2005 06 08 weekly - parliament.qld.gov.au · one hundred and forty-six years after queen...

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

E-mail: [email protected]: (07) 3406 7314 Fax: (07) 3210 0182

51ST PARLIAMENT

CONTENTS Page

PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

Subject

Wednesday, 8 June 2005PRIVILEGE ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1837

Minister for Transport and Main Roads .............................................................................................................................. 1837PETITION ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 1837PAPERS ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1837MINISTERIAL STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 1837

Letters Patent ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1837MINISTERIAL STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 1838

Patel, Dr J ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1838MINISTERIAL STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 1838

Trade .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1838MINISTERIAL STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 1839

Corrective Services Patrol Vehicles ................................................................................................................................... 1839MINISTERIAL STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 1840

Ethanol ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1840MINISTERIAL STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 1840

Refugee Week .................................................................................................................................................................... 1840MINISTERIAL STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 1841

Tsunami .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1841MINISTERIAL STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 1841

Equine Industry .................................................................................................................................................................. 1841MINISTERIAL STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 1842

Queensland Week, World Expo 2005 ................................................................................................................................ 1842MINISTERIAL STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 1843

Centenary and Districts Chamber of Commerce ................................................................................................................ 1843MINISTERIAL STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 1843

Expeditionary Strike Group FIVE ....................................................................................................................................... 1843MINISTERIAL STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 1844

Smart Queensland ... a snapshot ....................................................................................................................................... 1844MINISTERIAL STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 1845

Arts and Cultural Activities, Cape York .............................................................................................................................. 1845MINISTERIAL STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 1845

Minimum Wage .................................................................................................................................................................. 1845

BY AUTHORITYL.J. OSMOND, CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER—2005

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/hansard/

Table of Contents — Wednesday, 8 June 2005

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...........................................................................................................................................................1846Defence Industry .................................................................................................................................................................1846

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...........................................................................................................................................................1846Smoking Bans .....................................................................................................................................................................1846

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...........................................................................................................................................................1847QFleet, Sale of Second-hand Vehicles ...............................................................................................................................1847

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...........................................................................................................................................................1848Bauhinia Regional Rail Project ...........................................................................................................................................1848

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...........................................................................................................................................................1848Great Barrier Reef ..............................................................................................................................................................1848

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...........................................................................................................................................................1849Disability Action Week ........................................................................................................................................................1849

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...........................................................................................................................................................1849National Reconciliation Week, Aboriginal Councils ............................................................................................................1849

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...........................................................................................................................................................1850Fire Safety Breaches ..........................................................................................................................................................1850

LAND TAX AMENDMENT BILL .....................................................................................................................................................1850Remaining Stages ..............................................................................................................................................................1850

MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE .................................................................................1851Report, Submissions, Information Notice ............................................................................................................................1851

NOTICE OF MOTION ......................................................................................................................................................................1851Office of the Speaker ..........................................................................................................................................................1851

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...........................................................................................................................................1851Office of the Speaker ..........................................................................................................................................................1851Mooney, Mr T ......................................................................................................................................................................1851Gladstone Civic Theatre .....................................................................................................................................................1852Industrial Relations .............................................................................................................................................................1852

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...................................................................................................................................................1852Office of the Speaker ..........................................................................................................................................................1852Public Servants, Travel Expenses ......................................................................................................................................1853Golden Shears World Championship ..................................................................................................................................1854Office of the Speaker ..........................................................................................................................................................1855World War II, 60th Anniversary ...........................................................................................................................................1856Office of the Speaker ..........................................................................................................................................................1857Minerals and Energy Academy ...........................................................................................................................................1857Simpson, Mr D; Cancellation of Surgery .............................................................................................................................1858Ipswich Motorway ...............................................................................................................................................................1858Maryborough Base Hospital ...............................................................................................................................................1859Vigil Systems ......................................................................................................................................................................1860Patel, Dr J ...........................................................................................................................................................................1860Size, Shape and Sustainability Conference ........................................................................................................................1861Queensland Ambulance Service ........................................................................................................................................1861Water Conservation ............................................................................................................................................................1862Mareeba Hospital, Maternity Services ................................................................................................................................1862Fire Safety ..........................................................................................................................................................................1863Skills Shortage ....................................................................................................................................................................1863

LAND TAX AMENDMENT BILL .....................................................................................................................................................1864Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................................1864Consideration in Detail ........................................................................................................................................................1873Third Reading .....................................................................................................................................................................1873

ORDER OF BUSINESS ..................................................................................................................................................................1873VOLUNTARY STUDENT UNIONISM .............................................................................................................................................1873OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER ...........................................................................................................................................................1905TERRORISM AND ORGANISED CRIME SURVEILLANCE BILL .................................................................................................1914

Second Reading .................................................................................................................................................................1914VOLUNTARY STUDENT UNIONISM .............................................................................................................................................1917ADJOURNMENT .............................................................................................................................................................................1919

Death of Lady Enid Fletcher ...............................................................................................................................................1920Relay For Life, Cairns .........................................................................................................................................................1920Wintersun; World Environment Day; Carnivale of Arts .......................................................................................................1921Queensland Day Volunteer Awards ....................................................................................................................................1921Toowoomba Base Hospital .................................................................................................................................................1922HIV-AIDS ............................................................................................................................................................................1922Tablelands Electorate, Mental Health Services ..................................................................................................................1923Freeleagus, Mr A; Refugees ...............................................................................................................................................1923Bendigo Bank, Sarina Branch .............................................................................................................................................1924Logan Hyperdome Shopping Centre; Logan Hyperdome Bus Station ...............................................................................1925

08 Jun 2005 Legislative Assembly 1837

WEDNESDAY, 8 JUNE 2005

Assembly

Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. J Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 am.

PRIVILEGE

Minister for Transport and Main RoadsMr ACTING SPEAKER: Honourable members, I refer to letters dated 12 and 24 May 2005 from

the member for Maroochydore. In these letters, the member sought a determination from me as towhether the Minister for Transport and Main Roads should be referred to the Members’ Ethics andParliamentary Privileges Committee for deliberately misleading the House. The member’s complaintrelates to the minister’s answer to a question on notice from the member about capital works projectswherein he omitted to include information about the Sunshine Motorway project.

I have considered the minister’s answer to the question on notice tabled on 22 April 2005. I havealso considered the minister’s letter to the member dated 26 April 2005, tabled in the House, and ananswer to the member’s further question in the House on 12 May 2005, both of which providedinformation about the Sunshine Motorway project.

Based on the information before me, I can find no evidence to demonstrate that omission ofmaterial in the answer to the question on notice was a deliberate attempt to mislead the House. Indeed,I note the additional information provided to the member four days later. Accordingly, I do not propose torefer this matter to the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee.

PETITIONThe following honourable member has lodged a paper petition for presentation—

Maternity ServicesMs Lee Long from 533 petitioners requesting the House to improve maternity care services by implementing therecommendations of the Report of the Review of Maternity Services in Queensland re birthing.

PAPERSMINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERKThe following ministerial papers were tabled by the Clerk—Minister for Attorney-General and Minister for Justice (Mr Welford)—• Response from the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice (Mr Welford) to a paper petition presented by Ms Lee Long

from 1 petitioner requesting the House to seek a range of remedial action in respect of a decision by the HealthPractitioners Tribunal to cancel the Christina Wong’s medical registration.

Minister for Education and the Arts (Ms Bligh)—• Response from the Minister for Education and the Arts (Ms Bligh) to a paper petition presented by Mr Hobbs from 464

petitioners requesting the House to reject the P-12 proposal for Roma’s existing preschool to year 10 school.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Letters PatentHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.33 am): A copy

of Queensland’s ‘birth certificate’ is on Queensland soil for the first time in more than 130 years. Laterthis morning Robert Schwarten, the minister for public works, and I will unveil a copy of the letters patentbelonging to Queen Victoria in the historic O’Donovan Library. In fact, the minister for employment hasone of the pages here. One hundred and forty-six years after Queen Victoria’s scribe used quill and inkto sign Queensland’s birth certificate on pieces of cow hide sewn together, Queenslanders can use theinternet to view her historic copy. And is it not appropriate that this be done in Queensland Week?Indeed, Queensland Day, as we all know, was on Monday.

The letters patent are the constitutional documents that declared the new colony of Queensland.This display will be the result of years of detective work by historians and archivists who finallyunearthed Queen Victoria’s copy in the National Archives of the United Kingdom in London in 2004. Itthen took months of negotiations to secure a copy of the letters patent for the people of Queensland.

1838 Ministerial Statement 08 Jun 2005

When the first Governor of Queensland, Sir George Ferguson Bowen, declared the new colonyon 10 December 1859, he brought with him letters patent signed by Queen Victoria on 6 June 1859. Thewhereabouts of Governor Bowen’s copy remains a mystery, as it is believed he took it with him when heleft Queensland in 1867. We do not believe there has been a copy of the letters patent on Queenslandsoil ever since, so securing a facsimile of Queen Victoria’s original is a coup.

As well as Queensland’s birth certificate, we have unveiled a letters patent dated 1862 drawingup the western boundary of Queensland. This document—also found in the National Archives of theUnited Kingdom in London—extended the original western boundary and expanded Queensland by302,600 square kilometres. It is fitting that these cherished documents are on show during QueenslandWeek. They will remain on display at historic Parliament House in Brisbane before being looked after byexperts at the Queensland State Archives. The letters patent can be found at www.foundingdocs.gov.auor via a link with the Queensland State Archives site www.archives.qld.gov.au.

A third document, a deed poll under letters patent issued in 1872, was discovered last year byQueensland State Archives staff. This document predates the Queensland Coast Act 1879 and shiftsQueensland’s maritime border, placing the Governor in charge of ‘all islands within sixty miles from thecoast’. Thank heavens it does. For 13 years after the new colony was declared, the islands offQueensland in fact belonged to New South Wales. That would have ruined our tourism industry ifsomeone had not picked this one up. The member for Whitsunday is looking aghast—and so sheshould.

This deed poll under letters patent will be posted on the internet after experts have detailed itshistorical and legal significance. I urge school students, teachers, historians and anyone interested inhow this state began to take a look at this web site and see the original state of origin. It took a lot ofpride, hard work and commitment to build the new colony of Queensland, and these characteristicsremain strong today as we build the Smart State. I might also thank Minister Robert Schwarten, becausehe and I share a passionate interest in Queensland history and he has demonstrated that passion canproduce results for Queensland. So, Robert, well done!


Patel, Dr J

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.37 am): Irecently wrote an open letter to Dr Jayant Patel, calling on him to return to Queensland and face hisformer patients and their families. It was published on the Queensland government web site onSaturday, 21 May. Some members opposite ridiculed this at the time and suggested that it was a wasteand that nobody would read it. Other related material published on the web site includes an apology toDr Patel’s patients and their families, links to the Morris commission of inquiry and the Forster healthsystem review, contact details for both inquiries, background information and current news in relation tothe inquiries.

There are other items of public interest on the web site including information on stage 2 of ourSmart State Strategy, the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and our involvement in Expo 2005.The number of hits or visits to those items over the past two weeks ranges from 81 to 119, and this isregarded as a reasonable level of interest for material published on any government web site. Thenumber of hits on the open letter to Dr Patel was 420. Interestingly, three of the visits to read the letteron 25 May were from Portland in Oregon, and someone from Portland appears to have come backagain for another look on 1 June. If it indeed is Dr Patel, I hope he gets the message.


Trade

Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.38 am):Queensland continues to be Australia’s trade overachiever, with new figures proving we have the fastestexport growth of any Australian state. Unpublished Australian Bureau of Statistics’ data shows thenominal value of Queensland’s overseas merchandise exports soared to $20.66 billion. This was a29 per cent increase in the 10 months to April 2005 compared with the same period a year earlier. TheAustralian average, 16 per cent, was eating our dust, as they say.

Our brilliant exporters sold goods worth an extra $4.66 billion in the 10 months compared to thesame period a year earlier. Best of all, behind every one of these sensational figures are jobs, jobs, jobs!I will run through some of the highlights, all of which compare the 10 months to April 2005 to the 10months to April 2004.

08 Jun 2005 Ministerial Statement 1839

While coal continued to be a workhorse, recording a rise of $2.43 billion or 52 per cent,merchandise exports rose across all sectors. There was even a taste of good news for drought-strickenfarmers, with rural exports up by 21 per cent, including cereal rising 56 per cent and meat up by 27 percent. This growth was almost double that of the Australian average for the rural sector, which was 11 percent. Queensland’s manufacturing exports increased by 16 per cent, double the Australian average ofeight per cent. The icing on the cake was that we surpassed the supposed manufacturing states of NewSouth Wales and Victoria. High performers in manufacturing included transport, with 27 per cent growth,and equipment and machinery, which is up 10 per cent.

The contrast with the long-running saga of the national trade deficit, which was $7.1 billion in theMarch quarter, could hardly be more stark. At the same time as the nation’s trade balance sheet was inthe red, Queensland made a $520 million trade surplus. Without Queensland, Australia’s performancewould be even more dismal. Peter Costello is not the only one who would love to be a Queenslanderafter yesterday’s budget, but I am not allowed to talk about the budget so I will not.

Based on these figures the Prime Minister, trade minister, finance minister and most of federalcabinet must be coveting a Queensland passport. Donald Horne might have called us the ‘lucky country’once, but this is the Smart State; luck has nothing to do with it.

We are investing our trade ingenuity in markets including North-East Asia, South-East Asia andIndia. Our merchandise exports to India grew by 62 per cent in the 10 months to April 2005. In NorthAsia, Queensland’s merchandise exports to Japan rose by 39 per cent and to South Korea by 45 percent. In South-East Asia, Queensland’s merchandise exports to Vietnam, which I visited recently, grewby 51 per cent and exports to Thailand grew by 23 per cent.

Both as Premier and as Minister for Trade, I say to all our exporters: well done. This year, alongwith the minister for state development, I look forward to being at the Queensland Premier’s ExportAwards to say thank you to those Queensland companies that have taken Queensland to the world. Nowonder we are the engine room of Australia.


Corrective Services Patrol VehiclesHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 am): Last

Thursday I joined the Minister for Police and Corrective Services, Judy Spence, to inspect the latestweapon to patrol the state’s prisons—armour plated four-wheel drive vehicles. The modified HoldenRodeos will be used to provide perimeter patrols of Queensland’s corrective centres. My governmenthas a proud record of no escapes from secure custody in our seven years. These vehicles are aboutgetting even tougher on security. I seek leave to incorporate more details in Hansard.

Leave granted. The Holden Rodeos were among the first vehicles to be fully fitted out. Four of them were picked up for transportation last weekfor placement in regional Queensland so that they can start operations at Lotus Glen, Townsville, Capricornia and Maryborough. A second batch will be delivered in late July and should be fully operational at correctional centres in the south-east by August.The new vehicles would provide another key element in our prison security.The four-wheel drives are armour-plated and as a result are bullet-proof.They may look like a standard Rodeo, but they have undergone many modifications to enhance their performance as a vehiclethat will protect officers in the event of an armed assault.Prison officers have the right to a safe workplace environment, both inside and outside the perimeter fences.They are the result of two years of collaboration between the Department of Corrective Services and the Queensland PublicSector Union.They replace the Hummers—which were an expensive knee-jerk reaction by the Borbidge Coalition Government after theBrendan Abbott-led escape from Sir David Longland Correctional Centre in 1997.The Hummers were effectively grounded by Queensland Transport on May 21, 2003, for mechanical reasons.We have deliberately taken the time to consult with everyone and do the research in order to get this key element of perimetersecurity right.A joint consultative working party was established between the Department and the union to consider replacement vehicles, and aprototype has been tested around the state in a wide range of conditions.Staff from every correctional centre has taken part in the trials, and modifications have been made by Queenslanders that willensure the Rodeos are equipped for tough and potentially dangerous conditions.The vehicles had been stripped of their back seats and the space has been filled by a special equipment storage box containingweapons and security gear.The armour plating had been designed and installed by Gold Coast company Craig Ballistics.Ms Spence said the vehicles were also a more cost-effective alternative to the Hummers."To lease these vehicles will result in savings of 50% compared to the cost of the Hummers, while the running costs andmaintenance will be 90% cheaper," Ms Spence said."These PPVs are cheaper because they are four cylinder, diesel-fuelled and can be serviced locally—compared to the fullyimported V8 Hummers."



EthanolHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 am): I am

heartened to read that Shell is taking active steps to introduce an ethanol blend into its Australian petrol.There has been a sea change on this issue in Canberra. My government can rightly claim a role inhaving delivered this. It is reported that state federal Liberal cabinet minister Ian Macfarlane hosted around table with the nation’s fuel producers in Canberra last Thursday. At that meeting Shell indicatedthat it is set to join BP and Caltex in offering the blend.

Maybe we will finally get the message through to our federal counterparts about ethanol. As youknow, Mr Acting Speaker, I was heartened that the government’s persistence paid off and ethanol wason Friday’s COAG agenda and listed in the communique. I seek leave to incorporate more details inHansard.

Leave granted. In September 2002 Mr Macfarlane and interestingly Queensland Nationals Warren Truss along with Economic ministers TreasurerPeter Costello and Finance Minister Nick Minchin were questioning the push for ethanol. They obviously held sway—Then!And now we know that a 2003 ethanol report to Cabinet has since been debunked by Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson andTrade Minister Mark Vaile as underplaying the environmental benefits of ethanol.The PM has even begun to talk in favourable terms setting a taskforce to look at the scientific evidence on ethanol.In September 2002 then State Opposition Leader Mike Horan said he would raise ethanol with the PM the very next day.Sadly—as you can see—it has taken some time for Canberra to shift.I say sadly—as in the same Courier Mail article where Mr Horan was talking about the need for the blend—Mr Macfarlane wasquestioning it.That aside—I am not aware of when Mr Macfarlane or the Federal liberals had their Road to Damascus conversion—but the shiftby the former Queensland Graingrowers boss is most welcome and long long overdue.My Government has been leading the way on this issue for years now and it is refreshing that at last Federal Liberals are startingto heed my call.Remember just over a month ago I officially opened Australia’s first international ethanol conference here in Brisbane—furtherevidence that my government is pushing full-steam ahead to develop a sustainable ethanol industry in Queensland.I launched the Government’s $7.3 million Queensland Ethanol Industry Action Plan at the conference, detailing strategies for thenext two years.The plan includes key initiatives to stimulate investment and provide infrastructure for the ethanol industry.We will also implement a $2.28 million marketing campaign to ensure that ethanol becomes a household word. We know ethanol is the way forward for our cane farmers and millers. It offers a real alternative to sugar production and could verywell be the saving grace for our sugar-based communities spread right along Queensland’s coastline.It is about time the Federal Liberals thought so too. As I said yesterday I am heartened that my persistence paid off and ethanolwas on Friday’s COAG agenda and listed in the communiqué.


Refugee WeekHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 am): My

government, through the Multicultural Assistance Program, has provided $10,000 in funding to theRefugee Week Queensland committee to support a new World Refugee Day festival on Sunday, 19June 2005 at Captain Burke Park under the Story Bridge at Kangaroo Point. Bearing in mind thegovernment’s commitment to assist refugees, I would urge people to be supportive. The festival will runfrom 10 am to 4 pm. I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard.

Leave granted. The festival will celebrate the success of refugees who have come to Queensland, and raise awareness about the causes ofdisplacement, the needs and rights of refugees and the responsibility that all Queensland communities have to help find solutionsfor those seeking our protection.The festival will run from 10am to 4pm, and activities will include food and market stalls, entertainment and performances by arange of ethnic groups, a free picnic, fun activities for children, craft making and information stalls.Refugee Week in Queensland coincides with the United Nations commemorative day on 20 June 2005. The UN GeneralAssembly designated 20 June as World Refugee Day in 2000. This year’s theme is "To Feel at Home".World Refugee Day this year has special significance because of the appalling revelations about two Australians who have beenwrongfully detained and in one case, deported.I have called on John Howard to release children in detention immediately and to have a Royal Commission of Inquiry intoimmigration detention centres.The current situation reflects an unacceptable domestic policy and administrative complacency. It also damages our internationalreputation.


Aside from the traditional owners of the land, we are all migrants or the descendents of migrants. A number of groups are hosting activities throughout Refugee Week, commencing with a Brisbane City Council reception on 17June 2005; a "Swoon in June" concert fundraiser, also on 17 June at St. Mary’s Church in South Brisbane, organised by theRefugee Claimants Support Centre; a "Set Them Free" fundraiser at The Zoo nightclub on 18 June featuring Rod Quantok andother comedians and bands; two Participation Expos for the African community—one on 18 June at the PCYC at Zillmere andanother on 22 June at Yeronga TAFE; Amnesty International "Daybreak in Detention" activities at King George Square on 20June; a Citizenship Ceremony at Red Cross House on 24 June; a film screening and photographic exhibition at Metro Arts Cinemaand Verve Café on 25 June and the United Nations Association of Queensland 60th Anniversary Dinner at the Greek Club on 25June.I congratulate all those groups that are involved in the organising committee for Refugee Week in Queensland. The level of activitydemonstrates the concern Queenslanders have for refugees’ welfare, and our recognition of refugees’ contributions toQueensland.


TsunamiHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 am): Today I

want to update the House on the progress of my government’s response to the devastating tsunami thatstruck parts of South-East Asia on 26 December 2004.

In January 2005 my government committed $10 million to the tsunami response, the singlebiggest response to a natural disaster by a Queensland government. Members will remember that weimmediately allocated $1.5 million of the total to the Australian Red Cross, CARE Australia, UNICEFand World Vision for emergency humanitarian assistance. Those organisations were all extremelygrateful for the assistance provided by the Queensland government and have publicly acknowledgedthe government’s funding. To them I say thank you for the work that they are undertaking in the tsunamiaffected region and in many other regions around the world.

In April I announced that the remaining $8.5 million is to be provided for rehabilitation andreconstruction activities in Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand. The Queensland government is providing$4 million in assistance to Indonesia. We are working closely with AusAID and other organisations toidentify projects in sectors such as housing. The Queensland government is also providing $2 million toa proposal called adopt-a-village in Sri Lanka. The Queensland government will work with the SriLankan government to ensure that the outcomes that are achieved meet the priorities of the villages. Icommend a very active Sri Lankan community in Queensland for their commitment to communities thathave been devastated in Sri Lanka and their enthusiasm for working with my government to achievegood outcomes for the future.

I am also pleased to advise members that $1.5 million will be used for technical assistance in aproject for the sustainable management of coastal resources in Thailand. This money will assist with thedevelopment of policies and practices aimed at rebuilding and sustaining the tourism industry thatcontributes to the livelihood of so many of the local people. I can also advise members that matchingfunding is proposed for two groups—one on the Sunshine Coast and the other on the Gold Coast—which raised funding in January. Both groups have to nominate a charitable organisation that thefunding will be provided to, and the government will match the funding raised. The people ofQueensland gave generously to the tsunami appeal and to them I also say thank you. As manymembers are aware, the rebuilding program in those countries is taking time. My government is workingeffectively with all the countries involved to ensure that the necessary planning is undertaken and thatthe outcomes that are delivered reflect the requirements of the communities.

I want to stress in my report to parliament on this that the allocation of this money will take time. Itwill not happen overnight. I have instructed that all the appropriate safeguards be put in place to ensurethat the money goes to best help the local people. I am told that that will take longer than I want;however, I make no apology for making certain that the money gets to help these communities, even if ittakes longer than I would personally like. People need to understand that, and I want to put it clearly onthe record today. Queenslanders expect us to ensure that this money is spent where it is intended, andthat is exactly what the Treasurer and I intend to do.


Equine IndustryHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.46 am): I want to

report that Queensland’s equine industry is well regarded internationally. Demand for quality bloodstockand related services has increased and has created lucrative export opportunities for Queensland. TheNorth Asia bloodstock project has generated 15 new exporters and over $4.8 million in equine exportsto Korea and Japan in the past year.


The Queensland government equestrian trade mission to Hong Kong and China in Septemberlast year was led by the Queensland government’s representative for China, Tom Burns. It is a goodstory. I seek leave to have details incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.The mission generated so much interest that China has confirmed an inbound mission to Queensland in June this year to coincidewith the Magic Millions sale from 9 to 19 June, on the Gold Coast.The Magic Millions is Australia’s biggest bloodstock sale with more than 980 horses catalogued to be sold.Queensland Government Trade and Investment offices have been working with Austrade to target international delegations fromKorea, China and the Philippines. Buyers are also expected from Hong Kong and Japan.The Queensland Government is working in partnership with Austrade and Magic Millions to present an Equine Trade Showcase topromote the range of quality goods and services which the Queensland industry offers.These will include bloodstock, saddlery, nutritional supplements, feed, horse floats and clothing as well as smart services likeveterinary, gene diagnostic technologies and international education and training programs.

I encourage members to attend the Equine Trade Showcase from 14 to 17 June at the Magic Millions sale.


Queensland Week, World Expo 2005Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.46 am):

Queensland achieved some significant results from the staging of Queensland Week from 11 to 17 Aprilat the Australian pavilion at World Expo 2005 in Aichi in Japan. Earlier this year, when I returned fromleading a successful business mission to Japan, I reported having spent two days at the expo promotingQueensland’s tourism, wines, food products, coal, education and training, and the film and televisionindustry. I can now report on some of the tangible outcomes from Queensland Week. I seek leave tohave details incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted. More than 600 invited Japanese guests attended the business and education programs during the week. This was a great outcome as Expo is being held near Nagoya, in Aichi Prefecture, which is some distance from our establishedbusiness partners in other parts of Japan. One of these special guests was Governor Kato of Ehime Prefecture with which Queensland has an economic agreement. Governor Kato reiterated his commitment to this agreement and we discussed plans for future economic exchanges. Expo provided an excellent opportunity for Queensland to showcase its artistic talent. Queensland Week featured 19 different performers, including five music students from Cairns State High School, and four arts andcultural events.Apart from the Film and Television Event, featuring John Cox, the award winning animatronics expert, Queensland performersSeaman Dan, Misinterpretato and Stringmansassy all appeared at Queensland events and were showcased to the world atvarious VIP functions. A number of these performers have been approached to return to Japan to perform and have marketed their music in theAustralian Pavilion.Sculptor Alan Groves was a huge success with his clay dinosaur model. He was requested to provide so many television interviews that at one stage he thought that he might not be able to complete hiswork on the model.Building on this experience, he has received a number of approaches from museums and companies wanting more of his work.All of the Queensland Week events helped the Queensland Government Trade and Investment office to compile databases of keyindustry leaders in the Aichi and Nagoya area. These contacts will provide Queensland with a short-cut for future trade opportunities.During Queensland Week, over 71,000 people visited the Australian pavilion and were greeted by pavilion attendants wearing"Ask me about Queensland" badges. Many must have asked and been pleased with the response, as more than 80,000 entries were received for the QueenslandWeek competition—offering the chance to win a holiday in Queensland. The winner, Ms Masumi Hayashi, from Nagoya, will have a five-day holiday in the Cairns region.We will also have the opportunity to host more Japanese visitors next March at the Gold Coast at an international constructionindustry conference which was promoted to Japanese construction industry leaders at Expo. The conference is being hosted by the Centre for Construction Innovation in conjunction with the Department of Public Works.There is continuing interest in Queensland’s education and training services from Japan. As a direct result of the Queensland Week education business seminars, the University of Queensland and Griffith University arediscussing study tours with the Faculty of Human Studies at Maijo University. This Nagoya-based university is very active in study tours world-wide, but to date has never sent students to Australia. Queensland beef has a great reputation in Japan for its quality, safety and taste. Expo gave us the opportunity to build on this reputation and to introduce other outstanding Queensland produce. Lamb was an immediate success and the word ’Bugs’ now has a new meaning to local food wholesalers at our food and winefunction: the interest in Moreton Bay Bugs should translate to their appearance on Japanese menus because the Japanese loveseafood.


I have personally written to thank the seven Queensland wine suppliers: Ballandean Estate Wines; Kominos Wines; Robinson’sFamily Vineyard; Clovely Estate; Jimbour Wines; Albert River Wines; and Sirromet Wines, who provided the wines for all the Expofunctions. Through the extensive local media coverage of Queensland Week at Expo, Queensland gained a broader audience. During the week Japanese media featured 25 newspaper articles, 8 online articles, 2 radio stories, 6 television stories, and articlesin 3 industry publications. Queensland’s Expo stories continue to appear in the Japanese media.

Mr BEATTIE: I table for the information of the House further details and evidence of my trademission.


Centenary and Districts Chamber of CommerceHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.47 am): In what

has become something of a tradition, I was pleased to be guest speaker at the Centenary and DistrictsChamber of Commerce Premier’s breakfast meeting last Tuesday. Along with the member for MountOmmaney, Julie Attwood, I was greeted by a full house at this year’s function. The people who attendedseemed generally interested in what the government was doing in areas such as tax reform.

I have to report to the House, as the Treasurer has done previously, that there was alsoconsiderable positive reaction to our South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan. In fact, I had twoboxes of the booklets detailing the plan with me and it was not enough. The people who matter in termsof business and industry are enthusiastic in their support of this plan. I seek leave to have detailsincorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted. There were phone calls to my office later in the day, requesting more copies.I was pleased to be able to tell the business and professional people in the audience how, last month, we had introducedlegislation abolishing debits tax from July 1 this year—which will save Queenslanders $190 million annually.I told them that we had also announced the abolition of a range of stamp duties that will be worth $1.6 billion over the 6 years toJune 30, 2011—huge benefits to Queensland business.Unlike some other states, we don’t have stamp duty on cheques, bills of exchange and promissory notes and we’ve alreadyabolished credit card duty. However, I explained that we won’t abolish stamp duty on business conveyances on real property. We don’t support treatingstamp duty on business properties more favourably than residential properties. We’ve already reduced state taxes to the point where, on average, Queenslanders will pay $1,689 per head in state tax in 2004-05, compared with an average of $2,082 for the other states and territories.


Expeditionary Strike Group FIVEHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.47 am): A

delegation from the US Navy’s Expeditionary Strike Group FIVE visited Parliament House on 12 Maythis year. I was pleased to meet the commander, Rear Admiral Chris Ames, and his team of seniorofficers who had previously met the minister for employment and training, Tom Barton.

Expeditionary strike groups are a relatively new part of the American military. They have been setup over the past two years, partly as a response to the 9-11 terrorism attacks on the US. They are smallfleets built around amphibious assault ships with a large number of marines and helicopters on board.They patrol international waters and are ready on a few days notice to put marines ashore anywhere inthe world where they are needed and can stay for as long as possible. In the interests of nationalsecurity, I seek leave to have details incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted. Commander Ames and his strike group-seven Navy and Coast Guard ships plus a submarine, carrying among them more thantwo thousand marines-had just left their home port of San Diego for a six-month deployment when the Tsunamis occurred onBoxing Day last year. Commander Ames’ Group delivered humanitarian supplies including food, medicine and building materials and providedextensive support and relief to the Tsunami victims in Indonesia.During their visit to Brisbane, the senior officers came to Parliament and I received a letter last week from Commander Ameswhich summed up their reaction.He wrote: "We departed your office that day clearly understanding why Queensland has become the most dynamic, vibrant andattractive area in Australia."Commander Ames said the sailors and marines from Strike Group FIVE had been very impressed by the hospitality they hadreceived not only in Brisbane, but also in visits to Townsville, Cairns and Mackay.

He said that Queensland people went out of their way to "make us feel welcome."



Smart Queensland ... a snapshotHon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.48 am): I want to

report in relation to Smart Queensland ... a snapshot, which I table for the information of the House. On26 May I tabled an earlier publication of it that will help Queenslanders join the team effort to keepbuilding the Smart State. I acknowledge the fact that the Liberal Party suggested at one point that weshould go out and educate Queenslanders about the Smart State. That, in part, is a response to theirsuggestion, and I want to acknowledge that today. It is part of a call to action to ensure that we do notallow our hard-won competitive edge in areas including job creation and the birth of new industries toslip away.

Smart Queensland ... a snapshot is a 12-page matt-finish magazine that was written, designedand edited in-house by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet so there are no external productioncosts. Since the 18 April launch of the Smart Queensland: Smart State Strategy, or Smart State Stage II,there have been 31,786 page views of www.smartstate.qld.gov.au. I seek leave to incorporate inHansard full details, including all the newspapers that had the insert included, and the total cost.Everyone knows the full details now.

Leave granted. It adds value to Smart Queensland: Smart State Strategy 2005-2015, which I released in April, because it has state-wide reachand is very accessible—including for school children.

It showcases people we ought to be hailing as Smart State champions.

People like Carol Mayne, who left school at 15 to do hairdressing and now runs Australia’s first private company specialising inindependent reviews of DNA test results and Alan Groves, who is gaining worldwide plaudits for his lifelike dinosaur models andspecial effects.

He was a hit at Queensland Week at the World Expo in Japan in April.

We want Queenslanders to be inspired by such stories and to grasp the imperative of being innovative and outward-looking.

That’s why we printed 1.7 million of these, and placed them in newspapers throughout the state, including The Gold CoastBulletin, the free Quest community newspapers and others such as the Warwick Daily News, Longreach Leader, Bundaberg NewsMail, and Sunshine Coast Daily. (Full list below)

It will also be distributed to Queenslanders at events such as the Ekka and the Queensland Multicultural Festival.

I would welcome requests from Members who want to distribute them at community events.

Because it takes in a broad sweep on industries and interests, it draws on information from a range of Government agencies.

Full list of newspapers:

Brisbane

Brisbane Sunday MailQuest (14 Paper Buy)Bayside Bulletin

Regional Queensland

Cairns PostTownsville BulletinMackay Daily MercuryRockhampton BulletinGladstone ObserverBundaberg News MailFraser Coast ChronicleGympie TimesSunshine Coast DailyToowoomba ChronicleIpswich Qld TimesWarwick Daily NewsGold Coast BulletinMt Isa North West StarLongreach Leader

Full list of costs (excluding GST)

Print and prepress: $109,270 Delivery: $3,080Storage: $100Media insertion: $82,802.69

Mr BEATTIE: I advise the House that copies of the snapshot will be distributed to all members ofthe House for their information.



Arts and Cultural Activities, Cape YorkHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education and the Arts) (9.50 am):

Indigenous art and culture are extremely important to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islandercommunities of Cape York, as indeed they are to all Queenslanders. The Beattie governmentrecognises this importance and offers support in a number of ways.

Next Friday marks the 15th Laura Dance and Cultural Festival. The state government is onceagain pleased to contribute $70,000 to this important cultural event and a further $60,000 to assist withinfrastructure at the festival site. Additional funding of $20,000 has also been provided this year for avisual arts and craft exhibition at the new Quinkan and Regional Cultural Centre at Laura to be openedby Dr Lesley Clark, the member for Barron River.

This three day Laura Dance and Cultural Festival from 17 to 19 June is held in the spiritualQuinkan country of Cape York. Around 5,000 people are expected to converge on Laura for the biennialevent and I am pleased to say I will be among them.

I would like to put on the record my appreciation of the commitment and contributions of theQuinkan and Regional Cultural Centre, which is coordinating the festival in partnership with Ang GnarraAboriginal Corporation and community representatives on the dance committee. My thanks also go tothe local member, Jason O’Brien, for his passionate support and advocacy for this festival and itscultural significance.

This year’s Laura festival will feature dancers from more than 20 communities, keeping alive thedreamings and stories amassed over thousands of years by members of one of the world’s oldest andstrongest cultures. I look forward to witnessing some of the amazing cultural talent on display.

The exquisite and increasingly successful art of the cape is another area where the Beattiegovernment is pleased to offer support. Our government provided an extra $200,000 in 2004 and$305,000 in 2005 to support the work of Indigenous art centres including those centres in thecommunities of Lockhart River, Aurukun, Kowanyama, Mapoon, Napranum and Pormpuraaw. Thismoney will assist in the promotion and marketing of this beautiful and unique work. As part of thisfunding to the art centres and their artists, funding has also been provided to support the establishmentof Umi Arts Inc in far-north Queensland. I have approved $100,000 per annum to Umi Arts.

This new organisation has been established to provide advice and services for Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander artists, professional development opportunities, as well as advocacy at the localand national levels. Services will include advice in significant areas such as intellectual property rightsfor artists and marketing strategies for artists and their art centres.

Lockhart River’s reputation as a creative hub for Indigenous artists will be given a further boostnext week with the opening of its expanded community arts and cultural centre. Despite this regionbeing virtually unreachable during the wet season, the talent there is so strong that it has developed anational and international following. Since its inception in the mid 1990s the centre has becomesomething of a phenomenon in the Indigenous art world and plays a vital role in nurturing local emergingartists.

The region’s renowned Lockhart River Art Gang, which developed out of an extra-curricular artsinitiative at the local school in the 1990s, is now a creative powerhouse that has produced severalacclaimed artists including Rosella Namok, Fiona Omeenyo and Samantha Hobson, among others.These three women, all in their twenties, are an amazing success story. They joined the centre in theirteens and are now experiencing national recognition.

The expanded Lockhart River Aboriginal Community Arts and Cultural Centre will be an incubatorfor the region’s creative talents. Over the past few years the demand for work by Lockhart River artistshas increased and they have not been able to meet this demand. This expansion will allow them to dojust that.

I can thoroughly recommend to all members a visit to the cape to see some of the amazing artwork. It is well worth the time.


Minimum WageHon. TA BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations)

(9.53 am): The Australian Industrial Relations Commission’s decision yesterday to hand down a $17 aweek increase to workers on the minimum wage is one that I applaud. However, the decision by theindependent umpire—which is likely to be its last ahead of the major IR changes proposed by theHoward government—should be noted for a number of reasons by Australia’s workers.


Firstly, the decision means that workers will be $6 a week better off than if the federal governmenthad had its way when it proposed only an $11 a week increase. The AIRC decision is much closer to the$20 a week backed by the state and territory governments in their submissions. Other submissions hadincluded a $26.60 a week rise proposed by the ACTU, with major business bodies moving for a $10 to$11 a week increase. But the important factor to note here is the low-ball position by the Howardgovernment. If the federal government submission had been accepted, Australian workers would bemore than $300 a year worse off. Further, the history of the Howard government’s previous casesubmissions would not warm the hearts of Australia’s workers facing the prospect of radical workplacereforms.

Putting aside yesterday’s AIRC decision, had the Howard government been successful at all theother national wage cases since it came to office, the minimum wage would be $44 a week less—ormore than $2,000 a year. So taking into account yesterday’s decision, that is a whopping $50 a weekdifference between what the AIRC awarded to Australia’s 1.6 million workers and what the Howardgovernment wanted workers to get, which makes it pretty hard to swallow that the Howard governmentis looking after the battlers.

Another interesting aspect is the fact that the AIRC’s decision also represents almost three timesthe proposed $6 a week tax cuts for Australia’s minimum wage earners in the federal budget. The AIRCis a far cry from what the federal government is proposing with a UK style Australian Fair PayCommission, which is intended to ensure that increases to the minimum wage rates are far less thanthat awarded today by the commission to protect Australia’s lowest paid workers.

To date Prime Minister Howard and the workplace relations minister Kevin Andrews refuse toguarantee that workers will be no worse off under their hostile takeover of the states’ industrial relationssystems. It is a silence that should concern all Australians, not just those on the minimum wage.


Defence IndustryHon. T McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for State Development and Innovation) (9.56 am):

It gives me great pleasure to highlight further recent successes in another growth industry forQueensland: defence. Today I want to congratulate Brisbane based Drake Trailers, which has secured amajor component of a new $16 million Australian Defence Force contract. The firm will manufacture 14heavy tank transporter trailers as part of the contract awarded to MAN Military Vehicles Systems.

The company’s Brisbane arm, MAN Automotive Imports, will also modify 14 imported primemovers and provide ongoing maintenance services for the transporters to the Australian Defence Force.These Queensland-built transporters will be ready by mid next year, in time to deliver a shipment ofmilitary vehicles from the United States. This shipment, including 59 refurbished and updated MIA1Abrams tanks and seven M88 Hercules armoured recovery vehicles, will be moved to training andoperational locations throughout Australia. The Abrams tanks in particular will significantly improve ourdefence capabilities and offer increased levels of protection for our soldiers on the battlefield.

Drake and MAN are just two excellent examples of Queensland firms which possess the leadingedge capabilities required to deliver and support Australia’s defence forces. I congratulate them, as nodoubt all of my colleagues in this place do. Indeed, we congratulate them wholeheartedly on theirsuccess. They are the latest to be included on Queensland’s distinguished list of firms involved indefence work. And with the movement of operational units to the north of Australia, more and moreopportunities for defence related contracts are opening up for local firms.

There are many I can name today operating successfully here in Queensland; for example,Boeing, Qantas, Australian Aerospace, Raytheon, Sikorsky, Asia Pacific Aerospace, Kobold, ToteSystems, Micreo, Ferra Engineering, Mack Trucks Australia, Tasman Aviation Enterprises, and so thelist goes on. And now, of course, we can add Drake and MAN to that list. I am sure everyone in theHouse would agree that it certainly is a very impressive list. Once again I congratulate our local defencefirms for their vital contribution to making Queensland’s economy the strongest in the nation.


Smoking BansHon. GR NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Health) (9.59 am): A statewide media

campaign was undertaken from December 2004 to March 2005 to inform the Queensland public of thefirst phase of changes to the nation’s toughest tobacco laws. The campaign theme was ‘Nobodysmokes here anymore’ and focused on the changes starting on 1 January this year, including smokingbans in outdoor areas and the phase-in of no-smoking areas in liquor licensed premises.


The campaign included television, radio, print and outdoor advertising. Market andCommunications Research, a Brisbane based market research company, conducted 500 telephoneinterviews across Queensland in March with people aged 18 years and over, including a representativesample of smokers, to test the effectiveness of that campaign. I am pleased to report that the campaignhas been an overwhelming success.

Key findings from the research included: 84 per cent of people were aware of the new tobaccolaws; 92 per cent of smokers were aware of the new tobacco laws; 73 per cent of people wholeheartedlysupported the new tobacco laws; 58 per cent of smokers reported they were smoking less in publicplaces since the new laws were introduced; and 91 per cent of people were in total agreement thatbeing exposed to passive smoking is a serious health issue.

The evaluation results were good news in anyone’s language. The education campaign wassuccessful in informing a large number of Queenslanders, particularly smokers, about the new laws.Undoubtedly, there is strong support for the new tobacco laws. Also a significant number of smokersreport changing their smoking behaviour and smoking less in public places since the new laws cameinto being thus making an impact on levels of exposure to passive smoking in the Queenslandcommunity.

As I said when these new laws were first introduced, it was vitally important that the public bemade aware of the sweeping changes that were to be made. It is safe to say that our patrolled beaches,our playgrounds, major sports stadiums and the entrances to non-residential buildings are nowsignificantly safer for Queenslanders wanting to avoid the effects of second-hand smoke. But there isstill much work to be done before the smoking laws come into full force on 1 July 2006. This governmentwill continue to educate people and will ensure a safer environment for all Queenslanders.


QFleet, Sale of Second-hand VehiclesHon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing)

(10.02 am): QFleet manages a very large fleet of government owned vehicles and has done so very wellover a long period of time. Currently, there are around 15,000 vehicles in the government fleet acrossQueensland. Over many years, and successive governments, it has been established that the bestreturns to government are achieved by selling vehicles after around two years or 40,000 kilometres.This practice results in around 6,500 vehicles being offered for sale by public auction through the publictrustee each year.

Currently, the used vehicle market in Australia is under intense pressure. High demand for newvehicles has dampened demand for used vehicles. There is also an oversupply of used vehiclesentering the market mainly due to the many manufacturers and their dealers offering their customersshorter ownership periods. I understand this industry practice, which brought over 6,000 additional largepassenger vehicles into the used vehicle market, has recently ceased.

QFleet’s initial response to the growing number of second-hand vehicles, which in the main arethe larger six cylinder passenger vehicles, has been to offer value-added incentives to consumers suchas new tyres and free services rather than price discounting. However, while these activities have hadsome success they have not made significant inroads into stock holdings.

One option, which is not open, is to simply dump these cars on the market, creating even moreproblems and a worsening situation in the used car market especially for QFleet. However, given thecurrent build-up of stock, it is now necessary to introduce some additional measures to increase vehiclesales. I am therefore proposing to introduce a number of new measures to address this issue.

I have agreed to a proposal to move up to 550 vehicles into a wholesale sales channel. Sellingvehicles by these means opens up sales to a substantially larger market and does not precipitate adecline in retail values. These vehicles will not offer the same warranty and other incentives available tobidders at public auctions. I am also proposing that QFleet offer to the public, at a reduced price, alimited number of large passenger vehicles that have previously been passed in at auction and whichhave been in stock for some time. QFleet is currently progressing this policy and I will advise of furtherimplementation details as they become available.

Industry analysis indicates a likely improvement in the market towards the end of the calendaryear, which, if correct, would mean that these vehicles would be coming back into better marketconditions than currently exist. This will reduce the number of vehicles being returned to QFleet. Further,a small quantity of older cheaper stock may open up an additional market niche for QFleet sales.

In the last 12 months we have also undertaken a strategy to change the profile of the governmentfleet. This involves replacing six cylinder vehicles with four cylinder ones. This work will continue asclearly there is a greater market potential in the resale of these vehicles.


The third initiative I will be introducing will be to require leases on a select number of largerpassenger vehicles to be extended for up to 12 months. I have also asked the director-general to look atthe profile of the vehicles which have been passed in at auction to see if these are suitable vehicles tore-enter the fleet on a short- or long-term basis.

I will be closely monitoring the impact of these initiatives to determine their effectiveness inrestoring QFleet’s pool of second-hand vehicles. I make no apology whatsoever for government beinginvolved in fleet purchasing and management. All should remember the Western Australiangovernment’s experience which saw that government dishing out millions of dollars a week to privatefinanciers to retain a car fleet.

Finally, I point out that, despite being the shadow spokesman for this portfolio for nearly twoterms, the member for the Darling Downs has not been able to put crayon to paper to formulate a policyon QFleet. This just goes to prove that he is out of place in that role like a centipede in a salad.


Bauhinia Regional Rail ProjectHon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (10.07 am): It is an

exciting time for transport development in Queensland. It is a particularly exciting time for rail. I havebeen happy to join with the Premier recently in a series of major announcements including fast trackingthe northern missing link and Abbot Point expansion; $335 million extra for south-east Queenslandpublic transport; $123 million for new Gold Coast rail infrastructure; $300 million to plan and build apassenger rail line from Darra to Springfield, including new stations, from 2006-07; and thegovernment’s vision for the Sunshine Coast, including $980 million to plan and build an additional railline from Caboolture to Nambour.

The good news just keeps coming. On 27 May I was pleased to be able to announce QR’s coalrail program—a $3.5 billion plan for rail infrastructure projects, fleet upgrades and additions forQueensland’s coal industry over the next five years. A major part of the coal rail program is the Bauhiniaregional rail project, which I had the pleasure of inspecting recently.

The Bauhinia regional rail project incorporates the design and construction of a 110 kilometrespur line and associated rail infrastructure. It runs from the Kinrola spur line south of Blackwater incentral Queensland to Xstrata’s new Rolleston coal mine in the Bowen Basin. This $240 million projectis on track for completion in November. This year we will see about three-quarters of a billion in coalroyalties and $240 billion from this project invested in this community alone. That gives members anidea of the benefits of rail investment as well as the royalty issue.

The rail line is the longest to be built in Queensland for the past two decades. It will provide thevital infrastructure needed to haul export coal from Xstrata’s new mine at Rolleston to the port ofGladstone. The Bauhinia regional rail project is part of the $335 million Blackwater systemenhancement program. It also includes track duplications to increase capacity through to Gladstone.

These projects and others like them are a significant investment in both the state’s rail networkand coal export industry, and that is an investment in our economy and in jobs for Queenslanders. Thecoal export industry is worth $8 billion to Queensland. As well as meeting the challenge on a statewidebasis, QR is making tracks nationally and globally. QR is now operating in a competitive, nationalmarket. That is why it is crucial to provide state-of-the-art rail and associated infrastructure to ourcustomers and potential customers. We are meeting this challenge. It is not surprising then that QR haswon every coal contract in Queensland that it has competed for. Against international competition, QRalso won a contract to transport up to 10 million tonnes of coal from the Hunter Valley’s Energy Coal’snew mine in Mount Arthur commencing next month. We are the best narrow gauge, heavy haul systemin the world bar none. It is called forward thinking, planning and commitment.


Great Barrier ReefHon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) (10.10 am):

The Smart State has produced the goods yet again for Queensland. Scientists from my departmenthave just developed two new tests that identify soils most likely to release damaging levels ofphosphorus onto the Great Barrier Reef. These tests will revolutionise coastal land and nutrientmanagement in Queensland and play a vital role in efforts through the Reef Water Quality ProtectionPlan to halt and reverse the decline in water quality entering the reef within 10 years. Until now therewas no easy way to quickly assess the likely impact of soils overfertilised with phosphorus ondownstream water quality. However, our two new tests can not only identify soils most likely to lose


phosphorus through leaching but also estimate the likely release of phosphorus into the water across awide range of soil types.

We know near-shore parts of the Great Barrier Reef are at risk of degradation from sedimentsand nutrients carried by river runoff, and there is mounting evidence that the most intensively croppedsoils in reef catchments are being overfertilised with phosphorus. In fact, recent estimates show that85 per cent canelands, 75 per cent vegetable and 38 per cent fruit tree cropping areas are overfertilisedwith phosphorus. Interestingly, one of our new tests is showing that fertilised soils used for vegetableand fruit tree production are more likely to lose water soluble phosphorus off site than the great majorityof soils used for sugar cane.

The other test has also highlighted the presence of regional differences. For example, soils fromthe Lower Herbert, Burdekin and Mackay-Whitsunday canegrowing regions are more likely to releasephosphorus into the water if they become an oxygen depleted sediment as opposed to canegrowingsoils from the Wet Tropics and Maryborough-Bundaberg regions. The information being produced bythese new tests will be of vital importance to land-holders and scientists looking at ways to minimise thedamaging impact of nutrient-rich sediments on our waterways and the reef. Because the tests are quickand easy, soil-testing costs to farmers should not increase, provided some current tests are superseded.These new tests are already attracting significant local and international interest among the scientificand farming communities. While nutrient management in Queensland reef catchments will benefit, thenew soil tests are expected to be beneficial to land managers right across Australia and beyond. As Isaid earlier, the Smart State has delivered once again.


Disability Action WeekHon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Communities, Disability Services and Seniors)

(10.12 am): Next month Queensland’s first ever sector-wide forum to discuss the issues and trends thatwill shape the lives of people with a disability for the next 20 years will be held on the Gold Coast. Weexpect up to 500 delegates to attend the inaugural Shared Visions conference, which will be held atConrad Jupiters on 22 and 23 July at the end of Disability Action Week. It is my hope that everyone whoattends the conference comes away with a greater understanding of our common goals and anincreased capacity to work together towards a positive future for people with a disability. It will be aworking conference with a series of facilitated workshops and panel discussions structured aroundpresentations by guest speakers, and the conference has been priced to make it readily accessible toas many people as possible.

I take this opportunity to encourage Queenslanders to get right behind Disability Action Week thisyear and to make sure that they participate in one of the many events that will be held around the state.Now is the time to take action to consider how we can make all aspects of community life moreaccessible and inclusive. I would encourage people to contact Disability Services Queensland to findout how they can help celebrate Disability Action Week, which will run from 17 to 23 July.


National Reconciliation Week, Aboriginal CouncilsHon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and

Women) (10.14 am): Last week was National Reconciliation Week and I was pleased to seeQueensland councils supporting reconciliation. Aboriginal councils are much newer than otherQueensland councils, having been around for only about 20 years. They are located in remote parts ofthe state and face many challenges, so it is really terrific to see the more established councils helpingout our Aboriginal councils. The work councils are doing together is especially relevant to this year’sReconciliation Week theme—‘Reconciliation: take the next step’—as Aboriginal councils are taking thefirst steps towards full shire status.

Some of the collaborations include the Hervey Bay City Council providing advice to theWoorabinda Aboriginal Shire Council on its review of information technology processes, includingbacking up information, skills analysis and access to the internet. The Woorabinda council and DuaringaShire Council are sharing the responsibility for undertaking grass slashing on a common road.Woorabinda councillors are also receiving assistance from the Brisbane City Council to develop theircorporate plan. The Cook Shire Council is working with the Hope Vale Shire Council on Hope Vale’stransition to the Practical Computer Services program, which is used by councils throughoutQueensland as a general ledger for day-to-day finances, as well as including an animal register,cemetery control program and electoral rolls.

1850 Land Tax Amendment Bill 08 Jun 2005

The Wujal Wujal Shire Council and the Cook Shire Council share road equipment, plant andpersonnel and are looking at the feasibility of a shared regional waste facility. Staff from the Wujal Wujalcouncil recently visited Cook shire offices to learn about that council’s corporate plan and policies. TheWujal Wujal, Cook and Douglas shire councils also hold joint annual meetings to discuss commonissues. The Cairns City Council and the Yarrabah Shire Council are considering working together todevelop Yarrabah council’s capacity in areas such as water and waste water systems, disastermanagement, local laws and tendering processes. The Palm Island Shire Council and the ThuringowaCity Council are discussing working together to review water and sewerage systems operations, withThuringowa providing assistance in the training and support of operational staff. The Cherbourg ShireCouncil is a member of the Burnett group of several councils which regularly share information andideas. The Beattie government has allocated $16.6 million over four years to help ATSI councils makethe transition to full shire status. I congratulate them all. It is great to see them working together towardsachieving this.


Fire Safety BreachesHon. CP CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.16 am): Two

Kingaroy based businesses have been fined $50,000 and $10,000 for fire safety breaches in whatshould be a warning to all building owners. This shows that the Queensland Fire and Rescue Servicemeans business when it comes to fire safety. Last month the directors of Kingaroy Blanching Pty Ltdand G Crumpton and Sons Peanut Shellers pleaded guilty to multiple offences before the KingaroyMagistrates Court. Kingaroy Blanching Pty Ltd pleaded guilty to 18 separate charges and was convictedand fined $50,000. The breaches included a lack of emergency lighting, insufficient signage directingoccupants to exits, insufficient fire hose reel coverage, and no fire and evacuation plan directingoccupants of the steps to take in the event of fire. John Crumpton, trading as G Crumpton and Sons,pleaded guilty to seven separate charges and was convicted and fined $10,000. These fines serve as adire warning to building owners who neglect fire safety to the detriment of their workers and the publicthat they will be prosecuted.

I also take this opportunity to talk about the changing face of the Queensland Fire and RescueService. Since 1998 there has been a complete transformation of the fire service in this great state ofQueensland. The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service of today is a modern, progressive organisationwell prepared to meet the rapidly changing environment in which we find ourselves. The focus of theservice has changed from reaction and suppression to prevention and mitigation. Our government haspursued a stronger focus on road accident rescue and rescue services generally, as well as the threat ofterrorism. Community education and public awareness programs have become a recognised lifesavingservice. To drive these programs, the numbers of QFRS staff has increased significantly. Since 1998more than 330 new recruit firefighters have graduated. Since 1998 a total of 63 new operationalpositions have been created, a further 96 new auxiliary firefighters have also been engaged providingservice delivery in regional Queensland, and 152 full-time equivalent staff have been employed in abroad range of roles providing support to our firefighters.

The member for Caloundra was peddling misinformation in this House yesterday about theDepartment of Emergency Services. It was absolute twaddle. Yesterday he revealed the Liberals’ planto reduce paramedics, ambulance stations and vehicles by fiddling with the community ambulancecover. This means reducing funding to the Queensland Ambulance Service. This is the same man whosaid in the House that once upon a time the Queensland Ambulance Service was free. He is continuallyadvocating for long and dangerous 14-hour shifts for paramedics.

No matter how the increases are calculated, the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service has comea long way since 1998. It now has more than 330 new recruit firefighters, an additional 171 operationalstaff and an overall increase of full-time equivalents of over 234. As a modern, progressive organisationthe Queensland Fire and Rescue Service is well placed to meet current and future needs within ourcommunities. I commend the work that our firefighters do in saving lives and property every day of everyyear.

LAND TAX AMENDMENT BILL

Remaining StagesHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.20 am), by leave, without

notice: I move—That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable the Land Tax Amendment Bill to pass through all itsremaining stages at this day’s sitting.

Motion agreed to.

08 Jun 2005 Private Members’ Statements 1851

MEMBERS’ ETHICS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

Report, Submissions, Information NoticeMrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (10.21 am): I lay upon the table of the House report

No. 67 of the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee titled Report on a review ofarrangements for compiling, keeping and allowing inspection of the register of members’ interests.

I also table the submissions received by the committee in relation to its review. The committee’srecommendations are designed to provide greater transparency regarding members’ interests and toclarify the registration requirements. I also lay upon the table of the House information notice No. 1 of2005 regarding standing order No. 260.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Office of the SpeakerMr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (10.22 am): I give notice that I will move—

That this House reaffirms its support for the independence of the Speaker of parliament and calls upon the government toimplement recommendation 10 of the CMC report into the Office of the Speaker, thereby clearly preserving the separation of thisgovernment from the executive government so that no retrospective travel approvals can be granted by a Premier.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Office of the SpeakerMr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.22 am): Today

Queenslanders are asking why there is one set of standards for Peter Beattie and his Labor mates andwhy there is another set of standards for them. Yesterday the Premier came into this place and said thathe is now prepared to consider retrospectively validating the Speaker’s unauthorised overseas travelcosts. This was an amount of some $50,000 to $60,000.

How can the Premier justify these two different sets of standards? There are potentiallythousands of Queenslanders who have been reprimanded, disciplined or sacked or who have beenmade to pay back money because they have not properly claimed travel entitlements, whether that be inthe Public Service or whether that be in the private sector.

Why should we have a different set of standards for the Speaker of the Queensland parliament?Why is it that a member of parliament, namely the Speaker, should be considered in a higher way thanordinary Queenslanders? That makes a comparison between the actions of members in this place andthe actions of members of the community.

Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: As the honourable member for Callide said, it certainly would not apply in our

circumstances. The simple reality is that there was a transgression. The Premier does not have the gutsto properly confront that issue. He is now saying that he proposes to let the Speaker of this place bevalidated retrospectively for taking unauthorised travel amounting to some $60,000.

If the Premier proposes to do that, why is he not prepared to apply exactly the same standards toother people in the community? Can the Premier stand here and say why there should be one set ofrules for him and his Labor mates and another set of rules for each and every other Queenslander? Whyis there a difference? Because this government is arrogant and it has lost its sense of moral compass.

Mooney, Mr TMr WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (10.24 am): As politicians we are all exposed to criticism.

Sometimes it is deserved; sometimes it is not. But happily in our great nation that criticism rarely evolvesinto violence or attacks upon us or our property. Unfortunately, last week that changed when the homeof Townsville’s most successful political leader, Tony Mooney, was firebombed. This low, un-Australianact occurred when Tony was in Brisbane attending an LGAQ conference. It was left to Tony’s wife,Cecilia, and his daughter, Emma, to put out the flames.

I am sure all members would join with me in condemning this cowardly act. This attack has left adeep scar on the Mooney household and our community. Cecilia, who works in my electorate office, wasunable to come to work last week. Her children had time off school as they were upset. Tony, whom I amproud to call a good mate, was forced to return early from the conference that he was attending. Quiterightly, the local community was outraged by this despicable act—something that was just so un-Australian.

1852 Questions Without Notice 08 Jun 2005

The Mooney family was inundated with phone calls and good wishes. I am pleased to report thatmany people in this place contacted me and asked me to pass on their best wishes to Tony and hisfamily. Many people also went out of their way to speak to Tony personally. I know that Tony and hisfamily are very thankful for their support and concern.

As elected members we should all be concerned about this attack on another elected member’sfamily and home. No matter how we feel about someone else, it does not justify a cowardly attack ontheir family in the middle of the night.

Tony’s shock has now turned to anger and a determination not to be cowed by these low-lifes. Hehas resolved to make Townsville an even better place and to work stronger than ever for our city. I cantell you one thing, mate: I will be there every step of the way giving you a hand.

Gladstone Civic TheatreMrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (10.26 am): The Civic Theatre in Gladstone was

entered into the Queensland Heritage Register on 19 April 2002. This was after a nomination by theGladstone City Council, which recommended its listing in 1997. At the time of the listing the owners ofthe theatre, Mr and Mrs Upton, objected to the entry. An independent assessor was appointed to inquireinto the objection. The assessor’s report recommended that the place was of cultural heritagesignificance and met the criteria. I believe in great measure that the listing of the theatre came aboutbecause of its Art Deco front and its canvas seats. Those seats were still being used until relativelyrecently. The theatre closed because more modern theatres were built in the town and also because ofthe age of the operators. Mr and Mrs Upton are in their early 80s.

Maintenance of the theatre is a problem. Mr Upton has expressed his concerns about the safetyof the entire structure. He applied again—and I also wrote on his behalf—to have the listing reviewed,because he is finding it difficult to get even basic insurance cover and other facilities for the building. Ithas had some short-term use. However, for several years now it has received no rental incomewhatsoever. The rates remain at around $13,000 a year, without any rate relief of any sort given.

The Queensland Heritage Council replied through the minister’s office to say that it does notbelieve that the owner has taken enough time to examine alternative or adaptable uses for the theatreand gave some examples. The theatre has been advertised for some time as being available for sale orfor lease. Mr and Mrs Upton are at their wit’s end to know quite what to do with it. The theatre isdeteriorating and Mr and Mrs Upton have not been able to find alternative uses for the theatre in thelonger term.

Time expired.

Industrial RelationsMr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (10.28 am): For 30 years John Howard has harboured his

ideological obsession to destroy the Australian industrial relations system and install a US-stylederegulated labour market. As opposition leader in 1995, John Howard declared that Western Australiaunder the coalition is our model. The eight-year Western Australian coalition assault on workers in the1990s involved four waves of significant changes, not one—individual contracts to undermine awards;unions being severely restricted in representing their members; and the independent umpire, theindustrial commissions, being severely undermined.

Do we hear an echo? What happened to the Western Australian workers? Leave loading wasabolished; sick leave could be taken only if the illness or injury was not from the employee’s misconductor neglect—whatever that means—penalty rates were abolished; redundancy pay was abolished; thepay loading for casuals was reduced; minimum wages were reduced; and the gap between wages forwomen and men doing equal work grew even larger. These are facts, not reckless speculation.

For John Howard to achieve his dream—and the workers’ nightmare—he will have to destroy theworking conditions and living standards of thousands of Queenslanders that have been built up overmany decades. Hardest hit will be women, the working poor, single parents, the untrained or poorlytrained and young workers. It will not be just the trade unions and the ALP opposing and defeatingHoward’s agenda; we will be joined by the churches, community organisations, welfare agencies andmany, many others. In light of the Western Australian evidence, why do the Queensland Liberals andthe Queensland Nationals support John Howard’s attack on Queensland workers?

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Office of the SpeakerMr SPRINGBORG (10.30 am): My question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to the

Premier’s announcement in the parliament yesterday in which he proposed to grant retrospectiveapproval for the Speaker’s unauthorised use of $60,000 of taxpayers’ funds for overseas travel. Why are

08 Jun 2005 Questions Without Notice 1853

there two sets of rules in Queensland—one for the Premier and his Labor mates and one for every otherQueenslander?

Mr BEATTIE: I thank the member for his question. What he alleged in the question is not what Isaid at all. I do not know what the cost is.

Mr Springborg: So you don’t propose to grant it? Mr BEATTIE: I am just, for the record, saying that what the Leader of the Opposition said is not

true. I do not know at this point what the costs are. What I said yesterday is very simply this: I haveasked the Speaker to provide me with the reports on his overseas trips. I will study those reports. I willassess whether in fact they are reports relating to trips that should or should not be approved. If the tripsare justifiable—that is, that they were undertaken as part of the Speaker’s role and are in the publicinterest—then I will approve them. If they are not, then I will not approve them and the Speaker will besought—pursued—to repay any costs incurred in them. It is very clear. I have simply indicated that if thereports for the trips justify approval then they will be approved, and I indicate that they will be tabled inthis parliament—and I have made that clear to the Speaker. They will be tabled in this parliament.People will be able to make their own judgment after I have made mine. If, indeed, as I said, they do notwarrant approval then they will not be approved.

Let us be really clear about this. I heard the Leader of the Opposition talking about retrospectiveapprovals. I can remember my government bringing legislation in here in relation to matters involvingthe Constitution, involving Ken Hayward, in which we retrospectively changed the law—

Ms Bligh: Who did it benefit? Mr BEATTIE: It benefited the Leader of the Opposition personally because of his lease and it

benefited a large number of members of the National Party. Mr Springborg: That is a ridiculous comparison. Just because you changed the law and nobody

knew it! Mr BEATTIE: Did they vote on it? Did they excuse themselves? No. They voted for it.Mr Springborg: That is ridiculous.Mr BEATTIE: No, it is not. No, it is not. Mr Hobbs interjected.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego—253.Mr BEATTIE: One rule for them and one rule for us. Of course he would say that because he

does not like me exposing the truth. He never does. He never thinks things through. All he is interestedin is the political hit of the day. All he wants to do is get in the gutter, get on the news, beat someone up.He does not think things through. If he is consistent he will understand that what we did—

Mr Schwarten: Head like a sieve.Mr BEATTIE: Are members going to let me answer? I know who the minister was referring to

when he said that! Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing will stop

interjecting or I will warn him, too. Mr BEATTIE: I could not possibly take that interjection. I want to make the point—Mr Springborg: Because it would be in line with your standards. If you actually applied your

standards you would do something about it. Mr BEATTIE: This is like a broken record. The point is that what we did then was the right thing.

We are consistent all the way down the line. If it requires retrospective approval, we will do the samething there in relation to his personal interest as we did in relation to the Speaker—very simple.

Public Servants, Travel ExpensesMr SPRINGBORG: My second question without notice is to the Premier. If a public servant goes

to the Brisbane International Airport this morning and gets on a plane bound for Europe at taxpayers’expense without getting approval, will the Premier retrospectively validate that travel or would he quiteproperly view such action as dishonest and require that all taxpayer money be repaid and repaidimmediately?

Opposition members interjected.Mr BEATTIE: Can we have a bit of shush. I want to answer this question. If you guys give us

some courtesy, I will answer this question because I have actually been in this situation where I havehad such a request, when there were terrorists threats in the world and there were restrictions issuedabout whether, in fact, people should be allowed to travel. We ended up in a position where publicservants were either on their way to the airport or due to travel within a very short period of time. Iexamined whether, in fact, those trips were legitimate and I approved them. So the answer to hisquestion is yes.


Mr Springborg: So it applies to everyone else, too. Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to answer the question. When the Leader of the Opposition does not

get the answer he wants he then wants to try to wreck the rest of the answer. The reality is that theanswer to the Leader of the Opposition’s question is: yes, the same standard would apply to him as itwould apply to the Speaker as it would apply to a public servant. What I have said is that each case isjudged on its merits. Each case is judged on its merits. People in glass houses should not throw stones.I said yesterday, looking at the report of former Speaker Neil Turner, that I would not have approved thattrip. Let me make it really clear. Does the Leader of the Opposition think I should now retrospectivelyhave a look at it?

Mr Springborg: He put in a report.Mr BEATTIE: Okay. So he does not look at it on the basis of the merits. He looks at it on the basis

of whether a report was submitted, not whether it is rubbish or not. If the Leader of the Opposition issaying to me that he would have approved Mr Turner’s trip, then it is a very low bar. If his standard is—

Mr Springborg: You’re approving something when nothing was done.Mr BEATTIE: No, no. Do not be rude. Mr Rickuss interjected.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Lockyer! Mr BEATTIE: If the Leader of the Opposition’s standard is that I should approve the Speaker’s

trip based on what Neil Turner did, then I will obviously have to approve every one of them because thatis the standard. I have already seen the drafts and I have more detail in the drafts from the Speaker thanwhat Neil Turner provided.

Mr Springborg: No. He put in a report.Mr Rickuss interjected.Mr BEATTIE: Those opposite do not like it, do they? Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Lockyer—253. Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Lockyer—253. Are you hard of hearing, Member for

Lockyer? I just warned you and you interjected again. You really could have been sent to the sin bin, butI will not do it. Hear me.

Mr BEATTIE: So what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is that it is fine by him if the Speakerhas a trip for a month or whatever it is and writes two paragraphs about it. That is what the Leader of theOpposition’s standard is. So based on his standard, I would have no problem approving it. Let me makeit clear: as I have said—

Mr Springborg: Except he didn’t put a report in. Mr BEATTIE: Look, I am going to ignore him because he is just too rude. He has been given a

chance. Come on, give it a break! What I have said is very clear. I will examine the report of theSpeaker. He is getting material from the CMC. If it justifies approval it will be approved. If it does not thenI will not approve it and the Speaker will have to repay the money.

Golden Shears World ChampionshipMr SHINE: My question is directed to the Premier. In February 2003 the Premier joined me and

the Toowoomba Show Society’s chairman, John McDonald, and CEO, Damon Phillips, to ponder waysto shore up the Toowoomba Show. I can assure the Premier that his support has been most welcomebut can he detail today how the state government might again be playing a role in its continuedsuccess?

Mr BEATTIE: It is a warm welcome to the 17 nations flocking to Toowoomba this week for the2005 Golden Shears world sheep shearing and wool handling championship. I know the minister forprimary industries, Henry Palaszczuk, is enthusiastic about this and so, too, is the minister for naturalresources, Stephen Robertson. Given a chance he would get a set of shears in his hands and goodnessknows what would happen, but he would love to do it.

A government member interjected.Mr BEATTIE: He only uses a wide comb; he is not a New Zealander. Thousands of spectators

and 640 participants from 17 nations, including the Falkland Islands, Lesotho, South Africa, Scotland—of course, we can do nothing without the Scots, as the minister for natural resources would agree—Austria, France, Germany, Spain, Norway, New Zealand, the USA and across Australia, are expected toattend the four-day championships. Sharing the Toowoomba Showgrounds will be the 2005 Sheep and


Wool Spectacular, incorporating the State Sheep Show—an event held once every five years, attractingupwards of 2,500 sheep breeders. I know that Toowoomba’s friendly locals, charming heritage buildingsand proud agricultural history will do the local sheep and wool industry proud this week.

In addition to the economic impact that an event this big will bring to the region, it is also a greatopportunity to celebrate the progress and recognise the challenges facing the wool industry. Thedrought has had an impact on shorn wool production in Queensland and the farmers have done it toughover the past few years. This week’s championships will give some much deserved recognition to thelocal and international heroes to keep the industry going through good and bad times.

This is a special event, as two years ago the Toowoomba Showgrounds were struggling and thegood local member, Mr Kerry Shine, member for Toowoomba North, joined with John McDonald, theChairman of the Royal Agricultural Society of Queensland, Damon Philps, the society’s CEO, and theshow committee to seek my government’s support. That worked, and now we have an excellent venuedelivering not just for downs residents but for the world’s best shearers and sheep producers. TheGolden Shears world sheep shearing and wool handling championships is now in its 28th year, with thenext championships planned to be held in Norway in 2008.

From time to time the Leader of the Opposition attacks me for allocating discretionary money. Letme make it clear: I make no apology for exercising my judgment in allocating discretionary money tolook after the Townsville Show Society—sorry, the Toowoomba Showgrounds and the ToowoombaShow Society. I do the same for Toowoomba and Townsville, let me tell the House. The ToowoombaShowgrounds are a very important part of that community, and I thank the member for ToowoombaNorth for working as hard as he did because the Toowoomba Showgrounds bring the communitytogether. The next time the Leader of the Opposition wants to attack me for dealing with funds in thisway, I will simply say ‘Toowoomba Showgrounds’.

Office of the SpeakerMr SEENEY: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Yesterday the Premier tabled

a letter in this House that he had written to the Speaker in which he said, ‘I would also welcome youseeking my approval retrospectively for those trips taken without my approval.’ Can the Premier tell theparliament whether he would welcome approval being sought retrospectively for entertainmentexpenses that are currently being investigated by the department of public prosecutions?

Mr BEATTIE: The answer to that—Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Hold on a minute. The Clerk advises me that you can answer the

question. We just have to be careful because of standing order 115 about being critical of the Speaker,but the Clerk advises me that that question is in order, so I accept his advice.

Mr BEATTIE: Mr Acting Speaker, I am happy to answer this question. This is just the beat-up ofthe day. The answer to that question is no. There are different issues here. The CMC—and do not try torewrite what happened—has made no adverse findings in relation to travel. It has made no adversefindings in relation to travel. I will say it again—

Mr Copeland: They didn’t have jurisdiction. Mr BEATTIE: Oh, rubbish. Mr Copeland interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Cunningham under standing order 253. It

is not his question.Mr Seeney: It is right, Mr Acting Speaker. They didn’t have jurisdiction. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I do not need the member for Callide’s advice either. Mr BEATTIE: The CMC has referred certain matters to the DPP. Those matters referred to the

DPP did not require my approval. Expenses do not require my approval. There is a difference herebetween the issues referred to the DPP, which do not require my approval, and issues relating to travelthat do. So the question is hypothetical, but I will answer it by saying, no, the issue would never havearisen because these are not matters for me and they are now being looked at by the DPP.

In the same way that I looked at the issues in relation to retrospective legislation to approveleases issued to a number of members of this House, including the Leader of the Opposition, I judgeeach case on its merits. As I have indicated to the House this morning, if the Speaker is unable to justifyto me that these trips were done as part of his role as Speaker, then he will repay the money. It is verysimple: he will repay the money.

My responsibility is to ensure that there is an appropriate report to this parliament, which I will. Inthose cases where there is not a report, I will ensure that there is one provided to this House. Not onlywill I do that, I will judge whether in fact the cost of the trips should be repaid or whether they should beapproved. Then those reports will be tabled in here and let people argue about it.


Two things are going to happen from here in relation to the Speaker. First, the DPP will make adetermination in relation to whether matters are pursued or not. That is a matter beyond our control.Second, I will make a determination in relation to whether these trips should or should not be approved.There are circumstances where it is appropriate to look at things retrospectively, and this is one. Thelease issue relating to the constitutional amendments involving many members of the opposition wasanother.

Mr Seeney: Rubbish.Mr BEATTIE: If charges are laid and a prosecution is successful—Mr Seeney: No jurisdiction. Mr BEATTIE: Mr Acting Speaker, can I finish answering this question? In relation to the matters

raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, if in the hypothetical case that charges were laid and aprosecution were pursued, the Speaker would have to repay the money, and that is the appropriateway—by a court order. So that is how the money would be dealt with in that case. In relation to the tripswhere the CMC found nothing improper, and let us not rewrite it—

Mr Springborg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Those opposite want to rewrite everything. I do not know how they can lie straight

in bed. The reality is that this is a matter for my discretion. I will exercise that discretion. If, in fact, theSpeaker can justify his case, I will approve the trips. If not, he will repay the money. It is very simple.

World War II, 60th AnniversaryMr WALLACE: My question is directed to the Premier, whom the Townsville Bulletin today

labelled ‘Pete the Builder’. Thuringowa, Townsville and north Queensland—and indeed all ofQueensland and Queensland Rail—all played key roles in this state’s World War II effort. The 60thanniversary of the victory in the Pacific looms. How will our state play a role in marking this mostimportant event in our history?

Mr BEATTIE: Let us talk about something that really matters. The Queensland government isorganising a historic train journey for World War II veterans to commemorate 60 years since victory inthe Pacific. The veterans will board the Sunlander Traveltrain and will travel free of charge overnightfrom Brisbane to Townsville on 11 and 12 August 2005 where they will join in the Living Heroes—VP60celebrations, marking the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. So I thank the memberfor Thuringowa for his question.

Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The Deputy Premier’s dad might be there. Queensland Rail is providing two

carriages on the Sunlander and complimentary services for veterans and their families. The Queenslandgovernment is marking 60 years since the end of the war by inviting veterans to relive the spirit of thosedays on an overnight trip on board the Sunlander. Veterans will take a trip back in time and celebrateand commemorate those times in comfort and style. This is one way that the Queensland government ishonouring the enormous sacrifices our servicemen and servicewomen made in defending the freedomswe enjoy today.

Queensland Rail is enthusiastic about contributing to the VP60 celebrations while highlighting therole of rail transport to the war effort. Rail played a key role in transporting troops, supplies and militaryequipment in particular to the garrison city of Townsville. Townsville became a vital supply anddeployment centre for allied troops, and the RAAF aerodrome at Garbutt became one of the largestbases in the Pacific.

By mid-1943 troop numbers rose to 90,000, outnumbering locals by about three to one.Townsville was surrounded by antiaircraft guns, searchlight and radar units to defend against air attackand the Kissing Point battery and defences on Magnetic Island provided security against a possibleinvasion by sea. In July 1942, the air raid sirens wailed over Townsville on several occasions and anumber of bombs were dropped from Japanese flying boats. Fortunately, there were no casualties—justa few coconut trees out at Oonoonba Animal Health Station. It scared the animals no doubt. Bombs fellharmlessly onto the Many Peaks Range and into the Ross River mouth.

The 2005 VP Sunlander rail journey will be officially launched at Roma Street Station onThursday, 11 August, arriving in Townsville the next day to an official welcome. There will also be a shortstopover event in Rockhampton on the evening of 11 August because no-one can go past Rockhamptonwithout stopping.

While Townsville and Brisbane were the two principal bases for this onward movement,Rockhampton played a key role during the war. The beef capital was transformed into a major stagingpoint in the road and rail network in addition to housing the headquarters of the United States army firstcorps. The Living Heroes—VP60 event is being run by the Townsville City Council from 12 to 15 August2005 to honour veterans and the important role of Townsville during the Second World War. There islimited space on board the Sunlander, so for train travel inquiries people should contact QueenslandRail on 132 232.


Office of the SpeakerMr HORAN: My question is to the Premier. On 16 April the Acting Premier advised that the

Speaker had applied for sick leave until 26 April. Subsequently, the parliament was advised on 10 Mayby the Clerk of the continuing absence of the Speaker. As the holiday to New Zealand has been sobeneficial for the Speaker that he is now able to attend the races and cocktail parties in the city, will thePremier please tell the parliament why the Speaker continues to absent himself from his parliamentaryduties? Will the Premier also clarify if the Speaker is being paid his full salary and entitlements duringthis prolonged absence?

Mr BEATTIE: The answer to the second part of the question is yes. The answer to the first part ofthe question is very simple. There are matters that have been referred by the CMC for consideration bythe DPP. When the Director of Public Prosecutions makes a determination, further consideration will begiven to that determination.

Mr Seeney: What about the people of Redcliffe? They don’t have a local member. Mr BEATTIE: The members of Redcliffe are really delighted that the member for Callide is not

their local member. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I warn all members. Can I have the attention of members?

Member for Callide, put that down because I am on my feet. It is not going to be allowed. When amember in the public gallery holds up a placard it is ruled to be highly disorderly. It is just as disorderlyfor members of this chamber to do that. I warn every member holding a placard that, under the standingorders, if you hold up that placard you will be asked to leave the chamber. I am not going to allowanything like that.

Mr BEATTIE: Mr Acting Speaker, as you know, I only too enthusiastically accept your ruling, but itis a shame in a sense because the placard hides the faces I have to look at. I would prefer to look at apicture of Ray Hollis than that lot; I have to be honest. Forgive my little piece of levity.

In relation to the Speaker’s position, as I said yesterday, the Deputy Premier and I met with theSpeaker on Monday afternoon. I conveyed to him my decision that I announced to the parliamentyesterday—that I wanted a full explanation of the trips. The Speaker advised both the Deputy Premierand me that he was working hard in his electorate and that he was carrying on his responsibilities as alocal member serving the constituents of Redcliffe.

The reason he is not in this parliament is straightforward. Whenever someone is the subject of aDPP investigation and review of that kind, it would be inappropriate for him to sit in that chair. He standsaside from the chair because the Speaker has a responsibility to maintain the dignity of this House. Ithink it would reflect badly on this parliament if the Speaker was sitting in that chair while he was thesubject of a DPP investigation. I have to tell members that every Queenslander out there who is fairminded and fair thinking would absolutely agree. It is appropriate that the Speaker stand aside from thechair while he is being investigated by the DPP but that he continues to serve his constituents inRedcliffe, which is exactly what he is doing. He assured the Deputy Premier and me, when we met himon Monday afternoon, that that is what he is doing.

I am not going to allow the attempted political assassination of the Speaker to interfere with doingthe right thing. The right thing is that while the DPP is carrying out an assessment the Speaker shouldnot assume the chair. I fully support that position. I do not support the Speaker sitting in that chair whilehe is the subject of a DPP review. I have to say that I cannot understand why the opposition argues thatthe Speaker should sit in that chair while he is the subject of a DPP review. I do not agree with that. Thatis absolutely wrong, in my view.

Mr Springborg: We argue that he should sit in here as the member for Redcliffe. Mr BEATTIE: Nor should he be sitting in this House. The advice I have been given is that if the

Speaker stands aside he should stand aside from the parliament. That is the appropriate thing to do. Mygovernment will always do the right thing.

Minerals and Energy AcademyMr PEARCE: My question is to the Minister for Education and the Arts. Can the minister inform

the House of the progress of the newly founded and unique Queensland Minerals and Energy Academy,which is designed to boost the number of high school and university students in the minerals and energyindustries?

Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. He, probably more than any other member ofthis House, would understand how important it is for us as a government to be working hand in handwith the mining industry to ensure that as that industry expands we have in place skilled labour comingout of our schools and our universities to take up the skilled jobs that are in that industry.

The academy that the member asks about, the newly formed Queensland Minerals and EnergyAcademy, is a unique partnership between the Queensland government and the Queensland


Resources Council. It represents a real partnership between industry, government, the educationdepartment, schools, TAFE and the university sector. The academy is designed to boost the numbers ofhigh school students and university students who are studying maths, the higher level enabling sciencesand engineering subjects. We have seen a decline in enrolment in all of those subjects at both highschool and university level. It is becoming a critical issue for the mining industry. It required all of theplayers to accept that we had to do something different and do it differently. We believe that this modelwill address skills shortages in the minerals and energy industries. It is a very innovative way to providereal pathways to real jobs.

The academy will identify three school hubs in central and north Queensland. Those hubs willwork hand in hand with employers in the mineral industry, with universities and with TAFE to createopportunities in those sectors. There will be six gateway schools linked to each of those three hubs.They will work with industry. Industry will provide work experience, significant work placements as wellas structured school based apprenticeships and traineeships. The academy will also work withEducation Queensland to develop teaching resources for schools and to establish scholarships forpeople to enter the industry.

I am very pleased to announce the appointment the first head of this new academy, Mr TonyMuller. The member for Gladstone may be aware of Mr Muller’s reputation in the Gladstone area. Hehas outstanding credentials as an educator. He was a leading teacher at Tannum Sands State HighSchool in Gladstone until late May. During his time as a teacher he has been responsible fortransforming engineering technology as it is taught at Tannum. That subject is now offered at every statehigh school in Gladstone. I think he is perfectly placed to forge better links between our schools and themining industry. Prior to becoming a teacher he was an employee of Queensland Alumina Ltd inGladstone where he was an operations superintendent.

The skills shortages in this industry, along with other industries, require very careful andinnovative thought. Clearly, some of the things we have been doing are not working and we need tothink differently. I think the partnerships that are happening in industries such as this, the other projectsin Gladstone and the project that is happening in the aviation sector are examples that the federalgovernment could follow.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the honourable Leader of the Liberal Party, Iwelcome to the public gallery teachers and students from Rochedale State School in the electorate ofMansfield.

Simpson, Mr D; Cancellation of SurgeryMr QUINN: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the question

asked yesterday about a Mr Simpson from the Gold Coast who had been diagnosed with a life-threatening cardiac condition and had had his lifesaving surgery postponed or cancelled numeroustimes. Yesterday, after question time, he received a call from Queensland Health advising him that hissurgery had been brought forward to later this month, and I ask: why are patients forced to publicise thefailures of Queensland Health in providing their treatments before miraculously receiving theirprocedures in record time or being granted a date for treatment?

Mr NUTTALL: I indicated in my answer to the question asked yesterday that the gentleman’ssurgery had been rescheduled. I said that in my answer yesterday. My understanding is that, obviously,subsequent to that a phone call was made and that rescheduling has been brought forward. It was notdone on my undertaking. All of our hospitals continually monitor their surgery waiting lists.

Mr Quinn interjected. Mr NUTTALL: As I said, it had been rescheduled. He had been advised that it had been

rescheduled and, obviously, subsequently yesterday he received a call. There was no call made frommy office to my department. I had been advised at an earlier date that his surgery had beenrescheduled. Obviously there was a vacancy and the surgery was brought forward.

Ipswich MotorwayMr LIVINGSTONE: My question is to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. Can the minister

inform the House about two recently released reports on the future of the Ipswich Motorway? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for his question. In contrast to the total silence from

the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow transport spokesperson, honourable members in thisHouse, many of them in the Ipswich region, including members in other places, have been veryassiduous in keeping the federal government honest when it comes to the issue of the IpswichMotorway. On 26 May the Federal roads minister, Jim Lloyd, and I jointly released two major reports thatare likely to decide the future of the Ipswich Motorway. The first report looked at the feasibility of theproposed half northern bypass between Dinmore and Gailes. The second report reviewed the proposalof Main Roads for the Queensland government’s preferred option of upgrading the Ipswich Motorway.


What we wanted to ensure was that there was independence in these reports. The terms of referencewere set by the Commonwealth and the state in relation to the Maunsell report. At the time of the interimbriefing on the half northern bypass option, Jim Lloyd and I agreed that we would get the same people tolook at the state government’s alternative proposal, the preferred state government position of fixing theIpswich Motorway.

The judge’s verdict is now very much truly in. The reports can only be described as delivering theknockout blow in favour of delivering the main motorway upgrade. Maunsell said that the IpswichMotorway upgrade and half northern bypass would cost roughly the same: $1.1 billion. Forty-two percent, $1.1 billion; the whole lot about $1.1 billion. However, $1.1 billion will upgrade 19 kilometres of theIpswich Motorway compared with only 8 kilometres covered by the half northern bypass. The mainmotorway could be upgraded by late 2009 versus the half northern bypass by late 2012. In other words,you could do the whole job. I know the member for Moggill is interested because he does not wantCameron Thompson putting a motorway through his electorate. The half northern bypass would becompleted by 2012 and there would not be one traffic benefit out of it until the day it was opened, asdistinct from the completion of stages in relation to the motorway upgrade.

For the benefit of members of the House, I will table a PowerPoint presentation that Main Roadshave prepared in relation to the Ipswich Motorway analysis, going through a number of things, includingfor those of you who like Gantt charts, as the Minister for Natural Resources does—

A government member: He is very good at them.Mr LUCAS: He is very good at them. The PowerPoint presentation shows how the progressive

openings on the Ipswich Motorway upgrade can be achieved. I table that compare and contrast. Themotorway would be upgraded in stages, with the first Goodna to Gailes section opening in late 2008.That is $315 million for the same section completed by 2008. The half northern bypass does not relievecongestion east of Gailes; this does for the same cost.

The upgrade would be done in seven packages, including 52 new bridges, 83 kilometres of newroad and 123 kilometres of upgraded road. It will involve upgrading to a minimum of 10 lanes and amaximum of 17 lanes along the entire 19 kilometres, with 12 lanes at Oxley, 14 lanes west of theCentenary Highway at Gailes Railway Station and Redbank Plaza, and 17 lanes at Riverview. Ofcourse, this timing depends on the federal government approving it now. Our department and the RACQsuspect that the federal government will try to be smart and dump it on the people of Queensland. Iremind them that Queensland taxpayers are also Commonwealth taxpayers. If it was good enough forthe Bruce Highway at Caboolture, it is good enough for the people of Ipswich and Brisbane.

Maryborough Base HospitalMr CHRIS FOLEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. Last Saturday around

5,000 people turned up to a ‘We Love Our Hospital’ rally in Maryborough. Our hospital has taken morehits than Kostya Tzu and we have had enough of the constant erosion of services. It is not good enoughfor a city the size of ours, which services about 45,000 people, including surrounding districts, with ahighly industrialised work force, huge sporting participation and on the Bruce Highway, to have a tokenaccident and emergency unit. Our accident and emergency unit has simply become a clearing house forthe acute cases being shunted off to Hervey Bay Hospital. This extra 30 minutes has already cost livesand will continue to do so.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! During the last sittings I stated that members should desist fromasking questions that become like a speech and I think, member for Maryborough, that you havepassed that point. I will let this go, but I warn members that the next time I come to that decision thequestion will not be allowed. That is a warning. I will let this go, member for Maryborough, but this is likea speech. You should sit down and work out what you want to find out and ask a question, not make aspeech. I will let you continue now, but the next time a member asks a question that long it will be ruledout of order.

Mr CHRIS FOLEY: Will the minister give an unequivocal guarantee that he will upgradeMaryborough A and E to a first-class facility with senior medical staff, CT pathology and radiology?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Can I suggest that that should have been the member’s question,without the speech.

Mr NUTTALL: I thank the honourable member for the question. It has been a difficult area for us,the area around Maryborough, Hervey Bay and Bundaberg. In realistic terms and in a perfect world,those three hospitals are within one hour of each other.

Mr Horan: What’s wrong with that? They are three separate, distinct cities. They deserve ahospital each.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Toowoomba South! Mr NUTTALL: The difficulty for us is trying to attract highly qualified staff to be able to service

those three areas that are within one hour of each other. Can I just say to the honourable member that


from my point of view, as the minister, Queensland Health would love nothing more than to be able toprovide to the people of Maryborough all the services that he has mentioned in his question. It is not anissue of money, it is not an issue of facilities, it is not an issue of resources; it is an issue of skilled, highlytrained doctors. The difficulty for me as the minister is being able to supply that to the people ofMaryborough.

There was a meeting of clinicians and community leaders to try to determine the best servicesthat we could possibly provide to the people of Hervey Bay and Maryborough based on the skills that wehave at that hospital. We have approximately 80 doctors at both Hervey Bay and Maryborough and wehave 23 vacancies which we are having difficulty filling and which we have been advertising for over ayear. It is very difficult for us. I want to assure the honourable member that, if we can recruit the skilleddoctors to provide the services mentioned in his question, I am only too happy to do that. We willcontinue to make our best efforts to recruit those skilled physicians and nurses that we need to be ableto provide those services. But in the interim we have to ensure that patient safety is paramount. Wehave to ensure that we only provide the services that the skills that we have will allow us to provide. Iwant to reassure the honourable member that we are doing everything within our power to recruit thosepeople to provide those services.

Vigil SystemsMr REEVES: My question is to the Minister for State Development and Innovation. Queensland

companies continue to attract world attention with their innovations. Can the minister update the Houseon the latest success story?

Mr McGRADY: I thank the member for the question. Members would recall that recently Iinformed the House about Queensland experts helping New York City rebuild after 9-11. I advisemembers that that story is in the latest edition straight off the press of Smart Queensland.

Mr Lucas: Get a copy. Mr McGRADY: Yes, get a copy—free. I want to point to the success of Vigil Systems from Eight

Mile Plains here in Brisbane—Mr Robertson: In my electorate. Mr McGRADY: In the minister’s electorate. This innovative Queensland company has secured a

lucrative contract in the United States. Vigil Systems has recently been given the green light by LosAngeles County Metropolitan Transport to install its sophisticated driver training and managementsystem to help more than 4,500 metro drivers. This contract is a huge coup for the company, whichdeveloped its revolutionary on-road training system two years ago in conjunction with BrisbaneTransport and the New South Wales State Transit Authority. The Vigil Vanguard Driver Training Systemmonitors driver performance and enables transport authorities to develop safer driving and loweroperational costs.

The training system will be fitted directly to Los Angeles buses to measure each driver objectivelyon key aspects of their driving behaviour such as braking, accelerating and, of course, steering. Lastyear Vigil Systems secured half a million dollars in capital investment from venture capitalist firmNanyang Ventures to pursue opportunities in the United States transport safety market. This deal wasaided by the Queensland government sponsored Australian Technology Showcase. The showcase is apromotional government program targeted at small and medium sized Australian business enterpriseswith innovative, cutting-edge technologies.

It aims to encourage exports and increase employment by promoting member technologies onthe domestic and, of course, the international markets. Nanyang Ventures has since invested a further$1 million in the company, proving that Vigil Systems is a Smart State success story. This company hasemployed an export market development manager with the assistance of a $25,000 state governmentfunding grant. It is now looking at achieving more than half a million dollars—

Time expired.

Patel, Dr J Mr COPELAND: My question is to the Minister for Health. Today is the 78th day since the

minister was made aware of the surgical scandal shamefully created by the health department’s own ‘DrDeath’, Dr Jayant Patel. Why can the minister not be bothered to find out how many patients have hadremedial surgery? As the minister responsible for the state government’s health department, has theminister made it his business to find out how many patients have had surgery or does he not care,either?

Mr NUTTALL: Of course I care and of course this government cares about what has happened atthat hospital. That is why we endeavoured to ensure that we put a team up there to try to assist thepatients of Dr Patel. We have also been able to secure the services of a very highly qualified surgeonfrom the Mater Hospital to head the unit in Bundaberg for a period of time. I mentioned that in a


ministerial statement to the parliament during the last sittings. Also, we have endeavoured to ensurethat we have a very highly qualified director of nursing up there for a couple of months to address theissue.

In terms of people and their services, as the honourable member would be aware, weendeavoured to offer people services within the hospital or if they felt that they wanted to go to their owndoctor and have their own private surgeons address their issues we indicated that that would beappropriate. We are happy for that to happen. We spoke to the AMA and endeavoured to provide apanel of doctors who would be able to see patients.

In terms of which patients have received surgery, I point out that if they have gone to a privatedoctor and if that private doctor has referred them to a private surgeon we obviously have to wait to getthose accounts to know whether the person was cared for. Their files would be transferred to the privatedoctor. We simply wait for that advice. I want to reassure the House that every patient that has beendealt with by Dr Patel was written to and contacted. We are doing all we can to assist those patients.

Size, Shape and Sustainability ConferenceMs MOLLOY: My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Local Government, Planning

and Women. I refer the minister to last week’s meeting of mayors and councillors in Brisbane. Can theminister please advise the House of the meeting’s outcome?

Ms BOYLE: Last week in Brisbane, auspiced by the LGAQ, all local governments from aroundthe state attended the Size, Shape and Sustainability Conference at which they discussed localgovernment’s way forward in the state of Queensland. The conclusion of the conference was a historicvote. It was a vote of 334 to one to pursue structural reform—to take the lead with structural reform oflocal government. Their vote took courage and vision.

Local government is under considerable pressure at the moment. It would be easy to understandif the mayors instead had said, ‘No, we are too busy. We have too much on our plate. Structural reformis too hard. We will put our heads in the sand.’ But the mayors of Queensland, supported by theircouncillors, have decided not to do that but to face the future head on.

They are determined to consider the world of local government and their local communities 10years from now, to consider the changing shape of their communities and to consider how best they canprovide local government services in that climate. They are to be contrasted with local governments inVictoria and New South Wales, where the state governments have had to force reform on them.

With this decision made at the conference last week Queensland councils can truly say that theyhave taken the lead. They will find the way forward. They are going to ask themselves some very difficultquestions. They decided that they would, first and foremost, self-assess. While each local governmentin Queensland has had the habit of saying, ‘We’re the best council in Queensland,’ in fact they admittedthat they have had no basis for comparing their performance from one council to another and that it istime to do so and to recognise their strengths and be prepared to face the areas in which theirperformance could be improved.

They are going to look at their communities 10 years from now and think about how they can bestprovide services, how they can have a stronger regional voice and how they can get better value for theratepayer’s dollar. There is, however, no one-size-fits-all solution to the structure for local government inQueensland. So they are going to consider all the opportunities and choices such as shared servicearrangements, shared staff, joint boards, maybe a single planning authority for a region and, yes,boundary changes and amalgamations.

Some amalgamation may well occur, particularly in the growing areas where the community ofinterest has changed. In western Queensland, where we have huge geographic areas, small resourcebases and small populations, joint arrangements and joint boards may well be the answer that they willcome up with.

I am pleased to provide my support and the support of the department of local government. Wehave not only advice and information to offer but also some money—$5 million a year to assist withfeasibility studies.

Queensland Ambulance ServiceMrs STUCKEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Emergency Services. I refer to

advice that I have received from Queensland Ambulance Service staff, and I ask: can the ministerconfirm that yesterday seven station officers—or, in other words, officers in charge of seven ambulancestations—on the Gold Coast were forced to share one car between them, leaving many sitting at theirrespective stations without a vehicle or ambulance to enable them to attend emergencies?

Mr CUMMINS: I thank the member for the question. No, I cannot confirm that. I will get back toher with the relevant information as soon as it is available. I welcome her as the new emergency


services spokesperson. The former spokesperson for the Liberals, the member for Caloundra, stated on31 August—This government lack of capacity to protect our free ambulance system ...

Obviously he had no idea how the ambulance system in Queensland works. We introduced thecommunity ambulance cover to make sure that we would provide 350 extra paramedics over a four-yearperiod. The Liberal Party talks about reducing community ambulance cover, which would in fact reducethe budget for the Queensland Ambulance Service.

I challenge those in the Liberal Party to publicly come out and tell us whether they would reducethe 200 new or refurbished ambulances that we are going to deliver in this term of government, whetherthey would reduce the 20 new or refurbished ambulance stations that we are delivering in this term ofgovernment or whether they would cut back on the 350 extra paramedics that we are going to deliverover a four-year period, 170 of which we have already delivered. Make no mistake about it: theQueensland Ambulance Service is delivering a better outcome for all Queenslanders.

We have seen a 10 per cent increase in code 1 calls this financial year compared with theprevious financial year. That is an increase of 5,000 code 1 incidents. We are getting there faster.Response times have improved continually for eight months. It was this government that took theinitiative and the bold step of introducing the community ambulance cover, something that all membersshould be very proud of. I will report back to the member on all services on the Gold Coast that we willcontinue to improve.

Water ConservationMr BRISKEY: My question is to the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines. Can the minister

advise the House whether there has been a positive response to a $50,000 government projectdesigned to raise community awareness about the need to conserve water?

Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for Cleveland for that question. In April this year Iannounced that my department was funding a $50,000 short film competition to raise communityawareness about the importance of water and, in particular, water conservation. We wanted to get thecommunity directly involved in helping us get the message across to all Queenslanders that we need tovalue every drop of water we use. As a society, as a state, we use too much water and we waste toomuch water.

We decided that a short film competition would be a creative use of the film and televisionmedium to help government promote the water efficiency message to the public, so we launched theLiquid Lens Awards short film competition, which is open to entries from all Queensland secondaryschools, tertiary students and the Australian film and television industry. Winners and runners-up invarious categories will share in the $50,000 prize money up for grabs. The public response to thiscompetition has been overwhelming. As of last Friday’s deadline, we received a total of 304registrations. That included 81 secondary schools from all over Queensland, including schools fromBrisbane and as far away as Thursday Island, Cooktown and Mount Isa. We also received 18registrations from tertiary students and 37 from film industry professionals based in Queensland, NewSouth Wales, Victoria, West Australia and the ACT. A further 168 registrations were received to producea 30-second community service announcement for television. These included entries from all overQueensland, New South Wales, Victoria, the ACT, Western Australia, Northern Territory and even onefrom Auckland in New Zealand.

I am delighted at this fantastic response from the community. It shows that people recognise thatwater is a very important issue and that we all need to be more efficient in the way that we use water.Most importantly, it shows that the community is keen to get involved and help design and spread theimportant message to their fellow Queenslanders. Entries in the Liquid Lens short film competition closeon 22 July. We will be announcing the winners at River Festival in September. I am delighted that themember for Clayfield has taken up my offer to participate in the judging panel. As someone withfantastic long-term experience in the arts industry, I can think of no better contribution from this Housethan the member for Clayfield being on that judging panel. Welcome aboard!

Mareeba Hospital, Maternity ServicesMs LEE LONG: My question is to the Minister for Health. Given that the Mareeba Hospital has

lost its maternity services and Atherton Hospital has had to take on an increased number of deliveries,what extra resources is the minister providing to the Atherton Hospital to cope with this extra demand?

Mr NUTTALL: I thank the honourable member for her question. In relation to maternity servicesat Mareeba, we indicated that we were doing a review of maternity services. We were unable to sustainmaternity services at Mareeba because we did not have the underpinning safety of the doctors, eventhough there was a midwifery model. I have asked some people from my department to go up there tolook at what we might be able to do. I received an initial briefing yesterday which is promising. Theyhave indicated that they will come back to me in the next couple of weeks. We are looking at doing


everything we possibly can to restore the birthing services at Mareeba, and that is our intention. In themeantime, we will ensure that the Atherton Hospital is adequately resourced to deal with birthing on aninterim basis.

Fire SafetyMr HAYWARD: My question is to the Minister for Emergency Services. Is the minister aware of

any recent research indicating the level of fire safety in Queensland homes?Mr CUMMINS: I thank the member for the question and his ongoing interest and support of

emergency services. Yes, this week we have again been reminded that fire safety is quite simply amatter of life and death. On Monday high school students in Townsville were forced to evacuatefollowing a fire in their science lab. The evacuation was successful. No students were injured andfirefighters extinguished the blaze. However, this followed another incident earlier Monday morning—atragic house fire in Gordonvale in which a man lost his life. I spoke to the local member, the minister,about the issue.

Therefore, the release on Monday of the 2005 Firescreen Index compiled by the AustralianAssociated Motor Insurers, AAMI, was interesting reading. Based on an analysis of claims and surveydata, this year’s Firescreen Index has indicated some worrying trends in Queensland’s fire safety. Forexample, it indicates that 60 per cent do not have a fire extinguisher in their homes and that, even if theydid, one in six Queenslanders sadly would not know how to properly use a fire extinguisher. Even moredisturbing is the research that indicates that one in seven Queenslanders has no fire safety equipmentin their homes whatsoever. It was not all bad news, though. It did reinforce the Queensland Fire andRescue Service’s research that around 80 per cent of Queenslanders have a smoke alarm installed intheir homes and over 70 per cent said that it would probably be sensible for them to have more fireequipment in their homes.

The challenge for the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service is to continue to drive home theimportance of fire safety. This is especially important as we head into winter, as Queensland Fire andRescue Service research indicates that the June to September period is traditionally the worst time forfire fatalities. In fact, 95 per cent of fire related deaths occur during these four months, which is why Ijoined with the Premier recently in launching this year’s winter fire safety campaign. Many of the tragicfire related deaths that Queensland has experienced in the past could have been prevented throughsome simple fire safety precautions. These safety precautions include turning off electric blanketsbefore getting into bed, ensuring appliances are turned off at the wall and home fires are extinguishedwhen not in use, getting appliances checked for frayed and damaged cords by a licensed electrician,keeping clothing at least one metre away from heaters when drying, and when using a clothes dryerensuring it is not left unattended and that the lint filter is cleaned out after use. Also, many homes nowfeature cafe style gas heaters which can also become a fire hazard, and I urge all Queenslanders tomake sure that they are being used carefully and properly and to be very careful this winter with firesafety.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Hinchinbrook, I welcome to thepublic gallery teachers and students from Rochedale State School in the electorate of Mansfield.

Skills ShortageMr ROWELL: My question is to the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations.

Given the minister’s comments yesterday in the House that Queensland leads the way on training, canhe confirm if the certificate III course in electrical/electronic engineering for apprentices, which is criticalto addressing the skills shortage crisis in Queensland, is currently running in any of our TAFE institutes?

Mr BARTON: I thank the member for the question. As I do not know exactly what students are inwhat course at what TAFE at this point in time—because we train over 300,000 people every yearthrough our 15 TAFE institutes in 84 or 85 campuses—I could not tell the member if there is one runningright now. What I can say is that the Southbank Institute of TAFE is the institute that is responsible fortraining in the instrumentation technicians trade. I must say that I feel very proud to answer thisquestion, because that is my trade. That is what I did my apprenticeship in. I know at a recentcommunity cabinet meeting the chief instructor of that course at the Southbank Institute of TAFE cameto see me to chat about a range of issues regarding updating the course and what was needed to bedone. I took a lot of what he said on board.

I also say to the member, because I know that he asked this question in a very genuine way, thatwithin a very short period of time the Premier and I will be releasing the discussion paper—the greenpaper—on training in Queensland. I will give members a bit of a snippet about one of the importantthings that it will cover—that is, how we handle those issues at the higher level, not just the trades,because it is a paper which looks much more broadly than just at apprenticeships and trades; it looks atthe paraprofessional area that many of the instrument tradesmen and instrument technicians reach upinto. Most of them initially do a trade and then get higher qualifications because of the nature of change


in instrumentation, especially over the three or four decades since I first got involved in it as anapprentice.

I do not like using the words, ‘I don’t know whether there’s one running right now’. I think it wouldbe unreasonable to expect me to know exactly which programs are running at any given point in time.We certainly do have a certificate III training program for the instrumentation area for electronics andinstrumentation technicians. Yes, the very fact that it is one of the areas that we are paying particularattention to as part of the green paper indicates that we think we can do better at that, as we think wecan do better at a whole raft of other issues in TAFE. That is not a criticism of TAFE. We do not have anyjustification for that. It is simply that the world is changing. There are skill shortages. The needs,particularly in technology, are changing and growing very rapidly. That is one area where we know wehave to enhance our activities. We will be proposing to put greater emphasis into that paraprofessionalarea at South Bank TAFE as part of the discussion paper, a copy of which I will be glad to hand to themember when the Premier and I release it publicly in the very near future.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: The time allotted for questions has now expired.

LAND TAX AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Resumed from 7 June (see p. 1834). Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.30 am): I rise to make a

contribution to the consideration of the Land Tax Amendment Bill 2005, which was introduced into theHouse yesterday by the Treasurer immediately following the budget. It puts into effect some of theinitiatives that were announced by the Treasurer in his budget speech. Because of that it is going to bevery difficult to debate this bill at length. As members of this House would know and as readers of thisdebate should know, I am restricted from talking about the effects that these changes in this bill will haveon the budget. I have no doubt that those—

Mr Mackenroth: Do that tomorrow.Mr SEENEY: Yes. As the Treasurer indicates, every member of the House will have ample

opportunity to do that in the debate after the budget reply that will occur tomorrow. I indicate that I havethe full intention of discussing some of the financial effects of this legislation on the budget in thatdebate. I have no doubt that a number of members will also take that opportunity to discuss the effect ofthis legislation in greater detail. That restriction that applies to this debate today will necessitate mycontribution to the consideration of this legislation being somewhat shorter than it otherwise would havebeen. Some other issues that I wish to raise will have to be raised tomorrow.

The opposition will certainly not oppose this legislation. It has been talked about for some time. Itwas certainly expected that, as part of the Treasurer’s budget speech, there would be announcementswith regard to the land tax regime in Queensland. Therefore, this legislation should not come as anysurprise. In fact, for some time the government’s web sites have indicated that there were going to bechanges to land tax at this point. In that respect this legislation certainly should not have come as anyshock to anybody in Queensland.

The changes contained in this legislation will certainly be welcomed by land-holders acrossQueensland. As the Treasurer indicated in his second reading speech, land tax is an annual tax that islevied on the aggregate unimproved value of freehold land that any person in Queensland owns. Thetax has been in existence since about 1915. So the concept of a land tax has been around for quitesome time and it has been an important part of the revenue-raising opportunities for successive stategovernments in the years since 1915.

The land tax assessment covers the following financial year. However, a pro rata adjustment oftax is made when the owner disposes of the land during the financial year. All natural residents, otherthan absentees and trustees or deceased estates under administration, are liable for land tax where theaggregate unimproved value of freehold land owned by them at the end of the financial year is equal toor greater than $221,665. Other entities such as companies, trustees, absentees, clubs, associationsand societies and managers of time share schemes are liable for land tax when the unimproved value offreehold land owned by them is in excess of $100,000.

There are a number of deductions available. These were also outlined by the Treasurer in hissecond reading speech. In summary, the deductions are available for a principal place of residence andfor land used for the business of agriculture, pasturage or dairy farming. These deductions must beclaimed on the appropriate forms. A deduction, once granted, will be allowed in subsequent years. Theonus has always been on land-holders to inform the Commissioner for Taxation in writing when thatdeduction ceases.

08 Jun 2005 Land Tax Amendment Bill 1865

There has certainly been an issue surrounding the deduction applicable to the principal place ofresidence when a business operates from that residence. I note from the Treasurer’s second readingspeech that changes are proposed to clarify the inconsistencies and the areas of doubt that exist withregard to the deduction that applies to the principal place of residence. I am very pleased to see that nochange is being made to the deductions that are available to land used solely for the business ofagriculture, pasturage or dairy farming. I would certainly oppose any changes regarding the land tax thatis applicable to those lands.

The changes to the land tax regime that this bill puts in place were made known by thegovernment in the lead-up to the budget. It was announced as part of the budget speech, and certainlyput into effect by this legislation, that these changes include tax rate reductions, increased tax-freethresholds and fewer and broader land value bands for the sake of levying that taxation. As well,yesterday the Treasurer announced that there would be a new exemption for caravan and residentialparks and the development of legislation to allow for apportionment of the principal place of residenceexemption. That has caused a degree of concern and doubt.

The Treasurer certainly went through in some detail in his second reading speech the reductionsin the tax rates and the changes to the thresholds. I do not believe that there is any value in repeatingthem. I will refer to the effect of them on the total taxation that the state government receives, the effectof them on the total tax that is paid by Queensland land-holders and the effect of those changes on thestate budget as a whole in my budget reply speech tomorrow.

It is suffice to say that any reduction in the taxation burden on Queensland land-holders iscertainly welcomed. In this case the government claims that approximately 38,000 individuals and12,000 companies, absentees and trustees who would have been liable for land tax in 2005-06 will nolonger be taxable. There will be 14,700 fewer individuals paying land tax in 2005-06 than there were in2004-05 and 2,000 fewer than there were in 1999-2000. I do not have any way of checking the veracityof those figures, but I certainly welcome the trend that they indicate—that there will be fewer peoplepaying land tax.

An unfortunate by-product of the increase in property values has been the extent to which smallland-holders have been caught in the land tax net. People who I do not think anyone envisaged wouldbe required to pay land tax have been required to pay land tax because of the increases in theunimproved value of property. The philosophy behind the land tax regime, which was introduced in1915, was certainly not for it to impact on small-scale land-holders to the extent that it has impacted onthem in recent years. That is a by-product of the property boom and it is a by-product of the massiveincreases in unimproved capital value.

An issue that should be brought to the notice of the House relates to how those unimprovedcapital values are determined. I appreciate that that does not lie within the area of the Treasurer’sresponsibility. Like local governments, Treasury has to work with the unimproved capital values that aresupplied to it. Treasury uses those unimproved capital values for the levying of land tax, just as councilsand local governments use those unimproved capital values for determining their local governmentrates.

For the past two or three years there has been a major problem developing within the departmentof natural resources, which is the department responsible for providing those unimproved capitalvaluations, in respect of providing other entities with an unimproved capital value regime that hasintegrity. The latest round of valuations that produced the current unimproved capital values is anindicator of the extent to which the department of natural resources has lost the capacity to provideproperty owners in Queensland with an unimproved capital value that has integrity. I think the valuationsthat were produced in the last round were nothing more than a desktop guess. There was no science.There was no real on-the-ground effort put into establishing those valuations. It seems to me that theresponse the department has given to land-holders since those valuations were released reinforces thefact that those valuations were just a desktop guess. The valuations have caused a huge number ofobjections—a huge response from the land-holding community.

The department’s response to those objections has been to invite those land-holders to pursuethem through the process. The department has basically said, ‘We are going to put a huge valuation onthese properties, and it is up to you to object, to take us to court and to prove us wrong.’ That processexists for land-holders. Anyone who has had anything to do with valuations in the past knows that thatprocess has always been there to ensure that there is natural justice available to land-holders who areaffected by the unimproved capital valuation process, but it is meant to be just that: an appeals processthat allows land-holders to appeal an evaluation to ensure that they are able to get some natural justiceand have their case heard if they feel that they are being aggrieved by the department of naturalresources.

Unfortunately, that process has been turned into something completely different, I believe, by thelatest round of valuations. Because the department of natural resources does not have the resources orthe capacity to produce unimproved capital values that have integrity—that are based on the sort ofwork that is necessary to ensure that they have integrity—it has put the onus of establishing the true


unimproved capital value of these land parcels on the land-holders. It has basically said to the land-holders, ‘If you are not prepared to go through the process to establish what the proper unimprovedcapital value is, then you can wear the inflated value that we put on your property as part of our desktopguess.’

It is a very cynical move to transfer the responsibility for establishing a regime of unimprovedcapital values that has integrity from the department of natural resources to the land-holdersthemselves. The department has come out with quite outrageous valuation increases in a lot of casesand then invited land-holders to object. This land tax regime is based on those unimproved capitalvalues. It is important that if the land tax regime that is the subject of this bill is going to maintain itsintegrity the Treasurer and the rest of the government have some influence on the department of naturalresources to ensure that the underlying unimproved capital value system also has integrity.

The bill before the House will not be opposed. I look forward to making further comments about itsimpact on the financial situation of the state and land-holders in my budget reply speech tomorrow.

Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (11.45 am): The Beattie Labor government is delivering asubstantial package of tax cuts during its term in office, and the Land Tax Amendment Bill continues thattrend. This bill proposes a complete overhaul of the land tax arrangements involving both a reduction inrates and substantially lifting the thresholds before tax will be paid. These changes will benefit tens ofthousands of ordinary mum and dad and individual investors who otherwise would have been subject topaying land tax next financial year. In total, more than 50,000 people will benefit from the package—29,000 who would have had to pay next year if not for these changes and 21,000 who paid last year andwill not have to pay it next year.

In summary, the changes outlined in the bill mean that land-holders living in Australia will not beliable to pay land tax until the unimproved value of their land holdings, excluding their principal place ofresidence which is exempt, amounts to $450,000. This is a major increase to the existing threshold,which stands at $275,997, and will provide financial benefits to many small investors who have beenplanning for their futures.

An example of the benefits to be delivered are as follows. In the first instance, a person who ownstheir own home and no other land will not pay any land tax. A person who owns their own home and aholiday home with a taxable value of less than $450,000, under the new amendments, will pay no landtax. The current arrangements would have required such a person to pay land tax if the holiday homehad a taxable value of $275,997 or more.

It is important to reiterate that land tax is not applicable to a number of situations. Specifically, itdoes not apply to a principal place of residence, land used for agriculture, pasturage or dairy farming orland otherwise exempt from the Land Tax Act—for example, certain land owned by charitableinstitutions. At a recent community cabinet held on the Sunshine Coast I met with a deputation from theCaravan Parks Association to discuss the impact of land tax on its members’ operations. I am pleasedthat the Treasurer has responded to this industry’s concern and delivered a significant benefit to thissector, including its tenants. The bill provides a generous exemption to moveable dwelling parks, asdefined, where more than 50 per cent of the total number of sites is occupied or solely available foroccupation for residential purposes for periods of more than six weeks at a time. This brings us into linewith similar changes made in other states.

The changes outlined in the bill will simplify the land tax requirements for Queenslanders. Thecombination of our high tax-free thresholds and low rates makes our arrangements some of the mostcompetitive in the country. Resident taxpayers in Queensland will enjoy the highest tax-free threshold inAustralia. When the minimum tax payable is taken into account, the threshold is effectively $450,000, asoutlined earlier. I congratulate the Treasurer on delivering another substantial reform of our tax systemand delivering significant benefits to tens of thousands of smaller Queensland investors. I commend thebill to the House.

Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (11.48 am): I and the Liberal Party will also be supporting the Land TaxAmendment Bill before the House which will reform the land tax regime in Queensland. We will do sobecause the massive increase in valuations over the past couple of years would have put a lot morepeople in the land tax net. Valuations have been quite substantial over that period of time—on the GoldCoast they are in excess of 60 per cent; in Brisbane they are in excess of 50 per cent; on the SunshineCoast they are in excess of 100 per cent; in Ipswich they are in excess of 200 per cent.

Without changes to the land tax regime a lot of people would have been drawn into the net for thevery first time. We would have seen a lot of small investors, mum and dad investors, brought into theregime and forced to pay land tax. That would have had a real adverse impact upon many of those smallmum and dad investors. As part of their retirement package they would have invested in a residentialhouse that they would have rented out to tenants, or some industrial or commercial property. The impactof this rise in valuations would have made it almost financially impossible for them to hold thatinvestment in the longer term, and we would have seen quite a substantial number of investmentproperties being put on the market in a very short time unless there had been changes to the land taxregime.


The threshold being proposed by the bill—$450,000—I think is an appropriate amount. Before thebudget came down, I proposed $500,000 for the principal place of residence threshold, which I think isan appropriate amount, and approximately doubling the other threshold of $300,000 which theTreasurer has done.

One of the things that needs to be looked at besides moving the threshold this time around is tomake sure that they move appropriately every time there is a revaluation of properties in Queensland.Whilst the Treasurer has indicated that he will look at it favourably every time land tax rates orthresholds are struck, property owners would be more assured if it were indexed in some way. I haveproposed some form of indexation. It is a hard ask when natural resources values vary on a regionalbasis—as I said before, a 60 per cent increase for the Gold Coast, 50 per cent for Brisbane and 200 percent for Ipswich—but we need to find a mechanism which will assure people that the threshold will riseas valuations rise. We could have a case where, because of financial pressures within the budget, aTreasurer may decide not to move the thresholds in accordance with valuations in some years and gainthe windfall.

As I said before, we will be supporting the legislation. I think the thresholds are right.Simplification of the rates I think is a step forward as well, and I acknowledge that. There were too manysteps before, and I think that simplification and reduction in rates in some instances will be welcomed byproperty owners.

Another issue I raise is that of home based businesses. More and more people these daysoperate businesses from home, and the current regime precludes some sort of deduction, as Iunderstand it, for a home based business. Perhaps we should look at that some time in the future.

Mr Mackenroth: I announced it yesterday. Mr QUINN: Did you? Mr Mackenroth: Yes, effective from 1 July. It is not in this legislation. It will be developed in

September but will be effective from 1 July. Mr QUINN: Okay. Because I looked through the legislation and I could not find it. I saw the other

exemptions in there.Mr Mackenroth: You weren’t listening to my speech. Mr QUINN: It is strange, that, isn’t it? The Treasurer is worried. I know he is absolutely petrified I

did not listen to his speech yesterday. That is an important point. I am glad that it will be done becausethat is a trend today, and I think those people need to be dealt with fairly as well.

As I said, we will be supporting the legislation. It is very much in line with what we think is a fairpiece of legislation. It will encourage mum and dad investors to stay in the property market. As theTreasurer said, it will keep tens of thousands of people out of the net. It will maintain approximately thesame take in terms of the take for the budget without unduly impacting upon it, and it is legislation that issorely needed.

Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (11.52 am): I rise to support the Land Tax AmendmentBill. Certainly the changes to the land tax thresholds are welcome. As we know, there have beenextraordinary property increases. On the Sunshine Coast, where my electorate is, in many areas theincreases have been over 100 per cent. It has been a time of great pressure in the property market butwe do not expect to see those values go back with the continued growth in our area.

Land tax for commercial or mum and dad investors was a real issue. For the first time there was alarge number of people who potentially were going to be paying land tax sometimes for only oneinvestment property. It may be quite a humble investment property for all intents and purposes, but withthe push on values of property it meant these people were being pushed over for the first time intohaving to pay this particular tax. The threshold for non-principal place of residence has gone from$220,000 to $450,000. For companies, absentees and trustees with land holdings, this threshold hasbeen lifted from $170,000 to $300,000. The new land-holder threshold for mum and dad investorsincreasing to $450,000 is certainly a welcome change.

I want to also acknowledge the changes that will be coming forward from 1 July with regard toprincipal place of residence and other uses which are incidental but nonetheless are happening in thesuburbs, and that is people who are working from home. This is a matter that has been raised. Theprevious directives issued by the department made it quite clear that the letter of the law was thatpeople were subject to land tax if they were undertaking any form of work from home. I welcome the factthat there will be exemptions provided where people are working at home but it is not a substantivechange.

Mr Mackenroth: Even renting a room to a student. Miss SIMPSON: I think that is a valid point. There are many people who I think under income tax

law do not necessarily have to declare that as income if someone is boarding in their house and issharing the cost of the house. However, under the current law they would be compromising their landtax-free status. I know it is being mooted that it is being changed but the Treasurer has givencommitment to it in the budget. It is certainly welcome and I look forward to that.


The other issue is caravan parks, which are covered by this legislation. There has been quite achange in the types of accommodation that are available to people. Caravan parks have always been avery important part of the mix of affordable housing in our communities. In fact, it is getting harder andharder for caravan parks to survive as a result of the huge increase in property values, even if they aremainly looking after tourists. There has been such an increase that I am finding people are looking athigher density uses for those sites and selling them off. That has been a problem in my area. Long-termresidents have found this very distressing because their options of relocating are fairly limited. There arenot new caravan parks springing up around the traps. If they are, they will be a long way from wherethey are currently residing.

Whilst this will not totally fix the problem of disappearing caravan parks for residents and even forholiday-makers, it does address the issue of inequity for long-term residents or permanent residentshaving a land tax component applying to their rental if they are in a park where the majority of rentals arepermanent. I think that is a step in the right direction. It also acknowledges there is a huge challengewith land use to provide affordable housing. Affordable housing in this state is not just about publichousing; it is about affordable rental properties and not having a whole raft of taxes that keep pushinghousing out of the reach of people as they find that their investments have significant government taxesattached to them.

In closing, I support the amendments in this legislation. The valuation system is another issue butcertainly it is one that interfaces with this, and we know that is a problem area in the way that valuationsare being formulated in many of these areas. I support the Land Tax Amendment Bill.

Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (11.58 am): I rise to participate in the debate on the Land TaxAmendment Bill 2005. I put on the record my appreciation to the Treasurer and the government forsignificantly amending the land tax threshold at which people have to pay land tax. Since the recent landtax valuations were issued, I have received many letters from constituents on the Sunshine Coastconcerned about the possibility that for the first time they may have to pay land tax. I certainly appreciatethe Treasurer responding to many of those letters that I forwarded to his office both from individualproperty owners and from caravan park occupiers or caravan park owners.

Earlier I heard one of the government members talk about how this new bill will bring Queenslandinto line with the other states. I was wondering if the Treasurer could clarify something in his response. Iunderstood that Victoria does not have the limitation that the government is proposing in relation tocaravan parks. The bill also introduces an exemption to land used predominantly as a caravan park and/or residential park for manufactured houses where the majority of sites are used for long-termresidential accommodation.

For the benefit of the Treasurer I will read an extract from a caravan park publication. Theheading says ‘Tax breaks for Vic parks’. It states—Late last year came welcome news that Victoria’s private caravan parks would be exempt from paying land tax from 1 January2005. And the State Minister for the Environment, John Thwaites, said the government would maintain the number of caravan park siteson Crown land for at least 12 months, with $1 million set aside to improve Crown land facilities and reserves. ’A booming property market has seen parks’ land tax bills increase significantly, particularly in coastal areas,’ said Treasurer JohnBrumby.

It goes on. I wonder if the Treasurer can clarify this: is Queensland going to be the same asVictoria or is it the case that Victorian caravan parks do have a complete exemption from paying thatland tax component, irrespective of whether they are predominantly occupied by people who usecaravan parks for their long-term residential accommodation?

I would also like to read into the record a letter I received from a resident of a caravan park. Itstates—I am writing on behalf of the Residents/Visitors and Tourists of ...

a caravan park on the Sunshine Coast—in relation to the massive increase in land tax which will impact on our incomes through rent rises. We have been informed by the owners of the park the increased cost of land tax will be passed on in our next rent review. I andother residents do not object to a reasonable increase but two increases in 6 months, doubled each time are a bit unfair. The park consists of mainly Pensioners/social service recipients and retirees who can ill afford any huge increase in costs to ourincomes. As an Independent member of Parliament, I feel that you would be sympathetic to our plight and help us and the park to get rid ofthis unnecessary financial burden. We are also concerned that the massive increase may induce the owners to consider selling the park to developers. Most people,who have bought a relocatable home in such parks, could not buy a home on the opened market as this is out of our financialstatus due to various reasons. The owners have informed us that immediately after receiving the huge leap in their valuation, there have already been number ofenquiries to sell the park to developers. This creates a lot of unnecessary stress on us all, and at our age we do not need thisstress. Look forward to your reply.


I look forward to forwarding a copy of the Treasurer’s speech on this bill to the residents of thatcaravan park and the many other parks on the Sunshine Coast because there is no doubt, as previousspeakers have indicated, that the Sunshine Coast has seen a very significant increase in unimprovedvalues of land. It certainly has affected many people.

When I read the second reading speech I noted that once the unimproved value reaches the$450,000 threshold, which excludes the principal place of residence, under the proposed legislation thetaxpayer will pay $400. While it is under the $450,000 threshold there is no proposed land tax payableby individual residents of Queensland, but once we get to that magic figure of $450,000 then the landtax has to be paid. I note that in the second reading speech the minister has indicated that that will be tothe tune of $400 if it relates to an individual.

I certainly will be supporting the bill. It is great to see a reduction in taxes. I am looking forward tothe Treasurer clarifying if we are, as one of the previous government members said, now in line withother states or if it is the case that Victoria actually has further concessions in place for caravan parkowners.

Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (12.04 pm): I am pleased to speak to the Land Tax Amendment Bill2005. This is an important piece of legislation. As the shadow minister said, we support the changes tothis act.

Land tax is basically a wealth tax and is totally irrelevant today. We understand why it wasoriginally brought in back in the early days when the larger land-holders were probably able to providesome funding for the state. However, in this day and age we have pensioners who own a rental houseare who are paying land tax. This bill should eliminate a lot of those people from paying land tax. I wantto talk about retirees. In many instances it is not hard for retirees to have a couple of rental houses orunits or whatever the case may be which soon pushes these people over the threshold.

The shadow minister also mentioned the valuations. I want to expand on this a little more. In fact,this is the very basis on which the land taxes are based. The whole basis on which this tax is based isseriously flawed. The valuation system is broken; it is busted; it is stuffed. I am quite serious about this.I was the minister for natural resources in 1996. Even then the system was seriously bent. We did areview of it. We funded a new system and put it in place. It started to come on board and I think we hada system that was at least starting to improve. That, unfortunately, has not carried on. In fact, we have aseriously flawed system.

Desk audits have been done. There are not enough valuers to be able to monitor all thevaluations and the differences. I know it is difficult to manage. I am not suggesting that we have to throwit out and start again. We have to understand that we have a serious situation on our hands becausevaluations affect not just land tax. They also affect shire rates, land rentals and assessments—whetherit is stamp duties and other things as well—which can be based on valuations. State governments usevaluations as a basis as does the Commonwealth government. We have a serious situation confrontingus.

I want the minister to particularly take note of that. The minister has probably already been toldthis, but I tell the minister again that the valuation system is seriously flawed because there are notenough people in the system. They are not able to get the relativities right. The valuations go up in someareas, and in other areas they have not gone up as much. Because no-one is there desk audits arebeing done. They are doing the best they can with the resources they have, but a serious problem isfacing this country.

The threshold now for an actual resident, which was $275,997, has now gone up to $450,000.That is certainly welcome. We have the statutory deduction as well. By the same token, while that hasgone up the valuations in the last valuation round went up 300 per cent. In fact, a lot of people will becaught—

Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr HOBBS: I know, but there were such increases in some areas. Mr Mackenroth: There may have been in some areas but not overall. Mr HOBBS: The minister is right, absolutely, but some whole shires experienced huge increases.

I was at Airlie Beach the other day. A lot of Airlie is up 300 per cent. Proserpine was up 100 per cent, forinstance. I am sure that in the coastal areas round here similar increases will be found, although therehave been a few more recent valuations done. However, over three years or four years there is probablya 300 per cent increase.

Mr Mackenroth: They were not valued last year. That value of 300 per cent has gone up overtwo years, not over one year.

Mr HOBBS: It could have, yes.Mr Mackenroth: It also gives three-year averages, so you need to put all those things into the

picture.


Mr HOBBS: That is right. That does help. I am just saying that there are those big jumps. I thinkthe minister is probably keeping ahead of it but only just. It is the same situation with companies. The$170,000 threshold has been increased to $300,000. The minister is probably only just keeping aheadof it, if at all. In fact, I am not even sure if that would be the case in many instances, because over thattime bracket creep has certainly made big inroads into what people have to pay. They have beencatching up to the threshold very quickly. Indexing the threshold is a sensible way of dealing with theissue. I just hope that the minister is able to lift the threshold enough, otherwise people will just becaught in the net again.

I know it is all about publicity, but the fact is that governments say how much they are saving thetaxpayer by doing this when in fact they need flogging because they have not put the threshold up in thefirst place. It is not a matter of what the government is saving; it is what it is taking off people because ithas not done its homework. Another good aspect of the bill is that primary production exemptions areretained, which is essential. With those few words, we support this bill.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.10 pm): I rise to speak to the Land TaxAmendment Bill. I am sure that many in the community will welcome the increases in the threshold fortheir tax liability. The previous speaker commented on the valuation process. I am not sure what thealternative is to unimproved capital value. When I was in local government there was a notion beingpushed around about valuations based on the improved value of your property, which to me seems aninstant disincentive to improve your land and the home that you own and it is almost a tax on initiative.So unimproved capital value is the best of those alternatives. However, I think the member for Warregotouched on the reality of the situation when he pointed out that many of the valuations are now done asdesk valuations.

If you want an exercise in futility, have an argument with a valuer about the valuation of yours orsomebody else’s property. You need a Valium and a good lie down and you still cannot get anywhere. Ifthere are no sales around your property—and they say they base the valuations on sales—then they tellyou that they import sales to retain relativities. They will import a sale from 20 or 30 kilometres away thatprobably has a different structure in terms of facilities, services, soil types and so on. So you are on aflogging to nothing as far as trying to get anywhere. People feel fairly frustrated, I think, in that wholevaluation process. But I do commend the minister for the increases in the land tax threshold.

Other speakers have said that valuations and sales of properties in Queensland in particular—which we are discussing—have escalated markedly. We have had major development in our area thathas seen property values at times double what they had been and, indeed, in many areas people havebeen forced to move out of the region that they had invested in as a family for 10 or 15 years. That is thetragedy of these valuation spikes. The other people who I think will benefit greatly from this change toland tax are those who live in rural and regional Queensland who have student children who have toshift to go to university. If more than one child is going to university they look at the benefits ofpurchasing a property as compared to rentals over maybe eight or nine years. Many of those people arenot particularly well off. They do it as the best alternative in the circumstances and they struggle to paythe mortgage repayments and other on-costs associated with the property. Any assistance that this willgive will certainly be welcome.

The other aspect of the bill is the exemption for land used predominantly as a caravan park. Ithink more and more families are turning to caravan parks as a residential alternative because that iswhat they can afford. Recently I was surprised at the reaction in my own electorate in relation to aproperty that has been a caravan park for some 20 years which was sold to a developer and is going tobe developed into retail premises. That is the proposal and it is in the advertising stage for a materialchange of use at the moment. Many of the residents are very concerned about where they are going torelocate to. Some residents have been there for 15 years; others have been there for only a couple ofyears. These residents are uncertain as to where they will actually be able to find themselves apermanent location. Many people use these caravan parks as their full-time place of living and theirliving requirements are no different from those of others who own a property and maintain that propertyfor their family.

I welcome this relief. I commend the Treasurer for the improvement that it will bring to manypeople’s circumstances and I look forward to the passage of the bill.

Mr FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (12.14 pm): I rise to support the Land Tax Amendment Bill.This is an important piece of taxation reform which is really about acting to effect change rather than justacting. However, once again I urge all members to cast aside the bluster that surrounds the federalgovernment’s claims about the scope of the original deal signed by this Premier and other leaders,including the current Prime Minister, that foreshadowed the changes to Commonwealth-state financialrelations.

I want the record of the House to show once again that that intergovernmental agreement on thereform of Commonwealth-state financial relations required of the signatory state governments thefollowing: from 1 July the abolition of bed taxes, which Queensland did not impose; from 1 July 2001 theabolition of financial institutions duty, which Queensland did not impose; from 1 July 2001 the abolitionof stamp duties on marketable securities, which Queensland abolished on time; and from 1 July 2005


the abolition of debits tax, which we abolished during the last sittings of the House. Theintergovernmental agreement set that out in black and white in part 2, section 5, clause 6. It required nomore and certainly no less. Any pretence by the federal Treasurer that the spirit of the intergovernmentalagreement required more is akin to Dennis Denuto’s argument about the vibe of the Constitution in TheCastle. It is about as amateurish, and evidences, I suggest, the same level of application to task. Thefederal Treasurer’s slippery call to bundle up land tax into further considerations should be exposed forthe contrived conflation it was. I intend saying more about this in a debate in future days.

The savings to Queensland taxpayers out of this reform bill are significant: $147 million thisfinancial year, $208 million in fiscal 2007 and $245.8 million in fiscal 2008 as detailed by the Treasurer inhis second reading speech to this bill. That is a total saving of $847 million in four years. This is, by anyrule, a very real and significant tax cut. The plain facts are thus: fact 1—the rate of land tax at thehighest band is to be 1.25 per cent for individuals and 1.5 per cent for companies. This is lower than anyother state or territory. Fact 2—the threshold for individuals is now $450,000, higher than any other stateor territory. It is actually $120,000 above the threshold in New South Wales in which the property marketis inflated beyond the Queensland market. At its plainest, the effective threshold for mum and dadinvestors has risen from $275,997 to $449,999. While some economists argue that land tax is ultimatelyefficient because it encourages the highest and best use of land holdings, I accept that there are manydivergent views on this point. However, the reality is that while this state continues to labour under aradically inflated fiscal imbalance between what the state is obliged to spend and what it can collect, atax like land tax will always form part of Queensland’s state tax base.

A key measure of any tax system is its distortive effect. A non-distortive tax system is of courseunachievable in the ultimate, but the challenge and the task for governments is to strive for transparencyand lessen the distortive effects. I want to make particular mention of the foreshadowed principal placeof residence amendment which the Treasurer mentioned in his second reading speech, and while notanticipating debate by any stretch I admit to sharing the anticipation of many people who see this moveas sensible, efficient and highly welcome. This issue was raised with me by constituents earlier in theyear and since then I have made representations to the Treasurer and indeed the Premier and jockeyedthe cause with his office in subsequent follow up actions. All credit is due him and CBRC in committingto introduce this reform. I look forward to the presentation of that legislation later this year and Icommend the bill to the House.

Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (12.19 pm): I rise to speak to the Land Tax Amendment Bill2005. This bill offers some relief to Queenslanders and I am in favour of that. Heaven knows that thereare enough government imposed burdens on the average person already. The Land Tax AmendmentBill 2005 will replace the existing land tax rate scale with two separate rate scales. The separate ratescales are one for natural residents and another for companies, absentees and trustees. There will befewer broader taxable value bands, rate reductions and increased thresholds. These will incorporateexisting statutory deductions, rebates and minimum tax payable amounts. For example, the 19 separaterate bands that now exist will be reduced, under this bill, to six for natural residents and five forcompanies, absentees and trustees. Under the changes proposed, residents with land holdings of lessthan $450,000, excluding their principal place of residence, and the other groups with holdings of lessthan $300,000 will not be liable. It also includes a new land tax exemption for land used predominantlyas a movable dwelling park.

The explanatory notes describe the existing land tax system as complex. It certainly is verydifficult for ordinary people to follow. I believe it is also capable of gross injustices. As an example, Ihave been approached by constituents who have worked long and hard to establish some propertyinvestments to provide for their retirement. One letter sent to me states—We wish to protest recent Valuations which will flow onto increased Rates and Land Tax.

...We have built up investments properties for rental over the past 33 years to be self-funded retirees (these include permanentrental and Holiday rental).The rental property Valuations in the Cairns area went up 40% and the Holiday rental properties rose 300%. Last year we paid Land Tax of $4,343.46. This year on the same properties under the present Land Tax Assessment Schedule(even with discount) our Land Tax Amount will be $29,580.80. This is a massive 700% increase in Land Tax. No property owner can abolish such massive increases in Land Tax plus inevitable increases in Council Rates. We feel that Valuations should not be increased by more than 18%. (Note 18% is annualised average growth rate for the wholearea over the last decade—source Aust. Property monitors—Dec. 2004) Investors from other States who have been instrumental in pushing up property prices do not have all their investments in Qld.They would not be affected by Land Tax to the same degree of those Queenslanders who have all their investments in this State.

Whilst we know that it does not have to flow through to councils, we all know that the reality is thatit does. I also shudder to think of the impact this tax hike has had on their retirement plans.

Returning to the bill, I am pleased to see changes in clause 6, which amends section 11. Underthis amendment a natural resident—in lay terms, a person who owns primary production land—will be


able to claim the statutory deduction and the primary production exemption. This additional exemption isvery welcome.

The changes relating to lands used as movable dwelling parks—essentially, I believe, caravanparks—will allow those where the majority of sites are used by long-term residents to claim anexemption. I note that schedule 1 shows the amounts and rates of land tax that will apply to individuals.There is nil land tax on a taxable value of up to $450,000. For values between that and $750,000, landtax will be $400 plus 7c for each dollar above $450,000 and so on up to $3 million or more where it is1.25c for each dollar of taxable value. Simplifying taxation is always a good thing and I support the bill.

Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (12.23 pm): I am very pleased to rise to speak in thedebate on the Land Tax Amendment Bill as I am always pleased to rise to support any measure that willdeliver a tax cut to the people of Queensland already burdened with a huge amount of tax and a numberof levies applied by this government. It seems to me as a new member in this place coming from smallbusiness that the government seems desensitised to the fact that collecting the levies and taxes inthe amounts it does actually has a big effect on small businesses and small-time investors aroundQueensland. These small-time participants in the property market are being slugged with massive billsfrom this government. It is sad that this change has come so late, because there are many instanceswhere the burden of these taxes has taken a long-term toll on these small-time participants.

I have received letters on this from a number of constituents. I will quote from one specifically whooutlines the following problem. Mr Ken Roach operates a support accommodation facility in Ashmore.He provides for people with psychiatric illnesses and intellectual disabilities. The main source of incomeis the rent from these residents. This rent tends to come from the disability pension and rentalassistance that the residents receive. The letter states—We are faced with a land tax bill of over $13,600 ... in my situation I have no alternative but to pass on this additional cost to theresidents.

Remember the residents of this facility are intellectually disabled Queenslanders and members ofthe community with psychiatric illness. Mr Roach and his partner, Ms Annette McNamara, are playing avery important role in the local community. However, as is outlined, they are working under a hugefinancial burden. He goes on to state—Faced with these increased costs I have had no option but to increase my rental from $243.50 per week to $265.95 per week, anincrease of $22.45 per week. This substantial increase will take effect from 3 June 2005. Our residents have the option of findingadditional rent or finding alternative accommodation.

This is a very sad by-product of the delay in delivering tax cuts. There have been calls for thesetax cuts for a long time and it has taken to the last minute, as late as they could be left, for thegovernment to deliver on these. In the time that has elapsed we have had facilities like the one run byMr Roach burdened to the point of increasing costs and reducing services. As Mr Roach rightly goes onto point out—I am sure you are aware that there is a lack of such supported accommodation facilities, especially on the Gold Coast.

I can understand that the Labor government will naturally hesitate and baulk at delivering tax cuts.This is because it is human nature to baulk at something that does not come naturally and hesitate to dothings that are against one’s normal thinking. However, policy hopscotch on tax cuts affects real peopleand real service providers in our community.

I rose in this House earlier this year to comment on the lack of tax reform, in the form of tax cuts,coming from this government. It is across the board and it is a devastating indictment on thisgovernment that the federal government has had to act like a dog owner giving their pet a heart wormtablet by dragging the Beattie Labor government kicking and screaming to the tax vet to deliver tax cuts.Tax cuts are something that should come naturally. While the Liberal Party welcomes the moves heretoday, there is much more that can be done.

The Treasurer is on the public record as saying he does not feel pressured to reduce taxes. Thatis going to change. I am committed to starting from this day—day one after the alleged best budgetever—to campaign for the next burdensome tax to be reduced, that is, payroll tax. Treasurers of anypersuasion at any level of government should always feel the need to look for ways to put money backinto people’s pockets and do it as promptly as possible. The Treasurer cannot sit back on this good startto tax cuts and say that this is all that will be done as the Queensland people deserve more. With thosecomments, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon. TM MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport)(12.27 pm), in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to this debate and for their support forthe amendments to the Land Tax Act. Yesterday, when I delivered the budget and also introduced thisbill, I gave a commitment that the land tax thresholds and rates would be reviewed next year when nextyear’s budget was being put together. We will do that in terms of property prices and the changes thatactually happen.

The member for Surfers Paradise raised some issues in relation to a letter that one of hisconstituents had written about being forced to put his prices up. I would hope that he re-evaluates thatnow, given the land tax cuts that he will get, and actually reduces his prices.

08 Jun 2005 Voluntary Student Unionism 1873

Caravan park owners have had a lot of their residents write to me over recent weeks asking me toreview land tax for caravan parks. I hope all of those people now go back to their caravan park ownersand say, ‘Our writing was successful. We have got you an exemption. Last year you were paying landtax and now you will not be paying it so how much are you going to decrease the rent that you chargeus?’ Their argument was that if they had to pay a bit more land tax they would have to increase therents. I would assume that all owners of caravan parks and mobile home parks who will now get anexemption will pass that back to their residents, but I will not hold my breath.

A number of members mentioned unimproved values. The member for Gladstone mentionedunimproved and improved values and councils arguing for that. We need to understand that theunimproved value of land as it is valued by the Valuer-General is the unimproved value of the land as itwould have been in 1770 when Captain Cook discovered Australia. That is the threshold that is used.The improved value is not the improved value with a house built on it or any improvements that onedoes to a house; the improved value is the improved value of that block of land if it was vacant of anypremises. That is what ‘improved value’ means. If a person had a block of land which had a creekrunning through it and they filled it in, it would be the value before it was filled in. Many canal estateshave been made out of what were originally swamps. The unimproved value is what it was before thecanal estate was built. That is the difference between improved and unimproved value.

Over the 27 years that I have been a member of parliament I have had many people come to talkto me about the Valuer-General’s value put on their property. The complaints one gets is that the valuehas gone up too much. But when one talks to the person and says, ‘Would you want to sell it for any lessthan that?’, the answer is always, ‘No, I wouldn’t.’

Mr Seeney interjected.Mr MACKENROTH: No, but the answer is always no. Even on vacant land it is no. It is always

very difficult, because people look at the fact that councils and the Office of State Revenue use thosevalues to strike taxes. So that is where it becomes difficult. The member for Warrego said that hethought it was unfair. He was the minister for 2½ years and he looked at it. Unfortunately, after looking atit, he could not come up with a new way to do it. I hope that one day somebody does. However, thereare always going to be problems. Just recently at Caloundra a caravan park sold—I read it in thepaper—for $11.8 million. Obviously the owner thought that that is what it was worth when he sold it, butif he was paying land tax then I am sure that it was worth a lot less than that. That is what people look at.

Thanks to all members for their support. This is a good initiative. We have looked at trying to bringin some reform—some relief—to taxpayers. The introduction of this legislation has actually relieved29,000 individuals in Queensland from having to pay land tax in 2005-06. The interesting thing is thatnone of those people will thank the government, because they did not know it. Some 29,000 peoplewould have come into the net had we not made these changes. There were 21,000 who were in the netin 2004-05 who will be taken out of it in the 2005-06 financial year. There are a lot fewer people who willbe paying land tax in the 2005-06 financial year than there were in 2004-05. So the relief that we aregiving is real and many people will benefit from it.

Motion agreed to.

Consideration in DetailClauses 1 to 12, as read, agreed to.Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to.

Third ReadingBill read a third time.

ORDER OF BUSINESSHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (12.34 pm): I move—

That government business orders of the day Nos 2 to 11 be postponed.Motion agreed to.

VOLUNTARY STUDENT UNIONISMHon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education and the Arts) (12.35 pm): I

move—That this House—1. Condemns the federal government for its attack on universal membership of student unions through legislation being

introduced by the federal minister for education.

1874 Voluntary Student Unionism 08 Jun 2005

2. Notes with concern the effects of the legislation, which will include a decrease in funding for student welfare services, childcare, sporting facilities, clubs and societies, as well as student advocacy, and the impact upon university budgets asuniversity administrations struggle to provide these services.

3. Notes the important role student unions play in providing affordable services to students, including welfare services andchild-care places, and the opportunities they provide for regional students to avoid social isolation through clubs andsocieties and organising recreational and social activities.

4. Notes that in Queensland the impact of this federal legislation will fall disproportionately on regional universities andregional campuses which rely on student fees to provide important services and infrastructure.

Now that the federal coalition has got its hands on control of the Senate after 1 July this year, Ithink it is clear that it is delirious with ideological agendas. Finally it can pull out all of the draconianmeasures that it has had sitting in the bottom drawer, dust them off and push them through. That is notunexpected. But what is surprising in relation to its proposals and its attacks on our studentorganisations is the strong defence and understanding across the community of the importance of thoseorganisations and the strong defence across the political divide.

I am pleased that some of my parliamentary colleagues across the chamber and indeed some oftheir federal colleagues have had more sense than some of those who are behind these moves. I notethat the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Southern Downs, is on the record as saying—I think there is a strong case for a compulsory levy otherwise genuine student services will suffer, particularly in regional areas.

The member for Toowoomba South, Mr Horan, said—I think the Commonwealth government should put in place a way in which universities like the USQ can provide within theirstructure a service fee which they can then use to assist the student guild to continue providing sporting facilities, recreationalfacilities, and counselling and support services.

And who could forget Senator-elect Barnaby Joyce, who said—It is implicit in going to university that you have both buildings and fields and you must support both. It’s like ordering a saladsandwich and saying you only want to pay for the salad.

They say this because they know, like members on this side of the chamber, that this move by thefederal government will affect regional Queensland. Some 32 per cent of Queensland students attendeither a regional university or a regional campus of an urban university. These students and theircampuses require particular support, and it is support that is not easily gained elsewhere in theircommunity. For the most part, with the only exception being James Cook University, our regionalcampuses are significantly smaller than those in urban areas. In most cases, they are still younguniversities. They are emerging as institutions. They are still in their growth phases and will continue tobe so for some time to come. They need time to build capacity and to build service strength. Most ofthem are located in relatively small communities—small communities that do not necessarily have thesorts of services that students might require.

There is no doubt that the VSU proposals from the federal government will affect those studentswho travel hundreds and thousands of kilometres from regional and rural Queensland to attenduniversities in our major urban centres as well. These students, who find themselves far from home andneeding legal assistance, housing or other support, effectively pay an insurance fee when they pay theirstudent union charge.

As minister for education I have to say that I am concerned about the long-term effect that this willhave on Queensland’s international reputation as a provider of education. Queensland is a place whichoffers a comprehensive university experience, and I have a real concern that that is at some risk.International students have a plethora of options to choose from around the world when they pick auniversity at which to do their degree. They do not just come to a university on the other side of theworld for a quality education. They do not just come for a beautiful climate; they come because of thecultural and social support they receive at our universities, which are on a par with universities, at thisstage, in other countries. Those services are often provided through revenue gained from student fees.Should that deteriorate, then the experience of university will deteriorate and our international reputationmay well be damaged.

Minister Nelson can harp on all he likes about—and I am quoting him here—‘the single parentwho just wants to go to uni and shouldn’t have to pay for the abseiling club’. In all likelihood, it is thestudent who has paid to join the abseiling club who will be cross-subsidising the child care on which thesingle parent is so reliant. I ask: what does the federal member think that single parent should do whenshe suddenly needs legal support or she has a dispute with her landlord or, entirely in a universitycontext, when she has an academic dispute with that university and needs independent representation?

Flushed with excitement at finally controlling the Senate, I think the federal government hasforgotten that its moves are undemocratic. They are undemocratic because they deny students anindependent voice in disputes with the university. This is a very genuine concern that has been raisedwith me by a number of vice-chancellors and I know that they have made the same point to the federalgovernment. Members could imagine that in universities that have several thousands of students manydisputes arise about marking, about assignments—about things that are of vital importance to thecompletion of a student’s degree. Every university has dispute handling mechanisms and in all of thosemechanisms students are entitled to independent representation. They gain that representation through


their student union. The universities themselves are unsure how an appropriate and fair appeals systemcan operate within their universities without students having free access to an advocate who isindependent of the university itself.

I am alarmed about the way in which the federal minister so easily dismisses the representationalrole of our student bodies. I am particularly concerned because, as a politician himself, I would havethought that his experience is the same as every other member in this chamber. Our representationalrole for constituents is a large part of what we do and a large part of our responsibility. Many of us on allsides of the political divide will be able to relate instances where an ordinary citizen has had a battle withthe bureaucracy and has not been able to work their way through what is often a bureaucratic maze.Every member of this chamber on all sides would be able to point to examples where therepresentational role that they played made a real and important difference in the lives of the peoplethey represent. The same is true for those students who have been represented by studentorganisations in disputes with their universities.

There is no doubt that members of the federal coalition have also forgotten their own history ofparticipation in student organisations. I think that has caused them to forget that student organisationsdemocratically elect their office-bearers. Students choose the leaders they want and if they do not likewhat their leaders do they can and frequently vote them out.

Democracy imposes a responsibility on our student organisations. The student organisations thathave approached me have no problem at all with accepting financial scrutiny. They would acceptanything that may be put forward by the federal government that could make that scrutiny better. Itwould not be difficult for them. Most, if not all student unions, are already participating in a very highlevel of scrutiny imposed by their universities. For example, the University of Queensland student unionreports financially each year to the University of Queensland Senate.

I have no doubt that during this debate a number of members will point to activities undertaken bystudent unions here and in other parts of Australia that they would want to represent as perhaps mind-bogglingly stupid. Could I stand here and say that no student organisation has ever done anythingstupid? Of course not. For the most part, student unions are made up of very young people. Of course,from time to time they do things and engage in activities that I do not necessarily think are the rightpriorities and I do not necessarily think are smart. But do I think that getting rid of student unions entirelyis the answer to that? No, I do not.

There is no doubt that we could all look around Queensland and point to local governmentauthorities that from time to time have done things that were equally mind-bogglingly stupid and, in fact,might have had much more serious and dangerous outcomes. But we do not deal with that by abolishinglocal government. We deal with it by going in and dealing with the particular problem at the time. Mostoften we do it on a bipartisan basis by supporting those organisations. It is very unusual in any state fora local government to be dismissed.

As young people move out of school and into other education and training or into the work placewe hope that they will learn, through that experience, some sense of responsibility so that they canaccept the responsibilities of adulthood. After completing year 12, young people have to take on manyresponsibilities. They have to accept that if they want to buy a car they will be compulsorily required tohave third-party insurance. They are advised that they should also think about joining the RACQ or itsequivalent in other states. Those young people will, with their parents, work out what is an appropriateform of health cover. They might have to start paying board. There are many areas in which youngpeople at that time of their lives take on extra responsibilities. That is what we expect of them.

I regard a compulsory fee to join a student union as part of that growing responsibility. It is veryeasy for us and for the federal government to say to a student, whoever they are—because everyonewants more money when they are at that age—‘Wouldn’t it be better if you didn’t have to pay this?’ Ofcourse that is an easy argument. But I think it is an irresponsible one. We should be saying to thoseyoung people, ‘This is an important insurance program. You don’t know whether at some time in yourdegree you are going to need representation with the university. You don’t know whether you are goingto be in trouble.’ Just as with any other insurance program, students pay for the cover whether theyclaim on it or not. Thousands of people pay medical insurance and rarely, if ever, claim on it. People paytheir car insurance and their home insurance and do not claim on it. I think it is a very important part ofpolitical and social stability that people take out insurance.

I cannot help thinking that this is simply another attack on higher education. I am not going tobore the House with lengthy details, but all members would be very familiar with the fact that publicfunding for our universities in one way or another has diminished incredibly over time. That is partly whyour universities and our vice-chancellors, who are hardly the most radical group in the country, areparticularly concerned about their ability to fill the gaps that they believe—and they know—will be leftwhen student unions inevitably fold. I note that the federal government is fond of saying that it is notabolishing student organisations; it is simply abolishing their financial base and that people can pay theirunion fees on a voluntary basis. That is nonsense and the federal government knows it. Students will notpay their student union fees and not because the services that are provided by the union are not


valuable. It is human nature for young people at that age to be saving money for other things, or wastingit, or spending it on other things. The federal government knows that its move will inevitably see studentorganisations disappear from our campuses.

I thought that it was important for me to note that the National Party will move an amendment tothis motion. I thought that we would be able to find some consensus on this issue. I am not stupid. Iunderstand the need for the National Party and the Liberal Party to be careful about being too far awayin view from their federal colleagues. They are part of a national organisation. I understand that theyhave to support their federal colleagues. But I think there are times like this where we can seek and findbipartisanship around issues that affect the people we represent. If members read the motion that thegovernment has moved, they would see that it is not a rabid motion or difficult to support. Certainly, itwas worded carefully to find those areas on which we could share common ground. Those areas relateparticularly to the needs of rural and remote students.

When I heard that the National Party was going to move an amendment to the motion I thoughtthat it might be an amendment that we could support. Unfortunately, too much of the amendment thatwill be moved effectively negatives the original motion so we cannot support it. I am disappointed aboutthat—and I am being honest—because I think there is some consensus on the part of the amendmentand on the part of the government. I am disappointed that we could not find some way to express what Ithink is probably a consensus view: that we are genuinely concerned about the effect that voluntarystudent unionism will have on a state such as Queensland, particularly on regional, rural and remotefamilies and young people. I am disappointed that it is not going to be possible to put forward aconsensus position to the federal government about the need to ensure that universities are in aposition to impose compulsory levies for services.

During this debate I encourage members from all sides to resist the temptation, which I think thefederal government is seeking to tempt us with, to simply make this an ideological debate. Yes, I havean ideological commitment to some of these issues. There are equally strong ideological views on theother side of the House. I do not think that anything that is said in this debate will change that. But at avery, very important and practical level the universities that this state supports are absolutely vital to theeconomic development of our regions. It is increasingly clear that Queensland’s participation rate inhigher education has been driven by our ability to provide regional campuses. Any attack on thoseregional campus, any diminution of the services that they are able to provide, is an attack on highereducation itself. Be under no illusion: voluntary student unionism will change the shape of thoseuniversities. It will diminish the product that they can provide to their communities. There is no doubt inmy mind that over time some universities will be undermined to the point at which their viability will bethreatened. I commend the motion to the House and look forward to the debate.

Mr FINN (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (12.49 pm): I am pleased to second the motion to oppose thefederal government’s move to legislate against student unionism on Australian campuses. I thank theLeader of the House for her contribution to this debate in moving this motion and will add briefly to someof the points she outlined.

Student organisations do play a key role on our tertiary campuses. They provide importantservices and a range of opportunities. This motion is about protecting those and maintaining adequatelyfunded and independent student unions. There is little to convince me that this is not simply anideological move by the Howard government. I can remember being in university and the Liberals oncampus being strong advocates of voluntary student unionism. I can remember their attempts to abolishstudent organisations in the eighties and nineties. I can remember the acts of the Kennett and Courtgovernments in Victoria and Western Australia.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to not see this as an ideological debate when we hear the language ofthe Liberals on campus or the language at the National Union of Students level that they want to smashthe union or that they hate any form of collective bargaining and that it all should be a user-pays system.It does not give us much confidence that it is not an ideological debate when we hear the meanness inthe language in this debate: ‘Why should I contribute to the common good? Why should my union feesbe used to support things I don’t benefit from?’ That is what it means.

When it comes to service provision for a low-income section of the community, this isstraightforward meanness. Student unions providing welfare and advocacy services are up against itwhen people say, ‘Why should somebody needing help be provided with that help when I don’t need thathelp?’ That is the user-pays principle that the Liberals are using to underline their ideological debate.They often say, ‘It is not about that at all. We want to stop political activity on campus. What we don’t likeis that there is organised political activity.’ Our own member for Surfers Paradise, in an adjournmentdebate speech, when commenting on voluntary student unionism chose not to talk about anything otherthan those two issues when opposing student unions: ‘money being spent on bussing studentrepresentatives to protests against the Iraq war or protests to free those being held in detention centresor being used to print politically driven propaganda’. This is what the Liberal debate comes down to allthe time: ‘We don’t want political activity. We don’t want student organisations being able to organiseactivities about issues we don’t agree with.’


When we look at the student organisations on the Queensland campuses—and I have workedfairly closely with the student organisations at UQ and QUT—we see that about three per cent of thestudent budget can be allocated to political activity, a very small amount. There are provisions in theirrules and guidelines that equally fund student political clubs and organisations at the same level,regardless of their political persuasion. Student organisations play a very small role in political activitiesand the provision of welfare type services to students is their stronger role.

Let us briefly consider some of the contributions of vice-chancellors. Professor Larkins of MonashUniversity talked about student organisations being more than just political organisations and theeducational experience of campuses being more than just about their academic studies. He said—The educational experience for students is much more than lectures, books and the internet. It also consists of the broadeningexperience that comes from social interactions, sporting activities and extracurricular activities in clubs and societies that expandperspectives, build intercultural understanding and develop life-long friendships and interests. Most of these activities are funded in part or in whole by funds collected as amenities fees and made available to the studentassociations.

Roger Dean, the VC at the University of Tasmania—and that university has always had strongVCs in opposing voluntary student unionism—made some very interesting comments. He said—I do not support the introduction of "Voluntary Student Unionism". If I were to support it, I would probably logically also be bound tosupport the abolition of all income and consumption taxes. We may dislike these, but they provide the social and healthunderpinnings to our society, which we would be drastically poorer without. Dr Nelson would be without much of his futureCommonwealth pension income but for these taxes; and even I would not like to deny him that entitlement.

So we can see that in the VC sector there is much concern about the user-pays principle and theideology that the Liberals’ approach is based on.

I could talk at length about the services that are provided by student organisations, and I am surea number of my colleagues will. I am particularly concerned that much of the comments made by DrNelson and other Liberal members of the federal parliament and student associations are about childcare and about adequately funded child care. Too much of the debate has been around those issues.Student organisations do provide a child-care service. They provide quality services that are governedin the same way that any child-care service is, and they provide affordable child care to a low-incomedisadvantaged group of the community. It is an important service on campus that student unionsprovide.

The abolition of student unions will also have an impact on jobs around the country. Studentorganisations currently employ several thousand people across Australia. These people are all currentlyfeeling very insecure about their future. Abolishing student unions and shutting down their services willresult in job losses. Having worked in student unions, I know who these people are. They are notpolitical operatives or antigovernment activists; these people are administrative assistants, cleaners,kitchen hands, service managers, counsellors, bar staff, gym, aerobics and pool staff, and retail workersto name a few. It is those people—ordinary workers—working on campuses whose jobs are threatenedby this.

With regard to social isolation, I have worked in student unions on regional campuses and incities. I have seen students come from regional areas to city campuses. I worked at James CookUniversity in Townsville and I have seen students come from outlying areas to Townsville. They areyoung people from small regional communities who have moved to the city for the first time. They havejust left home. They have just left school. They come to a university where they do not know anybody. Itis usually the student union that picks them up and gets them on track through providing opportunitiesfor social gatherings, recreational pursuits, assisting them with finding housing, assisting them withfinding part-time jobs, providing them with health advice, facilitating their access to community servicesor providing them with support in the inordinately difficult dealings they have with the Commonwealthover Austudy and Abstudy. At their young age they frequently have not had to deal with those things.They are provided with that expertise. It is these services that help break down the social isolation andequip those young people with the skills to go on in life and complete their university studies.

Like the Leader of the House, I welcome the comments from the Leader of the Oppositionregarding the need for students to have a safety net and supporting the services provided to them. Iacknowledge the comments of Senator-elect Joyce regarding the need to amend the Howardlegislation. I encourage those National Party members of the federal parliament and of this parliamentwho are concerned about this to keep up the fight and to work to amend the legislation so that we cancontinue to provide affordable services on university campuses. I commend the motion to the House.

Sitting suspended from 12.57 pm to 2.30 pm.Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (2.30 pm): In rising to

speak to the motion moved by the Leader of the House, I move the following amendment—Delete all words after ‘That this House’ and insert—1. Notes the concerns of the federal government with regard to wastage of funds by university student unions;2. Expresses its support of voluntary union membership;3. Notes the role student guilds play in providing services and infrastructure on university campuses;


4. Calls on the federal government to introduce good governance guidelines for student guild management including a clearframework for what purposes student guild funds are able to be used for;

5. Requests the federal government to enable universities to impose a levy for the use of services and provision of facilitieson university campuses.

I understand the motivation of the government in moving this motion today but, frankly, in manyways I think it is counterproductive. As the Leader of the House said in her contribution, there is a fairdegree of common ground on some of the issues in particular between members of the government andmembers of the Nationals, and I concede that here today. However, there are some fundamentalprinciples of opposition and some fundamental principles about which we are at variance. Thegovernment’s motion, in our view, is not acceptable to us and the amendment which I have moved maynot necessarily be acceptable to the government.

We need to consider my comments against the following background. Australian studentscurrently pay between $100 and $590 in compulsory student union fees as a condition of enrolment. In2004 student unions received over $160 million from compulsory fees from full-time undergraduatestudents alone. In Queensland $26.2 million was received by unions in compulsory fees in 2004 fromfull-time undergraduate students alone.

A breakdown of the funds raised by unions through compulsory fees to full-time undergraduatestudents is as follows: Central Queensland University, $2.66 million; Griffith University, $6.15 million;James Cook University, $2.32 million; Queensland University of Technology, $5.75 million; University ofQueensland, $6.23 million; University of Southern Queensland, $2.63 million; and the University of theSunshine Coast, $0.52 million. These figures do not include those fees paid by external, postgraduateor part-time students. This group of students often feel they get the least value for money from unionfees due to the small amount of time that they spend on campus and the limited access to campusservices.

Mr Lucas interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: The argument from many of them is that they should not pay any. We can

have a debate about that. There are other alternatives. Under other university systems, certain coreservices remain guaranteed of receiving a core pool of money, with other services receiving optionalallocations of funding depending on the wishes of the students. Other countries have instigated meansof allowing students to tick a box upon entry to the university so that they can nominate which essentialservices they would like their fees to be directed to.

Mr Lucas: Lynn Powell looked at this when he was your education minister, and the thenNational Party government did not do it.

Mr SPRINGBORG: I am putting forward the options, and various options have been put forwardover the years. I am just saying that this is an option. There has been a passage of time. Whether thingshave fundamentally changed in those 16 or 17 years I do not know, but I am saying that these are theoptions and these are the options that other jurisdictions have. The minister and I can have a debateabout whether it has worked in the places that have implemented them or whether they have notworked. I am just saying that they are the various issues and the various options. With regard to thenomination of those, they can decide whether their fees be directed to places such as child care, legalservices, political lobbying et cetera.

As I said a moment ago, I am not unsympathetic to the role that student unions and student guildsplay in many of our universities throughout Queensland and Australia. A couple of years ago, in havinga discussion with the student guild at the Central Queensland University, I was extraordinarilyimpressed by the services which they delivered. They were focused on core service delivery for theirstudents. The level of political activism was negligible, if it existed at all. Their focus was very much onproviding services and facilities to their student body.

Unfortunately, what has happened in this country is that the political activism and neoradicalismof some student unions have caused this debate to become somewhat philosophical. I think some of thefundamental issues have been lost in there—I really do. My grave concern with the proposition that hasbeen put forward, based on what I have seen from the Commonwealth government, is that we are indanger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. That is my real concern. I am not saying that I agreewith maintaining compulsory union membership for political activities, but I can see a very strongargument for maintaining a regime which enables universities to levy a particular fee.

I want to give the House some of my own philosophical views with regard to union membership. Ido not subscribe, and have never subscribed, to the compulsory membership of a union, whether it bean employee union or an employer union. I am including the likes of the cane growers association orany of those statutory bodies that represented producers on the farming side. I personally have neversupported them, and I am pleased to see the end of that. That is my own personal view.

My own personal view is the same with regard to employee unions. It concerns me if the balancestarts to tip one way or another. If people have a philosophical, dogmatic approach to pursuing the rightsof one side over another, then the balance is tipped in a certain direction. Employee unions in this


country have done vital work for over 100 years. Frankly, if we had not had them, the rights of workerswhich we have today would not be enshrined and guaranteed as they are. That is the reality. Theydeserve commendation for that. I think there have been times when they have become too radical—orsome elements of them have. I countervail that by saying that traditionally the approach of the unionmovements in Queensland has been far more pragmatic, far more considered, far more involved and farmore constructive than their colleagues in places such as Victoria. Unfortunately, the actions of someradicals drive an action against the entire movement to the extent that the balance is upset, in my view,and that is one of the concerns that I have.

I know that the issue of union membership and student union membership is a little segmented,but unfortunately some of the dogma that drives these sorts of debates is the motivation behind peoplewanting to get rid of unions altogether and basically grind them into the ground. I think that would becounterproductive. People need to be able to express a point of view. People have a right to associate;they should have a right to choose. So my view is compulsion, no, and it does not matter whether it is anemployee or employer union. People should have to go out there and work for their membership.

People say to me, ‘You accrue benefits from belonging to a particular union,’ or, ‘You accruebenefits from their activism in what they have been able to achieve, so therefore you should pay amembership to them.’ I think that is a somewhat superficial argument because the majority of things thatthis government does will be beneficial to Queensland. I disagree with some of the things that it doesbut we always agree on the majority of things.

It does not mean that because this government delivers good things for all of Queensland in themajority of cases everyone should be a member of the Labor Party or another party when there is adifferent government in power in Queensland. Unions should work for their membership. It should bedemonstrated to people that they are worth while supporting. That is my view. I am prepared to supportvoluntary student union membership, but I am very, very concerned about any move that would stripaway any capacity for universities to impose a facilities and services levy.

The amendment that I have put forward would actually request the Commonwealth governmentto enable those universities to impose a levy for the use of services and the provision of facilities onuniversity campuses. Whether the Commonwealth government gets its way on the abolition ofcompulsory student unionism—not only the bad bits but also the potentially good bits which havedelivered well for some of our universities’ services and facilities—is yet to be seen and will depend onthe machinations of the Senate post 1 July. My view is that we have to be proactive. We have to realisethat there may be a more pragmatic way of trying to resolve some of these issues.

A moment ago the Minister for Transport and Main Roads expressed some views by way ofinterjection across the chamber. I have not been a university student, and I concede that. I have talkedto a lot of university—

Mr Lucas: You are more than capable of it. Mr SPRINGBORG: I concede that, but I have a lot of friends who have been to university and

there are a lot of divergent views. I can tell members that the majority view of my friends who have beenuniversity students is that there needs to be a maintenance of something.

I have spoken to external students who are not happy about the idea of paying anything becausethey do not use any of the services and facilities. That is the view. There are some people who areactually on campus who hold a similar view: ‘We do not use any of the services. We do not use any ofthe facilities. We are not actually involved. Why should we have to pay?’ That is the view that somepeople express. They say that it is a significant cost. As I have said, it is between $100 and $590.

I do not know how one would go about stripping out of that the political activism component, orthe compulsory student union membership component vis-a-vis a levy, and the difference that thatwould make to that overall bracket of cost, whether it be $100 or $590—I do not have the figures here—but I again say that there needs to be a balance somewhere. I will come back to this point.

I think that a lot of the radical student unions are now reaping what they themselves have sown.Unfortunately, it is passed on to other student unions and other student guilds. We have seen the extentof that involvement over a period of time. My basic fundamental view is that it is a matter of choice.Whether you want to be a member of a union should be a choice, and that applies to a student union.

As to a levy to cover services and facilities, I think there should be a capacity for a compulsorylevy. I think that that is very justifiable. It is certainly arguable, and it has to be maintained and reinforcedin any motion passed in this parliament. I certainly hope that the Commonwealth government would beof that view, ultimately, if we can convince it by weight of our numbers. Certainly if we strip away thecapacity of universities to raise funds for the provision of services—whether they be child-care services,some of the legal services that are provided, the canteen services, a range of health services which areprovided by universities or counselling services—it is arguable that many of the fledgling universities inparticular would not have the resources to be able to provide for their student body. That is why someform of services and facilities levy needs to be maintained at the very least, because they are importantservices. Again, they might not be used by all of the students, but many of the services will be used. We


have a gymnasium here. Not all members use it, but quite a few members do. It is something that isseen to be for the overall good. The same applies to our universities around Queensland.

I have heard the argument put forward by some of the more dogmatic proponents of the abolitionof student unionism—any form of fee whatsoever—that they can go and get sponsorship. I do notbelieve that. That is not going to happen. Who is going to sponsor these people? Is McDonald’s going tosponsor the University of Southern Queensland to provide some service? Maybe they will; maybe theywill not. I would say they probably will not. That is my view. I do not think they will. Maybe some of themore established universities might be able to push things around in their overall budget and find thecapacity to make an allocation. However, somebody has to pay the piper at the end of the day. Maybe atthe end of the day somebody will want to sponsor universities. But if we are going to dismiss theconcerns that exist about this move by simply saying, ‘Look, we’ll have sponsorship,’ I think that is avery superficial and shallow way of saying that there will not be an issue, that there will not be a problemand that services will not suffer. I do not think we can rely on sponsorship. Some of these universitiesare going to have to potentially find millions of dollars to maintain those services. They are crucialservices; they are absolutely vital services.

It seems to me that superficial arguments to try to offset the concerns raised by peoplelegitimately—from whatever background and wherever they come from—should be dismissed out ofhand. They deserve a bit more forensic analysis than what has been provided to them. Fundamentally,our amendment seeks to recognise that there is a balance. We do not have the same philosophical viewas the government. We share some of its concern about some of the impact; there is no doubt about it.We do have a different philosophical platform, but it is not on the hard right, and nor will it ever be, onthis issue.

To summarise, our view is that there should be the capacity to raise a levy for services andfacilities because they are important; people should be able to be a member of a student union but thatshould be voluntary; there does need to be accountability with regard to the operation of those particularstudent bodies; and any resolution should recognise choice and should not condone the completesuppression of choice. I would suggest that the government’s motion is not completely about choice, butI would say that those people who are proposing to do away with student unionism altogether—and allthe benefits of it—are certainly not about providing any choice either. I think, pragmatically, it issomewhere in the middle. That is our view. I would urge consideration of it by government members andby other members.

Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (2.46 pm): It is with pleasure and pride that I rise to second theopposition leader’s amendment. At the outset I have to say that I, too, have not been to a university. I didmy training in the RAAF. However, I am told—and I am sure that the members opposite would agree—that universities are places of higher learning and high principle. They are places where important idealsare disseminated, digested and considered. One of the most important ideals that our society is foundedon is freedom of choice—freedom to choose our government; freedom to decide where we would like tolive; and, as long as we are not carrying out criminal or illegal activities, freedom to associate withwhomever we please. That freedom of choice extends to whether we belong to a community group, apolitical party, a sporting club, a film appreciation society, a gun club, a queer club or a union.

At the heart of the federal voluntary student union legislation is an important ideal. It is calledfreedom of choice. Why can Queensland students not have freedom of choice when it comes to unions?Why should union membership be compulsory for university students and no-one else? Unionmembership is voluntary for the rest of society. Why should university students be quarantined from therealities of life? Voluntary membership of a union is a reality of life in our society.

When students graduate from secondary schools everyone from school principals and teachersto mums, dads and grandparents all say to those young people, ‘Welcome to the real world. Mind thatfirst step, it’s a doozey,’ and, ‘I won’t always be there to give you a hand up.’ Sometimes one is going tohave to fight racism, imperialism, fascism, communism, ignorance, bureaucracy, indifference, hunger,apathy, lack of resources, lack of time, lack of freedom and lack of choice to get back on one’s feet.

I would hate for this place to get the impression that I am bashing unions or, for that matter, theopposition is bashing unions. In fact, I will make an admission to the House. I will let members in on alittle secret: I am a union member. I am a paid-up member of the MEAA. Now, why did I join? Because Iappreciate the protection that a union offers workers; I appreciate the information and services that theMEAA provides to its members. Would I be offended if it was compulsory for me when I was employedin the media to be a member of the union? Most certainly. I would have felt violated. How dare BigBrother use a big stick and try to force me to join a union? The same principle applies to the debate onvoluntary student unionism. This is not a union-bashing exercise. This is a matter of principle that mustbe dealt with.

Subservient to that principle—and I say ‘subservient’ because thousands of Australians havefought and shed blood and have sacrificed their lives and health for the ideals of freedom of choice andfreedom of association—is the issue of student service provision. This can be easily solved, as theleader of the National Party and opposition leader suggests, by allowing the university to levy a fee on


students for apolitical services and amenities: sports, welfare, health, student advocacy and legalassistance. The challenge for students is that if they think it will benefit them they should pay their unionfees voluntarily and turn up at the meetings. After all, it is the people who bother to turn up who end upmaking the decisions and then who end up running this world, as I was so politely informed at a fishingmeeting. People should value the ideals and the principles that this country was built on. I have achallenge for student unions, and that is to make sure that they are relevant and providing serviceswhich will be of benefit to their members so that they voluntarily line up to pay union fees. Voluntarystudent unionism is not a campaign to silence dissent. Voluntary student unionism is not a campaign tosilence the debate on sexual harassment, the rights of Indigenous people or the rights of gay people.Voluntary student unionism is a campaign to fight for students to have freedom of choice—nothingmore, nothing less. It is the same freedom of choice that all members of this House enjoy.

As noted by the opposition leader, compulsory student unionism is big business in Australia. It isworth approximately $161.84 million. Compulsory student unionism in Queensland is big business. It isworth approximately $26.26 million, which also pays for facilities, allowances and air travel for studentunion officers. Once voluntary student unionism is brought into being I hope that student unionismremains big business, remains relevant to students and champions the very important principle offreedom of choice.

I understand the need for advocacy on behalf of students at universities. A daughter of a friend ofmine contacted me about alleged bullying and harassment while she was undertaking a universitycourse. She felt isolated; she did not know what to do. I advised her to contact her union and to writeletters to her local member of parliament and to cc those letters to the minister for education and me.She probably learnt one of the best lessons she has every learnt in her life: that by her own advocacyshe won through, she won the day, she received a successful outcome to her complaints.

In closing, I remind the House of point 5 in our amended motion where we request that the federalgovernment enable universities to impose a levy for the use of services and provision of facilities onuniversity campuses. This is a matter of principle; this is a matter of choice—freedom of choice.

Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (2.54 pm): I speak withsome experience in relation to universities and, indeed, student unions. I held various office-bearerpositions during my time as a student at the University of Queensland and at the University of SouthernQueensland. I have also spent two terms, one as a member of parliament and another as an electedstudent, on the senate of the University of Queensland. I was also treasurer of the University ofQueensland Union in 1983. So I suppose I probably have a bit more experience in universitygovernance than most people. I respect everyone’s right to have a view on this. Whether one went touniversity or not does not in any way take away from the ability to express an intelligent or a sensibleview on the subject because I think it is one that is fairly easy to come to grips with.

Every now and then in politics you see crude ideology at its worst. I have to say as an observer ofwhat has been going on in this debate federally that it is crude, straight-out, hard ideology at its worst.The view of the federal government is that it does not care about the consequences of this legislation;no matter what, it is determined to ram it through. No matter what the logic dictates—and the Leader ofthe Opposition spoke about some various alternatives—no matter what halfway house there might be interms of dealing with some of the issues that it might have concerns about, it does not care. The federalgovernment simply wants to get in there and drive it home no matter what.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to another similar issue in relation to the federalgovernment’s crude ideology—the taking away of state industrial relations—and I give him credit forthat. The problem with that is that sometimes there are unintended consequences. Once the federalgovernment, for example, gets hold of industrial relations they will never be given back to the statesregardless of who is in power.

An honourable member: There will be no choice.Mr LUCAS: That is right. The Leader of the Opposition said, for example, that he would not like it

if Labor got in federally one day with the balance of power. Now, I would disagree with him on thatparticular aspect, but it is a point that many conservatives would make. People might have some viewson the surface about voluntary student unionism, but they might find out that in practice it does notachieve what they want it to achieve. It throws the baby out with the bathwater and indeed results inmore radical student unions, not less radical student unions, that less represent the students they wouldpurport to represent.

The right to choose is important, but this is not fundamentally about that. The vast majority ofservices provided by student unions on university campuses are highly non-political. They are aboutservices. They are about refectories, they are about representing students who have issues ofacademic dispute, they are about helping students with accommodation, they are about helpingstudents with employment issues and they are about providing child care. There is an enormously broadgamut of services. In fact, the services are almost as broad as the services a government provides.Government does not say to people, ‘Look, you don’t agree with our health policy,’ or, ‘You don’t have afire station in your next street, but there is one in the next suburb, because you are not paying that


proportion of your taxes.’ Society does not function in that way, government does not function in thatway and student unionism does not function in that way. Perhaps it is unfortunate that they are calledstudent unions because they are really student guilds and in many places—for example, at theUniversity of Western Australia—they are called student guilds because that is really what they are.

The Leader of the Opposition made a number of points about radical expenditure. From myexperience, 99 per cent of my time was actually spent looking after the trading aspects of the Universityof Queensland union, which was a very large operation then, and it is even much larger now. In the thenUniversity of Queensland Act there was a provision under section 30 that controlled the expenditureundertaken for university purposes. The student union was not allowed to expend moneys that were notmoneys expended for a university purpose. Say, for example, the student union wanted to financefreedom fighters in Iraq or something like that. That was not considered a university purpose andtherefore was ultra vires the moneys that they would receive from the university. If the federalgovernment was serious about this, that might be what it ought to say. It might say that the money goingto student unions must be used by student unions for purposes that do not relate to party politicalissues.

I have no problem with that, frankly. The students can go and raise their money elsewhere. Thatwould not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I can tell members that during my time on a studentunion I spent very little time on political issues and most of it organising refectories and negotiating withthe Miscellaneous Workers Union in relation to industrial awards and things like that—all that common,garden variety stuff. That is why the universities oppose this proposal. I am not aware of any universityin Australia that is in favour of the federal government’s proposal. There are plenty of universities—

Ms Nelson-Carr: The James Cook University Student Association is the only one. Mr LUCAS: I am talking about the universities themselves. I am not aware of any university

administrations that are in favour of this. They know that one way or the other services have to beprovided. They do not want to provide them because, frankly, it is a pain in the neck for them to providethem. It is far better for them to be provided by student organisations and students.

This is not like, for example, university fees where many universities are in favour of them andmany are not. They are not being ideological. They actually have a view for very good reasons. Thehonourable member for Burnett spoke about freedom of choice. If the universities do this partly throughmandatory fees then what happens to student control of student affairs? If there is no student union theuniversities will be collecting the money from the students and then administering it and the students willhave no say in how it is spent. What about the principle of no taxation without representation? Whathappens to that principle in this regard? That is one of the problems that the universities understand.Not only do they not want to do this; they actually know that it is not appropriate for them to do this.

Perhaps one of the things that people from outside think is that students spend all of their timebeing radicals. I can say from my time in the student unions that there were many people from all sidesinvolved including Thomas Bradley, who was involved in the University of Queensland union and wasvery active in the National Party for many years. David Watson, like me, was a former treasurer of theUniversity of Queensland union. Angus Innes is a life member of the University of Queensland union.People should not think that people on the union come from one side of politics. The vast majority ofpeople were not involved in any political party but sat on the union and provided important services forpeople.

My observation from my time in a student union is that the University of Queensland union dealtwith both the political, for want of a better word, advocacy area and the services area. In those unionswhere they had a separate SRC my observation is that they tended to be more radical, not less,because they did not actually have to deal with the services side of things. If we make it noncompulsorythen we will have a less and less representative group. We will find that it will be a wonderful breedingground for radicals. Anyone who comes into politics by virtue of providing services to people may not beinvolved. So again the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.

The honourable member for Burnett spoke about people having the right to decide things and toopt in or opt out. I do not have to use the health system, touch wood, a lot at the moment, but I amhappy to pay my taxes for it. What about those people who say, ‘I am not going to pay for it any more.I am not going to pay for it because I do not use it.’? For example, many people might say that they donot use the refectories. Part-time students may say that they do not use them to a great extent. There isa greater subsidy from student unions that normally goes to those services that are not used as much asothers.

In conclusion, this is not a question of freedom of choice; this is a question of necessity ofservices. If the federal government were fair dinkum it would look at policy solutions to deal with this, butit is not. My prediction is that if the federal government gets its way, which it will, this will not solve itsproblem. Instead, we will have more radical student campuses, not less radical, and we will have noservices and services that are not controlled or administered by students. We will get the worst of bothworlds.


Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (3.04 pm): I am thrilled to be able to support this quite sensiblemotion moved by the education minister. I will be strongly opposing the amendment moved by theLeader of the Opposition. It is quite sad to see the federal Liberal-National government’s antiunionstance drag it to such a low level of policy making. There can be absolutely no mistake that the federalgovernment’s motivation in introducing the legislation that it has, to utterly destroy studentorganisations, is simply ideological and incredibly destructive.

I think the saddest thing about the legacy of the Howard government is going to be that peoplewill remember Howard, Nelson, Abbott, Costello and others as not, in any way, seeking to build anythingin the Australian nation but more seeking to destroy things within Australia. They have sought to destroyunions. They have sought to destroy Medicare. They are seeking to destroy social security in thiscountry. They have attacked universities and the education system. Sadly, I think they have had aterrible effect upon Australia’s international reputation.

The legislation that is before the federal parliament is in no way to be considered sensible policy.Student unions provide significant services to their members. I have already spoken in this place aboutmy opposition to the federal government’s legislation, but I want to again make it crystal clear why it isthat student unions are so important.

They fulfil two very significant roles on campus. They provide services to their members and anavenue for political representation and debate. For instance, the services that the Griffith UniversityStudent Representative Council provides to its members include clubs and societies funding, freediaries, shops, subsidised and often free entertainment on campus, film nights, social events, sports andarts scholarships, an orientation week party, creative grants programs, theme weeks, commencementand end of semester parties, subsidised functions and casual employment for students.

I know that the QUT Student Guild provides an excellent accommodation and employmentservice. At one stage I was the welfare director of the QUT guild and was responsible for delivering thatservice. Today the Griffith University Student Representative Council has taken its SRC web site off-line.It has a notice on the web site saying, ‘Sorry, we’re closed.’ It explains that people might have seenmedia coverage about what is potentially going to be VSU. It has decided to demonstrate to studentsexactly what that would mean. I seek leave to table a print-out of the first page of that web site.

Leave granted. Mr LEE: I know that the Griffith University Student Representative Council is working very hard to

oppose VSU by educating students about exactly what it would mean. Glen and the team over there aredoing a great job. I think it is also worth noting that Jess Pugh, the state secretary of the National Unionof Students, Queensland, has been working exceptionally hard, too.

I have said in this place before that the significant group of people who gain, in practical terms,from student unions are those who have moved to Brisbane to study at our universities. These are oftenpeople who have grown up in the country and move away from family, friends, social networks andsocial supports. They come to Brisbane and often do not know many people at the university at whichthey are studying and rely upon, in a significant way, the services that are provided by student unions ontheir campus. They rely upon student unions to provide social outlets by funding clubs and societies andby organising recreational events.

I spoke to a young gentleman who is studying at the University of Queensland. Michael Warren isa young man living in Graceville, which is in my electorate. He has come to Brisbane to live for the firsttime. He is away from home. He is one of those people who is reliant to a much greater extent thanthose who live in Brisbane upon the services and facilities that are offered by student unions.

Under the federal government’s proposal, clubs and societies at UQ would simply lose theirmoney. There would be no funding for an accommodation service to help find him flatmates. Therewould be no money to fund an employment service to help him get a part-time job. The legislationbefore the federal parliament is genuinely quite silly. I think it is worth noting today that there is more touniversities than simply going there and completing what we might consider to be the formalrequirements of a degree—namely, handing in assignments and turning up for lectures and exams.

Universities are places of higher learning where students learn how to think about the particulararea that they are studying. Not only that, people’s time at university should also be an opportunity forthem to do some thinking. It is a time when young people should be able to ponder the world in whichthey live. They should be able to discuss philosophy and other ideas with their friends. The world wouldbe a lot poorer if that was an opportunity that was not available to them. It is the indulgence that studentunions provide—the events that they organise—that also challenges an individual’s intellect, and that isan intrinsic part of the education process. It should be so much a part of the university process that theinformal learning environment created at universities—the campus culture created at universities—would mean that one’s university education would simply be incomplete if it did not exist. That is why theVSU proposition is quite simply an invalid one.

One’s freedom of choice or freedom of association should not lie simply with the ability to pay astudent union fee or not pay a student union fee; it should lie with the ability to enter a university or not


enter a university. Student unions have frequently been around for almost as long as the institutions inwhich they reside. They are an important, albeit informal, institutional part of universities.

It is quite sad to see the legislation before the federal parliament. The ideological zealots in thefederal Liberal Party and National Party, the main backers of voluntary student unionism legislation,would be absolutely outraged and appalled if a student was able to obtain a degree despite the fact thatthey had not completed every unit required of them. That is the formal part of university education. Quitefrankly, I am one of those people who is appalled and shocked and stunned when students do not availthemselves of the wonderful opportunities provided at university to be a part of informal university life,and that is why I am strongly opposed to the legislation that is before the federal parliament. I will beworking closely with particularly the Griffith University Student Representative Council and also theNational Union of Students to ensure that this federal legislation does not succeed.

Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (3.12 pm): It was not mean enough for the Howardgovernment to ramp up Higher Education Contribution Scheme fees—HECS fees—beyond the reach ofmany students, with some facing debts when they leave uni of about $50,000 or more; the Howardgovernment had to find ways of getting even meaner. The Howard government is now on an ideologicaldrive, as many members in the House today have recognised, to stamp out student unions and tosilence the voice of students. Several weeks ago the registrar and representatives from the studentunion at the Sunshine Coast University met with me to raise their concerns about the erosion of theirstudent union activities. It is very clear that Queensland regional universities will be hit particularly hard.The Sunshine Coast uni does not have major revenue-raising activities like catering that many of theurban based universities have. As a regional university, it is under even greater threat than others and isvery concerned about that.

I commend it and the many student union leaders who have campaigned hard to show the publicthe absurd and cruel nature of the Howard government’s higher education policies. I am at risk ofsingling out some people, but there are a few deserving of particular recognition. NUSQ President JonHames, UQ Union President Leah Sanderson, QUT Student Guild President Kate Perry and GriffithUniversity student and NUSQ education officer Robb Nicholas have been particularly good in theirleadership on this issue. Some people who have done a lot of leg work for the campaign but do not holdleadership positions include Dianna Borland-Centinella, Lucy Webber and Jonothan Davies. There aremany others, and I commend all of them.

One of the issues that is really clear in my role of parliamentary secretary with responsibility formulticulturalism is the effect this has on our international students and the great economic benefits wederive from international students. International students generally need a lot of support. Many of themare isolated. They have left their family and friends to come here to study, and it is important that theyhave the essential services that student unions provide. The value to the economy of Australia’s exportof education is $6 billion a year. The value to the Queensland economy is estimated to be in excess of$900 million a year. This market of international students is under threat if we cannot provide the kindsof supports that exist on campuses throughout Australia. The ideological drive to force voluntary studentunionism is a very clear example of the mean-spirited and undemocratic core of the Howardgovernment. It is very clear that it is intent on shutting down the voice of dissent that many studentsraise. It is important that they have a source of advocacy and support for issues while they are atuniversity.

It is interesting to note both the amendment to the motion moved by the Nationals here inQueensland and the amendment that will be moved by the Liberals, which goes even further to silencethe voice of students. If one looks at the amendment moved by the National Party, it uses language like‘wastage of funds by university students’. Where is the evidence of that? None of the Nationalsspeakers so far have convinced me of that. They talk about imposing a levy. Where is the democraticnature of that? They talk about not being supportive of compulsory unionism, but one only needs to lookat the language—‘impose a levy’. There is nothing very democratic about imposing a levy. The LiberalParty does not even acknowledge the value of student unions. It wants to remove all words after ‘unionmembership’ in the amendment it has circulated and will move shortly. So it does not even acknowledgethat there is any value in student unionism.

Do not be fooled, members of the public and students particularly: the Queensland Nationals andthe Queensland Liberals do not support you in your activities. They want to shut you down. They want tosilence your voice. Do not be fooled by their patronising ‘yes, they do a good job’ sort of message. Theyare clearly wanting to shut you down. I urge all members of this House to lobby federal members tooppose the legislation in the federal parliament. I urge all members of this House to show bipartisansupport for students and to support the motion moved today by the Leader of the House in thisparliament.

Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (3.16 pm): I move—That the amendment to the motion be amended by deleting all words after “union membership”.

I am pleased to rise, as I have before in this House, to speak on the issue of voluntary studentunionism. In doing so, I unequivocally oppose this motion and support the federal government in its


endeavours to modernise the life of a student by taking them away from the Dark Ages of compulsorystudent unionism and allowing students to choose what services they wish to purchase or do not wish topurchase. This is a disgraceful situation in that students attend a university to receive an education andchoose their course based on academic pursuits only and no other set of criteria. Yet when they arrivethey are faced with a bill of up to $300 per semester for services that they may or may not wish toparticipate in.

If I was to join any club in the broader world, the ultimate say in the club is membership fees. If themembers do not feel that the club is going in the right direction, then they will simply not renew theirmembership when the time comes. I am sure that there are many members opposite who—

Mr Lawlor interjected.Mr LANGBROEK: I am in the club with you, member for Southport, so any one you are in I am

happy to be in.Mr Lawlor interjected.Mr LANGBROEK: Renewal is due on 30 June. I am sure that there are many members opposite

who have had members of their political party not renew their membership because they have beendisappointed with the decisions that are being made by the organisation. This is the foundation of thedecision-making process for those organisations—that they do the right thing by members and thatthose in control of the purse strings represent members in their decisions, otherwise they will not havemembers there the next year.

Student unions are special in this regard, and this is the whole point to the debate. No matter whatthey do, no matter how they spend the money—the hard-earned money of members—they will alwayshave that steady flow of money coming in because the members cannot leave the membership unlessthey leave their degree. Just last night I was discussing this issue with a young man attending GriffithUniversity on the Gold Coast. He pays $130 in student fees each semester. He says that the onlyservice he uses is the odd subsidised beer at the student bar. Why? Because like many other studentshe attends uni to gain his degree and his education. He works four days a week. Because he is workingthrough his degree and working hard to make money and do his degree at the same time, he does notuse any of the other miscellaneous services that are on offer. He informs me that the price of a pot ofbeer at the uni bar is about 20c lower than that which he can get elsewhere, so he assumes that that isthe subsidy he gets on beer. This means that to get his money’s worth each semester he would need todrink 650 pots of beer or, as he has classes on three days a week, over a dozen pots of beer each dayhe is at uni.

Based on the scenarios that I have outlined, two arguments are used to legitimise compulsorystudent union fees. The first is that, even though there is a steady stream of money, the students havethe ability to vote out an executive that is not doing its job and vote in a new executive. To coincide withthat, there is no intention that every student will receive his or her money’s worth of fees back inservices. All of those students who are apparently travelling better than the others have to contribute tothose who need the services provided by the guild.

If members are thinking that those two arguments sound a lot like an explanation for imposing atax, they are dead right. Moreover, advocates of compulsory student unionism are comfortable withlikening the fees to a tax. They say that, just like paying a tax, students pay to attend university and inreturn receive some services and voting rights as well as contribute to the greater good of the lessfortunate at university. I do not accept that there should be a tax on university students. I do not acceptthat student unions, with a high proportion of professional students with little real worldexperience among their number, should be given the ability to impose such a tax.

I will entertain the argument for a second that it is legitimate to impose a tax of this sort. Thisexplanation solely justifies the imposition of student union fees. But tax as we know it in society ismeans tested. There are thresholds and levels of tax. Whether it is a flat tax rate or a sliding orascending tax scale, there is an element of a means test. The whole idea of paying tax is that one paysas much as one can reasonably afford to pay. So the higher a person’s income, the more tax that personpays.

There are times when we all disagree on the intricacies of taxation policy. I note the comments ofthe member for Yeerongpilly, who quoted the Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Tasmania.However, the fact that tax is means tested is a given. I ask members to imagine a system where thelowest income earners pay the same amount of tax as do the highest income earners. I ask members toimagine if everyone had to pay $25,000 tax each year. Imagine the government introducing that! TheAustralian Labor Party would be the first group to say, ‘This is about the rich getting richer and it is unfairon the lowest income earners.’ They would be right. It would be particularly unfair on low-incomeearners. In fact, it would cripple low-income families as that amount could be three-quarters of theirincome, whereas it may be only five per cent of a wealthier person’s income.

I refer to the way in which student unions tax students, to use their own words. In some instancesthere is a blanket $130 fee or, if you will, a blanket $130 tax. Placing a blanket amount on everyone,regardless and absent from their ability to actually pay the fee, is unfair on whom? It is unfair on the less


wealthy students because, to use the vernacular of the members opposite, that figure represents ahigher proportion of their income than it represents to better-off students.

I cite the typical example of a student on youth allowance and rent assistance having to buybooks, appliances and food and pay bond and rent at the start of a new semester then being sluggedwith a fee for the student union. I ask members to contrast that scenario with the student living at homewith their parents. That student has their fees and books paid for. The students whom membersopposite claim they are protecting—the less fortunate students struggling to make ends meet—are theones most disadvantaged under this student funded gravy train for professional students, sometimesknown as student politicians. If students are unable to pay their fees, they are slugged an extra $70 to$100 for not paying on time. Therefore, less fortunate students may end up paying more to fund theseunions.

I now turn my attention to the services that these student unions provide. We have heard the verybiased critique of the Labor Party. It stated that these services provide for any number of good thingsthat will be cut when this legislation comes into effect. That is all well and good. For those students whouse those services, I am sure they are great. But I want to add to the list of things that student guilds payfor. They pay for magazines that are filled with propaganda, mainly for the Labor Party or the Greens,that will hopefully indoctrinate students into thinking or doing certain things. But here are the killers.Student fees pay for the full amount of air fares for student politicians to attend various important andnot-so-important engagements interstate.

Mr LEE: I rise to a point of order. I believe the member may be inadvertently misleading theHouse.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): There is no point of order. Mr LANGBROEK: I can guarantee members that not all students know that that is one of the

things their taxes are used to pay for. I ask members to remember that students’ union fees are used tosupport students less fortunate than themselves. My assistant electorate officer, Tim Rawlings, is goingto a national mooting competition in Perth in a month’s time. He has had to use $250 in prize moneyfrom winning the university mooting competition as well as hundreds of dollars of his own money to payfor his trip. Although the student guild made some contribution, it amounted to less than 10 per cent ofthe cost of the trip. This is for a national law students’ competition, which I regard as more worthy offunding than some student representative policy love-in that is fully funded through students’ money.

Could it be—and I hate to propagate vicious accusations—that it is not only the less fortunatestudents that the Labor Party seeks to protect but also the lifestyles of professional students, unionrepresentatives or passengers on the student funded gravy train to opportunity and political aspiration?Other things that the fees pay for are buses for some students to attend rallies against federalgovernment policy and posters for whatever the Che Guevara T-shirt-wearing set believes is the latestinjustice against their number.

In the words of the Hon. Brendan Nelson, why is it that a single mother training to be a nurseshould pay for the canoeing or mountaineering club when all she wants is a degree? Any student whowants to be part of a sporting or social club should have the right to do so. The voluntary student unionlegislation will allow those students to pay for those services if they make that choice. This legislationaffects all students everywhere. Some regional students who do not even attend universities to use anyservices on campus still have to pay compulsory fees.

The arguments against VSU are specious at best. The federal government is fixing somethingthat has been a terrible thorn in the side of students wanting to go to university to get a degree. Icommend the federal government and education minister Nelson on a magnificent initiative.

Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (3.25 pm): I rise to second the amendment to the motion moved by themember for Surfers Paradise. I do so simply from the point of view that I firmly believe that everyoneshould have the right to choose whether or not to join a union, an association or a club. That is theirfundamental right. The federal government’s legislation enshrines that right for university students.Under that legislation, students will have to right to choose whether they want to join the campus club orassociation or the union. So the rights they have on the campus will be exactly the same as the rightsthey have off the campus. The moment we move away from that, we have the argument of what sorts offees or services should be provided. My fundamental belief is that students should enjoy the same rightson the campus as they do off the campus.

From listening to the speeches of the members of the Labor Party today, one would think thatthere is a huge groundswell among university students about this federal government legislation. Thelegislation was introduced into the House of Representatives and then it was moved to the Senate. On11 May, the Senate referred to the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee theprovisions of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front StudentUnion Fees) Bill 2005. The Senate committee then called for submissions from interested parties to besent to the committee secretariat by 17 June 2005. That is in seven days time. As of one o’clock today,guess how many submissions the committee secretariat has received? Eight submissions have beenreceived. According to the ALP, this is a huge burning issue that will send everyone back to the Dark


Ages. The students of Australia do not think so. At the end of May, three submissions had beenreceived, none of which were by any of the student unions across Australia. That is an indication of howimportant this issue is in the minds of young people attending universities.

As I said, from my perspective it is the fundamental right of every student to choose whether ornot they wish to join a union, association or club, on or off campus. Voluntary student unionism is not theburning issue that the ALP believes it is. The students themselves want the choice. If those services thatare currently being provided by the unions on the campuses are important to students, they will beprepared to pay for them. The decision that students have made is that the vast bulk of those servicesbeing provided are not useful to them. That is why they are not concerned about what is beingproposed. That is the bottom line.

All of this froth and bubble by the ALP is just that: nothing of substance. Members opposite wantto talk about a political motive. We are seeing it in this chamber today. This is just something that theALP can use amongst its buddies in the unions around the campuses and nothing more, because thevast majority of the students do not care. They do not care because they know that the vast majority ofthe services being provided by the unions are not relevant to them.

The points that have been made by the member for Surfers Paradise are valid. If a student is offcampus, that student is paying fees for a range of services that he or she will never use. More and morestudents these days simply want to go to university, attend their courses, get their degree and get intothe work force. They are not interested in all of the other things that are going on. We heard the memberfor Indooroopilly stand up and recite a list of services and activities on the campuses, and I think most ofthem would be an absolute waste of money. That is obviously the opinion of the vast majority of studentsbecause they are not going to be concerned if they lose them. They are not making submissions to theSenate committee. I support the amendment moved by the member for Surfers Paradise, and I will beopposing the substantive motion before the House.

Mr FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (3.30 pm): I rise to support the original motion moved by theLeader of the House and oppose the two amendments moved by the National Party and the LiberalParty. I note that at the commencement of the debate the Leader of the House urged that members notget mired in the depths of ideological debate which would not advance this issue at any great rate,because there are two distinct views on either side. I do note, however, that at every point the LiberalParty and the federal government have claimed that this is not about an ideological flight of fancy. But,as the two previous speakers have demonstrated rather amply, it is about the ideological whims of thefederal Liberal government—and the contributions of Liberal members belie any claims to the contrary.

I come into this debate having only recently left university myself. I represent one of the youngestelectorates in the state—one in five people who vote in my electorate are between the ages of 18 and24 compared with 10 per cent around the state. I know from daily interactions with people, fromknocking on people’s doors and, most tellingly, from the enrolment letters that land on my desk in aregular cycle the age profile of my electorate. The vast bulk of them come from the student suburbs ofPaddington and Toowong and more than Brisbane’s fair share of the student population lives within theboundaries of the Mount Coot-tha electorate.

The Leader of the Liberal Party tried to construct a rather feeble argument that this is not an issuethat is concerning students. I think that is bunkum. Every interaction that I have had reinforces that pointto me. I think it is worth saying that the Liberal Party says that this is not an ideological flight of fancy; itplainly is. If those of us who are compelled to pay taxes did not need to call upon the fire servicebecause our house did not burn down or we were not in a car accident, or if we did not use the assets ofthe defence forces because the nation was not invaded, or if we have never driven, and may neverdrive, along the Barkly Highway west of Mount Isa, then we should not be compelled to contribute to anyof those services because we have not needed them. That is the logical end point for the ideology thatthe Liberal Party has put forward today. That argument is completely false and not grounded in anysensible way as to how we construct a civil society. It is the argument in miniature form that the LiberalParty has put forward today as to why there should not be a compulsory service charge at the very leaston our campuses, which provide the services that are needed and utilised by a great bulk of the studentpopulation.

We could accept the Liberal Party’s argument if we knew that it was fair dinkum and that it wascoming to this debate with any sort of philosophical cogency or consistency. I have to say to members ofthe Liberal Party in particular who spoke immediately before me, as they dressed up their arguments asthe defenders of choice and individual liberty, that I do not think there is any great vein of individualchoice and liberty running through the taxation arrangements that the federal government supports.That means that someone in my position is compelled to join a private health fund, whether I want to ornot, because of the effectively punitive way that the taxation arrangements work to suit the ideologicalend point of the Liberal Party’s views on public health in this state. That is a compulsion that members ofthe Liberal Party seem to have no problem with on this day of the week. But down the track when it cutsacross a flight of fancy of theirs then all of a sudden they will find themselves having tremendousphilosophical problems with the idea of compulsion. If they were fair dinkum about this, they would notsupport the concept of state compulsory taxation, in the small ‘s’ sense of the word.


At times I do wonder if there is not a furtive desire lying within some of the Liberal Partyrepresentatives in this place that their true convictions are closer to the lunacy of the libertarian right,which says just that and which rears its ugly head in American politics from time to time, rather thanbased on any sensible idea about what is acceptable in Australian society and the fundamentals thatunderpin our civil society that have existed for a century and held us in good stead. This is a flight offancy that is being proposed by the federal government. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (3.35 pm): I rise to make a brief contribution to support themotion moved by the member for South Brisbane and seconded by the member for Yeerongpilly. Thisargument is not a freedom of choice debate, as my friend the member for Mount Coot-tha just said.Those arguments are fallacious. The member for Burnett jumped up and rabbited on about freedom ofchoice and how many died in wars for this sort of freedom. It really burns me to see people appropriatethe blood of dead soldiers to advance some political argument of the day—wrap it in the flag. Let memake this point: nobody went to war for voluntary student unionism. It is rubbish and it is offensive andmembers opposite should stop saying it.

The debate here today is simply about stifling dissent. That is all it is. It is a shame. Thecontributions from members on the other side, from the Liberal Party in particular, have talked abouttheir respect for independent rights. Tonight we will be having a debate when the Liberal Party will betalking about tradition and independence and their respect for that. There is no respect for tradition inthis debate. The traditions of student unions go well back, back to the Oxford union, to the mothercountry, where they would normally be tugging their forelock and saying, ‘Isn’t that a great idea?’

With regard to the independence argument, the Australian vice-chancellors support the studentunions. The unions of the academics support the student unions. There is plenty of independent supportfrom the people who run universities and teach at universities for what student unions do. It is not justabout political activism. Like the honourable minister for transport, I am a former officer of the Universityof Queensland student union. There is politics in student unions. Sure, no-one denies that. Regrettably,from my point of view, most of it these days is considerably to the left of the ALP.

Mr Purcell interjected. Mr McNAMARA: That is right—or further out to the right. What student unions do that is most

valuable and most important is not student politics, although that has a role. Again, why is the LiberalParty so afraid of people being engaged in the political process? What is it the Liberal Party is afraid ofabout young people participating in the debates of the day? Putting that to one side, the real tragedy inthe VSU legislation is what we stand to lose—the counselling services; the health services; the childcare; and the advocacy on behalf of students who have moved to the city from the country and findthemselves stuck financially, beset, lonely and needing someone to argue for them about why theyshould not be excluded.

As a regional member, I know that many people from Hervey Bay will head off to university. Thatis great. It is a fabulous opportunity to grow. But it does not always go well. We cannot expect theseorganisations to be run on a voluntary basis. Most people can be members for only three or four years.Again, that shows how fallacious the arguments are that these are somehow permanent structures withpermanent memberships.

The unions need to be supported so that their very high turnover of membership does not makethen unviable. The VSU legislation is designed to make them unviable. It is designed to leave kids fromthe country who wind up in cities studying and who need help short of help, but the federal governmentdoes not care. In its desire to simply attack what it perceives as a base of left-wing dissent, the Howardgovernment is prepared to say to all those young people, ‘We don’t care about you. We’ve got anideological argument to win.’ It is a disgrace. I support the motion.

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (3.39 pm): The National Party in this debate tonight takesthe position of totally supporting voluntary student unionism. That is one part of the amendment that wehave moved. We note the concerns of the federal government with regard to wastage of funds byuniversity student unions. Our amendment also calls on the federal government to introduce goodgovernance guidelines for student guild management, including a clear framework for what purposesstudent guild funds are able to be used for. We request the federal government to enable universities toimpose a levy for the use of services and provision of facilities on university campuses.

There is a very clear distinction in Queensland of pre-Dawkins universities and post-Dawkinsuniversities. Post-Dawkins universities are the ones that came in after the Dawkins reforms, which sawmany of our colleges of advanced education become university colleges and then universities. We havea very good example of that in Toowoomba with the University of Southern Queensland. It is renownedthroughout Australia. It has won the best university award in Australia on at least one or two occasionsand on a number of occasions has won an award for being best in the world for the provision of onlineeducation. It is a university that has specialised in distance education for a long time. It has been aleader in also moving to online education.


There is a distinction between the more traditional, older capital city universities where studentshave had to pay their union fees and have seen much of the funds go into political activism and regionaland newer universities which have formed student guilds. Under their guild articles they are expresslyprohibited from undertaking political or religious activities. So they are there purely for the services thatthe students require.

In Toowoomba these new universities have provided some wonderful services but, importantly,because of their structure and because of what universities were allowed to do and were not allowed todo, it has been the student unions that have had to provide much of the recreational and supportservices. The universities are limited in charging fees and the construction of their buildings and soforth. At many universities sometimes the students understand better what is needed and how it shouldbe provided, because they are representatives of the students themselves.

The student guild at USQ, for example, has put together the student club, the Clive BerghoferRecreation Centre, which is a magnificent indoor recreational centre used not only by the university butalso by the city. For example, we have had John Farnham concerts and major social and awards nights.Plus the university uses it a tremendous amount and it has been a huge boost to the university itself.There is an issue of younger regional universities that do not have access to money which comes fromlongstanding alumnis and that do not have access to a massive student body which can paymany millions of dollars in compulsory student union fees. These universities, unlike the bigger, oldercapital city universities, cannot access some of the sponsorships and research funds and so forth,although all of the universities such as USQ, CQU, Sunshine Coast and James Cook do enormouslywell in getting grants and research and probably fight well above their weight.

I have talked to students about having to pay student fees, and most students hate and detestpaying the fees. Those of us who have children who have to go on to university all dislike having to do it,particularly if they have to pay their own way by working, whether it is in a takeaway food shop, behindthe bar or whatever. Many students have to do that. It is a good way for students to learn the value ofmoney and learn the value of their education if they have to pay their own way and look after their costsby working at the same time. In many cases that is what they have to do because their parents do nothave the funds to be able to support them. Most parents make a great sacrifice to support their childrenthrough university. So they do hate paying fees.

We have come to a different era at universities. There was a time when people virtuallyexclusively went to university full time. They undertook their five-year course as full-time students andthey played their sport and engaged in all the other university and campus activities. The world haschanged greatly. There is still a component at universities of students who do that and who enjoy theenrichment of a very broad university life, but for others it is a matter of trying to fit in courses at nightand doing their courses in an accelerated fashion so they can get through in a particular time.

We have seen a lot of people who are in difficult or unfortunate circumstances such as singlemothers or those who have been through a marriage breakdown going to university to do a course tomove on to a different way of life so they can look after their family and themselves. As well as part-timestudents we see a lot of distance education and online education students. It is changing dramatically.Once upon a time universities had to be on hundreds of acres with beautiful big granite buildingscovered in ivy and sports fields. They are now changing to being centres of teaching and dealing withthe online system and so forth. So there has been a dramatic change. The number of students able touse these facilities who may be there on a full-time or part-time basis is changing.

The issue of cost is a very difficult one. I recently dealt with a student who under the currentfederal act had to pay the university fees. They are given a certain time until midterm to pay them. It ispart of the regulations of most universities. If the students have not paid their fees, they are simply notable to continue with the course. It is compulsory. They have to pay their fees; it is a condition ofenrolment. This student lost their placement, assignments were not able to be assessed—a wholerange of things occurred. I am very grateful for the work that the university was able to do in trying toovercome this position. This person simply could not afford the money. They were scratching and tryingto get the money and paid the fees but paid them one week late.

That is the down-to-earth financial situation that a lot of students find themselves in. They simplycannot afford it. If a student is in that position and is not using these services, we can imagine thedistress they feel that they have to contribute this money. I do not doubt that those who use the facilitiesand the services appreciate it and therefore feel that their money is well spent and they are getting somevalue for money. That is where voluntary unionism comes in. We have seen all these statutoryorganisations do away with compulsory membership. For example, in some rural industriesCanegrowers, Agforce, QFF and so forth are all now based upon a voluntary system where people haveto perform advocacy and so forth so that people say, ‘It is worth while being a part of this; it is worthwhile making a contribution and therefore I will join and pay the money.’ That is really what will happenwith the universities. With a voluntary system there will be a very big incentive to provide the sorts ofservices that are affordable and that people want and to avoid any wastage.


As well as building the Clive Berghofer centre and providing other counselling and supportservices, the student guild at USQ has recently borrowed money in order to buy the Southern SuburbsRugby League club ground, which was next to the university. It adds to the array of sports facilitiesavailable at this very young university. They are facilities that are shared with other people in ourcommunity. I would be very keen for the federal government—and I have written to Brendan Nelsonalong these lines—to put in place a system whereby a levy can be charged or a payment can becontained within the fee structure of the university for the basic needs of a university. This may wellinclude student health services, because in many instances universities are like a mini city. My motherwas the first nurse at the student health centre at the University of Queensland. She and a doctorestablished that service. There are now some 30 people in that much-needed service. I well rememberthe number of young people she helped and some of the issues students had.

Those sorts of things are needed within a university. As I said, they are like a mini city. I would liketo think that a university would have the wherewithal—be it a levy or be it a process within the chargingof the fees under this legislation—to provide a certain amount of money to a guild, like the guild at USQ,so that the guild can provide certain services because they are close to the students. They understand,probably better than anybody else, what the students need with regard to health, recreation, socialactivities or club activities. They also understand what the part-time students need. It might havesomething to do with transport systems, because they are coming out at night and need shelter. Theymight need security and so forth. They may also know the needs of students who are doing coursesonline and who come to the university only once or twice a year for an intensive course or forgraduation.

They are all things that a guild can provide without people being forced to pay an amount ofmoney which, in almost every case, is extremely difficult to find. Students are forced to contribute tothings that they do not attend and do not use. I think there is a greater appreciation of the services ifpayment is voluntary and students are able to enjoy the things they want to do. If students do not want tojoin, they do not. In the meantime, as I have said, a levy or a payment within the HECS fee arrangementwould enable the continuation of the sorts of facilities that we see at the University of SouthernQueensland and at other universities.

I compliment the student guild at the University of Southern Queensland. Under the leadership ofvarious presidents, the student union—as students have worked their way through university they havegiven a year or more of their time to be on the student guild, on the board or president—has made awonderful contribution. The contribution made by all of the presidents I have met over the years hasbeen very generous. They have been trying to get through a course and at the same time they havebeen prepared to give time for the welfare of their fellow students.

I also compliment Kevin Stapleton and his staff. Kevin, who runs the student union, has done amagnificent job in taking on a young university—it was a bare paddock when it was started up as theDarling Downs Institute of Advanced Education—and has provided the sorts of facilities that havehelped full-time students and, in some cases, part-time students to enjoy some of those services.

At the same time, the university has added to the economy of our city, the culture of our city andthe status of our city. It has also shared those facilities with the city itself. Some 23 per cent of thestudents at our university are fee-paying overseas students. It has meant a large number of studentsliving at, beside or near the university. We have a number of students who come from rural areas andwho stay in the university colleges. There is a role for our student guild. I think it is an important role andI believe that it has played it well.

At the end of the day, it does come back to the issue of whether people are going to be forced tobe in the unions. We do not do that with the union movement outside university life. We do not do it withother organisations, as I have mentioned. The students have real financial issues in paying theseparticular fees. In some of the major universities those fees are used not just for basic services andfacilities but also for all sorts of things, including political activism and so forth—wasting the money,which some students can barely afford to pay, whether they agree with the activism or not.

I commend to the House the amendment moved by the National Party. This amendment works, insupport with the federal government, to reduce the wastage. It brings in the principle of voluntary unionmembership. We support voluntary union membership. It notes the important role of student guilds andhow different they are to student unions. We call on the federal government to bring in this framework ofgood governance that delineates exactly the sorts of services a guild can provide and also enables afinancial structure within the university that can assist the guilds to provide some of those services thatmay otherwise not be provided.

Hon. DM WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (3.56 pm): There is more to being educated than being ableto regurgitate information. A computer can regurgitate information. There is more to being educatedthan being trained to perform a task. A robot can perform tasks. An educated person can reproduceinformation but, in addition, can assess and interpret that information. An educated person can performa task then tell someone how it can be done better.


Education is about human development. An educated person can understand rather than merelyknow, can feel rather than merely be aware and can, in the end, teach their teacher something theteacher never thought of. Such an education cannot be achieved from learning factories such as thefederal government wants our universities to be. It can only be achieved in a community of scholars.The focus of that community is the university union. Without a vibrant university union building, theuniversity can all too easily become an amorphous mass of isolated learners lacking the synergies thatmake for a flourishing community of ideas.

The typical size of a university in Australia is around 20,000 people—the size of a small city. Itscitizens are mostly young. Many live away from home and they need the services that are appropriate totheir generation. They need accommodation, part-time employment, food and counselling services, allof which are facilitated by university unions. The absence of these services will put additional stress onour younger generation and will undoubtedly cause some of them, who would not otherwise do so, tofail.

The absence of a viable array of clubs and societies, such as has been part of the tradition ofAustralian campus life for generations, will lead to cultural impoverishment and a decline in socialengagement. The net effect of the federal government plan to decimate university unions will be tosuboptimise the human capital of a generation.

In 1999 the then education minister in Canberra proposed a similar measure. His inability tocomplete his proposal saved his reputation. History will now not blame him for it. The protests ofstudents, the united opposition of state education ministers and vice-chancellors and a dubious Senatecombined to ensure that we still have universal student unionism today. If this federal education ministersucceeds where Dr Kemp failed in 1999 then he will go down in our history as one of the greatdestroyers of Australia’s human and social capital.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.59 pm): I believe that in the next couple of years wewill see changes to legislation out of federal parliament that will cause significant detriment to ourcommunity. That will be once the Senate is a tame adjunct to the Liberal coalition. However, it is muchlike the frustration that many people in Queensland feel where in this parliament the government hassignificant numbers and there is no effective house of review.

One of the first frustrations that has been mooted is the industrial relations legislation and thesecond frustration is the change that is being debated here today. I wish to support the NationalParty’s amendments because I believe they best strike the balance between voluntary unionmembership and service provision.

Since I joined this parliament, and it has been a privilege to be here, I have supported voluntaryunion membership in many pieces of legislation. Student union members who come to lobby for theretention of compulsory student union membership put forward the case of the provision of a number ofcore services, all of which should be supported. They bring forward core services such as child care,advocacy for students in situations where there is an imbalance of power, mediation for inappropriatetreatment of students by lecturers and the like. All of those services are important. However, thesestudent union members do not talk about the inappropriate materials that are circulated by the unions orthe politicisation of the unions, and that goes for both sides of the political sphere. I have had parentsand students bring me diaries that have been circulated by the student union, the content of which hasbeen objectionable at best and pornographic at worst. I have raised those issues with the particularvice-chancellor of the university in question and that person had no idea of the content of the books thatwere being circulated.

I also question whether all students should pay for activities that they do not have an opportunityto be involved in. People have talked about a number of clubs and societies. There are many studentswho attend university who do not have time to—an election if you like—participate in the activities that astudent union provides. They have to study and they have to undertake part-time work to be able tosurvive financially. The idea is that they support clubs and societies—recreational type activities—thatthey cannot access but which other students may access. They do not begrudge that access, butperhaps those students who use the recreational services should pay for the recreational services. Wehave heard many debates in this chamber about user-pays.

The university in my electorate has a significant external student body. We do not have thenumber of services that perhaps the CQU in Rockhampton has, and we certainly do not have thenumber of activities and facilities that UQ, Griffith and other major universities on the eastern seaboardhave. I am sure that the students there would prefer to pay less in student fees, pay for those coreservices that are essential to their successful study and then allow an election by the remaining studentsfor those ancillary activities, particularly the recreational ones.

The other point that I wish to make is this: we have student representatives at CQU who I havetalked with on a number of occasions and they invariably have done the work on a voluntary basis. Theyhave not been remunerated and they have not had too much in the way of costs covered. They do itbecause they see the importance of advocacy. I would certainly commend those student representativesat the Central Queensland University and particularly the Gladstone campus. They do a magnificent job.


In this instance I cannot support the motion of the minister for education, the Leader of the House,condemning the federal government. Further, I cannot support the Liberal amendment which just mowsthe motion down to acknowledging the concerns of the federal government. I do support theamendment of the National Party in that it recognises that in the past there have been activities thatcould be questionable in terms of the core reasons for student unions—that is, to provide services tostudents. I do support voluntary union membership. I do believe student guilds can play an importantrole in providing services and I will certainly be supporting the National Party amendment.

Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (4.05 pm): It is with pleasure that I rise to support themotion moved by the member for South Brisbane. Having been a student and a university lecturer andhaving sat on the council of James Cook University I can attest to the value of student unions. Iparticularly want to talk this afternoon about the significance of this issue for regional campuses. I thinkthere is general agreement that it will actually hit regional campuses a lot harder than city campuses.

I would like to share with the House the results of an Australasian Campus Union ManagersAssociation survey. This was carried out in February 1999 so I think that we can assume the financialcosts referred to would actually be much more significant some six years later. Of course, this was whenthis issue was last discussed. This is not the first time that voluntary student unionism has been on thetable. Fortunately it was defeated last time.

These were the implications of VSU in 1999: 1,000 jobs would be lost in regional centres; regionalcampus organisations contributed some $100 million to the Australian economy each year, excludingbuilding programs; $35 million in salaries paid to regional workers each year would be lost; $20 millionin outstanding loans in regional campuses would be forfeited, and it may well be more by this stage;regional campuses have contributed $90 million to the construction of facilities in the past decade;98 per cent of expenditure by regional campus student organisations was on the provision of studentand university community services; 52 per cent of regional campuses provided facilities that were usedby the local community as well as the students; and 75 per cent of those surveyed expected to closetheir operations if the legislation was passed.

I think we should be under no illusion about the significant implications of this legislation that isproposed to go through the Senate when the Liberal Party has control of it. What those figures do notinclude, which is very significant and which has been mentioned by other speakers today and isparticularly important for regional students, is that in those campuses quite often—if I can take theexample of James Cook University—many of those students actually come from other parts of ourregion. They come from as far north as the Torres Strait and from as far south as Mission Beach. That isa big change for those students. They do need support in terms of finding accommodation and in termsof the social support that clubs provide. Of course, many of our young people from far-north Queenslandare travelling to Brisbane for university. They also feel very dislocated when they move to Brisbane andthey need the support that is provided by that range of clubs and support services that they find throughthe student union.

We know the Liberals are proposing this Federal legislation, but who else supports it? We haveactually not heard this afternoon in this debate of any other group that supports this. We know that theAustralian Vice-Chancellors Committee and all major universities have publicly condemned thislegislation. There is absolutely no support in those quarters and for very good reasons. Interestinglyenough, we also have very strong opposition coming from the Australian Olympic Committee. Youcannot say that this organisation has any political axe to grind, but it is very concerned about the impactthat voluntary student unionism would have on Australia’s elite sports. Interestingly enough, it appearsthat one-third of Australia’s Olympic team were university graduates or students and benefited from the$30 million in funding collected from compulsory fees.

The AOC worries that, without funding from student organisation fees, many athletes would neverbe able to compete. That point has not been brought out. The University Games are being held inCairns in July this year. When I was at the launch of those games the organisers were very concerned topoint out to me the implications of this change in policy. They felt that they would be less able to supportathletes achieve their ambition. That is another aspect that has to be considered.

We have heard from many speakers opposite, particularly the Liberals, that this is a tax thatshould not be paid because not all students use these services. What we have to remember, though, isthat if we pay rates we pay, for example, for council libraries. Since my children have grown up I havenot been in a council library, but I am happy to pay for them. Young people with no children andgrandparents with no children going to school all pay taxes for schools because we need schools. Thepoint is that the fees being collected are being used for the benefit of all students. We need to rememberthat very important point. To go down the track proposed by the Liberals of users paying would be to thedetriment of our student body.

Finally, the core criticism of the Liberals has been that we should not be using these fees to allowstudents to go on political campaigns. Excuse me, but I actually support that. I have seen the benefit ofthat in my own area of Cairns, where the student association—I commend it for the work that it does—has over many years fought alongside the community to improve the facilities at that university.


Mr O’Brien: That’s right. Dr LESLEY CLARK: I take the member’s interlocution because he was very much involved with

that before he was elected to this place. We have to recognise the value that students have. Thepolitical action that they can take is very important because it benefits not only their own university butalso the broader community. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (4.12 pm): I rise to support the amendment moved by theLeader of the Opposition. I suspect that the views that I will put on the record today will come as nosurprise because only a couple of weeks ago I outlined my concern about the proposed legislationbefore the federal parliament regarding voluntary student unionism. It is something that I have spokenabout publicly in my area. I have also written to both the Deputy Prime Minister and the federal ministerfor education to outline my views. Largely my views mirror the views expressed by the member forToowoomba South. I guess that is because we have seen first-hand the activities of the student guild atthe University of Southern Queensland. They are not views that I have always held, I have to say.

When I was a student at the University of Queensland I absolutely dreaded and objected topaying my compulsory union fees because I did not agree with where a lot of that money was spent. Atthat stage, the University of Queensland student union was highly political. I do not think that haschanged at all. There was recrimination for people who may not have shared the political philosophy ofthose who were in power in the student union. Money was allocated on that sort of basis. There was anenormous amount of hypocrisy about where money was and was not allocated. That was based largelyon political or philosophical guidelines. I really detested some of the activities that went on for some ofthose years.

At that stage there was no way in the world that I would not have supported voluntary studentunionism. Over the years I guess my views have been tempered somewhat because I have seen whatis possible at a university if politics are not a part of a student guild and the only thing that plays a part iswhat is best for the university and what is best for the students—that is, the delivery of vital services andinfrastructure.

That is what happens at the University of Southern Queensland. As the member for ToowoombaSouth said, that is what happens particularly at a large number of the regional universities, where thathistory of political activity has not been involved. Some people say that this is a vendetta because thereis an image that student union activities are overtly left-wing or radical. Occasionally, conservativestudents are elected to power.

I am sure members will remember when, for example, Victoria Brazil was elected at theUniversity of Queensland. I was actually at the University of Queensland at that stage. I was notinvolved in student politics. I was not interested in it at that stage. Those who were not aligned withVictoria’s philosophical position were just as dismayed at the way that the student guild operated at thatstage.

As far as I am concerned, if we took out the politics—Left, Right or anywhere else—then peoplewould be much more interested in supporting their student guild. If the fees were directed at actuallyproviding student services that added to the experience of the students participating then it would be afar more valuable body for the students. If that were the case, I can assure members that we would notbe in the position we are in now where the federal government wants to introduce VSU. It is because ofthe wastage and because of some of the activities that have been conducted that we are in the positionnow where the federal government has introduced legislation that proposes to make student unionismvoluntary.

I think that university guilds or unions at most campuses do provide some important services andsome important facilities. There are, particularly at the large urban campuses, instances where theybecome overtly political. I think that is where a lot of the philosophy that we are seeing expressed notonly by the federal coalition government but also by a lot of the Labor Party members in the Housetoday has developed.

The University of Southern Queensland is a young university, as the member for ToowoombaSouth said. It does not have the large student numbers that the University of Queensland, the Universityof Sydney, the University of Melbourne, QUT or others have so it cannot operate some of the servicesthat they provide on a commercial basis. There is no way in the world that it would be able to get acommercial provider to come in and run the refectory or catering at the University of SouthernQueensland because the volume simply is not there. There are long periods of time when there are nostudents at all on the campus. So if the guild does not run these things then there is a strong possibilitythat it is not viable for a private entrepreneur to enter into providing that service.

That is one example, but there are a number of other important student services that the guildprovides that would not be provided if the guild did not provide them. Likewise, if the guild did notprovide for the development of some of the infrastructure on the campus—whether it is the sportinginfrastructure, as the member for Toowoomba South alluded to, such as the football fields or the Clive


Berghoffer Recreation Centre—it would not be provided because the university does not have money toprovide it. They are directing money largely towards the academic side of the student experience.

I think it is important that those facilities are provided at our university campuses. They providesomething extra for the student’s university experience. They are also facilities that are available to ourcities. As I said previously, I use the gym at the University of Southern Queensland. It is a fantasticfacility. I pay for the privilege of doing that.

Dr Flegg: Is that how you got that good body? Mr COPELAND: I did not say I use it often! There are extra facilities for our city. The University of

Queensland campus—and I do not want to be picking on the University of Queensland; it is simplywhere I have had my experience—is largely developed. It has vast facilities that have been developedover a long period of time. It would be able to survive, I am sure, without the money that comes viastudents fees. I think should there be no—

Mr Hoolihan interjected. Mr COPELAND: In the amendment we have moved, there should be a levy imposed. If there is

no compulsion to pay those fees then students will not pay them. Whether students like a service or not,they will not pay. Having been a student, I know that there is no way in the world I would have paid if Ihad the choice not to.

I think it has been recognised in the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of theOpposition that there are certain services and infrastructure that we believe are important. The only wayto get those fees is to apply a levy. If a levy is not imposed then there is going to be a shortfall in themoney that is needed to run our university campuses. It may be that some campuses are able to getsponsorship. I have my suspicions that that will not happen, although there are some sponsorship dealsthat are done from time to time for particular activities. It may be that a university may be able to get acommercial operator to come in. That would work for the larger campuses better than it would for thesmaller campuses.

If there is no levy or no money coming in, then the money has to come from somewhere. Whetherthat is from the university itself or whether it has to come from the federal government, who knows. Butthe money has to come from somewhere. At the moment it comes from student fees. With regard tomany of the activities provided by the student guild, if they are not provided by the guild they have to beprovided by someone else or there are going to be, I fear, some ramifications for those campuses.

I certainly fully support the need for good governance guidelines for student unions and studentguilds, because at the moment there are none. Some universities may impose it from their senate, but itis not a requirement. I certainly believe that they should be introduced so that the student unions andstudent guilds have clear guidelines under which they have to operate in order to alleviate the wastagethat does occur. One member opposite said that we have not provided any examples of wastage, but Ican assure that member that there is no doubt at all that wastage does occur, particularly in the largerstudent unions. Therefore, we support a clear framework as to the purposes for which student unionfunds are able to be used.

There is a long history to this debate, as members have said. I do have some concerns shouldthe voluntary student union legislation go through as proposed by the federal government without somemodifications, but I also believe that there does need to be some modernisation of the way studentunions and student guilds operate. We have to get them to focus clearly on the provision of services andinfrastructure. Whenever political activity is involved, a large proportion of the student body feelsalienated by that—whether it is the Left, the Right or the centre. Whoever is in power, there are going tobe people who feel alienated and feel that their student fees are not being used in an appropriate way.That is exactly where we are today and why the legislation is before the federal government.

As I said, I have clearly expressed my views to the federal government on this issue. Icongratulate the University of Southern Queensland, because it has a very long history of not being apolitical organisation. I have worked hand in hand with it to address a range of issues since I becamethe member for Cunningham, because the university does sit in my electorate. Kevin Stapleton, whoruns the guild, and his offsider Trevor Watts have done a good job. They show what can happen when astudent guild does focus on what I think are the right things that student guilds should focus on and notget involved in all of the associated political activity that really does alienate an awful lot of people whenit comes to their union fees.

Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (4.22 pm): On 24 March this year I first voiced my opposition tothe federal government’s attack on university student unions and the proposed voluntary studentunionism legislation, so I am pleased to rise to support the motion moved by the Minister for Educationand the Arts. I agree that the introduction of voluntary student unionism is nothing more than a blatantideological attack on our universities and on our unions. Why is it an ideological stance? Because it isclear that the federal government and Brendan Nelson view universities as breeding grounds for left-wing politics because they more often than not dare to criticise the federal government.

Mr Pearce: The word ‘union’.


Mrs REILLY: And it is the word ‘union’. I thank the member for Fitzroy for his interjection. It is theword ‘union’ that they find offensive. That is for greater minds to analyse at a different time than this, butit is worth a thesis in itself. Federal education minister Brendan Nelson is desperate to convinceAustralians that student unions are some sort of clandestine communist agencies that force unwittinginnocent young adults to pay up against their will to subsidise frivolous activities which only few studentsaccess and enjoy. The attitude that is underpinning that ideology—that is, ‘If I don’t want it, I’m notpaying for it’—just does not work in real life. Yet it is sadly becoming an attitude which, peddled by theLiberals and conservative right wingers, is starting to pervade much of society. Yet if we actually livedit—if we tried to put it into practice—we would quickly find that society and life as we know it wouldcollapse.

University campuses are more than a location for academic learning. They are a microcosm ofsociety. They are places where people live, eat, sleep, learn, study, socialise, exercise, compete, makefriends, do business, research, support or seek guidance and counselling. In short, many campusesprovide a home away from home for students from remote locations throughout Australia and indeedfrom around the world. As the member for Murrumba said earlier, many of them are the size of smallcities. So to claim that only those who use the facilities and services should pay for them is akin tosaying that only sick people should pay for our public hospitals or only those who have children shouldhave their taxes put towards schools. It is a fluffy-sounding ideological nonsense which would bedangerous if put into practice. Imagine what would happen to all of our essential services andinfrastructure if only those who wanted to or volunteered to pay income tax or GST actually paid it. Yetthis is exactly what the federal government is proposing for our university campuses.

Student unions, guilds and associations are the backbone of every university and an integral partof the social and economic fabric of every campus. Voluntary student unionism would starve theseorganisations of funds, spelling an end to services such as free legal advice, subsidised child care,academic advocacy, free taxation and insurance support, academic and employment assistance,medical care and guidance, and personal counselling. The list is endless. Then there is the inevitableloss of jobs which would flow from the loss of these services. When I went to university straight out ofschool at the age of 17, I used support services such as the counselling and the academic advice, thesubsidised canteen—I could not have afforded to eat if there was not cheap food on offer that wasrelatively yummy and somewhat nutritious—the careers counsellor, the accommodation adviser, theemployment service and the Union Shopper. I relied on all of those things because I could not haveaccessed those services on the free and open market.

I did not even join a club at first, but I did not have a problem paying the student fee because Iknew that those were services that I could not afford otherwise. When I did start joining clubs andextending my social circle, as members opposite should do, I found the world of opportunities to try newthings and to meet new people endless and exciting. I believe it is these experiences which enrich thewhole person and shape who we become as much as the hours spent in lectures and bent over books.The extent to which individual students access or participate in these social and recreational activities isvaried and entirely up to them, but to suggest that they should not exist because not everyone usesthem is like saying that we should not have art galleries and museums because some people do nothave time to visit them.

During the course of my tertiary studies I was a student at Griffith, the University of Queenslandand QUT and I later worked at Griffith University’s Gold Coast campus. At the Gold Coast campus Iworked very closely with the student guild to promote the campus, its graduates and its groundbreakingresearch. Griffith University’s Gold Coast campus student guild is the least politically active of anycampus I have ever visited. In fact, I think Brendan Nelson is probably very fond of it, as must be hisLiberal colleague the federal member for Moncrieff, Steven Ciobo, because its constitution does noteven allow overt political or religious affiliated organisations to form on campus. Yet that has nothindered the Liberal Party’s creeping contamination of this fine institution.

But make no mistake: this guild, like all others, and the services it provides will cease to exist ifstudent union fees are reduced or made voluntary. Student unions like this one run many corporateservices. They run the business of servicing a university, and the students, the academics and thevisitors to the campus alike all rely on them to do that. What does Brendan Nelson have against clubsand fun anyway? Student unions run clubs, pubs and social events which provide relief from thepressure of study. The sporting events and the recreational activities provide balance and socialintegration. They produce whole, well-rounded humans. Boring Brendan ‘No Friends’ Nelson can scoffat the value of these social experiences all he wants because clearly he has missed out on them but isputting forward no alternatives for the funding of the essential services that student unions provide. Hehas failed to recognise that what makes our universities so attractive to overseas students is the wholepackage of academia and lifestyle and work and play—the total environment which each campus offers.

The federal government is asking universities to rely on full fee-paying students more and more,but one has to ask: why would a student pay to study at a campus which offers none of the services andfacilities I have already outlined if they can get an academic outcome to meet their needs elsewhere,maybe even closer to home like in the US or the UK? Australian universities compete in a ferocious


international market and they depend very much on being able to offer a total package to young peoplewho are looking to leave home and travel halfway around the world to get a degree. The majority of ouruniversity students are young people. Many are a long way from home. Many of them are from the goodNational Party-supporting families from out in the bush, and those families rely on these universitycampuses to give their students a safe and happy place to live while they study to get their degrees andbecome whole and better contributing members of society.

I cannot understand how this proposal was even born. I cannot understand why it exists. What isBrendan Nelson’s problem? How can the Liberal Party support it? To some extent I am pleased that theNational Party moved an amendment to the motion, but it fails to realise that the amendment will not fixthe problem. The amendment is saying, ‘Yes, we should have tax, but tax should pay only for hospitals,roads and schools. We should not have any libraries, museums or art galleries. People can just pay tovisit those themselves because they are frivolous and not required.’ If that is the kind of society theywant to live in, they can live in it. I prefer to live in the kind of society that provided the universityeducation that I had, and that is what I want for my children. I call on everybody to fight the voluntarystudent unionism that dictator Brendan Nelson is proposing. I support the motion.

Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (4.28 pm): The Howard government has been itchingto get its claws into voluntary student unionism for a long time. So it comes as no surprise that, withSenate control looming, voluntary student unionism legislation has seen the light of day. The Howardgovernment is having so much fun playing around with non-compulsory student unionism that we couldeven compare it to how it gets stuck into the ABC. Coalition governments have always had a hang-upthat the ABC is full of left-wingers who take every opportunity to blast the coalition’s policies and neveragree with anything it says or does. I have lost count of the number of times Liberal Party or NationalParty government members have attacked the ABC for what they allege is biased reporting.

Likewise, student unions have long been seen by the Howard government as a breeding groundfor radicals who are just itching for the opportunity to challenge them from the other side of the politicalfence, not to mention some of those nasty student union members who demonstrate on campus fromtime to time because they do not agree with the coalition’s policies. Then again, as we have heard thisafternoon, maybe it is just the word ‘union’ that does not sit well with the Howard government. We allknow what the Howard government thinks about unions. Perhaps if student unions were not calledstudent unions we would not be debating this motion today. How about calling student unions somethingnice and friendly such as ‘student community groups’ or even ‘organisations of campus colleagues’?Members will notice that I did not say ‘organisations of campus comrades’! Seriously, for Howardanything would be better than the dreaded ‘union’ word.

I know that for some students it is a struggle to pay union fees. But if all students were not payinginto a union, many on-campus amenities and services would be lost. As the member for Mudgeerabapointed out so eloquently, in the long run their university life could end up costing them more.

In that regard James Cook University is no different from other universities. Welfare andacademic support, vital subsidised health services, sport and recreational facilities, student loans andlegal and leadership programs are just a few of the services that are now taken for granted but whichwould go by the board if there was voluntary student unionism. Importantly, VSU would seriously impacton the strength that students would have in universities. Maintaining the independence of studentadvisory and support services is crucial to student welfare. My understanding is that in generaluniversities prefer to leave service provision to student organisations and that administrators wouldrather have students take any grievances they may have to a student body rather than directly to them.

The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee also regards student organisations as having alegitimate representative role. The adverse effects of VSU would be felt even more markedly in regionalcentres, where many facilities such as banking, sporting grounds, child-care centres, health services,cinemas and cultural services are opened up to local communities.

To see this, one need only look to Western Australia, where between 1994 and 2002 it was notcompulsory for university students to belong to a student union or a guild. It is first-hand experience of aprocess that just did not work. When student unionism was not compulsory in Western Australianuniversities, most commercial services continued to operate but profits were insufficient to maintain thecomprehensive range of non-cost recovery services, including publications, advice and support. Insome cases, universities had to intervene to provide financial assistance to ensure that a basic level ofstudent services was still offered. For example, at Murdoch University a whole range of student serviceswere either reduced or discontinued. It is no wonder that VSU in Western Australia is history—that isuntil the federal government has its way.

Regrettably, the Howard government has not taken the Western Australia experience intoconsideration. Students expect a quality education from our universities and, hand in hand with that,they should be able to access, as they can now, comprehensive on-campus advice and support.University life may never be the same under the regime of voluntary student unionism. The Howardgovernment is making a big mistake going down that path.


Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—NPA) (4.34 pm): I rise to speak to this motion. I support the amendmentmoved by the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that the days of compulsory unionism have gone.There used to be compulsory levies on cane growers and fruit and vegetable growers. They are nowgone, but the organisations have managed to survive. I think we are underestimating a lot of the youngpeople of today. The organisations will survive. Students will choose the services that they want and payfor them. It is inequitable that external students pay for services that they do not receive.

I have coached a lot of football teams at the Gatton campus of the University of Queensland. It isa small campus. Probably the disadvantage of having a well-funded student union was that the campusbecame isolated from the town. It is a campus of only 3,000 or 4,000 students. When that campus wasan agricultural college, a lot of students would go into town and play sport for the town teams. Theuniversity has now formed its own teams. Unfortunately, during the university holidays those teamsalmost collapsed because no students were there to play. That upset the local competition becausethose teams were forfeiting matches.

So there are definitely some benefits to student unions, but there are also some negatives.Steven Caffery is the president of the student union at the Gatton campus of the University ofQueensland. The union’s long-time executive officer is Denise Wiggins. They work very hard for thestudent union. Student unions, with voluntary membership, will survive in some form. I supportthe amendment to the motion.

Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (4.36 pm): Members of this House should be afraid—very, veryafraid. John Howard has a proven track record in allowing his ideology to blind him to the detriment ofAustralian citizens. I will roll out part of John Howard’s track record. John Howard has allowed his hatredof the MUA to virtually wipe out the Australian shipping industry. John Howard has allowed his hatred ofthe MUA to increase foreign cabotage. John Howard has allowed his hatred of the MUA to increase thesecurity risk posed to Australia via access to ports. John Howard has allowed his ideological hatred ofthe MUA to increase the number of deaths of waterside workers on the waterfront. John Howard hasallowed his hatred of states’ rights to try to tear down the very well functioning state industrial relationssystems. John Howard has allowed his ideological hatred of independent thought to attack studentunionism.

Student unionism as we know it provides a lot of services on campuses. Where will theseservices come from if John Howard gets his way? Is this legislation about cost shifting? Is it about tryingto put the financial burden for these services back on the already struggling universities? Or will JohnHoward try to flick the responsibility to fund these services to the state governments? Is this cost shiftingjust the thin end of the wedge?

The National Party moved an amendment to say that universities should be allowed to collectsome form of funding to deliver these services. Under this amendment, an already stressed universityadministration service would have to collect further funds. I am sure that all universities want increasedadministration requirements on their already overtaxed administration systems! Who then controls thespending of those funds? Do the students have a say or does the university that collects the moneydecide how the money is spent? I would prefer to trust students making decisions about students’welfare than a university’s administration service making decisions about what is best for students.

All in all, I am very concerned that John Howard does not view these issues objectively. This is anattack on student unionism. Why is he so concerned about independent thought? I went to a functionearly this morning at Kimberley College. The entire secondary college had a refugee activism day.Members of staff spoke out about their concern about the lack of alternative views put forward in today’ssociety. Staff from the school bemoaned the fact that the mainstream media presents only one view.These comments came from the teaching staff, not from me. They were keen for their secondary schoolstudents to hear an alternative point of view expressed. It is equally valid that students at ouruniversities across the country be exposed to a range of views—not only left-wing views but also right-wing, conservative views. They should be exposed to the full gamut of political debate and they shouldenjoy the full gamut of services. I commend to the House the motion moved by the Leader of the House.

Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (4.40 pm): I rise to oppose this motion and support the LiberalParty’s amendment. We have heard all the Chicken Littles on the other side claim that the sky is fallingand that if students are given a choice then all these valuable services will cease to exist. I oppose thismotion that condemns the federal government for removing compulsion and introducing choice to themembership of student unions. This is a typical left-wing philosophy: let us force people to be a memberagainst their will.

Mr Mickel: Coming from the AMA, that is a bit rich. Dr FLEGG: I will accept that interjection because membership of the AMA is quite optional. One

does not have to be a member of the AMA. Labor Party members want to make student unionismcompulsory: if we do not like it, we can leave it. That is the right that they are trying to take away fromstudents. We have seen previously how destructive this sort of compulsory unionism has been in placessuch as the waterside and how it allows a small elite to control a large organisation and a largemembership, often for its own end and not necessarily for the benefit of the membership. Compulsory


student unionism over the years has had a similar impact as compulsory unionism in other areas hashad—that is, it allows a small elite to pursue their own political objectives.

I was a student union member back in the 1970s and I was forced to pay union membership dueswhich then sponsored—

Mrs Reilly: What happened? Wouldn’t they elect you? Dr FLEGG: No. I was a medical student; we had to study. Mrs Reilly: Let the record show that every other student is just a pretend student.Dr FLEGG: I have plenty of time; I have 20 minutes. The compulsory levy that I had to pay to the

student union back in the seventies sponsored a whole array of political activities and publications. Thevast majority of them were highly offensive—

Honourable members interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Croft): Order! Members will stop interjecting! Dr FLEGG: The thrust of what was sponsored by this compulsory levy certainly did not have my

support, yet I was required to financially sponsor it. The introduction of voluntary student unionism doesnot necessarily mean an end to union services.

Mr Mickel: We will look forward to you deregulating the specialists. The AMA versus the people. Dr FLEGG: It is not surprising that that lot over the other side are in trouble running their hospitals

with that attitude. Mr Mickel: No. We have to contend with the AMA. Dr FLEGG: There they go again. I still have plenty of time; I still have 17 minutes. Mr Mickel: How are you going to fill it in? You haven’t got any arguments. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members will stop interjecting. I ask the member to refer

back to his speech. Dr FLEGG: The introduction of voluntary student unionism does not necessarily mean an end to

union services, and I note part 3 of the motion. I have no problem at all with the appreciation of the valueof services on university campuses. What the introduction of voluntary membership will establish is theconcept of accountability. Students will have a choice about whether or not they wish to support theleadership and what the leadership offers them. Quite frankly, on our side we welcome the concept thatthe leadership has to earn the support and the monetary support of its membership and not be able todepend on laws to force people to financially back activities that that they do not wish to be part of. Infact, the compulsory student union levy is a tax on students. Predominantly those students will be low-income earners, as I am sure most of us were in our student days. It is somewhat surprising for thoseopposite, who like to consider themselves champions of the disadvantaged and the low-income earnersin our community, to wish to have a tax applied compulsorily to low-income students.

In terms of clubs, child care, sports facilities and so forth, one can accept the value that thesefunctions place on the university but, quite frankly, I have great difficulty accepting the principle ofapplying a tax to all students regardless of whether the services provided are of the nature envisaged inthis motion or are a more sinister and political commitment of funds. I have a problem with the issue ofapplying a tax to all students in order to fund the activities of the union. It is drawing a very long bow toassociate the application of a universal tax on students with avoiding social isolation, as this motionimplies, for regional students. Quite frankly, I am not sure that there is a legitimate link at all betweenapplying a universal tax to all students and the avoidance of social isolation.

Likewise, recreational and sporting activities can be promoted and funded by means other than auniversal tax. A tax is unlikely and historically has not been used solely or even in the majority toproduce these sorts of outcomes. Student unions will now have to organise themselves in such a waythat services remain viable and that students see merit in joining student unions. Is this not the way oflife in our community? One joins and financially supports organisations that earn one’s respect andsupport, and one exercises one’s free right to resign or not to join organisations that move in directionsone does not support or that divert funds to political activities that one does not agree with. Frankly, Ithink this motion is an attempt on the part of some in the government to appeal to a small vocal left-wingstudent group who see their power base being eroded by moderate and mainstream students choosingnot to give their support to radical political elements.

In the general community, child care, sporting facilities, welfare services and measures to avoidsocial isolation are not linked to a political philosophy. An organisation supporting these groups has asits central role the provision of the service itself, not that of establishing a power or financial base forpolitical activity. Left-wing student politicians will now have to face the reality that the rest of our societyfaces—that is, that their membership does not always agree with their point of view and will not alwayssupport them, and that the provision of the types of services and activities should be independent of thepolitical philosophy of student leaders.


My message to members of the government is for them to go out and tell their left-wing studentactivist mates that they will not have a captive base, that the majority of students are moderate and thatthere is no place in modern Australia for a compulsory tax to fund the political activism and ideology ofother people.

Government members interjected.Dr FLEGG: It is very good to see them enjoying themselves. I really like that. If they wish to

support the services component of student unions, they should ensure that there are high-qualityservices which students wish to support in ways other than being required to pay a compulsory levy. Theargument that the government is trying to put forward on this issue is a pretty hard one to argue: thatstudents want to use the services but they will not voluntarily pay to support them.

I have summed up my thoughts about this anachronistic idea of making people pay compulsorylevies, not as we heard from a number of members opposite to the community as a whole through theGST—as one member likened it to—but compulsory levies to a small organisation, whether it be in thiscase a political organisation or whether it be a social organisation. The whole concept of makingpayment to those sorts of organisations compulsory without any choice, and therefore removing theresponsibility the leadership has to the membership in order to encourage people to voluntarily join, isan anachronism from the past and Australia has moved on from that. We no longer believe in makingpeople do things and financially support movements and activities that they do not wish to be a part of.So we are opposed to the motion and support the Liberal Party amendment.

Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (4.51 pm): I rise with much pleasure to speak to the motionmoved by the Leader of the House. I urge all sides of politics to really read what the motion says and tosupport it. There have been two amendments moved by the Liberal Party and the National Party. Itseems that the Liberal Party will be a bit of a problem if it ever gets into power because there will be awhole heap of councils who will be able to say to people, ‘We are going to impose rates but if you do notget one of the services we offer then you will not have to pay any rates.’

Mrs Reilly: Voluntary rates. Mr HOOLIHAN: Voluntary rates. The voluntary nature that the Liberal Party talks about relates

only to those people who they believe should be able to afford to pay those fees—meaning people whowould support the Liberals.

Central Queensland University is in my electorate, and it has a large campus in Rockhampton. Ithas campuses right across regional Queensland, in Sydney and in Fiji. It has a very large number ofoverseas students. One of the difficulties with those overseas students relates to social isolation, whichhas been raised as something that we should not worry about. Those students get great benefit fromtheir membership of the student association at Central Queensland University.

The National Party is proposing in its amendment that there be a voluntary union membership butthat the federal government impose a levy. To me, that sounds very much like moving the deck chairs onthe Titanic because the levy, I am almost willing to bet, will be around about the same value as studentunion membership is currently. As it stands at the present time, universities impose the unionmembership as part of their fee structure, it is then paid to the student association and it provides theservices and facilities on the various campuses. That assistance runs to a lot more than the concerns ofthe Liberal Party that somebody would—shock, horror!—be involved in politics. Student welfareservices, child care, clubs and societies and sporting facilities are all provided as part of thatmembership. To say, ‘You don’t have to pay that because you don’t want to play one of those sports,’ isthe same as having optional rates or optional anything else. If you do not get it, do not pay for it.

I should indicate that I have acted for the student association in the Central QueenslandUniversity for 18 years, and I am also involved with two sporting clubs which are CQU oriented and formpart of those sporting clubs. I wonder if the Liberal Party could indicate to the House how the CentralQueensland University chess club can have any effect on left- or right-wing politics. That really is amatter for the Liberals. I would recommend to the National Party that it withdraw its amendment andsupport the motion moved by the Leader of the House as it is exactly the same as having the currentunion membership.

I know ‘union’ has become a dirty word to the Liberal and National parties, but if they bother tohave a look at one of the meanings of ‘union’ they will see that it is ‘an organisation of a college oruniversity that provides facilities for recreation’, and that is exactly what most student unions andstudent associations do. We have heard from the member for Toowoomba South and the member forCunningham about how good the guild is for the University of Southern Queensland, but once again thatis only a different name. Shakespeare said, ‘A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.’ It is not aguild; it is a student union. The student association in Rockhampton is not an association; it is a union,and it provides all of those benefits—mostly subsidised benefits—for those students who attend.

In terms of those people who say that they would pay for only those areas that they want, in myexperience people do not pay for anything unless they are forced to in terms of an overall levy, which isthe word used by the National Party. I commend the motion to the House.


Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (4.57 pm): I rise to participate briefly in this debate andnote that the ideals of unionism are very good. In fact, in researching it, they were started by pastors andother caring Christians in England to get kids out of coalmines. A very close friend of mine, Jenny Gunn,is the USQ student counsellor at Hervey Bay and has a tremendous role in supporting students who aregoing through difficult times and through not-so-difficult times.

In my own experience, when I began a Master of Business degree externally through theUniversity of Southern Queensland in Toowoomba I first came across student union fees. I remember atthe time querying the fact that as I lived in Maryborough I would not get the same benefits as would thepeople living on campus for the same price. But what I really want to touch on in today’s debate is a verydifficult story from a very close friend of ours—a family friend in Maryborough whose father recentlyunfortunately died in his early fifties. As she shared a house with her dad, she was absolutelydevastated and spiralled into depression. Unfortunately, during that time she had been sent some billsand reminder notices for her student union fees but was in such a state of trauma from losing her dadthat she did not open any of her mail for quite some time. Unfortunately, as a result she had hermembership of that particular course cancelled. She is studying nursing at Hervey Bay university andbasically lost the whole semester because she did not pay her union fees.

We took her case to the federal minister and we took it to the university council and nobody wouldoverturn that decision. She lost a whole semester of study because she was depressed when her daddied. When she first came to see me about that, I thought that would be a very simple thing to overturngiven her circumstances. I have some degree of suspicion about compulsory student unionism basedon things like that. I believe that student unions should be able to sell their services based on thebenefits to their members. If the proposition is good enough and stacks up, people will participate.

I want to close my very short contribution to this debate with a quote from HL Mencken thatsays—Unionism seldom, if ever, uses such power as it has to ensure better work; almost always it devotes a large part of that power tosafeguarding bad work.

I think the altruistic notion of unions and what they set out to do is a wonderful thing, but too oftenit becomes a stick to beat people with.

Ms MOLLOY (Noosa—ALP) (5.00 pm): I find this day a very sad day indeed. In fact, it is tragic tobe standing in the House in an attempt to turn back the Howard tide of right-wing badness. The Howardtide is rolling back the benefits of student unionism that we have all supported for the past 30 years inone way or another. Brendan Nelson—God help us—is committed to running down and rammingthrough this legislation in the federal government. By now most people I deal with know that I am apassionate advocate of education at all levels, especially at the tertiary level. Members are all awarethat my husband, Ivan, lectures in international relations at the Sunshine Coast University. My Honorleehas graduated from USC. Melanie is a student there, as am I. I hope my Bonnie will study law, medicineor philosophy like her sisters at our uni, and no doubt she will. Brendan Nelson was reported to me aswanting to know who the red-ragger was at Sippy Downs. This was reported to me by a very prominentmember of our community.

I believe this federal legislation is the tip of the iceberg. Next we will see the individual bargainingenter the negotiations for employing academics. If one happens to be ideologically opposed to theHoward regime, their contract will not be renewed. Last week I heard the member for Surfers Paradisequote a Griffith University academic economist—I think his name was de la Mara. He was slamming theBeattie government, so I guess he has joined the Howard regime’s conga line and is earning merit forhis future employment. Brendan Nelson may get this legislation through but he is not rid of us yet. Weshall continue to hold him and the sloths of MPs in his party on the Sunshine Coast accountable,whether it be for their disastrous involvement in Iraq, making this country the aggressor—yes, we arethe aggressors—or for this assault on Australian culture. I suggest that he is a vulture.

What will be lost? And where do we start? Regional universities will suffer the most. Sippy Downsis earmarked for a new sporting facility, and I bet it will all stop there. It is a small, new uni struggling toestablish itself, but now the federal government goes and cuts it off at the knees. It is a monster. Wecannot even raise revenue from catering because that was given away from the first to a privateprovider. Tell me, Brendan, how do you sleep at night?

When I first started studying we were a struggling young family, and I was working and studyingwith young children. I could barely afford the books. If it had not been for the subsidised child care, Iwould never have been able to manage. I was able to access child care at La Trobe University andMonash University. The federal bill will destroy all those services—the health service, the low-cost food,the sporting facilities and the list goes on. I was an enrolled nurse trying to better my life. I saw tertiaryeducation as the light at the end of the tunnel in so many ways—like so many other people—not just asa pay packet but as an emotional, spiritual and intellectual experience. With the help of friends andfamily, my tertiary studies changed my life. The other services I accessed supported me during thisextremely important transitional phase of my life. I have witnessed thousands of people of all shapesand sizes walking around university campuses who have benefited from the student services provided.


Many of my friends were in the same boat as we were, and because of the support provided to helpthem they have gone on to enjoy quite remarkable careers. The next generation is being robbed of allthat.

The federal bill is another attempt to secure a fully privatised tertiary education system. We allknow that the Young Liberals fail to secure a base on student campuses. This is more a move to silencethe young voices of dissent, and I commend the motion to the House.

Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (5.04 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the motion beforethe House. It is not often that we have a motion and an amendment moved in relation to that motion andthen an amendment moved in relation to the amendment to the motion. So it certainly is an issue ofinterest to many members in this House, and I realise that the vote will be taking place very shortly.

I contacted the Sunshine Coast University student guild to find out what its view was in relation tothe motion currently before the House. I was advised that—The University of the Sunshine Coast Student Guild fully supports Anna Bligh’s motion. USC is a new university hence the Guild has no alternative sources of income. The Guild’s many services depend totally onincome from students. Then I was informed that—The use of Guild funds for political purposes is excluded under our Constitution. In addition, Guild Directors receive no money fortheir work and—in their words—we have never, and will never, use our funds for anything other than for services to students and student welfare.

I seek leave to table nine pages from the notes of the Sunshine Coast University student guildservice for the June 2005 period. It starts by stating—Below is a list of services offered by the University of the Sunshine Coast student guild. We would further like to point out that inproviding these services the guild has no political or religious affiliations. Within the nine pages it states—The following is a statement of the volunteer duties carried out by individual students of the University of the Sunshine Coaststudent guild. All directors and staff are required to obtain working with children blue cards.

Leave granted. Mr WELLINGTON: When I was trying to form an opinion on how I would vote on this matter, I was

very impressed by the National Party’s amendment to the motion. What impressed me was that it wastalking about ensuring there is funding available so that student guilds are able to continue to providethe very important service they provide. I was very impressed with that.

The other thing that struck me in listening to the various members’ contributions is that thereseems to be a real inequality in the current system, where students who simply cannot afford union feesare forced to pay them and do without things such as books or other important needs. There is nocapacity for means testing. There is no capacity for any equality between students’ ability to pay orstudents’ inability to pay. The member for Maryborough gave a real life example of a student who waspenalised simply because they did not pay the union fee when in actual fact there was a genuinehardship case which I would have thought should have justified an exemption so they did not have topay that union fee.

I gave a commitment to my colleague the member for Caloundra that I would speak as quickly asI could so that he can make a contribution to this debate. Without further ado, I put on the record that Ibelieve the Nationals’ amendment is reasonable because it ensures that there is a requirement forongoing funding to ensure that the student guilds are able to continue to do the very important work thatis required. I indicate that I will be supporting the Nationals’ amendment when the vote is token.

Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (5.07 pm): As a passionate believer in Queensland’spositioning as the Smart State, I am naturally disturbed and concerned by any threat to highereducation, for without universities which operate at peak efficiency we are hamstringing ourselvesirretrievably. Therefore, I must draw attention to the federal government’s appalling and ill-consideredvoluntary student unionism legislation.

Currently it seems that this destructive legislation will be passed along party lines by the soon-to-be consecutive dominated Senate and with no apparent examination of the very real human andeducational consequences. Among his glib and insensitive remarks about the Lego Club, BrendanNelson seems to be arguing along the lines of choice—that students should be able to choose whetheror not to participate in student unions. What he deliberately omits is that choice will no longer be anissue when the lack of funds will leave students with nothing to choose.

This is a clear indication that this legislation has nothing to do with students and everything to dowith a federal Liberal government attacking anything that contains the name ‘union’. This legislation isbased on spite. It will do nothing except undermine the quality of university life and cause hundreds ofjob losses in Queensland and thousands Australia-wide. I note that this drastic job loss has escapedmention in any federal government discussion of this legislation.


I do not know exactly how many members here went to university and are aware of the servicesprovided by student unions. While there are the obvious services such as the refectory and foodservices, clubs and societies, postgraduate services and the like, I draw particular attention to some ofthe services provided by the welfare organiser at the University of Queensland; for example, supportand referral for students experiencing domestic violence or sexual assault, support and referral forwomen with eating disorders, tenancy advice and advocacy to students, including many internationalstudents who find themselves in a situation where the agent or lessor is taking advantage of theirunfamiliarity with the Queensland tenancy law.

Why have I chosen these examples? They are all services which the community would applaudfor their social responsibility and would wholeheartedly support in any context. Yet the VSU legislationwill guarantee their disappearance, along with many other services of no less social value. By denyingstudents their rights to access these services, as a consequence of the legislation, the federalgovernment is showing the same dehumanising regard that they have shown to detainees.

What is the impact of this legislation? Apart from the large-scale job losses that I have mentioned,consider the impact on the students themselves. The transition to university is difficult for manystudents. Some have to relocate from home and family across potentially large distances. Let usconsider a student from a rural background, perhaps someone from an electorate with a National Partyrepresentative. This student, experiencing the normal difficulties of university life and the loneliness ofbeing some distance from home, seeks support and wanders through the huge campus only to findclosed doors and perhaps a single hotdog stand as a testament to the uncaring legislation whichcallously disregarded this student’s human needs. Thus, the student struggles through a universitydegree, not enriched by the full panorama of university life but diminished by a campus devoid ofservices, and daunting to the point where our young rural and potential National Party voter feels unableto finish the degree and returns home, sadder and no wiser. A potential future contributor to the SmartState is lost in the wake of the callous disregard of the federal government.

However, perhaps it is not yet a fait accompli. I urge my government colleagues to vigorously doall they can to oppose this legislation and I urge the members of the National and Liberal parties todiscuss with their Senate colleagues the very real marginalisation that will be suffered by the sons anddaughters of their constituents. The Smart State needs higher education to be attractive; it needsuniversities to be fully functioning and dynamic centres of learning to which student unions make a veryreal contribution. The fact is that voluntary student unions will lead to a reduction in services ofapproximately 100 per cent. If this state government, with the help of enlightened members of theNational and Liberal parties who see their duty and join us, cannot stop this cruel legislation then wemust be prepared to examine ways to assist in the maintenance of student union services which areunder dire threat. The trade union movement will not suffer as a consequence of this legislation or evenunionism as a concept; the cost will be human. There will be job losses and barren campuses without asingle tangible benefit to show for it.

Therefore, I urge all members who sit in parliament in this state and in parliaments in all states, onboth sides of the House, to consider adding their voice and their efforts to consigning this legislation tothe waste basket. If not, that waste basket will be full of jobs and the services vital to keeping highereducation and our universities working as valued contributors to Queensland’s future. I support themotion moved by the member for South Brisbane.

Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (5.13 pm): I rise to support the further amendment proposed bythe member for Surfers Paradise with regard to voluntary student unionism. The topic is not difficult tograsp. Either we make student unionism voluntary or we make it compulsory. Either we give studentsthe freedom of choice or we tell them to do as they are told. Simply put, that is the question.

This government wants to tell students that they have no choice, they have no rights and they willdo as they are told. The federal approach, and the democratic approach, is that this country believes inthe principles of democracy and respects people’s rights to make their own determinations.

Any organisation, including a student union, will be successful if it provides the servicesand amenities needed by its members. If an organisation cannot provide those services then, clearly, itshould not exist. As a consequence, loss of membership and income will be required to be addressedby the union. It will need to adopt a business-like approach, as opposed to a trade union approach, to itsday-to-day operations. Unions will have to compete with other organisations and individuals whoprovide services both on and off campus. That must be a positive outcome. In a country that valuescompetition across all fields—sporting, business and other fields—the drive to succeed in anyendeavour is to be applauded. Surely this government is not saying that student unions should besacrosanct and protected, and that anybody who attends university is required to join this body.

The federal government is not opposed to student organisations and, in fact, it readily pursuescontinued growth in membership, but a growth in membership that reflects the importance and credibilityof the organisation as seen through the eyes of the greater student body. Again, this is a matter for theunion to pursue and it is one that it should now take on board of its own volition, as opposed to theprotective barrier proposed by the state government in its motion tonight.


The introduction of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-FrontStudent Union Fees) Bill 2005 by the federal government will ensure that higher education providerscannot force a student to be a member of a student association, union or guild. Students will not berequired to pay fees to a provider or any other entity unless they choose to use an amenity, service orfacility provided by that body. When one thinks about it, that is exactly what we do every day. If we wantto use a restaurant, gym or any other service, it is only at the point of making that determination anddoing so that we pay a fee. Why should student unions be any different? As I said, to be successful intoday’s society, one needs to be competitive. The same principle needs to be applied to student unions.

The issue before the House today has been seen as one involving a multitude of persons andparties. On 11 May this year, the Senate referred the bill to a committee and that committee called forsubmissions to be sent by 17 June 2005. At the end of May 2005, only three submissions had beenreceived. As of today, only eight submissions have been received. Of all of the submissions received,only one was received from a student union. Throughout the whole of this country, only one studentunion body has bothered to show concern and write to the committee about this bill.

This paucity of numbers raises a real question about whether it is more important in the minds ofmembers opposite and in the mind of this government than it is to the members of student unions thatthis matter be dealt with today. The evidence to date clearly indicates that the student body throughoutAustralia does not consider this a critical issue. They do not believe that the issue of unionism impactsupon their future. Students want to achieve an education and a future for themselves, their family andtheir children. In the final analysis, it comes down to a point of whether students should have a right todetermination. In that regard, I support the further amendment proposed by the member for SurfersParadise.

Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (5.17 pm): It is my pleasure to support the motion moved bythe member for South Brisbane. This is yet another example of a 30-year-old ideological obsession ofJohn Howard. When he was a member of the Fraser federal government in 1977, Senator John Carrickwas the federal minister for education. He initiated and orchestrated a campaign against student unionsthroughout Australia during that time, aided and abetted by the Liberal student associations on mostcampuses throughout Australia. I personally witnessed the destructive behaviour of the Liberal studentsassociation at the Australian National University where I was then a student. Now here we are, revisitingthis issue. Fortunately, it was defeated back then, but here we are revisiting it in the year 2005 with JohnHoward as Prime Minister.

The personal experience of a number of members as students at various universities has led tosome well-informed comments being made today. My observations are also based upon the sevenyears that I studied at the ANU. However, even in these modern times, it is clear that the advantagesand attributes of student unionism in those days are still very much in evidence at university campusesaround the country today.

In my view, the federal government has introduced this legislation to destroy many of theessential services provided by student organisations on Queensland university campuses. Thislegislation, if passed by the federal parliament, would make it illegal for all universities to levy any feeson students that are used to fund a broad range of essential services that are designed to foster theacademic and non-academic welfare of the entire student population.

I have spoken to a number of representatives of the student guild of the Queensland University ofTechnology. They have advised that there are a range of services offered by that student guild that willcease to exist under voluntary student unionism. They include, for example: academic advocacy forservices in dealing with grievances with the university in such matters as the review of grades andexclusion from the institution; subsidised child-care services; services designed to improve the non-academic welfare of students such as Austudy, HECS and taxation advice; accommodation and part-time employment assistance; free student accident insurance; recreation services such as clubs andsocieties, bands and live entertainment; sporting facilities and scholarships; specialist internationalstudent support services; free shuttle buses between all three QUT campuses; and free legal advice,just to name a few.

The services student organisations provide are often the difference between a student completingtheir degree and dropping out. If they cease to exist students will no longer have a safety net to fall backon if they experience difficulties. Also, university is more than going to lectures and doing exams. Thedestruction of all social, sporting and recreational activities on campus will destroy the universityexperience for all students in this state. Australia is almost alone in believing that its students do notdeserve a broad range of services to assist them during their time at university. The only other country inthe world that has voluntary student unionism in place is China.

The university student union organisations fund a range of services designed to improve andenhance the experience of university by students. Though the prospect of a voluntary student feesounds good in theory, in reality it means the closure of university student unions. It is human nature notto pay a fee if one does not have to. For example, who would pay tax if it were voluntary? Consequently,this legislation will eliminate or greatly reduce the funding of services currently offered by studentorganisations in this state.


The reason these services are necessary is that university can be a lonely and intimidatingexperience for first-year students, particularly for students coming from country places, as I did when Ifirst went to university. Many are forced to leave home and financially support themselves through paidemployment for the first time in their lives. They also no longer have the reassurance of their schoolfriends around. Rather, they find themselves surrounded by thousands of strangers—that was myexperience at ANU—from places that they have often not heard of. In my case they came from aroundthe whole country and not just southern New South Wales. University is also a totally different learningexperience. Instead of having the one-on-one attention of a teacher to guide them through their studies,they are now in classes of hundreds where their individual needs can be easily overlooked. Thankfully,for these students there has always been a student union to help them through this difficult time. Theirstudent organisation helps them find accommodation and part-time employment, advocates for them invarious dispute situations and funds clubs that they can become a member of which helps themintegrate into the social life of university.

The legislation proposed by the federal government essentially adds up to an attack on universitystudents on a number of fronts. In addition to the things that my colleagues have drawn attention to thisafternoon, university is probably the first experience that students have of the democratic process withinthe community in which they live and the means by which people can pursue collective action to achievereal outcomes for people. Secondly, university life illustrates well the principle that the real needs ofindividual students can only properly be met by the collective efforts of all where the burden of servicedelivery is shared equally by everyone.

The federal government does not like dissent. It does not like an organised vehicle for expressinga voice against anything that it wants to do. Just as it is attacking the trade union movement in thebroader community, the organised voice of labour, it is attacking the organised voice of students. Itcannot live with the voice that it hears and it would prefer silence. It wants to silence all organiseddissent. Let us not move away from the political reality of it. That is what Senator John Carrick wanted toachieve in 1977. The federal government was not able to achieve it then. But, rest assured, it will try andtry again. It is again trying to do just that. This legislation needs to be opposed and defeated. Iwholeheartedly support the motion.

Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (5.25 pm): I rise today in opposition to the motion moved by theminister for education that attacks the federal government for its move towards voluntary studentunions. The Liberal Party has been opposed to compulsory student unionism for the past 25 years. Weare not opposed to student unionism. Contrary to the Labor Party’s assumption that it is because of theword ‘union’ that we are opposed to it, it is because of the word ‘compulsory’. Let me also say that theLiberal Party fully encourages students to attain a higher education and to develop a voice of their own,not one dictated by their more vocal peers.

I congratulate the Howard government for introducing the Higher Education Support Amendment(Abolition of Compulsory Up-Front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005. This legislation will afford universitystudents the same rights that they enjoy outside the university environment where they will not be forcedto pay fees for non-academic student services. I take this opportunity to endorse the views stated by thehonourable members for Robina and Caloundra with regard to the Senate committee looking at thisissue. As of lunchtime today only eight submissions had been received and only one from a studentunion body. Before proceeding any further I wish to place on record my endorsement forthe amendment moved by the member for Surfers Paradise expressing support for voluntary unionmembership.

The Labor Party is blinded by politics and cannot see the benefits that voluntary student unionismwould deliver to the student population. The Labor Party has argued that the Howard government istrying to rid universities of unions, that the Liberal Party is trying to prevent students from having a voiceat university and that services will be crippled. This could not be further from the truth. In reality, theLabor Party is terrified that it will lose its access to public money unmatched by any sense ofresponsibility in its use. The evidence is quite clear.

Unlike the Beattie government, we believe in freedom of speech. We do not have a problem withuniversity unions. What we have a genuine problem with is students being forced to join these unions.The Liberal Party’s philosophy is to give students a choice as to whether or not they join a union.Students are capable of making decisions for themselves and should not be forced to pay for servicesthat they do not utilise. Student elections typically have a dismal voting turnout, which means that thestudent council represents a very small percentage of the student population.

The suggestion of the Labor Party that abolishing compulsory student union fees will lead to thefolding of vital student services such as clubs and societies, thus destroying vibrant university life, isabsolute rubbish. It stands to reason that if the services, clubs and societies in question are important tothe student body then they will be supported and they will remain. It therefore becomes theresponsibility of those who support the union to convince those who do not as to the real benefits ofjoining.

08 Jun 2005 Office of the Speaker 1905

The experience in Western Australia since the introduction of VSU shows that services willremain and that the unions will continue to attract student memberships. Student unions, just like otherassociations, can be responsive to their members and can determine what sorts of services andfacilities their members would want and offer them. The opposite can also hold true. Complaints havebeen made by disgruntled students, who are forced to pay the fees, about decisions made by studentunions regarding the way their money is being spent. In some cases, such as the following, they weredownright appalled. One example of this is the Monash University student association which usedstudent money to produce stickers that read ‘Bomb the White House’. No-one in this House canhonestly say that this money was used for the benefit of the majority of students, nor could anyone ingood conscience support it.

The Northern Territory university union took out a full-page advertisement in the Northern TerritoryNews urging a vote against the member for Solomon. Again, student money is being wasted on politicalagendas that are not supported by the majority of students whose funds are being used. Some studentsvote Labor, some vote Liberal and others vote for an assortment of other parties. The University ofQueensland’s union also deserves a mention because it consistently wastes compulsorily acquiredunion funds. It paid for a women-only surf camp. It even employed a researcher to explore the feministreclamation of an extremely crude work which refers to female genitalia.

I took particular umbrage at the comments by the member for Mudgeeraba in which shedescribed non-compulsory student unionism as fluffy ideology. The member uses analogies that areridiculous to the extreme. Instead of encouraging independence of mind and voice she is promoting thestifling of individualism.

Labor’s position on compulsory unionism is no more than camouflage to disguise its real interestin advancing left-wing politics at universities. It has a decided lack of interest in services, as do manystudents who are fully capable of buying these same services from existing sources, as does theremainder of the community. At present their capacity to make a free choice is limited by the compulsoryunion fees they pay. Students would only be advantaged if they were relieved of a compulsory fee. It isindeed strange that in this day and age we have a Soviet-style arrangement forced upon us for theprovision of services whereas the rest of the world has moved on. I have no objections to politicalactivism at universities, but I do object—and strongly—to the idea that students are compelled to fundthem. These are institutions that develop the next generation’s moral, ethical and personal values. Theyhouse our future professionals, academics, tradespeople and leaders. In closing, there has beensignificant and passionate debate on this issue, with firm views coming from both sides of the House.The Howard government, due to its coalition majority in the Senate, will ensure that free choice is givento our university students.

Debate, on motion of Mr Reeves, adjourned.

OFFICE OF THE SPEAKERMr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (5.30 pm): I move—

That this House reaffirms its support for the independence of the Speaker of parliament and calls upon the government toimplement recommendation 10 of the CMC report into the Office of the Speaker, thereby clearly preserving the separation of thisoffice from the executive government so that no retrospective travel approvals can be granted by a Premier.

The premise behind this motion is fairly clear and fairly simple: either members believe in theindependence of the Speaker of parliament or they do not. If they do believe in the independence of theSpeaker of parliament then they support this motion tonight. If they do not and want the Speaker to bebeholden in some way to the Premier of the day then obviously they oppose this motion and supportwhat the Premier plans to do in terms of possibly retrospectively approving the travel arrangements ofthe Speaker.

The CMC report lays it out quite clearly for everyone to read. When one reads the report andunderstands what the CMC is driving at, one can see why there needs to be a clear separation betweenthe Office of the Speaker and the executive arm of government. It says quite clearly that the Speaker’srole is independent of executive management and, like most Speakers’ roles internationally, thisindependence is rigorously guarded. The Speaker is ultimately accountable to parliament. Therefore,the report recommends to have the independent authorisation at a level above the Speaker for allexpenditure in relation to the Speaker—that is, authorised and approved by parliament or such a body—and the report raises some practical cases. But the implication is quite clear: members of this Houseelect their Speaker. The Speaker in his role is responsible to members of this House. Under nocircumstances should he be responsible to anyone in the executive arm of government, including thePremier.

The notion that we can have a Premier approving the travel of a Speaker and then somehowexpect the Speaker to understand that he is totally independent of the executive arm of government isjust a nonsense and should be clearly understood by everyone here. That is why the CMC went downthis path in making sure that there was a clear divide between the Office of the Speaker and the Premier

1906 Office of the Speaker 08 Jun 2005

of the day. In fact, this goes in quite a lot of detail to the Premier’s draft guidelines that he submitted tothe CMC where it indicates that it does not approve of his draft guidelines in still requiring a Speaker toapply for travel approval prior to embarking upon overseas travel.

I also find it quite amusing that the Premier on this occasion does not accept what he has alwaystermed as the independent umpire. Whenever he has a problem in government, off he trots to the CMC,places the issue before it and then calls out to everyone else to stand aside and let the independentumpire make its decision, which he will presumably abide by. But on this occasion, when theindependent umpire makes a decision that he does not like, quite clearly he says that he is not going toabide by it and proposes his own amendments. On this occasion, as I said before, the independentumpire made it quite clear that it supports the independent arrangement between the Speaker and theexecutive arm of government.

Part of the reason, I suspect, that the Premier on this occasion will not accept the CMCrecommendations is in fact he has, as he already indicated in the House, asked the Speaker toretrospectively submit a claim for approval for travel. One might impute all of the motives we like interms of the Premier here tonight about why he may or may not approve of the Speaker’s travelretrospectively, but it remains the fact that the Speaker should not have to apply to the Premier forapproval for his travel. The fact that we have found a Speaker in this position just highlights theridiculous nature of the Premier being the person who authorises the travel of the Speaker. That is thefact here. We have found ourselves in the position where we can have a retrospective authorisation oftravel. Under no circumstances should we put ourselves in this position again, and that is why thismotion tonight seeks to make sure that that cannot happen again.

We have had the drama. We have had the pain. No-one likes to see the Speaker of theparliament of Queensland put in this position, irrespective of where the blame lies. Our job is to makesure that it cannot happen again. If we accept the recommendation of the Premier of the day, we couldvery well find the same situation occurring some time in the future where the Premier says, ‘I willretrospectively approve your travel.’ We cannot have that again. So what the CMC has recognised—and we recognise—is that we need to move away from that old model, which has its flaws. We cannotkeep this model in place. What we are saying tonight is that we should adopt the CMC’srecommendations and therefore have a new model that clearly separates the executive role—theexecutive arm, if you like—of government from the Office of the Speaker.

As I said before, it has been the role of the Premier in the past to approve the travel, and mostSpeakers have abided by that. We are in this position now because the current Speaker for whateverreason did not ask for the approval, and under no circumstances should we allow that to occur again.

I do not plan to speak for all of my time. As I said before, the issue here is quite clear: eithermembers believe in the independence of the Speaker and they support this motion or they do not. Thereis nothing fancy about it. The CMC has recognised the dilemma. It has sorted out the problem for us.We should have the courage now to support the CMC’s recommendation to make sure that this cannothappen again but, more importantly, to make sure that we never have a position where the Premiercomes in and offers to retrospectively approve the travel of the Speaker. That just makes a mockery ofthe guidelines. I commend the motion to the House.

Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (5.37 pm): It gives me great pleasure to second the motion moved bythe Leader of the Liberal Party. In speaking in support of this motion, let us put matters into perspective.The debate has been precipitated—and I shall not dwell on issues relating to the present Speaker—byincidents of overseas travel having been taken seemingly on a self-approved basis, and in the ensuingdebate the matter was referred to the CMC.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Just to clarify matters that I am sure you understand, member forMoggill, this is not a substantive motion. Therefore, standing order 115 does apply and the conduct ofthe Speaker cannot be criticised in this debate. The guidelines can be spoken about, but the conductcannot be criticised. I lay this out to the House today, because it is not a substantive motion. I am surethat in what you are saying you understand that.

Dr FLEGG: I have no intention of criticising the conduct.Mr ACTING SPEAKER: This is not a substantive motion on the Speaker himself, but the

guidelines are fair game.Dr FLEGG: The Premier is a great fan of referring matters to the CMC or to other inquiries and

claiming that the matter has now been referred to them to be dealt with and that we in this parliamentneed not debate the issue any further and so forth. He is a great one for appealing to the umpire’sdecision when that decision suits him. We have seen issue after issue referred to the CMC and havebeen assured that this is the appropriate thing—that is, the CMC as the supposed independent umpirewill deal with the matter. So yet again in politically controversial circumstances issues relating to theSpeaker’s travel have been referred to the CMC to be dealt with.

We have here in the Westminster system a Speaker elected by the parliament, not appointed bythe Premier—a Speaker who, for all intents and purposes, is regarded as independent from the


government of the day. So then we have the issue having been referred to the umpire—the Premier’sbeloved umpire—and the umpire coming back and saying that the independent Speaker should not self-approve travel but should remain independent and details relating to his travel are a matter for theparliament, the very group that appointed him as Speaker.

The CMC has seen this matter in the same light as parliament generally treats the Speaker: as anindependent agent. Yet here we have the Premier—the person who is so fond of referring matters to theumpire—rejecting the umpire’s recommendation. He is saying, ‘No, the decision on whether travelshould be a public expense for the independent Speaker is a matter for the Premier of the day.’ Now theindependent Speaker has to convince the Premier of the public benefit of his travel and the Premier hasto be the arbiter of whether that travel occurs at public expense.

Over the past few days in this place we have heard some amazing statements. For the Speaker,who travelled without obtaining approval, to be invited by the Premier to apply for retrospective approvalfor that travel is a very hard argument to sell to members of the public who travel very seldom and often,when they do travel, it is at their own expense. Clearly, if travel was not undertaken according to theguidelines, it cannot be approved or changed in character retrospectively. The whole exercise ofretrospectively approving travel would appear to be a face-saving one on the part of the government.

We have a lot of precedent of the government muddying the waters when it gets into politicaltrouble. We have seen one of the best examples of that here. The government has attacked Mr NeilTurner, a man whom I have never met. Somehow or other the government argues that there is arelationship between a report that was done many years ago, which the Premier does not think is up toscratch, and whether or not travel has prior approval

Mr Shine: It is relevant, because he was the Speaker. Even you could see that.Dr FLEGG: The issue is whether the travel had prior approval. If the Labor Party, which at that

stage was in opposition, believed that there was something wrong with that report or with public fundingof that particular travel, it should have fulfilled its role as an opposition and raised the matter at the timeinstead of years later delving through the archives for something that helps it out of its political problemtoday.

Time expired. Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (5.42 pm): I move

the following amendment—That all words after ‘parliament’ are omitted and the following words inserted—

And notes that the government response to the Crime and Misconduct Commission report into the review of the financialmanagement guidelines for the Office of the Speaker requires the Premier to advise the parliament of his approval of anyoverseas travel by the Speaker along with details of that travel prior to such travel being undertaken.

This amendment puts the Premier in the gun. Under the rule changes that I propose, the Premierhas to come into this place and table the approval with certain information contained. The Speaker then,within a month of returning, has to put in a detailed report. Every six months he has to account for thecosts of his travel. Frankly, the buck has to stop with someone and the buck stops with me. I am notgoing to make any excuses for that. The other side may want to say that the Clerk should be—

Mr Quinn interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Hang on. Under the proposal from the CMC which requires the Speaker to table

certain information before a trip, as opposed to me doing it—and there are some differences in theinformation—does the member believe that it is fair to put the onus on the Clerk of the Parliament as theone who has to send the matter off to a parliamentary committee? What is wrong with us doing that?Does the member not have the guts to do that?

Mr Quinn: You’re responsible for the Speaker. Mr BEATTIE: The reality is—and the member knows it—that there should be assumed

responsibility. I believe in ministerial responsibility. It is my responsibility. I am not going to put the Clerkin that position. I think that is morally reprehensible and not morally defensible. It is all very well for themember to try to dump the responsibility on the Clerk. I will not do that. I will accept the responsibility. Iwill make the decision and I will wear the consequences. It is that simple.

Mr Shine: Responsible government. Mr BEATTIE: That is exactly what responsible Westminster government is all about. I am happy

to put myself in the gun. I will remind members opposite of the genesis of this issue and how it arrived on the desk of the

Crime and Misconduct Commission. On 16 February 2005 I referred an internal audit of the expenses ofthe Office of the Speaker to the CMC, as did the Clerk of the Parliament. I did this after taking crown lawadvice on the audit. On 8 November 2004 the Clerk had written to me to advise that he had institutedthe audit—something that I supported him on. Also, a review of the Guidelines for the FinancialManagement of the Office of the Speaker, known as the Speaker’s guidelines, had commenced.


On 23 February I said in another letter to the CMC that I was appalled by the lack of systems inplace in Parliament House, resulting in some of the issues that appear in the report concerned. On 31March I stated publicly that the Speaker’s guidelines, when finalised, would be approved by me as theminister responsible for the parliamentary service under the Financial Administration and Audit Act.

In April I sent a copy of the draft revised Speaker’s guidelines to the CMC. On 6 May Mr Hollisstood aside as Speaker after the CMC resolved to forward a report about certain aspects of hishospitality expenses to the Director of Public Prosecutions. At a media conference that afternoon Iexplained that, if Mr Hollis was not attending parliament as Speaker, he would not attend at all. Themedia understood this. That position was based on crown law advice that in order for the Speaker to beabsent from duty he would need to be absent from parliament. Indeed, I was given that advice by RobertCampbell, the Acting Crown Solicitor.

It was crystal clear from a statement issued by the CMC that same day—6 May—that matterswere being treated separately. The hospitality matters were referred to the DPP. The CMC found thatMr Hollis’s overseas travel did not raise a suspicion of official misconduct. That is something that theformal opposition has difficulty understanding and misrepresented this morning. It does that all the time.At that stage, the CMC was considering the draft Speaker’s guidelines.

I table the CMC media statement to assist the understanding of the members of the NationalParty. On 2 June the CMC released its report on the review of the financial management guidelines forthe Office of the Speaker. At the first opportunity—on Monday—cabinet considered the 28recommendations. That was just four days after the report was tabled. At the first opportunity—yesterday—I tabled the government’s response for the information of the House.

Our response on the crucial issue of overseas travel is stringent. Before any overseas travel isundertaken by the Speaker, I will table my approval, including the destinations, the purpose of the traveland the length of the travel. Within one month of returning, the Speaker must table a full report detailingthe various things that are set out in the report. I will table that information for the benefit of the House.Details of the total estimated cost of the travel are to be included in the report and/or the actual costs areto be reported in a report of office expenses to be presented to parliament on a six-monthly basis. Thesame rule applies to ministers.

On 30 May, before receiving the CMC’s recommendations, I wrote to the Speaker asking for anurgent detailed report on his overseas trips. I said that I wanted to assess the public value of his traveland would welcome him seeking my retrospective approval for trips that did not have my prior approval.I will report to the House when I have the Speaker’s final explanation. It is easy to have characterassassinations. I have put up a sensible way to deal with this issue and where responsibility is handledappropriately by me. I make no apology for that.

Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education and the Arts) (5.47 pm): I rise tosecond the amendment moved by the Premier. The motion that was moved this morning by the LiberalParty is embarrassingly and dreadfully wrong. I heard the Leader of the Liberal Party say that, in thereport of the CMC, the independent umpire made it quite clear that there should be approval of theSpeaker’s overseas travel by the Speaker himself. That is just plain wrong.

Mr Quinn: I didn’t say that. Ms BLIGH: The member’s motion implies that that is what he thinks. I have examined this report

very closely. At no point in this report does the CMC recommend that the Speaker approve his or herown travel. The prospect that the Speaker should be allowed to do so is discussed at some length bythe CMC, but the CMC does not recommend it. It has left the matter open. Given the nature of thediscussion by the CMC, the member is right in that it would have been open for the government to comeinto this place and move a motion to change the guidelines. But there are 28 recommendations and notone of those recommends that the Speaker approve his or her own travel.

As I say, I think this motion is embarrassing. Those guys have an opportunity to debate a motionon a Wednesday night four or five times a year. Yet they come into this place and move something thatis absolutely wrong. The government does not want to water down the existing arrangements. If thegovernment moved to a situation where the Speaker approved his or her own travel we believe thatwould loosen the existing arrangements. The Speaker should have to account for that travel not only tothe Premier for his approval but also to the parliament.

Recommendation 10 is about one thing and one thing only: recommendation 10 is about how theparliament should be advised of any prospective overseas travel by the Speaker and what should becontained in that advice. The government has accepted the CMC’s view that the parliament should beadvised in advance. The government, what is more, has indicated that that advice to the parliamentshould include the Premier’s approval so that there is no doubt before a Speaker travels overseas thatthe travel is approved and the parliament should have an opportunity to look at the draft itinerary and theaccompanying details, as suggested in recommendation 10. Further, the government supports the viewof the CMC that there ought to be very firm guidelines spelt out about what should be in any report thatcomes back to the parliament in that regard.


In our view, any suggestion that the Speaker should be approving his or her own travel is nothingmore than a watering down of the current arrangements. Recommendation 10 cannot be read on itsown; it needs to be read in the context in which it has been made. The paragraph immediately precedingrecommendation 10 in this report says—

Therefore, if—

and it is an important ‘if’—the Speaker’s right to initially authorise his/her own travel is incorporated in the Guidelines, some form of transparentaccountability is appropriate ...

Therefore, recommendation 10 was included. The government has gone one step furtherbecause the government has not moved for that big ‘if’. We have not said that we think the Speakershould approve his or her own guidelines. We nevertheless believe, as the CMC outlined, that theproposal to have some early notification to the parliament of prospective travel and its details is, in fact,a form of transparent accountability, and that is what is in the government’s response. The government’sresponse, which was tabled by the Premier yesterday, accepts recommendation 10 but proposes aslight change as to how it should be implemented. Contained in the government’s response—and I drawthe attention of members opposite to this—is the word ‘prior’. It states, ‘Prior to any overseas travel bythe Speaker, the Premier will table in parliament his approval of the overseas travel includingdestinations, purpose et cetera.’

The reference in the current motion put forward by the Liberal Party that recommendation 10 inany way at all has anything to do with any retrospective approval of travel or facilitates retrospectiveapproval is a nonsense. The member for Robina knows that. Recommendation 10 has nothing to dowith the Premier’s approval. It has nothing to do with the Speaker’s approval. It has to do with how andwhen the parliament is advised. That is all it has to do with and that is the only thing contained inrecommendation 10.

Mr Quinn: You should have heard what I said. Ms BLIGH: I was here and I heard what the member said. He has not read this document. He

has not read what the CMC said. He has not read the recommendations. He has not read thegovernment’s response. As I said, this is embarrassing for him. He has not read the document. He hasnot read the government response. He has cobbled together a motion that makes absolutely no senseand he expects everybody to take it seriously. It is embarrassing.

Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (5.53 pm): I rise to support the motion moved by the member forRobina and in doing so congratulate the CMC on the report it prepared into this matter and therecommendations contained therein. Once more we saw here tonight a move by the Premier to deflectthe real issues of this debate. Once more we saw the Premier drag into the debate issues and detailscompletely inconsequential to this matter when he raised the issue of the Clerk and the Clerk’s referralof this matter or any matter to a committee. It is typical of this Premier that if things are not running to hisway of thinking he simply runs off on a different tangent and tries to muddy the water.

What we are talking about here tonight is recommendation 10. In essence, the debate is abouttwo points: why would the parliament not adopt the recommendations of the CMC in recommendation10 and why would the parliament give up or surrender the independence of the Speaker? The firstquestion directly involves the role of the Premier and how he desires to dictate the tasks and roles ofeach person in this House. It is an unusual fact that this Premier seeks comfort from the independentumpire when public opinion of that advice fits neatly into his beliefs. It is unfortunate that when theindependent umpire moves outside the Premier’s comfort zone the Premier will then find a basis onwhich to deviate from the umpire’s determination. This inconsistency is a highlight of this government tothe point that we simply do not know what we are going to receive at the end of the day, irrespective ofwhat the independent umpire’s determination is.

It is also quite clear that the independent umpire is, in many cases, usurped by earlier or otherlegal advice being circulated to the media and the public as to what the results should be. This processundermines the independence of the CMC but, more importantly, it preaches the message that thisgovernment does not hold itself accountable to the people of Queensland. If it does not suit thegovernment then it simply will not follow it. If the CMC recommendations do not comply with thegovernment’s desires then it will not follow them, despite the fact that the CMC has undertaken asignificant and detailed review of the position or situation. We have to wonder why the CMC is evenappointed in this state. Do we not simply need to move the office into that of the Premier and let himpass judgment on all and sundry? That may suit this government but it is the process of government andthe open and accountable roles of such bodies as the CMC that suffer as a consequence. If they sufferthen we all suffer.

The other major concern is that not only is the Premier now usurping the role of the CMC but healso deems it important that he undertake the role of the parliament with respect to travel undertaken bythe Speaker. It is incredible to think that it is a fact this parliament elected the Speaker under standingorders 39 and 14 and it is this parliament that elects a new Speaker in the event that the office becomes


vacant. I stress that these determinations vest in this House. Despite the role of the parliament anddespite the fact that we in this House elect the Speaker, the Premier—again, for personal reasons—deemed that we are not, and that includes both sides of this House, fit to deal with the issues of travel bythe Speaker. What an absolute load of rubbish to think that the men and women who sit in this House donot have the independent judgment to determine whether the Speaker’s travel is appropriate. Does thePremier really believe that members of his own party do not have the intelligence or capacity to make adetermination? It is one more erosion of the principles of this House and the independence of theSpeaker that has begun the slide of that position into the quagmire, into the control of this Premier, andoutside of the scrutiny of this parliament.

It is an appalling situation. The House should support this motion on the simple basis that, for thesake of principle, we have to and must maintain the integrity and independence of the most importantposition in the House—that of the Speaker. The Speaker’s role is time honoured over the centuries andwe have established a long history of supporting this independence. Let us not allow that history to beeroded. I support the motion moved by the member for Robina and see the Speaker’s independence asparamount to this parliament.

Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (5.57 pm): Isupport the amendment moved by the government to the motion moved by the member for Robina. Igenuinely believe, as does the Leader of the House who also indicated this, that the oppositionspeakers have misunderstood the purpose of the government’s proposals. The motion moved by theopposition was confused, to say the least. There has been confusion arising from opposition debateabout retrospective approvals and about who approves the Speaker’s travel.

The simple fact of the matter is this: the current arrangements, as all members of the Houseknow, are that the Premier should approve any overseas travel by any member of parliament includingtravel by the Speaker. Those are the current arrangements that are in place. The government proposesto extend that accountability by requiring the Premier to report to the House before the Speaker goesoverseas as to the bases upon which the Premier grants that approval. It is as simple as that. I, frankly,do not see what the opposition members are complaining about in terms of that element ofaccountability. If the Speaker also wants to table a draft itinerary or something like that, that is fine.

The fact of the matter is that the practicalities of recommendation 10, proposed by the CMC, aresuch that it would not necessarily give members of the House the final details of what the Speaker isactually going to do. A draft itinerary provided four weeks out from the Speaker’s departure date wouldnot necessarily include a number of things that the Speaker would be finalising in terms of travel andappointments overseas. Any members of the House who have arranged overseas trips know full well—ministers certainly do—that when one travels overseas one often finds that, in the last two weeks beforetravelling, appointments with overseas contacts are still being bedded down.

Therefore, the real issue is, what information does the parliament need to have? The answer tothat is as follows: where is the Speaker proposing to go to, how long is the Speaker proposing to gothere for and what are the official purposes for which the Speaker is going to each destination? Inaddition to that, upon returning to the parliament the Speaker should provide a detailed report on exactlywhat was done during the entire period of overseas travel. That achieves all the things thatrecommendation 10 is designed to achieve, without the impractical elements of the recommendation inits current form.

The government is not picking and choosing CMC recommendations on arbitrary or capriciousgrounds. The government does respect the independence of the CMC in its role of assessing theseissues, and that is why we referred it to the CMC. It has been very helpful for the government to havethe CMC analyse these issues very carefully and come back with a range of recommendations thathave alerted to us ways in which transparency can be improved. It does not undermine theindependence of the CMC if the government, in response to a systems report by the CMC or any otherindependent commission, says that we do not agree in every aspect with the practical implementation ofrecommendations that have been made.

These recommendations are not a determination of punishment or a finding of fact as to propriety,in which case the government would have little room to move. These are recommendations for systemicreform. These are recommendations for how guidelines, principles and rules should apply to overseastravel by the parliament. In that respect they are only recommendations. They are not determinationsthat bind the government.

The government seeks advice from an independent commission so that these matters are lookedat in an independent and non-partisan way. The government then draws on that advice to craft what itbelieves is the best way of ensuring that core issues of concern surrounding the Speaker’s travel areproperly dealt with. There is no diminution in the accountability or transparency of the Speaker’s travelresulting from the way in which the government proposes to respond to the CMC’s recommendation 10.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! We do not often have wonderful background music throughoutthe debate in this House. We must grin and bear it.


Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (6.02 pm): As the band plays on the Speaker’s Green, we couldbe mistaken for thinking that we were in Dixieland instead of debating such a serious issue as we arehere tonight. I rise in agreeance with the motion moved by the honourable member for Robina that thisHouse reaffirms its support for the independence of the Speaker of parliament and calls upon thegovernment to implement recommendation 10 of the CMC report into the Office of the Speaker, whichclearly preserves the separation of this office from executive government.

Recommendation 10 suggests that the Speaker should table in the House, four weeks prior tooverseas travel, advice of the proposed travel. This would allow the Speaker to remain separate fromexecutive government and allow all members of this parliament to dissent to the travel if they feel it isnot appropriate. It would also increase the transparency and accountability of the Speaker’s office andmake it impossible for retrospective travel approvals to be granted by the Premier.

On an historical note, a reference to the Speaker in the English parliament dates back as early as1377, and he was traditionally regarded as the spokesman of the commons. Much of the tradition anddignity of the parliament has centred on the office of the Speaker. The role of the Speaker is meant to beindependent from the government of the day, and the Speaker is elected through a secret ballotinvolving all members of the parliament.

The Speaker is the representative of the House itself in its powers, proceedings and dignity. TheSpeaker’s functions fall into two main categories. Historically, the Speaker is the spokesperson orrepresentative of the House in its relations with the Crown, the House of Lords and other authorities andpersons outside parliament. On the other hand, he presides over the debates of the House of Commonsand enforces the observance of all rules for preserving order in its proceedings.

The Speaker is the presiding officer of the Legislative Assembly and, as such, must act with bothauthority and impartiality. The Speaker is described as the Legislative Assembly’s independent andimpartial representative. In representing the House, the Speaker represents and is responsible to theHouse and all of its members, whether in government or opposition. He should not be responsible toexecutive government and should seek to preserve the House’s independence from it.

The CMC has recommended that the Office of the Speaker should be independent and not reportdirectly to the Premier. The intention of the Premier’s proposal is not without merit, but it fails to take intoaccount the independence of the role of the Speaker. The Speaker’s authority is derived from the Houseto which his duty lies and to which he is answerable. Just as the Speaker is elected by the House, healso may be removed from office by a vote of the House. Therefore, it is commonsensical that majorexpenditure such as overseas travel should also be approved by the members of the House and not justthe Premier.

The CMC believes, as does the Liberal Party, that a more transparent and accountable criteria isneeded to ensure that the money allocated to the Speaker’s office is spent appropriately. The Beattiegovernment is trying to extend its control over the Speaker’s office which, in fact, should be independentfrom the executive government.

Although in most instances the Speaker will be a member of the government, he is meant to bebipartisan in his approach to the workings of the House. By placing him directly under the control of thePremier, he loses the important independence that historically has made the speakership the mostimportant and respected office in the House.

Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (6.06 pm): I rise to support the Premier’s amendment andto oppose this confused and misconceived rant by the member for Robina and his team. The motionfrom the Liberal Party was moved by misunderstanding and seconded by hypocrisy. With hand on heart,the Liberals have moved this motion, talking about the independence of the Speaker and preserving theseparation of his office from government. Their concern for what they understand to be tradition is heartwarming but misplaced.

As usual, they hark back to a colonial era and the mythology of the mother country, regardless ofhistorical fact, regardless of current reality and regardless of political practice. Their love of pomp,circumstance and the land of hope and glory leads them to misunderstand and misrepresent what it isthat the Speaker in an Australian parliament does and from where their authority is derived. The maceon the parliamentary table is the symbol of the Speaker’s authority, but in this parliament it has neverbeen the source of that authority. The big club theory of authority, which it perhaps represents, hasnever been the Australian way. It is perhaps as irrelevant today as this Liberal motion.

Mr Speaker’s authority does not come from the mace, nor does it come from the Crown. Onceupon a time, it was the Speaker’s job to tell the parliament what the monarch wished, but here and nowthe Speaker’s authority comes from us, the members, and we are not divorced from government. Weare not divorced from the cut and thrust of the politics of government. What we actually require from theSpeaker is that the Speaker act impartially.

The motion moved by the Leader of the Liberal Party, for the purposes of political gain, confusesthe concept of independence with the concept of impartiality. If Liberal Party members truly believe inthe so-called independence of the Speaker, perhaps they might choose not to run a candidate against


any sitting Speakers in future elections. That is a preposterous notion. Because the sitting Speaker atthe time of an election is a member of a party, a candidate will run against him. The Speaker has hisseat contested like every other member, and that is the Australian way. He is a party candidate. Whenelected, first by the people and then by us, he retains his membership of his political party, but he actsimpartially while nevertheless voting in this place if necessary.

I note that Margaret Healy, in a research note on the concept of the independence of the Speakerwritten for the Australian Parliamentary Library in 1998, clearly notes the divergence of the Australianexperience from the British system. The small numbers in colonial parliaments have meant thatAustralian Speakers have participated in debates, voted, lobbied ministers and campaigned actively intheir seats. And nor should Speakers be removed from politics. Electors are entitled to hear the views oftheir member and to have elections, even if their member happens to be the Speaker. It is, in fact, theAustralian way. Therefore, enough of this humbug about the independence of the Speaker. He must beimpartial, but no-one has ever expected him to be independent.

This motion moved by the Leader of the Liberal Party calls on the House to support anindependence in the Speaker that does not exist and which the Liberals do not believe or support. Itpretends that there is a separation of the Speaker’s office from executive government when executivegovernment sits and votes in this place, sets budgets and is responsible for all of the actions andexpenditures of the Speaker’s office in the public arena. The notion that the travel arrangements of theSpeaker should be markedly different from those of all other members in not having to seek thePremier’s approval for travel simply misconceives this notion of independence. Most importantly, itdenies the accountability of the Premier to the public for the behaviour of his members, of whom theSpeaker is one.

In the interplay of responsible government and the separation of powers, the public clearlyexpects responsible government to prevail. The Premier of the day must know of and approve the travelarrangements of the Speaker. Such a requirement in no way threatens the capacity or need for theSpeaker to act impartially. For so long as the Speaker is a member of a political party, elected as an MPat a contested election and then elected in here on party lines, the Premier of the day must have a sayin the process of travel approvals. Outlandish appeals to British-style independence and confusednotions about the separation of powers doctrine cannot hide the fact that our political system makes thePremier responsible for what goes on in this place, just as keeping quorums is the government’sproblem, even if there is not a single member of the opposition in the House.

An honourable member: As is often the case. Mr McNAMARA: As is the case right now. Nevertheless, no Premier should ever give away the

power to oversee sensitive issues such as travel. It is not necessary or wise. I support the amendment. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (6.11 pm): I am very happy to rise to support this

motion. In doing so I would like to express my extreme regret that the Premier, with his ego-fondlingmajority and displaying yet another characteristic of an arrogant and out-of-touch government, hasdecided to throw in the rubbish bin another pillar of the parliamentary process to assure him a clear runthrough yet another crisis.

I honestly cannot see how one cannot support this motion. I have not heard any arguments thisevening to say that recommendation 10 should not be taken for what it is, and that is an affirmation thatthere is a separation of the Office of the Speaker and the executive government. In respecting this, thePremier should not retrospectively approve travel for the Speaker. That is why the CMC did not acceptthe Premier’s recommendation that he approve the travel. It struck a balance between independenceand accountability.

Let us look at exactly what recommendation 10 is. The Speaker must outline the objectives of thevisit. This is simply a matter of commonsense. As a matter of accountability and openness, it is fair thatthe Speaker, as the head of this parliament, be subject to the same rules that apply to any other memberby justifying the expenditure of taxpayer funds on whatever trip he or she may be going on. It mustinclude the program for the trip. This is so that the members of this House can make their own decisionsabout whether the Speaker’s reasons for going on the trip are valid or not. This again means that everymember of parliament is able to use their own judgment and raise, in whatever way they see fit, anygrievances that they have with the trip. This provision implicitly underlines—and it has been saidbefore—that the Speaker and the role of the Speaker is separate from the executive government, andthat for his or her travel to be decided on by the Premier is an affront to the parliamentary process.

Another provision is that there is a draft agenda of the trip and that it details places that are likelyto be visited and meetings that are likely to be attended. This is important so that the parliament knowswhat the Speaker is going to do in advance, and when a report of his travels comes back they know ifthe agenda that was set was followed. If the agenda was not followed a member can ask why it was notfollowed. This again shows that a Premier cannot retrospectively grant this because the very provisionthat the CMC is proposing is to ensure that members are notified as to what is going on with the travelarrangements prior to the trip and can reconcile that with the report after the trip. To do this


retrospectively would not satisfy the intention of the CMC, which is to keep members of this House in theloop regarding the activities of the Speaker.

Another provision that underlines the intention to keep this House informed before and after thetrip is the estimated cost. By seeing the estimated cost of a trip, as outlined in recommendation 10,members are able to reconcile that with the final cost of the trip, and that is the mechanism ofaccountability. The basic principle again, though, is that the members of this House are able to see thecost of the trip prior to and after the trip. Under such a recommendation the Premier would not be able tosee the estimated cost of the trip prior to the trip and simply approve it after the fact. It is the intention ofthe recommendation to make sure that at all points in the travel process the mechanisms ofaccountability are maintained. This cannot be done by the Premier in a covert way by approving thingsafter they have happened. Moreover, I ask the Premier: if the trip was not just and correct, would hedisapprove the trip retrospectively? I seriously doubt whether that will happen. I do not think thatsomething such as the undercover nature of this arrangement has been contemplated.

All the Speaker had to do was receive a rubber stamp off the Premier. He did not even jump overthis very low bar. The Liberal Party does not apologise for raising this bar, and it does not apologise forcriticising the Speaker for not passing the existing incredibly low bar. Indeed, the Premier, in accordancewith the intention of recommendation 10, is just like any other member of this House. That is, theSpeaker is separate from executive government and the Premier, and the Premier is informed, aseveryone else is, as to the movements of the Speaker. It is the Clerk of the Parliament, according to thebasic pillars of this place, who should be the person to coordinate and approve such travel.

As members before me have said, the Premier is not the appropriate person to be saying ‘correctweight’ on the trips that the Speaker takes. The Speaker’s role is quite detached from that of the Premierand the executive that he leads. Welding the two arms together is a move that turns its back on theWestminster tradition and is a short-term fix to another Beattie government stuff-up. Moreover, the waythat the Premier has hidden this issue and ducked and dived around it and then decided to approve itretrospectively is deplorable. After this effort any attempt to say that he is open and accountable can becondemned as absolute rubbish. I commend this motion to the House.

Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (6.15 pm): It is unfortunate that the Liberal Party, sittingon the crossbenches, has again missed the mark because, in moving the motion before the House, ithas ignored an act passed by this parliament. If the Liberals had done their homework simply by goingto the parliamentary internet, they would know that under the Financial Administration and Audit Act theaccountable officer, the Clerk, is required to put in place procedures that will allow the intendedaccountability to come about. From our web site they will also find the suggested guidelines—which didnot come into this House as an act but which are set up under the Financial Administration and AuditAct—say that overseas travel must have the approval of the Premier. In fact, this has been in existencesince May 1997 as a suggested procedure to bring about an intended outcome. For members on thecrossbench to say that the Premier should not be part of this is, in fact, ignoring a procedure that theClerk has already said, through these guidelines, should be in place.

I do not know why the members on the crossbench would want to criticise actions taken by theClerk going back to 1997, but that is what is there. They should go to the parliamentary internet site. It isthere; it can be downloaded. Then they should check with the Financial Administration and Audit Actand they will see that that is what has to occur.

Recommendation 10, in contrast to what three of the members opposite have said, is not aboutapproving retrospective travel; it is about informing the parliament prior to the Speaker’s departure. Infact, if this is implemented in the way that it is intended to be implemented, it will strengthen theaccountability to the parliament, not diminish it.

My knowledge of the current Speaker would lead me to believe that Mr Speaker would say, ifanything, that our response to recommendation 10 does not go far enough because I know that in thereview of the guidelines the Speaker proposed that any report on overseas travel should go to theAuditor-General or a similar body. To say that in some way what the current Speaker or what thegovernment would be doing is to minimise accountability is quite the reverse of the truth. I am sorry tosay that the member for Robina, whom I hold in high regard, and the member for Moggill, whom I hold inless regard, should have done their homework and should have known what was going on.

The member for Hervey Bay made a very important point about the independence and impartialityof the Speaker. It is important that proposed details of the overseas travel of the Speaker not bepoliticised. Let us wait and see what occurs with the crossbench members and the opposition when thematerial that is going to come from Speaker Hollis is tabled in this place in the coming days. Let us seewhether the members opposite live by their words about the independence of the Speaker or whetherthey go at it in a boots-and-all party political way. Let us see whether the Leader of the Opposition andhis deputy will go at it in the same way. They cannot be part of a non-government group which expectsthe government to do one thing and then does the reverse when the opportunity presents itself. I waitwith bated breath to see the reaction of the members opposite when materials are tabled in the nearfuture.

1914 Terrorism and Organised Crime Surveillance Bill 08 Jun 2005

On 1 April, the current Speaker, Mr Hollis, was interviewed by Steve Austin. The interviewerwanted the current Speaker to comment on a former Speaker, but Mr Hollis refused to do so. AgainMr Austin tried to get the current Speaker to do so but he said that he would not. He said—I have never once, in the whole time I have sat in that chair, ever been directed by a member of the executive government or bythe Premier on any of my actions and what I should do and what I should not do.

That statement goes to the heart of the independent and apolitical role of Speaker. That is theway in which the Speaker has operated, within the current guidelines. The same situation can apply withfuture guidelines. In fact, the Speaker has even suggested some stronger guidelines.

I ask the Premier and this parliament, when considering the guidelines, to ensure that they areflexible. There will be times, in exceptional circumstances—perhaps an event here or overseas—whenthe required timeline cannot, in all reasonableness, be met. I hope that all members and those in theClerk’s office and the Premier’s office, when negotiating the final outcome for these guidelines,understand that that has to occur.

Finally, I have a caution. I hope that any actions by the executive government are not used to bindor limit the Speaker. The Speaker acts on our behalf, on behalf of this parliament, and on behalf of thepeople of Queensland. He must be able to do his job. I support the amendment moved by the Premier.

Question—That the amendment to the motion be agreed to—put; and the House divided—AYES, 57—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, N Cunningham, English,Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller,Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, O’Brien, Pearce, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson,Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, ReevesNOES, 24—E Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Horan, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger,Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, E Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Copeland, Malone

Resolved in the affirmative. Question—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to—put; and the House divided—

AYES, 57—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, N Cunningham, English,Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller,Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, O’Brien, Pearce, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson,Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, ReevesNOES, 24—E Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Horan, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger,Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, E Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Copeland, Malone

Resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm.

TERRORISM AND ORGANISED CRIME SURVEILLANCE BILL

Second ReadingResumed from 25 May (see p. 1671)Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (7.30 pm), in reply: I

thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Terrorism and OrganisedCrime Surveillance Bill 2004. First of all I will go through what honourable members opposite had to sayduring their contributions. The Premier seemed to indicate in his contribution that he had some form ofprincipal objection to the fact that there was no PIM at the application stage. I will go through that issuein detail as I summarise the debate because it was one raised by other members of parliament duringtheir contributions.

The Premier also argued in his contribution that the government is doing much to protect theinterests of Queenslanders insofar as surveillance of organised crime is concerned and cracking downon terrorism. I have never taken away from the fact that there have been proactive and positive stepsfrom the government in that area. This is something that governments have generally had to do post the9-11 environment. Everybody knows what it has meant. A range of changes have gone through thisparliament. There is generally an awareness of this by the police and the Crime and MisconductCommission either individually or in terms of joint operations. I would argue that the Premier is reallymissing the point in this regard. We are not taking away from what the government is doing. We aresaying that this sort of telephone tapping power would provide our crime-fighting bodies with the sort ofresources and backup that they need to do their jobs better.

The Premier disputed the title of the bill—the Terrorism and Organised Crime Surveillance Bill.That is what it is about. We are not saying that there is no surveillance by the police and the Crime andMisconduct Commission at the moment using the tools they have at hand. This is about taking it onestep further and providing our law enforcement authorities with telephone tapping powers which wouldgive them the capacity to better deal with terrorism. There is a range of other organised criminal activitywhich could be better addressed by having these sorts of powers.

08 Jun 2005 Terrorism and Organised Crime Surveillance Bill 1915

We know that Queensland is now considered the amphetamines capital of Australia. We have asignificant drug problem. We have a significant organised crime problem. I found it somewhatinteresting that a couple of years ago the government introduced legislation into this parliament, whichwas subsequently passed, which provided the CMC and the police with the capacity to undertakeelectronic surveillance by way of tapping into people’s data transmission. That made sense. Nobody hasa problem with that. But we should not stop there. If an organised criminal or paedophile or terrorist isconcerned about being trapped by using their computer what they do is turn that off, step outside anduse their mobile telephone or use their telephone landline. That is what is currently missing.

The Premier went on to say that he was fundamentally concerned that there was not enoughprotection of the community interest in this legislation. I would argue that that is wrong. New SouthWales has had telephone tapping legislation for some 20 years. It has not had a problem. OtherAustralian jurisdictions have had it for a long time. There has not been an issue with it.

We are talking about providing an opportunity for our Crime and Misconduct Commission and thePolice Service to seek to monitor people’s telephones. Of course they have to do that under thedelegated authority of the federal Attorney-General. We know that. I contend again that if there hadbeen a problem with the repudiation of people’s basic and fundamental rights and liberties and afundamental failing in the head of power which is provided by the Commonwealth for the purpose andthen implemented by the states, then other Australian states which are governed by the Labor Partywould have pulled out of it. The sky does not fall in. There is not a big problem with this measure. Thereis no real issue.

There was a lot of talk, a lot of smoke and mirrors and a lot of lawyer’s words from the Premier,but he really did not address the fundamental issues. If there is an issue with fundamental liberties, thenwhy has it not been a problem in other states? Our proposal is, by and large, based on their model.

The Premier raised the issue of the Public Interest Monitor and why there was not a PublicInterest Monitor. There is a principal inspector provided for in this legislation who is the Public InterestMonitor. That Public Interest Monitor currently ensures that the public interest is preserved when itcomes to the planting of listening devices. The honourable member for Redlands made a very goodpoint in his contribution about how much more invasive the planting of listening devices is comparedwith telephone tapping. I tend to agree. We have a Public Interest Monitor who looks at that issue. Thesame Public Interest Monitor would look at this provision in terms of the public interest and would reporton its operation post the granting of an authority to tap a telephone by the appropriately delegatedofficer at the federal level, whether that is a member of a tribunal or a member of the Federal Court.

The Premier asked why there is not a Public Interest Monitor. He said there is not one. There isone. All we can do at the state level is involve the Public Interest Monitor post the approval of theauthority for telephone tapping. We have no involvement before that because that is theCommonwealth’s jurisdiction. Whether the Commonwealth government wishes to change that to enablethe involvement of the Public Interest Monitor at the approval stage is a matter for it under theTelecommunications Act. We cannot influence that. There is an in-built protection that actually exists atthat stage. The person responsible for considering the granting of an authority for the monitoring oftelephones, whether a Federal Court judge or a tribunal member, would have to consider the weight ofthe case, the weight of the plea and the application from the Queensland Police Service or from theCrime and Misconduct Commission before granting the authority. That is an in-built protection to ensurethat people’s basic rights and liberties are protected.

Those opposite cannot turn around and say that the inappropriately empowered Federal Courtjudge or tribunal member does not have in his or her own mind the capacity to look at the issues offundamental rights and liberties because they do it now and they do it effectively. It has not been aproblem for the other state and territory jurisdictions that actually do have telephone tapping powerlegislation. It just does not make sense. The Premier has not thought it through.

I do not have a problem if the Commonwealth government wants to put through some amendinglegislation to address the PIM issue at some stage. That is a matter for it. The Premier also mentioned acouple of other issues that required amendment in the bill. Those matters were also suggested to me byPhillip Ruddock, and I wrote to Phillip Ruddock about this issue. He wrote back and suggested a coupleof amendments. I took those amendments on board and circulated them, and they address a couple ofthe Premier’s other concerns. I urge honourable members opposite to enable this bill to get to theconsideration in detail stage so we can address those issues.

The member for Toowoomba North mentioned joint operations. At the moment there is thecapacity for the Queensland Police Service or the CMC to enter into joint operations and therefore havetelephone tapping authority here in Queensland. I say this to the honourable member and to othermembers who say that we can do it: we can only do it if the Commonwealth authority—the NationalCrime Authority or the Federal Police—is so involved and thinks it is big enough for it to becomeinvolved in. The day-to-day matters that the Queensland Police Service or the CMC wish to do undertheir own jurisdictions are not catered for with joint operations, because they need to fry medium sizedfish and not necessarily get involved in frying the bigger fish all of the time. The joint operation issue is

1916 Terrorism and Organised Crime Surveillance Bill 08 Jun 2005

an argument, but it is not a legitimate and valid argument to stop this bill progressing because onecannot always rely on joint operations to get the outcome which one wants.

With regard to the civil liberties argument, I very strongly subscribe to a civil liberties argumentwhen it comes to protecting people’s basic rights. There is no doubt about that. But there is a biggerargument here, and that argument is about making sure that our law enforcement bodies have theauthority and the powers they need to be able to do the job and crack down on organised criminals andterrorists who may in some cases pervade our state. We heard from the member for Toowoomba Northabout the reversal of natural justice. I find that a bit bizarre, because he is part of a government whichpassed the Vegetation Management Act, which has thrown natural justice principles right out thewindow, and the Justices Act to make certain matters pursuable in our courts retrospectively andremove the right to remain silent and all of those sorts of things. So the member should not talk aboutthe reversal of natural justice.

The member for Gregory spoke very strongly about supporting the Police Service and giving it thetools to do the job, and I appreciate his contribution and support. Basically, he supports communitysafety first and foremost and says that there is an argument that certain rights and liberties of criminalsshould be subjugated against that particular background—a view that many people would consider. Themember for Warrego has been a very strong, forthright and constant advocate for telephone tappingpowers in this state, and I acknowledge that. He very much understands the PIM process—the PublicInterest Monitor process—and how the protections do exist under the legislation which I haveintroduced into the parliament.

I thought that the member for Redlands made an extremely considered contribution and no doubtvery much understands the issue. He had some concerns, but I would suggest that he, along with themember for Ferny Grove, supports in principle the notion of telephone tapping powers but seems to beheld up by this issue of not enough regulation and not enough checks and balances before such anauthority is granted. I think I have answered that in my other contribution to this debate. He made thepoint about how intrusive listening devices are. We should go back to the time of the Carruthers inquiryand think about some of the stuff that was played out there day after day after day involving peoplesubjected to that inquiry and the sorts of things that were played in that open forum—stuff that we wouldfind to be terribly embarrassing, such as people’s personal hygiene needs, being displayed in audibleterms played out before the inquiry.

As the honourable member said, it portrays everything that goes on in normal human life whichwe do not necessarily like to display publicly—whether it is people having a fight, whether they are goingto the toilet, whether they are engaged in intimate activity. All of those things are played out when itcomes to the planting of listening devices. Those things do not necessarily happen when dealing withlistening to a person’s telephone conversations. Some of it may very well do with some of the things thatthey might say, but generally as a rule it is in no way similar to what happens with the planting oflistening devices.

The member for Cunningham is an extremely strong advocate for telephone tapping powers andhas been for a long time. He certainly understands the bill and supports telephone interception powers.He supports civil liberties and supports a balance. What we have tried to do with this bill is to guaranteethat balance between a person’s—

Mr Lucas interjected.Mr SPRINGBORG: No doubt with my sense of timing I would go there just as they lose and

spend 20 years in the wilderness. I will stay put, I think. I never get home to see my family as it is. Iwould get home even less.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I can relate to that, I can tell you.Mr SPRINGBORG: Yes. I am starting to think that they do not want me in the place, Mr Acting

Speaker. The member for Cunningham went on to say that we are the only state government that doesnot have telephone interception powers and spoke about the problems other states have had with theircurrent powers, which are based under the delegated authority under the Telecommunications Act. Thatis my point exactly. He went on to say that the current model does restrict independent operations, andthat is the contrast. The member for Toowoomba North says that we can do it by way of joint operations;the member for Cunningham says that there is a need for independent operations, and that is what thisbill is about facilitating. The member for Cunningham also said that the safeguards are greater underthis than the joint operations model. I thought that was a very salient point.

The Premier, the member for Toowoomba North, the member for Redlands and the member forFerny Grove all raised issues about the checks and balances not necessarily being there. If that is theirreal motivation, I can appreciate that argument. They went on to say that the checks and balances arenot there to ensure that all issues are considered prior to the granting of an authority for telephoneinterception. Yet it is interesting to note that they all said that there is the joint operations model. Thejoint operations model, which they are comfortable with, has none of the protections which my bill has,because once that authority is given by the appropriate officer then that is generally it.


First of all, with this bill it has to be argued before the appropriately empowered federal officer—the Federal Court judge or the tribunal member—and then once that is done the PIM takes over.Federally, I find it very difficult to understand how the government can say that it is comfortable with jointoperations and a lower level of protection in those operations than what I am advocating in mylegislation, which would provide an opportunity for independent operations. That is something whichhonourable members opposite need to balance in their own minds.

The member for Nicklin supports the bill in principle, and I thank him for that. He has encouragedthe Premier to be proactive in this area and not just say he supports it in principle but to do somethingabout it if he wants to continue to advocate for the changes he says are necessary to ensure that itmeets the Premier’s concerns. Again, there has been plenty of opportunity to move any amendments.The bill has been on the Notice Paper now for a number of months, and the member for Nicklin went onto question the motives of the Premier.

The member for Gladstone understands that we need a balanced approach. We also need it sothat Queensland does not become a soft touch, although she does have some concerns about the bill.The member for Nanango expressed similar concerns but understood the need for balance and alsomentioned the world we live in post 9-11.

The member for Ferny Grove gave a very considered contribution—and I thank him for that—andraised the same sorts of issues I was talking about before which I will not labour; that is, concerns aboutthe PIM and warrant deficiencies. We cannot address that if it is a genuine issue because that lies withthe federal government and maybe it should look at that. All we can do is to rely on a properconsideration of all of the facts that are presented to that appropriate officer federally before they grantthe authority for TI and then properly monitor it. I again say to address the concerns of the member forFerny Grove that, frankly, if it was to be a problem it would have been a problem in places where it hasbeen operating such as New South Wales, where it has been operating for two decades.

In conclusion, I urge honourable members to support this bill. It is a good bill in my mind. Itactually addresses something which has been a problem for a long time. The Queensland PoliceService and the Crime and Misconduct Commission have been calling for these powers for some six orseven years. At some stage we are going to have to provide them. My prediction is that the governmentwill use its numbers to vote it down tonight. It will have expressed empathy for it, and some time in thenot-too-distant future in the overall context of the political cycle it will come back in here and introducelegislation which will not be all that different to this, because I saw it with the confiscation of criminalassets legislation. Winners are grinners and losers can sit there and cop it.

An honourable member interjected.Mr SPRINGBORG: Yes, or whatever the case may be. Bipartisanship is a two-way street. If there

were genuine concerns, they could have been fixed by way of amendment. I find it hard to understandhow agreement in principle with the legislation could not have been accommodated by way of anamendment. Also, there has been a failure to look at similar legislation that is operating in other states.The issues and concerns raised by the members opposite as their motive for opposing this legislationhave not manifested themselves in those other states where such legislation has been in place.

I urge honourable members to support this bill. I believe it is a positive bill that provides us with allthe tools in the armoury that we need to properly crack down on terrorism and organised crime. It buildson solid foundations that were laid down in recent times by successive governments. It would be a pity ifthe bill is not supported.

Question—That the bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided—AYES, 22—Flegg, Hobbs, Horan, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, ERoberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Malone, CunninghamNOES, 51—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, E Cunningham, NCunningham, English, Fenlon, Finn, Foley, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Lavarch, Lawlor, Livingstone, Lucas, McNamara,Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Pearce, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott,Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Reeves, Nolan

Resolved in the negative.

VOLUNTARY STUDENT UNIONISMResumed from p. 1905. Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (7.58 pm): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak in support of

the motion moved by the member for South Brisbane, the Leader of the House. I rise to inform theHouse of the king hit that the Howard government has given to university students throughout Australia.At a time when people’s health is very important, the Howard government has introduced legislation thatwould starve university sports programs in Queensland of much needed funding.

University sports are funded by student service levies. If the Howard government has its way,those levies will no longer have to be paid by all university students. Instead, because of the ideology of


those opposite, services for the university community will be crushed simply because they purely andsimply do not make a profit. Sporting facilities and programs are perfect examples of the subsidisedservices that are provided through a student services charge. Those facilities are used by both theuniversity and the local community.

The University of Queensland’s sports programs are funded by this student service levy. As aresult, the university provides a diverse range of activities for students and members of thecommunities. Because of the impending changes to student unionism, these services will be reduced toa shell of what they used to be. Effectively, the Howard government will take away $58 million in fundingfrom universities across Australia. Those funds would otherwise go towards sporting and leisureactivities, which ultimately lead to better community health.

At the same time childhood obesity is a problem in primary and secondary schools throughoutAustralia. Although the Howard government will happily take millions of dollars away from universitysports programs, it is more than willing to splurge $90 million of taxpayers’ dollars on encouragingparticipation in sports in schools. It appears that the Howard government believes that there is morebang for the political buck in putting money into school sports programs. But it conveniently then chokesthe funding for such sports programs when those students go to university. If the Howard government isallowed to use its Senate majority to run roughshod over university students, an entire generation ofschool students will be deprived of top-quality sporting facilities.

The Howard government fails to realise that, although student unions are representative bodies,they also provide invaluable services to students. The end is near for important services such assubsidised medical and legal services, child care services, accommodation support and sport. Thesporting facilities in Australian universities have harnessed and developed thousands of athletes,including some of the very best athletes to ever represent Australia—Kieran Perkins just to name one.

One of the arguments in favour of VSU is that it resulted in improved services at the University ofWestern Australia. That is a ridiculous argument. VSU suffocated the basic student services that wereoffered at the University of Western Australia. The Howard government’s VSU changes will result in theguillotine being taken to the quality and quantity of sporting activities provided by the University ofQueensland and a number of other universities. For example, Sydney University Sport receives 25 percent of the $590 student levy that is paid by Sydney university students. VSU will result in the loss of$3.3 million of its annual $8.5 million budget.

At a time when community health is extremely important, the Howard government’s proposedlegislation will starve university sports programs in Queensland of much needed funds. These servicesare needed by students. Without student union funding, universities will have to find other ways ofraising funds to sustain the demand for these services. Ultimately, this will divert university funds andattention away from developing educational outcomes for students.

I table a list of every single activity provided by UQ Sport. There are over 100 different activities. Iwonder how many of these activities will no longer be offered because UQ Sport will not have the moneyto afford it. I wonder how many jobs will be lost because UQ Sport will not have the money to affordthem. Finally, I wonder how many UQ Sport memberships will be lost because students cannot affordthe increased membership fees. Something has to give; we cannot get more for less.

The Howard government was more than willing to throw money around during the last federalelection but it now has the gall to snatch it away from organisations that need it. An entire generation ofschool students will be deprived of top-quality sporting facilities if the Howard government is allowed touse its Senate majority to run roughshod over the university students. The Howard government hascrash tackled funding for university sport, a tackle from which sporting services at universities maynever recover. I support the motion moved by the member for South Brisbane.

Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education and the Arts) (8.03 pm), in reply:I thank members for their contributions to this debate. I think it has been important that we have thisdebate. It is an issue which has engendered very strong feelings in the community and about whichthere is a great deal of discussion in the public realm. It is not often in this parliament that we get anopportunity to debate matters by way of a motion as opposed to a piece of legislation, and I have beenpleased to see members contribute to this debate.

I repeat what I said this morning: I am disappointed that despite a number of amendments wehave not been able to find some consensus. I do think there are points on which people across thechamber agree, but we have not been able to find that consensus by way of a series of amendmentstoday. Perhaps if we had more of these sorts of debates we may be able to find some way of negotiatingthroughout the debate and amend motions in a way that could actually demonstrate the consensus thatexists. There is no doubt that there are some points on this issue about which there is at least a majority,if not at least 100 per cent, consensus.

Mr Springborg: There are probably quite a few similarities between us, actually.

08 Jun 2005 Adjournment 1919

Ms BLIGH: Yes. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of concern about what the removal ofa compulsory levy for certain services will do, particularly on regional campuses. It is important that weremember that.

At its heart this debate is about whether or not we believe in individual contribution to the commongood. I think it is fair to say that one either believes in that or one does not. I find it extraordinary thatmembers of parliament, who are part of the political system of representation, are not standing heredefending the importance of individual contribution to the common good—that is, good which they maynever be the personal recipient of. That is the very cornerstone of our democracy. That is the nature ofour Australian society. I find that extraordinary when we spend most of our time in here deciding what itis that we will make compulsory. Some of the contributions bordered on anarchism—the idea thatmaking something compulsory is a heinous act. That is what we do in this place every day. Thedeliberations of this parliament by their very nature are about what we will make compulsory for thecitizens of this state.

Mr Lucas: Compulsory deregulation, for example.Ms BLIGH: That is right. But the idea that somehow a compulsion is inherently antidemocratic or

that compulsion is some terrible attack on the rights of individuals by its nature is absolute nonsense. Ihave been very disappointed with some of the contributions to the debate because there is no doubt inmy mind that compulsory student unionism is at, its very heart, about individual contribution to thecommon good. If we move too far away from that in this realm, then it is not a very big step to it beingdone in other areas.

Mr Lucas interjected. Ms BLIGH: That is right. There is no doubt that that is what is at the heart of the federal

government’s agenda here. It does not believe in the common good. It does not believe in individualcontribution to the common good. What we are seeing from the federal government is nothing morethan its ongoing obsession with individualism, particularly in relation to young people. This is the federalgovernment that presumes to tell our schools that they should be teaching values and presumes to tellthe Australian people that public schools in this country are not teaching values. In the public schools Igo into I see the values of the common good being taught and demonstrated every day.

I conclude by thanking members for their contributions. I know that people feel passionately aboutthis, and I have genuine concerns. All political differences aside, my concern about the effect on ourregional campuses is very genuine. I do hope that, as this debate proceeds in the federal parliament,there can be some compromise and that some of the worst aspects of the federal legislation canbe ameliorated.

Question—That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided—AYES, 5—Langbroek, Quinn, Stuckey. Teller: Flegg, McArdleNOES, 67—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Copeland, Croft, Cummins, E Cunningham, NCunningham, English, Fenlon, Finn, Foley, Fraser, Hayward, Hobbs, Hoolihan, Horan, Jarratt, Knuth, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee Long,Lingard, Livingstone, Lucas, Malone, McNamara, Menkens, Messenger, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Pearce,Pitt, Poole, Pratt, Purcell, Reynolds, Rickuss, E Roberts, N Roberts, Robertson, Rowell, Schwarten, Scott, Seeney, Simpson,Smith, Spence, Springborg, Stone, Struthers, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Nolan, Reeves

Resolved in the negative. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided—

AYES, 19—E Cunningham, Foley, Hobbs, Horan, Knuth, Lee Long, Lingard, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Rickuss, E Roberts,Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Wellington. Tellers: Copeland, MaloneNOES, 53—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, N Cunningham, English, Fenlon,Finn, Flegg, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Langbroek, Lavarch, Lawlor, Livingstone, Lucas, McArdle, McNamara, Miller,Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Pearce, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Quinn, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott,Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Nolan, Reeves

Resolved in the negative. Question—That the motion be agreed to—put; and the House divided—

AYES, 48—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Croft, Cummins, N Cunningham, English, Fenlon,Finn, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Lavarch, Lawlor, Livingstone, Lucas, McNamara, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr,O’Brien, Pearce, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, CSullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Nolan, ReevesNOES, 24—E Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Horan, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger,Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, E Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Copeland, Malone

Resolved in the affirmative.

ADJOURNMENTHon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (8.31 pm): I move—

That the House do now adjourn.

1920 Adjournment 08 Jun 2005

Death of Lady Enid FletcherMr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (8.31pm): On 4 June 2005, the electorate of Cunningham

lost one of its longest standing and most respected citizens. Lady Enid Fletcher passed away, after quitea long illness. Lady Fletcher was the wife of Sir Alan Fletcher, a very longstanding member of thisparliament. He was the member for Cunningham for many years. He was first elected to this parliamentway back in 1953 and he retired in 1974. He received a knighthood in 1972 for services to theparliament and the people of Queensland.

Lady Enid Fletcher was a fantastic partner to Sir Alan Fletcher. She was very active in thecommunities of Mount Tyson and Pittsworth and she was very active in her support of Sir Alan’s publiclife. She was certainly very well respected by the people of Cunningham.

I attended Lady Enid’s funeral yesterday. I must say, it was a very touching, very moving and verypersonal service. The eulogies that were conducted by family members showed the great love for herwithin her family. I want to ensure that her family realises just how well respected and loved she still iswithin the Cunningham electorate.

‘Fletcher’ is a very famous name within my electorate. Many, many facilities around the electorateare named after Sir Alan Fletcher, but I know that he had a tower of strength in his wife, Lady Enid. Thatfact was certainly well remembered at the funeral yesterday.

Lady Enid was born in New Zealand on 27 January 1907 and was very proud of her Kiwi heritage.She moved to Australia as a young woman and trained to be a nurse. On one of her first trips toAustralia she met Alan Fletcher and they fell in love. I understand that it was some five years before theywere able to gather enough money together to be married and for Lady Enid to return to Australia.

Lady Enid was well known for her dramatic and musical skills. She was a very capable pianist andactress. Along with members of the Mount Tyson and Pittsworth communities, she performed many,many plays. From all reports, she was a very entertaining lady. She was also a very dignified lady.Towards the end of her life, after the onset of Alzheimer’s, she also became a very gentle lady. Herfamily certainly want to pay their respects to the staff at Beauaraba Lodge in Pittsworth, where LadyEnid lived for 10 years, receiving wonderful love and care.

I place on record the condolences of my wife, Rae, and me and of all the constituents of theCunningham electorate to the family of Lady Enid Fletcher—her son Mostyn and his wife, Margaret; herdaughter Lyndsey and her husband, Bruce; and her grandchildren and great-grandchildren.Unfortunately, she survived two of her children, her daughter Jillian and her son Murray. She was agreat lady. I pass on our condolences to the Fletcher family.

Relay For Life, CairnsDr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (8.35 pm): Last weekend I spent 18 hours in the

inspirational company of the Wee Willie Winkies, Aqua Boomers, Cats in Hats and Golden Gloves.Where was I? A marathon fancy dress ball? No. The Cairns Relay for Life. This year it raised a record$320,000 for the Queensland Cancer Fund—and still counting. A total of 169 teams participated, mostof them in fancy dress and many of them with wacky names, as I have described. It was the largestevent of its kind in Australia.

I was a member of the ALP team, which was organised by Jim Turner, the Labor candidate forLeichhardt at the last election. Golden Gloves was the second ALP team, comprised of party membersfrom Warren Pitt’s electorate and some staff from the local Department of Communities. The team’sextra large golden boxing gloves symbolised Warren Pitt’s attitude to his current fight with cancer. It isgreat to know that he is winning that fight and will hopefully KO cancer—the name of yet another team.

This is the third Relay For Life in which I have participated. It is always a fun, moving andexhausting experience. It showcases the strong community spirit in Cairns and provides cancersufferers and survivors with recognition for their courage and with support for their struggle with adisease which touches almost everybody in the community.

The most moving part of the event is always the candlelit procession. Participants write apersonal message of hope or love on a bag, which is then illuminated by a candle placed inside it andplaced around the running track at Barlow Park, where the event is held. Reading those messagesbrings home the impact of cancer on so many lives. I hope that Warren and Linda Pitt, in Brisbane, feltthe power of our words.

The 18 hours were filled with entertainment to distract us from our sore and blistered feet. Someteams, such as ours, were happy just to keep a member walking around the track at all times. Otherteams set amazing records of endurance. Jim Cavill ran 241 laps, which is some 80 kilometres. TheCop a Cure team clocked up a staggering 529 laps and raised $11,770. Team member Mal McCullochraised most of that money by running 730 kilometres from Karumba to Innisfail. He won the Relay forLife outstanding individual award for that performance. The junior record was set by Gordonvale HighSchool with 529 laps. It was great to see a large number of school students at the event, running hard


and raising thousands of dollars for cancer research. I would like to table the results of all the otherawards at the event, which recognised fundraising, endurance and creativity.

Finally, I thank Howaths and all the other sponsors of this wonderful event. I congratulate themand the members of the organising committee, which was chaired by Vern Gowdie. The membersinvolved were project officer Carol Hopkins, project officer Julieanne Miller, and committee membersCouncillor Margaret Cochrane, Rosemary Soderberg, Anne Naylor, Sally Graham, Helen Laird, JanDavis, Rebecca Wright, Merrilyn Nielsen, Catherine Graham and Phil Cassel. They did an amazing job.It was a privilege and a pleasure to be part of such an amazing fundraising event.

Wintersun; World Environment Day; Carnivale of ArtsMrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (8.38 pm): The onset of winter has brought with it a cornucopia

of unique events that attract people to the beautiful electorate of Currumbin. The twin towns ofCoolangatta and Tweed Heads really rock in June each year, with widgies and bodgies aplenty.Wintersun, now recognised world wide as a showcase for the dance that is rock and roll, started in1988. The 11-day festival, which gets bigger and bigger each year, kicked off on Friday, 3 June with theWintersun Ball. Looking at the program, one will find something happening day and night for carenthusiasts, rock and roll devotees, record collectors and celebrity spotters, as well as family fun daysalong the world famous Coolangatta foreshore. This year, the classic car show has attracted 850entrants compared to 700 entrants last festival. Sponsored by the Gold Coast airport, this Wintersun willattract literally thousands of visitors and locals, making it the premier winter event on the Gold Coast.

Festival producer Barry McNamara, the current southern Gold Coast chamber president, wasrecently appointed to the Australian Festival Committee, an advisory group attached to the office of artsand sports minister, Rod Kemp. Carnivale of Arts was held at Elanora High School on Saturday. Thisbiannual event is juggled with the rock eisteddfod and produces some truly talented individuals acrossthe artistic spectre.

It was indeed my pleasure to open this event. Coordinator Nicole Aiello said everyone in theschool wanted to be involved. Heats were held in the lead-up to the big battle of the bands and at thecarnivale there was an Italian form of street theatre, an art exhibition, social and political plays plus foodand craft stalls. All proceeds go to the school’s performing arts department to further the creativeaspirations of future students.

World Environment Day was held last Sunday along the banks of the picturesque CurrumbinCreek. Hosted by Gecko, the Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council as it is better known, thisyear’s theme was ‘In my backyard’, with a focus on the personal responsibility of communities to carefor our planet.

Mr Lucas interjected.Mrs STUCKEY: I am talking about Currumbin Creek. I will take that interjection. We still need

some sand removed thanks, Minister. The workshops and demonstrations were held throughout the freeone-day festival. Music was performed on four different stages whilst the large crowd viewed art, tastedorganic delicacies and browsed market stalls. Children danced, had their faces painted, went on boatrides and visited a fairy garden.

Awards were presented for environmental citizen of the year and environmental primary andsecondary student of the year. Organiser Dominic Farnworth summed up Gecko’s aims by saying that itwas great to be amongst people who left the park at the end of the day as clean as they found it. I wishI could say the same for the sand. I wish to extend my sincere congratulations to organisers andparticipants of these events for enriching the culture and diversity of my electorate.

Queensland Day Volunteer AwardsMrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (8.41 pm): What is that unique thing that sets some

communities apart and gives them that special spirit which engenders such huge pride? I would venturethe answer lies in the connectedness of its people and the investment they make in volunteering andreally making a difference in the lives of others. I proudly represent such an area where care for yourneighbour is common, where service clubs and agencies abound and where people helping people isthe norm. So it was only natural that the way to celebrate Queensland Day in the Woodridge electoratewas to recognise some of our fantastic volunteers.

Ann Newman of the Woodridge-Kingston Lions Club is the music program specialist at BurrowesState School, treasurer and organiser of her Lions Club choir and a tremendous support in over 10years service to Lions. Trixie Benbrook has spent 20 years as a wildlife carer, with special interest inbirds and bats. Doreen Lourie arrived from PNG in 1999 and is already volunteering in a number ofareas, including our tenancy support agency, LANARTA, Neighbourhood Watch and Harris Fields StateSchool. Pauline Edmunds has volunteered for many years in her church, Keystone Disability Servicesand is a member of Southern Cross Voices Choir. Maria Karekare has for eight years run the AdraCareOp Shop and delights in helping others.


Les Ross is the backbone of the client transport services at ACCES where our refugees enjoy hisspecial care. Thelma Connor has given 20 years of service at Meals on Wheels and is a fantasticfundraiser. Valda Roots is involved at Mission Australia’s sewing centre where she helps mentorunemployed women, producing garments and items for hospitals, nursing homes and respite centres.Dot Lenz has been an extraordinary volunteer for decades in over 35 organisations, including the LadyMayoress Committee and the Logan Hospital.

Wendy Cawthray helps out in administration, catering, youth and community events at theCrestmead Community Centre. Barry Ramsay plays a vital role in the YMCA youth services at the Shed.Brian Malcolm is president of the citizens auxiliary of the RSL and devotes much of his time tofundraising and helping veterans. Ron Cook supports young people at the Make and Do Club at theYMCA Shed. Wayne Pearce is a vital part of our Volunteering Logan Association. He works with the frailaged and young people with disabilities and is an active member of the Vietnam Vets Motor Cycle Club.

Jim Mitchelson, aged 89, is a veteran of the Lions Club of Logan and a regular at fundraisers andsausage sizzles, as well as part of the Sailability Bayside for the disabled. Gerry Monk gives of his timeat the Kingston East Neighbourhood Centre developing their gardens and lawns. I seek leave to havethe remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted. Donna Van Druten is truly remarkable helping to establish our many neighbourhood watch groups, the YMCA Shed, The Groove(youth band) and the Make and Do Club. David Phillips of our Apple MAQ Lions Club ships computers, health and educationequipment plus so much more to needy communities in many countries of the world. Malcolm Taylor, a Volunteer in Policingregularly supports our many neighbourhood watch groups which he helped to establish. Jenny Burger of our Red Cross Branchled out in the establishment of our Red Cross Shop which has been such a success. Our community would not function withoutour volunteers. They give many thousands of hours every week to ensure people’s needs are met. They are, indeed, heroes.

Toowoomba Base HospitalMr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (8.45 pm): I will speak tonight about the treatment a

couple have received at the Toowoomba Base Hospital. I preface my remarks by saying that they havegiven me permission to speak about this matter. They are very happy with the senior medical staff at thehospital who have been providing treatment. Their complaint is with the treatment they received from adoctor who appears to be an overseas trained doctor and, in particular, his inability to understandEnglish or to be able to read.

This patient was diagnosed with a coronary ailment that can be treated only by medication. Thecouple have told me how happy they are with the senior doctor who supervises this apparent overseastrained doctor. They received a letter to tell them that they had an appointment in April this year. Whenthey got there this doctor, who appears to be an overseas trained doctor, could not say the patient’sname and could not read the results of a breathing test ordered by the doctor in charge. He gave thepaper to the patient to read. When they asked him what the paper meant he did not answer. He did notseem to have any knowledge of the fact that this woman’s husband had a heart complaint.

They asked to see the supervising doctor the next time they went there. They saw him and werevery happy with him. The feeling they got from the support staff at the hospital is that the issue oflanguage is an absolute shambles. I have heard before, not with regard to this doctor but other doctorsin other parts of the hospital, that staff have trouble knowing and understanding what these doctors aretalking about. This is particularly the case for patients. It is important that they understand.

This patient eventually had to go into hospital. This overseas trained doctor called out thispatient’s name because he had to treat him. The patient actually said, ‘No-one by that name is here.’ Hedid not want to be treated by him. Subsequently, he was treated by the supervising medical officer.

The point I want to make is that this is a genuine complaint made to me by very good people whoare very concerned. The least the health minister can do is ensure that when the Medical Boardappoints people or gives people temporary licences to work in hospitals it makes sure that they spendsome time updating their language skills so that they can understand the charts, read the papers and,most importantly, speak to the patients, who are very often stressed and very concerned about theirconditions, in some form of English that the patients can understand. I do not think that is too much toask. If these people are intelligent enough to be doctors they should be intelligent enough to spend afew weeks learning English so that they can treat patients decently.

Time expired.

HIV-AIDSMrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (8.48 pm): In Australia there are 13,000 people infected with the

AIDS virus and several hundred of those live on the Gold Coast. Recent statistics show an increase inHIV infections in Australia for the first time in 10 years. On 5 May this year Queensland Healthannounced that 136 people in Queensland were newly diagnosed with HIV in 2004. This represent a19.2 per cent increase on the previous year and a 40 per cent increase since 2001.


A United Nations report states that about 40 million people world wide are infected with AIDS orthe virus that causes the disease. More than half a million of those are children under the age of 15. It isan epidemic of global proportions. Australian governments, both state and federal, are to becommended for their early recognition of the disease and for implementing strategies to deal with it. Ithas meant that the virus has spread much less in Australia than it has in other countries. However, thereis no cause for complacency. This recent increase is extremely worrying. Despite 20 years of warningsand education, people are still becoming infected. We have done well but we need to do more. Oneproblem is that, due to the many remarkable medical interventions now available for those living withHIV-AIDS, people have stopped seeing AIDS as a terminal illness.

Our dedication to funding and supporting research and medical treatment in this area has thrownup an unexpected challenge. Our efforts to eradicate this virus and the resultant increased lifeexpectancy of people living with AIDS have encouraged people to believe that they no longer need tofear infection. We now need to convince people all over again that AIDS poses a fatal threat. Anotherproblem is that there is still too little education at school on the subject of safe sex. We need to beeducating our young people about the virus by introducing information into the school curriculum. Sexeducation without AIDS education is telling only half the story. This is a disease that is preventable, butonly if people are given the facts. AIDS education in schools is not about corrupting the morals of ourchildren; it is about preparing our young people to be responsible and well-informed members of society.HIV-AIDS is not a moral or religious issue; it is a health and social issue. It is time to stop pretending thatAIDS is not a problem which affects us all. AIDS is an epidemic which is causing widespreaddevastation around the world.

Tablelands Electorate, Mental Health ServicesMs LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (8.50 pm): While there has recently been intense focus on

the clinical and surgical performances under Queensland Health, there is another area where it is nowclear that patients have been badly betrayed. That area is mental health. Whatever might be said aboutrecord budgets for the health department—and we have heard that year after year from thisgovernment—the truth is that patients come last. How bad is it? The Office of the Public Advocate forQueensland has spelt it out in a submission to the health minister, and this is what the Public Advocatehad to say—It is the view of this office that sufficient evidence is accumulating to warrant consideration of a similar inquiry into the disabilityprogram.

That is an inquiry similar to the judicial inquiry into the Basil Stafford Centre in 1995 whichrecommended its closure. This must not get swamped by the Bundaberg inquiry. Here we have acutting-edge analysis from an astute observer. This government should immediately announce that aninquiry, as described by the Public Advocate, will be undertaken into the state of mental health inQueensland because an inquiry is sorely needed. Queensland Health, even when speaking to apowerful advocate like the Public Advocate, simply cannot speak the truth. Again, the Public Advocatesaid—No department, however, can match the capacity of Queensland Health to obfuscate and deny the lived reality of its clients.Indeed, the Public Advocate’s comment on the cover page of his report is a burning brand of shame forQueensland Health. He says—The set of events detailed above, noted over a period of two to three years, reveals the department’s obfuscation of responses, itsadroit use of language to avoid serious examination of its own practices and its considerable attempts to justify its own actions, inthe face of accumulated evidence and sustained advocacy.At no stage has there been a serious effort on the part of Queensland Health to acknowledge the significant risks inherent in thisissue for government, the Queensland community and for vulnerable mental health clients.Time and again the efforts of the office to provide advice, and assist the department to examine its mental health discharge andreferral practices have been met with resistance, denial and wordplay.

I was particularly interested in this report because, while services continue to disappear fromhospitals across regional Queensland, one service that has been introduced on the tablelands is mentalhealth. I commend those working at the coalface helping people in need, but this report shows howtainted the bureaucracy behind them has become. The report includes examples of how patients werenot treated properly and, even worse, how Queensland Health ducked and dodged when put on thespot about it. Mental health is an extremely important community responsibility. It is being handled badlyby Queensland Health. Everyone, including the minister, must know that. Surely we do not needsomething as catastrophic as the ‘Dr Death’ fiasco to happen in this field before things will change forthe better. Nobody, least of all the people of Queensland, deserve to go through that again.

Freeleagus, Mr A; RefugeesMs STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (8.53 pm): The sad loss last week of much admired

multicultural leader Mr Alex Freeleagus reminds us of the importance of migrant and refugee individualsand families to our state and our great nation. In 1876 Henry Maine said—Except the blind forces of nature, nothing moves in this world which is not Greek in its origin.


Alex actively boasted everything Greek. I pay tribute to Alex Freeleagus, our honorary Consul-General of Greece for 48 years—a gentleman, scholar, role model and a great advocate formulticulturalism and for the Greek-Australian community.

This week I was also delighted to see a migrant and a former refugee winning the 2005 SuncorpQueenslander and Young Queenslander of the Year Awards. I congratulate Dr Geoff Hill for hisenormous commitment to science and medicine in Queensland, nationally and internationally. NewZealand’s loss is obviously our gain. I also want to pay particular attention to our Young Queenslander ofthe Year, Alen-Igor O’Hran, who arrived in Australia as a refugee from former Yugoslavia in 1996. Withfirst-class honours in law and a distinction degree in Business with the Dean’s Award for Excellence,Alen exemplifies some of the great gains to be had from welcoming and supporting refugees to thiscountry. Alen was forced to flee a war-torn homeland, like many other of our refugees in this country. Hisfamily and he suffered so much, but his achievements and ability to overcome disadvantage areremarkable.

Rather than focusing on the benefits and contributions that refugees can bring to our country, wehave a Prime Minister and an immigration minister who continue to scaremonger and demoniserefugees. The majority of the 1,200 asylum seekers processed on Mannus and Nauru islands under the‘Pacific solution’ were found to be genuine refugees. That futile exercise cost taxpayersadditional millions and millions of dollars than it would have cost to process these people onshore. JohnHoward had the opportunity to allay Australians’ fears about so-called boat people. He could haveexercised responsible leadership. He could have said, ‘Australians, you have nothing to fear. We willconduct full security and health checks on all of these people. You have nothing to fear.’ Instead, hegenerated irrational fears and prejudices which make life very difficult for many migrants and refugeesnow. He failed in his leadership. He failed the people of Australia. He failed refugees and migrants. Incontrast, our Premier has called for a royal commission into detention centres, and all members shouldcontinue to press the Commonwealth to address these matters in the interests of all our futures,particularly the children who sit behind bars tonight as we speak in this House.

Bendigo Bank, Sarina Branch

Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (8.56 pm): Today was a great day for Sarina. After two years of hardwork, we saw the opening of the Sarina community branch of the Bendigo Bank this morning. It was areal community event. It started with breakfast being catered by the Lions and Rotary clubs withentertainment for the children and prizes for winners of the colouring-in competition followed by theofficial opening of the bank with the cutting of the ribbon and celebratory cake for everyone in the park.This initiative began with a discussion over a cup of coffee more than two years ago and led to ameeting with Bendigo Bank officials. There was agreement at that time for the first committee to beformed and in October 2004 it reached the pledge-raising stage where the committee felt confident thatit had enough support from the community to proceed with the feasibility study.

February 2005 saw the launch of the prospectus. The minimum share capital of $590,000 wasraised just prior to the opening of the branch today. The prospectus will remain open until either$750,000 is raised or 4 March 2006, whichever is reached first. It only happened due to the hard workand commitment by the directors including chairman Ralph Johnson, treasurer Rodney Dunn, secretaryLesley Ward and fellow directors Robin Pitcher, Ken Wedel, Joe Bartolo, Peter Smith, Bruce Fitzgeraldand Gloria John.

It is all about community involvement. Residents of the shire are encouraged to purchase shares.However, this is not a requirement for transactions at the bank but more to give the communityownership of the bank. The support of the community will ensure that the bank will remain open. Therelationship with Bendigo Bank is formed via a franchise agreement. Profits from the bank are equallydivided with a 20 per cent-80 per cent return to the community—20 per cent to the shareholders and80 per cent to the community. Local staff have been employed to maintain the bank with two full-timestaff, Mary Blinco and Heather Baker, and two part-time staff, Kylie Schulz and Rowena Robertson.Donna Draper of Bendigo Bank will be the interim manager until our own branch manager is secured.

A full range of services is offered—from bank accounts, home loans, business banking, ATMservice, insurance and many more. Again, congratulations to the original committee, the board andother residents of Sarina and district for their commitment to the project and their community. Thebuilding that houses the branch has been totally transformed, giving a fresh, bright and open look to thepremises. The Bendigo Bank representatives attending the opening today were development officercommunity bank Malcom Frizzell, regional manager Noel Jessup, community bank and agency supportofficer Estelle Harris and business banking manager Mackay Stuart Mitchell. Sarina is the 149thcommunity bank to be opened. My congratulations go to all of those concerned. It was a great effort.


Logan Hyperdome Shopping Centre; Logan Hyperdome Bus StationMs STONE (Springwood—ALP) (8.59 pm): Logan offers young families affordable housing,

excellent schools, services and shopping. The Logan Hyperdome Shopping Centre first opened itsdoors to the public in 1990. As the Logan region has grown so, too, has the excellent Logan HyperdomeShopping Centre. Today it is the second largest shopping centre in Queensland, employing many localresidents.

The piazza is home to the hyperdome’s brand new leisure and entertainment precinct. Theprecinct houses cafes, restaurants, movie theatres, a children’s playground and a bowling alley. It isalready a huge success. Last Friday night I opened the inaugural three-day food and wine event. Centremanager Grant Brady has informed me that 20,000 people enjoyed that event over the weekend. Suchan event provides food and wine merchants with an excellent opportunity to showcase their wares.Queensland wines were brilliantly represented by Sirromet winery.

Along with the growth of Logan and the hyperdome, public transport in the area has increased. Infact, Logan has seen a 29 per cent increase in bus commuters. TransLink’s commitment to deliverconvenient, accessible and reliable public transport through the upgrade of the Logan Hyperdome BusStation will make public transport easier and more efficient for Logan residents.

Recently I visited the bus station with the minister for transport, who is here tonight. I hope theminister will come back once this upgrade has finished. Features of the new bus station—

Mr Lucas: I’ll come back in a bus.Ms STONE: That is right. The minister will catch the bus.Mr Lucas: And weren’t the Clarks very happy campers with Transport.Ms STONE: The Clarks are doing a wonderful job. They are very happy, especially with the

increase in commuter numbers. In fact, the increase in commuter numbers has meant that we need 11new buses for the area. The bus service is certainly well patronised.

I want to congratulate the hyperdome team on the excellent extensions that have been made tothe centre. The piazza is already a huge success with many families enjoying the fine food and excellentservice that is offered by a wide variety of restaurants and cafes. Of course, the kids’ playground is a bighit.

The upgrade of the bus station will attract more visitors to the already successful hyperdome.I am looking forward to seeing better weather protection for the station, the kiss and ride and taxi usersarea, fountains, extra rubbish bins, landscaping and artwork. Those features will make the bus stationpleasant for commuters. Improved accessibility for people with disabilities will be provided through theprovision of ramps and kerb breaks. There will also be real-time passenger information digital signsadded to the infrastructure.

The hyperdome is certainly booming. So is Logan. I know the members for Logan, Woodridgeand I are certainly very happy with the improvements to TransLink’s bus services. We are lookingforward to more in the future.

Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 9.02 pm

2005 06 08 weekly - parliament.qld.gov.au · one hundred and forty-six years after queen...

Documents