Hansard 11 March 1992 4029 - Queensland Parliament

Legislative Assembly 11 March 1992 4029

WEDNESDAY, 11 MARCH 1992

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 2.30p.m.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Resignation of Mr K. H. Davies

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have to inform the House that a vacancy exists on theParliamentary Committee of Public Accounts consequent upon the resignation of MrKenneth Henry Davies, MLA, from that committee.

Appointment of Mr J. H. Sullivan

Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Leader of the House) (2.31 p.m.), by leave,without notice: I move—

“That Mr Jon Harold Sullivan, MLA, be appointed to the ParliamentaryCommittee of Public Accounts to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of MrKenneth Henry Davies, MLA.”

Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Resignation of Mr R. E. Schwarten

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that a vacancy exists on theParliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice consequent upon the resignation of MrRobert Evan Schwarten, MLA, from that committee.

Appointment of Mr K. H. Davies

Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Leader of the House) (2.32 p.m.), by leave,without notice: I move—

“That Mr Kenneth Henry Davies, MLA, be appointed to the ParliamentaryCommittee for Criminal Justice to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of MrRobert Evan Schwarten, MLA.”

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Christian Life-style; Protection from Criminals

From Mr Santoro (1 signatory) praying that the Parliament of Queensland willassist the petitioner to live a Christian way of life and receive protection from criminalintent persons.

4030 11 March 1992 Legislative Assembly

Cairns, Casino

From Mr De Lacy (5 signatories) praying that no further action be taken toestablish a casino at Cairns until an impartial social and economic assessment is carriedout.

Woongarra/Gooburrum/Bundaberg Areas, Referendum on EARCRecommendations

From Mr Slack (291 signatories) praying that a referendum be held in theWoongarra, Gooburrum and Bundaberg areas before any EARC recommendations arecarried out on proposed amalgamation or boundary changes to these local authorities.

Buchan Area, Recreation Reserve

From Dr Clark (34 signatories) praying that the forest immediately south of Buchanbe preserved as a recreation reserve.

Bushland for Boggo Road Committee

From Mr FitzGerald (18 signatories) praying that a committee be established todiscuss with the local community proposals made by the Bushland for Boggo RoadCommittee.

Coolum State School

From Mr Barber (221 signatories) praying that funds be provided at the CoolumState School to allow the enrichment centre to continue and to enable specialist teachers,hours to be retained in the physical education and remedial/resource programs at theirpresent levels.

Emu Park, Medical Clinic

From Mr Pearce (959 signatories) praying for action to be taken to allow themedical clinic in Hill Street, Emu Park to remain open.

Abortion Law

From Mr Quinn (622 signatories) praying that action be taken to ensure that the lawprohibiting abortion on request be enforced.

Proposed Highway, Mount Cotton

From Mr W. K. Goss (923 signatories) praying that construction of the proposedhighway through the Mount Cotton area be not permitted but that the present PacificHighway be upgraded instead.

Scarborough Beach Caravan Park

From Mr Hollis (800 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland willinvestigate the original conditions set down in the deeds of the land on which theScarborough Beach Caravan Park stands and that the land remain a perpetual campingand recreation area.

Petitions received.


PAPERS

The following papers were laid on the table—

Orders in Council under—

State Housing Act 1945

Integrated Resort Development Act 1987

Rental Bond Act 1989

Education (General Provisions) Act 1989

Griffith University Act 1971

Griffith University Act 1971 and the Statutory Bodies Financial ArrangementsAct 1982

Grammar Schools Act 1975 and the Statutory Bodies Financial ArrangementsAct 1982

Coal Mining Act 1925

Gas Act 1965

Mineral Resources Act 1989

Petroleum Act 1923

Regulations under—

Building Act 1975

Rental Bond Act 1989

Education (General Provisions) Act 1989

Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980

Land Act 1962, Lands Legislation Amendment Act 1991, Miners’ HomesteadLeases Act 1913 and the Mining Titles Freeholding Act 1980

Foreign Ownership of Land Register Act 1988 and the Valuation of Land Act1944

Report of the review of the Department of Housing and Local Government carried outby the Public Sector Management Commission

Ordinance under the City of Brisbane Act 1924-1990

Statutes under—

Griffith University Act 1971

University of Southern Queensland Act 1989

University of Central Queensland Act 1989

University of Queensland Act 1965

Report of the Darling Downs-Moreton Rabbit Board for the year ended 30 June 1990.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Absence of Ministers during Question-time

Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Leader of the House) (2.36 p.m.): I have toinform the House that two Ministers will be absent from the House today during question-time: the Honourable the Deputy Premier, who is still ill, and the Honourable the Minister forJustice and Corrective Services, who is at the correctional centre in Townsville as a resultof an incident that has occurred there.


PRIVILEGE

Visit by Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing to Lindsay Park Stud

Mr VEIVERS (Southport) (2.37 p.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Yesterday, theMinister for Tourism, Sport and Racing grossly misled the House in a document tabled onhis behalf. The Minister sought to justify his visit to the Lindsay Park Stud late in 1988. Heclaimed that he had been able to glean a wealth of knowledge and information aboutvarious aspects of the racing industry, particularly the operations of the Equitrack. I seekleave to table a copy of the statutory declaration. That declaration makes it clear that theEquitrack at Lindsay Park was laid in August of 1990—some 20 months after theMinister’s visit. The declaration further states that the decision to lay the track was madein 1989. The Minister could not have gleaned knowledge of the operations of a facilitywhich was not yet in existence. He has clearly misled this Parliament and he must be dealtwith immediately by the Premier. The ball is now in the Premier’s court.

Leave granted.

Mr BEANLAND having given notice of a motion—

Mr BEANLAND: I table the supporting documents.

QUESTION UPON NOTICE

Brisbane-Gold Coast Regional Transport Strategy

Ms ROBSON asked the Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier onEconomic and Trade Development—

“With reference to the confused position of the Logan City Council in regard tothe Government’s recent release of the Brisbane-Gold Coast Regional TransportStrategy—

Will he outline, for the benefit of both the residents of and the council of LoganCity, details of the Regional Transport Strategy?”

Mr HAMILL: I noted the recent comments by the Mayor of Logan in regard to theGovernment’s recent release of the Brisbane-Gold Coast Regional Transport Strategy. Ifound his comments somewhat surprising given that only recently I spent some time withthe mayor discussing regional transport issues. Many of the council’s concerns areaddressed in the Government’s final decision. Officers from my department have todaymet with members of the Logan City Council to explain in detail the Government’s decision.I trust that this additional information will end their confusion. The regional transportstrategy is designed to cater for the future growth in population and travel demand for theBrisbane-Gold Coast region—a region that is expected to grow to more than two millionpeople in the early part of the next century. These are the major points of the regionalstrategy—

preservation of a partial corridor from the Logan River south to the Gold Coast,connecting up with the existing arterial road system;

upgrading of the Pacific Highway to six lanes, allowing for the futuredevelopment of a mass-transit facility;

proceeding as planned with the Gold Coast rail link; and

the development of a koala habitat control plan.


Many parts of the Government’s decision reflect the views of the Logan City Council,especially in regard to its concerns about an eight-lane Pacific Highway and the impactthat this would have on communities along the route. I was surprised to see that prior tothe consultants even making their report, Mr Borbidge and his shadow Cabinet had alreadydecided on what action they would take. Their answer was only a partial answer, and it wasthe wrong answer—an eight-lane Pacific Highway. This was their solution based on manyhours of reading newspaper reports and deciding what might earn them the most votes.

An eight-lane Pacific Highway by itself would not be able to cope with increases inpopulation, nor would it allow for the development of a mass-transit facility along its length.The area would be locked into a private car based transport system, with no options for thefuture. If the National Party’s plan were put in place, the Leader of the Opposition wouldhave many opportunities to contemplate why he will never become Premier, as he would bestuck in the constant traffic jams that would occur between Brisbane and the Gold Coast.Mr Borbidge is looking only to the next election. The Government is looking into the nextcentury, and today it is planning for the future.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Fletcher Jennings

Mr BORBIDGE: I ask the Minister for Land Management: at a time when more than150 000 Queenslanders are out of work and when almost 30 per cent of this State’s kidscannot find a job, why has he reneged on a clear undertaking that he personally gave to amajor development company, Fletcher Jennings, to honour a legally binding commitmentmade with the previous Government?

Mr EATON: Mr Speaker, the Bill is on the table of the Parliament. However, if I haveto answer the question, I am prepared to do so.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question does not refer to the Bill. However, if theanswer refers to the Bill, it is up to the Minister whether he gives the answer.

Mr EATON: I would have to refer to the Bill before the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I rule the question out of order.

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. My question related to an undertakingthat the Minister for Land Management gave to senior management of Fletcher Jennings; itdid not relate to any legislation before the Parliament. I am asking the Minister why he lied.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the word“lied”; it is unparliamentary.

Mr BORBIDGE: I am asking the Minister why he told an untruth. I am not asking aquestion in respect of the Bill.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister said that he believes the question refers to aBill before the House. I have made my ruling.

Ministerial Code of Conduct

Mr BORBIDGE: My next question, which is directed to the Premier, relates to theministerial code of conduct. I ask: is it acceptable for Ministers in his Government to telldeliberate untruths to major development companies in respect of Government policy?

Mr W. K. GOSS: What disturbs me about the question and the preceding pressconference by the Leader of the Opposition is the hypocrisy that is involved. Yesterday,we saw a performance of bluster which contained in just about every sentence the phrase


“two-faced hypocrite”. We have here somebody who is pursuing a course that is designedto undermine a very valuable tourism asset and a very important part of the Queenslandtourist industry. This is an example of the clear policy difference and the clear choice thatthe people of this State have between this Labor Government and some sort of de factocoalition on the other side of the Chamber. Those parties have a policy, and they had apolicy in 1989, that would have allowed the selling off—the flogging off on a freeholdbasis—of our off-shore islands. The Labor Party holds to the policy that ownership andcontrol, both in terms of sovereignty and land use control——

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. My question to the Premier was: is itacceptable under his ministerial code of conduct for Ministers in his Government to telldeliberate untruths to major investment companies in this State?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Honourable the Premier.

Mr W. K. GOSS: He is a sensitive flower, is he not? He gets to ask the questions;I get to give the answers. Our policy position is quite different. The National Party’sposition is—I do not know what the Liberal Party’s position is, which is not unusual,because its position will come out in about two to three weeks and will copy Mr Borbidge’spress release—that it will sell off both the sovereignty and the land use control of the off-shore islands. We believe in the retention of ownership and land use control of off-shoreislands for future generations. The only reason why this company was not able to securefreehold ownership is the incompetence of the previous National Party Government. InSeptember 1989, the company applied for freeholding and for three months, while theformer Government neglected the business of this State, the application was leftunconsidered. Opposition members can blame themselves for that matter not proceeding.This Government’s policy position——

Mr Elliott interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Cunningham under Standing Order123A.

Mr W. K. GOSS: Our policy position was clearly enunciated long before the lastelection. The companies and tourism operators understand our policy, respect our policyand can work with it. As to this particular company—the essential point is that it has a veryfine asset and we will work with the company to ensure that it gets an appropriate tenureand appropriate conditions that will continue the operation of that fine asset as animportant part of our tourist infrastructure.

As to the Minister—he has considered this matter over some period. After weighingup the competing considerations, namely, the rights of the company that has claims thatwere made under the National Party Government administration as against the policy ofthe Labor Party and other considerations, the Minister has made his decision andrecommendation, and that has been accepted by the Government.

Let me conclude on this point: today outside this place, the Leader of the Oppositionheld a press conference to thunder that it is absolutely disgraceful that this Governmentshould bring in retrospective legislation. Last week, he stood in front of the City Hall andcalled for retrospective legislation in respect of the Rochedale dump. I conclude on thisnote: if Derryn Hinch was answering this question, he would end with an amendedadmonition—“Sham! Sham! Sham!”

Land Tax

Mr PREST: I ask the Treasurer: is he aware of plans by the Liberal/National Partycoalition to abolish land tax? What are the implications for the State of this proposal?


Mr De LACY: I am indeed aware of the fact that both the Liberal and NationalParties are talking about abolishing land tax.

Mr Stoneman interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Burdekin will cease interjecting.

Mr De LACY: Is it not funny that now members of those parties are in oppositionthey can abolish land tax? For 32 years, members of the Liberal and National Parties sat inthe seats on this side of the Chamber and administered the land tax as it used to exist,with never a thought of abolishing it. In fact, the last Budget of the National PartyGovernment increased revenue from land tax by 80 per cent—the largest single increasein revenue from land tax in history.

Everybody agrees that taxes ought to be reduced. That is the easiest thing in theworld for anyone sitting in opposition to say. It is how those reductions will be financedthat counts. It is how they will be financed that determines whether or not those makingthat suggestion are credible. I was absolutely appalled to hear the Leader of theOpposition say that the abolition of land tax would be financed by selling off 49 per cent ofSuncorp. I would like everybody to listen to this. The most fundamental financialmanagement principle is that the proceeds from the sale of assets should never go intorecurrent programs, whether those recurrent programs are cutting taxes or introducingnew spending programs. Anybody who proposes to use the proceeds from the sale ofassets for recurrent programs really does not know anything about financial managementand is on a slippery slope. Queensland has an AAA rating. If for one minute Moody’s orStandard and Poor’s heard me say that I was going to introduce a principle such as that, Iam sure that they would be on a plane to Australia immediately and our AAA rating woulddisappear.

Let me tell the Opposition what would happen if it sold off Suncorp. Conceivably, byselling 49 per cent of Suncorp, land tax could be abolished for the first year. What wouldhappen in the second year? The Government would be left with a $200m hole in its Budgetor it would have to reintroduce land tax. It would have done away with 49 per cent of theasset, it would have done away with 49 per cent of the $85m that is currently received fromSuncorp, and it would probably have done away with the AAA rating. All I can say is thatthat kind of proposal is hydrogen car economics. I just wonder what thosebusinesspeople, whom I presume the Leader of the Opposition is trying to cultivate, thinkabout this kind of hydrogen car economics. In conclusion, let me say that, based on thishydrogen car kind of economics, once a Victorian, always a Victorian, even if he lives onthe Gold Coast.

Abolition of Sunshine Motorway Toll

Mr PREST: I ask the Minister for Transport: is he aware that the member forLandsborough has joined her senior coalition colleague, the member for Surfers Paradise,by saying that she would abolish the toll on the Sunshine Motorway? What are the policyimplications of this proposal?

Mr HAMILL: It is significant that this commitment, this echo by the Liberal Party ofa previous National Party statement about the toll, should come close on the heels of acommitment by the National Party—and presumably the Liberal Party as well—to sell off49 per cent of Suncorp, as referred to by the Treasurer. It becomes quite clear that theopposition parties seem to have an election grab bag funded by the sale of public assetsand, in the case of the Sunshine Motorway, the Liberal Party has made a very glib promiseto do away with the tolls on that road. What I want to know, and what the Liberal Party hasfailed to tell us, is where the money is coming from. Which 49 per cent of what public assetwill be sold off to fund this one? It is $140m worth. Will the Nambour Hospital extension


have to be done away with? Will a number of the new schools that are to be provided on theSunshine Coast have to be done away with to fund this election ploy? Or is it really thecase that the Liberal Party is so mortified at the thought of not hanging on to the seat ofCaloundra at the next election that it thinks its leader has to make a promise which istantamount to nothing more than trying to pork-barrel her own seat?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Gold Coast Indy Car Grand Prix

Mrs SHELDON: I refer the Treasurer to his repeated promises that no taxpayers’funds would be lost on the Gold Coast Indy Car Grand Prix and that the $20m loss of lastyear will be repaid over the next four years. I refer him also to a statement by the ChiefExecutive of the Queensland Events Corporation, Mr David Williams, who states intoday’s Bulletin magazine—

“That isn’t going to be achievable, and may not be for many years.”

I ask the Treasurer: does he still stand by his statement that all taxpayers’ funds will berecovered from earnings from the race in the next four years?

Mr De LACY: I do recognise that the Liberal Party is going to fund the SunshineMotorway by abolishing the Gold Coast Indy Car Grand Prix. I have noted that. I hope thatpeople down on the Gold Coast have noted it. My request to the Indy Car Grand Prixcompany was that this year the event should be run, as much as possible, on a break-even basis. The honourable member was quite right when she said that the accumulateddeficit last year was in the vicinity of $20m. The advice that I have from the Indy Car GrandPrix people is that the expenses are well and truly under control and that the sale oftickets is about double that of the sales this time last year. A lot will depend on the weathernext week, including whether or not the sale of tickets will reach the projections. It is fair tosay that when I made that request to the Indy Car Grand Prix company to run on arevenue-neutral or break-even basis, I was hoping that the national economy would bebetter than it is. However, we will have to wait until next week to see the final outcome.

After the race, the Government will do an analysis. It will consider the costs and thebenefits. If members opposite are opposed to the race and believe that the money whichthe Government is expending on the race could be better spent elsewhere, it will take thatinto consideration, because I believe that Governments must always undertake a cost-benefit analysis of their expenditure. However, I am still of the view that the benefits whichQueensland and the Gold Coast secured from the Indy car race far outweigh theinvestment. Last year, the race proved to be the greatest single way of promoting themarvellous attractions of the Gold Coast on the world stage, and no doubt that will prove tobe the case again this year. That is what it is all about, and the Government sticks withthat.

As to the particular article which appeared in today’s Bulletin—I caution thehonourable member not to believe everything that she reads. Firstly, my name wasmisspelt in the article. As well, it stated that I was a representative of the Gold CoastEvents Corporation, which I am not. I would like to think that all members of this Housewish the Indy car race the best next week. It is a great event for Queensland and the GoldCoast. It is not helped by the sniping from the leaders of the other major parties inQueensland, but if that is the way in which they want to carry on, let them carry on and itcan be on their heads.

Regional Director of Darling Downs Regional Health Authority

Mrs SHELDON: I direct a question to the Minister for Health. He would be awarethat doctors have passed an overwhelming vote of no confidence in the Regional Director


of the Darling Downs Regional Health Authority, Dr Ian Cumming, who has failed to consultdoctors on a number of major decisions, including a proposal to slash 100 beds at theToowoomba General Hospital. I ask: does the Minister now agree that the loss of morale inhospitals in the Darling Downs area is so bad, due to the mismanagement by the regionaldirector, that he must be moved out of that position immediately?

Mr HAYWARD: The short answer is, “No.” However, the long answer is that Ibelieve that the member should do more than simply read a newspaper. That is what shehas done. Tonight, the President-elect of the AMA in Queensland will visit the area to talkto members of the local branch about the current circumstances. The State branch of theAMA is concerned to ensure—as I am concerned to do—that consultation occurs betweenthe regional director, Dr Ian Cumming, and the local branch of the AMA. That will happen.There is no doubt that we are dealing with a small, sectional group of politically motivateddoctors. This matter is confined to a local issue. This Government stands by itsregionalisation policy, and I stand by the regional director. The matter will be resolved at aState level, in consultation with the AMA.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Currumbin! He is still talking while I amcalling for order. I warn him under Standing Order 123A.

Traffic Flow between Brisbane and Gold Coast

Mr PITT: I ask the Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier onEconomic and Trade Development: can he outline to the House the steps that theGovernment is taking to improve traffic flow between Brisbane and the Gold Coast, andthe need to balance these measures with the protection of koala habitats in that area?

Mr HAMILL: It is important for members to realise that, through its eastern corridorstudy, the Government embarked upon what I consider to be the largest and single mostsuccessful process of community consultation with respect to the very difficult problemsof dealing with people’s transportation needs between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Overthe past 12 months, on several occasions in this House, members have inquired about theprogress of that study. I reiterate the point I have made in the past, that is, that thisGovernment was not seeking to find reasons to justify a predetermined outcome. TheGovernment was concerned to ensure that it made the right decisions about planning forthe transport needs of what is one of the most rapidly growing regions in Australia. That isexactly what the Government did. The Government has an ongoing program for upgradingthe Pacific Highway. Indeed, its present efforts are focused on the southern end of thatroute and it is widening the highway between Mudgeeraba and Tugun to a dualcarriageway. However, that is only one small part of the major issue of publictransportation for south-east Queensland.

As I indicated earlier today in response to the honourable member for Springwood,the means by which this Government is addressing those transport needs aremultifaceted. The Government does not believe that it can cater for the two million peoplewho are coming to south-east Queensland simply by giving them a transport future basedaround their private motor vehicles. If the Government did that, the area would grind to ahalt. That is why this Government’s strategy is designed to try to develop passengertransport as well as cater for the needs of the community with respect to an arterial roadnetwork.

This Government is pushing ahead with the Gold Coast rail link—a $300m projectwhich, when completed, will cater for two million passenger journeys. Those two millionpassengers will be able to deal with Suncorp as a wholly owned public instrumentality. Aswell, the Government’s commitment to the eastern corridor was very significant, becauseit involved balancing the needs of developers with the need to conserve our habitats and


the need to preserve prime agricultural land between Brisbane and the Gold Coast.Although the National Party might believe that it is all right to have suburbia stretchingfrom the Brisbane River to the Tweed River, this Government is committed to managing thegrowth process to ensure that the growth that occurs in south-east Queensland isconsistent with the need to preserve our farmland—as was done with the cane fields southof the Logan River—and the need to preserve bushland habitat, as was done in theRedlands district. This balanced approach recognises the competing interests in theregion. With respect to the very sensitive koala habitat—the Government is looking to thestrong support of local authorities in the region—Brisbane, Redland and Logan—to cometogether with the Department of Housing and Local Government and the Department ofEnvironment and Heritage as part of a master plan. One thing is certain: the habitat has tobe protected not necessarily from the motor car but from urban encroachment. That is thegreatest danger which the koala habitat faces. This Government is committed toprotecting our natural habitat in that sensitive region.

Tobacco Tax Increase

Mr PITT: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to reports in the TablelandsAdvertiser in which the member for Tablelands, Mr Gilmore, says he believes that theState will increase the tobacco tax in the next Budget, and I ask: can he advise the Houseas to the true position?

Mr De LACY: I have a copy of the Tablelands Advertiser. That paper is the privatemouthpiece of Mr Gilmore. It will quote everything that he says, whether or not it is basedon rumour. Mr Gilmore is quoting a rumour that the Goss Government will increase Statetaxes on tobacco by up to 50 per cent. That is rumour, and honourable members knowwhat a rumour is worth. I will outline some facts. The Fightback package states—

“Indirect taxes on tobacco should be increased with a view to increased pricesat the retail level of approximately 40 per cent.”

Mr Katter interjected.

Mr De LACY: There are two parties in this.

Mr Katter interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member for Flinders under StandingOrder 123A.

A Government member interjected.

Mr De LACY: Yes. Does the honourable member for Tablelands support theFightback package?

Mr Lester interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Peak Downs will cease interjecting.

Mr De LACY: I note that the member for Tablelands is strangely silent when he isasked whether or not he supports the Fightback package. There are two parties in thiscountry that are talking about increasing taxes on tobacco—the Liberal and the NationalParties. The tax policies of the Labor Party in this State are well known to everybody. Theyought to be well known to members of the Opposition. There will be no new taxes; there willbe no increases in taxes or charges greater than the rate of inflation.

Mount Archer

Mr SCHWARTEN: I ask the Minister for Environment and Heritage: is he awarethat his department is currently working on a proposal to gazette Mount Archer near


Rockhampton as a national park? Could the Minister advise the House of the progress ofthis proposal?

Mr COMBEN: I thank the honourable member for the question. At present, MountArcher has an environmental park of some 2 270 hectares. It is of the standard necessaryto become a national park. Negotiations are being carried out with the Department ofPrimary Industries and the Queensland Forest Service to obtain an extra 2 000 hectares.That would be a total of 4 500 hectares of national park near Rockhampton. Policies will beimplemented in accordance with Mr Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s policies in 1974. Mr Bjelke-Petersen said that every major city along the Queensland coast would have a majornational park next to it. He never delivered. This Government is starting to deliver. I thankthe member for Rockhampton North for the work that he is doing towards achieving thatend. We will certainly get it up and running as soon as possible.

Hairy-nosed Wombat

Mr SCHWARTEN: I ask the Minister for Environment and Heritage: as he hasrecently initiated an appeal to raise money to save the northern hairy-nosed wombat fromextinction, could he advise the House why there is a necessity for such an appeal, andhow much money he would like to raise?


Mr SCHWARTEN: Forgive him, Lord, for he knows not what he says, nor what hedoes.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr SCHWARTEN: I was provoked, Mr Speaker. I could not hear myself speak, letalone think. I repeat: the Minister has recently initiated an appeal to raise money to savethe northern hairy-nosed wombat from extinction. Could he advise the House why there isa necessity for such an appeal, how much money he would like to see raised, and for whatpurpose the money would be used?

Mr COMBEN: The northern hairy-nosed wombat has a great affinity for the memberfor Peak Downs. It is an animal that comes out at night for short periods. It nibbles aroundthe edges and retreats to its burrow. The northern hairy-nosed wombat is not the mostintelligent creature that we have in Queensland. As a result, we now have a situation inwhich there are only some 70 hairy-nosed wombats left.


Mr COMBEN: I acknowledge the interjection from the member for Peak Downs.This compares with the situation of the other two species of wombat in Australia—thecommon wombat in southern Australia and the southern hairy-nosed wombat in New SouthWales, which are both going along very well.

Since 1937, when the wombat was rediscovered, and certainly during the 20-oddyears of National Party reign in this State, there was very little research done on theanimal. Now the department is spending a huge amount of money on general managementin the Epping Forest which alone costs approximately $80,000 to $90,000 per year. Toensure that this wombat comes back from the brink of extinction, we need to know what itwill eat by way of supplementary feed and what effects introduced grasses and fire willhave. This animal is found solely in Queensland. The support for this appeal that we havehad from schools and individuals across the State has been very heartening. We are verypleased with the work that has been done by the member for Rockhampton North in gettingthe schools in his area involved. We would like to have an amount of $100,000 or more forresearch. Recently, the Federal Government promised us quite a large amount of moneyas well.


The future of the northern hairy-nosed wombat is looking more “bristly” and happier.We are certainly looking forward to a successful appeal that will enable us to bring thewombat back from only 70 individuals to such a number that it can be returned to its oldhabitats. If the member for Peak Downs would like to come along, we will see what we cando about cross-breeding.

Daintree Hen Raid

Mr PERRETT: In directing a question to the Minister for Primary Industries, I referhim to his contradictory statements concerning the Daintree hen raid, including astatement which was made as late as this morning when the Minister told Rod Henshaw’slisteners that he had no right to instruct or give orders to the Hen Quota Committee.However, on 20 February he told the Courier-Mail that he had instructed the Chairman ofthe Hen Quota Committee, Mr Albert Benfer, not to raid the property because of a possibleadverse reaction. On 18 February, on ABC radio, the Minister referred to a conversationsome time ago with the farmer concerned, who is named Reichardt, in relation to a quotaand also referred to specific advice to the committee with respect to Reichardt. I ask theMinister: will he explain which of his contradictory statements represents the trueposition?

Mr CASEY: Everyone here accepts the fact that the honourable member forBarambah must be in cuckooland when he refers to feathered things. At the moment, thehonourable member is the only person in Queensland who is seeking deregulation of thehen industry in Queensland. He is the only one who is talking about deregulation and whowants the industry deregulated. He ought to have a look at the Hen Quotas Act to seeexactly what it contains. Its contents are exactly as I have stated. In October last year, Iadvised the Chairman of the Hen Quota Committee that I did not want any action to takeplace in Queensland that would result in a row of chooks running in and out of a row ofbanana trees, a row of blokes running after a row of chooks in and out of banana treestrying to catch them and a television cameraman running around chasing the lot.Completely unbeknown to me or to any member of this Government, that is exactly whathappened because the Hen Quota Committee Chairman went ahead and did his own thing.

Throughout Queensland, the only people who found that action acceptable weremany of the 200-odd hen quota holders in Queensland and the honourable member forBarambah. Last night, the honourable member said in this House that we were doingcertain things to try to get rid of hundreds of egg-producers in Queensland. There are onlyjust over 200 hen quota holders in Queensland, anyway. The honourable member knowsnothing whatsoever about the industry. In recent weeks, because of the fiasco thatoccurred in the Daintree area a few weeks ago, the Government has taken positive stepsthat brought to a head the problem that exists not only in Queensland, but also in otherareas of Australia, under the various Hen Quotas Acts. The Queensland Act wasintroduced in 1973 because in 1972 Great Britain joined the European EconomicCommunity. Suddenly, there was a mountain of egg powder in Australia because back inthe good old days, no matter what we produced, the Poms would buy it from us and sell it inEngland. Suddenly, English consumers found that instead of buying egg powder fromAustralia, they could buy fresh eggs from Europe to use in the kitchen. The Hen QuotasAct was designed for those days, and it no longer has any application. New South Waleshas deregulated. As soon as it did so, problems arose. South Australia is doing the samething.

Because problems have arisen in Queensland, we had to look at the legislation. Thatis exactly what is happening. The industry itself has agreed to undertake a review underthe terms of reference set out by the Government. The industry has been told, and knowsvery clearly, that the first and foremost thing that the Goss Government wants to maintain


in Queensland is a viable egg industry that produces a fresh, quality product for theconsumers of this State.

Port of Townsville

Mr DAVIES: In directing a question to the Minister for Transport, I point out that hewould be aware that the port of Townsville is northern Australia’s premier port and a majorasset to the Townsville region, and I ask: what is the future of the port of Townsville andwhat does the Minister think of Senator Parer’s remarks reported in the Townsville Bulletinon Thursday, 5 March, that the planned $20m upgrading of Townsville’s port is a waste ofmoney and a fantasy?

Mr HAMILL: The future of the port of Townsville is a very secure one. In fact, overthe last five years, there has been an increase of 91 per cent in trade through that port. Asthe honourable member has stated, it is indeed the premier industrial port in northQueensland.

Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point of order. As I understood the question, it asksfor an opinion. It is clearly outside the guidelines that determine when a question is not aquestion—for example, “What do you think of this?”

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

Mr HAMILL: For the benefit of the honourable member, let me point out that Iunderstood the member for Townsville asked me, “What is the future for the port ofTownsville?” As I said, it is a very bright future because there has been an increase of 91per cent in trade. It is significant that in the economic statement brought down by thePrime Minister, $21m was earmarked for infrastructure upgrading of the port of Townsville.As a State Government, we went in and argued very strongly for infrastructuredevelopment in Townsville. Indeed, in meetings undertaken with Federal MinisterRichardson and Federal Minister Brown, the future of Townsville and the need for makingappropriate connections to the road and rail networks were impressed upon thoseMinisters. As a Government, we recognise that there is much more to the economicdevelopment of Queensland than that occurring in the south-east region. NorthQueensland has a critical role to play, and within that region the port of Townsville also hasa critical role to play.

Mrs Sheldon interjected.

Mr HAMILL: I take the interjection made by the member for Landsborough, andmake the comment that that is why I was appalled to read the reported comments ofSenator Parer, a Queensland Liberal senator, who stated in the Senate on 5 March thatthe $20m port upgrade for Townsville was “a waste of taxpayers’ money” and “nothingmore than a fantasy”. It is a disgrace when a Queensland senator seeks to undermine amajor infrastructure project in the port of Townsville. It proves conclusively that as far asthe Federal coalition is concerned, Australia ends at the Tweed River, and that as far asthe Queensland Liberal Party is concerned, Queensland ends at the Pine River. Membersof the Liberal Party could not care less about the development of north Queensland. Theirposturing in this Parliament of concern for the economic development of this State isshown to be a sham by the statements made by Senator Parer. The $20m upgrade for theport of Townsville is necessary and is money well spent. It will contribute to a very brightfuture indeed for the port of Townsville and the city it serves.

Darling Downs Regional Health Authority

Mrs McCAULEY: I ask the Minister for Health: in the light of his expression ofabsolute confidence in the Regional Director of the Darling Downs Regional HealthAuthority, Dr Ian Cumming and in spite of the vote of no confidence passed by 100 doctorsat a meeting in Toowoomba on Monday, does the Minister intend to allow Dr Cumming to


proceed with cut-backs in elective surgery and hospital beds at Darling Downs publichospitals?

Mr HAYWARD: I thought I answered this question very clearly yesterday when Isaid that there would be no closures of hospitals in Queensland——

Mr Dunworth: What about the cut-backs?

Mr HAYWARD: —and there would be no cut-backs to elective surgery in hospitalson the Darling Downs. The simple position is that we are having an independent review ofprocedures for major elective surgery on the Darling Downs. It is important to understandalso that the particular doctors referred to have taken it upon themselves to launch anattack on Dr Ian Cumming. I make it very clear, as I did earlier to the Leader of the LiberalParty, that the State branch of the AMA has taken a particular view of this matter and willbe raising this issue with the doctors in Toowoomba to try to resolve the problem that hasarisen. I also make it clear that, by her question, the honourable member is undertaking anattack on regionalisation. I should add that at the very same meeting to which shereferred, a resolution was carried by the doctors in support of regionalisation inQueensland. When she reads articles in newspapers in the future, she should pay moreattention to them than she has on this occasion. What the Government is talking about inrelation to this issue is local people making local decisions about health issues. There willbe no closures.

Breast Cancer Screening Program

Mrs McCAULEY: In directing a question to the Minister for Health, I point out thatthis is not a trick question, and, if he cannot answer it, I will place it on notice.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs McCAULEY: I ask: in view of the launching of the Minister’s breast cancerscreening program today at Parliament House, will he advise the House of the concernraised by the Australian Medical Association that once women enter the screeningprogram they are in the hands of a powerful bureaucracy? Is it correct that if a suspiciousarea is detected by a mammogram, all follow-up mammograms, ultrasound screenings,biopsies and histological diagnoses must be undertaken by the screening clinic, and thatif the patient decides at any stage to go to her private GP, radiologist or surgeon, noMedicare benefit may be available to her?

Mr HAYWARD: I had some difficulty hearing the question, but I wish to make itvery clear that radiologists have raised issues with me concerning the mobile breastscreening clinics, and there is no doubt that they are concerned about them. However,this is clearly a very, very important part of cancer prevention in Queensland and theprogram will be continued. I am sure that most members of this Parliament support it,which is why I find it difficult to understand the member’s attitude. The honourable membershould understand that this program will be based on equity and it will provide servicesthroughout the far north of this State as well as to the far west of the State. The issuesthat have been raised by radiologists are important, and those issues will be addressed.

Access to Strathpine Railway Station by Disabled Passengers

Mrs WOODGATE: In directing a question to the Minister for Transport andMinister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development, I point out thataccess cannot be obtained to the Strathpine Railway Station in my electorate by disabledor elderly people. In order to obtain access, they must climb or descend very steep stairsthat are attached to the pedestrian overpass. I ask: what action can be taken to ease theproblems associated with access for the disabled and elderly people at the StrathpineRailway Station?


Mr HAMILL: The access to many suburban railway stations by disabled people isvery difficult indeed because, when many of those stations were constructed, scantregard was paid to people who have physical disabilities which cause them great difficultywhen negotiating flights of stairs. At Strathpine, a senior citizens centre is located verynear to the railway station. The member for Pine Rivers has been very forthright in therepresentations she has made to me to find out what can be done to try to address theparticular problems of access to that station. The Strathpine Railway Station has theconfiguration of an island platform. It is near an open level crossing, which, admittedly,has some protection for pedestrians crossing at that point. We have been able to provideramps, which will be constructed to enable access from that crossing point onto thestation, and that will give easy access to that station by the people whom the member forPine Rivers has been representing. Currently, about 42 of the 120 stations in the suburbannetwork have suitable access for people with various physical disabilities. I am pleased tosay that Strathpine will be able to be added to that list.

Electrical Accidents

Mrs WOODGATE: I ask the Minister for Resource Industries: is he aware that thenumber of accidents involving electricity in Queensland has reached more than 600 peryear? What is the Government doing to reduce the accident rate?

Mr McGRADY: I thank the honourable member for her question, which touches aproblem of concern to the Government and to the electricity supply industry. The rate ofelectrical accidents involving the general public in this State has nearly doubled. We areseeing two such accidents a day. Fortunately, only a small number of those accidentsresult in death. However, it is alarming how many of those accidents could have beenprevented with proper maintenance and regular checks of appliances. Two years ago, itwas estimated that about half of those accidents were caused by a lack of maintenance.The most recent figures suggest that up to 60 per cent of them could have been avoidedby proper maintenance of electrical appliances. That includes many instances in whichhome handypersons have done their own repairs to appliances, made up their ownextensions or done household wiring.

Last month, the Queensland Electricity Commission launched an electrical safetycampaign for Queensland’s seven electrical boards. The title was “Switch to Safetythrough Electrical Maintenance”. I am confident that that campaign will bring home themessage that electrical appliances require care and that the home handyman who doeshis own electrical repairs and wiring could end up killing himself or a member of his family.

Premier’s Use of Government Jet

Mr COOMBER: I direct a question to the Premier. In light of allegations aired in thisHouse yesterday by the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing about the alleged misuseof taxpayers’ funds on air charter, can he inform the House: did he not on 20 March 1991use the Government aircraft to fly to Cairns for a function, return to Brisbane on the sameday for a personal publicity stunt with long-distance runner, Ron Grant, and then fly in theGovernment jet back to Cairns on the same day? What was the cost to the people ofQueensland of that personal publicity stunt?

Mr W. K. GOSS: In relation to what I was doing on 20 March 1991—I cannothonestly recall at the present time.

Mr Dunworth: We just told you.

Mr W. K. GOSS: Let me say this: I did, however, participate in a running eventwhich involved Ron Grant and Archbishop Hollingworth to raise funds for the Bible Society.


If that is the event for which I am being criticised for participation and for using aGovernment aircraft that is available for my disposal for the purpose of attending a widerange of community events, I make no apology. I happen to think that it is a worthwhilecause, even if the honourable member does not.

Rail Noise Problems

Mr FOLEY: In directing a question to the Minister for Transport, I refer to concernsexpressed by residents of Brisbane’s southern suburbs about noise problems in regard tothe planned standard gauge rail link to the port of Brisbane and in regard to existing railfreight traffic——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much conversation in the Chamber. Order!

Mr FOLEY: I ask: what action is being taken in relation to rail noise problems? Willthe Minister give sympathetic consideration to increasing the $2m allocation for noiseabatement measures if the impact assessment statement indicates a need for furthermeasures, and will the Minister give sympathetic consideration to electrification of raillines and rail freight traffic through urban areas to the port of Brisbane in order to reducethe noise problems suffered by urban residents?

Mr HAMILL: One of the other important infrastructure projects contained in thePrime Minister’s One Nation package was, indeed, the standard gauge rail link to the portof Brisbane, a project which has long been sought by the Port of Brisbane Authority.Indeed, from time to time, it has been sought by the Liberal Party also. I am pleased thatthe project enjoys widespread community support—as indeed it should, because it willgenerate in its construction some 1 800 jobs and facilitate the further growth ofemployment and activity at the port of Brisbane.

From time to time, the honourable member for Yeronga has raised a number ofconcerns regarding the impact of that project upon some of his constituents—certainly,those who have moved and bought homes next to the railway line. I say that advisedlybecause the railway line has been there for 102 years. Some of those people have genuineconcerns about the potential noise impact of the upgraded rail corridor. The Government isvery responsive to community concern. That is why last year, at the urging of thehonourable member, a study was commissioned into the impact of rail noise in urbanareas. The consultant who is undertaking that study should have a report completed in thevery near future. That report will be critical also in the context of the impact assessmentstatement, which we are currently undertaking and for which we have sought expressionsof interest, as indeed we are required to by the law of this State. In providing itscontribution of support to the project, the Government has factored in funds—some$2m—for noise abatement measures along that corridor. Certainly, the Government will bein a position to implement practical measures that can reduce the noise impact on thatcommunity.

Mr Dunworth interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Sherwood will cease interjecting.

Mr HAMILL: I might point out for the benefit of people such as the member forSherwood, who represents an area through which the rail line passes, that the standardgauge corridor will of itself provide the means whereby the noise impacts of rail traffic inthat area can be reduced. At present, because of the fact that daily there are some 90passenger trains using that corridor, the freight trains which also use that corridor have tobe scheduled at night-time. By increasing the capacity of the corridor, some of thosefreight trains can move by day, thereby lessening the noise impact on the localcommunity. There have been a number of calls from some sources for the electrification of


that line. I point out that, although I would be delighted to see the electrification of thatcorridor, unfortunately there is a very practical problem. The coal traffic is coming fromareas west of Ipswich, the grain traffic is coming from areas such as the Darling Downsand the south-west centres such as Dalby and Goondiwindi and there are livestock trainswhich originate from places like Quilpie and Cunnamulla. It would be wonderful to see allthe western lines electrified, but I think it would be an unreal prospect to build communityexpectations that that can be done in the foreseeable future.

Tennyson Power House

Mr FOLEY: My next question is to the Minister for Resource Industries. I refer tothe Tennyson power house located on prime riverfront land within the garden suburbs ofthe Yeronga electorate, and I ask: have strict safety measures been put in place for thecurrent project to remove asbestos and plant from the power house by the end of 1994?Further, have steps been taken to provide for a planning process on the future of the site,with opportunity for public input so as to ensure proper plans are in place when the sitebecomes available at the end of 1994 and thus avoid a repetition of the previousGovernment’s planning disaster which left the Expo site as a disused bomb craterthroughout 1989?

Mr McGRADY: I thank the honourable member for the question, which reflects theconcerns of not only the people in his electorate but also the people of Queensland aboutthe proper disposal of asbestos. I assure the honourable member that the QEC and thecontractors who will remove the asbestos at Tennyson are demonstrating theircommitment to the complete safety of the community and all the workers involved. Thesafeguards to be enforced at Tennyson will exceed the requirements of the NationalHealth and Safety Commission’s code of practice for the safe removal of asbestos.Inspectors from the State Government’s Division of Workplace Health and Safety willmake frequent checks during the work, as well as attending weekly safety meetings on thesite. Workers will have to leave and enter the site through a decontamination unit. They willhave wear full-length overalls, full face masks, hard hats and safety boots. On the wayout, workers will be required to take two full body showers. Their outer clothing will betaken away for disposal. This system is so thorough that all water from thedecontamination unit is recycled to be used again, and eventually disposed of as acontaminated material.

Asbestos is dangerous only when it is in a dust form that can be inhaled. Beforeremoval, all the asbestos will be saturated with water to avoid it forming a dust. It will beput into bags which are then fastened, washed and put into larger bags for removal fromthe site in fully enclosed trucks. The wet asbestos will then be safely buried by theBrisbane City Council at Willawong. Before any asbestos removal, all openings in thepower house will be sealed by heavy-duty plastic to stop any dust escaping from thebuilding. As well, inside the building there will be heavy-duty plastic curtains from ceiling tofloor and a sprinkler system to provide a fine mist. Air-monitoring for asbestos dust will beconducted by the highly respected SIMTARS organisation at several places inside andaround the site. The results of this monitoring will be available to the public through theQEC.

Mr DUNWORTH: I rise to a point of order. Could I suggest that the Ministerphotostat the document and distribute it so we can all read it.


Mr McGRADY: Asbestos removal, when done properly, with total commitment topublic and worker safety, is a job that cannot be rushed. The project is scheduled forcompletion in December 1994. The Tennyson site will continue for many years to be an


essential component of Brisbane’s power distribution system by virtue of the cables andswitch gear installed there. I have met with the Minister for Land Management and aninterdepartmental committee is being set up to discuss——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the Minister is debating the issue. The answeris too long. The time allotted for questions has now expired.

PRIVILEGE

Visit by Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing to Lindsay Park

Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Wolston—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (3.44 p.m.):I rise on a matter of privilege. At the beginning of proceedings in this House today, themember for Southport tabled a statutory declaration signed by one Henri Lach, whoclaimed that he phoned the Lindsay Park property some time yesterday and spoke to acertain gentleman who gave him information relevant to the laying of Equitrack. I wish toadvise the House that my Division of Racing and my own officers have since been in touchwith Lindsay Park. My officers have confirmed with Harry Lyons, the secretary of LindsayPark, that the first payment for the laying of Equitrack was made by the Lindsay Parkproperty in November 1988. The final payment for Equitrack was made in March 1989. MrHarry Lyons stated that they were using it months before November 1988. My visit toLindsay Park was in December 1988.

MATTER OF SPECIAL PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Effect of Privatisation Policy on Operation of Queensland PortAuthorities

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I advise the House that, pursuant tothe Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 16 July 1991, I have received a proposalfor a debate on a matter of special public importance. The proposal submitted by theHonourable the Minister for Transport is for a debate on the following matter—

“The very encouraging and successful operations of the seven Port Authoritiesin Queensland and the impact that a privatisation policy would have on thoseoperations.”

Mr DAVIES (Townsville) (3.45 p.m.): Both the Liberal and the National Parties havebeen well documented in their desire to sell off Queensland’s hard-earned assets to thehighest bidder to pay for tax cuts which they know they cannot deliver. We know that theOpposition is drunk on the whiff of privatisation and that it now wants to sell offQueensland’s efficient ports. We have heard the Leader of the National Party state—

“Privatising Queensland’s waterfront is the only way to reduce port costs andmake export goods more competitive.”

He has openly admitted that he is developing a policy to privatise Queensland’s ports. Ican speak with much conviction when I say that such a policy will help put Australia on theinternational sidelines and leave Queensland’s economy floundering. Queensland’seconomy relies on our ability to trade, and ports are our links to important overseasmarkets. No other efficient trading nation in the world is even considering privatising itsports, yet the Queensland Opposition, through Mr Borbidge, thinks it would be a greatidea. Queensland’s ports are operating more efficiently than ever before and theOpposition wants to wreck that positive process.


As the member for Townsville, I know how important Townsville’s port is for theongoing development of industry in north Queensland. As the Minister said earlier, overthe past five years trade through the Townsville port has increased by 91 per cent, andthis growth will continue as long as the Government has strategic control over the port’sdirection and is not compromised by the risk of private ownership—a risk which couldintroduce monopoly control and all its associated perils. On Townsville radio station 4RRRon 29 January, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Borbidge, said—

“We will be serving notice today that the privatisation of the Townsville Port willbe on the agenda under a future conservative Government.”

Why does the Opposition want to sell a Government asset that is not only working well butis committed to the local community? To give an example of that commitment, theTownsville Port Authority has allocated $50,000 per year for the next two years, subject toperformance, to Townsville Enterprise Limited in a bid to help the city’s development.Moreover, the authority practically gives free land rental at a nominal rental of $1 to theCoast Guard, the local maritime museum and the remarkable Wonderland Aquarium. Aswell, the authority is a tremendous corporate citizen. It is actively involved in communityprojects such as the Townsville Skyshow and offers various prizes to students at JamesCook University. The authority works closely with all port-users and ensures that a levelplaying field approach is given to each of them. To help boost tourism in Townsville and toassist local traders in the north, the port authority does not charge tonnage rates to cruiseships. That initiative has directly resulted in 1992 in the proposed visits of 14 cruise shipsto the city.

As I have illustrated, the port is operating more efficiently than ever, the localcommunity is benefiting substantially from the port operations and their commitment toTownsville, and the State and Federal Governments have given their commitment to theport through the injection of $20m in the recent economic package. That is good news forTownsville, good news for the north and good news for Queensland and Australia—yet thedesperate Opposition does not want to listen to those simple facts. It wants to back a dudcalled privatisation; but, unfortunately, it is gambling with the assets of all Queenslanders.

The port of Townsville, and all other ports in Queensland, must remain in the hands ofthe Government and must be directed by boards which are selected on the basis of theirlocal experience, knowledge of the local area and commitment to the regional economy.Selling off Townsville’s assets to faceless overseas and southern companies does notappeal to me, and it does not appeal to the people of Townsville; although it is obvious thatit does appeal to the Opposition. Local input and direction is essential, and business andindustry in Townsville will not have it any other way. Under the direction of thisGovernment, the port of Townsville is moving ahead. Major upgrading works are beingplanned and a major trade potential study is nearing completion. This study is looking atpotential trades for the port to the year 2015 and will outline the most effectiveinfrastructure requirements needed to handle them. The port of Townsville is northernAustralia’s premier port and it is an integral part of Townsville’s future. It must remainunder the control of the people of Queensland and should never be sold off to satisfy theshort-term political visions of an Opposition without direction or purpose. Queensland isthe most decentralised State in Australia, and regional ports such as the port of Townsvilleare essential for the growth of regional Queensland. The Queensland economy isextremely diverse, and the delivery of fast, efficient services through our regional ports isessential to regional Queensland.

So what would be achieved by privatisation? Nothing other than possible destructionof that system. That is a system in which the National Party has participated. If it is a goodidea to privatise ports, why did it not do it in the 32 years that it was in Government? It didnot think it was a good idea then, but now that we are in Government making the ports


more efficient, the Opposition suddenly thinks that privatisation is the way to go.Privatisation could result in monopolisation of our ports and ultimate closure to giveeconomies of scale to the new owners. We have seen it happen in corporate Australia, butit is not going to happen in Queensland, particularly in north Queensland.

Both the Nationals and the Liberals are confused at what they want. The FederalLiberals, particularly Queensland’s Senators Macdonald and Parer, are so confused thatSenator Macdonald says one day that the Federal Government should contribute to theTownsville port to save the 900 jobs of the Yabulu nickel refinery workers. The next day,when the $20m is announced—$20m gained by the cooperation of the QueenslandGovernment through the Premier, the Minister for Transport and others, and also FederalMinisters, including the Prime Minister and Senator Bob Collins—Senator Macdonald’sLiberal colleague Senator Parer attacks it as a $20m fantasy and a waste of money. Ifthey do not appreciate it, Townsville port does, and it helps keep that important publicasset out of private control.

Senator Macdonald, who incidentally lives in the Burdekin region and has an office inTownsville, then turned around and supported Senator Parer. He did that the very next dayafter he had asked for the injection of funds. He said he would rather see the $20m spenton projects which Townsville needed. Senator Macdonald just cannot make up his mind. Ishe really suggesting that Townsville does not need the port upgrade for which he askedthe day before? Is he really suggesting that the 900 workers at Yabulu, about whom hewas so concerned the day before, do not appreciate the $20m and the surety ofemployment that it gives them? Senator Macdonald also said that the daylight-savingreferendum was a $5m waste of time. But history has proved just how out of touch withnorth Queensland he is.

Mr Hollis: Not very credible.

Mr DAVIES: He is not very credible. In the stances that he has taken, he is antinorth Queensland. He just cannot make up his mind what he is doing. We know where theNational Party stands—it wants to privatise and wreck the port system inQueensland—but the Liberals have to say what they want to do. Mr Watson and hisleader, Mrs Sheldon, have to say whether they support Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald’sdenigration of north Queensland.

Mr Hamill: Of course they do.

Mr DAVIES: Of course they do. Senator Macdonald supported the Liberal line ondaylight-saving. I would like the senator to realise that 84 per cent of the people in theBurdekin area, which is where he comes from, voted “No” on the issue of daylight-saving.Some 77 per cent of Townsville/Thuringowa voters also voted “No”. So Senator Macdonaldis not very good at selling north Queensland, but he is certainly very good at selling outnorth Queensland.

Rather than thinking this is a fantasy or a waste of money, the Townsville PortAuthority Chairman said that the $20m allocation would be directed towards threeessential components of the outer berth project—the completion of the breakwater toallow future reclamation of up to 100 hectares of port land, reclamation works and theconstruction of a rail loop. The new balloon loop will initially service berths two, three andfour and, when it is constructed, the outer berth. I would also like to point out that that$20m will represent the largest upgrading that has occurred in the Townsville port area forthe years that I can think of. The rail loop will be a primer for attracting future trades suchas the CRA Century project and other industry opportunities in the north Queenslandregion.

Time expired.


Mr SLACK (Burnett) (3.56 p.m.): There is no doubt that the member for Townsvilleis correct when he says that the issue of privatisation is on the agenda for futureconservative Governments, as our leader correctly said. However, I would say to thisHouse and to members of port authorities throughout the State that it is not something thatwould be entered into lightly.

Mr Hamill: Rubbish! Your leader has been promising it up and down the State.

Mr SLACK: Would the Minister care to listen to what I have to say? As I have said,it is not something that would be entered into lightly. It is something that has beenconsidered carefully and naturally will be discussed with the port people and the people inthe regions concerned. However, I would make the point that, at present, throughout thiscountry and throughout the rest of the world there is a move towards commercialisation,corporatisation—as the Minister is well aware—and privatisation. That has happened invarious ports in other States, in New Zealand and throughout the rest of the world in aneffort to improve efficiencies. The Minister’s Government is proposing thatcorporatisation, as opposed to privatisation, is the answer.

I have had discussions with the port authorities and with members of the communityin my particular areas—no doubt other members have done the same in their areas—and Ihave been told that if corporatisation is being considered, privatisation should also beconsidered, because it is only a short road from corporatisation to privatisation and theefficiencies that the Government talks about achieving cannot be achieved throughcorporatisation. The way in which corporatisation is constructed takes into account onlyrevenue and not efficiency. The Opposition talks about addressing the question ofprivatisation in an endeavour to get the utmost efficiencies within the system. If theMinister compares port systems overseas with those operating in this country, he willknow that the efficiencies to which he has referred are not being achieved. TheGovernment’s position on privatisation or on anything else is about as consistent as thePremier’s multifaceted position on daylight-saving. Five positions have already beenenunciated by him. We await position No. 6 on that issue. Frankly, his Government’srecord on privatisation is in the same confused vein.

The first thing we heard from this Government on privatisation was the wringing ofhands over privatised prisons, but Borallon is still operating, and I will wager that thatcontract will be renewed. Meanwhile, the Treasurer has been railing against privatisation,saying that it is the equivalent of selling off the family silver to pay the grocery bill. He hasdone this as part of his defence of the Government’s Claytons corporatisation plan towhich I referred. Meanwhile, the Corrective Services Minister privatised Wacol, and theTransport Minister has privatised baby capsules. The Government simply does notunderstand corporatisation any more than it understands privatisation.

Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is misleading theHouse. Privatisation means selling off, and there has been no selling-off of babycapsules.


Mr SLACK: The big problem is confusion over Budget imperatives versusideological compromise. I will refer to ports in a moment, but let us look generally at howthis Government is performing on the issue of improved performance from publicutilities—so-called Government-owned enterprises—because this is really the core of thecorporatisation/privatisation issue. Recently, Cabinet backed a White Paper oncorporatisation. It is riddled with shortcomings and about all it clearly shows is a hunger forrevenue. It contains more about revenue than it does about efficiency. The Governmentwants to charge Government-owned enterprises full State taxation up to and includingland tax, private company style dividends, and levies on Government loan guarantees. All


of this will go straight into consolidated revenue. Clearly, there are going to be majorimposts. To meet them without resorting to big increases in the cost of services totaxpayers, GOEs are going to have to improve their productivity—and improve it quitedramatically. By definition, if they do not improve their performance—and improve itsubstantially—the people will foot the bill for Keith De Lacy’s “take it or leave it” highercharges.

The only way in which Government trading enterprises can make major gains to theirproductivity is via labour market deregulation. That has been proved in New South Wales,whose Government has been most vigorously pursuing corporatisation since the NationalParty lost office in Queensland. Experience in New South Wales has shown beyond adoubt that labour deregulation is the key to major productivity gains. For instance, lastyear, the New South Wales Electricity Commission did a deal with its workers whichresulted in a reduction in the number of awards from 4 to 1, a reduction in the number ofpay points from 300 to 40, and a reduction in number of work classifications from 600 tojust 6. Within a few years, this sort of deal is going to lead to New South Wales challengingQueensland as the most efficient producer of non-hydro power in this country. Membershad better believe that. That development has flowed directly from the efforts of theprevious Queensland Government to transform the QEC, within five years, from thegenerating authority with the worst record in this nation to the best. That boost to NewSouth Wales will have major implications for this State as we head towards a nationalelectricity grid. The question is whether, under the De Lacy corporatisation model,Queensland will see similarly genuine efforts to boost productivity. The answer is that itwill not.

Mr Elder interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Manly will cease interjecting.

Mr SLACK: Queensland will see the very same half-hearted, half-baked approachto this issue that it has seen over the past eight years from the Federal LaborGovernment. We are going to see a cosy deal. We are also going to see Queenslandwallow in the very same lethargic productivity growth that has occurred across thiscountry because, in the White Paper, the Government promised public sector unionscontinuation of public sector standards of employment. Therefore, the Government isgoing to deny Queensland GOEs access to the only means of achieving substantialboosts in productivity. Of course, the results of this could be very dangerous. We aregoing to see GOEs hit with major increases in the contribution that they will have to makeout of their operating profits and, potentially, out of their ability to fund the future from verylimited increases in productivity.

The very economic position of this country today is testimony to the attitude of LaborGovernments to productivity. For instance, the Prime Minister’s One Nation package isbased on a prediction of 1.5 per cent annual growth rate in productivity. That is less thanhalf the rate of annual productivity growth in Japan and less than half the rate of annualproductivity gains in Europe. As a result, Queensland is going to continue to suffer frominadequate efforts towards achieving real productivity gains. The QueenslandGovernment’s attitude towards productivity improvements in GOEs is just another bird ofthe same feather. Given that, there is no surprise in the Government’s violent oppositionto the privatisation of ports, if not baby capsules and prisons. A Government that cannoteven come to grips with corporatisation is hardly going to be able to recognise the benefitsof privatisation—a very moderate attitude towards the privatisation of ports.

The inefficiency of Australia’s ports is one of the major factors holding back nationalincreases in productivity on a scale that can really help this nation get moving again. Theirinefficiency costs the nation over $1 billion a year in lost savings and $1.5 billion eachyear in GDP. The inefficiency of our ports is denying Australian workers a 3 per cent pay


rise and denying us 17 000 new jobs. The ports operate at 50 per cent of the efficiency ofthe European waterfront and 40 per cent of the efficiency of Asian waterfronts. Despitethese sorts of statistics, yesterday in this House, the Transport Minister positively puffedout his chest with pride when he was asked a Dorothy Dixer from the member for PortCurtis and he boasted—I repeat, he boasted—that the number of containers loaded percrane per hour at the port of Brisbane had now reached 17. The world average is 30. InAmerica’s major trading ports, the figure is 36. The Minister said that our 17 wascomparable with the efforts of other ports in our region, and he specifically included Asia.In Singapore and Hong Kong, the figure is 40.

The fact is that waterfront reform in this country is proceeding at less than a snail’space when compared with general labour market reform. In June 1989, when Ralph Willis,the then Transport and Communications Minister, announced a waterfront reformpackage, his target was a 30 per cent increase in efficiency and productivity over threeyears. When one compares that with best international practice, one finds that it wasreally quite a pathetic target. Privatisation of ports in the United Kingdom, for instance,has led to efficiency improvements of 130 per cent. New Zealand, which has corporatisedits ports on the way to privatisation, has achieved productivity increases of 100 per cent.In New South Wales, under the Greiner corporatisation/privatisation model, coal-loadersat Port Kembla and Newcastle were recently privatised. At Port Kembla, the result wasthat within 12 months the cost of loading fell by $1.23 per tonne, or 22 per cent. Similarincreases in productivity were achieved at Newcastle.

Time expired.

Mrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (4.06 p.m.): I believe that the secret is out now: not onlydoes the National Party intend to privatise our ports, it is also going to deregulate anddestroy unions. As members have seen, the Opposition is intent on taking Queensland onthat slippery slide run to privatisation. In particular, the Leader of the Opposition has givenhis commitment to sell off a vital and strategic part of our important chain to simplyachieve a very short-term injection of funds. Quite simply, as Mr De Lacy has said, theLeader of the Opposition is selling the family silver to pay for next week’s grocery bill. TheQueensland Government is strongly opposed to privatisation—an easy option that wouldsee major Queensland assets sold for as little as the proverbial 30 pieces of silver.Queensland’s ports are the most progressive in Australia. Since 1989, we have seen anaverage improvement in ship turn-round times by as much as 25 per cent, while our portsare handling containers at double the previous rates.

As the member for Whitsunday—and because I live in the Mackay region—I knowhow forward looking the Mackay Port Authority is and how important that authority is forthe regional, business and, especially, rural communities. I appreciate how progressivethe Mackay sea and air ports have been, particularly in the past three years. I know thatthe Opposition Leader, Mr Borbidge, would love to sell them off, particularly as a veryattractive package to interstate or overseas interests. The reaction over the past fewweeks has indicated how strongly the regional community of Mackay would resist such amove. The Mackay Port Authority is run by local people with local knowledge. I know thatthe board cares about local people, local businesses and local industries. It is committedto the Mackay region, and particularly to its development. Its commitment is shown in agreat many ways, but in the main it is a commitment to the community per se. A port andharbour for a peppercorn rent is the home of the Navy cadet SS Pioneer, the senior andjunior life saving organisations, the sailing clubs, the motor boat clubs and so on.

Mr Hamill: What do you reckon a private landlord might charge?

Mrs BIRD: Well, it would not be a peppercorn. It is a very valuable piece of realestate, that is for sure. The port authority harbour land proudly boasts that, with itsrecreational parks and barbecue areas, it is the focus of the region’s leisure. The total


area is maintained for the community by the harbour board and is used almost on a dailybasis. It hosts, at no public cost, goodwill visits by overseas passenger liners. Recently,a Russian liner visited the port. Its visit was promoted by the community and it encouragedincreased tourism in the area. We must think about those issues when we are talkingabout privatisation.

Dr Watson interjected.

Mrs BIRD: Prior to that, we had a visit by a French ship, so the honourable membercan please himself. The Leader of the Opposition has a poor understanding of theincreased efficiency of Queensland’s seaports and airports. In 1991, the total peoplemovement through the Mackay airport was 175 732. Already in 1991-92 we have seen an18 per cent increase on the corresponding figure for the same period last year. Aircraftmovements are up by 20 per cent for jet aircraft and 35 per cent for propeller-drivencommuter aircraft. Australian Airlines has given its commitment to the airport with therecent construction of the new air freight terminal. Moreover, recent work undertaken bythe authority means the airport has increased capacity. The airline has established itshead office for regional Queensland at the airport. Over the past year, the port has seenthe completion of close to $1m worth of capital works to improve wharf facilities. Becauseof climatic variations—drought, flood, drought—the region saw some of its worst sugarand grain harvests. Last year, the port experienced only a 10 per cent reduction in overallpost trade in the 1989-90 period, despite these crops being two of the port’s main tradingitems. This was a record year for the port. I believe that the skilful management of the portauthority, combined with its local expertise, has resulted in such a positive year. If theLeader of the Opposition had his way, we would see large port-users in Mackay dominateand control the use of all port facilities. Instead of the Government having strategiccontrol over port trade in the interest of all Queenslanders, those large companies—manyof whom may own those facilities—could treat other port-users with scant respect. I do nothave to tell the “slash and burn” privatisers across the room, including the “I willimmediately sell off 40 per cent of Suncorp” Leader of the Liberal Party, what this wouldmean for Queensland. They know, but they simply do not care. This Government doescare. Unseen white-shoe investors could restrict trade by potential competitors becausethey own a particular port. The Mackay seaport and airport are far too important for thelocal economy and the local region to be sold off to companies that have a profit marginframework from which to work and answer only to their overseas masters. The Oppositionis reading too many southern newspapers which reflect inefficiencies in southern ports. IfOpposition members would read some Queensland newspapers——

Mr Rowell: What does the Courier-Mail say?

Mrs BIRD: Try the Mackay Daily Mercury. It would tell the honourable member thatQueensland ports are efficient, competitive and strategically placed to trade our State intothe twenty-first century. The Opposition also believes it is okay to take profitable portsaway from Queensland taxpayers and give them to Queensland investors. Mr Borbidgesays that in places such as Mackay, local businesses and industries will have a bettersay in the future of the port because they can become share-holders in it. The asset valueof the Mackay air and seaports is over $50m—assets that belong to all Queenslanders.Does the Opposition, under its policy of privatisation, seriously expect the localcommunity to be able to pay to prevent any influence in the direction of the operations ofthat port? Opposition members are kidding themselves, and they are trying to kid the restof Queensland. Queensland needs its ports. Mackay needs its port and it needs to keepcontrol of it. Any short-sighted and ill-conceived plan to alter the status quo would wreakterrible long-term consequences on the ability of our State to trade effectively with ourinternational competitors. What is the Opposition on about? For two and a half years wehave been listening to the hollering of Mr Borbidge, just as we are today, about jobs for


kids. He hollers in this Chamber that the Labor Government has been inefficient atproviding jobs for young people. However, he wants to increase the costs of all our portsby 14 per cent, which would mean a loss of jobs. One does not have to be an professor ofeconomics to understand that.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: And his 15 per cent GST is going to lose jobs.

Mrs BIRD: Of course. The GST on top of that increase should not be forgotten. MrBorbidge has been grandstanding about the lack of foreign investment. He even made aquip this morning about Daydream Island. He is presently saying publicly that he willlegislate against foreign investment in ports. Who will invest in them? By his ownadmission, we simply do not have the investors in Queensland or Australia to invest thesort of money that those ports will require. Restrictions on overseas trade will be lifted.What will we do then, and where will these investors come from? Privatisation forprivatisation’s sake is just simply not on. It is merely a proposal put forward by the Leaderof the Opposition in order to rub elbows with the rich and wealthy and promote the NationalParty among those people who are prepared to help it win the next election. ThisGovernment will not allow privatisation to occur, nor will the people of my electorate.

Dr WATSON (Moggill—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (4.15 p.m.): I reallycannot believe that the Government has had the temerity to bring this issue forward fordebate in this House. It goes to show how bereft of good news the Government must be ifit thinks its performance in the ports of Queensland is something to boast about. There arethree problems with the Government’s proposals. I will enumerate them and then go intothem in detail. The first thing that is wrong with the proposal is that the Government hasforgotten that the Labor Party and its union mates are primarily responsible for the messthat Australia’s ports are in. I will address that matter in a moment. The second problem isthat the Government simply does not understand what is required to make Australia andQueensland competitive in an international sense. The third problem is that theGovernment does not understand what privatisation is all about and how it might aidQueensland and Australia to become internationally competitive.

I will now look at waterfront history and talk about the Labor Party’s relationship withthe union movement. I will highlight exactly what benefits waterside workers have enjoyedat the expense of Australian taxpayers and consumers over the years. In 1852, watersideworkers were the highest paid employees in Australia, and today that is still the case.Back in 1852, waterside workers were given an eight-hour day in the form of two four-hourshifts and in more recent times have enjoyed even shorter hours. Australia still has thehighest paid stevedores in the world. A recent article in the Sunday Mail illustratesprecisely what these workers are being paid. It states—

“Waterside workers at the centre of a major confrontation in Australia are beingpaid up to $100,000 a year for working an average 27-hour week and are even paid afull wage for staying at home.

A wharfie is given free clothes, sunglasses and carry bags and can cash in hisunused sick leave for his entire working life at retirement.

. . .

Average annual earnings for wharfies vary from $45,000 for 23 actual hours aweek to $100,000 for supervisors who work an average of 27 hours.”

Mr Welford: Good for them.

Dr WATSON: Well, it may be “good for them”, but we are the ones who are payingfor it. However, that is not good enough for them. Waterside workers are now being givenincentive packages in order to get a reform process under way. They are working onbonuses and are being given incentive packages to retire. At the moment Australia pays


world record waterfront redundancy packages in return for some very meagre gains.These packages average $100,000 per wharfie in addition to their regular retirementbenefits. Wharfie redundancies are costing Australia $340m, which is an enormousamount. This figure is being picked up fifty-fifty by taxpayers and the users of thewaterfront. We have yet to see any real benefit. Rolls Royce redundancy packages arebeing given to those workers leaving the industry and enormous bonuses are being paid tothose who remain for doing precisely what most Australians would have thought they werebeing paid to do to begin with.

I turn now to talk about what waterside workers have done for the waterfront industryin Australia over the years, and I will refer to the nick-off system. Under the infamous nick-off system, two men are rostered to do the same job and they take it in turns to nick offwhile on full pay. That is the kind of system that Government members helped put in place.It has been claimed that until recently rosters for such systems were blatantly displayedto the public.

Mr Welford: I can’t believe that.

Dr WATSON: The honourable member should go down to the waterfront or talk toRon McLean at some stage.

Mr Dunworth: What about the dim sim allowance?

Dr WATSON: There was the dim sim allowance, but I do not think that had anythingto do with the waterside workers. In addition, there was the ACTU-inspired campaign calledthe ship repair campaign. This ACTU-sponsored ship repair campaign was designed tocapture repair work for Australian unions. During this campaign a union representativewould board a ship while it was in port, produce a list of repairs to be done and hand theship’s master a note threatening that the vessel would not be allowed to sail until the workwas completed to the satisfaction of the union official. A typical cost to the ship-ownerwas $30,000 or $50,000, plus port charges and all the other costs of delaying that sort ofship. The Australian Chamber of Shipping described the campaign as industrial extortion,and that is exactly what it was. The shipping industry said that the campaign resulted in$5m being spent on repairs in 18 months, and much of that work was purely cosmetic. Forexample, work such as repairing a clothes line or repainting the mess would hold up a shipand prevent it from leaving port. This work had nothing to do with the ship’s seaworthinessor its efficiency. The scope of the ship repair campaign and the enormous costs foistedupon the shipping industry can be gauged by the fact that in one year in Sydney andBotany Bay 113 ships were boarded by union officials and 103 of them were subject tothese trivial kinds of repair jobs.

The Labor Party and this Government do not understand what it takes to makeQueensland and Australia competitive. The Minister wants to compare Queensland portswith those in Sydney and Melbourne. That is simply not good enough. It is a bit likecomparing a Boeing 707’s capacity with a DC3 when the rest of the world is flying Boeing747s. The honourable member for Bowen should know something about that. That is thekind of comparison that the Government is making. It is irrelevant. The Government mustlook at what Queensland is doing on an internationally competitive basis. Last year, theeleventh edition of the world competitors report was issued and Australia rankednineteenth in terms of efficiency out of 23 industrial countries.

A Government member: Getting better.

Dr WATSON: Yes, Australia is getting better. Do honourable members know whichcountries Australia is beating? Australia is beating Italy, Hungary and two land-lockedcountries, Switzerland and Austria. What a fantastic performance! This Governmentwants to compare Australia with those countries. Yesterday the Minister said, “Aren’t we


fantastic? We have increased the number of containers being moved by cranes per hourfrom 12 to 17.”

In the United States, the figure is in the thirties, and the shadow Treasurer, themember for Burnett, referred to the ports in the Asian area whose figures are well into thethirties and forties. In Singapore and Hong Kong cranes handle approximately 36containers per hour. It is also interesting to note a comment made recently by DavidCharlesworth, the Australian trade manager for P and O, who said that the facilities inHong Kong are so good that P and O can deliver goods on a name-the-day basis; yet inAustralia, people are flat out getting a name-the-week or a name-the-month basis, letalone name-the-day. The standards applied in Singapore and Hong Kong are those towhich Australia should aspire in order to become competitive, but the problem is thatAustralian stevedoring costs are almost double those of Japan, Europe and NorthAmerica.

In spite of low prices, Australian farmers would be much better off if they couldtransport their products through the ports in a more efficient and more cost-effective way.They might even be able to survive the record high interest rates of the Federal Labormates of the Minister for Transport. International comparisons are the yardstick thatshould be applied. Waterfront costs represent 75 per cent of the costs of shipping goodsacross Bass Strait and, according to some figures, it can cost almost as much to loadcargo in Australia as it costs to ship cargo all the way to Europe. It must be rememberedwhen comparing Australia’s waterfront performance with that of other nations thatAustralia is a distant trading nation, and is therefore very dependent upon water transportto carry exports to its markets. Australia’s water transport performance must therefore benot just good, but the world’s best. Any standard which is not among the world’s best orbetter means that Australia is trading at a competitive disadvantage, not at an advantage.

Recently, the Chairman of Fletcher Challenge in New Zealand spoke about reform inNew Zealand and cited the costs of transport in newsprint via the waterfront. The costs inNew Zealand have dropped from $12 a tonne to $4 a tonne, which is a very good exampleof waterfront reform. In Australia, waterfront transportation costs are not $12 a tonne or $4a tonne, but $24 a tonne, which is a level of performance that gets this country absolutelynowhere.

Mr Dunworth: And the Minister defends that.

Dr WATSON: That is right. The whole point is that the Minister does not understandprivatisation. At least Simon Crean was truthful enough to say recently that he recognisedNewcastle had the most efficient coal-loading facility in the world. This was achieved notunder corporatisation or Government ownership, but under privatisation. Coal-loadingcosts were reduced by 22 per cent, which is an example of the standard of performancethat Australia needs.

Time expired.

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting thePremier on Economic and Trade Development) (4.25 p.m.): When listening to the DeputyLeader of the Liberal Party, it felt good to be reassured that some things in Australiasimply do not change. The honourable member referred to 1852, which was a period whenthe tories hated the workers, and in 1992, it is quite clear from the words uttered by thehonourable member that the tories still hate the workers. Nothing ever changes, andnothing better demonstrates the class hatred honoured by the honourable member thanthe Fightback package which is subscribed to by honourable members opposite.

Mr Johnson interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gregory!


Mr HAMILL: Such is the hatred of members of the Liberal Party and the NationalParty for the ordinary working people of Australia that the Fightback package supportedby them will leave 70 per cent of families in Australia worse off. The honourable member forMoggill has shown his true colours by the bile, spleen and hatred that he hasdemonstrated today for the working people of Australia. I assure the House that theQueensland Labor Government understands only too well what privatisation is all about.Privatisation is simply a procedure for flogging off the assets of the people of Queensland,and this is what has been countenanced by honourable members opposite. It amounts to afire sale of assets, and this is the source of all the funds that have been promised with gayabandon by members of the opposition parties in the lead-up to this year’s election. Howmany times will they have to sell off Suncorp to pay for land tax concessions? How manytimes will they flog off the ports to pay for a grab-bag of policies?

When the present Opposition formed the Government, the Gateway Bridge wasopened five times, but the opposition parties will not be able to sell it off five times to fundtheir irresponsible promises. This Government understands only too well whatprivatisation is all about and, as I said earlier, it is all about a fire sale of assets. It is ofgrave concern to this Government that vital assets that serve the needs of people wholive in the electorate of the member for Gregory, for example, will be sold off. It is a matterof concern that members of the opposition parties would come into this Parliament andsuggest that those assets should be sold. Queensland’s ports are a vital part of thisState’s transportation network. They are Queensland’s gateways to the world, yethonourable members opposite wish to sell them and take them outside the strategiccontrol of Government, thereby transferring the profits from the sale of those veryvaluable assets to private hands. When this Government was elected, it undertook a wide-ranging review of Queensland’s ports system. This Government saw that as an importantrole which it could play in introducing important waterfront reform to this State, and it hassucceeded in generating greater efficiency. Certainly, more remains to be done, but theefficiencies that have been generated show in the growth of transportation traffic throughQueensland’s ports. Mr Speaker, collectively, Queensland’s ports are worth $800m, andthose assets are owned by you and me and every other Queenslander, which is the way itshould be. Between them, those ports handle 110 million tonnes of cargo and commoditiesa year. They are vital to Queensland’s economic development and also for regionaldevelopment. Yesterday in the House, I mentioned the significant growth rate recorded forthe port of Brisbane, which is represented by a 26.5 per cent increase in container-handling traffic over the last two years. Container-handling productivity in the port ofBrisbane has increased by 40 per cent in the last two years, and there has been continualsteady growth. Moreover, year after year, port charges have declined. In addition, theClinton coal facility in Gladstone, which is a publicly owned facility, is one of the mostefficient coal-loading facilities in the world. So much for the contention of members of theLiberal Party and the National Party who seem to claim that because assets are owned bythe people of this State, ipso facto they are inefficient! That is not so. Our ports and ourcoal-handling facilities are among the world’s most efficient and they will remain in thehands of the people of Queensland.

In the case of the Cairns Port Authority and the development of the CairnsAirport—here we have an example of the local input into control of the destiny of thatauthority generating enormous benefits not only for the Cairns region but also forQueensland as a whole. That local input has been critical to that development. Even theLeader of the Opposition himself was moved to comment on Cairns. He said, “The CairnsPort Authority is an efficient organisation with a good record, despite being a semi-government authority.” I am sure that those words stuck in his throat—“despite being asemi-Government authority”. But it does not matter. Although the port is efficient andalthough it is good, the Opposition will still sell it off. Obviously, the Opposition is more


interested in the price that it can fetch rather than the good which the authority can do forthe region.

Mr Dunworth: What about the Commonwealth Bank?

Mr HAMILL: Our ports are in a very different situation indeed from theCommonwealth Bank. Our ports have a natural monopoly. Consequently, when thosemonopolies are passed into private hands, some very serious questions arise regardingpublic administration and the public interest that must be addressed. When we hear thosecalls for privatisation, we understand that it is all about trying to find some way in which theOpposition can fund the extravagant promises that it is making in its election campaign.However, in relation to the privatisation issue, the Leader of the Opposition let the cat outof the bag when he said that he would soon hold talks with senior coalitionmembers—presumably in Canberra—to bring the Queensland National Party into line withthe key element of the Federal coalition’s Fightback package. Let us apply the Fightbackpackage to the port authority. What do we see? The key element of the Fightback packageis a 15 per cent goods and services tax—a tax on living, a tax on activity, a tax on theeconomy. What the Opposition is saying to each and every port-user is that it will slap a 15per cent surcharge on the cost of using ports. It will jack up the costs to port-users—toour exporters and to our importers. Of course, that will add to the cost of living of each andevery Australian. As I said, our ports are our vital windows to the world, and the Oppositionwants to tax that activity.

What about the effects of privatisation? The effect that concerns me the most is thequestion of control. In consumer affairs, we used to hear the old slogan, “Let the buyerbeware.” I suggest that, with respect to the privatisation of our ports, let us beware of thebuyers. Who are those people who will come with a sackful of dough to buy up the $800mworth of public assets in our State? Who are they? Let us see them. Let us see the sort ofinterest that they will have which is consistent with our State’s interest and our nationalinterest. The Opposition cannot guarantee that there will be local ownership of those veryvaluable facilities—to the contrary. We will see a classic example of some of the corporateraiding that went on in the 1980s when major entrepreneurs would come in, buy up anasset, then turn around and strip off the asset to try to fund the costs of their acquisition.So, instead of having port authorities controlling strategic lands for the futuredevelopment of those ports to service the economic development in our mining industryand our pastoral industry west of the Great Dividing Range, the private port authoritieswould be asset-stripping, selling off the prime waterfront land and probably putting inmarinas and high-rise buildings. It would be a short-term buck-making exercise quitecontrary to the need in this State for strategic direction.

Where is the public interest? Where is the public benefit in flogging off those vitalpublic assets? Where is the concern, for example, in not allowing monopoly control offacilities that would allow one company or one interest to control the port in its interestsand not in the public interest? Under the Government, our ports will be managed for thebenefit of the whole State. They will be there to serve the economic and regionaldevelopment of Queensland. The ports will be operated efficiently and will provide a goodreturn to their owners, the taxpayers of Queensland. That is the way it should be. Weshould not be in the business of conducting a fire sale of those vital public assets. TheLeader of the Opposition claimed that he would not allow foreign ownership of our ports,that he would ensure that the ports remained in Queensland ownership. He cannotguarantee that but, then again, he ought not to have to guarantee it. After all, if we want tomaintain Queensland ports in Queensland ownership, we have to do nothing other thanwhat we are doing now. The ports are owned by the people of Queensland and they oughtto remain in the ownership of the people of Queensland collectively.


Mr JOHNSON (Gregory) (4.36 p.m.): Let us get one thing straight this afternoon.Government members say that members of the Opposition hate the workers. Governmentmembers are the mob who hate the workers. Look what they have done. We have 10.5 percent unemployment in this State and the Government drives the workers to the wall.Government members had better wake up to themselves because this year the workerswill remind them.

I heard what the Minister for Transport said about the issue that we are discussing,but he had quite a bit of it wrong. The shadow Treasurer has already highlighted someaspects of the Government’s schizophrenia about privatisation, but I would like to add onemore example. The Minister knows that it is the Boyne Island smelter project. On the onehand, the Treasurer criticises privatisation because he reckons that it is selling the familysilver and, on the other hand, the Government is allegedly—and I mean allegedly—readyto sell the Gladstone Power Station. The contradiction between a willingness to privatise apower station and a total unwillingness to privatise ports is ridiculous. How can theGovernment claim to be in favour of one and not the other? It does not add up, exceptpolitically—and that is what the Minister is all about. It is a classic Goss Government twobob each way bet that is highlighted by just who is the company to whom the Governmentis willing to sell the family silver.

In its corporatisation Green Paper, the Government wants corporatised Governmenttrading enterprises to buy their assets from the Government. The Government wants toown the corporatised bodies, and it wants those bodies to sell to the Government propertythat it already owns and will continue to control under corporatisation. If that does notreveal corporatisation as a revenue-grab, I do not know what does. If the Government’scorporatisation plans are Claytons plans, as the shadow Treasurer has also pointed out,then the buy-back plan is Claytons privatisation. The Government is selling the silverwhen it is not selling the silver, except insofar as it enables the Government to buy thegroceries and send the bill back to the taxpayers. That is what is happening here. The factis that the Government’s opposition to the privatisation of ports is really a reflection of itsinability to address the urgency of the need for major productivity gains in this country.That is the issue that we are trying to address. We are an exporting nation, and that iswhat the Government is forgetting.

Mr Hamill: Are you going to sell the railways, too?

Mr JOHNSON: I will talk about that later, if the Minister wishes. I am not attackingport authorities in this State as they are currently constituted. They are doing the bestthey can with the resources at their disposal, and they are making some gains; there is nodoubt about that. Handling 17 containers an hour at the port of Brisbane is a bigimprovement on the nine an hour that was the case a few years ago, before the NationalParty Government started really getting down to tintacks on the wharves. This, however,is still pathetic by international standards, and the Government is still not biting the bullet.It is not fair dinkum about this issue. One of the first things the Government did after theelection was to start dismantling the forms. My favourite is the little timber rort. Timbermerchants who needed to get timber off the docks for their customers, who were chieflyhome-builders, could not pick up their goods directly from the dock. That work had to bedone by waterside workers. Sometimes they would be flown in from around the country andthey would be put up in hotels and motels and then flown back to Newcastle, Melbourne, orwherever they came from—just to load a few trucks. The team that did this work even hada man whose job it was to lever a length of timber out of the way so a fork lift could do itsjob.

Mr Smyth interjected.

Mr JOHNSON: This is true, and the honourable member knows it. The interestingthing was that this bloke was not needed because years ago timber merchants in the


country of origin had woken up to the fact that, if they had loaded their timber in a way forklifts could get at it, they could save a bit of labour on the side. That is not the situation weare talking about here. That bloke is still on the gang, walking around with a rusty jemmy.The Minister knows that as well as I do. Before the last election, Russell Cooper talked thestevedoring companies into taking on this particular work practice in the courts. As aresult, the waterside workers came to the party and timber merchants were able to gettheir own timber on the docks at a cost saving of 75 per cent. Within one week of Laborwinning Government, that was reversed.

Mr FitzGerald: Shame on them!

Mr JOHNSON: Shame, all right. Timber unloading went back to square one.Privatisation is now on the agenda with the Opposition because of that sort of story. Theshadow Treasurer has highlighted some of the figures which show how costly the currentsystem is to port-users and how poorly we are performing with international best practice.The Government is playing into the hands of people who favour privatisation because it isnot prepared to put in the effort that would generate real gains in productivity under itsGovernment’s own model. The Minister does not want to accept it and never will.

In common with the Federal Government, this Government is under the thumb oforganised labour. The Government stands over labour union cronies and uses thugmerchants and is driving this country to the wall. The Government never moves fasterthan the unions agree to move, and that is at a snail’s pace. I will give a few more figureson the Port Kembla coal-loading privatisation. The shadow Treasurer referred to a 22 percent cut in costs. Throughput went from 9.73 million tonnes in 1989-90 to 13.03 milliontonnes in 1990-91, which is a 34 per cent increase in a year. The Government’scorporatisation will not deliver a fraction of that. Increase in throughput per man went from25 602 tonnes to 56 673 tonnes—an increase of 121 per cent. The Government’scorporatisation will not match that, either. This country has to stop living in a fool’sparadise. While the Government maintains its present attitude, this country will keep goingdown the gurgler. That is the way the Government’s mates in Canberra have sent us, andthe Queensland Government is fast on the road to doing that.

If we cannot dramatically reduce the cost of exporting from this State, we may aswell pack up and go home because this State relies on exports—exports of coal and allforms of primary produce. This is the issue that keeps us going in this nation, and themembers in this Chamber who represent metropolitan electorates should realise that, too.Our foreign producers are having a hard enough time competing on foreign marketsagainst dumping from the European Community and America’s export enhancementprogram. GATT has fallen apart in Europe, and it did not get to finish before the UnitedStates election campaign started and the relief from that direction is a long way off. Thesimple fact is that we are on our own. This country must remember to look after No. 1, andthat is what this Government is not doing. One of the very few ways open to us tosignificantly reduce our costs and boost our competitiveness is to get our ports workingproperly. Again, if the Government cannot make its corporatisation model work, it isinviting privatisation by default.

The Port Kembla experience is an indication of how awesome that challenge is forcorporatisation, and so are the statistics starting to emerge from New Zealand, wherecorporatised ports are currently out of control of local authorities and on their way to beingprivatised. The cost of moving newsprint across New Zealand’s corporatised wharves is$4 per tonne. The cost in Australia is $22 per tonne. Since October 1989, conventionalstevedoring charges in New Zealand have come down by between 20 per cent and 25 percent. The Government cannot match that. Some commodity boards have recordedstevedoring savings of 50 per cent, and the Government will not be able to match that,either. It has been estimated that cuts in stevedoring charges have saved every dairy


farmer in New Zealand $3,500 a year. One shipping company in New Zealand has reportedcargo cost reductions of 39 per cent at Auckland and 66 per cent at Nelson. TheGovernment cannot match that.

Nick Finney, the architect of the successful port reform program in the UnitedKingdom, came to Australia last year and compared progress on the waterfront reform inthe two countries. He said the real test of waterfront reform is whether prices to theshipper, and ultimately the consumer, fall through a combination of increased competition,removal of restrictive work practice and improved efficiency. He then said—

“Ask any shipper in Australia for his opinion on these success criteria and hewill give you the thumbs down to the waterfront reform process in Australia.”

What the Government is offering is no significant advance on that package and it is goingto be satisfied, as it indicated by its wider plans for corporatisation, with very modestgains in productivity. I repeat that its half-hearted efforts are playing into the hands ofpeople who see privatisation as the only way to deliver the goods. Labor Governments inthis country cannot see what the unions are doing to the country through work practices.Waterfront reforms such as those about which Government members’ Federalcounterparts are talking—they have not acted on them because they are too frightened tostand up to the people who put them in power—are driving the welfare of Australia downthe sewer. Government members know that that is happening. I have worked with unionpeople all my life. I have worked in the field and around shearers. I understand what theyare all about, but Government members do not. They should get it right.

Time expired.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for the debate has now expired.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr VEIVERS (Southport) (4.46 p.m.), by leave: Earlier today in the House I tableda statutory declaration detailing information provided by a member of the staff of LindsayPark Stud in South Australia. An error in that information has been brought to my attention.I wish to point out that I am not in the habit of providing the House with information that isnot correct. I made every attempt to verify the information originally provided and I assurethe House that that is the way I always work. I provided the information in good faith. Iapologise to the House and I apologise to the Minister concerned.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 November 1991 (see p. 3184).

Mr LINGARD (Fassifern) (4.47 p.m.): As outlined by the Premier during hisintroduction of this legislation on 26 November 1991, this Bill is of a technical nature only.The Opposition recognises that its purpose is to validate additional salary payments thathave already been made, following the dissolution of the previous Parliament, to thefollowing office-bearers: the Speaker, the Chairman of Committees, the Leader of theOpposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, other recognised party leaders and theparty Whips.

When the Parliamentary Members’ Salaries Act No. 32 of 1988 was passed in April1988, it repealed certain sections of the Constitution Act Amendment Act of 1896. Inparticular, it repealed section 3 (1), which provided for the continuation of payment, afterthe Parliament’s dissolution, of additional salaries to the office-bearers mentioned. As a


consequence, however, after the dissolution of Parliament on 2 November 1989, theoffice-holders were effectively disfranchised from receiving the additional salaries, whichwere still paid. The Opposition appreciates that this is a machinery Bill aimed atovercoming what appears to be an inadvertent effect of the 1988 legislation. It is obviousthat this situation needs to be corrected both for the present and for the future. The Billsets out clearly the period for which members of the Legislative Assembly are entitled totheir salary as well as the entitlements of those members which are additional to salary.The Opposition supports the Bill.

Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (4.49 p.m.): This year marks the ninety-sixth anniversary of amodest piece of legislation which passed through this Chamber, namely, the ConstitutionAct Amendment Act of 1896. Unfortunately, the Forty-fifth Parliament made an error withregard to the importance of that modest piece of nineteenth century legislation. ThisParliament, the Forty-sixth Parliament, is here today to correct the error of ourpredecessors. I am pleased to be in a position to be addressing this correction, which is ofa technical nature, although I really cannot pass the moment without noting how frequentlythis Forty-sixth Parliament must correct errors far more grave that were visited upon thepeople of Queensland by the Forty-fifth Parliament, choked as it was by the spirit ofrepression which characterised that Government.

The relevant piece of legislation in respect of which the previous Parliament fell intoerror was Act No. 32 of 1988, namely, the Parliamentary Members’ Salaries Act. It musthave been a bad day for subsection (1) of section 3, because that subsection of theParliamentary Members’ Salaries Act had the effect of repealing or amending those Actswhich were specified in the table below section 3 of the Parliamentary Members’ SalariesAct of 1988. When one turns to the table, one finds that section 3 (1) of the ConstitutionAct Amendment Act of 1896 was amended and that effectively that subsection went intothe dustbin of history, only to be revived by the kindnesses of this Forty-sixthParliament—a moment of modest law reform, perhaps, but one in which we new-comingmembers to this Parliament are happy to assist in respect of the error into which ourpredecessors fell—for section 3 (1) of the Constitution Act Amendment Act of 1896 dealtwith the issue of salaries of certain officials in Parliament. It made provision for thepayment of salaries to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the Chairman ofCommittees of the Legislative Assembly, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leaderof the Opposition, the leader in the Legislative Assembly of a recognised political party ofnot less than 10 members, and the Government and Opposition Whips. It is interesting tocontrast that modest provision of 1896 with the rather more developed provisions of thoseparliamentary officers who are entitled to receive additional salary pursuant to theprovisions of section 9 of the Parliamentary Members’ Salaries Act of 1988. One shouldreally note in passing that sometimes those wont to sentiment about the Westminstertradition are inclined to speak of the golden age of Victorian tradition in Westminster, whenthe Parliament was thought by some scholars to have flourished at its height.

By contrast, however, we note that in modern times this Parliament has made fargreater provision for the appointment of parliamentary officers. This is reflected in thescheme of the 1988 Act and the provisions pursuant to section 9 of that Act that enabledpayment to be made to, in addition to those persons identified in the nineteenth century,the chairperson and other members of the Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts,the chairperson and other members of the Parliamentary Committee of Public Works, eachmember of the Parliamentary Service Commission who is not a Minister of the Crown, thechairperson of the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review andto members thereof—I note, in passing, a most wise and learned provision, if I mightdisclose an interest therein—and also to the chairperson of the Parliamentary CriminalJustice Committee and to each member other than the chairperson of that ParliamentaryCriminal Justice Committee.


It sometimes occurs that great debates grow out of modest beginnings, and thismodest amendment to the Constitution Act enables this House to reflect upon thedevelopment of its provisions for parliamentary members’ salaries, and perhaps moreimportantly, the development of its provisions in respect of its role and relationship withthe Executive. Far from it being the case that one can look back on the Victorian goldenage of parliamentary democracy in Queensland, one sees that it is only in modern timesthat this Parliament has made provision for establishing ways and means whereby theelected representatives of the people, in their legislative capacity, might exerciseeffective scrutiny over the Executive. I make bold to claim that we here in Queensland arein a position, through the provisions set out in section 9 pursuant to the 1988 Act, to havethe apparatus for taking steps to render the Executive accountable, that is to say,provision for a Public Accounts Committee, a Public Works Committee, a ParliamentaryService Commission, the Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and AdministrativeReview and the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee.

Why should it be so? It is so because the Constitution of this State provedinsufficient to guard against the great mischiefs which were visited upon the people ofQueensland by the Bjelke-Petersen Government and all who sailed in it. The great tragedyof the generation who grew up under that regime was one which was truly constitutional inits nature. The people of Queensland suffered under a regime where the power of theExecutive, the power of the Government of the day, was ineffectively checked or, somemight say, not checked at all by the exercise of review and moderation by the organs ofthe Parliament. It may be that some members from the other side of the Chamber mayreflect that that occurred as a result of the abolition of the Upper House, but I respectfullydemur to any such proposition. The Upper House was abolished so that there might be anavoidance of either the futile frustration or the futile duplication of the work of the LowerHouse. But in its stead we are now seeing the emergence of a vigorous parliamentarycommittee system.

The amendment that is before the House is a modest reflection of the importancewhich this Parliament attaches to the work of that parliamentary committee system, for inmaking express provision for payment from the public purse to members of parliamentarycommittees, pursuant to the provisions of section 9 of the Parliamentary Members’Salaries Act of 1988, this Parliament is indicating the great public importance which isattached to ensuring that we have a constitutional framework which will provide for norepetition of those gross excesses and gross abuses that are synonymous with theBjelke-Petersen era. It is the extraordinary inability of that Premier and his successor, thecurrent member for Roma, to understand the doctrine of the separation of powers thatmade these reforms so necessary. On this occasion, they come before the House in anamendment to the Constitution Act. The Constitution of Queensland is a document littleunderstood by schoolchildren and adult citizens alike.

Mr Wells: That’s disgraceful, isn’t it. It’s a shame that they aren’t.

Mr FOLEY: I thank the Honourable the Attorney-General for that interjection. It isindeed absolutely disgraceful that we in this State have permitted generations to havebeen educated without the most basic understanding of the constitutional framework. Bycontrast, schoolchildren do have some understanding of the Australian CommonwealthConstitution. One looks in astonishment at the ignorance which surrounds theConstitution Act. This occurred not as an accident but as a result of the policies ofeducational repression which were a feature of the previous regime. If one wants torepress a people, if one wants to maintain a corrupt and authoritarian regime, one cannotallow the people to know of constitutions. One cannot allow them to know of their rights,for to know of one’s rights is to stir a fierce love of one’s rights. For too long, that stirringhas been put down by the educational system that characterised the previous regime. It


is, frankly, extraordinary that most people are unaware that the Constitution Act ofQueensland can be amended by simple passage of an Act of this Parliament. Most peoplestill think that it is necessary to have a referendum in order to change the Constitution ofQueensland Act.

Mr Perrett: You took no notice of the referendum when you abolished the UpperHouse.

Mr FOLEY: When we abolished Government House?

Mr Perrett: The Upper House.

Mr FOLEY: I thank the honourable member. I see that my speech on theConstitution has assisted the honourable member to draw the distinction between theUpper House and Government House. I congratulate the honourable member—as the solerepresentative of the National Party in the Chamber at the moment—for his insight into thedistinction between a House of Parliament and a House of Government. It is, indeed, acharacteristic upon which all new leaders of the National Party will no doubt be tested. Iwish the honourable member every success in any aspirations that he might have in——

Mr Fenlon: That abolition of the Upper House was done in conformity with the StateConstitution at the time, was it not?

Mr FOLEY: Yes. I thank the honourable member for Greenslopes, whoseknowledge and interest in constitutional matters is well known and well respected. Indeed,I am told that the good citizens of Greenslopes speak of little else. The honourablemember quite correctly notes that that great achievement of the Australian Labor Party tohave abolished the Upper House in this State was done in accordance with the provisionsof the Constitution. To give credit where it is due, the honourable member for Barambahhas had that spark from heaven illuminating the National Party to draw the distinctionbetween the Legislature and the Executive. I earnestly hope that that spark from heavenwill flourish in the mind of the honourable member and will assist in leading——

Mr Fenlon: Filling an empty space.

Mr FOLEY: I refrain from concurring with that observation. I merely wish thehonourable member well in sharing his enlightenment with his colleagues.

The Bill before the House makes provision for the amendment of the Constitution. Itis indeed an interesting constitutional experiment in which this House has been engaged inrecent years. These parliamentary committees are not simply the exercise by theLegislature in being a watchdog over the Executive. Far from it! They have in some of theirprovisions novel arrangements which are unparalleled in other common law jurisdictionsand Westminster Parliaments throughout the world. I note, for example, the provisions ofthe Electoral and Administrative Review Act and the Criminal Justice Act which confer ontheir respective parliamentary committees a role in approving the appointment of membersof the respective commissions—the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission andthe Criminal Justice Commission. This is not a mere watchdog role; it is a role which givesto the committees of this Parliament a statutory power in the appointment process. Onenotes that that process is in train in recent times in respect of the appointment of two part-time commissioners of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission. I note inpassing that the two-year appointment of that very fine commissioner, Mrs Marie WatsonBlake, has recently come to an end. I am sure that I am joined by all members of the Housein paying tribute to the very fine work that she did as a member of the Electoral andAdministrative Review Commission. I have no doubt that the Parliament and the people ofQueensland are deeply indebted to her and to her colleagues for their very fine work inhelping to restore public confidence in the institutions of democracy at a time when thoseinstitutions and public confidence in them were seriously imperilled.


The function of these parliamentary committees for which provision is made forpayment of members pursuant to section 9 of the 1988 Act—these parliamentarycommittees are part of an important development in the constitutional framework ofQueensland, one which should not go unnoted for what is being achieved and protectedhere—is not a mere replication of tired constitutional models elsewhere; it is steeped intradition and love of the democracy of Westminster. The great dangers which imperilledour democracy have prompted us to seek novel solutions. Those proposed byCommissioner Fitzgerald in his report in the form of those parliamentary committees havebeen incorporated. Relative provisions have been made for payment of the memberspursuant to the provisions of the 1988 Act.

Time expired.

Mrs SHELDON (Landsborough—Leader of the Liberal Party) (5.08 p.m.): Thepurpose of this amendment is to provide retrospectivity to the date of enactment of anearlier amendment to the Parliamentary Members’ Salary Act 1988, which inadvertentlyinvalidated the payment of additional salaries to parliamentary office-holders on thedissolution of Parliament. It is necessary that payments already made to such membersnow be validated. The Liberal Party supports the Bill.

Mr BARBER (Cooroora) (5.09 p.m.): Good Governments require good Oppositions.Concomitant with that is that a good Opposition needs to be given adequate resources tocarry out its job. I am reliably informed that in 1989 the Queensland Opposition occupied apokey office in Margaret Street that was entirely inadequate to enable it to do its job. TheOpposition was provided with very few secretaries, and those that it had evidently sat withtheir computer keyboards on their knees because of the lack of office space and furnitureprovided by Joh Bjelke-Petersen. This Bill raises the question, “Do opposition partyleaders deserve to be funded outside of parliamentary sittings?” I think that the answer isa resounding “Yes”. If the Queensland Government is to provide the quality and value formoney which the public deserves, the opposition party leaders must be given theresources so they can travel around the State. They need to travel around the State tomeet people, talk to interest groups, give press conferences, attend the site of naturaldisasters, carry out on-site inspections and put together feasible alternative policies forthe State in order to keep Government members honest. This Bill ensures inter alia thatthe National Party Leader and the Liberal Party Leader will be paid to do their importantjobs. One of the office-holders referred to in this Bill who also has to be adequately fundedto carry out his job is the Speaker of the House. He has the important task of ensuring thesmooth running of the House and its committees. Since 1969 in the Federal sphere therehas been a steady movement towards and the growth of a parliamentary committeesystem. The Country Party/Liberal Party Governments of the sixties discouraged thetrend of——

Mr Smyth: Don’t you think we should have a time and motion study on the LiberalLeader before we allow this Bill to go through?

Mr BARBER: I acknowledge the interjection. I did want to be charitable to theopposition party leaders by giving them the benefit of the doubt and accepting that they doin fact intend to earn these fees. Previous National and National/Liberal PartyGovernments have discouraged the trend towards committee systems on the ground thatit undermined ministerial responsibility and party discipline on the floor of the House. Thisview is presented in Emy’s Politics of Australian Democracy at page 407, where SenatorGreenwood was quoted as saying—

“A committee system is essentially inquisitorial; it probes, it seeks information,and that is not the pattern of our legislative activity.”


That quote evinced an attitude that parliamentarians were elected to legislate, not to probeand to inquire. During the late sixties and early seventies pressure from the LaborOpposition and the Liberal back bench in the Lower House in Canberra started to changethis view. The arrival in 1969 of 25 new Labor MHRs led to increasing demands forparliamentary reform. In 1970, the Speaker circulated a proposal that the Lower Houseadopt a committee system similar to that of the Senate. He suggested that seven standingcommittees be appointed at the beginning of each Parliament. In 1979, the GortonGovernment refused the proposal by Mr Whitlam that the House follow the Speaker’sproposal. Gorton’s own back bench began to pursue a greater say in legislation prior to itsintroduction in the House. From 1969 to 1972 there was resistance in the Lower House to afully fledged committee system. That Parliament can be seen as a turning point. During the1972 Parliament, Lower House backbenchers were kept busy in the burgeoning committeesystem.

Through the 1970s to date Queensland has followed in the wake of the committeestandards set in Canberra by the Upper and Lower Houses. I wish to refer quickly to theCommittee of Subordinate Legislation of this House that was established by a resolution ofthe House on 26 November 1975 and re-established by subsequent resolutions, the mostrecent of which was passed on 6 March 1990. Each of those resolutions was couched insimilar terms and requires the committee with respect to regulations—that is, rules, by-laws, ordinances, Orders in Council and proclamations—to consider five things. Thecommittee must consider (a) whether the regulations are in accord with the general objectsof the Act pursuant to which they are made; (b) whether the regulations trespass undulyon rights previously established by law; (c) whether the regulations contain matter which,in the opinion of the committee, should properly be dealt with in an Act of Parliament; (d)whether for any special reason the form or purport of the regulations calls for elucidation;and (e) whether the regulations unduly make rights dependent upon administrative and notjudicial decisions. The resolution also empowers the committee to report to the House onany other matter relating to the regulations which the committee considers should bebrought to the attention of the House.

The members of that committee—of which I am chairman—see an expanding role forthe committee in the year ahead. Many members of the committee attended the annualconference of the Committees of Delegated Legislation in Perth in May 1991 and theexpertise gained there has been feeding back into a perceived expanded role and purviewfor the regulations that this committee should look at. I would submit that the expertise ofcommittee members is expanding as this Parliament proceeds. Therefore, the committeeis feeling more disposed to look at areas that historically the committee has not looked atunder its terms of reference. There is an increasing feeling in the committee that citizens’rights should not be trespassed unduly by subordinate legislation and that, if citizens’rights are to be affected, this should be done by legislation on the floor of the House.Recently the committee has taken a very vigilant attitude towards part (b) of its terms ofreference, that is, whether regulations trespass unduly on rights previously establishedby law.

The Speaker has a very important role in ensuring that the committees of thisParliament—and particularly the Fitzgerald committees established in the lastParliament—are adequately resourced and equipped to do their job—to do thatinquisitorial and probing job that this Parliament would not otherwise have the time orexpertise to do. The people of Queensland are right behind the Fitzgerald process andreforms. They want the Fitzgerald bodies to be overseen by Parliament and expertlyinquired into by Parliament. They wish the supremacy of Parliament to be protected bythese committees of the Parliament. There is no doubt that the persons referred to insection 9 of the 1988 Act deserve to be adequately resourced in the interests of


Queensland’s parliamentary democracy, both during the sittings of this Parliament andoutside sitting-times. I support the Bill before the House.

Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (5.19 p.m.): Mr Palaszczuk, may I take thisopportunity to congratulate you on your election and commend you for the dignified way inwhich you run this House. In supporting this Bill I begin by saying that this Government isreally tidying up a little bit of National Party mishmash. They got it wrong, again. We aretrying to set it right in the interests of fairness, honesty and the true democratic principles.Having said that—and that is an important point to make at the start of this debate—thereare a number of issues raised by this Bill which need to be canvassed today. The firstissue concerns the establishment of the Fitzgerald committees, particularly the committeethat I chair, the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee. It has been given theresponsibility of monitoring and reviewing the CJC. We all know that when the CriminalJustice Act 1989-1991 was introduced it contained a lot of flaws. When it was drafted in1989 it was not a good piece of legislation. I am not necessarily having a shot at anyonewhen I say that—even though the legislation was introduced by a previousGovernment—because it was prepared and drafted in haste as a result of the Fitzgeraldreport. Everyone in this House would accept that there are a number of matters in that Actwhich need attention. That is why my parliamentary committee conducted a year-longreview and tabled its report in this House on 3 December 1991—report No. 13—wherein itmade 43 recommendations, a number of which were changes to the Act.

One of the matters that concerns me—and it is directly relevant to this Bill—is thatthe Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee has the responsibility of monitoring andreviewing the Criminal Justice Commission. Therefore, in the interests of democracy,there cannot be a gap between when the committee finishes its term—that is, at the nextelection—and when a new committee is elected. That may well be a period of weeks oreven months. Honourable members will recall that this Government was elected on 2December 1989 and the parliamentary committee was elected on 21 March 1990. I have nocriticism of that time. It is an appropriate and proper time. However, we could finish up witha gap of over three months between when the committee finishes its responsibilities andwhen a new committee is elected. That is why at page 60 of our report in chapter 4 titled“Structure, functions, powers and jurisdiction”, the committee expressed its concern withthe current terms of section 2.5 (2), which provides in relation to the selection of thechairman and other commissioners of the CJC—which is one of the key responsibilities ofthe parliamentary committee—that the Minister should consult with the parliamentarycommittee “or, if at the material time there is no such committee, with the Leader of theOpposition”. As soon as an election is held, the committee is dissolved and goes out ofexistence, and the gap to which I have referred begins to operate. Because of the need todeal with issues such as the appointment of a commissioner or chairman, it may beimportant to avoid the gap. In fact, depending on when the election is held this year, thevery situation that I have described may well arise because Sir Max Bingham’s termexpires in either November or December.

Those matters, together with the need to monitor the day-to-day operations of thecommission while keeping an eye on what is going on, resulted in the formulation ofrecommendation 6, which states—

“The Committee recommends that an examination be made of the possibility ofamending section 4.4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1989-1991 to provide that theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee remains in office until a new committee isappointed by Motion of the Legislative Assembly upon sitting of the new Parliament.”

From time to time, difficulties may arise when a member retires or is defeated in anelection. However, the recommendation provides a solution that is preferable to not havinga committee at all when Parliament is dissolved. I am not presenting the recommendation


as a total solution to the problem. The committee has merely identified the problem andhas suggested the recommendation as one possibility, but the whole issue needs to beexamined.

As all honourable members would be aware, over a period a number of people havebeen critical of certain aspects of the CJC’s work. In a democracy, that is fair enough, butif this Parliament is to make certain that the members of parliamentary committees carryout their responsibilities, committees must be in operation for the entire period that thecommission is in operation, otherwise, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, a three-monthgap could occur when no monitoring or reviewing of the commission would take place. Ibelieve that this is a matter that should be addressed and remedied as soon as possible.Presently, the recommendations to which I refer—a total of 43—are with the Office ofCabinet, and I have no doubt that those matters will be given serious consideration.

When consideration is given to the importance of committees to Parliament and thequestion of resources arises, I believe that it should be stated up-front and quite franklythat committee members and office-holders not only do an extraordinarily good job butalso carry out their functions for very little pay and, by and large, with very few resources.When the budget of this Parliament is examined, I hope that people will take into accountthat the operation of the committees is quite realistic and quite frugal. I am not advocatingpay rises, but when one examines the salaries paid to the chairmen of these committeesand the salaries paid to committee members, it can be seen that these people slog awayand carry out an enormous amount of work for a mere pittance. Mr Deputy Speaker, I canassure you that in terms of the aggro generated by some issues and some of the work thatis required, the pay is very poor indeed, and my comments apply to the work of allparliamentary committees. I know from experience that committees work very hard. Untilyesterday, the honourable member for Rockhampton North worked very hard by servingon the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice for two years and he, too, is aware ofother people who are members of parliamentary committees who work extremely hard.People ought to understand the tremendous effort that is being put into the work of thesecommittees.

Another point that must be made is that the committee system of this Parliament is inits embryonic stage. If I recall correctly, the Parliamentary Committee for Public Accountscommenced its operations in 1988. The committee system has a long way to go, but agood deal of progress has been made. There can be no doubt about the fact that the GossGovernment can take a great deal of credit for the progress that has been made throughits demonstrated commitment to parliamentary committees—a feature of government thatwas absent in the past during the terms of the coalition. However, a number of issues stillneed to be addressed, such as the provision of adequate resources for parliamentarycommittees. For most of its existence, the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justicehas had one staff member, Tony Woodyatt. For a short period, it had the assistance of apart-time research director, but, by and large, it has had only one very hard-working, well-qualified person who has been slaving away and trying to give the committee theassistance it needs. When drafts of reports were being compiled, many committeemembers and staff worked until the wee hours to complete them. I believe that the currentparliamentary committees need more staff and that they are currently underresourced.The recommendations made by the committee deal with these issues. For example,recommendation 5 states—

“The Committee recommends that the staffing of the Committee be increased tothree (3) persons, pending the completion of the EARC inquiry into the QueenslandParliamentary Committee system.”

The Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice made a submission, during EARC’sinquiry into parliamentary committees, in terms of that recommendation, and I believe that,


if the Parliament is to retain the people of high calibre who support the parliamentarycommittee system, additional staff and resources will be required. Of course, the term“resources” also includes adequate accommodation and computer equipment to assist incarrying out the work. I am not suggesting that progress has not been made, because Ihave already acknowledged that an effort has been made to achieve certain goals. All I amsaying is that much more work needs to be done.

I believe that the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly also needurgent attention. Quite frankly, one could be forgiven for thinking they had fallen off theback of the ark as it headed west. They were formulated prior to the introduction of thecommittee system; they are inflexible; and they are in need of major and urgent review.Recommendation 2 of the committee states—

“The Committee recommends that the Standing Rules and Orders of theLegislative Assembly of Queensland be amended so as to require that a reporttabled by the Criminal Justice Committee be debated by the House if the Committeeso recommends.”

This recommendation seeks to ensure that reports of the committee become relevant tothe operations of this Parliament, so that committees do not operate in a vacuum with theresult that the reports are not debated. In addition, recommendation 3 of the committeeprovides that the Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Assembly be amended soas to require the Government to respond within three months to reports tabled in theHouse by the parliamentary committee.

Other recommendations have been made, for example. Future chairmen of theparliamentary committee—and I am talking about future chairmen, not the current one, incase anyone wants to cast aspersions—should be responsible for all questionsconcerning the operations of the commission except those that relate to financing, forwhich the Minister is the appropriate person, and the questions to the chairman should beput on notice. By those recommendations, we are trying to make the parliamentarycommittee system relevant to the Parliament that gave birth to the committeesthemselves. I say in the strongest possible terms that the current Standing Rules andOrders of the Parliament need a major overhaul and review to take into account that, atlast, we have a parliamentary committee system.

If we consider what applies federally, the Standing Rules and Orders to which Ireferred are simply par for the course. The Federal level has established a system in whichparliamentary committees play a vital role in the Parliament. If one considers the system inthe United States and other places, one realises that the parliamentary committees are anessential and vital part of the democratic process. Those of us who have sat in this Housewould know that this House is an important part of the democratic process but, if ourcommittee system were to operate as effectively as does the system at Federal level or inother places, this place would work even more effectively than it does now. As I said, thatis not in any way to detract from the progress that has been made in regard to thecommittee system. I am simply saying that we have a long way to go to get matters suchas resources, Standing Orders and staff right and to make sure that those parliamentarycommittees are accountable to this place.

I turn to the parliamentary committee itself. It is important that on behalf of thecommittee I follow the precedent of my colleague the Chairman of the Electoral andAdministrative Review Committee and pay tribute to a recently retired commissioner. JimBarbeler, who served on the commission for two years as the legal representative,finished his term last week—in fact, on the weekend. When the parliamentary committeemet on Friday for its normal monthly meeting with the commission, following receipt ofcorrespondence from the Premier, who had consulted with the Criminal JusticeCommission and the chairman, Sir Max Bingham, the parliamentary committee made a


recommendation on his replacement. The Premier has now had a communication from thecommittee and, no doubt, at the appropriate time the necessary decision will be made byCabinet and the Premier will make the necessary and appropriate announcement. JimBarbeler worked very effectively and very hard on the commission and he deservesacknowledgment for the effort that he put in while he was on the commission itself.

Another matter that I believe is very important but will be a sensitive matter in thisHouse is the recommendation from the committee that an education program be designedto make sure that members of this House are aware of the full operations of theparliamentary committee system and, in particular, the operations of bodies such as theCJC and EARC. I must express my personal frustration about the great lack ofunderstanding of the Criminal Justice Act by members of this House, representatives ofthe media and the community generally. I hope that people will accept that in the spirit inwhich it is intended. But people cannot be expected to understand the Act unless aneducation program is started so that they have an opportunity to understand what the Actdoes, what it means and, more importantly, the legal procedures and limitations that areimposed by the Criminal Justice Act on the parliamentary committee, this Parliament andthe commission itself.

Many suggestions that have been made to me over the past two years by honourablemembers of this House about what should or should not be done have been based onignorance, because many of the actions that were suggested are simply precluded or notallowed by the Act itself. Therefore, from time to time that frustration has shown itself, butmembers need a program in which the appropriate education is pursued.Publications—booklets and so on—have been produced, but they are never enough. Aspecific course must be centred on this institution, which deals not only with thecommittees but also with the Standing Orders of the Parliament and how the Parliamentoperates so that people in the community who may from time to time raise issues or pointsabout how this place conducts itself will know that at least the members who operate hereon their behalf are educated as to the appropriate way in which the system should operate.For example, there is a great deal of confusion between my parliamentary committee andthe CJC itself. Over the past two years, my poor electorate secretary, Myra Freeman, towhom I pay tribute, has been inundated by people who ring seeking the CJC. When myterm on the CJC expires, the happiest person in the world other than me will be myelectorate secretary. She then will not have to put up with the endless number ofcomplaints and the endless number of matters that arise relating to CJC issues. I put onrecord my thanks to her because, quite frankly, over the past two years she has had toput up with hell. Again, I am not being critical of the community. Naturally, people have amisunderstanding about the roles, which I hope time will correct but, again, an educationcampaign may be of some assistance.

One other matter should be addressed in terms of the Act, that is, the requirement onthe CJC to investigate every complaint that goes to the commission. That is notunderstood either by police, the media, the community or maybe even some members ofthis Parliament. The commission has no discretion—I repeat, no discretion—as to whetherit investigates a matter. If a complaint is sent to the Criminal Justice Commission, thecommission is required by law—by statute of this very Parliament—to investigate thatmatter. My parliamentary committee has recommended that that section be changedbecause the commission is drowning in work. Recently, people have resigned orrequested transfers because of the enormous workload of the commission. A discretionmust be given to the commission to make a determination as to whether every matterneeds to be investigated or what matters need to be investigated. Naturally, a check andbalance must be put in place through my parliamentary committee—and we havediscussed this at length with the commission—to make sure that matters that should beinvestigated are investigated, because we do not want to go back to the bad old days of


the Police Complaints Tribunal. When that amendment comes before this House—thePremier has said publicly that there is an indication of support for changing the section—Iwould hope that it would be unanimously supported because, at present, the currentlegislation is simply restrictive. It is the source of a great deal of difficulty and causesmany problems. I believe that when that provision is changed to provide for somediscretion things will operate a lot more effectively.

My parliamentary committee has worked very hard over the last two years and I seton record my appreciation for all members of that committee. I welcome Ken Davies to thecommittee—I do not know if he knows what he is in for—and I know that he will enjoy it.

Mr Hollis: A very good member indeed.

Mr BEATTIE: It is indeed a lot of hard work. We will be travelling to Mackay veryshortly to get feedback from the police as to how the reform process and the CJC aregoing. In conclusion, notwithstanding the difficulties, notwithstanding the problems andnotwithstanding the hiccups along the way, no-one can argue about the GossGovernment’s commitment to the reform process. I think that when we go to the electorateat the end of the year one thing will stand out, that notwithstanding the difficulties we hadthe guts to continue. When the hurdles came up, this Government was not the one playinggames, and that will be what the people of Queensland will vote for. Time expired.

Ms POWER (Mansfield) (5.39 p.m.): I rise to support the Bill, which is a minordocument of a technical nature only. The principal Act is known as the Constitution Act1867-88 and was amended in 1989. The Bill gives members recently elected to the House,as I am, a chance to trace the historical development of the Bill. It is to that issue that Iwould like to address my remarks this evening. I was particularly interested in thetitle—Constitution Act. This House has heard a lot about the fun run in which somemembers and I participated on Sunday and a number of people have made commentsabout the constitution of some members. On reflection, the Constitution to which we arereferring here is not our own constitution but, in fact, the Constitution of the AustralianParliament.

The principal Act had its beginnings in the separation of the colonies and it wasassented to in 1850. It is an Act for the better government of Her Majesty’s Australiancolonies. I think that is an important point on which we should reflect. The essence of theamending Bill is to allow salary entitlements to positions within the Parliament whichenhance the parliamentary process; that is, to provide better government toQueenslanders. Provisions in the original Act establish legislative counsel, methods ofappointment, election of members and electoral districts to conduct elections and theinterpretation of what the Government meant. The principal Act refers specifically to NewSouth Wales, Queensland, Victoria and the other States. I note with interest that the civillist entitlements in 1859 were: for the Governor, $2,500; the Private Secretary, $300; theColonial Secretary and Treasurer, $700; the Judge $1,200—so even in those times judgeswere valued—and the Public Worship, $1,000. The Act also specifies the sessions ofParliament—once at least in every year. It states that all members are required to take theoath of allegiance before taking his or her place in the Legislative Assembly. At this point Iadd that on reading the Act I discovered that it is written with reference only to men. WhileI am willing to accept that “chairman” can refer to men or women, the words “his”, “he” and“himself” are pronouns standing for a male, a boy or a chap—well learnt in derivationlessons in primary schools for generations.

I am proud to belong to a Government that has a policy of gender neutral legislationin plain English. I look forward to this historical piece of legislation being rewritten in thispolicy vein. The Act also cites that certain islands would be annexed to Queensland whenit became a State. This, of course, has given us some interesting areas to which we havehad to address ourselves over many years. I note in particular the islands of the Torres


Strait and the Great Barrier Reef. I do not want to take up too much of the time of theHouse, but I do want to refer to the provisions that give officers their salary entitlements. Ithink that we should put on record the good work that is being done by the variouscommittees in doing what the Goss Government was elected to do, namely, to provideopen and accountable government, to consult with the people of Queensland and toprovide good legislation.

As I look at the officers who are to receive entitlements, I want to make shortreference to some of the parliamentary committees. I believe that the members of theparliamentary committees have worked hard and are doing work that, over time, will beappreciated by Queenslanders. Some of their legislation and reports will go down in thehistory books as work that should be rewarded. Certainly, if we go back, we will see thatthe intent of the Act was to provide good government for the colonies. The Electoral andAdministrative Review Commission issued recommendations on electoral review. While Ihave not been a great beneficiary of the electoral review system, Queenslanders havehad an independent group look at the way in which the electorates are divided up. Thathistorical process will be remembered as resulting from the good business of this House. Ilook forward to speaking on the freedom of information legislation next week. I lookforward also to speaking on the protection of whistle-blowers, the resource needs of non-Government members and the public registration of political donations. The list goes on. Icommend the members of EARC for the hard work they have done and for the businessthey have conducted. It has been well received by most members of the community.

My learned colleague from Brisbane Central has articulated very well the work of theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee. I place on record my appreciation of the workthat committee has carried out. It is not a committee on which I would have been pleasedto serve. It has had to address a number of difficult issues. Debate has been rampant inthe political arena. I believe that the members of that committee have done credit tothemselves. I pay tribute to members of all parties for the work they have carried out inthat committee. What is more, the Parliamentary Service Commission does not have aneasy job, having to please the 89 members of this House and everybody else who isinvolved with it. The members of that commission give up their time to provide servicesthat are not always welcomed by everyone. I have noticed that it is very easy to criticisebut not so easy to compliment. This Bill gives members a chance to thank members whogive up their time to address those issues.

When I decided to speak on this Bill, I embarked on an interesting history lesson. Ihave been really taken by the initial Act which talks about good government for thecolonies of Queensland. In this time when the republic debate is on the agenda, it isinteresting to consider the history. If we relate back to the Bill, we are starting to see thedevelopment of good policy and good legislation for the State of Queensland. I commendmembers of the committees who have worked through the different areas. I reiterate that Ibelieve it is important that we acknowledge the work that the committees and the variouspeople in the parliamentary offices carry out and that they are rewarded in some way. Indoing so, I support the Bill.

Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton North) (5.47 p.m.): It gives me a great deal ofpleasure to enter into what is a very technical and, I guess, somewhat pedestrian debate.As all honourable members know, the matter before us deals with tidying up an oversightby the previous Government which effectively left certain office-holders of this Parliamentoff the schedule, resulting in the need for an amendment to ensure that the remunerationpaid to those people is legal. This evening, other members have spoken about the need toprovide adequate remuneration for those people. I firmly believe that the remuneration ofpoliticians, no matter from which side of the political fence they come, is a subject onwhich the members of the public never have sympathy. I recall that, during his three years


in office, a former Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Mr Chandler, did not take one cent, and he wasrepaid by being soundly defeated at the next election. It would seem to me that theaverage elector thinks we are worth nothing. If we reflect on a few incidents that havebeen reported in the media in the last few weeks, we see the net effect is thatparliamentarians are regarded as being fairly worthless human beings. I sound a note ofwarning that we ought to stop this continued pillorying of politicians and get on with the realjob of representing people’s interests. We should not be ashamed to talk about oursalaries, our travel or any other remuneration or emoluments that we receive as membersof Parliament. The job of a member of Parliament is not a very easy one. It is verydemanding and there is no hourly wage. I well recall many years ago a young aspiringpolitician inquired of my father, “How much is the hourly rate for a politician?” My father’sreply to him was that, if he was going into it on the basis of an hourly rate of pay, he oughtto forget about it. Indeed, that young fellow did forget about it.

The positions of chairmen of committees have already been spoken about at somelength in this debate. I lend my support to those opinions. As the member for BrisbaneCentral rightly pointed out, the committee system is in its embryonic state and we all havea lot to learn in terms of coming to grips with it. However, we must not lose sight of onefact, that is, that this place is the master of the destiny of legislation in this State.Although committees have a responsibility to investigate and report—and that is healthyfor a democracy—the buck needs to stop in this place. Sometimes there is anunwillingness by people to accept the committee system but a willingness to shuffle someresponsibility in the direction of committees. Because we are all in a very sharp learningcurve with committees, it will be some time before we get the system absolutely correct inthis State.

The matter of the salary and conditions of the Leader of the Opposition has oftenbeen canvassed in this place. I well remember many years ago sitting in the public galleryof this Chamber when Tom Burns was the Leader of the Opposition and hearing him speakabout the way in which he was treated by the previous Government. He was snookeredaway down in Watkins Place, as was Keith Wright—I visited his office on a number ofoccasions—without the resources that were available to the Government. I well rememberthe mine disaster at Moura. Provision was not made to enable the Leader of the Oppositionto accompany the Premier to the area. As the honourable member for Cooroora saidpreviously, good government deserves good opposition. Unfortunately, we have not seentoo much good opposition in the last two years, but we are still a good Government. In myview, the Government has resourced the Opposition very handsomely. There will alwaysbe howls of derision from Oppositions about the resources that are made available tothem. However, I do not think that any honest member of the Opposition here today couldsay that the National Party treated the Labor Party, when it was in Opposition, very, verywell at all. If the Labor Party, when it was in Opposition, had had fewer than 10 members, Iwonder whether it would have been treated by the Liberal/National coalition in the sameway as the Liberal Party is being treated today in terms of the provision of extra staff,vehicles and so on.

Mr Elder interjected.

Mr SCHWARTEN: I believe that the Government has. I do not have any complaintabout ensuring that resources are made available to an opposition party, be it a minorityopposition or whatever the case may be.

Some mention was made of the Upper House. As history—especially politicalhistory—is something of a fascination to me, I decided to read Queensland—Our SeventhPolitical Decade, 1920-1930 by Bernays, who was a former Clerk of the Parliament in thisState. That book, which I have in my possession, was given to me by my father who issimilarly a student of history.


Mr Welford: A generous fellow.

Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes, he is. These books are worth a lot of money, by the way. Ihave a full set of them. I also have Lack’s book. I suggest that anyone who iscontemplating coming into this place should sit down and read those books. I have readthem many times over. There is a lot to be learned from them in terms of not making thesame mistake twice.

Earlier, I noticed the interchange between the honourable member for Yeronga andthe honourable member for Barambah about the referendum for the abolition of the UpperHouse. The Upper House in Queensland survived for some 45 years until in 1915 T. J.Ryan and the then Government had a go at knocking it off. Ryan introduced into the LowerHouse legislation for the abolition of the Upper House. It was shelved by the Upper House.He had another go at it in 1916. His tenacity must be admired. Again, it was shelved. Frommemory, on one occasion legislation was sent across the fair waters to mother Britain andon the other occasion it was sent to Government House. In 1917, a referendum was held.The referendum contained two questions, and it was very confusing.

Mr Stephan interjected.

Mr SCHWARTEN: I do not expect the honourable member to understand this, buthe should sit and listen. He has no respect for history; I understand that. He should listenbecause I am trying to advise him of something that he probably does not know.

A Government member: He is only a learner.

Mr SCHWARTEN: I know that he is really a learner. The referendum revealed thatthere were 116 196 people in favour of the abolition of the Upper House and 117 105against it. There were 2 968 informal votes.

Mr Stephan interjected.

Mr SCHWARTEN: If the honourable member had been around then, guess wherehe would have been? He would have been among the informal votes. He would not knowthe difference between “Yes” and “No”. I think that if a referendum was held today toreinstate the Upper House, the vote would go the other way. In fact, I can guarantee that itwould go the other way because the one thing that the people of this State would not wantis more politicians. I wonder how we would react to that.

That did not deter Ryan. In 1918, he had another chop at it. Many people do not knowthat Theodore spent a lot of time as the Acting Premier of this State. It was he who thenhad a chop at it and the Government was again stymied by the Upper House. So it wasdecided to employ the suicide squad. Basically, the Upper House was filled with peoplewho were sympathetic to the view that the Upper House should be abolished. A dear, oldgentleman from Rockhampton was one of them, a bloke named E. B. Purnell. He and otherfellows went into the Upper House and voted themselves out of a job. I wonder how manypoliticians today would willingly go in and vote themselves out of a job. In 1922, assentwas given to the abolition of the Upper House. The opponents of its abolition lodgedanother appeal to the Governor, who appealed to the Secretary of Colonies, who wasasked to appeal to the King. He wrote back and said that, as far as he was concerned,they should settle their own affairs. He did not want to tinker in them. He thought it was alocal matter and that it should be left alone.

That is a very interesting bit of history. On 4 July 1922, or somewhere thereabouts,the unicameral system was born in Queensland. In my view, it has survived very well eversince. I certainly do not advocate the return to an Upper House. It has been said often thatthe prerequisite for people being in an Upper House was their ability to play billiards anddrink brandy.

Mr Nunn: Would you like a job like that?


Mr SCHWARTEN: There is probably no shortage of people who would not mind ajob like that. The old adage about the Senate used to be: aged 70, semi-sedated andsenile. As far as I can ascertain, that was certainly true of members of Upper Houses.Those people who believe that Upper Houses act as very good watchdogs should look atthe States that do have Upper Houses. They have not stopped the messes that haveprevailed in other States on a variety of issues. There are those who argue that therewould never have been a need for a Fitzgerald inquiry if this State had had an UpperHouse. I do not believe that to be true. I believe that in 1922 a committee replaced thefunctions of an Upper House. It was a token gesture, I would have to say, but it wasaccepted that that would be the case. As I recall it, the Bill was actually returned to theAttorney-General’s Department before the third reading. Did the Attorney-General knowthat?

Mr Wells: No, I didn’t.

Mr SCHWARTEN: Well, there you are. That was the safety net, I suppose, as theysaw it in those days. Instead of the Bill going through its third-reading stage, it wasactually referred back to the Attorney-General and then brought back into the House.

Mr Wells: It is interesting that it was referred back at that point, because at themoment, prior to royal assent, it is still necessary for the Attorney-General to certify to theGovernor that the Bill has passed through the Parliament and it is now a suitable documentfor him to give consideration to.

Mr Nunn: Did you know that?

Mr SCHWARTEN: Yes, I did know that. I thank those honourable members whoheard me in silence—out of respect, no doubt.

Ms Robson: And admiration.

Mr SCHWARTEN: Admiration as well, no doubt. I thought I would share those littlepearls of wisdom with other members. I suggest that honourable members read the booksof Bernays and Lack. They do provide a fascinating insight into the history of thisParliament. Accordingly, I support the Bill before the House.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m.

Mr DAVIES (Townsville) (7.30 p.m.): I rise to support the Constitution AmendmentBill 1991 which, as other members have said, is really of a technical nature. The Bill doestwo things, namely, it validates additional salary payments to the various office-holderswithin the Parliament of Queensland, such as the Speaker, the Chairman of Committees,the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the leader of any otherrecognised political party, the Government Whip, the Opposition Whip and theGovernment Deputy Whip. It is also important to have continuity within the parliamentaryprocess, which obviously means continuity of payment. This Bill corrects an anomaly inprevious legislation with the consequent effect on various positions of the Parliament aswell as the parliamentary committees.

The committee system within the Parliament of Queensland is a relatively newspecies. The current Attorney-General, Mr Dean Wells, can take great credit for the parthe played in 1986 in pressuring for the introduction of the Public Accounts Committee. Thepush also came from members on this side of the House such as Ken Hayward, HenryPalaszczuk and Clem Campbell. But lest I be accused of bias, I also pay credit to formerPremier the Honourable Mike Ahern for having the courage to assist and bring in thelegislation establishing the Public Accounts Committee. As I understand it, the PublicWorks Committee came into being at the same time as the Public Accounts Committee.

It is a matter of public record that another former Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen,did not want parliamentary committees because they might get in the way, they might


make parliamentarians more accountable to the public, and that would obviously conflictwith the way in which the former Premier and Governments of the past did business.Accountability was at the bottom of their priorities. With the foresight of my Laborcolleagues Dean Wells, Ken Hayward, Henry Palaszczuk and Clem Campbell——

Mr Pearce: A fine team.

Mr DAVIES: A very fine team. That was borne out during the Fitzgerald inquiryitself. At that point in time, the State had lapsed into a complete lack of accountability tothe Queensland public, thus occasioning the need for that inquiry. It is an understatementthat the Fitzgerald report has changed the course of history in Queensland. It showed howcorrupt the State of Queensland had become. We all well remember the record ofrevelation after revelation after revelation of 1989. We all remember the list of scandalafter scandal after scandal which racked this State. We well remember the variousprograms and newspaper reports that brought to light the corruption that was endemic inQueensland during that period. We all remember the current Attorney-Generalsuccessfully moving to have a judge called before the bar of Parliament. 1989 was awatershed in this State’s history. The Fitzgerald report became—and is—the blueprint forchange, a change that began with the election on 2 December 1989 of a new Government,the Goss Government. To continue the process of change undertaken by him,Commissioner Fitzgerald recommended the establishment of two corruption-bustercommissions reporting to two parliamentary committees, namely, the Electoral andAdministrative Review Committee and the Criminal Justice Committee.

Mr Hollis: Who are the chairmen of those committees?

Mr DAVIES: To answer my colleague’s question—the distinguished chairmen ofthose committees are Mr Matt Foley and Mr Peter Beattie. To date, the chairmen of thePublic Accounts Committee have been Gilbert Alison, Ken Hayward and, as of yesterday,Dr John Flynn. The deputy chairmen have been Ken Hayward and Tony Elliott. The PublicWorks Committee chairmen have been Gordon McPhie, Henry Palaszczuk—now theDeputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees—Tony McGrady and Robert Schwarten. It issignificant that Ken Hayward and Tony McGrady are now Ministers of the Crown. Icongratulate them on their attainment of that office.

The parliamentary committees arising out of the Fitzgerald report have had atrailblazing job to do. It has not been easy. In some ways, it really is unfair that we havehad to clean up the mess. But that is the commitment that we made upon coming intoGovernment, that is, to clean up the mess left by National Party Governments of the past.We are doing that, and we do not resile from that difficult task. Therefore, it is appropriatethat this Bill be passed.

Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (7.36 p.m.): Mr Palaszczuk, I congratulate you onattaining the position which you now hold, and I wish you the best in being a fair andimpartial Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees.

I believe that one of the aspects of this Legislative Assembly is that we take ourroots—the basis of the traditions of the Legislative Assembly—from the Westminstersystem. Many aspects of that system are found in the offices of the LegislativeAssembly—that of the Speaker and Chairman of Committees. This amendment to theConstitution Act actually affects the positions in this Chamber that we hold very dear.When one looks at Erskine May, one sees that the salaries allowed for officers of theWestminster system go back to 1790. It would seem that the position and work that had tobe done by officers of the House of Commons was so important that we had to ensure thatthey were adequately paid. What concerns me is that although we have a range of Actsthat have brought the traditions of Westminster to Queensland and to this House itself, inthe last few years some of the traditions and some of the powers have been lost. That


does concern me because, as members of Parliament, we take the traditions, powers andresponsibilities, but now we are losing some of that power to non-elected people.

We have changed the powers that are normally associated with the position, not inthis Constitution Amendment Act but under the Parliamentary Service Commission. I knowthat members of the Opposition have expressed concern about the way the powers of theSpeaker have been changed by associated Acts. After several years of being a Chairmanof Committees and Acting Speaker—and I know that Mr Lingard has also been a Speakerof the House–I now share some of those concerns about the way that power is beingdevolved from the traditional positions of this Chamber. Although parliamentarycommittees have been introduced, I feel that some of the problems that are beingexperienced in the overall organisation and management relate to taking away power fromindividuals in these positions and giving it to committees. The same thing has happened intaking the powers from this Chamber and giving them to outside commissions and bodies.I cite the examples of the Criminal Justice Commission and EARC. At least people who areelected to the positions of Speaker and Chairman of Committees—even from the otherside of the House—are responsible people and they go before the people every threeyears. Many of the responsibilities are now being taken from these positions and takenaway from this Chamber. The traditions of the whole Westminster system go back toLetters Patent, amendments to the Constitution Act and the Australian Constitution. It is amatter for concern that these controls and powers always seem to be leaving this area.

As I said, we are here to amend the Constitution Amendment Act because of asection—section 3—that was taken out of the Act in 1989. The problem we had was thatsection 6 of that same Act referred back to section 3 and there was a real concern that theAct was not able to be properly enforced because of this. We are here to amend theConstitution Amendment Act to make certain that people who are taking on thesepositions in this Legislative Assembly are adequately covered and also to ensure that theresponsibilities that are given to them are properly acknowledged. I do not believe that thisis going to be the last time the Constitution Amendment Act will have to be changed andamended because we are a dynamic Chamber. Changes are going to take place but wemust ensure that, when this Act and associated Acts are amended, we can be certain thatwe will not run into the same problem of having changed one aspect of the Constitution andnot taken proper account of, and responsibility for, what will happen to other parts of theConstitution. The action that honourable members are taking tonight is necessary. It isnecessary to ensure that people who have these responsibilities adequately fulfil theundertakings they are given. When future amendments are made to the Constitution Actand to other Acts that relate to the powers, responsibilities and traditions of theLegislative Assembly of Queensland, all honourable members must fully understand thechanges that they are making.

Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (7.44 p.m.), in reply: I rise onbehalf of the Premier to thank the honourable members who have contributed to thisdebate. In particular, I thank my good friend and colleague the honourable and learnedmember for Yeronga, who took the constitutional high ground in this debate. I also thankthe honourable member for Cooroora and the honourable member for Mansfield, who gavea constitutional and historical analysis which has greatly edified the Chamber. I note alsothat the honourable member for Rockhampton North brought to bear his long experienceas a student of history and thereby benefited this honourable Chamber. I thank thehonourable member for Brisbane Central and the honourable member for Townsville. Ithank also the honourable member for Bundaberg for the substantial contribution which hehas just finished making.

I will summarise in one word why it is that we are dealing with this piece of legislation.It was another typical National Party blunder. If honourable members refer to theConstitution Act Amendment Act of 1896 they will see the words—


“The additional salaries to which the Officers in the Legislative Assemblymentioned in subsection one of section three of this Act are entitled under theprovisions of that subsection shall be payable . . . until the day named in the writ fortaking the poll for the consequent election and, if he is then re-elected, thereafteruntil his successor is appointed . . .”

In other words, the legislation referred back from section 6 of the Constitution ActAmendment Act of 1896 to section 3.

In 1988, the National Party decided that it would simplify these statutes by deletingsection 3 (1) from the Constitution Act Amendment Act and inserting it in the ParliamentaryMembers’ Salaries Act 1988. The trouble is that when the National Party Governmentdeleted section 3 (1) from the Act, section 6 of the Constitution Act had nothing more torefer to. Consequently, we are left in the position in which it is necessary toretrospectively validate payments that were made after the dissolution of the lastParliament. This is just another typical National Party blunder, but one that can now beremedied reasonably simply.

One of the reasons why this occurred was that in 1988 the debate in the Chamberwas not adequate. This was drawn to my attention by the honourable member for GlassHouse, who did not speak in this debate but who nevertheless examined the proceedingsof the Parliament at that time. He drew my attention to the fact that there was inadequatedebate on and total neglect of the details of that Bill during the Committee stage. It isunfortunate that we did not have a situation such as we have had tonight, where a numberof minds have been brought to bear on a piece of legislation so that its details can befleshed out. I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. I thankhonourable members opposite for their commitment to this piece of legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Committee

Hon. D. M. Wells (Murrumba—Attorney-General) in charge of the Bill.

Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to.

Clause 4—

Mr WELLS (7.50 p.m.): I move the following amendment—

“At page 2, line 28, after ‘Assembly’ insert—

‘or the Speaker’.”

This will have the effect of enabling the appointment of a new Leader of the Opposition or anew Deputy Leader of the Opposition to be communicated to the Speaker rather than tothe Parliament and therefore will retrospectively validate salaries paid to the now Leader ofthe Opposition and Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We pay them this honour eventhough they are not at the moment present in the Chamber and though it is only a fewhours since they were inveighing with the utmost determination and zeal againstretrospective legislation. In this case perhaps their principles will enable them to make anexception. I commend the amendment to the Chamber.

Mr ARDILL: I want to make a plea for the members of the Opposition. Already thereis a clear push to deprive back-bench members of this Chamber of their travel entitlementswhich enable them to carry out their duties. This Bill presented an opportunity to dosomething about the position when a member ceases to be an elected member ofParliament. I point out to the Committee that the position as set out in this clause is thatthe member ceases to receive a salary on the date of the poll. Quite often, the election isnot decided on the date of the poll and a member of Parliament has to continue to carry outthe duties of that office until such time as it is clearly decided that that member has lost


the election or until the poll is declared. I was in that position myself on a previousoccasion. A member who may be defeated or is defeated cannot just walk away from it atthat time. It is even more pronounced when an election is in doubt. What happens is thatthe new member cannot take over, anyway, until such time as the poll is declared; hecannot represent the community. Also, the previous member cannot walk away from it.This is even more the case when it is a very close election.

I am talking about members such as the member for Fassifern who may not know onthe night of the election whether or not he has been re-elected, and he cannot just walkaway from his electorate. The same applies to the member for Landsborough and evenmore so to the present member for Currumbin and the Leader of the Opposition. One ofthose members must fail to be re-elected, and I would be willing to state here and now thatthat is unlikely to be decided on the night of the election. Quite clearly, there was anopportunity to correct that position in this Bill. The member who has to continue to act inthat capacity until such time as the poll is declared should continue to be paid his salary. Ihope that the Attorney-General will look at this issue and see what can be done to remedythe situation.

Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Salisbury for his contribution. I willdraw the matters he has raised to the attention of the Premier and ensure that he receivesa response.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amendment.

Third Reading

Bill, on motion of Mr Wells, by leave, read a third time.

ADJOURNMENT

Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Leader of the House) (7.55 p.m.): I move—

“That the House do now adjourn.”

Youth Conservation Corps

Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (7.55 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I take part in theAdjournment debate tonight to address the initiative that was announced last weekend byboth the Premier and the Minister for Environment, the Honourable Pat Comben. Theyhave named the initiative the Youth Conservation Corps, but in last year’s Environmentand Heritage Estimates debate, I described it as the Queensland conservation corps.Irrespective of the way in which it is described, I make the point that I am not of the samemould as the former member for Wills and will not burst into a flood of tears because theGovernment has recognised my idea as a good one and pirated it. I believe, as the oldsaying goes, that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I simply place on record thatI have no intention of throwing in the towel and abandoning the concept. Instead, I will waitand see how the Minister and the ALP build up the idea and which model they adopt. Thereare various ways in which it could be done, and there are similar schemes in operationoverseas.

The idea for the corps came originally from that famous American, PresidentRoosevelt. In the Depression, he introduced the program to utilise 2.5 million unemployed


Americans in a scheme which ensured that they were paid for doing something useful andfor the future benefit of the nation. Unfortunately, it is often the case that schemes arepoorly designed and often result in people performing tasks that are akin to moving bricksfrom one place to another instead of gaining worthwhile employment. Therefore, I think it isvery important to approach the scheme in such a way that young people will regard theprogram in which they are involved as meaningful and that their work will be of benefit notonly to the nation but also, as this is a Queensland scheme, to this State. Hopefully, sucha scheme will also enhance their future well-being and personal development because,after all, each member of Parliament owes that much to the young people of this State.Furthermore, I believe that if members of this Parliament are not capable of providingemployment opportunities for young people, then we have failed in our duty. It must beremembered that the people of Queensland elect members of Parliament in the hope thatthey will promote the welfare of the State and its people rather than argue and try to scoreparty political points.

In my opinion, the scheme to which I have referred has the potential to achieve allthe aims that I have outlined. In that context, it is important to refer to other models, suchas the one that exists in California. In recent years, Governor Gerry Brown reintroduced ascheme and named it the Californian Conservation Corps. This scheme was not simply away of utilising unemployed people—far from it. To a great degree, it operates on avolunteer basis and people involved in the corps not only construct trails and maintainroads in national parks, but also look after beaver dams and tourist facilities. Thevoluntary work also includes sand-bagging of riverbanks and various areas of towns intimes of crisis caused by flood, and fighting forest fires when they occur. It is importantthat such schemes are not seen to be simply a means of putting unemployed people towork. It is a mistake to think that a dozen or so totally inexperienced people can be putonto a job and produce top work without any training. In my experience, the people whowork for national parks services are not only dedicated and deeply committed to theconservation movement, but also very experienced.

Time expired.

Rockhampton Economy

Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton North) (8 p.m.): Tonight, I want to address thematter of the Rockhampton economy and a couple of indicators that the economy istravelling pretty well. I want to use a little of the time of the House to comment on theresponse from members of the National and Liberal Parties when they recently swannedinto town. Mrs Sheldon and Mr Santoro came to Rockhampton to tell us how badly off weare, how high our unemployment rate is and generally to preach doom and gloom. MrBorbidge was in Rockhampton to add to that doom and gloom and then, of course, therewas Mr Lester, who is a perpetual purveyor of that sort of information in the area.

However, I want to talk about good news in Rockhampton, the new seat of Keppeland the Capricorn Coast. I refer to a significant occurrence in Queensland’s history thattook place on 20 February last, and that was the opening of the magnesite plant by theHonourable the Premier of Queensland. I refer to a speech that was made at that openingby Mr Lindsay MacAlister, the Managing Director of Pancontinental Mining Limited. Hiscomments were very heartening for central Queensland and good news for Queensland interms of our Government. He said—

“Coming closer to home in Queensland, we see a more positive picture. MrPremier, your personal interest and the support and active encouragement of yourGovernment has been very important to us. We sincerely appreciate the work of yourGovernment departments and agencies in the timely approval and infrastructure


services support, decisions and actions. I am told that your people were tough,tenacious but fair in negotiations—prudent, pragmatic professionals never losingsight of the ultimate objective, to make a new, viable long-term project in this State.May I therefore thank you very sincerely on behalf of the joint venture partners forthe timely, relevant and indispensable support afforded us.”

That speaks volumes for the efforts of the Government in assisting that company toestablish in central Queensland and to create jobs. In central Queensland, it is theindustry of the twenty-first century. We welcome the company to central Queensland. It iscertainly very heartening to see that not all people in this State would agree with MessrsLester, Borbidge and Santoro and, of course, Mrs Sheldon, and that good things arehappening in central Queensland.

If members do not believe those indicators, I refer also to The Rock, our own buildingsociety in Rockhampton, which prides itself on being a locally owned establishment run forthe benefit of the people of central Queensland. For the record, The Rock has been rankedsecond amongst all building societies in Australia in terms of profitability and growth. It isthe major non-bank source of housing finance in central Queensland. As I said, The Rockis based in Rockhampton. It has assets in excess of $150m and, since its inception in1967, has provided home loans to more than 5 000 central Queensland families. Theliquidity ratio of the society stands at a buoyant 31 per cent of depositors’ funds. Thesociety has no non-performing loans. I doubt that too many societies in Australia couldclaim such an achievement. The half-yearly profit result of $685,000 represents a 13 percent increase on the figure for the corresponding period the previous year. I have someup-to-date statistics. The lending figure for the eight months to 29 February 1992 standsat $42m and, during that period, deposits increased by 20 per cent to $140m.

That speaks volumes of the central Queensland economy. I ask the membersopposite who come into Rockhampton and knock our economy to bear those figures inmind. Rockhampton has a great building society whose performance is among the best inAustralia. It is looking after central Queensland people. The building society hasconfidence in central Queensland. I have confidence in central Queensland. The sorts ofinitiatives that are being taken in central Queensland make it truly exciting for the future.This Government is on record as supporting industries in Rockhampton, and I urgemembers opposite to stop the doom and gloom. I know that the newspapers and the othermedia outlets in Rockhampton are quite sick and tired of members opposite coming toRockhampton and belting us over the head with untrue, blown-out statistics. I conclude byapplauding The Rock on its excellent results.

Whistle-blowers

Mr CONNOR (Nerang) (8.05 p.m.): I rise to speak on a fundamental issueunderpinning the whole Fitzgerald reform process and the main platform on which the GossLabor Government came to power, that is, the safeguards put in place for public servantsand others to come forward and to blow the whistle on corruption in this State. Queenslandwas described as the moonlight State. Commissioner Fitzgerald recognised that the onlyway in which the people of Queensland could rid themselves of the scourge of corruptionwas for honest public servants and others to be able to come forward with impunity,without the risk of retribution from senior public servants and Governments. That must bethe fundamental basis for the reforms going on in Queensland because, withoutaccountability, the corruption will happen all over again.

I intend to demonstrate that the Government gives mere lip-service to that basicFitzgerald platform and I will prove that it is systematically going about illegally removingwhistle-blowers from the system. I am talking about, in particular, whistle-blowers who


gave evidence at the prisons inquiry. Whether findings could be substantiated isirrelevant. The fact is that public servants came forward with what they believed wasinformation that could uncover corruption. Under oath, they provided what they believed tobe information that pointed towards corruption. They were clearly whistle-blowers. Thethanks that the Government has given them is a transfer to Boggo Road. The thank you isa one-way ticket out of the public service. That is the way in which the Government dealswith accountability.

We all know that Boggo Road prison will close down very soon and that a private-enterprise operator is running the replacement prison at Wacol. However, members maynot know that yesterday 237 notices of redundancy were handed out at Boggo Road gaol.According to the commission, all 237 prison officers were surplus to requirements. One ofthose prison officers, Mick Hanran, was specifically targeted to be transferred against hiswill from the Sir David Longland prison, where he was a long-term, permanent prisonofficer. He was forcibly transferred to—guess where—Boggo Road, just in time to beretrenched. The important part of all that is that Michael Hanran was one of the moreprominent whistle-blowers who appeared before the CJC. Mr Hanran, the father of fouryoung children, was being set up for a hatchet job. Following Mr Hanran’s complaints to theMinister, the Corrective Services Commission, the union and the police, an investigationinto his transfer was conducted. A letter from the police to the Corrective ServicesCommission stated—

“Investigations have shown that the transfer of Correctional Officer Hanran,due to the existence of threats of prisoners, is highly unusual. There appears to beno other instance where an officer has been transferred against his will due to theexistence of threats by inmates. Seen objectively, it appears most unfair that such atransfer would take place.”

That was a quote from the police in charge of investigating prisons. The allegation ofdanger to Hanran was not even a direct threat; it was a third-party, hearsay threat that hecould be assaulted. At some time during their career all prison officers will probably beassaulted or at least threatened. Upon transfer to Boggo Road gaol, prison officer Hanranasked for an assurance of his safety at that prison. It was not forthcoming. So he is goingfrom one prison to another against his will—from a place where someone has allegedlymade a threat to another place where his safety cannot be guaranteed either.

The Corrective Services Commission and the Minister have paid so little interest tothis threat that they will not even supply any protection to either Mr Hanran or his family,even though the person supposed to be making these threats is out of prison. So we havethe situation of the General Manager of the Sir David Longland prison, Kel Olsen, followingthe fabrication of a threat, transferring a prison officer against his will to anotherprison—just prior to that prison being closed down—where his safety cannot beguaranteed. I might add that all the major informants in the CJC’s investigation have noweither been made redundant or are about to be made redundant. This follows the verypublic sacking of Mr Robert Osmack, who dared, following the closure of Woodford prison,to write a letter that was critical of the Corrective Services Commission.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I rise to a point of order. I believe that the member ismisleading the House when he refers to Mr Robert Osmack as daring to write a letter in thatMr Osmack did not attach his name to that letter.


Mr CONNOR: I table the relevant documents as proof of my claim. I want a fullinvestigation of the events that led up to the transfer of prison officer Hanran. I also wantto know who initiated the transfer and why. We are aware that the General Manager of SirDavid Longland prison signed the memo, but who directed him to write it? The question has


to be asked: is this general manager a fit and proper person to run a prison in Queenslandand should the person who directed him to sign the memo be charged under the whistle-blowers’ legislation?

Time expired.

Ms L. Lawrence

Mr DAVIES (Townsville) (8.09 p.m.): I seek leave to table the transcript of aninterview relevant to the matter of public interest that I intend to raise. The interview wasconducted by the Townsville Bulletin chief of staff, Mr Michael McKinnon, on 15 Februarythis year with the assistance of a level 3 NAATI translator, Ms Maree Madden of GriffithUniversity. The interview was with a deaf, mute woman who has certified that the transcriptis a true and correct record of her version of events. The facts are that the deaf woman,Ms Linda Lawrence, alleges that on 4 May 1991 in Townsville she was raped by two menand that she has been denied justice over the alleged incident. Specifically, Ms Lawrencehas called on the State Government to—

(1) examine why her case was discontinued and investigate the possibility ofreopening her case;

(2) examine the establishment of guidelines for the police force when dealing withdeaf people;

(3) examine the establishment of guidelines for the legal system when dealing withdeaf people; and

(4) amend the Criminal Code, Evidence Act and Other Acts Amendment Act 1989,No. 17, if required, so that deaf people are included as “special witnesses”within that legislation.

I endorse Ms Lawrence’s requests because, irrespective of the guilt or innocence ofanyone involved in the matter, it appears from Ms Lawrence’s statements that there needsto be close investigation as to whether Queensland’s judiciary and police provideappropriate service to Queensland’s deaf community.

I have spoken to the Attorney-General and he has agreed to investigate the matter,which I appreciate. The matter first went to court in Townsville on 20 November last year.On 26 November 1991, after the defence barristers made a successful application on thegrounds of inaccurate interpretations of evidence and answers under cross-examinationof the complainant conducted through an official court interpreter, a mistrial was declared.The subsequent court hearing that began on 18 February was discontinued when theprosecutor decided, after examining the evidence, not to proceed. Ms Lawrence would likethe case reopened although she is aware that, in going on the public record, she will beidentified as the alleged rape victim. She believes so strongly that she has been deniedjustice that she is prepared to take the obviously painful step of going public on the issue.The record of interview with Mr McKinnon reveals that, because of the need for courtappearances, Ms Lawrence has not only lost one of the first full-time jobs she has everheld but also she and her husband have suffered immense stress as a result not only ofthe alleged rape but also of those same court appearances.

I will read some of the transcript of the interview conducted with Mr McKinnon, whichstates—

“I was still struggling, screaming, saying no while he had sex with me. Icontinued screaming. Then, when he finished I was in a great deal of pain. He waslying down on top of me and then he got off. The second man came in and he rapedme as well.”


According to the transcript, Ms Lawrence was interviewed by a translator after the event.Ms Lawrence believes that it was that initial evidence, which conflicted with laterevidence, that may have caused the trial to be aborted. Research by Mr McKinnonstrongly supports that contention.

There are at the moment in Queensland only three NAATI level 3 translators for thedeaf. Ms Lawrence was not interviewed by such a translator during her initial interview withpolice, nor during any subsequent prosecution investigations before the matter went tocourt. Mr McKinnon cites three sources on this matter. Firstly, an article co-authored byMr Roberts-Smith, QC, on Interpreters in Law Health and Social Work notes that—

“. . . when accredited interpreters in relevant language are available, the minimumlevel of NAATI, or National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters,accreditation for court interpreting is level three.”

Secondly, a submission to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department byQueensland Advocacy Incorporated on access to interpreters in the legal systemstates—

“We recommend that only qualified interpreters accredited by the NAATI beauthorised to interpret in legal proceedings and during important pretrialcommunications, such as police interviews.”

Thirdly, the draft report by the Federal Attorney-General’s Department on Access toInterpreters in the Australian Legal System of September last year notes that “theminimum standard for registration as a legal interpreter should be NAATI level 3accreditation”.

At the moment in Queensland, there are only three NAATI level 3 interpreters and,according to Ms Lawrence, she was not interviewed by one of those three after her allegedrape last year. Clearly, any disparity in her evidence can be explained by the differingqualities of her interpreters. That is why I support the first three requests of Ms Lawrence.In the record of interview with Mr McKinnon, she said, “I was told nothing about whattranspired in court. I’m deaf. I can’t explain. I was raped and I told the truth. I don’tunderstand why the whole thing was called off, I just don’t understand. Some deaf peoplehave told me that it is hard for deaf people to get justice.” It is the duty of this Parliament toinvestigate these allegations that it is hard, if not impossible, for deaf people to receivejustice. I appreciate the commitment of the Attorney-General.

In terms of Ms Lawrence’s last request that the Criminal Code, Evidence Act andOther Acts Amendment Act 1989 be amended so that deaf people are included as specialwitnesses within that legislation, I would point out that this legislation is designed toprotect the young and culturally and intellectually disabled in the courts.

Time expired.

Harristown State High School; Rangeville State School

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South) (8.16 p.m.): I am pleased that the Minister forEducation is in the Chamber for this Adjournment debate, because I wish to address theurgent capital requirements of two schools in Toowoomba: the Harristown State HighSchool and the Rangeville State School. Harristown State High School is in urgent need ofa manual arts block and a home economics block. Currently, it has a home economicsblock which is totally insufficient for the needs of the students. Harristown State HighSchool has approximately 1 270 students, which is its highest enrolment for many years.In the home economics block, the students are required to use plastic buckets; there isonly one small sink; they are in crowded accommodation; they are close to stoves; andthey have to share the same small benches. It is totally unsuitable. As well, the school is


unable to obtain accreditation through TAFE so that the students can do a cateringcourse. As to the manual arts course—the students are using facilities designed for Year8, Year 9 and Year 10 students. The school wishes that the Year 11 and Year 12 studentsundertake a technical studies course, but it finds that, owing to the lack of facilities, theyare unable properly to undertake that course. At Harristown State High School, with its1 270 students, class room space is exceedingly tight. The school proposes that, if ahome economics block could be built, the old block could be refurbished to provideadditional accommodation that is required. Currently, in extreme circumstances, theschool is accommodating the students in the library.

I understand that the Darling Downs Regional Office of the Education Departmenthas given Harristown State High School a high priority in the region for those resourceswhich the school has been requesting for a number of years. However, the particularproblem with the manual arts section is that it is designed for Years 8, 9 and 10, and thestudents in Years 11 and 12 should be doing things such as turning, welding, spraypainting and so forth so that they can then move on to TAFE. Unfortunately, they are notable to do that.

The other school to which I wish to refer is the Rangeville State School, which has anenrolment of about 850 students and which is probably one of the outstanding musicschools in Queensland. As the school is located in a growing area of Toowoomba, it has avery stable enrolment. Some of the achievements of the school in the area of music arequite outstanding. The school provides for each and every student a music lesson from aspecialist every week of the year. The current school music block is located in a roomadjacent to the main thoroughfare which leads directly into the centre of the school. It hasa tiny room for the storage of equipment and students have to use the health room, whichis used for visiting medical specialists, for some of their lessons. I will outline a list of whatthe school achieves in music education so that members will obtain an idea of the criticalneeds of the school. The school has three choirs, two of which comprise 200 students. Ithas a drama group, a tuned percussion group, a recorder group, a parade band and a Year3 singing group. In addition, 150 students receive instruction in instrumental music fromfour teachers in brass, woodwind, percussion and strings. Those 150 students make up aconcert band of 70 members, a stage band, a stringed orchestra and a full concertorchestra. Honourable members will see from those figures that an enormous number ofchildren are undertaking music courses at Rangeville State School. It is an outstandingschool in what it provides in not only education but also community benefit. The childrenvisit the various old people’s homes, perform at eisteddfods, take part in various localfestivals and sing at their local ecumenical worship service. However, the school couldachieve so much more if it had proper facilities. Currently, as well as the cramped musicfacilities, the students use an old tuckshop storage room. In the north-western corner ofthe school, there is an adequate level area close to all services where the music roomcould be built. Again, it has a top priority from the school and also from the Darling DownsRegional Office of the Education Department. It is appropriate that the Minister is presentin the Chamber. I know that this year in Toowoomba South the department has looked afterthe Glenvale State School and the Middle Ridge State School, which had basicrequirements. I draw the Minister’s attention to the needs of the Harristown State HighSchool and the Rangeville State School and ask that the resources section of theEducation Department give full consideration to two very worthwhile and necessary capitalresources required at those schools.

Dispute between AMA and Dr Cumming

Dr FLYNN (Toowoomba North) (8.20 p.m.): I wish to make a few rational andinformed comments about the dispute between the Toowoomba branch of the AMA and Dr


Ian Cumming, the regional health director. The motion of no confidence that was moved inthe regional health director on Monday night by approximately 80 of my colleagues inToowoomba has saddened me, because I do not think they are giving him the good oldAussie fair go. Moreover, this afternoon I was sickened to see the performance bymembers of both the Liberal Party and the National Party when the matter was raisedduring question-time and they brayed like an angry lynch mob. I am surprised that theywere not mounted on their horses with hoods and coats riding off with a burning cross tolynch somebody. If they are prepared to listen, tonight I will discuss some of the facts ofthe matter. The basic allegations of the AMA in Toowoomba are that Dr Cumming does notconsult with people and that he is heavy-handed. I am aware of about four or fiveprofessional disputes between individual doctors in Toowoomba and Dr Cumming. I havepersonal knowledge of only one of those complaints, and that is the story that I would liketo tell tonight.

Mr Booth interjected.

Dr FLYNN: And that is the story to which I would like the member for Warwick tolisten. The other night, 80 doctors voted against Dr Cumming, but only one of them hasbeen to see me.

Late last year, a visiting procedural specialist in Toowoomba, who is a colleague ofmine—I know him well—wrote me a letter to tell me that he was going to resign from thehospital system, from his public sessions, because he was fed up with the lack ofresources and with the long waiting lists—a system that had existed for years. So Icontacted him and I proposed that we have a meeting. Within a week, there was a meetingbetween the visiting medical specialist, Dr Cumming, Dr Lennox, who is the medicalsuperintendent at the Toowoomba General Hospital, and me. It may be noted that therewas an accusation of a lack of consultation, but within a week this problem was beingattended to. This doctor raised a number of concerns, mostly about resourcing issues. Hesaid that he could not do his job because there was a shortage of this and a shortage ofthat. After about an hour, most of those resourcing issues had been addressed. DrCumming promised to make a priority equipment that had been needed for years. In thelight of the fact that Dr Cumming has just allocated to the Toowoomba General Hospital$2.6m for the replacement of equipment—the most that has been spent in one year indecades—I would imagine that he would have got it.

After about an hour addressing these issues, we came to the fundamental problem.Now the House will hear why Dr Cumming is heavy handed. This specialist was proposingthat it would be far better for the people of Queensland if, instead of those patients havingto stay on a waiting list, he operated on them as private patients in the ToowoombaGeneral Hospital. Because the procedure would involve only a short hospital stay, evenan uninsured pensioner could probably afford the $400 or $500 that we as a StateGovernment would charge for that public bed. The specialist did not want to work for usany more—and that saddened me—but he was happy to provide an emergency service forfree as a charity. So now we come to the basic issue. In this dispute, this doctor wanted tooperate on patients, who would have been public patients, as private patients, provide acharity service to the people of Queensland, and Dr Cumming did not agree. So that iswhere Dr Cumming becomes heavy handed. I ask the member for Warwick: how does onedeal with an issue such as that?

Mr Booth: I will tell you.

Dr FLYNN: Is the honourable member prepared to let the public health services ofQueensland rely on the charity of doctors? It used to work that way, and I commend thedoctors for doing that in the old days. I am not bagging them. However, I think we havemoved beyond that now. I think the stage has been reached at which public healthservices in Queensland are a right, not a charity. This is the story that I know about in


Toowoomba. This is one of four or five bones of contention between members of the AMAand Dr Cumming. He consulted in that instance. I am afraid that if he has to be heavyhanded to tell people that public health services in Queensland are not to rely on doctors’charity, I am on his side. There are a few other matters as well. Most of the other disputesinvolved different issues, but the nub of the disputes was the same.

Time expired.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 8.27 p.m.

Documents

Hansard 11 March 1992 4029 - Queensland Parliament