WEDNESDAY, 4 MARCH 1998

4 Mar 1998 Petitions 109

WEDNESDAY, 4 MARCH 1998

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. N. J. Turner, Nicklin)read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 a.m.

PRIVILEGE

Alleged Misleading of House by Ministerfor Education

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN (Caboolture)(9.30 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Sincethe election of the Borbidge/SheldonGovernment, there has been a marked reductionin the traditional values of honesty, integrity andrespect for our institutions displayed bymembers of the Government. Instances such asthe memorandum of understanding, the failureof the Premier to remove the Attorney-General,the misuse of ministerial expenses——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the memberstate his matter of privilege.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: My matter ofprivilege is that this House has been misled bythe Minister for Education. Many of our rules ofbehaviour are written down, many operate asconvention and paramount among those is therule that Ministers should tell the truth whengiving advice to this Parliament. The Minister forEducation appears ignorant of that rule.

In October last year, I received a letter fromMinister Quinn in response to issues raised inrelation to a grant of money by his department tothe Life Education Centre QueenslandFoundation Incorporated. During the hearings ofEstimates Committee C on 19 September 1996,Mr Quinn said—

"The funding is provided to half fund, ifyou like, the salaries of teachers who workwithin that particular program."

That has not been the reality of the grant. In fact,some 22% of the funds have been applied to thecorporate services or administration of thefoundation rather than distributed to localcommittees who employ those teachers. TheMinister's letter of October had attached to itwhat he describes as a detailed response tothose issues raised by me, which I mentionedearlier. In relation to the use of the grant moneyin a way other than advised to Parliament by MrQuinn on 19 September 1996, that detailedresponse states—

"It appears that, based on numerouspolitical statements, Mr Sullivan has anexpectation——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think this mattershould correctly be dealt with as a Matter ofPublic Interest or a two-minute speech. I do notsee it as a matter of privilege. I ask the member toresume his seat.

PETITIONS

The Clerk announced the receipt of thefollowing petitions—

Nursing Homes

From Mr Bredhauer (32 petitioners)requesting the House to ensure that nursinghome care is freely available to all who need itand further deplores budget cutbacks onservices to the frail aged and elderly.

Mrs McInally, Land

From Mrs Cunningham (22 petitioners)requesting the House to allow Mrs McInally tohave her land (Lots 1 and 2, 2842) removed frommining lease tenure during the renewal process.

Program for Heroin Addicts

From Mrs Gamin (74 petitioners)requesting the House to ensure that the Stateand Federal Governments of Australiaimmediately send appropriately qualified peopleto Israel to look at the program to help heroinaddicts, as recommended by Dr AndreWaismann, to evaluate and learn about theprogram and, if it is as good as it seems, then toquickly set up trials in all States of Australia.

Bus Services, Cemetery and WhitehillRoads, Ipswich

From Mr Hamill (33 petitioners) requestingthe House to direct the Minister for Transport tointervene to restore bus services alongCemetery and Whitehill Roads, Ipswich, byproviding sufficient subsidy to allow the buscompany to meet the Department of Transport'sminimum service standards for bus services inIpswich.

Home Help, Ipswich

From Mr Hamill (900 petitioners)requesting the House to restore the provision ofHome Help service to those Ipswich residentswho are experiencing hardship as a result ofthese cuts to service provision and furtherincrease the allocation of funds for the provisionof such services in order that the needs of thoserequiring these services can be properly met.

110 Ministerial Statement 4 Mar 1998

Abortion LawFrom Mr Horan (151 petitioners)

requesting the House to enforce the existing lawon abortion and to take suitable measures tostop the abuse of the law.

Toy GunsFrom Mr McElligott (43 petitioners)

requesting the House to prohibit the sale of alltoy guns to anyone.

McManus Street, CairnsFrom Mrs Warwick (36 petitioners)

requesting the House to allocate funds so thatan acceptable safety and noise abatement barrierbe constructed along McManus Street Cairns tothe rise heading towards Kanimbla, within theconstruction period, along with an appropriatesign advising heavy vehicles that engine brakesare not to be used through this residential area.

Petitions received.

PAPERThe following paper was laid on the table—Minister for Health (Mr Horan)—

Draft Policy Paper entitled "Review of theHealth Act 1977 (Public Health).

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTConstruction Boom in Queensland

Hon. J. M. SHELDON (Caloundra—Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for TheArts) (9.35 a.m.), by leave: The BIS ShrapnelEngineering Construction in Australia 1998-2012 report released this week provides furtherconfirmation that the coalition Government isproviding an economic environment conduciveto business investment in Queensland. Thereport states that Queensland engineeringconstruction work will "reach record levels in thefive years to 2001-02". In contrast, the reportindicates that the Australian engineeringconstruction industry will enjoy two more years ofrecord business before a sharp slump, the reportstating—

"The decline will be so swift that by2002 the industry will have fallen ... byaround 30 per cent."

In Queensland, heavy engineering relatedto the current minerals investment boom isexpected to be the most significant contributorto the growth in engineering construction.Projects already announced for Queenslandinclude Western Mining Corporation's $650mfertiliser project at Phosphate Hill south of Mount

Isa, Pasminco's $1 billion Century Zinc project,Sun Metal's—previously Korea Zinc—$550mTownsville zinc refinery, the $270m Stuart oilshale demonstration project and the AustralianMagnesium Corporation's $73m demonstrationmagnesium metal plant, both north of Gladstone.

In addition, the Queensland engineeringconstruction industry is benefiting from thecontinued growth of Queensland's export coalindustry. Engineering projects to be completedover the next few years include the furtherexpansion of the Dalrymple Bay coal terminal anda major investment by Queensland Rail in newrolling stock and locomotives needed to ensurethat Queensland Rail is able to haul Queenslandcoal to world's best practice. The report states—

"Work on pipelines, water andelectricity projects will increase, much of itcarried out by the private sector, which willexperience strong growth."

As acknowledged by BIS Shrapnel, the coalitionremains firmly committed to private sectorinvolvement in the provision of infrastructure, apolicy position that will clearly benefit the localengineering construction industry.

A recent Government initiative to attractprivate sector infrastructure to the SuratBasin/Dawson Valley region has identified some$3 billion of potential infrastructure investment tounlock the resources of the coal and agriculturerich area. Private sector proposals include a newrail line to provide a service to underdevelopedSurat Basin deposits, a possible private sectordam on the Dawson River and new base loadprivate sector power stations for the regionoperating purely as merchant plant in the nationalelectricity market. Indeed, developments in theenergy sector of the Queensland economy haveopened up a raft of private sector energyinfrastructure and power station proposals,including the $1 billion gas pipeline from PapuaNew Guinea to Townsville and Gladstone.

The most recent Access Economics andDelta Electricity Investment Monitor provides asimilar positive outlook for Queensland businessinvestment. The report indicates that the totalvalue of investment projects—underconstruction, committed, under consideration orpossible—increased by 8% in the Decemberquarter 1997 to be 14% higher than a year ago.Projects under construction increased by over$1 billion during the quarter. Similarly, theMidwood Queensland Investment Report,released on 23 February, notes that Queenslandnon-residential construction was boosted by thenew hospital building program—$383m—in theSeptember quarter 1997. The report alsostates—

4 Mar 1998 Ministerial Statement 111

"New school building was also 56% upon the previous September quarter"—

suggesting that—"this is particularly good news for thebuilding industry and will lead to gradual andstrong growth in jobs for building workersthroughout 1998."Projects that have not yet been committed,

such as the $1 billion Comalco alumina refinery,the $700m Australian Magnesium Corporationsmelter, the $460m Calliope Metals nickel plantand the commercial stages of the Stuart oil shaleproject, should continue to underpinQueensland's strong position with engineeringconstruction activity. All this positive businessactivity augurs well for Queensland's economy,which continues to generate more jobs than anyother State in the nation. The coalition remainscommitted to the private sector as the provider ofinfrastructure and as such the engineeringconstruction industry in Queensland can lookforward to a very strong future well into the nextcentury.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTAged Care

Hon. M. J. HORAN (ToowoombaSouth—Minister for Health) (9.40 a.m.), by leave:Today I wish to highlight to this House thesignificant improvements made to aged healthcare by the Borbidge/ Sheldon StateGovernment over the past two years. Agedhealth care has been a major priority of thiscoalition State Government since coming tooffice and the State Government is stronglycommitted to enhancing the quality of life ofQueensland's elderly citizens.

Recently, I announced an immediatefunding injection of almost $9m to boost agedcare health programs across the State, with$2.4m of the new funding to go to extra homecare services for the elderly. Also, the non-Government sector, including Queensland'sdomiciliary nursing services, will particularlybenefit after receiving $5.6m of the new $9mfunding package. The additional $2.4m for homecare services now brings the total home carebudget in Queensland to $26.3m.

This increased home care funding will nowallow about 8,000 more elderly Queenslandersto receive home care help services. Currently,home help services are provided to 86,000Queenslanders—a significant increase on the73,400 people who received assistance in 1995under the previous State and Federal LaborGovernments. The additional 8,000Queenslanders to receive home assistance fromthe extra funding will now bring the total number

of elderly Queenslanders receiving home carehelp services to 94,000.

The increased funding has been madeavailable through the Home and CommunityCare—or HAAC—program, a program jointlyfunded by the Federal and State coalitionGovernments. When the Borbidge/Sheldoncoalition Government came to office just over twoyears ago, HAAC funding was $101m. Thisrecent funding announcement now brings totalHAAC funding in Queensland to $124m, almosta 25% increase in just two years.

This coalition State Government caresabout the elderly, and that is why we have madeaged care one of our major health priorities.Some of the new funding for the non-Government sector will be used for theconstruction of new buildings, renovations andfor staff motor vehicles, including a new respitecentre on the Sunshine Coast at Coolum toaddress the increased needs for the agedpopulation in that area. $700,000 of the fundingpackage has been provided from theDepartment of Public Works and Housing and willbe used on an individual projects basis for homemodifications and home maintenance projectslike access ramps and safety rails.

The list of Queensland Health districts set toreceive increased home help funding is quiteconsiderable and I ask leave to incorporate it inHansard.

Leave granted.Increase

Banana $5,000Brisbane Bayside $312,800Bowen $10,320Bundaberg $54,160Cairns $6,440Charleville $10,000Charters Towers $5,000Fraser Coast $29,440Gladstone $60,600Gold Coast $378,880Gympie $29,400Innisfail $15,000Logan-Beaudesert $129,800Mackay $19,320Mt Isa $10,000North Burnett $27,260Northern Downs $9,480Redcliffe-Caboolture $124,640Rockhampton $41,560Roma $15,000South Burnett $8,680Southern Downs $80,480Sunshine Coast $126,800Tablelands $57,480Prince Charles Hospital $193,040QE II Hospital $254,600Toowoomba $153,080Townsville $81,360Ipswich-West Moreton $125,120


Mr HORAN: It is also beneficial to highlightthe major aged care health initiativesimplemented by the Borbidge/Sheldon coalitionState Government over this term, including—

The Queensland coalition has ruledout up-front and annual fees for StateGovernment owned nursing homes.Queensland is still the only AustralianState/Territory to have taken this decision.

The Queensland coalition StateGovernment has maintained funding of$20m a year to continue the discontinuedCommonwealth dental program.Queensland is still the only AustralianState/Territory to have taken this decision.

The Queensland coalition StateGovernment has allocated $38m for agedcare capital improvements to Queensland'sState owned nursing homes and publichospitals. $17.5 million of this money isbeing used to upgrade State Governmentnursing homes across Queensland.

This $17.5m is being used to upgrade thephysical condition of buildings and deliver majorimprovements to safety, security, occupationalhealth and safety, privacy and comfort, to bring allState Government nursing homes up to theCommonwealth standards, with work beginningimmediately. The Queensland nursing homeswhich have benefited from this funding upgradeare: Eventide, Sandgate, Brisbane, $2,000,000;Ashworth House, Zillmere, Brisbane, $240,000;Moreton Bay Nursing Home, Wynnum, Brisbane,$700,000; North Rockhampton, $1,400,000;Gertrude E. Moore, Yeppoon, $700,000; MtLofty, Toowoomba, $450,000; The Oaks,Warwick, $1,000,000; Dr A E McDonald, Oakey,$750,000; Eventide, Charters Towers,$2,000,000; Townsville Nursing Home,$800,000; Westhaven, Roma, $150,000;Nambour Nursing Home, $700,000; Waroona,Charleville, $1,000,000; Redcliffe NursingHome, $1,000,000; Farrholme, Kingaroy,$550,000; Maryborough Nursing Home,$4,000,000; and Weinholt, Wondai, $450,000.

Additionally, about $20m of the StateGovernment's Health capital works program isbeing spent on a number of Queensland agedcare projects, including Jacaranda Village, ThePrince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, $7,500,000;Eventide, Rockhampton, $9,300,000; Karingal,Dalby, $1,500,000; Miles Hospital, Aged CareUnit, $600,000; Clermont Multi-PurposeService, $1,000,000; Cooktown Multi-PurposeService, $594,000; and Winton Hospital,Recreation, $320,000. These majorredevelopments and upgrades of StateGovernment nursing homes are a further

testimony to the coalition's commitment to agedQueenslanders.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

TAB Privatisation ProgressHon. T. R. COOPER (Crows Nest—

Minister for Police and Corrective Services andMinister for Racing) (9.46 a.m.), by leave: I ampleased to announce that the processes for theproposed privatisation of the TAB are well underway. The move has important implications for theQueensland racing industry and its future.Negotiations between the Government and theracing industry have secured an agreement thatwill provide significant benefits to stakeholders inQueensland racing.

Preserving the future of developmentalrace clubs is a key part of the deal. Funding isguaranteed for the next five years for smallerregional and country clubs. After that, nochanges can be made unless the racing industryagrees to those changes. The racing industry willbe in control of its own destiny.

A key feature of the industry agreement isthat the three codes will each develop a strategicplan not only for their code but for theQueensland racing industry as a whole. The roleof small clubs in the industry will be a significantpart of the plan that will focus on quality,innovation and a uniquely Queensland product.

A major part of the planning process will bean extensive program of consultation with allsections of the industry. I again urge all industrystakeholders to take this golden opportunity toexpress their views and to contribute to theprocess to ensure it is comprehensive andresults in a model which is a true reflection of theindustry's needs.

The Queensland Racing Industry StrategicPlan project timetable includes scoping andmobilisation—now complete—two rounds ofconsultation with the industry in April and June,strategic workshops around the state and the rollout and implementation from 1 July. A key aspectof the strategic planning process will be toconsider the most beneficial uses for theincreased funds which will flow to theQueensland racing industry followingprivatisation.

Currently, the racing industry receives fromits wagering activities funding in the form of directdistributions from TAB profits, RacingDevelopment Fund payments and on-coursetotalisator income. In 1996-97, the net level offunding from wagering sources received by theindustry was $83m. Under privatisation, thiswould rise to an estimated $102m to $103m


annually—an increase in the order of 23%. TheGovernment would forgive the $31m debt owedby the industry. The post-privatisation level offunding to be received by the QRI equates to anestimated 41% of net wagering revenue inQueensland. In other words, for every dollardeducted from punters' bets, Queensland racingwill receive 41c from the TAB. In Victoria, theracing industry gets 39c and in New South Walesonly 27c in the dollar.

In addition to the increase in annualfunding, Queensland racing will receive a lumpsum capital injection of a minimum of $10m. Also,all industry debt, totalling $31m, will be forgiven.This package will place the Queensland racingindustry in an outstanding position to face thechallenges of the next millennium. The strategicplan will enable the industry to make the most ofthis golden opportunity. In addition, the packagewill provide the QRI with its greatest level ofautonomy and control ever. For the first time theindustry will be able to manage its finances in thebest interests of the industry.

There are three options open to Cabinet: apublic float, a trade sale to a strategic investor or acombination trade sale and partial float. Nothinghas been ruled in or out at this stage, nodecisions have been taken about how a salewould proceed, but we will certainly bemaximising returns for the racing industry and thetaxpayer.

I state quite categorically that TABheadquarters will remain in Queensland in aprivatised environment and that the speculationabout 800 jobs being under threat is absoluterubbish. The TAB employs just over 700 staff,including 679 union members and 63management and professional staff. Theresimply would not be anything left of the TAB tosell off if the claims about job losses were true.The most important aspect right now is to put theindustry on a strong and sure footing throughestablishing a solid strategic plan to ensure theprosperous future of the racing industry and aprogressive, privatised TAB.


Government Response to AsianCurrency Crisis

Hon. B. W. DAVIDSON (Noosa—Minister for Tourism, Small Business andIndustry) (9.50 a.m.), by leave: I rise to inform theHouse of the swift action of this Government tocounter the effects of the Asian currency crisison the tourism industry. As a result of Januarymeetings between the Premier, myself and theChairman of the QTTC with key tourism industryrepresentatives, a detailed submission was

prepared detailing a number of strategies forimmediate implementation. This Governmentproved its commitment to the tourism industry bygranting an additional $5m to the QueenslandTourist and Travel Corporation within a matter ofweeks. The Queensland coalition has been theonly Government in Australia to realise thepotential effects of this downturn to both theindustry and the State's economy. We haveacted quickly and decisively, funding a numberof initiatives to address the immediate and longterm needs of the industry.

Of the $5m grant, $1m will be allocated toproduce and sustain an innovative, research-based new Queensland drive marketingcampaign. I reiterate that this strategy will belaunched within 30 days. Using television,magazine and press advertising in Queensland'sregional and interstate markets, this tacticalcampaign will stimulate interstate and intrastatevisitation.

Queensland's drive market represents themajority of all visitors to Queensland with a marketsegment worth $1.27 billion. Queensland'scurrent market share of the national drive marketis 25%, compared to New South Wales, whichhas 41%. This gives us considerable upwardpotential. It is worth remembering that every 1%increase in Queensland's drive marketrepresents a direct economic benefit toQueensland of $12m. Visitation to rural andregional areas is a specific target market of thisinitiative and I know that industry has been veryappreciative of the level of support for this newmarket segment.

In addition, $1m will be used to sustain theQueensland destination brand campaigns in keydomestic markets and meet the cooperativecampaign expectation of tourism operators. Thevalue of the additional marketing dollars issignificant as every dollar spent by the QTTC ismatched by at least $1 from industry. TheQueensland Government's investment of $1mwill enable the QTTC to spend an additional $2mover the next four months. The remaining $3mwill be used to fund international tacticalcampaigns.

Within 30 to 60 days, concentratedmarketing campaigns in eight internationalmarkets and market segments identified byQueensland industry will be launched. These willinclude markets such as New Zealand, the US,the UK, China, India, the Middle East, EasternEurope and South Africa. Tactical campaigns willbe implemented cooperatively with tradewholesalers, international and Australian airlinesand the Australian Tourist Commission toaggressively target consumer response toproduct and price offerings. QTTC will also


develop the sub-branded destinations, includingthe Gold Coast and tropical north Queensland,leveraging off the Brand Australia advertising ofthe Australian Tourism Commission. This willallow Queensland to gain a competitiveadvantage of advertising share over other Statesin international markets, as well as maximisingQueensland's cooperative advertising spending.

This special grant illustrates theGovernment's recognition of the vitalcontribution tourism makes to the Queenslandeconomy. Record funding and support for theQTTC, along with initiatives such as the recentlyannounced $920,000 marketing campaign fortropical north Queensland, reiterate thiscommitment. The coalition has consistentlydemonstrated its support of this industry, andthis rapid response to the Asian economic crisisis just the latest example of that.


Regional Air Quality Strategy

Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (WesternDowns—Minister for Environment) (9.54 a.m.),by leave: South-east Queensland has a historyof relatively low air pollution due to its smallindustrial base and comparatively low population.However, the region's topography and prevailingwind patterns are such that a high potential forpollution exists. Monitoring data indicates thatthere is sometimes photochemical smog in theregion. A brown haze, which is also sometimesvisible over much of the region, particularly onwinter mornings, indicates particle pollution.

South-east Queensland is a rapidly growingregion with an increased population andassociated commercial activity, leading to agreater demand for transport, freight movement,heating and electricity. As a result, air pollution,particularly photochemical smog, could becomea problem in the future as the region's populationand economic activities expand.

Trends suggest that because of anexpected 100% increase in motor travel therecould be a deterioration in air quality in the regionover the next five years, although someimprovement is expected in the following fiveyears largely as a result of improved design ofmotor vehicles. This growth in transport,combined with other regionally significantsources of air pollution such as bushfires andhazard-reduction burning, means that air qualityin the region could decline in the future unless acoordinated management strategy is establishednow.

To address these concerns I am nowpleased to announce that at lunchtime today I will

be releasing a draft Strategy for Managing AirQuality in south-east Queensland. This draftstrategy is the most advanced of its kind inAustralia and provides a model for otheragencies also facing problems of managingregional air quality. This initiative addresses airquality issues in a region extending from Noosain the north to Beaudesert and the Gold Coast inthe south and from the Moreton Bay islands inthe east to Toowoomba in the west. The area'spopulation in 1996 was 2.225 million, which isexpected to grow by more than 800,000 to reacha population of around 3 million in the year 2011.

The draft strategy has been prepared withthe assistance of a steering group comprisingState and local government and key interestgroup representatives. The draft has taken intoconsideration comments received on theDiscussion Paper on Issues and Options forManaging Air Quality in South-east Queensland,which I released for public comment inSeptember 1997. In 1996-97, the coalitionGovernment allocated $892,000 towards thisstrategy, which was an increase of 12.3% on theprevious year and $1.21m this financial year,which is an increase of 35%. Obviously, it is aninitiative to which the Government gives a highpriority.

The draft strategy lists key findings of theconsultation process, one of them being a needfor Governments to be more proactive andresponsive to community concerns about airquality. I suggest that the budget allocation ofmore than $2m over two years is a sign ofproactivity on behalf of the State Government, asare initiatives such as daily air quality forecaststhat are distributed in the Brisbane area,continued and improved monitoring, finalisationof an environmental protection policy on air, thedevelopment of a national environmentalprotection policy on air and a national pollutantinventory and other initiatives introduced intransport and local government sectors.

The strategy is focused on regional airquality issues, rather than on global or localimpacts and will complement other regionalinitiatives such as the Regional Framework forGrowth Management and the IntegratedRegional Transport Plan. The aim of the strategyis to improve air quality in south-eastQueensland, to protect the health and wellbeingof present and future residents and to preservethe region's ecological integrity and amenity. Thepriorities of this strategy are to reduce emissionsof particles and pollutants contributing tophotochemical smog and to improveunderstanding of the sources and impact of traceair pollutants. The strategy provides a frameworkfor reducing or containing emissions from


transportation, industry, commerce, agricultureand domestic activity.

Measures proposed include support for theintroduction of national design standards formotor vehicles and other emission sources,better maintenance of vehicles and equipment,improved management practices, application ofbest practice environmental management, landuse planning, increased monitoring, datacollection and research, economic incentivesand effective public education campaigns. It isexpected that after a period for public commentand consultation, the finalised strategy willbecome a blueprint for the effectivemanagement of air quality in south-eastQueensland and an example for the rest ofAustralia.


Industrial Relations Reforms

Hon. S. SANTORO (Clayfield—Ministerfor Training and Industrial Relations) (9.58 a.m.),by leave: In this first sitting week for 1998, it isappropriate that I inform the House of the effectson industrial relations in Queensland of thelandmark legislation passed by the House duringthe first sitting week for 1997. Honourablemembers may recall the honourable member forKedron saying that our reforms would succeed indestroying the substantial harmony broughtabout by Labor's laws. However, the latestAustralian Bureau of Statistics figures onindustrial disputes put paid to that Labor lie.Working days lost in Queensland since thecoalition came to power have plummeted byaround 40%. This is in stark contrast to themarked increase in working days lost due tostrike action through the term of the GossGovernment.

It is curious how trade unions fail to linkindustrial disputation to the Labor Party. But thesad fact is that during the last 12 months of theGoss Government industrial disputes weregenerally twice that of the rest of Australia. It tooka non-Labor Government and its balancedlegislation to return Queensland to a par with thenational figures. In fact, Queensland accountedfor only 0.8% of the Australian total days lost inNovember.

Various Opposition members, including theLeader of the Opposition, the shadow Ministerand the honourable member for Rockhampton,bragged about the average annual strike rateduring their time in office of 103 working dayslost per 1,000 employees. But in light of thelatest ABS figures that show that theQueensland strike rate under the coalition is nowless than three quarters of what it was during

Labor's term, the coalition's record clearly putsthe ALP to shame.

Honourable members would also recall thedoom and gloom predictions by those opposite.For example, I recall the honourable member forChermside saying that the coalition's reformswere oppressive measures to lower wages andimpose harsher, more restrictive conditions onworkers. I ask the honourable member forChermside: where is the evidence to back up hisoutlandish claims and those of others?

The reality of what has occurred under thecoalition can clearly be seen in the take-up rate ofnon-union agreements under the WorkplaceRelations Act. Under Labor fewer than 40 EFAswere approved by the QIRC, but under ourlegislation around 1,000 QWAs have beenapproved, after having met—and I stress "afterhaving met"—the no-disadvantage test, withanother 300 in the pipeline. And that is on top ofthe 1,400 workers covered by non-unioncertified agreements and 4,600 Federal AWAscovering Queensland workers. Yes, more than7,000 workers in over 500 businesses haveproven that the coalition's reforms are working forQueensland's working men and women.

Is it any wonder that only 21.5% of privatesector workers choose to be in a union? And Iuse the word "choose" deliberately, becauseunlike Labor we on this side do not believe thatclosed shops and no ticket, no start policies aregood for business, good for employees or goodfor the economy. In fact, the only thing that thesepolicies were good for was the ALP's coffers,which were swelled by funds coming from unionmembers' fees and levies.

Queensland workers are deserting thetrade union movement, with a 25% reduction inprivate sector membership from 1990 to 1997.The union movement itself attributes this declinein membership to the changing composition ofthe labour force, such as the rising number offemales in the workforce, and the nature of work,as well as a decline in the traditionally male-dominated, heavily unionised blue-collarindustries.

In saying this, the union movement isadmitting that it has not moved with the times.While the industrial relations systems and thoseemployees and employers within the systemsuccessfully stride ahead under the coalition'sreforms, an increasingly irrelevant unionmovement lingers behind. Queenslanders havesent a clear message to the union movement:unions face extinction if they fail to meet thestandards of the employees they claim to serve.The vast majority of employees will not toleratethe gung-ho unionism of the past.


If unions want to survive, they must providetheir members with relevant assistance within thelegislative framework. The actions of the radicalfringe, who seem hell-bent on thumbing theirnoses at the laws of the land and theinternational reputation and economic prosperityof this nation, will backfire on the unionmovement as a whole as more and moreresponsible unionists vote with their feet andresign in protest.


Standard Gauge Rail Line to FishermanIslands

Hon. V. G. JOHNSON (Gregory—Minister for Transport and Main Roads)(10.03 a.m.), by leave: In December 1997 thePublic Works Committee tabled a report titled"The Construction of a Standard Gauge Rail Lineto Fisherman Islands". It raised serious questionsabout the actions of the former Goss LaborGovernment. The decision to build this line wasdriven out of Paul Keating's One Nation program.

In February 1992, the estimated cost of theproject was $72m. Anticipated funding sourcesincluded: $30m from the Federal Government;$10m from the National Rail Corporation; and$32m from the Queensland Government. Theproject ended up costing $100.4m, of which theFederal Government contributed $30.25m. TheQueensland Government picked up the balanceof $70.15m. This represents a 120% increase. Itcould have been more if the line had beenelectrified. However, the National RailCorporation, expected to be the principal user,never paid a bent razoo.

Two issues were raised by the committeeconcerning the project's financial viability. Firstly,in 1991 Henderson Consultants undertook a fulleconomic evaluation and concluded that theproject would be "viable under optimisticconditions and marginal under expectedconditions". Secondly, the Public WorksCommittee observed—

"The Australian economy and railfreight companies are the real beneficiariesand not the Queensland economy or thelocal residents."

Why did the Queensland taxpayer foot the bill forthis project rather than the original promoter, theKeating Labor Government? The other majorfinding concerned the treatment of residentswho were affected by this project. The impactassessment study was required to be approvedby the Commonwealth Environment ProtectionAuthority and the then Federal Minister forEnvironment, the Honourable Ros Kelly.

Key community representatives maintainthat data used in this study was suspect andunderstated the extent of the impact on thecommunity. The estimates of freight trainmovements per day were revised upwards from14 to 26 and then to 42 over a relatively shortperiod. The higher number of services usedlowered the impact of any additional serviceslikely to be generated by the standard gaugeline.

I congratulate the Chairman of the PublicWork Committee and the committee on havingthe courage to investigate this matter. I doubtmembers on the Opposition benchesresponsible for this sorry episode have thecourage to confront the truth by bringing thismatter forward for debate.


Papaya Fruit Fly

Hon. M. H. ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries andForestry) (10.05 a.m.), by leave: It is appropriatethat I report on the outstanding progress whichhas been made towards the eradication of theserious horticultural pest papaya fruit fly fromnorth Queensland. On Monday I announced thatQueensland should be declared papaya fruit flyfree on 23 August. This achievement comes atleast one year ahead of schedule, saving $30mand providing significant relief for major fruit andvegetable industries in Queensland.

I am very pleased that we have received aunanimous endorsement for our final eradicationstage strategy from all Federal and StateMinisters who attended the Agriculture andResource Management Council of Australia andNew Zealand meeting in Hobart last week. Nowild flies have been detected in the 70,000square kilometre north Queensland papaya fruitfly quarantine area since July last year and onlyone zone is still to achieve area freedom. As longas no more flies are detected, area freedom willbe declared and all roadblocks will be removedon 23 August.

The $33m papaya fruit fly eradicationprogram, jointly funded by Federal and StateGovernments, ranks as one of the mostsuccessful of its type conducted anywhere in theworld.

The eradication campaign was in its veryearly stages when the Government came tooffice in 1996. We realised its enormous nationalsignificance and gave the campaign everypossible support at all times.

In the earlier stages of the eradicationcampaign, I was chairman of the industry liaison

4 Mar 1998 Sitting Hours; Order of Business 117

group. My close, personal and ongoinginvolvement in the campaign has given me anexcellent insight into the dedication andprofessionalism of the Department of PrimaryIndustries, and I thank all staff involved for theircooperation, understanding and sheer hardwork. Equally, industry deserves recognition forits calm determination and cooperation to ensurea swift and effective conclusion.

It is important to realise that the existingquarantine and fruit movement restrictions in thepest quarantine area will remain until the end ofAugust. Intensive monitoring will also continuewithin the boundaries of the quarantine area untilApril 1999, before final eradication can bedeclared. Continued industry and publiccooperation is just as vital in this period as it hasbeen throughout the height of the eradicationcampaign. My message to the good, patientpeople of north Queensland is: please stick withus just a little longer.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTPositive Parenting Strategies

Hon. N. K. W. WILSON (Mulgrave—Minister for Families, Youth and Community Care)(10.09 a.m.), by leave: When dealing with socialproblems, there is often a tendency to bereactive rather than proactive. However, I believethat prevention is better than cure. This isreflected in my department's continuing strategyof early intervention and prevention to helpQueenslanders in need before their personal orfamily problems become insurmountable. That iswhy this coalition Government, through mydepartment, has implemented a PositiveParenting Strategy.

The strategy is designed to improve the wayinformation is available to parents and carers onpositive parenting issues. This information will beeasily accessible through shopfronts to beknown as Parents' Places, which will be locatedin shopping centres. The first will be opened atthe Logan Hyperdome on Brisbane's south sideshortly. More shopfronts are planned in differentareas of the State.

Research has shown that many parents feltthey lacked support but were not comfortableseeking help from structured parenting coursesor from welfare-type agencies. An auditundertaken by the National Child ProtectionClearing House in 1994 indicated that childabuse prevention activities are not widelyavailable. Meanwhile, research commissioned bythe Western Australian Department of Family andChildren's Services has shown that communityeducation campaigns about child abuseprevention need to focus on the development of

positive parenting skills. My department'sParents' Places will help to address thesecommunity concerns. The shopfronts will be runby departmental staff who will provide highquality information in a friendly and helpfulatmosphere in convenient locations. Parents willalso have access to a library lending service and arange of positive information.

In addition to the Parents' Place initiative,my department will be increasing support andresources provided to professionals working inthe parenting field through the QueenslandCentre for Prevention of Child Abuse, orQCPCA, organised by our previousGovernment—not the Government of membersopposite—now known as the Positive ParentingCoordination Unit. Its main role will becoordinating, producing and distributing a rangeof information on positive parenting. It will alsostrengthen the department in responding tochild abuse prevention and include the ongoingdelivery of services provided by the QCPCA.These will include the recruitment and training ofstaff for Parents' Places as well as associatedpublishing and promotions, and the creation ofnew resources including the maintenance of thespecialist library for the Parents' Places.

Of course, this is only part of our overallparenting strategy. Other components includeinitiatives such as the 37 family support workerswho are located across the State, as well as theParent Education Training Project, which willresult in community organisations receiving helpto conduct localised parent education classes.This strategy acknowledges the importance ofparents and carers to the community and thechallenges faced by families as a result ofchanges to employment and location,differences in cultural experiences, pressures onadolescents and changing roles of parents. ThePositive Parenting Strategy will actually take theinitiatives out into the community.

SITTING HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS

Sessional Order

Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer—Leader ofGovernment Business) (10.12 a.m.), by leave,without notice: I move that—

"Notwithstanding anything containedin the Standing or Sessional Orders for thisday's sitting, the House will continue tomeet past 7.30 p.m.

Private Members' Motions will bedebated from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. The Housewill then break from 7 p.m. for dinner andresume its sitting at 8 p.m. Governmentbusiness will take precedence for the

118 Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 4 Mar 1998

remainder of the day's sitting except for a 30minute Adjournment debate."Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMITTEEPublications

Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel)(10.13 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the Housethe CJC publications titled the Cost of FirstResponse Policing, the Physical Requirementsof General Policing Duties Policy and also theBeenleigh Calls for Service Project EvaluationReport. These publications are not reports of thecommission for the purpose of section 26 of theCriminal Justice Act 1989. The committeestresses that it has in no way conducted aninquiry into the matters the subject of thesepublications. However, the committee is tablingthese documents as it believes that it is in thespirit of the Criminal Justice Act that all non-confidential publications by the CJC bepublished and tabled in the Parliament.

LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ANDADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE

ReportsMrs GAMIN (Burleigh) (10.13 a.m.): I lay

upon the table of the House the followingdocuments of the Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee. Firstly, I tableadditional submissions received by thecommittee regarding its inquiry into thepreservation and enhancement of individualrights and freedoms in Queensland. This inquiry,of course, included consideration of the bill ofrights proposed by the former Electoral andAdministrative Review Commission. Secondly, Itable the Hansard of the committee's hearings inrelation to its inquiries into privacy inQueensland, which were held on the Gold Coaston 7 November 1997 and in Townsville on 14November 1997. Finally, I table the Hansard ofthe committee's seminar in relation to its inquiryinto privacy in Queensland, which was held inBrisbane on 17 November 1997.

On behalf of the committee, I take thisopportunity to thank those people andorganisations who made written and oralsubmissions to the committee in relation to itsinquiries. I also thank those who kindly agreed tospeak at the committee's seminar on privacy.

NOTICE OF MOTIONKaralee Court Facility

Ms BLIGH (South Brisbane) (10.14 a.m.): Igive notice that I shall move—

"That this Parliament—• apologises to the people of Chuwar for

the lack of consultation, lack ofinformation and misrepresentationsregarding the decision to locate the'Karalee Court' facility in their low-density residential suburb;

• expresses grave concern at thedecision of the former Minister forFamilies, Youth and Community Care toaward a multi-million dollar, 20-yearcontract to Consolidated CareManagement, a company onlyregistered in December 1997 with nobackground or track record in theresidential are of people with anintellectual disability; and

Calls on the Parliament to—

(1) halt all construction of the 'KaraleeCourt' facility at the Chuwar sitepending consideration by the PublicAccounts Committee of a referenceregarding this matter and a thoroughevaluation of all possible alternativesites, and

(2) report back to the Parliament as soonas possible regarding possiblealternative locations for this facility."

FREEDOM OF INFORMATIONAMENDMENT BILL

Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—Leaderof the Opposition) (10.16 a.m.), by leave, withoutnotice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in a Billfor an Act to amend the Freedom ofInformation Act 1992."

Motion agreed to.

First ReadingBill and Explanatory Notes presented and

Bill, on motion of Mr Beattie, read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—Leaderof the Opposition) (10.16 a.m.): I move—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."

Labor will not wait until it is returned topower in order to start restoring some honestyand accountability to Government inQueensland. We are acting now with theFreedom of Information Amendment Bill toensure that the National/Liberal State coalitionGovernment cannot continue to hide ministerial

4 Mar 1998 Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 119

expenses from public scrutiny. The NationalParty's rorts with ministerial expenses prove wehave the same old Nationals and the same oldcorruption. The Liberals used to stand up tothem, but now they only cover up for them. So itis up to Labor to try to bring them back into line.Labor introduced freedom of informationlegislation to Queensland. Now Labor is movingto ensure that it is not subverted by a dishonestGovernment.

This Bill is designed primarily to prevent acorrupt National/Liberal Government from hidingthe expenses of its Ministers. TheBorbidge/Sheldon Government hid the shonkyexpenses of its Ministers from public scrutiny bywheeling them through a room while Cabinet wasmeeting. It then claimed that Cabinet secrecymeant they were unavailable for scrutiny throughthe Freedom of Information Act. This is an abuseof the freedom of information legislation that myGovernment will not tolerate. Why would theBorbidge/Sheldon Government do this unless itwas rorting the system? This Bill will preventPremier Borbidge from doing that again.

But it does more than that. It alsodemonstrates that there is a clear differencebetween the Borbidge/Sheldon Governmentand the Government that I will lead later this year.This Bill amounts to a legislative promise that myGovernment will not sneak documents intoCabinet meetings as a device to hide them fromthe public. The Bill makes it clear that the Cabinetexemption from FOI does not arise when materialis submitted to Cabinet for the improper purposeof avoiding FOI access. The Bill also specificallyprovides that the expenses of Ministers andministerial staff do not attract Cabinet exemptionfrom FOI.

Labor in Government is committed to havingthe FOI Act reviewed by Parliament's all-partyLegal, Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee to ensure that FOI legislation is keptup to date and in accordance with the public'slegitimate expectation for scrutiny of publicadministration in this State. This Bill is not ameaningless piece of paper like the Premier'scontract with Queensland. That contract withQueensland has proved to have less substancethan the promises of ace conman Peter Fosterabout his slimming tea and creams. And it is nouse the Premier saying that this Bill is notneeded because he will exempt expenses fromthe current secrecy provisions. We have seenthe ease with which he breaks promises. We allremember the Attorney-General roaring inOpposition about the need for freer FOI. But inGovernment he rolled over like a pussy cat. Hehas been compromised because the Premierdisgracefully protected him from the will of

Parliament when he thumbed his nose at the no-confidence motion in him. Why did not theLiberals stand up to the Nationals when theministerial expenses were made exempt fromFOI? Their first response when this issue wasraised by the Opposition in Parliament last yearwas to run for cover. The Nationals got away withthis for so long because the Liberals have a weakleader.

And let us not forget the way in which thePremier has backed down on FOI. It was not justthe unwanted Attorney-General demandingreform of the FOI laws while he was inOpposition, the Premier made a solemn promisein Parliament that he would reform freedom ofinformation legislation. Let us look at what thePremier said. On 20 February 1996, the Premierwas telling the State why Queenslanders couldhave confidence in his Government. Hepromised—

"I am pleased to advise the Housetonight that this Government will restoregenuine freedom of informationlegislation—and it is going to be interestingwhen the legislation is before the House."

The Premier continued—

"Will the people who gutted freedom ofinformation vote to keep it the way theywanted it, or will they support us in putting itback the way Fitzgerald recommended?

It is going to be a very interestingdebate, and I look forward to thecontribution of the Leader of theOpposition on this."

For two years we have waited for the legislationpromised by the Premier. Another brokenpromise! More evidence of his lack of leadership!Well, Mr Premier, it is going to be a veryinteresting debate. You were looking forward tomy contribution as Leader of the Opposition onthis. Well, today you have it. Now I look forward toyour contribution. What will it be? Another back-down? Another backflip? My challenge to youtoday is to bring this Bill on for debate as soon aspossible before the election, and to give it yourfull support. We meet in another two weeks. Mychallenge to you today, Mr Premier, is to bring iton for debate when we next meet in two weeks'time and make certain that it is law before we goto the people this year.

In conclusion, I should like to thank mycolleague, shadow Attorney-General Matt Foley,who suggested to me this Private Members' Billand who has worked with me in its drafting. Icommend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald,adjourned.

120 Private Members' Statements 4 Mar 1998

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS"If you can't tell the truth, you can't run

Queensland"

Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—Leaderof the Opposition) (10.22 a.m.): Last night in thisHouse the Premier said, "If you can't tell thetruth, you can't run Queensland." And don'tQueenslanders know that that is the truth? Fortwo years the Borbidge/Sheldon Governmenthas proved it cannot tell the truth, and it cannotrun Queensland, either.

I have here a booklet containing 100 brokenpromises from the Premier and the Treasurer.That is 100 lies, Mr Premier. That is 100 timeswhen the Government has not told the truth.There are many, many more in the Premier'scontract with Queensland and elsewhere. MrPremier, you cannot tell the truth. You are notrunning Queensland.

On his very first day in Parliament as Premierhe twice told Parliament that the head ofTreasury, Gerard Bradley, had not been sacked.Mr Bradley had been sacked. Right from his firstday the Premier has not been able to tell thetruth. In his contract with Queensland thePremier promised that it was his personalcommitment to make Government accountable.But he chaired the Cabinet meeting whichdecided to hide ministerial expenses.

Just look at this sorry saga of brokenpromises in this booklet. Promise 62: no new orincreased taxes. If you can't tell the truth, youcan't run Queensland. We had seven new orincreased taxes in the 1996 Budget. Promise38: provide an extra $34m to assistQueenslanders with disabilities. If you can't tellthe truth, you can't run Queensland. ThoseQueenslanders with disabilities are still waiting.Promise 18: to cut waiting lists. If you can't tell thetruth, you can't run Queensland. Waiting lists areup 10%, with more than 5,500 patients beingforced to wait for more than a year. Promise 7: anadditional 2,780 police over 10 years. If you can'ttell the truth, Mr Premier, you can't runQueensland. The Government is 28% undertarget. The Premier has not told the truth. ThePremier cannot tell the truth. He cannot runQueensland.

Clean Up Australia Day

Mr CARROLL (Mansfield) (10.25 a.m.):The peaceful Yandina picnic ground and nearbyBroadwater Park are clear of unsightly rubbishafter last Sunday's efforts by locals on Clean UpAustralia Day. These beautiful reserves straddleBulimba Creek on part of that waterway's 9-kilometre trail within the Mansfield electorate. Weare fortunate to have many hectares of bushland

along this creek, with bike tracks and otherpathways. Many of my constituents and visitorsuse these amenities and the adjoining sportsgrounds and picnic spots, and I suppose it isunavoidable that rubbish can be seen here andthere.

I was therefore pleased to lead a team ofvolunteers in the local clean up last Sunday.Consistent with the rest of Australia, there wasless rubbish this year, showing that locals aremindful of their personal responsibility to keepour corner of Queensland clean. Just last week Iobserved one of the men who regularly take anearly morning walk in nearby Broadwater Roadcollecting litter as he went. On Sunday morning Inoticed one of the young workers from theMcDonald's store in Upper Mount Gravatt doing alitter patrol 300 metres from his work place.

The major sponsors of Clean Up AustraliaDay, McDonald's and Westpac BankingCorporation, are joined by many localbusinesses, such as the cabinet-maker whoused his truck to collect rubbish from our south-east area. Brisbane City Council's wastemanagement team did a great job as theBrisbane committee for Clean Up Australia Day. Icongratulate all those people. Despite themassive project, they were polite and efficient.

All of us should continue to encouragepeople around us to properly dispose of rubbish.Too much of it ends up in our preciouswaterways. Too often that waste clogs our drainsin downpours. We should all strive to raise theproportion of waste materials and rubbish that isrecycled so that natural resources are notwasted. Many successful small businesses areemerging which specialise in recycling materialsthat used to end up in our land fills.

"If you can't tell the truth, you can't runQueensland"

Hon. J. P. ELDER (Capalaba—DeputyLeader of the Opposition) (10.27 a.m.): MrPremier, if you can't tell the truth, you can't runQueensland. When you signed a contract withQueensland two years ago you crossed yourfingers because you knew you would neverkeep the promises. This booklet contains thelitany of lies.

We were told that a coalition Governmentwould reverse Labor's revolving door policywhen it came to prisons. The prisoners go outthe back door, they go out the side door, and infact in this State they go out the front door. Wewere told that the Government's two privateprisons would be brought back under publiccontrol. The Premier will say anything. That is hisproblem.

4 Mar 1998 Questions Without Notice 121

If we go through the document we see thatthe Premier said, "We will bring confidence backto the Queensland public health system." Manypeople have called us on the hotline. They havesaid that they are fearful of not getting a place onthe waiting list if they go public. People fearretribution. There is no confidence. ThisGovernment rules by fear.

Mr Premier, if you can't tell the truth, youcan't run Queensland. If we look through thedocument we see a promise of amendments tothe freedom of information legislation to allowmaterial to be publicly accessed. What awhopper! We see a promise of the establishmentof higher standards of ethics and accountabilityfrom Government. Mr Premier, if you can't tell thetruth, you can't run Queensland.

When the Premier signed this contract twoyears ago he crossed his fingers. The Premier isshowing all the signs that he will say anything, hewill promise anything, and he will do anything tostay in power because he is weak and he lacksintegrity. Day by day he becomes moredesperate.

Mr Premier, you have never told the truth. Ifyou can't tell the truth, you can't runQueensland.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Queensland Fire and Rescue AuthorityMr BEATTIE (10.30 a.m.): I refer the

Treasurer to the consultancy report by PaulMasters titled Review of the Financial Positionand Funding Options for the Queensland Fireand Rescue Authority, which is currently beingconsidered by Treasury and the QFRA board,and which confirms that the finances of theauthority are in a parlous and deteriorating statewith a cumulative deficit in the QFRA Trust Fundof $3.6m in 1998-99 and a projected deficit of$7.99m in 1999-2000, and I ask: will she confirmthat one of the options being considered is anew $10 tax on all Queensland motor vehicles toraise $20m, as well as an increase in the State firelevy to overcome the deficit? And will she tablethis consultancy report for the information of theHouse?

Mrs SHELDON: There is no such tax,levy or any other thing that one might want to callit even being contemplated. Again, the memberis misinformed.

Queensland Fire and Rescue Authority

Mr BEATTIE: I refer the Treasurer to thesnowballing financial crisis in the QueenslandFire and Rescue Authority Trust Fund, and ask:what sort of irresponsible Treasurer would react

to this crisis by telling Treasury and emergencyservice departmental heads at the end of the 23February Cabinet Budget Review Committeethat "it will not be shown in deficit, okay?" andthen directing them to hide this mess under thecarpet until after the State election?

Mrs SHELDON: Sadly, the Leader of theOpposition has been misinformed again. I wasunaware that he was at the Cabinet BudgetReview Committee process. I suggest thatpeople who are "leaking" to him are not goodsources of information. The fact that we will havea record Budget, the fact that there will be asurplus, the fact that Queensland will have nodebt, the fact that yet again we will have majorinfrastructure spending, and the fact that yetagain services will be provided to the people ofQueensland gets up the Leader of theOpposition's nose. Strong economicmanagement by this Government will be provedagain in the Budget, which will be delivered laterthis year.

Impact of Asian Currency Crisis onTourism Industry

Mr MITCHELL: I ask the Honourable thePremier: what has been the response of thetourism industry itself to his initiatives to minimisethe impact of the Asian currency crisis on theQueensland tourism industry?

Mr BORBIDGE: It will be very interestingto see how some of the Opposition's tacticsstand up to the scrutiny of truth in politicaladvertising when that legislation is introducedinto the Parliament in the not-too-distant future,will it not? It is no wonder that the member isopposed to truth in political advertising, despitethe fact that the honourable member for Logansupported it at the last election.

There has been an overwhelmingly positiveresponse to the Government's response totourism issues arising out of the problems inmuch of east Asia. The Leader of the Oppositionhas been far out of touch with the real feelings ofthe tourism industry in Queensland. Labor's NewDirections Statement on Tourism contains thisscaremongering, inaccurate comment—

"The situation now confronting thetourist industry is that more than half theoverseas visitors who come to our Statemay be postponing or cancelling their travelplans."

Another Labor lie!

Latest figures from the ABS show thatinternational arrivals to Queensland in the year toDecember were up 4.1% on those of theprevious year. New figures from the ATC—

122 Questions Without Notice 4 Mar 1998

unofficial figures, but we expect them to beconfirmed—show that January arrivals fromAustralia's major market, Japan, were up inJanuary. Japanese arrivals were up 3.2%; NewZealand, 17%; Europe, 11.5%; and the UnitedStates, 7.5%. Overall, international visitors toAustralia were up 2.9% in January compared withJanuary 1997. It needs to be noted that thefigure for all Asia less Japan did fall by 12%, butthe figures clearly show that Labor's policydocument claim that we would lose half ourmarkets is out of touch. Labor's scaremongeringis the negative, Jeremiah stuff thatQueenslanders working in the tourism industryare sick of hearing from the Leader of theOpposition and his failed former Minister.

Let us have a look at what the industry issaying. Let us have a look at what peopleinvolved in the tourism industry are saying. TheCairns Post editorial of 24 January stated—

"The Federal Government shouldheed Premier Rob Borbidge and thetourism industry's call for some additionalfunding to boost tourism marketing in thewake of the Asian currency crisis."

On 23 January, Bruce Baird, managing directorof the Tourism Council of Australia, said—

"It has been suggested from insideCanberra sources that if we could getPremier Borbidge on side to come outpublicly in support of the concerns of thetourism industry that would be very helpful."

In the Gold Coast Bulletin on 18 February, MrBaird said—

"Queensland has taken a leading rolein improving the outlook for our industryunder challenging circumstances."

On 23 January, he said—

"He is the only Premier in Australia tohave taken such initiative. It is true to saythat the Federal Government have notencouraged us too much in terms of what'shappening as a response to the crisis so it'svery encouraging news that in Queenslandthey are listening."

On 17 February, he said—

"Queensland has taken a leading rolein improving the outlook for our industryunder challenging circumstances. Wesupport Minister Davidson in urging theFederal Government to follow this lead andtake up major initiatives on a national level."

In the Cairns Post on 30 January, TerryRussell, managing director of Sunlover Cruises,stated—

"Borbidge himself wants to take whathe thinks are the best ideas across to PrimeMinister Howard and you can't ask for morethan that."In the Courier-Mail on 16 February, Daniel

Gschwind, state manager of the TCA, said—

"After several consultative meetingsbetween the Premier, the Tourism Ministerand industry representatives, we areencouraged and quite optimistic thatQueensland will take a leading role inimproving the outlook for the industry."

On the next day, Mr Gschwind said—

"We are pleased that the QueenslandGovernment has responded in such aconstructive and timely way to the concernstaken to the Premier and the TourismMinister in industry meetings earlier thismonth."

In the Courier-Mail on 18 February, LenTaylor, managing director of the InboundTourism Organisation of Australia, stated—

"Queensland is to be congratulated forshowing initiative and getting on with it."

The 19 February editorial in the Cairns Poststated—

"The State Government's decision topump an additional $5 million intoQueensland's tourism promotion budget inthe face of the Asian currency crisis shouldbe emulated without any further delay bythe Federal Government on a nationalscale."

A letter dated 18 February to the Ministerfrom John Morris, director of the AustralianTourism Commission, stated—

"I was thrilled and delighted to hear ofthe $5 million additional funding approvedby the State Treasurer to immediately act onpotential downturns in our Queenslandtourism industry ... I was particularly pleasedto read ... how the money is to bespent ... With the superb product we havein the Queensland experience and thepleasing support the industry is receivingfrom Government, I feel confident ourindustry will weather the storms thatperiodically trouble all businesses."

In the Sunshine Coast Daily on 20 February,Jon Liddicoat, general manager of TourismSunshine Coast, stated—

"It's perfect for the Coast—this has theopportunity to work really well for us."In the Queensland Investment Report on

24 February, Alan Midwood, veteran tourism anddevelopment consultant, stated—


"The Federal Government appeared tobe unmoved by this prospect ... whenapproached by an industry delegation inJanuary, but the Queensland Governmenthas taken the problem on board ... "

He went on to say—

"The Queensland Government isprepared to invest heavily in a promotioncampaign but Canberra has not yetappreciated the urgency."

These are testimonials to action. Contrastthis action with the sorry tale from honourablemembers on the other side of the House.Launching tired old Labor's tourism policy, theLeader of the Opposition said—

"Tourism is Queensland's secondlargest industry and urgent and decisiveaction must be taken by Government toensure it rides out the impact of Asia'scurrency crisis."

I thank the honourable member for his support. Itis just that, as usual, it was both a little late andmore than a little bit flyblown. The Governmenthad already taken that decisive action.

Three weeks before the member forBrisbane Central leaped into action, we wereworking with industry. One week later, we metagain to formulate our State and FederalGovernment response packages. State Cabinethad already approved the immediate $5mmarketing boost. The Bollinger Bolsheviks onthe other side of the House—the former Ministerand his mates—are the very same collectivebrains trust that oversaw the stagnation offunding and the stifling of creativity at the QTTCfor six years. Labor made promises to stronglysupport moves to boost spending oninternational marketing campaigns while tellingthe industry that it can look forward to beingsaddled with the member for Bundamba, if Laborgets back into power. The member forBundamba is the man who liberated $1m ofuseful tourism dollars from the QTTC in a bid tobalance the books at Indy. He is the member whoran away and hid during the "Yo! Way to go!"controversy for which he was responsible. He isthe honourable member who said on 18February—

"We've lost huge amounts of domestictourists from Queensland to Victoria."

At least the honourable member for Bundamba isconsistent: he is consistently wrong. He ispeddling misinformation and myth.Queensland's share of interstate tourism ishigher than Victoria's. The only tourists thatVictoria is attracting are Victorians. We rememberwhen the honourable member was Minister. Hereduced our tourism expenditure to less than

Victoria's. He reduced our tourism expenditureto less than South Australia's. That was thecontribution of Labor, which is now promising toboost investment and promotion in the tourismindustry.

Labor left the industry that it now courtshigh and dry. Labor froze the QTTC budget.Now, all of a sudden, it claims that it will spend$10m more on domestic marketing if it isreturned to power. What did members oppositedo when they were in power? They turned theQTTC into a stagnant puddle. They allowed asituation to occur in which Victoria and SouthAustralia outspent Queensland on tourismpromotion. The Leader of the Opposition hasbeen caught out again in respect of the impact ofthe downturn in the tourism industry so far.

Significantly, Mr Baird supports everythingthat this Government has done with the industryon the special $5m response of additionalfunding to the QTTC, because he helped towrite it. He received cooperation from thisGovernment that he never received from theLabor Government in the six years that itoccupied the Treasury benches. Labor canpromise the world; it is this Government that hasdelivered.

Electricity IndustryMr McGRADY: I refer the Minister for

Mines and Energy to his answer in the Parliamentyesterday about last week's power crisis in whichhe said, "I became aware of this problem at 8o'clock on Sunday morning." I refer also tocomments by Powerlink chief executive, GordonJardine, in the Courier-Mail on Monday lastweek——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Do you have aquestion?

Mr McGRADY: Yes. "Things were prettytight on Friday afternoon" after faults at fourpower station had emerged over the previousweek and as far as back as 14 February. I ask: didthe Minister deliberately mislead Parliamentyesterday about when he was first made aware ofthe looming power crisis, or do power industryexecutives have so little confidence in hisabilities as a Minister that they refused to tell himuntil the last possible moment?

Mr GILMORE: I thank the honourablemember for Mount Isa for the question, because Ithink it is an important one. In the past few days,we have had a fair comparison betweencredibility and lack of credibility.

Mr Schwarten interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for

Rockhampton is not on my side. I now warn himunder Standing Order 123A.


Mr GILMORE: I think that any fair observerof matters in the last week who would like to gothrough the record of everything that I have saidand done in the past week could come only tothe conclusion that everything that I have hadsaid and everything that has been recorded inmy name has been absolutely accurate. In thatsense, I spoke yesterday in the House in answerto a question. I said that at 8 o'clock on Sundaymorning I became aware of the problem that wasgoing to cause blackouts in this State. It isabsolutely true that that is the case. However, inanswer to the question, I will go back to theFriday. I was informed at 4.30 on Friday afternoonthat there was a problem in the generationsystem. At that moment, we had about 70megawatts of spare capacity. At that time, we hadflicked off the——

Mr Elder: The panic button should havebeen ringing. Seventy spare on Friday and youdidn't tell the community.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr GILMORE: Mr Speaker, with yourindulgence, I shall continue. We had taken offline the hot water systems. I cannot recall if wehad taken airconditioners off line or not. Takingoff line those airconditioning systems that are onripple switches was certainly beingcontemplated. That was on Friday. That is howone runs the electricity system. That is how onedeals with it on a day-to-day basis. That wasperfectly normal. There were no problems withthat. There was no reason for concern at thattime.

We were coming up to a weekend. We gotthrough Friday perfectly comfortably. Weexpected that, because Saturday and Sundaywere not work days, we would be able to resolvethe outstanding concerns within the electricityindustry. Unfortunately, on Saturday evening, asI recall it from my notes, there was another failureof a power station in this State. I was contactedimmediately and told that there was going to be aproblem of load shedding throughout the State,because we simply could not bring those powerstations back on line in time due to the nature ofthe mechanical breakdowns in those powerstations. I record for the history of this Parliamentthat three high-pressure boiler tubes broke: onein Gladstone, one in Tarong and one in Stanwell.There was a broken boiler shaft in a turbine atSwanbank. My answer yesterday was absolutelyaccurate. There was no question of a need toinform the people of Queensland aboutimpending load shedding.

Mr Beattie interjected.

Mr GILMORE: Mr Speaker, I would likeyour indulgence. I need to get this on the recordof the Parliament. There was simply no need totell people in this State that there was to be loadshedding when, on Saturday morning, there wasto be no load shedding. There was no need forload shedding until the last piece of equipmentwent off line on Saturday evening. It was at thattime that it became obvious. It was at that time onSunday morning that I started contacting theCourier-Mail and others.

Mr McGrady: 3.30 was your pressconference.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forMount Isa asked the question. The Minister isanswering. I ask the member to come to order.

Mr GILMORE: By the time I had called apress conference, I had already had somediscussions with the Courier-Mail. I had alreadyvisited the State Control Centre with the Courier-Mail so that it had the opportunity for a full andfrank briefing about the circumstancessurrounding the breakdowns of power stations inthis State. I acted with absolute propriety andwith speed to ensure that by the time the peopleof this State got out of bed in themorning—provided that they bought theCourier-Mail, listened to the radio or watchedtelevision on Sunday night or Mondaymorning—they would have some understandingthat there was a problem with the powergeneration system in this State. There is noquestion whatsoever that every person in thisState should have understood by then that therewas a problem, what the nature of the problemwas and how we were going to proceed with it.

The journalist at the Courier-Mail who wrotethe article—and I challenge all honourablemembers to read it—of Monday of last weekwrote a very balanced, very sensible article,which clearly outlined what were the problemsand what the people of Queensland couldexpect. Since then, of course——

Mr McGrady interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I now warn themember for Mount Isa under Standing Order123A for persistent interjecting.

Mr GILMORE: Since that time, there hasbeen a certain amount of lack of truth in somethings said by Opposition members, so there hasbeen some concern in the minds of the peopleof Queensland about the whens, wheres andwherefores. However, in response to thequestion, I acted properly, appropriately and asquickly as was necessary to inform the people ofQueensland about the power supply situation inQueensland.


Opposition Job Creation PolicyMr CARROLL: I ask the Deputy Premier,

Treasurer and Minister for The Arts: can sheinform the House of Labor's latest backflip whenit comes to its policy on job creation?

Mrs SHELDON: I thank the honourablemember for his question because I know howinterested he is in providing jobs. I also knowhow interested he is in trying to reveal theabsolute hypocrisy of the members opposite.Once again, we see Labor lies come to the fore.In less than one year we have had a majorbackflip by the Leader of the Opposition on ajobs policy. On 2 February last year, with greatfanfare, the community jobs plan policy wasintroduced. That was going to cost $70m and,surprise surprise, that $70m was to come fromthe Treasurer's Advance Account. Veryobviously, the money that we need in thatadvance account to spend on disasters, such asproviding flood relief and relief for otheremergencies that occur within electorates andon other things such as enterprise bargaining,was going to be used for Labor's jobs plan.

Somewhere along the track the Leader ofthe Opposition realised that indeed he had amajor financial problem in trying to drag thismoney out of the Treasurer's Advance Accountand that he would be shown up for the absolutesham that he is. So we had another pressrelease—and I have the documents here just incase anyone wants to keep up with thecontinuing changing situation on the jobs planthat the Leader of the Opposition says that he isgoing to create. On 14 September last year therewas a significant change. We again had the jobsplan but this time it was going to cost $34m. Thesurprising thing is that, when the jobs plan wasgoing to cost $70m, it was going to create 8,800jobs. We now have $34m for that jobs plan, and itis going to create 8,980 jobs. So we are going toget more jobs at half the price. That is all within aspan of what—10 months!

I think that the Leader of the Oppositionshould have a little talk with the people withwhom he is formulating this policy on the runbecause, first, they need to do their sums;secondly, they need to find out what theTreasurer's Advance Account is really used for;and, thirdly, they have a bit of a problem with theirfigures in that they plan to create more jobs athalf the price of the previous jobs plan. That justshows the lack of credibility in these variousdocuments that are being trumpeted around thecommunity by the Labor Party. Obviously theyhave no sound basis. This party reckons that it isgoing to be the Government of the future, but itcannot fund its policies. In fact, it has nocoherent policies on something that is offundamental importance to this State—jobs.

I draw the attention of the Leader of theOpposition to the fact that in the past monthQueensland delivered 16,400 jobs. The Statethat came closest to that figure was WesternAustralia, which delivered 2,400 jobs. Again, interms of job creation Queensland is leading thenation, as it has for the past two years, with itssound economic policies and not more Laborlies.

Emergency Services Rescue Helicopter

Mr WELLS: I refer the Minister forEmergency Services to the QueenslandEmergency Services Bell 412 rescue helicopterstationed at Archerfield and crewed for searchand rescue operations by a pilot, an internal crewmember/winch operator and an external crewmember, who is a qualified ambulance officer,and ask: why is the Minister withdrawing qualifiedambulance officers as helicopter crew membersand replacing them with other external crewmembers who are required to have only basicfirst aid qualifications? Why will the rescuehelicopter no longer be required to have crewmembers with the medical qualifications tooperate the defibrillator, administer drugs or usethe on-board intubation equipment for advancedairway management? Why is this Governmentrisking the lives of people rescued by theQueensland Emergency Services helicopter?

Mr VEIVERS: Once again, we see theshadow Minister for Emergency Servicesattacking the good work of QueenslandEmergency Services. Actually, the honourablemember for Murrumba has been doing this forthe past 24 months.

Mr WELLS: I rise to a point of order. Theproposition that I attacked any member of theEmergency Services staff is untrue andoffensive and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr VEIVERS: Mr Speaker, I withdraw.Only last month the people in the QueenslandEmergency Services, and they are the veryhelicopter people to whom he is referring, wonthe Golden Hour Award. That is worldwiderecognition of what they do, and they werechosen as the best in the world. Yet the memberfor Murrumba is endeavouring to downgradethem. Last month it was the ambulance officers.Before that, it was the Queensland fire officers.Now, it is the Queensland Emergency Serviceshelicopter people.

The member is out to degrade everybody,and he has not done a bad job of it. It is up to meas the Minister to keep pulling them up. We havethe best Emergency Services staff in Australia;we have the best equipped people in thesehelicopters and they do a marvellous job.

126 Privilege 4 Mar 1998

Queensland Tourism Promotion inTaiwan

Mr ELLIOTT: I refer the Premier to claimsby the Leader of the Opposition during hisrecent visit to Taipei that the QueenslandGovernment provided only $40,000 for thepromotion of the State as a tourism destinationfor the Taiwanese, and I ask: can the Premierprovide the true facts in respect of spending inthis market.

Mr BORBIDGE: We have another Laborlie by the Leader of the Opposition. On 28February 1998, the Courier-Mail stated—

"Visiting Taipei yesterday, Mr Beattiesaid the current spending of about$120,000, including only $40,000 from theQueensland Budget, was totallyinsufficient."

The Leader of the Opposition has pledged todouble spending. The advice that I have hadfrom the Queensland Tourist and TravelCorporation is that core funding to the Taiwanoffice is $393,776, additional funding as a resultof the $5m special marketing grant is $150,000,with the total marketing funding—not what isbeing claimed by the Leader of the Opposition of$120,000, including only $40,000 from theQueensland Budget—being $543,776.

Of the $150,000 in additional funding as aresult of the $5m special marketing grant,$40,000 has been allocated to the AustralianTourist Commission for its Bargain Hop OverCampaign. The remaining $110,000 will be usedby the QTTC as part of its short-term marketingcampaigns. I am advised that the Leader of theOpposition spoke to Mr Thomas Tu, who is themanager of the Taiwan office. However, I amadvised that the question of this alleged$40,000 was not raised by the Leader of theOpposition in those discussions.

No doubt, that is the sort of factuallyincorrect statement that is in the Leader of theOpposition's book. Time and time again, theLeader of the Opposition says that something isfact and time and time again it is proved to be aLabor lie. I can understand that the Leader of theOpposition might not have been as well briefedas he should have been because I am advisedthat after 3 p.m. on Friday, 20 February, he gotaround to formally advising the QueenslandTourist and Travel Corporation that he was goingto Taiwan the following Tuesday and askedwhether they could advise him or provide himwith any information that might be of assistance.

I look forward to finding out more about theTaiwanese trip of the Leader of the Opposition,because guess who was up there at the sametime? One Kevin Rudd! Do we remember Mr

Rudd? He was up in Taiwan at the same time asthe Leader of the Opposition. He is the much-feared former Director-General of the Office ofthe Cabinet. Is he going to make a comeback ifLabor falls over the line at the next election? Thepeople who wrecked the Public Service inQueensland are now still working very closelywith the Leader of the Opposition. To be kind tothe Leader of the Opposition, he was not quitetruthful. He did not have his figures quite right:he was only $503,776 out. No doubt this is thesort of fact-finding tour that will provide the sort ofinformation that Labor can put in the next editionof its book. Whether it is the Crime Commission,his salary package, tourism funding in Taiwan orEastlink, the fact is that the Leader of theOpposition has been caught out as a politicalleader who simply cannot be believed time aftertime after time.

Rescue Helicopter Service

Mr HAMILL: I refer the Minister forEmergency Services to the withdrawal of allqualified ambulance officer crew members fromthe QES rescue helicopter service, and I ask:why will he not admit that the real reason that hehas ordered the withdrawal of all qualifiedambulance officer crew members from the QESrescue helicopter service is that funding cutsimposed by Treasurer Sheldon have left theQueensland Ambulance Service so dangerouslyunderstaffed and underresourced that he needsevery available ambulance officer on the groundto cover the shortages?

Mr VEIVERS: The disease is spreadingfrom the honourable member for Murrumba tothe honourable member for Ipswich. The answeris: no such thing is true. If honourable membersremember rightly, in the half-year Budget reviewwe gave the Ambulance Service an extra $29.3mto cover these things. Nothing like what themembers is suggesting is happening. We havethe best service and the Queenslandemergency service helicopters are the best.They are covered and they can account for anyaero-medical disaster that comes up.

Interruption.

PRIVILEGE

Rescue Helicopter Service

Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba)(11.03 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilegesuddenly arising. The Honourable Minister ismisleading the House. I have a document thatindicates that the position description for theexternal crew of rescue helicopters has beendowngraded from ambulance qualifications to


the mere possession of a first aid certificate. Itable that document.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

TourismMs WARWICK: I ask the Minister for

Tourism, Small Business and Industry to informthe House of any recent statements made by theOpposition regarding tourism and outline thisGovernment's commitment to our tourismindustry?

Mr DAVIDSON: I thank the honourablemember for her question. I know she takes a verykeen interest in tourism. On the many occasionsthat I have been to Cairns, she has always madeherself readily available to make representationsto me as the Minister on behalf of the industry infar-north Queensland.

I cannot believe that after six years inGovernment the Labor Party has learntabsolutely nothing about tourism in the State ofQueensland. Following the recent release of itsNew Directions or "no directions" policy, as somepeople refer to it, I cannot understand or believethat a man who was the Tourism Minister in thisState for six years and has been recycled hasabsolutely no idea of what tourism in this State isabout. He has absolutely no understanding ofthe work that has been done in the past twoyears by the QTTC to correct the mess createdby the sheer and total neglect of and thecronyism that existed within the QTTC during thesix years of Labor Government, as the Premieroutlined to the House this morning. He hasabsolutely no understanding of the hard workthat Stephen Gregg, his team of tourism officialsand industry experts have dedicated themselvesto to ensure that the QTTC is once again theforemost marketing and promotional tool oftourism in this country and is once again highlyregarded by all industry people right acrossAustralia.

Can honourable members believe that theLeader of the Opposition, the honourable PeterBeattie, and the member for Bundamba, BobGibbs, would launch a Labor Party tourism policywithout any reference to the Olympics or theOlympic 2000 Task Force. The Olympics willprovide one of the greatest tourismopportunities that this country and this Statehave ever seen. Indeed, where is the Oppositionspokesman? He is never present at questiontime. Despite all the work that my honourablecolleague Mick Veivers and I have done with theOlympic 2000 Task Force to attract Olympicteams and related businesses to Queensland,yet there is no reference to the Olympics in theLabor Party document.

Likewise, the document makes noreference to conventions incentives, whichshows the lack of understanding of this issuethat the Opposition spokesperson has. It alsoreveals his lack of consultation with the industry,as does his lack of attendance at industryfunctions, lunches and so on. I have yet to seehim at one tourism industry function in this State.Last week the Federal Minister for Tourism,Andrew Thomson, addressed a Tourism Councilof Australia luncheon in Brisbane, but theOpposition spokesperson could not bebothered to turn up.

The Labor document makes no referenceto exhibitions or to any of the six recognisedconvention bureaus throughout the State atCairns, Townsville, the Whitsundays, theSunshine Coast, Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Itmakes absolutely no reference to wine tourism.In the short time since I initiated the Queenslandwine project within my department andappointed a wine industry adviser, $11.2m hasbeen invested directly in the wine industry. As aresult of this project, visitations to wine regionsare estimated to have increased by 40%.However, the tourism document of the LaborParty makes absolutely no reference to the wineindustry or wine tourism.

In Mount Isa last year, I launched the QTTC'sdomestic marketing strategy for the outback andthe Labor member for Mount Isa did not eventurn up. The QTTC has been working on theregional tourism strategy which is about to go toCabinet, but the Labor document makes noreference at all to outback tourism.

The QTTC is currently formulating marketingstrategies for special interest tourism, in theareas of disabled tourism, backpacker tourism,golfing tourism, ATSI tourism and other nichemarkets including host farms, bed and breakfastsand, of course, ecotourism. However, the LaborParty document makes no reference to specialinterest tourism.

Before I appointed a new board, the QEChad only five events in its portfolio and only oneof those had a commitment past 1997. TheQEC's events portfolio has expanded to over 27events worth around $400m to Queensland ineconomic impact and a further $150m inpromotional value up to the year 2006. However,the Labor tourism policy makes no reference toevents tourism. The Opposition had an eventsboard run by its Labour mates, but it hadabsolutely no events portfolio. The work that wehave done in the area of events tourism and thesupport of the Premier and the Treasurer havebeen fantastic. This Government has shownnothing short of a total commitment to eventstourism.


The Labor policy document outlines payrolltax deferrals for tourism investment. As a result ofthe lack of action during the years that the LaborParty was in Government, last year I announcedthe launch of the Queensland InvestmentIncentive Scheme, which allows us to offerpayroll tax exemptions to people who invest innot just tourism but any business or industry inthis State if they create 25 jobs. All theOpposition is talking about——

Mr Elder: That was done in our time.

Mr DAVIDSON: It has not been aroundfor years, because under the member'sGovernment it could not be offered toQueensland companies. This Government cannow facilitate it for Queensland companies.

The Opposition's policy document alsoraises the issue of cooperative marketing, but ithad never offered a cooperative marketingcampaign before. In the past couple of years, thisGovernment has enjoyed enormous cooperationwith the industry, and $3.4m worth of domesticcooperative marketing support has beengenerated. At the Federal council meeting lastyear, I raised the subject of licensing touroperators, and I hope to have an outcome in Aprilor May of this year.

As the Premier said this morning, the LaborParty has no commitment to tourism in this State.In the six years that it was in Government, itincreased the budget from around $23m to$29m. In the two years that we have been inGovernment, we have increased funding to theQTTC from $29m to $41m, not including the$5m that has been allocated in the past couple ofweeks. That is an increase of $17m in two years.In six years the Labor Government's increase tothe QTTC was a lousy $6m.

Electricity Industry

Mr ELDER: I refer the Minister for Minesand Energy to his earlier comments in which herevealed that the State's hot water systems wereswitched off on Friday, that he consideredpulling the plug on airconditioners, and thatfurther load shedding was required orconsidered on Saturday—and we now knowwhat that phrase means—and I ask: why did hecover up and not tell the people of Queenslanduntil his media conference at 3.30 p.m. onSunday that this serious situation existed?

Mr GILMORE: Yesterday in this House Isaid that, clearly, the Opposition knows nothing,can know nothing and understands nothingabout the electricity industry. Clearly, today it hasdemonstrated once again that it knows nothingand understands nothing about the electricity

industry and the day-to-day management of thatindustry.

Today in this Parliament the Opposition isattempting to continue to whip up a fury ofconcern in the minds of the people ofQueensland about the events of last week,when they have been explained quite properly,comprehensively and in detail on numerousoccasions. I must say that I have not necessarilybeen reported accurately in respect of thoseoccasions. Nonetheless, I have explained clearlyand concisely to the people of Queensland whathappened and what we were doing about it.

I reiterate that, with respect to themanagement of the electricity industry, whathappened on Friday and Saturday was perfectlynormal. These are normal events in themanagement of a highly complex but competentsystem. At 8 a.m. on Sunday it came to my noticethat we would have a problem on Monday andTuesday, and it was at that time that I informedthe people of Queensland, as was necessary.

Aged Health Care

Mr MALONE: I ask the Minister for Health:would he please inform the House of whatimprovements the State Government isundertaking to bring Queensland's State ownednursing homes up to Commonwealth outcomestandards? While doing so, could the Ministeralso tell the House how these coalitionimprovements compare with the previousGovernment's track record on aged health care?

Mr HORAN: This is an important issue. It isimportant that we point out what the coalitionGovernment is doing for aged care inQueensland and the shameful neglect and lackof interest shown by the previous LaborGovernment in respect of the elderly citizens ofQueensland.

Under the Aged Care Act 1997, theCommonwealth Government has introduced anew system of quality standards, inspection andaccreditation that will be ongoing over the nextthree years to ensure that all nursing homes inAustralia are up to Commonwealth standards bythe year 2001. The initial part of this program isparticularly important, because it addresses thephysical structure of the buildings—ramps, rails,fire safety, workplace safety and the overallcondition of the buildings. I am pleased to saythat this coalition Government has put millions ofdollars into a program to ensure that theshameful neglect and lack of interest of theprevious Labor Government is now addressedand so that we can fix up the nursing homes thatare run and operated by this State Governmentand bring them up to a decent standard.


In the previous Hospital RebuildingProgram, the Labor Government shamefullyneglected—I repeat "shamefully neglected"—the aged care sector. I am proud to say that thecoalition Government has put in place anadditional $20m specifically for our aged carefacilities and that currently our spending on 24aged care facilities throughout the State,including spending on our nursing homes andhospital facilities, now stands at just over $38m.

I wish to run through some of the facilitiesthat we are spending money on to bring them upto the Commonwealth standards. They are asfollows: Eventide, Brisbane, $2m; AshworthHouse, Zillmere, $240,000; the Moreton BayNursing Home, Wynnum, $700,000; NorthRockhampton, $1.4m; the Yeppoon nursinghome, 700,000; Mount Lofty Cottage,Toowoomba, $450,000; The Oaks, Warwick,$1m; Dr A. E. McDonald Nursing Home, Oakey,$750,000; Eventide, Charters Towers, $2m; theTownsville Nursing Home, $800,000;Westhaven, Roma, $150,000; the NambourNursing Home, $700,000; Waroona, Charleville,$1m; the Redcliffe Nursing Home at the campusof the Redcliffe Hospital, $1m; Farrholme,Kingaroy, $550,000; the Maryborough NursingHome, $4m; and the Weinholt nursing home atWondai, $450,000.

In addition, we are in the process ofspending or have almost completed spendingfunds in respect of the following projects:Jacaranda Village at the Prince Charles Hospital,$7.5m; Eventide, Rockhampton, $9.3m, whichwas a huge increase on the lousy amountprovided by the previous Government; $1.5m forthe Karingal nursing home; $600,000 for theMiles Hospital; $1m for the Claremont Multi-purpose Service; $594,000 for the CooktownMulti-purpose Service; and $320,000 for theWinton Hospital.

Members should compare these 24projects across the length and breadth ofQueensland with the miserly additions andimprovements undertaken by Labor. The twomajor constructions it undertook were those atthe Mount Lofty Nursing Home and Charleville.We are undertaking 24 projects across thelength and breadth of the State. We are doingsomething decent for the elderly people ofQueensland.

In addition, we have been able to provideenormous increases in the number of elderlypeople who are cared for within the community. Irefer to the additional 20,600 elderlyQueenslanders who will now be receiving homecare—assistance with cleaning, maintenanceand so forth—under the coalition than therewere two years ago. We have increased HACC

funding from $101m to $124m, and an additional20,600 elderly Queenslanders now getassistance in their home with maintenance andother home services than was the case underLabor. The total number has gone from about73,400 under Labor to just on 94,000 under thecoalition Government. That is what we havedone. Members should compare that with whathappened under Labor.

I have spoken about the things that did nothappen with respect to construction,maintenance and improvements. We are nowpicking up the pieces through our provision of$38m. But the most tragic thing was the absolutesell-out by the previous Health Minister, MrBeattie, who defunded, in the conjunction withPaul Keating, the former Prime Minister ofAustralia, 437 public nursing home places inQueensland. Mr Beattie had the gall to stand atEventide with the local member, Mr Nuttall, andmake complaints about Eventide at Sandgate.He was the one who put in place the defunding.The letter from Mr Dick Persson, his director-general, to the Commonwealth indicates thatthey were prepared to start that at two or threesites in January 1996. Where were they going tostart it? At Eventide! Proudly, he started thedowngrading at Eventide; he sold out 437places.

We will tramp around the State and telleveryone in Queensland how Mr Beattie sold out437 public nursing home beds in Queensland.He sold out to Paul Keating and had thoseplaces defunded by the Commonwealth. What atragedy for the elderly of Queensland! Howfortunate we are that we now have a coalitionGovernment fixing up public nursing homes andproviding $24m in additional HACC funding sothat 20,600 more elderly Queenslanders aregetting care in their home.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mrs EDMOND: I draw the attention of theHealth Minister to the plight of a paraplegic WestMackay man whose case was brought to theMinister's attention last month. As the Ministershould be aware, this man has been suffering inagony for the past 12 months on a waiting list forurgent surgery to ease the pain of his bedsores. Iask: why did the Minister do nothing to relievethis man's agony, or is it the case that he jumps tohelp only those patients on waiting lists who kickup a fuss?

Mr HORAN: I advise the House that wecurrently have increased the occasions ofservice that we provide to Queenslanders by ahuge amount. We provide over 8 millionoccasions of service throughout Queensland,


and well over 800,000 Queenslanders are nowable to access the free public health services ofQueensland.

We regard every person in the QueenslandHealth system as important. We areendeavouring to provide massive increases infree public hospital care, particularly the level ofcare, as compared with what was provided underthe previous Labor Government. I will provideone figure. We estimate that this year we will do6,000 more elective surgery procedures inQueensland than we did 12 months ago, whichwas an increase again over Labor. At an absoluteminimum, we can say that 6,000 additionalQueenslanders are getting elective surgerycompared with the number under Labor.

I think that the Opposition spokespersonshould stand up and apologise to those 6,000people who are now getting service under usand who would have had no chance whatsoeverof getting service under her. Absolutely nochance! She is the ultimate hypocrite. She doesnot care that thousands and thousands andthousands of people could not get service underher; they could not even get in the front door.She does not care about that. All she caresabout is coming into this place and bringing up aparticular case about which she knows that, if sheapproached me, she would get an answer onthat and she would see that that person wouldget compassionate care.

I will give a guarantee to the Parliament thatwe will check out this particular case and give animmediate response. That is the way we look atthese issues: we care about each and everyissue because they are important. I ask thisHouse—and we will remind Queenslanders overand over again—what about the 6,000 peoplewho would not have got in the front door underLabor? Now they are getting in under us. For thepast 15 months, people in Queensland whoaccessed the 10 major hospitals under Surgeryon Time—people who were classified asurgent—now get their surgery on time.

When we took over Government, 49% orjust on half of the urgent elective surgeryoperations were performed out of time over 30days. One of the tests of a public health systemis if the urgent cases categorised as Category 1,particularly those in our Surgery on Time project,can be dealt with on time. Once again, I reiterate:what an improvement in Queenslandconsidering the financial, the professional andthe administrative mess that Labor left. All thosepeople languishing waiting more than 30 days onCategory 1 elective surgery now get theiroperation on time.

Mrs Edmond: A year!

Mr HORAN: I am sure that the 6,000Queenslanders and their families, who have nowhad their operation or will be having it this yearunder us, are eternally grateful that there is acoalition Government in place bringing aboutthese improvements, with more to come.

Standard Gauge Rail Line to FishermanIslands

Mr BAUMANN: I ask the Minister forTransport and Main Roads: in view of the findingsoutlined in the Public Works Committee's reporton the construction of the standard gauge railline to Fisherman Islands, could he indicatewhether or not he considers that the taxpayers ofQueensland have received value for money intheir $70m-plus investment in this particularproject?

An Opposition member: No.

Mr JOHNSON: Was it somebody on theother side who said, "No"? I thank thehonourable member for the question. This wouldprobably have to rate alongside the easterntollway as one of the most dismal performancesof the former Labor Government's puttinginfrastructure in place. I made a ministerialstatement in the House today in which I said thatthe total cost of this protect was supposed to besomewhere in the vicinity of $70m, but instead itwas a bit over $100m. I can see the honourablemember for Ipswich and the honourable memberfor Capalaba looking——

Mr Lucas interjected.

Mr JOHNSON: The honourable memberfor Lytton should sit back and listen.

Mr Lucas: You've done nothing about thePort Road.

Mr JOHNSON: Talk about the Port Road!What did the honourable member opposite doabout it? However, we will deliver on the PortRoad. He will have to eat his words.

This was one of those projects that was putin place to make Paul Keating and his arrogantLabor friends in Canberra feel good. It was doneby our friend over there—yes, I knew I would gethim to his feet.

Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order. I drawthe Minister's attention to the fact that in 1989before we were elected we were pledged to astandard gauge rail link to the port of Brisbane.

Mr Johnson: There is no point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point ororder.

Mr JOHNSON :The member should sitdown. He is taking up my time.

4 Mar 1998 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 131

Mr Borbidge: How many freight trains aday run on the line?

Mr JOHNSON: I will come to that. Whenthe ALP was closing lines and when it wassacking staff by the thousands, it was buildingthis brand new line. Yes, I take that interjectionthat the honourable member just levelled at me.

Mr Hamill: Point of order.

Mr JOHNSON: Point of the order, I amsorry.

The experts described this as viable underoptimistic conditions and marginal underexpected conditions. In other words, one has tobe kidding; this is an absolute joke and theOpposition knows it. I will list the ALP'sachievements Its economic rationalists weregoing to close 830 kilometres of railway line. Whostopped that? This bloke here stopped it—thePremier! Thank you very much. It mothballedanother 412 kilometres of line. The memberopposite was the mastermind of that move. Over7,000 railway jobs were lost, and the memberwas the engineer of that move, too. The memberwas the engineer of the planned closure of theTownsville Railway Workshops, too. Yes, he wasthe mastermind of the 25 kilometres of brandnew dual gauge line from Park Road toFisherman Islands.

We support infrastructure of that type, butone has to think it through. What did theprevious Government do? The Premier asked awhile ago: how many trains? Mr Keating presidedover high unemployment and inflation—and hewas the international Treasurer of the year! I donot know how the member opposite rates. JohnCain collapsed a whole State economy in only sixyears. Queensland Labor has produced its owncandidates, David Hamill and Jim Elder, and I willcome to them.

The truth is that it was expected that thenew dual gauge rail line—listen to this,Premier—would carry only two extra standardgauge freight trains running to and from the porteach day.

Mr Borbidge: What was the cost again?

Mr JOHNSON: $100m.

Mr Borbidge: $100m for two trains?

Mr JOHNSON: Two trains. Let us get tothe next point. Honourable members shouldlisten to it. Queensland taxpayers are the oneswho have payed for this, but the only standardgauge trains running on this line are rustscrubbers which go out on Thursday and comeback on Thursday. For the benefit of thosemembers who do not understand what a rustscrubber is, I point out that it is a train that is sentdown that standard gauge line to get rid of the

rust that develops because the line is not beingused. I draw to the attention of the House thefact that the honourable member for Bulimbasupports me on this point. He said that, if we hadto have a vote on it, he would come over to thisside of the House—he would support me in avote! He knows how badly this issue is upsettingthe people in the residential suburbs.

We know about the letter in relation to railfreight corridors and standard gauge lines thatthe Opposition Leader wrote to the honourablemember for Chatsworth. He is going to send itback through Gladstone, but I have to remind thehonourable Leader of the Opposition that he didnot think about the people in those residentialsuburbs when he put that standard gauge linethrough. They are the ones who are suffering.He is the one who supported it at the time. He isnow the Leader of the Opposition. He is going toclose the port of Brisbane down, is he? He wantsto close ports down; he does not want jobs; hedoes not want anything. He does not want to beconstructive; he does not want to be positive.

However, I will say that the Government istalking about jobs here; we are talking aboutproductivity; we are talking about responsibleeconomic vision, and none of the people on thatside of the House have got it at all. We are talkingabout jobs—real jobs for the men and women ofthis State. Yes, we on this side of the House arethe people who represent the workers of thisState. We are the people who care about theworkers. All that the ALP stands for is hard labourfor workers; it does not stand for looking afterworkers. This is the workers' party; this is theworkers' Government, and we will continue toprogress that.

Breach of Cabinet ConfidentialityMr FOLEY: I ask the Attorney-General and

Minister for Justice: as the Attorney-General andfirst law officer of the Crown, what executiveaction will he take in the light of the Premier'sflagrant breach of Cabinet confidentiality intabling yesterday a Cabinet document of theprevious Government?

Mr BEANLAND: As the member forYeronga would be aware, this is a matter currentlybefore the Members' Ethics and ParliamentaryPrivileges Committee.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time forquestions has expired.

STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUSPROVISIONS) BILL

Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (SurfersParadise—Premier) (11.30 a.m.), by leave,without notice: I move—

132 Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 4 Mar 1998

"That leave be granted to bring in a Billfor an Act to make minor amendments to thestatute law of Queensland."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Mr Borbidge, read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (SurfersParadise—Premier) (11.31 a.m.): I move—


The purpose of the Statute LawMiscellaneous Provisions Bill 1998 is to improvethe quality of the statute law of Queensland bymaking a number of minor, concise and non-controversial amendments that would ofthemselves not justify separate amendment Bills.This Bill provides a convenient way of dealingwith the amendments requested by theadministering departments and ensures that thebest use is made of Parliament's time.

This Bill makes minor amendments to 23separate Acts which are contained in theschedule to the Bill. All amendments take effectfrom the date of assent unless the contrary isexpressly provided. The Explanatory Note foreach amended Act is placed at the end of itsamendment. Each amendment to an Act isnumbered and the note explaining the nature ofthe amendment is easily identified by referenceto that number. The Explanatory Notes do not,however, form part of the Bill.

One particular amendment I wish to note isthat the Government has decided to adoptrecommendation No. 35 of report No. 8 of theLegal, Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee, which considered the member forWhitsunday's private member's Bill. Thecommittee reported that its task of consideringthis Bill was severely hampered because themember for Whitsunday had failed to provide anyaccompanying Explanatory Notes to her Bill.

The committee requested that section 22 ofthe Legislative Standards Act be amended sothat all Bills presented to this House must beaccompanied by Explanatory Notes. Theamendment to give effect to thisrecommendation has been included in this Bill.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Beattie, adjourned.

GAMING MACHINE AMENDMENT BILLHon. J. M. SHELDON (Caloundra—

Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for TheArts) (11.33 a.m.), by leave, without notice: Imove—

"That leave be granted to bring in a Billfor an Act to amend the Gaming MachineAct 1991."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Mrs Sheldon, read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon. J. M. SHELDON (Caloundra—Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for TheArts) (11.34 a.m.): I move—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."This Bill will amend the Gaming Machine Act

1991. The Act is the primary legislative measureregulating the operation of gaming machines inQueensland licensed clubs and hotels. TheHouse may recall the significant changes to theAct in 1997 regarding matters such as theownership of gaming machines and the licensingof third-party operators to monitor gamingmachines.

This Bill deals with amendments required by1 July 1998 for the effective implementation ofthe new gaming machine regulatoryarrangements. The amendments clarify theresponsibilities of licensed operators andapproved financiers with regard to maintainingregisters of, and selling, owning, leasing andsubleasing, gaming machines. The amendmentsalso provide for the percentage return to playersto be increased and for the approval of linkedjackpot arrangements for the operators'monitoring systems.

This Bill is the next stage in theimplementation of the results of a two-yearreview of the regulatory arrangements for gamingmachines in Queensland's licensed clubs andhotels following the successful introduction ofgaming machines into Queensland in 1992. Anindication of the success of the introduction ofgaming machines is the overwhelmingacceptance of gaming machines by thecommunity and the transformation ofQueensland's licensed clubs and hotels over thepast six years.

The review of the gaming machineregulatory arrangements included extensiveconsultation with all parts of the industry and

4 Mar 1998 Government Owned Corporations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 133

resulted in a comprehensive package designedto meet the needs of a mature, highlycompetitive industry. In particular, therequirement to be flexible and responsive to theincreasingly sophisticated requirements of thegaming machine industry was addressed byproviding for third-party licensed operators whowill compete in offering services to gamingmachine sites.

Most importantly, the changes do notcompromise the very high standards with regardsto probity and integrity achieved in the gamingmachine environment in Queensland. In the firsthalf of 1997 Parliament enacted the changes tothe gaming machine legislation necessary for 1July 1997. The major changes enacted in 1997included the licensing of commercial operators,enabling them to make arrangements with sitesto provide monitoring and additional services.Gaming machines sites, licensed operators andapproved financiers were also permitted topurchase gaming machines.

This Bill is necessary to continue theimplementation of the package of changesdeveloped in full and open consultation withindustry participants and agreed to by theindustry. The Bill clarifies the situation regardingthe selling, owning and leasing of gamingmachines by licensed operators and approvedfinanciers. In addition, the licensed operatorsand approved financiers are required to keepregisters of all gaming machines that they own,monitor, lease and sublease.

The Bill also provides for the percentagereturn to players to be increased above thecurrent minimum return to player of 85%. Thisapplies for games that are approved to operate athigher return to player levels. The decision tochange the percentage return to players forapproved games is to be a matter for each siteand the licensed operator monitoring the site todetermine, except for the restriction on howoften the percentage return may be altered. TheBill also provides for licensed operators to gainapproval from the Queensland Office of GamingRegulation for linked jackpot arrangementswhich can be offered to gaming machine sites toprovide additional choices for gaming machineplayers.

I commend the Bill to the House.Debate, on motion of Mr Hamill, adjourned.

GOVERNMENT OWNEDCORPORATIONS AND OTHER

LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLHon. J. M. SHELDON (Caloundra—

Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for TheArts) (11.36 a.m.), by leave, without notice: Imove—

"That leave be granted to bring in a Billfor an Act to amend the GovernmentOwned Corporations Act 1993 and certainother legislation."Motion agreed to.


Bill, on motion of Mrs Sheldon, read a first time.

Second Reading


"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."The purpose of this Bill is to address the

concerns of the Parliament regarding the use ofHenry VIII clauses (clauses which have the effectof amending an Act of Parliament otherwise thanby another Act of that Parliament) in theGovernment Owned Corporations (GOC) Act1993. The Bill also contains some administrativeamendments to the GOC Act to improve theoverall working of the corporatisation model.

The corporatisation provisions of the LocalGovernment Act 1993 are also being amendedto reflect the changes being made to the GOCAct. In addition, section 76 of the TransportInfrastructure Act 1994, which sets out thefunctions of Queensland Rail, is being amended.The Bill also contains minor amendments to theGovernment Loans Redemption and ConversionAct 1923 and the Queensland TreasuryCorporation Act 1988.

The issue of Henry VIII clauses washighlighted by the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee during the process of corporatisingthe new electricity entities in June/July 1997.The committee's concerns were raised in itsreport on the Government Owned Corporations(QGC 1-3 and AEC) Regulation 1997 and theGovernment Owned Corporations (QueenslandCorrections) Regulation 1997. It was also criticalof the potential for similar provisions to eventuateunder the Local Government Act, which closelymirror those of the GOC Act.

The committee agreed not to recommenddisallowance of the regulations by Parliament onthe understanding the Government would makesuitable amendments to the GOC Act, whichwould overcome the concerns about thecontinued use of Henry VIII clauses. Myundertaking to the committee was to introduceamendments to the GOC Act in the firstparliamentary session of the new year, a timeframe which I am pleased to be fulfilling today.

134 Revenue Laws (Reciprocal Powers) Amendment Bill 4 Mar 1998

As a result of this commitment to thecommittee, the Local Government Act is beingamended to mirror the changes being made tothe GOC Act. The opportunity has also beentaken to review the GOC Act generally. Theoverall operation of the Act has been improvedby making amendments to overcome generaltechnical deficiencies that have been identifiedby GOCs and Government departments duringthe corporatisation process.

The amendments to the TransportInfrastructure Act facilitate Queensland Rail'sability to operate commercially. In particular, itclarifies Queensland Rail's ability to conductbusiness outside of Queensland and to operatetransport services more generally in addition torail transport services. In order to remove anydoubt about the nature and scope ofQueensland Rail's operations, the amendment isretrospective to the date of Queensland Rail'scorporatisation, on 1 July 1995.

All GOCs have been notified of theproposed amendments. The Local GovernmentAssociation of Queensland and the BrisbaneCity Council have also been consulted andsupport the amendments to the LocalGovernment Act.

I commend the Bill to the House.Debate, on motion of Mr Hamill, adjourned.

REVENUE LAWS (RECIPROCALPOWERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. J. M. SHELDON (Caloundra—Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for TheArts) (11.40 a.m.), by leave, without notice: Imove—

"That leave be granted to bring in a Billfor an Act to amend the Revenue Laws(Reciprocal Powers) Act 1988."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Mrs Sheldon, read a first time.

Second Reading


"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."The Revenue Laws (Reciprocal Powers)

Amendment Bill 1998 has its origins in a decisionhanded down by the High Court on 5 August1997 which invalidated the New South Wales

tobacco licence fee legislation as an excise. Thatdecision also cast doubt over all franchise feelegislation. Therefore, to protect the States' andTerritories' liquor, fuel and tobacco licence feerevenues and following a unanimous requestfrom all jurisdictions, the Commonwealth agreedto put in place safety net arrangements to protectthe already inadequate own source revenueswhich those licence fees would haverepresented. These safety net arrangementsresulted in the imposition of customs and exciseduty and wholesale sales tax surcharges on fuel,liquor and tobacco.

As the Commonwealth must impose taxesuniformly, the safety net arrangements wouldhave resulted in Queenslanders paying a Statefuel tax for the first time. Therefore, to ensurethat fuel prices did not rise in Queensland as aresult of the safety net arrangements, thecoalition Government enacted the Fuel SubsidyAct 1997 to provide a legislative basis for thepayment of subsidies to ensure thatQueenslanders continue to enjoy the advantageof the Government's "no fuel tax" commitment.

The 8.1c per litre subsidy payable inQueensland is significantly higher than thatapplying across any other jurisdiction. As a result,there will be some unscrupulous operators whowill seek to take advantage of any opportunitiesfor abuse that may exist by purchasing fuel at thesubsidised price in Queensland and thentransporting it interstate for resale at a substantialprofit. To ensure that this type of activity isproperly addressed, one of the key componentsof the subsidy scheme is a robust investigationand enforcement regime to ensure that licencesare issued and subsidies are paid only to thosewho are entitled to them.

It is not possible for the QueenslandParliament to provide these powers outside theState. Rather, it is necessary for the Parliamentsof the jurisdictions in which the Queenslandrelated investigation is to be conducted toprovide the necessary powers of investigation.For the same reason, Queensland would needto provide similar powers to allow investigationsin Queensland for the purposes of interstate fuelsubsidy legislation.

Arrangements similar to those required forfuel subsidy investigations already exist under anational reciprocal powers scheme whichfacilitates information sharing and interstateinvestigations for the purposes of revenue laws.In Queensland, the Revenue Laws (ReciprocalPowers) Act 1988 establishes the framework forthese reciprocal arrangements. This scheme iswell established and understood by alljurisdictions and would provide an appropriatebasis for similar arrangements for fuel subsidy

4 Mar 1998 Civil Justice Reform Bill 135

legislation. However, the reciprocal powersarrangements are limited to revenue laws and,therefore, cannot be used to allow interstate fuelsubsidy investigations without amendment tothe reciprocal powers legislation. For this reason,I have asked the Treasurers of the other Statesand Territories which will be enacting fuelsubsidy legislation to progress the necessaryamendments to their reciprocal powers laws toextend their operation to fuel subsidy legislationgenerally and Queensland's Fuel Subsidy Act1997 specifically.

Given the reciprocal nature of the interstateinvestigation arrangements, it is also necessaryto amend Queensland's Revenue Laws(Reciprocal Powers) Act 1988 to authorise otherjurisdictions to conduct investigations inQueensland in relation to their own fuel subsidylegislation. The Revenue Laws (ReciprocalPowers) Amendment Bill 1998 achieves thisobjective. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Hamill, adjourned.

CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM BILL

Hon. D. E. BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—Attorney-General and Minister for Justice)(11.44 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in a Billfor an Act to enable the making of uniformcivil procedure rules for the Supreme Court,District Court and Magistrates Courts and forcertain related reforms to the civil jurisdictionof those courts, to reform the law regulatingthe relationship between solicitors andclients concerning fees and costs, toestablish a single Small Claims Tribunal, andfor other purposes."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Mr Beanland, read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon. D. E. BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—Attorney-General and Minister for Justice)(11.45 a.m.): I move—


The preparation of uniform court rules forQueensland's courts was a promise of thisGovernment before the last general election,and this Bill emphatically restates theGovernment's resolve in this matter. The Billallows for the introduction of simplified rules,

which will allow people easier and cheaperaccess to our justice system.

This Bill addresses a number of matters thatwill improve and enhance the efficiency of thecivil justice system in Queensland. Firstly, andmost importantly, it provides for the making ofuniform civil procedure rules for the SupremeCourt, the District Court and the MagistratesCourts in Queensland. Secondly, it introduces amore relevant and consumer oriented approachto the law regulating solicitors' fees and costs.Finally, it provides an opportunity to improveaccess to the Small Claims Tribunal, particularly inrelation to residential tenancy disputes. Thecurrent Supreme Court Rules have beensubstantially unchanged for nearly a century.

This Bill also establishes a rules committee,consisting of members of the judiciaryrepresenting the three courts, with the ChiefJustice of Queensland or his nominee acting aschairperson. The judiciary will retain control of therules. Under the former Government'slegislation, all subordinate legislation, includingcourt rules, automatically comes to an end after aspecified period. Unfortunately, when I tookoffice I found that no start had been made inpreparing new rules to commence after theautomatic expiry of the current rules.

As Attorney-General I have had prepareddraft uniform rules which have been widelycirculated for consultation. These rules will notonly fill the void created by the expiry of thecurrent rules, but bring unprecedentedsimplification and reform to the practices andprocedures of our courts. The extension of thecurrent rules until 31 December this year willensure that the feedback from an extensiveconsultation process will be incorporated,making sure the new uniform civil procedurerules truly address the needs of the people ofQueensland.

As I have indicated, without this extensionto the operation of the existing rules, the courtsystem will be left without any rules, or with newrules that cannot adequately be considered bythe judiciary in the limited time before theexpiration date for existing rules. This would bean unsatisfactory situation. In addition, the ChiefJustice has told me that it is his hope andexpectation that the new rules committee, whichcan and will be established as soon as this Bill isassented to, will be in a position to finalise andimplement an appropriate set of uniform courtrules before the end of the year. The ChiefJustice has told me that he has every reasonableconfidence that this will occur.

As I have noted, the uniform civil procedurerules are part of this Government's policypromoted before the last general election. The

136 Civil Justice Reform Bill 4 Mar 1998

development of a draft set of uniform civilprocedure rules was the culmination of the mostextensive public consultation process ever seenin Queensland about our civil justice system. Itresulted in excess of 70 detailed and valuablesubmissions being received. The developmentof uniform civil procedure rules for the courts is aunique project in Australia.

Although law reform and access to justiceare often talked about and measures towardsthese goals sometimes introduced, there hasnot been any attempt to simplify and streamlinecourt procedures in the common law world to thisextent since the fusion of the administration oflaw and equity by the judicature Acts of lastcentury. These rules will simplify the proceduresfor commencing proceedings, provide for casemanagement, and encourage the earlyresolution of disputes and timely hearings. Theextent of the simplification can be seen in thereduction from over 700 forms currentlyprescribed for use across the three courts toabout 70.

The new uniform civil procedure rules madeas a result of these changes will be a significantsimplification of court procedures in civil mattersin Queensland, resulting in reduced costs tothose using the court system and a benefit tobusinesses who need to use the courts toresolve commercial disputes. The Queenslanduniform civil procedure rules will be amongst themost modern and streamlined in the common lawworld. Work is well under way on new criminalpractice rules as well. This Bill will also facilitatethe making of those rules. They will better reflectmodern court practice and will streamline theoperation of the criminal jurisdiction of our courts.

In keeping with the goal of streamliningprocedures and reducing costs to litigants, thedraft uniform civil procedure rules that werecirculated for consultation raised the possibility ofnon-contentious work and practice matters beinghandled by registrars. As a consequence of thesupport for the concept of giving appropriatelyqualified independent persons some of themore routine and non-contentious work, thusfreeing up the judges' time for hearings andwriting judgments, this Bill establishes thepositions of judicial registrars.

The Bill provides for the appointment ofpersons holding qualifications equivalent to theminimum standard required for the judiciary.These persons are to be appointed by theGovernor in Council and can only be removed bythe Governor in Council for proven incapacity ormisbehaviour. The conditions of appointmentare also to be determined by the Governor inCouncil, as the judicial registrars are not publicservants and are independent in the

performance of any judicial or quasi-judicialfunctions. The extent of the jurisdiction of thejudicial registrars will be within the control of thecourts by means of the new rules, ensuring thatonly appropriate matters are dealt with by them.Additionally, a person dissatisfied with a decisionof a judicial registrar may have it reheard by ajudge with leave on such conditions as the judgebelieves appropriate.

Judicial registrars were introduced into theFederal court system with quite extensivepowers, particularly in important areas dealingwith access and custody arrangements ofchildren in matrimonial disputes. With theintroduction of more extensive casemanagement and simplified procedures, thecreation of these new judicial registrar positionswill provide an opportunity to better resource thecourts and also allow for the more effective useof current judicial resources.

The uniform civil procedure rules, whenadopted, will contain new rules about theassessment of costs to replace the current ruleswhich are confusing and not suitable for themodern world. As a consequence this has alsoprovided, as indicated previously, an opportunityto review the legislation dealing with the costspayable by solicitors' clients.

The production of the uniform rules hasbeen the work of many dedicated andexperienced professionals. Mr Bernard Cairns ofthe University of Queensland Law School andleading Australian author in the field of civilprocedure has been a consultant to the project.In addition, the rules are extensively based upona draft set of rules prepared by a Supreme Courtworking committee chaired by the HonourableJustice Williams, which reported in 1991. Thatcommittee was set up in 1983 by then ChiefJustice Sir Walter Campbell and hadrepresentatives from the Bar Association ofQueensland, the Queensland Law Society, theCrown Solicitor and the Supreme Court Registry.Key provisions on enforcement have beendrafted by Professor Stephen Parker and hisstaff at Griffith University. Mr Stephen Colbran,Senior Lecturer, School of Law, QueenslandUniversity of Technology, contributed to therules about security for costs. Some aspects ofthe uniform civil procedure rules come fromproposals by the Litigation Reform Commission,which had commenced to develop a scheme ofuniform rules but had not advanced the projectsignificantly.

Finally, with respect to the introduction ofuniform civil procedure rules, the Bill provides aconsistent framework for all the courts. The Billprovides the foundations upon which theuniform civil procedure rules can be built.

4 Mar 1998 Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 137

I now turn to the other important reformsthat this Bill will achieve. This Bill will not onlyensure that litigation is less complex andexpensive, it will also provide a new consumerprotection regime with respect to the costs asolicitor can charge a client. Balanced with this isa freeing up of the market when it comes tobusiness and hence publicly listed companiesand Governments are excluded from the regime.This will ensure that appropriate feearrangements can be negotiated with respect tocomplex business transactions and litigation andthat consumer protection legislation does notpose an unnecessary burden in large businesstransactions discouraging the development ofnecessary expertise in such complex areas.These changes will allow greater competition,resulting in a better deal for Queenslanders.

Under these new arrangements solicitorswill be required to enter into "client agreements"with their clients and provide extensiveconsumer information ensuring that the clientmakes an informed choice before engaging thesolicitor. Once a client is billed, the client has anumber of avenues available to seek redress ifhe or she believes the charges are excessive ornot in keeping with the agreement. For example,if the client believes the charges are excessivebut calculated in keeping with the terms of theagreement, the client can refer the matter to theSolicitors Complaints Tribunal and have the billassessed by a qualified assessor. If the bill isreduced by more than 20%, the client will nothave to pay for the assessment, and this will bepaid for by the solicitor. If either party to anassessment is dissatisfied, the matter can bereferred to the court with appropriate jurisdiction.The court will have wide powers in casesinvolving a client agreement, including the abilityto appoint an assessor. In keeping with coalitionpolicy, this Bill specifically prohibits any form ofcontingency fee arrangements. This will protectthe consumer from abuses that have occurredelsewhere. In introducing these importantreforms to the law about solicitors' fees, thisGovernment is taking action where itspredecessor was afraid to act. The people ofQueensland deserve better than that.

The coalition Government recognises theimportance of the Small Claims Tribunals in ourcivil justice system. This jurisdiction provides theordinary Queenslander with fast, simple and costeffective access to justice. These measures willhelp streamline this jurisdiction even further. Thechanges contained in this Bill will also help thesystem to more effectively deal with theenormous increase in workload created whenthe Residential Tenancies Act 1994 gavejurisdiction to these tribunals for disputesbetween landlords and tenants in this State. That

Act was passed with little consideration for theimpact on the tribunals.

This Bill creates within the magistracy theposition of tenancy claims administrator, devotedentirely to supervising this jurisdiction. Thisdedicated position will ensure that referees andregistry staff handling these types of mattersdevelop appropriate expertise and implementsystems to monitor and ensure the best use of allavailable resources. At present, there is in fact nosingle entity called "the Small Claims Tribunal".Instead, these tribunals may be constituted atMagistrates Court registries around the State.This Bill will establish a single entity, allowingeasier management and better coordination. Thetribunal will have two divisions, a tenancy divisionand a general division. The Bill also containsother reforms that will enhance the jurisdiction ofthat tribunal.

The Bill also deals with necessaryconsequential changes to various Acts,consistent with the introduction of uniform courtrules. These rules will include a new set ofprocedures for the enforcement of moneyjudgments. The system will be fairer for debtorsand more effective for creditors and this Bill willhelp to achieve that objective. This Bill achievesmajor, important and necessary changes to ourcivil justice system in areas that have, for toolong, been neglected. Queensland will have themost modern rules and the most effective andefficient civil system in Australia. This Bill willensure Queensland's justice system is ready forthe 21st century. I commend the Bill to theHouse.

Debate, on motion of Mr Foley, adjourned.

TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTUREAMENDMENT BILL

Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (WesternDowns—Minister for Environment) (11.57 a.m.),by leave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in a Billfor an Act to amend the TransportInfrastructure Act 1994."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Mr Littleproud, read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (WesternDowns—Minister for Environment) (11.58 a.m.): Imove—

138 Industrial Development Amendment Bill 4 Mar 1998


The objective of the Transport InfrastructureAmendment Bill is to validate all matters relatingto extractive industry dredging activitiesundertaken by dredgers operating in tidal waterswithin the port of Mackay during the years 1994to 1996 and in the tidal waters of the BrisbaneRiver during the years 1986 to 1997. On 1 July1994 the chief executive of the Department ofEnvironment became responsible for the issuingof all new permits for sand and gravel removal intidal waters throughout Queensland under theprovisions of the Marine Land Dredging By-laws1987. Prior to that date, permits were issued bythe various port authorities and the HarboursCorporation through by-laws enacted undersection 67 of the Harbours Act 1955. Permits inexistence at that time continued to apply untilthey expired.

However, in the case of the Mackay PortAuthority, the authority issued new permits todredgers on 1 July 1994 for periods up to 12months while in the case of the Port of BrisbaneAuthority—now the Port of BrisbaneCorporation—the authority did not issue formalpermits to operators prior to 1 July 1994, butallowed those holding permits on the BrisbaneRiver to continue operating on the basis of oldpermits originally issued to dredgers in March1986 by the director of the former Department ofHarbours and Marine. Those Brisbane Riverpermits had no expiry date but stated that theycontinue in force until cancelled. Some dredgerscontinued to operate in the Brisbane River after1 July 1994 on the basis of the old permits untilnew permits were issued to them under theMarine Land Dredging By-laws.

It is also relevant to note that the coalitionGovernment has delivered on an end toextractive dredging in the Brisbane reaches ofthe Brisbane River after years of inaction by theLabor Government. As Chairman of the BrisbaneRiver Management Group, which comprisesrepresentatives of State and local governments, Iam pleased that dredging will no longer beallowed after the end of this year. The lastdredging operation in the Brisbane reaches ofthe river had sought to continue until the year2001, but taking into account social andeconomic as well as environmental issues, it wasdecided that extractive dredging should end inthe river in December this year.

Returning to the legislation before us,dredgers also continued to operate in theMackay Port Authority area after the date ofexpiry of the port authority permits up until thetime new permits were issued by the chiefexecutive of the Department of Environment

under the Marine Land Dredging By-laws. Legaladvice has suggested that there is a doubt overthe validity of the permits under which dredgersoperated in each area. As a result there is a needto apply validating legislation to authorisedredging activities carried out in both areas atthat time and to ensure royalty/fee paymentswere collected lawfully. The Bill ensures thatdredging activities, during the periods I havereferred to earlier, at Mackay and in the BrisbaneRiver were undertaken on the basis of lawfulpermits and also ensures that royalties and feescollected for dredging at that time can be lawfullyretained. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Welford,adjourned.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTAMENDMENT BILL

Hon. B. W. DAVIDSON (Noosa—Minister for Tourism, Small Business andIndustry) (12 p.m.), by leave, without notice: Imove—

"That leave be granted to bring in a Billfor an Act to amend the IndustrialDevelopment Act 1963."

Motion agreed to.


Bill, on motion of Mr Davidson, read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon. B. W. DAVIDSON (Noosa—Minister for Tourism, Small Business andIndustry) (12.01 p.m.): I move—


The Industrial Development AmendmentBill is an important initiative designed to enhanceindustrial development in this State. The Billseeks to amend the Industrial Development Act1963 by removing redundant provisions, makingthe methods of dealing in industrial land moreefficient and streamlining the manner in whichassociated funds are handled.

The primary objective of the IndustrialDevelopment Act has been to enable thegranting of financial and certain other land-basedforms of assistance to industry in Queensland.There have been a number of amendments overthe legislation's lifetime to remedy anomalies thathave arisen. For example, the IndustriesAssistance Board was dissolved in 1986 byoperation of the Queensland IndustryDevelopment Corporation Act 1985. As a result,

4 Mar 1998 Architects Amendment Bill 139

the capacity to provide loans and loanguarantees under the Industrial DevelopmentAct has not been available since July 1986.

However, the relevant provisions remain inthe Act. Effectively, the Act currently providesthe legislative framework for my department'sland-based services set out in the IndustryLocation Scheme. The objective of the IndustryLocation Scheme is to ensure that business andindustry is encouraged to locate in Queenslandbecause appropriately zoned land andinfrastructure is available at a competitive cost.

Two key components of the scheme are thePlanning Unit and Property Services. ThePlanning Unit focuses on maximising thedevelopment of industrial land by the privatesector. These services ensure that localauthorities have provided for sufficient industrialland in their statutory planning schemes as wellas developing best practice guidelines forbusiness and industry land. The PropertyServices Group intervenes when a strategicplanning process fails to preserve land which isessential to future economic development orwhen private developers are not meeting theimmediate market needs for industrial land tosatisfy economic development requirements. Anexample is the provision of large sites for majorprojects.

The legislation has recently been reviewedto meet National Competition Policy obligationsand to ensure an appropriate legislativeframework is in place to underpin the recentcommercialisation of the Property ServicesGroup within my department. Accordingly, theprocedures and powers in the existing Act mustbe amended and streamlined to provide a moreefficient system for the provision of land forindustrial purposes.

I am pleased to report that there has beensignificant progress in maintaining a focusedpresence in industrial property. My departmentcontinues to address market gaps and strategicplanning failures, reducing the existing landportfolio and paying out the existing debt. Wehave reduced the number of industrial estatesfrom 68 to 41 and of those remaining, 10 containless than five lots. The outstanding debt of theEstates Maintenance Fund has been reducedfrom $71m in June 1993 to $8m in June 1997and should be paid out in full during this financialyear. We have eliminated the need forsupplementary payments of up to $10m whichhad previously been required from theConsolidated Revenue Fund to meet interestand redemption payments. Thanks to the soundfinancial management required by the coalitionGovernment, a dividend arrangement of some$3m per annum has already been put into effect.

The establishment of a commercialisedbusiness unit to deliver Property Services willcontinue to maximise returns to Government onthe Property Service assets which are valued ataround $320m. The commercialisation processwill also provide the levels of accountability in theuse of these assets which the public ofQueensland demands.

Whilst the majority of the amendments areaimed at cleaning up the Act and removingredundant provisions, there are a number ofimportant amendments which seek to—

clarify and increase the flexibility of mypowers as the corporation sole of theMinister for Industrial Development so thatthe powers adequately reflect the statedobjective and practices of the corporation;

provide an expanded definition of"industry" to reflect contemporary industrystructures and to enable the siting ofsupporting infrastructure, such asinformation technology; and

establish a revised Industrial EstatesConstruction Fund in accordance with theFinancial Administration and Audit Act 1977and remove the Estates Maintenance Fundto simplify financial systems and to increaseaccountability and transparency in theadministration of the corporation's funds.

It is my view that the adoption of theamendments to the Industrial Development Actby this House will result in a more efficient andeffective arrangement for the administration ofthe industrial estates in Queensland. Theseestates represent a sizeable Government assetand, through them, foster the development andexpansion of industry in this State.Consequently, it is essential that they bemanaged in the most efficient manner possible.That is what these amendments seek to achieve.I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Elder, adjourned.

ARCHITECTS AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. D. J. H. WATSON (Moggill—Minister for Public Works and Housing)(12.06 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in a Billfor an Act to amend the Architects Act1985."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Dr Watson, read a first time.

140 State Housing Amendment Bill 4 Mar 1998

Second ReadingHon. D. J. H. WATSON (Moggill—

Minister for Public Works and Housing) (12.07p.m.): I move—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."The registration of architects and the

practice of architecture are regulated inQueensland by the Architects Act 1985. TheBoard of Architects of Queensland is thestatutory body constituted under the Actcharged with the administration of thearchitectural profession. Disciplinary matters arecurrently heard by the board which comprises sixmembers of the architectural profession. The Actprovides that complaints against architects are tobe investigated, prosecuted and heard by theboard. It is arguable that this process does notprovide natural justice or procedural fairness onthe grounds that the board oversees not onlythe prosecution of disciplinary charges againstan architect but also the determination of guilt orotherwise of the architect and the imposition ofany penalty.

This Bill amends the disciplinary process tointroduce an independent panel, separate fromthe board, which will be responsible for hearingdisciplinary matters against architects. The panelis to be called the Architects Disciplinary Panel.The panel will consist of a pool of appropriatelyqualified persons including both lawyers andarchitects. The panel will be administered by achairperson, who is to be a lawyer appointed bythe Governor in Council. The chairperson willselect, from a pool of qualified persons, onelawyer and two architects to hear a particularproceeding. The board will continue toinvestigate and prosecute architects whoseconduct has been the subject of a complaint.The power of investigators is refined andupdated in the Bill. The introduction of the Architects DisciplinaryPanel is to ensure that architects who are thesubject of complaint are afforded natural justiceand procedural fairness in the conduct ofdisciplinary matters. I commend this Bill to theHouse.

Debate, on motion of Mr Schwarten,adjourned.

STATE HOUSING AMENDMENT BILLHon. D. J. H. WATSON (Moggill—

Minister for Public Works and Housing)(12.09 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in a Billfor an Act to amend the State Housing Act1945."Motion agreed to.


Bill, on motion of Dr Watson, read a first time.

Second ReadingHon. D. J. H. WATSON (Moggill—

Minister for Public Works and Housing)(12.09 p.m.): I move—


The State Housing Act 1945 establishesthe Queensland Housing Commission (QHC)through which the State delivers its publichousing services. These include assistance withhome purchase, public rental housing andcommunity housing.

The State Housing Regulation 1986 has tobe remade before 30 June 1998 because it willexpire on that date. The Statutory InstrumentsAct 1992 provides for the automatic expiry ofsubordinate legislation if it is 10 years old on thatdate.

The provisions of the State Housing Act1945 that deal with regulations predate theStatutory Instruments Act 1992 and theLegislative Standards Act 1992 which establishthe framework and procedure under whichsubordinate legislation (Orders in Council andregulations) is now made.

The Bill amends the State Housing Act1945 to ensure that it is consistent with theframework for making subordinate legislation andthe fundamental legislative principles.

The Bill—

removes the requirement for the terms andconditions of certain types of commercialtransactions the QHC enters into, includingcontracts for the sale of land and residentialtenancy agreements, to be in a regulation.These matters are appropriately addressedin the contracts the QHC enters into withpurchasers and tenants;

updates the regulation-making provisions inthe Act so that they accord with the currentframework for making subordinatelegislation and the fundamental legislativeprinciples. This involves—

ensuring all of the matters that are to beincluded in a regulation are properlyauthorised by the State Housing Act1945;

ensuring that regulations cannot bemade to alter the application ofprovisions of the Act; andremoving or amending redundantprovisions that deal with how Orders in

4 Mar 1998 Universities Bills 141

Council and regulations are to bemade; and

re-enacting provisions that arecurrently contained in the StateHousing Regulation 1986 that dealwith the potential inconsistenciesbetween the State Housing Act 1945and the Residential Tenancies Act1994 in the way that each applies topublic housing tenants. This is toensure that public housing tenantsenjoy the full benefits and protectionoffered by the Residential TenanciesAct 1994.

I commend this Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Mackenroth,adjourned.

CENTRAL QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITYBILL

GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY BILLQUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF

TECHNOLOGY BILLUNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND BILL

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERNQUEENSLAND BILL

Second Reading (Cognate Debate)

Resumed from 3 March (see p. 102).

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga)(12.12 p.m.): Universities are not just ivorytowers, remote and apart from the life of thecommunity. They play a vital role in theintellectual and artistic life of our community andthey contribute to the public debate on issues ofjustice. In addressing these Bills I wish to touchon certain aspects of arts and law that concernuniversities in Queensland. The contribution ofthe universities to the artistic life of our State isvery significant. It includes the study of musicand film at Griffith University and, of course, thestudy of dance at the Queensland University ofTechnology and fine arts at QueenslandUniversity.

During this debate I want to focus attentionon the importance of regional universities and, inparticular, the Central Queensland University andits contribution to music. Most in Brisbane knowof the fine work of the QueenslandConservatorium of Music on the South Bank, butI wish to draw the attention of the Parliament tothe fine work that is undertaken by the CentralQueensland Conservatorium of Music at Mackay.That facility makes an important contribution tothe musical and artistic life of regionalQueensland.

However, I regret to say that theachievements of the Central Queensland

Conservatorium of Music are made not becauseof but in spite of the accommodation in which it ishoused. The conservatorium is housed intemporary accommodation and it desperatelyneeds a permanent home. For some time theCentral Queensland Conservatorium of Musichas had discussions with the Mackay City Councilwith a view to establishing a permanent homenext to the Mackay Entertainment Centre. Thesynergy of such a proposal is very attractive. TheMackay Entertainment Centre provides anopportunity for local artists and musicians toparticipate in the life of the local community. Lastyear I had great pleasure in attending the festivalat Mackay with the member for Mackay andobserving first-hand the way in which studentsand staff at the Central QueenslandConservatorium of Music participated in thatfestival. The use of the entertainment centre togive the local community such wonderfulexperiences is to be commended.

For this reason, the Labor Oppositionentered into discussions with the Mackay CityCouncil and the Central Queensland Universityto try to ensure that something is done about thisproblem because, sad to say, it is not beingaddressed by the current Government. It is alongstanding practice for State Governments toassist in the provision of infrastructure foruniversities. It is not good enough simply to saythat this is a Commonwealth responsibility andpass the buck.

Accordingly, the Labor Opposition hasmade a commitment that an incoming BeattieLabor Government will work closely with theMackay City Council and the Central QueenslandUniversity to secure an appropriate andpermanent home for the Conservatorium ofMusic in Mackay. It is contemplated that it wouldbe located next to the Mackay EntertainmentCentre, hence the cooperation of the MackayCity Council is of the utmost importance. In thisrespect, I pay tribute to the member for Mackay,Mr Tim Mulherin.

Mr Bredhauer: A staunch advocate.Mr FOLEY: Indeed, as the member for

Cook says, he has been a staunch advocate ofthe Mackay region and, in particular, of the loversof art and music in Mackay. As a result of hisenergy and enthusiasm, that commitment hasbeen forthcoming from the Opposition.However, as with a number of Labor's initiatives,we would be delighted if the Government wereto match our commitment and take actionimmediately to make these initiatives come tofruition as soon as possible.

The arts and music are not merely for thewinter palaces of the capital city. The arts andmusic are part and parcel of everyday life of

142 Universities Bills 4 Mar 1998

Queenslanders throughout the length andbreadth of this diverse State. It is significant thatbodies such as the Central QueenslandConservatorium of Music go into the marketplaceof ideas and, indeed, into the commercialmarketplace.

I was greatly impressed by the employmentservice offered by the Central QueenslandConservatorium of Music for its students, whichassists them to get employment in the music andfilm industries and to take up other arts andentertainment opportunities. I believe this is all tothe good. I am reminded of the words of thegreat Irish poet William Butler Yeats when he saidof singing schools: nor is their singing school butdevoted to monuments of its own magnificence.I think what Yeats was trying to tell us is that thelove of poetry, art and music is something whichcan become isolating unless it reaches out intothe community and joins with the community ininteraction. I believe that that is exactly what theCentral Queensland Conservatorium of Music isattempting to do, and I urge the Government tomatch the commitment of the Labor Oppositionand to take action to help it achieve itspermanent home.

On 14 October 1997, to announce Labor'scommitment I attended a ceremony outside theMackay Entertainment Centre together with theMackay Mayor, Councillor Julie Boyd; the Vice-Chancellor of the Central Queensland University,Professor Lachlan Chipman; the head of theConservatorium of Music, Associate ProfessorHelen Lancaster; and the member for Mackay,Tim Mulherin. We are pleased to work with suchbodies in support of good ideas such as this onewhich contribute to the growth of education andthe arts in the regions.

Let me turn to the study of law. I note thatuniversities in this State contribute greatly to thestudy of law and business, whether it be atJames Cook University in the north of the State,the Queensland University of Technology, theUniversity of Queensland, Griffith University, orindeed at the Central Queensland University.The students of law at those universities areobliged to acquaint themselves with the historyof jurisprudence in the common law and with theconstitutional foundations of the Westminstersystem.

Therefore, it is a matter of real concern tostudents of law that the constitutionalfoundations of this State have been so shakenby the extraordinary turn of events that we haveseen. Today is the 196th day on whichQueensland has had to endure an Attorney-General who does not have the confidence ofthe Parliament and hence the independencenecessary for the proper administration of

justice. One can imagine the students ofjurisprudence from around the world scratchingtheir heads at just what Queensland universitystudents must study when they study theWestminster doctrines of representative andresponsible government, namely, that ofMinisters being required to have the confidenceof the Parliament. I wish them well in their studiesat these universities, because they live, as wedo, in interesting times when an Attorney-General, the first law officer of the Crown, maythumb his nose at a resolution of the Parliament.

Similarly, these students live and study thelaw at a time when Queensland alone amongcommon law jurisdictions has had a royalcommission struck down on the grounds ofpolitical bias. This is a novelty in the law. It is anextraordinary turn of events and one which mustcause students of law to be greatly puzzled.

Similarly, these students must scratch theirheads when they study their constitutional lawtomes and learn that the doctrine of Cabinetconfidentiality is a cornerstone of goodgovernment in the Westminster system, and yetthe Premier blithely ignores that convention andtables in this House a Cabinet document fromthe previous Government. That callous disregardfor Westminster convention by the Premier ofthe State is something which must causestudents of law to be greatly puzzled as to what isthe proper approach to be followed.

It is disturbing for students of law to note therepeated attacks on the highest court in the land,the High Court, by the Premier of this State. Itgoes without saying that the integrity of thatcourt is fundamental to public confidence in theadministration of justice. Accordingly, therepeated attacks by the Premier on the HighCourt are worrying for students of law. This is anincreasingly desperate Premier willing to doanything to cling to power. He does not hesitateto attack the integrity of the High Court. He doesnot hesitate to breach Westminster conventionsby tabling the Cabinet document of a previousGovernment. He does not hesitate to nobble theCarruthers inquiry into the conduct of himselfand Police Minister Cooper by setting up thepolitically biased Connolly/Ryan commission, thatcommission which created jurisprudential historyby self-destructing as a result of political bias.Truly the students of law in this State should beable to aspire to a better system of constitutionalaffairs than the one into which this Governmenthas plunged them.

Sunday will mark the 200th day of shame forthe Queensland Parliament. Sunday will mark the200th day that Queensland has had to endurean Attorney-General who lacks the confidence ofthis Parliament and——


Mr Bredhauer interjected. Mr FOLEY: I note the observation of the

member for Cook that it is in fact a bicentennialeffort, but one indeed that is a cause for greatshame rather than a cause for anything else.

In the interests of the jurisprudence of thisState, in the interests of good government and,not least of all, in the interests of those studentsof law at Queensland universities, there is onesimple message to be delivered, and that is thatAttorney-General Beanland must go. If there is tobe any decency and public confidence in theinstitution of the Parliament and in theadministration of justice, Attorney-GeneralBeanland must go.

Hon. J. P. ELDER (Capalaba—DeputyLeader of the Opposition) (12.28 p.m.): I wouldjust like to make a short contribution to thisdebate. If universities are the citadels of ourlearning system, then our primary schools are thecradles, and we need to foster the type ofapproach that is taken at universities. Universitiesare non-graded in their approach; they are multi-level in their disciplines; and they are multi-agedin their concept. It is a concept that we shouldfoster and encourage in Queensland.

The events that I want to touch on todayhave been embarrassing for this Governmentindeed. They have taken place at one of the onlymulti-aged State schools, that is, Kimberley ParkState School. They deal principally with theprincipal of that school, Mr Paul Thomson. Thematter was brought to my attention by the formermember for Redlands, John Budd, and theschool community. John is someone who hasalways kept in touch with what is happening inthat electorate, unlike his successor andtemporary member. The school principal, MrThomson, was threatened—I know there hasnow been a resolution of this—with the fact thathe would be demoted to assistant principal andtransferred to another school for allegedbreaches of the education code in this State. Aspokesperson for Education Queensland hasdenied that—and I witnessed this—any decisionhad been reached in relation to Mr Thomson'scase as the decision was pending his responseto the allegations that were raised against him.

That is not true. It was not true at the timeand it was not true at the time he went public onSunday. I personally read a copy of the letterfrom Mark Kilner, Director of OrganisationalDevelopment in which, for the information of theMinister, he stated that he had recommended tothe director-general, Mr Peach, that MrThomson's classification level be reduced toassistant principal. That letter further stated thathe had also recommended that Mr Thomson betransferred to another school at that level. What

kind of natural justice is that? That was thedecision going to the Minister's director-general.That decision going to the CEO was for ademotion and transfer at level.

An honourable member interjected.

Mr ELDER: I think I can hear the memberfor Springwood making a contribution to thedebate.

Mr Woolmer: No.Mr ELDER: I would not think so, either. He

has been pretty silent on it, even in his ownelectorate.

This is the kind of justice that one comes toexpect in Queensland: a judge handing downthe sentence even though the jury has notdecided on a person's innocence or guilt. That iswhat has happened in this case. I would say thatit is the worst case of bureaucratic bastardry that Ihave seen in some time.

What was Mr Thomson guilty of? Here is thepoint: what was Paul Thomson at Kimberley Parkguilty of? According to the report—the reportthat the Minister is on about—two departmentalofficers who visited the school on 3 November1997 said that his main crime was the promotionof material relating to the establishment of aprivate high school. We all know the involvementof Paul but, more importantly, the board inrelation to the establishment of a multi-aged highschool. However, it is interesting that he wasfound guilty of that since, if one goes to anyState school throughout Queensland and looksin its foyer, one will find promotional material fromprivate high schools and State high schools. Infact, if one goes to the Education Department'sweb site, one can obtain pages of its promotionalmaterial relating to every private school inQueensland. That is why I have referred to this inparticular as bureaucratic bastardry.

Reading a copy of the report, I also found itinteresting that the two officers wereundoubtedly miffed about the fact that, althoughthey arrived at the school at 9.10 a.m., MrThomson continued holding interviews withparents. The report notes that they were not ableto speak to him until 9.41 a.m. precisely. What anerve! What a hide! Fancy school principalshaving the effrontery to put parents and childrenbefore departmental officers! The effrontery of itall! I have to say that he has been treated veryshabbily by the department in relation to this. I donot propose to go through it in any great detailtoday, but I certainly will in the ensuing months inthe electorate of Redlands and in the electorateof Springwood because various aspects of thiscase really deserve a public airing.

Kimberley Park parents believe that theyhave a very genuine—it is general in one case


but it is very genuine in others—grievanceagainst the department because they are beingcontinually thwarted in their attempts to set upand form a multi-aged high school, either State orprivate, for the continuance of their children'seducation. The principal, Mr Paul Thomson, hashad even less natural justice from thedepartment's officers. Finally, I would like to saythat the performance of the member forSpringwood and the member for Redlands inbeing absent from the field and not fronting theP & C in terms——

Mr WOOLMER: I rise to a point of order. Ifind that offensive and untrue and I ask that it bewithdrawn. Never have I been invited——

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Laming):Order! The honourable member has asked for itto be withdrawn.

Mr ELDER: If he finds it offensive I willwithdraw it. The simple fact is that he has neverfronted the school. A number of parents haveraised the issue with me.

Mr WOOLMER: I rise to a point of order.The school and the parents at the school havenever invited me——

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am notdebating the matter. Do you find the remarksoffensive?

Mr WOOLMER: Yes, I do. I ask that theybe withdrawn because they are untrue.

Mr ELDER: I withdraw them and challengethe member to state in Parliament that he hasnever been contacted by a parent at the schoolin relation to this matter. I challenge him to do it. Iwill give him my time. I challenge him to stand upand take a point of order on me.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is nota point of order. The member for Capalaba willcontinue his speech.

Mr ELDER: The honourable memberopposite will have an opportunity in this debateat a later time to stand on his feet and deny thefact that he has been contacted by the parents ofthat school in relation to this particular matter. Ichallenge him to take the time of the Parliamentto refute me in this debate. He should take thetime because he and the member for Redlandshave not been at the forefront in relation to this. Ichallenge both of them to get on their feet andprove me wrong.

Mr Hegarty: You wouldn't know.

Mr ELDER: I know. I have been to theschool; I have been to the school community; Ihave spoken to the P & C; and I have spoken tothe principal. I know exactly how much themember for Redlands has done in relation to thisand the role that he has played. The parents of

that school will wait until a little later this year—inabout two months' time—to prove their respectfor him at the ballot box in relation to the role thathe has played here, which has been zilch,nought, nothing. If he wants to take a chance inthis debate, by all means he should do so.

Mr Mitchell interjected.

Mr ELDER: If the Whip would like me toget back to the Bill, I will certainly do that. As I wassaying, universities are important in terms of themulti-age concept. We see two members ofParliament—both the member for Springwoodand the member for Redlands—showing theirtotal disregard for this school community, theirtotal disregard for the concept and their totaldisregard for the principal.

Mr WOOLMER: I rise to a point of order.That is untrue, offensive and I ask that it bewithdrawn. At no stage has the school beenneglected. Every single approach has beenwelcomely received.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Themember for Springwood will resume his seat.The member finds the remark offensive.

Mr ELDER: Remarks I made about him?What remarks did I make about him that he findsoffensive? I made a general remark about theschool. I am asking the member whatremarks——

Mr WOOLMER: I rise to a point of order. Ihave asked that the honourable member forCapalaba withdraw the last remark he made that I,as the member for Springwood, have not doneanything in relation to this and have refused tosee parents. The truth of it is that every singlerepresentation to me has been——

Mr ELDER: Ignored.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The memberhas asked for the withdrawal of that particularremark.

Mr ELDER: I will withdraw the remark, buthe is right; every single approach to him hasbeen ignored.

Mr WOOLMER: Mr Deputy Speaker, I riseto a point of order. I find that offensive anduntrue, and once again I ask that you stop thismember from telling untruths.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There isno point of order. The member for Springwoodwill resume his seat. I ask the member forCapalaba to please return to the substance ofthe Bill.

Mr ELDER: The school community will notlet it rest. Both John Budd and I have spoken tothe P & C. The P & C will be watching this mattervery closely from this point onwards to ensure


that no action is taken against this principal at alater date once the Minister believes that theheat has been taken out of the debate.

Mr WELFORD (Everton) (12.38 p.m.): Iam pleased to join in this debate on theuniversity education Bills. I would like to speaktoday about academic institutions and their role,the relationship which Governments have tothese academic institutions and the roles ofacademics within them. Academic institutionsplay a central role in information flow in ourmodern industrial society. They are centres ofcreativity, centres of analysis and centres ofsocial criticism and social analysis. They arecentres of teaching, knowledge, excellence andresearch, and their staff play an extremelyimportant role. In authoritarian societies, such asmilitary dictatorships, suppression of dissidentviews is standard policy. In some of thosecountries repression extends to torture,imprisonment and murder. These sorts of violentmeans of smashing dissent are essentially asupplement to routine suppression such as firingdissidents from Government employment orcensoring the media.

Today I would like to reveal how this StateGovernment and, very sadly, the Minister forEducation are involved in intellectualsuppression in Queensland of a type that I havenever witnessed in the past and which I considerto be not only unethical but grosslyimproper—indeed, disgraceful. It has beenreported to me that academics at universities inQueensland have had their performance putunder greater scrutiny, their academicappointments subjected to review, and theyhave been cut off from associations withuniversities because of political interference inthe university and the management of staff.

Today I will give evidence of specificexamples of where this has occurred. The firstexample concerns Dr Hugh Spencer, aconservation biologist and director of the CapeTribulation Tropical Research Station. In the late1980s Dr Spencer was requested by JamesCook University to establish his research station.He has published widely and he has conductedthe Cape Tribulation Research Station for anumber of years. He was regarded as anhonorary research associate of the university. Hewas not necessarily paid by the university butwas allowed, under the umbrella of theuniversity, to conduct his research, apply forAustralian Research Council grants and tosupervise students. He has dutifully performedhis supervision work as a researcher.

I understand that recently certain people,through the Minister for Education, havecontacted the university and exerted subtle

pressure on that institution to review the positionof Dr Spencer. In particular——

Mr QUINN: I rise to a point of order. I findthis totally offensive. I have no knowledge of theevents that the member is describing. This istotally out of the blue. I find the whole thingoffensive, quite frankly, and I ask that it bewithdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! TheMinister finds those remarks offensive and asksthat they be withdrawn.

Mr WELFORD: The Minister is premature;he should wait and hear the further evidence.But I withdraw. You are a sensitive lot, aren't you?Will the Minister deny that he has beencontacted by Mr Des Howard who resides in theDaintree area?

Mr Quinn: I have no knowledge of thatperson at all. I have never even spoken to theman.

Mr WELFORD: Has the Minister neverspoken to the man?

Mr Quinn: No.

Mr WELFORD: Will the Minister deny thathis office has been contacted by Mr or MrsHoward, real estate agents in the Daintree,complaining about Dr Spencer's activities inagitating against the installation of power lines inthe Daintree area? My understanding is thatsomeone from the Minister's office has been incontact with the university, complaining about DrSpencer's activities. As a result of this, DrSpencer has been cut loose by the university.His role with the university has been terminatedand he now has no access to the universitylibrary. The research he undertook inconservation biology, namely assessing thediversity and existence of species in the Daintreeregion, required the use of laboratories at theuniversity. In the past Dr Spencer had access tothose laboratories, but that access has now beenwithdrawn. I regard this as totally unsatisfactory.

Dr Spencer has obtained a grant from theDepartment of Environment to researchautomatic radio tracking systems. This involvestracking the paths and the range of animals in theDaintree region. This is a major project which isjeopardised by the withdrawal of his access tothe university. I call on the Minister to reassurethis Parliament and to advise the university thatunder no circumstances should it in any wayjeopardise the role of Dr Spencer as a result ofany contact with any person complaining aboutthe doctor's activities in relation to environmentalprotection in the Daintree.

Fortunately, the university has nowdeveloped a very strong policy to protect its


academics. However, I wish to refer to the case ofDavid Haig, the academic who has agitated overthe Port Hinchinbrook project. The Minister mayor may not agree with Dr Spencer and he may ormay not agree with the opinions of Mr David Haigin relation to Port Hinchinbrook. Mr Haig hasbeen put under enormous pressure in his role asa senior lecturer on environmental law in theDepartment of Law at the James Cook Universityas a result of his activities in raising concernsabout the environmental impact of the PortHinchinbrook project at Cardwell.

It seems to me that the Government has notplayed fair in these circumstances. It also seemsto me that academics such as Mr Haig should notbe put under this type of exceptional and undueinfluence and scrutiny in circumstancesdesigned to curtail or inhibit their public activities,even as private citizens, and to curtail theircomments as intellectuals in public debate.

Another example concerns Tony Preen,the dugong researcher, who has beencommenting on the risk to dugongs along theQueensland coastline. People have complainedto the university and attempted to have theuniversity discipline Mr Preen for his outspokenpublic comments in the debate on theconservation of the dugong. I am pleased to say,however, that to the best of my knowledge theuniversity has not acquiesced to these attemptsat influence in the case of Dr Haig and Dr Preen.However, it is clear that this Government willstand idly by and allow this sort of pressure tooccur. This conduct is entirely unacceptable.The Minister should advise James CookUniversity and other universities that under nocircumstances should the academic freedom orindependence of intellectual activity bethreatened or jeopardised just becausemembers of the National Party or the LiberalParty—or indeed any other party—or membersof a Minister's office happen to contact theuniversity querying the activities of particularacademics in relation to their public comments onenvironmental issues.

Two elements of suppression of intellectualdissent are the key to this situation. The firstelement is where a person, or perhaps a group,by their research, their public statements, theirteaching or other activities, threaten the vestedinterests of elites in corporations, Government,professions or some other area. The secondelement is that an attempt is made by a powerfulindividual or group, including a Governmentbureaucracy, to inhibit or penalise a person oractivity which is found objectionable. They maybe denied funds for their work or research, theirappointments to tenure or advancement mightbe blocked, their access to publications may be

inhibited, or they may be otherwise generallyblacklisted and harassed. There could beattempts to smear their reputations.

The three people to whom I have referredhave come under what I would regard—and whatthey certainly regard—as undue and exceptionalscrutiny and pressure as a result of their publiccomments which have been critical ofGovernment policy in the last six months.

Only this morning I was alerted to the factthat similar incidents of pressure beingapplied—not only on independent academicsbut on Government staff—are occurring inrelation to the development of the Dawson Riverdam project in the Taroom area. This is entirelyunacceptable. If the Minister or his staff areinvolved in contacting universities in this way,then it should never occur, and the universitiesshould be made aware that they should never,ever acquiesce to this sort of pressure to muzzleacademics who are engaged in legitimate privateor—even in their professional capacity—publiccomment on issues of public importance.

This is worse than the worst days of theBjelke-Petersen police State. We have Ministersor their officers ringing university administratorscomplaining about individual academic staff andencouraging people on university councils toagitate against the academics concerned. ForMinisters or their staff to be contactinguniversities and pressuring them to take someform of unspecified action against individual stafffor speaking out is utterly unacceptable anddemonstrates the Government's determinationto suppress free speech.

This Borbidge Government cannot copdissenting opinion from independent expertsand has set out to muzzle any committed citizenswho are seeking to protect our environment forfuture generations. As if the Premier's attacks onthe High Court, the Anti-DiscriminationCommissioner, the Director of PublicProsecutions, the CJC and commissionerCarruthers were not enough, now theGovernment is behind disgraceful recentattempts to threaten university staff and penaliseuniversities which have the temerity to scrutinisethe Government's appalling environmentalrecord.

So far I have obtained an assurance fromthe vice-chancellor of the James Cook Universitythat they do respect academic freedom andintellectual independence at that university. Itrust that remains the case. I trust also that thecircumstances surrounding Dr Spencer and theother people I have mentioned will not be borneout. However, I call on the universities—not justthe James Cook University, but all theuniversities of Queensland—to resist this


disgraceful interference in their independenceand the academic freedom of their teaching andresearch staff.

Instead of suppressing comment on issuesof public interest, we should be encouragingacademic staff with valuable skills and knowledgeto come down out of their ivory towers and leadcommunity debate about important issues,including issues which affect our environment.The universities are not places that should belocked up with people doing arcane researchinto irrelevant issues. They are places wherelegitimate analysis of social philosophy, publicpolicy and Government decision making shouldbe undertaken, and the academics who have thetime, energy, skills and knowledge to conductthis research should be encouraged to comeinto the public arena and lead debate andcommunity discussion about these kinds ofissues.

The appearance of Governmentinterference in the rights of university academicsto undertake this sort of thing is a very, verydisturbing trend by a Government which isincreasingly unpopular all over Queensland. Onewonders whether the attacks by the Premier onindependent institutions are setting an examplefor his Ministers, who also appear to bedescending into this disgracefully unethicalbehaviour of exerting undue influence in a waydesigned to muzzle legitimate public debate.This is a matter of great concern. This Parliamentshould rise in its voice to put a stop to itregardless of what Ministers and whatGovernment is in power and what example thePremier might set.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN (Caboolture)(12.53 p.m.): I join the debate today to speakfirstly in relation to issues surrounding the needfor a university campus to serve the area that Irepresent and the adjacent areas. An exercisewas conducted some time ago in which a newcampus was to be developed in Queensland,and the Caboolture community was amongstthose communities that actually bid to host thatcampus. On that occasion we were notsuccessful. However, our aspirations have notgone away. At a future date, there will be newcampuses of new universities in Queensland,and we hope that we will be able to acquire oneof those.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge yourown interest in the Sunshine Coast UniversityCollege campus and have read with interest ofthe machinations in relation to that campus inrecent months. While many would say that thatcampus might serve the needs of the people inmy community, it simply does not. There is no

public transport opportunity for students fromthe Caboolture area to access that campus. Infact, for people in Caboolture who want to attenda university, the only really easy campuses toattend are those at Bracken Ridge and GardensPoint, adjacent to this complex, because thepublic transport provided through QueenslandRail brings students very close to their frontdoors.

For people wanting to attend otheruniversities, it would appear that there is anadditional problem. Although I do not receive agreat number of representations from youngpeople in the community in relation to Austudy, itwould appear from what I have been able togather that Austudy will not pay living away fromhome allowances to students from theCaboolture area.

Earlier this year there was comment in thenewspapers about the numbers of students whohave nominated to attend universities this yearand the reasons that there may be for that. I donot want to enter into those reasons, but let mesay this: last year, from one of the high schools inmy electorate, the Caboolture High School, 80%of the students who applied for university weremade an offer, but only 50% of those—and I amtalking in round terms now, not exactfigures—only 50% of that 80% actually acceptedan offer. I do not believe that that is goodenough in this day and age. If one happens, as amember of Parliament, to find oneself on aselection panel for people to work in thiscomplex—in the committee system, forexample—one finds that there seems to be thisidea that, in order to get a job in this place, aperson needs not one but two degrees. Auniversity qualification is becoming almost theminimum qualification to get a decent job—notthat the jobs that some of the universities wouldtalk about are not decent.

In the last couple of days, statistical profileslanded on members' desks in this complex. I wasmost interested in one of those particularstatistics, which were done for us by the ElectoralCommissioner. I refer to the percentage ofpeople living within electorates who havedegrees or diplomas. I note that in my electoratethe figure is 7.4%. I also note that, in theadjoining electorate of Kallangur, represented bymy colleague Ken Hayward, the percentage is7.42% and, in the other adjoining electorate ofMurrumba, represented by my colleague DeanWells, the percentage of people with a degree ordiploma is 6.15%. In terms of the 89 electoratesin Queensland, those three electorates rank78th, 79th and 87th in terms of the number ofpeople who have university or tertiaryqualifications.


Mr Lucas: That doesn't take into accountbush lawyers.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I acknowledge theinterjection of my friend the member for Lytton,who said that that does not take into accountbush lawyers. However, I assure him that bushlawyership does not get one very far in the jobmarket these days.

Mr Lucas interjected.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I am a latter-daybush lawyer. I was something else when I arrivedhere.

Mr Tanti: You outshine him on theScrutiny of Legislation Committee.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I know that is true.However, let me return to the plight of youngpeople in my area.

The Caboolture electorate and theKallangur electorate particularly represent one ofthe fastest growing areas in this country. I do notbelieve that there is any doubt about that. Inrecent times, with the release of the 1996census statistics, there was a mad rush by theCourier-Mail, Channel 10 and Channel 9 toestablish bureaus in Caboolture, whereaspreviously they had not accepted that it existed.

Caboolture is a major area, and we do have apathetically low level of tertiary qualificationamongst our people. I believe that this creates asocial situation in which our students do not growup with the expectation that they might grow upwith if they lived in the electorate of the Attorney-General, where 35% of people have tertiaryqualifications. They do not grow up inhouseholds where the expectation is that theywill attend university. I believe that we need toestablish a university in my area in order toarrange for those people to be able to attenduniversity quite easily.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Before theluncheon adjournment I was discussing thedifficulty that young people from my area have inaccessing the universities that are available topeople in south-east Queensland. I will concludethat issue by saying that I will be continuing topush the barrow for our local area in terms of auniversity campus. I believe that there is aninterim measure that is possible for thisGovernment, be it the coalition Government thatwe have now or the Labor Government that willcome into power very shortly as a consequenceof the State election that we have to have thisyear. I would like to pursue that issue. Ioccasionally find myself out of bed in the earlyhours of the morning. I notice on television at

that time of day that programs are run by theOpen Learning Institute. Honourable memberswould be aware that people can sign up to docourses with the Open Learning Institute.

Mr Lucas: I am not saying anything.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: The member forLytton is not saying anything.

Via that means, people can obtain alegitimate qualification. There are rules as towhich institution provides that qualificationdepending on the proportion of the units thatone does that are provided by the institutions.That seems very fair and equitable. People donot need entry qualifications but do pay fees.

Mr Lucas: And that is very important. Thesubject offerings are impressive.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: The subjectofferings of the Open Learning Institute are veryimpressive. I believe that we can do nothingother than regard them as legitimatequalifications. They are not some mickey mousequalifications. It seems to me that, unless peopleare well equipped, it is a little difficult to accessopen learning programs. Over the next threeyears, I will pursue the establishment of an openlearning education centre within my electorate asan interim measure, while we await the universitythat I hope will come in time. Perhaps that issomething that the Minister's department couldbe considering. I do not think that it is terriblyresource intensive in terms of the EducationDepartment's involvement. It certainly seems tome that it could be resource intensive andbeyond the reach of a number of people in myarea given its socioeconomic make-up.

Mr Lucas: That is a very excellentsuggestion from a hardworking member who wellrepresents his electorate.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I cannot doanything other than to accept that interjection inits entirety and make no more comment.

In an earlier contribution, we heard themember for Everton discussing what heperceived may be attempts to suppressintellectual freedom in this State. Of course, theMinister denied knowledge of that. At an earliertime today, I attempted to raise in this place—andhad my attempt truncated—issues relating towhat I believe to be a misleading of this House bythe Education Minister. At this point, I would liketo continue to outline the case that I was makingthis morning. Honourable members willremember that I quoted the words that theMinister said in this House on 19 September1996 in relation to a grant of money to LifeEducation Centre Queensland FoundationIncorporated. Those words were these—


"The funding is provided to half fund, ifyou like, the salaries of teachers who workwithin that particular program."

I then went on to attempt to indicate to theParliament—and it was at this stage that I was satdown this morning—just what the Minister statedin a letter to me explaining why that had nothappened. The Minister's letter of October lastyear had attached to it a report. That reportstates—

"It appears that, based on numerouspolitical statements, Mr Sullivan has anexpectation that 50% of the funds will bespent on teachers' salaries."

That is not so. Let me say it quite clearly: myexpectation was and still is that 50% of the grantmoneys to life education would be spent onteachers' salaries based on what the Minister toldParliament. Perhaps I have had a naiveexpectation that the Borbidge/SheldonGovernment would observe the proprieties andconventions of Westminster government,particularly as the Premier had promised that thestandards of parliamentary behaviour wouldincrease should he come to power. As standardsin this place continue to spiral downward, we allknow what has happened to that promise.

Mr Bredhauer: Yesterday's was ashocker.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Yesterday was areal shocker. The Minister has not told thisParliament the truth. The conventions dictatewhat he should pay for that. He has alsoattempted to represent what he told thisParliament as nothing more than a politicalstatement. In my mind, there is no place inQueensland political life for someone whopromotes such a repugnant proposition that astatement to an Estimates committee—acommittee of this Parliament—in relation to how adepartment will spend money that has beenvoted to it by this Parliament is nothing more thana political statement. I believe that, if the Premierhad the slightest intention of raising thestandards of parliamentary and ministerialbehaviour, he would be observing theconventions and asking for this Minister'sresignation immediately. I have no doubt that thatwill not happen. I feel that the Minister is secure.What really does trouble me is that the Ministerwould forward to me a report from his departmentthat purports to relegate his words in this place tonothing more than a political statement. I thinkthat, at the very least, he ought to apologise.What he told this Parliament the funds were forwas not how they were used. He has nowbecome implicated in an attempt to cover up that.I know that the Minister and I both have some

personal involvement with that organisation atdifferent ends.

Mr Quinn: I have had no personalinvolvement.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: We do not want totalk about where they belong.

Mr Quinn: They are in the electorate. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: We do not want to

talk about——

Mr Quinn: There is no personalinvolvement, not like yours.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: The Minister says Ihave a personal involvement. I shall explain thatto the Parliament. I am quite happy to do so. Ihave done so before.

Mr Quinn: It is a massive conflict ofinterest.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: It is not a massiveconflict of interest at all. On 25 June last, Iresigned as a member of the Life EducationAssociation of Caboolture.

Mr FitzGerald: What does this have to dowith the university Bills?

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: The Leader ofGovernment Business speaks. I am so pleasedthat he did, because I sat here this morninglistening while Mrs Gamin, Mr Tanti and theGovernment Whip all asked: what's this got to dowith universities? Mr Deputy Speaker, Irecommend that, in your position, you shouldrun a training course for members opposite inrelation to what is and is not permissible in asecond-reading debate. Members oppositewould be aware—or if they are not aware, shouldbe made aware—that the second-readingdebate is a wide-ranging debate.

Mr FitzGerald: That means universitiesgenerally.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: No, it is a wide-ranging debate. A debate about universities is adebate about the education portfolio. That iswhat I am doing.

The member for Lockyer made no suchcomment when an earlier speaker strayed intothe area of 200 days of shame of the Attorney-General, which might reasonably be presumed tobe outside the scope of this debate. However, Iam talking about education, I am talking about theperson who has his hands on the levers of theEducation Department and who I do believeought not to have his hands on the levers of theEducation Department.

During this debate, there has beenevidence of a lack of understanding by membersopposite of what is and what is not permissible ina second-reading debate. Personally, I am quite


happy for us to revert to the old system of havingfirst-reading debates. I reckon that I would have alot more fun in a first-reading debate than I haveever been able to have in a second-readingdebate. I must say to members opposite also thatI know——

Mr FitzGerald: Why don't you fill up yourtime and pad it out a bit.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I am making aserious point. When I was a Governmentmember, Opposition members made very gooduse of the fact that second-reading debates canbe wide ranging.

Mr FitzGerald: Fill your time up.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: The Minister isquite happy; at the moment I am not having a goat him. Government members ought tounderstand what second-reading debates arebecause, in only a few more months, they will beback in Opposition.

Before I referred to that matter, the Ministermade some claims about me having a conflict ofinterest. I indicated that in June of last year I hadresigned from the association of which my wife isthe chairman. If the Minister thinks that a localmember of Parliament, who represents anorganisation that is located in his electorate andwhich has had its share of a State Governmentgrant thieved from it by a rascal who operates anorganisation from the Minister's electorate andwho the Minister calls a friend, has a conflict ofinterest, then the Minister has no understandingof the job of a local member. That money wasdesigned by the Minister to assist theorganisation of which my wife is the chairpersonand that thieving mongrel in the Minister'selectorate decided not to pass it on. I think thatthe Minister has aided and assisted him in that tothe very point at which his department says thatwhat the Minister has told this Parliament isnothing more than a political statement.

The Minister must tell this Parliament thetruth. That is one of the basic premises of ourform of Government. He has not done that. Hehas tried to cover it up. He ought to be ashamedof himself. He ought to apologise to thisParliament. The Minister ought to go back to hisdepartment and smack a few backsides because,in my view, those people have placed him in avery invidious situation.

This is just another example of the spirallingstandards opposite. The Minister does notunderstand. The coalition does not deserve tobe in office. Ministerial and parliamentarystandards are the smoking gun pointing at theGovernment when it decides to take this State toan election.

Mr LUCAS (Lytton) (2.43 p.m.): Thisdebate covers all of the public universities inQueensland, with the exception of James CookUniversity as legislation relating to that universitywas enacted last year. The Bills largelymodernise and streamline the administration andconduct of universities in this State.

It is worth noting that the Bills do not effect,it would appear, any major policy changes.However, I believe that a number of importantobservations that are of interest to members andthe community ought to be made. The firstobservation relates to university funding. Asmembers would probably know, most universityfunding is Commonwealth funding. We in thiscountry have the quite peculiar situation inwhich, essentially, the States administeruniversities but the funding for them comes fromthe Commonwealth in the form of tied grants.

It must be a very great embarrassment formembers opposite to sit in this place when theirFederal coalition colleagues have presided overthe destruction of the university system in thiscountry. They have attacked a university systemthat allowed everybody access to universitiesregardless of personal financial wealth. I am oneof those people whose mother or father neverhad the opportunity to go to university. None ofmy predecessors ever had the opportunity to goto university. I was lucky enough to go because Ibenefited from a university system that allowedentry on the basis of merit. However, as a resultof Federal Government policies we are seeing atwo-class university system: one system for thepeople who can get into university on merit bypassing the competitive entry test, and anothersystem for the indolent kids of the rich who,through their families, can afford to pay universityfees so that they can get an education that otherpeople in the community cannot get. I think thatis a very, very sad situation in this country.

Mr Harper: What did Dawkins do about it?Mr LUCAS: What did Mr Dawkins do about

it? Labor allowed overseas fee-paying students,which was a very great export earner for thiscountry, but it did not allow full fee-paying localstudents because it did not want to have asystem whereby how much money a student'smum or dad had in the bank determined whetheror not that student was entitled to become alawyer.

Mr Bredhauer: Dawkins didn't cut $500mout of the budget for higher education in twoyears, which is what Costello has done.

Mr LUCAS: Exactly. That is the signal thatthe members opposite are sending to tertiaryeducation students. They want to retain the old-school system under which a student's mum or


dad had to be a lawyer if he or she wanted to be alawyer, or if a student wanted to be a doctor, hisor her mum or dad had to be a doctor. I can tellmembers opposite now that that is not a systemthat we on this side of the House will evertolerate.

The other issue that I want to speak about isa matter of which, no doubt, many members ofthis Chamber are aware, and that is studentunions. This Bill does not alter the position inrelation to student unions. It maintains the statusquo, which is compulsory student unionism inour State. That is a system that is supported bythe overwhelming majority of universityadministrations in this State and, indeed, in thiscountry. There has to be a reason for that. Theydo not support it just for fun, they support itbecause the system works. The best way toprovide student services is through compulsorystudent unionism and student guilds.

I commend the Minister for not yielding tothose suited zealots in the Young Liberalmovement, who probably would have benefitedfrom full fee-paying entry to universities, whowant the tertiary education system to experimentwith their weird and wonderful ideologies at theexpense of students.

Why does the current student unionismsystem work in this State? The first point is thatalthough a number of the organisations arecalled student unions, in reality they are guildsand, in a number of places, they are called guilds.They provide services to students at theuniversity. Indeed, section 30 of the currentUniversity of Queensland Act, which thislegislation repeals, specifically precluded theuniversity and its constituent bodies such as thestudent union from applying funds for politicalpurposes. They could not do it by law. Certainly,when I was the treasurer of the University ofQueensland Union, the union was very carefulnot to apply funds for political purposes. Ofcourse, that is quite appropriate because thefunds are paid compulsorily by students. That iswhy the student unions are not political, becausethey have to provide those student services.They concentrate their time and effort on issuessuch as food and refectories, sports, clubs,movie theatres, student advocacy and the like.

Another point to be made about studentunions is that they are democratic. Indeed, unlikea university administration, one can vote astudent union in and out of office. It is veryinteresting to note that, at a number of universitycampuses—particularly the larger ones such asthe University of Queensland and QUT—therehas been an even flow of people in office. Sinceleaving university, I have noted that there havebeen student union administrations composed

of a lot of people from the Liberal Party,administrations composed of a lot of people fromthe National Party and administrations composedof a lot of people from the Labor Party but,predominantly, administrations composed of a lotof people from no political party, just studentswho are interested in providing a better deal fortheir fellow students.

Mr Harper: You don't really believe that.

Mr LUCAS: Well may the member forMount Ommaney say that, because he is castingaspersions on his colleague and friend theMinister for Public Works and Housing who, likemyself, is a former treasurer of the University ofQueensland Union, albeit a few years before me.

Dr Watson: And an excellent one who setthe thing up right.

Mr LUCAS: I am sure that the Minister dida good job and I am sure that he has views basedon his experience at the coalface. He now hasthe opportunity to look at the issue in that light,which is better than the experience that a lot ofother members who are taking part in this politicaldebate on student unionism can claim.

As I said before, it is a furphy and a totalmyth that only Labor people are involved instudent unions. Of course such people areinvolved, but not to the exclusion of all others.One only has to look at people from theMinister's party such as Peter Costello andMichael Huston, who was a former President ofthe Guild of the University of Western Australia.He was a Crichton-Browne acolyte who wasknocked off in the Senate pre-selection when hedecided not to back Crichton-Browne, butCrichton-Browne had a voice from the grave anddid him in. Plenty of people on the other side ofpolitics have been involved in student unions.Indeed, the National Party candidate forCaboolture for the next election, Peter Lacey,was involved in the student union at the sametime as I was, as was Thomas Bradley who wasthe National Party candidate for Longman.Although they are political opponents of mine,they also saw the importance of the role ofstudent unions and they were from theconservative side of the fence.

My experience in relation to student unionswas not only as an official of a student union butalso as a solicitor who later worked for a numberof student unions. I found it most interesting thatconservative, Labor and independent studentunion people all approached their jobs withmaturity and with the best interests of students atheart. There was one exception, which wasVictoria Brazil's year at the University ofQueensland. With the exception of that year,people were not motivated by a desire to run


around on mad political frolics. Indeed, theworkload required at the University ofQueensland Union, which has over 20,000students and a turnover in the many millions ofdollars, was such that one did not have time toinvolve oneself in politics. One had to spend allone's time worrying about issues such as themeal prices at the refectory, whether theSchonell Theatre was making a profit, which areall a part of the control of student affairs.

I say to those people who suggest that weshould have a different system, what they callvoluntary student unionism, that there are noalternatives that are logical or sensible. Even themember for Keppel recognised that and wasprepared to go on the public record. I hope thatwe do not see voluntary student unionismlegislation before this Chamber. However, if wedo, I look forward with great delight to seeing themember for Keppel place his moral principles onthe line to vote with the Opposition against anysuch ridiculously flawed legislation that might beput up. Again I commend the Minister forrefusing to yield to such temptations at this point.

Of course, one of the reasons thatuniversities support compulsory studentunionism is that they do not want to provide theservices that the unions provide. They know thatif student unions did not provide food and assistwith employment services, welfare services andlegal services, the universities would end uphaving to do it. They would still have tocompulsorily collect money and the same issueswould arise. However, the students would nolonger have a say, because the universitieswould be running everything. Universities haverun a mile from any suggestion that they becomeinvolved in student unionism. It is very importantthat we realise that the stakeholders in thisdebate are united in their views. Therefore, evenif student unions were gutted tomorrow, a bodywould have to be put in their place that would berun by either universities or another group ofelected students with compulsory funding.

Another issue that those who favourvoluntary student unionism should remember isthat if one separates the student unions butaccepts that its services still have to beprovided—and I presume that even the mostblinkered ideologues on the conservative side ofthe fence accept that as a proposition—anothervoluntary organisation of a student-representative council nature would still berequired. Of course, it would be free of theburden of being responsible to all students whopay fees. It would be accountable only to thosewho voluntarily pay fees and it would have a rolethat involved not the provision of services butpolitical activism only. Indeed, that will buy more

political agitation than one would ever havedreamt of under the current arrangement. Underthe current arrangement, student union officialsspend their time doing what they should bedoing, which is delivering services to students,and not engaging in political frolics. Therefore, ifthe Government succumbs to redneck policies,they will end up biting it where it hurts. One onlyneeds to look at campuses in Victoria and NewSouth Wales that have student representativecouncils separate from unions and guilds to seeclassic examples of that.

It is important that I place on the recordsome of the many roles that student unions playon university campuses such as advocacy forstudents within the university, the provision ofcheap, quality meals, the provision of stationeryand books, and the promotion of social clubs andsporting clubs. Of course, institutions such asthe University of Queensland's Sports andPhysical Recreation Association provide fantasticgrounds which are so important as we come tothe 2000 Olympics, as are intervarsitycompetitions, which for many sports provide thebackbone of Australian teams and are aneducational cradle in the sporting area. Studentunions provide accommodation, employmentservices, legal services and countless otherservices for students and they support culturaland social clubs. Student unions are not at allperfect, but neither are universities or theDepartment of Education. They are a fairly goodrepresentative method of allowing students tocontrol their affairs.

My experience is that, by and large, studentunions and guilds run by students, regardless oftheir political affiliations, are run in the bestinterests of the students, and that can only becommended. Indeed, when I was working as asolicitor for a number of student unions, studentunion officials of all politicalpersuasions—because I did try to representthem in an unbiased manner—impressed mewith their commitment to the provision of studentservices. With the exception of one unionadministration, which I have mentioned, Icommend them all for that.

Another aspect of concern in relationspecifically to the University of Queensland Bill isthe election of convocation members to theuniversity Senate. The Senate is the governingbody of the university and convocation is a bodythat is composed of current students, academicstaff of the university and, overwhelmingly innumbers, graduates of the university. Forexample, the Minister for Public Works andHousing is a member for the convocation of theUniversity of Queensland and no doubt heexercises his mind in that respect on the


appropriate occasions. It is vital for universityadministration that convocation representativesare a part of the university. It is very much aunique part of the university administration thatthere is a substantial representation ofgraduates, because they have an interest in thefuture of the university. They have an interest inensuring that the high standards of the past areupheld and often they are the guardians ofacademic and intellectual independence.Therefore, it is very important to see thatconvocation members are elected in the bestpossible manner.

In the past, most universities sent a postalballot to all of their graduates giving them achance to vote in convocation elections, and thatis how it should be. As it currently stands, the Billcould allow a university to ask a different group,namely a committee of convocation, to nominateits representatives. That would not bedemocratic. I understand my colleague theshadow Minister for Education will be moving aclarifying amendment so that it is beyond ashadow of a doubt that they must be elected. AsI understand it, the University of Queensland iscompletely happy with that proposal. It is morethan happy to continue with the past systemwhereby the members of convocation areelected.

In conclusion, this is largely a machinery Bill,but I have made a number of importantobservations on it. I seriously commend theMinister for not succumbing to silliness when itcomes to voluntary student unionism. No doubthe looked at the pros and cons, talked to theuniversities and was not influenced by theextremists and the zealots in the Young Liberalmovement. He worked out what was in the bestinterests of the students of this State and cameup with one conclusion, the only conclusion thathe could come up with, that student unions intheir current form should remain.

Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (2.59 p.m.):Last week in Bundaberg we had the privilege ofopening the library of the Central QueenslandUniversity. That was the second stage in thedevelopment of the Bundaberg campus of theCentral Queensland University. I was especiallyproud because that achievement was initiated bythe former Labor Government. If we did oneimportant thing in the six years we were on theGovernment benches, it was that we broughtuniversity education to provincial Queensland.We opened campuses at Bundaberg andinitiated others, for example, on the SunshineCoast, which is still trying to get going. We werealso involved in the provision of campuses atGladstone and Mackay. All of those campusesbrought tertiary education to provincialQueensland.

Yesterday, profiles of our electorates weregiven to us. Those profiles showed by electoratethe percentage of people with tertiaryqualifications. I was quite ashamed to learn thatonly about 6% of people in my electorate havetertiary qualifications. However, that trend wasthe same for most western and provincial areas ofQueensland. Putting it bluntly, we have beenundereducated, because our populations didnot have educational facilities.

Importantly, the children of Bundaberg,Gladstone and Mackay now do not have to travelto Brisbane or Townsville to get a tertiaryeducation. The lack of tertiary qualifications wasconcerning, but even more concerning was thefact that where we have lower levels of educationwe have higher levels of unemployment. That isthe real problem and consequence of notproviding those facilities in provincialQueensland.

We have the most decentralised State inAustralia. It was not until the Goss LaborGovernment got out there and started to providefacilities in those areas that we saw some equityin terms of education. A certain proportion of thepopulation will always be able to send their kidsaway for an education. However, a large majorityof people in provincial Queensland cannot affordthat. I graduated from the University ofQueensland at St Lucia, as did my two girls. Weare proud of that. However, I am even moreproud that my city now has a university campus.That adds extra breadth to the city. Importantly, itprovides a level of employment that we neverhad before.

I was very proud to be there when Bill Eatoncame to Bundaberg to look at the site oppositethe airport. He said to his departmental officers,"Yes, we'll provide that piece of Government landfor a university." When we provided that land andhalf the funding for the first building on thatcampus, the Federal Government came in andsaid, "We'll match that." To me, that is one of thekey decisions that has really done something forBundaberg.

It is all very well to talk about building policestations—and everybody is proud of our greatnew airconditioned police station—but I do notknow whether that gets the police back out onthe streets serving the public. However, I can tellmembers one thing: the university has enabledour young people to study in Bundaberg. Closeto 1,000 students not only from Bundaberg butalso from other areas of Queensland andAustralia are now studying in Bundaberg.

In respect of the new library, I believe that,although we all accept that this is not a Stateresponsibility, unless we are prepared todiversify industries—and I will call universities


industries—we will not get the level ofinvestment and development we should have.Education should be one of the easiestindustries to decentralise. For students studyingin areas such as Bundaberg, Gladstone andMackay, the costs associated with travel and soon are lower than they are for students who go toBrisbane to do their study. Do members realisefrom where some of the students have to travelto go to QUT? Have members ever thought ofthe costs in terms of time, accommodation andso on for parents? I believe we should be makingeven more efforts to take tertiary education intoprovincial areas.

We can often see why people say theybelong to a political party. We can also see, ifthey are a member of a progressive party,whether they achieve things. I will give Whitlamone thing—something that I suppose manypeople now believe in—and that is that he madeuniversity education free. The biggest mistakeour nation ever made was imposing tertiaryeducation fees. All the studies I have seen haveshown that the best return on any Governmentinvestment comes from education. Anyeconomic profile and criteria that we care to lookat indicate that we will get the best long-termreturn from education. This Government inparticular is not doing enough in that area. It hasnot kept up that investment in education,especially tertiary education.

Dr Watson interjected.

Mr CAMPBELL: I did not quite hear thatinterjection. However, I will take the fact that theMinister has interjected on me as a compliment,especially coming from an esteemed academicsuch as Dr Watson. I appreciate that.

Whitlam introduced preschools. Before thattime, they had not been thought of. They are stillhere and are now a great part of our wholecommunity.

Mr FitzGerald interjected.

Mr CAMPBELL: If the honourablemember goes back into history, he will find thatthey were introduced then. That was a greatachievement.

Mr FitzGerald: We had a preschool inGatton well before Whitlam.

Mr CAMPBELL: The member is talkingabout kindergartens.

We should also look at student unions. Ithank the Minister for taking the role he did inensuring that the fair burden of providingstudent facilities and services is spread among allstudents. That is the only way we can do that.The facilities provided at the QueenslandUniversity were there for all. Importantly, unless

we get a fair contribution from all students, thoseservices will not be able to be provided. Manystudents who are away from home are on a verylow income and they need a lot of the servicesthat the student unions provide. It is importantthat we ensure that those services are providedin an equitable and fair manner.

I hope that the Minister will continue thepast achievements of State Governments inrespect of providing universities, especially inprovincial areas. One of the most importantdecisions and actions of a Government to helpprovincial cities will be to provide good tertiaryeducation facilities. If we continue to providegood tertiary education facilities, that will improvethe fabric of our community and lessen theunemployment problem. I hope that workcontinues and that, in the future, the Bundabergcampus of the Central Queensland University willprosper to be a great university campus with agreat history of serving our region ofQueensland.

Mr HEGARTY (Redlands) (3.09 p.m.): It iswith pleasure that I rise to take part in the cognatedebate on the universities Bills. One of theuniversities, Griffith, has set up a new campus inLogan City which services my electorate. GriffithUniversity assumed responsibility for theprovision of higher education in the southerncorridor from Brisbane to the New South Walesborder in 1990 following its amalgamation withthe Gold Coast College of Advanced Education.At the time of the 1991 census, the populationof this corridor from Logan City to the border wassome 550,000 people, or some 18% of theState. It soon became clear that further highereducation provision would be required in thecorridor. By the year 2001, its population isforecast to exceed 780,000 people, or 21% ofthe State, and it is estimated to increase to 1million people by 2011, or 23% of the State.

Members who represent electorates in oraround this southern corridor would attest to thisgrowth from their experience of the addition ofnew electors on the electoral roll. GriffithUniversity's campus at Nathan is limited in itscapacity for major development, as is the GoldCoast campus. Moreover, given the rapid growthin the youth cohort concentrated in the LoganCity, Redlands and Beenleigh areas, it wasclearly more appropriate to develop a new majorcampus within the corridor rather than sustaindevelopment at the campus at its boundaries.

Agreement was reached with theCommonwealth in November 1994 for a jointCommonwealth/State/Griffith University workingparty to investigate and report on how bestadditional higher education provision should beaddressed in the corridor. This working party


reported in February 1995 and recommendedthat a new major campus should be establishedwithin the corridor itself rather than at itsextremities. The report was accepted by theCommonwealth for funding purposes.

This commonsense decision, which reflectsthe principles of integrated planning, will provideemployment, educational and other facilitieswithin the community or communities it isintended to service. A subsequentinterdepartmental working group investigatedpotential sites for a new campus and identified anarea of some 67 hectares of land, primarilyowned by Suncorp on Loganlea Road,Meadowbrook, as the best location for a newcampus. A number of factors, apart from theobvious availability of land, would have beenconsidered in making this decision.

Transport provision should be a majorconsideration in planning public facilities. In orderto best utilise public transport, it is vital to provideaccess to the site from as many areas aspossible. This is not only for the convenience ofthe students and staff, but also to relieve thepressure on the arterial and local road system byreducing the number of daily vehicle trips.Meadowbrook is adjacent to the Pacific Highwaycurrently being upgraded to a motorway. A localroad system also provides good access to thearea from several directions. The newlyextended Gold Coast rail line also runs past thissite. Recently, I interceded with the Departmentof Transport on behalf of the Logan City Councilto ensure that trains, some of which wereexpress from the Gold Coast, stopped at thestation near the Meadowbrook site, thusmaximising public transport access to thecampus from the southern end of the corridor.

Commonwealth funding of $24m and Statefunding of $12m was secured for the capitaldevelopment of the campus. The State alsoexpended $5.4m on the acquisition of the siteand the partial cost of an access road. The LoganCity Council also contributed significantly by wayof the provision of water and sewerage servicesand the significant upgrading of adjacent accessroads.

Five hundred students were accepted tocommence studies in 1998 and the campus isexpected to cater for 2,000 students by the year2000. I know that many students who currentlyattend the Nathan campus of Griffith Universitywill benefit from the location of this wellrecognised tertiary institution in this growth area.Present travel constraints make attendance atthe Nathan campus difficult for some studentswithout private transport. This fact, together withextended travel time, are impediments for

constituents in my electorate and adjoiningelectorates advancing their tertiary studies.

In my electorate I have five State and privatehigh schools and about 14 primary schools thatwill feed the Logan campus in the future.Kimberley Park State School, which thehonourable member for Capalaba referred toearlier today—although inappropriately—in hiscontribution to this debate, is one of thoseschools. Over the years that particular school hasenjoyed a high degree of success in its academicand other activities through its multi-age classsystem. For several years now that school hassought to have access to a high school that willprovide continuity for its students.

Since becoming the member for Redlands, Ihave provided support to the Kimberley Parkschool community as well as all of the otherschool communities within the electorate. In1996 the school endeavoured to establish aYear 7/8 class to bridge the transition to highschool. Unfortunately, this was unsuccessfulowing mainly to the fact that it was too late in theyear to enable preparations at the SpringwoodState High School, which had agreed to be partof the project. Last year the Kimberley Parkcommunity sought to obtain approval andfunding for non-State school status to establish aprivate college of its own. The approval processrequired certain information to be provided toEducation Queensland to assess the viability ofthe proposed college and also its curriculum tobe consistent with the actual regulationsgoverning education provision in Queensland.Unfortunately, the Kimberley college applicationwas unsuccessful in enabling the school tocommence this year.

During both 1996 and 1997, I was activelyinvolved in assisting the progress of theKimberley Park school community's desire foraccess to a multi-age high school suitable for itschildren. Despite the assertions of the memberfor Capalaba that I have done nothing, themajority of the school community wouldremember my past involvement with the schoolin endeavouring to progress its aim for somemulti-age high school facilities.

I would like to place on record my continuedsupport for that particular school community in itsendeavours to take whatever new steps it isgoing to take to achieve its aim. Unfortunately, Idid not receive an invitation to attend recentmeetings that have been called. However, as inthe past when meetings have been called, I havealways attended and given the point of view ofthe Education Department and pointed out thepracticalities in relation to the reality of what thecommunity is trying to achieve.


Mr Bredhauer: What are you going to doabout it?

Mr HEGARTY: Unlike the member forCapalaba and now the member for Cook, theshadow Education Minister, who is nowinterjecting——

Mr Bredhauer: I just want to know whatyou are going to do about it?

Mr HEGARTY: What is the memberopposite going to do about it?

Mr Bredhauer: He is your Minister.

Mr HEGARTY: What is the member goingto do about it? Is he going to sign a writtenagreement today with that school community toguarantee it a multi-age high school of its own tocommence as soon as his party comes toGovernment?

Mr Bredhauer: Just you stand by.

Mr HEGARTY: He is going to sign awritten agreement?

Mr Bredhauer: Just you stand by.

Mr HEGARTY: We will see. I warn theKimberley Park school community not to beseduced by the members opposite with theirhollow promises. That same Labor Party and thatsame candidate down there, who was its formermember for three years, still did not deliver amulti-age high school. Members opposite areagain making promises to that community, but itwill not fall into that trap again. It is the samecommunity that, in 1995, gave membersopposite a big slap across the wrist and turfedout the previous Labor member for Redlands. Heis the guy who is now going out there with hiscolleague the member for Capalaba andpromising the world.

Unfortunately for them, people out thereare smart; they remember what the Oppositiondid when in Government in 1992. It brought upthe toll road and it promised before the 1992election that it would scrap the toll road. Didn't itdo a backflip on that! Didn't the community makeit remember in 1995! I say to the member forCook that that school community is not going tofall into that trap again. As the shadow Minister forEducation, he should be taking a responsibleposition and telling that community the factsabout its expectations of a new LaborGovernment should he and his party befortunate enough to fall across the line in a fewmonths' time.

I would like to re-endorse my support for theschool community at Kimberley Park and itsprincipal, Mr Thomson, who is a very wellrespected educator in that community. He hasachieved significant results in the way he hasconducted that school during the period he has

been its principal. I will endeavour to assist thatschool community further now that the memberfor Capalaba has brought this to my attention. Iwill advance that cause for them as I have done inthe past. They will not do any better by way ofassurances or commitments from the Labor Partythan they did when they believed it prior to theState election in 1992.

Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy) (3.20 p.m.): It hasalready been made clear to the Parliament thatthe Opposition does not oppose the CentralQueensland University Bill, the Griffith UniversityBill, the Queensland University of TechnologyBill, the University of Queensland Bill and theUniversity of Southern Queensland Bill which arenow before the House. There will be nosignificant changes in the powers and functionsof universities and the Bill will help universities byreducing the administrative burden and allowingfor a smoother, more appropriate operation.

In joining the debate today I would like totake a few minutes to offer my support to theCentral Queensland University in its push for amedical school for northern Australia. In recentweeks some attention has been paid to thisissue by the media in Central Queensland. Anumber of State and Federal members ofParliament have commented on the issue.Claims have been made by James CookUniversity that it has already been given thegreen light to establish the medical school.

It will be expensive to establish a medicalschool and the ongoing costs will be significant.However, there are many people right across theCentral Queensland region who believe that, ifwe are to address the growing shortage ofdoctors who are prepared to set up practice inrural towns, we need to encourage and facilitatecountry Queenslanders into the medicalprofession. It is well recognised that country-trained doctors are more likely to stay in the bushbecause they know and understand country lifeand the lifestyle of people who choose to liveand work in rural areas.

Governments must acknowledge that thereis a need to establish a new medical trainingfacility in northern Australia to cater for thedemand for doctors and medical specialists inrural and regional areas. The Minister for Healthappears supportive of the need for a newmedical school in Queensland and is, in fact,pushing Townsville's James Cook University asthe site for this new school. However, there aremany who believe that Central QueenslandUniversity has a legitimate right to seek seriousconsideration as the site for any new medicaltraining facility in this State.

As the member for a large centralQueensland electorate, I am well aware of the


tremendous role that Central QueenslandUniversity is playing in the education of regionaland rural based students. Central QueenslandUniversity has come a long way since gaining fulluniversity status in 1991 and is now consideredto be one of the fastest growing and mostdynamic universities in regional Australia. Assuch, it clearly would have much to offer were itto be given serious consideration as the site for anew medical school.

In making any final recommendations on thisissue, it is important that the State and FederalGovernments consider the following: CentralQueensland University is now the largestuniversity in Australia north of Brisbane—larger,in fact, than James Cook University; it hasestablished a reputation as a true regionallyfocused university with central Queenslandcampuses in Rockhampton, Mackay,Bundaberg, Gladstone and Emerald; and it has astrong record of meeting the special needs ofstudents from tropical, rural and indigenouscommunities and, in turn, in providing skilledgraduates willing to work in these communities.

With the Fitzroy electorate encompassingnumerous small and isolated communities, I amkeenly aware of the difficulties being faced bysuch centres in attracting medical professionalsto central Queensland. A couple of communitiesin my electorate are finding it very difficult to getdoctors. The town of Dysart has one doctor. Thedoctor is the medical superintendent at thehospital and has the right to private practice andhe has to handle a population of 4,000 people.We just cannot get another doctor to come tothat community.

Rural and regional based members wouldbe well aware of the oversupply of doctors inmetropolitan areas and of the dramaticundersupply in rural and regional areas ofnorthern Australia. It is accepted that doctors aremore likely to serve in rural and regional areas ifthey can maintain an affinity with those areasduring their training and/or if they are drawn fromthis background.

The establishment of a new medical schoolin central Queensland would be of enormousbenefit in encouraging local students to undergotraining in the region and, after graduation, toremain locally. I believe Central QueenslandUniversity has what it takes to make such atraining facility a success.

According to the Monash Centre forPopulation Studies, CQU fares better thanJames Cook University in a range ofsocioeconomic indicators relevant to thedecision on where to locate the new medicalschool. Let me offer the following statistics:71.9% of Central Queensland University

students come from rural areas—this figure isalmost twice the rate of James Cook University at39.7%; 24.3% of CQU students come from a lowsocioeconomic background compared withJCU's ratio of 16.5%; 2.5% to 3% of CQUstudents are from a non-English-speakingbackground compared with 1.2% at JCU; CQUalso has a reasonably large proportion ofAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students—2.3%—although not as high as JCU, which has6.8%.

There are other factors which supportCentral Queensland University's case forconsideration. For instance, we must consider itsgrowth potential. CQU is Australia's fastest-growing university in terms of its proportion offederally funded growth places. CQU is now thelargest university in Australia north of Brisbane.CQU's enrolment now stands at more than13,000 students and represents an increase of1,600 students on last year's enrolment of11,420. CQU already has expertise in healthscience and biological science. Upgradedhospital facilities are needed to cater for growthin both Rockhampton and Mackay, which wouldbenefit a medical school.

With campuses in Rockhampton, Mackay,Gladstone, Bundaberg and Emerald, CQU islocated in five of Queensland's "hot spots" forgrowth and development, with a vast hinterlandof great potential prosperity and a desperatelocal shortage of both graduates and researchcapacity. CQU's campuses in Sydney,Melbourne and Brisbane—which opens in1998—are potential liaison points with capital citymedical infrastructure and personnel.

It has always been assumed that theTownsville campus of James Cook University wasthe obvious location for a tropical medical school.However, I believe it is now open to argumentthat one of the two tropical campuses of CQU,either Mackay or Rockhampton, is moreappropriate. At present, Federal Governmentpolicy is that Australia has more than enoughmedical graduates. However, the absence of atropical university medical school isacknowledged to be a weakness in the currentdistribution of medical education. A jointdevelopment involving both JCU and CQU, andpossibly even NTU in Darwin, would also beworth considering.

For the State Government and, in particular,the Minister for Health, to dismiss out of handCQU's claim for consideration strikes me asstrange. Given the factors I have outlined today, Iwould suggest the only reason why the Ministeris not prepared to enter into discussions withCQU is simply because he sees no politicalbenefit from such a move. In establishing a new


medical school in Townsville, the Governmentwould greatly bolster the chances of thestumbling member for Mundingburra at the nextState election.

If the Minister truly has the needs of ruraland regional Queenslanders at heart, he will dothe right thing and give serious consideration toCQU's interest in working, either individually orcollaboratively with other Queenslanduniversities, for the provision of a new medicalschool in central Queensland. In recent weekswe have heard a lot of debate about where apossible new medical school should be located. Ibelieve that Central Queensland can put forwarda good argument and I would encourage theMinisters involved to take a good look at whatthat region has to offer.

I would like to endorse the comments madeearlier in the debate by members on this side ofthe House relative to the attacks on theUniversity Students Union by the Treasurerearlier this year. Those attacks were unjustifiedand were an insult to the integrity of the electedstudents who are out there putting in the hardyards looking after the interests of theircolleagues. I have had a bit to do with thestudents' union in Rockhampton. The union ismore interested in making sure that the studentsobtain access to services; that they get fairtreatment; that they have access to legal advice;that they have access to Governmentdepartments; that they have assistance withconsumer issues——

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Child care.

Mr PEARCE: Child care; that is a goodone. The union is there to see that students arenot disadvantaged by the management of what isa big organisation. I regard their work as veryclose to the work that I do as a local member, andcertainly very close to the work that I did as aunion delegate. We are out there representingpeople, assisting them through difficult timesand assisting them through the bureaucraticjungle, whether it be at the university or withGovernment departments.

The feedback that I am getting fromstudents in Rockhampton is that the Treasurermade a complete fool and an idiot of herself. Herstatement angered the students who arededicated to working for those people in theuniversity who need somebody—their electedrepresentative—out there to assist them indealing with all those issues affecting youngpeople and others who are seeking aneducation. It is very disappointing to have such ahigh profile member of the Government attackingthose people who are doing an excellent job forthe people they represent.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORSMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Miss

Simpson): Order! I wish to acknowledge thepresence in the gallery of Mr Ji and Mr Zhu fromthe People's Republic of China and their group.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

CENTRAL QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITYBILL

GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY BILLQUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF

TECHNOLOGY BILLUNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND BILL

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERNQUEENSLAND BILL

Second Reading (Cognate Debate)

Resumed.

Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate) (3.31 p.m.):Although my electorate does not contain auniversity, I am fortunate that it has one of thelargest TAFE colleges in this State. We live in atime when no longer is it really enough for youngpeople to complete their schooling at Year 12,but they are encouraged to go on to either TAFEor university to further their studies. Obviouslythe pressures on those young people are everincreasing.

The issue that I wish to raise during thisdebate this afternoon is a bit of a hobbyhorse ofmine. When one visits universities and TAFEcolleges over the weekends, one seesuniversity students or students in tertiaryeducation centres utilising the resources ofthose institutions. They use libraries andcomputers, take advantage of certain study areasand so on. That practice is to be applauded andencouraged. The difficulty is that we cannottranslate that into secondary schools. It seems tome that, come 3 o'clock every afternoon, all wedo is lock up those facilities that students usethroughout the day. So basically, we havemillions and millions of dollars worth of resourcesand assets which are locked up every afternoon,and the students at those schools are notallowed to use them.

For students in secondary school, more andmore pressure is being placed on them to haveaccess to computers and current technology andinformation. Within my electorate, the families ofmany of those students simply cannot affordhome computers. I believe that it is incumbentupon us to ensure that students, particularlythose in high schools, have access to theirschool libraries, their school computers, othertypes of information and study areas—be it afterschool throughout the week or on weekends. Itis no longer good enough for us simply to lock


up those resources and, in some cases, to returnto the school on a Monday to find that thoseresources have been vandalised, destroyed orstolen.

Every time this issue is raised by me, itseems to be put into the too-hard basket by theDepartment of Education, and it comes up withvarious reasons why students and other peoplecannot use school facilities over weekends. Ibelieve that that is no longer good enough, andit is incumbent upon the Education Departmentto do something about this. This afternoon I amasking the Minister to conduct some sort ofinvestigation into how we can ensure thatstudents obtain access to those sorts of facilitiesover a weekend.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Am I right that if thestudents are there and it is being used, there isusually less vandalism from outsiders?

Mr NUTTALL: I suppose that is a by-product of being able to utilise those facilities. AsI said, most of the students within my electoratedo not come from families that can afford state-of-the-art computers. As we know, with the way thattechnology gallops along, every three or fouryears we have to upgrade our computers or thesoftware, and it simply becomes too expensivefor families to do that.

We have other facilities in schools, such assporting facilities, assembly halls and theatres.But for whatever reason, we say that they cannotbe used. Yes, there have been a couple of trialshere and there, but we really have not graspedthe nettle and said, "Look, we are going to openup our schools and learning centres and allowaccess to them so that they can be used." In thatway, a secondary school facility will be a hive ofactivity on a weekend, not a ghost town. Iencourage the Minister to get his department toinvestigate the possibility of really pushing thatalong. In my view, this is long overdue.

While I am speaking about education ingeneral—I have been pushing for some time,with a limited degree of success, for facilitieswithin certain schools in my electorate. Thedifficulty is that when one goes to schools andtalks to the P & Cs and the teachers and theparents, the realities of life are that we couldspend the whole State Budget on education,and I do not believe that even that would beenough. One can never spend enough moneyon education. As I point out to parents,Governments in general tend to spend about aquarter of the total State Budget on education. Ifwe were to increase taxes to increase resources,we know the consequences of that as politicians.The reality is that people would not be preparedto accept an increase in taxes, yet they wantimproved facilities in our schools.

I do not know what the easy answer to thisis, but it is an issue that we are simply going tohave to address. That is why I say that we need toutilise the resources of our schools in a far betterway than we have in the past. In my view, it issimply crazy to have two high schools within acouple of kilometres of each other, both withgreat libraries and heaps of computers, assemblyhalls and what have you; it is just duplication. I donot know what the easy answer is. Maybe wehave to turn some high schools into campuses ofother high schools, so that in one area they havecertain resources and in another area they haveother resources.

Within my electorate, one high school has astate-of-the-art home economics centre and theother high school, which is the bigger highschool, badly needs a new home economicscentre, and it is pushing for funding for thatcentre. It is crazy to duplicate such facilities. Howwe transport students from one school toanother I do not know. I do not want the Ministerto think that I am saying, "Come and do a trial inmy electorate." I want to make it really clear that Iam not encouraging that by any stretch of theimagination.

Within the whole issue of education andexpenditure is an ever-increasing problem interms of utilising money and resources. I believethat we need to do some more lateral thinking inthat regard. Recently, I was trying to get somefacilities for people in a swimming club who wereutilising a pool at one of the schools in myelectorate. People from Education came out andsaid, "Look, the P & C charges a rent, and theyshould be using that money to improve thefacilities at the pool." I said, "But what you don'tunderstand is that most of the people in theswimming club are the parents of the kids at theschool anyway. So you are robbing Peter to payPaul. It just does not work that way." I understandwhere the department is coming from, but therealities of life are that that approach simply doesnot work.

I encourage the Minister to focus on not justthe academic aspect but also the aspect ofsporting, recreational and theatrical facilities. Acouple of years ago, representatives of a theatregroup came to see me in relation to finding ahome for their theatre group. I visited the localhigh school, because I knew that it had anassembly hall, a stage and theatre lights. Isuggested that some cross-fertilisation couldoccur. The theatre group could draw on theschool students as a means of increasing themembership of the theatre group; the schoolcould benefit from the theatre group and itsexpertise when teaching the students moreabout theatre. However, that was too hard. For


the life of me, I cannot understand why wecannot address those issues. I encourage theMinister and his department to do what they canabout the issues that I have raised this afternoon.

Mr WOOLMER (Springwood) (3.40 p.m.):Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you very muchfor the opportunity to participate briefly in thisdebate. I also thank the Minister for theopportunity. I will start my discussion on the Billsby voicing my support for Griffith Universitywhich, through a number of campuses at Nathan,the Gold Coast and the new one atMeadowbrook on the other side of the highwayfrom my electorate, provides services to themajority of students from the Springwoodelectorate. I have had a long association withGriffith University. I am a keen supporter of thecampus. Recently, I was invited by one of itslecturers in public administration to address alecture at the university. In 1996, I had thepleasure of opening the microwave technologylink between Nathan and the Gold Coastcampuses, which forms part of their excellenttechnology programs. It has one of the most up-to-date high-technology data transfer systemsthat is operational across the country. That hasproven to be a huge success and a credit to allthose people at the university who worked onthat project. Technology has improved access tothe university, allowing an interchange ofactivities between the various campuses.

On the subject of technology, I will referbriefly to Queensland graduates. It is pretty wellknown in this Chamber that I have a deep andongoing interest in information technologyissues. All over the world, wherever onescratches the surface of high-technology firms, italways seems to be Queensland graduates whopop up. Over the years, the University ofQueensland and QUT, in particular, haveproduced some outstanding computer sciencegraduates. Often, they are being lured overseasby high salaries. We are putting a lot of emphasison trying to retain those graduates to help us tomove into the truly digital era. The universitieshave also focused on that issue. ThroughInformation Queensland in our home State, wenow have a policy that is giving them real hopeand working down that path.

Busways are a current issue at GriffithUniversity. We are negotiating to provide abusway station inside the campus. Through theSET project team, the Department of Transporthas been having ongoing discussions with theuniversity to try to provide a better level of publictransport service for all those whose electoratesare on the path of the busway. I have seen someof the initial designs. I have seen the stationdesigns. They look tremendous. If we can link

directly the Springwood bus interchange and thebusway stations in Springwood to the GriffithUniversity campus, many students will use thatlink. They would then be able to get there quicklyalso from the Mount Gravatt/Garden City area,and then travel through to the city. That isprogressing quite well and will be very good.

Last week, I visited the new GriffithUniversity campus at Meadowbrook. I was goingover the progress of the building plans on thesite with some of the building contractors there.They are a little bit behind because of extremelybad weather. However, we are looking forward toa full opening later this year. The first studentshave started and are being housed as best asthey can be. The contractors are not too farbehind schedule. If anyone is interested, I have aphoto of me standing in front of all thescaffolding and rigging, going through the pourplans with one of the concreting contractors. Imust admit, in spite of having a number ofdegrees and a masters degree in business, I stillcannot read the concrete pour plans for anengineering construction at a university site. I amafraid they were a little too technical for me.

The new campus is looking terrific. It is animposing structure that stands above the back ofthe golf course of the Logan Country Club. It hasa lovely boulevard entrance. A lot of thetechnology and communications services havebeen installed at an early stage of construction ofthe buildings. All the buildings will be completelywired. We hope to have that open and integratedinto the system very soon. Of course, thatcampus is co-located with the Logan TAFEcampus, which has undergone some enormouschanges recently. It provides an excellentservice to my constituents. Not everyonechooses to take tertiary study at a university.However, the technology sector of that campushas been growing. We are considering a formallink between the Logan TAFE and the university.

One unit of Logan TAFE is the CyberskillsTraining Centre. That campus specialises incomputing. In the near future, it will be housed inthe newly refurbished buildings and will becomethe Springwood campus of Logan TAFE.Cyberskills is run by a dedicated staff of three orfour people and provides Internet access. Theyhave Fujitsu ICL machinery. They are runningcomputer courses and intend to run computercourses in the evening for the community in theSpringwood area. That unit is co-located next tothe Springwood State High School. The Ministerfor Education knows about this, because it is tobe housed in the former Learning SupportCentre for Logan East. I thank the Minister for hispositive participation in allowing that site to work


in with the educational system and become anew computer learning centre.

The education system and the feeder unitsinto the education system are very important.The electorate of Springwood has a number ofState schools and State high schools. It also hassome private schools, which serve what is now agrowing sector in my electorate, especially in thehigh school sector. Before the luncheonadjournment, I was dismayed to sit in thisChamber and endure the rantings of Mr Elder,the prolific mud thrower of this Chamber. He triesto throw the mud in order to discredit people,knowing that they have to respond to him in theChamber. He does that with a view to runningoutside to obtain as much media coverage as hecan. Before lunch, he implied that I had refusedto service my constituents in relation to theongoing issue of the Kimberley Park StateSchool. I am very sure that he did that in a simpleattempt to discredit me in order to obtain mediacoverage. As I respond to the Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition's allegations about the position, afew facts would help considerably. I will start witha simple fact. I am not shirking my responsibilities,but Kimberley College is not in my electorate.Although it is very close and I do acceptresponsibility in that a number of families from myelectorate are connected with the college, it isnot in my electorate. The electorate it is in is verywell serviced by the member for Redlands, MrHegarty. Mr Elder's allegation that I have notresponded to constituent's concerns is simplywrong. I have received seven phone calls, threeoffice visits and one letter about this problem. Inevery case, either I or my electorate officer havespoken to all of the people who have called meon this topic. They have been genuinely happyand satisfied with the response.

The letter was received on 2 March and wasresponded to on the same day. Everyone I havespoken to consistently agrees that thedisciplinary action between Mr Thomson and theEducation Department is a private matterbetween Mr Thomson and the EducationDepartment. It is only Mr Elder, who has raised itin this Chamber, who has tried to politicise thematter. It is a private matter between the twoparties and it should have stayed as a privatematter between the two parties.

It is a sorry state when the Opposition triesto latch on and politicise a private issue. I do notthink that that has a part in this place. The ALPcandidate for Springwood certainly agrees withme on that, because only a few weeks ago heissued a scathing media release attacking theDemocrat candidate for Springwood, whohappens to be on the P & C at Kimberley Park,Ms Hettie Johnston, for politicising the issue. In

the local newspapers he was reported as sayingthat it should not have any part in politicsand—guess what—that it is a private matterbetween the Education Department and MrThomson! It is such a pity that Mr Elder does notheed some of the advice from the localcandidate, or has he been stomped into theground as well as the member for Capalaba triesto score a few media points.

The extra allegation is that I skipped out onpublic meetings and school gatherings. Let ushave a little bit of fact: I have never been invitedto attend any meeting at the Kimberley ParkSchool—although it is located very near to someof our fine university institutions—last week, lastmonth or last year. The school deals with themember for Redlands and is very well served byhim. There has been a great deal ofcorrespondence. I have checked thecorrespondence, and I say that I have neverbeen invited to a meeting at the Kimberley ParkPrimary School, although I note that the ALP andDemocrat candidates in the area have. I wouldnot mind suggesting that the shadow EducationMinister probably might have been as well, ashas, obviously, the Deputy Leader of theOpposition, and that has happened just to drag itall into this Chamber.

Mr Elder also alleges that I have notprovided any support to Mr Thomson on thisissue. The fact is that Mr Thomson has never,ever contacted me on this or any other matter.This afternoon I checked all of my records. I havenever written, spoken, phoned or contacted MrThomson. I remember meeting him briefly in1995, but I have never spoken to the gentlemanbefore or since then and I do not think that hehas ever called me, although I have had contactwith the school and with some of the parentsfrom that school because I do see them aroundthe Springwood area quite consistently.

The other allegation that was thrown up inthis Chamber was that I do not support the multi-age schools concept. Mr Elder should check hisfacts. If he checked and dug a little bit, he wouldknow that the Chatswood Hills State School inmy electorate is a multi-age school, and it gets100% support from me. Last Monday I happenedto have been at that school to present the schoolcaptains and the council with their school badgesfor the year. The concept has my support as analternative to the normal mainstream schoolingfor those families who choose to use that schoolas a method of educating their kids. I find itsomewhat curious that the shadow Minister canclick his fingers and say, "Yes, we are going togive you a guarantee that a school will beerected."

Mr Bredhauer interjected.


Mr WOOLMER: Is the member saying"No" now? He is now shaking his head.Previously, I thought that the member was all forit. I heard him interjecting on the member forRedlands saying, "Yes, it is okay. We will fix it allup." Now the member is shaking his head sayingthat he cannot do it. He is a bit fazed. He cannotquite figure out where the politics of this lies.One half of him says, "Yes, there has to be votesover there. We can go and get them." Then thatSocialist Left stream kicks in and says, "Hang on,I cannot really give a private school a leg up overa new public school, can I?" That is a differentsituation.

Members opposite should not come in hereand politicise these issues. Those people cancome and see the members and talk to them.They can also come and see me, and they willalways get a meeting. Mr Elder has his factswrong. I think that he has to do a lot of answering.He should not turn up in this Chamber or atmeetings with political wannabes and simplyshoot from the hip thinking that he has all theanswers. It is easy to throw rhetorical andhypothetical questions around this place togenerate news. It is the old story: if a member isthrown a one-liner that he or she cannot respondto, he or she drags somebody into the Chamberand gets the answer that he or she wants. Wecould come in here and throw around allegationsas though it does not really matter. It may work forme, but I am the one who has to talk to thecommunities, and I have been doing thatconstantly with the support of the member forRedlands. I think that he has done a pretty goodjob in some difficult circumstances. The slur thatthe member for Capalaba has thrown around inthis place is unwelcome and unwarranted. Thecommunity sees it for what it is. It will not fall forthe member's old line that he is going to give itwhat it wants. Earlier, I saw the member shakinghis head. I do not think that we need that sort ofthing in this place and I do not think that thepeople will worry about it at all.

Hon. R. J. QUINN (Merrimac—Ministerfor Education) (3.55 p.m.), in reply: I thank allhonourable members for their contributions. Itreally has been a wide-ranging debate. What Ithought would be a fairly simple debate on anumber of Bills turned out, in fact, to be quite adebate on various matters concerning educationacross the whole spectrum. We had universities,schools, Life Education Centres and TAFEcolleges mentioned. We even had membersstanding up and making election policyspeeches and raising a whole range of otherissues as well.

Mr Bredhauer: The Leader of theOpposition.

Mr QUINN: Yes, the Leader of theOpposition for one and Mr Hamill for another. Infact, they made quite detailed policy speeches invarious ways and means. No doubt, theirspeeches will be photocopied and distributed tothe relevant electorates in the lead-up to theelection campaign.

As I said, I thank all honourable members fortheir contributions. These are important Billsbefore the House in that, in terms of makinguniversities more administratively simple andefficient, they set up our universities for the nextcentury. I know that the universities have beenwaiting for the passage of these Bills for quitesome time and will appreciate their early passagethis calendar year.

Some substantial issues need to be placedon the record. Hopefully, I will refer to most of theones that the members raised in theircontributions in the debate. Firstly, the memberfor Cook raised, principally, Commonwealthissues and matters relating to the Cairns campusof the James Cook University. He was right insaying that, under a previous agreement, theCommonwealth committed itself to $80m for theyears 1998 to 2001. In addition to that, the StateGovernment has also committed $30m overthose three years and some $28m will beprovided by the universities themselves for arange of additional facilities in the variousinstitutions.

Recently, the Commonwealth indicated thatit would not honour some of those agreementsthat it had entered into. That is no secretbecause the financial implications are set out in areport. Basically, the Commonwealth has said tous that the funds that it had allocated from thecapital development pool were not there as itunderstood them to be and that the StateGovernment is required to supply theCommonwealth with a strategic plan over thenext three years. In that regard, currently we arein the process of consulting with the universitiesand hope to have something ready in theforeseeable future for Cabinet and then on tothe Commonwealth that will address theproposed developments in our universities up tothe year 2006. As the member for Cookindicated in a newspaper report, I have written tothe Commonwealth Minister in that regard andmade it quite plain that we consider that theGovernment-to-Government agreementnegotiated by the two previous Governmentsshould be honoured and that theCommonwealth ought not be walking away fromthat agreement. Unfortunately, theCommonwealth Minister's reply was not all thatencouraging. We will now have to go through theprocess that he has put in train to ensure that we


do, in fact, get our share of the Commonwealthcapital development pool that we signed up for.

The member for Cook also raised the issueof the additional land at the Cairns campus.

Mr Bredhauer: What about the JCUlibrary in Cairns?

Mr QUINN: Yes, and the member for Cookalso raised the issue of the additional land for theCairns campus of JCU.


Mr QUINN: I will come to that. The membershould just wait. There has been a longstandingagreement between the State and theCommonwealth that the State would provide fullyserviced campus land for any new campus in theuniversities of Queensland. It is interesting to goback to the history of the acquisition of the landupon which the Cairns campus is built. Thatacquisition came about as a result of anagreement—or a deal, if members like—betweenthe former Labor Treasurer, Mr De Lacy, and thethen Education Minister, Mr Braddy. In 1990,they devised a plan to acquire a site for theJames Cook University in Cairns on the cheap.Here is the deal——


Mr QUINN: The member should listen; it isvery involved. A large tract of land at Smithfieldwas purchased from the Emanuel Group, whichat that stage was in financial trouble, with theintention of assigning a portion to James CookUniversity and subdividing the balance, whichcould be sold to finance the original outlay.Agreement was reached with the James CookUniversity that a prime portion of 53 hectares onthe Captain Cook Highway would meet its needsand the development has proceeded on thatbasis. DNR was to subdivide and sell theremainder of the residential land in order torecoup the whole cost, that is, the Cairns campusof JCU would have cost the State nothing. Awilling party to this agreement was Mayor TomPyne, who was previously the Mayor of Mulgraveand is now the Mayor of Cairns. Therefore, it isnow passing strange that the Cairns City Councilhas refused the rezoning that had beenproposed by the DNR, which has control of theland. That still leaves James Cook University withaccess to over 300 hectares for a range ofpurposes, although not for building because theland is unsuitable for that purpose. Someportions of the land have already beendeveloped and sold, but one significant portionremains for which a contract has been enteredinto with Stockland as the purchaser on thecondition that the land is subdivided forresidential purposes, in accordance with theagreement of the three major parties. This is

consistent with the original Labor plan for thewhole site.

The latest advice that I have is that JamesCook University has not made any official requestto have the land added to its site. We have hearda lot of hot air from council members and localcandidates in Cairns itself, but there has been noofficial request by JCU to have this land added toits site.

The Cairns development of James CookUniversity has been extremely successful andenrolments have grown at a rate in excess of thecapital developments provided, as everyoneknows. The previous Labor Government madenoises about accelerating capital development inCairns by providing an interest-free loan of up to$10m against future Commonwealth capitalmoneys expected to flow for the project, but noformal Government decision on this matter wasever made by the Labor Party. However, in thelast two years we have been asked continually tohonour a commitment that was never made. Inother words, the previous Government neversaid that it would provide an interest-free loan ofup to $10m, yet we are now being asked tohonour that commitment. Nevertheless, I amconscious of the impact that the acceleration ofthis much-needed project would have on theCairns campus. This is being considered in thecontext of all the other capital needs for all theother universities as we develop our strategicplan to take to Cabinet in the near future. Thatdeals with those particular issues. As I said,basically those issues were part of a deal done bythe previous Labor Government and theOpposition is now trying to move back from theposition that it endorsed previously.

The member for Yeronga raised issuesabout the Mackay campus and the need for apermanent site for the Conservatorium of Music.When a perceived need for a new universitycampus is identified, it is necessary to establish ajoint Commonwealth and State universityworking party to investigate and report on suchthings as the need for the facility and the site.There has been no request by CQU to initiatethis planning process. Again, this may well be ahot topic of conversation in Mackay, but at thistime it is certainly not perceived by CQU to besomething that it wishes to progress. At officerlevel, staff of the Office of Higher Education haveoffered to work with CQU when it believes that itis time to consider new campus possibilities.Therefore, the issue is back in the court of theCentral Queensland University.

The member for Everton, Mr Welford, madeallegations about a range of issues that I amsupposed to be involved in. He basically allegedthat I have suppressed intellectual freedom in


terms of influencing universities to dispense withthe services of academics. If I remembercorrectly, at that point I interjected that I had noknowledge of those particular issues and, interms of personal knowledge, that is right.However, if I have misled the House I apologise.There has been correspondence on this issueand it has been brought to my attention byofficers within the department.

Mr Bredhauer interjected. Mr QUINN: There has been

correspondence on the issue. In terms of thisministerial correspondence, I have carried outthe standard procedure, which is to seek thefacts from the universities and provide a writtenreply to the persons who initiated thecorrespondence. At no time have I sought toinfluence the tenure or the employmentprospects of any academic at all. In fact, that isrepugnant to me and equally, I suggest, it isrepugnant to the universities which guard theirintegrity and independence quite jealously.When Mr Welford makes such serious allegationsagainst me, he also makes them against theuniversities themselves. I am quite sure that theuniversities involved would refute thoseallegations as strenuously as I am doing today,because it reflects upon the integrity of not onlythe vice-chancellor but also other staff at theuniversity. If Mr Welford wishes to pursue thosematters, I suggest that he pursues them with theuniversities. I am quite sure that he will get thesame response that I give him today.

The member for Caboolture tried to raiseissues about the Life Education Centres. As Ikeep reminding the honourable member, he hasa massive conflict of interest here. In my view, heis using his privileged position to pursue a privatematter. That has been a matter of public recordfor some time. Today the member indicated, orslightly indicated, what that conflict of interestmight be, but he did not give the full extent of it. Iinvite him to come back into the Chamber andspell out the full extent of his conflict of interestwhen next he makes such allegations andcharges. This is an issue between the LifeEducation Centre of Caboolture and the headbody. As I understand it, it is a private issue thatthe member has become involved in for personalreasons. I counsel him against doing that in thefuture, because he can gain no long-term benefitin using his privileged position to pursue privatematters. That is to be deplored.

A number of members raised the issue ofvoluntary student unionism. Given the supportthat I am getting from the other side, I think Imight be on the wrong side of the boat. As I haveindicated in the past, and my views on this issueare quite plain, this is a vexed issue. While we

carry it as one of our policy documents, we arenot addressing it at this particular point. If wemove to address it further down the track, I amquite sure that everyone will know about it. It willbe done in an open way because the legislationhas to come back before the House. I am fullyaware of the valuable contribution that studentunions make in universities across this State.

Mr Elder, the member for Capalaba,mentioned the Kimberley Park State School andthe member for Springwood adequatelyaddressed those issues. Suffice to say that thisis an internal matter for the Department ofEducation. It is not a matter that the Minister ofEducation or, indeed, other members ofParliament should interfere in. It is a PublicService issue and it is being addressed incompliance with the relevant regulations. Just asI would not interfere in the transfer of a teacher, Iwill not interfere in this particular issue. This is notthe first time that the issue of a multi-age highschool has bubbled up at Kimberley. It has beenaround for quite some time. In fact, the previousLabor Government was subjected to a similarcampaign. In 1993, a Minister asked for anindependent report by a Dr Terry Simpson. I referto that report because it might enlighten a fewpeople about the benefits of a multi-age systemin this particular instance.

The report found that there was a rigidadherence to a fairly narrow range of teachingstrategies; that students going to high schoolhad above average difficulty in terms of transitionfrom primary to secondary; that students did nothave a good idea of their relative ability; that slowstudents felt deceived in later years when theybecame aware of how much they did not know;and there was already an oversupply of highschool places in the surrounding schools. Theauthor concluded—

"Morally, I cannot recommend theestablishment of a new school nor can it bejustified in terms of education, finance orsocial justice."

And that is in the context of the surrounding highschools having adequate places for Year 8students to which to transfer.

Ms Spence: It makes one very concernedabout multi-age composite classes, doesn't it?

Mr QUINN: It just depends upon theteaching techniques that the teachers adopt. Inthis case, it said that there was a rigid adherenceto a fairly narrow range of teaching strategies. Wehave to take that in that context. No doubt thatwill continue to bubble along at Kimberley Parkfor quite some time.

Other issues were raised in respect of thecampuses of various universities, in particular


those at Ipswich and Logan. I thank members fortheir support. Those are commendable andmuch-needed expansions of the highereducation facilities in Queensland. Hopefully,the Commonwealth can come on board andprovide the capital development funds to allowthose campuses to expand to their full potential.

Other members raised a range of otherissues concerning schools. Basically, I think Ihave addressed most of the issues that werepressing. In conclusion, this has been a wide-ranging debate that has covered a number ofimportant issues. I place on record theGovernment's appreciation of the support of theOpposition. These Bills are important. Theuniversities have been waiting for them for quitesome time. The Bills have been a long time in themaking. They were initiated under the previousGovernment. The Bills have the support of theuniversities in particular. The universitiesrecognise that once the Bills are passed they willbring great benefits in terms of their being freerto make administrative decisions themselves andset themselves up for the next century.

Motion agreed to.

Committee (Cognate Debate)

Hon. R. J. Quinn (Merrimac—Minister forEducation) in charge of the Bill.

Central Queensland University Bill

Clause 1—

Mr BREDHAUER (4.13 p.m.): I wish touse the latitude that might be allowed me to raisean issue that stems from the Minister's reply tomy concerns raised in the Parliament last night inrespect of a number of issues at the James CookUniversity. Last night I specifically asked theMinister whether he would rule out that therewould be a ministerial rezoning in respect of theland concerned. The Department of NaturalResources has a contract to sell that land toStockland, subject to rezoning. The Cairns CityCouncil has rejected the rezoning application. Ispecifically asked the Minister to rule out aministerial rezoning.

I specifically also asked the Minister to ruleout that the Department of Natural Resourceswould resort to the Planning and EnvironmentCourt to appeal the decision by the Cairns CityCouncil. The issues that the Minister raised arenot in contention. I do not deny for asecond—and nobody on this side of theChamber would—the historical context which theMinister outlined in respect of those parcels ofland and what the decision was.

The fact in respect of James CookUniversity, though, is that enrolments haveproceeded ahead of predictions. Theuniversity's views concerning its potential to takeadvantage of some of that land in question forrainforest research and to keep intact the corridorbetween the university and the World Heritagelisted rainforest areas in the hills behind theuniversity have emerged since that original time.These things are never set in concrete. Iappreciate that there is a contract of saleconditional upon the rezoning. The rezoning hasnow been rejected by the Cairns City Council. Iam giving the Minister the opportunity, which hedid not take up in his reply, to respond to thoseissues that I raised last night.

I wish also to mention briefly his referencesto the funding for the library. He claimed that theLabor Party made no commitment to a loan tohelp accelerate the library facilities when we werein Government. That is because when we were inGovernment there was no question about thecapital funding from the Commonwealth to fundthe library. It is only since the coalition has cometo Government at both a Commonwealth andState level that a question mark has been placedover the funding.

The Minister confirmed that question markover the funding today by commenting on thereply he received from the Federal Minister whenhe wrote to him expressing concern about hisreservations about whether the 1995Commonwealth/State agreement on capitalfunding universities for Queensland would behonoured. I forget the exact words used, but theMinister said that he was not happy with theresponse and he was going through the processof preparing a submission. That is why last yearthe Labor Party said that, provided theCommonwealth remained committed to thecapital works funding, we would be prepared toadvance the university a low-interest loan. It wasnot an issue when we were in Government. It hasonly emerged as an issue subsequently. It ispartly an issue because of the growth inenrolments at the university having exceededpredictions. I would like the Minister to commenton those important issues.

Mr QUINN: I cannot speak on behalf of theMinister for Natural Resources. The memberwould not expect me to give a commitment onhis behalf. It is now a matter for his decision.Obviously, he will be looking at what his optionsare. My personal view—I do not profess to speakon behalf of the Minister involved—is that weought not be moving for a ministerial rezoning. Ifthe member is asking me personally, that is myview.


The issue of the funds for the library at theJCU Cairns campus is one that we will have toresolve in terms of what the Commonwealthplans to do. Again, because of that uncertaintythere is no commitment at the moment. It will verymuch depend upon the Commonwealth'sattitude.

Clause 1, as read, agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 79 and Schedules 1 and 2, asread, agreed to.

Griffith University Bill


Queensland University of TechnologyBill


University of Queensland Bill

Clauses 1 to 14, as read, agreed to.

Clause 15—

Mr QUINN (4.19 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendments—

"At page 10, line 25, '16'—

omit, insert—

'15'.

At page 11, lines 6, 22 and 23—

omit.

At page 11, line 9, 'mentioned insubsection (2)(a) to (d) and (f)'—

omit."

Amendments agreed to.

Mr BREDHAUER: I move the followingamendment—

"At page 11, lines 24 to 26—

omit, insert—

'(5) Despite subsection (3), if the office of anelected member mentioned in subsection(2)(f) becomes vacant under section 24, thesenate may authorise the convocation, at ameeting of the convocation at which aquorum is present, to appoint a member ofthe convocation to fill the vacancy.'."I just draw the attention of the House to the

fact that that amendment has been recirculatedtoday in a slightly different form from that whichwas circulated yesterday. It relates to the electionof convocation representatives to the Universityof Queensland senate. I understand that the

Government will support the amendments, so Ido not intend to speak to them any further.

Mr QUINN: The Government will acceptthis amendment. As I understand, it reflects thecurrent practice of the university. I do make onestatement, though. The universities have all hada lot of time to come to grips with what is in thelegislation before the Chamber at present andthey have endorsed what the Government isdoing. They have not had time yet to look at thisamendment. Even though people within theuniversity administration may agree with theamendment, in fact it may be the case that, oncethe amendment is passed the senate may look atit and say, "We do not agree with it now." If that isthe case, I would expect the senate to write backto me saying that it wishes to have the originalclause reinserted into the Bill. If for whateverreason the university finds that the amendmentitself is not acceptable, I make it quite plain that Iwill consider that at that particular time.

As I pointed out, the senate of theuniversity has considered this Bill for a longperiod of time. It has endorsed the details of theBill. I think I would be remiss to move away fromthat now and not give the senate the opportunityto scrutinise the amendment and make its viewsplain to the Government. I make it quite plain that,if in fact that is the case, the Government will giveserious consideration to bringing an amendedversion of the Bill back into the Chamber.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr QUINN: I move the followingamendment—

"At page 11, line 28, 'subsection (2)(a)to (d) and (f)'—

omit, insert—

'subsection (2)'."Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 16 to 59, as read, agreed to.Clause 60—

Mr QUINN (4.22 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendments—

"At page 27, after line 6—insert—

' "additional member" means a member ofthe senate appointed under section 6(2) ofthe repealed Act.

"appointed member" means an appointedmember, under the repealed Act, of thesenate.'.

At page 27, lines 10 to 14—omit, insert—

4 Mar 1998 Agents and Motor Dealers Bill 167

' "ex-officio member" means a member exofficio, under the repealed Act, of thesenate.'."Amendments agreed to.



Mr QUINN (4.23 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 28, lines 21 to 27 and page29, lines 1 and 2—omit, insert—

'67.(1) The senate consists of the ex-officio,appointed and additional members holdingoffice immediately before the commencingday.

'(2) An appointed or additional memberholds office as a member of the senate until31 December 1998 or earlier vacatingoffice.

'(3) For subsections (1) and (2), sections 6to 10 of the repealed Act,1 and anydefinitions relevant to the provisions,continue to have effect.'(4) This section has effect despite therepeal of the repealed Act.

'(5) This section expires on 31 December1998.'.1 The provisions of the repealed Actmentioned in the subsection deal with theconstitution of, and disqualification fromoffice and vacancies of members of, thesenate."

Amendment agreed to.Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 68—


"At page 29, line 10, after 'all'—

insert—

'rights'."Amendment agreed to.




"At page 30, line 10, after 'part'—insert—

'(other than section 67)'."


Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.Schedule 1, as read, agreed to.

Schedule 2—Mr QUINN (4.25 p.m.): I move the

following amendment—"At page 39, lines 17 and 18—

omit."Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

University of Southern Queensland Bill


Clause 15—Mr QUINN (4.25 p.m.): I move the

following amendment—

"At page 11, lines 9 and 11, 'councilof'—

omit, insert—'board of'."

This is just a technical amendment.



University of Queensland Bill reported, withamendments.

University of Southern Queensland Billreported, with an amendment.

Central Queensland University Bill reported,without amendment.

Griffith University Bill reported, withoutamendment.

Queensland University of Technology Billreported, without amendment.

Third Reading (Cognate Debate)

Bills, on motion of Mr Quinn, by leave, reada third time.

AGENTS AND MOTOR DEALERS BILL

Second ReadingResumed from 30 October 1997 (see

p. 4119).

Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (4.30 p.m.):The Opposition has many concerns with theAgents and Motor Dealers Bill. Such is the levelof the Opposition's concern that we will bemoving 79 amendments to the Bill. TheOpposition is determined that, if this Billproceeds through the House without any of

168 Agents and Motor Dealers Bill 4 Mar 1998

these amendments being accepted, a LaborGovernment would give an undertaking to reviewthe whole Act within 18 months.

I will outline the many and varied concernsthat the Opposition has, but firstly I would like tostate that the Opposition's 79 amendments donot wholly encompass all of our concerns withthis Bill. I apologise that there are many otherfeatures of the Bill which concern the Oppositionbut which will not be covered by amendmentstoday.

I want to deal with the major aspects of theBill. I refer to page 5 of the Explanatory Noteswhere it says—

"Deregulation of these industrieswould not be in the best interests ofconsumers. In particular, real estatetransactions and motor vehicle transactionsrepresent two of the largest investmentsthat most consumers face. At the sametime, because of a lack of exposure to themarket, most consumers are inexperiencedand vulnerable in the purchase of realproperty or motor vehicles."

The Opposition acknowledges this, andacknowledges that consumers need protectionin these particular industries. If anyone thinksthat there is any real level of protection forQueensland consumers contained in this Bill,they will be very disappointed. Consumer groupsthroughout Queensland have beendisappointed that this Bill fails to provideadequate protection. On the other hand,industry groups—especially motor dealers andreal estate agents—are happy. This must tell theQueensland public who this Government isattempting to woo for the upcoming Stateelection.

Whilst stating honestly that deregulationwould not be in the best interests of consumers,the Bill sets about deregulating the commissionrates of real estate agents and the deregulationof salespeople. The Opposition is firmlyopposed to the deregulation of real estateagents' commission. We oppose thederegulation of fees because we reject theargument that this will lead to greater competitionand benefits for consumers.

This argument fails to reveal the currentsituation in Queensland where the set feesrepresent the maximum scale. In fact, agents cancharge less than the prescribed maximum, so atpresent there is potential for competition withinthe existing system. Agents argue that they willbe able to provide a more professional servicewith deregulation. At the moment agents areable to charge vendors for additional marketing

and advertising of their properties if the vendorsauthorise such expenditure.

The argument that deregulation will provideclients with a more professional service simplydoes not hold up. Given that competition in theprovision of additional or more professionalservices is possible within the present system,deregulation will do little more than allow agentsto charge higher fees. Fees will increase underderegulation. This has occurred followingderegulation interstate and overseas. A PricesSurveillance Authority report in 1992 found thatsince New Zealand had deregulated fees in1988, fees had risen 136% against a CPIincrease of 52%. A survey by the Real EstateServices Council in 1994 found that 29% of NewSouth Wales real estate agents increased theirfees after deregulation, 13% discounted theirrates, and 58% recorded no change in fees.Anecdotal evidence from Victoria suggests thatagents' fees have risen since deregulation in1995.

Vendors who can least afford it will payhigher commissions than those who havevaluable property to sell. This has alreadyoccurred as a result of the deregulation of thecommercial property market. For example, a largecompany which has negotiating power andvaluable properties to sell might at the presenttime pay 0.5% commission, while an individualsmall trader will pay 5% to 6% in commission. Thesame principle will translate to the private realestate market. Those people with prestigiousresidential properties to sell will be in a betterposition than those at the middle or the bottomof the market where vendors are less able tonegotiate fees.

I would like the Minister to consider thebargaining power of a consumer who owns a realestate property in Logan City. Let us say theproperty is valued at $120,000, which would bethe average price in Logan City. That person'spower to bargain, when compared with the Ascothome owner who has a $500,000 property tosell, is markedly different. Any fair analysis of thatsituation would lead one to believe that thevendor at the bottom end of the market reallydoes not have bargaining power when it comesto negotiating fees, whereas vendors at the topof the market certainly have a lot of power andhave a lot of agents wanting to sell theirproperties.

Deregulation traditionally favours inner-citysales where competition is keener. There isevidence to support the claim that outer areasand rural properties pay higher commission. Iquote from an article called "Deregulationchanges the big picture—real estate agents" by


Christopher de Fraga which appeared in TheAustralian on 13 March 1996. The article states—

"The managing director of Woodards inthe eastern suburbs of Victoria, Mr KerryMcGorlick, said commissions had driftedupwards since deregulation.

Advertising has not changed, butcommissions once held at 2.1 per cent bythe Real Estate Institute of Victoria now aregenerally 2.5 to 3.5 per cent in innersuburbs.

It is anecdotal, but commissions inouter areas are believed to be running at 3to 4 per cent."

Not all real estate agents want commissionsderegulated. The Opposition has had a numberof sessions with the REIQ in which we talkedabout this very matter. We have been veryimpressed by Mr Don McKenzie, the ChiefExecutive Officer of the REIQ, and we wereimpressed with the professionalism with whichthe REIQ has approached this subject. MrMcKenzie was honest enough to provide mewith a letter which states that the REIQ surveyedits members in 1996 with respect toderegulation. At that time, 53% of members whoresponded to the survey preferred thecontinued regulation of commission fees, whilst47% preferred deregulation. I appreciate that notall real estate agents responded to the surveyand that the REIQ has done a fair bit of worksince then in an attempt to convince its membersthat deregulation is the path down which theyshould go.

However, from talking to real estate agents, Iknow that there are a number who do not want tosee fees deregulated. It would be false tobelieve the opposite. Deregulation is not apopular concept for this Government to beintroducing. It is absolutely false for the Ministerto say that deregulation will reduce fees. TheMinister has said exactly that on a number ofoccasions in newspaper articles. I believe he isconsidering his own constituents in theelectorate of Indooroopilly when he says thatthere will be reduced fees. No doubt fees will bereduced in an inner-city area which has high-value properties for sale. However, the Ministerhas failed to consider that the majority ofQueenslanders do not have high-valueproperties to sell. These people will no doubtend up paying more in real estate commissionrates after deregulation.

An article written by Peter Gilchrist thatappeared in the REIQ Journal of June 1995states—

"Deregulation—Service will be the keyto surviving."

He talked about the New Zealand experience ofderegulating commission rates and said—

"Now we didn't get higher commissionsovernight in New Zealand but we did getthem and we seem to have got it reasonablyright. I say reasonably because although westill haven't quite reached the heights of the6 per cent-7 per cent they have in theStates, we do now have an averagecommission rate of 4% plus $400. Whenyou consider that G.S.T. (currently 12.5 percent) is on top of this, the true commissionrate is closer to 5 per cent.

The interesting thing about the NewZealand experience is that the law industryand registered valuers were deregulated atthe same time. Shortly thereafter, lawyersengaged in a massive price cutting war andtheir fees dropped significantly. In much thesame way, the fees of valuers cametumbling down as well.

The real estate industry on the otherhand slowly but surely increased fees fromthe 2 per cent-3 per cent charged in 1985to the present day rate and there areindications that at least for some companiesit will continue to go higher.

So, why did our fees go up while lawyerand valuer fees went down. Two reasonsreally. First, I have to admit the environmentwas right. By that, I mean we were operatingin some pretty hard markets through someof the transition period.

I know that sounds strange but the factis that it is much easier to raise commissionrates in tough markets than easy ones.

In a strong sellers market, it doesn'tnecessarily take a lot of marketing or pricingskill to sell a home ... Buyers are swarmingeverywhere and selling may involve nothingmore than putting a photo in the officewindow and channelling the buyersthrough. With houses selling easily byalmost anybody, raising commission rates isa lot more challenging. In a tough buyers'market on the other hand, sales can be veryhard to come by and profession skills canmake a very big difference. People arewilling to pay more to get their house sold,particularly to any company that can show itgets results.

And that brings us to the second andperhaps more important reason whycommission fees went up. The companiesthat did have the skills and know-howstarted to stand out."

So there we have it. The real agenda behindderegulating real estate commission fees is so


that real estate agents can eventually put up theirfees. The New Zealand experience has shownthat. Here we have Mr Peter Gilchrist in the REIQJournal telling real estate agents that they can bea lot cleverer than lawyers and valuers and, if theyplay the game right, their fees and theircommission rates will increase over the years.They obviously are skiting that there are a lot ofsmart lawyers who are charging more.

I note that this Bill mentions that theGovernment will review the success or failure ofderegulating commission rates in 18 months. Iask the Minister why he is doing this. It seems tome that the Minister is not confident thatderegulation will provide a better service ormarket for consumers in Queensland. This is oneway in which he can try to have his two bob eachway with this Bill: by deregulating but saying,"Well, we will review it and change it if it does notwork." The Opposition will firmly opposederegulation today, because we have seen theexperience in other States in Australia and inother countries. We know that deregulation ofreal estate commission rates simply does notwork to benefit the majority of consumers.

I know that many aged people particularlyare forced to sell their homes. And let us face it;at some point in time they do have to sell theirhomes. They are particularly vulnerable in aderegulated market. If they do not have familymembers to assist them in the whole transactionand the whole business of buying and sellinghomes, they will definitely be the ones who willlose out in a deregulated market and they will bepaying more than they need to because they donot necessarily have the capacity to negotiatefees that other people do. I ask the Minister toconsider this when he moves forward with thisrash plan to deregulate commission rates. Nodoubt more will be said about that at theCommittee stage.

I turn now to buyers warnings. TheOpposition today foreshadows an amendment tothe Bill which will require agents to give both thevendor and the purchaser a warning before anydocument is signed. We will be requiring them tosign a separate notice explaining in essence thatthe offer, acceptance or contract form that theypropose to sign will constitute a valid, legal andbinding contract; that they should read andunderstand what they propose to sign; and thatthe Office of Consumer Affairs advises thatindependent legal advice should be soughtbefore anyone signs a real estate contract. Itwould need to be provided that any ensuingcontract is voidable by any party who does notreceive that notice.

Members would be aware that, in manyrespects, as a result of the Consumer Credit

Code's requirements, most home financeproviders are now requiring and/or advising theirborrowers to obtain legal advice on their loandocumentation. Members would also be awarethat the 1994 standard REIQ Law Societycontract, the second edition, contained thisprovision, which said—

"The approval of the Queensland LawSociety does not extend to any alterationsto the printed text or to any specialconditions of this contract. If the printed textis altered or special conditions are included,it is recommended that the vendor andpurchaser consult their respective legaladvisers prior to signing this contract."

But the current 1997 plain language contract,the second edition, which is now being used bymost agents and which is intended to replace the1994 contract, contains no such warnings.Therefore, the Opposition foreshadowsamendments today which require by law realestate agents to give a warning to both the sellerand the buyer of real estate to tell them of theirobligations, and we advise them to seek legaladvice before signing any contract.

Mr Lucas: The agents dudded thelawyers.

Ms SPENCE: The agents think that theyare smarter than the lawyers. We have alreadydetermined that, because they can put up theircommission rates in a much more effective waythan can solicitors. In this respect, we are askingagents to advise their clients to seek a lawyer'sopinion before they sign any contract.

In foreshadowing that amendment, Iacknowledge the work done by Tim O'Dwyer, asolicitor in Logan City, who has had a great dealto do with me in relation to this Bill and thisparticular issue. He frequently writes in theCourier-Mail about the consumer's need to bebetter informed in legal transactions. We in theOpposition are indebted to him for the work thathe has done in helping us formulate theseproposed amendments.

I turn now to the section of the Bill whichdeals with the new commission agents and motordealers board. The Minister has got rid of theAuctioneers and Agents Committee, which hasserved this State well for a number of years. Hehas never given anyone any indication of why heis dumping and abandoning that committee. Iwould be interested to hear his explanation tothe Parliament as to why he believes that thecommittee system has to be done away with.

Mr Lucas: Because he blew the budgeton Connolly/Ryan, so he has to make somesavings.


Ms SPENCE: That is true. But there aremany other aspects of what he proposes todaythat show that this Minister also has nounderstanding of the law of bias, which is alsosomething to do with the Connolly/Ryancommission. The way in which the Minister hasgiven all the powers to an executive in his owndepartment reveals that his bureaucrats areinterested in grabbing power and have nounderstanding of the law of bias or the fairdecision making that consumers and, indeed,the industry expect from a committee such as theAuctioneers and Agents Committee. I will read abrief article from Proctor written by barrister-at-lawRaelene Kelly, who was a former member of theAuctioneers and Agents Committee.

Mr Beanland interjected.

Ms SPENCE: No, not particularly. Is she afriend of the Minister's?

Mr Beanland: She's not a friend of yours?Well, that is a different story.

Ms SPENCE: No, not at all. This articlecame my way. Ms Kelly was one of the peoplewho spoke to me about this Bill. She was one ofthe many hundreds of Queenslanders whomade representations to me and expressed theirconcerns about this Bill. I believe that Ms Kelly,having served as a legal member on theAuctioneers and Agents Committee for anumber of years, certainly knows a lot about thislegislation—perhaps, may I say, even more thanthe Minister.

The article states—

"The big change is that there is noCommittee, nor any statutory corporation toreplace it. Instead, a panel of 16 people willbe appointed, from which a three memberBoard may be constituted by a publicservant called a registrar. Apart from a fewspecifications ... the registrar is completelyuntrammelled in his or her power ofappointment. This in itself is a startling andunsatisfactory innovation, giving theRegistrar an unusual opportunity to fix theforum.

In the consultation draft of the Bill,released earlier in the year for publiccomment, the function of appointment ofBoard members from the panel was vestedin the chief executive of the department ...There was predictably widespread concernat that clash of roles, given that the chiefexecutive is a party to disciplinaryproceedings before the very Board soappointed ...

Following considerable discomfort atthe prospect of a plethora of successful biasapplications, the drafters have devised the

notion of conferring many of the offendingfunctions of the chief executive on a personor persons to be called Registrar—suchperson or persons to be appointed by thechief executive. It's not even as if theappointee/s would operate independentlyof the chief executive. On the contrary, theBill specifically provides for a registrar to beemployed under the Public Service Act1996 (ie, under the direction of the chiefexecutive) and to hold such position inconjunction with other public service office.One could not expect the interpolation of apublic servant appointed by and subject tothe direction of, the chief executive todispel an ordinary, reasonable, observer'sperception that the proceedings aresomewhat weighted. Whether it's exerciseddirectly by the chief executive or by his orher appointee and underling, the power tonominate which panel members will hearany particular matter is irretrievablyinconsistent with the chief executive's roleas a party and applicant before the Board."Ms Kelly is not the only one to have written

on the subject, nor is she the only one to havespoken to me about those aspects of the Bill.The Opposition shares the concerns of manythat too much power, too much significance andtoo much decision making are placed in thehands of one person, that is, a registrar in theMinister's department. Let us face it: we knowthat a registrar can be someone fairly low in thebureaucracy. The Minister is giving that personenormous power. It would be interesting to hearthe Minister's explanation at the Committeestage as to why he believes he can haveconfidence in one such individual to take overmany of the existing roles that are currently beingperformed successfully by an industry andconsumer-based committee.

In my dealings with the REIQ and the motortraders, I have discussed the current committeeand asked whether they have been happy withthe workings of that committee. Overwhelmingly,they have informed me that they have beenhappy with the committee and that they wouldhave been very happy to see a committeestructure continue in the new legislation. Itsurprised them that the Minister would do awaywith a statutory committee and place the powerthat he intends to place in a registrar and in hischief executive. I can only come to theconclusion that, because those industries arehappy with other sections of the Bill, they areprepared to give way on the issue of thecommittee. However, the Opposition is not. Wedo not have any confidence in the structure theMinister is proposing in this legislation. Instead,we will be moving a number of amendments to


establish a board, which would be smaller buthave functions similar to the present Auctioneersand Agents Committee. I ask the Minister toconsider supporting those amendments at theCommittee stage, because we believe it is amore workable system. We believe it is a fairersystem to all parties in those decisions.

I move now to the next important section ofthe Bill, that is, the section that does not dealwith the cooling-off period. In the draft legislationthat was circulated in this State last year, theMinister promised Queensland consumers a 24-hour cooling-off period for all used car sales. Hefailed to deliver on that in the legislation hepresented to Parliament last November. That isperhaps the biggest backflip that we have seenfrom this Minister since he was forced to shutdown the Connolly/Ryan inquiry. By offering a24-hour cooling-off period in the draft legislation,he gave Queensland consumers a life raft. Hethen took to that life raft with an axe and choppedit out of this present Bill.

Mr Beanland: Why didn't you do it fouryears ago—or five or six years ago?

Ms SPENCE: Certainly, the Ministerknows very well that the Labor Government wasrewriting the Auctioneers and Agents Act andwas considering a cooling-off period in thatlegislation. It is no good for the Minister to ask:"Why didn't you do it?" The Minister has been inGovernment. He has given us this newlegislation. He promised a cooling-off period andthen took it away.

Mr Lucas: Indian giver.

Ms SPENCE: He is definitely an Indiangiver.

RACQ is the biggest consumer group inQueensland concerned with motor cars. Itwelcomed the inclusion of a cooling-off period inthe legislation. It said that although not everyonecan afford to buy a house, the majority of thepopulation aspires to buying a car. It is asignificant consumer purchase and, as such,specific consumer protection is warranted.Buying a car is a transaction that we take onlyrarely. It is often the case that the bargainingrelationship between the dealer and a consumeris tilted in the dealer's favour. Financialcounsellors, in particular, see many clients whohave bought cars and finance in the heat of themoment, often due to the sales techniquesemployed by experienced salespeople.

I will give the Minister one story now. I canpromise him that I have many more to give to himat the Committee stage of the Bill to demonstrateto him what life is like when buying a used car,particularly for young people. John was over 18and had been working for three months in his

first full-time job on a building site. He wasinterested in buying his first car. He decided tovisit the local car yard just to have a look around.Before he left that Saturday morning, he hadbought a car and financed it at a very highinterest rate. The repayments took nearly 40% ofhis salary. The forms had been completed by thecar yard and they had included his overtime. Hedid not always receive overtime. Six months later,John had a sporting accident and could not work.He fell behind in his repayments. He wasbankrupt before his 19th birthday. As theMinister is responsible for Consumer Affairs, heshould know the very shameful statistic thatQueensland has the highest rate of bankruptciesin Australia. That is because we have some of thepoorest consumer laws in Australia.

I will give the Minister another example. Mr Shad been unemployed for a while. He needed acar to get to job interviews and to have anychance of finding employment. He inquiredabout a cheap car that he saw in a car yard. Hewas told that the finance company would notlend him money on that car, as based on hisincome he would have to borrow more. He tooktheir advice. He also ended up going bankrupt.His marriage suffered a severe strain. I talked tothat man. In hindsight, he was embarrassed thathe had been forced into a deal without thinkingabout it properly. That is why we believe the 24-hour cooling-off period is essential for used carbuyers.

Mr Lucas: This Minister wants to cut thosepeople loose.

Ms SPENCE: That is exactly what hewants to do. I can promise the Minister that wehave more stories of that ilk. The financialcounsellors of this State see those people everyday. They are the people who are goingbankrupt—all because they made a stupidpurchase of a used car that they could not afford.

A cooling-off period will help reduce thesekinds of occurrences. One can only assume thatthe industry's opposition to a cooling-off periodis because they realise that some consumers willbe able to make more informed decisions and willnot be talked into inappropriate purchases. A 24-hour period is, in fact, a sensible compromise.Previously, consumer groups have argued for athree-day cooling-off period. We believe that thetime period chosen of 24 hours will not provideany significant disadvantage to well-informedconsumers who are quite certain about theirdecision, but it will allow those people vulnerableto sales pressure a chance to think and perhapsseek independent advice.

Concerns from the industry aboutconsumers misusing that provision are probablyoverstated. It is difficult to see how consumers


could use it as a bargaining chip. Theamendments that the Opposition will proposeimpose quite a specific requirement forconsumers wishing to void a contract to do so inwriting before the cooling-off period finishes. Iask the Minister: cooling-off periods work in otherStates, why not in Queensland?

The August edition of the Motor TradesAssociation of Queensland newsletter, MotorIndustry News, argues—

"There is no cooling-off period for thepurchase of furniture, white goods orclothing. There are already many legislativemeasures in place to protect consumers,such as the Fair Trading Act, the TradePractices Act, the Sale of Goods Act andthe Uniform Credit Code, to name a few...We also point out to the fact... (that) of thedealer sales, 30% to 40% are on financeand subject to the provisions of the federalUniform Credit Code under which a cooling-off period is mandatory."

That article indicates a completemisunderstanding of both the law in general and,specifically, the philosophy underpinningconsumer protection laws. A cooling-off periodfor the purchase of furniture, whitegoods orclothing is not necessary. These are relativelystraightforward and uncomplicated purchases,they generally involve a much smaller amount ofmoney than is involved in the purchase of a car,and the bargaining position of consumer andtrader are relatively equal.

Of course, existing legislation such as thatcited by the MTAQ protect consumers primarilyby setting out standards for the conduct oftraders, for example, against misleading anddeceptive conduct and for the quality of goodsand services provided, for example, fit for thepurpose. However, the legislation does notprotect consumers except peripherally fromundue pressure and harassment. At any rate,even well-informed consumers often need timeto think. The philosophy underpinning the needfor a cooling-off period is simply this: buying a caris an important purchase and a legislativeprovision to provide for the cooling-off period willincrease the likelihood that consumers will makea well-informed decision to purchase.

The MTAQ is also completely wrong in itsassertion that the uniform credit code includes amandatory cooling-off period. There is no suchprovision. It is incredible to think that an industryassociation can make such a gross and, in thiscase, misleading statement of fact.

I would like to read to the Minister a letterfrom the Cairns Community Legal Centre whichwas sent to me about this very issue. In that

letter, the consumer rights solicitor at the CairnsCommunity Legal Centre states—

"... I have checked recent reports from theNSW Consumer Credit Legal Centre andthe Queensland Law Society Members'Library has researched Australia-widedecisions in the Australian Consumer CreditLaw Guide. I confirm that there are as yet nosuccessful cases in Australia under theConsumer Credit Code of 're-opening' acredit contract on the basis of unduepressure being used to coerce theconsumer to enter a contract."

So the MTAQ is quite wrong in using theconsumer credit code as an argument againstthe 24-hour cooling-off period. In that letter, MsAmy Barrett goes on to state—

"I reiterate that the above matter isbarely relevant to the cooling-off debate, asthe Code only relates to credit contracts andnot car purchase contracts. Even whereone leads to the other the Code does notregulate the conduct of a car dealer."

I have been informed that the MTAQ hasbeen told by numerous consumer solicitors that,in fact, that is the case, yet it is still keen topursue the idea with its members that the 24-hour cooling-off period is not necessarilybecause of this consumer code.

I have to say that, like the REIQ, the MTAQhas been very professional in its dealings withthe Opposition. We appreciate the briefings thatwe have had—and there have been anumber—from MTAQ representatives. I have tosay that I think that the motor traders ofQueensland are really very well served by theirassociation and the lobbying efforts of theirassociation and, certainly in many respects, theprofessionalism of the association. However, tocontinue to go around and tell their membersthat the consumer credit code protects people isreally very false. I hope that the associationceases doing that because that clearly is not thecase.

In fact, the MTAQ has been so busylobbying its members that I have received wellover 100 faxes from motor dealers throughoutQueensland. I will refer to one of these faxesbecause I think that they deserve being read intothe record so that the point of view of the motordealers is put on the record and that they knowthat the Opposition has listened to them and hastaken notice of what they have to say, even if itdoes not necessarily agree with them. Theirlobbying efforts have not gone unnoticed. I referto a fax from Joe Male, who is a licensed dealer ofused cars from Maryborough. It states—


"As a licensed motor dealer for 21yrs Iwould like to express my view regardingsome provisions of the Agents and MotorDealers Bill 1997.

Firstly, the proposed statutory warrantyfor 1 month or 1000ks gives consumerscomprehensive coverage for All vehiclesthey purchase while not inflating the saleprice.

I am also of the strong view that thecooling off period proposed in the first draftis unnecessary as existing legislation suchas the Fair Trading Act and the UniformCredit Code given the consumer substantialprotection. If implemented it would only addfurther costs to both the consumer and themotor dealer.

In overview, the Agents and MotorDealers Bill 1997 gives the consumersafeguards when purchasing a used motorvehicle and is fair and balanced approach tothe legislation of the motor industry."

All of those faxes are in a similar vein. In fact,they were just about a form letter from used cardealers throughout Queensland. Basically, theyreveal how misinformed they have been by theirassociation, particularly over the issue ofconsumer protection provided in the credit code.

The Financial and Counselling Service ofQueensland have this to say about cooling-offperiods—

"As financial counsellors we see a highpercentage of clients who have beensubjected to unfair sales tactics bysalespeople in used car yards. Many of ourclients have been pressured into buyingvehicles they do not want, cannot affordand which 'develop' serious mechanicalproblems within three months of purchase.The financial consequences ofovercommitment on these vehicles issignificant. It is not unusual for youngpeople in particular to end up bankrupt fromdealings with unscrupulous car dealers. Theproblem is not restricted to the youngeither. Many elderly people have had theirfinancial security in retirement seriouslyjeopardised by strong arm tactics in the caryard.

When the government first released itsdraft Commission Agents & Motor DealersBill 1997 for comment we were highlysupportive of the proposed one day coolingoff period and the three month or 5,000kmstatutory warranty. Both these mechanismswould lead to more ethical practices by usedcar salespeople as the less ethical would beforced to improve their practices or be made

responsible for the consequences. Theresult would be greater consumerconfidence in the industry.

We are now extremely disappointed tofind the cooling off provision has beencompletely omitted from the Bill aspresented to Parliament. From ourperspective it appears the governmentintends to allow a significant segment of anindustry it knows to be far from ethical tocontinue its unscrupulous practices. As it isbeyond the resources of most consumersto access any of the limited forms of legalassistance when they have been pressuredinto a sale or ripped off this section of theindustry can continue to function withoutany fear of being made accountable.

We believe that the introduction of aminimum one day cooling off will have asignificant impact on the standard ofindustry practices and will result in anincrease in the status of the industry. Itshould be welcomed by ethical dealers. Itwould also be welcomed by the financeindustry which often wears the loss arisingfrom consumer overcommitment and faultyvehicles."

Most members of Parliament have had very littleto do with financial counsellors. Obviously we areall on an income where we can manage ourfinances without special assistance.

Mr Lucas: The Treasurer could do withsome financial assistance.

Ms SPENCE: Certainly. There are notmany financial counsellors in Queensland; infact, there are only a couple in Brisbane, one inCairns and one in Townsville. Therefore, mostmembers of Parliament would not have a cluehow to access or where to find a financialcounsellor. Most of us have certainly neverspoken to such counsellors and it is a whole newarea for us.

However, if one takes the time to ring afinancial counsellor and talk about their job andwhat they do—and they are Governmentfunded, although mostly by the FederalGovernment and not by the StateGovernment—one will realise the sorts ofdifficulties that they face when giving peopleadvice on a daily basis. They are very frustratedthat people can make silly decisions whenpurchasing things, especially cars, which aresuch a major purchase. Today, those counsellorsare asking us to set a 24-hour cooling off periodto help people make better and more informeddecisions. They want people to have some timeto think about such decisions and have time toget out of contracts before making the kind of


serious mistakes that people make everyday—mistakes that may force them intobankruptcy or break up their relationshipsbecause of financial pressure. We ought to doourselves a favour and talk to financialcounsellors about what life is like in the real worldfor many of our constituents, because I suspectthat most of us do not have much of an idea.

However, it is not just the financialcounsellors and the Opposition who want thiscooling off period. The biggest consumer groupin the State, the RACQ, also wants it. TheFebruary/March edition of the RACQ journal, theRoad Ahead, states—

"The RACQ will be watching the Marchresumption of State Parliament with evenmore interest than usual as the Agents andMotor Dealers Bill comes under furtherconsideration. You may recall from the lastedition of the Road Ahead that your clubhas made clear to the Government ourconcerns over what we regard as thesignificant watering down of the proposedlegislation's protection for used-car buyers.In fact, both sides of the House and theindependent member for Gladstone willreturn to George Street knowing that theState's motoring organisation isdisappointed with just how little additionalprotection this long-awaited legislationoffers consumers in the form of its firstreading Bill. In originally proposing acontract cooling-off period and a threemonth, 5,000 kilometre mandatory warrantyon used car sales through dealers, theGovernment stood to be congratulated fortaking action in two areas where consumersconstantly are caught out by unethicalsections of the motor trade. The legislativeU-turn which has seen the cooling-offperiod eliminated and the warrantiesslashed to one month or 1,000 kilometresleaves a very real prospect of unsuspectingused-car buyers continuing to be lumberedwith vehicles which they cannot afford, areunsuitable for their purposes or simply arebombs. The Government responds thatcurrent legislation regarding fair trading andthe provision of credit makes a cooling-offperiod unnecessary, but that just leavesRACQ legal and technical advisory staffwondering why these laws do not stop theconstant flow of complaints from peoplewho have been talked into used-car dealsthey soon have regretted."

It is not as if we are proposing anything newtoday, because other Australian States havecooling-off periods, some of which are as long asthree days. We believe that the 24-hour cooling-

off period that we are proposing represents avery fair proposal, not only for Queenslandconsumers but also for motor trade dealersthemselves. People must ask why we have acooling-off period for door-to-door sales but notfor used-car purchases. People must ask theMinister why, after so many years of rewriting theAuctioneers and Agents Act and preparing anew Bill, he is not taking this opportunity toimprove consumer protection, because nothingin the Bill improves the protection thatQueensland consumers receive.

That leads me to the next important aspectof the Bill, statutory warranties, which the Ministerhas also backed down on. In the draft legislationthat was put out for consultation last year, theMinister promised a three-month or 5,000kilometre statutory warranty, which has now beenreduced to a one-month or 2,000 kilometrestatutory warranty. What do they have in otherStates? In the ACT, cars that cost over $4,500carry a three-month or 5,000 kilometre warranty;in New South Wales, they have a three-month or5,000 kilometre warranty; in the NorthernTerritory, they have a three-month or 5,000kilometre warranty; in South Australia, cars thatcost over $6,000 carry a three-month or 5,000kilometre warranty; in Victoria, cars that cost over$6,000 carry a three-month or 5,000 kilometrewarranty; and in Western Australia, cars that costover $4,000 receive a three-month or 5,000kilometre statutory warranty.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: And in Queensland?

Ms SPENCE: Here we have a bright newworld. We have a new Agents and Motor DealersBill and we are going to give our consumers far,far less than those in every other State. Everyother State provides a three-month or 5,000kilometre warranty, so what do we come up with?One month or 2,000 kilometres! Seriously, that isa joke in terms of consumer protection.

Let us look at the RACQ's perspective onthis. Part of the Government's rationale forreducing the mandatory warranty is that providingsuch cover against mechanical problems wouldcome as a cost that would have to be passed onto buyers. That is an argument that might holdsome water if not for the fact that consumers arealready paying a significant price through thepurchase of vehicles which prove mechanicallyunreliable or for optional extra cost warrantiesthat may not give them the financial protectionthat they expect when something breaks. Whilewe Queenslanders pride ourselves on notblindly following what the rest of Australia does,the fact that mandatory three-month used-carwarranties are provided in every other State andTerritory seriously begs the question: why canwe not enjoy the same level of consumer


protection? Considering the motor tradesconcerns over the cooling-off period and themandatory warranty applying only to its members,it is the RACQ's view that that would constitutetwo more good reasons to buy from a licenseddealer.

This leaves me wondering whether theMinister's backbench knows what he is doing inthis legislation. I notice that not one of them is onthe list of speakers to speak in support of——


Ms SPENCE: I thank the Minister. Hisbackbench understands this Bill and they are allhappy with it, and that is why they are notspeaking on it today. I am glad that he put that onthe record. I wonder whether they know that theyhave taken on the RACQ.


Ms SPENCE: I suspect that the Ministerwill keep saying that we were in Government forsix years and we did nothing. Later I will bringdown a briefing note to one of our Ministers fromJohn Sosso, one of your senior public servants,about all the amendments we made to improvethe Auctioneers and Agents Act. That willcompletely destroy your argument that for sixyears we did nothing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr J. N. Goss):Order! The member will direct her remarksthrough the Chair.

Ms SPENCE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I amsorry.

This Minister will go on and on about how herewrote the Bill and how we did not. While inGovernment we made many sensibleamendments to the Bill. We did start the work onthe rewrite. It is very unfortunate forQueenslanders that we did not have theopportunity to finish the work on the rewrite; I canpromise members opposite that we would havehad a much better Bill than that which is beforethe Parliament today.

The Minister can go on all he likes and skiteabout the fact that he is the one who hasdelivered this Bill to this Parliament. I am pleasedthat he has put on the record the fact that allGovernment members are very happy that theyare no longer offering Queensland consumers a24-hour cooling-off period and a three-month,5,000 kilometre statutory warranty, as is the casein every other State in Australia. They areprepared to sit back and say nothing while thisMinister goes about delivering a Bill which is agreat disappointment to most consumers andcertainly the largest consumer motoring group,the RACQ.

That leads me to my next point, the financialcounsellors' perspective on this lack of statutorywarranty. Financial counsellors say that thereduction of the statutory warranty from threemonths or 5,000 kilometres to one month or2,000 kilometres makes this provision virtuallyuseless. Unethical dealers are quite capable ofensuring a vehicle can be bodgied up so thateven serious faults do not become apparent fortwo to three months. Any defect in a vehicle hasserious consequences for consumers in terms ofpersonal safety and financial security.

As many consumers are overcommitted bythe dealer at the time of purchase, they have nocapacity to rectify the defects themselves, orthey become further overcommitted in attemptsto do so. They end up in severe financialhardship and many lose their jobs because theydo not have a reliable vehicle to get them to andfrom work. The cost of legal assistance toenforce their rights is prohibitive. The majority areforced to accept that they have been had and arepowerless to do anything about it.

I have heard many stories from people whohave rung me begging the Opposition tointroduce a three-month statutory warranty. Weagree with the Minister's proposal that thereshould be a one-month or 2,000 kilometrestatutory warranty for vehicles in a certain pricerange, but today we are proposing that weextend that to vehicles over $6,000. I lookforward to debating that amendment at theCommittee stage.

There are many flaws in this Bill. We hopethat some of our amendments will be supportedby the Minister and the Government at theCommittee stage. We will move thoseamendments in good faith. We are not out todestroy the Government over this piece oflegislation. We are not out to do over the variousindustry groups that feel they have been wellrepresented by this legislation. We believe this isthe opportunity to improve one of the mostimportant consumer and industry pieces oflegislation that we have seen in this Houseduring this term of Government. We believe ouramendments will add significant improvements tothis legislation. I look forward to the Minister'ssupport at the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr MULHERIN (Mackay) (5.23 p.m.): Iwish to speak briefly to the Agents and MotorDealers Bill. The member for Mount Gravatt hasably outlined the Opposition's position on thisBill. The object of the Bill should be increasedprotection for consumers in their dealings withagents and motor dealers, yet the new Bill doesnot evoke any more protection for consumersand does not even mention remedies for unfaircontracts or consumer rights. However, the new


Bill provides for increased costs and charges tobe paid by consumers by introducingderegulation of commission rates on residentialproperties.

The deregulation of commission rates isdesigned for the benefit of some, not all, realestate agents. It will not deliver improvedservices to consumers. Deregulation ofcommission rates will only inflate the industry,inflate the cost of land development, inflate thecost of houses, inflate the cost of stamp duty onreal estate transactions and inflate the pockets ofreal estate agents. That will do nothing forhardworking consumers who, at the end of theday, pay for everything.

Agents are telling me they are moreconcerned about the adverse publicity that theland sharks and sharp practices attract and theimpact of that on the reputation of the industry.Those agents want the Government and theOffice of Consumer Affairs to properly enforcethe legislation and eradicate the undesirableelement in the industry. Those agents are moreconcerned about raising the professionalstandards of real estate agents and theirreputations of honesty and integrity—forexample, after three months' study at a TAFEInstitution, an 18-year-old person is allowed tohang up his or her shingle—than the issue ofincreased commissions through deregulation.The deregulation of commission rates will furtherencourage greedy land sharks andunprofessional types to enter the real estateindustry to make a bigger quid at the expense ofthe unsuspecting vendors and principals,especially the elderly and the infirm, whom thisGovernment will not protect. This Government isencouraging greedy land sharks to charge bigcommissions for less service, which will furthertarnish the reputation of honest agents aroundQueensland.

What this Government does not understandis that this legislation should be designed toprotect consumers in their dealings with thebiggest two purchases of their lifetime—buyingthe family home and the family car. In this day andage it is hard enough to save for the greatAustralian dream of owning one's own homewithout being ripped off by unscrupulousagents, yet this Government will even allow themto also charge big commissions.

The concerns of honest agents to bring realreforms to the industry have been traded off bythe Government with the agents at the big end oftown to satisfy the thirst for bigger commissions.Land sharks are readying themselves for alegalised feeding frenzy courtesy of thisGovernment's deregulation of commission rateson residential properties. The family home is

under attack from real estate agents hungry forbigger commissions, and this Governmentsupports them.

Let us not forget that real estate agents andmotor dealers have a public confidence ratingabout the same as politicians, and theGovernment's new Bill does nothing to promotethe public confidence in real estate agents,motor dealers or politicians. The Government'snew Bill promotes a feeding frenzy amongst landsharks for bigger commissions.

A lot of agents and motor dealers believethat this Government did not deliver what itpromised the industries by rewriting theAuctioneers and Agents Act, namely, a separateAct for real estate agents and a separate Act formotor dealers. Instead the new Agents andMotor Dealers Bill is the old Act in drag,compartmentalised into over 500 sections,without any further protection for consumers.The primary purpose for which this legislationwas set up was to provide speedy and faircompensation for unfair dealings with agents andmotor dealers. The effect of the legislation will belessened by the provisions in the Bill.

The Bill will further delay the payment ofcompensation to consumers suffering financialhardship caused by unscrupulous agents andmotor dealers. Even today consumers have towait several months, even years, for ConsumerAffairs inspectors to investigate their claimsbefore they are settled by the Auctioneers andAgents Committee and payment is made fromthe Fidelity Fund.

Finally, the new Bill will ensure that it takeseven longer to receive just compensation. Thedefaulting agents or motor dealers can exercisetheir right to appeal the decision of the newboard or the registrar to allow compensationthrough the courts. At the end of the courtaction, which may take further months or years tofinalise, compensation may not be paid becauseof the technical rules of evidence required by acourt of law, or payment of compensation can beindefinitely deferred by protracted court cases.Deliberate delaying tactics can be employed bydefaulting agents to frustrate the court process.This Bill will not ensure that consumers arecompensated or protected in a timely manner.

Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton)(5.28 p.m.): It behoves every member ofParliament to enter into this debate todaybecause the two great investments thatQueenslanders make throughout this State on aday-to-day basis are buying a house and buyinga car. This Bill has a direct impact on thoseparticular purchases. Believe it or not, the peopleinvolved in these industries are not the sort ofpeople who live next door to us who, when they


see that our newspaper has ended up in thepuddle in the frontyard, will iron it out flat andpush it carefully under our door together with anafter-dinner mint. Some of them would like to dothat, of course, because they are wellintentioned and very decent people, and I countsome of them as my friends.

However, there is the other group ofpeople. No doubt people such as Mr Johnson—very decent human beings who I am sure are notin the business of ripping people off—wouldhave had experience with sharks and charlatansin the real estate and motor trades business andcould verify what I am going to say. I do notbelieve in the broad brush approach to labellingany group of people, but it is true to say thatwhere there is money there is greed and wherethere is greed there are shonks. This nonsenseof saying, "Let them regulate themselves, letthem go about in this joyful world of harmony andgoodwill and let them charge what they jolly welllike because they provide a different service"simply does not work. As far as I am concerned,that is the stuff of fantasy and fairy tales.

As far as I am aware, allowing people in thereal estate industry, for example, to completelyderegulate and charge according to what themarket will pay has not worked anywhere in theworld. As the shadow Minister said, it is all verywell in the upper class suburbs, where one istalking about a half million dollar house, a$600,000 house or whatever to say, "We willnegotiate on what the commission will be."However, if one goes out to the places that Irepresent where the average house is $100,000or even less—$80,000-odd—where there areforced sales and people are desperate to selltheir houses—such as a woman who came tosee me the other day—one will find that a personwill do anything whatsoever to sell that homevery quickly. That is especially so in regionalQueensland where the pressure is on people inthe case of forced transfers and the Federalpolicy of making old people sell their homes topay to enter a nursing home. As the bloke fromNew Zealand said, they will be desperate to selland they will sign any sort of agreement to get ridof the house.

Honourable members opposite should nottell me that those people of sweetness and lightout there in the real estate industry will not graspthat with both hands. Of course, there are somedecent ones, and they are still there now. I knowof cases in which real estate agents, for example,have taken no commission whatsoever to helppeople out, but they are in the minority. In myview, we are not in the business of handing overregulations into the hands of people whose solereason for existence is making money.

I heard the Minister's interjection before inwhich he big-noted himself and said that all ofthis is his work. I worked in the then Minister'soffice—Tom Burns—and a couple of people whowere around then advising might remember that.I remember John Sosso and his advice that heprovided to the Minister at the time. I always saythat good public servants follow the leadership ofthe Government of the day, and he certainly did.Tom Burns would not have had any part ofderegulating the commission fees. He would nothave had any part of it whatsoever. I will not starton the Minister over there, but he should notcome in here with this hogwash saying what agreat job he has done in this regard. It was neverthe Labor Government's intention to have openslather out there in the real estate market. TomBurns would not have allowed that to occur.Anybody who knows Tom Burns would knowthat he would not have copped that. He hadsome rather charming things to say about thatparticular side of the industry. So the Ministershould not come in here and say that it was theintention of the Labor Government to deregulatecommissions because that is simply not so. It isnot factual in any shape or form, and any publicservant who works in that area will tell the Ministerthat, especially those who sat around the tableon the 12th floor up there with my good self atmeetings that we had. I understand that certainbriefing notes bear that out.

I want to also talk about the cooling-offperiod. Any member of Parliament in theChamber tonight would be able to cite a case,provided they have been out there talking toconstituents, of somebody who has raced offand bought the Saturday morning special. Theyhave gone in and seen a smart new car. I thinkthat in the Minister's department a video wasmade about the sharp real estate agent with thebig sunglasses, the bangles, the beads andgoodness' knows—whatever they were at thetime—and a bright red shirt. I think it is stillaround. It is a pretty good video. It was aimed atyoung people and it was about forewarningthose people about going and buying theSaturday morning special—going out in themorning and seeing this bright new car withfinance guaranteed and all the rest of it.

All of us gain wisdom with age—not all of usbecause, for some people, the older they getthe sillier they get. However, certainly as mostpeople get on a bit, they tend to learn from theirearlier mistakes. The fact is that youngpeople——

Mr Lucas: This Minister doesn't.

Mr SCHWARTEN: One can try and retry,but one cannot retry and try again. The fact of thematter is pure and simple that young people


more so than any other group of people go outand buy motor cars on impulse. I cannot for thelife of me see what is wrong with a 24-hourcooling-off period. We do it for people who comebashing on our door to sell us goods that we donot want—Encyclopedia Brittanica andgoodness knows what else they flog around theplace. We say that people come to our door andwe buy these things on impulse so we ought tobe able to change our mind. Why not do that witha motor car? I just cannot understand why theMinister will not do it. I am yet to hear any goodreason.

Motor dealers in Rockhampton tell me thatthey give people that benefit of the doubt. Thedecent ones whom I know—B and J Car Sales,for example, and those sorts of people—do that.They follow it up. Perhaps that is symptomatic ofregional Queensland or small living areas, I donot know: the bigger the city, the less thatapplies. People in the motor industry whom Ihave spoken to, for example, Dick MacNiven—Inotice the member for Keppel there—has anexcellent name in that regard, especially withyoung people. If people change their mind onhim, he will allow them to go away and think aboutit. I do not see any problem with that. The peoplein the motor industry whom I know do not seemto have a great problem with it.

I really do not know why the Minister has aproblem with this particular initiative. Again, I saythat not only does it work in other States, but theLabor Government—and members will see thisfrom the briefing notes later on—set out quiteclearly that it intended to do that. I do not see anydrama whatsoever in pursuing that particular lineof attack on impulse buying. It is not in anybody'sinterest, is it? Whose interests is it in to have a kidgo broke over the sale of a motor car? If he goesand gets himself over his head in debt, thefinance company ultimately misses out whenthey go bankrupt; of course, the kid misses outas well. He gets five years in the pen virtuallywhere he cannot borrow money, leave thecountry or do whatever else he wants. Society isnot advanced one bit whatsoever by that kidgoing broke. So why not err on the side ofcaution and allow them 24 hours to think aboutit? I really do not think it is too much to ask or toexpect of the motor industry to do that. Theconsumer counselling people whom I speak totell me that it is a problem, and I am sure it is. I amcertain that impulse buying out there is a realproblem that could be somewhat stymied just byhaving the simple provision of a 24-hour cooling-off period.

Why does the three-month or 5,000-kilometre warranty work in other States inAustralia but is not going to work here? Again, it

was a provision that was in the legislation aboutwhich I sat around discussing with Tom Burns upthere in the Executive Building at that time. It wasbasically the Australian standard. Here we goagain trying to get a lower standard forconsumers in Queensland. Why, Minister? Whyare we saying that somehow Queenslanders aredifferent from people in the other States and wedo not need those sorts of provisions? I reallycannot see why something that works in otherStates, and which has not caused a world war oran outbreak of typhoid, will not work here.

I hear people say that it will cause the priceof motor cars to rise. But will it? Or will it mean thatwe will have fewer bombs on the road? We willhave a higher standard of vehicle on the roadsand we will have a higher expectation on theindustry itself to provide a better fitted outvehicle. I can understand the deregulation of realestate commissions, because those oppositebelieve in the laissez faire system of letting themarket dictate and letting the poor get what theydeserve and letting the rich get the benefits.However, I cannot understand why theGovernment wants to persist with a system ofallowing bomb cars to continue getting into themarket and allowing people to on impulse buymotor cars that they cannot afford. It simplysends people bankrupt and increases ourbankruptcy rate. I cannot understand how theGovernment's ideology allows it to think that way.

By and large the motor industry does apretty good job. If you were going to buy a motorcar you would be mad to do as I did before the1995 election. I raced off and bought a vehiclefrom a bloke who is a panel beater. This was abloke called Dobson and he is a constituent of MrLester. I was in an urgent hurry to buy a utility andI bought one from this bloke. I think I knoweverybody in——

Mr Lester: That old ute's all right.Mr SCHWARTEN: I am pleased the

honourable member said that because it is notwhat it seemed. As I said earlier, a person doesnot have to be young to make errors ofjudgment.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Wasn't there aproblem with the nut behind the wheel orsomething?

Mr SCHWARTEN: It was not like the nutthat is acting in the Whip's chair. I took this blokeat face value on a shake of the hand and boughtthe ute for $4,000. After the election mycampaign manager was driving it around and headvised me that it was not running too well. Thatwas the understatement of the year. I took it tomy mechanic, Peter Murphy. He overhauled itand, for the princely sum of $4,700 in repairs,


was able to get it roadworthy. So a 20-year-oldute that was probably worth $3,000 has now costme closer to $9,000. I do not have any comebackon that because it was my blue. I bought it from abloke in good faith.

Mr Dobson has promised to give me $1,000towards the cost of repairs. That was three yearsago. He has had more excuses than my kids hadfor leaving their school gear at home. He is nevergoing to pay me. He has no intention of paying. Itwas my own fault because I bought it on arecommendation from other people and in goodfaith from someone whom I took at face value. Iwas told that he was an honest broker. The worstthing about it was that he organised theroadworthy on the vehicle and registered it as aresult. I cannot find out who did the roadworthy.He reckoned it cost him $900 for the roadworthy.Obviously he caught me at a weak moment.

The point that I am making is that peopleshould always buy from persons who aremembers of the MTAQ because by doing thatthey receive some protection and have somerecourse. There is no excuse for doing what Idid. We judge people by a handshake, a look inthe eye and a guarantee that they will look afterus. They simply do not do meet their obligations.If this happens to someone in my position, wecould guarantee that it would be happening to alot of other people.

This is an area that we have to look at. I knowit is difficult because anyone should be able todispose of a motor vehicle. I have no realdifficulty with people doing up cars and making afew quid on them. It is up to the individual, Iguess. It was my mistake and my foolhardinessthat got me into this situation. There are only twothings that get people into strife; they arestupidity and greed. We would not need aConsumer Affairs Office if we did not have thosetwo aspects of human life. The greed bit did notcome into my case but the stupidity certainly did.

I do not want to belabour the point anyfurther. It is a great shame that the Minister haswatered down what could have been goodlegislation which would have made a differenceto the consumers of Queensland. I referespecially to our young people who need someassistance when buying cars. I do not believethat the deregulation of commission in the realestate industry is going to be helpful. I think theMinister is living in a fool's paradise if he believesthat agents are willing to decrease their fees. Ihave never met anyone who willingly wants togive themselves a pay decrease.

I think it was madness to sack theAuctioneers and Agents Committee and replaceit by a sort of tea and scones get together come-

as-you-will sort of group. The people whocomprised that committee were a credit to theGovernment. They were able to work with thisGovernment and with the previous Government.They had the concern of consumers at heart andthey were equal to the task. I do not believe thatthe comments the Minister made about a certainmember of the committee were warranted. Fromtime to time I met all the people who worked onthe committee; they were members of thecommittee because of their expertise and theirgenuine wish to make things better forconsumers. It is a shame that the Minister doesnot fit that bill as well.

Mr T. B. SULLIVAN (Chermside)(5.48 p.m.): I rise to speak on the Agents andMotor Dealers Bill. I hoped that the majorpurpose of the Bill would have been protectionfor the average consumer. Unfortunately, whenwe look at the objectives of the legislation wesee that the consumer protection aspect ofthings seems to be, if not an afterthought,certainly not of the highest priority. The majorobjective of the legislation is to "more effectivelyregulate" agents. It does not say why. It does notsay if it is for the good of agents or for the goodof consumers. In fact, it specifically does notmention consumers——

Ms Spence: To save the Governmentmoney.

Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: That could be thereason. The general outline then says that theBill "seeks to provide an enhanced regulatoryenvironment". That is wonderful and good, but isit going to end up protecting the average punterout there in suburban or regional Queenslandwho is purchasing the two biggest items in hiswhole purchasing career, namely a house and acar? It certainly does not put the consumer first.The wording of this document does not giveconfidence to those on this side of the House orto consumers. The general outline further statesthat "another objective of the Bill is to continuethe current consumer protection provisions". Itsounds as if it means that tagged along, too, is alittle bit of consumer protection. The wording ofthe general outline, unfortunately, is part of thereason why the shadow Minister is going to bemoving dozens of amendments. It is not goodenough for consumer protection. Unfortunately,I believe that it reflects the coalition's attitudetowards consumer protection. We have noMinister for consumer protection per se. Whereis the title for that Minister? It does not exist. Thatin itself sent a very strong message to theconsumers of Queensland—a very negative, avery bad, a very demoralising message. I am surethat Ms Spence will agree with me that there willbe a much greater emphasis on consumer


protection when we are on the right-hand side ofthe Speaker in the near future.

The last objective of the legislation is toachieve administrative efficiencies. So evenwhen we look at why the Attorney-General isbringing this legislation before the House, wefind protection for the consumer very low on thepriority list—in fact, to the extent that one reallyhas to search to find it.

Most people are not experts in all fields, andthey rely on others to give guidance. Mostpeople are basically fairly trusting. Knowledge iscertainly power, and knowledge of financialimplications and the financial vagaries andcomplexities of purchasing is certainly financialpower in the hands of those who know. So for anagent or dealer who is working in a particular fieldof real estate or the motor vehicle industry andwho knows the ins and outs and how to read theweaknesses of a product more clearly than theaverage householder, that in itself is a position ofpower.

The aim of much of the legislation thatpasses through this House is to provide supportand assistance to the weak. We do that in avariety of legislation. The new Minister forFamilies, Youth and Community Care haswithdrawn the proposed child protectionlegislation because she says that we need to domore to develop the Bill and undertake moreconsultation. But the whole purpose isprotection of other people. The Education(General Provisions) Act gives protection to ourchildren so that they are not left uneducated tofend for themselves, as occurs in Third Worldcountries. We have a specific law whichmandates the attendance of children at school. Itis for their protection, not for someone's financialbenefit.

Much of the legislation that passes throughthis Chamber is meant to protect people. Thislegislation is supposed to protect the financialweaknesses or the financial concerns ofconsumers. I am afraid that it does not do that,and it is disappointing that this Minister has notprovided for that. It is not good enough simply tosay "buyer beware", because the buyer is not ina position of power. A lifetime of work, energyand savings can be put into the purchase of ahouse and motor vehicle. To actually dash tensof years of a person's work and effort simplybecause of a misunderstanding or a lack ofknowledge in some respect in the purchasing ofa house or motor vehicle is not a reasonablething to impose on our citizens. That is whyconsumer protection is essential.

We on this side of the House are not tryingto undermine dealers. We understand that theyhave to work hard and long hours to make an

honest living. That is true. In fact, some of themotor dealers in my electorate are experiencinggreat difficulty because there is anoverzealous—in fact obsessive—traffic officerwho wants to run around issuing $6 fines tovehicles that are parked one foot over thefootpath. This is making life extremely difficult fordealers and purchasers in that area. I do not wantan obsessive, obsessed and petty-mindedpolice officer to interfere with the livelihood ofdealers in the area, but nor do I want motordealers in the Chermside area—and thosemembers who have driven along Gympie Roadwould know that that is a lot of dealers—takingunfair advantage of consumers. However, Iunderstand that they also need protection,because some consumers are dishonest. Someconsumers will sign a contract and not pay up.Some consumers will leave a car for sale,knowing that it has major deficiencies and hidingthose deficiencies. That is why there must be abalance.

The proposed cooling-off period is anabsolute disgrace. I do not know why the Ministerwill not maintain the existing cooling-off period. Ibelieve that it is to his eternal shame that he isleaving that go. Impulse buying is a problem.Impulse buying does cause people to spendmoney when they have not planned for it. Lackof financial planning is a major problem. Financialcounsellors know that. They try to encouragepeople to plan. If the impulse purchasing is doneat the checkout at Woolworths, when someonewill grab a $4 magazine, there might not be muchdifficulty. However, I know of a person who,some years ago, went to buy a relatively cheapsecond-hand car from Zupps at Mount Gravattand came away with a new, souped-up sportsmodel well beyond what he was capable ofpaying for. Protection is needed for people suchas that. I have heard other members in thisHouse say that that sort of thing is notuncommon. It was fortunate that, in the case towhich I referred, which occurred some 20 yearsago, another member of that person's familywent back and basically threatened the dealerthat there would be hell to pay if he did notrenege on the deal. Otherwise that particularyoung adult would have been saddled with afinancial burden that he could not have met, andhe would have forfeited some thousands ofdollars.

The Bill talks about providing codes ofconduct. An article in today's newspaper remindsme of how ineffective codes of conduct can be.According to that article, one particular personwho was dealing with consumers was guilty ofprofessional misconduct five times, yet he stillworks in that particular field. That isunsatisfactory. It does not surprise me that

182 Karalee Court Facility 4 Mar 1998

maybe the Attorney-General, who often dealswith lawyers and the Law Society, has learnt a bitfrom them. It is the motivation behind this Bill towhich I want to refer.

I refer to the matter of a disciplinary actionreport on Neil Mervyn Ballment, some pages ofwhich I will table when I am finished. The LawSociety has found that gentleman guilty ofprofessional misconduct on a number ofoccasions. He has a substantial history ofprevious convictions on charges relating tofailure to answer the society's correspondence.Yet that gentleman is not even named in today'snewspaper. So I am wondering what a code ofconduct will do. If we have shonks such as NeilMervyn Ballment being treated so lightly by theQueensland Law Society or in such a way thatthe Courier-Mail will not even publish theirnames, how are we going to get some decentprotection from this Minister when he cannoteven give more than 24-hour protection and willnot make consumer protection the key elementof his legislation? So-called consumer protectiongroups such as the Law Society even talk aboutthe matter of practitioner X. They will not evenname someone who has been found guilty ofsomething, to the extent that even the Attorney-General appeals against the inadequacy of thepenalty imposed on people such as that.Consumers need greater protection.

I must express my disappointment that theMinister has probably had consultation withconsumers groups but has not taken intoaccount what consumer groups really need. I amgoing to be supporting the shadow Minister asshe moves numerous amendments at theCommittee stage, because those amendmentshave one basic aim: to protect consumers. Thatmust be the goal of this legislation.

Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald,adjourned.

KARALEE COURT FACILITYMs BLIGH (South Brisbane) (5.59 p.m.): I

move—"That this Parliament—

• apologises to the people of Chuwar forthe lack of consultation, lack ofinformation and misrepresentationsregarding the decision to locate the'Karalee Court' facility in their low-density residential suburb;

• expresses grave concern at thedecision of the former Minister forFamilies, Youth and Community Care toaward a multi-million dollar, 20-yearcontract to Consolidated Care

Management, a company onlyregistered in December 1997 with nobackground or track record in theresidential are of people with anintellectual disability; and

Calls on the Parliament to—

(1) halt all construction of the 'KaraleeCourt' facility at the Chuwar sitepending consideration by the PublicAccounts Committee of a referenceregarding this matter and a thoroughevaluation of all possible alternativesites, and

(2) report back to the Parliament as soonas possible regarding possiblealternative locations for this facility."

The story behind this motion, like so manyof the stories that are emerging from the Familiesportfolio under former Minister Lingard, is one ofdeceit and incompetence. It is a story which hasmany twists, and at every turn there is the familiarsmell of the half-truth, the shady deal, thebungled plan and the unmistakable odour of themember for Beaudesert.

The motion before the House is in threeparts. Firstly, it seeks from the Parliament anapology to the people of Chuwar for what hasbeen a very appalling process. Secondly, it callson the Parliament to express its grave concernabout the circumstances surrounding thecontract for that facility. Thirdly, it calls on theParliament to ask the Government to take certainactions to halt the project until it can be furtherinvestigated.

To understand the background to this, Iwould like to lead the Parliament through asequence of events that outlines that thebackground to Karalee Court is one of more liesand more bungles. It starts with the first lie inSeptember 1996, when the former Ministerstood in this Parliament and said—

"We will also continue to maintaincentres such as ... Challinor so that peoplecan have the choice ... or remain in acentre."

Not six weeks later, the coalition Governmentannounced its decision to sell the ChallinorCentre to the University of Queensland. InFebruary 1997, I held a meeting with the thenDeputy Director-General of the Department ofFamilies, Dr Botsman. At that time in February1997, Dr Botsman informed me that he had helda number of discussions with families andindividuals at the Challinor Centre. At that stage,he could identify 40 current residents who wouldrequire centre-based care. In February 1997, thethen Minister and the department knew that they

4 Mar 1998 Karalee Court Facility 183

would have to find alternative accommodation forup to 40 people.

It was not until August 1997 that tenderswere called for the construction and operation oftwo residential centres for people relocating fromChallinor. The tender documents specified thefollowing criteria: the ability for the successfultenderer to be operational by 31 May 1998;corporate stability and experience; experience inquality design and construction; projectmanagement ability; reasonable proximity toshops, public transport and emergency services;and connection to local government services.The last requirement is, of course, to facilitate thesuccessful integration of people relocating fromChallinor into their community. Tenders for theproject closed on 30 September 1997.

One of the directors of the ultimatelysuccessful company has subsequently informedme that, during October 1997, he and anothercompany director each placed $1,000 of theirown money as a holding deposit on the land thatis currently the site at Chuwar. In November1997, unsuccessful tenderers for the projectwere advised of their lack of success. So thedepartment knew in November 1997 who werethe successful tenderers. They tendered for asite that does not meet the criteria outlined in thetender documents. The site is not close toshops. The nearest shop is two kilometres awaythrough almost virgin bushland. It is totallyinaccessible for people in a wheelchair or with awalking frame and, for the most part, for thepeople with disabilities who will be residing in thecentre. It is not close to public transport. It is notclose to emergency services. It is not connectedto sewerage.

On 8 December, funds were approved forthe successful company, Consolidated CareManagement, to win the tender. The companydirectors then relinquished their holdingdeposits on the land. The Department ofFamilies, Youth and Community Care purchasedthe Chuwar site for the project. The departmentcommitted public funds for the purchase of landwhen no contract had been signed with thecompany. On 19 December, the companyregistered as a company. Prior to 19 December,it did not even exist as a company.

The company consists of four directors. Thedirectors have expertise in the following: one isan expert in information technology and projectmanagement; the second is a partner in aVictorian accountancy firm; the third is a localIpswich builder; and the fourth is a director ofnursing in a nursing home in Toowoomba. Inother words, not one has any background in theresidential care of people with an intellectualdisability. I would like to draw to the attention of

the House the comments of one of the directors,Mr Williams, who rejected my claim that thecompany had no care experience—

"One of our directors is a director ofnursing at a Toowoomba nursing home ..."

He said—

"Both myself and our chairman haveprovided a range of consultancy services tothe aged-care industry for many years."

Those people know so little about the care ofpeople with an intellectual disability that they donot even know how much they do not know. Thereality is that 17 of the 22 residents will be under60; eight of them will be under 40. This is not aresidential centre for aged care. This is notgeriatric care of frail, aged people; this is a facilityfor people with intellectual disabilities.

I will turn briefly to the lack of consultationreceived by the people in the Chuwar district.The first they heard of any centre in their areawas an article in the Queensland Times on 14January. On 15 January, the director-general ofthe department said that he was not able toconfirm the site because contract negotiationswere continuing. Of course, that was a lie. Thedepartment knew where the site was. It hadalready purchased it. After a number of heatedpublic meetings, the department issued adocument that was a series of questions andanswers about community concerns. Irecommend to the Minister that she find whowrote that document and that she give thatperson a very brief lesson in how to treat peoplewith a degree of courtesy and honesty. Thisdocument is nothing more than a series of halftruths and lies. It is a provocative, aggressivedocument. Whoever approved its distributionshould hang their head in shame. For example, itasks: what is the present zoning of the land? Thedocument states that the land prior to purchasewas zoned residential low density and that onceit was purchased by the Government it becamezoned as Crown land. Crown land is not a zone; itis a tenure. It then states that the department iscurrently negotiating the zoning with theDepartment of Public Works and Housing. TheDepartment of Public Works and Housing has nocontrol over zoning. Either departmental officersare wasting their time or they are deliberatelymisleading the residents of Chuwar.

The department has signed a 20-yearcontract with a company with no experience inthe field to look after a group of very vulnerablepeople. In considering this motion, I askmembers to contemplate the following points.Firstly, the motion is not unreasonable. Itrecognises the probable existence of contractualobligations, although the company itself says


that the contract is not contingent on the site andit seeks further evaluations. I ask members whoare considering this motion tonight to considertheir own experience with the many communityorganisations that exist in their electorates whohave years of experience in what they do, whohave impeccable track records, and who arerequired to eke out a subsistence on the basis ofannual funding submissions. I am prepared toguarantee that not one of the communityorganisations in members' electorates receives a20-year funding arrangement. For the most part,they cannot even secure triennial fundingagreements, regardless of their background,track record or the excellence of their service. Iurge members to contemplate their feelingsabout their member's endorsement tonight of a20-year funding agreement for a newly formedcompany with no track record.

Last but not least, I ask members toconsider the history of this portfolio under theformer Minister. No doubt, a number of speakersin this debate will be the same speakers whostood in this House and supported the motion tokeep Basil Stafford open on the basis that theformer Minister told them that there would bemoney in the budget. That was a lie. There wasno money in last year's budget. It was only afterintense lobbying from me and other members ofthe House that money was ultimatelyforthcoming. They supported the formerMinister's amendments to the unmet needsmotion on the basis that he assured them thatmoney would be forthcoming in the mid-yearbudget review. That was a lie. There is still nofunding round for disability in this State. Theyaccepted the explanations of the former Ministerthat computers and the Labor Party wereresponsible for the Basil Stafford trust accountfiasco. Of course, the Auditor-General found thatit was an appalling lack of management expertiseat the most senior levels of the Minister'sdepartment. It is against that background that Ican say that I am glad that the history books willnot record my name supporting the shady fiascoat Chuwar.

I recommend that all members of this Housetake the opportunity presented to them thisevening by this motion to distance themselvesfrom this disgraceful saga. The people leavingChallinor deserve better. The people who live atChuwar deserve better. The public interestdeserves better than the shonky, slapdash,sloppy work that has been done over the past 10months in relation to this contract. I urge allmembers to take this opportunity to put the pastbehind us, put the poor performance of theprevious Minister behind this Parliament and forthe Parliament and the new Minister to embrace anew ethic of consultation and to give the people

of this suburb a fair go. I urge honourablemembers to support the motion.

Mr LUCAS (Lytton) (6.09 p.m.): I secondthe motion moved by the member for SouthBrisbane. Tonight, I want to speak about a sadtale of incompetence, bungling and ineptness. Itis a tale where the price is paid by the residentsof Chuwar, the former residents of Challinor andthe taxpayers of this State.

This saga started with the closure of theChallinor Centre and its sale to the University ofQueensland as its Ipswich campus. Whathappens to the residents of Chuwar? On 14 and15 January this year they wake up to read in themorning paper that the Government haspurchased land at Karalee for the construction ofa residential facility. There has been noconsultation with the residents and no properconsideration of the best interests of the futureChuwar residents.

At the outset, I want to make it clear that theOpposition has a commitment to providingappropriate accommodation for people such asthe former residents of Challinor across thebroad spectrum of disability care needs. They arevery important in the Opposition's consideration.Might I say that, after the next election when,hopefully, the member for South Brisbanebecomes the Minister, I predict that she will godown in the history of Queensland as theMinister who achieved the greatest commitmentsin disability services. I make that predictionconfidently now in this House. No-one has donemore than the member in that area.

Let as look in detail at the contractualprocess. One would think that issues asimportant as these would be the subject ofdetailed consideration. However, what do thetender documents say? There is only oneessential criteria, and that is that the centre beoperational by 31 May 1998. It does not matterwhat it is like, "Whack it together and as long as itis running by 31 May 1998, things are hunky-dory and we are doing what we are supposed todo." That is disgraceful! Anything will do. Thatslapdash sort of solution is not a solution that is inthe best interests of the former residents ofChallinor or, indeed, the residents of Chuwar. It isnot good enough for them and it is not goodenough for the taxpayers of this State.

What will the Minister do if and when thiscentre is not built by the tender's one essentialcriterion, namely, 31 May 1998? Will the Ministerhave the integrity to come before the House andtender her resignation because she has noteven fulfilled the one measly criterion of thetender that was left by the previous Minister? Ofcourse, as this Minister was the Parliamentary


Secretary to the former Minister, she bears someresponsibility for that.

Let us have a look at some of the othercriteria in the contract: corporate stability andexperience; experience in quality design,construction and equipping; evidence of projectmanagement ability with previous experience inmanaging a project with similar complexityadvantageous; value for money; and competentcentre administration. As my colleague themember for South Brisbane pointed out, thereare four directors of the company that won thecontract. One director is stated as havingexpertise in information technology and projectmanagement, anther is a partner in a Victorianaccounting firm, a third is at least a director of aregional nursing home and the fourth is anIpswich builder. I am sure that those directors arepeople of integrity and skill in their own areas ofoperation. However, the question is: are they thebest people for this job? We simply do not know,because this is not a situation involving a normalnursing home or an aged care facility; it is asituation involving approximately 22 people,some with very severe disabilities, aged in the 20to 70 years age group. Unlike people who areusually in nursing homes, some of those peopleare physically quite well and physically strong.They have many and varied needs.

At present, we have no confidence that thewinners of the contract have fulfilled thosecriteria. The Minister is not being fair to thosecontractors, because if we had more confidencein the project and it was a bit more transparent,we might find that they are suitable for the job.However, that is the situation in which thosecontractors have been left. The Minister hasdudded the people to whom she has given thecontract. For how long will the contract run? 20years! Organisations in my electorate such asSilky Oaks cannot even get triennial funding.

In the very short time left to me, I want torefer to what the National Party candidate forIpswich West in the upcoming State election,Sue Wykes, said about this issue. She has calledon the Government to examine how a newlyestablished company won the contract. She hasalso called for an independent look into theprocess, stating—

"The way the tender was let appearedto have been rushed through with noconsultation."

I table that article. I am very sad that tonight themember for Ipswich West, Mr Livingstone,cannot be with us due to an unfortunate familyillness. My best wishes to Don's wife Cheryl.

Time expired.

Hon. N. K. W. WILSON (Mulgrave—Minister for Families, Youth and Community Care)(6.14 p.m.): I move the following amendment—

"That all words after the word'Parliament' first used be omitted and thefollowing inserted—

'Acknowledges the concerns of thepeople of Chuwar regarding theconsultation process in connectionwith the decision to locate the KaraleeCourt facility into their community;

relies on departmental advice that dueprocess was followed in the awardingof the contract for theconstruction/management of thefacility to Consolidated CareManagement; and

recognises the need to proceedexpeditiously with the project to enableresidents of the Challinor Centre tomove into their new home withoutunnecessary stress due to delays ofmultiple moves and for the University ofQueensland to gain full possession ofthe Challinor site as agreed in thecontract of sale.' "

As a result of the agreed sale of theChallinor Centre site to the University ofQueensland to allow the establishment of acampus at Ipswich, all residents currently living atthe centre will move into alternativeaccommodation options. Under the terms of thecontract of sale, the University of Queenslandhad originally sought access to the ChallinorCentre site by December 1997. However, thedepartment was able to negotiate an extensionuntil 30 June 1998 to allow for the plannedrelocation of residents. It is understood that theuniversity intends to have students commenceon the site in February 1999. The university isalready renovating a number of buildings on theportion of the site not being used foraccommodation for people with intellectualdisabilities.

In order to gain an indication of preferencesfor either centre-based or community-basedcare, over 85 interviews were conducted with thefamilies of people residing at the ChallinorCentre. Forty-nine families indicated apreference for centre-based care. Locationpreferences demonstrated a need for twocentres located in the Brisbane south andIpswich areas respectively. At this stage theBrisbane south centre will house 27 people andthe Ipswich centre, 22. The remaining residentswill move into housing in the communityprovided by the Department of Public Works andHousing.


Expressions of interest for the provision ofcentre-based care were called on 21 June 1997through an advertisement in the Courier-Mail.Seven organisations were invited to providemore detailed information against the tenderbrief by 30 September 1997. The evaluationcommittee took one month to evaluate all of thetenders and informed Consolidated CareManagement that it was the preferred tenderer tooperate the Ipswich centre and that BarellanConstructions would build the centre. AnExecutive Council minute requesting approvalfor the release of funds was signed by thedirector-general and the Minister on 8 December1997 and approved by Executive Council on 18December 1997. Consolidated CareManagement Limited and Barellan Constructionssigned the contracts with the department on 19January 1998.

During the tender evaluation period,Consolidated Care Management indicated that ithad located ideal land, that is, the Chuwar site,and wished to consider the Governmentproviding capital funding for purchase of the landand construction on that land. That proposal wassupported by the tender evaluation panel basedon advice from the Treasury Department. Theland for the Ipswich site was purchased by thedepartment on 12 January 1998. The purchasefollowed departmental and family representativesvisiting the site and an independent siteinvestigation by the Department of Public Worksand Housing. A valuation of the site was alsoconducted and the purchase price proved torepresent value for money.

The site for the Ipswich centre-based facilityis a 2.1 hectare block located on Dan andLanglands Street, Chuwar. The site is generallyeven and has a light covering of native trees.Along the western alignment, the property isbounded by five established residences onsuburban-size blocks. The eastern side of theblock has one acreage-size block with oneestablished house. The subdivided blocks to thenorth are yet to be developed.

The site will be used to accommodate the22 people relocating from the Challinor Centre.The facility will have a maximum capacity toaccommodate 24 people and there is nointention of expansion beyond that size. Thefacility will comprise a combination of fourduplexes, one detached house and anadministration building. There is also a pre-existing house on the site that will be used toaccommodate family members of the residentswho may wish to stay overnight. The building willbe constructed by Barellan Constructions.Appropriate trees will be planted on the land to

give additional screening adjacent to theneighbouring highset houses.

At the third of these meetings, on Tuesday,24 February, as the new Minister I attended andmet with the local residents, listened to theirconcerns, confirmed that the project was to goahead on the site and sought advice about along-term mechanism for allowing local residents'input to the project and the facility once it wasdeveloped. As a result of the meetings with localresidents, changes have been made to the siteplan to meet their requests. These includemoving the main entrance of the facility to DanStreet, moving two buildings on the site andchanging the type of fencing around the site. AsDan Street is currently unsealed, the departmentis also examining the option of sealing part ofDan Street.

I have a letter that I received today from thespokeswoman of the Challinor Family SupportGroup, which I will table. As the spokesman forthe families and residents, she states in thatletter that the families have had enough of theradical advocacy groups interfering with therelatives' lives and the people who live inChallinor.

Time expired.Mr HEALY (Toowoomba North)

(6.19 p.m.): I have much pleasure in secondingthe motion proposed by the Minister for Families,Youth and Community Care. In doing so, Ireiterate some of things that the Minister hasexpressed, particularly in relation to the processof probity. It is important that the member forSouth Brisbane in particular understands thatprocess. This Government has a policy of choicewhich has led to consultation with families thathave expressed wishes that their family membersmove to centre-based care as part of the closureof the Challinor Centre. To meet this choice, twocentre-based services are being developed, onein the Brisbane south area and one in Ipswich.

The process of probity started on 18 June1997. A tender process was selected as the bestmeans of ensuring that quality services weredeveloped which met people's needs. On 18June 1997, approval was given by the thenMinister for Families, Youth and Community Carefor an expression of interest and invitation totender process to be used to determine whichorganisations would provide the required centre-based care. The expression of interest wasadvertised in the Courier-Mail on 21 and 25 June1997. Over 30 expressions of interest packageswere sent out in response to the advertisement.A total of nine expressions of interestsubmissions were received by the closing dateof 14 July 1997. An assessment of the


submissions resulted in seven organisationsbeing invited to tender.

The tender process required thoseorganisations to respond to very detailedinformation about the project and included aninvitation to tender document that was some 40pages in length and contained around 200points on which comprehensive responses wererequired. The closing date for tenders was 30September 1997. Six tender responses werereceived by the department, two representing ajoint submission which effectively reduced thenumber to five. In order to ensure that alltenderers received the same information, anyquestions asked by tenderers prior to the closingdate were sent to all other tenderers along withthe answers that were provided.

The tenders were assessed by anevaluation panel. The evaluation panel was aseven-person group involving senior andexperienced officers of the department and aprobity adviser from the Department of PublicWorks and Housing—a probity officer who wascalled in to oversee the whole project. I ask themember for South Brisbane whether she isquestioning the integrity of a probity officer?

Mr Foley interjected. Mr HEALY: As part of the panel's

deliberation, specialist advice was sought fromProject Services and the Department ofTreasury. The member for Yeronga raises aquestion about the facts. I ask him: is hequestioning the integrity of a probity officer? Thatis all part of the probity process and he knows it.

The assessment of tenders was conductedover the period of 30 September to 30 October1997. The initial evaluation indicated that threeof the five responses met the minimumrequirements across all criteria. As per theinvitation to tender conditions, furtherassessment and evaluation continued with thosethree responses only. The evaluation processinvolved members of the panel assessing thetender responses across a total of six criteria,namely, corporate stability and experience;experience in quality design, construction andequipping; evidence of project managementability; competent centre administration;effective centre administration; and value formoney. Each criterion was rated and this amountwas then multiplied by the weighting ascribed tothe particular criterion, resulting in an overallscore for the response.

On 21 and 24 October, the threeorganisations were invited to conductpresentations to the evaluation panel.Presenters were asked to respond to questionsthat had been sent to them and to focus their

presentations on the strengths and weaknessesof their submissions. The evaluation of tenderswas completed on 30 October 1997, with oneoutcome of the process being that ConsolidatedCare Management Limited was assessed asmeritorious to operate the Ipswich centre, withBarellan Constructions building the centre. Thatis the process of probity as outlined by theguidelines.

On 26 February 1998, the member forSouth Brisbane issued a press release entitled"Construction of Chuwar Centre must stoppending investigation". I table that press release.According to the press release, the member haswritten to the Public Accounts Committee askingit to investigate. The last line of the press releasestates—

"New Families Minister Naomi Wilsonshould extend her recently-announcedenthusiasm for community consultation bytalking to residents and halting allconstruction work at the site while thePublic Accounts Committee completes itsinvestigation into the contract ..."

That release was dated 26 February. As Iunderstand it, the Public Accounts Committeedid not meet until Tuesday of this week.

Time expired.

Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah)(6.24 p.m.): I have been a member of thisParliament for 10 months and in that time I havegiven Government members the benefit of thedoubt. I thought that they were just myopic.However, because of recent events, particularlythe developments surrounding the ChallinorCentre, I am now convinced that not only arethey myopic but they cannot chew gum andthink. They give truth to the saying that out ofstupidity comes arrogance. The Government isso arrogant that the Minister and members of thecoalition cannot say that they are sorry to thepeople of Chuwar. They acknowledge theirconcerns, but they cannot say that they aresorry.

We have already heard about thebackground of what is happening at Chuwar,which I will repeat. The Government sold theChallinor Centre to the Queensland Universityand the handover will occur on 30 May this year.Having made that decision and signed thecontract, it then had to find a place for theresidents of Challinor. Talk about putting the cartbefore the horse. On 14 January this year, theQueensland Times boasted the headline"Challinor makes move to Karalee—Final step inuni site handover". In that article, Mark Strongreported that a Families, Youth and CommunityCare spokesman confirmed that the Government


had bought a site in Ipswich for the centre, thecentre being a new community facility forresidents moving from the Challinor Centre. Thefollowing day this was confirmed in the IpswichTimes. However, it was not until some time afterthat that the Director-General of the Departmentof Families, Youth and Community Care, theReverend Allan Male, met the residents ofChuwar to discuss relevant issues about the newcentre to house residents relocating from theChallinor Centre.

On 28 January 1998, the Ipswich Advertiserquoted Reverend Allan Male as saying—

"My department had to wait for theagreement to be finalised and the contractto be signed before we were able to fullyinform the residents."

Of course, this says: "The decision has beenmade to relocate a community care facility; theland has been bought; tenders have beenadvertised and decided upon, and then we willtell the residents." In other words, the residentsof Chuwar were presented with a fait accompli. Ihave no doubt at all that the Minister will issue apress release proudly boasting the new centre,and she will call this consulting with thecommunity.

The residents of Chuwar have been treatedshabbily by this Government and they haveevery right to be angry. No private developer orproperty owner could get away with doingsomething so underhand and in such a shroudof secrecy. I ask the Minister: was it out of sheerarrogance that she forgot to tell the residents, oris she so ashamed of building a facility that shethought that the residents of Chuwar would beautomatically opposed to it? If it is the latter, notonly should she hang her head in shame forhaving treated the residents of Chuwar so badly,she should also hang her head in shame forshowing such a lack of concern for the dignity ofthe very people she is charged to care for.

Last Thursday we had the incrediblesituation where the Department of Families,Youth and Community Care took the Children'sAppeals Tribunal to court to challenge itsjurisdiction. If the Minister was reported correctlyas having stepped in in what was essentially alegal argument to remind her department and itsagencies that they must not lose sight of actingin the best interests of the child, this then giveshope that the new Minister, unlike herpredecessor, has taken it to heart and is acrosswhat are the core responsibilities of her portfolio.

On behalf of the residents of Challinor it canthen be asked: is it in their best interests to beplaced at the proposed community facility to becalled Karalee Court in the low-density residential

suburb of Chuwar? The move todeinstitutionalise is underpinned by integration,yet the so-called institution of Challinor, which issituated in the City of Ipswich, is being broken upinto community facilities situated well on theoutskirts of town. From what I understand of thearea, there is little or no public transport and, asthe member for South Brisbane alluded to, thenearest shop is two kilometres away as the crowflies but quite a distance if one travels by car.There is no sewerage, no public infrastructureand no other facilities. Chuwar residents live ontwo hectare lots and cannot see their next doorneighbours' houses. They chose to live there forthe peace, tranquillity, quiet and isolation. Thiscan hardly be called integration.

When I was elected to Parliament in May lastyear and came to this House to speak for the firsttime, I felt that the profound disillusionment thatthe community has with the institutions ofGovernment and, in particular, the Parliamentand the Executive had to be brought to theHouse's attention. It is no wonder that this is thecase when decisions are made in suchcontemptuous disregard of the local community.

Time expired.

Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore)(6.29 p.m.): As mentioned previously, theprocess of calling for tenders in relation to thecentre-based support for people with intellectualdisabilities leaving the Challinor Centre was alengthy, complex process. It involved not onlythe construction of the facilities but also theirongoing operation for the life of the contracts.

Tenders were called for two centres, one tobe located in the Ipswich area and the other inthe Brisbane south region. In preparing for theassessment of the tenders, the Department ofFamilies, Youth and Community Care sought theadvice of other areas of Government andobtained the services of a probity adviser fromthe Department of Public Works and Housing toprovide advice and assistance in ensuring thatthe process used was clear and equitable for allparties.

The evaluation process involved theestablishment of an evaluation committee, aprocess of reviewing the written submissions oftenderers, the opportunity for short-listedorganisations to present information to supporttheir bids to the evaluation committee and a finalscoring of the submissions, leading to anorganisation or organisations being awardedpreferred tenderer status.

The evaluation committee involved sevenrepresentatives from the Department of Families,Youth and Community Care and the probityadviser from the Department of Public Works and


Housing. The seven officers from thedepartment included experienced and seniorofficers from the Disability Program from the tworegions involved—Brisbane south and south-west Queensland regions—and from corporateareas of Finance and Property Services. Thiscommittee met on seven occasions duringOctober for a total time in excess of 30 hours'evaluation of the submissions.

These meetings looked at the submissionsto short-list, a detailed review of the short-listedsubmissions, the preparation of questionssubmitted to short-listed tenderers to be clarifiedat the presentations, the presentations fromshort-listed organisations and the moderation offinal scores. The committee had a total of sixsubmissions to review and all of these wereextensive submissions, with only one listing"operate only" as an option. The remaining fivesubmissions included a number of proposalsabout the design, construction and operation ofthe facilities. The tendering organisationsincluded a number from within Queensland andone from interstate.

It must be remembered that the evaluationcommittee had to assess the submissions on thebasis of the advertised evaluation criteria and thesubmissions made in response to the invitationto tender document. Apart from the essentialcriterion of having the facility operational by 31May 1998, six evaluation criteria were used toassess the submissions. Five of these relatedprimarily to operational issues, namely, corporatestability and experience, project management,centre administration, centre operation and valuefor money. A further criterion related primarily toconstruction, namely, design, construction andequipping. However, it should be noted that theproject management and value for money criteriaalso related to construction.

As can be seen from this list, the emphasisof the evaluation was on the ongoing operationof the facility, as this is the more complex andimportant component of the project and involvesthe operation of the facility over 20 years. Uponits initial scan of the submissions, the committeeagreed that there were only four submissionsthat met minimum requirements and which,therefore, could be considered for short-listing.As one of those submissions was for "operateonly" and the other three were for bothconstruction and operation, it was agreed thatthe committee should consider the "operateonly" aspects of all four submissions initiallybefore then evaluating the constructioncomponents.

In evaluating the submissions, thecommittee considered all the material providedby the organisations, and this included additional

material provided by the organisations at thepresentations. In submitting its tender, eachorganisation was asked to complete a tenderform and a preference sheet to indicate whetherthey preferred to construct and operate on landthey owned, that the Government owned, or tooperate the facility only. During the course of theevaluations, the organisations were requested toclarify their preferred option for their bid, asseveral of them had indicated a number ofpossible options on the tender forms.

Following the evaluation of all tendercriteria, the committee determined that only twoorganisations met all criteria. For each centrelocation, a preferred tenderer was identified andoffered preferred tenderer status. This statuswas conferred in early November 1997 and aperiod of negotiation followed to finalise thedetails of the proposals. In the case ofConsolidated Care Management Limited, thesenegotiations included some adjustments to thecosting submitted in the tender process toremove costs that the department would notfund, and finalisation of the structure of theproposal. There can be no suggestion that anypreference was given to Consolidated CareManagement.

Time expired.

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga)(6.34 p.m.): The most startling weakness in theGovernment's argument in this evening's debateis that it has not sought to rebut any one of thefour key facts asserted by the mover of thismotion. Fact No. 1, that there is a lack ofconsultation, lack of information andmisrepresentations regarding the decision tolocate the Karalee Court facility in the low-densityresidential suburb has not even been disputed,let alone evidence given to rebut it. The secondfact which has been unchallenged by theGovernment is that this is a contract for 20 years.What an extraordinary state of affairs! Wouldn'tthe local Salvation Army like to get a 20-yearcontract to deliver welfare services?

Ms Bligh: The women's refuge in myelectorate would love it.

Mr FOLEY: Indeed, the women's refugewould appreciate it, as would the St Vincent dePaul Society. Government members do not evenhave the wherewithal to dispute the fact that weare dealing with 20 years. This is competitiongone mad. It is competition turned intomonopoly. The third fact which they simply donot dispute is that this contract was awarded to acompany registered only in December 1997.

Ms Bligh: After all the examinations.

Mr FOLEY: As the shadow Minister said,that was after all of the examinations. In other


words, this had no corporate personality duringthe time of the tender process, about which wehave heard repetitiously.

The fourth and most damning fact, which isnot disputed by the Government, is that thiscompany consists of persons with nobackground or track record in the residential careof people with an intellectual disability. Thosefour key facts have simply not been disputed bythe Government, yet the Government urgesupon this Chamber the most extraordinary set ofamendments. What is urged in the principalmotion is four courses of action. The motionseeks an apology. Will this Governmentapologise? No, it simply wants to acknowledgethe concerns of the people of Chuwar! Onecannot have it both ways. If the Government willnot even dispute these damning facts, thesepeople are owed an apology.

The second course of action advanced bythe mover of the motion is an expression ofgrave concern. If they will not dispute the factson which the argument is based, they shouldexpress grave concern and this Parliamentshould do so. The fascinating amendmentmoved by the Minister is typical of the mockery ofministerial responsibility into which thisGovernment descends. It does not assert thatthere was due process followed; the amendmentmerely asserts that the Parliament relies ondepartmental advice that due process wasfollowed. Let me tell this Minister: there is a thingcalled the doctrine of ministerial responsibility.This Parliament relies upon Ministers and holdsMinisters responsible.

Is it not extraordinary that this is the sameMinister who on Monday on the front page of theCourier-Mail condemned her department fortaking a course of action to challenge a decisionin the District Court? Here we have the absurdityof Crown law appearing to challenge theChildren's Services Appeal Tribunal. And who isit instructed by? Is it the department of the Crownor is it the Minister of the Crown who condemnsthe department's action? Yet this Minister wantsus to have confidence in departmental advicefrom the same department that she condemnedon Monday.

Finally, the Minister urges us to recognisethe need to move expeditiously. We supportmoving expeditiously where it is right to do soand not where it is wrong to do so. That is why itis important that construction be halted so thatthere can be consideration by the PublicAccounts Committee of this mess. It is a mess.Indeed, the very fact that the Government hasemployed a consultant to help clean up the messis further evidence of that.

This debate is one of the most unusual inwhich I have participated, for one usually has atleast some attempt by the Government to rebutthe basis of fact and evidence upon which theargument proceeds. Instead this Governmenthas abandoned the field.

Time expired.

Mr CARROLL (Mansfield) (6.39 p.m.): Asa member of the ministerial committee and thepolicy committee assisting the Minister forFamilies, Youth and Community Care, I ampleased to support the amendment before theHouse. This National/Liberal coalitionGovernment is committed to ensuring that thereis as much consultation as reasonably possible inany process involving the Queenslandcommunity. In some circumstances and for avariety of sound reasons, this does not occurexactly as each member of the community mightwant in each case. They need to remember,however, that they have elected members ofParliament to represent them, and we haveheard tonight that all interests have beencarefully balanced in this process of choosingthe site.

In this situation all honourable memberswould be aware by now that the department hadcommenced purchasing that particular site inChuwar last December, with this purchase beingsettled on 12 January 1998. Given that this Statewas so close to the expected date for the signingof contracts, that is within one week, a decisionwas made not to advise local neighbours of thesituation until after the signing of the contracts. Iam informed that this decision was made on thebasis that this would then have provided anopportunity for the successful organisation tointroduce itself to the local community and for theDepartment of Families, Youth and CommunityCare to provide information to the localcommunity about the use proposed for the site.

Unfortunately, this plan was interrupted bythe publishing of information about theproposed use of the site in the local newspaperon 14 January and for several days thereafter.This meant that, when the contracts were signedon Monday, 19 January, the local community wasalready aware of the proposed site and hadformed opinions about the residents proposedto move from the Challinor Centre.

When it became apparent that the localcommunity was concerned about thisdevelopment, the department commenced aprocess to provide several options to assist thesharing of information between the localresidents of Chuwar, Consolidated CareManagement Limited and the Department ofFamilies, Youth and Community Care. Thedepartment has apologised to local residents


and recognises the stress caused to themthrough finding out about this project throughrumour and media coverage rather than directlythrough the department or Consolidated CareManagement.

The communication processes developedby the department have included theappointment of an independent facilitator, MrJohn Briton, to work on developing bettercommunication. The department has alsofunded the position of community developmentofficer at the Ipswich City Council to work onbuilding the longer term relationships in the area.Mr Briton has held and will continue to hold anumber of meetings with local residents andother individuals and organisations involved inthis process. The department and ConsolidatedCare Management Limited shall now provideregular updates to local residents throughmeetings and regular information exchanges. Ihope that we will see the establishment of longerterm processes which will allow the localcommunity to communicate with ConsolidatedCare Management and participate in the ongoingoperation of that facility.

At present, regular meetings are occurringwith the immediate neighbours to the site toallow discussions to occur about issues thatimpact on them, such as dust and otherproblems that might stem from the construction.These meetings have been very productive andhave resulted in the neighbours being keptclosely informed of activities. They have alsoresulted in some changes to the plans. TheIpswich City Council has also been involved inthese meetings and in meeting individually withgroups of other local residents. The council isfurther assisting the distribution of information tothe nearby neighbourhood.

I believe that the intellectually and physicallydisabled people, who are the most importantpeople here, have been made pawns in thegame by the disgraceful spectacle of a desperateOpposition trying to raise a fuss over a matter thathas proceeded with all due diligence, care andresponsibility by this Government. It has stirredup local residents against the people who aremost important in this particular position. It is allvery well for the muckraking member for SouthBrisbane to try to victimise these people and stirup trouble. She has called in residents fromChuwar to witness her performance from thepublic gallery tonight without any due regard forthe people who will be placed in the centre.

The Minister received a letter today formSandy Rogers from the Challinor Family SupportGroup, and a lady known to me. The letterreads—

"I am the spokeswoman for the familiesof the residents of the Challinor Centre atIpswich. I have just received word thismorning that a debate is going to be held atParliament House sometime today,concerning the organisation that is atpresent in the process of building ourpeople a new care centre at Karalee.

Minister, we, the families, have hadenough of these radical advocacy groupsinterfering with our relative/s lives and in ourown.

They have caused conflict withinfamilies, harassed our elderly parents,harassing our loved ones in and at theCentre, and a heap more.

We, the families, stand behind thisorganisation who are to build this carecentre."

Time expired.

Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove)(6.44 p.m.): Over the past two years we haveseen the continuance of bunglingincompetence, deceit and arrogance that hasbecome the public face of the Department ofFamilies, Youth and Community Care. I want toraise three issues tonight. The first is the lack ofconsultation with the residents, the second isthat this site is not an ideal site and, third, thecompetence of the management. I will quotewhat some residents said in the localnewspaper—

" 'I feel powerless,' she said.

'I just find it annoying when you canhave this 'big brother' come in and do this.' "

Another one said—

"The fact that they've snuck it in hasmade people think that there's somethingsinister happening.

...

They have been given the runaroundand misinformation."

Another one said—

"... angered by the 'arrogance' of the StateGovernment's failure to consult them.

'They wanted to have this signed,sealed and delivered before anyone knewabout it.' "

Of course the Government did. The contract wassigned on 19 January, yet the company's owndocuments show a construction date of 20January. Let us have a look at the site. Even thelocal National Party candidate for the area quiteunequivocally criticised the poor site and the lackof consultation. The site is not good at all. It is not


sewered, is not close to transport, is not close toemergency services and is not friendly towheelchairs. The Mayor of Ipswich said that thecouncil had not been informed of the project'sdetails and that the proposed facility breachedthe area's zoning. I wonder why this Governmentwent off and bought this site. Of the choices onoffer from the tenderers, this was the only sitethat required a purchase by the Government,because the five other tenderers had their ownsites. The Government bought this site because,once it bought it, it was owned by the Crown.Once it was owned by the Crown, there was norezoning process. Once there was no rezoningprocess, the public up there were given a rawdeal; they did not have their day in court. That isthe reason this happened.

In justifying this site, Reverend Allan Malepointed out such things as the site's nearness totransport, yet it is six kilometres from the nearestrailway station. Of course, they are going to runbuses there. They may even divert buses to gosomewhere near there. I think it is justdisgraceful. What really gives the game away isthat in this article, Allan Male says—

"We have to look at the fact that thisrelocation means a university will go toIpswich, and a heck of a lot of people willbenefit."

That is the problem here. People living inChallinor deserve better. The university is notthe issue. The issue that we should be talkingabout is really giving quality service, and peopledo deserve much better than that.

The third issue and the issue that I want toconclude on is management. This newcompany—Consolidated Care Management—was set up in the strangest way. In all my time inParliament—I was elected in 1977—I have neverseen anything as weird as this happen in thisHouse. This company was set up and theMinister suggested—and nobody argued—thatit is competent. But it does not have a record inthe area of intellectual disability. No directorshave experience in this area. I can assuremembers opposite that this area is a veryspecialist one which requires experience.

What else do we have there? There is acontract—an arrangement—that gives 20 years'funding.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Unheard of.

Mr FOURAS: It is unheard of. As well asthat, any member who understands the legalitiesof it would have been impressed by themembers for Yeronga and Lytton, who are bothlawyers, when they said that they found theprocess unbelievable. What did we have fromthe Minister? The Minister says that she relies on

the departmental advice that due process hadbeen followed in the awarding of the tender forthe management. What a joke! What about herresponsibility? What about her responsibility tothe people sitting in this Chamber, the peoplewho elected her and the public of Queensland?She is relying on departmental advice about thedue process!

As I said, this is a department whose publicface is one of bumbling incompetence, deceitand arrogance. No more arrogance has beenshown than has been shown to the residents inthis area. They have been treated as if they donot count. A contract was signed on 19 Januaryand the construction was to have started on the20th. But Allan Male says, "We had to get it allsealed and delivered first. Then we were goingto go and consult."

It is unfortunate that the member forGladstone is not here to listen to this debatetonight, because she obviously holds thebalance of power in this House. I feel that, if sheis a true Independent, she would have no otherchoice but to support the motion so ably movedby the member for South Brisbane. As themotion says, the issue is not gaining a universityfor the people of Ipswich, the issue is doingthings properly and really making sure that weprovide care for——

Time expired.

Mrs GAMIN (Burleigh) (6.50 p.m.): In June1997, Steve Abrahamson, currently theChairman of Consolidated Care ManagementLimited, formed a consortium in response to theexpression of interest for the provision of centre-based care for people relocating from ChallinorCentre. The consortium was then calledCoordinated Care Management. Afterassessment of the expressions of interest, theorganisation was invited to tender. Due toanother organisation having the same name,Coordinated Care Management changed itsname to Consolidated Care Management.

There was no requirement within theinvitation to tender that an organisation beconstituted as a company until after it had beeninformed of preferred status. Consolidated CareManagement, therefore, tendered for theprovision of centre-based care as a consortium. Itclearly stated within its tender document that, ifits tender were to be successful, it would gainincorporation of Consolidated Care ManagementLimited. The company would be incorporated asa company limited by guarantee under theCorporations Law. The company would operateas a "not for profit" organisation.

When Consolidated Care Management wasinformed of its preferred status for the Ipswich


facility, it followed the process documented in itstender response and gained incorporation on 12December 1997. As stated previously, there wasno requirement within the invitation to tenderthat incorporation occur prior to the tenderresponse being submitted.

The board of management comprises fourpeople with a variety of skills and experience.Such experience includes aged care,information technology, human resourcemanagement, project management andaccountancy. The board also liaises with aconsultant clinical psychologist who has 18years' experience with the aged and people withintellectual disabilities.

It must be understood that it is not the boardof directors who will be providing the hands-oncare of the people who will be living at the facility.Rather, their role is to provide people withintellectual disabilities, who are currently residingat Challinor Centre, with the opportunity to bevalued members of the community and toimprove their quality of life in an environment thatis safe, caring, and has positive outcomes. CCMis committed to providing a high quality servicedelivery model that distinguishes it as thebenchmark provider of care for people withintellectual disabilities.

A review of other boards of directors oforganisations providing support to people withdisabilities would show that few, if any, of themembers have experience in the area ofsupporting people with intellectual disabilities.Some examples of the role of the board ofdirectors may include: formulating goals,objectives and strategies for the organisation;ensuring that the business of the organisation isconducted in conformity with statutory and legalrequirements; and providing linkages betweenthe organisation, Government and non-Government sectors, and individuals.

As can be seen, it is clear that theknowledge, skills and experience of themembers of the board are different by naturefrom those skills required in the provision ofdirect care to people with intellectual disabilities.Consolidated Care Management Limited hasclearly stated in its tender response anddiscussions with the department that it iscommitted to employing staff, all of whom havebeen trained in and/or have experience in caringfor people with intellectual disabilities. Such staffwill include a chief executive officer, team leaderand approximately 38 residential care providers.It is these staff who will be providing the directsupport to the residents of the facility.

In conclusion, I would like to read thefollowing letter from Mary Walsh, NationalPresident of Australian Parent Advocacy

Incorporated. The letter comes from Post OfficeBox 139, Bundaberg, and is dated 4 March1998. The letter is addressed to LizCunningham, member for Gladstone. The letterreads—

"Dear Liz,

Our organisation has 892 Queenslandmembers. We are self funded, & havealways advocated that services for peoplewith intellectual disability should provide arange of choices.

These include appropriate centre-based facilities with necessary support,community options and independentoptions.

Residents of Challinor Centre whohave chosen a centre-based option shouldhave that right of choice defended—just asthose who chose other options.

Families are being harassed but, in thelong run we are the ones who are here forthe long haul.

Our family members, because of thelimiting nature of their disability, cannotspeak for themselves.

We urge you to use your influence toensure that our family member's right ofchoice is not taken from them. If their choiceis centre-based then government has aduty to respect that choice.

Thanks for your support.

Mary Walsh (National President)"Clearly, therefore, it is not in the public interest topursue an alternative site and contract at this latestage. To do so could also result in a furthergroup of objections and further circulararguments and delay to the process. This, ofcourse, would also affect the proposed user ofthe present facilities at Challinor. In essence,therefore, there is no legitimate or logical reasonto not continue with the present legitimateagreement.

Question—That the words proposed tobe omitted stand part of the question—put; andthe House divided—AYES, 43—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, D'Arcy,De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs,Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Lavarch, Lucas,McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin,Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence,Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells. Tellers: Sullivan T. B.,RobertsNOES, 43—Baumann, Beanland, Connor, Cooper,Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin,Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy, Hegarty,Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester, Lingard,


Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Perrett, Quinn,Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack,Springborg, Stephan, Stoneman, Tanti, Veivers,Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer. Tellers: Carroll,Mitchell

Pair: Livingstone, Borbidge

The numbers being equal, Mr Speaker casthis vote with the Noes.

Resolved in the negative.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! For any furtherdivisions in relation to this motion, the bells willbe rung for two minutes.

Question—That the words proposed tobe inserted be so inserted—put; and the Housedivided—AYES, 43—Baumann, Beanland, Connor, Cooper,Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin,Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy, Hegarty,Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester, Lingard,Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Perrett, Quinn,Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack,Springborg, Stephan, Stoneman, Tanti, Veivers,Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer. Tellers: Carroll,Mitchell

NOES, 43—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, D'Arcy,De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs,Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Lavarch, Lucas,McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin,Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence,Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells. Tellers: Sullivan T. B.,Roberts

Pair: Borbidge, Livingstone

The numbers being equal, Mr Speaker casthis vote with the Ayes.

Resolved in the affirmative.

Question—That the motion as amendedbe agreed to—put; and the House divided—AYES, 43—Baumann, Beanland, Connor, Cooper,Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin,Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy, Hegarty,Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester, Lingard,Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Perrett, Quinn,Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack,Springborg, Stephan, Stoneman, Tanti, Veivers,Warwick, Watson, Wilson, Woolmer. Tellers: Carroll,MitchellNOES, 43—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, D'Arcy,De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs,Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Lavarch, Lucas,McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin,Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence,Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells. Tellers: Sullivan T. B.,Roberts


The numbers being equal, Mr Speaker casthis vote with the Ayes.

Resolved in the affirmative.Sitting suspended from 7.10 p.m. to 8 p.m.

AGENTS AND MOTOR DEALERS BILL

Second Reading

Resumed from p. 182.Mr LUCAS (Lytton) (8 p.m.): The Agents

and Motor Dealers Bill is a rewrite of theAuctioneers and Agents Act 1971. The Bill itselfis largely based upon the report of the reviewcommittee, the Overett committee. I do not thinkthere is any dispute that the legislation in thisarea is long overdue for overhaul. While manymembers may not appreciate it, this Bill is one ofthe most important pieces of legislation to comebefore this Parliament in recent times. That isbecause two of the most important transactionsthat the average person can undertake in his orher life are buying a house and buying a car. ThisBill regulates a number of major parts of boththose transactions of buying or selling one'shouse and buying a car.

The agents and motor dealers industry is apeculiar industry because it is characterised by anumber of people of long standing in theindustry who have very great reputations, stake alot on their great reputations and work very hard.On the other hand, there is a small minority ofpeople who could be loosely described asshonks, who give a bad name to the industry. Ofcourse, one of the problems that we have whenconsidering regulation in this area is that we haveto regulate essentially for the activities of thosepeople who do not conduct themselves in anappropriate manner. It is very important to bearthat in mind.

In July 1997, the Minister released aconsultation draft of the proposed legislation.That consultation draft is important in tworespects. Firstly, it contained a cooling-off periodfor car purchasers. Secondly, it contained certainstatutory motor vehicle warranties. It isunfortunate that the Minister has retreated andgone to water in relation to those two issues inthe Bill that was presented to Parliament. That isvery illustrative. I know that the Minister has hadhis trials and tribulations in this House, but I mustsay that I do believe that, in a number of areas, hedoes consider the consumer interest. I think that,in his heart of hearts, he probably hopes that themember for Gladstone will vote with theOpposition in relation to our proposedamendments so as to improve the legislation. Ibelieve that is really what the Minister wants us todo. The member for Gladstone might agree withme that that really would make this Bill all thatmuch better. Then the Minister could justify tohis interests in the business community that he


has done the right thing by them, but theconsumers will get the best deal.

The first issue that I want to speak aboutrelates to the deregulation of real estate agents'fees. My research has found that the law in theState of Queensland since the early part of thecentury has been for a Government-proclaimedmaximum scale. I would concede that the currentsystem, with the maximum scale, has notparticularly induced competition in respect of realestate agents' fees, which can be compared withthose of solicitors. As a practitioner, it alwaysstruck me as very peculiar that clients were morethan happy to negotiate conveyancing fees withtheir solicitors but, for some peculiar reason, theywere not prepared to negotiate fees with theirreal estate agents. That always struck me as a bitpeculiar, bearing in mind the relative necessarytasks that each person has to do.

In his second-reading speech, the Ministersaid—

"Despite the fact that the Auctioneersand Agents Act prescribes only a maximumrate of commission, this is usuallyrepresented as the 'going rate' or the'Government rate' regardless of the level ofservices to be provided by agents."

To be fair to the Minister, this was alsorecognised by the Prices Surveillance Authorityin its 1992 report which examined this issue. Butwith respect, so what? If the fact is that real estateagents are representing the current scheduledfee as a Government fee or a Government rate,then maybe the Minister should look atmandatory advertising or mandatory noticerequirements that indicate to members of theconsuming public that they have the opportunityto negotiate fees downwards. In a number of thevery intelligent and erudite amendmentsforeshadowed by my colleague the shadowMinister at the Committee stage, that opportunitywill present itself to consumers. It will point out toconsumers that they do have the opportunity tonegotiate. That is very important.

I suggest that the onus is on those peoplewho say that the system of regulated real estateagents' fees ought to be changed, or the onus ison them to establish to the satisfaction of thisHouse and the people of Queensland that whatthey are suggesting would be a betteralternative. In its 1992 report, the PricesSurveillance Authority indicated—

"The Authority is sceptical of theindustry's claims for deregulation of agentsfees. It believes its scepticism is healthy onthe evidence before it. The industry has ahistory in Australia of anti-competitivepractices and behaviour, including price

fixing practices and a general reluctance tocompete on fees.

The PSA also indicated: 'The PSAdoes not consider that the constraintsimposed by maximum fee regulations aresufficient to explain the lack of pricecompetition. Other features of the marketsuch as lack of innovative entry, similarity ofservices offered by agents, and the lack ofdiversification into complementaryindustries also indicates subduedcompetition.

'Secondly, the Authority is concernedthat consumers may not be sufficientlyinformed on skilful negotiations to exerciserestraint over the behaviour of agents. Ifvendors do not negotiate fees now as alimited extent of discounting suggests, is itany more likely that they will negotiate feesin a deregulated environment.

Finally, overseas experience indicatesthat Australia should be cautious beforeproceeding down the path to deregulation.In New Zealand these increased by 100%following deregulation in 1985 and in theUSA, where fees are not regulated,commissions average 6 to 7 per cent."

That was stated by the Prices SurveillanceAuthority—not the Labor Party, me or consumergroups, but the Prices Surveillance Authority, anindependent arbiter.

The Opposition's suggestion in this area isto reinstate maximum commission. My colleaguewill be moving amendments to that effect at theCommittee stage. We will be working withproposed clause 119 (3) to make it clear in thelegislation that there will still be negotiable feessubject to that maximum ceiling. In the future, ifwe can see flexibility based on that and if we cansee evidence of downward negotiation based onthat, then I will be more than happy to have a lookat deregulation. But I believe that the Ministerand the industry carry the onus to prove to theconsuming public and to this Parliament that theirsuggested changes are appropriate.

House contracts are probably the mostimportant purchases of an individual's life. When Iwas in practice as a solicitor, I was amazed at howfew people spoke to their solicitors beforesigning a contract. It is before signing a contractthat the most important parts of the legal relationsare governed. People pay money for lawyers,but the best use for the lawyer is to draft thedocuments. Real estate agents could notcontend that they have ever been trained in legaldrafting. That is what solicitors are most importantfor. But typically, real estate agents do it. Theyare not qualified, and they draft contracts to be


less likely to fall over, because they are fundedon the basis of successful sales completed.

One of the most classic examples of that iswhen a prospective purchaser goes to a solicitorto buy a house. The solicitor says, "Okay, Irecommend that you have a building inspectionclause" and drafts a suitable clause that allowsthat purchaser to be able to exit the contract ifthe building report is not satisfactory. But timeand time again, when real estate agents draft acontract for a purchaser they say, "Look, we willdo that okay for you." Then we find a clause inthere saying that, if the purchaser is not satisfiedwith the structural soundness of the building, heor she may get out of the contract. Anyone whoknows anything about buildings knows that a lotof things can go wrong with a building besidesstructural soundness: the wiring can be shot, theplumbing can be shot, and it can have rot thatdoes not relate to the structure of the building.That is what happens when people do not takethose issues into consideration.

Mr Ardill: Even the lack of councilapprovals.

Mr LUCAS: Even the lack of councilapprovals, as the member points out.

Surely no-one has anything to fear fromlegal advice. The Opposition's amendments willachieve that, by making it a requirement for theestate agent to point out the importance ofsecuring legal advice. People do not have totake that legal advice. Personally, my preferencewould have been to have a cooling-off period forcontracts. The Opposition has not gone that far.It is going to the extent to say that estate agentsshould be required to point out the importanceof seeking legal advice. These provisions are inthe best interests of everybody. Estate agentsare called "agents"; but my lecturer in vendor andpurchaser always insisted that we call them "realestate negotiators", because they were not reallyagents for either the vendor or the purchaser. Inthe correct sense of the word, an agent has afiduciary duty to a principal, who may be a vendoror a purchaser; however, estate agents do nothave that clear role, particularly when it comes tonegotiating the purchase price. That is why it isimportant to have someone who has thatfiduciary duty, who, I would suggest, is a solicitor.

In relation to motor dealers, the Minister'sdiscussion paper recommended the insertion ofa cooling-off period for second-hand carpurchases. The only cooling off that we see nowis the Minister cooling off on the idea of having acooling-off period. I cannot understand why theMinister would go cold on that proposal. As asolicitor in practice—and even now as a memberof Parliament, which has genuinely surprisedme—I have had a number of people come in to

see me in relation to this issue. They are mainlyyoung people in their first job, with a couple ofpay packets under their belt. They have gone tothe car yard, and, instead of buying a $5,000 caror buying a car from mum or dad or a relative, theyhave bought a vehicle costing between $15,000and $25,000, usually a year or two old, from thecar yard. They have signed up for finance andended up in a position where they cannot affordwhat they are buying. When they go home to tellMum and Dad, Mum and Dad have a fit. They say,"My God! You've signed up for a car worth$20,000. You can't afford it." I am in the situationof having to say to them, "I am sorry. You arestuck with it." My colleague the shadow Ministerhas given a number of horror stories about that.

It is very important that we give those kids,who are doing the first major transaction of theirlife, the opportunity to get out of the contract if itis a problem. I challenge those people who say itis a problem to come up with another solution.Victoria, the home of economic rationalism underMr Kennett, has a three-day cooling-off period.The Opposition is suggesting only one businessday. It is a mischief that is very common. I am surethat the Office of Consumer Affairs has told theMinister that. We have left the people who aremaking that first purchase out in the cold. Ibelieve that is very sad. I believe that whenGovernment backbenchers think about peoplewho have come into their electorate offices tosee them, or members of their family who havefaced that problem in the past, they will be verydisappointed with the Government.

The motor vehicle statutory warrantiesdiscussion paper allowed for warranties of 5,000kilometres or three months for vehicles greaterthan $2,000 in value. The Bill now proposes1,000 kilometres or one month on all vehicles.Obviously the Minister is competing with theother States and Territories of Australia. We arethe low-tax State; we are going to be the low-warranty State. We will be able to tell people,"Come to Queensland. It is the low warrantyState. You can get a lemon easier inQueensland. It lasts less time." I think it is terriblethat it would be an item of pride in our State thatwe have the lowest warranty in Australia. NewSouth Wales and the Northern Territory havewarranties of three months or 5,000 kilometres.In South Australia and Victoria, any car over$6,000 has a warranty of three months or 5,000kilometres. It is a very sad reflection onQueensland and it is a very sad reflection on theMinister that he has chosen to do that.

The RACQ is not too impressed. Thatorganisation is hardly a hotbed of radicalism orhard-minded socialists who support Labor atevery opportunity. I think most RACQ members


would be more on the side of the fence of theMinister than on our side. However, they areshaking their head at what is happening in thatregard. Currently, most dealers offer some sort ofwarranty. I do not think that it is a big ask to have astatutory warranty that is far more extensive thanwhat the Minister is suggesting. I put a specialcase for people who buy the cheapest cars of all.People who can afford only a $2,000 or $3,000car are the people who are the real battlers. Alltoo often, one needs a car to get a job or a car toget to and from a job. It can be a real problemwhen one is unemployed. Those are the peoplewe need to protect. They do not have muchmoney. They scrape it together to buy the car.They have to have some confidence that thevehicle that they buy will get them from point A topoint B, so they can earn a bit of money and put abit of money back into the community.

Mr Lester: You have to understand thatthat will put the price up.

Mr LUCAS: The member for Keppel iscorrect. No doubt it will have some effect onprices. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Iaccept that. It is more important that thosepeople have an opportunity to have some faith inthe car that they buy. After I left school, I canremember being on the Gold Coast with a youngfellow who bought his first car, a fastbackVolkswagen. He drove it out of the car yard and itwent down the road 300 yards before it ran out ofpetrol. I thought, "What a great reputation thatdealer must have!" What a lovely person to dothat to a young 17-year-old or 18-year-old, who isbuying his or her first car! It really is very sad thatsome people want to do that. They give the restof the industry a bad name.

This Bill is part of an extensive review. Thistime we have the smoking gun. Normally, we seejust a Bill that comes to Parliament. This time theMinister has left a smoking gun behind, that is,the discussion draft. That draft shows where hehas backtracked on the people of this State inrelation to proper consumer law reform. TheMinister can waste $14.5m on the Connolly/Ryaninquiry, but he is not prepared to protect theyoung kids of this State who make a rashdecision when buying a car before they can gethome to see Mum and Dad, who can talk a bit ofsense into them and bring them to a bit of reality.

Ms Spence: Or even the older kids.

Mr LUCAS: Or even the older kids like themember for Rockhampton.

The Minister is not prepared to support thebattlers who do not have a limousine like his, butwho buy second-hand cars and need theprotection of a warranty. Some people have saidthat car purchase cooling-off periods and

warranties will disadvantage dealers. On thecontrary, as the member for Rockhampton put itquite properly, they advantage dealers. One willknow that one can go to a dealer with somesatisfaction. I recommend that people go tohonest dealers, MTAQ members, who have thatreputation for reliability, in order to obtain aquality vehicle.

In relation to house purchasers, theOpposition will provide more information to theparties, with better legal advice. I do not know yetwhat is the Minister's attitude to that amendment.I would be flabbergasted if the Minister opposedgiving further information to people in relation toa house purchase. That amendment wassuggested by Mr Tim O'Dwyer, who is a solicitoroperating from the outer southern suburbs ofBrisbane and who is well known as a columnist inthe Courier-Mail. To the best of my recollection, Ihave never met Mr O'Dwyer. I certainly havenever known him from Labor Party circles. He is aperson who appears to have the best interests ofconsumers at heart. He is a person who hascome to the Opposition, spoken to the shadowMinister and presented a very sensible proposalthat the Opposition is prepared to take on board.That is the way we are in Labor. We are preparedto listen to suggestions that people in thecommunity have. If they are appropriatesuggestions, we will take them up. We do notclaim to have superior knowledge in relation tothese issues.

I give full credit to the shadow Minister forher excellent stewardship of the Opposition'scase in relation to this Bill. In relation to housepurchasers, one must have the opportunity toobtain legal advice at the outset. Then one willbe more likely to be satisfied at the conclusionand less likely to have problems. I notice that theMinister agrees that one should have legaladvice at the beginning. I hope that the Ministeradopts our amendments to make it crystal clear topeople that they should take advice and seekthose considerations.

As I said when I commenced tonight, this isvery important legislation. This is legislation forthe people out in the suburbs. It is legislation thatrelates to when they buy their house, their carand when their kids buy their first car. It has to belegislation that gives them a fair deal. I believethat the Opposition amendments suggested bythe shadow Minister, which we will consider atthe Committee stage, strike exactly the rightbalance. I have extra confidence in that, becausemany of them were reflected in the discussiondraft that the Minister circulated. I commend theOpposition's position to the House.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone)(8.19 p.m.): I want to raise a number of issues


with the Minister. The majority of them stem fromthe amendments circulated by the Opposition. Ithink that the Minister will agree that the two veryspecific issues of warranties and cooling-offperiods are the ones that have generated a lot ofreaction in the community.

The proposed amendments include thederegulation of commission fees. At the end oflast year I had a briefing from the Minister'sdepartment, for which I am very grateful.However, at the moment the only informationthat I have is that the prices surveillancedocuments that were released in 1992 indicatethat deregulation in New Zealand and in the USAdid not result in a drop in fees but in an increasein the commission that was charged. Obviously,that is a very great concern. If there is notinformation in relation to the Australian Statesthat confirms that deregulation provides a benefitnot only to the agents but also to the community,then I would have to question theappropriateness of deregulation. The Minister'soffice advised me that Queensland is the onlyState that is not deregulated. I do not havestatistics that show that in the southern Statesboth sides of the equation—the sellers and thebuyers—have benefited from that deregulation. Iwould certainly be interested in the Minister'sresponse to that point.

I have sought some information about theproposed amendments. I received them only thisafternoon after lunch, so there has not been a lotof time for me to endeavour to understand whatis a fairly copious document. Some of theamendments are significant, so it has beendifficult to really quantify the impact of thedocument. However, my understanding—andperhaps the Minister can clarify this for me—isthat the proposal in the Bill is to have a board or apanel, but that the board referred to in theforeshadowed amendment would be smaller andperhaps more balanced in its numbers. Forinstance, in the Bill the consumer advocate has aone third voice as compared with a much morediluted voice under the Opposition's proposal,which I think is about one in six. On the proposalthat is put up by the ALP, I wonder how a singlevoice would have a great deal of impact when it isconfronted by vehicle, real estate and a plethoraof other interests. I would be interested in theMinister's comparison between the Bill'sproposal for a panel and the ALP's proposedamendment to that panel. On a fairly superficiallevel, it appears to me that the consumeradvocate would be particularly disadvantaged bythe Opposition's proposal.

The previous speaker referred to anobligation that is proposed in the ALP'samendments for the purchaser to seek legal

advice before the purchase of a home. I thinkthat is important. The principle is good. It isprobably the biggest purchase that any singleperson or couple would make in their entire life.Certainly, in relation to this Bill, generallyspeaking the purchase of a home far outstripsthe purchase of a vehicle. My only concern onwhich I certainly seek the Minister's comment isnot about the proposal that a document must beprovided because pro formas can be drafted veryeasily, handed out and signed by both the agentand the proposed purchaser, but is about thelevel of penalty that is proposed. It seemsdisproportionate. However, I again have toacknowledge that I have had only this afternoon,along with other commitments, to try to get ahandle on the proposed amendments. Theprinciple of requiring a real estate agent to give adocument to a prospective purchaser and forthat document to be validated by the signaturesof both of those people is not a problem to me;that principle is fine. I am concerned about thequantum of the penalty that is proposed. I wouldcertainly seek the Minister's comment on thatpoint.

The issue of premiums and the payment ofpremiums is an odd one. Previously, I havetalked to members on the Government side whohave an absolute abhorrence of the payment ofpremiums. To see that provision is made for themin this Bill is a quirk that has intrigued me, to saythe least. It is a hidden charge. It is one that Iknow has existed in the past, but I would beinterested in the reason for its continuation.There is a commission paid. It appears to me tobe double dipping, and I would certainlyappreciate the Minister's comments on thatmatter.

One of the two most controversial issues inthe Bill is the warranties issue. I have spoken to anumber of people in my community about thepossibility of warranties and the way in which theywould be structured. The discussion draftcontained a warranty of three months and 5,000kilometres. To be honest, I did not get anynegative feedback on that except from the motortraders, and that is to be expected because theyhave a business interest in it. On a couple ofoccasions I spoke with the RACQ and morerecently I obtained a copy of the warranties thatare available in other States. Most of thosewarranties have a sliding scale or at least athreshold. A number of them have a limit of a carmore than 10 years old or having 160,000kilometres on the clock. If the vehicle is belowthose limits, it gains a warranty and if the vehicleis above them, a warranty is not provided.

I would have to say to the Minister that all thepeople in my community to whom I have spoken


about the ALP proposal have been supportive ofit. The proposed amendment—as does theBill—covers the lower range of warranties, whichis 1,000 kilometres or one month. The Billstipulates that that warranty would cover everyincident. The ALP's amendment proposes a1,000 kilometres or one-month warranty forvehicles at the lower end of the price range, andas vehicles become more expensive, thatwarranty period would increase. That is entirelylogical. As I said, going predominantly on whatthe people in my area want, I think they wouldsupport the ALP's proposals. I would beinterested in the Minister's comments on thepossible impact of that amendment.

While I am referring to warranties, I would liketo raise an issue that was raised with me, and Iwould be interested in receiving the Minister'sperspective on it. In this State we have licensedused car salespeople and we have a couple ofother groups who discharge quite a number ofused vehicles into the system. Are the sales offleet vehicles from the Queensland Governmentand other major suppliers of cars such as rent-a-car companies intended to be covered by thislegislation as it stands or in any amendment thatthe ALP proposes? Many people in the carindustry want to see the sale of Government fleetvehicles handled by second-hand caryards—and that is a moot point; I think that is yetto be debated. The Government or any othermajor disposer of cars has a significant part toplay in the sale of second-hand motor vehiclesand I wonder why such entities could not becovered by the same warranty obligations. Iwould certainly seek the Minister's comment onthat.

An issue that was raised by the MTA—and Iam sure that the Minister has an answer to this; itis something that I received only a day or so agoand I have not had a chance to follow it up, but Iam sure that, through the Minister's consultationprocess, he would have an answer—is the fearthat anything more than a one-month, 1,000-kilometre warranty will affect the goodwillcomponent in the sale of a second-hand carbusiness. I can only presume that that is to dowith residual warranty claims. However, I wonderwhether there has been any quantification doneon the potential impact that those residualwarranties could have. It may be something thatthe Minister has not looked into.

The second controversial issue, and onethat I would have to say, again, the community issupportive of, is the cooling-off periods. Theproposal in the ALP amendments reflects thecontents of the Bill. The concern that I haveabout cooling-off periods—and it has not beenanswered by the Opposition people and I would

be interested in the Minister's response—and itis certainly a concern of the Motor TradersAssociation is that cooling-off periods offercompetitors an opportunity to abuse the system.For example, trader A knows that trader B has acouple of really good vehicles. Trader Aorganises for somebody—a mate after a drink atthe pub or somewhere—to go down and place aholding contract on the vehicles for perhaps thepeak selling period of Friday and Saturday. Thecooling-off period is proposed to be only for a24-hour period—one business day. When I putthat to motor traders, as expected they scoff andsay, "No, we would not do that." If we look at thelevel that second-hand car dealers are on thescale of reliability, they are above politicians—only just—so they are fairly low. I have not yetreceived an answer on the issue of the probableabuse of the cooling-off period and I aminterested in the Minister's comments on it. Ihave certainly not received an answer from theOpposition spokesperson on the issue.

Victoria has implemented a measure toprotect the young kids who think that they have apocketful of money and, instead of buying a carthat is within their means, buy something thatcosts $25,000 because, "Hey, that will be reallygood." They get home and mum and dad goabsolutely ballistic. If the contract purchaserbacks out of the deal, they forfeit 1% of thecontract purchase price, providing the vehicledoes not leave the car yard. That is the penaltythat a purchaser pays if they void a contract.When the Minister discusses the cooling-offperiod, I would be interested to hear hiscomments on protections against abuse such asa 1% forfeiture if the contract is voided.

I reiterate that, when I have talked to peoplein my electorate about the warranty and thecooling-off period issues, they have beenoverwhelmingly in favour of both measures. Ihave spoken to motor traders in my area and inBrisbane, and obviously they are opposed to acooling-off period and to more than a one-monthor 1,000-kilometre warranty. However, we notonly represent the traders; we also represent thepurchasers.

I have already discussed the issue of thenew board. The next issue that I want to raisewith the Minister concerns the registrar who willbe a public servant responsible for quite a lot ofthe work that is done by the panel. Someconcern has been expressed to me about theindependence of that person. We have thePublic Service Act and any amount of rhetoricthat talks about the independence of publicservants, but the reality is that public servantsunderstand the interdependence between thePublic Service and the Government of the day.


Depending on the Government of the day, thatcould reflect in the registrar's approach to eitherthe appellants or those who are appealed againstin circumstances outlined in the Bill. Whatprotections will the Minister put in place toensure that the registrar will be free toindependently assess claims under $5,000?

I will not raise a number of issues, simplybecause I do not have expertise in those areasand I do not think that they are controversial. Asfar as real estate agents and particularlyauctioneers are concerned, the predominantissue involves premiums. However, mostimportantly, I will be listening for the Minister'sresponses on the warranty and the cooling-offperiod issues. In relation to real estate, I will beinterested to hear his comments on the issue ofpenalties for real estate agents who fail to supplythe prescribed material, if the ALP amendment ispassed. The ALP amendments appear to beharsh and I wonder if the Minister is considering amiddle ground that would still make it arequirement for the documents to be handed tothe prospective purchaser with either a penaltysuch as loss of commission or penalty unitsbeing applied as opposed to what appears tobe—and I have not had time to check with theshadow Minister—a fairly lengthy and convolutedpenalty process under the amendments. I wouldbe interested in the Minister's comments on thatpoint.

I know that the document has been out forconsultation. It was on the basis of cooling-offperiods and warranties. As I said, I have spentsome time talking to people in my electorateabout their attitudes to the warranties and thecooling-off periods and, to be honest, they donot support the Minister's current stand. I amcertainly interested in his response.

Hon. D. E. BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—Attorney-General and Minister for Justice)(8.35 p.m.), in reply: It has been very interestingto listen to the comments of members opposite,because the legislation touches on such a widerange of areas. I have to say that they had six anda half years to do something about it and I had tostart from scratch. That shows the height ofignorance of Opposition members, who smirkand smile when, in fact, they are guilty, guilty,guilty. They are guilty of having once again failedto carry out a commitment which they made. Ihave not made any commitments to the peopleof this State to undertake an examination of thelegislation, but they certainly did and they hadample opportunity to do so. Of course, the LaborParty thought about it. It had six and a half yearsto think about it and we know how far it got.When Opposition members come in here thisevening to debate the legislation after six and a

half years of doing nothing, we can see theirlevel of concern.

The whole thrust of this legislation flowsfrom National Competition Policy issues—apolicy which the Labor Party Government signedoff and I will say a good deal more about that later.In 1995, the then Premier and the Treasurer, theHonourable Keith De Lacy, commented in thisplace and elsewhere about the Labor Party'ssupport of National Competition Policy. On 2November 1995, Mr De Lacy stated in thisplace—

"The Queensland Government was awilling participant in the formulation of thispolicy on the basis that a national approachto promoting competition will promotehigher standards of living forQueenslanders and all Australians througha better use of resources; resulting in lowerprices, more growth and more jobs."

One of the outcomes of this legislation is a resultof that particular policy. He further stated—

"In particular, I note that NationalCompetition Policy has been developed toincrease competition in a manner such thatsociety as a whole will be better off."

Members can check Hansard of 2 November1995 for that speech.

Opposition members interjected. Mr BEANLAND: What a joke the whole

exercise by the Labor Party is! I understand whyOpposition members are interjecting; it isbecause they are guilty. I notice that in recenttimes they have been trying to weasel out of thatcommitment, but no amount of weaseling will getthem away from the fact that they agreed to it withtheir Federal mate, the former Prime Minister ofthis country, Paul Keating, and they signed it.Having done that, the member for Mount Gravattcomes into this Chamber and makes a number offairly wide-ranging statements in relation to thislegislation. Her first point related to theExplanatory Notes and how they say one thingwhile the Government does another. Page 5 ofthe Explanatory Notes states that the completederegulation of industries is not feasible, that is,no licensing, no restriction, no controls and soon. The Explanatory Notes refer to thederegulation of industries and not thederegulation of commission rates. That is quiteclear.

The Explanatory Notes state thatderegulation of these industries, not thederegulation of commission rates, would impactbadly on consumers. They state—

"Alternatives to the Agents and MotorDealers Bill include retaining the existing


Auctioneers and Agents Act 1971 orrepealing the existing legislation andderegulating the industries. Neither areconsidered viable alternatives.

...

Deregulation of these industries wouldnot be in the best interests of consumers."

It is all very well for the member to come in hereand to try to mislead the House, but clearly themember has been caught out.

While we are talking about misleadingcomments, we should mention the survey thatthe member also talked about. The memberimplied that a survey was being carried out by theREIQ. In fact, the figures quoted were from aVictorian survey, not a Queensland survey,conducted a number of years ago.

Ms Spence: No, no, no.

Mr BEANLAND: Yes, it was. They are notQueensland statistics. We all know that attitudeschange over time. Let us have a look at thatsurvey. In saying that, let me say that the REIQdoes support the deregulation of commissionrates. I know why some people in the real estateindustry would be opposed to it. They are scaredof competition. They are scared that the rates willgo down. The Real Estate Institute of Victoriasurvey states that 6% of vendors consider thecommission and fees as the most importantfactors in choosing an agent. It states that themain reasons for choosing an agent werereputation and professionalism. Nearly 80% ofvendors believed their agent's overallperformance was good, and over 40% of agentsbelieved their range of services has increased,and so on it goes. Clearly, the member is againtrying to misrepresent the position.

A lot of comments have been made aboutwhether consumers will be better off. Agents dothink that it will be good for consumers and thatconsumers will be better off. The member forMount Gravatt indicated clearly that Labor wasopposed to the deregulation of commissionrates, even though it signed the NationalCompetition Policy and agreed to a range ofthings. But now it suits them to engage in acheap political stunt, even after they have boundfuture Governments. It is very easy for memberssitting in Opposition. They did this, not me. TheirPremier did this. The member was inGovernment at the time. When I was sitting onthe other side of the House, the member forMount Gravatt was sitting on this side and was awilling participant. The member cannot wriggleout of it.

The Labor Party said that it is opposed tothe provision in respect of commission rates.However, the member went on to say that agents

can compete within the present system if theywish to do so. That is incorrect, as the fee levelscontained within the Act do not allow scope forwide-ranging service delivery. The freeing up ofcommission rates will allow for agents to provide awider range of services and thus provide morevalue for money than they do now.

As I have already said, the memberindicated that the survey was some sort ofQueensland survey. It certainly was not. It was aVictorian survey and it had nothing whatsoeverto do with Queensland. It is fair to say that inmany cases real estate agents are concernedabout these rates. They are concerned becausethey know, firstly, that there will be competition inthe marketplace and, secondly, that commissionrates will drop. They know that and that is whythey are concerned. There is no doubt aboutthat. This is particularly so in light of the awardrate put in place for real estate agents andsalespersons generally some time ago.

Agents were keen to see how the awardwould operate before any further deregulationoccurred. Last year when that was occurringsome people spoke to me about it. Agents willalso not be able to use the excuse that theregulated fee is the going rate. Althoughmembers of the Labor Party try to pretend thatthat may not happen, it does happen. It happensall the time. Consumers will know that they cannegotiate, and that will result in morecompetition.

The Opposition seems to be somewhatconcerned about competition. It should beborne in mind that the maximum fees can beintroduced at any time if there is an unreasonableincrease in commission rates. We were verycareful to put that into the legislation. It is a matterfor regulation. If by some chance commissionrates did blow out for whatever reason—andthere could be a host of reasons—theGovernment of the day could very quicklyreregulate. That would not be a big deal.

Ms Spence: You are not very confident,are you?

Mr BEANLAND: I am extremelyconfident—far more confident than the memberfor Mount Gravatt is. The member went on to saya great deal about New Zealand and the PricesSurveillance Authority reports. Again, we heardmore selective quoting. I have never beforeheard so much selective quoting. The PricesSurveillance Authority supports the deregulationof commission rates. The member was quotingselectively.

The report of the Prices SurveillanceAuthority of 30 January 1998—this is not someoutdated report or some exercise in selective


quoting—states that commission rates havemoved from the set rate of approximately 3.25%which applied up to 1985 to the current range ofbetween 2% and 4%. So there is a fluctuation ofrates. Quite a number have gone down; somemight go up. Importantly, some are going down.That has also been found to be the caseelsewhere. We need to be very clear about thismatter and, if I have time, I will come back to it.

I should make one other point about thismatter. If someone is charging outlandishcommission rates, that is a matter for the boardthat we have set up. Again, that is a matter thatthe board can examine. A person can go to theboard about the commission rates. That is clearlyspelt out in the legislation. That is one of thethings that the board is set up for. It begs thequestion: why are members opposite saying thatthe matter has not been adequately covered? Itcertainly has been covered. We have put in placea number of safeguards.

Western Australia is in the process ofderegulating its rates. Queensland and WesternAustralia are the only two States yet to do so.Even that bastion of regulation that membersopposite like to look to, New South Wales, hasderegulated its commission rates. WesternAustralia is in the process of deregulating itsrates, as we are here. That will be a requirementunder the National Competition Policy, whichmembers opposite signed. Members oppositewere a party to that and they know it.

The board has been mentioned by manypeople. Members asked why the committee hasbeen dumped. The committee is an industryboard group. I hope the member for MountGravatt appreciates that. It should not beresponsible for licensing decisions in relation topotential entrants to the industry. The memberstated that it is inappropriate that the chiefexecutive appoints the board from the panel.Under the Bill, the registrar appoints the boardfrom the panel members, not the chiefexecutive. The chief executive will not have anyrole in relation to the board.

Under the present system, the Ministerappoints the committee members. So if there isnot some sort of conflict of interest under thecurrent system, I do not know of anywhere elsewhere one would exist. It seems that the schemecontained in the Bill is an improvement on thecurrent system, because the panel is drawn fromat least 16 industry, legal and consumerrepresentatives, thus lessening the possibility ofbias. Importantly, the views of board memberscannot get entrenched over time. Matters can bedealt with more quickly and cheaply, and the day-to-day operations of the office of the registrar willbe removed from the chief executive.

The member for Gladstone raised an issuein relation to the number of board members.Offhand, I cannot tell the House what the LaborParty is proposing, but it is very heavily industryoriented. Under the proposal in the legislationthere would be one consumer and one industryrepresentative, and one legal person would chairthe board. The consumers would have a onethird representation as compared with what isproposed by the amendment. I will have to checkthe amendment, but I think it proposes about sixor eight members, one of whom would be aconsumer representative. Under this legislation,the consumers would have a one thirdrepresentation as compared with about a onesixth representation as I think is proposed by theamendment.

The cooling-off period has been mentionedby a range of people. A comment was made inrelation to the draft legislation. There is nobackflip; I put a whole range of material in thedraft legislation that various people raised. It wasnot necessarily Government policy; it was put outto see how community groups would react to it. Idid not want to start putting things in; I wouldrather take things out of legislation so that thereare no surprises. There was extensive publicconsultation around the State in the form of notonly written consultation, but public meetings. Iand my officers attended quite a number of themaround the State. They were held not only inBrisbane but up in north Queensland and inplaces such as Longreach. Every opportunitywas given for people to comment on and haveinput into the matter.

Someone tried to imply that this was goingto lead to people becoming bankrupts orsomething or other. If people are going out andspending their money unwisely, with respect wecannot stop them from going bankrupt; there isno law against that in this country. We do havesome problems in that perhaps gambling in theState is leading to people becoming bankrupt.There are a host of reasons why people gobankrupt. I hardly think that this is one of thereasons at the forefront of why people becomebankrupts or why families break up.

There will be costs to industry throughcooling-off periods and there certainly could bejob losses within the industry. For example,during the consultation period it was revealedthat the volume of sales of a used car dealer in aweek would be on average two to three cars.When making a sale, therefore, dealers wouldneed certainty so that their cash flows are notjeopardised. If there is a lack of certainty, failureof sales can only lead to business failure and joblosses.


A cooling-off period applies only in the ACTand Victoria. I want to make that clear. I, too, wastold initially that it applied everywhere. Peoplewere telling me, "This applies everywhere." ThenI got all the submissions, and I sat down and wentthrough each one. I went and checked with theofficers exactly where cooling-off periods appliedand how they applied. They do not apply in allother States. They apply in Victoria in very limitedcircumstances and in the ACT. I understand thatthey apply to about 1% of the sales of vehiclesthrough second-hand dealers in Victoria.

The situation needs to be put into theperspective that it will generate costs; there willbe increases in the purchase price of vehicles.We have seen these situations occur elsewhere.In Victoria, for example, a person cannot take avehicle out of a car yard other than for a test driveor for a mechanical inspection or testing. If thebuyer wants to take the vehicle home, the buyerimmediately loses the cooling-off period oncethe vehicle is taken out of the car yard. That hasnot been mentioned here today, which again is alittle deceptive. Members have been talkingabout young people. I know that, once they get avehicle, they want to take it home and they wantto show it off. But once it is removed from thesaleyard, that is it in Victoria; the cooling-offperiod is clearly gone. They can only take it outfor a mechanical inspection or testing or take it fora test drive, otherwise the cooling-off period islost totally. That is why so few people end uputilising the cooling-off period—because theytake the vehicle out of the yard. I think we needto get that down pat.

Mention has been made about the issue ofstatutory warranties and about consumerbenefits through the introduction of statutorywarranty strength. There are a number ofbenefits for consumers within the legislation notonly in statutory warranties but also in thestrengthening of beneficial interest provisions,new enforcement tools of injunctions,enforceable undertakings, more meaningful andenforceable codes of conduct than we currentlyhave, certainly the strengthening of theinspectorial powers—and I think that is quiteimportant, enhancing service delivery throughderegulation of commission rates, makingproceedings of the board more open andallowing the chief executive to publish theresults of proceedings. Again, I think that isbeneficial so that the public has a transparentprocess.

There will also be cost savings to thetaxpayers from the rationalisation of the licensingsystem, the introduction of the new board—there are considerable savings there in thatwhole process—and allowing the Minister to

authorise an ex gratia payment from the fundwhere the chief executive considers that thereare no grounds on which the claimant mayestablish a claim against the fund. That canhappen if a person, for example, has sufferedfinancial loss because of the actions of a licenseeor licensee's employee; it is reasonable to makethat payment. I know that a case of cheques anda whole range of issues that came up under thisparticular theme. There are quite a number ofvery significant changes there.

It has been stated that the statutory warrantyis not long enough. I think that is what themembers of the Labor Party are saying. We havehad a number of examinations of a range ofwarranty provisions, but the warranty applies tomost components of the car. The period in theBill balances the need to protect the consumeragainst the need to ensure that the scheme isworkable and is not provided at unreasonablecost to the industry which is then passed on toconsumers. At the same time, it covers mostcomponents. Some warranty schemes, in fact,do not do that; they do anything but, which againmeans they are a bit of a sham at the end of theday. I consider that most defects will come to lightwithin the period provided for within the Bill. Tomove to provide the warranty is to establish anindustry standard that provides a minimum ofvehicle quality and safety. Dealers, of course,may provide a more intensive warranty shouldthe market demand it. I will say a great deal moreabout warranties if time permits, but otherwise Iwill come back to it when we debate the clauses.

The member for Mackay raised the delays inpayments for compensation to consumers. TheBill does not cause delays; in fact, it does theopposite. I am certainly aware of the currentdelays because people complain to me aboutthat, but that is the mechanism that is in place.The Bill, in fact, does the opposite; it streamlinesthe process of making claims, provides a moreefficient board and enhances inspectorialpowers to allow that to occur. The appealsprocess is also improved, thus ensuring thatclaims are finalised more quickly.

The member for Rockhampton says that theopen market does not work. I do not know aboutthat. The Russians and communists have foundout that their marketplace was not working toowell at all. They got on the bandwagon for theopen market, and I will leave it at that. Thisargument is contrary to real market practice,economic studies and the National CompetitionPolicy. These studies show that price efficiencyand delivery of service is enhanced by opencompetition. The Prices Surveillance Authority—the consumer protective authority—was also


very strong on deregulation and recommendedderegulation of rates as far back as 1992.

The member for Rockhampton drewcomparisons between a cooling-off period forthe purchase of motor vehicles and a cooling-offperiod for purchases made from door-to-doorsalesmen. There is no comparison betweendoor-to-door sales and motor sales as the door-to-door person is not invited to the buyer'spremises and the household is more likely to beinvolved in impulse buying. A person usuallysets out to buy a motor vehicle and has anexpectation to buy a motor vehicle, which is whatI was referring to previously.

Someone raised the issue of consumerprotection. Of course, consumer protection isthe first object of the Bill, as contained on page32 of the legislation. The member for Chermsideraised a range of questions as to why we areproviding an enhanced regulatory environment.The consumer interest is protected by theregulation of agents, and that is contained in theBill because the Bill ensures that only suitablepeople are licensed. Licensees are in a positionof trust in relation to their clients' money and theircharacter and the character of their employeesand associates must be beyond dispute. Asystem of inspections is in place to ensure thatlicensees observe the provisions of the Actregarding matters such as trust accounts,providing security and interest certificates inrelation to motor vehicles, etc.

The Bill provides an enhanced regulatoryenvironment through an enhancedadministrative procedure which has been put inplace. As I said earlier, the Bill providesnumerous measures for consumer protection.These measures include statutory warranties, arequirement of full disclosure of all services to beprovided and the amounts which will be chargedfor these services.

The codes of conduct provided for in theAct will be enforceable. Breaches of the codeswill result in disciplinary action which will result inthe licensee losing his or her licence. The Billalso allows publication of details about themisdeeds of these people. The committee tookaction against a number of people in 1996 and1997. The codes will provide an effectiveenforceable mechanism against the industry.

The member for Lytton stated that estateagents represent present commission rates asthe going rate. Irrespective of whether theGovernment was to educate people in relation tothe negotiability of commission rates, the cultureof the real estate industry is such that therewould be little prospect of consumers being ableto negotiate rates effectively. I would havethought the honourable member would be aware

of this. Consultation with departmental officershas revealed that, although consumers will try tonegotiate, agents will not do so. I have neverstruck agents who are willing to do so, either,when I have put it on them. The deregulation ofrates is expected to change this culture andforce agents to negotiate with clients so that thelevel of service delivery will be more accuratelyreflected in the fees charged to clients.

The member indicated that contracts of saleare weighed in favour of the seller. The agent isacting for the seller and it is to be expected thatthe agent will act in the client's interest. Whenpurchasers are signing contracts for such largesums of money, commonsense would tell themthat they should seek advice from a solicitor. Theeducational campaign and the literature issuedby the Office of Consumer Affairs urgesconsumers to seek legal advice before signingcontracts. I believe members opposite should beaware of that.

Not all statutory warranties in otherjurisdictions offer the comprehensive protectionoffered by the statutory warranties in this Bill. Imentioned that the statutory warranties covermost items. Many of the statutory warrantieselsewhere cover only the smallest of items.

The Labor Party has taken up the pointabout covering the bottom end of the market.The proposal is for a one month/1,000 kilometrestandard. That was not originally contained in theBill, but it has now been included. There isconcern about that end of the market and that iswhy that provision was included. As a result, thelegislation covers everybody. There are noexclusions. I hope it will clean up some of thebombs that I currently see on the road. This willget them off the road because they will not meetwarranty standards. That may affect some peoplepurchasing at the bottom end of the market. Ifthey have to pay a little more they may have towait a little longer. They will get a better vehicleand we will not end up with the bombs on theroad.

I want to deal with a few of the points raisedby the member for Gladstone. I have coveredsome of the issues raised by the member. Theissue of the Prices Surveillance Authority reportin relation to deregulation of commission rates inNew Zealand has already been covered. Themember queried the proposal to have a smallerboard. I think I have covered that matter already. Ihave dealt with the matter of one third industry,one-third legal and one third consumers ascompared with one sixth consumers under theOpposition's proposal. I will deal with this matterlater in more detail.

The member referred to penalties for failureto provide a statement of legal advice as


provided by the legislation. The principal willhave the ability to retain commission and theseller may recover from the agent an amount fordamages suffered. I think that may cover theissue on penalties that was raised by themember. The member mentioned the issue ofbuyers' premiums. In the legislation we havedeveloped a very comprehensive provisioncovering buyers' premiums to ensure that buyersare not going to be worse off. Before the salestarts, the agents are required to tell the peoplepresent what the sale is all about. This particularlyrelates to chattels. People who have been to seeme are concerned that they will lose aconsiderable amount of business. Vendors andbuyers seem to work the system out.

The member mentioned statutorywarranties. The matter of fleet cover is veryimportant. The legislation will not cover fleetowner sales as the people involved are not motorvehicle dealers. If the legislation moved to coverthem, it would cover every person inQueensland who sold a car.

Time expired.

Motion agreed to.

Committee

Hon. D. E. Beanland (Indooroopilly—Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) incharge of the Bill.


Clause 6—

Mr BEANLAND (9.06 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 29, line 17, 'Chapter 11'—

omit, insert—

'Chapter 91'.1 Chapter 9 (Accounts and funds)"

This amendment corrects a typographicalerror that appears in the Bill.



Clause 12—Ms SPENCE (9.08 p.m.): I move the

following amendment—

"At page 33, lines 5 and 6—

omit, insert—'(c) providing for a review of excessive fees

and commissions; and'."

This is a very important amendment andcovers one of the basic issues of the Bill. Thisclause concerns whether or not we are going to

deregulate real estate commission fees. We arenow plunging into one of the most importantfeatures of the Bill.

Before I comment on the deregulation ofreal estate commission fees, I want to make aquick comment in rebuttal of the Minister'sconstant criticism that the former LaborGovernment did nothing about the Auctioneersand Agents Act and that he should take all thecredit because he has brought a rewritten Billinto the Parliament. Firstly, it is very wrong to saythat the former Labor Government did nothing. Inthe six years since 1990 the Labor Governmentamended the Act on 10 separate occasions. In1991 it reformed trust accounting provisions. In1993 it amended the Act to allow credit unionsand building societies to hold trust accounts.The Government went on to amend the Act tomake odometer tampering an offence. The listgoes on.

Mr FitzGerald: They didn't contain any ofthe things you are promoting now.

Ms SPENCE: If I was this Minister andbrought forward a Bill like this I would not bestanding here boasting about it. This Bill has somuch wrong with it that we have seen fit toforeshadow 79 amendments. I acknowledged inmy speech that we could have brought a lot moreamendments to the Parliament because there isso much wrong with this Bill. It is false for theMinister to continue on this line. The LaborGovernment closely monitored this Act andmade many amendments. A former ConsumerAffairs Minister, Tom Burns, promised that hewould be working on more amendments to theAct. In fact, the Act was slowly being rewritten bythat Labor Government. So I want to dispel thatargument once and for all.

Before I deal with the issue of real estateagents' commission fees, I want to answer themember for Gladstone who, quite properly, saidthat it has been difficult for her because she didnot get these significant and numerousamendments until lunchtime today. I am verysorry about that. However, I did not receive theseamendments from the parliamentary draftsmanuntil 11 o'clock today. In fact, I take thisopportunity to commend the parliamentarydraftsman, who worked on these Oppositionamendments until the very late hours of lastnight. Basically, it boils down to the fact that I donot have any more resources than does themember for Gladstone. The parliamentarydraftsman is my resource on this Bill. We did thebest we could. It is unfortunate that more timecould not have been given to the member toconsider these amendments.

I turn now to the issue of deregulation ofreal estate agents' commission fees. The


Minister is quite right when he says that this is allabout National Competition Policy, this is allabout economic rationalism. He is right in sayingthat there was a time when we supportedcompetition policy and when the Labor Partylooked like it was embracing competition policy. Ido not back away from that, and nor does anyoneelse in the Labor Party. In many respects we stillsupport competition policy. But I think that whatwe are saying in 1998—not just in the LaborParty but out there in the communitygenerally—is that it has gone too far; let us stepback and say that wholesale competition is notnecessarily a good thing for the community, forindustry or for anyone else in society.

This is the first opportunity we have had inthe Queensland Parliament to say "no" tocompetition policy and "no" to economicrationalism. We are not going to deregulate ourreal estate agents' commissions just becauseeveryone else has done so in that mad spirit ofcompetition policy and deregulation. We havehad the opportunity to see what the deregulationof real estate agents' commission fees has doneelsewhere in every other State and in ourneighbour New Zealand. When we see what ithas done, we realise that it has been bad formost consumers. The consumers who havebeen most affected by the deregulated marketare those at the middle and bottom end of themarket who—all evidence suggests—cannotnegotiate real estate agents' commission fees.

It is nonsense to think that many people insociety are equal when it comes to dealing withreal estate agents and getting the best deal forthemselves in negotiating commission fees. Ihave recently been through this experience withmy own mother, who has just bought a house.She is getting older. It is tough for someone likeher to negotiate with real estate agents. It isdifficult for many people to negotiate with themon a fair basis. I believe that to suggest otherwiseshows this Minister's lack of understanding ofwhat the marketplace is like out there for mostpeople in our society.

All evidence suggests that there arewinners and there are losers from deregulatingreal estate agents' commission fees. Thewinners are at the top end of the market—nodoubt the kind of people whom the Ministerrepresents in the seat of Indooroopilly. However,most members do not represent those kinds ofpeople. We represent people who have averageand below average priced housing, and there willnot be any negotiating on the kind of deals thatthey can stitch up with their local real estateagents.

The Minister accused me of selectivequoting. I have not heard many quotes from the

Minister tonight. However, I have another quote,and it is a more recent one—seeing as theMinister did not like some of my previous quotesand said that they were too old. This one comesfrom a newspaper article in September 1997which stated—

"Sydney's top real estate agents areearning between $350,000 and $600,000a year after charging commissions of up to 7per cent for every sale.

...

The Consumers Association says theindustry needs a shake-up with agents onsky-high salaries, taking advantage of ourmost expensive investment.

Despite the deregulation of the realestate industry in 1993, commissions hadnot fallen ...

Association spokeswoman Mara Bunsaid the deregulation oftelecommunications resulted in reducedprices but the real estate sector 'needs tobe shaken up'.

'The job of an agent is exactly the sametoday as it was then, so why should their feebe so much more?

...

'I thought the reason why a sector isderegulated is to deliver benefits toconsumers, to cut costs withoutcompromising quality—not to incur furthercosts.

'It's not such a good outcome forconsumers at a time when mortgage ratesare down."

In the past week members have seen whathappens when we start privatising andcorporatising. Queensland consumers havebasically rejected the corporatised model that theMinister delivered them in the electricity industry.Consumers are sitting back and asking, "Whathave we gained out of this new corporatisedmodel? Was it not better when the electricityindustry was owned by the State Government?"Back then, when someone had a complaint, thatperson would get a real voice at the other end ofthe phone rather than a whole system ofqueues. I do not believe that Queenslandconsumers think they have gained anything outof the corporatisation of Queensland's electricityindustry. In particular, they have not gainedcheaper electricity prices, which is somethingthat should have been offered. I do not believethat Queensland consumers in general are goingto gain anything out of deregulating real estateagents' commission fees.


It is not good enough to say that we have todo this. We do not have to do this. No-one isforcing us to deregulate these fees. We can goto the competition regulator and argue that wealready have competition in real estate agents'fees in this State. The set fees represent amaximum, and there can be competition withinthe present system. The fact that it is not there isthe fault of real estate agents themselves.Perhaps it is also the Minister's fault—or ourfault—in that our Consumers Affairs Office hasnot done a very good job of telling people thatthey can indeed try to negotiate those fees.Maybe the Minister should be out thereeducating consumers rather than giving realestate agents the deregulated fees which theMinister thinks he is being forced to give them.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I have a couple ofquestions in relation to the matters that theMinister raised earlier and the issues that wereraised by the previous speaker. The Ministerquoted a spread of commission at the point ofderegulation of 3.25%. Now it is a spread of 2%to 4%. I am assuming that that is in New Zealand,where the ALP's example was a 1992 pricessurveillance document. I understand that theother States in Australia have been deregulated,other than Western Australia. Queensland andWestern Australia are the last two States tocommence this process. I would be interested toknow what effect on consumers the deregulationhas had in other States. I would also beinterested in the Minister's comments about theopportunity for real estate agents—even under aregulated market—to compete with one another,that is, that if the regulated limit is 3.5%, they dohave the flexibility to compete with one anotherbelow that.

I have not yet fully accepted a statementthat was made earlier, mainly because it iscontradictory. The Minister said that deregulationis part of the Hilmer process. I am sure that theMinister knows my view of Hilmer. The Ministersays that it is required under competition.However, it is my understanding that a residue ofthe proposal in the Bill is the power of theMinister to reregulate where sustained abuse orproven abuse continues. I would question thecontradictory nature of those two statements: it isrequired by deregulation, but the Minister willretain the power. I am not arguing that thatshould not occur; I am questioning the logic of it.I share a fundamental concern that the Bill has tobe twofold in its direction. One direction is toprovide an opportunity for healthy competitionamong real estates agents. However, afundamental tenet has to be that consumershave a protection to ensure that they are notaffected harmfully. I am not convinced yet that

that protection is in place. I seek the Minister'sclarification.

Mr BEANLAND: I commend the staff ofthe Office of Consumer Affairs, because a lot ofmembers have commented about the role ofconsumer affairs in this legislation. Since the timewe kicked this legislation off from scratch, thosestaff members have put close to two years ofhard work into it. They have done acommendable, tremendous job to bring it to thisstage. They have attended a range of publicmeetings and worked on a range of submissions.They have travelled around the State. Of course,they have been involved also in many otheraspects. I believe that we have a very fine Officeof Consumer Affairs in this State. I wanted toplace that on the record, because a lot of thecomments that I heard thrown around theChamber are not necessarily to that effect. Icommend the officers for their work in relation tothis matter.

I turn now to deregulated agents'commission rates. It is interesting to note that theAustralian Consumers Association stated thatcommissions had dropped from 3% to 1.5% formany home owners in New South Wales. Theysupport the deregulation of commission rates.The Chairman of the Property Industry Council inNew South Wales said that competition and pricecuts in some areas had been so fierce that a fewbusinesses had gone bankrupt. It has madeagents be a little more professional. They have tobe prepared to show why their fee structure isthe way it is. For the benefit of the member forGladstone, I repeat that Queensland andWestern Australia are the only two States thathave not already gone down this path. WesternAustralia has indicated that it is in the process ofgoing down this path. The spread of rates that Iquoted in relation to New Zealand is quitecorrect.

In New South Wales, the rates droppedmarginally once the deregulated commissionrates had come in. In some areas, there was amarginal increase. Overall, it remained fairly static.There was a marginal drop in most areas. InVictoria there is no evidence of sustainedmovement over 18 months. Although a numberof reviews have been conducted, they are notpublic documents at this stage, so I cannot makeany further comment in relation to Victoria'ssituation.

Some people believe that if a maximum rateis set, people will negotiate. Some time ago, wewere approached by the United GraziersAssociation. After obtaining their desires inwriting, we put in place a del credere process forthe vendors and the agents. That was done atthe request of the rural communities. At that time


I said, "If I set a maximum rate, you will find thateveryone will rise to the maximum rate." Sureenough, that is what has happened. Someonecan correct me, but I think that the rate forlivestock sales has been set at about 5%. As Iunderstand it, commission rates have risen to5%. We are not having competition. Memberscan sit in this Chamber and say, "We will set amaximum rate, and that will producecompetition." However, it simply will not producecompetition. That has been proven recently inQueensland. I said that would occur.

Commercial rates in this State, as distinctfrom residential rates, have been deregulated formany years. We should be careful when wethrow around figures, saying that a particular realestate agent has made a huge bucket of money.Most of the agents in that field of whom I amaware are in the commercial sector, where oneworks on a different basis from the basis oneworks on in the residential sector. It is a totallydifferent situation altogether. Many small andlarge businessmen and businesswomenthroughout the State have already beeninvolved in and have experience in negotiatingrates in their own business dealings. No doubt,that will translate readily into residential propertytransactions.

The member for Gladstone mentioned that,although we are deregulating the rates now, wehave included a proviso that, through regulation,they can be regulated. If one were to reregulate,one would certainly need to be able to showconclusively that commission rates had risenconsiderably and that competition was notworking. I am sure that if one could show that tothe competition authority or anybody else, onewould be on very solid ground. That cannot beshown currently. One can shoot it down beforeone starts. By the way, I think it will work. I do notwant anybody to think that I do not. I think it willwork through competition in the marketplace. If itdoes not work, that process exists. We will beable to show the competition authority the exactproblems that occur in this State. Othercountries—Canada, Britain, New Zealand andthe United States—have deregulatedcommission rates.

I mentioned before that the AustralianConsumers Association supports deregulation,citing the New South Wales experience. TheAustralian Consumers Association is the nation'speak consumer advocacy group. They seebenefits occurring as a result of this legislation. Imentioned earlier that the 1992 PricesSurveillance Authority report into real estateagents' fees relating to residential propertytransactions recommended that, as part of acomprehensive reform package—such as this

one—real estate commission rates should bederegulated. That organisation is a consumerwatchdog. The report conclusions state that theauthority notes the trend towards feederegulation in Australia and supports feederegulation subject to implementation of theproposals regarding licensing requirements andconsumer information. Before the Governmentgoes down this track, there will be an extensiveeducation and public information program. Thisstep is not being taken in isolation. It is part of acomprehensive program within the legislation. Iwould not like to attempt this measure inisolation.

A range of processes and initiatives need tobe put in place. Of course, there are a number ofcomplementary reforms, such as monitoring thefee structure. We have mentioned already howwe are going to monitor it to see how it operatesacross-the-board. People can go to the board ifthey feel aggrieved about commission rates. Theboard can make recommendations to theMinister that rates ought to be reregulated. Anindependent review into the effect ofderegulation will be conducted after 18 months.We are putting in place a number of otherinitiatives in relation to deregulation tocomplement the suggestions of the PricesSurveillance Authority, such as negativelicensing of sales persons; objective licensingstandards for agents based on competencystandards rather than experience, withprohibitions on persons with criminal records andthose who are bankrupt; and streamlining thenumber of licences required.

I think that I have covered the points that themember for Gladstone raised. I have attemptedto do so. I am sure that she will remind me if I havenot covered any aspect.

Ms SPENCE: I want to say a couple ofthings. Firstly, I want to answer the Minister'scriticism of me during the second-readingdebate, when he claimed that the REIQ's surveythat I quoted from previously was not a surveydone in Queensland but a national survey. I donot know where the Minister got that informationfrom, but I have a letter here from Mr McKenzie,who is the chief executive officer for the REIQ.He states clearly in his letter to me, which I amhappy to table—

"A survey of members was conductedby postal ballot in May 1996. A copy of thesurvey document is enclosed.Unfortunately, only 11% of membersresponded. At that time 53% ofrespondents preferred continuedregulation while 47% preferredderegulation."


It is very offensive to me for the Minister tostand in this place and accuse me of telling lieswhen I have this letter, which I am really happy totable and I do so. I am not here to criticise theREIQ. As I said in my speech, only a smallnumber of its members responded to the survey.The REIQ has told me that, since that survey, ithas made it a part of its job to go around to all ofthe council meetings to convince its membersthat deregulation is the right way to go. Iacknowledge that.

Nevertheless, it would be wrong for us heretonight to think that even after that all real estateagents in this State are in favour of deregulation,because they are not. A number of them havetalked to me about this very issue. So theAttorney-General should not believe that if hederegulates he is going to make all the realestate agents happy. He is not. He is going tomake some of them happy. The ones who arepushing this deregulation barrel are the very bigagencies who know that they will be able to cuttheir rates for a while and squeeze other peopleout of the industry. That is precisely what theMinister mentioned previously. They are theones who are pushing this deregulation barrel.

To me, this argument that in a deregulatedenvironment real estate agents can be moreprofessional or offer more services is justrubbish. Most real estate agents with whom Ihave dealt are already very professional. Theyoffer extra services. They offer lots of advertisingif the vendor wants to pay for it. Currently, all ofthose services are available. Real estate agentscan offer them and they can charge the seller ofthe house for those services.

The Minister said, quite rightly, that thecommercial rates are already deregulated. Theway in which that was done is quite interesting. Iwas not in the Parliament at the time but I am toldthat one of the Minister's predecessors, Mr PaulClauson, a former Attorney-General, did that inthe dying days of the former National PartyGovernment. It has been cruelly suggested tome that Mr Clauson needed to shore up a bit ofsupport in the industry, so he deregulated thecommercial rates. I think that we have to drawparallels between Mr Paul Clauson doing that inthe dying days of the National Party Governmentand this Attorney-General doing this for hisGovernment. I am not going to say that it is theAttorney-General's dying days, but I just wonderwhether that is a portent of things to come.

The deregulation of the commercial rateshas proved exactly the point that the Oppositionis making today—that those people who arestrong and who have a lot of bargaining powerare getting very cheap commercial rates.Companies such as Westpac own so much

property that they can do deals—they can get acommercial rate; they can strike a bargain at half aper cent. However, the person who owns thewarehouse down the road is not going to be ableto strike that kind of deal. Currently, that personis paying 5% in real estate commission fees. Thatis precisely the argument that the Opposition ispresenting: in a deregulated market those withthe bargaining power can strike a better deal;those without the power will end up paying more.

I do not know from where the Minister getsthe idea that the Australian ConsumerAssociation supports deregulation. Tonight, Iwant the Minister to table something that saysthat that association supports deregulation. Ihave talked to everyone in that association, andeveryone has said that deregulation is not on.

Time expired.Mrs CUNNINGHAM: I have a couple of

residual questions. The Minister said that, afterderegulation in the southern States, in manyareas the commission rate went down and heacknowledged that in some areas it went up. Myquestion is: do the Minister's statistics breakdown those rates to indicate whether thecommission rates went down in the city and up inthe country? My suspicion is that where there isfiercer competition, such as in the City ofBrisbane, real estate agents will cut oneanother's throats to get a house sale. However,in country areas, such as at Boonah, where I amin Calliope, or Malanda further north where thereare a limited number of real estate agents, I querywhether that rate would actually decrease.

The Minister referred to the maximum rateand the fact that, if it is 5%, then all real estateagents will charge 5%. I do not argue with thatbecause, as they say, a job will consume all thetime that is available if we are not very careful.However, my question is: does a maximum ratepreclude competition? If the real estate agentsare really keen for this competition to occur and ifthe Minister has given an indication that he isgoing to review that in the future, then perhapsthe real estate agents, within the constraints oftheir operations now, could show a willingness tocompete by indicating that they are prepared tooperate below that set maximum rate. That wouldcertainly give some comfort to members tosupport deregulation.

I presume that, when the Minister referredto commercial rates, he meant that commercialrates in Queensland are already deregulated. Iam a bit of a commoner; I acknowledge that asmall proportion of people are naive and go intobusiness and get stung. I know that because wehear about it in our electorate offices—I am surethat Nicole hears about it ad nauseam and I amsure that the Minister's office hears about it ad


nauseam—but I contend that the majority ofpeople who negotiate commercial rates are a littlebit hard nosed and they are ready to argue thepoint. I am not so much concerned about them; Iam concerned about the first-home buyer or thesecond-home buyer who is not a particularlyaggressive person and who does not realise,unless it is expressed very clearly, that when heor she walks into a real estate agency he or shecan thump the agent around the earhole and geta lower rate.

The only other question that I have of theMinister relates to the board of review forovercharging. I was briefed on that matter by theMinister's office. The difficulty with proposedamendments is that we get them late, but theyare significant. The board can review allegedovercharging. However, if a commission rate was$2,000, which is the current rate, a person whopays the commission could say, "I got charged$4,000 and I think that I was overcharged." Thereview board could say, "$2,000 or $4,000, youpay for what you get. Pay peanuts, you getmonkeys. We do not regard that asovercharging. It may have been exorbitant, but itwas not overcharging." If the going rate was$2,000, which is what it is currently, and a personwas charged $15,000, that is a significantovercharging. I would be concerned that,although the appeal process is in place in the Bill,and should rightly be so, it has a degree ofsubjectivity. I would seek the Minister's commenton that.

I acknowledge what the Minister has said,but at the moment it has not given any quantumof comfort to the people about whom I amconcerned, that is, those who are notexperienced in negotiating and who may buy orsell a house only once or twice in their lifetimes.They are the ones who are going to get caught,but they are also the ones who can least afford it.I seek the Minister's response to those matters.

Mr BEANLAND: I again place on therecord the fact that the REIQ policy supportsderegulation. I understand that there is some98% support by the REIQ for the deregulation ofcommission rates. The member for Mount Gravatttook umbrage over some correspondence thatshe has received from Mr McKenzie, the chiefexecutive officer of the REIQ. I do not have acopy of the letter, but I certainly have a copy ofthe June 1996 survey by the Real EstateInstitute of Victoria. We have had discussionswith Mr McKenzie. This came from him and Iunderstand that it is the survey that he is talkingabout. I make it perfectly clear that it is a Victoriansurvey and has nothing to do with Queenslandwhatsoever. I do not know how the letter reads,

but I am verbally assured by Mr McKenzie thatthat is the case.

The member for Gladstone raised the issueof maximum rates. I did not quite follow all of herargument and I apologise for that. It seemed tome that she was questioning the role ofmaximum rates in competition. She will find thatmaximum rates tend to preclude competition andpromote flat service and flat fees. There iscertainly no incentive to compete or to provideinnovative services when a maximum rateapplies. That is currently the case. I gave anexample of what I believe will happen and,indeed, it has happened with livestock and it hashappened in every case of which I am aware. I donot support the concept that with competitionfees will rise to a maximum rate.

In terms of rates, of course some rates goup and some rates go down. One would thinkthat there would be fierce competition inBrisbane but, of course, in some suburbs ofBrisbane there may not be such fiercecompetition. Likewise, rates may differ in somecountry areas. In some country areas local agentsmay get on with well with the local townspeople.If theirs is a close-knit community they may arriveat a general rate in relation to their rural clients. Itdoes vary from place to place. One cannot giveany sort of blanket coverage for these things,because at the end of the day one will only beproven wrong.

The last point that the member forGladstone raised concerned matters goingbefore the board. At the end of the day, it will bea matter for the board to determine whether acharge is excessive. If people believe that theyhave been charged an excessive amount, theboard will have to examine the situation in termsof the current market rates and what other agentsare charging within the area. The board will lookat the level of service that is being provided tosee whether or not the rates charged areexorbitant. It is very hard to set such a figure,because it could very well vary from area to area.There is no simple or straightforward answer tosuch an issue if it is brought up. As with all thesethings, I am sure that if people feel that they arebeing charged exorbitantly, they will soon raisethe matter and the proposed board will certainlyhave the ability to investigate whether the ratescharged are excessive. Say there are four agentsin a town. One charges 5% and the rest charge2%, 2.5% and 1%. Clearly the 5% charge willappear exorbitant and the matter would notrequire any further discussion. That agent wouldcertainly be in some difficulty and would behauled up for charging excessive rates.However, competition in the marketplace


generally tends to settle such things andcompetition becomes quite fierce.

Ms SPENCE: I am disappointed that theMinister has not taken this opportunity to tableanything which states that the AustralianConsumer Association supports deregulation. Iam on my own debating this legislation, but hehas a plethora of public servants at his disposal,yet he has not been able to——

Mr Beanland: Don't attack the PublicService. You always attack the Public Service.Attack me, not the public servants.

Ms SPENCE: I am not attacking them. I amsaying that the Minister has access to a lot ofresources, and although he made thatstatement, he cannot table even one documentthat says that the Australian ConsumerAssociation supports deregulation. That makesme believe that this is something that theMinister has fancifully put up. And he should notquote that unsourced document that was in theCourier-Mail, because no-one from the AustralianConsumer Association will own up to thatparticular comment.

This is an important issue for the AustralianLabor Party because we believe that our job andthe job of Government is to protect theconsumers who most need protecting. Themember for Gladstone is quite right in identifyingcountry people as one of the major groups thatwill miss out in a deregulated market. I guess thatthat explains why no National Party membershave been prepared to stand up in any part ofthis debate and support what the Government isdoing today. This is an ideological issue.Basically, it is about people and one of the mostimportant purchases that they will make. This isan important issue to us and I am sorry that wehave failed to persuade the Minister of thestrength of our argument, although perhaps wehave managed to persuade the member forGladstone, who has argued on many occasionsthat she is not convinced about regulation andthe wisdom of economic rationalism. We hope tohave her support in passing this amendment.

Once a market is deregulated, regulationswill never be brought back. The Government hasnever been able to reregulate a market that hasbeen deregulated. The 18-month provision is apretty fanciful idea that shows the Minister's lackof confidence in the whole notion working.

Mr BEANLAND: The member should notsay that a market cannot be reregulated whenthe legislation clearly spells out that it can be.That is just a farce and it makes a mockery of thewhole thing, because it is not the situation at all.We have indicated clearly that surveys will becarried out to see how the process is working.

One cannot go around making statements to thateffect, because that is simply untrue. It isinteresting to look at the stand of the PricesSurveillance Authority and others in relation tothe deregulation of commission rates and what ismeant by that. Unlike the member opposite, Ibelieve that it will work as it has worked in otherStates. A closed mind believes that these thingswill not work. It is marvellous how the marketplacehas a steadying hand. If something will providecheaper commission rates and better services,why should the public not be the recipient of it?

Question—That the words proposed tobe omitted stand part of the clause—put; and theCommittee divided—AYES, 42—Baumann, Beanland, Connor, Cooper,Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore,Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy, Hegarty, Hobbs,Horan, Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud,McCauley, Malone, Perrett, Quinn, Radke, Rowell,Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Springborg,Stephan, Stoneman, Tanti, Turner, Veivers, Warwick,Watson, Wilson, Woolmer. Tellers: Carroll, Mitchell

NOES, 44—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, Cunningham,D'Arcy, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley,Fouras, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis,Lavarch, Lucas, McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth,Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce,Purcell, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence,Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells. Tellers: Roberts,Sullivan T. B.


Resolved in the negative.




Insertion of new clause—

Ms SPENCE (9.54 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 38, after line 16—

insert—

'PART 4—CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO GIVEEFFECT TO BOARD DECISIONS UNDERCHAPTER 11

'Chief executive to give effect to boarddecisions

'19A. The chief executive must, inexercising the powers vested in the chiefexecutive under this Act, give effect todecisions by the agent and motor dealersboard under chapter 11.1

1 Chapter 11 (Compliance, discipline andclaims against the fund)'."

Amendment No. 2 is really the start of thewhole debate about whether we establish the


board along the lines that the Opposition isproposing.

Honourable members interjected.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is toomuch audible conversation in the Chamber.

Ms SPENCE: Basically, the provisionsconcerning the board are in the early part of theBill and in some later clauses. I do not propose tothrash out this issue on every single clausewhich changes whether the decisions are madeby the chief executive or the registrar of theboard. I am happy to debate this whole issuenow. This affects quite a number of amendmentsand I will not waste the time of this Chamber indebating the same points every time the issuecomes up. As this is the first amendment whichwill decide the issue, I think it is better to havethat debate now.

The board that we are proposing is a six-person board. We are proposing that it have aquorum of four and that the chairperson have acasting vote. The member for Gladstone is quiteright in identifying that the consumerrepresentative accounts for only one sixth of thatboard. One of the reasons for that is that we triedto keep the board down to a small andreasonable number. Many people felt that thecurrent committee has been a bit large and that itwould be just as easy and perhaps moreworkable to have a smaller group. In trying toreduce the numbers it was important to haveevery section of the industry represented. If thereal estate agents, the motor dealers and theauctioneers were not represented, they wouldget upset. Basically, we believe it is importantthat every section of the industry we are talkingabout is represented on the board.

One of the main functions of such a board isto provide advice to the Government. Unless wehave all sections of the industry represented onthe board, we will not get balanced advice from allsections of the industry. People in the real estateindustry, motor traders and auctioneers havecommented to me that the previous committeegave them a role and acted as a good facilitatorbetween the industry and the Government. Theyfelt that that was one of the most valuable thingsabout the Auctioneers and Agents Committee.That is why tonight we are proposing theestablishment of a board.

What is wrong with the Minister's three-person board is that it is not really representativeof industry at all. Industry will not feel like it has aworking relationship with the Government whenone person is a consumer representative, oneperson is a legal representative and one personis an industry representative. That is no sort ofrelationship with a Government. We reject the

panel idea that the Minister is proposing in thisBill. I think the Minister is short-changing theseindustries by saying that we will have a hugepanel with big numbers and, when we feel like it,we will pick people from this panel to join theboard and make decisions. That is simply anonsense.

Any board around this State will tell us that aboard works and makes decisions effectivelyonly if it meets and works together on a fairlyregular basis; that is, where they know wherethey are each coming from and they know theprocess of decision making. If the Minister isgoing to pull in someone from Mount Isa orCairns once a year off a panel to suddenly sit onthe newly constituted board and one person andone industry are played off against the other, thatwill not be workable. That is why we reject theMinister's panel idea. We reject the three-personboard that the Minister is proposing.

We know that the Minister's real agenda isnot to have a board at all. That is written into thisBill. The Minister's real agenda is to move alldecision making over to his department. In thedraft Bill that the Minister presented last year, theCEO of his department was nominated as thedecision maker. When people in the communityobjected to that, the Minister said, "Okay. We'lltake away some of the powers from the CEO, wewill create this registrar and we will give thisperson some of the powers. That will be fair. Thisregistrar will be independent." What nonsense!

This registrar in whom the Minister is placingmost of the responsibility for decision makingthat currently rests with a board of distinguishedand experienced industry people is going to be apublic servant. The registrar will be someonewho is answerable to the chief executive officer,and yet the Minister is expecting industry andconsumers to believe that this public servant,who requires no training or qualifications inanything in particular—that is not written into theBill; the Minister can pick anyone on an A04 orA05 level—can suddenly take over most of thepowers and responsibilities that currently residewith a well functioning committee. This is reallyjust a way for the Minister to say that he wants allof the power back in his department. He wants tosave money by not having the expense of anindustry board or an industry committee meetingand making the decisions in a fair and impartialway.

I do not know where this fixation with thecentralising of power comes from or why theMinister feels that he needs to save money ondecision making. Someone told meyesterday—and I might be wrong—that there isabout $50m in the Auctioneers and AgentsFund. Basically, $50m is sitting in a fund which

4 Mar 1998 Adjournment 213

we take from real estate agents and motordealers. That is where that money comes from.The Minister takes that money from them, but heis too cheap and too lousy to put them on aboard or a committee. Instead the Minister wantsto save a few bucks by giving the job to a registrarin his department. That is basically what theMinister is saying to industry.

It is not just the people who have served oncommittees and who have some sort of vestedinterest who believe that a board structureshould remain in place. It is also industry itself,which appreciated the committee and wants tosee some sort of board or committee proposal goahead in this legislation. We have never heard anexplanation from the Minister as to why he isdisbanding the committee. I look forward tohearing that during the Committee stage.

Progress reported.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer—Leader ofGovernment Business) (10.03 p.m.): I move—

"That the House do now adjourn."

State Emergency ServiceHon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba)

(10.03 p.m.): During the last sitting of Parliament,I drew honourable members' attention to purgesin the Department of Emergency Services. Afterstuffing up the fire authority and the AmbulanceService, the Minister has now proceeded toattack the State Emergency Service. He haspermitted a low ranking public servant to berocketed to a position that he is not qualified for.Mr John Cotter was promoted from his previousposition of AO5 to a position of SO1. This is amassive jump of five levels, or 20 pay points.

Two highly respected and very long servingpublic servants, Mr Ken Cullum and Mr DougAngus, have been unceremoniously sackedwhile their units have been restructured to makea job for Mr John Cotter. Mr Cullum was formerlyDirector of the State Emergency Service andheld the rank of AO8, and Mr Angus was formerlyDirector of Disaster Management at the samerank. Mr John Cotter now replaces them both atthe level of SO1—miles higher than his previousposition of AO5, which was a district coordinatorposition in the Gympie region. Districtcoordinator is the second lowest rung in thehierarchy of full-time State Governmentemployees in the SES. To go from there to thehighest position is a meteoric rise. Thispromotion also includes a pay rise of about 70%.

I have spoken to Mr Cotter and I know him tobe a man of ability. However, he must be a

towering genius to, in his own person,encapsulate all the wisdom and experience ofthese two very senior and respected publicservants who for decades have been serving thisState, accruing experience and accruing theskills which have benefited this State throughdisaster after disaster. This is the second timethat Mr Cotter has been singled out as thisGovernment's favourite son. Last year he wasappointed to the newly established board of thenewly restructured fire authority. The board, ofcourse, is just another coalition gravy train whichserves no purpose except to allow its membersto junket around the State. I certainly hope thatMr Cotter will not be double dipping after hismassive pay rise and that he will resign from thefire board quango.

It puzzles me why it took so long to publishMr Cotter's appointment in the GovernmentGazette. The selection panel——

Dr Watson: Do the firies support you outthere? Do they support you? Have you beentalking to them?

Mr WELLS: The Minister is not quiteacross it. We are talking about the SES; it is adifferent unit. I am glad that the Minister,however, was able to record in Hansard his totalincomprehension of how this State's emergencyservice is run.

The selection panel consisted of very highranking people. There was the Director-Generalof Emergency Services, John Hocken; a JohnBuchanan from the Premier's Department; andJack Noye, who is the executive director of theEmergency Services Division. It does not makesense to have the matter decided by such a highpowered panel of people so closely in touch withthe wishes of their political masters and thenhave them be coy about publishing the results.Perhaps this is because the only high leveladministrative experience that Mr Cotter has hadhas been as rural vice-president of the LiberalParty.

The Minister is responsible for ensuring thatthe most qualified people are appointed tovacant positions, but it seems that the Ministerhas a habit of ensuring his friends are well lookedafter. I hope that the Minister does not deny this,because during the last sitting of Parliament Igave information about departmental proteges,cronies and yes-men being appointed topositions in the Queensland Fire and RescueAuthority of which they were unworthy. Theprecious experience possessed by long-termemployees was sacrificed so that the Ministerand his agents could promote their lap-dogs.

I am told of the case in which a person wasappointed to a position for which he did not apply

214 Adjournment 4 Mar 1998

because he had personal knowledge ofsomeone on the selection panel. I spoke ofpeople who were underqualified beingappointed to positions that had previously beenfilled by qualified and experienced members ofthe service. I tabled the Francis report, whichrecommended that 11 positions be revokedbecause of stuff-ups. Many members of theQueensland Fire and Rescue Authority believedthat the entire selection process should takeplace again. It was shonky, it was ridiculous and itwas a disgrace. It turns out that the supposedindependent reviewer was involved in setting upthe selection process.

This sorry saga continues. Whenever onegoes down the path of managerialist claptrapsuch as that recommended by the State review,one ends up with managerial stuff-ups,opportunities for cronyism, rorting and back-dooring. In these circumstances, morale dropsand internal memos fly. I have one here to tablefor the interest of honourable members. Theappointee for one of the FPO3 senior directorpositions was not qualified for a lower ranking.The appointee had failed not once, not eventwice, but three times to be deemed competentin emergency incident management. This isclearly a case of "three strikes and you're in". Ihope the appointee will not act in an emergencyincident managerial capacity.

Time expired.

Better Crime Control for Southern GoldCoast

Mrs GAMIN (Burleigh) (10.08 p.m.): I ampleased to advise the Parliament that the newpolice station at Palm Beach commencedoperations on 2 February and was formallyopened on 26 February by the Premier and theMinister for Police and Corrective Services.Completion of the station occurred less than 20months from when the first Budget was broughtdown after the coalition came to power in early1996.

I count this as my most significant personalachievement over all my years of public andcommunity service. I fought hard for this station. Ifought the former Labor Government—withoutsuccess—and I have full records of Labor'sintransigence on this issue. It is ludicrous for theALP to now suggest that it had planned for thenew station and had identified possible sites. It isreally stupid to make such statements when anyintelligent FOI search would show that they haveno basis or foundation whatsoever and thatfunds were never made available for thispurpose.

Together with the community of PalmBeach, we lobbied the former Government butfailed dismally in our attempts. The coalition thenmade a commitment to us that, if elected, thepolice station would be built. After theMundingburra by-election, Russell Cooper keptthat commitment, and funding for site purchaseand preliminary planning was provided in the firstcoalition Budget in May 1996. Premier RobBorbidge then stepped in and fast-tracked thewhole process so that the building wascompleted and operational in less than 20months, when normally a new police stationwould take three years.

It is pertinent to mention the matter ofstaffing of this new station in particular, and of thehuge shake-up in Gold Coast police services ingeneral. They might not have wanted the policestation in the beginning, but ALP members andsupporters say they are pleased now. So it isquite disturbing to hear and read comments fromALP members and supporters which aredeliberate fabrications about the stations atBurleigh Heads and Palm Beach. They arepretending that Palm Beach has been staffed atthe expense of Burleigh, and are distorting howthe Queensland Police Service sets about itstask of policing the southern Gold Coast. Onecould almost believe that there is an intentionalcampaign to destabilise police operations and toreduce public confidence in police services.

The new Assistant Commissioner of Police,Southern Region, Mr Greg Early, has been giventhe task of implementing last year's Pickeringreport and recommendations into the CriminalInvestigation Branch. The CIB has been totallyrestructured—and not before time. The fullsouthern Gold Coast CIB contingent of 44detectives is now based at Burleigh HeadsPolice Station and is starting to get good runs onthe board in terms of crime clean-ups in ourdistrict.

As a result of this great influx of detectives,general duties staff from Burleigh have beentransferred to Palm Beach and added to the newstation staff allocation of that new station.Considerably increased resources have beenprovided to enable better general policing thanwe have ever enjoyed before, both in Burleighand Palm Beach.

Prior to 2 February, Burleigh and PalmBeach had 22 general duties officers and onecar, plus 11 detectives—that adds up to 33officers. Now Palm Beach has 39 general dutiesofficers and Burleigh Heads has 44detectives—that adds up to 83. Simplearithmetic shows an increase of 50 trainedofficers for the southern Gold Coast.


Where there used to be only one police carshared between Burleigh and Palm Beach, thereare now three cars for general duties. One car isrostered to Palm Beach, one to Burleigh, and thethird is used as back-up wherever necessary.General duties officers are now very happyindeed that they are able to give better service toboth Burleigh and Palm Beach than ever before,and response time to calls has been improved bybetter than half throughout the district.

I thank Police Minister Russell Cooper forhis efforts in increasing police numbers andnecessary resources for our State, and I knowthat Assistant Commissioner Early will not bebackward in getting more than our fair share forthe southern region. I thank the QueenslandPolice Service executive and administrative armsfor at last paying attention to the needs of thesouthern Gold Coast, and for providing additionalofficers and considerable resources which willensure better policing of this district. Finally, Ipoint out to ALP members and supporters thatthe way police staff are allocated to their stationsand to their duties is completely a matter for thepolice themselves. It is not a matter for politicalparties to try to control how police services areorganised, and it is dangerous and silly for theALP to even consider interfering in policeadministration.

Mackay, Cultural Activities

Mr MULHERIN (Mackay) (10.13 p.m.): Irise in the House tonight to speak about thesignificant cultural life that exists in my electorateof Mackay and the positive effect that such alifestyle has had for many years on the people ofMackay. The central event that brings Mackaypeople together once a year is the MackayEisteddfod. Celebrating its 50th anniversary lastyear, the eisteddfod has been a successfulvehicle for people to express their artistic skills,develop their performance skills, and simplyprovide children and adults alike with a perhapsonce in a lifetime opportunity to perform theirchosen art form before an audience. This has atwofold enriching effect on the community.Because so much of the presentation of theeisteddfod would be impossible without the workof volunteers, many people are involved in itsoperation and they care about the qualities itupholds. Participating in an event thatencourages excellence, fair play and discipline isa way of providing something positive andhealthy for the community, as well, of course, asproviding a healthy option for those people,perhaps not like me, with artistic gifts.

The volunteers include all facets of thecommunity: the eisteddfod committee'spresident—recently retired Mrs Norma

Shuttlewood, who has managed its success forover 30 years—the eisteddfod committeemembers who plan and direct the yearly event,mothers making costumes and fathers drivingtheir children from out of town to sing in theschool choir competition, and so on.

In the first recorded post-war MackayEisteddfod there were 40 sections ofcompetition, four sessions and 192 entries.Today, there are 433 sections, 86 sessions,4,758 entries and over 1,500 competitors in acompetition held over 16 days. Performers andfriends and families come from all over the Stateand interstate to perform in Mackay's eisteddfod,making a significant contribution both culturallyand financially to the town. Nationally andinternationally renowned adjudicators judge theperformances, and teachers of dancing, actingand singing work for months training theirstudents for the event. The Mackay Eisteddfodhas provided the youth of Mackay, in particular,with the opportunity to practise for a career in thearts.

A well-known cultural ambassador of Mackayis Vicki Attard, principal ballerina with theAustralian Ballet, who was trained at one of thelocal dancing schools in Mackay and had hertalent recognised in Mackay Eisteddfods formany years before leaving to further her dancingcareer.

Most importantly, the Mackay Eisteddfodhas been a uniting force that has broughttogether like-minded people who have gone onto form their own performance groups, creatingthe diversified cultural lifestyle for which Mackayhas become recognisable. Groups such as theMackay Folk Club, the Mackay Comedy Players,the Mackay Choral Society and the Mackay ArtsSociety have been performing for many years.The Writers Group, for example, holds a Poets inthe Pub competition every year during theMackay Arts Festival. This festival showcasesvisiting jazz musicians and bands as well as manylocal performers and artists and grows in size andsuccess each year.

The Mackay Choral Society has beensuccessfully competing and performingthroughout the State since as early as 1945. Thisyear, Mackay will host the North QueenslandEisteddfod, a semi-professional event involvingchoirs, singers and actors from the north of theState. The choral competitions between thetowns of the north are highly competitive.

Mackay was a multicultural community longbefore many other parts of Australia. Malteseimmigrants settled in and around Mackay in theearly part of this century and played a significantrole in developing Mackay's sugar industry. Wecelebrate the Maltese Festival every second


year. It represents all that is positive about thecontributions of immigrants to Australian society.

The Mackay South Sea Islanders werebrought to Queensland between 1863 and1904, also to develop the sugar industry, butoften against their will. However, about 2,400people either evaded deportation or wereexempt from it and stayed in Mackay. Given thisbackground, the proud and enduring sense ofcommunity among Mackay's South Sea Islandersis even more impressive.

The original inhabitants of the Mackay areawere recorded in the 1930s as being Aboriginesof the Juipera language group. NAIDOC Week isan important week in Mackay and is celebratedwith a parade and festivities each year. Aroundthe schools in Mackay, TAFE representativestutor the children in bushcraft, bush survivalmedicines and early Aboriginal history.

The development of cultural and artistictalent in Mackay has led to two important eventsin recent Mackay history. The opening in 1988 ofthe Mackay Entertainment Centre was, I believe,recognition of Mackay's significant culturalcontribution to the State of Queensland. It isregarded as the nation's best regional theatre.

Time expired.

Treasurer's Support for Dance NorthMr TANTI (Mundingburra) (10.18 p.m.): I,

too, will speak about arts and culture. I would liketo inform the House of the way the DeputyPremier, Treasurer and Minister for The Arts hasassisted the arts community in Townsville. In aletter dated 12 February 1998, Joanne Keune,the general manager of Dance North, said this—

"The honourable Joan Sheldon hasbeen outstanding in her support of DanceNorth and specifically also the Townsvillearts community through the capital fundingfor the School of Arts Building."

She went on to say—

"We publicly thank Ms Sheldon for hersincere support."

She also said—"We appreciate your devoted work. It is

such a welcome change to find a Ministerwho obviously has a knowledge andunderstanding of the value culture brings toa community."

On 19 February 1998, Joanne said that duringher 12 years' involvement with the artscommunity Mrs Sheldon was "the" electedrepresentative who fully understood the value ofarts and culture to the community.

In a letter of 6 February 1998 dealing withthe Lunchtime Show publicity release, Joannesaid—

"Ms Sheldon's commitment to the artsin Queensland has been outstanding.Dance North is direct with its audiences andpromotional material in acknowledging theexcellent expenditure of tax payersprecious dollars. It is due to the StateGovernment's commitment to Dance Norththat we are able to present such extensiveprograms."

An article in the Townsville Bulletin on 16December 1997 stated that $150,000 was givenby Joan Sheldon to Dance North to helprenovate the building. At a function the nightbefore, a wine bar and airconditioning wereannounced as planned features of the new-lookTownsville Arts Centre. That is what the moneywas being spent on. The article continued—

"The state government yesterdaymatched funds raised by Dance North andthe Townsville community, with DeputyPremier Joan Sheldon injecting more than$150,000 into the development of thecomplex.

...

Deputy Treasurer Joan Sheldon saidTownsville's arts community received thesecond highest funding in Queenslandbehind Brisbane.

She said the government providedmore than $400,000 for the centre'srenovations.

...

Dance North raised more than$150,000 for stage two"—

and the Government matched it dollar for dollar.

On 20 February, after Joan Sheldon hadbeen there on the 19th, the Townsville Bulletinreported—

"Dance North put on its firstperformance for the year yesterday, andone of the most important people inQueensland was there to see it."

That was the Deputy Premier, Treasurer andMinister for The Arts, Joan Sheldon. She wasthere—

"... to watch Jane Pirani's ... debut as theartistic director of Dance North.

Mrs Sheldon also launched thecompany's first full-colour brochure.

...


Mrs Sheldon said the brochure wouldbe distributed to national and internationalproducers and festival organisers.

...Mrs Sheldon also announced a special

$7,000 grant to Dance North's youth arm,Extensions, to allow the group to participatein the 1998 Aberdeen International YouthFestival in August.

And she handed a $17,000 cheque tothe Woomera Aboriginal Corporation so thegroup can attend"—

a festival in Central Java in Indonesia.Another newspaper article stated—

"Mrs Sheldon told the packedaudience that ... The new brochure wouldincrease Dance North's audience and raisethe profile of Townsville as a culturaldestination.

...'Money on the arts is money well

spent,' she said.'The arts provides a lot of money to the

nation.' "I attended a function at which 330 people

were present. They reported in their magazinethat—

"Member for Mundingburra, Frank Tantishould be commended for his approach toobtaining money for Townsville. For toolong the regions have missed out—now,finally the committed work of Frank Tanti andso many before him is paying off. TheDance North Board also acknowledged theresponsiveness of the State Governmenttoward the immediate allocation of thisfunding."

Joanne Keune said—"This is a team effort."

As I said earlier, Joan Sheldon, the DeputyPremier, Treasurer and Minister for The Artsannounced a special grant of $7,000 to DanceNorth's youth arm, Extensions. The grant showsthe coalition's commitment to the professionaldevelopment of regional youth arts.

On 19 February, Mrs Sheldon gave herstamp of approval to the Pandora museumdesign. Construction is set to begin in the nextcouple of weeks, and Mrs Sheldon wasparticularly happy with the progress of the StateGovernment funded $17.5m Museum of TropicalQueensland project. She said she was veryhappy with the plans that she had seen. MrsSheldon said that the new Museum of TropicalQueensland——

Time expired.

Electricity IndustryHon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich)

(10.23 p.m.): During the recent power crisis weheard much of the Treasurer's pillage of theelectricity industry. From the Treasurer whofoisted the Sunshine Motorway debt onto alltaxpayers came the raid which put $850m ofextra debt on power users and $850m into her1997-98 Budget to try to balance the books. Butthe Treasurer's day of reckoning is fast upon her.

Despite the Treasurer's claims that the$850m went on capital works, the Budget showsthat only half went to capital. The capital budgetincreased by only $443.1m. In other words, over$400m went into recurrent programs. This is theheart of the issue. This Treasurer has used theelectricity money and other one-off sources offunds to plug a $400m hole in her Budget. Thathole is there again. The dogs are barking allalong George Street that the early Budgetpreparation is all about fudging the figures tohide the Treasurer's fiscal incompetence.

What other public assets are going to besquandered by this Government which,according to the Premier, "will do anything"—thatis what the Premier said—to try to cling to office?How much of the proceeds of the privatisation ofSuncorp and the QIDC will be used to fund thewrong priorities of this Government? What newand increased taxes are being looked at to fill the$400m hole? Whose pockets are now to beplundered by this desperate Treasurer? I hazarda guess. It is the very people who will pay for the5% power tariff cut to business. You guessed it:the mums and dads, the people who missed outon cheaper power but, nevertheless, enduredthe blackouts. They are the people who will payagain.

Those people of Queensland rememberthe Treasurer and her promise in her first Budgetof no new or increased taxes, but she introducedseven new and increased taxes and charges.Those same people of Queensland remembertheir car registration going up. They rememberthe BAD tax increase, they remember thetobacco tax increase, and they remember thecrazy tyre and oil levy. And they will certainlyremember this coalition and those brokenpromises at the forthcoming election.

The people of Queensland demand better;they deserve better, and they will get it after thenext election.

Time expired.

Police Station, North Rockhampton

Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel)(10.25 p.m.): I wish to touch on a few issues that


relate to the area of North Rockhampton in theelectorate of Keppel. There is a very definite andreal need for the construction of a new policestation to serve North Rockhampton. NorthRockhampton and the areas around it nowcomprise 75% of the population ofRockhampton; North Rockhampton is the growtharea.

North Rockhampton has an old policestation—a turn-of-the-century job. It isapproximately less than a kilometre from theexisting central police station in Rockhampton. Anew police station needs to be built and locatedin the growth area of North Rockhampton,somewhere in the area of the NorthRockhampton High School, Norman Road ornear the Dreamtime Centre. I am led to believethat, since my continuing representation, fiveareas are being assessed for their suitability assites for a new North Rockhampton policestation. It is my view that it should not be a policestation to serve only North Rockhampton.Indeed, it should be a truly central police station.It should contain the central command and thesuperintendent's area. It should also be the mainPolice Service area for central Queensland.

That does not take away from theeffectiveness of the present central policestation in Rockhampton. It is certainly my viewthat that police station has to berefurbished—which I understand willhappen—and that it must be made as good as itpossibly can be for the police officers who workthere. Perhaps some of the extra duties that arecurrently undertaken there can be maintained inthe central police station.

We cannot have a situation in which wehave a police station in a pretty poor state, acentral command in another part of the city, andthen a broken-down old police station in NorthRockhampton. We really have to get out thereand fight for this for the area. I do believe that wehave a very big chance of success. Obviously wehave been successful with the new Emu ParkPolice Station, which has proved to be a greatsuccess. A total revamping and major extensionof the Yeppoon Police Station is certainly in thepipeline. As an adjunct to that, this Friday thePremier will open the extensions to the YeppoonCourt House. We are moving along pretty well inthose particular areas.

As to the North Rockhampton PoliceStation, the Police Minister, Russell Cooper, willbe coming to our area. In fact, he will be there on7 March—that is this Saturday—when a forum willbe held on police matters and matters dealingwith issues relevant to the Premier. I understandthat that will be a very big success. I would like tocongratulate the Premier on having these open

forums. They are a great idea. The Premier of theState is present; politics are placed aside andpublic servants and others are able to attend andsay what they believe should be done for thearea, what their particular problem is or whatever.In Rockhampton, that forum will be held at theYWCA hall. They are pretty pleased, I might add.Who would ever think that we would have aforum for the Premier of this State in the YWCAhall?

Mr Santoro: You obviously did.Mr LESTER: I did—too right I did. They

are delighted.

Mr Santoro: It is happening because ofyour intervention, your foresight.

Mr LESTER: It has just happened. We are very pleased that these good

people are there. They have seats all lined up.We are going to have a good show, there is noquestion about that. I would like to thank theMinister for Training and Industrial Relations forcertain things that I know he will do in the not-too-distant future, but which I will not be announcingyet. We will announce that in the next week orso. I know that that announcement is coming. It isvery good and I thank the Minister.

Time expired.

Role of the Minister for Police andCorrective Services

Mr BARTON (Waterford) (10.30 p.m.):Just over two weeks ago, on 13 February, theMinister for Police and Corrective Services,Russell Cooper, issued a press release on prisonreform. In it he said, "I will personally monitorprocesses of security upgrades beingimplemented and also will be able to hear first-hand any feedback for improving the system thatproviders and police have to give." He repeatedthose exact words yesterday in a ministerialstatement. Possibly the same person wrote bothreleases for him.

What a cynical conversion on the road backfrom Borallon by this Minister. Suddenly thisMinister has discovered what a key part of his jobactually is, that is, overviewing what it is that hisCorrective Services Commission and prisonproviders are really doing—or, should I add, notdoing—in terms of the problems that exist in theprison system in this State. The public is entitledto be cynical about this latest revelation by thisMinister. Time and time again, we have heardexactly the same comments being made. Everytime we have had a problem, this Minister comesout and makes promises about what changes willbe made in the prison system to address thesecurity problems. Time and time again, he fails


To deliver on performance; he simply makes thepromises and never ensures that the publicreceives the reforms that he has promised willoccur.

After each major prison disaster, thepromises on improved prison security have comethick and fast. I will mention a few, because therehave been quite a few in the past 12 months orso: after the Woodford April Fools' Day riot; afterthe Townsville escape attempt, where a prisonoffice was taken hostage; after the Sir DavidLongland escapes; after the women's prisonescape; after the Townsville New Year's eve riot;and most recently, of course, after the Borallonescapes. Time and time again, we hear thisMinister get up in front of the media and makepromises about what action he is taking;however, we never see him ensure that hisCorrective Services Commission and hisproviders put them into place. He has had thisconversion on the road back from Borallon, butthe public wants performance, not morepromises. They may be comforted by theMinister's belated recognition that it is his job totake a personal interest in those matters, but I donot think that they will be so comforted, becausethey understand when a prison system is inturmoil even if the Minister himself does not.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10.34 p.m.

Documents

WEDNESDAY, 4 MARCH 1998