Hansard 21 March 1995 - Queensland Parliament

Legislative Assembly 11107 21 March 1995

TUESDAY, 21 MARCH 1995

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove)read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m.

ASSENT TO BILLS

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourablemembers, I have to inform the House that Ihave received from Her Excellency theGovernor a letter in respect of assent tocertain Bills the contents of which will beincorporated in the records of the Parliament.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE,

BRISBANE

7th March, 1995

Dear Mr Speaker,

I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly thatthe following Bills, having been passed by theLegislative Assembly and having beenpresented for the Royal Assent, were assentedto in the name of Her Majesty on the datesindicated:

"A Bill for an Act to protect Queensland's marineand coastal environment by minimisingdeliberate and negligent discharges of ship-sourced pollutants into coastal waters, and forrelated purposes"—3rd March, 1995

"A Bill for an Act to amend certain Actsadministered by the Deputy Premier, Ministerfor Emergency Services and Minister for RuralCommunities and Consumer Affairs ofQueensland, and to repeal certain Acts"—3rdMarch, 1995

"A Bill for an Act to amend the Crimes(Confiscation of Profits) Act 1989"—3rd March,1995

"A Bill for an Act to continue Anzac Day as aday of commemoration, and for otherpurposes"—3rd March, 1995

Yours sincerely,

(Sgd) Leneen FordeGovernor

The Honourable D. J. Fouras, M.L.A.,

Speaker of the Legislative Assembly,

Parliament House,

BRISBANE QLD 4000

PAPERS TABLED DURING RECESS

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourablemembers, I have to advise the House that thefollowing papers were tabled during the recessin accordance with the details provided on theDaily Program circulated to members in theChamber—

7 March 1995—Explanation for the granting of an extension oftime for the tabling of the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Commission and Human Rightsand Equal Opportunity Commission AnnualReport 1993-94; and

Queensland Industry DevelopmentCorporation—Government Schemes Division—Venture Capital Fund—Financial Statements forthe period 1 July 1994 to 31 October 1994.

PETITIONS

The Clerk announced the receipt of thefollowing petitions—

Agricultural Mulch Disposal

From Mrs Bird (357 signatories) prayingthat immediate action be taken to introducecontrol measures for the disposal ofagricultural mulch (black plastic).

Parking Stickers for Disabled

From Mr Davidson (6 signatories)praying that action be taken to waive the $10fee to be paid by pensioners for the newdisabled parking stickers.

Hemmant Port Road EnvironmentalImpact Assessment

From Mr Purcell (826 signatories)praying that serious consideration be given toextending the time frame for the proposedHemmant Port Road Environmental ImpactAssessment.

Petitions received.

PAPERS

The following papers were laid on thetable—

Acting Minister for Primary Industries(Mr Gibbs)—Queensland Fish Board—Final Report for theperiod 1 July 1994 to 27 January 1995.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

In accordance with the schedulecirculated by the Clerk to members in theChamber, the following documents weretabled—

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals(Queensland) Act 1994—

Proclamation—the provisions of the Actthat are not in force commence 15 March1995, No. 51

21 March 1995 11108 Legislative Assembly

Agricultural Standard Act 1994—Proclamation—the provisions of the Actthat are not in force commence 15 March1995, No. 50

Credit Act 1987—Credit Amendment Regulation (No. 1)1995, No. 48

Environmental Protection Act 1994—Environmental Protection (Interim)Regulation 1995, No. 46Proclamation—the provisions of the Actthat are not in force (other than theprovisions mentioned in the Schedule)commence 1 March 1995, No. 47

Exotic Diseases in Animals Act 1981—Exotic Diseases in Animals (AvianInfluenza) Amendment Notice (No. 2)1995, No. 44

Fisheries Act 1994—Fisheries (Changeover Day) Regulation1995, No. 56Fisheries Regulation 1995, No. 34

Justices Act 1886—Justices Amendment Regulation (No. 1)1995, No. 45

Land Act 1962—Land Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1995,No. 49

Local Government Amendment Act 1994—Proclamation—the provisions of the Actthat are not in force commence 10 March1995, No. 54

Nature Conservation Act 1992—Nature Conservation (Protected Areas)Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1995,No. 42Nature Conservation (Protected Areas)Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 1995,No. 55

Nursing Act 1992—Nursing Amendment By-law (No. 1) 1995,No. 40

Officials in Parliament Act 1896—Proclamation declaring that certainofficers of the Crown liable to retire fromoffice on political grounds are capable ofbeing elected members of the LegislativeAssembly and sitting and voting in theLegislative Assembly at the same time,No. 30

Place Names Act 1994—Place Names Regulation 1995, No. 39Proclamation—the provisions of the Actthat are not in force commence 1 March1995, No. 38

Public Sector Management Commission Act1990—

Public Sector Management CommissionAmendment Regulation (No. 1) 1995,No. 31

Residential Tenancies Act 1994—Proclamation—the provisions of the Actthat are not in force commence 3 April1995, No. 35Residential Tenancies Regulation 1995,No. 36

State Housing Act 1945—State Housing Amendment Regulation(No. 1) 1995, No. 37

Sugar Industry Act 1991—Sugar Industry (Assignment Grant)Guideline 1995, No. 52

Superannuation (Government and OtherEmployees) Act 1988—

Superannuation (Government and OtherEmployees) Amendment Regulation(No. 1) 1995, No. 33

Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act1990—

Superannuation (State Public Sector)Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 1995,No. 32

Workplace Health and Safety Act 1989—Workplace Health and Safety AmendmentRegulation (No. 1) 1995, No. 41Workplace Health and Safety(Certificates) Exemption AmendmentNotice (No. 1) 1995, No. 53Workplace Health and Safety (Codes ofPractice Approval) Amendment Notice(No. 1) 1995, No. 43.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTAppointment of Ministry

Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premierand Minister for Economic and TradeDevelopment) (10.03 a.m.), by leave: I desireto inform the House that on 23 February 1995Her Excellency the Governor appointedFrederick Warren Pitt as a member of theExecutive Council of Queensland and as theMinister for Business, Industry and RegionalDevelopment.

I lay upon the table of the House a copyof the Queensland Government GazetteExtraordinary of 23 February 1995 containingthe relevant notifications.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Gold Coast Indy Car Grand Prix Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Bundamba—Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing)(10.04 a.m.), by leave: It gives me greatpleasure to be able to inform honourablemembers that the 1995 Gold Coast IndyCarnival has proved to be yet anotheroutstanding success for Queensland.


Preliminary financial estimates for theevent show that Indy continues to live up to itsreputation as Queensland's premier sportsand entertainment event and justify theGovernment's ongoing support for the Indyconcept. Record corporate sponsorship andticket sales, perfect Gold Coast weather,phenomenal television interest and a nail-biting race finish this year all combined tomake 1995 Indy's best year to date. No-onewho attended the four great days of the IndyCarnival, or watched Sunday's race ontelevision, can possibly dispute that Indy hastruly cemented its future as a feature of theQueensland events calendar and a majordrawcard for overseas and interstate tourists.

Preliminary figures prepared by financialconsultants Ernst and Young indicate that thetotal economic impact of the 1995 IndyCarnival on the Queensland economy willexceed $45m, compared with the total of$37.8m achieved in 1994. I will now detailsome of the figures that show why Indy is sucha winner for the taxpayers of Queensland. Imust emphasise that these figures arepreliminary and essentially conservative, butare expected to increase when Ernst andYoung completes its final report next month.

Predictive figures for 1995 identify that thedirect economic stimulation to the Queenslandeconomy from Indy can be conservativelyplaced at $31,787,260 gross State product.This figure is more than $8m higher than the$23m result achieved in 1994 and is expectedto grow even larger when catering andmerchandising returns for the 1995 event arefinalised and added to the account.

The Gold Coast region alone can expectdirect economic stimulation in excess of$29,434,900 from Indy this year. So much forthe misguided critics who claim that Indy is nogood for the Gold Coast and is merely anannual inconvenience to local residents andtourists!

Record corporate sponsorship and ticketsales for the 1995 Indy also prove beyonddoubt that Indy gets better every year and ishere to stay. Net ticket sales for 1995 will beapproximately $3.5m, compared with lastyear's takings. Corporate support for the eventcontinues to grow each year, and this yearcorporate sponsorship sales will be a net$5.7m, compared with $5.4m net in 1994. Inanyone's language, that is an impressiveresult for an event that, at present, does nothave a naming rights sponsor.

Taken together, net corporatesponsorship and ticket sales for 1995 will total

$9.2m—at least $600,000 higher than the1994 net revenue figure of $8.6m. In additionto the $31m in direct economic benefits toQueensland, preliminary estimates indicatethat the $14.8m promotional impact ofoverseas media coverage for Queensland thatthe event achieved last year will be matchedand surpassed in 1995. Television interest inthe 1995 Indy race, both at home and abroad,was phenomenal and reflects the event'sgrowing stature as a national and internationalsporting attraction. The race was shown insome 130 countries, 25 countries more thanthe previous year, with a potential viewingaudience of approximately 1 billion people.

Once again, this proves that Indy isunquestionably a cost-effective promotionaltool for Queensland in the world's largestoutbound tourist markets, with North Americaobviously chief among them. Indy was also abig television hit with Australian viewers.Figures provided by the AC Nielsen groupshow that the 1995 Indy race rated 24 inBrisbane at its peak on Sunday. The coveragealso rated solidly in Sydney, Melbourne,Adelaide and Perth, with peak ratings of 16,15, 16 and 12 respectively.

I turn now to the question of theGovernment's investment in the event. TheGovernment's investment in this year's eventis estimated to be between $8.1m and$8.6m—at the very least, a $500,000 savingon the $9.1m invested in 1994. Thisinvestment takes into account the additional$1m spent on improving facilities in the trackand race precinct, including $300,000 for hireof the 10-metre high Trident big-screentelevisions to ensure that race patrons missednone of the action.

Our support for the Indy concept hasalways been on the basis of a medium tolong-term investment in an event which is farmore than just a car race. Even our mostchurlish critics cannot claim that a $45m returnon an $8m Government outlay is not a soundinvestment for Queensland taxpayers.

In many ways, 1995 was a watershedyear for the Indy Carnival. ConfirmedGovernment investment, a four-yearpromoters agreement and a more stablemanagement structure at Indy, underchairman Ron Richards and chief executiveGlen Jones, are providing a sound platformfrom which to increase the quality andeconomic benefits of the event. It is high timethat the leaders of the National and LiberalParties got fully behind what I believe is anevent with a spectacular international futurethat will help to enrich our State's future.


MOTION OF CONDOLENCE

Death of Mr D. F. Lane

Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premierand Minister for Economic and TradeDevelopment) (10.09 a.m.), by leave, withoutnotice: I move—

"1. That this House desires to placeon record its appreciation of the servicesrendered to this State by the late DonaldFrederick Lane, a former member of theParliament of Queensland and Minister ofthe Crown.

2. That Mr Speaker be requestedto convey to the family of the deceasedgentleman the above resolution togetherwith an expression of the sympathy andsorrow of the members of the Parliamentof Queensland in the loss they havesustained."

Donald Frederick Lane was born on 18July 1935 in Toowoomba—the son ofFrederick and Mary, who were both Warwickretailers. Mr Lane was educated in Brisbane.At the age of 16, Mr Lane joined the policeforce as a cadet, serving initially in the remoteregions of Queensland. In 1962, as adetective senior constable, he was awardedthe Queen's commendation for brave conductfor his role in disarming a man threatening toshoot police in an incident at Highgate Hill. In1962, he married Beryl Pankhurst, andtogether they had a son, Steven, and adaughter, Robyn.

Mr Lane was serving within the policeSpecial Branch when he was chosen as theLiberal candidate for the Merthyr by-election in1971. On 24 July 1971, he was elected torepresent Merthyr in this House. In January1980, he was elevated to Minister forTransport, a position he held for three yearsuntil August 1983. Honourable members willrecall that, following the 1983 election, he leftthe Liberal Party to join the National Party andso enabled the National Party to gain office inits own right. He was soon reappointed asMinister for Transport—a position he held untilDecember 1987. Mr Lane resigned from thisHouse on 30 January 1989.

As Minister for Transport, Mr Lane will bemost favourably remembered forachievements during his tenure as Minister,which include the electrification andmodernisation of Queensland Railways;initiating the air-space development ofToowong Railway Station; and as Chairman ofthe Queensland Road Safety Council from1981 to 1987.

In more recent times, Mr Lane wasengaged as a freelance journalist and was byall accounts successful in his agriculturalendeavours. Sadly, Mr Lane will probably bemore remembered in history for his dramaticadmissions to the Fitzgerald commission ofinquiry and subsequent conviction. Mr Lanehas certainly left his mark on Queensland andon this place. Let us today remember the manfor his significant accomplishments. Mr Lane issurvived by his wife and children and theirfamilies. On behalf of the Parliament, I extendmy sympathy and that of this House to hisfamily.

Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (10.13 a.m.): I riseto second the motion moved by theHonourable the Premier. It is with sadness thatI speak on the passing of Don Lane. Don wasborn in Toowoomba on 18 July 1935 andjoined the Queensland police as a cadet whenhe was 16. He was awarded the Queen'scommendation for bravery in 1964 when, as adetective senior constable, he disarmed aman who threatened to shoot police in anincident at Highgate Hill in 1962.

Don entered the Queensland Parliament,winning a by-election on 24 June 1971 for theseat of Merthyr. This followed a careerspanning nearly 20 years in the Queenslandpolice force. As a backbencher he workedhard for issues, both minor and major, withnotable representations on issues rangingfrom hoteliers serving watered-down scotch tothe funding of fire brigades. His strong senseof self seemed to underlie much of hismotivation in the parliamentary arena. He wasa strident advocate of a member's right to anunencumbered point of view free of partisanpressures. The responsibility to act as a privatemember was the overriding rule, not theexception, in his book. As a backbencher anda Minister he maintained a high profile as ahard worker and an innovator.

Rail and road reform under Don Lane asTransport Minister from 1980 was both forwardthinking and inspirational. There was never atoo-hard basket in Don Lane's office. He madedecisions, and he delivered. He was both avisionary and a builder. The modernQueensland Rail is his monument. As a resultof the PA Consultants report he personallycommissioned into the railway administrationand industrial management, the QueenslandGovernment realised Queensland Rail's hugeearning potential. An operational profit ofnearly $118m in 1986 was followed by a $1billion windfall in his last year as Minister in1987. He was overseer of the State's railway


mainline electrification scheme, which wasrevolutionary for its time. He secured thedevelopment of the Brisbane Transit Centreand the Toowong Village air-spacedevelopment—both strategically placed tomask stark rail lines in the middle of the cityand a busy suburban district. Reform of roadtransport through the State and reliable airservices to regional Queensland were otherpriorities of his term in office.

Don was not a whinger. After mattersarising from the Fitzgerald inquiry, he said thathe accepted the jury's verdict. He wrote andpublished an account of his time as a youngpoliceman and later as a politician in Trial andError. This provided some relief for him duringhis period of incarceration, albeit traumatic attimes, recounting the later years as a CabinetMinister. This book is not a stream ofrecriminations, nor does it serve as a tool ofself-justification or delusion. He quitelightheartedly included as the first line to theintroduction a quote that reflected his stoic witand his incisive intellect. It reads—

"There are moments wheneverything goes well—don't worry it won'tlast."

He was also once quoted as saying that "thereis nothing so ex as an ex-politician." At thetime of his resignation from Parliament on 30January 1989, he was the second-longestserving member on the Government side. Thiswas a tribute to his contribution to theParliament and the State of Queensland andalso a testimony to his resilience, doggeddetermination and commitment to public life.

I came to know Don Lane well. As a newbackbencher in 1980, I served on hisministerial committee. I came to respect hisdepth of knowledge and his pragmatism. Hecould be very different from his public image.At his memorial service last Friday, mentionwas made of his gentle side, his commitmentto the Italian community, to his electorate andto his family. This was the other side of a manwho was a formidable parliamentary debater,a competent and astute Minister. Don Lanehad a sad end to his political career—verymuch a victim of the times who deservedmuch better. This period of enormous strainplaced great pressure on his family—a veryclose-knit family. A large and widelyrepresentative congregation attended hismemorial service last Friday at St John'sCathedral, proving that respect for Don Lanestretched beyond political, social andeconomic boundaries. I offer my sincerecondolences and those of the Opposition to

his wife, Beryl, son, Steven, daughter, Robyn,and family during this sad time.

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Ministerfor Education) (10.18 a.m.): I join in thismotion of condolence on the death of DonLane and refer particularly to his time asTransport Minister in this State. As a personwho has attended quite a number ofministerial councils in transport over the years,I have found that it is certainly one of thoseportfolios in which one sees a fairly highturnover of Ministers. But Don Lane had thehonour to serve in that portfolio for almostseven years. As has been mentioned by thePremier and the Leader of the Opposition, hewill be remembered chiefly for his work inQueensland Rail.

No-one could say that Don Lane was veryfar from controversy. Indeed, I remember thatas a newly elected backbencher in thisParliament in 1983, Don Lane was one ofthose hard men of the old National PartyGovernment. My early recollection of him inthis place is that, just after he changed sidesfrom the Liberal Party to the National Party todeliver the National Party that majority in 1983,that earned him the enmity of many of hiserstwhile party colleagues and certainly did notlift the respect within which the LaborOpposition held him, either. However, I believethat it is important to give credit where it isdue. Don Lane felt very strongly for theTransport portfolio. He had a vision of wherehe saw that area of reform going. As amember who had a large railway constituencyin Ipswich, I can assert that at the time the PAConsultants report was a very controversialdocument and one which did not earn DonLane too many friends in Queensland Rail.Indeed, the Transport portfolio was doggedwith controversy. Nevertheless, in the early1980s, very important reforms were put inplace which assisted the ongoing reform ofthat great public enterprise.

I occasioned some contact with Don Lanefollowing his time in this place. It was quiteobvious that he enjoyed maintaining aninterest in matters pertaining to transport. Iwould often see him at functions of theChartered Institute of Transport or at functionsorganised by societies such as the RailwayHistorical Society. His interest, therefore, wasnot simply an occasional one because he hadheld the Transport portfolio, but one of adeep-felt interest in the welfare of the transportindustry as a whole.

I recall that, upon being sworn in asMinister for Transport in 1989, acommunication came to me from Don Lane


wishing me well for that portfolio. Although onecould never have said that we were politicalfriends by any means, I certainly appreciatedthat message of well wishing, because itdemonstrated that the gentleman actually didhave a concern for the area for which he hadbeen responsible during his time as a Ministerin this place.

Although, as I said before, Don Lane wasnever far from controversy, on an occasionsuch as this it is indeed proper and fitting thatwe remember the positive contribution that hemade, particularly in the area of transport, tothe future of the State.

Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Leader ofthe Liberal Party) (10.21 a.m.): I rise today tooffer my condolences to the family and friendsof Don Lane. He was a member of the LiberalParty for 16 years and a Liberal Minister forthree years before moving to the NationalParty. He was a member of the Liberal PartyState Executive and was elected as themember for Merthyr in a by-election in 1971.Before entering Parliament he made his namein 1962 as a detective senior constable ofpolice when he won an award for bravery forhis part in disarming a man who threatened toshoot police.

Don Lane was particularly interested inthe individuality of members of Parliament andwas opposed to the caucus system. AsTransport Minister, he pushed through theelectrification of the Brisbane rail system, amajor achievement and one of which he wasvery proud. He had a right to be proud. DonLane also perfected the integration of publictransport within the city, making the systemmuch more effective for Brisbane residents.

After his dismissal from State Parliamentand his gaol term, Don Lane remaineddignified and refused to debase the systemwhich had judged him. He suffered muchduring and after the Fitzgerald inquiry, but wasmore concerned with the effect on his familyand friends. In a submission he made to thisHouse after his dismissal he stated—

"The humiliation and public scornthat my family and I have suffered as aresult of these events, many of thembeyond my control, has been devastating.In addition it has been both abhorrentand distressing for me to have had toname former colleagues."

I think this quote sums up Don Lane's feelingabout the difficult period leading up to andafter his leaving this place, and I say no moreabout it.

Apart from his dedication to public serviceand particularly to improving the State'stransport systems, he had one other love. DonLane spent the last few years on his much-loved farm near Warwick, where he died. Iagain offer my condolences to wife, Beryl, andDon Lane's children, Steven and Robyn, onthe loss of their husband and father.

Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly)(10.24 a.m.): I wish to join in expressing mysympathy to Mrs Beryl Lane and her family onthe very sudden passing of Don Lane, whom,I believe, I knew longer than most members ofthe House. We met some years before hewon the Merthyr electorate for the LiberalParty in 1971. At the time he was activelyinvolved in the party's campaign for theAshgrove electorate, where the sitting memberwas the late Doug Tooth. I was involved in thecampaign for Col Miller, the member for theadjoining seat of Ithaca.

After I was elected to the Brisbane CityCouncil in 1976, Don Lane gave the newLiberal council team a tremendous amount ofassistance. Anyone who has been through amajor split in their party, or a coalition to whichthey belong, will know it is a divisive anddifficult experience, with those whom oneregarded as colleagues and friends becomingpolitical enemies virtually overnight. We wentthrough that unpleasant experience in 1983,when the coalition which had served this Stateso well split, and subsequently when DonLane changed parties.

However, it must be said that, when theLiberal team led by Sallyanne Atkinson wasvoted into office in Brisbane City just 18months later and I became the deputy mayor,we were able to develop a sound andnecessary working relationship with the thenState Government and with Don Lane asTransport Minister. It was then that I came toappreciate even better his political andadministrative skills. In the deputations wetook to him, and the various meetingsbetween the council and the Governmentwhich took place, the advisers andbureaucrats were on tap, not on top. Therewas no doubt that Don Lane knew his Ministrywell, just as there was no doubt that his wordwas final when it came to putting the State'sposition.

Given the events which had taken placein 1983, the relationship between the NationalParty State Government and the Liberal Partycity council could have been a very difficultone. It was through the efforts of people suchas Don Lane that we were able to worktogether reasonably well for the good of the


city. Even though I differed with him on someof the projects he implemented, there can beno doubt that he was a very successful andeffective Transport Minister, especially in areassuch as rail electrification, modernisation androad safety. Even some of his harshest criticshave acknowledged that fact since his death.

When I was elected to this House in1986, I was the Liberal spokesman onTransport. Even though we clashed at times, Iappreciated the highly competent way he wentabout his ministerial duties. When he becameone of the victims of the Fitzgerald inquiry andthe prosecutions which followed, Don's lifechanged dramatically. I believe it ought to besaid that, regardless of those events, one hadto admire that he accepted his penalty withoutcomplaint. When he was taken to prison, herefused protective custody which would havebeen available in view of the positions he hadheld, including that of a police officer. Manyhave said that Don Lane was a tough man,and I am sure he would never contest thatclaim. No doubt that toughness actuallyserved him well in the prison system, as it didafter his release when he published a frankaccount of his political life and his period inprison.

He went about renewing acquaintancesand getting his life back together in a robustand successful way. I saw him onlyoccasionally, at the races or past membersfunctions, and it was quite evident then thathe was doing all he could to rebuild his life, ashe was entitled to do, having paid his penalty.

The late Don Lane as a politician gave noquarter in debate, nor did he ask for any. Hewas an extremely effective grassrootscampaigner, something amply demonstratedby the fact that he won the marginal seat ofMerthyr in seven successive elections. Thefact that some 700 people attended hismemorial service, which was presided over byArchbishop Peter Hollingworth, demonstratesthat he did rebuild his life and did gain properrecognition for his significant achievements inpublic life as Minister for Transport.

He is survived by his wife, Beryl, whostood most loyally by him in good times andtough times, his son, Steven, and hisdaughter, Robyn. I extend my sympathy tothem, to the other members of his family andto his many friends.

Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central)(10.28 a.m.): I wish to speak briefly in thiscondolence motion for Don Lane. Asmembers would be aware, I now represent inthis Parliament a large part of Don Lane's

former electorate of Merthyr covering NewFarm, Teneriffe, Merthyr and Newstead.Accordingly, it would remiss of me if I did notmake some comments on the public recordfrom a local perspective.

I do not intend to refer to matters beforethe Fitzgerald inquiry or Don Lane'ssubsequent conviction or gaoling; although Iwas present during the Fitzgerald inquiry withbarrister Matt Foley when Don Lane confessedto the inquiry his misuse of ministerialexpenses.

Don Lane brought out strong passionsand views—some positive, some negative—from his former constituents. As memberswould expect, views were especially strong inthe Labor Party, particularly from families suchas the Dawson family, which included somelegendary Labor Party people such as formerBrisbane City Councillor Beattie Dawson andher daughter Barbara, who ran against DonLane in Merthyr on several occasions. I recall,as ALP secretary, having to mediate andbecome involved in a number of disputeswhich arose because of the level of intensity ofthose contests between the Dawson familyand the Lane camp. I remember thoseinstances only too vividly.

Nevertheless, there was an acceptanceby many locals that Don Lane had workedhard to try to assist his electorate, from theconstruction of the oval at the New Farm StateSchool to financially assisting the MetropolitanSenior Citizens Centre in the Valley.

Indeed, Sunday 19 March, the festival ofSt Joseph, is a very important day for theItalian community in New Farm. While I was atthat festival, a number of people spoke to meabout Don Lane's passing. Don Lane'spassion was New Farm Park, and in particularthe rose gardens in the park. I think it was in1992 that he rang me and arranged anappointment to discuss New Farm Park and,of course, the rose gardens. He maderepeated references to a Cabinet decisioninitiated by him that he said provided for theextension of New Farm Park into the old powerstation adjoining it. Even though Don Lanewas no longer a member of Parliament, hadserved time in gaol and knew my view inrelation to matters involving him in the inquiry,he still maintained his love of New Farm Park.In fact, when he visited me he took theopportunity to be critical of the former LordMayor Sallyanne Atkinson for notimplementing that Cabinet decision, which hesupported, to extend the rose garden.

I pass on my condolences to the Lanefamily and the condolences of those of his


former constituents in New Farm whoremember him well.

Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—DeputyLeader of the Liberal Party) (10.31 a.m.): Iwish to support this condolence motion, and Ido so with much sadness. Most members inthis place would appreciate that I knew DonLane well. In fact, it pleases me to say thatDon Lane was one of only three or fourQueensland politicians who had afundamental impact on the way I operate as aparliamentarian in this Parliament and in myelectorate.

Today, I wish to focus my remarks mainlyon Don Lane when he was the local memberof Parliament and as a member of the LiberalParty, for it was within those contexts that Icame to know Don very well. In doing so, fromthe outset I wish to acknowledge themagnificent contribution that Don made to thegreater good of Queensland. Others who havespoken before me in this debate have madefulsome reference very adequately to Don'sachievements as a Minister of the Crown. Ithink achieving that status of Minister wasDon's crowning glory and one which allowedhim to define the concept of public service in away that was admired by the vast majority ofQueenslanders.

Today we often hear mention of the lackof proper planning and major infrastructuredevelopment by previous National Party andcoalition Governments—a notion that I rejectimplicitly and one that certainly did not apply toDon Lane as a Minister. In Don Lane's finalspeech in this place, which was incorporated inHansard on 14 March 1989 by the thenmember for Mulgrave, Mr Menzel, Don Laneproduced a brief list of what he thought werehis achievements as a Minister.

That list was kept brief deliberately butwas still an impressive one and includedachievements such as obtaining Governmentapproval for and supervision of the State'srailway main line electrification scheme, whichcost approximately $1 billion but whichbecame virtually self-funding and whichintroduced significant new technology toQueensland; the construction of the interstaterailway across the Brisbane River to the cityand securing the development of the BrisbaneTransit Centre and the leasing of railway landfor that purpose; initiating the $100m air-spacedevelopment at Toowong Railway Station,now known as Toowong Village; theappointment of industrial safety officers,occupational nurses and a medical officer inmajor railway workshops; personally securingFederal and other funds to expand Brisbane's

electrified railway system to Caboolture,Doomben, Cleveland and Beenleigh; theconstruction of new railway stations atBoondall, Carseldine, Bray Park, Birkdale,Thorneside and Albion; the deregulation ofroad transport throughout the State; reducingthe annual road toll from 609 in 1981-82 to442 in 1987, when Don Lane ceased beingthe Minister for Transport; the extension ofBrisbane River ferry services; the introductionof school crossing supervisors; the introductionof share riding in taxis; and the negotiation ofreliable air services to western Queensland.

Those are impressive achievements byanyone's ministerial standards and a clearindication of the reasons why Don was fiercelyproud of the contribution that he made to thegreater public good.

However, at the same time, and right fromthe time he entered Parliament on 24 July1971, Don showed singular and unswervingcommitment to his electorate of Merthyr. Heshowed up-and-coming politicians how to lookafter what, after their families, is their mostimportant constituency—that which enables usall to serve in this place—their electorates.

It is perhaps because I had much to dowith him in the five years leading up to 1983that I came to regard Don as one of the bestgrassroots politicians I have known. For him,the electorate was in a political senseeverything, for he, like us all, understoodintuitively that if our electorates do not standbehind us, we will go nowhere in politics. Hewas immersed totally in the life of the manycommunities of Merthyr and his interest andsupport for what they were about wasrecognised and reciprocated amply. The mostobvious example of this interest and supportperhaps was his intimate association with thevery substantial Italian community of Merthyrand wider Brisbane. Many associations withinthe Italian community, including those withinDon's electorate, benefited greatly from hisinterest and patronage. Those associationsincluded the Corale Guiseppe Verdi, CasaItalia, ANFE, Fogolar Furlan, the ItaloAustralian Centre, Brisbane City Soccer Club,the bocce clubs and the many other cultureand sporting clubs and associations that calledon Don regularly for assistance and counsel.

Don Lane was also very heavily involvedwith the churches and cultural and religiousfestivals. As only one example, the annualspectacular of the Feast of St Joseph justwould not have been the same without theappearance of Don and the delivery of a fieryspeech which, although not delivered totally in


Italian, was invariably understood almostentirely by all present. That was Don's publicassociation with the Italian community. His lesspublic association was equally recognised andappreciated, and it also brought him muchcredit. Many Italians still appreciate theassistance Don gave the many sons,daughters and breadwinners of families to finda job. That assistance was also extended tomany others within his electorate irrespectiveof racial origin. As a result of thoseassociations, many members of the Italiancommunity came to regard Don and his familyas very close friends. That fact was veryevident at many a wedding, christening andfuneral within the Italian community.

Those members of this place whoremember the composition of the old seat ofMerthyr will also remember that the make-upof the seat boasted a very seniorpopulation—very senior not only because itwas the home of many captains of industryand commerce, senior members of thejudiciary and senior public servants—all ofwhom were extremely well served by their localmember, Don Lane—but also very senior interms of age. In fact, the seat ofMerthyr—and, to a similar extent, the currentseat of Clayfield—had within it a great numberof nursing homes, retirement villages, warwidows units and homes, senior citizenscentres, pensioners clubs and many otherorganisations and situations within whichsenior citizens lived and associated. Thoseorganisations and senior citizens were paid avery special form of attention by Don Lane,who always maintained that if we look after theyoung and the elderly within our community,then society will be the richer for this.

Given Don's background as a policeman,security of person and property as it applied tosenior citizens was a prime concern to him, aswas his belief that senior citizens should beencouraged to participate fully in the life oftheir local communities and that they shouldbe kept well informed of developments withinthe Governments of Queensland andAustralia. The residents in the many halfwayhouses, hospitals and welfare associationswere also looked after extremely well andserved very well by Don. He was one whocared for the lot of the mentally impaired withinour community and for the lot of those whohad come upon hard times.

As I said before, Don loved to makeconnection with the kids, he loved to be withthem and to be more than just the localpolitician. He was a constant visitor to theschools within his electorate and all received

his full attention and support. Irrespective ofwhether it was Ascot State School, New FarmState School, the Newstead Special School,the Spastic Centre or the dozen or more otherprivate and State schools within his electorate,they all knew that Don Lane was interested inpromoting their interests within Governmentand he obtained many concessions for themthrough his diligent and effectiverepresentations.

I have mentioned particularly Don'sdealings and connections with the Italiancommunity, the elderly, the young and thedisadvantaged within his electorate. However,that should not take away from the fact that allorganised groups and individuals in Don'selectorate were important to him. The sportingclubs, such as the Australian Rules FootballClub in Mayne and Brothers Rugby UnionClub, service organisations such as Rotary andLions, cultural organisations such as theEnglish Speaking Union and, mostimportantly, individuals all benefited fromDon's attention to their concerns and requestsfor representation to the Government and thebureaucracy. Even today, many of myconstituents speak to me affectionately aboutthe work of Don Lane long after he stoppedrepresenting them. I think that all honourablemembers would agree with me that that is agreat tribute to a man who claimed to be, andindeed was, a servant of the people.

I now wish to turn briefly to Don Lane'sservice to the Queensland Liberal Party. Infact, I first met Don when in 1978 I wascampaigning for preselection for the then safeLabor Brisbane City Council ward of CentralCity. During that preselection and in theelection which I subsequently contested, Dongave me much support and encouragementand I learned many a campaign skill as Iwatched Don the politician in action. Donbelieved in nurturing young people withpolitical interest and ambition, and the factthat he did that with me is something for whichI will always be grateful. From 1978 onwards,and particularly through our joint interests andwork within the Italian community, ourrelationship and friendship grew right up to1983 when, unfortunately, events anddecisions made in that year overtook many apersonal and political relationship.

The year 1983 was a difficult year forQueensland Liberals. It was in that year that Imade the decision that I would seek to contestthe next election in the seat against DonLane. That he beat me in the 1986 election by31 votes was because of the relationships thathe enjoyed with his electorate, about which Ihave spoken already.


I will not pretend and say that the contestwas a smooth one and devoid of bitterness.There certainly were some very tensemoments during that eventful campaign,including the two re-counts of the close vote,when I learned much about scrutineering as Iwatched Don in action. In fact, the 1986campaign showed clearly to me what aneffective and consummate politician Don was,and one had to admire the sheerdetermination with which the Minister and themember went about his re-election business.

It was the same determination and single-mindedness which contributed to keeping thenorth side of Brisbane a Labor-free zone formuch of the 1970s and 1980s. Together withBill Knox and Brian Austin, Don Lane formed atriumvirate in north Brisbane, which eventuallysaw the north side boasting three seniorLiberal Ministers in the former coalitionGovernment and a demoralised Labor Party.In fact—and I am sure that members oppositewill not mind my saying so; indeed, theHonourable the Minister for Education said thisalso—Don Lane really fought the Labor Partyand fought it hard. He was never overlyboastful of his successes, but he alwaysenjoyed winning the political battles against hisideological enemies.

Within the Liberal Party his achievementswere many, and the positions he held withinthe organisation were very senior ones. Apartfrom occupying at one time or another everypossible position for office bearers at a branchand campaign level, Don served as a memberof the State Executive between 1969 and1975; Chairman, Brisbane Area Executive;Parliamentary Delegate to Central CampaignCommittee; Parliamentary Delegate,Redistribution Committee; and theParliamentary Delegate to the Liberal PartyState Executive from 1971 to 1975. Throughthese positions and his genuine involvementand interest in Liberal Party affairs, Don had afundamental impact on policy debates withinthe party, preselection outcomes, the electionof party office bearers, electoral redistributionsubmissions and membership development.

Through his pursuit of his parliamentaryand ministerial duties, he was very much apublic face of the Liberal Party and a facewhich brought much credit to it. In spite of hisdecision of 1983, no Liberal who knew andworked with Don Lane can deny this, andtoday I am pleased to go on the public recordas one of these Liberals.

As the Honourable the Minister saidearlier, Don Lane's interest in politics and theperformance of the departments that he once

ran remained strong after he left Parliament.He remained on my Hansard mailing list, andevery year I forwarded to him copies of annualreports and other documents that I thoughtwould be of interest to him. From time to time,he visited my office, and we enjoyed a cordialpersonal relationship right up until the time ofhis death.

Don Lane will be remembered for manythings that he did during his time in politicsand in this place. He can be remembered formany good things and he can beremembered for many controversial things. Assomeone who benefited greatly from the goodthings that he will be remembered for and whoalso suffered at the hands of his political skillsand expertise, I will choose to remember himfor the great amount of good that he did forthe general public of Queensland and inparticular for his electorate of Merthyr. To hiswife, Beryl and his children, Steven andRobyn, I extend my sincere sympathy andwish them well for the future.

Motion agreed to, honourable membersstanding in silence.

QUESTION UPON NOTICE

Brisbane Exhibition and ConventionCentre

Mr LINGARD asked the Minister forAdministrative Services—

"With reference to the report to theParliamentary Committee of Public Workson the selection of the operator managerat the Brisbane Convention Centre whichdetailed how 27 submissions werereceived and this was finally reduced totwo proposals and the committee set upto do the selection then explained how itdid detailed evaluation of those twosubmissions which were Convex andBrisbane Expo Centre—

What the report did not tell theParliamentary Committee of Public Workswas the fact that those two companieswere both subsidiaries of the same group,which is International Facilities Groupwhich is part of Queensland LeisureGroup.

(1) Why didn’t he give this advice to theParliamentary Committee of PublicWorks?

(2) Will he outline to the House whatprojects this company, withshareholders such as the RyanFamily, the Lister Family, JacobsenHoldings, Pilbeam Family, Michael


Edgley and Leo Williams, areinvolved in with your government?"

Mr MILLINER: This questiondemonstrates how lazy the honourablemember for Beaudesert is. Had he taken thetime to do some very fundamental research,he would have seen that the premise on whichthe question is based is incorrect. In hisquestion, the honourable member referred tothe operator of the Brisbane ConventionCentre and the short-listing of the companies.He said that the two companies that werefinally short-listed were both subsidiaries of thesame group, the International Facilities Group,which is part of the Queensland LeisureGroup. I am informed that that is totallyincorrect.

Of the two short-listed companies, it wasdiscovered that there was a joint shareholdingby one of the participants, and that was fullydivulged to the assessment committee. Thatinformation was passed to the ParliamentaryCommittee of Public Works. Interestingly, theParliamentary Committee of Public Worksexamined this matter and produced aunanimous report. Members of the Oppositionwere on that committee. I repeat that it isinteresting to note that it was a unanimousreport.

That unanimous report stated that "thiscommittee has examined the evaluationdocumentation and has no criticism of the finaldecision". That was the unanimous finding ofthe Parliamentary Committee of Public Works.Interestingly, when this matter was beingconsidered, a letter was written to thesecretary of the convention and exhibitioncentre, which I now table. That letter stated—

"On behalf of the State Opposition, Iwould like to indicate that IFC has, in myopinion, demonstrated that it has theappropriate expertise and proven trackrecord to competently carry out the rolesought."

It also went on to say—

"Without seeking to prejudice thedeliberations of your committee, I wish toindicate the Opposition's support for IFC'scapability to fulfil this important role andthe associated economic benefits it wouldbring to Queensland."

It is signed by none other than Mr KevinLingard, Acting Leader of the Opposition.

Had the member done some very basicresearch, he would have also found out thatthe reason that I had not provided theParliamentary Committee of Public Works with

any information at that time, which was aboutAugust 1993, was quite simply that I was notthe Minister for Administrative Services inAugust 1993.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mater Hospital

Mr BORBIDGE: I refer the Premier tothe fact that the Mater Children's and theMater Adult Public Hospitals will close, in thecase of Mater Children's for the first time in itshistory, for purposes of elective surgery for twoweeks over Easter and again for two weeks inMay because of underfunding by hisGovernment. I ask: will he ensure that thesehospitals receive sufficient funds to avoidthese closures?

Mr W. K. GOSS: Although I wasabsent during this public debate, I point outthat it is clearly yet another case of an emotiveand misleading public debate generated bypeople such as the Leader of the Oppositionand his Health spokesman. I think it isinstructive that people understand the recordof this Government in terms of fundinghospitals in general. I have referred to thatbefore, and I will not give members oppositechapter and verse unless they really ask for it.

Mr Beanland interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn themember for Indooroopilly under StandingOrder 123A.

Mr W. K. GOSS: However, I think it isinstructive that we give the history in relation tothis Government's very strong support of theMater public hospitals. Funding from the StateGovernment for the Mater public hospitals hasincreased from $84m in 1989-90, when theLeader of the Opposition was in Government,to an allocation of $119.43m in 1994-95. Thatis an increase of over $35m, or over 42 percent, on the level of funding that the formerGovernment provided. Our record isdramatically superior. Those are the facts.

Furthermore, that 42 per cent increase infunding to Mater public hospitals comparesvery favourably with the 36 per cent to 37 percent for other public hospitals. In other words,the Mater public hospitals have donedramatically well under this Governmentcompared with the funding that they receivedunder the former Government.

Mr Horan interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn themember for Toowoomba South underStanding Order 123A.


Mr W. K. GOSS: They have also donebetter than the State public hospitals.Furthermore, contrary to the misleadingassertions by some members opposite in themedia, during recent meetings between theDirector-General of Queensland Health andthe chief executive officer of the Mater publichospitals, the chief executive officer clearlystated that the Mater was not demandingadditional funds but that it was seeking aresponsible means of balancing its ownbudget.

With the very strong and much bettersupport—the much improved supportcompared with the record of membersopposite—that we are giving the Mater publichospitals, those hospitals will continue toprovide an excellent public service, as doesthe whole of the Queensland public hospitalsystem. We have an excellent public hospitalsystem in this State, as was confirmed recentlyby former Liberal Health Minister LlewEdwards.

Mr Cooper: You're having to dig deepnow, aren't you?

Mr W. K. GOSS: What sort of a slur isthat on Dr Edwards? Russell still hates allLiberals with a passion.

An Opposition member: Bring backthe Tories.

Mr W. K. GOSS: The honourablemember suggests that we should bring backthe Liberals to clean up the mess. I thoughtthat Llew Edwards was a pretty good HealthMinister. Obviously, the member does notshare that view and does not think that MrEdwards has a contribution to make.Obviously, the member does not believe inbipartisan support. He is into trying to scaremembers of the public and trying toundermine confidence in the public hospitalsystem.

Honourable members interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourablemembers, the level of interjections isunacceptable and I will not allow it to continue.

Mr W. K. GOSS: I conclude byendorsing the very competent way in whichthe Minister for Health has handled thismatter——

Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the

member for Lockyer under Standing Order123A.

Mr W. K. GOSS: —which is underlinedby the joint statement issued by Mr Elder andthe chairman of the Mater health service's

governing board, Mr Ryan. One section of thatstatement reads—

"The chairman of Mater Hospitals, MrKevin Ryan, said he appreciated thepriority attention given to the MaterHospital situation by the Minister."

I am sure that Mr Ryan appreciated also theextra funds on top of this Government's recordfinancial support for Mater Public Hospitals.

Public Hospital System

Mr BORBIDGE: I refer the Premier tothe crumbling public hospital system in thisState, highlighted by the planned, historicclosure of the Mater Children's Hospital andthe Mater Public Hospital for two weeks overEaster and two weeks in May. I ask: can thePremier assure the House that no other publichospitals in Queensland will close over thisperiod?

Mr W. K. GOSS: I can assure theHouse—and the Leader of the Opposition—that, as I have indicated, the Government willcontinue to provide record support for publichospitals in this State—in terms of both theMater hospital and public hospitals. However,the day-to-day management of hospitals andadherence to budget is a matter formanagers, not a matter for politicians.

Evatt Foundation Survey

Mr LIVINGSTONE: I refer theTreasurer——

Mr Elliott interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn themember for Cunningham under StandingOrder 123A. Honourable members are awarethat I will not allow interjections to be madewhile a question is being asked. The memberfor Cunningham is well and truly warned.

Mr LIVINGSTONE: I refer theTreasurer to the Evatt Foundation state ofAustralian Government survey, which ratesSouth Australia ahead of Queensland. I ask:can the Treasurer inform the House whetherthis is an accurate portrayal of Queensland'seconomic and social performance?

Mr De LACY: The Evatt Foundation hascome to the conclusion that South Australia isthe best-performing State in Australia.

Mr W. K. Goss: Who'd swap?

Mr De LACY: As the Premier said: whowould swap? In fact, if South Australia had notqualified to play in the Sheffield Shield final,


we would have hardly known that that Stateexisted!

As I said earlier this morning, I believethat the only way in which the foundationcould come to such a conclusion is if itsmembers spent all day in the Barossa Valleyand wrote the report that night. The EvattFoundation is one of those groups thatbelieves that, if taxes or debts are increased,that is good social policy. If that is how thefoundation measures good social policy, it isno wonder that it put Queensland at thebottom of the list.

I am disappointed most of all by the factthat the foundation used the CommonwealthGrants Commission for its basic statistics butthen deliberately misused those statistics. Thesurvey referred to social policy and stated thatQueensland is underfunding in relation to therest of Australia. To a certain extent, that isright, but where the foundation is wrong, andwhere it is dead wrong, is in the fact thatQueensland is increasing spending in socialareas at a much faster rate than the otherStates of Australia. The foundation does notgive credit where credit is due.

The Leader of the Opposition askedquestions this morning about health, and thePremier said that we are increasing funding inhealth at a very much faster rate——

Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr De LACY: It is in respect of the

Mater. Is the Leader of the Opposition sayingthat the Mater is not properly managed?

Mr Borbidge: No, we're saying theHealth Department isn't properly managed.

Mr De LACY: We are talking about theMater. Is the Leader of the Opposition sayingthat it is not properly managed? We havedone our job. We have increased funding by40 per cent. If the Leader of the Opposition issaying that it is not working, he is saying thatthe Mater is not managing it properly.

The Evatt Foundation measures goodsocial policy on inputs—the amount of moneythat is spent. In respect of health I will takefigures from the report by the CommonwealthGrants Commission brought down just acouple of weeks ago. In the past five years,Queensland has increased spending in percapita terms—so this is taking account of thefact that we have the fastest populationgrowth—by an average of 14 per cent perannum; Victoria by 2 per cent; WesternAustralia by minus 7 per cent; South Australia,which got top marks, by 7 per cent; and NewSouth Wales by 12 per cent—Queenslandfirst, daylight second. In respect of education,

again in per capita terms, Queensland had a34 per cent increase per annum. The nextbest was New South Wales with 24 per cent,followed by Western Australia with 19 per cent,South Australia with 18 per cent, Tasmaniawith 18 per cent and Victoria with 9 per cent.

In conclusion, allow me to refer to thebest measure of social performance, that is,the creation of jobs. If there is one thing that aGovernment can do for the people of its State,it is to create jobs. Since we have been inGovernment, 169,000 new jobs have beencreated in Queensland. In other words,two-thirds of all new jobs created in Australiaover the past five years have been created inQueensland. I rest my case. It does the EvattFoundation no credit at all to put together abodgie study which endeavours to prove theunprovable.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the memberfor Ipswich West to ask his second question.

Mr Borbidge interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have justwarned the member for Cunningham aboutinterjecting when a question is being asked.Now the Leader of the Opposition is doing thesame thing. I ask him to restrain himself.

Mr C. SkaseMr LIVINGSTONE: I refer the Minister

for Tourism, Sport and Racing to reports fromSpain that Christopher Skase is planning torelaunch his tourist business from the island ofMajorca. I ask: how does the Minister viewthese reports, and would any businessassociated with Mr Skase be welcome inQueensland's tourist industry?

Mr Veivers interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forSouthport!

Mr GIBBS: Whatever it is that Mr Skasehas been sniffing through the oxygen bottlesfor the past 18 months, the Oppositionobviously needs a healthy whiff of it. Look atthe difference it has made to Mr Skase!

In short, Mr Skase would not be welcomein Queensland, and neither would anybodyassociated with his businesses. The fact is thatMr Skase left a trail of debt in this State fromsmall to major investors through the Qintexorganisation. In addition, along with peoplesuch as Bond, Mr Skase did an incredibledisservice to the tourist industry in Queenslandin terms of casting doubt on financialinstitutions, which during the 1980s wereprepared to put money into tourismdevelopment and infrastructure. All


honourable members would be aware that ithas been very difficult to encourage financialinstitutions and superannuation funds backinto investing in the tourist industry, particularlyover the past six to eight years.

I can only reiterate what I have said. I canassure the House that Mr Skase is notwelcome here—although I am sure that hewould be very welcome on the basis of beinganswerable to his former shareholders—andany company which believes that it has somecontribution to make to this State's economyor to the tourist industry and which is in anyway associated with Skase is also notwelcome in Queensland.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time forquestions with or without notice has expired.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Annual Hospital ClosuresMr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—

Leader of the Opposition) (11 a.m.): Today,the Opposition calls on the Premier to findimmediately a small sum of money—a sumthat the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racingwould regard as mere petty cash—to preventthe impending closure of elective surgery atthe Mater Children's and the Mater publichospitals for a month. They will be closed fortwo weeks at Easter and two weeks in May.What a disgrace!

I am sure that there will soon beannouncements from other public hospitals inBrisbane in relation to what has become anannual ritual—an annual feature event—of theGoss health system, that is, annual closuresfor a number of weeks of all elective surgery.That is the Wayne Goss 45-week-a-year,hospital system.

For two reasons, the Mater is a particularlypoignant case in point in relation to thischronic onset of closures. Firstly, this will bethe first time in its proud history that anyelement of this magnificent hospital complexhas actually had to shut down services eventemporarily. Secondly, these closures come ontop of another set of problems for the hospitalin delivering the degree of service for which itis famous in a second major area, thanksagain to this Government's ongoing andmonumental mismanagement of the healthsystem. I refer, of course, to the recentdramas concerning the maternity section,where the hospital was forced into consideringcancelling the confinement of literallyhundreds of women because it simply did nothave the money to provide a bed for them inwhich to have their babies. Only after

protracted consideration did the Goss healthsystem manage to come up with a fewhundred thousand dollars to keep areasonable level of access to those services inplace.

It has to be stressed that the problems forthe Mater Mothers elements of the complexunder the Goss health system simply are notgoing to go away and are likely to steadilyworsen. That is because the problems whichthreatened the recent reductions inconfinements were linked to far more than thecut in allocation for the hospital from the 1994-95 Budget. They are to do, as is almosteverything, with the universal and chronicmismanagement of the entire Health portfolio,which has had a domino effect right across theentire public health system. I refer in particularto the loss of maternity beds which occurredwith the closure of maternity services at theQE II Hospital, which added massively to thepressures on the Mater's maternity facilities.That was a simple, clear lack of planning totake into account basic commonsense. If theGovernment lops off maternity services atQE II, then other hospitals providing maternityservices are going to come under increasingpressure and are going to need more, notless, funds to absorb that pressure. One doesnot need to be Einstein; a degree ofcommonsense is all that is needed. Did wesee that from the custodian of the Goss healthsystem this morning in this place? Again, no! Itwas nowhere to be seen.

The fact is that the mismanagement ofthe massive taxpayer investment in the healthsystem is now so chronically locked into aspiral of bureaucratic nonsense—and a lack ofcoordination under the leadership of WayneGoss—that, under this Government, theMater's hopes for reasonable funding are nowaccepted by it to be so forlorn that it is nowconsidering long-term constraints on maternityadmissions. Even for the final months of thisfinancial year, the hospital will provideconfinements only to women who are alreadybooked in.

So the problems in the maternity area areanything but temporary, and the same is trueof the surgical list. Exactly the same lack ofcommonsense applies to the evolution of thisproblem. On a declining budget under thisGovernment, it was expected to absorb theimpact of the loss of six operating theatresacross the city. In this place this morning, thestupid, foolish Treasurer hops up and seeks toblame the management of the Mater. He saidthat it had nothing to do with the Government;he accuses the Opposition of misrepresenting


the facts. Six theatres have been lost at thePA and at the RBH, and the Government isalleging that the Opposition is saying that thehospitals should not have to live within theirmeans. It is not the hospitals that are closingthe theatres, it is the Government.

Again, we have the situation where theMater Public and the Mater Children'sHospitals are supposed to deal with morepatients with less funding, and the Treasurerand the Premier say that it is nothing to dowith the Government. Again, it has been theMater's bid to meet that demand foisted uponit by the lack of planning and the dominoeffect of hospital budget cuts, not somealleged disrespect for the budget itself withinthe hospital, as implied by the Government,which has created the problem that the entireMater complex now faces.

So in that sense, the fate of the Mater isa microcosm of all that is wrong withQueensland Health under the Premier'salleged leadership, and in fact a fairmicrocosm of all that is wrong with the entireleadership of this State under the Premier.The ingredients are increasingly common andchronic. First, as we heard again this morning,take a fistful of dollars. Second, invent somefiction about how it is going to be spent. Third,distribute the fiction widely. Fourth, forgetabout the problem—walk away from it. That isthe story of the Goss Government. That isevidenced everywhere, in any portfolio onemay care to examine.

Today it is Health, but tomorrow we couldwrite the same speech about the PoliceService. There is a lot of money, pressreleases and rhetoric, but no police! The sameapplies to the Education Department and theDepartment of Environment and Heritage. Wehave national parks but no rangers. TheMater, the PA, the RBH, Prince CharlesHospital and the Maryborough BaseHospital—wherever one looks, it is exactly thesame story. There is lots of money but nomanagement, and when it goes wrong, as thePremier said in this place today, it is alwayssomeone else's fault. As he said, "It is nothingto do with me, it is a matter for management."What about his management? What aboutthe Queensland Health Minister'smanagement? Time and again we see thecommon ingredients. There is lots of moneybut poor management.

When it comes to Health, we see theultimate irony. The Government's logic is, asusual, so tortured. Allegedly, the healthsystem has not been destroyed by thisGovernment. This Government says that it

fixed up this dreadful mess that it inherited.The Government's argument is that it wasactually the coalition that wrecked the healthsystem. That is what we have been hearing forsix years. So what is the Government'sresponse? It appoints a former conservativeHealth Minister to fix it up. It takes one of themen from one of the parties that allegedlycreated the problem in the first place andgives him the up-front job. What a vote of no-confidence that is in the Director-General, DickPersson.

An Opposition member: And MrElder.

Mr BORBIDGE: I am coming to MrElder. What is Mr Persson doing in Healthfresh after giving Queensland the disaster ofHOME? What have all those legions of well-paid bureaucrats, spread through 13 TajMahals the length and breadth of the State,been doing that Sir Llew has had to come tothe rescue? What a vote of no-confidence inthis Minister, his Director-General and hisdepartment.

The challenge from this side of the Houseis for the Government to actually find a verysmall amount of money and do somethinggenuinely constructive with it. For this mobopposite, that would be a novel experience.The Government should find some moneyand fix something. It should avoid the shut-down. The Premier should stop trading publicrelations stunts for leadership. It is hisGovernment that redesigned QueenslandHealth. It is Wayne Goss' health system andhis health crisis. It is his creation. He cansprout about how much extra money he isputting into the Mater and the Mater Children'sHospital; that is not the issue. During thelifetime of the previous coalition Government,the Mater Children's was never closed atEaster. It has never been closed before. It isnot a question of money, it is a question ofmanagement.

Government members should rememberthat, back in 1988, Bob Hawke commissionedthe Economic Planning Advisory Council tocarry out an assessment of the standard ofhealth care across Australia. That EPAC reportto Bob Hawke said, "Yes, the QueenslandNational Party Government is spendingconsiderably less than the national average onhealth." However, in terms of primary patientcare and service delivery, the council rated theQueensland public health system in this Stateas equal to or better than that being providedanywhere else in Australia.

Government members interjected.


Mr BORBIDGE: Government memberscannot argue with EPAC or Bob Hawke.

Time expired.

Police Resources

Mr ROBERTSON (Sunnybank)(11.10 a.m.): Following that speech of fiction, Iintend to inform the House of the facts aboutpolice resources in Queensland. Nobody coulddeny that law and order rank among the mostimportant issues in the world today. Equally,nobody could deny that this is not aQueensland phenomenon; it is a worldwidephenomenon. There are countless theories toexplain why criminal behaviour has beenflourishing, and there are many hypothesesabout the ways to counter the problem. Butone thing that is certain is that there is a needto get more police out and about. When policeare visible in the community, they serve thedual purpose of providing a deterrent to someand, for those who are not deterred, a quickresponse when needed. The Goss LaborGovernment has been very successful in both.Not only have we seen an increase in ourcrime clear-up rates, but our police are alsocatching more offenders in the act ofcommitting crimes. There is absolutely nodoubt that the Goss Government takes lawand order very seriously and has boosted theQueensland Police Service in response to theproblem.

Contrary to the claims made by theOpposition, the Goss Labor Government hasconfronted the law and order problem and istaking positive steps to address it. Todemonstrate that point, the first fact toconsider is that the Queensland populationhas increased by 11 per cent since the GossLabor Government was first elected in 1989.Since 1989, the number of police officers inQueensland has increased by 18 per cent.More importantly, the number of operationalpolice officers—that is, the police who arevisible in the community, as opposed to beinghidden away behind desks in office buildings—has increased by 35 per cent. That gives us a35 per cent increase in real policing strength,while the population has increased by 11 percent. Put another way: 78 per cent of the totalpolice force of 5,282 officers in 1989 were onoperational duties; today, more than 89 percent of 6,224 police officers are on operationalduties. So there are more police overall, andmore of them are doing the kind of work thatmatters to most Queenslanders. Statewide,there are now 1,500 more police carrying outoperational duties than there were in 1989.

In order to get more police officers outfrom behind their desks and onto the streetsand highways of Queensland we haveincreased by 50 per cent the number ofcivilians employed by the Queensland PoliceService. The additional civilian staff are freeingup police officers to devote their time tofighting crime. That is the pattern across theState. Of course, police numbers in someregions have increased more than in others,and the reason is very simple. Generally, theyreflect the fluctuations in local populationnumbers. In situations in which there arespecial circumstances, these have been takeninto account when establishing police numbersfor the districts.

A sampling of some of the increases inpolice numbers around the State includes: a51 per cent increase on the Gold Coast; a 43per cent increase on the Sunshine Coast; a 27per cent increase in Cairns; a 36 per centincrease in Ipswich; a 34 per cent increase inMareeba; a 30 per cent increase inToowoomba; a 27 per cent increase inMaryborough; and police numbers have morethan doubled at the police stations that servicethe Sunnybank electorate.

Funding for police work in the variouspolice districts around the State has increasedby a range of 12 per cent to 78 per cent since1989. The total budget for the QueenslandPolice Service has increased by 70 per cent,from $295m in 1989 to $503m in 1994-95. Inother words, the Goss Labor Government isspending $208m a year more on policing thanthe National Party spent when it was last inGovernment. What is particularly important tonote is that we are not just putting additionalresources into the Police Service; we aremaking much better use of the resourcesallocated in the Police budget. One of theinitiatives we have introduced is an on-linecomputer system called the Crime ReportingInformation System for Police, or CRISP,which was successfully trialled last year inareas including Sunnybank. That computersystem has effectively put 400 more officerson the street by replacing the amount ofpaperwork involved in advising police aroundthe State about the details of police activitywhich may affect their districts.

These days we hear a lot of criticism fromthe Opposition about police numbers. Butunlike the hysterical statements of theOpposition, the information that I haveprovided today is the true picture. Let me addto that picture the fact that, in the OppositionPolice spokesperson's own electorate of CrowsNest, the Goss Government has provided 40


per cent more funding for police work and 41per cent more police officers than his formerNational Party Government provided. In theSurfers Paradise electorate of the OppositionLeader, Mr Borbidge—and unfortunately hehas left the Chamber, so he will not hear thisparticular fact——

Mr Beattie: He doesn't want to hear it,anyway.

Mr ROBERTSON: Mr Beattie is quiteright; the Opposition Leader does not want tohear the truth. In his own electorate, fundingfor policing has increased by 60 per cent, andpolice numbers have increased by more than50 per cent since 1989.

Mr Bennett: And he whinges.

Mr ROBERTSON: And the OppositionLeader has the hide to whinge.

With those facts about police numbers inmind, it is worth recalling this—

"As I see it, it is not the job ofmembers of Parliament to make loudnoise in the media about a possibleshortage of police when so much can beachieved by quiet and constructive workbehind the scenes."

Who said that? It may surprise those peoplewho have heard him carrying on about policenumbers as if it were his favourite subject thatthis was the view expressed in this House bythe Leader of the Opposition when he was inGovernment in 1981. It does not surprise me,because I have grown accustomed to hiscapacity to hitch a ride on any bandwagon; itis one of his most endearing qualities. But itmay surprise some people who thought hewas sincere in 1981. What was it that theNational Party Leader said again? He said—

"As I see it, it is not the job ofmembers of Parliament to make loudnoise in the media about a possibleshortage of police when so much can beachieved by quiet and constructive workbehind the scenes."

Now look who is making the loud noises!

Mr Johnson: Because there is ashortage.

Mr ROBERTSON: Mr Johnson clearlywas not listening when I talked about a 50 percent increase in police numbers in theelectorate of the Leader of the Opposition. MrBorbidge never made a sound about the lackof adequate police numbers on the coastwhen he was in Government; but almost assoon as he found himself in Opposition he

started whingeing about a chronic shortage ofGold Coast police. The empty vessel makingthe most noise is a tag worn with distinction bythat honourable member.

The Goss Government has not onlyincreased police numbers on the Gold Coastby 50 per cent, we have also provided a newGold Coast district headquarters, which islocated at Surfers Paradise, upgradedcommunications equipment at Broadbeachand introduced Police Beat shopfronts in theCavill Mall and Australia Fair in Southport.

At this juncture it is worth informing theHouse about another duplicitous statementmade by another party leader in this House,namely, the Liberal Party Leader, MrsSheldon. Over the past couple of months,there has been a virtual parade—dare I say"circus troupe"—of Liberal Partyspokespersons whingeing their way throughmy electorate of Sunnybank making the dogsbark and scaring the children. Their favouritetopic seems to be to knock the announcementof a police shopfront soon to be opened atSunnybank Plaza. I would have thought thatany initiative to increase the police presence inSunnybank would have been welcomed bythe Liberals; but no. In their desperate andtawdry attempts to win votes, they havewhinged and whined about this worthwhileinitiative. Clearly, the Liberals do not supportpolice shopfronts, or do they?

In the absence of any announced policiesby the coalition, we can only go by what therespective party leaders say on any particularissue. What has Mrs Sheldon, the LiberalParty Leader, had to say about policeshopfronts? Recently, on a visit to the southcoast, that media junkie from Caloundra couldnot help herself and let the cat out of the bag.On the John Miller radio program on 2 Marchthis year, the Liberal Leader was asked whatadditional police resources were needed, inher opinion. What was her reply? "Theyneeded a shopfront presence." There it is; theLiberal Leader's endorsement of the GossGovernment's Police Beat shopfront program.The only question that remains is why theLiberals think that a police shopfront is such agood idea on the south coast but not inSunnybank. Perhaps it is just another exampleof the dishonest electioneering tactics that wehave come to expect from the Liberal Party. Ihope that if the Liberal Party Leader wants herparty to be seen as a credible alternative tothe Goss Government, she will immediatelycontact the Liberals' candidate in Sunnybank.

Time expired.


New Tax Burden on Home Buyers andBuilders

Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Leader ofthe Liberal Party) (11.20 a.m.): For some timethe Opposition has warned the LaborGovernment that it is losing sight of theeconomic fundamentals in Queensland. Laborpolicies are focused not on the needs ofbusiness and industry or the needs of thecommunity in general. The Labor Party inQueensland is not about catering for theneeds of this State. It is about usingQueensland resources to cement itself inpower. It is about using the wealth of thisState to cultivate its own political patronage. Itis a Labor Government of the old school—atax-and-spend Government that usesbackdoor methods to burden the community.It redistributes those funds according to apolitical agenda designed to curry favour forthe Labor Party and to serve its interestsabove all others.

Those are not the priorities that built thisState. Our State Government shouldappreciate more than most the importance ofsmall business and a strong and vibranthousing sector here in the Sunshine State.Across Queensland, the housing sector, alongwith private sector spending, contributes thelion's share of growth to our gross Stateproduct. Their only rival is in-housebureaucratic activity, of which too much isdirected at traditional red tape and politicalactivity and too little which contributes to thepublic good.

Years ago, Australia was said to ride onthe sheep's back. Today, Queensland rides onthe back of the building industry. Yet in thelate 1990s, the Goss Government treatsbuilders, subbies and home buyers like sheep.Sure, Mr Speaker, if you were a subbie, youwould not have four legs but, according toyour Treasurer, you could live on nothing andevery year Treasurer De Lacy and his bosscocky in Canberra would fleece you for everycent they could get their hands on.

The building game in Queensland cameof age many years ago. Of all AustralianStates, our building industry is unique in thatfor more than a decade it has been driven bystrong interstate migration. In its privilegedposition, with the good fortune of having athousand new clients coming across theborder every week, the Queensland housingindustry, which flourished under previousconservative Governments, should besteaming ahead. Yet, under Labor, it istreated as merely another source of StateGovernment revenue, and it is suffering.

The latest Goss Government impost is theintroduction of grossly inflated charges onevery new housing estate—charges that are tobe passed on to home buyers through asavage increase in the price of each lot. Thefirst of these charges is now on trial aroundCairns. It is the so-called transportinfrastructure levy. It will be followed by newlevies on house blocks for schools, policestations and dozens of other services that arethe responsibility of the State.

The transport infrastructure levy is addingup to $12,000 to the cost of housingallotments in Cairns. It is to be spreadStatewide and the consequences will behigher home prices, especially for first homebuyers, more building industry bankruptcies,and unemployment.

Those consequences should be of vitalconcern to the Treasurer and his mates, butthey are not. In this case, Mr De Lacy isrevelling in the misery of home builders andbuyers because he will have succeeded in yetanother move to keep tax increases hiddenfrom the public. The levies are a huge slap inthe face for home buyers and the buildingindustry. Already both are reeling from theimpact of higher interest rates. If I turn toSaturday's Cairns Post, I find a warning to far-northern builders from the Housing IndustryAssociation. Its Cairns manager, Geoff Smith,stated in an article in the Cairns Post that theycould "severely mark down their salesexpectations and job hiring plans." In thearticle, Mr Smith further states—

"Cairns has been leading thepercentage increases in buildingapprovals in the State quarter by quarter,but we've finally hit a wall."

What a coincidence that the wall shouldappear in the wake of interest rate risesintroduced by Labor Prime Minister Keatingand new development levies imposed byTreasurer De Lacy, the member for Cairns.

Do not take my word for it, Mr Speaker.There are plenty of others around Cairns whohave seen the impact of this new levy and areconcerned about the consequences. The newMayor of Cairns, Tom Pyne, also had his sayin the Cairns Post on Tuesday. The articlestated—

"I am quite concerned that this doeshave a big impact on the price of housingand blocks of land in this area. I will bevery concerned about the level of costsimposed on development because in lotsof cases, first home buyers bear thesecosts."


He supported exactly what I said, and hesupported it publicly in the press.

This is a selfish, short-sighted grab forcash by Treasurer De Lacy. It strikes at thevery heart of the Queensland economy. Ourhousing sector is in a slump, but the Treasurerwants it on its knees. The article in the CairnsPost stated—

"Only one in four builders reportedcurrent sales at higher levels than sixmonths earlier, while sales had fallen for42% of tradesmen."

The article continued—

"Sales were expected to fall acrossall sectors of new home building with 35%of multi-unit builders and 30% of buildersin the first home market looking atreduced sales.

By contrast, Queensland buildershad a gloomy view of their salesprospects with nearly half anticipatingfewer sales in the next six months. On thejobs front, about four in 10 builders inQueensland and WA intended to lay offpeople in the next six months."

Mr De Lacy stood in this House today crowingabout his great supposed record of findingjobs. Yet he is going to lose a massivenumber of jobs by not supporting the buildersand subbies and first home buyers in thisState, and he does not care.

Against this dismal background, Mr DeLacy has launched a scheme to takethousands of dollars from the pockets of everyyoung family trying to establish a home in newestates from Gordonvale to the Marlin Coastand all over Queensland when this project isput in place. Soon, under the guise ofinfrastructure payments, he will have his handin the pockets of almost every new homebuyer in the State. He has authorised thoserecessive charges on the grounds that they willpay for massive new roadworks, as grandiosein size and scale as they are ugly and ofquestionable worth.

Up on the Marlin Coast at PoolwoodRoad, the so-called transport infrastructurecost is adding up to $8,000 to the cost ofallotments a stone's throw from where earlierdevelopments paid a maximum of $350 a lotin headworks. We have not heard one wordfrom the member for Barron River, LesleyClark, against this move by the Treasurer totax the ordinary Queenslander and people inher electorate to the level of $8,000 to$12,000 a block. She obviously does not careand certainly does not care about first homebuilders.

I have been given copies of the StateGovernment's plans for LA-style flyovers androundabouts, not paid for by vehicleregistration or other associated charges, butbuilt into the cost of every new housing blockin the far-north region. Across Cairns and thesurrounding areas the figures vary, but, withprices already through the roof, the impact isdevastating. Buyers will pay an extra $1,500 alot in the Redhill to Edmonton corridor, $5,000a lot around Gordonvale, $12,000 a lot in theGoldsborough Valley area, $4,500 a lot inRedlynch Valley and between $6,000 and$8,000 on the Marlin Coast. New child-carecentres around Cairns have been required tocontribute $40,000, while other commercialand light industrial developments have had topay in excess of $100,000. So this new taxextends beyond housing to strike at smallbusiness and business investment in generaland, of course, hits at jobs.

That such a policy would be considered inQueensland shows how far Labor has strayedfrom the path of economic responsibility.Treasurer De Lacy will have the joy of filling theState Government money bin with theproceeds, but the only person cheering him onwill be his mentor as Treasurer, Prime MinisterKeating. The prospect of a slump in thehousing industry has brought a smile to theface of the Prime Minister. In the Cairns Poston Friday, he was crowing about how a"declining trend" in the housing sector wasproof that the national economy was slowing.He must be over the moon with theperformance of Treasurer De Lacy. He mustbe ringing the Goss Government tocongratulate them. Here they are in the Statemost dependent on housing and they givetheir loyalty not to young Queensland firsthome buyers but to the Prime Minister. Theyare working to help Mr Keating's desperateattempts to fix the national economy bysacrificing the Queensland economy.

The best one can say for Mr De Lacy isthat he does have a guilty conscience. He willnot own up to his actions by applying the levydirectly. In Cairns and elsewhere throughoutthis State, the levies will be applied by localauthorities whose hands will be tied. They willbe obliged to pass on the Government'sbackdoor taxes or pay the difference out oftheir own pockets. In very little time, thisdisgusting scheme will cripple the State'svibrant housing sector at a time when it ismost vulnerable. To the tens of thousands ofbuilders, subbies and suppliers acrossQueensland this scheme is poison, introducedby a Government that cares nought for theconsequences, apart from the short-term


impact on its own coffers. It is a great worry tosee Labor turn against the industry thatcontributes to so many jobs and opportunitiesin Queensland.

On many occasions Treasurer De Lacyhas begrudgingly acknowledged that,compared to other State economies,Queensland's is especially reliant on thehousing sector. He has said that our relianceon housing will decrease, but until nowQueenslanders have expected the change tooccur through added growth elsewhere, notthrough Government-induced cuts to housing.In the December quarter, housing starts inQueensland dropped 7.8 per cent, comparedwith drops of 5.8 per cent in South Australiaand 4 per cent in Western Australia. Thenumber of housing starts increased by 1.8 percent in Victoria and 4 per cent in Tasmania.

More than one in four young people inQueensland are out of work, yet the StateGovernment is resigned to massive cutbacks,as well as bankruptcies and lay-offs in thehousing sector. This new State-imposedburden will simply accelerate the trend.

For the past three years, Queensland hasreaped a huge windfall in stamp duty andother collections because of the housingboom. It did so because it physically increasedthe burden of stamp duty to maximise itsreturn. If we compare these last three yearswith the previous three, we find stamp dutyrevenue rose from $2.13 billion between 1989and 1992 to $2.64 billion between 1992 and1995. That is an increase of $506.2m or 23.7per cent. The Government should be thinkingabout reinvesting that money for the good ofthe economy and for the good ofQueenslanders. The cash should be put towork to build stability in the industry and for thethousands of Queenslanders still looking for ajob.

Time expired.

Health

Mr DOLLIN (Maryborough) (11.30 a.m.):When discussing health matters, one oftenhears Opposition members, and in particularthe member for Toowoomba North andshadow Minister for Health, Mike Horan—anice enough chap but terribly misguided andmisled——

Opposition members interjected.

Mr DOLLIN: The member forToowoomba South. He has been terriblymisguided and misled by the AMA. It is agreat pity that Mr Horan is not present in the

House. The member makes statements suchas, "The once great Queensland healthsystem." What a furphy!

All honourable members will be familiarwith the shocking revelations that came out ofthe Townsville Ward 10B inquiry. The shockingtreatment that was handed out to patients atthe Maryborough Base Hospital, in particularthe residents of the Wahroonga NursingHome, was equally bad. One would expect toread about such happenings in one of Hitler'sconcentration camps. Upon my election toParliament in 1989, I was inundated by peopleinforming me of the terrible goings-on at thenursing home. I found many of theaccusations hard to believe but they were sopersistent that I asked the then HealthMinister, the Honourable Ken McElligott, for aninvestigation. The then Minister ordered areport into the operations of the WahroongaNursing Home, which was subsequently tabledin this House on 10 November 1992.

I now ask honourable members toprepare themselves to be shocked when theyhear these allegations. Some were proven tobe correct; others were not. The complaintscovered a wide spectrum of treatment rangingfrom cold showers and delays in the provisionof medical aid to callous, vicious treatment ofinmates. I will outline the details of thecomplaints in the form in which they werehanded to me. Firstly, sick patients atWahroonga Nursing Home have to wait up totwo days before a doctor can see them.Sisters tell patients that there is only onedoctor to go around and, "You can die for all Icare." A gentleman whose mother is 91 andcurrently resides in the home feared that if heidentified himself, his mother would bevictimised further. He did not visit her for 10days and when he did visit her, he found thather eyeglasses were so dirty that she couldnot see out of them. The nurses did not cleanher teeth or brush her hair.

Secondly, relatives complain of old, lazystaff. Patients are propped up in bed and inchairs. Numerous people have complainedabout seeing patients falling out of chairs andnot being picked up for some hours, despitewitnesses approaching the staff andrequesting assistance. One lady informed usthat when she approached the staff, who werebusy playing cards, she was told to "piss off".Almost all complaints involve bumps, bruisesand cuts on patients as a result of roughhandling.

Thirdly, staff who were employed at thenursing home have claimed that they have leftbecause they could not instigate any changes


to the place. They claim that patients werestripped in their rooms and, totally naked, werewheeled in their chairs down corridors toshowers. They were then showered and, stillnaked, brought back to their rooms anddressed again.

Fourthly, relatives claim that they visit theirfamilies at meal times so that they can propthem up to eat. Otherwise, the patients are leftflat on their backs and there is no physical waythey can eat. They are then viciously growledat by staff when they do not eat their meals.Fifthly, no-one cut up any meals for thepatients. If they were incapable of cutting uptheir own food, most of them did not eat.

In the sixth instance, almost all callers,including staff, told of people being given coldshowers if they wet the bed. It was claimedwidely that buzzers were put out of the reachof patients. Hence they soiled themselves.When staff discovered what had happened—often hours later—patients were yelled at andgiven cold showers. Others claimed thatpatients who had false teeth had themremoved as punishment if they were naughty.That made eating difficult for them. Peoplewitnessed patients ringing buzzers for literallyhours before they received attention.

In the seventh instance, one person whowent to visit her mother found her missingfrom her bed. Upon reporting this to the staffthey said, "She'll come back, the silly oldbitch." The daughter then spent one and ahalf hours looking for her mother and was onthe verge of reporting her missing to policewhen she found her on the road at the bottomof the grounds. She was very distressed.

In the eighth instance, many callers havebeen concerned about the financial affairs ofthe patients. They claim that, in some cases,the hospital takes all of the patient's pension.Recently, the increase in pensions was takenup in full by the hospital. Others say that theyreceived a few dollars a week from theirpension.

A previous staff member, who is sendingwritten evidence, claims an account called anaccrued patients amenities fund, which wassupposed to be used expressly for the benefitof the patients, was a slush fund for thehospital and/or the board. The staff memberclaimed that, although the home did buy abus for the patients, when that staff memberleft, there was in excess of $200,000 in thefund.

In the tenth instance, patients within daysof death are being forced to feed, shower andcare for themselves.

I wish to inform honourable members thatthe great majority of the nursing staff of thehome were caring and professional, but themanagement was slack, non-caring andperhaps even lazy. The board was stackedwith National Party members, as was themanagement. I was told by several relatives ofpatients that when they complained to theNational Party member for Maryborough atthat time about their concerns, he would reply,"If you believe the care is not up to standard,take them home." That had the effect ofshutting them up.

Mr Ardill: It's not the only place wherethis is happening.

Mr DOLLIN: It is not the only place. Icould go on about that nursing home, but Iturn now to the Lady Musgrave MaternityHospital. This is the great hospital system thatOpposition members skite about! I refer to anarticle about gynaecologist Dr Stokes thatappeared in the Maryborough-Hervey BayChronicle just prior to the election in 1989. Itstates—

"Conditions at Maryborough's LadyMusgrave Maternity Hospital are so graveand facilities so inadequate that patients'lives are at risk, according to a cityobstetrician and gynaecologist.

The doctor's concern was seriousenough for him to withdraw his servicesuntil the situation improved andemergency operating facilities were madeavailable.

In the doctor's opinion, all that wasrequired to open a temporary emergencyfacility was the provision of surgery gowns,surgical instruments and the corridoraround the emergency theatre clear ofclutter.

. . .

For the past fourteen months, if apatient needed an emergency caesareansection at Lady Musgrave, an ambulanceis called, the ambulance then has to driveto Lady Musgrave, the patient has to betransferred from the bed to a trolley,loaded into the ambulance, driven to themain hospital, transferred to another bed,carried up a flight of stairs, into theelevator and up to the main operatingtheatre.

The doctor was angry that he hadbeen forced into taking the action he had.

. . .

My major concern is that both thefoetus' and the mothers' lives are put at


unacceptable risk. Complications such asa prolapsed umbilical cord, a severeabruption, placenta parevia or foetaldistress may arise suddenly and undersuch circumstances, maternal transfer isunacceptably hazardous.

The doctor said that before he cameto Maryborough about two years agoLady Musgrave had been managing foryears with an operating theatre at the endof a corridor. He said there were severalproblems: A hole in the roof throughwhich insects flew during a caesareansection operation, congested workingarea which restricted anaestheticsupervision and paediatric resuscitation,complete absence of a clean area aroundthe operating room and inadequatelyorganised storage for drugs andinstruments."

In contrast, in the time remaining to me, Iwould like to outline briefly what thisGovernment has done in Maryborough since itcame to office. Opposition members may beable to make a comparison between thesloppy system that existed under theirGovernment and what we have now. StateCabinet has approved a regional health capitalworks package of about $60m for Wide Bay,including the redevelopment of theMaryborough Hospital area; a new 130-bedHervey Bay Hospital at an estimated cost of$30m; the redevelopment of BundabergHospital, at an estimated cost of $18m; theredevelopment of Maryborough Hospital, at anestimated cost of $6m; and the establishmentof the Wide Bay hospitals group laundry atMaryborough at an estimated cost of $4m.The services offered at the new Hervey BayHospital will address the projected needs ofthe expanding Hervey Bay community andcomplement the services provided at theredeveloped Maryborough Hospital.

The anticipated commissioning date forHervey Bay's new hospital is mid 1997. Theredevelopment planned for Maryborough willenable the hospital to provide a broader rangeof specialist services at higher levels and willinclude the development of a regional acuterehabilitation service. The details of exactlywhich services are involved will be finalised inconjunction with the final planning of the newHervey Bay Hospital.

I think the report into the WahroongaNursing Home would be the most damningthing honourable members would ever read. Icould go on like Blue Hills; the report is 58pages long and contains cases of neglectsimilar to the ones to which I have referred.

The Nationals should be like Tom Dooley; theyshould hang their heads and cry in shame.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (MrPalaszczuk): Order! Before I call thehonourable member for Western Downs, Ipoint out to the honourable member forMaryborough and other members in thisHouse that the honourable member used twoterms that the Chair considers to beunparliamentary. I ask the honourablemember to withdraw.

Mr DOLLIN: I quoted exactly from thereport.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It doesnot matter whether the honourable memberquoted from a report.

Mr DOLLIN: How am I to quote from thereport?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I haveasked the honourable member to withdraw.

Mr DOLLIN: I withdraw.

Intervention in Fire Services byMinister for Emergency Services

Mr LITTLEPROUD (Western Downs)(11.41 a.m.): Today, I want to talk about anoverzealous Minister and allegations of a hugebungle by the Queensland Fire Service.Bureaucratic bungles are becoming socommon in the Goss Government that theyare now a feature of that administration.These two issues fall into that category.

The first issue that I raise today involvesthe Deputy Premier and his role as Minister forEmergency Services. Mr Burns oversteppedhis role and ignored his own Act. He showedscant knowledge of correct departmentalprocedures and trod all over the authority ofan officer of the QFS. Let me elaborate.

On 9 February 1995, Mr P. Stafford ofWynnum West wrote to his local member, theHonourable Tom Burns, whom he knew to bethe Minister for Emergency Services. MrStafford complained about smoke comingfrom timber being burnt on a nearby property.It appears that bulldozed timber had beenplaced in a pit and then burnt. Mr Staffordcomplained that the correct procedures forsuch a burn had not been followed.

As any good local member would, MrBurns wanted to help, and he promised tointervene. Firstly, he found that the applicationform for a permit to burn under the FireService Act 1990—his Act—needed to beredesigned completely. That is fair enough. Asthe Minister, he has the right to order the


design of new forms. He can change theregulations and amend the Act; he is theMinister.

Mr Beattie: There is nothing wrong withthat.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: No, wait. Mr Burnswrote to Mr Stafford on 17 February 1995 andadvised him of his intentions. He went on tosay that he told the fire officers at Wynnumthat they were not to issue another permitwithout first talking to him. This is where MrBurns acted in an overzealous manner. Inparticular, the words "without first talking tome" are the words that led Mr Burns to createa minefield.

Are honourable members to take it fromthat that any fire warden anywhere inQueensland when issuing a permit to burnmust first seek the Minister's permission? Willa fire warden at Boulia, Muckadilla or WoopWoop ring Tom every time he wants to issue apermit? That is what Tom was indicating. TheAct and regulation do not specify thatprocedure.


Mr LITTLEPROUD: It is hurting. All ofthis information came from the office of agood Labor Party member.

The Act allows the Fire Commissioner tooverrule a warden, but certainly not theMinister. I think Tom—the local member—wasthrowing his weight around! In fact, I haveproof of it. On the same day, 17 February1995, Mr Burns rang the fire station atWynnum West and gave an officer a realserve. I have in my possession a QFSmemorandum from Senior Station Officer NoelSmith dated 17 February 1995, which states—

"Subject: Phone call to Wynnum FireStation by the Minister.

Sir, I wish to advise I received aphone call at Wynnum Fire Station atabout 0815 hours this morning. Onanswering the phone I was speaking tothe Minister Mr Tom Burns.

He told me that several complaintshad been received in relation to a permitissued for a pit burn at 120 CrawfordRoad Wynnum West.

I advised him that the conditions ofthe permit were satisfactory and he toldme the permit should be revoked."

The Minister does not have any right to saythat such a permit should be revoked. Theletter continues—

"I told him that the burn wascompleted last week. Mr Burns stated thatany one wanting a burn off permit mustbe approved by him."

The letter continued. In that statement, itshould be noted that officer Noel Smithinsisted that the conditions of the permit weremet satisfactorily. In spite of this, Mr Burnsinsisted that the permit should be revoked."Too late", Mr Smith lamented, "It wascompleted last week." The overzealousMinister came in over the top, yet it was toolate to help.

I make this point: Mr Burns acted quiteimproperly in interfering in this issue in the wayhe did. He showed scant regard for the properprocedures, and was just plain bullying anofficer of the QFS. The firefighters of the QFSwere not impressed. I now quote an openletter that officers wrote to the Minister, whichstated—

"Tom you are a likeable old bloke butyour handling of the 'Burn Off' issue hasleft your credibility in tatters. At the veryleast you owe your loyal Fire Officers anapology. If you have again been misleadby your 'little mate', then be man enoughto see the fault and clean out the 'ratsnest' at Forbes House."An Opposition member interjected.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: It is not bad stuff atall.

The second issue that I raise is better. Itinvolves the Commissioner, Mr Geoff Skerritt.Some weeks ago, an article appeared in theCourier-Mail headed "State's new fire trucksfail to measure up". In that article the QFSCommissioner, Geoff Skerritt, admitted thatthere had been "crossed wires" onspecifications for tankers ordered by the QFSfrom Victoria. The article went on to admit thata pool of Victorian-built tankers worth almost$1m had been grounded in Brisbane whenthe Department of Transport refused to givethem clearance for road use. In this article, MrSkerritt claimed that only five of an order of 17trucks did not comply and neededmodification.

He is reported as saying also that it wouldcost only $5,000 per vehicle to modify them.On first impressions, one would admire thehonesty of the commissioner. However, I mustadmit that at the time I wondered whether hewas taking the rap for his Minister. After all, thebuck stops at the top. But then again, if it isbad news, if it would reflect badly on Mr Burns,why not have someone else cop the blame?


Maybe that was the reason that thecommissioner made this small admission.

Since that article appeared, seriousallegations have been made by the editors ofthe publication CODE=INE. That publicationstated—

"The Queensland purchase of thestandard Victorian, Country Fire Authoritypumper/tanker was complicated by theofficer responsible, AssistantCommissioner Stan Harrison, insisting ona severe alteration to the standard CFAdesign. The standard CFA model, whichhas been proven in service over some tenyears in that State, is based on an Isuzutruck body and chassis which is thenassembled as a standard rural/urban fireengine. In extending the contract, Skerrittand Harrison had made a mysterious'arrangement' with Mitsubishi to supplythe chassis for the appliances. Thus itevolved that against wise counsel to thecontrary from the CFA designers, theQueensland version was at Harrison andSkerritt's direction, to consist of aMitsubishi chassis to which was added ANISUZU BODY! The consequence of theunlikely mating, was that the all upappliance was too heavy because thebody and the chassis loadings were NOTTHE SAME! So much for the attempt toblame the CFA with the 'crossed wires'and 'paper work bungle' story!"

That was the story reported in the Courier-Mail.The article continued—

"Apparently, the most economicalsolution which could be found in order torectify the 'Mitsu/Suzu' fiasco was thepurchase of new Mitsubishi bodies to fitthe Harrison ordered Mitsubishi chassis.Accordingly, new Isuzu chassis would bebought to mate the original order of Isuzubodies. Each of the replacement bodieswill cost $40,000 and the replacementchassis $30,000."

That is a long way from the $5,000 admittedto in the Courier-Mail. That is a veryconvenient admission to take the heat off.These are very serious allegations from peoplein the know in the Fire Service.

Mr Beattie: It's very serious.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: My word it is.These are serious allegations. They are soserious that it is imperative that theHonourable Tom Burns respond and table thedocuments relating to the purchase of thesevehicles, the replacement bodies, the real costof this bungle and the waste of public money.

It is imperative that he reveal whetherdisciplinary action has been taken.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: It's so serious thatyou don't have the facts.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I heard anhonourable member say that I do not havethe facts. Interestingly, the publicationCODE=INE, which I seek to table, is closelyassociated with the United Firefighters Union,which has been associated closely with theGovernment on many occasions. The word isthat the publication is printed in the office of alocal Labor member. I seek leave to tablethose documents. However, before I do, I willrefer to them further. The documents refer tocertain vehicles that could not be put on theroad because they did not comply with weightlimits. This was around the time of the badfires on the north coast, on Stradbroke Islandand in the southern parts of Queensland.Despite the fact that they did not haveapproval from the Minister for Transport, thosevehicles were deployed to fight those firesbecause things were so desperate. Thosevehicles were found to be dangerous. In acouple of cases, the people driving themexperienced real problems and as a resultthey were recalled. However, in the articlewhich appeared in the Courier-Mail, thecommissioner claimed that the muck-up overthe "crossed wires", the delay in having thevehicles put on the road and their having to bemodified did not really interfere with thefirefighting capabilities of the Queensland FireService. What a lot of rot!

I reiterate that the Honourable TomBurns, the Minister for Emergency Services,has to meet his responsibilities. He has anobligation to inform Parliament of exactly whatoccurred over the purchase and modificationof these vehicles, who was responsible andwhat has been done about it.

Mater Hospital

Hon J. P. ELDER (Capalaba—Ministerfor Health) (11.50 a.m.): I feel that it isimportant to respond on the record to thescaremongering drivel that we heard earlierfrom the Leader of the Opposition about theMater Hospital. The tactics adopted by theLeader of the Opposition were typical of thosethat have been adopted by the Opposition onhealth issues for some time, that is, the politicsof fear. On health issues, members oppositehave been employing scaremongering tacticsfor some time now. We have seen thosetactics adopted regularly by the member forToowoomba South and again today by the


Leader of the Opposition with his preparedtext.

The simple fact is that the Mater Hospitalhas increased its services in a whole range ofareas, including day-surgery services. TheMater offers a first-class service in many fields.At times, the hospital has difficulty managingthe demand for its services. I will not standback and whinge. From the first day that I tookover the Health portfolio, I stated that I amprepared to get in and solve problems. At theend of the day, I have been successful indoing so, and that is what irks membersopposite. I successfully resolved a problemthat the Mater Hospital was experiencing withthe demand for its services.

Today, we saw only the third policystatement to be enunciated so far by theOpposition. From the comments made by theLeader of the Opposition, it is obvious that theOpposition intends to take over the Materbecause it is not happy with its management. Ido not manage the Mater Hospital, andneither does Queensland Health. The MaterHospital manages its own affairs. This year,the Government has provided the hospital withfunding to the tune of $120m. This morningthe Leader of the Opposition stated that,because I sat down with management andresolved certain difficulties and those extrafunds were provided, the Mater cannotmanage its budget.

The outrageous claim that the MaterChildren's Hospital will be closed this year overEaster for the first time in history is factuallywrong. If members opposite would wake up,they would realise that over holiday periods,because of a lower demand for its services,the Mater Children's Hospital has from time totime scaled down its operations. This year isno exception. Quite simply, all that will occur isthat elective surgery will be wound back overEaster. That is a practice that occurs inhospitals right across the State——

Mr T. B. Sullivan: That happens allaround the place.

Mr ELDER: As the member says, thatoccurs all around Australia, whether it beSydney, Melbourne or Adelaide. That iscommon practice over Easter and otherholiday periods.

Three weeks ago, the scaremongereropposite, the member for Toowoomba South,claimed that the Mater Mothers would close.He stated, "If you are 30 weeks pregnant, startlooking for another hospital, because they arecutting services back at the Mater. You won'tget a spot. Look for another bed." Wrong!

Today, the Opposition Leader was reinforcingthat point. That claim was wrong, it wasscurrilous and it was yet another example ofthe politics of fear.

When he found out that he was wrong onthat issue, what did the member forToowoomba South do? What did thatscaremongerer do? What did that person whohas no pride in the Queensland public hospitalsystem do? He came out with anotheroutrageous claim. He stated that all servicesoffered to adults would close, including theaccident and emergency section—an integralpart of the hospital's operations. The memberclaimed that the outpatients section wouldclose for a month and that ambulatoryservices would be redirected for a month.Wrong again! But did we hear an apologyfrom the member for Toowoomba South forundermining the system? No, we did not!

Mr Purcell: He is a liar.

Mr ELDER: I take that interjection.

We have managed to resolve a problemby working with the professional managementteam at the Mater. As I stated earlier, fromtime to time the hospital does experiencesome demand-management problems—asdoes every hospital. There are 150 publichospitals in this State, a $25 billion budget forhealth and from time to time we will encounterproblems. Unlike the Leader of the Oppositionand the member for Toowoomba South, whenproblems occur I will not stand back andwhinge and whine and knock. That is all thatthe Opposition has going for it. It has no policyexcept the policy of fear.

I challenge the Opposition to outline itstotal health policy. So far, it has claimed onlythat it might replicate this Government's capitalworks program. Recently, the member forToowoomba South claimed that theOpposition would do away with regionalisationand once again centralise the decision-makingprocesses, as occurred under the NationalParty years ago. Were such a policy adopted,the rural and regional electorates of membersopposite would be disadvantaged. The onlyother policy that the Opposition has beenprepared to outline is that it will place theMater Hospital under the wing of QueenslandHealth. The Opposition had better get on thefront foot and state whether it denies that thatis its intention.

The member for Toowoomba Southconstantly undermines the public healthsystem in this State. Recently in theToowoomba Chronicle, the member madesome outrageous claims about the


Toowoomba Base Hospital. I have checkedthe claims that he made in that newspaperconcerning a shortage of anaesthetists at theToowoomba Base Hospital. I have discoveredthat the member was wrong again. In fact, anadequate number of anaesthetists wasavailable at that hospital.

Without checking the facts, the memberfor Toowoomba South attacked theprofessional integrity of those who work in thepublic health system in Toowoomba. Heattacked the people who underpin the system:our doctors and our nurses, the people whohave pride in the public hospital system—pridethat the member for Toowoomba South andthe Leader of the Opposition lack. Themember for Toowoomba South attackedthose professionals with deliberate, misleadingand untrue remarks. At the end of the day, Idid not have to correct the untrue statementsmade by the member. Dr Ken McLeod, thedirector of the department of anaesthesia andintensive care at Toowoomba hospital, did thejob for me. Does the member for ToowoombaSouth disagree with the remarks that hemade? Was he wrong? Even if he will notadmit it, I can assure the House that themember was dead wrong.

Dr McLeod chastised the member forToowoomba South in the ToowoombaChronicle, and deservedly so, because themember ran those professionals down. I willinform the House what Ken McLeod saidabout Mike Horan. He stated firstly that themember's remarks were irresponsible—as allhis remarks have been to date—and secondlythat they cast aspersions on the professionalintegrity of all members of his department. Inother words, the member for ToowoombaSouth is off side up there in a big way.

Whom is the member for ToowoombaSouth going to knock this week? What"constructive" policy will he come forward withthis week? As usual, we will probably just seemore evidence of the politics of fear.

Mr Horan: Get back to the Mater.

Mr ELDER: I have been through theMater. The Opposition should have directedany question on that subject to me, but it didnot have the courage to do so. The Leader ofthe Opposition went straight to the Premier. Ifthe Opposition had any courage, it would haveasked me the question.

The member for Toowoomba South is thescaremongerer who worried those pregnantwomen and the other people who use theservices of the Mater. As I have travelled

around Queensland, I have discovered thatthe member for Toowoomba South is on thenose with our doctors, with our nurses and withthe professionals in our system. He is on thenose in a big way because he is prepared tosay anything to undermine the system. Themember has no pride at all in the publichospital system. As I travelled around forthose three weeks, that is what I learned. Ihave not been sitting at the headquarters ofQueensland Health; I have been out there inthe Opposition's territory, listening to doctorsand nurses about the approach that themember for Toowoomba South and theLeader of the Opposition take to health. I caninform the House that the member forToowoomba South is on the nose in a bigway.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition saythis morning that it was the Opposition's fault.He was so right! It is the Opposition's fault,and it has been its fault for 32 years. In thepast five years, this Government hasincreased health funding well beyond thenational average. This Government has beendriving the capital works program. I will cite aclassic example in terms of capital works. In itslast five years, the previous Government spent$250m on capital works. That was during theeighties, and we all remember the boomingeighties. In the five years since Labor hasbeen in Government—during the recession,during a downturn in the economy—we havespent $350m, and in terms of the $1.5 billion,10-year capital works program, we will bespending $150m for each year beyond that.That is the commitment that we made duringan economic downturn.

During the eighties, the mob oppositespent 30 per cent less on capital works thanthis Government has spent so far. One seesthe evidence of that underfunding when onetravels around the State and visits hospitals. Insome hospitals, I saw ventilators that hadbeen sitting there for 20 years. Why were theysitting there for 20 years? I saw monitors thathad been sitting there for 20 years and X-rayequipment that had been sitting there for 20years. This Government had to take up thecudgels to ensure that that situation wasrectified. We have led the charge in terms ofre-equipping and rebuilding the hospitalsystem. The Opposition let down the system.The Opposition let down the staff. It underpaidnurses. It did not provide enough doctors inregional areas. It left the hospitals bereft ofequipment that was needed desperately. Yetmembers opposite have the nerve to knockthe system!


The Opposition Health spokesman is abig joke, and he will remain so until theOpposition presents some policies andactually explains to the people of Queenslandwhat it has to offer instead of knocking andwhingeing. If members opposite directquestions on health issues to me, I will tellthem what I have seen around the State inthe public hospital system. If membersopposite ask me questions, I will tell them justhow much the Opposition spokesman is onthe nose throughout Queensland. TheOpposition should have the courage to askme questions on health matters instead of thePremier. Members opposite do not have anybottle; they do not have any guts. They shouldask me the questions and I will answer them.

Time expired.

REFORM OF PARLIAMENTARYPROCEDURE

Sessional Order

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH(Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (12 noon):I move—

"That the following sessional ordersbe agreed to by the House—Omit Standing Orders 67A to 70 andinsert new Standing Orders.

67A Questions to Ministers

Questions may be asked orally withoutnotice or on notice for written reply.Immediately prior to the time appointedfor the House to proceed to the Orders ofthe Day, Questions may be put to aMinister without notice relating to publicaffairs with which he or she is officiallyconnected, to proceedings pending in theLegislative Assembly, but discussion mustnot be anticipated, or to any matter ofadministration for which he or she isresponsible.The total period allowed each day for theasking of Questions without Notice shallnot exceed one hour. Every Member isentitled to ask one Question on noticeeach sitting day, which should be lodgedwith the Clerks at the Table within twohours from the commencement of theday's sitting.67B Questions to Members

A Member may put a Question of whichNotice has been given, in lieu of aQuestion to a Minister—

(a) to any other Member of the Houserelating to any Bill or Motion,

connected with the Business of theHouse on the Business Paper ofwhich the Member has charge; and

(b) to the chairman of a committeerelating to the activities of thatcommittee, however such questionshall not attempt to interfere with thecommittee's work or anticipate itsreport or refer to any evidence takenor documents presented to suchcommittee.

67C No Debate on Asking Questions

In asking a Question, no argument oropinion shall be offered, or any factstated, except so far as is necessary toexplain the Question.

67D Number of Questions Allowed eachSitting Day

The number of Questions which may beasked by any Member without Notice,shall not exceed one on any sitting dayexcept for the Leader of the Oppositionwho may ask two questions withoutnotice.

67E Notice of Questions

A Question on Notice from a Member is tobe delivered to the Clerks at the Table.

A Question on Notice shall be typed orfairly written, signed by the Member, andanswered and supplied to the TableOffice within 30 calendar days with a copysupplied to the Member and Hansard.

68 Rules for Questions

The following general rules shall apply toQuestions.

(a) Questions shall be brief and relate toone issue.

(b) Questions shall not contain—

(i) arguments

(ii) inferences

(iii) imputations or

(iv) hypothetical matters

(c) Questions shall not ask—

(i) for an expression of opinion

(ii) for a legal opinion

(d) Questions shall not be asked whichreflect on or are critical of thecharacter or conduct of thosepersons whose conduct may only bechallenged on a substantive motion.

(e) Questions shall not containstatements of fact or names of


persons unless they are strictlynecessary to render the questionintelligible.

(f) The Speaker may direct that thelanguage of a Question be changed,if, in the opinion of the Speaker, it isunbecoming or does not conformwith the Standing Orders.

(g) Questions shall not be undulylengthy.

69 General Rules for Answers

The following general rules shall apply toanswers:

(i) In answering a Question a Minister orMember shall not debate the subjectto which it refers.

(ii) An Answer shall be relevant to thequestion.

(iii) If, in the opinion of the Speaker, theAnswer is too long, he may direct theMinister or the Member to ceasespeaking.

70 Questions not put to Speaker

Questions may not be put to the Speaker.

Standing Order 219A is omitted and thefollowing Standing Order is inserted.

219A Form of Petition

A Petition shall be in the following form:-

"PETITION"

TO: The Honourable the Speaker andMembers of the Legislative Assemblyof Queensland.

The Petition of ...

(a) citizens of Queensland

or

(b) residents of the State ofQueensland

or

(c) electors of the Division of ....

(State Grievance)

draws to the attention of the House ...

Your petitioners therefore request theHouse to

(State action required)

(Here follows the Signatures)

Standing Order 238A is omitted and thefollowing standing orders are inserted.

238A Copy of petition to responsibleMinister

A copy of every petition received by theHouse is to be referred by the Clerk to theappropriate responsible Minister who mayforward a response to the Clerk forpresentation to the House. A copy of thisresponse shall be printed in Hansard andbe supplied to the Member whopresented the petition.

238B Name of principal petitionerEvery petition must indicate the nameand address of the principal petitioner onthe front page.

PROTECTION OF PERSONS REFERREDTO IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(1) Where a submission is made inwriting to the Speaker by a personwho has been referred to in theLegislative Assembly by name, or insuch a way as to be readilyidentified:

(a) claiming that the person orcorporation has been adverselyaffected in reputation or inrespect of dealings orassociations with others, orinjured in occupation, trade,office or financial credit, or thatthe person's privacy has beenunreasonably invaded, byreason of that reference to theperson or corporation; and

(b) requesting that the person beable to incorporate anappropriate response inHansard,

and the Speaker is satisfied:(c) that the subject of the

submission is not so obviouslytrivial or the submission sofrivolous, vexatious or offensivein character as to make itinappropriate that it beconsidered by the Committee ofPrivileges; and

(d) that it is practicable for theCommittee of privileges toconsider the submission underthis resolution,

the Speaker shall refer thesubmission to that Committee.

(2) The Committee may decide not toconsider a submission referred to itunder this resolution if theCommittee considers that thesubject of the submission is notsufficiently serious or the submissionis frivolous, vexatious or offensive in


character, and such a decision shallbe reported to the LegislativeAssembly.

(3) If the Committee decides to considera submission under this resolution,the Committee may confer with theperson who made the submissionand any Member who referred in theLegislative Assembly to that personor corporation.

(4) In considering a submission underthis resolution, the Committee shallmeet in private session.

(5) The Committee shall not publish asubmission referred to it under thisresolution or its proceedings inrelation to such a submission, butmay present minutes of itsproceedings and all or part of suchsubmission to the LegislativeAssembly.

(6) In considering a submission underthis resolution and reporting to theLegislative Assembly the Committeeshall not consider or judge the truthof any statements made in theLegislative Assembly or thesubmission.

(7) In its report to the LegislativeAssembly on a submission underthis resolution, the Committee maymake either of the followingrecommendations:

(a) that no further action be takenby the Committee or theLegislative Assembly in relationto the submission; or

(b) that a response by the personwho made the submission, interms specified in the reportand agreed to by the person orcorporation and the Committee,be published by the LegislativeAssembly or incorporated inHansard,

and shall not make any otherrecommendations.

(8) A document presented to theLegislative Assembly underparagraph (5) or (7):(a) in the case of a response by a

person or corporation whomade a submission, shall besuccinct and strictly relevant tothe questions in issue and shallnot contain anything offensivein character; and

(b) shall not contain any matter thepublication of which would havethe effect of:

(i) unreasonably adverselyaffecting or injuring aperson or corporation, orunreasonably invading aperson's privacy, in themanner referred to inparagraph (1); or

(ii) unreasonably adding to oraggravating any suchadverse effect, injury orinvasion of privacy sufferedby a person.

(9) A corporation making a submissionunder this resolution is required tomake it under their common seal."

Parliamentary reform in Queensland hasalways been promised, much discussed,greatly hoped for but seldom delivered. That iswhy today I am pleased to be associated withthe Government's proposed reforms containedin this notice of motion. Under theNational/Liberal Party Government, theQueensland Parliament had hardly altered instyle, practice and structure from thenineteenth century.

The Fitzgerald inquiry clearly identifiedthat there was a need to strengthen andrevitalise this Parliament. As part of thisGovernment's mandate, we haveprogressively introduced a number of newprocedural reforms which are specificallyaimed at enhancing the accountability of theExecutive to the Parliament and improving theeffectiveness of Parliament. Some of thesignificant reforms we have already introducedinclude: enhancing the Parliament's scrutiny ofpublic finances and improving theaccountability of public administration by theintroduction of Estimates committees, givingbackbenchers greater opportunities to speakin Parliament through the introduction ofMatter of Special Public Importance debateseach Wednesday and having a secondAdjournment debate to close the sitting eachWednesday, introducing new sessional orderswhich provide that committees must complywith the rules of natural justice when dealingwith witnesses, and changing the time limitsfor debates.

For many years there has been criticismof the operation of question time. Today, weare seeking to rectify the deficiencies byproviding the opportunity for more members toask questions without notice. In the past,questions without notice have been


dominated by a few members. By providing asystem where members can ask one questionon notice each day, members will be able toget access to more detailed information andmore members will benefit from this newprocedure. If all back bench members were touse this system of questions on notice, itwould provide information and accountabilityon a scale never before seen in theParliament.

I refer back to the system as it operatedwhen I first came into this Parliament. MrSpeaker, as you would well remember, whenParliament first sat in February 1978, for thefirst time a roster system of members askingquestions was introduced. That was the firsttime that it had ever been introduced. Thereason that it was introduced by the politicalparties at that time was to enable all membersof the Parliament to get the opportunity to askquestions because, under the system bywhich the Speaker simply called whomever hesaw, if a member did not get on with theSpeaker, he would never get the call andtherefore never get to ask a question.

At that time, the system was basedmainly on questions on notice. We had asystem that, each day, members would get upand place a question on notice. Because ofthe way the Standing Orders read at that time,members had to actually read the questionout. That was the only way to put a questionon notice. Many times, the full hour wouldconsist of maybe two or three questionswithout notice with the remainder of the hourbeing taken up by members putting questionson notice. They would stand up and read outthe question; they would not receive ananswer because the question was on notice.Members would have to wait until the next dayto receive an answer. Sometimes up to 60questions had been placed on the NoticePaper.

Under the Standing Orders, the only waythat those questions could be answered wasfor the Ministers to stand up and read theanswer. We all saw instances of that. I canremember one member, Claude Wharton,who had two questions to answer in one dayand he gave one answer to a member whichshould have been an answer to a questionhalf an hour later.

An Opposition member interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: I am not having a

go at him. Because of the way the systemworked, nobody knew the difference, anyway.It was just the way that the system worked.Members would ask questions on Tuesdayand they would not receive an answer until

Thursday because Wednesday and Thursdaywould be taken up giving answers to thequestions that were placed on notice onTuesday. That is how the system worked.

We then had a reform which enabledmembers to simply place questions on noticeby naming the Minister to whom the questionwas directed. So the member would stand upand direct a question on notice to the Ministerfor whatever portfolio and the Minister had theright, the next day, to stand up and simplyhave it incorporated in Hansard. That was aright of which no Ministers ever tookadvantage. They continued to get up andread out their answers. It is only since we havebeen in Government that, in the main, wehave seen Ministers incorporating answers inHansard.

Mrs Sheldon interjected. Mr MACKENROTH: I did say that it

was in the main. I am not criticising, I amlooking back at the way the system hasoperated and the way it has changed. I thinkthat the system that we are proposing now,which is one that we proposed when we firstwon Government in 1989 and which, at thattime, the Opposition rejected, is one that Ithink is certainly worthy of a trial in thisParliament.

Tom Burns is the second longest servingmember in the Parliament. I can rememberTom saying to me, "What are you doing thatfor? I would love that new system that you areproposing if I was in Opposition." I said, "Ithink that it is a fairer and better system for thisParliament."

Mr FitzGerald interjected.

Mr MACKENROTH: Well, I had beenin Opposition for 12 years and Tom had beenthere for 17 years. Having been in Oppositionfor that long, one certainly knows a good thingwhen it comes along. The system that we areproposing is a good system for the Opposition.In a full parliamentary year, there is thepotential for an extra 3,000 questions to beasked in this Parliament. I do not see how anyOpposition could knock back that opportunityto ask those extra questions.

Every day we will still get at least thesame number of questions, if not more, askedwithout notice because we will still have the fulllength of question time. The Leader of theOpposition has said that question time isgoing to be cut in half. We are not cutting it inhalf, we are giving twice the number ofmembers the opportunity to ask questions. Ido not want to embarrass some members but,because of the way the system works, there


are members in this Parliament elected at thelast election who have still not asked aquestion. It is not their fault, but because ofthe way the system works today, they havenot had the opportunity to get into the peckingorder within either the Opposition or theGovernment. At present, the system worksagainst most members of this Parliamentgetting information that they want. The systemthat the Government is proposing will enablethem to obtain that information.

In terms of time, the system works thesame way it always has. Of all the Parliamentsin Australia, the Queensland Parliament is themost generous when it comes to allotting timefor question time. In most Parliaments,question time is 45 minutes, not an hour. Inone Parliament down south, only 10 questionswithout notice are allowed on a particular dayand then question time is over. On average,over a full year, about 16 questions a day areasked in this Parliament. Opposition membersshould not say that this Parliament should belike other Parliaments because, under thecurrent system, they already get a fairer dealand, under the Government's proposal, theywill get an even better deal. It surprised methat, when I gave notice of moving thismotion, the Opposition knocked the reformsthat we propose. If Opposition members voteagainst this motion, they will be voting againstthemselves getting a better and fairer deal inthis Parliament.

I would like to explain briefly the way thatthe system will work. To ensure the smoothtransition to this new system, the followingoperational guidelines will be adopted forquestions on notice. Answers will be providedby Ministers on floppy disk to enable thematerial to be incorporated in Hansard withoutany rekeying. Departments will provide fourhard copies: one for the Table Office, one forHansard, one for the member and one for themedia. The hard copies will be distributed tothe member's office when the House is sitting.At other times they will be sent to a member'selectorate office. Members might note that, inaccordance with this motion, questions needto be answered within a month. That is not aparliamentary month; it is a straight calendarmonth. So, if we had a situation like the onethat arose at the end of last year, when MrsSheldon put a question on notice, she wouldnot need to wait three months, because shewould receive an answer before then.

Questions and answers will be included inthe Weekly Hansard. Answers that exceedmore than a page in length or consist oftabular material will not be incorporated inHansard but will be shown as—

"A lengthy/tabular answer wasprovided. Copies are available from theBills and Papers Office."

So the cost will certainly be kept down.

Mr FitzGerald: Why didn't you put thatin the motion?

Mr MACKENROTH: I am just tellingthe member how the system will work. The fulltext of the answer will be provided to themember. This is a major reform to questiontime.

As to other parts of the motion—thepopularity of the petitioning process has notwaned over the years, and we still continue toreceive over 200 petitions each year.Reviewing the language contained in petitionsis long overdue. The new features of thepetitioning process include identifying theprincipal petitioner so that people can beaware of the person and organisationsponsoring a petition. The other initiativeprovides that Ministers can table a response tothe petition.

In relation to the right of responseprocedure—there have been complaints aboutthe use made by members of Parliament oftheir right to freedom of speech. It is difficult tosay why the phenomenon is a recent one,because freedom of speech in debate inParliament goes back to 1688 and beyond. Itmay be that society has become moreabrasive and that some believe thatsensational claims are justified. But whateverthe reason, there has been ongoing concernabout the rights of those who may be subjectto unfair attacks. There are powerful reasonsthat mitigate in favour of the argument thatfreedom of speech and debate in Parliamentshould be absolute. All matters that impingeon the public interest must be capable ofbeing debated in Parliament without fear orfavour. Freedom to speak out must not beinhibited by the possibility of legalconsequences either by way of civil damagesor criminal prosecution. The purpose of theprivilege is to ensure that Parliament can carryout its function free from obstruction andimpediment. If matters cannot be freelydebated, remedial action in respect of themcannot be taken by Parliament.

As matters stand in Queensland, the onlyrestraining influence against abuse of thefreedom of speech and debate in Parliamentare: the restrictions in Standing Ordersgoverning the rules of debate, includingprohibition of the use of offensive or disorderlywords; the disciplinary procedures of theHouse itself, including the possibility of


members who abuse this privilege beingcensured or suspended; and the politicalconsequences that may flow from flagrant orrepeated abuse. These factors have notguaranteed that an individual, rightly orwrongly, will not suffer injury duringparliamentary proceedings. We all know thateven with the greatest care sometimes thiscan happen. In these circumstances, the onlyavenue available for remedying the difficultiesthat have arisen is for the Parliament itself toimplement a procedure to moderate thewaging of unwarranted and baseless attacks,but one that ensures that the power remainsfor parliamentary debate to be robust andwide ranging.

The new procedures would provide that aperson or corporation referred to in theParliament who claims to have been adverselyaffected by reason of that reference can seekto have a response incorporated in Hansard.Initially, the person would forward asubmission to Mr Speaker, who would have tobe satisfied that the issues raised were nottrivial, vexatious, frivolous or offensive. If thereis a legitimate concern, the matter would thenbe referred to the Privileges Committee. TheCommittee of Privileges would then have thediscretion to either confer with the complainantor the member involved, and then thecommittee would report to the Parliament onwhether no further action be taken or whetherthe person's response in terms agreed by theperson and the committee should bepublished or incorporated in Hansard. Fulldetails of this reform and its guidelines areclearly set out in the proposed sessionalorders.

These are all significant reforms thatdeserve the support of the House. Theyintroduce greater fairness and accountabilityand are a clear sign of this Government'scommitment to the ongoing reform of theparliamentary process. These proposals arebeing introduced on a trial basis for theremainder of this term of Government and, inlight of the experience that we have from that,they have the ability to be changed followingthe next election.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I place on theparliamentary record the work that you havedone in ensuring that these reforms havecome before the Parliament. Mr Speaker, youhave been like the oil on the squeaky wheel,making sure that they did come forward. Iknow that, over the past couple of years, youhave kept it at the forefront of my agenda toensure that we did reach a position where wewere able to introduce these reforms, which

are in no small way a credit to what you wishto see in the reform of this House.

I ask all members to seriously give thesereforms a chance to work; give them a chanceto see how they operate and not condemnthem before they have given them thatopportunity. They should give them a chancefor the remainder of this term, because I amsure that, following that opportunity for a trial,all members will welcome them as apermanent change to the Standing Orders ofthis Parliament. I commend the orders to theHouse.

Ms POWER (Mansfield) (12.16 p.m.): Ihave much pleasure in seconding theproposed sessional orders put before theHouse today by the Leader of the House. Ireinforce the notion that these are sessionalorders that are on trial to give members achance to see how they work. They will thengo to the Standing Orders Committee. Sobefore Opposition members start barkingabout this not going to the Standing OrdersCommittee, I point out that these aresessional orders; they are on trial, and theyshould be used for that purpose.

I have been interested to hear some ofthe arguments about sessional orders. Itseems that Opposition members are big onrhetoric but not too good on the reformprocess which they now suggest that, after afew years in Opposition, they would put intoplace if they were returned to the Governmentbenches. While the Leader of the House wasspeaking, I noticed that Opposition membershad not done their homework; they did notunderstand the sessional orders. That isprobably indicative of why some Oppositionbackbenchers are not speaking during thisdebate. The big winners from most of thesechanges will be backbenchers—bothGovernment and Opposition. I suggest tosome Opposition backbench members thatthey have been sold out by the Leader of theOpposition and a couple of the big high-flierson the front benches of the Opposition.

I turn firstly to question time. If membersdo their mathematics they will know that thereare 54 Government members and 35Opposition members. So every day, thechances of a Government member getting toask a question are severely limited simply bythe number of Government memberscompared with Opposition members. Basically,most of question time is taken up by questionsfrom Opposition shadow spokespersons.Backbenchers on both sides of the Housereally play a minor part in question time if theyget a chance to ask questions. Sometimes a


member wants to ask a question about aburning issue. If that member does not askthat question during that week, it is irrelevantby the next week, and the opportunity hasbeen lost.

New South Wales and Western Australiahave systems that are similar to our proposedsystem. The average number of questionsover a period in New South Wales is 54, andthe average in Western Australia is 53. On theother hand, Queensland's paltry effort is 18questions. The member for Nerang and otherssay, "Well, if you gave us the full hour and youdid not do this and you did not do that, wewould get more questions asked." I point outto those members that the number ofquestions asked on any one day relates not tothe time allotted but to how questions areasked and how they are answered. If theLeader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leaderof the Opposition, the Leader of the LiberalParty and the Deputy Leader of the LiberalParty are always given a chance to askquestions, then a poor backbencher on theOpposition side has little or no chance ofasking a question. Even as an Oppositionshadow spokesperson, the member forNerang must take a fairly quick draw to see ifhe can ask a question on any particular day.

It will not matter whether it is an hour orwhether it is 10 minutes or 15 minutes; themembers on the front benches will ask thosequestions. In the same way, we on this side ofthe House usually give preference to ourWhips to ask the first four Governmentquestions and the backbenchers take theirturn. The changes to the question papermean that, on any day, a backbencher whohas a question about a burning issue can putit in writing and submit it to the Clerk and begiven an answer that will be recorded inHansard. Of course, because it will berecorded, the candidates in the Opposition willnot be able to run around saying that wenever raise an issue or speak to an issue inthe House.

Out in the real world, people do notunderstand the processes of Government.They do not understand that members haveto take turns to ask a question and that thereare priority Government questions and priorityOpposition questions. They think it is reallyimportant that the member for ChartersTowers or the member for Mansfield asks theirimportant question that relates to theirelectorate. No matter what I might say to themabout how important all the other questionswere, the people of Mansfield do not worryabout whether mining was carried out in the

Fitzroy electorate or whether the power wasturned on in the Gladstone electorate; theyare more interested in what happens to themin the Mansfield electorate. If I have not had achance to ask their question, they think that Ihave let them down. The reforms that havebeen put forward today give backbenchers likeme, and those on the other side of the House,a chance to put questions in writing and havethem answered by the relevant Minister.

Many times we have had the argumentregarding how many questions can be asked,and it always seems to be the same personplaying the game. When the now Leader ofthe Opposition was deputy leader, questiontime was not changed because he wanted toask his two questions. Today, he is still havinghis say; we have had to pander to him to allowthe two questions. I know—and I have heard itaround the ridges—that he thinks there issomething wrong with the system and that heshould be allowed to ask his two questions. Inthe other States, the Leader of the Oppositionis entitled to ask the first question, withquestions then alternating between theGovernment and the Opposition. In Victoria,the Leader of the Opposition asks the firstquestion without notice, with questions thenalternating between the Government and theOpposition. In Tasmania, the Leader of theOpposition has a really good deal; he gets toask all the questions if he likes, because hecan keep asking supplementary questions.The Leader of the Opposition might tryTasmania, which has a different system.

A Government member: Anywherebut here.

Ms POWER: Yes, anywhere but herewould be preferable. In South Australia, theLeader of the Opposition asks the firstquestion. In Western Australia, the Leader ofthe Opposition asks the first question and thenthe questions alternate. The same systemoperates in the House of Representatives andthe Senate. So, in fact, we are not takinganything away from the Opposition; most ofthe States have a similar system. I think theLeader of the Opposition wants to ensure thathe always gets his say, but he is not tooworried about his backbenchers. As I havereminded people on my side of the House, amember does not become leader unless thereare a lot of backbenchers behind that personkeeping him or her in that position.

I think that there is a great deal ofhypocrisy on the Opposition benches. Theywant to talk about the reform process. Theywant more questions but, for whatever reason,they will not allow the system to be changed.


They think that they will just be able to askquestions. On many occasions, the memberfor Nerang has said, "Give us the hour." Thatcannot always happen; protocols have to befollowed. Major changes to the StandingOrders would have to occur if we were to havean hour of questions every day without otherbusiness being dealt with. I think that some ofour former colleagues would think it a bit harshof us if we were to suddenly say that we arenot going to acknowledge in this House thepassing of former members becauseOpposition members want to have an hour ofquestion time because they think that that willenable them to ask a few more questions.

I turn now to the subject of petitions. As amember who has tabled a number of petitionsand who has received numerous petitions inher office, I have always hedged around a littlewhen people have said to me, "Well, whathappens?" I give them that great phrase,"Well, they are tabled in the Parliament." Theythen say, "Yes, and then what happens?"Quite truthfully, if I was going to be reallyhonest with them, I would say, "Nothinghappens. They are tabled. We all know thatthey are on the table and we all sleep easierat night because that has happened." Wetake no responsibility for petitions and we donot have to provide a response. Yetsomebody out in the community cared aboutan issue—and I know this has happened inmy electorate—and walked the streets overand over at night-time or stood outside ashopping centre for three or four hours on aSaturday morning to get 600 or 700signatures, and all that person got was a pieceof paper that was then tabled in theParliament.

The changes to the sessional ordersrequire the petition to be written in plainEnglish. In the past, because of the way inwhich they were worded, it was quite a difficulttask to write some of the petitions. I guess thatwording was probably included for a reason; itstopped some people from wanting toparticipate in the process. Now that petitionsmust be written in plain English, it will be mucheasier for people to write a petition and peoplewill be keener to participate in that process.The petition will be tabled and referred to therelevant Minister. The relevant Minister willthen have to respond. That response willprinted in Hansard and it will be sent to theprincipal petitioner.

It is interesting to note that there will be aprincipal petitioner. While petitions are a rightof citizens, I think that some citizens haveexploited that right and have gone out willy-

nilly thinking, "Anyone can sign this petition;who cares?" and nobody has actually takenresponsibility for that petition. The changes tothe sessional orders require somebody to takeresponsibility; there must be a principalpetitioner. That will indicate how serious aperson is about the issue. By the same token,the principal petitioner will receive a responseto the petition. If those people are like some ofthe hardworking people that I know who havecirculated petitions on issues, somebody willbe responsible. The Minister will respond inregard to what action is being taken in relationto the matter that the petition pertains to. Overthe years, thousands of people havesubmitted petitions, and those people areprobably still waiting for a response. This is abig change that people will welcome, but thepetitioners themselves will have to take someresponsibility.

The third matter relates to the citizen'sright of reply. I have heard the members of theOpposition say, "You can't have this; we don'thave all those protections." Of course we do!As members, we have particular rights in thisHouse. We are protected at all times by aseries of Standing Orders. I know that theremay be some members who do not know thatwe actually have them, but we do haveStanding Orders.

Mrs Sheldon interjected.

Ms POWER: The honourable membershould not start to interject. The StandingOrders are there to protect members at alltimes. It is interesting to note that StandingOrder 114 protects people from beinginterrupted while they are making theirspeeches. Under Standing Order 115 amember may rise to speak to a point of orderor upon a matter of privilege, and underStanding Order 119 members are protectedfrom offensive language. It is interesting thatthe members of the Opposition would makethose comments because, in fact, the onlytime that a member in this House is notprotected is the moment that that memberleaves the chair to report to the Speaker—asthe member for Beaudesert demonstrated inthis Chamber not so long ago. However, atmost times in this place, we are free to makeour comments and have our say with little orno recourse on the part of the general public.

Unfortunately, members of the public donot have that same right. I have sat in thisChamber and heard members makecomments about public servants, members ofthe public in general and business houses,with little or no recourse being available tothose people. Certainly, some of those people


may not be all that they are cracked up to be.They may not be the worthy citizens that wewould have hoped they would be, but they stillhave a right to reply to the comments thathave been made in this House, just as wemembers have a right, if we feel that we havebeen maligned in the newspaper or in thisHouse, to rise on a matter of privilege or totake a point of order.

So again we will see in the proposedsessional orders a chance for some reform sothat the public, whether that be an individualor a corporation, can make some appeal tothe House. Of course, the sessional ordersoutline that if the complaint is frivolous, theSpeaker can rule accordingly and if thecomplaint is a serious matter then it can bereferred to the Parliament's Committee ofPrivileges. So under those changes, peoplewill have a number of opportunities to maketheir response.

I think that overall the proposed sessionalorders that we see before us today areanother attempt to reform the Parliament, toopen it up to the public, for responses to bemade by the public and for the public toparticipate in the Parliament. It is my pleasureto second and, in fact, commend theproposed sessional orders to the House.

Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (12.30 p.m.): Whatwe are witnessing in the Parliament today isanother Labor con job. This proposedsessional order proves once again thearrogance of this Government and the high-handed way that it treats the Parliament.

Under the guise of some sort ofbenevolent parliamentary reform which willmake life easier for the Opposition in therun-up to an election, what we see is a sham,a fraud and a blatant act of censorship of theOpposition in an election year. But worse thanthat, it is a blatant subversion of the properroles, duties and functions of the StandingOrders Committee, which has not met in thelife of this Parliament.

I place on record that, prior to this debatetoday, the non-Government members of theStanding Orders Committee requested ameeting of that committee. Regrettably, MrSpeaker, I have say that I am verydisappointed that you decided not to convenesuch a meeting because the role of Speaker,above all else, should be to defend the role ofmembers and the rights of members in thisplace from the excesses of ExecutiveGovernment. Yet the non-Governmentmembers of the Standing Orders Committeerequested a meeting—the first meeting of the

Standing Orders Committee in the life of thisParliament—and that request was rejected.

Mr Mackenroth: You can't get a biggercommittee than this Parliament to decidesomething.

Mr BORBIDGE: What we have is aGovernment which, in this election year, istrying to distance itself from parliamentaryscrutiny. It is trying to prop up its weakMinisters; it is trying to shield them fromquestions.

Mr D'Arcy interjected.

Mr BORBIDGE: The interjection thatthe member for Woodridge has just made hasbeen the longest speech he has made in thisplace for years.

This proposed sessional order is notabout the rights of backbench members oneither side; it is all about protecting Ministers. Ithas nothing whatsoever to do withparliamentary reform; it has nothing to do withaccountability. If this were a proper andaccountable reform, the Government wouldhave progressed it through the properchannels. That is what the Standing OrdersCommittee is all about; it considers changes tothe Standing Orders so that the interests of allmembers are taken into account and nottrampled over by the Executive. Yet this iswhat this Government and you, Mr Speaker,have allowed to happen. I ask quite simply:what is the point of having a Standing OrdersCommittee? The Leader of the Houseinterjected, "Well, we will talk about it in theCommittee of Parliament." If that is hisattitude, what is the point of having a StandingOrders Committee?

This is all about taking the Government'sweak-performing Ministry out of the spotlightand out of the public glare—the Ministers whodo not perform, have not performed, cannotperform and will never perform: the Haywards,the Wells, the Braddys, the Smiths, theHamills—the list goes on and on—the failures,the duds of public administration in this Statewho must be shielded and protected in thiscrucial election year. They are the Ministerswho the Premier and the Leader of the Houseare attempting to protect by rushing throughthis sessional order prior to the election so thatMinisters can pass the buck to their publicservants, who then have up to 30 days toprepare a response or to mask the truth inbureaucratic gobbledegook.

This morning, we heard the admissionthat we can ask a question that may beanswered in 30 days. It does not evennecessarily appear in Hansard. If people want


to find out the answer and if it is over onepage in length, then they have to go along tothe Bills and Papers Office. I am sure that thepeople in Winton, in Cooktown, or in otherremote areas of this State would be delightedto go to the Bills and Papers Office to find theanswer to a question.

Under this new system, we are not evengoing to have a complete Hansard of all thequestions asked. The proper questions andthe proper answers will not be contained inHansard. If the answer is a bit too long or a bittoo embarrassing—and I am sure that in 30days Ministers will be able to provide ananswer that is over one-page long—if peoplewant to know about it they will have to knockon the door of the Bills and Papers Officebecause they will not see it in Hansard.

The Government simply does not want toanswer questions about its failed CriminalCode, about the health crisis or the lack ofplanning for Queensland's future powersupplies. It wants the public servants toanswer the tricky questions.

Sure, there is a case for the reform ofquestion time in this place. However, we havethe situation now in which if an Oppositionmember—or, for that matter, a member of theGovernment—wants to pursue a matter, he orshe can do so. In question after question inthis place, a member can pursue that matter.If that member requires a follow-up question tobe placed on notice the following day inParliament, that member could ask thequestion today and receive the answertomorrow and follow up those questionsaccordingly.

We all know, and the member forMansfield admitted it, that what is an issuetoday is fish and chips wrappers in 30 days'time. Yet under this particular sessional order,that is the protection that the Ministers aregiving themselves and that is what they aredenying the Opposition and the backbenchmembers of the Government. They want thepublic servants—the apparatchiks; the KevinRudds, the Dick Perssons—to be answeringthe tricky questions and 30 days later, that willdo. What we have is a deliberate attempt tocut back the opportunity for members of theOpposition, particularly shadow Ministers, tofollow through and follow up questions withoutnotice.

After six years, the cracks have openedas to what is happening in this State. Thetrickle has become a flood. Nothing thatGovernment members do in this place to try tododge their accountability responsibilities willmask the truth. It is important in this debate to

return to the heady days of 1989, when wehad the promise by the Goss Government ofmore open and accountable Parliament. Aftertwo terms of Labor, what has been the reality?We have a Parliament that is lessaccountable, less responsive and controlledexclusively by the Executive. The Executivecontrols the Budget and it tells the Speakerwhat the cutbacks in services in this place willbe. Now, instead of the Standing OrdersCommittee, it is controlling the rules of thisplace because it has effectively done awaywith that committee. The Executive effectivelycontrols the administration of the Parliament.Like so many of the Government's 1989promises, the bold new world which waspromised has evaporated quickly.

Under these proposals, question time willsimply be less effective. Already, we have asituation in which question time has become afarce. Ministers do not answer questions andwhen they do, they usually twist the questionsaround and focus on abusing the Oppositionduring their answers. Of course, Oppositionmembers respond and then the Governmenttells us how we are bringing the Parliamentinto disrespect. For example, I ask membersto consider a question asked recently by themember for Tablelands to the Minister forMinerals and Energy concerning the Mouradisaster and the lack of mine inspectors. It is aserious issue, yet one which the Minister notonly did not address but turned around into adiatribe of abuse directed at the member forTablelands. I suggest that that is oneperformance of which the Minister should notbe proud and one that in due course willrebound on him and his Government. I wish totouch on certain other matters contained inthis sessional order.

Mr Cooper: It is very depressing, isn't it.

Mr BORBIDGE: It is depressing. Iwould have thought that, had this aspect beentaken into consideration by the StandingOrders Committee, we could have had aworkable package. I have referred already tothe fact that a question asked tomorrow neednot be answered until 30 days later. I havementioned that answers to certain questionsare not included in Hansard but are availablefrom the Bills and Papers Office.

Mr Mackenroth: And available to themedia, and they can do whatever they like.And if it's dynamite, it'll end up in the paper.

Mr BORBIDGE: Is the honourablemember ready?

Mr Mackenroth interjected.

Mr BORBIDGE: I have plenty of time.


Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the Leader ofthe Opposition seeking my protection? Order! Iask the Leader of the House to ceaseinterjecting.

Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, with duerespect, I will never need protection from MrMackenroth.

I express concern at the deletion of theprayer from petitions. We heard the memberfor Mansfield say that we will have a great newformat for petitions. One of the great traditionsof the Parliament is the inclusion of a prayer inthe form of petitions.


Mr BORBIDGE: Government membersare laughing. However, many people take theissue seriously. Although the member forMansfield and the Government members whoare interjecting might support the deletion ofthe prayer, I happen to believe that, as is thecase with the prayer at the beginning of eachsitting day, this tradition is important. This isstill a Christian country, and the prayer shouldremain in the format for petitions, even if themember for Mansfield wants to champion itsremoval.

Mr Ardill: Absolute claptrap!

Mr BORBIDGE: The member forArcherfield said, "Absolute claptrap!"Obviously, this issue is unimportant to him.

The other point that I wish to raise relatesto the right of a citizen to respond to mattersraised in the Parliament. What we are seeingtoday is basically embroidery, because thisconvention already exists. Although it is rarelyused, I can recall an incident in which MrSpeaker Powell activated the right of acitizen's reply in this place. Effectively, thepower to allow a citizen's right of reply isalready vested in the Speaker.

Mr Beattie: Why are you opposing it,then?

Mr BORBIDGE: I will come to that.

In my view, what we are seeing is asituation which will depend very much on howGovernment members of the ParliamentaryPrivileges Committee perform their duties.Recently, we have seen a range of decisionsin relation to which the Government has usedits numbers in the committee system-——

Mr Welford: They were unanimous.

Mr BORBIDGE: They were not allunanimous. The Government has used itsnumbers to prevent inquiries andinvestigations and to steer something in aparticular direction. I refer to the most recent

example in which the Government numberson the Parliamentary Public Works Committeewere used to prevent an investigation intoserious allegations of cost overruns.

Mr Santoro: They have a lot to hide.

Mr BORBIDGE: As the member forClayfield said, they have a lot to hide. If wesee the Parliamentary Privileges Committeeand Government members of this Houseacting in the best traditions of this Parliament,that will be fair enough. However, if we aregoing to see a kangaroo court in which theParliamentary Privileges Committee can bemanipulated by the caucus or by theExecutive, this reform, which has merit, will beabsolutely and totally prostituted. I say that inall sincerity. The precedent has been set inthis place.

Mr Welford: What a slur upon theOpposition members of the House!

Mr BORBIDGE: The honourablemember was not even here when the powerwas used by a former National Party Speaker.The Speaker of the House already has thepower to activate a citizen's right of reply.

I also happen to believe in the sanctity ofparliamentary privilege. I ask Governmentmembers to look at the history of theParliament. From time to time, there havebeen abuses, and members have or have notacted in good faith. But there is no doubt thatparliamentary privilege has righted a greatmany wrongs. It has focused the attention ofthe Parliament and the public on injustice,criminality and corruption. I would be mostreluctant to see a Government manipulatingthe Privileges Committee in order to protectpeople who may have a good case at the timebut who down the track may be exposed forwhat they are, and for members of Parliamentto be publicly castigated for fulfilling theirconstitutional and moral obligation.

Mr Speaker is nodding. Mr Speaker, youmight like to participate in this debate. Youhave been the architect of part of thesereforms. I remember the Kevin Hoopers of thisParliament and the early days of the Fitzgeraldinquiry. Mr Beattie and the Albert Shire Councilelections last year is another example thatcomes to mind. I am not saying that any ofthose people did not act in good faith.

Mrs Sheldon: Welford.

Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Welford is anotherone. What we have to defend in this place isthe sanctity of parliamentary privilege.

Mr Beattie interjected.


Mr BORBIDGE: To the benefit of thehonourable member who is interjecting, afterhe maligned someone during the election hehad the decency to apologise.

From what I saw in the years that I havebeen in this Parliament, Kevin Hooper wouldhave always been inside the ParliamentaryPrivileges Committee room. In great fairnessto that late member of this Parliament, I pointout that he righted a hell of a lot of injustices.He exposed a hell of a lot of corruption. Hewas fearless in seeking to right wrongs.

Before we start to play with theseprivileges, I point out that we have to be verycareful, particularly when members acting ingood faith can find themselves summonedbefore a kangaroo court on which Governmentmembers have the numbers to embarrass thatmember and, if they so wish, to protect thoseperpetrating an injustice.

Mr Beattie: Where does it say that inhere? You obviously haven't read it. Wheredoes it say that?

Mr BORBIDGE: I suggest that thehonourable member read it.

Mr Beattie: It says "may".

Mr BORBIDGE: The honourablemember says, "It says 'may' so don't worry; itis not going to happen." The Government'sdefence is that it "may" happen.

I am not saying that there is not merit insome of the proposals contained in thissessional order. What I am saying is that theproper role of the Standing Orders Committeehas been prostituted. There must now beserious questions as to whether that particularcommittee should continue to operate; it hasnot met in the life of this Parliament. If we areto change the Standing Orders by a trial ofsessional orders and if Mr Speaker, asChairman of the Standing Orders Committee,is not prepared to convene a meeting to atleast discuss these matters when he receivesa written request from non-Governmentmembers in this place to do so, some veryserious questions are raised as to themotivation behind this sessional order.

Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central)(12.49 p.m.): The Fitzgerald report highlightedthe fact that there needed to be majorchanges in the operation of this Parliament tomake it more relevant. The report indicatedthat parliamentary reform was long overdueand was very critical of the way this Parliamentoperated under the National Party and theLiberal Party for 32 years.

Mr FitzGerald: Where did it say that?

Mr BEATTIE: The member should goback and read it. The Fitzgerald report wasvery critical of the way the National Party usedto run this place as a rort and a disgrace. Oneneed only peruse the report to find referenceto the fact that Fitzgerald wanted to see thisplace operate the way it was meant tooperate. These changes to the sessionalorders provide an opportunity to achieve thatdesire of Fitzgerald.

Page 45 of the EARC report of December1991 referred to the fact that—

"Question Time has traditionallybeen regarded as one of the keymechanisms in the process of executiveaccountability. Its importance has derivedfrom its nature as an opportunity for theobtaining of information from theexecutive within the public forum ofParliament."

These changes provide a more effectivequestion time and a better opportunity for theOpposition to do its job. It is an absolutelyextraordinary state of affairs that theOpposition is opposing these changes. At notime in the 32 years that the National Partyand Liberal Party were in office would theyhave even considered introducing suchdemocratisation of the operation of thisParliament, but the Opposition Leader isopposing these measures.

Mr Mackenroth: They still don't know itwhen they see it. That's the real problem.

Mr BEATTIE: Exactly. Theextraordinary thing is that Oppositionbackbenchers really are not in a position tomake any determination on this. Most of themhave never been involved in the processbecause they have never had an opportunityto ask questions; they are all hogged by theleadership of the National Party and theLiberal Party.

Ms Power: Where are they on thespeaking list?

Mr BEATTIE: That is exactly right:where are they? They have not had anopportunity to contribute. The facts are thatthese sessional orders will give backbenchmembers of the National Party and LiberalParty a greater opportunity than they haveever had before to ask questions in thisParliament. There are some Governmentmembers who think that some of us are crazyfor supporting these changes because theyprovide the Opposition with that increasedopportunity. I can see from their noddingheads that some of my colleagues agree withme.


Let us have the standing of thesechanges clearly on the record. The proposedchanges are only sessional orders. They donot constitute permanent changes to theStanding Orders. If they did, then the Leaderof the Opposition might have a point, but hedoes not, because they are not permanentchanges to the Standing Orders. They areonly sessional orders. These proposals arebeing introduced on a trial basis. In light of theexperience of their operation, the StandingOrders Committee can then meet and makethe appropriate recommendations forimprovement or change. The Standing OrdersCommittee has not been excluded from thisprocess. It will have an opportunity to makethe final recommendations based on howthese sessional orders operate in practice.

The reality is that this Parliament is thebody that makes the decisions. There is nomore important committee or meeting thanthis Parliament itself, and it is the body thatshould be making the decisions and is indeeddoing so in terms of these changes to thesessional orders. The final changes, based onexperience, will go back to the StandingOrders Committee and the finalrecommendations will come to the House. It istotally irrational and wrong to argue against atrial period, which is all that this is. No-one candeny that it will be useful and valuable togather both experience and information beforeconsidering and deciding on permanentchanges after the trial period. This action willgive the Standing Orders Committee thepractical experience of seeing how the newsystem operates. The knowledge andexperiences will then be useful in making thefinal decisions when the changes come beforethis House.

It is important that we try to look at thesetypes of debates objectively. Having heard thecontribution from the Opposition Leader, it isvery hard to understand where he is comingfrom. I am not trying to be smart when I saythat. We all know that, on a previous occasion,the Standing Orders Committee endeavouredto change the question system. It failedbecause Mr Borbidge was then the DeputyLeader of the National Party and he wasconcerned that he would lose the opportunityto ask two questions a day. The proposal, aswe all know, allows the Leader of theOpposition to ask two questions and onequestion from then on. His opposition wasbased on that. The reality is that he does notlose questions, but that was the way he saw it.Out of that opposition, we continue to see hisopposition to the proposals before the House.

As the Leader of the House said, inessence this system provides an opportunityfor 3,000 or thereabouts extra questions onnotice to be asked each year. Who couldpossibly argue against that? Let us not talk ingeneral terms about the situation in otherStates. Let us look at what actually happenselsewhere. Let us take the year 1993. As tothe number of sitting days—Queensland had58; New South Wales had 45; Victoria had 62;Tasmania had 69; South Australia had 51;and Western Australia had 53. So we were thethird most regular sitting Parliament of all theStates, but there was not much difference. Asto the average duration of question time in1993—in Queensland it was 50 minutes; inNew South Wales it was only 45 minutes; inVictoria it was only 35 minutes; and in WesternAustralia it was only 35 minutes. Those werethe time periods.

Let us consider the average number ofquestions without notice answered per day. InQueensland, they numbered 17; in New SouthWales, they numbered 10.3——


Mr BEATTIE: The member forCaloundra need not interject. If her prologuesand introductions to questions were not solong, the Opposition might get a few more in.


Mr BEATTIE: The member takes upthe time of about three questions every day. Ifshe did not carry on, the Opposition would getat least three more questions in. In New SouthWales, the number of questions without noticeanswered numbered 10.3; in Victoria, theynumbered 8.3; in Western Australia, theynumbered 10.5; in South Australia, theynumbered 16.2; and in Queensland, theynumbered 17. In relation to the number ofquestions without notice answered in 1993,Queensland stood very well compared with therest of Australia. Where do we needimprovement?

A Government member: A betterOpposition.

Mr BEATTIE: That is not the only areain which we need improvement! We needimprovement in the number of questions onnotice asked. Let us consider the averagenumber of questions on notice that wereanswered in various States. In Queenslandthere were 113, and in Victoria there were128. In the States that operate a similarsystem to that proposed in Queensland, thenumbers of questions on notice asked presenta stark contrast. In New South Wales therewere 2,062, and in Western Australia there


were 1,762. That is the sort of benefit that willbe gained under the mechanism suggested inthe proposed changes. For the first time, everyday Opposition backbench members will beable to ask a question that they are not ableto ask now. I cannot believe that the Leader ofthe Opposition opposed these measures! If Iwere an Opposition backbencher, I know whatI would be thinking. I would not be terribly welldisposed to the leader of my party attemptingto prevent me from having the opportunity toput questions on notice. It is outrageous thatthe Opposition is opposing these measures,and its opposition is based on petty politicalpoint-scoring and not on substance.

Let us examine a few of the otherscenarios. We could talk about these statisticsall day. When the Nats were in office in 1987,there were 496 questions without notice. Asan aside, I mention that in that year therewere only 45 sitting days.

Mr Lingard: What was the average perday in that year?

Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to come backto that, because I have all those statistics. Iask the member to bear with me. I am happyto place them on the record.

Mr Lingard interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: If the member wants meto provide the information, he should just beltup and I will get to it. I happen to have it allhere. The member should discuss thisinformation in his party room tomorrow. He willfind that he is better off supporting what weare doing rather than opposing it.

Mr Santoro: You should be ashamedof yourself speaking in support of this motion.

Mr BEATTIE: I used to say to peoplethat the member's leader was so bad that hewould be better. It is a case of Tweedledumand Tweedledumber!

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.

Mr BEATTIE: Before the luncheonrecess I was referring to some statistics inrelation to questions in other StateParliaments. Before I return to those statistics,I think it is important that I put on the recordthat members who listened to the Leader ofthe Opposition could well ask the question,"What would have been the point of taking thematter to the Standing Orders Committee,anyway?", bearing in mind his total oppositionto this reform and change since it first went tothat committee some years ago. His argumentwas really very fickle. He raised the issueabout the 30-day period for answers toquestions on notice. I will refer to that later,

because if we look at the precedents in otherStates, we will find that the recommendationof a 30-day period is better than in any otherjurisdiction in Australia.

The Leader of the Opposition wants tosee the retention of a system in which aMinister can have a question put to him or heron notice at the end of one year with thepossibility that it will not be answered until thenext year. He whinges about a 30-day periodwhich, as I said, will be the best in Australia,yet he is prepared to support a position wherea question can remain on the notice paperfrom one year to the next, with a long periodof delay. Under those circumstances, whenthe Minister answers the question, what doeshe answer? He answers a number on thenotice paper. People in the gallery would haveno idea of what the question was. The Ministerwould stand up and say, "The answer inrelation to question no. 4 is . . ." Often, theanswer will be incorporated in Hansard. That isa nonsense of a process, but that is what theLeader of the Opposition is supporting. Forquestions on notice, he supports thecontinued answering of a question byreference to a number.

Realistically, Mr Borbidge is saying that,unless he gets his way on the Standing OrdersCommittee or unless he gets his way inrelation to these reforms, he does not wantany part of them. He did not get his own way,so he wants to stop the reform of the StandingOrders and the process of this Parliament.That type of petulant behaviour is notacceptable in modern politics. If that is theview of the National Party—and we have notheard from the Liberals yet, but presumablytheir view will be the same——

Mrs Sheldon: But you're lookingforward to it.

Mr BEATTIE: We are certainly lookingforward to it. The Leader of the Liberal Partyshould actually pick up the spirit of liberalism,in its true form, and actually support theGovernment. She should demonstrate a bit oftrue liberalism and independence and supportthese reforms. If the National Party and LiberalParty oppose these reforms, they are simplyscoring a few cheap points and stopping thedesperately needed reform of this Parliament.

I return to the statistics. I referred earlierto the statistical position. If we examine thestatistics, we will find that the Leader of theOpposition will be denying his back bench theopportunity to ask a question a day every timethat this Parliament sits, which could amountto as many as 3,000 questions on notice ayear. Last year, in New South Wales, 1,785


questions on notice were answered. In 1994,3,117 questions on notice were answered inthe Western Australian Parliament. Thosestatistics are similar to what is expected underthese new reforms.

If the Western Australian model isfollowed, the Leader of the Opposition isdenying the people of Queensland theopportunity for the answers to 3,117questions.

Mr Welford: Give him what he wants!

Mr BEATTIE: At the end of the day, ifwe gave him what he wanted, he would denyhis backbenchers the right to ask morequestions. Let me be clear about this. I hopethat every National Party and Liberal Partybackbencher knows that their leaders aretelling them that they cannot put questions onnotice papers about their local schools,hospitals, police stations, fire stations andambulance stations—all the questions thattheir constituents want answers to. The Leaderof the Opposition is saying that they cannotput questions on the notice paper and getanswers within 30 days. That is what theOpposition leaders are saying. If I was on theOpposition back bench, I would have a lot tosay in the party room tomorrow, because Iwould not be happy. I say to the people ofQueensland who are represented byOpposition members that the Opposition is infact voting today against these provisionswhich will make its members less effectivethan they otherwise could be. They are votingto be incompetent. If they vote against thesechanges today, they are voting to beineffective, incompetent members ofParliament. That is what they are seeking todo.

Mr Borbidge spoke a lot of nonsenseabout the 30-day period for answers toquestions. The reality of that is that, if amember has put a question on notice, it is amatter of public record. Members can releasethe question. If the Minister takes 30 days toanswer, the member can say to his or herconstituents or the press, "Hang on, I put it onnotice and I am waiting for an answer." Whereis the pressure in that? Mr Borbidge said thatthat is letting Government Ministers off thehook. What that is doing is puttingGovernment Ministers on the mat. It is thecomplete reverse of what he is saying.

I refer now to the position in other States.In New South Wales, Ministers are required toanswer questions on notice within 35 days.They get only 45 minutes for question time, orthe answering of 10 questions in the House.So there is no argument. The Queensland

system will be clearly better than that in NewSouth Wales.

I refer now to the Victorian Parliament,which has 45 minutes for question time onevery sitting Tuesday and 30 minutes everyother sitting day. That Parliament gets only 30minutes of question time every other sittingday. There is no set time limit for theanswering of questions on notice by theresponsible Minister, however four weeks isthe norm. The norm is four weeks, but there isno set period for the answering of questions.Our provision is better than that.

I refer now to the Tasmanian Parliament,which has 60 minutes for question time—thesame as our Parliament—but there is no settime limit for the answering of questions by theMinister. Our reform states a limit of 30 days,which is better than the Tasmanian practice.

In South Australia there is no set periodfor the Minister to answer questions on notice.We are better than South Australia. InWestern Australia, on Tuesdays 45 minutes isallotted for question time and 30 minutes onall other days. There is no set time limit for theanswering of questions upon notice by theresponsible Minister. Four weeks is the norm,but there is no set period. So we are betterthan Western Australia.

I refer now to the House ofRepresentatives and the Senate. The positionis the same; in the House of Representativesthere is no set time limit for the answering ofquestions by the responsible Minister. So weare better than the House of Representatives.As to the Senate—there is no set time limit forthe answering of questions in the Senate,either. However, after 30 calender days thesenator asking the question may ask theMinister to provide an explanation to theSenate as to why the question has not beenanswered. So we are better than the Senateand any other State in Australia. So what isthe Leader of the Opposition whingeingabout? That is the question we have to askourselves.

My time is running out, so I would like torefer to a couple of other matters. The Leaderof the Opposition complained about theremoval of the prayer from petitions. He triedto jump on that bandwagon. That is a phoneyargument. Petitions have not been able to betabled in this House because the prayer onthem was wrong. We are talking aboutempowering people so that their views areknown in this Parliament. So becausesomeone technically got the prayer wrong,some petitions have been knocked out andthe views of the people have not been heard.


That is what the honourable Leader of theOpposition is supporting.

I do not know if he is appealing to theextreme Right Wing of the constituency whenhe complains about the prayer beingremoved. There happens to be a lot ofChristians on the Government side of theChamber, including myself, who are quitehappy to see a prayer anywhere, but this isabout simplification and empowering peopleso that technical procedures do not knockpetitions out. That is what these reforms areabout. It is a nonsense argument to come inhere and get out the violin and try to pretendthat taking the prayer out is in some way anunchristian act. What a lot of nonsense. This isabout giving people their rights andempowering them and also getting ministerialresponses to petitions, instead of, as themember for Mansfield said, having themthrown into the petition bin where they arenever heard of again. This is about doingsomething about petitions. How Oppositionmembers can oppose that amendment isbeyond me.

Next, I refer to criticism of the PublicWorks Committee. While I am on the subjectof committees, I am delighted to see that weare allowing the chairmen of committees toanswer questions. Members would be awarethat the first Parliamentary Criminal JusticeCommittee in recommendation 1 in its reportin December 1991, report no. 13,recommended just this. I am delighted to seethat it is happening. However, I conclude bysaying that I find it offensive that we haveattacks on certain parliamentary committeeswhen they do their job properly.

Finally, to give citizens a right of reply aspart of the accountability process is longoverdue. It has worked in the Senate. It doesnot take away a member's rights. We all haverights in this place to defend ourselves.Standing Orders provide members with theright to make personal explanations and raisepoints of privilege; we can explain ourselves inthis House whenever we like. All thoseamendments do in terms of giving citizens aright of reply is to make it fair. It does notaffect privilege in any manner, shape or form,it just gives them a fair go.

Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Leader ofthe Liberal Party) (2.40 p.m.): What anincredibly impassioned performance by themember for Brisbane Central. Is it not a greatpity that he did not get it right? He has beenasking us to believe that "Godfather"Mackenroth has the interests of the

Opposition at heart. While I am prepared tolisten to many of the things that Mr Beattiemight say, I believe that he lacks a certaindegree of credibility with Opposition members,and I am amazed that he could say it with astraight face.

I really do find it hard to restrain the angerI feel at having to debate this motion today. Ifind it difficult to restrain that anger, becauseeven at its worst, its most cynical and its leastaccountable, there are few times that thisState Labor Government has matched thedepths it has sunk to with today's effort—andto think that this Government was elected on aplatform of reform and a platform ofaccountability! I do not believe that anyoneshould forget that this Labor Government waselected on a platform of electoral purity. It waselected by the people of Queensland becauseit told the people that it would be clean, openand accountable. It has lied to the peopleagain. Yet here we have that very same LaborGovernment—less than six years later—bringing in these cynical changes to sessionalorders.

From listening to Mr Beattie, one mightthink that the Labor Party is looking afterOpposition backbenchers. Mr Beattie musthave mistaken the fact that, this morning, MrMackenroth said that if questions were overtwo pages long they would not beincorporated in Hansard. Call me a cynic, but Iwould think that if any answer that showedsome flaw in that otherwise very pure LaborGovernment, that political point would be onpage two and hence would not beincorporated in Hansard. If not, why is MrMackenroth limiting the answers in Hansard toone page when, again and again, the full 20minutes or one hour of every speech made bymembers in this House is recorded?

Mr T. B. Sullivan interjected.Mrs SHELDON: I know that the

honourable member does not reallyunderstand any of the actions of Parliament,but Ministers have always been able toincorporate in Hansard their full answers toquestions on notice, if they so desired. Ibelieve that these answers should be fullyincorporated in Hansard, because the Ministerdoes not have to present them; they will beprovided by bureaucrats. If they are wrong, Iguess that the Ministers will blame thebureaucrats. Let us face it, this Governmentnever blames itself for anything; it is 100 percent wonderful, according to itself.

Mr Mackenroth interjected.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Point of order.


Mrs SHELDON: Is the honourablemember interjecting, or not?

Mr Mackenroth interjected.

Mrs SHELDON: Then the membershould stand up—or does he not know whathe should do in this House? Mr Speaker, Ithought you said the member was taking apoint of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, thehonourable member is not taking a point oforder. He is asking you to take an interjection.

Mrs SHELDON: It is up to me as towhether or not I take his interjection, and I willnot take it. Why should I take the rubbish hehands out?

Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point oforder. What I wanted to say was that as MrsSheldon is complaining so much, and in thespirit of ensuring that this gets a fair trial, wewill incorporate all the answers to all thequestions for the rest of this term.

Mrs SHELDON: I am delighted to hearthat Mr Mackenroth has seen the error of hisways, as pointed out to him by the Opposition.I give credit where it is due. He has beenprepared to listen to this, but I do believe thatwe must have that in writing, otherwise it maynever be delivered. I will have the promise ofMr Mackenroth in writing, thanks, as part ofthe motion.

Mr Borbidge: Hansard has beenexpunged before.

Mrs SHELDON: That is quite true.Hansard has been expunged before, so let usget this in writing from Mr Mackenroth.

Why is this Labor Government able tomake these cynical changes to sessionalorders? I will tell honourable memberswhy—because it has bypassed the well-established and time-honoured conventions ofParliament in Queensland. Changes such asthis should have been passed through theStanding Orders Committee, which includesrepresentatives from both the Opposition andthe Government, including the Premier, MrBorbidge and me. But this cynical Governmentweaseled its way around these well-established precedents by claiming that thesechanges to question time are only a trial.Would I be too cynical by asking: is this trialonly until the next election? When does thetrial finish? Is Mr Mackenroth prepared toanswer that question?

Mr Mackenroth: I said the trial will beup until the election, and then we will decideafter that.

Mrs SHELDON: I thought so—until theelection. Dear me! How appropriate. ThisGovernment has been in power since 1989,yet only a few months before an electionthese so-called reforms are coming into place.And this Government wonders why it has nocredibility in the marketplace. People do notbelieve it. They are not as foolish as thisGovernment may think. People realise that byno means does the Executive stamp of powermean democracy. So we will have thisso-called trial.

How convenient to introduce such a trialwhen this Government has been underunprecedented attack for its failures in Health,law and order, Education and Transport. Onecan see them now sitting around the top floorof the Executive Building—the Premier, MrMackenroth, the general and others—trying tofigure out how they can limit exposure topublic questioning for their bunch of duds onthe frontbench—duds such as Mr Elder, whokeeps saying, "I am new to this. I do not reallyknow what is happening in the HealthDepartment. Please don't ask me any toughquestions." Mr Hayward is saying the samesort of thing in Transport. Mr Pitt does nothave the remotest idea what DBIRD really is allabout. Those are the Ministers of the Crownwho are supposed to be looking after theinterests of the people of Queensland.

As the great minds ticked—and by golly,speaking of great minds, we have some sittingon the Government side of the House, do wenot—someone came up with this wonderfulplan to limit Opposition front and backbenchers, with the exception of the Leader ofthe Opposition, to only one question withoutnotice. In that way, if the Governmentcontinues its previous form of 15-minuteanswers to dorothy dixers, particularlyquestions from the two Whips, whom we couldcall Dorothy One and Dorothy Two, and time-wasting in every other way possible, thenumber and continuity of questions asked bythe Opposition will be decreased. But that isonly part of the plan.

The other part of the plan is to allow eachmember of the Opposition to also ask onequestion on notice during question time, but togive Ministers and their departments 30 dayswithin which to answer those questions—onemonth to answer questions they previouslyhad to answer in one day. Yes, there may bemore questions, but nevertheless, if a memberneeds information, he or she needs it now, not30 days down the track. One month shouldsafely put any difficult questions out of the wayuntil, hopefully for the Government, the issue


is no longer relevant when the answer comesback—one month to answer questions thatthe Minister does not even answer, becausehis department does. This means that, onceagain, instead of the Minister beingresponsible, the emphasis is shifted back ontopublic servants within the department. Withthe Ministers having to answer fewer questionswithout notice, and the departments beinggiven a month to answer questions on notice,the Labor Ministers have much less scrutiny toworry about in this election year. That is whatthis is really all about. As I said, this is all aboutlimiting public scrutiny and publicaccountability. This is about this Governmentattempting to hide its deficiencies and abusingthe Parliament in the process.

Mr Speaker, I wish to draw attention tothe letter sent to you and signed by me, RobBorbidge and the Deputy Leader of theNational Party, Kevin Lingard. We wrote—

"Dear Mr Fouras

I refer to the announcement to themedia following yesterday's Caucusmeeting and the subsequent Ministerialstatement to Parliament by the Leader ofthe House concerning a proposedsessional order to change the format ofQuestion Time.

We, the undersigned, formallyrequest a meeting of the Standing OrdersCommittee to consider this matter.

As Chairman of the Committee andas custodian of the rights of members ofthe Legislative Assembly we consider thatyou have an obligation to take this courseof action.

We remain extremely concerned thatthe Leader of the House has indicatedthat you have had a high level ofinvolvement in the proposed changeswithout reference to the Committee thatthe Parliament has appointed to considersuch matters."

That Standing Orders Committee wasappointed by the Parliament, yet it is beingignored. The letter continued—

"It is now a period of years since youhave convened such a meeting which isconsiderable cause for concern.

We await your prompt response tothis formal request for a meeting to beconvened prior to the resumption ofParliament."

I table that letter.

Mr Speaker, I know that you did answerthat letter, but the reply was, in the opinion of

the Opposition, not satisfactory. We wouldhave much preferred to have spoken to youand to the other members of the StandingOrders Committee about our concerns beforethis debate took place. It may well have meantthat the debate was of a different nature, butwe were excluded from meeting as a StandingOrders Committee. Of course, we have notmet, as you would be aware, in the life of thisParliament. It is over two and half years sincewe have met. I wonder why that is so. If weneed committees such as the Standing OrdersCommittee, surely we should meet anddiscuss the issues pertaining to the StandingOrders.

The Premier also has rejected these calls.He is a member of the Standing OrdersCommittee and has refused to convene thatcommittee since September 1992. As I said,that committee was appointed by Parliamentitself. It was established to oversee mattersexactly like changes to the sessional orders.

There are other matters included in theproposed changes to sessional orders whichare also worth considering. For example,under the heading "General Rules forAnswers" are the following three points—

"(i) In answering a Question a Ministeror Member shall not debate thesubject to which it refers.

(ii) An answer shall be relevant to thequestion.

(iii) If, in the opinion of the Speaker, theAnswer is too long, he may direct theMinister or the Member to ceasespeaking."

These are classics! Numbers one and two arelike extinct dinosaurs resurrected to remind usof how things once were, and maybe could beagain. In answering a question a Minister shallnot debate the subject. Can you imagine it?This crew opposite have never really answereda question without endeavouring to debate it.

They have all learnt from the WayneGoss school of question time etiquette. TheWayne Goss school of question time etiquettealso has three rules—

(1) Never, never answer a question.

(2) Verbally bash the person who askedthe question as much as possible.

(3) Drag the answer to the question outas long as possible, including debate,vitriol, meaningless statistics,electioneering and the obligatory verbalbulldust so the Opposition's time to askquestions is limited as much as possible.


Mr SPEAKER: They haven't beenchanged.

Mr Borbidge: Was there an interjectionfrom the right?

Mrs SHELDON: I think there was. Ifmembers think back and check Hansard theywill see that all other members of the Ministryhave gone to Wayne's school, and they haveall passed. For many on the Governmentfrontbench it was the first thing they everpassed—or are likely to pass.

As to point (ii) of the "General Rules forAnswers", which states "An Answer shall berelevant to the question", I again refermembers to my three previous points from theWayne Goss school of question timeetiquette. In case honourable members haveforgotten them, they are—

(1) Never, never answer a question.

(2) Verbally bash the person who askedthe question as much as possible.

(3) Drag the answer to the question outas long as possible, including debate,vitriol, meaningless statistics,electioneering and the obligatory verbalbulldust.

Relevance is very rarely a strong pointwhen it comes to Ministers answeringquestions. Rules for answers should be thesame as rules for questions and not be able toinclude arguments, inferences, imputations orhypothetical matters. However, if they couldnot include hypothetical matters, I supposethat we would never get an answer.

What I find incredible about thesechanges is that the Leader of the House, MrMackenroth, described the changes as reform.I ask you, Mr Speaker, how can thesechanges be considered reforms? They arerestrictions; not reforms. Reforms do not limitscrutiny; they do not limit accountability.Reforms are supposed to make theGovernment and the Parliament moreaccountable, not less accountable. Just toremind members, previously a member of theOpposition was able to ask two questions.Opposition members had the option of eitherasking two questions without notice, twoquestions on notice, or one of each. Thatflexibility allowed Opposition members todecide which forum best suited their question.Answers to questions on notice had to beprovided on the next sitting day.

These farcical so-called reforms will meanthat members of the Opposition have nooption of how to ask their questions. They willhave no option of whether to ask one question

without notice, and then follow it up with asupplementary question without notice. Often,that is what one needs to do, because theanswer that has come from the Minister setsitself up for a supplementary question throughwhich we could really find out what the answeris.

These so-called reforms come from theExecutive. They are the ones who make therules and they are the ones who punch theirrules through. It is a joke, and a bad joke atthat.

I believe that these changes to thesessional orders introduced today are notreforms. They are a deliberate attempt by theGovernment to limit the scrutiny of Ministers bythe Opposition and the public. They are adeliberate attempt in an election year to limitthe public accountability of Ministers. They area deliberate attempt to limit the number ofquestions without notice Ministers face duringan election year.

If this Government was truly interested inparliamentary reform it would be making realchanges—genuine changes. It would bemaking question time more relevant so that adefinitive minimum of questions can be asked,regardless of time. Or it would be limiting thelength of answers by Ministers so that time-wasting does not occur.

After giving us the questionable benefit ofhis input, Mr Beattie has left the Chamber.The reason members of the Opposition arenot rising to ask questions—either shadowMinisters or backbenchers—is that Ministersfilibuster and take up the time of question timeso that, deliberately, the number of answers islimited.

If this Government was truly interested inparliamentary reform it would be allowing thebroadcast of Parliament by radio andtelevision. I feel very strongly about this. Ibrought this up at the first Standing OrdersCommittee that I attended and I have raisedthe matter subsequently. I believe that it isimportant that question time in our House istelevised so the public can see how pitiful thebunch opposite really is and so the people ofQueensland can properly scrutinise theirelected representatives. If the Parliament hasno problems with that, why do we not do it? Iadd that that is a move that the Premier wouldnot allow, and one I pursued on the oddoccasions that the Standing OrdersCommittee has met. A range of reasons wasput up as to why that would not beacceptable. One reason was that the House,because it is a heritage building, could not besuccessfully wired. I subsequently found out,


Mr Speaker, as I am sure you are aware, that,when this House was renovated, provision wasmade to install cabling because those involvedthought that that would eventually happen.The cost of televising Parliament was thenraised. So I went to the various commercialchannels and the ABC and asked whetherthey would be interested in putting up funds todo this and they were quite happy to do so.

Mr Mackenroth: I would supporttelevising if they would promise that theywould put you on every night.

Mrs SHELDON: I would support that,too. I am sure that that could only elevate thetone of this House. If the honourable memberagrees with me that we should televisequestion time, I am sure that I can get thecommercial channels and the ABC to pooltheir resources and record this place with onetelevision camera. Similarly, we should be ableto broadcast question time. If we really didbelieve in accountability then surely this wouldfollow. I believe real accountability is a long,long way away in Queensland, despite thepromises made by Wayne Goss six years ago.

Finally, I will refer to changing the formatof petitions. People did have problems withthe format of petitions, basically because theydid not know the format and did not realisethat one existed. Pamphlets have beenpublished that show how a petition should beworded. In my electorate through thenewspapers I informed people of this so theywould not waste time filling out petitionsincorrectly. They can collect a proper petitionpaper from our electorate offices and I amsure that all members, if they are properlyserving their electorates, would let theirconstituents know that. I know that membersof the Opposition have done so.

It is hypocrisy to say that because thewords "we pray" was included in the petition itwas not worded properly and the petition couldnot be submitted. That is a nonsense. Ibelieve that it is another method of trying toget rid of tradition in this House. It is becominga godless House, where traditions andChristian ethics are being ignored more andmore. I am amazed that the member forMansfield was quite prepared to ignoreChristian ethics and throw them out of thisplace. So much for her commitment toanything that Christians really stand for.

All I can say is that I am disappointedthat on this day this Labor Government, acouple of months out from an election, hasseen fit to alter the proceedings of thisParliament under the guise of changes tosessional orders and will not allow the

members of this House to be accountable tothe people of Queensland who elected us.

Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg)(2.59 p.m.): It is interesting to follow themember for Caloundra in this debate. I haveobserved that it is the conservatives whosupposedly have a mortgage on Christianmorals. It is interesting to note that, when theywere in Government, they also believed thatthey had a mortgage on Christian morals. Ican definitely say, from watching theirbehaviour for 10 years, that they have nomortgage on Christian morals.

This is not a permanent change to theStanding Orders; it is a change to thesessional orders. It is very important thatmembers understand that this change to thesessional orders and the way in which it affectsmany important aspects of the procedures ofthis Parliament will be trialled and consideredand then the Standing Orders Committee willmake a decision on whether such a changeshould be put firmly in place.

It was interesting to hear the Leader ofthe Opposition imply that the period allowedfor a reply to a question on notice is somehowimmoral and in some way different from whatis accepted in other Parliaments. In everyother Parliament, plenty of time is given inwhich to reply to questions on notice so thatthey can be answered properly. For example,the Parliament of New South Wales allows 35calendar days in which to answer questions onnotice. Why does the Opposition declare thatallowing 30 days in which to reply to aquestion on notice is somehow wrong? Thereis no basis upon which to say that in theParliament of Victoria four weeks is theaverage time in which to reply to questions onnotice, and there is no set time limit. It isinteresting to note that members of otherState Parliaments of the same party andconvictions as members of the QueenslandOpposition allow a reasonable time in which toanswer questions on notice, but somehow thatis not right in this Parliament.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Perhaps theircolleagues in New South Wales should be toldof their position on this.

Mr CAMPBELL: As well as theParliament of New South Wales, theParliaments of Tasmania and South Australiahave no set period in which to answerquestions on notice, but members are usuallygiven an answer in two weeks.

It is also interesting that the Oppositionbelieves that somehow the Government wouldbe more accountable if the proceedings of


Parliament were televised. I have never seentelevision coverage make any Governmentmore accountable. However, what does makeGovernments more accountable is the abilityof members to be able to ask more questions.However, it seems that, in this place, theOpposition is prepared to vote against asystem that will allow for more questions onnotice. Question time provides members withan opportunity to obtain information aboutwhat Executive Government is doing. Itensures a workable system of Parliament. Thenew system will be an even better and fairerone.

The Opposition wants to retain a systemwhich, in the 1993 and 1994 parliamentaryyears, allowed an average of only 2.1 and 2.2questions on notice per day respectively in theQueensland Parliament. It is interesting tonote that the Parliament of New South Wales,which allows questions on notice to beanswered in a manner similar to that which weare proposing, was able to have 46 questionson notice answered per day in 1993 and 41questions on notice answered per day in1994. Yet the Opposition in this State wants toretain a system under which very fewquestions on notice are actually answered.

In relation to the procedure of questiontime—since 1983, there has been no majorchange to the Standing Orders. In March1983, the number of questions asked bymembers was limited. In August 1984,another minor amendment to the StandingOrders occurred, which actually ruled outsupplementary questions. I have observedvarious Parliaments which allowsupplementary questions, and I believe thatthose questions add a little bit of cut andthrust to question time which is often lacking inour Parliament.

Under the changes proposed, questiontime will now be comprised totally of questionswithout notice. To my knowledge, no otherParliament allows one hour for question time.Most Parliaments allow only 45 minutes. I cansee the problem occurring—and we may haveto rely on the use of the Speaker'sdiscretion—that we will not be able to fill thehour with questions.

Mr Veivers: What did you saybefore—that we are morally corrupt?

Mr CAMPBELL: I am just saying thatthe Opposition has no mortgage on morals.

Mr Veivers: How come you are not stillDeputy Speaker?

Mr CAMPBELL: The member is nobetter than anyone else.

Mr Veivers: You are saying I amcorrupt?

Mr CAMPBELL: We will have to look atthe time that we will allow for questions withoutnotice. The member for Southport talks aboutbeing morally corrupt. I was a member of thisHouse when the Opposition was inGovernment and I heard Ministers of thatGovernment make those same accusations.So the member should not come in herepretending to be all white and pure. I had to sitin Opposition and cop it from his party. It isinteresting to note that someone who is somoral has to have a loaded gun under theseat in his car.

Mr VEIVERS: I rise to a point of order.My point of order is that the gun was licensed.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no pointof order.

Mr CAMPBELL: Honourable members,I want to set the record straight. The memberhad a licensed gun under his seat.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that weleave the gun out of the debate.

Mr CAMPBELL: Under Standing Order67B, it is proposed that members be allowedto ask questions of other members, and thiswill include members of committees. We willhave to be very careful to ensure thatquestions to members of committees areabout procedural matters only. In fact, ifmembers want to question a committee aboutsomething that is happening, it should bedone by way of a proper debate. We have tobe very careful to ensure that questions aboutcommittees are confined to questions aboutprocedural matters such as the time when acommittee may be reporting to the Parliament.

As the honourable member forBeaudesert would appreciate, members of theOpposition make references to Governmentmembers leaving this House after they havemade a contribution to a debate. It is veryinteresting to note that the member forCaloundra, who highlighted an example of aGovernment member leaving the Chamberafter contributing to a debate, left theChamber herself immediately after she madeher contribution.

Mr Santoro: Do you think it hadanything to do with you getting up to speak?

Mr CAMPBELL: It probably did. Themember probably does not appreciate good,logical debate. She is very cynical. Themember for Caloundra is worried aboutwhether we will publish two pages in Hansardor whether we will not publish it. She referred


to material having to be expunged fromHansard. One of the worst cases of having toexpunge material was when a National Partybackbencher incorporated in Hansard whatcould be regarded as nothing more thanpornographic filth. We had to expunge that.Opposition members know the person towhom I refer. Members of the Opposition whohave made accusations against theGovernment in this regard should look at theactions of their own members.

The member for Caloundra referred tothe form of answers. It is accepted by ErskineMay and the House of Commons thatMinisters cannot be directed to answerquestions in a particular manner. That is anaccepted procedure and rule in allParliaments. So, really, the member'sargument does not carry weight.

Changes will be made to the format ofpetitions, and I think it is good that thosechanges have been included in the sessionalorders. However, I am concerned that we havenot gone as far as was proposed in thediscussion paper on the petitioning process.When we were in Opposition, a committeecalled the Transition to GovernmentCommittee also looked at procedures. Therecommendations of that committee and alsothose included in the discussion paper on thereform of the petitioning process put out bythe Speaker may have been followed.

I will discuss some of the views aboutpetitions raised in the discussion paper, andthese would be shared by most honourablemembers. It stated—

"The lack of any formal responses topetitions has been raised by severalpetitioners who feel a degree offrustration at the considerable effort spentin preparing and circulating petitions tohave no further action taken.

One way of redressing this situationwould be to amend the standing ordersto provide that Ministers should respondto petitions and to impose a time limit onthe receipt of those responses. Once aresponse to the House has beenreceived, it should be published inHansard in a similar manner to answersto questions on notice."

It then went further to suggest a proposedchange to the Standing Orders. The proposalsuggested in the discussion paper stated—

"A copy of every petition received bythe House is to be referred by the Clerk tothe appropriate responsible Minister whomust forward the Government's response

within 30 days to the Clerk forpresentation to the House. A copy of thisresponse shall be printed in Hansard andbe supplied to the Member whopresented the petition."

This would have been a more appropriatechange to the Standing Order for petitions.That proposal also suggested that the nameof the principal petitioner should be on thefront page of the petition. That proposition isquite reasonable and I support it. Whenpetitions are circulated, often the front page isnot signed by petitioners, who often do notknow who is circulating a petition; they justsign it. Perhaps the name of the principalpetitioner could be on all pages so that, whenindividuals sign a petition, he or she wouldknow who is sponsoring it.

Mr Veivers: Are you going to move anamendment?

Mr CAMPBELL: No, I am just raisingpoints about which I would prefer to see somechanges.

I now refer to the protection of personsreferred to in a legislative committee. Whenthe discussion paper on these proposals wasreleased, I had a few concerns about giving aright of reply to an aggrieved person. Afterhaving looked again at the arguments for andagainst giving a citizen a right of reply, I nowfeel that it may be worth while if theseprocedures are adopted.

However, I wonder why we still need sucha provision in an adversarial system. If amember makes a statement about someonein this place, an aggrieved person with a validpoint to make could do so via a member onthe opposite side of the House. That hashappened quite often. If people are aggrievedand they have a valid point to raise, we haveto ask why it has not been raised by othermembers of this House. Members of thisParliament have more opportunities to do sothan members in previous Parliaments. Forexample, we now have two Adjournmentdebates. If someone is aggrieved, there istime for a member from another political partyto put that person's point of view. That is whatwe are doing here; we are representing thepeople in our electorates. Those debatesprovide the opportunity to do that.

Mr Bredhauer: Would you trust themto put your message across?

Mr CAMPBELL: No, I would not. Thestandard of the performance in Parliament bymembers of the Opposition is probably whythis provision has to be included.


Even if allegations are made againstmembers in this place, we have to accept andunderstand that those members, underStanding Order 110, via a personalexplanation, or under Standing Order 115, viaa point of privilege, have the right to reply.Generally, we should not be too concernedabout giving aggrieved members of the publican opportunity to have their views put in thisHouse.

These changes are major, and we havenot had major changes to the Standing Ordersfor a long time. We should commend theLeader of the House for introducing thesechanges via a sessional order. This will enableus to trial the provisions to see how they willoperate. We will be able to see the pitfalls andadvantages that will arise from this sessionalorder.

Question time will be improved, andmembers opposite will have a greater chanceto ask questions on notice. All honourablemembers, especially those from theOpposition, will have the chance to put onequestion per day on notice. I find it verydifficult to accept that members of theOpposition, for reasons other than somecynical point scoring, could possibly voteagainst these provisions. The Opposition'sresistance to making our ExecutiveGovernment more accountable by havingmore questions placed on notice is somethingthat I cannot understand.

Mr LINGARD (Beaudesert—DeputyLeader of the Opposition) (3.15 p.m.): TheGoss ALP Government came to power ridingon the back of the white horse ofaccountability. Continuously today we haveheard the Leader of the House refer toaccountability. However, the Opposition hasasked continuously: how can the Governmentbe accountable by means of a committeesystem when the Government has not evenconvened a meeting of the Standing OrdersCommittee to refer the decisions of theStanding Orders Committee to the House.

Today, we heard the Leader of theHouse ask: "What better committee is therethan this Parliament itself?" And that is thedifficulty that we in Queensland—and we inthe Opposition—are now facing. As this ALPGovernment becomes extremely comfortablein power, it does not want committees toscrutinise it.

I refer to the editorial in the Australian of24 January this year, which stated—

"It is disappointing that more thanfive years after Labor was elected, there

is still no fully-fledged committee systemoperating in the State's single-houseParliament . . . it is perhaps not surprisingthat as it becomes used to the comfortsof the government benches, the GossGovernment may be less willing tosurrender to Parliament the breadth ofpowers necessary to properly scrutiniseit."

It continues—"Equally important is the need to

give Parliament the ability to play its rolein scrutinising the actions of executivegovernment. A unicameral parliamentarysystem needs adequate reviewprocesses."

We have heard today that the StandingOrders Committee has not even met.However, this Government is ready to goahead—although, as one speaker mentioned,it is a sessional order—and use its power toimplement this sessional order. We have seenover the past five years how manyrecommendations of EARC and PEARC havenot been implemented.

One of the most importantrecommendations was in relation to theAuditor-General. We do not have anAuditor-General giving performance-basedadvice to this Parliament. This Government stillmakes its Auditor-General a person whochecks the invoices and financial statementsand says, "Everything is correct." However, theAuditor-General does not refer to theperformance of departments. Recently, wesaw the PAC and PWC acting in a blatantlypoliticised way by voting simply on party linesand not referring matters back to thisParliament for decision.

Later, I will criticise this GossGovernment's failure to introduce a propercommittee system, despite its promise ofaccountability, which was given to the peopleof Queensland. There is one aspect of theproposed sessional orders to which I wish torefer. There are many others, but they havebeen covered by the previous speakers.

One proposed sessional order states thatquestions may not be put to the Speaker. Iknow that four or five previous Speakers havemade rulings about whether a question maybe put on notice to the Speaker—SpeakerTaylor, Speaker Houghton and SpeakerNicholson. Mr Speaker, you have made adecision that there will be no questions onnotice put to you. This sessional orderconfirms that decision. This is one of mycriticisms of what is going on in this


Parliament. I believe very much in the principleof the impartiality of the Speaker.

If I or anyone else wishes to ask aquestion about the Parliamentary ServiceCommission, we cannot ask the Speaker. Wecannot ask the Speaker about any of the rolesof the Parliamentary Service Commission. Oneof those roles is providing essential support inthe processing of and assent to legislation.Another role is providing information, research,education, protocol, administrative andmessenger support services to members ofthe Parliament. The Opposition will now haveto ask questions on anything relating to theParliamentary Service Commission of theLeader of the House. How is that upholdingthe separation of powers? The Leader of theHouse plays an active role in Cabinet,participates in budgetary decisions, serves onthe Parliamentary Service Commission andcontrols the business of this House, yet wemust direct any questions on the role of theParliamentary Service Commission to him.

Another role of the Parliamentary ServiceCommission is to oversee the Table Office,which provides the procedural andadministrative support necessary for theproper conduct of the business of theLegislative Assembly. However, in future wemay direct questions relating to the operationsof the Table Office only to the Leader of theHouse, because this——

Mrs Woodgate interjected.

Mr LINGARD: Under this sessionalorder, that is not possible. This sessional orderdoes not allow a member to ask a question ofthe Speaker. That power has been takenaway.

The committee office provides assistanceto parliamentary committees in the conduct oftheir inquiries. Under this sessional order, theonly person of whom members may askquestions about the committee office is theLeader of the House. What answer will wereceive from the Leader of the House? We willbe given the answer that reflects the attitudeof the Cabinet, the answer that reflects theattitude of the Parliamentary ServiceCommission and the answer that reflects theattitude of this Government. That is not therole of the Speaker. The role of the Speaker isto act in an impartial manner to protect therole of Opposition members, regardless ofwhat Government members believe theOpposition should be doing. But if members ofthe Opposition cannot ask impartial questionsabout the operations of a particular body, thenI believe that the rights of the Opposition havebeen taken away. The position taken in this

sessional order has not been sanctioned byany other Speaker, but this Speaker hasmade that decision and it is reflected in thismotion.

I turn to the actions of this Governmentregarding the Standing Orders Committee andthe committee system generally. The GossGovernment's draft Parliamentary CommitteesBill 1995 reveals its departure from key EARCand PEARC recommendations and flags asignificant erosion of committee powers.Fitzgerald recommended the role of thecommittee system. EARC wrote a report whichbasically supported the Fitzgeraldrecommendations. The PEARC committeebased its report on those recommendations.But now the Government has come up with itsown Parliamentary Committees Bill outliningthe procedure relating to committees.

The committees will play one overridinggeneral role. There will be no power investedin them which is not invested initially by thisParliament. This Parliament will decide whatthe Public Accounts Committee and the PublicWorks Committee will investigate. It will decidehow the Auditor-General will be selected. Thatis a move away from the recommendations ofFitzgerald, EARC and PEARC in this regard.The result will be a system that is incapable ofvigorous and thorough review of Governmentpolicies and decisions.

The Labor Party always criticised theprevious Government for not allowing avigorous and thorough review of its policiesand decisions. However, by endorsing thesemeasures Government members are doingexactly the same thing. This Government hasbypassed the Standing Orders Committee. Ithas not even convened it; the committee hasnot even met. These new sessional orders willbe passed by this House without reference tothat committee.

The 1989 Fitzgerald report andsubsequent EARC and PEARC reports onparliamentary reform maintained that theintroduction of a comprehensive parliamentarycommittee system was necessary to enhancethe ability of Parliament to monitor theefficiency of the Government. That is notbeing done. The Auditor-General will notundertake performance auditing. Themembers of the Public Accounts Committeeand the Public Works Committee will vote onparty lines. The Premier has repeatedlyaffirmed that a strong parliamentary system ispart of the Government's reform package, buthe has rejected the Fitzgerald/EARCrecommendation that the powers of theAuditor-General be boosted to include


performance auditing of departments on thegrounds that the parliamentary committeesystem will perform that role. In terms of thedraft Parliamentary Committees Bill, the GossGovernment is robbing the parliamentarycommittee system of the tools with which toperform such a task. A similar situation hasoccurred with this sessional order. Governmentmembers know full well that the StandingOrders Committee has not even met. Thecommittee has not sanctioned thesemeasures; the House has instead a sessionalorder presented by the Leader of the House.

Following its review of the Electoral andAdministrative Review Commission's findings,PEARC unanimously adopted a draftQueensland Parliament Bill in line with its ownrecommendations. However, the Governmentwent against those recommendations in thedraft Parliamentary Committees Bill. The Billstates—

"The Legislative Assembly mayauthorise a statutory committee to call forpersons, documents and things."

In the future, this Parliament will providecommittees with their terms of reference. Whatwill occur if the Standing Orders Committeedoes not meet? What will occur if the cateringcommittee does not meet? What will occur ifthe Parliamentary Service Commission doesnot meet? Will we merely bypass all of thoseprocedures and let the Parliament votewhichever way it likes? That is not what EARCrecommended, it is not what Fitzgeraldrecommended, and it certainly is not whatPEARC recommended, yet Governmentmembers are prepared to vote in support ofthis change to the sessional orders that hasbeen proposed by the Leader of the House.

The proposal outlined in the draftParliamentary Committees Bill represents amajor departure from EARC and PEARCrecommendations and represents asubstantial curtailing of committee powers.EARC recommended that scrutiny committeeshave the following general powers—

"the power to call for persons, papers andrecords and to examine witnesses;

the power to generate their own inquiriesand accept references from the House."

What role has the Standing Orders Committeeplayed in formulating this change to thesessional orders? What role have we asOpposition members on the committeeplayed? Absolutely none. We have not beenconsulted; this matter has not been referred tous. We simply must accept the wishes of theSpeaker, the Leader of the House and

whoever else had any part in framing thissessional order. The proposal provides onlythat, once the system has been tested, theStanding Orders Committee might be able tohave a look at it—three years down the track.

PEARC supported the recommendationsof EARC relating to scrutiny committees andincorporated those recommendations in part 2of its Queensland Parliament Bill. That sectionstates—

"A person may be ordered to attendbefore, or attend before and produce adocument to, the . . . committee"——

Mr Welford: What is the relevance ofthis?

Mr LINGARD: In effect, the power ofcommittees to generate their own inquiries bycalling for witnesses and documents has beensubordinated by a requirement—and this isthe relevance of it—that the LegislativeAssembly must authorise such action. Ofcourse, that is exactly what the Governmenthas done today; it is exactly what it has donewith committees so far and it is exactly what itintends to do with committees in the future.

The Government is saying that thisHouse will authorise what the committee willdo. It will authorise what the PAC will do. It willauthorise what the PWC will do. It willauthorise what the Auditor-General will look at.The Government is saying that it will not allowthe Auditor-General to look at theperformances of each department; it willmerely let him check the invoices andstatements and report back to the Parliament.That is not in keeping with therecommendations of Fitzgerald, EARC orPEARC.

This is substantially undermining theindependence and powers of committees andleaving the door open for political interferencein potentially politically damaging committeeinvestigations. That is exactly what hashappened. I do not want to go any further withthat particular point, but I am sure thatGovernment members would understand thatthere is merit in what I have said, and theyhave allowed that to happen today. Theymight think it is a joke that the StandingOrders Committee has not met; they mightthink it is a joke that Opposition membershave not been consulted. At the end of theday, everyone will know that Governmentmembers supported a proposal drafted by theLeader of the House, the Speaker and a fewother people.

I want to make a couple of other points. Ibelieve that there should have been a 14-day


rule in relation to responses to questions onnotice. The Government can introducecomplex legislation to this House and it sits onthe table for only seven days, or fewer in somecases. Opposition members, with the limitedresources provided to them, must wadethrough such legislation and be ready todebate it in detail within that short time frame.In such circumstances, 30 days is far too longa period in which an answer to a question onnotice must be provided to the Opposition.

It is common knowledge that, when amember asks a question on notice, thatmember is seeking detailed and relevantinformation. The member may need thatinformation immediately for work within his orher electorate or work within this Parliament.For a question on notice to be answered 30days down the line is absolutely ridiculous. It isirrelevant whether that is the same time periodadopted in other States. Clearly, this provisionreinforces the power of the Government tocontrol the Opposition. The Opposition hasonly seven days within which to absorb majorpieces of legislation—and the Budget is apertinent example—yet this Government, withthe massive departmental and ministerialresources at its disposal, claims that it cannotanswer questions on notice in fewer than 30days. Mr Speaker, I put it to you that theGovernment is either lazy, incompetent orquite simply wants to take the political heat outof question time.

Mr Santoro interjected. Mr LINGARD: The Government will do

anything to make sure that the Oppositiondoes not have any advantage. If that is whatthe Government is doing, then clearly that isnot what EARC, PEARC and Fitzgeraldrecommended. The current system ofanswering questions on notice in one day is asystem that has worked fairly for both Laborand the coalition in Opposition. There is nological or reasonable argument to dump it.Surely if the Opposition can debate complexlegislation after seven days' preparation,Ministers can answer questions under 30days, or indeed in one day, as has been thesystem in this Parliament for decades. Has theGovernment opted for this choice? No, it hasopted for the unreasonable and unworkable30-day model. It wants to do everything it canin its power to gag the Parliament and to gagthe Opposition.

I am also concerned about membersasking questions. Mr Speaker, before youwere even elected as the Speaker, you madestatements in the press about what you weregoing to do with question time. The Premier

also made those statements, yet it has takenfive years to do this. Why now? I believe it isclearly to gag the Opposition. TheGovernment has had five years to fix this up. Iquote examples of the number of questionswhich were asked of previous Governments. Irefer back to 1987-88 when, on a dailyaverage, the Government then answered wellover 20 questions per sitting day. In 1988-89,the number was well over 20. Today, thenumbers 17 and 16 have been quoted. In1994, the average number of questions for aday was 13.7. I believe that that is somethingthat could have been improved by theGovernment and the Speaker, even if theHouse adopted the system adopted for theEstimates committees. Members were allowedto ask a question within a certain time and aMinister had only three minutes to answer thatquestion. Something could have been done toimprove the standard of question time.

We have seen the Premier and some ofthe Ministers take up to seven minutes toanswer a question. I do not believe that thatshows good control of the House. I repeatwhat I said before: I do not believe that thisGovernment has implemented the committeesystem as per the EARC or PEARCrecommendations, and certainly not as perFitzgerald's recommendations. It has come topower riding on the back of the white horse ofaccountability. Government members talkabout that all the time, but there is noaccountability in what this Government isdoing in this House.

Mr WELFORD (Everton) (3.35 p.m.):Government members have had enough. Wewant a good Opposition. For the first time inthe five and a half years that we have been inGovernment, we are saying, "We have hadenough. We want an Opposition." For the firsttime since we have been in Government, weare saying to Opposition members, "Look, wewant to help you. We are going to give you aleg up. We want to do something for you thatyou have never done for yourselves, that is,give you a question time which you mightmake some use of."

This sessional order is about doing thevery thing that the Opposition has complainedabout for so long but opposed belligerently forso long. The only reason these issues havenot come before this House before now is thatthe very Opposition Leader who now stands inthis place and opposes these sessional ordersopposed the very same proposals when theywere put to him years ago. He has had ampleopportunity to work for a so-called workablepackage which he said he could have nutted


out if only the Standing Orders Committee hadmet. Well, the Standing Orders Committee didmeet years ago and he was not the slightestbit interested. The Leader of the Oppositionhad no interest in any reform to StandingOrders that would, through question time,make the Government more accountable. Hehad not the slightest interest in expanding theopportunities for questions from theOpposition because he was concerned withonly one interest—not the Opposition'sinterest, not the interest of the Parliament tokeep the Government accountable, not theinterest for an expanded and moreaccountable question time, he was concernedonly for his self-interest and preserving forhimself the privileged position that he nowenjoys above every back bench Oppositionmember in the Parliament.


Mr WELFORD: And he continues tosustain a position which deprives thehonourable member for Southport, a lowlyOpposition front bencher, and every otherbackbencher on the Opposition, the chance toget a decent say during question time.

Every member of the Opposition knowsthat this sessional order will expand theiraccess to ask questions in question time, butthey are not in the Parliament because they sitin their rooms in shame that their own leaderwould be so self-interested and so petty thathe does not want to give them the chance toask questions. Opposition members knowthat, at the end of the debate, they will haveto come in here and vote against the veryamendment to Standing Orders—temporaryas it may be—that gives them, for the first timesince they have been in Opposition, thechance to ask questions in the House everyday.

Mr Lingard interjected.

Mr WELFORD: If the member forBeaudesert ever thought that there was a jokeabout Standing Orders, this has to be it, thathe is standing up here and prepared todeprive all of the Opposition backbenchers ofthe chance to put questions to theGovernment every day.

The most disappointing feature of thisdebate today is that we see a desperateOpposition. It is a sign of a desperateOpposition that has given up before it haseven started. Where else in the world wouldthere be a parliamentary Opposition giving upbefore it has started?


Mr WELFORD: The honourablemember for Southport would appreciate theanalogy. Opposition members are likemembers of a football team walking onto thefield and undoing their laces as they walk on;they are giving up before they start.Opposition members are not saying tothemselves, "There is an opportunity underthis new mechanism for us to line up 3,000questions a year. We will line up from the frontbench for our backbenchers to whip in and askquestions on notice and questions withoutnotice." They are saying, "We will notcoordinate our questions to take advantage ofthis opportunity. No, we will give up." They areputting their feet in the air and saying, "Sorry,it is too hard; we don't want it. We do not wantthe opportunity for extra questions; we do notwant the backbenchers of the Governmentassisting us in running a decent Opposition.We have given up." Mr Speaker, Oppositionmembers have given up. This Governmentwants to help them. We want them to havethe opportunity to ask questions. We yearn fora better Opposition, but members oppositejust have not got what it takes, because theyhave given up.

We have heard Opposition membersbefore me—and we will hear Mr Santoro afterme—say, "We love the silver platter, thanks,but we just don't want it. We want to flick passit. It is too hard. Don't give me the ball; it is ahot potato. It is too hard for us in Opposition.We don't want the chance to do any better asan Opposition than we do now. We are happybeing a bunch of losers." That is what theyare, and what they are doing today confirms inthe minds of every one of us—and especiallyOpposition backbenchers—how pathetic theirleadership is that they do not grasp thisopportunity and run with it instead of runningaway from it.

The Leader of the Opposition said thatthis was a subversion of the Standing OrdersCommittee. He wanted to know what the pointof a Standing Orders Committee is. That is agood question. As the Standing OrdersCommittee is currently constituted, one wouldhave to ask what value it has been to the lastParliament. We know it has been of no valueto this Parliament, because it has not met. Butwhy would it meet when the one crucial testthat it had during the course of the lastParliament was to try to get together—in MrBorbidge's words—a workable package ofreforms with respect to Parliament andquestion time? What did Mr Borbidge do? Hestonewalled it from the start. He did not wantto be part of it. Now he is asking questionsabout the Standing Orders Committee being


effective. Now that the Government has takenthe initiative and said, "Look, we will dosomething about it with a temporary trial ofsessional orders", Mr Borbidge says, "I nowwant the Standing Orders Committee tomeet." He has not had the slightest interest inletting the Standing Orders Committeeoperate effectively in the past. Now that theGovernment has grasped the opportunity todo something about it, all of a sudden MrBorbidge wants the Standing OrdersCommittee to meet. He even wrote to theSpeaker obsequiously saying, "Mr Speaker,isn't this awful. The Standing OrdersCommittee has not met. Surely we can gettogether a workable package." The Leader ofthe Opposition has had his opportunity, andhe knocked it back twice. We are going to dothis and do it properly. That is what this motionis about.

There is another issue that Oppositionmembers have raised. In fact, the memberwho spoke prior to me was very concernedabout this. I refer to the rule that questions onnotice must be answered within 30 days. Inote that the Opposition has conspicuouslyavoided including backbenchers on its list ofspeakers——

Dr Watson: I'm scheduled to speak.Mr WELFORD: I look forward with

interest to the former Federal parliamentarianthe member for Moggill ever having somethingto say about this. I presume he will tell us thatthe Federal Parliament's role and proceduresare no good, because we are effectivelyputting them into place. Opposition membershave raised the issue of whether answersshould be given within 30 days. The memberfor Beaudesert needs to make up his mind.He wants the answers to be supplied within aday and says that this system has worked wellelsewhere. On the other hand, he is alwayscomplaining about the adequacy of answersgiven by Ministers or the bureaucracy. If themember wants proper answers—full andaccurate responses—to questions on notice,there must be a reasonable time within whichMinisters can ensure that those answers areprepared. Thirty days for the provision of ananswer to a question on notice is the standardpractice in every other Parliament in Australia,give or take a few days, yet Oppositionmembers want answers tomorrow—answersthat are potentially inadequate. They cannothave it both ways. They cannot expectanswers to be provided tomorrow and for themto be full and accurate.

The Leader of the Opposition says thatquestions answered within 30 days can be

news today and fish and chip paper tomorrow.The sad tragedy is that most of the questionsasked by Opposition members in the past fiveyears that I have been a member of this placehave been questions today and fish and chippaper in 30 seconds. That is how effectivetheir questioning has been; it has beenpathetic. We are trying to give them anexpanded opportunity to improve the strategicapproach they take to question time, but theyare passing it up; and even worse, they aretrying to resist that opportunity.

The proposition that this initiative is aboutExecutive control is laughable. The reality isthat if the Government took no initiative on thisand if Mr Speaker had not been encouragingthe Government to take any initiative on thisno change would ever occur. Where is thechange going to come from if the Governmentdoes not move the motion for the sessionalorder? The Opposition has not attempted tomove a similar motion. Not once during hisspeech today did the Leader of the Oppositionput forward any element of the so-calledworkable package that he reckons he couldnow get out of the Standing OrdersCommittee—if only it would meet at hisbehest. Not once did he indicate one elementof a so-called workable package of reforms toquestion time which he says he wants. He washappily doing a bagging job of every elementof the proposed sessional order, but heoffered not one alternative—not oneconstructive suggestion as to how he and theOpposition could effectively use question timeto make the Government more accountable. Ibelieve that is indicative of the extent of theOpposition's seriousness about this matter. Itis an indication of its genuineness. Oppositionmembers could not care less if question timedid not change for another century.

The very same situation applies topetitions. Opposition members are happy forthe wording on petitions to remain the same,because they do not give a damn whether thepetitions that members present are ruled outof order. They do not care. They did not carewhen they were in Government, and they donot care about the effectiveness of petitionsnow. If they did care, they would be saying,"Yes, we acknowledge the need to reform thewording of petitions to make it simple, plainEnglish and accessible to all of Queensland'scitizenry." But no, they want to keep thearchaic language because it suits theirinterests not to have a more effectiveParliament.



Mr WELFORD: The Parliament is noteffective now to the extent that Oppositionmembers are such failures; that is right.Everyone knows that the performance of thisParliament is limited by the weakness andincompetence of this Opposition. It is atragedy that when opportunities are providedto improve the capacity of Oppositionmembers to collect petitions and have thempresented and ruled valid and when theopportunity is provided for every member ofthe Opposition to put a question on noticeevery day that Parliament sits, they run awayfrom it.

I cannot for the life of me understandwhat motivated the totally misdirected attackby the Leader of the Opposition on some ofthe parliamentary committees of this place.The comments that the Leader of theOpposition made about the PrivilegesCommittee are thoroughly without foundation.I cannot understand what he was driving atwhen he suggested that the PrivilegesCommittee's role in respect of any of thematters dealt with by this sessional order couldbe anything other than a constructive role. Ofall the reports that the Privileges Committeehas submitted to this Parliament—and I thinkthere are about four of them—three of themwere unanimous. If I may be so indiscreet asto stray ever so slightly on the privacy of thecommittee's operation, I might say that thefourth one went very close, too.

Let me be the last to say that the fourthreport lacked unanimity only because of theintervention of the Opposition Leader. Let mebe the last to suggest that. Of course, when itsuits the Leader of the Opposition he willcomplain all day, arguing by assertion that theGovernment intervenes in the operation ofparliamentary committees by Executivepressure on Government members. I believethat the only pressure that has ever beenexerted on the operation of the committees ofwhich I have been a member has beenexerted by the Opposition leadership for purelypolitical purposes because, despite the factthat its members on those committees werewanting to reach unanimous decisions incommittee, the Opposition had a politicalposition it wanted to take and it would notallow its members to agree.

In the last few moments I have to speak,I will dwell on the citizen's right to reply. Withrespect to this matter, I must say that I andthe Leader of the Opposition have somemeasure of agreement. But it only goes to theextent that I share the concern, which I thinkevery member of this House might justifiably

hold, that the privileges of members of thisHouse should not be unduly curtailed. I do notsee anything in the sessional order thatamounts to that in any way whatsoever. Theproposition that the Privileges Committee hasany sort of serious adjudicative role indetermining matters when a citizen applies foror makes a submission to have a right of replyis completely misguided. It will not be the roleof the Privileges Committee to put themember on trial whenever a citizen makes asubmission for the right to be heard. By andlarge, I think that all in this place should feelperfectly comfortable with the idea that, if weget up in this House under privilege and makecriticism—fair or otherwise—of a personoutside this House, all things being equal, theirright of reply should be respected.Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that thatright of reply should be subject to somerestriction. It should not be a completelyunfettered right of reply.

As experience is developed, we will needto look to the practice of the Senate in respectof the right of reply which is, as I understand it,granted very cautiously and very sparingly.Over time, we will need to develop someprinciples which will determine when it isappropriate and when it is not appropriate fora citizen to have a right of reply. I believe thatthe starting point should be that, all thingsbeing equal, the right of reply should begranted unless there is good reason not togrant it. Possible reasons for not granting it,and I am not trying to pre-empt thedeliberations of the Privileges Committee orany future ethics committee in this regard, arethe guidelines set out on page 5 of thediscussion paper issued by Mr Speaker inOctober last year. The guidelines set out onthat page are not repeated in the draft motionin that discussion paper, nor in the sessionalorders motion which we are debating today.However, they are worthy of note. I will makeclear what those broad, suggested guidelinesare. Firstly, that the procedure be available toindividuals and corporations; secondly, thatthe procedures relate only to statementsmade in the House and be available only incircumstances in which the statements canreasonably be considered actionable in a courtof law had they been made outside theHouse; thirdly, that the Privileges Committeeconsider the submissions and in doing soadopt the practice of not attempting todetermine the truth or otherwise of the initialallegation or subsequent response—that thirdelement is, of course, in the sessionalorder—and, fourthly, that the rules coveringthe content of replies be similar to those for a


member making a personal explanation, thatis, they must be succinct and strictly relevantto the issue.

All of those principles are useful startingpoints for the consideration of those matters. Iparticularly emphasise the one that is notincorporated in the sessional order formally,that is, the requirement that the procedurerelate to those cases where the statementsmight reasonably be actionable outside theHouse. For example, if a member in theHouse makes a criticism based upon a provedfact or something that is an established factand accepted as true by everyone in thecommunity, then it seems to me to bepointless that the person who is damned bythat truth should have a right of reply simplybecause the truth about them is reported inthe Parliament. However, all other things beingequal, where it has not been proved in a courtof law or established in some other form, thatright of reply should be allowed.

Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—DeputyLeader of the Liberal Party) (3.55 p.m.): I willcontribute briefly to this debate and I say fromoutset that I support totally the contributionsmade by the previous three speakers from thisside of the House. I have never heard suchrepetitive diatribe as that which we have justheard from the honourable member whopreceded me. It seem that when theGovernment is on a losing argument, itsmembers repeat themselves in personalabuse against speakers such as thehonourable Leader of the Opposition, whomade perfectly good sense when hecondemned the lack of action of thisGovernment in relation to the Standing OrdersCommittee. It is no use the honourablemember who has just spoken saying that thisParliament had to act because the Leader ofthe Opposition refused to give his support toexactly the same proposal when it camebefore the Standing Orders Committee,because it is obvious that the Leader of theOpposition finds it totally objectionable todayand he rose in his place and said so. Heobviously found it totally objectionable when itcame before the Standing Orders Committee.He was well within his rights at that time toobject to it and he did so. Nothing magical hashappened since the time when, in the truespirit of bipartisanship, the Standing OrdersCommittee should have got together and triedto work out a solution that was sensible andacceptable to everybody on both sides of theHouse. That particular committee, for whateverreason—and only cynical people wouldsuggest this and I suppose that I am reflectingthe views of cynical people—wanted to please

the Government, as opposed to coming upwith something that was workable andacceptable to everybody. So it is no use thehonourable member for Everton coming intothis House and making the suggestion that itwas in the court of the Leader of theOpposition to come up with somethingworkable some time ago, because when aproposal is presented as a fait accompli beforeany committee, and particularly if there hasbeen no consultation and no attempt to reachcommon ground, it is rejected by people onthis side and that is precisely what the Leaderof the Opposition did. He has the support notonly of his front bench but also his entire backbench.

Today, we are witnessing a travesty ofparliamentary procedure. In our view, this isanother step by this Government to subjugatethe Parliament to the will of the Executive.They are clearly the actions of a Governmentthat is worried. The member for Evertonsuggested that the Opposition was out oftouch, worried and had given up before thegame is started. How utterly and totally untrue.The major reason the Government is resortingto introducing an order such as the one we aredebating is that the Government is worried. Itis worried about the effectiveness ofOpposition questioning and it is worriedbecause there will soon be an election. Thisprocedural order seeks to reduce theeffectiveness of Opposition questioning. If theGovernment was fair dinkum about achievingits often-stated goal, as repeated in thisdebate by members opposite, why did it notmove for the amendment of Standing Ordersby granting to each backbencher theopportunity to put a question on notice? If theGovernment believes that the Opposition is soineffective under the current form ofquestioning, why not leave us to our ownineffectiveness? Why not very simply amendStanding Orders so as to allow everybackbench member to put a question onnotice every day?

Mr Welford: That's what we're doing.Mr SANTORO: I take that interjection.

That is not what the Government is doing. It isdoing that by this procedural amendment, butit is also curtailing the effectiveness of thequestioning that is occurring at the moment. Itis doing two things. It is destroying the systemof questioning that exists at the moment and itis implementing a system of questioning thatsuits the Government. The reason it suits theGovernment is that it is an election year andthe whole concept of "temporary", asexpressed and defined in this debate, is afacade. It is only temporary——


Mr Quinn interjected. Mr SANTORO: I take the interjection

from the honourable member for Merrimac. Ithides the logs—the incompetence that ismanifested every day by Ministers as theyattempt to answer even the simplest ofquestions. They bumble and they fumble andwant somebody else to get them out of it. Tryas they may, they never quite succeed.

The whole concept of this procedurebeing temporary is rejected by this side of theHouse. It is simply a convenient ploy to protectthe Government during the sensitive period ofan election year and an election campaign. AllI can say is that if the Government is really fairdinkum about wanting to amend questiontime, it has had six years in which to do it. Asthe member for Beaudesert has said, theGovernment has come into this placeproclaiming that it is a reforming Government,yet it has taken an election year to do this.The Government knows that we have onlyanother three weeks or four weeks of sittingsin this place before we go to the people, and itknows that the Opposition is going to questionit on the tough issues, such as the closure ofhospital wards, the closure of police stationsand the downfall in all areas of Governmentservice delivery. The Government does not likethat because it believes that the Opposition'sargument is beginning to bite. It is right; it isbeginning to bite. The Opposition is not goingto submit to this facade. It is not going toagree that the Government needs to beprotected. It will not support this proceduralamendment. It is just not on.

I listened to some previous speakers tellus how we on the Opposition side, particularlyon the front bench, deprive our backbenchersof opportunities to speak.

Mr Welford: You in particular.

Mr SANTORO: Day after day, thepattern is never broken in that the Whip andthe Deputy Whip of the Labor Party ask thequestions. Where are the opportunities givento Government backbenchers by those twopeople who hold official positions? Day afterday, never once do they give way to the ALPback bench. It does not matter how much timeis consumed, particularly on Tuesday, by thelongwinded answers of Ministers. I ignored thehonourable member for Everton when he saidto me, "You in particular." However, let meremind members of the many times that MrLingard and I, as the deputies of our ownparties, give way not just to our own shadowministerial colleagues but also to our backbench when the need exists. We are the oneswho, within the practical workings of this

Parliament, show consideration for ourbackbenchers and not the two appointedpeople—the Whip and the Deputy Whip of theLabor Party—who never once in this placehave given way to the rest of the Governmentback bench.

Mr Quinn: The invisible back bench.

Mr SANTORO: I take that interjection—the invisible back bench. The other point thathas been raised in this place is the interstateexperience of questions on notice.Government members have said that morequestions are asked in other Parliaments thanare asked in this place. The question that wemust ask is, why in this place is the figuredown to as low as 2.1 questions per day?Again, that is not because of a problem withthe Opposition or because of a problem withthe present Standing Orders. It lies in theproblem of Ministers rising and answeringquestions in a longwinded and filibusteringway, which means that question time in thisplace is not fulfilled in the way that the spirit ofthe Standing Orders intends it to be fulfilled.That is the major reason why the number ofquestions on notice asked in this place is solow in comparison with the number ofquestions on notice asked in other States.

Of course, throughout this whole debate,the Opposition has been leading up to theprecise question: what is the role ofParliament? I have heard some argumentsput by Government members and by otherpeople in this place that one of the majorreasons why questions can be excluded fromHansard is the cost. I say that there is no morepermanent record of what happens in thisplace than Hansard, and Ministers should beeventually and essentially accountable toproviding the answers to questions, whetherthey are on notice or without notice, asked inthis place. It is in this place that the wholeaccountability process must essentially cometo rest, not within the Clerk's office, not withinthe Bills and Papers Office—respectable asthose offices and officers may be; I am castingno aspersion on them. Eventually andessentially the whole process of accountabilitymust find its solace within this place. I do notaccept that the cost of producing a slightlylarger Hansard as a result of the incorporationof answers to questions on notice should beused as a reason to exclude the incorporationof those answers in Hansard.

If members of the Executive Governmentand members of the Ministry are fair dinkumabout reducing the cost of incorporatinganswers in Hansard, they should make surethat their answers are relevant, that they do


not try to hide the truth—as these days theyso often do within an incredible amount ofmeaningless verbiage—and that they give theOpposition proper answers. That is the answerto the question about the cost of incorporatingmany answers in Hansard and insteadproviding them to some other officers of theParliament, not the officers who help us runthis Parliament.

It is not on that the answers are availableto the press and to other people who makeinquiries. There is nothing more immediate tothe press than an answer to a question that ispresented in this place during question timewhen most of the members of the pressgallery are, in fact, listening to what ishappening. Government members may notlike what I am saying, but it is the truth.Eventually and essentially it is in this place thatthe Ministers and the Government should beaccountable.

When one looks at the way in which theStanding Orders Committee has been treated,I concur totally with other Opposition memberswho have said that the treatment of thatcommittee, or the lack of meetings, is againrepresentative of the attitude of thisGovernment towards the whole committeesystem. I heard the honourable member forEverton have the hide to suggest that one offour reports of the committee which he chairswas not unanimous because of interferenceby the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Welford: I said, "Let me be the lastto say that."

Mr SANTORO: I take that interjection.In a facile, cynical, sarcastic and meaninglessway, the member tries to cover himself, as heusually does. I should say that, alwaysunsuccessfully, the member tries to qualify hisinane comments and invariably he has eggand embarrassment on his face.

Let me remind Government members ofthe time when the full weight of ExecutiveGovernment came to weigh very heavily onthe shoulders of the Chairman of the PublicAccounts Committee when he was forced torenege on the unanimous conclusions andfindings of his own committee only to bereminded by members of his committee ofwhat his committee's report was. He had thedecency, and certainly in my eyes and in theeyes of other members of the Opposition hedistinguished himself when he, in fact,reversed his public statements and decided tosupport the committee.

I urge honourable members to refreshtheir memories of the pressure that was

placed on Mr Peter Beattie, the Chairman ofthe Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee,when he, as a very ethical chairman of thatcommittee, was subjected to enormouspressure to do the bidding of ExecutiveGovernment. Government members knowthat, time after time, that occurred. So let usnot have it from the honourable member forEverton or from other Government membersthat it is Opposition members who seek toinfluence the due process and the integrity ofparliamentary committees. After all, it is theGovernment members who control thenumbers on those committees and it isGovernment members—the latest examplebeing the Public Works Committee—who usepartisan means to come up with partisanresults from the deliberations of committees.

Mrs Woodgate: Oh, rubbish!

Mr SANTORO: I take the interjectionfrom whoever said that it was rubbish. Thepublic record speaks for itself. It is available toeverybody and all the intelligent, expertcommentators on the workings of this placeunderstand clearly that what I am saying is thetruth. They will continue to write it up in thatway and eventually it will sink in toGovernment members that the respect thatthey show for the system of parliamentarycommittees cannot be measured because itjust simply does not exist.

Earlier, when the whole issue oftelecasting Parliament came up, I listened withgreat interest to an exchange between theLeader of the House and the Leader of theLiberal Party. I support the telecasting ofParliament, because I agree with othermembers on both sides of this House that thebroadcasting of Parliament would lead to amore decorous performance by all memberswithin this place. Again, that exchange wasanother disgraceful attempt by membersopposite to personalise the debate, to seek torender it meaningless and bring it down to acommon denominator, something thatmembers on this side of the House will neitherparticipate in nor cooperate with.

I said that I would not take up my entiretime during this debate. As I am always true tomy word, I am about to conclude. TheOpposition absolutely rejects that thissessional order is the way to achieve what theGovernment and members opposite want toachieve.

Mr Welford: What's your solution?

Mr SANTORO: I will tell the honourablemember what my solution is. My solution isthat, if the Government is fair dinkum about


giving back benchers their 40 questions perday, or whatever number of questions ispossible, I suggest that the Government leavethe Standing Orders as they are and amendthem to the extent that every backbenchmember of the Parliament on both sides ofthe House will be allowed to ask a question onnotice. I suggest that those answers should beprovided within a reasonable time. Inconcurrence with other members on this sideof the House, I suggest that 30 days is aridiculous response time. That is how theGovernment gives effect to its majorarguments in favour of this sessional order. Ipoint out to the honourable member forEverton that this is my solution. I do not thinkthat any reasonable member would argue withit.

Mr Welford: What about questionswithout notice?

Mr SANTORO: We want questionswithout notice to stay precisely as they are,because that is the way in which we havebeen keeping the Government honest andaccountable. That is the crux of this debate.The Government wants to hide and does notwant to be accountable, in particular duringthis very sensitive election year. We will do ourvery best to keep it accountable. Being asbankrupt as it is of any morality in relation tothese issues, I am sure that we will succeed inthat attempt.

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—Ministerfor Employment, Training and IndustrialRelations) (4.13 p.m.): I rise to support themotion. This reform is part of a long process ofrepairing the damage to the institution ofParliament done during the Bjelke-Petersenera. It is part of a process of attempting torestore this Parliament to its rightful place atthe centre of debate on matters of publicimportance to the Queensland people.

It is a process that dates back to thereforms recommended by CommissionerFitzgerald in 1989. Central to that report andto the endemic corruption which that reportfound was the need to restore this House to itscentral role in public affairs—the need torestore accountability of the Executive to theLegislature. When one reads the Fitzgeraldreport, it is important to remember that thevehicles set up in the wake of thatreport—namely the Electoral andAdministrative Review Commission and theCriminal Justice Commission—were not endsin themselves but were means to an end, thatend being the restoration of a healthyparliamentary democracy. The structure thatMr Fitzgerald, as he then was, recommended

was one which involved accountability of thosecommissions to the Parliament by theirparliamentary committees.

The point is that the role of Parliament inmaking laws, in making the Executiveaccountable and in determining theexpenditure of public money is fundamental tothe rights and liberties which we enjoy asindividuals. But it must be said that theinstitution of Parliament does not go throughhistory in a pristine, unchanged state. Eachgeneration must reinvent the Parliament tomake it relevant to modern times.

As I listened to the debate throughoutthe day and heard the arguments advancedby the Opposition, I was struck by the tenderirony of an Opposition arguing against theavailability of additional questions duringquestion time. What a deep embarrassment itmust be for the supporters of the once proudLiberal Party in Brisbane to have its advocatesstanding here without a blush ofembarrassment passing across their facesarguing against additional questions beingpermitted in question time! Their argument isthe argument for business as usual. If there isone thing we know from this debate, it is thatbusiness as usual is by no means the best ofall possible worlds.

This is a reform. Throughout the worlddifferent parliaments try different ways toensure that question time is meaningful andcontributes to the public life of theirjurisdictions. This is an attempt to ensure thatwe in Queensland make reforms to ensurethat this institution remains relevant. Timeschange, workplaces change, families changeand societies change, and Parliament mustchange with them if it is to remain relevant.

Let me turn to several matters containedin the motion. The provision for additionalquestions on notice will be strongly welcomed,I am sure, by all backbench members of theGovernment. I well remember in the previousParliament the difficulties in ensuring thatmatters of topical relevance to one's ownelectorate could be aired at the time whenthey were relevant to issues of the day.

Mr FitzGerald: Thirty days later.

Mr FOLEY: I hear the honourablemember for Lockyer referring to the 30-dayrule. I would have thought that that is anecessary consequence of dramaticallyextending the range of questions capable ofbeing asked. One really wonders at the logicof the Opposition that it is driven to suchmodes of argument. Of course there will needto be some further time. If one is to allow


every member of Parliament to ask a questionevery day, this will take a little more time. Butthe trade-off is the tremendously enhancedopportunity for each member of Parliamentrepresenting his or her constituency to ask theExecutive about matters of importance, eitherin the general public interest or of interest tohis or her electorate. I would have thought thatthat is a small price to pay and one that will bewelcomed well and truly by Opposition backbenchers who grace question time all tooseldom in this House.

That having been said, I think that themotion has a message for all of us, both in theOpposition and in the Government. In theGovernment, the provision of general rules foranswers reminds Ministers that answers are tobe relevant to the question and that mattersare not to be debated in answers. From timeto time, we all need to be reminded of theimportance of following these rules. I hopethat that message is driven home to membersof the Opposition. Also, the provisions dealingwith rules for questions provide that questionsshall be brief, relate to one issue and shall notcontain arguments inferences, imputations orhypothetical matters.

Under the Bjelke-Petersen regime, wesaw how Parliament could be damaged by anarrogant, overbearing Government. It isequally true that Parliament can be damagedby an arrogant, rabblerousing Opposition thatfails to respect the dignity of the institution ofthe Parliament. I respectfully submit to theHouse that in this motion there are matterswhich both sides of the House could well takenote of if we are to raise our game to a levelthat the Queensland people expect of us.

Finally, let me turn to the reform relatingto matters of parliamentary privilege. As theChairman of the Parliamentary PrivilegesCommittee in the previous Parliament, thismatter did cause me some trouble. The rightof free speech in the Parliament was a rightthat was hard won indeed, and the EnglishCivil War some three centuries ago burnt intothe consciousness of the English-speakingpeoples the need to ensure that people mayspeak freely in Parliament without fear ofbeing called into question in the courts of theland. That is important because of the rolethat the Parliament plays in those threeareas—the making of laws, the accountabilityof the Executive to Parliament and in theexpenditure of public moneys. But it happensall too frequently that individuals can havetheir reputations damaged in the course ofthat debate, and the mechanism which hasbeen proposed is an attempt to provide someremedy.

That is, I think, something whichParliaments around the world have tried tograpple with. There is no easy solution to theproblem of reconciling the privilege of freespeech with the rights of individuals to be freefrom defamation, but this mechanism is aserious attempt to strike that reasonablebalance. This Parliament is a place for thedebate of matters of public importance andpublic interest, for ensuring that the greatdebates of our time are conducted in a waywhich is representative of all interests in thecommunity and not merely conducted throughthe organs of the mass media, who mayrepresent only a very limited proportion of ourcommunity. So this function of Parliament asbeing a place of wide-ranging debate must beprotected, but in the process individuals canbe hurt. This is, I think, an important attemptto ensure that there is some redress ofgrievance.

In conclusion, I make the point that theseare reforms to the letter of the StandingOrders. For real progress, we need continuousimprovement not only in the letter but also inthe spirit of Parliament. Reforming the letter ofthe law is an important step in ensuring abetter spirit in the Parliament, and for thatreason, I strongly support the motion andencourage all members of the House to dolikewise.

Dr WATSON (Moggill) (4.24 p.m.): Itgives me a great deal of pleasure to rise tospeak on the changes to the sessional ordersmoved by the Leader of the House. Afterlistening to the contributions by someGovernment members, I wonder whether theywere really listening to what the Leader of theOpposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party,the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and theDeputy Leader of the Liberal Party said. Thecentral thrust of their argument was that thiswas a political stunt; that there was no attemptto use the existing instrument of the House,the Standing Orders Committee, to addressthis issue. Government members harked backto the previous Parliament. The affairs of theStanding Orders Committee of the previousParliament are irrelevant to this Parliament.The critical issue is the role that the StandingOrders Committee could have played in thisparticular Parliament.

The question that needs to be addressedis whether or not this is a genuine attempt tointroduce—or to trial, as the member forBrisbane Central and other members havesaid—some changes to the sessional ordersor whether it is just a political stunt leading upto the next election. I suggest to the Leader of


the House that, if he is serious and if he is notbeing disingenuous, then he will accept thereasonable proposals which I have put forwardand which I have circulated in the Chamber. Iformally move the following amendments—

"1. Standing Order 67A Questions toMinisters

Add at the end—

'A Member may ask during QuestionTime a question on notice for the nextday of sitting, in lieu of a question withoutnotice'.

2. Standing Order 67E Notice ofQuestionsSecond paragraph, third line, omit '30',insert '14'.

3. Standing Order 69 General Rules forAnswers

Add the following sub-paragraphs—'(iv) Notwithstanding standing order 69(iii)

an answer shall not be longer than 3minutes;

(b) If a Minister requests a question beplaced on notice it is to be answeredat the next day of sitting'.

4. Standing Order 70 Questions not putto Speaker

Omit 'Questions may not be put to theSpeaker' and insert 'A question on noticemay be put to the Speaker relating to anymatter of administration for which he isresponsible'."

I want to address some of those amendmentsand some aspects of the motion moved bythe Leader of the House.

The Leader of the Opposition did notsuggest that there was no merit in theproposals presented by the Leader of theHouse. All members acknowledge that theprocedures of the House ought to bechanged. The point that was made by theLeader of the Opposition is that there hasbeen no consultation. If the Government isserious about changing parliamentaryprocedure, it should sit down with theOpposition and try to come up with somethingthat is acceptable to both sides of the House.

Let us assume for the moment that theLeader of the House is serious; that we havehere a serious attempt to make theprocedures of the House work a little better. Ihave suggested some amendments thatwould enhance this proposal even further. Forexample, in the first instance, I havesuggested that Standing Order 67A should beadjusted not by changing its present

provisions but simply by adding anotheralternative. The alternative is this: if a memberwants to forego his or her question withoutnotice by placing a question on notice duringquestion time, that question will be answeredon the next sitting day. What is wrong withthat? If a member asks a question withoutnotice and if the answer turns out to be morecomplex than expected or the member needsa slightly more detailed answer, that membershould be able to say, "I forgo my right to aquestion without notice and place thatquestion on notice." The Minister can thenanswer the question the next day. That is nodifferent from the current procedure, and itseems to me to be a reasonable suggestion.

My second amendment is to proposedStanding Order 67E—the third line of thatparagraph—and changes the response timefrom 30 days to 14 days. I have heardmembers get up in this House and say, "Look,no-one expects it to take 30 days for ananswer; we all expect the answer to come alittle faster than that." This is a trial period, sowe should set a realistic time, and that time isnot 30 days. That would be okay for thissitting, because we are sitting for two weeksand we will be sitting again in May—in morethan 30 days' time. However, we sit again on23 May and go through to early June.Potentially we would have finished that sittingsbefore we get any answers to questions onnotice.

The member for Everton spoke about thescrutiny of Government. If Governmentmembers are really talking about that, thenduring that Budget period they ought to beprepared to have questions put on notice andto have Ministers answer them within areasonable time frame of 14 days so that theycan be used again in the Estimates committeeprocess or in the parliamentary process. Whatis the Government hiding from? When itcomes to the Budget period and Estimatescommittees, why does the Government wantto say that a question on notice does not haveto be answered for 30 days? Why do Ministersnot just answer the questions?

Mr Littleproud: These are the peoplewho shut down Parliament after bringing downthe Budget.

Dr WATSON: That might be right. Thenit would not matter whether they had 30 daysor 30 minutes to answer a question. Underthose circumstances, any time would be toolong. That is the question that has to beasked. Why do we not have a reasonable timeperiod? It does not matter when theParliament is dissolved for the next election.


Government Ministers will never be able tosatisfy everyone by providing answers to theirquestions, but at least the Government couldbe a bit more honest and say that its intentionwould be to answer those questions within areasonable period.

I accept that it would be unreasonable toexpect details to be provided within one day if50 or 60 questions had been put on notice inone day. Along with everyone else, I wouldaccept that. Thirty days is too long. Underthose circumstances, the onus is not placedback on the Executive to answer questionsand, in the context of the parliamentary sittingperiod, it does not get the question answeredwithin an appropriate time frame.

When it comes to question time, thething that drives everyone crazy and makesthe Government less accountable is not theway that the questions are structured, byeither Opposition or Government members—even though I am sure that sometimes thatcould be improved—the abuse of questiontime comes from the length of Ministers'answers. Ministers often filibuster becausethey do not want to be asked anotherquestion, or senior Ministers filibuster so thatother Ministers do not get cross-examined.That is the abuse of question time. If theGovernment is going to restructure questiontime, that central issue needs to beaddressed. At the moment that is not beingaddressed. That issue is addressed in my thirdamendment.

Of course, sometimes Ministers filibusterright from the word go. In thosecircumstances, the Speaker ought to be giventhe discretion to sit the Minister downstraightaway. It does not matter whether theSpeaker believes it or not, we have to put theresponsibility on the Minister that he or shehas to give a relevant answer in a precisefashion. That is what my proposed StandingOrder 69(iv) is designed to achieve. From that,the expectation is that a Minister ought to beable to answer a question in three minutes orless. They do not need to ramble on. They donot need dorothy dixers that go on for 10, 15or 20 minutes. They do not need a Premier orany other Minister to ramble withoutaddressing the central issue in the question. IfGovernment members want to addressquestion time, they have to put theresponsibility on the Executive to ensure thatanswers are relevant and concise. That is whatmy amendment endeavours to achieve.

Finally, while talking about StandingOrder 69, my amendment (v) proposes that ifa Minister cannot answer a question—from

time to time Ministers ask for questions to beput on notice—and it is agreed that thequestion be put on notice, it ought to beanswered the next sitting day. TheGovernment's proposed sessional orders donot refer to a Minister who wants a question tobe put on notice—if it is agreed to by themember asking the question—having toanswer that question the next sitting day. Theonly provision is that the question must beanswered in 30 days because it has been puton notice. That is a particular weakness thatought to be addressed.

My final suggested amendment providesfor questions on the administration of theParliament being put to the Speaker needingto be on notice. The member for Evertonmentioned the House of Representatives. Ifhe looked at the Standing Orders of theHouse of Representatives, my dear colleaguewould find that the Speaker can be asked aquestion without notice concerning theadministration of the Parliament. As members,we ought to be able to ask the Speaker aquestion about the running of the Parliament.I agree that, to maintain the decorum of theHouse, the Speaker should not be askedquestions without notice, that any question tothe Speaker should be given only on notice.That would give him a reasonable time toinvestigate the issue and also ensure that theSpeaker is not put in a politically invidiousposition during question time. I accept thatposition. I think that it is appropriate that theSpeaker be given a reasonable amount oftime in which to answer questions. However, Ido not accept that a member of this placeshould be barred from asking of the Speaker aquestion about the administration of the placein which we all serve. I do not think that that isbeing sufficiently accountable.

One has to think that the issue that hasbeen placed before us is a political stuntbecause, if Government members were reallyinterested in reforming the Standing Orders ofthis place, they would ask a far wider set ofquestions than those that have resulted in themotion put forward by the Leader of theHouse.

Mr Welford: Will you vote with us if weaccept your amendments?

Dr WATSON: Yes. If the Leader of theHouse accepts all of my amendments, I willvote for the package.

Mr Welford: Not all of them.

Dr WATSON: All of them. IfGovernment members are serious aboutchanging the sessional orders, they will accept


these amendments. It is only a trial period; ifthey do not like it, they can change it. Theyhave got the numbers in the place; what arethey worried about?

A Government member: Nothing.

Dr WATSON: Then the Governmentought to be willing to accept the changes thatI have suggested. If Government memberswant to address the issue of the StandingOrders, they ought to have a committee—Iwould suggest a backbench committee ofequal Government and Oppositionnumbers——

Mr Beattie: Equal numbers?

Dr WATSON: Yes, equal numbers,because both sides are in the House. It is anappropriate time for a committee of equalrepresentation to actually look at the StandingOrders and bring forward a proposal that couldbe debated in this place. Again, if thecommittee presents proposals not to theGovernment's liking, the Government has gotthe numbers and any proposal would not beadopted. It seems to me that, in that situation,it is appropriate to have a committee of equalrepresentation.

Let us examine the issues. For example,let us look at the sitting times and the patternof sitting. Why do we run our parliamentarybusiness today in the same way that it hasalways been run? Before I came to this place,when Labor was in Opposition, I know that itsmembers criticised previous Governmentsabout how the place was run. Why do we notcome up with something? Is it beyond our witto come up with a reasonable set of proposalsupon which we can have agreement acrossthe House? We should look at the times westart and finish. We should look at the wayand the order in which legislation is debated.We should look at when ministerial statementsare made in relation to question time. All ofthose issues are central to running this House.They are issues that we should be able to dealwith.

Mr Laming: Maybe it should go to acommittee.

Dr WATSON: That is what I suggested.I thank the member for Mooloolah forreinforcing that point.

The member for Bundaberg spoke aboutthe extra time that private members have inthis place. That is an issue that we shouldaddress even more. How much time shouldprivate members or, if one likes, backbenchmembers—non-Executive Governmentmembers—have to speak in this House, andon what issues? What opportunities should

they be given to introduce Bills and have themdebated? If the Government is really talkingabout reforming the Standing Orders of thisplace in a serious way—in a way that isdesigned to make this place function betterand a way that is designed to ensure that theExecutive and the bureaucracy areaccountable to this place on behalf of thepeople—then those are the issues that oughtto be addressed.

The Government cannot blame theLeader of the Opposition and other memberson this side of the House who say that this is apolitical stunt designed to do somethingbefore an election. If it is not a political stunt,the Government will accept these reasonableamendments. If it is not a political stunt, it willset up a backbench committee of equalnumbers to address the Standing Order issue.But if it is a political stunt, this Government willreject everything that has been put forward—all those concepts—and there will be a divisionof the House, in which Government memberswill vote without any consideration of theOpposition's amendments or thereasonableness of those amendments and willend up voting against them. So that is thechallenge—it is either a political stunt, or not.The Opposition has offered reasonableamendments. The Government should acceptthem, if it is game.

Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (4.42 p.m.):It is with pleasure that I second theamendment moved by the honourablemember for Moggill. I have had discussionswith the honourable member on someproposed amendments to the motion beforethe House. I have made some contribution tothose amendments, and I totally support thepackage that has been put to this House bythe Opposition as a very reasonable packageso that we can get bipartisan support for therecommendations that have been made tothe House. I believe that these are only minoramendments to the motion moved by theLeader of the House to put in place asessional order. As the member for Moggillsaid, if the Leader of the House is quitegenuine in his attempt to trial something thatis completely different from what we havebeen used to, it is well worthy of a trial if theGovernment accepts the Opposition'samendment.

It is very reasonable that a membershould be able to ask for a detailed answer toa question if he or she forgoes asking thequestion without notice. The Leader of theOpposition has proposed that the sessionalorders contain a provision that members of the


House can ask one question each every day,except for the Leader of the Opposition, whohas the right to ask two questions. I believethat all members should have the right toforgo that right to ask for a detailed answer onthe next day of sitting. It is not unusual for amember to seek details on some matter andnot want to wait 30 days for an answer. AMinister may not be expected to becompetent to answer a question in detail. Thebackbencher, the private Governmentmember or the private Opposition membermay want the facts, so he or she can forgo theright to ask a question. Of course, the membermust get the call. That is not a right that everymember has. Members must get the call ofthe Speaker or the cooperation of the Whip toput them on the list, and then they can forgotheir questions without notice, and thosequestions are placed on notice through theSpeaker, as at present. That would be veryreasonable.

Likewise, there is a parallel. A Ministermight not wish to answer a question withoutnotice straightaway; it might be too detailed, orthe Minister may require a more accuratebriefing on the matter. I see no harm in aMinister asking that a question be placed onthe notice paper. I have no problem with that.It is far better to have an accurate, conciseanswer delivered the next day of sitting ratherthan a rambling tirade from a Minister who istrying to defend a position he knows nothingabout. I have seen this happen amongstMinisters from all parties. I am not only criticalof Ministers of this Government; I am critical ofprevious National Party and Liberal PartyGovernments. I have seen Ministers get upand belly-ache and carry on with answers thatjust fill in time and contribute nothing todebate in the House or the knowledge of theHouse. It would be more constructive if aMinister said, "I ask that the question beplaced on notice." It is a historical fact thatsome of the best Ministers we have had in thisplace in years gone by were those who did nottry to answer questions without notice; theyasked that the question be placed on noticeso they could give a more accurate answer thenext day. They very rarely got into any troublewith the press or their constituencies. Thatbecame a reasonable answer for a Minister togive. He or she was always able to give amore accurate answer. In the past, I think itwas always a he, because we did not havemany female Ministers. I think YvonneChapman was the first in Queensland.

The member for Moggill spoke aboutwhether it should be 30 days or longer or lessfor answers to be provided to questions on

notice. I know that, in good faith, the Leaderof the House has asked that it be 30 days. InNew South Wales it is 35. In other placesthere is no time limit. Generally, answers areprovided within about four weeks when notime limit is set. There is no time limit in theFederal Parliament. In some States, after twocalendar months a member has the right torise in the House and draw to the attention ofthe Speaker that he or she has not receivedan answer to a question.

This is going to be a bit of a suck-it-and-see exercise as to how many questions will beasked. The Minister says that 3,500 questionscould be asked in a year, because there are35 non-Executive members on this side of theHouse and there are about 35 on theGovernment side—about 70 members. If theyall asked a question every day, obviously thedepartmental officers would have problems. Iunderstand that, in 1993, this system was triedin New South Wales. I understand that 2,062questions on notice were asked for thatparticular year. In 1994, 1,785 questions onnotice were asked—a substantial number ofquestions. Last year in Western Australia,3,117 questions on notice were asked.

In Victoria, members can ask many morequestions than they can in New South Walesor Western Australia. In Victoria, the Leader ofthe Opposition is allowed to put four questionson notice every day, and every other memberof the House can put three questions onnotice every day. That does not require thecall of the Speaker; they are lodged with theClerk. Last year, there were 26 questions onnotice in Victoria. My advice is that there wasno Government action to curtail the number ofquestions on notice; it was just that membersdid not take that opportunity. So even thoughnearly 2,000 questions were asked in NewSouth Wales, in Victoria, which has a moregenerous system, there were only 26. I do notknow why members did not take thatopportunity. Government members should talkto their Labor mates, who are in Opposition inVictoria. During the previous year in Victoria,only 128 questions were put on notice—undera more generous system than that offeredhere.

The Leader of the House does not knowwhat workload he is creating for departmentalofficers. On behalf of most members of theHouse, I suggest that whereas we wantaccurate answers to our questions, I hope wecould get them within a week, if possible. TheGovernment could easily explain that there willbe a delay because there have been 70questions a day, especially if one department


is being targeted or a lot of information isbeing sought from a particular department.We would not expect extra officers to bebrought in to cope with that workload, whichmay not exist for very long. That would be alegitimate explanation. I believe that the testof the good faith of the Government inintroducing this sessional order will be if it triesto provide the answers as quickly asreasonably possible. If all the Ministers providetheir answers on the twenty-ninth day, it will beseen for what it is—a stalling tactic. I hope theGovernment does not use stalling tactics. Wewill wait and see how the Government handlesit. I would like to see "14 days" instead of "30days". After a trial, it will require only onemotion and it will be accepted.

Government backbenchers andOpposition backbenchers often complainabout the length of time that Ministers speak.The coalition has provided some Ministers whoset an excellent example of filling up time.Who can forget Bob Katter filling up five, six orseven minutes at the end of question time?

Mr Cooper: He wasn't a patch on MattFoley.

Mr FITZGERALD: He was not a patchon the Honourable Minister for Employment,Matt Foley; I know that. Mr De Lacy, theTreasurer, is fairly good at going on with long,rambling answers. It is a different case ifinformation is being hammered out, buthonourable members should not forget that Iam discussing questions without notice. Howon earth can a Minister give a long, detailedanswer to a question without notice? If we aregoing to have a fair dinkum trial, how abouttrying to hold Ministers' answers down to threeminutes? I know the Speaker has every rightto ask a Minister who is giving a lengthyanswer to sit down. Of course, under StandingOrders the Speaker has a lot of rights.

I would like to compare our system withthe system I saw operating in New Zealand. Iobserved a question time under the LaborSpeaker, Kerry Burke. It became the culture ofthe New Zealand Parliament that thequestions to be asked were distributed about45 minutes before question time. Both theGovernment's questions and the Opposition'squestions were distributed and members knewwhat the six major questions for the day wouldbe. Members had the opportunity to asksupplementaries across the Chamber. If theSpeaker thought the questions were beingrepeated, or a Minister was starting to repeathimself or herself, he stood and said, "Nextquestion."

Mr Mackenroth: Could you imagine ifthe Speaker in this Parliament did that? Youpeople would whinge like you wouldn't believeit.

Mr FITZGERALD: Kerry Burke was avery good Speaker and a culture must havedeveloped in previous Parliaments, because—and I could not believe it—when a Ministerwas sat down, he did not try to get in an extracouple of sentences. The members of theOpposition did not try to continue; they sat intheir places and said, "That is fair enough."That is the culture that had developed.

We are not too bad in this House.Sometimes we complain about roughtreatment in question time, but one has onlyto look to the Federal Parliament to see howrough question time can be. I suggest a trial ofMinisters' answers being limited to threeminutes. The Honourable Leader of the Housewould have no trouble with a three-minutelimit. I do not know whether he has everspoken for longer than three minutes whenanswering a question. I compliment him onthe way he answers questions. Generally hegives a very concise answer. He gives thefacts, then sits down. He is not like some of hiscolleagues who get up on their hind legs. I amsaying that a competent Minister can alwaysgive an answer in three minutes. Any lengthy,verbose statement is an admission that thatperson is incompetent and cannot think up aconcise answer. It is true that if a Minister doesnot know the answer, the answer is evenshorter. I believe that that should be given atrial. Let us try it. The Leader of House saidthat the trial of the changes to the sessionalorders will be conducted for only a couple ofmonths—for the rest of this session. At thisstage, there are not too many sitting days onthe calendar. If the Budget is brought down,we will debate the Estimates and during thosehearings the time for questions is limited. So Icannot see any reason why we cannot givethis a really decent trial.

I do not understand why under StandingOrder No. 70 a question may not be put to theSpeaker. I do not remember members of theOpposition asking the Speaker too manyquestions about his responsibilities. I do notsee the sense in that change. I cannotremember Government backbenchers ormembers of the Opposition asking theSpeaker about a matter for which he hasresponsibility. Is something being covered up?Why is this change being made? I think theoption of asking a question of the Speakershould remain in the Standing Orders, just incase someone really wanted to do so. We on


this side of the House have respect for theSpeaker. I think we should have the right toask a question on notice of Mr Speaker, and Ido not know the Leader of the House'sintention in wanting to insert that sessionalorder.

I would like to know what form the noticeof question paper will take. Under the presentsystem, the list of questions placed on noticeis distributed to honourable members whenthey come into the Chamber so they knowwho is going to answer the question.Honourable members also read the questionthat is going to be answered and if theMinister does not table the answer, butchooses to read it, as happened this morning,members know what the question is. I mayhave missed the point, but I do not think theLeader of the House raised it. How aremembers going to know what questions areplaced on notice? Seventy members can askquestions on notice. Those questions can beon the notice paper for 30 days. It would beridiculous for me to ask a question about analternative route up the range if thehonourable member for Toowoomba hadplaced it on notice a week before, and it wouldbe silly for the member for Toowoomba Southto ask the same question two days after I had.I need to know who is asking questions andwhen those questions are due to beanswered. I want to see an up-to-date list ofquestions on notice, with questions beingadded as they are asked and removed asthey are answered. I do not think that thosequestions will be printed in Hansard, becauseif we have two weeks of sitting per month,questions for eight days of that month maypossibly appear in Hansard. It is not printedevery day and members need to know thequestions that have been asked on notice.We need a list of current questions on noticeto ensure that there is no doubling up. In myposition as Leader of Opposition Business, Ihave to make sure that the members on thisside are alert and do not ask a question that amember on the other side of the House hasalready asked. It has happened before. WhenI was the Government Whip, I was given aquestion which I was ready to ask the Premier,when, lo and behold, the Leader of theOpposition asked the question before me. Somembers have to have enough wit to say,"Aha, that question has been asked, thereforewe will substitute another question or we willput a supplementary question." I believe thatis very important.

In the sessional order motion that isbefore the House, reference is made toprotection of persons referred to in the

Legislative Assembly. I note the speech by theMinister for Employment and Training. I standby the right of members in the Parliament toraise issues. Some members will be moreliberal with their right as a member to raiseissues and, at present, members of thegeneral public and people from companiescan ask for a right to have their side heard. Ithink we have to be very cautious in thisregard. I think that the ruling made by SpeakerPowell is reasonable in regard to a letter beingsent to the Speaker and the Speaker havingthe right to stand and say, "I received thisletter from such and such a citizen" and readthat letter to the House without comment if hethought that that needed to be done. Heexercised his right as Speaker to do that and itwas left at that. It was not debated, but theperson's remarks were heard. They werelimited as to how extensive they could be.They could not enter into debate, personalabuse or any of those things that we do notwant the general public to use in Parliament.Members are elected to this Parliament andthey have certain rights and privileges. TheParliament would not be a Parliament if wethrew away those rights and privileges. That isvery important.

Some members mentioned the formermember for Archerfield, the late Kev Hooper.Kev came in here and acted without fear orfavour. Generally, he began his speech, "Ihave it on good authority", which meant that ithad turned up in a brown paper bag, and hethen went on with the latest expose. Hemissed the mark many times, but he mayhave hit it a lot of times. I know that themember for Mount Ommaney is looking onwith interest, because Kev Hooper may havehit the mark a number of times.

Mr Cooper: Mr Mackenroth had thesame feelings as Kev Hooper.

Mr FITZGERALD: Yes, Mr Mackenrothhad the same feelings. Kev Hooper did that.But members are elected to this place andthey had the right to disagree with his remarks.They had the right to defend themselves ifthey wanted to. I know that one late membermay soon be joined by another member, but itwill be up to the electorate to decide thoseissues.

I believe that we should be very, verycautious in setting up a method by which thegeneral public can debate a matter any timethere has been an allegation made against acompany. I can imagine what is going tohappen. A couple of times a month theMinister for Consumer Affairs cranks up apress release. That press release might be


about someone who is painting roofs orspraying down the sides of housesfraudulently, or someone who is ripping offlittle old ladies. It is a regular occurrence andthe Minister feels motivated to warn thegeneral public about some terrible, fly-by-nightcompany. If all of those fly-by-night companiesdemanded the right to come into this placeand put forward their side of the story, it wouldbe ridiculous. We are putting the Speaker inthe position in which he or she will have todecide whether the Minister for ConsumerAffairs is stepping outside the parameters ofhis ministerial responsibility and using thisParliament to barrel somebody when heshould be doing it outside and running the riskof being taken to court.

I believe that this privilege could beabused. I am very, very cautious about thehanding over of the rights of a member ofParliament to a member of the public. Ibelieve that the Speaker is going to be giventhe added responsibility of having to sort thewheat from the chaff. There will be anexpectation that all of these companies thatare named by the Honourable the Minister forConsumer Affairs will have their day inParliament.

Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate) (5.02 p.m.): Ilook at this debate today from the perspectiveof a new member of the House. All theprevious speakers in this debate have hadquite extensive experience as members of thisHouse. As a new member, the Standing Rulesand Orders are something that I continue tolearn more about every day.

I was surprised and somewhatdisappointed to find out who the Oppositionspeakers would be for this debate. We haveheard from the Leader of the Opposition, theDeputy Leader of the Opposition, the DeputyLeader of the National Party and the DeputyLeader of the Liberal Party. The list ofOpposition speakers is indicative of what theOpposition does to its back bench. It tries tosuffocate its back bench; it does not allow itsback bench to speak on many issues at all.The Opposition does not allow its back benchto be involved in question time, and I believethat that is part of the reason why theOpposition is opposing strongly these reformsthat the Government wants to implement inthis Parliament.

If one looks at the list of speakers for theMatters of Public Interest debate, one wouldsee that, again, the majority of the Oppositionfront bench spoke. I have the speakers' list forthe Adjournment debate, which will be heldlater tonight. Again, two of the three speakers

are from the Opposition front bench. So theback bench of the Opposition has very, verylittle opportunity to partake in theparliamentary processes.

Mrs Edmond: Maybe they don't wantto.

Mr NUTTALL: Maybe they do not wantthat. Maybe part of the reason the Oppositiondoes not want its back bench to becomeinvolved in the parliamentary process is thatcertain backbench members have significantlymore talent than the people on the frontbench. Those members will not allow theirbackbench colleagues to be involved in theprocess. If those members think I am wrong,they should look at how many of theirbackbench colleagues are here now. We havenumero uno. The member for Burdekin alsosunk like a stone when he went onto the backbench.

As for the opportunity for people to askquestions during question time—when I firstcame to this Parliament, it surprised me thatone of the first things that happened was thatthe Whip came to the new backbenchers andsaid, "Look, this is the process. You will haveopportunities to ask questions in theParliament. You will have opportunities to askquestions that are relevant to your electorate."That is exactly what we do.

As a result of the reforms that are beingput forward today, if we have only onequestion from each member, that doubles thenumber of shadow Ministers who will have theopportunity to ask questions without notice.That gives them a greater opportunity and itgives their back bench a greater opportunity toask questions. As members would recall, theonly time the back bench of the Oppositionwere able to ask questions in this Parliamentwas when we as a Government allowed theOpposition the entire question time in which toask questions. On both occasions, theOpposition struggled to ask 60 minutes' worthof questions.

The other reason the Opposition isopposing this motion so strenuously is thatsome Opposition members, particularly theleadership, are keen to stay in the limelight.They are keen to make sure that they are atthe forefront on all occasions, and they are notkeen to see other Opposition membersperform in this Parliament.

Mr Vaughan: Except the member forAspley.

Mr NUTTALL: Yes, except the memberfor Aspley. A lot has been said aboutGovernment Ministers allegedly procrastinating


and lengthening their answers. One of theamendments put forward by the member forMoggill is that answers be restricted to threeminutes in length. In 1994, the number ofanswers that were given to questions withoutnotice was 15.9. So if we say that 16 answersare given over the period of an hour, thatequates to approximately five minutes ananswer. So one really cannot say thatGovernment Ministers procrastinate in theiranswers. I believe that the Ministers arereasonably to the point. However, part of thereason Ministers take five minutes to answer aquestion from the Opposition is thatOpposition members continue to interjectwhen the answer is being given. Theycontinue to interject and they do not allow theMinister to answer the question. During thelast sittings of this House, the Deputy Leaderof the Coalition was thrown out for that veryreason—for not allowing Ministers to answerquestions. So if the Opposition wants to askmore questions, I say that the easy answer isto allow the Minister to give a response.

Another matter that I would like to touchon briefly is the process of presentingpetitions. I think that one of the welcomereforms, which so far has not been referred toin this debate, is the insertion of a newStanding Order 238A, which states—

"A copy of every petition received bythe House is to be referred by the Clerk tothe appropriate responsible Minister whomay forward a response to the Clerk forpresentation to the House."

That response must be given within 30 days.The new Standing Order states further—

"A copy of this response shall beprinted in Hansard and be supplied to theMember who presented the petition."

I think that is a very welcome reform. Far toooften petitions are presented in this Houseand, basically, they get lost in the system. Thisreform will certainly do away with that.

As to the new wording of petitions—onquite a number of occasions I have beendisappointed when, after listening torepresentations from constituents, I have beenpresented with an inaccurately worded petitionthat cannot be presented to the Parliament.People put a lot of work into preparingpetitions. We are trying to simplify the processfor presenting petitions to the Parliament sothat it will be easier.

All in all, the reforms are good. They willbe in place for a trial period. Certainly, at theend of the trial period, they can be reviewed to

see whether they are working, and we cantake it from there.

Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly)(5.10 p.m.): The new sessional ordersproposed by this Labor Government will see atransfer of power from the Parliament to theExecutive arm of Government—the Ministersof the State. We have seen this happen on anumber of occasions under this Government,and it is exactly what is transpiring with theamendments before the Parliament today.

Therefore, I welcome and supportstrongly the amendments moved by themember for Moggill and seconded by themember for Lockyer. The amendments gosome way to bringing back to this House someof the powers of Ministers. The Governmenthas said that it will reform question time.Obviously, an election is just around thecorner. However, these sessional orders havenot been referred to the Standing OrdersCommittee. I understand that the StandingOrders Committee has not met during thisterm of Parliament. If that is the case, that ispretty shameful and dreadful.

Nevertheless, the amendments to theStanding Orders moved in the form ofsessional orders by the Leader of the Houseare designed to take pressure off Ministers. Ifwe examine the Standing Orders, we see thatthey go to the nub of the issue—to giveMinisters some 30 days in which to reply toquestions on notice. We know that it is mucheasier for Ministers to fob off questions withoutnotice than questions on notice. Questions onnotice often concern contentious issues. After29 days, most of the contentiousnesssurrounding an issue has passed by and itbecomes old hat—yesterday's news. Thissneaky, little sessional orders proposal movedby the Leader of the House, Mr Mackenroth,will save the Government from manyembarrassments.

The issues addressed by questions onnotice will fade away during the 30-dayresponse time. Clearly, this is an example ofthe sort of scheme that the Governmentdreams up from time to time and in relation towhich tries to pretend that it is assistingParliament and democratic processes.

Mr Cooper interjected.

Mr BEANLAND: As the member forCrows Nest said, sometimes in politics 24hours can be a long time. We are talkingabout 30 days! The whole issue will be deadand buried and will not be a source ofembarrassment to the Government when ananswer is given.


I appreciate and support theamendments being proposed today. Underthe amendments, when a question is put onnotice—when a member decides to do thatinstead of asking a question without notice—itwill be answered on the next day. That willovercome the very glaring error in thesessional order proposals.

Apart from the Leader of the Opposition,members will be able to ask only one questioneach. A few moments ago, we heard a greatdeal from the member for Sandgate. However,he did not inform us how many of thequestions he has asked in this House were hisown questions and how many were dorothydixers supplied by Ministers. We always heardorothy dix questions being asked byGovernment members.

We have not heard how these sessionalorders will assist in the process of testingGovernment Ministers. After all, in theWestminster system that is what question timeis all about. It is about putting GovernmentMinisters to the test to ensure that they areaccountable to the Parliament of this State.Not once has there been any attempt toindicate how that will be achieved. All we haveheard is that the sessional orders will allowmore members to ask questions. That may ormay not be the case.

In the case of Government members, thiswill simply mean that more members will askdorothy dix questions. In the case of membersof the Opposition, this may or may notprovide—depending on Ministers—anopportunity for one or two additional membersto ask questions. And this may or may notinclude backbenchers; it may includemembers of the shadow Cabinet. Thatremains to be seen. But there are noguarantees in this exercise at all. For theLeader of the House to try to pretendotherwise is stretching the truth.

These changes to sessional orders havearisen because the Government has failed totake up any of the other propositions to reformthis House put forward over time by EARC andthe various standing committees. The Premierrefuses to allow Parliament to be televised.The Kremlin is televised, as is every otherParliament around the globe, but not good oldQueensland. We cannot televise Parliamentbecause the press and the folks at home maysee Government Ministers, in particular thePremier, in not such a good light. The Premiermay wind up appearing like his Federal leader,the Prime Minister of this country, who hasbecome a part-time Prime Minister. Whoknows, we might end up with a part-time

Premier, only fronting up to the occasionalquestion time. Perhaps the next thing we willsee is some sort of roster system.

The point is that this will do nothing toimprove the functioning of Parliament, toimprove the testing of Ministers or to makeMinisters and the Executive arm ofGovernment more accountable to this place.At the end of the day, that is what the publicof Queensland want to see. Deep down, thatis what I believe all members of Parliamentwant to see—an Executive arm ofGovernment that is more accountable to theParliament. That will certainly not happenunder the proposed sessional orders.

The Leader of the Opposition will havethe opportunity to ask a supplementaryquestion. That is what second questions wereoriginally designed for, that is, as a follow-upopportunity that members need to be able totest the Minister further, because the Ministerhas failed to answer appropriately the firstquestion or has tried to wriggle out of it. Thatprovision will now apply only to the Leader ofthe Opposition. Other members who havelegitimate reasons for asking a secondquestion—and that occurs quite often—will notbe able to do so because the opportunity willnot be there. Clearly, the whole situation isone designed to provide benefits to theGovernment and to assist Ministers.

In conclusion, I notice that the sessionalorders will delete the prayer from the format forpetitions. Once again, we are changing andtearing up symbols. We have heard a lot fromthe Labor Party on other issues aboutsymbols, yet one of the symbols is the prayerat the end of petitions. No indication has beengiven as to the reason for its deletion.Currently, the Standing Orders state thatMinisters should report to this House inresponse to petitions. Generally, that has nothappened in the past, and only time will tellwhether it happens in the future. However, atthe end of the day I think we are worse off forthe removal of the prayer. Another symbol ofthis Parliament and of this State will beremoved from petitions, something else forwhich no reason has been given.

Mr D'ARCY (Woodridge) (5.18 p.m.):Today, I take the opportunity in this debate topoint out to the House the hypocrisy of theOpposition, the likes of which I have neverbefore seen. The Opposition's resistance tochange has not altered.

I will relate to the House a bit of thehistory of this Parliament. In the past, theStanding Orders governing question time inthis place were the worst in Australia. Under


the Nationals, this Parliament had the worstquestion time in Australia. Under the formerGovernment, when I and most membersparticipated in question time, when asking aquestion on notice we had to stand up andread it out in full. The next day, the Ministeranswered it by referring, for example, toquestion No. 1. It was an absolute disgrace.However, that procedure has changedsignificantly.

I want to relate a story. In 1980-81, thethen National Party Speaker, Mr Muller, wasvery anxious to ensure that his mark was lefton this Parliament. During the debate on thismotion, various members have referred to thetransfer of power that will occur under theseproposals regarding the Standing OrdersCommittee. In 1980-81, that committee wascomposed of the Premier, JohBjelke-Petersen; the Deputy Premier, LlewEdwards; the Leader of the Opposition, MrCasey; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition,myself; the Leader of the House, ClaudeWharton; the Liberal Party Chairman ofCommittees, Mr Miller; and the Speaker, MrMuller. On that committee, the Governmentwell and truly had the numbers.

After several meetings of that committeewhich all members attended, it was proposedthat there be a change to the Standing Ordersregarding question time to allow questions tobe tabled in this Parliament—similar to theproposal presented by the Government today.That proposal was accepted by the StandingOrders Committee. It was accepted also bythe committee that Ministers could respond tothose questions in the Parliament. The onlyperson who opposed that proposal wasClaude Wharton, the Leader of the House.Those members who were here at thattime—and it was 1981 by the time it wasbrought forward—may remember that theproposal was presented to the House.However, in the meantime—in company withhis ally of that time, Des Booth—ClaudeWharton had approached the National Partybackbench members and convinced them thattheir Ministers were not capable of handlingthemselves in the House under the proposedchanges to question time.

When the ballot took place in theParliament—and the Standing OrdersCommittee actually brought the Bill to theParliament—it was a fiasco, because Claudehad organised for the National Party backbench and some of the Liberals to opposethose changes. So the changes were notinstituted at that time, but the Standing Orderswere so bad that the Clerk of the time could

not apply them in the Parliament. During thisdebate, Opposition members have called for ameeting of the Standing Orders Committee.Such a meeting occurred in 1980-81, and thecommittee of the time was prepared tochange the rules in a similar fashion to thatproposed today.

I believe that the amendments moved bythe Opposition are merely a furphy. Thesechanges are being offered to membersopposite as an interim measure. The changeswill apply for a trial period to see whether theywork. Although the proposed amendmentsmay contain a couple of reasonableprovisions, they do not address the wholeproblem. The proposed changes reflect themeasures that the former colleagues ofmembers opposite were prepared to accept asfar back as 1980. Anyone who saw VinceLester on his feet today would realise that hehas not understood the Standing Orders sincehe came into this place.

I have referred to one occasion on whichan attempt was made to reform parliamentaryprocedures. The National and Liberal Partiesopposed those changes then, and it isdisappointing that today they are opposingmeasures that are designed to offer themsubstantial benefits. It is sad to see thecontinuing resistance to change displayed bymembers opposite.

Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt)(5.22 p.m.): I rise to support the motion movedby the Leader of the House to adopt sessionalorders designed to bring about animprovement in the way this House conductsits business. Too often we hear talk ofparliamentary and procedural reforms whichjust never happen. Even Harry Evans, theClerk of the Senate, has said that allParliaments are slow to change, but thechanges we are debating today are evidenceof a commitment to make this House workbetter, to give all members greateropportunities to question and to guard againstunwarranted and unintentional abuse of theHouse's privilege, all of which makes theopposition to this motion very remarkable.

We know that question time is a valuabletool for discovering information and for makingGovernments accountable. The method ofasking questions on notice has eaten into thatvaluable time, and this Government is going toredress that situation. Under the proposedsessional orders, it will no longer be necessaryto ask questions on notice in the House.Instead, they will be handed in to the Clerkand questions and answers published inHansard. There are two advantages attached


to this new system. First, it allows more timefor those valuable questions without notice.More time means that more questions can beasked and the Government is made moreaccountable. All members on this side of theChamber have expressed their disbelief todaythat this Opposition plans to reject thisproposal, which gives them the opportunity toask more questions and make thisGovernment more accountable.

The second advantage is that allmembers will be permitted to ask at least onequestion on notice each day. I suggest thatsome members opposite try to rememberwhen they last had an opportunity to ask aquestion. The way will now be open for them.This amendment expands the rules regardingthe asking of questions. As a result of the lackof rules regarding the asking of questions, wesee members asking long-winded andcomplicated questions without notice—questions which are designed more to give thequestioner an opportunity to gain politicalpoints rather than elicit answers.

Opposition members interjected.

Ms SPENCE: The same questionerthen complains that the Minister's answers aretoo long or that the Minister has not answeredthe question, and I hear the Oppositioncomplaining of that right now. Perhaps theyought to look at the way they ask thequestions.

Under these proposals, the new rulesdirect that questions should be brief, notcontain arguments, inferences, imputations orhypothetical matters; nor should they beunduly lengthy, express an opinion or ask for alegal opinion. Rules such as these are longoverdue to help ensure that members receivethe information they want. All members whohave taken part in this debate have expressedthe shared sentiment that question time is avery important part of our Westminster-styleParliament. In common with the Leader of theHouse, who spoke earlier in today's debate, Iam proud to be a part of the important reformsput forward today.

I note that chapter 4 of an EARC reportpublished in December 1991 was devoted tothe issue of question time. On page 51 of thereport, we have an extract from the LiberalParty's submission to EARC to improvequestion time. I want to read a number of thesuggestions that the Liberal Party made toEARC at the time. The Liberal Partysuggested that questions on notice should betabled only, thus removing the need for themto be read into Hansard, consequently takingup the time of members wishing to ask

questions without notice. That is what we areproposing here today. The Liberal Partysuggested that answers to questions on noticeshould be printed in Hansard and in the dailyproofs and not be read to Parliament. That iswhat we are suggesting here today. TheLiberal Party suggested that, as questionsoften seek detailed information, there shouldbe neither a requirement nor expectation thatanswers be provided on the next sitting day.That is what we are suggesting here today. Itis indeed surprising that, considering that theproposals suggested today take up so manyof the Liberal Party's suggestions to EARC in1991, they should then choose to oppose thismotion.

It is truly astonishing that the Oppositionshould be opposing these reforms, becausequestion time is obviously a vital mechanismfor it to extract information from the Executive.These reforms will give the Opposition greateropportunity to ask questions—more questionson notice and more questions withoutnotice—and yet members opposite areopposing it. These people opposite, whodisplayed an unhealthy reluctance to reformthe performance of this Legislature and thescrutiny of the Executive during their 32 yearsin Government, have not shaken off theshackles of their past. The absolute lack ofprogressive policies of reformist zeal thatcharacterised them then remains with them ifthey oppose these reforms today.

As part of these reforms, as chairman ofa committee, I will continue to be subjected toquestions on notice and, through them, will beanswerable to the House. There is nothingwrong with that. The member for Beaudesertchose to use much of his speaking time todayto yet again criticise the operations of thecommittees of this Parliament. May I say that Ibelieve that the member for Beaudesert is ahypocrite and he is also factually incorrectwhen he talks about some of the committees.

The member for Beaudesert represents aparty that did nothing to promote thecommittee system in this Parliament. Hecontinually publicly criticises the work of thePublic Works Committee because on threeoccasions that committee has voted on partylines. I think the member is trying to suggestthat for that reason there is some politicalinterference in the workings of the committee.What the member for Beaudesert chooses toignore is that, in the last five years, the PublicWorks Committee has presented over 28reports to this Parliament, all of which havebeen unanimous. When his party was inGovernment, the Public Works Committee


brought down only one report, and that wasthe report on the Wolffdene Dam, and thatwas not a unanimous report. I understand thatthere was a dissenting report. So, when hisparty was in Government, there was only onereport from a Parliamentary Public WorksCommittee. It was split along party lines andthere was a dissenting report.

During the Labor Party's term inGovernment, there have been more than 28reports, all of which have been unanimous.The fact that on three occasions fourmembers of the committee voted one wayand three members of the committee votedanother way does not at all suggest politicalinterference, it suggests that, after extensivebriefings on a particular issue, four like-mindedpeople felt one way and three like-mindedpeople another way. That does not necessarilysuggest political interference. Indeed, I wouldask the member for Beaudesert to considerthat, if there is political interference in thebusiness of committees, it does not have tocome necessarily from the Government side ofthe committee, that indeed it may well comefrom the Opposition's participation in theparticular committee.

These sessional orders are not just aboutcommittees. They go a lot further than that.They are also about giving more rights tobackbenchers. At long last, they involve achance to bring the form of petitions into thepresent by ridding them of the antiquated andsubservient language that used to berequired. No longer will petitioners humblypray, they will now simply and appropriatelyask the House to take action.

Petitions will now have to have the nameof the principal petitioner on the front page.The advantage of this lies in allowing thosewho are approached to sign a petition to knowexactly who is promoting it. I believe that anypetition presented can only be a genuinerequest, an indication of feeling, if those whohave signed it know all the details of thesituation being petitioned, and that includesknowing the proponent's name. Whenpetitions are presented, the Clerk will forward acopy to the responsible Minister, who canarrange for a response to be made andprinted in Hansard if it is required.

Again, we are seeing changes whichmake the Government more accountable tothis Parliament and, through its members, tothe people of Queensland. I am very pleasedto support the motion.

Mr T. B. SULLIVAN (Chermside)(5.33 p.m.): I welcome these reforms and riseto support them. They are reforms that will

allow the majority of MLAs to represent theirelectorates more effectively. These changeswill especially help backbenchers to representtheir electors by giving them greater ability toask questions which are relevant to localissues. Currently, there are time constraints onour question time, and there are about 70members, both non-Government andGovernment who are not Ministers of theCrown, who are able to ask a Minister aquestion, but because of the time constraints,the number is limited to a very few from eachside.

The proposed changes will give each ofus the ability to ask one question on noticeeach day. It is true that this process could beabused. If Opposition members decided toflood a Minister's office each day with 35questions, this would create a log jam, and theMinister's offices could find the workload soheavy that this system could fail. If that in factis what the Leader of the Opposition and theOpposition want, they could probably try toachieve that, but that would show a mean-spirited, feeble-minded approach to theworkings of this Parliament. These reformsprovide a legitimate chance for members tohave a say about issues that are relevant totheir electorate. I would hope that members ofthe Opposition especially do not abuse that.

There has been some criticism of theprovision that Ministers have 30 calendar daysin which to make a reply. I am certain that, ifthe members of this House are reasonablewith their questions, the Ministers will bereasonable with their replies, and 30 days willnot be needed to reply to members' writtenquestions. The proposed changes will allowmembers to highlight local issues, to gatherinformation from the Executive Government,to get the Minister to address an importantmatter and to have a response on the publicrecord. The fact that a copy of the Minister'sreply will come to Hansard and to the memberensures that it is publicly available and that theMinister is more accountable. As some of mycolleagues have said, it is very hypocritical ofNational Party members to call these changesa means to reduce the workings of thisParliament or reduce a member's accessibilityto Ministers. By these reforms, the Ministerswill be much more available to backbenchers.

As the member who spoke before mesaid, an additional feature of these reforms isthat a question can be directed to chairmen ofcommittees. I welcome that. There arelimitations and reservations on the newquestioning process, and I believe that it isessential that these parameters be set.


Proposed Standing Orders 68, 69 and 70basically outline the format, or restrictions, onthe way questions can be asked. They arelegitimate limitations and I would hope thatnone of the overt critics of the Government inthe media or in some of the civil liberty groupswill jump on the bandwagon and say, "You donot have limitless ability to ask whatever youwant." Of course we cannot do that, otherwisethe process would not work. The Minister hasproposed workable procedures that can beachieved.

I am also happy to accept the changes tothe format of petitions, which will makepetitions clearer, more reasonable and makethem more in tune with everyday language.Having the principal petitioner's name on thefront of the petition is a good idea because itgives a focus for response by the Minister orby the local member.

Mr Budd: You're a very generous andunderstanding man when it comes to theOpposition.

Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I hope we aregenerous and understanding. I am sure we willbe.

I wish to comment on statements madeby a couple of members of the Oppositionabout the removal of the prayer. I cansay—and I am sure that my colleague, MrPurcell, who is joining me in approving thismotion will agree—that, as a practisingChristian, I have no objections to the removalfrom the petition of the formal prayer. MrPurcell and I would prefer to be judged moreby our actions rather than by a pro formaprayer written and presented in a way that hasno bearing on our actions.

Opposition members interjected. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I hear members

opposite complaining and whingeing. Letthem jump on their high moral horse, but theywill be judged by their actions, not by astandard pro forma which they are nowarguing is an essential part of our society.

I also agree with the proposal for theprotection of persons referred to in theLegislative Assembly. I have never agreedwith the view expressed by some people thatParliament is a coward's castle. The realcowards are those people in the communitywho hide behind the legal system to protecttheir illegal or immoral activity. Powerful peopleuse laws of defamation and other civil legalaction to scare off victims upon whom theyprey. The cost of legal action prevents manyaggrieved citizens from speaking out againstinjustices in our society. The one place where

matters can be aired without fear of legalretribution is in Parliament. Sometimes, MLAswill get things wrong. but there are ways inwhich an irresponsible member of Parliamentcan be brought to task. They have theopportunity to apologise in the House andthey are accountable in a number of ways.The media will act as a watch and a brake onirresponsible actions by parliamentarians and,most importantly, our voters can decide everythree years whether our actions within thisHouse are responsible or irresponsible. Theproposed reform gives any citizen theopportunity to respond to what he or sheconsiders is an adverse comment inParliament, and it is a much-needed change.

I was going to say that I was amazed atsome of the things that Mrs Sheldon said, butI am not amazed. She has shown herself tobe such a newcomer to this House that shereally does not know what went onbeforehand. I am pleased to have been partof a Government that has made significantchanges from some of the disastrous practicesof the past. Mrs Sheldon's criticism that theseare not reforms but restrictions leaves medumbfounded. She consistently limits thenumber of Liberal Party members who can askquestions in this House by asking twoquestions herself and then limiting the numberof members who can ask questions. TheLeader of the House has proposed a systemwhereby every Liberal member can ask aquestion of a Minister, but Mrs Sheldonopposes this. She is illogical, and she doesnot really know how this Parliament works.These reforms will make the workings ofParliament even more relevant to eachmember's constituents. I support the reforms.

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH(Chatsworth—Leader of the House)(5.41 p.m.), in reply: It surprises me thatOpposition members are not supporting thismotion.

Mr FitzGerald: You support ours; we'llsupport yours.

Mr MACKENROTH: Show me yoursand I'll show you mine! Opposition membersare really not prepared to measure the reformsthat we are proposing and to decide whetherthey are something that will be better for thisParliament, for members of this Parliamentand, probably most importantly, for theOpposition in this Parliament, because theyare the people who will get the most benefitfrom them.

Opposition members really shouldconsider that very few questions are placed onnotice, and not many questions have been


placed on notice over the past couple ofyears. The system has not been used in thisParliament over the past couple of years. Wehave moved more and more towardsquestions without notice. Opposition membersclaim that fewer questions without notice willbe asked. That will not be the case. In fact,members have the ability to ask an extraquestion without notice each day, because theoccasional question on notice will not be readout. So the actual length of question time isnot being altered. What we are saying,though, is that all of that time is being devotedto questions without notice. At the end of theday, the Opposition will be able to ask exactlythe same number of questions withoutnotice—if not one more—as it asked lastweek, the week before and the week beforethat. We are taking absolutely nothing awayfrom the Opposition.

If there is an issue which, in the opinionof the Opposition, is going to bring down theGovernment, Opposition members can ask aquestion about it and then get somebody elseto ask another one and somebody else to askanother one. If the issue is sustainable, it willnot make any difference, because thequestions will be asked and the issue will beout in the public arena. That is what questiontime should be used for. We are not in anyway stopping the Opposition from doing that.We are providing an opportunity to thosemembers who do not usually get theopportunity to ask questions. We are going todouble the number of members who askquestions each day. Whereas the number ofquestions will be the same, we will double theactual number of members asking questionswithout notice. We are also saying to everymember in the Parliament, "If you want to, youcan place a question on notice every day." Ina full parliamentary year, that has the potentialto mean about an extra 3,000 questions beingasked in the Parliament.

According to the Opposition's proposedamendment, if a member does not want toask a question without notice, that membercan ask one question on notice by standing inthe House; he still has the right to put onequestion on the table, but the question thatthe member asks by standing in the Housemust be answered tomorrow, and the otherone would be answered within 14 days. Howmany systems do we want operating? Surely,if a member has a question to ask, he or shewill ask it without notice. Nobody has beentaking great advantage of putting questionson notice in this Parliament. I believe that amember should be able to place a questionon notice and obtain an answer within the time

allotted. We have set a limit of 30 daysbecause we really do not know the workloadthat will be placed on individual departments.The potential exists for Opposition members toget their act together and plan something.They could place 35 questions on notice toone Minister on one day, 35 to that veryMinister the next day——

Mr FitzGerald interjected.Mr MACKENROTH: I am saying that

there is the potential to place 140 questionson notice to one Minister in one week. Howwould a department cope with that? That iswhy we have said that there should be a 30-day limit. It is not to try to stop an issue fromgetting out.

I had 12 years' experience playing theOpposition game. If an Opposition memberhas an issue that is so big that it is not goingto be an issue in 30 days' time, that memberis not going to place that question on notice;he or she will ask it without notice. If theMinister does not answer that question, thatmember will go straight outside screamingabout how he or she has asked that questionand received no answer. The reality is that thisis more about getting the question asked thanabout getting the answer, anyway. That is allthe Opposition really wants to do.

Mr FitzGerald: Is that how you do it?

Mr MACKENROTH: Perhaps I shouldnot let out too many secrets. That is thereality. Opposition members will still ask theirquestions, and if it is really a major politicalissue of the day they will get it into the media.I always believed that if I did not get a run inthe media the question was not worth asking,anyway.

I have been a member of Parliament forseventeen and a half years. During all my timeas an Opposition member and during my timein the Ministry I have never had one personwalk up to me and say, "Listen, Terry, I readHansard the other day. Jeez I was impressedwith that question you asked" or, "I wasimpressed with that question you answered."Even my father reads Hansard. Oppositionmembers have made all sorts of claims aboutour denying the right of people to read what isin Hansard. If they are really honest they will allagree that what I am saying is right; that it justdoes not happen like that.

In my introductory remarks today, I saidthat we were going to table answers that arelonger than one page. That was donebecause we have a very frugal Speaker, whohas estimated that if answers are longer thana page it could cost us somewhere between


$20,000 and $40,000 extra each year inpreparing Hansard, and he wanted us to limitthat. But because the Opposition has madesuch a point of it, I have said that we will notdo that. Therefore, for the remainder of thisterm, while we are trialing this system, we willput all the information into Hansard.

Mr FitzGerald: Tell the Ministers tokeep it short but, won't you?

Mr MACKENROTH: I have alwaysworked on the basis of telling the member aslittle as possible. So he can be assured thatmine will be very short.

Dr Watson: Good, open andaccountable Government.

Mr MACKENROTH: My real problem isthat no-one asks me any questions. I sit hereevery day shivering and waiting for the attackto come. If Opposition members wantthree-minute answers, they should ask mesome questions, and they will get answers ofless than three minutes. With the system thatis working today, whereas some answers arelonger than three minutes, many are less thanthree minutes. We are probably looking at anaverage of three minutes. On someoccasions, I have said to my colleagues, "Givethem a fair go today. Let's keep the answersas short as possible." The real problem is thatthe Opposition had no questions to ask us. Ona couple of occasions we have really had tokeep the answers going in order to keepquestion time going for the full time.

We ask the Opposition to give theproposal that we have put forward a chance tooperate in this Parliament. At the end of thisterm we can assess how it has operated as wehave proposed it. We ask them to give it a fairgo for themselves, because I believe it isgoing to be to their benefit. At this stage wewill not accept the amendments that havebeen moved by the Opposition. We will acceptconsidering them after what we haveproposed has had a fair trial.

Question—That the words proposed tobe omitted stand part of the question—put;and the House divided—AYES, 47—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bennett, Bird,Braddy, Bredhauer, Campbell, Clark, Comben,D’Arcy, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Fenlon,Gibbs, Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Mackenroth,McElligott, McGrady, Milliner, Nunn, Nuttall,Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Power, Purcell, Pyke,Robertson, Robson, Rose, Smith, Spence,Sullivan J. H., Sullivan T. B., Szczerbanik, Vaughan,Warner, Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers:Livingstone, Budd

NOES, 30—Beanland, Cooper, Elliott, FitzGerald,Gamin, Gilmore, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan,

Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley,Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Rowell, Santoro,Sheldon, Simpson, Stephan, Stoneman, Turner,Veivers, Watson Tellers: Springborg, Davidson

Resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I advisehonourable members that the bells will ring fortwo minutes.

Question—That the motion be agreedto—put; and the House divided—AYES, 47—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bennett, Bird,Braddy, Bredhauer, Campbell, Clark, Comben,D’Arcy, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Fenlon,Foley, Gibbs, Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Mackenroth,McElligott, McGrady, Milliner, Nunn, Nuttall,Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Power, Purcell, Pyke,Robertson, Robson, Rose, Smith, Spence,Sullivan J. H., Sullivan T. B., Szczerbanik, Vaughan,Warner, Welford, Wells Tellers: Livingstone, Budd

NOES, 30—Beanland, Cooper, Elliott, FitzGerald,Gamin, Gilmore, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan,Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley,Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Rowell, Santoro,Sheldon, Simpson, Stephan, Stoneman, Turner,Veivers, Watson Tellers: Springborg, Davidson

Resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 6.01 to 7.30 p.m.

TREASURY LEGISLATIONAMENDMENT BILL

Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (7.30 p.m.), by leave, withoutnotice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend Actsadministered by the Treasurer, and forother purposes."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

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

Second Reading

Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (7.31 p.m.): I move—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."

The activities previously undertaken byTreasury with regard to the directadministration of legislation affecting varioustypes of non-bank financial institutions andcooperatives have been progressivelytransferred to more appropriate supervisorsover the past three years. The Bill provides foramendments to the remaining legislation


administered by Treasury in this area,consistent with the above objective.

The Queensland Office of FinancialSupervision—QOFS—is being givenresponsibility for the administration oflegislation affecting cooperative housingsocieties and terminating building societies, inadvance of, and in preparation for, newlegislation which is currently being developedto regulate cooperative housing societies inparticular.

This is achieved by making necessaryamendments to the Co-operative HousingSocieties Act 1958 and the Building SocietiesAct 1985. These new areas of responsibilityare seen as being consistent with the existingactivities already being undertaken by QOFSin relation to permanent building societies,credit unions and friendly societies under theirrespective legislation.

The responsibility for administration oflegislation affecting general cooperatives andother similar activities is being given to theDepartment of Emergency Services, that is,the Office of Consumer Affairs, withappropriate amendments being made to theCo-operative and Other Societies Act 1967and the Loan Fund Companies Act 1982.

The completion of the transfers ofresponsibility provided for in this Bill and therepeal of the Administration of CommercialLaws Act 1962 will conclude Treasury's directinvolvement in this area. I commend the Bill tothe House.

Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald,adjourned.

EDUCATION LEGISLATIONAMENDMENT BILL

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Ministerfor Education) (7.33 p.m.), by leave, withoutnotice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend certain legislationabout education."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

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

Second Reading

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Ministerfor Education) (7.34 p.m.): I move—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."I take great pleasure this evening as the

newly appointed Education Minister inpresenting to the House my first piece oflegislation in that role. The Bill provides foramendments to the Education (GeneralProvisions Act) 1989 and the Education(Senior Secondary School Studies) Act 1988.

Members will recognise it as a mostimportant piece of legislation, as it will provideone of the major building blocks to Shapingour Future. The Bill will give the Governmentthe legislative base to introduce major reformsrecommended by the Wiltshire review intocurriculum. The review was the mostcomprehensive study of its kind in the historyof Queensland education.

Members should be well aware by now ofthe review committee which was establishedfollowing a 1992 election commitment.Headed by Professor Ken Wiltshire, the three-person committee conducted a rigorous reviewleaving no stone unturned in its search forexcellence. Following the Report of the Reviewof the Queensland School Curriculum(Shaping the Future) in March 1994, a periodof public consultation occurred, culminating inCabinet's decisions in November last year tosupport a major reform of the curriculum.

The Goss Government has quickly begunimplementing the major recommendations ofthat review. Much to the displeasure of thoseopposite, the reforms have been widelywelcomed by the community and educatorsgenerally. It stands in stark contrast to theeducation policies of conservativeGovernments in other States which arebringing about change by slash and burn andclosing down schools.

Improving efficiency and quality ofeducation to meet increasing demand can bemet through altering work practices and schooloperations rather than adopting draconianpolicies.

The major areas which I will seeimplemented are—

the need to put the three Rs—reading,writing and arithmetic—back on theagenda;

the "back to basics" approach—thecornerstone of that package;

the tackling of issues—in the form ofliteracy and numeracy—as a priority; andthe appointment of 425 new teachers thisyear to smoothly implement the reforms.


It is the most comprehensive educationreform package ever—

totalling more than $300m over six years;

it will place Queensland at the leadingedge; and

a State of innovation, not desecration—as witnessed in Victoria where 155schools are planned for closure.

Parents and teachers will have moreinformation about their charges' progress asthere will be running records of students'achievements, diagnostic testing and moreaccountability overall.

All these reforms expose the failures andlack of imagination of former conservativeGovernments that allowed our educationsystem to wallow in neglect. I can assure theHouse that under this Government's policiesthere will be no chance of neglect. All oureducation programs will have regular reviewsand input of new and innovative people andideas so that we can keep pace with therapidly changing world in which we live.Today's legislation will provide the overallframework for a much-improved system ofconsultation with the education industry andcommunity.

I believe that the Wiltshire review provedbeyond doubt that we need a better and morebroadly based discussion at the local andState level about how we can better shape oureducation future. This Bill will allow that tooccur. The main objectives of the Bill relate tothe establishment and operation of a newcurriculum management structure—theQueensland Curriculum Council—and forchanges to the role and functions of the Boardof Senior Secondary School Studies. Inaddition, the Bill includes minor alterations toboth Acts relating to matters of anadministrative nature.

The establishment of the QueenslandCurriculum Council provides for therepresentation of all major stakeholders in themanagement of curriculum development inQueensland and is an integral component ofthe curriculum management structures modelsupported by Cabinet. The model provides forthe establishment of two new curriculummanagement structures—the QueenslandCurriculum Council and the QueenslandSchool Curriculum Office and also provides forchanges to the responsibilities of the Board ofSenior Secondary School Studies.

Cabinet endorsed this model as part ofthe Shaping the Future initiatives following itsconsideration of the Report of the Review ofthe Queensland School Curriculum to which I

referred earlier. The council will be anintersystemic and representative preschool toYear 12 ministerial advisory council comprisingrepresentatives from major stakeholdersincluding the non-Government sector, parentbodies, business and industrial organisations.The major role of the council will be to adviseme on preschool to Year 12 curriculumdevelopment.

One important role of the council will beto develop, endorse and then recommend tome a strategic plan for preschool to Year 12curriculum development. The council will alsohold two forums annually. One forum will be aState industry/schooling forum for the purposeof considering major schooling/industrycurriculum issues. The second forum will be adistance education/open learning forum toensure that open learning and distanceeducation issues are included withinmainstream curriculum development, sodebunking a constant ill-informed criticism frommembers opposite that distance education isnot on the agenda.

The membership of the council reflectsthe Government's commitment to provide aforum to enable the views of majorstakeholders to be taken into account ineducational planning and decision making inrelation to curriculum development issues. TheBill provides for the council to comprise 15members appointed by the Governor inCouncil and six official members who will bemembers by virtue of the offices they hold andauthorises me to appoint any additionalmembers that may be necessary.

The council will not be a statutory body,and to remove any doubt the Bill provides forthis to be declared in the Act.

The Bill also heralds some importantchanges to the Board of Senior SecondarySchool Studies, and as a consequenceproposes changes to the Education (SeniorSecondary School Studies) Act 1988 byexpanding the board's role in post-compulsoryschooling to include the authority to undertakeaccreditation, recognition and registrationfunctions for vocational education programsfor senior secondary education (Years 11 and12) that are delegated to the board under theVocational Education, Training andEmployment Act 1991. These changesprovide for the board to play a more significantrole in the convergence of vocational andacademic education in Queensland schools asa recognition of the changing needs of bothour student population and the needs ofsociety.


Currently the board's principal functionsare to approve and develop syllabuses, toaccredit work programs, to administer anappropriate system of student assessment, tocertify and disseminate the results ofassessment and to administer the Core SkillsTest. In view of the board's new responsibilitiesfor vocational education programs for seniorsecondary education, the Bill provides for themembership composition of the board to beamended to provide for a member of theVocational Education, Training andEmployment Commission to be a member ofthe board to replace the nominee of the Boardof Teacher Registration.

In accordance with the curriculummanagement structures model supported byCabinet, the board will cease to have a role injunior secondary school curriculum (Years 8-10) as this responsibility will be assumed bythe proposed Queensland School CurriculumOffice. As a consequence, the board will nolonger issue a Junior Certificate as of1 January 1996.

In light of the significant changes to theboard's responsibilities, the Bill provides for theexisting members of the board, including thechairperson, to go out of office to allow for thereconstitution of the board. The Bill clarifies therelationship between the board and theQueensland Curriculum Council by providingthat the board must submit its program forcurriculum development in Years 11 and 12 tothe council for endorsement and inclusion inthe council's strategic plan for preschool toYear 12 curriculum development.

The Bill also provides for some otherminor amendments to the Education (GeneralProvisions) Act 1989 which are necessary toreflect important changes to the context inwhich Queensland education is now operating.Currently, the Act does not permit me todelegate certain of my powers relating togranting dispensation from compulsoryenrolment and attendance provisions withrespect to home schooling and enrolment inschools of distance education. The Billprovides for these restrictions to be removed.

The Education (General Provisions) Act1989 provides that instruction in accordancewith regulations shall be given in State primaryand special schools during school hours inselected Bible lessons. The Bill provides for"shall" to be replaced with "may" to betterreflect current practices in schools, and hasbeen supported by all major religions throughthe Ministerial Religious Education AdvisoryCommittee. This includes all major Christianreligious groups as well as representatives of

the Baha'i, Buddhist, Jewish and Muslimfaiths.

The Act provides that every parent of achild of the age of compulsory attendancewho does not attend a State or non-Stateschool because of prescribed reasons mustcause that child to be enrolled with the Schoolof Distance Education or any other Stateeducational institution offering distanceeducation. The Bill provides for the term "to beenrolled" to be defined as the requirement toreturn completed papers to the School ofDistance Education to close a loophole in theAct whereby some students enrolled by simplyregistering their names with the School ofDistance Education.

The Bill also provides for other minoramendments to the Education (SeniorSecondary School Studies) Act 1988. The Actcurrently provides that members of the board,other than the chairperson, shall hold office forthree years. The Bill provides for the membersto hold office for no longer than three years,which will ensure that in future the terms ofoffice of the members of the board will have auniform expiry date. The Act provides that aperson is not eligible to be a member of theboard in the same capacity for more than twoconsecutive terms of appointment. The Billprovides for me to have discretion in thismatter.

In summary, the main purpose of the Billis to amend existing legislation to provide thebasis for reforms in Queensland curriculumdevelopment. The changes will provide amarked increase in the participation ofsignificant stakeholders in educational decisionmaking and strategic planning in relation tocurriculum development, and enhance theconvergence of vocational and generaleducation in Queensland schools.

The changes will provide for thesignificant reforms this Government is makingto education in general, and curriculum inparticular, in this State. It will placeQueensland in the vanguard of the curriculumreform in this nation and prepare Queenslandstudents to confidently face the challenges ofthe coming decade. I commend the Bill to theHouse.

Debate, on motion of Mr Fitzgerald,adjourned.

WORKERS' COMPENSATIONAMENDMENT BILL

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—Ministerfor Employment, Training and IndustrialRelations) (7.45 p.m.), by leave, withoutnotice: I move—


"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend the Workers'Compensation Act 1990."Motion agreed to.

First ReadingBill and Explanatory Notes presented and

Bill, on motion of Mr Foley, read a first time.

Second ReadingHon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—Minister

for Employment, Training and IndustrialRelations) (7.46 p.m.): I move—


The amendments to the Workers'Compensation Act 1990 contained in this Billwill require Government agencies to holdpolicies of accident insurance for workers'compensation in the same manner as privatesector employers. The purpose of this changeis to improve significantly the financialincentives for Government agencies tomanage actively their workers' compensationclaims, to implement effective rehabilitationprograms for Government workers and tominimise the risk and cost of work-relatedinjury and disease. This initiative complementsinitiatives by the Government to effectcontinuous improvement in the workers'compensation system generally to optimiseperformance of employers in the area ofprevention, claims management andrehabilitation.

Most Government agencies have neverbeen required to hold workers' compensationpolicies. Government statutory claims havebeen administered and paid by the WorkersCompensation Board, which has thenrecovered claims costs plus an administrationfee from the relevant agency. It has alwaysbeen the responsibility of Governmentagencies to manage their own common lawclaims. This contrasts with the private sector,where employers are required to hold a policyof accident insurance with the WorkersCompensation Board and pay annualpremiums for insurance cover in respect ofboth their statutory and common law claimsliabilities.

The changes proposed as part of this Billfollow a detailed review by QueenslandTreasury and the Workers CompensationBoard of the current system for public sectorcompensation claims. The review highlightedthe relatively poor average claims cost historyfor Government claims compared with the

private sector. For instance, Governmentworkers who claimed compensation in 1993-94 took an average of 21.9 days oncompensation at a cost of $2,953, comparedwith the private sector average of 18.7 days ata cost of $2,120.

Various steps have been taken to controlstatutory and common law claims numbersand costs in the private sector, including—

the promotion of the benefits of earlyreturn to work;the implementation of workplacerehabilitation programs; the implementation of new financialpenalties and revised incentives; andthe continuing review of the managementof common law damages claims with aview to reducing legal and other costs.The review of Government claims costs

pointed to the potential for significantimprovements if the public sector could beexposed to a similar system of incentives andpenalties as the private sector. Furthermore,this is in line with the general policy of theGovernment in expecting a level ofperformance from Government agenciesequivalent to the private sector.

Therefore, the result is this Bill, which willallow for Government agencies to beincorporated into a premium-based workers'compensation scheme from 1 July 1995. Apremium rating system has been developedwhich will maximise the incentives forGovernment agencies to reduce the incidenceof illness and injury among employees throughappropriate risk management strategies, andto otherwise better manage their claims coststhrough, for instance, the implementation ofworkplace rehabilitation.

A separate fund as well as separatepremium rates and pools have been designedwhich will ensure that the risks and liabilitiesassociated with Government claims continueto be isolated from the private sector. In orderto allow the introduction of the premium-basedsystem for Government agencies,amendments to the Workers' CompensationAct are required to provide authority to—

incorporate Government agencies into apremium-based workers' compensationscheme; andenable the transfer of funds between theWorkers' Compensation Trust Fund andthe separate provision account within theConsolidated Fund for the purpose oftransferring Government premiumcollections and paying Governmentclaims.


This Government is committed to asustained reduction in the incidence of injuryand disease amongst its 165,000 employees.Therefore, I do not see these initiatives as theend of the Government's drive to improve itsperformance in this area. Rather, I see theseinitiatives as a part of continual improvementand change in the public sector.

This move to a premium-based systemfor the Government sector is further evidenceof this Government's commitment topreserving an efficient and effective workers'compensation scheme in this State. Icommend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Fitzgerald,adjourned.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONSLEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—Ministerfor Employment, Training and IndustrialRelations) (7.51 p.m.), by leave, withoutnotice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend the IndustrialRelations Act 1990 and the PublicService Management and EmploymentAct 1988."Motion agreed to.

First ReadingBill and Explanatory Notes presented and

Bill, on motion of Mr Foley, read a first time.

Second ReadingHon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—Minister

for Employment, Training and IndustrialRelations) (7.52 p.m.): I move—


The industrial relations reforms introducedby this Government over the past five yearssupport the international competitiveness ofQueensland business and industry andconcomitant jobs growth while providing a fairand socially responsible framework for theregulation of employment.

This Parliament's legislation reflects andencourages a move towards enterprise-levelbargaining, with protections in the form of anindependent umpire in the QueenslandIndustrial Relations Commission, guaranteedminimum standards and a strong award safetynet. Enterprise-level bargaining, where thoseinvolved in daily operations are central to the

shaping of their working conditions andarrangements, is being embraced in theprivate and public sector in Queensland as aproven means to bring productivity boosts inexchange for wage rises.

Within the Queensland public sector,148,000 employees enjoy wage increases asa result of enterprise bargaining. This not onlyprovides benefits for the Government in termsof increased productivity but also benefits thecommunity of Queensland through a moreclient-focused, responsive public sector. TheBill currently before the House is a further stepalong the path to enterprise-based decisionmaking and improved productivity. It providesfor amendments to enable public sector unitsto assume greater day-to-day responsibility forthe management of their own industrialrelations, including representation beforeindustrial tribunals.

Currently, the Act provides that exclusiveright of representation in industrial tribunalsrests with the chief executive or a nominatedofficer of my own Department of Employment,Vocational Education, Training and IndustrialRelations. If other Ministers seek to haveofficers or agents of their departments appear,they are obliged under current legislation to gothrough the cumbersome procedure of makingwritten requests to the Minister forEmployment, Training and Industrial Relations.The proposed amendment allows fordepartments or agencies to send their ownofficers or agents to tribunals. By devolving toagencies the responsibility for their owninternal industrial relations, my department willbe able to concentrate, as the centralindustrial relations agency, on strategic policydevelopment focusing on effective sector-wideworkplace reform strategies. In this role, mydepartment will continue to handle sector-wideindustrial matters.

The Bill also makes a related amendmentto the Public Service Management andEmployment Act. This amendment seeks tofacilitate workplace reform in the public sectorby providing Government departments withthe capacity to vary specific entitlements andconditions of employment of officers of thepublic service, currently provided for indeterminations made by the Governor inCouncil, through their enterprise bargainingagreements. For example, payments of motorvehicle allowance, which are currently madeon fortnightly claims, could be annualised,reducing administrative costs. This will increasethe flexibility of departments to apply theconditions of employment contained in thedeterminations to suit their organisational


requirements, thus resulting in enhancedproductivity.

I commend the Bill to the House.


COURTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENTBILL

Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General andMinister for the Arts) (7.56 p.m.), by leave,without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend various Acts toprovide for court annexed mediation andcase appraisal, and for other purposes."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

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

Second Reading

Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General andMinister for the Arts) (7.57 p.m.): I move—


This Bill introduces alternative disputeresolution processes into the court system.The Bill provides for court annexed mediationand case appraisal. The Queensland justicesystem will be improved by the inclusion ofalternative dispute resolution processes in thecourt system. This Bill recognises that thereare many ways to resolve a dispute. Somedisputes can be resolved by agreement,others can be resolved by an independentappraisal of each party's case and others canbe resolved only by a court determination.

This Bill will provide the court with thetools of mediation and case appraisal. Theaim of using these processes is to give partiesan opportunity to participate in ADR processesto try to achieve negotiated settlements andsatisfactory resolutions of disputes. Asettlement achieved through an ADR processis likely to be cheaper and faster thanproceeding to trial. The Bill will introduceuniform ADR provisions in the legislationgoverning the Supreme Courts, Districts Courtsand Magistrates Courts. Uniformity ofprocedure tends towards a more accessiblejustice system. The opportunity has beentaken in this Bill to modernise the rule-making

powers of each court and to confer power tomake rules of court in relation to ADRprocesses.

The Bill contains amendments to thefollowing legislation: Supreme Court ofQueensland Act 1991; District Courts Act1967; Magistrates Courts Act 1921; andJudicial Review Act 1991. The amendments tothe Supreme Court of Queensland Act, theDistrict Courts Act and Magistrates Courts Actprovide the framework for ADR processes. Asthe amendments relating to ADR processesare uniform, I will discuss them together. Theseparate amendments to the rule-makingpowers are discussed below.

Framework for ADR processesThe amendments clearly define the

various terms integral to the ADR scheme. Theamendments specify the objects of theintroduction of ADR processes. It is made clearthat the primary object is to provide anopportunity for litigants to participate in ADRprocesses to achieve negotiated settlementsand satisfactory resolutions of their disputes.To achieve that objective, further objects areto provide the necessary framework andprotections for the ADR processes in the courtsystem.

The concepts of ADR process, mediationand case appraisal are defined in detail by theamendments. The amendments clarify thattwo kinds of ADR processes will be used andthat the purpose of their use is to help theparties to achieve an early, inexpensivesettlement or resolution of their dispute.Mediation is then defined as a process underwhich the parties use a mediator to help themresolve their dispute by negotiated agreementwithout adjudication. Case appraisal is aprocess in which a case appraiser provisionallydecides a dispute. Case appraisal is known byother names, such as early neutral evaluation.

The amendments then establish theprocess for administering the ADR process.The amendments to the Supreme Court ofQueensland Act 1991 provide that the SeniorJudge Administrator, in consultation with theChief Justice, may approve or refuse toapprove a person as a mediator or caseappraiser. The amendments to the DistrictCourts Act 1967 provide that the Chief Judgeshall undertake these functions. Theamendments to the Magistrates Courts Act1921 provide that the Chief StipendiaryMagistrate shall perform these functions.

The amendments provide that the judicialofficer with power to approve a mediator orcase appraiser also has power to revoke that


approval. Where approval is revoked, astatement of reasons must be provided. Theamendments provide for a review processagainst refusal to approve or to revoke theapproval of a person as a case appraiser ormediator. The amendments provide an appealto the Court of Appeal, by leave of that court,against the decision of the Senior JudgeAdministrator or the Chief Judge and anappeal to the District Court from the decisionof the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate. Becauseof this specific review process, theamendments make clear that these decisionsmay not be the subject of judicial review.

The amendments require themaintenance of a register of information aboutADR processes. The register must at leastcontain the name and address of eachmediator and case appraiser. In the SupremeCourt and District Court, the register must bemaintained by the Supreme Court Registrar.The amendments confer a power on theSenior Judge Administrator to decide if furtherinformation is to be entered on the register. Inthe amendments to the Magistrates Court Act1921, it is made clear that the ChiefStipendiary Magistrate may nominate aregistrar of a Magistrates Court in Brisbane tokeep the register of information about ADRprocesses. The amendments confer power onthe Chief Stipendiary Magistrate to decide ifother information should be entered on theregister.

The amendments ensure that the partiescan agree to refer their dispute to an ADRprocess. They confer a power on the court toorder a dispute to mediation or case appraisal.The amendments allow the court to requirethe parties to attend before the court toenable the court to decide whether the parties'dispute should be referred to an ADR process.Under the amendments, the court can order adispute to an ADR process, regardless of theparties' consent. Some of the matters which acourt may take into account when consideringwhether to refer a matter to case appraisal arespecified by the amendments.

The amendments indicate precisely theobligations of the parties once a dispute isreferred to an ADR process. The obligationsare to attend before the appointed ADRconvenor and that a party must not impedethe ADR convenor in conducting and finishingthe ADR process within the time allowed in thereferring order. The concept of impeding isintended to include only the formal aspects ofparticipation. It is not intended to include thedegree or extent of participation.

The amendments spell out some of thesanctions available when a party impedes anADR process. The sanctions include orderingthat the claim for relief by the defaulting partyis stayed until further order.

The amendments provide more detail asto the procedure at a case appraisal. Theamendments make clear that the caseappraiser has discretion as to the procedure tobe used. They spell out the limitations on thepowers of the case appraiser to determine theprocedures to be used at a case appraisal.The limitations are of three kinds. Firstly, thatcase appraiser may receive evidence,examine witnesses and administer oaths onlyin special circumstances. Secondly, the courtmay give directions at any time about theprocedures to be used at a case appraisal.Thirdly, a person may only be subpoenaed toappear at a case appraisal by order of thecourt. The amendments specify that thedecision of a case appraiser may not bejudicially reviewed. The amendments makeclear that a person may not be subpoenaed toappear at a mediation.

The amendments clarify that the courtmay cancel a reference to an ADR processwhere the court is of the opinion that a party isunable, because of their financialcircumstances, to pay the party's percentageof the ADR costs. The amendments providefor the action to be taken at the completion ofan ADR process.

The amendments make clear that anyagreements reached at mediation must bewritten down and signed by the parties andthe mediator, and that a party may apply tocourt for an order giving effect to anyagreement reached at mediation, as long asthe agreement is filed. In any event, theamendments provide that the mediator mustfile a certificate about the mediation. Theamendments provide for the filing of acertificate about the case appraisal and thecase appraiser's decision.

The amendments provide that a partymay apply to court for an order giving effect toa case appraiser's decision. The applicationcan only be made if the time prescribed forfiling of an election to go to trial has passed.The amendments allow the application to bebrought before that time if all parties agree.

The amendments provide for theprotections and safeguards to be afforded toADR processes. Three kinds of protection areafforded. Firstly, the amendments impose anobligation on the ADR convenor to maintainsecrecy about information coming to theconvenor's knowledge during an ADR process.


Certain circumstances which constitute areasonable excuse to disclose information areset out. Secondly, the ADR convenor, partiesand witnesses are afforded by theamendments certain protections andimmunities. For example, a witness attendingin an ADR process has the same protectionand immunity as a witness appearing beforethe relevant court. Thirdly, the amendmentsensure that evidence of anything said or done,or admission made at an ADR process, isadmissible at the trial of a dispute or inanother civil proceeding, only if all partiesagree.Rule-making powers

The Supreme Court Act of 1991, theDistrict Courts Act of 1967 and the MagistratesCourts Act 1921 are to be amended to conferspecifically a power to make rules of court inrelation to ADR processes.

The opportunity has been taken toconsolidate the rule-making power of theSupreme Court. The power to make SupremeCourt rules exists in several pieces oflegislation and different methods for makingrules of court are specified. This amendmentprovides a streamlined procedure for makingSupreme Court rules under any of these Acts.

The amendments to the Supreme Courtof Queensland Act 1991 define the role of theLitigation Reform Commission in reporting onrules of court made under that Act or anyother Act. The amendments make clear that areport and recommendation must be obtainedfrom the commission or a division of thecommission when rules of court are madeunder that Act or another Act or a regulation ismade under that Act. The only exception iswhen rules of court for the Court of Appeal aremade under section 32 of the Supreme Courtof Queensland Act 1991. In that case, a reportand recommendation from the LitigationReform Commission is not required.

The opportunity has also been taken tostreamline the procedure for making DistrictCourt rules. The amendment will ensure thatDistrict Court rules need only be approved bysix District Court judges, of whom the ChiefJudge must be one.


JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL


"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend or repeal Actsadministered by the Minister for Justiceand Attorney-General and Minister for theArts."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading


Second Reading



This Bill contains minor amendments tothe following legislation: Acts Interpretation Act1954; Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950;Electoral Act 1992; Judges (Pensions andLong Leave) Act 1957; Justices Act 1886;Justices of the Peace and Commissioners forDeclarations Act 1991; the oaths legislation,that is, the Oaths Act 1867 and the Oaths ActAmending Acts of 1876, 1884 and 1891; andSupreme Court of Queensland Act 1991.

The Department of Justice and Attorney-General is responsible for the administration ofsome 157 statutes and, as a result, there is anecessity for a number of minor amendmentsto be regularly made to various legislativeprovisions to ensure that the statutes continueto operate in the manner intended.

To facilitate this, an annual departmentalmiscellaneous provisions Bill is prepared sothat the minor amendments needed can beeffected by means of one statute. Thisensures that much needed statutory reform isnot delayed and that the time of theParliament is not unnecessarily expended ondealing with a number of disparate pieces oflegislation, each of which could be moreappropriately combined in the form oflegislation we are now considering.

The amendment to the ActsInterpretation Act 1954 firstly omits and insertsa new section 29A which has been redraftedto have regard to the Parliamentary PapersAct 1992. The new section makes it clear thatout of session tabling can occur at the mostappropriate time and not just at the time areport is received. It may not be appropriate toimmediately table a report at the time it isreceived because, for example, a report mayrecommend prosecutions, and such


prosecutions may be prejudiced if a report isimmediately tabled. The amendment willenable the report to be tabled as soon asappropriate, for example, when prosecutionshave been finalised, without having to awaitthe resumption of the Parliament.

The new section allows the Clerk ratherthan the Speaker—as is the currentprovision—to authorise the printing of thereport. This is consistent with the Clerk being apermanent officer of the Parliament and aperson who is authorised to publishdocuments under the Parliamentary PapersAct 1992.

The amendments to the ActsInterpretation Act 1954 also amend section33A(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act to make itclear that that subsection does not apply tothe Acts Interpretation Act 1954. In addition,the amendments amend section 36 of theActs Interpretation Act 1954 to include adefinition of "Speaker" and to relocatesections 48 and 52, which deal with the modeof pleading affirmation instead of oath and theform of oath of allegiance respectively to theOaths Act 1867. There are furtheramendments to the oaths legislation to which Iwill refer later.

The amendments to the Commissions ofInquiry Act 1950 relate to section 32 of thatAct and have regard to the revision of section29A of the Acts Interpretation Act alreadyreferred to. The amendments to theCommissions of Inquiry Act 1950 also repealthe existing regulation-making power, section26, and insert a new regulation-making powerin accordance with modern drafting practices.

The amendments to the Electoral Act1992 omit and insert a new section 172(1) tocreate an additional offence where a personfails to promptly post or send by facsimile arequest under section 111 by an electoralvisitor to vote as an electoral visitor voter. Thisis in addition to the existing offence of failingto promptly post or send by facsimile a requestby an ordinary postal voter for a ballot paperand declaration envelope. It will createconsistency between the obligation topromptly post or send by facsimile a requestby an ordinary postal voter for a ballot paperand declaration envelope and the obligation topromptly post or send by facsimile a requestby an electoral visitor voter to vote as anelectoral visitor voter. The amendments alsoomit and insert a new section 172(2)—offenceto not promptly post a declaration envelope—redrafted in accordance with modern draftingpractice. The amendments also make a

statute law revision amendment to section111(1) of the Electoral Act 1992.

The amendment to the Judges (Pensionsand Long Leave) Act 1957 omits and inserts anew section 15(5) to provide that judges whohave accrued a long leave entitlement of notless than six months and who wish to take thisleave in parts can take the long leave with theapproval of the Governor in Council in two ormore separate periods.

The amendments to the Justices Act doa number of things, including:

inserting a new section 268A to removeany doubt as to the validity of theapproval of certain forms approved on 18June 1993;

inserting a new section 271 whosepurpose is to remove any doubt anddeclare that, despite the enactment ofthe Justice Legislation (MiscellaneousProvisions) Act 1992:

the boundaries of each MagistratesCourt district or division before thecommencement of the relevantprovisions of the Justices Legislation(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992continue to be the boundaries forthe district or division;

a division of the Brisbane districtcontinued to be a district; and

every place appointed in eachdivision of the Brisbane districtcontinued to be a place appointedfor holding a Magistrates Court.

The amendments to section 5 of theJustices of the Peace and Commissioners forDeclarations Act 1991 deal with themembership of the Justices of the PeaceCouncil. The amendments to the Justices ofthe Peace and Commissioners forDeclarations Act 1991 also amend section 12to enable the appointment of deputy registrarswho will have the same powers and functionsas the registrar. Finally, the amendments tothe Justices of the Peace and Commissionersfor Declarations Act 1991 amend section 16 toenable a retired magistrate to apply to beappointed as a Justice of the Peace(Magistrates Courts) without having to undergothe compulsory training course, provided theapplication for appointment is made within fiveyears of the date of retirement.

A considerable number of provisions ofthe Bill are taken up with the amendments tothe oaths legislation, namely the Oaths Act1867 and the Oaths Act Amendment Acts of1867, 1884 and 1891. Firstly, the


amendments amend section 13 of the 1867Act to provide that the provision applies todeclarations taken for Queensland lawwherever those declarations are taken. Theyalso amend section 3 of the 1891 Act toenable the same people who can takedeclarations to take affidavits. They also willenable interstate barristers and solicitors totake Queensland affidavits, something whichhas been prohibited since the ruling of theSupreme Court in the decision of re OceanIndustries. The other amendments to theoaths legislation contained in the Bill deal withthe consolidation of the Oaths ActAmendment Acts of 1876, 1884 and 1891into the Oaths Act 1867 and minor statute lawrevision amendments as a result of thatconsolidation.

Finally, the Bill seeks to amend theSupreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 tomake amendments to Schedule 2 of that Act.Honourable members will recall that Schedule2 of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act1991 repealed a number of provisions of theSupreme Court Act 1921 no longer relevantbecause of the creation of the Court ofAppeal. This amendment makes it absolutelyclear which part of section 7 of the SupremeCourt Act 1921 is being repealed by theSupreme Court of Queensland Act 1991.



FREEDOM OF INFORMATIONAMENDMENT BILL


"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend the Freedom ofInformation Act 1992."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading


Second Reading



I am pleased to introduce the Freedom ofInformation Amendment Bill 1995. The Bill hastwo aims: to remove any remaining ambiguityregarding the Cabinet and Executive Councilexemption; and to make the amendmentsretrospective. Sections 36 and 37 of theFreedom of Information Act were amended in1993. The amendments followed the decisionof the Information Commissioner in Fencray v.Department of Premier, Trade and EconomicDevelopment. In 1993, I advised the Housethat amendments to the FOI Act werenecessary to prevent the undermining of theconvention of collective ministerialresponsibility. The decision in Fencraypotentially allowed the release of Cabinetmaterial which may have revealed theparticular position adopted by a Minister orMinisters during Cabinet deliberations. It wasthe Government's intention, as stated in theExplanatory Note to the 1993 amendment,that the purposive test would be removed fromthe Cabinet exemption, and that alldocuments that actually come before Cabinetwill automatically fall within the exemption.

The present amendments have the sameaim as the 1993 amendments and areintended to remove any doubt regarding theoperation of the Cabinet and ExecutiveCouncil exemptions so that all matter that issubmitted to Cabinet and Executive Council isexempt. They are intended to prevent inquiryinto what takes place in the Cabinet room.They will safeguard absolutely theconfidentiality of the Cabinet and ExecutiveCouncil process.

The objects of the Freedom ofInformation Act, as stated in section 5,recognise the detrimental effect that thedisclosure of particular information would haveon essential public interests as well as thepublic interest in promoting open discussion ofpublic affairs. The FOI Act recognises theneed to strike a balance between the twocompeting public interests.

For Cabinet to work as efficiently andeffectively as possible it must have the abilityto consider issues without the threat of accessto Cabinet documents under the Act. As Iadvised the House in 1993, the High Court inthe case of Commonwealth v. Northern LandCouncil recognised the public interest inmaintaining the confidentiality of the Cabinetprocess. The effect of the amendments is thatall matter, including statistical, scientific ortechnical matter that is submitted to Cabinet,is exempt from disclosure under the Act.

"Submit" has been defined in the newsection 36. The definition makes it clear that it


is necessary only to bring matter to Cabinet ina physical sense for it to be exempt under theAct. It is then a matter for Cabinet as towhether and to what extent it considers thematerial before it. The amendments make itclear that it is not permissible to attempt tosecond-guess the reason that documentswere submitted to Cabinet. Such inquiriesstrike at the heart of Cabinet confidentiality.

The Bill extends the exemption to matterprepared for briefing chief executives inrelation to a matter submitted or proposed tobe submitted to Cabinet. This reflects the factthat in Queensland chief executives mayreceive detailed briefing on material that issubmitted to Cabinet.

I would also draw your attention to thenew section 36(1)(e). This subsection, whenread in conjunction with the definition of"consideration", prevents the disclosure ofmatter which would reveal a decision ordeliberation of Cabinet. However, it is intendedto go further than this and will protect anymatter which would prejudice the operations orconsiderations of Cabinet. It will, for instance,prevent disclosure of matter which wouldindicate that an issue had been discussed byor submitted to Cabinet. The ExecutiveCouncil exemption has been amended in thesame terms as the Cabinet exemption. In theGovernment's view, it is equally important tosafeguard the integrity and confidentiality ofthe Executive Council process.

The Bill applies retrospectively. I make noapology for that. The FOI Act was neverintended to provide a vehicle to inquire insidethe Cabinet room. The QueenslandGovernment does not accept that this wouldbe a legitimate purpose of freedom ofinformation legislation. The Bill is retrospectivebecause it gives effect to the intent that thisParliament always had, that is, to protect theconfidentiality of Cabinet and ExecutiveCouncil deliberations and decisions and alldocuments physically submitted to, orprepared in relation to, Cabinet and ExecutiveCouncil.



LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ABORIGINALLANDS) AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH(Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, LocalGovernment and Planning and Minister forRural Communities) (8.21 p.m.), by leave,without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend the LocalGovernment (Aboriginal Lands) Act1978."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

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

Second Reading

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH(Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, LocalGovernment and Planning and Minister forRural Communities) (8.22 p.m.): I move—


The Bill amends the Local Government(Aboriginal Lands) Act in two ways. Firstly, itaddresses the particular concerns of theAurukun community in relation to theavailability of alcohol in the shire. Secondly, anumber of miscellaneous amendments areproposed to reflect Government policy inrelation to the establishment of liquor facilitiesin Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islandercommunities and the issue of personalprohibition orders on individuals consumingalcohol. The Bill has been developed directlyin response to a request from the Aurukuncommunity for a legal framework to assist inthe control of alcohol.

As part of the process of designing anappropriate system, extensive consultationshave occurred with the community. Theproposed system is the first of its kind as itattempts as far as possible to take intoaccount one Aboriginal community's uniquesocial culture and geographic setting. Becausethe approach taken is in the nature of anexperiment, the legislation will only be in forcefor an initial period of two years. Its success willbe evaluated before the end of that period todecide whether it should continue in operation.

The primary objectives of the legislationinclude the establishment of a system todeclare places in the shire area where alcoholcan be taken and consumed, a deterrent tothe illegal sale of alcohol and the minimisationof alcohol-related disturbances in thecommunity. There is broad community supportin Aurukun for a system which will allowindividuals or groups of people to have alcoholprohibited or controlled in their homes or ontheir homelands.


It is considered the current liquor lawshave not been sufficient to deter the illegalsale of alcohol in Aurukun. Policing of theillegal sale of alcohol, commonly referred to as"sly-grogging", is difficult because the burdenof proof required by the courts is set at a levelwhich cannot easily be obtained in acommunity such as Aurukun. The clearintention of the Bill is that the proposedsystem to control alcohol in certain placesshould not result in a total prohibition acrossthe shire.

The Bill establishes a decision makingbody called the Aurukun Alcohol Law Council,which I will refer to as "the Law Council". Themain function of the Law Council is to decidewhich places will be declared dry, that is,where the presence of alcohol will beprohibited, and which places will be declaredcontrolled, that is, where the possession orconsumption of alcohol is restricted throughdirections which set limits on the quantity ortype of alcohol brought into the place.

The Law Council may also make adirection which allows the possession orconsumption of alcohol in a controlled place ifit is in accordance with a permit. For example,the Law Council may decide to make adirection about a public place such as a parkwhich allows a group to apply for a permit tohave more than the allowed quantity and/ortype of alcohol when a special event is to beheld.

The Bill places a number of obligationson the Law Council to ensure the communityis informed about its proposals and itsdecisions. The Law Council will also have arole in advising the State Government and theAurukun Shire Council on the operation andeffectiveness of the system and generally onthe administration and enforcement of thelegislation.

Members of the Law Council will be theelders of recognised traditional groups whosenames will be published in the Gazette by theMinister. These groups are recognised underAboriginal tradition and collectively make upthe people particularly concerned with the landin the shire. Each traditional group cannominate at least one elder as arepresentative on the Law Council. TheMinister must publish the names in theGazette as well as a description of eachrecognised traditional group which forms thebasis for the composition of the Law Council.Although more than one elder may benominated to represent a traditional group,only one elder from each group may attend ameeting of the Law Council.

The way in which the Law Councilconducts its business and makes its decisionsis up to it. Where the Law Council considers itappropriate, it may take into accountAboriginal tradition in making decisions.However, the Bill specifies the majority of themembers of the Law Council present at ameeting must be in agreement to decide aquestion.

In effect, the Bill establishes a specificpurpose alternative governing structure tocontrol the possession or consumption ofalcohol in the shire area. This step has beentaken as it became clear during detailedcommunity consultations that representationon the shire council and other communityorganisations was not seen as a particularlyappropriate basis for the composition of abody to make decisions about alcohol. Theseconsultations occurred as part of a pilotcommunity planning project being undertakenin Aurukun under the Government'sAlternative Governing Structures Program.

The issue of alcohol and a legislativeframework to deal with its availability has beenthe focus of the first stage in the planningproject. The approach taken in the Bill isconsistent with the Government's policy toexplore alternative management structures inAboriginal communities in close consultationwith those communities. The Law Council isaccountable to the Aurukun community andmust report on its activities at least once everysix months and notify the community thatcopies of the report are available. A number ofprovisions in the Bill are also specificallydesigned to ensure the community is given anopportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

There are two categories of places whichthe Law Council can declare dry or controlled,public places and private places. Public placesare the roads; places under the control of theshire council such as parks, the airstrip and thebarge landing area; and places under thecontrol of the Government such as thehospital and the school grounds. Applicationsto declare a public place dry or controlled maybe initiated by the Law Council or it mayreceive an application from the shire council orfrom a Government department in respect ofplaces under their control.

Private places are places such as ahouse in Aurukun which is occupied by aperson, a group of persons or an entity otherthan the shire council or the Government;places such as a homeland area to which aperson or a group has the authority to controlaccess under Aboriginal tradition; any other


place that is not a public place. Applications todeclare private places dry or controlled mayonly be made to the Law Council by anoccupier or by a group of people who have aparticular connection with a private placeunder Aboriginal tradition.

Once an application is received by theLaw Council or it decides to initiate anapplication about a public place, the details ofthe proposal must be put in a notice anddisplayed in a prominent place in the town andif possible at the place where the declaration isproposed. The same public notificationprocess is applicable where it is proposed toamend or revoke a declaration.

The Law Council may also initiateconsultation within the community. Forinstance, it may discuss with the occupier of aprivate place the need for a declaration overthat place and then invite the occupier tomake an application. The Law Council's abilityto invite applications gives flexibility incircumstances where the occupier or traditionalowners may be reluctant to make anapplication but where there is wider communitysupport for a declaration.

Any adult resident of the shire mayexpress an opinion objecting to or supportinga proposed declaration about a public place.The objection or supporting statement may beexpressed in writing or be given verbally afterrequesting a personal interview with the LawCouncil. For a proposed declaration over aprivate place, submissions about the proposalare limited to the occupiers or people usingthe place or neighbouring place or people witha particular connection with a private placeunder Aboriginal tradition.

In addition to receiving submissions, theLaw Council may decide to use otherconsultation mechanisms such as calling apublic meeting about any proposal to declarea place. A public meeting would serve twopurposes. It could be used to ensure thecommunity has another opportunity to fullyunderstand the proposal as well as to obtainthe views of the community or people with aparticular interest in the proposal. It is intendedthat other consultation mechanisms wouldprovide greater flexibility to the Law Council toensure community understanding and ahigher degree of ownership of its decisions.

The secretary to the Law Council is theofficer in charge of police at Aurukun or hisnominee. The secretary may advise the LawCouncil on any matters and is responsible forarranging the keeping of minutes of meetings.The Aurukun Shire Council is responsible for

undertaking the administrative supportfunction to the Law Council. The administrativecosts of operating the Law Council will bedivided equally between the council andAurukun Community Incorporated. Thecompany is an Aboriginal corporation whichoperates the general store in Aurukuntownship and undertakes other commercialactivities. The directors are members of theAurukun community.

Penalties are included in the Bill as adeterrent to possessing or consuming anyalcohol in dry places or where it is not inaccordance with directions or a permit madefor a controlled place. The maximum level ofpenalty is set at 250 units or $15,000 to targetoffenders who trade illegally in alcohol. For thepurposes of enforcing declarations, anauthorised officer is a police officer or amember of the local Aboriginal police speciallyauthorised by a police officer for that purpose.

A range of other offences is included inthe Bill to assist authorised officers in theexercise of their powers. Many of these arebased on the powers of entry provisions whichwere incorporated into the Local GovernmentAct 1993 late last year by the LocalGovernment Legislation Amendment Act1994.

The Bill also enables a court to orderalcohol or vehicles used to transport alcohol tobe forfeited to the shire council where abreach of the Law Council's decision hasoccurred. Disposal of such goods is dealt withby the council under the Local GovernmentAct. Any proceeds from the sale of forfeitedproperty must be used to offset the cost ofproviding administrative support to the LawCouncil.

Provision is made for a person to apply tothe Law Council for a review of its decisionwhere that person's interests are affected bythe decision. The person is entitled to astatement of reasons for the decision. Anappeal against the decision on review may bemade to a magistrate within 28 days after thedecision is given to the person.

To facilitate the implementation of thelegislation a strategy is being finalised and willbe put in place prior to the date ofcommencement. The major tasks to beundertaken include—

facilitating nominations for membership ofthe Law Council;

establishing administrative systems; and

undertaking a community educationprogram.


Once the new system is operating, amonitoring and evaluation strategy will be putin place aimed at assisting the Governmentand the community to assess the extent towhich the legislation's objectives have beenachieved.

The decision-making frameworkestablished under the Bill is designed toempower the whole of the community toparticipate in decisions through recognition ofAboriginal tradition. The extent to which thelegislation can bring about a reduction in theincidence of sly grogging and alcohol-relatedcrime will also depend on a broad commitmentwithin the community to bringing aboutchange.

In my opening remarks I indicated thereare other miscellaneous matters dealt with inthe Bill. The Bill amends the LocalGovernment (Aboriginal Lands) Act to providefor Aboriginal police officers to be indemnifiedfrom legal liability during the exercise of theirduties. Aboriginal police officers are appointedby the shire council to assist in theenforcement of local laws and can also beauthorised officers under the new provisionsdealing with the enforcement of declarationsof the Law Council. Similar provisions wereinserted in the community services Acts in1994 to provide for indemnification ofcommunity police in the other Aboriginal andIslander communities in Queensland.

The Bill also repeals several provisionswhich are no longer consistent with otherGovernment policy. The Liquor Act 1992introduced a process for the establishment ofliquor facilities in Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander community areas and the localgovernment areas of Aurukun andMornington. The Mornington Shire Councilcurrently operates a liquor facility underexisting provisions of the Local Government(Aboriginal Lands) Act dealing with beercanteens. The Bill repeals these provisionsand authorises the facility operated by theMornington Shire Council to be a generallicence under the Liquor Act.

The Bill also repeals sections of the Actwhich enable the Aurukun and MorningtonShire Councils to issue prohibition orders onindividuals consuming alcohol. The provisionsof the Bill have been fully discussed with theshire councils and extensive communityconsultation has occurred in Aurukun on moreeffective controls on alcohol.

I believe all members will agree that thisBill contains a number of innovative provisionswhich are designed to assist the Aurukuncommunity to determine more effective

solutions to the control of alcohol. The successof these provisions is very much dependentupon the commitment of the Aurukuncommunity to ensuring the Law Council and itsmembership of elders is recognised as theappropriate authority to determine wherealcohol can be taken and consumed inAurukun. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mrs McCauley,adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH(Chatsworth—Leader of the House)(8.36 p.m.): I move—

"That the House do now adjourn."

Electricity

Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (8.37 p.m.):Tonight, I rise in this Adjournment debate tobring to the attention of this Parliament andthe people of Queensland the dreadful failureof the Goss Labor Government in planning forthe future of electricity supplies in this State.Over the past five years, this Government hasfailed absolutely in respect of the future ofindustrial and domestic power supplies inQueensland.

Let me remind members that, five yearsago when the Goss Labor Government cameto power, the electricity industry in Queenslandwas the best in this country. It was recognisednationally and internationally as the best. Wehad the cheapest power in mainlandAustralia—we could not compete with thehydropower in Tasmania. So I ask thisParliament: what has happened in the last fiveand a half years that has gone so badly, badlywrong? In Queensland, we had theQueensland Electricity Commission, which washighly regarded as probably the finest andmost competent planning and constructionauthority in this country. That QueenslandElectricity Commission was charged with anumber of things to do. First of all, it had toestablish; secondly, to maintain; and, thirdly,plan for the future electricity generation,transmission and distribution in this State.

When the Labor Government came topower in this State, it closed down the QECplanning authority. From 1989 when this GossGovernment came to power, there was noplanning done—none whatsoever—until about12 months ago when the penny dropped andthe Minister realised finally that Queenslandwould be in deep trouble in 1998. Let meassure members that everybody else in


Queensland knew that we would be in troublein 1998 in that the QEC, in no less than fourconsecutive annual reports, said that, if adefinitive decision was not made by July 1991in respect of the construction of the nextpower station in this State, we would havepower shortages in 1998. The first of thosereports was the 1988-89 annual report. It wasquite a clear statement and documentaryevidence was presented in that report for theincoming Government. There were no secretsabout that.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you can bet your lifethat the first discussion that this incomingGovernment had with the QEC was along thelines of, "Hey, we need a new power stationon line in 1998. We need 350 megawatts ofpower from that date on. If we do not get that,then there are going to be brownouts; thereare going to be blackouts; there are going tobe problems."

The first decision that this Governmentmade was that it would not construct theTully/Millstream hydroelectric scheme, whichwas an essential part of the planning process.It was peak demand power—600 megawatts;and that is the shortage that we will be facingin 1998—for the proper management of thegrid in Queensland.

So where are we going? Let me go backa little in history to when the former LaborGovernment in this State was thrown out ofoffice 37 years ago. It left the electricityindustry in this State in a shambles. It wasnineteenth century stuff, with the Brisbane CityCouncil generating power for the south east ofQueensland. Our Government tidied it up, putit on a central grid under a single authority andstarted to turn the industry around. It started toconstruct the Gladstone, Tarong and StanwellPower Stations.

At the moment, the Stanwell PowerStation is coming on line. The third generatorwill be commissioned within a month or so.That is in the process of being done. Thefourth generator will be commissioned in mid1996 and will provide 350 megawatts ofpower. I remind honourable members that thatpower station was brought on line by aNational Party Government. On its openingday, the Premier claimed responsibility for itand everything that went with it. He claimedthe responsibility and did not have thedecency to say that we were the ones whobrought it on line.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to ask you:what will happen after next year? There is notanother generator planned for this State—nota single sausage. What will happen? The

Government will have to scramble to find asolution. The Government has not been ableto put together a package to make it work.The Opposition has put together such apackage. We have shown the lead in thismatter. We can demonstrate how we cankeep the lights on after 1998. I have thedocument in front of me. Where is theGovernment's Minister tonight? Why has henot stood up in the House and said what he isgoing to do to keep the power and the lightson in Queensland? A month ago we saw60,000 houses in Brisbane without power—ablackout in Brisbane for the first time.

Time expired.

Coalition Energy Policy

Dr CLARK (Barron River) (8.43 p.m.):The National Party conspiracy of trying todelude the people of Queensland into thinkingthat they have a reasonable environmentalrecord has come to an abrupt end with therelease of the coalition's energy policy. Therehave been no conversions on the road toDamascus after all. The old National Party thatwe know so well is back in form. It never didgive up its dream of putting a dam in the WetTropics World Heritage area, and it isdetermined to succeed where the TasmanianLiberal Government failed.

The National Party has never supportedthe Wet Tropics World Heritage listing or eventhe concept of World Heritage. In fact, whenthe National Party was in Government it sentits Environment Minister, Mr Muntz, to Paris tooppose the World Heritage nomination.

A Government member: And Rio.

Dr CLARK: And Rio as well; that is right.

The National Party opposed it in 1987after it pushed the road through the Daintree,and it opposes it now. Nothing has changed.The National Party has not changed. I havelong experience of the National Party. It wasan environmental vandal when Martin Tenniwas the Minister for the Environment, and it isan environmental vandal now for its support ofthe Tully/Millstream dam.

No doubt the National Party's mate BobKatter will run around the Federal Parliamenttrying to get the Federal coalition to support itsscheme. Interestingly, I suspect that at thesame time its Green Party mate Drew Huttonwill be running around trying to convincepeople that there is no need to worry aboutthe coalition's energy policy, because theFederal Government will not let the NationalParty dam the Wet Tropics World Heritage


area, if by some miracle it becomes theGovernment in Queensland.

I can assure Drew Hutton and theNational Party that conservationists do worryabout the coalition's energy policy, with goodreason. As for Drew Hutton's statementquoted in today's Australian that a dam in theWet Tropics World Heritage area is no worsethan Oyster Point, who could possibly believethat? What a pathetic excuse for theOpposition's environmental vandalism!Statements like that simply damage thecredibility and standing of the Green partiesstill further. No amount of apologies will hidethe bankrupt environmental policy of theNational Party or its appalling environmentalrecord.

While the Government pursues the policyof demand side management and energyefficiency, the National Party wants to destroyWorld Heritage rainforests. The National Partyhad a chance to redeem itself after the Parisdebacle in the 1980s but, no, it opposed theWorld Heritage listing of Fraser Island in the1990s. A new decade but the same oldattitudes!

In 1992, Mr Borbidge said in theMaryborough Chronicle that he regardedWorld Heritage listing of Fraser Island asunnecessary. This should hardly come as asurprise when three years before he said—

"As to logging the record of forestmanagement on Fraser Island speaks foritself. In fact, while providing a valuableresource, sustained selective loggingactually enhances some parts of theisland."

That is amazing stuff. Even the thenEnvironment spokesman, Tony Elliott,opposed the World Heritage listing of FraserIsland. He said—

"The Government has acceptedrecommendations that pandered to onesection of the community, and hadaccepted a 'massive overkill' of what wasneeded to adequately protect FraserIsland. The Opposition therefore opposedWorld Heritage listing."In Cardwell, while supporting the Oyster

Point project, the National Party denouncedWorld Heritage listing for the HinchinbrookChannel, saying it was born and bredoverseas and controlled in Paris. The NationalParty has not changed. I hope that the Greenmovement is waking up to it and rememberswhat it is really like. I know that John Metcalfefrom the far-north Greens has described itsproposal to dam the World Heritage area as a

backward step, which must be a grossunderstatement.

Mr Welford: A backward leap.

Dr CLARK: Absolutely!

I am now calling on Chris Neilson, therecently endorsed Green candidate for BarronRiver, to say what he thinks of the proposal toflood the tropical rainforests of the WorldHeritage area and whether he thinks Greensupporters of far-north Queensland shouldgive their second preferences to a party thatsupports the Tully/Millstream dam. Theirpresident, John Metcalfe, said today in theCairns Post—

"What the National Party is asking usto do is to destroy our precious far-northQueensland rainforest to supply peakhour power to the rest of Queensland."

This is the party to which the Green Partyintends to give its preferences. Shame onthem!

Queensland Electricity Industry

Dr WATSON (Moggill) (8.47 p.m.):Obviously, the member for Barron River isparticularly concerned. Having left the Greensfor the Labor Party, she has found that she isnow in a position where the Labor Party hassimply failed to deliver on any of the promisesthat it made with respect to the environment.People are starting to realise that, at least withthe coalition, what we say we are going to dowe actually do. We actually deliver. TheGovernment promises the world and deliversvery little.

I also wish to speak about theGovernment's failure to provide an appropriateelectricity supply industry. The member forTablelands has identified a particular problemthat Queensland is starting to face. There is afailure, it seems to me, in at least three areas.Firstly, the Government has failed to planadequately for an increasing demand forelectricity in this State. The member forTablelands clearly demonstrated that in hisspeech.

Secondly, this Government has failed inits attempt to keep prices for electricity inQueensland competitive. And we will discussthat in a moment. Thirdly, every now andagain there is a failure to provide adequateservices in return for the significant chargesimposed on consumers.

Last week in my electorate, an issuearose that was dissimilar to the brownouts thateverybody in Brisbane, including those in my


electorate, faced a few weeks ago.Nevertheless, it is an issue worth raising. Mostmembers would probably understand thatTelecom and Telstra, the company which isputting in cables for pay TV——

Mr Welford: Do you know who theyare?

Dr WATSON: Yes, Telecom and theGovernment's mate, Rupert.

It is of concern that a FederalGovernment corporation is failing to prepareadequately for some of the calamities that willeventually occur. Last week in Chapel Hill,Telecom managed to sever a power cable andcut electricity to a large section of that suburb.I am not concerned about the fact that suchincidents will occur, but I am concerned aboutthe fact that no adequate planning has beenundertaken to cater for such occurrences—neither by Telecom nor by SEQEB.

I would have thought that both of thosebodies would have planned for back-upmeasures in the event of such an occurrence.Most of my constituents were of the view thatthe response by SEQEB was less thanpleasing. The incident occurred at 3.30 in theafternoon. There was little response untilnumerous complaints were directed not only toSEQEB but also to my office. It was not untilabout 7.30 in the evening that any attemptwas made by SEQEB to provide a generatorto service the people of that suburb. Mostpeople are of the view that, given the way inwhich Telecom is going about trying to installthe cables, such an event was inevitable andproper planning should have beenundertaken. Most people were disappointedalso that the problem was not addressed untilquite a number of complaints were made.

That is a local issue. Of more concern topeople should be the fact that theQueensland electricity industry is becomingless competitive. In August last year, in anaddress to a benchmarking conference held inMelbourne, the principal economist of theBureau of Industry Economics, JohnWhiteman, indicated that in the industrialelectricity arena Queensland was fallingbehind Victoria and, more recently, New SouthWales. In fact, he stated—

"The cheapest Australian State forindustrial electricity . . . (is) Victoria . . . "

Victoria still lags a fair way behind the rest ofthe world, but the fact remains that that Statehas now taken over from Queensland as thecheapest State for industrial electricity.

Time expired.

Gladstone RegionMr BENNETT (Gladstone) (8.52 p.m.):

Recent studies undertaken during theconsultation phase of the Aldoga industrialland use study showed that an overwhelmingnumber of residents in the Gladstone regionare in favour of further industrial development.I believe that that response is indicative of theindustrious nature of people in the Gladstoneregion. People are prepared to do the hardyards in ensuring that industrial developmentis encouraged and facilitated. If I may indulgein a well-used cliche, the Gladstone region'scivic leaders, business people and unionistshave a can-do attitude.

In common with many people before me,I went to Gladstone as a young, unemployedtradesman following the industry that went toGladstone. That industry provided me and myfamily and many other families with a goodquality of life, with our children now having theopportunity to obtain a tertiary education in ourregion at our own university campus—aneducation relevant to the needs of Gladstoneindustry and environs. It is clear that, althoughresidents favour further industrialdevelopment, they do not want developmentat any cost. I believe it is important that thisParliament should be made aware of the GossGovernment's environmental credentials in theGladstone region.

The first area on which I wish toconcentrate is the gazettal of nationalenvironmental parks. As promised by the GossGovernment, the area of national parks acrossthe State has doubled. In the Gladstoneelectorate, parks have been declared atRundle Range, 2,170 hectares; Curtis Island,1,550 hectares; and a 44-hectare BoyneIsland environmental park. The GossGovernment also fulfilled election promisesand declared a 580-hectare Wild Cattle IslandNational Park and saved it from sandmining.That fragile island could not have supportedsandmining and in fact it would havedevastated its flora and fauna. Other lessfragile resources were used not far away. Thatdecision had the widespread support of theBoyne/Tannum community.

The Goss Government has establishedan air-monitoring program for the Yarwunindustrial estate and for Gladstone City andpublicly releases the findings of thatprogram—something that the National PartyGovernment continually opposed. Through theDepartment of Environment and Heritage, theGovernment coordinated the Gladstone DustCommittee—a voluntary group of potentiallypolluting industries set a task to reduce dust


and pollution, even though air monitoring hasnot recorded readings even close tointernational limits.

Last year, the port authoritycommissioned a multimillion-dollar coal dustsuppression system at its R G Tanna terminalto ensure that coal dust does not blow overthe city in high winds. The Goss Governmentrecognised as far back as 1990 thatsomething had to be done about theemissions from the Gladstone Power Stationand put in train a program to eliminate dustemissions. As part of the sale contract of theGladstone Power Station to NRG Comalco,the company has been required to refurbishdust-emission equipment at the station byDecember 1997—a popular decision wellreceived in the community. Already, part ofthat work has been completed on one unit,and I will be visiting the station to inspect itsoperation.

Enhanced water quality monitoring of theBoyne and Calliope Rivers commenced in1993 as part of the implementation of the$1.5m Clean Waters Plan. A Port Curtis watermonitoring group was established in early1994 comprising representatives of theDepartment of Environment and Heritage andall companies and authorities currentlydischarging waste into Port Curtis. Localgovernments have received $81,000 forrecycling, and $15,000 was granted to the Band M Kerr recycling plant for a papershredder for newspapers. As well, $7,500 hasbeen allocated to local councils for thepurchase of pollution-monitoring equipment.The Capricorn Conservation Council has beengranted $32,000 between 1991 and 1994,and $37,000 has been allocated for dunemanagement programs in the Gladstoneregion, proving that the Goss Government isdoing its bit in the Gladstone area.

As chairman of the Gladstone MarineResources Advisory Committee, I was pleasedthat we were used as a vehicle for the launchof the Calliope River study by the Departmentof Primary Industries. That study is now animportant resource document, and the nextstep for the department is to set up a fishhabitat reserve in that area. The GladstonePort Authority has also set in train a policy ofno net loss of mangroves in the GladstoneHarbour, so that any mangroves that areremoved in the expansion of the port will bereplaced with mangrove planting. Gladstonehas a very keen recreational fishingcommunity which would expect no less fromthe port authority, because mangroves arerecognised for their importance to the marineenvironment.

I firmly believe that one of the mostimportant resource documents which wasrecently released by the Minister forEnvironment and Heritage, Molly Robson, isthe Curtis Coast study. The Curtis Coast studywas established as a joint initiative by theDepartment of Environment and Heritage andthe Gladstone Port Authority in mid-1992 andmeets their respective individual commitmentsto the environmental policy for Queenslandports and the coastal protection strategy. Ithas investigated and documented theresources of the Curtis Coast between theFitzroy River and the town of 1770 with an aimof developing a strategy plan which will seek toestablish the management of the coastline onan environmentally sound and sociallyresponsible basis. The Curtis Coast has highconservation values, and I compliment theGoss Government on its work in that regard.

Time expired.

Electricity Industry

Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (8.57 p.m.):In joining in the Adjournment debate tonight, Iwish to respond to some of the remarks madeby the member for Barron River, who earlierexpressed to this House her views on theTully/Millstream project. The question is: whospeaks for the Government—the member forBarron River or the Premier? Earlier this yearwhen speaking on a 4CA program inCairns—a program that is hosted by JohnMackenzie—the Premier stated that hepersonally was in favour of the Tully/Millstreamproject.

I note that the Honourable the Ministerfor Business, Industry and RegionalDevelopment is supporting my contention. Iknow that the Minister personally supports theproject. I realise that he is now confined tocommenting on matters related to his portfolio,but as a backbencher the Minister made it wellknown in this House that he personallysupports the Tully/Millstream project andbelieves that it has a lot going for it. Of course,in that respect the Minister is in agreementwith 78 per cent of north Queenslanders. Iunderstand that the Cairns Post undertook asurvey which indicated that 78 per cent of thepeople of north Queensland are in favour ofthe Tully/Millstream project.

The question that the electors of BarronRiver have to ask themselves is: who speaksfor the Government? Is it the Premier, is it thenewly appointed Minister, or is it the sittingmember? The electors have to make their uptheir minds on that issue. I will leave my


comments there, but I just wanted to drawthose points to the attention of the House.

Mr Bredhauer: I would have thoughtyou should ask the Minister for Minerals andEnergy.

Mr FITZGERALD: The honourablemember for Cook, who is not sitting in hisusual place, referred to the Minister forMinerals and Energy. The coalition policy onelectricity has now been released. TheGovernment keeps asking the coalition tooutline its policies.

Mr Bredhauer: We've already donemost of that.

Mr FITZGERALD: I inform thehonourable member that the Government hasnot done most of what is contained in thatpolicy. In the five years that it has been inpower, this Government's only decision hasbeen to cancel the Tully/Millstream project.The Government then decided to constructEastlink in order to obtain one-tenth ofQueensland's power from New South Walesunder the guise that it will trade in power. Thehonourable member must understand that nodecision has yet been made on that issue.The decision has been made to set aside acorridor but not to build the line. TheGovernment has made a decision to trade inpower; however, for the next 10 years it willsuck power out of New South Wales.

This Government will export 1,200 jobs tothe New South Wales electricity industry. Iremind the honourable member that thatdecision has not yet been made, but it will bemade in the near future. Despite denials fromthe Government that the decision has yet tobe made, landowners in the electorate ofWarwick and the electorate of Lockyer are wellaware that towers will eventually be runningacross their properties. That is the decisionthat the Government has made. It has nopolicy on that. The next QueenslandGovernment, which will be a National PartyGovernment, has released its policies on thesites of new power stations and what optionswill be available. The first thing that a NationalParty Government will do is stop Eastlink. Wewill not give our jobs to the people of NewSouth Wales.

When the National Party lostGovernment, Queensland had the mostefficient electricity industry in Australia and thecheapest power on mainland Australia. So,under a National Party Government those jobswould not be lost. I notice that the member forWarwick is here to support me in this debatetonight. A National Party Government will

generate the most efficient electricity industryin Australia and keep jobs in Queensland.

Government members say that they aregoing to trade in electricity. They say that, withone 330 kilovolt line, they are going to trade inelectricity. According to them, it will flow oneway for the next 10 years. The Government isgoing to trade because it cannot sell. It hasnothing on which to convey the electricity, yetGovernment members criticise members ofthe Opposition when we say, "To trade, youwill have to build another line." Of course, nodecision has been made to build another line,but the Minister adds the proviso "at thisstage". However, even though we will beimporters of electricity, the Government isgoing to trade in power. So not only is theMinister for Minerals and Energy, who has justentered the Chamber, at fault, but so also ishis predecessor.

The Government's electricity industrypolicy is an absolute sham. Public servantsemployed in the electricity industry are terrifiedthat they will lose their jobs because, if thisGovernment gets back into power, it will blamethose employees for the lack of planning. TheMinister will say, "Yes, the industry has failedto plan." The Government is screwingeverything out of Swanbank Power Station.Government members told us that they weregoing to get 100 per cent production out ofthat power station. That cannot be achievedbecause it has not been designed to give 100per cent. The Government will try to drag everyounce of power out of every electricity station ithas, and it will fail; then it will blame theengineers.

Time expired.

Premeditated BankruptcyMr D'ARCY (Woodridge) (9.02 p.m.): I

rise tonight to speak about the bankruptciesthat have been plaguing our nation. There is adeep and genuine concern in the Queenslandand Australian electorate that we, as theirpolitical representatives, have failed to addressthe problem of premeditated bankruptcy. Irefer specifically to people who plan to defraudby bankruptcy.

The publicity associated with the Bondand Skase companies has heightened publicawareness of bankruptcy. The public have agenuine expectation that we will come up withsome of the answers. Since StateGovernments over the last decade or sohanded over much of the administration ofcompany law to the Federal Government, wecan rightly say that it is largely its problem, but


we do have a role to play through theministerial councils, the pressure that we canput on Federal colleagues and some of thelaws that we still oversee.

On many occasions in the Parliament Ihave raised the problem of premeditatedbankruptcy in the building industry. My friend,the late Hans Althoff, and his wife, Erica, of EA & S Plaster, have campaigned strongly for achange in laws. Suppliers and contractors areat risk from unscrupulous entrepreneurs andbuilders. For example, once material isdelivered on site, it is the property of thedeveloper or the builder, whether or not hehas paid for it. There are numerous caseswhere material has been rushed to sites bybuilders who then declare themselvesbankrupt.

To a large extent we have overcomemany of the problems associated withsubcontractors, and the law in that area isworking fairly well. Although we haveregistration of builders and companies, creditchecks still leave a lot to be desired. Iunderstand, for example, that in my area abuilder by the name of Les Wilson has tradedat various times as Mustang Homes, OurHomes and Wilson & Wilson and on threeoccasions during the past eight years hasbeen declared bankrupt, leaving behind hugedebts. Credit checks should be tightened andthe Builders Registration Board given greaterpower to get the unscrupulous builders out ofthe industry. Building materials that have notbeen used should revert to the supplierprovided that they have not already beenused in the construction.

The bankruptcy laws actually go back to a1542 Act. They were an attempt to deal justlywith a genuine bankrupt. None of the followingsuggestions regarding bankruptcy areintended to deal with those cases, but theywould make it much harder for thepremeditated bankrupt to operate. On eachoccasion of premeditated bankruptcy, it is thepublic that suffers. Public moneys are used topursue the bankrupts; financial institutions thatface massive losses increase their rates andcharges to the general public to cover theselosses; and thousands of honest Australianfamilies have been forced into debt becauseof the actions of these people.

Probably the worse thing that occurs isthat, because of existing laws, a bankrupt isable to thumb his nose at the Australianpublic. There are several areas of the law thatcan be tightened. The financial institutions

must bear some of the burden. The averageAustralian citizen who wants to borrow moneyhas to deal with the local bank manager, thenthe local credit agent for the bank. He has tohave all of his documentation in place. Thesehigh rollers and high-fliers are dealing with thepeople at the top. They are able to walk awaybecause they do not have to meet the criteriathat the average person is forced to meet.Often in cases of bankruptcy, it is these verybanks and institutions that foreclose tooreadily on people who could trade out of theirproblems. At the same time, many of thesepeople are planning bankruptcies while theyare wining and dining people on boats andyachts. It is those types of circumstances thatshow premeditated bankruptcy. The Australianpublic want some of those banks that havelent that money to bear some of theresponsibility and culpability.

As to company laws—family trusts wereset up to cover some of these premeditatedbankrupts. There are probably some membersof this House who have family trusts, but theyare a method of defrauding; they are amethod of keeping taxation at the lowestpossible rate. However, they are not much useto the average person. That was the vehicleused by Skase, and particularly Bond, to makeuse of the five-year law. If a person canpremeditate a bankruptcy over five years,which obviously occurred in those cases, he orshe can transfer assets within family trustsand, at the same time, be immune fromprosecution. So that time limit should bechanged. We should look seriously at familytrusts.

The receiver situation is a joke and itneeds addressing. We know that in relation toSkase a trustee was appointed by a group ofcreditors, mostly florists and restaurateurs, whowere owed a total of $80,000. He got hispassport, etc., even though he owed thebanks a great deal of money. The fact wasthat the banks moved too slowly. They werehis mates. They were owed $190m, yet theydid not get to appoint a receiver. We haveseen many examples of this problem, and it isgetting out of hand.

Today, on behalf of the electorate, I haveoutlined a genuine concern that premeditatedbankruptcy is hurting our nation.

Time expired.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 9.07 p.m.

Documents

Hansard 21 March 1995 - Queensland Parliament