Hansard 18 March 1992 4279 · 2004-12-01 · Queensland that will provide an economic boost for the State and lift the profile of Queensland within Australia and overseas. We see

Legislative Assembly 18 March 1992 4279

WEDNESDAY, 18 MARCH 1992

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

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have to inform the House that today I have received fromthe Auditor-General the second report on audits performed for the financial year ended 30June 1991.

Ordered to be printed.

PETITIONS

The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Berrinba, Retention in Brisbane City Council Area

From Mr W. K. Goss (43 signatories) praying that the land known as “Berrinba”west of the Woodridge State High School remains in the Brisbane City Council area.

Anti-hail Devices

From Mr Springborg (313 signatories) praying for an investigation into the use ofanti-hail devices and consideration being given to them being banned in Queensland.

Flying of Union Jack at Parliament House

From Mr Lingard (218 signatories) praying that the Parliament will take action toresume flying the Union Jack.

Daisy Hill, High School

From Ms Robson (221 signatories) praying that the Parliament will consider theconstruction of a high school at Daisy Hill.

Consumer Protection

From Mr Santoro (1 359 signatories) praying for legislation to protect the consumerfrom salespeople responsible for providing false and misleading information.

Petitions received.

PAPERS

The following papers were laid on the table—

Orders in Council under—

Racing and Betting Act 1980

Canals Act 1958

Canals Act 1958-1990

4280 18 March 1992 Legislative Assembly

Fauna Conservation Act 1974

Marine Parks Act 1982

National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975

Newstead House Trust Act 1939

Report of the Ministerial Consultative Council on Curriculum for the year ended 31December 1991

Proclamation under the Clean Air Act Amendment Act 1990

Regulations under—

Canals Act 1958

Clean Air Act 1963

Clean Waters Act 1971

Architects Act 1985.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Absence of Minister for Resource Industries during Question-time

Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Leader of the House) (2.35 p.m.): I have toinform the House that Mr McGrady will be absent from the House during question-timetoday owing to ministerial business.


Queensland Treasury Corporation Delegation to Europe and UnitedStates

Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (2.36 p.m.), by leave: From 14 Februaryto 1 March 1992, I accompanied a Queensland Treasury Corporation—QTC—delegation toEurope and the United States. The delegation had three main goals: the first, to market thestrong growth prospects for the Queensland economy and the very sound financialposition of the Queensland Government as guarantor of the QTC’s borrowings; thesecond, to market the QTC overseas securities issue programs with particular emphasison the QTC Australian dollar global note program; and the third, to establish and market anew multicurrency medium term note program for the QTC.

I also took the opportunity to speak at several European business functions aboutbilateral trade and investment in Queensland, to encourage the exchange of technology,goods, and services between our respective countries. In addition, I had discussions withthe New Jersey gaming authorities regarding casino development and operations andgaming machine controls. For the information of Parliament, and in accordance withministerial guidelines, I table a report on my discussions with the United States andEuropean financial institutions, together with a comprehensive itinerary giving full detailsof the trip and the delegation.



Queensland Events Corporation

Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (2.37 p.m.), by leave: The QueenslandEvents Corporation is probably best known for its sponsorship of the Daikyo Gold CoastIndy Grand Prix. In early 1990, the corporation was revamped under an expert board with acharter to develop and support major national and international events in Queensland.Since then, the corporation has been pro-active in securing many major events throughoutQueensland that will provide an economic boost for the State and lift the profile ofQueensland within Australia and overseas. We see Queensland as being the specialevents State of Australia, and with this in mind the Queensland Events Corporation hasprepared an impressive calendar of the major 100 events throughout Queensland in 1992.

Mr Littleproud: It’s three months out of date.

Mr De LACY: These intelligent interjections that come from the Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition! I understand that this calendar has already been forwarded to electoraloffices. However, I have asked the parliamentary attendants to provide honourablemembers with an additional copy. As loyal and proud Queenslanders, I am surehonourable members would be interested to know what is in store for Queensland thisyear. Major events include the Asian women’s beach volleyball qualification tournament onthe Gold Coast later this month. Finalists will qualify for the Olympic Year WorldChampionships in Barcelona. The 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea in Maywill see a number of commemorative events held primarily in the Townsville locality. Thisexposure is expected to aid in the generation of an additional $6.8m in economic activity inQueensland. In July, the annual Gold Coast International Marathon will be expanded,again with ongoing economic benefits for Queensland estimated to amount to $5.5m in1992 alone. The inaugural Great Queensland Bike Ride from Bundaberg to Brisbane, whichis to be held in August/September, travelling through all the major tourist areas, isexpected to attract at least 1 000 cyclists, many from interstate. The World MarathonCanoeing Championships will be held in September/October, during which an estimated300 of the world’s best marathon canoeists from 30 countries will be competing on theBrisbane River.

Honourable members, there is more to come. In September 1991, the QueenslandEvents Corporation won the bid for Brisbane to host the 1994 World GymnasticsChampionships. This event will provide one of the world’s great television spectacularsand is expected to boost Queensland economic activity by $16m in that year. TheQueensland Events Corporation is also negotiating to host the Master GamesInternational in Brisbane in 1994, the World White Water Rafting Festival in far-northQueensland in 1995 and the Fifth World Games in Brisbane in 1997. One of the best waysof maximising Queensland’s tourism potential is through the staging of special events.Queensland is ideally suited for the staging of these events because of our wonderfulnatural attractions, space, tourist infrastructure and sporting facilities. However, it is acompetitive field and we must be pro-active in our search for and promotion of specialevents. The Queensland Events Corporation has already established a proud record inthis regard, and the Queensland economy has begun to reap the benefit.


Drug-free Racing Industry

Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Wolston—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (2.39 p.m.),by leave: The introduction of drug-free racing in the harness industry under thisGovernment has been a tremendous confidence boost for punters, owners and trainers. It


is now illegal for any pacing or trotting animal to race in Queensland with any trace of anydrug in its system. This rule was introduced primarily to combat the reported use ofmilkshakes, a bicarbonate drench given to horses just before a race. There is suspicion,but as yet no hard scientific data, that milkshakes mask many other drugs.

In the past three months, officers from the Government’s Racing Science Centrehave put harness racing under the most intense scrutiny in its history. Well over 1 000horses in the harness racing and gallop codes have been tested to determine acceptablelevels of bicarbonate, a substance which occurs naturally in horses. The cooperation ofpeople in the industry is to be applauded. The result is quite clearly a fairer go, particularlyfor punters and trainers. To use Albion Park as an example—the frequency of odds-onfavourites starting and winning has dropped dramatically. Prize money is being shared farmore widely. To date this financial year, 54 trainers have shared in the pool. In thecorresponding period in the previous year, the figure was 29. Quite clearly, betting hasopened up. To date this year, only 10 odds-on favourites have won at the creek onSaturday nights. In the same period last year, the number was 21. Odds-on starters havedropped by a third, and three times the number of 20 to 1-plus starters have won races.Queensland’s leading harness racing book-maker, Terry Christison, sums up theprevalent attitude in the industry when he describes this bright new era as follows—

“It’s great news for trotting. Punters and bookmakers will now bet withconfidence. It has been a long time coming.”

The board that this Government installed has started the long task of revitalising anindustry which had earned a less than favourable reputation under the National PartyGovernment. Initiatives such as changes to the handicapping system, the introduction oftwo-line starts and the banning of whips are important steps in the rebuilding process.Board members Dr Fabian Fay, Mike Pelly, Jeff Slowgrove and, until recently, Walter Tuttdeserve the praise of this House for their managerial skills and willingness to consultwidely to the benefit of all in the industry.


Staffing Levels at Correctional Centres

Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services)(2.42 p.m.), by leave: During the past week, there has been a lot of talk about staffinglevels in Corrective Services. To set the record straight, I point out that, over the pastthree years, there has been a marked improvement in staff/offender ratios across theState. Overall, the ratio of prisoners to staff—including programs staff—across allcorrectional centres has improved by a factor of 20 per cent. At Rockhampton, the ratio ofprisoners to staff has fallen from 1.83 to 1.19 since the establishment in December 1988of the Queensland Corrective Services Commission. The Townsville prisoner numbershave been halved, while the staff numbers have actually increased since 1989. Indeed,the ratio of prisoners to staff at Townsville is 1 to 1. In 1988, the ratio of custodial officersto prisoners in Townsville was 1 to 2.39 offenders. By 1990, that ratio had improved withone custodial officer to 2.06 prisoners. In 1992, there is one custodial officer to every 1.26offenders. A similar improvement has taken place in Rockhampton. In 1988, there was onecustodial officer to 2.10 prisoners and, in 1992, that ratio has dropped to one officer to1.15 offenders. There have also been claims that the Townsville Correctional Centrebudget has been cut. The 1989-90 budget was $11.9m, as was the 1990-91 budget,whereas the 1991-92 budget was $12.3m.

For the record, I state again that this Government has no intention of employingstrike-breaking firms. This Government has not approached Wormald Security or any


other similar company, nor does it intend to do so, and neither has the board of theCorrective Services Commission. The issues are now before the Industrial RelationsCommission. I will continue to urge all parties involved to abide by the rulings of thatindependent umpire.

TRAVELSAFE COMMITTEE

Report

Mr ARDILL (Salisbury) (2.44 p.m.): I present the report of the TravelsafeCommittee, including a report by Elliott and Shanahan Research on achieving——

Honourable members interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, the member for Salisbury is reportingon a very important matter. I would like members to listen to him.

Mr ARDILL: It is a report on achieving high levels of compliance with road safetylaws—a review of road-user behaviour modification—by communications and researchpsychologists Elliott and Shanahan. I move that the report be printed.


QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1 . Refund of ALP Raffle Moneys

Mr LITTLEPROUD asked the Minister for Justice and Corrective Services—

“With reference to the attempt by the ALP in 1991 to run a major fundraiser,selling tickets in a raffle, which was later deemed to be illegal and as they wereinstructed by the Director-General of the Department of Justice to refund all of themoney—

(1) In the interests of open and accountable Government, has all the moneybeen refunded?

(2) Was an audit done to ensure that the money had been refunded?

(3) What documentation was provided to his Director-General to satisfy himthat its demand had been complied with?

(4) Will he now table such documentation so that the Parliament might besatisfied that there has been no illegality?”

Mr MILLINER: I have to advise the honourable member for Condamine that theresponsibility for art unions was transferred from my department to the TreasuryDepartment almost 12 months ago. However, this matter arose while they were still aresponsibility of my department, so I am able to provide the following information—

(1) As a result of advice received from solicitors acting for the Australian LaborParty, Queensland Branch, all persons who paid the $10 were to be offered a refund eitherat the function or by notification in a Labor Party communique.

(2) No audit was required by the department. Although it was agreed to discontinuethe art union, the associated social function was still held. So the $10 fees were stillcollected, but purely for attendance at the function. Any person who had paid the $10solely for the purpose of taking part in the lucky door prize was, according to the


solicitors, to be offered a refund. In these circumstances, an audit would not be of anypractical value.

(3 and 4) Legal advice indicates that proof of illegality of the raffle may have beendifficult. This centred on the meaning of the words "community purpose" in the Act. Theimportant thing is that the activity commenced without an appreciation of the need forapproval, that it was stopped and that people were offered the opportunity to have theirmoney refunded. As my department no longer has records of any specific art uniondealings, I suggest that all future inquiries be directed to my colleague the Honourable theTreasurer.

2 . Former Police Minister Mackenroth; Police Commissioner Newnham

Mr LITTLEPROUD asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services—

“With reference to the Premier’s comments in the House during the week ending14 March and again on the ABC’s 7.30 Report on 16 March that the former PoliceMinister, Mr Mackenroth, was the ‘best Police Minister in 30 years’, and to MrMackenroth’s allegations that the Police Commissioner hampered the reformagenda, lacked integrity, loyalty and competence, misused public funds,undermined the Government and should be removed from office—

What is his assessment of the Police Commissioner’s performance and will henow publicly disassociate himself from his predecessor’s claims?”

Mr WARBURTON: Yesterday, the Premier ably expressed the Government’sposition regarding the differences of opinion that surfaced between CommissionerNewnham and the former Minister for Police, Mr Terry Mackenroth. Mr Mackenroth alsooutlined his position yesterday in the Matters of Public Interest debate. I have alreadysaid publicly and in this place that Commissioner Newnham and I have established what Iperceive as a solid working relationship. The position is the same in respect of my workingrelationship with Acting Commissioner Blizzard.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Guidelines for Ministerial Expenditure and Travel

Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the current reviewof parliamentary travel entitlements. I remind him of his commitment to this House on 6March 1990 and on 5 December 1991 to table the as yet unreleased Cabinet handbook andguidelines for ministerial expenditure. I refer also to the Premier’s latest apparent attemptat decision-making, that is, after three months’ delay referring the CJC report to theappropriate parliamentary committee. I ask: in accordance with previous commitmentsgiven to this House, when will the Premier table his guidelines for ministerial expenditureand travel?

Mr W. K. GOSS: When the Cabinet handbook review process is completed andthe handbook is ready for printing, the Leader of the Opposition can have the lot. As to theguidelines for ministerial travel—there is nothing particularly mysterious about those. Thetravel must be related to the duties and functions of the Minister. It covers other normalexpenses—as it has in previous years in this and other jurisdictions—such as taxi fares.As well, it obviously covers accompanying staff and departmental representatives. Itcovers the Minister’s spouse accompanying him or her on a trip when the trip is reasonablyassociated with the functions of the Minister. There is nothing particularly mysteriousabout that.


As to the other issue about the travel guidelines as recommended by the CJC—onlythis morning I received submissions from the National Party and the Liberal Party. Overthe course of the next couple of days, I will be reading those submissions. I have receivedsubmissions from the back bench of the Labor Party. The National Party Opposition, theLiberal Party and the Labor Party back bench are primarily affected by those guidelines,particularly in political terms. I accept the force of many of the arguments put forward bythe Leader of the Opposition as to the relative fairness of some of the guidelines relatingto the Opposition. The Government will certainly take those matters into account.However, given much of the hypocritical mud-slinging and point-scoring that has occurredon the general travel issue over recent months, I can tell the Leader of the Opposition thatthe Government will not spend too much time carrying too much flak for the Opposition. Ifit becomes a question of striking a balance that minimises point-scoring and hypocriticalmud-slinging from members opposite, the Government will take a tougher position.

Mr Borbidge: Is that a threat, is it?

Mr W. K. GOSS: No. It is a statement of political fact. It is important in terms ofrestoring public confidence and trust in this institution that we do not have continual mud-slinging and point-scoring in debate. If it really wanted to be difficult and tough withOpposition members, the Government would just adopt the CJC recommendations andOpposition members could squirm. However, the Government will reasonably andrationally consider the points raised by the National Party, the Liberal Party and the LaborParty back bench.

PRIVILEGE

Members’ Travel Entitlements

Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (2.52 p.m.): I rise ona matter of privilege. The House is hearing from the Premier a blatant threat to theOpposition to shut up on the travel rorts issue, otherwise he will remove members’ travelentitlements. I want to say to the Premier that we will not be threatened or intimidated bythat sort of stand-over tactic.

Mr Burns interjected.

Mr Littleproud interjected.

Mr Borbidge interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Deputy Premier, the member for Condamine andthe Leader of the Opposition under Standing Order 123A. The Leader of the Oppositioncannot make a political statement in this House by way of a matter of privilege. It is not amatter of privilege.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr W. K. GOSS, continuing: I am somewhat surprised by the spontaneouseruption of leadership, I think it is called, from Mr Borbidge. This morning he had deliveredto me a submission stating that I should depart from the CJC recommendations——

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. The Premier is misleading the House. Mysubmission was delivered to his office at 5 p.m. yesterday.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that he will beunderstanding and accept my explanation. I have a few things to do besides wait forletters from Mr Borbidge. The Leader of the Opposition has had delivered to me a


submission saying that I should depart from the CJC recommendations. That is notsomething I would do lightly, but in fairness to the Leader of the Opposition, and inresponse to this great show of leadership from him, the Government will be formulating adocument which the all-party parliamentary committee, including his representatives, candiscuss with the CJC so that this matter can be resolved at an early opportunity.

ALP Campaign Document

Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a further question to the Premier, I refer to somethingthat he apparently thinks is quite humorous. I refer to an ALP campaign document that ishighly critical of the National Party which was issued under his name and letterhead andattached to the pay-packets of Queensland public servants. I ask: does the Premierconsider that this action is consistent with the Fitzgerald reform process? Why does hebelieve that taxpayers should foot the bill for what amounts to a blatant party political pitchto public servants who are disgruntled by the Premier’s so-called reforms?

Mr W. K. GOSS: The Leader of the Opposition is engaging in his usual practice ofbuilding on an untruth. He has put a false premise into his question and has proceededfrom there. This is presumably what he calls leadership. When the question of leadershipand approval ratings was raised with the Leader of the Opposition at a press conferencetoday, he told the media that the jury was still out on his leadership. He said that 58 percent of Queenslanders cannot make up their minds about his leadership and, therefore,the jury is still out. As one journalist appropriately said, “I bet you’ll try to get Luke Shaw tochair that jury”. That would be the only way that the Leader of the Opposition could turnaround the fairly depressing trend that he sees month after month.

The Leader of the Opposition builds falsehoods into the factual basis of hisquestions. He puts in falsehoods and thinks that he can trip the Government up. Howtricky! The falsehood is this: the Leader of the Opposition says that the document is anALP brochure of some sort. It is not; it is a letter from me, as Premier, to the publicservants who are working hard and doing a good job for the people of this State and for theGovernment.

Mr Hobbs interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Warrego under Standing Order 123A.

Mr FitzGerald: Read out the letter. You signed it.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I would be happy to read it out. It is surprising that theOpposition cannot supply a copy of the letter as about 100 000 copies were sent out. Theletter essentially said that the Queensland public sector has been through a big processof change that has been stressful for many public servants. The process of change isalways stressful for those who are involved in it. For example, look at the honourablemembers opposite. Some people are completely unable to cope with change. I am pleasedto report that the public sector is coping much better than are the honourable membersopposite. It is important in a large organisation to communicate clearly to employees whatis going on and why it is happening. The letter simply thanks public servants for theirpatience and understanding during this process of change and advises them thatsomething with which they are vitally concerned—namely, the PSMC review process—hasbeen completed slightly ahead of the timetable. It states also that the Government, chiefexecutives and the Senior Executive Service are endeavouring to consolidate and settledown the process of change so that the public service can continue to perform effectively.It notes a few of the changes that have occurred and gives a commitment to do somethingmore in the area of training—something that was grossly neglected under the previousGovernment, although that was not stated in the letter.

I simply pointed out in the letter that the Government needs to do more in respect oftraining and I gave that commitment to public servants. That is something that would be


welcomed. Employers have an obligation to communicate significant developments toemployees and to do it in the most effective way. I understand that the cost of theexercise was approximately 4c per letter. I think that is a cheap and effective way ofcommunicating with public servants about a matter which is of vital concern to them.

Minproc Resources Pty Ltd

Mr PREST: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the decision of theQueensland chemical manufacturing company, Minproc, to reduce its staff by 40 per cent,or by 34 employees, in the wake of cut-backs in sodium cyanide production, and I ask:what steps has the State Government taken to encourage action by the FederalGovernment to overcome the practice of dumping chemical products that weremanufactured overseas on the Australian market—a practice which is seriously damagingMinproc’s performance?

Mr W. K. GOSS: This is a serious issue and one which is of concern to manyAustralian industries and companies. I must say that I am very disappointed with theFederal Government’s performance in relation to the dumping issue and in combating it,both in terms of the effectiveness of the Federal Government’s response and the delaysthat it has built into the system and is failing to act on. Jobs have been lost from Minproc. Ithink that is not entirely due to the dumping problem, although it is certainly a significantfactor. The company has a legitimate complaint, and I support its stand. The QueenslandGovernment has supported the company over a considerable period.

This issue was raised in one of today’s newspaper reports in which the FederalMinister, Mr Beddall, is reported to have stated that the Federal Government did nothesitate to act. However, I think that the Federal Government’s record in this matter hasnot been as good as that. In May last year, I wrote to the Prime Minister. My colleague theMinister for Business, Industry and Regional Development prepared a detailed submissionfrom the Queensland Government to the Federal Government in relation to the dumping ofsodium cyanide on the Australian market which effectively supported the company’sposition and also put the position adopted by the Queensland Government. We noted thatpreliminary investigations found prima facie evidence of dumping and that the AustralianCustoms Service had referred the matter to the Anti-Dumping Authority for furtherinvestigation, which was strongly supported by this Government. The Minister forBusiness, Industry and Regional Development put in a submission and pointed out thatQueensland has two world-competitive sodium cyanide plants that are both located nearGladstone in central Queensland. I asked the Prime Minister to give the matter urgentconsideration.

Action to address this problem has not been taken by the Federal Government. Acouple of weeks ago, I again wrote to Mr Beddall, specifically raising with him the issue ofMinproc. Copies of the letter setting out the complaint were sent also to the Prime Ministerand the relevant senior Minister, Senator Button. I wish to refer to one brief passage of theletter that highlights the company’s concerns and sets out more generally the complaintwhich the Federal Government must address. In my letter to Mr Beddall dated 10 March, Istated that recent discussions that I had had with Minproc—which were in February, frommy recollection—indicated that its concerns continued to relate to, firstly, the slowness ofanti-dumping action; secondly, the selective nature of the information considered by theAnti-Dumping Authority; thirdly, the inaccuracy of the authority’s resources to examinethe complaints in depth, particularly to validate the pricing of the exporting company; and,lastly, the appeal process. I strongly urge the Federal Government to get its act together.It has had long enough to act on that issue. Good Queensland and Australian companiesare suffering as a consequence of undercutting by overseas producers.


Gympie Floods

Mr PREST: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries: in view of the concern of theGoss Government in relation to problems created in the primary industries sector byrecent flood rains in the Gympie region, can he inform the House whether there has beenfurther damage to lands by subsequent rains?

Mr CASEY: I am very thankful to the honourable member for raising this question inthe Parliament. It is the type of issue that should be brought forward in the Parliament, butit is certainly not brought forward by members opposite who, over the past two weeks,have shown no concern whatsoever for some of the problems caused by the weather inthis State. Of course, it is no wonder that is the case when one considers the type ofleadership that is being shown and the type of utter garbage and drivel that comes fromthe Leader of the Opposition—that well-known former Victorian from the Gold Coast whodoes not appreciate or understand very much at all about rural Queensland.

A Liberal Party member interjected.

Mr CASEY: As for the Liberals—they know nothing about Queensland north ofCaloundra, anyhow.

Opposition members interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr CASEY: The House should be pleased to note, I am sure, that I spent the entiremorning in Gympie in the company of Councillor Adrian McClintock, the Chairman of theWidgee Shire Council, and the Mayor of Gympie, Alderman Dodt, both of whom showed mearound.

Mr Stephan interjected.

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

A Government member interjected.

Mr CASEY: No, the member for Gympie was not there. He knew about my visit, butperhaps he was in Brisbane on parliamentary business. The point I make is that, throughCouncillor McClintock, a series of meetings was organised with a number of importantcommunity and rural organisations to discuss the further problems that have occurred inthe region following the bad flood rains and record rainfall of approximately three weeksago. This has created another great problem for them, but one point that they emphasisedwas that they asked me to pass on their congratulations to the Premier and other Ministerswho have visited the area. This morning, those people conveyed the appreciation,understanding and congratulations of the community to the Goss Government on the wayit has moved in to help them with their problems in this very serious situation.

I also inform the House that, as of today, the Government has placed a full-time ruralcounsellor in Gympie who will be available to discuss the financial needs of people invarious industries. For example, the horticultural industry has been badly hit and dams onfarm properties have suffered considerable damage. Even the beef industry thatdepended for fodder on lucerne grown on the riverflats has suffered some problems aswell. All in all, the district has been hard hit, but I can assure the House that the problemscreated by additional damage caused by further rain will be overcome as soon as theproper assessments of the damage are received. That will be done in conjunction with thebanks, the accountants of various organisations and the QIDC. The assessments havealso been delayed because of the problems caused by the heavy rains, and further delayshave been caused by the fact that people really do not know where their problems lie. Inrural areas, after the initial damage, it takes several weeks to obtain full assessments.


The first responsibility of this Government is to show care and concern for the people inthe area, their individual safety, and their shelter and accommodation. Those needs havebeen well catered for by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Mr Warburton,and other Government departments. The people of Queensland can be assured that whena natural disaster such as this occurs, this Government will give them every support andevery assistance, and will give it to them rapidly.

Opinion of Police Commissioner on CJC Travel Expenses Report

Dr WATSON: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to a section of thespeech tabled by the member for Chatsworth yesterday in which he indicated that thePolice Commissioner said to the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for CriminalJustice on Sunday, 8 December, that action should be taken against politicians referred toin the CJC travel report, and I ask: was the Premier aware of the Police Commissioner’sopinion before he accepted the resignations of Ministers Mackenroth and McElligott fromthe Ministry and, if not, when did he become aware that the Police Commissioner held theview that legal action should be taken?

Mr Mackenroth: When Peter Beattie said it on radio on the Friday.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I was not aware of the Police Commissioner’s view. It wassubsequently reported to me that this had been reported in a news outlet somewhere. Iheard the interjection from the member for Chatsworth that the chairman of theparliamentary committee had said that on some radio interview. I am not sure whether thatis right. This was reported to me in the context not so much of the Police Commissionerhaving formed a legal view or having been intending to take any action himself, but ratherexpressing a view, as it were, more as a member of the public or more as his observationon the subject rather than some view in relation to some criminal investigation—thequestion of criminal liability, of course, already having been determined by the CriminalJustice Commission’s independent counsel and as a consequence of the reference of twosample cases to the Director of Prosecutions, who came to the same conclusion inrelation to legal liability.

Youth Unemployment

Dr WATSON: In directing a question to the Minister for Employment, Training andIndustrial Relations, I refer the Minister to a feature article headed “The Jobs Report” in the14 March issue of the Courier-Mail. The report cites figures from the Federal Department ofEmployment, Education and Training which show that young Queenslanders lost a net12 600 job opportunities in the 12 months to August last year. A spokesman for thedepartment, Ray O’Donnell, was quoted as saying that youth unemployment was likely torise again to 5 per cent higher than it was this time last year. I ask: in light of those gloomyforecasts, can the Minister tell Queensland youth where the jobs will come from under hisGovernment?

Mr VAUGHAN: I am aware of the recent youth unemployment figures that werepublished as part of the latest unemployment statistics. I am also aware of the fact that28.2 per cent of young people between the ages of 15 and 19 in this State are currentlyunemployed, and I am aware of the difficulties that they face.

Mr Stoneman: It is probably closer to 50.

Mr VAUGHAN: No. The figure is 28.2 per cent. That is slightly lower than the figurefor January this year. According to the figures that I have been given, the total is 22 300. Ican assure the honourable member and every member of this House that the StateGovernment is doing everything it possibly can to try to find jobs for the unemployed


people of this State, particularly the young unemployed. Today, I went to the GriffithUniversity site at the Gold Coast to present certificates to 10 young people who haveundertaken a course as plant operators. All over Queensland the Government is spendingconsiderable amounts of money to try to combat youth unemployment. The member wouldalso be aware that the Government has embarked upon a program to create, this year,20 000 additional places in TAFE courses, taking the total from 130 000 to 150 000.

In addition, in February this year, the Federal Government allocated $33m as anadded incentive to encourage employers to take on additional apprentices. The memberwould be aware—unfortunately, many people are not—that under the Australian TrainingInitiative, at the commencement of an apprenticeship an employer is paid $1,500 and, atthe end the employer is paid a further $1,500. An amount of $3,000 is paid to employers toencourage them to take on apprentices. The initiative that the Federal Governmentannounced in February this year of the additional $33m has provided employers with anadditional $2,000, taking the total to $5,000. An employer who takes on an additional first-year apprentice over and above the number of first-year apprentices that he employed at30 September last year receives an additional $1,000 on top of the $1,500 that he getsinitially. After a further period of six months, the employer receives a further $1,000. Thatis an additional $2,000 to encourage employers to take on additional apprentices. That isonly one aspect of the incentives being provided. This Government will spend $4.8m,which is the amount allocated in the 1991-92 Budget. The sum of $1m is being spent ontraining positions for 1 200 young people; $1.5m is being spent on 40 youth coordinatorslocated at 20 strategic places in the State to coordinate employment initiatives for youngpeople; $1m is being spent on vocational courses for 1 000 disadvantaged 15 to 21-yearolds and, in addition, 22 group training schemes operate throughout the State. In the1991-92 Budget, the Government has allocated $2.1m, which is meeting theCommonwealth Government on a——

Mr SANTORO: I rise to a point of order. The Minister is talking about training, notjobs. We asked a question about jobs.

Mr Veivers interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Southport under Standing Order123A. I warn the member for Merthyr that that point of order is extremely frivolous. I am notimpressed. I suggest that the Minister is debating the issue of youth unemployment andthat he round up.

Mr VAUGHAN: I will, Mr Speaker. I will round up by reiterating that in the 1991-92Budget, $2.1m was allocated for group training schemes in this State. Approximately3 000 young people are covered by the group training schemes in this State. Thoseschemes are run by the Government subsidy and are separate from the schemes that arerun by private industry.

Housing

Mr PITT: I ask the Deputy Premier and Minister for Housing and Local Government:can he inform the House of the success of the Government’s housing policies, especiallythe HOME Shared scheme?

Mr BURNS: I am pleased to announce to the House the success of the HOMEscheme. I do not think that, in the last month or two, there would be a newspaper inQueensland that has not reported statements by people from the QMBA, the HIA or theREIQ that the Queensland Government’s Home Ownership Made Easier scheme hadincreased building activity, had created extra jobs and had contributed to increasedemployment across the State. They said that they were supportive of it. There has beenpage after page of statements from various people.


The HOME Shared scheme is a very good scheme. It is designed to help thosepeople who cannot afford a full deposit to borrow $90,000 or $100,000 to purchase ahome. People are allowed to buy 25 per cent of the home and then they are allowed toincrease that by 5 per cent. The interest rate is fixed for three years. If a person does nothave enough money to buy a home and he is earning less than $40,000 a year, thisscheme gives him an opportunity to purchase a home.

The Liberal Party and the National Party make a bit of noise about this. However, theLiberal Party obviously likes this scheme because it is currently looking at a way ofintroducing it in reverse. It should be remembered that, under the Government’s scheme,our tenants buy more shares and they take over the property from the landlord. In thecase of the Liberal Party, the landlord is going to take over the property. As I understandit, a Mr Robert Tucker, the director of Tucker Nominees, is the Liberal Party’s landlord. Heis also one of the three vice-presidents of the Liberal Party. His $2 company owns theproperty in Lutwyche Road that the Liberal Party is now renting. I see the member forCurrumbin nodding his head. The reason why he is nodding his head is that Mr Tucker isgoing to throw “Porky” Everingham out. “Porky” Everingham is an embarrassment to theLiberals today.

The Liberals are experiencing HOME Shared in reverse. In the Labor Party’s versionof HOME Shared, the tenant gets more money and takes over from the landlord; in theLiberal Party’s version of HOME Shared, the landlord gets hold of the Liberal Party and theLiberals are going to throw “Porky” Everingham out. I want the Liberal Party to tell me whatwill happen to Mrs Sheldon then. Will she be evicted? Will she go out with “Porky”Everingham? Or will she go down the drain? Everybody in this place is barking that “Porky”Everingham is on the way out and that Tucker is taking over. Who is taking over.

Health System

Mr PITT: I ask the Minister for Health: is he aware of the outrageous and erroneousstatements made by the Opposition Health spokesperson in this morning’s ToowoombaChronicle, in which she deliberately understates the Queensland Health budget increaselast year and asserts that the Government is letting the State’s health systemdeteriorate? Could the Minister tell the House how the delivery of health servicesthroughout Queensland has improved under the Goss Labor Government and how thepolicies espoused by the current Government differ from those of the Opposition?

Mr HAYWARD: I thank the honourable member for his question. I did see thisparticular article this morning. It states “Doctors’ protest highlights cash weakness inhealth system”.

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, this morning I receivedcorrespondence from you which would indicate that the subject of this question will be thesubject of a debate before this House this afternoon and as such the question would beout of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The ruling that I gave yesterday was that it is a matter that ison the business sheet. This is a matter for a Matter of Special Public Importance debate.The question is not out of order. The Minister will answer the question.

Mr HAYWARD: The situation is that in this particular article——

Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the business sheet, GeneralBusiness—Special Public Importance Debate, and I draw your attention to a letter thatyou sent to me this morning which confirmed that this would be the subject of debate latertoday.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will check with the Clerk whether he agrees with my ruling.


Order! I rule that question out of order.

Health Expenditure

Mrs McCAULEY: I ask the Minister for Health: will he advise this House what hashappened to the $200,000 provided in the Budget for an eye registrar at the TownsvilleGeneral Hospital and whether this specialist position will be filled in this financial year ornot? Would he further advise whether the $1m for equipment for both the Royal BrisbaneHospital and the Princess Alexandra Hospital has been spent, and, if not, whether it is stillavailable, and whether it be spent in this financial year?

Mr HAYWARD: I thank the honourable member for the question. I assume that sheis referring to the eye bank which I opened about three weeks ago at the PA Hospital. Thisis a great example of what regionalisation is all about. Regionalisation means thatdecisions are being made locally and they are being made about matters that affect peoplelocally. Those matters, as they affect the Budget, will be considered in the context of theregionalisation process.

Nursing Staff Levels

Mrs McCAULEY: A terrible answer! It was no answer. My second question, whichis also to the Minister for Health, concerns the statement last week by Queensland NursesUnion secretary, Denis Jones, that nursing staff levels in Queensland public hospitals are20 per cent to 25 per cent below adequate levels. I ask the Minister: will he advise thisHouse what he intends to do about the crisis in the public health system in this State?Does he agree that such a serious shortage of nursing staff is detrimental to patients’welfare? Further, does this not emphasise that cutting back some 300 beds at the RoyalBrisbane Hospital, the State’s largest——

Mrs EDMOND: I rise to a point of order. Surely the same terms apply to thisquestion as applied to the previous question.

Mrs McCAULEY: Further, does that not emphasise that cutting back some 300beds at the Royal Brisbane Hospital, the State’s largest teaching hospital, coincides withthe AMA statement that endeavours by Governments to achieve further productivitysavings will only result in a further increase in waiting lists and a decline in quality of care?And answer the question!

Mr HAYWARD: I thank the honourable member for the question. It is an extremelylong question, but again it refers directly to the budgetary issues and other matters whichwere apparently referred to before. In last year’s Health budget, there was a real increaseof $221m. That is a real increase of 7.5 per cent for last year, and there was a 2.5 per centincrease in the year before that. That increase conflicts directly with a real decline inHealth spending in the previous five years under the National Party Government. They arethe sorts of solutions that the National Party Government and its Liberal colleagues wishto bring into this Parliament. What are their solutions?

Mr Veivers interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have warned the member for Southport under StandingOrder 123A. This is a final warning. The honourable member cannot move his hand aroundand think that he can interject in that fashion.

Mr HAYWARD: The sorts of solutions that are proposed by members opposite andtheir coalition colleagues in the Liberal Party really bear some thinking about. What themembers of the Liberal Party seem to reflect on is their Fightback package, which quitesimply means that in this State there will be a $50m direct cut in moneys given to


Queensland Health. Where do members opposite want that cut to come from? What dothey want to do? Do they want the cut to come out of the budget for community nursing orthe budget for hospitals in rural areas? Opposition members are not presenting anysolution to that problem. When one looks at the poIicies of the Liberal Party, try as onemight, one cannot find a policy on health. It is a political party in this State without a healthpolicy. That does not necessarily reflect on the Liberal Party spokesperson on Health. Itreflects on the present Leader of the Liberal Party.

Mrs McCAULEY: I rise to a point of order. This is the second question that I haveasked the Minister for Health, and he is simply not answering it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr HAYWARD: The honourable member asked a question about the issues of thecosts and so on, and that is exactly the information that I am delivering. What it simplymeans is that the particular——

Mr Beanland: Mr Speaker, I refer you to Standing Order 70 which relates to therelevance of answers.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Beanland. I understand Standing Order 70. Isuggest that the Minister does not debate the question at length. He should round off hisanswer now.

Mr HAYWARD: I am simply saying that what the members of the Liberal Party andNational Party are proposing will mean the end to any new initiatives by Queensland Healthin regard to women in rural and remote areas, and it will mean an end to rural hospitals.

Women’s Policy Unit

Ms POWER: I ask the Premier: in light of the growing community concern over theincidence of continuing violence directed against women, what initiatives have theWomen’s Policy Unit and the Government taken to fight and counter domestic violenceand crimes of violence against women?

Mr W. K. GOSS: This is an issue that the member for Mansfield has continued topursue throughout her time in the Parliament. It is a problem to which there is no completeor perfect solution, but I think that all Governments can and should commit themselves toendeavouring to do more to overcome it. This Government is tackling this difficult issue ofviolence against women as a priority area across departments. The current Budgetprovided a significant increase in resources to the Department of Family Services forStatewide information and referral services for women involved in domestic violence, andto Queensland Health for the provision of services to women who have experiencedsexual assault, including a 24-hour crisis line. The Queensland Police Service hasundertaken a women’s safety project and is conducting a trial with the community in theMorningside area of Brisbane. This action, which was not previously taken by ourpredecessors, is being taken by this Government in three departments.

Furthermore, the Women’s Policy Unit from my own department is undertaking acoordinating role in relation to the Government’s response to this question. The unit hasidentified a gap that needs further investigation for the development of a policy whichwould better respond to the continuing and unfortunate level of violence against women.Only recently, the Women’s Policy Unit awarded a consultancy to the Sunshine Coastinteragency research group to identify the costs and benefits associated with prevention,early intervention, and crisis intervention strategies, and proposed appropriate and cost-effective service delivery strategies to respond to the issue of violence against women.Much is being done, but this Government acknowledges that there is more to be done. It is


hoped that out of this ongoing work the Government will receive advice and developpolicies that will enable it to continue to try to combat this terrible problem.

International Women’s Day

Ms POWER: I ask the Premier a further question: can he outline the initiativestaken by the Women’s Policy Unit in promoting International Women’s Day, and the publicreaction to the activities held during the past fortnight?

Mr W. K. GOSS: This year, International Women’s Day provided an opportunityfor a number of Government departments to highlight the ongoing initiatives of theGovernment to improve the status of women in this State, an important policy areaaffecting just over half of the population of Queensland who had been sadly neglected fordecades. The role of the Women’s Policy Unit in International Women’s Day——

Mr Dunworth: Why don’t you read the whole lot?

Mr W. K. GOSS: It would take too long. I am going to read parts of it.

Mr Elliott interjected.

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

Mr W. K. GOSS: The role of my Women’s Policy Unit, in particular in relation to theInternational Women’s Day celebrations, was to coordinate across departments and workwith the community-based steering group. Particular initiatives included information stallsin the Botanic Gardens, the launch of a policy statement on gender equity in education,the Queensland launch of the national plan of action for women in TAFE, a variety ofprograms in TAFE colleges, a forum on sexual violence against women, the launch of theQueensland breast cancer screening program, a series of lunch-time seminars for ruralwomen, and the launch of a series of info-sheets by the Women’s Policy Unit. The lastevent I would mention was the women’s run for fun, which was a fun run in which theMinister for Tourism, Sport and Racing was involved——

Mr Dunworth: It must have been a short one.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I understand that the only notable absence from the women’srun for fun was the member for Landsborough who, for International Women’s Day,confined her exercise to a petulant and pathetic walk-out during the Prime Minister’sspeech to the Unifem breakfast.

Privatisation

Mr SLACK: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to an answer given byhim to the member for Mulgrave last week regarding corporatisation. In response to aninterjection by the Leader of the Opposition regarding privatisation the Treasurer stated—

“. . . the Government is endeavouring to negotiate a three or five-year period whenthose taxes will not be paid to the Commonwealth.”

One can only assume from that statement that the Government itself has beenconsidering privatisation and “negotiating” with the Commonwealth on this issue. I ask theTreasurer: could he advise the House of the outcome of the negotiations that he referredto, considering that the interjection had been prompted by his telling the House that theQueensland Government would not get anything back in return in lieu of $70m inCommonwealth tax that would be foregone if Suncorp was privatised? Will the Treasureracknowledge that he has been attempting to mislead the people of Queensland and themembers of this House when he has repeatedly advanced this argument against


privatisation knowing full well that that is not the case? I table advice from theCommonwealth in this matter.

Mr De LACY: I must compliment the honourable member for Burnett. In the shorttime since he became shadow Treasurer, he has already asked more questions than themember for Burdekin did in his first 12 months in that position. That gives some points tothe honourable member. However, I cannot give him any points for the content of hisquestion because it is simply wrong. There are two parties in this House that areadvocating privatisation. The Labor Party is advocating corporatisation. The honourablemember can get out amongst the public as much as he likes and try to justify hiscontention that the Government ought to privatise Queensland’s ports, or that it ought toprivatise Suncorp, or that it ought to privatise Government enterprises. The honourablemember should see if he can sell that to the public, because I can tell him that I can sell myprogram of corporatisation to the public. I can do that because it delivers all the benefits ofprivatisation, but does not sell off Queensland’s strategic assets.

Dr Watson: You are going to succeed while everyone else fails.

Mr De LACY: That is right—as this Labor Government has always done. In answerto the question—the Queensland Government has not been negotiating with theCommonwealth Government about the return of taxes in the event of privatisation. That issomething that other States, particularly Victoria and New South Wales, are doing.

Mr Slack: It is exactly the same if you seek a return from the Commonwealth in lieuof taxes the Commonwealth gets—corporatisation and privatisation.

Mr De LACY: What utter nonsense! I will answer the honourable member’squestion as comprehensively as I can. There were discussions at the Special PremiersConference during which the Commonwealth Government was talking about offeringincentives to the States to privatise. It was suggested that there could be a five-yearperiod during which the States could retain the taxes which would otherwise go to theCommonwealth. My point is that the State Government does not pay Federal Governmenttaxes, and while the Government keeps Queensland’s enterprises as State Governmententities, there is no obligation to pay taxes.

Mr Slack interjected.

Mr De LACY: What is the honourable member arguing about? I presume that whatthe honourable member is trying to say is that private companies can pay taxes to theState Government instead of paying them to the Federal Government. That is not thecase. I simply make the point that by keeping Queensland’s enterprises under StateGovernment ownership, firstly, Queensland has the benefit of retaining control of itsstrategic assets and, secondly, Queensland can get money in lieu of Federal Governmenttaxes. That is the essential difference.

Mr SLACK: I rise to a point of order. The Treasurer has said that what I was sayingis simply——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not going to allow the honourable member to make adebating point via a point of order.

Stamp Duty Charged to Lifeline

Mr SLACK: I remind the Treasurer of the human suffering that is occurringthroughout the State as a result of the record high unemployment. I draw his attention tothe decision of his department to charge Lifeline in Bundaberg $8,000 stamp duty on thetransfer of a building that it purchased. The Treasurer should be aware that Lifeline is a


charitable organisation providing an invaluable service to the community in these times ofacute need. The building is to be used for the purpose of converting donated clothing intocash through the sale of that clothing by voluntary labour. It is hardly a commercialoperation in the true sense of the word. I ask the Treasurer: was he aware of and a party tothe decision to charge the $8,000 stamp duty? Secondly, is he prepared to reconsider thedecision in light of the purpose to which the money made from the sale of donated clothingis put, which is for helping and counselling people in desperate need, or is it to be theongoing policy of the Treasurer to charge stamp duty in such circumstances?

Mr De LACY: No, of course I was not a party to the decision to charge Lifelinestamp duty. That is a decision made by the Commissioner for Stamp Duties. There is noway that I would ever be party to a decision such as that. I think that to even ask aquestion such as that demonstrates the honourable member’s lack of understanding ofthe whole process of taxation. I will go one step further. The Commissioner for StampDuties decided to charge stamp duty on that particular transaction because that is theway in which the legislation is written. The legislation was mooted by the National PartyGovernment and was to be introduced in 1989. It was subsequently introduced by thisGovernment, but agreed to by all political parties. The Opposition voted for that particularpiece of legislation. To suggest that somehow or other it is the Labor Government that hasimposed the charge is wrong. It was the Commissioner for Stamp Duties, consistent withthe legislation, who imposed it.

Mr Borbidge: Will you consider an ex gratia repayment?

Mr De LACY: That is probably a reasonable question, but let me make one otherpoint. It is that the property was not purchased by Lifeline; it was purchased by the UnitingChurch. Lifeline is a trust which is owned by the Uniting Church. I make the point that theUniting Church, or Lifeline for that matter, does not need to purchase freehold title toproperty around this State in order to conduct opportunity shops. Those organisations caneasily conduct their business from rented premises—as the St Vincent de Paul Societydoes—and, therefore, not be subject to land tax or stamp duty.

Last year, I introduced into this House amendments to the Land Tax Act. Thoseamendments, which were subsequently passed, made it quite clear that charities such asLifeline and the St Vincent de Paul Society would not have to pay land tax on property thatthey own and from which they conduct their opportunity shops or undertake any otherfunction for a charitable purpose. I am considering the issue in relation to Lifeline, but Ihave not yet made a decision. I believe that I have the right to give an ex gratia refund.

Every year, this Government gives a substantial donation to Lifeline. If we startproviding subsidies to organisations such as the Uniting Church, which really deals in realestate and may reach the stage of competing with the private sector but have the specialadvantage of being subsidised by not paying taxes, that will detrimentally affect thosesmall businesses in the community that are trying to compete on what is less than a levelplaying field. This issue should be considered. The Office of State Revenue and I arecurrently discussing this issue, and I will make a decision in the near future. By makingsubstantial donations each year to Lifeline, this Government recognises in the best waypossible the contribution that Lifeline makes to this State.

Child-care

Mr BARBER: I ask the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and IslanderAffairs: will she outline the Government’s initiatives in child-care since the 1989 electionand compare those with the previous Government’s record and the current child-carepolicies of either of the opposition parties?


Ms WARNER: I believe that it is evident to all members in this House that one ofthe major achievements of this Government was to place child-care on a firm financialfooting. This Government committed itself to providing 6 000 places in its first three yearsin office. I am happy to report to the House that it has provided 5 849 of those places. Afurther 711, which are under construction, will be in place before the end of theGovernment’s current term of office. During its first year in office, this Governmentprovided $8m for the provision of child-care in this State, and over $13m in the secondyear. I believe that that compares very sharply with the $800,000 that was provided forchild-care in the last Budget of the former National Party Government. A comparison indollar terms of those levels of commitment reveals that this Government has providedmuch-needed support in a sector that had been long neglected by those members who sitopposite.

This Government has also introduced a number of reforms. It has created an Officeof Child Care within the Family Services Department which liaises with community groupsand the community in general to examine the need for the expansion of child-care, where itshould be targeted, what the population needs, how to assist families with child-careneeds, what is going on in neighbourhood centres, and so on. We now have the capacityto be able to respond to the community with a greatly needed service in this State. Ashonourable members would be aware, during the last sitting of this House beforeChristmas, a new Child Care Bill was introduced. It upgraded the regulations in child-careto provide quality, affordable child-care in this State for the first time in 17 years. What didwe hear from members opposite during that debate? We heard applause. The only thingthat they could do was applaud the actions of this Government because, finally, aGovernment in this State was doing the right thing about child-care. In terms of thecontributions made by all members opposite during that debate—Hansard reveals thatthey had absolutely no policy direction in respect of child-care or any understanding of theissues. They should be condemned for that. The people of Queensland can statecorrectly, “We do not have an Opposition that has any understanding of a fundamentalsocial issue which affects Queensland families.” Fortunately for the people ofQueensland, this Government can more than make up for the deficiencies of theOpposition.

Sunshine Coast Flooding

Mr BARBER: I direct a question to the Minister for Transport and Minister Assistingthe Premier on Economic and Trade Development. Following the recent severe flooding ofrivers on the Sunshine Coast, I have received many reports of damage to ordisappearance of navigation markers and marine safety signs along those waterways. Iask: what action has been taken to assess the problem and reinstate the facilitiesnecessary for safe boating in those rivers?

Mr HAMILL: Following the member’s representations as a result of hisobservations in the flood-affected areas in not only the Noosa River but also theMooloolah and Maroochy Rivers, departmental officers undertook an extensive inspectionof those waterways. They found that some 40 beacons, buoys, markers and othernavigational aids had been washed away. In fact, some of them ended up on the other sideof the Noosa River bar. As a result, some of those waterways have become quitedangerous. Some of the scouring has affected the navigational channels. The departmenthas been monitoring those changes. This week, the process of relocating those markerbuoys will be initiated and completed. In the meantime, I urge those people who are usingthe waterways on the Sunshine Coast to exercise extra special care until those buoys andbeacons are relocated.


Golden Mile Ferry Service

Mr JOHNSON: I ask the Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premieron Economic and Trade Development: could he advise the reason behind the dumping ofthe Golden Mile Ferry Service to the inner-Brisbane area? Was there a discrepancybetween the reasons for the Government’s decision and the report on the Brisbane Riverferry study prepared by Mr Stuart Ballantyne as the most economic and the best futureservice for the citizens of Brisbane? If so, why?

Mr HAMILL: That is a good question which I would like to answer. An assessmentof ferry services on the Brisbane River was carried out. The department invited the GoldenMile Ferry Service and the Brisbane City Council, as the operators, to put forward aproposition whereby the people’s needs would be serviced. The more competitive offerwas put in by the Brisbane City Council and was accepted. At a meeting that I had with theGolden Mile Ferry Service management, I was told that they did not believe that it wasviable for two operators to be working on the river and that the company had made adecision to discontinue its services. I pointed out to the company, and I point out to thehonourable member, that there is no restriction on people operating ferry services on theriver in Brisbane or elsewhere. Those services are not licensed. If any company wants toundertake a commercial venture providing river transport, it is welcome to give it a go. Iwould urge firms to consider the prospects, because that magnificent facility which theGovernment is creating on behalf of the people of Queensland on the South Bank is anenormous attraction. I believe that there are operators who are prepared to put theirmoney on a venture which would allow people to travel to and from not only South Bank butalso a number of other facilities along the river. I would hope that the management of theGolden Mile Ferry Service might consider that. I know that other operators are seriouslyconsidering the matter. I anticipate the re-emergence of some other ferry services as aconsequence.

Mr JOHNSON having given notice of a question—

Mr JOHNSON: I table the report to which I referred.

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

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE FOR ELECTORAL AND ADMINISTRATIVEREVIEW

Report

Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (3.46 p.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the report of theParliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Review on the review of theElections Act 1983-1991 and related matters. I also lay upon the table of the House thenine submissions on this matter received by the committee. I thank all members of thecommittee for their contribution on this matter. The committee records its thanks to MrsJan Warren of the secretarial staff and to the committee’s research director, Ms JanetRansley. I move that the report be printed.


MATTER OF SPECIAL PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Health Services

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 proposal


for a Matter of Special Public Importance debate. The proposal submitted by the Leader ofthe Opposition is for a debate on the following matter—

“Notes the Government’s poor administration of the State’s new and expensivehealth system which has adversely impacted on the delivery of health services toQueenslanders.”

I now call the member for Callide to speak to the proposal.

Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (3.47 p.m.): This debate is not about knockingregionalisation—far from it. We in the National Party Opposition know that regionalisationwithin the Health Department is here to stay. However, let me make it quite clear that theNational Party, on return to Government, will look closely at regionalisation and it will makechanges. For example, it will bring back the hospitals boards and weed out the politicalappointments such as John Bird, husband of the Labor member for Whitsunday, andSteven Schwarten, brother of the Labor member for Rockhampton. The National Partyknows full well the turmoil that has been created within Queensland Health, and for thatreason alone it will not seek to dismantle regionalisation; it will seek to amend it so that theobvious flaws in the system and the lackeys are removed.

When regionalisation was introduced on 1 July last year, the former Minister said,“This is a cost-neutral process.” In fact, the new Minister is still saying that it is a cost-neutral process. But it is only a cost-neutral process because of the Government’s sleightof hand with its accounting. This has been a very expensive process to implement and ithas created problems for the Health Department in meeting those expenses. To meetthose expenses, it has had to cut back in services in other areas right across-the-board.For example, the once-only cost of implementation of regional offices has been extremelyhigh. In this House, I put to the previous Minister for Health that the cost of implementationof offices in the central region was approximately $1.5m, and he did not deny it. I haveheard that the cost of setting up the south-west region in Roma was something like $3m.Every regional office throughout the State that has been set up has been set up on a fairlygrand scale. There was even mention made to me of the Townsville office where themember leased oil paintings for his wall. I do not know whether that is correct or not, but itraises grave concerns about the money that is spent and how regional directors seethemselves.

Mr Hayward: If you don’t know whether it is correct, why don’t you check it first?

Mrs McCAULEY: The Minister should be quiet and listen. Despite what theMinister believes, the real increase in the Health budget since the last election was only 3per cent. That is unfortunate. When one takes account of the costs incurred in wageincreases for nurses and the allocation for the capital works program, one realises that thereal increase in the Health budget was only 3 per cent. That was not enough to keep pacewith progress, and cuts had to be made. Services have been cut right throughout theState. The cost of wage increases for nurses at the Mater Hospital was $1.5m, which didnot include any new nurses or better nursing treatment; it was simply to keep pace withwages. Because they have had to fund those wage increases for nurses, the majorhospitals are reeling. It has created great difficulties for them. Moreover, all the publichospitals had to contribute to regionalisation from their budgets as part of the Minister’scost-neutral process. The Royal Brisbane Hospital and the Princess Alexandra Hospitalhad to contribute $5m each, and that has created difficulties. All the smaller hospitals hadto contribute a percentage of their budgets. That created such difficulties for the smallerhospitals to the extent that they were told they could purchase no new equipment for sixmonths. They were told, “We’ve got to pay for regionalisation, old son.” The largerhospitals throughout the State have closed wards. In Rockhampton, one or two wardswere closed. By the end of July, the Royal Brisbane Hospital will have lost 300 beds. InToowoomba, the 100 beds that are under discussion will probably go.


To fund the extra costs associated with regionalisation, services have been cut on agrand scale. Who suffers? The consumer, the taxpayer, the battler about whom TomBurns always talks—they are the ones who are suffering. Yet this is the Governmentwhich gives $200,000 to the Children by Choice organisation. We know where its prioritieslie. One has only to see the growing list of positions vacant in the Saturday press torealise how the Government’s bureaucracy is growing like topsy. Not only have hospitalwards closed, but other services have been cut. Outpatients clinics have been closed, orthey now charge fees for services. Specialists’ wages are so low that they are leaving theState in droves. I have a letter from a colleague and it states that in the north there is afive-month or six-month waiting list for surgery, including gynaecological procedures.Staffing positions have become vacant and they stay that way for months.

Budget promises do not materialise. For example, the $1m for equipment for theRoyal Brisbane Hospital and the Princess Alexandra Hospital has never materialised. The$200,000 for the eye registrar for Townsville General Hospital has vanished. All this hashappened at a time when the public hospital system has had an increase of 10 per cent inpatient numbers, due to the recession, but less money to care for them. At the PrinceCharles Hospital an iniquitous system of quotas has been set up. It has led to somescandalous situations. Recently, I received a phone call telling me about a gentleman whohad been on a waiting list for a heart by-pass for nine months. He went into hospital, wasprepped and had his chest shaved. The anaesthetist came to see him to tell him whatwould happen the next day and then, at 5.30, a very upset and angry Dr McGiffin arrivedand said that he was sorry but the patient would have to go home as the hospital had filledits quota. The patient was upset and his wife was in hysterics. That was an absolutedisgrace.

In October last year, in answer to a question, the previous Minister for Healthadmitted that there were 370 patients on the waiting list at the Prince Charles Hospital;there are probably more now. Obviously, if an emergency occurs—for example, if a babywith heart problems is admitted—it must be dealt with immediately. However, it is adisgrace to tell someone who is admitted after a nine-month wait, and is prepped and madeready for surgery, “Sorry, go home and come back in three weeks.” Quotas are simplycaused by cut-backs in funding. Hospitals are starved of funds and a brain drain iscreated. This will impact on Queensland and what it can sell overseas. Dr McGiffin, who isone of the best heart specialists in the world, is going overseas, which is a tragedy for thisState.

Mr Szczerbanik: Why is he going overseas?

Mrs McCAULEY: He is going overseas because he cannot get enough money tofund the sorts of projects that he wants to develop at Prince Charles Hospital. He isobviously very frustrated by that problem. I do not blame him; I would be frustrated, too.He is one of the leading experts in his field and we are saying, “Sorry we do not require youany more, off you go overseas.” This Government has seen fit to remove the right of thePrince Charles Hospital and other hospitals to display a crest. Priorities given by thisLabor Government to health are clearly shown by the funding of the Home and CommunityCare program. The Federal Government said that HACC could take up to 20 per cent morethan last year’s funding, but, no, this State Government’s priorities were not directedtowards providing funding for the aged and disabled and their carers. The Governmentsaid it would take only 3.5 per cent—not 10 per cent or even 5 per cent. This is a disgrace.HACC spending in Queensland is 27 per cent less than the national average, and the totalCommonwealth aged care allocation for this State is 15 per cent below the Australianaverage.


The provision of both school and hospital dental services in this State has alsosuffered under regionalisation. A letter from Bundaberg orthodontist, Dr Phillip Saxby,states—

“The effect of regionalisation on the provision of dental care has been dramatic.Both the Dental Clinics and the School Dental Services are chronically short of staffand facilities to adequately cater for even a reasonable standard of dental treatment.The local School Dental Service has been short of at least two therapists for the pastyear. It has also been short of at least one van for the past year, and has haddifficulty in maintaining its vans in an operational state.”

A similar story could be told about breast-screening and regionalisation. The Minister wasnotified of a problem and passed the buck to the regional director, but he has not providedthe necessary amount of money to fix the problem. The whole thing is a cop-out.

I would like to reply briefly to the member for Mansfield, who last night made apathetic speech about women’s health centres, particularly the one in Rockhampton. Ialso found it rather interesting that the member should think that I would go to men to findout about a women’s health centre. The member mentioned Col Carige, whom I have notseen or spoken to in three years. She also mentioned Dr Alroe, to whom I have neverspoken about women’s health centres. He is a psychiatrist and it would be a bit strange forme to speak to him about that. My source for that particular hairy armpit story—and I stickby it— was an impeccable Labor source. I do not wish to disclose that source becauseshe is a friend of mine. However, she has Labor credentials that are absolutelyimpeccable. I find it quite astounding that the member should think that I would go to mento find out about a women’s health centre. I know that she has very little to do with men,but I would have thought that even she would know that one would not go to men to find outabout a women’s matter.

Dr FLYNN (Toowoomba North) (3.58 p.m.): The letter nominating this subject fordebate alleges that in Queensland Health administration costs are up and serviceprovision is down. That allegation is demonstrably wrong. I will start with a few commentsoverall about health to put this debate into some sort of context. Australia has one of thebest health systems in the world. That statement is certainly true if one compares oursystem to the chaotic system in the United States. I think that is something that theMedicare wreckers on the other side of the Chamber should recognise. I base thatstatement on these important principles: Australia spends less per head on health carethan the US, but our standards of professional competence among health workers and theresources that we provide are as good as or better than those in the US. Australia has afar more equitable system than does the US. The ease of access to Australia’s health-care system is far superior to that in the US.

Queensland has the best health system in Australia. That is because of the post-warLabor Government’s initiative in setting up the public hospital system. That system wasmaintained by the National Party Government—although it was never given a particularlyhigh priority—and now that we have it back under our control, we are making it morerelevant to the needs of Queenslanders. The first accusation in the letter is thatadministration costs are up. Of course, there is a hump cost associated withregionalisation. That occurred because the Government had to set up the regional officesbefore the process of streamlining the central bureaucracy in Brisbane was completed.The regional health directors were given a very hard task. Their job was to absorb thishump cost without cutting services. They had to fund it basically from savings, but not atthe expense of service provision—a very difficult task which has been achieved. Serviceprovision in Toowoomba and the Darling Downs has improved since regionalisation beganlast July.


The Toowoomba General Hospital is the biggest and most important facility in theToowoomba area. Since 1 July last year, service provision has improved at that hospital.Apparently, last week I upset a few of my colleagues from Toowoomba with some of mycomments that were reported in the newspaper. As a result, last Friday, two doctors fromthe Toowoomba General Hospital came to see me, namely, the director of casualty and thedirector of intensive care. They wanted to discuss a range of issues and, in the process ofthose discussions, I asked them, “Has there been any change—any decrease inresources or service provision at your hospital?” They said, “No.” The director of casualtyhas more staff available to him now because routine, general practice outpatient care hasbeen abolished, whereas previously that treatment was provided under the old hospitalsboards system. Basically, people should not be going to hospitals to have their bloodpressure checked when there are 55 GPs in Toowoomba who are available to do it. It is anunnecessary duplication of services. The director of casualty told me that he now hasmore staff available and that, for the first time in years, he has been allocated funds forequipment. The director of intensive care is likewise having the facilities in the intensivecare section dramatically upgraded.

There has been no decline in the provision of services at the Toowoomba GeneralHospital. For the first time, the budget allocation by the regional health authority for thereplacement of equipment at that hospital will be $2.6m. Obviously, that amount will not besufficient to replace every piece of old equipment at the hospital, but it is a major stepforward. It is the biggest step that has been taken in years. When this Government waselected to office, staff who left the Baillie Henderson Hospital were not replaced and thenumber of people working there was 85 per cent of the hospital’s staff allocation. The waythe hospital survived financially was by not replacing staff who left. Now, the hospital hasan almost full complement of staff. A whole range of cost-cutting measures, includingcutting back of over-time and not granting staff leave, have been removed. Services havebeen lifted because the regional health authority was able to make some savings at thehospital. The authority also managed to convince the former Minister for Health that thebudgetary allocation for the Baillie Henderson Hospital was inadequate. The fact that thehospital now has powerful decision-makers on the ground who can assess needs andresources and win arguments with officials in Brisbane has meant that the BaillieHenderson Hospital is now better off. Of course, that does not take into account that veryrecently the Minister also opened a new medium-security ward and a new communitymental health facility in Toowoomba. The previously fragmented types of services havenow been put into one place and, instead of operating out of the downs day hospital, whichwas a very old, dilapidated building, the community health unit has a decent location wherepeople can work. Wherever one looks, one sees that the provision of services hasimproved. Obviously, things still need to be done, but that takes time. Regionalisationallows efficiency measures to be adopted because people can make decisions at the locallevel.

Let me discuss the issue of the Toowoomba Hospital beds. The Toowoomba GeneralHospital announced a plan to reduce the number of available beds to make the hospital’soperation more efficient. It must be pointed out that the beds under review are empty bedsand that their removal will save the hospital approximately $3m. I know that the actualproposal is being presented to staff this week and is being discussed. Obviously, theGovernment must make sure that even if the hospital’s capacity is reduced by 100 beds,there will still be an adequate number of the right sort of beds, such as orthopaedic bedsand neurosurgical beds. If the new system works, it will save the hospital $3m, which canbe spent at the hospital. It must be remembered that for some time the occupancy rate atthe hospital has been only 65 per cent and that even with 100 fewer beds, the occupancyrate will still be only 80 per cent, approximately. The reason for this restructuring is thedesire on the part of the Government to economise. The resultant savings will be ploughed


back into other areas of the hospital’s services. To any sensible, clear-thinking individual,that would seem to be a reasonable approach. Nothing will be taken away from theToowoomba General Hospital or the community. The review will concentrate on emptybeds, and the savings will be used elsewhere in the hospital. The reaction to the proposalform the local AMA president, Dr Peter Taylor, was, “But we might need the beds if there isan epidemic”, which begs the question: an epidemic of what? Influenza is about the onlyvirus that can cause an epidemic and, by and large, most patients should be treated intheir own homes or, perhaps, are in a nursing home, anyway.

I turn now to the provision of health services at Jandowae and Texas, because theyseem to be issues that have achieved amazing media prominence. No-one has botheredto point out that nothing has changed at the Texas or Jandowae hospitals. Not one nursenor one doctor has been removed. When the Minister was asked whether it was safe formajor elective surgery to be performed at these hospitals, Queensland Health institutedan independent review. The Minister stated publicly that this move was not an automaticprecursor to the hospitals’ being closed or major surgery being banned, and he gave anassurance that he would abide by the review committee’s findings. Initially, the review hadthe support of the AMA and the Queensland Rural Doctors Association executives, butapparently they succumbed to internal pressure and withdrew their support after thereview was announced. This is yet another example of the way in which the health needsand safety of the people of Queensland are being used as emotive levers in a politicalcampaign to try to destabilise the health programs of this Government. The Texas andJandowae hospitals’ reviews are being conducted for no other reason than to ensure thesafety of the people served by those hospitals. Throughout the entire debate, not oneperson who is opposed to the review mentioned that well in excess of $100,000 iscurrently being spent on those hospitals, nor was there any mention that QueenslandHealth recently approved the appointment of an additional community nurse at Texas.Even when referring to Jandowae and Texas, it is possible to demonstrate that theprovision of health services has improved and has not declined.

Another issue that has been the subject of media attention in Toowoomba lately hasbeen the issue of the provision of health services at Gatton. Again, there has been nochange to the provision of those services at the Gatton Hospital. I believe that a newoperating theatre light and some other equipment are needed, and I am sure that that willbe provided in due course. However, I make the point that the health equipment has beenin that state for years. There has been no change in the provision of elective surgery orobstetric treatment at the Gatton Hospital since the Goss Government came to power.The people of Queensland ought to understand that the issue of those facilities being apriority must be considered in the light of the fact that it takes 20 minutes to travel by carfrom Gatton to the Toowoomba General Hospital, which contains all the necessaryequipment, and that there are many suburbs in Brisbane where it would take a person 20minutes to travel in an ambulance from his residence to the Royal Brisbane Hospital. Forpeople who live at Bribie Island or Caboolture, it takes longer than that to get to theRedcliffe Hospital. Obviously, those communities are much more populous. Whenpriorities on spending are being determined, it is necessary that we take those importantconsiderations into account. It is more important that we get our hospital at Caboolturethan it is to fix the operating theatre light at the Gatton Hospital. I make no apology forthat.

Time expired.

Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (4.08 p.m.): It is with some considerable sadness that Irise to speak in this debate. In five years, I have never taken a public servant to task, andI chose to do so today simply because I have a very serious concern about the healthservices of far-north Queensland, in particular the peninsula regional area. I refer, ofcourse, to Dr Gareth Goodier, the Director of the Peninsula and Torres Strait Regional


Health Authority in the Department of Health. Today, I must raise some questions aboutthe propriety of the actions and the intent of Dr Goodier in far-north Queensland. DrGoodier was previously the director of the Kimberley health region in Western Australia,and his abysmal performance in that region resulted in a report—a part of the Wyndhamwatershed report—which was very critical indeed of Dr Goodier. That report was critical ofthe things that he did and the way in which he did them. In part, the report accused DrGoodier of secrecy and dishonesty. That man currently runs health services in far-northQueensland. He was accused of secrecy and dishonesty.

The report catalogues his methods of regionalisation and demonstrates the way inwhich Dr Goodier reduced medical services in Wyndham, causing a marked decline in thetown and a serious decline in the medical services provided to that town. The report furtherclearly shows the way in which those services were quite deliberately eroded to the pointat which they were “unsafe”, and that finding was then used as justification for the transferof those services elsewhere. It is my belief that the way Dr Goodier is proceeding in far-north Queensland will result in the same kind of treatment for far-north Queensland. Thereport is unimportant, except that it is also a blueprint for the work that Dr Goodier hasthus far achieved in far-north Queensland and it appears to be a blueprint for the actionsthat he intends to take. It is for that reason that I speak in this Chamber today.

Health services, particularly in the tablelands region, are being reduced. There is noquestion about that. Based on a single visit to the Mareeba Hospital, Dr Goodierdetermined that the hospital was “overstaffed and overequipped”. He immediately reducedthe budget by 10 per cent—or more than $250,000—and then said “Good day” and left.The Atherton District Hospital budget was also reduced at the same time but not by quiteso much money as that. Vital equipment is being transferred from the Mareeba Hospital toCairns. At present, preparations are under way to shift an ultrasound machine fromMareeba to Cairns. We are seeing the deliberate erosion of health services provided inthose hospitals to the point at which they can then be deemed to be “at unsafe levels” andwe will then see the closure or further winding-down of those health services. I hear theMinister groaning painfully in his seat. I point out that that is exactly what happened inWyndham in Western Australia when Dr Goodier was untruthful in many of the things thathe said to his community. He wound down that hospital quietly and surreptitiously to thepoint at which it reached those unsafe levels.

Mrs McCauley: Sneakily.

Mr GILMORE: “Sneakily” is probably the best word. A view is held amongst seniorhealth officials in far-north Queensland that the intention of the peninsula regional healthauthority is to wind down the Mareeba Hospital until it reaches clinic status and it will thenbe turned into a geriatric hospital, as has occurred in Herberton. Secrecy abounds in thepeninsula regional district. Staff have been threatened with the sack if they speak to me. Ican assure the Minister that that is the truth. The Minister may laugh, but I wouldappreciate it if he would give a ministerial direction that the staff have the right to speak totheir local member of Parliament. Those people have been told that, if they speak with me,they will lose their jobs.

The health authority refuses to release details of budgets. It deals only inpercentages. The authority talks about this percentage or that percentage, but refuses toissue the actual dollar figures. It is by those means that the authority seeks to deceive.Recently, all but five directors of nursing in far-north Queensland were refused permissionby Dr Gareth Goodier to attend their annual conference.

Mr Hayward: Are you talking about the directors of nursing conference?

Mr GILMORE: Yes, I am. After they belly-ached, the directors were givenpermission to attend. Now some of them cannot attend because they have made other


arrangements. Dr Goodier has contended that the money transferred from the MareebaHospital budget went to community health. That is patently absurd and patently false. Ithas not happened. We are talking about a quarter of a million dollars that has been takenout of health care in the tablelands region. If one adds together the money transferredfrom the Atherton and Mareeba Hospitals, one finds that the figure comes to considerablymore than that. Health services in far-north Queensland are considerably overloaded. Asmy colleague said a few minutes ago, there is up to a two-year wait for basic surgeryprocedures, particularly in respect of gynaecology, eye surgery and tonsillectomies.There is a two-year wait for a tonsillectomy. Why is it that that person is deliberatelywinding down the services provided at the Mareeba Hospital, which is a professionally run,fully equipped and new facility?

In the old days, we had hospitals boards and, if a problem came to my attention asthe local member of Parliament, I could go to the chairman of the board. There was adispute resolution committee in my area, and I never had a problem with it. Disputes wereresolved quietly at the local level. Now if a dispute comes to my attention—and there havebeen a number of them—that dispute is taken directly to Dr Goodier. It then becomes afederal case and an investigation takes place. I could live with that if Dr Goodier had notquite deliberately set out to deceive me, the member for Tablelands, in a letter that hewrote to me about one of those matters that was brought to his attention by me. In a letterthat he wrote to me, Dr Goodier sought to deceive me. He has been found out because Ihave now come into possession of a second letter that he wrote to another personconcerned in which he did not outline the things that he said to me. I am concerned aboutthe secrecy and the dishonesty of this person. I am concerned about what he intends todo to health services in far-north Queensland.

It is the clear view of most people in the health business in far-north Queensland thatthe Chillagoe and Dimbulah hospitals are to be wound down to clinic status and the staffdowngraded to level 3 from level 5, as is currently the position. At present, specialistradiology services are being provided by an employee of the peninsula region. That iscosting the two major hospitals in Mareeba and Atherton more money than they werepaying before for specialist radiology services, which were provided by a visitingspecialist. The peninsula region now has a centre for tropical disease control. Nobody canfind out what that centre does. I ask the Minister to explain to this House which tropicaldiseases are so endemic in far-north Queensland that the time of a doctor and some staffis fully taken up when there is a dire need for clinical doctors in the system in far-northQueensland and when there are waiting-times of two years. What is it that the Governmentis trying to prevent taking over our community?

Community consultation with Dr Goodier is totally non-existent. That was found outrecently with the replacement of two nursing sisters in Millaa Millaa and Malanda. They hadcompleted 17 and 18 years of service in the system, but the consultation process tookplace only after the dirt had well and truly hit the fan and the Minister and his departmenthad more on their hands than they could contend with in terms of the unhappiness of thepeople in that community. That community had taken away from it people in whom itbelieved and people whom it trusted.

The health system that is provided for Queensland today takes no account of theneeds of local communities or the understandings or feelings of local communities.Secrecy, deception and threats are the currency of the KGB in Russia; they should not bethe currency of Queensland health services. Regrettably, in far-north Queensland, theyare. Consultation and accountability should be the passwords to the future in theprocesses of providing health services to people in far-north Queensland. Until theMinister instructs Dr Gareth Goodier to get out there and to consult and stop the secrecyand the threats, far-north Queensland is going to suffer very badly.


Time expired.

Mrs EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha) (4.18 p.m.): We heard the member for Callide saythat her speech was not going to be an attack on regionalisation. But guess what? It was.We heard the member for Tablelands introduce a personal vendetta into this debate. Igather that nothing will be heard from the Liberal Party, and I guess that confirms mysuspicions that it has no knowledge of health issues, no understanding of rural living andno policies on either. In any review of the Goss Government’s performance in the deliveryof health services to Queenslanders, it would be grossly negligent not to review ourinitiatives in a range of areas that were totally neglected under previous Liberal andNational regimes. I do not refer to the little, padded corners that were found here and therebut to areas such as mental health, preventive care, the health needs of Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islanders, women’s health and, ironically, the provision of services speciallytailored to rural communities. All of those areas had been ignored. They were not theglamour areas; they were the basics.

This Government has set about redressing those areas of neglect, and I make noapologies for being a member of a Government dedicated to improving the neglected areasof health. I am proud of the measures that are being taken. In May 1991, a HealthAdvancement Unit was formed in the restructured Queensland Health—a concreteacknowledgment of the importance of preventive measures. The unit develops andcoordinates prevention programs for cancer, heart disease, AIDS and accidents. I wouldlike to take this opportunity to remind honourable members of some of the preventivestrategies that have been adopted under this Government that are aimed at improving thehealth of all Queenslanders.

As recently as last week, the Minister launched Queensland’s breast cancerscreening program, which will mean that, within the next three years, all women over 40 willbe able to be screened for breast cancer. This vital service will not only reduce the numberof deaths from breast cancer but also will provide many Queensland women with thesafety and security of knowledge about their own health that would not otherwise beavailable. I was pleased to attend that launch, to talk to the many health professionals andrepresentatives of women’s groups there, and to hear their wholehearted support for thesemeasures. I did not hear anyone saying that that program should be cut. By virtue of themobile clinics, this service will be available in all parts of the State, including our rural andremote communities. I believe that it is important to provide this service to rural women,even if the members opposite do not want it.

Skin cancer has now been recognised as a major health threat. Each year, some 180Queenslanders die from skin cancer. This Government has funded a range of skin cancerawareness and prevention campaigns to help fight the dangers posed by too much sun.We have developed a strategic plan for AIDS control in Queensland, and the AIDSeducation unit addresses the prevention of HIV infection in the Queensland population,including adolescents at schools, sex workers and their clients, and bisexual men andtheir partners. Members will recall that I have raised these issues often in debate in thisHouse and detailed the measures that are being taken to address them. Do membersopposite really suggest that these important strategies should cease? The long-termramifications are far more serious and costly than are the preventive measures that arebeing taken.

No preventive health-care strategy would be complete without addressing the issueof smoking. This Government has done that with a range of programs, including thesmoking prevention program, which is aimed at providing children and adolescents withthe skills to resist peer pressure and other inducements to smoke. There has also beenthe smoking cessation program, which distributed more than 200 000 Time to Quit guideslast year alone, as well as the highly successful Select Your Air campaign aimed at


Queensland restaurants—a campaign that I support totally. As well as developing apreventive focus, the Government has been working to ensure a consumer focus on thepublic health system.

Under the previous Government, the most important person in the system—theconsumer, the patient, the user—was excluded from any participation in deciding thetypes of health services appropriate to that person. There was no form of accountability.There was also no mechanism for investigation of complaints. Therefore, one of the mostfar-reaching and important reforms undertaken has been the creation of a health rightscommission which will address health issues with a consumer focus. This is an importantstep for all recipients of both private and public health services in Queensland, and willsubstantially increase the accountability of health service providers. The commission is aconsumer watchdog body with powers to investigate and conciliate on patient complaints.It is an independent statutory authority which will also review and improve health services.The commission may be in operation as early as next month, and will provide consumerswith an effective mechanism to exercise their right to participate in decisions about theirown health—something new for Queensland. There will be no repeats of the tragedy ofWard 10B where patients simply had no-one to turn to and no-one to approach about theinadequacy of the treatment they were receiving. I made my full support clear when thisAct came before the House.

In the most recent State Budget, spending on State capital works was increased to$80m. A substantial proportion of the hospital capital works program will be spent onupgrading the State’s psychiatric facilities which had been allowed to run down throughNational Party neglect. It is worth listing the major psychiatric facilities which receivedfunding in the Budget. They are—

Baillie Henderson Hospital—an amount of $3.9m has been provided for thecompletion of a new medium security unit at the Baillie Henderson PsychiatricHospital in Toowoomba. The new facility will provide a 25-bed unit with supportingactivity areas and secure outdoor facilities.

Bundaberg Hospital—$2.3m has been allocated for the commencement of the newpsychiatric unit at Bundaberg. At a total cost of $2.5m, the new unit will provide 24inpatient beds, together with day-activity and patient-support facilities. A secureoutdoor area will also be provided.

Maybe the member for Callide would consider that was more important than their teeth. Theothers are—

Gold Coast Hospital—a new 50-bed psychiatric facility will be constructed at theGold Coast Hospital at an estimated cost of $6.5m. The new facility will provide a 25-bed secure unit with a 25-bed open ward.

Nambour Hospital—$6m has been scheduled for the construction of a new wardblock at the Nambour Hospital, of which an estimated $4.9m will be expended in1992-93. The new facility will provide a 30-bed medical ward, a 24-bed psychiatricward and supporting therapy facilities.

Townsville Hospital—proposed facilities will be completed in stages. The first stageentails the provision of a new psychiatric rehabilitation unit at Kirwan at a cost of$7.5m.

I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that all these hospitals have beenlocated in regional areas. They have not been located centrally in Brisbane.

This Government has also implemented the recommendations of the Carter inquiryinto Townsville’s Ward 10B. As well, more than $1m is being spent assisting non-Government community organisations to represent the interests of people with mental


illness. These people, so often forgotten in the past, are now getting advocacy services,support accommodation, self-help groups for the mentally ill and community educationabout mental illness. Mental health services will continue to be a high priority for theGovernment as we change the central focus of treatment to community-based facilitieswhile maintaining access to hospitalisation where necessary.

This Government has also put in place long-term strategies aimed at improving theappalling health status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as part of its commitmentto equity and social justice. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are now beinginvolved at the highest level of decision-making to ensure that culturally appropriateprograms are developed to improve the health status of their people. There is a range ofprograms being undertaken, including the provision of a career structure for Aboriginalhealth workers. The sum of $50,000 is being spent training midwives to enable Aboriginalwomen to give birth in their community close to their family. This was seen as a top priorityfor the indigenous communities. These and other measures will begin to redress theproblems which see Aboriginal and Islander people die on average 15 to 20 years youngerthan the rest of the community.

I call on members opposite to state clearly and publicly just which health programsthey wish to cut to accommodate the proposed cuts generating from Federal Oppositionpolicies. A cut of 5 per cent can be expected across the health sector to fund Mr Hewson’spackage to try to give him some electoral popularity. The Opposition parties consistentlylist areas where they are going to cut income, but they never identify those areas of healthwhich will have to bear the brunt of that election bargaining. Will they pay nurses in thedisgraceful way they have in the past?

Time expired.

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South) (4.28 p.m.): This afternoon, I rise with somereluctance to speak in this debate on Queensland Health. In the Health Estimates debatein 1991, I spoke very fairly on the administration and regionalisation of health services onthe Darling Downs. I particularly made the point that regionalisation had the potential todeliver quality health care to the area; that the regional director had arranged meetingswith diverse health groups throughout the region; and I warned the Minister of the specialneed to recognise the health needs of people who live in rural areas. I acknowledge theachievements of the Darling Downs Regional Health Authority to date, but something hasgone terribly wrong in the administration of health in Toowoomba and on the downs. Iintend to identify this problem today for the good of the public. When 100 doctors meet andtake the unprecedented action of passing a vote of no confidence in the regional directorof the Darling Downs Health Authority, there is a problem. Surely 100 doctors have not allconsidered, debated and come up with the wrong conclusion. When 28 visiting specialistswho attend the Toowoomba General Hospital meet and support that motion, surely theycannot all be wrong. These are the people who are delivering the health care right at thecoalface. These are the ones who deliver the babies, attend to casualty cases, performthe operations and provide the family medical care.

Serious consideration must be given to the protests of the medical practitioners.They have passed a vote of no confidence in the regional director. They do not wish todeal further with him. Health on the Darling Downs is at a crisis point and a stalemate. Thehistory of this problem is as follows. In September last year, a group of about 30 doctorsfrom the Toowoomba and District Branch of the AMA met with the regional director todiscuss the general changes and needs of health in the region. The next day, the visitingspecialist staff from Toowoomba General Hospital met with the regional director anddescribed their particular problems within that hospital. Nothing followed from thosemeetings. Meanwhile, doctors throughout the region were seeing that the peripheralhospitals of the Darling Downs were coming under increasing direct threat of the


withdrawal of services—hospitals such as those at Jandowae, Texas, Gatton, Tara andDalby—and at the same time the problems in the very centre of Darling Downs health, theToowoomba General Hospital, were not being addressed and doctors were becomingdiscontented with the tactics and methods of the regional director. So, on 10 February,when State Cabinet was in Toowoomba, a deputation of doctors met with the HealthMinister, told him about the problems and gave him a written submission. This submissionwas subsequently given to the Darling Downs Regional Health Authority, which passed avote of confidence in its regional director in the absence of the only practising medicaldoctor on that authority. The authority passed that motion without seeking furtherinformation from the doctors about those complaints.

The recent extraordinary meeting of the Toowoomba and District Branch of the AMA,which resulted in the no confidence motion, was called only because of the overwhelmingnumber of complaints to the branch from a great many doctors representing all spheres ofmedical practice. Such complaints were: country hospitals and their services were underthreat; those who speak up about this are harangued and shouted down; this fellow is rightover the top; he seems to have an intense dislike of doctors; he does not want to takenotice of the clinical sector of health; and the Rural Doctors Association and the AMArefused to take part in isolated targeted reviews, believing that they would be used tocondone predetermined decisions. Following this no confidence vote, last Thursday inParliament I moved a notice of motion that the Minister personally visit Toowoomba andthe downs to meet with a cross-section of doctors, administrators and healthprofessionals to assess and recognise the situation and restore public confidence in theadministration of public health on the downs. I did this in the hope that this problem couldbe solved. This leadership and action has not occurred, and yesterday this Governmentrefused to debate this motion. Two days ago, 28 of the 33 visiting specialists atToowoomba General Hospital met and unanimously supported the no confidence motion ofthe AMA branch. What is this all about? Somewhere, despite the propaganda emanatingfrom the department that consultation is occurring, there lies a deep-seated problem.Consultation is obviously not occurring. Consultation is not trusted. Consultation isoccurring after the event.

People feel that the predetermined cut-backs and reductions in services are beingforced in by talk about a lack of safety or by letters to hospitals saying that the authoritycannot support them in the event of a mishap. I understand that threatening attitudes tomedical staff have led to at least one reporting of the regional director to the Public SectorManagement Commission. Consultation is being held with all other aspects of health, butnot with the large, ethical group of doctors doing the front-line work. It is similar to theEducation Department consulting with the parents, gardeners and cleaners, but not withthe teachers.

Texas Hospital was said to be unsafe, owing to a lack of carbon dioxide monitors,while two of the four theatres at the Toowoomba General Hospital also lack this equipment.While all these peripheral hospitals face these cut-backs, which will result in an increaseddemand on Toowoomba General Hospital, this hospital is to lose 100 beds in the name ofefficiency and to raise its bed occupancy from 65 per cent to 80 per cent.

Mr Hayward: That is logical, isn’t it?

Mr HORAN: Yes. This is despite the fact that Toowoomba and surrounding shiresare among the leading growth areas of Queensland, as published in last weekend’sSunday Mail, and despite the fact that this will mean, in practical terms, the end ofintermediate care at Toowoomba General Hospital. I understand that 40 beds will close inward S4, 20 beds in ward S2, and that wards M3 and M4, with 60 beds, will change fromintermediate wards to combined public and intermediate wards, with public patientsnaturally having first rights. This means that intermediate patients who book for operations


can have no guarantee of a bed. Even if they have taken holidays to undergo anoperation, it cannot be guaranteed. Intermediate patients are usually the people with TableB health benefits cover. They are people from the average family and older people whocannot afford the cost of full insurance cover for private hospitals, but they can receivefull cover for theatre fees and hospitalisation. Intermediate patients have, therefore, achoice of doctor and time of operation. If intermediate patients are forced out, they havetwo choices: to go private with $1,000 of extra health insurance, or to go public with nochoice of doctor and to be put on a waiting list for between 12 and 18 months. Even insome cases, the work just does not get done. Since the vote of no confidence in theregional director, I point out that there have been two meetings by the doctors with theChairman of the Darling Downs Health Authority, Mr Col Brimblecombe, and these havebeen reported as very satisfactory. If these cut-backs occur in country hospitals, there isgoing to be less bed space available at the Toowoomba Hospital and fewer intermediatebeds. I can now see the frustration being felt by the doctors by the lack of consultationand the stand-over tactics.

In October last year, I arranged a meeting in Brisbane with the Health Minister andthe chairman of St Vincents Hospital, Toowoomba, to seek a modest rearrangement of aState Government loan and to advise the Minister of the plans of St Vincents Hospital tobuild a new maternity section to replace the old one. Unannounced to me or to St Vincents,the regional director of health on the Darling Downs turned up and endeavoured to torpedothe plans of St Vincents to the Minister. St Vincents Hospital provides the only privatematernity unity in Toowoomba. Over the years, thousands of Toowoomba’s newborn havearrived at St Vincents. This hospital is held in the highest community regard and thematernity unit will be funded by the hospital. At the time of the attempted sabotage, theregional director had not even put his foot in the gate, or met any of the administrators.The protests of the doctors have been motivated by concern for their patients, whetherthey are in Toowoomba or the towns on the downs. If the doctors do not speak up, thenwho will?

So far, I have spoken on the medical and administrative issues only, as these are ofparamount importance to the people of Toowoomba and the downs. However, this issueshows just what can happen when a Government pursues a course of appointing politicalcronies to so many important positions. I refer the members of this House to the list of 78appointments to the public service and Government instrumentalities which last year wastabled in this Parliament by the member for Merthyr. The former Opposition Leader, MrRussell Cooper, and his successor, Rob Borbidge, have campaigned strongly againstappointing interstate people with links to the Labor Party to senior executive positions inthe public service. Unfortunately, this appears to have happened in this case and casts acloud over this whole issue.

The director of the Darling Downs Regional Health Authority previously worked as asecretary to John Kerin, who was a Cabinet Minister in the Hawke Labor Government. Priorto that, he was involved in regional health administration in Victoria. He was the subject ofa question in the Victorian Parliament on 11 November 1986 as to whether he was sackedor forced to resign from his position as regional director at Bendigo. Stories about hismodus operandi there were the same as those on the Darling Downs, with complaintscoming in from all over the district. I ask the Minister: was this so? Further, I ask: how,then, was he appointed ahead of the other 17 applicants who were interviewed? With thisbackground, his appointment to Toowoomba would always have the potential to explode,and it has. It has been an unfortunate appointment which has led to this crisis. This issuehas received considerable publicity throughout the media on the Darling Downs and in theSunday Mail which are exposing the lack of action of this Government in crisis. It is nowtime to put aside political expediency and it is time for the Minister to show leadership andaction in the best interests of his department, the reputation of his officers, and the people


of the downs. The ball is now in the Health Minister’s court. He must personally intervene.He must assess the situation, make a decision, and fix this problem.

Hon. K. W. HAYWARD (Caboolture—Minister for Health) (4.38 p.m.): Icongratulate the Leader of the Opposition on the wording of the letter seeking a debate onthis Matter of Special Public Importance, which all members would realise acknowledgesthe State’s “new” and “expensive” health system. Indeed, both of those assertions arecorrect. Labor’s health policy has ensured that the moribund health system that thisGovernment inherited has been newly revitalised with the Government committingincreasing funds to the Health budget.

The shadow Minister, who never lets the facts get in the way of a good story, spokeabout a person who was to receive specialist heart surgery at the Prince Charles Hospital.She also mentioned the booking queue. It is true that the patient to whom she referred wasadmitted and prepared for cardiac by-pass surgery and that the man was dischargedbefore being treated. However, the shadow Minister did not bother to find out why or howthat happened. The cancellation of that operation was necessary because of emergencyprocedures on the day. I invite the member to tell this Parliament which emergencyoperation she would like to have seen cancelled. One patient was transferred to the QEIIHospital with a ruptured heart valve. Cardiac surgery had to be performed on a baby whowas flown by air ambulance from Mackay. Would the member want that baby attended to?Of course she would! There was also a need to perform cardiac surgery on a newbornbaby. The member should be very clear that it comes down to a matter of priorities. Inthose cases, the clinical priority was such that the theatre was unavailable to perform onthat patient the scheduled surgery. The member failed to acknowledge that, less than twoweeks later, that patient was readmitted and successfully underwent cardiac surgery.That incident exemplifies the flexible and effective management practices that would havebeen impossible before regionalisation. No decision such as that would have been made.The person to whom the member referred would have been wheeled into the theatre andoperated upon. The other patients would have waited, and perhaps one or more of themwould have died.

The member for Callide should understand that reallocated resources within theregion have allowed an increase from 25.7 cases per week in the 1988-89 financialyear—when the former National Party Government was in office—to 31.5 cases per weekin the 1991-92 financial year. The member should also acknowledge the 15.5 per centincrease in surgery procedures which are an effective and uncomplicated alternative toopen-heart surgery. But, as I said, the member does not let the facts get in the way of agood story. The member also questioned a 3 per cent increase in Health funding in the lastState Budget and stated that increases in the capital works program and nurses’ wagesshould not be included in that figure. I ask: why cannot increases in the capital worksprogram and nurses’ wages be included? After all, they are real priorities in the delivery ofhealth services in Queensland.

Mr Horan is usually an honest person, but today he did something out of character.As to the matter involving the AMA—had the member been listening to what I said lastweek, he would know that I have been in regular contact with the State branch of the AMA.In fact, I spoke to the president-elect of the AMA about this issue and offered to intervenepersonally to resolve any difficulties that the AMA thought it had with the operations of theDarling Downs Regional Health Authority and doctors on the Darling Downs. The president-elect of the AMA thanked me for that kind offer of assistance, but expressed the view thatit would be inappropriate for the Health Minister to be involved in what he considered was alocal issue. I have already told Mr Horan about this, but today he chose to ignore that. Inever thought that he would do that. As to the rationalisation of beds in the ToowoombaBase Hospital—when I interjected on the member, he agreed that the restructuring will


increase the present 65 per cent utilisation to 80 per cent. There will still be 20 per centexcess capacity. The important factor with regionalisation is that it frees up about $1.5mto be spent in the Toowoomba Base Hospital. Surely, that is what the member wants, andthat is what it is all about—people making decisions that result in that money being used inthe correct way to ensure the best clinical service for the people of the Toowoomba areaand the Darling Downs region. As the member for that area, he is not fair dinkum if he doesnot believe that.

This Government did not inherit a health system that was in good shape. In our firsttwo Budgets, a massive injection of funds was required to tackle the neglect andmanagerial incompetence that characterised the previous administration. Issues such asthe increased demand for health services, resource allocation and the rising cost ofmedical technologies were not addressed by the National Party Government. I believe thatmembers opposite said that a National Party Government would reintroduce hospitalsboards. What will that do? It means that no decisions can be made locally; they must bereferred back to Brisbane. That does not work, and that is not what it is about. Oppositionmembers represent a wide cross-section of regional Queensland. Surely they want thosedecisions to be made locally.

I am proud to say that in September, the Health budget topped the $2 billion mark forthe first time. Health funding grew by $221m—an increase of 12.3 per cent. I am sure thathonourable members would agree that that is a remarkable achievement in times of fiscalrestraint. That increase came on top of an 11 per cent increase the previous year. It isworth noting that the substantial real increase for two years in a row occurred at a timewhen most other States were slashing their health expenditure in real terms. New SouthWales has two Health Ministers and they are slashing expenditure and closing hospitals allthe time. That is not happening in Queensland under the Goss Government.

In the five years prior to the election of the Goss Government, spending on healthdid not even keep pace with inflation, let alone increase in real terms to account forpopulation growth and increased demand. As I said earlier, one would think that MrsMcCauley was looking at one of the Budgets of the previous Government. In fact, she wasnot, because it never brought down a Budget in which there was a real increase in health-funding. That means that the health system inherited by the Labor Party when it came toGovernment was rigid and highly centralised, with all the power residing in the centraloffice. People in regional areas had to refer virtually very decision to Brisbane and, if theywere lucky, a directive would be forthcoming. What are we going to get? We will get more ofthat from a coalition Government.

By way of example, I refer to Dr Gareth Goodier, a person who was subjected to anunbelievable personal attack today by a member from his area. I will outline how things didnot happen prior to regionalisation. Dr Goodier and I visited Yorke Island, which has amedical facility staffed by two nurses. Under the previous administration, those nurseswere so trusted within the system that an STD bar was placed on their telephone. Theycould not even communicate with the outside world. Under the previous administration,when a person went to Yorke Island, that person was there forever and could not evenmake an STD telephone call. That is a disgrace and an outrage. Dr Goodier has been thereand seen what is occurring, and he has fixed the problem. That is a simple example ofmaking life much easier for health workers and people in those areas.

I return to the predicament at Millaa Millaa, which I have discussed with thehonourable member. The honourable member must acknowledge that Dr Goodier hasarranged alternative employment for the nurses who, on the basis of merit, were unable tobe reappointed to their positions. That again reflects the importance of regionalisation.

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


CRIMINAL JUSTICE AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and TradeDevelopment and Minister for the Arts ) (4.48 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move—

“That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal JusticeAct 1989.”

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr W. K. Goss, read afirst time.

Second Reading

Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier, Minister for Economic and TradeDevelopment and Minister for the Arts ) (4.49 p.m.): I move—

“That the Bill be now read a second time.”

The purpose of the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill 1992 is to assist the CriminalJustice Commission in managing the complaints which it receives. The proposedamendments to the Criminal Justice Act 1989 are being made at the request of the CriminalJustice Commission, and with the support of the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee. They will facilitate the important role which the Criminal Justice Commissionperforms in carrying forward the Fitzgerald reform process. My Government is committedto this process, and to the establishment of open and accountable government inQueensland. We will do everything possible to ensure that the independent commissionsare able to fulfil their functions in accordance with the intentions of their legislation, andthat they are assisted in doing so by effective legislation.

The Criminal Justice Commission has many functions to perform, including—

(l) advising on the administration of the criminal justice system in Queensland;

(2) continuing investigations commenced by the Fitzgerald commission of inquiry;

(3) investigating the incidence of organised or major crime;

(4) investigating complaints of official misconduct; and

(5) hearing and determining charges of official misconduct.

The Criminal Justice Amendment Bill 1992 addresses concerns expressed by theCriminal Justice Commission, and endorsed by the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee. Those concerns relate to the fourth of the functions I referred toabove—investigating complaints of official misconduct. Official misconductencompasses behaviour by officials in units of public administration, including the police,which may be dishonest or may not be impartial or which may be a breach of trust which isplaced in that person. It may also involve a misuse of information or powers. Officialmisconduct is conduct of sufficient seriousness that it would provide grounds fordismissal or would be a criminal offence. Currently, under the Criminal Justice Act 1989,the Criminal Justice Commission is required to investigate all the complaints which itreceives. The Criminal Justice Amendment Bill 1992, which was drafted in consultationwith the Criminal Justice Commission, will remove that obligation and invest the CriminalJustice Commission with a discretion as to whether or not to investigate a complaint, orwhether or not to continue the investigation of a complaint.


I turn now to the detailed history of the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill 1992. Afterthe first 12 months of operation of the Criminal Justice Commission, the ParliamentaryCriminal Justice Committee commenced a monitor and review study of how the CriminalJustice Commission and the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee were operating.The Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee drew on submissions from externalagencies, including a very comprehensive submission from the Criminal JusticeCommission. That review culminated in the tabling of a lengthy report on 3 December 1991entitled Review of the Operations of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee and theCriminal Justice Commission. I commend the efforts of the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee. Apart from the recommendations which form the subject matter of the CriminalJustice Amendment Bill 1992, the report of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committeecontains extensive recommendations, which are currently being considered by theGovernment as a part of its reform program. The Government will respond to the report ofthe Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee when it has given it full consideration.

On 5 March 1992, the Chairman of the Criminal Justice Commission wrote to theChairman of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee. In his letter, Sir Max Binghamreferred to the problems which had flowed from the obligation to investigate all complaintswhich the Criminal Justice Commission receives. Sir Max Bingham indicated that in thefirst year of operation of the Criminal Justice Commission, the number of complaintsreceived was approximately 60 per cent greater than the combined number of complaintsreceived by the Police Complaints Tribunal and the Internal Investigations Section. In thesecond year of operation, there was a further 60 per cent increase on those figures. SirMax Bingham indicated that the problem had become even more acute with the complaintssection being subject to increasingly impossible workloads. He indicated that three staffhad resigned and three police investigators were seeking immediate transfers back to thePolice Service.

Sir Max Bingham then sought the assistance of the Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee to have certain amendments prioritised. He proposed a scheme to invest theComplaints Section with the discretion to investigate, not to investigate or discontinue anyinvestigation of any complaint or information furnished to it or matter referred to itconcerning suspected misconduct. Sir Max Bingham was confident that the amendmentswould expedite the taking of appropriate action in relation to those complaints which itdoes investigate. Sir Max Bingham stressed that the amendments would not alter thecurrent situation in which the Criminal Justice Commission is subject to audit by, and istherefore accountable to, the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee in the dischargeof the functions and responsibilities of the Official Misconduct Division and the ComplaintsSection in particular. He added that the Criminal Justice Commission would account to theParliamentary Criminal Justice Committee on request as to the reason for the exercise ofits discretion to investigate in any specific case.

On 6 March 1992, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee, MrBeattie, wrote to me. He indicated that the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee wasmost concerned about the workload of the commission and strongly supported theamendments sought by the Criminal Justice Commission. My Government has consideredthe request by the Criminal Justice Commission to amend the Criminal Justice Act 1989, toremove the obligation to investigate all complaints, and has agreed to assist the CriminalJustice Commission by introducing the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill 1992 as quicklyas possible to address the concerns of the commission. The effect of the amendments willbe that, if the Criminal Justice Commission continues to receive a very large volume ofcomplaints, it will be able to give priority to complaints which are of most substance orwhich point to systemic problems.


I turn now to consider the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill 1992 in detail, focusing onits principal clauses. In clause 3 (1), the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill 1992 removes anunnecessary duplication of the functions of the Official Misconduct Division. Clause 3 (2)omits the word “all” from section 2.20 (2) (E) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989, to removethe obligation on the Criminal Justice Commission to investigate all the complaints andinformation it receives in relation to suspected misconduct. Clause 3 (3) inserts the words“complaint or” in section 2.20 (2) (E) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 before the word“information”, to clarify the different character of matters that the Official MisconductDivision may investigate. Clause 4 inserts the words “(other than by or on behalf of thecomplaints section)” in section 2.24 (1) (A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989. The effect ofthis amendment is to remove the unnecessary and disruptive requirement that both theComplaints Section and the Official Misconduct Division provide reports on aninvestigation. Clause 5 inserts provisions which provide for the appointment of a chiefofficer of the Complaints Section, who will be directly accountable to the director of theOfficial Misconduct Division. All complaints or information concerning misconduct whichare to be brought to the notice of the Criminal Justice Commission are to be communicatedto the Complaints Section. Following that communication, the chief officer of the sectionwill determine whether or not the section will conduct an investigation, or whether or notthe Complaints Section will continue an investigation.

Clause 6 omits and replaces section 2.29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1989. TheComplaints Section will not be obliged to investigate all complaints which are received. Thenew section 2.29 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1992 confers a discretion on theComplaints Section to investigate a complaint, information or matter communicated to theComplaints Section. The new section 2.29 (2) Of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 will requirethe Complaints Section not to investigate a complaint or information if it is frivolous orvexatious or is an anonymous complaint or information that lacks substance or credibility.

The new section 2.29 (3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 confers a discretion on theComplaints Section to discontinue an investigation. The new section 2.29 (4) of theCriminal Justice Act 1989 confers a discretion on the Complaints Section to refer acomplaint, information or matter to the principal officer of a unit of public administrationwhere there is cause for a disciplinary charge, that is, other than official misconduct.

The new section 2.29 (5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 requires the ComplaintsSection to submit a complaint, information or matter to the director of the OfficialMisconduct Division if there is prima facie evidence to support a disciplinary charge ofofficial misconduct or, indeed, a criminal charge. The new section 2.29 (6) of the CriminalJustice Act 1989 allows the director of the Official Misconduct Division to give directionswith respect to the investigation of complaints, information or matters, including decisionsnot to investigate. This will ensure that the Complaints Section makes consistentdecisions when exercising the discretions conferred by the new section 2.29 of theCriminal justice Act 1989.

The new section 2.29 (7) and (8) of the Criminal Justice Act 1989 allow the CriminalJustice Commission to issue guidelines with respect to the investigations of complaints,information or matters, including decisions to investigate or not to investigate. This willensure that the Criminal Justice Commission retains ultimate responsibility for the conductof investigations.

In conclusion, let me say that this is a practical and constructive amendment to thelegislation which will have practical and constructive benefits for the work of the CriminalJustice Commission. It will reduce the number of costly and unnecessary inquiries withoutin any way impairing the effectiveness or independence of the commission. I commend theBill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Slack, adjourned.


AUSTRALIAN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS COMMISSION BILL

Withdrawal

On the order of the day being discharged, the Bill was withdrawn and the Clerk readthe original order.

New Bill, Remaining Stages

Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (5.01 p.m.): Mr Speaker, I move—

“That another Bill be brought in founded on that order and that so much of theStanding Orders be suspended to enable the Bill to proceed through its remainingstages forthwith.”

Mr SLACK (Burnett) (5.01 p.m.): The Treasurer is proposing to withdraw the Bill thatis presently before the Parliament and introduce a new Bill. He then expects the membersof this Parliament—including the Opposition, of course—to debate the new Bill forthwith,without having had any opportunity to assess the contents of the Bill or to obtain inputfrom the various people who will be affected by the Bill. Do I understand the Treasurercorrectly?

Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (5.02 p.m.): The honourable memberunderstands correctly, up to a point. The new Bill is based on the old Bill, and allsubstantive aspects of it have not changed. I understood that my officers briefed him onit.

Mr SLACK (Burnett) (5.02 p.m.): That is true, but I am not to know that theTreasurer has not changed the Bill since the officers of his department gave me thatbriefing. If he is prepared to assure me that no change has been made to the Bill since hisofficers gave that briefing, that is all right.

Hon K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (5.02 p.m.): There have been nochanges. I do not know why the honourable member did not ask me that privately.

Mr Nunn: Because he is dumb.

Mr SLACK (Burnett) (5.02 p.m.): I take exception to that remark. I acted on my owninitiative in contacting the Treasurer’s officers. I appreciated his having allowed me to doso, and I contacted his officers. At that particular time, assurances were given to mewhich I accepted in good faith. Since then, the debate has ensued and there have beenongoing changes in the approach to the two Bills that will be before the House, namely, theAustralian Financial Institutions Commission Bill and the Financial Institutions(Queensland) Bill. No distinction has been made in the press as to which Bill is beingreferred to, so it is quite legitimate for me to ask a question to find out whether changeshave been made since that time. I resent the imputation.

Dr WATSON (Moggill—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (5.03 p.m.): I supportthe remarks made by the shadow Treasurer.

Mrs Woodgate: What a surprise!

Dr WATSON: This is serious. The shadow Treasurer and I had discussions withTreasury Department officials who advise the Minister. We accepted on good faith thatthere were no substantive changes to the Bills. I accept that the Treasurer has given theassurance that no substantive changes have been made. A problem arises, however,because an indication has been given in some of today’s newspapers that perhaps somechanges have been made of which we are not aware, and that some of them may be of a


substantive nature. I am not sure whether those changes have been made in the first Billor in the second Bill.

Mr Elder: What newspaper was that?

Dr WATSON: The Australian Financial Review, which I think is a fairly substantialnewspaper. I believe that obtaining assurances from the Treasurer—that there have beenno substantive changes and that the changes that have been made will be explained bythe Treasurer or some other member of the Government—is a legitimate issue. I believethe shadow Treasurer’s question is a reasonable one which should be answered.

Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (5.04 p.m.): Would it be possible for the Minister to table theexact changes that have been made? It must be possible to get copies of the changes.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is out of order.

Mr BOOTH: No, it is not.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have allowed debate to take place on the motion moved bythe Treasurer. It is out of order to treat this debate as though it were a debate at theCommittee stage by asking questions of the Minister.

Mr BOOTH: Mr Speaker, let me put it to you another way. This legislation is of greatimportance to credit unions. Most of the people who control credit unions are not of thesame political persuasion as me, so I am not paddling my own canoe. I think that thelegislation can be debated in a much better way if we can obtain the assurance that therehas been very little change and if we can be shown the change.

Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (5.05 p.m.), in reply: I think honourablemembers are selling me short. If I give an assurance that there are no changes, then thereare no changes. The opposition parties’ spokesmen have been briefed on the changesthat have been made, and that is the status of the legislation. If they felt, after reading areport in the Australian Financial Review, that I intended to make further changes withoutadvising them, as I said, they are selling me short. The legislation that is being introducedis as they were briefed. There are changes in the style of drafting to make it easier for it tobe adopted by the other States. The opposition parties’ spokesmen are referring to somesubstantive changes or compromises that have been made by the other States which willbe introduced by amending legislation. There is no way that I would try to introducechanges after briefing the opposition parties’ spokesmen without advising them. That isthe assurance that they received earlier, and that assurance still stands. These twopieces of legislation are as those honourable members have been briefed.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I treat that speech as concluding the debate on that motion.

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

New Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr De Lacy, read afirst time.

Second Reading

Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (5.08 p.m.): I move—


The withdrawal of the Australian Financial Institutions Commission Bill 1991 and thereplacement of it by the Australian Financial Institutions Commission Bill 1992 has beenbrought about due to numerous drafting changes suggested by the committee ofinterstate parliamentary counsel. These are only drafting changes and not changes ofsubstance. The Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill have been prepared to identify


the changes to the former Bill. It is proposed that a further drafting amendment be made tothe legislation by way of an amending Bill to be introduced into the House.

Mr SLACK (Burnett) (5.09 p.m.): The matters that I will raise need to be explainedby the Treasurer because, as I said before, there have been a considerable number ofpress reports about possible changes to the Bill. An article in the Australian FinancialReview indicated the support of all the States for the Bill. That support was obtained on thecondition that certain additions would be made to the Australian Financial InstitutionsCommission Bill. The Treasurer has satisfied me with his explanation that the changes thathave been made to the Bill are purely structural. I take that as an assurance to the Houseand accept the Treasurer’s words in good faith. I know that Queensland had somedifficulty in obtaining the agreement of the other States to the legislation, but I take it thatthey have now all agreed to it. Naturally, the Opposition was worried that the Treasury andthe Treasurer appeared to approach the Bill with some indecent haste. However, werecognise also that the Treasurer made a commitment to get the legislation up andrunning, so to speak, by 30 March and 1 July respectively.

The Opposition acknowledges that the legislation provides for the commission to beestablished in Queensland. We support that approach and support the Government in theconcept of the legislation before the House. The Treasurer indicated to the House that thechanges are structural, and we take his word for that. The Opposition acknowledges thatthe Bill is the result of an agreement signed by the Premiers and Chief Ministers inNovember 1991 to establish a national scheme for the supervision and regulation ofbuilding societies and credit unions. The object of the Bill is to establish the AustralianFinancial Institutions Commission—AFIC—as part of a uniform legislative scheme agreedto by the States and the Territories for the prudential supervision of building societies,credit unions, and certain industry service providers.

The Treasurer would have to admit that the political road to the introduction of thelegislation has been rather rocky. Disputation has occurred between the QueenslandTreasurer and the former chairman of the select committee of inquiry into the bankingindustry, and factional spats have occurred between the Victorian Premier and theQueensland Premier. The legislation has not had the hallmarks of the spirit of cooperationwhich supposedly is to mark the new spirit of federalism. The Opposition acknowledgesthat the Bill has been on the agenda for some time. It was supposed to be debated lastweek. The fact that the Bill was introduced today—a few days later—is an indication ofthat. The Opposition also acknowledges that it appears that those difficulties have beenresolved. The Treasurer has assured the Opposition that some of those problems thatarose will be addressed in later legislation, when we will be able to view those changes inthe proper context over a period. On the other hand, it would appear that, at theadministrative level, a professional relationship has existed between the States in sharingthe work that will see the scheme established. When I spoke to the Treasury officersabout it, they acknowledged that they were working closely with the other States to obtainthe uniform agreement on the Bill.

As late as February this year, the former chairman of the select committee of inquiryinto the banking industry, Mr Stephen Martin, questioned the effectiveness of uniformlegislation for the non-bank financial institutions. His concern was that, despite AFIClegislation being identical in every State and Territory, the application, interpretation andadministration of the supervisory guidelines could vary from State to State. He offered thesuggestion that it could have been a more effective and simple method to handle theregulation of non-bank financial institutions from Canberra. The Opposition would haveopposed such a policy. We note that, at the time of the Pyramid crisis, there was a pushfor national reform of non-bank financial institutions and that strong support was given insome quarters for the Federal Government, through the Reserve Bank, to assume full


responsibility for the regulation and administration of NBFIs. It must be said that theFederal Government correctly stated that that was a State responsibility and that it wouldnot legislate or regulate in that area. The Opposition strongly supports that view.

The Opposition is comfortable with the concept of the legislation and recognises thatthe Bill was derived from extensive consultation and research, commencing with thecommittee of inquiry into non-bank financial institutions and related financial processes,better known as the Brady inquiry. The Opposition acknowledges that Queensland wasselected because it has a very proud track record with its non-bank financial institutions.The proposed AFIC structure has two essential features: State-based prudentialsupervision and national coordination of high uniform standards and practices. Memberson this side of the House acknowledge that, if we take the word of the Treasurer, which wehave, the structure is appropriate. We would be happier, however, if it was known whetherthere will be just the one or more special service providers—SSPs.

Members of the House will acknowledge that a considerable amount of concern hasbeen expressed to them by credit unions in this State about where their future will be withSSPs. I know that the Treasury officers have gone to some lengths to satisfy their queriesand quell their fears. There is no doubt in my mind that if the draft standards had beenavailable when this Bill was being debated today, some of those fears may have beenallayed. I know that the Treasurer has attempted to allay those fears by correctly sayingthat the control of that lies in the hands of the commission itself when it is formed. As Isaid, it is appreciated that the status of SSPs is a matter for determination by theproposed Australian Financial Institutions Commission.

It would be remiss of me if I did not raise one issue. Over recent weeks, theOpposition has received deputations from credit unions expressing concern that only theone commission may be established, and that that would be based in Sydney. I havereceived a considerable number of letters expressing that concern. I would appreciate it ifthe Treasurer would address that matter in his reply. SSPs are an integral part of thisprocess of protecting the interests of customers and members of non-bank financialinstitutions. A substantial proportion of the funds of those NBFIs will make its way into thespecial service providers’ liquidity funds. While such funds are held in reserve, they stillbelong to those customers and members and must be invested and dealt with in such away as to attract the normal competitive rates of interest. The costs and charges of theservices provided by these SSPs should also be subject to the process of marketplacecompetitiveness.

Members on this side of the House do not believe that a monopoly situation would bea healthy process or serve the intent of this legislation. I am aware that representation onthis question has been made to a number of members, including the Minister and me. Inparticular, the credit union movement in Queensland, which has a good record ofprudential service to its 450 000 members, has expressed some concern about thepossibility that only one SSP will be established by AFIC and that it will be based inSydney. At present, some 31 of the State’s 36 credit unions are members of theQueensland Cooperative Credit Union League Limited, which over 28 years has provided awide range of services to its members. It is understood that the league’s member creditunions established policies and funds to protect the interests of credit unions members inthe event of any credit union having difficulty. In other words, the league and theQueensland credit union movement have, to the best of their ability, put into practice thevery principles espoused in this Bill. It is no wonder that many of these credit unionstherefore have expressed concern to a number of parliamentarians over the prospect of aSydney-based SSP—widely being nominated as Credit Union Financial Services(Australia) Limited, or CUFSAL—being given a monopoly over these credit union liquidityfunds.


I must say that my initial response to this claim was to point out to the credit uniondelegation that the AFIC Bill in no way seemed to preclude the league from both seekingand obtaining SSP status. However, the league pointed out that while the decision on thisissue rests with AFIC, that body obviously will be cognisant of the view of Treasury. In thatregard, it indicated that there was a growing belief in the industry that Treasury was infavour of a single SSP. That concern is heightened by the fact that if the league werebarred from SSP status, effectively it would see the end of that body. Quite frankly, I donot think that the Queensland Treasury would be looking to pursue such a policy—Icertainly have no evidence of such a situation—although there is no doubt that someconfusion has arisen regarding this question. Certainly, I think the point that it made aboutmonopolies is valid. The hundreds of millions of dollars that will be managed by the SSPprocess should be carried out in an open, prudential and competitive marketplace withfreedom of choice under the auspices of AFIC. It seems that the Treasury has been aleader in policy formulation with respect to non-bank financial institutions. I urge theGovernment and the Treasury to make the strongest representations to the temporaryAFIC which has the responsibility for drafting the transitional legislation and the status ofspecial service providers to ensure that credit union members’ liquidity funds are managedin a prudential and competitive arena. The Opposition is pleased that the headquarters ofAFIC will be in Brisbane. That is an excellent result. It would be a shame if theachievements were overshadowed by a damaging split between non-bank financialinstitutions over the number of special service providers.

I turn now to another matter. AFIC will be another creature which will be answerable toa ministerial council. It is an example of executive federalism which allows for Cabinets tobe by-passed and therefore ensures accountability to Parliament. Few Ministers takeevery pending ministerial council decision to their own Cabinet. This means that in somecases ministerial councils act with indirect political accountability. Therefore, it iscomforting to find in Part 10, clause 116 (1) that there are strict reporting standards,particularly that an annual report and financial statement will be laid before this House. Intoday’s volatile economic environment it would seem that this legislation is timely.

My own research has shown that, with the exception of the issue relating to specialservice providers, the non-bank financial institutions are pleased with the concept of theBill. The leading article in the front of one of the magazines indicates their support for theBill. The Victorian Government, which has been firmly at odds with the Treasurer for sometime on this issue, seems to have come to the party in relation to the Bill. Although that isacknowledged, it is also acknowledged that there have been some ongoingdisagreements. We think that is a pity. However, we understand the concern that thesmaller non-bank financial institutions have about their future. Obviously, they are goinginto something new, and they will be worried about what their situation will be when theyfind themselves in the unknown. When some of them see reports in the newspapersindicating that within three months they will have to come to account, that they will have tocomply with the standards that are required and conduct an audit by 31 December, theyare going to feel that they are not up to doing that. When it is suggested that some of themmay have to amalgamate, these institutions foresee real problems. We do recognise thatprudential standards apply equally to the larger institutions as well as to the smaller ones.However, as I have said, it is understandable that quite a few would be worried about theirfuture. For that reason, they have written to us with several queries and requests.

I will refer to a few of those queries and requests, particularly those relating to theSSPs and the policy of Treasury. A fear was expressed that Treasury would be supportinga single SSP in Sydney. Naturally, there was concern about the accountability of thecommission when it is set up. As I have correctly said, that is provided for in the Bill. It isgood to see that the commission has to report to industry; get the approval of industry;


relate to industry; and put forward its proposals relative to charges. That should be somecomfort to those people.

I look forward to seeing what legislation is brought forward by the Treasurer inrelation to the legislation that he foreshadowed. I hope that it gets a much smoother pathinto the system than the legislation now before us has had. The Opposition hopes that inthe future the Treasurer will be able to communicate to allay some of the concerns of thesecredit unions and the credit union league relative to their future, because they haveexpressed to members of the Opposition very serious concerns about their future. Withthat contribution, I commit the Opposition’s support to the Bill.

Mr DAVIES (Townsville) (5.23 p.m.): Following the signing of the FinancialInstitution Agreement by the State Premiers and Chief Ministers at their Adelaideconference in November 1991, the Australian Financial Institutions Commission Bill 1991and the Financial Institutions (Queensland) Bill 1991 were introduced into this place on 5December 1991. The Bills have laid upon the table of the House since then for comment. Inthe intervening period, a committee of interstate parliamentary counsel, including the chiefparliamentary counsel of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland,suggested that a number of drafting amendments be made in order to facilitate theadoption of the Queensland template legislation by the other participating jurisdictions.Accordingly, the course of action now being taken, as the Treasurer said before, is towithdraw these two Bills and replace them with the Australian Financial InstitutionsCommission Bill 1992 and the Financial Institutions (Queensland) Bill 1992. Although thedrafting changes are not of substance, in essence, they have resulted in a change in theform of these two Bills so that they now become two Bills and two codes. Provisions whichrelate only to Queensland are contained at the front of each Bill, and are referred to as thecovering clauses, with the common code set out as part of the Bills. The new structure ofeach Bill is similar.

The Australian Financial Institutions Commission Bill 1992 consists of parts (a) and(b). Part (a), the covering clauses, contains provisions relevant only to Queensland. Part(b), the AFIC code, contains provisions which will apply unchanged in all participatingjurisdictions. The Financial Institutions (Queensland) Bill 1992 also consists of two parts.Part (a), the covering clauses, again contains provisions relevant only to Queensland,including Queensland’s transitional and savings provisions. Part (b), the F1 (Q) code,contains provisions which will apply unchanged in all participating jurisdictions, includingcommon transitional provisions. Regulations for both Bills have been drafted and, underthe Financial Institutions Agreement, must be made in Queensland prior to 31 March 1992.This initial legislation for Queensland and a model of the legislation to adopt and apply theQueensland legislation have been sent by the Queensland Premier to his colleagues forapproval for introduction in each of the other States and Territories, to come into operationon 1 July 1992.

I would like to spend a small amount of time on the background to this legislation. Atthe initiative of Queensland, the Special Premiers Conference held in Brisbane in October1990 established a working group chaired by the Queensland Under Treasurer to developproposals for national reform of the supervision and administration of non-bank financialinstitutions—NBFIs. That working group’s report of April 1991 outlined specific proposalsfor prudential supervision of building societies and credit unions. Heads of Government atthe May Premiers Conference accepted the report and its recommendations for a generalframework for prudential supervision, practices and character requirements of permanentbuilding societies and credit unions, and endorsed a draft heads of agreement to giveeffect to this framework. It was further agreed that an implementation task force would beestablished to prepare a formal agreement and enabling template legislation by theNovember Special Premiers Conference, in accordance with the working group’s


recommendations, having regard to the need for flexibility, appropriate transitionalagreements and consultation. It was also agreed that Queensland would chair theimplementation task force, be host State for template legislation, and be the location forthe proposed national supervisory body, the Australian Financial Institutions Commission.

The legislative framework encompasses a State-based system of supervision, giventhat States have ultimate responsibility, and a national coordinating body to ensure theimplementation of high prudential standards and practices. The new supervisory systemwill be aimed at preventing problems rather than reacting to crises, which tends to be thesituation currently. In that respect, the recourse risks back to Governments should becurtailed sharply. The original template legislation had been primarily drafted byQueensland parliamentary counsel and had three components. They were—

the formal agreement;

the Australian Financial Institutions Commission (AFIC) Bill; and

the Financial Institutions (Queensland) Bill.

In regard to the formal agreement—that is a political compact between heads ofGovernment agreeing to the introduction of the financial institutions scheme for buildingsocieties and credit unions and outlining its basic features. The formal agreement requiresQueensland to submit to its Parliament the agreed template legislation and take suchsteps as are appropriate to secure the passing thereof by 31 March 1992. It also requireseach other State to submit to its Parliament the necessary application of laws legislationto apply the template legislation in that State. The agreement establishes a MinisterialCouncil to appoint members of the board of the AFIC, and to exercise general oversightover AFIC and the financial institutions scheme. The legislation cannot be amendedunless the Ministerial Council has agreed.

The prudential standards and practices to be adopted by building societies andcredit unions are not to be prescribed in legislation, but will be determined from time to timeby AFIC. This will provide flexibility in the determination of those standards to takeaccount of changing conditions and practices in the financial sector. The lack of flexibilityis a major problem in current State legislation. To reassure Governments and industry thatsufficiently high standards are to be applied, the prudential standards and practicesrecommended by the NBFIs working group—and subsequently amended—have beenincluded as a schedule to the formal agreement to be used as a basis for the prudentialstandards and practices to be determined by AFIC for building societies and credit unions.The standards are as high as the Reserve Bank standards for banks, and include—

an 8 per cent risk-weighted capital adequacy ratio. This will tend to lift capitalrequirements and align capital requirements to the risks associated with differentlending categories;

prime asset requirement, which includes cash, Government securities and bankdeposits, of 10 per cent of assets for building societies and 7 per cent for creditunions;

large loan exposures limited to 10 per cent to reduce the concentration of risk;

arrears reporting to enable greater monitoring of bad debts; and

qualitative standards such as adequate risk management systems and limitations onmanagement contracts and subsidiaries.

The AFIC Bill sets out the principal objects of the financial institutions scheme,together with principles of supervision, which include clear recognition of the ongoing roleof building societies and credit unions and recognition that the responsibility for theviability of building societies and credit unions rests with the boards and management andnot with Governments or supervisors. Supervision should be aimed at the prevention of


problems and be based on prudential standards, regular reviews, use of external auditorsand onsite inspections. To enhance efficiency and competition, supervisoryarrangements should be uniform across States and, if meeting these standards, buildingsocieties and credit unions should be able to operate on a national basis. In addition,costs of supervision should be primarily met by the industry.

Based on these principles, the functions of AFIC are to promote the financialintegrity and the efficiency of the State-based financial institutions system; institute,develop and ensure the effective and efficient implementation of a system of uniformprudential and other standards for building societies and credit unions throughoutAustralia; and to register and supervise special services providers. These are bodies thatare in the majority owned by building societies or credit unions and which conductsignificant financial services to supervise and control industry-funded liquidity supportarrangements. In regard to those liquidity support arrangements, AFIC has the power todirect loans on a pro rata basis and up to half the liquid assets requirement of each societyto assist in liquidity support for a distressed credit union.

In the AFIC’s opinion, the building society or credit union must be balance-sheetsolvent and have a reasonable prospect of repaying the loan. Adequate security must beprovided. As mentioned before, to facilitate the necessary quick response, AFIC has beeninstructed in the legislation to utilise special services providers. If there are solvencyproblems, the State Supervisory Authority, or the SSA, has authority to merge orrestructure the institution. AFIC is to be an independent body which is not subject todirection by or on behalf of the ministerial council or any Government. However, AFIC isaccountable to the ministerial council and is required to furnish annual reports and to seekapproval for its budget. In adopting standards, AFIC is required to undertake a formalindustry consultation process.

The Bill also provides for the establishment of an Australian Financial InstitutionsAppeal Tribunal as an avenue of appeal to review certain decisions of AFIC and the StateSupervisory Authorities. It will be a low-cost arrangement. The tribunal will not have full-time members, and it will sit wherever it is convenient. The costs are to be borne by theparties in the dispute. AFIC does not have authority to supervise individual credit unions.That is the responsibility of the SSA, although AFIC does have authority to seekinformation both from the SSA and the individual credit union. That is to ensure, amongother things, that the SSA is applying in a uniform way the standards and practices laiddown by AFIC.

Mr Foley: Hear, hear!

Mr DAVIES: I thank the honourable member for Yeronga. If, in AFIC’s opinion, theSSA fails to comply with a request or contravenes the legislation, AFIC has authority toreport the matter to the relevant State Minister and then to the ministerial council. If theproblem is not resolved, it may provide a report to the Premier and eventually cause thereport to be laid before the respective Legislative Assembly.

The Bill to be debated next outlines the functions and powers of State SupervisoryAuthorities in the direct day-to-day supervision and administration of building societiesand credit unions. This includes enforcement powers; special meetings and inquiries;intervention powers; powers to suspend operations; powers to appoint administrators; andpowers in respect of levies, compulsory loans and funds. The Bill also brings together, andreplaces, in a single piece of legislation, the disparate administrative and legislativeprovisions currently existing separately for building societies and credit unions in eightdifferent State and Territory jurisdictions. This includes provisions relating to formationand registration; powers; rules; membership shares; other securities and charges;management; mergers and transfers of engagements; conversions; externaladministration; special investigations; foreign societies; and associations. The Bill


includes provisions for the establishment in each State of a contingency fund for creditunions which will assist in ensuring the protection of the interests of depositors and inassisting restructuring of credit unions. It is not proposed that the building societiescontribute to a contingency fund because such funds are likely to be ineffective given theconcentration of assets in a few large institutions.

I will quickly outline some other issues. In addition to the proposed national templatelegislation, there will be a need for the following additional pieces of legislation to completethe implementation of the new scheme: a Queensland Office of Financial Supervision, orQOFS Bill. This will be a Queensland piece of legislation to establish QOFS as the StateSupervisory Authority for Queensland. QOFS was originally recommended as thesupervisory body for Queensland in the 1990 report of the Brady committee of inquiry onNBFIs. Other States will need comparable pieces of legislation establishing their ownState supervisory authorities. The application of laws legislation will need to be passed byother States to adopt and apply the template legislation enacted in Queensland. Thetransitional and savings legislation will need to be passed individually by each State,including Queensland, to provide for the transition from the existing building society andcredit union legislation.

For Queensland, a key issue is the winding up of the Permanent Building SocietiesContingency Fund as such contingency funds will no longer exist for building societiesunder the new system. That is in line with the Brady committee’s recommendation. Therewill also be interpretation provisions and consequential amendments Acts. These arelargely mechanical and procedural matters. The costs of the new system will bepredominantly borne by the industry and, as such, there should be savings toconsolidated revenue as current functions of the Registrar of Commercial Acts will beabolished. Treasury has consulted widely with industry in Queensland and in other Statesof Australia and there is widespread support for the new legislative package, althoughsome criticism can be expected concerning the speed of the reform process. That alwaysseems to be the case. The urgency of the proposed process is essential, given the needfor unanimous agreement at the Special Premiers Conference on 21 and 22 November andthe clouds that hang over future SPCs and politically vested interests interstate. Inconclusion, I support the Bill.

Dr WATSON (Moggill—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (5.37 p.m.): I rise tospeak to the Australian Financial Institutions Commission Bill 1992. In doing so, bynecessity I will refer to the next Bill to be introduced into the House, namely, thereplacement Bill for the Financial Institutions (Queensland) Bill for 1991, which I believewill have the very same title for 1992. When the latter Bill is introduced, I do not intend toreiterate what I shall say in speaking to the current Bill. Firstly, I thank Treasury officialsfor the briefing that they gave me. I refer particularly to Mr Mark Gray and Mr JamesGreen, whom I found to be polite and extremely helpful. I must agree that the idea ofsplitting the Bills into two parts—the first part being idiosyncratic to a State, and thesecond part being a code that is common to all States—is a good idea.

These Bills deal with a very important section of the Australian financial markets,namely, permanent building societies and credit unions. To obtain some idea of theimportance of this area to the Australian economy, one has only to compare these parts ofthe financial market to the total non-banking financial market sector. For example, at 30June 1989, the assets and liabilities of financial corporations in Australia, which couldbroadly be defined as non-banking financial institutions, amounted to $129,617m. Of this,the permanent building societies represented $23,958m, or 18.5 per cent of that total, andthe credit unions combined in Australia represented $7,660m, or nearly 6 per cent. So intotal, credit unions and permanent building societies represented nearly 25 per cent of theassets and liabilities of non-banking financial institutions in this country. Since then, from


figures that I have seen, credit unions have grown even more in absolute terms. By 30June 1991, their assets had grown to a little over $9,000m. Queensland has somethinglike 34 of the 367 credit unions in this country, and those credit unions have assets ofnearly $1,200m. Building societies have also contributed substantially to the developmentof the Queensland economy. One has to go no further than Suncorp, its building societyand its predecessors. More recently, the Metropolitan and Permanent Building Societybecame the Metway Bank. Tonight, members are concerned with a very important part ofthe Australian financial sector.

Permanent building societies and credit unions are generally referred to as deposit-taking institutions, which are a subset of the non-banking financial institutions sector.This sector, which focuses on the borrowing and lending needs of the household sector,contributes to the efficiency of the Queensland and Australian financial system and,therefore, to the welfare of Queenslanders generally. There is no doubt that this sector ofour financial institutions should be preserved and, in fact, enhanced. It has beenrecognised in the report of the committee of inquiry into non-bank financial institutions andrelated financial processes in the State of Queensland—the Brady report—that thesedeposit-taking institutions should be deregulated in order to improve their competitivenessand the service that they provide to Queenslanders. But at the same time, thoseinstitutions should ensure that the risks faced by depositors are kept at a reasonable levelto accompany this deregulation by an enhancement of prudential oversight.

In 1990, the Brady committee suggested that the prudential oversight to beintroduced should be based upon the following principles—

(1) supervision should be undertaken by an official agency with maximumindependence from the Government;

(2) the Government should not guarantee, either implicitly or explicitly, theactivities of deposit-taking institutions—DTIs;

(3) adoption of a Reserve Bank style of supervision with explicit minimumprudential standards in respect of capital adequacy and liquidity, backed by arange of informal supervisory procedures;

(4) a uniform supervisory approach to all groups of deposit-taking institutions, butwith provision for the retention of existing identity and titles, namely, buildingsocieties and credit unions;

(5) the administrative aspects of deposit-taking institutions legislation is to beseparated from the supervisory function;

(6) supervision of DTIs to be State based, that is, undertaken by a StateGovernment agency and not a national supervisory agency; and finally

(7) a uniform approach to prudential supervision across the States.

It seems to me that this legislation satisfies broadly these principles in most respects.These Bills suggest that supervision is to be undertaken by a newly created AustralianFinancial Institutions Commission, which will be relatively independent of any particularGovernment in Australia. In addition, the Australian Financial Institutions Commission willcoordinate a uniform approach to prudential supervision throughout Australia. It isexpected that, once the AFIC gets under way, the standards of supervision will beprimarily a Reserve Bank style and that a uniform supervisory approach will be undertakenfor all groups. Finally, this legislation establishes State supervisory agencies which will beresponsible for the supervision of the DTIs in a particular State. In Queensland, theagency will be referred to as the Queensland Office of FinancialSupervision—QOFS—which is perhaps an appropriate acronym for an agency thatsupervises liquidity. I understand from the Treasurer that, later tonight, a Bill establishingthat office will be introduced into the House and will lay on the table.


The Liberal Party recognises the work that was done by the Brady committee, inparticular Mr Brady, Professor Jeff Carmichael and Mr Jon Stanford. Given the excellentreport that they brought down and the fact that these Bills follow in broad measure therecommendations of that committee and have been agreed to by other Governments inAustralia, the Liberal Party will be supporting the Bills. In understanding the role of the Billsthat we are discussing, the first thing that must be looked at is the functioning of ourfinancial system and the role of building societies and credit unions in that system. Oncethis is understood, an appreciation for the way these associations should be regulatedcan be derived.

The role of the financial system is really threefold—

(1) to provide a payments system which moves funds between debtors andcreditors in an efficient, secure and timely manner;

(2) to channel savings in the economy to the most productive and profitableinvestments in our society; and

(3) to provide a secondary market for securities created in the savings investmentprocess.

Within the financial system, a number of different types of organisations have developedto ensure the efficient transfer of funds between different players. Permanent buildingsocieties and credit unions are two such associations. Permanent building societiesusually raise funds from the household and small-business sectors of the economy.Typically, permanent building societies raise funds through members shares, at-callpassbook accounts or deposits. Credit unions—sometimes these are referred to as creditsocieties—are usually financial organisations owned and operated on a non-profit basisby their members. The purpose of these societies or unions is to encourage savings, touse the pooled funds to make loans and to provide related services to members and theirfamilies. Both building societies and credit unions tend to raise money from members anduse these funds to on-lend for housing and other asset purchases. In most cases, thesepurchases are longer term than the deposits they attract.

Building societies are perhaps more exposed than credit unions, since their lendingtends to be mainly for housing, which is normally a long-term product. This results in amajor maturity mismatch which requires building societies to a great extent, and creditunions to a lesser extent, to manage carefully their liquidity exposure. In designing aregulatory or supervisory system for this sector of the financial market, one needs to becareful to keep the focus of regulation in mind. The idea is that we need to promote thecompetitiveness and efficiency of the Queensland and Australian financial system. Weneed to ensure that we preserve a range of financial institutions and activities whichcovers a wide spectrum of risk and return relationships. We also need to consider thecosts of any proposed regulatory and supervisory system to ensure that they do notoutweigh any of the benefits that such regulation and supervision can bestow. Finally, wedo need to protect the interests of depositors in some types of institutions. Not allinstitutions can or should be regulated. Building societies and credit unions, because oftheir particular relationship with respect to their depositors and members, fall into a specialclass which does warrant additional protection of individual depositors. Consequently, it isworth while to consider an appropriate supervisory structure.

The arguments put forward lead us to conclude that there is an argument for theprudential oversight of a range of financial intermediaries that exist outside the bankingsector of the financial market, which give additional options to small investors to minimisethe risks that they have to absorb. The idea of the legislation before the House is basicallyto take the Reserve Bank’s style of supervision and superimpose on this style a morehands-on approach. Whereas the Reserve Bank relies primarily on the external auditor of


banks for audit information, this legislation establishes State supervisory authoritieswhich will be expected to supervise the building societies and credit unions in a moredirect fashion. However, given this, we concur with the Brady Committee that the mainelements of the supervisory style must include the following—

(1) the setting of minimum prudential standards, for example, minimumaccountable and liquidity ratios which are expected to be met at all times;

(2) the provision by institutions of a comprehensive range of information to thesupervisor;

(3) a requirement that institutions have systems in place which allow themanagement to identify, monitor and limit risk exposures;

(4) a need to establish arrangements to ensure that the information on which thesupervisors are making their assessments is reliable, that the minimumprudential standards are being observed and that the management and controlsystems are being following and are operating effectively; and

(5) to establish regular, formal discussions with top management and boards ofeach institution when the overall performance of the institution is reviewed froma prudential point of view.

One can never take all the risks out of financial transactions, even in the strictlyregulated or supervised areas. However, a reasonable balance can and must be struck inthis area. It is certainly up to the Minister and the Parliament to ensure that thesupervision does not become too inflexible, rigid and unresponsive to changes inmarketing conditions or that it becomes too oriented towards prescriptive rules rather thanflexible but enforced guidelines. My understanding from reading the legislation anddiscussions, with the Minister’s permission, with the staff of Treasury and also with otherswho are interested in the financial system of the State and Australia, particularly thoseinvolved with building societies and credit unions, is that this is the intention of thelegislation. Unfortunately, because the supervisory standards are not yet available, onecannot be totally sure that this will occur. However, I have every confidence in the AFICsteering committee, and one would expect the members appointed to the AFIC to be ableto come forth with a set of appropriate prudential standards and practices. In this vein Ishould also indicate that it will be up to the AFIC and, in the interim, the AFIC steeringcommittee to determine the appropriate standards and conditions to be applied to specialservice providers.

At this time, I should raise a concern that credit unions have raised with me and withthe Treasurer—earlier, the member for Burnett raised the matter—about the number ofspecial service providers. As the Treasurer is well aware, the credit unions are concernedthat only one special service provider will be established and that that one will be based inSydney. I am sure the Treasurer understands that it is vital to the interests of all creditunion members, not only in Queensland, but in Australia, that we do not limit the number ofspecial service providers. In speaking with the Treasurer’s departmental staff, I amconvinced it is not the intention of the Government to so limit it in that way, but I believe itwould be appropriate tonight for the Treasurer to reassure not only this House, but also thecredit union industry in general, in a public way, that it is not the Government’s intention tolimit in any pre-emptive fashion the number of special service providers.

As I indicated earlier, part of the role of the regulatory and supervisory system is topromote competitiveness in the Australian financial system and, in this case, in the non-banking financial system, and it would seem to be quite inconsistent with this goal to limitthe number of special service providers. But if the Treasurer wishes to address this in hisreply, I am sure that it will go a long way towards assuring the credit unions in this State ofthe Government’s intentions.


In closing, I might also say that I am not particularly impressed that Victoria seemsto have been dragging its heels in this particular area. In commenting on Victoria’shesitancy in throwing its weight behind the Queensland Bill, the establishment of the AFICheadquarters in Queensland and the acceptance of the legislation before us today, onecannot help but wonder whether or not this is something to do with that State’s pastprudential supervision of its building societies. It may also reflect the fact that in Victoriathe relationship between the existing building societies and the Government is perhapstoo close. However, we should not let that get in the way of establishing an appropriatenational supervisory structure and one would hope that no State, in particular Victoria, aState that has obviously a poor track record in this area, would be so parochial as to try todeny the establishment in Queensland of the AFIC headquarters. Finally, I reiterate thatthe Liberal Party will be supporting this Bill and its companion Bill at the appropriate timestoday.

Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton North) (5.53 p.m.): I do not intend to cover theground that has already been covered by speakers in this debate. Quite frankly, it doesnot appear to be much of a debate. There seems to be a general consensus that it is theway to go. In that respect, the House is seeing a truly historic moment because, not onlyare we triggering legislation of a uniform nature right throughout Australia, but we are alsoleading the way. I think it has been a long time since we could claim credit for either ofthose things. It truly is history in the making here this evening.

The few points I do want to make come as a result of meetings that I have had withvarious credit unions. Understandably, credit unions are concerned about the changesand, whilst I think it fair to say that they support them, they do have some trepidationabout those changes and how they are going to impact upon them. Previous speakershave already indicated that credit unions in Queensland can hold their heads high in termsof their prudential standards. Credit unions have imposed those standards on themselves.I think it is a matter of record that not one person who has put his or her money into a creditunion in Queensland ever lost it. It is ironic that some of the other States are screamingloudly about the need for prudential standards to be upheld. The other States have, infact, showed that they were lacking in that regard when prudential standards were appliedto them. It is important, therefore, that those prudential standards are guaranteed on anationwide basis and, in effect, that is what this legislation does.

It would be remiss of me not to place on record some of the concerns of credit unionsthroughout the State. Credit unions hold these views very strongly and I believe that it isopportune for the Treasurer to set the record straight by answering these questions.Recently, the Treasurer took time out to meet a group very representative of credit unionsin this State. The representatives of the credit unions have indicated to me theirsatisfaction with the way in which the Treasurer greeted them. I know from talking with theTreasurer about it that he had no problems whatsoever in talking with those groups either.Consultation has, therefore, been carried out. Of course, we cannot expect that sort ofconsultation when bringing in such a wide-reaching piece of legislation that will be theanswer to a maiden’s prayer. For that reason, I want to include a number of questions thathave been put to me so that the Treasurer is afforded the opportunity to respond later.

One of the concerns of the credit unions in this State is that many of them are verysmall operators, but nevertheless, their assets and financial situation is such that theyare as safe as houses in terms of protecting those who lodge money with them. Thesmaller credit unions are concerned that they will be gobbled up by the bigger sharks in themarket and that more than half of the credit unions in this State will be forced toamalgamate as a result of this legislation. I would be interested to hear what the Treasurerhas to say about that. The other point that was made to me was that although thislegislation started out as a way to protect people against the collapse of large NBFIs, it is


structured so that it penalises small, but safe, NBFIs. I think that is the bottom line of theconcerns of the credit unions. These very efficient and very worthy small credit unionsthroughout the State have a real fear that at the end of the day they will be the losers.

The issue of the SSP has already been raised and I am sure that the Treasurer willrespond to it. I am aware that the league, for example, is very concerned that it may notconform to a set of standards that the AFIC has put up by way of an SSP. I can wellunderstand the basis of its concern. A credit union with which I am familiar—and I do notparticularly want to name it—has been in existence for about 30 years. I have talked topeople connected with that credit union, and they tell me that their concern is that it maynot immediately conform in terms of this legislation. I think it would be a pity if that were tobe the case, and I am eager to find out whether in that regard there is some provision fortransitional arrangements. In conclusion, I wish to pose a question to the Treasurer, whowould no doubt be aware that credit unions operate on a philosophy that has been built upover a period of 150 years of filling in the gaps in institutionalised lending. Does thislegislation penalise such a successful and worthy process? I do not intend to prolong thedebate further. I have raised some issues because I believe that they are matters oflegitimate concern. Having said that, let me also say that it is pleasing to note that it is notthe intention of this legislation to have the effect of credit unions taking the place ofbanks, because both types of financial institutions have a place in society. I look forwardto listening to the Treasurer’s reply. I support the Bill.

Sitting suspended from 6.01 to 7.30 p.m.

Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (7.29 p.m.): Mr Palaszczuk, as this is the first time I havemade a speech since your elevation to the position of Chairman of Committees, I take thisopportunity to extend my congratulations on your appointment. I was interested to hearthe comments made immediately prior to the dinner recess by the member forRockhampton——

Mr Braddy: Rockhampton North.

Mr BOOTH: Rockhampton North; that is right. The member for Rockhampton Northappeared to offer strong support for the legislation but did not appear to be sure of itseffects, and I share his views. I would like to be sure that the deposits made by investorsare protected, and I do not believe that anyone would like to see credit unions topple over,leaving behind a lot of grieving depositors. From that point of view, I believe that thislegislation takes a step in the right direction, but I am mindful of the following commentsmade by the Treasurer in his second-reading speech—

“This new legislation has struck the right balance—the right balance betweenregulation and deregulation, between financial institutions’ powers and theircorresponding responsibilities, between inflexible prescription and flexiblesupervision.”

If this legislation can achieve all that, in my opinion it will be the only piece of legislationthat ever did. Some of the problems associated with this legislation have already beenoutlined by previous speakers in the debate, so instead of turning my attention to matterssuch as special service providers, I will turn my attention to matters that affect the creditunion that services my electorate.

Mr Szczerbanik: Which electorate is that?

Mr BOOTH: Warwick. The credit union in my electorate has been very successful,but I have to admit that it is managed by people who probably support the Labor Party.Nevertheless, they have been very successful and I have always maintained a closefriendship with the directors who have given a great deal of assistance to Warwick and thesurrounding district. The reason why the credit union has been able to provide that help isthat its lending criteria differ from those of other financial institutions. Whereas bank loans


are based solely on a borrower’s collateral or financial backing, to some extent a creditunion will lend money on the basis of a person’s reputation, which is excellent. Creditunions have provided a great deal of assistance to young people, which should be asource of comfort to all honourable members who rise in this Chamber and insist that thattype of help should be given.

Much has been said about uniform financial institutions legislation throughoutAustralia. In both the Treasurer’s second-reading speech and in the remarks made byother speakers, the suggestion seems to be made that because legislation is uniformthroughout Australia, it must be right. The fact that a number of Governments havediscussed the legislation would tend to indicate that the provisions will stand up toscrutiny and be regarded as prudent, but there is also the possibility that some horse-trading took place during the discussions that were held between different levels ofgovernment. I am not as familiar with the operations of city-based credit unions as I amwith the credit union in my electorate, but I understand that city credit unions lend moneymostly for household appliances, cars, and small home improvements. In contrast to that,country credit unions lend money to commercial enterprises. The types of lendingconstitute a big difference between the two types of credit unions.

During the debate, the claim was made that adequate consultation took place withthe credit unions during the preparation of this legislation. The Treasurer could have fooledme because, although I understand that some consultation took place, the Bill sets up acommission and it would be almost impossible to know what the commission will do when itbegins to operate. The Treasurer’s second-reading speech lists five standards andpractices, and I believe that at least one contains an element of risk. The second-readingspeech states—

“a risk-weighted capital adequacy requirement;

a prime liquid assets requirement;”—

and no-one would quarrel with them, but the reference to “large exposure limitations”causes me a bit of concern and I believe that it will cause concern to all country creditunions. For example, if the commission sets a limit of 10 per cent lending to commercialenterprises, that would be restrictive. However, if the effect of that provision is that itlimits lending to a particular class of borrower or group of borrowers—for example, apartnership or a small company—that would not be quite as worrying, but if it means thatlimitations will be imposed on the categories of lending, many country credit unions will besusceptible to amalgamation as a result. Mass amalgamations would be a retrograde stepbecause one of the reasons why district credit unions work so well is that they featurelocal management and local direction. Although it could be claimed that some localdirectors of financial institutions have been foolish in some respects, it should also beremembered that local management personnel know the issues that are important to aparticular area and they know what to do about them. To this date, I believe that countrycredit unions have not acted foolishly. Another reason why country credit unions work sowell is that directors have worked without payment for a number of years to set them up.They then drew only a very small allowance for attending directors meetings, which did nottake very much out of the kitty.

Mr Smyth: That is right.

Mr BOOTH: That has been good, but it will not continue if large amalgamations takeplace. I hope that that does not occur, but I suspect that it will. A number of previousspeakers in the debate made the point that the commission will not be subject toGovernment control—at least, that is the way I understood them. If that is the case and ifproblems arise because the commission is forcing amalgamations in areas of Queensland,I cannot see how that type of conflict will be resolved. I hope that the Treasurer will be able


to exercise some control over those situations if the commission fails to work in the way inwhich he intends.

Earlier, concern was expressed by credit unions. They do not seem to be quite soconcerned now, but those concerns will again be raised in about 12 to 18 months’ timewhen we see what happens after the commission is established. The legislation providesthe power to suspend credit unions. I know that that power will not be used unless it isabsolutely necessary. However, if a credit union were to be suspended, almostimmediately confidence in it would be lost. The Treasurer’s second-reading speech wasquite good. He outlined many things that will be done. However, many matters that thecommission will probably think of may not have been mentioned, and that worries me. Inthe initial stages of the establishment of credit unions, many people were worried aboutthem. I was one of those people and, although I joined a credit union, I did not use itsfacilities to any great extent. However, I became a member and still am one. Credit unionshave done a wonderful job in handling their own affairs, but that does not mean that theywill be able to continue to do the same task if they are subject to too much control. Ofcourse, the Government must try to strike a balance. I admitted earlier that I do not wantto see any credit union go to the wall, with its depositors suffering severe financialdamaged. None of us would want to see that. However, there is a great difference betweenmetropolitan credit unions and country credit unions, and I hope that the Government canstrike an appropriate balance in the way it exercises control.

If Victoria has had any input into the Bill—and I suspect there would have been someinput by way of horse-trading—it may well be that some of its suggestions are not in thebest interests of Queensland credit unions. The Bill is a huge document. It is very difficultto go through it and decide what is right and what is not right. My greatest worry is that,once the commission is established, it will be largely independent. I hope that somechecks and balances are provided so that, even if we do not have any control over thecommission, it can at be least asked to answer questions. Having listened to the debatethis afternoon and having listened to the Treasurer, I believe that he is sincere in trying tointroduce good legislation. At the end of his second-reading speech, he said that thelegislation will be perfect, or words to that effect. I hope that he is right. History will judgethat statement, and we probably will not get a judgment for 5 to 10 years. The greatest fearthat I have is that many credit unions will be forced into amalgamations and that thoseamalgamations will do away with local management. Once local management is done awaywith, credit unions will go down fast.

Mr J. H. Sullivan: It is like having local management in the Health Department,isn’t it?

Mr BOOTH: No. The so-called local management is all by Victorian imports. Thereis a world of difference there. Those people in Queensland Health are nearly all imports orcard-carrying members of the Labor Party. I am sorry that I took that interjection becauseI was not in the mood for it. I rose to ask the Treasurer to try to ensure that the creditunions that have been so successful and that were initiated, to some extent, by people ofhis own political party are protected and to ensure that not too much pushing and shovingoccurs with their management. Although it is fine to say that the Government will have toensure that adequate reserves are kept, if credit unions cannot trade properly some willfind themselves in difficulties. When I rose to speak, I said that I would not go over someof the matters that have been raised by previous speakers, so I will not do that. TheTreasurer is well aware of the concerns. He has the same letters from credit unions that Ihave, so he knows that worries and concerns exist. He has met some of those concernsby consulting with the credit unions. That consultation probably could have been better if itwas held over a longer period. The control of credit unions and financial institutions beganwhen the National Party was in Government, but that legislation was not going to be


Australiawide. At that time, it was to be a Queensland Bill. It may be right to say that thelegislation was put into the too-hard basket. One cause of that was the fact that peoplewere worried that too much Government interference would stop the successful operationof the credit unions. I am not prepared to say that that is so. The matter of service-providers has been well canvassed. I leave my contribution at that.

Mr D’ARCY (Woodridge) (7.43 p.m.): I very much appreciate the introduction of thisBill. I have been in this place for almost 20 years. During that time, I have made between 8and 10 speeches on this subject. To see the Australian scene adopt a regulatory attitudetowards non-bank institutions is pleasing. It is no use going through their history, but it isworth while reminding members of a couple of things. A number of speakers earlier in thedebate quoted an article in today’s Australian Financial Review, which states—

“While no State was willing to point the finger at any other yesterday, industrysources say the due diligence guidelines are expected to reveal a ‘few skeletonsrattling around’.”

After the passage of 20 years, during which members such as me and the late KevinHooper, whom some members would remember—particularly you, Mr DeputySpeaker—have spoken in this House so many times about the problems with credit unionsand non-regulatory banking institutions, I find that sad. If members want to start talkingabout some of the amalgamations that took place, I could name the Gold Coast PermanentBuilding Society, the Sunstate Building Society, the Trade Union Building Society and theTAE Building Society. I could probably rattle off 100 or 150 names of institutions withwhich I have been involved during my time in this place which have collapsed and takenwith them the money of taxpayers and little old ladies. We have been through the trauma ofeven this Treasurer saying to me, “You cannot say that in the House even though it istrue.” On most occasions, long before any institution has ever been in trouble, I have beenaware of its shortfalls or the problems that it has faced, whether they related to investmentor other problems. Sometimes, I have raised those matters in this House. Most of the writsthat I received as a member of Parliament were taken out by people who ended up in gaol.

I feel very sorry that the member for Warwick made the remarks that he did. What hesaid tonight was, in all honesty, the real approach to the way people in the country andpeople with the smaller institutions feel. I am not saying to this House or to anyone elsethat all the crooks exist in just the small institutions or the bigger institutions. There arejust bigger crooks in the bigger institutions—with bigger corporate crime; with greaterwhite-collar crime—ripping off greater amounts of money from the average taxpayer or theaverage investor who has no chance of keeping up with the financial shenanigans thathave gone on in this country unabated during my time in the finance world. It is sad toknow that that has happened.

I welcome this Bill and the constraints that it imposes. Let me make it very clear thatit is not the be-all and end-all. There is no panacea. On a State and national scale, this Billwill provide some basis to allow a real comparison of what funds are doing and will protect agreater number of people. There will not be the same types of tragedies as we saw in thepast. As I said, it was a great trauma to me personally to know that an institution hadrorted the system and had made bad investments, yet I could not rise in this place and saythat it had done so. However, on the occasions on which I did so in this House, I did it in allgood faith and I was able to say what the result would be. After doing that, the firstquestion journalists would ask me was, “Mr D’Arcy, you have said this in the Parliament.You will bring that institution down.” In my time in this Parliament, I have never madestatements such as that unless the institution had already committed the crimes for whichits directors had been sent to gaol. Over the years, there were about 14 differentoccasions on which I made such statements. The directors of both TAE and Bartletts arein gaol. The fact is that journalists would say to me, “You are going to bring that institution


down. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy if you mention that in the Parliament under privilegebecause people will withdraw their money. They will be the lucky ones; they will get out.”But that situation should not have existed.

This type of legislation will make a difference to the Australian financial situation. Itjust disappoints me—and I hear the Treasurer say it privately—that all of them have notbeen covered. Friendly societies are not covered. One of the problems that exist inQueensland is that such institutions are based largely in the south. Although most of themare spawned in Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide, some are spawned in Perth. It is foundthat Queensland becomes involved because those societies pick up retirement villagesand Queensland tourism operations such as Dreamworld. One way or another, they pickthem up. As financial institutions, they have done a rorted deal to come into them.Although the base of the institutions might be in Melbourne or Sydney, in many instancesthey hold Queensland properties. Often, they are large Queensland properties, whetherthey be commercial, tourist or in the retirement village sphere.

It is pleasing to see this legislation come before the House. It will have effectAustraliawide. It is unfortunate that some of the smaller institutions will be disadvantaged.I agree with Mr Booth’s statement that many people took smaller cuts, they did not takethe big, up-front fees that people demand, and the high pricing that will have to be paid topolice these institutions. It is unfortunate that, because of the type of financial institutionsthat exist in society today, policing is needed. Last year, for certain people I wrote aprivate report about financial institutions. I said—

“The Financial Review, August 30, says there is $25.2 billion of non-performingloans in Australia. Knowing how the system works, this is probably only the tip of theice berg—as banks set their own method of determining non-performing loans.

It is difficult to ascertain if these loans in default represent assets which areonly worth a fraction of their value on today’s market—which is likely in the case ofreal estate or whether they include all the loans that are currently beingcapitalised—which is probably not the case.”

Anyone who is involved in the finance field and who knows anything about today’smarket knows that not all of the debt has been rationalised. The debt still exists. In otherwords, those investors who are in banks and those types of institutions have not realisedthe assets because the paper has not been called up. If it has been called up in any shapeor form, it has been called up only partially. The real debt can be seen when it has beenwritten off. The real debt of the recession has not hit these financial institutions yet, andwe have not seen the basis of it. Most of them are hoping for some sort of recovery, andwe all hope that there will be some sort of recovery. However, the fact of life is that in mostcases the paper value of what is currently called people’s assets in these societies is notworth the paper it is printed on, because the auditing system is inadequate.

On my reading of it, this Bill still does not address some of those problems. That iswhy I say that a problem still exists. Although the Bill will allow institutions to invest somuch in this and so much in that on a global basis, all of the problems have not beenaddressed. Investors need to be protected from institutions, because they have manytricks up their sleeves. They are not the types of crooks with whom we are used to dealing.They are being weeded out slowly. It has taken 20 years of my parliamentary life to get aBill that will at least address these issues and remove a lot of the problems that haveoccurred in the past. I am very pleased to see this Bill before this House and before theother Australian Parliaments.

Let me make the prediction that the amendments that will be made to this legislationin the next 12 months to two years will probably be more important than the Bill itself. Oncethis legislation is in place, it will provide the machinery to enable us to see how financial


institutions operate. This change has occurred because the Australian Labor PartyGovernment particularly has been involved in monitoring the massive accumulation ofsuperannuation funds. These funds under the old system—and we had some ofthem—could have been rorted. They were being rorted. A lot of those people who retired inthe last five to eight years found that their funds have been dissipated. They have startedto worry.

I will quote some figures as an example of the situation in regard to interest rates. InSeptember 1990, commercial rates were then, on a one-year basis, 17.15 per cent. Today,those commercial rates on bills would be close to 7.1 per cent or 7.2 per cent, without theadd-ons. That is a 10 per cent drop in interest rates in 18 months. The amount of intereston money which people in areas such as my electorate have invested in these types ofsocieties has dropped significantly. Many people are relying on those investments to earnan income, because all these associations and societies that this Government is nowstarting to regulate to this extent run investment portfolios or funds for retirees. Manymembers of Parliament do not understand the enormity of the amounts of money thatthese institutions handle. It is important that the average person has confidence in thosetypes of institutions, so a Bill of this type that is introduced on an Australiawide basis is ofbenefit in that regard. However, it will not stop financial rorting, because no matter how farone goes through the system, every few years one finds such individuals as DonaldTrump, Alan Bond or Christopher Skase. Some of those individuals start out with thegreatest intent, but somehow or other they manage to get their hands on these funds.They do not work with their own money; they work with other people’s money; andsomehow they work with money from these institutions as well. As somebody pointedout—and I think it might have been Mr Watson—these institutions are now handling about18 per cent of the total amount of banking within the Australian society.

It is great to see this Bill. I believe it is only the tip of the iceberg; that it is onlyscratching the surface. There is a long way to go, but, after 20 years, it is very pleasing tosee this legislation, despite the fact that it will cause some fall-out to some of the smallerinstitutions and some of the institutions in various States that have had problems. SomeStates have experienced problems because they have high investment in particularareas. However, that matter will be covered in a subsequent Bill. The fact of life is thatalthough it might be limited, the general public will be better protected by this legislation.The public will never be protected totally, because that situation relies upon the honesty ofthe people in the institutions.

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South) (7.56 p.m.): The Australian Financial InstitutionsCommission Bill and the following Financial Institutions (Queensland) Bill are of utmostimportance to the hundreds and thousands of Queenslanders who are members of andinvestors in Queensland’s 9 building societies and 36 credit unions. The people ofToowoomba have a special interest in this Bill. Four credit unions have their offices inToowoomba. Three building societies have offices in that city, and the head office of oneof Queensland’s building society success stories, the Heritage Building Society, islocated in Heritage Plaza, one of Toowoomba’s newest and major multistorey citybuildings. An examination of this building society’s present-day operations gives abackground to the importance of this Bill. The Heritage Building Society was formed in1981 as a result of a merger between Queensland’s oldest building society, theToowoomba Permanent Building Society, which was formed in 1875, and the DarlingDowns Building Society, which was formed in 1897. In 1981, the combined assets totalled$148m. Approximately 10 years later, those assets exceeded $511m, making itQueensland’s second largest building society. Lending in that time has increased from$23m to $126m. The branch network has increased to 132 branches and agents, and itgives direct employment to 290 Queenslanders. Investors in the nine Queensland building


societies have a total investment of $3.2 billion, and the nine societies have total assetsof some $3.4 billion.

Building societies welcome the legislative review which is before the House and theremoval of aspects of the current Act which restrict the types of lending that buildingsocieties can provide, particularly personal loans. Generally, building societies want tosee this legislation in place by the Treasury timetable of 1 July. But the achievement ofthis schedule will have been at the cost of the imposition of an horrendous timetable withinwhich building societies and credit unions were expected to examine and comment upondraft legislation. Some drafts were received at 4 p.m. on one day, with the examination andcomment required within 24 hours. Each successive draft did not give details of thechange; it was just simply the new draft. With the two Bills having over 400 pages of detail,thorough examination was difficult in the time which was available. Hence, it is importantthat during this debate the Treasurer provide satisfactory assurances on matters whichhave not been covered to the satisfaction of the financial institutions during thenecessary haste that was encountered during the preparation of this legislation.

Paramount among the concerns of the building societies are the unknown costingarrangements. The non-bank financial industry will have to contribute to the Brisbane-based Australian Financial Institutions Commission and pay for the Queensland Office ofFinancial Supervision. How will these costs be allocated respectively to the buildingsocieties and the credit union industries? Does anyone have any idea as to what thesecosts will be? With 16 weeks to 1 July, organisations which normally operate on budgets18 months in advance and five-year projections have absolutely no idea of thesignificance and scope of these charges. They are financially flying blind on what couldwell be a very critical expenditure item. There is also concern as to what conditions will beimposed upon institutions by the transitional Bill, and that has now been incorporated, Iunderstand, in the Financial Institutions (Queensland) Bill. A draft of that legislation wasgiven to building societies late last week.

The Treasurer has said that sufficient time will be given within this transition processfor institutions to meet new regulations and arrangements, and that is one of theassurances that the building societies and financial institutions require from the Treasurerin his reply. The credit union industry in Queensland has traditionally been based uponmembers with bonds of common interest, such as taxi-drivers, police, teachers, andpeople of a particular region. There are 36 credit unions in Queensland. Thirty-one of themare members of the Queensland Cooperative Credit Union League, an organisation thathas operated soundly and successfully for 28 years. Credit unions have 450 000members, which is one in five of the Queensland electorate, and have assets of $1.3billion. The Queensland Cooperative Credit Union League provides three areas of serviceto the credit union industry. It acts as a trade association; as a service corporation to theindustry, providing such services as cheques, plastic cards, travellers cheques andcomputer services; and as a treasury and central banking facility.

The Australian Financial Institutions Commission, which will be instituted by this Bill,will be responsible for deciding upon special service providers who will be responsible forthe provision of the investment services which have been provided for so long and sosoundly by the Queensland Cooperative Credit Union League. This legislation provides forthe appointment of more than one SSP, but there has been extreme concern expressed bythe credit unions that there is a distinct push for one SSP and that organisation would beCUFSAL—Credit Union Financial Services Australia Limited—which would be based inSydney. I understand that at a recent meeting between the credit union representativesand the Treasurer, an explanation was received as to how this potential treasury positioncame about. I believe that it is imperative that during this debate the Treasurer providecomplete assurance that AFIC will not appoint a single SSP; that Queensland


organisations will be examined and considered, and particularly, that the QueenslandCooperative Credit Union League would be recognised in the transition arrangements andgiven a specific time in this transition period during which to restructure. To fail to do thiscould put in jeopardy a Queensland financial organisation, which is a proven part ofQueensland’s credit union history, which is sound, successful, and competitive. Such anassurance from the Treasurer will give Queenslanders, who invest $1.3 billion in creditunions and $1.2 billion through the Queensland Cooperative Credit Union League affiliatedcredit unions, the opportunity to invest through their own SSP. It will also provide theopportunity for a Queensland organisation to attract investment from interstate creditunions. There has been an indication from credit unions in Victoria and New South Walesthat an amount of up to $1.3 billion could be invested almost immediately through aQueensland based SSP.

I would like to identify and reinforce the concerns of the two types of financialinstitutions. Building societies have been concerned about the horrendous time scalesthey have been given in which to consider the draft Bill, but they do appreciate that thislegislation has to be passed by 1 July. The costing arrangements are of extreme concernto building societies. They have no idea as to what the cost will be, how the cost will beshared and what arrangement will be made for payment. There are also concerns about thepressures that will be imposed on this legislation. The Martin inquiry has been at variancewith the principle of this legislation. The Martin inquiry was in favour of control of thesebodies through the Reserve Bank. Victoria and New South Wales were at variance withsome of this legislation, but they now appear to concur with it. The St George BuildingSociety, which is the major building society in Australia, is moving into a banking role. Thiscould put pressure on the remaining building societies, particularly on how much they haveto contribute toward the costs of the change. Owing to the haste with which it has beenintroduced, it appears that there will have to be refinements to the legislation throughoutthe year. This was mentioned by the member for Woodridge. The Treasurer has said to thebuilding societies that if he can get this legislation passed by 1 July he will sit down withmembers of the industry. The industry wants an assurance during this debate that withinthe next year or two the necessary refinements can be made in amending legislation.

One of the major credit union concerns was about undue haste. Through its solicitor,one organisation identified six oversights. For example, in Part 5 of the FinancialInstitutions (Queensland) Bill, which will be dealt with shortly, no permission was given tocontinue the exemption previously gazetted at page 1945 of Government Gazette No. 97.That provision should have been included in these two Bills, but it appears to have beenincluded in a Bill to be introduced later and which, unfortunately, the Opposition has nothad the opportunity to look at. Hopefully, tonight Opposition members will be able to see it.Credit unions are concerned about the lack of accountability of AFIC in terms of the feesthat it can levy. They are also concerned that the tax advantage that is now held bymember-owned cooperatives under section 23 (g) of the tax Act could be lost at some timein the future by the merger of building societies and credit unions under Federal legislation.Most decisions of AFIC are not appealable, save by the extremely expensive process ofgoing to the Supreme Court. There must be a competitive choice of SSPs for use by theinstitutions. Will sufficient time be given in the transition period for adequate restructuringby these Queensland organisations?

Because of its massive size, this has been a somewhat strange Bill to research anddebate, and also because of the importance of the succeeding Bill with which we will deal,which has been substantially changed. I understand that those changes will be introducedlater tonight. However, Opposition members, particularly the shadow Treasurer, have hadconsiderable discussions with the Treasurer and Treasury Department officials and aresatisfied with the goodwill that has been shown in putting together the changes that havebeen dealt with here tonight. Therefore, the Opposition looks forward to debating the next


Bill. In conclusion, the Opposition supports this Bill. I hope that the Treasurer can providesome of those assurances that have been sought.

Mr BARBER (Cooroora) (8.06 p.m.): The legislation is unique in that it provides notonly for the formation of building societies and credit unions but also for the formation ofentities which provide services exclusively to building societies, credit unions and theirmembers. These service organisations have been a feature of financial cooperatives.Credit unions have particularly prospered through their cooperative ability to achieveeconomies of scale by forming central banking organisations which invest excess liquids,provide settlement, and make available electronic teller networks. This is a vital role whichgives credit unions and their members access to products and market strength that wouldnot be achievable or affordable otherwise. The important role of these organisations wasrecognised early in the development of the supervisory framework. Like a chain,supervision is only as good as its weakest link. Therefore, those industry financial serviceproviders have to be supervised effectively. To do this, the legislation provides for theinformation and strict supervision of what will be known as special service providers, orSSPs. Those organisations, which are owned by and act as financial intermediaries forsocieties, will be subject to rigorous prudential supervision.

Much has been said about how many special service providers there should be.Recently, we have seen lobbying from vested interests who talk about threats tocompetition and play on parochial nerves. Let me look at some facts. From the outset, itshould be made clear that the legislation does not prescribe the number of SSPs that thereshould be. This is entirely a matter for the members of AFIC, as the independent technicalexperts, to determine. It is not a matter for Governments to determine, and Governmentsshould remain neutral on the number of SSPs. AFIC will treat all applications to becomeSSPs on their merits, and the number of SSPs will be determined solely on their capacityto meet the standards and conditions determined by AFIC. In any case, the functions ofSSPs include investment of wholesale funds, settlement arrangements within theindustry, access to the payments systems, stand-by and overdraft facilities, Treasuryfunctions, access to teller machine networks, credit card settlements and superannuationproducts. Therefore, competition to an SSP is not just other SSPs, it is banks, short-termmoney market dealers, merchant banks, computing specialists, clearinghouses,insurance companies and the like. This competition provides not only an alternative forsocieties but also a yardstick by which performance of an SSP can be measured. Clearly,there is choice.

There has also been an argument that excess liquids of Queensland credit unionsshould remain in Queensland. This is naive in the extreme and shows a total lack ofunderstanding of financial markets and the flow of funds. Do intelligent people reallybelieve that a dollar invested with any bank or insurance company is earmarked with a "Q"for lending in this State only? If Queensland people and Queensland enterprises had torely solely on self-funding, where would the growth in this State be? There are no bordersin sophisticated financial markets. This legislation is designed to allow societies to get onwith their job—to meet the demands of everyday Australians during the nineties andthrough to the next century. The legislation presents the essential framework, but it is theprudential standards which will govern the operation of societies. While the final standardsawait exposure to industry—as required by these Bills—since April last year, industry hasbeen aware of these standards in their broad form. The prudential standards for specialservice providers are, as one would expect, even tougher because of the pivotal role thatSSPs will play in the system. Independent capitalisation and liquidity requirements, strictinvestment criteria, large exposure limitations and full disclosure feature prominently inthe standards. SSPs will be safer than banks. I support the Bill.


Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer), (8.11 p.m.), in reply: Mr Palaszczuk, Iadd my congratulations to you on rising to the high office of Deputy Speaker. Not only areyou doing a good job, you look good in that role. I thank all honourable members for theircontributions to this debate and their support for this legislation. I believe that everybodyis cognisant of the fact that this legislation has travelled quite a rocky road. I amespecially pleased that all political parties and all members gave support—in some casesqualified support, but support nevertheless—to the legislation and the objectives of thislegislation and the next piece of legislation that we will be debating tonight. I say that quitesincerely because I am aware that, in recent weeks, all members have received quite a bitof correspondence, particularly from credit unions. One would expect that if parliamentaryOppositions find that there appears to be significant public opposition to some legislationof Government, the easiest thing for them to do is fall in line and oppose it. I quitesincerely say to all members that I respect the points of view that they have raised tonightand their support for this legislation.

This is indeed very important legislation. It is ground-breaking legislation in everysense of the word. I believe that this is the first time in the history of the AustralianFederation that all States have got together and introduced uniform legislation that isaimed at controlling, governing or supervising a very important industry in this country. Itis the one tangible benefit, the one tangible outcome, from the Special PremiersConference process. I am sure that honourable members will recall that, when the formerPrime Minister, Mr Hawke, launched the Special Premiers Conference process, he saidthat we are one nation and that there is a need for all States and the Commonwealth towork together to achieve outcomes for the benefit of all the people of Australia. I believethat there was a lesson for all Australians in the fact that the European Community wasmaking more progress in that regard than we seem to have been able to make in Australia.The European Community of 14 or 15 nations with different languages and differentcultures, which have opposed and fought each other for hundreds—if not thousands—ofyears, are able to come together to create an economic community and make changeswhich we in Australia seem unable to do, bearing in mind that we are one nation andbasically one culture.

I am proud to have been associated with this process and to be putting the finishingtouches to the legislation in this House. While I am patting Queensland on the back, Imight say that it really has been Queensland—primarily Queensland Treasury—which hasdriven this process. Queensland has received benefits from it in the sense that theAustralian Financial Institutions Commission will be based in Brisbane. That is recognitionof the role that Queensland has played in drafting this very important legislation.

I apologise to members for the confusion that occurred at the commencement of thisdebate. It seems that some of that confusion stems from an article in today’s AustralianFinancial Review, which states “Non-banks face due diligence”. Assertions are made inthat article which are somewhat contrary to the assurances that I have been giving forsome time to credit unions and building societies. I make the point that over a period, oneparticular journalist, Steve Lewis from the Australian Financial Review, has proved to bethe conduit of the discontent within the non-bank financial institutions industry, and hevery often prints as fact some of the concerns that are being expressed by not onlydifferent facets of the industry but also certain politicians in Australia. This is anotherprime example of what has been happening. The article is scurrilous and it is incorrect.What worries me is that it has the capacity to destabilise the industry.

As a consequence of that article, Treasury officers and other people in this Chamberhave spent most of the day fielding questions from concerned credit unions and buildingsocieties. A National Party Minister in New South Wales, for reasons perhaps known onlyto himself, promulgated such a false story. The idea of a due diligence test on credit


unions and building societies is something that was put up by Mr Peacocke and rejectedby all other States. It is not fact. Yet we have the Australian Financial Review, which isprobably the most august newspaper in Australia, running it as though it is fact. Thatdisappoints me. But I must say that many of the articles by Steve Lewis over the last sixmonths have disappointed me somewhat. What the New South Wales proposal—MrPeacocke’s proposal—seeks to achieve will be achieved by other means, by the rigoroussystem of prudential supervision that is being put in place through the AFIC and the Statesupervisory authorities. We do not need to go down that due diligence course, and we arenot.

Most speakers in this debate mentioned the issue of special serviceproviders—SSPs. It is one issue which is causing some concern in the credit unionindustry in Queensland. I note that the member for Cooroora addressed that issue verycapably. However, I will make a few points. I reassure the House that it is not the policy ofGovernment to have only one special service provider in Australia, and certainly not thepolicy of Government, especially this Government, that that SSP be based in Sydney. Ican only assume that such fears and concerns have emerged as a result of theunfortunate factionalism and tension that exists within the credit union industry inQueensland. I think even the industry acknowledges that. Let me set the record straighton my position and on the position of the Government. Firstly, it should be made clear thatthe legislation does not prescribe the number of SSPs that there should be; it is entirely amatter for AFIC as the independent technical expert to determine. Such a process is mostappropriate, as it removes Governments from political pressures and vested interestsconcerning the establishment of SSPs. Indeed, not just the Queensland Government butall State and Territory Governments should remain neutral on the number of SSPs whichwill eventually emerge. The AFIC will treat all SSP applications on their merits, and thenumber of SSPs will be determined solely on their capacity to meet the standards andconditions determined by the AFIC. I have been at pains to make that clear to the industryat every opportunity, and so have my officers. On many occasions, my officers have beenmisquoted in that regard. On 3 March, I met with a deputation—other people have referredto this—of Queensland credit unions, and their record of that meeting makes the followingpoints—

“The legislation made provision for the establishment of more than one specialservice provider. No credit union would be forced to join any special service provider.Registration of any special service provider would be a matter for determination byAFIC in the light of the standards currently being developed by AFIC. There would bereasonable transitional provisions but again subject to AFIC requirements.”

This legislation is designed to allow societies to get on with their job of meeting thedemands of everyday Australians during the nineties and through to the next century. Thelegislation presents the essential framework, but it is the prudential standards which willgovern the operation of societies. A number of members mentioned the aspect ofaccountability. I will make a few comments on that. AFIC is accountable to the MinisterialCouncil, and through it all the State and Territory Parliaments in Australia, for its costs, itsbudget and its performance. Moreover, the AFIC Bill provides for the Governor in Councilof Queensland to remove AFIC board members if they individually or collectivelycontravene the financial institutions agreements and legislation. AFIC also is accountableto industry. It is required to consult with industry bodies and financial institutions whenexercising its powers. That is dealt with in clause 22. AFIC is required to present an annualreport and an Auditor-General’s report on its financial position for tabling in theQueensland Parliament. The AFIC Bill also establishes an appeals tribunal to hear appealsagainst certain administrative decisions of AFIC and the State supervisory authorities.State supervisory authorities are subject to similar requirements in terms of theiraccountability. In addition, if AFIC is concerned about the activities of a State supervisory


authorities—SSAs it may produce a report which is eventually required to be tabled in theLegislative Assembly of the relevant State by its Premier. This provides the Parliamentswith a very powerful form of scrutiny and accountability.

A number of members raised a number of issues relating to credit unions inQueensland and, to the extent that I can put them together, I will address them. Themember for Rockhampton North, Mr Schwarten, and the member for Warwick, Mr Booth,raised similar issues. A number of other members have raised those issues with meprivately. I mention particularly the member for Glass House, Mr Sullivan, who has raisedgeneral issues and also referred in particular to the Maleny Credit Union. One of theconcerns mentioned by Mr Schwarten was whether or not this legislation would lead to thesmall credit unions being swallowed up by the big boys—or amalgamation, as it were. Iwant to make it as clear as I possibly can that the legislation protects well-managed andwell looked after credit unions. These credit unions will always have a place in the market.When Governments have interfered in the past or when they have tried to protect smallcredit unions or large credit unions, the result has always been inefficiency and, at times,worse. Before an amalgamation takes place, 70 per cent of members will have to decide infavour. So there is no way that AFIC, the SSA, the Government or anybody else wouldimpose an amalgamation on a credit union in this State or any other State. Mr Schwartenalso referred to the fact that most of the collapses and most of the financial problems infinancial institutions have been in other States and, to a large extent, that isright—although the building society industry went through some dreadful times during the1970s.

Mr Schwarten: I was referring to credit unions.

Mr De LACY: I accept that. There is still a need for proper prudential supervisionand standards. Those credit unions which meet the proper prudential standards andoperate in that way have no fears. The fact that this Government is now putting in placeproper prudential legislation does not mean to say that it is pointing its finger at creditunions in Queensland and saying that there is something wrong with them. There is asuggestion that this legislation penalises small, but safe, NBFIs. Let me repeat that itprotects the interests of all societies, whether they be large or small; it all gets back totheir operations, their sense of responsibility and the kind of management that they have.There are many very well-managed small credit unions in this State and in other placeswhich should have no trouble meeting the required standards.

Good institutions will be given time to meet the standards. I know there are someconcerns about time limits. The member for Rockhampton North mentioned one particularcredit union which is quite sound, but will at the outset have trouble meeting some of theprudential standards. We recognise that difficulty. That is why there is a transitionalphase. A managed process will allow them to meet these particular standards. I think thatthe State supervisory authority will talk to all these credit unions, have a look at the wholerange of standards—whether it is to do with capital adequacy ratios or liquidity ratios orexposure limits—find out where they are and where they have got to get to, and ask themto prepare a business plan with the objective of meeting those standards in apredetermined time. This process will be done by negotiation, arrangement and propersupervision. There is no suggestion that on 1 July this year the Government will come inand say, “That is the standard. If you cannot meet it then you are dead.” In regard towhether or not non-bank financial institutions will be subjected to the slide-rule approach,the answer is, “No.” There will be a phase-in period. If the credit union is properly managedand is looking after its clients and members, it will thrive.

The member for Warwick referred to metropolitan versus country credit unions andthe different way in which the credit unions and financial institutions operate. That is true,but the prudential standards do not change and they should not change, irrespective of


whether the financial institution is classified as metropolitan or country. This legislation isall about setting up a framework and prudential standards, and providing activesupervision. It is not prescriptive legislation, which was the source of many problems withprevious legislation that tried to spell out what financial institutions could and could not do,thereby removing all the flexibility and preventing the right type of growth from occurring inthe industry. That is proven by the fact that the whole industry has been losing its marketshare. The financial system in Australia was deregulated and, as a result, the banksprospered. The non-bank sector was not deregulated and it was unable to compete. Thislegislation is intended to remove all the prescriptive rules. It allows credit unions to meetthe new market conditions and it allows them to be flexible; but, at the same time, itimposes prudential standards and active supervision to ensure that depositors’ funds areprotected and that there is confidence in the industry. They are the fundamental aspectsof this legislation.

The member for Warwick hopes that this legislation will not lead to massamalgamations and, if I may say so, I do, too. The essence of this legislation is that it willallow the industry to develop. I cannot say that amalgamations will not occur, but they willnot be imposed on any particular credit union or building society. The “large exposurelimitations” were mentioned by a couple of speakers and perhaps deserve some comment.At the outset, let me say that there is no limitation on what credit unions may invest in,apart from the fact that 60 per cent—including 10 per cent for commercial purposes—mustbe provided to members. The limit placed on large exposures is a well-recognised practicethroughout the world. It is applied by the Reserve Bank to banking institutions and isdesigned to avoid the danger of credit unions or building societies being overexposed toindividual borrowers or to individual sectors—for example, property development. I amsure that nobody would want a repeat of the experience of the 1980s when certain lendinginstitutions were overexposed to the high-flying entrepreneurs, such as Bond and Skase,and lost huge sums of money to the detriment of share-holders and depositors.

The Opposition Treasury spokesman mentioned draft standards. I make the pointthat draft standards appear as a Schedule to the legislation and have been around forsome time. The final standards that will be produced by the AFIC will be based on thosedraft standards and must be at least as strong as those standards. That is why I thoughtthe Victorian Minister, Mr Kennan, was making a mountain out of a molehill when he saidthat he had not seen the final standards and insisted that more prescriptions be includedin the legislation. I will digress for a moment to discuss what has transpired betweenVictoria, principally, Queensland and the other States. In recent years, Victoria has had alot of problems with its financial institutions, and I do not think that is a secret. TheVictorian Government is very nervous about giving too much freedom to financialinstitutions and, by so doing, it has missed the essential thrust of what this legislation isall about, namely, setting prudential standards, active supervision of those standards,and getting away from the prescriptive legislation approach.

The Victorian Government wanted the definition of “building societies” to beprescribed in such a way as to limit what they could do. When I introduce thecomplementary legislation that seeks to amend the Financial Institutions (Queensland) Bill1991, it will be seen that the definition of “residential development” has been tightened tothe extent that it satisfies Victoria’s requirements. I certainly do not think that thealteration has made the legislation any weaker, but my personal opinion is that it wasunnecessary because it misses the point of the way this legislation has been drafted. TheOpposition spokesman made the point that the Victorian Government and others haveopposed this and that it has not been a good process. When change and reforms of thisnature are introduced, one must expect that problems will arise and that not everybody willbe in favour of it and say, “It looks good.”


I think it has been a remarkable process and that it manifests unprecedentedcooperation and agreement among the States of Australia. It is the most outstandingexample of the spirit of cooperative federalism that has been embarked upon by theCommonwealth and the States. It is a historic achievement to reach this point and to bepassing template legislation in the Queensland Parliament. It is not surprising that someminor difficulties and hiccups have occurred along the way. It is even more remarkablethat the legislation has attracted an overwhelming level of support from industry bodies,States and Territories, the Commonwealth Government and the Reserve Bank. The Houseshould recognise the way in which States and Territories have set aside parochialinterests in the national interest to achieve a national, uniform system which transcendsState boundaries and enables building societies and credit unions to operate moreeffectively in a dynamic financial environment.

Motion agreed to.

Committee

Clauses 1 to 21 and Schedule, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill, on motion of Mr De Lacy, read a third time.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (QUEENSLAND) BILL

Withdrawal

On the order of the day being discharged, the Bill was withdrawn and the Clerk readthe original order.

New Bill, Remaining Stages

Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (8.39 p.m.): Mr Speaker, I move—

“That another Bill be brought in founded on that order and that so much of theStanding Orders be suspended to enable the Bill to proceed through its remainingstages forthwith.”

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

New Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr De Lacy, read afirst time.

Second Reading

Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (8.41 p.m.): The withdrawal of theFinancial Institutions (Queensland) Bill 1991 and the replacement of it by the FinancialInstitutions (Queensland) Bill 1992 has been brought about due to numerous draftingchanges suggested by the committee of interstate parliamentary counsel. These are onlydrafting changes and not changes of substance. At the same time, the committee ofinterstate parliamentary counsel suggested that the interstate process be simplified byincluding common transitional provisions in the Financial Institutions (Queensland) Bill.


These are now contained in Part 15 of the Financial Institutions (Queensland) Code.Transitional provisions which are relevant only to Queensland are set out in the coveringclauses of the Financial Institutions (Queensland) Bill in Part 5. The Explanatory Notesaccompanying the Bill have been prepared to identify the changes from the former Bill. It isproposed that amendments be made to the Bill by an amending Bill to be introduced intothe House.

Mr SLACK (Burnett) (8.43 p.m.): I note that the Treasurer’s address to the Housewas very short. I note also that his explanation in the second-reading speech to theoriginal Bill that was introduced was also very short, and the Opposition will proceedlikewise. However, I will make a couple of observations. One is that the Treasurer referredto common transitional provisions in Part 5, which is an addition to the Bill. I have had theopportunity to look at those transitional provisions in Part 5, but I make the point that itwas only through the courtesy of one of the building societies that I was able to obtain acopy of those alterations. As a note for a cooperative approach in the future, when theTreasurer amends legislation in the way in which he is amending this Bill, it would be acourtesy to give the Opposition a copy of those proposed amendments, or proposedtransitional provisions. I was a bit disappointed at having to obtain them from a creditunion. If it had not been for that, I would not have come face to face with the transitionalprovisions until tonight. I hope that the Treasurer is taking note of the comments that Imake. I was disappointed about that. In my role as Opposition Treasury spokesperson, Ido not want to be contradictory, controversial or antagonistic on the issue. I am sure thatthe Treasurer would appreciate that, when good legislation is introduced, we should workin a spirit of cooperation. It is only fair that the Treasurer circularise the Opposition withproposals. That will not only help Opposition members to understand the Bill and allow usto make an objective judgment of the clauses but also assist us when we to speak topeople who telephone or write to us expressing concerns about amendments or inclusionsthat the Treasurer may make, as is the case with this transitional legislation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! There is too much audibleconversation in the Chamber.

Mr SLACK: I have had presented to me some questions relative to some of theclauses, which I will raise at the Committee stage. However, as it did for the general Bill,the AFIC legislation, the Opposition puts on record its support for this legislation that isnow before the House.

Dr WATSON (Moggill—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (8.45 p.m.): Likewise, Iindicate that the Liberal Party supports this Bill. I will not repeat what I said when theprevious Bill was discussed. However, the member for Burnett has made a point withrespect to the transitional provisions that have been included in this new Bill, which wasplaced before the House tonight. It would have been of some courtesy to be provided withthese by the Treasurer. Having said that, let me say also—and this is something that Ineglected to say when the previous Bill was debated—that I congratulate the Treasurerand his staff, particularly those in the Treasury, on persisting with the development ofthese Bills over the past 12 to 15 months. I think he deserves congratulations. On manyother occasions, I have criticised things that he and the Government have done. A lot ofwork was carried out by Queensland officials, certainly towards the end, together withofficials from other States. That ought to be put on record, and I am glad to do so tonight.As I said, the Liberal Party supports the Bill.

Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (8.46 p.m.), in reply: I take on boardwhat both opposition spokesmen have said. I understand that my officers did brief themabout these additional transitional provisions. They are non-controversial provisions.They merely facilitate the changing process. However, it was not possible to provideopposition members with a copy of them because at that stage, to begin with, they were


not finalised. They have only just been finalised. This whole process has been verydifficult by virtue of the fact that, at every step of the way, we have had to get theconcurrence of all the States and Territories. As can be seen by the legislation before theHouse, this is a very complex and comprehensive Bill. If legislation was being introducedonly in our Parliament for our purposes, it would have been a lot easier and we would havebeen able to follow these processes much better. However, it was decided by therepresentative group of parliamentary counsel, which represented all parliamentarycounsel, that it made sense to include these transitional provisions. I point out again thatthey are not of any policy or substantive nature; they are just facilitative changes. To theextent that the honourable member for Moggill feels that I could have briefed him better, Iapologise for that, but there really was not much else that I could do.

Motion agreed to.

Committee

Hon. K. E. De Lacy (Cairns—Treasurer) in charge of the Bill.

Clauses 1 to 21, as read, agreed to.

Clause 22—

Mr SLACK (8.50 p.m.): Subclause (1) states—

“ ‘Credit Societies Guarantee Fund’ means the fund of that name establishedunder the Credit Societies Act 1986.”

Subclause (2) states—

“The amount standing to the credit of the Credit Societies Guarantee Fundimmediately before the commencement of this section, is credit to the Credit UnionsContingency Fund.”

I ask: are credit unions to be allowed to bring past contributions on to their balance sheetsas a deferred asset?

Mr De LACY: Yes, they can. The mechanism for doing that is being addressed.But, yes, they can. That clause certainly does not preclude it.

Clause 22, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 23 to 29, as read, agreed to.

Clause 30—

Mr HORAN (8.51 p.m.): I am slightly confused. I have just received a copy of theBill. Madam Temporary Chairman, you called clause 30. Could you give me somedirection?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Dr Clark): The rest of this document is actuallyclause 30.

Mr HORAN: Obviously then, within clause 30, on page 201 of the Bill, under theheading “Proxy votes”, there is clause 254 (2), which states—

“A member of a society may not act as proxy for more than 3 other members.”

I ask the Treasurer: why is that provision there? It is normal company practice for share-holders to give their proxy to any other share-holder or to the chairman. Often, thoseproxies are given to the chairman. For example, in the case of a building society that mighthave literally tens of thousands of members, a quarter of a million dollars could be spenton mailing out voting papers. Where there is someone moving against a particular personon a board, that is usually fairly public, and those who might oppose the people on theboard would be well aware of who is seeking nomination on the board. They would usually


give their proxies to that person. People wishing to support the current board wouldnormally give their proxies to the share-holder.

Building societies have members all over Australia, in Papua New Guinea, andoverseas. Those members are not going to know to whom, other than the chairman, theycan give proxies. They may not know who else is a member of that building society, whichcould be located anywhere in Australia. People who live in the city or town in which thatbuilding society is located may not necessarily know who is a member of that particularbuilding society. It would therefore be up to the building society to provide names ofpeople to whom proxies could be given, but people may not wish their names to bepublished. That would also be extremely difficult from an administrative point of view. Imove the following amendment—

“At page 201, omit lines 27 and 28 and substitute—

‘(2) A member of a society may act as a proxy for any number ofmembers.’ ”

Mr De LACY: This issue has been raised with me by the Heritage Building Societyon a number of occasions. These are mutual organisations. People are members. They aredifferent from share-holders in companies. There are some instances in which people havemisused this right of having proxies, for example, when a chairman who has a largenumber of proxies has used them for improper reasons. The Government has given thisissue a great deal of consideration. I understand that it is a special problem for theHeritage Building Society, but this Government must make decisions in the best interestsof building societies generally. I simply do not accept that it would cost a quarter of amillion dollars to conduct a postal ballot. Under the legislation there are instances whenpostal votes can be used, and they will need to be used. I think the restriction is that anymember can utilise only three proxies. Again, that was considered to be the right balance.I simply cannot accept the honourable member’s amendment, because it would be asubstantial change. Those changes cannot be accepted without the approval of all of theother States. I reiterate: this issue has been raised with us. We recognise the problems ofthe Heritage Building Society. We do not believe that those problems are either too costlyor insurmountable, and they have been rejected. What is in this legislation is the rightcompromise.

Mr HORAN: I will accept that, because obviously it has been discussed andnegotiated with the building society. I would again make the point that that system is unfairto members who cannot attend an annual general meeting.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 30, as read, agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

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

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (9 p.m.), by leave, without notice: Imove—

“That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the AustralianFinancial Institutions Commission Act 1992 and the Financial Institutions Code.”


Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr De Lacy, read a firsttime.

Second Reading



The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the primary object requirements for buildingsocieties in the Financial Institutions (Queensland) Act to limit the purposes for whichbuilding societies may lend up to 50 per cent of their total assets. This purpose isachieved by redefining “residential building” and “residential development” and altering theprimary object provisions for building societies. The amendment to the primary objectprovisions excludes the alternative methods by which a society’s rules may provide forthe achievement of its primary object and to substitute a regulation-making power to allowfor further purposes for the application of the society’s funds. The effect of theamendment will be that the provision of financial accommodation by building societies forsuch things as retirement villages and nursing homes and for the subdivision of land forresidential building will not count towards the fulfilment of a building society’s primaryobject requirements unless the provision of financial accommodation for these purposesis so declared by the regulations.

The Bill also makes a minor drafting amendment to the Australian FinancialInstitutions Commission Act. The amendment is subject to the Financial InstitutionsAgreement, which established the scheme for the uniform supervision and regulation ofbuilding societies and credit unions. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Littleproud, adjourned.

QUEENSLAND OFFICE OF FINANCIAL SUPERVISION BILL

Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (9.03 p.m.), by leave, without notice: Imove—

“That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to establish the QueenslandOffice of Financial Supervision, and for related purposes.”

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr De Lacy, read a firsttime.

Second Reading



The Bill is the final part of the legislative package establishing a national scheme forthe supervision and regulation of building societies and credit unions. The Bill establishesthe Queensland Office of Financial Supervision, or QOFS, which will be the Statesupervisory authority for the purposes of the Australian Financial Institutions Commission


Act and the Financial Institutions (Queensland) Code. The structural principles which havebeen applied to the new national regulator in the Australian Financial InstitutionsCommission have also been applied to QOFS. QOFS will be an independent statutory bodythat will not be subject to direction, except where specifically provided for in thelegislation, and will not represent the Crown. It will have a board of five directorscomprising a chairperson, a deputy chairperson, the chief executive of the TreasuryDepartment and two other directors. QOFS will carry out the functions of the Statesupervisory authority under the Australian Financial Institutions Commission Act and theFinancial Institutions (Queensland) Act. Essentially these are to enforce in Queenslandthe national standards set by the Australian Financial Institutions Commission. Inaddition, QOFS may be referred functions under other Acts, for instance, other non-bankfinancial institutions legislation currently administered by the Registrar of CommercialActs.

A supervision levy on building societies and credit unions will provide funding forQOFS and funding may also be provided by the Government. QOFS will need to consultwith the industry on the supervision levy when formulating its budget. The results of thisconsultation must be forwarded to the Minister when the budget is submitted for hisapproval. The Bill also includes the consequential amendments to other Acts as a result ofthe introduction of the Australian Financial Institutions Commission Act and the FinancialInstitutions (Queensland) Act. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Slack, adjourned.

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES CORPORATION BILL

Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (9.05 p.m.), byleave, without notice: I move—

“That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to provide for the constitutionof the Primary Industries Corporation and to facilitate changes to administrativearrangements within the Department of Primary Industries, and for other purposes.”

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Casey, read a firsttime.

Second Reading

Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (9.05 p.m.): Imove—


A major initiative of the Goss Labor Government in Queensland has been therationalisation of the Queensland public service—one of the most significant steps beingthe integration of the Department of Primary Industries, which is now a superdepartment,being formed by the original Departments of Primary Industries and Forestry, and theWater Resources Commission and the Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol. Theintegration process has now been successfully completed, and this Bill is a key element ofthat integration.

When I became Minister for Primary Industries in 1989, one of the most excitingpossibilities I foresaw was a unified approach to service delivery. The Public SectorManagement Commission identified that very same possibility and recommended certainsteps to speed that unity. This Bill is the culmination of those steps and will result in a


united department to deliver all primary industry services to the people of Queensland.Primary industry organisations have fully accepted the new administrative arrangementsand recognise the advantages of the one-stop shop which is being developed within mydepartment. The program of regionalisation will continue, taking the DPI back to the bush.The department’s activities will be far better coordinated than ever before. The broadrange of departmental services will be available locally, not just administratively but interms of decision-making. This will give the people of Queensland, wherever they arelocated, greater access to services.

Responsibility for departmental effort will clearly rest with the chief executive.Management of assets, sales of forest products and water, and forest and waterdevelopment will be combined, along with other aspects of departmental activities, in acorporation to be called the Primary Industries Corporation. The corporation will replacethe corporation sole, which had statutory duties independently of the chief executive andwhich, therefore, impeded the objectives of clear lines of accountability and clearresponsibility of overall departmental effort. The Bill has the effect of vesting in the newcorporation all property held by the Conservator of Forests and the Water ResourcesCommission. All existing rights and liabilities will be preserved in the new corporation aswell. While this Bill is administrative in nature with no policy changes, it will enhance thepublic sector reforms essential to ensuring the highest quality of service is able to bedelivered by my department. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Perrett, adjourned.

QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT (LAND HOLDING) AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. A. G. EATON (Mourilyan—Minister for Land Management) (9.09 p.m.), byleave, without notice: I move—

“That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act to amend the Land Act 1962and the Real Property Act 1861.”

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Eaton, read a firsttime.

Second Reading

Hon. A. G. EATON (Mourilyan—Minister for Land Management) (9.10 p.m.): Imove—


This legislation is designed to allow the Queensland Government to hold and dealwith freehold title for land used for certain operational purposes. The need for thislegislation has arisen through two quite separate reasons. Firstly, the Government landmanagement system, which has been introduced by this Government, has as one of itsobjectives the more efficient management and disposal of surplus Government realestate. While freehold title can presently be issued to a prospective purchaser in quite alimited range of circumstances, it is desirable that the Crown be able to undertake thetransfer of freehold title in a manner similar to normal commercial transactions. Secondly,the Administrative Services Department and other Government agencies also need theoption of the availability of freehold title so that they are able to more efficiently exercisetheir management role over Government property. This is particularly highlighted in areas


where there is a leasing of excess space to the private sector or the leasing of residentialaccommodation to public servants.

This legislation before the House will enable Crown land used by the Government foroperational purposes to become freehold land held by the Queensland Government. Thistransfer of operational land to freehold status may occur only with the approval of theGovernor in Council. It also provides for the acquisition by the Crown of privately ownedfreehold land with such land remaining as freehold tenure in the name of the QueenslandGovernment. The guidelines under which the Governor in Council may grant Crown land infee simple to the State, and which the Minister for Land Management would refer to inissuing authority to designated officers for dealing in the land, have been approved byCabinet. These will be published in the Government land management system proceduralmanual. This manual documents the Government policy for the management of all StateGovernment controlled land. Compliance with the Government land management systemas outlined in the procedure manual is to be ensured through the insertion of a suitableclause in the Public Finance Standards issued under the Financial Administration andAudit Act 1977.

The Government land management system requires rigorous assessment todetermine that properties are surplus to total Government and community requirementsprior to any disposal considerations. There are a number of benefits from this legislation. Itwill mean that individuals and corporations dealing with the Crown will find a freeholdtransaction more attractive than the more involved and unnecessarily restrictive dealingsthat they now face. In short, a more easily understood and efficient process will apply. Itwill not only simplify and streamline current Government tenure arrangements but alsoproduce a more consistent Government role in land dealings. It has the added benefit ofreducing the legislation requirements by minimising the need for Government agencies toseek separate enabling legislation to allow them to deal with land. To do otherwise wouldeventually result in a proliferation of Government bodies corporate. This legislation willmean a more efficient and more commercial process for transactions in surplusGovernment real estate. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Hobbs, adjourned.

DEFAMATION BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 March (see p. 4019).

Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (9.14 p.m.): Inrising to speak to the Defamation Bill 1992, I must say that I know that for quite some timethe public at large has been aware that this Bill was coming before the House. In fact,there has been quite a bit of comment through the various news media. In fact, prior toChristmas, the Minister himself made some publications available to the people ofQueensland. Through the circles in which I mix, I am aware that there is no greatopposition to the Bill.

It is interesting to note in the Minister’s second-reading speech the history of thismatter, which goes back to 1976 when the Honourable Bob Ellicott, the then FederalAttorney-General, requested the Australian Law Reform Commission to address thisproblem and attempt to establish uniform defamation laws throughout Australia, which is acommendable aim. It says a lot about the nature of the people of the various States ofAustralia and the ACT that it has taken so long to get the legislation drafted. In fact, we arestill only part of the way down the track. I commend the Minister and the Attorneys-General of New South Wales and Victoria, who worked very hard to ensure that this Billwas introduced. From speaking with the Minister, I understand that the passage of this Bill


through the House will assist some Attorneys-General in other States to work towards thefinal goal of uniformity of defamation laws, and I am happy to cooperate in that.

It is pleasing to see that much hard work has been put into the drafting of thelegislation. I commend the Minister on his second-reading speech. I will not reiterate all thepoints mentioned in it. Suffice to say that the Minister outlined the history of the matterand the objectives of the Bill. Having read the second-reading speech, I came to theconclusion that defamation is a pretty complex matter. In his speech, the Ministermentioned that there were still some matters that had to be decided in court and thatpeople had to use their judgment regarding the publication of material that some peoplemight find defamatory. In some cases, one could consult the guidelines, but the finaldetermination would be made in court. Concerns have been expressed that the press inAustralia today is going too far in terms of defaming people and that this legislation maymake it easier for them to do so. The Minister has given an assurance that a balanceexists, and I hope that is the case. It has to be acknowledged that the media of Australiais now a national media and, as is pointed out in the Bill and the accompanying documents,it is possible for something said in one State to be lawful and yet in another State to befound to be defamatory. That makes defamation laws difficult to administer. The people inthe news media have to be aware of all those complications. We also have the situation inwhich the practice of shopping goes on whereby a person finds out where he is most likelyto get a result in his favour and launches defamation proceedings in that particular State.This legislation will overcome that matter. I acknowledge the inclusion of those provisionsin the legislation.

I note that we are repealing the Defamation Law of Queensland 1889—which isunderstandable, as it was enacted more than 100 years ago—as well as part of theCriminal Code. What is more, the Bill amends the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 to theextent that actions must be taken within six months. I can appreciate that amendment. Aprovision of the Bill sets out that the defence of justification is on truth alone. I commentbriefly on that aspect. On radio, I heard Mr Ray Rinaudo, the President of the QueenslandLaw Society, express concern. However, he qualified his comments by saying thatalthough the society has some concern, he is prepared to wait and see how the legislationpans out. Even though he was not certain that the legislation would not be right, he did notcondemn it.

Concern has also been expressed regarding the fluctuations in damages awarded byjuries. There was a suggestion that damages might be awarded on an assessment of thecapacity of a party to pay. I am not certain that that is not altogether inappropriate. Somelarge organisations and corporations in the news media have huge resources and theyseem to trample over the rights of individuals. However, through agreement of theAttorneys-General of the three States mentioned and the ACT, this Bill provides thatjudges should award damages. I understand that the jury will decide whether a matter isdefamatory and the judge will award the damages. The Bill also makes provision for theuse of mediators. Correction statements can be ordered by the court. As well, aninstruction can be issued that a correction statement shall be given the same prominenceas the original defamatory statement.

I wish to talk about one aspect of the Bill that concerns me. It was probably notpossible to address the matter completely in the Bill. I refer to protected reports. When theBill deals with protected reports, it deals with royal commissions, Government-institutedinquiries, and so on. My mind goes back to the Fitzgerald inquiry and report. Many peoplein the community are concerned that people were mentioned during the proceedings of theFitzgerald inquiry by witnesses who turned out to be proven perjurers and those peoplefound that their names were mentioned in the newspapers the next day. Earlier this week, Ireceived a briefing from some departmental officers and I put those concerns to them.


They said that, if those people felt defamed, they could approach Commissioner Fitzgeraldthe next day and ask to be able to make a statement to the commission refuting thestatements made the day before. However, very often the allegations made by the personin the witness-box were given much prominence in the newspaper, yet the statement madeby the person in defence of those allegations did not receive much prominence at all. Iknow of a few people who found that their personal standing and their business standingsuffered irreparable damage. I am concerned that the Bill does not seem to overcome thatproblem.

While I am talking about the Fitzgerald inquiry and the Fitzgerald era, it is appropriateto make some comments. As I move around the State and talk to ordinary Queenslanders,I find that many people feel very cynical about what is occurring post-Fitzgerald. TheFitzgerald inquiry was started out of a desire by the Government of the day and by thepeople of Queensland, as we perceived it, to put things right. The idea was to rid the Stateof corruption, SP book-makers, prostitution and the drug trade and to investigate theallegation that the police force was involved in those activities. Somewhere down the trackthe people of Queensland have lost faith because the agenda was stolen. The inquiry wentfrom seeking out those things to having its own political agenda. For quite a while thatseemed to be aimed only at the former Government of the day, and members of thatGovernment suffered the consequences.

Mr Welford: Are you talking about Government funding of defamation actions?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I am talking about public perceptions of events that happenedpost-Fitzgerald. I am also talking about the agenda being stolen for reasons that were notmeant to be made public. The circumstances surrounding the CJC report on members’travel entitlements were most unfortunate. Many people on both sides of the House whomI respect found through the newspapers that their names were mentioned in the report.They had, in fact, complied with all the guidelines; however, there were accusations thatthe goal posts had been changed and new judgments made. We, as the legislators ofQueensland, are in the position where we are able to take a close look at what has comeout of the Fitzgerald inquiry. Perhaps members on both sides of the House are guilty ofpursuing their own political aims without really thinking about the worthwhile need topreserve the dignity of this place. We should look after those people who are game enoughand able enough to stand for public office. The old tall-poppy syndrome is alive and welltoday and, because we are knocking so many people about, I worry about the quality ofthe people who will put themselves up for public office.

I believe that the Attorney-General, who was responsible for putting this piece oflegislation together, addressed many of the problems concerning defamation. Whilehuman nature is the way it is, there will always be some sort of weakness in any society.The Bill refers to the fact that, as long as a report is truthful, it has to be proved that it waswritten with ill will. I do not know how one would ever be able to judge whether somethingwas done with ill will or how the reference to ill will could be cut out, because there arepeople in the news media who have their own political philosophies and who seem to allowthose philosophies to intrude into their professional work. One can listen to people talkingin the corridors of this place and, from time to time, one may feel maligned by thecomments that are made. I think also that, from time to time, there is a good basis foralleging that the people in the press have not, in fact, been totally subjective in what theyhave been doing. That is one of the failures of our society.

While I and the National Party support the general thrust of this Defamation Bill, thereare still weaknesses in society. While the Minister and his other colleagues in the otherStates and the Australian Capital Territory have worked very hard to put togethersomething that is acceptable to the Law Society, I am still aware that there is a mood insociety that all is not well in the way in which justice is dispensed. It may not apply to this


Bill, but every day people come to see me because that are worried about the legalprofession itself and, in fact, the way that the Law Society is monitoring the people in itsown profession. The Attorney-General might like to note that there is a problem in terms ofconfidence in the legal system and in the way in which the legal profession disciplines itsown people through the Queensland Law Society and the Queensland Law Society Act.This is one small part of the legal system that branches into the media section of oursociety. There are problems that the Legislatures have to think about and overcome. Thisis a good, earnest attempt to make things uniform across Australia. Hopefully, it willbecome more uniform in time. We support the Bill, but we want to make it known that wehave concerns about privilege reports and the sorts of things that can happen as a resultof those reports.

Mr WELFORD (Stafford) (9.26 p.m.): The Defamation Bill 1992 changes law that isalmost a century old in Queensland. It does more than just change the law; it introducesinto Queensland law that will achieve uniformity with the law of a number of other States inAustralia. Credit for that achievement, in large part, is due to the Attorney-General, MrWells. It is an outstanding achievement in the circumstances. It is something whichsuccessive Federal Governments have struggled with over a number of years—as theprevious speaker mentioned, since the question was first referred to the Australian LawReform Commission in the 1970s. That commission addressed the philosophies underlyingdefamation law. As the previous speaker quite correctly mentioned, the law is complex. Tosome extent, part of the review of the law that we seek to introduce in the Bill tonight isdesigned to reduce that complexity and make the law more accessible to those who mightbe affected by it. But, as in all areas of human activity, this is one area—that is,communication with all its nuances—which is very difficult to regulate simply by placingsome words in an Act of Parliament.

As the Australian Law Reform Commission mentioned in its report, the law ofdefamation basically deals with two fundamental competing interests. On the one hand,there is the question of an individual’s honour, reputation and dignity and, on the otherhand, there is freedom of expression and access to information regarding public affairs.On the one hand, in implementing laws relating to defamation, we seek to protect theinterests of an individual’s reputation, while, on the other hand, we try not to limit toogreatly society’s general interest that information should pass freely between individuals.The Bill that we have before us tonight does not go as far as the Australian Law ReformCommission proposed, but it does achieve a very important factor, that is, the question ofuniformity. This is a matter that I have raised regularly in this House. Wherever it ispossible, the Government should achieve uniformity with the other States in those lawsthat regulate the affairs of individuals in this country, particularly in areas wheretechnology has necessarily resulted in those laws operating on transactions which occuracross State boundaries, whether they be financial transactions or simply matters ofcommunication such as that which this law regulates. It is becoming increasingly desirablethat the laws of this country are made uniform, if not regulated through the nationalParliament.

The Australian Law Reform Commission made the point that improved technologymeans that national communications create national reputations. When a defamatorystatement is made in the national media, for example, it can affect a person’s reputation inmore than one State. The person affected can bring a single defamation action, but inorder to recover from a breach of defamation laws, causes of action must be pleaded inaccordance with the laws of each State in which the breach is held to have occurred. Ofcourse, this creates significant practical problems which can be overcome by uniformprovisions because not only do the questions of costs, delay and expense of engaginglawyers arise, but the question of the courts or any other forum being able to deliver aquick and effective remedy also arises. Apart from that, errors can arise not only in


interpretation of the law but also in its application in the courts, which can also causedelay and inherent costs to arise, with consequent damage to a person’s reputation whichthis legislation is obviously designed to protect. In circumstances in which a jury isempanelled in a defamation trial, it is extraordinarily difficult to explain to the jury how thelaw is to be applied to the subject matter of the dispute and to the imputation that is said tobe defamatory. Even before presentation of this Bill, the law of each State was complexenough, without having the added difficulty of trying to explain to a jury how the law of anumber of States applies to a particular case.

The Australian Law Reform Commission undertook a comprehensive review of thelaws of defamation as they existed in the 1970s which highlighted a number ofdeficiencies. The law was not achieving what it was intended to achieve, namely, tovindicate a person’s reputation when it was subjected to attack. Defamation litigation wasobviously complex and expensive and, generally, the only remedy available was an awardof damages. In other words, there was no way in law that a correction or right of reply couldbe obtained, and there was no way that a person could have a retraction or apologypublished. Under the existing law, there is really no procedure which allows defamationactions to be dealt with promptly. In four jurisdictions in Australia, truth alone is theprimary defence. However, in Queensland and in a number of other jurisdictions, truth isnot the only defence. It is necessary to prove not only that the imputation was true butalso that it was made for the public benefit or in the public interest.

Another problem that frequently arises is that actions commonly known as stopperwrits alleging defamation are often issued without there being any real intention to proceedto trial. Another feature of the existing law is that although States such as Queenslandincorporate in defences the requirement not only that the statement was true but also thatit was made in the public interest, there was an attempt to protect personal privacy. Injurisdictions where truth alone was the defence, personal privacy was clearly notprotected. The attempt to use the concept of public benefit in addition to the requirementof truth to protect a person’s privacy was to some extent ineffective. It certainly offeredno protection when an imputation was not defamatory; nevertheless, if published widely, itwas embarrassing to the victim. Over a whole range of areas, the existing legislationprovided no substantial protection, especially in relation to personal information wheretruth alone was the defence.

In formulating recommendations for uniform laws relating to defamation or unfairpublications, the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended a law which wasuniform throughout Australia and contained, in a single statute, a code of defamation lawwithout the need to resort to previous cases that had been determined by the courts. Thislaw would simplify to the greatest extent possible the law which is consistent with just ruleand which provided speedy procedures for the determination of actions, as well as newand effective remedies for protecting or vindicating a person’s reputation, including courtorders for correction of false or defamatory statements and rights of reply as a conditionof defence. When compiling a draft Bill proposed by the Australian Law ReformCommission, it resolved to apply a number of basic principles and values. For example,imputations that are detrimental to a person’s reputation should not be published withoutgood reason. Moreover, the law should provide a swift and adequate remedy or method ofrestoring any wrongfully impugned reputation, and of compensating a victim whenrestoration is impossible. In addition, people should be free, and should feel free, tofearlessly state matters of fact and opinion relating to others, which is the principle of freespeech. However, any law that attempts to regulate free speech should be designed tominimise uncertainty. After all, any uncertainty which would normally occur couldobviously lead to either a disregard of the law or to people being overcautious in self-censorship.


Much criticism has been expressed that Australia’s defamation laws have been toorestrictive in some respects for whistle-blowers or for the media in ferreting out corruptconduct in public affairs. So, that really comes down to a question of certainty, andcertainty in the law of defamation is obviously a principle to which we should aspire and doaspire in the Bill. Furthermore, there is an area of privacy in people’s lives within which nolegitimate claim can be made for public information and, to some extent, the Bill seeks toprotect people’s private affairs in that respect.

A defamatory imputation is defined in the Bill to include an imputation which concernsa person’s reputation if his or her reputation is likely to be injured, or if other persons arelikely to be induced to shun, avoid, ridicule or despise the person. The Act provides for acivil cause of action against a person who publishes matter which makes an imputationdefamatory of another person. That cause of action is fundamentally what the Bill is allabout. The cause of action is, in accordance with the Bill, in addition to any cause ofaction that the person defamed may have against the publisher for the publication and inaddition to any cause of action that the person may have against the publisher for anypublication of the matter to another recipient. In other words, it does not have to bepublished to the person who is defamed.

An important part of defamation law once a person establishes that a defamatoryimputation exists is to determine whether in fact a defence occurs. Under common law, thebasic principle is that, once a matter is regarded as defamatory, the facts upon which theimputation is made are presumed to be false and it is up to the defendant to prove that thestatement was true in order to establish a defence. Truth, of course, is the primarydefence provided by clause 24 of the Bill. That clause provides a defence of justificationas to an imputation if the defendant establishes that the imputation is substantially true.The qualification with respect to personal affairs is contained in the defence as to truth.That qualification basically says that the defence of truth is not available unless thedefendant establishes that the publication was in the public interest or that the matter waspublished in circumstances that would at common law attract the defence of qualifiedprivilege and the manner of publication was reasonable in the circumstances. Thosealternative conditions apply where the imputation concerns a person’s private affairs.

In addition, a defence of substantial or contextual truth is contained in a subsequentclause of the Bill, which provides a defence known as defence of contextual truth wherethe defendant establishes that the matter carrying the imputation also carried one or moreother imputations that are substantially true and that the imputation which is complained ofdid not further harm the plaintiff. In other words, when the defamatory matter contains anumber of imputations, some of which are regarded as defamatory, as long as there areother imputations which are substantially true and the defamatory imputations do notfurther harm the plaintiff’s reputation, a defence is made out. A similar qualification ismade for a person’s private affairs. In this respect, I wonder whether the Bill that we areintroducing into the House goes far enough. In the Australian Law Reform Commission’sreview of that law, the commission proposed that truth alone should be a completedefence to defamation. The commission considered that such a rule, without more, ofcourse, is capable of giving rise to great injustice, particularly when a person’s personalaffairs are dragged into the open. When the commission canvassed the views of thevarious States, it certainly found no unanimity. New South Wales, Queensland andTasmania were opposed to any change that would, in the absence of a separate protectionfor a person’s privacy, make truth alone a defence to defamation. So what did theAustralian Law Reform Commission say about that? How should that privacy protection beframed? I quote from the commission’s report—

“There are two alternatives: continuation of the ‘public benefit’ element orseparate legislation to protect persons against the publication of private facts, even


if true. Three main reasons lead the Commission to prefer the latter. First, not allhurtful statements on private matters are defamatory. For example a statementabout a person’s marital or family relationships will not normally be defamatory. Yethe may fairly complain of its publication without public purpose. Secondly, the notionof ‘public benefit’ is vague. Publishers are entitled to have clear guidance as to therules binding them. The reasons which have led the Commission to recommendagainst a general right of privacy argue against a generalised concept such as‘public benefit’. Thirdly the conjoint elements of ‘truth’ and ‘public benefit’ presentmajor problems in adopting the new correction order remedy. Correction is onlyappropriate for false statements. It would be absurd to require a defendant topublicly correct a true statement, whilst condemning him for making it in the firstplace. To present the plaintiff with an immediate separate issue as to truth, on whichhe might well fail, would be an irrelevant embarrassment: irrelevant because hiscomplaint is that the statement should not have been made, whether true or false; anembarrassment because the private matter must then be ventilated in a court andmay possibly be proved.”

The Australian Law Reform Commission considered that the remedy of correction towhich the commission attached considerable importance was difficult to reconcile with thedefence of truth, which incorporated a notion of public benefit. The alternative that thecommission opted for was to separate the questions of defamation and privacy, torecognise them as relating to separate interests. Defamation law protects againstunjustified assaults on reputation, whereas privacy law, certainly in the context ofpublication, protects people from the distressing and unfair disclosure of personalinformation, whether or not it is true and whether or not it is defamatory. The addition of thepublic benefit element or, in the case of this Bill, the public interest element, to thejustification defence of truth had the effect, at the time when damages were the onlyavailable remedy prior to this Bill, of injecting into defamation law a privacy value.According to the commission, it considered that the time had come to recognise separateinterests and the fact that distinct rules and remedies were appropriate to deal with each.Truth, standing alone, should be a defence in defamation. If a statement pertains tomatters outside the private area, a publisher may publish it with impunity so long as it istrue.

The commission said further that if it is not true he should correct and be liable fordamages for any injury not remedied by the correction. If the statement is in the privatesphere, accuracy is irrelevant to the existence of a right of action. The plaintiff should beentitled to obtain an injunction and obtain damages to compensate his hurt feelings andembarrassment for the publication that is made. Sometimes a statement may be bothdefamatory and an invasion of privacy. In such cases, both remedies should be availablein the one action in the one court, though they may have to be considered separately. Thethrust of what I am saying is that the defence of truth in this Bill still incorporates acomponent of public interest as a defence, where the defence of truth is pleaded as adefence.

Time expired.

Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (9.47 p.m.): The Liberal Party is pleased to be able toindicate its support for the Defamation Bill 1992. It was able to adopt this attitude afterfairly extensive consultation with a broad range of people within the community. Forobvious reasons, the Liberal Party particularly sought and received the feedback ofmembers of the Queensland legal fraternity. I think it is fair to say that the feedbackreceived clearly displayed a diversity of opinion and also some major reservations. Lateron, I will refer to some of those reservations and will invite comment, and perhaps evenamendment, at the Committee stage.


However, before making any substantive and specific comments, I wish to commendthe Minister for introducing this Bill in this place and for the manner in which it wasintroduced. The Liberal Party supports this Bill because it seeks to eliminate theuncertainty and complexity of the defamation laws as they exist over three Statejurisdictions. Moves towards uniformity will make the pursuit and defence of defamationactions throughout the States a much cheaper process, as well as a more administrativelysimple and less harrowing experience. The Liberal Party supports unequivocally movesthat will reduce the cost of legal litigation, and for this reason it is happy to support the Bill.

The Liberal Party believes also that the Honourable the Attorney-General is sincerein his commitment to worthwhile reforms in this vital area of the law. He has long been onthe public record with his determination to bring about some of the reforms contained inthis Bill. The Attorney needs to be particularly congratulated on doing something thatothers on his side of the House rarely do, that is, giving this place ample notice of hisGovernment’s legislative intent. The Bill before us tonight has laid on the table of theParliament, albeit in draft form, for the last 10 weeks, and this has certainly giveninterested parties ample opportunity to review its provisions and to make submissions tothe Government. Some of these submissions have come into effect through amendmentscontained in the Bill before us this evening.

Mr Beattie: Who wrote this?

Mr SANTORO: It is a real pity that the Attorney and, more particularly, his otherministerial colleagues do not indulge in this process as a matter of course. This wouldmake for more informed debate and law-making in this place and overcome the farce——

Mr Beattie: Don’t ruin a good speech.

Mr SANTORO: The only thing that will ruin this speech is the inane interjectionsfrom the honourable member for Brisbane Central. I repeat that this would make for moreinformed debate and law-making in this place and overcome the farce that was substitutedfor consultation in the instance of the recent debate on the Supreme Court of QueenslandBill, just to cite one timely and relevant example.

As I said before, the Liberal Party welcomes the standardisation of defamation lawsin principle and therefore supports this Bill. However, such support is not withoutreservations and concern. Nobody can sensibly object to this standardisation of lawsthroughout Australia, provided it leads to some tangible public benefits. Presently, allcriminal offences in Queensland are regulated by Acts of Parliament. After this Bill isimplemented, only one criminal offence—defamation—will be defined by the common law.It is difficult to see why this area of the criminal law warrants turning the clock back by 100years, especially as it is nearly 90 years since the last reported prosecution for criminaldefamation, that being the case of the Crown and Hammill (1903), reported in theQueensland Weekly Notes at page 76. Even in that case, the trial judge, Mr JusticeChubb, observed—

“Criminal prosecutions for defamation nowadays are uncommon.”

The section dealing with this offence has fallen into disuse, and it has been suggested bymany people who have advised me in the preparation of this speech that a genuinelyreformist Attorney-General would have seized the opportunity to abolish it altogetherrather than bring back vague and outdated notions from the Victorian era.

Defamation is essentially a private wrong, and it is a private wrong which should beredressed by civil proceedings for damages. The principal concern of defamationproceedings is to prevent a person’s reputation and good character being besmirched bypublic statements, whether they are true or not, in circumstances in which the publicationof those statements cannot be justified. The Liberal Party supports the notion that inappropriate cases courts should have the power to award punitive or exemplary damages.


Exemplary damages are those awarded by a court, basically to make an example of adefendant who is found to have defamed someone without lawful excuse. They aredesigned to be a deterrent, but this Bill removes that provision. Without the possibility ofexemplary damages, people may feel themselves free to defame others at will. Thatgreatly reduces the disincentive to defame, and I wonder why the Government is making iteasier for people to be defamed and less costly for those doing the defaming.

Since the turn of the century, all defamation actions in Queensland have beenconducted in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code. It is fair to say that thelaw in this State is now well settled and, more importantly, well understood by judges,members of the legal profession and those people most interested in it, namely, politiciansand journalists. Reverting to common law concepts means the abandonment of a systemwhich, by and large, has worked adequately, and necessitates relearning a system whichwe abandoned at the turn of the century and which has not existed in Queensland formany generations. It is strongly arguable that more progress would be made by otherStates adopting our system rather than our adopting theirs. It is a curious idea of reform tothrow out a thoroughly good and workable codified system and replace it with a systembased on the common law, which then has to be modified to make the common lawsatisfactory and workable.

The common law provides for a distinction between the two branches ofdefamation—slander and libel. Slander is spoken, and traditionally, according to commonlaw, is not regarded as seriously as libel, which is written. Clause 17 of this Bill provides forslander to be actionable without the plaintiff having to prove special damage. The object ofthis seems to be to do away with the major practical distinction between the two, but thereis a sound argument for getting rid of the distinction altogether, as is the case underQueensland’s codified system. Unless this is done, there will be two quite separatecauses of action for defamation, with little or no practical distinction.

There are other strange facets of the common law. Under common law, it is notdefamation for a husband or wife to say defamatory things to each other about a thirdperson. The Criminal Code abolished that ridiculous rule, which was based on the oldnotion that a husband and wife were one person in a legal sense, and therefore one couldnot be defaming someone by saying nasty things to oneself! Nonetheless, this notion stillforms part of the common law, and there is nothing in this Bill which abolishes it. To givehonourable members an example of how this provision could be misused, let us take thecase of an estranged, but still legally married, husband telephoning his wife and telling herfalsely that the man with whom she is now living has AIDS. On that subject, the commonlaw also has rather outdated notions on the chastity of women. Under common law, it is notdefamatory of a woman to allege that she has been raped—and rightly so, seeing it isoutside her control. But the problem is—as was evidenced in an American case in1934—that an implication that a woman was raped is okay, but an implication that sheseduced, or was seduced by, somebody, is defamatory because it implies that the womanhas loose morals. All this may seem outdated in today’s world, but that is my point: we aregoing back in time by adopting the common law of defamation.

Next, I turn to the question of juries, which represents a truly missed opportunity bythe Government to reform the law in an area that causes much genuine economic and legalhardship. It is not apparent to me at all why there is really any justification for retaining jurytrials in civil actions for defamation, except perhaps in very rare instances where a judgeor senior public official is the defendant, and there would be a public outcry if perhaps oneof their friends was to make the decision. The current provisions of the CommercialCauses Act where juries are only involved in certain special cases could be adopted to getaround this problem. Of course, many parties prefer jury trials, as I am sure the Attorneyappreciates, not for any legal reasons, but because they think they might be able to play


on emotion, or simply confuse the jury, and get their way. It is well known that in civildefamation actions, defendants, usually media organisations, use every trick in the bookto delay the matter coming to trial. They undertake long and expensive battles overpleadings; they make detailed requests for particulars of pleadings; there are wide-rangingdisputes over discovery; they make use of lengthy interrogatories before the trial; andthen they try to drag out the trial itself to make it as expensive as possible to contest.This, and the extra cost of a jury trial, makes many people shy away from action. Sir LeslieThiess was able to afford to mount an action; most people could not. Perhaps the Attorneymay be able to elaborate further on why he and his interstate colleagues chose not toreform the defamation system and its use of juries in this way.

Returning to my comments about exemplary damages, I think there are severalpoints which need to be made in greater detail. Firstly, it is quite often the case that theperson defamed has suffered great harm, but it is not possible to quantify that harm andput a figure on it. What if a politician is defamed before an election, and loses his seat?How does one prove that the defamation caused the loss, and even if that could beproved, how does one put a dollar figure on the loss? The same applies to businesspeoplewho could lose business and revenue-earning clients because of a defamatory statementagainst them. How does one quantify the potential economic loss? In such cases,exemplary damages often compensate for losses which cannot be quantified. Secondly,there may be cases in which the person defamed is greatly annoyed and embarrassed andmay be ridiculed and ostracised, but cannot justifiably point to any financial loss. The lossof good name and character is somewhat intangible, but is nonetheless very real, and isfelt emotionally by the plaintiff. This is particularly true when the defamation relates to theprivate affairs of the plaintiff. It is unfair that such people should be deprived of a remedy,and people are encouraged to go about defaming at will if they know their victims will find itimpossible to prove any financial loss, and then have damages awarded to them. Further,it is well known that awards of costs in defamation actions rarely cover more than afraction of the actual legal costs. Exemplary damages can be used to compensate forthis, too. There is one other point on this matter, and it relates to why criminal proceedingsfor defamation rarely take place. Criminal proceedings are designed to punish—to finepeople or put them in jail—but when exemplary or punitive damages can be awarded, thishas basically the same effect—a fine, if you like, to punish the defamer. If punitivedamages are abolished, we may well see more criminal proceedings which, for the reasonsI outlined earlier, are not really appropriate.

There are several other technical points which I also wish to raise. Of great concernto me, and to the legal profession, is the limitation period of six months being proposed,with a possible extension to three years. It is quite possible that for some time after theactual defamation has occurred people will be unaware that they have been defamed.Take, for instance, the example of someone providing defamatory material to a credit-provider. It may not be learnt for some years that a person has been defaming anotherperson’s reputation financially, and, under this Bill, the person defamed may have no rightto redress the wrongs perpetrated upon him. I know that the Queensland Law Society is infavour of retaining the existing six year limitation period, and I support the society’s view.People currently have a right—they have six years in which to take action. Under this Bill,that right will be removed and they will have only six months in which to move. They canappeal to the court for an extension of up to three years, but it will cost them! People arehaving a right removed, and will have to pay to get at least part of it back. Generally, thestatute of limitations for action is three years, and for defamation, six years. That is theway it should stay. This Bill also gives judges a lot of power. They decide on the defence ofqualified privilege, and decide the amount of damages. Looking at the first point, manypractitioners believe the question of qualified privilege should be a matter for the jury. Thisbrings me to the question of whether the defence is a matter of law, or a matter of fact. It is


a borderline area, because although juries should determine a matter of fact, the wholequestion of qualified privilege is something which may confuse them. It is not a simplematter, and I understand why the Attorney is proposing that the judge should be the one tomake the decision. By allowing judges to make determinations as to matters of fact, thisreverses the normal situation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! There is far too much audibleconversation in the Chamber.

Mr SANTORO: Perhaps one solution would be to allow juries to decide the issuebut with a direction from the judge on whether or not specific conduct in each case was anoccasion of qualified privilege. The second point is the ability of the judge to decide theamount of damages. There is a valid argument that juries see things in isolation and arenot aware of other amounts awarded in other trials, but the amount of loss is surely aquestion of fact rather than of law. Again, perhaps the judge could direct the jury as towhat may be appropriate.

There are a couple of other points that I think need to be made. Under the law oftorts, or civil wrongs, in many circumstances an employer may be held liable for thingssaid by his or her employees. This Bill—rightly, in my view—removes that part of thecommon law, and that is a view supported by employers to whom I have spoken. Of moreconcern is the provision dealing with Government inquiries. This section is rather vagueand, presumably, almost anything could be a Government inquiry. A Minister who defamessomeone in the process of asking about having a chair made for his office should not beprotected on the basis that he was making a Government inquiry. Unfortunately, just whatconstitutes a Government inquiry is not explained adequately in this Bill. I would suggestto the Attorney that the present section 374 (4) of the Criminal Code be used as a guide.That section defines an inquiry as one conducted under the authority of the Governor inCouncil.

I wish to raise one final matter, and that is the provision for statements of correction.I think this is an excellent idea, but it seems to me that the process is too cumbersome. Ifthe application for a statement of correction is opposed, the judge will basically have tohear the case before making any such order, but this hearing will only be of a summarynature and later another hearing will have to be held. This seems an inefficient use of thecourt’s time and could be greatly streamlined. I would like to hear the Attorney’s view onthis.

Overall, the Liberal Party supports the Bill because of the need to standardise thelaws of defamation and to prevent forum shopping around Australia. However, the LiberalParty would like to see some of the provisions tightened up and made more workable. Iwelcome the Attorney’s suggestion that the Bill be allowed to lay on the table so thatperhaps we can work through some of these concerns over the next month or so with aview to putting forward to the Attorney some amendments. Perhaps the simple solutionwould be for all the States involved to try to move towards a codified system, based on thecurrent Queensland Code.

Before I resume my seat, I wish to make a couple of other comments that arerelevant to the Bill. This Bill still allows total privilege for comments made by members ofParliament and the reporting of those comments. This is in the public interest generally.However, it is unfortunate that some members choose to abuse this privilege. Yesterday’smonumentally mistake-ridden outburst by the member for Stafford is a good example. Iwish to relate the content of some of those comments to this Bill. I suppose to someextent I should spring to the member’s defence, because it was quite obvious that he wasnot responsible for the content of his dubious contribution. Rather, it was written for him bythe Pinnochio of Queensland politics, the next Labor candidate for Lilley, Wayne Swan.


Obviously, Mr Swan is feeling a bit of heat, courtesy of the attack being made on the LaborParty by the Liberal and National Parties both at State and Federal levels.

Mr BREDHAUER: I rise to a point of order. I fail to see the relevance of this to theBill that is before the House. I think the honourable member is debating something thathappened yesterday.

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

Mr SANTORO: I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your protection. Whilst MrSwan is busy sharpening his knife ready to plunge it into Elaine Darling’s back, he is alsochoosing to assassinate the characters of his opponents. I want to demonstrate howparliamentary privilege was abused yesterday. The honourable member has had a go atme, he has had a go at the Leader of the Liberal Party, and now he is turning his odiousattention to the president of the State Liberal Party and former Chief Minister of theNorthern Territory.

Mr CAMPBELL: I rise to a point of order. Honourable members are debating a Billabout defamation. The member for Merthyr is speaking about the possibility of usingdefamation laws against individuals of the Labor Party. I feel that it is inappropriate andout of order.

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

Mr SANTORO: I will confine my comments to the Honourable Mr Paul Everingham.Mr Everingham has a sound track record as a repeat electoral success—something thatthe member for Stafford and Mr Swan will never be. Just to show honourable members howpeople can be wrongly defamed in this place under privilege, I will mention just a few of thegrossly incorrect assertions made by Mr Welford. I will start with the most obvious andtrue—that Paul Everingham built a new Parliament House in Darwin at a cost of $150m.The truth is that Mr Everingham did not build a Parliament House anywhere at any time, atany price—nothing. In 1984 he resigned as Chief Minister. Today, eight years later, a newParliament House is under construction. Mr Everingham did not build the new ParliamentHouse, is not building it, and has had nothing to do with it. Nice one, Mr Welford! Thehonourable member for Stafford was wrong. He defamed Mr Everingham.

Of course, honourable members then heard about the Everingham gerrymander in1983. The redistribution resulted in a system of one vote, one value with a 10 per centtolerance, which just by chance happens to be exactly the Labor Party’s policy. Themember for Stafford is telling us that his own party policy is in favour of a gerrymander.What a hypocrite! We were told of dirty deals and shonky business practices, but therewere no examples of this given. I wonder why? Because there simply are none. Neither themember for Stafford, nor anybody else on the Government side of the House, can in factcite any examples. He must have been thinking of Western Australia, where his good mateBrian Burke was doing those very things, or perhaps South Australia, but not the NorthernTerritory. I could go much further, but I hope that members on the Government side of theHouse see my point. Some members in this place happily and with malicious intent goaround defaming people with incorrect information. It is an abuse of the system, it is adisgrace and it is a pity.

Time expired.

Debate, on motion of Mr Braddy, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT

Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Leader of the House) (10.08 p.m.): Imove—


“That the House do now adjourn.”

Question-time; Class Sizes and Relief Staff in Schools

Mr LINGARD (Fassifern) (10.09 p.m.): I am forced to rise in this debate because ofthe impossibility of members of the Opposition being allowed adequate time to askquestions during question-time. It is obvious that the great reforms promised for question-time in this House certainly have not come about. I refer also to the state of education inthis State and to an article from the QCPCA that appeared last year in School Talk. Thatarticle stated—

“As I look at the current state of educational services in Queensland, I find ithard to imagine that the ‘great leap forward’ outlined in Focus on Focus on Schools isin progress, except if the study is through a magnifying glass.

. . .

Unfortunately there is not much hope of change in the near future.”

I remind members of what happened in Victoria and refer them to comments by Dr Ron Ikin,who spoke about the mediocre outcomes that occurred in that State. He said—

“Regardless of the ‘models’ of administration put in place, the outcomes havebeen the same—needless expenditure of scarce funds, loss of valuable programs,projects and services, loss of productivity, loss of morale and the inevitable loss oftalented and conscientious staff.”

He said also—

“So called ‘productivity gains’ have resulted in the dropping of positions at alllevels and the reduction of funds available for essential programs and services.”

Quite honestly, I believe that if one were to speak with any member of the teaching staff ofthe Education Department in Queensland, one would learn that that is the situation inQueensland at this stage. Clearly, the ALP Government has been unable to solve theclass size issue. The Teachers Union admits that it still needs 700 extra teachers to solvethe class size issue. I ask the Minister: what funds are available to create an extra 700positions—not replacement teachers for those who will resign after 1 July this year, butextra staff which will solve the class size issue in this State? I also ask the Minister: whatfunds are immediately available to solve the problem of teacher graduates? I ask theMinister to confirm or deny that only 20 of the 2 600 teacher graduates at the end of lastyear were employed. What funds are available to employ teacher graduates? What fundsare available to replace specialist staff in areas such as Marlborough, Hervey Bay andcentral Queensland? As Opposition Education spokesman, I receive continualcomplaints, which I refer to the Minister for his advice. In addition, I seek information onthe action he has taken in respect to them. There is certainly a lack of relief staff inQueensland schools.

Mr T. B. Sullivan interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! The member for Nundah mustnot interject from other than his correct seat.

Mr LINGARD: Where principals of schools have not been replaced, relief staff arefilling those positions and are unavailable for essential services such as providing relief sothat teachers can take long service leave. I know that long service leave cannot be takenat will and that it is up to the Education Department to provide relief staff so that teacherscan take long service leave. However, relief staff are being used to replace principals. TheMinister and other members of the ALP have been dishonest in telling schools that theirschool grants have been increased. Although the initial allocation has been increased, the


number of things that a school has to do with the grant has also increased. Although Iwould be the first to admit that the Government has increased the amount of money that ismade available, it has increased the number of activities that a school must conduct withthose grants.

I ask the Minister to provide some comment on the $5m agreement that he hasreached with the Commonwealth Bank. The Minister has agreed that the CommonwealthBank will take over all grants to schools—all internal account moneys from a school, andp. and c. money. Consequently, all money within a school is now subject to audit byEducation Department auditors. Therefore, indirectly, the Minister has absolute controlover schools. The Minister has also stopped subsidies to schools for groundsdevelopments. I ask any member whether he or she has heard of subsidies being providedto schools for the purchase of playground equipment, for which schools used to obtain afifty-fifty subsidy. I cannot think of any subsidy over $2,000 that has been providedrecently to any school. The Minister is broke when it comes to providing not only extrateachers but also subsidies. He is now going to make p. and c. associations apply to theCommonwealth Bank for funds—admittedly with a 1 per cent reduction—and he is going tostop subsidies of more than $2,000. It is about time that p. and c. associations madedefinite representations, because the Minister has come to an agreement with theCommonwealth Bank.

Time expired.

Corporal Punishment in Schools

Mrs EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha) (10.13 p.m.): Recent media debate has indicatedthat the value of corporal punishment in schools is as questionable today as it was whenthe debate was first raised in 1860. Early education texts from 1885 stated that corporalpunishment was the worst and therefore the last means to be used in the correction ofchildren and that teachers were endeavouring to do without it. Another early authorcommented that pain was an inefficient form of punishment which frequently was wastefulof nervous energy, had a weakening effect, built up hatred and hardened pupils to its useso that it became less effective. He also commented that skilled teachers could do withoutcorporal punishment but that less capable teachers were more dependent upon it. Itseems that nothing has changed since the nineteenth century.

Most civilised countries have either never allowed this form of child-striking orbanned it decades or centuries ago. But it is a part of our British heritage that I believe wecan well do without. Supporters of corporal punishment usually accompany their claimswith hysterical statements that the withdrawal of caning will lead to a rapid decline in moralstandards, break-down in law and order in society and an increase in violent crime, withwomen and children living in fear. If this lurid image had any basis in fact, it would be aconcern. But when we examine those countries that rely on corporal punishment andthose that do not, and the crime statistics relating to them, it becomes immediatelyobvious that corporal punishment does nothing in preventing crime. In fact, countries inwhich corporal punishment is tolerated or used frequently are at the very top of the crimetable, whereas the civilised countries that do not encourage child-beating in thisformalised fashion have distinctly lower crime figures.

To stress that point—there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the abolitionof caning increases crime. Nor is there any evidence that corporal punishment is effectivein helping a student to develop more responsible, self-disciplined behaviour. At best, it is ashort-term answer that has most success with children least likely to have behaviouralproblems, that is, it is most likely to be an effective deterrent for those who are least likelyto need it. What has been clearly shown is that it is subject to abuse; it causes


resentment, anger and fear in children with behavioural problems, and it may intensify thevery behavioural problems that triggered the punishment. Violence begets violence eitheras internal resentment or open hostility. Either way, it does not solve problems. It is adocumented major cause of truancy rather than a cure for truancy.

Corporal punishment is a cheap, quick and uncomplicated method of obtainingtemporary cessation of the misbehaviour that brutalises the giver and the receiver, but Istress that the abolition of corporal punishment does not mean the relaxation of discipline.It does mean the replacement of unthinking, ineffective physical force with more sociallyacceptable and more considered and effective discipline. Children need a structured,disciplined environment in which to learn, but they do not need a violent one, nor the threatof violence. Neighbouring schools with similar social make-up may have very differentpatterns of punishment and yet there is no perceivable difference in the behaviour atthose schools. The most devastating arguments against corporal punishment are itsobvious links to child abuse. It gives apparent State sanction to an already overwhelmingamount of violence to which children in our society are subjected. It reinforces the use ofviolence to solve problems—that might is right; that it is okay to strike someone as long asone is bigger than they are and in a position of power over them.

Most research indicates that poor children and minority groups are most likely toreceive corporal punishment. Problem children also are most likely to have social or familyproblems and to be subject to violence at home. In fact, some teachers use this as areason for using violence at school, as the only language these children understand is agood thrashing and the only way to solve a problem is through the use of violence.Stopping corporal punishment will not eliminate child abuse in all its forms, but it will givethe clear message that State sanctioned use of physical force to discipline children is justnot okay. It will introduce students, who will later become parents, to non-violent forms ofeffective discipline. Schools set examples for family child-rearing attitudes and practicesand are the logical places to begin re-educating parents and children. The more vociferousthe support for corporal punishment in schools, the less the knowledge about the use ofalternatives.

Toowoomba TAFE College

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South) (10.18 p.m.): I wish to speak about an outstandingopportunity for the Toowoomba TAFE College to acquire part of the RAAF 7SD site inToowoomba. The Toowoomba TAFE has two locations in Toowoomba: one at the oldshowground, where new buildings have been built to accommodate courses such asbusiness studies, hairdressing and so on; and the other in Hume Street, where there are alarge number of old buildings which are used mainly for trade and technology courses. The7SD site is divided into two sections. The first is a small domestic area which is subject tosome inquiry from UniLink, which is associated with the University of SouthernQueensland. UniLink sees that domestic section of the 7SD base as being ideally suitedto an international student village which would accommodate immediately approximately160 students in the houses and sporting facilities that are already available on site. Thesecond part of the RAAF base is a large area of some 130 acres. In January 1994, thebase is due to be closed down permanently. Of that 130 acres, the RSL is interested inacquiring 25 to 30 acres for an RSL retirement village and has already made a bid to theDefence Department for that segment of the site. That leaves approximately 110 acreswhich is entirely set up as an air force warehousing establishment and is absolutely idealfor the TAFE college. The TAFE administration is interested in that section for its trade andtechnology courses. The section consists of large igloos, which are big buildings coveringover one and a quarter acres each; a large number of garage-type buildings which coverabout half an acre each; and a very substantial administration area. A railway line has


been constructed into the area. The entire area is fully developed with administrationbuildings, bitumen roads, sporting fields, landscaping and guardhouses. As well, it has aunique factory which is used for the packaging of parts for transport to tropical areas.

The Toowoomba TAFE College is particularly interested in using this area for its tradeand technology section. It believes that the old Toowoomba showground site, which is in adense residential area, is not suited for the teaching of trades and technology andconstruction-type courses. However, the air force base is ideal for courses of that type. Itwould also allow the TAFE college to expand into courses such as agricultural technology.As well, substantial interest has been shown in the development on that site of a sciencecentre.

The TAFE college has received an allocation of $12.5m for a new trades andtechnology building on the old showground site. Although the college administration isgrateful for that allocation, it believes that the site in the middle of the residential area ofToowoomba is not really suitable for expansion into trades and technology courses. Itprefers that those funds be used for the purchase and development of the 110-acre 7SDsite, which already has all the necessary buildings. Some members of the collegeadministration are very excited about the possibilities of the RAAF site. It lends itself tobeing developed into a technology park. It lends itself to having bus services provided. Itis very handy to the University of Southern Queensland. It lends itself to all sorts ofexciting possibilities for the TAFE college. There has been talk of equine courses beingconducted there, which would fit in well with the thoroughbred industry on the DarlingDowns. With the large area that is available, there is a possibility for the college, ifnecessary, to construct a residential complex on the site, which would be of great benefitto students from the west who are required to stay in Toowoomba to do their block training.

Recently, Mr Stan Seiloff, the executive director of TAFE, came to Toowoomba andinspected the site. He was taken on a conducted tour through the buildings and theacreage by air force personnel. Tonight, I would like to make a request to the Minister forEmployment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Affairs, the Honourable KenVaughan, to give serious consideration to the purchase of this site for the TAFE college.An opportunity to purchase such a site arises once in a thousand years. A site of that sizeand potential will never again be available in Toowoomba. It would provide a very excitingfuture for TAFE in Toowoomba, being a regional centre for TAFE education throughoutsouth-western Queensland. I recommend it thoroughly to the Minister.

Far-north Queensland Tourism

Dr CLARK (Barron River) (10.23 p.m.): The success of the tourism industry in far-north Queensland is becoming legendary, but there are two particular tourist destinationswithin the old and new electorates of Barron River which are in danger of being loved todeath. It could be regarded as almost churlish in today’s economic climate to complainwhen things go well, but Kuranda, the village in the rainforest, and Cape Tribulation, whererainforest meets the reef, are suffering as a result of their popularity. The number ofvisitors crossing the Daintree River to go to Cape Tribulation is expected to increase fromthe present figure of 130 000 a year to 400 000 a year by the year 2 000. Tourist visitationrepresents 85 per cent of total traffic into the area, while the small residential populationgenerates only approximately $600,000 in rates. Every year, 350 000 people visit Kurandaby travelling on the scenic Cairns-Kuranda train. This number is expected to increase to1.2 million by the end of the decade. The resident population within the tiny Kurandatownship is a mere 250 people, who generate only $300,000 in rate revenue. The markets,Aboriginal dance theatre and the butterfly sanctuary are just some of the many touristattractions in Kuranda. In excess of 50 different buses have been recorded in Kuranda in


a single two-hour period as people are collected from the train and taken to variousattractions before going on to tour the Atherton Tableland.

The problems created for local residents and the Mareeba and Douglas ShireCouncils relate to loss of life-style, pressure to provide infrastructure to meet the needs oftourists and a lack of plans to manage growth and protect the natural attractions that drawvisitors. The Mareeba Shire Council estimates that it requires some $4m to provideinfrastructure in Kuranda, including such basics as public toilets, bus and car parking, theupgrading of water supply and sewerage treatment, landscaping, roadworks andfootpaths. Incidentally, none of the council estimates take account of the possible impactof the Kuranda cableway currently under assessment by the Wet Tropics agency. Theneeds of the Douglas Shire Council relate to roadworks, including the sealing of the dustyand dangerous Alexander Range road, walking tracks, toilets, picnic areas, boat rampsand waste management and they have a price tag in the vicinity of $20m.

The area’s magnificent attractions are in danger of being degraded unless urgentaction is taken. One solution to these problems that is being proposed in submissions toGovernment by both local authorities is a tourist levy. All tourists visiting the area wouldbe levied a set amount, which would then be managed in a specified trust account andspent only in the area in which it was raised and used to provide the facilities that areneeded. I have worked closely with both the Douglas Shire Council and the Mareeba ShireCouncil, and I am pleased to report that considerable progress has been made with theproposal to levy tourists visiting the Cape Tribulation area. I would like to acknowledge theefforts of Chairman Mike Berrick, who has been researching and promoting the concept,both locally and with Government. The Premier, on a recent visit to Mossman, recognisedthe special problems facing the Douglas Shire and endorsed the concept of a localauthority tourist levy for the Cape Tribulation area. Subsequent meetings between theDouglas Shire Council and Ministers Comben and Hamill, who are very familiar with thearea, have been very productive, culminating in an announcement today by the Ministerfor Environment and Heritage that he would take a special $10m funding and managementpackage to Cabinet within the next two months. A levy charged under the RecreationAreas Management Act, as occurs on Fraser and Moreton Islands, is now beingconsidered for Cape Tribulation as part of that package, rather than a local authority levy.

The submission by the Mareeba Shire Council to Government is relatively recent,and its proposal to levy the tourists using the Kuranda train is now being examined by theMinister for Transport. There is no doubt about the urgent need for both funding and acomprehensive planning study for Kuranda that will identify the needs of both tourists andresidents so that the funds are wisely spent and the character of Kuranda as a village inthe rainforest is retained. I am working hard to ensure that the particular Kurandainfrastructure problems are addressed. However, the problems being experienced by theMareeba Shire Council and the Douglas Shire Council are not unique and I have, therefore,requested the Minister for Local Government to initiate discussions with the relevantMinisters with a view to framing legislation that will enable local authorities to levy touristsunder certain circumstances. If it is to be successful, this proposal will require very closeconsultation with the tourist industry, and it should not be seen as providing the means forthe State Government to devolve all responsibility for tourism infrastructure to localgovernment. In any event, we must be most careful not to destroy the goose that laid thegolden egg in far-north Queensland.

Texas Hospital

Mr SPRINGBORG (Carnarvon) (10.28 p.m.): I wish to continue on from today’sSpecial Matter of Public Importance debate. My electorate contains the Texas Hospital,and major concerns are being expressed about the continuation of some services at the


hospital. I note that the current Minister for Health, Mr Hayward, has given an assurancethat the hospital is safe from closure, and I accept his assurance. I note that the Ministeris in the Chamber tonight, and I commend him for his interest in this subject and the factthat he has involved me in all the discussions that he possibly could with regard to thishospital.

However, I wish to raise a number of concerns tonight. I say to the Minister that hecannot always be in charge or aware of what is being talked about, planned or consideredby regional directors or authorities. Regionalisation, like corporatisation, removes theMinister from an awareness of much of his portfolio. Regionalisation is not the greatpanacea for Queensland’s health services. Its history in Australia and overseas is a litanyof disaster. This is a stern warning for the future of regionalisation in Queensland. InVictoria it has meant the closure and downgrading of hospitals to community healthcentres, a result that must be avoided in Queensland. It is nonsense to suggest thatregionalisation is the ultimate in decentralisation and that it gives control to local people. Itclearly does not. In effect, it serves only to destroy the local community consultativecommittees so that they have no option but to agree with decisions or directions that havealready been made by the regional authority. In many cases, this is very true. Thecommittee acts only to reduce the impact on the community of what are sometimespredetermined plans for the hospital. I believe that the so-called safety dispute at theTexas hospital has been engineered in order to rationalise services at the hospital. I havementioned this in discussions with the Minister.

Dr Flynn: What do you think the review will find?

Mr SPRINGBORG: I will mention the review later. I am running out of time. Thisissue has had a debilitating effect on the morale of health workers in the community. Thatcannot be denied. Safety has never previously been an issue, either in the community oramong health professionals. My contention is that if the issue of safety is spoken about itwill become a beat-up. If concern is created and attention is drawn to the possibility oflitigation, things can be made to happen. There can be no doubt about that.

Mr Campbell: You’ve lost out.

Mr SPRINGBORG: The member for Bundaberg has lost out well and truly in thelast couple of months, too. I am not prepared to support any changes that will removeservices from the people of Texas. I am referring, of course, to major elective surgery andany other service they now receive. Allegations have been made against the RegionalDirector of the Darling Downs Regional Health Authority, and they cannot be dismissedlightly. If the Minister does so, he disregards many concerns that have been raised, suchas the heavy-handed and abusive disregard of health professionals on the Darling Downs.I believe that these concerns must be examined. I am aware that investigations intosafety issues have taken place over the last couple of days and that a report will bepresented soon. I hope that the outcome will be positive.

The Minister owes a duty to himself and, more importantly, to the people of theDarling Downs to investigate and report on Dr Cumming’s past in Victoria. Allegations havebeen made concerning centralisation of services at the expense of smaller hospitals;continual confrontation with hospital staff; and unethical methods of persuading hospitalcommittees to accept changes—all of which culminated in confrontation with thecommittee of the Castlemaine Hospital in the region where Dr Cumming was a director. Thisled to what has been described as his dismissal by the Victorian Minister for Health. Allthis raises a number of important questions. Was Dr Cumming sacked by the VictorianHealth Minister? If so, for what reason? Are the people of Queensland witnessing a repeatperformance? The Minister must investigate and report on these very important issues ofconcern because 100 doctors and 400 concerned residents of Texas cannot all be wrong.

Earlier today, the member for Toowoomba North referred to an additional $100,000which has been allocated to improve the services provided by the Texas Hospital. Of that


amount, $30,000 will be used to upgrade the old operating theatre in the community healthfacility, and the remaining $70,000 will be used towards the provision of a communityhealth nurse. Although members of the community support the provision of extra services,they are not prepared to sacrifice existing services. This is a very important point.However, it is interesting to note that a community health nurse was not rated as a highpriority by the consultative committee when it was asked which direction the hospitalshould take. The committee would have preferred the money to be spent on furtherupgrading of hospital facilities. How much actual control and involvement does thecommunity consultative committee actually have? To my mind, it has very little.

Time expired.

Aboriginal Land Act

Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (10.33 p.m.): During this debate, I wish to address theissue of the progress of implementation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander landlegislation. Almost 12 months ago, this Parliament passed the Aboriginal Land Act. Sincethen, an enormous amount of work has been done by the Minister for Family Services andAboriginal and Islander Affairs, the Minister for Environment and Heritage and the Ministerfor Land Management and the officers of their departments to ensure that progress ismade in the implementation of this legislation. The legislation was proclaimed on 19December last year. The proclamation was marked by a moving ceremony held on AngGnarra land, which is the Quinkum country at Laura. The Minister for Family Services andAboriginal and Islander Affairs was present at that ceremony.

This legislation is one of the most fundamental reforms of the Goss Government.Over the last 12 months, the groundwork to provide the administrative framework for theoperation of the Act has been put in place. The chairperson of the Land Claims Tribunalhas been appointed and, most importantly, considerable effort has been made to discuss,consult and negotiate with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to ensure that theyunderstand the implications of the Act, and to satisfy the aspirations of Aborigines andTorres Strait Islanders in relation to land. I wish to make two points about the legislation.Firstly, I recognise—as I did when it was debated in the House—that it does not meet allthe expectations that some people have of land rights legislation. In particular, theprocess of drafting the Act caused a great deal of consternation. Secondly, I amunashamedly committed to the implementation of the Act because of its capacity todeliver significant gains to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through ownershipof and access to land, particularly in the Cook electorate. When those two factors areborne in mind, it is time that those who are still stewing over the process that occurred 12months ago took a good hard look at themselves and their attitudes to the Act.

I wish to refer in detail to an article that appeared in today’s Cairns Post under thebanner headline “Cape York plan brings tribal uproar”. I wish to quote some extracts fromthe article and correct some of the inaccurate statements that have been made. Thearticle quotes Mr Abraham Omeenyo, who is a community ranger with the Lockhart Rivercommunity. I might add that I have known Abraham for quite a long period and regard himas a friend. Approximately three weeks ago, when I visited the Lockhart River community,I sat and spoke with him for approximately an hour and a half and we discussed theimplications of the Act from the point of view of the people who live in the Lockhart Rivercommunity. I do not have any problem with Abraham because I believe that he is trying todo a good job on behalf of his people to make sure that they get the best deal out of thislegislation. However, the article is inaccurate, and some of its inaccuracies must becorrected. The article states, in part, that Aborigines are being hoodwinked out of theirtribal lands in a relentless Government drive to make the Lockhart River area a nationalpark. It also states that if a national park is proclaimed in the area, the people will belocked out. This is clearly not the case because the intention of declaring a national park


in the McIlwraith Range area is to provide an opportunity for people to claim the land and toparticipate in a board of management, thereby obtaining access to the land for hunting,fishing, traditional purposes, and even for living areas. The article also states that thepeople have not been consulted and that steps have been taken behind their backs. Thatis also untrue. On two occasions, I have been to the area and have spoken to peopleabout the implications of the Act. I know that an officer of the Department of Environmentand Heritage, Dan Gillespie, and an officer from the Department of Lands, Ross Rolfe,have also visited the area on two occasions. In addition, officers from the Department ofFamily Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs have visited the area to discuss theimplications of the Act.

Many of the points raised in the newspaper article are incorrect. It is time that peopleturned their attentions and energies to maximising the benefit to Aboriginal people that canbe derived from the Act. The time for grandstanding on the perceived failings of the Acthas passed, and banking on imagined or prospective benefits that might derive toAborigines and Islanders from the High Court ruling on the Mabo case is an exercise incrystal ball gazing. The Aboriginal Land Act and the Torres Strait Islander Land Act are areality and are providing tangible progress on land matters for Aborigines and Torres StraitIslanders in Queensland. I, for one, never thought that the Goss Government would beable to deliver on land rights reform in its first term, but I am proud of the fact that we havedone it. I encourage people to enter constructively into the process of using theprovisions of the Act to the maximum benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderpeople in Queensland.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10.38 p.m.

Documents

Hansard 18 March 1992 4279 · 2004-12-01 · Queensland that will provide an economic boost for the State and lift the profile of Queensland within Australia and overseas. We see