Estimates Committee C 7 Oct 1999 - Queensland … J. Oswin, A/Director (Finance) ... Mr J. Varghese, Director-General Mr D. Muir, Deputy Director-General Mr N. Doyle, ... Estimates

7 Oct 1999 Estimates C—Transport and Main Roads (Queensland Transport and Queensland Rail) 173

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE C

Mr P. T. Lucas (Chair) Mr V. G. Johnson

Mrs J. M. Attwood Mr B. E. LamingMr D. B. Dalgleish Mr P. W. Wellington

TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS

IN ATTENDANCE

Hon. S. D. Bredhauer, Minister forTransport and Minister for MainRoads

Queensland Transport—Mr B. Wilson, Director-General

Mr J. Gralton, Deputy Director-General

Capt. J. Watkinson, Executive Director(Maritime)

Ms J. Oswin, A/Director (Finance)

Queensland Rail—

Mr V. O'Rourke, Chief ExecutiveMr R. Scheuber, Deputy Chief Executive

Department of Main Roads—

Mr J. Varghese, Director-General

Mr D. Muir, Deputy Director-GeneralMr N. Doyle, General Manager (Strategic

Policy and Development)

Mr L. Cunnington, A/General Manager(Finance and Business Services)

Mrs K. Peut, Executive Director (RoadsPrograms)

The Committee commenced at 8.31 a.m.The CHAIRMAN: I declare this meeting of

Estimates Committee C now open. I would liketo introduce the members of the Committee:Mrs Julie Attwood, the member for MountOmmaney; Mr David Dalgleish, the memberfor Hervey Bay; Mr Vaughan Johnson, themember for Gregory, and also the DeputyChairman of the Committee; Mr Bruce Laming,the member for Mooloolah; Mr PeterWellington, the member for Nicklin; and I amPaul Lucas, the member for Lytton andChairman of the Committee. The Committeewill examine the proposed expenditurecontained in Appropriation Bill 1999 for theportfolios of Transport and Main Roads andPublic Works and Housing in that order. Iremind members of the Committee and theMinister that the time limit for questions is oneminute and three minutes for answers. A bellwill ring once 15 seconds before the end of

these time limits and twice when the time hasexpired. More time may be given for answers ifthe questioner consents. The Sessional Ordersrequire that at least half the time at today'shearing is allotted to non-Governmentmembers. Government members and non-Government appointed members of theCommittee will take turns at asking questionsin blocks lasting approximately 20 minutes. Inrelation to media coverage of today's hearing,the Committee has resolved that videocoverage is allowed during the Chairman's andMinister's opening statements. For the benefitof Hansard, I ask advisers to the Ministers toidentify themselves before they speak. Theproceedings today are similar to Parliament tothe extent that the public cannot participate inthe proceedings. I remind members of thepublic that, in accordance with Standing Order195, members of the public may be admittedto or excluded from the hearing at thepleasure of the Committee. If anyoneattending today has an audible mobile phoneor pager, please switch it off while in theChamber so as not to disrupt the proceedings.

The first item for consideration is theEstimates of expenditure for the Transport andMain Roads portfolio. The time allotted is fourand a half hours. The first area to beexamined is the proposed expenditure for theDepartment of Transport, beginning withQueensland Rail, and the other Governmentowned corporations that report to the Minister.We will continue with the Department of MainRoads after morning tea. I declare theproposed expenditure for the Minister forTransport and Main Roads to be open forexamination. The question before theCommittee is—

"That the proposed expenditure beagreed to."

Minister, would you like to make a briefintroductory statement?

Mr BREDHAUER: I would. First, could Iintroduce the officers of my department andQueensland Rail who are here with me today:the Director-General of the Department ofTransport, Bruce Wilson; my Director ofFinance, Judy Oswin; the Deputy Director-General, Department of Transport, JohnGralton; the Chief Executive Officer ofQueensland Rail, Vince O'Rourke; and theDeputy Chief Executive Officer, Bob Scheuber.A variety of other officers from the Departmentof Transport and from Queensland Rail arehere to support me and members of theCommittee.

My Government is committed todeveloping a world-class transport network for

174 Estimates C—Transport and Main Roads (Queensland Transport and Queensland Rail) 7 Oct 1999

Queensland. In support of that goal, theBeattie Government will spend a record ofmore than $2.5 billion this financial year onimproving transport networks acrossQueensland. Queensland Transport has beenallocated more than $1.52 billion to develop,maintain and enhance transport systemscontrolled and administered by thedepartment. This generous QueenslandTransport allocation represents a significantincrease on the 1998-99 funding of $1.21billion and equates to $500m more than theBorbidge Government's allocation in 1997-98.Undoubtedly, this funding highlights theimportance that the Beattie Governmentplaces on providing reliable and efficientservices and transport infrastructure. Throughthis allocation my Government will be able toprogress the many exciting transport projectscurrently being developed and implementedthroughout the State while at the same timeallowing scrutiny and progression of essentialgrassroots issues, services and infrastructure.

Importantly, regional Queensland hasbeen strongly recognised in this year's Budget,with significant funding to be spent enhancingtransport networks and operations in areasaway from the south-east corner. Headliningthe Beattie Government's focus andcommitment to regional Queensland is a$126m allocation to upgrade and expandQueensland Rail's coal wagon fleet. Thisfunding underpins my commitment toeconomic development and jobs growththroughout regional Queensland. To supportour job creation goal, a number of contractshave been awarded to regional businesses. AtMaryborough, for example, the Governmentwill spend $87m on the manufacture of 38diesel locomotives. This project alone willcreate 80 jobs.

The Government has also recognised thevital economic role that ports throughoutQueensland play in terms of businessopportunities, economic development and jobcreation. To that end, more than $190m will bespent this financial year on capital works atports throughout Queensland. To encourageand develop economic opportunities inregional and remote centres of the State theGovernment has committed $3.6m for ruraland remote aviation infrastructure. A $1.5mproject to reconstruct the airstrip at SaibaiIsland heads this year's rural and remoteaviation infrastructure projects, with $2.5m ofthe program allocation to be spent in northQueensland.

The Beattie Government is alsocommitted to providing holistic and integratedtransport solutions to regional centres, and to

that end integrated transport plans in centresincluding Townsville/Thuringowa, southernCairns, Mackay, Gladstone, the easternDarling Downs and the Wide Bay region,among others, will continue this financial year.Regional rail services will be enhanced througha $41m expenditure this year as part of a$240m project by QR for a rail track upgradebetween Rockhampton and Townsville. A totalof $30m has been budgeted for the ongoingdevelopment of the tilt train service to Cairns.

The Government's commitment toimprove and expand the transport network inthe south-east corner of the State will bestrongly advanced this financial year. The$520m South East Transit Project has beenallocated ongoing funding of $183m, and$32m has been set aside for the InnerNorthern Busway project to the Royal BrisbaneHospital. Planning for the Inner NorthernBusway is now in the final stages. Theconstruction of the south-east busway andtransit lanes around Woolloongabba is nowwell advanced and will ultimately provide anefficient bus priority service to the BrisbaneCricket Ground at Woolloongabba in time forthe opening round of the Olympic soccer atthe grounds on 13 September next year.

The $235m Brisbane Light Rail Project isnow almost at the stage of being handed to aprivate consortium to build, own and operate.The project will receive $12m in funding thisyear. Apart from the large-scale urban andregional projects, transport funding this yearhas been specifically geared to addressinggrassroots needs identified and raised as partof the Beattie Government's extensivecommunity consultation program. TheGovernment will also spend $3m extra onservice delivery improvements to customerservice centres and call centres and providestrategic public transport and maritimeallocations at regional centres across theState. The funding allocations outlined todayare but a small snapshot of the excitinginitiatives the Beattie Government isundertaking through Queensland Transport. Iam confident that the funding and initiativesoutlined today along with myriad otherQueensland Transport and Main Roadsprograms not mentioned will significantlynurture and underpin development in thisState into the new millennium.

The CHAIRMAN: The first round ofquestions will be from non-Governmentmembers.

Mr JOHNSON: I refer to the constructionof the Cairns-Brisbane tilt train, which ismentioned on page 66 of Budget Paper No. 4,


Departmental Services. As Queensland Rail isa Government owned corporation, can theMinister advise whether there have been anydirectives from the shareholding Ministerregarding this project? If so, have thesedirectives been gazetted as required? If not,can the Chief Executive advise whether theQueensland Rail board initiated this project? Ineither case, has a financial viability studybased on current circumstances beenundertaken to substantiate this project?

Mr BREDHAUER: In response to thehonourable member's question, no. Nodirection has been issued by the shareholdingMinisters in Queensland Rail to theQueensland Rail board in respect of thisproject. Clearly the Cairns tilt train project was acommitment of the Labor Party in Opposition.I, as the responsible Minister for QueenslandRail, have for the last 15 months beenoverseeing the implementation of that electioncommitment. I have to say that we have hadthe full cooperation of the Queensland Railboard and Queensland Rail employees fromthe chief executive down in theimplementation of our progress towards theconstruction of the two diesel tilt trains whichwill operate between Brisbane and Cairns.

This was obviously one of the moresignificant commitments that was made by us.The reason why we made that commitment isthat it was the Labor Party in Government inthe early 1990s who initiated the Brisbane toRockhampton tilt train service—the electric tilttrain service. Since that was officially launchedin, I think, November last year, it has proven tobe a resounding success and is proving to bea major regional economic developmentopportunity and boost for centres.

I can see the member for Hervey Bayhere nodding his head. We have put the buslinks in place from Maryborough to HerveyBay, which I know was a concern in thatcommunity, so that the people of Hervey Bay,even though they are not directly connected tothe rail line, can share in the benefits that thismajor project has been delivering to regionalcommunities between Brisbane andRockhampton.

The new Brisbane to Bundaberg service,of course, has also been strongly patronisedand enables us to continue to improve theservices which are delivered to regionalQueensland. In fact, Flight West Airlinesannounced recently that they weresubstantially reducing their air fares betweenBrisbane and Bundaberg. One of the reasonsthey cited for making that commercial decision

was the success of rail as a competitor to airservices.

I would think we would probably be one ofthe few places in the world who can hold ourheads up and say that the quality of theservices and the efficiency of the services thatwe are operating in tilt trains is out therecompeting with air services. There would besome Asian countries, I guess—Japan andthose sorts of places with their bullettrains—who could make that claim. But outsideof Japan, there would not be too many. Ourcommitment is to build two diesel tilt trainservices between Brisbane and Cairns whichwill deliver similar economic benefits to regionalcentres north of Rockhampton as well asenhancing those benefits already enjoyed bythose centres between Rockhampton andBrisbane.

Mr JOHNSON: I refer you back to thatquestion. I do not deny what you are sayingthere and I applaud what has happened inrelation to the tilt train to Rockhampton andwhat is happening in relation to air services.But the last part of that question was: in eithercase, has a financial viability study based oncurrent circumstances been undertaken tosubstantiate this project?

Mr BREDHAUER: In relation to the tilttrain, as I say, we made a commitment prior tothe last election to fund the construction of twodiesel tilt trains. In terms of Queensland Rail'scommercial operations, it would makedecisions on the basis of those kinds offinancial assessments, which would include anassessment of the likely return on a capitalinvestment that would be made byQueensland Rail in developing such a service.You, as a former Minister for Transport andformer Minister responsible for rail, shouldunderstand that the difference in this case isthat this is a commitment of a Government toexpend money off budget, the first allocationof which is in this year's budget. We haveallocated $30m in this year's budget to beginthe construction program for the two diesel tilttrains that will be built at Walkers inMaryborough. This is a decision ofGovernment to spend that funding off budget.

So the requirements that Queensland Railwould normally undertake for commercialinvestment to ensure that there was a returnon an investment, a dividend on thatinvestment, do not apply in this case. As aGovernment, we have basically said that webelieve it is worth us as a Governmentinvesting what is now a total of $138m buildingthe two new tilt trains at Walkers inMaryborough, together with their maintenance


facilities which are associated with that. We areprepared to make that commitment offbudget. This year's budget has given the firstpractical demonstration of that by theallocation of $30m.

So what we are doing here is separate to,but not new to, Queensland Rail. QueenslandRail has many services which it operates whichare funded by Government off budgetbecause of the economic and other serviceand industry benefits which we believe thoseservices will deliver to the people ofQueensland. So essentially what you havehere is an election commitment which hasbeen honoured by our Government to buildthe two new diesel tilt trains and to fundQueensland Rail to run those tilt trains. Ofcourse, the subsequent operation of the tilttrains after they finally enter into operations willbe the subject of discussion betweenQueensland Transport and Queensland Railas part of their rail service agreement contractsin the future.

I think what the member is angling forhere is actually misguided because this is nota decision of Queensland Rail to invest $130mof its money in a commercial venture; this is adecision of Government to spend $138m offbudget, providing services, regionaldevelopment and employment opportunitiesfor the people of Queensland.

Mr JOHNSON: I totally support theemployment opportunities too, but I say to youI am not being misguided here when we aretalking about the viability of the project inquestion. I cannot see how at this point youcan substantiate the viability of the project. Iask you: would you refer this project to thePublic Works Committee for further scrutiny?

Mr BREDHAUER: No, I will not. If thePublic Works Committee wants to have a lookat it, they are quite entitled to do that. I wouldnot have a problem with the Public WorksCommittee doing that. If you want to refer it tothe Public Works Committee, by all means yougo ahead and do so. I would suggest to thehonourable member for Gregory that heshould have a look at the rail services thatoperate in his own patch and tell me howmany of those are financially viable? The Spiritof the Outback which operates betweenBrisbane and Longreach—I would beinterested to hear from the—

Mr JOHNSON: We are trying to make itviable, are we not?

Mr BREDHAUER: I understand that.

Mr JOHNSON: Here we are now puttingmore in place that are not.

Mr BREDHAUER: I understand that. MyGovernment is working very hard to try tomake sure that those communities throughcentral Queensland in the honourablemember's electorate have the maximumopportunity to generate the economic andemployment benefits from those rail serviceswhich are significantly supported by communityservice obligations, as are the vast majority ofour Traveltrain services—in fact, all of ourTraveltrain services are supported bycommunity service obligations from theGovernment, and the Cairns tilt train servicewill be no different from that.

This is not an issue in relation to thecommercial viability of the project and you, asa former Transport Minister, should understandthe fundamental difference between thecommercial operations which are undertakenby Queensland Rail in respect of, for example,its coal and minerals freight business where itmakes decisions to invest in track upgrades, inrolling stock upgrades, building new rollingstock, in maintenance facilities and those sortsof things because of the return that it cangenerate for the taxpayers of Queensland by acommercial investment to invest money in thatinfrastructure which will bring a dividend toQueensland Rail and subsequently to us asthe shareholders in Queensland Rail andthose services which are provided byQueensland Rail which we as a Governmentbelieve the people of Queensland deserveand for which we are prepared to payQueensland Rail off our budget to provideboth the opportunity for investment and, in thelonger term, to provide the community serviceobligation that goes with Queensland Railbeing able to operate those services in a clearand transparent manner.

Clearly, the member for Gregory does notunderstand the difference. Given the line ofquestioning in the last three questions, hedoes not understand the fundamentaldifference. I thought that he would have,having been the Transport Minister for two anda half years, understood the differencebetween those operations which areundertaken by Queensland Rail as acommercial operation for which the board hasthe responsibility to make the commercialdecisions and those which are operated byQueensland Rail as a service which is providedby the Government and supported both ininvestment terms and in recurrent terms by theGovernment for the benefit of the people ofQueensland.

Mr JOHNSON: Minister, I do understand.Being a former Minister, I understand fullywhat the community service obligations of


Queensland Rail and Queensland Transportare. Bear in mind that they are burdens on thetaxpayers of this State. You are increasing theburden on the taxpayer by increasing thecommunity service obligations of QueenslandRail.

Mr BREDHAUER: Is that a question or astatement? If it is a question, I am happy toanswer it.

The CHAIRMAN: I remind the honourablemember that it is not a time for statements bymembers; it is a time for questions.

Mr BREDHAUER: If that is a question, Iam happy to take it as a question and givehim another answer, but if it is not a questionthen we will move on.

Mr JOHNSON: I will move on, but I putthat on the record. Can the Minister confirm,then, that the Cairns to Brisbane tilt trainservice, referred to at page 66 of BudgetPaper No. 4, will not replace the Sunlanderservice, as promised by Labor last year? Asthe current construction contract is for twonine-car sets and not 10-car sets as promised,could the Minister explain why the cost is now$138m and not the $112m initially stated?Can the Minister also confirm that the rollingstock on order will not provide any sleeperaccommodation?

Mr BREDHAUER: We made acommitment in Opposition to spend a littleover $122m building two new diesel tilt car setsbetween Brisbane and Cairns. That was acommitment that we made from Oppositionand with the best resources we had at ourdisposal at that point in time. It is important torecognise that since we have been inGovernment we have had a project teamwhich has been drawn together to do thedetailed design work on diesel tilt traintechnology. This is world groundbreakingtechnology. We are talking about having aQueensland based company which isdeveloping for us, in conjunction withQueensland Rail, new technology.

What we discovered in the process ofdoing the detailed design work is that the costof building the tilt trains would be higher thanwe had at first anticipated. The Government'sresponse to that has been to meet theadditional cost. So $122m was estimatedinitially—not $112m, as the member forGregory mentioned in his question—and thatcost has increased now to $138m, $30m ofwhich has been included in this budget.

The tilt train will not replace the SunlanderService. The member knows this full well,because I wrote him a letter after last year's

Estimates indicating that the two new tilt trainswould not fully replace the Sunlander services,so I am uncertain as to why the memberasked that question today when I actuallywrote to him last year indicating the fact thatthe tilt train—

Mr JOHNSON: After you gave the wronganswer.

Mr BREDHAUER: I gave an answer here.When I discovered that the answer that I gavewas not correct, I was honest enough to writeyou a letter and to correct the record.

Mr JOHNSON: I recognise that.

Mr BREDHAUER: If I am to be heldresponsible for the fact that from time to time Isay things which are wrong but I take the firstopportunity to correct the record, then so be it.But I would prefer to do that and admit thatfrom time to time I do make errors but also bebig enough to go out and admit them publiclyand to correct the record.

The point is that we did indicate that theSunlander services would not be able to befully replaced, so we will maintain someSunlander services. That being so, what weintend to do is work towards maintaining theexisting levels of sleeper accommodation onthe Sunlander service and to offer through thediesel tilt trains, the nine-car sets, premiumbusiness class sitter service between Cairnsand Brisbane which will be second to noneanywhere in the world.

Mr JOHNSON: I refer to the presentcontract being undertaken by Walkers ofMaryborough. Can the Minister confirm thatthe contract includes the provision of diningcars and that there has been no slowdown inthe provision of these cars? When will thisrolling stock be delivered?

Mr BREDHAUER: The program for thedelivery of the rolling stock on the tilt train willcontain dining facilities. It does contain diningcar and club car facilities. The project is still inits quite early stages. Most of the work thathas been done up to the present has been inthe design and planning work. We settledabout three or four months ago—give or take;I am not precisely sure—on the exact consistof the two trains that were going to beconstructed, so work has begun. It is physicallynot possible to say that work on any particularcar has slowed down, but we do anticipate thatwe will have delivery of the rolling stock in 2001and that the two trains will be into full service in2002. So the answer is no, there has not beenany delay, but we have been working througha variety of issues in relation to the detailed


design of the consist. Sorry, it is a club carwhich includes dining facilities.

Mr JOHNSON: I am pleased about thatclub car.

Mr BREDHAUER: I am sure you wouldbe.

The CHAIRMAN: The time for the firstperiod of non-Government questions hasexpired. We will now take Governmentappointed members' questions. Minister, whatheavy vehicle management advancementshas the Government achieved in relation tomass driving hours and enforcement?

Mr BREDHAUER: This is a very interestingquestion. I know that the member for Gregoryis a person who is vitally interested in themanagement of heavy vehicles, as are allmembers of the Committee. It is somethingthat has created a lot of media attention inrecent times. There have been a number ofvery unfortunate accidents and other incidentsinvolving heavy vehicles. I have to say that,generally speaking, my experience as Ministerhas been that the majority of transportoperators, drivers and other people in theheavy vehicle industry are responsibleoperators. There are some, however, who arenot prepared to play by the rules, and they arethe people we are determined to ferret out.

Recent figures show a big increase ininfringement notices, operational reports andwarnings for overloading, safety breaches anddriving hours. I might just mention that, in theanswer to question on notice No. 8 to thisCommittee, unfortunately the words "offencereports and official warnings" wereinadvertently left out after the word "notices" inthe last paragraph. So I just correct that for thebenefit of members.

The increase in reporting in relation tooverloading offences was more than 48% inthe six months from March to the end ofAugust this year, compared with the sameperiod last year. At the same time, penaltynotices issued for fatigue breaches increasedby 29% and compliance activity across thegamut for safety defects was up by more than38%. Penalty notices for heavy vehiclesexceeding legal dimensions were up by nearly300%. There are some historical reasons whythat has gone from a low base up to a highbase, but there is still a significant increase inthat area, with the corresponding figure fordefects in load security up by more than 56%.

The increased figures resulted fromtargeting resources within our compliancedivision on high road safety risk areas. Wehave introduced new heavier penalties for

overloading infringements. Penalties will differaccording to the degree of overloading, but insevere cases truck drivers can face fines of upto $6,000 and companies can face fines of upto $30,000. If the truck is found to be carryingdouble its legal load limit, a magistrate canorder forfeiture of the vehicle. We are alsolooking at the fatigue management programas a front-end approach to dealing with theseissues, but those figures indicate how seriousour department is in the compliance area withspecifically targeting those areas which weregard as significant road safety breaches.

In addition to that, the new chain ofcommand responsibility obligations are beingput in place so that trucking companies,operators and owners who place unrealisticdemands on drivers can also be prosecuted—not just the driver. So there is significant effortby Queensland Transport, supported by thetrucking industry, to ferret out people whopersist in breaking the law.

Mrs ATTWOOD: Why has theGovernment chosen to fully fund QueenslandRail for the community service obligationswhich it provides on behalf of the State at anadditional cost of approximately $200m perannum?

Mr BREDHAUER: I noted earlier that themember for Gregory commented that he fullyunderstood what community serviceobligations were. I tell the member for Gregorythat I am fully funding the community serviceobligations for Queensland Rail, unlike theprevious Treasurer, the member for Caloundra,who whipped $100m out of it when sheneeded it to prop up her Budget a couple ofyears ago.

As part of our review of the railcorporatisation of QR here by the StateCabinet in the earlier part of this year, adecision was taken by our Government to fullyfund Queensland Rail for its community serviceobligations. Now, this has a number ofimportant benefits which it can deliver to bothQR and to the people of Queensland. Firstly, itmakes all of QR's operations absolutelytransparent from a National Competition Policypoint of view, and we are able to identify all ofthose community service obligations for whichwe fund Queensland Rail to operate serviceson behalf of the Government and the peopleof Queensland.

It will cost us this year, we anticipate—thefinal figure is not known, because we have notsigned all of the rail service agreements; thoseare still being negotiated—as much as $750mthis year, which is $200m more than is


currently budgeted—or has previously beenbudgeted—for community service obligations.

A good example of what we can achievethrough this is the $283m per year for sevenyears contract we signed for Citytrain servicesbetween Queensland Transport and QR aboutthree weeks ago. This is delivering much-needed urban and interurban services. It isdelivering improvements to rolling stock,particularly the availability of airconditionedrolling stock for people who use the Citytrainnetwork. It is delivering significant serviceenhancements. I anticipate that, at somestage, there will be a question from one of themembers of the Committee about thoseservice enhancements, which we are providingto places like the Sunshine Coast and theGold Coast and all of those areas in between.

We have seen patronage on the GoldCoast railway line double in the last 12months. That is a great achievement by QRand by the Government. It is an example ofpeople voting with their feet, I guess. Itdemonstrates how, if we provide the kinds ofservices that are efficient, that are reliable andthat are safe and secure, people in south-eastQueensland are quite happy to use thoseservices.

The community service obligation givescertainty and security to QR about the fundingit will receive from Government. It also givesGovernment, through Queensland Transport,the capacity to generate certainty about thelevel of rail services that we will offer and toseek progressive improvements in those railservices over the period of the contracts.

Mr WELLINGTON: Minister, could yououtline to the Committee the income thatQueensland Rail plans to receive during thecurrent financial year from the transport oflivestock? And do you acknowledge that theState Government has a community serviceobligation in the provision of this service forrural Queensland?

Mr BREDHAUER: The total tonnage oflivestock carried in 1998-99 was 355,000tonnes, and the revenue from that was$18.1m. Livestock carriage is an important partof our operations. We have invested heavily,for example, in the construction of the 300 Kwagons, which is being undertaken by theTownsville South railway workshops, which isproviding new rolling stock for the cartage oflivestock. It is also providing secureemployment, I might say, for QR employees atthe Townsville South railway workshops, whichis an additional benefit, if you like, in terms ofsecuring that employment.

We recognise that Queensland Rail has aresponsibility to providing freight services forindustry. It is a critical component of QR'soperations that, where our rail network links toregional communities, we continue to seek toupgrade our capacity to carry livestock andother freight and to deliver it in an efficient andcost-effective manner. Queensland Rail isinvesting in improvements to things like rollingstock and rolling stock capacity so that we candeliver the kinds of services which industryexpects.

I might say that livestock haulage over thepast financial year—as is true of our freightcarriage in general—achieved record levels.Queensland Rail carried 120 million tonnes offreight in the last financial year, which is arecord. It also carried about 104 million tonnesof coal as part of that 120 million tonnes offreight, which is a record for a singlecommodity rail haulier anywhere in Australiaand puts us at world's best practice in terms ofour freight capacity.

So the contribution which we make andthe services which we offer to the livestockindustry recognise the importance of thoseindustries in regional and rural parts ofQueensland, and where our rail network allowsus—associating across the freight logisticschain, where we can work with otheroperators—we seek to provide the best andmost efficient services that we can to people inthe livestock-carrying industry, as we do in allother elements of our freight.

Mr WELLINGTON: Minister, you referredto world's best practice. Are you planning toimprove watering and spelling facilitiesprovided for the transportation of livestock byQueensland Rail from north Queensland to thesouth-east corner of Queensland where anumber of abattoirs are located?

Mr BREDHAUER: This is about thewatering?

Mr WELLINGTON: Watering and spellingfacilities for livestock which are beingtransported from north Queensland in onecontinual movement to the south-east cornerof Queensland.

Mr O'ROURKE: Queensland Rail has anumber of spelling locations around the State.A major spelling location is Julago in the north.We have been reviewing those practices oversome time. About three years ago, weintroduced a new service for livestock,Cattletrain, which had a number of livestockpeople in various locations—customer careofficers—and their duties were to inspect cattleen route. We have those in key locationsthroughout the State.


In terms of spelling cattle coming from thenorth—we spell them at Julago and then wereview that situation. We believe that it is moreeffective in terms of providing better services toour customers to bring livestock directly fromthe north—from Julago—through to thesouthern abattoirs—through to Dinmore. Thatprocess is one that has been supported verymuch by our customers. The cattle are arrivingin much better condition, we believe, than ifthey had taken another spell at Bajool. Also,those guidelines are very much in line withthose of the DPI and the RSPCA, with whichwe have very close contact. These services areprovided in response to customerrequirements. The cattle are arriving in goodcondition. We have been trialling thoseservices for about the last 12 or 18 months,and they have been extremely successful. Ourcustomers are very happy with the servicesthat we are providing in transporting livestockfrom the north into south-east Queensland.

Mr BREDHAUER: I think the importantthing is that it is about striking the right balancebetween making sure the cattle arrive in goodcondition and treating the cattle as peoplewould expect us to—with the care and concernthat people would expect us to treat thelivestock that we carry through QueenslandRail—and ensuring that we do that in the mostefficient and cost-effective way possible to thebenefit of industry.

Mr WELLINGTON: If I could just follow upwith one further question—Minister, you maylike to take this on notice. Are you aware of thenumber of deaths of animals which have beentransported by Queensland Rail since this newtrial?

Mr BREDHAUER: Not off the top of myhead.

Mr O'ROURKE: My advice is that thedeath rate has been minimal; it has been quitesmall. Our customers are well aware of theissues, and they believe that the services weare providing for them are good practice. Thedeath rate is very, very small.

Mr BREDHAUER: I think the reality ofmoving livestock is that, from time to time, youdo have livestock casualties, and that canoccur for a variety of reasons. But we areintent on offering services which provide thebest possible capacity for us to shift livestock.That is part of the reason why we areundertaking this significant investment. We arespending $15m on the new 300 K wagonsthat are being constructed in Townsville. Andpart of the reason for investing in the newrolling stock is that it helps to improve thecondition of the cattle when they arrive at their

destination if they have been transported inthe new wagons. We take thoseresponsibilities very seriously. As Vince hasindicated, the casualty rate is minimal. There isalways the expectation of the potential ofsome stock losses in transit, but we do ourbest to make sure that we do not contribute tothose losses in any way.

Some additional information has come tohand. In addition to the watering points andspelling points which Vince has mentioned,cattle are also inspected at Mackay,Rockhampton and Gympie. If we find thatstock appear to be suffering stress, we takethem off the trains and we provide water andspelling for them as may be required. So, inaddition to the formal watering and spellingplaces, condition inspections of the stock areundertaken in those other three places. Weinspect stock on a regular basis and if we findevidence that stock are in bad condition or aretravelling poorly we try to do something aboutit.

The CHAIRMAN: Minister, what is theextent of the Government's commitment toimprove rail passenger services to northQueensland? You mentioned the Cairns tilttrain. Can you give us some more detail aboutthis matter? Can you also give us the budgetimplications for this new infrastructure?

Mr BREDHAUER: Thank you for thequestion. I live in Cairns in tropical northQueensland and my electorate stands tobenefit from the economic benefits which willensue from the development of the two newdiesel tilt cars. The member for Gregory spokeabout the specific financial viability of theCairns tilt trains. What we tend to look at inGovernment, and the reason why we fundprojects such as the tilt train project, are thewider benefits that such a project brings. Theremay be a cost to the budget for us, but ifcommunities and tourism, and various otherassociated industries, can benefit from thoseservices, then, whilst the return may not bedirectly to us, there are other people andindustries in the community who clearly andsignificantly benefit from projects of that ilk.

We now have the contract with Walkerson which we will spend a total of $138m inbuilding the Cairns to Brisbane tilt train service.Just having the two new diesel tilt trainsoperating safely on the track—and the tilttrains can operate safely on the existingtrack—will generate significant trip saving timesof the order of about four hours betweenBrisbane and Cairns. Independently, ofcourse, the Queensland Rail Board, as acommercial decision—and this is the difference


I was pointing out before in relation toQueensland Rail's main line freight—hasdecided that it will spend $240m on the trackupgrade between Townsville andRockhampton. That will mean trackstraightening and removing and replacing oldtimber and steel sleepers with concretesleepers. This will allow our freight trains tooperate at speeds of up to 100 km/h all theway through to Townsville. That track upgrade,for which we have allocated in excess of $40mthis year, will also provide significant benefits tothe tilt train.

We are putting money into infrastructurein places such as Rockhampton andTownsville. We are putting money into regionaleconomies such as Maryborough which willbenefit from having the tilt trains constructed inthat city. When the tilt train project is broughtto fruition, we believe that the sorts of benefitsthat are now being experienced bycommunities between Rockhampton andBrisbane in relation to the existing tilt trainservices will be extended to communitiesbeyond Rockhampton. We have seen monthlypassenger figures, for example, which indicatethat the tilt train has resulted in a 130%increase in the number of passengers usingtrains. We are about delivering those kinds ofbenefits to people throughout Queensland. Soour commitment to regional Queenslandthrough investment by Queensland Rail issecond to none.

The CHAIRMAN: The time forGovernment-appointed members' questionshas expired. I will now take non-Governmentmembers' questions.

Mr JOHNSON: Minister, I refer to thetender let to Visionstream for the roll-out ofbroadband telecommunication infrastructureusing Queensland Rail's right-of-wayannounced in the Australian of 8 December1998. What was the price of the successfultender by Visionstream?

Mr BREDHAUER: By way of introduction, Imight say something before I get Bob toanswer the question. We have sought tosignificantly improve the IT capacity forregional communities along the easternseaboard. We have agreed to allowQueensland Rail, in conjunction withVisionstream, to effectively establish a bandlink between Cairns and Brisbane within our railcorridor. This will allow fibre optic cabletechnology to be significantly expanded andwill provide IT benefits to communities rightalong the eastern seaboard of Queensland.

There are significant benefits toQueensland Rail in terms of access to four—I

think it is—of those cables which will enableQueensland Rail to operate and expand itstechnology capacities with the use of thatcable network. There have been negotiationsbetween Government departments concerningthe securing of some work by Governmentdepartments for that network. The bottom lineis that the Queensland Government iscooperating with the private sector venturer todeliver benefits to the people of Queensland.For more detail, I might ask Bob if he couldadd a few words.

Mr SCHEUBER: The arrangement that wehave with Reef Networks is for thatorganisation to lay the cable. Queensland Railis not being paid anything for the use ofQueensland Rail's right of way. WhatQueensland Rail gets, as the Minister hassaid, is access to four dark fibres on a cable. Itwould be too expensive for QR, in its own right,to lay down such a cable. What Reef Networksgets is access to QR's right of way and whatQR get is access to four dark fibres at asubstantially discounted price in terms of whatit would have to do if it went out and leasedthat access itself.

Mr JOHNSON: Minister, I refer to the five-year agreement with AAPT for the use of theso-called excess fibre optic cables ofQueensland Rail published in theCommunications Day of 9 August 1999. Whatis the remuneration for the Government as aresult of this agreement and was thisagreement reached through expressions ofinterest or as a result of an open andcompetitive tender process?

Mr BREDHAUER: At the outset, I mightsay that questions of that nature should morecorrectly be directed to the Minister for LocalGovernment, Communication and Information,who has been primarily the responsibleMinister. My involvement in the project hasbeen because of the right-of-way issuesassociated with Queensland Rail. I have beenhappy for us to cooperate in this project.However, I suggest that the question shouldmore correctly be addressed to the Minister forLocal Government, Communication andInformation.

Let me just say that the specific benefit toQueensland Rail, as Bob has outlined, is thatin return for the use of the right-of-way wehave secured services which we would haveotherwise been unable to afford. Let me alsosay, however, that the significant benefitswhich will flow to regional communities alongthe eastern seaboard through improvedaccess to technology have been a significantfactor in the Government's decision. Beyond


that, I suggest that the matter should bereferred to the other Minister.

Mr JOHNSON: I refer to the $33mallocated to vehicle acquisition by QueenslandRail. This appears in the capital statement inpaper No. 5 at page 90. I note that this isshown as an ongoing program. Can youindicate how this expenditure compares withlast year? Can you also indicate how many ofthese vehicles are heavy vehicles and, inparticular, how many are articulated vehicles?

Mr BREDHAUER: The short answer tothat question is that I cannot answer it off thetop of my head, but if we can get theinformation we will provide it to youstraightaway. Last year the figure was $39m;this year it is $33m. It is an ongoing program.We are spending a little less this year than wedid last year. In terms of the ratio of heavyvehicles to light vehicles—I will take that onnotice and make the offer to get thatinformation to the Committee as quickly aspossible.

Mr JOHNSON: What were the patronagefigures for Citytrain last year? How do thesefigures compare with the previous year? I referyou to MPS 1-7.

Mr BREDHAUER: We have had 3%growth. In the last financial year, 41 million wasthe total number of passengers that wecarried. The figure for the previous year was 39million. In effect, that is 3% growth. Part of theCitytrain contract is clearly about having acapacity to deliver certainty in financial terms toQR. We would be seeking to continue to growour Citytrain passenger numbers over thecoming years. The Integrated RegionalTransport Plan has anticipated significantgrowth in public transport numbers acrosssouth-east Queensland over the next 25years. As part of that commitment, we expectthat Citytrain will play its part. The 1997-98figure was actually closer to $40m; it was$39.9m. The 1998-99 figure is $41.1m. That isprojected to grow in 2001-02 to $45m. Weanticipate that, over the next four years, therewill be significant growth in the Citytrainpassenger patronage.

I think the other important thing to realiseis that we at Queensland Transport, inconjunction with QR and our friends at BT, arealso looking at ways to enhance theintegration and efficiency of services that weoperate across the public transport network insouth-east Queensland so that we canachieve greater synergies to deliver betterpublic transport outcomes and get morepeople out of their privately owned motorvehicles in south-east Queensland and onto

public transport or other forms of less-pollutingand less-congesting transport. I know themember for Mount Ommaney has problemswith congestion on the motorway in her neckof the woods. She writes to me about it often.We are looking at promoting walking andcycling. We are very serious about promotingpublic transport, which should enable us topromote the number of people using theCitytrain network.

Mr JOHNSON: I note that funds havebeen provided for the upgrade of the securityof rail passengers. I might say that I travelledon the Gold Coast train on the weekend. Iapplaud the number of security officers on thattrain to and from the Gold Coast.

I refer you to the Departmental ServicesBudget Paper No. 4, page 66. Can you advisewhether there has been any contract let for theprovision of the duress buttons in question?

Mr BREDHAUER: As part of our SafeStation program, we are spending $35m overfive years upgrading safety on railway stations.I think the important thing is that in this year'sbudget we have a $5m allocation to continuethat program. I welcome the comments by themember for Gregory about his positiveexperiences on a recent trip on the Gold Coastrailway. When I talked before about trains Isaid that if we provide comfortable, efficient,safe and secure public transport—trains inparticular—people will use them. We recognisethat that is a significant issue. We are rollingout the Safe Station program, which isinvesting in CCTV. We have guardian trainsoperating on a regular basis. We have the railpolice security, which we are working toenhance significantly. We have an agreementto go to 50 in terms of police who are actuallyworking with QR on trains and around railwaystations. For example, at Beenleigh in theelectorate of the member for Waterford I hadthe opportunity to open a railway station policecentre late last year. Those are the kinds ofinitiatives that we are undertaking, as well asour own rail protective security unit, to ensurethat passengers can use trains safely.

In respect of the duress buttons, notenders have been let. We expect to go out totender on that program in the not-too-distantfuture. Collectively, it is all part of ourcommitment to try to provide safe and securerail travel for the patrons of QR. I think it issignificant that we have been able to improvethe safety. We have reduced the incidence ofthings like graffiti on QR property in recenttimes. The parliamentary TravelsafeCommittee has conducted a couple ofinquiries into security matters associated with


QR and the Citytrain network. We have workedquite closely with the parliamentary TravelsafeCommittee on those reports and we haveworked to implement those recommendations.Across QR and the Citytrain network there is araft of initiatives that we as a Government arevery serious about pursuing so that, to thegreatest extent possible, people can enjoysafe, secure and comfortable travel any timethey get on one of our Citytrain operations.

Mr JOHNSON: I refer you back to thatquestion. In relation to that tender process, doyou have any idea how many people tenderedfor the duress buttons?

Mr BREDHAUER: We have not gone outto tender yet. We will be going out to tender inthe near future. I cannot predict how manypeople might submit a tender.

Mr JOHNSON: You mentioned the railpolice initiative. I think that is a fantasticinitiative. How many more of those operationsdo you plan to put in place around the railnetwork in Brisbane working in conjunction withthe Queensland Police Service?

Mr BREDHAUER: At present Beenleigh iscomplete. The existing program is to providesimilar services at Petrie, Manly and alsoRedbank. We will have four of those railwaypolice stations. In addition to recognising theimportant role that those railway stations play,it is the actual personnel who are important. Ithink the commitment that we have to increaseto 50 the number of police who are operatingwith QR is a significant contribution. I welcomethe cooperation that we have had from theMinister for Police and Corrective Services,Tom Barton, and also the Commissioner ofPolice, Jim O'Sullivan. I know that my CEO forQR, Vince, and Jim take very seriously theirresponsibilities to work together to provide thesafest possible network of Citytrain that theycan. It is not just a matter of having thestations; it is a matter of having the police ontrains and patrolling the stations from time totime.

Two years ago we had 18; now we have46. We have moved a long way towardsachieving our target of 50 already. That is inconjunction with things like the safety zoneconcept, which is operating on stations. Weare trialling that on the Ferny Grove line. Wewill roll it out after we have had a look at thattrial. The CCTV installation will be rolled out inthe future. The emergency call buttons arebeing used on urban stations. We are about totrial the personal duress buttons that youmentioned. We are improving communicationsbetween drivers and guards on trains.

These are all initiatives that we haveundertaken in recent years through QR andwhich we are continuing to roll out in order toimprove safety and security for patrons of theCitytrain network—even basic things likeimproving lighting at stations and in railwaystation car parks. Those kinds of things areoften relatively low investment items but theimportant thing is that they improve safetysignificantly. The support of the police comesnot just from the actual numbers but also, forexample, we have the situation where theirdistrict agrees to release them to work with QR,and then there is specific training for thosepeople in the operations of the QR network.

Mr JOHNSON: Just continuing on with thesecurity measures provided by QueenslandRail on the urban network, can you advise thehearings precisely what the Government'sintentions are and what Queensland Rail'sintentions are in relation to further security ofcar parking on that network? Also, what sort ofan advertising program are you currentlyundertaking in the print media and in theelectronic media to provide the general publicwith the knowledge of how secure this systemis going to be in the future?

Mr BREDHAUER: The whole Safe Stationprogram is at a cost of $39.5m. That is theproject in its entirety, and it is $35m—

Mr JOHNSON: What period is that over?Mr BREDHAUER: I am about to say, it is

$35m covering a period from 1998-99 until theend of 2002-2003. $32m of that is to befunded from the State Budget, with thebalance of $3m representing QR's contributionto the project. You might recall that this was anelection commitment given by us when wewere in Opposition. So this is about deliveringon our election commitment.

This year's budget has $4m from theState Government's contribution and $1mfrom QR. So the total expenditure on the SafeStation program in the current budget is $5m.That will be spent expanding the safety zoneconcept at stations and further implementingthe CCTV. The installation is complete at 116Citytrain stations; 53 EMUs out of 88; plus all10 IMUs are equipped with CCTV; 10 EMUshave also been fitted out with new guardmonitoring equipment and an extension of thecamera coverage is planned in 1999-2000.We have help points for emergency use. Allurban stations will have help points.Emergency telephones will be installed at 142stations. As I have mentioned already, wehave concluded the trialling of the personalduress button systems and we are moving tothe tender stage in the not-too-distant future.


We are improving lighting at stations andaccess and safety fencing—those kinds ofthings. As John just advises me, we are alsoexpanding and improving the lock-up facilitiesat car parks.

Of course, when we invest in new parkand rides—for example, as we are soon to doout in the Goodna area—then we willincorporate these safety elements as part ofthe investment in those new facilities. So thereis a significant capital investment by QR andby the State Government in providing safe andsecure public transport on the QR network.

Mr JOHNSON: Minister, as I just said, inrelation to advertising to the general public toencourage more people to use the network, isany money going to be used for that type ofprogram?

Mr BREDHAUER: Basically, QR does thatas part of their promotion of the services thatthey offer. So that will be part of QR'spromotional budget. I do not have a specificfigure that will be allocated, but I can assurethe member—

Mr JOHNSON: That program will beongoing, though? I am trying to beconstructive here.

Mr BREDHAUER: Yes. There is anongoing program—

Mr JOHNSON: You do not want me to benegative all the time, do you?

Mr BREDHAUER: I thank the honourablemember for his support and assistance on thisand other matters. The point is that, yes, QRwill be continuing to advertise the services andthe quality of the services that they provide.Just briefly, I will give you the major park andrides on which money will be expended thisyear: the Redbank park and ride, a total of$250,000 will be spent this year; at Banoon,$79,000; and at Edens Landing, $390,000.

Mr JOHNSON: Thank you, Minister.

The CHAIRMAN: The period for non-Government questions has expired. We willnow proceed to Government members'questions. The member for Mount Ommaney.

Mrs ATTWOOD: Minister, does this 1999-2000 Budget provide for any enhancement ofrail services to the Sunshine Coast inparticular?

Mr BREDHAUER: Thank you. I appreciatethis opportunity to say that the Sunshine Coastrail services in particular have been an issuethat has occupied a considerable amount ofmy time over the past 12 months or so. Therehave been regular representations by themember for Nicklin in particular, and I

acknowledge those. In fairness, I think that themember for Nicklin and the people of theSunshine Coast have a right to expect thattheir Government will continue to seek toimprove services.

We are looking at a variety of ways inwhich we can improve public transport servicesfor people throughout the Sunshine Coast. Wehave some limitations because of theavailability of rolling stock and because of thecapacities of the existing track. Without furtherexpanding the number of tracks on which wecan operate, there are some constraints whichcome as a part of that. Through the Citytraincontract negotiations, which I mentionedpreviously, we have signed a seven-year,$283m per annum contract for Citytrainservices. As part of that budget, $1.25m will bespent enhancing public transport services tothe Sunshine Coast in particular, through theprovision of additional daily rail services andthe introduction of the new rail/bus linkbetween Nambour and Caboolture.

Additional rail services were introduced byCitytrain for the Sunshine Coast region on 26July. So people in the area will know what theyare. From 1 November, a shuttle bus servicewill be introduced to operate to all Citytrainstations between Nambour and Caboolture athourly intervals. The coordinated shuttle busservice will operate between 6.30 a.m. and7.30 p.m. and connect with the Citytrain railservices at Caboolture. We also have furtherrail services expansion planned for 2000—anadditional weekday morning peak serviceextension departing from Nambour at 6.25and an additional weekday evening returnshuttle service between Caboolture andNambour, one in each direction.

So we are looking to continue to expandthe capability of rail services and, as I say, tobe a bit innovative and imaginative. I really dothank the member for Nicklin for his support forthis and the fact that we have been able toimprove those services. Of course, we havelonger-term plans as well to improve publictransport services throughout the SunshineCoast. So it will not just be the people who livenear the existing railway line betweenCaboolture and Nambour who will benefit intime from the enhancement to services. Anadditional $1.25m has been allocated as partof that rail contract to provide those services,particularly the rail/bus program from 1November.

The CHAIRMAN: Minister, I ask you tooutline the recent major contracts that havebeen awarded by Queensland Rail to themajor rail manufacturers in Queensland,


including Walkers at Maryborough, Goninansin Townsville and Queensland Rail's ownRedbank workshops.

Mr BREDHAUER: This is an importantquestion, because we have significant railengineering expertise and capacity throughoutregional parts of Queensland. Walkers hasbecome famous in recent times inMaryborough, and rightly so, for the capacitythat it has shown to deliver innovative andsuccessful projects like the tilt-train project. Itshould be known to all members of theCommittee that there are other significantplayers in the rail engineering and constructionarea. Those companies are supported inregional areas in particular by QueenslandRail. They win contracts and by so doing getbusiness from Queensland Rail. In that way,we are able to contribute to economicdevelopment and employment growth inregional centres.

Recent contracts won by Walkers, Adtransat Maryborough, for example, have included$45m for the four IMUs for the new airport-citylink. That contract was awarded last year whenwe announced that the airport-city link projectwould get up and running. Of course, Walkersalso has the $138m contract to build the newCairns to Brisbane tilt train.

Some of the recent contracts thatGoninans, which is based in Townsville in northQueensland, has won include, in 1998-99, aproject for 810 bogies and six-wheel sets forthe 80 tonne gross container wagons, valuedat $15.3m; 220 VSA coal wagons valued at$20.4m; and in 1999-2000, 150 VSA coalwagons valued at $13.5m. The Redbank QRworkshops have won recent contracts including400 new container wagons at a cost of$28.5m, an upgrade of 319 container wagonsat a cost of $5.5m and 100 VSA wagons at acost of $9m. The workshops at Rockhamptonare doing the KDD retrofit and wagon upgradeat a value of $37m. As you can see, work isbeing provided by QR through the contractsthat are won by those companies throughoutQueensland. Last financial year, EDI atSherwood and Maryborough won a contractfor 136 bogies at a value of $2.7m andanother contract for 206 bogies, valued at$4.1m.

We are putting significant resources intoregional areas, which will enable us to ensurethat those regional areas share the economicand employment benefits that come from thesignificant infrastructure program that will beundertaken by QR.

Mrs ATTWOOD: Queensland Rail hasbeen reported as being involved in a major rail

contract in Hong Kong. Does this haveimplications for Government funding now or inthe future?

Mr BREDHAUER: I think this is a greatnews story. QR has been part of a consortiumwith KCRC, the Kowloon Canton RailCorporation in Hong Kong, to build a newrailway track there. The total project value is$A86m. QR is joined in this joint venture byChun Wo Construction and Engineering andHenri Vichey Construction Company, both fromHong Kong, and the China RailwayConstruction Corporation of China. This projectis about building 30.7 kilometres of track.When I was in Hong Kong with Vince a littlewhile ago, I learned that the kind of moneythat they are spending on railway investmentand upgrades in Hong Kong, which is a smallplace, is quite mind blowing. I think it was inthe order of $A10 billion that they arespending on track upgrades.

Not only does this project impose no coston the taxpayers of Queensland, it shouldactually return a dividend because it is acommercial operation by QR. We will belending project management and on-sitetechnical expertise. We will be training trackmaintenance staff from the Kowloon CantonRailway Corporation. We will also be assistingwith operational maintenance manuals andthose kinds of things.

This adds to the other successes thatQR's consulting services have had previously.We won a contract through the AsiaDevelopment Bank to assist with some work inUzbekistan, so QR people will be working inUzbekistan. We are also part of a consortiumthat has a bid in for some work to help with therevitalisation of the State Railways of Thailand.I took the opportunity to visit Bangkok withVince on that occasion to promote ourcapabilities.

QR is demonstrating not only that it hasthe capacity to run efficient and effective railservices in Queensland, but also that it iscapable of competing on a national andinternational stage. I have to say that thereputation that QR is gaining for itself in Asia,in particular, and through its partners in someof those projects on an international basisalso, will stand not just QR but the people ofQueensland in good stead and we will all havethe capacity to benefit from that.

I conclude by saying that at a nationallevel, QR has recently established the NationalDevelopment Unit and David George has beenappointed to head that unit. We will be activelyseeking business at a national level, as wehave been actively seeking it at an


international level, so that we can promoteQR's capabilities both nationally andinternationally.

Mrs ATTWOOD: Minister, given theGovernment's commitment to jobs, what willthis budget support in regard to employmentand training initiatives with Queensland Rail?

Mr BREDHAUER: Probably the mostimportant thing we have done in terms ofsustaining employment in QR is to agree tofully fund the community service obligations.That additional $200m gives certainty offunding. Contracts will flow from that, one ofwhich has already been signed and thebalance of which are still being negotiated.The kind of certainty that will be generated bysigning those contracts and giving fundingcertainty to QR over the seven-year term of thecontracts is probably the most significant thingwe can do in terms of securing futureemployment for the maximum number of QRemployees.

QR and its work force have had to facemany challenges in the last nine years, as theroughly $6 billion worth of investment that hasbeen undertaken by QR across its network hasreformed and required change within theworkplace. There have been some realchallenges, but, by and large, I think that theyhave been met by both the organisation andits workers in a way that has not beenproblem-free, but has enabled theorganisation to achieve some of the thingsthat I have mentioned already today.

I am particularly pleased at the role thatQR is playing in our jobs initiatives programs inQueensland, particularly under the Breakingthe Unemployment Cycle program. It would beinteresting for members of the Committee toknow that in the last financial year,Queensland Rail employed 150 apprentices,which makes it one of the major employers ofapprentices anywhere in this State. I guessother departments like the Department ofPublic Works and Housing are also makingsignificant contributions, but QR would be oneof the biggest employers of apprentices, if notthe biggest employer of apprentices, inQueensland. That is a role that QR has hadover the years. The slowdown in apprenticeemployment has been reflected in QR in thepast, as it has in other industries, but we reallyneed to make that commitment. QR has alsoprovided an additional 100 traineeships, whichis a major contribution.

Because of changes to the work practicesand the workplace in QR, it has beennecessary to help to retrain workers. Significantinvestment has been put into providing training

opportunities for the existing work force, as wellas the new people who are coming through.QR is also one of the most significantemployers of railway engineers anywhere inthe country. That is another major contributionthat we make to maintaining employment andproviding apprenticeships and training,especially for young Queenslanders.

The CHAIRMAN: Government appointedmembers have advised me that they do nothave any further questions for QueenslandRail. At this stage, we will terminateGovernment questioning. We will now takenon-Government questions in order to let MrO'Rourke go as soon as is convenient.

Mr JOHNSON: In relation to theTownsville Railway Station, last year yourGovernment promised that this facility wouldbe relocated. What are the latestdevelopments in relation to the TownsvilleRailway Station?

Mr BREDHAUER: In relation to theTownsville Railway Station, at the moment weare undertaking a planning exercise which willbasically enable us to determine the best sitefor relocation of the railway station. We madea commitment prior to the last election that wewould provide for relocation of the railwaystation. There are a couple of reasons for that.People would be aware that Townsville iscurrently being supported by the StateGovernment and the city council inundertaking a major urban renewal project inthe CBD area. As part of that, I think there isgeneral consensus that it would be desirableto remove the rail loop which currently bringspeople into the Townsville Railway Station. Wemade a commitment that we would shift therailway station. Initially, the preferred site wasthought to be Reid Park. But having spoken topeople in Townsville, I think it would—and thisis the process we are undertaking now—beappropriate for us to have a planning exercisewhich determines what the best location wouldbe.

Our primary focus here is twofold: it is toprovide first-class, up-to-date facilities forpassengers of Queensland Rail who are usingthe Townsville station. There is a letter to theeditor of the Townsville Bulletin from MayorTony Mooney today which talks about hiscommitment on that basis. I welcome hissupport. I acknowledge that he is correct insaying that it is primarily our responsibility tomake the decision and to run the program, butI do welcome his support. He makes thecomment that people in Townsville and visitorsto Townsville have put up with substandardpassenger rail facilities in Townsville for some


time. We are determined to address that, butwe want to do that in a way which contributesto the overall benefit of Townsville generally.

The final decisions have not been made,for example, about whether that would alsoinclude the relocation of QR's administrativenetwork in Townsville. It may well be that theexisting railway station in some form is retainedand that the administrative headquarters ofQR stays there and that we shift the stationcomponent and the passenger facilities tosome other place. The funding is available inthis Budget through our normal planningprocesses to enable us to undertake the kindof planning that we are currently engaged in,and in the Forward Estimates we haveallocations of $2m next year and $10m theyear after to effect the change. There hasbeen a bit of a campaign in the TownsvilleBulletin saying that it is a bad decision. But wewant to work with the people of Townsville todeliver first-class facilities and contributepositively to the redevelopment of the CBD sothat we get the best possible outcome for thepeople of Townsville. The support of localmembers such as Mike Reynolds and LindyNelson-Carr is critical to that.

Mr JOHNSON: Can your Governmentguarantee the full retention of the currentTownsville South rail yard and is it correct thata substantial portion of the existing rail land willbe required to provide enhanced rail servicesto the port of Townsville?

Mr BREDHAUER: In relation to theexisting Townsville South railway workshops,over the past 14 or 15 months since I havebeen the Minister, we have continued toprovide sufficient work there so that we canmaintain the viability of the Townsvilleworkshops. A commitment has been given torelocate the workshops to Stuart and we arecurrently reviewing that commitment in thecontext of the needs of QR in Townsville andin the context of progressing that electioncommitment. But I have to say that we are anactive player in the CBD redevelopment. Itmay be that that existing QR land—in fact, it isa given now—will be part of that CBDredevelopment. We are working with theTownsville CBD Redevelopment Task Force asan active partner in that process. QR is anactive partner in that process. We are alsoundertaking a study to improve access to theport of Townsville. That is critical to the futuregrowth of the capacity of the Townsville port.

But I need to say that at this stage nofinal decision has been made in respect of apreferred corridor for the long-term access tothe port of Townsville. In the not-too-distant

future, I will personally be launching the nextstage of the port access study for Townsville. Itis taking some time to work through, but it issuch a significant long-term issue for thepeople of Townsville and particularly for theport of Townsville that, in my view, it is worthinvesting the time and resources now to makesure that we get the correct outcome that canguarantee the best possible access to the portof Townsville. Certainly, no decisions havebeen made in respect of the futureimprovement of access to the port ofTownsville which may affect QR land at theTownsville South railway workshops oranywhere else, because we have not actuallyfinalised the preferred corridor for access to theport. No decision has been made there.Clearly, there would be full consultation withthe community. QR would be involved if itsland was affected by the future port access.

This is a cooperative effort, again,between State Government agencies,including QR, the Townsville City Council, theTownsville Port Authority and the community,which I believe has a role to play. Our localmembers there are very active in promotingthe needs of their constituents, especially themember for Townsville.

Mr JOHNSON: Do you have an agendato relocate the Townsville South yard in thelong term? Can you also give a commitmentthat those railway workshops in Townsville willcontinue to be maintained in their entirety as astand-alone operation?

Mr BREDHAUER: If you relocated theyards, you would not give the commitment tomaintain them in their entirety in their existinglocation.

Mr JOHNSON: I reiterate the question: doyou have a long-term plan to relocate theyards and can you give a commitment that, ifthey are relocated, it will be left as a stand-alone workshop facility in Townsville?

Mr BREDHAUER: Prior to the lastelection, we made a commitment to spend$20m relocating workshops to Stuart. Imentioned that in the answer to your previousquestion. In conjunction with QueenslandTransport and Queensland Rail, I am currentlyreviewing the implementation of that electioncommitment. There has been a significantinvestment in the Townsville South railwayworkshops in recent years, as you would know,including in your time as Minister. Iacknowledge the support that you have giventhe people at the Townsville South railwayworkshops over time. The important thing torecognise is that they are foremost in my mindwhen it comes to these issues. I want to make


decisions in relation to the future of theworkshops in Townsville that guarantee secureemployment for the maximum number of QRworkers in that area. The commitment that wehave given, though, was to spend $20mrelocating to Stuart. We are working throughthe conditions that could be associated withsuch a move. All I can say is that, if you spend$20m relocating to Stuart, you are not going tomaintain all of the existing facilities. They arethe exact issues that we are currently trying towork through before we make any finaldecisions.

Mr JOHNSON: So you cannot guaranteethat the existing complement of peopleemployed in QR workshops will be maintainedin the future?

Mr BREDHAUER: We have haddiscussions recently with the Townsville Southrailway workshops in relation to likely futureemployment levels. We believe that we have aresponsibility to those workers generally tomake sure that they are aware of what theemployment projections are into the future.There are currently 280 people employed atthe Townsville South railway workshops. In ourdiscussions we have flagged that in about fiveyears' time QR, according to its current workprogram, would see a need for about 220people employed at the Townsville Southrailway workshops. My understanding is thatwe have worked through these issues withlocal employees. Bear in mind that we haverecently negotiated a new voluntary earlyretirement package and that all of thecommitments we have made in the past aboutno forced redundancies and relocations exist.We have a package that can help people whoseek redundancies, where that occurs. Youcan actually reduce your overall work forcenumbers through a process of natural attrition,where that is opportune.

So we have actually discussed with themfigures of around about 220 employees in fiveyears' time. We try to give them a commitmentso that they have certainty about where theyare heading over the next few years. I make avery strong personal commitment to QRemployees everywhere that we will work withthem honestly in helping them to reach anunderstanding of what QR's employmenttargets are across the network. Have we gotthose vehicle numbers? I could just give youthose.

Mr GRALTON: They were last year's.

Mr BREDHAUER: Okay. We had thevehicle numbers for last year. I was going toget you the vehicle numbers for this year.There were 94 trucks. This is in relation to the

AAPT issue. With your agreement, MrChairman, I might get Vince to answer that.

Mr O'ROURKE: I just add some additionalinformation. As you said, QR went out forexpressions of interest in terms of thec o m m e r c i a l i sing of o ur QRtelecommunications. We had the issue thatyou have already discussed—the Reef Netfibre-optic cable response to Cairns. LaterAAPT approached us regarding use of ournetworks in the Brisbane metropolitan areas,specifically on the Gold Coast. We haveconcluded a commercial arrangement withAAPT. Mr Mackenroth's department wasacross that issue. I just wanted to providesome additional information for Mr Johnson.

The CHAIRMAN: The non-Governmentappointed members have advised me thatthey do not require QR staff for any furtherquestioning. We thank Mr O'Rourke andMr Scheuber for their attendance. At this pointwe will return to Government members'questions. Recent and proposedenhancements to the port of Brisbane areseen as being integral to the progression ofthe Brisbane Gateway Ports Project and theAustralia TradeCoast initiatives. Could youplease outline the achievements of the Port ofBrisbane Corporation in attracting new trade tothe port and the future plans for investment inthe Fisherman Islands precinct, which ofcourse is proudly within my electorate ofLytton.

Mr BREDHAUER: Thanks for thatquestion. I note particularly that the Chairman,as the member for Lytton, has an abidinginterest in matters down at the port and is aregular visitor to and correspondent with myoffice and is in contact with my office aboutmatters relating to the port. It is one of themost significant employment generators andindustry generators for the whole State ofQueensland. The representation which themember makes in respect of issues downthere is always appreciated. I should alsomention that the Deputy Premier, Jim Elder, asthe Minister for State Development, has takena very hands-on approach in relation to issuesdown at the port in his capacity and we workvery closely together in promoting issues downthere.

The Australia TradeCoast is a partnershipbetween the port of Brisbane, the BrisbaneAirport Corporation, the Department of StateDevelopment and the Office of EconomicDevelopment, representing the Brisbane CityCouncil. Essentially, they are proposing topromote up to 1,000 hectares of primeindustrial land both nationally and


internationally which exists down there at theport and which has the capacity to provideindustry and economic opportunities for theport and for the people of Queensland.

Just to give a flavour for some of theinitiatives that have been undertaken therefrom 1 July last year, Sea-land beganoperating as a stevedore down there. Thatmeans that the Port of Brisbane Corporation isthe first port in Australia to have three majorstevedoring operations operating there. Therelationship with Sea-land incorporates acentralisation of cargo through Brisbane ratherthan Sydney and Melbourne and providesopportunities for land bridging. The potentialthat Sea-land brings to the port of Brisbane issignificant and will contribute to positioningBrisbane as Australia's leading gateway port tothe Asia-Pacific markets.

During this year—1999—the port ofBrisbane also became the first port in Australiawith on-site facilities to pack cotton. This cameabout as a result of the partnership betweenthe Port of Brisbane Corporation and IslandPacking & Storage. It will significantly reducetransport and handling costs for the cottonindustry and be a major benefit for bothQueensland and New South Wales cottonproducers and provide a seamless transitionfrom the cotton gin to the wharves, which Ithink will be a major benefit for that industry.

Also during July of this year, GlobexInternational officially opened its new bulkcommodity export facility at the FishermanIslands terminal which has a capacity for60,000 tonnes of bulk product per annum. Wehave also seen plans for the future needs ofthe car industry, and Melbourne based motorvehicle importer Fleet Fit is to be the precinct'sfirst tenant. Their operations are due to becompleted this year, including 4,000 squaremetres of warehouse and 200 square metresof office space. These are the kinds ofopportunities that the port of Brisbane isoffering, and its contribution to AustraliaTradeCoast will stand our importers andexporters in good stead.

Mrs ATTWOOD: As you may be aware, Ihave contacted your office on severaloccasions regarding reports of delays inlearner drivers being able to undertakepractical driving tests. Why are there delaysand what is Queensland Transport doing toreduce them in this budget?

Mr BREDHAUER: In relation to the learnerdriver issue, last year we introduced a newdriving test called Q-Safe. We introduced theQ-Safe driving test because we wereconcerned to make the driving test as practical

as possible. So the Q-Safe test is abouttesting learner drivers in real driving situations.Under the Q-Safe test, it takes a little bit longerto undertake the actual practical tests.

I need to say that the Q-Safe programwas devised after extensive consultation withthe driver training industry, for example, andother stakeholders, including the RACQ andothers with an interest. It is something whichcontinues to enjoy the support of thoseagencies, notwithstanding the fact that wehave had a few teething problems and it hascaused a number of delays. We haverecognised that these delays have occurredand our reaction to date has been to employtemporary examiners to assist in the roll-outperiod of the Q-Safe testing and to allowQueensland Transport to assess the impactsof the new test.

Since then, given that we continue tohave some delays in the driver testing process,we have been back to consult with industryabout how we can now improve the delivery ofQ-Safe, and a package of initiatives has beenprepared which will address the end-to-endprocess of driver testing and hence reducewaiting times. We will get involved in theengagement of short-term temporary drivingexaminers at selected centres because theload has fallen unevenly at different centres.Some places have longer delays than others.So we want to target resources specifically atthose places where there are longer delays.

We are trying to streamline the testingprocess by modifying some aspects of thetest, so we introduced the new Q-Safe test.Now that we have had some experience with itfor a period of roughly 12 months, I guess, weare going back to have a look at the practicalelements of the test. Where we can streamlinesome elements of that to improve itsefficiency, then we will do that.

We are also streamlining test bookingarrangements. One of the things that peopledo is book themselves in for a test at threedifferent driver testing centres at the sametime and they will only take one. Then youhave someone who is booked for a test andthey do not show up and, of course, youcannot bring someone in late. So we are goingto look at the notion of a centralised bookingservice so that we do not have those kinds ofproblems. Finally, we have changes to motorcycle testing. We think that, if we can bringthose on stream a little bit quicker, that willenable us to further address those kinds ofdelays. We recognise that there is an issueand we are working hard with our ownemployees and also industry to address it.


The CHAIRMAN: What is the current stateof the South East Transit Project in terms ofthe total project budget and the anticipateddate for completion of the project?

Mr BREDHAUER: The South East TransitProject has been an interesting one. I knowthat the member for Gregory, as the formerMinister, had close association with this. I haveto say that one of the things that has causedus some concern in terms of time and overallbudget was the change to the alignment ofthe project through the South Bank area. Thatis a matter which probably the member forGregory knows the history of better than I do.Eventually the South Bank Corporation andthe member for Surfers Paradise as theprevious Premier, in conjunction with themember for Gregory, made those changes.That has necessitated substantial additionalwork by our planners and by our design peopleand has, I have to say, put some significantconstraints on construction issues and thosesorts of things, as well as the matters we hadin relation to land acquisitions, which were alsoa direct result of those alignment changes.

The project is, though, funded at $520m.To date, contracts for $294m worth of work onthat project have been let. Detailed design iswell under way on the remaining outstandingsections, which include the transit lanesbetween the Gateway and Logan Motorways.Construction of the busway is under way. Ifyou travel over that side of town now you willsee evidence of the construction significantlyunder way in that area. The reason we have toget a wriggle on over there is that we need thesection to Woolloongabba to be complete by13 September next year, when we have theOlympic soccer. One of our importantimperatives in that project is that we have thebusway linked to the Gabba so that we canprovide better transport networks for peopletrying to access the Gabba for the Olympicsoccer in September next year. That part ofthe project is well advanced.

We expect that the busway will progresson schedule, with a view to commissioning thebusway in June 2001. We would expect thatconstruction of the eight laning between theGateway and Logan Motorways willcommence in the early part of 2000. That isexpected to be completed by the end of 2001.That is a significant project. Obviously we havework starting on the other side of town, on theinner northern busway, as well so that we canlink those into an effective and efficientbusway network for the people of Brisbaneand surrounding areas.

Mrs ATTWOOD: In recent times you havemade a number of statements concerning theprovision of supportive infrastructure for publictransport throughout Queensland Transport'stransport division. What funding has beenallocated in 1999-2000 for public transportinfrastructure?

Mr BREDHAUER: This is an importantcommitment that we make. One of the thingswe do to try to encourage people to better usepublic transport is actually provide publictransport infrastructure. We provide money forbus shelters, for timetables and for variousother hardware so that people are able to getbetter and easier access to our public transportnetwork.

We do this in conjunction with localgovernment, although often I wish that localgovernment would put their hands in theirpockets a little bit deeper to help out withsome of the cost. Local councillors are often inthe paper claiming credit for the bus facilitiesthat we have paid for. Particularly in the run-upto their elections in March next year I expectwe will see a lot more of that. If we had a bitmore support from them then our dollar wouldgo further.

Fundamentally, we have allocated $7mtowards public transport infrastructure. I will listsome of the major projects, because theydemonstrate once again the regionalapproach we take to providing these services.There is $1.5m towards progressing the busstation at Springwood; almost $1m to furtherdevelop a new bus station at Capalaba, inconjunction with the Redland Shire Council, toeffectively provide an anchor for the easternbus system; $600,000 to progress transitcentre facilities in Rockhampton and Mackay;and $90,000 to continue works on theSmithfield bus facility in Cairns. $90,000 hasalso been allocated for a planning study for afuture long distance transit centre in Cairns,which will be welcomed by both the busindustry and the tourism industry in Cairns.$350,000 has been specifically set aside toimprove roadside infrastructure in Bundabergand to upgrade bus facilities at the SugarlandShopping Centre.

$1.25m is expected to be spent over arange of works in Brisbane, including buspriority measures. We have almost $900,000allocated to upgrade Park & Ride and buspatron pick-up facilities at Caboolture,Redbank, Banoon, and Edens Landing railstations—I mentioned the individual details ofsome of those Park & Ride facilities—and$260,000 has been put aside for planningstudies at major rail/bus interchange sites.


Generally speaking, there are about another$1m worth of minor works of kerbsideinfrastructure facilities and those sorts of thingsaround the State. We make a majorcontribution towards providing public transportinfrastructure which can help to provide andsupport the delivery of public transport servicesright throughout the State of Queensland.

The CHAIRMAN: Within my electoratethere is a very strong transport options projectstudy auspiced by the Queensland Council ofSocial Service. I am often approached bypeople, both from that organisation andgenerally, with disabilities and older peopleasking about what the Government is doing toimprove accessible transport. What initiativesare proposed in this budget?

Mr BREDHAUER: I guess people in mydepartment can attest to the fact that over thelast 14 or 15 months the social justicecomponent of the Transport portfolio issomething which I have been a strongadvocate for. People often think of Transportand Main Roads as a major economic andinfrastructure portfolio, but it is fundamentally asocial justice portfolio, about delivering servicesto people who need them. Some of the mostneedy are people with a disability, people whoare elderly and people who have other accesslimitations, including people in rural andremote areas, whom the member for Gregoryand I are most familiar with.

I think this is an important area. This yearwe will spend $18.75m on increasing publictransport accessibility for older people, thetransport disadvantaged and people with adisability. $7.6m will be spent by QR onprojects including the installation of lifts andfoot bridges, upgrades of existing ramps andmodification of railway carriages as part of a$48m project over seven years. This is longoverdue in QR. We have significant disabilityaccess problems. As part of the Citytraincontract, QR will spend $48m over sevenyears, including $7.6m this year.

We will spend a little over $3.25m tosubsidise the purchase of wheelchairaccessible buses across the State. Thiscontinues a program which has been underway for three years. We have given acommitment to continue that program, andthat level of funding will continue for the nexttwo years to facilitate the introduction of up to165 new low-floor buses.

Queensland Transport will continue todevelop best practice guidelines for kerbsideinfrastructure for distribution to localgovernment this financial year at anapproximate cost of $200,000. Improvements

to public transport accessibility will also beextended to the taxi industry. Seven per centof the State's taxi fleet is not wheelchairaccessible. In most urban centres thecomposition is now 10% and up to 15% inMackay. Brisbane will have 160 wheelchairaccessible taxis by June 2000. The taxisubsidy scheme was extended earlier this yearto include people with restricted walking andsevere emotional disorders, and there arereciprocal arrangements throughout Australia.$6m has been committed to maintain thescheme.

$50,000 has been committed by QT tocontinue investigations into accessibility rampsfor jetties and pontoons, for people who live onislands in particular. $800,000 has beencommitted to maintain the 50% pensionerconcessions for ferry services in Moreton Bay,Magnetic Island and the Torres Strait.Financial assistance of $600,000 per annumthrough the School Transport AssistanceScheme has also been continued to theparents of schoolchildren disadvantagedthrough living in isolated and remote areas,and $250,000 has been provided to continuethe subsidisation of long distance busoperators in remote areas. I think that packageamounts to a significant achievement forQueensland Transport in assisting people withtransport access considerations.

The CHAIRMAN: What are the financialimplications of Queensland Transport's plan fordredging to assist the State's boating public?

Mr BREDHAUER: Dredging is a reallyimportant issue with the significant amount ofcoastline that we have in Queensland. Ourdredging program is one that we maintain avery strong commitment to. There is a sharedresponsibility, I guess, between QueenslandTransport, the port authorities and localgovernment. Our responsibility, basically, is toprovide reasonable navigable access to publicfacilities in our Crown boat harbours. This is amajor ongoing undertaking, as many of theharbours are situated in coastal rivers andbays, which are prone to siltation, especiallyafter floods.

The department also administers a five-year program aimed at dredging common usechannels, providing access to commercialboating facilities. Funds are, as you wouldexpect, limited and only allocated to thoseprojects generating high regional benefits. Portauthorities are responsible for commercialshipping channels in ports, but several havemanagement roles in boat harbours andprovide dredging services based on user pays.Local governments also have a role in


dredging, but it is generally confined mainly tomaintenance dredging in canal estates anddredging to facilitate flood mitigation andbeach replenishment. Our allocation this yearis approximately $4.1m for 12 dredgingprojects along the coast of Queensland. So farthis financial year, dredging has commencedat Cooktown and the Urangan boat harbour,with total budget allocations this financial yearof $240,300 and $320,400 respectively.

Extensive dredging is also continuing inthe Southport Broadwater, with a budgetallocation this financial year of $103,300.Further dredging projects in 1999-2000 includemaintenance dredging at the Scarboroughboat harbour, where $414,000 has beenallocated, and the new marine industriesprecinct in the Coomera River, with anallocation of approximately $1m, and a newchannel at Karragarra Island and CanaipaPassage with allocations of $135,000 and$368,500 respectively.

Mrs ATTWOOD: What provision has beenmade in the Budget to provide support forpublic transport operations? And what stepshave been taken to ensure the continuity offunding and maintenance for all existingscheduled bus services?

Mr BREDHAUER: This is a major programfor us. The amount of money that we spendsubsidising public transport services aroundthe State of Queensland is probably not wellknown. In fact, we spend over $54msubsidising bus services through our buscontract system throughout the State. Just asan example, we are setting up bus servicecontract areas in places with a population inexcess of 7,000, I think it is. That is thegeneral rule. We made an exception in thecase of the Whitsundays because there was aparticular need there.

But through our bus service contracts,and the kinds of efficiencies and betteroperations that we are achieving throughthose contracts, we are getting major growth inpublic transport usage throughout the State ofQueensland. Across the State as a whole,where we have these contracts in place, theincrease in public transport patronage hasbeen of the order of 3%. But in places like theSunshine Coast, where the contract has beenin place since 1995, we have actually doubledbus patronage on the Sunshine Coast since1995 using the bus contract system. We gothrough processes of reviewing those to allowthe companies the best opportunity togenerate a return on their investment and tomake sure that we are providing serviceswhere they are required. If you look at bus

service contracts throughout the State, you willfind that significant growth has been achievedin public transport usage as a result of thecooperation between industry and the StateGovernment.

As a result of the Transport Operations(Passenger Transport) Act 1994, on 7November there was a cessation of thesavings and repeal section, and that has someimplications for operators. I need to assureoperators—because operators are not coveredby the service contracts or legislativelyempowered—funding arrangements will beeffectively deregulated and will not eligible forsubsidy funding from that time.

Queensland Transport has identified 25scheduled bus service operators currentlyreceiving subsidy funding who will be offeredfive-year commercial contracts followingagreement being reached on service levels.While some of these operators will have five-year contracts finalised by 7 November, otherswill be offered temporary contracts for 12months for the continued provision of existingservices and the maintenance of the currentlevels of funding. So we are working to makesure that we have no interruptions or anyunplanned threats to those services.

I give a guarantee that funding willcontinue to be paid after 7 November to allbus operators who are providing subsidisedcommercial passenger services forcommunities throughout Queensland. Ireiterate our commitment—a record this year.$54.2m will be spent by Queensland Transportsubsidising commercial bus service contractsthroughout the State of Queensland.

Mrs ATTWOOD: Minister, what is beingdone in this Budget to improve Queenslandcustomer service centres?

Mr BREDHAUER: This has been anotherarea that has been quite an issue for us. It hasbeen the subject of questions on notice fromthe member for Gregory and other members inthe Parliament. The customer service centresare an issue. I would like to place on recordtoday my appreciation of the work that is doneby Queensland Transport's employees in ourcustomer service centres in particular andthroughout our service delivery network. Theyare the interface, I guess, between ourdepartment and the Government and peoplewho are accessing those services.

I also recognise that there has beenconsiderable patience shown from time to timeby members of the public who haveexperienced delays at customer servicecentres and call centres. Our employees atcustomer service centres have been under a


significant amount of pressure over the pastsix months, primarily because of the growththat we have experienced in business. Forexample, in May 1998, our telephone callcentres received an average of 58,000telephone inquiries per month—May 1998,about 15 or 16 months ago. Our call centresare currently receiving 132,000 calls permonth. The growth there is phenomenal—more than double. Fifteen per cent of callerschoose the automated information system toanswer their inquiries, with the remainderrequesting to be connected with an operator.

I know from experience in Emerald, forexample, at the call centre there—I was thereone morning with Vaughan when we officiallyopened it—people were ringing up with allsorts of inquiries; for example, they wanted toknow when the next Qantas flight was leavingRockhampton to arrive in Brisbane, and thosekinds of things. Our transport people do try toprovide as much information and advice asthey possibly can, even though they may notbe directly responsible for those services.

We had Dr June Dunleavy, who is anexpert in call centre operations, review theservices last year. We made some internalaccommodations, which achieved around $1min additional resources internally to help outour call centres. We have achieved in thisBudget an additional $1m for our call centreoperations, which will enable us, we believe,through implementing thoserecommendations, to reduce waiting times totwo to three minutes. That will be substantiallythrough the provision of additional staff. Wehave also found an additional $2m for ourcustomer service centres to address theproblems there.

So the patience of the staff isappreciated. There has been a response inthis Budget which will enable them to respondbetter to the needs of their clients. I alsorecognise the difficulty that some members ofthe public have experienced and hold out theprospect of improved and more efficientservices in the future for those people.

The CHAIRMAN: Before I call the memberfor Nicklin, I advise that this will be the lastGovernment question before we proceed tonon-Government members' questions, andthat will lead to the conclusion of the morningsession.

Mr WELLINGTON: Minister, is theremonitoring of the time that customers have towait before they are connected on the callcentres?

Mr BREDHAUER: Yes, and that kind ofgoes to the issue that I was just referring to.

We have had delays at our customer callcentres in the last six months of up to 30 to 40minutes. I appreciate that that really isunacceptable.

The other thing about call centres is thatthe level of business is not consistent; you gothrough significant peaks and troughs. Forexample, when people out there are on theirlunch hour, say, between 12 and 2—and donot quote me on those figures—you will findthat there is a significant increase in demandat our call centres at times like that. And forsome reason lots of people want to pay theirbills on Fridays. So there are times when thereare significant peaks in the business, and wehave had delays of up to 30 to 40 minutes.

I can appreciate that that is unacceptableand I do not make any excuses for that. It isnot the fault of our transport staff. They workvery hard. The difficulty is that someone hasbeen hanging on the phone for half an hourlistening to the prompts from the IVRU. Thefirst thing our call centre staff have to do isspend five minutes calming people downbecause they have become frustrated andangry about the fact that they have been onthe phone for so long. Because of theinitiatives we have already taken, we havereduced those waiting times to around six toeight minutes. We have come from a high of30 to 40 minutes. These waiting times havebeen caused simply by the volume of thegrowth in business which we had notanticipated. Effectively, with our call centres webelieve that we untapped a significant latentdemand in the community. People wantedservices and could not access them directlythrough a customer service centre. Once theseservices were made available at the end of aphone the latent demand simply burgeoned.We have it down to six to eight minutes.

With the $1m that we have found in thisbudget for call centres we hope to bring thewaiting time down to around two or threeminutes. There will also be more moneyinvested in our customer service centres. Johnhas just advised me that we have a systemcalled Q-Matic which measures the amount oftime that people have been waiting in aqueue. I want a Q-Matic that gets people offthe queue, not measuring how long they havebeen on the queue. I think in this budget wehave made considerable progress in achievingsome resources to help us do that.

The CHAIRMAN: We will now havequestions from non-Government members.

Mr DALGLEISH: Minister, could youplease inform me of the exact amount offunding that has been allocated to dredging


the Hervey Bay-Urangan Boat Harbour? Haveany other funds been allocated for alterationsto the harbour and, if so, how much?

Mr BREDHAUER: If you will just bear withme, I have that figure here. The figure I justmentioned was $320,400, which has beenallocated in this budget for dredging of theUrangan Boat Harbour. What was the otherpart of the question?

Mr DALGLEISH: Have any funds beenallocated for alterations to the harbour and, ifso, how much?

Mr BREDHAUER: We have responsibilityfor only certain of the dredging requirements inrelation to the Urangan Boat Harbour. TheGreat Sandy Straits Marina also hasresponsibilities in relation to dredging. Wehave had ongoing discussions with GreatSandy Straits Marina about its contribution.Perhaps I could introduce John Watkinson,who is the director of our maritime division.John might like to say a few words on thismatter.

Mr WATKINSON: We have some extrafunding for Urangan, and that is over andabove the amount that the Minister justquoted—$330,000. $120,000 of additionalfunding is going into what we call a siltationmodelling program which is looking at thehydraulic effects of the flow of silt. What we aretrying to do is ascertain how the silt is cominginto the harbour and how we can stop itcoming into the harbour in order to mitigatedredging. The other amount that we havetargeted for this year is about $133,000. Thisinvolves further consideration of the variousstrategies that you may have seen whichKinhill put out for public consultation somemonths ago. It includes about six differentmodels. We are doing the two together. Weare looking at the options that Kinhill looked atand we are also looking at the further optionsin terms of the benefits they are going toprovide for the harbour.

Mr BREDHAUER: I have met with theMayor of Hervey Bay on a number ofoccasions. I recognise that it is desirable thatwe come to some agreement about achievinga better outcome longer term for themaintenance of the Urangan Boat Harbour.Early indications from the Kinhill report werethat a significant capital cost would be involvedin undertaking an upgrading of that nature.Given that our budget for that kind of maritimeinfrastructure is limited, and the demands arenot, we would need to work through aprogram. I am happy for us to continue to workwith local government and other appropriateagencies in trying to achieve a long-term

outcome, mainly because of the significanceof the whale-watching industry to tourism andto the economy of the area and to the fishingindustry.

Mr JOHNSON: I refer to my question onnotice No. 8 in which you have indicated thatthe number of hours for compliance have notbeen reduced. Could I ask you to refer to theoutput statement for road use managementand the measure for the number of hours ofcompliance activity which is contained in theMPS at page 1-19? Do you agree that thetarget of 231,100 hours for this budget is lowerthan both the 233,592 hours target for 1998-99 and the 245,471 hours last year?

Mr BREDHAUER: My answer was thatthere would be no reduction in hours ofcompliance activity overall. That particularfigure refers to compliance activity associatedwith specific target groups, and those targetgroups relate to mass safety issues and thosesorts of things which I have previouslyidentified.

A change is occurring in the way in whichwe undertake our compliance activities. Forexample, one of the things we are doing isthat we are trying to spend less time onrelatively minor breaches of compliance byissuing warnings and such things. If someonehas a cracked tail light or a cracked headlampprotector, it is a relatively minor thing, but it istechnically a breach. However, it is not lifethreatening stuff. Rather than spend a lot oftime issuing an infringement notice tosomeone in those circumstances, it ispreferable to issue a warning, not hold themup, and get on with the job. This is thecompliance activity that is specifically related tothose target groups. The advice I havereceived is that there will not be a reduction inhours with regard to overall compliance activity.

Another thing we are trying to do throughour compliance activity area is focus on thefront end of running educational programs andthose sorts of things to ensure that weencourage people not to infringe the variousheavy vehicle regulations. We are focusingsome of our resources on the front end oftrying to prevent people from causing usproblems through speed management,overloading, safe driving hours and variousother things.

That is not the complete picture, I guess,but by focusing on those serious areas wehave been able to achieve the kinds of figuresthat I mentioned previously. I know from mydiscussions with you, and from publicstatements you have made as Minister and asthe member for Gregory, that you agree with


me that most heavy vehicle operators areresponsible operators who want to play theirpart. However, there are a few who break therules. There are some who persistently breakthe rules, and they are the people whom wehave to try to address.

Mr JOHNSON: I refer to the recentpassage through the House of the road reformlegislation. I refer you to Future Developments,MPS 1-17. With the support of the Opposition,the comprehensive educational campaignregarding the national uniform road rules isdue for implementation on 1 December thisyear. Can you advise what provision has beenmade in the current budget for this campaign,what is the timetable and what it will consistof?

Mr BREDHAUER: $650,000 has beenallocated in the current budget for theeducation campaign for the national roadrules. It is a very important issue that thehonourable member raises. From 1 December,we will be implementing national road rules aspart of the National Road Reform program thathas been going on for a number of years. Witha couple of minor exceptions, there will benationally consistent road rules operating inStates and Territories across the country. Ithink most drivers, including those associatedwith the transport industry, will appreciate that.

We intend to launch an educationcampaign about one month before they aredue to be implemented. There will be a rangeof strategies undertaken through thatadvertising campaign. Many honourablemembers on the Committee will have seen thecampaign that we conducted in relation to the50 km/h speed limit in south-east Queensland.That involves print advertising, electronicadvertising and the production of leaflets forwide distribution to the community so we canalert people to the implementation of thenational road rules. We are working on thatcurrently. Leaflets are being letterboxed. Weare also producing a new driver's guide. Oneof the interesting things about the newnational road rules is that, generally speaking,they reflect current Queensland law. There areonly a relatively minor number of rule changesfor drivers in Queensland. We undertake ourresponsibilities in that regard very seriously.There will be a handbook for drivers, thedriver's guide. Between now and 1 December,we are planning to letterbox drop the State ofQueensland with information about the newdriving regulations. I will officially launch theadvertising and education program about onemonth out from 1 December. We will try toattract as much attention to that as we can

media-wise as well as through our advertisingprogram.

Mr JOHNSON: Is that program good forregional and remote Queensland?

Mr BREDHAUER: Yes. We will haveparticular strategies that focus on regional andremote areas. You know as I do the difficultiesthat people in those areas have. They do notget newspapers on a regular basis, but theydo have the mail drop. We will try to getinformation about the changes to everyhousehold in Queensland so that people arealerted to them. It is a responsibility we takeseriously.

I have to commend the support that wereceive from the media. We get a lot ofsupport. For example, the Courier-Mail throughits Road Sense 99 campaign gives us aregular spot for our road safety information. Onthe road safety initiatives in particular, theelectronic media give us very good support.With the cooperation and support ofstakeholders—the RACQ, the Department ofTransport, the Queensland Police Service andthe transport industry—I think we will have afairly comprehensive coverage of advertisinginformation out there in the community aboutthe new road rules.

The CHAIRMAN: We have time left forone very short question and one very shortanswer.

Mr JOHNSON: I note that the proposedsuper stadium at Lang Park includes theextension of the light rail system to Lang Park.As that involves an extension of the light railnetwork, when do you expect that the light railsystem will be able to service Lang Park?When do you expect construction maycommence?

Mr BREDHAUER: We are due to lettenders on light rail early next year. That is ona build, own, operate and transfer—BOOT—scheme. We will be talking to the consortiawho have bid on the light rail project about ourdesire to include an enhancement to theexisting spine of the network to incorporateLang Park. I would anticipate that the light railproject is due to be developed and finished by2001. Stage 1 is designed to be finished by2001. We are trying to get the stadium atLang Park up and running for the World Cup in2003. I would expect that, when we have adefinite program for the Lang Park stadiumupgrade, we would be planning to have thetransport initiatives undertaken at the sametime so that, as soon as the upgraded stadiumis operational, we will have the transportwherewithal to service it.

196 Estimates C—Transport and Main Roads (Dept of Main Roads) 7 Oct 1998

I will provide the figures in relation to thevehicles under the QR program that themember for Gregory sought. I am advised thatin 1999-2000, in the forward budget, $33mwas allocated. It is anticipated that there will be850 light vehicles, 10 buses, and 80 trucks. Ido not have the tonnages on those trucks.

The CHAIRMAN: The Committee will nowadjourn for morning tea. The hearing willresume at 11 a.m. with the examination ofbudget Estimates of the Department of MainRoads. On behalf of the Committee, I thankthe Minister, the Director-General of theDepartment of Transport and his other officials.

Sitting suspended from 10.47 a.m. to11.02 a.m.

The CHAIRMAN: I now declare theCommittee's hearing open and I will ask theMinister to make a short introductorystatement.

Mr BREDHAUER: I will. I thank theCommittee for its indulgence, because this isspecific to the Department of Main Roads. Akey part of our commitment to develop aworld-class transport system in this State isspending on roads. I am very proud to say thatthe Budget provides for $1.01 billion towardsthe roads program, demonstrating acontinuing commitment by my Government toimproving Queensland's road system. Theroads program includes Federal Governmentfunded national highway projects, State-funded work for the State-controlled roadnetwork and assistance to local governmentfor the upgrading of local roads as part of theTransport Infrastructure Development Scheme.The roads funding allocation will sustain jobsfor 17,500 workers in roads and otherindustries supporting the road effort inQueensland.

My message is that there has been anoverall increase in funds for roads this year,once account has been taken of spending onthe Pacific Motorway project. The Oppositionhas made various claims regarding the level ofroad funding in this Budget, which has causedunnecessary concern in rural and regionalareas across the State. Treasury has a newdefinition of capital works such thatmaintenance funding, either routine orprogrammed, is no longer included in thecapital works document. Therefore, the capitalworks figures in the 1999-2000 Budget doesnot include maintenance funding. Oppositionmembers are comparing apples with oranges ifthey compare the capital works figures in the1998-99 Budget, which did includemaintenance funding, with capital worksfunding in this year's Budget, which does not.

Full details of all the Main Roads projectswill be contained in the 1999-2000 RoadsImplementation Program. I expect that we willfinalise the RIP for release in November—timing consistent with previous years. I want tomake it very clear before this Committee thatthose projects last year, which we said wewould do in 1999-2000, will be undertaken.

On a more positive note, I am verypleased to report that, despite periods ofprolonged wet weather, in 1998-99 MainRoads delivered its largest ever annualroadworks program in Queensland's history:$1.158 billion in accrued works, including$56m of works advanced from 1999-2000.Road funding in 1999-2000 is building on thisachievement notwithstanding that, as plannedby the previous Government, spending on themassive Pacific Motorway project will declineas it nears completion. My Government'scommitment to regional and rural Queenslandis reflected in the 1999-2000 roadworksprogram, which includes $194.3m for thePacific Motorway project; $555.3m for otherState-controlled roads; an estimated $158mfrom the Federal Government for a nationalhighway system and $7m for the Federal blackspot funded works; $96m for other roadprograms, including $49m for TIDS forroadworks on local government roads; $19mfor natural disaster relief; and $9m formotorway land acquisition.

Road funding will help local governmentsin rural and regional Queensland by assistingwith local jobs and local economies. Funding in1999-2000 includes an ongoing allocation of$30m per annum for the Rural and RegionalRoads Improvement Program to assist withkey road infrastructure needs supporting ruraland regional development, population growthand industry development throughoutQueensland. We consider that the roadsprogram is an economic engine driving jobsand economic development and is a key partof the Government's Capital Works Program.

Having concluded my introductoryremarks, I introduce those people who havejoined me now from the Department of MainRoads: to my left, my Director-General of theDepartment of Main Roads, Jim Varghese;Don Muir and Karen Peut; and to my right, NeilDoyle and Lindsay Cunnington. There areother people from the department who areavailable to assist if they are required.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I will call themember for Gregory.

Mr JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman.It is great to see the familiar faces of MainRoads. I note the answer provided in response

7 Oct 1998 Estimates C—Transport and Main Roads (Dept of Main Roads) 197

to question on notice No. 2 regarding roadfunding. I must admit my surprise that you areunable to provide a valid comparison betweenthe capital expenditure proposed this year andlast year for the Roads ImplementationProgram. Minister, will the State funding tolocal authorities in real dollars be more or lessthan last year?

Mr BREDHAUER: The answer to that isquite simple: the road funding for localauthorities in this year's budget will be more. Ifthe honourable member and a number of hiscoalition colleagues would care to carefullyread the Budget papers—and I offer theservices of my department should he or theOpposition Leader or others require it for abriefing on the budget for Main Roads so thatthey can fully understand what is involved inthe Main Roads budget for this year—theywould see that clearly what has happened inthis year's budget is that the construction ofthe specific program, the Pacific Motorway,which was a separate funding arrangement,draws towards its conclusion in March of nextyear, with full completion due by September ofnext year. Therefore, the allocation of moneyin the current budget for the Pacific Motorwayis less this year than it was last year. If youtake into account the amount of money that isallocated for the Pacific Motorway and if youalso take into account some works that wereaccelerated in the previous financial year, bothfor the Pacific Motorway and for other projects,then, of course, there is a net increase in theroad funding budget in this financial year.Suggestions to the contrary are eithermisunderstanding or, might I suggest,deliberately misleading the actual budgetfigures.

When I attended the Local GovernmentAssociation's conference in Toowoomba a littleover a month ago, I gave them an indicationthat the five-year Roads ImplementationProgram, which I brought down late Octoberlast year in Mount Isa when we had acommunity Cabinet meeting in MountIsa—and the member for Gregory understandsthe process of the Roads ImplementationProgram; it is a five-year rolling program forwhich we give a commitment to funding in thefirst two years and for which funding in thelatter three years is indicative—thecommitment that I made in last year's RoadsImplementation Program for road funding in1999-2000 will be honoured. In fact, there is asmall increase in road funding in this year'sbudget when you take into account the impactof the dropping off of the Pacific Motorwayproject. The suggestions to the contrary arewrong.

Mr JOHNSON: I refer to the answerprovided to question on notice No. 1 regardingthe allocation of $5m. I refer you to the capitalstatement, paper No. 5, Main Roads page 53,and to the property settlements relating to thesouth coast motorway. Minister, can youadvise what you now propose to do with theproperty acquired? Will those properties andthe other properties held as a result of thePacific Motorway be subject to the equityreturns required by your Government?

Mr BREDHAUER: I will refer to the answerthat I gave, which presumably Committeemembers are aware of. What happenedessentially was that a decision was taken notto proceed with the south coast motorway.Essentially and ultimately, that decision wasthe considered view of both political parties.Because properties were affected byuncertainty over the potential of the corridor,some people suffered hardship and there wasan expectation that Main Roads would acquirethose properties. Acting in a responsible way,in my view, the department agreed to stand inthe marketplace and, in a limited number ofcases, to acquire properties on a hardshipbasis. There are no plans now to build thesouth coast motorway, but under theIntegrated Regional Transport Plan, part of thisarea is held in reserve for a future transportcorridor.

It is and has been our intention to disposeof land that is no longer required as and whenwe can. Not long after I became the Minister,Don Muir and I talked about the potentialdisposal of a number of those properties. TheDepartment of Main Roads is quite happy todispose of land in that area which is no longerrequired for a potential transport corridor. Yes,they would be assets, but given that we haveno further purpose for them, we would beseeking to dispose of them whenever possible.

Mr JOHNSON: Can you indicate if the$1.2m estimated in last year's Budget for thesale of resumed land for the south coastmotorway was achieved? What is theanticipated revenue from sales of this land in1999-2000? I refer you to the capitalstatement, paper No. 5, Main Roads, page 53.

Mr BREDHAUER: What we might get thisyear depends very much on how much, if any,of the land you can sell and the price you get.We are proceeding with an orderly disposal ofthose properties that are surplus to ourrequirements. We will seek to get the bestpossible value for the taxpayers' dollar in thedisposal of that land. In terms of the incomereceived in the last financial year, I will get thatinformation for you.


Mr JOHNSON: I refer to the funding forthe Pacific Motorway, which is referred to in thesubsequently corrected page 2-22 of the MPS.Are you aware of outstanding claims andvariations relating to this project? What is theestimate of those claims and variations? Canyou indicate if funding has been provided forthe payment of those claims?

Mr BREDHAUER: To be honest, I find itironic that the member for Gregory can ask meabout payment of claims in respect of thePacific Motorway when, a little over 12 monthsago, I had to deal with the $120m black holethat he, as the Minister for Transport and MainRoads, and the member for Caloundra, as theTreasurer, had left me and my department interms of the rescoping of the Pacific Motorwayproject.

The reality is that the project is currentlyprogressing towards a conclusion. I am awareof suggestions that there could be claims inrelation to projects. For example, I approvedan increase in the funding for package 6,which is in the Nerang area, becauseconsiderable design changes were required.Additional funds were approved by me as partof the overall funding that had been approvedby the Executive Council to increase theamount that we had contributed.

Claims have been submitted bycontractors and, obviously, we will want todiscuss those claims. We would contest manyof those claims. Many of them are associatedwith the weather. We have had an inordinatelywet year in south-east Queensland and inother parts of Queensland. Essentially, thedepartment will use a fair but firm approach toassess those claims in accordance with theterms of the contracts. The final cost of thoseclaims will not and could not be known until theprojects are complete and the claims areresolved. I anticipate that a significant numberof people will make bids for additional claimsand, as I say, in many instances we willcontest those. The Department of Main Roadsand I as the Minister have a responsibility tobe fair but firm with those claims. I suggest toyou that we would seek to resolve thosesatisfactorily with the contractors as the work iscompleted and the claims are finalised.

Mr JOHNSON: I note that the capitalacquisitions overview, at page 2-21 of theMPS, refers to the sealing of the HerveysRange Developmental Road over the next fouryears. Can you advise what the schedule ofthis project will be? Can you advise if anyfunding is allocated also to the Lynd highway?

Mr BREDHAUER: The existing programwill be in last year's roads implementation

program. What was committed in last year'sRIP to the first two years will be honoured. Wehave given an indication that we will make anallocation of $32.5m over four years tocontinue sealing the Herveys Range Road.The RIP for 1998-99 to 2002-03 includes thebituminising, sealing and upgrading ofdrainage on the remaining 80 kilometres ofunsealed Herveys Range DevelopmentalRoad. The total cost of the project is $36m.That project is progressing in accordance withthe roads implementation program that Ibrought down in October last year. What wasthe other part of your question?

Mr JOHNSON: Can you advise if anyfunding is to be allocated for the Lyndhighway?

Mr BREDHAUER: Once again, this levelof detail of the roads program is generallyincluded in the roads implementation program.

Mr JOHNSON: I realise that, but I want tosee if it is ongoing.

Mr BREDHAUER: Any commitment thatwe made to the Lynd in last year's roadsimplementation program will be funded. In thefirst two years where funding was committed, itwill be honoured.

Mr JOHNSON: I refer to the organisationchart for Main Roads, supplied as part of thisEstimates process. I have noted that of the 68divisional or branch heads, 20 positions oralmost one-third have acting incumbents andtwo are vacant altogether. Why is there such ahigh level of acting officers? Is this anindication of a deliberate policy of deferringappointments to save funding?

Mr BREDHAUER: The short answer tothat is: no. As positions become available, wego through due process for appointment. Inthe last week or so, we have appointed a newDirector, Financial and Business Services.There is no cost saving by having an actingperson in the position, because the personwho is acting, if they are acting in a higherposition, is entitled to the higher dutiesallowances that go with acting in that higherposition. The premise that we would be savingmoney is not correct. We are proceedingwherever possible to ensure that we fill thosepositions in a timely way. But there is aprocess that has to be gone through. Weensure that those processes are followed tothe letter in every case where promotions aregranted within the Department of Main Roads.

Mr JOHNSON: I refer to the operations ofPlant Hire Services, which is mentioned onpage 2-31 of the MPS under the heading"Commercial Business Units". Is this service


utilising equipment that was previouslypurchased or currently owned by Main Roadsfree of stamp duty? What are thearrangements for future equipment purchasesfor this service regarding the payment ofGovernment fees and charges to ensure thatthis service does not compete unfairly withprivate enterprise?

Mr BREDHAUER: We have two majorcommercial business operations—the RTCSand Plant Hire Services. The CommercialOperations Business Group operates on acompetitively neutral basis, meeting the samefees, taxes and charges as those borne by itsprivate sector counterparts. Trading results forall groups also reflect charges for internallyprovided services, for example, payrollpayables and administrative support. Myrecollection is that when we went tocommercial business units a $20m loanarrangement was established and thecommercial business units had to servicethose loans as if they were a normalcommercial operator. No commercialadvantage was given to them in that sense. Inany subsequent investment they undertake,they would have to make a commercialdecision about investing in additional plant andequipment. They would have to service thosedebts in the normal way.

Plant Hire Services paid income tax of$1.38m and dividends of $1.23m. They dooperate in a commercially competitiveenvironment. Their success in operating in thatenvironment is a testament to the fact thatthey now get about 10% of local governmentbusiness. Local government is actually usingPlant Hire Services more and more thesedays. That is a portion of our business that isgrowing. The Local Government Associationhas worked with Plant Hire Services to developstronger relationships with local government sothat those business opportunities are provided,which benefits both Plant Hire Services andlocal government. At this stage, I am notaware of any negative reaction to theoperations of Plant Hire Services. They alsopay sales tax equivalents. They do operate ona commercial and competitive basis.

Mr JOHNSON: I refer you to the answerto question on notice No. 3. Will you confirmthat the only allocation for the Tugun bypass inthe forthcoming Roads ImplementationProgram up to the years 2003-2004 is forplanning studies and that there will noprovision for any construction in the newprogram? Can you confirm that?

Mr BREDHAUER: I can confirm that theinformation that I provided in the answer to the

question on notice is correct. At present, weare working through the planning studies withthe New South Wales authorities. We had avalues management workshop involvingQueensland, New South Wales andCommonwealth agencies about two monthsago, at which we sought to progress anunderstanding of all of the options and whyMain Roads in Queensland had come to adetermination of its preferred option. That wasnecessary because both New South Walesand the Commonwealth were keen to makesure that we had reached an objectivedecision in making a determination on thecorridor. As a result of that workshop, we gotagreement across the agencies, across theState borders and even from theCommonwealth that the option that we hadchosen was in fact the best option. We arenow in the process of working with New SouthWales—both with the RTA and DUAP—on anappropriate approval process. It is unusual forone State to be seeking to undertake roadconstruction across the boundary. In thisprocess, we have to make sure that we complywith all of the requirements—environmentalimpact assessments and so on—that would berequired of us by the New South Walesauthorities. Both of my departments arediligently pursuing that.

I have had discussions at a Minister toMinister level with Carl Scully from New SouthWales, who obviously will insist that New SouthWales' requirements are met. But within thatcontext it is cooperating with our endeavours.At this stage we have the funding allocation forthe planning studies and impact assessmentwork, as you have identified. We have put thefunding for the project proper in the out yearsof the Roads Implementation Program, as isappropriate. We do not have a finalassessment yet of the approval processesfrom New South Wales. But the commitmentthat we have given is that we will build theproject. At the appropriate time, we will bringforward funding for the Tugun bypass.However, it is not simply a responsibility of theState Government. We would also expect thatthe Commonwealth would be a majorcontributor. The information that is in myanswer was as true then as it is today. Themember for Currumbin, Merri Rose, will tell youthat we have made a very strong commitmentthere, which I am determined to honour. Whenthe time comes, we will negotiate appropriatefunding with the Commonwealth and factorthat into our Roads Implementation Program.

Mr JOHNSON: Are you happy withdevelopments with the New South Walesadministration to date? Can you give the


Committee any idea at all of when you thinkthese environmental studies and impactassessments will be completed so that this canbe commenced? I know it is three or fouryears' down the track, but I think people wantto know when there will be a start on thisproject?

Mr BREDHAUER: It may not be. I woulddispute whether construction of the project isthree or four years' down the track. I would liketo correct the member for Gregory in thatregard. My experience with environmentalimpact assessment studies and those sorts ofthings—I have been through a few of them, asthe member for Mooloolah knows, in the past12 months since I have been the Minister—isthat they generally take somewhere between ayear and two years to finish. I would anticipatethat in about 18 months' time we would bepretty close to finalising the impactassessment studies, that is, assuming all goeswell across the border.

You asked me whether I am happy withthe way things are progressing there. Theanswer is: yes. We have to comply with therequirements of New South Wales. That is aprocess that we are going to go through, andwe are working with the relevant New SouthWales agencies to achieve that. Once that isachieved, you would have to do the finaldesign and planning work for the route andthen we would move to the funding andconstruction stage.

Obviously we would be seeking tonegotiate funding, especially with theCommonwealth, before then. I would think thatsomewhere around about 2001 or 2002 wewould be looking to finalise the design andthen commence construction after that ifeverything goes according to the plan. TheEIS process—those kinds of things—generallytake around about 18 months. We will workthrough those in a deliberate way, but we willdo it as quickly as the processes allow us to.Then we will move on with the construction ofthis important project in conjunction with theCommonwealth because I recognise howimportant it is to the people of that area. Ifever I am left in any doubt about itssignificance, the member for Currumbin isregularly on the phone to me, reminding me ofthe commitment that we have made to herconstituents and making representations onbehalf of her constituents. We are workingclosely with the member for Currumbin indelivering this project in a timely way.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes the

period for non-Government appointedmembers' questions. I now commenceGovernment appointed members' questions.

Mr WELLINGTON: I refer you to youranswer to my second question on notice inrelation to the need to upgrade the Kenilworthto Conondale Road. In your answer, youacknowledge that a safety audit on the roadhad been undertaken and it has identified thatapproximately $900,000 is needed to be spentto widen some dangerous narrow sections ofthe road in addition to more long-termimprovements. As road safety is so important,as has been acknowledged by yourdepartment, are you prepared to prioritise theallocation of the full $900,000 needed to bespent on improving those dangerous, narrow,winding corners during the current year?

Mr BREDHAUER: I thank the honourablemember for his question. I acknowledge that,in relation to this particular road project,he—and others—has been a strong advocatefor his constituents in Nicklin and others whoare affected by this project. There have beenissues relating to school buses and a range ofother things that the member has drawn to myattention as Minister. So I am acutely aware ofthe issues that are involved there.

What I sought to do in my answer to thequestion on notice was to indicate that thecurrent Roads Implementation Program isbeing drafted now and that the final detail ofthe allocation of funds for this project would bedetermined during the development of thecurrent RIP which, as I have mentionedpreviously, is due for release in November. Letme assure the honourable member that I amconscious of the concerns that he has raisedwith me. I am not in a position today to confirmwhat is going to be in the RIP in November.But I can assure the honourable member thatI have taken his representations seriously. Irecognise that this is a significant project for hisconstituents and for people who use theKenilworth to Conondale Road. I will beaccording it as high a priority as I possibly canin the development of the RoadsImplementation Program, given budgetconstraints which are always a part of theseprocesses. But I will be working very hard tomake sure that we give that a priority.

Mr WELLINGTON: To follow on aquestion in relation to this road, will all otherroadworks projects which may have a higherfunding priority than this $900,000 project alsohave safety audits undertaken in a like fashionto the safety audit which has been undertakenin relation to the Kenilworth to ConondaleRoad?


Mr BREDHAUER: Once a project is underconsideration, it would be normal to do asafety audit as part of determining the priorityfor allocation of works. Clearly, if we canidentify that there are road safety issues whichare associated with particular road projects,then an assessment of those safety issues ispart of determining the priority. So thelikelihood is that, if they have a higher prioritythan this project, then an assessment of thesafety issues in relation to those roads andthose projects has already been undertakenby my department.

I think it is important that we work closelyas well, as you would know as a formercouncillor with the local government, with theMain Roads Department and local governmentin determining what those priorities are. Iacknowledge that local government is one ofour key stakeholders in the development ofthe Roads Implementation Program. They areclose to the people on these kinds of issuesand generally attuned to the needs of theirlocal communities. We try to reflect that.

The Committee asked a question abouthow we prioritise the allocation of works forroads. One of the parameters which Imentioned in there is the safety outcomes.That is clearly to indicate that that is animportant consideration for us in thedevelopment of road programs. If there areprojects in your electorate or anywhere, for thatmatter, that are a higher priority than this one,then those safety issues will have beenaccessed in determining that priority.

Mr WELLINGTON: In light of the fact thatyour department is still working on the RoadsImplementation Program and that some ofyour department's staff have undertaken aninspection—accepted an invitation from myconstituents in the Kenilworth community—areyou prepared and able to also accept aninvitation to inspect these dangerous cornerson this Kenilworth to Conondale Road, bearingin mind we are basically two and a half hours'drive from Parliament House?

Mr BREDHAUER: I am happy to try to fit itinto my diary if I can. We have a lot ofparliamentary sittings between now and theend of the year and I try to get homeoccasionally. I do have responsibilities to myown constituency. But if you would like me tocome up and have a look, I am quite happy totalk to my diary person. If Lorraine is listeningto this, she will be cringing. Within the contextof my diary, I am happy to try to find the timeto come up there and have a look.

I think, though, that it is important torecognise that, if the department goes up and

goes through the issues with you and thecommunity there—and I recognise that it iscertainly not just you, but it is the communitywho are behind the push for theseupgrades—we will work to try to program it intothe RIP with as high a priority as we possiblycan. I will talk to Lorraine.

The CHAIRMAN: I would like to discuss aroad that I would be delighted for you to havea drive on in my electorate. The Premieradvised the recent infrastructure conference ofwork progress on planning and seekingCommonwealth support for the port road.Does this budget make provision for thisproject to commence in the near future and,along those lines, has consideration beengiven to the need for further capacity on theGateway Bridge or a second river crossing?

Mr BREDHAUER: I once againacknowledge the strong representations thatcome from the local member who is mostaffected by the port road. We are very welladvanced in terms of planning for theconstruction of the new port road. I am sure allmembers of the Committee would realise thesignificance not just to the community but tothe port itself and to industry that would evolvefrom the construction of the port road.

Critically, we have been, over the last 12months or more since I have been Minister,trying to progress an agreement with theCommonwealth over funding for the port road.I am happy to say that we have had, in myview, a very constructive and cooperativeapproach from the Commonwealth both at aministerial and at a departmental level over thelast six months or so in particular in relation tothis project. We have had visits to Brisbaneand Queensland from Commonwealth officerswho have inspected the road, so they have abetter understanding of its significance interms of regional development and industry.

We are in the process of negotiating apackage that would involve a Commonwealthcontribution. The Commonwealth in their partwould like to ensure that the road wasavailable to higher mass vehicles as part of theincrease in mass limits which was introducednationally from 1 July this year. I think that is aconsideration which we would probably be ableto accommodate if we could come to anappropriate arrangement with theCommonwealth in respect of their contributionto the funds.

In terms of the Gateway precinct moregenerally, there is the likelihood that theexisting Gateway Bridge will reach its capacitysomewhere between 2005 and 2010. Clearly,we do need to be looking at what the next river


crossing in that area will be, whether it issupplementation of the existing GatewayBridge or something else.

My view is that we should look at thepotential major trip and industry generatorsdown there, being the port and the airport, andmake a considered decision about what thetransport requirements are. But it is also aboutservicing the local community in the mostefficient and effective way. In the process ofthat we would be looking at the integratedtransport needs for that area, involving the portand the airport. Of course, part of thedevelopment of the port road project would bethe fact that we recognise the need forsignificant upgrading of Lytton Road. Wewould be undertaking that as part of the portroad project when we can finalise fundingarrangements with the Commonwealth.

The CHAIRMAN: Will the introduction bythe Commonwealth Government of heaviermass limits for trucks be managed in a waythat avoids adverse impacts on smallcommunities and councils?

Mr BREDHAUER: I thank you for thisquestion. I do not know how many times Ihave to make this statement before themessage gets through, but I am going to keepsaying it. We agreed to increase mass limitsfrom 1 July as a result of an initiative by theCommonwealth. There are a couple of things Ineed to make quite clear.

The Commonwealth told us in nouncertain terms that it was intending toproceed with an increase in mass limits forFederal registered vehicles under the FIRSscheme, irrespective of whether theQueensland Government agreed with theincrease in mass limits. I personally think theincrease in mass limits does have significanteconomic benefits for a variety of industriesassociated with transport and I am quite happyfor transport operators, in particular inQueensland, to enjoy some of those economicbenefits. However, the return from thoseeconomic benefits goes to theCommonwealth. It does not come through thetax system. It does not come to us inQueensland. We could have been doublydisadvantaged if the Commonwealth had usedthe FIRS scheme to register those trucks sothat it could allow the increase in mass limits.

What we agreed to as part of a packageis to allow those vehicles that have roadfriendly suspension to increase mass limits onnational highways with depot access ondesignated B-double routes of 500 metres. Itis my intention to strictly enforce those

provisions. So we are part of the scheme, buton those conditions.

Another important condition which I gotfrom John Anderson as the Federal Ministerfor Transport was that he agreed that therewould be no extension of the existing schemeto other State controlled or local governmentroads without the concurrence of the States. Ihave ensured that there will be no extension ofthe existing scheme on to State roads or localgovernment roads without the Statesagreeing, and I do not intend to agree unlessthe Commonwealth starts talking real money interms of upgrading State roads and localroads so that they can accommodate thoseheavier mass limits.

Local government, who are affected bythe existing agreement of national highwaysplus the 500-metre access on B-double routes,were consulted and have agreed with theprocess to go ahead, but I am getting a littletired of councillors—the fellow Pidgeon fromLogan Shire was putting out press releasesyesterday or the day before—spreadingdeliberately incorrect information about themass limits scheme. I stood up at the localgovernment conference and I told them whatwe had achieved to protect local governmentand State controlled roads. We got additionalfunding of $12.9m to upgrade bridges on theNational Highway over the next three yearsand I do not intend to allow further extensionsto the scheme without the Commonwealthputting in real money for State Governmentand local government roads. I cannot beclearer.

The CHAIRMAN: What is the Governmentdoing to address the impacts of the sugarindustry expansion on the State and localgovernment road networks?

Mr BREDHAUER: The sugar industryexpansion is a major issue. It is an issue that isso significant that the State Government,through the Department of StateDevelopment, has in fact set up a sugarindustry transport task force. We are obviouslyone of the key players in that. We have hadsignificant representations from localgovernment.

In my own neck of the woods, up on theAtherton Tablelands, for example, there hasbeen major expansion of the sugar industryinto the Atherton Tablelands shires ofMareeba, Atherton, Herberton and Eacham. Alot of it is good dairy country which is nowunder sugar, which is something I thought 20years ago I would never see. But we now haveheavy sugar traffic on local government roadsthat were not designed for it.


In 1997 a sugarcane transport workinggroup identified a requirement for additionalroad funding of $70m over five years and$110m over 10 years as a result of caneexpansion. Over seven years we haveprogrammed $50m to meet some of thoserequirements. Some of that is on Statecontrolled roads and some of that is on localcontrolled roads.

We have made a significant commitmentto funding local roads. Notwithstanding that, Ihave had a bid from the Mareeba ShireCouncil for $17.5m. The Cardwell Shire Councilhas put in a bid for around $13m or $14m.There are other local governments in sugargrowing areas that are similarly affected. It wasraised by the Mareeba Shire at the regionalforum, which we held in Cairns about threemonths ago.

I have written to the Deputy Premier, asthe Minister responsible, asking him to write toJohn Anderson seeking a contribution from theCommonwealth as well, because theseindustry impacts on roads are so significantthat we do need to make sure that a whole-of-Government approach, across the three levels,is taken. Local government have to play theirpart, particularly obviously on local governmentroads. The Department of Main Roads isprepared to play its part, but we also need theCommonwealth to make a contribution. Our$60m over seven years will go a significantway to helping redress that, but it will not meetall of the needs of local government.

The CHAIRMAN: In December last yearyou announced a Federal Governmentfunding commitment of $33m over three yearsto upgrade the Barkly Highway betweenCloncurry and Mount Isa to Type 2 road trainstandard. Is this funding commitment reflectedin the budget, what is the timing to completeurgently needed works on the Mount Isa toNorthern Territory border link and what is thecost?

Mr BREDHAUER: First, I appreciate thesupport that I got on this matter from themember for Gregory. I know that during histime as Minister he campaigned to get anupgrading of the Barkly Highway. I know thathe has also supported my initiatives throughthe Commonwealth Government in the timesince I have become the Minister to achievethe funding that is required here.

A significant cost is involved in upgradingthe highway between Cloncurry and theborder. Obviously the package that we have inthe first instance reflects the requirements toupgrade the road between Cloncurry andMount Isa to Type 2 road train standard—

$33m over three years. There is a substantialadditional amount which would be required toupgrade the highway between Mount Isa andthe Northern Territory border. I think that is ofthe order of about $53m in addition to what wealready have.

We have begun implementing a programwhich will enable us to start that upgrading.We called tenders just recently for the first workon the upgrading project. It is a major freightroute, particularly livestock. It is also verysignificant for the development of theCarpentaria minerals province. We continue tohave concerns about the use of the road byType 2 road trains until such time as the roadis upgraded to an appropriate standard,because of safety issues and because ofpavement wear and tear issues, but we willprogress that as quickly as we can. Iappreciate the support that we received fromthe Commonwealth on this occasion and Ithink it is important that we continue with thatproject.

I have a note here that funding of $14.7mfor upgrading of the 22-kilometre section of theMount Isa-Northern Territory border section,including the Inca Creek bridge, would beconsidered in the Federal Budget process. Sowe already have a commitment from theCommonwealth that they are prepared toconsider the additional funds that are requiredbetween Mount Isa and the Northern Territory.These funding arrangements weresubsequently confirmed as part of the 1999Federal Budget advice to Queensland. So wehave the first $14.7m of that Northern Territoryborder to Mount Isa upgrade.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes theperiod allocated for Government members'questions. We will now proceed to non-Government members' questions.

Mr JOHNSON: I refer to the equity returnfor the Department of Main Roads. InDepartmental Services Budget Paper No. 4, atpage 47, there is an amount of $792m andthe statement that your equity return has beenfully funded for this Budget. Can you indicate,as part of the proposed Roads ImplementationProgram, whether this tax will be fully funded infuture years? If so, why bother imposing it?And if not, is construction to be reduced?

Mr BREDHAUER: First of all, it is not atax. Secondly, let me assure you that theequity return will not reduce funding for roads.Briefly, I would like to explain to you how theconcept works, seeing as how you obviouslyare not clear about that.

Treasury have included a definition of theequity return on the second page of each


agency's Ministerial Portfolio Statements,which states that the return is "a periodicpayment reflecting the opportunity cost to theGovernment of the assets held by agencies".The return is calculated as a percentage of anagency's net assets. The rate for 1999-2000 is6%.

The introduction of the equity return isdesigned to provide agencies with an incentiveto regularly review their assets holdings; that is,in the case of Main Roads, stocks of materials,land, buildings, plant and equipment and, inparticular, the concept targets assets which arenot adding value and, in fact, may be incurringholding costs, such as maintenance and localgovernment charges. The Premier, in effect,used the term "lazy assets" in describing theintent of this initiative in the House on 17September.

Further, and contrary to claims by theOpposition, the Premier pointed out that theequity return was fully funded in all ForwardEstimates years for all agencies. As such, theequity return will not have any adverse impacton agencies' future funding requirements orservice delivery. In fact, if agencies divestthemselves of surplus assets, then they willreduce the periodic payment to Treasury andcan retain the savings to invest in services.

In the case of Main Roads, sales ofsurplus property will have a twofold effect.Firstly, the sale will reduce the value of netassets held, and so reduce the equity returnpayment. Secondly, sales proceeds areretained by Main Roads for investment inadditional road construction works. A similareffect is produced if stocks of road materialsare reduced.

Finally, where additional funds areprovided to an agency for new assetpurchases or, in Main Roads' case, forsignificant projects, such as the PacificMotorway, equity return funding will beincreased to cover the new level of net assets.This will ensure that capital intensive agenciesare not disadvantaged by this new concept.The introduction of the equity return concept issimply another initiative by the Government toencourage agencies to manage the totalpackage of resources available to them in themost efficient manner in order to maximiseservice delivery at the least cost.

In summary, the equity return will notreduce funding available to Main Roads and,in fact, may in the longer term result in newfunds being available to roadworks via thereduction in the equity return paid and thereallocation of "lazy assets" to assets thatimprove service delivery.

Mr JOHNSON: You would have to agree,Minister, that with a department like MainRoads, which is there for building infrastructureand planning for the future development ofthis State, this equity tax is certainly going tobe a burden on future budgets for MainRoads.

Mr BREDHAUER: No, I do not agree. I willsay it again: it is not a tax.

Mr JOHNSON: You just said that thePremier said it is fully funded. I am just askingwhether you can prove that there is not goingto be an impact on future budgets. And how isit not going to impact on the future of the RIP?

Mr BREDHAUER: If you have a look atthe Forward Estimates you will see that theequity return is fully funded. The explanationwhich I have just given you in detail explainshow Main Roads, through efficientmanagement of its assets, will, in fact,potentially be in a situation where it generatesmore money to invest in the road networkthrough the equity return initiative which hasbeen introduced as part of this Budget. It isnot a tax. It is fully funded. It will not result in areduction in money that is available for roads.

I happen to have confidence in theadministration of my department—and themanagement of my department under thedirector-general and its senior officers—that wewill be able to embrace this new initiative in away which enables us to maximise the dollarsthat we have available for investment in theroad network. We have some very creativethinkers in the Main Roads Department, asyou would be well aware, in terms of makingsure that we leave no stone unturned.

Mr JOHNSON: I will tell you what; thereare some more cunning ones in Treasury,though, and you know that.

Mr BREDHAUER: We have some veryclever officers in Main Roads, as you would befully aware, who are capable of usingconsiderable initiative in finding mechanismsby which we can maximise our capacity toinvest.

But let me be clear about this. MainRoads is not just a major service provider; it isa major employment generator. And in aGovernment which has as its focusemployment and employment security, werecognise the need to fund Main Roads at alevel so that it can continue to provide thelevels of employment and employmentsecurity that it does and continues to grow.

The pressure on our budgets—andeverybody has pressure on their budgets, andI do not deny it for a second—in terms of


maintaining and upgrading our asset of34,000 kilometres of State-controlled roadsacross this vast State is a significant challenge,but the equity return is a mechanism which willnot, in the first instance—to answer yourquestion—result in reduced funds for MainRoads but will provide us with an opportunity,through careful and efficient management ofour assets, to in fact maximise and increasethe availability of funds for investment in ourroad network, which is to the benefit of thecommunity, to the benefit of our road andtransport networks across the State ofQueensland and, importantly, in terms ofgenerating employment for the people ofQueensland.

Mr JOHNSON: Minister, can you advisethe Committee whether the proposed newCity/Valley bypass, when completed—and Ihope it will be started and completed beforetoo long—will be a dangerous goods route?

Mr BREDHAUER: The Brisbane CityCouncil's project for the City/Valley bypass is, Iunderstand, progressing. I think they are in theprocess of calling for tenders. That is theirproject. I have just been advised thatexpressions of interest were sought earlier thisyear, and that was due to close recently;whether it has or not, I do not know for sure.We are closely involved, obviously, but it isprimarily a Brisbane City Council project.

There is an issue in relation to the tunnelsthat are incorporated in the development ofthe project. My view is, though, that if you werespending somewhere in excess of $150m onbuilding a road and you did not make itcapable of accommodating dangerousgoods—I am not sure why you would do that.And given that it does cut across someexisting roads which are part of dangerousgoods routes, I think it would be reasonablethat the design of the new City/Valley bypasswould be of sufficient standard that it couldincorporate dangerous goods. This is an issueon which I have had recent discussions withthe Lord Mayor, and I am quite happy tocontinue those discussions with him. I wish himwell with that project.

Mr JOHNSON: Thank you, Minister. I referto the construction of the new Thomson Riverbridge and flood plain project at Longreach asreferred to in capital acquisitions MPS 2-21,and ask: in view of your stated policy ofbuilding less floodprone infrastructure, are yousatisfied with the present design and are youaware that the design between bridge sections2 and 3 and 11 and 12 are earthembankments which have been located in themiddle of obvious floodprone sections?

Mr BREDHAUER: I am not specificallyfamiliar with the issue of the designs betweenbridge sections 2 and 3 and 11 and 12.

Mr JOHNSON: I want to help you with thisa little bit by highlighting a couple of theissues. I have spoken with the Deputy Director-General of the Department of Main Roads, MrMuir, about this. I have also spoken with theDirector of Road Transport ConstructionServices (Central), Mr Trevor Loss and with theRTCS representative in Longreach, Mr JohnSullivan. I have also inspected the piece ofroad in question with Mr Loss and Mr Sullivan.As I said to Mr Muir, the two sections I havehighlighted are in the middle of floodpronesections and they have earth embankmentswhich I believe could cause embarrassmentnot only to the Department of Main Roads butto the people who are building the flood plainsection. I am also conscious of the impact ofpossible future flooding on the town ofLongreach.

Mr BREDHAUER: A significant part of theproject concerns the benefit that will be derivedfrom improving the flood immunity of the roadthrough that area. I do not have the detailedtechnical information. I might ask Don if hecould help with the answer.

Mr MUIR: Thank you, Mr Minister. Overall,we are satisfied that the flood immunitymeasures for the Thomson River which havebeen selected are appropriate for a Q20 floodimmunity. It was selected after a lot ofdiscussion and hydraulic modelling work wasdone. I am aware that an issue has beenraised about the need to extend bridges ratherthan have embankments. That is being lookedat at the moment. But the design is still Q20,which is adequate. It gets back to a matter ofwhether it will be better or more economic tobridge that particular section or have theformation that is being looked at at themoment. But the design is adequate and doesnot cause me any concern.

Mr BREDHAUER: The issue that youhave raised is under consideration. Overall, wehave certain flood immunity objectives whichwe are seeking to achieve. We also have abudget. We will deliver the best possibleoutcome we can in terms of flood immunitywithin the context of that budget. If you oranyone else has suggestions to make,generally speaking we are happy to sit downand go through them with you. That does notmean that we will always agree, but I amhappy to talk to you and others who may haveconcerns—as we would on any other majorproject with these kinds of considerations. If


you have constructive suggestions to make, byall means make them.

Mr JOHNSON: Minister, I do haveconstructive suggestions and that is why Ihave raised the matter here. I believe we aredealing with public money and you want theproject to be as successful as I do.

Mr BREDHAUER: Sure.

Mr JOHNSON: The Deputy Prime Ministeris the responsible Federal Minister, inconjunction with yourself. Looking at thatproject, I would certainly love Mr Muir andsome of the senior executives of theDepartment of Main Roads to inspect thefacility with the possibility of changing thoseearth embankments to bridge sections. I amnot an engineer, whereas the people inquestion are engineers. I certainly treat this asa very serious issue. I know a lot of the folk inthat part of Queensland are treating it as avery serious issue. I trust that you can takethat on board.

Mr BREDHAUER: Sure.

The CHAIRMAN: I just remind themember for Gregory that he is entitled to askquestions and not make statements.

Mr JOHNSON: Mr Chairman, I would justpick you up on that point. The Minister asked ifI had something constructive to say. That iswhy I said what I did.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not for the Ministerto decide whether constructive statements—

Mr JOHNSON: It is going to be too latewhen Longreach is flooded. That is what I amsaying, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: I remind the memberthat the purpose of Estimates is to askquestions.

Mr JOHNSON: I have asked thequestions.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, and then youmade a statement. Get on with your nextquestion.

Mr JOHNSON: That is fair comment. Ihave made the statement and I put it on therecord. Minister, I note that in a review of theoutput performances in MPS 2-16 reference ismade to a memorandum of understandingwith the Brisbane City Council to have a singletraffic control system operating in Brisbane.Can you indicate if this is a jointly developedsystem which was referred to in last year'sbudget? Can you indicate if this system ispresently under development? If so, what isthe anticipated cost and the time frame andwho will own the rights to the developedsystem?

Mr BREDHAUER: Fundamentally, theanswer to your question is yes. We areprogressing with the Brisbane City Council onthe development of a single traffic controlsystem to operate in south-east Queensland. Ithink a lot of people would be surprised toknow—as I was when I became Minister forTransport—that in the Brisbane City Councilarea there are two traffic control systems. Oneoperates on local roads and the otheroperates on State-controlled roads.

We are seeking synergy in ouradministration of transport at a localgovernment and State Government level insouth-east Queensland for the benefit of notjust the people of Brisbane but for thecommunity generally. This is one area wherewe have sought to make a positive difference,I guess, to traffic management issues in south-east Queensland.

On 23 March this year an MOU wassigned between the council and theDepartment of Main Roads for the jointdevelopment of an intelligent traffic signalsystem which will eventually result in thedevelopment of a cooperative trafficmanagement centre. Essentially, what we aretrying to do is get the Brisbane City Counciland the Department of Main Roads tocooperate in such things as a supportedintegrated regional transport plan for south-east Queensland, the city council's transportplan and travel demand management strategyand cooperative funding arrangements,including the Transport InfrastructureDevelopment Scheme. There is a whole hostof ways in which the Lord Mayor and I aretrying to progress these issues. The MOU wasone of them.

What we seek to do is have policies,strategies and operational procedures andsystems for active traffic management, suchas traffic signals, intelligent transport systemsand traveller information systems put in placeso that we can improve the flow of traffic. Thecooperative traffic management centre in itsentirety is about a $15m project. This year wehave about $1m to work up the concept. Ithink that having a joint traffic managementsystem is something that is long overdue. I amanxious to work towards finalising it.

Mr JOHNSON: It is getting pretty close tofruition then?

Mr BREDHAUER: Some people could notbelieve that we actually got the Brisbane CityCouncil and the Department of Main Roads tosign an MOU. The level of cooperationbetween the department and the council has


reached a point where we could agree to dothat.

Mr JOHNSON: Is there any particularsystem that you have adopted in relation tothis? Is it something from overseas orinterstate?

Mr BREDHAUER: I think the reality is thatin council and in Main Roads there would bestrong views as to the ownership of theexisting systems. The commitment that I havemade with the Lord Mayor is that we would tryto deliver an outcome which provides the bestpossible services in terms of trafficmanagement for the people of Brisbane andsouth-east Queensland. There has been nodecision regarding the implementation of onesystem rather than another. We have signed agenuine commitment. There is a joint venturein place which is based on both of thosetechnologies. This is an attempt to merge thetwo technologies over a period of time. That ishow we are trying to progress the matter.

Mr JOHNSON: Minister, I refer to theoutput statement for the review of outputperformance on page 2-17 of the MPS andnote that, although specific performancetargets were set last year, this budget hasmoved to a more generic statement aboutmaintaining these targets or improving themover time. Are these performance measures tobe contained only in the RIP each year? If so,what is the purpose of including them in theBudget documents? Can you indicate if youare confident that the 1998-99 targets thatwere met last year will be met in the currentbudget?

Mr BREDHAUER: Do you mind if I getKaren to answer that for you?

Mr JOHNSON: No.

Mrs PEUT: The problem is that, when weare putting together the Budget statements,we are looking at things in an indicativesituation. When we publish the RIP, we go tothis in great detail. It is a requirement as partof the MPS that we address this particularissue, but when we get into the RoadsImplementation Program, it is spelt out in avery detailed way. As you would appreciate,the information that has to come in fromaround the State—talking about what weachieved last year—takes a couple of monthsto actually pull together. So it is not reallyavailable for the Budget process but it will beavailable when we put together the RIP. If youlook in the appendices of the RIP, they arespelt out there very clearly.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes thatperiod of questions for non-Government

appointed members. I will now takeGovernment appointed members' questions. Icall the member for Mount Ommaney.

Mrs ATTWOOD: There have beennumerous reports in the press attributed tocoalition spokesmen that have causedconcern in regional Queensland about thealleged slashing of road funds. Can youplease outline whether the information, whichis the basis of the claims, is correct?

Mr BREDHAUER: Yes, I was happy forthe opportunity to put these issues on therecord through answers to questions on notice,because I think that it is important that we putto rest the suggestions that there have beencuts in funds for the roads budget inQueensland this year. In particular, theOpposition Leader, who suggested that therehad been Budget cuts of 9.6% to Main Roads,was simply wrong and demonstrated aninability to read relatively simple Budgetdocuments.

In the answers to the questions that wereasked, I stated that if you look at valid year-to-year comparisons—and this relates to questionNo. 9 that was asked by Governmentmembers—the budget to estimate indicatesjust over a $42m increase, or around 4.2%.Actual expenditure to estimate indicates anincrease of a little over $37m, or 3.7%. Theyare reflected roughly in the roads program. Inrelation to question No. 2, which was asked bythe Opposition—and I just differentiate therebetween the Main Roads budget overall andthe budget for the roads program, which is acomponent of the overall Main Roadsbudget—that indicates budget to estimate,$30m or a 4% increase and actual expenditureto estimate, $27m, or a 3% increase.

During the development of the RoadsImplementation Program, discussions will beheld with local government regarding potentialfunding availability, work priorities and theproposed timing of works. Local governmentwork force requirements include anassessment of funding from other sources,such as the Commonwealth, the TransportInfrastructure Development Scheme andnatural disaster relief arrangements and alsothe past performance of local government.

Following the initial round of localgovernment consultations, a number of localgovernments, particularly in the south-westQueensland area, expressed concern aboutpotentially being faced with less funds thanshown in the current RIP. As I highlighted inmy recent address to the annual LocalGovernment Association conference inQueensland, the RIP is developed on the


basis that funding for project commitments inyears one and two are firm, with indicativefunding in years three to five being just that,indicative for planning purposes.

Traditionally, the RIP is released withintwo to three months of the State Budget. Thisyear will be no different. Despite the claims ofsome in the media, the RIP will againdemonstrate our commitment to providing anefficient road network, including a five-yearprogram with the first two years fixed, providingcouncils and industries with confidence infuture priorities in work, providing funding forprojects in growth areas without reducingspending on road projects in rural and regionalQueensland, and demonstrating thisGovernment's commitment to protecting andstimulating local employment opportunities.We are committed to the roads programthroughout the State of Queensland.

Mrs ATTWOOD: Minister, the BeattieGovernment made many claims that it is aGovernment for all Queenslanders. With thehuge infrastructure investment in south-eastQueensland in recent years and the removalof tolls on the Sunshine Motorway, whatconfidence can regional and rural Queenslandhave that this level of investment has not beenfunded at the expense of the bush?

Mr BREDHAUER: That is a veryinteresting question, too. I find it ironic that wehave actually had members of the coalition outthere—the member for Western Downs wasone of them—complaining that, because wewere funding the Pacific Motorway project, itwas a drain on projects in other parts ofQueensland, particularly in rural and regionalQueensland. It was his Government that madethe decision to build the Pacific Motorway,which they originally anticipated would costabout $450m and it has gone from $450m to$750m—it went from $450 to $630m and thento $750m. When I became the Minister, Ifound that they had not only not funded the$120m rescope but we were also having tocontend with the decision to abolish the toll onthe Sunshine Motorway.

I am not going to the issue of thatdecision, but it left me with a substantialproblem to deal with in budgetary terms withinmy department. So you had two major issuesin south-east Queensland: that $120m andthe decision on the toll, which had thepotential to take money out of the regionaland rural budget. Yet here we have coalitionmembers complaining about it. I think that theNational Party members of the coalition shouldtalk to their Liberal colleagues from time to

time about those kinds of issues. Notwithstanding—Mr LAMING: It is not our problem—

Mr BREDHAUER: Notwithstanding that—and I am keeping mine—Pacific Motorwayproject, we are continuing to spend more ofthe road program outside south-eastQueensland than in south-east Queensland.In excess of 50%—it is around about 54%—ofthe budget for roads will be spent outsidesouth-east Queensland.

So although we have an importantcommitment to south-east Queensland as ourmajor population centre and its roads andtransport needs, that is not being done at theexpense of regional and/or rural roads. I ammake sure that when we deliver the RoadsImplementation Program again in Novemberthis year, that the strong commitment that Ihave personally, but which the BeattieGovernment shares at a whole-of-Governmentlevel, to being a Government for allQueenslanders and to represent the interestsof those people in regional and rural parts ofQueensland in particular is honoured throughour Roads Implementation Program.

Over the past 14 months, we have beenacross the length and breadth of the State.We have had 18 Community Cabinetmeetings. As the Minister for Transport andMain Roads, I am one of the Ministers whoreceives the most deputations at thosemeetings. We are out there delivering to thosepeople, no matter where they live inQueensland.

Mrs ATTWOOD: What is Main Roadsdoing to increase training and employmentopportunities within the department? Inparticular, what is Main Roads doing to providejob opportunities for Aboriginals and TorresStrait Islanders?

Mr BREDHAUER: I think that is anothersignificant issue. I have already mentioned thefact that our Government is committed toemployment and that Main Roads andTransport are one of the key delivery agenciesof this commitment. Our RoadsImplementation Program sustains work foraround 17,500 people on an annual basis. Sowe are responsible for significant employmentinitiatives both within the road building industryand within associated industries around theState. My Director-General, Jim Varghese, is amember of the Jobs Council and plays a veryactive and prominent role in the Jobs Council.The contribution that Main Roads is making toour State Government's significant program toBreak the Unemployment Cycle needs to berecognised.


As an example, one of our initiatives isthe Graduate Trainee Employment program,which will employ 300 graduates, trainees,apprentices, cadets and scholarship holdersover the next three years. Of course, that willbe on top of the department's continuedrecruitment of technical graduates likeengineers. In 1998-99, Main Roads employed29 trainees and 14 apprentices as part of theGovernment's Breaking the UnemploymentCycle initiative. Fifteen of those trainees wereinformation technology trainees and 20, or47%, of the 43 new employees wereemployed in regional areas. Five apprentices,or 10% of the total employed, are Aboriginesor Torres Strait islanders.

As part of the Graduate TraineeEmployment Program, the department willemploy 38 graduates, 14 cadets, 45 traineesand offer 11 scholarship places. Those are indiverse areas such as accounting, humanresources, information technology,communications, marketing, archaeology,anthropology and so on. In addition, in 1999the department's technical recruitmentprogram has employed 46 technicalgraduates, 31 of whom were employed inregional areas. Twelve scholarship holders aregraduating this year, and of those 50% will beplaced in regional areas. The department isassisting approximately 200 of its currentemployees to gain trade certification as plantoperators. Also, the RTCS is employingapproximately 10 plant operator apprenticesacross the State. These appointments are inall regional centres.

The department is committed to theemployment and development of Aboriginesand Torres Strait Islanders through programssuch as the scholarship program, the remotecommunities capacity building strategy and theRemote Communities Services Unit. We canbe very proud of the role that the Departmentof Main Roads is playing, in conjunction withRTCS, in training and employing apprentices.

Mrs ATTWOOD: Are there plans in placeand resources provided in this budget toensure that Main Roads will have addressedthe issues necessary to be ready for Y2K?

Mr BREDHAUER: Yes. I think Y2K is avery important issue. Largely due to the effortsof the Minister for Communication andInformation and Minister for Local Governmentand Planning, the Government has taken avery constructive approach to making sure thatwe are ready to meet any challenges thatcould arise because of the year 2000 problem.

The Main Roads year 2000 readinessproject is coordinated by the performance and

information branch. The Y2K project managerfor Main Roads was first appointed in July1997. The project core team facilitates thedepartment's Y2K remediation and rectificationmethodology. The estimated cost to MainRoads of Y2K related activity over 1998-99and 1999-2000 was $7.6m, which indicateshow seriously we take our responsibilities inthis regard.

A virtual project team of over 100employees has been trained and hasimplemented the Main Roads Y2K readinessmethodology in business units across theState. Main Roads' methodology includesinventory of products and services, riskassessment, testing and remediation,contingency planning and business continuityplanning. Using the format prescribed by theyear 2000 program office at the Department ofCommunication and Information andDepartment of Local Government andPlanning, Main Roads reported a 100%readiness in the June 1999 report. MainRoads was one of only two Governmentagencies to meet this Cabinet set deadline.Therefore, I am very pleased with the progressthat Main Roads has made and itsachievement there.

I stress that the year 2000 project remainsdynamic and is subject to ongoing refinementto keep pace with the latest Y2K informationand business best practice. Main Roads plansto continue operating as normal over thecritical dates leading up to and including 1January 2000. In fact, we have been able touse our Y2K information to assist otherGovernment agencies and the private sector inensuring that they do their bit to become Y2Kcompliant.

Mrs ATTWOOD: I note from theMinisterial Program Statements that MainRoads prepares separate financial statementsfor its commercial business units. Could youplease advise: (a) how the operation of the twobusiness groups, RTCS and PHS, arefinanced; and (b) are you satisfied that eachgroup does not have an advantage over itsprivate sector counterparts by virtue of thosefinancing arrangements?

Mr BREDHAUER: This is related to thequestion that was asked previously by themember for Gregory in relation to the PlantHire Services. We publish separate sets offinancial statements for the commercialoperations of Main Roads. That is anotherexample of our commitment to improvingaccountability and transparency in theoperation of agencies.


Our two business groups in thecommercial operation sector—RTCS, RoadTransport Construction Services, and PHS,Plant Hire Services—were established withcapital structures in January 1996. Prior to this,operating funds were provided from theConsolidated Fund. The operating assets of allunits have been acquired over a number ofyears and were also financed through theConsolidated Fund.

Most private sector businesses fund theoperations by way of a mixture of equity andexternal debt. To ensure that Main Roads'commercial units did not have a significantadvantage over their private sectorcounterparts, both RTCS and Plant HireServices were assigned an appropriate level oflong-term debt. An internal overdraft facility of$20m, which I referred to earlier, was madeavailable to cover fluctuating working capitalrequirements. Overall, the objective was toprovide a mix of debt to equity of around 40 to60. This level was chosen after reviewing thepublished financial statements of a number ofprivate sector organisations engaged in similarwork. The operations have continued on thatbasis since then.

I am satisfied that the commercialoperations group does not have anyadvantage over its the private sectorcounterparts by virtue of its financing base.Any additional funding required, for example,to upgrade the plant fleet, in excess ofretained earnings from trading operations willneed to be financed through further debt andnot by cash injections from the ConsolidatedFund.

The CHAIRMAN: The provision oftransport infrastructure has been andcontinues to be a significant initiative of theGovernment, both in terms of providingQueenslanders with access to good roads andeconomically through its contribution to jobcreation. Could you please advise how MainRoads ensures that the technology it usesgives us the best value roads forQueenslanders? What initiatives has MainRoads implemented to ensure that itstechnical capability is maintained at a level thatcan provide Government with soundengineering advice to manage the risksassociated with the provision and operation ofroads?

Mr BREDHAUER: If you look at theoperation of road authorities in other States, itis an interesting phenomenon that many ofthem have basically allowed their internal or in-house technical capabilities to decline andhave essentially decided to buy in those

services from private operators. Unlike thoseother States, Main Roads continues to havethose technical capabilities in house, to ensurethat we not only remain an informed buyer ofservices but, importantly, that we are able toprovide leadership to industry in roadtechnologies. I have to say that from time totime when I meet with representatives ofprofessional organisations, especially thoserepresenting engineers, to a person they areappreciative of the fact that Main Roads hasmaintained its commitment to the retention ofin-house engineering and other technicalcapabilities.

It has been a deliberate policy of thisGovernment to ensure that Main Roads hasthe capability to provide Queenslanders withgood value roads right across the State. Forexample, the technology being built into thePacific Motorway will make it a world-classfacility in all respects, with high classalignment, heavy duty concrete and asphaltpavements and a traffic management systemthat will make this Queensland's first smartroad in the Smart State. In remote areas, thedepartment's research and trialling of low costseals is an example of technology being usedto stretch the road dollar to provide sealedroads earlier than would be possible usingcurrent practices.

Whilst these two examples are atopposite ends of spectrum, they serve todemonstrate the diversity of technology usedby Main Roads to get the right solution.Through its Road System and Engineeringgroup and Transport Technology Division,Main Roads undertakes regular appliedresearch to develop policy standards andspecifications that will ensure that engineeringrisks are clearly identified and managed withinan acceptable profile.

We have worked hard to maintain thoseservices in house. In recent years, we haveundertaken a program to identify money thatwas previously spent on engineeringconsultancies. We have employed anadditional 40 engineers in house and givenourselves the capability, through thepermanent employment of those engineers, toreplace the need to engage consultants. Frommy discussions with the director-general, Iknow that we are determined to continue thatprocess. There will always be work for privateconsultants and engineers who work for privateagencies. Generally, their view is that theirrelationship with us, as a purchaser of theirservices, is actually advantaged by our havingan in-house capacity to deal with them tomake sure that the work we are getting is of


the highest possible standard and quality. I amactively pursuing that commitment.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes thatperiod of questioning by Governmentappointed members.

Mr LAMING: In relation to themaintenance budget, can the Minister advisewhat criteria are considered when decidingwhether to conduct road maintenanceactivities at night, particularly close toresidences?

Mr BREDHAUER: Generally speaking,decisions about when work is undertaken aregoverned by the traffic conditions that youhave to work under. Generally speaking,maintenance activity, obviously, by its verynature, is work that has to be done undertraffic. That brings with it certain difficulties. Inthe process of undertaking maintenance work,we generally try to ensure that weinconvenience road users to the least extentpossible. But by the same token we are alsocareful not to disrupt quality of life.

Generally speaking, we try to programmaintenance works wherever possible at timeswhen traffic volumes are low. It is an issue notjust in terms of the convenience to motorists orthe amenity of nearby residents; it is also anissue of worker safety, if you have workers ona roadside with heavy traffic. If we areundertaking work out of hours, however, it isour practice to contact neighbouring land-holders and to advise them of the work that isbeing undertaken. We keep it to a minimum.

Obviously, we do not like working late atnight. However, while not specifically a roadproject, on the South East Transit Project wehave had occasions where we have had to dowork over at South Brisbane, for example,rebuilding bridges for railways lines and so on.A major job might be commenced at midnighton a Friday night and it has to be finished by5 a.m. on Monday. They go like the clappersover the weekend to try to get the projectdone. We recognise that urban amenity issuesare important and we try wherever possible notto inconvenience people. But disruption totraffic and the safety of workers are the otherconsiderations.

Mr LAMING: Are you able to advisewhether the Government will considercompensation for landowners who are in thepath of proposed new main roads eventhough actual construction may not occur forsome years?

Mr BREDHAUER: Where we havedetermined a corridor for new roads, andproperties will be affected directly by that

corridor, we do have the capacity to undertakehardship resumptions in those circumstances. Icannot say that, yes, in all circumstances wewould be able to do that. It depends on thewillingness of the person to sell. But generallyspeaking, if we have concluded a planningstudy which has identified that a particularcorridor is required for future road purposesand a property is likely to be directly affectedby that, we do undertake hardship resumption.For example, for the Toowoomba bypass wehave spent $12m already on hardshipresumptions.

Mr LAMING: Which bypass?

Mr BREDHAUER: The Toowoombabypass. It is a project that is not likely to bebuilt for a number of years. Notwithstandingthat, we have already spent $12m on hardshipresumptions.

Mr LAMING: But the hardship would needto be demonstrated in those circumstances,would it?

Mr BREDHAUER: It depends. It is a bithard to make a general rule about that kind ofstuff. Someone might ring up and say, "I'vegot a problem. I can't sell my house. I need toget out. I want to expand my business, but Ican't do it here because I can't invest thatamount of money in the knowledge that in 10years' time you are going to build a roadthrough here." If they are directly affected bythe alignment and they want to come and talkto us, we will listen.

Mr DALGLEISH: I refer to the roadfunding for the Hervey Bay area in particular.Are you aware of the section of road called theBooral Road? Were you aware that as recentlyas 17 September 1999 a fatality and anumber of serious injuries had occurred onthat section of road? In fact, there were threeseparate accidents on this road in the space ofseven days last month alone. Will you, as amatter of urgency, allocate emergent fundingfor this section of road? Minister, I understandyou are very busy and I do not expect you tocome for a drive around my electorate, but thepeople in my electorate are very grateful forany work that is done.

Mr BREDHAUER: I have been to HerveyBay a couple of times since I have been theMinister. I always enjoy my visits there,including driving along the roads—

Mr JOHNSON: You went out on a boat,though, didn't you?

Mr BREDHAUER: I drive the roads, too.

The CHAIRMAN: We have already doneTransport. We are in Main Roads now.


Mr BREDHAUER: I have to get down tothe boat ramp somehow. I take the maritimeresponsibilities of my portfolio very seriouslyand I make no excuse for making mypresence felt with those valued employees ofours.

I am aware of the issue. There are about18 kilometres of State controlled road onBooral Road. The traffic volume at theaccident site would be in the range of 3,000 to3,500 vehicles a day. That is an estimate.Since that accident, the district director forWide Bay has met with a range of people inthe area to discuss the issue. The main issueseems to be between Boundary and ShoreRoads; is that right?

Mr DALGLEISH: Yes, it is only a smallsection—probably three or four kilometres atthe most.

Mr BREDHAUER: From the department'scrash history data of reported accidents, thenumber of accidents between Shore Road andBoundary Road is approximately 13. Thishistory goes back to 1989. There have beenabout 13 accidents over the last 10 years.

Mr JOHNSON: Just say yes to the moneyand let us get on with it.

Mr BREDHAUER: If only it were that easy.There are no works under the current RoadsImplementation Program for improvements tothis road. But you have written to meseparately about this matter and I am happyto consider the approach that you have madeand to discuss with council whether they thinka higher priority should be allocated toroadworks in that area.

Mr JOHNSON: I refer you to staffingfigures for Main Roads business units,contained on page 2-5 of the MPS, whichindicate a reduction of 119 staff next year. Inote also your answer to question on noticeNo. 10, in which you advised that a reductionin numbers will be managed through naturalattrition, which averages 4% per annum. Asthe total number employed is currently 2,225and given that the figure represented by a 4%turnover would be well below the 119 positionsidentified, how do you envisage being able tomaintain a policy of no forced transfers?

Mr BREDHAUER: As I tried to explain inthe answer to that question, we predicted thatthere would be job losses in the order of 134last year, I think, from memory. Sorry, thefigure was 149. The actual number was 34.We do best estimates on the basis of the workthat we think RTCS will be able to achieve inthe open market. We provide funds toguarantee a certain level of work for RTCS. But

as you would know, as a commercial businessunit it is able to compete in the open marketon a tender basis for other work. In last year'sBudget there was a prediction that the RTCSemployment, on the basis of historical data,could decline by as many as 149. The actualnumber that the work force was reduced bywas 34.

As to the difference between 34 and149—RTCS won probably a little more workthan we anticipated it would at Budget-time, sowe were able to sustain employment for aslightly higher number. So there was asignificant difference there between thepredicted and the actual. Once again, we haverevised our figures on the basis of the workthat we think RTCS will pick up. We haveprojected that there could be job losses of119.

My commitment that there will be noforced redundancies is absolute. If there arejob losses, they will occur through naturalattrition and they are processes that we aremanaging. There is also the possibility, ofcourse, that last year's experience could bereflected again this year and, if RTCS can winmore work than we have anticipated they will inthis budget, the 119 job losses will not occur.But in addition to that, let me say that we areworking very hard to find innovative ways inwhich we can guarantee full-time employmentfor RTCS workers. We have, for example,under consideration an innovative jobplacement program which is trying to help usto find full-time secure employment for RTCSworkers who may be surplus in other places.

I have to say that RTCS workers and theirunions have been very cooperative indeveloping practices which enable us tomaximise employment and to use their skillsand availability as best we possibly can. As Isay, my commitment in respect of no forcedredundancies is firm.

Mr JOHNSON: When the major contractworks on the Pacific Motorway and othersouth-east Queensland projects expire in thelatter part of next year, can you give theCommittee an undertaking that there willcertainly be works around Queensland thatsome of these contractors can enter into?

Mr BREDHAUER: Sure. This is animportant issue. There are a number of majorinfrastructure projects, especially in thetransport area, which are due to wind up overthe next few years. The Pacific Motorwayproject is one, the South East Transit Project isanother one, and there is the inner northernbusway. All of these are due to expire, if youlook at them collectively, by around the end of


2001 to mid 2002. Most of these projects arelikely to be finding their way to a conclusion. Ifthere was nothing to replace that work, then itwould lead to the potential for a significantdrop-off.

I think there are two issues that need tobe recognised here. The first is that in theIntegrated Regional Transport Plan, theinfrastructure projects that are required to meetthe Transport and Main Roads objectives ofsouth-east Queensland are clearly identified,and preliminary planning on the next round ofprojects which have been identified throughthe IRTP would be under consideration by mydepartment. There are also some significantprojects that are about to get under way whichcan help to replace that.

I have already mentioned to you todaythe port road. If that project was under way,that is one possibility where we could haveadditional work on a major project for asignificant number of roadworkers. The Tugunbypass would be another one, for example.We have work that is due to commence on thesix-laning of the highway up near Caboolture.So there are projects that are close by thatwould enable us to have some capacity tosoak that up. I am working with both of mydepartments and with Queensland Treasuryand the Premier.

The other component of it, though, is thatGovernments traditionally have sought toexpand the Capital Works Program at timeswhen the economy might be down a little andthen, when the economy is in a moreexpansionary stage and there is more work inthe private sector, to have a reasonableexpectation that work in the private sector willhelp to meet the expectation for growth andemployment opportunities. So we are lookingat the next round of projects. We are looking inthe longer term to develop the planning anddesign work for the next round of projects. Iam regularly in discussions with mydepartment and with the Treasurer and thePremier about funding for those projects in theyears subsequent to 2001-02, but we wouldalso expect that there would be the capacityfor other levels of Government and for theprivate sector to contribute to fill those needs.

Mr JOHNSON: In the study in relation tothe heavy vehicle route for Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road, it is likely to divert heavyvehicles down the Western Freeway and,ultimately, onto the Gateway Arterial via theCity/Valley bypass. It seems to me as thoughin time we will see that the City/Valley bypasscould become a heavy vehicle route oncemore. Do you have a policy on this?

Mr BREDHAUER: No, I do not have apolicy.

Mr JOHNSON: What I am saying here isthat we are trying to get those heavy vehiclesout of the Valley and the city now.

Mr BREDHAUER: Absolutely. Part of theidea of the City/Valley bypass is to get theheavy vehicles to bypass the city and theValley. Funny you should call it a bypass, Isuppose. The area around Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road and Kessels Road—you wouldnot find harder working local members thanthe members in that area, such as themembers for Mansfield, Mount Gravatt,Archerfield and Sunnybank, in terms of tryingto resolve the urban amenity issues that arecaused by the heavy traffic that uses thatarea.

We have actually taken some significantinitiatives in recent times. We undertook anorigin and destination survey so that we couldactually determine why heavy vehicles areusing that stretch of road and whether thereare alternatives to them using that stretch ofroad. The origin and destination survey, Iunderstand, has recently been completed andI expect that I will be briefed on that in the nextweek or so, so that we can provide feedbackto the community on the results of that.

We are doing our best in trying to reduceheavy vehicle usage in those urban areas.People have suggested that we should justkeep trucks out of the city. The reality is thatthere are significant business, commercial andindustry reasons why some trucks need toaccess the city. They need to make deliveriesand pick-ups, and there are some fairlysignificant depots if not in the city, in near cityareas. So there will always be a requirementfor some heavy vehicles to be able to accessthe city and near city areas and to have thecapacity to traverse the city so that they canservice business and industry. But all of this isbeing dealt with in the context of ourIntegrated Regional Transport Plan for south-east Queensland, which is trying to deal withthose urban amenity issues.

Of course, things like the duplication ofthe eastern end of the Logan Motorway, theGateway Bridge—we are working with QML onthe Gateway and Logan Motorway trying tomake the Gateway as convenient as possiblefor heavy vehicles and for frequent users ofthat road network so that we can encouragemore vehicles onto that road.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes theperiod allocated for non-Governmentappointed members' questions. I now proceed


to Government appointed members'questions.

Mrs ATTWOOD: I understand that theDepartment of Main Roads and QueenslandTransport have devolved considerableresources towards implementing a new humanresource payroll system. Has theimplementation been a success?

Mr BREDHAUER: We have a new SAPHR payroll system, as it is known, which hasbeen one part of a much larger resourceplanning system implementation project calledthe Gateway Project, and this has been amajor initiative by the Department of MainRoads. It is expected to deliver significantbenefits in the medium to long term to bothdepartments—Main Roads and QueenslandTransport—in human resource managementand payroll areas.

One of the significant features of theGateway Project is that it is replacing manysystems that are not Y2K compliant. What wehave now is a new system which has recentlybeen successfully rolled out across the State.There have been a few teething problemsalong the way, I have to admit. Even thingslike the pay slip that employees got causedsome people some grief because it changedthe way in which information on pay waspresented. We worked through that in ourfocus groups. I think now people are prettyhappy.

The new system is a state-of-the-artproduct—it is used by thousands of clientsworldwide—but it did, of course, requiretailoring to meet the complex requirements ofGovernment agencies, including Main Roads.The post-implementation review of the payrollcomponent of Gateway, which has beenplanned since the commencement of the roll-out of the new system, has recentlycommenced and will identify and address anyoutstanding concerns in relation to the newpayroll system. Significant improvements havebeen made there and the new system isexpected to deliver many benefits to theDepartment of Main Roads and also toQueensland Transport.

The CHAIRMAN: Does the budget makeprovision for completion of the PacificMotorway? Can you confirm that the projectwill be delivered on time and that it is wellplanned?

Mr BREDHAUER: I think $194m is thefigure in this year's Budget for the PacificMotorway project. This has been a significantchallenge. The member for Gregory will knowthat there were serious reservations by thedepartment about the capacity to deliver this

project under traffic in the time frame whichwas set. That has put significant pressures oneverybody—the project managers, thedepartment and also the contractors—in termsof delivery of this project. I take this opportunityto commend Bob Higgins and his projectmanagement team for what I regard as theexcellent job they have done in difficultcircumstances in managing this project.

The project is well advanced. Just as anexample, there are 90 bridges on the projectand 61 of those are complete. Considerablesections of the pavement are also complete.We are getting to the point in time where weshould in the not-too-distant future be able toopen significant sections of the pavement asthey are being completed. Traffic is movingonto those, but there will be a series ofsignificant openings of new sections and newworks over the forthcoming six months or so.

We anticipate that the project will besubstantially open to traffic along its entirelength by March of next year, in accordancewith the program. Bob Higgins was in thepaper the other day talking about us being atthe limit of our flexibility, I guess, because ofthe weather problems that we have had. Atthis stage I still anticipate that we will have theproject open along its length in March of nextyear and we are looking for full completion ofthe project by September of next year.

There are a range of other things. Wetweather obviously has been a major factor.Employment on the project peaked at almost1,800 employees in March of this year. It hasbeen a major construction project by anygauge and the work that is being done to bringthat to conclusion next year will see a qualityproduct delivered, although it has not beenwithout its problems from time to time.

Mrs ATTWOOD: Has money beenprovided in the Main Roads budget for theSurfers Paradise Heart of the City project,which was announced by the BeattieGovernment late last year?

Mr BREDHAUER: The Heart of SurfersParadise project was actually the subject of afeature article in today's Courier-Mail. I do notknow if members of the Committee saw it. TheGold Coast City Council has developed, inconjunction with the community there, a planto revitalise the heart of Surfers Paradise. Asignificant part of that is to change the trafficflows through the Surfers Paradise area. Iannounced in conjunction with the Premier on11 March this year that an additional $3mwould be allocated as part of an overall almost$21m package across the whole of theGovernment to be funded over a four-year


period. So we are committed to working onthat project with the Gold Coast City Council.

The completion of the project will removetraffic from the Surfers Paradise centralbusiness district and contribute to arejuvenation of Surfers Paradise and GoldCoast tourism. The Gold Coast City Council willalso contribute significantly almost $12.5m. Adraft memorandum of understanding hasbeen forwarded to council which sets out theterms of agreement between Main Roads andthe council. Finalisation of this document ispending. So we are actually well advancedwith that memorandum of understanding.

The works include four-laning of FernyAvenue immediately west of Surfers ParadiseCBD between the Isle of Capri and MacintoshIsland. Prior to these works and in a separatelyfunded project, Main Roads is four-laning asection of the Southport-Burleigh Roadbetween Bundall Road and Burleigh Road toprovide an improved alternative north-southcorridor.

Essentially, the $3m we have provided willbe used in the first instance for publicconsultation and planning and design workand relocation of services such as electricity,water, sewerage and those kinds of things.Work is due to commence in March 2001 andbe completed by 2003. We are happy to beworking with the Gold Coast City Council andthe community of the Gold Coast on thatsignificant project.

Mrs ATTWOOD: Can you advise on thecurrent status of Federal funding forQueensland's National Highway system? Inparticular, what is the position in relation to theIpswich Motorway and the Bruce Highwaybetween Pine Rivers and Caboolture?

Mr BREDHAUER: The Ipswich Motorwaycan be a short answer. The budget is buggerall in this financial year. National Highwayfunding is a really big issue for us. NationalHighway funding in Queensland this year willbe about $25m less than it was in 1996-97.We had some moneys advanced into lastyear's budget, because there was an offerfrom the Commonwealth that they wereprepared to do that. I think the opinion of mydepartment is that a bird in the hand is worthtwo in the bush, so when the Commonwealthsaid, "There is a bit of money here you cangrab this year but we will take it off next year'sallocation", we decided not to wait and see if itwas hanging around next year; we grabbed itwhile we could. So there will be an adjustment.Notwithstanding that, there is $25m less in thisyear's National Highway allocation forQueensland than there was in 1996-97.

National Highway funding across the countryhas fallen by $640m since that time. TheIpswich Motorway is one road that hassuffered.

In 1997, under the member for Gregoryas Minister, a review of urgent safety andmaintenance requirements on the IpswichMotorway identified $47m worth of work thatwas required there, and none of it has beenfunded by the Commonwealth. There wasnothing allocated in this budget for the IpswichMotorway.

For the Bruce Highway between PineRivers and Caboolture, $35m over three yearshas been allocated. Work will start there onthat six-laning project. But people need to bearin mind that the preliminary estimate of thetotal cost of that work is $200m and we havebeen allocated $35m over three years.

Clearly, there is an urgent need for theCommonwealth Government to lift its game onNational Highway funding. We have had someindividual success on specific projects, and Ithank John Anderson and the Commonwealthdepartment for the support they have given usfor particular projects such as the Barkly projectand for the agreement to accelerate thefunding on Portsmith Road. But we havesafety and congestion issues which are ofincreasing concern on the Ipswich Motorway.There have been 136 major accidents on themotorway in the past five years and trafficvolumes have risen from 52,000 vehicles perday in 1990 to 75,000 vehicles per day in1999. We just do not have any money to dothe work.

We have a 10-year plan which I sent toJohn Anderson about six months ago, and Istill have not had an answer from him aboutwhether he likes it or does not like it. I did notask for a funding commitment; I just asked himto acknowledge the 10-year National Highwaystrategy and we did not get a response. Theyneed to do better.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Minister.That now concludes the Committee'squestioning of your portfolios.

Mr BREDHAUER: Might I just providesome information by way of follow-up to aquestion earlier?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes.

Mr BREDHAUER: In respect of formerproperties in the area of the south coastmotorway, I advise the member for Gregorythat, in 1998-99, two properties were sold and$273,000 was earned from that.

If you do not mind, Mr Chairman, I wouldlike to express my appreciation to officers of


both of my departments and of QueenslandRail and other Government ownedcorporations who have provided me with agreat deal of assistance over the past coupleof months in the preparation of the budgets,and particularly in preparation for today'sEstimates Committee meeting. What you seehere is a bit like the duck swimming on thewater; above the surface it all seems very calmand placid, but let me tell you that they aregoing like the clappers down belowsomewhere. I want to acknowledge and paytribute to those people from both theDepartments of Main Roads and Transportand the associated Transport GOCs who haveassisted in bringing us the information that wehave been able to present to the Committeetoday.

The CHAIRMAN: That now concludes theCommittee's hearings in relation to theTransport and Main Roads portfolios. Thankyou, Minister, and thank you, departmentalofficers and advisers, for your assistance. Iremind you that any answers taken on noticeby the Minister or any further information is tobe received by the Committee secretariat by3 p.m. on Tuesday, 12 October.

Sitting suspended from 1.01 p.m. to2.15 p.m.

7 Oct 1999 Estimates C—Public Works; Housing 217

PUBLIC WORKS; HOUSING

IN ATTENDANCE

Hon. R. E. Schwarten, Minister for PublicWorks and Minister for Housing

Department of Public Works—Mr M. Grierson, Director-General

Mr G. May, Deputy Director-General

Mr T. Woodward, Director, Finance andInformation Technology

Ms J. Phillips, Director, Planning andHuman Resources

Ms C. Tonkin, Director, QueenslandPurchasing

Mr L. Clarence, Group General Manager,Services and General Manager, Q-FLEET

Mr R. Giles, General Manager, Goprint

Mr B. Hunt, General Manager, Sales andDistribution Services

Mr M. Smith, General Manager, ProjectServices

Mr W. Pashen, Assistant Director, BudgetDivision

Department of Housing—

Ms L. Apelt, Director-GeneralMr A. Ackfun, General Manager, ATSI

Housing

Mr I. Fulton, General Manager, HousingFinance

Ms J. Clark, General Manager, PublicRental and Community Housing

Ms L. Hewlett, Policy Adviser

The CHAIRMAN: The next portfolios to beexamined relate to the Minister for PublicWorks and Minister for Housing.

I remind members of the Committee andthe Minister that the time limit for questions isone minute and three minutes for answers. Abell will ring once 15 seconds before the endof these time limits and twice when the time isexpired. More time may be given for answers ifthe questioner consents. The Sessional Ordersrequire that at least half the time is allotted tonon-Government members. Governmentmembers and non-Government members ofthe Committee will take turns at askingquestions in blocks lasting approximately 20minutes.

In relation to media coverage of today's

hearing, the Committee has resolved thatvideo coverage is allowed during theChairman's and Minister's opening statements.

The proceedings today are similar toParliament, to the extent that the publiccannot participate in the proceedings. In thatregard, I remind members of the public that, inaccordance with Standing Order 195, theymay be admitted or excluded from the hearingat the pleasure of the Committee.

The time allotted to the portfolio of PublicWorks and Housing is four and a half hours.The examination will begin with theDepartment of Public Works. I declare theproposed expenditure for the Minister forPublic Works and Minister for Housing open forexamination. The question before theCommittee is—

"That the proposed expenditure beagreed to."

Minister, would you like to make a briefintroductory statement?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Thank you, MrChairman. Last year, at the EstimatesCommittee for the Department of PublicWorks, I indicated that there were majorchallenges ahead for the department during1998-99. I was right, in that it has been a verychallenging year, particularly for some of thebusiness units, as external factors haveaffected their bottom line performance. I canalso say, without fear of contradiction, that Iexpect 1999-2000 to be even morechallenging. We will soon have the Y2K issuebehind us, but we then face the GST minefieldfrom July next year. We also face thechallenge of protecting and generating jobsthrough our activities with our Government andindustry partners.

At these hearings last year, I indicatedthat I intended to make a major contribution toachieving the Government targets inapprenticeship training. This has beenachieved. Last year, I indicated that I wasgoing to introduce more efficiency andeffectiveness in the delivery of theGovernment's Capital Works Program. This,too, has been achieved. Last year, I indicatedthat I would improve the maintenance of theState's building assets. This has also beenachieved. Last year, I stated that I intended tostrengthen our partnership with the buildingindustry. That has also been achieved.

Mr Chairman, I would now be pleased toanswer any questions on the department'sachievements for 1998-99 or our plans for1999-2000.

218 Estimates C—Public Works; Housing 7 Oct 1999

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Minister. Thefirst period of questioning will be fromnon-Government members.

Mr LAMING: I welcome the Minister andmembers of the department to the hearing.The first question I have is an overall portfolioquestion. I refer to page 1-6 of the MPS. Whatare the circumstances that see the projectedrevenue for the 1999-2000 financial year dropby $112.297m to $15.563m?

Mr SCHWARTEN: It is an accountingtreatment. I will get Tony Woodward to answerthat question.

Mr WOODWARD: The drop inexpenditure from $131.652m to $15.563m isprimarily a result of maintenance beingdevolved to client departments. It is also theresult of payments that came from Treasurylast year for the Cairns Convention Centre notcoming to the department this financial year.

Mr LAMING: I refer now to page 1-7. Areall vacancies and casual or temporarystaff—FTEs—included in the 1999-2000staffing figures provided?

Mr GRIERSON: Yes, they are.

Mr LAMING: Also on pages 1-7 and1-6—with reference to the Corporate Serviceswithin the Public Works portfolio—this questionhas a number of dot points. I will read throughthem, and if you want me to come back tothem separately, I will. Since last year'sEstimates, you still have a shared Legal andContractual Service and Marketing andCorporate Communication Unit; is that correct?

Mr GRIERSON: No, that is not correct. Itis half correct. We do have a shared Legal andContractual Unit, which is servicing both theDepartment of Public Works and theDepartment of Housing. Each department hasits own Marketing and Communications Unit.You lumped those two together.

Mr LAMING: Okay. I will continue downthe dot points. But you have a separatePlanning and Human Resources section andan Internal Audit Unit?

Mr GRIERSON: That is correct.The CHAIRMAN: I will just indicate to the

member and also to Mr Grierson that thequestioning is actually to the Minister. So inthe first instance the Minister might indicate, "Iwill refer it to Mr Grierson."

Mr SCHWARTEN: As part of the wholepackage—

The CHAIRMAN: Are you happy to dealwith it that way?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes.

Mr LAMING: I might start that one again.You do have a separate Planning and HRSection, an Internal Audit Unit, a Finance andIT Unit and an Executive Services Unit; is thatcorrect?

Mr GRIERSON: That is correct.

Mr SCHWARTEN: That is right.

Mr LAMING: What are the separatestaffing resources for each of these units?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I will refer that to thedirector-general, but obviously thedirector-general can only answer for theDepartment of Public Works.

Mr GRIERSON: That is understood?

Mr LAMING: Yes.Mr GRIERSON: Bear with me, and I will

dig those figures out for you. The InternalAudit Unit—are we talking about 1998-99 orthis current year?

Mr LAMING: This coming year.

Mr GRIERSON: This coming year, internalaudit will have four people. Finance, includingthe library, will have 25. External relations is11. That is the new name for what was, in yourearlier question, marketing andcommunications. Planning and humanresources has 19; the information servicesgroup, eight; legal, 22; and the ExecutiveServices Unit, 10, which includes two peoplefor the mail room.

Mr LAMING: What are the separatebudgets for each of those units? Do you havethat information on hand?

Mr GRIERSON: I will ask my financedirector to give you those figures from thetable.

Mr WOODWARD: Are you after the1998-99 budget?

Mr LAMING: No, the 1999-2000 budget.

Mr WOODWARD: The 1999-2000budget, in accrual terms, is $10,051,000.

Mr LAMING: That covers all of them,does it?

Mr WOODWARD: That covers all areas.

Mr LAMING: They are not split—the onesthat the D-G gave separately?

Mr WOODWARD: Yes, I can providethose.

Mr LAMING: Later or now?Mr GRIERSON: We can give you them

now.

Mr WOODWARD: Internal audit is$670,000; finance and library is $1,875,085;the external relations or communications—as


the director-general mentioned—was$1,303,494; planning and human resources,$1,811,780; information services group,$1,720,701; the office of the director-general is$1,108,392; the office of the deputydirector-general is $646,525; and theExecutive Support Unit is $773,627. Thenthere are allocations—four—which sit in thecorporate area for certain special projects.Were you after those as well?

Mr LAMING: Yes, please.

Mr WOODWARD: There was moneyallowed for SAP, which was $79,068. I amsorry, I left out the legal before. Legal was$1,872,033. There were business unitrecoveries of $3,710,000 and specialallocations of $735,970.

Mr LAMING: Thank you very much. Thenext question might have been covered by theanswer to the earlier question. The questionwas to be this: what is the separate quantumof payments made or received by theDepartment of Public Works for sharedservices? I think you said earlier that there areno shared services. Is that correct?

Mr GRIERSON: No. I said there wereshared services for legal and contractual.

Mr LAMING: Then the question is stillvalid. What is the separate quantum ofpayments made or received by theDepartment of Public Works for sharedservices?

Mr WOODWARD: The amount is$980,000.

Mr LAMING: And that is received?

Mr WOODWARD: Received fromHousing.

Mr LAMING: You gave me the number ofstaff in the executive services area. I think yousaid there were 10. Is that correct?

Mr GRIERSON: The number of staff inthe executive services area of the Departmentof Public Works is 10.

Mr LAMING: The next question concernstelecommunications. Can you inform theCommittee that your department has beendirected, as a consequence of a decision ofCabinet which the Premier confirmed duringEstimates Committee A, to contribute aproportion of the $117m of the QueenslandGovernment's telecommunicationsexpenditure over the next five years to Optus?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I think the Premieradequately answered that question the otherday.

Mr LAMING: And your department hasbeen made to contribute a proportion?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I said that I think thePremier answered that question adequatelythe other day.

Mr LAMING: What is the total value of theDepartment of Public Workstelecommunications expenditure per annum?

Mr GRIERSON: We do not have theexact figure, but it is of the order of $3.4m forour voice telecommunications. We also payfees to CITEC for data communications.

Mr LAMING: What is the value of theDepartment of Public Workstelecommunications expenditure that will beexpended through Optus?

Mr SCHWARTEN: You mean at thepresent time?

Mr LAMING: In this present financial year,yes.

Mr GRIERSON: With the Minister'sindulgence: we have called tenders fortelecommunications services and we areevaluating those tenders right now. Thatinvolves packaging up a whole range ofservices—mobiles, long distance, spectrumservices, PABX, managing changes—and atthis point in time we are evaluating the variouscomponents of those packages. Eachcomponent could be awarded to a differentcarrier. So we have made no decision as towhich carrier will get which slice of ourtelecommunications work.

Mr LAMING: Can you confirm that theDepartment of Public Works had, prior to theOptus deal, reached a verbal agreement withTelstra for the provision of whole-of-department telecommunications services?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Not as far as I amaware.

Mr GRIERSON: No. The Minister iscorrect. We have not finalised that tender atall.

Mr LAMING: Was the Optus agreementsubjected to an open and competitive tender,or any other competitive procurementprocess?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I have no idea. Youhad better ask Terry Mackenroth that.

Mr LAMING: I refer to the OperatingStatement table on page 1-23, and inparticular to the totals in the 1999-2000financial year for user charges, employeeexpenses and supplies and services. This is inthree dot points and I will read it right throughbecause that might be the easiest way to do it.


When you add together the correspondingfigures for user charges contained in theOutput Operating Statements —BuildingProcurement and Asset Management at page1-14 you have $214.248m, and forprocurement at page 1-18 you have $1.78m.That gives me a total of only $216.028m. Inthe Operating Statement on page 1-23 youdisplay a total of $220.668m—a discrepancyof some $4.64m. Is there an explanation forthis, or is it just a simple calculation error?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I am sure there is anexplanation for it and Tony will give it to you.

Mr WOODWARD: The parent entity alsoincludes corporate services, whereas the twooutput statements exclude corporate services.

Mr LAMING: I see. We could have thesame answer to the next question, but I will gothrough it to make sure. Had you finished youranswer?

Mr WOODWARD: The parent entity alsoincludes corporate services. The two outputstatements also include corporate services butwhat they exclude is the moneys that arereturned from Housing. That is actually theamount that was mentioned.

Mr LAMING: And that adds up to thedifference?

Mr WOODWARD: Yes.Mr LAMING: We could have the same

answer to the next question. When you addtogether the corresponding figures foremployee expenses and supplies and servicescontained in the Output Operating Statement— Building Procurement and AssetManagement at page 1-14 and procurementat page 1-18 you get a joint total of only$208.915m; yet in the Operating Statementon page 1-23 you display a joint total of$213.55m—a discrepancy of some $4.64m.Are we talking about the same reason?

Mr WOODWARD: Yes.

Mr GRIERSON: If I could just interrupt.You remember we said there was $3.7mreturned from business units to corporate and$900,000 that Housing paid our departmentas their share of legal and contractual? That$3.7m plus the $900,000 gives you your$4.6m. That is where those figures come from.

Mr LAMING: That balances up with thevariance that I finished up with?

Mr GRIERSON: Yes.

Mr LAMING: Thank you for that. I wouldlike to ask a question concerning the RomaStreet development. When do you anticipatework commencing on the site and what will bethe initial scope of this work?

Mr SCHWARTEN: At the end of this year.It is timed to finish in March 2001. The work willproceed. We have $72m to spend on thatproject. If you so desire, we can show youplans of the site.

Mr LAMING: My follow-up question is this:given that you were unable to expend $9.5mof the projected budget last financialyear—which roughly equates to 140 jobs thatwent uncreated—what guarantees does theCommittee have that you and yourdepartment will expend the budgeted amountthis financial year?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I am very confident of itbut, to share that confidence, I will get thedirector-general's advice.

Mr GRIERSON: The project was fundedlast year but, as you will recall, there weresome negotiations regarding an internationalgarden festival. The decision that that festivalwould not proceed was not taken until late1998, and it was not until March 1999 that thecity council and the State Governmentfinalised all the negotiations and agreed toproceed with the Roma Street redevelopment.So the project was really only started at aboutthe end of March or early April this year. It wasless than three months, and most of the workinvolved planning.

Mr LAMING: I refer to page 1-21 and Imake reference to the Hervey BayGovernment office complex and to theunderspending in the 1998-99 financial year of$1.22m. Given that the supposed can-doLabor Government slowed this project downfrom one year, as was proposed in thecoalition's 1998-99 Budget papers, to twoyears in your 1998-99 Budget papers, why didyou fail to achieve even the lower target?

Mr SCHWARTEN: The reality of thequestion shows your ignorance of how thesejobs are funded. They are funded on the basisof a financial year. As the honourable memberfor Hervey Bay will tell you, the project ran intotwo financial years and, as such, is fundedaccordingly—just the same as the CairnsConvention Centre. However, I will get youfurther details from the director-general.

Mr GRIERSON: The only delay in thoseprojects was where there were somediscussions with the city council regardingchanges to drainage requirements that wererequired on the site. Otherwise, that projecthas proceeded on schedule and will becompleted December this year ahead ofbudget.

Mr LAMING: December this year?

Mr GRIERSON: Yes.


Mr SCHWARTEN: I was there a couple ofmonths ago and the project is well and trulyadvanced.

Mr LAMING: Is it not also a fact that thisLabor Government has slowed this projectdown even further and now does not expect tocomplete this office complex until the2000-2001 year?

Mr SCHWARTEN: No.

Mr LAMING: Not correct?Mr SCHWARTEN: No. Whoever wrote

that question for you has not been to HerveyBay for a while.

Mr LAMING: So the expected completiondate—

Mr SCHWARTEN: Is around Decemberthis year.

Mr GRIERSON: The building is scheduledfor completion in December 1999.

Mr SCHWARTEN: 1 December.

Mr LAMING: I refer to page 1-71, whichrelates to QPM. What was the total staffnumbers, including vacancies, for QPMimmediately before its dissolution?

Mr GRIERSON: You will have to bear withme while I just look that up. I will get Ms JanPhillips, the director of personnel, to give youthe full details.

Ms PHILLIPS: I have the total number ofstaff who were in QPM. That does not includevacancies. I do not have the vacancy numbersavailable today. The total staff by full-timeequivalent was 528.

Mr LAMING: So you do not have thevacancies?

Ms PHILLIPS: No, I do not.

Mr LAMING: No idea approximately whatthey might have been?

Ms PHILLIPS: No, I do not.Mr LAMING: What was the break-up of

staff resources from QPM to other areas withinthe Public Works portfolio?

Ms PHILLIPS: Again, in full-timeequivalent numbers?

Mr LAMING: Yes, please.

Ms PHILLIPS: Three went to thecorporate area, 54 to Building Division, 75 toProject Services, 396 to Q-Build.

Mr LAMING: Thank you. On what basiswas the decision taken to dissolve a highlyprofitable and above-target performingbusiness unit?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I took the decision onthe advice of the department that we could

make savings by doing that work in otherbusiness units within the Department of PublicWorks, and that advice has proved fruitful.

Mr GRIERSON: There had been for timesome duplication between QPM and the otherbusiness units—Project Services, Q-Build andthe Building Division. So there was an overlapin functions that was causing me someconcern. The second problem was that wewere facing Y2K issues. The first quote that wereceived from Andersen Consulting to upgradethe system to Y2K compliance in QPM was$2.9m. Those systems, or the majority ofthem, were already existing in the otherbusiness units. For example, a real estatemodule existed already in Project Services. Sorather than upgrade the modules in thesystems in QPM, we saved at least$2m —closer to $3m—by spreading thosefunctions across the other business units.

Mr LAMING: So we had the dissolution ofa highly profitable and above target performingbusiness unit, which QPM was, and this hadnothing to do with propping up a less profitableand below target performing Q-Build?

Mr SCHWARTEN: There you go attackingQ-Build again, as you always do.

Mr LAMING: No, it is a question.

Mr SCHWARTEN: I am waiting for you toget on to the bricks question that you got on tolast year. By the way, since that dominated somuch of the proceedings last year, I thoughtyou might like to know where the bricks are:they are at 184 Boundary Street, in the fencethere. We did manage to get them back. Interms of that project, I think that thedirector-general has adequately answered thatquestion.

Mr GRIERSON: Those functions ofsecurity and cleaning that are in Q-Build, Iwould not regard those as being highlyprofitable elements of QPM. In fact, they areunits that we continually have to watch closelyregarding their bottom line performance.

Mr LAMING: Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes thatperiod of non-Government appointedmembers' questioning. I will now proceed toGovernment appointed members' questioning.I call the member for Nicklin.

Mr WELLINGTON: I understand thatrecently your department has undertakensome significant maintenance works on publichousing in my electorate of Nicklin. For thebenefit of my electorate, can you pleaseexplain the reasons behind the need for thismaintenance work?


Mr SCHWARTEN: I presume that you aretalking about the $4.4m special maintenanceprogram that became available as of Marchthis year. To answer your question specifically,at some stage your office contacted us aboutsome projects that required doing. Indeed, letme say that, as part of that particular program,every single electorate here benefited. As Irecall it, there were three high schools that hadurgent and ongoing maintenance issues thatwere looked at. Indeed, all of us who haveschools of such a nature in our electorates—the older-type schools—could relate to this. AsI said, the money became available and it wasused for requests, such as yours, that hadcome in over a period of time. If you like, I willget you the figure. I think that it is between$60,000 and $70,000.

In that regard, Nambour, Palmwoods andWoombye State Schools in your electoratewere treated. As you probably know, we do notcontrol the maintenance on schools. I am stillconstantly amazed at the number of peoplewho write to me asking for that sort ofmaintenance to be done. So we keep aregister in the office of those verbal and writtenrequests that come in for exigencies like this.When this money became available, we wereable to use it straight off on those sorts ofprojects. For example, I know that there were afew projects in the electorate of the memberfor Gregory. The same applies to the memberfor Hervey Bay. He would remember thesituation at Pialba school where there was thatdebacle with the private contractor and theasbestos roofing. Out of this project, we wereable to fix that up.

I cannot give any guarantees that everyyear that sort of money will be able to befound within the budget of Public Works but,where it is, I think that we have an obligation toput it to good use and to put it to use rightthroughout Queensland as best we can. Wecould have just divided the $4.4m between the89 electorates, but that would not haveresolved anything. This way, we are able to getover urgent needs in various parts. Forexample, there was an ongoing problem in theelectorate of Moggill with a roof. It cost some$85,000, or in that vicinity, to get it fixed. It satthere for years. In my electorate, there was aswimming pool that was leaking. This list cameup to me from the department and we actedon those accordingly. Out of that program,about $1m went into asbestos removal.

All in all, I think that it was value formoney and created jobs. Most of the work wasdelivered through Q-Build, which gave thenecessary skills and training to those

apprentices. I can get you some more detailson that.

The CHAIRMAN: I refer to an issue raisedat these hearings last year about Q-Fleet andplans by the former coalition Government toenter into a sale and lease-back deal with aprivate financier. In light of your decision toscrap that proposed arrangement, have youhad any reason to review your decision?

Mr SCHWARTEN: No, I have not. Iacknowledge that this matter was raised by theshadow Minister at these hearings last yearwhen he accused me of wasting taxpayer'smoney over the decision that Cabinet and Itook in September of last year to scrap theMacquarie Bank deal to effectively privatisethe fleet in Queensland. I am glad that I tookthat decision and there is a newspaper articlethat will tell you why. This is the WestAustralian of last week. The headline reads"Car fleet fiasco costs State $30 million".

The West Australian Government wentdown the same path that the previousGovernment intended to go down, and which Iwas criticised for stopping last year. Thedecision to privatise is costing the WesternAustralian Government $1m per month. Iguess some people have the view that if youprivatise something, you will save thetaxpayers money, but the people of WesternAustralia would not agree with that. They willhave lost $12m this year. The last time Imentioned this in the Parliament, it wascosting them $1m per year, but now it hasblown out of all proportion to $1m per month.They are tied into that arrangement till the year2006, which means that the taxpayers of WestAustralia will go without $84m.

If the coalition Government had been re-elected, in the course of this year this proposalwould have cost the equivalent of the cost ofbuilding three primary schools. I say to peoplewho are criticising this Government'swillingness to continue public ownership ofthese facilities and services that they reallyought not to be lured into the fool's paradise ofbelieving that the private sector can save themmoney. I stand by the decision that I took lastyear. If I had my time again, I would take thatdecision again. If the West AustralianGovernment had the benefit of hindsightavailable to it, the last thing that it would havedone was embrace the deal that theQueensland Government was going toembrace prior to the election last year.

Mrs ATTWOOD: With reference to theRockhampton Smart City project, mentioned inthe Ministerial Portfolio Statements at page 1-10, would the Minister provide an update of


this project and advise how it will benefit thecommunity of Rockhampton, particularly in jobcreation?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Upon coming toGovernment, you always seem to have peopleknocking at your door expecting you to deliver.However, on this particular occasion when theuniversity approached me about the newconcept of Smart City, which was part of theurban renewal program that it was proposingfor Rockhampton, it was certainly anopportunity for the Government to respondand respond decisively.

Within a matter of weeks of coming toGovernment, we were able to hand to theuniversity three old court buildings in EastStreet, Rockhampton, that had very limitedfuture application to the Government. In fact, Ithink that they would have provided us with alot of headaches over the years. Anotherbuilding on Quay Street that used to be aTAFE college was also handed over. All fourbuildings have been turned over to theuniversity and we have made available some$2m for refurbishment, which has providedvery valuable work experience for our localapprentices. Indeed, we put on 29 apprenticesthis year. When Cabinet met in Rockhamptonthis year, an extra amount of money wasmade available. The total funding for thatrefurbishment work was $2.75m.

The project itself is a very exciting oneand I think it augers well for similar sorts ofprojects. As we all know, all over the worldCBDs are on the decline. A lot of people havebeen trying to come to grips with thedevelopment of new concepts for the CBD.

I was talking to the university chancellor,Lachlan Chipman, on Monday. Sixty studentshave already come into the complex, whichhas added a much-needed boost into the CBDarea. The local business houses have taken aconsiderable interest in what is occurring andTelstra has now come on board. The FederalGovernment has made another buildingavailable, although I will say that the FederalGovernment charged for its building. Part ofour Smart State initiative is to try helpuniversities like the CQU. However, there is nodoubt about the capacity of this project toenthuse people. International visitors havecome to look at it.

I am delighted to be part of theGovernment that has handed over thosebuildings to the university. It shows thebenefits of recycling buildings. For example,the old Supreme Court is where they held thekangaroo court that looked into the shearers'strike of 1891. It is a significant historical

building that really has a new lease of life. Itstill remains in public ownership and it is stillbeing used for the benefit of the taxpayers ofthis State. I think it is a great idea.

The CHAIRMAN: What is the currentstatus of your revision of the State purchasingpolicy, mentioned on page 1-16 of theMinisterial Portfolio Statements?

Mr SCHWARTEN: At the moment, theState purchasing policy, or the Stateprocurement policy, is in draft form and is outfor a period of consultation. If any honourablemembers do not have a copy, I will certainlymake one available to them. I hope that thedocument is embraced by both sides of politicsin this State and, indeed, by all honourablemembers. It is an attempt to try to get someconsistency into State procurement. We spendabout $5 billion a year on procuring goods andservices for the State.

I am sure that every member sitting at thetable has heard a constituent say, "Don'tbother about putting in a quote to theGovernment. It's only interested in the bottomline." I am sure that, like me, the member forGregory has heard that from his ownconstituents. For example, small contractorsoften get knocked off by larger contractorsfrom down here because of price. I understandwhy that is the case. In this post-Fitzgerald era,public servants are very keen to ensure thatnobody comes knocking at their door for notletting a contract out to the lowest bidder.

In my view, we have to end up with atransparent system that defines what value formoney is. I believe that value for money lies ina Government's priorities. It does not matterwhether it is your Government or ourGovernment. Every Government gets electedon a certain number of points which form theirplatform. We happen to have a seven-pointplatform: jobs, protecting the environment,growth in regions and so on. I believe thatthose points should be taken into accountwhen determining what value for money is.

Let us say that a contractor in Longreachputs in a price on a job. If he wins the contract,his money will stay in the region. That will helpto grow jobs and give young peopleopportunities in the region. That should befactored into the situation while, as thedirector-general points out, retaining theprobity and transparency that is expected.There are no pea and thimble tricks about it,although the people who put in the lowestprice would complain that they missed out.

There ought and there will be amechanism to determine what value formoney is for the Government of the day. If the


Government changes and the prioritieschange accordingly, those priorities should beinserted beside the procurement policy, so thatthe people who are procuring goods andservices on behalf of the Government can dotheir job. This is about Governments who areaccused of saying one thing and doinganother. It is about using our procurementpolicy to create jobs in regions and to do whatthe Government promised to do. As far as Iam concerned, it is a tool of Government andit ought to deliver for the people who electedthat Government. Mrs ATTWOOD: Minister, I refer you topage 1-32 of the Ministerial PortfolioStatements, which states that Q-Build providesservices to the community on behalf of theGovernment, specifically apprenticeshiptraining. Would you please advise how Q-Build's job creation initiatives in 1998 and 1999contributed to the development of regionalQueensland?

Mr SCHWARTEN: As I said before,Q-Build copped a caning, especially from theshadow Minister for Education. In my view thatwas very unfair, because most of the thingsthat were said were completely untrue anddemonstrably so. Indeed, they were veryhurtful to the people who work in Q-Build.Notwithstanding that, I think it is timely thatpeople ponder just how important Q-Build is tothe regions in Queensland and to the buildingindustry generally. For example, take the 29apprentices put on in the Capricornia region ofQ-Build—my area and that of my good friendfrom Longreach. Some of those young kidshave come out of Barcaldine. If Q-Build wasnot there, you could guarantee that those kidswould not have got an apprenticeship. Theday you close down Q-Build, the first peopleknocking at the door of the honourablemember and I will be the little businesses thathang off Q-Build. Sixty per cent of the workthat Q-Build gets goes out to privateenterprise. There is a lot of small business.The day it goes and is replaced by a largeagency that specialised in it, you could betyour bottom dollar that all of those littlebusinesses from Coolangatta to Cape Yorkand the Torres Strait islands and west toBedourie and all of the businesses in MountIsa and so on that hang off Q-Build would dryup. When people criticise Q-Build, they shouldunderstand that that is the case.

Also, Q-Build buys locally from thesuppliers in places such as Mount Isa andRockhampton. All of the material, for example,the joinery and so on, is sourced locally. Itreally is a bit like the Q-Fleet privatisationargument. Value for money—going back to

the old procurement line—is expressed inmany different ways. I think we get value formoney out of Q-Build. I know that we do. It is avery important part of regional and ruralQueensland, not just because it trainsapprentices. For example, in the electorate ofthe member for Mooloolah, on the SunshineCoast, there are 22 Q-Build apprentices. Thatis 22 young people who in the last 12 monthshave got a start in the building industry. Itperforms very well. Ninety-five per cent of thepeople who are trained in Q-Build come out oftheir time, as opposed to about 51% in privateenterprise. The runs are on the board and theruns are there more particularly in regionalQueensland.

The CHAIRMAN: On page 1-32 of theMinisterial Portfolio Statements Q-Build's role isshown to include assisting indigenouscommunities to develop an internal capacity inbuilding and construction areas. Can theMinister explain what has been achieved todate and what outcomes are expected in1999-2000?

Mr SCHWARTEN: In the last 12 monthswe have had the opportunity to trial what Ithought was a very good idea, which came tome, by the way, via a Q-Build employee, whosuggested to me that at Woorabinda therewas a golden opportunity to train some youngpeople in the construction industry. One of thethings that I have found—and I am sureanybody else who has visited Aboriginalcommunities has also found this—is that thereis a paucity of skills in those areas. The localcommunities are getting tired of peoplecoming in, constructing buildings, walking awayand leaving no skill base behind. Accordingly,one of the first decisions that I made was toask the director-general to provide a dedicatedofficer to look into the possibility of creatingindentures for Q-Build in Aboriginalcommunities. At the moment we have nineyoung people at Woorabinda and it is provingvery good. So far they have built the newhospital. When I was there recently, I saw thenew child-care centre. Also, there are anumber of housing projects for the community.The trick is to get a whole-of-Governmentapproach, which this officer has been able todo. Every bit of work that has come intoWoorabinda has been worked on by theseapprentices. I will be trying to make sure that,as far as possible, in respect of any work thatcomes there, private contractors take on thesepeople and provide them with the skill basethat they need.

In terms of the northern cape, we have 30apprentices being funded across eightcommunities in that area as a result of this. I


think it is an excellent program. I think it alsoreinforces the value of having Q-Build there.Q-Build can go into those communities on anot-for-profit basis and assist in those trainingprograms. Wherever I have been in any ofthose communities, they have been welcomedas an honest broker in terms of providingquality training. The Woorabinda apprenticeshave been into our Q-Build depot inRockhampton and worked in the joinery shopthere. In my view, they have a very goodfuture ahead of them if we are able to keepthe amount of work up to them. I have said tocontractors who are going into thesecommunities that our expectation as part ofthe procurement policy will be that locals get astart. Accordingly, I have written to Aboriginalcommunities and indicated that that should bethe case. The director-general reminds me thatthe program has been extended to PalmIsland, Injinoo, New Mapoon, Umagico,Bamaga, Seisia and Kowanyama, withapproximately 30 apprentices in those places.It is a very good scheme and I am delighted tobe associated with it.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes thisperiod of questions from Governmentappointed members.

Mr LAMING: I had one more question onQPM, which is referred to on page 1-73. I notethat at the point of the dissolution of QPM inFebruary 1999 the trust account balance wasin surplus. What was the balance of the trustaccount upon dissolution and what happenedto the trust account balance at the dissolutionof QPM?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I will get TonyWoodward to answer that question.

Mr GRIERSON: While Mr Woodward islooking for that answer, I will correct somethingthat I said before. I mentioned to you thatthere was $900,000 from Housing for ourLegal and Contractual Branch. That alsoincludes a payment for the library. Housingalso shares a library with Public Works. So the$900,000 includes their share for the Legaland Contractual Branch and the library branchof the department.

Mr LAMING: Are you able to split that upfor me? Can you take that on notice?

Mr GRIERSON: I do not have it here, butwe will take that on notice.

Mr WOODWARD: The balance of cashavailable at the date of the dissolution of thebusiness unit was $8,485,701.83.

Mr LAMING: What happened to thatbalance on dissolution?

Mr WOODWARD: The balance wasbroken up across the various business units. Ineffect, the distribution was as follows: Q-Buildreceived $3,321,972.27, Project Servicesreceived $1,839,046.51, the Building Divisionreceived $958,572.71 and Corporate received$2,366,110.34.

Mr LAMING: What was the basis of thatsplit-up? Was it based on where the functionswent?

Mr WOODWARD: It was based on theassets and liabilities associated with thefunctions being transferred to each of theindividual business areas.

Mr LAMING: I wish to ask some questionsabout the backflow program. I refer to page1-11. What is the total budget allocation forthe Backflow Prevention Program in the1999-2000 year?

Mr SCHWARTEN: $1.5m. There will be$6m over four years.

Mr LAMING: Has a new contract for aproject coordinator been signed?

Mr SCHWARTEN: No. Mr LAMING: Given that the previous

arrangements expired in September of thisyear what, if any, temporary arrangementshave been put in place?

Mr SCHWARTEN: BHF has beenextended until December. As you should beaware—you are a member of theparliamentary committee investigating thisarrangement—it would be highly inappropriateto extend any arrangements until the findingsof that parliamentary committee are broughtdown. That is the reason for the extension.

Mr LAMING: Is it intended to appointsomeone after that December extension?

Mr SCHWARTEN: We will wait and seewhat the parliamentary committee says.

Mr LAMING: What was the total cost ofthe backflow rectification for the GympieHospital?

Mr SCHWARTEN: We do not handlehospitals.

Mr LAMING: That was paid for byQueensland Health, was it?

Mr SCHWARTEN: We do not haveresponsibility—yes, it was Queensland Health.Yes. That has been one of the red herrings allthe way along in this whole debate, thatsomehow the Department of Public Works isresponsible for the budget of the Departmentof Health. It has not been for as long as I canremember.


Mr LAMING: I note that in question onnotice No. 18 it states that you had an end ofyear underspend of $222,000 in the backflowprevention program. Why was there anunderspend of this size in a $1.5m project?

Mr SCHWARTEN: As I understandit—and I will get the director-general toelaborate on this—that shortfall is to do withthe fact that that work had been allocated buthad not been completed at that stage and,therefore, had not been paid for. But the workhad been authorised and, as such, the moneyneeded to be there to pay for that service.

Mr GRIERSON: If I can enlarge, I thinkthere were three projects involved. In two, thecouncils involved had not given approval andwere still wanting to talk to us further about thework. The third one, if my recollection iscorrect, was a DPI project where the DPI wasgoing to undertake further work on the buildingin question and, therefore, it asked us to waituntil that other work that they were doing hadbeen organised so we could do it all at once.All three projects were committed. The funds, Isuspect, have been spent by now.

Mr LAMING: I refer the Minister to histestimony before the Public Works Committeeon 13 July in which you state—

"That is the program I amresponsible for. As it is the end of thefinancial year and as the $1.5m set asideran out, so too did the work."

Are you responsible for the $222,000underspend and is this an example of a can'tdo Government?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I would have thoughtthat there was nothing more contemptuous ofa parliamentary committee than a member ofthat parliamentary committee using thisprocess to take exerts out of a committee thathas not even reported to the Parliament yetand using it at this level. I am happy to answerthe question. I think it shows the sort ofinterest that this honourable member has inthat particular committee. In the Parliament heasked me a question that presumed a numberof facts that were subsequently part of theinquiry itself, yet he sat there in judgment ofthose very same facts himself. Today hecomes here and, before the parliamentarycommittee even hands down its report to theParliament, he seeks to use this forum topromulgate yet again his case. I think that it isappalling that he would seek to use thisprocess to undermine the parliamentarycommittee in such a way, having underminedit already, as he has, by his biased approachin sitting on it already when he had clearly

made up his mind, as he indicated in theParliament.

Let me say this before I hand over to thedirector-general to answer that question: what Isaid at that committee I stand by. I havealready said that that money was allocated.The answer has been given in that regard. Iwill ask the director-general to further elaborateon it. Before he does, I will also say this aboutthe backflow issue: I have just been to aninternational works conference in Denver,Colorado, that has had amongst the greatestengineering experts from all over the world.One would have thought that, if backflow wasa big issue, it would have been on thatagenda. One would have thought so—not so;no papers were delivered on it. I went fromcounty to county and asked them aboutit—not one issue. I have yet to find anybodyanywhere in the world who knows somebodywho lost their life from backflow. MrDirector-General, you might like to elaborate.

Mr LAMING: Before the—

Mr SCHWARTEN: Do not waste our time.Mr LAMING: Before the director-general

answers, I think I should respond.

Mr SCHWARTEN: No, you are wastingour time.

The CHAIRMAN: No. The Ministeranswers the questions in the manner that hesees fit. If he wants to refer his answer to thedirector-general, that is fine. You can raise theissue you want to raise in your question if it is aquestion. Carry on, Minister.

Mr GRIERSON: In relation to the$220,000, the way we operate with the accrualprocess is that, once money is committed, wecannot then redivert those funds to anotherproject. If I say that I have allocated $220,000to a project, in accrual terms that money isspent. The cash may not have left thebuilding, but the money is committed and Icannot spend it on another project. That is theway we work.

Mr SCHWARTEN: That is the way youshould.

Mr LAMING: Thank you for that response.I do have another question to ask. This is amatter for the Estimates Committee. We aretalking about the estimates for the comingyear on a program. The matters I refer to areon the public record. They are not confidentialinformation of the committee. We are talkingabout what appeared in the Budgetdocuments as an underspend in yourdepartment, and I have every right and everyresponsibility to ask a question on it—


Mr SCHWARTEN: To show your biasbefore this Committee?

Mr LAMING:—and I will continue to do so.I will ask my final question on this matter. Canyou confirm whether or not funds have beenquarantined within the current program forbackflow and will remain unexpended as ameans of funding any legal settlements thatmay come about through this matter?

Mr SCHWARTEN: No.

Mr LAMING: I now turn to the matter ofasbestos. I refer to page 1-11. In reference tothe asbestos program, has the asbestosmanagement plan been completed and, if not,when will it be completed?

Mr SCHWARTEN: It is the managementplan you are asking about?

Mr LAMING: The management plan.

Mr SCHWARTEN: It has been completed;that is my understanding.

Mr LAMING: So it has been completed?The management plan has been completed?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes.

Mr GRIERSON: Can I just clarify?Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes.

Mr GRIERSON: We have a plan forasbestos removal where we audited buildings.We identified high risk buildings and we haveaddressed high risk buildings. When we talkabout an asbestos management plan underthe national standards, it usually refers to aplan per building. So in relation to this buildinghere, if there was any asbestos in it, we wouldhave a management plan for this building sothat any builders who came on this site beforethey undertook any work would take that plan,read the plan and make sure that whateverwork they were doing was not going tointerfere with any asbestos material.

Mr SCHWARTEN: That is what we havejust done in Hervey Bay—private contractor.

Mr GRIERSON: That is what we referredto as a "management plan". There is nooverall State plan. We have gone through ouraudits, we have risk categorised buildings andwe are addressing buildings now as we gothrough.

Mr LAMING: I refer to page 1-14. Canyou expand on note 1 as to why there was anincrease in the other revenue of approximately$24m in the 1998-99 financial year, which mayhelp your bottom line, yet you only projectderiving $502,000 in total from theserecognised assets in the 1999-2000 financialyear?

The CHAIRMAN: What page?

Mr LAMING: Page 1-14.Mr SCHWARTEN: I will defer to the

director-general on that one.

Mr GRIERSON: You are talking about thefigure of $28,238,000?

Mr LAMING: My notes say $24m. I willhave to check.

Mr GRIERSON: Note 1 on page 1-14?The difference is $24m. That may be what youare referring to.

Mr LAMING: Yes, that is correct.

Mr GRIERSON: Under the newpresentation of accounts, it has becomenecessary for us to cost every asset we haveand include them in these figures. I will giveyou the layman's answer and my financialcolleagues can go into the technical detail—

Mr LAMING: I will probably understandyours better.

Mr GRIERSON: I will give it a go. As anexample, in past figures we would not havehad, for example, the Port Office land onwhich the Heritage Hotel stands. That is on a99-year lease and is really not an asset that iscashable to us.

Mr SCHWARTEN: A bit of difficulty.Mr GRIERSON: Under this process

now—it is an asset, though, because it is alease, so the State still owns that land—wehave had to value those assets. In that figureof $28m, for example, would be a figure of,say, $12m for that asset. It is an asset of theState. It is valued and it is now in thosefigures.

There is also $3.9m for some land wehave in Cairns. These are properties which wewould not in the past—we have had them inour asset register, but we never actually put avalue alongside them. Under this process, asyou are aware with equity injections and thewhole new financial process, every asset mustbe costed, valued and inserted into ouraccounts. That is why that figure is there now.The reason it is only $502,000 next year is thatthis year we are collecting up all of thoseassets and putting them in our books now sothey will all be in there for next year.

Mr LAMING: Is there any further financialaspect? I can understand that.

Mr GRIERSON: I am happy if you arehappy.

Mr LAMING: I refer you to page 1-7, tostaffing for the procurement output. Given thatthe 1998-99 estimate for staffing andprocurement was to be 52 yet at the end ofthe year the actual reported figure was 58, was


the increase of six in 1998-99 due to the fillingof vacancies?

Mr GRIERSON: As Mr Woodwardindicated before, we have now had toapportion corporate people into those twooutputs. So there are in fact eight corporatepeople included in that figure of 58. If you lookat the figures in that table, you will see thatthere are no figures for corporate. Thecorporate has to be apportioned over ouroutputs under this new accounting regime. So73 of our corporate people are included in the229 for the building area for 1999-2000.Included in the figure of 65 for procurementservices there are eight corporate people. Wehave designated those numbers equivalent tothe services that would be provided to thoseoutput areas.

Mr LAMING: So they are not included inthe 58?

Mr GRIERSON: They are not actualpeople working in procurement. They arepeople working in finance or HR.

Mr SCHWARTEN: You would not findtheir desks down there.

Mr GRIERSON: No, but they have to beapportioned under this accounting treatmentagainst those two outputs. I guess what I amsaying is that there is no output there forcorporate.

Mr LAMING: So perhaps that firstquestion has been answered.

Mr GRIERSON: Yes.

Mr LAMING: Secondly, why do anotherseven vacancies need to be filled? I wasassuming that would be 13 vacancies, butafter your first answer that is now only seven.

Mr SCHWARTEN: Could you repeat thatquestion?

Mr LAMING: The first question related tothe increase of six in 1998-99. That is anincrease from the last MPS to this one. I thinkperhaps Mr Grierson might have answered mysecond question a moment ago. My firstquestion was to do with the increase on lastyear to the 58 in the actual for 1998-99.

Ms PHILLIPS: As you correctly saidbefore, it actually is an increase from 50 to 57once you take account of the eight corporate.That increase is to fill vacancies to work onspecific projects. They include electroniccommerce and procurement and some roles inprocurement management.

Mr LAMING: Is that the increase to 58 inthe actual for 1998-99?

Ms PHILLIPS: That is the increase inQueensland Purchasing, which will take thenumbers in Queensland Purchasing, excludingcorporate, to a total of 57 for this financialyear.

Mr LAMING: What accounts, then, for theincrease to 65?

Mr GRIERSON: That is the eight that Imentioned for corporate.

Mr SCHWARTEN: You will not find themsitting down there, but they are apportionedthere for costs.

Mr LAMING: Are there any outstandingvacancies now in procurement or have theybeen taken up?

Ms PHILLIPS: I believe there are severalvacancies.

Mr SCHWARTEN: I will ask Ms Tonkin toanswer that question for you.

Mr LAMING: For my benefit you mightjust go through the budgeted and the actualfor 1998-99, which was 52 to 58.

The CHAIRMAN: Mr Laming—

Mr LAMING: It is all part of the samequestion.

The CHAIRMAN: You asked the Ministera question. He referred it to Ms Phillips. Nowyou are asking the Minister for further detailsand he is referring it to another officer.

Mr LAMING: I am asking about the twosteps of the increase. Which part of it isbecause of the corporate people and whichpart of it is for vacancies?

Ms TONKIN: The difference is sevenfull-time equivalents, and we maintained anumber of vacancies during 1998-99 becauseof various project changes and so on. Thisyear we will fill those vacancies and increaseour numbers by the seven. We are just underby the seven.

Mr LAMING: And that will take it to 65?

Ms TONKIN: Yes.

Mr LAMING: And I think Ms Phillips saidthat there would still be some vacancies, evenwhen you get to the 65. Is that right?

Ms TONKIN: No. That will be the fullcomplement.

Mr LAMING: That will be the end of thevacancies?

Ms TONKIN: Yes.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes thatperiod of non-Government appointedmembers' questioning. I now proceed again toGovernment appointed members' questioning.


Mrs ATTWOOD: Minister, you talkedabout Hervey Bay in answer to an earlierquestion. Why is a new Government officebuilding being constructed in Hervey Bay andwhat benefits will be provided to thecommunity by the development?

Mr SCHWARTEN: That issue of whetherwe should be building Government buildings inplaces such as Hervey Bay has been raisedbefore. I am sure that the member for HerveyBay will agree with me when I say that HerveyBay is one of the largest and fastest growingcities in Queensland. As such it is time, in myview—and it is probably over time—that theGovernment worked out what its agenda isgoing to be in terms of providing services inthat area.

It took something like 100 years beforethey developed a proper Government buildingin Rockhampton. It was not until my election in1989 that we actually got one. I use theexample of the Transport Department inHervey Bay. My friend from Hervey Bay will beable to attest to the fact that, as I understandit, they were actually testing cars out on thestreet. There was a lot of complaint fromcouncil and various other people.

The previous member for Hervey Bay wasknown as the member for Hervey Bay Hospitaland the member for Hervey Bay publicbuildings. He was adamant that there was ademand for that building there. I think it is partand parcel of this Government's commitmentto proper planning in this State that weprovided it. We made the decision in 1995. Infact, it was an election commitment that wemade. The previous Government purchasedthe land there and we have built the building. Iguess one could say that there is some sort ofa bipartisan ownership of this issue.

The project will cost $4.1m. The shadowMinister asked earlier whether it will be finishednext year or the year after. I really do not knowthe logic behind that. I am sure that themember for Hervey Bay is as bewildered as Iam by that question. I really do not know therelevance of it. There seems to be somesuggestion that perhaps that building was notneeded. We have tenants for about half of it.People have been critical. Notably, the personwho sold the land was one of the largest criticsof the Government for building the buildingthere in the first place, claiming that we weretaking private enterprise tenants and so forth.

I believe that we will tenant the building. Ithink it is sensible to provide that sort ofinfrastructure in growing communities such asthat, and not do it later on when there is noland and you have to put the services out of

town. I think it is proper planning and I lookforward to opening the building some timeearly next year.

The CHAIRMAN: Minister, I notice fromthe Ministerial Program Statements that a newtendering and selection process for buildingcontractors and consultants incorporating anew prequalification system has beenimplemented. What indications are there ofany real benefits from these initiatives?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Let me answer that bygoing back one step. All of us in political lifewould have had cause to have somebody atsome stage come up to us and advise us of acontractor who is doing work for theGovernment who went broke previously. Iknow the former Minister for Transport, who iswell acquainted with large contracts, wouldhave heard that sort of criticism, as well. ThePQC is an attempt to try to straddle thathurdle, for a start.

In my view, the tender box should only befilled with people who have the financialcapacity to do the job, who have the expertiseto do the job and who are all on the samelevel playing field. How many times have all ofus heard somebody say, "What chance do Ihave of competing with him or her? They don'tpay their people right. They don't have anyobservance of workplace health and safety.And here am I, I pay all my workers comp. andall the rest of it, and I am disadvantagedbecause I can't deliver on this basis." That iswhy the people who are in that tender box, asfar as we can possibly guarantee it, are goingto be okay. I am not here to guarantee thatevery contractor who ends up in the PQCtendering system is going to be able, on 100%of occasions, to do the job. But what I can sayis that it is far better than the system we hadpreviously. And as we go along, I believe it willget better.

The feedback I am getting fromcontractors—even in my own electorate,people are saying to me, "We have neverdone business with the Government beforebecause it is just too hard. You can't get intothe tender box. What is the point of preparinga tender if you are going to be knocked off bysomebody who is a fly-by-nighter who runs onthe smell of an oily rag, cuts the guts out ofthe price and knocks us off? He goes broke,does not pay anybody, and then pops updown the track under another name."

I believe that, over time, PQC will weedthat out. This contractor, who has won anumber of contracts and has never won thembefore, believes that it is fairer. Everybodyknows the ground rules. It is, as far as we can


possibly get, an even playing field. It issomething that has been long overdue, Ibelieve, in the building industry in this State. Itgives an opportunity for the honest brokers outthere in the building industry to get a slice ofthe Government action. And certainly if I haveanything to do with it, there will be anunceremonious tipping out of the tender boxof any person who is proven to be an unworthycontractor in this State. Over time, I hope thatwe can get a better industry as a result of it.

Mrs ATTWOOD: Minister, the MinisterialPortfolio Statements at page 1-11 mentionsan additional 31 dwelling units for Governmentemployee housing. Where will they be builtand how will they be funded?

Mr SCHWARTEN: The GHS scheme—Ican see my old friend here from Longreach.He loves this scheme. Of course, the paincomes for people like me on the coast whenthey sell the houses on the coast and rebuildthem. My old boss Tom Burns was the onewho actually started this whole idea.

I have a briefing note here that indicatesthat they are in places like Charleville, MountIsa, Thursday Island, Cloncurry, Hughenden.Goondiwindi, Karumba, Innisfail, Longreachand Mitchell. How this system works is basicallya commonsense approach. It is about howGovernments—just the same as any otherindividual or private concern—make theirassets work for the best return; sell houses onthe coast to build better houses where thereare none, in places like Longreach,Goondiwindi and those sorts of places. Itcertainly creates, from time to time, a bit ofdrama in places on the coast. The trick is toget rid of the houses in areas where themarket rent is reasonable and where peoplewho have gone there are not under somecontractual arrangement.

We have sold 200 since we startedthere—330. This year we are going to build 31of them in those locations. Seventy-five weresold last year, and $3.5m was expended onthe upgrade of another 347 houses in remoteparts of the State. We still own about 100 ofthem, and disposal should realise a total of$9m over the next two years.

The CHAIRMAN: Minister, will thedepartment's portfolio of office buildings be ina state of year 2000 readiness in plenty oftime?

Mr SCHWARTEN: As you well know, I amnot absolutely computer literate. In fact, I amtotally computer illiterate. And I am notcompletely Y2K savvy. But I am not like theshadow Minister, who has been out sprayinghis lawn for the millennium bug. I know a bit

more about it than that. I will leave it to theexperts.

Mr GRIERSON: The short answer is: yes.We have a program which is looking at ourentire portfolio of buildings. We have 178buildings for which the department isresponsible. These are our buildings that weown. They range from very complex buildingsto low-risk and very simple systems and smalloffice buildings. What we have had to do foreach building is initially to identify any remedialwork that has been required, where we identifycomponents that have to be upgraded. Wehave to tender and then manage therectification of that work. We then have to testthe work—the new parts that have beeninstalled—and issue Y2K compliancecertificates. Those certificates have beenissued for all bar 13 of those buildings. In fact,it is probably 12 now. Gabba Towers, I think,was tested last weekend and is now compliant.All of our key buildings, the Executive Building,Neville Bonner, 111 George, 80 George—allthe key buildings, including the building we arein right now—we are very happy that ourbuildings are compliant.

The other thing that, with the Minister'sindulgence, I might touch on is that it is notjust saying that the buildings are ready now.We also are concerned, obviously, about whathappens at midnight on 31 December. So wehave put in place a control room which wehave tested. We tested it on 8 September. Itwill be staffed by technical officers, buildingexperts, security people—a range of peoplewho will be available should somethinghappen in one of our buildings.

Mr SCHWARTEN: They are going to havea great New Year's Eve, aren't they!

Mr GRIERSON: Yes, it is a problem forthem. But we will be ready to deal with anyproblems that come up. We are very confidentwith the tests that we have done of all ourmajor buildings. We have not found anythingthat causes any undue concern. But as Imentioned during the last Estimates debate, ithas cost us a lot of money to test all of ourbuildings. We will spend about $1.7m this yearin 1999-2000.

Mrs ATTWOOD: Still on office buildings,Minister: how is the cost of fitting outGovernment office space being controlled?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I will defer to Gary Mayon that particular subject. But you would beaware that there is a need across Governmentto set standards of compliance for otherdepartments to ensure that we are gettingvalue for money out of the way that we fit outour buildings. I think it is 16 square metres that


we allocate per person where we can. Thefit-out costs are about $550-odd a squaremetre. I will allow Gary to enlarge on that.

Mr MAY: Essentially, I am confirming theMinister's comments. We do have a maximumoccupancy rate target of 16 square metres perperson and a new fit-out cost of some $550per square metre. We also have processes forapprovals for projects of $100,000, which needto be assessed by our Government OfficeAccommodation Unit in the Building Division.Accommodation projects of over a quarter of amillion dollars are considered for approval bythe Office of the Premier. So we have adouble-barrelled approach of introducingguidelines and streamlining the approvalprocess.

Mr SCHWARTEN: The director-generalhas expressed a wish to add to that.

Mr GRIERSON: This issue of Governmentaccommodation has obviously been aroundfor a long while. In August last year theGovernment Office AccommodationCommittee met and established guidelines forGovernment accommodation. Thoseguidelines cover the space standard, as theMinister has indicated, of 16 metres perperson to ensure that we use our spacesensibly, as well as occupancy rates andquality standards to ensure that there aregood quality workplace health and safetystandards for our public servants. We alsohave a furniture policy. There is a complete setof guidelines and standards for Governmentaccommodation which agencies have tofollow. These guidelines determine the size,the quality, the location and the fit-out ofGovernment accommodation. This extends toministerial accommodation as well. In thatcase, as the deputy director-generalmentioned, approvals for all ministerialaccommodation and accommodation valuedat over $250,000 goes to the Office of thePremier for approval.

The CHAIRMAN: Minister, the MinisterialProgram Statement refers to the pendingcompletion of the Cairns Convention CentreStage 2. Will you please provide theCommittee with an update on this facility andwhat benefits it will bring to Cairns?

Mr SCHWARTEN: As I mentioned earlier,the building concerned has come in on time. Itjust shows that even though we had cyclonicweather in Cairns it did not take the petrol andoil out of the engine that was driving it. Thisproject was one of those that was alwaysgoing to be tough to get on line becauseanyone who knows anything about Cairnsknows that it is a brave builder who goes in

there in the month of January. That is whathappened in this case. There were yards ofrain in Cairns in January.

As I said, the building has beencompleted. Practical completion has beencertified. In a moment, I will ask the director-general to comment further because he hasbeen up there. The building will be opened onthe 30th of this month by the Premier. Ibelieve it is an excellent building. It has yieldeda lot of work for local subcontractors. I amparticularly impressed with the sail-type roofing.The deputy director-general, as an architect,would probably truly appreciate that. I wasparticularly interested in how the builders wereable to get the sails on site and put them up insuch inclement weather. I must say that I hadsome doubts about it. The project has beenvery well managed by this department. It hascome in on time and on price. I do not thinkwe can wish for anything better than that. Ibelieve the first big game is on this weekend.

Mr GRIERSON: Yes, the first basketballgame is scheduled for 12 October. Thebuilding was certified for practical completionthe weekend before last. It is a fantasticfacility. It has 5,000 seats in concert mode,thus allowing the facility to hold a full concert. Ithas 5,500 seats in basketball mode. I haveseen the floor which has been put down. Thefacility is equipped and ready to go for the firstmatch. The seats fold back into the wall, unlikethe Brisbane Convention Centre where theCommittee may recall that the seats lift up.The facility provides 1,800 metres of exhibitionspace, and that is a critical element becauseone of the problems that the CairnsConvention Centre has faced in the past wasin the area of attracting internationalconventions. The centre has not had exhibitionspace. A medical convention could beinterested in coming to the area, only to findout that there is nowhere for suppliers to erecttheir stalls and exhibit their displays. We havenot been able to provide that facility in thepast. This 1,800 metres of exhibition space willgive the facility the advantage of attractingexhibitions.

It also has art work under the 2% art workpolicy. The Cairns City Council is completingthe footpath and landscaping Hartley Street atthe present time. We are confident that thebuilding is now ready to go and we lookforward to the first match on 12 October.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes thisperiod of Government appointed members'questioning. I now proceed to a further periodof non-Government appointed members'questioning.


Mr LAMING: I would like to refer back to aprevious question about the new Hervey Bayoffice building. I would like the Minister to referto Budget Paper No. 5 at page 73. I ask: whatis the $186,000 in post 1999-2000expenditure for?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I would say that wouldbe for fit-out, but I—

Mr LAMING: It is a fit-out which would befor the year after this financial year?

Mr SCHWARTEN: That is what it wouldbe. It would be for the ongoing letting of thebuilding. I am told it is contract retention.

Mr LAMING: It is a retention fund, is it?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes.

Mr MAY: Retentions are held oncontractors for six months or 12 months, orwhatever, after completion of the contract.

Mr SCHWARTEN: I thought it might havebeen a fit-out for the top floor which has notbeen let.

Mr LAMING: My next question is inrelation to Project Services. I refer to 1-43. Iwould like to ask a question on bills of quantity.I refer the Minister to the information providedin the answer to question on notice No. 743 on8 July regarding the trend in the constructionof schools in Queensland of not supplying billsof quantity to tenderers. Can you explain whythis appears to have occurred?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I will get Max Smith toanswer that.

Mr MAY: I may have to call upon Maxwho is a little closer to the detail. Whilst it is ourpolicy to try to provide bills of quantities onprojects of $2m and above, we frequentlyencounter circumstances where the timecompression for documentation of the projectmitigates against actually providing a bill.There have been a few cases like that but, asa general policy, we certainly try to providebills. I am not familiar with any particularinstances to which you might be referring.

Mr LAMING: Perhaps to help Mr Smith:the answer to the question on notice indicatedthat for the construction of the last five primaryschools and high schools in Queensland—andthis goes back beyond the currentGovernment—a bill of quantities was notprovided to Project Services. I was wonderingwhether you could tell me why this hasoccurred and whether you had any commentson the ultimate cost of the project in theabsence of a bill.

Mr SMITH: Firstly, yes, there have been anumber of projects that have gone out withouta bill of quantities, as you are well aware, but it

is a matter now for the Department ofEducation to make that decision on bills ofquantities. Whilst there are preferredguidelines, the call at the end of the day is thatof the Department of Education.

Mr MAY: A lot of it has to do with theadvice that they give us as to timing, and therest of it.

Mr LAMING: But the Department ofEducation has the principal responsibility?

Mr SMITH: The Department of Educationhas the prime responsibility.

Mr LAMING: The principal has theresponsibility of whether or not they want aBQ?

Mr SMITH: Yes.

Mr LAMING: This leads me to my finalquestion on this matter. Minister, have you atany time made a request of your ministerialcolleague, the Minister for Education, toincrease the lead times on briefings so thatyour officers are able to provide the bestpossible documentation to tenderers, thussaving Queensland taxpayers considerableexpense? Some research I encounteredindicates that there could be up to a 10%increase in the cost of a job if there is notsufficient briefing information, including a bill ofquantities. I wondered whether any approachhad been made to your ministerial colleagueto change the system that seems to be lockedin at the moment.

Mr SCHWARTEN: I cannot recall everraising that particular issue with the Ministerconcerned. However, while I was actingMinister for Education on a couple ofoccasions, I can remember one memorableoccasion when we all sat down as a big happyfamily around the board table at EducationHouse and we had a full and frank discussion.As you are aware, the Department ofEducation now has its own advisers andconsultants in the field. These people advisethe department. This is something that wasintroduced by your colleague, the formerMinister for Education. I have made no secretof the fact that I am not a supporter of thatview. I believe that the service offered by thisdepartment by Project Services is very, verygood and I do not regard highly that practiceat all. You would have to get your colleague toask my colleague, and I doubt that yourcolleague will ask the question.

Mr LAMING: What was that last bit?

Mr SCHWARTEN: You will have to getyour colleague to ask my colleague in hisEstimates—the Minister for Education to beasked by your colleague the shadow Minister


for Education. I will lay you a little wager now,my friend, that I bet that he does not ask thatquestion. He set up that system himself,because he has a pathological hatred forProject Services, as he told me, and apathological hatred for Q-Build. He standscondemned on both of them.

Mr LAMING: In an endeavour to try to dothe best thing for the Queensland taxpayerseven from Opposition, I posed the question onnotice to the Minister for Education and hesaid that it was one for you. So you shouldspeak—

Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank you for theprivilege.

Mr LAMING: The next question is inrelation to Q-Fleet. I refer to page 1-7, whichrefers to the staffing for the Public Worksportfolio. How do you explain the staffresources for Q-Fleet being estimated for the1998-99 financial year as 113, yet the actualfigure being only 94?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I am sure that can beexplained, but let me say that I am delightedthat we still have Q-Fleet and that we have notthe Western Australian model that you peoplewanted to have.

Mr CLARENCE: In relation to the staffingfigures for Q-Fleet, the reason that we did notmeet our original target was simply that wehad a large number of temporary positions.We held off filling some of those positions untilsuch time as our new computer system wasmade active, which occurred on 7 July thisyear.

Mr LAMING: Thank you. That might alsoanswer my second question. How do youreconcile the staff increase in Q-Fleet to 121?

Mr CLARENCE: That is resulting from thefact that we are going to be taking jobs thatare now held by temporary employees andturning them into permanent jobs.

Mr LAMING: When the number of 121 isreached, will there still be temporary positionsor vacancies, or should that be a fullcomplement at that point?

Mr CLARENCE: There would be somecasuals still employed in Q-Fleet's workshop.We do that for operational reasons because offluctuations in demand.

Mr SCHWARTEN: They are certainly flatout. They needed panel beaters during thehailstorm.

Mr LAMING: Page 1-50 also refers toQ-Fleet. Why, when the after tax operatingprofit for Q-Fleet for 1998-99 was only$37,000, was a dividend of $350,000 taken?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Les can answer that,but I tell you it is better than a $12m loss.

Mr CLARENCE: In relation to the dividendthat is shown, whilst the after tax profit was$37,000, we had a $222,000 operating profit,or retained profit brought forward from theprevious year and a dividend in 1998-99,which is an accrued amount, will be paid nextyear.

Mr LAMING: Paid—

Mr SCHWARTEN: It is the result ofretained profits from previous years.

Mr LAMING: Thank you very much.

Mr SCHWARTEN: The other point, MrClarence, that you might like to point out isthat this has not been the easiest times for usin the car market. I would have thought that,given the competition from overseas importedvehicles, which is pretty significant, that is afairly good result. I think that certainly theAustralian motor vehicle manufacturers arevery pleased that Q-Fleet are in the game,because we buy only Australian-made vehiclesunless there is a specific need for Toyotafour-wheel drives or something. I think that wewould be among the biggest—

Mr CLARENCE: Certainly the biggest inQueensland, Minister, yes.

Mr LAMING: Thank you very much. Mynext question is in relation to Goprint. I refer topage 1-57 of the MPS. What were the salesper employee for the 1998-99 financial year?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Sales per employee?

Mr GRIERSON: Per employee?Mr LAMING: Yes. I think that was

expressed in last year's MPS, but not this year.I could not find it this year; it might be there.

Mr GRIERSON: I am not sure that wecould answer that here today.

Mr LAMING: I am quite happy to takethat—

Mr GRIERSON: We will have to take thaton notice. That is not in the MPS.

The CHAIRMAN: Sales per employee?

Mr LAMING: Sales per employee forGoprint for the 1998-99 financial year.

Mr SCHWARTEN: Fine.

Mr LAMING: What new products orservices were developed by Goprint in the1998-99 financial year?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Russell Giles, themanager of Goprint, will answer that.Congratulations on your latest award.


Mr GILES: Thank you. It is very pleasingto win an international award, certainly. Couldyou repeat the question, I am sorry?

Mr LAMING: What new products orservices were developed by Goprint in the1998-99 financial year? The genesis of thequestion comes from questions asked lastyear when the Internet threat was identified. Ithink that it might have been in the Minister'sanswer that there was a reference to newservices or products needing to be developedas an alternative to the lost sales.

Mr GILES: There has been some veryconcentrated effort put in by Goprint,particularly over the past 12 months, todevelop Internet opportunities to gain accessto Government information, so much so thatGoprint now has put on board the Internet freeaccess to the Government Gazette entirely.That is basically so that there is wider accessacross the community and within Government.

The other site that has been developedfrom Goprint's point of view in a commercialsense has been the development of ourprinted catalogue, which sells all of theGovernment legislation, and other products onbehalf of Government departments. It is nowin an e-commerce type form, where you canactually electronically access and place yourorders online.

They have been the two majorconcentrations that we have developed. Thereare a couple of others that we are looking atright now, but they are really just a trial andthen it is testing the market to see if it isacceptable to them.

Mr LAMING: The first one mentioned, Iwould like to know whether that actuallygenerates any income for Goprint. It soundsmore like a service that you are providing forthe community. Maybe there is a payment or acommunity service payment. If it is notcommercially in confidence, could you tell theCommittee those other ideas that we mighthear about next year in more detail? If it iscommercial in confidence, I understand.

Mr GILES: The second question iscertainly. I would not like to divulge that.

Mr LAMING: That is fine.

Mr GILES: The first part of that question,yes, Goprint has actually got a hook thatcomes from the access to that site where youcan cast and read the information directly toour retail sales outlet. If you feel that that iswhat you want, you can actually buy it by that.So there is a connection just for increasing ourretail sales.

Mr LAMING: That is the catalogue, but Ithink that the first one you mentioned was —

Mr GILES: No, sorry, I meant that there isa connection from the Internet site for accessof the Government information, which are theGovernment Gazettes and vacancies. Thatthen says that if you wish to purchase—

Mr SCHWARTEN: It is a way ofadvertising the product, I think is what you aresaying. You and I both know that if we are noton the net, we are not in it. That is the wholepoint of it. Although these products areavailable on the net, people still want hardcopies. This is a way of advertising ourproducts. Going live on the Internet hascertainly made it very difficult for Goprint. Thereare no two ways about that. What people usedto pay for, all the valuable words that you and Iutter in the place up the road here that theywere prepared to pay dollars for, they now canget for free. That is a problem for us and I donot deny that that is the case.

In my view, Goprint is still performing veryefficiently and is continuing to respond to thedemands that are placed on it and thecompetition that is faces. Goprint needs to becongratulated for the way that it has embracedother Queensland firms, such as we sawrecently with the printing of the postal ballotsfor the referendum. That shows the securitythat Goprint offers, which a lot of other Statesdo not have. That is why we print examinationpapers for other States. All of that comes at acost. In my view, a Government needs asecure Government printer of its own. NewSouth Wales tried to get rid of its printer, whichis why things are not all that they would like. Itis a bit like the Q-Fleet deal. That is whathappens if you throw the baby out with thebathwater.

The great thing about Goprint is that withall the Budget papers that we receive, neveronce has there been a leak. That is a fantasticresult and tells a lot about the credibility andthe honesty of the hardworking and very giftedpeople who work there. I will send you a copyof an award-winning poster, which highlightsthe competence that exists in Goprint. I amproud to be part of a Government that deliversthat level of service and expertise, and thattrains people to that extent.

Mr LAMING: Minister, can you explain thepurposes and source of the $3.952m grantthat is budgeted to be paid to Goprint in the1999-2000 financial year?

Mr SCHWARTEN: That is part of theCSO. I was just referring to the fact thatGovernments have to realise that this agency


will cost money if we want to have Hansard inhard copy, if we want our statutes and otherarticles printed in hard copy. For example, thehonourable Chairman lobbied to havesomething printed on the spine of the MPS. Icongratulate him for his initiative in taking thatissue up and for convincing Goprint to do it.

The bottom line is that this costs moneyand I am thankful that our Government,through Treasury, has accepted that thesethings do cost money. If Governments want topreserve these sorts of agencies, they mustacknowledge that they cost money. I ampleased that we have taken the steps topreserve this agency. I do not see anyadvantage whatsoever in the privatisation ofGoprint.

Governments are expected to provide acertain level of security in printing things likeballot papers. The people who elect you and Ivote on a piece of a paper that was printed byour colleagues down at Goprint. The securityof betting slips, which are printed by Goprint, isimportant. There will always be a need forGovernments to have a secure Governmentprinter. When I have spoken to people fromother States that have got rid of their printers,they tell me that they rue the day that thathappened. We are printing exam papers forStates that chose to get rid of theirGovernment printer, which is a shockinginditement on those other States. That will nothappen in Queensland while I am the Minister.As I said, the CSO that has been provided byour Government is very welcome and I will befighting to have it increased.

Mr GRIERSON: The difficulty we face isthat some of the printing services that theMinister just referred to—what we call reserveservices—are required by law. We have tohave a hard copy of documents that nobodyreally wants to buy these days because theycan get them for free on the Internet. That$3.9m is a CSO, as the Minister indicated, tomake up for the costs of those documents.

Mr LAMING: Can you explain whatappears to be a refunded income taxequivalent paid to Goprint in the actual Budgetfigures for the 1998-99 financial year?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I will refer that one tothe accountant.

Mr GRIERSON: We have had discussionswith the Auditor-General regarding thetreatment of tax.

Mr WOODWARD: I will come back andverify this, but I am pretty sure that thatamount refers to future income tax benefitsthat were taken into account in 1998-99.

Mr LAMING: Why would there be futureincome tax benefits?

Mr WOODWARD: Under accountingtreatments, in certain cases you will havewrite-offs out of your normal accounts, butunder tax you cannot take those into accountuntil some later point in time, so they will staythere. With things like, possibly, long serviceleave, you cannot actually take that into yourtax until you physically pay it, whereas youmay take into your books provisions for it.

Mr LAMING: My next question relates toSDS, and I refer to page 1-64. What formula isused to calculate the gearing level?

Mr SCHWARTEN: You might have torepeat the question.

Mr LAMING: What formula is used tocalculate the gearing level?

Mr HUNT: I am not an accountant, but asI understand the formula, it is a debt plusborrowings divided by debt and borrowingsplus equity in order to determine who owns thebusiness.

Mr LAMING: Why is the gearing levelfigure for the 1998-99 financial yearunavailable?

Mr HUNT: There were no borrowings.

Mr LAMING: I refer to the employeeexpenses on page 1-65 and to the increasefor the 1999-2000 financial year over the1998-99 financial year, which is explained asthe costs associated with converting casualand temporary staff to temporary positions thatwere previously accounted under supplies andservices. If this is in fact the case, why is it thatthere is no equivalent decrease in theexpenditure under the supplies and servicescategory?

Mr HUNT: The reason is that that ismasked somewhat by the increased costsassociated with an increased sales volume,which appears under the supplies and servicescategory. We expect to increase sales,therefore we have to buy more stock and thatis masking that decrease.

Mr LAMING: In actual fact, there is anequal and opposite decrease?

Mr HUNT: Yes.

Mr LAMING: I refer now to page 1-34,which relates to Q-Build. On what basis, giventhat the after tax and dividends profit for the1999-2000 financial year is to be just under$2m lower than the 1998-99 result, do youforecast an increase in the return on netassets?


Mr GRIERSON: Could you repeat thatquestion?

Mr LAMING: Certainly. I will just repeatthe question while Mr Waters is coming. Onwhat basis, given that the—

Mr GRIERSON: Excuse me. What is thepage number?

Mr LAMING: Pages 1-34 and 1-35. Thefigures are on both pages. The RONA is on1-34 and the after tax and dividends profit ison 1-35.

Mr SCHWARTEN: We will take that onnotice.

Mr LAMING: Do you want me to ask thatquestion again?

Mr GRIERSON: We will take that onnotice. We will get it from the Hansard and getback to you. We think we have the answer, butwe will check it out and give you an accurateanswer.

The CHAIRMAN: That is the end of thetime for questions from non-Governmentmembers for this portfolio. The last questionwas taken on notice, was it not?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes.

The CHAIRMAN: We will now proceed toquestions from Government appointedmembers.

Mrs ATTWOOD: Page 1-47 of theMinisterial Portfolio Statement outlinesactivities of the Q-Fleet business unit. Can youprovide an overview of the process for thedisposal of motor vehicles, particularly theauction process?

Mr SCHWARTEN: As members would beaware, the auctioning process has beenaround for a long time. We auction them inBrisbane at Pineapple Street and in regionalcentres at places such as Rockhampton. Weauction them in interstate locations as well.One further step that we now need to take isto auction them on the net. That will probablybe good news, for example, for thehonourable member for Gregory.

Mr JOHNSON: I am like you; I cannot useit.

Mr SCHWARTEN: My big fear is that oneof my kids might buy one from home using myBankcard. The reality is that we have to acceptthe fact, as the manager of Goprint said, that ifyou are not on the net you are not in it. Thereality is that it is increasingly becoming theway of selling merchandise. I am no big fan ofit. Recently, when sitting in my electorate officein Rockhampton, a mate of mine came in andshowed me a fishing reel that he had bought

from the United States over the net for $40less than he would have paid for it down thestreet in Rockhampton. I see the member forHervey Bay shaking his head. I feel the sameway. I wonder how we are going to compete inthat sort of market, but I am told that we can.Certainly, Q-Fleet has to extend everyopportunity it can in auctioning these vehicles.I think it is also a great plus for the consumer,because it enables them to buy over the netjust as if they were standing in the auctionyard. I do not know whether Les wants to addmore to that?

Mr CLARENCE: In an earlier answer to aquestion about the payment of dividends Ireferred to a retained profit figure of $222,000.There was also a transfer from reserves of$450,000 which went in to the P and L for thatyear as well.

As the Minister said in relation to auctions,all of our vehicles are offered for sale to thepublic via auctions conducted by the PublicTrustee. The auctions are held weekly at ourZillmere workshop and monthly in regionallocations, such as Cairns, Townsville,Rockhampton, Maryborough and Toowoomba,and every three months in Bundaberg andMackay. In Brisbane, on a three-monthlybasis, we hold a prestige sale. We are alsonow trialling auctions early on a Friday ofhigh-quality vehicles that have RACQinspections. That is part of our policy ofoffering assurances to the public about thevehicles that they are buying. It has been slowand it is starting to pick up very well.

The CHAIRMAN: Minister, you mentionedthe refurbishment of heritage buildings inRockhampton as part of the Smart Cityinitiative. In the Ministerial Portfolio StatementsI noted a reference to the restoration of the oldWoolloongabba Police Station and the oldmuseum. I also note recent statements aboutrefurbishment work at the Commissariat Storein William Street. Can you provide an updateon the department's activities in respect ofthese heritage buildings?

Mr SCHWARTEN: The CommissariatStore is an interesting building, because it isour oldest. It was built in 1829, from memory.If you go inside it, you can see the 1980sinfluence there. Sitting next to the hand-hewnfloor joists is a great slab of precast concretedone in the style of the 1980s with exposedaggregate. It sticks out like olives in ricepudding. The reality is that that building doesneed some work done on it and $1.5m will bespent on it this year, which will include work onthe roof and work on the foundations. It hasbeen a victim of salt intrusion and it would be a


great pity to lose that great building, which isso much a part of our heritage.

Probably not so close to us—and I havenever had the misfortune to be in there inanything other than an official capacity—is theWoolloongabba Police Station, which hasbeen a problem for us for a while. It is theheritage listed pigeon roost located near theGabba. It is in sore need of repair. We willspend $1m on that in the coming year to try toget it back to some of its former glory. As Ipointed out, the deputy director-general wasan architect who started his time in the PublicWorks Department. He was not there quitelong enough to have designed that building.As he highlighted to me the other day, somemagnificent designs were done under the oldPublic Works Department, and that is one ofthem. Also, $475,000 will be spent on themuseum site this year. Extensive work hasgone into that over the past few years.

One question that will confront allGovernments is: what will we do with thesebuildings? All over the world, that is a questionconfronting every Government. We must holdon to the magnificent buildings, but we mustalso find a use for them. The WoolloongabbaPolice Station is one such example. We want itlooking at least a bit more respectable than itcurrently is for the 2000 Olympics. Majorevents will be held at the Gabba. Certainly, itwould be an embarrassment to this State andto this department in particular if it were to beleft as it is.

The whole question of heritage buildingsis something in respect of which we will foreverbe tormented. The amazing thing about aheritage building is that every group wantsone, but they never want to pay for theupkeep on them. With the amount of moneythat we are spending on those buildings, wewill get them into shape, but it requirescontinued maintenance and upgrading workover time. I look forward to the day that we canget rid of the concrete beams from under theCommissariat Store.

Mrs ATTWOOD: The section headed"Departmental Overview" on page 1-1 of theMPS states that the department has a role tosupport the development and monitoring ofthe Government's Capital Works Program.What action has been taken to streamline theprocesses of building project procurement in away that will create more job opportunities forthe community in an efficient, consistent andequitable manner?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I will defer to Gary Mayon that. At the outset, by way of providing anoverview, one of the issues that fits hand in

hand with our PQC is the need to have awhole-of-Government approach andframework for capital works delivery. Thatincludes contracts and so on. Again, I am sureevery member of Parliament has heardsomebody say, "You would swear thesedepartments were run by Governments fromdifferent parts of the world", when they aretrying to deal with two different departments.We want to try to get around that issue, forobvious reasons. The same tax dollar is beingused. Therefore, there should be consistencyacross agencies.

Mr MAY: The pressure for the capitalworks management framework really came inlarge part from industry, which was gettingawfully confused through having to deal with anumber of agencies and finding inconsistentpractices across those agencies. Wedeveloped the framework in consultation withindustry representatives and with clientagencies. Its main feature is that it provides aconsistent framework for capital worksprocurement right across all of the revenuefunded client agencies.

It is perhaps leading edge stuff. I haverecently been looking at equivalent initiatives inother countries and there has been a greatdeal of interest shown in our own capital worksmanagement framework. It covers issues likethe capital works planning process. It is criticalwith capital works to get the up front planningsorted out and properly defined. It includesstandard forms of contract. To remove theproliferation of contracts we were getting withagencies engaging legal people to preparetheir own contracts, we now have a standardsuite of contracts. We have standard tenderselection processes for contractors andconsultants and we have guidance on tenderevaluation. That tender evaluation can takeinto account some of the Government'spriorities that the Minister mentioned earlier,including issues of employment creation,skilling and support for regional communities.So it is an initiative that we are proud of. Itsimplementation is going very, very well. Itcontinues to be supported strongly by industryand to be adopted by client agencies. So weare very encouraged with progress to date.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes theCommittee's consideration of the Public Worksportfolio of your Ministry. The Committee willnow adjourn till 4.30 p.m. Would it beconvenient for you to commence Housing 15minutes early?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Absolutely.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you,departmental officers, for your attendance.


Sitting suspended from 4.16 p.m. to 4.31p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: I now declare theCommittee's hearing resumed. Before I callthe Minister to make a short statement aboutthe Housing portfolio, I would remind membersin the public gallery that audible telephonesand pagers are to be switched off. Minister?

Mr SCHWARTEN: The Housing budgethas been framed in extremely tight financialcircumstances. We have managed to addresskey areas of need in the face of decliningFederal funding and a legacy of cuts by theformer coalition Government. Queenslandstands to lose over $60m in Federal housingfunds over the next four years through theCommonwealth's reduced funding of housing,and we are still suffering from the cut of$130m made by the Borbidge Government tohousing programs. These financial handicapshave occurred even before we confront theGST that will erode a further $30m a year fromhousing programs. We expect to receive onlypart compensation for this loss.

In addition, we are confronted with thefollowing challenges: increasing expenditureon an ageing portfolio of housing stock whichis poorly matched to current and predictedneed; decreasing Commonwealth/StateHousing Agreement funding through a lack ofindexation over the term of the agreement andthe efficiency dividend of 1% imposed eachfinancial year; increasing costs of delivering thedepartment's outputs with the introduction ofthe GST; increased operating costs; increaseddemand for services and unmet housingneeds; and community expectations of a moreeffective and integrated approach byGovernment departments in service delivery.

In response to these challenges, theDepartment of Housing has been re-examiningits approach to the provision of housingservices. This process is designed to focus onits clients—the families and individuals needinghousing assistance. It is expected to result in abetter assessment of housing and supportneeds; more choice for clients through thedevelopment of a greater range of housingoptions; longer term planning, including a20-year financial plan and stock managementplan to be over four to five years; a greateremphasis on integrated service delivery acrossGovernment and the community sector; andcoordination of support at the earliest possiblestage to the most vulnerable client. I nowdeclare open our 1999-2000 budget for yourexamination.

The CHAIRMAN: We will proceed first to

non-Government appointed members'questions.

Mr DALGLEISH: How many new homes,units or duplexes will be constructed under thebudget in the Hervey Bay electorate fornon-indigenous people and how many newhomes, units or duplexes will be built in theHervey Bay area for Torres Strait Islanders andAboriginals? I would also like to acknowledgethe good work that Q-Build has done in myelectorate and the officers involved in thatduring the past 12 months.

Mr SCHWARTEN: Thank you for that. Wecannot break down exactly the sort of detail byelectorate that the honourable member wouldlike. I can give him basically some cashamounts that we will spend across the wholeportfolio. I am wondering what the source ofthe question is, what the concern is aboutAboriginal housing in Hervey Bay.

Mr DALGLEISH: Nothing. It is just that thetwo departments operate separately, so I justwanted to know how many in total we weregoing to get. I split it into two so I got areasonable response for both departments.

Mr SCHWARTEN: As the director-generaljust reminds me, there is no discrimination inregard to people who are housed in publichousing, so what we do give you in the finalanalysis will not really tell you what you asked,but I am happy to provide those amounts onnotice to you. It is not a problem.

Mr JOHNSON: With the establishment ofthe Appropriate Housing Vision 2000 project, amajor research and development initiative forindigenous housing, can you inform theCommittee of any advantages for indigenoushousing resulting from this project in the veryneedy areas of remote Queensland in thisbudget?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I am aware of theproject, but Alex Ackfun will have all theinformation on that at his fingertips. It is aboutdesign standards.

Mr ACKFUN: The Vision 2000 AppropriateHousing project commenced in 1997. Theproject was aimed at building a body ofknowledge for the provision of Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander housing on deeds ofgrant in trust communities looking at bestpractice, looking at appropriate housingdesign, looking at making sure that councilsactually used appropriate design andprocesses in consultation within thosecommunities to get the best outcomes for thedollar and value for money, etc. There is aninterim report out at the moment whichindicates that a lot more work needs to be


done in terms of indigenous youth housingand in the area of disability housing as well.We have acted on some of therecommendations of that interim reportalready, but the final report is not yet finalised.

Mr JOHNSON: The last part of thatquestion was: what do you envisage will be inthis project for those remote areas ofQueensland in the current Budget?

Mr ACKFUN: In terms of the currentbudget there is a proposal of $250,000 for theUmagico Council, which has indicated awillingness to take on the project and developa body of knowledge about youth housing inthat particular community to see whether thereare special needs for youth in indigenouscommunities that we can actually identify thatwe can transplant from that particular pilotprogram to the rest of the communitiesthroughout deeds of grant in trustcommunities.

Mr JOHNSON: Minister, with the nativetitle issue still creating havoc, has yourdepartment been stifled in fully implementingits building program, especially in areas ofneed and inadequate availability of land inrural towns away from Aboriginal reserves?

Mr SCHWARTEN: No.

Mr JOHNSON: Minister, you would be wellaware that in many western parts of the Statethere has been a drastic shortage ofappropriate housing blocks because of thelack of available Crown land through nativetitle. Winton is one town in which this has beena concern. There must be numerous othertowns throughout the State. That is why Iasked.

Mr SCHWARTEN: I understand why youasked the question, but in the case of Winton,for example, we have not been building anyhouses there. Actually, I think we have somevacant land there.

Mr JOHNSON: I notice that some has justbeen transferred from the Department ofHealth to the local authority for that reason.

Mr LAMING: I also welcomerepresentatives of the Department of Housing.What is the level of any funding or subsidiesbeing paid from any entity of the Departmentof Housing to the Department of PublicWorks?

Ms APELT: There are three lots ofpayments that go from the Department ofHousing to the Department of Public Works.There are costs that relate to shared corporateservices across the library and also Legal andContractual. That involves $388,500 for libraryservices and $592,000 for Legal and

Contractual, and we also pay for services thatwe receive from the built environment researchunit of $250,000.

Mr LAMING: Are there any paymentsbeing made to the Department of LocalGovernment and Planning?

Ms APELT: Yes.

Mr LAMING: Can you elaborate on thequantum of that?

Ms APELT: Actually, I have to retract that.The payments are not made to LocalGovernment and Planning. It is a Treasuryarrangement.

Mr SCHWARTEN: Which was establishedby the previous Government.

Ms APELT: That is right. It wasestablished with the previous administrationand it is a Treasury arrangement.

Mr LAMING: And the funds do come fromthe Department of Housing?

Ms APELT: Yes, they do.

Mr LAMING: Are they able to be identifiedin the MPS?

Mr FULTON: The amount is not able tobe identified clearly in the MPS, but $3.2m ispaid to Treasury.

Mr LAMING: In relation to staffing andwith reference to the corporate services of theHousing portfolio, since last year's Estimatesyou still have a shared legal and contractualservice and marketing and corporatecommunication unit. Is that correct?

Mr SCHWARTEN: No. That was answeredpreviously. There is no shared marketing. Theonly shared units we have are the library andthe legal and contractual services.

Mr LAMING: These are similar questionsto those asked before. I think Mr Grierson saidhe could answer for only Public Works.

Mr SCHWARTEN: I said he could answerfor only Public Works. I can answer for both ofthem.

Mr LAMING: You have a separateresources and planning section?

Mr SCHWARTEN: That is correct.

Mr LAMING: An internal audit unit?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes.

Mr LAMING: A finance and IT unit and anexecutive services unit?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes.

Mr LAMING: So they are all separate?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes.


Mr LAMING: What are the separatestaffing resources for each of these units?

Ms APELT: These are estimates for 30June 2000. In full-time equivalents, for theDirector-General's office there are four; for thegeneral manager's office, corporate andexecutive services, five; for employee andworkplace services, 38; for informationmanagement, 79; for marketing andcommunications, 10; for internal audit, five; forfinance, 68; and for the executive servicesunit, eight. That is a total of 217 as projected,however the actual as at 30 June 1999 is 191.That is the total corporate staffing.

Mr LAMING: Are you able to advise theCommittee of the separate budgets for eachof these units?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes, we can.Mr FULTON: Financial services, $5.225m;

Director-General's office, $0.52m; generalmanager, corporate and executive services,$0.729m; executive services unit, $0.605m;marketing and communications, $0.837m;information management, $4.620m; internalaudit, $0.492m; employee and workplaceservices, $3.957m; SAP3, $11.044m, SAP R3financial services, $0.970m; QAO fees,$0.270m; payment to Treasury for financialsystems, $0.363m; and legal and contractualand library, $0.980m.

Mr LAMING: What is the separatequantum of payments made or received byHousing for the shared service?

Mr SCHWARTEN: That would be the$980,000 that Ian just referred to that Housingpays to Public Works.

Mr LAMING: And how many staff arethere in the executive services unit forHousing?

Ms APELT: Eight.

Mr LAMING: I would like to ask a questionregarding the housing reforms. I refer you tocorrespondence from Councillor CharliePisasale of Ipswich City Council and also theIpswich Regional Tenants Group Inc., whichcondemns your decision to remove the needfor housing applicants to provide tenancyreferences. In fact, Councillor Pisasale goingon to say—

"Frustration creeps in when adecision is made by your Government todiscontinue the requirement of characterreferences for public housing. We havebeen down this track before. Why dofamilies have to be disrupted and endurethe nonsense of the grim and difficultdays?"

On what basis of community consultationwas this unpopular and backward decisionmade?

Mr SCHWARTEN: On the basis of anelection promise that we went to the people ofQueensland with at the last election. That willpretty well do me for consultation. The fact ofthe matter is—we have been down this path inthe Parliament before, as you well know—thatthe references are not worth the pieces ofpaper they are written on, because nobody isgoing to present a bad reference. There is justnobody who is going to go in there and say, "Iam a bad tenant." In fact, there is some bodyof evidence that suggests that bad landlordsare giving bad tenants references to get themout of their houses.

The fact of the matter is that thereference system is favoured by some people.I do not know what Charlie Pisasale wouldknow about it; you could probably write it onthe back of a postage stamp with a crowbar.He is acting upon the advice that he has beengiven by certain groups of people.

But let me say this. You do not require areference to get into a public school in thisState, nor should you. You do not need areference to get onto a public bus, nor shouldyou. So why is it that you should require areference to get into public housing? Theanswer to that is: you should not. The fact isthat it prejudges people. And this is the sort oflooking down your snout, Liberal philosophythat I have come to get used to in the last sixor seven months, when you have shown yourreal colours on this. The fact is that you areprejudging the people who want to come intopublic housing by saying, "You are not goingto get in here unless you can get somebody towrite you a reference."

The fact of the matter is that the tenancyarrangements that we now have—and by theway, it is your nonsense that the 12 to36-month tenancies were going to cost us$1.2m per year—will be reduced to six months.The staff in the area offices are expected tomonitor people in the first six months. Thepeople in public housing out there are farbetter, as far as I am concerned, than thepeople in private housing—2% in arrears, forexample. That is just one indicator of thepeople that we have. It is 10% out in theprivate market.

The fact of the matter is that some peoplein this department are not happy with it. Thearea manager up there is one of them. He isnot happy with the reference system beingtaken away. He sees it as a method ofweeding out people who are undesirable in


public housing. What I say is that if people aremisbehaving in public housing, we should evictthem. We should not prejudge people beforethey come in. We should not say to people,"You go out and get yourself a reference." I donot know how somebody gets a reference, bythe way, if they have never rented a housebefore. There are plenty of people who cometo us who do not have a rent record. I wonderhow somebody who comes out of prison, forexample, gets one. Or perhaps you think thatthey should not be housed in public housing.But the fact of the matter is that thereferencing system will never be introducedwhile I am the Minister; it will never, ever bereintroduced.

Mr LAMING: I now refer to page 2-8 and,in particular, to the description of the "HousingInfrastructure sub-output". What is thebudgeted $1.5m in capital expenditure thisfinancial year to be expended on?

Mr SCHWARTEN: These are the seedprojects. What we are trying to establish hereis that, where there might be commercialventures available that can yield some benefitto people who otherwise would not necessarilyfit into our books, there are commercialarrangements that we could use. I will defer tothe director-general. She can provide furtheradvice on that matter.

Ms APELT: This initiative relates to whathas been developed within the department asthe Housing Infrastructure Program. This isbased on significant research within theAustralian housing system, and alsointernationally, where there is evidence thatthere is market failure for people who are notnecessarily seeking social housing through thetraditional public housing, community housingor Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander housingbut are unable to access the private rentalmarket for various reasons. Or, for example, insome areas of the State there is simply a lackof housing supply.

Examples of initiatives that we havesupported through Housing Infrastructurerelate to the transfer of six houses recentlyfrom Blackwater to Normanton to providestudent accommodation which wouldotherwise not have been there. That is notsubsidised public housing; it is infrastructureprovided to meet a housing need within thatarea. Likewise, there are other examples ofwhere caravan parks, for example, whichhouse low-income people, have been underthreat. Those people will not necessarily beseeking public rental housing or some of theother social housing tenures as an option; butthrough Housing Infrastructure we can look at

arrangements with either local government orthe private sector to ensure that those peoplestill get a housing supply. The initiative doesnot compete with the private sector; it is thereto fill in a gap which the private sector does notsupply and social housing does nottraditionally supply.

Mr LAMING: If I could follow up onthat—Minister, does it come in the form of asubsidy to a private landlord, or does it comein the form of a subsidy to a tenant like theFederal rental assistance scheme, or neither?

Mr SCHWARTEN: No. Let me just use theBlackwater houses in Normanton as anexample. What occurred there was that theNormanton council was concerned about theaccommodation being provided for studentswho came to the Normanton TAFE college.There is no provision in the town of Normantonfor that sort of accommodation. They hadstudents accommodated in hotels and so on.They came to the Cabinet meeting in MountIsa and put up a proposal that we build aboarding house or some such arrangementthere. When you looked at the economics ofthat, it was very difficult to justify—in terms ofwaiting lists and so on that guide us throughthe Commonwealth and State HousingAgreement. It traditionally does not fit there.But what was definite was that there was aneed and there was a commercial return,because Pasminco was paying the board andlodgings of the students concerned.

Initially, I suggested to council that wewould shift the Blackwater houses up there,set them up, and they would then pay us—thesame as the deal, which the honourablemember for Gregory is aware of, that we did inBedourie and Birdsville, which is a very goodscheme. Council thought that that did not suittheir needs. So we then went down the path ofentering into an arrangement by way ofcommercial rent. The Monte Carlo CaravanPark in Kynock Village in your colleague'selectorate in Toowoomba is another exampleof where we had some 50 or 60 housing unitsin one of those unpleasant developments ofthe late seventies, early eighties. That is acommunity housing model.

I think that we have an obligation inhousing people, especially in rural areas whereyou see people who have no wherewithal toraise money to buy a house themselvesbecause the land value in those communitiesis worth nothing. Even if you own a block ofland in, say, Thargomindah or wherever, thebank will not take that as security. So I see thisas an option for us in assisting to meet ahousing need where there is not necessarily a


financial need, I guess, and where peoplehave the capacity to pay full market rent butnobody is providing it for them.

Mr LAMING: So it is a very flexibleprogram?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes, it is. I mean, it isflexible to this extent: that we would never gointo a situation where we are going to losemoney on it. It is not a subsidy program, if youlike. It is a program of fulfilling housing needsand getting a return. I hope that, one day inNormanton, this department can walk awaycompletely from that deal; that somebody willcome in and have the vision or the money todo it. But I see us as helping rural communitiesin that sort of way, rather than with thetraditional community housing model, forexample.

Mr LAMING: The director-generalmentioned caravan parks. Is the departmentplanning to purchase or are any investigationsbeing made regarding the purchase of furthercaravan parks under this program?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes, we are. That isthe one south of Cairns. We are looking at onein that area. We are not looking to purchasethat outright, but we are looking to have someinterest in that one at Gordonvale. It is not astraight-out purchase. We are looking at waysin which we can assist in the flexibility you aretalking about.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes thatperiod of non-Government members'questions. I will now take Governmentmembers' questions.

Mr WELLINGTON: The media hasrecently highlighted that, whilst there aresignificant numbers of public houses andpublic units vacant, there are at the same timea significant number of people waiting toaccess public housing. What are the numbersof public houses and public units currentlyvacant and what are the current numbers ofpeople seeking public housing?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I have those figureshere. As at 31 July 1998 there were 1,623homes vacant. I want to explain somethingabout vacancies because recently the memberfor Mooloolah put on his best media face andtrotted out and made all sort of allegationsabout vacancies and so on. One thing he didsay, and with which I agree—and I thank himfor his honesty and frankness in thisregard—was, "There will always be waiting listsand there will always be vacant homes." It isthe definition of "vacancy" that troubles me inthis whole arrangement. As a department, I

believe that we have to confront this issue in abetter way.

I am advised that 60% of the 1,623vacant homes are untenantable. In otherwords, they are either dangerous, they needrefurbishment, or whatever. I do not knowabout members of the Committee, but myview is that "vacant" implies that someone canmove into it tomorrow. As far as I amconcerned, we have to find another definition.This means that we can effectively get rid of60% of those homes as being available forpeople to move into.

The figures that we have here indicatethat 609 homes were vacant for 12 weeks ormore, but the department advises me thatonly 22% were actually tenantable. These areclustered in lowly rated areas and are of thestock type which is not in demand—forexample, the older bedsits. There is someaccommodation in which people simply do notwant to live. We find difficulty in tenantingthose premises in certain places throughoutthe State. We have a couple of hundred ofthem vacant at Blackwater at the moment andwe do not know what to do with them.

There are currently 24,243 people on thewaiting list. The waiting lists are going to getworse for a number of reasons. One reason isthat the GST will make the situationworse—there is no doubt about that. The GSTwill drive up the prices of accommodation.There are 250,000 families in Queenslandwho, after they pay their rent, live in poverty.That is a shocking indictment. What willhappen to those 250,000 families? Thesituation will get worse because rents aregoing to go up in the non-public housing area.The waiting list is going to get longer. We willbe less able to respond to that need becauseit is going to cost us $30m.

The member for Nicklin has hit on a veryimportant point. We have to come up with abetter definition for what we describe as atenantable house, or a vacant house, and wewill do that. I will keep the honourable memberposted on the situation.

Mr WELLINGTON: In your answer to anearlier question you referred to there being 2%of arrears of rentals in relation to publichousing. How does that compare with previousyears? Is that the best we have had?

Mr SCHWARTEN: We are getting betterat it all the time. We have a graph here. Thetarget is 5% and we are under 2% at themoment. If you go back to January this year, itwas about 3.5%. It is coming down. Basically,this has come about as a result of bettermanagement of tenancies. I come back to the


referencing system which I mentioned before.That system was not worth a tinker's cuss.What is worthwhile is managing the tenanciesthat one has. We must get it down to thatlevel. If we compare the figure with that forprivate enterprise, it is a very good figure. Thefigure is 10% in private enterprise. I knowpeople who will never rent a house againbecause of rent arrears. The figures are asfollows: in 1994-95 it was 3.42%, in 1995-96 itwas 3.85%; in 1996-97 it was 2.66%; in 1997-98 it was 1.42%; and in 1998-99 it was 1.90%.

This indicates to me the unfairness of thestigmatisation that is directed at people wholive in public housing. We are housing peoplewho are among the lowest income earners inthe State, by and large, and they can manageto come up with only 2% of tenants in arrears.I think that speaks volumes. I am delightedand proud to be the Minister who housesthose people. I become really angry whenpeople look down their noses and start tomake pre-judgments about people who live inpublic housing. They ask for references andthey say such things as, "We can't have themliving in Paddington."

I wish the media would more often reportthose sorts of figures. Whenever there is a badtenant you can guarantee that the media willbe out there with their cameras, but they willnot be out there for these people who arescratching but who are managing to pay theirrent every week. As far as I am concerned,these people are the salt of the earth.

Ms ATTWOOD: I refer to pages 2-12 and2-13 of the Ministerial Portfolio Statementsoutlining home purchase assistance measuresoffered by the department. I know somequestions have been raised in the past aboutproducts such as the old HOME loan scheme.Can you outline your view on such productsand tell us whether you believe that thedepartment should be in that market?

Mr SCHWARTEN: In relation to theHOME scheme, it is funny how, if you give adog a bad name, it will stick to it. I had a lookat the net effect of the HOME scheme. About10,500 Queenslanders are now in a home oftheir own thanks to that scheme. Hindsight is awonderful thing. When the ship is sunkeverybody knows what caused it to go down.People say, "Oh, I would have done thatdifferently." I do not know how we would havedone that differently because what we forget isthat, at that time, I know of people who werepaying housing interest rates of 19% and 20%.These people were handing in their keys indroves. What was the howl at the time? "TheGovernment should do something about it!"

We were not in Government at that time.The HOME scheme was part of a fundamentalpolicy that we took to the people ofQueensland. That scheme was brought in at atime when interest rates were at 16%. I cannotremember any of the economists saying atthat time that interest rates would be down to6% or 5% in the next 10 years. They wouldhave been locked up if they had said anythinglike that. At that stage the talk was aboutinterest rates going higher.

The reality is that we ended up in asituation where interest rates improved. Weassisted 10,500 people. I know we must lookat the 500 people who failed, but I would liketo go to the ANZ Bank or the CommonwealthBank, or any other bank for that matter, andsee what their failure rates were.

This was a product that was brought in invery difficult times. I guess it is a matter ofwhether or not one believes that Governmentsshould intervene. I know that the previousGovernment really did not come up with apackage that would suit those people. Peopletossed their keys in and walked away fromtheir family homes. That created a tremendousamount of trauma. There was a hands-offapproach and the saying was, "Let the marketdictate."

I believe Governments have aresponsibility to intervene in those situations.When the fund is wound up at the end of theday I do not believe it will lose anything. If itdoes make a slight loss, I believe that, forthose 10,500 people who are in their ownhomes, it is worth it. Being a politician, somedays one has to be prepared to say thatGovernments and taxpayers should beprepared to take a loss in order to helpsomeone who is a little less fortunate. Havingput 10,500 people in their own homes speaksvolumes for that scheme. I know it has had itsdetractors and I know it has been widelyridiculed by the Opposition over a long periodof time, but I would like Opposition membersto doorknock any one of those 10,500 peoplewho are now in a house as a result of theHOME scheme. If the question is whether Iwould do it all again, the answer is yes.

The CHAIRMAN: On page 2-1 of theMinisterial Portfolio Statements you note thatQueensland will receive some compensationfor the impact of the GST on the cost of socialhousing. What role did you and yourDepartment of Housing play in securingcompensation for these impacts? Can youadvise the Committee of the estimate ofbudgetary impact that the goods and servicestax will have on the Department of Housing?


Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank you for thequestion, and the answer, without beingboastful, is that if I or this department had nottaken on the Federal Government over theGST impact on housing we would not haveany compensation for this State. I do not thinkthat is too proud a boast to make. The fact ofthe matter is that at the very first conferencethat I attended with other Ministers inSydney—and it was only about a week after Ibecame the Minister—there was absolutedisinterest in the subject. It was thisdepartment and this director-general here whoput the shoulder to the wheel and came upwith the hard statistics.

Believe me, the effects are devastating.We estimated $90m over the three years ofthe four years that it will operate in the nextCSHA. In that context, you do not have to beEinstein to work out what that is worth in termsof jobs and, more importantly, housing that wehave lost and that we were never going to becompensated for. It was at another one ofthose meetings that we were able to convincethe other States that that was the case. ThisState became the lead agency in preparingthe documentation and doing the research. Ihave to say that it was a bipartisan approachthat was then taken. Dean Brown over inSouth Australia was very, very good in hissupport for it and in Tasmania, I rememberhim ringing one of his colleagues in anotherState, who did not bother to turn up to themeeting, and explaining almost in cartoonform just what a dramatic effect it would haveon the State of Western Australia.

We managed to get it on the agenda ofthe COAG meeting. As a result, we put in a bidfor $90m, which was our estimate. The otherStates said that we were overestimating andall the rest of it. Of course, subsequent eventshave proved that they underestimated it. Theydid not take it as seriously as we did. As aresult, we were allocated $60m. When we gotto the next meeting, they all decided to have ahack at what Queensland got, because theyhad $38m and so on. They expected us toaverage it all out. I just would not do that. I willnever forget the meeting where they handedaround the hat and said, "Somebody shouldgive $2m here and somebody should give$2m there to help poor old New South Wales."Even though I love dearly my friends andLabor colleagues in New South Wales, myfriendship did not extend that far. I said,"Bugger them."

The facts are that that has now goneback to the Feds. We will probably end up withsomething in the vicinity of $50m, or a bit over$50m. Make no mistake, the GST is really

going to affect this department in a lot of ways.I reckon that, by the time we have finished, itwill more than $90m.

Mrs ATTWOOD: On page 22 of the MPS,you note that appropriate housinginfrastructure is critical to sustaining local, ruraland regional communities. Can you advise theactivities of the department in meeting theneeds of rural and regional Queenslanders?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Thank you very muchfor the question. This year, we will spend over$110m in rural and regional Queensland. Iwant to say that if all members of Parliamentwere as committed as my good friend themember for Gregory was to finding qualityhousing for their constituents, it would be abetter Parliament. I know how seriously hetakes the issue of housing for all of hisconstituents. I am sure that he would bedelighted to know that, for example, this yearin community housing in his electorate we willspend almost $4m. We will spend $12.081mon construction, acquisitions and improvementin community housing. As well, in public rentalin regional Queensland, we will spend$45.498m in land and construction. In relationto the ATSIC housing program, we will spend$53.947m. In private housing assistance,there will be a Statewide expansion of thedepartment's Home Assist/Home SecureProgram, which you would all be familiar with,and which now includes all the electorates inthe State and aims at keeping people in theirhomes in a safe and secure manner. In myview, and the research certainly shows it, if youcan keep people in their own homes in securecircumstances, there is less strain on the publichealth system.

I believe that, regardless of where peoplelive, they are entitled to quality housing. I amin the business of delivering that. I think thatthe sort of support that I get from people likethe member for Gregory—and I will put that onrecord here today—is very heartening. In thatregard, I just wish that you could teach yourLiberal friends a few of those courtesies.

While time permits, the director-generalhas handed me a note here that states that in1999-2000 there will be 22 dwellingscommenced in the rural and regional program.In Cloncurry, there will be five by two clusterdwellings; in Croydon, one by three detachedhouse; Emerald, three by one and four by twosenior units; in Goondiwindi, six by twoapartments; in Normanton, two by two duplexdwellings; in Tambo, two by two detachedhouses; and in Thargomindah, four by twodwelling units.


Mrs ATTWOOD: On page 2-22 of theMPS, reference is made to a review by thedepartment of the 1997 changes to publichousing by the previous Government,euphemistically referred to as "reforms", whichincluded tenancy management in the form ofan outsourcing pilot, which I understand wasundertaken by a company called Chesterton.What did the department learn from thistenancy management pilot?

Mr SCHWARTEN: The first thing that Ican tell you is that they might as well have got$5m in $50 notes and put them in theincinerator, because that is what that trial cost.Just think of the number of seniors units thatwe could have built with $5m. This wasanother toehold into privatisation. This is theassumption that the public sector cannot do itas well as the private sector. I have to say that,by the level of complaints that came fromtenants and the level of complaints that camefrom members of Parliament in that area—andyou would be well aware of that, because itwas in your area that it happened and, ofcourse, Mr Chairman, you would be aware thatin the Parliament this very issue has beenraised on a number of occasions—in someways this program helps us to know what agood job the department actually does intenancy management and issues like that. Ithink that perhaps in their quieter momentsChesterton would be glad that they were awayfrom it, because there is far more to running aHousing Department than just collecting therent, which is what a lot of real estate agentshave to do. I have to say that if I had a houseon the market for rent, I would rather give it tothis department to manage than—and I havehad to do this in the past—give it to a privatereal estate agent. The tenancy managementthat is done by this department is very, verygood.

I do not throw stones at Chesterton interms of the people who worked there oranything else. There are some damned finepeople who are tied up with Chesterton. Thatis not the issue at all. The issue is thisphilosophy—and if you were to winGovernment next time I will be waiting to hearthe shadow Minister's policy as to how heintends to proceed and whether he wouldproceed back down the pathway of thissemiprivatisation agenda. The sorts ofdifficulties that, increasingly, our officers haveto meet is startling—what they deal with andhow they manage people, especially peoplewith disabilities. They do it very, very well. Ibelieve that a measure of a strong publicsector is how it treats people. The letters that Ireceive increasingly from tenants thanking me

and asking me to thank the staff of certainarea offices is very good.

Of course, we do not get it right all thetime. Of course, when we do get it wrong,no-one lets us forget it. That is the way of theworld and we have to accept that that is thecase. In reality, I can say that the performanceindicators that were put up to refer it were notworth the paper that they were written on. As aresult, I am confident that, firstly, while I amthe Minister, I will never ever, entertain such aproposal; and secondly, in that regard we aredoing a good job.

The CHAIRMAN: On page 2-23 of theMPS, reference is made to ministerial changesto public housing eligibility criteria. Can youadvise the Committee of the approximatecosts involved in reversing the changes madeby the previous coalition Government inOctober 1997?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I think the shadowMinister would be interested in this subject,because I think that it is something that he hasaired previously. In the first instance, I have tosay that it is very difficult to isolate costs in thisregard, because there was no budgetedamount by either Government to allow that tooccur. But $278,000 was the cost ofimplementing the reforms, as they were calledby the previous Government. I do not use thatword, because "reform" implies to me that thatmade it better, and it actually made it worse forthe people who not only were the tenants butalso the people who worked in Housing. Asnear as we can make out, the costs to ourGovernment of reversing those changes was$117,000.

What is not known about the changesthat were implemented by the previousGovernment is that for two weeks they closedthe books in this State. They have the hide tocriticise and talk about waiting lists, but for twoweeks you could not get a house. They toldyou to go away. That was the way theyimplemented the changes in the zonal system.That is a disgrace and it meant that, for a start,we lost $20,000 in forgone rent.

I do not know what the motivation behindthe absurdity of the fixed tenancies was, but Ido know that there was no budget figure forthat. People had to knock on doors, put on thewhite gloves and run their fingers around thelouvre blades and goodness knows what elseto see if there was any dirt in the house. Ipresume that that is what they meant bychecking tenancies and so on. We were backto the old days of checking in the rubbish binand the cupboards of public housing tenants. I


am advised by the department that that wouldhave cost $1.2m, which was not budgeted for.

The other issue is that this was supposedto help the turnaround times. I can cite caseswhere people rang my office to say, "I havelived in this area all my life." In one case that Ican quote from the Mansfield electorate, awoman had a son going to the local school butwas told to go to Kangaroo Point. That was inthe zone. She had no say in the suburb or thestreet. She was told to go there even thoughshe had no car. The kid was expected to beuplifted and taken away from his school. Whenshe said no, they put her on the bottom of thelist. That is how the zonal system worked. Theydid not say to the tenant, "You have the rightto wait until something comes up in your area."They said, "If you don't not take that" —andof course the woman rejected it—"you'll go tothe bottom of the list." Then of course theyhave to find another tenant. That went on andon and on. In fact, that is the worst sort ofsituation to have and it drove the staff in thearea offices mad.

You talk about no consultation on otherissues. I can tell you that there was noconsultation whatsoever on those changes.They came via fax machines.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes thatperiod for Government appointed members'questioning. We will proceed tonon-Government appointed members'questioning.

Mr LAMING: I would like to go back to anarea that has been spoken about today, whichis the home purchase assistance plan. I referto page 2-13 of the MPS. What was thespecific nature of the exemption sought for thereintroduction of the RPP or home sharescheme?

Mr SCHWARTEN: It is not for thereintroduction of it. That was knocked dead onthe head in 1996, I think it was. I have signedoff on these, as have my predecessors fromboth sides of politics. This means—andwhoever wrote that question for you shouldhave known this—

Mr LAMING: Can I interrupt you. Thesecond dot point on page 2-13 states, "RentalPurchase Plan share purchases for existingpurchasers will be reintroduced ..." That is whyI wrote the question that way.

Mr SCHWARTEN: It was stoppedbecause the Consumer Credit Code systemsaid that those people could not buy extrashares. If you owned 25% of the home andyou wanted to buy extra shares, the newConsumer Credit Code said that you could not

do that. The director-general can elaborate onthis in a minute. They had to get an exemptionfrom the Consumer Credit Code to allowpeople to buy further shares in the home thatthey occupied. It is not about reintroducingthat scheme at all. This relates to people whoare already in the scheme who, because theConsumer Credit Code came in in the interim,were told that they could not buy extra sharesbecause it was not in their interests—or forwhatever reason.

David Watson, Ray Connor and TerryMackenroth have signed off on that andallowed people to buy extra shares and I willcertainly allow people to do that. The aim ofdoing that is to increase the share ownershipthat you have until one day you own thehome.

Ms APELT: Just to reiterate what theMinister has already said, the Governor inCouncil actually approved a regulation thatexempted the Rental Purchase Plan schemefrom the Consumer Credit Code, whichenabled existing purchasers to go ahead andpurchase additional shares.

Mr LAMING: How do the terms andconditions of the loan agreements change forthose who wish to purchase a greater equity inthe property through additional shares?

Mr FULTON: There has been no changesin the terms and conditions applying to thatscheme.

Mr LAMING: So they can continue underthe same arrangements that they currentlyhave for the increased shares?

Mr FULTON: They can.Mr LAMING: Referring to page 2-16, note

4, what was the total loss due to therevaluation of RPP properties in the 1998-99financial year?

Mr FULTON: The loss and revaluationwas $6.47m.

Mr LAMING: What is the budgeted totalloss due to revaluation of the same propertiesfor the 1999-2000 year?

Mr FULTON: It is $5.7m.

Mr LAMING: Also referring to page 2-16,note 5, what was the nature and compositionof the assumed liabilities in the 1998-99financial year?

Mr FULTON: These related to the split ofthe department. They relate to the corporateservices area where the employee liabilities inthe corporate services area were taken over bythe Department of Housing for thoseemployees that related to the Department ofHousing.


Mr LAMING: Are they detailed in anyway?

Mr FULTON: No, they are not detailed inany way through the MPS.

Mr LAMING: Turning to communityhousing, I refer to page 2-18. Minister, why didyou fail to meet your 1998-99 budgeted targetof 35 dwelling units under the Long TermCommunity Housing Program youth housinginitiative?

Mr SCHWARTEN: For the same reasonthat probably all my predecessors who havesat in this chair failed in that regard. If youwere sitting here, you would not be asking thequestion because the answer is—and this issomething that we have to do a lot more workon—that by its very nature community housingis complicated to deliver. We are not in thebusiness of telling community housing groupsto dig the foundations today, let the contracttomorrow and so on.

The problem with the community housingmodel is that often people in the communityhousing sector do not have the expertise to letcontracts on time. They are dealing with verycomplex issues, especially with youth housing.For example, no-one wants a youth housingestablishment built next to them. A block ofland is bought and then all the neighbours puton a turn about it. There is opposition hell,west and crooked, questions are asked inParliament, letters are sent to the Minister andheaven knows what else. They drop that placeand find another one. Those are the sorts ofproblems that confront us. It has not beenthrough any lack of financial commitment. Ifyou are seeking to kick community housinggroups by your reference there—

Mr LAMING: That is not the case.

Mr SCHWARTEN: That is what you aredoing. I do not think that will go over too well inthe sector, and I will make sure that they knowabout it. Do you want to add to that?

Ms APELT: I can add something to that.The variance of six dwelling units resulted fromone of the organisation's inability tocommence its project, which was two dwellingunits, and it subsequently returned funds tothe department. One local government project,which was four dwelling units, was delayedpending an investigation into audit issueswhich have now been resolved.

Mr LAMING: How many dwellings werecommenced under that same program in1998-99 financial year?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Under the youthhousing initiative, there were 29commencements. They were in Burke, Carina,

Cooktown, Gatton, Gympie, Kedron,Rockhampton, Sandgate, Sunnybank andStrathpine, totalling $2.354m.

Mr LAMING: Of the 221 dwelling units tobe completed in the 1999-2000 financial year,how many will be commenced in the1999-2000 financial year?

Mr SCHWARTEN: As I understand it, theywill not only be commenced; they will becompleted in this year. That is what I was told,anyway.

Mr LAMING: But they will not all becommenced in this financial year? Thecompletions will be units that are currentlyunder construction?

Mr SCHWARTEN: All will be commencedand all will be completed this year.

Mr LAMING: All 221?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I will elaborate on that.Mr LAMING: It is just a little unclear in the

MPS.

Mr SCHWARTEN: I understand that.There is a reason for that. A lot of those arecarried over. You will find that some of those,for example, are two years old in terms of theirapproval, and for the very reasons that Istated. For example, the communityorganisation might suddenly say, "We can'tbuild it", and then it hands it back to you. Thathas happened on a couple of occasions. Thatis bound to happen. It highlights the need todo what we are doing this year in this Budget,and that is getting those completions this year,consolidating what we are doing and looking atCommunity Housing and seeing where we aregoing to head from here. Community Housingis going to play an even greater role, accordingto the Federal Government, than it currently is.We will have to look at options for howCommunity Housing performs. For example,take the British Columbian experience, whichthe sector here proclaims as one of theleading edge models. They do not do what wedo; in other words, hand over a pile of cash.They guarantee the loan that the not-for-profitsector gets. That is something that we willhave to look at down the track. But with450-odd agencies in this State, some with asfew as three housing units, you do not have tobe Einstein or an economist or have the skillsof Ian Fulton—the resident accountant; and heis very good—to work out that three houses isnot a sustainable way to go. Over the longterm this is what we will have to do, that is,consolidate and give skills to those communityorganisations to deliver at that level. I urge youto involve yourself in that. If you ever end up in


this position, it will be an issue that will confrontyou.

Mr LAMING: What was the value of thetotal carryover by Community Housing from1998-1999 to 1999-2000?

Mr SCHWARTEN: The CommunityHousing carryover was $27.5m. I will just readout what it states here. You are welcome tothis document, if you want it. Approximately$27.5m in committed funds will be carriedforward into 1999-2000. Of this, $14.4mrelates to capital works projects and $13.1mrelates to capital grant construction oracquisition projects.

Mr LAMING: From the previous answer, Iunderstand that none of those buildings hasbeen commenced; they were allocated andfunded but they did not actually commence?

Mr SCHWARTEN: No, some of themwould have been started. It is just that thefunding is being carried over to completethem. For example, the Abbeyfield project inBabinda would be one of those projects. It willcost around $900,000. That is a very complexproject. The local housing group has beentrying for years to get the Abbeyfield projectup. It is a pilot project. I gave them thatthrough our Community Cabinet process. Thecouncil is giving us the land, for example, andthere were difficulties there. That $900,000 sitsthere while the council and the communityhousing group resolve their problems.Abbeyfield is the sponsoring group. You justcannot go out and call yourself "Abbeyfield".You have to do certain prescribed things. Itmakes up its mind that that money iscommitted. The day that that is ready to go,the process all starts. That project is part ofthat $27m worth of work that will be completedthis year that is carried over from the beginningof last year.

Mr LAMING: I might have misunderstoodthe answer to a previous question when wewere talking about the 221 units to be—

Mr SCHWARTEN: That will be started andcompleted this year. Under long-termcommunity housing, 180 dwellings will becommenced this year. The number ofdwellings completed this year will be 221.

Mr LAMING: So the difference is in theones that come through?

Mr SCHWARTEN: They are similar to theBabinda one. I am just using that as anexample. I understand where you are comingfrom.

Mr LAMING: You were talking about thepolicies for Community Housing. Why haveyou not proceeded with the Community

Housing advisory board, the establishment ofwhich you approved in place of the pre-existingCommunity Housing Grants Board?

Mr SCHWARTEN: There is a good reasonfor that. I had a look at the CommunityHousing Grants Board. It was there to adviseme on what projects should get the nod. Wehave a section of the department that wasbasically the secretariat to that agency. It costa lot of money—over $200,000 a year—tohave that body there. I said, "Let's give it a trialand see what the department comes up with."I found that the department had made thoserecommendations. They were usually thesame, if not always the same. To me thatbegged the question: what is this groupdoing? I say that with no disrespect intendedto those people; they worked hard and theywere very committed to what they were doing.I have to put on the record that one of thepeople on it was a friend of mine. But$200,000, which could have built pensionerunits or gone some way towards building aboarding house or whatever the case may be,needs to be justified in my own mind. I thenthought, "Perhaps we need an advisoryboard." But to advise on what? We have thisCommunity Cabinet process that advises. Ihave got you as an adviser opposing me. Ihave got advisers around me. I have adepartment full of people who advise me.Ultimately, I make those decisions.

Mr LAMING: Do you take my advicesometimes, Minister?

Mr SCHWARTEN: When you provideproper advice, I do listen to what you say. Iwould not say that it is always advice that yourender. Sometimes one could be forgiven forthinking that it is criticism. I make thosedecisions and I live or die by those decisions. Iam prepared to do that. I could not in my ownmind justify $200,000 worth of hard-to-gethousing dollars on a group of people who meton a semiregular basis to talk aboutcommunity housing. In this sector we haveShelter and the Community Housing Coalition.There are lots of bodies that could advise me.We spend a lot of money on assisting them. Ido not think I need one more level of advice.

Mr LAMING: I now refer to note 8 onpage 2-20. What was the nature andcomposition of the assumed liabilities in the1998-99 financial year?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I think that is one forMr Fulton.

Mr FULTON: This is the same answer asthe previous one. It relates to the transfer ofcorporate service employees from theDepartment of Public Works and Housing.


That total cost has been spread across eachof the outputs and will appear in that particularline item through the document.

Mr LAMING: I refer now to note 14 on thesame page. What are the "changes infinancial arrangements with regard toadministered revenue" proposed for the1999-2000 year?

Mr FULTON: That is a change in thefinancial arrangements in terms of thepayments that the Department of Housingmakes to Queensland Treasury.

Mr LAMING: In the public rental housingarea—and I refer to page 2-23—in last year'sMPS you set a target of 803 dwellingcommencements. Why is it that you failed toachieve this target, with commencing only763?

Mr SCHWARTEN: There was a time whenthis department could rattle up 1,500 or 1,600houses a year and that is why this year I thinkwe will be spending $36m on urban renewal. Ifyou build a house off the plan—I started myapprenticeship working on those houses—thereality is you can do that. I admit that that wasambitious. I tried to set myself a target that Icould deliver and I did not do too badly, I donot think, out of it. The reality is that, if you arebuilding purpose-built accommodation forpeople with disabilities particularly, you have togo through a lot of consultation. You just donot go and buy a block of landsomewhere—especially with some of yourmates looking down their snouts at us andhaving public meetings about providing publichousing in places like Paddington. Thatsometimes makes it a bit difficult for us to buildhouses.

The consultation process is a lot greaternow than it ever was before. The times ofconstruction and letting the contracts and allthat is the easy stuff. The hard stuff ismanaging the people—the tenants—who aregoing to be there. In one case that I can tellyou about, there were needs for adeinstitutionalisation program where we hadthree quite aged, disabled people come out oflong-term institutions. We have had to providein that set of instances a laser beam to stopone of the people climbing up a tree. Thisperson climbs up a tree because of theirdisability. That then triggers—

Mr LAMING: A disability?Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes, it is a disability. I

hope you are not laughing at it.

Mr LAMING: No, but climbing a tree? Adisabled person?

Mr SCHWARTEN: A disabled person,yes—a mentally disabled person.

Mr LAMING: I am sorry, mentallydisabled. I thought you meant physically.

Mr SCHWARTEN: What I am trying tohighlight here are the sorts of issues—and Iwould expect you to take them seriously—

Mr LAMING: I was listening, Minister.Mr SCHWARTEN: Deinstitutionalisation is

a very serious issue. This person has apredilection to climbing and the only thing thatdiscourages this person from doing so is water.So a laser beam trips the water and down thatperson climbs. That is the reality ofdeinstitutionalisation. This is about providingneeds for people and families. If it was yourbrother or sister, you would not be sitting therewith a smirk on your face, I can tell you.

Mr LAMING: I am not smirking, Minister.

Mr SCHWARTEN: You were smirking andI do not appreciate it. The fact of the matter isthat they are the sorts of people for whom weare out there delivering housing options, andthat is hard to deliver. It is not back to the oldthree bedroom chamferboard house that wecould rattle up on demand.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes thatsection of non-Government appointedmembers' questioning. We now proceed againto Government appointed members'questioning.

Mrs ATTWOOD: I understand that theCommunity Renewal Program is but one partof the Government's overall response to crimeprevention. On pages 2-23 and 2-24 of theMPS, reference is made to the possibleexpansion of this program. I therefore ask youfor your assessment of the program, for whichI understand the Department of Housing is thelead agency.

Mr SCHWARTEN: Can I say at the outsetthat I think this department is ideally placed tobe the lead agent in this delivery. Basically, weare trying to do what I referred tobefore—$36m between urban renewal andcommunity renewal; one is $21m and theother is $15m that we will spend thisyear—undo the mistakes of the past, the onesize fits all estates that we saw.

Just recently the director-general and Iwere in London, parts of Canada and so on tosee how they have been doing that. This is notsomething confined to Queensland; this issomething that is basically worldwide wherethe options were thought to be one size fitsall—put everybody into a community and awayyou go. Of course there were going to be


problems with that. There were always going tobe long-term problems with that. After the warit was a great option. As a result, everybodygot on with their lives. There was a shortage ofhousing. I think a lot of us still think in thatpostwar era about housing needs. They weremarried parents who just could not get ahouse. So they rattled up the housing, andpeople had families and so on.

These estates that we were talking aboutwere not aimed at that at all. They were aimedat putting everybody in together and, as aresult of that, you had on your hands asocioeconomic disaster. If you go to Manoorain Cairns—and I invite each and every one ofyou to do so; we will show you aroundthere—you will see the sort of things we aredoing.

From where I sit I think all roads lead tohousing. If you do not have a decent house tolive in, then you cannot expect the kids to dotheir homework properly, you cannot expectthe general demeanour of people who live inthat house to be good. If it is overcrowded andif you have an overcrowded situation next dooras well and you have a two foot six high fencebetween you and the neighbour, the chancesare that the kids are going to kick the ballacross the fence and that, when they go toretrieve it, they are going to get an earful andthey are going to give an earful back. Thenyou have a domestic dispute betweenneighbours, and so it goes on.

In terms of what we are doing incommunity renewal, I am very confident thatwe are as good, if not, better than what ishappening all over the world. I have somestats here. Ten communities were endorsed byCabinet in 1998-99 as target areas. They areGarbutt, Manoora, Goodna, Riverview,Leichhardt, Woodridge, Kingston, Loganlea,Inala and Eagleby. Two additional areas arenow being added to that—Caboolture andDeception Bay. They are being considered inthis round—subject, of course, to Cabinetapproval.

I think the program has already yieldedresults. We have to be a bit careful about theassumptions we make as well. I am not sayingthat people who live in public housing arecriminals or anything like that, but I do knowthat enhancing these neighbourhoods andmaking them more attractive ensures that theydo not become the housing option of lastresort.

The CHAIRMAN: On page 2-23 you referto upgrades to dwellings. I draw your attentionto a series of attacks on the elderly, particularlyin Brisbane's southern suburbs. As part of this

program, what was done to deter attacks onsenior citizens?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I think all of us wouldjoin in our condemnation of anybody whopreys on the elderly. We were witness to thatlast year when we had what appeared to beserial-type activity which targeted elderlypeople in Department of Housing seniors'accommodation. Thanks to thisdirector-general and this department's wisdom,we were able to find $4m which was a result ofsmart activity by this department in paying itsrates. They were able to get a $4m rebate.They should not have told me about thatbecause the moment I learnt we had that, itwent straight into providing security for, I think,8,500 seniors in Queensland.

That, thankfully, is something that oldHousing Departments never had to contendwith. We did not have to worry about security20 years ago. It is an ongoing cost of publichousing. It is something that, regrettably, wehave to meet. I am sure that I speak foreverybody in this room when I say that I couldnot stand by—none of us would—and allowthat situation to continue to occur. I actedimmediately that it became known to me thatthere was a problem and that it was ourresidents who were being targeted. We arenow providing screening in accommodation,some lighting where it is required, and foliageand so on has been stripped back in somecases so that areas that may have harbouredundesirables have been removed.

I would rather have spent the $4m onsomething else, but the fact of the matter isthat we had to do it. You will notice that thisyear we will spend in the vicinity of $25m inupgrading accommodation. I would expectthat some of that would go towards seniorswho live in non-seniors' units. I know a numberof you have written to me about yourconstituents in that regard. I wish I could fix itovernight. We just do not have the money atthis stage to do that.

We do have a policy that, if we are alertedby police to a potential danger or whatever, wewill go in there and screen. Unfortunately,when people are attacked we will go andscreen as well; it is a bit like closing the doorafter the horse has bolted, but we have a finiteamount of money. If Bruce can go and talk toJohn Howard for me and get me a few morequid and get back that $60m that theyknocked off us—and about $50m this year,actually——

Mr LAMING: That was to fill Mr Keating'sblack hole, you will recall.


Mr SCHWARTEN: You could have filled itwith something else other than housingbodies, which is what you chose to do inQueensland—$130m. I can tell you somethingnow: that was the worst place that you couldhave taken it from in Queensland, consideringthe jobs it cost people in Queensland and thepeople it has disadvantaged. It has put thisdepartment back by decades.

Mrs ATTWOOD: Last year at this hearingthe director-general referred to thedevelopment of a homelessness strategy. Canyou advise of any developments in this area?

Mr SCHWARTEN: The director-general isan absolute expert on homelessness. One ofthe important things for a Housing Minister,and I guess a director-general, is to actuallydefine what homelessness is. In my ownelectorate of Rockhampton we have recentlyhad a very public debate about whathomelessness is. Is it people who are layingaround in a intoxicated state in the parks? Arethey actually homeless? Does that mean thatthey have by desire no home to live in? Arethe 25,500 people on our waiting listshomeless? The answer in relation to thewaiting list, in my humble view, is that amajority of them are not, because they have aroof over their heads. It might not be the bestroof in town and it might be an overpriced roof,but they have a roof over their heads. MsApelt has done a lot of work in this area,because it is something that we really need toknow about. We cannot just fly by the seat ofour pants on this issue. We actually have to dosome research.

Ms APELT: The department has taken alead role in addressing homelessness as awhole-of-Government issue withinQueensland. I guess with that there is arecognition that it is not a responsibility of theDepartment of Housing alone but that theDepartment of Health, the Department ofFamilies, Youth and Community Care andother departments also have a role to play, asdoes local government.

One particularly important area foraddressing issues of homelessness is theCrisis Accommodation Program and theSupported Accommodation AssistanceProgram—the CAP and SAAParrangements—which are bothCommonwealth funded arrangements. Wehave worked with the Department of Families,Youth and Community Care to get bettercoordination between the two agencies toensure that those people who are eligible forSAAP assistance are also eligible for CAP

assistance and that people do not get the runaround.

With that, a joint ministerial advisoryarrangement has been set up between thetwo departments to make sure that a lot ofcritical decision making does not get lost indepartments and that Ministers are able tomake quick decisions in a policy sense. Wehave also continued the expansion of theboarding house program, which of coursehouses some of the most vulnerable peoplewithin our community and those people whoare most vulnerable to homelessness.

We have also established a chiefexecutive officers group, at the instigation ofthe Minister, which looks at housing andsupport issues. That group has actuallydeveloped a better strategy for earlyintervention and prevention of homelessnessacross the departments of Health, Families,Youth and Community Care and Housing.

There has been an inner city affordablehousing task force, which has focused onstrategic land purchases in the inner city areafor boarding house development and alsotransitional housing development. Finally, wehave continued to contribute to thedevelopment of self-regulation within theboarding house industry and also thedevelopment of a statement onhomelessness.

The CHAIRMAN: I note that on page 2-24of the Ministerial Portfolio Statements youmake reference to a property condition order. Irefer you to a recent story on Brisbane Extra,which screened on 27 September 1999,regarding vacant public rental housingproperties at Selina Street at Wynnum in myelectorate and also at Fisher Road,Thorneside. What information can you provideabout these two properties in particular?

Mr SCHWARTEN: The first bit of advicethat I can provide to the shadow Minister is:before you go and put your face in front of atelevision camera, check what you are talkingabout. One of the buildings he was standing infront of is uninhabitable and in fact would bedangerous to put people in. I am sure that theLiberal Party policy does not include puttingpeople into homes that are dangerous. Thatset of units is for sale. It is for sale on thecondition that it is untenantable under itscurrent arrangement. The reason it is for saleis that we made a decision about its worth interms of whether it is better to sell it or to keepit. The advice I have received is that it is betterto sell it. We will realise a better market for it.

I must congratulate you, Mr Chairman,because you are one of the people who


embraced public housing in your electorate. Itis a privilege to work with somebody whounderstands the needs of their electors. Withregard to the other property you commentedon, there was redevelopment there. Surely themember for Gregory was not suggesting thatwe should put people in there in the short termand then turf them out somewhere down thetrack, whether it be two months, three months,six months or whatever the case may be. Ipresume that the member did not know whathe was talking about in suggesting both ofthose things. However, I understand thenature of politics and that as a shadowMinister he is obliged to make comment onthings that he sees. You have to get a quickgrab wherever you can.

The reality is that that story really wasquite wrong and quite misleading in terms ofthe impression that it gave people about howthis department does business. It follows onfrom the question asked by the honourablemember for Nicklin about just what we aregoing to do about these sorts of situations. Myview is that we can probably do better than wehave been in advising neighbours and so onabout our intentions for the house next doorthat they see vacant and about which theytake it upon themselves to ring up the localnewspaper or whatever. I think we bear someof the responsibility and some of the blame forthat occurring.

In terms of what will happen in that area,we will end up with state-of-the-art pensionerunits. While those current houses look all right,it will cost us a fortune to keep maintainingthem and the demand in that area is for singlepensioner type accommodation.

The CHAIRMAN: It will be better for thestreet, both for public housing tenants andprivate occupants.

Mr SCHWARTEN: Absolutely.

Mrs ATTWOOD: In the strategic directionssection on page 2-2 of the MPS you note thatthe department works in partnership withGovernment, industry and the community. Canyou give me some examples of how theDepartment of Housing works with localauthorities and other State Governmentdepartments to improve housing outcomes forQueenslanders?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Local authorities areincreasingly, and from where I sit necessarilyso, becoming an important partner in deliveryof public housing. Earlier this year I was inIsisford in the electorate of the honourablemember for Gregory. The council there haslooked at the issue of housing need in thatarea. This is similar to the answer I gave to the

honourable shadow Minister earlier. There is aneed on the part of shearers in the town whocannot get housing. Council sees it as theirresponsibility to try to help and haveadvocated on their behalf. Increasingly I seeauthorities taking the lead in that regard.

My own council, Rockhampton CityCouncil, has a number of seniors units throughthe long-term community housing program.Similarly in Brisbane, we are working closelywith the Brisbane City Council on affordablehousing in the inner city area. Long term, Iwould like to see councils having the planningauthority to encourage that sort ofdevelopment—similar to what is happening inother States and in other countries—and beingvery much part of any development program. Isee it very much as a partnership.

The honourable member came to thisParliament having served in a local council, asdid the member for Gregory and as did I. Ithink traditionally a lot of councils haveinvolved themselves in housing. With thiscommunity housing model I think localauthorities will eventually take an evenstronger role in that area because they havethe expertise. We are using them in the HomeAssist/Home Secure arrangement as well. In alot of cases—the Rockhampton City Council isone example—the local councils are auspicingthat arrangement.

In terms of industry, we have gotincreasingly closer to agencies like the HIA, forexample—and necessarily so—because I donot see myself as a Housing Minister just foraffordable housing. I see myself as a Minister -and as a department—providing someleadership on housing design and so on in thisState. The HIA, the UDIA, the QMBA—all ofthose—we have sponsored awards in thoseareas, as well, because I see our role as verymuch a partner with those agencies. In termsof other departments, of course, we haveestablished better protocols than we had thistime last year, as part of a program to developbetter outcomes for our clients.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes thatportion of Government members' questions.We will now go back to non-Governmentmembers' questions.

Mr LAMING: I would like to ask a coupleof questions on the ATSI housing program, if Imay. Firstly, what was the value of the totalcarryover by ATSI housing from the 1998-99 tothe 1999-2000 financial year?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I will get Alex Ackfun toanswer that.


Mr ACKFUN: The carryover value was$6.4m.

Mr LAMING: What was the actual numberof commencements for the ATSI housingprogram for the 1998-99 financial year?

Mr ACKFUN: Are you talking about thecommunity program or the urbanprogram—the capital investment program?

Mr LAMING: There are two?Mr ACKFUN: Yes.

Mr LAMING: Perhaps you could give meboth.

Mr SCHWARTEN: One is what you wouldcall mainstream ATSI housing and the otherone is the community.

Mr LAMING: I was referring to thecommunity one, but I certainly would not mindthe other one.

Mr ACKFUN: The community one—331dwellings were commenced. And in terms ofthe urban program—the rental program—146were commenced.

Mr LAMING: Going back to page 2-23,with reference to the Community RenewalProgram, of the $7.5m in the 1998-99 budget,how much of that was expended?

Mr SCHWARTEN: $7.4m out of the$7.5m was spent.

Mr LAMING: And what was the value ofany carryover? I suppose that is the sameamount.

Mr SCHWARTEN: $7.4m from $7.5m.Mr LAMING: How much was spent on

each of the identified Community RenewalPrograms in the 1998-99 financial year?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Manoora, $0.69m;Garbutt, $0.86m; $950,000 in Inala; $1.21m inGoodna; $1.2m in Riverview; $530,000 inLeichhardt; $850,000 in Woodridge; and$150,000 in Kingston. You can have this, ifyou want it.

Mr LAMING: Thank you. Also on page 2-23, I refer to your comments about the currentpublic housing rent policies and to thesupposed inequities that exist. What do youpropose to do after the review? Is it to increasethe rent of the pre-reform tenants up to 25% ofhousehold income, or is it to breach the CSHAagreement and to realign every tenant's rentto a flat and equal rate?

Mr SCHWARTEN: That is like cutting anathlete's foot off and then expecting him to wina marathon. I mean, how did this systemcome about? Your lot did it! I have been leftwith yet another mess to try to unhinge.

Mr LAMING: It did not have anything todo with the CSHA agreement or what CSHArequired?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Not as far as I amaware. The reality is that you have left a pup ina basket, and when you open up the basketyou find out that it is a dog with teeth thatlong. We have to try to resolve that problem.David Watson could not resolve it. But I guessthat, like everything else that you left as amess for me, I will have to try to find a way offixing it.

Mr LAMING: I turn to page 2-25. Youreferred earlier to the vacancy turnaround. Youhave provided me with figures on vacancyturnaround as a result of questions on notice. Iacknowledge that there was a change in themanner of recording those from working daysto calendar days. I did the best I could toconvert the calendar days back to workingdays; and if my mathematics are correct, itwould indicate that, in the first six months ofthe financial year just completed, the averageturnaround was 17.6 days and, in the secondsix months, it was 25.3 average days, which isabout a 40% increase. I ask: how can youblame the housing reforms implemented inOctober 1997 on the blow-out of housingvacancy rates commencing around March1999? And would it not be a more correctinterpretation to say that the blow-out inallocation and vacancy turnaround time is of adirect consequence of your decision inNovember 1999 to actually wind back thecoalition reforms?

Mr SCHWARTEN: No, it would not be.And you are asking me to rely on yourmathematics.

Mr LAMING: I can table that.

Mr SCHWARTEN: You can, if you like.

Mr LAMING: They are your figures thatyou gave me.

Mr SCHWARTEN: But you worked themout. "Trust me, I'm a politician"! Jenny Clarkcan come up here and talk to you, if you like.Did you hear the question?

Ms CLARK: I would like to hear it again.

Mr LAMING: I am referring to the answersto questions on notice in regard to the vacancyturnaround for the 12 months of the lastfinancial year. I understand that in December itwent from working days to calendar days. Ihave recalibrated those to bring them all backto working days.

Mr SCHWARTEN: "Recalibrated"—that'sa good word!


Mr LAMING: You are not the only onewho has a mortgage on new words, Minister.

Mr SCHWARTEN: I know. I like it.

Mr LAMING: I am on a time limit to askthis question. So it would indicate that the firstsix months of the year had an average of 17.6days in vacancy turnaround. The second sixmonths—about the time that the reforms wereturned around—became 25.3 average, whichis a 40% increase in the vacancy turnaround.So my question was: would it not be more todo with the turning back of the coalition'sreforms rather than the reforms themselves,which were right back in 1997, which had aneffect on the vacancy turnaround?

Ms CLARK: Our figures, which have beencalculated on the same basis over a wholeyear, can be tabled in order to clarify thatpoint. We had a fairly steady maintenanceturnaround period for the whole year, but therehad been a steadily increasing allocationturnaround up until the early part of thiscalendar year. That allocation turnaround timehas reduced since it peaked in the early part ofthis year.

Mr LAMING: I am still asking the questionof the Minister. Would it not be more accurateto say that—

Mr SCHWARTEN: No.

Mr LAMING: Have you some otherreason for the increase in those allocations?

Ms CLARK: Our internal reading is thatthe peaking in vacant turnaround times inrelation to the reallocation of propertiesoccurred when we were introducing a newsystem for tenancy management. It peakedfor a number of reasons. One reason was theinitial teething problems with the introduction ofthe system and the reliability of data from thatsystem, together with this compounding effectof allocating houses to people who did notwant them because they wanted a morespecific location than the system was offeringthem.

Mr SCHWARTEN: That is your system.

Mr LAMING: It was the turning back—Mr SCHWARTEN: No, no, no. Don't

misconstrue what was said.

Mr LAMING: Well, you answer it.

Mr SCHWARTEN: The turnaround timewas increased because people who wereforced to make a choice to leave an areawhere they wanted to be to go to an areawhere they did not want to be said "No, we arenot going to do it." That forced the area officeto say, "We have to find the next tenant andmake an offer to him." When that tenant

rejected it, another offer was made. However,if you go to somebody now and you say, "Doyou want to go to Kangaroo Point?" and theysay, "No"—right, end of story. You do not givethem time to go and make up their minds. Ifpeople say, "No, I want to live in that suburb.That is where I want to stay," you say, "Righto,you are going to have to wait for six years." Ifyou want to get into a house quickly you cango and live at Riverview, or wherever thehouse may be, but there is no compulsion.Under your zonal system people were offereda house and then were put at the bottom ofthe list. They then went to the next list andwere again placed at the bottom of the list.And so it went on.

Mr LAMING: I understand that.

Mr SCHWARTEN: Logic would tell you,would it not, that that is going to take a lotlonger than just dismissing a person straightoff. You ring the person up and say, "Do youwant that house?" and they say, "No." Unlessyou give them a period of time to make uptheir minds—

Mr LAMING: But, Minister, the blowout intimes was at a time when you changed thesystem to what you favoured. When you rolledback the reform and put your system in, thevacancy allocation blew out—not when thereforms were introduced or at any time rightthrough until the end of last year.

Mr SCHWARTEN: For Christ's sake, see ifyou can get through to him.

Ms APELT: I can add something to that,Mr Laming. When Jenny refers to systems,she is talking about the new informationsystem that was introduced which actuallyrecorded data differently from the previousinformation system which was called ISIP. Theprevious information system made a cleardistinction between vacant tenantableproperties and vacant untenantable properties;hence the data that was recorded wasrecorded as such. With the new system, SAPR 3, that is not necessarily the case. So therewas an abnormal jump in the allocation time—

Mr SCHWARTEN: Because it includeduntenantable houses which previously werenot included.

Ms APELT: Which was recordinguntenantable houses which, in effect, were notvacant for tenancy. So that was an aberrationin terms of the recording at that time. We havesince been able to rectify that by ensuring thatwe have a consistent approach in relation torecording data about vacant property.

Mr LAMING: If they are untenantablethey should not be put in a table for vacancies.


Ms APELT: That's right.Mr SCHWARTEN: Exactly.

Mr LAMING: Perhaps that has to berectified.

Mr SCHWARTEN: I can assure you it willbe. I found out about it only as a result ofrecent events.

Mr LAMING: I refer to page 2-26, note 9.What was the nature and composition of theassumed liabilities in the 1998-99 financialyear?

Mr FULTON: Those liabilities included theliabilities on the transfer of Corporate Serviceemployees from the Department of PublicWorks and Housing to Housing. It alsoincludes the output share of payments that aremade to Queensland Treasury. That applies toeach output. If I could just clarify my previousanswer to note 8: while the increase in thatitem related to employee entitlements, thatitem includes payments made to QueenslandTreasury as well as the transfer of employeeentitlements from the Department of PublicWorks and Housing.

Mr LAMING: I refer to page 2-26, note17. What additional borrowings or changes incircumstances are liable for additional debtservicing in the 1999-2000 financial year?

Mr FULTON: The department undertook aborrowing last financial year of $50m. That wasborrowed down on the last day of the financialyear. So the debt servicing applied from thisfinancial year. That is the reason for theincrease.

Mr SCHWARTEN: That is the way it hasalways been done.

Mr LAMING: I refer to page 2-36, note 9.This refers to land acquisition. How manyexisting blocks of vacant land does the publichousing output have on its books?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I would not have aclue. We will take it on notice.

Mr LAMING: What is the total value ofvacant land held by the public housing output?I suppose that question might be in a similarposition. Can you give me the number and thevalue?

Mr SCHWARTEN: We will take that onnotice.

Mr LAMING: What effect do you estimatethe land acquisition program will have onfuture equity charges levied on the publichousing output by Treasury?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Nil. We are one ofthose departments where, increasingly, we willnot have lazy assets. We will make sure that

the assets we have are going to work for us.We do not just go and buy big banks of landfor the sake of having them. We buy them witha purpose. That is becoming increasingly thecase. You will find that, as part of therealignment we are undertaking, we willdispose of some banks of land and purchaseothers for that very reason. We are ensuringthat what we are providing is strategic for ourneeds.

The days of the big estates are finished.We do not need that sort of land sitting idlyaround. That is very much what the wholeprocess is about. It is about not having lazyassets that are just growing grass. We needevery block of land that we have doingsomething for us as part of our overallplanning for the next five years. You will notfind those blocks of land doing nothing. I thinkthat has pretty well been the case for a goodperiod of time. All our assets are expected towork in the interests of putting a roof overpeople's heads. The equity charge has beenreimbursed to Treasury.

Mr LAMING: I have a questionconcerning housing maintenance. We havediscussed this matter before. With regard toyour decision to have Q-Build directly managethe public maintenance program inRockhampton and Hervey Bay, was thiscourse of action recommended by yourconsultant, Mr Battley, or was this course ofaction the result of consensus of regionalHousing area office staff?

Mr SCHWARTEN: It is a bit like thecurate's egg; it is true in part, I guess. Thereality is—and you know it as well as I do—thatwe have a maintenance arm of theGovernment called Q-Build. Housingtraditionally did its own. It was yourGovernment that decided to marry themtogether. We used to have a day labour forcein Housing which is now over with Q-Build. Imake no secret of the fact that I despisedwhat I saw when I went to area officers of Q-Build and Housing. We had people with stacksof papers that high checking on one another.Q-Build would send an invoice to Housing, andsomebody would check it there and send itback and pay for it.

You asked me a question in theParliament about a set of screens. To this day,Q-Build blames Housing and Housing blamesQ-Build, and Q-Build then blames a contractor.The reality is that we cannot have the systemthat you had—a half and half system. Youcannot have a system where the checker willbe checking on the checker. We have aninstance of a house which burnt down the


other day. The smoke alarm that was fitted inthat case was fitted under your process of thechecker checking the checker. It is ridiculous.

The whole aim of this process is to ensurethat we get a single line of accountabilitybetween those agencies. Q-Build needs thatwork. In my view, I am confident that they cando that work. Q-Build tell me that they can dothat work. They can provide value for money. Ifthey can fix a louvre in a school, tell me whythey cannot fix a louvre in public housing?Years ago when I worked for the TeachersUnion, we had the ridiculous situation whereyou had Q-Build—in those days, the WorksDepartment—carpenters fixing teacheraccommodation in Emerald and right nextdoor was the public housing properties rentedto Education. But they could not go over andso much as fit a sheet of glass in a window.

It is absurd to suggest that people whoare qualified tradespeople cannot do thatwork. I know that you do not support that. As Ihave said to you on a previous occasion, thatis your ideological right. But I am determinedto make this work. There is exceptionalgoodwill between those agencies where it isworking at the moment. I know that some ofthe area managers are not too pleased aboutit, but they have to learn to get on with theirlives. From day one, I have spelt it out veryclearly that I expect Q-Build to deliver qualitymaintenance objectives, and I am confidentthat they will.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes thequestions by non-Government members forthe day. We will now take Governmentmembers' questions.

Mrs ATTWOOD: As a local MLA, I havebeen approached by various people regardingthe Housing Department's policy on floorcoverings. I refer you to page 2-24 where youadvise of the dwellings commencements thisyear. Can the Minister advise of any changesto the department's policy regarding floorcoverings?

Mr SCHWARTEN: This issue is a bit likethe airconditioning issue out in your electorate,Vaughan. The reality is that we are committingmillions of dollars to quality housing for people.It must keep pace with the standards in theprivate market. Mates of mine who work in thereal estate industry tell me that today it ispretty hard to find a house that does not havefloor coverings in it. We get inundated withrequests from people who have kids withasthma and God knows what to get floorcoverings. I would like to be able to go backand fix up every house in Queensland and putfloor coverings in them. However, what I can

do is make sure that, from 1 July this year,every house that we build, every house thatwe start in this program—the 700 that you aretalking about—have floor coverings in them.

I am sure that all of you have been toopenings of really quality housing. You go inthe front door and you find that there is asquare metre of tiles and then it is bareconcrete floor until you get to the kitchen andto the bathroom. I think that it makes goodsense to put those floor coverings in now. It isthe community standard. The old saying was,"Why spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar". Thismorning, they laughed at that. They thought"ha'p'orth" was pathetic. The fact of the matteris that, in real terms, in the context of puttingup a $100,000 house, you would not do thatyourself. We have moved on. As I said, backin the 1950s the thinking was to put up thehouse, to put up the shell. They did not evenhave hot water systems in them then. We wonGovernment in 1989; I was astonished to findthe number of hot water systems that were putinto public housing. Terry Mackenroth is oneperson who grew up in public housing that didnot have a hot water system. The theory wasthat all of these things would be provided afterthe shell. Dealing with the people that we doon the low incomes that they have, they arenever going to get the money to put in floorcoverings and I really do not think that we wantthem to. I have bitten the bullet and made thatdecision and I stand by it.

The CHAIRMAN: On page 2-24 of theMinisterial Portfolio Statements, you advisethat $55.58m will be spent on improving andmaintaining existing public housing dwellings inQueensland. Can you explain your rationalefor upgrading the standard of public housing inQueensland?

Mr SCHWARTEN: I think that if any oneof you owned the public housing stock in thisState, you would do the same thing. The factof the matter is that we cannot continue toaccept a standard in public housing that is wellbelow that which applies in the private rentalmarket. I have seen some hovels in the privaterental market but, by gee, I have seen a lot ofhovels that we own, too.

The honourable member for Gregory willattest to those places out in Winton. That daythat we were there, a lady complained abouthow she has a car, which is basically her onlyasset, but no carport. In the hot summers atWinton, which I remember very well and thehonourable member knows very well, we haveto try to do something about that. I know that,this year, $50m odd will not address all ofthose wrongs. I know that, but it is a start.


Of course, the offset to it is that I amtrying to also generate job growth in regions,because my experience in coming out of thatindustry in the early part of my working life isthat there are more jobs created and there ismore intensity of labour created out of thosesorts of refurbishments—new kitchens,bathrooms, putting in steel stumps, steelstringers for stairs and car ports, that sort ofactivity—than there is in actual construction.What I hope to do over a period of fouryears—God willing and the electoratewilling—is to provide rolled-out contracts tojoinery works and places like that for long-termcontracts so that they can put on some kids asapprentices.

The money does not come from nowhere.The fact is that we have had to cut areas ofexpenditure in community housing to do this. Imake no apologies for that. The reality is thatcommunity housing, as the shadow Ministerhas pointed out, is an area in which we havehad difficulty getting the projects up on task.This year, we will put 221 of those units on.Without loading more financial resources intothat, it is time that public housing had a go.When you get a letter from a tenant telling youthat her four year old kid has been burnt onexternal plumbing in the bathroom, you haveto say to yourself, "We have got to lift ourgame in that regard", and when you go toTownsville and you have an autistic kid and hisfather sitting opposite you pleading with you toput a fence around the house, you have to tryto make a start to redeem some of thatdamage that was done in the past. It is easyto point the finger of scorn at everybody. I amnot here to do that. I am here to try to moveon.

Mrs ATTWOOD: I refer to the budget forcommunity housing at page 2-17 and ask:what do you see as the future for communityhousing in Queensland?

Mr SCHWARTEN: As I indicated earlier incommunity housing—and the shadow Ministerhas demonstrated interest in it thisafternoon—I think that community housing iswhat the Commonwealth Government has inmind as a future model for housing. I think thatI will live long enough to see Thatcherismcome to Australia in the form of the FederalGovernment walking away from capitalinvestment per se in public housing andhanding it over to the not-for-profit agencies.Certainly, the emphasis of the current FederalMinister is to go down that path. It is not apath that I particularly want to go down, butthe reality is that we have to look at where weare heading in terms of community housing.

The past three, four or five Budgets havebeen record Budgets—the last twoparticularly—in community housing. In thisone, there is $26m less in it, but we willconsolidate what have been hangovers fromthe last three years. This year, our job is toconsolidate the sector, to give it the skills that itneeds to make some probably tough decisionsabout how big that sector has to be. The truthis that no-one could suggest to me that someof the community housing groups that wehave are sustainable in the long term. If weare going to have to go down that path—and Ithink that we are—we are going to have tolook at ways of training up the sector to ensurethat, down that path, they can take over thatresponsibility. We have a bit of time to preparethe sector for doing it, but I can see us goingto the British Columbian model at some stagewhereby the Government becomes the hostagency. The group borrows the money andpays for it via some subsidies for the peoplethat they house—that comes from theGovernment—such as you see now with therecurrent expenditure that they are talkingabout, and that the Government goesguarantor for the loan.

I think that is probably a reasonablemodel that we can embrace in the future. It iscertainly an area that we will be putting a lot ofwork into this year. I can understand the sectorsaying, "We copped the biggest cut of all", butthe reality is that that is the area where wehave to do the most work this year. Thatmoney will not be wasted; that is the sort ofmoney that I was talking about before. Thatwill go into bringing public housing up to abetter standard.

The CHAIRMAN: That concludes theconsideration of the Estimates for the PublicWorks and Housing portfolio. I thank you,Minister, and your advisers for your assistanceand attendance. I also thank the Hansard staffwho covered the hearing today and theCommittee's research director, Mr RobHansen, for his assistance and the assistanceof other staff.

The research director has asked me tonote particularly that both Anne Lane from theDepartment of Public Works and KayleenMoore from the Department of Housing wereof particular assistance to the Committee in itsdealings with them. We are alwaysappreciative of extra assistance when we getit.

That concludes the Committee'sconsideration of the matters referred to it. Iremind you that answers to questions onnotice and any further information must be in


the hands of the Committee secretariat by 3p.m. on Tuesday, 12 October. I declare thepublic hearing closed.

The Committee adjourned at 6.30 p.m.

Documents

Estimates Committee C 7 Oct 1999 - Queensland … J. Oswin, A/Director (Finance) ... Mr J. Varghese, Director-General Mr D. Muir, Deputy Director-General Mr N. Doyle, ... Estimates