and objectively.

In August this year the media exposed serious allegations of professional misconductagainst a Brisbane law firm, Baker Johnson. It was also alleged that many complaints had beenmade about Baker Johnson to the Queensland Law Society, which has the role of regulatinglawyers, yet the society had never instigated disciplinary action on these complaints. I viewedthese matters extremely seriously and commissioned the Legal Ombudsman to undertake asystemic inquiry into the manner in which the society received, investigated and otherwise dealtwith all complaints, past and current, involving Baker Johnson.

I can now advise members that the Legal Ombudsman has completed his report to me, andI now table that report for the information of members of the House. The Legal Ombudsman iscritical of the Queensland Law Society's inaction and indifference to complaints by legalconsumers about Baker Johnson. He makes the observation that the Law Society failed toidentify serious complaints and failed to act. The Legal Ombudsman also makes the point thatthere is an almost universal perception that the Queensland Law Society acts as a 'post officebox'—sending complaints to the solicitor concerned and then sending the complainant thesolicitor's response. This unfortunate and unsatisfactory perception was also reported on byretired judge Pat Shanahan in a report commissioned by the Law Society itself.

Both the Legal Ombudsman's report and the report by Judge Pat Shanahan providevaluable insights into the current system of regulation of the legal profession in Queensland.These reports will assist me in identifying and designing necessary reforms to the system ofprofessional discipline. I welcome feedback from the profession and the public on these reports.However, I do not intend to allow the current, clearly unacceptable arrangements to persistwithout prompt action to improve the system. Before the end of this year, I will be finalising apackage of legal profession reforms for consideration by the government and cabinet. I canassure all Queenslanders that there will be a system of regulation of the legal profession thatbuilds public confidence amongst ordinary Queenslanders about the actions and standards oflawyers.


State Coastal Plan

Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (10.02 a.m.): The statecoastal plan commenced in February this year. The statewide framework was awarded the tophonour for planning excellence at the state awards of the Royal Australian Planning Institute. Weare now in the process of introducing the regional coastal management plans which sit under thestate plan. The first regional plan scheduled to go out for public review and consultation is thedraft Curtis Coast regional coastal management plan. This plan will be released today, and I tableit now for the benefit of honourable members. I thank the 17 members of the Curtis CoastRegional Working Group involved in preparing the draft plan. They played a key role in identifyingthe region's coastal resources, documenting management issues and proposing solutions tocreate a first-rate planning tool. This draft plan will be distributed in the Gladstone region for widercommunity input before it is finalised. Workshops will be held within the region to give peoplefurther opportunity to contribute to the draft plan.


This is just the first in a series of regional coastal plans designed to guide the protection andmanagement of Queensland's unique and valuable coastal areas. Our coastal planningframework focuses on achieving ecologically sustainable management of our coast whilerecognising its enormous environmental, social and economic importance. The draft plan dealswith the environmental pressures specific to the Gladstone area. There are different valuesspecific to regional communities within the coastal zone. This plan looks at the best ways tomanage impacts on them to ensure their long-term protection. Regional consultative groupsrepresenting the interests of councils, port authorities, urban developers, indigenous communities,industry, commercial and recreational fishing, conservation groups, and recreational groupsshould be congratulated for being part of the implementation program for the state coastal plan.These people have made a significant contribution since 1999 to help develop this draft plan andwill continue their involvement during the public review period and development of the final plan.

Honourable members of this House will be extremely proud, because Queensland is the onlystate that has a coastal plan. Generations from now our beaches and coasts will still be aplayground for children, a source of refreshment for adults and a scene of awe-inspiring beautyfor all just because during the life of this parliament we committed to a plan that secured thoseoutcomes. Today we are acting on the plan. I congratulate the Gladstone Regional ConsultativeGroup for its valuable contribution and thank it for supporting the release of this draft plan.


Crisis Contacts for the Holiday SeasonHon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Families and Minister for Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Minister for Disability Services and Minister for Seniors)(10.05 a.m.): Today all members will receive a parcel of information with which to support theirlocal families, children and young people, particularly over the Christmas and holiday period.Included in this material is a list of telephone helplines funded by the Beattie government. Thesenumbers can mean the difference, in some cases, between life and death when used byQueenslanders in crisis. Crisis Care, Parentline, Kids Helpline, the Domestic and Family ViolenceTelephone Service numbers, the Elder Abuse Prevention Helpline, the Gambling Helpline and theBrisbane based Youth and Family Support Service all offer critical intervention support andreferrals. These services can help Queenslanders deal with some of the stresses of Christmasand the holidays with issues including financial, relationship, child custody and grief.

It is important for all Queenslanders to have access to these supports, and I encourage allmembers to ensure that their electorate staff are aware of the helplines. The list is provided onone page and can be easily displayed and copied. I have included information about child care,foster care, youth programs, services for seniors, entitlements to concessions and a guide toretirement. I hope all members and their staff find the information useful during the holiday periodand throughout the coming new year as we all strive to support Queensland's families andcommunities.


Water Storage, Evaporation Mitigation TrialHon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines)

(10.06 a.m.): Our primary producers face many challenges in these difficult and dry times, andone of their biggest challenges is managing their water resources. It is especially heartbreaking forfarmers to see so much precious water lost from their dams through evaporation. The cost ofwater loss to Queensland's primary producers is massive. Farm dams in Queensland hold a totalof 2.5 million megalitres of water and, because most of them are quite shallow, evaporation losscan be as high as 40 per cent each year. This means that every year as much as a millionmegalitres of water is being lost to evaporation—enough to irrigate about 125,000 hectares with avalue of between $300 million and a massive $750 million.

My department has been giving real, practical help to land-holders in the area of water usethrough the government's highly successful rural water use efficiency initiative, which is apartnership between rural industries and the Queensland government to improve the way farmersuse and manage available irrigation water, improving the competitiveness, profitability andsustainability of our rural industries.


I am pleased to announce today that the government is extending that initiative to conduct a$650,000 evaporation mitigation trial. The trial aims to minimise evaporation losses throughinvestigating different types of farm dam covers and other suitable emulsion derivatives thatminimise evaporation losses to be tested on farm water storages as well as water storages usedfor town water supplies. It will give us a better understanding of the effectiveness of differentmethods of managing evaporation losses from farm dams and will establish the impact of climaticconditions to the overall outcomes, giving us the knowledge we need to help farmers managetheir water use and save water during the good times for the bad. We are going to write to everywater allocation holder in the trial sites in areas like St George, Emerald and the Granite Belt togauge their interest in participating in the trial. Those who are interested will complete detailedquestionnaires that will enable my department to select the best sites for the trial to take place.

Depending on their contribution to the trial, whether through financial support or otherwise,farmers will have the option of buying the water covers at the end of the trial at a reduced price.These trials will be conducted in several locations using different methods of managingevaporation, including different types of floating dam covers. The $650,000 dedicated to thiscampaign will supply, install and maintain the dam covers and weather stations as well as coverthe cost of collecting data to evaluate the trial. This trial will give farmers the chance to save themassive amounts of water they lose from their dams each year to evaporation, giving them short-term water savings as well as helping them on the way to long-term sustainability. The Beattiegovernment is committed to our state's farmers and committed to giving them practical help toimprove their profitability and environmental sustainability.

This is the second initiative in as many weeks we have announced that will safeguard ourprecious water resources and the future of our irrigators, the first being the fact that thegovernment is reinvesting its $550,000 dividend from SunWater into a total channel control trial toincrease efficiency and service levels, helping Queensland's farmers and irrigators to be moreefficient with the water they are supplied with. It is Smart State initiatives like this that dosomething practical to help Queensland's farmers—initiatives that will give them a hand up, not ahand out.


Queensland Fire and Rescue Service

Hon. M. F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services and MinisterAssisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.10 a.m.): I am proud to tell the House today thatthe Queensland Fire and Rescue Service, which includes urban, auxiliary and rural brigades, isnow better drilled and better equipped than it has ever been. Since the Beattie government cameto office it has provided record funding for the QFRS. This record funding level is perhaps mostobviously reflected in an upgraded fire vehicle fleet and vital equipment. It is with a great deal ofpleasure that as I go around the urban and rural areas of the state I see those new brigadevehicles. It is also providing results in the improved training and preparedness of this state'sfirefighters.

As many people throughout Queensland can attest, the bushfires in recent weeks andmonths have showcased our firefighters' professionalism and abilities. A lot of the credit for this isdue to our Queensland Fire and Rescue Training Academy at Whyte Island. The academy isworld class and has attracted many firies from interstate and overseas for up-to-the-minutetraining. Next week I will be very pleased to officially open the academy's latest feature—theworld's best urban search and rescue training cell, built at a cost of more than $1 million.

I will give some examples of the international and interstate recognition that our firies areattracting. I am very proud to be able to say this as their minister. QFRS area director ChrisMaguire has been selected and externally funded to represent all Australian and New Zealand fireand rescue services at the International Search and Rescue Advisory Group conference beingheld this week in South Africa. The meeting is to provide a forum for urban search and rescueteam leaders around the world to discuss contemporary issues regarding the development andapplication of urban search and rescue resources internationally. The nomination of a seniorQFRS officer to represent our region in an international forum of this kind is testament to the highesteem in which the QFRS and its staff is held by other fire and emergency service organisationsworldwide.

4 Dec 2002 Property Agents and Motor Dealers Amendment Bill 5333

The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service Commissioner, Lee Johnson, is also showcasingthe QFRS at the Wildfire 2002 conference currently being held in Kansas in the United States.The conference is regarded as one of the biggest and most important of its type in the world, withdelegates and speakers from across the globe attending.

Also this week the excellent work of the QFRS has been showcased at a major bushfiresummit in Melbourne. The main focus of the summit was to analyse the 2002-03 fire season risk,which we know is a large one for every state and territory, and to develop protocols for mutual aidsupport between the states for the expected long and difficult season. Fires do not know aboutstate boundaries, so it is to everyone's benefit to sort these issues out on a national cooperativebasis, and that is exactly what we are doing.

I reiterate that the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service is now better prepared and betterequipped than ever before, thanks to the Beattie government. The QFRS is truly world class, andthat is something that all Queenslanders can be immensely proud of.

SITTING HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.13 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 can then break for dinner and resume its sitting at 8.30 p.m.

Government business will take precedence for the remainder of the day's sitting, except for a 30-minuteadjournment debate.

Motion agreed to.

PROPERTY AGENTS AND MOTOR DEALERS AMENDMENT BILL

Remaining Stages; Abridgment of TimeHon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.13 a.m.), by leave,

without notice: I move—That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable the Property Agents and Motor DealersAmendment Bill to pass through all of its remaining stages at this day's sitting.

Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (10.13 a.m.): The opposition has not been giventhe courtesy of notice of that motion. I would certainly move an amendment, which would read—Delete the words 'Property Agents and Motor Dealers Amendment Bill'.

If it is that the terrorism bill—has the minister mentioned terrorism—Mr Foley: That's separate.

Mr LINGARD: Then I oppose the motion moved by the Leader of the House. There is nodoubt that the urgency in relation to this bill has only been caused by government neglect anddelay. There is no doubt that a bill such as this needs 13 days' public consultation. There is nodoubt that it needs public scrutiny. The difficulty in this particular situation, which the governmentforces the opposition into, is that we are not going to divide. I know that there are members herewho want to introduce private members' bills today. I know there are other things that need to bedone by 10.30. The opposition certainly opposes crunching through the Property Agents andMotor Dealers Amendment Bill.

Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.14 a.m.): I draw to theattention of the House that I indicated to the opposition during debate last week that this wouldbe occurring this week. It was well aware that this bill would be brought on this week and that Iwould be moving this motion. So there is no excuse—

Mr Lingard interjected.

Ms BLIGH: I understand that, but for the member to base his disagreement on a view thathe was unaware of this is simply false. I draw that to the attention of the House.

Mr Reeves: They've got their speaking list.

Ms BLIGH: The opposition has already provided its speaking list.Motion agreed to.

5334 Travelsafe Committee 4 Dec 2002

TERRORISM (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILLRemaining Stages; Abridgment of Time

Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.15 a.m.), by leave,without notice: I move—That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable the Terrorism (Commonwealth Powers)Bill to pass through all its remaining stages at this day's sitting.

Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (10.16 a.m.): The opposition believes that this is amatter of national importance and also national concern. Even though we have always said thatbills should have 13 days' public scrutiny, we are prepared to support the motion moved by theLeader of the House.

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.16 a.m.): Publicly Ihave said that the opposition would support this bill because of the national security interest andthe urgency involved. I make the point that we did not want the Property Agents and MotorDealers Amendment Bill to pass the House today because we believed it should have had properconsultation and lain on the table for 13 days. There are some other matters we want to getthrough at this time. We have registered our objection to that motion, but we fully support theterrorism bill being debated in this parliament today.

Motion agreed to.

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

ReportMr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (10.17 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the Scrutiny of

Legislation Committee's report No. 26 in relation to the committee's scrutiny of bills forconstitutional validity. My committee has decided to table this report because statements madeby several members during a recent second reading debate indicate they are under amisapprehension about one aspect of the committee's scrutiny of bills. This concerns the extentto which the committee examines bills to determine if they are constitutionally valid and, morespecifically, what inferences should be drawn from the fact that the committee's report on a billmakes no reference to the matter of validity. It may be that other members share themisunderstanding to which I refer.

For reasons set out in this report, the committee does not generally examine this aspect ofbills in detail. Accordingly, the mere lack of any mention of it in the committee report does notindicate that the bill in question is considered to be constitutionally valid. The committee truststhat this report adequately explains its approach to this subject and will be of assistance tomembers and other readers of its reports. I commend the report to the House.

TRAVELSAFE COMMITTEE

ReportMr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (10.18 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the Travelsafe

Committee's report No. 38, Public transport in south-east Queensland, and a summary of theconclusions and recommendations. This report makes 25 recommendations for the governmentto consider, and I urge all members to read it.

Public transport is a complex issue that concerns every government and every citizen. Publictransport is simply essential. For those who cannot afford to own a car or cannot drive, such aspeople on low wages, pensioners, people with disabilities, young people and older people, publictransport is their lifeblood. It is their key to accessing jobs, shops, government services, hospitals,TAFE colleges and friends. It is their key to a decent standard of living.

We cannot have good public transport in a system heavily skewed towards the car. That iswhat we have here in south-east Queensland. For many people in the region, public transportcannot take them where they need to go, so people drive everywhere. It is a catch-22 situation.Almost four in every five trips in the south-east Queensland region are now taken in cars. This isunhealthy and unsustainable, and turning this around is a whole-of-community challenge.

All levels of government need to work together if public transport in south-east Queensland isto be effective. It is not just a state government responsibility. Councils can make or break publictransport in their approaches to planning and land development.

4 Dec 2002 Criminal Defamation Amendment Bill 5335

The federal government can do it through funding and its policies on taxation. The Beattiegovernment has achieved a lot in public transport during its inquiry. The minister and QueenslandTransport are to be congratulated on what they have accomplished. The Travelsafe Committeewould like to see their work continue with better funding for public transport and greaterrecognition of its importance to a fair and just society in south-east Queensland. I give my sincerethanks to the Travelsafe secretariat for their many hours of hard work throughout the inquiry andthe preparation of the report presented to this House today. I commend the report to the House.

NOTICE OF MOTIONRulings, Motions of Dissent

Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (10.20 a.m.): I give notice that, for the 6 o'clock debate tonight, I shall move—That the Standing Rules and Orders of this House be amended as follows—

(1) By amending Standing Order 117 as follows—

(a) Replace "Mr Speaker" where second occurring by "the presiding officer";

(b) Insert the following paragraph after the existing paragraphs—

During debate on such Motion the Speaker shall leave the Chair, and an appropriate presiding officershall chair the debate. If the motion is in dissent from the ruling of the Speaker, the appropriate presidingofficer is the Chairperson of Committees, if available, or otherwise the most senior temporaryChairperson of Committees. If the motion is in dissent from the ruling of a Deputy Speaker, theappropriate presiding officer is the Speaker, if available, or otherwise the most senior of the personseligible to act as Deputy Speaker other than the person who made the ruling against which the motion isdirected.


(a) Replace "Chairman" where second occurring by "presiding officer";

(b) Insert the following paragraph after the existing paragraphs—

During debate on such Motion the Chairman of Committees shall leave the Chair, and an appropriatepresiding officer shall chair the debate. If the motion is in dissent from a ruling or decision of theChairperson of Committees, the appropriate presiding officer is the most senior temporary Chairpersonof Committees. If the motion is in dissent from the ruling or decision of a temporary Chairperson ofCommittees, the appropriate presiding officer is the Chairperson of Committees, if available, orotherwise the most senior temporary Chairperson of Committees other than the one who made the rulingor decision against which the motion is directed.

CRIMINAL DEFAMATION AMENDMENT BILL

Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (10.22 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move—That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to relocate to the Criminal Code the offence of criminal defamation,and for other purposes.

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and explanatory notes presented and bill, on motion of Mr Springborg, read a first time.

Second ReadingMr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (10.23 a.m.): I move—

That the bill be now read a second time.

The opposition is introducing this bill to the House to address what is becoming increasinglyrecognised as a major deficiency in the laws in Queensland designed to protect law-abiding,hardworking Queenslanders from the malicious, ill-founded and destructive comment of others.To date, the laws to protect people from defamation have almost entirely relied upon access tothe civil courts. This is an extremely costly, inaccessible and far from ideal solution to the problem.

The current mild criminal sanctions exist under the Defamation Act 1889. The provisions inthe Defamation Act 1889 clarify the actions which may be taken by an aggrieved party in the caseof defamation, both civil and criminal. However, the criminal provisions are extremely inadequate.Currently, criminal defamation in Queensland is only considered to be a simple offence attracting,in the worst case scenario of deliberate and malicious defamation, a maximum jail penalty of two

5336 Private Members' Statements 4 Dec 2002

years. A significant problem with being classified as a simple offence is that any action must bestarted within 12 months of the date of the alleged offence and also it places significantlimitations on the authorities in Queensland if they pursue an offender across other statejurisdictions.

The recent case of Aspley State High School principal lan Isaacs and his deputy brought tothe fore the stark reality of the inadequacy of our laws in Queensland for criminal defamation.While the statutes in Victoria, where the alleged offender was, recognise criminal defamation asquite a serious offence carrying a 10-year maximum penalty, in Queensland it is a simple offencecarrying a two-year maximum penalty.

As my research has indicated to me, when people suspected of committing simple offencesagainst Queensland laws travel interstate, these laws can only be relied upon when such aperson is apprehended in Queensland. If the offender is apprehended in another state, theycannot be extradited to face justice in Queensland. This means that the law needs changing.

With the growing use of electronic media, particularly the use of the Internet and email, itnow makes it so much more easy for people to be able to defame others not only in our state ofQueensland but also from any state of Australia. It also then stands to reason that we must havelaws which are capable of recognising and responding to this reality, and laws which seek toprotect innocent, decent Queenslanders from such malicious attacks.

The purpose of the Criminal Defamation Amendment Bill is to ensure that anyone,regardless of where they publish defamatory material in Australia, will be able to be pursuedwithout a time statute bar, and that they will be able to be arrested and extradited to Queenslandto face trial for an offence allegedly committed against Queensland law. This bill is not an attackon free speech or expressions of genuine matters of public interest as some in the press or withan interest in civil liberties may be concerned. This is a sensible bill, one which is necessary toensure modern protection to decent, law-abiding Queenslanders maliciously and disgustinglydefamed by low-lifes who hide behind ineffective and outdated Queensland laws for protection oftheir vile acts, whilst their victims have their lives destroyed. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Welford, adjourned.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTSPublic Accounts Committee Report

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.26 a.m.): The latestdemonstration of the Beattie government's arrogant contempt for accountability was seenyesterday when the Premier thumbed his nose at the Public Accounts Committee report on theabuse of commercial-in-confidence provisions. The committee was a key initiative introduced by aformer National Party state government to scrutinise the executive spending of public moneysand to ensure that taxpayers get value for money. Its origin is based on the essence thatgovernments do not have the money themselves; they are merely the custodians of taxpayers'money.

It is a principle that this Beattie Labor government cannot stomach, let alone adhere to. Thecurrent Public Accounts Committee is dominated by Labor Party MPs who, judging by thecommittee's own report, obviously share our very serious concerns about the Beattiegovernment's abuse of commercial-in-confidence principles. The Premier did not like themessage, so he shot the messenger, as he always does these days. How things have changedfrom the days when the now Premier was the chairman of the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee and when he criticised Wayne Goss for doing the same thing to him.

This latest demonstration of contempt for accountability and government honesty follows astring of other incidents. I refer to the secret 15 per cent performance bonuses for Public Servicechiefs and the secrecy of the performance targets where no-one is able to see the targets toassess whether those Public Service chiefs should have been paid those performance bonusesor not. In terms of the secret market allowance for Public Service chiefs, there is no publishedvalue or criteria for their payment. The Premier said that he would be more accountable and thatthere would not be any more of these secret bonuses. Yet we get the new one, the secret marketallowance.

Successive Information Commissioners have been critical of the Beattie government's abuseof FOI. The Auditor-General has criticised the government's abuse of commercial-in-confidenceprovisions. The Auditor-General has also castigated the government for the lack of accountability

4 Dec 2002 Questions Without Notice 5337

and public disclosure in the operation of its $64 million grants program. Accountability is a dirtyword to the Premier and his band of merry spenders. It is a sign of the arrogance of thisgovernment that it has thumbed its nose at the recommendations of the Public AccountsCommittee.

Department of State Development SeminarMs BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (10.28 a.m.): We live in a world where consumers are continually

changing the way in which they shop. They no longer just buy face to face in a store; they shop athome, on the Internet, on television, over the phone and, in particular, they want to shop when itsuits them, be it 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Businesses that do not adapt or identify thechallenges and changes required to run a business smoothly and profitably fail to thrive. Indeed,sadly, 50 per cent of small businesses fail within three years.

The electorate of Aspley is home to nearly 4,000 small businesses. Helping thosebusinesses to prosper and thrive is a key commitment of mine as their state member. Ensuringthat real advice and practical assistance is available to businesses so that they meet thedemands of today's consumers is fundamental in our government's Smart State strategy.Therefore, I am pleased to inform the House that on Tuesday, 26 November, over 700 localBrisbane north business people attended a free business seminar conducted by the Departmentof State Development. The speakers, Noel Whittaker, joint managing director of WhittakerMacnaught; Mason Wong, the Queensland and Northern Territory manager of Toshiba; andPeter Cooper, state manager of St George Bank, offered expert finance, marketing and bankingindustry advice to my local businesses. The seminar had one of the largest attendances ever fora state development seminar and was an outstanding success, with 95 per cent of participantsrating the seminar as good to outstanding in terms of the content and assistance. I take thisopportunity to thank the Minister for State Development, the Hon. Tom Barton, for his very strongsupport of small businesses in the Aspley electorate. I also acknowledge the hard work of StateDevelopment Northside. As the state member for Aspley, ensuring our small businesses continueto thrive and prosper is a priority for me. Working with local businesses to help them adapt tochanging times is vital in ensuring that they continue to be successful.

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

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICEState Budget, Mid-year Review

Mr HORAN (10.30 a.m.): I refer the Treasurer to the small operating surpluses he hasbudgeted for in each of the last two years and to the fact that in both those years the Treasurer'sfickle forecasting was out by nearly $900 million. In each of those years when those huge deficitswere recorded the release of Treasury's mid-year budget review was delayed by up to twomonths. Given that the Treasurer's office has advised that this year's mid-year budget review willnot be released until the end of February, less than four months before the next budget ishanded down, is the Treasurer delaying the release of more bad news and budget blues? Will theTreasurer be third time lucky and deliver a budget surplus this year, or is he preparing to go downin history as the Treasurer who gave Queensland a trifecta of record deficits?

Mr MACKENROTH: I could have been like the federal Treasurer and released a mid-yearreview last week. As members would be aware, the mid-year does not finish until 31 December. Ibelieve it is more appropriate that the mid-year review reflect the true position at the end of thehalf year as at 31 December. To do that, we need to wait until we actually reach 31 December.We then need to get all of the information. The Leader of the Opposition is probably aware that alot of people take recreation leave in January. Therefore, the accounts that we will get fromdepartments will be at the end of January and towards the beginning of February. Then the mid-year review will be released. What it will have will not be estimates up to the end of the half year;in fact, it will be what actually has happened for that half year. If I were to do what the federalTreasurer did last week in terms of releasing a mid-year review today with estimates up to the endof 31 December, the leader would stand up in this place and ask, 'Will this be wrong?' That iswhat the leader would accuse me of.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot expect a document that reflects what hashappened to be released before it has happened and to criticise me because I am doing it thatway. If I were to do it the other way, the leader would criticise me for that. The correct procedure is

5338 Questions Without Notice 4 Dec 2002

to wait until the end of the half year to get the correct figures and then to produce them. As theleader is aware, when it comes to budget time we do estimated actions because we want thebudget done before 30 June so that departments know their full allocations prior to the financialyear starting. I think that it is important that we wait, that we get all the information, that thedocument that is released is a true and factual document which has in it the figures available andthat the estimates that have been done will only then be estimates for the following six months.

NursesMr HORAN: I refer the Minister for Health to the 3.8 per cent interim pay rise for Queensland

nurses. Queensland Treasury has provided the minister's department with only three per cent, soQueensland hospitals are being forced to provide the extra 0.8 per cent out of their existingbudgets. The pay rise is back-paid to 1 June this year and the first pay comprising the wage rise isdue in the first pay period in December. Why has the minister forced Queensland hospitals, manyof which are way over budget, to close beds, cut staff and lengthen waiting times to fund thisunfunded pay rise for nurses?

Honourable members interjected.Mr Horan: It's backdated to June.

Mrs EDMOND: It is not. Once again the opposition leader is having a bit of difficulty withnumbers. The leader has had that problem since becoming Leader of the Opposition. That is whyLawrence is sitting there with a smile on his face. The pay rise awarded to non-nursing staff wasover 13 months, which changes how it works out over the period of time. That is the first issue; soit is not over 12 months. The nurses have not been awarded that back pay to 1 June. Myunderstanding is that it is to 1 October. It is an interim award because they chose to go to thecommission.

Mr Nuttall interjected.Mrs EDMOND: The Minister for Industrial Relations would have had those facts at his

fingertips.

Mr Nuttall: An interim award like an interim leader!Mrs EDMOND: Who is answering this question? So the Leader of the Opposition is wrong

with his numbers again. It has just been a long line of misinformation that he has been trying tospread recently. On Monday he issued a press release claiming that there were 360 patientswaiting too long in category 1 at the Royal Brisbane Hospital. That is the total number of patientswho are waiting for category 1. How many were waiting too long? Twenty! The leader was just atouch out. Last week the leader was claiming that the average length of stay in our mental healthacute facilities was five and a half to six months. What was it? 10.7 days—just a tiny bit out!Almost every press release the leader issues is not only insulting and rude but also shows that hedoes not have a clue and does not know his numbers. Once again, the leader's questions arewrong. It will be dealt with in the way it is always dealt with. Until the leader can get some factsright and his numbers right, I would be worrying about the number of months he still has asOpposition Leader.

Aviation IndustryMs LIDDY CLARK: Will the Premier inform the House of how Queensland's aviation industry

is taking off, noting of course that a great deal of the burgeoning aviation industry is based in theelectorate of Clayfield?

Mr BEATTIE: I know that the member for Clayfield has a keen interest in the aviation industryas she does in the Lions. I hope that she will be at the reception tonight. Our efforts to turnQueensland into an aviation hub are starting to pay dividends. Not only has a core group ofaviation operators and associated industries established itself in Queensland as a result of mygovernment's policies, but they are already starting to expand their operations. Smart State isworking. Virgin Blue, which is headquartered in Brisbane, is advertising nationally for moretechnical staff, emphasising that the positions are ‘based in sunny Brisbane’. Boeing is advertisingnationally for an operator trainer for the RAAF's Airborne Early Warning and Control System,which uses its 737-700 aircraft as the airborne platform. Aviation Australia is running a nationalcampaign to attract students to its mechanical, avionics and structural engineering courses inBrisbane.


Aviation Australia is one of our success stories. It began operating in a converted quarantinebuilding in Brisbane. In an article in last Friday's Australian, Aviation Australia's CEO PaulBredereck said that the reason it came into being was the demand for a skilled work force in thispart of the world. This is what we created—training and skills—and out of that have come theopportunities. He went on to say—But the real catalyst I guess came in late 2000 when Qantas was looking for a place to build their new 767maintenance base.

That maintenance base is now under construction at Brisbane airport because of the programswe put in place and because of the Department of State Development and the Department ofEmployment headed by the two ministers.

Later this month the ministers and I will officially open Aviation Australia's $4.6 million state-of-the art training facility at Brisbane airport. My government has approved $2.46 million infunding for the centre and we hope that it will attract more trainees to Queensland—somethingthe Minister for Employment will have more to say about as the weeks and months go by. I sharethe passion for it that the member for Clayfield indicated.

Canadian engine manufacturer Pratt and Whitney has chosen Aviation Australia to assist inits factory training for next year. Cathay Pacific will enrol its aircraft maintenance students withAviation Australia. Singapore Airlines is establishing a training facility at Maroochydore airport,which the Minister for State Development, Tom Barton, is set to open tomorrow. AustralianAirlines is operating out of Cairns and Coolangatta. Eurocopter's subsidiary, Australian Aerospace,will also begin assembling its EC120B model in Queensland next year.

Brisbane is also developing a cluster of helicopter maintenance and support activity basedon the local companies Helitech and Asia-Pacific Aerospace, which service both Australian andAsia-Pacific customers. Local regional operator Alliance Airlines will carry out maintenance on AirNiugini's F28 aircraft at Brisbane airport. Even the Royal Queensland Aero Club is benefiting fromour efforts to attract aviation operators to Queensland. Its flight instructors are training six pilotsfrom Taiwan based China Airlines and the club's Gerard Campbell told Channel 7 news lastSunday that he believes 'Queensland is set to become a major aviation centre’.

We will continue to actively pursue opportunities in this sector and encourage as manyaviation operators as possible to spread their wings in Queensland. It is working.

Drought

Mr JOHNSON: I refer the Premier to the catastrophic situation facing many rural communitiesbecause of the drought. He will remember that I raised this critical situation in a questionpreviously. Communities that will shortly have no water if this drought continues need to know thatthe government has in place a strategy to supply water to people when the domestic systems fail.I ask: will the Premier urgently establish a water supply task force including the responsible stategovernment departments and local authorities to develop a strategy that will ensure continuedwater supply to our communities?

Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Gregory and the Deputy Leader of theNational Party for his question. This is a very important issue. I will provide some details in aminute about the programs we are operating. Henry Palaszczuk, the Primary Industries Minister,has indicated that the effect of El Nino may well continue next year. Although the drought is acuteat the moment, it may well continue for another year, in which case a number of communitiesmay be facing serious water issues. I am prepared to ask the Minister for Natural Resources,Stephen Robertson, who has responsibility for water, along with the Minister for LocalGovernment, Nita Cunningham, who also has responsibility for funding to councils, to establish atask force—call it what we like—with both of them working together with their departments andother relevant departments and local government, which I think the member is including, toensure that we have water supplies. They will do an evaluation, continue the funding programswe have in place and report to cabinet as soon as possible. We would be quite willing to take anysubmissions the member has in relation to this matter. I invite the member to talk to Mr Robertsonspecifically about it. In terms of the structure I have spelt out and in defining it in response to whatthe member has asked, the answer is yes.

Let me deal with some of the issues. Last week Nita Cunningham spelt out what herdepartment is doing. I notice that it is currently assessing applications for drought assistance fromseven communities and shires—Boonah, Peak Downs, Herberton, Isisford, Broadsound and from


the Palm Island council—that have applied for assistance. I understand the minister is in aposition to make some announcements about that and will probably do so today.

Drought declaration is not the only condition for subsidy assistance. Local governmentsshould advise the Department of Local Government and the Department of Natural Resourcesand Mines at least four months prior to any imminent failure of a water supply system. Assistanceis available for councils forced to transport water to their communities and many councils arecurrently working to upgrade water and sewerage facilities with the support of the government.

Last financial year, payments made by the Department of Local Government under theLocal Government Bodies Capital Works Subsidy Scheme and the Smaller CommunitiesAssistance Program for water and sewerage programs totalled $63.8 million. Payments madesince July 1998 total more than $200 million. The Department of Local Government recentlycarried out a survey of local governments to ascertain the number of urban water supply schemesbeing affected by the drought. The survey involved 670 settlements with populations of over 50people and included 451 water supply schemes, 311 sewerage schemes and 248 water serviceproviders. That survey revealed that the water supply sources of 50 communities and 25 localgovernment districts were showing signs of stress.

Obviously, we want councils to seek assistance as soon as possible through the DroughtStricken Local Governments Urban Water Supply Assistance Scheme. I assure those councilsthat any application to the department for emergency water supply supplementation will receiveimmediate consideration. I share the concern of the honourable member. My government willwork with these local councils and communities to give them every assistance that is humanlypossible.

Brisbane Lions

Mr WILSON: I refer the Premier to the fact that all honourable members know how fantasticthe Brisbane Lions—the AFL double premiers—have been, and I ask: when will the Premier makegood his promise to honour the mighty Brisbane Lions with a state reception?

Mr BEATTIE: As the honourable member knows, we always keep our promises. This is agovernment that delivers. Tonight I will host a state reception for the mighty Brisbane Lions. Theyare the pride not just of Brisbane but of all of Queensland. Admiration for their sporting prowessextends to northern New South Wales and pockets of supporters in Melbourne who have madethe switch from Fitzroy to the Lions. After all, the Lions were originally formed out of the Fitzroyclub.

It was a fantastic effort by the Brisbane Lions in winning back-to-back premierships. Theydeserve to be honoured by the Queensland government and this parliament. I would just ask thatnext year, when playing for a third final, they give the fans and followers a break and make surethat their lead is unassailable. The nervous tension was a bit much. The member for Clayfieldwent red during it all—at least her hair did! We do not want a repeat of this year's nail-biting finish,which subjected us to a bit more stress than we needed.

Brisbane won just about everything in season 2002. Simon Black won the Brownlow Medal.Jonathon Brown took the mark of the year. Jason Akermanis kicked the goal of the year. Sixplayers were named in the all-Australian team—Simon Black, Jason Akermanis, Michael Voss—afantastic individual—

A government member: He's from Beenleigh.

Mr BEATTIE: Is he?

Mr McGrady interjected. Mr BEATTIE: He is from Mount Isa? These stars are from everywhere. The other players

were Chris Johnson, Justin Leppitsch and Nigel Lappin. In addition, Brad Scott and Chris Johnsonplayed in the winning Australian International Rules team which beat Ireland. Just last week LeighMatthews was named top coach and the Lions top team at the Queensland Sports Awards. Lionsfans would love to see Brisbane win their third premiership in a row. However, the last team to dothat was the Melbourne Demons in 1955, 1956 and 1957, which is before most members wereborn. It was some time ago—certainly before the member for Clayfield was born. If anyone canbreak the drought, Brisbane can. Once again, I congratulate the coaching staff, theadministration and the players on what they have achieved.


Tonight's reception will also be an opportunity to welcome to Queensland all new recruits tothe Brisbane side, including Blake Caracella from Essendon; the AFL No. 3 draft pick, JaredBrennan from Darwin; and the Lions's other draft picks, Daniel Merrett from the Gold Coast, TroySelwood and Anthony Corrie. The Brisbane Lions have proved that Queenslanders are more thanup to it when it comes to beating Victorians at their own game. I am sure we will all look forward tothe mighty Lions roaring in 2003. I invite honourable members to join us tonight at the reception,which begins at 5.30 p.m. That applies to all honourable members.

Before I conclude today I wish to mention two things. The minister will be saying somethingabout this in a minute. There is a $1.8 million state government subsidy being made available tothe Nanango Shire Council that will allow that council to fast-track the construction of a newpipeline. This is in relation to the question of the honourable member for Gregory. The minister willhave a bit more to say about it.

Mr Reeves: Blackbutt.

Mr BEATTIE: Yes, Blackbutt. That is part of the outcome.Finally, I remind honourable members that Friday is the close-off date for the condolence

sheets following the Bali bombing. Queenslanders have been invited to write messages ofcondolence at Government House, Parliament House, the Executive Building and every stateMP's electorate office. As I said, these condolence sheets are available until Friday. We will havethem bound into a book of condolence that will be tabled in the parliament. I look forward to thesupport of all honourable members.

Teacher TrainingMr WELLINGTON: I refer the Minister for Education to the fact that when students undertake

university studies to be teachers one component of the course is a requirement to spend timeworking in a real classroom environment. I understand that if the trainee teacher is not happy withthe Education Department's assessment of their classroom experience there is no avenue forreview of that decision, and I ask: will the minister review this policy so that a student training to bea teacher has an avenue of appeal against an adverse finding?

Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I am sure that he, like othermembers of the House, understands the importance of practical experience during an educationdegree and would support the process that all of our universities undertake with training teachers.I am sure he understands how important pracs are. Can I assure the member that there is a veryrigorous process for providing assessments of the work and the capacity of trainee teachers.

I understand that many teachers are not necessarily happy with the assessments that theygain. I am happy to look into that matter for the member and to get back to him with anythingthat might assist to refine the process. I can say that should someone get a rating with which theyare not happy, or which is less than a satisfactory level 1, they are able to request a review of thatafter they have undertaken a certain number of hours, usually as a contract teacher. There areprovisions that once a person has done more work in the classroom the person can ask for areview. My understanding and my recollection is that after 200 hours of contract teaching postdegree a teacher is entitled to ask for a review, and that does actually happen. People do havetheir ratings upgraded from time to time should it be warranted.

That review process is in place. If the member has a suggestion about where another reviewmight be appropriate, I would be happy to consider that.

Salinity

Mr PURCELL: I have a question for the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines. LastThursday in the House the member for Callide attacked the government's campaign to combatsalinity as unsubstantiated misinformation and challenged the minister personally to go out in thereal world and show him the location of 48,000 hectares of severely salt affected land inQueensland. I ask the minister: will he accept the member for Callide's challenge?

Mr ROBERTSON: Last Thursday the member for Callide cast doubts in this House that48,000 hectares of severely salt affected land exists in Queensland. He said this—It must be pretty hard to hide. I am ready, whenever the minister and his department are, to go out and see if we canfind it—not look at red coloured maps but go out in the real world and find the 48,000 hectares of severely saltaffected land in Queensland.

Of course, we will not be able to do that. It is all part of the government’s scare campaign.


I am happy to announce today that I am pleased to oblige the member for Callide. I am delightedto accept his challenge. To assist the member for Callide, I am prepared to put aside time in myschedule and arrange for him and the media to accompany me on a trip to the real world so thatthe member can see first-hand that the land is in fact severely salt affected.

Of course, we are going to need a bit of time to do this because the 48,000 hectares existsin a couple of hundred sites. But to save taxpayers' money, I thought what we will do is start inthe member's own electorate of Callide. Because I want to help the member for Callide, I thoughtI would prepare a bit of a travel kit. First of all, a map! If the honourable member takes a closerlook he will see a lot of red dots in his own electorate. This indicates where we have salt affectedland. We will put that in the kit.

To help him, I will include some photographs from the Fitzroy Basin Association—thatcommunity group charged with driving the salinity plan. Those photos show Biloela and Theodore.Theodore is in the honourable member's electorate. We will put those in the kit as well. I will alsoinclude a report for the honourable member. This report maps where the 48,000 hectares arelocated. I will include that in the kit for the honourable member as well. To help him even further, Iwill include some satchels so that he can identify it at first hand as well.

If we do not have a salinity problem in Queensland, why is the federal governmentcontributing $81 million out of $162 million available under the National Action Plan on SalinityWater Quality to projects in Queensland in an endeavour to turn around the environmentaldegradation that salinity inevitably causes across the landscape—not just in Victoria, not just inNew South Wales, but in Queensland, and in the member's own electorate? If he got out morehe would understand the extent of the problem. The fact that the honourable member does notknow that he has a significant problem in his own backyard demonstrates yet again what anabsolute failure the National Party is when it comes to managing natural resources in asustainable way in this state.

Mr SPEAKER: I call the member for Callide.Mr SEENEY: I am very happy to accept the minister's invitation to accompany him. However,

I think we will find 48 hectares, not 48,000 hectares. That is representative of the government'sexaggeration—

Mr SPEAKER: Is that the question?Mr SEENEY: No, it is not. I am coming to the question. Mr ROBERTSON: I would be happy to report back to the House at the earliest opportunity

next year on the outcome of our trip.Mr SEENEY: I look forward to that, Minister. Bring your measuring tape. You will be flat out

finding 48 hectares.Mr SPEAKER: Your question?

Compensation for Illegal Strip-searchMr SEENEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. I refer

to the $193,000 payout awarded against the Queensland Police Service yesterday, and I ask:has the minister asked for a report on how this woman came to be wrongfully arrested in the firstplace and why she was denied the opportunity to ensure that her children were properly caredfor? Does the minister believe it was necessary—

Mr Reeves interjected. Mr SEENEY: Does the honourable member want me to start again so that the minister can

hear the question? It is a serious question. I will start it again. I ask the minister if he has asked fora report on how this woman came to be wrongfully arrested and why she was denied theopportunity to ensure that her children were properly cared for. Does the minister believe that itwas necessary for her to be strip-searched twice? Why will the minister not give her the apologyshe has asked for?

Mr McGRADY: I thank the member for the question. The incident to which he referred and inregard to which the court made a decision yesterday occurred four years ago. It occurred beforethe current Police Commissioner was in his present job and it certainly occurred before I wasPolice Minister. However, upon hearing of the court's decision I immediately requested a full anddetailed brief from the Police Commissioner. Hopefully, that will be on my desk some time today.As the commissioner has indicated, he is giving some consideration to an appeal and therefore Ido not think it is appropriate for me to add anything.


An opposition member interjected. Mr McGRADY: I do not believe that I have to say anything further. What I can say is that,

when I receive the full and detailed brief of what happened, I will probably be in a position tomake some further comments at that time.

I reiterate what I have said with regard to the member for Callide. If he was doing his job asshadow minister maybe he would have been asking questions before today. The bottom line isthat this incident took place four years ago. It was before the court. The court handed down itsdecision yesterday. Immediately I was aware of this I asked the Police Commissioner for a full anddetailed report on the circumstances. When I receive that report I will be in a far better position tocomment. I do not go on hearsay and I do not go on television reports. What I want to do is tofind out both sides of the story. As I said, I, as the minister, will be in a far better position today tounderstand the full details. The member for Callide, who not only shadows me as minister butalso shadows me in the ties that I wear, will then be in a far better position to understand the truecircumstances.

Education for BoysMs STONE: My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Recently there has been a

great deal of public discussion and debate about the education of boys. Would the ministerplease inform members of any strategies that the state government is employing regarding boys'education?

Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question and for her well-known interestin the schools in her area and her constant support of education. The question of boys' educationand how boys are doing in our schools has indeed been a very topical one in the educationcommunity around Australia. Members will be aware that the federal minister has fairly andsquarely placed this on the agenda nationally. I am very pleased to be able to provide informationto the House today that Education Queensland has also taken up the issue in a very productiveway.

This Friday a new web site on boys, gender and schooling will go live. The web site has beendesigned by Education Queensland and will be accessible to the community. What the web sitewill provide is up-to-date data on boys' achievements and participation. It will also provide currentresearch into boys' attitudes and health and wellbeing in our school environments. It will addresskey issues such as literacy and behaviour and their effect on boys' achievements and outcomes.It will provide information for teachers on professional development activities that are relevant tothis area. It will also provide the opportunity for schools and boys themselves to provideperspectives on these issues.

One of the aims of this web site is to reject some of the simplistic notions about boys ineducation. One that is gaining some currency and which I worry about is the view that all boys aredoing badly in our schools. This is simply not true. There are many boys—in fact, theoverwhelming majority of boys in our schools—who are doing very well and achieving to the bestof their capacity and their potential with the assistance of their families and their teachers, and Ipay tribute to them and their achievements. The web site also aims to reject some of the veryoppositional statements that are circulating—that is, this is about boys versus girls in our system.What our system should be aiming to do is to provide the best opportunity for all children,regardless of their gender. I am very concerned about comments from some commentators whoseek to set up a boys versus girls approach in terms of the resources going into both of thoseareas. There are many factors that contribute to positive and negative school experiences forboth boys and girls. There is no doubt that socioeconomic background is a far stronger indicatorof outcomes than gender, but boys can be hampered by narrow ideas of what is acceptable tomasculinity and this can limit their social participation and restrict their subject choices.

This is not a black and white issue despite some of the claims of the federal minister, whosaid last week—... boys are falling behind in our education system.

His own statements are at odds with the federal report entitled Boys: getting it right. MinisterNelson identified this issue as a priority when he assumed the ministry—indeed, he had chaired aparliamentary committee on boys' education prior to his entering the federal ministry. His recentannouncement that he will spend up to $4 million over two years nationally, which would seeQueensland get only $700,000 over those two years, is a pathetic response to a complex issueand I challenge him to do better.


Maternity LeaveMrs SHELDON: The Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's

Policy would recall that in 1995 the Labor Party signed a deal with the Public Sector Union toimplement 12 weeks paid maternity leave and would also recall that in 1996 the Liberal Partyunder my leadership introduced six weeks paid maternity leave for the Public Service, the firsttime paid maternity leave had ever been introduced in Queensland. However, both the ministerand the then Opposition Leader, Peter Beattie, said that six weeks was not enough. I ask: giventhat the minister is now the minister assisting the Premier on women's issues and given thatseven years have now lapsed since the Labor Party promised 12 weeks paid maternity leave, canthe minister inform this House when she expects to announce to the 120,000 women in thePublic Service the good news that she will now finally implement her own policy?

Mrs EDMOND: I thank the member for the question. I am delighted. I think it is the first timeshe has ever asked me a question about women's issues. The issue of maternity leave is indeeda troublesome one, and it is a troublesome one because at the moment the vast majority ofwomen have absolutely no access to maternity leave whatsoever. The only people who haveaccess to it are those in the Public Service. It is a concern to me that people at the lower end ofthe pay scale and the people who can least afford to take time off when they have children arethose who are most affected—that is, those people who are not in the Public Service. It is for thatreason that I along with other ministers who attended the women's ministerial council in Darwinearlier this year raised this issue right across-the-board.

Mr Mackenroth: And they criticised you, too, if I remember.

Mrs EDMOND: That was why I believed I should be there, because it is such an importantissue and it was disappointing to hear the silly nonsense from the opposition about my attendinga ministerial council meeting when such an important matter was being discussed. I have to saythat the issue of maternity leave dominated the proceedings with all of the states in concertsaying that they believed that the first step should be an equitable distribution of maternity leaveto those women who currently do not get any maternity leave to bring them up to the level ofpublic servants and then in the future to look at expanding the Public Service provision.

It is for that reason that we put to the federal government that maternity leave across-the-board should be funded as it is in other countries that have it—that is, through payments such asCES payments—so that women who work and pay tax then get payments while on maternityleave from the government which takes their income tax, and that is the federal government. Weput that proposal to the Commonwealth and it was dismissed out of hand, as are all fundingproposals to provide extra services to Queensland. We have seen increasing contempt by thefederal government, which is the highest taxing government in the history of Australia, towardsproviding any services. It is focusing on tax cuts to the rich but not focusing on services andprovisions to those people in the work force who should get them.

Marine Oil Spill, TownsvilleMs PHILLIPS: I refer the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads to last week's oil

spill incident off Townsville. As I have a long stretch of beautiful beaches in the north of myelectorate that I want protected from such pollution, I ask: can the minister please advise theHouse what penalties apply to such disasters?

Mr BREDHAUER: The oil spill that occurred in Townsville port waters last week was regardedas a serious incident. The amount of oil, whilst not large, was significant and the stategovernment regards all incidents of marine pollution as being of significance whether they are inour reef waters or in our coastal waters. The honourable member has long stretches of nicebeaches in her electorate, but I have half of Queensland's coastline in my electorate and that iswhy I take a particular interest in marine pollution incidents.

I want to thank the officers from Maritime Safety Queensland and the EPA who assisted inthe clean-up of the oil spill both in the waters off Townsville and also that oil which made it toshore on Shelly Beach, because we did move to clean that up quickly. I can report to the Housethat oil samples have been taken from the spill and from five vessels that were in proximity of thespill just prior to that occasion so that we can attempt to make a match of the oil spill anddetermine the source of the spill. I can also report to the House that interviews have beenconducted with the masters and chief engineers of two of the suspect ships in preparation fortrying to determine the source.


I can also advise the House that if we can match the oil spill with a vessel that was in theproximity at the time we will leave no stone unturned in our endeavours to seek a prosecution.Our government is very serious about incidents of marine pollution and the maximum penaltiesare very high—that is, in excess of $1.3 million for corporations and $262,000 for individuals whomay have contributed to oil spills. Accidents are not an excuse for oil spills occurring. Vessels,their owners, their operators and all crew on board are expected to take precautions to preventthem from happening.

Since 1998 masters and owners of 13 ships have been successfully prosecuted forcontributing to marine pollution incidents. Magistrates in recent times have indicated that theybelieve that responsibility for the oil spills should be taken by the owners and operators of vesselsand the fines are trending upwards. There are a further four oil spills currently under investigationand one is presently before the courts. Some other states and territories are yet to successfullyprosecute a single oil spill incident, so our record in Queensland is significant. I once again saythat we value our coastal waters, our entire marine environment and particularly the waters of theGreat Barrier Reef for their high conservation and environmental values and for the fisheries andother industries they support. We will work very hard to ensure that incidents such as this arebrought to hand.

Multidisciplinary Spinal Pain Unit, Townsville

Miss SIMPSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I table theMultidisciplinary Spinal Pain Unit's 2002 annual report and I refer to appendix 6, a letter written byunit director Dr Lynton Giles dated 16 November 2002 to the minister to consider funding forservice provision for the less advantaged patients in the Townsville-Thuringowa community. Inexcess of 53 medical practitioners signed a petition requesting the unit be opened. The ministerreceived a copy of this petition and is yet to respond. There is tremendous support from thecommunity, the medical fraternity and the army, and the government made an unqualifiedelection promise in a press release on 1 June 1998 to 'provide necessary funding to keep thesuccessful national unit for multidisciplinary studies of spinal pain running in Townsville'. Theindependent report was conducted before all the data was collected and therefore is a prematurestatement about the outcomes. Why has the minister allowed the unit to close and why is sheignoring the salient issues being raised by its director?

Mrs EDMOND: I have been waiting for this question for three or four weeks. There has beena lot of hot air about this issue. There is one person who actually was there at the very beginning,and that was me. Let us have a look at the history of this issue.

I met with Dr Giles and the senior Townsville Hospital staff while I was in opposition. Why did Ido that? Because they were not getting any joy out of the Health Minister of the time! He refusedto fund the project. So did the Commonwealth. I actually thought there was value in doing acomparative study. They had received a small amount of funding from an overseas provider to doresearch into comparing chiropractics, general medicine and acupuncture in the treatment of backconditions. I actually thought there was some value in a study such as that if it were doneproperly, so I met with them.

I discussed this proposal with my shadow cabinet colleagues, who agreed that if anassessment of the pilot study was supportive of the need for a major research project to evaluatethese methodologies we would fund a major research project over four years. The aim of theproject was to compare those different methods of treatment. It was indeed a significant researchproject—$1.2 million over four years to allow appropriate evaluation of the results.

Some of the people at that meeting put to me that if it came up positive they would use it tolobby the federal government to include these processes as direct Medicare rebates. That wasthe aim: to give chiropractors access to Medicare provider numbers. That is an issue for theCommonwealth. That was one of the things they wanted to show. Mr Lindsay, who is now usingthe member for Maroochydore, is out there running a campaign. He should be taking thatcampaign to the federal government. It is the one that can give access to Medicare.

That was the provision for the funding. I have had lots of letters from Dr Giles claiming thathe wants money for this and money for that. On each occasion he has been told that the moneywas for a trial and that any further funding depended on the outcome of that trial. We have seensome of the outcomes of that trial assessed. It is disappointing to me that I do not believe we gotvalue for money out of that project. $1.2 million is significant funding for research in this state.


NHMRC funding often does not come anywhere near that, and it has strict controls. And it doesnot continue funding if direct cause is not shown.

I reiterate for the benefit of this House and because of all of the silly nonsense that has beenrepeated now by the member opposite and by Peter Lindsay in Townsville: this was a four-yearresearch project funded by the Queensland government for a specific purpose when the coalitiongovernment of the day refused to fund it. The federal coalition government and the state coalitiongovernment refused to fund it. It should have been made clear to the patients that what theywere getting involved with was a four-year research project. They should have got permission fromthe patients to actually be part of a four-year research project. Just as medical practitioners rightaround Queensland participate in trials parallel to their clinical work, there is nothing to stop themdoing their clinical work and resuming their clinical work now that the trial is over.

Emergency Water Funding, Palm Island

Mr HAYWARD: The Minister for Local Government and Planning told the House last weekthat her department was considering applications for emergency water funding for seven localgovernments severely affected by the drought. One of those was Palm Island council offTownsville. What has been done to assist that community?

Mrs NITA CUNNINGHAM: I thank the honourable member for the question. Last week I didspeak in this House of the work being done by this government to help communities with watersupply problems. This morning I am pleased to announce that my department is providing$156,000 in assistance to the Palm Island council towards the cost of upgrading the treatment ofthe island's water supply scheme as a matter of urgency—that represents 50 per cent of theestimated cost of the project—and the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policyis matching that amount dollar for dollar. The funds from my department are coming from acombination of the Local Governing Bodies Capital Works Subsidy Scheme and the DroughtStricken Local Governments Urban Water Supply Assistance Scheme. It is a clear indication ofthe commitment of this government to helping Queensland communities which are facing acutewater problems as a result of the drought.

I can also announce this morning that I have approved a 75 per cent subsidy for IsisfordShire Council towards the cost of drilling a new bore at Yaraka and for the cartage of water fromIsisford. The transportation of water in tankers is expected to cost some $52,000 over fourmonths, and the cost of the bore is expected to be $40,000.

There is good news this morning for residents getting by with only bottled water in thedrought stricken communities of Blackbutt and Benarkin. I am advised by my department thatfrom this afternoon those townships will again have a steady flow of water from a reliable supplywith the completion and connection of a six-kilometre water pipe link to the main pipeline betweenTarong and Wivenhoe Dam. A $1.8 million state government subsidy made available to NanangoShire Council has allowed that council to fast-track the construction of the new pipeline.

The remaining applications for assistance are being investigated as quickly as possible. Iagain urge councils facing critical water supply problems to make a submission to my departmentas soon as possible. I can assure those councils that any application my department receives foremergency water supply supplementation will receive immediate consideration. The security ofwater supplies is of grave concern to us all, and I will be happy to work with my colleague theMinister for Natural Resources to further help Queensland's communities cope with the currentdrought conditions.

Goprint

Ms LEE LONG: My question is directed to the Minister for Public Works and Minister forHousing. A concerned constituent who conducts a printing business in my electorate has advisedme that Goprint has successfully competed against them, at a significantly lower price, I mightadd, on a school magazine contract, and I ask: is the minister aware that Goprint competes withprivate enterprise and is it correct that it should do so?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for the question. I do not have the detailsof that, obviously. It is not a reasonable expectation that I would have that information. I am quitehappy to look at that individually. As a matter of course, Goprint does not compete in thecommercial market; it is restricted to government work only. I would like to know the situation thatthe member has raised. I will of course investigate that.


Water and Waste Management, Indigenous Communities

Mr PEARCE: Can the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy please informthe House of support provided by the Beattie government to address the need for improved waterand waste management facilities in indigenous communities?

Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for Fitzroy for the question. I know he will be veryinterested in the $1.15 million announcement I am making today to upgrade infrastructure andenvironmental health projects in remote indigenous communities in the state. I think all membersof the parliament appreciate the hard work being done by the Beattie government to work withindigenous communities to reduce the alcohol problem in those communities, but few memberswould be aware of the hard work we are doing in upgrading things such as sewerage, watertreatment plants and waste disposal systems, so I would like to tell members a bit about theseprojects today.

I will start with the work that is being done in the electorate of the member for Fitzroy. AtWoorabinda, we are going to spend $90,000 to progress stage 2 of the Woorabinda water supplyproject. That is a joint funding initiative with ATSIC. Other projects include $400,000 to be spent inthe Hope Vale community to upgrade its sewerage facilities. That is another joint project withATSIC. We will be spending $240,000 maintaining the water facilities in the five northernpeninsula area communities. We will be spending $100,000 to progress stage 2 of the Cherbourgsewerage project, which is the design of the new plant to service the Cherbourg community. Wewill be spending $100,000, along with the Department of Local Government—as we have justheard—to upgrade the Palm Island water supply scheme. That is on top of the new dam that wehave completed in Palm Island, which I opened with the member for Townsville last year. Thatdam ended up costing the Queensland government $24 million, such is our commitment tomaking sure that that community has water for the future.

There are more projects, such as $80,000 to the Aurukun community for the completion ofthe Aurukun Aboriginal Council's five-year housing project. That will bring DATSIP's funding to thatproject to over $1 million. As well, Queensland Housing has allocated $12.6 million to the Aurukuncommunity over the next five years to upgrade housing in that community.

The Beattie government believes that people living in remote indigenous communities havean entitlement to enjoy the same quality of life as that enjoyed by other Queenslanders. That iswhy we are putting significant amounts of money into upgrading basic facilities, such as water,sewerage and waste management. That is why we work so strongly in partnership withorganisations such as ATSIC and the local communities. I think that this hard work andcommitment shows that we are truly committed to improving all aspects of indigenous life in thisstate.

Grazing Leases

Mr HOPPER: I refer the Minister for Environment to a leaked state government email thatoutlines his government's agenda to turn all forestry grazing leases into national parks andrecommends that his government representatives, when consulting with local councils andprimary producers—... manipulate the discussions to try and cut off at the pass issues of grazing and land tenure by brushing over theissues at the meeting, as we have used this strategy before and it has worked.

I table this document. I ask the minister: will he guarantee that forestry grazing leases will not betaken off primary producers and locked up into national parks?

Mr WELLS: I would like to thank the honourable member for drawing this matter to myattention, since I drew it to his attention yesterday and invited him to a briefing, to which he waskind enough to agree. Nevertheless, if he would like the briefing a little more public, I will give it tohim now. I do not know anything about that email, apart from the fact that the honourablemember goes around quoting it. I do not know whether that email is spurious or whether it is valid.But I know that it does not matter whether it is spurious or whether it is valid because theconsultation process that is going on in the region to which the honourable member refers is aprocess whereby the people involved might put up a negotiating position, they might make anambit claim, or they might go in with a bit of bluff. It might be an entirely spurious document. Itdoes not matter, because I am going to be making the decision in the end.


I can assure the honourable member, and I assured his constituents yesterday by means ofthe radio, that it will be a real and significant consultation process. The end result of it will be onethat I will tick off. Whoever it was who wrote or did not write that email is not going to be theperson who will tick off on it.

We need to preserve the environment in the honourable member's area. The reason weneed to preserve it is that his constituents want to continue to make a living out of it. If we allowthe whole thing to degrade, then the quality of the land around it is not going to be preserved.The land in question—

Mr Horan: It stops the bushfires. Mr WELLS: The Leader of the Opposition is trying to change the subject. The Leader of the

Opposition is interjecting and trying to stop me from giving the honourable member a publicversion of the briefing that I want to give him later. The Leader of the Opposition wants to talkabout bushfires. This government has taken steps that no government previously has everdone—

An opposition member: Backwards.Mr WELLS: The member aspires to be seen as a wit. He has already achieved half of his

ambition.

The Leader of the Opposition speaks of bushfires. This government has taken steps thathave never previously been taken. My department is working with the Department of EmergencyServices to enable back-burning and fire prevention, which could not be done by one departmentalone. We are working in that cooperative way in an unprecedented fashion. That does not meanthat there will be no bushfires this summer. There will be bushfires this summer. When we have along, dry winter and no opportunity to do as much back-burning as usual, then we have bushfires.But we have taken every step that we possibly can to prevent them.

Surf Safety

Mr POOLE: I direct a question to the Minister for Emergency Services. It is tragic to note thatthe first death of the summer season on Queensland's beaches occurred earlier this week. I ask:can the minister please tell the House what the public can do to assist the state's surf lifesavers tokeep the beaches safe this summer?

Mr REYNOLDS: Our surf lifesavers have a tough few months ahead and we need to do allthat we can to make sure that their job is made easier. By this I mean spreading the messageabout safety in the surf over summer, particularly to visitors to Queensland.

The National surf report, which was released this week, showed that there were 17 coastaldrownings in Queensland last summer alone. That is the second highest fatality rate in thecountry, only surpassed by New South Wales. What is shocking is the fact that all of thesetragedies occurred outside the red and yellow flagged areas that are patrolled by lifesavers.Sadly, all of these drownings took place where people could have walked to patrolled areas, withthe distances ranging from 400 metres to two kilometres. Too many people are becomingcomplacent when visiting our beaches.

Surf lifesavers give up their time to patrol for a reason. The ocean can be a very dangerousplace, even for experienced swimmers. Surf conditions can be very deceptive. Even when the sealooks completely calm, there is always the danger of strong rips. We know that that occursparticularly in the south-east corner. Those who do not swim inside the flags not only risk their ownlives but also those of their rescuers who have to battle to save them.

This year alone, Queensland's lifesavers attended more than 4,700 rescues—which is upfrom 3,300 the year before. The risks are great for these dedicated people, but their efforts do notgo without recognition. Surf Life Saving Queensland has implemented extended patrols, is usingmore equipment to get lifesavers into unpatrolled areas, and extended its education campaignsto reach people who are at greater risk. There are a number of programs in place to educatelocals and visitors alike, including multilingual videos for aircraft.

I have great admiration for the work of Surf Life Saving Queensland and its contingent ofmore than 25,000 members, most of whom are, of course, volunteers. I am sure that everymember of this House would join me in urging all Queenslanders to help our lifesavers by beingsafe and sensible in the surf over this summer holiday period.

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


PRIVILEGETravel Kit

Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (11.30 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising.During question time the Minister for Natural Resources, in responding to a question from themember for Bulimba, promised to deliver to me a travel kit to assist in a trip that we will obviouslytake in certain areas within central Queensland. I draw to the attention of the House that theminister has reneged once again on that promise.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of privilege.

Mr SEENEY: He has refused to supply that travel kit to me. However, there is no doubt thatthis is just another media stunt in a long line of media stunts that this government has admitted toin relation to salinity. However, I will be only too pleased—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Will the Clerk read the order of the day.

Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines)(11.31 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising. I reject wholeheartedly the memberfor Callide's allegation that I have refused or reneged on my offer of providing him with a travel kit.I indicated to him in a note that I may need that kit for the remainder of today, but I will bedelivering it to him as soon as possible.

Mr SEENEY: I rise on a point of order. The minister is misleading the House. What heindicated in the note was that he needed the kit as a media prop. I table the minister's note.

PROPERTY AGENTS AND MOTOR DEALERS AMENDMENT BILLSecond Reading

Resumed from 26 November (see p. 4739).

Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (11.32 a.m.): At the outset I indicate that theopposition will be strongly and vehemently opposing this bill. That is a little sad in some waysbecause this is the first piece of legislation the Minister for Fair Trading has introduced toparliament that I have opposed. Generally, we have been able to support in principle, if notcompletely, legislation which the government introduces in the portfolio areas I shadow. Weoppose this not lightly but because there are certain principle issues which are completely andabsolutely repugnant.

Members of this parliament should not be prepared to support the sneaky, retrospective andnon-consultative way that this government has gone about introducing this bill or the way that itwill seek to ram it through retrospectively to deny rights to people in the community who justifiablybelieve that to date they would have been able to lodge a claim if they were wronged as aconsequence of a property marketeer. A real concern of the opposition with regard to this piece oflegislation is the fact that once again there has been no consultation with those people mostaffected. This is a trait becoming far too apparent and far too often repeated by this government.Quite frankly, it is not good enough. Those members on the other side of the House who talkabout the government priding itself on consultation, on going out there and talking to people inthe community, on having X number of cabinet meetings and X number of caucus meetings inregional areas should consider when they sprout on about how consultative the government hasbeen the fact that we are seeing this particular trend repeated so often in parliament these days.It is just not good enough.

If we consult with somebody and still adopt a policy position which may be at loggerheadswith or different from the views of those particular groups that have an interest, that is fair enough.But if the government at least genuinely attempted to consult with those people in the communitywho have a very large and abiding interest in this, whether they be the people regulated by theProperty Agents and Motor Dealers Act or those people who will lose so much as a consequenceof the repugnant nature of this bill, we might not agree with it but at least we could live with it.

I refer to the section in the minister's explanatory note where it states—Consultation—Due to the urgent nature of these amendments consultation has been limited to relevant governmentagencies.

This is a little closed shop exercise where the government departments that have the most 'tolose' have come together to cobble together this piece of legislation in order to deny rights topeople retrospectively. That is not good enough. It is not as though it was dreamt up on aSunday night, introduced to cabinet on a Monday morning and taken off to the caucus meeting

5350 Property Agents and Motor Dealers Amendment Bill 4 Dec 2002

on Monday afternoon. There would have been some earlier interaction between governmentagencies that at least could have allowed some degree of meaningful consultation with regard tothis matter. What consultation really means in this case with regard to relevant governmentagencies is the Treasury putting pressure on the minister's department to do something which itmay not otherwise have wanted to do. It means the Treasury putting pressure on the minister'sdepartment to do something it otherwise would not have wanted to have done or would not havedone if it did not have that particular amount of pressure.

I do not believe, knowing the minister as I do, that the minister is absolutely happy with whatshe is doing here today. I believe that there would be an innate sense of justice which coursesthrough her veins and which would cause her to be somewhat unhappy with regard to this. Nodoubt members of the government will stand up today, talk about how responsible they want tobe economically and how this is about preserving some reasonable form of claim process forpeople who have been legitimately wronged by marketeers, et cetera. Of course they will say that.I reckon that in their heart of hearts many will not believe that.

The members from the Gold Coast and other places—particularly the Gold Coast where suchpractices are a major problem—will be very wary about standing up and seeking to justify thistoday, because the people who know that they have been wronged by this will be knocking ontheir doors. To date, these people have not had much of an opportunity to do that.

Mr Lawlor interjected.

Mr SPRINGBORG: I am surprised that the member for Southport, a former solicitor from theGold Coast, would seek to justify anything like that. No doubt he will be able to explain 'sincerely'to those mum and dad investors who have lost their homes and life savings as a consequence ofthe actions of these repugnant and repulsive pieces of scum who call themselves agents, thesetwo-tiered property marketeers, how it is totally justifiable that they have been ripped off and thegovernment has retrospectively taken away their right to at least submit a claim. A lot of thosepeople may not have been able to realise a claim via the process, but at least they had anopportunity to submit a claim and see how the system worked it out.

We have two concerns: the first is on the issue of consultation, which just has not happened,except the false consultation by the Treasury with the minister's department where the Treasurywas concerned about the potential exposure of these claims and the effect on the bottom line inQueensland; and the other is that Treasury did not want to find the money to pay these peoplewho may otherwise have a legitimate claim against that fund. We are dealing here with an issueof legitimacy. We are not just dealing here with something that people could unreasonablyexpect, because if it were something they could unreasonably expect they would not be able toget their foot in the door and get a claim successfully and properly processed. We are dealingonly with people who could legitimately expect to have a claim because they have beendefrauded of an amount of money. What is wrong with that principle? The Labor Party pridesitself on social justice and on standing up for the battler and the people who need an element ofprotection in the law, yet it is turning around and doing something like this.

With regard to consultation or the lack thereof, we cannot support the bill in principle becauseof a number of matters. As I said, I honestly believe that the minister was a reluctant starter inthis. She may very well deny that and I will accept her denial if that is the case. I imagine that thisis something that did not grow out of her department. It grew from somewhere across the road inthe Executive Building and it has been forced down on the minister to implement. Unfortunately,she is the one who must now carry the can in this respect.

I believe that we need to be extremely careful with regard to the application of theretrospectivity provision. There are certain principles to which we, as legislators and governments,seek to adhere. We have our fundamental legislative principles that we deal with. We have ourActs Interpretation Act. All of the sorts of things that guide us in making legislation and good lawusually guide us away from introducing retrospective legislation which strikes at the right ofsomebody to realise a claim or a legitimate expectation. From time to time it can be used tocorrect a court finding, for example, which has exposed a drafting flaw or some constitutional—

Mr Fouras: What are you going to do about people being taken by shonks—Enron, HIH?What's the difference?

Mr SPRINGBORG: In terms of the issue of constitutionality, we can correct things from timeto time. The honourable member for Ashgrove asked about people taken in by shonks, such asthe victims of HIH. The government introduced its own registration levy in this state to enable thepayment of those people who had legitimate claims. That is what the government did. We


supported that. That is the inherent nature of the notion of justice in this place. I accept that wecannot protect everybody against everything in the world, but when something is in place andpeople have been able to access it and it is snuffed out overnight, that is a totally different matter.Is the government going to adopt the attitude of not providing protection against anything? I donot know where the government's Keynesian mentality has come from.

What we have tried to do through such legislation as this and its predecessor is to put somesort of protective mechanism in place. When it suits the government, it turns around and says,'How can we protect people against themselves?' We can protect them to some extent. At othertimes I suppose we cannot. We are saying that there are certain things the government shouldget involved in, and this has been one area it has chosen to get involved in to date. Is themember for Ashgrove going to adopt that attitude? I believe the member has a strong sense ofsocial justice, yet he is adopting the attitude that we cannot protect a range of people. In the HIHcase, we provided some measures to protect victims through the introduction of levies.

Mr Lawlor: What about the investors? Mr SPRINGBORG: I will address some of those issues in a moment. If the government is

going to adopt this attitude, what is the point of having this parliament? What is the point ofdebating these issues and standing up on issues of principle?

In respect of this legislation, the government will seek to justify its stance by saying that all ofthe people who bought these houses did so for investment purposes. It will try to paint a picturethat these people knew what they were doing and walked in with their eyes wide open; that theywere all multimillionaires from New South Wales, Victoria, Adelaide and elsewhere. Perhaps therewere some like that. But I can tell the minister that in my electorate there were a range of peoplewho were not. They bought an investment property; they were not owner occupiers. They losteverything because of the whole trail of manipulation and fraud that went on right from the startall the way through. They were misled all the way through. The legislation let them down. Thecurrent legislation, while it is better, is not sufficient. The protections let them down. It has onlybeen in recent times that they have had any recourse whatsoever and that there has been anyopportunity for them to ensure an element of disclosure.

The other day I was speaking to somebody in my electorate who came into my office. Hiswife and he lost everything. They were small investors who became victims of one of theseinvestment seminars. They were befriended by a valuer who was an old Warwick boy and, ofcourse, butter would not melt in his mouth.

Mrs Reilly: Why did they go into it? Did they seek to make some money? Were theyinvesting that money to make some money?

Mr SPRINGBORG: The member's sublime and ridiculous interjection attempts to justify thisattack on the rights of people. The way it unfolded was that a valuation was done—anoverinflated valuation. This person sits in a cushy mansion on the eastern side of Brisbane andcontinues to do these sorts of things. He befriended them. They went through the process oftalking to various agents and solicitors, such is the vertically integrated nature of the activity inwhich these scum are involved. The banks also had a valuation done. I note that the legislationwe passed in the lead-up to this forces an element of disclosure. That valuation showed that therealistic value of that property was significantly less. It is true that they went into this as aninvestment. They went into this to try to secure their future. This was going to be their majorinvestment and they mortgaged their home. They put their savings into this. They were impactedby the fact that it did not make the returns they were led to believe it would make. As aconsequence, it bled away any remaining capital which they had. They were not able to get backfrom their property any amount that went close to meeting the payment obligations. They weregoing backwards. They were forced to sell it and they lost their own home. That happens and didhappen in this case. I will not say that it happens in all cases. Some people have a greateramount of resources and capital and are able to sit on an investment and perhaps minimise theirlosses.

As I said, I do not necessarily blame the minister for this. I believe it is wrong in principle. Iacknowledge the fact that the minister brought legislation into parliament which is seeking toaddress by way of disclosure and other protective mechanisms the regime available for people.All I am saying is that not every person who lost money as a consequence of an investmentdecision was a person who was well-heeled enough to be able to sustain the overinflated price ofa particular property, which has impacted upon its commercial rate of return. That has causedthem to lose basically everything. My point is that I believe these people do, and I believe they


should, have a legitimate expectation that they should be able to at least go to that claim fund,put in a claim, see how it goes and let that system sort it out. That is why I have concerns withrespect to the retrospectivity of this.

In relation to owner occupiers, I note that the minister will enable owner occupiers who feelthey have been wronged as a consequence of marketeers to be able to continue to claim againsta fund. As I understand it, that ceiling will be reduced from $200,000 to $35,000.

Ms Rose: It's different. The $35,000 cap is only for marketeering. But if real estate agents dothe wrong thing, that $200,000 is still available.

Mr SPRINGBORG: I acknowledge that I need to separate real estate fraud andmarketeering. But as I understand it, it is from $200,000 to $35,000. The cap will be $35,000.

Ms Rose: The $35,000 cap is only for marketeering. Mr SPRINGBORG: In the situation of an owner occupied property—

Ms Rose: If it's a real estate agent, someone licensed, an auctioneer or anyone like that,they can still claim up to $200,000.

Mr SPRINGBORG: Generally, in situations where an owner occupier can demonstrate theyhave been a victim of marketeering, they will be able to claim up to $35,000 against a set ofcriteria and that will be on the realised loss of that particular property. They will have 12 months inwhich to notify that they may be lodging a claim and six years, as I understand it, to be able tofully process or realise that claim. Whilst I suppose it has preserved the rights of the owneroccupier to be able to claim something under these circumstances, I have concerns about thesetting of this cap. The other concern that I have is that there will also have to be a process ofawareness and education for people. Some people do not realise what is happening to themimmediately. It may take six or eight months. They will need to have the capacity to accessinformation and assistance through that process in an open and forthright way as they notify oftheir intention to seek some redress at a future time.

Some people would say that 12 months is a long enough period of time. People are notdumb, but they deal with things differently from the way in which we deal with them. We deal withlaws and legislation every day. We deal with a whole range of regulations and administrativeinstruments that are put in place by departments, including policies and that sort of thing. Weeven have trouble keeping up with them. The average mum and dad in the community—

Mrs Reilly interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: The member for Mudgeeraba can carry on all she wants. That is how I

wish to describe these particular people in the community. The average person in the communitydoes not have the same realisation and recognition of the protections that exist for them. Itdepends on their access to information, their empowerment and the people who provide themwith advice.

Another issue I would like to raise is effective redress for government against these people. Inote that we have a process which can enable prosecution of these people who are involved inthese scams, and more power to the minister with regard to that. Of course, we have the ideal,which is the objective, and then we have the practical application of it. I would be very interestedto know from the minister how many people are facing prosecution or are under investigation forthis at the moment and how many people have been successfully prosecuted.

I outlined the case of my constituent. I am aware that members on both sides of theparliament would also have examples of this. The valuer concerned is simply a shonk and a low-life. The professional body seemed reluctant to take any action whatsoever, or even to want toknow about it. Sometimes there are these inadequacies that exist in the law. The professionalbodies who look after these people tend to wash their hands of them. There needs to be a fargreater involvement on the part of the professional bodies who oversee these people. They needto be outed, and they need to be, quite frankly, hounded down in this place as well. Anything wecan do to destroy these people, the better.

If a person concocts a dodgy valuation which is aimed at ripping people off, and he is doingit systemically, then he should be exposed. The Minister for Fair Trading obviously tries to dothose sorts of things under her portfolios with regard to rip-off merchants. However, professionalbodies also have a role to play. I have been heartened recently by the actions of the Law Societybecause the Law Society has basically said to the shonky lawyers who have been involved in this,'You are out. You are on your own.' I say well done! No doubt the REIQ will take all necessaryaction against anyone it believes was doing the wrong thing.


On the matter of consultation, I would like to quote from the few things which I have here. Ihave had meetings with the Real Estate Institute of Queensland with regard to some of itsconcerns. I would like to read from some of the concerns raised by Slater and Gordon. This is anemail which came through.

Mr Lawlor interjected.

Mr SPRINGBORG: That firm did not seem too disinterested when it sent this email, but nodoubt people will still stand up and malign Slater and Gordon. I felt it raised some fairlyreasonable points. Whether we agree or not with what it is advocating, it advocates somereasonable points which need to be considered by this parliament. One would have felt that as abody which had a significant interest in this bill the Real Estate Institute of Queensland—

Mr Lawlor: You were talking about shonky solicitors and now you are quoting Slater andGordon.

Mr SPRINGBORG: The honourable member for Southport will find absolutely no referenceanywhere where I have said that no win, no fee litigation does not have a part to play in ensuringbasic justice for people.

Mr Cummins: You were concerned about it last week.

Mr SPRINGBORG: No. I invite the honourable member for Kawana to find a reference whereI even mentioned the issue of no win, no fee solicitors being able to practise. At no stage did Isay that I was affronted by that practice. There was certainly debate and repartee across thechamber. I invite the member to find a reference to that in Hansard; I believe he will not. Mystance has always been that no win, no fee litigation has a very important part to play in ensuringjustice for people, particularly when they may not be able to access legal aid. My issue with no-win, no-pay litigation has been the absolutely disgusting and disgraceful way in which certainpeople have trawled for work. I have also been appalled at the advertising of those particularpractices. That is my view, and I think that view is shared by the honourable member. In my ownpolitical party I have lobbied against any notion that we should do away with no win, no feelitigation because it has an important role to play. I take issue with the way in which it is carriedout. I am not saying that Slater and Gordon is not out there trying to grab all the people it can inan attempt to launch class actions and those sorts of things. That is not to say that there are notsome people in there who do not have legitimate issues which need to be represented. That is allI am saying in regard to that.

The REIQ was notified by the media that this was coming through. I find that veryconcerning. The REIQ understands that the catalyst for this bill came from the Treasury in order toensure a revenue source derived from the interest on real estate agent’s trust accounts; in otherwords, Treasury wanted to ensure that the fund is not depleted by an onslaught of claims fromconsumers. I am not saying that the government does not have a responsibility to be concernedabout that; it is a matter of how we handle it and where we put the cut-off dates and those sortsof things. I will come to that in a moment.

The REIQ is not supportive of retrospective legislation. However, in the letter which it wrote tomy parliamentary leader, Mike Horan, it stated that it could see how it was warranted in that case.To be fair, that is what it said. But it did comment that a more appropriate starting date wouldhave been 1 July last year, in line with the introduction of the new legislation which put in placecertain protections and disclosure issues which would mean that people, when they walk into this,walk in with their eyes wide open. The state is obliging the people involved in these investmentscams to outline their particular involvement. There are also the other legal notifications which aregiven to people at the time of signing up for a property.

The REIQ has also asserted that the amendment bill contains very onerous provisions withwhich the consumer must comply. Consumers must notify of their intention to make a claim within12 months after the contractual date. They must make the claim within six years and sell theirhome to realise a capital loss. They must also claim that these three provisions were realisticallyrestrictive and designed to deter consumers from making a claim.

The REIQ said that the short time frame provided would prevent many home owners fromhaving an opportunity to identify the scope of their shortfall or make a claim. In addition, therequirement to sell the property would prove excessively onerous for most consumers and wouldact as a deterrent against making a claim. With regard to a cap on claims, the REIQ saidthat—and I am paraphrasing what it told us—it is not thought that the majority of claims areexcessive in nature and therefore it is unnecessary to cap claims at $35,000. Previouslyconsumers who have had a claim above this amount have been assured of protection.


The REIQ goes on to deal with the Auctioneers and Agents Fidelity Fund. It said that thefund took money from real estate agents and then, after a few years, the interest supported it.The banks kept the interest. The money deposited was held in the real estate trust account.Every quarter, two-thirds of the minimum balance was transferred to the government to invest. Ifthe government had to pay out to a consumer it would do a drawdown. Real estate agentsreceived an indirect benefit as the value of the trust account was often taken into account as thevalue of their business.

The REIQ also raised issues in relation to the moneys which have been diverted from thefund, and a legacy of governments have diverted that money from the fund. What happened? Itwas facilitated in 1991 by then Minister Milliner to enable those moneys to be used for otherpurposes and there has been a constant drawdown and a siphoning off of that money ever since.When the property agents and motor dealers legislation abolished the fidelity fund, what amountof money was diverted to consolidated revenue and for what purpose was the money utilised?When the legislation was introduced, what was the balance of the fund at that time and whatproportion of the interest was the government obtaining?

They are questions which arose from my discussions with the REIQ, and I think it has tried tobe reasonable. It is not as hard and fast on some aspects of it as we are. It sees the issue ofowner-occupiers as being very important. It is concerned about the retrospective nature of thelegislation, the claim amount ceiling and the difficulties which people will have in being able tomeet the allowed time frames to realise a claim. It also has concerns about the broader definitionof 'marketeer' under the legislation. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say aboutthat when she sums the debate up.

For the parliamentary record, I want to quote some aspects of Slater and Gordon's email,and no doubt most members received this email this morning but may not have actually seen it.The email states—Dear Member of Parliament

I am writing in relation to the introduction of the Bill by the Queensland Government. Slater & Gordon acts for 110clients who purchased property in Queensland have lodged a claim pursuant to the Property Agents and MotorDealers Act 2000 (Qld) (Act). Our clients are from all parts of Australia, including Queensland.

...

As you may be aware, one of the key effects of the Bill is that it will retrospectively take away the rights of theseclients to pursue their claim through the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Tribunal (Tribunal), a body set up bythe existing Queensland Government and severely limits their prospects of recovering their losses.

Slater & Gordon is extremely disappointed by the Bill's introduction and in particular, its proposed retrospectiveoperation. Many of our clients have spent thousands of dollars in attempting to pursue this legal avenue which willbe closed to them upon the Bill's enactment. The Bill affects 540 Claimants who have already lodged a claim withthe Tribunal and has potential to affect thousands more.

While some people have the resources to make claims and will make claims through the civilcourt post this legislation passing through parliament—and no doubt they will have variouselements of success—there are some people who are not lucky enough to have the resources tobe able to do that, and the constituent I mentioned earlier is one of those people. Basically,losing one's assets and life savings means that a person does not have enough money to seewhat may happen in the civil court. That is something which honourable members need to beaware of.

The Slater and Gordon email goes on to quote the then Minister for Fair Trading, MinisterSpence, and I hope the email quotes the minister in context. When these changes were beingtalked about in 1999, the minister said—'The Government has provided consumers with the best level of property law protection in Australia, but they musttake responsibility for their actions.'

That is fair enough. It continues—The reality is that the only Claimants protected by the Act will be the 9 Claimants whose claims have already beendetermined. 540 Claimants will receive no such protection.

The government of the day went on to say that there was motivation behind this in that—'We could not let Queensland taxpayers face a bill of up to hundreds of millions of dollars'.

The email goes on to state—This statement is not accurate. The reality is that the Queensland Government has received many millions ofdollars in surplus stamp duty revenue arising (based on the average sale price of $180K and the average capitalloss of $40 K for around 10,000 purchasers).


These are interesting figures which the parliament needs to consider—that is, the Queenslandstate government has profited from the stamp duty which it has been able to accrue as aconsequence of the sale of properties at overvalued prices. That is not to say that it was notgoing to get some element of stamp duty from property sales, but the difference in stamp dutybetween a property realistically valued at $200,000 and a property valued at $300,000 forinvestment purposes—and I am talking about non-first home owner purposes—can be quitesignificant. When people are forced to sell that property, another round of stamp duty is paid tothe government in fairly quick succession.

Honourable members interjected.

Mr SPRINGBORG: I know, but what I am saying is that stamp duty is paid as a consequenceof these transactions. In the latter case, that stamp duty will go to government anyway becausepeople often sell an investment property. The real point of what I am saying is the fact that—

Mrs Reilly interjected.

Mr SPRINGBORG: We will see how inconsistent the honourable member is when she goesback to her electorate and tries to justify what her government is doing with regard to this issue.

Mrs Reilly interjected.

Mr SPRINGBORG: I am sure the honourable member is. I have seen a lot of memberscome in here, puff out their chest and that sort of thing. It hides what they are feeling underneathwith regard to their commitment to the principle of the legislation and the inherent sense of justiceone would hope they would have. There are significant stamp duty advantages which haveaccrued to government as a consequence of the overinflated value of such properties.

The Slater and Gordon email goes on to state—Further, one of the primary mechanisms brought about by the Act was the Queensland Government's ability torecover any compensation paid to victims from responsible marketeers and agents. Therefore, working properly,Queensland taxpayers would face no bill for the administration of the Act.

The Claim Fund was reported to have built to a sum of in excess of $100 million with moneys derived fromlicensing fees from agents and motor dealers. We understand that fund has been used not to compensatesuccessful Claimants but for other government purposes.

And that is true. It would be very interesting to note how much money is actually in that fund, andthe audit report itself leads us to some very interesting figures. I saw some articles in the weekendpress which reported that an amount of maybe up to $180 million has been taken out of thatfund which has depleted it to less than $5 million.

I turn now to the internal audit of the Auctioneers and Agents Fidelity Guarantee Fund andquote some matters which are worthy of the parliament's consideration. With regard tobackground information, the internal audit report states—The balance of funds held in the fund peaked at $101 million in 1991. Amendments to the act in 1991 enabled thefunds to be used for a broad range of purposes, including the costs of administering the act, housing assistanceprograms and various vocational educational funding programs. The fund is currently declining at a rate ofapproximately $5 million annually. The fund balance is at a current level of approximately $40 million.

That was in 1999 and it is declining by $5 million a year, so that would imply that, three yearslater—if we could project that forward—there may be $20 million in the fund but things may havehappened prospectively. With regard to fund expenditure and Queensland Housing Commissiongrants, the report continues—Between 1990 and 1992 $42 million was paid out of the fund to the Rental Bond Authority and the QueenslandHousing Commission. These large payments represented a series of catch-up payments for the years prior to 1991when the fund was unable to make such payments. In subsequent years payments have levelled off to an annualpayment of $9.8 million. This is a substantial grant that must be managed to ensure that the balance of the funddoes not deplete to a level which would not support payment of more essential expenditure such as claims andadministration (investigation).

I think that that is the real concern. If we concede that government can access these largeamounts of money which have built up in fidelity funds to protect people who have been thevictims of fraud or some form of rorting by those who are regulated by that particular act, then wealso have to concede that the government has a responsibility to ensure sufficient funds are thereto meet claims, and that is what this is all about.

The government said that there is potentially $300 million-odd worth of claims against thefund. I do not have the figures to argue against that, and I will not. I take the government at facevalue with regard to that. That somebody has put in a claim does not mean that that claim will besuccessful. A woman from the United States made a claim in the Supreme Court of


Queensland—it was decided the other day—for a couple of hundred million dollars for thewrongful death of her husband on the Sunshine Coast. She did not get anything. Sure, that wasat common law, but what I am saying is that a lot of claims are ambit and a lot of claims will bethrown out. People who have a legitimate aspiration should know that they have a right to becompensated.

If the mechanism which exists to date was left in place and there was a realistic cut-off datefor claims—if the action which has led to a particular claim was after 1 July last year—then I think Icould have lived with that, because that is when the new act became operative. But thegovernment has gone one step further and has sought to wipe out everything prior to the date ofthe new protective mechanism. That is just not fair.

There is ambit claim exposure of $300 million-odd, but what is the real amount of moneypeople could expect to get out of this claim fund? There is the ambit claim and then there is thelegitimate claim that may be paid out. There is a significant difference. I would be interested toknow if the minister has done any work on that issue. I think it is an important point. It is easy togo out there and say, 'There is $300 million-odd in potential outstanding claims. That will bankruptthe state.' There are all sorts of claims made against the state that do not necessarily realise theamount sought. They may realise a fraction of that amount or it may be thrown out. I think it waswrong for the government to go out and say, 'This is our exposure,' to imply that this amount iswhat the state would have to find.

Money should have been allowed to build up in that fund and not drained away. If there wasa floor of, say, $50 million, then I think there would have been enough money to meet thelegitimate and assessed claims. If it had been left the way it was prior to 1991, with interest andso on, the fund may have had a couple of hundred million dollars in it and it may have been ableto meet all of the claims if the worst case scenario were to eventuate. The worst case proffered bythe government would not have eventuated. It certainly cannot after this bill is passed through theparliament.

This internal audit report provides interesting reading. It is something members of thisparliament should get a copy of and look at. The audit report shows that the balance of theAuctioneers and Agents Fidelity Guarantee Fund was $36 million or $37 million in 2000 and therewas a projection for 2006 going down to just over $5 million. That relates to the old fund. Iacknowledge that there has been a trend of milking that fund by government since 1991. I thinkthat has left it in a very difficult position. The fund still had $40 million in it in 1999. If that amountof money was in the fund today then we would not be facing the problem we are currently.

As I indicated, the opposition will be opposing this bill very strongly. We oppose it on thebasis that it outlines principles which affront what we believe in and, I imagine, what a lot ofpeople believe in. There has been no reasonable consultation with the interest groups involved.Perhaps if there had been some consultation and the minister had imparted to those who had aninterest a realisation that something needed to be done she may have been able to get someform of compromise that went some way to what the minister wants to achieve and some waytowards what the likes of the REIQ and those representing and advocating on behalf of thosepeople who lost money to marketeers want to achieve.

This bill takes away in one fell swoop the legitimate rights and expectations of people to atleast take their claim through this process and have it heard. If the claim is thrown out, then that isfair enough—that is the way it goes—but at least they will have had a right. That right will now beretrospectively snatched away. I intend to raise a number of issues in the committee stage,depending upon the minister's answers, and to expand on some of the administrative processeswhich will now be followed in the assessment of the claims which will still be able to be facilitated. Ireserve the right to oppose a number of those clauses. The opposition vehemently andabsolutely opposes this bill before the parliament.

Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (12.16 p.m.): I rise to support the Property Agents and MotorDealers Amendment Bill 2002. Once again the opposition is quick to criticise but very slow to offersolutions to what is really a very difficult problem. This situation could cost the government,meaning of course the taxpayers, hundreds of millions of dollars. But which budget does themoney come out of? The member did not suggest that it should come out of the Health budget,the Education budget or the Families budget.

Mr Schwarten: Out of the Housing budget?


Mr LAWLOR: Housing has lost enough from the federal government. The situation is thatthese investors have unfortunately lost their money. It is not up to the taxpayers of Queensland toreimburse them for their bad investment. Telstra 2 is a good example. Investors who relied on theadvice of the federal government, particularly the Prime Minister, have lost 40 per cent of theircapital. That is unfortunate, but they are not being compensated by the taxpayers. They made acommercial decision which unfortunately was the wrong decision.

Mr Livingstone: When they get a good return, do they pay us extra?

Mr LAWLOR: That is right. If they happen to make money out of it there is no requirementon them to make some sort of a contribution, except normal capital gains tax.

The member for Southern Downs mentioned HIH. Legislation has been passed in variousparliaments to deal with that situation. No legislation has been passed in any parliament inAustralia to recompense investors who have lost their capital. That is the nub of the problem,unfortunately.

I will quote from the minister's second reading speech although I do not like doing that, asbrilliant as it is. It really is important to establish the basis upon which this legislation has beenintroduced and to understand what the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Claim Fund wasoriginally introduced for. The objective of the bill is to address the ongoing viability of that fund.The speech states—The claim fund was established under the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 to compensate consumerswho have suffered loss as a result of contraventions of that act.

That related to the purchase of residential property, sold traditionally by licensed real estateagents or at least people who pretended to be licensed real estate agents. As a result of theirfraud, very often trust account fraud and the like, they lost their money. That is what that fund wasestablished for.

In recent months, as a result of the marketeering that has been going on, 540 claims havebeen lodged with the Office of Fair Trading. Based on those claims received and the loss that isallegedly involved and has been quantified, the potential liability of those claims stands at around$40 million. With the thousands of more claims that are likely to eventuate, that is how thesefigures of $300 million, $400 million and $500 million are arrived at.

The recent decisions in the courts have interpreted the provisions in a way that could nothave been anticipated when this fund was set up. It was not intended to compensate people whohad invested through marketeers. The courts have allowed these claims and have deemed thatthe fraudsters—very often on the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast—were effectivelyperforming the duties of real estate agents even though they never presented themselves aslicensed real estate agents. The claim fund was never intended to insure consumers againstlosses from failed investments or schemes of deception such as marketeering. The bill correctsthat anomaly and protects Queensland taxpayers from paying the cost of bad investmentdecisions that could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, as I have already mentioned.

Investors collect on their capital gains and they take advantage of any taxation benefits thatare available to them by negatively gearing loans. Of course, any capital loss upon the sale of aproperty is also a tax deduction. Additionally, the victims of marketeers can still access the courtsto recover their losses. Indeed many of them have. As I speak, those who did get advice aresuing the people who acted for them and the people whom they relied on. So lawyers, valuersand banks are involved in this litigation in people's attempt to recover their losses. Of course, thecost of that litigation will also be a tax deduction, because they have made an investment.

This legislation endeavours to protect those genuine people who have purchased propertiesfrom marketeers as their principal place of residence. They cannot take advantage as investorscan of the taxation laws to at least recover some of their lost capital. In recent years, we have allbecome aware of the unscrupulous activities of these marketeers and how their dishonestbehaviour has caused loss to many consumers. Last year, this government showed that it wasnot going to let that continue and it enacted tough new laws to regulate marketeering inQueensland.

That has been very successful. In fact, we read in the papers that it has been so successfulthat many of the marketeers have gravitated to Victoria where they are endeavouring to continuetheir business. These new laws have been very effective in deterring marketeers from enrichingthemselves through deception and their unconscionable behaviour. They have also beeneffective in alerting consumers to the need to get independent advice and undertake basicmarket research before committing themselves and in providing avenues to void contracts where


they have been signed. I note that many people have availed themselves of that provision toextricate themselves from these contracts.

The nationwide publicity accompanying the passage of antimarketeering legislation, togetherwith the awarding of some precedent-setting claims in the Property Agents and Motor DealersTribunal earlier this year, have seen a rush of new claims that, basically, could lead to an open-ended demand on the budget in the event that people are to be compensated for what amountsto bad business decisions. Many of these claims flow from aggressive work by legal firms. Themember for Southern Downs has mentioned one of those firms. We cannot blame them, either. Iunderstand what they are doing. Nevertheless I am sure that those firms cannot blame us fortrying to protect the budget. Members on both sides of the House understand that there is simplynot enough money to go around for health, education and so on.

If every claim were allowed and paid in full, the financial burden on the government wouldjeopardise many of the services and initiatives that Queenslanders have come to enjoy anddepend on, a few of which I have mentioned. The restrictions contained in the bill are furtherproof of this government's commitment to make tough decisions to address the problems createdthrough the greed and dishonesty of some persons involved in the property marketing industry.This bill is a reasonable response to a very difficult problem. I congratulate the minister and herstaff and I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.24 p.m.): In rising to speak to this legislation, Iwant to put on record a number of concerns expressed to me and also my own concerns. I waslooking forward to reading the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee report on this bill, because itcertainly is a clear example of the rights and liberties of individuals being affected—and affectedquite significantly. It also raises issues in relation to retrospectivity. Unfortunately, the bill wastabled last Tuesday. There have been five working days, excluding the day that it was lodged, butthere has been no report.

However, the minister's explanatory notes acknowledge that the bill infringes fundamentallegislative principles and it acknowledges the retrospective effect of the Property Agents andMotors Dealers Amendment Bill. There is no quantification as to the potential impact other thanthat, as previous speakers have stated, there have been over 500 claims and that if they were allpaid in full the impact on the fund would be significant. Therefore, the government's financeswould be significantly impacted upon. However, the reality is that not all of the claims would havebeen paid. Some would have been refused in total. Others would have been paid on a reducedbasis. Therefore, it is probably maximising the negativity of the potential financial impact on thegovernment to say that if all the claims were paid in full that amount would be the impact. I guesswe will never know.

One of the concerns that I wish to raise is one that both the previous speakers discussed.The previous speaker, the member for Southport, asked where the funds would come from if allof the claims had to be paid. He said that they would come from perhaps the Health, Educationor some other portfolio. The Minister for Housing was quick to say that it would not come from his.However, there was a fund established to be able to address these claims. Again, we do not havea quantum of the claims. They have never been assessed to see how many claims would havebeen at least genuinely considered or would have been rejected by the tribunal. Therefore, it isdifficult to quantify. But the fund that was established to address these illegal practices hadaccumulated a significant amount of money. I would be interested to know if the minister hassome indication of the peak of the fund in recent years and how that money has been disbursedand on what government expenditure.

However, because of that draw down—the siphoning of the fund—the fund that was actuallyestablished to assist these people is not available. Yet the theory was that other governmentbudget areas would not have been affected because the fund—established in part at least forthis purpose—would have been in great measure able to cover the liability. That is thedisappointment and the stem of my comment last night to the Minister for Local Government inregard to a fund established under the plumbing and draining legislation—that the money that isaccrued for that purpose remains available for that purpose and is not siphoned off for other non-related reasons.

Mr Schwarten interjected.Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: No, I am not going to argue with that. We desperately need houses.

Mr Schwarten interjected.


Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: We do not know. We are not told where the money went to. Theother issue that was raised by people who have contacted my office relates to those who havebeen caught in the scam. The minister's second reading speech very reasonably states—Investors expect to collect on capital gains and take advantage of the taxation benefits from negatively gearingtheir losses. Surely then they must not expect to double dip by having these losses compensated by Queenslandtaxpayers.

She goes on to say—But there comes a time when consumers have to take responsibility for themselves. If consumers choose to ignoreblunt government warnings in big bold capital letters contained in the statement attached to every propertycontract; if they choose to let their cooling off rights slip by and to make big investments with little research, thenthey cannot expect government to pick up the tab and pay compensation.

Those statements are very reasonable in the context that they are made. I highlight, though, thata significant number of people caught by these marketeers are not by their nature greedy, self-serving people. One chap wrote to me—and by the look of the email addresses listed he wrote toeverybody in this chamber—and said—I am a consumer who has been conned by real estate fraudsters and have lost my life saving. We are angry thatthe government failed to take action to stop these shonks preying on innocent people like me and my family. Hadthe government done its job in the first place we would not be in this position.

It is always easy in hindsight to say that the government should have done this, this and this. Ifwe were as wise as people would like us to be, there would be half the amount of legislation thatgoes through this place because we would get it right the first time, be able to predict the impactsof legislation and ensure that all of the issues relevant to a particular matter before the parliamentwere covered. The fact is that we are not omniscient and therefore there are many pieces oflegislation that must be revisited. This is one of them. Even in the short time I have been inparliament we have revisited this matter under both state governments at least two or three times.The letter continues—We are outraged at the decision to retrospectively block us out from the compensation fund which was set up toreimburse consumers for exactly this type of fraud. It is unbelievable that you are targeting victims like us whohave already been shafted once but letting the crooks off the hook. If you are going to change the laws, go after thecrooks and the directors of their companies. I am angry that over $100 million has been switched from a consumerfund to protect people like us into government revenue. These funds should be there to reimburse consumers. Ihave recently seen the minister for 'unfair' trading quoted in the newspapers saying that consumers would be paidfor their losses and the government would go after the fraudsters—as it should be. I feel deceived by thegovernment's about turn and doubly cheated. You must abandon any retrospectivity and hold a public inquiry as tohow and why the shonks were allowed to operate in Queensland for so long, why the consumer fund was depletedand whey aren't the fraudsters and the directors of the belly up companies being targeted. I am sure all victims willremember the government shafting them come election time.

Mr Cummins: Was that from South Australia?

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I am not sure where it is from. He sent it to everybody. It is fromVictoria; I do not know whether or not the other emails are from interstate. I know that the lasttime this legislation came before the House when identifying marketeering practices that neededto be addressed, some of my local constituents were caught up in one of these schemes. Theywere not greedy people. They were hardworking people—

Ms Rose interjected.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: They have. It has been quoted that some of the peoplecomplaining about this legislation were described as greedy, willing to double dip, et cetera. Somemay be professional investors who carry on like that. But very many people—

Ms ROSE interjectedMrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I understand that. What about struggling families contacted by

these marketeers? I tell constituents that if it seems too good to be true it usually is. They can beoffered the opportunity to improve their prospects and their children's future. When the clientanswers the questions by saying, 'I cannot afford much in the way of repayments,' the marketeersays, 'But we do not want a deposit, because all it will be is $6 a week.' When the client asks,'How can that be?' they are told, 'Because your rent does this and this; let us come in and talk toyou.' The client, seeing an opportunity not for greed but to improve their lifestyle and the lot oftheir children, then says 'Okay.' So the whole con starts.

Mr Schwarten interjected.Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: When we buy shares in the stock market it is much more

speculative, Minister, than buying a house. The purchase of a house is always much moretangible and legitimate and has historically been the Aussie dream. I accept that these are


investment houses, but many of the people approached to purchase them are just hardworkingcouples who see an opportunity to improve their lot and that is how they are conned into beinginvolved. For those who are career investors with money placed in all sorts of things the loss ofthis money probably has less impact. I feel very sorry for the families who have agreed to investbecause they genuinely were led to believe that they could afford the repayments and that therewould be a return to them both ongoing and in the future as far as resale is concerned.

I understand the member for Southport's criticisms of these solicitors who have written againto us all, but I agree with the member for Southern Downs that many of the issues the solicitorsraised have some validity. The member highlighted the majority of them, so I will not go into that.Because of the retrospectivity that this bill brings into play, the fact that affected people were notconsulted, and that it is difficult to quantify the real impact had the fund been left to grow on thebasis of the funds that were legitimately deposited, I do have some concerns with the legislation.

Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (12.36 p.m.): In rising to speak to the Property Agentsand Motor Dealers Amendment Bill I want to bring to the attention of the House some horrificscams that occur with property holders in my community. Yesterday I received an inquiry onbehalf of a 90-year-old constituent who resides in one of a 16-unit block in Wooloowin in theelectorate of Clayfield. The unit block has a mix of tenants and dwelling owners and theconstituent purchased a unit from Mr Keith Norman who was initially planning to turn the units intoa retirement village style precinct. Unfortunately, the constituent recently had a stroke, is nowgoing into care and is therefore considering the option to sell the unit. I am not sure exactly howlong ago the constituent acquired the unit, but she purchased it at a price of just over $100,000.Mr Norman is now offering to purchase back the constituent's unit and others in the same blockfor a mere $40,000 to $50,000. I find it quite extraordinary how a unit in Wooloowin, a suburb thatwas named Brisbane's top purchasing area for the past three months, as quoted by lastSaturday's Courier-Mail, could possibly be devalued to nearly under 50 per cent of its originalprice. With the enormous unit boom across the city, I would have expected all properties either toincrease or at least maintain their value, especially in Wooloowin.

Now tenants and unit holders are up in arms. I do not blame them. Some have beenresiding there for years and will find it extremely difficult to find other places to reside, let alonebeing pathetically ripped off by an incredibly heartless property purchaser preying on the naivetyand lack of awareness these residents may have. I have strongly encouraged the constituentthrough their power of attorney not to sign any contract until they have sought independent legaladvice. This may be either through a private solicitor or utilising the free legal aid service that hasbeen reintroduced at the Nundah community centre.

I will be active in any way I can, even to the extent of having this block of units valued myselfso that these most precious citizens are not taken advantage of. This behaviour is unruly andpathetic. I strongly encourage all honourable members to increase awareness in the communityabout these slimy property sharks. The bill being debated works on a number of levels but, for mypart, I will do anything I can to alleviate unnecessary angst within my community. I commend thebill to the House.

Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (12.39 p.m.): I am pleased to offer my support to the ministeron this bill. When the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 was introduced, the BeattieLabor government established a claim fund to compensate consumers for losses caused by thedishonest behaviour of motor dealers and property agents. The government regulates motordealers and property agents through a thorough licensing system. In order to obtain a licence,applicants have to pass a range of competency based assessments as well as fitness and prioritytests. Licensees are subject to stringent regulation of their conduct in the act itself and insubordinate legislation such as codes of conduct. Commission rates for residential property arealso subject to a statutory maximum in order to prevent people being ripped off. Consumers aretherefore entitled to expect that they will not be defrauded when dealing with licensees. Inparticular, they are entitled to expect that they will not lose their life savings through trust accountfraud or such practices as the agent or their associates buying the listed properties themselves fora song.

Some marketeers, as we know, set out deliberately to avoid the regulatory structure applyingto real estate agents. These marketeers wanted commissions way above the regulatorymaximum of up to 40 per cent. They posed as investment advisers or tax minimisationconsultants, not as real estate agents. In order to reassure prospective investors about thewisdom of their purchases they normally enlisted corrupt solicitors, valuers or finance brokers.Some banks and lending institutions were only too happy to get in on the act, knowing their loans


were secured against equity in the investor's principal place of residence, also knowing thatproperties were being purchased for way above market value but concealing this information fromtheir customers.

It is a sad reflection on our society that scammers and shysters continue to attempt to fleeceothers. The claim fund was established to compensate consumers defrauded by licensed realestate agents. It should not be used to compensate paper losses incurred by investors misled bypeople who never pretended to be licensees. To do so would only dilute the fund and depreciateits status as well as exposing taxpayers to liabilities they were never intended to bear.Governments, as we know, oversee taxpayer funds and possible liabilities. Oppositions such asthis one are big on rhetoric. They promise the world. We expect little from the opposition and thatis exactly what it delivers.

The bill will ensure that the claim fund will remain to compensate consumers in relation to arange of dishonest behaviours by licensees extending well beyond only propertymarketeering—for example, speedometer tampering, sale of stolen vehicles, fraud in relation tomanagement of rental properties and so on. The taxpayers of Queensland have a right to expectthat their taxes will go to pay for hospitals, schools, police, public housing and so on, not tocompensate investors for paper losses that have not been realised and for which they arereceiving a taxation benefit.

Queensland taxpayers should not be expected to compensate consumers for losses theyhave incurred from investment decisions. In drafting this legislation, I believe our government hasbeen as fair as possible. Those claims already determined by the Property Agents and MotorDealers Tribunal are being paid in full. Our government will still protect consumers purchasing theirfamily home and, for these reasons, I commend the minister. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove—ALP) (12.44 p.m.): The member for Southern Downs, theopposition spokesperson, made a number of points in his speech that I wish to respond to. Firstly,he said that we are denying the rights of people retrospectively. I do not think that is valid,because what is being taken away retrospectively are rights that people think they had but werenever intended. Secondly, he spoke of these claims being legitimate. Again, on that basis, theyare not legitimate. Thirdly, he accused Treasury of putting pressure on the Minister for FairTrading because of budgetary considerations. I suggest that any Treasurer worth his salt wouldnot want hundreds of millions of dollars going to compensate investors for bad investments. Theimpact on Treasury would be quite substantial. I am sure that this legislation had nothing to dowith the Treasurer. It was legislation that the minister, as the responsible minister, would have hadto make.

The member for Southern Downs warned government members to be wary of standing up tojustify these amendments. I am a government member, and the punters in my electorate all wantthese actions to be taken. They all want us to make sure that the moneys that we raise gotowards providing services instead of compensating people for bad investments. The memberalso spoke of repugnant marketeers and the mum and dad victims. That is fairly emotional talk.Sure, there are people who are victims—victims of their own poor judgment, inability to check themarketplace and cope with pressure sales tactics. These are repugnant events. Nevertheless,why should the government pay for that?

The member for Southern Downs failed to distinguish between investors and those whomthe government is supposed to legitimately protect. We have never protected people from theirown bad investments. No government has ever done that. The shareholders of OneTel., HIH andEnron lost unbelievable amounts of money. As the member for Southport said before, theexpectations of people who bought Telstra shares have not been met. They have lost substantialamounts of money—at least 40 per cent to 50 per cent—since they bought those shares. Theywere bought on the advice of the Prime Minister. There is no difference between speculating onproperties or shares. I am surprised at the bleeding heart arguments from the member forSouthern Downs. I have a lot of respect for him as a member, but he demonstrated through hiscontribution on this issue that he is misreading the electorate and misreading the issuecompletely.

There is no legitimate expectation on the part of those who made bad investments that theywill be recompensed for their losses. On the other hand, opposition members have claimed thatthey are all for people taking personal responsibility. They have argued, for example, thatpersonal injury liability should be limited and that we should make people responsible for whatthey do. They want us to minimise the access of that group to the courts. However, they arguethat we should not minimise the access to the courts of mums and dads who make bad


investments. The government does not have access to hundreds of millions of dollars torecompense these people. If it has to pay Paul, it must rob Peter. It is as simple as that.

A substantial number of my constituents have commented to me about the amendments inthis bill. Without exception, they support the principle that Queensland taxpayers should not haveto compensate people for losses incurred from poor investment decisions. The claim fundestablished under the act has been available to compensate consumers for a discrete set ofcontraventions, such as, as the minister stated in her second reading speech, trust account fraudand the purchase of listed property by or on behalf of agents themselves or their associates.These sorts of actions are still protected. Today's amendments are a responsible response torecent court decisions that have allowed claims arising from failed investment schemes—schemeswhich have undoubtedly been marketed by shoddy marketeers intending to deceive.

There is no doubt at all that we should feel sorry for these people who have made baddecisions. I recently bought a property. It took me some time. The property I bought was originallyalmost $50,000 more than what I paid for it. I researched the market. I could have paid theoriginal asking price, but I made an informed decision. I would not expect anybody tocompensate me for that decision even if it had been for an investment, which it was not.

We are talking in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars going down the drain. What impactwould that have on services? Where do we get this money from if we are to do it? We know thatwe are not in the situation where we can fund these sorts of things, so what do we do? Ultimately,that is the question we must ask ourselves. I would like to think that we are a society where wecan be as helpful to people as possible. It would be good if we could say, 'Oh yes, we are sorrythat these people did deceive you. We are going to find this money.' Where are we going to findit? Do we take it from public housing, from disability services, from schools or from hospitals?

I would like to commend the minister with regard to the way in which she has differentiatedbetween investment properties and properties that are owner-occupied dwellings. Capping theamount at $35,000 was obviously essential because we had a situation of people having a firesale. They were trying to sell their properties quickly and not caring what losses they made, sayingthat the state was going to pick up the difference. It was ludicrous to allow that situation tocontinue. There was never any intention to protect people from themselves. The intention was toprotect them from the process that we were there to police. We were policing trust accounts andensuring that real estate agents were meeting their obligations.

These people never purported to be real estate agents; they were marketeers. Theydeceived people. In the end, property investors have to take responsibility for their own actions byobtaining independent legal advice and checking out market prices. They need to check outpotential returns. Unfortunately, too many people accept the proposition of the best set of figures.They are told that the property is let all the time at a high rate. They are told that it is viable. Theyshould always be wary of that because, in the end, it is not possible to work that way when one isan investor. One cannot assume that the best set of figures is going to work in one's interests.

In an interjection to the member for Southern Downs the minister said that when it came tolegitimate claims under the old legislation—the Auctioneers and Agents Act—people were stillcovered up to $200,000. I have a lot of respect for the member for Southern Downs, but I thinkhe is on the wrong tram in objecting to this legislation.

Certainly removing the rights of individuals retrospectively is something that must only bedone after serious consideration. I think the circumstances here warrant the introduction ofretrospective legislation. I think the people demand it. I know that the people I represent want thisbill to pass because they know that people must be responsible for their own actions.Unfortunately, we cannot mollycoddle everybody and protect them from shoddy marketeers. Icommend the bill to the House.

Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (12.54 p.m.): The unfortunate problem is that wefind ourselves in this situation at all. It is not as though we have not all known about this for four orfive years. It is not as though we have not been warning governments of both politicalpersuasions about this matter. It was quite obvious in the Logan area when units were being soldto southern investors. People were supposedly renting the units at very high prices. However,these were dummy people who were renting and, after 12 or 18 months when these people leftthe premises, it was found that the units were nowhere near the value that had been paid forthem.

But still, as governments and politicians, we have been unable to resolve the problem. Quiteobviously this government is embarrassed at having its first and only Property Agents and Motor


Dealers Tribunal marketeer proceedings dismissed with costs on technicalities in May this year.Quite obviously we should be doing better. It means that the government has had to have threeoptions: do nothing and let the fund cope with the flood of claims; cap the amount of futureclaims to protect the fund’s depleted reserves; or plug the loophole allowed in the legislation.Quite obviously, I believe the government should be plugging the loophole that is allowed in thislegislation. Instead of this, we are today looking at retrospective legislation and trying to limit theamount of money that people who are caught in these shams can claim. I would say that someof these people have been caught because the government has allowed these shams tocontinue and has been unsuccessful in stopping the problems that were there.

If that is the case—and I believe it is the case—quite obviously the government has a caseto answer. The incredible spin that seems to be coming from the Department of Fair Trading isthat it is not illegal to sell overpriced property, it is not illegal to go into marketeering and it is notillegal to have these property sharks. If a person is bitten by one of these sharks the governmentis saying that it is their own fault and any successful rescue proves that the laws are working.

It is not as though the Minister for Fair Trading was not warned about this. On 21 August Iput a question on notice to Minister Rose about the property marketeering sharks. I askedwhether their illegal practices were continuing despite the new laws and was her departmentgoing to catch and punish offenders.

A government member interjected.

Mr LINGARD: I did not mean the real estate and anti-marketeering laws that former Ministerfor Fair Trading, Judy Spence, introduced into parliament two years earlier and which took effectin July last year. These did not deter the pack of telemarketeers, financial advisers, real estateagents and solicitors who, barely days after these laws came in, sold a Parkwood townhousevalued at $179,000 for $287,000 to a Melbourne couple; nor did the new laws deter another packof financial, real estate and legal sharks who two months later scammed a Mackay couple on aCoomera townhouse which was overpriced by $35,000. What I meant was the tougher newamending laws speedily passed last September, and twice added to since, to stop, catch and runout of town the marketeering con artists for whom, as the above story shows, it had been prettymuch business as usual after 1 July.

Minister Rose wrote back to me and stated that the Office of Fair Trading, in the year sincethe first amendments, received only four complaints relating to property marketeering activitiesand that in each case the complainants withdrew from their contracts. That does not mean to saythat it was not going on. Quite obviously now, in trying to introduce this legislation, it did go onand we have not been able to stop it. If it is that the government has not been able to stop it, Icannot see how the government can withdraw—

Ms Rose interjected.

Mr LINGARD: It is not as though those scams are not there and have not been there. Thescams are there and have been allowed to continue and our bureaucrats and politicians havebeen unable to stop them.

In his report, the State Ombudsman revealed that his office has an unfinished majorinvestigation into marketeering in the Office of Fair Trading. In last year's report, the report for2000-2001, the Ombudsman said that he was considering complaints by the victims ofmarketeers about the failings of the Office of Fair Trading. He said that his investigators expectedto record interviews with a range of persons over the coming months as they gathered evidence.

In this year's report the marketeering problem appears to be on the Ombudsman'sbackburner because his office is still considering the tribunal and discussing whether it hasjurisdiction to rehear a previously denied claim. He is considering what other redress is available tocomplainants who were long ago scammed by crooks and let down by regulators. Thisinvestigation began before the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act came into effect. Despitethree subsequent anti-marketeering amendments to the act and lots of government hot air aboutstamping out dishonest marketeering practices, marketeering remains alive and well.

I believe that what we are seeing here today is legislation which would not have even had tobe thought about if the government had been able to stop what had been happening. If it wasthat the government had been trying to stop it, I would accept it, but the government hasreported back that it has only received a certain number of complaints—and the minister now tellsme it is only one—and it has been going on and is still there.

Sitting suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.


Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (2.30 p.m.): I rise to support the Property Agents and MotorDealers Amendment Bill 2002. I am pleased to support it because it is a tough thing for us to dobut it is nonetheless the right thing for us to do. Other members who have spoken in this debatehave referred to the purpose for which the claim fund was originally established, and that isabsolutely integral to this bill and the action we are taking. It was originally established tocompensate consumers who had been defrauded by licensed motor dealers and real estateagents.

I want to further expand on that issue, because I believe it goes to the heart of what this billseeks to achieve and it has been poorly understood by those who have put in a claim becausethey think they may have a claim and even by some of those who would appear to have beentheir legal advisers. All bar one of the claims affected by this retrospective legislation arise fromtransactions that took place when the old Auctioneers and Agents Act 1971 was still in force—thatis, before July 2001. Under the old A&A Act, claims against the former Auctioneers and AgentsFidelity Guarantee Fund were determined by the eight-member Auctioneers and AgentsCommittee. Transitional provisions in the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 enable thenew Property Agents and Motor Dealers Tribunal to hear claims brought under the old A&A Act.

Let us look at what the A&A Act sought to achieve in establishing the fidelity fund. It replacedan antique system whereby agents were required to lodge a fidelity bond before they were able tooperate trust accounts. In introducing the legislation, the then minister, Dr Delamothe, said on 26March 1971—... the principal complaint against this system is the inability of a fidelity-bond system to provide a full cover for thepublic in relation to the misappropriation of trust moneys. Instances have occurred where trust creditors have beenable to obtain only as little as 6c in the dollar from the forfeited bond. This system has been replaced in most otherStates with a much more satisfactory system of fidelity funds and the Bill provides for the introduction of a similarsystem in Queensland. The fund to be established will be called the Auctioneers and Agents Fidelity GuaranteeFund and it will be kept in the Treasury.

That is a very important quote, because it quite clearly states that the principal purpose of thefund was to compensate people whose trust accounts had been fraudulently misappropriated bylicensees. This remains the gravest risk to which consumers are exposed since they stand to losethe full value of their properties.

In the second reading speech for the bill of the new act, the then minister, Judy Spence, hadthis to say about the purpose of the new claim fund—Successful claims for financial loss by consumers because of contraventions or other specified wrongs bylicensees, registered employees or relevant persons, as set out in the Bill, will be paid from the fund. However,claims against the fund arising from dealings with property developers will not be allowed.

I want to repeat that last line because it is so important to the debate before the House now—thatis, that 'claims against the fund arising from dealings with property developers will not be allowed'.As first conceived, the new act dealt with marketeers in part by introducing a new system forlicensing property developers, defining them as anyone who sold more than five properties in any12-month period. This was because marketeers avoided having to be licensed as real estateagents by taking a notional stake in the property being sold and enabling them then to pose asowners rather than agents. So the new act specifically excludes claims arising from the class oflicensees seen at the time as likely to cover marketeers.

The former Auctioneers and Agents Committee rejected a number of marketeering claims onthe basis that they were not covered by the then act because marketeers were not and did notpretend to be licensed real estate agents. The problem, however, has arisen from provisions inthe old act replicated in the new act which were designed to allow claims to proceed where aperson pretended to be or posed as a licensee—say, for example, where a licensee's licencerenewal had not been paid. It should not be up to the consumer to check that an agent's licenceis current, and both the old and new acts recognise this by allowing claims where a person has'acted as' a licensed real estate agent. What has happened is that the new tribunal has reversedthis interpretation. In so doing, it determined that because marketeers were performing at leastsome of the functions of real estate agents they were acting as real estate agents.

This interpretation reversed the commonly accepted interpretation and exposed the claimfund to claims arising from investors in marketeered properties. It was clearly well outside theintention of the legislation. The handful of claims in existence at the time of the tribunal's Gordondecision in April this year soon mushroomed into 500 claims as lawyers chased prospectiveclaimants, many of whom it seems had no idea that they may have lost money in the first place.Given the sheer volume of claims presently lodged, it would be ruinous for the government to


meet them all and would place in jeopardy the whole concept of having a claim fund to protectconsumers from the financial ruin that would flow from trust account fraud.

I have received several emails from residents of southern states who are of the belief thatthey have been duped by marketeers in Queensland. In their emails they have very clearlyexpressed their disappointment over what now appears to them to be a claim that they will not beable to make against this act and against the Queensland government. Some of their statementsare quite extreme, but there is one in particular I want to read to members of the House becauseit does imply that even though the great majority of lawyers behave in a professional fashionothers involved in this particular business may have been misleading their clients. An email fromMs Jo Goodman from Windsor in Victoria states—We wrote a very detailed (28 page) report to our lawyers on our whole experience, hoping to claim back some ofour lost investment, and were very pleased to find out that the Queensland government had set up a fund especiallyfor interstate Australians like us who did invest (naively as it turns out), having done our research, in theQueensland property market.

The implication is that it is that person's lawyer who gave them that information that Queenslandhad set this fund up especially for this purpose. Of course, if that is so, the lawyer is eitherignorant or deliberately misled his or her clients.

I nonetheless do understand the disappointment that people must feel. The truth is that theymade a bad investment, lost some money and had some brief hope for a while that maybe theQueensland government would bail them out. While I understand their disappointment, theynonetheless have to face the fact that the first and foremost fault is in their own investmentdecision. Should there be marketeers—con men—fleecing people, whether in Queensland orfrom southern states? No. Is there any government in this fair country of Australia or around theworld that has managed to rid itself of all scam merchants? The answer is no, and the fact thatthis government has not managed to do that is no surprise. Will there be more scams inQueensland or Victoria or New South Wales or Austria or the United States next year? Nothingsurer; that is life. As fast as any government attempts to shut the door on such schemes, othersunfortunately will be developed.

I recognise the disappointment for these people and the significant loss of funds for some ofthem, but I also ask them to consider that if the boot were on the other foot—if it was a matter forthem to sit in the parliament of Victoria and know that some Queensland residents had lostmoney due to some scam merchants in Victoria—would they be so disposed to hand out theirgovernment's moneys? Would they be so disposed if they were people such as me who get callsday after day for all kinds of worthy projects in my community, as do other members of thisparliament, and would they instead wish to devote those funds to making residents of otherstates feel better about their own bad investment? I am sure their answer would be no.

In the end, the government really should be commended for taking this hard action. We areintroducing responsible measures and we are by this bill returning the claim fund to the purposefor which it was intended.

Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (2.40 p.m.): I am pleased to support the minister'sintroduction of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Amendment Bill. Prior to the changes inthis bill, Queensland consumers who purchased an investment residential property were in a win-win situation. If the marketeer was honest, a consumer stood to make an advantageous andpotentially profitable acquisition of property. However, if the marketeer committed an offence inconnection with that purchase and the consumer suffered a loss or even looked like suffering aloss, substantial compensation could be claimed to cover that. Meanwhile, the investor's losseswere all tax deductible.

In other words, investors received tax benefits of many thousands of dollars but were theneligible to claim the full amount of their paper loss without having to realise it through selling theproperty and they could still go on claiming the deductions. Not only that, the compensationoffered by the tribunal included amounts for interest they could have earned on the amount hadthey invested it rather than spent it in overpayment to the marketeers—win-win-win. Then, ifproperty values went up they could eventually make a capital gain on their investment—win-win-win-win. And if that was not enough, they could then also claim the legal costs associated withrunning the claim—win-win-win-win-win. It must have seemed like the Queensland governmentwas thrusting cash into their pockets like Eddie Murphy in Brewster's Millions—a bonanza forinvestors and lawyers but a black day for taxpayers. No responsible government could haveallowed this to go on and I congratulate the minister on acting promptly.


The bill may be a result of the huge financial burden that the dishonesty of a small numberof persons has caused this state and its people, but it also recognises that Queensland can nolonger support a compensation system that covers consumers for investment risks. No other statehas such a system, and this present unsustainable drain on the claim fund is the reason. It wasnever the intention of the present act or its predecessor that the claim fund would be applied toremoving investors' risk. It was never anyone's intention that the government should guaranteesuccessful investment outcomes in Gold Coast property speculation.

In taking this action the government is ensuring that the claim fund will be there tocompensate people suffering as a result of fraud committed by real estate agents and motordealers. That was the intention of the present act and remains a proper role for government. Theclaim fund is the solid foundation of this state's system of regulation of the real estate industry. Ifpeople have their trust funds fraudulently misappropriated, they will continue to have access tothe claim fund to fully compensate them, up to the cap of $200,000. The same is true for a widerange of other offences committed by licensed real estate agents, motor dealers, auctioneers andpastoral houses. This bill will ensure that the claim fund continues to be available for the purposesintended and to the people it was intended to compensate.

We constantly hear in this place, and indeed out in our electorates, the view that peoplemust where possible take responsibility for their own actions. If the state is to have the financialresources to provide the hospitals, the schools, the roads and the services that are so essential,then we cannot allow tens of millions of dollars to go on guaranteeing property investments forlargely interstate speculators.

Opposition members come into this place and make contradictory and economically illiteratecalls, and the same failings are in evidence here again today. Their opposition to this billhighlights their lack of credibility on the basics of fiscal policy. On the one hand the Leader of theOpposition rails against any budget deficit. He has constantly attacked the government forrunning a deficit and yet also constantly calls for more spending—more roads, more hospitals andmore schools. The opposition's economic policies seem to have been written by 'Jekyll and HydeConsultants'.

Opposition members attack deficit budgeting yet call for increased expenditure and opposeall taxes, fees and charges rises. They want the government to spend more money but not raiseany more money. Indeed, it is a sort of holy trinity of economic illiteracy which says, 'We wantincreased capital works and services but we oppose budget deficits, we oppose taxationincreases and we oppose limiting expenditure.' Something has to give, and what has given,irretrievably, is the opposition's economic credibility.

Here we have the government moving quite properly to close off an open-ended andunintended liability that could bleed almost $37 million out of the public coffers, yet the deficit-hating opposition opposes this bill. They would argue that the government should stand back andjust let $37 million be spent and then the next time parliament meets stand up and attack thegovernment for letting the deficit blow out by $37 million.

This morning during private members' statements the Leader of the Opposition describedthe government as 'custodians of the public finances'. He is of course completely correct. Yethere we are on the very same day with the opposition saying, 'Just let the public finances bleed.'The opposition simply has no credibility on economic management.

This bill ensures that compensation does remain available for those consumers who areripped off by fraudulent real estate agents and motor dealers. It is responsible legislation and Icongratulate the minister on her grit, responsibility and integrity in bringing this issue to a head. Icommend the bill to the House.

Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (2.45 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Property Agents and MotorDealers Amendment Bill 2002. I note that this bill will have retrospective effect in removing theright to claim compensation, available under current legislation to many people in Queensland. Inote that in the minister's second reading speech she advised that the majority of the claimsrelate to pre July 2001 transactions under the old Auctioneers and Agents Act 1971.

Without embarking on a witch-hunt, all I ask is: who the heck in the department has beensitting on this time bomb, hoping that it will not go off and burn someone? That there is presentlyin excess of $36.8 million worth of claims against the fund is simply staggering, as is the fact thateffectively all of the claims relate to pre July 2001 transactions under the old Auctioneers andAgents Act 1971. It is simply unbelievable.


I cannot comprehend how some of the well-paid bureaucrats in secure jobs have ignoredwhatever warning signals they have been receiving that something is significantly wrong with thesystem. Ministers and politicians are all accountable for their actions. I believe it is high time thatsome of our well-paid bureaucrats are reminded that they are not in a comfort zone and theyshould be held accountable for their stuff-up, to put it mildly.

Often we hear how reluctant governments are to introduce retrospective laws on a wholerange of topics, yet here we see that the key reason this government is prepared to introduce thisretrospective legislation, notwithstanding that it impacts on the rights and liberties of individuals, isthe cost of the claims to the fund.

I understand that the government has the numbers on the floor of parliament and that thisbill will be passed in due course. I also understand that, notwithstanding the removal of many ofthe current claimants' rights under the current legislation, they will be able to proceed with civilcases through the courts. What support will the minister be providing to these claimants throughthe courts in light of the fact that the state government has received significant windfalls throughthe stamp duty taxes that were paid by many of these claimants when they purchased the unitsor the properties in question? I await the minister's response to this question before deciding howI will vote on this bill.

Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (2.48 p.m.): The objective of the Property Agents andMotor Dealers Amendment Bill is to restore the viability and limit the financial liability of the claimfund set up under the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000. It is to prevent a claim typeknown as marketeer claims. There is to be a cap placed on the compensation that can be paidout to eligible claims of $35,000. There is a time limit of 12 months for notification and six yearswithin which to sell a relevant property under the act. What is causing heartburn is theretrospectivity aspect of the bill and the fact, therefore, that certain current claimants and futurepotential claimants will miss out.

Of course, we all have a concern when legislation is introduced containing retrospectiveprovisions and the loss of legal rights. Therefore, one has to balance those concerns with otherfactors that exist, the first of which is the extent of the problem itself. We have heard that thecurrent claims have a potential quantum of $36.8 million, but the minister has said in her secondreading speech that the potential claims could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars—morethan the budget of several portfolios of the government itself. Therefore, from that point of view,clearly the government has to be financially responsible in this instance.

Secondly, the losses that we are referring to in terms of the retrospective provision occurredas a result of the activity of marketeers as opposed to licensed real estate agents, whom we havecome to know them to be. As the minister points out, it was always the intention of thegovernment to protect the public with respect to their dealings with licensed real estate agentsacting in the normal course of licensed real estate agents. It was not envisaged that the fundwould be set up to protect persons with respect to investments via marketeers. On that basis, theprotection that exists, and will continue to exist, relates to licensed real estate agents with respectto the purchase of residences that will be owner-occupied, but not with respect to investmentactivity.

It is surely not reasonable to expect the Queensland taxpayer to underwrite this form ofspeculation. People trading on the stock market and other forms of investment activities do nothave the comfort of a government, be it the federal government or the state government,protecting them in this regard. Therefore, I think that it is entirely reasonable, notwithstanding theconcerns about retrospectivity and the loss of legal rights, for the government and the minister totake the view that has been taken.

The minister said in her second reading speech that there comes a time when consumershave to take responsibility themselves. Recently, we heard that call with respect to personalinjuries legislation. The opposition in particular has called for people to take responsibility for theirown actions. I remind the National Party that what is good on one account should be equally asgood on the other.

Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (2.52 p.m.): It is a pleasure to rise to make a contribution to theProperty Agents and Motors Dealers Amendment Bill. I am certainly not going to revisit a lot ofthe points that have been raised by other members from this side. However, I would like to saythat I endorse the comments of the member for Ashgrove with regard to the retrospectivityprovisions that are contained within the amendment bill. Whilst I am not a great supporter ofretrospectivity, I believe that in this case it is certainly warranted. In doing that, the minister hastaken the necessary steps that I believe should be supported by all members of the House.


I would like to say a couple of things. First of all, I am a little bit disappointed by thecomments of a Logan solicitor, Mr Tim O'Dwyer, which were reported in the Gold Coast Bulletin onWednesday, 27 November. I understand that O'Dwyer is an advocate for victims of shonky realestate agents and property dealers. That is commendable. I am glad to see that someone in thecommunity is prepared to speak up on their behalf. Mr O'Dwyer, in commenting on the victims ofshonky Gold Coast real estate marketeers, said that victims were now being shafted by agovernment that had promised them redress. I do not believe that the government was ever inthe business of protecting people who had made investments where there was a definite risk. MrO'Dwyer went on to state that the victims were—... tricked and they were trapped, and they were conned and deceived, and they trusted real estate agents, financialbrokers, banks and solicitors.

Mr O'Dwyer stated further—The government did little to warn them and has not stopped the crooks yet.

I just think that comment is a bit rich, coming from a solicitor who is in a position to be well awareof the crooks who are operating in the real estate and property area.

I wonder what Mr O'Dwyer is really suggesting. Is he suggesting that the government shouldsomehow involve itself in the day-to-day decision-making activities of people? Is Mr O'Dwyersuggesting that taxpayers should refund losses incurred because of the inability of an investor torealise or understand when they are being conned? I would really like to see people such as MrO'Dwyer, who puts himself up as an advocate for victims, encourage solicitors, the good realestate agents and the property developers who are sincere and fair dinkum about what they aredoing to join together as one force to expose those grubs who have no compassion for people orunderstanding of the damage that they do and the misery that they cause to families right acrossthis state and in other parts of Australia. This is not just a Queensland problem; it exists rightacross the country.

The minister is 100 per cent spot on in saying that taxpayers should not pay for the baddecisions made by investors. I am of the view that the minister should be congratulated on herstand on this issue. It is a courageous stand. I notice that she has copped a lot of flak because ofwhat we are doing today. That flak has been unfair and unwarranted. This is a good decision andit has to have the support of the House.

The people who make decisions about investments must realise that, from the time theymake that decision, it is a gamble. It is either about making money or losing money. If I make amistake because of the people I choose to deal with, then it is my problem. I cannot expect to becompensated if there is a mistake. If I punt on a horse and the horse loses because it did notperform to my expectations, I cannot expect the bookmakers or the TAB to refund my outlay. Thetaxpayers in this state want their taxes spent on health, education, law and order, emergencyservices—all of those things that we deal with on a daily basis—and they do not want their moneyused to compensate people who have, by choice, made the wrong decision.

People such as Mr O'Dwyer could better serve his cause by targeting the crooks who operatein the real estate and property market. I encourage him to do that—to come forward, put theinformation on the table, tell us who the crooks are, and then see if we can do anything aboutthem. The grubs—the low-lifes—who operate in this industry drag down those decent, honestoperators who have standards and work hard to establish their business based on honesty. Thegood guys know the bad guys. They know how they operate. They know the lousy tricks that theyplay on people looking to invest for their own security, both in the short and long term. It is abouttime that the so-called good operators got off their backsides, took action and providedinformation to assist the government and other agencies to do their job.

The Leader of the Liberal Party, Bob Quinn, said in the same article that I referred toearlier—If the person who is the investor is being scammed and that scam is being able to be perpetrated because of a laxstate government legislation regime, then there ought to be some way in which the person who is being ripped offcan have the same redress through the legislation.

I would be interested to hear what Mr Quinn proposes because, like it or not, it should not bethe taxpayers' responsibility to pay compensation for people who make the wrong decisions aboutan investment. Mr O'Dwyer said that the state government did little to warn investors. I do notagree with him on that. There are always warnings from the minister about the need to be carefulwhen signing up to investment portfolios. Just about every week there is some sort of message


from the minister's office with regard to warning people about investment shonks and those grubsout there who target people who do not understand what they are getting themselves involved in.

I have a great deal of experience of this in my electorate. Unfortunately, I have heard onmany occasions of people getting ripped off simply because of the deal presented to them. Thereis a saying that rings true when we hear about the sad endings to some of these situations—if itlooks too good to be true, it usually is. My experience in the coalfields puts me a strong positionwith regard to tax-driven investment opportunities. Despite the warnings from the AustralianSecurities Commission, the minister's office, local union delegates and myself as local member, Istill see people getting ripped off. People just do not think clearly when investing their money.They look at the investment opportunity for the wrong reasons.

Unfortunately, in many cases in the coalfields I have seen people ruined for the rest of theirlives simply because they did not think through such investments. They did not get the rightadvice or sit down and talk to people to discuss the long-term and short-term outcomes. They justsimply took up the investment for the wrong reasons. Every year the people in coal towns incentral Queensland are targeted because they are high income earners who have extra money toinvest. They are contacted by sales representatives from schemes investing in real estate,property development, film making, ostrich farming and tree plantations.

I could go to any coal community in my electorate and find people who have been affectedand who are damaged for the rest of their lives paying off bills today to the Tax Department orpaying back money they have borrowed when they do not have anything to put their handsaround as being theirs. Every year I am approached by constituents who tell me heartbreakingstories of their involvement in schemes causing them financial hardship because of the way thescheme was structured. Many of these people are losing the money they have invested, moneywhich has been borrowed. It is a noose around the neck.

I can remember a situation where I received a telephone call from a gentleman in Blackwaterwho was talking about suicide. It was a two-hour drive for me to that community and I did notknow what to expect when I got there. He said, 'If the police come around I will end it now; I justneed someone like you to talk to.' That poor bloke is still paying off that bill today. This happenedsome eight or nine years ago. It does enormous damage to people. It does enormous damageto families. It is just an unacceptable situation that must be corrected. The only way that we canreally stop it is for these potential investors to think about what they are doing and to get advice.Do not just sign on that dotted line and hope that everything works out. I have consistentlywarned mine workers of the risks, but unfortunately people still are being caught investing withcompanies which put up front salespeople who, fair dinkum, could sell ice to the Eskimos or sandto the Arabs. They are smooth-talking, ruthless and lacking in compassion for those who sign onthe dotted line.

While not apologising for the grubs who prey on well-meaning workers and their families, Imust be honest and say that, yes, there are some decent such people out there and we shouldnot say that they all are the same. It is really about identifying those who are fair dinkum andwhom we can trust. I have even seen situations where, although letters appear to be signed bythe Taxation Office, when we look at them closely we see that the taxation letterhead has beenphotocopied onto them. I have seen letters from solicitors and accountants where those sorts ofthings have happened. These crooks get a letter from a solicitor, an accountant or the TaxationOffice, put the letterhead over the top and then write in their own wording. They are out there. It isa sad situation. A lot of people have been seriously affected.

The legislation that the minister has introduced must get the full support of the House,because it is just one step in moving forward and making sure that the consumers of Queenslandhave the protection that they deserve. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (3.06 p.m.): It has beeninteresting to hear the speeches this afternoon. Talk about the road to Damascus! When theProperty Agents and Motor Dealers Act was originally introduced members opposite were wailingabout the problems. We supported that particular bill to ensure that those people were not everagain caught by these scams. But now, some half a year later, this bill introduces retrospectivity. Ittreats these people almost like dirt. It takes away all the principles of justice. More than that, it is abill which has been introduced—again with no consultation—into parliament in the last week ofsittings when it should not even be debated as it has not sat on the table for 13 days. It will bepushed through the sausage machine in the pre-Christmas days and then it is hoped thateverybody will go away and forget about it.


I never heard such breathtaking hypocrisy as I heard this afternoon from the people whowould normally speak up on behalf of the battlers and people who have been hard done by. Wemust bear in mind that this was not about people making a bad investment decision. This wasabout people who made inquiries but who were caught and deceived all along the line, whetherby a marketeer, a bank, a valuer, a lawyer or a real estate agent. These were good, honestpeople looking either to buy themselves a place to live in or a place for investment. In the main,these were people who were trying to set themselves up with something that would help them intheir retirement. All along the way they were caught in this deliberate and organised chain. Howcan it be said that it was people making a bad investment when they sought the advice of avaluer, hopefully the good advice of a bank, a solicitor and a real estate agent, all of whom weredoing the same things? This set of circumstances is different from someone not making the rightdecision when purchasing a property that they thought would grow in capital value and in whichthey would retire or sell to help pay for their retirement.

I wish we had heard members of the Labor Party refer to 'buyer beware' when we firstdebated this legislation. Because of the Labor Party's arguments about what such claims wouldcost the government and that the fund was never set up to help people caught by these sorts ofscams, it would have been fairer not to allow for such claims at that point. Then it might have hadsome legitimacy, justice and fairness. But to introduce this retrospectively as the governmentsuddenly finds that, because of its raids on the fund over the years and the changes to the waythe fund operates, all the money has been taken out of it and to treat these people in such anunjust way simply because it wants to make financial arrangements to suit itself is not on. Theamendments will have a retrospective effect and will apply to all relevant marketeering relatedclaims that have been made or could be made prior to or after the date of the cabinet authority tointroduce these amendments.

On 14 November 2000, in his second reading address then opposition minister and formermember for Indooroopilly Denver Beanland advised the parliament of his serious concerns inrelation to the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Bill. In exposing his concerns on that day, MrBeanland was somewhat prophetic. He identified that the Labor Party had for a long time wantedto get its hands on the Auctioneers and Agents Fidelity Guarantee Fund and he supported thisstatement by exposing how the minister had succumbed to the Treasury officials' pressure. MrBeanland recognised that Treasury officials would be delighted with the new arrangementsprovided under that bill but that others would be seriously disadvantaged by the ramifications ofthe bill. He said—I am sure that the arrangements for establishing the new Claim Fund will leave a lot of people unhappy. The nextdevelopment will be that Treasury will attempt through legislation or regulation to restrict the claims made againstthe fund. Treasury will seek to narrow the opportunities for claims. After all, these claims will now be fundedthrough consolidated revenue. The current level of funding of $40m to $50m will no longer exist. I remember it wasnot so many years ago that there was $100m in the fund. Because these funds will no longer be set aside—I thinkthe Treasury would use the term 'lazy money' to describe them—any claims will now have to be met through what iscalled a claim fund, which will come out of consolidated revenue.

That was the difference. A claim fund arrangement was put in place, with the money to come outof consolidated revenue. There was no longer an amount put aside and carefully looked after sothat when a rainy day like this came along there was something to help people who had been thevictims of fraud, whether through problems with trust accounts, problems in dealings with realestate agents or, in this case, being caught out by a systematic and chain-like style of fraud.

The courts have been admitting these cases to the tribunal because they comply with theexisting act. That does not mean that they would be able to get all or any of the amount of theirclaims. They still had to go before the tribunal. To say that there could be hundreds of millions ofdollars is a furphy or a lame excuse from Labor Party members who want to support thekneecapping of people caught in this long chain of scams.

Mr Beanland went on further to state—The current funds will be transferred to Treasury, and that will enable the Government to balance its Budget, at theexpense of industry groups and consumers. It is the consumers who will be disadvantaged by this move. The fundis set up for consumers ... At the end of the day, I am sure that the new Claim Fund will not be sufficient to meet thepayments required, so additional moneys will be required from the Consolidated Fund. If that is the case, as I amsure it will be, Treasury will be required to find the money out of consolidated revenue. It will not be very happywith that, so it will be looking at narrowing the scope for claims.

Probably the most prophetic comment made by the former member for Indooroopilly was—The next development will be that Treasury will attempt through legislation or regulation to restrict the claims madeagainst the fund.


That is precisely why we are debating these amendments today. The minister charged with theresponsibility for administering this act has been forced by Treasury to make these amendmentsthat restrict the redress available to the victims of this systematic, chronic and chain-like style offraud. It is a shocking indictment on the minister in particular but also other Labor members fromthis arrogant and disappointing government.

Last year when amendments to the act were being debated, the parliament had a line-up ofLabor Party members who wailed about the injustices that had been inflicted on their respectiveconstituents by unscrupulous marketeers. We heard from the member for Ipswich, who outlinedthe plight of a couple who had purchased a Gold Coast unit falsely valued at $178,000 only tofind that in the real marketplace the unit would fetch approximately $120,000—some $50,000less than the marketeers' valuation. The member for Ipswich advised the parliament that she wastrying to help these people. She advised that 'it may be possible for them to access assistancethrough the claim fund'. I wonder which way she will vote today. Where does the member forIpswich stand? If she supports this bill, she further victimises their constituents by seriously limitingtheir access to compensation or, in the case of an investor, eliminating it altogether.

Other members who wailed about injustices inflicted on their constituents by the marketeersand the chain underneath the marketeering system included the members for Burleigh, Mansfieldand Mundingburra, who had a dreadfully sad story to tell about a Townsville woman who hadpurchased two townhouses at Deception Bay. The member for Mundingburra was particularlyconcerned about this poor woman who held two jobs to accumulate enough funds to acquire aninvestment property which was to provide her with financial independence in her retirement.Unfortunately, this woman was a victim of an unscrupulous marketeer and she paid some$70,000 too much. What does the member for Mundingburra have to say in the parliamenttoday? How will she advise her constituent that she will be further victimised but this time by thegovernment and by the member for Mundingburra voting with it to victimise that constituentfurther? This bill will prevent a claim being made by this constituent, who has suffered a loss as aresult of a marketeer committing a contravention, because her purchases were for investmentpurposes. What does the member for Mundingburra have to say and will she be wholeheartedlysupporting this bill?

The hypocrisy of Labor members in this place is overwhelming. How they can sleep at nightis beyond comprehension. The Property Agents and Motor Dealers Amendment Bill 2002 isdiscriminatory and leaves victims with legitimate claims against marketeers out in the coldbecause the Beattie government cannot afford justice. The bill will strip from people who have losttheir homes and savings through buying an investment property from a marketeer the right toseek compensation and, where it applies to a residential home, claims will be capped at $35,000.

The government is attempting to justify this action by saying that claims against thecompensation fund stand at $36.8 million, which is code for the fact that the Beattie governmenthas clocked up $1.7 billion in debt over the past two years from its budget deficits and nowcannot afford basic justice for people who have been victims of these rip-off merchants. Anotherworrying trait of this legislation is the fact that there was no consultation with any marketeeringvictim or the REIQ before this bill was introduced into parliament—an all-too familiar trend for thisarrogant government drunk on the power of its 44-seat majority. The government must not robpeople retrospectively of their rights to claim compensation. The legislation should not be debatedtoday, nor should it be pushed through with the haste we see today. The government should beapologising to all of the marketeering victims for this greedy and heartless exercise. Laborbackbenchers who outlined the plight of their respective constituents—

Mr Fouras: Come on!

Mr HORAN: The member for Ashgrove is always talking about justice and fairness. I wouldlike to hear what he has to say about this. The members for Ipswich, Mansfield, Burleigh andMundingburra in particular should be displaying their commitment to their constituents by crossingthe floor and voting against this wicked and vile bill.

In 1991 the parliament witnessed the then Labor government raiding the Auctioneers andAgents Fidelity Guarantee Fund by amending the act to enable the government to fund itshousing assistance programs, among other uses. The fund existed for the purpose of reimbursingpeople who had suffered pecuniary losses through certain actions of businesses regulated underthe act. As outlined by my colleague the member for Southern Downs earlier today, the balanceof funds held in the fund peaked at $101 million in 1991. Amendments to the act in 1991enabled the funds to be used for a broad range of purposes, including the costs of administering


the act. That effectively means the government raided the fund to pay for its public servants whowere responsible for implementing the provisions of the act.

According to the findings of the internal audit report of the Auctioneers and Agents FidelityGuarantee Fund conducted by Worrell Whitehill Chartered Accountants, the fund was declining ata rate of approximately $5 million annually and by 2006 the fund would have been depleted if thecurrent levels of income and expenditure were maintained. Instead of the government actingresponsibly and ceasing its draw down, the government launched an unmitigated assault againstinvestors in the Queensland property market. That action has revictimised the victims and rendersthis government no better than the unscrupulous marketeers that the government sought topunish initially. The opposition has no alternative other than to object to and vote most stronglyagainst this bill.

Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (3.20 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to rise to support thelegislation. Before coming to the substance of the bill, I would like to refute the claims of theLeader of the Opposition. This is the second time in less than a week that the Leader of theOpposition has come into the Chamber and accused me of not representing my constituents. Iproved on Friday, by tabling documents, that the Leader of the Opposition was in error in theremarks that he made in his speech on the discrimination bill. Today, I challenge him to tabledocuments which show that members on this side of the Chamber, including myself, said thatvictims of marketeers had access to this fund.

On the last occasion, we voted against the practice of the marketeers. That is what wesupported in the previous bill and our speeches were directed to that end. I challenge the Leaderof the Opposition—perhaps in the committee stage—to show where we said in our speeches thatwe would give the assets of the fund to people who have been affected by marketeers. He willnot be able to find any such reference. I am still waiting for the Leader of the Opposition toapologise for Friday's remarks. I am sure I will be left waiting for him to table documents on thisoccasion. It was pure rhetoric.

The Leader of the Opposition has had plenty of assistance in writing his speech. I would notbe surprised if he was assisted in the writing of his speech by people who are presently in thegallery. No doubt we will find out about that shortly.

I would like to commend the minister for introducing the bill. The Leader of the Oppositionhas made much of the alleged raids on the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Claim Fund. Inthe Gold Coast Bulletin, the member for Southern Downs called it state sponsored highwayrobbery. If that is robbery, the member for Southern Downs is a modern day bushranger, as aresome of his colleagues, including the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Liberal Party,the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Southern Downs were ministers in the Borbidgegovernment. The member for Caloundra was the Treasurer who authorised use of the funds. Themember for Moggill was Minister for Housing. He was the man who used the funds.

The Borbidge government appropriated almost $30 million from the then fidelity fund duringits short two and a half years in office. In 1996-97 we saw $15 million taken out and $14 million in1997-98. Nearly $20 million of this money was directed to public housing. While we applaudassistance to public housing, perhaps those opposite should tell their friends in Canberra that weneed money for public housing. That is another matter. It was acceptable for the coalition but it isnot acceptable for the Labor government. The hypocrisy of those opposite is breathtaking.

The interest earned from the trust account is taxpayers' money—money that the governmentis using to help taxpayers. The fact that it formerly went into a special purpose fund is neither herenor there. How the government accounts for that money is nothing more than an administrativedecision of the government. The majority of the appropriations in the past were used to buildpublic hospitals for Queensland battlers—the people most in need. This is still the case with theinterest earned from the trust account. Since the 1991-92 financial year, $131.1 million has goneinto housing assistance to help the battlers enjoy a better quality of life.

Just last week in this chamber the Minister for Public Works and Housing revealed that thereare more than 28,000 on the public housing waiting list in Queensland. He said there were almost4,500 listed on the Gold Coast and another 2,153 in Logan. One of the biggest waiting lists wasin the area of Brisbane South which covers my area. We have heard that in some casesapplicants have been told that they will have to wait for up to 10 years. They have filled in theform and are now waiting for a miracle to occur which will shorten the wait. The bottom line is thatthe state government is the only level of government that is committed to public housing, unlike


the federal counterparts of the member for Caloundra and the member for Robina. The state isbeing left to grapple with what is a major issue and a major problem.

We are starting to feel the full weight of almost seven years of the Howard government'sfunding cuts and high taxes. The public housing situation was affected by the generosity—and Iuse the term cynically—of members opposite who gave up more than $130 million of the housingbudget to the newly elected Howard government in 1996 for the deficit reduction program. That$130 million has never been put back in. The people of Mansfield are crying out for publichousing. Those opposite say, 'No, the federal government should not be putting it in.' Now theyare saying that the state government should not be putting it in, either. This state governmentlooks after those most in need, namely the thousands of low income earners and those on thepublic housing waiting list. We on the government side make no apology for doing what we can tohelp the most needy.

Other moneys from the fund have come back to the Office of Fair Trading and itspredecessor. Over $50 million has been spent on consumer and investor education campaigns,compliance checks and enforcement of legislation. I do not think there is any department in theQueensland government that has as much credibility as the Office of Fair Trading. The office isstrongly regarded as being consumer-friendly, as is the minister. There is no department inQueensland that receives as much credit as the Office of Fair Trading. That credit is well and trulydeserved because the officers of that department do excellent work in the community. Thismoney is being well spent to protect the consumer and to raise business standards and ethics. Itis directed at increasing the confidence of consumers in the marketplace.

Compensation of the order of $1 million has been paid out of the fund annually. Thepayment of these claims has reassured the public that they will not lose money entrusted to realestate agents in the course of property transactions. They provide a solid foundation for publicconfidence in the real estate industry.

The action the government took last week was for one reason, and one reason only: toprotect the taxpayers of Queensland from a massive compensation payout which could have runinto hundreds of millions of dollars. The government has a responsibility to the taxpayers. If thegovernment had not moved to protect the taxpayers from this massive compensation bill—themajority of which would have been for investors from outside Queensland—we would have beennegligent in our duty to protect the interests of Queenslanders. This bill is in the best interests ofQueensland taxpayers.

The Leader of the Opposition also asked about our constituents. May I say that I have apersonal friend who openly admits that he was conned by one of the marketeers in selling twohouses. That person is well aware of this legislation and has not contacted me. I am sure that ifhe believed we were doing the right thing he would have contacted me to say so. He has not. Iam sure he does not expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for his mistake.

I am sure many members of this House, including those opposite, have managed funds.Over the last 18 months they have probably lost a fair amount of money. Because of 11September, we do not say that we have a claim against the federal government or any othergovernment. We make our own decisions and we have to accept them.

I am pleased to offer support to the minister. I note with interest that the loudest bleatingsabout this legislation have come from solicitors. That should not surprise us, considering that theystood to make millions of dollars out of what must have appeared to be the compensation gravytrain. All the letters we received were written by solicitors. These greedy, ambulance chasingsolicitors are listening very closely to this debate. I would not even be surprised if they are up inthe public gallery. All they are interested in is what is going to hit them on the bottom line. Theyare not interested in their clients.

That is why the public gallery is full of electors. Of course it is not! It probably contains acouple of solicitors who were involved in this scheme. I remind members that marketeering couldnot have developed to the extent that it did without the involvement of the crooked members ofthe legal fraternity. I am not for a minute saying that all lawyers are crooks.

An opposition member interjected. Mr REEVES: The honourable member is supporting the ambulance chasing lawyers. Some

lawyers did form an integral link in the marketing claims. Without the involvement of some ofthese lawyers in this whole chain of things it would not have got off the ground and we would nothave these poor investors who have been hurt by the marketeers.


Certain lawyers lined up to line their pockets with their share of the scam, and now they wantto line their pockets with another form of the scam by ambulance chasing. Prostituting theirprofessional standards, they reassured anxious prospects that everything was aboveboard. Asthe minister said in her letter to the Law Society, these lawyers were like the Judas goat at theabattoir, leading consumers to the financial slaughter. More recently we have seen another lot oflawyers recognising the potential to make a financial killing once the Property Agents and MotorDealers Tribunal ruled on the first test case, as I said previously. The solicitors saw it as money forjam, and that is why they are so upset about it.

We are not getting calls from investors; we are getting form letters from solicitors chasingmoney for jam. They actively recruited anyone they could find who had bought an investmentproperty on the Gold Coast in recent years. Little did it matter that the tribunal judgment went waybeyond the intention of the legislation which established both the fidelity fund and the claim fund.They just wanted a share in the spoils, as members can tell by the number of people in the publicgallery. I say to these law firms: if you are so willing to help your clients, make a case forcompensation on their behalf in the superior court. Sue for compensation for loss.

I noted with interest the letters to the editor posted in the Courier-Mail following theintroduction of the bill. A number of them supported what the government has done. Thesepeople did not believe that they should compensate those who fell victims to marketeers. Thatdoes not mean that they do not sympathise with those people; we all sympathise with them. As Isaid, a very close personal friend of mine fell victim to marketeers after buying two houses on thecoast. Rather, those who wrote letters to the Courier-Mail do not think that taxpayers should makegood these people's claimed losses. We do sympathise with them. No-one likes to see anyonetaken for a ride, and that is why the minister introduced this legislation. However, I have seen littleevidence that people duped by marketeers are willing to accept any of the blame.

I must say that some people have admitted that they got conned and they should havebeen wiser, but for some it is all too easy to blame the government. It is also all too easy forsolicitors to blame the government because they want to line their pockets. What people shouldremember is that the government did take action when it became aware of the extent ofmarketeering. The former Minister for Fair Trading initiated a summit on the Gold Coast in 1999and then commissioned a report into the problem. She had her department draft major legislationaimed at stopping the crooks. That legislation became law last year. For people to say that thegovernment is culpable is far from the truth. When the marketeers found a way around the newlaws, the current minister took immediate and drastic steps to stop the crooks. The result is thebest consumer property legislation in the country, and that is evidenced by the fact that there hasbeen only one claim for about $500 since the legislation was introduced. That matter was to dowith conveyancing, if I remember rightly. The stiffest penalties are in place for unconscionableconduct.

I know it has been said before, but we cannot say it often enough: people must take carewhen investing. That is not just the rule for Queensland; it is the rule for everywhere. Peopleshould do their homework and research property in the area in which they intend to buy. Most ofall, they should take heed of the advice contained on the warning statements attached to theproperty contract, get independent legal advice and an independent valuation of the property. Ifthey ignore this advice, they cannot blame the government. People have to start takingresponsibility for their own actions.

I again say to the Leader of the Opposition that he should come in here and tell us where Iand other members who have spoken on previous bills have said that people should have accessto this fund because they have been victims of marketeers. I also challenge opposition membersspeaking on this bill to answer this question: where do they want the money to come from? Whichschool in my electorate do they not want to get money? Which hospital in Brisbane do they wantto take that money from? Which public housing project do they want to be stopped? Which policestation do they want to close? Those opposite come in here and say that these people shouldhave access to the fund, but if that were the case the government could be up for $360 million.

Where do those opposite want the money to come from? They should be honest and saywhere they want the money to come from. They should not tell half-truths like the Leader of theOpposition has been portraying over the last five days. They should come out with the evidence.If they cannot, they should vote for the bill, because it makes commonsense. We are lookingafter owner-occupiers. We are not going to line the pockets of the only people who are reallyinterested in this legislation—as members can tell by the people sitting in the public gallery, all twoof them—and that is the ambulance-chasing solicitors.


Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (3.34 p.m.): The Property Agents and Motor Dealers AmendmentBill 2002 is about one thing, and that one thing is retrospective legislation. When looking atretrospective legislation, we should make a couple of judgments about it. Retrospective legislationis normally only used in a couple of scenarios when certain conditions apply. One of thoseconditions is that all parties agree—that is, all parties affected by the legislation agree that thelegislation should apply retrospectively and they would then be aware of any penalties that mayapply as a result of the law changing. There is another case—and it is used only rarely; I haveseen it happen in this House once or twice in 13 years—where, in the most extraordinary ofcircumstances, a piece of legislation is enacted retrospectively without the agreement of theparties involved. That has happened in only the most extraordinary of circumstances. Thislegislation fails both those tests. This is simply a piece of legislation to save the government somemoney and it goes against the grain of every—

Mr Lawlor: Taxpayers.

Mr QUINN: I take that point; it will save the taxpayers some money. I think it goes against thegrain of every democratic institution that I have ever seen in terms of applying penalties to citizensretrospectively. Citizens must have the confidence that their lawful activities today will not at sometime in the future be declared unlawful and therefore attract certain penalties. We have seen thisin the past where retrospective legislation, certainly in the taxation field, has been appliedretrospectively and people were affected financially. If it was the intention of the governmentwhen it introduced changes to the legislation that certain conditions apply, I accept that. However,legally it has been found that those people who have lodged their claim have a lawful entitlementto lodge their claim and we ought not wipe out their entitlement retrospectively without theirpermission.

All the other excuses that have been used about whether or not we ought to paycompensation for investment decisions and the role of two-tiered marketeers is all part of aparade of excuses as to why this legislation should pass through the House today. None of it isconvincing or compelling. It is simply a convenient excuse by the government to change thelegislation. If it wants to change the legislation, it should impose the changes at the time that thelegislation passes through the House. Allow those people who have lodged their claims legally tohave their claims heard and be adjudged. Do not wipe them out. Change the legislation todayand make it illegal for any others who wish to lodge claims in the future and no-one can complainabout the actions of this House. But to pass this legislation through the House and affect thelegal and lawfully lodged claims of 500 people under their lawful entitlement is just appalling. Theparade of excuses does not justify the action that this House is about to take today when theLabor Party supports and therefore passes the bill.

We have heard arguments about the amount of money this will mean to the government. AsI said, we ought not get into these arguments because they are peripheral to the principleinvolved, and the principle is whether or not there should be retrospective legislation in this set ofcircumstances. But if we want to get into the arguments, there were hundreds of millions of dollarsin this fund. Successive governments have taken it out and it is my understanding that the moneyneeded to satisfy these claims would come from consolidated revenue. That is no-one's fault; thatis simply a process of government. Government made that decision.

If these claims are lodged legally, government then should find the funds to pay the claims.They are legal and lawful claims. That is the reason I oppose this legislation—not because of thetirade of excuses we have heard from the other side that are meant to justify what is going tohappen here today but on the principle. If the government can do it this time, what is to stop itcoming back here time and time again whenever there are a range of claims on whatevergovernment funds to change the legislation to save itself some dollars? That is what this is about.It is about supporting the principle. Lawyers understand that principle. Even Labor lawyersunderstand that principle, don't they, member for Southport? Once the government deviates fromthat principle for weak excuses such as we have here today, then it can ram legislation throughthis House any time it likes to save the people of Queensland, the Treasury and the governmentsome dollars. That is what this is about.

The people of Queensland through their contributions funded this fund for certain things, andthese claimants have legally applied to the fund. It is an embarrassment to this House that we arenow going to retrospectively wipe out their claims. People who vote for this today ought to beembarrassed about it because they do not have any idea of the process of law or what a lawfulclaim is. They should be embarrassed even to put this legislation before the House and eventhink about supporting it on the flimsiest of excuses paraded here today. Legal people know it.


The Labor lawyers know it. A lawyer of any decent standing would not have a bar of it. I do notsee too many Labor lawyers getting up and defending this legislation.

Mr Springborg: The member for Southport did. The member for Hervey Bay did.

Mr QUINN: I understand that they were very weak contributions—and understandably so,because they do not have a legal leg to stand on and they know it. That is the reason we willoppose this legislation. It is a matter of principle.

Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (3.41 p.m.): The Auctioneers and Agents FidelityGuarantee Fund was established for the purpose of looking after consumers. Unfortunately, theLabor government in late 2000 or 2001 actually abolished the fund completely and said that allmoneys would go into consolidated revenue and that anyone who had a claim would becompensated out of consolidated revenue. We have seen that Labor has gone back on thatword. It has broken that promise. People who are very deserving of compensation will now getnone at all. Let us be very clear about who got rid of this fund completely.

When the Goss government came to power there was well over $100 million in the fund. TheGoss government took $35 million out in 1991-92, took a further $13.1 million out in 1992-93 andtook further millions out in 1994-95. At the beginning of 2000 there was $40 million in that fund.Now there is something like $1.5 million if we are lucky, and the government has reneged onallowing money to come out of consolidated revenue because it is short of money. That is thereal reason. It cannot afford it, so this retrospective legislation is being rushed through. That is apretty appalling situation.

It is interesting to look at what has been said about retrospectivity. I will quote someone Ithink we are all very familiar with—that is, one P. D. Beattie—who spoke in debate on theLegislative Standards Act 1992. Just to refresh members' memories, section 4(3)(g) provides thata fundamental legislative principle includes that legislation 'does not adversely affect rights andliberties, or impose obligations, retrospectively'. During debate on that bill, on 21 May 1992, MrBeattie said in this House—The principles include not adversely affecting rights and liberties or imposing obligations retrospectively. Duringmy speech in the debate on the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill, I said that retrospective legislation should beenacted only when a benefit is passed on to someone, not a detriment. That is another important principle.

The Premier seems to have forgotten that principle in the rush to conserve dwindling funds inconsolidated revenue and in Treasury because of economic mismanagement by this Laborgovernment. In 1992 the now Premier was stating an unequivocal fact—one which I support, thatwe should not have retrospective legislation unless a real benefit is passed on to someone. Nowhe is championing legislation in which certainly no benefit will be passed on and a full detrimentwill be passed on. So much for the total hypocrisy of the Premier, Mr Beattie, who tells us that heis running a Smart State and that he is looking out for all of our interests! He certainly is notlooking after the interests of those people who have been victims of these scams. I will mentionone couple shortly. They are just a highlight of the 540 claims that have been made against thisfund. That is why this legislation is being rushed through.

When 540 claims were made, the minister realised that she had a real problem. Mark you,she went out there last year and said, 'We put through the legislation'—the previous auctioneersand agents legislation—'to protect you people, to protect the consumer. It is terrible what ishappening to you. We will look after you.' Now she is ramming through a bill—we had to changesessional orders for it to be debated this week—in which any protection those people may havebeen able to get from the tribunal has been stymied and in fact will cease.

Only about nine cases have been before the tribunal and had their claims fulfilled. That is,people took their claims before the tribunal and the tribunal found for them. When the ministerrealised there was the best part of another 540 out there, she realised that something had to bedone because it would be a drain on Treasury. The government could not have that, so it putthrough legislation. That is the real basis for this legislation. I am amazed that members oppositecan blame victims and not the people who really are the perpetrators of this situation. That is thestate of the government now; it will not compensate people who through no fault of their ownhave lost their money.

I have heard it said 'buyer beware' and that purchasers should ensure that there areindependent people looking at their investment and ticking off on it. That is fine, but in point offact a lot of people did. I heard someone on one of the talkback radio programs the other day.The government would have heard it also because it monitors these things. This woman had hadthe place valued by an independent valuer. She had that stamp document. She had sought


every protection she could and was still subject to the scam, as people will be when a totallyorganised scam is set up—by the perpetrators, by the banks and by the lawyers involved, all ofwhom are out to make a profit at the expense of victims.

We as a state—and certainly the government, which is supposed to look after the battler andthe person out there who is having a tough time—should be saying, 'We will look after thesevictims and if there is not enough money in Treasury to do it, then too bad. We had better cutsome of the grandiose PR that the Premier goes on with.' How about the 101 people in hisCommunity Engagement Division? What are they doing? Blatant PR! Nothing else! That is whatcommunity engagement under this government really is. I am sure people would rather have theirlife savings protected than be able to go to a superstadium at Lang Park or walk over theGoodwill Bridge or any of the other things that in themselves may have a value but in the light ofpeople's life savings not being supported have absolutely no value whatsoever.

Minister Rose estimates that the current potential liability is around $36.8 million. As I saidearlier, at the beginning of 2000 the fund had $40 million in it. That would have covered this. That$40 million must have gone into consolidated revenue, so the money should be there to coverthe claims of these people. It is money that is rightfully theirs. There is a fundamental questionthat has not been answered and should be answered. The government is stripping what shouldbe the rights of these people totally away from them.

Let us look at how a lot of this fund has been spent. We have had money being used forhousing grants and to produce brochures for people to purchase cars. Some of it went into theAboriginal community for that as well. A lot of money has been spent on promoting consumeraffairs. That was a total waste of time because consumer affairs is now everything but lookingafter consumer affairs.

At the time, the minister said that her government and the Goss government had notdepleted the fund so much that this would be easily paid for. Also Minister Rose, when she wasestimating the potential liability of $36.8 million, had said previously to people that hergovernment would look after them. Indeed, they are not being looked after. In a press release of14 August 2001, the minister stated—I will not tolerate these fraudsters ripping off ordinary Aussie battlers, especially when it is right out here in our ownbackyard.

She now describes these same people as mainly interstate investors, as if they were somehowsubhuman because they are coming from southern states to invest in Queensland. There hasbeen a complete migration of people from southern states into Queensland. We have beenchampioning that for businesses and all other things. Some of these people have come toQueensland, invested in real estate, and operated small businesses. Some people are not frominterstate at all. But whether they are or they are not, they are investing in Queensland and, formany of them, they are investing their retirement savings and this is where they are going to live.

The explanatory memorandum for the Property Agents and Motor dealers Amendment Billstated that the claim was to provide for losses incurred by people who had been conned.Following the first successful case in the PAMD tribunal, Minister Rose, in a press release of 6March 2002, stated—The Tribunal and the Claim Fund have been established to protect consumers from providing avenues for them torecover their losses.

She stated further—The Government underwrites the Claim Fund. We will also take the steps necessary to recover from marketeers thepayments made by the Fund to consumers.

She now attempts to retrospectively take away this right.

One couple who certainly had their rights negated totally are Clive and Maria Moore. Theircase came before the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Tribunal yesterday. Where claims arebeing settled, often within two days of coming to the tribunal, these people have been put offindefinitely because 'We are not going to be guided by what is happening down there in GeorgeStreet this week.' It looks like they may have no satisfaction, or even know if they have any, untilthe beginning of the new year. I guess they will get caught by this legislation, so they will not getany compensation. This couple are nearing their retirement. They bought a unit to help to providefor their retirement. They waited for some time for anyone to take up their cause and look into it.They really are not people who made a bad investment decision. They are ordinary Australians,like many others, who were conned, lied to and deceived by what was a very sophisticated scam.


These scams were put together so that people could not see through them. Often, the lawyers orvaluers who acted for those people still did not see through the scam until it became obvious.

My understanding was that the minister introduced legislation back then to stop thesescams. So these people have relied upon the minister's assertions in good faith that they wouldbe protected by the claim fund. Obviously, that means nothing now, because the minister hasdone a 180-degree turn and introduced this retrospective legislation.

Mr Quinn: They have been complicit in this.Mrs SHELDON: They are very smug opposite and they have shown their complicity by

introducing this bill. Instead of protecting the victims, with this bill we are going to wipe out theirrights totally. All I can say to the battlers out there is that, in common with previous Laborgovernments, this Labor government is not looking after them. This government is very big onwords but very small on actions; it is big on PR but very short on substance. Again, that is whatwe are seeing in relation to this fund, which was fundamentally set up to protect ordinary people. Iwould go so far as to say that the minister is abrogating her duty as the Minister for Fair Trading,because she is not looking after the very people whom the Fair Trading portfolio was put togetherto look after, and that is the consumer. I will certainly not be supporting this bill. I think that it is anabsolute disgrace.

Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for FairTrading) (3.54 p.m.), in reply: I would like to thank all members for their contributions. I willendeavour to go through all of the points that have been raised, particularly by oppositionmembers. The member for Southern Downs raised a number of issues and I will go through thempoint by point. Firstly, he referred to consultation with the REIQ. There was absolutely no need toconsult with the REIQ about this bill. The REIQ is a peak industry body for licensed real estateagents. The bill does not impact on licensed real estate agents. It is that simple—unless, ofcourse, real estate agents contravene any aspect at all of the antimarketeering provisions. So thebill is not about licensed real estate agents. The REIQ is the peak body for licensed real estateagents, so there was no need to consult them. They have since written me a letter that is quitesupportive, and I will quote from it a little later. I will also deal with lawyers a little later.

The member for Southern Downs also referred to the cap of $35,000. As I have alreadyindicated to him, the only claims that are capped by this bill are marketeering claims. All the otherclaim limits up to $200,000 remain unchanged. In terms of the retrospectivity, which has beenraised by all opposition members, the vast majority of people ripped off by the marketeers failedto lodge claims within time. Why? Because under the old Auctioneers and Agents Act it wasgenerally understood that no such claim had any chance of success. The tribunal and the courtshave reinterpreted the old act to allow claims for marketeering investment properties. This has theperverse effect of retrospectively conferring a taxpayer funded benefit on a limited class ofinvestors—those whose claims are still within time. This bill reaffirms the intent of the fund.

The member for Southern Downs specifically asked how much was in the fund when the newact came into being and where it went. The answer to that is that in May 2001 there was$49 million in the fund: $44 million went to consolidated revenue and $5 million went to the Officeof Fair Trading to upgrade licensing systems under the act and to establish the marketeeringinvestigation unit. A number of opposition members raised the issue of the balance of the claimsfund. I do not know how many times I have to say this: this is not about the claims fund. Thefunds have been used by successive governments—and I believe the member for Caloundraknows this—under the express authority of parliament, supported by the opposition, forexpenditure on public housing and consumer protection activities. Members have this completely,completely wrong.

The fund is underwritten by the state. Treasury appropriates $1.5 million to the fund. Thebalance is irrelevant. It could be $500 million—it does not matter—because it is underwritten bythe government, by Treasury. The member for Southern Downs was a minister in the Borbidgegovernment. As the member for Mansfield said, the Borbidge government themselvesappropriated almost $30 million from the then fidelity fund during its short term in office:$15 million was taken out in 1996-97 and another $14 million in 1997-98. Nearly $20 million ofthat was directed to public housing, which continued a Goss Labor government initiative. Why is itso acceptable for the coalition to do it and yet when we do it, it is criticised? It is just sheerhypocrisy.

This government makes absolutely no apology for using money to build public housing forQueensland battlers. Neither does it make any apology for using funds to educate and protectconsumers, raise business standards and pursue shonky operators. The member for Southern


Downs also asked about the prosecution of marketeers. This has been really, really difficult,because of the inadequacies of the provisions of the old Auctioneers and Agents Act. That is whywe changed the laws—to strengthen consumer protection and penalties for the crooks. Thoselaws are working. All I can say about the prosecutions is that I have been briefed in detail in thelast couple of weeks, that investigations are continuing and that we believe that we are finallyclosing in on some of our targets. Watch this space.

The member for Gladstone raised correspondence from a Victorian investor. That investoralleged that the fund was established to compensate him for failed investments. That is plainwrong. The fund was never intended for that and it would be irresponsible to let it be used in thatway. It would be irresponsible and negligent of this government to allow that fund to be used inthis way. The fund was not established to compensate investors. It is not an insurance schemeagainst losses. Unfortunately, some people are not prepared to accept any blame for poorinvestment decisions. I do not believe that Queensland taxpayers, Queensland battlers, shouldhave to bail them out. The member for Gladstone also stated that the government hadoverstated the potential liability of the fund. That is wrong. All claims made are basically the sameand there is every likelihood they will succeed if allowed to proceed.

The member for Clayfield provided some disturbing information concerning unit sales in herelectorate. The Commissioner for Fair Trading will follow that up as a matter of urgency. If therehave been any legislative breaches or elements of marketeering, it will be dealt with appropriately.The members for Kawana, Ashgrove, Hervey Bay, Cairns, Toowoomba North, Fitzroy andMansfield made statements in support of the fund not being used to compensate investors forpoor investment decisions. I could not agree more. This is what the bill achieves.

The member for Beaudesert alleged that the antimarketeering provisions are not effective.He is wrong. We have had 21 complaints since September last year. All complaints have beeninvestigated and there have been no breaches of the tough antimarketeering legislation. Our lawswork. Our research shows this, and it has been confirmed in a range of media reports. Themember for Beaudesert also mentioned an Ombudsman's investigation and I would like to putthe facts on the record.

Four marketeering claimants whose claims were rejected or are still under consideration bythe Auctioneers and Agents Committee have complained to the Ombudsman regarding thehandling of the matters by the Office of Fair Trading. In two cases, disciplinary matters are stillbefore the courts. In one case, the claimant complained to the Ombudsman rather thanexercising appeal rights. In the fourth, the Office of Fair Trading believes there are no grounds forprosecution or for a claim. Fair Trading has discussed these issues with the Ombudsman, mostrecently in July, and stands by its decision in these matters. Where these matters have beenexamined by the courts, they have upheld the Office of Fair Trading's decisions.

The member for Nicklin indicated that he wanted a response to his question before he wasgoing to decide whether or not to support this legislation. The member is not in parliament at themoment. The member for Nicklin wanted to know who has been sitting on this time bomb andblamed government officers for not doing their job. The member for Nicklin is a very decentperson, a member of integrity. On this occasion I must point out to him that he in fact has erredand has been quite unfair. The problem only occurred after a tribunal decision at the end ofFebruary this year, confirmed by appeal to the District Court many months later. Simply, there wasno problem until the law was interpreted in the way the tribunal did. No-one is at fault. No-onecould have foreseen that.

The member for Toowoomba South raised a number of issues as have other oppositionmembers. He raised issues of raids on the fund that Denver Beanland had established in 2000.The issue of the claims fund is not relevant to the bill. The balance could be $500 million,$1 million or nil—it does not matter. It is underwritten by the government. That is the reality. Thisbill ensures that investors who have not made a good investment decision are not compensatedby Queensland taxpayers. Any argument to the contrary is simply wrong.

The member for Toowoomba South also said that the fund was established to compensatepeople who lost as a result of the actions of people regulated under the act. Marketeers werenever regulated under the old act, which is where these claims come from. That is the problem.Unfortunately, a lot of these issues could have been addressed.

The member for Southern Downs, as he said in the beginning, has always been verysupportive of consumer protection legislation in this parliament. He knows that we did offer him abriefing and he was very thankful for that, but he indicated that as the opposition would oppose it


he would not take up the offer of a briefing. If he had, a lot of the issues raised by the oppositiontoday could have been resolved.

When the member for Robina was talking about the claims fund and the dollars in it, themember for Southport rightly said that it is still taxpayers' money. I thank the member for Robinafor quite clearly acknowledging, for saying, that, yes, it is taxpayers' money. But I ask the memberwhether or not he thinks taxpayers should compensate investors. I challenge the member to goto the people in his electorate and ask whether or not they want that money to compensateinvestors who took a gamble on the property market, mostly on the Gold Coast, and pulled out ofthe Gold Coast Hospital in the member for Southport's electorate or from the Robina Hospital inthe member's electorate. Perhaps the member would like to ask the people in his electoratewhere they want to see their taxpayer dollars going. Let us remember that there are three ways ofinvesting—property, money and shares. They all are investment options. So I would like to hearwhat the member for Robina has to say about that.

As I said, the REIQ has rethought its position on this bill. In a subsequent letter to me thisweek REIQ president Mark Brimble, who had been on radio very publicly criticising thegovernment over this bill, said that he supported legislation that appropriately regulates theprofessional behaviour of real estate agents. He said that such legislation should provideadequate protection for consumers who purchase residential property for owner occupationpurposes. I quote from the letter—We understand that the government's intention is to prevent persons who purchase residential property as aninvestment from making claims against the claim fund. We accept the argument that investors in residentialproperty should not have access to greater protection than they would have had they chosen to invest elsewheresuch as the share market. We also note that the government intends to make this provision retrospective. While wewould not ordinarily be supportive of retrospective legislation, especially when it removes rather than enhancesconsumer protection, we think that the government's position can be justified in this circumstance.

They support our position. The REIQ's publicly expressed concern related to its fear that theamendments unintentionally disadvantage consumers who purchase residential property forowner occupation. The REIQ's concerns are unfounded. Members of the REIQ could easily haveestablished the facts. All they had to do was pick up the telephone and ask us. Had they notbeen so willing to go off half-cocked and with half the facts, they could have saved themselvesthe embarrassment of getting their public position on this bill so wrong.

The REIQ expressed concerns that ordinary consumers ripped off by licensed real estateagents may be caught by the $35,000 cap and the realised loss requirements. It clearlymisunderstood the legislation, as I think, unfortunately, a lot of members opposite have also. Thisbill places constraints upon claims arising from contraventions of the marketeering provisions ofthe act covering each and every person involved in marketeering—marketeers, solicitors, valuers,runners and, yes, real estate agents. The marketeering provisions prohibit unconscionableconduct and misleading and deceptive behaviour in relation to residential property sales. Thereare many other provisions in the act regulating the conduct of licensed real estate agents. Claimsbased on contraventions of these provisions will not be affected by this bill. These provisionsinclude section 574, which is worth quoting in full—False representations about property

574(1) A licensee or registered employee must not represent in any way to someone else anything that is false ormisleading in relation to the letting, exchange or sale of property.

Maximum penalty—540 penalty units—

or $40,500—(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a licensee or registered employee must not in connection with the sale, or the

possible sale, of an interest in land or in connection with the promotion in any way of the sale of an interest inland, represent in any way to someone else anything that is false or misleading in relation to—

(a) the value of the land at the date of sale; or (b) the potential income from the leasing of the land; or (c) if the land has been previously sold, the date of the sale and the consideration for the sale; or (d) how the purchase of the land may affect the incidence of income taxation on the buyer.

Maximum penalty—540 penalty units.

In other words, if a claim is based on the unconscionable behaviour of a licensed real estateagent it is unaffected by this bill. I could go on. There are many provisions of the act specificallyconcerning real estate agents and defining offences for misbehaviour. None of these is affectedin any way by this bill. The REIQ got it wrong. The next time it should ensure it has the full storybefore it makes any public comment on such an important matter. On the positive side, at least ithas been half big enough—I repeat 'half big enough'—to admit this by writing me a letter. It did


not make a public statement but now that I have placed it on the record in the parliamentperhaps it will be made public.

I turn to lawyers. Judy Teitzel of Carter Capner has been very vocal in her opposition to thisbill, and that is no surprise. If she did not have such an obvious conflict of interest in this mattershe would be more credible. She and her ilk stand to lose millions of dollars from thegovernment's action to save taxpayers from the emerging liability of hundreds of millions ofdollars. They do not care if the taxpayer foots the bill for poor investment decisions and whyshould they so long as they get their fees?

The Queensland taxpayer should not be responsible for lining the pockets of lawyers. I haveno problem with the majority of lawyers. It is a great profession. We have some fantastic lawyersin this Chamber, including the member for Southport and also the Premier. It is a very reputableprofession. My son will complete his law degree next year and I am sure he will be a lawyer of thehighest integrity. The member for Hervey Bay is also a lawyer. It is a great profession.Unfortunately, it is the same as any other profession in that there is always a small few who smearthe reputation of the rest.

Ms Teitzel already has actions in the courts and no doubt these will continue. This is thecourse of action she would have to take in any other jurisdiction in Australia. I wish her clientsevery success. I am aware that most of her clients are from Victoria. If she had any Queenslandclients who had invested in Victoria they certainly would not be entitled to any compensation. MsTeitzel had said that this is unfair trading. That is simply not so. This is about being fair to allconsumers and not simply giving a number of mainly interstate investors compensation—notallowing 500 investors to double dip at Queensland taxpayers' expense.

The member for Fitzroy mentioned Tim O'Dwyer. I cannot let this debate conclude withoutmentioning solicitor and occasional newspaper columnist Tim O'Dwyer. Someone needs to put aleash on self-proclaimed consumer watchdog O'Dwyer. I prefer to label him a serial whinger whospits the dummy when he does not get his own way. This from the man who once charged an 82-year-old client $1,200 to prepare a simple sole-beneficiary will.

A government member: Shame!

Ms ROSE: Shame! I want to place on record a number of facts about Tim O'Dwyer. Lastyear he admitted that he had been in bed with the marketeering crooks. His private commentsrelating to the effectiveness of any marketeering legislation are far removed from his publicstance. He says one thing in private and another thing publicly. His conduct proves that his ownethical standards are highly questionable. Why? The Law Society is investigating him regarding anumber of complaints.

Mr Springborg: Are you going to send him a Christmas card?

Ms ROSE: No, I will not be sending him a Christmas card. I have sent one to the member forSouthern Downs, though. Mr O'Dwyer continues to deliberately mislead the public about theextent of alleged ongoing marketeering activities. In conversations with my staff, O'Dwyer hasfreely admitted that PAMDA works. He has said that it has saved people from losing all of theirmoney, yet he refuses to publicly endorse the laws. Why is that?

Mr Springborg: Tell us.

Ms ROSE: Because it is not in his financial interests to do so. He wants to believe thatmarketeering is rampant. He wants people to believe that all lawyers are bad except for him.Firstly, he dumped on the marketeers, then he dumped on the real estate agents and now he isdumping on the other lawyers. He wants everyone to think that all lawyers are bad except for him;that he is the only good one. Members should remember that this is the same man who chargedan 82-year-old client $1,200 for a sole-beneficiary will. His campaign has deteriorated into one ofdeliberate distortion of fact, deliberate distortion by omission, and nastiness and insults directed athardworking Fair Trading officers. It is all about generating business for Tim O'Dwyer. We adviseconsumers on our warning statements to obtain independent legal advice and to obtain anindependent valuation of the property. Is that good enough for Tim O'Dwyer? No! He still wantedus to require people to use only lawyers for every stage of the property sale process, and to getan independent valuation from a valuer. That is what he wants. Under the O'Dwyer doctrine wewould have signs at every entry point into Queensland and at every airport warning propertyinvestors and buyers that they were getting into the water with the sharks. What an incentive thatwould be to do business here.


I want to make this perfectly clear: Queensland is a good and safe place to invest, providedpeople take exactly the same care as they need to in respect of any form of investment anywherein this country or anywhere else in the world. Another reality is that this state offers the bestconsumer protection for real estate consumers in this country. That is recognised by every otherstate in this country. In the meantime, we will continue to protect the consumer throughlegislation, education and awareness programs. I make no apology for that.

The member for Gladstone and a number of other honourable members on both sides ofthe House told heartbreaking stories about people who have lost their money. I and all othermembers feel very sorry for those people. We have to remember what marketeers are like. Theyare the most dreadful individuals. They would sell—

Mr Springborg: They're scum.

Ms ROSE: They are scum. I have mentioned in this House on many occasions DudleyQuinlivan, the king con of Queensland. The reason that people are so duped is that they arehonest, decent people themselves and they believe it when somebody spins them an enormousline about how great a property is. Because they are decent people themselves they do notbelieve that somebody else would mislead them in that way. We care that they are still able to tryto recover in some way some of their loss. Unfortunately, the losses in the main are unrealisedlosses; they are paper losses. The majority of those affected by this legislation still own theirproperties and still have the asset. Some of them have been pretty fortunate; they have beenable to claim fairly significant taxation benefits. The reality is that no government anywhere inAustralia compensates poor investment decisions or losses like those resulting from marketeering,and people should, of course, continue to pursue actions through the civil courts.

I would like to sum up. In my summing-up I sincerely thank my Fair Trading officers. Theyreally do an amazing job. I thank Matt Miller, the Commissioner for Fair Trading, WayneBriscoe—and Wayne is here with me this afternoon—and Mark Zgrajewski. I also thank my ownpersonal staff, Harold Thornton, Mike Kelly and David Smith.

As has been indicated by a number of government members, this was not an easy decision.It was not a decision that we have taken lightly but we have to think about the Queenslandtaxpayers and what they were exposed to. The reality is that Queensland taxpayers should nothave to compensate people who have made investment decisions that have gone wrong. It isthat simple. Taxpayers were facing a massive compensation payout of potentially hundreds ofmillions of dollars. That figure was queried by the member for Caloundra and the member forRobina, but based on the number of complaints that were already before the tribunal, amountingto almost $40 million, and given that potentially there were thousands more claims to be made, itwas easy to come up with the figure of hundreds of millions of dollars. That money, as has beenstated by many members, is better spent on schools and hospitals and on extra police to makeQueensland communities safer.

As I said, people will still be able to take civil action in the courts and sue anyone involved inthe marketeering chain. I certainly wish them well in those endeavours. It was never the intentionfor the claim fund to insure people against losses from failed investments or schemes ofdeception. There is no such legislative avenue for compensation anywhere in Australia outsidethe courts.

We are talking about Queensland taxpayers—Queensland mums and dads who send theirkids to our public schools, send their kids into our hospitals and drive on our roads. They shouldnot have to bear the losses which result from a property gamble. Unfortunately, it is a toughlesson that we learn sometimes. We just cannot believe what people tell us. We have done a lotof work with our warning statements on all contracts. I have one with me and honourablemembers can see very clearly, from wherever they are in the chamber, that in thick, black, boldletters there is a warning statement that reads, 'Do not sign the attached contract without readingand understanding this warning or if you feel pressured to sign. You should obtain independentlegal advice and an independent valuation of the property".

There is a cooling-off period. At the end of the day, if people sign this and if they let their five-day cooling off period lapse, I do not know what else we can do. We cannot sit down with everysingle person who buys a property. There is just nothing more we can do. We have done our jobby trying to protect and educate consumers but they make the final decision.

Queensland toughened the laws in September last year to make it much more difficult andrisky for marketeers to continue in this state. As I have already stated, it is very clear that thosetough laws are working. Marketeers are well and truly on notice that if they attempt to sell property


using misleading or deceptive means, or misrepresentations about the property, they risk fines ofup to $250,000, being ordered to compensate their victims and loss of licences for real estateagents. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That the bill be read a second time—put; and the House divided—AYES, 59—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins,J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone,Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce,Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Smith,Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell

NOES, 20—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn,Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, Springborg

Resolved in the affirmative.

CommitteeHon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair

Trading) in charge of the bill.Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to.Clause 3—Mr SPRINGBORG (4.31 p.m.): The opposition has serious concerns about clause 3 and it

links, as I understand it, with clause 17 dealing with new definitions of 'marketeeringcontravention' and other new dictionary terms. I mention them together because, as I understandit, they are related. In her summing-up the minister indicated that she had some support for someaspects of her legislation from the REIQ. I certainly acknowledged that in my contribution to thesecond reading debate and acknowledged its concerns. I actually read out much of what theminister read out when she summed up the second reading debate. However, there were someaspects which concern me relating to this particular clause. The minister indicated that if the REIQhad taken up the opportunity to speak with her or her department it may have had a differentview.

I have with me the same letter that was sent to the minister. It says in the openingparagraphs—Following a meeting with Departmental officers today, I wish to explain the Institute's concerns with theamendments to the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 currently before Parliament in the form of theProperty Agents and Motor Dealers Amendment Bill 2002.

So it raised its concern and the aspects which it was prepared to support following the briefingwith the minister's departmental officers. My concern is that clause 3 broadens the definition ofwhat a marketeer is and the contravention of the marketeering laws in Queensland to the extentthat it potentially winds a whole range of other transactions into that and will potentially, by virtueof these amendments passing through the parliament today, seek to limit or curtail the rights thatpeople have to claim on matters that may not have only been considered marketeering actionsthrough unlicensed agents but licensed agents under clause 3, and the way it relates to clause17—that is, that anyone, as I understand it, if one reads the laws and the amendments, whotransacts property on behalf of someone else, licensed or otherwise, can be considered amarketeer.

If I read the letter from the REIQ further and the bit that the minister did not read intoHansard today, it says—The Dictionary contained in the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 defines ‘marketeer’ as ‘a persondirectly or indirectly involved in any way in the sale, or promotion of the sale, or provision of a service inconnection with the sale, of residential property, alone, or with others under a formal or informal arrangement, andwhether or not— ... any of the persons is licensed or is a registered employee’.

Thus, every licensee and registered salesperson is technically a ‘marketeer’.

That is its strong concern. It continues—The Property Agents and Motor Dealers Amendment Bill 2002 introduces new definitions of ‘marketeeringcontravention’ which include acts of misleading conduct (s573A), unconscionable conduct (s573B), and falserepresentations (s573C).

The majority of claims would arise from matters involving misleading conduct, unconscionable conduct or falserepresentations.

If a purchaser of a residential property for owner occupation purposes believes that they might have a claiminvolving a ‘marketeering contravention’ by a licensed real estate agent, they must:

1. notify of their attention to make a claim within 1 year of the contract date; AND


2. make the claim within 6 years; AFTER3. having sold their home to actually realize a capital loss.

The maximum amount that may be paid is capped at $35,000.

It is our contention that the conditions which the Government seeks to impose on consumers who purchaseresidential property for owner occupation are so onerous that few will be able to satisfy the test and those that domay not receive full compensation.

In a nutshell, the concern of the REIQ and my concern as much as I can read into clause 3 withregard to the insertion of this new section relating to marketeering contravention and also clause17 is that potentially by broadening the definition of what a marketeer is to include the operationsof licensed agents may very well mean that a person who would at the moment otherwise besubject to certain claims without any great restriction on them because of abuse of process orfraud by licensed agents will now possibly be considered to be marketeers and that they will bebound by these other requirements including notification periods and claim time periods. I want tohear what the minister has to say about that and whether she believes that the understanding ofthis clause by the Real Estate Institute of Queensland is an accurate or reasonableunderstanding of clause 3 and its relationship with clause 17.

Ms ROSE: Without going across and going through everything that I said in my summing-up,if a licensed real estate agent or any other person engages in marketeering activities when thereis unconscionable, misleading or deceptive conduct at point of sale, then they are defined asmarketeers. If they do not misbehave, then they have nothing to fear. The offence provisionshave not been changed by this bill. The member asked the question as to whether or not thedefinition 'marketeering contravention' broadened the existing definition. No, it does not. It onlyquarantines marketeering claims. If the claim arises from deception, for example, by a real estateagent, it can proceed as before—that is, there is not any change.

Mr SPRINGBORG: I seek a further point of clarification. Let us look at identical scenariosboth before this legislation is proclaimed and after proclamation and enactment. It may very wellmean that an owner-occupier who would have a claim against a licensed estate agent will nowhave greater difficulty in seeking redress as a consequence of time limitations and definitionalchanges.

Ms ROSE: If it is a marketeering activity, they will still be protected. If people have beenduped in some other way by a licensed real estate agent, protection still exists under the act. Thisbill deals with marketeers. That is what the REIQ could not see. This is not dealing with licensedreal estate agents, unless licensed real estate agents themselves have become involved inmarketeering activity.

Mr SPRINGBORG: My concern continues to be what appears to be a broaderdefinition—bringing a range of other people into the arrangement for time limits in which to notifyintention to claim and to claim. I am also concerned about the issue of potential capping to$35,000. I will oppose this clause.

Whilst the Real Estate Institute of Queensland has had some of its concerns assuaged bythe minister and has indicated such in the letter, this is one concern it continues to maintain. Ishare that view. It may very well be that, as it washes out, the concerns I have do not come topass. But as this legislation seeks to provide some new dictionary definitions and enact clause 3with regard to insertion of 'marketeering contravention', I will err on the side of caution and opposethis clause.

I know what we have now. I am concerned about what we might be getting prospectively withthe broader definition of 'marketeering contravention', 'non-investment residential property' and'on-sale'. I will continue to err on the side of caution because I believe we may very well bemaking things more difficult for people who have a legitimate claim. It is far clearer at themoment.

I am concerned to maintain a cautious approach to this. Following its briefing with theminister, the Real Estate Institute of Queensland had a number of its concerns addressed. Thiswas one concern it could not have addressed. The minister has indicated that it understood fromthe briefing the other intent of what the government was doing and was prepared to accept it, buton this it did not understand it so it was not able to accept it. I do not particularly believe that. Theminister indicated that it did not really have an interest in the marketeering legislation comingbefore parliament because it really did not affect it.


The minister has indicated by way of her explanation to parliament that a licensedperson—licensed agents are members of REIQ; they are actually represented by REIQ—can becaught up in these expanded definitions. I think the REIQ has looked at this very carefully. It hassome legitimate concerns, whether founded or not, which need to be tested about the way thesenew laws will potentially impact on people who would otherwise have a legitimate claim and whatwe would expect to be a legitimate claim at this stage. In the interests of being cautious, theopposition will oppose this clause.

Ms ROSE: As I said, this quarantines marketeering claims. It can be anybody. It can be apoliceman, a lawyer or a doctor—anybody who has used their influence or who has been caughtup in the marketeering chain. If a claim arises about deception by a licensee, then it will proceedunder those provisions and not under the marketeering provisions. There are provisions to dealwith licensed real estate agents. This is just to do with marketeering. As I said, it would be thesame as anyone else—lawyers, valuers, financial advisers, banks—anybody.

Question—That clause 3, as read, stand part of the bill—put; and the Committee divided—AYES, 57—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins,J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas,Mackenroth, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole,Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong,Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves

NOES, 20—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn,Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, Springborg


Clause 4, as read, agreed to.

Clause 5—

Mr SPRINGBORG (4.52 p.m.): The opposition will be opposing clause 5, because, as theminister says in her explanatory notes, this clause—... adds a further class of persons to the existing list of persons who are unable to make a claim, being purchasersof marketeered residential property for investment purposes. This clause also provides that this exclusion does notapply where the purchase of marketeered residential property was for non-investment purposes.

I mentioned in my speech during the second reading debate the concerns that the oppositionhad about this clause, because of the way in which it sought to take away people's legitimateexpectation that they could lodge a claim to be compensated if they were the victims of a two-tiered marketeering scheme and they had actually bought that property for investment purposes.

On listening to honourable members opposite as they talked about this issue, one gainedthe impression that all of these people who did these things were multimillionaire investors whohad enormous amounts of money and who were looking for significant tax dodges. I am notsaying that a proportion of those people were not like that. But quite clearly, a significantproportion of people—and I will use the term again, because the minister herself used it—weremum and dad investors who were taken down and who basically lost everything. Also, if we readthe speeches that were delivered in this parliament last year and maybe the year before when thenew laws to crack down on marketeers came into place—the hard luck stories related by themember for Mansfield and others—I ask: how would those people involved feel if they knew thatthe member for Mansfield and others were going to come into this place and vote for thislegislation that took away their right at some future time to lodge a claim?

At this stage the courts have determined that these people have an opportunity to lodge aclaim for compensation if they have lost as a consequence of purchasing a residential property forinvestment purposes. Whilst members opposite have said today that these people make theirown investment decisions and that the taxpayers cannot be responsible for them—and whilsttechnically we can probably argue that that is the way of the world—it is not as simple as that. Weprovide a whole range of protections to people. In her reply, the minister said in a verycompassionate way that she can understand how these people get taken down. That is what Isaid in my contribution to the second reading debate. Basically, those people trust people. It isnot like investing money or even investing money in shares, even though people could lose.

When investing money, people go into a building society or a credit union—unless they wantto invest money through mortgage lending, but that has basically gone, except for that which isregulated by ASIC—and they look at the wall in the building society and it shows, '4.79 per cent','five per cent' or whatever the case may be. People know what is going on. They know how long


they are going to lock in their money and that is it. In regard to investing in shares, most peopledo that through a licensed sharebroker, or a financial adviser, or they might invest in shares overthe Internet. Basically, it is very clear: people know the value of the shares on that day, becausethat is the price that they are listed at. The share price goes up and down and people can seethat happen. It is open; it is transparent.

With regard to this marketeering scam that so many people were victims of, there was awhole faith-trust relationship that was underpinned all the way along. Whether we choose tobelieve it or not, most people in the community believe and hold valuers in fairly high regard. As acollective, they might have some concerns, but as individuals, they are in held very, very highregard. Whilst solicitors do not rate very highly on the credibility scale for occupations, people stillhave an inherent faith and trust in solicitors.

Mr Reeves interjected.Mr SPRINGBORG: They do. If people have a problem, they see a solicitor.

Mr Reeves interjected.Mr SPRINGBORG: The honourable member for Mansfield does not understand that, with

shares, people push a button, they see the opening price, the closing price, and the selling price.They understand that. If a valuer has given people a dodgy valuation, how do they know that,other than getting their own valuation? If the bank has a valuation and they have sat on it, andthey have lent money up to the amount of the dodgy valuation, how would people know? Prior tothe new laws that came in—which, to its credit, the government introduced last year and the yearbefore—people did not know that.

Things change. We are dealing with taking away an opportunity for people who foundthemselves in a situation before things changed—back in the days when the trust-faithrelationship was the only thing that people really relied upon. Post the amendments and post thenew PAMDA laws, yes, people go in with their eyes open, because there is disclosure all the wayup the chain. Also, the minister's advice sheet indicates that people should seek their own advicewith regard to these matters.

Mr Reeves interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: The honourable member for Mansfield stood up and said, 'Where is the

money coming from for this?'

Mr Reeves: Where do you want to take it out of?Mr SPRINGBORG: Maybe footbridges to start with—Lang Park, and I suppose there are a

few other places. The simple reality is that when the old Auctioneers and Agents Act wasabolished and the new legislation was introduced, there was $40 million in the fund. That moneydisappeared. It went into consolidated revenue. That is probably a fair starting point.

The issue that the honourable member is not considering is that, although the state has anobligation to be fiscally responsible, that is not the argument. It also had an obligation all the waythrough—as per its own criteria that was laid down in the amendment to the Auctioneers andAgents Act in 1991 that opened up the qualifications so that it could put that money into housingand other areas—that the fund still had to be maintained in such a state that there was sufficientmoney available to provide compensation for people who were otherwise taken down. The courtshave interpreted that people have the right to be compensated out of that fund. Not all of that$360 million in claims would have succeeded. Possibly only a small proportion of them wouldhave been successful.

There should have been a differentiation between those people seeking to claim forsomething that happened to them prior to the new laws and the new disclosure provisions comingin and those seeking to claim under the provisions of what this bill provides post the time whenthe new laws came in. Those people were not able to walk in with their eyes wide open. Theytrusted people. They trusted valuers. They trusted solicitors. They trusted a whole range of otherpeople involved in this dreadfully incestuous, low-life activity of two-tiered marketing. They trustedall of those people. The minister has been pretty genuine in her efforts to date to try to stamp thisout. I have had some concerns about the operation of the law, but this has been a very realissue. Clearly, we should have provided for that separation, something in which even the REIQbelieves. There should have been that separation because people were engaged in a faith-trustrelationship. They were not able to look up on the board and see how much interest they wouldget. They were not able to look at ASX and what it said in the paper about particular share prices.This was about trusting valuers, about trusting solicitors. On those bases—and I suppose we have


been around and around the argument—I am not prepared to support this clause because itseeks to constrict the opportunity for people to make a claim for residential investment purposesand because of its retrospective nature.

Ms ROSE: Again, I reiterate that it was never the intention of the claim fund to insure peopleagainst losses for investment decisions that went wrong or for schemes of deception. As agovernment, we have a responsibility to the taxpayer. If we had not moved to protect taxpayersfrom this compensation bill, the majority of which as I have already stated is from investorsoutside Queensland, I believe we would have been negligent in our duty to protect the interestsof Queenslanders.

Question—That clause 5, as read, be agreed to—put; and the Committee divided—AYES, 57—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins,J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas,Mackenroth, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole,Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong,Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves

NOES, 20—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn,E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, Springborg


Clause 6—

Mr SPRINGBORG (5.08 p.m.): The opposition will be opposing clause 6. Clause 6 providesthat in the case of marketeered residential property for non-investment purposes a claim may onlybe made for capital loss that has actually been realised. I understand that clause 13 actuallyinserts the new limit on the amount that may be recovered. The opposition's concern is that, withany assessment process with regard to marketeered property for residential non-investmentpurposes, people are able to fully and properly recover what is owed to them. One of thedifficulties we have is how that amount can really be assessed. One would hope that in no waywill this realistically limit what people can expect to receive as a consequence of being ripped offby a two-tiered marketing scam and that people have a realistic expectation to be properlycompensated to the full amount in the case that they have lost as a consequence of buyingmarketeered residential property for non-investment purposes.

Ms ROSE: As the member appreciates, the property market is one that fluctuates. I seeproperty values on the Gold Coast, whether for house, units or land, go up and then drop.Property values are quite complex and are affected by many different factors. This is simply thedifference between the purchase price and the selling price. The simple calculation is what theybought the property for, the sale and what the capital loss is. A lot of the claims, as I have statedbefore, are paper losses. People have not realised a loss. I actually had a member see me earliertoday about a couple he knows who had an investment property that was recently valuedbecause they were thinking about selling it and who would realise a considerable loss if they didsell it now. They decided to hang on to it and just continue to rent it. Quite simply, it is thedifference between the purchase price and the sale price.

Clause 6, as read, agreed to.

Clause 7—

Mr SPRINGBORG (5.12 p.m.): Clause 7 seeks to specify time limits specific to generalclaims, claims in relation to marketeered residential property and so on, as per the minister'sexplanatory notes. Basically, what it means in a nutshell is that with regard to marketeeredresidential property for owner-occupier purposes, as I understand it, people will have 12 monthswithin which to notify the possibility of a claim from the time of purchase. Also, they must havemade their claim within six years of that purchase.

I understand where the minister is coming from, but I think in practice this might generallycause some issues for people. The level of awareness that we have of government legislation isfar greater than that of the community at large. That does not mean that the community at largeis dumb—far from it. All it means is that the community at large is engaged in a whole range ofactivities that we are not engaged in and it does not spend as much time looking at legislation,regulations and administrative tools of government as we do. Often the community does notknow what is available. A statutory time bar which states that people have 12 months to notifytheir intention to claim may be sufficient for people who are aware of the potential pitfalls in thisarea. However, for other people it may not be enough.


The six-year limit does not concern me as much as the 12-month limitation with respect tothe notification of a claim. That is something that we need to be aware of. It is something I amconcerned about and do not believe I can support. A range of people—I suppose the numberswill be very difficult to quantify—will not be aware that such a time limit will exist in thesecircumstances. There will need to be an accompanying education and awareness campaign. Onlythrough a highly visible education and awareness campaign will we be able to ensure that peoplewill be aware that there is an opportunity to lodge a claim for amounts that they might have lostas a consequence of being ripped off by one of these two-tiered marketeering operations.

I think the 12-month limit will be problematic. I would like to hear why the minister feels that12 months is acceptable. Does the department perceive any problems with respect to fairness orunfairness over this? What does the department intend to do to ensure that those people whohave a legitimate claim, and an expectation of a claim, will be constantly made aware of their rightto claim up to a certain level as per the new laws going through parliament today and the timeframe within which they have to do so?

It does not matter how good the education and awareness campaign is; as much as theminister might try to educate people, it is true that, although people might see it at some stage,unless they are involved in an activity where there is an expectation of a claim, it will not meananything to them. For example, prior to taking on a new interest we might not have taken muchnotice of whatever it is that has captured our interest. The information is floating around, but it isnot until it becomes relevant to us that we are made aware of it. We need to know that that issuewill be addressed appropriately by the minister's department.

Ms ROSE: The time limit just applies to marketeering claims. In terms of the limit of one yearto notify the chief executive, there has been a lot of publicity on this issue. I think most peoplewould already be aware of the one-year requirement. We believe that one year is appropriate. Interms of the six-year limit to realise any loss and lodge a claim, the member for Southern Downshas a very good understanding of the law and would understand that six years is the same periodas under the civil statute of limitations. It prevents fire sales of properties, which was somethingwe had to think about when we were looking at the time limit. As the member can appreciate, wedid not want everyone jumping in, selling their properties and trying to realise a loss in a very shortperiod.

Question—That clause 7, as read, stand part of the bill—put; and the Committee divided—AYES, 56—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins,J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Hayward, Jarratt, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth,McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell,Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong,Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves

NOES, 20—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn,E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, Springborg


Clauses 8 to 12, as read, agreed to.

Clause 13—

Mr SPRINGBORG (5.24 p.m.): This is the final clause on which the opposition will bespeaking. The opposition has concerns about this clause, as I raised in my second readingcontribution. To read the minister's explanatory note, it inserts a new limit on the amount that maybe recovered from the claim fund in relation to marketeered investment property. The amount inquestion will be reduced from $200,000 to $35,000. The new limit applies to claims made underboth PAMDA and the old Auctioneers and Agents Act.

The concern I have about that is the imposition of this arbitrary figure. I note that the ministerhas given a reasoning in her second reading speech, but I do have a concern that any reductionin the amount which people are able to claim, particularly from $200,000 to $35,000, willpotentially disadvantage some people. For that reason, without labouring the point, theopposition will not be able to support the clause.

Ms ROSE: I confirm what I have said before. That cap only applies to marketeeredinvestment properties. The existing limits expose the claim fund to an unsustainable financialliability, particularly at times when the number of claims is high. Given the change tocompensating only for actual loss, this reduced limit better reflects the amounts likely to beclaimed in future. The $35,000 is the estimated capital loss by courts.

4 Dec 2002 Terrorism (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 5389

Question—That clause 13, as read, stand part of the bill—put; and the Committee divided—AYES, 59—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins,J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Hayward, Jarratt, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas,Mackenroth, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce,Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott,Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves

NOES, 21—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn,E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, Springborg


Clauses 14 to 17, as read, agreed to.Bill reported, without amendment.

Third ReadingBill, on motion of Ms Rose, by leave, read a third time.

TERRORISM (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL

Second Reading

Resumed from 3 December (see p. 5224).Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (5.32 p.m.): The House just debated a bill which

the opposition had some concerns about the government suspending standing orders to pass.This particular piece of legislation, the Terrorism (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2002, is a bill whichthe opposition has no concerns with the government suspending so much of standing andsessional orders as to allow it to pass through the House prior to the 13 or 14 days which the billwould otherwise be expected to lie on the table.

This bill seeks to ensure that Australia and Queensland—all our states, territories andextended jurisdictions which we are responsible for—are best able to cope with the growingterrorism threat which we now face right around the world. From recent experience we know thatAustralia is not in any way, shape or form alien or removed from those particular terrorist threats. Itis therefore important to ensure and know that when legislation goes before the various state andterritory parliaments around Australia and the Commonwealth parliament there is going to bebroad bipartisan and strong support to ensure that we are able to best support and best protectthe people in the community at large who we are responsible for looking after.

As many people have said, the world did in fact change on September 11 2001. How manytimes have we relived that particular experience since that day? We relived that experiencebecause those images of aeroplanes captured so vividly on amateur video and not so amateurvideo were beamed into our lounge rooms. We relived that experience where those twosignificant icons—both towers of the World Trade Centre—crumbled despite what the expertsstanding in the foreground indicated would happen. The attack on the Pentagon and the plannedattack on the White House did not come to pass. That had an enormous, very profoundpsychological and very real impact on many people the world over.

Whilst we should never let terrorists know that they are in any way winning—and one wouldhope that they are not going to win—one of the first objectives of terrorism is a psychologicalimpact on those people that one is seeking to terrorise. If that was the goal, then that certainly didhave some degree of impact. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. But we lived throughthose particular images. We felt what the people of the United States felt and also felt for thefamilies scattered in countries right around the world who lost loved ones. Many Australians alsolost their lives in that horrific event. Not only that, we had to relive the experience on 11September 2002, and that is just one of those things. Whilst next year it may not be as graphicand as much in our minds as it was this year, the first-year anniversary of these things is quitesignificant and is difficult for anyone mourning or grieving the loss of someone.

Then we came to 12 October with the Bali bombings. Once again we were exposed to thereality of terrorism and the way that it has spread its tentacles world wide and the very real riskthat many Australians suffered as a consequence of that, and I will come to that in a moment.Post the World Trade Centre attacks on 11 September 2001 the nations of the world allied to theUnited States came together in the realisation and the very strong knowledge that somethingneeded to be done to respond and to ensure that those people at an international level who

5390 Terrorism (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 4 Dec 2002

govern countries around the world—usually as a consequence of military dictatorship or revolutionrather than democratic change—cannot be allowed to harbour terrorists.

The response from the United States, Australia, the Canadians and all the allies of theUnited States was significant. No doubt many of us supported what happened in Afghanistan,because I think that was a very symbolic and important action on the part of nations of the worldto say, 'We're not going to cop it if a country is going to so directly and strongly harbour andsupport an ideal and a values system that is repugnant to common decency and respect forhumanity.' What the Taliban copped over there it totally 100 per cent deserved. Many of us werevery concerned that when the United States went to Afghanistan in late October or earlyNovember 2001 it may have been going to get itself into a situation similar to that whichhappened to the Russians when it invaded Afghanistan. There is no doubt what military mightcan do, and a fair degree of planning was able to achieve what was quite a significant routing ofthat obnoxious regime and everything associated with it.

We had our special forces there. They conducted themselves in an extremely exemplaryway. The Australian population should be very grateful to know that, pound for pound, thiscountry's special forces are as good as, if not better than, those anywhere in the world. Thatincludes countries that have far greater military might. One of the significant realities of living inAustralia—we have a small population and a relatively small tax base—is that, having to providethe resources, infrastructure and defence for a country of this size, we have to be smarter andbetter. Our people proved that they are pretty good.

The events in Bali on 12 October brought home again how close things have come to ourown doorstep. At last count some 82 or 83 Australians had lost their lives as a consequence ofthat dreadful, horrific terrorist attack in Bali involving two bombs—one being a ruse to get peopleout into the street and the other being to blow up as many people as possible and inflict as muchcarnage, despair and injury as possible. Reading, watching and seeing reports in the media aboutthe way those instruments of terror were used, the way terrorism was conducted by theproponents of and adherents to Jemaah Islamiah under the broader umbrella of Al Qaeda,should send a chill down all of our spines.

I think we need to be encouraged by the fact that in Bali, as happened in the case ofSeptember 11 in the United States, the authorities were extremely quick to pinpoint the source ofthat terrorist action and were able to strategically target those people directly involved. That thenbegs the question: why do we not know more about what is going on before it happens? Theintelligence our authorities operate with is fairly broad, as the foreign minister tells us from time totime. The Australian government receives general warnings. It does not necessarily alwaysreceive specific warnings, other than that something is going to happen, that an Australianinterest will be a target or that there will be a target somewhere in south-east Asia.

It is about time we stopped being doubting Thomases. Even in our own country, whenpeople warn about the way terrorist acts could be carried out we are quick to condemn them asbeing racist or whatever the case may be. I remember a few months ago listening to Lee KwanYu, the respected elder statesman of Singapore, warn about the potential problems arising fromthese fundamentalist radical Islamic groups in south-east Asia. People pooh-poohed him, sayingthat there was no problem whatsoever. Then only about two weeks out from the bombing in Balihe said exactly the same thing. At that stage the countries of South-East Asia and others werestarting to realise that there was potentially something wrong there and that maybe he did have apoint. Unfortunately for us, two weeks later the sorts of things Lee Kwan Yu was warning aboutactually came to pass.

Even Dr Mahathir and other South-East Asian leaders, who lead highly populated Muslimstates, are concerned about the actions of these subversive groups. That in no way reflects themajority feeling or sentiment in those countries. But as we know, when radical groups rise to thetop they often do not have majority support. They are so convicted and convinced of their idealsand value systems that only a very small proportion is needed to cause the structure of thatcountry to collapse because it is a subversive, radical movement. When they take over, theysubject their populations to all sorts of horrific privations and restrictions on freedoms and libertieswhich we in this country would find very difficult to imagine.

Hopefully the days are gone when the goody-two-shoes in the community dismiss thewarnings of people such as Lee Kwan Yu, who know quite well what is going on and the sorts ofpre-emptive strategies we need to put in place to address the issues of terrorism and thestructural problems that are being caused in our countries as a consequence of thedeconstruction of the fabric of our society by these radical groups.


What does terrorism hope to achieve? Terrorism by its very nature is all about psychologicalwarfare. It is all about reducing people. It is all about causing enormous fear. It is all aboutaffecting the way people interact within their communities. Then what happens is that thestructure of society starts to crumble. People are scared to go anywhere. They become very timid.They become very introverted.

There is also the economic impact of terrorism, as we have seen post September 11.Anyone who is investing on the stock market would see, particularly when dealing withinternational equities, the impact that has been a consequence of those dreadful events onSeptember 11. So they have affected the economy insofar as people's investments areconcerned. We know what effect that has had in relation to superannuation funds.

It affects the way governments operate. It affects the way governments focus theirresources. It diverts the attention of government away from things we would otherwise do onbehalf of our population. It does not mean that government is not acting in the best interests ofits population; it is. It just means that 'best interests' takes on a new definition. Whereas we mightbe able to plough more resources into social infrastructure and social needs, we have to put moretime, more effort and more resources into basically dealing with the potential threat that comesfrom terrorism. That is the obligation of government.

The other real problem with terrorism is that it is so difficult to deal with. In Libya, when theywere bankrolling and featherbedding the terrorists who were blowing up planes, hijacking planesand shooting up airports in the 1980s, it was simply a matter of strategic surgical strikes by theUnited States that had a major and profound psychological impact on Muammar Gaddafi to theextent that he stopped it virtually overnight, when they started pinpointing him in his tents aroundhis own country.

We can address terrorism if it is totally and absolutely linked, financed and accountable to agovernment, but when it is not actually being proposed by a government—it may be sheltered bya government of the world—it is more difficult. In places such as the United States and Germany,Al Qaeda established cells years ago. They go on recruitment drives, so the countries in whichthese people live are unsuspecting. These people are in the community and they just pop up.

What happened in Bali, for example, started as far back as the early 1990s. Processes werebeing put in place there and linkages were being made between particular individuals. I think weneed to concede that those sorts of plans may in fact have been put in place by the likes of AlQaeda in our very own country. We need to be concerned and aware of it. We know as aconsequence of the raids by ASIO that some of the people targeted had strong links orassociations with those who were involved in the Bali bombing. They may not have mastermindedit, but they may have planned or provided the catalyst for it.

This is not just a matter of conventional warfare, whereby we get all of these terrorists andthose who support them in one country and blow them up. Conventional warfare does not work. Ithink the way the Iraq situation is unfolding is far better than having the United States go in thereand just bomb the place. I think that would become a symbolic action, if we had seen the UnitedStates step into Iraq and unilaterally act without the consent or support of the United Nations.One cannot say that one supports the rules as laid down by the United States and want all othercountries to adhere to them and yet be prepared to act outside of the rules and act unilaterally.What is happening there is something we should be grateful for because it has averted thepossibility of a worsening of this situation.

Saddam Hussein is a regional lunatic. Basically, he is a greater threat to his own people.Depending on who we listen to, we are told that he has various capacities to do various things.But there is a lot of politics and hypocrisy in issues involving the Middle East. We cannot losesight of that. So any action that is taken in that regard has to be taken with the support of theUnited Nations. It cannot be unilateral. Saddam Hussein must be forced to follow thoseresolutions that have been laid down.

Any symbolic action against Saddam Hussein, even though he may not have closerelationships with all of his Arab neighbours, runs the risk of turning this issue into a holy war. Ithink that a holy war is a greater concern for us, because the last one that happened 1,000 yearsago lasted for a very long time. This cannot become a Christian versus Muslim issue. This has tobe a situation of decent people who believe in humanity from around the world—regardless ofwhether they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish—versus terrorists. That is what it has to be. We haveto watch the language and we have to watch making enemies sometimes just for the sake ofmaking enemies.


Our process in dealing with this issue needs to be very, very strategic indeed. I do not saythat there should not be some form of strikes, even covert strikes, against individual terrorists, butI would be very concerned about making a martyr out of despots or leaders of nations thatadvance the cause of these people. That is like pouring petrol on a fire. There is no doubt aboutthat. We saw the rhetoric from Osama bin Laden the other day post the Bali bombing. By way ofa published transcript he was quoted as saying that Australians suffered in Bali because Australiais linked to the United States and because of its actions in Timor. I am not saying that we shouldnot have done what we did in Timor and I do not believe that we should step away from ouralliance with the United States, because they are a very important ally. But I think that that shouldsober us in regard to actions and reactions. We need to be very, very much aware of that.

Terrorists do not respect the rules of engagement. They do not follow the rules of war. It isnot like having a fight with Japan, Germany or any other place where we beat them, theysurrender, we occupy them for a while, they rebuild their country, we become allies with them—aswe have done with Germany and Japan—and that is it; it goes on from there. Terrorists do nothave a connection. Of course, the problem is that they do not need to have a connection,because by way of funding arrangements through international charities that have been set up,these people are independently financed. Bin Laden himself is a multimillionaire, if not amultibillionaire. So he has all the resources that he needs. Terrorists do not talk by satellite phone;they talk through other means, such as Internet cafes. So keeping tabs on these people is very,very difficult. Strategic, targeted, military force may be a way of addressing some of the terroristcells, but in terms of throwing lots of bombs around, that does not solve the problem. Diplomacyis important.

A month or so ago the Premier said in parliament that we have to try to address the rootcauses of terrorism. I can say that that is not an easy thing to do when we have situations suchas that which exists between the Israelis and the Palestinians that go back generations orhundreds and thousands of years. The actions of a suicide bomber create the reaction of theIsraelis occupying the Gaza strip, and then there is retaliation, retaliation and retaliation. Thatbecomes symbolism for the likes of Al Qaeda, who link that action with the United States' supportfor Israel. All of those issues feed the zealotry and the festering anti-Western hatred thatpermeates these nations. For example, about 80 per cent of the hijackers who flew themselvesinto those buildings came from Saudi Arabia. Something like 90 per cent of the youth of SaudiArabia agree that Osama bin Laden is on the right track. If we have that situation, how difficult is itto deal with? Being inflammatory is not going to solve the issue. I think that we need to be a bitmore diplomatic, we need to be more strategic and we need to be a bit more inclusive in the wayin which we address some issues. It may mean that some of the rhetoric that has traditionallybeen used in relation to the Middle East is going to have to change.

How do we in Australia respond to terrorism? We respond to it by cooperating at a state andnational level. I commend the Attorney-General for bringing this legislation before parliament. Icommend the Premier and the Attorney-General for their cooperation at a national level in whatthey are seeking to do by providing these reference powers to the Commonwealth. It in no waywhatsoever usurps the sovereign rights and responsibilities of the state. It means that, in theareas where the Commonwealth does not have the constitutional powers to operate, it will providethe right amount of referred state responsibility to the Commonwealth to enable them to act at anational level to ensure that terrorism can be targeted in a whole range of ways. Terrorismincludes carrying out terrorist acts, planning terrorist acts, financing terrorist acts and incitingterrorist acts. That is important.

I think that the COAG agreement has been important in getting us to this stage. The powersneed to be strong and the offences need to be tough. Sure, we need to always have an ear andan eye to people's basic civil liberties and rights, but as ASIO has proved over the past couple ofweeks through its raids—as spectacular as they were—it is pretty well on the right track. I thinkthat when these reference powers are made to the Commonwealth, they are not going to beabused. However, in order to protect the citizens in this country from the calculating, cold-hearted,murderous ways in which these terrorists operate, we need to make sure that we have strongpowers that, in some cases, may impact and conflict with natural justice to some extent and civilliberties.

This does not mean that authorities get involved in torture or holding people for extendedperiods without taking them before a court. But it can and should mean that they can hold peoplefor a period without arrest in order to build a case against them. That is what is going to happenat a Commonwealth level. Those matters are currently before the Senate and are the subject ofsome debate.

4 Dec 2002 Rulings, Motions of Dissent 5393

In Australia, we take our liberties and freedoms for granted. I would love to be able to saythat we could continue to do that. I am not sure that we can. It is as simple as that. It would begreat to know that we could come to Parliament House and not need a police officer here. Butthe reality is that we have quite a number of police officers around. It would be great to know thatthe Premier could go about his business as Premier without having to have the special publicsafety response squad, the VIP people or whatever looking after him. But the reality is that thesituation has changed.

For example, in Europe it is not uncommon to see armed soldiers on the street keepingwatch over potential terrorist targets. I hope that that does not come to pass here, but the realityis that those sorts things may come to pass. Targeting and stamping out terrorism is going to bea long, long process. We can do only so much in Australia. We are suffering from theconsequences of something that has built up in other places around the world. We have to try todeal with terrorism in our own country. Until we can address the root causes of terrorism, we aregoing to have to have strong, effective strategies, which will mean that we will have to have moresecurity. Even if that makes us feel uncomfortable, we are going to have to do that.

This is about protecting our people in the community. We have an obligation and a duty todo that. We should not shy away from that. We should maintain our freedoms and uphold thebasic liberties of people wherever we can, but terrorists do not follow the rules. We should followthe rules, but in following the rules we need to make sure that we do not get overly bogged downby process and a whole range of other things that mean that we let people go when we have apretty good suspicion that they need to be brought to account.

Once again, these are referral powers to the Commonwealth. They are important to ensurethat the Commonwealth will be able to respond at a national level, as it needs to. I understandthat there has to be consent from the states and the territories if there are any changes. Nodoubt, the Premier and the Attorney-General will be continuing to negotiate with theCommonwealth government as issues come up from time to time. That in itself is important.

In conclusion, in schedule 1 the main offences as proposed in part 5.3 of theCommonwealth Criminal Code are as follows: engage in a terrorist act; providing and receivingtraining connected with a terrorist act; possessing things connected with a terrorist act; collectingor making documents likely to facilitate a terrorist act; directing the activities of a terroristorganisation; membership of a terrorist organisation; recruiting for a terrorist organisation; trainingor receiving training from a terrorist organisation; getting funds to or from a terrorist organisation;providing support to a terrorist organisation; and financing a terrorist act. They are the sorts ofoffences we are dealing with that the Commonwealth will be implementing. The schedule goes onto define what is a terrorist act. It is an action or threat of action done or made with the intentionof advancing a political, religious or ideological cause and coercing or influencing by intimidation agovernment or intimidating the public. That is fair enough by me. I commend the government forits actions in this. It is something that members have to be prepared to do. We may even have tobe prepared to beef this up in the future because we do not know what will happen. We owe it toeveryone, not least the people we represent out there and our families.

Debate, on motion of Mr Welford, adjourned.

RULINGS, MOTIONS OF DISSENTMr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (6.01 p.m.): I move—

That the Standing Rules and Orders of this House be amended as follows—(1) By amending Standing Order 117 as follows—

(a) Replace "Mr Speaker" where second occurring by "the presiding officer";(b) Insert the following paragraph after the existing paragraphs—

During debate on such Motion the Speaker shall leave the Chair, and an appropriate presiding officershall chair the debate. If the motion is in dissent from the ruling of the Speaker, the appropriate presidingofficer is the Chairperson of Committees, if available, or otherwise the most senior temporaryChairperson of Committees. If the motion is in dissent from the ruling of a Deputy Speaker, theappropriate presiding officer is the Speaker, if available, or otherwise the most senior of the personseligible to act as Deputy Speaker other than the person who made the ruling against which the motion isdirected.


(a) Replace "Chairman" where second occurring by "presiding officer";(b) Insert the following paragraph after the existing paragraphs—

During debate on such Motion the Chairman of Committees shall leave the Chair, and an appropriatepresiding officer shall chair the debate. If the motion is in dissent from a ruling or decision of the

5394 Rulings, Motions of Dissent 4 Dec 2002

Chairperson of Committees, the appropriate presiding officer is the most senior temporary Chairpersonof Committees. If the motion is in dissent from the ruling or decision of a temporary Chairperson ofCommittees, the appropriate presiding officer is the Chairperson of Committees, if available, orotherwise the most senior temporary Chairperson of Committees other than the one who made the rulingor decision against which the motion is directed.

I was inspired to move this amendment to the standing orders as a result of events in this Houseon 7 November. On that day, while the House was debating a motion of dissent from theSpeaker's ruling on an earlier day moved by the member for Beaudesert, the Speaker namedthat member and this led to his suspension from the House for seven days. I certainly do not wishto canvass the rights or wrongs of the member for Beaudesert's suspension. He said somethingthat the Premier found offensive and refused to withdraw it—that is pretty clear. Whether thatdeserved seven days' suspension may be debatable, but it is not my present topic. I was struck atthe time by the fact that a wider principle seemed to be breached. It seemed to me wrong inprinciple that, when the House is debating a motion of dissent from the ruling of a presidingofficer, the same presiding officer remains in the chair and has under standing order 124 thepower to name a member, perhaps the same member who has moved the motion of dissent.

No matter how fair minded the presiding officer is, he or she may feel a little irritated by thefact that his or her ruling has been challenged. That irritation may make him or her more ready toname the member who moved the motion. Even if the presiding officer is not really more ready toname the member, the presiding officer may be perceived by others as being rather in a hurry touse the naming power or just waiting for an excuse to use standing order 124.

In meetings and hearings outside of parliament, better principles apply. As I said in thedebate on 7 November, the standard procedure in many community associations is that ifmembers are questioning a chairman or a president's decision, the chairman or president usuallysteps down from the chair while the matter is argued. This may be more likely to happen if theywant to speak in defence of the ruling that is being questioned, but it can happen on otheroccasions, too. I understand that the book on meeting procedure does not say that there is anabsolute rule of standing down, but it is certainly a common practice. Likewise in the courts,judges stand down from the hearing of a case if they have a conflict of interest or if a reasonableobserver might perceive that they have a conflict. Of course, parties can challenge their significantrulings about procedure or the admissibility of evidence by appealing to a judge or panel ofjudges sitting at a more senior level in the court hierarchy. In law, it is important that justice shouldnot only be done but should be seen to be done. Judges should not only be impartial but beseen to be impartial, and not even suffer a reasonable suspicion of partiality.

And yet here in parliament the standing orders make no provision for the Speaker or aChairman of Committees to stand down in these circumstances. Indeed on their natural reading,standing orders 117 and 118, as drafted at present, seem to positively suggest that the Speakershould stay put, no matter how high the emotional temperature may be between himself andsomeone moving dissent from one of his rulings.

I offer this amendment in an attempt to lower the emotional temperature in debate, and alsoto set an example for the world outside parliament by setting some rules for the fairer, and visiblyfairer, conduct of debate. Since the last state election, I have on a number of occasions spokenwith the Clerk of Parliament, and more recently the relieving Clerk, about amending variousstanding orders governing the conduct of debate in this House. To date, I have been informedthat a review is under way and that, as time permits, more work will be done to progress thereview. That response is exactly the same as it was after the last state election.

We are almost two-thirds of the way through this parliamentary term and I believe it is nowtime to act to prevent the Speaker again from being placed in the embarrassing situation ofpresiding over a meeting debating a motion of dissent from one of his own rulings. I believe thatparliament owes the Speaker that basic courtesy and hope that government members willgenuinely consider the merit of this motion. Justice should not just be done but must be seen tobe done and accordingly chairmen of meetings should not only be impartial but must be seen tobe impartial.

The parliament, whether we like it or not, sets the standards of meeting procedure that manyother people in our community follow. I accordingly believe it is time to ensure that a Speakernever again has to chair a meeting debating a motion dissenting from one of his or her ownrulings. I commend the motion to the House.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (6.06 p.m.): I rise to second this motion and toemphasise that the motion deals with process and not individual persons. This motion proposes


to put into place a process whereby a Speaker whose ruling is being dissented against vacatesthe chair for the period that motion is debated and decided. Firstly, it must be infinitely morecomfortable for a Speaker not to be presiding while his or her decision is dissected, inspected andargued. Secondly, when the Speaker removes themselves from presiding on the debate it couldbe more clearly demonstrated that impartial adjudication of the debate is being achieved.

During the most recent dissent motion, as the previous speaker said, the mover of themotion was ejected from parliament during the dissent debate. The basis of his ejection was valid.The extent of his ejection may be seen by some to be arguable. Again, if the Speaker steppedaside and a person other than the Speaker presides, some of that potential concern could beallayed. Finally, in many commercial situations a person directly affected by a motion would notparticipate in the debate other than in the presentation of a rebuttal argument. The previousspeaker has already stated that the Standing Orders Committee can add a significant period oftime to make recommendations to this chamber. There has been time for them to meet. Whenwe look at the membership of that committee, they are very busy people.

We have had demonstrated recently a problem that can be addressed—and addressedappropriately—and this chamber can make a decision tonight. This motion does not propose anidea without also providing a solution. Part 2 of the motion outlines an alternate process which issound and definable. It uses the same principles of presiding as occurs at the commencement ofa parliament. At that time, the longest serving member presides while the Speaker is elected.That member has been at various times the member for Cunningham and, more lately, themember for Keppel. This motion proposes that, in the case of the Speaker standing aside, theChairman of Committees presides and, if it is that the Chairman of Committee's ruling is underdebate, the most senior temporary chair of committees. So, it is a similar process. This motion isclear, fair and defendable. It can be supported by this chamber, and a sound, transparentprocess for debating the contentious decisions of the Speaker can be followed.

Fortunately, we have not had many dissent motions. They have been fairly infrequent. In theprevious parliament when the numbers were closer there were a few more. One would hope thatdissent motions are not common occurrences. However, when they do occur, it places theSpeaker, if it is his or her ruling that is the subject of dissent, in an invidious position as thestanding orders are currently formulated. The motion of the member for Nicklin clearly offers apath that is defendable and can be followed easily. I commend the motion to the House.

Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (6.10 p.m.): In rising tospeak in the debate tonight, I assure the mover and seconder of the motion that its contentshave been genuinely considered by government. I think it is fair to say that, if we look at some ofthe motions that have been put and some of the suggestions that have been raised since wecame into government, we have not as a government been at all averse to considering changesto the standing orders or the procedures of the parliament where there is merit in doing so. Thismotion was given a great deal of thought today but, unfortunately, for reasons that I will nowoutline the government is not able to support the motion in this form and it will not be seeking toamend it.

I understand the intention of the motion, but I am concerned that it misses the mark. Themember referred to this issue during the most recent dissent motion and, in doing so, raised theissue, as he has done tonight, about the standard meeting procedures in communityorganisations or in many of the other spheres in which we might participate in a formal meeting,whether it is a political party or the local neighbourhood centre. It is important to understand thatstandard meeting procedures do not apply in this parliament. While there is much that we do thatis very similar to what happens in those organisations, this parliament is governed by its standingand sessional orders. The standing orders of the parliament are orders that have developed, inmany cases, with a great deal of precedent over a very long time, in some cases literallyhundreds of years.

The concern that the member expressed when he last spoke—and I can see on the face ofit how the standing order could be interpreted in this way—is that it does not seem appropriate forthe Speaker to be in a position effectively to judge a dissent motion. The Speaker is not a judge.The Speaker does not hear and rule. The Speaker does not make a judgment about a dissentmotion. The Speaker is there to maintain the order of the House while the motion is debated. It isthe House that makes the judgment. It is the members voting in the chamber who make thedecision on the merits of the argument considering the circumstances in which the dissent motionarose.


The office of the Speaker is an ancient one which dates back to the early English parliamentin the 14th century. The Speaker is the representative of the dignity and privileges of the House.He or she chairs its proceedings and maintains not only order in the chamber but also in theparliamentary precinct. The dignity of the Speaker's office is regarded in some Westminsterparliaments with such seriousness that no dissent motions from the rulings of the chair areallowed. For example, the House of Commons and the Canadian parliament do not provide inany case for a dissent motion to be heard, because it is the view of those parliaments that theauthority of the Speaker is paramount and should never be questioned. I am not advocating thatfor this parliament; I am just providing that as an historical example.

It is part of the Australian political culture that one ought to be able to question a ruling,whether it be from the Speaker or another rule maker. It is a democratic freedom that we holdvery dear. I looked into this issue today to see what other parliaments do. Every other stateparliament in Australia has a similar standing order to that which is provided here, as does theCommonwealth Parliament of Australia. This is a standing order of all of the parliaments ofAustralia at state and Commonwealth levels. That is because when Speakers hear a dissentmotion they are fulfilling their paramount responsibility, and that is to chair the debates andenforce the rules. The Speaker of the parliament is always the chair, even when they are beingdeputised for. The deputy speakers and deputy chairs of committees are in fact representativesof the Speaker. If the Chairman of Committees were to preside over a dissent motion, theSpeaker would in effect be participating in a deliberative way in the debate, that is, participating ina deliberative way over his own ruling. In the chair he is fulfilling his or her role as an observer or areferee, not as a participant.

I was interested in how this standing order came to be. I can only divine that it is there toavoid the prospect that in theory the Speaker, if he or she is not in the chair, is in effect aparticipant in a deliberative way in the consideration of the motion. In fact, in the House ofRepresentatives should a dissent motion be, for example, about the Deputy Speaker, theSpeaker in that parliament would ensure, under its standing orders, that the Deputy Speaker waspresiding as the chair; that is, the person whose ruling is the subject of dissent would be requiredunder its standing orders to be in the chamber. While I can see that there is a legitimate concernabout and a very genuine attempt to remedy something that is causing some concern, thegovernment is unable in this instance to support the proposition that is being put forward. I thankthe mover and seconder for raising the issue and for requiring us to consider it.

Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (6.15 p.m.): Although I am sure that the member forNicklin has moved this motion with the very best of intentions, I find that tonight I cannot supportit. Although I believe the honourable member for Nicklin bases his actions on the operations ofstanding orders in various community groups—I am sure he is part of many such groups—it goeswithout saying that this place is simply not like just any community group.

Today I reflected on my very first visit to the parliament. It came not as a school student, nora university student and nor as a tourist, as it does for many of our visitors to the public galleryand the whole parliamentary precinct. Rather, the first time I entered this building was after I hadbeen elected to represent the people of Whitsunday. I recall at the time a very strangesensation—a coldness up the back of my neck—that was probably born partly of the realisation ofthe enormity of the position to which I had just been elected and also, largely, because I felt verystrongly at the time that it was because of the dignity and tradition that is so apparent in the veryatmosphere of this building. As I quickly came to realise, it is that very tradition and ceremony thatunderlies the delivery of stability and governance in this state. Unlike some parliaments in otherparts of the world, our parliament is characterised by order in process that allows vigorous debate,genuine representation and, at the end of the day, a legislative program that is after all at thevery heart of our purpose.

The Speaker's role in the running of parliament is paramount. He or she is elected by secretballot and is charged with the duty of impartiality in the keeping of order and protection of theintegrity of the House. Importantly, the Speaker is not permitted to take part in debate during amotion of dissent. The motion before the House tonight would take the Speaker out of the chairduring the debate on the motion. The problem is that the Speaker, as a previous membermentioned, is the chair in all debates of the House. His deputies, myself included, merely act forhim at his request. The Speaker is the umpire of the House and, while this places certain impliedonuses on him, it conversely has implications for honourable members. Just as in a game ofcricket the umpire's decision is final, so it is in this place. This does not mean that the umpire isinfallible, but we put our faith in an umpire and believe that he or she will know the rules and apply


them with impartiality to the best of their ability. So it is with the Speaker. In the game of cricketthere are huge fines for players who dissent from the umpire's rulings or decisions. That does nothappen in this place, but it is worth reflecting on that the Speaker's ruling on issues such asdissent from rulings should be more greatly respected in line with the authority of the position.

I know, as do you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that taking on the role of temporary chair ofcommittees was a great honour. Our instructions have always been to make rulings withimpartiality and integrity in line with the example set by the Speaker for whom we deputise. It istrue to say that we have always done that to the best of our ability.

I wish to return to a point I made a little earlier, and that is that the Speaker of the parliamentdoes not enter the debate on a motion of dissent from a ruling, and that is as it should be. Butgiven this situation—no part in debate—what would the honourable member for Nicklin have theSpeaker do during such debates? Clearly the Speaker's role is in the chair, acting as umpire tothe debate. He plays no role in that debate and therefore cannot influence the members in theirdeliberations. The Speaker does not adjudicate on the debate except on procedural matters. Themembers make the decision on the question. In most cases the Speaker does not even cast avote. How, then, would the motion before the House improve the existing situation? Simply, itwould not.

The suggested alterations to the standing orders would add nothing to the integrity ofproceedings and would in fact place the Speaker in an impossible situation of not being in thechair, nor able to participate in the debate. Our standing orders, together with acceptedconventions arising from them, are based on procedures and operations which have developedover many hundreds of years and have stood the test of time. I have great faith in both theinstitutions of this parliament as they stand and in the capacity of the Speaker to discharge theduties of the office he was elected to. For those reasons, I must oppose the motion.

Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (6.21 p.m.): The opposition supports theintention of the motion moved by the honourable member for Nicklin because we believe it issomething which is worthy of full and proper consideration by this parliament. In the time I havebeen in this place I have certainly seen circumstances arise where the impartiality and theappropriateness of the Speaker adjudicating certain matters have been brought into somequestion. Fortunately, or unfortunately, we operate and live in a parliament where politicsabounds.

When we are dealing with those forms of reality we need to be very careful that the actionsof the Speaker are not only fair but are also seen to be fair and that issues of the appropriatenessof the Speaker presiding at the time of motions of dissent should not always be taken for granted.I acknowledge what the Leader of the House said in her contribution. Certainly if we look at theAustralian parliaments the information she presented is absolutely right, and that is theconvention. She also mentioned other Westminster jurisdictions. The United Kingdom parliamenthas an independent Speaker. Once a person is elected to that high office that person is nolonger contested in their seat. That takes them from the political process, as well as any questionsthat go with that from time to time.

I would say that on most occasions when Speakers have been pinpointed with allegations ofpolitical bias they have been part of the political hoi polloi of the day. The issue that I raise here isthis: times change and we modify our standing orders and we look at issues as they individuallyarise in this parliament. Therefore, I think it is proper for us to appropriately consider the full extentof the proposal put forward by the honourable member for Nicklin. I would like to believe that ifthis parliament votes it down tonight—which I hope it does not—it should not be dismissed onceand for all. These sorts of reform processes are something that we need to consider. We updateand we modernise our standing orders from time to time. We modernise the language, wemodernise the processes and we modernise our committees in the way that those particularcommittees operate. That is the role of this parliament.

If honourable members opposite vote this down tonight, the Standing Orders Committeeshould at least be prepared to take a reference on this matter and look at it. I believe it is worthyand I believe it needs to be explored a little bit more than we are able to explore it here tonight bysimply saying that there is no problem with the status quo, it is fine, and we should vote against iton the basis that we are upholding tradition. I am usually a person who is very much a stickler fortradition, but I am also a person who is prepared to concede that there are issues where theappropriateness, perceptual or otherwise, of the Speaker being the presiding officer in mattersagainst his or her own ruling can draw questions on impartiality of conduct from time to time. Weneed to be aware of that and we need to consider it. Whilst we have the traditions that say that


the Speaker should sit in the chair and preside, I think it places the Speaker in an invidiousposition from time to time.

I remember two or three years ago when a motion of no confidence was moved in theSpeaker of this parliament and the Speaker had to use his own casting vote to save himself.Maybe we would expect the Speaker to do that but is that a credible position? Does that havecredibility? Does it have standing? Do people actually respect that particular process? I mustadmit that I had some questions on that night, and I continue to have questions over theappropriateness of the Speaker using his own casting vote to defeat a motion of no confidence inhim.

They are the sorts of issues that have arisen in this parliament. I understand thetraditionalist's viewpoint and can accept the argument put forward, but I do not necessarily agreethat we should adhere strictly to it because things do evolve. Our very own parliamentary privilegeis different from what it was in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688. It is different now from what itwas. The linkage in the way that we legislate and enshrine our parliamentary privilege is differentfrom what it used to be historically and so, therefore, should the role of the Speaker during amotion of dissent. That is why the honourable member for Nicklin's motion is worthy of support.

Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (6.26 p.m.): It appears to me that the member for Nicklinhas misunderstood the role of the Speaker, and yet to me the role is clearly defined. TheSpeaker's role is to keep order, as a servant of the House. The Speaker's role is not to sit inadjudication; this is not a court of law. The Speaker's role is essential to good parliamentarypractice—parliamentary practice that has stood the test of time.

I believe this motion is redundant. The process to amend standing orders is by making asubmission to the Standing Orders Committee. The committee would then report to theparliament where the amendment might or might not be debated and where, I suggest, if thismotion were to be presented it would be denied. The member appears to be misguided and isfocused on a legal organisational model for the parliament.

To illustrate: the Speaker has no role in the decisions this House takes. The Speaker merelyputs the question; the Speaker does not put the case. The Speaker does not participate in thedebate or the voting. Standing order 117 is abundantly clear; the Speaker sits in the chair. Pleasenote the House of Representatives Practice, page 226—... that it has now become the established practice of the chair not to participate during debate on a Motion ofDissent from a ruling except, for instance, to explain or clarify a procedural matter as the question is in the handsof the House and for it to decide.

In his speech on the debate on the Speaker's ruling, the member for Ashgrove stated that if anymember finds any matter offensive or untrue, it is not for the chair to rule on it; rather it is up tothe member to say so and ask the member who made the comment to withdraw it. Simple tounderstand! Also, Mr Fouras stated that the Speaker always hears dissent motions. That is theprocedure.

I reiterate: the Speaker, the Chairman, is not adjudicating. He or she is filling the role ofSpeaker. What would it change? Would it change the vote? No! There is a natural conclusion tothe member's motion. If the Speaker were to be replaced by, as the member for Nicklin states, apresiding officer, the Speaker would in turn become a participant and would cease to be impartialor, when the umpire starts kicking the ball, he or she becomes one of the players. I guessCollingwood would have loved that against the Lions in the AFL Grand Final. I had to get that inthen.

The member for Nicklin's motion states that if the motion is in dissent from the ruling of theSpeaker, the appropriate presiding officer is the Chairman of Committees, if available, orotherwise the most senior Temporary Chairman of Committees. Colleagues, I find that totallyinsulting. What is the notion of the 'most senior'? How is that to be denoted? As TemporaryChairmen and as Deputy Speakers are we not all equal? I think we are. This notice of motion bythe member for Nicklin is simplistic in its intent. It is not based on a sound understanding ofparliamentary practice; nor will it have any bearing on improving parliamentary practice. Thisnotice of motion by the member for Nicklin is simplistic in its entirety.

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (6.30 p.m.): I have muchpleasure in rising to support the motion moved by the member for Nicklin. I do so because theQueensland Nationals believe that this is a progressive proposal that will restore a greater level ofdemocracy to this parliament and a higher level of government accountability. It is a proposal thatis consistent with the National Party's commitment to restoring honesty to government. It is


consistent with the promise we took to the last election to charge an all-party parliamentarycommittee with the job of examining the Speaker's role to determine if it should be trulyindependent based on the Westminster model where the Speaker should resign his position fromany political party. That commitment is not shared by the Premier or his Labor Party.

The election of the Beattie Labor government in a landslide in 2001 brought with it a heavyresponsibility for the current government to ensure that its massive majority did not bring with itthe opportunity for the government to shirk from public accountability. The Premier made anumber of commitments to the member for Nicklin in 1998 in order to win his support to formgovernment. In 2001 he pledged to adhere to the principles sought by the member for Nicklin. Hepromised that the luxury of 66 seats would not sway his commitment to accountability. And howshallow some of that commitment has been proved since. We have seen example after examplewhere the Premier and his government have abused their majority, where they have thumbedtheir nose at accountability and where they have treated this parliament with contempt, asnothing more than an inconvenient rubber stamp.

We have seen questions not answered in the true spirit of the standing and sessional orders.We have seen parliamentary committees ignored. We have seen opposition MPs denied theirright to private members' statements. We have seen the gag applied, particularly during theprevious term of parliament. We have seen countless times when ministers did not even bothershowing up for question time. We have approved that ministers should go to ministerial councils,but more and more we are seeing ministers not being here in parliament and all too often we arenot being told about it. On one occasion last week we were told 10 minutes into the session. Wehave seen example after example where ministers have been allowed to routinely flout the rulesof parliament. The Premier allows his ministers and backbenchers to interject, yell and shoutabuse at the opposition; however, as soon as the Premier stands and there are someinterjections, we see the feigned outrage from the Premier.

When taking all these things together, we realise the importance of having an independentSpeaker in this place according to the policy that we are looking at, but particularly with regard tothis motion. This is about giving fairness to the Speaker and fairness to the Chairman ofCommittees so that if there is a motion of dissent—and there has only been one motion ofdissent in this term of parliament; we have not used it flippantly at all and carefully consideredtaking that particular one—it means that the Speaker does not have to sit there and be the judgeof whether members are speaking to the particular topic or whatever when he has his own partyspeaking on one side and the dissent motion is directed at him personally. On 17 October 2000the incumbent Speaker was forced to use his casting vote to save himself in a motion of dissentbrought before the House.

The Fitzgerald inquiry is very important in terms of some of the things it said about the role ofparliament. The report says—Any government may use its dominance in the parliament and its control of public resources to stifle and neutereffective criticism by the opposition. This can be prevented by mechanisms such as an impartial Speaker.Because of its necessary numerical strength, the government in a parliamentary democracy is obviously able tochange or ignore the rules.

Mr Fitzgerald went on to say—In these circumstances, the authority and neutrality of the 'referee' is of critical importance. The Speaker cannotafford to adopt a partisan role either voluntarily or in order to retain the confidence and support of the governmentparty. If the Speaker enters the arena, there is a risk that the parliament will not be able to make the governmentaccountable.

Much of that gets to the philosophy of this motion moved by the member for Nicklin. It is abouthaving that public credence, if you like, in that if there does happen to be a motion of dissent it isnot Caesar judging Caesar or Caesar being the one controlling the debate because for suchdebates someone else, such as a presiding officer, would take the chair, whether it is a dissentmotion moved against the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees. This motion is not a big ask,but it would certainly ensure that this parliament is held in greater stead. It would certainly developgreater public confidence. It is not in any way a slur on the Speaker; it is about ensuring that theSpeaker is not put in a difficult position when a debate is being held about the actions of theSpeaker, so that the debate can be conducted fairly for both sides with a presiding officeroverseeing the debate who is not the subject of the particular dissent motion.

Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove—ALP) (6.34 p.m.): Tonight the member for Nicklin opened thedebate by referring to standing order 124 which allows the chair—in this case, the Speaker—toname a member who obstructs the authority of the chair. He unfortunately went on to say that he


was worried that the Speaker would be waiting for the opportunity to name the member whobrought on the dissent motion. That is a disgraceful slur on the independence of the Speaker.The Speaker in the chair keeps order to guarantee the procedures of this parliament. Ifsomebody reflects on the chair or does not take a lawful direction from the chair, then that personhas to be named. Nothing that the member for Beaudesert did that night brought any honour tohim. He asked to be sent out. Any person in the chair, whether or not it was the Speaker, wouldhave sent the member for Beaudesert out of this chamber on that night.

We are talking about setting some rules for fairer conduct of debate. We have the rules. Therules have withstood the test of time. We have been told that actions of the Speaker should notonly be fair but also be seen to be fair. Standing orders in every parliament of Australia state thatMr Speaker shall sit in the chair. All parliaments in the Westminster system have that standingorder. Somehow or other we here seem to think that having it brings some sort of pretence thatwe are not behaving properly. When I became Speaker I said that I would not wear a wigbecause I did not see my position as a judicial one, and I did not wear a wig. What we are seeinghere is a perception that the Speaker decides. However, he is not a judge in his own court. Hedoes not have to stand down because of conflicts of interest. The member for Nicklin is trying toapply legal rules to the parliamentary domain. Unfortunately, this underlines a totalmisunderstanding of the role of the Speaker.

The Speaker keeps order and ensures that there is proper procedure. The Speaker has norole in whatever decision the House takes on any dissent motion; the House decides. Therefore, Ithink that this process before the House tonight is wrong. This is not a matter to be decided by amotion before the House; rather, it should actually be a matter referred to the Standing OrdersCommittee. However, it is such a poor matter that I would not support the issue being referred tothat committee at all. Erskine May states—Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedureand many conventions exist which have as their object not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also toensure that this impartiality is generally recognised.

These sorts of debates destroy the dignity and authority of the parliament. In his comments, theLeader of the Opposition also reflected badly on the impartiality of the Speaker. I think they weredisgraceful. What we are doing is breaking down the dignity and authority of this parliament.

In fact, what happens in other parliaments with regard to dissent motions? During the lastdissent motion debated in this House I went through a number of dissent motions moved while Iwas Speaker. None of them had any foundation. All they were about was trying to throw somemud and make political point scoring of the issue. If the opposition cannot get enough two-minutespeeches and questions, it cannot blame the Speaker for that, and that was the source of thedissent motion last time. House of Representatives Practice states—In 1931 a motion of dissent was moved against a ruling given by Speaker Makin. During the debate on the motion ...Speaker Makin participated and stated

...

However it has now become the established practice for the Chair not to participate during debate on a motion ofdissent from a ruling ...

In those days in the House of Commons if members behaved the way some members behavenow the Speaker would not see them. The Speaker would say, 'I will not see you until youapologise and start behaving properly.' That member would not get up on a question or to debatea bill, irrespective of whether or not they had put their name down. In fact, in 1950 SpeakerCameron refused to see a member who had been disrespectful until he apologised. In Canadathere are no dissent motions. House of Representatives Practice states—'The case for the abolition of appeals is overwhelming even in the absence of a permanent Speakership.

We use dissent motions here as a political ploy, but what we do in that process is destroy theauthority of this parliament. The House of Commons also has no dissent motions. The issue herefor the member for Nicklin is that we should desist from this concept of having dissent motion afterdissent motion; rather, we should respect the authority of the chair, play the game and accept theumpire's decision. They are not always right, but in the end they have made such decisions withthe best intentions and in the best interests of this institution.

Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (6.40 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the motionmoved by the member for Nicklin that the standing rules and orders of this House be amended.At the heart of this motion is a very simple concept. It is simply that someone against whom aquestion has been raised should not be part of the resolution of that question. There is nothing inthat which reflects at all upon the honour of the position. In fact, as proposed here, it does


nothing more than reinforce via standing orders the high esteem in which the position of Speakeris held.

This proposal provides a simple mechanism by which questions which directly relate to adecision or action of the Speaker can be dealt with in a manner which leaves that office holderfree of any embarrassment. It is nothing more than is expected in any community group ororganisation.

The Speaker's role is especially important, not least because of the quite variedcircumstances he may be required to preside over—from a parliament held overwhelmingly byone party or another to one where the balance of power may be quite close. Clearly, the positionof Speaker is filled by the government of the day. That in itself may carry certain implications,deserved or not. Nonetheless, it is the case. The point of that comment is to highlight the stressesinherent in the position itself, let alone those which may apply from time to time due to overlyrobust activity in this place.

Of course it is appropriate that the Speaker be appointed by the government of the day. Iam a very strong supporter of the Westminster traditions which underpin our Commonwealth.That is not to say that a chance such as this to provide the position of Speaker with a mechanismproviding for proper, honourable and reasonable means of addressing questions raised aboutdecisions made by the Speaker should not be given serious consideration. I believe it is vital tothe proper functioning of this place.

The role of Speaker is, I would expect, at times an onerous task and no doubt littleappreciated, especially by those who may come under adverse attention. It is a position the rolesand functions of which, and the rules governing it, should receive more attention. Given that theSpeaker in any parliament is drawn from the elected representatives and in turn is almost certainlya longstanding member of one or another political party, it is I think unreasonable to expect theposition to be entirely free of political argument. I am not at all suggesting that the Speakermakes decisions or acts on any political basis—simply that politics do surround the position. It is tosay that in the carryings-on in this place one or another side of a debate may make that claim orraise some other question.

These amendments to Standing Rules and Orders are aimed at putting in place a means bywhich those questions can be addressed while at the same time ensuring the position of Speakeris not potentially compromised by the person about whom the question has been raised beingrequired to govern the debate about that question.

We expect the Speaker to ensure the business of parliament is carried out fairly, and I think itis impossible to overstate the importance of that role. These amendments focus on thatintegrity—on reinforcing it and on providing a means by which the inevitable questions whenraised can be dealt with without further burdening the position.

These amendments do not bring about any significant change to the way in which thebusiness of this place is carried out. They have no impact on anything the Speaker does, on anyroles the Speaker is called on to perform or on any decisions the Speaker may have to make.They only become active on the rare occasion that the Speaker is faced with a motion of dissent.As much as there is plenty of argument in here, really there are few times when we have seen amotion of dissent brought forward.

I commend previous speakers from this side of the House for their contributions. I alsoacknowledge the comments of the Speaker of the House. I believe that this government isundertaking a review of Standing Rules and Orders which has so far taken some two years. Stillthere is no result. If this government had been more active in this area, it may be that theseamendments would not have been needed and this debate would not have had to take placetonight.

Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (6.44 p.m.): While recognising that the motivesbehind this motion are pure in the member's mind, and while he believes that he is doingsomething that will enhance the parliament, I rise to speak against the motion because I believe itgoes to the very heart of what parliament is and what it is not.

Perhaps the member for Nicklin's legal training leads him to a certain conclusion. In hisspeech he referred to 'in law' and to how people see what we are. The member may be used to asystem where there is appeal to a higher court, but this is not the parliamentary system. He wouldknow, though, that even in the legal system the High Court has to hear matters about its owndecisions and its ability to hear cases. There are many occasions in the lower courts on which the


magistrate or judge will hear a submission about the magistrate's or judge's own ability to hear thecase that is presented before him or her at that occasion.

There are many secular—by that I mean non-parliamentary, in the community—and legalsystems that establish what the chairman does in terms of controlling proceedings. Theparliamentary system limits what the Speaker can do in terms of participation in the debate, andthat is very similar to many of the community groups to which the member referred. There arecommunity organisations in which the chairman does not move motions and does not participatein the general debate but whose job it is to control the proceedings, even when thoseproceedings involve a vote of no confidence in the chair. So even taking the member's ownargument, which I do not accept, there are in secular society, in community groups, examples ofwhere the chairman will take the chair and retain the chair, even when there is a vote of noconfidence.

The member for Tablelands also tried to make parallels with community groups. The keything is: we are not a community group. For centuries parliament has established proceedingswhich establish it as master of its own destiny, and there is a very good reason for that. Becauseof the history from which parliament grew, where individual monarchs controlled through thepower of the sword and through fear, the people did not have their say. The parliamentary systemwas established to give supremacy to the parliament as the representatives of the people whoelected them.

The member would know that when the Speaker is elected and is brought forward, hesymbolically resists the election because on a number of occasions the Speaker was killed by themonarch. The Speaker is held in particularly high regard. Even the standing orders state inrelation to the election of Mr Speaker—The Member, on being called to the Chair, expresses in his place his sense of the honour proposed to be conferredupon him, and submits himself to the pleasure of the House.

That sort of wording, that sort of practice, is not carried on in legal proceedings and in communitygroups. The reason is that parliament is different. The standing orders also state—Having been conducted to the Chair, the Member elected—

that is, the new Speaker—returns his acknowledgements to the House for the honour conferred upon him, and thereupon sits down in theChair, and a member offers his congratulations.

Can the honourable member tell me what other group determines that sort of respect for thechair? The reason is that over generations parliament has endowed the position of Speaker withthe power and the responsibilities it has. Part of that is to sit in judgment, to sit as chair, even ifthere is a motion against him.

We have parliamentary privilege here in order to say things and do things that cannot besaid and done outside, because we are not a normal community group. We are different. Wehave Hansard to record what we say so that we are accountable. Community groups do not dothat. What concerns me greatly is that, with the best will in the world, the member's motion will infact take away something of what the parliament is.

The member for Nicklin said 'in law certain things happen' and spoke about the fact that theSpeaker could be placed in an embarrassing position. I say that the Speaker could be placed inan embarrassing position as a result of this particular motion.

I note that the Speaker is absent. I should state that at 10.44 a.m. on 29 November Iauthorised his leave to attend a family commitment, so the Speaker is not here tonight becauseof that family commitment for which I had given him leave.

In summary, parliament is different. We cannot be compared to a normal community group.We have over centuries developed these proceedings specifically because of the institution thatwe are. That is why I cannot accept the member's motion.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put; and the House divided—AYES, 20—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn,E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, SpringborgNOES, 51—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins,J. Cunningham, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Lavarch, Lawlor, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady,Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reilly, Reynolds,N. Roberts, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Smith, Spence, Strong, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells,Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves

Resolved in the negative.Sitting suspended from 6.56 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.


TERRORISM (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILLSecond Reading

Resumed (see p. 5393).Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (8.30 p.m.): I

rise to speak on this bill in support of the Attorney. This Terrorism (Commonwealth Powers) Bill2002 fulfils a commitment and agreement we reached at COAG when I sat down with the PrimeMinister. I want to thank the opposition for its support in passing this through all stages. We havedone this because we are committed to ensuring that Australia as a nation faces up to theterrorism threat, but in a sensible and constructive way. The advice we received was that therewere some potential legal difficulties in relation to the federal government's power in this area.There was certainly no opportunity from our point of view for leaving any doubt.

Since September 11 and in particular since the tragic events in Bali on 12 October this year,it is fair to say that our carefree Australian lifestyle has been dealt a very significant blow. I haveconsistently signalled on behalf of the Queensland government our willingness to work with theCommonwealth and other state governments to reinforce Australia's antiterrorism armour. Whilewe pray it will never happen, we must ensure the nation is fully prepared to respond in the eventof an attack on Australians at home. This bill delivers on my commitment to the leader's summiton transnational crime and terrorism in April this year. Queensland agreed to 'take whateveraction necessary to ensure that terrorists can be prosecuted under the criminal law including areference of power of specific jointly agreed legislation'.

This bill refers state powers to the Commonwealth to ensure that there is no doubt about theCommonwealth's ability to take action in response to a terrorist event at home. For example, if anact of terrorism occurs entirely within Queensland and no link can be established to aninternational terrorist group or imported firearms, the Commonwealth will have unquestionedjurisdiction to charge persons with terrorism offences. We will not compromise Queensland law orour ability to prosecute criminal acts in Queensland. We have a responsibility and we will honourthat responsibility.

In referring these powers, Queensland maintains control over the referred powers. I want tomake it very clear to the House that that was an important consideration that cabinet deliberatedon when it considered support for this legislation. I want to stress it and I want to underline it. Inreferring these powers, Queensland maintains control over the referred powers. Anintergovernmental agreement will be prepared and will say that a majority of states must agree toany future Commonwealth amendments. In addition, a clause in the bill enables the executive tounconditionally revoke the reference by proclamation. We can do that as a state if theCommonwealth tries to amend the text in breach of the agreement. We retain that inherentpower, if you like, to revoke the reference by proclamation if the Commonwealth tries to amendthe text in breach of the agreement. The Commonwealth legislation also ensures Commonwealthterrorism offences do not replace state offences but will instead operate concurrently with statecriminal offences.

At COAG this Friday the national effort to combat terrorism will continue. This is one of themany items on the agenda for Friday. COAG will discuss an upgrade of the national securecommunications network and will look at expanding antiterrorism exercises involving severalstates. Tighter weapons control is also on the COAG agenda. I make it clear that I support a banon certain categories of concealable hand guns, those with a minimum barrel length of 100millimetres, semiautomatic/revolver, .22 calibre to .45 calibre, and a maximum shot capacity of10.

There has been some debate about the various governments' positions in relation to the banon concealable hand guns. I wanted to make very clear tonight that that is what we will besupporting on Friday on behalf of the Queensland government. I discussed that in cabinet onMonday and cabinet has endorsed the position I have outlined to parliament.

However, the Commonwealth must come to the party and fully fund this buyback. Canberraintroduced a one-off increase in the Medicare levy to buy back guns after the Port Arthurmassacre in April 1996. The Commonwealth proposes another buyback and the Commonwealthshould again fund it. I understand there is $15 million left from that Port Arthur buyback fund andI have no difficulty in that being used. But, frankly, I do not believe that we should be, I guess,funding those to hand over illegal weapons. I am not opposed to an amnesty, and recently weagreed in cabinet that we would hand the Police Commissioner that responsibility and indeed thatpower. We do not necessarily need a buyback to get illegal weapons. Gun control and counter-


terrorism measures impact on Queensland's sense of security and our freedom to continue ourrelaxed lifestyle. I hope we can reach agreement in Canberra on Friday.

This bill further demonstrates Queensland's preparedness to work hand in glove with theCommonwealth to ensure Australians have the protection of our robust laws. Let us get to wherethis all started. This came out of a meeting of COAG, out of a commitment I gave on behalf ofthe Queensland government now being implemented by the Attorney-General in this legislation.As I said at the beginning, I thank the opposition for facilitating the passage of this legislationthrough parliament this week. It has been introduced or passed in other parliaments aroundAustralia as part of that COAG agreement.

I know that a national debate rages every day about terrorism and we see both major partiesfederally struggling with this issue. I just hope that we can end up with a lot more bipartisanshipwhen it comes to tackling the issue of terrorism. After all, no-one could have foreseen Bali, andindeed Australia is still reeling from the shock of what happened in Bali in the same way that weare still reeling from the shock of September 11 and the attack on the world—

Mr Springborg interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: We do, Lawrence, except we get silly nonsense about where this bill camefrom et cetera. I have not dealt with it tonight because I want to rise above that. In a sense I justappeal to people to think about Australia and Queensland first. Let us put the politics aside. I wastalking about the debate that is raging nationally and to some extent internationally about how wedeal with these terrorism issues. What is really important is that in a democracy we go through theappropriate strategies and processes to get our protective measures in place. This bill tonightconfirms that that is what the Queensland government is doing as part of our role in the nationalstrategy.

Sometimes, however, I despair a little that this debate becomes almost hysterical. We haveto remember that, while it is important to protect our standard of living and our quality of life andthe freedoms that we all cherish, we have to be very careful not to overreact, not to put this in acontext of base politics. I do not want to be unkind to anyone in this; I make the general pointapplicable to everybody. It is very important that we keep our heads while protecting our hearts, ifyou know what I mean. That is why we will be constructive and sensible, but I do not want to seea debate that will I guess pit one Australian against another—too often we see that. We havebeen very supportive of the federal government, and I have supported the Prime Minister on anumber of occasions against any party considerations, because I felt that when there is a nationalcrisis involving terrorism we need to be Australians first and politicians and members of politicalparties second. However, that goodwill should not be abused by anybody. Therefore, I urge allour federal leaders to try to find those things that can bring us together, not divide us.

As you would appreciate, Mr Speaker, my government's key ministers and I have spent a lotof time on the terrorism issue. I can recall when the first warning was issued recently about apotential terrorism threat. Let me make it very clear that I have no problem with that warningbeing issued. Unfortunately, it was issued in such a general way that we were concerned abouthow it would be implemented. At the time the press asked me and other leaders aroundAustralia, 'When the warning said we need to keep our eyes and ears open, what do we look for?'That question was never answered when the warning was given. When we issue warnings—Ibelieve we should; I do not believe in trying to hide threats—we have to be more specific aboutwhat we mean. Thanks to our Police Minister and Police Commissioner—our Police Commissioneris first class; he is one of the best in the world, as is our police service—we were briefed onconfidential information, but I was not at liberty to go out and talk about what that meant. Thatput us in a very difficult position. The public had a right to know. After all, the warning was issued.However, I think the federal government should have issued a more specific warning and thereshould have been more detail attached. We ended up saying that people should look for what isunusual or untoward either in their home environment or in their workplace, which in essence stillstands. But as I said, out of that uncertainty that came with the first warning there was also adanger. I say this in a very positive way. It was a real danger. We saw some evidence—minorevidence—that people perhaps reacted in an emotional way. We saw that in relation to a Chinesetemple that was vandalised. I cannot prove that it was related to the warning, but it came afterthat or around that time.

What concerned me was that Australians would be specifically looking for people of someethnic origin and they would be making particular decisions based on someone's ethnic origin.That worries me. We have to remember that we live in a multicultural community and society. Thestrength of being Australian is that we are tolerant and understanding. The point I am trying to


make tonight is that we cannot afford to be judgmental. When these warnings are issued, wehave to issue them in a way that is specific enough for people to understand what is required.The last thing we want is people being dobbed in simply because of the colour of their skin, howthey appear or their ethnic origin. We have to be very careful that we judge people on theiractions.

I remind everybody that one of the worst acts of terrorism in recent times—at least prior toSeptember 11—was committed by a white Caucasian male in the United States who blew up agovernment building. He was eventually executed for it, as members would be aware. He waspart of a Right Wing extremist group in the United States. Extremism does not come in anyparticular package or colour, it comes on the basis of what people believe. Therefore, we can onlyjudge those people based on their actions. Therefore, I urge the federal government when weissue these warnings to be more specific. I urge our leaders across Australia at a national andstate level to ensure that when warnings are issued—and hopefully there will not need to beanother one—we go to great care to ensure that we protect the multiculturalism of Australia andthe tolerance that makes us Australians. As I said, I have been privy to a lot more informationthan I have shared with the House, but that concern that I have expressed comes from a verygenuine position where I do not want to see one Australian divided against another.

We will continue to work with the federal government. On Friday at the COAG meeting we willbe positive and constructive about fighting terrorism. We will work with the federal government.When it comes to the banning of hand guns, we will play a constructive role and we will agree withthe Commonwealth. We do want to ensure, though, that our gold medal winning athletes areable to compete under the options that we have agreed to. I have settled an agreement todaywith my key advisers. That agreement will be presented to the Commonwealth and I think we canend up with a unanimous position in relation to the ban on hand guns. We will play a constructiverole. I just ask our federal leadership to ensure that whatever we do in this fight againstterrorism—and it is ugly—we do it in a positive way to protect our lifestyle but also to ensure thatwe do not divide one Australian against the other.

In conclusion, as I said before, I think Australia has been changed for the future in a way thatnone of us would have thought possible two years ago. It has been changed irrevocably. MikeHoran would agree with this. As members know, I invited him to accompany me to Canberra forthe service that was conducted at Parliament House. I am sure Mike would agree with me thatthat service would change the life of anyone who attended, because of who was there and thevictims. In a debate like this we should also express our best wishes and condolences again tothose who lost loved ones in Bali. We have been very supportive as a government to people inour hospitals. The last Bali victim who was in one of our hospitals will be discharged some timenext week. I am delighted that we have been able to be supportive of the victims of Bali. Wewould hope that as much as is humanly possible those people who have been scarred by the Baliexperience will be able to repair their lives. It will never be the same, but we would hope that asbest they can they repair their lives.

I commend the Attorney for bringing in this legislation as effectively and efficiently as he hasdone. We are getting used to the Attorney producing legislative brilliance. I thank him for the wayhe has represented the Queensland government and the parliament on this matter.

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (8.45 p.m.): I am verypleased to join in the debate on this bill tonight because the National Party has done everythingin its power to ensure that it was brought into the parliament swiftly and we have provided ourbipartisan support to enable it to be debated today after it was introduced yesterday into theparliament. We recognise the importance of this bill to national security and the urgency for thislegislation. About two weeks ago we suggested that this reference of power should be part of theoverall preparedness for terrorism in Queensland along with some other suggestions that wemade about a counter-terrorism command unit and also about information that needs to beavailable.

The frustrating thing for everybody when it comes to the issue of terrorism is the unknown. Insome ways, it reminds me of our wish to reduce suicide in the community. We all wonder how toidentify those who might commit suicide. It is such an unknown and always comes as a surprise.Terrorism is a different style of warfare from the days when armies in uniforms lined up againsteach other and they knew who was fighting who and there were rules of engagement. Then wesaw guerilla warfare in Malaysia and Vietnam. That was a different style of warfare altogetherwhen in many cases people did not know who the enemy was. Warfare now involves a morecovert type of battle. Somebody going into a cafe or a sports venue, a vehicle that appears to


have been left innocently by the side of the road—all of these scenarios could represent a terroristthreat. That creates great frustration for people.

When states of alert are issued, people wonder what they should be looking for. What arethe signs? A number of states in America have posted web pages that set out information suchas in the case of a general alert or another type of alert what signs people should look for—forexample, suspicious movements or loitering and packages to look for. That type of informationcan assist people. Throughout our community there was a general frustration that a medium alerthad been issued and everybody wondered what it was all about. We hear of guards and securitybeing placed on national icons such as the Opera House or the Sydney Harbour Bridge. However,terrorists will not necessarily go for the obvious targets. All of us have been concerned at recentmajor events when crowds gather and we wonder when and where terrorists could strike. Wehave to be careful that it does not destroy our lives. We have to deal with it in a sensible way. Weshould not become frightened to move outside the front gate or to go to an event. We mustensure that we are still able to lead our Australian way of life.

The Premier mentioned the issue of hand guns and said that he would be attending theCOAG meeting this Friday. I made the opposition's position very clear in a matters of publicInterest speech to this parliament. We do not want to see good law-abiding people punished forthe evil actions of an individual or for the actions of a state, such as Victoria, which has licensingarrangements which are so slack that an overseas student who was unable to speak English wasstill able to obtain seven firearms for sporting purposes. That seems to the opposition to be verywrong.

I have spoken to the representatives of a number of pistol clubs and they are very angryabout this matter. They know that that would not be possible in Queensland. We have bettermanagement of the issuing of licences for firearms by the Queensland Police Service. However,some law-abiding Queenslanders may suffer in that respect. I know that the sporting shootersclubs have been very cooperative. In many instances they have detailed the sort of firearms thatthey use for their sporting events, be they Olympic-type events, state events or the type ofsporting events where young club members learn to engage safely in this sport. The clubsundertake various events which are sanctioned by Pistol Australia or the Sporting ShootersAssociation of Australia.

I assisted a club in Toowoomba which went through the draft list of pistols that was issuedfollowing the preliminary minister's meeting. This club detailed a number of firearms on that listwhich were actually sanctioned for use in sporting events. It is not simply a case of people takingpart in Olympic-style events. Only a few elite shooters reach that stage. We have to consider thepeople who compete in events run by pistol clubs and sporting shooters clubs. Theseorganisations are great family type clubs. They often camp at the range over the weekend andhave barbecues at night. They act under the strictest of controls. I know that the members of thepistol clubs are keen to see some of the initiatives that are being introduced. It is important thatthey are able to obtain information from the police. It is also important that clubs are able to getrid of someone whom they do not believe is an appropriate member of the club.

There is another important issue in Queensland, and that is the occupational use of firearms.People in some states of Australia are not aware of the importance of the occupational use ofweapons in Queensland. People need firearms for the destruction of stock. Perhaps a farmer ison his property and he has an animal with a broken leg or one which is bogged in a dam.Sometimes there are feral animals, such as dingoes, which need to be destroyed. Sometimespeople are not able to obtain a licence to own a rifle. In many parts of Queensland people travelmany kilometres a day on horseback through scrub areas. They need to carry a pistol because itis not possible to carry a rifle on a saddle or slung across one's back in bush or brigalow scrub. Apistol is necessary on many occasions for the humane destruction of animals. Sometimes it maybe necessary for a person to protect himself from a scrub bull that might be cornered. A ridercould also come across vermin or dingoes and so forth. It is a vast state. There are some verygenuine occupational needs involved. It is important that the authorities take into account thelegitimate use of weapons by sporting shooters, particularly at shooting competitions.

The basis of this bill goes back to an agreement between the Prime Minister and state andterritory leaders on 5 April 2002 that a new national framework was needed to meet the challengeof combating terrorism and transnational crime. Among other matters, the Prime Minister andstate and territory leaders issued a communique where they recorded their agreement, whichstated—


... to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that terrorists can be prosecuted under the criminal law,including a reference of powers of specific, jointly agreed legislation, including roll back provisions to ensure thatthe new Commonwealth law does not override State law where that is not intended and to come into effect by 31October 2002. The Commonwealth will have power to amend the new Commonwealth legislation in accordance withprovisions similar to those that apply under Corporations arrangements. Any amendment based on the referredpower will require consultation with and agreement of States and Territories, and this requirement is to becontained in the legislation.

On 27 June 2002, a package of Commonwealth bills to enhance the capacity of theCommonwealth to deal with terrorism was passed by the Commonwealth parliament. Included inthis package was the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002.

That act inserted a new Part 5.3—terrorism—into chapter 5 of the Commonwealth CriminalCode which now includes a series of offences in relation to terrorism which are all linked to thecommission of a 'terrorist act'. As the Commonwealth parliament does not have a specificconstitutional power to legislate for terrorism, the new Part 5.3 relies on a 'patchwork' ofconstitutional powers. However, to avoid any legal complexity or uncertainty in the effectiveness ofthe new Commonwealth terrorism offences, the states were required to make a constitutionalreference to the Commonwealth parliament in accordance with section 51(xxxvii) of theConstitution. The reference of power will also enable the Commonwealth to amend the terrorismoffences and the associated criminal responsibility provisions.

It is understood that an intergovernmental agreement will provide that the Commonwealthwill not amend the provisions without the agreement of the majority of the states and territoriesand it will require the agreement of at least four states. The Commonwealth advised that whenthe first state passes reference legislation they will re-enact the terrorism offences.

The National Party opposition is supporting this bill and, in lending support for the bill, I muststate at the outset that it is about time that the government has moved in this direction. On 20November I called on the Premier to take the current terrorist warnings seriously. I recognise whatthe Premier has said tonight. At times, someone such as the Premier, the Prime Minister or theDeputy Prime Minister are privy to information and that information may have to remainconfidential. It is not always possible, in the interests of security, that that information can bemade known. However, I think it is important that this state takes all terrorist warnings seriouslyand that our preparation is maximised.

While other eastern states were well advanced in their preparations to counter terroristattacks, the Premier remained indecisive and inactive and referred potential threats toQueensland to the Commonwealth government. While the Queensland Premier was sluggish,New South Wales pushed ahead very quickly with new response capabilities and police powers.Similarly, Victoria is well advanced in its disaster response plans, making sure that all sections ofthe community are informed of procedures in the event of an emergency.

New South Wales will be served by a new 70-strong Police Counter-Terrorism CoordinationCommand which will provide a central state coordination point on terrorist activity. Unfortunately,we shall have no such Queensland entity that will centrally coordinate antiterrorist activity.

Last month I called on the Premier to immediately move to grant the federal governmentcounter-terrorism reference of power—the subject of debate tonight—which will ensure thatterrorists will be charged as terrorists and not treated as domestic criminals. Last month, WesternAustralia indicated that it would give the Commonwealth the reference of power, whilst at thesame time the Queensland Premier chose not to recognise that the Queensland government hada responsibility to act.

We live in extraordinary and alarming times. As a consequence, it is imperative that thegeneral public feels secure within their homes and their working environment and that they feelsecure as they participate in social and leisure activity. Time and time again I have called on theBeattie government to introduce police phone-tap powers to allow the Queensland authorities tofollow investigations without having to go and ask the Commonwealth to tap a terrorist phone. It isnot good enough for Queensland police to have to go to the Commonwealth authorities toprotect Queensland residents, particularly when the Beattie government is expected by thecommunity to be providing that level of security and safety. It is duty bound. Governments aroundthe nation are recognising their respective responsibilities to their constituency and are upgradingsecurity measures, but not Queensland. If there is one place that a terrorist could do business byphone, it is in Queensland, because our investigative powers in that regard have to go throughthis process of referral to the Commonwealth government. It is important not only in matters ofterrorism but important in dealing with drugs and major organised crime that Queensland has the


telephone tapping powers that all other states have and that those powers are supervised by asystem such as the Public Interest Monitor, which supervises covert operations undertaken by thePolice Service.

But at least this bill will provide the reference of power to enable the Commonwealthgovernment to make laws for peace, order and good government. Australians have been warnedthat the threat of terrorist attack may be particularly high over the Christmas period and holidayseason. Fortunately, the Commonwealth government has moved to increase internal security. Asa result of this upgraded security, Australian icons most recognisable as the Sydney Opera Houseand the Sydney Harbour Bridge now have guards at them. Following the despicable attack oninnocent Australians and international tourists in Bali, the public fully expects rigorous securitymeasures and fully understands that the costs of such home security measures will be a big drawon the federal budget. But I am sure that the people of Australia support whatever the federalgovernment is doing to provide better security and better internal security here at home.

It was alarming to read the Ian McPhedran article which appeared in the Courier-Mail on 29November which outlined the specifics of the 52-page report by the Australian Strategic PoliceInstitute. In the report, institute director Dr Hugh White believed that the threat assessment shouldbe increased from medium to high and that the threat could last as long as four years. Theinstitute's report went on to outline that, without immediate action and greater awareness by allAustralians, terrorists would slip through the gaps in defences here and overseas.

But what action do we see in this state? Sluggish response, inactivity and deferral to theCommonwealth. With a large number of our state's infrastructure—the Gateway Bridge, powerstations, ports, sporting facilities, universities and hospitals—under the control of governmentowned corporations or the private sector, it is important that the state government lifts its gameand gets involved in elevated and maximised security measures. With this bill, the legal securitylinkages with the Commonwealth government will be enhanced. But what are the missing linksbetween government, the private sector, non-government organisations and the broadercommunity? What action or response plan does the Beattie government have that includes thesharing of that intelligence which can be shared on threats to enable all Queenslanders to beprepared and fully aware?

Queenslanders are expected to call Crimestoppers, incidentally an organisation that has hadits budget reduced. Isn't that a tremendous display of social and moral responsibility! Fortunately,the Commonwealth government has recognised this need and announced the creation of a one-stop shop communications network in which it will share with the private sector that securityinformation relating to critical infrastructure that can be shared. A Critical Infrastructure AdvisoryCouncil of business representatives will oversee the network and report to the federal Attorney-General, Daryl Williams.

The Victorian government learnt from the Longford gas explosion. While that was a disasterfor all concerned, it enabled the government to learn from that experience and iron out difficultiesin responding to a disaster of that magnitude. What would Queensland do under thosecircumstances? There may well be a coordinated response of sorts, but who is privileged to thatinformation and who is informed in the planning and coordination? How will the governmentengage trauma specialists, emergency personnel, non-government organisations and services ina coordinated response? How will the government mitigate the damage should a terrorist attackoccur within our state boundaries?

I bring these matters up because I think it is important that we discuss these things and thatthere is every endeavour through this parliament to ensure that preparation is maximised. I haveseen some wonderful responses in this state from our emergency services and from our hospitals.I reflect on the Black Hawk disaster that occurred in Townsville at the time I was Health Minister. Itwas absolutely amazing what the Townsville Hospital was able to do in dealing with that—that is,the triage system put in place and the lives that were helped and assisted in an incredibledisaster. I know that that capability exists within all of our hospitals and within our emergencyservices.

But when we talk about terrorism it is something unknown. What happened in Bali wasunknown. Sadly, maybe we have to prepare for all those sorts of things that could happen thatwe would never envisage happening. Perhaps we have to have in place a well-rehearsed and wellthought out plan in the case of infrastructure being attacked—infrastructure that may be veryimportant to our state such as water infrastructure, roads and bridges. We have to have a plan inplace in case a large number of people attending an event like a major sporting event should bethe tragic target of terrorism, or maybe a vehicle driving into a building. All of those different


scenarios have to be canvassed by the experts and preparations put in place so that the publiccan feel confident that that is being done.

I do not think any of us will ever forget Bali. As the Premier mentioned, he and I attended thememorial service in Canberra and I have never seen grief like that in my life. None of us want tosee that ever happen in our wonderful, beautiful country of Australia. But we live in mostdangerous, unknown and uncertain times and it is very important that our preparation beabsolute. This bill is part of that preparation. That is why the National Party has given its full andcomplete bipartisan support.

Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (9.05 p.m.): I rise to participate in the debate on theTerrorism (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2002. In speaking to this bill, I note that the opposition willbe supporting this bill and take this opportunity to put on the public record that I will also besupporting this bill. I agree with the minister's comments that combating terrorism requirescooperation at the national and international level. It is great to see that here in this chamber on aWednesday night that cooperation is further reflected with the unconditional support from theopposition.

I note that in the minister's second reading he advanced that Queensland does not wantterrorists escaping conviction on a technicality and that this bill is about eliminating as far aspossible constitutional uncertainties by a state referral of powers to the Commonwealth of thenecessary powers under section 51(37) of the constitution. I also note that the minister hasdefined a 'terrorist act' as an act intended to advance a political, religious or ideological cause andto intimidate and cause serious harm. The definition does not include a legitimate protest orindustrial action that is not intended to cause serious harm but does prevent participation ingroups declared to be terrorist organisations.

I am also pleased to see that Queensland's interests are protected in the bill pursuant toclause 5, which provides the power to unilaterally terminate the reference where a proclamationfrom the Governor occurs. I commend the bill to the House and look forward to further bipartisansupport for further moves in this direction.

Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (9.07 p.m.): As shadow minister for police, I feel that I have aclear obligation to make a contribution to this debate. I certainly would endorse the remarks thathave been made by previous speakers on behalf of the opposition that we are only too pleasedto lend our support to the passage of this legislation through the House tonight. I am sure thatevery member in this parliament would agree that this is necessary legislation and that it isnecessary that this House consider and pass it tonight, as it obviously will. I also believe that everymember in this House would wish that it were not so. Every member in this House would wish thatthis House did not have to consider a subject such as this. Unfortunately, it is the reality of theage in which we live that the issue of terrorism and how we respond to it as a society is somethingthat if not dominates our thinking certainly is a factor in everything that we do. All of ourinstitutions need to now look at the way in which they operate and the way in which we conductour lives against the background of a world where terrorism is a very real and a very importantconsideration.

People say that the world changed on September 11, but that summation is probably toosimplistic. I think on September 11 the potential for terrorist attacks became a reality. Thepotential for terrorism that was there before September 11 suddenly became very real when weall witnessed those horrendous attacks, as was made possible by the technology of satellitetelevision.

I was actually here in the parliamentary annexe that night and flicking idly through thetelevision channels, as one does late at night. I could not believe the first images that I saw fromNew York when that attack was launched. As did a lot of other people all around the world, in allsorts of different communities and in all sorts of different cultures, I spent the next eight or 10hours transfixed by the images that were beamed from New York to every place in the world. Forevery society in the world, that attack brought home the enormity of the threat of terrorism.Terrorism is not restricted to a particular place or a particular country; it is something everybodyhas to deal with, at all levels in public administration. This piece of legislation we consider tonightis just one small part of an appropriate reaction by this Queensland parliament.

If September 11 changed the way we saw and thought about terrorism, the attacks on Bali alittle over 12 months later did so even more. The attacks on Bali were so much closer to home.They involved a large number of Australians. They had probably a bigger impact on the Australiancommunity—on all of us—than the events of September 11. A few minutes after my wife and I


heard the news item about Bali on the Sunday morning we had a phone call from our teenagedaughter, who was in Europe. It was a very frightening time. Even though Europe is a long wayfrom Bali, I guess it was the natural reaction of a parent to immediately want our daughter to behome, yet that was impossible. We had an enormous sensation of vulnerability that I think ourwhole country has experienced since the attacks in Bali and New York. It is that feeling ofvulnerability that we have to respond to.

The object of terrorism is to create fear. That is the purpose of the attacks. It is very difficult tounderstand how the type of mass murder that is involved in these attacks can advance anycause. It is very difficult for me and I guess most people in the world to understand how the mind-set of a person can lead them to the conclusion that this type of horrendous mass murder canadvance their particular cause. It does make us all feel vulnerable. It makes us all fear thosetypes of attacks. We have to deal with that vulnerability and with the potential for that sense offear.

That is what this legislation is about. It is one small part of a response to that feeling ofvulnerability and fear that has been engendered in our community. To that extent, unfortunately,the terrorists have succeeded. We all have a responsibility to ensure terrorists are not allowed tosucceed, to put in place a sufficient response to ensure that that sense of fear and that feeling ofvulnerability is dealt with. As much as we are able to, we need to make the people in ourcommunities feel safe, even in a world where this type of terrorist attack is unfortunately a reality.

The Premier raised the issue of hand guns. What is being proposed does concern mesomewhat. Most members of the House would remember the response to the terrible tragedy ofPort Arthur. The firearms legislation was changed in response to that. I sat here tonight listeningto the Premier speak quite rightly about the dangers of judging people and setting one group ofpeople against another and assuming that somehow people are a threat. In this case he wastalking about people of particular ethnic origins. That made me think about the way so manypeople responded after the terrible tragedy at Port Arthur. That is pretty much what happened togun owners after Port Arthur.

There were people who were prepared to vilify all gun owners after the tragedy of Port Arthur.Whether or not it was intentional, every gun owner that I know—they are all responsible gunowners and responsible people—suddenly felt as though they were the criminals. I think it is thatfeeling of vilification, that feeling that gun owners are guilty, that has been the root cause of a lotof the anger about and aggressive response towards the new gun laws. That has been felt by alarge number of people not just in my electorate. There are probably more gun owners per headof population in my electorate than in some of the urban electorates.

The comments the Premier made tonight are very valid. I do not want to see that type ofvilification repeated in relation to hand gun owners in the current debate. There are some veryresponsible people who own hand guns and they own them for a very particular reason. Theyshould not be the subject of vilification and they should not be made to feel guilty simply becauseof the actions of one lunatic in Melbourne. Unfortunately, that is what happened after Port Arthur.Whether or not it was intentional or we realised it at the time, that is what happened in relation tofirearms owners.

I urge caution to everyone engaged in the current debate about the future of hand gun laws.I urge caution in the way we approach the legislative changes that are envisaged in response tothat incident in Melbourne. Let us direct those legislative changes at the criminals. Let us makethe criminals who own hand guns, often illegally, feel threatened, not the responsible people. Letus not direct that legislative change unduly at the responsible gun owners. Let us make sure weput an end to the illegal use and illegal importation of hand guns. Hopefully we can reduce theamount of hand gun crime and reduce the number of times we have to deal with the type oftragedy we saw in Melbourne.

Mr Malone: It is so easy to attack registered gun owners.Mr SEENEY: As the member for Mirani says, registered owners of hand guns are an easy

target. When we are emotive and angry, we lash out at the easy targets. That is what the Premierwas talking about when he spoke of being careful not to lash out at people of ethnic origin in thecase of terrorism. It is something of a natural response to lash out at what we see as an easytarget that is representative of the problem that has engendered the emotive response in the firstplace. The member for Mirani is exactly right.

The other point I would like to make is that this heightened awareness, this response that weall have to make towards this issue of terrorism, is going to cost us as a community. It is going to


cost us in terms of physical resources, it is going to cost us in terms of convenience and perhapsit is going to cost us in terms of civil liberties. But I think it is a cost that we are going to have tobear. I cannot see how those costs are not going to be incurred if we are going to properlyaddress this issue of terrorism, if we are going to properly address the feeling of vulnerability andfear that I spoke about earlier. In that regard, the government has a very clear responsibility.

I am pleased that the Minister for Police is present in the House, because he has a particularresponsibility. Already the Queensland Police Service is underresourced. If the world changed forall of us on September 11 with terrorism becoming a reality, then for those people in theQueensland Police Service—as in police services probably all over the world—the world changedin a much greater way. In this war on terrorism, they are very much the front-line soldiers. Thosepeople who don the police uniform every day and go to work have suddenly been transformedfrom policemen in our suburban communities to being the front-line soldiers in this war onterrorism. The government has a responsibility to make sure that the police are properlyresourced. They are as much in the front line now in this war against terrorism as are the SAS inthe role that they play in places such as Afghanistan.

Mr Springborg: Probably even more.Mr SEENEY: Exactly. Every police officer who puts on their blue uniform and goes to work is

a front-line soldier in this war on terrorism.

Mr English: And the plain clothes police.Mr SEENEY: Exactly, the plain clothes police as well. Those people are now the front-line

soldiers. They are the people who will be first response troops in the event of any sort of terroristattack. The very least that the government can do and the very least that the Police Minister cando is ensure that those police are properly resourced.

We do not need to get into a political argument about this. We need to ensure that ithappens. That is going to cost us more. There will have to be an increase in the resources thatare available to those people, because they cannot take on this role and continue to play the rolethat they have been playing up until now with the same level of resourcing in terms of bothmoney and physical resources. Those police officers have to be properly resourced in terms ofphysical resources, in terms of training and support, so that they can deal with the type ofincidents that we all hope will never happen.

For the rest of us, the cost is going to be one of convenience. I have seen people do adummy spit—for want of a better word—because they had to take off their shoes at the airport toget through the metal detector. At times people are very intolerant. For all of us there is a cost inregard to convenience in this world of heightened security.

Mr Springborg: We take our liberties and freedoms for granted.

Mr SEENEY: We absolutely take those things for granted. I think there is no better exampleof that than to compare the way in which we approach security here to the way in which security isapproached in Europe and Asia. Earlier this year my wife and I travelled to Europe. The thing thatwas most noticeable as soon as we got off the plane was the difference in security—not just atthe airports but everywhere. People in those countries have come to grips with increased securityand have learned to accept it a lot earlier than we have. They are the sorts of things that we aregoing to have to learn to accept as part and parcel of life in a post September 11 world. It is asmall price for us as individuals to pay. But we in this parliament have a responsibility to ensurethat the people who have the major role to play are properly resourced. I look forward to the daythat the Minister for Police can come into this House and tell us about the additional budget thathe has made available to the Police Service to enable them to address this terrorism threat.

Mr Terry Sullivan interjected.

Mr SEENEY: The past four budgets were about domestic policing issues. We could argueabout whether the budgetary increases over the past four years were sufficient to address thegrowing needs of domestic policing. But there now has to be a significant allocation of resourcesjust to address this issue of how we respond to terrorism. Without wanting to get into a politicalargument about it—because I do not think it is a political issue—there has to be a realisation thatif the government has to alter its budgetary priorities, then so be it, because the Police Servicehas to have the physical resources and the training and the support to be able to handle the typeof incident that we hope never happens.

I think that the shadow minister for emergency services would agree that that issue appliesnot only to the police but also to emergency services. Similarly, the people in that department


have to have access to resources and training. The shadow minister for health would also agreethat the same is true for the Health Department.

I say to the member for Stafford that I acknowledge that that increase is going to place aburden on a government that is trying to run a budget. That would be the case whether we werein government or the Labor Party were in government. That is something that we have to dealwith not just as a parliament but as a whole community, because it is a cost that we all have topay. We all wish that we did not have to incur that cost. We all wish that it did not happen—thatwe could use every bit of the resources that are available to us to address domestic policingissues or domestic health issues. But there has to be a realisation that there is going to be a coston all of us, there is going to be a rearrangement of priorities to address the type of incident thatwe hope will never happen. Perhaps we could avoid such an incident occurring if we allocatesufficient resources to the people who are our front-line troops. Unfortunately, that is theQueensland Police Service. In terms of response, it is people such as the ambulance and the fireofficers who work in the Emergency Services Department and the people who work in the healthsystem. Those officers have a response role. The police are the front-line troops in terms ofavoidance.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, all of us wish that this legislation was not necessary.Regrettably, it is necessary. Regrettably, it is one small step in addressing our response to thehorrific events that occurred in New York and Bali. Hopefully, it can be successful in ensuring thatthey are not repeated and certainly not repeated in Australia.

Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (9.28 p.m.): I rise to support the Terrorism (CommonwealthPowers) Bill. This is one of the most important bills to come before this House as it affects thenational security of our great country. All members of this House would recall how shocked wewere by the events of September 11. We would all recall the sombre mood of the parliament thatday when we sat briefly and then adjourned the House.

I cried that day in this House because I could not believe the inhumanity, the cruelty, thecriminality and the sadistic nature of the people behind those acts of terror. All of those innocentlives lost, the traumatic effect on their families, the shock, and disgust reverberated around theworld. Bali brought it home to us. Those beastly Bali bombings, killing innocent Australiansminding their own business and enjoying themselves on holidays, mean that Australia andAustralians are a target of terrorism. No-one is immune from the activities of these criminals. It isclear that all Australian governments need to work together on tough antiterrorist laws.

The Commonwealth needs strict powers to outlaw all terrorist activity and has already passedlaws that put terrorism offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The powers rely on existingconstitutional powers. The Commonwealth does not have a general criminal law power, nor aterrorism power. It is possible then that there may be technical gaps in the Commonwealthoffences that could be challenged in court. The result could be that terrorists could escapeconviction on a technicality and be back out there in the community. This would be disgracefuland the community could be potentially at risk.

A referral power contained in clause 4 refers power to the Commonwealth to make laws withrespect to terrorist acts or actions as set out in the Commonwealth legislation. A terrorist act isdefined as an act intended to advance a political, religious or ideological cause and to intimidateand cause serious harm. The offences include a provision preventing participating groupsdeclared to be terrorist organisations such as Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah.

An intergovernmental agreement ensures that the Commonwealth government will notamend the legislation without the agreement of the majority of the territories and states. So,Queensland's interests are protected by virtue of clause 5 of the bill, providing a power tounilaterally terminate the reference with a proclamation from the Governor. It is important to notethat this proclamation takes effect three months after it is made.

None of us in this House wants any terrorist activities in Australia. We need strong nationalantiterrorist powers. We need to protect our national security and we need to protect the citizensof the greatest nation on earth, Australia.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Phillips): Order! Before calling the member for Redlands, Irecognise in the gallery tonight Carl Rackemann, his wife Louise and Joe Cliffe.

Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (9.33 p.m.): The Constitution states that criminal law is aprovince of state governments. The threat posed to our nation by terrorism is growing. Toempower the federal government with the responsibility for the prosecution of persons accused ofterrorism will help ensure that there is a minimal chance of a terrorist evading conviction due to a


technicality. This is an example of state governments working with the federal government to helpensure the safety of all Australians, all Queenslanders.

This is a good bill; however, I do have a number of concerns. My concerns are not with thislegislation but other aspects of the federal government's approach to security. The Prime Ministershould explain these to the Australian people. John Howard won the last federal election with theslogan: 'We will decide who comes into this country.' But has he delivered? Is he really decidingwho and what comes here on the foreign ships that increasingly ply the coastal trade? Whiletightening up on aviation security—and for this he is to be applauded—Howard has ignored agreater threat to Australia's security—our shipping security. Australia is an island continent, so forHoward to overlook our national shipping is a disgrace.

For the Prime Minister to allow Australian ships to be rebadged under flags of convenience isshameful. To give these ships exemptions to allow them to trade on coastal routes isunconscionable. The CSL Yarra was recently reflagged as the Stadacona. The Australian crewwere kicked out and replaced with foreign crews. Just recently the federal government for the firsttime ever used federal powers to grant the Stadacona a continuous voyage permit to overridestate powers. As these ships are no longer under Australian control, we have no knowledge ofwho are the crew. Given the current concern over weapons of mass destruction, why is Howardignoring foreign ships, a very effective weapon delivery system? In Lebanon and in OklahomaCity we have seen the devastation caused by just a few tonnes of ANFO explosives. What wouldhappen if some thousands of tonnes of ANFO were brought into one of Australia's ports? Howeasy would it be for a nuclear, chemical or biological device to be brought into our country with noprior scrutiny? These ships are allowed to enter our major ports near our major cities with very fewsecurity arrangements.

The port of Newcastle has the largest volume of cargo passing through it when comparedwith all other Australian ports. And yet Newcastle does not have a 24-hour customs office. Whataction is the federal government taking to reassure people that maximum surveillance is in factbeing undertaken? Howard is turning a blind eye to Australian ships being reflagged andAustralian crews being replaced by cheaper crews from other countries. There are no securitychecks on these crews prior to their arriving in port. We have no guarantee on what illegalweapons or other devices may be being brought into our cities.

Howard wants to strike first against foreign countries to flush out terrorists; however, he issitting on his hands and inviting terrorists to come here as crews on foreign ships. The UnitedStates will not allow any foreign vessel to conduct interstate or intrastate trade. With heightenedsecurity concerns, there is actually talk in the United States about strengthening these cabotagearrangements further. Why is the federal government going in the opposite direction to the rest ofthe world? Why does the Prime Minister ignore the security risk whilst the United States ofAmerica and England are taking steps to increase their shipping security? Why is Howard allowinghis pathological and ideological hatred of the Maritime Union of Australia to put Australians atrisk? This is the person in whose hands we are placing the responsibility for utilising the powersthis bill confers on him.

I am very happy that there is a facility in this bill to allow Queensland to unilaterally withdrawthese powers from Howard. I completely support the federal government's legal pursuit andprosecution of terrorists. However, I am concerned that ideologues such as Costello and Abbottcould use these powers against political enemies including unions. These are troubled times. Inrecent terrorist attacks we have seen civilians being increasingly targeted. I am concerned for allthose people living in port cities and the workers on the wharves. I call on John Howard, on thegrounds of being able to supply our supply lines in the event Australia is dragged into a conflictand also on the grounds of protecting our national security, to stop his destruction of Australianshipping.

Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (9.36 p.m.): I rise to speak to this Terrorism (CommonwealthPowers) Bill 2002 and in so doing my sympathies go to all those who suffer and will probably stillsuffer because of the Twin Towers terrorism act and the Bali terrorism act. There is a quote that Iread somewhere once which said, 'Terrorism is the most degraded form of language.' There arefew people on this planet today who cannot relate to these words and there is no country nowwhich has not felt the touch of its brutality. The veil of secrecy drawn around the terrorists of thethird millennium is not new to western societies, nor are many of the methods they use to kill,maim and destroy its mainly innocent victims. It was at the end of the 1960s that terrorists,fighting as so-called freedom fighters, shifted away from isolated bandit-type groups into urban


based terrorist cells across the world and formed links with each other to have access to the high-tech world of terrorism as we know it today.

Today, these groups are financed by immensely rich businessmen, are massively armed andhighly trained. Terrorists are assured of their powerful patronage that allows them to move withconfidence across national borders which in the Western world until recently were very slack.These terrorists are not the terrorists or freedom fighters as they called themselves in the latesixties when Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, a close companion of Cuban President Fidel Castro, roamedthe mountains of Bolivia. Guevara wrote a message to the Tricontinental Conference in Havana in1966 just before he died in the Bolivian Andes after a failed revolt, explaining the justificationbehind acts of terrorism: 'We must above all keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm, hate asa factor of struggle, intransigent hate of the enemy, hate that can push a human being beyondhis natural limits and make him a cold, violent, selective and effective killing machine.'

The quote is also cited in Italy's Red Brigades ControInformazione in July 1978. Theconference was attended by 513 delegates representing 83 groups from the Third World. Theconference voted to give support to democratic workers and student groups in capitalist countriesand national liberation movements. It announced as its general declaration the purpose ofdevising 'a global revolutionary strategy to counter the global strategy of American imperialism'.

This was the first step towards the start of global terrorism as we know it today. It is factualthat nearly every dictatorship has escaped acts of terrorism, yet no democracy has been sparedfrom acts of terrorism either on its soil or to its people. The United States, Australia, Canada,Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Sweden, France, Spain, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Austria, Greece,Turkey, Portugal, Japan and the Indian sub-continent have all suffered from some act ofterrorism.

What has changed are the causes behind terrorism, not the nations being affected. RadicalIslamic terrorism has now replaced the Communist Western influenced conflict during the ColdWar. No democracy or religion is safe. In 1979 we saw the seizure of the holiest of all Islamicmosques in Mecca by 300 Russian trained Arab Muslims. Then there was the eleven OPECministers taken hostage by a German Palestinian team led by Carlos the Jackal. Who can forgetthe murder of eleven Israeli athletes in 1972 by the Palestinian Black September Group or the1979 assassination of Britain's war hero Lord Mountbatten? Murders, assassinations andmassacres by terrorists continued throughout the last two decades of the second millennium andinto the next, and it is only now that Western democracies are slowly starting to recognise thenature of that threat—only now when terrorism is knocking on our doorstep!

Sadly, most Westerners today relate to terrorism starting with the cowardly acts of September11 2001 in North America and the Ball bombings on 12 October 2002. Nothing could be furtherfrom the truth, as students of terrorism will testify. 'The purpose of terror is to terrorise. Whatmatters is not the identity of their corpse but its impact on their audience' Lenin kept reminding hisstudents. In Carlos Marighella's Mini-Manual for Urban Guerrillas, which has become the standardtextbook for terrorists, he says 'terrorists should kill as a matter of course, since that is the urbanguerrilla's sole reason for being'. He prioritises seven points 'for effective terrorist behaviour'—

1. Do not kill in anger 2. Do not kill on impulse3. Kill as a matter of course4. The use of violence must be deliberate and dispassionate5. The use of violence must be carefully engineered for theatrical effect6. Do not betray emotion7. Do not kill in haste or improvisation.

These rules are not new. They have been used by terror groups since 1968 and include terroristcells, or so-called freedom fighters, belonging to the Italian Brigades, Japanese and German RedArmies, Northern Ireland's IRA, Spain's ETA Militar, the Italian Front Line and The Popular Frontfor the Liberation of Palestine, just to name a few. It was revealed in 1968 by CzechoslovakCommunist Party defector General Jan Sejna that the former Soviet Union had, since 1964,increased its spending on supporting terrorism groups abroad by 1,000 per cent. In Italy in 1968 ablueprint for terrorists was published, Italy 1968: Political Guerrilla Warfare, which advised that theterrorist's task was to violate the law openly by challenging and outraging institutions and publicorder so that when the police and courts reacted as a result of these acts it would be easy todenounce its harshness and 'repressive dictatorial tendencies'. Does that sound familiar toanyone?


I was once asked, 'If a bull fighter fights bulls, then what does a freedom fighter fight?' Thatis where the biggest battle against terrorism begins—to understand the mechanisms behind theirthinking and reasoning, their causes and their motivation. We who have lived a protected freeexistence, who have experienced more laughter than tears, who have more rights then mostknow what to do with or even want—some do not even want to vote, our most fundamental rightto have a say in our country's future direction—we who live in united communities and a countrynot scarred by bombs, we who have not had to scramble for food, dodge bullets from birth, beentaught to hate and had rifles thrust in our hands before we went to school—if we went to school atall—to kill another human being, we can never comprehend such hate-filled emotions. Who couldcomprehend that someone is prepared to strap explosives to their bodies and die? Who couldcomprehend such a radical act?

Radical acts call for determined measures, and Western nations must have thedetermination and courage to stand up now and face the possibility of what many feel is theinevitable, rather than leave it until terrorism becomes a way of life. In this, as in all things, the oldadage 'prevention is better than cure' is appropriate, as is the scout motto 'be prepared'. Withterrorism the aim is to terrorise, to stop people living their lives in their accustomed manner. Theway we live may not be the best way according to others, but it is our way, the Australian way,and I value it strongly. I do not know anyone who wants to experience the heartbreak, destructionand oppression of terrorism or go to war, but to date no country subjected to it has had a choice.We can be prepared and pray for the best.

Australia is a big country and I support the need to have a national framework to meet thechallenge of combating terrorism and transnational crime. Many people are very concerned aboutthe Prime Minister's recent first strike declaration and are very uncomfortable with it. That concernmust be recognised by this and all parliaments. Current events require the passing of this bill, andI, along with other honourable members, support this. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (9.44 p.m.): As the shadow minister for emergency services, Ithink it is appropriate that I make some comments on the Terrorism (Commonwealth Powers) Bill2002. I think it is incumbent on all honourable members to realise the responsibilities that wehave both to our state and country.

The horror of September 11 2001 invaded our living rooms each night as we trieddesperately to make sense of the murderous event that took place resulting in more than 6,000innocent lives being lost in America. Mothers, fathers, young office workers, corporate heads ofthe nation, tourists, visitors, maintenance personnel—it really did not matter; they all became thevictims of some twisted extremist religious zealot whose aim was to cause as much pain andsuffering to America as possible while endeavouring to start a holy war. There is no doubt thereare sympathisers within this group in Australia right now. However, they are not necessarilypart—indeed are not part—of the mainstream Islam faith in Australia.

The shadow minister for police made the point very effectively, as did the Premier, that wehave to be very careful that we do not class everybody as those who would cause harm toAustralians. Living in Australia we tend to believe that the whole event did not directly affect usand probably never would. How wrong we were in hindsight. Unless this terrorism element in ourworld and society is not dealt with effectively, there is no doubt that our secure, safe lifestyle andthe 'she'll be right, mate' attitude will change forever. We have a great lifestyle in Australia. Weare very forgiving of those who would seek to harm us or who have different views to ours. We area very forgiving society. We are a society that is very multicultural and has a way of forgiving thosewho have different attitudes to ours. Currently, we have to start looking at the way in which wesecure our borders.

The atrocity that devastated New York and Washington constituted an attack not just againstthe United States of America but against all people who value freedom and the rule of law. Thistragedy happened in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, which symbolises peace and freedomfor the new world and demonstrates to us the heavy responsibility that all members of parliamentthroughout the world have. Indeed, we all have to work for peace and freedom despite all of thebad elements. I know that every one of us in the House tonight feels great sympathy for thosewho lost members of their family and loved ones and who have been affected by recent terroristattacks. More recently, we watched in absolute horror and disbelief the tragedy that unfolded inBali.

Like all Australians, I am appalled at the callous and senseless act of terrorism in Bali. Wecan only just imagine the pain and terror experienced by those who were in the nightclub at thetime of the first explosion and those who were on the street when the second bomb exploded.


There were further consequences as people back home and all over the world came to hearabout that devastating attack in Bali. I believe we have been more affected by this event possiblythan by the September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre in America last year where 10Australian lives were lost.

The frightening reality is that we are not isolated from terrorism, and the Bali incident certainlyproves that. The biggest challenge now facing the government is to comprehend the mind-set ofthose who would deliberately set off a bomb to take the lives of so many. Understanding theminds of terrorists is difficult. It is only when we have some concept of the thinking of a terroristthat we can address the issue of determining the additional measures that are required to ensureour national security.

Along with the carnage, we also saw and heard many stories of courage and heroism on thatdreadful night in Bali. Many stories that continue to flow from that incident make us proud to beAustralians. We have seen young people working in order to help their mates get out of thatterrible catastrophe. This is yet more proof, if we ever needed any, that the Aussie spirit can bebattered from time to time but will never be broken.

It is important for us to understand that we need resources in terms of developing a strategyto effectively counter the effects of terrorism that we are seeing all over the world. This isparticularly important when we consider what we may have to face here in Australia. Members onthis side of the House will support any measures that the government will take to ensure that, inconjunction with the rest of the states of Australia, our safety is guaranteed. I conclude with thosefew words.

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (9.51 p.m.): I rise to speakon the Terrorism (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2002. As we are well aware, the object of this bill isto refer certain matters relating to terrorist acts to the Commonwealth parliament in accordancewith section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution so as to enable the Commonwealth parliamentto make laws about those matters. The bill operates by reference to the text in schedule 1containing the proposed text of the amendments to the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

I hang off a lot of the words that the Premier touched on this evening. This legislationconcerns our national security. This is not about politics; it is about each other. This is aboutshowing responsible leadership and remembering what we are about as citizens not just ofQueensland but of this nation, Australia. The terrorist attacks in the United States in Septemberlast year, and in Bali this year, demonstrate that no-one is immune from terrorist activity. We mustremember that these cowardly acts are far worse than any war where there is, most times, a frontline. With terrorism there is no front line.

There is one important matter which I heard my colleague, the member for Callide, refer tothis evening. It is absolutely paramount that we do not let our emotions take control of theagenda. We live in probably one of the most beautiful countries in the world. We have amulticultural society made up of many different ethnic groups. In recent years we have witnessedthe coming together of many nations that make up this great nation of Australia. We have tounderstand what the world is about and what these minority groups are about. It is a terrible thingto say that probably one of the most dreadful factors that is driving these people is jealousy andanimosity towards those who may have something.

We are very fortunate in this country that we are blessed with a magnificent economy, we areblessed with magnificent lifestyles and we are blessed with a beautiful race of people. We have toembrace the leadership not only of our Prime Minister, John Howard, but also of our state leadersthroughout the Commonwealth. We must come together so that we can put in place an outcomethat will act as a bastion for the protection of our society.

One of the most important things that we have to remember is that combating terrorismrequires cooperation at all levels—the local level, the national level and the international level. Isaw an interview on Channel 7 some time ago with two of our federal parliamentarians, JoeHockey and Kevin Rudd. I thought to myself that it was good to see those fellows from a federallevel leaving politics out of the equation in order to get an outcome that will be advantageous toour people and to our nation.

As I said, we live in a country that is made up of different ethnic groups from all parts of theworld. The important thing in this nation, regardless of what side of politics we follow, is theprotection of the freedom and the rights of our people. That is precisely what I believe this pieceof legislation is all about. There are no boundaries to terrorism; it can spring up anywhere. I prayto God that it will not strike us here in Queensland or Australia. We saw the dreadful incidents thatoccurred in Bali when so many of our young people were struck down. So many of them were


liquidated, with not even a fingernail or a hair remaining with which to identify that somebody'sson or daughter was in that nightclub in Bali that evening. I think this has brought us all closertogether.

I have some very strong memories of Vietnam. A lot of my friends returned from Vietnam.Sometimes I remember how I wanted to go to Vietnam, but thank God I did not go to Vietnamwhen I see the situation of some of the people who did come back. It is important to rememberthe way that they were treated. They took part in a war where there was no front line. There is nofront line in the current world situation.

We have to show that we are committed to the ideal of protecting our fellow man andwoman regardless of their religious beliefs, their ethnic background and the colour of their skin.We are Australians. To use John Williamson's words, 'We are one'.

The Commonwealth has already passed laws which add terrorism offences to theCommonwealth Criminal Code. Queensland does not want terrorists escaping conviction ontechnicalities. That was part of the second reading speech on this legislation, and those remarksare very important. There can be no protection at all for these people, no matter where they arebreathing air today—in Australia or in some other foreign land at this point in time.

Many honourable members who come from other parts of the world would understand betterthan I the safety of our Australian environment. I believe that many of us are very naive when itcomes to a realisation of how people on the other side of the world live and what they aresubjected to on a daily basis. We have never been subjected to such things and, please God, wenever will be. We must continue to preserve that situation.

We debated issues of the different ideals of various peoples in the discrimination bill in thisparliament last week. This situation is no different. We must remember that some of the peoplewe have in this land come from those very countries where this terrorism is springing up. However,we must keep our composure and understand the issue. We must not victimise those people,because many of them are very good citizens.

The situation is not easy. I have been through the security apparatus at the airport three orfour times before I have been allowed to continue. I have pulled off the belt, gone through theapparatus and been told to go back again. I have taken everything out of my pockets and goneback again. I have even had to take my shoes off. I saw one fellow there one morning who wasalmost stripped down to his underpants. I thought to myself, 'If this is the price of security, so beit.' At the end of the day, no-one is safe from this terrorist element.

My colleague the member for Callide was speaking about the gun laws this evening. Ibelieve that we have the toughest gun laws in the Western World. Another matter that will comeup for debate concerns the illegal importation of firearms. There is an element out there all thetime that is trying to break the law and do the wrong thing by the free and loving society that wemembers of parliament represent. The greater majority of the people of our nation are peaceful,fun-loving people who are living in probably the greatest, fun-loving and safest land in the world.

Those people associated with tragedies like Port Arthur and that crazed fellow in Melbournewho a few weeks ago went berserk with a side-arm are the sort of people we always have to keepour guard up against. Unfortunately, they are a part of society. We have to ensure that we do notpenalise and persecute the free-loving people of our society because of a very small minorityelement. Whether it is gun laws or some type of criminal activity, we have to ensure that theinnocent are not victimised. We have to ensure that the innocent do not become the victims whilethe perpetrators are let off scot-free.

Without any further ado, all members in this House would agree that we must keep control ofthe situation. We also have to be very supportive of our leaders to ensure that we reach anoutcome that will protect our peoples, protect our nation and protect this great land of Australia.Regardless of what side of politics one is on, this legislation will certainly have a great bearing onthe future of this country and on the future of future generations. It gives me great pleasure tosupport this legislation.

Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (10.01 p.m.): I rise to support this legislation and tothank the state government for working with the Commonwealth and the other states in a trulycooperative way to look at how we can strengthen our national security at this particular timewhen we are facing issues as a nation that we have never faced before. We are giving bipartisansupport to this bill, which is about referring state powers to the Commonwealth where necessaryunder the Constitution so that there are no legal loopholes that give the advantage to terrorists orpotential terrorists in this nation. The very freedoms that we hold so dear and perhaps in many


ways have taken for granted in this nation and assumed were always ours to be unchallenged arethe very things that can prove antagonistic to other cultures that want to take advantage of thatfreedom in order to bring about a reign of terror.

This country is made up of such a diversity of people from so many backgrounds. We havealways had complete freedom to have very different political viewpoints in this country whileknowing that at the end of the day we do not resolve political differences with a gun. We do notresolve political differences with military uprisings. We have a system of democracy where, withthat diversity of backgrounds and political viewpoints, we can have relatively peaceful forums.Some people would say that the parliament is not always that peaceful, but it is far better to havesuch forums where ideas and views can be brought forward without people having to resort toviolence.

Mr Springborg: It's best to throw words rather than use guns.Miss SIMPSON: Absolutely. It is hard for this generation to understand that people from

particular ideologies find that concept to be antagonistic and want to actively deconstruct it, tobring that concept down. Ultimately, people may have a desire to influence other's ideas andbeliefs in life, but those who seek to do it by terror or military force have never been terriblysuccessful. While obviously one can try to subvert people physically, they can never win theirhearts with military or terrorist force. The very freedom we have as a nation to discuss differentideas is so precious.

Our diggers have long told us that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and thisgeneration has never really known what it is like to have to fight to uphold that freedom. We needto be vigilant and that heightened vigilance is something that is not comfortable to us becausethe Australian attitude of 'she'll be right' and 'it'll go away' comes to the fore. We hope that theseterrible times will slip away, but the reality is that the world today has changed. Other membershave talked about the horror of September 11. Those of us in this place during that time found ita numbing, horrible thing. Even though it was thousands of miles away, our grief was for thehuman race, for seeing people in such agony and for the destruction at the hands of evil.

The Bali incident in October brought such issues closer to home. If Australians felt we are anisland nation where we could get by because 'she'll be right' and 'we're nice people' and 'nobody'sgoing to want to hurt us', that feeling was very rudely stripped away with the Bali bombings. In acloser sense, Australia has East Timor on its doorstep and we just assumed that the freedomsthat we believed were right for that nation as it sought independence should lead to us holdingout our hand to our neighbour to provide assistance. As I said, there are those who do not upholdthe values of the democratic freedoms that we do. Instead, those freedoms antagonise andoffend them, yet we must always promote the values of freedom and strengthen our democraticinstitutions.

A friend of mine worked in the emergency room in a senior surgical position and had thehorror of having to amputate the limbs of young Australians and other young Bali victims andwork on burns victims. I just cannot imagine that horror, yet these health professional who aretrained to deal with such circumstances also found it horrific. I want to come to the issue of howwe respond in other ways, and some of my colleagues have touched on issues to do with thepolice and emergency services. I feel that it is important that we also raise the issue in terms ofour readiness across Australia but particularly here in Queensland with our public hospitals andemergency services in responding to possible disasters such as the ones we have just seen.

After Bali we saw an amazing response from outstanding health professionals andemergency services professionals who swung into action. They really did us proud. With their highlevel of skills and training, they tried to save or salvage as best they could people who had beenin the war zone of what was Bali. Coming out of there are lessons that we must learn. It is scarywhen the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons warns that Australia's hospitals will be pushedbeyond their limits if a tragedy on the scale of the Bali bombings occurs here on home soil.Professor Danny Cass, the trauma committee vice-chairman with the Royal Australasian Collegeof Surgeons said that about a third of trauma patients with the potential to survive could dieunless existing systems were upgraded. That is a clarion call that says to our Australian hospitalsystem and health ministers and the Queensland Health Minister, 'What we had before is notenough for where we're going in the future.'

We already have an acute emergency services system under great strain. We already haveemergency rooms that are under incredible strain when it comes to dealing with the so-calledroutine traumas that they face, although obviously anyone who has suffered from a trauma wouldhardly call it routine. We are already stretched to the limit with our intensive care and emergency


room specialty services and those who are trained to fill those gaps. When the Bali incidentoccurred, the Health Minister, Wendy Edmond, said that Queensland hospitals could handle alarge-scale disaster.

Maybe this was bravado to shore up people's emotions at this difficult time, but with thewarning of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons clearly stating that Australian hospitalscould not cope I call on the government not to take a 'she'll be right' attitude in this particulararea. The services that may have been enough today, yesterday or five years ago are certainlynot enough for tomorrow and what we are facing today. A very hard-nosed look has to be takenat how to put additional resources into these areas. We cannot afford not to have that level ofspecialist care in the quantities needed in the network in Queensland let alone across Australia.The warning is there.

I make it clear that we do appreciate those who train in these particular areas. We asparliamentarians need to support them, to make sure they are not put in an unfair situation whenthey are trying to deal with the future of emergency work. We hope we will never see a terrorismattack such as that in Bali on Australian soil or in Queensland, but we would be negligent if we didnot as a parliament insist that our government not take a 'she'll be right' attitude in such a criticalarea of care. It has been shown clearly that we were very lucky with the emergency services postBali. The warning signs are there. Hospitals desperately need their trauma services upgraded.

I believe that our strength as a diverse nation is the ability to be unified, not only withlegislation such as this but also for the times ahead. Those who will be seeking to undermine thegreat freedoms of this country will be hoping that Australians will fight each other. They will behoping that Australians will turn on each other and so be ineffective in addressing the very seriousconcerns we are facing. I believe it is part of the Australian spirit and tradition that in tough timeswe work together, that we do value the fact that we are Australians together. These are thingsthat are more important than individual political ideologies.

Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (10.12 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Terrorism(Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2002. Many people in our community are very aware of the spectreof terrorism on Australian soil. They often approach me in my electorate and ask me if I have anyparticular knowledge of the extent to which this threat is a reality, express their concerns about itand wish to find out a lot more about it. That indicates to me that terrorism is within the consciousminds of many people in our community. At the same time, those same people state veryresolutely to me their willingness to get on with their lives, their rejection of terrorism and the factthat they will not change the way they live or let the terrorists win in any way by forcing people tocower in submission before this horrid spectre. That is certainly a wide view in the community, andI respect the many people in the community who have come to me and raised this matter soforthrightly.

The Terrorism (Commonwealth Powers) Bill is an important piece of legislation. It has a verysimple concept at its heart—one which is very important in terms of our system of government.The bill goes to the heart of the fact that terrorism is a crime not against Queensland, New SouthWales, a particular city, a group or a person. If a terrorist act did occur in this country it would be acrime essentially against the nation state of Australia. That concept in itself indicates to me thatwe need to have an approach that is workable at the level of the nation state—the state as ourcohesive apparatus operating across this continent and its islands and territories. That is a veryimportant concept.

This bill essentially provides for a security measure in a legal sense to guarantee that thereare no loopholes at law in Australia whereby people might commit a particular crime in one state,be dealt with by a particular state or territory and find some other loophole, or conversely forfederal authorities to lack jurisdiction in this respect.

It is very important that these crimes be anticipated before they occur, that appropriateprosecutions be launched for conspiracy or any other such crimes and that appropriatemechanisms be put in place to fully prosecute and punish these crimes if they occur. That iscertainly the very clear intention of the wider community and I am very pleased to see that it is theintention of not only this parliament but also state parliaments across Australia and theCommonwealth parliament.

At the background to this current conjuncture it is important to examine some of the worldpowers' rhetoric in relation to world terrorism and how we might analyse what is actually occurring.There has been much talk over the past decade of this concept of a world order. Some suggestthat there have been various changes to bring about a new world order and, perhaps even in amore cynical sense, to perhaps create what might be described as the same old disorder. But we


have to look at this in historical terms. What we have in terms of our nation state complex acrossthe world today was inherited from post World War I and post World War II in particular. Tounderstand this order and disorder, it is important to see just what occurred in the 'carve-up' fromthose days post World War I and post World War II.

A great philosopher and writer by the name of Karl Marx actually commented on this. I knowthat Karl Marx is a chap who encountered a bit of bad publicity because of his penning thecommunist manifesto and fomenting world revolution but, leaving that aside, Karl Marx had somevery interesting things to say about the unfolding of history and political economy. One of thethings he did say was that man makes his own history but he does not do so in circumstances ofhis own choosing. He does so within circumstances directly encountered and inherited from thepast. That is a very important observation when we start to look at how the world powers dividedup the various nation states and geographical areas after world wars I and II, because they arethe circumstances in our history which have led us to today's conjuncture and to today's troubles.

After World War I and to a much greater degree after World War II, the great powers of theworld, in particular Russia, America, England and China, sat down and basically worked out a newworld order. The way countries were allocated, essentially to being put on a minder status undervarious world powers, was such that each country was located beside another country in a sensewith a morticing effect, so that one country was beside one superpower controlled countrycompared to another superpower controlled country. For example, as I recall, India was seen asclosely related to Russia, Pakistan came under the ambit of the United States, Afghanistan wasrelated to Russia and so on. So each superpower basically controlled each consecutive country.

That was the case and very much the foundation for the Cold War that many of us livedthrough at least up until the 1950s and 1960s. From then on we saw the deterioration of thatparticular world order. In the 1970s, world economic circumstances changed; there was the oilcrisis, and we saw a deterioration in that particular order. That occurred by way of various superpowers starting to lose their grip on those countries. For instance, Russia started to lose its grip onAfghanistan. We see the result of that today. Order in that country deteriorated and it became astate that had no order and had no control. It became what is described as a rogue state.

After the Gulf War, George Bush Senior tried to tell us that we were heading for a new worldorder. I think that was one of the most erroneous statements ever made by a world leader at thatpoint, because we were certainly in no position to move towards a new world order. We were stillwithin—and we still are within—a deterioration of the world order that was put together post WorldWar II. So we have still an unravelling of that process. We do not have a new world order yet andwe still do not know what that new world order will look like. But we can speculate about whatprocess is going to occur in order to get to that new world order. In past epochs, that new worldorder was reached, very unfortunately, by very violent means and world wars, which resulted inscenarios that would enable the world to reconstruct its borders, its economic foundations and itspower blocks. That is where we are in terms of moving towards some new formation.

I know that all members in this House will join me, in examining what we are dealing with inthis legislation, in hoping that, in reaching that new world order, we do not have to pass throughthe violence and mayhem that the world experienced in previous epochs in order to become amore stable and peaceful world. We all hope that this legislation will in one way or another take usto a more peaceful world. We are indeed a very peace-loving country. We must put a great dealof trust in our national leaders and the world leaders today and that in the future they will have thevision and the depth of understanding to see that this dynamic is occurring. We have to moveconsciously, using all of our powers within the country and outside the country, to workcooperatively with other nation states and major powers and power blocks as soon as possible tofind a new stability in the world, a new way of addressing the inequities, the alienation and thedisharmony that cause people to commit terrorist acts. That certainly is the foundation from wherewe must go. We must recognise and deal with the issues that are at the heart of terrorism andconfront those issues.

This legislation is important, but dealing with terrorism is a far more important tack that wemust adopt as a country, as a state, as national citizens and as world citizens. I commend theminister for bringing this bill to the House and for the firmness with which this government istreating this issue. I trust that our national leaders will take this matter as seriously and pursuerelevant legislation and strategies to deal with terrorism. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (10.24 p.m.): In rising to speak in support of thisbill, I have to say that I, and certainly my peers, never hoped to have to support such legislation. Ican remember survivors of World War II saying in the past five to 10 years that we were heading


down the path of violence in our community in Australia. My dad was one of those people. Heobserved the change in community activity and attitudes and said that Australia would at sometime in the very near future be confronting issues of violence. As daughters do, I said to my dad,'I hope you are wrong,' and in the back of my mind I always felt that he was wrong. The twintowers episode and the incidents in Bali have shown that these men and women who werepartakers and, in fact, stalwarts for our community in those spheres of war were reading the signsvery accurately. This is legislation that, for my children, I hoped I would never have to support.The legislation sets out very clearly what an act of terrorism is. In the media statements that thePrime Minister has made, it has certainly been clear that his intention is to protect the communitythat we love and intend to foster in Australia.

I had a quick look through the bill, because it was introduced only yesterday and is beingdebated today. The legislation recognises how easy travel is in Australia and how spoilt we havebeen for all of these years. In Europe, people cannot travel between countries without goingthrough border checks, visa checks and quite a deal of bureaucratic red tape. In Australia, wecould travel for weeks and not one person other than maybe a police officer on the highwaywould pull us up to check that we were an appropriate person travelling in an appropriate wayacross this nation.

This legislation brings into stark reality the fact that we are changing as a community, and notnecessarily changing for the better. I trust that the legislation is redundant. I trust that it never hasto be used, that it is never called on and that neither my generation nor my children's generationever have to face the reality of terrorism. It has been close to our doors—too close. I support thislegislation for the protection that it puts in place. My prayer is that that protection will never haveto be necessary.

Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice)(10.27 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate. As anumber of members have pointed out, this legislation is designed to ensure that Commonwealthlaws passed to amend the Commonwealth Criminal Code with respect to terrorism offences areconstitutionally secure. Commonwealth legislation draws upon a number of heads ofCommonwealth constitutional powers to support the offences that have been introduced in thepast by the Commonwealth parliament. However, advice indicated that there may well betechnical gaps in the constitutional authority on which those offences are based.

The offences are designed to address various aspects of potential terrorism. The offencesconcerned are contained in the schedule to this bill. As a number of members have indicated, weall hope that this legislation will never need to be relied upon. However, I believe that we must becautious not to overstate nor understate the level of potential risk of terrorism activity in thiscountry.

It is very easy in these times where horrendous incidents have occurred over the last 12months for the media to exacerbate the level of public concern. It is equally of concern I believethat politicians should not play upon or exacerbate the level of public anxiety surrounding theseissues. One of the most important qualities of leadership in times of uncertainty like the present isfor community leaders, political leaders and in particular our national leaders to providereassurance and calm and enable the Australian community to continue to conduct its affairs in away unaffected by undue anxiety.

I thank a number of members for their contributions to the debate. The Premier has outlinedthe way in which our government has through this legislation and through the national leaderssummit on terrorism sought to contribute constructively to a shared national response to prepareAustralia and be ready should any incidents occur. The Leader of the Opposition sought to makesome political capital from what he perceived to be additional powers being discussed in otherstates. I can only reassure the House and the people of Queensland that our government hasacted with the full support and advice of the Police Commissioner and the Queensland PoliceService. The commissioner has confirmed that he is satisfied that the powers contained inQueensland law are currently adequate for the purpose of any preparations the QueenslandPolice Service requires to prevent or respond to terrorist-like activity or offences. Certainly, theexperience of the management of the CHOGM event and other events that have been held inQueensland bear out the quality of preparation that Queensland law enforcement authoritieshave in this regard. Most of us can put the opposition leader's comments down to cheappoliticking when it comes to alleging that we need to spontaneously talk of further powers ofvarious kinds.


Various members, including the member for Nanango and the member for Callide, referredto the importance of terrorism laws. The member for Greenslopes also spoke of the importance ofaddressing the causes of terrorism, the importance of working globally to address the issues ofpoverty, alienation and dispossession which are very much at the heart of the grievance oftensuffered by cells of terrorist activists around the world.

The member for Callide made reference to the issue of civil liberties and the important needto balance what efforts we put in place to address terrorism with the equal importance ofprotecting the way of life in Australia which has traditionally respected civil liberties. It is a novelproposition to hear the member for Callide speak of civil liberties but a welcome conversion on theroad to Damascus on his part.

I cannot let this opportunity pass without making some reference to recent events which Ithink are of grave concern to me and to many Australians. We as the states and territories willneed to closely monitor the Commonwealth's use of these referred powers. They are referred at atime when their use is contemplated for offences of extraordinary breadth of application. Thisneed to monitor the Commonwealth's use of these powers is particularly so in the context ofincreasingly erratic comments by some of our national leaders, especially the Prime Minister, JohnHoward. His George Bush style comments last Sunday inferring a willingness to launch pre-emptive or first strike action into the territories of our Asian neighbours in response to perceivedthreats of terrorism were at best undisciplined, self-indulgent and naive. At worst, they wereunnecessarily provocative and utterly irresponsible in the context of the current state of affairsboth within Australia and between Australia and our international neighbours.

In today's Australian I note that Paul Kelly, a senior editor of the Australian, made thefollowing comments—John Howard has many political strengths for the war against terrorism but he has also weaknesses—and his keyweakness of faulty judgment in dealing with South-East Asia is on display again. It is too reminiscent of the deputysheriff blunder. An artificial and absurd reaction is now under way within a xenophobic region, repudiatingAustralia's so-called threat of a pre-emptive strike. This reflects badly on the region as it does on Howard'sjudgment.The spat that has erupted between Australia and South-East Asia could and should have been avoided. It isunnecessary. It hurts Australia's national interest. It is exposes the mix of xenophobia and calculated overreactionthat typifies too many South-East Asian pronouncements these days. Finally, such an eruption suggests a lack oftrust between Australia and the region that must weaken strategic collaboration.

Kelly goes on to suggest that Howard made these imprudent comments somewhat by accident. Isuggest otherwise. Any close observer of the politician Howard as distinct from the Prime MinisterHoward over the years knows he has shown a marked lack of empathy towards our closest andmost needed Asian neighbours and has failed to grasp the significance of our nation's properplace in the Asia-Pacific region. As Peter Charlton reported in the Courier-Mail on 11 Novemberthis year—Howard has had little political capital in Jakarta since 1999. There is an extremely difficult period for Australia andIndonesia but, sadly, there is little evidence that the Australian government recognises this. It is hard to disagreewith former opposition leader Kim Beazley when he says the government has 'dropped the ball' on Indonesia.According to Beazley: '(Howard's) got to change ... his outlook on the nature of contact between ourselves andSouth-East Asia and he owes it to the people in this community who are concerned about the effects of terrorism.

As Peter Charlton goes on to comment—That will be a huge task. A great deal of capital, what Keating calls ballast, has been squandered by the Howardgovernment.

Is it any wonder with these intemperate comments that we had difficulty in urging Indonesianauthorities to act with more urgency in response to the tragedy in Bali? But Howard's most recentcomments elevate to new heights of reckless egotism his ignorance of Australia's capacity andindeed responsibility to play a constructive and positive role in our region. It emphasises his failureto appreciate that our own national security is underpinned by regional stability, stability borne outof cooperation rather than unilateral sabre rattling on regional security matters and his abjectfailure to deal maturely and sensitively with our Asian neighbours to that end.

In the space of one prime ministership, that of John Howard, decades of carefully nurturedrelations with our nearest neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region have been frustrated, if notrecklessly jeopardised. We will have no-one to blame but ourselves and our federal government'sisolationist attitudes for the loss of opportunities these attitudes may well cost us in the yearsahead. We live among countries whose economies still have the potential to emerge collectivelyas the fastest developing and most vibrant economic region in the world. To dislocate ourselvesfrom close relations with these countries will do nothing to enhance our access to economic


benefits to flow from that economic powerhouse, an access which only good relations canguarantee.

Both regional security and the economic stability upon which such security is founded arethreatened by Howard's attitudes and actions on these issues. But it is not just our externalrelations which are at issue here; it is our internal sense of security, our social cohesion and ourAustralian way of life and national personality. At times of uncertainty like this, Australians needmore assurance—not less—more respect and reverence for democratic principles domesticallyand more cooperation and close engagement with our neighbours internationally—not less.

May I offer the following quote—What we must be careful about is that it does not lead to a withdrawal of Australian engagement with Indonesia.Australians are enmeshed in the rich tapestry of Asia, as Asia is an increasingly important influence on Australia.Moments of crisis highlight our common destiny. In 1997 it was a financial crisis. Today it is a human tragedy. Atthese points of crisis we must not withdraw. We must heighten our engagement and our cooperation. We must worktogether. Australia stands ready to do so.

These are the words not of Simon Crean or Kevin Rudd but Liberal Treasurer Peter Costello.What a pity his leader does not exercise a comparable level of reassuring restraint. Instead,Howard seems determined to create a culture of fear and loathing behind which to findjustification for disturbing encroachments upon accepted civil rights and due process at home andobsequious acquiescence to American foreign policy objectives abroad. A 21st century Australiashould have a proudly independent international presence dedicated to constructive engagementand world peace, not a stance categorised by blind discipleship or cowering subservience like thatwhich drew us into the pointless folly of the Vietnam War. Whatever portent America's conflict withIraq might hold, it must never be allowed to become Vietnam revisited for a generation of youngAustralian armed service personnel and their families.

I fervently believe that Prime Minister Howard is out of touch with the Australian people onthese issues. A peace-loving nation of people whose culture is founded on mateship do not wantto commit themselves to a war on the other side of the globe in a conflict to which we neverneeded to become a party. Howard has, it seems, gone out of his way to make Australia a target,perhaps to justify his forelock tugging approach to Australia's stance towards America in the so-called war on terror. That stance has itself unnecessarily increased our exposure to retaliation forany action taken by the US. But what of our national character? What about our culture ofwelcoming cheerfulness and a sense of shared friendship and mateship enriched by ourmulticultural demography. Will it survive cynical politics based on parochialism, national jingoismand fear?

Our respected seniors, those old enough to remember and endure the hardships of war, donot need political leaders whipping up an atmosphere of unnecessary fear. They know that realconflicts do not start with the first firing of a weapon but from reckless and provocative politicalposturing that unsettles the sense of shared international peace that previously prevailed. A cycleof increasing tension will undoubtedly lead to a spiralling call for more police-type powers, morerestrictions on our accepted democratic freedoms and more personal insecurity, all of whichbecome exaggerated out of all proportion with reality.

For these reasons, I do not refer these powers in this bill to the Commonwealth for them tobe exercised for political ends or to authorise their injudicious or heavy-handed use. I warn thecurrent Prime Minister that the referral of these state powers is made in good faith with acommitment to national preparation in the event of any incident but also on the condition thatthey are not abused. Our government's cooperation in referring these powers should in no way beinferred as an authority for any continuation of what I regard to be the ham-fisted wrecking yardapproach to national and regional security reflected in the Prime Minister's recent irrationalbehaviour on these issues. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

CommitteeClauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. Schedule 1, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

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

5424 Adjournment 4 Dec 2002

ADJOURNMENTHon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice)

(10.45 p.m.): I move—That the House do now adjourn.

DroughtMr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (10.45 p.m.): I rise to address what is a growing

issue and concern in my electorate, namely, the drought, particularly in areas which do notcurrently enjoy exceptional circumstances listing. Of notable concern are the shires of Stanthorpeand Inglewood. Only recently, following the significant and tragic bushfires that swept through alarge part of the southern Granite Belt, the Ministers for Natural Resources and Primary Industrieshad an opportunity to survey the damage. During that time, both ministers were able toappreciate better the extent of the water shortage on the Granite Belt. Although a water shortageis something we are all talking about at the moment—from an urban, domestic and irrigationviewpoint—this is a particular issue on the Granite Belt because of the many fruit trees, applecrops, stone fruit crops and other small crops that are suffering as a consequence of the lack ofwater.

Tonight I call on the Queensland government to work cooperatively with the industryorganisations, whether that be the Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Growers or Agforce, toensure that the proper process for preparation of applications for exceptional circumstances listingcan be prepared and also submitted in a timely manner. As I understand it, at this stage no suchapplication has been forthcoming from the Queensland government in the case of either theStanthorpe or Inglewood shires to the Commonwealth government to enable it to process suchan application. It is not right for the Minister for Primary Industries to say that this is somethingwhich they can do at a federal level at a brushstroke. The process needs to be followed. It needsto be prepared by the industry organisations, submitted through the Department of PrimaryIndustries in Queensland and then the Commonwealth government should act expeditiously toensure that that exceptional circumstances declaration can be made and the household support,interest subsidy and other support mechanisms that come as part of that listing are able to flowthrough to the farm families and businesses that have been suffering.

The finger-pointing that I have been witnessing in Queensland over the past couple ofmonths has left me cold. It has made these people political pawns in the stupidity of governmentsover an issue of too great importance. The state government has to stop its finger-pointing andassist in the preparation and submission of these applications. Once the Commonwealthgovernment receives those applications, it has to act expeditiously to reduce bureaucratic redtape in the preparation and approval of those applications. People's livelihoods and farmbusinesses are at stake.

Junior School Awards Night, Robina State High SchoolMrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (10.48 p.m.): Last week I was privileged to attend the

junior school awards night of the Robina State High School. Robina High, while located across thehighway from Mudgeeraba in the electorate of Robina, is the area's only public high school anddraws over half its population from Mudgeeraba and the hinterland.

Robina High has a simple but stirring motto: believe and succeed. Self-belief coupled witheffort, talent and determination leads to success. Robina High is only seven years old and with1,800 students is the size of a small town. Despite its large size, Robina High has become knownfor its flexible, caring and individual approach to each and every student.

The school has become equally known for its academic achievements and its vocationaleducation program. Last year, Robina had five OP1s, yet at the same time it has 100 schoolbased apprentices, the highest number on the Gold Coast. The school is well known for itscommunity spirit and sense of duty and participation. Its naval cadet unit is Australia's largest andcan regularly be seen supporting public events such as Anzac Day.

I will outline some of the school's achievements. This year, year 12 student Brett Norvellachieved a VHA10, the highest score possible in technology studies. Three students receivedhigh distinctions in a national writing competition. Six year 10 students entered the NationalScience Week competition and finished first and second out of 140 entries in the Web pagedesign section. Two more students were awarded high distinctions in the 2002 Australian Science

4 Dec 2002 Adjournment 5425

competition, and four year 11 students received nominations at the prestigious Bond UniversityFilm and Television Awards. Zsuzsanna Nagy won first prize in the narrative comedy section.

Robina High has been built on a foundation of student, teacher and parent involvement. Itsunique PROMOTE program, which stands for pride, respect, opportunities, manners, ownership,teamwork and excellence is embodied in everything the school does. I want to congratulate thestudents, staff, parents and community of Robina High and particularly Lyn McKenzie, JennyTobin, Chris Kearn, Neil Steinhardt, Scott Ison, Di Loddon, Kathy Mackey and especially studentcouncil president Jessica Yorath. Jessica has worked especially hard this year to lead the councilthrough a tragic time and to overcome her own grief following the death of former student councilpresident, the late Elizabeth Benson, who was tragically killed in a motor vehicle accident. I knowthat Elizabeth is, and will be, greatly missed for a long time to come, but I am sure that she wouldbe proud of the efforts of Jessica and all the student councillors, and I know that she lovedRobina High and was fiercely proud of it, as am I.

Death of Mr C. Dahl

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (10.51 p.m.): I rise to speak in memory of awonderful man in our community, Clive Dahl. Clive passed away on Monday morning at the ageof 75. He was a tireless worker for the aged in my community of Gladstone and Calliope. In spiteof his own ill health for quite a number of years, Clive continued to work very effectively forfacilities for elderly people in the region.

He was instrumental in setting up the Port Curtis Place Senior Citizens Centre, which is abuilding which is used regularly and extensively for not only aged care functions but for functionsright across the age spectrum. He also established the Gladstone Central Committee on theAgeing which was responsible for building the Heritage Retirement Village at Telina Estate. Iwould like to commend the Minister for Housing in this parliament who has given significantmoneys to the building of that aged care facility.

The committee is now being led by Edgar Allen who took over from Clive Dahl. Clive was oneof life's gentlemen. He was always kind and supportive, irrespective of the problems that peopletook to him—particularly the problems of the elderly. Clive gave a willing ear and was available togive support and to lobby.

He has left a large family and I know that they will miss him greatly. Joan Brooks is thewelfare officer for the committee and she works out of the Port Curtis facility. Many people contactPort Curtis Place for advice across the board, whether it is federal or state government issues,aged care issues or housing issues. They try to give the best support that they can.

Clive was on the Gladstone City Council for many years. He had a great interest andinvolvement in and support for the community of Gladstone. Many people were influencedpositively by his work. His family was influenced positively. I found working with him a great delight.He was an encourager and he was a visionary. I know that the community of Gladstone andCalliope are the poorer for his passing.

To his family I pass on my very best wishes. Our thoughts and our prayers are with you. Iknow that Clive has left an indelible mark on the community of central Queensland.

Centenary Youth Advisory Committee

Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (10.54 p.m.): Tonight I would like to talk about theformulation of a youth council for the Centenary suburbs in the electorate of Mount Ommaney. Afew years ago the concept of a committee to support all groups and residents in the Centenarysuburbs was formulated by a number of key community people. Eventually the CentenaryCommunity Connections group—CCC—was formed. CCC is a nonprofit community groupestablished to enhance the feeling of community within the Centenary suburbs and to specificallydevelop, promote, undertake and support specific local community projects which arise fromcommunity discussion and consultation.

Members of the CCC approached me to establish a youth forum to engage young people incommunity debate, activities and local decision making. I assisted youth parliamentarian CorinneMulholland to set up a committee of seven young people aged between 11 and 24 under theauspices of CCC to take on this task.


A youth festival—Summer Fest—in 2003 is being organised and coordinated by Nick Kozjiwith the support of the CCC and the youth committee. The Summer Fest was formerly WickedDay Out and was previously held in August 2001 at the Jindalee Skate Park near Amazons. Thisfestival will be billed as a drug and alcohol-free event. Ruth Carmichael, Belinda Karnighan,members of the CCC and various other community groups such as the Jindalee Lions will providetheir support to the youth committee and upcoming events. The youth committee will provide avoice for all young people in the Centenary suburbs.

It will actively try to promote equality for young people and help young people to be moreinvolved in the decision-making process. It is hoped that the committee will advance youngpeople's participation in the community and society as a whole. The committee will work to makerecommendations to various authorities about issues that affect youth as well as planning andsupporting activities for young people in the area. Young people involved in the committee havea vision to increase youth development by providing an active process by which young people areengaged, equipped and empowered to be active citizens in society.

Sections of the community seem to categorise young people according to their deficits. Thecommittee's model of youth development should aim to build upon the creative capacitiesinherent within each young person. What we do today will affect the youth of tomorrow. Our youthare our future leaders. It is important that our young people be given the chance to voice theirconcerns and have a say about what should happen in the local community. I congratulateCorinne and the committee for taking this bold step and, with my continued support, I wish themthe best for their endeavours.

Native Wildlife on Private LandMr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (10.57 p.m.): I have tried to gain a response from the

Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Dean Wells, in relation to native wildlife on private land—asto who owns the property rights of the wildlife if the animal is taken on freehold land. The HighCourt of Australia decision of Herbert Walden v. Peter Baxter Hensler has listed common lawproperty rights in the owner of the land. The Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service appears notto be complying with the decision as set down by the High Court of Australia.

The minister needs to take note of the following observations. Firstly, have the prior decisionsof the High Court of Australia been rejected in favour of the present legislative provisions of boththe Commonwealth of Australia and Queensland with respect to each of those property rights inwildlife? Has the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth)affected the application of the nature conservation legislation in Queensland with respect to eachof those property rights in wildlife? Have common law rights with respect to each of those propertyrights in wildlife been extinguished by legislation? Has the Environmental Protection andBiodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth) been lawfully enacted having regard to thelegislative power of the Commonwealth under the Australian Constitution so as to adverselyaffect: (a) common law property rights in wildlife; and (b) statutory property rights in wildlifepreserved under the Nature Conservation Act 1992?

In relation to property rights in lawfully taken Australian wildlife, under section 83(2) of theNature Conservation Act 1992 a protected animal ceases to be the property of the state if theanimal is taken under a licence, permit or other authority issued or given under the regulation.The question once again must be asked as to why Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service is notcomplying with the decision as set down by the High Court of Australia?

This issue has major ramifications for so many people around the state. It is essential thatthe Minister for Environment takes note of these issues that I have raised during the week,because without some clear intention and some clear indication of what people can actually doenormous loss is occurring at the present time throughout many primary industries—

Time expired.

Bus Bridge, St Lucia

Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (10.59 p.m.): I rise tonight to draw to the attention of the Housethe very real concerns of my constituents in the suburb of St Lucia about proposals by theBrisbane City Council to build a green bridge or bus bridge from Dutton Park to the University ofQueensland. Let me set the scene. The university has been growing significantly over the lastnumber of years, if not with student numbers then certainly with the number of people commuting


to the university to do research and to work there. So great has this growth been that after thecentral business district in Brisbane the University of Queensland is the second most popularweekday destination for commuters. This means that every morning and every afternoon there isabsolute bedlam along Sir Fred Schonell Drive. There are also significant issues on the othermajor access points to the university—namely, Hawken Drive and the Esplanade. There areissues of traffic congestion now along Carmody Road and there are rat runners running along DellRoad, Boomerang Road, Eighth Avenue, Central Avenue and Hillside Terrace just to name a few.

Something clearly needs to be done to begin to ease the traffic congestion throughout StLucia and the traffic pressure at the university, but I believe that the Brisbane City Council'sproposal for a bus bridge does not have the support of my residents and does not have mysupport for this reason: the council proposes to build a bridge which will provide access for notonly pedestrians and bicycles—there are no problems there—but also buses. Here is where theproblem arises. If the bridge is able to take buses from Dutton Park to the University ofQueensland, then it is clearly able to take cars. While we can accept that there are reassurancesfrom the city council that under the term of this city council it does not intend to allow cars on thebridge, I believe that in the future the political pressure from residents living on the south side toallow cars on the bridge would be very hard to resist. It might start with allowing cars to use thebridge on a Sunday or maybe late at night, but over time we will see cars on the bridge. For thisreason, I do not believe that I can support it.

I will put my views to the Brisbane City Council by way of a submission through itsconsultation process and would urge residents of St Lucia to do the same. The project is open forconsultation right now and the closing date for comment is 7 March 2003. I believe that this is asignificant issue and of significant concern to not only my residents but also myself. I will beplacing on my web site details of how residents can make a comment to the Brisbane CityCouncil. I believe that the solution to the traffic problem in St Lucia is to build a pedestrian andcycle bridge from Dutton Park to the university, not one for buses.

Water, Kilcoy ShireMrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (11.03 p.m.): Bob and Betty Baker have a farm at Neurum in

the Kilcoy shire on Neurum Creek and the Stanley River. They have licences to irrigate from bothof these streams. The local water advisory committee made a decision in April to have a totalvoluntary ban on irrigation on Neurum Creek and the Bakers were never advised. They havemade an extremely heavy economic investment and have planted 40 acres of watermelon. Hadthey known about the ban, they would never have planted. Melons under plastic using drip tapeis the most efficient use of water preservation for the crop. This was used at the time and nooverhead irrigation had been used at all.

On 8 October they requested and were granted an audience with Natural Resourcesregarding the extension of underground mains to another location on Neurum Creek within theoriginal property description. This was done as a backup if the original water supply failed. There isno power at the site, which would have necessitated pumps to be driven by diesel. The originalwater supply is still viable. On 17 October they were visited by two Natural Resources technicalofficers and given the go-ahead to lengthen the existing mains to another larger water hole onNeurum Creek. No mention of the ban was made. On 28 November the DNR advertised a totalban with a $37,500 fine if breached. Only two to three weeks of irrigation were essential for thecrop to be finished. On 30 November they again were visited by a Natural Resources technicalofficer who said, regarding the water, 'That's it!' Bob said, 'That means the crop is dead.' Thetechnical officer replied by saying yes, and he drove away.

The deputy chairman said that the water controller for the relevant section of the creekconsulted with him and the secretary to make decisions. Sometimes they put notices in the paperand sometimes they ring the involved parties. In this case, he said that a DNR person had offeredto tell the Bakers but that was never done. The Bakers were not provided with vital informationand now there is no water, no crop, no income and a heavy financial loss. Casual employees arenow being made redundant. They know that there is a drought in Queensland, but the water inNeurum Creek had been preserved by them to finish their crop. They ask the minister where theycan go from here. Perhaps the minister can tell them. Perhaps the minister could advise histechnical officers to be a little bit gentler in the way they cast aside a family's livelihood and thejobs of their employees. This was a disastrous solution for this family and all of their employees.They are looking for an answer from the minister. Where exactly do they go?


Old Ceramic House, Nerang Community AssociationMr POOLE (Gaven—ALP) (11.05 p.m.): I rise tonight to again speak on a favourite topic of

mine—that is, Nerang. Nerang is a particularly beautiful part of the Gold Coast. In fact, it isprobably the hub of the Gold Coast, with roads leading to the beach, to the hinterland, downsouth to the Tweed or north to Brisbane. It has a beautiful, pristine river winding through it andhas a lazy feel about the township itself. But what makes Nerang special is its locals. The otherday in this House I spoke about the Chamber of Commerce and what it is doing in its pushtowards recognising its potential for business.

But there is another group whose efforts go unrecognised by the wider community, and thatgroup is the Nerang Community Association led from the front by Mark Tierney, Irene and LloydMaguire and of course Councillor Peter Young. This wonderful group of volunteers ensures thatthe river and its surrounds remain in their present state—in particular the wildlife—so that they willbe there for all of our children to inherit. The Nerang Community Association has also taken onthe custodial role of preserving some of Nerang's heritage, including its old buildings. Nerang isone of the oldest regions of the Gold Coast and, because of this, we have some historic legaciesincluding Old Ceramic House. It is Old Ceramic House—Ceramic House as it is known—that I wantto talk about tonight.

Ceramic House was built by an old soldier on returning home from the First World War. Hisname was Ekins Veiver, who actually returned from the war on a troop ship named Ceramic afterfighting in Flanders in France. He married a local lass named Gladys Warroner and built CeramicHouse as their home. Ceramic House was built overlooking the Nerang River where Ek andGladys raised three kids and also ran and milked cows. People used to stop at Old CeramicHouse to ask for directions.

After years of neglect for one reason or another, the Nerang Community Association wasable to put Ceramic House on a truck and relocate it temporarily until a new site was found. I ampleased to say that that site has been found. It will be relocated at Bishop Park on the NerangRiver and close to the Nerang CBD and once again Ceramic House, restored to its original glory,will be overlooking the Nerang River. Nerang is a better place because of these special types ofpeople. I take my hat off to the Nerang Community Association, which also mans Ceramic Houseseven days a week as an information centre.

Traffic and Parking Problems, Mooloolaba

Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (11.08 p.m.): I rise to speak about an issue in myelectorate, in particular wonderful Mooloolaba. I know that a number of members are going therefor their holidays at Christmas time, and I am sure that they will enjoy themselves. It is a wonderfullocation. It has had some very attractive landscaping and appropriate development along theesplanade and other areas in recent years. One of the challenges we face now—we have faced italready, but it is an emerging problem for the medium to long term as well—relates to traffic andparking issues. The council is currently attempting to tackle this issue, but I call on the MaroochyShire Council to not just have a short-term vision with regard to the appropriate parking andtransport needs of this wonderful tourist location.

The council needs to do a comprehensive study of medium- to long-term needs in relation totraffic and parking in this area. We know that some areas for potential future parking are beingcontemplated for development at this time. If land is locked up by signing off on a developmenttoday and it cannot be put to the best long-term use, a fundamental mistake will have beenmade. I believe that the council needs to look at what parking needs will be in 10 or 15 years andhave a strategy in place such that when it is making decisions today in relation to immediateneeds it does not sign off on the best long-term options.

Currently there is a study under way into the Sunshine Motorway upgrades andinterchanges. There is an opportunity for council to work with the state government to look atoptions such as park-and-ride facilities or some connection with public transport from theSunshine Motorway and the future CAMCOS public transport system. The CAMCOS corridorconnects with the Sunshine Motorway. There are opportunities, but there is a risk of losing thoseopportunities if the proper planning is not done now.

I can see a future when traffic will be taken off the esplanade and some of the main streetsof Mooloolaba when there is appropriate public transport. We are not at that point yet, but if weare to really nurture and look after this beautiful location then appropriate planning needs to be


done now. The right decisions need to be made now to ensure the best long-term options are notlost.

It is a wonderful location. I commend those who have a heart and a vision for the besttourism outcomes for this area. The growth in jobs and investment in this particular area has beenphenomenal, but we need to make sure that the beauty and attractiveness of the area ispreserved. Managing the traffic issues and making sure they do not become a frustration thatturns people away in the future are critically important.

Bribie Island Aquaculture Research Centre

Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (11.11 p.m.): Tonight I wish to follow on fromthe very positive comments made by the member for Redlands, John English, on the researchbeing conducted by scientists and other staff members at the Bribie Island Aquaculture ResearchCentre. Recently government backbenchers who are members of the Queensland Rural Counciltoured the facility and were informed of the success of the hatchery and production techniques ofsoft-shelled crabs. Much work is also being done on the tropical abalone and the northerncrayfish. The centre has also been recognised for its research in the successful breeding of mudcrabs in captivity and the reseeding of scallop breeding areas.

Bribie Island Aquaculture Research Centre director Dr Paul Grieves said in his presentationthat there was evidence that some marine species were in danger of becoming extinct and it wasup to the scientists to do their very best to find solutions to prevent this. I am pleased to say thatresearch is moving towards economic and environmental sustainability outcomes for the seafoodindustry, and the Bribie Island aquaculture centre is leading the way.

Ms Keech: Aquaculture is very important to Queensland.

Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN: It is. I agree. One of the centre's biologists, Paul Palmer,described the work being carried out on the growth gene of banana prawns in nursery ponds asextremely beneficial and very rewarding. Eventually, all of this research may assist droughtaffected farmers with crop diversification options.

Today the Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon. Henry Palaszczuk, and I accompanied thePrime Minister of Papua New Guinea, the Rt Hon. Sir Michael Somare, and a number of hiscolleagues on an extensive tour of the Bribie Island aquaculture centre. He, too, was veryimpressed with the innovative technological advances and fully supported the research beingconducted. He was particularly interested in the crab research and is hoping to promote theexpansion of aquaculture in his country. I take this opportunity to congratulate everyone whoworks at the Bribie Island centre. As the deputy chair of the ministerial aquaculture advisorycommittee, I have been given plenty of valuable information on aquaculture from this facility.

I also place on record that, as a result of my own research, I have extreme concerns with anyproposal to locate fish farms in the sensitive Moreton Bay. As a protected area and one that isenjoyed by many various recreational users, it is totally unsuitable and I will not support such amove. I recently visited a similar sea based farm and I gathered information which I am preparedto share to back my decision for not supporting them. More research needs to be done in thisfield to find better suited areas before this industry can be properly promoted further inQueensland.

I thank the Minister for Primary Industries, Henry Palaszczuk, for allowing me to be part of theministerial aquaculture advisory committee. The experience and knowledge I gained was veryrewarding and I thoroughly enjoyed working with the committee, especially the chair, who is sittinghere by my side this evening, the member for Albert, Margaret Keech. She has done amarvellous job.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.

hansard 4 december 2002 - documents.parliament.qld.gov.au

Documents