thursday, 19 october 2000

19 Oct 2000 Legislative Assembly 3853

THURSDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2000

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

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Annual Report

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, Ihave to report that today I received the annualreport of the Queensland InformationCommissioner for 1999-2000, and I table thesaid report.

PETITIONS

The Clerk announced the receipt of thefollowing petitions—

Boyne Island/Benaraby Road Intersection

From Mrs Liz Cunningham (847petitioners) requesting that the House ensurean urgent review is done to identify ways,including road realignment, to reduce the roadtoll at the Boyne Island/Benaraby Roadintersection and to improve the safety of thetravelling public.

Wetlands Park, Cairns

From Mr Pitt (1,029 petitioners)requesting that the House preserve the land tothe south and east of Cairns, encompassingthe Trinity Inlet and surrounding areas andhillslopes at East Trinity and the recentlypurchased Government land at East Trinity, inperpetuity through the declaration of a Cairnswetlands park as an area which enhances itsconservation values and its potential forecotourism, wetland rehabilitation andenvironmental education.

Petitions received.

PAPERS

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE TO A PETITION

The following response to a petition was tabledby The Clerk—

Response from the Minister for Police andCorrective Services (Mr Barton) to a petitionpresented by Mrs Attwood from 15 petitioners,regarding fine defaulters in Queenslandprisons—

12 October 2000Mr R.D. DoyleThe Clerk of the ParliamentParliament HouseAlice and George StreetsBRISBANE QLD 4000

Dear Mr DoylePetition received by the QueenslandLegislative Assembly

The concerns of the petitioners appear tobe the number of fine defaulters withinQueenslands prisons. As of 22 September2000, there were 160 fine defaulters, whohad no other charges against them, in theprison system.Motion 1That those currently in jail for non-payment of fines should be released toserve Community-Based Orders.

CommentThe State Penalties Enforcement Registrywill fully commence operations on 27November 2000. This program outlinesalternatives to people to enable them notto enter the prison system.

All Setons Orders, more than 65 per centof all fines enforced in Queensland,become SPER Orders and will be subjectto SPER legislation from 27 November2000.Offenders must elect to performcommunity service. They also have theoptions of entering into complianceagreements or instalment plans.Motion 2

That, in the future, fine defaulters shouldbe given community-based orders as afirst option. This is opposed to a fineoption order, which has a higher chance offailure, resulting in imprisonment.Comment

Offenders must be suitable for and electto perform community service. Failure tocomplete a community based order resultsin the person being returned to court forthe original matter to be heard again aswell the failure to complete the order.Suitability is essential to ensure we do notset people up to fail.There are more options available topeople under a Fine Option Order. Themonetary penalty can be converted intocommunity service hours. People can paythe balance of the fine and thus reducethe number of hours to be completed.Failure to comply with this order results inperformed community service hours beingdeducted from the fine with no additionalpenalties imposed.Projections are that Fine Option Ordernumbers will drop with the impact of

3854 Ministerial Statement 19 Oct 2000

SPER. Within the first 20 days of theSPER call centre being operational 1,900fine defaulters entered into agreements.Almost 200 warrants were paid in full andrecalled and $95,000 was collected.Motion 3

That the money saved by these means bedevoted to resourcing community-basedoptions for fine defaulters, includingrestorative justice options. This shouldinclude adequate resourcing the StatePenalties Enforcement Register (SPER) soas to be fully effective.

Comment

Budgets to operate SPER and programswithin the Department of Corrections havealready been finalised and approved forthis financial year.

Variations to operational procedures thathave budgetary impacts were accountedfor within the financial planning of thedepartment. Treasury ensures theaccuracy of costing within all portfolioareas.While community based options rest withthe Department of Corrective Services,the SPER program comes under theAttorney General. All programs andprojects are fully costed as required byTreasury.

Yours sincerely

TOM BARTON MLA

Minister for Police and CorrectiveServices

MINISTERIAL PAPER

The following paper was tabled—Attorney-General and Minister for Justice andMinister for The Arts (Mr Foley)—

Electoral Commissioner of Queensland—Annual Report for 1999-2000.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Fuel Prices; Literary Awards; BundabergHospital

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.32 a.m.), by leave: Thepeople of Queensland have spoken on thespiralling cost of petrol in this country. Theyhave spoken loudly and clearly and in theirthousands. On 20 August, I and the PetrolPrice Watch Committee chairman, themember for Woodridge, Mike Kaiser, called onthe Commonwealth to hold a Senate inquiryinto petrol prices. Labor members around theState reported enormous public anger atprices close to, and in some cases more than,a dollar a litre. That anger is represented bythe 27,164 signatures on the petitions I have

here. For the benefit of the House, I wish totable copies of the petitions.

Mr Mackenroth: That's going into theBeattie tabling room.

Mr BEATTIE: And so it should. I will besending these petitions to the Prime Minister.The Prime Minister is duty-bound to act on thedemands of these petitioners to: initiate a full-scale inquiry into the petrol pricing practices ofthe oil industries; have the ACCC monitor theprices, costs and profits of the oil industries;and honour his promise to the Australianmotorist to reduce the petrol excise to fullyaccount for the impact of the GST.

These signatures represent about 1 in 80Queenslanders of voting age. That gives someidea of the depth of outrage in the community.These are just the petitions that have come inso far. The member for Woodridge advisesthat there are thousands more signatures onpetitions that are yet to come in. In fact, weexpect in the end to present the Prime Ministerwith as many as 35,000 signatures. Thepeople involved with the petitions havereported again and again that, rather than anyreluctance, there is great eagerness to signthese petitions. The Petrol Price WatchCommittee web site has recorded almost10,000 hits since it was set up in June. All thispoints to massive community anger across theState.

What we have on the one hand is aFederal Government that is out of touch and inQueensland we have a Government that is intouch. That is why last night, along with theAttorney-General, I was proud to present theQueensland Premier's Literary Awards at theBrisbane Writers Festival Gala Dinner at theConvention Centre. As I told the Houseyesterday, there were 233 Queensland entriesout of a total of 565 in what have become oneof the most prestigious literary awards in thecountry. Of the seven awards, four have beenwon by Queenslanders. I am delighted withthat. If that is not a testament to our literacylevels, I do not know what is. I congratulate thewinners, the finalists, the judges and all thoseauthors who submitted their work. The winnersare—

Emerging Queensland author—$20,000

Nicole Bourke for The Bone Flute

Fiction—$25,000Thea Astley for Drylands(Viking/Penguin Books Australia)

Advancing Public Debate—$25,000Henry Reynolds for Why Weren't WeTold? (Viking/Penguin BooksAustralia)

19 Oct 2000 Ministerial Statement 3855

Children's—$15,000Jane Godwin for The Family Tree(Penguin Books Australia)

History—$15,000David Day for John Curtin: A Life(Harper Collins Publishers)

Drama (stage)—$15,000Leah Purcell and Scott Rankin forBox the Pony (Hodder HeadlineAustralia)

Drama (screen)—$15,000

Andrew McGahan for Praise (MarthaColeman).

While we are talking about a can-doGovernment, I advise the House that I recentlyhad the pleasure of announcing a milliondollars in extra services for the BundabergBase Hospital, along with the local member forBundaberg, Nita Cunningham. On 12September I spent the day in Bundaberg atthe invitation of the member. She has madestrong representations seeking expansion ofthe hospital's renal services—

Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Hear the nastiness from

Opposition members. Hear their nasty,negative whingeing. They are at it again. MrNasty and his band of whingers! The memberfor Bundaberg has made strongrepresentations seeking expansion of thehospital's renal services and additional staff forpaediatrics.

Opposition members interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: Members opposite do notcare about the Bundaberg Hospital. Afterextensive consideration of the situation atBundaberg, the Health Minister and I agreedthat it was necessary to address the needsidentified by the member for Bundaberg.Bundaberg has been experiencing somespecial circumstances in relation to increasingdemand for renal medicine, and we areresponding to those circumstances.

Mr Borbidge interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: Here we go, Mr Nasty andthe whingers opposite. They do not want tosee any services for Bundaberg. As I said,Bundaberg has been experiencing somespecial circumstances in relation to increasingdemand for renal medicine, and we areresponding to those circumstances.

The extra services include the following.Renal medicine: a $300,000 expansion of therenal dialysis unit with an increase to eightchairs and the capacity for future growth;specialist medicine services and extra renal

nursing services to be provided as visitingservices through the central zone network.Paediatrics: a new full-time paediatrician andtwo new paediatric community allied healthpositions. Critical care: a new full-timeanaesthetist/intensivist and critical care nursingeducation and training support. Specialistservices visiting sessions: general medicineand internal medicine, general surgery,orthopaedic surgery and additional oncologysessions. The changes mean that manyBundaberg patients who would havepreviously been sent to specialists in Brisbanewill now be able to see them in their localcommunity.

The member for Bundaberg has kept uswell aware of the needs at Bundaberg Hospitaland has been working with the Health Minister,Wendy Edmond, to ensure that we get thebest possible results for Bundaberg. I thankthe Minister for Health for her commitment.

This package is in addition to a range ofother achievements in the past two years,including: completion of the $27.25m hospitalredevelopment project; the purchase of a$630,000 state-of-the-art CT scanner; thecommissioning of a new mental health unit;additional emergency department nurses; a96% increase in palliative care funding; anexpanded child health centre; introduction ofthe Positive Parenting Program; and schoolnurses at Bundaberg, Bundaberg North andRosedale State High Schools.

While in Bundaberg I also announcedthat families in the Burnett region will benefitfrom a $24,000 increase to localneighbourhood centres. The grants will boostthe services of the Childers and Agnes Waterneighbourhood centres. Seventeenneighbourhood centres across Queenslandare to receive a boost under a $150,000Statewide round of grants. Under theCommunity and Individual Support Program,the Childers Neighbourhood Centre and theAgnes Water Community Centre will bothreceive a one-off special grant worth $12,000to support them in their important communitywork. The Childers grant will be used toincrease support to surrounding communities.The Agnes Water grant will be used toestablish a resource library for young peopleand families in the area. Neighbourhoodcentres play a pivotal role in the life of everycommunity, particularly in regional areas. Theyare often the link or the first port of call formany needing assistance, advice or justinformation.

This is about putting families first. Thesetwo centres contribute a lot to strengtheningcommunities in the region.


MINISTERIAL STATEMENTPalm Island

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.40 a.m.), by leave: I ampleased to inform the House that jobs,traineeships and power were top of theagenda during my visit to Palm Island with themember for Townsville on 19 September.Palm Island now has two major jobs andtraining projects designed to boost local jobsgrowth. The $90,000 Palm Island VocationalRecognition Project, funded under the StateGovernment's $10m Community TrainingPartnerships Program, will help 16 local peoplegain nationally recognised skills qualifications.

This project, organised by the CoolgareeAboriginal Corporation, is one of a series of 40community training partnerships projectsacross Queensland that are designed to buildtraining strategies between Government,industry and the community. It developed fromthe community's Vision Plan, a social andeconomic blueprint to identify and createemployment and training opportunities for localpeople. An analysis of employment andtraining needs identified 16 skilled people withthe potential for vocational qualifications.

The program encourages Government,industry and local community representativesto work together to identify local training needsand develop strategies that will lead tosustainable employment and economicdevelopment. By boosting the number ofqualified people available to supervise futuretrainees and apprentices the project will openup training and job opportunities for other localpeople.

I was also pleased to open a new annexeto the Barrier Reef Institute of TAFE's PalmIsland facility, refurbished at a cost of$250,000. The annexe provides about 300square metres of new floor space, including anundercover training area, two classrooms, twooffices and a meeting room. Space has alsobeen allocated to house the Palm Islandcommunity radio station. The Palm Islandcampus currently has students enrolled incourses such as catering and hospitality,engineering, small business management,horticulture, Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander vocational access, administration,aged care, volunteer tutoring and child care.

Last year, TAFE Queensland's 16institutes delivered almost 90 per cent oftraining undertaken by the State's Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander peoples. Icongratulate the Minister, Paul Braddy, for hisinitiatives in these areas. This is because TAFEinstitutes such as Barrier Reef work closely with

community representatives and industry toensure that courses are relevant to communityneeds.

I also took the time to inspect a pilotproject to improve retention rates amongindigenous apprentices. The 12-month PalmIsland trial has seen nine of the 11 indigenousapprentices remain with their employer, StateGovernment building and maintenance groupQ-Build. Another apprentice has moved toanother employer. This pilot project has beenso successful that it will lead to theemployment of indigenous employmentofficers in rural and remote communitiesacross Queensland.

In the past, a variety of social and culturalfactors led to many young Aborigines andTorres Strait Islanders not sticking withapprenticeships and traineeships. Improvingretention rates, and therefore job prospects, isa vital element in bringing indigenous people'slifestyles up to the standards enjoyed by mostother Australians. Apprenticeships andtraineeships translate into a financially securefuture and the ability to take control of one'slife. The project, funded under the CommunityEmployment Assistance Program as part ofthe Government's Breaking theUnemployment Cycle initiative, allowed anindigenous community development officer,Nat Surhur, to be employed for 12 months tooversee Q-Build's apprentices on the island.

As well, I was able to announce thatErgon Energy will invest $250,000 to upgradePalm Island's electricity supply. TheGovernment owned Ergon Corporation willreplace the island's four electricity transformersto ensure an efficient, reliable supply of powerfor island customers. Electricity usage on PalmIsland is such that the current 400 kilovolt amptransformers are reaching the limits of theircapacity. We are stepping in before there areany serious problems.

The new system will be designed to meetthe island 's needs for the next 15 to 20 years.The 1500 kilovolt amp replacement units will liftcapacity to nearly four times that of the oldunits. This will more than adequately supplyelectricity to island customers now and well intothe future. This is in keeping with theGovernment's policy of providingQueenslanders with a reliable power supply atan affordable price. The old pole-mountedtransformers on the island will be replaced witha more efficient ground mounted system.

Earlier this year, Ergon doubled the sizeof one of the generator engines on the islandat a cost of $250,000. Plans are also in handto double the size of another generator on the


island within the next 12 months at a similarcost. This represents an investment of about$750,000 in Palm Island's electricity supplyover a period of about 18 months.

During this visit I was pleased to spendtime with the Palm Island Council ChairmanRobert Blackley who, along with local memberMike Reynolds, is working hard to better thelives of the people of Palm Island.


Overseas VisitHon. J. P. ELDER (Capalaba—ALP)

(Deputy Premier and Minister for StateDevelopment and Minister for Trade)(9.45 a.m.), by leave: I table a report on myrecent visit to Taiwan. I have to say that it wasan extremely successful visit and it reinforcesQueensland's reputation as an attractivedestination for investment.

The honourable Tom Burns, now thechairman of the Queensland-China Council,accompanied me to many meetings with bothprivate sector representatives and seniorGovernment officials, including the newpresident of Taiwan, President Chen Shui-Bian. It was the first time that President Chenhas met with a Queensland Minister since hiselection as President. The President himselfhas assured me and the people ofQueensland that he is keen to further promotework with the Beattie Government and buildeven better commercial and social relationsbetween his country and Queensland as aresult of Taiwan's expected accession to theWorld Trade Organisation. We spoke ofworking closely together in our Governments'shared vision to build our economies throughthe pursuit of new economy industries such asIT and bioindustries and using thesetechnologies to add value to our traditionalindustries.

As I table this report, Queenslandbusinesses and service groups are alreadyreaping the rewards from this visit. While inTaiwan I met with the directors and staff of theChang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taipei andwe discussed their plans to build what will bethe largest—I repeat, the largest—aged carefacility of its kind anywhere in the world. Thosedirectors are in Brisbane today as part of aneight-day visit to identify areas of Queenslandexpertise that they can incorporate into theirproject. In fact, two of those key decisionmakers are with us in the House this morning. Iwould like to welcome to Queensland Mr YiChou Chong, Director of the administration ofthe hospital and national adviser to thePresident, and Dr Alice Wong, Vice

Superintendent of the Chang Gung MemorialHospital. They are with us in the gallery as Ispeak.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Mr ELDER: The group told me that it isQueensland's reputation for excellent healthcare that has brought this high-profiledelegation to Brisbane. The Aged CultureVillage being planned by the group in TaoyuanCounty in Taiwan is a critical opportunity toidentify potential areas of cooperation andbusiness opportunities between Taiwan andQueensland in the aged care sector. Thedirectors of Chang Gung Memorial Hospitaltook me to the construction site of this agedcare village only a couple of weeks ago andtheir plans are impressive. This village islocated on almost 36 hectares and will includea 400-bed nursing home, 4,000 units for 6,000elderly people, a 90-room hotel, theatre, shopsand a university for the elderly, as well as agolf course and extensive landscaping. It isexpected to be completed in mid 2001.

In addition to this project, the group isalso planning a 40-hectare village with 1,000units for assisted living in the Keelung areaand in the Chia Yi area a further 80 hectaresfor nursing colleges and nursing homes. All ofthis is underpinned by a 2,000 acute bedhospital, one of the largest anywhere in theworld. I note that the members opposite arenot interested, which does not surprise me atall.

The decision makers who have come toQueensland to learn about—


Mr ELDER: If the Leader of theOpposition could control his troops from timeto time, it would be good.


Mr ELDER: The decision makers havecome to Queensland to learn about ourmanagement system for residential andcommunity care.


Mr ELDER: Typical. As the Premier said,the members opposite are whingers, they areknockers and they do this Parliament no good.


Mr ELDER: Mr Nasty!

These decision makers have come toQueensland to learn about our managementsystem for residential and community care, ourbetter aged care, training for our aged carenurses, our continuity of care from retirementvillages to assisted living nursing homes,


through to acute hospital care for the agedand the financial management of aged care.

They will meet industry representativesfrom QUT, Blue Nurses, Australian Masters ofAged Care Services and St Luke's NursingService, along with other aged care providers. Imight add that on Tuesday St Luke's NursingService signed a memorandum ofunderstanding with Hong Kong's largestprovider of community services. Thatagreement is a partnership for sharing vitaleducation and research information andcreating joint ventures for providingconsultancy services.

This high-level delegation from Taiwanfurther reinforces Queensland's enviablereputation internationally for the quality andcost effectiveness of our health care and agedsystems in comparison with other developedcountries, such as the United States ofAmerica, Canada and Europe. ThisGovernment has supported Queenslandexpertise in delivering health care services toregional and remote communities throughoutthe State through the largest telehealthnetwork in the world and our health andmedical research centres of excellence suchas the Queensland Institute of MedicalResearch and the Institute of MolecularBiosciences.

As Minister for State Development, I willactively seek and find opportunities forQueensland businesses and service groups forinformation and education sharing and for jointventuring opportunities as part of this project.Again, this Government welcomesrepresentatives from the Chang Gung group toQueensland and I look forward to working withthem closely on their vision for better agedcare. I table a copy of my report on my visit toTaiwan. I apologise for the bad behaviour ofthose opposite.


WorkCover

Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Kedron—ALP)(Minister for Employment, Training andIndustrial Relations) (9.51 a.m.), by leave: I layupon the table of the House the annual reportof WorkCover Queensland 1999-2000 and theStatement of Corporate Intent 1999-2000. This year WorkCover Queenslandreached a fully funded position. I remind theHouse of the Opposition's predictions thatWorkCover Queensland would becomebankrupt under Beattie Labor's legislativereforms. The Opposition engaged in constantscaremongering on the issue—


Mr BRADDY: And those opposite are at itagain, carping and whining, envious andignorant. The Member for Clayfield, the thenshadow Minister, said in this House on 14 April1999 that our WorkCover legislative reformswould result in—

"The reckless abandonment ofprudent and financial practices in theadministration of Governmentdepartments and instrumentalities suchas WorkCover Queensland."

The truth is that WorkCover has achieved itsgreatest ever success under the BeattieGovernment. It is delivering better than everbefore for Queensland employers andQueensland workers. WorkCover is performingfor Queensland employers. Under Labor it hasreduced its average net premium rate to1.75%, the lowest of any Australian State.

This reduction is from an effective highrate of 2.15% in July 1998, when the BeattieGovernment came to office. We inherited, as Isay, an effective rate of 2.15%—comprisingthe then average premium rate of 1.95% plusa 10% surcharge. WorkCover is performing forQueensland workers. Our reforms have givenall Queensland workers better, fairer andquicker access to workers compensation.

This result has been achieved at thesame time that WorkCover has been able toallocate specific financial resources for aninvestment fluctuation reserve. The reserve willhelp minimise the impact of volatility inWorkCover's investment returns and thereforegive a more stable base from which premiumscan be calculated.

WorkCover's customers-first philosophy isworking. Clients are getting better service andcheaper premiums overall. The job now is toconsolidate the stability of this low averagepremium rate. To make it easier for employersto budget for their premium, WorkCover hasset rates a year in advance.

As well, WorkCover reviewed its premiumsystem to ensure an equitable balancebetween premium costs and premiums. Ratesthat were previously capped at three times theindustry-based rate were capped at twice therate this year. WorkCover also introducedretrospective premium adjustments foremployers whose common law settlementamounts were different from the estimatedamounts in their premium calculations. Thereview of the premium system will continue,with WorkCover consulting extensively withindustry and employers.


Realising that the best approach withregard to common law claims is to settle claimsquickly and fairly, WorkCover implemented anearly settlement strategy during the year. Nextyear, WorkCover will continue to look at thecommon law claim process to ensure it iscustomer focused and being managed in thebest possible way.

As the annual report shows, an opencommunication strategy with customers isbeing fostered by WorkCover. For instance,WorkCover last financial year travelled theState explaining legislative changes, such asthe new definition of "worker" as well as howthe GST applied to WorkCover premiums.

In the areas of GST and Y2K compliance,WorkCover made smooth transitions throughthese significant operational changes. Therewas no disruption to customers, despite thecomplexities thrown up by the new FederalGovernment tax. The annual report alsohighlights the support WorkCover has given inhelping in the establishment of Q-COMP—theindependent body monitoring the equity andimpartiality of the regulation of workerscompensation in Queensland.

These changes are important but thebottom line for clients is how quickly they get adecision on their claims. In this regard,statutory claims are being dealt with fasterthan ever before. As at 30 June 2000, 68% ofclaims were being decided within seven days.This is an increase of 15% since last financialyear.

To help injured workers get faster accessto their compensation benefits, WorkCoverintroduced electronic funds transfer forpayments. This is one step into a two-year e-business project for WorkCover. Not content torest on its successes, WorkCover also steppedup training for its customer service andmanagerial staff during the year.

WorkCover developed the first GraduateCertificate in Case Management course withGriffith University to help claims staff improvetheir skills. It is equipping its people with thenecessary skills to provide excellent service tothe employers and workers of Queensland.Last year, WorkCover successfully placed inpermanent employment 22 of the 30 traineesit took on as part of the Government'sBreaking the Unemployment Cycle.

I thank WorkCover's Board of Directors,chaired by Ian Brusasco AM, for itscommitment and vision. The board isdedicated to creating a workers compensationscheme where the best possible benefits arepaid to workers at the cheapest possible costto employers. WorkCover has come a long

way under the Beattie Labor Government andI am very proud of its achievements.


Police Academies

Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP)(Minister for Police and Corrective Services)(9.58 a.m.), by leave: Over the past almost twoand a half years, the Beattie LaborGovernment has been delivering on itscommitment to putting more police on thestreets throughout Queensland. Already thisweek in this House I have outlined how thatcommitment has led to there now being morepolice per head of population in almost everyQueensland police district than when thisGovernment was elected. The QueenslandPolice Service has experienced a net increasein numbers of more than 700 under thisGovernment.

Those kinds of results could not beachieved without a mammoth effort by ourpolice academies at Oxley and Townsville.Both academies have been operating at fullcapacity to produce the increases in policenumbers achieved under this Government.The academies must continue to do so tomeet our ambitious target of a Police Servicestrength of 9,100 officers by 2005. In August, Iinformed the House that an importantmilestone had been achieved in progresstowards that target. The service needed toreach a strength of 7,519 in August to be ontrack towards the goal of 9,100 by 2005 and Iwas pleased to inform the House that thatmilestone actually had been surpassed.

The Queensland police academies areproviding world-class training for the massivenumbers of recruits passing through eachyear. For example, the provision of stimulusresponse training, which was demonstratedhere at Parliament House several months ago,is just one reason why our recruits areamongst the most highly skilled in the country.

For the benefit of members here today, Iwill table a graph produced by the QueenslandPolice Service highlighting the numbers ofrecruits expected to pass through ouracademies up until mid 2006. The graph alsoshows the number of recruits being trainedeach month up until August next year. Forexample, the graph shows there were 319recruits being trained in August this year andthere are 302 at the academies this month.The diagram also shows numbers will hit animpressive peak of 365 at our academies inMay next year. These are indeed impressivefigures.


These achievements would not bepossible without the dedication of theinstructors and facilitators at our academies.They are helping train our recruits to world-class standards and to create a Police Serviceof which all Queenslanders can be proud. Ipay tribute to their dedication today and I amsure all members here would join with me inthanking them for their continuing contributionto the Queensland Police Service.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTMr H. Williams

Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP)(Minister for Transport and Minister for MainRoads) (10 a.m.): Mr Speaker, I seek leave tomake a ministerial statement and, in so doing,I acknowledge the presence in the gallerytoday of the family of Harry Williams—his wife,Gail, his sons, Charles and Jon Paul, Gail'smum, his sister, Marion, and his brother-in-law,David.

Leave granted.

Mr BREDHAUER: This week, we havebeen saddened to lose a fine man who mosthonourable members on both sides of politicshad the pleasure of being associated with.Harry Williams, my senior media adviser,passed away in the early hours of Tuesdaymorning. He was a respected and much-likedman who enjoyed a long and proud careerwith the ABC before joining my office in July1998. On Monday morning, Harry was, as heusually was, full of life. He had just bought anew washing machine and was tellingeveryone in the office about his latest gadget.And when he walked into the office he wasclutching a big cheese and bacon roll forbreakfast, which he wandered around tellingeverybody they could share. He was evergenerous, and in his element with people.Sadly, for most of our office that was our lastimage of Harry.

Those of us who met Harry throughjournalism, politics and the trade unionmovement know of his dedication to work, thelong hours this work demands, and theattention to detail he honed in his extensivecareer with the ABC. Harry was born on 6October 1946 in Brisbane. He started work asa copyholder with the Brisbane Truthnewspaper before stints at the NambourChronicle, the Cairns Post and theMaryborough Chronicle. In 1970, he drove hisiridescent purple Mini Minor to Rockhampton,where he started his long and illustrious careerwith the ABC before moving back to Brisbane,where he was a regular sight on our televisionscreens until 1998.

As much as Harry was devoted to hisfamily and his work, he was devoted to sharingwith my staff his passions in life. This week hasbeen difficult for my office, but we can manageto laugh at some of Harry's idiosyncrasies thatwill last with us forever. I will miss the almostdaily early morning telephone call to fill me inon any transport issue in Queensland. Heused to ring me even when there were none.

Many of us will miss Harry's obsessionwith Redcliffe, where his much-loved mother-in-law lived, and in particular the takeaway fishshop at Morgan's. Everyone in my office hasbeen to Morgan's with Harry. Harry was one toshare his special moments and favouriteplaces with others. He had the ability to disarmstrangers with his laid-back delivery. During histwo and a half years of riding the lifts at CapitalHill I think Harry had probably met everyonewho worked in the building. In the media andpolitical circles, Harry was well regarded for hisprofessionalism and level of industry. He wasalso a proud member of the MediaEntertainment and Arts Alliance and chairmanof the board of the Media Credit Union.

Let me also place on the record that Harrywas one of the shrewdest Rugby Leaguetipping brains going around. His belovedBroncos were the mainstay of his tipping. Hewon the inaugural Tang Trophy in my office forfootball tipping and he was pretty hard to shiftfor this year's title. He will be sorely missed byall of us. It will take some time to get used tothe reality that Harry will not be cruising thecorridors of my office with his daily greeting of"morning, comrade", or beating a path to mydoor to check an abundant number of mediareleases by me. I will miss his great loyalty tome. Many of us will miss talking to him on thephone and hearing him say that he was "soberas a judge and working like a digger".

I knew Harry for only two and a half of his54 years, but we packed a lot into that time. Ihave a couple of reminiscences to share, and Ihope that everyone bears with me. One daywe had left Maryborough West after opening anew railway station and we were heading forCentury Zinc. As we arrived in Emerald torefuel the King Air, an old plane was taking off.As was mentioned in the newspaperyesterday, Harry had a passion for planes, andparticularly vintage planes. As we landed, thisplane circled around and landed again. Ithappened to be Lang Kidby, who was re-enacting the flight of Bert Hinkler in late 1998.Harry could not believe that this plane wascoming back into Emerald Airport, in theelectorate of the former Minister for Transport.


Lang's plane experienced a mechanicalproblem just after taking off and he had toreturn to Emerald Airport. No sooner had helanded than Harry was in his ear talking to him.Then I saw Harry on his mobile phone—almosta permanent state for Harry. Then I saw himhand the phone to Lang. He had rung theABC in Brisbane and said, "Look, I've got ascoop for you. Lang Kidby has had amechanical problem with his plane at EmeraldAirport. Would you like to interview him?" Youcould take Harry out of the ABC, but you couldnot take the ABC out of Harry.

Harry loved Community Cabinets. In fact,he shared a passion for Community Cabinetsthat I suspect few on either side of the Houseshare, except possibly the Premier. He thoughtthey were great politics, but he also loved tobe out amongst the people. That is what hereally liked to do. He was always getting phonecalls from Richard Cleal saying, "CommunityCabinet is coming up next week. We are a bitlight on for stories. Can you get something forus?" And we always did. In fact, a lot of thegallery at one stage were calling me theMinister for Community Cabinets, because wealways had transport as a media story out ofthe Community Cabinet meetings.Unfortunately, that meant that I always goteither no lunch or cold lunch, because mypress conferences followed the Premier's andby the time I got to lunch it had all gone; theothers had devoured it.

Mr Beattie: I had eaten most of it.

Mr BREDHAUER: Yes.

We used to run a few funny stories at theCommunity Cabinets from time to time. Thetactics group—the brains trust in the Premier'soffice—used to think that we could use a fewdistractions from a couple of the issuesbubbling along from time to time. In particular,I remember an instance in Roma. Honourablemembers on both sides might remember thatthere was a bit of a protest out there, withabout a thousand farmers complaining aboutvegetation management or something likethat. It was decided that we should run a storyon the other side of town to try to distractmedia attention away from the main game. Sowe were launching a road project worth $1.5mon the other side of Roma. I said to Harry,"You've got to be kidding me, haven't you?There are a thousand farmers protestingagainst vegetation management. Do you thinkthey're going to come over here and listen tous talking about a $1.5m road project?" Sureenough we were there with the Premier, and Ithink a lone reporter from the local newspaperwandered in about 20 minutes late and we

gave her the press release. That was as muchinterest as we could muster.

Harry was always there in his big black hatlooking like some kind of latter-day version ofZorro. He would do anything for a CommunityCabinet meeting and to try to get a story up.We went to Kingaroy on one occasion for aCommunity Cabinet meeting—I suspect weare probably the only Labor Government thatever has. We were going to launch the RoadsImplementation Program at Kingaroy, becausewe always tried to do that from one of ourregional Community Cabinet meetings. Harrywas so wedded to this that he decided hewould drive to Kingaroy and help to set it up.Unfortunately, that was the day the Premierchose to have his second most famousmeeting with former Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen. While we were trying to launch theRIP, they were all in the room with Peter andJoh as they were shaking hands and gettingready for the lunch. Harry was railing againstour bad luck on that occasion because wecould not attract a crowd to the launch of ourRoads Implementation Program.

Harry had limitless imagination when itcame to the media. Dare I say it, he had evenasked me to do things that would make thePremier blush. Unfortunately, things did notalways go to plan. I remember when weopened the eastern duplication of the LoganMotorway last year the gimmick was that Iwould drive along the eastern end of theLogan Motorway duplication in a 1934 BBtruck driven by Les Geyte. I promised Les thatI would not tell this story, but under thecircumstances I thought I would share it withthe House and particularly with Harry's family.No sooner had we got out of sight of themedia throng and the assembled crowd thanthe truck broke down. It broke down abouteight times in the time that I was on it. I wascursing Harry for putting me in the back of thisderelict old truck with Les Geyte. I had visionsof having to push it past where the media wasgoing to film the story. But we did manage toget it going and keep it going long enough sothat we could drive past the cameras and getour shot for the news that night. And then, ofcourse, it broke down again.

Another one that did not quite go to planwas at Roma Street Railway Station where wewere due to welcome the 100,000thpassenger on the tilt train from Rockhampton.We went down there—and Harry thought thiswas a great story—but when we got there nomedia were present. He was kind of railingagainst the media on that occasion. He wassaying, "This is a great story. Why don't theyget out and cover it?" Unfortunately that was


the day that the Americans had decided tobomb Kosovo. Notwithstanding that, Harry stillthought it was a bit rough that they had notcovered this really great local story.

This week we have lost an outstanding,generous and hardworking man, but Harry'sgreatest devotion was to his family—to hiswife, Gail, and his two sons, Charles and JonPaul. In fact, on Monday morning on the wayto the meeting at which he took ill, Harry wastalking to Paul Low, my senior policy adviser,about just how much he adored Gail.

I would like to thank the Premier's chief ofstaff, Rob Whiddon, and the advisers whoattended to Harry at the Monday meeting. Iwould also like to thank the ambulance officerswho arrived at the scene as well as thedoctors, nurses and associated staff at theWesley Hospital. I also thank the Premier,Peter Beattie, for taking the time to visit Gail,Charles and Jon Paul at the Wesley onMonday night. I can assure him that histhoughtfulness meant a great deal to thefamily.

This week my office has receivedhundreds of phone calls, emails, cards, flowersand other messages of sympathy fromMinisters and their staff, Government andOpposition members, media and members ofthe business community. I thank them all fortheir kind thoughts.

On behalf of Gail and the family, I wouldlike to invite Ministers' officers, Ministers' staff,honourable members from both sides andmembers of the press gallery and the media,particularly our friends from the ABC, to paytheir last respects at Harry's funeral service at11 a.m. tomorrow at St Stephen's Cathedral.People who worked with Harry fromQueensland Transport, Main Roads and QRare also welcome to attend. The churchservice will be followed by a private burialservice at Pinnaroo Lawn Cemetery atBridgeman Downs. The service will also befollowed by a celebration of Harry's life here atthe Parliament House Strangers Dining Room.All of you are also welcome to attend. It will bea chance to farewell and remember a manwho had a strong commitment to social justiceissues, to indigenous Australians and tobattlers. It will be a chance to say goodbye toa man with a great devotion to his familywhom we all loved.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTGeorgina River Bridge, CamoowealHon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—

ALP) (Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander Policy and Minister for Women'sPolicy and Minister for Fair Trading)(10.11 a.m.), by leave: There is broadagreement that employment and economicdevelopment are essential to improve thecircumstances for Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander peoples. Consensus on this issueruns through indigenous communities andacross the political spectrum.

Today it gives me great pleasure to informthe House of a strategy that will deliver jobsand new opportunities to indigenous peopleliving in some of our State's remotestcommunities in the north-west. The strategy isbuilt on a $14m Department of Main Roadsproject, involving a new bridge over theGeorgina River at Camooweal, plusreconstruction work on 5.2 kilometres of theBarkly Highway. That infrastructure work isworthy enough in itself. It will bring year-roundroad access to flood-prone Camooweal, freeup the wet season flow of cross-border trafficand bring perennial vitality to an inland town.But a strategy coordinated by the Departmentof Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policyand Development in conjunction with theInjilandji/Dithanoo traditional owners and theQueensland Department of Main Roads hasadded priceless value to the bridge and road.

The strategy stems from an agreementbetween the Injilandji/Dithanoo people of thearea, DATSIPD, the Department of MainRoads, the Department of Employment,Training and Industrial Relations, the FederalDepartment of Transport and the FederalDepartment of Employment, WorkplaceRelations and Small Business after years ofadvocacy from local member, Tony McGrady.It means that the Camooweal bridge and roaddevelopment will provide employment for 35indigenous people, that is, jobs and newhorizons for Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander people from rural and remotecommunities.

Thirty members of the work force will havebeen long-term unemployed people, and theywill also receive training to finetune them forfull-time work for the duration of theproject—about 18 months. They will have thechance to develop their skills to such a levelthat they will be able to be employed in thelong term. Through a joint investment of $1m,the State and Commonwealth Governmentswill provide—

wage subsidies for the 30 long-termunemployed people for full-time work forup to 48 weeks;


pre-employment assessment,prevocational and vocational training forall participants;

office accommodation, transport, officeadministration and operating costs;

jobs for a project coordinator, trainingofficer, administrative officer and twooffice trainees; and

payment for elders to ensure the project isconsistent with, and cognisant of, thecultural issues associated with the site.

So importantly, the strategy will recognise thecultural heritage values of the bridge site. Theimportance of cultural heritage has beenacknowledged throughout all developmentalstages of the project.

I want to acknowledge theInjilandji/Dithanoo people and the DugalundjiAboriginal Corporation, who have workedclosely with the Government on thedevelopment of this strategy. The people andthe corporation obviously recognise thepotential for this project to assist it to becomea viable construction and cultural heritageclearance company in its own right. I alsoacknowledge my colleagues the Minister forEmployment, Training and Industrial Relationsand the Minister for Transport, who understandthe vital importance of employment andeconomic development opportunities forindigenous Queenslanders.

The Camooweal bridge is a greatexample of what can be achieved throughteamwork by the indigenous community,different State Government departments anddifferent levels of Government. It embodiesthe far-sighted, cooperative approach that wehope will become routine under the Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander 10-year partnership,which is now being drafted by indigenouscommunities, the Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Advisory Board and the Government.

This week in the Australian newspaper,the eminent lawyer Hal Wootten observed thatthe basis of the welfare State is "the regularavailability of work, which enables citizens topay taxes that redistribute income during eachindividual's lifetime, so that they are providedfor with dignity when they cannot work." MrWootten's point was that indigenous people"have had unemployment benefits, but not thebenefits of employment". The Camoowealstrategy builds a bridge to the benefits ofemployment and paves the way to a betterfuture for indigenous people from rural andremote communities in the north-west.


Urban Fire Crews

Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Sunnybank—ALP)(Minister for Emergency Services) (10.16 a.m.),by leave: Recently, claims have been made inthe media that staffing levels of Queensland'surban fire crews are dangerously low becausethe fire authority cannot guaranteeinternationally recognised minimum crew levelsfor fire appliances. I can assure honourablemembers and all Queenslanders that theopposite is, in fact, the case. Official data fromthe Queensland Fire and Rescue Authorityshows that, even with unexpected staffabsences, we are achieving almost 100%success in meeting internationally recognisedcrewing levels.

The international benchmark for minimumcrewing of fire appliances is one officer plusthree firefighters per vehicle. One plus three,however, is not provided for or maintained inall States in Australia. In Queensland, theQFRA currently rosters its staff to provide acrew of one officer and three firefighters forevery first response fire vehicle in at least 63permanently staffed urban fire stations inQueensland. This staffing arrangement wasimplemented on 1 July following a successfulsix-month trial of one plus three crewingconducted in conjunction with the union.

The QFRA currently operatesapproximately 4,380 shifts per month on firstresponse appliances at urban fire stationsthroughout Queensland. QFRA data showsthat in July all but eight of those 4,380 shiftswere crewed at the one plus three level—a99.82% success rate. In August, all but 10 ofthe 4,380 shifts were crewed at the one plusthree level—a 99.77% success rate. Evenduring September, when unexpected staffabsences affected 56 of the 4,380 shifts, theQFRA was still able to achieve a 98.72% levelof one plus three crewing. Overall, during thefirst three months of this financial year, theQFRA has achieved one plus three crewinglevels on 99.4% of nearly 13,000 urban fireshifts.

To describe this nearly 100% successrecord as "dangerously low staffing levels" is agross exaggeration and to suggest that we arenot delivering on our promises is incorrect. TheBeattie Government was elected with acommitment to improve funding, resourcesand staff right across Queensland'semergency services, and we have delivered.When we were elected in 1998, we found afire service that was rapidly going broke. Wehave turned that around and are delivering

3864 Privilege 19 Oct 2000

staff and resources for the QFRA that havenever been seen before in Queensland.

Over the past two years, an additional$52m plus has been invested in more staff,more fire appliances, better pay andconditions, and new and refurbished firestations. It is, of course, desirable that weachieve a 100% success rate on minimumcrew sizes. However, this will be achieved onlywith the cooperation of the union asdiscussions continue.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling theLeader of the House, I recognise in the gallerystudents, parents and teachers from GlennieHeights State School in the electorate ofWarwick.

SITTING HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Leader of Government Business)(10.19 a.m.), by leave, without notice: Imove—

"That notwithstanding anythingcontained in the Standing and SessionalOrders, for this day's sitting, the Housecan continue to meet past 7.30 p.m.Private members' motions will be debatedbetween 6 and 7 p.m. The House canthen break for dinner and resume itssitting at 8.30 p.m. Government Businesswill take precedence for the remainder ofthe day's sitting."

Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Report

Mr ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP)(10.19 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the Housethe Public Works Committee's report No. 71 onthe Comprehensive Cancer Research Centreof the Queensland Institute of MedicalResearch, QIMR. This $55m project will createan integrated research facility to provide thelink between QIMR's basic science and clinicalresearch. This will allow the QIMR to examinenew, novel ways to treat cancer. Thecommittee is satisfied that the project isneeded, its design is suitable and that itrepresents value for money for Queensland.The centre will provide the community withaccess to the latest advances in cancerresearch and contribute to the biotechnologyindustry in Queensland. In addition to the jobscreated through the construction phase, thecentre will employ more than 300 scientificstaff.

The QIMR is looking at opportunities tocommercialise its intellectual property. Whilethe research is risky and commercial returnsmay be low, they may also be very high. TheGovernment is making a substantialinvestment in this and other biotechnologyresearch institutes through the provision ofcapital and recurrent funding. One issue it mayexamine in the future is whether it is possibleand desirable to receive a return on itsinvestment if discoveries and inventionsproduce substantial commercial returns. Ithank all those who have assisted thecommittee with its inquiries. Thanks also go tomy fellow committee members and to thecommittee's staff. I commend the report to theHouse.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEEReport

Hon. K. W. HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP)(10.21 a.m.): I table Public AccountsCommittee report No. 55 titled Review of theAuditor-General's Reports 1999-2000 andmove that the report be printed.

Ordered to be printed.

Mr HAYWARD: This report outlines thecommittee's review and follow-up action takenas a result of its consideration of the six auditreports tabled during this period. I take thisopportunity to thank the other members of thecommittee and the secretariat for theirassistance in preparing this report. I commendthe report to the House.

PRIVILEGE

Minister for HealthMr NELSON (Tablelands—IND)

(10.21 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilegesuddenly arising. In answer to question onnotice No. 908, the Health Minister states—

"Patients are not admitted andsubjected to the preoperative preparationunless a bed has been allocated to thatpatient."

An article with regard to a man waiting forheart surgery in today's Townsville Bulletinstates—

"His surgery has now been delayed athird time, despite being admitted andgiven preoperative treatment yesterday."

The Minister has clearly misled the House. Iask for this matter to be referred to theMembers' Ethics and Parliamentary PrivilegesCommittee.

Mr SPEAKER: I will consider that.

19 Oct 2000 Private Members' Statements 3865

NOTICE OF MOTION

Corporations Law

Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—IND)(10.22 a.m.): I give notice that I shall move—

"That the Queensland Parliamentcalls on the Commonwealth Governmentto amend the Corporations Law andrelated legislation to require that largecompanies undertake a social and culturalimpact assessment before makingsignificant corporate decisions which maychange the operation of the company orsubstantially increase its market share,and that a discussion paper be preparedon how corporate governance laws shouldtake account of the social responsibility ofcorporations."

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

Port Authorities

Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (SurfersParadise—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition)(10.23 a.m.): In June there was considerablepublic outrage along coastal Queensland overthe Government's raid on the assets of portauthorities to prop up its Budget and itsfinancial situation. We saw headlines such as"Raid on Port Cash" and "Outrage Over PortRaid" as the Government proceeded with debtequity arrangements to make sure thatTreasury was the beneficiary at the end of theday. Not content with raiding the assets, thisGovernment is now raiding the cash flow ofport authorities across Queensland to anunprecedented extent. Port authorities havebeen advised over the last day or so that it isthe Government's intention to take 95% oftheir after-tax profits out of each and every portauthority in Queensland. Early in the financialyear there is a desperate grab for cash asTreasury, after having raided the assets, isnow raiding what is left of the profits to theextent of 95%. The truth is that Governmentshave always taken some money out of theport authorities, but under the coalitionGovernment it was 40%.

Mr Hamill interjected.

Mr BORBIDGE: It went up to about 75%when the member who is interjecting becameTreasurer. And now under his direction it is95%. People in Cairns, Townsville, Bundabergand Mackay should be asking what their Labormembers are doing. Is it going to be a repeatof when they sat there in silence when theraids were on earlier this year? Are we going tosee a repeat of that? What is the Labormember for Bundaberg doing? What is the

Labor member for Rockhampton doing? Whatare the Labor members for Mackay, Townsvilleand Cairns doing?

Parlor Transport

Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (10.25 a.m.):It is with regret that I have to report to theParliament the actions of yet another low-lifewho has ripped off ordinary Queenslanders.The matter I raise today is the non-payment ofmoneys to community groups for the deliveryof telephone books to homes and businesses.Parlor Transport Pty Ltd of 1B/415 WestBotany Street, Rockdale, won a tender fromPacific Access, which is part of Telstra, for thedelivery of telephone books. Parlor Transport isoperated under the directorship of Mr JohnParlor of 155 The Promenade, San Souci,New South Wales. On winning the tender,Parlor Transport subcontracted to communitygroups for actual door-to-door delivery.Students, scouting groups, school P & Cs,Lions clubs and nursing mothers are just someof the organisations which, throughagreement, did the foot slogging putting newphone books into private residences andbusinesses.

The Middlemount Scout Group in myelectorate took on the job as a means ofraising funds for scouts attending the ScoutJamboree in Sydney. It is owed $417. InDysart a group of parents raising funds toassist students in meeting the cost forattending and participating in the Tournamentof Minds are owed $476. The Tieri NursingMothers Association is expecting a cheque for$405. This cheque is already months overdue.In central Queensland I am aware of some 39community groups who have been engagedby Parlor Transport. While I have not beenable to make contact with every group, onlytwo can be identified as having been paid.What is not known as yet is just how manygroups across Queensland have not beenpaid.

John Parlor is not returning calls made tohis business or private address. John Parlorhas been paid by Pacific Access. Not only hashe pocketed his percentage—no doubtfactored into his tender—he has also pocketedthe moneys owed to those people andcommunity organisations who have done thework. He has stolen hard-earned dollars fromschool kids, scouts, Lions clubs, P & Cs andnursing mothers. John Parlor, by his actions, isa thief and a cheat. I call on John Parlor tohonour his contractual arrangements with thebattlers of central Queensland.

3866 Questions Without Notice 19 Oct 2000

Queensland Police Service

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA)(10.27 a.m.): This morning in the Parliamentthe Minister for Police and Corrective Servicesconfirmed the success of the massiverecruitment program put in place by thecoalition from 1996 to 1998 for theQueensland Police Service. This is the samemember of Parliament who opposed theestablishment of the second police academyat Townsville when the coalition put it in place.Whilst there is delivery of a 340 net increase inpolice numbers per year as a result of thecoalition's plan, the Beattie Labor Governmentis squandering this increase in police numbers.Under the Beattie Labor Government, aspolice numbers go up, so does crime in thisState. We have seen a massive increase inproperty crime over the past two years of theBeattie Government. With no leadership andno action plan, it is no wonder thisGovernment is paralysed by the accusationsand investigations into corruption andcheating. This Government is now rudderless.It is not able to deliver the importantresponsibilities it should be able to deliver tothe people of Queensland.

Let us look at the figures. In 1998-99there were 281,442 reported offences ofproperty crime. The next year, 1999-2000,there were 302,877, an increase of 21,435, or7.6%. There is an increase in police numbersof about 340 per year, yet property crime isgoing through the roof through a lack ofleadership, a lack of planning, a lack ofmanagement, no policy ideas and no properleadership and direction for the QueenslandPolice Service from the Government. I turn toclear-up rates, which were 24.1% and for thispast year they are 24.7%, so that is almoststatic. No wonder the people of Queenslandare coming to the realisation that this is aGovernment that is drowned in corruption,drowned in cheating, is not looking after thepeople and not providing the Police Servicewith resources. Property crime is going up.People are not safe in their own houses.People all around the suburbs—

Time expired.

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member'stime has expired. The time for PrivateMembers' Statements has expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Electoral Fraud

Mr BORBIDGE (10.30 a.m.): I refer theAttorney-General and Minister for Justice to hisopposition to reforms aimed at tightening

requirements to electoral enrolments, and Iask: when did he first become aware of seriousallegations of electoral corruption within theQueensland Labor Party?

Mr FOLEY: When I received the transcriptof the material from the Ehrmann sentence Ithen asked for the affidavit. I then referred itformally to the Electoral Commissioner with arequest that the Electoral Commissionerinvestigate it or pass it on to whateverauthorities might be necessary to have itinvestigated. I did so because it is veryimportant that the Electoral Act beadministered. The reason it is important is thatthe right to vote is a fundamental part ofhuman rights in a democratic society.

It is also important to note that the all-party parliamentary committee, of which MrBeanland, the member for Indooroopilly, andMs Gamin, the member for Burleigh, aremembers, concluded on its examination of theCommonwealth enrolment requirements in theall-party report of March 2000 that the newenrolment requirements "have the potential toeffectively disenfranchise a significant numberof eligible voters". That committee reachedthat conclusion after taking evidence on thepoint, including from the ElectoralCommissioner. For the benefit of honourablemembers I table a memorandum from theElectoral Commissioner dated 16 December1999, in which he observed—

"LCARC indicated to me that theCommittee had formed the view that thehurdles placed in front of persons seekingenrolment or change of enrolment datawill disenfranchise a significant number ofpeople. I share this view ..."

Those are not my words and they are not thewords of the Labor Party. They are the wordsof the Electoral Commissioner of Queensland.

I thank the honourable member for thequestion, as it gives me the opportunity torefer honourable members to the materialtabled in this very Parliament yesterday,including a 70-page submission from theElectoral Commissioner with a covering letter inwhich he observes—

"It is notable that the changes toenrolment procedures which have passedthrough the Federal Parliament, but whichhave not as yet been proclaimed, wouldnot have prevented the electoral fraud forwhich three people in Townsville havebeen convicted."

What is important in this debate is that weretain a sense of critical analysis. We want todo everything to stamp out electoral fraud.Equally, we want to ensure that ordinary

19 Oct 2000 Questions Without Notice 3867

people are not disenfranchised from voting.The right to vote is too important a right to besquandered as a result of mere politicalopportunism and change of tune on the partof the Opposition.

Electoral Fraud; Ms K. Ehrmann

Mr BORBIDGE: I direct a further questionto the Attorney-General. Was the Attorney-General aware of allegations of electoralcorruption within the Labor Party when thecurrent Premier, then Opposition Leader, left acaucus retreat in Townsville on the weekend of11 May 1997 to meet with Labor candidatesKaren Ehrmann and Mike Reynolds?

Mr FOLEY: I have no direct recollection ofthe incident to which the honourable memberrefers. When I became aware of thoseallegations that surfaced in the Ehrmannmatter, I took immediate action. The matterhad been the subject of a Federal Policeinvestigation from 1996. That is when thematter was the subject of public reporting.

Mr Borbidge: What action did you takethen?

Mr FOLEY: The action was being takenby the Federal Police to bring a matter beforethe court. In relation to that matter havingbeen brought before the court, immediately itwas brought before the court and the materialwas placed before the court, I took action tohave the matter referred to the ElectoralCommissioner to ensure that the Electoral Actof Queensland would be fully and properlyenforced.

Bank Charges

Mr SULLIVAN: I refer the Premier to thecontinuing escalation of bank charges oncustomers. Does the Premier support the callfor greater competition in the banking sector?What is the Queensland Government doing tomaximise possibilities for competition in thebanking sector?

Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourablemember for the question. The answer is yes, Ido. Queensland families are suffering fromthese spiralling bank charges, affecting all theirfinancial transactions. The charges imposed bybanks for EFTPOS transactions and ATMwithdrawals are well above the cost incurred bythe banks in providing those services.

Bank profits have been strongly andconsistently rising into the billions of dollars.Those billion-dollar profits almost exactly equalthe amount of revenue these banks extract incustomer charges. One bank recently

announced a $1.2 billion profit. Its revenuefrom customer charges was, strangely enough,$1.2 billion. That effectively means that therest of their operations are run at break even.They do not seem to be able to make a profitfrom lending to householders or businesses orfrom providing other financial services, theyhave to slug the struggling Queensland andAustralian working families. It makes onewonder how these bank executives can justifythe million-dollar salaries they are paid.

For years the banks have insisted thatcustomers are demanding new technologyand do not want face-to-face, personal service.The truth, of course, is that banks want toforce their customers to use technologybecause it is cheaper for the banks thanpaying the salaries of bank branch staff. Oncethey have captured customers with free accessto new technology, the banks whack in newcharges. Bank charges are becoming a majoritem in the family budget.

Some are trying to adjust their behaviourto minimise the charges. On any payday wecan see queues of people lining up at ATMsbecause it is too expensive to walk up to thecounter. One bank is now proposing over-the-counter charges of $3 for services which cantake as little as a minute. Worse still, thesesavage charges are designed to impact mostheavily on those least able to afford it.

My Government wants to see greatercompetition in the banking sector. That is whywe support the continuation of strong,independent Queensland banks such asSuncorp-Metway and the Bank ofQueensland. We also support the growth ofcredit unions, which still have customer serviceas their focus. I note that Peter Costello todayis threatening to allow new entrants into thebanking market, and I support him. If thecurrent banks continue to put up charges, thenlet us have more competition. Let us havepeople who will not put up those charges.

Maybe the credit unions should be giventhe full flexibility to compete with the banks.Maybe that is the way out of it. Let us havethe credit unions being given full flexibility tocompete with the banks. The major banksneed to lift their game and honour theircustomers. That is why we need morecompetition. That is why organisations such asSuncorp-Metway and the Bank of Queenslandare important, as are credit unions.

Electoral Fraud; Mulgrave By-election

Dr WATSON: I refer the Premier to thelatest edition of the Bulletin magazine in whichhighly regarded political journalist Laurie Oakes


states that the CJC is investigating allegationsof electoral corruption involving a Queenslandby-election in 1998. Given that the only suchby-election was in Mulgrave, given that themember for Mulgrave is a long-term memberof the AWU faction of the ALP and given theenormous significance of this by-election to theGovernment in terms of delivering a majority inits own right, can the Premier gave anunequivocal assurance that the ALP did notresort to electoral fraud to win the Mulgrave by-election?

Mr BEATTIE: Even reputable journalistssuch as Laurie Oakes get it wrong. I have notread the article, but I assume it is atypographical error and he has got the datewrong, because the inquiry is not examiningthe Mulgrave by-election.

Dr Watson interjected.Mr BEATTIE: He got the date wrong. I

assume that is the case. The member forMulgrave was properly and legally elected tothis Parliament. I have to say: he has been agreat member. I am impressed with hisperformance.

An Opposition member: He is not evenhere!

Mr BEATTIE: He is not. Do thoseopposite know why? He is in a meeting withmy senior staff, arguing for increased facilitiesfor his area. I know that. I walked past him toget into the Chamber, and he is in therefighting for his electorate, which is more thanthose opposite do. I have to say that the lasttime I saw him, the member for Mulgrave waslooking good. It looked like he was going toget more for his electorate. That is the way weare.

I was really interested yesterday to hearthe Leader of the Liberal Party jumping up anddown about my appropriate and proper use ofa public servant to brief me on matters. I amadvised by my department that when he wasin Government, John Walsh attended hearingsin relation to the Anti-DiscriminationCommission hearings involving Jacki Byrne onbehalf of the Premier of the day, RobBorbidge.

Dr Watson interjected. Mr BEATTIE: He doesn't like that!

Dr WATSON: I rise to a point of order.The Premier is misleading the House. There isa clear distinction. That was against theGovernment. This is against the ALP.

Mr BEATTIE: I see. There is a subtletyhere that does not exist. One standard formembers opposite, one standard for us. Themember has been caught out.

Dr WATSON: If the Premier has anyquestions, he should refer both of them to theIntegrity Commissioner and see what he says.

Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Mr BEATTIE: This inquiry is not about theGovernment; it is about a tiny section ofindividuals.

Dr Watson interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: Absolutely. Very, very good.He got it right. Let the record show that theLeader of Liberal Party has made a fool ofhimself yet again. He comes in here andattacks us. The extraordinary thing is that hekeeps coming in here attacking us forsomething that he did. He has made a fool ofhimself. Like all these wild allegations, he hasmade a fool of himself. Thank you, David. Hehas acknowledged that John Walsh was thererepresenting the previous Government, and heappeared there on behalf of the office of thePublic Service Commissioner and Peter Ellis,who was the then Premier's director-general.

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order.The reason for that is that the action wasagainst them. It was not against the NationalParty. They were defending their ownpositions.

Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Gona Barracks

Mr PURCELL: I refer the Premier to theGona Barracks redevelopment at KelvinGrove, and I ask: when will the community beable to inspect the plans for this excitingrenewal project?

Mr BEATTIE: And exciting it is, as theMinister for Public Works knows. This is a keypart of the Government's City West strategyand Smart State strategy. The catalyst hasbeen the purchase by the Minister for Housingof the former Gona Barracks site. The Armyused the barracks site from 1910 to 1998 as adefence recruitment and training facility. Sothe purchase by the Minister has presentedthe Government with a once-in-a-centuryopportunity to develop a large tract of land thatis close to the CBD, already linked to essentialservices—water and power—already linked totransport services, adjacent to a majoruniversity campus, close to a number of Stateand private schools and close to recreationalfacilities and open spaces, including the newRoma Street Parkland.

The Gona Barracks site, together withother holdings, means that there is close to 11hectares of Government-owned land forpotential development. The QUT has more


than 4.5 hectares. These holdings offer us thechance to develop a world-class urban villagewith a mix of uses; for example, affordablehousing—both private and public—commercialdevelopment and a creative industries precinctbuilding on the educational and researchstrengths of the QUT—a key part of the SmartState strategy.

I am pleased to announce that an openday will be held on the Gona Barracks site onSaturday, 28 October from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.,including a sausage sizzle put on by theMinister. It will provide a chance to walk on thesite, review the draft master plan for the KelvinGrove Urban Village and provide feedback.Extensive consultations have already occurred.A series of briefings in August covered StateGovernment agencies, the Brisbane CityCouncil, professional groups representingplanners and architects, other interest groupsincluding public transport advocates,indigenous representatives, the Herston/KelvinGrove Action Group, local schools and thePetrie Terrace Action Group. All immediatelocal residents were door-knocked in earlySeptember. A second round of stakeholderconsultation was undertaken in midSeptember. A newsletter was letterbox-dropped to 3,000 residents surrounding thesite earlier this month. The consultation on thedraft master plan will end on 8 November.

This is just another initiative of thisGovernment—a can-do Government that isdelivering quality capital works programs fromone end of the State to the other. While theOpposition whinges, we work, and this is aclear illustration of that. We have Mr Nastyopposite and all his whingers and destroyers.All they do is come into this Parliament aswreckers. While they whinge, we work. Here isanother illustration of how we work. At everyopportunity they can, Mr Nasty and his band ofwhingers undermine these sorts of projects.They interject when we try to tell the people ofQueensland about good projects and aboutopportunities to be consulted. We will continueto deliver. We will deliver positive things forQueensland, while members opposite whinge,whinge, whinge.

Electoral Fraud; Electoral RollMr SPRINGBORG: I refer the Attorney-

General and Minister for Justice to the factthat, in Queensland alone, there are morethan 29,000 addresses at which there are fouror more electors with more than one surnameand different enrolment dates. That does notinclude post office box addresses involvingdifferent surnames and enrolment dates. I ask

the Attorney-General: what steps has he takento ensure that the Electoral Commission canvalidate these enrolments ahead of next year'selection? Further, following his proclamation ofdynamic action after the Ehrmann conviction,why did he not take action when Foster andKehoe were found guilty of electoral cheating?

Mr FOLEY: With respect to the issue ofenforcing the Electoral Act, after each electionthere is a memorandum which comes to theresponsible Minister. That was then the subjectof review by the all-party parliamentarycommittee, which made certainrecommendations, and thoserecommendations have been acted on, andindeed, there is legislation before theParliament.

With respect to the issue of continuousroll updating, that itself has been the subject ofa recommendation from the all-partyparliamentary committee. With continuous rollupdating, it is important to ensure that the rollis accurate and up to date, and theGovernment has been responsive to issuesraised by the Electoral Commission and by theall-party parliamentary committee.

What we are seeing here, though, is anattempt by the National Party and the LiberalParty to change their ground in order toadvance the cause of these restrictiveenrolment requirements being introduced atthe Federal level. Let us just have a look at theevidence before the all-party committee.Professor Hughes, the former AustralianElectoral Commissioner and former member ofthe Electoral and Administrative ReviewCommission, submitted that thoseamendments "are, on close analysis,alarming". He went on to say that the changesreflect a misconception of the right to vote notas a right as such but as merely anothertransaction between a client and the State. Hewent on to detail the issues before thecommittee and asked "whether the mischiefoccurs, then whether the remedyrecommended produces greater harm todemocratic, representative Government thanthe abuse did".

But we have not been content to rest onthat. I seconded a motion moved by themember for Nicklin, after the Ehrmann mattershad arisen and there was a further body ofmaterial before the Parliament, to have thematter referred to the all-party committeeagain to look at. The committee tabled thesubmissions put to it in the Parliamentyesterday and it will report on 14 November.

We have acted promptly, fully andthoroughly. What we have done has been to


act on the basis of the recommendations ofthe all-party parliamentary committee. This isthe same committee on which the honourablemember's party was represented. Itrecommended a certain course of action, weadopted that course of action, and now theOpposition comes in here and complains as amatter of cynical political opportunism. Theright to vote is a fundamental right, and itshould be respected.

Olympic Games

Mrs MILLER: I ask the Deputy Premierand Minister for State Development andMinister for Trade: can he give any furtherupdate on Queensland's success with regardto the Olympics?

Mr ELDER: I thank the member for thequestion. I can. I have previously outlined tothe House that we did indeed share in Olympicglory. A total of 220 contracts worth almost$120m were secured, ranging from softwaresystems to lane ropes to seating toenvironmental refrigerators. The prospects forfurther opportunities coming during theParalympics will enhance that figure over thecoming weeks. Our efforts to secure businesshave paid some handsome dividends indeed.

I would have to say that the efforts ofothers have been notably unsuccessful. In thatrespect I refer to the Prime Minister of thiscountry, John Howard, because he did try tograb some significant Olympic limelight overthe period of the Olympics. He invested agreat amount of time, effort and energy tomaking sure that he was at the right venue atthe right time. If he was not sitting next to JuanAntonio Samaranch, he was getting his picturetaken with Australian athletes. If he was notwith those Australian athletes, he was poppingup at medal performances. He was veryuncanny in the way that he went about it. Infact, he was probably more shameful thanPaul Hore, who was actually banned from theOlympics.

But while the rest of Australia was hurtingas a result of increased fuel prices, impacts onbusiness from the GST and by an Australiandollar that was sinking, we had the FederalGovernment in neutral. As the Leader of theLiberal Party does, I read the Bulletin, and Ihave gone to the latest Morgan Gallup poll.Let me quote what it said in relation to thePrime Minister's performance—

"Prime Minister John Howard wasalmost ubiquitous in terms of his televisionpresence during Sydney's best everOlympic Games. Unfortunately for his

coalition colleagues, this failed to translateinto best ever voter support."A Government member interjected.

Mr ELDER: I thank my colleague for hisadvice. I missed it, but I am glad he correctedhim.

Government members interjected.

Mr ELDER: Let me continue. It says a lotfor him, but let me go on. The article statedthat primary support for the FederalGovernment has dropped to 37%, with supportfor the Labor Opposition rising to 46%. Even inthe Indian Express I notice a photo carryingthe caption "Juan Antonio Samaranch ... andan unidentified official watch the judo ..."—andit is John Howard! So the presence of JohnHoward was about as successful in Australiaas he was overseas. Why? Because he hasignored what the Opposition, the Leader of theOpposition and the Leader of the Liberal Partyare ignoring here: the impacts of the GST andfuel prices! If we ever hold an event forinaction, for disregarding people's concernsand those of business, the Leader of theOpposition will get the gold medal and theLiberal Leader will be carrying the pompoms.

Port of Gladstone

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I ask the Ministerfor Transport and Minister for Main Roads:given the growth in coal exports through thePort of Gladstone and the prospect of severallarge industries siting in the Gladstone/Calliopearea, will he confirm the need for theGladstone Port Authority to constructsignificant infrastructure to facilitate thesedevelopments in the near future?

Mr BREDHAUER: I thank the honourablemember for the question. Gladstone is indeeda growing port and it is one of the mostimportant regional ports in Queensland. OurGovernment is committed to working with ourport authorities along the east coast ofQueensland to develop the infrastructure thatis necessary for those ports to continue togrow and expand. Many of our ports, includingGladstone, had record trade in the last 12months. In fact, in this year's Budget $216mhas been allocated to ports in Queensland forthe development of much neededinfrastructure to enable them to continue togrow.

In fact, I was in Gladstone just a fewweeks ago, as the honourable member knows,and I took the opportunity while I was there tomeet with representatives of the GladstonePort Authority. They made representations tome on some of the issues that she has


discussed, including the potential for growth incoal trade.

Queensland Rail obviously also works veryclosely with the Gladstone Port Authority,because about 30% of the coal thatQueensland Rail carries annually is exportedthrough the Port of Gladstone. So therelationship between Queensland Rail and theGladstone Port Authority is very important andthey work closely together to try to make surethat we have the capacity to continue to growexports of coal and other commodities throughthe Port of Gladstone.

I gave a commitment to the port authorityat that time—to its chairperson Christine Martinand the acting executive director and othermembers who were present, including theGladstone Mayor, Peter Corones—that mydepartment would work very closely with theGladstone Port Authority to identify wherethose needs are and to help them meet thoseneeds. Obviously, investment andinfrastructure in any of our Government ownedcorporations needs to be done on acommercial basis, but we as a Governmentare committed to ensuring that each and everyone of our ports are able to continue todevelop the infrastructure that is necessarybecause they play an important role in theeconomy, employment growth and stability inregional areas. We have had a very strongfocus on developing and encouraging growthin existing and new industries.

I am very confident that Gladstone has avery bright future in terms of continuing growththrough the port, and my department as wellas Treasury and the other shareholdingMinister, the Treasurer, will continue to workvery closely with the Gladstone Port Authorityto develop the necessary infrastructure to allowit to service growth in industries such as coalexports as well as new industries.

State Financial Institution

Mr KAISER: I refer the Treasurer to mediareports that the National Party is promising toestablish a new Queensland Governmentlending institution if, in the unlikely event, itwins the next election, and I ask: what are theimplications for Queensland and how can thisproposal be reconciled with establishedcoalition policy?

Mr HAMILL: It is interesting to see thatthe coalition policy think tank is hard at work.One of the first of its announcements is theNationals' pledge to set up an institution withsimilar objectives to the Queensland IndustryDevelopment Corporation. That was the one itsold about three years ago. It has said that

this institution will be able to provide cheaploans, particularly focusing on the rural sector.But it will be a commercial entity and will not besubject to any political interference, they say.

The article also states that it will befunded by a one-off State grant. I think this isreally fascinating, because wasn't the QIDCone of the State Government entities thatwere put into the Suncorp-Metway sell-off? Ido recall that the QIDC used to have quite aconsiderable book when it came to lending torural industries. It also used to operate oncommercial terms and it was not subject topolitical interference, was it? Well, it was notwhen we were in Government, anyhow!

I was intrigued because I rememberedsome of the words actually uttered by the thenTreasurer of the coalition Government inarguing why it was important that the QIDC besold. The then Treasurer said, and I quote herfrom Hansard of 8 July 1997—

"It is precisely to guard against thistype of risk—the risk of politicalinterference—that this Governmentmoved to remove Suncorp and QIDCfrom Government control through themerger with Metway Bank."

That was the coalition GovernmentTreasurer espousing coalition policy. Threeyears later, what do we have? The NationalParty is repudiating what it did in Governmentand coming out with the old yarn about specialdeals for rural industry—wink, wink, nudge,nudge. Cheap loans—but no politicalinterference! Oh, no, we cannot have any ofthat.

I think what we are seeing here is politicsbeing played at its most cynical. We have theNational Party running up to the next electionindulging in the old, old National Party policyposition; that is, "We will say anything and wewill do anything if we believe that it will give usan extra vote or so."

I wonder, does the Liberal Party still holdto the views of the coalition Government in1997? Does it still hold that the QIDC shouldhave been sold or is there yet another motivein this? Is this just the first attempt by thecoalition to undermine the Suncorp-Metwaybank?

Electoral Commission

Mr QUINN: My question is directed to theTreasurer. Will Treasury be allocating sufficientadditional funds to the Electoral Commissionto cleanse the electoral roll of corruptenrolments ahead of next year's election? Ifnot, why not? How can the people of


Queensland have any confidence in theoutcome?

Mr HAMILL: In the time that I have beenTreasurer I have always taken anysubmissions for budgetary assistance to theElectoral Commission very seriously and thosematters have always received attention. It hasalways received favourable treatment from theCabinet Budget Review Committee.

Mr Springborg interjected. Mr HAMILL: I think it might be worth while

if the member for Warwick recognised as weapproach an election year that it is customarythat the Electoral Commission receivessignificant additional funding so that it canproperly discharge its responsibilities in runningfairly and beyond reproach the electionapparatus of the State. I can assure thehonourable member for Merrimac that anysubmissions that are made by the ElectoralCommissioner to resource the commissionappropriately so that it can discharge its dutieswould receive appropriate and favourableconsideration from the Cabinet Budget ReviewCommittee.

Small Business; GST

Mr PITT: My question is directed to theDeputy Premier. Can he give any furtherupdate on how small business is coping withthe Federal Government's GST andcompleting business activity statements?

Mr ELDER: For the information of theOpposition, I am told by the Premier's staffthat the member for Mulgrave was verysuccessful in the outcome of the meeting. Welldone!

I have been raising concerns in thisHouse about the impact of the GST onbusiness from day one, and finally thechickens have come home to roost. If onegoes to today's Australian Financial Reviewone can read just how severe this impact willbe. Today's edition of the newspaper statesthat there is the prospect that about 400,000small businesses in this country could be finedup to $220 each at a time when accountantsare struggling to process about one millionbusiness activity statements. We said thatpaperwork would be the destroyer of smallbusiness.

CPA Australia and the National Tax andAccountants Association yesterday said thattheir members had been inundated withstatements and were overwhelmed by theadditional paperwork that is required as part ofthe GST. An NTAA survey of about 2,000accountancy firms found that more than 90%

felt that they would not be able to lodge allBAS forms by next month's deadline. It hasbeen reported to the tax office that they wouldneed extensions from October to November.There has been intense lobbying by businessgroups, industry groups and accountants. TheATO has played down these concerns.Costello's representatives have said, "Oh, it isjust taking time to make the transition." Everyaccountant in Australia is bringing to theattention of the ATO the impact that the GSTis having on small businesses.

The respected NTAA's Ray Regan saidthat there are just under 400,000 statementsneeding to be lodged. He said that more than140,000 of those statements were expected tobe lodged late. If there is no dispensation fromthe Federal Government, or Peter Costello, itmeans this: 140,000 businesses at $220each—or even if they were fined at the lowerlevel of $110—would amount to an impact onsmall business in this country of between$44m and $88m.

When this matter was brought to theattention of the Treasurer, Peter Costello, hisonly comment to the constituency of thoseopposite—to the people whom those oppositeare supposed to represent, namely the peoplewho are hurting from the introduction of theOpposition's GST—was simply this—

"A spokesman for Mr Costello saidthe Treasurer would not be commentingon Mr Regan's remarks or the NTAAsurvey."

In other words, it was a very short, sharpresponse that basically said that the FederalGovernment will ignore the concerns of smallbusiness and their accountants and the impactthat the fines will have on small business.

Not only has it been proven that the GSTis costing small business to comply—andcosting them severely—but there are notenough accountants in this country, accordingto the NTAA, to file the statements in time tomeet the deadline. Accountants will have towork 16 hours a day, seven days a week tocomply. For that, small business will be fined.Those opposite are heartless and the GST iskilling small business in this State.

Integrity Commissioner; ShepherdsonInquiry

Mr BEANLAND: My question is directed tothe Premier. I refer the Premier to hissurprising assertion yesterday that it would be"a breach of the Integrity Commissioner's Act"to ask the Integrity Commissioner's view, andtable that view, on his disgraceful decision to


deploy public servants for political purposes atthe Shepherdson Inquiry into electoralcorruption within the ALP.

I also refer the Premier to his second-reading speech of 26 May 1999 where hesaid—

"The Integrity Commissioner's adviceto a designated person is comparable tolegal advice provided and protected inaccordance with legal professionalprivilege. A designated person whorequests advice about a conflict of interestwill, however, be able to disclose thedocuments relating to their request,should they choose to do so."

Can the Premier inform the House whether hewas misleading the House last year or is hemisleading the House now?

Mr BEATTIE: None of that changesanything that I said in the second-readingspeech, or yesterday, or today. I stand by whatI said. Perhaps the member for Indooroopillywants me to refer to the IntegrityCommissioner the fact that the previousPremier sent John Walsh to the inquiry. JohnWalsh was—

Dr Watson: Send both of them down.

Mr BEATTIE: The member just wants tobe rude. He wants to be Mr Nasty No. 2. Wealready have Mr Nasty No. 1. We have seennasty performances from the Opposition thisweek. Does he want to be part of that? Doeshe want to be Mr Nasty No. 2? We have MrNasty No. 1, Mr Nasty No. 2 and the whingers.Perhaps they could start a band—the Nastiesand the Whingers.

The member for Moggill came in here andmade allegations which were untrue. It turnsout that when I do a bit of research I discoverthat those opposite did exactly what I amaccused of doing. John Walsh went to theinquiry. He was accountable to Peter Ellis.

Dr Watson interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: The Liberal Leaderadmitted that he went there. Is he denyingthat he went there?

Mr BEANLAND: I rise to a point of order.The Premier's comments are untrue. I ask thePremier to answer my question.

Mr BEATTIE: If the honourable memberfor Indooroopilly would restrain his nastyfriends, maybe I would have a chance toanswer the question. Those opposite haveadmitted—

Mr Beanland interjected. Dr Watson interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: Does Mr Nasty want to beat it again?

Mr BEANLAND: I rise to a point of order.It is a requirement that members in this placebe referred to in the appropriate manner. Theterm "Mr Nasty" is objectionable.

Mr BEATTIE: I take that point—thehonourable Mr Nasty. The Leader of theLiberal Party came in here and made wildallegations which were untrue.

Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order. Ibelieve that there should be a ruling in relationto the Premier's remarks. He said "thehonourable Mr Nasty". I believe that isoffensive. If members on this side of theHouse said that, Mr Speaker, you would ruleus out of order. There are two sets of ruleshere.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, there are nottwo sets of rules. You are reflecting on theChair. You will resume your seat.

Mr JOHNSON: It is not a reflection on theChair at all.

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order.Could I seek clarification of your latestinteresting ruling? Does that mean thatmembers do not have to refer to othermembers as "the member for" or "the Leaderof the Opposition" or "the Premier" or "theMinister"? If a member wants to be abusive,as the Premier has been abusive, that isokay?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Many times I haveasked members on both sides of this Housethat we refer to each other as "the memberfor" whatever. I think the Leader of theOpposition would agree that quite often thatdoes not happen. This behaviour occurs onboth sides of the House. When really offensiveremarks are made honourable members canstand and say, "I find that offensive and askthat it be withdrawn." If the Leader of theOpposition does not like the term "Mr Nasty"he can seek its withdrawal. In one area theLeader of the Opposition is telling me that Iam too strict; in another area he is saying thatI am too easy. The member cannot have itboth ways. When a remark is really offensive Ibelieve that an honourable member shouldobject. That is the right of every member in thisHouse. The Leader of the Opposition did notrise, did he?

Mr BEATTIE: Let me make this point veryclear. This week we have seen from theOpposition one of the nastiest performancesthis Parliament has ever seen. I have never inthe 11 years I have been here heard a speech


like that which we heard from the member forSouthport. I have never heard such vitriol.

Mr BEANLAND: I asked the Premier aquestion. Under the Standing Orders, he isrequired to give an answer relevant to thatquestion.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not part ofthe Standing Orders. The member knowsbetter than that.

Mr VEIVERS: I rise to a point of order. Ifind what the Premier was saying offensiveand I ask that it be withdrawn. I was only tellingthe Speaker the truth about himself.

Mr BEATTIE: In accordance with theStanding Orders, I withdraw. But I let thepeople of Queensland make a judgment onthe honourable member for Southport'sspeech. Let the television stations run it again.Let them run what I said and what themember said again, and let the people ofQueensland make a judgment on it. This hasbeen the nastiest week ever in Queenslandpolitics. They came in here to denigrate thisplace.

Mr Veivers interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forSouthport will cease interjecting.

Mr BEATTIE: This has been the nastiestweek in the history of the QueenslandParliament. The Opposition came in here to benasty. They came in here to play the man.This has been the nastiest performance I haveever seen.

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order.The Standing Orders are quite clear in regardto this. Mr Speaker, I refer you to StandingOrder 70. This is a question as to whether thePremier misled the House in regard to thefunction of the Integrity Commissioner, just ashe has sought to mislead the House on thisentire issue all week.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of theOpposition does not need to debate the issue.

Mr BEATTIE: The position is very clear:no, I did not mislead the House. My answer isconsistent with the second-reading speech.The member for Indooroopilly misrepresentsthe scenario, and he knows it. Mr Nasty andthe Opposition have denigrated thisParliament.

Year 3 Student Testing

Mr WILSON: I ask the Minister forEducation: will he introduce testing for allYear 3 students next year?

Mr WELLS: This was a so-calledrequirement imposed by the Federal Ministerfor Education, David Kemp, and signed up toby my predecessor, the honourable memberfor Merrimac. The proposal that we shouldhave census testing rather than sample testingfor Year 3 students is useless. The value of itin other States may be considerable or it maynot be. I make no judgment on that. But inQueensland we have the Years 1, 2 and 3continua. We have a diagnostic series ofassessments which enables teachers to plotexactly where in terms of their literacydevelopment our students are. Theconsequences of that are that we certainly donot need to have an additional test inQueensland. Quite apart from that, a 20% testor even a 10% test is sufficiently wide to giveus an indication from the States'benchmarking, which is what theCommonwealth is interested in, of how we aregoing. We do not need to do this for anyrational or sensible reason. Nevertheless, thehonourable member for Merrimac has signedup for it. What hangs on this is $23m. TheCommonwealth Government can make grantsconditional on whatever terms or conditions itthinks fit.

Mr Bredhauer: About half of them aregiven to the wealthiest private schools.

Mr WELLS: Apart from the unbalancedfunding which the Minister for Transport justreferred to, this is a conditional grant which isbeing offered by the Commonwealth. Wereally have no option other than to sign up forit, and that will perhaps cost an additionalquarter of a million dollars. In other words, thisblunder by the honourable member forMerrimac—this signing up for thisproposal—has led us into a situation where wehave to spend a quarter of a million dollarsthat could have been spent on enhancing ourliteracy campaign. However, to compensate inpart for the failures of the honourable memberfor Merrimac, today the Premier and I will belaunching our Literacy Strategy on theSpeaker's Green at Parliament House. Allhonourable members are invited.

Mr Schwarten: Even the member forMerrimac.

Mr WELLS: Especially the member forMerrimac. In a gesture of openness, I invite allhonourable members on both sides of theHouse to attend at 12 o'clock on the Speaker'sGreen.

Local Government Elections

Mr HOBBS: I refer the Premier to his clearcommitment to the people of Queensland that


he would act to ensure that the ALP cleanedout electoral rorters and parasites and stopabuses of the electoral process. In view of thefact that the ALP has not endorsed any sittingcouncillors and obviously had prior knowledgeof the Government's proposal to change thelocal government electoral arrangements, Iask: why is he protecting the rorters in the ALPwho are determined to ensure Queenslandvoters' democratic choice is diminished with areduced number and calibre of candidates togive a clear benefit to the ALP at the nextState election?

Mr BEATTIE: The Government isconsidering a proposal at present. TheGovernment has not made a decision but,yes, we are considering a proposal. Nothing inthis proposal prevents anybody from runningfor State Parliament. But if any member of thisState House wants to run for FederalParliament, what do they have to do? Theyhave to resign. Any honourable memberopposite who wants to run for FederalParliament has to resign.

Mr Springborg: That is an office of profit.

Mr BEATTIE: Mr Nasty is at it again,dividing the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will hear theanswer to the question.


Mr BEATTIE: The nasties are at it again.They do not want to hear the truth. They donot want to hear answers. Every time we try toanswer they try to disrupt and wreck. If themember wants a serious answer, he shouldget his mates to be quiet and I will give himone.

Mr Horan: Everything you can do tocheat.

Mr BEATTIE: The member forToowoomba South comes from a conservativeand respected electorate, and all he does iswreck. He is a disgrace to his electorate. If hiselectors saw his performance, they would beembarrassed.

Let me come back to the issue. If anyState member of Parliament wants to run forFederal Parliament, they have to resign. ThisGovernment just gave local authorities what?A four-year term! Who wears the cost of by-elections? The poor old ratepayers andtaxpayers! This is about saving taxpayers' andratepayers' money. Why are National Partymembers objecting? They are objectingbecause they have got some rort going onamongst their candidates. They want tocontinue a rort. If we are about saving

taxpayers' money, avoiding the costs of by-elections—

Mr Mackenroth: They endorsed them amonth after the council elections.

Mr BEATTIE: Honourable membersshould listen to this. We gave local authoritiesfour-year terms. And one month after beingelected for a four-year term, the National Partyendorsed candidates. Who pays the bill forthat? The poor old ratepayer pays the bill forthat. If people are going to run for localauthorities, why do they not tell the ratepayers,"I'm going to stay here only until a State orFederal election"? Let there be no doubt thatthis is a National Party rort. This reminds me ofsome of the former Leader of the Opposition'smates—Geoff Muntz, found guilty of 19charges of misappropriation of thousands ofdollars of taxpayers' funds and sentenced to12 months' jail; Brian Austin, found guilty of 25charges of misappropriation of taxpayers'funds and sentenced to 15 months' jail.

An honourable member interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: My apologies. The list goeson.

Daintree Region

Ms BOYLE: Can the Minister for Minesand Energy inform the House whetheranything is being done to preserve theenvironmental values of the Daintree?

Mr McGRADY: I thank the member forCairns for this question. Mr Speaker, youwould have noticed that she had a smile onher face as she asked it—and so she should,because yesterday was a red-letter day for thepeople of Queensland. Yesterday the Director-General of the Department of Mines andEnergy, as the regulator under the ElectricityAct, amended the distribution authority held byErgon to exclude from its distribution area anarea north of the Daintree River. The effect ofthis amendment is that Ergon Energy is nolonger mandated to supply electricity tocustomers in this area using its supply networkother than those already being supplied.

This Government has had a clear policyposition opposing the extension of mainspower north of the Daintree River. The decisionof the regulator to amend the distributionauthority was made under the provisions of theElectricity Act after due process—somethingwhich the Opposition does not understand.This process took into account submissionsfrom community members and otherinterested parties, together with other relevantissues, before the decision was made. Thisincluded consideration of the Daintree future


study report to the Wet Tropics MinisterialCouncil. The decision will help to preserve theunique environmental values of the worldrenowned Daintree region.

To ensure that people who live and workin this area do have access to power, theGovernment is actively supporting the use ofstand-alone power systems based onrenewable technology, and significant rebatesare available to residents who install thesesystems. Rebates for commercial operatorswho install the systems will also soon beavailable under a new scheme which iscurrently being developed. I believe thatfurther extensions of mains power into theDaintree would ultimately destroy the valuesthat people all around the world hold so dearly.It is our responsibility as a Government toensure that those values are not eroded, andwe must work to preserve one of the mostprecious and delicate rainforest regions in theworld for future generations.

Chevron Gas Pipeline

Mr FELDMAN: I refer the Deputy Premierand Minister for State Development andMinister for Trade to the comments made bythe Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea inrelation to the severe deterioration of the PNGdefence force, and I ask: how does thissituation impact on the future of the Chevrongas pipeline and what further assurances hasthe Minister sought and received that the gassupply will not be constantly under threat fromcivil unrest and disturbance? Bearing in mindthe Fiji upheaval, has the current PNGsituation undermined the confidence ofinvestors and, in the event that investorconfidence evaporates, what is the StateGovernment's commitment and exposure?

Mr ELDER: If the member wants to talkabout a comment that undermines a project,he has done a pretty good job of it by raisingthe issue in the Parliament.

Mr Johnson: Can't hear you, Jim.

Mr ELDER: I said he has just done areasonable job of undermining the project bybringing PNG politics into the QueenslandParliament. Let me deal with it in this sense,because the member is always into someconspiracy theory. They have been exportingout of PNG for decades and there has beennot one problem with any of those projects inthe highlands when it comes to issues such asthese. In decades of international businessesdoing work in PNG, there has never been oneproblem. The member bringing up that onestatement goes a long way to endeavouring to

undermine projects such as this. There has notbeen one problem in all this time.

The fact of the matter is that that projectwill get up based on its commercial reality andbased on its commercial underpinning bythose who are part of that project. To date,Exxon, Chevron, Oil Search and their partnersare working through each and every one of theissues, whether they are upstream issues inthe Kutubu highlands, marketing issues orfinancial issues in Queensland.

To date, that project is still on track, but itis a large project. It is probably one of thelargest to ever be built in this country. It hasmany hurdles, and each of them needs to bemet. Whether it is bringing it through tofinancial close, whether it is developing themarkets, whether it is putting in place thefinancial contributions from Government—PNG, the Commonwealth and support fromthe Queensland Government—each of themmust be met.

This Government has gone a long way inencouraging projects such as the PNG one,the Timor Sea project or coal seam methaneprojects. We did that recently with theintroduction of our cleaner energy policy inwhich we mandated 15%, of which 13% canbe electricity generated by gas and the other2% by renewable energy sources. That createsan opportunity for those in the gas area to lookat developing the market and bringing onprojects that are gas related, whether it isthrough PNG, Timor or coal seam methane.

My preference would be to see the projectget up. This Government has done everythingit can to underpin it by endeavouring to createthe market conditions for it and by, in part,negotiating with AGL Petronas in terms of theconstruction of a pipeline from Gladstone toTownsville and to provide infrastructure supportfor it—for it, Timor or coal seam methane. ThePNG Government has been supportive of thisfrom day one and is working with theCommonwealth Government here, as are thepartners in this project, to look at theinternational role played by it and theCommonwealth Government in bringing thisproject on, because it is important for the long-term economic development of that country.

The issues that the member raised haveno relevance at all to it. Sovereign risk has notbeen a problem in PNG for decades andwould not be a problem in relation to thisproject. I would suggest that he take a positiveposition rather than getting in and whingeingand whining like those opposite. It might dohim a lot better in the electorate if he did notfollow the lead of the National Party.

19 Oct 2000 Superannuation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3877

Regional Public HousingMr MULHERIN: I refer the Minister for

Public Works and Minister for Housing to theState Government's efforts to provideadditional affordable housing in rural andregional Queensland, and I ask: can he outlineany recent initiatives taken to expand thehousing stock in bush towns?

Mr SCHWARTEN: The member is wellknown for his support for public housing in thebush. May I compliment the member for Cookand the member for Archerfield who last weekaccompanied me to Croydon to open the firstset of public housing units that have ever beenbuilt there. What a shocking indictment on 30-odd years of National Party Government thatnever once before have the people of Croydonhad the privilege of having affordableaccommodation!

Mr Bredhauer interjected.

Mr SCHWARTEN: That is the other point.As the member for Cook said, there are nottoo many votes in Croydon for this side ofpolitics. It just goes to show that we are aGovernment for all people in this State,regardless of where they live.

The fact of the matter is that this is notthe first of those sorts of firsts, because ifhonourable members go up to Karumba theywill find new public housing there. I had theprivilege of opening some in Laura a couple ofyears ago. There are four houses atBurketown and a duplex at Allingham, which isin the electorate of the honourable member forHinchinbrook. The fact of the matter is thatthree-quarters of the public housing budget isspent outside of Brisbane, and it is acommitment that this Government will continueto make.

The great pity is that in that Federalelectorate where we were last week there hasbeen not a peep from the local Federalmember—in either of the Federal electoratesthat Cook covers. They are Mr Entsch andMr Katter, who are well known forgrandstanding and big-noting themselves andtaking up the issues of the battler, but notonce have I ever heard those people take onthe Federal Government about the scandalousattack that it has made on public housing inQueensland. Not once have I heard thosepeople come out and support the programthat I put up to the Deputy Prime Minister ofthis country, which would see $20m worth ofseniors units go up in those sorts ofelectorates—not once; absolute silence.

Last week when this matter was againraised on the national agenda in the companyof the Federal Minister, again there was no

hope on the horizon for people such as thepeople in Croydon who are now fortunateenough to enjoy a decent standard of publichousing at a cost which they can afford. I willcontinue to pursue this issue with the FederalGovernment. But wouldn't it be nice to have abit of support over here? The member forGregory is the only person in this place whohas had the strength of character to take onhis own mob in Canberra—only once. Everysingle member on this side of the House, ofcourse, is right behind me in getting theFederal Government to deliver.

Time expired.

Mr SPEAKER: The time for questions hasexpired.

COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARYASSOCIATION

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind membersthat at 1 p.m. today there will be an annualgeneral meeting of the CommonwealthParliamentary Association in this Chamber.

SUPERANNUATION AND OTHERLEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—ALP)(Treasurer) (11.30 a.m.), by leave, withoutnotice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend certain Actsrelating to superannuation, and certainother Acts."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Mr Hamill, read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—ALP)(Treasurer) (11.30 a.m.): I move—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."The purpose of the Bill is to amend

various State superannuation Acts to ensurethat they comply with the CommonwealthGovernment's superannuation laws and toimprove the current process used for therecovery of the employer portion ofsuperannuation benefits of corrupt officials.The Bill also amends State legislation thatcontains references to redundantsuperannuation legislation. The Bill amendsthe Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act

3878 Superannuation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 19 Oct 2000

1990, which governs QSuper, to expand thecurrent membership provisions. Additionally, itamends the QSuper Act to indemnify theboard of trustees to a level that is consistentwith industry standards.

Some flexibility in the QSupermembership provisions is needed toaccommodate structural changes to publicsector organisations. Essentially, this Billamends the QSuper Act to allow for thecontinuation of membership where employeesare compulsorily transferred to a neworganisation and agreement on retainingQSuper membership is reached between themembers and the new employer. The Bill alsoamends the QSuper Act to provide to theQSuper board a level of indemnification that isconsistent with the superannuation industrystandards. The amendments will provide forthe QSuper board to be indemnified ininstances of a breach of statutory duty or otherlaw committed by a member where the personhas carried out their duties in good faith andwithout gross negligence. Similar to otherState legislation, the Bill expressly provides forthe liability to be attached to the State.

The deed covering the detailed QSuperprovisions is a regulation which is due to expireon 31 August 2001. The basic tenet of asuperannuation trust fund, and therefore thegoverning trust deed, is that the trust isassumed to exist in perpetuity. The QSupertrust deed provides for the rules and benefitsof the State Government's superannuationarrangements. It is therefore required tocontinue in existence for as long as theGovernment provides superannuation for itsemployees. Consequently, the Bill amendsSchedule 2A of the Statutory Instruments Act1992 to include the Superannuation (StatePublic Sector) Deed 1990 as an instrumentexempt from automatic expiry.

Some changes are also being made tothe Act governing the superannuation formembers of Parliament. The CommonwealthGovernment has enacted changes to thepreservation of superannuation benefits andthe treatment of benefits for members ofsuperannuation schemes over the age of 70.This Bill amends the ParliamentaryContributory Superannuation Act 1970 so thatit is broadly consistent with the Commonwealthlaws. Effectively, superannuation benefitsaccruing from the parliamentary scheme afterthe date of the next State election will bepreserved other than where members elect totake a life pension. Additionally, the Billamends the Parliamentary Act in order tointroduce a preservation age that is consistentwith Commonwealth Government legislation.

Also consistent with the CommonwealthGovernment's superannuation legislation, theBill amends the Parliamentary Act to ceasecontributions into the fund upon a memberreaching the age of 70. Benefits will becalculated as at this age and thereafterpension benefits will increase in line with theconsumer price index and lump sum benefitswill increase with interest.

This Bill further amends the ParliamentaryAct to provide for the recognition of de factorelationships. Essentially, de factos will berecognised for the purposes of the payment ofpensions under the Parliamentary Act in asimilar manner to legally married couples. TheBill also amends the methodology ofindexation of pensions so that pensions paidunder the Parliamentary Act are indexed in aconsistent manner to pensions paid fromQSuper. Effectively, these amendments willprovide for all increases in the consumer priceindex to be passed on to members in full withdecreases in pensions caused by any fall inthe consumer price index to be deductedfollowing a subsequent pension increase.

Additionally, the Bill amends the PublicOfficers' Superannuation Benefits RecoveryAct 1988. This Act permits the recovery of theCrown financed portion of superannuationbenefits where a person has been convicted ofan offence involving the corruption of theiroffice. In accordance with the currentlegislation, such cases are brought before theSupreme Court. Traditionally, cases that havebeen pursued in this manner have resulted insome financial losses to the Government as aresult of the considerable legal fees involved inthe full court process. As such, the Bill amendsthe Recovery Act to confirm that voluntarysettlement of such cases out of court ispossible.

The amendments to this Act also enablethe recovery of superannuation benefits at thetime of resignation rather than awaitingretirement age, which can be many years later.Various State Acts also contain references tothe Superannuation (Government and OtherEmployees) Act 1988, the State ServiceSuperannuation Act 1972, the Public ServiceSuperannuation Act 1958, the Police ServiceSuperannuation Act 1974 and the PoliceService Superannuation Act 1968. As thesesuperannuation Acts have now been repealed,this Bill amends references to the legislation inother State Acts. The Bill also amends theMotor Accident Insurance Amendment Act2000 to remove a drafting anomaly andconsequently renumber these sections. Icommend the Bill to the House.

19 Oct 2000 Food Production (Safety) Bill 3879

Debate, on motion of Dr Watson,adjourned.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mickel):Order! I welcome the staff, teachers andparents from the Clontarf Beach State Schoolin the Murrumba electorate.

FOOD PRODUCTION (SAFETY) BILL

Second Reading

Resumed from 18 October (see p. 3812).

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA)(11.36 a.m.), continuing: Last night in theHouse I touched on the fact that theDepartment of Primary Industries may cut backits stock inspection services or tick inspectionservices on the northern line. This issue iscausing a great deal of angst and concern tomany pastoralists and cattle producers in northQueensland, especially those involved with thelive cattle export at Karumba, Townsville andthe port of Darwin. In this regard, it is importantto remember the cost of production andtransportation. One breakdown in a systemsuch as this can impose great costs on anindustry which is trying to protect its image andcreate a quality product across the top end. Ifthese services are to be wound back, theyhave to be policed by professional people,whether they be vets who have an affiliationwith the Department of Primary Industries orstock inspectors who have an affiliation withthe Department of Primary Industries. Anylesser trained personnel would have significantramifications for the cattle industry of northQueensland.

I know that stock inspection servicescarried out by the Department of PrimaryIndustries are put under great pressure toensure that they uphold the traditions we havebeen accustomed to in this State, and I noticethat the Minister has returned to the Chamber.It is absolutely paramount that these servicesbe totally professional, whether they comeunder the jurisdiction of the Department ofPrimary Industries or under the jurisdiction ofan offshoot of Primary Industries in conjunctionwith the local government. I want to put thatissue on the record today.

Another area I want to mention, and it isfitting to mention it now, is beef produced inthe far south-west of this State. The Minister iswell aware of the successful initiative bygraziers in that area in exporting their productto Japan. These graziers have taken asignificant initiative to pursue their own marketand have put in place steps to ensure thatthey get more money for their product. I

believe that this initiative is a first for Australiain more ways than one.

As I said in the House last night, farmers,graziers and pastoralists in this country areamongst the best in the world. I congratulatethem on this initiative. Initiatives such as thisgo towards complementing the FoodProduction (Safety) Bill, because theydemonstrate that people want to producequality products. Those graziers are certainlydoing that and are therefore getting a betterreturn on their investment because of theirown initiative and vision.

I will touch on the issue of road and othertransport infrastructure, which I raised in theHouse yesterday. One of the most importantthings is getting produce—whether it be fruitand vegetables or fat cattle, sheep, pigs orwhatever—to the marketplace in a virtuallyunblemished condition. A few years ago I wasfortunate to be able to go to Japan on a tradedelegation with the Honourable Geoff Smithand other colleagues from the Parliament. Wesaw first-hand how much emphasis theJapanese put on first-class, quality product. Alot of that product came from Australia. Thatbrings me back to what we are trying toachieve here. As I said, Queensland Rail andtransport operators have achieved betterconfigurations and have put better rolling stockon rail and better vehicles on roads over recentyears. Those things are certainlycomplementary. The Government has tocontinue to foster that development.

This morning in the House the Minister forAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy,Minister for Women's Policy and Minister forFair Trading referred to new bridges over theGeorgina River at Camooweal. No doubt theMinister is well aware that just last week a roadtrain belonging to Road Trains of Australia thatwas carrying a load of six decks of studBrahman bulls from the Rockhampton salewas forced off the Barkly Highway betweenCamooweal and Mount Isa becausesomebody in another wide vehicle had not putthe wings up. That forced the road train overthe edge.

These are the sorts of things we arefighting for. I know that the Minister forTransport—I did it, too, and I continue to doit—is making representation to the FederalGovernment for more funding for that road.We are talking about not only the BarklyHighway but also every other road in thisState. If we are going to have quality productsmarketed and sold throughout this State, onthe domestic market nationally and on theinternational market, we have to make

3880 Food Production (Safety) Bill 19 Oct 2000

absolutely certain that we are going to get thatproduct to the marketplace in the best possiblecondition. Again, it comes back to dollars. Iknow that the dollars are tight but, at the endof the day, if we are to comply with this type oflegislation we have to ensure that theassociated infrastructure is practical and that itis possible for people to adhere to theregulations.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mickel):Order! Before I call the member for Lockyer, Iacknowledge the presence in the gallery ofstaff, students and parents from the MiddlePark State School, which is in the electorate ofMount Ommaney.

Dr PRENZLER (Lockyer—CCAQ)(11.42 a.m.): I rise to address aspects of theFood Production (Safety) Bill 2000. Accordingto the Minister for Primary Industries and RuralCommunities, the Queensland Government iscommitted to ensuring that food produced inthis State is safe for consumption byQueenslanders. That is a very noble aim—anaim nobody could disagree with.

There is no doubt that the provision ofwholesome food to consumers has contributedto the health of our society today. In daysgone by, spoilage of food supplies andunhygienic practices in food production playeda major part in the spread of diseasethroughout the developing world. No doubtthat still plays a part in some Third Worldcountries today.

In his second-reading speech the Ministerreferred to what he described as the humanstory. He referred to the tragic death of a fouryear old Adelaide girl in 1995 and thehospitalisation of 17 others as a result of theireating contaminated salami. In 1997 a 77 yearold New South Wales man died from hepatitisA, traced to raw oysters from the Wallis Lakearea. In the same year two elderly Victorianmen died from salmonella poisoning, traced toproducts at a Melbourne smallgoods factory.

It is interesting that the Minister gave notone example of a case from Queensland.Perhaps we in Queensland have been justplain lucky. Or do we already practiseacceptable food safety practices? Having hadfirst-hand experience in the meat industry andhaving been associated with the dairy industryfor many years, I believe we do. The examplesthe Minister gave are, thankfully, relativelyisolated instances of fatalities due to foodpoisoning in southern States that have ahistory of such incidences over many years. Iam in no way saying that we should becomecomplacent with food production and risk thepotentially fatal results. I am trying to point out

to the Minister that all the examples he gavewere the result of up-line processing problems,except for the oyster example, which was theresult of contaminated waters rather than aprocessing fault.

I cannot disagree with the thrust of thisBill, which is to ensure that the consumer isguaranteed wholesome food. I have somedifficulty with what appears to be typicalbureaucratic overkill in parts of this legislation,particularly in relation to fairly non-perishablecommodities such as fresh vegetables, freshfruits and grains. These products are a worldapart from the other food already mentionedwhen it comes to shelf life storage, particularlywithout refrigeration. As I said earlier, the dairyand meat industries already have fairlystringent controls in place.

I wish to raise a number of concerns withregard to the quality of foods presented toconsumers in this country. My first question tothe Minister is: if this issue is as important ashe says—I have no doubt that it is—then whyare we allowing goods produced overseas toenter this country with little or no control overthe methods of production or the level ofhygiene maintained? Many of our tradingpartners cannot even spell the word hygienelet alone practise it, yet we happily allow theirproducts into our country to compete directlywith our home-produced goods. From myassociation with the meat industry over manyyears I know of various attempts by agenciesfrom this country to gain access to some of theprocessing plants in foreign countries, only tobe turned away at the door, even thoughthese visits were sometimes pre-arranged. Insome instances we do not really have a clueabout the standards of food processing beingpractised, but we allow the importation of suchfoods.

No doubt it will be argued by some thatour quarantine inspection system will look afterus and somehow find product that is not up tostandard. That sounds fair enough until werealise that the Australian Quarantine andInspection Service has been intentionallyeroded and starved of funds to the point that itis just a sick joke and cannot function to anydegree. My understanding is that it is able tomake only a cursory inspection of one out ofevery few hundred shipping containers thatenter this country. This is not the sort ofinspection that is likely to be able to tellwhether a product was produced withexcessive levels of hormone or other drugs,whether Australian hygiene standards wereadhered to during processing, what chemicalsand in what concentrations were used oncrops or animals to foster increased growth


rates or whether the resulting produce hasbeen withheld for the appropriate period afterapplication. In other words, we have no way ofknowing whether the food we import is safe.Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to findout is to eat it and see if we get sick. That isnot a very scientific method. Unfortunately, inthe case of residual pesticides and other suchchemicals, symptoms will almost certainly notbecome apparent for some time—usually toolate to be able to trace it back to a particularimport or country.

I say that the quarantine service has beendeliberately downgraded because there is nodoubt that successive Labor and coalitionFederal Governments have religiously pursuedthe idiocy of free trade between supposedlyborderless countries in what is laughinglycalled the global village. In reality, our leadershave sold us down the drain when it comes togood food produce coming into the country. Indoing so, they have allowed our status as analmost disease-free country to be repeatedlydowngraded by the importation of variousdiseases. Perhaps—and I only say"perhaps"—their theory is that, once Australiahas all the diseases established here that areendemic in other parts of the world, then therewill no longer be a sustainable argument formaintaining any semblance of quarantinerestrictions. When it comes to food poisoning,it would seem to me that Queenslandresidents would be at far greater risk ofbecoming ill after eating cooked chicken fromThailand—if this importation is everallowed—than from eating virtually any productgrown or manufactured in Queensland.

The Minister relies on an estimate by theAustralia New Zealand Food Authority that theannual cost of food-borne illness toGovernment, industry and consumers is $2.1billion. I ask the Minister: how much of this costhas been due to imported food? Can theMinister answer this question, or has he eventhought about it? What is the sense ofsaddling our own producers with costs which,in many cases, will be fatal to their businesseswhen we do not know—and do not appear tocare—what sorts of problems we are importingon a daily basis into this country? Is thisanother example of the stupidity and naivetyof successive State and Federal Governments,which believe that, if we do the right thing, ourglobal competitors will somehow be shamedinto also doing the right thing? If the Ministerbelieves that, then he probably still believes inthe tooth fairy.

Mr Reynolds: What's wrong with thetooth fairy?

Dr PRENZLER: Does the member getplenty of money from the tooth fairy? I alsoused to when I was a little fella.

The idea that, by setting an example, wecan get other countries to follow suit is plainlyludicrous. We are now starting to realise thatfact. They simply sit back and laughthemselves silly while we ponce around theworld stage pretending that we are some sortof trend-setters when in fact we are a laughing-stock. We must surely be the only country inthe world that does not act out of self-interest.It is high time that anti-Australian Governmentstook a good long look at themselves and thepolicies they are implementing that allow ourdomestic market to be flooded with suchfoods; policies that are tearing the heart out ofrural Queensland while pandering to the big-money end of town. These are the people whostand to gain from the demise of Queenslandprimary producers.

That reminds me of a speech deliveredrecently in north Queensland by the DeputyPrime Minister, Mr Anderson, who said that, inreality, Australia has to produce only 30% ofour food from our own resources and importthe rest. That is a damnable comment by theDeputy Prime Minister of this country, and heshould be absolutely ashamed of himself formaking such a statement.

Mr Reynolds: He will shut down a numberof farms.

Dr PRENZLER: The member is absolutelycorrect, and that is something we should workvery, very hard against.

Mr Nelson: Absolutely criminal.

Dr PRENZLER: "Criminal" is right.

Anybody who has worked inmanufacturing industries of any kind in thiscountry—and that includes the foodprocessing industry—would and shouldunderstand that a high degree of vigilance isrequired to ensure that quality control systemsare in place and working. Fortunately, in thiscountry, that is already the case in all but a tinyminority of instances, particularly in thesouthern States. However, it is not the case inalmost all so-called developing countries. Inthose places meat of various sorts is still beingsold in the open streets without the benefit ofrefrigeration or vermin control—not evenanything to keep the flies from laying theireggs in meat and poultry products. However, Ido not wish to try to tell someone else how torun their own country or what laws they shouldhave in regard to the way they produce,process and sell food.


In the Minister's own Explanatory Notes,the reasons for this Bill are as follows: theCommonwealth Government is currentlyprogressing a number of food industry reviews,including the Blair food regulation review, theAustralia New Zealand Food Authority foodsafety standards, food composition standardsand a uniform Food Act. The ultimate aim ofthis is to provide nationally consistent foodsafety legislation in Australia applicable to allfood sectors, including primary production.

According to the Minister, it is important todefine Queensland food safety responsibilitiesbefore the introduction of the food safetystandards. The food safety standards are tobe implemented by State and Territory FoodActs, and these would require all foodbusinesses—or perhaps they may be limited tothose with significant food safety risks—to:

(1) establish food safety programs based ona risk management methodology; and

(2) regulate food hygiene practices, foodpremises and appliances.

In doing so, the food safety standards wouldreplace existing food hygiene regulationsunder State or Territory Food Acts.

Under this regime Governments willincreasingly assume an approval and auditrole for preventive food safety. State foodsafety regulators would ensure that foodbusinesses establish adequate food safetyprograms and that compliance with theseprograms is effectively audited either byGovernment-employed or contracted auditorsor by accredited third-party auditors. In theExplanatory Notes, the Minister mentions thatthe Meat Industry Act 1993 and the DairyIndustry Act 1993 have already incorporatedsimilar requirements into licensing andregistration regimes in both the dairy and meatindustries. Under this Bill these regimes will bemerged under the one Act.

Once fully established, Safe FoodProduction Queensland—or Safe Food, as itwill be called—will be responsible forminimising food safety risks in the production,processing, wholesaling and transport of foodfor human consumption. In other words, SafeFood's area of responsibility will range frompaddock or ocean to where products entereither the manufacturing or retail sectors. It willalso cover retail premises where raw food isfurther processed, such as butcher shops andsupermarket meat departments. The HealthDepartment and local governments will stillcontinue their regulation over the retailrestaurant and takeaway sectors. The HealthDepartment will still continue to monitor food-

borne illness and any compulsory recall ofsuspect food products.

As I have stated earlier, there is no doubtthat the ability to provide the consumers of theworld with wholesome food is a worthy target.The trouble I have with this Bill is that I believeit will result in an overkill in controls, particularlyon those sectors of primary production that areof low risk, and I refer particularly again to thefresh vegetable, fresh fruit and grain industries.Under the proposed Bill, Part 5 relates to theaccreditation of primary production to ensurethat it is carried out in a way that makes theprimary product safe for human and animalconsumption. Section 50(4) states that theaccreditation shall remain in force unlesssooner cancelled or suspended for a period ofone year. I put it to the Minister that I agreethat, in high-risk food categories such as meatand dairy products and other processingindustries, accreditation should be reviewedannually. There is no doubt about that. Butwhen it comes to low-risk categories of freshvegetables, fresh fruit and grain products, theaccreditation process will only lead tounnecessary costs to this industry—costs thatthis industry can ill afford in times of lowcommodity prices; costs that will show noincrease in benefits to production.

The Minister in his second-reading speechstated that the requirements of the food safetyschemes are to be soundly based andeffectively targeted so that they would notimpose unnecessary costs on business. I amsorry, but I cannot agree with the Minister. Allsuch schemes to date have imposed coststhat have impacted on many industries.

I take the point that some of the costs,and particularly costs under the programsrecently established in the dairy industry, werein many instances necessary costs. I couldtake the Minister out to dairies that need anupgrade. There is no doubt about that. This isa high-risk category, so it should have beenfixed up. I do not believe that yearlyaccreditation is necessary or even warranted inthe horticultural and fruit and grain industries. Isuggest that a three-year accreditation inthese industries is all that is required. Once aSafe Food scheme is set up in these industriesand they have gained accreditation, renewal ofthat every three years would be enough. I willbe moving an amendment to that effect in theCommittee stage.

While I am talking about costs, I ask theMinister to give an assurance to the Housetoday that he will take a personal interest inthe costs that such accreditation schemes andongoing audits will impose on these primary


production industries. As the Minister would beaware, Queensland is one of the few States inthe world that imposes such charges on itsprimary production industries. I again remindthe Minister that he must take into account thefact that Queensland primary producers havenot been at the centre of any intentional—andI repeat intentional—food scares.

The regulation of up-line processingfacilities such as small goods manufacturers isessential and to this end I agree totally withthe thrust of the Bill. I also point out to theMinister that one has only to go into our localsupermarkets and observe how customershandle fruit and vegies and other productssuch as bread to witness the downfall ofhygienic systems and food handlingprocesses. I often wonder how clean theirhands are and what pathogens and parasitesare being transferred onto those food productsat that point. I believe that this is certainly anarea that requires more attention and morepublic education, particularly when these typesof products are often eaten raw.

I wonder how many incidents of foodpoisoning occur from this point-of-sale area. Iask the Minister whether he knows thepercentage of food poisoning incidents thatemanate from this area. I also ask whether heknows the percentage of incidents that occurafter the cooking and storage of foods in thehome.

I am not opposed to the regulation of ourfood industries per se, but I am bitterlyopposed to having our producers andprocessors severely disadvantaged by a wholenew set of rules that will achieve very little interms of the prevention of food-related illnessand virtually nothing in the way of cost savingsto the community.

Time expired.Mr NELSON (Tablelands—IND)

(12.03 p.m.): I place on record my support forthe amendments foreshadowed by thehonourable member for Lockyer and theOpposition. Given appropriate amendment, Ithink this is a good Bill.

Our primary producers, in Queenslandand throughout Australia, are the best in theworld—but we can always do better. One ofthe things that we need to look at in primaryproduction is making sure that the productsthat we sell from areas such as the tablelands,the Lockyer Valley and all the other greatagricultural areas throughout Queensland arethe best they can possibly be to guarantee thesafety of the public that is consuming them. Itis in the best interests of primary producers tomake sure of this. They are the people making

a livelihood from that product. So I do not thinkthat there would be much opposition from theagricultural sector to a Bill that would solidlyguarantees their income.

Without going too much into what a lot ofother members have already said today, Iwould like to take up a few threads. The firstone that I would like to talk about is, of course,AQIS, the importation of pestilence into ourcountry and the lack of protection that AQISprovides in defending us from the importationof diseases into our country.

We are very fortunate that we are anisland continent and that we can isolateourselves from foreign countries that havedifferent agricultural practices. We shouldcapitalise on this fortunate circumstance to thebest of our ability and make sure that ourborders are impenetrable to foreign disease.One situation in which we cannot protectourselves is when Chinese fishing junkspacked full of people and food land on thebeaches in and around Cairns.

Cape York is another area of concern.Cape York is a natural highway that leadsdown into the most fertile and productiveagricultural areas in Australia: the Hann andAtherton Tablelands. The simple fact is thatthis agricultural area, through the MDIA, growsmore produce than any other agricultural areain Australia and it is under direct threat at alltimes from disease and foreign bugsaccessing the area along that natural highway.From time to time we do have outbreaks ofdisease. For example, we recently had thespiralling white fly and the papaya fruit flyattacking this jewel in the crown of agriculturalareas which is the tablelands.

Having said that, I must say that theresponsibility cannot fall solely at the feet ofAQIS. We need also to look to the Departmentof Defence. We need a much more adequatepatrol of the north through our Naval Reserveunits and Air Force patrols on Cape York.Although strategic defence concentration hasbeen focused on the Timor Gap for a longtime, we need to look at Cape York, becauseeven though there is no direct threat from anycountry to our north, there is the threat ofinvasion in the form of pestilence and diseasethrough fishing junks and illegal refugeeslanding on Cape York.

The current idea being espoused by theFederal Labor Party is to implement a coastguard. I think that that is a particularly goodidea—one of the very few we have seen froma Labor Defence spokesman. It is a particularlygood idea and it would be very good if it wasimplemented in a manner in which the patrol


boat squadrons were not taken from the Navyand turned into coast guards but operatedseparately from the Australian Navy. I thinkthat that would combat a lot of the import ofdisease through Cape York Peninsula and theGulf Country at the moment. That is one ideathat needs to be looked at in addressing theimportation of foreign pests, especially intonorthern Australia.

I wish to raise an issue that the memberfor Lockyer touched on at the end of hisspeech. That is: where does the blameactually lie for a lot of outbreaks of foodpoisoning? It is a proven fact that a lot of foodpoisoning cases occur in the family home. Ithas nothing to do with the food that is actuallypurchased at the shop; it has to do with theway the food is handled by the peoplepreparing it.

Dr Kingston: It is 90%.

Mr NELSON: Yes, that figure is 90%. Iassume that the member for Maryborough willsoon speak on this subject as well.

A lot of cases of food poisoning occurbecause people prepare food incorrectly, theyleave food lying on a bench or use otherunsafe practices. It has nothing to do with theway the food was prepared at the farm level. Italk to many, many primary producers who saythat they work their hardest to put out the bestquality produce that they can; it is their life'spride. We must also remember that marketforces dictate that they put out the bestproduct they possible can so that they cancompete on an open market. Then peopleleave their shopping bags containing a cartonof milk in the car for four hours; they get ithome; discover that it has gone off and ringDairy Farmers or Pauls—the honourablemember for Southport will be speaking afterme—to complain because the milk has goneoff. If a carton of milk is left in a car for fourhours in the Queensland climate, of course itwill go off. It has nothing to do with the farmeror the factory; it has to do with the consumer'sincorrect handling of the product after the pointof purchase.

I would like to see the Minister addressthis in his reply, because I think that this is avery important point. It is a point that I thinkwould explain the statistics and absolve theprimary producers from blame. As the memberfor Maryborough quite rightly said, about 90%of the cases of food poisoning occur in thismanner.

I believe supermarkets put a lot of effortinto maintaining product cleanliness on theirshelves. It is very hard to legislate against

people taking products home and having themdeteriorate in their own storage facilities. Forexample, refrigeration levels are marked on alot of items of store produce, but how manypeople know at what temperature theirpersonal refrigerator operates? I know I havenever put a thermometer inside my refrigeratorand checked how cold it is. One might have avery old refrigerator that has a leak. Thetemperature inside that refrigerator could beabove the required refrigeration temperaturefor milk. I believe milk should be stored at 4degrees Centigrade. However, a homerefrigerator might not be running at thattemperature. The refrigerator might feel cold ifone puts a hand inside it, but it is probably notcold enough to prevent bacteria growing inmilk. I would like to hear the Minister refer tothose issues in his reply. A lot of the problemsof contamination of food can be put down tobad handling by the consumer.

The matter of the Garibaldi meat scare inSouth Australia was referred to me. In theMareeba area of my electorate we have alarge migrant population and many of thesepeople make their own sausages and othermeat products. They consume these products,even though in some cases they might beprepared incorrectly. It is possible that thiscould cause poisoning. The media, being themedia, can portray a different story of such anincident. The preparation of some foods thatare grown in backyards can lead to outbreaksof disease. Such incidents can bring the wholeindustry into disrepute, and that is unfortunate.

I believe that all primary producers turnout the best product they can from their farmsin order to maintain their commercial viability. Ifa farmer produces a bad product he will findthat someone else gains a contract and he willgo out of business.

I believe this Bill is a good idea. However,I do not think this legislation will bring abouttoo many changes. Most producers do theright thing. I would like the Minister to addressthe issue of consumer preparation of foodbecause I believe that it is the biggest issuethat we need to look at in relation to thissubject.

Mr VEIVERS (Southport—NPA)(12.13 p.m.): The member for Lockyer hasalready covered some of the points I wantedto make. The Food Production (Safety) Billaccords with the philosophies of the recentnational reviews. How heavy will the cost toprimary producers be with this type of thing?We are told that quality assurance andaccreditation costs could be anywherebetween $5,000 and $7,000.


Let us face facts. Most farmers inQueensland have just been through adrought. They have also just been throughderegulation. Now they are going through aprice war. The price for their product has gonefrom, say, 58.9c per litre to about 32c per litre.In other cases it is 35.1c per litre. That isalready happening.

Mr Braddy interjected.

Mr VEIVERS: You can have youropinions, Minister; I have mine. I am elected tospeak in this place.

Mr Braddy: You were disgraceful.

Mr VEIVERS: It was not disgraceful. I willnot get into a slanging match.

I was asking the Minister for PrimaryIndustries about the question of costs. Wehave seen how costs have escalated. Ofcourse, they will escalate even further. I amwondering how high the costs will eventuallybecome when rules and regulations are beingintroduced. I will refer to the dairy industry,because we have dairies in Queensland thatdo not satisfy the necessary standards. As weall know, we have inspectors checking ondairies. The people who do not meet thestandards will have to upgrade their dairies orthey will not be around for too long becausethey will not be able to sell their milk. This allcomes under the heading of qualityassurance. Who will be the person who will tellthose dairy farmers that they have to closedown?

At the same time, we have this type ofthing coming along and adding to the costs. Isit correct that the levy will be increased,Minister?

Mr Palaszczuk: There is going to be nochange.

Mr VEIVERS: In the real world there arechanges. Farmers have bad seasons, andincreased costs put the mocker on producers.Some of them will have to go out of business.How many Government costs have gonedown? The only costs I have ever seen arecosts that go up.

Mr Rowell: Or taken off.

Mr VEIVERS: Or taken off. However, veryrarely do we see them taken off. Someonehas to pay, and obviously it is going to be theproducer. The cost of diesel fuel will impingeon moving all sorts of products around thecountry, particularly from the bush where it isproduced to the city where it is consumed. It isnot possible to say, "It will be a flat rate andthat's it", and everything is hunky-dory. Thatdoes not happen.

We have many questions dealing withfunding and accreditation. Each accreditationcontains mandatory conditions and requirescompliance with the food safety scheme. Theproducer must allow an auditor to enter thebusiness and conduct an audit at any time.We are told that Safe Food may also imposeother reasonable and relevant conditions. Thatobviously leads to reasonable and relevantcharges on top of what is already there. Iwould like the Minister to cover that aspect inhis reply.

We then come to enforcement measures.One of the aspects here is "supplying or sellingequipment that is likely to make the primaryproduce unsafe". I think it should read, "Using,supplying or selling equipment that is likely tomake the primary produce unsafe". Thesethings need to be cleared up.

I wish to refer to a very important fooditem, namely, milk. We are told that milk is oneof the best sources of calcium. We are alsotold that it is great for rearing children. Ofcourse, nutritionists tell us that it is one of theimportant dietary items necessary to avoidosteoporosis. As I have been saying, it isimportant that this food also is produced andmarketed in a safe way. In our day, when Iwas a lad, the milk came in cans and it did noteven have to be cooled.

Mrs Pratt interjected.

Mr VEIVERS: That is fine. Butoccasionally when the cans reached thefactory the odd frog or mouse would be foundin them.

Mr Reynolds interjected.

Mr VEIVERS: They reckoned it addedbody to the milk. However, they sent that milkback. I know farmers—and they will remainnameless—who strained that milk throughsteel gauze, which had just come onto themarket, and whacked it back into the canalong with some preservative and sent it backto the factory because they did not want tolose any income. Those sorts of activitiesneeded to be stamped out, and they were.The dairy industry started testing milk and soon. But now the likes of Woolworths are tellingproducers, "This is the price we're going to giveyou. That's it. Either take it or we'll get it fromanother State." Queensland farmers havebecome price takers, not price makers.

Mrs Pratt: Shameful!Mr VEIVERS: It is shameful. The activities

of that food market giant are jeopardising thelivelihoods of many producers and theirfamilies, and it is blaming the processors. Theprocessors have nothing to do with that. The


processors are asked by Woolworths to put ina price for their milk, and that is whenWoolworths and others say, "This is what we'regoing to give you. That's it." That impacts onthe man on the land—the farmer at the farmgate. That is why we see milk at about 35.1c alitre and going down. When the packagecomes through at the beginning of the nextmonth, the farmers will be saying, "We're nolonger in this industry. We're out of it." We donot want that to happen to our wonderful dairyindustry in Queensland. It was a very healthyindustry.

This Bill may be the straw that breaks thecamel's back, given the costs that they willhave to bear to implement the requirementsunder this Bill. That is all I have to say. I wantto hear what the Minister has to say about thefunding.

Mr Palaszczuk: We expect cost savingswhen we amalgamate both the QLMA andQDA.

Mr VEIVERS: I appreciate what theMinister is saying. Hopefully, what he is sayingis true. But we cannot guarantee that, can we?There are no guarantees in life, anyway. It isup to us as legislators to do the best we canfor the people out there. In this case, I hopewe do not overdo it with rules and regulations.Some commonsense should prevail. TheMinister has had questions asked of him in theChamber and he has diligently tried to speakabout the drought packages. They are setdown hard and fast in legislation. Whenpeople apply for drought relief, they have to gothrough those steady processes. If they do notmeet one of the criterion, they do not get it. Iknow the Minister has said that he is doing hisbest to ease the criteria. I do not know what heis doing, because up until now nothing hashappened.

Through the rules we have implementedso steadfastly we are hurting the very peoplewe are trying to help. Commonsense shouldprevail and someone should say, "This is adrought affected area. Send in the DPI andthe Minister's committee." However, peopleare being made to undergo asset tests andthese types of things and even have to sell offall of their cows and farm machinery beforethey can get to the application stage. It is toolate then; the horse has bolted. I think theMinister understands that. I do not have theanswer. Perhaps the Minister does. That is thetype of situation we have to be careful not tocreate with the Food Production (Safety) Bill.The Minister has to walk on eggshells. This willbe very difficult for the Minister. I hope he has

the answers, because this is not an easyissue.

Mr REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP)(12.24 p.m.): Today I wish to comment onsome aspects of the Food Production (Safety)Bill. In particular, I wish to look at theinterrelationship between Queensland Healthand the DPI and also some issues that havebeen raised with me by fruit and vegetablegrowers in the north Queensland area,namely, who determines the risk and whetherthere will be a charge on every primaryproducer? Then I wish to speak about some ofthe concerns that have been expressed to meby fruit and vegetable growers, in particular inthe Rollingstone and Mutarnee areas, andabout some of the consultation I have hadwith the Minister and his departmental staff inthat regard.

Queensland Health and DPI are bothdoing their jobs to ensure that food is safefrom paddock—or trawler—to plate. This foodsafety production legislation dovetails withQueensland Health's food safety portfolioresponsibilities. The officers of the Ministerhave consulted extensively with Health officersin developing this legislation to ensure that thebalance between the two departments'responsibilities is right.

This legislation provides a Queenslandinfrastructure to implement national foodsafety regulation. The Australia New ZealandFood Authority—ANZFA—recently developeddraft food safety standards to be implementedover six years. The national food hygienestandards will require preventive programs tobe in place at all points in the food supplychain where significant food safety risks mayarise. The standards will require all foodbusinesses with significant food safety risks toestablish food safety programs based on a riskmanagement methodology known as hazardanalysis and critical control point. HACCP isnow international best practice in preventivefood safety regulation.

Regulation is, and should be seen as, anintegral part of any system designed toachieve safe food in that it provides theoverarching framework and legal obligation forfood businesses to produce food which is safeand suitable for human consumption. Thatmust be the underlying criteria we are lookingat here. To be effective, this framework mustapply across the whole food supply chain.Notwithstanding the importance of regulationwithin the system, the regulations andstandards put in place should be the minimumnecessary to effectively minimise the incidenceof food-borne illness.


Under the new regulations, QueenslandHealth's portfolio responsibility in the foodsupply chain will commence immediately afterthe Department of Primary Industries'responsibility ceases. There has been somediscussion this morning, and some questionsraised by me, about who determines the risk.Safe Food will develop scientifically basedhazard analysis and risk assessment. This isessential to provide the basis for science-based HACCP plans, which will includescience-based critical limits for each hazardand science-based effective preventivemeasure, which can be used by industry toproduce safe food.

The authority will work with theDepartments of Health and Primary Industriesto ensure that standards implemented by theauthority are consistent along that food supplychain. Further, each food safety scheme willbe developed in consultation with the relevantfood safety committee, which is constituted bythe relevant industry representatives and foodsafety experts. These schemes will be basedon risk assessment and will ensure compliancewith national standards and other standardsadopted by the authority, and the authority willassist industry with implementation.

I think the bottom line there for many fruitand vegetable growers is that industry, in all ofits relevant areas, must be involved. That isone of the concerns that has been raised withme by fruit and vegetable growers—that theindustry must be well represented in terms oftheir particular concerns and how thislegislation is actually implemented. The issueof charge has already been mentioned, and Iwould like to make some comments on thattoday as well. Only those primary producerswhose farm or fishing activities fall into asubstantial risk category will need to beaccredited under this legislation and pay anaccreditation fee. The Food Safety AdvisoryCommittee, the relevant committee, which isconstituted by industry, producer and foodsafety experts, will determine if a food safetyscheme is needed for a certain primaryproduction sector after it has completed a riskanalysis on that sector. If it is determined thatcertain primary producers fall into a category ofrisk that warrants a food safety scheme, thenthey would be subject to the payment of anaccreditation fee. It should be noted that theamount payable will also be determined by thiscommittee in close consultation with thesectors concerned.

I will conclude by bringing up some of theconcerns that were brought to me in mycapacity as the Premier's ParliamentarySecretary to north Queensland. I wrote to the

Minister, the Honourable Henry Palaszczuk, on4 October this year in response torepresentations that I had received from agroup of fruit and vegetable growers located inthe north Queensland area. I speak inreference particularly to those growers in theRollingstone and Mutarnee area. They askedme to convey their strong concern that freshfruit and vegetables are categorised asmedium risk in the food safety Bill. I have beenvery satisfied with this Minister and thediscussions I have had with his departmentalrepresentatives and the Minister himself.

The Bill does not identify risk levels. As Ihave already indicated, these risk levels will beidentified by the Food Safety AdvisoryCommittee which has industry representationson it. ANZFA has classified fruit andvegetables at a national level into a mediumrisk area. I emphasise that this is aCommonwealth body and it is not tied up withthe State legislation that will be passedthrough the House today. From thediscussions that I have had, I know that at thatnational level medium risk for fruit andvegetables was classified because of tworelated issues across Australia at the time. Thefirst one related to salmonella in orange juiceand the second one related to pathogens infresh produce.

On behalf of the fruit and vegetablegrowers, I would hope that the relevant FoodSafety Advisory Committee will look verycarefully at the concerns, particularly at thoseof the small fruit and vegetable growers suchas the growers in Rollingstone and Mutarnee,because those growers operate at a fairly lowprofit margin. I know that because of the workthat I have done with them over the past fewyears in particular. The discussions that I havehad with the Minister's departmental staff giveme an assurance that their concerns will bewell looked after. I therefore commend theFood Production (Safety) Bill to the House.

Dr KINGSTON (Maryborough—IND)(12.32 p.m.): I rise to address the FoodProduction (Safety) Bill with mixed feelings. Onthe one hand I recognise what is driving theMinister, that the people of Queensland andour customers overseas have the basic right toexpect clean, healthy and safe food. On theother hand, I am concerned, firstly, about thecosts to producers. Australia is one of the fewcountries in the world in which producers payfor food inspection. The member forBarambah will address the disadvantagedposition of Australian primary producers in hercontribution. Secondly, I am concerned howthe sadly depleted QDPI will cope with the


additional workload requiring well trainedpeople.

Thirdly, I am concerned that the Ministerand his department could go down an oldpathway reinventing the wheel—a pathwaythat has been subjected to intense researchresulting in significant changes andimprovements within the meat industry inAustralia and overseas. I look forward todetailed reassurances when the House movesinto the Committee stage. I hope that this Billis driven by the desire to institute better qualitycontrol, better hazard analysis and, thus,better based merchandising, and continuingsales and market access to the benefit of ourproducers and our processors and not by thefear of litigation driven by the largesupermarket chains.

There has been an immense volume ofresearch and practical experience—and someof it very bitter experience—publishedconcerning the meat industries, particularly inexporting countries, research to ensureproduct safety and to ensure continuingmarket access. There are many genericlessons concerning food safety already learntby the meat industry. I spent all of 1988reviewing meat inspection in Australia andoverseas. I believe that some of these lessonscan assist this Government achieve its aimand avoid the potential traps of expectinglegislation and regulations to achieve betterhygiene.

At the International Symposium:Prevention of Contamination andDecontamination in the Meat Industry in Zeistin 1986, Gill from New Zealand said whendiscussing the production of hygienic meat—

"I have made it quite clear thatcompliance with regulations in NewZealand has, at great cost, producedhardly any effect on end product quality."

I say to the Minister that that is a veryimportant statement. It goes on—

"What has had a positive effect is, forinstance, the wide-scale introduction ofhide pulling equipment and furthermechanisation, that is, avoiding workersunnecessarily touching the carcass."

The basic conclusion from the Zeistsymposium in 1986, the World Congress onFood Hygiene in the Hague in 1997 and the1988 Australian study was that quality cannotbe inspected or regulated into a product; itmust be built into the product all the way alongthe production chain. Thus, I agree with the"paddock to plate" title of this Bill. However,the achievement of the goals implied by thistitle requires widespread attitudinal changes

and the involvement of behavioural scientistsand they cannot be achieved by regulationalone. This fact has been well defined by thework of Tazelaar and Gerats at the Universityof Utrecht. The results of this work will befurther explained by the member forThuringowa.

However, I must say that heavy fines willnot ensure that a biological process, such asthe adequate fermentation of sausages, willachieve bacteriological safety, as a previousspeaker suggested, but improved biologicalunderstanding and attitudinal change will. Ifthat speaker doubts this fact, I suggest that avisit to the Queensland Health ScientificServices laboratory, Public Health andMicrobiology Section near Griffith University willbe highly instructive.

To contribute adequately to this debate, Iwould like to consider the development ofTQA; the failure of organoleptic inspection; theoccurrence and sources of food poisoning; theneed for continuing education; the need forcomprehensive databases, which we do nothave; the successes and cost reductionsflowing from the adoption of industry self-regulation and attitudinal change; thecontinuing need for research, particularly forcheap, on-site diagnostic tests, such as Elizatests; the comparison of reliability of usingorganoleptic methods of inspection and TQA;hazard analysis and critical control points; thegeneral failure worldwide of top downlegislation in achieving the desired results; thetraps inherent in compliance; and my concernsthat the Minister intends to introduce theoperative legislation as subordinate legislation.

Time will not allow such comprehensiveconsiderations, so I will limit myself, to theMinister's relief, to a few factors. The prime aimof food safety legislation is the prevention ofmorbidity and mortality resulting from foodingestion. The market impact is well illustrated.One example is that in 1987, when theSwedish media reported that ingestion ofpoultry meat infected with the ubiquitouscampylobacter was causing enteritis, theconsumption of poultry meat dropped in thatcountry by 40%.

To emphasise that food-based diseaseshave been of concern for many years, the firstformalised meat inspection service wasinstituted in the ancient Egyptian civilisation.The Augsberg Charter in 1276 banned thesale of meat from diseased animals in Europe.In 1888, Ostertag defined the objectives offood inspection as being to protect the publicfrom infection resulting from food consumptionand—this is important—to gain epidemiological


insight into the morbidity resulting from foodingestion. These fundamental objectives arestill relevant today and the title Paddock toPlate reflects the findings of the July 1988Australian study.

To explain this more, in 1984 Mossel saidthat the major failure to reduce the incidenceof morbidity has been the traditional ingrainedtendency to attempt to supply food products ofadequate safety by relying virtually totally onsampling end products and perhapsexamining these products microbiologically.This retrospective effort at safety assurance ismistaken in principle. The microbiologicalintegrity of food cannot be assured bymonitoring only. This statement is borne out bythe fact that the incidence of food poisoningworldwide is rising somewhat dramatically.

Organoleptic monitoring has been shownto be effective only in improvement of thecosmetic appearance of the product.Therefore, microbiological control is anessential element. Currently, farmers can onlyuse organoleptic methods. Most of thepotential pathogens are common in theenvironment. For instance, E. coli, salmonella,yersinia clostridium and campylobacter areusual habitants of the healthy ruminantintestinal tract, some human intestinal tractsand can be found on human skin. Giardia cannow be found in most Queensland waterways,but adequate hygiene and procedures cankeep the microflora populations on foodsbelow the threshold dose levels necessary tocause sickness. Very old or sick people withcompromised immune systems require morestringently treated foods.

Most people have some immunity tothese more common intestinal pathogens.This explains why overseas visitors to somecountries suffer Delhi belly whilst the localsconsume traditional foods without anyuncomfortable impact. However, it is importantto realise that when a new strain of a potentialpathogen is encountered an epidemic canoccur. This happened in Sweden whenAustralian meat meal from the Kimberleycontaining an unusual salmonella was used inpoultry food in Sweden. Human morbidity andmortality was particularly high and it took threeto four years for the national poultry industry torecover. Many Swedish poultry farmers wentout of business. Sweden now has adepartment dedicated to the elimination ofsalmonella in food which is headed by a verycompetent and very charming femaleveterinarian, and I could recommend a visit.

This Bill addresses hygiene and quality inall foods. This is a daunting task. In Asia,

green vegetables are common carriers ofgiardia, salmonella and campylobacter. Withthe popularity of organic produce and the useof animal manure increasing in Australia, suchcontamination could be occurring now. Riceand milk can and do carry bacillus cereus.When rice or milk is cooked, the bacilluscereus spores produce two toxins—one emeticand one which causes diarrhoea. Cooked ricewhich is then stored is a potential healthhazard. This has been researched recently bythe Queensland Health Department's ScientificServices in Brisbane with very startling andupsetting results. I might add that, despite fiveyears of talking, I cannot convince my wife thatshe should not put cooked rice back into therefrigerator.

I severely doubt that the objectives of thisBill can be achieved without a concertedresearch effort to develop fast, convenient andcheap diagnostic tests capable of detectingthe presence of pathogenic agents. I havechecked the opinion of respected scientists,and they support this view. Therefore, I intendto move an amendment during the Committeestage of the debate that section 14J bechanged to commit adequate funds to providespecific funding to facilitate the rapiddevelopment of such rapid diagnostic tests.This is essential for this Bill to be successfullyimplemented.

Biotrop at James Cook University hasbeen involved in the development of animmunochromatography test for malaria which,if produced in India, sells for $1 per test. It isimportant for the Minister to realise that Biotropmoved away from tests on food because thereis no market for it. It has concentrated onmalaria because it is such a life-threateningdisease and because there is a market. Ifproduced in Australia, that same test wouldcost $6. It has produced rapid tests forechinococcus, faecal rotavirus, E. coli and hasassisted the Queensland Health Departmentdevelop a polymeric chain reaction for bacilluscereus toxins.

Some of these tests are simple dipsticktests similar to the ones used for years to testwater acidity and are tests that farmers canvery easily use, but they need to be cheap.The scientists involved in the development ofthese tests believe that a series of integratedtests are needed. Additionally, they emphasisethat, with the rapid transport andcommunication available today, they can nowidentify staphylococcal and streptococcalcontamination after incubation of a sampleafter only one night, and that is a hugeimprovement on the past.


More research is needed to facilitate thetrace back to the property and the works oforigin. As we have seen during theorganochlorine crisis, in the absence ofadequate data on the property of origin allcarcasses from suspect areas had to be testedat great expense—$16 a test, amounting tomany millions of dollars. It is worth noting thatthe data was stored in Canberra in acompacted form. When needed rapidly todevelop a strategy for the mutton industry,there was a delay whilst it was decided whoowned the data and then a further delaybecause it was compacted. Not even theCSIRO mathematics division could read it. Thissituation was partly saved because NevilleHarper, the then Minister, had all theQueensland data stored on a computer in hisoffice which was able to be accessed. That is avery good trick which I would recommend tothe Minister.

Various speakers have quoted statisticsconcerning the incidence of morbidity andmortality from causative agents from food.However, it is important to identify thatAustralia does not have a central databank forthe storage of food poisoning data equivalentto the CDC in the USA or the Public HealthLaboratory Service Communicable DiseaseSurveillance Centre in Colindale in Britain. Thisimpedes epidemiological study and theevaluation of the importance of food-bornediseases in general and the prioritisation ofresearch into each disease. I conclude bysaying that there is an immense amount ofresearch and preparatory work to be donebefore this Bill can be properly implemented. Iwish the Minister luck, and if I can assist I will.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras):Before the member resumes his seat, for thebenefit of the many avid readers of Hansardand myself, did you say that cooked riceshould not be put in a refrigerator?

Dr KINGSTON: Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: What if it hasbacon with it such as in fried rice?

Dr KINGSTON: Rice contains the sporesof a bacillus. When it is heated, the spores arestimulated to release two very powerful toxins.One causes a great fit of vomiting and theother causes a great fit of activity at the otherend. So once it has been cooked—

Mr Roberts: Not at the same time, Ihope.

Dr KINGSTON: Well, if you get both toxinsyou get both ends. Once it has been heatedand cooked, rice is a product to be treated withgreat caution.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: And notrefrigerated?

Dr KINGSTON: Give it to the chooks.

Mrs PRATT (Barambah—IND)(12.50 p.m.): Although the Food Production(Safety) Bill has the support of both sides ofthe House, I must confess that I haveconcerns about it. Most speakers havecovered a lot of aspects associated with theBill. To avoid repetition, I would like toapproach this from the aspect of the costs andthe effects on agriculture in general. I cannotbut note that the burden of cost is once againbeing placed squarely on the shoulders of thefarmer. Governments have gradually heapedcost upon cost on the producer, until loss ofviability has become a reality for many.Adherence to this legislation is another imposton Queensland's rural producers.

The approach of this State Governmentand the Federal Government seems to be inconflict with the ideas and philosophies of therest of the world. In the marketplace that thisState Government and the FederalGovernment have created for rural land-holders, sustainability has now becomequestionable. Our farmers are independent.Although in need of assistance they will oftenbe heard to say, "We do not want handoutsfrom Government." They say this becausethey are made to feel like failures when theyare put in the position in the marketplacewhere they cannot win.

There is no level playing field undereconomic rationalism, which ignores the lack ofa perfect market. Economic rationalism, whichignores the irrationality of people andGovernments, is flawed. Farmers in the rest ofthe world are often amazed at the assertion byAustralian farmers that they do not wanthandouts. There are hardly any farmers in theworld who do not receive some Governmentassistance, and those countries whoseGovernments do not offer assistance are noteconomically sound. The average EU beeffarmer receives approximately 70% of hisyearly income in the form of a cheque from theGovernment. Farmers in England, Holland,Denmark, North America, Japan, Korea andChina are all heavily subsidised, and there areothers. It was stated by the great Canadianeconomist J. K. Galbraith when speaking onGovernment involvement in agriculture—

"In the modern economic worldagriculture, with all its problems, is outsidegeneral economic comprehension."

He is right. Galbraith has advised four USPresidents and has claimed that one of thegreatest factors in the US domination of the


world economy has been its fostering ofagriculture. Conversely, he believes thatRussia's neglect of agriculture was the mainreason for the collapse of that country.

One has to ask what is Australia's future,when we take into consideration the lack ofemphasis that both State and FederalGovernments place on our agricultural sector.This year's Australian budget for agriculturesaw the smallest percentage ever forfarmers—less than 0.001% of the Budget. Thisis a drop in moneys allocated to the agricultureindustry of 90% over 20 years.

The Australian Federal Budget is about$120 billion—enough to pay out $58 billion inwelfare, $2 billion in multiculturalism and $1.4billion to Aborigines. That does not include the$1.5 billion to $2 billion land fund, whoseinterest—that is roughly $20m—buys any goodfreehold land for sale each year for theAboriginals. So it is not as if the Governmenthas no money. It just has to have the desire todirect it in productive areas. We in this placemake the rules and regulations that affect thevarious industries outside, which arecontinually required to pick up the price ofcompliance, often to the point of throwing theirhands in the air and walking off their farms.The member for Southport outlined the costsfaced by the dairy industry and the hardshipsthat follow.

It is acknowledged that the frighteningincrease in salinity is a national issue for everyAustralian. That is a major reason it is time forGovernments to transfer money to land-holders. Perhaps it would be in Australia's bestinterests to introduce a rural living wage, asexists in Europe. Very few people currently onfarms would encourage their children to takeon the family farm. Money worries, isolationfrom society and the ever-increasingpaperwork do nothing to encourage thecontinuation of small holdings of agriculture.

According to ABARE, the average beefproducer has run at a loss for the past 14years. The tariff protection of the USA hasbeen an ongoing problem for Australianproducers in many areas of agriculture, and itis becoming worse. China is fast becoming amajor player in pork, sheepmeat, poultry andbeef production, rivalling the USA in someareas. China's Government heavily subsidisesits producers. It is not a signatory to the WorldTrade Organisation and can dump its produceon any market it so chooses. Dutch andDanish farmers rely heavily on Governmentsubsidies, and they do not see this receiving ofassistance as a weakness or failure.

Why can't Australian and State andFederal Governments realise that agriculture isan essential service, just like health care andwelfare? The cost of the implementation of thisBill should be picked up by the Government,and food standards should be uniformthroughout Australia. I think someone didmention that there may be national legislationin the pipeline.

Like the member for Warrego, I have toquestion whether we are going overboard withall of these regulations. Although there is aneed to protect the general public fromnegligence—no-one would dispute that theremust be basic hygiene procedures—Governments seem intent on protectingeveryone from everything and removing theresponsibility for self.

I can see this legislation casting a shadowover fundraising by the many charitableorganisations and small community groupsthat raise funds to purchase equipment fortheir members or simply to assist theunfortunate in their communities. I ask theMinister to clarify whether these groups will bepenalised by this legislation. Theseorganisations and minor players in the schemeof things must be taken into consideration. Ifmembers walk down the main street of anysmall town or attend local markets, churchfetes and so on, they will see that in manyinstances the main items are the donatedcontributions of members—cakes, biscuits,jams and so on. Will this legislation ensure thatnone of these homemade items can legally beput up for sale without individuals undergoingaccreditation? I have not heard of poisoningfrom these stalls, although it may haveoccurred, but the bulk manufacturing outletsoften find their names in the media for all thewrong reasons.

Everyone shudders when they hear thecases of poisoning that do occur. Having beeninvolved in food preparation myself, I know justhow careful one has to be. I know I havewatched those secret cameras revealingunhygienic practices that take place and havevowed never to eat outside my home again.Luckily, in my electorate we have the benefit ofgreat cooks, and I have not heard of oneinstance of a person suffering through buyingproduce from a street stall.

The Barambah electorate is primarilyreliant on food production, with the productionof beef, pork, navy beans, peanuts, stonefruits, wines and various other lines. What isparticularly galling for most farmers, though, isthat the regulations they are subject to are notapplied to imported products, which are more


often than not of lesser quality and whoseproduction methods may be far below thoseenforced here. And therein lies the rub. Weenforce on our producers control measures sostringent that they often cripple those in theindustry and make them unviable but thenopenly invite lesser quality goods into thecountry to compete against our own products.

Nobody minds compliance, but I ask thatthe Government, when imposing thesemeasures on our producers, support ourproducers against the cheaper, lesser qualitycontrolled imports. It is important to rememberthat we are talking about food production fromthe paddock to the plate. This includes everyfood group—meat, fruit, vegetables, grainsand milk products. The butcheries haveundergone major changes, as has the dairyindustry, and no-one can deny that theysupply quality product.

We produce the highest quality productsin the South Burnett. If we had the necessarywater infrastructure we could be the salad bowlof the future, not only to rival but also to outdothe Lockyer. The possibilities are enormous,but when Governments ask so much of theirproducers it is essential that those sameGovernments support them against unfairmarket forces. It is time this Governmentstarted to recognise what most Governmentsof the world have recognised over manyyears—that is, the health of the agriculturalsector reflects the health of the country. Plinythe Elder, a Roman who lived from 23AD to79AD, wrote—

"We must, whatever happens,safeguard the family farm."

These words reflect the attitude of Europe andthe USA. Australia's Government philosophy isreflected in the words of Donald Horne, who in1960 wrote—

"Australians will congregate aroundthe seaboard. Inland there will be somecorporate farms, some disadvantagedpeasant types and some mining towns.The obvious outcome is—oblivion."

Without a major change of Governmentphilosophy, these words may very well beAustralia's agricultural epitaph.

Sitting suspended from 12.59 p.m. to2.30 p.m.

Mr FELDMAN (Caboolture—ONP)(2.30 p.m.): I rise to speak to the FoodProduction (Safety) Bill. Like many speakersbefore me, I have some concerns with respectto this legislation. As the honourable memberfor Lockyer said before, we will be moving an

amendment to a portion of this legislation atthe Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr Palaszczuk: There's no need to movethat amendment. Your amendment is going toconstrict the length of time that the Billprovides for.

Mr FELDMAN: We will debate that whenwe get to the Committee stage.

I have many concerns about thelegislation and the way in which it will impacton primary producers, especially those in myelectorate. I will probably speak to Part 5 of theBill. Those requirements will severely impact onthe ability of many of these primary producersto actually stay in business. At present the vastmajority of farmers and graziers are holding onto their farms and businesses by theirfingernails. There is certainly no fat left. In fact,it has been many years since there was anyfat left in primary production. Every time thereis a 1c increase in the cost of production, theremust be 1c shaved somewhere else. Farmersand fishermen alike are caught in the jaws of afinancial vice. They have input costs such asdiesel, chemicals, seed, fertiliser and fishingnets that they simply cannot do without. Whena further financial impost such as this comesalong, the primary producer has to decidewhat cost to shave so that he and his familyand workers can continue to eat and work.

What tends to happen initially is that thepurchase of machinery and equipment forreplacement or upgrading is delayedindefinitely or abandoned altogether. Thetactic works for a while, but as the oldequipment gets older and more tired, it losesefficiency. It breaks down more often, usuallyat critical times, which in turn leads toproduction losses and inefficiencies. It is alsolikely that during this time of financial stressother cost-saving measures will be used, suchas decreasing the amount of fertiliser appliedor perhaps reducing the sowing rate or tryingto get by with one less pass of the plough orone less application of pesticide. While thesemeasures and others will reduce costs in theshort term, they are all self-defeating as theywill also reduce production and thereforeincome. Meanwhile, the ageing machinerycosts more to operate as breakdowns requireexpensive replacement parts, the costs ofwhich can never adequately be recovered.

Before long, the vicious cycle developswhere it costs more to operate the oldequipment than it would have cost to buy newreplacements. Unfortunately, by this time thetrade-in value of the old gear is so low that it isimpossible to afford the upgrade, and beforelong, there is an ad in the classifieds section of


the local paper notifying potential buyers of anupcoming clearance sale. The next scene inthis all-too-common sequence is the gatheringof friends, neighbours and bargain hunters topick over the bones of what was once a stablefamily business.

This sequence is played out over andover again throughout this State as family farmafter family farm goes to the wall, in large partbecause of a decision made by this anti-bushGovernment. This legislation will significantlyincrease the cost of production of virtuallyevery food item in Queensland. The memberfor Warrego spoke of this when he was talkingabout accreditation. He said that it would notbring an extra brass razoo to production,especially in connection with wool. But it is thesame all over the State. These imposts andthese in-costs have to be taken up at someend of the scale. This is just one of the manybig sticks being used to bludgeon our primaryproducers into oblivion.

Currently our farmers and our fishermenare struggling to survive under the enormousfinancial impost of free trade, the GST and fuelprices, just to mention a few. If thisGovernment had a shred of feeling for thepeople of rural and regional Queensland, itwould be championing the cause of fair tradeas opposed to destructive free trade in supportof all workers and small employers inQueensland. It would also not have caved into the Federal Government on the GST, and itwould have done a better job of negotiating fora fair deal for Queenslanders in relation to fuelexcise. But as we all know, this Governmentdoes not care one jot for the wellbeing ofQueensland businesses or Queenslandworkers. It is inwardly focused and cares onlyabout greasing the right palms to ensure that itstays in Government.

This is just another example of what Iwould say is electoral rorting, and on a grandscale. The Minister and the Government havemisled and confused their employers, thepeople of Queensland. It has practised thepractised art of propagandists all over theworld: the art of telling lies and half-truths sooften and so consistently that normal, sane,thinking people start to really believe what isbeing dished out to them. This is not exactlythe type of electoral rorting that we have beenhearing about lately, but it is the sort that isdestroying rural communities over and overagain.

When we look at the word "rort", we seethat it can be either a verb or a noun. It is avery versatile little word with lots of meanings:trick; fraud; deceit; it can mean a wild party;

someone engaged in a sharp practice; and torig. That is what we see in some of the aspectsof this Bill, because people are being snowedinto what they think this Bill is actually conjuringup.

We all know that a need exists to protectthe consumers of food, but we do not want tosee people manipulated and pushed wherethey should not go. They should not bemanipulated. This Government is quite goodat that. Safe food will eventually take over. Theidea of having safe food production is givingeveryone out there a fair go to be able toproduce it. We on this side of the House andcertainly in City Country Alliance do not want tosee farmers disadvantaged when it comes tosafe food production. In response to whatsome people believe is being pushed overthem, they have come up with little phraseswhich typify the actions of the Government.One that has been mentioned to me is: I rort,therefore I govern. Some of that probablydoes have a truthful ring to it. But only thisGovernment has turned that rorting into an artform.

I apologise for digressing somewhat fromthe matter at hand, but this Governmentprovides so many distractions to draw us awayfrom the real business of governing that it issometimes difficult to resist having a passingshot at some of the things it does. Returningto the matter at hand, our primary producersare not in a position to pass on their costincreases to consumers. Virtually all theirproduce is perishable. They are, of necessity,price takers rather than price makers. This,unfortunately, ensures that the producer is atthe mercy of the buyer, particularly when thebuyer has the option of buying from overseasif the price of Australian produce is not to hisliking. All that will happen once this legislationis in place in Queensland is that primaryproducers will have the mythical level playingfield tilted just a few more degrees in favour ofthe imported goods. It will not be long beforethat mythical level playing field is in factvertical, and when that happens, there will benothing left to govern.

How long will it take the dim-wittedmembers on the other side of the House torealise that this will drive this State intooblivion, and what will be left for their children?Surely they are not so short-sighted and selfishthat they cannot see the mess that they aredestined to leave behind them. I canunderstand that they have no concern forthemselves, as they will mostly retire from thisplace on huge pensions, but that will not helptheir grandchildren. I implore members on bothsides of this House to give some thought to


the future plight of their children and theirgrandchildren when they make these politicaldecisions.

If the Queensland Government has agenuine concern about the quality and safetylevels of the current food supply and wishes toimplement new standards to improve thoselevels, then the Government should beprepared to pay the cost of implementingthose changes. That is right; the principle ofthe user pays should indeed be applied here.This Government loves to apply the user paysprinciple whenever it means that it cansqueeze our rural and regional communitiesjust that little bit harder, so why will it not applythe same principle in this situation? If peoplewant these unnecessary changes to the rules,then they should be asked to pay for them.Every farmer, every fisherman and everygrazier who, because of this legislation issaddled with extra compliance costs, must becompensated in full for the extraoutlays—including his own time.

This Government must put its moneywhere its mouth is and fork out the money tomeet the extra compliance costs. After all, partof the reason for these changes is to do awaywith the current system of monitoring that theMinister refers to as prescriptive. Prescriptiverefers to a system where the authorities put inplace a set of rules and then enforce them.This is a format that has worked for manyyears but now the Government wants tochange a system that does away withGovernment inspectors and the like. They willbe replaced with "an outcome-based approachthat places responsibility on food businessesto minimise food safety risks in their productionand handling processes". The ExplanatoryNotes go on to state—

"Under this regime, Government willincreasingly assume an approval andaudit role for preventive food safety."

In other words, this Government is about toabrogate its responsibilities to provideadequate inspection services by forcingprimary producers to carry the load. Under theold system a primary producer was consideredto be doing the right thing until he was foundto have committed an offence.

We have heard the other speakers talkabout the dairy industry where perhaps somedairies did need an upgrade, but those dairieswere inspected. If they needed that upgradeto bring about a food safety measure, that wasdone; they were inspected and they wererectified. The anomalies that were found werefixed up.

These farmers now have to decide whatwill be the right thing for them to be able tocomply with the provisions of this Bill. They willhave a great impost placed upon them to setstandards that probably, in some instances,will be way over the limit just because theyhave a fear of prosecution.

They should be presumed innocent untilproven guilty. Everybody recognises that as afundamental rule of law. I think that what weare doing here is placing an unfair burden on aprimary producer rather than havinginspections carried out. I believe that thislegislation reverses the onus of proof so thatevery primary producer in this State will nowhave to put in place those expensive systemsto prove his innocence, really, in advance. I donot think that there is any fairness in thatconcept. I know, as many of the otherspeakers have already said, that we have anonus of responsibility when we are producingfood, but that onus goes right along the wholelevel.

If I can pick up on something that themember for Tablelands said aboutsupermarkets, where fresh produce is put outfor display and people are walking aroundtouching it, picking it up and feeling it, andthere is—

Mr Palaszczuk: That area is a healthissue. It's got nothing to do with this legislation.

Mr FELDMAN: It is, but we are bringingup situations where people are saying thatanyone who gets ill or sick in thosecircumstances does so because of what wasdone by the primary producer. We seem to bepushing that onus and that responsibility backon the primary producer by saying it was hisfault that somehow the productionmechanisms that were in place were the rootcause of that occurring, rather than looking ata lot of other aspects of health. It is a healthresponsibility. However, we are pushing theblame for those illnesses that are picked upback onto the primary producer. We do notsee that as being fair or equitable in anycircumstances.

As we said, we will be looking at thoseamendments that are coming before theCommittee and we will pursue the one that wehave foreshadowed for reasons that we willhighlight as we deal with the clauses. We willbe supporting the majority of thoseamendments because we believe that this Billhas not got it quite right and that these thingsshould be fixed up now for the benefit ofeverybody who will have the extra cost or theextra burden placed on them by the rules andregulations provided under this Bill.


Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—IND)(2.45 p.m.): I rise to speak to the FoodProduction (Safety) Bill and to put on therecord some of the concerns that have beenexpressed to me, mainly by smaller operators,and I would be most interested in theMinister's response, particularly if thatresponse will give folk some peace of mindand some certainty.

The groups that have spoken to me maynot even be covered by the Bill—I am unclearmyself—but they are a group in the communitythat has contributed over a lot of years in greatmeasure. The groups that contacted mecurrently have outlets in things such as fetesand markets and they sell food. I know that ithas always been a vexed question for localgovernments across the State.

Mr Palaszczuk: It's got nothing to do withthis Bill, nothing at all.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Excellent, thankyou. So they will not be covered at all in thisBill? That will remain with Health?

Mr Palaszczuk: That's right.Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: That is excellent,

because a lot of those small operators felt thatthey may be caught in the Bill. They felt thatbecause of their obligations to improve theirstandards and the way in which they servedfood they might inadvertently or otherwise becaught up—

Mr Rowell: We're struggling in primaryindustries to get this done, and yet the otherside of it isn't getting fixed up either.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: That may be anissue that the member for Hinchinbrook canraise during the debate on the clauses.

The other issue that I wanted to raise withthe Minister was another matter forclarification. It refers to exemptions from theAct and it states that one of the groups that isexempt are premises on or from which primaryproduce is sold by retail. I would be interestedin a clarification in regard to whether, in someway or another, this may exempt the likes of Kmart or Big W that prepackage their meat inplastic bags. They put it on white trays and putplastic over the top. Is that an inadvertentexemption from the obligations of this FoodProduction (Safety) Bill?

I happen to think that our corner butchershops offer one of the best products available.There is one near where I live at Calliope, theCalliope butcher shop, and it sells an excellentproduct. The guy and his wife who run it are apair of characters, but they are being strangledconstantly. Our independently owned fruitshops and our independently owned butcher

shops are constantly being challenged by thebigger supermarkets that do not alwaysprovide the same level of service and certainlydo not always provide the same level ofproduct. There is nothing like those familybusinesses. I wonder whether things such asthe prepackaged meat that is sold at K mart orBig W could be exempted because of the waythat clause 6 reads.

Mr Palaszczuk: I have an amendment tosatisfy those concerns.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I look forward tothat amendment then, because that would bea great concern.

Mr Rowell interjected.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I read the mediarelease.

The other issue that I wanted to raise wasthe level of penalties. I do not think thatanybody could deny the importance of safefood. Nobody could deny that members of thecommunity need to be able to assume thatthe product that they are purchasing is sound.I am concerned about some of the penaltieswhich go up to $225,000 where—

Mr Palaszczuk: These penalties are nodifferent to the ones operating at present.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: So long aspeople do not inadvertently transgress whatwill become the Act. They may not be unsafeproducers but they just get caught in a glitch, ifyou like—a one-off—and they are bankruptedbecause of the size of the fines that will beimposed. They are significant. I will listen to theMinister's response.

The other issue that I wanted to raise wasraised by the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee and appears to me to be ananomalous situation. It is stated that thecurrent standards for food packaging are up to70 years old. Some are no longer relevant totoday's society, nor do they reflect currentpractices. A number have no real safety basisas their rationale yet require strict compliance.There are some examples given about ledgesand windowsills and so on. This is in theParliamentary Library legislation bulletin.

However, this Bill expressly excludessection 15DA of the Acts Interpretation Act,which concerns the automatic commencementand automatic expiry of parts of Bills. I wonderat the wisdom of excluding that automaticreview when we are told that the Act as itpresently stands is outdated and outmoded.The Minister is expressly excluding the sunsetclause on legislation which would obligate thereview.


Mr Palaszczuk: I have taken on boardthe concerns of the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee and I have amended it to satisfythose concerns.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I thank theMinister very much. I will be sitting down in aminute at this rate.

There are two other points I wish to raise.One point was touched on by other members,namely the impost that is placed on primaryproducers at a time when they can ill afford it. Ireiterate that I do not believe that anyone,including primary producers, is interested inproducing a less than acceptable product.Most of our primary producers—irrespective ofwhether it is meat, fruit, aquaculture orwhatever—are looking at producing the bestquality products that they can produce.

Additional costs passed on to primaryproducers at this time are more than they willbe able to cope with. The Bill appears to me tobe unclear as to how the new regulatorystructure is going to be funded. Previously, theQLMA and the Dairy Authority were funded bylevy, but that does not appear to be translatedacross to this Bill. I would be interested inreceiving clarification on how the costs will bestructured. How will this obligation sit with theprimary producers in covering the costs of thenew regulatory structure?

I thank the Minister for his assurances.People working in small food outlets were veryfrightened. I was surprised by the number whocontacted me when this information was firstmade public. These people were concernedthat they would not be able to survive. Thesepeople are often involved with fundraisers forcharities and schools. The Minister'sreassurances will certainly be passed on tothese people. I look forward to hearing theMinister's further comments on this legislation.

Mr TURNER (Thuringowa—IND)(2.52 p.m.): I support the thrust of the FoodProduction (Safety) Bill 2000, but there aresome things that no amount of legislation canaddress. Legislation alone is not enough; itneeds to be coupled with a total communityawareness program.

I also question the costs that arecontinuously put on to the food industry, and Ihope the Minister and the Government willlook at that and assist where possible becausethings in the rural sector are not financiallybright. We must apply rules that are cost-effective in relation to the risk of illness thatcould occur from certain sections of theindustry.

Legislation can never achieve majorresults in introducing hygiene into the food

industry. The way to guarantee results isthrough increased knowledge, motivation andbehavioural change. The training of managersand staff is essential. For example, it has beenproven in food processing establishments thatthe most important source of contamination istransmission by hand. Therefore, emphasismust be placed on increased understandingby staff of the consequences of notadequately washing hands, knives andutensils.

The impact of manpower has not receivedenough attention. People working in aproduction line are only effective if all thosepeople carry out the same hygienestandards—a break in the chain, and thewhole system collapses.

Not only education, but the ability of staffto access cleaning facilities quickly andconveniently without any inconvenience isparamount—otherwise it does not happen. Itrequires a team effort from the top, down tothe floor cleaners, whether it be a smallsnackbar or a processing factory. Theachievements of hygiene studies are clear. Notone of today's hygiene problems is insoluble intheory; yet, in practice, when problems occur,they are nearly always caused by humannegligence, and only constant monitoring,training and involvement by workers in theprocess will achieve the desired results. It isimportant that funding be cost-effective. Itshould be targeted at correcting the mostaffected areas of hygiene, and that isundoubtedly in the area of processed food.

One of the most significant reasons forthe rise in food-borne illness is the lifestylechange in our society. More people are eatingout, eating takeaway foods, and eating ready-prepared foods to cook at home. 60-80% offood-borne illness arises from the food serviceindustry. Dangerous strains of bacteria andviruses such as salmonella and E. coli havebeen responsible for nearly all incidences oflarge-scale food poisoning over the last fewyears, and all were from value-adding byfollow-on industries.

I believe that fruit and vegetable growersshould not be lumbered in with high-risk animalhusbandry and should be classified in the low-risk category. Recently, Freshcare waslaunched. This implements an auditing systemand extra food and water testing for thegrower. This translates into the fruit andvegetable farmer—often already on thebreadline—forking out more money to comply.

Growers are not against safe foodprograms that make sense, but with low-riskproduct they do object to overregulation. Many


of our growers are single-person or familybusinesses who cannot afford these extracosts. We should not want to have ourcommunity dependent upon food importedfrom other countries. We must ensure that wedo not drive our farmers out of businessthrough unnecessary regulations.

We should be actively promoting foodsafety in the home where many food-borneillnesses occur. In all areas of food processing,from home to factory, knowledge, motivation,education and behavioural change is the key.

Mr CONNOR (Nerang—LP) (2.56 p.m.): Irise to speak on a subject that I have spokenof previously in this House. The subject isbovine spongiform encephalitis—BSE—whichis commonly known in the United Kingdom asmad cow disease and its associated humandisease, CJD, or Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Iwill try to bring the Parliament up to date withthis issue, but before I do that I wish to make itabsolutely clear that I am unaware of anyoutbreak of mad cow disease in Australia. Iraise this issue here simply to help ensure thatwe do not see this terrible disease get a grip inAustralia.

On 22 September this year, it wasannounced that the Federal and StateGovernments had endorsed a national ban onpeople at risk of the human strain of mad cowdisease, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease,from giving blood. Under the ban, people whohad lived in the United Kingdom for six monthsduring the height of the mad cow diseaseepidemic, between 1980 and 1996, would bestopped from donating blood. It will be liftedonly if evidence refutes research carried out inthe UK last month which suggests that V-CJDcan be transferred via blood. This measure isto counter the risk of transmission ofCreutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the fatal brainailment linked to mad cow disease.

The medical journal The Lancet reportedthree weeks ago that research by scientists atthe Institute for Animal Health in Edinburghshowed that BSE can be transmitted by blood.On 26 September, the Courier-Mail carried anarticle that this ban may be extended after UKcattle recently contracted mad cow disease.Previously, it had been thought that thedisease had been eradicated in the UK beefherd. These measures have much in commonwith similar measures that were taken morethan 12 months ago in the US and Canada.

In August 1999, the United States andCanada both decided that, as a precaution,people who had spent a cumulative sixmonths or more in the United Kingdombetween 1980 and 1996 should be barred as

blood donors in their respective countries. Ifind it quite alarming that it took over 12months longer to initiate this policy inQueensland and Australia. If we do get anoutbreak of the human form of this disease inAustralia as a result of blood transfusions therewill be a lot of explaining to be done.

I would now like to deal with a number ofcommonly held myths in relation to thisdisease.

Mr Palaszczuk: Before you go on, we'vegot to get this point across. There is no madcow disease in Queensland or inAustralia—especially in Queensland, becauseof the QLMA and the meat standards inAustralia and because of the preventivemeasures we have put in place.

Mr CONNOR: I accept that.

Mr Palaszczuk: I want to get that on therecord. It is very important.

Mr CONNOR: I accept that, but what weare talking about now is the human level. Thatis why the US, Canadian and AustralianGovernments have brought in this ban. It is anattempt to try to ensure that it does nothappen in the human population in Australia.

Mr Palaszczuk: I know what you'resaying, but people misunderstand it. As longas you don't criticise—

Mr CONNOR: I prefaced this statement bysaying that as far as I am aware there is notone case of mad cow disease in Australia.

Mr Palaszczuk interjected.

Mr CONNOR: I prefaced my wholestatement on the basis that, as far as I amaware, there is no mad cow disease inAustralian herds.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Nelson-Carr): Order! Is it necessary for the member tocontinue in this way?

Mr CONNOR: I apologise, but I wasprovoked by the Minister.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! No, Iwas questioning the relevance of the point thatthe member is making.

Mr CONNOR: We are discussing the FoodProduction (Safety) Bill. BSE is contracted as aresult—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Butnot in Australia. Perhaps the member mightmove on to his next point.

Mr CONNOR: Mad cow disease is notlimited just to the UK. These bans were put inplace in Australia only a matter of a few weeksago. It is relevant to Australia and


Queensland. Queensland was a party to this.It relates directly to food.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Themember for Nerang will move on to his nextpoint.

Mr CONNOR: If I can continue, it willbecome evident why it relates to food. That iswhy I am speaking on this topic.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Goahead.

Mr CONNOR: I would now like to deal witha number of commonly held myths in relationto this disease. To do this, I will be quotingextensively from the World Health Organisationand the UK Creutzfeldt-Jakob DiseaseSurveillance Unit at the University ofEdinburgh. The first myth is that it occurredonly in the UK. Wrong! I am talking about madcow disease, which is about food. As memberswill see, there have already been outbreaks innumerous other countries. The second myth isthat it is under control and that the number ofpeople contracting it is on the decline. Thenumber of recent UK deaths has alsodisproved that. The third myth is that thisdisease is limited to cattle. The World HealthOrganisation has documented the discovery ofthe disease in numerous other animals.

I will now quote variously from WorldHealth Organisation fact sheet No. 113 ofNovember 1996. It states—

"Bovine spongiform encephalopathy(BSE) first came to the attention of thescientific community in November 1986with the appearance in cattle of a newly-recognised form of neurological disease inthe United Kingdom (UK). BetweenNovember 1986 and 31 May 1996approximately 160 000 cases of thisnewly-recognised cattle disease wereconfirmed in the UK. Epidemiologicalstudies conducted in the United Kingdomsuggested that the source of the diseasewas cattle feed prepared from carcassesof dead ruminants, and that changes inthe process of preparing cattle feedintroduced in 1981-1982 may have beena contributing risk factor. Speculation asto the cause of the appearance of thedisease in the food chain of cattle hasranged from spontaneous occurrence incattle, the carcasses of which thenentered the cattle food chain, to entry intothe cattle food chain from the carcassesof sheep with a similar disease ..."—

known as scrapie—"BSE is associated with a

transmissible agent, the nature of which is

not yet fully understood. The agentaffects the brain and spinal chord of cattleand lesions are characterised by sponge-like changes visible with an ordinarymicroscope. It is a highly stable agent,resisting heating at normal cookingtemperatures and to even highertemperatures such as those used forpasteurisation, sterilisation at usualtemperatures and times, as well as tofreezing and drying. The disease is fatalfor cattle within weeks to months of itsonset.

By October 1996, BSE had beenreported from 10 countries and areasoutside the UK. In one group ofcountries—France, Portugal, Republic ofIreland and Switzerland—the diseaseoccurred in native cattle, and this wasthought to be largely related toimportation of cattle feed from the UK. Inanother group—Canada, Denmark,Falkland Islands ... Germany, Italy, andOman Sultanate—cases were onlyidentified in cattle imported from the UK.In July 1988, the UK banned the use ofruminant proteins in the preparation ofcattle feed, and in November 1989 itbanned the use of brain and spinalchord—as well as tonsil, thymus, spleenand intestine—of cattle origin (known asSpecified Bovine Offals or SBOs) in foodsfor human consumption. Cattle arecontinuously monitored for BSE, and BSEis decreasing in the UK.

BSE is one of several different formsof transmissible brain disease of animals.Others include scrapie, a diseasecommon in sheep; a similar neurologicaldisease in animals such as the mink, andin North America in mule, deer and elk;and, recently, a neurological disease inhousehold cats"—

obviously the Minister is not interested—

"and in captive ruminant and felinespecies, the majority of which appear tohave been in the United Kingdom.

...

A newly recognised variant form ofCJD (V-CJD) was identified in 10 patientsin the UK during the 12 month periodafter the WHO meeting of May 1995 andwas first reported by the UK in March1996. In contrast to typical cases ofsporadic CJD, this variant form affectedmainly young patients with a relativelylong duration of illness as compared toclassical CJD.


Following the report of the 10 cases,WHO convened its fifth consultation inApril 1996. As had been the case in otherconsultations, public health experts andspecialists in the transmissible spongiformencephalopathies from around the worldwere invited to attend. The consultationreviewed the clinical and pathological datafrom the 10 cases of the newly identifiedvariant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease andconcluded that no definite link betweenBSE and the variant of Creutzfeldt-JakobDisease could be established on the basisof current knowledge, but thatcircumstantial evidence suggested thatexposure to BSE was the most likelycause.

On 3 September 1996, after thepublication of further scientific informationthat vertical transmission of BSE hasbeen shown to occur in well-designedstudies in the UK, and the publication ofthe results of mathematical modeling ofthe future trend of the BSE epidemic inthe UK, WHO invited five of the UnitedKingdom scientists who conducted thesestudies to present their data to an internalWHO group. Though this data does notappear to change recommendationsmade earlier this year, a seventhconsultation of international experts inpublic health and BSE is being organisedto take place in early 1997 with thepurpose of reviewing the new scientificinformation from the United Kingdom inlight of the WHO recommendations onmedicinal products, medical devices, foodand other products of bovine origin andmilk.

By the end of October 1996 14cases of V-CJD had been reported in theUK and one in France ..."

People often believe that the deaths from thisdisease are limited to England. They are not.In as early as 1996 we started seeing deathsoutside the UK. The fact sheet continues—

"... geographical distribution of theincidence of V-CJD, however, needs to bebetter defined."I now wish to table a table from the World

Health Organisation that details the number ofdeaths from variant CJD from 1990 to 2000.What one will see from this table is that thenumber of deaths and confirmed andunconfirmed cases of this disease hasdramatically increased in the past 12 months.Last year the number of confirmed CJD deathswas 14. So far this year there have alreadybeen 14 people who have died and another

13 who have been diagnosed or confirmedwith it. It has effectively doubled in the past 12months. I will now move on to the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease fact sheet, which states—

"Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) isan infectious rapidly progressive fatalbrain-deteriorating disease for which thereis no treatment or cure. Most scientistsbelieve CJD is caused by a prion, which isa protein. Traditional sterilisation methodsdo not inactivate the CJD infectiousagent. The incubation period for CJDvaries greatly with symptoms emerging inknown cases in as few as 15 months toas long as 30 years"—

so 30 years is the incubation period—

"after exposure. There is no preclinicaltest after a possible exposure todetermine if infection actually took place."

So we have absolutely no idea how manypeople have been in contact with this. Wehave no way of knowing. There could beliterally hundreds of thousands. In Englandthey believe there could be that many peoplewho have come into contact with it. The factsheet continues—

"In August, 1999 United States andCanada both decided that, as aprecaution, people who had spent acumulative 6 or months in the UnitedKingdom between 1980 and 1996 shouldbe barred as blood donors in theirrespective countries.

Up to 31st December 1999, 51 casesof V-CJD had been identified in the UK(49 definite, 2 probable), and a furthercase was confirmed in January 2000.Twenty-eight (54%) of the 52 cases werewomen. The median age at onset ofdisease was 28 years and the medianage at death was 29 years (comparedwith 65 years for the median age at deathfor sporadic CJD)."—

or conventional—

"The two youngest cases were aged 14years at onset while the oldest case wasaged 53 years. The median duration ofillness was 14 months ... The mediandelay between onset of disease andconfirmation of the diagnosis"—

in other words, death—

"was 15 months ... This has notdecreased over time. Further informationcan be found at their web site"—

Mr Palaszczuk: What has this got to dowith the Bill?


Mr CONNOR:—which is atw3.aces.uiuc.edu/AnSci/BSE/cjdlink.htm.

I now quote from a very recent article thatappeared in the Gold Coast Bulletin on 18September this year headed "Mums may givebaby 'mad cow' ". It states—

"Medical experts believe a motherwho died after contracting the humanform of 'mad cow' disease may havepassed the disease on to her babydaughter. The child, who is now almost 11months old, has apparently beenexamined by doctors who report that sheis showing symptoms of the deadlyCreutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

The infant, who cannot be named forlegal reasons, is said to have braindamage and has been suffering from fitsand convulsions, according to a Britishnewspaper account."

I now wish to quote very briefly from the UKCreutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Support Network,basically so that people know what thesymptoms are. It states—

"The exact time of onset of theillness can be very difficult to determine.Often at first there are subtle lapses ofmemory for day-to-day events, althoughsometimes mood changes, in particular,loss of interest and withdrawal frominvolvement in social activities areapparent. Decline in ability at work fortasks that were previously simple is oftennoted. At this point, the illness may bepassed off by friends, relatives, anddoctors as a mild depression. However,within a few weeks other features quicklyappear: a vague unsteadiness andhesitancy in walking, deteriorating vision(often the patient may mistake everydayobjects for something else, or evenexperience hallucinations), slight slurringand slowing of speech, and a difficulty infinding the right word when trying to holda conversation. There is usually a rapiddownhill course, with the development ofincontinence ... jerky movements,shakiness, stiffness of the limbs, and lossof the ability to move or speak. Mercifully,only in the very early stages are thepatients aware of anything amiss, andusually complain of clumsiness, feelingmuddled, or blurring of eyesight. As thedisease progresses they lose awarenessof their surroundings and of theirdisabilities. Some of the agitation thatmay be seen is a reflex phenomenonrather than true distress, this is particularlythe case as regards the shakiness.

Individuals affected by CJD usuallysuccumb"—

they die—

"within 6 months of the onset of thedisease, often through pneumonia. Inonly 10% of cases does the disease run amore prolonged course of 2-5 years, andin those cases, the first years may onlyinvolve loss of memory and some difficultywith complex tasks. The only way in whichthe diagnosis can be made with certaintyis to examine the brain after death."

The Minister might think it is strange that I amso interested in this topic. The reason is thatmy mother died from it about two years ago.That is why I am so interested and that is why Ipay so much attention to it.

Mr Palaszczuk: Why bring it up in here?Mr CONNOR: Because I do not want to

see anyone else catch it in Australia because itis the worst possible form of death peoplecould ever imagine. It makes cancer lookgood. If the Minister saw a loved one gothrough this, he would feel just as concernedthat we do not see an outbreak of this inAustralia.


Mr CONNOR: Sorry?Mr Sullivan: What category is it under, 1

to 6, he said.

Mr CONNOR: What category?Mr Palaszczuk: Yes.

Mr CONNOR: We may be in a lowcategory, but the fact of the matter is thatthere are people in Australia who have beengiving blood for the past 12 months when itwas in banned in other countries and who canvery easily move it into the Australianpopulation. We have so many British migrantsand British visitors we have to be very careful.As well as that there is also—

Mr Palaszczuk: I understand that. I amsorry, but it should not be brought up in thisBill.

Mr CONNOR: This is my turn. The Ministerwill get his turn in a minute. There is also asignificant risk of other forms of animalsbringing this in as well. People are not awarethat it comes in via cats. How many cats comeover with British migrants or whatever? It is notjust the UK; it is through Europe and manyother countries as well. We have to be very,very careful of this disease.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Nelson-Carr): Order! Could the member explain howthat has relevance to this Bill?


Mr CONNOR: I have finished.

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA)(3.15 p.m.): I would like to speak briefly to theFood Production (Safety) Bill.

Mr Palaszczuk: When you say "briefly",you mean only a few minutes?

Mr HORAN: I do not think I will. It mightbe 10 minutes, but it will be 20 minutes'content.

The concern of most of the speakersthroughout this debate has been whateventually is going to be the accreditation andaudit imposts that will be put in place. All of usagree on the importance of food safety, and Ithink it is important that primary producers whohold significant markets do not ever lose thosemarkets, that there never develops theperception of any potential danger but, rather,the reverse: that Australian products aredeveloped even further, that they retain thegood reputation they have now for their highquality, freshness and standards, and thebenefits of purchasing Australian produce,whether it is here for Australians or whether it isfor the export marketing niche that we areparticularly looking for.

One of the important issues about this Billis that most of the major instances of foodpoisoning occur in the various processing,hospitality or catering areas. I remember someof the major outbreaks that occurred when Iwas Health Minister and where they occurred.What the Ministering is addressing here is theinitial production, transportation and so forth.In the case of the meat industry, he is goingright through to the wholesaling, retailing andprocessing sections of the meat industry.Many of the other problems that occur—andsome of the well-publicised ones haveoccurred in airlines and various otherinstitutions—have occurred through theprocess of putting the product together. As Iunderstand it, that is where the next stage ofthis process will come into play, and that iswhere Health will take over. This Bill relates tothe initial stages. It goes further with meat, butfrom then on the Health Department will takeover in the food safety model that is puttogether. That is going to be very, veryimportant.

The Bill that we are debating today isabout primary production. Some very goodpoints have been put forward about theprocess of accreditation and how often peoplehave to go through the process, how oftenthey have to have the audits done and soforth. Year by year there are additional costs tobusinesses and additional processes that they

have to go through. It all adds to the cost ofthe business. Ultimately, it all adds to how wellthey can compete when they sell their product.Businesses, particularly rural businesses, areoften trying to cope with using far fewer staffthan they had a decade or two ago. Oftenthey have wound down to a family business. Ithink it is important to make sure that what isput in place, whilst being under the mantle ofsafety, is still practical, sensible and is notgoing over the top.

Under the head of powers, clause 79 onpage 45 provides enormous powers in relationto unauthorised production of primary produce.It startled me when I first read the words. Ifsomeone has a farm, they would pick this upand think, "I have to get authorisation to growsome primary produce whether I am growingsome parsley, some pumpkins or a few headof cattle or sheep." But when they look into itthey would see that it is about primaryproduction in an area where they must haveaccreditation.

There is no doubt that those areas whichneed accreditation will be extended, becausethis Bill gives the head of power to do that with2,000 penalty units or imprisonment for twoyears. However, there needs to be somepracticality in this process. We need to ensurethat the importance of market share andmarket advantage with good, green and safeproduce is borne in mind. At the same time,we need to ensure that the accreditation andauditing processes fit into the way the industryworks. The primary industries sector consists ofa number of operations which range in size.They vary from big corporations which operatemajor enterprises that have at their disposalprofessional staff and a whole chain ofcommand through to family operations andeven small hobby farm operations.

Many properties on the Darling Downswhich used to be used for full-time farmingoperations are now used partly for lifestyle andpartly for production with, say, only 30 head ofcattle. It is just as important that theseproducers do things correctly, because a smallfew should not ruin the businesses of thosewho use these industries full time and whohave no other outside income to depend on.At the same time, there has to becommonsense. Regardless of whether it is asmall operation, a medium operation or amajor operation, it still has to be practical. Thelogistics of doing certain processes andprocedures for a major beef cattle operation ingulf country are huge, as are the logistics ofchecking certain aspects of the property. All ofthat has to be taken into account.


It is important that we keep ourcompetitive marketing advantage and thatpeople have confidence in Australian food andAustralian food products. As we delve into thisnew sphere with this Bill, we need to ensurethat the accreditation and auditing process issensible and practical. I have heard commentsfrom members contributing to the debatetoday about small food stalls. This issueconcerns people, particularly those involvedwith various sporting and communityorganisations such as Girl Guides. There isalso a proliferation of markets around thisState where produce is sold. Food is sold andmarketed in many different ways, and that hasto be taken into account.

This Bill allows for far-reaching powers inthe future. Whilst it may not be the intent nowto go over the top, there is that potential in theBill, particularly with regard to the clause Imentioned. During the second-reading debateand the Committee stage it is essential that weensure that this Bill does not proceed to thestage at which it gets ridiculously complicated.It needs to remain sensible and practical.

Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP)(Minister for Primary Industries and RuralCommunities) (3.23 p.m.), in reply: I thank allhonourable members who participated indebate on the Food Production (Safety) Bill.This Bill is a very important one forQueensland producers and consumers alike.There are a few issues which have been raisedin the course of this debate that I want tomention and respond to. Queensland is notjumping the gun, as has been alleged by afew members. However, our State will be aleader in this area. It will be the first State inAustralia to have in place legislation as avehicle to deliver the proposed national foodsafety standards. This legislation makesprovisions for producers to be actively involvedin the development of food safety schemes.

In framing this Bill, this State has movedto a point where primary producers are betterrepresented whilst ensuring that their interestsin delivering safe food are balanced with tradeconsiderations. "Trade considerations" is theoperative phrase. This is in contrast to thesituation in Victoria where they are developedin isolation from industry. Many membersraised the issue that there are no examples ofserious illness in Queensland from foodpoisoning coming from primary production. Iremind members about the Wallis Lakesincident, which involved the consumption ofraw oysters.

Mr Rowell interjected.

Mr PALASZCZUK: That is okay. If thehonourable member wants me to, I will gothrough a number of incidents that haveoccurred in Queensland, but I would rathernot. I hope that honourable members oppositein their opposition to this Bill are not seriouslysuggesting that we sit back and wait for suchan incident to occur. This Government is aboutputting in place preventive measures ratherthan waiting to react once lives have beenplaced at risk. There is plenty of evidence bothinterstate and overseas of the risks of food-borne illness and death, and they are veryreal.

I want to make specific reference to somepoints made by the honourable member forHinchinbrook, the shadow Minister for PrimaryIndustries, Marc Rowell. I believe that themember for Hinchinbrook has mixed hismetaphors and may have inadvertently misledthose who are following this debate. In hisspeech, the member for Hinchinbrook referredto categories of risk, mentioning milk and fruitin the same categories as his example. For astart, that is not even in the Bill. He is referringto categorisations compiled by the AustraliaNew Zealand Food Authority. Thiscategorisation was a direct result of the recentoutbreak of salmonella from orange juice inSouth Australia. Let me explain to the Househow that happened.

Mr Rowell: Are you saying I ammisleading you?

Mr PALASZCZUK: Yes.

Mr Rowell interjected.Mr PALASZCZUK: What I am saying is

that it has absolutely nothing to do with thisBill. Let me get back to the orange juiceincident in South Australia. When most peoplethink about food poisoning and orange juice,they would immediately think of processing. Inthis case, however, that was not so. Theproblem in this case was traced all the wayback to the packing shed and to the boxes inwhich the oranges were to be transported forprocessing. The boxes were dirty. When theoranges arrived at the processing plant, theywere crushed whole. I am sure honourablemembers would realise what I am saying, thatis, that the disease was on the oranges whenthey went to the crushing plant. As aconsequence, 40 or 50 people in SouthAustralia suffered salmonella poisoning. Thatis the point I am making.

There was also the incident in northQueensland where a number of diners at ahotel suffered the same fate. For all intentsand purposes, my understanding is that theresults of that investigation went all the way


back to the purchase of cracked eggs. Asimilar situation occurred on one of our airlineseither early this year or late last year. Whenthat was traced back, it, too, came back tocracked eggs. Those incidents are notisolated. They are very real. That is one reasonwhy this Government is progressing with thislegislation. At the end of the day, we need toensure that consumers are confident that theycan eat food that is provided for them and,more importantly, that they are confident thatthe source of the food is audited and thereforethe food is produced in a safe manner.

Dr Kingston: You are sayingmicrobiologically?

Mr PALASZCZUK: Microbiologically. Thatis right.

Mr Rowell: Can I take a point of order,Minister?

Mr PALASZCZUK: Yes, sure.Mr ROWELL: On the information I have

been provided, ANZFA has in the medium-riskcategory foods such as fruit and vegetables,canned meat, pasteurised milk, ice-cream,peanut butter and milk-based confectionery.Do we acknowledge ANZFA? I was drawingattention to the particular foods in ANZFA'smedium-risk category. That is the statement Imade. I do not think I was misleading theHouse. The Minister can prove me wrong.

Mr PALASZCZUK: I beg to differ with thehonourable member, but I accept hisexplanation.

Mr Rowell: Do we accept ANZFA'sassessment of what is medium risk and what islow risk?

Mr PALASZCZUK: There is no problemwith that at all. We are talking about the FoodProduction (Safety) Bill of Queensland—ourBill. We are not talking about the ANZFA Bill.

Mr Rowell: We do not recognise ANZFA?Is that what you are saying?

Mr PALASZCZUK: No, I am not sayingthat at all. I was going to say that the memberfor Hinchinbrook should try to stay with the Billbefore this House, but in light of what he said Ido not think I will.

This Bill does not seek to regulate quality,nor should it. Quality is a commercial matter. Irefer to voluntary codes such as Freshcare.The honourable member for Thuringowa has avery close interest in Freshcare. He hascorresponded with me on this issue on anumber of occasions. He has also asked mequestions in the House on this issue. Voluntarycodes such as Freshcare have beendeveloped by industry representative bodies

such as Queensland Fruit and VegetableGrowers in conjunction with the Department ofPrimary Industries and other StateGovernment agencies and are currently beingimplemented. This should address themember's issues in relation to vegetablehandling at the markets, for example. This isalso the case for products returned a long timeafter producers thought they had been sold.

Queensland's Farm Produce MarketingAct, which had sought to control quality issues,was repealed last year following a review thatshowed that the Act was inappropriate andineffective. It is because of this that QFVG hasdeveloped a voluntary code of conduct formarketing of produce. It is consistent with theapproach adopted in other States.

The honourable member for Hinchinbrookalso made a great deal about food comingfrom overseas being of a lesser standard thanAustralian produce. He stated that this putsour primary producers at a cost disadvantageto imported products. For the benefit of thehonourable member, I inform him that heshould be aware that the standards applicableto foods imported into Australia are those setdown in the Food Standards Code and thatthose same standards apply to foodsmanufactured in Australia. The FSC isdeveloped by the Australia New Zealand FoodAuthority and is administered by the StateHealth Departments.

I will now answer some of the morespecific questions asked. First, what are theestimated costs to fishers, grain farmers,butchers and so on? That will be a matter forthe Food Safety Advisory Committee todetermine in full consultation with industry.What I can say is that the Bill is designed toensure maximum economy in the costs ofauditing, along with implementing andmanaging, food safety schemes. This will beachieved through using local governmentenvironmental health officers and third-partyauditors to conduct audits. This will ensure thatmarket forces dictate the costs.

How many audits will there be in eachyear? Again, I think it is important to note thatit will be up to the food safety committee,which will have industry representation, todetermine the frequency and number ofaudits. This will vary from product to productand will be determined through scientific riskassessment conducted to determine thehazards and the points at which they occur inthe production process.

Will competitive trade secrets be audited?Food safety is about self-assessment, which isdocumented in a person's own food safety


program. It is this program that is audited.Under third-party auditing, people are able tochoose an auditor in whom they haveconfidence.

What uniformity will there be acrossAustralia? I refer to what I said previously. Weare concerned about having an appropriatevehicle in Queensland to implement thenational food safety standards. We believe thisis part of it.

How do they compare with exportstandards? In cases where overseasstandards are more stringent, this Bill aims toachieve economies of efficiency because itestablishes, in conjunction with industry,minimum food safety standards. If theimporting country requires standards greaterthan the minimum adopted by those primaryproducers, it will require a minimal cost to addthese on. This is a major cost saving on thecurrent practices, whereby people wishing toexport have to comply with a number ofstandards. This will in many instances removethe need for an extra audit by BiosecurityAustralia. In addition, some importing countrieshave indicated that they are prepared toaccept produce that complies with theminimum food safety standards proposedunder this legislation. This will leaveQueensland producers well placed to takeadvantage of export markets at minimal cost.

How will consumer perception beaddressed? The example used was ice-creammade without milk. ANZFA has recently agreedunder its codes of practice that the contents ofany product should be labelled clearly andconcisely so that the consumer can determineclearly and concisely exactly what is in thepackage. That is, the new labellingrequirements introduced by ANZFA state thatthe label must clearly identify what is containedin the product. Again, this is not a matter forthis Bill, it is covered under the Food Act,administered by my colleague the Minister forHealth. I also mention the cake stalls andother related issues which have been raised bya number of members during this debate.Once again, this area is administered by mycolleague the Minister for Health under theFood Act.

I thank the member for Maryborough forhis tip about refrigerating cooked rice. I will givesome consideration to that the next time Ihave some leftovers from one of the takeawayChinese places operating in my area.

Some other very important issues wereraised. The honourable member for Southportraised the issue of costs to dairy farmers inrelation to accreditation and so on within the

dairy industry. Nothing will change. When theQLMA and the QDA are merged, nothing willchange. I believe we will actually implementsome cost savings in that area. As per usual,those cost savings will be passed on. Thisyear, some of the excess funds we had inreserve in the QDA were passed on to ourdairy farmers. Basically, the Governmentwaived the audit fees for our dairy farmers forthis year because of the tight economicposition they were in.

I thank all honourable members for theirparticipation in this debate. I have taken onboard most of the issues that have beenraised. I was concerned by the contribution ofthe honourable member for Nerang.Honourable members have the right to speakwhenever and on whatever issues they wish,but I believe that his contribution this afternoonwas inappropriate in the context of the Billbefore the House.

Motion agreed to.

CommitteeHon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP)

(Minister for Primary Industries and RuralCommunities) in charge of the Bill.

Clause 1, as read, agreed to.

Clause 2—Mr PALASZCZUK (3.40 p.m.): I move the

following amendment—

"At page 10, lines 9 and 10—omit."

The Government moves an amendmentto clause 2. Clause 2 sets out the parts thatcommence on proclamation. Clause 2(2)provides that section 15DA of the ActsInterpretation Act 1954 does not apply in Part12, Division 1. This provision repeals the DairyIndustry Act 1993. This means that theGovernment could repeal the Dairy Act at anytime and not within the two-year period asprovided by section 15DA of the ActsInterpretation Act 1954. The reason theGovernment sought relief from section 15DAof the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 was in casethe deregulation of the dairy industry did notoccur. However, as this Parliament knows,such deregulation has occurred through therecently passed amendments to the Dairy Act.In the circumstances, there is now no reasonto seek relief from section 15DA of the ActsInterpretation Act 1954, and the amendmentto clause 2(2) omits the inclusion of section15DA.

Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.


Clauses 3 to 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (MrKaiser): I advise the Committee that MrRowell's amendments 1 and 2 are the sameas the Minister's amendments 2 and 3.

Mr ROWELL: I would like to speak to myamendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: TheMinister has lodged amendments 2 and 3 inhis name, so I call the Minister.

Mr PALASZCZUK (3.43 p.m.): TheGovernment moves an amendment to clause6(3) of the Bill. Clause 6 provides someexemptions from the application of the Act.Meat retail premises are regulated under theBill, but there was to be an exemption forthose meat retail premises selling onlyprepackaged meat. These premises were tofall within Queensland Health's responsibility.However, through consultation with the meatindustry and Queensland Health, theGovernment has decided that this legislationwill require the regulation of all meat retailpremises from which raw meat is sold,regardless of whether that meat isprepackaged or not. This will ensure that allraw meat is processed, packaged and sold soit is safe for human and animal consumption.To achieve this end, the definition of "meatretail premises" is to be amended to no longerinclude the exemption relating to premiseswhere only prepackaged meat is sold.

I thank Bob McLeod for his tirelessrepresentations on behalf of the industry toeffect the amendment that the Government ismoving. I understand that the Government'samendment is exactly the same as theOpposition's.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Before Icall the shadow Minister, I ask the Minister toformally move amendments 2 and 3 standingin his name.

Mr PALASZCZUK: I move the followingamendments—

"At page 12, lines 10 to 12—

omit, insert—

'is sold ready for immediateconsumption.'.

At page 12, lines 17 to 22—

omit."

Mr ROWELL: As I have stressed already,the Opposition supports efforts to maintainfood safety standards, and especially in thosefood sectors where there is higher risk. Themeat industry, of course, has been at the

forefront of the adoption of HACCP basedquality assurance, having operated under sucha system since 1993. The Queensland meatindustry has arguably led the rest of the nationand most of the other food sectors in theadvancement of food safety, but it is anachievement that has come at a considerablecost. As a result of its efforts, the meat industryis acutely aware of the risks posed by unsafeor unwholesome food and is very mindful ofthe requirements for the successfulmanagement of food safety programs.

The Minister has made much of the Bill'sapparent object to improve food safetystandards. He dwelled on the risks of foodsafety breakdowns in his second-readingspeech. He cited various examples, includingthe tragic Garibaldi incident, which resulted inthe death of a young girl and thehospitalisation of 17 others. So it struck me aspassing strange when we discovered thisclause in the Bill, which effectively provides amassive loophole for some meat retailers anda glaring risk to the very food safety standardsthat the Minister purports to be trying topromote.

As currently worded—and now theMinister has moved the exact amendment thatI proposed—clause 6(3) of the Bill specificallyexcludes those retail premises that sell onlyprepackaged meat from coverage under thisBill. In doing so, it effectively allows them toescape the Bill's requirements for food safetystandards in the meat industry. To allow suchan exclusion for prepackaged meat wouldpermit a major segment of the retail freshmeat industry to operate without approved Q-Safe food safety programs while theircompetitors would have to continue to operateunder the Q-Safe system with its attendantresponsibilities and cost.

Exclusion of prepacked meat from the Billwould have allowed those selling prepackagedmeat to avoid the construction andmaintenance standards currently required ofthose retail meat outlets operating under theMeat Industry Act and Q-Safe food safetyprograms. This will not now happen becausewe have agreement, and I am pleased that Ipushed the Minister to make this change.What this meant was that anyone could simplyget hold of a heap of cryovac packs of meatand sell them out of the back of a ute with norefrigeration in the glaring hot sun without anyfear of breaching this Act or the meatindustry's food safety standards, becausethose standards would not apply as a result ofthe Minister's loophole. That is an outlandishexample, but under the Bill as it stands, itcould have occurred. But now we have


agreement, and that is great. In fact, Iunderstand that an incident, although nowherenear as serious, has already occurred.

There is no rhyme or reason for thisprovision as it is currently provided in the Bill. Iunderstand the rationale for it comes down tonothing more than a turf war between theHealth Department and the DPI—

Mr Palaszczuk: Not true.

Mr ROWELL: The Minister should not saythat. He has been espousing today that thereis one section—the shop end—which isserviced by the Health Department, and theother part—the farm sector—which is servicedby the Minister's department. That is what thisaccreditation Bill is all about. The Ministershould not say that it is not true, because thismeat could have been sold at a retail level.Isn't that true? The Minister makes nocomment.

I have to support the Minister'samendment, which is identical to theamendment that I proposed. I am pleasedthat the Minister has seen the error of his waysand gone ahead with the amendment. Had henot done so, we could have seen meat soldoff the back of a truck in the hot sun, whichcould have been very detrimental to the safetyof Queenslanders.

Amendment agreed to.Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 10, as read, agreed to.

Clause 11—

Mr ROWELL (3.50 p.m.): This clauseprovides an all-encompassing definition ofprimary production for the purposes of this Bill.It potentially allows the Government to use thelegislation to regulate every single facet ofprimary production right back to the farm leveland to activities such as mustering, harvesting,planting and so on. This definition paves theway for the Government, if it has a mind to, tointervene in the running of a farm or fishingbusiness like never before.

The Minister has given the usualassurance about working with industry andhaving consultation, but the fact remains thatthe Government is arming itself with some ofthe most far-reaching legislative powers overprimary producers ever seen in this State.

Clause 11, as read, agreed to.Clauses 12 and 13, as read, agreed to.

Clause 14—

Dr KINGSTON (3.54 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 16, lines 20 and 21—

omit, insert—'(j) to provide adequate funding for—

(i) the development of rapid diagnostictesting techniques for pathogens infood; and

(ii) research relating to food safetymatters for primary produce.'."

I move this amendment because I think thatthe Minister and his advisers have severelyunderestimated the work necessary toimplement this Bill in a constructive manner.Additionally, I think they have underestimatedthe advances in technology and knowledgethat are essential before this legislation canwork.

Speakers have spoken glibly aboutimproved TQA and HACCP on farm and inprocessing works. This involves the definitionof the critical control points following riskanalysis. Risk analysis may demonstrateunacceptable hazards and consequentlyprompt emphatic recommendations forintervention. Effective intervention is definedas procedures allowing the attainment of anacceptable risk, which is defined as risk of amagnitude as low as reasonably achievable,and those words are condensed to ALARA.

Processing for safety involves the WilsonTriad—

(1) The elimination of unwanted organisms tothe highest sensible achievable extent by,firstly, keeping an initial colonisation to aminimum and, secondly, increasingmicrobiological lethality to the highestlevel compatible with the preservation ofnutritive value and sensory attributes andat an acceptable cost level.

(2) Avoiding recontamination of treatedcommodities which would nullify the effectof the treatment referred to under (1) by:(a) processing after hermetic packaging;or (b) aseptic packaging in both conditionsrelying on validated measures ofprevention—and I emphasise validated.

(3) Where intrinsic antimicrobial protection isfailing, distribution and storage of thecommodities under conditions (a)arresting the proliferation of the lownumbers of viable organisms that surviveprocessing step number (1); and (b)arresting or delaying the development ofsporadic contamination—as occurred inthe orange juice incident. The Wilson Triad cannot be implemented

without rapid and convenient microbiologicaltesting. Such rapid and convenient testing canbe supplied only by rapid diagnostic tests. Ihasten to say to the Minister that there are


already quite a few tests potentially available,but they need a market to enable them to beproduced in such a volume that their pricebecomes acceptable. At the moment most oftheir prices are around $16 but, as I said thismorning, because the malarial market is so bigthe cost of the test, if it is made in India, is $1.

The Government is asking farmers to beinvolved in this process and they can use onlyorganoleptic evaluation, which has beenshown to be ineffective. Products of thevegetable industry have a very short growingcycle and a short shelf life. There is not time tosend samples for verification to a laboratoryand get the results back. A test is neededwhich can be used on site and give an instantresult. These tests are capable of that. Manyof them are exactly the same in format as thedipsticks used for monitoring the pH level ofwater.

I also see these rapid diagnostic testsmaking the work of the auditors much moresimple and definitive because if they get apositive result it cannot be challenged; but ifthey look at a product and say that it lookscrook, they can be challenged.

Mr PALASZCZUK: Whilst I understandfrom where the honourable member is coming,the Government does not support thisamendment for a number of reasons, but thefirst reason is that it was submitted a bit late. Ido not think that, as a Government, we canmake policy on the run. It would have beenmuch better to have heard about this proposala lot earlier.

However, a requirement that Safe Foodprovides adequate funding for research couldwell mean increases in the charges that SafeFood will need to levy. I am sure that nomember would like to risk sending anyproducer to the wall. It should really be amatter for Safe Food to determine its level offunding for each year.

Also, the addition of reference todiagnostic testing is unnecessary because Ibelieve that this clause is broad enough tocover the issue that the honourable memberhas raised.

Amendment negatived.



Clause 16—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (MrKaiser): Please note that the Minister'samendment No. 4 proposes to omit clause 16.Thus, the Minister will oppose the clause.

Mr PALASZCZUK (3.57 p.m.): TheGovernment will oppose clause 16, whichcontains the delegation powers of Safe Food. Iwill be moving a further amendment that willreinstate those delegation-making powers asnew clause 24A of the Bill.

The new delegation clause will providethat the chief executive officer of Safe Foodmust not delegate the power to immediatelysuspend an accreditation under clause 54 oran approval to audit under clause 69. Thereason for this amendment is to ensure thatthe chief executive officer has personalresponsibility for any immediate suspensions inview of the seriousness of the action. The newclause will also require that delegations bySafe Food and the chief executive officer aremade only to committee members oremployees who are appropriately qualified.

Clause 16, as read, negatived.Clauses 17 to 21, as read, agreed to.

Clause 22— Mr ROWELL (3.59 p.m.): This clause sets

out Safe Food's chief executive officer'sresponsibility to manage the authority andprepare an annual business plan. Clause 22(3)sets out what the business plan must coverincluding—

"(d) the projected funding required fromthe State to ensure compliance withthis Act."

Subclause (e) states that Safe Food willmanage its activities on a cost recovery basis.

This provides an opportunity to quiz theMinister on what policy his Government willhave regarding the funding of Safe Food and,by virtue of that, the Government's communityservice obligation to ensure that consumersare provided with safe food. It also provides anopportunity to highlight what is a major issuefor industry in all this reform—the cost ofcompliance with food safety standards.

One of the results of consultationundertaken for the Bill, as stated at pages 8and 9 of the Explanatory Notes, was that thereis an expectation in the industry that there willbe cost savings and administrative efficienciesin combining the food safety functions ofexisting regulatory agencies into a single body.What assurances do industry and ourselveshave that that expectation will be met? Whatcontrol will industry have, if any, over the levelof fees and charges imposed?

Mr PALASZCZUK: Quite simply, fees andcharges are to be determined by the FoodSafety Advisory Committee in consultation withindustry. The Food Safety Advisory Committeecontains industry representation. It is up to the


committee to determine the fees and charges.The Government does have a commitment.The Government is putting in quite aconsiderable amount of money for set-upcosts. The enforcement provisions are alsothere. That commitment is there and it will beongoing.

Mr ROWELL: The Minister has said thatthe industry is going to set the fees. However,it is the Minister who is introducing the Bill. Heis directly involved with what is involved as faras food safety is concerned. There has to becompliance. The Minister must have someindication of what will be the cost to industry.Can the Minister give us some indication ofwhen he will announce the amount of costs?Surely to goodness the Minister has made anestimate of what this is going to cost industry.

For instance, I believe there are some7,000 horticulturalists in this State. We alsohave 1,600 dairy farmers, but I realise thatthey are already covered by a separatescheme. I do not want to sidetrack theMinister. The QLMA and the QDA havealready been taken into account to a largeextent. I do not believe that the Minister willvary that matter, but could he indicate if he isthinking along those lines?

There is a clear indication what the chargewill be because we have an existing charge.Will the charge be increased under the FoodProduction (Safety) Bill? Can the Minister giveus some indication as to what the rest ofindustry might be paying? This is a criticalpoint. Later on today I will be moving someamendments in relation to auditing. Thoseamendments are expressly designed toreduce costs, but nevertheless ensure thatcompliance takes place.

Mr PALASZCZUK: In the first instance,with the amalgamation of the QDA and theQLMA, I envisage that there would be costsavings—I think I mentioned thispreviously—because of the removal ofduplication and so on. I have alreadydiscussed the issue with industry. There will bea reduction in accreditation for exporters withinthe meat industry. In relation to otherindustries, for example, fruit and vegetables,seafood, eggs, grain and so on, it will takesome considerable time for them to come onboard. That will be done in consultation withthe oversighting committee.

Whenever a Government introduces anew law, that new law has to go out for publicconsultation under an RIS. The program, as Isee it at present, will be that QLMA and QDAwill be incorporated as Safe Food. Then we willbe looking at the seafood industry. SeaQual

has been developed by the previous QCFOunder Ted Loveday. I understand it is beingused in New South Wales and it is beingfunded by the Federal Government and theQueensland Government. We can progressseafood through by way of that mechanism.

With fruit and vegetables, we have avoluntary program named Freshcare. Thatprogram is at present in operation. I believethat will form the basis of what we will be doingwith the fruit and vegetable industry. I believethe honourable member should be cognisantof the fact that the issues will be progressed inconsultation with industry and with fullconsultation with the community at large. Afterthat, the decisions will be made.

Mr ROWELL: I was interested to hearwhat the Minister said about reductions forexports as far as meat was concerned. I didnot think we were necessarily directly involvedin that type of thing. That is really an AQISissue. I know that we have tried to dosomething with QLMA as far as exports areconcerned, but we have not reached the pointwhere it is recognised.


Mr ROWELL: That is good news becauseI have been to a number of areas. I willcertainly be able to advise them that theMinister is saying that. I am sure they will berapt with that.


Mr ROWELL: The requirements withregard to setting up the plant and processingare still very much an AQIS issue. One has tocomply with AQIS requirements in order to beable to export. I know there are some definiteprospects. We tried to get the QLMArecognised in certain countries.

I do not want to digress too much but thisis part of it. What I am hearing from meatprocessors is that, if they are simply going tohave QLMA accreditation, it will probably notbe good enough to service a range ofmarkets. I was at Swickers the other day and Iwas told this very thing. If we are going totrade with other nations, it is absolutelyessential that we go at the AQIS level ratherthan at the QLMA standard.

The Minister has not given me a clearindication of what it will cost. What is it going tocost as far as Cattlecare and Flockcare areconcerned? They are all going to come underthis umbrella. In the initial stages, everythingthat is related to primary industries comesunder this legislation. There has to be somecontrol, as far as the department is concernedin going ahead with the food safety aspect.


Dr KINGSTON: I would like to add to whathas been said about accreditation andcompliance. Meat cannot be exported unlessthe works is accredited by AQIS and theproduct complies with AQIS standards. That isthe fact. A lot of our exporters are currentlycomplaining, and have been complaining forsome years—

Mr Palaszczuk: That depends on theimporting country's requirements.

Dr KINGSTON: I know that. I have notfinished yet.

Some six years ago AQIS commissioneda compliance study of 27 countries. I visitedthose 27 countries. The idea was that an AQISinspector would look at the quality of theproduct from each of those countries andwould report back and I would then write a finalreport. The point I want to make is that we arebeing disadvantaged by this in that not one ofour inspectors was allowed into a foreignworks. One of our inspectors at that time wasthe trade envoy to Brussels. It needs to berecognised that compliance is an asset, but itcan also be used as an enemy. We need anintelligent system that is telling us what thecompliance levels in other countries are.

Clause 22, as read, agreed to. Clauses 23 and 24, as read, agreed to.

Insertion of new clause—

Mr PALASZCZUK (4.10 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 20, after line 20—

insert—'Delegation

'24A.(1) Safe Food may delegate itspowers to a committee or employee ofSafe Food if satisfied the committeemembers or employee are appropriatelyqualified.

'(2) The chief executive officer of SafeFood may delegate the chief executiveofficer's powers, other than a power undersection 54(2) or 69(2),1 to a committee oremployee of Safe Food if satisfied thecommittee members or employee areappropriately qualified.'(3) In this section—

"appropriately qualified", for a committeemember or an employee, includes havingthe qualifications, experience or standingappropriate to exercise the power.Example of 'standing'—

An employee's seniority level withinthe staff of Safe Food.'.

1 Sections 54 (Immediate suspension) and69 (Immediate suspension of approvals)."

The Government moves an amendmentto insert a new clause 24A into the Bill. Newclause 24A replaces clause 16, which dealtwith the delegation-making powers of SafeFood. The changes from the repeal of clause16 provide that the chief executive officer ofSafe Food must not delegate the power toimmediately suspend an accreditation underclause 54 or an approval to audit under clause69. The reason for this amendment is toensure that the chief executive officer haspersonal responsibility for any immediatesuspensions in view of the seriousness of theactions. The new clause also requires thatdelegations by Safe Food and the chiefexecutive officer are made only to committeemembers or employees who are appropriatelyqualified.

Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 25 and 26, as read, agreed to.

Clause 27—

Mr ROWELL (4.12 p.m.): Part 3 of the Billmakes provision for the establishment of aFood Safety Advisory Committee to advise theMinister on food safety programs, thefunctions of Safe Food and any matter relatingto food safety or the Act referred to it by SafeFood or the Minister. Clause 27 sets out theproposed membership of the committee,which will include a number of bureaucratsfrom different agencies as well asrepresentatives from relevant industryorganisations. There are no requirements as tothe level of grassroots consultation that mustbe undertaken, so it is worth asking: whatassurances do we have that primary producerswill in fact be fully consulted in thedevelopment of any food safety scheme or inrelation to any decision which may impact ontheir businesses or industry?

Mr PALASZCZUK: The answer to that isquite simple. As I mentioned previously, thecomposition of the committee will berepresentative of industry. But moreimportantly, whenever a new law is made byGovernment, an RIS goes out for consultationand that will form the bulk of the consultationthat will occur with the majority of primaryproducers. For example, under the latest RISin relation to the East Coast TrawlManagement Plan, the Government, throughthe Queensland Fisheries Service, is holdingport meetings all the way up and down theeastern seaboard to seek as much input aspossible from our trawl operators. The samething will occur in relation to this Bill.


Mr ROWELL: I understand what theMinister is saying. But the list cites foodtechnologists, agricultural scientists,aquaculture scientists, human nutritionists,microbiologists and epidemiologists—

Mr Palaszczuk: "May".

Mr ROWELL: Yes, "may" is the wordused. But where are the grassroots people?The Bill mentions the production or sale ofprimary produce, consumer advocacy,environmental or public health, business,public administration and risk management. Ido not see too many primary producers there.

Mr PALASZCZUK: Clause 27(1)(d)states—

"... a number of persons, each of whomrepresents an organisation thatrepresents the interests of a section of anindustry to which a food safety scheme, ora proposed food safety scheme, relates..." Mr ROWELL: The balance is what I am

concerned about. Certainly, quite a number ofpeople are listed. But we are not sure of theratio of industry people on these committees.

Mr PALASZCZUK: It could be drawing along bow, but clause 27(1)(d) states—

"... a number of persons, each ofwhom represents an organisationthat represents the interests of asection of an industry to which a foodsafety scheme, or a proposed safetyscheme, relates;

(e) any other person appointed by theMinister as a committee member.

(2) The chief executive officer"—and this is the point the honourable memberraised originally—

"(4) The Minister may appoint a personunder subsection (1)(e) only ifsatisfied the person has experienceor expertise in 1 or more of thefollowing ..."

The bulk of the people will come undersubsection (d).



Mr ROWELL (4.16 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 27, lines 19 and 20—omit."

Part 4 sets out the provisions for foodsafety schemes and programs while clause 39sets out the specific requirements for making

such a food safety scheme. The Governor inCouncil will make these schemes by regulationunder the authority of this Bill. Clause 39(2)sets out to list every facet of primaryproduction which a food safety scheme maycover, which in itself is incredibly far reachingand affords the Government an enormousopportunity to intervene and interfere in theoperations of any primary production business.

Clause 39(3) then states that the Ministerand Safe Food must consult with the FoodSafety Advisory Committee about theproposed scheme before they make it. It isbad enough that there is no requirement thatindustry be consulted rather than just theadvisory committee, about which questionshave already been raised concerning its levelof accountability to the grassroots primaryproducers. However, clause 39(4) goes on tosay that failure to comply with subsection (3)does not affect the scheme's validity. So wehave the situation where there is nocompulsion on the Minister or Safe Food toconsult at all. Subsection (4) defeats the entirepurpose of the limited provision forconsultation provided in subclause (3). Thismakes a sham of all the Minister's claimsabout working with the industry, consultingclosely and all of the other rhetoric he hasused. Whether he consults or not, he does nothave to listen and act.

This is yet another graphic example of theBeattie Government's complete disregard forthe people, and especially primary producers.We have seen it before with the VegetationManagement Act, the Water Act and the EastCoast Trawl Management plan. Either it doesnot consult at all or, if it does, it completelyignores what the people are asking it. With thisclause we are now seeing the Governmentattempting to enshrine its arrogance in theletter of the law. This is an absolute affront tothe very people whose livelihoods will begoverned at least to some extent by theimplications of these laws. The Opposition hasalready voiced our concerns about the grab forpower this Bill represents in terms of the levelof influence it allows over the operation of aprimary production business. We can take nosolace in the Minister's rhetoric when suchdraconian provisions as this are included in theBill.

Mr PALASZCZUK: The Governmentcannot accept the honourable member'samendment for a number of reasons. First ofall, such provisions as those that exist in thisclause are usual in Queensland laws to ensurethat purely technical procedural errors do notleave the validity of legislation in doubt. Suchprovisions are necessary to ensure public


confidence in the law. Subclause 39(4), towhich the honourable member referred, isnecessary to provide certainty that food safetyschemes, once enacted, are valid. Without thisprovision, such certainty could not exist. Therewould always be the possibility that someonecharged with a food safety offence wouldmanage to prove that the scheme was invalidon some minor technicality.

In this Bill the Government has madeevery possible effort to ensure that maximumconsultation takes place with industry before afood safety scheme is made. To this end, theBill requires the appointment to the committeeof a representative of every sector of everyindustry to which a food safety scheme orproposed food safety scheme relates. This isan unprecedented level of industryrepresentation. It ensures that the committeewill represent all views, but it also means thatthe size of the committee will become verylarge. To overcome this problem, not allmembers of the committee will attend everymeeting. The chief executive is required toinvite to the meeting those representativeswho have an interest in the subject matter tothe meeting.

Without the inclusion of clause 39(4), thepossibility exists that someone would seek tochallenge the validity of a food safety schemebecause the chief executive had erred indeciding in good faith who to call to a meeting.That is not acceptable. Clause 39(3) requiresthat a chief executive must consult the FoodSafety Advisory Committee before a foodsafety scheme is made. This is a statutory dutyimposed on the chief executive. I consider thisto be an adequate safeguard that industry willbe consulted.

Mr ROWELL: The Minister talked aboutthe chief executive. In the copy of the Bill that Ihave before me it states that "the Minister andSafe Food must consult with the advisorycommittee". I might be wrong there, but that ismy reading of it. Quite clearly we are very, veryconcerned with the whole prospect of peoplebeing able to get to those meetings.

Mr Palaszczuk: Both—both the chiefexecutive and the Minister.

Mr ROWELL: It does not say it here.Sorry, my Bill must be different to theMinister's.

Mr Palaszczuk: That is even moreconsultation.

Mr ROWELL: It does not say that in myBill; it just talks about the Minister. Maybe Ihave an old copy.

Mr Palaszczuk: No.

Mr ROWELL: No? Okay. I am not happyabout it. As I read the Bill, I believe that thereare some major concerns about the direction. Ifeel that I have no option but to divide on thisclause.


Mr Rowell interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr

Kaiser): Order! Someone needs to be on theirfeet speaking, for the sake of Hansard ifnothing else.

Mr ROWELL: I want that excluded, andthat is what I have said. That is what it says inmy amendment, to take subclause (4) out.

Question—That Mr Rowell's amendmentbe agreed to—put; and the Committeedivided—AYES, 39—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, E. Cunningham, Dalgleish, Davidson,Feldman, Gamin, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan,Johnson, Kingston, Laming, Lester, Lingard,Littleproud, Malone, Mitchell, Paff, Pratt, Prenzler,Quinn, Rowell, Santoro, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson,Slack, Springborg, Stephan, Turner, Watson,Wellington. Tellers: Baumann, Hegarty

NOES, 40—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle,Braddy, Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham, Edmond,Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hamill, Hayward, Hollis,Lavarch, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady, Miller,Mulherin, Musgrove, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall,Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Reynolds, Roberts,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Spence, Struthers,Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Sullivan, Purcell

Resolved in the negative.

Clause 39, as read, agreed to.Clauses 40 to 49, as read, agreed to.

Clause 50—

Dr PRENZLER (4.30 p.m.): I was going tomove the amendments circulated in myname—Nos 1 and 2. Since then—and I thankthe Minister—I have had discussions with theMinister regarding this particular clause. Tome, this clause seemed very restrictive. It tiedthe accreditation down to one year, and thatwas the accreditation for all types of food fromprimary production. This concerned mebecause, in my opinion, a lot of foods are inthe low-risk category. Since I foreshadowedthis amendment, I have had discussions withthe Minister and he agrees with me. Theamendment that he will be moving shortly nowchanges that provision and removes the words"for 1 year" and replaces them with "for aperiod prescribed under a regulation".

I will be withdrawing my amendmentsbecause the Minister has agreed tosubstantially change that clause, and I thankhim for that. I thank him for listening to me. It


was of grave concern to me that someindustries out there in the community,particularly in primary production, are really in alow-risk category. Under the food safetyscheme, they should be adequately cateredfor under the accreditation programs that willlast for longer than one year. The amendmentthat I originally proposed was for three years.The Minister accepted that and talked to hisadvisers. They suggested that it could be forup to five years in length.

I accept that. I agree that primaryproduction industries such as the meatindustry, the fishing industry and, to a lesserextent but still a significant extent, the dairyproduction industry are fairly high risks. Iaccept that accreditation has to be for ashorter period, perhaps one year, as wasoriginally suggested. I accept that. I onceagain thank the Minister for listening to myconcerns and changing that clause to a periodprescribed under a regulation so that thatregulation can be discussed in the food safetyscheme with the food safety committee inconsultation with industry. I thank the Ministerfor that. I seek leave of the Chamber towithdraw my amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (MrReeves): The member has not moved them sohe does not need leave to withdraw them.

Dr PRENZLER: Thank you.

Mr PALASZCZUK: I move the followingamendment—

"At page 32, line 20, 'for 1 year'—

omit, insert—

'for a period prescribed under aregulation'."In response to the honourable member

for Lockyer, who raised a genuine concern withme, I have moved this amendment to clause50(4) to satisfy his concerns. The accreditationremains in force unless it is cancelled orsuspended for a period as prescribed under afood safety scheme. I believe that thehonourable member has spoken sufficiently tothe amendment. I therefore recommend thatthe Chamber accepts the Government'samendment.

Mr ROWELL: I think that is an improvedposition, Minister. It is good to see that therehas been some movement there. The cost ofaccreditation fees can be quite considerable.In low-risk industries such as the dairy industry,in which there are a number of categories,accreditation may start at 18 months for thoseproducers doing it well and perhaps stretch toa year for other categories. Groups havingsome difficulty in complying are subject to an

accreditation period of something like ninemonths. Therefore, this amendment is animprovement. However, fees are fees.

Clauses 42 to 57 detail the requirementsof the accreditation process. The purpose ofaccreditation is to basically licence primaryproducers to produce a particular product. Indoing so, Safe Food can keep track of those inthe industry to ensure compliance with the Actand, by virtue of that, in accordance withclause 42, "to ensure the production of primaryproduce is carried out in a way that makes theprimary produce safe for human and animalconsumption". If an accreditation is deemed tobe necessary in a particular industry or for aparticular activity, people in the industry haveto apply for accreditation, pay the necessaryfee and provide certain information.

The meat and dairy industries alreadyoperate under annual accreditations, and Imentioned that earlier. However, the questionshould be raised as to whether the Ministerintends accrediting primary producers in thelower risk areas. Cattle producers andproducers of fruit and vegetables need someacknowledgment. I think the Minister has donethat, but it is not very clear where it is heading.If the Government were to attempt to imposeits own food safety program on all primaryproducers regardless of the level of risk theiroperation poses, the Minister can expect anenormous reaction. It is getting to the stagewhere people are fed up. It costs aconsiderable amount of money for people tooperate enterprises from rural industries.

The other issue that must be raised is thatthe cost of accreditation to primary producers,butchers, slaughterhouse operators and thelike is getting quite onerous, and I have madethat point before, too. One of the results ofconsultation undertaken for the Bill as statedat pages 8 and 9 in the Explanatory Notes wasthat there is an expectation amongst industrythat there will be cost savings andadministrative efficiencies in combining thefood safety functions of existing regulatoryagencies into one single body. We alreadyknow about QLMA and QDA. However, whatassurances do we and industry have that thatexpectation will be met? The Minister hastalked about it. I hope it becomes a reality.What control will industry have, if any, over thelevel of fees and charges imposed?

I hark back to early last year when theBeattie Government endorsed a massiveincrease in the cost of Q-Safe accreditationsand audit fees for butcher shops andslaughterhouse operators. While there was anacross-the-board increase, in some cases that


increase was in excess of 300% on the level offees paid 12 months previously. Just to refreshmembers' memories of those fees, as at 1 July1998 a category A butcher employing betweenthree and 10 people producing fresh meat andsmallgoods paid a sum total of $280 per yearfor accreditation with the QueenslandLivestock and Meat Authority and all safetyand hygiene audits.

Under the Beattie Government's new feeschedule introduced last year, the samebutcher was billed $881, an increase of 315%.Even category C butchers requiring only oneaudit per year will face an increase from $280to $431 per year, an increase of 65%. Thesepeople are rightly concerned, as are primaryproducers, that with the passage of thislegislation we will be looking down the barrel ofeven higher costs as far as audits andaccreditations are concerned. But, of course,that will be determined by this Bill. I ask theMinister to respond to those concerns.

I want to go into more detail in relation toaccreditation. All sorts of people will comeunder the accreditation umbrella—marketgardeners, those who produce a few eggs,pensioners trying to make some extra moneyfor themselves, small holdings makingadditional income and organic operators usingno chemicals whatsoever in the production oftheir food goods. How much will theDepartment of Primary Industries contributefrom the possible $127m offered by theFederal Government for the FarmBis program?That program is important and has been usedfor training in the past. That program has beenvery beneficial. Of course, it is now seeing areduction from 90% to 75%. Everybody whogoes through these accreditation programsand so on will get some support. It is not asmuch as it was last year, but we acknowledgethat. That was in the Budget.

Clause 44(2)(b)(i) uses the term "theprescribed fee". What we really want to know iswhat that prescribed fee will be, because thatis essential to many of these people. I refer toan interview on ABC radio. I will read what wassaid by one of the officers of the department.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (MrReeves): Order! The member has beenspeaking now for seven minutes. I amconcerned that the member is not actuallyspeaking to the amendment.

Mr ROWELL: On accreditation?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Themember does not seem to be speakingspecifically about the amendment. I remindthe member to speak to the amendment.

Mr ROWELL: I would like to speak aboutaccreditation, and that is really what clause 50is all about.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: TheCommittee is considering the amendment, notthe clause.

Mr ROWELL: Then I will speak to clause50.


Mr ROWELL: In the initial stages Isupported what the Minister was doing. I donot know if that has been recognised. I think Isaid in my first contribution to the Committeestage debate that this is an improvement. NowI am talking about the cost of accreditation.This is about not just cost but also frequency, Isuppose. I might be a little in error there. I referto the frequency of accreditation. It may haveto be done after one year or it may be able tobe left a little longer.


Mr ROWELL: We are just working throughit. I will read comments made by Mr Fullelovefrom the DPI on 5 July at the launch ofFreshcare in Brisbane. It was stated in aninterview on ABC radio that the real incentive isthat down the track produce not grown underthe new supplier program, Freshcare, may notbe eligible for sale in the central marketsystem. Is that the case, Minister?

Mr Palaszczuk: Freshcare is a voluntaryindustry scheme.

Mr ROWELL: But the Minister is bringingin this process of accreditation. There will alsobe audits and so on. It does not matter whatscheme it is—it could be the ABC scheme, theQRX scheme or whatever—the fact is that theMinister is bringing it in. There will be aprescribed fee and there will be an audit fee.That is what this is all about. We could takeout Freshcare and replace it with somethingelse, but producers might still find that they willnot be able to sell in the marketplace unlessthey are in some type of supplier program.

Mr Palaszczuk: The Bill does not do that.Mr ROWELL: But Mr Fullelove says that

they might not be able to sell within themarket.

Mr Palaszczuk: It does not prevent thesale.

Mr ROWELL: But he is saying that theymight not be able to sell it within the centralmarket system. The Minister has to get outthere and work with these types of provisionsin order to understand. The Minister is quiteclearly saying that they do not need to be inany scheme whatsoever.


Mr Palaszczuk: Who are you referringto?

Mr ROWELL: Mr Fullelove. He is sayingthat producers have to be in some scheme,which happens to be the new supplierprogram, Freshcare.

Mr Palaszczuk: It is all to do withmarketing. Market forces will determine thosethings.

Mr ROWELL: Okay, market forces. That isfine. We are very concerned about the cost ofthis accreditation. The Minister is saying quiteclearly that people do not have to be in anaccredited scheme to sell their produce. Iwould like the Minister to get up and tell meexactly that.

Very severe penalties are included in thelegislation. I refer to clause 79 of the Bill.Under the heading "Unauthorised productionof primary produce" clause 79 states—

"(2) The person must not engage inthe production of the primary produceother"—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: TheCommittee is considering clause 50. I believethat, for the good passage of this Bill throughthe Committee, the member would do betterto stick to the actual clause before theCommittee. I remind the member aboutrepetition.

Mr ROWELL: I am making a pointrelevant to this clause and another clause.Clause 79(2) states—

"The person must not engage in theproduction of the primary produce otherthan under an accreditation.

Maximum penalty—2000 penalty units orimprisonment for 2 years."

The Minister says that we do not have to beinvolved in these schemes. That contradictswhat is in the legislation.


Mr ROWELL: Market forces? This clauseimposes penalties—a maximum of 2,000penalty units! That is not a market force; that isa punitive force. I think the Minister shouldrespond to me because I am having somedifficulty getting the message across.

Mr TURNER: I have had grave concernsexpressed to me by growers in my area. Theyfeel that they are being blackmailed in that ifthey are not accredited they will not be allowedto sell their product. They have been told thatby Freshcare. What is the truth of that?According to the member for Hinchinbrook,that is exactly what this clause means. If

producers are not accredited they will not beable to meet the market.

Mr ROWELL: There is no doubt that theaccreditations presently being undertaken willbe quite important to the industry. I think theywill lift some of the primary production in theState—it will probably get to a better level—butthere is a cost. Some groups of people do notwant to be involved in these schemes. I havementioned clause 79, about which I have apretty big question. I note that the Minister hasnot responded to what I have had to say. I amquite concerned about that, because we aretalking about some very substantial penalties.These penalties of a maximum of 2,000penalty units—that is, $150,000—or two yearsin jail are comparable to penalties contained inthe Criminal Code. That is quite substantial,yet the Minister does not want to respond.

Mr Palaszczuk: Wait until we get toclause 79 and I will respond to you then.

Mr ROWELL: That is fair enough, but theMinister will not respond in relation toaccreditation. In the marketing process theproducers can be accredited, there can benice packing houses and everyone can do theright thing. Auditors will come and see whatthey are doing. Then the meat producers willproduce nice cattle. They will be audited downthe track with Flockcare, Cattlecare and so on.Yet what do the supermarkets have to do?

I know that the Minister will say, "It hasnothing to do with me." But he cannot haveone part of the equation without having theother brought into account. What is to be doneabout what occurs at the Brisbane Markets,where pallets of fruit and vegetables are left inthe sun for half an hour at a time? Those fruitand vegetables probably should be underrefrigeration at 5 degrees, yet they are left inthe sun for half an hour because the facilitiesare pretty mediocre. I would describe them asthe equivalent of Third World standard. I haveseen some of the facilities around thecountryside. What will we do about those typesof facilities?

What we are doing is coercing, for want ofa better word, primary producers in this Stateto be accredited and then audited. A bit of aquestion mark even hangs over the transportas far as I am concerned. When the produceis delivered to the marketplace, nobody willworry about it. We can talk about "let themarket flow". That is fair enough. But we willput the weights on the primary producers ofthis State to do all the things required underthis legislation, and then it does not matterwhat happens at the market end. Consumerscan rumble through the produce on the


shelves of supermarkets, drop it on the floor,pick it up, squeeze it, run over it and all thosesorts of things, and we do not worry about it.Apparently that is not important. The producecan be left in the sun at the market, eventhough it should be refrigerated; it starts tobreak down and a lower price is obtained for it.

Then we have the supermarkets thatactually buy produce and send it backbecause they cannot sell it. I think the Ministerknows a little bit about this. As a result, pricesbecome depressed. I have seen majorvariations in the price of produce from time totime due to this type of practice. But we do nothear the agents owning up. We do not hearthem saying, "Well, look, we had the weightsput on us by the major chains." They will notsay anything about it, because if they do, theywill not sell anything to the major chains again.It is all very well to sweep it under the carpetand ignore it, but the fact is that this isoccurring.

If the Minister is going to put the weightson primary industry in terms of accreditation, Ithink we have to look a little bit further. TheMinister might say that it is not hisresponsibility; that he has passed it over to theMinister for Health. I do not think that is goodenough. What will this Minister be doing interms of approaching the Minister for Healthand saying, "I have got this side in train. Now itis up to you to do your part"? Will the Ministerbe doing that? Will he respond?

Mr Palaszczuk: We are already workingon that now.

Mr Rowell: The Minister is working on it,but there is no evidence that there is anythinghappening out in the marketplace.


Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.


Mr PALASZCZUK (4.52 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendments—

"At page 34, line 21, 'Safe Food'—

omit, insert—

'The chief executive officer'.At page 34, line 24, 'giving'—

omit, insert—'the chief executive officer gives'."

The Government moves an amendmentto clause 54. These amendments flow fromthe amendment to clause 16, which prohibitedthe delegation of the chief executive officer'spowers to immediately suspend anaccreditation. Clause 54(2) is to be amended

to provide that the chief executive officer, andnot Safe Food, may immediately suspend anaccreditation.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 54, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 55 to 61, as read, agreed to.

Clause 62— Mr ROWELL (4.53 p.m.): Clause 60

allows for the approval of individuals asauditors under the Act, while clause 61 setsout the information required of them whenapplying to be an auditor. The meat industryhas long sought the introduction of so-calledthird-party auditors as a means of introducingcompetition and thereby reducing costs. Underthe Queensland Livestock and Meat Authority,the Q-Safe meat safety and hygiene programhas been administered solely by QLMA's ownGovernment auditors. As is often the criticism,Government agencies tend to be expensive torun, and by virtue of the QLMA's policy—andnow Safe Food's policy—of cost recovery forservices provided to individual businesses,butchers and meat processors are left to pickup the bill.

The meat industry sees the introduction ofthis provision to allow other independentauditors into the field as a positive whichshould be encouraged as a means of reducingthe costs imposed on them. Certainly, wesupport their sentiments. However, whileproviding for the appointment of independentauditors by Safe Food, the Minister has soughtto hamstring their attempts to do so underclause 62(2)(b). That subclause effectivelymeans that Safe Food can only appoint anindependent auditor when the Minister hasadvised it of the Government's public sectorpolicy and when that policy has been compliedwith. So unless the Minister can explainotherwise, it appears he is giving with onehand and taking away with the other. In otherwords, he is trying to win the meat industryover, but, at the same time, ensuring he looksafter his union mates. Will the Minister pleaseexplain this?

Mr PALASZCZUK: In relation to third-partyauditors, let me just say that the Bill authorisesthe appointment of third-party auditors ratherthan authorising the appointment of SafeFood or local government auditors for threereasons. The first is choice. The primaryproducer is given a greater choice in who willaudit their primary production business. Thesecond is price. Because more auditors will beauthorised to carry out audits, market forceswill ensure that the auditors will be competitivein their charges. The third is employmentopportunities. The statutory obligation on


primary producers to have their businessesaudited will create employment opportunitiesfor auditors in regional and remote areas ofQueensland. I see no conflict in clause62(2)(b) as the honourable membersuggested.




"At page 40, line 22, 'Safe Food'—

omit, insert—

'The chief executive officer'.At page 40, line 25, 'giving'—

omit, insert—'the chief executive officer gives'."

The Government moves an amendmentto clause 69. This amendment flows from theamendment to clause 16, which prohibited thedelegation of the chief executive officer'spowers to immediately suspend anaccreditation. Clause 69(2) is to be amendedto provide that the chief executive officer, andnot Safe Food, may immediately suspend anapproval to audit. The Government alsomoves the amendment to clause 69 of the Bill.This amendment flows from the previousamendment to clause 69.

Amendments agreed to. Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 70 to 76, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause—

Mr ROWELL (4.58 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 44, after line 24—insert—

˙'Statutory declarations about compliance'76A.(1) This section applies if—

(a) a person carries on activitiesassociated with the production ofprimary produce; and

(b) the primary produce in relation towhich the activities are carried on isfresh fruit, fresh vegetables, grains orcereals; and

(c) the activities are activities to which afood safety scheme applies.

'(2) The person may make, and give toSafe Food, a statutory declaration aboutthe activities.'(3) The statutory declaration must statethe following—

(a) the activities;(b) where the activities were carried on;

(c) when the activities were carried on;(d) the food safety scheme or food

safety program relating to theactivities;

(e) that the activities comply with thefood safety scheme;

(f) the reasons the person considers theactivities comply with the food safetyscheme.

'(4) If a statutory declaration complyingwith subsection (3) is made, and given toSafe Food, by the person—

(a) the declaration is taken to be anaudit report stating that the activitiesto which the declaration relatescomply with the food safety schemerelating to the activities; and

(b) despite anything else contained inthis part, an auditor may not conductan audit of the activities.'."

This is quite an important section of thislegislation. What we are looking at is the low-impact group, those who are producing fruit,vegetables, grain and a few other productsthat may come under the umbrella of nothaving to go through the audit process. Weare not quite sure what the audit process willcost primary producers who are producing thisrange of goods. The whole point is that it is animpost that many growers believe is not totallynecessary. They are quite aware that thereneeds to be chemical accreditation. They haveno issue with that. I would like to read verybriefly from a plant industry report that comesfrom monitoring pesticide and cadmiumresidues in fresh fruit and vegetables by theNew South Wales Department of Agricultureand the HRDC.

This article talks about agriculturalchemical summary. It states—

"Overall more than 99.8% of producetested complied with the MRLs for thechemicals tested. Also, more than 97% oftests for chemicals on vegetables, fruitand pulses were below the laboratory'sLimits of Declarations, which aresignificantly lower than the set MRLs andMPCs."

Of course, when we are looking at heavymetals, cadmium is one of the things that is ofconcern. The article continues—

"All of the 134 vegetables and pulsestested for cadmium complied with theANZFA MPC (.01 mg/kg). Seven samplestested contained cadmium at a


concentration between 50-100% of theMPC. These half MPC levels weredetected in 5 potato samples and in twolettuce samples."

There is quite a lot of other information hereabout the testing and I do not want to take upthe time of the Committee, but basically what Iam saying is that generally primary producersof these fruits and vegetables are doing quitea good job as far as retaining the maximumresidue levels is concerned. That is one of themajor concerns that we really have as far asfresh fruit and vegetables and grains areconcerned. If we had some tests done ongrains, I am sure that we would find a similarsituation. They are not a big user ofinsecticides, so it is not likely that we will findhigh MRLs in grains.

What we are proposing is somethingother than an accreditation process thatrequires somebody to go out to the property.We are not quite sure how many times thataccreditation would have to occur, because, asI said in my speech during the second-readingdebate, the accreditation is a culmination of alot of things that happen during the processsuch as growing out animals, growing crops,fruit and vegetable production and so on in theState of Queensland.

I think it would be quite simple if we had astatutory declaration. Nobody is saying that weshould not go ahead with the accreditationprocess. I think that is quite important.Certainly if we can keep that FarmBis supportthere, I think that will be important to ensurethat the costs of accreditation are reduced. Butat the end of the day when we do all thosesorts of things I think it is fair and reasonablethat we should be able to say, "Well, you knowwhat you've got to do." When a farmerproduces a product and sends it to the market,one of the main criteria is the chemical residuelevel. The farmer will be told, "If it doesn'tcomply with that, well then, we will be askingyou why, and there will be penalties imposed."That is basically what is behind this statutorydeclaration proposal.

I have spoken to producer groups up anddown the State about this. Because of cropfailures, they are extremely concerned aboutthe costs that will be imposed as a result of theaccreditation system. We are not quite surehow much it will be, but it will be in the order of$400 to $500. I do not know if people hereunderstand just what the implications are, butif there are a few charges of $400 or $500involved in the accreditation, that will place anenormous amount of pressure on that primaryproducer. So what we are trying to do is bring

some sensible debate into the issue as to howwe would go about ensuring what is alreadythere as far as Safe Food is concerned in themarketplace with producers in Queensland.

This statutory declaration would be signedby a grower. What he is saying is, "I havedone all the right things as far as accreditationis concerned. I will keep a spray diary. I willensure that I am not using chemicals that Ishould not be using. I will not be using higherconcentrations than those that should beused. I will be making sure that when I packthe fruit I will be doing it under theaccreditation process that has already beenset up." Generally, for some smaller producersI think that this will be quite important.

We can go through the argument ofwhether they have to be involved in it or not,but at the end of the day if they are to sell theirproduce and we are to have the bigger retailorganisations in the State insisting that theyhave an accreditation scheme so that they canactually sell their produce, then it will beabsolutely essential that we reduce the cost ofthe audit.

I am not saying that we should not havesome form of check and balance in thesystem. We can actually test the fruit at themarketplace. If it does not look very good, theproducer will not get paid for it. That is wherethe supply and demand type of arrangementscome into this type of process. If growers donot produce the type of product that themarket wants or it is not of the quality that themarket is demanding, the grower will not getpaid for it.

Why do we have to have an audit processfor an accreditation process that we havealready looked at very closely? We havetrained people and it is good as far as thechemical aspect is concerned. What growerscan do is go along to these schools that areconducted by different organisations from timeto time. Some of it is done by Government;some of it is done by free enterprise. Theylearn about certain processes andimplementing them in better ways. That is fine.But why do we have to go further by auditinggrowers?

There are some special things that comeinto the auditing process that could hold up agrower. For instance, what would happen if itwas found that there was a minor technicalproblem with the way that the grower wasgoing about the process? Bearing in mind thata lot of these crops are very seasonal—theylast for three to four weeks during theharvesting period—the inspector could make avisit. There is another clause which does not


necessarily come under auditing in clause 76,but I could talk on that later. I am hopeful thatthe Minister will accede to commonsense asfar as the legislation is concerned. Without anyfurther ado, I would like to hear the Minister'scomments on this proposal concerning thestatutory declaration.

Dr PRENZLER: The City Country Alliancewill be supporting this amendment asproposed by the member for Hinchinbrook.The reason we will be supporting this is that —

Mr Palaszczuk: Have you spoken toJohn Brent about this?

Dr PRENZLER: If the Minister will hangon—the reason we will be supporting thisamendment is that we believe that the thrustof the Bill is really aimed at areas whereproducts are accumulated, whether it be freshfruit and vegies packaged in package sheds,meat produced in meatworks, smallgoodsproduced in smallgoods factories or dairyproducts produced in milk factories.

We agree with the member forHinchinbrook that the Bill itself could beapplied right down to the farm level. In thisinstance, I do not think that we could everhope to apply all the regulations in this Bill rightdown to farm level. There would not beenough people available on the ground to doit.

We see this amendment as a self-regulation amendment. It will require people todeclare to a food safety committee that theyhave complied with the standards requiredunder food safety schemes. We believe thatthis amendment is aimed at that small farmsituation where the farmer grows grains, othercereals, vegies or whatever, and he packsthem into boxes and sends them off to marketor sells his grain into an accumulation depot orbulk depot somewhere. So we will besupporting this amendment for that reason.We believe it is a self-regulatory amendment.We think it is necessary. We also think that itwill put a lot of emphasis back on to the growerto do it right.

Mr Palaszczuk: The statutory declarationwill not work. You either have it all or you don't.

Dr PRENZLER: I fail to see how theMinister will get auditors around to every farmin this State. He will never do it. And not onlythat, there will be small growers who keeppopping up, growing a few acres of this thisyear; they might grow a few acres of that thenext year; they might grow tomatoes one year,beans the next year, or watermelons orsomething else, and they will try to sell it onthe market. Is the Minister going to preclude allof these people from doing this? At this stage,

unless the Minister can convince us to thecontrary, we will be supporting theamendment.

Mr PALASZCZUK: This will be difficult, Ithink. The Government does not support theOpposition's amendment. Let me say why. Ido not believe that the provision of a statutorydeclaration provides any safeguard for thecommunity unless auditing is done to ensurethe integrity of those declarations. If auditing isrequired, the amendment is misguided andpointless.

The Food Safety Advisory Committee willdetermine the level of risk posed by variousfresh fruit, vegetables and grains through ascientifically based risk assessment process.The committee will comprise representativesfrom each sector of each industry involved sothat it can be said that industry will determinethe risk. If the committee finds a level of riskthat warrants a food safety scheme to bemade, it will also determine the level andfrequency of auditing required. If the level ofrisk is not as high for those products, thecommittee will, quite appropriately, require amuch lower frequency of audits than for high-risk products. In my view, that is the onlyappropriate way to deal with the problem. Itensures public confidence in the integrity ofthe food safety scheme without imposingundue costs on producers.

The member for Hinchinbrook and themember for Lockyer assert that fresh fruit,fresh vegetables, grains and cereals are lowrisk, and it is because of this that they claimthat requiring producers of these products tobe audited is an unwarranted cost burden. Toovercome this those opposite have proposedan amendment which refers to a statutorydeclaration. I think I have explained that onereally has to audit the declaration before onecan have confidence in the declaration. As Isaid previously, I believe that the amendmentis pointless duplication. I suggest thatmembers on the Opposition side of theChamber take heed of what I have said andsupport the Government's clause.

Mr ROWELL: I am quite taken aback bythe fact that the Minister is talking aboutauditing a statutory declaration. Why wouldone want to audit a statutory declaration? Oneonly needs an audit in the first instance. It isnot a question of auditing the statutorydeclaration. We say that first of all one startswith the accreditation and the training. Onethen goes through the process of growing thecrop or raising the cattle, or whatever it mightbe. Has the Minister heard of anyone who hasdied from eating an orange, a banana—even


an overripe banana—a lettuce, or even acabbage? I am not referring to products thathave been processed. Has anybody ever beenrecorded as having suffered a severe illness asa result of eating such produce inQueensland?

Mr Palaszczuk: You are missing thepoint.

Mr ROWELL: No, I am not missing thepoint; I think the Minister is missing the point.He does not understand what I am talkingabout. Why are we imposing such a cost onpeople? If we go back 20 years, I do notbelieve we will find records of people becomingill because of problems with farm production oflow-risk category produce. It is a fact thatproduce can be left out in the sun or be placedon a supermarket shelf and look pretty awfulafter a certain amount of time. No-one hassuffered problems from eating an overripepeach or an overripe nectarine which hascome from a farm. No-one has suffered illeffects from grain which may have beenharvested a little earlier or a little later than itshould have been.

Must we have auditors going aroundlooking at these sorts of things? Do we have toraise the periscope and look at all our farms?Do we have to have inspectors travellingaround the country and looking for this sort ofthing after people have been trained? Wecould have training programs every five or sixyears for new people coming into the industry.We could also have training sessions forpeople who have not been involved withaccreditation and so on. A farmer or a grazierwill obviously be prepared to say, "I amproducing a very low-risk product, and I amprepared to back it up. I am satisfied that I amdoing everything that the accreditationrequired of me." We need people in thedepartment who understand what primaryindustries are all about.

Why do we have to check and recheck onour producers? Why do we have to look at theprocess three times over? This is a waste ofmoney. This is what is grinding Australia intothe dust. How can we be competitive if webehave in this way? If there are demands thatan audit should take place, fair enough.

The Minister quoted what a certain personthought about audits. He may think they areexcellent, but why does a person who isproducing a low-risk product have to payprobably the same amount of money as aperson who is producing ten times theamount? Why does he have to have someonecome to his property at a time which is criticalto the whole operation of harvesting? I do not

know when an auditor would arrive at aproperty, but it would probably be at a timewhen things are happening, and that is usuallyin the harvesting period. The auditor might pickon some technicality and slow down the wholeprocess.

Will compensation be paid to the personwho is held up, the producer who cannot gethis crop off because there is a perception thathe may not have done the right thing?Technicalities are technicalities. It concerns methat we are getting to the point of applyingexcessive pressure to primary producers whoare doing a good job. Our primary producersoften compete with the rest of the world. Theyare not duds. I know we will find a few whocould do better. The training process will helpto overcome that problem. Market forces willdictate what a producer gets for his product.That is what will determine whether theproducer survives or not.

Time expired.

Dr PRENZLER: I want to ask a questionof the Minister. If I understood correctly whatthe Minister said, every small cropproducer—whether he has one acre, twoacres, five acres or 100 acres—is going to besubjected to an accreditation scheme and isgoing to be subjected to an ongoing audit.How many different food safety schemes arewe going to have?

Some of these small operators often haveother jobs. They grow fruit or vegetables as aside income to help their families survive. Whathappens if they change their different croppingsystems from year to year? Perhaps theycould change their different cropping methodsor the crops that they grow. Do they have togo through a different food safety schemeevery time? Do they have to be accreditedagain? Do they have to be audited at differentlevels? If they change some of their growingmethods or some of their packing methods ontheir small properties, what will happen? Ibelieve that the Minister will never haveenough people on the ground to check onthese things. The only result will be to putthousands of people out of business. Perhapssome of them may be bankrupted or be sentto jail. I would like an answer on that.

Mr PALASZCZUK: It is up to the industry,through its committee, to develop its ownscheme. If the industry is such a low risk thatthe committee deems that there does notneed to be an accreditation scheme, so be it.It is up to the industry to determine the finaloutcome of the food safety scheme for itsindustry.


Mr ROWELL: That is in direct contrast towhat Mr Fullelove is saying, though. He issaying that it is sometime down the track. I donot want to quote him again.

Mr Palaszczuk: No, don't. I'll look at itlater on.

Mr ROWELL: The Minister should have alook at it. That is what is being said. That isgetting people very concerned. A lot of peoplecannot afford these things. They are livinghand to mouth. These small operators will findit extremely difficult. From memory, there areabout 7,000 fruit and vegetable growersthroughout this State. I cannot say exactly howmany people running sheep, cattle, goats andso on will bear the brunt of this audit system.Surely people who are raising cattle learnabout cattle care and reach a point, forexample, after 50 years and three generationswhen they know how to raise a beast andsend it to market. Why do they have to beaccredited to do that when this is somethingthey have been successful at doing?Producers lose control of beasts when they aresent to the meatworks or for live cattle export.As the Minister said, it will be determined—

Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr ROWELL: I think we need to get

involved in tagging beasts. I did not want tobring this up but, since the Minister has raisedit, I might start talking about that. If he can find$4m to get that—

Mr Palaszczuk interjected.Mr ROWELL: No, the Minister started it,

not me. Mr Palaszczuk interjected.Mr ROWELL: What will accreditation do

about that? That is what I am asking. How willaccreditation assist that primary producer toget any better price for the beast than he isgetting at present? It is all about the marketand how the market drives things. Will thesepeople be from DPI? Will people make moneyfrom this process? There are probably 10,000or 12,000 low-risk producers out there. Multiplythat number by $500 per year. Perhaps beforehe is finished the Minister will get the sugarindustry involved in this, too. Perhaps we willhave to trace crystals back to the grower.

Mr Palaszczuk: You are so far behindthe times it's not funny.

Mr ROWELL: I am working with it. Youwould not have a clue what it is all about.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (MrReeves): Order! I—

Mr ROWELL: Mr Reeves, with yourconsent I will continue with the point that I amputting forward.

I am getting disturbed and very morbidabout this whole issue. I cannot get through tothe Minister just how important it is to reducepeople's costs. If we multiply 10,000 by $500two or three times a year, we see that theGovernment will receive a hefty sum for thisauditing. I am trying to reduce that cost andmake it more practicable for the people tryingto earn a living from the land. Does theMinister know what it is like to experiencetough times during drought, when crops buckleover and the cattle are starving and desperatefor feed, when the animals need agisting andfarmers are hoping for support? Producers donot want to spend money that they do nothave to spend. This amendment would reducethe producers' cost of auditing. The producer issaying, "I've done the right thing with mychemicals. I've gone about culturaldevelopment", be it a beast, a crop orwhatever, "in a manner that is appropriate foraccreditation."

Time expired.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I seekclarification from the Minister. In his second-reading speech, he said that people whoprepare food at fetes and so on will not becovered. What about people who go to thesame places with a tilly full of pumpkins,zucchinis, oranges or any of the local producethey grow? The member for Lockyer askedwhether it will apply to farms of one hectare,two hectares or three hectares. They areprimary producers. Can the Minister clarifywhether they will be caught by the need forthis audit?

Mr PALASZCZUK: No. This is still a retailquestion. They will be selling their producefrom their property.

Mrs Liz Cunningham: No, from anotherplace.

Mr PALASZCZUK: That is retailing.

Mrs Liz Cunningham: What about fromtheir property?

Mr PALASZCZUK: It does not comeunder this Bill if it is retailing. This is about foodsafety. So in both instances, no.

Question—That Mr Rowell's amendmentbe agreed to—put; and the Committeedivided—AYES, 39—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, E. Cunningham, Dalgleish, Davidson,Feldman, Gamin, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan,Johnson, Kingston, Laming, Lester, Lingard,Littleproud, Malone, Mitchell, Paff, Pratt, Prenzler,Quinn, Rowell, Santoro, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson,Slack, Springborg, Stephan, Turner, Watson,Wellington. Tellers: Baumann, Hegarty


NOES, 39—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle,Braddy, Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham, Edmond,Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hamill, Hayward, Hollis,Kaiser, Lavarch, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady, Miller,Mulherin, Musgrove, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall,Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reynolds, Roberts, Robertson,Rose, Spence, Struthers, Welford, Wells, Wilson.Tellers: Sullivan, Purcell

The numbers being equal, the TemporaryChairman (Mr Reeves) cast his vote with theNoes.

Resolved in the negative.Clauses 77 to 134, as read, agreed to.

Clause 135—Mr PALASZCZUK (5.32 p.m.): I move the

following amendment—

"At page 71, lines 25 and 26—

omit, insert—'(3) A regulation may impose a penalty ofnot more than—

(a) for a contravention of a provision of aregulation about a matter for which afood safety scheme may bemade—50 penalty units; or

(b) for a contravention of anotherprovision—20 penalty units.'."

Clause 135 provides for a generalregulation-making power. Further, the clauseprovides that a regulation may impose amaximum penalty of not more than 50 penaltyunits for a contravention of a regulation. Thishas come about through consultation with theScrutiny of Legislation Committee.

Amendment agreed to.Clause 135, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 136 to 138, as read, agreed to.Clause 139—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (MrReeves): Order! Please note that the memberfor Hinchinbrook's amendment No. 5 proposesto omit clause 139, thus the member forHinchinbrook will oppose the clause.


"At page 72, line 26 to page 73,line 1—

omit, insert—'(a) is taken to be the chief executive

officer until the earlier of thefollowing—

(i) the day a person is appointed as thechief executive officer under section18(1);2

(ii) 31 March 2001; and'.

At page 73, line 4—omit.2 Section 18 (Appointment of chief

executive officer)."

The Government moves amendments toclause 139(2) of the Bill. The amendmentmodifies the provision in the Bill that providesfor the administrator of the QueenslandLivestock and Meat Authority to be the interimchief executive of Safe Food. The Bill currentlyprovides that the administrator be the chiefexecutive of Safe Food until 2 November2000. Due to the time that has elapsed sincethe introduction of the Bill, that date will notprovide sufficient time for the position of chiefexecutive to be advertised and filled. Thisamendment will extend the period duringwhich the administrator is the interim chiefexecutive until 31 March 2001 or such earlierdate as a person is appointed as the chiefexecutive. I think that should satisfy thehonourable member's concerns.

Mr ROWELL: I am a little bit disappointedthat we glossed over clause 79, because wewere going to speak on that clause and theMinister was going to give me an explanation.However, we have gone past it.


Mr ROWELL: You might laugh, but youare the closest thing there is to a galah in thisplace, I can assure you.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (MrReeves): Order! The member for Hinchinbrookwill speak through the Chair.

Mr ROWELL: Even a superficialexamination of the existing clause 139 in theBill—and even more so this amendment—gives cause for serious concern. What theMinister is effectively asking the Parliament tosupport is the automatic appointment of thecurrent administrator of the QLMA to theposition of chief executive officer of Safe Food.That is what he is saying.

Mr Palaszczuk: Until we fill the position.Mr ROWELL: Okay. At present, that

person is on an SES Level 4. He is earningsomewhere between $149,000 and $156,000.

Mr Palaszczuk: No salary. He is thereuntil we fill the position.

Mr ROWELL: But that person is earningthat much money. The Minister is saying thathe is in a temporary position at present; is thatwhat the Minister is talking about?

Mr Palaszczuk: He is there until we fill theposition.

Mr ROWELL: No salary whatsoever?


Mr Palaszczuk: No salary whatsoever;that's right.

Mr ROWELL: I hope that is right.

Mr Palaszczuk: That is right.

Mr ROWELL: I would like to finish off whatI have to say so that it is on the record. TheMinister wants to waive any selection criteria orany formal selection process for what will be acrucial position in charge of a new agency withan important role and with the responsibility ofimplementing a fundamental shift in the wayfood safety standards are imposed on mostprimary industries in this State. The argumentthat has been put forward in the ExplanatoryNotes is that this move is designed to ensure asmooth transition from the administration ofthe Meat Industry Act. That explanation mayhave washed back on 18 May when theMinister first introduced this Bill—and that wasquite a while ago—and informed the Chamberthat it was necessary to have Safe Foodestablished by 1 July. That was some timeago; there is no doubt about that. It is nowOctober.

There was never any real doubt that theGovernment would not have the numbers topush this legislation through. We have justseen particular instances in which I have triedto move amendments when commonsenseshould prevail, and I was expecting it inaccordance with what we had been talkingabout in relation to clause 79—but we sort ofglossed over that—in that people could havebeen penalised $150,000 and two years'imprisonment. It seems that that is of noconsequence to this Parliament and to thisMinister.

With this amendment the Governmentwants to extend the duration of administrationunder the QLMA administrator who will beappointed until March 2001. As I stated, evena superficial examination of this provisionraises concern. When we look a little closer wefind that the person for whom the Ministerwishes to push aside the barriers for all checksand balances so as to ensure his automaticappointment is the Minister's own formersenior policy adviser.

Mr Palaszczuk: Yes, but it's only until weadvertise the position.

Mr ROWELL: That is nothing. He is thesame former ministerial staffer who washanded the taxpayer-funded job ofadministering the QLMA on a platter after theMinister sacked the previous highly qualifiedboard.

Mr Palaszczuk: And he's done a greatjob.

Mr ROWELL: He is the same formerministerial staffer who, as administrator of theQLMA, presided over his Government'smassive increase in butchers' andslaughterhouse operators' accreditation feesand audit fees. The increase was up to 300%.He has done a marvellous job; there is nodoubt about that!

Mr Palaszczuk: They were your fees.When you were in Government, they were thefees that you were proposing.

Mr ROWELL: They were not the fees wewere proposing. They are the fees that theMinister implemented.

Mr Palaszczuk: No, they were—

Mr ROWELL: They were the fees that theMinister implemented.

Mr Palaszczuk: You didn't impose thosefees—

Mr ROWELL: No, the Minister is right. Hehas answered the question; that is fine. Thiswas the same former ministerial staffer whowas handed the job of chairing the MeatProcessing Task Force, the same formerministerial staffer who was recently awardedthe position of deputy director of business andtrade in the Department of StateDevelopment. It is the same person. He is aman with many hats. When one takes all ofthat into account, this amendment of theBeattie Government appears to be more thanan attempt to look after one of its loyal footsoldiers. The Government has had monthsand months to prepare for the establishmentof Safe Food. The Minister has had monthsand months to get his act together to find theright person for the job.

Mr Palaszczuk: Until the legislation goesthrough the Chamber, you can't put that intotrain.

Mr ROWELL: But the person can be inwaiting for the job, and the Minister has hadhim in waiting for the job—the loyal ministerialstaffer.

Mr Welford: Do you want us to sack him?Mr ROWELL: Those opposite can sack

him if they like. They can please themselves. Ithink some of the member's staff need to besacked as well. Instead, the Governmentcomes into this Parliament and askshonourable members to blindly sign off ataxpayer-funded appointment without anyregard for the fair and proper selectionprocess. What happened to the selectionprocess? On the one hand, it is asking us tosupport this legislation as a fresh start for foodsafety in this State. On the other hand, it isasking us to endorse an appointment that


stands a very real risk of carrying much of thebaggage from QLMA.

The Opposition has already raised a longlist of issues with regard to this legislation thatare of real concern to primary industries in thisState. As this Bill stands, it provides theGovernment with the most far-reaching, all-persuasive powers ever to intervene in theoperations of individual primary productionbusinesses. It is written in black and white. Allwe have been offered in response to thesevery real issues is a few meaninglessassurances from the Minister. All the Minister issaying to the people of Queensland is, "Trustus. We're from the Government. We're here tohelp you." When it comes in here and asks usto blindly sign off this appointment, there islittle wonder people do not trust it.

If the Government is serious about theimplementation of a new system of food safetyand if it is serious about delivering theindustry's desire for a streamlined, effectivesystem which brings costs down—I reiteratethat this Bill imposes costs on the industrythrough the Safe Food program—it wouldmake a completely fresh start and open theselection process of a vital role into atransparent and merit-based process that isbeyond question. There should not be ashadow of doubt about such an importantappointment. I ask the Minister to comment onthis. I know he is shaking his head. I know hefinds it difficult to deal with, but he shouldcome back to reality. What the Government isimposing on the primary producers of thisState is quite onerous. Of course, one of theGovernment's own people will now run thewhole show.

This Government has increased costs forthose dependent on meat processing andthose who own butcher shops to the extentthat they are now paying something like 300%more than they were paying before. This is ascandal. I think the Minister needs to respondto this issue. It would not accept the auditingprocess we proposed, but the primaryproducers of this State will have to paythousands of dollars over a short period.

Time expired.Amendment agreed to.Question—That the clause, as amended,

be agreed to—put; and the Committeedivided—AYES, 39—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle,Braddy, Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham, Edmond,Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hamill, Hayward, Hollis,Kaiser, Lavarch, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady, Miller,Mulherin, Musgrove, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall,Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reynolds, Roberts, Robertson,Rose, Spence, Struthers, Welford, Wells, Wilson.Tellers: Sullivan, Purcell

NOES, 39—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, E. Cunningham, Dalgleish, Davidson,Feldman, Gamin, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan,Johnson, Kingston, Laming, Lester, Lingard,Littleproud, Malone, Mitchell, Paff, Pratt, Prenzler,Quinn, Rowell, Santoro, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson,Slack, Springborg, Stephan, Turner, Watson,Wellington. Tellers: Baumann, Hegarty

The numbers being equal, the Chairmancast his vote with the Ayes.

Resolved in the affirmative.


Schedule—


"At page 79, line 24, after'preparation'—

insert—

', packaging'.

At page 79, after line 25—

insert—

' "packaging" does not include labelling.'.

At page 80, after line 22—

insert—

' "serious food safety offence" means anoffence against part 7.'."

The Government moves amendments tothe Bill's Dictionary, which is contained in theSchedule of the Bill.

Mr ROWELL: Amendment 14 states"'packaging' does not include". Could theMinister give an explanation of exactly what heintends?

Mr PALASZCZUK: The amendmentinserts a definition of packaging to the effectthat packaging does not include labelling. Thisdefinition clarifies that this legislation will notregulate the labelling of food. QueenslandHealth has the responsibility of labellinghuman food under the Food Act 1991.

Mr ROWELL: In relation to labelling, ifone group of people is not going to getinvolved in the process—it seems from whatthe Minister is saying that they have thatoption, but it is not absolutely clear—anddecides to put "Freshcare" or "Flockcare" ontheir product, would that create some sort of acompetitive advantage?

Mr Palaszczuk: That has nothing to dowith this Bill.

Mr ROWELL: Nothing to do with this Billat all? So the Minister is saying that,irrespective of what a property owner does, thepackaging is entirely up to him? The fact that

3924 Statue Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 19 Oct 2000

owners may use what is in this Bill on a label isof no concern to the Government? It hasnothing to do with owners' identification? If weare going to deal with the likes ofsupermarkets and so on—

Mr Palaszczuk: That is the HealthDepartment.

Mr ROWELL: The Health Department?There is this continual delineation between theHealth Department and Primary Industries. Weare doing a lot at this end of the process. A lotof demands are being made of primaryproducers. When we talk about thesupermarkets and the market advantage thatcould be created as a result of this Bill, itbecomes quite evident that packaging andwhat a person can put on that packaging, as aresult of the actual process of labelling it, couldbe either of detriment or of benefit to them. Sothe Minister is quite comfortable that there isno particular advantage being created as aresult of what is being put into that particularsection?

Mr Palaszczuk: That is right.

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

Bill reported, with amendments.

Third Reading

Bill, on motion of Mr Palaszczuk, by leave,read a third time.

STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUSPROVISIONS) BILL

Second ReadingResumed from 19 July (see p. 2150).

Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—LP)(5.56 p.m.): The Statute Law (MiscellaneousProvisions) Bill 2000 is essentially a Bill makingwhat should be minor, non-controversialamendments across a range of Acts of theQueensland Parliament. It seeks to amendsome 62 Acts. The purpose is to streamlinethe process of handling these minoramendments in the interests of allQueenslanders.

The coalition will not oppose thelegislation. There is one amendmentforeshadowed. The coalition will support theamendment. I thank the Government forraising the matter with the coalition so wecould see the proposed amendment before itwas thrust upon us in the Chamber at shortnotice. It is in the Government's interest thatwe know what it is about and I thank theMinister for that.

The proposed amendment relates to theChild Protection Act. It seeks to insert into theChild Protection Act the words "a Minister;and". That will be done simply because of anoversight. It should have been in thelegislation originally. Without the amendment,transfers of child protection orders under thenew legislation would not be possible withSouth Australia, New South Wales and theNorthern Territory but would be possible withother States. Without that amendment thelegislation would not be as workable as it couldbe. The coalition will support the amendmentwhen it comes time to consider it.

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Leader of the House) (5.57 p.m.), inreply: I thank the Opposition for its support.

Motion agreed to.

Committee

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP)(Leader of the House) in charge of theBill.


Schedule—

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Leader of the House) (5.58 p.m.): Imove the following amendment—

"At page 10, after line 2—

insert—

'CHILD PROTECTION ACT 1999

'1. Section 201(2)(b)—

insert—

'(iv) a Minister; and'.

'Explanatory note

'The amended provision deals with thetypes of orders made in participatingStates that may be transferred toQueensland under the Act. The provisioncurrently includes orders of a particulartype made in favour of, or givingresponsibility to, various entities of aparticipating State. The amendmentincludes a Minister of a participating Stateas an entity for this purpose.'."


Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendment.

Third Reading

Bill, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, byleave, read a third time.

19 Oct 2000 Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme 3925

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEEReport

Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP)(5.59 p.m.): I lay upon the table of the Housethe Scrutiny of Legislation Committee's AlertDigest No. 15 of 2000 and move that it beprinted.

Ordered to be printed.

DIESEL FUEL REBATE SCHEME

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (6 p.m.): Imove—

"That the ALP immediately end itsopposition to the extension of theCommonwealth diesel fuel rebatescheme's 100% excise and GST rebate toall off-road users, including civilcontractors, so they can achieveCommonwealth benefits denied them bythe joint opposition of the AustralianLabor Party and the AustralianDemocrats." As an integral part of the new tax

system—which, as members will recall, was themajor issue at the last Federal election—theFederal coalition proposed a comprehensivediesel credit scheme. It is a matter of historythat when the coalition Government was re-elected by the people of Australia its mandatewas treated with utter contempt by theAustralian Labor Party, not only in the Federalsphere but right across the nation. Much of thedisarray that we are subjected to under the taxsystem in this nation today can fall bluntly onthe shoulders of the Labor Party in Oppositionin Canberra, in Government in this State andin Government and Opposition in otherjurisdictions around the Commonwealth. I donot say that lightly, because there certainly willbe many businesses and many off-road userswho will go to the wall as a result of thecontempt of the Australian Labor Party andthe Australian Democrats.

The diesel credit scheme would haveprovided a rebate on the full amount of excisepaid on off-road diesel usage. It was agreedthat State Governments would discontinuetheir off-road diesel rebates to reflect thecomprehensive coverage of the diesel creditand that fuel taxation would no longer consistof a separate State and Federal taxcomponent. It would have made for a clear,simple system. But because the Labor Partylost the last Federal election, it wanted to playhumbug, and that is precisely why we havethis scenario we are subjected to today.

As a result of the Labor Party's oppositionto tax reform, the Government was forced to

come to an agreement with the AustralianDemocrats in relation to the proposed dieselcredit scheme. The diesel fuel rebate schemewhich was finally approved by the AustralianDemocrats had quite limited coverage, and theonly extensions were to cover rail and marinetransport. As a consequence, many off-roaddiesel users—with the exception of heavyvehicles over 4.5 tonnes operating outsidemetropolitan areas—are not eligible for thediesel fuel rebate because they do not belongto any of the eligible categories.

We are talking about people andorganisations around the State who are realjob generators, the people who could helpreduce unemployment to the 5% that theBeattie Labor Government was boasting ofbefore it went into the last State election andto which it is only too keen to refer. I say tomembers on the other side of the House thatthey should be showing responsibility thisevening and supporting the Borbidge-ledcoalition Opposition in this motion.

The consequences of this opposition totaxation reforms by the ALP, which nowsupports the GST, has resulted in the civilcontracting industry in this nation having beensignificantly disadvantaged by Labor'swilfulness not to cooperate. These civilcontractors, who are the builders of thisnation's infrastructure, are being attacked byLabor. They are the people who are trying toprovide job growth and a sense of security tofamilies across this nation. The hypocrites inthe Labor Party, who daily try to pass the buckon road spending, are deliberately preventingcivil contractors from benefiting from the newtax system.

The obvious consequences of this actionis that Labor is making road building moreexpensive than it need be. Sales of equipmentcannot proceed because of some of theprocesses in place, especially in Queensland,where Road Transport Construction Servicesand Plant Hire Services certainly have anadvantage over some of the major contractorsin the purchase of equipment. Second-handsales are at an all-time low because of theanomalies that have been put in place by thisGovernment, which does not understand howbusiness works. That means that Labor isreducing the amount of roadworks that can beundertaken; Labor is reducing the number ofbridges and also the construction of betterinfrastructure for the development of this Stateand ultimately this nation. Here in Queenslandwe have a Premier and Treasurer who havebeen crying crocodile tears about the cost offuel but have been happy to sit back whileLabor cuts the throats of civil contractors, the

3926 Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme 19 Oct 2000

real people who make it happen. We shouldnot be surprised at this staggering hypocrisy,because these are the very people whodreamed up Queensland's fuel tax.

I note that this Government is cranking upthe departments' media budgets again in theface of the media coverage coming from theother end of town. Remember those televisionads for the fuel tax that this Government wasgoing to introduce? Why doesn't theGovernment run those again? They wouldserve as a useful distraction from the othershameful news that we are getting day by dayfrom this Labor administration.

In Canberra, we have Labor acting as thede facto Democrats by refusing to allow thediesel fuel rebate scheme to apply to civilcontractors. We see the Deputy GovernmentWhip walking around today with a BLF shirt on.I say that it is a slur on this Parliament to dressin that manner. We have seen unionsprotesting outside this place day after day thisweek and during the last sitting week. Many ofthese people work within the operations of civilcontractors—the very people on whose behalfwe are fighting for a fair go this evening. I sayto Government members, who say they arethe representatives of the workers, that theyhave totally discounted those workers.

I am pleased to see the Premier sitting upthe back of the Chamber. I am also pleased tosee him talking with the chairman of his PetrolPrice Watch Committee. I spoke with thechairman of the Petrol Price Watch Committeebriefly this afternoon, but I will be having moreto say about that in the fuel legislation debatelater this evening. I know that the FederalGovernment also has to do a lot of work onthis matter, but at the same time we have toget bipartisan cooperation from this StateGovernment, otherwise we will see this Stateclose down.

The Premier waves around petitionsabout fuel prices. Quite frankly, I do not knowwhy he has not brought Rusty the dog in hereto sit at the front bench, because I believeRusty could probably offer more. If Rusty knewabout our proposal to reduce fuel prices forcivil contractors, I am sure he would cooperateand be helpful. He would vote in support of it.

When they get up to speak against thismotion, I urge the Premier and my colleagueson the other side of the Chamber to answerthis simple question: does Labor believe thatcivil contractors should benefit from the newtaxation system? Does Labor agree that civilcontractors should have to pay more for fuelthan other businesses? Does Labor believethat Queenslanders should pay more for

roadworks and other civil works than they needto? Why on earth is Labor discriminatingagainst this particular section of our economy?What is Labor's rationale behind thediscrimination against this particular sector?Why is it that Labor wants to deny jobs, jobs,jobs to our young people?

I believe that the people of Queenslandneed to understand the double standards ofthis Labor administration. I call upon thePremier to put petty politics aside and get hisFederal colleagues to have the gumption tostop this discrimination against this segment ofindustry. They must stop their cynicalemployment-destroying inaction. Labor has tostand up and be counted. Is it for cheaper fuelor is it against it? Is Labor for more roads oragainst them? Is Labor for more jobs oragainst them? Is Labor for better infrastructureor against it?

This is probably one of the most urgentmotions that has been debated in this Housesince motions have been debated at this hourof the day. I do not say that lightly. I see thatthe Treasurer has a half-grin on his face. Thisis one of the most serious issues confrontingrural, regional and metropolitan Queenslandtoday. I can assure the Treasurer that the roadtransport industry, the manufacturing industryand every other facet of industry—includingthe mums and dads who just fill up their caronce a fortnight or once a month—deservebetter than lip-service. To come in here anduse jackboot tactics and smear tactics to pushthe Labor agenda is not positive.

Time expired.

Mr SPRINGBORG (Warwick—NPA)(Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (6.10 p.m.):It gives me considerable pleasure to secondthis motion because it provides an opportunityto deflate the efforts of this Australian LaborParty Government to duck one of its core andnegative positions on the crucial issue of fuel.

The ALP wants the worst of the problemsto be everyone else's fault yet, insofar aspoliticians are at fault, the Australian LaborParty is at the forefront. I am not referring tothe Premier's recent failed bid to effectivelyimpose a fuel tax in Queensland by hisattempt to remove the State-based subsidy atthe pump.

As political involvement goes, the fact isthat the coalition at both the State and Federallevels has put in place the most generous setof arrangements in relation to fuel inQueensland's history. The pity is that thoseprovisions would have been even moregenerous but for the Australian Labor Party


and the Australian Democrats. It is about timethat that was made clear to all Queenslanders.

I refer particularly to the bid by thecoalition when it was developing the new taxsystem arrangements federally to extendaccess to the diesel fuel rebate scheme tovirtually all users of diesel off-road. TheDemocrats blocked that move. The crucialpoint is that the Democrats would have beenmeaningless in that effort but for the explicitcomplicity of the Australian Labor Party. If theALP, instead of backing the Democrats, hadsupported the coalition in its effort to extendthe benefits of the diesel fuel rebate schemeto more categories of off-road users, theDemocrats would have been redundant in theequation. Instead, Labor decided to back theDemocrats and deny hundreds of Queenslandbusinesses access to that rebate scheme.

I refer particularly to the fate of civilcontractors, the companies that work on thebuilding and construction sites and as generalearth movers—the sort of people thehonourable member for Bulimba believed hewas supporting when he was walking aroundwith one of their T-shirts on earlier today. Atthe end of the day, words are shallow; it isactions that we really need to see, and this issomething that is impacting upon thosepeople he purports to represent.

This sector of industry is among thehardest hit by the ALP/Democrat alliance.They were specifically to be brought under theumbrella of the revised diesel fuel rebatescheme as it was put forward by the coalitionfederally. They were quite specifically knockedout of it by the alliance between Labor and theDemocrats in the Senate.

Mr Hamill interjected.Mr SPRINGBORG: That is so. I would

love to see the Treasurer get up and try toprove that, because the Hansard record doesnot back him up.

This decision represented a massiveimpost on the construction industry becausethe great bulk of diesel used by the industry isused, by definition, off road. They are nolonger eligible for the State-based rebate of8.3c per litre. The industry gets GST reliefbecause fuel is a business input, but there isabsolutely no relief from excise. It is pretty coldcomfort for that industry that the GST relief onfuel leaves them basically where they werebecause those two factors virtually cancel eachother out, but the price of fuel has gonethrough the roof. Federally the Labor Partydoublecrossed those Queensland businesses.

Those businesses clearly deserve therelief of the full excise rebate that the miners

and primary producers get but, because of theposition adopted by the Labor Party, they getnothing. What that amounts to is yet anotherindication to the people of Australia that, whileever the Democrats hold the balance of powerin the Senate and while ever the ALPrepresentation in the Senate is sufficient togive the Democrats that balance of power, notmuch of any use to this country will emergefrom that Chamber.

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating oncedescribed senators as unrepresentative swill.Currently Labor and the Democrat senators atleast can be described as unrepresentativefairies at the bottom of the garden. Thecountry deserves a lot better.

We have heard a lot of collectivehumbuggery in this Chamber over the pastcouple of months from the Premier and theTreasurer, who are running around attemptingto blame all of these things on theCommonwealth. If the Premier and theTreasurer and the chairman of the Petrol PriceWatch Committee, who is otherwisepreoccupied most of his time of late, were halfdecent in their real commitment, they would beout there having a royal commission so thatwe had an indication of the real reason for andthe real extent of these problems so that wecould find an effective way to at least pushforward in a bipartisan manner to addressthese things on a State basis.

All members of Parliament should supportthis motion rather than indulge in thehumbuggery that the Labor Party, the partythat has unfairly sought to apportion blame tothe Commonwealth when it should be laid atits own feet, has been going on with in thisParliament.

Time expired.Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—ALP)

(Treasurer) (6.15 p.m.): In a debate in whichhumbuggery and fraud seem overflowing fromthe presentations made by honourablemembers opposite, I move the followingamendment—

"Delete all words after 'that' andreplace with 'the Liberals and Nationalsend their opposition to the extension ofthe Commonwealth diesel fuel rebatescheme to all off-road diesel users,including civil contractors, so they canachieve Commonwealth benefits deniedthem by the joint opposition of theLiberals, Nationals and AustralianDemocrats."

The facts speak for themselves. If onelooked at the motion that has been moved bythe member for Gregory and seconded by the


member for Warwick, one would be led tobelieve that there was a vote taken in theSenate and that the Australian Labor Partyand the Australian Democrats defeatedGovernment legislation relating to the dieselrebate scheme. I table for the information of allhonourable members of the House the recordof the Senate of 29 June 1999, which showsthat the Government legislation was passed.The Bill was read a third time, Governmentamendments had been passed, but theOpposition did not oppose the legislation.

The legislation that is being attacked inthis Chamber tonight is the legislation of theHoward Federal Government, theLiberal/National Party Government inCanberra. These are the people who have putin place the diesel rebate scheme in line withthe Prime Minister's press release. You see,the legislation that was passed in the FederalParliament gave effect to the press release ofnone other than the Prime Minister, JohnHoward, issued on 31 May 1999 in which heproudly proclaimed all the aspects of his taxpackage.

Let me quote the relevant portion inrelation to off-road diesel and like fuels. Thepress release states—

"The extension to the off-roadconcession for diesel and like fuels will belimited to providing full credits for marineuse, bush nursing homes, hospitals,nursing homes, aged persons homes andprivate residences, but not forconstruction, power generation,manufacturing or forestry. The proposedfull credit for mining currently accessingthe DRFS will be maintained."

They are not my words. They are the words ofthe Prime Minister. They are the words of theFederal Government. They are the words ofthe very Prime Minister whose Governmentsponsored the legislation that all partiessupported in the Senate. Why? Because theLabor Opposition believed that theGovernment should be hanged by its ownlegislation!

Nevertheless, this Government has notaccepted the Federal Government's approachto off-road diesel. All members will recall that Ihave repeatedly written to Federal TreasurerCostello seeking the inclusion of civilcontractors in the off-road diesel scheme. Butwhat has happened? Nothing has happened.The silence from Canberra is deafening. Whyis it deafening? Because what I am calling foris for civil contractors and others who benefitedunder the State's off-road diesel scheme to beincluded under the Federal Government's off-

road diesel scheme. Why is there no answer?Because I want the Federal Government toreform its scheme and it simply is notinterested! It is thumbing its nose at the civilcontractors and thumbing its nose at all ofthose who were excluded from the off-roaddiesel scheme when the Federal Governmenttook over that scheme on 1 July.

But here is the other point: the FederalGovernment took $175m off Queensland totake up the off-road diesel scheme. It has notincluded the civil contractors and others havebeen left out, but it still took the money. I askall honourable members to think about this.The Federal Government took the money.Why isn't the Federal Government using themoney that it took from us to subsidise orsupport all those who previously benefitedunder the State scheme?

Those opposite cannot have it both ways.Their mob put the legislation through theFederal Parliament to deny these groups theoff-road diesel subsidy. We did not opposetheir coalition colleagues. We call on them tochange the scheme. I am sure we will receivesupport in the Senate. However, the FederalGovernment will not do it. Why won't it do it?Because it is pocketing the money andcrucifying the industry.

Time expired.

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (6.20 p.m.): I rise to second theamendment moved by the Treasurer. Thereality is that off-road diesel is aCommonwealth problem and theCommonwealth should fix it. It is very simple.The Commonwealth has taken $175m fromthe State to cover the cost of subsidising theexcise on off-road diesel. The Commonwealthhas stolen the money. That was the money weused to pay the 8c per litre subsidy to marineoperators, metropolitan road transport and off-road users.

The Commonwealth took the money, andit should fix the problem. John Howard haschosen to do a deal with the Democrats toexclude those operators from their dieselsubsidy. Let every operator in this State knowthat. They should know it. Any attempt by thecoalition in this State to misrepresent thesituation is dishonest and we will be explainingit clearly to every one of them between nowand the next election. It is in Hansard.

I say to all operators, "Don't be fooled bythis dishonesty. John Howard did it in a dealwith the Democrats. That's why you don't havethe money." We have a problem with that andwe have taken it up with John Howard andPeter Costello. The Opposition here should do


the same but, as usual, they are apologists forJohn Howard and John Anderson. TheNational Party is out there stealing money fromoperators in the bush.

Why are prices rising? While world pricesare pushing petrol costs up, there is an extratax slug which is going straight into JohnHoward's pocket. Even John Howard hasadmitted it now. He admitted it on 4BC thisweek. The higher the price of petrol, the higherthe GST. The GST provides automaticindexation for inflation. The higher the price ofpetrol as a result of a whole lot of factors, themore GST is paid and the more John Howardhas his hand in the pocket of every motorist.That is why there is no need to continueindexation of the fuel excise. That is why thisGovernment is opposing the continuedincrease in the indexation of excise in Februaryand August next year.

Who receives the windfall? The billion-dollar windfall—and that is what we are talkingabout—goes directly to the Commonwealth.The Commonwealth did not budget for it; it is awindfall of $1 billion. On radio yesterday, arepresentative of the RACQ said—

"... the oil companies and the FederalGovernment are the only two bodies in allof this who are making any money at themoment. The rest of us are just simplyincreasingly out of pocket."

That is what the RACQ had to say. That wasnot said by the Labor Party or any otherpolitical party. That was said by theindependent RACQ. The RACQ is saying thatthe oil companies and the FederalGovernment are the only two bodies that aremaking any money at the moment.

That is because John Howard and JohnAnderson have their hands in the pockets ofevery motorist. The net effect on the States isnil because any extra GST revenue is offset byreduced balancing grants. I heard thoseopposite trying to say, "The GST money goesto the States." They do not even understandthe situation. They have no idea how thisworks. It is about time that they worked outhow it works. I guess they really know but theyare just being mischievous, as usual. Reducedbalancing grants mean that expenditure isreduced on the Commonwealth Budget. Thatgives John Howard a bigger surplus. We weretold the other day that the surplus is $12.7billion—almost $13 billion. This will add anotherbillion dollars to it. The only threat to thesurplus is that it will get bigger.

My view, and the view of the Government,is very simple. John Howard and JohnAnderson should give the windfall back to

motorists. Today I tabled a petition on behalfof the Government—on behalf of Mike'scommittee—containing more than 27,000signatures, demanding that the excise bereduced by the amount of the GST on petrol.Everyone except the State coalition believesthat the excise should not be indexed nextyear. Even John Howard is preparing theground for a backflip. He will scrap theindexation of excise in February.

Let me say this to the Prime Minister: "Ifyou go to the next election with excise at itscurrent rate, with indexation in February nextyear, you will lose. Australian motorists are notmugs. You are treating Australian motoristsand Australian families like mugs at themoment, Prime Minister. If you go to theAustralian people with the current indexationpolicy and the current excise policy on fuel,you will lose. It is black and white, and you willlose."

I warn the coalition in this State that wewill be campaigning against it from one end ofthis State to the other on the fact that theFederal Government is ripping off motorists byway of the excise policy. Supporters forremoving excise indexation include: theAustralian Automobile Association, the RACQ,the National Farmers Federation, Agforce, theLocal Government Association, the TransportWorkers Union, QCCI, the Motor TradesAssociation, the Taxi Council of Queensland—everybody, including us.

Time expired.

Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (6.25 p.m.): Iam pleased to support the motion moved bythe member for Gregory. This Governmentcannot criticise the Howard Government's fuelpolicy when the ALP, along with theDemocrats, forced the Government, by theirnumbers in the Senate, to deny the fuel exciselevy being paid to off-road users. A while ago,the Treasurer tabled the Senate Hansard. Itdoes not refer to the issue that led up to theBill going before the Senate. The Premier saidthat it is a Commonwealth problem and hesaid that the Commonwealth should fix it.

Labor could have produced the numbersin the Senate. In this House, members on thisside of the Chamber have asked Labor to giveus support in allowing civil contractors to havethe excise. The Government's amendmentcontains no mention of any support for civilcontractors at all. All those opposite are talkingabout are the Liberals and the Nationals. TheGovernment has said nothing about whatLabor will do. Those opposite are telling usthat Labor will not even talk to its Federal


colleagues to see if they will try to get thisthrough the Senate.

The Premier said that the Prime Ministerwill receive a windfall of $1 billion. The Premieralso said that the Prime Minister should give itback. However, it cannot be given back untilthe legislation is changed. The legislation quiteclearly excludes the civil contractors. TheSenate must make some legislative changes.The Democrats and the Labor Party haverefused to let it go through the Senate.

Local government is severely impactedupon by this legislation. Section 10 of theDiesel and Fuel Grants Act needs to beamended in order to remove the anomalousexclusion of road-making plant and equipmentfrom receiving the diesel fuel exciseexemption. There is also the differentiationwhich excludes registered plant andequipment used in off-road construction andmaintenance activities from receiving thediesel excise concession.

The limitations imposed by the Act havereduced fuel savings of the new tax systemfrom an estimated $18m per annum to $8mper annum. That is $10m that was lost to theLocal Government Association alone becausethe Labor Party and the Democrats pushedthis through. Onerous administrativearrangements have been imposed whichrequire detailed logging of the on-road and off-road usage of council plant and equipment.

Section 10 specifies the circumstancesunder which vehicles of 4.5 tonnes or more areentitled to a fuel grant, including therequirement that the vehicle is for transportingpassengers or goods. In relation to road plant,this would include gravel trucks, bitumen trucksand water trucks but would exclude rollers,graders, backhoes, sweepers and the likebecause they are not for the transport ofpassengers and goods.

That is ridiculous. We will have all thisplant working on roads, but the owners will notbe able to receive the excise rebate. They willbe doing the same job. They also have tohave logbooks. What a nightmare. It is agrossly anomalous situation. Those oppositecould have fixed it. However, those oppositewill not even ask their colleagues for support.

Mr Hamill: We have written to Costello.

Mr HOBBS: What about Beazley? Hasthe member ever heard of a guy calledBeazley? He is one of the member's mates.Why doesn't he talk to him?

Mr Hamill: Costello?

Mr HOBBS: Beazley is the fellow who canprobably help with the Senate. The

differentiation between off-road vehicles in theBill is also of concern. A wide range of councilresponsibilities involve the use of registeredvehicles above the 4.5 tonne threshold in off-road conditions. Significantly, many of theseusually relate to councils' environmentalresponsibilities, such as parks, gardens,beach/foreshore protection, drainage, bushfireservices, pest and weed control,garbage/refuse disposal and recycling centres.Other major off-road plant and equipmentrequirements involve quarries, roadconstruction and maintenance, and airport andaerodrome construction and maintenance. Itappears to be an arbitrary differentiation which,we would argue, should be corrected. It isdifficult to see its justification in relation to theenvironmental objectives of the Bill, and it iscreating an administrative nightmare in termsof the keeping of logbooks for all plant itemsand specifically recording on-road and off-roadusage.

Mr Hamill: Why did your people vote forthis?

Mr HOBBS: Why didn't your people helpto make sure that it didn't go through?

Mr Hamill: Why did your people vote forit?

Mr HOBBS: They had no choice; theSenate was going to knock it out—and themember knows that—because Labor and theDemocrats would not let it go through. Themember can do something about it.

Time expired.

Hon. J. P. ELDER (Capalaba—ALP)(Deputy Premier and Minister for StateDevelopment and Minister for Trade)(6.30 p.m.): The longer I stay in this place themore convoluted is the logic from the NationalParty. We have just been told that we shouldhave voted against the Bill when it wasbrought into the Senate. The Bill was broughtinto the Senate by the National and LiberalParties with the support of the Democrats. Sothe National and the Liberal Parties, with thesupport of the Democrats, are bringing forwardthe Bill that will deal with the off-road dieselrebate. We should have done a deal with theGovernment, that is, the National and LiberalParties, to knock over their own Bill when wedo not have the numbers, and everythingwould have been fine. But what we reallyshould have done—


Mr ELDER: I have got their logic downpat. We should have voted against it. Wecould not have changed it, because the dealwas already done, but we should have voted


against it. Then they would have felt reallygood, because then they could have said tous, "Now we're with you. You voted against itand we're with you", except that every one oftheir National Party senators voted for it.

Mr Springborg interjected.

Mr ELDER: The member for Warwicksaid, "We had no choice." Did the Liberalsdrag them into it kicking and screaming in theparty room? Don't honourable members lovethat—"We had no choice. John Howard, theLiberal, did a deal with the Democrats and uspoor Nationals, but we had no choice. We hadto do it"?

Mr Hamill: The devil made them do it.

Mr ELDER: If it was not the devil, whomade those National Party senators vote forit?

Mr Hobbs: It was the Democrats.

Mr ELDER: I see. So it had to be theDemocrats that made them do it.

Mr Hamill: The National Party takes itsorders from the Democrats.

Mr ELDER: So the National Party takes itsorders from the Democrats; is that correct?This logic has got me tossed. John Howard dida deal with the Democrats. There was no needfor us to vote against it in the Senate; the dealwas done and it was going to get up. ButNational Party members say, "It's not ourfault." The fact of the matter is that Howard dida grubby deal. National Party members mightnot like it, because they have to try to defend itin the bush. Every one of the people in thebush can read a Federal Hansard. I will notrepeat the words of the Prime Minister in hispress release, but it clearly articulates what thepolicy was. He did the deal and National Partymembers now have to cop it. It was their policyin Government and they supported it alongwith the Democrats. They should cop it on thechin and stop being the hypocrites that theyare. It was their decision.

We have only to go as far as the Morganpoll to see how much trouble they are in out inthe bush. Their popularity rates areplummeting. The Prime Minister might havebeen running around at the Olympics, but outin the bush the issues are the GST, its impacton fuel costs and freight charges, and theinflationary impacts that go with it. Those arethe issues that are hurting members oppositein the bush. Do they know who is hurting?They are. They would not be in here squealinglike those proverbial pigs if they were nothurting. They are whingeing and hurtingbecause they made the decision and it hasbackfired on them in their constituency.

When they do grubby deals with theDemocrats they should not come in here andtry to use us as scapegoats. The fact of thematter is that they did the deal. It is hurtingthem and their constituency. If membersopposite do not think fuel is the No. 1 issueand GST is the No. 2 issue and that inflation isworrying them in the bush, they are kiddingthemselves. After the next State election—andI cannot wait for that day—regardless of anyissue that is out there I will still be here andthey will still be sitting there. Someone will bewhere the Leader of the Opposition is now,because he will not be there. We will see whichone of them has the intestinal fortitude to takehim on before the next State election. I doubtit will be the member for Toowoomba South,because he has been up to bat and he struckout three times. It obviously has to be themember for Gregory or the member forWarwick. It will be interesting to see whetherthe kid can do over the old stager.

Members opposite are hurting in thebush, and that is their problem. They cut it;Howard cut it. It is their policy. Their senatorsvoted for it in the Senate. It is their problem. Ithas nothing to do with the Labor Party. Wehave argued against it from day one. Rightnow none of their Federal counterparts willanswer any correspondence in relation to it.

Time expired.

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA)(6.35 p.m.): What hypocrisy we have heardtonight, especially from the member forCapalaba. Everybody in Australia knows whathappened with the diesel fuel rebate scheme.The Labor Party could not accept that thecoalition won the Federal election. We had aclear mandate from the people, and Laborcould not cop it. They were beaten andknocked out of the ring. Labor opposedeverything that the people of Australia hadvoted for. The only way they could get the taxpackage through the Parliament was to go theway they went. It was the Labor PartyOpposition through the deals it was doing withthe Democrats that destroyed this importantpart of the tax scheme. It was the Labor Partythat did it. They were the bedfellows of theDemocrats.

We have always said that Australia willnever get anywhere with the Democratsaround; they are like lead in the saddle bag. Itis like poor old Gunsynd trying to win theMelbourne Cup carrying 62 kilograms. For aslong as the Democrats are around Australia willgo nowhere. However, it is worse when theLabor Party gets into bed with them and stopsproper reform that has been promised by a


party that won an election upon that promise.What happened? The Labor Party and theDemocrats were going to block the tax reformin the Senate.

Mr Hamill interjected.

Mr HORAN: They have caused this, andthe Treasurer knows it. If he had written hisletter to Beazley instead of Costello he mighthave got some action. The Treasurer couldhave turned it all around and gotten MrBeazley to support the whole package. Theyjust could not accept the decision of thepeople of Australia and the flogging they gaveLabor.

So what happened then? Because of theactions of the Labor Party civil contractors,backhoe operators, subcontractors andworkers employed in these family operatedbusinesses have been denied jobs andbusiness opportunities. Local government hasto go to extra expense. And all of this wasbecause of the Labor Party. They shouldn'tworry, because we are out there tellingeverybody exactly how that came about. Wewill tell them not to listen to the hypocrisy ofthe Labor Party and not to listen to themember for Woodridge. Old "Vote Watch"could not even watch the votes in the LaborParty. He could not stop the corruption, sothey put him in charge of the petrol pumps. Itis like putting the fox in charge of the chickencoop.

Here is the chance for the hypocritesopposite to try to do something. They talkabout bipartisan support. Their party stoodback and gave tacit support and did absolutelynothing. Their party blocked the tax reformpackage and they have directly caused theproblems that the civil contractors, the councilsand everybody else are facing.

We are seeing in this Parliament aGovernment that is endeavouring to misleadthe people, the workers and thesubcontractors. Come the next election, we willbe out there telling them about the rorts, aboutall of the water infrastructure and land clearingthat has been stopped. They have had a tasteof this Government for a couple of years andthey have seen services going from theirhospitals and water projects being stopped.They have had a taste of the problems theywill have with freehold land. Along the lengthand breadth of Queensland they have felt thecold, hard, heavy hand of Government comedown on them. They know what is happeningand they know that it was the Labor Party andthe Democrats that ripped off this diesel fuelrebate. It was the Labor Party, with its dealsbehind the scenes and its threats. It was the

Labor Party's threat to stop the tax reform thathas caused this whole problem, yet they donot have the courage to stand up and admit it.They did not have the courage to accept thedefeat in the flogging they got at the lastFederal election and, like spoiled kids, they aretrying to prevent legislation going through thatwas legislation for which the people ofAustralia had voted.

The Government of the day does noteven have the courage to hold a royalcommission to try to find out if anything can bedone in Queensland. All it wants is stunts tocover up what it supported in Canberra—stuntsto support all the hypocrisy that it carries onwith. We will be only too happy to go to thenext election on the Government's rorts, itslack of development, the costs that it has hitthe civil contractors with and the way it hasimposed upon the families who run theseearthmoving businesses—all because of thegrubby little deal that it did with the Democratswhich caused this situation in the first place.

Time expired.

Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP)(6.40 p.m.): While the Nationals and theLiberals are in here pointing the finger andblame shifting, the facts are clear. The reasonthat the off-road diesel fuel rebate schemedoes not have a wider coverage is due only tothe deal that the Federal Liberals and theNationals did with the Australian Democrats toget the GST up. We have heard feebleexcuses from members opposite. They havesaid that it was a deal between the LaborParty and the Democrats, but the facts arethat they did a deal with the Democrats to getthe GST introduced. That is what they did.Now we hear these claptrap excuses that "wehad no choice; we had to support them". Wehave heard nonsense from membersopposite.

As part of the national tax reform, on 1July the Commonwealth assumed fullresponsibility for assisting off-road dieselconsumers. The Commonwealth took $175mfrom Queensland, the cost of paying subsidiesto those consumers, and took on theresponsibility of paying the subsidy. It is nowclear that the Commonwealth's diesel rebatescheme does not extend as widely as theprevious State scheme did and that there aresome off-road diesel consumers, such as thecivil contractors, who have found themselvesleft out. The Commonwealth took the moneyto provide the subsidy. So the questionbecomes: if not all of the groups that wereable to claim the subsidy previously areentitled to it now, where is the money going?


The Treasurer, David Hamill, wrote to PeterCostello on 30 June asking for the criteria ofthe Federal Government scheme to bereassessed. To date, there has been noresponse—no recognition of the impact thatthis is having on significant groups in thecommunity.

As I said earlier, the construction industryis a good example of where theCommonwealth's refusal to pay off-road dieselfuel rebates to all road diesel consumers ishaving an impact. There is no greater impactthan that which is being felt in regionalQueensland and rural Queensland.

I received a letter from I. Reddacliff & CoPty Ltd, earthmoving contractors of Mackay.That letter states—

"The civil construction industry wouldlike to know why it has been singled outfrom every other sector of the economyand discriminated against to a degree notpreviously experienced by any industry.

The civil construction industry buildsand maintains Australia's infrastructure—roads, rail, harbours and marine, airports,water, sewer, gas, power,telecommunications, irrigation, recreation,land development by way of subdivisionsand rural improvement."

It goes on—"We would have thought that the

development and maintenance of theabove in order to continually improve thenation's economic and social well beingwould be a priority for any government.Instead we have a situation where theGovernment has set about penalising theindustry with increased and unfair fuelcosts."

It goes on further—

"To start—P.86 of 'Tax Reform—nota new tax a new system' August 1998:"—

this is the Federal Government's tax system,August 1998—

" 'Under the GST, registeredbusinesses will pay less for petrol anddiesel because they will be able toclaim an input tax credit for the GSTpayable on fuel used for businesspurposes. Business will save about 7cents per litre relative to what theypay now.' "

It goes on—"We haven't seen that.

Next in June 1999:"—

this is the Prime Minister's statement—

" 'Off-Road Diesel and LikeFuels—The extension to the off-roadconcession for diesel and like fuelswill be limited to providing full creditsfor marine use, bush nursing homes,hospitals, nursing homes, agedpersons homes and privateresidences, but not for construction,power generation, manufacturing orforestry. The proposed full credit formining currently accessing the DFRSwill be maintained.' With those few lines the Government

apparently rejected out of hand anypossibility of this important industryaccessing a reduction in price of one of itsmajor cost components."

Mr Hamill: Whose words are those?Mr MULHERIN: They are the words of the

Prime Minister, Mr Howard.

At the end of the day, it is quite clearwhere the issue lies. The Federal Governmenthas the money to deliver the off-road dieselfuel subsidy and it is its responsibility to deliverthat subsidy to all people entitled to it. TheNationals, the Liberals and the AustralianDemocrats all joined together to do a deal toget a GST, and part of the deal was areduction in the number of people entitled toclaim an off-road fuel subsidy. The NationalParty, the party of the bush, did not have theguts to stand up to its coalition mates, theLiberals. National Party members are really justapologists for Howard and the Liberal/NationalParty clone, the Deputy Prime Minister,Mr Anderson.

Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (6.45 p.m.): Irise to support the motion moved by themember for Gregory calling on this StateGovernment to end its opposition to theextension of the Commonwealth diesel fuelrebate so that we can end some of theinequities and the unfairness that have beenoutlined by both the member for Gregory andthe member for Warrego as well as otherspeakers on this side of the House.

Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order. Thehonourable member has misrepresented mycomments this evening. We have not opposedthe extension.

Mr SEENEY: Sit down, you fool.Mr HAMILL: I find those remarks

offensive. He has misrepresented what I havesaid. We did not oppose civil contractorsgetting off-road diesel rebates.

Mr SEENEY: That is just another exampleof the absolute mockery that the Governmenthas made of this debate tonight. It has made


an absolute mockery of this debate, just as ithas made a mockery of this Parliament for thepast couple of weeks that we have been here.It has made a complete mockery of theparliamentary process, and its response to thisdebate tonight is a continuation of that type ofmockery. Everybody knows that theGovernment is pursuing those tactics to deflectattention from the rorts and the trouble that itis in. It is trying to deflect attention from therorts that the member for Woodridge did notsee, the rorts that the Premier would not knowabout! That is its real tactic in the type ofapproach that it has taken to this debatetonight.

Everybody knows that there would not bea diesel fuel rebate were it not for the NationalParty. It is a signature issue for the NationalParty. The National Party can very legitimatelyclaim credit for the continued existence of thediesel fuel rebate. But the responsibility for itsrestriction lies with the Australian Labor Partyand its cohorts in the Federal Senate, theDemocrats. That is where the responsibility forthat lies and that is why it is such a fraud andsuch a mockery of this Parliament forGovernment members to come in here tonightand move an amendment that somehow triesto suggest that the Liberals and the Nationalsoppose the extension of the Commonwealthdiesel fuel rebate. They know and everybodyout there knows that that was a negotiatedposition that was arrived at. All that theAustralian Labor Party and its senators had todo was indicate an intent, indicate what theirposition was, and that legislation would neverhave been taken to the Federal Parliament inthat form which restricted the payment of thatdiesel fuel excise rebate. They know that thatis the case, and everyone out there in thecommunity knows that that is the case.

When people read the contributionsmade in this Parliament tonight by theTreasurer, the Premier and the DeputyPremier, the absolute falseness of thisGovernment will be exposed yet again—theabsolute dishonesty that is being exposed inlots of places at the moment, and don't theyhate it! The absolute dishonesty is acharacteristic of this Government. It is rotten tothe core. It comes in here and tries tomisinterpret the facts. Who does it think it istrying to kid by suggesting an amendment thatsays "the Liberals and Nationals end theiropposition to the extension of the diesel fuelrebate"?

Who on earth do those opposite think isgoing to believe that, outside their crazy littleclique? Nobody! No-one is going to believethat. All it does is expose the falseness and

the dishonesty of those opposite in anotherway, and that falseness and dishonesty will bewell and truly exposed before much longer.The people of Queensland look forward tothat. I challenge all of those opposite tonight,especially the Premier, the Deputy Premierand the member for Cook, because he morethan most can influence Queensland's Laborsenators to get off their tails and get in contactwith other Labor senators and get them totake a position. All they have to do is take aposition. All they have to do is indicate supportfor the extension of the diesel fuel rebatescheme and it will happen.

Those opposite know what the realsituation is. They know, yet they come in hereand are dishonest and cheat. The DeputyPremier spoke about us on this side of theHouse copping it on the chin. They are theones who have to cop it, and they will cop it. Ilook forward to the contribution from themember for Woodridge. They put him incharge of the Petrol Price Watch Committee,but he could not see the rorts! Five years andhe could not see the rorts! How is he evergoing to see anything in relation to petrol?

Time expired.

Mr KAISER (Woodridge—ALP)(6.50 p.m.): The previous speaker in thisdebate challenged us on this side of theHouse to clearly make our position known toCanberra. The Treasurer has done that. TheState Treasurer has written to theCommonwealth Treasurer indicating ourposition, indicating that we want to see the off-road diesel rebate scheme extended to thosewho used to get it. That is our position, and wehave made it known to Canberra. What hasthe Federal Treasurer done? He has notbothered replying. Do those opposite knowwhy he has not bothered replying? He has notbothered replying because the deal is done.

The deal those opposite did with theDemocrats is done, and there was nothingLabor could have done about it. In case thoseopposite had not noticed, we were not part ofthose negotiations. We were not part of thedirty deal. We were not part of thenegotiations. We were not behind the closeddoors of the Democrats and the Liberals andthe Nationals who did the deal to get the GSTthrough the Senate. We were not part of it.Those opposite were so desperate to get thenew tax system in place and so desperate toget the GST through that they would havetraded away anything. What they traded awaywas a reasonable off-road diesel rebatescheme. There was nothing Labor could havedone.


The last time I checked, Labor was theFederal Opposition at the time, yet we aresupposed to be the ones to blame for thislegislation. It was supported by the Democrats,supported by the Liberals and supported bythe Nationals, but it is our fault! It is somehowour fault! It is the Federal Opposition's faultthat this off-road diesel rebate scheme is notmeeting the needs of off-road diesel users.This is an indication of just how badly theNationals and Liberals are hurting over thisissue. The debate tonight is an indication ofhow much their decision—their dirty deal withthe Democrats—is hurting them out in theelectorate. That is what this is about. It is anindication of the extent to which they areprepared to lie to their constituencies to try toshift the blame to Labor, but the proof thatthat is a lie is in the sequence of events whichoccurred in the lead-up to the vote in theSenate.

Let us look at that sequence of events. Itwas in April 1999—well before the vote wastaken in the Senate—that the CommonwealthGovernment required the States to sign overresponsibility for the off-road diesel rebatescheme—April 1999, months before thedecision was taken in the Senate. Were wepart of that decision too? Were we to blamefor that premeditated decision by theCommonwealth to take responsibility for thescheme? Then a month later—again, beforethe Senate vote but a month after the Stateswere required to sign over the scheme to theCommonwealth—the Prime Minister issued apress release outlining the parameters of thescheme. I will not quote it. The Treasurer hasalready read the press release into theHansard record, but it clearly indicated thepremeditated consequences for off-road dieselusers—all before Labor cast its vote in theSenate.

So there was the requirement that theStates hand over the scheme and then therewas the Prime Minister's press releaseindicating how it would operate, and only thenwas the legislation introduced in the Senate.However, those opposite have the hide tocome in here and lie not only to the Parliamentbut also to their own constituents.

Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order.

Mr KAISER: They don't like it, MrSpeaker.

Mr JOHNSON: I find that offensive. It is aslur on the Opposition and I ask for it to bewithdrawn.

Mr KAISER: I withdraw.

Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. Ialso find it offensive, Mr Speaker.

Mr KAISER: Those opposite aremisleading their constituents, and they aredoing it deliberately because they know howmuch this issue is hurting them. They aredoing it deliberately.

I have spoken to off-road civil contractorsup and down the State. They said to me thatthose opposite had told them that this isLabor's fault. However, after going through thelogic and the sequence with them, theyunderstand. The civil contractors understand.In a letter to the Queensland Treasurer, civilcontractors said—

"... the Federal government does notappear to perceive the cost to industryand the State's infrastructuredevelopment, their decision has made."

Those opposite have not fooled the civilcontractors, who know it was the decision ofthose opposite. If the arguments tonight fromthose opposite had any validity, they wouldhave been able to persuade the civilcontractors of their position. They have not.They know that it is their position. Let us lookat the twisted logic of the Opposition whichsomehow blames Labor for this decision.

Time expired.Question—That Mr Hamill's amendment

be agreed to—put; and the House divided—AYES, 40—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle,Braddy, Briskey, Clark, E. Cunningham,J. Cunningham, Edmond, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras,Hamill, Hayward, Kaiser, Lavarch, Lucas, Mackenroth,McGrady, Miller, Mulherin, Musgrove, Nelson-Carr,Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Reynolds, Roberts,Robertson, Rose, Spence, Struthers, Welford, Wells,Wilson. Tellers: Sullivan, PurcellNOES, 33—Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper,Davidson, Gamin, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan,Johnson, Kingston, Laming, Lester, Lingard,Littleproud, Malone, Mitchell, Pratt, Quinn, Rowell,Santoro, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack,Springborg, Stephan, Turner, Watson, Wellington.Tellers: Baumann, Hegarty

Resolved in the affirmative.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Any future divisions

on this motion will be of two minutes' duration.Question—That the motion, as amended,

be agreed to—put; and the House divided—AYES, 41—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle,Braddy, Briskey, Clark, E. Cunningham,J. Cunningham, Edmond, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras,Hamill, Hayward, Kaiser, Lavarch, Lucas, Mackenroth,McGrady, Miller, Mulherin, Musgrove, Nelson-Carr,Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Reynolds, Roberts,Robertson, Rose, Spence, Struthers, Welford,Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Sullivan, Purcell

NOES, 32—Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper,Davidson, Gamin, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan,Johnson, Kingston, Laming, Lester, Lingard,

3936 Fuel Subsidy Amendment Bill 19 Oct 2000

Littleproud, Malone, Mitchell, Pratt, Quinn, Rowell,Santoro, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack,Springborg, Stephan, Turner, Watson. Tellers:Baumann, Hegarty


Sitting suspended from 7.04 p.m. to8.30 p.m.

FUEL SUBSIDY AMENDMENT BILLAllocation of Time Limit Order

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Leader of the House) (8.30 p.m.), byleave, without notice: I move—

"That under the provisions ofStanding Order 273, the Fuel SubsidyAmendment Bill be declared an urgent Billand the following time limits apply toenable the Bill to be passed through itsremaining stages at this day's sitting—(a) Second reading by 11.30pm;

(b) Report from Committee of the WholeHouse by 12 midnight;

(c) Third reading and Title agreed by12.05am.

At the times so specified, Mr Speaker orthe Chairman, as the case may be, shallput all remaining questions necessary topass the Bill, including clauses en blocand any amendments to be moved bythe Minister in charge of the Bill, withoutfurther amendment or debate."

Mr HAMILL: I second the motion. Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—LP)

(8.31 p.m.): The Opposition strenuouslyopposes the motion moved by the Leader ofthe House.

A Government member: Stop laughing.Mr BEANLAND: The only person in this

Chamber who is laughing is the Leader of theHouse. He has a great big smile on his face,having moved to gag debate on this particularpiece of legislation.

This Government is certainly setting somerecords when it comes to gagging debate.Only the other night we had reached up tosome 27 occasions on which debate has beengagged. That has now increased to 28occasions, in just two years and four months inGovernment. In over six years, the GossGovernment gagged debate on only 22occasions and the Borbidge/SheldonGovernment gagged debate on two occasionsin two years and four months.

This Government certainly has a record.Obviously, the Labor Party is proud of thisrecord, because this evening we are debating

the Fuel Subsidy Amendment Bill—somethingof great interest to all members of thisChamber. There is a long list of members whowish to speak to it. There are 19 membersfrom the Opposition side on just the first pageof the speakers list, and there is a secondsheet to come. There are two members fromthe Government on the first page of thespeakers list. Government members areobviously not very interested in this Bill. I amsure that a number of Independent membersalso want to speak to this particular legislation.

The people who are wasting time arethose in the Government, because they do nothave the courage to debate this Bill fully. Weknow that this Government does not have thecourage, because it does not want to sittomorrow—for good reason, because it isrunning scared. In fact, it does not want anymore sittings than are already scheduled. Itwould like to close down the House. Obviouslythat is what we are seeing happen now. Thegag motion has been moved. There is nogreat rush for this legislation. We could easilysit on some more days, but this Governmentdoes not have the courage to sit any moredays.

So much for the wonderful letter that themember for Brisbane Central, who I notice hashis tail between his legs—he does not havethe courage to be in the Chamber thisevening—wrote on 25 June 1998. So much forthe letter that he sent to the member forNicklin. It is no wonder the Premier is not herethis evening. I can well understand why themember for Nicklin now feels let down,cheated and discouraged. He faces the cheatsand the rorts on the other side of theChamber. That is what we have: cheats androrts on the other side of the Chamber. Theyare cheating and rorting again.

The guillotine has been applied to awhole host of legislation: the Weapons Bill, theCriminal Law Amendment Bill, the Coal MiningSafety and Health Bill, the Queensland LawSociety Amendment Bill, the Trading(Allowable Hours) Amendment Bill and theElectricity and Gas Legislation AmendmentBill. Debate on a whole range of Bills wasgagged. Tonight the guillotine has beenmoved again. Of course, the gag was alsoapplied to the dissent motions.

This evening this Government is againshowing that it does not have the courage tosit and debate these very important pieces oflegislation. The Fuel Subsidy Amendment Billcould be one of the most important pieces oflegislation that this Parliament has debated inthis term, because that Bill is all about this

19 Oct 2000 Fuel Subsidy Amendment Bill 3937

Government setting the scene for a fat petroltax—a fuel tax—in the future. That is what thisis all about: a Labor Government fueltax—nothing more, nothing less. Of course, itis a great sham.

The Government says that the debatehas to be over by 12.05 a.m. What a farcethat makes of this debate! That means thatbetween now and 12 o'clock, some three anda half hours, the whole debate has to becompleted. Probably 30 members ofParliament indicated that they wished to speakto the Bill. That simply will not work. Only afraction of those members who indicated theywished to speak will get that opportunity. Infact, probably only nine or 10 people will get tospeak to the legislation.

That is what this Government is all about.It is all about thuggery. It is all about denyingpeople the opportunity to speak. It is all aboutdenying freedom of opportunity for membersto come in here and express their views. Thisis about stifling members who should have theopportunity to speak. That is why memberswere elected to this Parliament—to expresstheir views on important pieces of legislation.This Bill will set the scene for the Labor Partyto put in place a fuel tax in this State. We willsee that in the not-too-distant future. Nodoubt, if Labor were to get another term inoffice it would do that.

Mr Springborg: They are laughing it offagain.

Mr BEANLAND: They are laughing it off,all right.

Mr Springborg: The old tactic.Mr BEANLAND: It is. That is what they

said they should do: laugh off these issues.The one thing that will bring them unstuck forsure is their rorting and cheating the public ofQueensland when it comes to the electoral rolland the polls.

The Opposition strenuously opposes thismotion. I believe all thinking members of thisHouse will oppose it. There must be memberson the Labor Party side who want to speak tothis legislation as well. Clearly, the Governmentwants to cover up and rush this through sothat the Beattie fuel tax plan will not beexposed for what it is.

Question—That Mr Mackenroth's motionbe agreed to—put; and the House divided—AYES, 37—Attwood, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Braddy,Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham, Edmond, Fenlon,Fouras, Hamill, Hayward, Kaiser, Lavarch, Lucas,Mackenroth, McGrady, Miller, Mulherin, Musgrove,Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, Pitt, Reeves, Reynolds, Roberts,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Spence, Struthers,Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Sullivan, Purcell

NOES, 37—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, E. Cunningham, Dalgleish, Davidson,Feldman, Gamin, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan,Johnson, Kingston, Laming, Lingard, Littleproud,Malone, Mitchell, Paff, Pratt, Prenzler, Quinn, Rowell,Santoro, Seeney, Simpson, Slack, Springborg,Stephan, Turner, Watson, Wellington. Tellers:Baumann, Hegarty

The numbers being equal, Mr Speakercast his vote with the Ayes.


FUEL SUBSIDY AMENDMENT BILLSecond Reading

Resumed from 4 October (see p. 3384).

Dr WATSON (Moggill—LP) (Leader of theLiberal Party) (8.42 p.m.): I rise to speak onthe Fuel Subsidy Amendment Bill, which hasjust been gagged by the Government. This Billis just another stepping stone to a Beattie fueltax. Let there be no misunderstanding, nomistake. Behind this Bill is a hidden agenda. Ifwe did not think there was a hidden agendabefore a couple of minutes ago, it wasconfirmed by the Government's unwillingnessto debate this Bill in detail. It was confirmed bythe fact that the Government was unwilling toexpose this Bill to the full scrutiny of thisParliament at the Committee stage. It wasconfirmed by the fact that this Government willnot allow the speakers on this side of theHouse to have their full say. Behind this Bill,there is a hidden agenda.

The Premier will never admit these daysto favouring a fuel tax, but let me remindmembers of what he had to say in 1993—

"I do think there will be a time"—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): The

member for Sandgate will leave the Chamberand have his conversation outside.

Dr WATSON: Thank you very much, MrDeputy Speaker. I think decorum is aparticularly important aspect of this place, so Ithink that your enforcement of those rules isappropriate.

In 1993 the Premier said—"I do think there will be a time,

somewhere along the road, when we willneed to look at widening the tax base,and maybe issues such as the petrol taxneed to be put on the agenda."

The member for Brisbane Central then claimedthat a petrol tax would reduce unemployment.He said—

"I believe Queenslanders would besupportive of a 1 or 2c per litre petrol tax ifit contributed to job creation schemes."


He went on to say—"If we are to maintain the services

that are provided currently and that thepeople of this State want, it will benecessary to consider a petrol tax. Ibelieve this matter needs to be put on theagenda for debate."

That was the Premier's view in 1993, and it isstill his view today. His arrogant attempt toscrap Queensland's fuel subsidy earlier thisyear confirmed that nothing much haschanged. The hysteria he whipped up overrising petrol prices was just a cynicalsmokescreen, aided and abetted by histangle-footed mate from Ipswich, who has nowintroduced this Bill.

Mr Borbidge: "Baldrick".

Dr WATSON: That is what I believe thatvery respected journalist on 4BC, Mr Miller,keeps referring to him as.

As Craig Johnstone observed so astutelyin the Courier-Mail of 15 June, theGovernment's plans were well advanced longbefore international oil prices started to bite atthe bowser. The Premier and his Treasurercouldn't believe their luck at having a ready-made excuse to accelerate their plans for afuel tax. Johnstone's comment is worthquoting at some length, because I think thepoint was well made by that journalist. Hesaid—

"It is passing strange that on May 29,the day the first reports appeared abouthigh petrol prices in Queensland,Mr Hamill and Premier Beattie had asuggested solution.

A more believable scenario would bethat they were waiting for the rightmoment to spring it on motorists.

Mr Hamill is insisting the Treasurywas only acting on recent concernsexpressed by the RACQ about the highQueensland pump prices relative to otherStates.

But this Government would not berelying on the RACQ or media to inform itabout the operation of a $500m subsidy.

More likely the Government andTreasury have taken advantage of thefurore to bring forward a policy changethat has been in the works for months."

Mr Borbidge: Hear, hear!

Mr Springborg: Hear, hear!Dr WATSON: "Hear, hear!", the Leader of

the Opposition and the Deputy Leader say.Johnstone hit the nail on the head. This was apremeditated attack on Queensland motorists.

That is precisely what it was. The Premier sawan opportunity to implement his long-term planfor a fuel tax and he seized it with both hands.He tried to outrort the rorters. He poured$400,000 worth of taxpayers' money intoblatant propaganda, and went perilously closeto succeeding, until the commonsense of theQueensland public kicked into gear.

The Premier's whole strategy was basedon lies, lies and more lies. First he claimed thesubsidy was not being passed on, when all thehard data showed that it was. Then he claimedthat the Government had not even considereda fuel tax until petrol prices started to rise. Butall the evidence showed otherwise. Then heclaimed that every last cent would be returnedto motorists, when independent experts suchas the RACQ estimated the Treasury tax grabat $140m. Then he threatened to go it alonewith a State-based inquiry into petrol prices. Toquote his own words from the Melbourne Ageof 22 August, "There will be an inquiry inrelation to petrol", he said. "If we can't get anational one, rest assured, the State will beholding one." Big talk, but we are still waiting.

It is very interesting that even thismorning—and it is still sitting on the tablehere—the Premier tabled a gigantic petition—

Mr Springborg: A gigantic cop-out.

Dr WATSON: A gigantic cop-out, as themember for Warwick says. That petition asksthe Federal Government to institute a Senateinquiry.

Mr Borbidge: He didn't petition himself.

Dr WATSON: No. In fact, he said in theMelbourne Age, "If we can't get a nationalone, rest assured, the State will be holdingone."

Mr Borbidge: And then he swallowed realhard.

Dr WATSON: That's right. Weeks later,months later, he comes into this Chamber,tables a boxful of petitions for the FederalGovernment to do something, and he is foundwanting. He does not have enough gumption,does not have enough internal fortitude tohold one himself, because he knows theanswers. The Premier has obviously reachedthe conclusion that one inquiry in Queenslandis one too many.

The piece de resistance was his sillyassertion that existing arrangements werebeing rorted to the tune of $100m a year.Someone at the Executive Building forgot tocheck the maths. With a subsidy rate of 8.3c alitre, the volume of fuel needed to sustain arort of $100m would be 1.2 billion litres a year.That works out to about 3.3 million litres of fuel


a day, or 60 tanker loads at an averagecapacity of 55,000 litres. That is what thePremier wanted us to believe, that there were60 tankers heading south every day, 365 daysa year, with subsidised Queensland fuel. If thatwere the case, the tankers would have beenbacked up from Coolangatta to Southport. Ivery much doubt that there are 60 tankers inQueensland on any given day, let alone 60tankers carrying contraband petrol interstate.

Of course, we all know about thePremier's research. He gets a couple of hisministerial minders to phone half a dozenservice stations before breakfast and jot downtheir answers on a canteen napkin. That is it.The Premier's methodology makes Ros Kelly'swhiteboard look like rocket science. He makesit up as he goes along.

According to one of Australia's leadingeconomic commentators, the Premier haselevated the standard of debate on petrolprices to postgraduate level ignorance. Unlikehonourable members in this Chamber, TerryMcCrann was not inhibited by the niceties ofparliamentary debate. I could not possiblyrepeat his personal assessment of thePremier's rantings, but it was about six buttonsshort of a boofhead—the Homer Simpson ofAustralian politics. I think the Leader of theOpposition, the member for Surfers Paradise,had an equally colourful way of expressing it inthe House a few weeks ago. As Mr McCrannso rightly observed, if the Premier reallywanted to do something about rising petrolprices all he had to do was hand back the 9c alitre he was getting from the GST.

The reality is that the Premier was hopingto use the GST as a Trojan horse for his owntax grab. That is what he has always been onabout. He sought to perpetuate a massivedeceit on the people of Queensland but hewas caught out. We would not buy it, theRACQ would not buy it, the Motor TradesAssociation would not buy it, the LocalGovernment Association would not buy it and,of course most importantly of all, the people ofQueensland would not buy it.

The Treasurer was not adverse to a littlebit of deceit either. When we caught him outripping $40m off beer drinkers earlier this year,he claimed that the money would be used tosubsidise the cost of the petrol. That $40mwould have cut the price by nearly 1c a litre,but it never happened. When the Governmentrants and raves about the FederalGovernment I find it amazing that it has notpassed on that $40m at all. Every cent hasdisappeared into consolidated revenue. Whenthe Premier's grand plan started to unravel in

June, he set up the Price Watch Task Forceheaded by the member for Woodridge.

Mr Springborg: He'd be good at locatingrorts.

Dr WATSON: One has to admit that thereis a certain irony about the former secretary ofthe ALP being appointed to investigatealleged rorting.

Mr Paff: Alleged?

Dr WATSON: It is alleged rorting in thecase of petrol. We can only hope that he hasmore success with petrol than he had with hisLabor colleagues and the electoral corruptionduring the 1990s.

Of course, the other great irony during thecourse of this debate was that the only playersbacking the Government's attempt to axe ourfuel subsidy were the oil companies, thealleged rorters. No wonder the people ofQueensland smelt a rat. If the purpose of thisBill is to cut out the oil companies, assuggested by the Government's own webpage and reported in the Courier-Mail on 19September, someone should remind theTreasurer that most service stations are ownedand controlled by the oil companies.

When the Premier announced his newfuel scheme on 18 September, he said that itwould ensure that the entire subsidy of 8.35c alitre was knocked off the pump price. Well,how? If the Government cannot control the oilcompanies, how will it control their retailoutlets? If the oil companies were ripping offthe subsidy before, what will stop them now?How can we even tell when the petrol price canfluctuate by 10c a litre between dawn anddusk? Every one of us in the past couple ofdays when driving around Brisbane wouldhave seen that. When I was coming intoParliament in the morning it was 79.9c a litre atthe petrol stations in my area and when I wasgoing home in the evening it was 89.9c. If theGovernment cannot stop the oil companiesfrom employing fluctuations of that magnitude,how will it stop them under the proposedsystem?

This Bill does nothing to address thebiggest single bugbear for the Queenslandmotorist. The price of petrol will still bebouncing around like a bungee jumper onspeed. This Bill will increase administrativecosts tenfold without any guarantee ofincreased compliance. What is the point?There is no point. We will still have to contendwith market forces, we will still have to contendwith the rorting of the margins and we will stillhave to contend with the roller-coaster prices.There will be no discernible impact on the costof petrol at the bowser. Ordinary motorists will


get no benefit and the bulk end users will beeven worse off. This Bill will transfer financingcosts from the Government to business andindustry. It will build in yet another disincentiveto investment and jobs.

Far from what the Premier said in 1993about a fuel tax creating jobs, this particularpiece of legislation will do exactly the reverse.The Treasurer wants us to believe that this Billis the bees knees, that it will stop the mythicalconvoy of phantom petrol tankers truckingcontraband fuel across the border and deliverpeace and prosperity for all in our time.

This is the same bloke who thought that itwas okay to rort his parliamentary travelentitlements, who thought the tollway was agood idea and who gave his mates amultimillion-dollar casino licence.

Mr Springborg: He closed the railway line.

Mr Borbidge: He woke up one morningand tried to close down a third of QR, too.

Dr WATSON: And the members forWarwick and Surfers Paradise remind me ofthe closure of the railway lines.

Mr Borbidge: A third of the QR network.

Dr WATSON: He closed a third of the QRnetwork overnight.

Mr Springborg: What about the schooluniform allowance?

Dr WATSON: That was the $50cheque—the $50 bribe—that went out justbefore the election.

Mr Springborg: He is the humanpersonification of a Demtel ad.

Dr WATSON: That is right. Why should wehave confidence in anything he says? It isworth noting that every Labor MP supportingthis Bill also supported the Premier's plan toabolish Queensland's fuel subsidy—every oneof them. There was not one member overthere who spoke out against it. Not onemember came out publicly and said that thatwas a bad idea. Every Labor MP supportingthis Bill also supported the Premier's push for ade facto fuel tax. That alone should be causefor thought.

The acid test of this Bill is this: will petrolbe any cheaper as a result of this Bill?

Mr Springborg: No.

Dr WATSON: The answer is no. Asreflected by my colleagues a moment ago, nois the answer. The answer is no. Some userswill pay more but no-one will pay less.

This Bill is just a strategic retreat from afailed political swindle. It is a cosmetic face-saver for an arrogant Premier who is hell-bent

on introducing a fuel tax at the earliestopportunity. The coalition will not be a party tosuch a pointless, cynical charade.

Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (SurfersParadise—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition)(9 p.m.): This Bill is a con. It is a fraud, theproduct of a fraudulent Government. It is adisgrace. It is the second con that thisGovernment has attempted on the fuel issuethis year, as demonstrated by my colleaguethe member for Moggill. The first was the bidby the Premier to sell a one-off reduction in thecost of vehicle registration as an adequatereturn for the removal—for all time—of the 8.3cper litre State-based subsidy on petrol anddiesel at the retail pump. That was a blatantattempt to bring in a fuel tax in Queensland.Everybody knew it.

The Premier is the only member fromeither side of the House who has everpromoted a petrol tax in this place. He did it in1993, and he did it very explicitly. Whatever hesays about being reformed, the fact is that afew weeks ago he tried to introduce one. Ihave no doubt that if he were re-elected hewould end the 8.3c per litre retail subsidysometime during a second term. Whateverbenefit there may have been in the registrationdeal would have been transitory, andQueenslanders picked that—and they picked itbefore the attempt at the con was barely outof the mouth of the member for BrisbaneCentral.

The increase in the number of vehiclesbeing registered each year, coupled with CPIcreep, or worse, would have taken care of anyadvantage a discrete distance down the track.This would have occurred sooner or later. Thesums done by the motoring organisations atthe time showed that in many instances therewould not have been even a transitory benefit,that the money ostensibly saved onregistration would have been lost at the petrolpump—pronto.

So the member for Brisbane Central hadto back off. He should equally back off fromsome of the provisions in this Bill. It is anotherblatant bid to transfer money from fuelconsumers to the Treasury. The simplest wayof demonstrating that is to make this simplepoint: where the consumer owes theGovernment money under this scheme, theTreasurer and the Premier want it on seven-day terms—after the month in which the fuel isused. They want their money back pronto.

When it comes to money that the Premierand the Treasurer might owe the consumer byway of rebate, they want three months to pay.They want to see the cheque manana—in due


course, in the fullness of time. They want theconsumer to carry the Treasury. They want thecash flow problems of this scheme to fall uponthe consumer, not the Treasurer.

Of course, that is exactly the opposite tothe way the coalition tackled the administrativeand cash flow issues when this issue ofrebates first emerged. We managed todevelop a method where the cheques todistributors from Treasury for the rebates theywere due were in the mail almost as thedistributors were paying the higher duty. Thecash flow issues were absolutely minimised bythe coalition. The cheques were crossing eachother in the mail. That was the goal, that wasthe objective, and that is what we achieved.Certainly at the end consumer level the issuesimply did not exist.

But now, under this Government, we aregoing to have a situation where bulk end userswill have to pay the full Monty up front—nosubsidy on any of their fuel—and then claimthe rebate back, where it is applicable, amaximum of four times a year. Treasury, onthe other hand, will not send a cracker to theconsumer until well after the consumer's carwould have been repossessed had he beenas tardy as the Treasurer now wants to be.

The Treasurer says he needs to go downthis route to stop the rorts. He reckons that, ifthe rebate does not come into play for bulkend users until after—well after—the fuel hasbeen put into the running tank of a vehicle foran approved on-road use, he will stop thetankers running the border. He argues thatunder these new arrangements the bulk enduser will not be able to run that fuel intotankers or into other containers.

So this is virtually a rort-buster, by virtuallylabelling every bulk end user a potential crook.


Mr BORBIDGE: As my colleague says,this comes from Peter Beattie and the rorters.Never mind the cash flow issues for the99.999% of Queensland's businessmen andwomen who have never dealt with the fuelrebate, or any other liability, with anything lessthan total honesty. The Government says,"We'll assume you're all crooks, and then ifyou owe us some money we'll have it rightaway. If we owe you some money, you candamned well wait." That is what this legislationamounts to. That is the attitude of thisGovernment across-the-board to a T. It is thelatest assault by this Government on,particularly, rural producers and bulk endusers.

The Treasurer, for goodness' sake, hasnot convincingly established that rorts have

been occurring at a level which would go closeto justifying this Bill. How many prosecutionshave there been? As the member for Moggillsaid, if we believed the words of the Premier,there would be 60 tankers a day. Whatabsolute nonsense! The number ofprosecutions that this Government haslaunched has been minimal.

Let us look at how we got where we aretoday on this matter before we look further at,perhaps, the principal victim—the primaryproducer. In 1997, the High Court ruledeffectively that States could not raise excises.It suggested that the business franchise feeswhich applied to tobacco and to liquor—and inevery State except Queensland to fuel aswell—were disguised excises. That presentedthe States with a grave revenue problem.

Every State relied, to a greater or lesserdegree, on revenue from tobacco and liquorexcises. Every State, except Queensland,relied heavily on fuel taxes. TheCommonwealth then agreed to raise exciseson behalf of the States in relation to tobacco,liquor and fuel, and to remit that income to theStates. That got all the States off the hook inrelation to tobacco and liquor, but it gaveQueensland a particular problem in relation tofuel.

We did not have a fuel tax, and we didnot want one. I speak only for the coalitionGovernment of the day on that point. Whoknows what the response of the currentPremier would have been. On his recentbehaviour, he would have tried to pocket it. Inany event, the coalition Governmentundertook to return that excise surcharge ofjust over 8c per litre to the taxpayer, whereasin all other States the Commonwealth excisesurcharge became a de facto State fuel tax,replacing the real State fuel tax that existed inevery other jurisdiction.

We returned that money in order to keepQueensland fuel tax free. We did it in amanner that was so effective and sounobtrusive that many Queenslanders wouldnot have been aware that there was an issueor a problem. The scheme worked well.

Mr Cooper: They will be aware now.

Mr BORBIDGE: As my friend from CrowsNest says, they are sure going to be awarenow.

In contrast, this Government has beenmucking around with the issue for months andis only succeeding in making matters morecomplex and more onerous than they need befor everybody except the Treasury, whichreceives a massive cash flow advantage. In


this context I refer particularly to the plight ofprimary producers.

Here is yet another kick in the guts for thebush from a Government that has been on abush-bashing exercise ever since it came intooffice, whether we talk about the RFA, whetherwe talk about tree-clearing, whether we talkabout water issues, whether we talk aboutcrackdowns on drought declarations, whetherwe talk about kicking people off leases orwhether we talk about fuel. Life is complex andtough enough for primary producers on thefuel front without this Government gratuitouslysticking the boot in.

The dollar's collapse, along with the virtualtripling of the oil price over the past 18 months,is delivering enough pain. The Commonwealthis continuing to provide a near 100% rebate onexcise for off-road diesel for the primaryproduction sector. It is providing 100% relieffrom the GST for off-road use of dieselbecause it is a business input. It is providingzonal rebates of between 1c and 2c per litredepending on location. From 1 July it hasprovided new assistance in the form of an 18cper litre excise rebate and full GST redemptionfor on-road use of vehicles of 4.5 tonnes ormore by primary producers. This use also iseligible for the State rebate since Mr Beattie'seffort to pull it off for on-road use was howleddown.

When we consider those benefitstogether, we see that they are substantial foron-farm fuel use, but that is bedevilled byincreased paperwork, by the rocketing price ofoil and now by the decision of the QueenslandTreasurer to add more paperwork and anothercash flow issue. From 1 October, primaryproducers who are also bulk end users havehad to buy all of their fuel at the unsubsidisedprice, even on that element of theirconsumption to be used for purposes that willattract the State-based rebate, and thoseinclude private on-road motoring and use ofvehicles of over 4.5 tonnes on road forbusiness purposes.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, when you fill upyour car at the pump you get the advantage ofthe fuel subsidy scheme, but if you were aprimary producer and if you were a bulk enduser you would not receive the benefit of thefuel subsidy scheme until such time as you putin a claim to a maximum of four times a year,and you would have to carry the cash flowconsequences of that. I can just imagine howthe Labor rorters opposite would yell andscream if they did not get the advantage ofthe fuel subsidy scheme for three months and

then had to put in a claim while the Treasuryhad all of the benefits of that cash flow.

Dr Watson: That would be worse thantaking away their extra votes.

Mr BORBIDGE: It would be worse thantaking away their extra votes, as the memberfor Moggill said.

This legislation replaces a schemewhereby bulk end users in the primaryproduction sector would buy their fuel up to 1October at the subsidised rate and then repaythe subsidy on that element of their purchasewhich was used off road. That was a fairersystem. It gave the primary producer breathingspace. It reduced the cash flow problems. Sowhat if Treasury has to wait a few months toget the refund? Treasury can afford that farbetter than can the average primary producer.Rural debt has never been higher. Commodityprices are still low. The overall price of diesel,on the basis of the movement in oil prices, hasgone through the roof. In many parts of theState it is now well over a dollar a litre.

Over the past few years, diesel has alsosteadily lost its historic advantage over petrol.In many areas it is now around 10c per litremore expensive than petrol. The last thingprimary producers need when all of thesethings are considered is another cash flowproblem. The Government should haveunderstood that and taken that intoconsideration. It should have given the primaryproduction sector the benefit. Instead it hasshown yet again that it does not understandthe bush. It has shown yet again that it doesnot understand the life of the primaryproducer. It has shown yet again that it doesnot understand the economics of the bushand the fact that towns, big and small, in manyareas outside Brisbane rely almost exclusivelyon business from primary producers and theirfamilies. Again, this Government has put itselffirst and the taxpayer second.

This Bill is yet another of the growing listof reasons why this Government should bestruggling to get a single vote outside Brisbaneat the next election. This Bill virtually labelsevery holder of a bulk end user licence in theState a crook in waiting. The worst hit as acategory will be primary producers, who can illafford another cash flow problem. They will beclosely followed by those people in thetransport sector who are also struggling withhigher fuel costs and a decline in economicdevelopment and growth rates under thisGovernment. I challenge the Premier to puthimself in the same position in which he will beputting every bulk end user in this State.


Mr Springborg: He's okay; he's got ataxpayer-funded BP card.

Mr BORBIDGE: He has got a BP card.But in relation to his private car, I challengehim to accept a situation where he does notget the fuel subsidy when he tops up hisprivate car at the local servo and three monthslater he has to put in a claim to Treasury to getthe 8.3c a litre fuel subsidy. I challenge him toapply to himself the same rules that he isapplying to bulk end users in Queensland as aresult of this legislation. I bet honourablemembers he will not do that. He would nottouch it. He is applying two separate sets ofrules. There is another big difference. Thepeople he is applying this rule to are not on$200,000 per year. They do not have aGovernment car and a BP card. The treatmentof the Premier and his Treasurer of bulk endusers in regard to this legislation is an absolutedisgrace.

I will end on this note: in recent times thePremier has sought to divert attention from hisown shortcomings in relation to fuel by trying toblame the Commonwealth for the internationalincrease in the price of oil. He has tried tosuggest that the Commonwealth should holdan inquiry into fuel pricing. The Premier hasalso said that he would have his own inquiry. Isay to the Premier tonight: bring it on. Ichallenge him to do so. He does not need topetition the Senate, he needs only to petitionhimself. He can establish a commission ofinquiry tomorrow. He can do it himself. Ichallenge him to do it and I challenge him torefer to that commission of inquiry this rotten,stinking piece of legislation and what it will doto bulk end users and primary producersacross this State.

His reluctance to do so suggests that hewas just after another anti-Canberra headlinewhen he said that that was his intention.Tonight I again say to him: "Bring it on. Letyour own royal commission examine thislegislation. Let your own commission of inquiryexamine your policies." The Premier has beenfound wanting. What he is doing tonight iseffectively undermining the fuel subsidyscheme such that the people who are leastable to carry the burden of these changes willhave to carry it. He is creating two classes ofQueenslanders and he is designating primaryproducers and bulk end users as second-classQueenslanders.

Mr Springborg: A political stunt. Mr BORBIDGE: A political stunt, as the

Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, is allthat this Premier is good for. If a commissionof inquiry investigated this legislation, it would

certainly discover that what is being proposedin this Bill is unfair to all consumers and to bulkend users in particular. If the Premier does notwant to have an inquiry, he should at leastwithdraw this Bill and take it back to thedrawing board. The fact is that all of theseoptions that this Government is now fiddlingaround with were examined in detail by theprevious coalition Government and rejectedoutright because of the burden that thesesorts of changes to the law would place onpeople across various communities inQueensland.

What we have seen from this Premier isstunt after stunt. What we are seeing tonight islegislation that under the guise of reform willbrand every bulk end user in this State a rorter,despite the fact that this Government has nowhad months to establish and prove that therehas been wide-scale rorting and to prosecutethose rorters under the very substantial powersthat the original legislation gave theGovernment of the day. They have not beenable to do so. They cannot do it, because theyknow that their justification for a fuel tax wasfatally flawed. They failed in trying to introducea fuel tax the last time round, so what we areseeing now is the effective imposition on bulkend users of an unreasonable burden wherebyevery bulk end user in this State, regardless ofthe desperate financial situation in which theyfind themselves, will also find themselvessubsidising Mr Beattie's Government.

Time expired.

Mr SPRINGBORG (Warwick—NPA)(Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (9.19 p.m.):Tonight is a very sad night for this QueenslandParliament. What we have seen is a debateon a very important piece of legislation beforethis Parliament, which is extremely complex,being gagged by an ever increasing arrogantGovernment in order to cover up the obviousdeficiencies of this legislation. The other thingthat the people of Queensland and membersof this Parliament should be concerned aboutis the contempt in which the Treasurer of thisState holds the people of Queensland and theParliament of Queensland. He is not even inthis Parliament to listen to the issues and theconcerns that are going to be raised bymembers of the Opposition as they draw outsystematically the real problems with thislegislation. It is an absolutely disgracefulperformance on his part and also on the partof the Government in general. This gag isnothing short of a cover-up to disguise theobvious deficiencies of this legislation and,therefore, it leaves this Parliament with littleopportunity of effective scrutiny and it leaves


the Opposition with no choice but to opposethe legislation.

This Bill is Marx and Engels stuff. Itscentral premise is that every capitalist is acrook and therefore should be dragged down.This Bill cements the proposition that from 1October bulk end users, whether they aretransport operators, bus companies or primaryproducers, have to buy all their fuel at theunsubsidised price, even though significantelements of those purchases will legitimatelyattract the 8.3c per litre State rebate. Thepresumption on the part of the Government isthat if Treasury does not take that precaution itwill be ripped off by the bulk end users, thetaxpayers. Under this format every transportcompany becomes a suspect for filling emptytankers from bulk end user tanks and sendingtheir drivers on a run for the border. I supposethat bus companies are going to draw thecurtains and turn their buses into disguisedtankers! Primary producers, this Bill assumes,are going to pretend they have run all their fuelthrough the family car or four-wheel drive,running in and out of town. Perhaps theTreasurer still thinks women on properties aregoing to drive the truck to town to do theshopping to get the rebate for business use onroad. We have already heard that strangeanalysis from the Treasurer not so long ago.Either way, this Bill says that all bulk end usersare presumed guilty until they are proveninnocent.

Bulk end users have to buy their fuel atan unsubsidised price and then they mayclaim back once a quarter the State rebate onfuel that is eligible for the rebate. If they are atransport operator or a bus company operatingunder a bulk end user's licence, that will beafter the fuel has been shifted from storagetanks into the running tanks of the vehicle inamounts never exceeding 2,000 litres forlegitimate use in that company's business. Ifthey are a primary producer who operatesthrough a bulk end user's licence, then theywill be able to achieve—eventually—a chequefor the rebate for fuel that they used privately,or on road in a vehicle of 4.5 tonnes or more,for business purposes. But until they do that,they will be treated like a rorter. Then they willhave to wait and wait and wait or, as thePremier would say, wait and wait and wait andwait and wait.

Honourable members should look at thedouble standards here. If the Government isowed money, it wants it right up front or, whenadjustments are needed, it wants it no laterthan seven days into the month after themonth in which the fuel was used. But if it isthe Government that owes the money, the

taxpayer can hurry up and wait for threemonths or even longer. The insult in this isalmost as bad as the injury, because there isan injury here as well, and that is the cash flowissue—something that the Treasurer does notseem concerned about.

For many transport businesses strugglingin this low economic growth rate stage in whichnothing much is happening and in which jobsgrowth is down to around half of what it wasunder the coalition, the cost of doing businessis now critical. Business cannot afford to spenda cent that they do not have to in order, quiteliterally, to keep on trucking. Business certainlycannot afford to carry Government for threemonths or more. How much longer than threemonths business is going to carry theGovernment for is going to be an interestingpoint here. The claim can go in quarterly.There is a concession that allows the claim togo in less often—but not more often. In otherwords, if Queensland businesses want to carrythe Government for six months or nine monthsor 12 months, they will be able to do that.

Last night I was talking to somebody inmy electorate who is a bulk end user. Theyhave a major farming operation and also atransport business. This is going to cost themin the order of $80,000, for which they willhave to carry the Government for threemonths—$80,000!

Mr Borbidge: They will be able tosubsidise Lang Park.

Mr SPRINGBORG: They will be able tosubsidise Lang Park. The redevelopment ofLang Park was not even in the Budget, but theGovernment was able to find $280m the verynext day.

But what about those people out therewho are up for $80,000 every quarter in whichthey will have to carry the Government? Theycan just sit there and cop it! What about the150 people whom they employ? They can sitthere and cop it, too—major employers in thisState!

Mr Dalgleish: Even the trawler operatorsare in the same position.

Mr SPRINGBORG: As the honourablemember for Hervey Bay says, even the trawleroperators are affected.

As I said, if they want to claim more oftenthan quarterly, they will not be able to do so.When I was acting Leader of the Opposition alittle while ago, I gave guarded support to theproposed changes but on the proviso that theadministrative and financial burdens onbusiness were not too onerous. As thislegislation has revealed tonight to only limited


scrutiny of this Parliament as a consequenceof the gag, they are far too onerous. Most willno doubt go for the quarterly route, but thedelay between when the claim is made andwhen the cheque is put in the mail is going toadd to that lag.

Exactly the same circumstance confrontsthe primary producer who is a bulk end user.Like other bulk end users, the primaryproducer from 1 October has had to go from asituation in which his fuel was provided at thesubsidised price and he then rebatedpromptly, essentially on seven day terms, theState rebate for any ineligible fuel use—off-road fuel use. Now he has to work with thescheme that is the mirror image of that. Hecan buy his fuel at only unsubsidised pricesand claim the rebate on that element which isused privately on road or for business use onroad in vehicles of 4.5 tonnes or more. Again,like all other bulk end users, he will carry thatburden for at least three months—probablycloser to four. So not only has he beenlabelled a potential crook by this Treasurer andthis Government; he has been told to carry theGovernment for the lot and to wait for anyrefund from the Government, which adds realinjury to insult. He cops the cash flow issue upfront and then he waits.

The same mind-set is at work with theprimary producers who are not bulk end users.From 1 December they will have to declare—and the seller of the fuel will have todetermine—up front how fuel is to be usedbefore the transaction takes place, which is notas easy as it sounds for those making thesedecisions who run a car and a lawn mower.There is absolutely no consideration in this Billfor the businessman or businesswoman,whether they are running a trucking company,a bus company or a family farm. There is everyconsideration for the Treasury and for theGovernment.

Another way in which this decision is abad decision in light of the currentcircumstances goes beyond the issue ofpresuming most business people are crooksand goes beyond the cash flow issue, and thatis the price of fuel. In the thinking that hasdelivered this Bill to the Parliament, noconsideration is given to the increase in theprice of fuel. In many instances the price offuel across Australia has increased by well over30% over the past 12 months or so. On anumber of occasions over the past 12 monthswe have seen the price of a barrel of oil gofrom around US$12 a barrel at the beginningof 1999 to three times that.

This worldwide price spiral in relation to oilhas translated into increases at the pumpwhich are causing massive problems rightacross the Australian economy and particularlyin the bush, not just for primary producers butfor everybody who lives in rural and regionalAustralia. The cost of diesel and petrol is amassive factor in the cost of living in rural,regional and remote areas of the State. TheGovernment should realise this, because thisState is about a third of the landmass ofAustralia. This cost affects just abouteverything. The price of petrol has rocketedand the price of diesel has increased evenmore rapidly to the extent that it is nowconsiderably more expensive than petrol. Theprice differential is now the order of 7c or 8cand the reason for that, apparently, is thatdemand for diesel by the Asian markets out ofSingaporean refineries, which set our ownindustry's benchmarks, has increaseddramatically as that region has emerged fromthe economic slump of 1997, 1998 and 1999.That has heightened competition for acommodity in relatively short supply and hashelped, together with other constraints on oilsupplies from OPEC, to push the price up.

Whilst that reason is a significant factor, Ido not believe it is the only one. I also havelittle faith in the transparency of fuel pricing inthis country. The bottom line is that dieselprices are now dramatically higher than theywere 12 months ago. The Labor Governmenthas decided to ignore those impacts on itsconstituents and has instead once againdecided to look after itself. It is the same sortof behaviour that was revealed here thismorning by the Opposition Leader in relationto port authority dividends.

Some 95% of after-tax profit now seemsto be the going rate for dividends fromGovernment owned enterprises. That hasbeen the case for a couple of years in thepower industry, and it is now apparently thegoing rate for port authorities. The commondenominator is greed. This Government islooking for every cent it can get, and it doesnot care whether it stultifies regionaldevelopment or labels bulk end users crooksjust so it can get its subsidy. It is clearlydesperate, and this Bill will only consolidatewhat is now the deep conviction across ruraland regional Queensland: that this is an anti-rural, anti-regional and anti-primary productionState Labor Government. It will put itself firstevery time.

The other insensitive thing that this Billdoes is adds to the confusion and theadministrative burden of dealing with fuelissues, particularly in the primary production


sector. Transport companies and buscompanies will at least have account sectionsand the administrative backup to meet theseissues head on. However, for the primaryproducer, this is another major administrativeheadache for little to no gain. At least when itcomes to Commonwealth issues in relation tofuel, there are some significant benefitsassociated with the new paperwork.

The revised diesel fuel rebate scheme inthe tax package that came in on 1 Julymaintained the central element of the oldscheme, which was a virtual 100% rebate onexcise. In addition, under the new taxarrangements, there is a 100% rebate for theprimary producer on GST for any business-related fuel use. The GST rebate effectivelytook the place of the 8.3c per litre State-basedrebate which was based on the post 1997increase in excise to around 44c per litre. Thatexcise rate dropped back to 37c under thenew arrangements, taking the 8.3c that cameinto play to deal with the 1997 excise increaselargely out of play.

The sum result of these moves wasintended by the Commonwealth to be virtuallyrevenue neutral for the primary producer. Andthey would have been, but for the increases inthe price of fuel which have been, largely butnot entirely, beyond Government control. Inaddition to those measures in the new taxpackage, there were new concessions in thearrangements for primary producers for on-road business use of vehicles of 4.5 tonnesand over which now attract a 17c per litreexcise rebate and full GST relief. This on-roaduse is also eligible for the 8.3c per litre Staterebate, which survived the efforts of thePremier to pull it off.

The point of recounting that series ofCommonwealth measures here is to highlightthe negativity of what this State LaborGovernment has done. The Commonwealthmeasures contained some onerousadministrative work but at least a significantreturn. Primary producers have gone fromhaving to worry only about submitting theirtraditional claims for the excise rebate to asituation where they now have to deal with thatand GST business statements and returns andthe on-road use of fuel for business. The onlything that makes that task bearable is thatthere are at least real rewards in terms ofthose concessions. However, now the State isoverlaying that set of measures with anotherset of particularly onerous requirements wherethe returns are nowhere near as great.

The full cost of diesel up front associatedwith the paperwork required to claim the rebate

backup for that element of fuel that goes toprivate use and, on top of that, the paperworkassociated with achieving the rebate for on-road business use in specified vehicles simplyadds to the administrative burden. Primaryproducers need more of that like they need ahole in the head. That is particularly so whenthere is an addition to the cash flow burdens toboot, and there is in this case. Again, that isneeded like a hole in the head.

The Government could have taken theseconsiderations on board. It should have takenthese considerations on board. Instead oflooking after itself, it should have looked at thebusiness climate and the cost to taxpayers ofwhat it was introducing and come up with a farmore equitable and workable plan. It shouldnot have added to the cost burden ofbusiness. It should not have addedunnecessarily to the administrative burdenfacing business. It should not have gratuitouslylabelled virtually every major user of fuel in thisState a crook. One has to wonder why theGovernment reached the conclusion it did. Inthe first instance, I smell a blind panic inrelation to revenue. To force business to carrya burden for Treasury of the scale envisagedin this Bill is a deadset giveaway. TheGovernment is prepared to do anything to getits hands on cash and to keep as much of it aspossible. As I said earlier, the raid on portauthorities—the second in a year, given theearlier debt for equity swap—consolidatesdesperate greed as a key motive.

Another issue is the fact that membersopposite simply do not like business. Theyparticularly do not like farmers, graziers andhorticulturalists. I am sure there are stillmembers opposite who oppose the privateownership of land. I am convinced that it isthat anti-rural and anti-regional Queenslandmind-set that we are seeing at work here,because this Bill would simply not be beforethe House from a Government which evenslightly understood the pressures nowconfronting rural and regional Queensland.Only a Government which had turned its heartto stone in relation to those areas of our Statecould bring this Bill forward, and it ought to berejected by this Parliament.

In the past couple of weeks since theGovernment announced its intention to bringforward changes to the fuel subsidy scheme,we have seen a situation where the offices ofmany members of Parliament have beencontacted by people with concerns. Bulk endusers, farmers and those involved in truckingcompanies have contacted me in order for meto explain it to them. On Tuesday night it tookme three quarters of an hour to explain it to


someone. Last night it took half an hour. It islike verbalising a bowl of spaghetti.

Mr Reynolds interjected.

Mr SPRINGBORG: I know the honourablemember for Townsville is sitting back laughinglike a sideshow clown, but I would love him tohave the guts and the gumption to stand up inthis Parliament and put his name on thespeakers list to try to explain this arrangementsimply, because there is no simple way ofexplaining it. As I said, it is like trying toverbalise a bowl of spaghetti bolognaise. It isvery difficult to explain to a primary producerwho has just paid $1.07 a litre for fueldelivered to his tank on his property whilesomebody in town pays 98c a litre at thebowser that he is not being ripped off; it onlyappears as though he is being ripped off!

The issues associated with the changesbetween the Commonwealth and State afterthe new tax package and what is envisaged inthis legislation makes it almost impossible forpeople to understand the additional obligationon them as far as paperwork is concerned.The Government has not been able todemonstrate any broad-scale rorting of the fuelsubsidy scheme. If it had, there would besignificant prosecutions. There has been adifferential between New South Wales and thisState of at least 8c to 10c a litre in fuel pricing.The issue is the pricing policy of fuelcompanies. That is the real issue here. If thisGovernment was serious, it would have a royalcommission to get to the bottom of it.However, it is forcing bulk end users to carrythe administrative burden for a stunt that it hasinvolved itself in. There is no demonstrable orreal reason for this. We are leaving this Statewith a very sad legacy as a consequence ofthis flawed legislation.

Time expired.Mr KAISER (Woodridge—ALP)

(9.40 p.m.): The Fuel Subsidy Amendment Billdemonstrates that this Beattie LaborGovernment is prepared to do what it can toease the burden on motorists and fuel users inthis State. And it is a considerable burden.According to figures I have from InformedSources, the price of unleaded fuel in Brisbanein September this year was, on average, 85.5cper litre. Compared with 12 months ago, whenthe price was 69.8c per litre, it is clear thatmotorists in and around Brisbane are nowpaying about 15.7c a litre more for unleadedfuel. If a family uses about 50 litres aweek—that would not be at all unusual in aplace such as the one I represent—thatchange translates into an annual increase ofabout $408. That is placing an inordinate

burden on motorists and fuel users in thisState.

People are not prepared to accept thatthere is nothing Government can do. They arenot prepared to accept, as the Prime Ministerasserts, that there is nothing politicians can do.They do not believe John Howard when hesays that there is nothing he can do about fuelprices. They believe that politicians have aresponsibility to do something, and this LaborGovernment here in Queensland is doing whatit can.

The in excess of 27,000 people whowillingly signed the petition which the Premiertabled this morning clearly believe that there issomething the Federal Government can doand they are appreciative of the fact that theLabor Government here in Queensland istrying to do something. They may not haveliked the first proposal we came up with, butthey give us credit for trying. They know thatthis Labor Government, unlike theGovernment in Canberra supported bymembers opposite, is prepared to do what itcan to ease the burden on motorists. Peopledo not accept for a minute that there isnothing the Federal Government can do. Theycertainly do not believe the Prime Minister'sarrogant assertion that there is nothing he cando about fuel prices.

In the context of this speech I would liketo thank those, from both sides of the House,who participated in circulating that petition andattracting signatures. I thank those whoparticipated in offering Queenslanders theopportunity to express their outrage at aFederal Government that is not prepared to dowhat it is able to do.

The subsidy scheme that thisGovernment inherited was fatally flawed. It wasfatally flawed in a number of ways. Some wecould do something about. Others we could donothing about. One significant flaw we coulddo nothing about was the hopeless deal thoseopposite made when in 1997 they negotiateda per capita arrangement instead of a per fuelusage arrangement. The former Treasurer andformer Premier went to Canberra andnegotiated a deal for our rural and regionalState—a State which is regionalised to a muchgreater extent than any other State. They werestupid enough to negotiate a per capitaarrangement rather than a per usagearrangement. That is one of the fatal flaws inthis scheme that we are not able to address.

The other fatal flaw, which we are able toaddress, was that their scheme was based onsubsidising fuel at a wholesale level. This ledto a situation—


Dr Watson: Find any tankers?Mr KAISER: Yes, and there have been

prosecutions. Their flawed scheme led to asituation where large quantities of wholesalefuel—

Honourable members interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Nelson-

Carr): Order! Could we have a little bit of peacein the Chamber? I cannot hear what themember is saying.

Mr KAISER: This scheme led to asituation where there were large quantities ofwholesale fuel and fuel in bulk end users'tanks which had already been subsidised. Theexistence of large volumes of subsidised fuelin the system meant that people could rip thesystem off. That already subsidised wholesalefuel and fuel in bulk end users' tanks could betransported to southern States, but thetaxpayers' money was not returned toQueensland motorists but was deliveredinstead to New South Wales and Victorianmotorists. That was a fatal flaw that we coulddo something about, and with this legislationwe do something about it.

This scheme will deliver subsidised fuel atthe bowser. It will eliminate the existence in themarket of large quantities of alreadysubsidised fuel. It will be very difficult to rort thissystem. People would have to pull up to theirlocal BP or Shell service station in a tanker, fillthe tanker up at the bowser and take thetanker interstate. Under the schemeintroduced by those opposite, those tankershad already-subsidised fuel which they couldtransport straight down over the border atconsiderable profit to them, to those operatorsand to New South Wales and Victorianmotorists.

The Opposition has raised the point aboutbulk end users having to claim what they usedand not getting the subsidy in advance. Theobvious reason for that is that we want toeliminate the flaw in the system of having largevolumes of fuel which has already beensubsidised sitting out there in tanks. Under thisscheme, bulk end users are able to claim themoney back from the Office of State Revenuefor the fuel that they use in the appropriateway.

Mr Johnson: When? Three months!Mr KAISER: And the reason for that is

obvious. The alternative is to fill their tanks withalready-subsidised fuel which can then beused in inappropriate ways or which can thenbe used—

Honourable members interjected.Mr Johnson interjected.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Themember for Gregory! Could I ask that we allrespect the Chair? I cannot hear what is goingon. I would ask that members on both sidesjust settle down.

Mr KAISER: The system put in place interms of bulk end users allows for a subsidy tobe paid for the fuel that is appropriately used.That can be claimed after the fuel has beenused—once they know the proportions of bulkend fuel they have used in those appropriateways.

A task force was established to look intoall of these matters. On that task force wereorganisations—the union mates of thoseopposite—such as the Queensland FarmersFederation and the Canegrowers association.They sat there and they did not raiseobjections to this proposal. The reason theydid not raise objections to this, and the reasonthey were prepared to tick off on that taskforce report and the recommendations that arebeing enacted here tonight, is that theyunderstood it. Those opposite might want tomisrepresent the situation to their constituentsfor political gain—just like they aremisrepresenting the situation to theirconstituents in terms of off-road dieselsubsidies—but their union mates in theQueensland Farmers Federation andCanegrowers understood what we were about.They understood it and they ticked off on whatis being enacted here tonight as a result of thetask force report they were party to.

In a scheme which involves retailers ratherthan wholesalers there will be a concern raisedin respect of the administrative burdens andcosts on those retailers. That has been takeninto account in several ways. The MotorTrades Association of Queensland, whichrepresents those retailers and service stationowners, was prepared to give us credit for themeasures we have put in place to ease thefinancial and administrative burdens onretailers. I reiterate those measures. Thesubsidy will be paid in advance to servicestation operators. Like bulk end users, they willreceive 8.4c a litre but will be required to passon only 8.354c per litre to the people they on-sell fuel to. And there will be a one-offpayment of $200 to cover any capital costs ofupgrading computer systems and the like.These are all measures for which the servicestation operators' association, the MTAQ, haspraised this Government. They also wereprepared to tick off on the task force report.

Earlier tonight we had a debate about off-road diesel in this Parliament. During thatdebate we saw the lengths to which the


Opposition will go to try to shift the blame forthat issue on to Federal Labor, despite the factthat I think that debate clearly illustrated thereasons why Federal Labor, given that it is inOpposition federally, cannot be heldresponsible for the fact that much of themoney is now not finding its way into off-roaddiesel users' pockets in the way that it used to.

I urge the Treasurer to redouble his effortsto communicate that message to off-roaddiesel users throughout this State, becausemy experience, having travelled through someregional parts of this State in my capacity asthe State Government's Petrol Price WatchCommittee chairperson, is that off-road dieselusers are confused, and they are confusedparticularly because this mob are prepared tomisrepresent the situation because they knowthe extent to which this can hurt themelectorally. I urge the Treasurer to redouble hisefforts to communicate where the responsibilitylies for this bungle in off-road diesel subsidies,particularly in regional areas.

I have no doubt that members oppositewill try to continue to misrepresent thesituation. I have no doubt that they willcontinue to try to blame Federal Labor. But asI showed tonight, the people they are trying toconfuse are not confused. I know through thecorrespondence they have written to theQueensland Treasurer that they know wherethe responsibility lies, because they areprepared to talk about the burden that theFederal Government's decisions places onthem. They know where the burden lies. Thearguments of members opposite cut nomustard with them because they understandwhere the responsibility lies for the bungling inthe off-road diesel rebates.

I am being generous to the FederalGovernment in describing it as a bungle. Muchmore likely is the situation that it is skimmingsome of the $175m that it now withholds fromthe Queensland Government to further boostits surplus to now record levels of$13 billion—a surplus which it ought to beusing, at least in part, to ease the burden onQueensland motorists, the farm sector andprimary producers. But the FederalGovernment is not prepared to do that; it isprepared to continue to skim money which itnow withholds from the QueenslandGovernment in order to boost the surplus toobscene levels.

I said earlier in this debate that thisGovernment is doing what it can to ease theburden on motorists and fuel users. People willgive us credit for doing what we can, becausethey refuse to believe that there is nothing

politicians can do. They particularly refuse tobelieve John Howard's arrogant assertion thatthere is nothing the Prime Minister can do. Ofcourse there are things the Prime Minister cando about the cost of fuel in this country. Hewould like to suggest that it is all the fault ofworld oil markets. He would like to suggest thatthere is nothing he can do because the price isset overseas. While that is true to an extent, itis not the whole story. It is not the wholeexplanation as to why prices are as high asthey are in this country today.

Part of the explanation is that JohnHoward has not kept to his promise to reducethe excise by the full equivalent amount of theGST. That is one reason. He has not kept thatpromise. That is something he could changetomorrow. He could abide by his promise anddeliver a not insignificant cut in the amountthat people are paying for fuel in this country,simply by keeping to his promise. Yet he hasthe arrogance to say that there is nothing hecan do, when all he needs to do to ease theburden—

Mr Seeney: How much?Mr KAISER: About 2c a litre, simply by

keeping his promise. He can further ease theburden on Australian motorists and fuel usersby agreeing to freeze the CPI indexation ofexcise next February and again whenever it isafter that.

An Opposition member: August.Mr KAISER: February and August; I thank

the member. Mr Howard ought to agree tothat. He ought to agree to the calls that arecoming from his own backbench to do that.Those backbench members of the coalitionwho were quashed in their own party room dodeserve some credit. They deserve somecredit for their calls on the Prime Minister tofreeze the excise. But, of course, their voiceswere raised in vain, because they werequashed in their own party room by anarrogant Prime Minister who is not prepared tolift a finger to ease the burden on Australianmotorists.

Mr Hamill: At least they spoke up, unlikethe National Party in the Senate.

Mr KAISER: Indeed; at least they spokeup, instead of merely going along with issueslike the GST in a deal with the Democrats, withissues like this off-road diesel rebate in theSenate, like the Nationals did, doing a dealwith the Democrats. Earlier tonight we heardmembers opposite say that nothing good evercame of the Democrats. They did the deal withthem to introduce the GST. That is not a goodthing, but they did the deal with them tointroduce it. They did the deal with them on


the off-road diesel rebate. We are supposedlyheld responsible by those opposite for notopposing the legislation. If we had opposedthe legislation it would have made nodifference, because the deal had been done.

So there are things that this arrogantPrime Minister can do. He can keep hispromise on the excise, as I said. He can heedcalls from his own side of politics, includingsome very close friends of members opposite,to freeze the excise rise next February andnext August. But there are other issues. Evenif this arrogant Prime Minister does not want totouch the excise—

Mr Seeney: What about you?Mr KAISER: We are doing what we can,

and Queenslanders I talk to give us credit fordoing what we can. We are doing what we canby fixing the flawed subsidy scheme thatmembers opposite introduced in Queensland.

Mr Hamill: We're delivering an 8.354c alitre subsidy and they're going to vote againstit.

Mr KAISER: That's right. As the Treasurersaid, we are delivering a subsidy for the firsttime direct into motorists' pockets, and thevote later tonight will reveal that the Oppositionis prepared to vote against it.

Even if this Prime Minister is not preparedto freeze the excise or to keep his promise inrelation to lowering excise to the full extent ofthe burden of the GST, there are industryissues which this Prime Minister and thisFederal Government ought to pursue—issuesof competition. Members opposite all knowhow hell-bent this Federal Government is onintroducing competition into all kinds of areasof the economy. In every area of theeconomy—local government, the taxi industry,newsagents, pharmacies—the FederalGovernment is driving a competition agenda.But when it comes to the oil industry, they donot want a bar of it. They are not prepared tolift a finger to introduce competition at awholesale and retail level into this industry, andthere are things that they can do. They can,for example, take the lead from some Statesof the United States, which have banned oilcompanies from having further retail outlets.That great bastion of free enterprise, the US,has seen fit to ban oil companies in manyStates from having further retail outlets. Thatwould introduce some degree of competitionat a retail level, and that is something thePrime Minister could do through the RetailSites Act.

Another thing the Prime Minister could dois reverse the absurd situation in which theTrade Practices Act prevents service stations

which may be branded, for example, as a BPservice station from selling any other brand offuel. If they were to try to source wholesale fuelat the best possible price, and if they sold, forexample, Shell fuel through a BP bowser, theACCC would prosecute them for passing it off.The ACCC is prepared to prosecute mum anddad service station operators for passing it offin that situation, for trying to get the bestwholesale price for their fuel, but it is notprepared to prosecute oil companies which areripping off the system and cannot explain theirmargins in terms of wholesale and retail salesin this country.

Dr Watson: So how are you going toguarantee that the 8.3c gets through?

Mr KAISER: By paying it at the retail levelinstead of paying it at the wholesale level andnot allowing large quantities of fuel to be outthere which are already subsidised and whichcan easily be transported across Stateboundaries—that is the way! By shifting from awholesale system to a retail system, weeliminate that rort.

The other thing the Prime Minister can dois abide by the commitment that he made in1998 when he removed the ACCC's role tooversee pricing in this industry. He ought tokeep the promise he made at that time tointroduce an oil code, to negotiate an oil code,which was to be an industry code and whichCostello and Howard promised would lowerfuel prices in this country. After two years, theyannounced the end of negotiations to try tobring about the oil code, but after thosenegotiations collapsed through a lack ofleadership by the Federal Government, theythen failed to reintroduce ACCC pricesurveillance. They used the development of anoil code as the excuse for removing ACCCprice surveillance, but then did not restore itwhen the oil code negotiations collapsedunder a lack of leadership.

Time expired.

Mr FELDMAN (Caboolture—CCAQ)(10 p.m.): The previous contribution was aboutas effective as the member's visit toMaryborough the other week.

I rise today to condemn the Beattie LaborGovernment's latest irrational foray into theworld of fuel pricing. It seems like it was only afew weeks ago that the Premier was prancingaround the State shouting about how fuelcompanies were ripping off the State bypocketing the fuel subsidy money. ThePremier's answer to the nonexistent problemback then was a harebrained scheme toreplace the existing fuel subsidy arrangementwith a subsidy on motor vehicle registrations in


Queensland of some $150. The scheme waspretty obviously thought out late one night inthe Strangers Bar, perhaps as he and theTreasurer laughed about the net bet affair.They had to be talking about gambling,because the Treasurer lost, because he had totake this second-rate attempt to swindle thepublic of Queensland back and sell it to theCabinet. There can be no other explanation forsuch stupidity or shortsightedness.

The scheme was doomed to failure and itwas unfair in the extreme. Somebody whodrove their car only rarely was set to make aprofit, while someone who relied heavily ontheir motor vehicle for their livelihood wasgoing to be hit hard in the back pocket. Peoplewho used fuel for recreation, such as theboaties, were going to miss out entirely. I evenhad a TPI pensioner who paid only some $45for his registration came up to me wondering ifhe was going to get that extra $105 back in hispocket. What a harebrained rip-off schemethat was going to be! And for what purposewas this issue of fuel raised? It was to allow amedia tart to try to divert the attention awayfrom the issues that are really threatening todrive his Government under. But a rort is a rortis a rort, be it electoral or fuel. It was a bit likethe old shell game. Everyone is sitting therewatching the shells go round and round andwhen all the shells are picked up there will notbe 8.3c to find.

The only way that this Government willsurvive is if it manages to sufficiently restrictcertain legal proceedings so that the true factsare not known. The Premier should knowbetter than to prance around because he isjust not built for it; he quickly fell from gracewhen he did. It turns out that every reputablemotoring industry organisation in the Statedisagreed with him as well, and his claims werepatently false. In other words, he was lying orhis staff who advised him were incompetent.

The eventual backdown was a sight tobehold. The trouble is now we have this pieceof legislation here to debate and not the otherlegislation. The Premier tried to put on a braveface, but all he succeeded in doing was toteach Queenslanders that if they stick togetherthey can still force an out-of-touch Governmentto back down, at least on some issues. I willbet there were some red faces and sorebehinds in the Premier's department thatweek.

Mr Cooper: A credit to the people. Theydid well.

Mr FELDMAN: They certainly did. That isthe history of what brought about this piece ofirrational legislation into this House—just a bit

of history about an incompetent Governmentdoing incompetent things.

All of these words that I have heard useddescribe the Premier as a slow learner, and hehas been a slow learner. One would havethought that he would have learnt from thatfuel fiasco that the Queensland public wouldnot cop this sort of ineptitude a second time,but apparently he has not, because here wego again. We are definitely on the roundaboutagain. The Premier is off on another quixoticmission, only instead of windmills the Premiertilts at fuel companies. They must be laughingtheir heads off at this ineffectual Premier.

As we all know, the current situation cameto pass when the Federal Government cameto the rescue of the other States and imposeda Federal tax to replace various State taxesthat had been ruled invalid. The upshot is thatQueensland now effectively has a fuel tax thatis paid to the Federal Government by the fuelcompanies, given back to the StateGovernment which then gives it back by way ofsubsidy to the fuel companies. While it wouldbe better to have no tax in the first place, thissystem seems to be making the best of a badsituation. Three cheques are written, the loopis completed, and the money is back to whereit started from and everybody is happy—well,almost everybody. Certainly not ourcourageous Premier. Our Premier is not happybecause he had his nose rubbed in it and hedid not like it—and he did not like it at all!

Our Premier, with a little help from Mr NetBet, has come up with a very ingenious littleplan to stop those big bad fuel companiesfrom rorting the system. These are the samefuel companies that the RACQ and similarorganisations found were not—I repeat werenot—rorting the system. According to theRACQ, the fuel companies have been handingback the subsidy, just as they were supposedto. We cannot ask for more than that. Well,our Premier can. He is not satisfied with thefuel companies handing back the subsidy sohe will make every single service station inQueensland take over the responsibility for thefuel subsidy scheme.

According to Part 3 of this Bill, a licensedretailer is required to keep records of those fuelsales. The records must include the followingdetails for each and every sale of fuel: theprice charged and the basis for calculating theprice of every sale, the address, the date ofthe sale, the type of fuel and the quantity sold.Many small fuel retailers in this State do nothave computerised bowsers. This degree ofrecord keeping is onerous in the extreme foreveryone, but many times more so for the


people who will have to keep manual recordsto comply with this legislation. For all this effortand responsibility they get what—the princelysum of 0.046c a litre and a one-off payment of$200! It sounds a lot like the Treasurer wasreally reading the GST manuscript when heimposed this Bill, and he wants to sit here anddictate and talk to us about not liking the GST.This is another GST script imposed by thisinept Treasurer.

For many small operators, this will amountto only $10 to $15 a week—a pretty poor effortfor all that extra work. It is not much of anincentive for them to do the Government's dirtywork, is it? The Minister probably feels likeSanta Claus, but from where the fuel retailerssit he certainly looks like Scrooge. Woe betideany retailer who gets it wrong. Thecommissioner has the power under thislegislation to immediately suspend a retailer'slicence for a period of 14 days without thatretailer being given the right to be heardbefore the suspension takes place.

As the Scrutiny of Legislation Committeerightly points out, it can be argued that the lackof opportunity to make representation deniesthe licensee natural justice. Can anyoneimagine what the impost of a 14-daysuspension on a small retail service stationoperator would be—considering he, of course,is in the minority in Queensland; most servicestations are company owned.

Mr Johnson: Turnover. The ones with thebig turnover, they may survive, but the littleturnover fellows with family businesses won't.

Mr FELDMAN: Correct. The big companystores will survive, the little fellow will besqueezed out, and then every station will beowned by the multinational companies againand the money will just go straight back tothem at the bowser.

Mr Johnson interjected.

Mr FELDMAN: It certainly will; that is right.This is a Government that is supposed to bestanding up for the battlers and the smallbusinesspeople who are battling out there,doing their best. The Government says, "Oh,the GST has put a bit of impost on them", butwhat are they doing? They are sticking it tothem again. This Government that issupposed to stand up for the little person issticking it to them again.

Dr Prenzler: Small businesses are thebiggest employers.

Mr FELDMAN: As the member forLockyer says, small businesses are the biggestemployers. These big service stations areowned and operated by the very multinational

companies that this legislation is supposed tobe bringing to justice. It is very obvious thatsuch a suspension will have a very significanteffect upon a licensee's financial position andmay in fact bankrupt him. That is the littlefellow again—bankrupted again by thisGovernment. So instead of dealing with ahandful of fuel companies, the Treasurer willnow set up a large bureaucracy to police anamended scheme that did not need changingin the first place.

What we have here is change for thesake of change. This sounds as if someone istrying to hide something. I suppose there islittle difference between incompetence andtrying to hide something. It is a case of playingthe shell game with the public of Queensland.Perhaps the Premier is hoping that thisscheme will provide some level of diversionaway from other events that must beoccupying his time of late. We have seen staffgoing down to the inquiry. MaybeShepherdson would be better advised to havea look at this rort rather than the other one.

The other red herring that the Premier hasbeen waving around for some time is the storythat subsidised Queensland fuel is beingtrucked over the border to New South Walesand sold into markets that do not have thesame subsidy arrangement. If this is so, whereis the proof? There must be some proof. It isnot enough to say that something like this ishappening on a large scale without, at the veryleast, providing some substantial evidence toback up the claim. There is no evidence toback up the claim.

The Premier and the Treasurer are askingthis Parliament and the people of Queenslandto take them at face value on this issue. Theyare asking us to trust Mr Net Bet and theleader of the greatest bunch of rorters that hasever set foot in any Parliament. That is amighty big ask. If this large scale cross-bordertransport of fuel is a reality, we want someevidence.

Just for a moment we will assume that thePremier and the Treasurer are not misleadingus on this issue. The answer to the problem isquite simple. Stop cross-border trade by asimple method of policing. All fuel transportvehicles are registered and licensed for thatspecific purpose. Every time a semitrailer takeson a load of fuel from a depot it must berecorded for the purpose of payment. Providedthese vehicles are required to carry a logbookthat records pick-ups and deliveries, with time,date and mileage, it would seem to be a verysimple exercise to prosecute anybody foundillegally transporting fuel across the border.


But, no, we are out there destroyingtrucking firms by the dozen as a result of thislegislation. There are only a relatively smallnumber of locations where semitrailers canobtain loads of fuel. There are also very limitednumbers of routes that they can take to crossthe border. For a lot less money and a lot lessheartache for Queensland fuel retailers, thisGovernment can address any problem with thecurrent subsidy system. Throw in some seriousfines for the big players, if they actually exist,and the problem is solved.

However, through all this debate I stillhear the voice of the old age pensioner whocame into my office when all of this hoo-hastarted. I still hear him saying, "How do weknow we are going to get the rebate,anyway?" The rebate is about 8.3c and thecost of fuel at Caboolture is rocketing between77c per litre and 91c per litre. That is adifference of 14c a litre. It is very easy to hide8c in there. I am sure it will be hidden in therise and the fall. No-one knows. It is the oldshell game again. Pick up the shell; where isthe 8.3c? It is not under the shell I picked up.The public of Queensland is dudded again.

Together with other Queenslanders, Istruggle to understand how petrol can havesuch floating prices. If one can still afford atank of fuel, one soon finds out the impact ofprice rises. Perhaps we are lucky in this Housebecause we have a fuel card. Perhaps we donot have to worry too much about it. However,I worry when I fill up my private car. It costs anextra $10 to fill up my car. I, like most people,thought I would never see the day when atank of fuel would cost me $50.

Mr Dalgleish: How much do you take?

Mr FELDMAN: Sixty litres. That is notmuch. When I mention filling a tank for $50, Iam really talking about yesterday. We aretalking about the past here. My fear is that weare heading towards the $100 a tank scenario.That is not a very palatable thought.

My question to the Premier is asked onbehalf of the poor old Caboolture battler whocame into my office. It seems that the onlypeople standing up for the battlers these daysare the members of the City Country Alliance. Iask the Premier: does this mean that the costof petrol will not arise above 83c a litre? If wetake 91c and subtract the subsidy of 8c, doesthat mean that the price of petrol will not riseabove 83c per litre? I will bet it does not. But,oh boy, I am waiting for the answer to seeexactly what is going to happen by way offluctuating petrol prices.

I know that it is the old shell game and Iknow that I am going to be ripped off again by

those prices. The price rises can be easilyhidden, and no-one will know.

Mr Dalgleish: The member forWoodridge was going to guarantee that thesavings will be passed on, but I don't hear itcoming out of him.

Mr FELDMAN: That is correct. That wasthe promise that was made at Maryborough bythe member for Woodridge. He promised thatthe 8.3c would come straight off the price. Hewas going to guarantee it. It is easy toguarantee things outside; it is a differentmatter to come in here and guarantee things.The people can be snowed outside thisParliament. I say to the member forWoodridge: you can fool some of the peoplesome of the time, but you can't fool all of thepeople all of the time. All of the people are notfooled by this atrocious piece of legislation.

I have not even mentioned the off-roadusers of diesel. Even in the mish-mash of thesubsidy debacle, the GST and the exciseprice, they are still 1.2c to 1.5c a litre worse off.In my electorate I have three major extractiveindustries and they use between 1 million and1.5 million litres of diesel a year. When anoperator loses 1.2c to 1.5c a litre, we aretalking in the vicinity of $20,000 to $30,000 ayear that the company will be worse off. In myarea, that has an effect on employment. ThisGovernment is supposed to be concerned withemployment. Because those companies aregoing to be $30,000 a year worse off, thatmeans they might have to cut staff numbers.Instead of someone being employed,someone is going to get the DCM—"Don'tcome Monday". That will occur because thisGovernment has placed that impost onindustry.

These days, every business is struggling.They are hanging on by their fingernails. Theywill not employ somebody else because thisjobs, jobs, jobs Government has eroded thatprospect out of their minds with this fuel rebatedebacle. Because of that one issue, in thisone sector of the industry some three to fivejobs will not be created in my area.

Mr Dalgleish: What about the blue-collarworker apprentices? They are not going tohave their wages.

Mr FELDMAN: That is correct. Thesepeople will not be able to afford to put on anapprentice. That is another reality of this jobs,jobs, jobs Government. The shame of this isthat the Treasurer failed the off-road users ofdiesel in this State when he was securing theGST component. He arranged to get his bagof money in Canberra. As usual, he was notbriefed well enough and he exposed a very


hardworking sector of Queensland business tothis very unreasonable burden.

This is just the shell game being playedon the people of Queensland. They are notgoing to receive any of the 8.3c. ThisGovernment knows it. The Treasurer knows it.The Government is snowing the people whocount. When the people realise that they havebeen snowed they will not put this Governmentback into office because they do not like beingripped off. They do not like being rorted. Allthis Government does is rort. The people donot like frauds or rorters. That is exactly whatwe are getting from this Government.

My final comment is that this Governmentwill pay for this legislation because the peoplewill realise that they are not going to get the8.3c. That 8.3c is not going to be saved. Asthe member for Hervey Bay said, theGovernment is taking it from the multinationalsand giving it straight back to them. Guesswhat: they will not give it to the public ofQueensland and the Premier knows it.

Hon. T. R. COOPER (Crows Nest—NPA)(10.19 p.m.): I endorse the remarks of theprevious speakers from this side of theParliament—the Leader of the Opposition, theDeputy Leader of the Opposition and theshadow Treasurer—because they haveillustrated the con job being foisted onQueenslanders. Queenslanders demonstratedjust how smart they were when they sawthrough the original registration con. TheGovernment persisted with that fiasco forsome time but gave in to the weight of publicopinion. We have to give the people ofQueensland a big tick, because they will notput up with this sort of racket. We are againseeing the same type of legislation beingfoisted on people. This is another piece of anti-rural legislation to be passed by thisParliament—most of it has been guillotinedthrough. I speak of the disgraceful regionalforest agreements, the Water Bill, theVegetation Management Bill and so on.

Mr Springborg: Twenty-seven pieces oflegislation.

Mr COOPER: We have seen 27 pieces ofanti-rural legislation.

Mr Springborg: Just anti-Queensland.

Mr COOPER: It is anti-Queensland.

I endorse many of the remarks of themember for Caboolture, who also spoke onbehalf of the people who will be hurt by thislegislation—in particular, rural people. There isno need for it. He was right when he said that,because this disaffected Premier did not gethis way with the registration con, he has turned

around and smacked people in the face forseeing through him. That is what thislegislation is all about. There was simply noneed for it to begin with.

Before I go on, I must mention theremarks of the member for Woodridge. Notonly will I be circulating the speeches ofvarious honourable members from this side ofthe Parliament; I will also throw in his for goodmeasure to let people see that the memberhas no understanding of what this legislationwill do to rural people. It will be a nightmare.We are sick and tired of this sort of thing. Ithas gone way beyond a joke. The people outthere are suffering under the weight ofpaperwork as they try to keep their headsabove water and earn a living—something thatis nigh on impossible. The additionalpaperwork will send them mad. They will notforget what this Government has done.

The other issues—the regional forestryagreements, jobs losses, declining productivity,the Water Bill and vegetation management—were bad enough, but fuel affects the lives ofeveryone, including all employees. This willcreate confusion and paperwork. For the life ofme I cannot understand why the Governmentis doing this. Firstly, it does not understandwhat it is doing. Secondly, this is the thin endof a fuel tax wedge. Government membershave been yearning for years to bring in a fueltax. For years Queensland has held outagainst a fuel tax in spite of the fact that allother States have had one for a long time. It isto our credit that we have held out. As weknow, the Premier is an advocate of a fuel tax.He would love to bring one in. This legislationis the Trojan horse. The people can see thatand they will not forget it.

As I said, with the exception ofQueensland all States have had fuel taxes.And then along came the High Court decisionthat threatened those excises. In 1997 it ruledthat States could not levy excises such astobacco and liquor fees and fuel taxes. TheStates faced a potential budgetary disaster,and the Commonwealth agreed to raise thesemoneys on their behalf by adding a surchargeto its own excises—in the case of fuel taking itfrom around 37c a litre to around 44c perlitre—and returning the proceeds to the States.This arrangement effectively allowed theStates with fuel taxes to maintain them. Theexcise surcharge became a de facto fuel tax.This created a major complication forQueensland, which had not had and did notwant a fuel tax, de facto or otherwise. Thatwas in the days of the coalition Government.Arrangements were made so that thatcomplication could be overcome, and it was


overcome. As we have said before,Government members have estimated thatabout 60 tankers a day were going across theborder. What utter rot! If there were that manygoing across the border, what on earth werethe enforcers doing? Either they were notdoing their job or that simply was nothappening. Again, it was just another furphy.The legislation was there to enable theimposition of the necessary penalties uponthose people who were supposedly taking thatfuel over the border. Again, it was, as I said,just a furphy.

When in Government, the coalitiondevised a way to return the increasedCommonwealth excise on fuel to consumers topreserve the State's no fuel tax status almostwithout their ever being aware that there waseven an issue. If they are not currently awarethat there is an issue, they will be awarefollowing the passage of this legislation. Thecoalition did so by rebating the excise paid to itby the Commonwealth at the level ofdistributors. This was administratively thesimplest way. If it had attempted to provide therefund at the retail level, as this Government isdoing, the Government would have had todeal with thousands of clients rather thanhundreds of clients. Distributors were requiredby law to pass on to retailers the 8c per litrebenefit they received from the State. Theresult was that there was no impactwhatsoever on consumers at the pump. Bythis method Queensland retained its 8c perlitre advantage in fuel prices over the otherStates.

I will not speak for the full 20 minutes,because as usual this debate has beengagged and I want to make sure that otherhonourable members have an opportunity toput their point of view. In referring todistributors, I wish to read into the record aletter that I received from a Mr Peter Eldridgein relation to this piece of legislation. Hestated—

"I am writing to you with reference tothe changes to Fuel Subsidyarrangements from First of October 2000.Under the new arrangements all fueldelivered on farm has to be sold at anunsubsidised price. The farmer will then inturn claim the subsidy back as a (BEU)Bulk End User from the Office of the StateRevenue.

Included in this fuel, whether it beMotor Spirit or Distillate, is the fuel thefarmer would use for personal use suchas taking the family shopping, to churchor to take a sick child to hospital.

I wonder if Mr Beattie realises thatfarmers don't have the luxury of a ServiceStation down the street. They need topurchase their fuel in bulk and store it on-farm. One would think, this would beinconvenient enough without having tooutlay extra money. This to me, seemsvery unfair when compared to the optionsoffered to our city cousins who can godirect to the bowser to purchase their fuelat the subsidised price, saving them theoutlay of the extra 8.354c per litre and theinconvenience of having to claim it back.

As a distributor in a rural area I amworried that these changes will forcefarmers to purchase their private fuelsfrom retail outlets (in areas where this isan option). This will weigh heavily on smallrural distributorships in an already difficultmarketplace brought on by theintroduction of the GST and spiralling fuelprices.

The solution to these problems issimple:

all fuel sold for private use inQueensland should be able to bepurchased at the subsidised price.

Peter Eldridge for and on behalf of Bowenville Motors."

Bowenville is one of the sorts of ruraltowns that we have been referring to. As wesaid, they are the ones that will suffer. Theyhave suffered enough. As I said, theGovernment does not understand what ruralpeople are going through. Dairy farmers workfrom dawn till dark, milking cows twice a day.Ordinary farmers go right through the day andinto the night. Cattlemen, stockmen andwomen do their work from dawn till dark. Thatis their life. They accept the fact that that istheir lot. Imposing additional paperwork ontheir existing workload will be a killer for them.There is no doubt that Government memberswill feel that at the ballot box. As I said, I willcirculate some of their speeches in addition tothose of members on this side of theParliament, because I want to make sure thatthe people out there get a true picture of whatis being said in this place so that they canmake a value judgment.

I also want to reiterate the call of theLeader of the Opposition for a full-scale royalcommission into fuel distribution in this State.There has been a lot of talk about it and therehave been a lot of inquiries—I am told up to48 or 49. I do not know how many there havebeen, but I do know that no-one has had theguts to take on the fuel companies and findout how they operate and how their pricing


and distribution systems work. It can be done ifthe Government drafts the terms of referencewidely enough and strongly enough and it isdetermined enough. It does not have to bethe Federal Government. If it does not want todo it, we can do it. We can get it under waystraight away. That would ensure that thesubmissions that go to it are going to beeffective and the answers can be foundwithout fear or favour. There is no need to fearthe oil companies. Even though they are bigand often they have budgets that are farbigger than those of some nations andcertainly some States, that is no reason to fearthem. If they are doing the wrong thing, let usfind out and put it right. There is no way wecan do that unless we know exactly where theproblems lie.

In reference to the gag on the debate, Ifind it incredible that it is always applied tomajor legislation that really hurts the peopleout there, especially those in rural and regionalQueensland. The gag is just automaticallyapplied. We have seen that it has contributedto the dramatic fall in the standards of thisParliament, as we saw in the motion of noconfidence in the Speaker—something thathas not happened since 1949. It is a seriousmatter. Also, the way that business is done inthis place has lowered the confidence of manypeople—and certainly many parliamentarians—who take an interest in what goes on in thisplace. Again, that day of reckoning is coming,and it cannot come soon enough. Talk aboutpeople wanting to call an early election! Goright ahead. We are well and truly ready. Wehave the necessary policies to take the placeof the Government. What this Governmenthas done has to be undone. I say to theLeader of the Opposition that this is anotherproblem that we will have to fix up. If Laborwants to make the mess, we will clean it up.

Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP)(10.31 p.m.): It is my great pleasure to supportthis excellent piece of legislation that has beenbrought into this House by the Treasurer. Fuelprices have an impact on everyone in thecommunity. They have an impact on peopletrying to get to work, particularly those who docasual work. They often have to make manymore trips to the workplace than they would ifthey were permanent employees. Fuel pricesalso impact upon part-time workers, especiallywomen, who are often principally engaged inpart-time or casual employment.

Mr Robertson: Do you notice how theylaugh?

Mr WILSON: I do notice how they laugh.One thing that Opposition members manage

to be very consistent about is having no careor regard for what happens to ordinary workingpeople in the community. All they do is deridethe impact that petrol prices have on theordinary workers in the community.

Mrs Pratt interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Reeves):Order! The member for Barambah!

Mr WILSON: When I have talked topeople on the streets of Ferny Grove, AranaHills, Mitchelton and other suburbs in myelectorate in the past 12 months, fuel priceshave been one of the most important issuesthat people are concerned about. The lotacross the other side of this Chamber are soout of touch. People understand that fuelprices have a direct and—the doublewhammy—an indirect impact upon everyone.They have a direct impact because ofeveryone's need for fuel to go about their dailylives, and they have an additional indirectimpact because the cost of fuel feeds into theentire cost structure for goods and servicesacross the community. Now we haveMr Howard's "brilliant" idea of building anautomatic CPI increase into the excise on fuelin February! So we have the doublecompounding effect on the CPI, which thenfeeds into the prices of goods and servicesthroughout the community.

Admittedly the fuel price is affected by arange of factors, some within the control of theState Government or the Federal Governmentand some outside of their control. Of course,the international price of crude oil affects theretail price of petrol in Australia. The exchangerate for the Australian dollar does as well. Butso, too, does the Federal Government exciseon fuel and the profit levels that the oilcompanies seek to extract from trading thiscommodity. They affect the petrol price. So,too, does the system of price support that theoil companies provide to the petrol retailersand the extent to which the FederalGovernment subsidy to the State Governmentis passed on to the consumer, the motorist.That, too, affects the fuel price.

One of the key things that affects the fuelprice is the lack of competition within the oilindustry—the oligopoly of oil companies that isoperating in Australia. The oil companies arethe ones who are manipulating the retail price.Even if we accept that none of the otherfactors affecting fuel price has any ability to becontrolled, be it by the State or FederalGovernment—assume that for the moment—punters out there in the street want to knowwhy the fuel price varies by about 9c per litre ina cyclical fashion week after week after week.


We can have a big disagreement about all ofthe other things that affect fuel prices and whomay be able to influence those things, but Ican tell honourable members that the onething the punters out there do see is thecynical exploitation by the oil companies—theoligopoly—the manipulation of the consumer,the motorist, whose purchasing pattern andneed for fuel is pretty fixed week by week. Sothey manipulate the fuel price to maximise theprice when people most need fuel but havethe least cash flow to purchase that fuel.

If honourable members look at the trendsin Brisbane and also outside of Brisbane overthe past few weeks on the Fuelwatch web site,they will see that it shows a sawtooth patternweek after week after week. During virtuallyevery week that Parliament has not beensitting, I have driven around my electorate andlooked at the prices of the five oilcompanies—Mobil, Caltex, Shell, BP and theso-called independent Liberty—morning andnight. I saw totally unexplained changes in thefuel price within an hour. I could arrive at work,look out the window, see the Caltex price, andwithin an hour it would be up by 9c. I couldthen get in the car and do the circuit of the fuelcompanies in my electorate, and I noticed thatwithin two hours everyone else was up by thesame 9c.

I know that competition—at least in theAdam Smith theory of perfect competition—issupposed to produce the cheapest price forthe commodity in the marketplace. So wewould expect that, if one competitor lowers theprice, the other competitors would followbecause we assume it is a competitivemarketplace. All of the other retailers wouldreduce their price to stay competitive and tokeep their market share. That is how thetheory works.

If honourable members watch thissawtooth cycle of fuel prices week by week inmy electorate—and I am sure it happenselsewhere—at least they would see that, whenthe fuel price is reduced by one company, theother fuel companies follow suit within a two orthree-hour period. The funny thing is that,when the fuel price goes up by 6c to 9c at oneoutlet and I do the circuit of my electorate tosee what happens to the other fuel prices,within a three-hour period the rest will end upas high as the first company that raised theprice by 6c to 9c. It seems to me a little bitodd, to say the least, that this so-calledcompetitive marketplace produces a situationin which when one competitor increases itsprice all the others coincidentally,spontaneously, without prior arrangement, allincrease their price to follow.

An honourable member interjected.Mr WILSON: Exactly, because it is a

manipulated marketplace at the retail endbecause there is no competition in theoligopoly of oil companies. That makes peopleangry, and they are damn angry about howthey are being exploited by the oil companies.Motorists know that they are virtuallydefenceless with little power to take any actionto remedy their grievance. Even if they try toshop around for cheap petrol, prices changeso rapidly that before they get to the petrolstation with the lowest price, the price hasalready been increased.

There is a compounding effect when onetakes into consideration concerns as to howeffective the fuel subsidy has been in passingon cheaper fuel to motorists. Since this topicbecame so publicly noticeable, people haveapproached me and said that they do notbelieve that the subsidy the State Governmentgives to oil companies is getting into theretailer's pocket.

No-one wants an excise on fuel inQueensland. The Government does not wantit. This excise is applied in Queensland due tocomplications of the Australian Constitutionand a High Court decision, which determinedthat the excise duties levied by the otherStates were unconstitutional. It was believedthat the revenue stream generated by theexcise in other States was so fundamental tothe revenue base of those States that theFederal Government introduced a national anduniform excise across the country. It had to beuniform, because the Constitution providesthat the Federal Government cannotdiscriminate between the States in theapplication of burdens such as this. Therefore,this created the need for the mechanism ofthe round robin. The motorists are supposedto get back in their pockets the exciseextracted from them through the retailpurchase of fuel.

People need to be reassured that themoney they are paying in Federal Governmentexcise is, in fact, ending up back in theirpockets. They are entitled to have the middleperson removed from the equation. If theFederal Government provides the QueenslandGovernment with the revenue take from theexcise and the State pays it to the oilcompanies, who is prepared to stand up in thisplace, put their hand on their heart and say,"We can guarantee that the oil companies arepassing on every single cent to"—

Mr Horan: You!

Mr WILSON: No, I cannot, and I will not. Itis totally unreasonable to expect the ordinary


motorist to accept an assurance from the fiveoil companies in Australia, especially when themotorist believes that they are manipulatingthe retail price of fuel on a weekly basis. Howcan members opposite expect motorists toaccept a guarantee that oil companies arepassing on this subsidy? We cannot fairly askthem to, and they would neither accept norbelieve it. On a daily basis, ordinary motoristssee how crudely manipulative the oilcompanies are in relation to the price of fuel tomaximise their revenue at a time whenmotorists are most vulnerable—when theyhave the least money in their pockets but thegreatest demand to buy fuel because thepattern of their lives is systematic. They arebeing exploited. Those opposite would not sayto their constituents, "You must accept andbelieve that the oil companies are passing onthe subsidy." They have not done thatbecause their constituents would laugh in theirfaces. People may not believe much of what apolitician says, but they would not believe analleged guarantee that oil companies maygive.

Therefore, the only fair thing to do is totake the middle person out of the equationand create an arrangement whereby themoney goes straight to the retailer and straightinto the pocket of the motorist. That occurswith the scheme being created by this Bill. Ifthe motorist does not see the subsidy at thebowser now, it is because of what ishappening at the point of sale. The consumercan then vote with their feet.

One of the difficulties explained to me bya petrol station proprietor in my electorate isthat he has received many calls of abuse fromthe community because the public sees petrolretailers as the problem when it is, in fact, theoil companies. People take out theirgrievances towards the oil companies on thepoor old retailer when the retailer has nothingto do with it. They, too, are very much in thehands of the oil companies. This new subsidysystem puts petrol retailers in the strongestposition that they have ever been in. Likewise,it also puts motorists in the strongest positionthat they have ever been in. For thosereasons, this legislation is well overdue. Noneof my constituents is telling the Government tochange our arrangements this time.

In relation to the rort the oil companieshave been perpetrating for so long and gettingaway with and which the Federal Governmenthas refused to do anything about—it hasstripped the ACCC of any powers toinvestigate price arrangements the oilcompanies have made over many years—thepublic sees this new system as a practical,

concrete step to empower the motorist byputting the subsidy into their pockets directlythrough the retailer. It is excellent legislation. Itis a shame that those on the other side of theHouse are so blinded by their Right Wingideological view that they cannot see meritwhen it is staring them in the face.

Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (10.48 p.m.):It is an absolute waste of time debating theFuel Subsidy Amendment Bill tonight. Why onearth do we have to be here to debatelegislation that should not even be before theHouse tonight? Not only that, the Governmenthas gagged the debate as well. It is a doublewhammy. I wonder why it has to gag debateon all of these rural issues. It should ask itselfjust what is going on. Maybe it does not knowabout the issues or perhaps it has not workedthem through. The reality is that what it hasdone in most instances is just plain stupid.

Mr Horan: It's a bush-bash night everyThursday. It's a bush special.

Mr HOBBS: Yes, it is a bush special.Thursday is bush bashing night. The Treasurerhas come out to try to rip a bit more off thefarmers.

I will explain why I think we are heretonight. First, it is about money. There is a veryserious hole in the State Budget. All memberswould be aware of that. Everyone knows that.It would be pretty good to have $500m as afloat going through the Budget. The Treasurerwould not be able to get a hold of all of thatmoney, but at least $200m or $300m would sitthere all the time and go through. That is avery handy float. I think that is one of the verysignificant reasons why the Premier has takenthis approach.

Mr Johnson interjected.

Mr HOBBS: I bet they are, too. The otherreason is that the Premier is always looking fora stunt of some sort. He knows—we allknow—that fuel is a big and important issue inthe electorate. It is on everybody's lips. In anattempt to make a big person of himself, thePremier sought to implement the registrationrebate scheme. His aims were to try to get themoney back and to be seen to be doingsomething.

The reality is that there was no real faultwith the old scheme. If there was fault with theold scheme, then where are the prosecutions?How many are there and who do they relateto? So far all we have had is somebodynamed, and apparently it is the wrong person.There has been nothing before the courts thatI am aware of.

Mr Cooper: A political stunt, that's all it is.


Mr HOBBS: Absolutely! Membersopposite talk about all this fuel going over theborder. If we translate back into dollars theestimates quoted by the Premier, we see thatit amounts to only a handful of silver, anyway.Eight cents a litre on the overall value of atanker of fuel certainly is not a great deal. Thereality is that the price of fuel is going upworldwide. There really is not a lot we can doabout that. The scheme that the Governmentis putting in place is more costly. It is morecostly to implement, it is more costly toadminister and it places extra burdensparticularly on bulk end users.

The Government also has to put in placefuel police. It has said that there will have to bemore policing and administration of thisscheme. The amount of paperwork will bequite astronomical. The Government has gonefrom dealing with about 150 people to dealingwith well over 1,000. The member for FernyGrove said earlier that we cannot trust the fuelcompanies. How can we trust the others? Howdo we know we are going to get the 8c?Nobody can say that.

Mr Cooper interjected.

Mr HOBBS: It floats up and down. Thoseopposite have to go beyond the mind-set ofgetting away from the big guys. Sure, thereare problems—we all recognise that—but atthe end of the day there has to be a workablescheme that will suit Queenslanders.

The Government has allowed for extrapolicing. It is overriding the principles of naturaljustice, which Government members should beaware of. The Attorney-General is not in theChamber tonight expressing concern aboutthat aspect. The legislation contains increasedpowers to enter premises, to search and toseize documents without duly issued warrants.It does not provide an appropriate protectionagainst self-incrimination. There are quite afew significant social issues involved with thisas well.

No-one is happy with the increase in price.No-one is happy with the price variations wesee. The member for Ferny Grove alsomentioned price variations. They do often defylogic, but that is just the way it is. Over the last20 years there have been 40 inquiries into fuelpricing in Australia, and the issues have notbeen resolved. The big problem is that theprice of a barrel of oil has gone from $10 to$37. There is a GST factor, but it is really quitesmall at the end of the day.

I saw an article in Queensland CountryLife which highlighted the story of a youngfellow in relation to the fuel problem we face.In the article he expressed great anger and

demanded that the Government give back the2c a litre. Two cents a litre is not a significantamount when we consider the total cost of atank of fuel. People need to focus on the realproblem and not take the political or populistline. The scheme, which particularly affectsbulk end users, is costly to operate andadminister.

Most properties have bulk tanks. In myown situation, we use about 6,000 litres ofstorage. We have more there, but that is whatwe use.

Mr Cooper: What happens if you buy in6,000 litres? Do you get the rebate on 6,000litres?

Mr HOBBS: Well, I don't think you do.

Mr Cooper: You get it on 2,000 litres. Mr HOBBS: I have been through it

several times and I am trying to work it out. Ijust cannot see the logic. There must besomething I am not seeing in this. Thelegislation refers to the maximum amount offuel that can be purchased from a retail site.The maximum amount that can be purchasedat a subsidised rate is 2,000 litres under thenew scheme. Does that mean that when weare busy the operator comes out to us everycouple of days? Why would he want to do a100-mile or 200-mile trip? He could come outwith his trucks, fill us up and go away and wemight not see him again for one, two or threemonths. This is just not practical. It just defieslogic.

Also, the Government is saying that fuelusage has to be measured under this scheme.People cannot claim the total amount.Currently, a tanker comes in and fills you upand a claim can be made for whatever thecost may be—probably a few thousanddollars—and the diesel excise is returned. It isdone in one movement. But under thisscheme people can claim only for what theyhave actually used—what they have actuallyburnt through their motors. So there has to besome sort of measuring device. People aremeant to have logbooks of some sort.

None of the bulk tanks have meters. Firstof all, in a lot of instances there is no power.There are volumetric type measurements, butthey cost between $500 and $750 each andthey must go in every tank. Normally therewould be three tanks—maybe more. Mobiletankers are also used. So people would be upfor $2,800 or $3,000 for meters. Dipping is oneway to measure, but it still involves a lot ofpaperwork. Why can't people claim on theinvoice they get from the retailer—the BP,Caltex or Mobil guy, or whoever they buyfrom? It is quite simple. Then the fuel is used


and when they come again the tanks are filledup and away they go. There is no logic to thisscheme. Not only that, there is a three-monthwait to get the money back. So it is evenworse.

The other thing that is terriblyconfusing—this is where the petrol police haveto get involved—is if people actually buy fuel atthe subsidy rate but then take their vehicle onroad. They actually have to be able to log thatand send Treasury a cheque. Can membersimagine that happening? A farmer in Boulia,Thargomindah, Weipa or somewhere would beoff road most of the time, but if he went on theroad would Treasury get a cheque for $5, $10or $20? Is the farmer going to do all of thepaperwork? He is breaking the law if he doesnot. What is happening is just not credible. Awhile ago we heard from "Mr Price Watch",sometimes known as "Mr Vote Watch". Hesaid that Mr Beattie was doing something, thathe was trying to help.

Mr Beanland: He's a rorter.Mr HOBBS: As the member for

Indooroopilly says, he is a rorter. It is claimedthat Mr Beattie is doing something to help, butin fact he is only confusing people. There willnot be one extra razoo in assistance forpeople. "Mr Vote Watch" will probably arguethat people weren't getting the 8c before, butthere is no guarantee that we will get the 8cnow.

Mr Horan: Less chance.Mr HOBBS: There is probably less

chance. Previously we were dealing with atleast a few main oil companies—probably 100.

Mr Horan: 160.

Mr HOBBS: 160. And how many now?Mr Horan: 2,000 or 3,000.

Mr HOBBS: How on earth is theGovernment going to get around and deal withthem all? It is totally ridiculous.

"Mr Vote Watch" claimed that Agforcehad supported this principle. That is not thecase. Agforce did not support it. I spoke toLarry Acton recently. He said that in fact theyfought it very strongly. I believe that this weekhe was going to try to see the Premier,although I guess the Premier has been prettybusy with a few other things, but he will bebusier next week.

Dr Watson: He is trying to find extravotes.

Mr HOBBS: I would say he probably istrying to find extra votes, and he will need afew. What has been said tonight is not true atall.

It was very disappointing that Labor didnot have the courage to unite with us tonightto try to assist the Commonwealth to formulatea plan to help those who do not currently getthe off-road diesel excise rebate. It could havebeen done. The debate tonight got completelyout of hand. There was not the logic in itneeded to bring about a resolution that wouldhave come from a sensible Parliament. I donot doubt that both the motion and theamendment moved during the debate at 6o'clock tonight could have been improved, butthe amendment moved by the Treasurer andseconded by the Premier defied all logic. Itreally ran counter to the commitment theyhave made to work towards a workablesolution that will help people. The Governmentreally played a spoiler role. The Government'sattitude was, "We are not going to play."

"Mr Vote Watch" also said that we haveto freeze the excise. We would all probably behappy with that. But the reality is that freezingthe excise will not solve the problem.Tomorrow the price of fuel could go just ashigh again. I think the Prime Minister said theGovernment would have to remove at least 5cto make it worth while, and that is about$1.7 billion. The price of oil could go up thenext day by 5c, and as a result the Treasurycoffers lose out and we lose out because themoney is not going into the system. This isreally a time for cool heads.

There was another statement madetonight that I thought summed it up pretty well.The member for Caboolture said that thescheme was hatched in the Strangers Bar.Wherever they were or whoever hatched thisscheme must have been terribly, terribly drunk.It has little logic, it is ham-fisted and just plainstupid.

Dr PRENZLER (Lockyer—CCAQ)(11.03 p.m.): Once again we see tonightLabor's real democracy: gagging members ofParliament so that they cannot truly representtheir constituents. The Government should beabsolutely ashamed of itself. I condemn theLabor Government for this gag. I will berestricting the length of my speech tonight toallow others to have a say.

There is no doubt that the high fuel pricesare the result of many factors. These includesome of the following: the impact of importparity pricing, introduced by the FraserGovernment, ties our fuel prices to the OPECcountries; the six-monthly increases in excisecharges in response to the CPI index risesintroduced by the Keating Government; directincrease in prices of around 2c a litre causedby the GST; the levying of the GST on the


retail, not the wholesale, price of fuel,complemented by a corresponding increase inexcise—and tied in to the six-monthly priceincreases; and changes to the Queenslandfuel subsidy scheme caused by the GSTfiasco, which has directly affected the off-roadusers, who can no longer buy subsidised fuels.

Despite the protestations of both sides ofthe House, the coalition is as guilty in thismatter as the Labor Party. This Bill has beenintroduced by the Treasurer to combat so-called price rorting by the fuel companies andothers of the fuel subsidy system. This Billdoes nothing to address the serious problemof artificially inflated fuel prices in Australia. Theprice of fuel is crippling rural and regionalQueensland and also is threatening theviability of many small businesses. It is sounnecessary. Australia in reality has adequatereserves of fuel, but because of world paritypricing and Federal Government excisearrangements, fuel prices are at unrealistic anddestructive levels.

The intent of this Bill is to ensure that anybenefits accruing from Queensland's fuel taxfree status end up in the pockets of motorists.This intent, even though it is honourable, willnot translate into practice. There is nothing inthis Bill which will stop the rorting of fuel pricesby the fuel company cartels. They will simplymanipulate prices to maximise their obsceneprofits. The only result will be an increase inthe bankruptcy rate of service station operatorsand bulk end users as they drown in a risingtide of bureaucracy, red tape and paperwork.Neither the one-off payment of $200 nor themargin to the servo of 0.046c per litre willmake any impression on the additional set-upcosts and the ongoing recording costs of thissystem.

I support the principle of volumerestrictions. I believe that they will go a longway to ensuring that the Queensland subsidywill stay in Queensland. This is an importantissue, but to my mind the real issue is theneed to ensure that the subsidy is passed onto motorists. I do not believe this Bill will dothat.

Another aspect of this whole debacle thatfuel pricing has become is the GSTcomponent. Rural and regional Queenslandersare disadvantaged by the fact that they arepaying a higher GST component coming off ahigher retail price. Freight charges are only partof the problem. There is also an unexplainabledifferential between the price of fuel in regionalareas and the capital city. Rural and regionalfuel users are paying GST not only on thebase price of fuel but also on the freight

differential and the unexplainable differential.This makes the GST a discriminatory tax. Itflies in the face of our Constitution, whichstates that any tax must apply equally toeveryone and must not discriminate on thebasis of geographical location.

This Bill is unfair to service station ownersthroughout Queensland. They are being madeto carry the can for the Government'sineptitude and for the greedy fuel companies.How can this Government turn on smallbusinesses all over the State, most of whichare struggling to keep their heads abovewater, and force them to work more hours andincur more expense when they already workfor half wages or less? No self-respectingunionist would dream of putting in the hoursthat self-employed service station operatorswork, especially for the tiny pittance that theyget to keep after the rapacious FederalGovernment and the fuel companies haveripped off their obscene share. Yet thisGovernment expects small fuel retailers tospend more and more of their almost non-existent spare time keeping ridiculouslydetailed records of every sale that they make,just for the privilege of working as a slave forthe fuel companies and as a tax collector forthe Government.

What is this wonderfully generousGovernment offering our long-suffering fuelretailers by way of some sort of recompensefor their efforts? This lousy Government isoffering them a measly $200 up-front and anabsolutely laughable 0.046c per litre for everylitre they sell. In case that is too difficult forsome members to work out, it amounts to aslittle as $10 a week to do all this work for theGovernment. Even major retailers will get only$10 a day for their trouble. The larger retailers,while still doing it tough, are in a better positionthan the small corner servo in a country town,which does not have the volume of salesnecessary to help defray these types of costincreases.

Legislation of this type is typical of aGovernment that has lost sight of reality. ThePremier bleats about fuel subsidies, but thenhands out an insulting pittance to the peoplewho have no choice but to do his work for him.This Government has no idea whatsoeverabout the priorities it should be pursuing. ThisBill will do nothing for the motorists, nothing forthe farmers and certainly nothing for theservice station operators, who will now beburdened with more paperwork on top of thepaperwork of the GST.

The question I ask the Treasurer tonightis: at what cost to Queenslanders will this Bill


be introduced? What will its implementationcosts be? What will be the cost of the extrafuel police, as they have been described heretonight?

I would be very appreciative if theTreasurer could answer those questions—but Ido not think he can because he does notreally know.

Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—IND)(11.10 p.m.): I rise to participate in debate onthe Fuel Subsidy Amendment Bill 2000. Indoing so, I reflect on the last time the gag wasapplied by this Government. At that time I saidI believed that politicians can no longer takeQueenslanders for granted. With the gagbeing applied again tonight, it appears to methat Queenslanders are certainly being takenfor granted by this Government.

In his contribution to the debate, themember for Moggill referred to a possiblehidden agenda. As a result of the gag beingapplied to debate on this Bill, it certainlyappears to me that the Government ispursuing a hidden agenda.

Earlier tonight I was talking to one of myconstituents who has worked for many years inthe fuel distribution business. She said to methat she had recently been informed bymanagement that as at 1 December this yearher services will no longer be required and shewill be required to look for other employment.

I understand that there is little over 50minutes left in this debate on the Bill and thatthere are many, many speakers who wish toparticipate in the debate. Because of the timeconstraints placed upon us, many will not beable to do so. Accordingly, I place on therecord that I certainly will not be supporting theBill. To allow more members to speak in thedebate, I will say no more.

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA)(11.11 p.m.): I want to speak for only amoment to this piece of legislation, too. Themost important thing to consider here is theimpost that the application of the Bill will haveon retail sites around the State. That is on topof the impost of the GST and other anomaliesthat some of these companies have beensubjected to in recent months.

The most important point here that someof the members on the other side of theHouse are not recognising is the impact of therate at which fuel is turned over. The memberfor Caboolture touched on it earlier thisevening. The point I make is that the sitesaround Brisbane and on the coast and someof the bigger commercial sites in country areaswhere the turnover is very reliable will notexperience a lot of problems. But where there

is not a lot of fuel turned over and when fuel istrucked in—and a lot of these sites purchasethe fuel just for the sake of taking it on—everythree months the operators will have to lodgea claim to get their money back. They are theones who will be subjected to increased cost.

Take a place like Birdsville where the fueltruck goes in probably once every 10 days. If atruck is going out there with a load of fuel on it,the local supplier cannot very well say no. Theyhave to top up. The same thing applies atBedourie, Boulia or any of those other remoteareas where they do not have the turnover. Ifthe price of petrol is $1.15 or $1.16 a litrethere, you can bet your bottom dollar that afterthis Bill comes into operation it will be uparound $1.30 or $1.40 per litre. See if I am notwrong. This is totally unjustified; it is a systemthat will not work for many country areas.

I ask the Treasurer to take my next pointon board. A lot of these bulk end users will beoutlaying that money now. I spoke to one bulkend user today who will have to outlay an extra$50,000 for three months until he can claim itback. This untenable situation will push someof these people so far as to make themunviable. Although they are struggling toremain in business, the imposition of thissubsidy could sound their death knell. This isnot something I say lightly, bit it is somethingthat I hope the Treasurer will take on board.

On page 2 of the Explanatory Notes theTreasurer refers to the maximum retail quantitybeing reduced from 3,000 to 2,000 litres toreflect the maximum amount of fuel ordinarilysupplied by retailers to fill a vehicle's runningtanks. I beg the Treasurer tonight to leave thatquantity at 3,000 litres. There are many longdistance transport operators who take morethan 2,000 litres. I left Quilpie the other nighton my way back to Longreach and I passedan operator with six decks of bullocks on whohad pulled up about 100 kilometres out oftown because he was short on fuel. A blokelike that will have to have a tanker follow himaround the country so he can fill his truck up.This is totally unacceptable to those who dorun long distance operations. I ask theTreasurer this evening to leave the retailquantity at 3,000 litres or at least come back to2,500 litres because, at the end of the day,this is—

Mr Hamill: The road transport industrysaid 2,000 was fine.

Mr JOHNSON: That is okay where theyare running up and down highways where theycan fill up, but a lot of these blokes cannot getaccess to fuel when they need it. That is thepoint I am making here. I just rang one


operator about a quarter of an hour ago; I gothim out of bed to find out what he thinks. Hesaid if it was 2,500 it would be a lot better than2,000. That is the point I want to make thisevening.

Mr Malone: No practical knowledge of theindustry.

Mr JOHNSON: That is the whole problem.

Mr Hamill: The road transport industryadvised on 2,000.

Mr JOHNSON: Yes, but there are manydifferent facets of the transport industry. I thinkthe Treasurer would be well advised to takenote of what some of the other people in theindustry are saying.

This is an issue that will cause chaos andanarchy in the retail areas right across theState. I can assure the Treasurer that thisGovernment will have to take full responsibilityfor the closure of many of the retail fuel sitesaround Queensland. See if I have not got itwrong.

Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP)(11.16 p.m.): There is a lot of anger in theelectorates of Queensland about fuel prices.The increased fuel prices are having an effectnot only on ordinary motorists but also onvoluntary organisations. Organisations likeCentenary Meals on Wheels, the SalvationArmy, Surf Lifesaving Queensland and theUpper Brookfield Rural Fire Brigade have beenseverely disadvantaged by these increasedfuel prices. These volunteers cannot continueto shoulder the burden of an unfair fuelsubsidy scheme.

I thank the Minister for EmergencyServices for establishing a task force torespond to increased fuel prices on volunteerrural fire brigades. This shows that theGovernment values the contributions ofvolunteers. I thank my own group of dedicatedvolunteers for keeping track of the increasingcost of fuel throughout the price watchcampaign in the electorate of MountOmmaney. Fuel prices continue to fluctuatebetween service stations from day to day.They continue to be totally unpredictable andto generate uncertainty. Petrol prices haverisen by about 15c a litre in Queensland in thelast 12 months. This is having a devastatingeffect on the pockets of motorists.

The fuel subsidy scheme was broughtabout via a 1997 High Court decision whichinvalidated the States' licensing fees. The thenState Government decided that a subsidyscheme should be developed to return thisnew tax—the excise surcharge—to the peopleof Queensland. This scheme has been

problematic since its inception. Why? Becausethere is no control over the subsidy once it ispaid to the fuel companies. The State becamea victim of our illegal trade in cheap fuel.Queenslanders are being ripped off, as theyhave been subsidising interstate fuelconsumers. Over 26,000 people have signeda petition to demand that the FederalGovernment undertakes an inquiry into petrolprices. The Beattie Government is committedto returning the subsidy into the pockets ofQueensland motorists. We want to put thesubsidy scheme right so that the people ofQueensland benefit. Otherwise, there is notmuch point in having a subsidy scheme. Somepeople were dubious about reduced vehicleregistration fees and the Government had tothink of alternatives. Peter Beattie was outthere listening to what people had to say.

Mr Stuart Moore, a hardworkingcommunity-spirited member of my electorate,came to see me a number of weeks ago witha plan. This plan had a lot of merit. It provideda way for the Government to continue to paythe subsidy, but more directly to the motorist.There was really no other way other than topay the subsidy directly to service stations.Having motorists claim the subsidy asindividuals after filling up their tanks wouldhave been administratively too complex andexpensive. Service station owners are a lotmore trustworthy than major oil companies.We can have a lot more control over where thesubsidy is going.

I wrote to the Premier about Stuart'ssuggestion and found out that theGovernment was already thinking along thoselines. A fuel task force had been formed toreview the existing subsidy scheme and todevelop changes which are more equitable tothe people of Queensland—particularlyvolunteers. The task force comprisesrepresentatives from the Motor TradesAssociation of Queensland, the RACQ, theAustralian Institute of Petroleum, the LocalGovernment Association, the QueenslandTrucking Association, the Boating IndustryAssociation, the Queensland FarmersFederation, Agforce, Canegrowers, theQueensland Chamber of Commerce andIndustry, the Taxi Council and the Bus IndustryCouncil.

The purpose of the review is to stopabuse of the scheme through illegal interstatetrade. It would provide the subsidy directly tothe bowser to ensure that motorists receivedtheir full subsidy benefit. On 1 December2000, the subsidy will be paid directly toretailers who sell fuel in retail quantities from afixed site in Queensland. A maximum limit will


be set at 2,000 litres from each retail site atthe subsidised rate.

To allow for administration costs toretailers, the subsidy will be paid monthly inadvance in an amount of 8.4c per litre, so thatthe 8.354c per litre subsidy will be passed onto consumers. To more fully address the issueof interstate fuel trading, bulk end users will beentitled to claim a subsidy quarterly in arrearsdirectly from the Office of State Revenue. Thefuel must be delivered from Queenslandstorage sites or by a distributor directly into therunning tank of their vehicles in quantities ofup to 2,000 litres.

It all comes down to accountability, whichis important to ensure that the subsidy ispassed on to the consumer and thatopportunists do not take advantage of thescheme where they have no entitlement. Anessential aspect of this is the improvement inaccess and information gathering powers toensure that correct information is provided indetermining entitlements. This is certainly afairer scheme as far as the ordinary consumer,volunteers and small business are concerned.I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (11.23 p.m.):This piece of legislation that we areconsidering tonight is perpetrating anotherfraud on the people of Queensland. It is theperpetration of another fraud by a Governmentthat has become widely recognised asfraudulent, and which will become more widelyrecognised as fraudulent.

This piece of legislation, without doubt, ispart of that fraudulent agenda. It has arisensimply because the Premier and the Treasurergot themselves into trouble. We areconsidering this legislation tonight simplybecause their little strategy to introduce a defacto fuel tax in Queensland came unstuck.The whiz-kid over here who sits in theTreasurer's seat—the bloke who seems to beable to get himself into trouble withouttrying—has got the Government into trouble inthis instance as well.

The strategy was to rip the people ofQueensland off to the tune of about 8.5c alitre by doing away with the mechanism thatthe Borbidge/Sheldon Government had put inplace to ensure that Queenslanders were notsaddled with the same sort of State fuel taxthat the other States had. Previous speakersin this debate have outlined the details of that.It is regrettable, given the time restrictions, thatI have to restrict my comments because thereare a lot of things in this piece of politicalwizardry that are worthy of examination. That isthe reason why we are here debating this

piece of legislation. It had nothing to do withthe Premier's absurd claims of 60 tankers aday trucking fuel across the border to takeadvantage of the Queensland fuel pricingscheme. That was a furphy. It always was afurphy and it has been shown to be a furphy.

Of all the speakers from the Governmentside, and of all those who had an opportunityto speak and did not speak, no-one hasjustified that approach because they know it iswrong, they know it is stupid and they know itis silly. No-one has been prepared to stand upand justify that. That in itself illustrates the lackof integrity that there is in this Government andin this argument.

This piece of legislation seeks to changethe system and pay the 8.5c to the servicestations rather than to the fuel wholesalers towhom it has been paid to date—not becausethat is a better situation, I contend, but simplybecause that was the only option that was leftafter the people of Queensland soundlyrejected the strategy that the Treasurer andthe Premier had devised. The people soundlyrejected that strategy and the Premier and theTreasurer were left with nowhere to go.

They had to come up with something.They could not publicly admit that they werewrong and that the 60 tankers a day neverexisted. They had to come up with something,so they came up with this strategy of payingthe 8.5c to the service station at the retaillevel. Those opposite know that that is a verypoor option. It was an option, as the Leader ofthe Opposition said, that was looked atoriginally and was rejected simply because itwas a very poor option. One does not have tobe a rocket scientist or a Rhodes scholar towork out that it has to be a poor option.

The member for Woodridge, and othermembers, had the opportunity to explain tothe House how this system was going to beany more efficient at making sure that the 8.5cwas passed on to the customers. Not onespeaker took that opportunity. Nobody hascome into this House and explained why the8.5c is more likely to be passed on if it is paidto the retailer than if it is paid to thewholesaler. They have not done that becausethey cannot make a logical argument to back itup. The coalition set up the process of payingit to the wholesaler. In that way, it was paid toa relatively small number of operators who canbe monitored, whose activities and coststructures can be questioned and whoseactivities can be justified.

Under the option that the Rhodesscholar—the Treasurer—and the Premier aregoing to force through the House tonight, the


8.5c is going to be paid to an enormousnumber of retailers, all of whom have differingcost structures and all of whom have differingaccounting systems. There is not even anylikelihood that the motorist is going to end upbetter off. One does not have to think verylong and hard to come up with ways in which aretailer could skim off—to use the words of themember for Woodridge—a portion of the 8.5cand disguise it within the cost structures of hisown service station.

If one takes a quick drive around any areaof Queensland one will see variations in thefuel price that exceed 8.5c. Those variationsare due to differing cost structures betweendiffering operators. There is no way in theworld that this piece of legislation is going toachieve the aims and the end result that theTreasurer and the Premier have talked about.It is a fraudulent piece of legislation. It isanother fraud that is being perpetrated on thepeople of Queensland.

This will lead to higher petrol prices—justthe opposite of what these clowns over herestand up and say so pompously and so self-righteously. It will lead to higher petrol pricesbecause the RACQ and every other reputablebody that looked at the problem contradictedthe position that had been taken by thePremier and the Treasurer and came out withthe conclusion that the original system—thesystem that the coalition put in place, wherethe 8.5c was paid to the wholesaler—worked,and worked well. Whilst, as in everything, thereare some people who seek to take advantageof something and misuse the system, therewere plenty of mechanisms to deal with that.This particular poor second-rate option will notbe able to be monitored in the same way.

In the short time I have left I wish to makesome comments about the bulk end users.Obviously, I have a lot of those people in myelectorate. They will be the big losers in thisscheme, as has been outlined by a number ofother honourable members on this side of theHouse. It is regrettable that this debate hasbeen gagged and that I have not had anopportunity to put forward the point of view ofthe people I represent. Those people will haveto finance this Government's cash flow. That iswhat it comes down to. Those people who arealready doing it tough for a whole range ofreasons will have to finance the cash flows ofan incompetent State Treasurer. TheTreasurer cannot balance his own books so hedreams up little schemes to make sure he getshis greedy hands on other people's money forthree months. They can claim their 8.5c onlyonce every three months; he gets the money

immediately and does not have to pay it outfor three months, if we take the example to itslogical conclusion. That is a rort and a fraud onthe people of Queensland.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras):Order! Under the provisions of the allocation oftime limit order agreed to by the House inrelation to this Bill, the time for the second-reading debate has now expired.

Question—That the Bill be now read asecond time—put; and the House divided—AYES, 38—Attwood, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Braddy,Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham, Edmond, Fenlon,Fouras, Hamill, Hayward, Kaiser, Lavarch, Lucas,Mackenroth, McGrady, Miller, Mulherin, Musgrove,Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves,Reynolds, Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten,Spence, Struthers, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers:Sullivan, Purcell

NOES, 38—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, E. Cunningham, Dalgleish, Davidson,Feldman, Gamin, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan,Johnson, Kingston, Laming, Lester, Lingard,Littleproud, Malone, Mitchell, Paff, Pratt, Prenzler,Quinn, Rowell, Santoro, Seeney, Simpson, Slack,Springborg, Stephan, Turner, Watson, Wellington.Tellers: Baumann, Hegarty



Motion to go into Committee

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—ALP)(Treasurer) (11.38 p.m.): I move—

"That you do now leave the chair andthe House resolve itself into a Committeeof the Whole to consider the Bill in detail."

Question—put; and the House divided—AYES, 38—Attwood, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Braddy,Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham, Edmond, Fenlon,Fouras, Hamill, Hayward, Kaiser, Lavarch, Lucas,Mackenroth, McGrady, Miller, Mulherin, Musgrove,Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves,Reynolds, Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten,Spence, Struthers, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers:Sullivan, Purcell





Committee

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—ALP)(Treasurer) in charge of the Bill.

Clauses 1 to 11, as read agreed to.

Clause 12—

Mr HORAN (11.42 p.m.): This clausedeals with the subsidy scheme, the subsidyentitlement, the paperwork—the recordkeeping and returns—and so forth. Tonight isa night of shame. It is the 29th time that thegag has been applied in this Parliament. It isbecoming an arrogant symbol of thisParliament. Just about every Thursday night,week after week in this Parliament, theGovernment gags something that is importantto battlers, workers, families and mostly peoplein the bush. It gags anything to do with treeclearing, water and petrol subsidies. Applyingthe gag to this debate will mean that people inthe bush will carry three months of petrolaccounts and will carry the interest and cost offinancing a cash strapped Government. It is anabsolute disgrace. It is no wonder that we areseeing tied vote after tied vote. It is not just theNational Party and the Liberal Party; theIndependents, the CCA and everybody else isstarting to come through in this State andpeople are seeing what is happening.

We have an arrogant, corrupt, cheatingGovernment, and it treats this Governmentwith absolute contempt. This particularlegislation here tonight is going to jack theprice of fuel up, not down. It is going to jack itup. How stupid! The Government had asystem in which it had to check on 160distributors, and it reckoned that it could not dothat. It also claimed that something like 60tankers a day were going over the borderunder its administration. It had only 160distributors that it had to check on. What doesit have to check on now? It has to check on2,000!

There are 10,000 end users, and theGovernment has this silly rule that, if any otherpeople buy fuel and go off road, they have towrite out a cheque and send it back to theTreasurer. Can honourable members imaginea fertiliser contractor in his fertiliser spreadingtruck filling up? When he reaches the frontgate, he is supposed to write down thespeedo. He then goes up and down thepaddock and does 100 acres and that is $2 forthe day. On top of that there are at least 2,000service stations that the Government is goingto have to check on—human nature beingwhat it is. And it reckoned that it could nothandle 160 distributors. Imagine the mess it isgoing to have this time.

But there are more than the 2,000distributors. Some are multifranchisearrangements, some are family arrangementsand some are owned by corporations. Someare BP, Shell and all the rest of it. There aredifferent types of operations and systemseverywhere. The Government cannot tell methat that money is going to be passed on tothe motorist. Can honourable membersimagine the average service station with two orthree bulk tanks under the ground? The tankercomes in to fill them up and one has 20%reserve in it, one has 30% and one has 50%.So there are 10 pumps pulling out of thesedifferent things. How on earth are people evergoing to work out the mix of the 20% in herethat cost 79c, the 40% here that cost 83c andthe 6% over there that was probably on specialat 91c? How does the Government ever work itout and how does it ever check? It isabsolutely stupid. It is a system designed toallow people to snip off 1c, 2c, 3c, or 4c. Itwould not have a clue whether that 8.4c hadbeen passed on. However, it certainly will nothave anywhere near the clue it would havehad if the existing system had remained inforce. In that system it had to check on only160 distributors. It reckoned that system wasgoing wrong, but it has not launched oneprosecution. What on earth is going to happenwith this?

Let me return to what some of my othercolleagues have mentioned about the endusers. Transport operators, bus operators,school bus operators, farmers, businesses—tens of thousands of end users—are going tocarry this broke Beattie Labor Government withtheir money. It takes three months betweenwhen they put in a return and when they gettheir money back. Three months! How manymillions of dollars is that? I can just see theTreasurer using that three months' worth ofmoney to push over into the next year. "Thereis the start of Lang Park", or "There is yourbotanical gardens up at Albert Street"—orsome other little fancy schemes he has got. Allthe time the Government would be using thatcash flow. And who is financing it? It is thebattlers and the workers who make this Statego who are financing the Government. We allknow that the Government is broke—department after department. We have seenhow broke it is.

Tonight is a night of shame. I want toleave some time for my colleagues. Themessage is getting through. This Governmentis a mob of corrupt cheats; it is a mob of foolswho cannot run this State. It is putting in asystem that is going to jack the price of petrolup. It is a system that is going to cost small


businesspeople, farmers and other end usersthousands of dollars in interest rates on theiroverdrafts and credit systems. It is an absolutemockery. The only reason we have this isbecause the Premier tried to pull a stunt ofproviding a rebate on the rego. That was anabsolutely childish and stupid stunt that wouldnot work. It was rejected, so he had to think upsomething else. So he thought up somethingthat was twice as stupid.

Mr SLACK: I have listened to the memberfor Toowoomba South and I support him andthe points that he has made. What concernsme in respect of off-road use and the bulkusers is the effect that it will have on farmers,contractors and the other people who havebeen mentioned. We have to place ourselvesin their position. I say to the members oppositethat most of them have not had experience inmaking fuel claims to the Federal Governmentand of how the Federal Government appliesthe rebates on the excise duty that it collects.It is collected on the basis that, after thefarmer or the contractor gets the fuel, he thenputs in the application for the rebate of theexcise duty. There is a calculation there withinthat amount that the farmer or the userdetermines depending on what proportion ofthat fuel was used on road. This is where Idiffer greatly from what the Minister isproposing.

The amount that is used on road is acalculation. It is basically a best guesscalculation based on a period of time in whichpeople do an assessment of the proportionthey use on road and off road. What theMinister is proposing here, though, is muchmore complicated than that. He is proposingthat the farmer or the end user has toestablish through records and, I guess,pettiness at the end of the day—because thatis what it is—to justify what they claim eachtime. That is a big imposition on the farmers asopposed to the way it is applied federally.

I hope the Treasurer is listening to that. Iknow that this Bill is going to be passed on theGovernment's numbers in the Chamber. Thatis the big problem with it. Okay, it has beenalluded to here that there is going to be a costthat the end user is going to carry by nothaving the use of that money. That is unfairbecause other road users get the use of thatmoney straight up because of the discountthey receive in respect of a tax that is appliedin other States but that is not applied inQueensland. As has been explainedthroughout this debate, those people carrythat for a period.

I know that the Treasurer claims that thereis a compensatory factor in that he has raisedit from 8.37c to 8.4c. But if he uses hismathematics on the actual interest rates thatmost people pay—and if people are running abusiness today they are paying interest rates;they cannot have the capital investmentwithout interest rates unless they are verywealthy—it is going to cost them money. Theother cost is what I alluded to earlier, which isthis cost of the record keeping and thebookkeeping. The detail which this Bill requiresimplies that farmers will be dishonest in theway they claim, because the Federal—


Mr SLACK: I was about to mention theissue raised by the member for Warwick. A fewyears ago the Commonwealth employedinspectors who went to farms in an area. Manyfarmers were claiming less than they wereentitled to by way of rebates for on-farm uses.That is the reverse of what we are talkingabout here. The reality was that they proved tobe erring in their judgment on the side ofhonesty—extra honesty. Trying to get the fewwho were was hardly worth while when the costof the inspectors and the applications wasconsidered. That proved that these peoplewere honest. Inspectors noted whether theyused bulldozers or tractors, which use a hugeamount of diesel. If the farmer had a LandRover or a four-wheel-drive vehicle used for on-road travel, an across-the-board figure wasworked out from that usage and they wouldclaim that year after year. An inspector evenvisited me personally, went through myoperation and told me that I was entitled toclaim more than I was actually claiming.

This is what the Government isoverlooking with the legislation it is puttingforward. It is making something complicatedwhich was really simple, and which should besimple. We can argue all we like about theconfusion as to how the diesel rebate appliesto on-road and off-road usage. There istremendous confusion in the community inrelation to that. The point has been made veryforcefully during debate that this is the fault ofthe Democrats and the application of the GST.However, the Government's introducing thislegislation only confuses the issue further. I getangry when I hear the Deputy Premier andmany members from that side of the Chamberblame increasing fuel prices on the GST. Thatmisrepresents the real issues in relation to fuelprices and confuses people more than theyshould be.

The Deputy Premier should be ashamedof his comments in that regard. In every


debate he takes the opportunity to raise theissue of fuel prices and makes a politicalopportunity out of people who have to facethose increasing prices. He knows as well asanybody else that increasing fuel prices arebased on rising oil prices. He knows as well asanybody else that if his party held FederalGovernment it would not be doing anythingdifferent from what is currently being done. Hisparty's counterpart in Britain, Tony Blair's party,is facing the same sorts of problems that theconservative Government is facing here inrespect of public reaction to a situation thathas been brought about by a dwindlingamount of a finite resource on the worldmarket, that is, fuel. It has escalated in price.

As has been said many times by ourFederal counterparts and as has beendistorted by the Deputy Premier, the escalatingprice is not as a result of the GST, it is as aresult of world oil prices. The FederalGovernment will not get any great windfall fromthe increase in prices because the exciseincreases are attached to CPI, which is appliedtwice a year. Yet those opposite are out in theelectorate saying how terrible this issue is, thatit is all the Federal Government's fault and thatthere should be inquiries. The Governmenthad every opportunity to hold an inquiry. Weasked for a royal commission, but it will not sayanything about that. It says that the FederalGovernment should have an inquiry; that ispurely political opportunism. That is all it is, andthat is what it should be seen for.

Members of the Opposition know that thisissue is hurting all Queenslanders. We aresympathetic because we drive cars ourselves.My family is involved in farming. We see theimplications of this situation. We see what ouroverseas neighbours are doing. We see theextra burden this imposes on runningbusinesses when things are so tight. At theend of the day, one consoling factor is that weare an exporting nation and our competitorsare suffering from the same plight. Therefore,our competitors have the same problem withescalating fuel prices and have to cope withthem.

There has been no bipartisanship on thisissue. Those opposite want to make everypolitical opportunity they can whilst at thesame time confusing the issue by bringing inlegislation such as this. They are complicatingwhat has been a simple issue. As I have quitecorrectly pointed out, this Bill will be animposition on farmers. It will add to theirworkload and increase their uncertainty inrespect of fuel prices. I fully support the pointsbeing made by the Opposition in opposing theBill before the Chamber.

Mr ROWELL: This is an extremelyimportant issue. The Government had anopportunity to have a royal commission. I didnot have any trouble in collecting somethinglike 1,701 signatures in a very short time. Aninquiry would have given the Government theopportunity to clearly delineate what waswrong with fuel prices in Queensland. There islittle question that the Australian dollar is atone of the lowest levels it has ever beenat—under $US0.52c. The world price of oil isextremely high. When one puts those twofactors together, it is quite evident that theprice of oil is going to go up. However, theGovernment did not want a royal commission.it wanted to take the argy-bargy position ofblaming everybody else but itself.

There will be guesstimates as far as bulkoil is concerned. People are absolutelyconfused as to what they are going to do. Thecost of fuel at service stations is questionable.The other day I bought fuel at a service stationfor 84.9c a litre. The next day I rang thedistributor in Townsville and was told that petrolwould be worth 103c that day, a matter of 10hours after I bought my fuel. After taking the8.3c subsidy off, the price would be 95c. Howcome there was such a big variation in 10hours? This type of thing is going on all overthe place.

Mr Kaiser: It's the oil companies.

Mr ROWELL: Yes, it is the oil companies.The member hit the nail on the head. Whydoes the Government not take a good look atwhat the problem really is? It had theopportunity to do it, but it does not want to doit. This is just an argy-bargy situation, and thecheater up the back wants to continue it.However, people are absolutely distraught.This issue is costing people who have to travelconsiderable distances in this State enormousamounts of money. I, too, know what it costs;after filling my fuel tank I know that it is nowalmost double. It is absolutely horrific.However, the people who have to drive aroundcountry Queensland are the people who arefeeling the biggest impact. The Governmenttalks about a cent here and a cent there, but ithad the opportunity to do something aboutthis.

What are service stations going to get outof it? Perhaps .05c a litre for serving litres offuel day after day. How much will they make?Perhaps $10 a day!

Mr Johnson: $2.

Mr ROWELL: It gets even worse. This isabsolutely ridiculous. Who is going to do alltheir book work? Who is going to keep all


those records for that very small amount ofmoney?

Mr Horan: If you sell 10,000 litres a day,you might make $5.

Mr ROWELL: Yes, sell 10,000 litres andmake $5. Who will do that? Sooner or laterthey will wake up to the Government and thenall hell will break loose. The Government mayhave the support of the MTAQ, but it is beingsucked in by the Government. It is absolutelydisgraceful. What about all the work to bedone by farmers? They are absolutelydistraught about the records they will have tokeep. As a result, they have to not only lookafter their farming enterprises but also keepadditional records.

The CHAIRMAN: Under the provisions ofthe allocation of time limit order agreed to bythe House in relation to this Bill, the time fordebate on the clauses has expired. Thequestion now is that clauses 12 to 88, as read,stand part of the Bill.

Question put; and the Committeedivided—AYES, 38—Attwood, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Braddy,Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham, Edmond, Fenlon,Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Kaiser, Lavarch, Lucas,Mackenroth, McGrady, Miller, Mulherin, Musgrove,Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves,Reynolds, Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten,Spence, Struthers, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers:Sullivan, Purcell




Reporting of Bill

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—ALP)(Treasurer) (12.05 a.m.): Mr Chairman, Imove—

"That you do now leave the chair andreport the Bill without amendment to theHouse." Question put; and the Committee

divided—AYES, 38—Attwood, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Braddy,Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham, Edmond, Fenlon,Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Kaiser, Lavarch, Lucas,Mackenroth, McGrady, Miller, Mulherin, Musgrove,Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves,

Reynolds, Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten,Spence, Struthers, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers:Sullivan, PurcellNOES, 38—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, E. Cunningham, Dalgleish, Davidson,Feldman, Gamin, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan,Johnson, Kingston, Laming, Lester, Lingard,Littleproud, Malone, Mitchell, Paff, Pratt, Prenzler,Quinn, Rowell, Santoro, Seeney, Simpson, Slack,Springborg, Stephan, Turner, Watson, Wellington.Tellers: Baumann, Hegarty



Mr SPEAKER: Order! For any futuredivisions the bells will be rung for two minutes.

Third Reading


"That the Bill be now read a thirdtime."

Question put; and the House divided—AYES, 38—Attwood, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Braddy,Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham, Edmond, Fenlon,Fouras, Hamill, Hayward, Kaiser, Lavarch, Lucas,Mackenroth, McGrady, Miller, Mulherin, Musgrove,Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves,Reynolds, Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten,Spence, Struthers, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers:Sullivan, Purcell




Title


"That the title of the Bill be agreedto."

Question put; and the House divided—AYES, 38—Attwood, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Braddy,Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham, Edmond, Fenlon,Fouras, Hamill, Hayward, Kaiser, Lavarch, Lucas,Mackenroth, McGrady, Miller, Mulherin, Musgrove,Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves,Reynolds, Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten,Spence, Struthers, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers:Sullivan, Purcell

3970 Special Adjournment 19 Oct 2000




SPECIAL ADJOURNMENTHon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—

ALP) (Leader of the House) (12.18 a.m.): Imove—

"That the House, at its rising, doadjourn until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 8November 2000."

Motion agreed to.The House adjourned at 12.18 a.m.

(Friday).

G. A. NICHOLSON, ACTING GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—2000

thursday, 19 october 2000

Documents