Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 2993

WEDNESDAY, 19 MAY 1993

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

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT

Aboriginal and Island Councils Audits Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to advise the House that today I received from the Auditor-General his report on audits of Aboriginal and Island Councils for the financial year ended 30 June 1992. Ordered to be printed.

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Transport, Bald Hills From Mr J. N. Goss (120 signatories) praying for the introduction of a mini bus feeder system to service Bald Hills residential areas connecting the railway station, schools and shopping centre.

Turbot, Edward and Ann Streets, Park From Mr J. N. Goss (371 signatories) praying for action to be taken to create a park in the inner city of Brisbane on vacant land bounded by Turbot, Edward and Ann Streets.

Coopers Plains State School From Mr Ardill (317 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will urgently reconsider the decision to remove two teachers from the Coopers Plains State School and that only one teacher be removed.

Caboolture Railway Line From Mr J. H. Sullivan (280 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will direct the Department of Transport to reverse the decision to reduce “Out of Hours” services on the Caboolture railway line.

Life Education Program, Mackay From Mrs Bird (1 588 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will provide for funding for the salary of the teacher conducting the Mackay based Life Education Program.

High School, Victoria Point From Mr Budd (163 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will provide for a high school at Victoria Point. Petitions received. 2994 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS In accordance with the schedule circulated by the Clerk to members in the Chamber, the following documents were tabled— Parliamentary Members’ Salaries Act— Parliamentary Members’ (Annual Rate of Salary) Order (No. 2) 1993 Professional Engineers Act— Professional Engineers Regulation 1992, No. 146 of 1993 Public Service Management and Employment Act— Public Service Management and Employment Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1993, No. 142.

PAPERS The following papers were laid upon the table of the House— (a) Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Casey)— Reports for 1992— The Queensland Cane Growers’ Council The Queensland Pork Producers’ Organisation The Tobacco Leaf Marketing Board of Queensland and the Tobacco Quota Committee (b) Minister for Consumer Affairs and Corrective Services (Mr Milliner)— Response to Parliament regarding the Report of an Inquiry into the proposed upgrade of Townsville Correctional Centre.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Overseas Visit by Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development) (2.34 p.m.), by leave: From Sunday 28 March 1993 to Sunday 4 April 1993, I visited Japan to discuss a number of transport issues with leaders of Japanese industry and Government. I believe that most people would consider the Japanese to be among the world leaders in the areas of computer and electronic technology and their application in everyday uses such as transport. This was clearly evident when I visited the control room of the Fukuoka city transport subway system. The Fukuoka Transport Authority has a fully computerised operation which provides an efficient urban rail service for Fukuoka's 1.24 million residents. Fukuoka has integrated its metropolitan railway stations with commercial developments and, on 3 March this year, commissioned a new line connecting the rail network with the Fukuoka Airport. This is a matter which is certainly worthy of consideration in Brisbane. Some honourable members may recall that a Fukuoka Friendship Mission visited Queensland in September last year and indicated a very strong interest in hosting a representative of the Queensland Government on a return visit. One of the senior members of that mission was the President of the Port of Hakata Development Company, Mr Hideo Oishi, who was impressed by the successful operations of the Port Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 2995 of Brisbane. I was very pleased to visit the Port of Hakata, which has had regular visits by container ships from Queensland since April 1987. The Port of Hakata, which handles more than 25.4 million tonnes of cargo per year, is undergoing a $500m mixed redevelopment involving a Fisherman's Wharf style of commercial area called Bayside Place. It is planning a $6.5 billion expansion of its container facilities at the eastern end of the port. Later, I took the opportunity to visit the Port of Oita, which handles close to 61 million tonnes of cargo per year. Included in that total are 9 million tonnes of minerals from Australia. In 1992, 1.5 million tonnes of coal from Queensland were handled at the Oita Port. That included 914 000 tonnes from Hay Point, 406 000 tonnes from Gladstone, and 101 000 tonnes from Abbott Point. I also inspected the Oita works division of the Nippon Steel company, which imports its raw materials from Australia and Canada, utilising the largest sea berth in the world. Focussing on the engineering side of transport, we inspected the Seto-Ohashi section of the Honshu-Shikoku bridges. These bridges connect two of the main islands of Japan and cost in excess of 2.9 trillion yen to construct. In Australian currency, that is $36.8 billion. The project was funded through a combination of loans, Government bonds, private bonds, tolls and rail-user fees. The Seto-Ohashi bridge comprises a four- lane highway and a double-track railway line. It was built to withstand typhoons, earthquakes and tidal currents. These bridges are a tremendous engineering achievement. I also took the opportunity to obtain information on developments in rail technology. As well as inspecting the latest generation Shinkansen, I held discussions on tilt trains and magnetic levitation technology. In this context, it is worth noting that Queensland Rail is currently assessing expressions of interest for the introduction of tilt technology in Queensland—an initiative which will revolutionise long distance rail travel in this State and in this country. During the course of the week, I made a number of official calls on behalf of the Queensland Government. The Governor of Oita, Mr Morihiko Hiramatsu, has a very strong interest in Queensland and told me that he wished to encourage greater involvement between us, particularly in the areas of primary industries and student exchanges. Likewise, the Governor of Osaka, Mr Kazuo Nakagawa, was very enthusiastic in his praise of Queensland and his desire for closer ties. We discussed the prospect of having direct flights from Queensland to Osaka through the Kansai international airport. Scheduled for completion in 1994, the Kansai airport is being built on a 511 hectare man-made island in Osaka Bay. The Kansai will be Japan's first 24-hour airport. An estimated 19.9 million international and 10.8 million domestic passengers each year will use the airport. The trip was very successful in cementing some of the fledgling relationships between Queensland and some of our Japanese counterparts, as well as in breaking new ground in making contacts with the leaders of several major companies which are interested in investing in Queensland's transport infrastructure and its future. I now seek leave to table the trip itinerary with details of the meetings. Leave granted. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Overseas Visit by Minister for Minerals and Energy Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—Minister for Minerals and Energy) (2.38 p.m.), by leave: I rise to present to the House a report on a recent overseas trip that I undertook on behalf of the Government of Queensland to deliver the keynote address to the Second World Coal Institute Conference in London in March. The conference brought together around 350 representatives of the international coal industry—buyers, sellers, Government representatives and officers of United Nations agencies. As well, 70 representatives of the international press, many of them writers for trade papers, were in attendance. The theme of the conference was “coal for development”. My keynote address to the conference outlined the role which the coal industry has played in the 2996 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly development of our State and our nation in the past. More significantly, perhaps, my address also highlighted the role which coal will play in our future growth and prosperity. A key focus of my address was the Government’s decision to remove excessive restrictions on access for coal exploration in central Queensland. Honourable members will recall that the Government announced in its Leading State document that the old restricted area 55, which covered a huge area of the State from Collinsville in the north to Maryborough in the south, would be amended. The restricted area had meant that companies needed to obtain Cabinet approval before land could be made available for exploration. That added an unnecessary layer to the approvals process for the coal industry. The Government has since abolished the old restricted area and has advertised the availability of the land for exploration. The 12 most prospective areas will be released for competitive tender from 1 July 1993. Tenders will close on 4 January 1994. The Government will provide detailed information packages on those areas to interested companies. My comments on the abolition of the restricted area were reinforced by an exhibition stand, manned by an officer of my department, promoting the land release. I wish to table the rest of my report, together with other supporting documents. Leave granted.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Japanese Tourist Market Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier and Minister for Economic and Trade Development) (2.40 p.m.), by leave: The Queensland Government is taking steps to help the thriving tourist industry to gain greater access to the lucrative Japanese tourist market. Fourteen slots are due to come on line when the new Kansai Airport in Osaka opens next year. Yesterday, I met with senior management of Qantas to discuss with them better opportunities for the tourism industry in terms of direct and non-stop flights to Queensland. They have advised me in response that Qantas plans to fly seven 767s a week to Brisbane on the new Osaka-Australia routes. The direct benefit to Queensland from a daily direct flight would be in the order of $90m a year. At the same time, I am advised that Ansett is believed to be seeking its share of the Osaka slots and to provide up to four weekly services on the Brisbane-Osaka route. Ansett’s intention to operate four of the larger 747s would also inject $90m a year into the Queensland economy. The Government is drafting a submission to the International Air Services Commission supporting extra services to Brisbane from whatever airline wishes to fly here. Obviously, the Government has a good relationship with Qantas and is supportive of the national airline, but it has another priority as well, that is, as I said before, maximising the opportunities of the Queensland tourism industry. I am also able to inform the House that, during yesterday’s talks with Qantas, the airline outlined plans to begin an extra direct service from Tokyo to Brisbane next year. Qantas is also supportive of the Queensland Government’s call for the new Brisbane International Airport to be opened in 1995 instead of the scheduled 1996. All of that is happening just as Queensland has overtaken New South Wales as the most popular Australian destination for Japanese tourists. Figures recently released by the Canberra-based Bureau of Tourism Research showed that last year Japanese tourists favoured Queensland 77 per cent to New South Wales 73 per cent. That is a significant turnaround on the previous year, which favoured New South Wales 80 per cent to 70 per cent for Queensland.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Premier’s Discussions with Prime Minister about Regionalism Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 2997

Mrs SHELDON: I direct a question to the Premier. As the Premier spent the morning talking to Mr Keating, I refer him to media reports emanating from Canberra that both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister favour development of what they term “regionalism”, which is based on ignoring State Governments in the delivery of federally funded services, and I ask: in view of the fact that this concept favours the development of regionalised local authority structures and diminished State Government involvement, does that obvious next step in Mr Keating’s republican push have the Premier’s support, and what action is the Premier taking to ensure that the State is not deprived of its capacity to ensure that Queensland prioritises and controls the delivery of essential services to Queenslanders? Mr W. K. GOSS: I have not seen that particular media report. As a consequence, it was not part of our discussions, which related mainly to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, the forthcoming Financial Premiers Conference, the Republic Advisory Committee and, to a lesser extent, the recent Federal Cabinet decision on the drought. In relation to the point that the member raises, let me first say that it is the view of the Queensland Government that one of the strengths of the Queensland economy is the diversity of our regional economies, which has been a contributing factor towards Queensland’s better performance in the recent recession that we have experienced in this country. In terms of our strategic economic development approach, we are doing what we can to stimulate particular sorts of activities in certain regions based on the natural advantages of those regions. For example, in the minerals province in the north west of Queensland and in the area from Gladstone to Rockhampton, industrial and manufacturing opportunities are occurring already, in respect of which we think there is substantially more potential. So, to some extent, we have adopted that approach ourselves. In relation to what the Commonwealth Government is doing—that has yet to be spelt out in detail, I presume. We will certainly monitor that very closely. To the extent that there is a regional funding or delivery of funds by the Commonwealth, our first priority obviously will be to ensure that all regions in Queensland, but particularly the far north, the north, central Queensland as I have mentioned, Hervey Bay and the Wide Bay area generally, the south-east corner and the north-west, get their fair share. Secondly, of course, as I think the question implies, we will certainly be very watchful to ensure that there is a fair deal for Queensland. Indeed, that was very much at the heart of the discussions in respect of the Commonwealth Grants Commission report which, as the honourable member is no doubt aware, uses a set of relativities to determine the final outcome, and they are based on the 1986 census population figures. The new relativities will not be capable of calculation probably until November/December this year, so we are asking that, in the interests of a fair go for Queensland, the introduction of the new relativities be deferred for one year. In terms of the last part of the question, which I recall related to some sort of secret or other agenda—I do not believe there is any secret or other agenda. But as is known, we in Queensland are always a bit watchful of these things. It does not hurt to be just a little bit paranoid when it comes to dealing with Canberra, no matter what the political persuasion of the Government of the day is there, because, as my psychiatrist says to me, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.”

States’ Rights; Mabo Decision Mrs SHELDON: I direct my second question to the Premier. As he is on record as having passed the buck to Canberra on the hard questions arising from the Mabo judgment, with his advocacy of a national approach to the matter, and in the light of predictions by Father Frank Brennan in today’s Courier-Mail that the Federal Labor Government will legislate to enforce the High Court’s Mabo decision over the States’ rights stance taken by Western Australia, I ask: will he introduce legislation now to support the rights of Queensland land-holders or will he support the Labor Prime Minister’s agenda for subversions of States’ rights? 2998 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr W. K. GOSS: It sounds like my paranoia is contagious. Can I say that it is quite wrong for the member to suggest that the Prime Minister’s or the Commonwealth Government’s agenda in respect of the Mabo case is to somehow subvert the interests of the States. There was held in Melbourne yesterday a meeting of a national steering committee involving the Commonwealth, at which all of the States were represented, and at which the Commonwealth outlined the development of its thinking to the present time. The Commonwealth’s approach, as I am advised—and I am yet to get a detailed and written report in respect of those steering committee proceedings—is very much one of seeking a cooperative approach with the States. In terms of the honourable member’s language, which I think was “enforcing the Mabo judgment on the States”—it is not a question of the Commonwealth Government enforcing the Mabo judgment on the States. The facts are—and what she must understand—that the High Court has delivered the Mabo judgment. Some people see that as a problem; other people see it as an opportunity. It is both an opportunity and a challenge. In respect of the Mabo decision—there is a lot more work to be done by the Commonwealth Government, by all State Governments and by various industry and Aboriginal and community representatives to flesh out the full meaning. At the end of the day, all of us, with all the wit and goodwill in the world, will not be able to spell out completely what the Mabo decision means in practical terms for Australians. That is no fault of anybody involved in the process, whether it be Liberal, Labor, black, white or whatever. What it flows from is the number of loose ends, the number of unanswered questions, the number of grey areas that are in the High Court’s judgment, which we now have to grapple with. I can assure members and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the Commonwealth Government’s attitude is very much one of seeking a cooperative approach from the States and seeking an agreed approach which would probably—they have not committed themselves—ultimately lead to a situation in which the Commonwealth will pass national legislation and the States will pass complementary or uniform legislation because it is important that what is a national challenge be the subject of a national resolution and a national reconciliation. The Queensland Government is committed to working with the Commonwealth Government and the other States to try to achieve a national resolution of what is a very complex and difficult problem. It is one, may I say, Mr Speaker, with respect to the honourable member, that will require a lot of intelligence and some good faith and some goodwill if we are to get a result that is in the interests of all Australians, white and black. I believe that the member is simply reflecting a lot of the concern that is out there in the community, particularly in the investment community. There certainly is concern there. I have spoken to the same people. There is a concern there, but it will not be addressed and we will not get a solution by heating it up. It is really a case of heads down and bums up for the next year or so to try to sort it out.

Business Opportunities in Queensland Mr PITT: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to recent comments by him that Queensland is the leading State for business opportunities, and I ask: what evidence can he provide to support the claim that business conditions in Queensland are more favourable than those in other States? Mr De LACY: Honourable members are aware that, recently, the Australian Bureau of Statistics published growth data which demonstrated that, during the last calendar year, the Queensland economy was growing at a rate of 6.5 per cent. We all accept that that growth is being driven by the housing industry and, to a certain extent, by private consumption, which is being driven by population growth and interstate migration. However, figures are now available which show some very positive trends in relation to business generally. I will cite three areas that provide evidence for that assertion. During the three months to February 1993, commercial lending in Queensland increased by 41.6 per cent over that of a year ago. That figure compares with 4.1 per cent nationally. Commercial lending in Queensland was at 10 times the national rate. The Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 2999

Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department releases data on new business name registrations and business bankruptcies. The most recent data that it has released shows that, in the year to the March quarter, new business name registrations have increased by 17.7 per cent—dare I say, a very healthy increase. In addition, business bankruptcies during the same period—to the March quarter—fell in Queensland by 16.8 per cent compared with a fall nationally—— Mr Stoneman: There’s no-one left to go broke. Mr De LACY: I beg your pardon? Mr Stoneman: They’re all disappearing. They’re going bad. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Burdekin under Standing Order 123A. Mr De LACY: I am sorry that I have to provide these figures to the Opposition, but I wait day after day for its members to ask questions about the economy. Members opposite seem to have an opinion of the Queensland economy which is out of tune with everybody else’s opinion of it. I was making the point that, in the year to the March quarter, business bankruptcies fell by 16.8 per cent, compared with a fall of 8.5 per cent nationally. Those figures provide evidence that the Queensland business sector is starting to perform very well.

Brisbane Cricket Ground Redevelopment Mr PITT: I thank the Treasurer for that answer. In directing a second question to him, I refer him to the redevelopment of the Brisbane Cricket Ground, and I ask: can the Treasurer inform the House of the progress to date of that redevelopment and how it has been received by patrons and users of the facility? Mr De LACY: That is another great success story for the Goss Government. Mr Casey: Even the Bears are winning. Mr De LACY: Even the Bears are winning. As honourable members are aware, last December the Goss Government committed to a major redevelopment of the Gabba. However, before it was able to do that, it was necessary to secure a winter tenant. Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point of order. I understand that the subject matter of the question is dealt with in a Bill on the notice paper. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point of order. It is about the Brisbane Cricket Ground. Mr De LACY: That has nothing to do with the Gabba. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will not debate the matter with the member for Lockyer. There is no point of order. I will warn the next member who takes up that point of order. I call the Treasurer. Mr De LACY: I make the point that the legislation on the notice paper involves the Gabba Trust, and this question has nothing to do with the Gabba Trust. Honourable members will recall that the Government committed to this major redevelopment. However, to make it a viable commercial redevelopment, it was necessary to secure a winter tenant. It is now history that the major winter tenant is the Brisbane Bears. The development which has taken place so far, which is Stage 1 and part of Stage 2—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I inform the Treasurer that, if he refers to the trust, I will have to ask him to resume his seat. I suggest that he not talk about the trust. Mr De LACY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Stage 1 of the redevelopment involves the enlarging and reshaping of the ground and the provision of facilities for the Bears. That work has received almost universal acclaim from the tenants of the ground, from the 3000 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly patrons of the ground and from commentators generally. It is fair to say that the Gabba was starting to develop a grotty look. However, now that it has been reshaped and redeveloped, it looks like the major football and cricket stadium it ought to be. The redevelopment has led to a new attitude on the part of the major winter tenant—the Brisbane Bears. It has a new corporate ethos and a new team spirit, and that is starting to reap dividends. Its new attitude is reflected in crowd attendances. For the first four games this year, the total crowd attendance was 44 106 compared with an attendance last year for the same four games of 21 736. This year’s crowd attendance is more than twice that of last year. The performance of the Bears has also improved dramatically. This year, the team has played four games at the Gabba and it has won three of them. The one game that it lost was lost by only a single point. On Sunday, for the first time, I had an opportunity to see the Bears play. The Bears won—and I am not saying that this was because of my presence only—by a record margin. I had to leave at three-quarter time, but at that stage the score was 179 to 18. I left it to Mr Veivers during the last quarter—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! the Treasurer will resume his seat. I call the member for Callide to ask the next question. Mrs McCAULEY: My question is without notice to—— Mr VEIVERS: I rise to a point of order. I would very much like to correct the Treasurer. I was—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Southport under Standing Order 124. He will resume his seat. I warn him that, if he says another word, I will ask him to leave the Chamber.

Ipswich City Council Mrs McCAULEY: My question is to the Minister—— Mr VEIVERS: I rise to a point of order. I would like to correct the Treasurer—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I warn the member for Southport under Standing Order 124. The member will resume his seat. Mrs McCAULEY: In directing a question to the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning, I refer him to the Ipswich City Council and the agreement—— Mr Veivers interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Southport under Standing Order 123A. Mrs McCAULEY: I refer to the Ipswich City Council and the agreement that it has drawn up—which I will table—to run the council, which designates Deputy Mayor Norm Kruger as the council leader who shall be recognised as the Chief Executive Officer of the council, and I ask: having regard to the Local Government Act 1936, which in section 7.4 (ii) talks about a disqualified person being in an acting position, can the Minister advise the House of the legal position in this regard and whether it is in fact lawful? Mr MACKENROTH: In answer to the honourable member’s question—yes, I did see a copy of the resolution that was passed last Thursday night. In fact, I have a Crown law opinion on that. Crown law has advised me that the Ipswich City Council can call any of its members anything it wishes. However, under the Act, statutory obligations are given to the Mayor, and provided that the Mayor is able to exercise those duties, the council has not broken the law in any way. If the council wishes to call Mr Kruger the leader of the council, it can do that, or if it wants to give him an Academy award for his performance last week, it can do that. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3001

The council is within its rights to call any of its members anything it wishes. However, under the Act, only one Mayor is recognised and, in this case, that is Alderman Underwood, who was elected by popular vote at the last council election. I have asked Crown law to go through that resolution, and I can assure the member, as I assured all members last week, that if it becomes necessary for me to act in relation to the situation that has arisen within the council, I will take the necessary action. However, we should consider what is happening within other councils. For instance, last night, at a meeting of the Logan City Council, what one could only call a brawl erupted, which ended up in the papers. Last week, there was one at the Caloundra City Council—— Mrs Sheldon: That has nothing to do with the stuff that has been happening in Ipswich. It is purely a local situation. It has nothing to do with the sort of fracas you are having up there. Mr MACKENROTH: It has everything to do with the political agenda of the member’s party. It was stated on Monday in the Queensland Times that the Ipswich Liberals will capitalise on the current Ipswich City Council power struggle. The Liberal Party spokesman went on to talk about it. All the Opposition is doing is attempting to prosecute a political argument by raising this matter in such a way. Yesterday, the Opposition Local Government spokesperson raised a matter in relation to an alderman, and stated that he had abused someone back in 1985, I think it was. Although he had won a court case over the matter, the member felt the need to raise that matter in this House yesterday. That is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. We should look at the situation as it stands today. Last Friday, I told Alderman Underwood that under the Criminal Justice Act, if any of those people have any knowledge of any wrongdoing in that council, they have an obligation to report it to the Criminal Justice Commission. I quoted to Alderman Underwood the relevant section of the Act. I received a copy of the resolution that was passed last Thursday night at the theatrical performance, and I have had it checked by Crown law to ensure that nothing unlawful was done. My advice has been that the councillors can place any titles that they wish on any individuals and it does not matter because, under the Act, the Mayor is the person who has certain responsibilities. Until such time as the council attempts to take away from the Mayor his statutory obligations, as given to him under the Local Government Act, it has not done anything illegal.

Ipswich City Council Mrs McCAULEY: In directing my second question to the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning, I refer to his comments on ABC radio this morning and to detailed information provided to this House yesterday in relation to the Ipswich City Council which indicated rorting of council expenses, standover tactics by a certain alderman and other actions which may have breached the Criminal Code, and I ask: do not such revelations bring local government itself into disrepute and therefore warrant—in his own words—suspension of the council and the appointment of an administrator? Further, if the agreement that the council has drawn up is not illegal, does section 11—which relates to the powers and duties of the chairman—still apply to the office of Mayor of the Ipswich City Council? How can the Labor caucus circumvent those powers and duties, as it has done? Mr MACKENROTH: I think I answered that question in response to the member’s previous question, so I will not attempt to go over it again. However, the council has not circumvented the Mayor’s statutory obligations in that resolution. That is the advice that I have received from Crown law. In fact, I had the matter checked to ensure that it had not attempted to do that. As to the council bringing local government into disrepute—I believe that its actions are bringing local government into disrepute, and I said that last week. However, I have also said that when I believe it is necessary to take action, I will take action. For 3002 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly goodness sake—yesterday, in this Parliament, I was accused of being the Russ Hinze of the Labor Party. Imagine what members opposite would do to me if I were to rush in and sack a council!

Road Toll Mr LIVINGSTONE: I refer the Minister for Transport to recent comments by the Premier and himself about the development of a 10-year road safety plan, and I ask: will that plan have any impact on Queensland’s road toll? What is the current status of the road toll? Mr HAMILL: The member has asked a question about a very important issue. The road toll is a matter of community concern, and rightly so. If the road toll were to be maintained at the current level, over the next 10 years, 90 000 Queenslanders would be casualties on our roads, and of those Queenslanders, 4 000 would, in fact, constitute the death toll on our roads. That is why the road safety strategy, which was launched recently by the Premier, is a significant document. It is designed to address that very serious problem in our community. Let me put this matter in perspective. The number of fatalities each year on Queensland roads equates very closely to the number of fatalities each year from cancer in our society. The road toll is indeed a cancer in our society. That is why the road safety strategy addresses the road toll across a number of issues, such as vehicle design, road safety education and issues of enforcement. This very important document arose out of a process of community consultation. I am pleased to note that it has been endorsed by organisations such as the RACQ and the AMA, as well as a range of other community organisations and instrumentalities. The honourable member for Ipswich West asked about the current state of the road toll. Last year, road fatalities numbered in excess of 400. Whilst one can never get pleasure in commenting upon the quantum of road trauma in the community, it is at least pleasing to note that, as at midnight last night, Queensland’s road toll up to 18 May 1993 was 121, that is, 22 fewer than for the same period last year and 58 fewer than for the same period five years ago. Our road safety strategy has as its objective reducing the road toll by one-third over the next 10 years. I believe that this is achievable, and in saying that I ask honourable members to reflect upon this point: last year, we had a road toll of around 400. If we still had a road toll in this State running at the same rate as we did in the early 1960s, that figure would not be 400; it would be in the order of 1 500. That would be the number of people killed on Queensland roads. That improvement has come through road safety education, improved roads and improved vehicle design. I believe that the road safety strategy is achievable. If it achieves that objective, it will save many lives in Queensland.

Mental Health Care Services Mr LIVINGSTONE: I ask the Minister for Health: can he inform the House what steps the Government has taken to improve the delivery of mental health care services in Queensland? Mr HAYWARD: I thank the honourable member for his question, because when the Goss Government came to power, mental health services in this State were a disgrace. They were a telling indictment of neglect and underfunding. The services that did exist were concentrated in run-down facilities in a few large cities in Queensland. In its first term, the Goss Government embarked upon a Statewide mental health capital works program, which has seen new facilities built at Townsville, the Gold Coast, Bundaberg, Toowoomba and Nambour. A new acute care unit is currently under construction in Townsville to replace the notorious Ward 10B. The $1.5 billion, 10-year hospital rebuilding program, which was announced on Monday, contains funding for two new facilities, one at Rockhampton and one at the Royal Brisbane Hospital. It is a pleasure to note that the one at Rockhampton has been Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3003 welcomed very strongly by one of the most trenchant critics of this Government and Queensland Health, that is, Dr Chris Alroe. He welcomed it wholeheartedly and said that it will be an important addition to mental health services in central Queensland. As well as rebuilding the system physically, we have also increased the range of services, particularly in rural Queensland. The number of specialist psychiatrists working in public hospitals outside Brisbane is at a record high. They provide extended services in every major provincial city of Queensland. We are also reviewing the Mental Health Act to provide a clearer definition of, and protection for, the rights of patients receiving involuntary treatment for mental illness. This is an important issue. The results of the review will be a Mental Health Act that is in tune with modern treatment processes and which will guarantee adequate and appropriate treatment for people who need it, while preserving the integrity of their basic human rights. In the past, mentally ill people were secreted away in isolated institutions, often forgotten by the community. Queensland Health was also a leading player in developing the national mental health policy, which heralds the most significant change to occur in mental health services in Australia and sets the process for mental health reform in Australia to the year 2000.

Cairns Tertiary Facilities Mr QUINN: In directing a question to the Minister for Education, I refer to the Government’s decision to sell Cairns Central State School in order to relieve the Commonwealth of some of its responsibility towards providing improved tertiary facilities in Cairns, and I ask: does he agree that this was an unprecedented decision in that the State Government will now be expected to help fund additional tertiary facilities across the State? If this was a one-off decision, why was Cairns chosen for preferred treatment when other areas such as the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast have needs similar to those of Cairns for improved tertiary facilities? Mr COMBEN: It is not an unprecedented decision. Since 1974, when the Commonwealth took over tertiary funding, the States have always provided some form of resources—generally land—and have not often provided financial aid, as we have chosen to do this time. It was not a case of choosing Cairns for the enhancement of Cairns; it was more akin to saying that we have a surplus educational asset somewhere, and we can use that money in three or four different areas. Although there is a $10m enhancement, that is not necessarily the money that we get from Cairns. There is a total package of four different centres. This is a one-off. It is not an unfortunate precedent. We will be demanding that the Federal Government should continue to honour the obligations that it has had for 20 years to fund totally tertiary education in Queensland—places and capital—but we will continue to assist with land.

Funding for Tertiary Facilities Mr QUINN: In directing a second question to the Minister for Education, I draw his attention to the normal practice of the State Government in providing land without cost for university campuses in Queensland, and I ask: in light of the recent Lands Department decision to sell to Griffith University for $3m the land necessary for the expansion of the Gold Coast University College, how does the Government justify accepting part of the Commonwealth’s responsibility for tertiary funding in Cairns when it is failing to honour its own obligations on the Gold Coast? Mr COMBEN: The easy answer is that Griffith must have had $3m. I was not aware of that. James Cook did not.

Boating Accidents 3004 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr PEARCE: I ask the Minister for Transport: is he aware of a recent spate of accidents in a number of the State’s waterways caused by boats coming into contact with overhead power lines? Mr HAMILL: Yes, indeed. During the period from 11 to 13 April, three incidents occurred in various parts of the State. One of those instances involved a fatality on the Upper Coomera River. In that case, the power line concerned was neither approved nor marked. In the other two instances, the power lines concerned were approved and marked. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that under section 86 of the Harbours Act any power line which passes over water must be approved. When that approval is given, there is a requirement that signs be erected onshore in the immediate vicinity to alert those who are in the area of the power lines. As well, at the time of the approval, notices are issued to mariners advising them of the potential hazard and the information is entered into navigation charts. In July 1986, the former Department of Harbours and Marine decided to update information on power lines crossing waterways, but I understand that, unfortunately, there are still instances in which power lines that are either unmarked or not approved cross waterways. I consider that to be totally unacceptable. Accordingly, the Marine Board of Queensland will soon begin a survey throughout the State of all power lines which cross over water to ensure that they are identified, properly marked and properly approved. Furthermore, I will be contacting electricity authorities requesting that they also consider attaching highly visible markers to the power lines. Those measures, I trust, will avoid any repetition of the tragedy which occurred in the Upper Coomera River and, as such, will improve safety to mariners in the State.

Queensland Mines Rescue Brigade Mr PEARCE: In directing a question to the Minister for Minerals and Energy, I refer him to the Queensland Mines Rescue Brigade and improvements in delivery of service to the Queensland coal industry. I ask: would he inform the House what those improvements are? Mr McGRADY: I thank the honourable member for the question and commend him for his keen and sustained interest in coal industry issues, in particular in the areas of health and safety. The Government does recognise and support—and will continue to support—the important role in mine safety played by the Queensland Mines Rescue Brigade. We recognise the need to ensure that the brigades are properly resourced to provide a viable, skilled and efficient service. In August last year, we took notice of concerns being raised by the unions, industry and brigade members regarding the structure, the location and the future of the Queensland Mines Rescue Brigade. I established a committee of representatives of all stakeholders to examine the concerns and recommend changes necessary to ensure the long-term viability of the service. The committee is clarifying the service’s relationship to the revised health and safety legislation for the coal mining industry, which is now being developed via tripartite consultation. Proposals developed by the committee for a Queensland mines rescue company have been prepared and are currently before the Queensland Mines Rescue Brigade Committee and its members for full consideration. The administrative base of the Queensland Mines Rescue Brigade has already been relocated from Rockhampton to the heart of the Queensland coal industry at Middlemount. The Middlemount premises are temporary and have been provided by the courtesy and goodwill of Capcoal, pending construction of a permanent administrative Queensland Mines Rescue Brigade office at Dysart. Last week, I approved construction of the new office at Dysart, and it is planned to be available by August this year. The relocation to Dysart immediately provides improved cooperation and communication with the industry, brigade members and employees, and improved delivery of service and training. Further restructuring of the brigade will be progressively adopted, in full Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3005 consultation with all parties, where it can be seen to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the service. Manual Arts Facilities in State Secondary Schools Mr LINGARD: I ask the Minister for Education: what is the estimated cost of bringing all manual arts facilities in State secondary schools up to safety and health requirements as set out in the Workplace Health and Safety Act? How much money has the Government specifically allocated in its Budget for that purpose? How can the Minister allow thousands of students to use those facilities while at the same time imposing heavy fines on private businesses which do not conform to the requirements of the same Act? Mr COMBEN: In view of the request for statistics in the first part of the question, I ask that it be put on notice. Mr SPEAKER: Does the honourable member do so accordingly? Mr LINGARD: Yes. I place the question on notice. Mr SPEAKER: The question will be placed on notice.

Aboriginal and Island Council Audits Mr LINGARD: In directing a question to the Minister for Family Services, I refer to the report on the audits of the Aboriginal and Island Councils. The report reveals that about 12 of the 31 councils have not prepared a budget, while five councils prepared a budget for only one fund. The report refers to many other inefficiencies of the Minister’s department. It mentions also that the councils are supposed to report every month on their budget. I ask: why has she not overseen those councils correctly? Ms WARNER: I think that the honourable member opposite has misunderstood the purpose of reporting monthly. That is not to my department; it is from council clerks to the chairman of the council. The reality is that the difficulties that have been experienced by Aboriginal councils in respect of their accounting mechanisms are not new. Those reports have occurred since 1985. Mr Littleproud interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Western Downs will cease interjecting. Mr Littleproud interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member for Western Downs under Standing Order 123A. Ms WARNER: I repeat that difficulties with accounting by Aboriginal councils have been experienced by both the National Party Government and the Labor Party Government. Prior to our taking office, the previous Government had a transition team going around and effectively doing the books for councils. This Government had the Public Accounts Committee look at how we could improve the situation for Aboriginal councils. We also asked Aboriginal councils themselves how best they would be able to deal with the issues. The Government implemented in legislation the reforms that the Public Accounts Committee suggested. It is still working with Aboriginal councils to achieve improvements. If honourable members read the report carefully, the four councils situated in the less remote areas of the State and which are the more populous councils, are the ones that have not experienced as much difficulty in recruiting qualified staff. The Government has developed a TAFE course, designed specifically for Aboriginal communities, to assist council clerks. Instead of just mouthing offensive comments, it would be better if Opposition members took a view that was more constructive rather than destructive. Rather than being involved in the politics of blame, the Opposition 3006 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly should look at ways in which Aboriginal communities can realistically deal with those reports. That is exactly what this Government is doing. There are two alternatives for the Government: firstly, that it simply take over from Aboriginal communities and not allow them to do their own accounts; or, secondly, that it act in a supportive role without taking over that responsibility. If honourable members opposite read the report carefully, they would understand that that is what my department is doing and it is what the Auditor-General has recognised. Until matters improve, the Government will continue to do that in consultation with the Auditor- General.

Security for Single Sex Operators Mrs WOODGATE: I refer the Minister for Police and Emergency Services to recent reports about security for single sex operators, and I ask: could he inform the House of the security measures that are currently available for legitimate single operators in the prostitution industry in this State? Mr BRADDY: Unfortunately, at a time when we have heard of the tragic death of a sex worker, some deliberate smokescreens have been drawn across this particular issue. I want to make sure that the truth in relation to security for single sex workers in Queensland is recorded. The provisions in the new laws in relation to prostitution in no way prevent people in that industry taking reasonable measures for their own security. The Police Commissioner and the Police Service have issued to their task force a paper titled Policing Prostitution, which has been included in the police training manual. In fact, police officers have talked to members of SQWISI and other sex workers about it. The test is whether the security relates to an individual or whether it is directed at assisting prostitution. Simple tests can be applied. For example, if a sex worker employs a security person, provided the payment is what would be paid legitimately by any other person for security—and I understand that the current rate is about $20 per hour—that is perfectly all right. However, if the worker is clearly using that as a blind for paying a pimp who is involved in the industry—taking phone calls, driving and generally being involved in the actual business of prostitution—then, clearly, the payment is different and the classification and status of that worker is different. That has been made very clear to sex workers. However, some of them would prefer the law to be different and wish to ignore it, and some of them wish to talk about the matter in a way which deliberately misconstrues the situation. They are aided and abetted by the member for Crows Nest, who also deliberately misconstrues the situation. He is a member of an Opposition that does not even have a policy on prostitution, and whose members do not know what they want to do about it. Therefore, they continue to create smokescreens. Sole prostitutes are entitled to have security guards, provided they are legitimate security guards. They are also able to engage any other form of security system, such as alarm systems, and there are several systems available. There is a “walk easy” alarm which sends out high-volume signals to deter would-be attackers. That is available to sex workers, as it is to any other member of the community. In addition, they can purchase a security device from a recognised security firm for $1 per day. The device is activated by pressing a button which rings through to a phone at the security company. It is a 24-hour service. The security company then despatches one of its own vehicles and also notifies the police. Mr Horan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Toowoomba South! Mr BRADDY: Some Opposition members may have watched an interview on the7.30 Report recently in which a single sex worker said that she had done this. She was arguing against the laws because it suited her, personally, to be engaged in an Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3007 industry in which she could be an organiser rather than a worker. She said that when she activated her alarm, to her embarrassment, within a matter of minutes six police cars had turned up outside her house. I suppose that would not have done the world of good for her business that particular night. The reality is that she had a secure alarm system which was perfectly legal and the police reacted quickly and efficiently. Single sex workers can have security and alarm systems and can even engage security agents to protect them. It is not the law about which they are complaining; it is that they would prefer to have another system which would better suit their purposes. Nothing can provide absolute protection for people who wish to go out alone at night to strangers’ homes or to motels. Clearly, if people engage in that form of prostitution, which is legal if they are single operators, it is more dangerous than operating in their own premises with secure alarm systems and other forms of protection which are more capable of being useful.

Museums Mrs WOODGATE: I thank the Minister for his detailed answer, and now direct my second question to the Minister for the Arts. I ask: in view of the enormous educational value of museums, what steps are being taken to make Queensland’s museums attractive to children? Mr WELLS: In recent years, much has been done by the Queensland Museum and other museums to make them more attractive to children. The most eye-catching exhibits are placed closest to the door and the most interesting noises that can be made are made in the way that is most likely to attract the attention of children as they come into the museums. Increasingly, museums are becoming a valuable educational resource for our children. This is appropriate, because the museums of Queensland record the history of Queensland from the beginning of the world right up to and including the second Goss Labor Government. I would like to refer to a specific initiative that has been undertaken in the last day by the Queensland Museum. It is called the children’s museum passport, and I now show honourable members the children’s museum passport. The way it works is that the passport contains a space for every museum in Queensland. Most honourable members have a museum of some kind within their electorates. When children visit those museums, they are able to have their passports stamped in the space provided. Yesterday, I went to the Queensland Museum and had the honour and privilege of stamping the museum passports of a large number of small children. It is an absolute delight for the children to be able to do this. This will provide an immense incentive for them to visit more museums and to learn more. I have taken the liberty of sending a museum passport to every member of this Parliament. Honourable members will receive them in their electorate offices and they may choose to use them to promote this initiative for the benefit of the children of our State. I remind honourable members on the opposite side of the House that when they receive these museum passports, they are supposed to present them to one of the children in their electorate and are not supposed to keep them to play with.

Teacher Aide Support for Disabled Students Mr FITZGERALD: In directing a question to the Minister for Education, I refer to the fact that, on average, children in State schools with mental and physical disabilities receive only about 65 per cent of the required level of teacher aide support recommended by his own departmental officers. I table a document from the Metropolitan East Education Region to show that this is so. I ask: can he inform the House why sufficient funds have not been allocated for these vital services during the past three years, at a time when the Government found no difficulty in funding its own pet policy initiatives? 3008 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr COMBEN: I thank the honourable member for the question. I have not seen the documentation that has been tabled, so I cannot comment on it. He referred to the provision of only 65 per cent of teacher aide support time, but I point out that that figure would not apply right across-the-board. In many situations, there is more than adequate teacher aide time in a school, which has to be allocated. The individual allocations are a matter for the school-based managers, the principals of the school. Across-the-board, we are now spending far more on special education and on teaching students with disabilities than has ever been spent before. Certainly, over the last three and a half years there have been massive increases in funding. We are trying to move funding away from centralised special education and special education schools into school classrooms so that we can provide the appropriate level of teaching and service to students with disabilities. That will continue. It is certainly a strange period at the moment, because we have resources tied up with special education and some of the children are going into classrooms. Since the member seems to be no longer interested in the answer—thank you, Mr Speaker.

Speech Therapy Services in State Schools Mr FITZGERALD: I ask the Minister for Education: as the availability of speech therapist services in State schools is so woefully inadequate that in at least one school the p. and c. association has decided to ask parents to employ their own speech therapist, can he explain why the Government has continually ignored children with special needs? How does the Government’s pathetic record in this matter sit with its social justice policy? Mr COMBEN: The Government’s record sits very well in terms of social justice, because we are putting in the resources and we are doing everything we can. I do not know the school to which the honourable member refers. Mr FitzGerald: You received a letter and sent a copy to our shadow Minister. You received that letter over a fortnight ago. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister actually asked the member a question. The Minister will continue with his answer. Mr COMBEN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly did ask a question. I am informed that it is a letter I received two weeks ago. My average daily mail is 125 letters. I am not quite sure which one he means; he still did not mention the school. Opposition members: Aspley West! Mr COMBEN: Fine. I have finally got the school. Across the State, the Government experiences great difficulties in attracting speech therapists. In the western regions, the member for Mount Isa will tell honourable members—— Mr FitzGerald: They want the funding. They can get one but they have to fund their own. Mr COMBEN: They cannot. If we are talking about the availability of speech therapists across the State, which is what I have been asked a question about, let me take Mount Isa as an example. We have advertised four times and have not been able to get a speech therapist. I think the advertisements have already gone out. At this moment, we are advertising Australiawide, and if we are not successful we will advertise worldwide. We cannot get speech therapists for many schools. Mr FitzGerald: You are now referring to the numbers for last year. Mr COMBEN: It is still the case that across the State we are having difficulty in attracting speech therapists. I do not know the situation in Aspley West specifically, but I will look into that matter further for the honourable member. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3009

Enterprise Centres Mr BENNETT: I direct a question to the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. One of the means of tackling unemployment is to support self- employment and the creation of new enterprises. I ask: could the Minister inform the House about the success of enterprise centres in assisting new enterprises and how such a centre could benefit the Gladstone region? Opposition members interjected. Mr FOLEY: How the Opposition members retreat from the word “enterprise”. It is an extraordinary state of affairs. They shrink like Superman from kryptonite. Those enterprise centres have played a useful role in helping local communities to have small work areas available on an affordable, easy-in/easy-out basis with shared administrative and management facilities. I know that the honourable member for Gladstone has an active interest in that matter, because the Government has provided a $7,500 grant to the Gladstone Area Promotion and Development Limited to conduct a feasibility study into a centre to service Gladstone City and Calliope and Miriam Vale Shires. A number of those facilities operate throughout the State, including one at Bundaberg, which I had the pleasure of visiting with the gentleman assisting there, Mr Paul Neville, now the National Party member for Hinkler. That demonstrates that community support for those enterprise centres cuts across all political parties, and that really is the key to the success or otherwise of those centres. They are based upon a principle of local community and local business networks providing assistance and support to help entrepreneurs get off the ground, to help them get off the dole queues and into employment. It is for that reason that the Government has supported it. Under this Government, some 400 people have been assisted through enterprise centres. Those centres are an important part in trying to assist in the stimulation of economic development in a way that is relevant to the local region and relevant to the local community to turn unemployment into self-employment.

Public Transport Services in Gladstone Mr BENNETT: I ask the Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development: what has the Government done to improve public transport services in Gladstone? Mr HAMILL: In common with many other provincial cities in Queensland, Gladstone has suffered very greatly because of the inadequacy of public transport services in those cities. In recent years, Gladstone has undergone considerable growth, which has left the public transport system even further behind. Last year, in conjunction with the Calliope Shire Council and the Gladstone City Council, the Department of Transport undertook a regional transportation study. One of the critical findings of that study was the need for a major revamp of the local bus service. That was done. To date, we have seen a 30 per cent increase in patronage on the local bus services. The new services are focused on—surprise, surprise—the places where people want to travel, such as the shopping centres and hospitals. What we saw in Gladstone was no different from what we have seen in many other centres, that some bus operators are not taking a very entrepreneurial look at their own enterprises and many of the routes that the bus operators operate have long since outlived their usefulness. That certainly was the case in Gladstone. The popular support for the new services that have been instigated as a result of the transportation study has shown that the public has responded very well indeed to regular services, weekday services and weekend services. It is expected that as a result of that revamped public transport arrangement in Gladstone, total patronage levels will see public transport usage rise from some 20 000 journeys a year to 30 000 journeys this year. That is a wonderful result. It means that we are taking private cars off the road in Gladstone, improving the quality of life and making public transport more accessible to 3010 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly the community. The Government is doing similar work in many other provincial cities in the State.

Prostitution Laws Mr COOPER: I direct a question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. In the light of the Minister’s answer to the member for Kurwongbah a few moments ago in which he stated that solo prostitutes—solo operators—could hire security guards, he adds to the confusion because his own Act says that they cannot. For security guards, receptionists, telephonists, or people who are knowingly or unknowingly involved in prostitution, the penalty for the first offence is three years; for the second offence, five years; and for the third offence, seven years. In the light of that, I ask the Minister: will he introduce amendments to those prostitution laws to ensure that solo operators can hire security guards legitimately? Mr BRADDY: What the honourable member quoted as the law was his interpretation of the law. He is incapable of quoting the exact section. The Police Service and the Crown law office have looked at that matter, and the principle is very, very clear. Provided that the work relates to—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BRADDY: It is okay. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has expired.

MATTER OF SPECIAL PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Jobs Plan Mr SPEAKER: Order! I advise the House that I have received a proposal for a Special Public Importance debate pursuant to the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 5 November 1992. The proposal submitted by the Honourable the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations is for a debate on the following matter— “That this House notes that the Government is implementing its $150m Jobs Plan and that benefits from this plan are occurring throughout the State.” I call the member for Beaudesert to speak to the proposal. Mr LINGARD (Beaudesert—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (3.44 p.m.): Recently, a secret minute presented by the Minister for Transport to the Cabinet in Townsville stated— “The success of Queensland’s rail reform has been reflected in QR achieving a cash surplus in 1991/92”— and skited about that fact. Then it continues— “. . . the fact that staff reductions of approximately 3,000 over the past two years have been achieved with minimum industrial disruption.” So the Minister for Transport puts a secret minute to Cabinet, skites that 3 000 jobs have been removed in the past two years with very little industrial disruption, yet the Government has the cheek to put forward the proposal today. Surely, it must be regarded as a cynical exercise. I say to honourable members that it is a cynical public relations exercise. It is more about gilding the lily—the lily in this case being the Government. It is not about reality. It is not about real people getting real jobs. It is about itself and how great it—the Government—believes it is. Under this Goss Labor Government, the promotion—that is, the PR—of a scheme or a plan is more important than the outcomes—the things that actually happen. Worse still, the scheme and the plan comes second to the Government’s own promotion. We never hear of what is being achieved for ordinary Queenslanders in terms of hard, cold Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3011 results. The proposal before the House for discussion is just another example of self- promotion. Why are we not debating the outcome of the record, and seemingly last, $3.3 billion capital works program? That was promoted as a massive jobs plan. Noticeably absent from the text of the proposal for discussion is this Government’s State election undertaking that the $150m employment program would create 28 000 jobs in the first year. Under the election jobs plan there is a two-part increase in the payroll tax exemption level and a full rebate of payroll tax in 1993 to all employees taking on persons under the age of 25 who have been unemployed for more than nine months, supposedly creating an additional 9 000 jobs. In the 1992-93 Budget papers there was no payroll tax relief except if employment was given to unemployed young people to complement the Federal Government’s national employment and training plan. According to the Budget papers, this would help about 10 000 young Queenslanders. Interestingly, the much-flaunted $150m Jobs Plan includes this very same initiative. In this instance, however, the proposal is to create an additional 9 000 jobs, not 10 000 jobs. The questions must be asked: does the $150m Jobs Plan include Federal Government funding from the national employment and training plan? Do the 28 000 jobs to flow from the Jobs Plan include those jobs to be created from the national employment plan? It would seem most definitely that the schemes are the same. The Premier, in his press statement on the Jobs Plan and in the ALP advertising campaign, stated that the payroll tax undertaking would be fully paid for by the increase in the tobacco tax. This Government’s plan for business and jobs is based on a smokescreen. The 28 000 special jobs program costing $150m looks rather rubbery when the employment component of the payroll tax is pulled out. There is no mention today of this Government’s other great job plan, that is, the $3.3 billion special capital works program which was to create, supposedly, an additional 39 000 jobs, according to the Government’s slick $40m media machine. In his media blurb, the Treasurer promoted it as such, but when scrutinised, the additional 39 000 jobs turned out to be just an additional 8 000 jobs. The 39 000 jobs came supposedly from some 31 000 persons working in the public works area—jobs from the 1991-92 Budget and the 8 000 generated from the program outlined in the 1992-93 Budget. Even the $3.3 billion special capital works program is a public relations figure. The fine print in the Budget says that the record special capital works became a record as a result of the now discredited One Nation statement. Even the Prime Minister has admitted that it had not hit the mark and, what is more, criticised the Goss Labor Government for dithering with One Nation projects. The Goss Government’s $40m a year media machine turned the $150m Jobs Plan and the $3.3 billion special capital works program into big PR events. The fine print, when analysed, suggests that the promotion was a scam or a cruel hoax. Scant regard was shown for the truth. The preoccupation of Labor Governments over the past five years has been to create temporary jobs in make work schemes as opposed to real jobs. It is becoming increasingly obvious that unemployment is not being solved by throwing money at dole queues. Unemployment is not solved by putting people into training courses only to see them emerge well trained but unemployed. This Labor Government is riding a wave of relatively good statistics and assessments of the State’s economy compared with other States. We admit that, and we admit that to the Treasurer, who criticised us this morning. However, a study of labour force data shows that the economy is very soft. Persons are unemployed for much longer than they were in 1990. For example, in 1990, 25 500 people were unemployed for less than four weeks, but in 1992 that figure is down to 21 900. The number of persons unemployed for 13 weeks but less than 26 weeks has increased from 21 400 in 1990 to 32 600 in 1992, and the number of persons unemployed for 52 weeks or more has rocketed from 20 100 in 1990 to 47 500 in 1992. The $150m Jobs Plan will not even dent the long-term unemployment problem. A disturbing turn in the recent labour force figures was the drop in them—a contraction of 22 200 or 1.4 per cent, which was the largest fall in the monthly labour force figures for many years, that is, in the life of contemporary ABS data. There is no comfort for the 3012 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Government in the fall in the unemployment rate. Quite simply, it was the contraction of the labour market. It was accompanied by a 12 300 fall in full-time jobs and the loss of 600 part-time jobs. On top of this, according to the Foreign Investment Review Board, total foreign investment in Queensland in 1991-92 will be just $1.9 billion, that is, a decline of 70 per cent since 1990. New South Wales has taken over as the leading State for foreign investment. Whether we like it or not, foreign investment is a component in job generation, and the decline in foreign investment will contribute to a tighter job market. The Premier and his Ministers are constantly on investment and trade missions. It is to be hoped that the trade component is better than the return in terms of investment in Queensland. It would seem that all the work done in the eighties promoting Queensland as a place for jobs, growth and development is slowly dissipating under this Goss Labor Government. A number of ABS catalogues deal with the labour force. A study of them suggests that there is a disturbing trend in the job market. According to the employed wage and salary earners catalogue, since September 1989 there has been a decline in the number of persons employed in the mainstream industries such as manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, transport and storage, and agriculture and forestry. On the other hand, there have been substantial increases in the number of persons employed in the community services such as health, education and museum and library services. That has occurred whenever a State is under ALP control. Much of the increase in community service personnel is in the public sector. The aspect that should worry the Government is that the private sector employment is soft. The great weakness of this Government is that it does nothing for the private sector. One only has to listen to the top end of Queen Street. Business has little to say that is constructive about this Labor Government’s policies. Business has said little or nothing about the $150m Jobs Plan. It has to be brought up in Parliament in order to be discussed. However, businesses are talking about greedy unions pressing for outrageous claims under higher awards. The far-north Queensland QCI regional manager has stated that unions are seeking wages of $3,000 for a five-day, 25-hour working week. Time expired. Mr BENNETT (Gladstone) (3.54 p.m.): It is with great pride that I enter this debate. Obviously, the member for Beaudesert has missed completely the aim of the $150m Jobs Plan. It is designed to provide incentives to the unemployed in our community to get training so that they will be worth while to employers. The member for Beaudesert has raved on about figures on this and figures on that, but he has completely missed the boat on the $150m Jobs Plan. Mr Nunn: He didn’t even have a ticket. Mr BENNETT: That is right—he did not even have a ticket. I believe that the $150m Jobs Plan differentiates between the Labor side of politics and the conservative side of politics. This policy shows Labor’s true rationale for the preservation of human dignity. The best way to preserve that dignity is to assist people in finding a job and to provide training to make them valuable employees. Without training, people have no hope of finding a job. After undertaking TAFE courses, up to 60 per cent of people find a job. That is an achievement of this Government. The only contribution by members opposite is pooh-poohing and more pooh-poohing. That is a disgraceful state of affairs. This package provides a direct subsidy to employers through increased payroll tax thresholds, which draws criticism from members opposite. Even though they wanted to get rid of payroll tax, now that the Government has taken positive steps in that direction, they moan and groan. The package offers also a full rebate on payroll tax to employers who take on employees under the age of 25 who have been unemployed for more than a year. That gives employers an incentive to take on those employees. Mr FitzGerald: How many have you got so far? Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3013

Mr BENNETT: There are heaps of them. The Government is directing funds through this plan to directly employ and train employed people on projects that will enhance our community assets—assets which belong to all of us. This plan is Labor philosophy at its best. It has won the support of the Gladstone region. I want to outline some of the programs undertaken and planned for the Gladstone/Calliope region. One of the most successful projects that has been undertaken, which was long overdue, is the upgrade of schools through the schools refurbishment program. Most members would be aware of that program. From speaking to representatives of p. and c. associations and school principals, they will know how well received that program is in the community. Already in Gladstone, $960,000 has been approved for refurbishment projects and $340,000 has already been expended, providing 406 weeks’ worth of work. That work not only provides training but it also provides community assets. It provides infrastructure in the communities to which we belong. Our students deserve to attend decent schools which have painted ceilings, etc. I have here a long list of refurbishment projects that have been undertaken in my community. I want to outline two very important ones which were neglected by the former Government. One is the Yarwun State School, at which $5,000 has been allocated to upgrade the drinking water. The other is the Nagoorin State School, at which funds have been provided to relocate the bore. That will give kids decent drinking water. The member for Beaudesert criticises the $150m Jobs Plan, so he must be against schoolchildren having decent drinking water. What nonsense! Recently, I visited Anderson’s Carpets in Gladstone. The owners of that business informed me that they have taken on a new apprentice carpet layer. I know that that is not the correct term; there is another name for the trade, but the name escapes me at the moment. The owners of that business told me that that is direct employment from the schools refurbishment program. Under that program, new carpets are being laid in schools. Over the years, carpets have been run down and torn and were downright dangerous. This refurbishment program is remedying that situation. Mr Stoneman: How much income is that generating? Mr BENNETT: I will take that interjection. It is not about creating income; it is about developing community assets and infrastructure and giving unemployed people jobs. That is what the $150m Jobs Plan is about, and in that respect the member for Beaudesert has completely missed the boat. Another great project undertaken for the safety of the community is the Safe Bikeways Project. Yesterday, the member for Aspley tried to stop people from riding pushbikes on footpaths. If that attempt had succeeded, all of the bikeways constructed in Gladstone would have been useless. Mr Beattie: The member for Aspley can’t ride a bike. Mr BENNETT: That is probably true; he probably cannot ride a bike. That project is employing 16 people in the Gladstone region. Those people were unemployed and did not have any skills. However, after that project is finished, they will have gained skills and they will have a great chance of finding employment. As I mentioned before, without skills, people have no hope of finding a job. I wish to mention some of the projects that have been planned for my electorate. In Calliope, there is the Tarcoola Drive, Boyne Island project; in Gladstone, Chapman Drive and J. Hickey Avenue; Mercury Street and Sun Valley Road; Dawson Road to Scenery Street; Lyons Park to the footbridge across Auckland Creek at Cemetery Road; Lorikeet Street to the Moura bikeway bridge; Park Street to the Glen Creek sporting ovals; the completion of the Breslin Street and Derby Street bikeway; Pender Avenue; and the Beak and Anderson Streets combined bicycle/footpath. I have been to those areas and I have talked to the workers on those projects. They appreciate the work, they are enjoying the experience and they are learning new skills. Mr FitzGerald: Did you recommend any of those? Mr BENNETT: I will take that interjection from the member for Lockyer. I recommend those projects because it provides safety for those school children who 3014 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly cycle to school. Another project that has been undertaken involves 21 apprentices and trainees who have been placed under the subsidised apprenticeship training opportunities in the public sector program. An amount of $105,000 was allocated for that plan in the 1992-93 Budget. Approximately 12 apprentices have been employed by the Department of Housing under the new housing industry and training program. Currently, many builders are not taking on apprentices, but instead are using subcontract labour. Consequently, in the future, we could find ourselves with no building tradesmen. This program goes a long way towards addressing that problem. Admittedly, it will not solve all of the problems, but those 12 apprentices are undertaking carpentry, plumbing and bricklaying work on public housing projects. There is value in the work that they are doing, and they are receiving training. I believe that this $150m Jobs Plan which was initiated by this Government ought to be commended. Job placement officers have been recruited through the TAFE program. The Gladstone TAFE College employs seven full-time tutors and 16 part-time tutors. Recently, $35,000 was allocated to Skillshare for a community warehouse course. That course undertakes many facets of training, ranging from the retailing of electrical goods to obtaining forklift tickets. I have spoken to the people who have completed that course. Unlike Opposition members, Government members talk to those people. They have told me that they appreciate the course and believe that it will enhance their employment opportunities. When I spoke to them, I found that some of them had already obtained employment. The member for Beaudesert pooh-poohed that project, and pooh-poohed those blokes getting jobs. Under the $7m Youth Jobs Plan, another youth employment coordinator has been employed in the Gladstone area, so there are now two officers in that area. I have spoken to Mrs Stephanie Fry from the department and she told me that recently, through the employment of those officers, the Gladstone Port Authority has taken on several labourers. Those people were young, low achievers, who did not have high marks from school and were previously always passed over for employment. The youth employment coordinators who have been employed under that $150m Jobs Plan have found those young people jobs. They have learned skills, they will be worthwhile employees and they will start off in careers that should serve them for a lifetime. Time expired. Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly) (4.04 p.m.): This Special Public Importance debate can really be summed up as a breast-beating exercise by this Labor Government. It is more than passing strange that today the Minister is talking about a $150m Jobs Plan, yet the Treasurer is nowhere in sight. I say that because during the last Budget debate, there was much talk about job creation plans. A $3.3 billion record State Capital Works Program was allocated in that Budget, which was expected to create an additional 8 000 jobs. The question has to be asked—— Mr Foley: There are so many Ministers generating jobs that there is not room for all of them to speak, because of the many backbenchers. Mr BEANLAND: I thank the Minister for making that point. I really appreciate it. As I will demonstrate in a few moments, the problem is that many Ministers are pretending to create jobs. There has been a great deal of rhetoric from this Government, but zero substance and delivery. I will outline how this State is going backwards and not forwards in the creation of jobs. Mr Foley: How can we have created 83 000—— Mr BEANLAND: I will get around to that matter in a moment; the Minister can rest assured that I will not miss the point. Sure, Queensland has a $150m taxpayer-funded special Jobs Plan, and the Minister says that benefits are flowing from it throughout the State. I am pleased to hear that the Government says that it is implementing this program, because it begs the question, “What is happening to all the other programs?” Of course, many of those programs are not being implemented. The reason we have this debate today—— Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3015

Mr Foley: Which one? Mr BEANLAND: I will come to that in a moment. The Minister has already jumped in once and received a fair amount of egg on his face. I accept that some money is being spent on training programs. In fact, the Minister is providing funds for one that operates out of an office next to my office. Mr Foley: A very fine scheme, too. Mr BEANLAND: I appreciate that it is a very fine operation. However, the point I wish to make is that at the end of the day, there are not the jobs there for these people to go to. I will talk more about that in a moment. People from not only the western side of Brisbane but from all other parts of the city have come to me and said, “ Fine, we have had this training. We appreciate it, but what do we do now? Where are the jobs?” That is the whole point of the exercise. The Government is great at breast beating. We have this so-called record program, but at the end of the day, it is found wanting. On top of that, we have the Queensland Leading State document. I expected that, if we were having a discussion about employment today, the Premier would have arrived in this Chamber beating his breast and talking about the fine job that Queensland Leading State was doing. Instead of that, we find that it is a bit like the One Nation statement; it has quietly gone into the waste paper basket—gone, done, finished, delivered and out of the way. It has been a non-goer. It has not been delivered at all. People voted on that policy at the last election, and the Government has hoodwinked them, because it has not delivered. There has been no discussion about that today in this Chamber. This Government is building up people’s confidence, but at the end of the day, there are no jobs. The real issue is jobs. It is all very well to go around spreading rhetoric, which lacks substance, talking about these things, and doing a bit of breast beating, but where are the jobs? Let me consider some employment figures. Between March and April this year, the number of employed people in Queensland fell by 12 900, from 1 377 300 to 1 364 400, or 0.9 per cent. The fact is that people are opting out of the workplace. They are giving up hope. There is no vision, no hope. People are saying, “I am fed up. I am giving up.” We have reached that sad and sorry state in Queensland. It is little wonder that this Government talks about more emotional issues to get people’s minds off the real issues. Last month, a total of 151 000 people in Queensland were unemployed. In April 1992, the figure was 144 000. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed people in Queensland has increased. These unemployment figures reveal that the situation is deteriorating day after day. The youth unemployment rate increased by 0.2 per cent, representing another 1 700 unemployed youths. Compared with the March figures, the number of unemployed persons fell by some 9 300. The real issue is that people have no confidence in the business community or the labour market, and there is a continual decline and a worsening of this situation. In recent newspaper articles, a number of economists were talking about a double-dip recession. That is something to which members of this Government should apply their minds. At the end of the day, business creates wealth. We must create confidence in the business sector and encourage investment in the business sector, because at the end of the day the business sector will provide those sustained, long-term jobs. The Minister talks about the Government’s record, and that 108 people are employed in the Cabinet Office in the Executive Building in George Street. That office did not exist under the previous Government. The Minister says that someone in the Cabinet Office is paid a salary of $133,000 a year, and claims that this is creating jobs. But they are not sustained, long-term jobs. The Minister is simply transferring people from other Government departments into an area of double guessing. That is not creating long-term jobs at all. As I said, there is a lack of business confidence in the community, and the economy is bouncing along on the bottom. According to recent corporation results in the financial media, companies are bouncing along and generally performing below expectations. This Government has not shown the business community that it is 3016 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly creating confidence. Over 3 000 taxes and charges have increased by well above the rate of inflation. This Government has whittled away its inheritance. It was the only Government that came to power in recent times with a wonderful inheritance—a large Budget surplus and no massive debts. But this Government has not made use of that inheritance. It has spent all the money. In New South Wales, the Labor Party left a $50 billion debt; and in Victoria, it left a $70 billion debt. They have not started to count the disaster in South Australia, but it is already at $9 billion, and I can assure members that it will be several billion more. And who knows what the end result will be in Western Australia? Mr Stoneman: It is frightening to think of what is going to happen in Queensland. Mr BEANLAND: The honourable member for Burdekin is right. It is frightening to think about what will happen here, because this Government has already raided the hollow logs, but it is not creating jobs or gaining the business confidence that I thought members were going to talk about today. Sure, the Government is providing training, but when people are trained, there will be no jobs for them. The real issue is jobs, jobs, jobs. The Minister knows that; you, Mr Deputy Speaker, know it; and other members of this House know it, but this Government seems to be blind to the situation. It is all about trying to create an image at the end of the day, but we do not want to see images from this Government; we want to see real action. Time expired. Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (4.14 p.m.): I understand why the member for Burdekin, the member for Indooroopilly and other members on the opposite side of the House are frightened for the future of Queensland. They know that, with this State Government’s proud track record of sound economic management, its proud track record of reducing the State debt and programs such as the one we are debating today, which is getting on with the job of stimulating Queensland’s economy and generating employment, the people of Queensland, the business sector and the average voter in the street know what a good job the Government is doing of managing the State. Honourable members opposite are frightened that they will be spending the remainder of their political careers in Opposition. It is suddenly dawning on them that in the past four years, unlike what they had hoped, this Government has proven itself to be a sound economic manager. I acknowledge that the Queensland economy was in a sound state when we came into Government, and we have continued to improve the state of the Queensland economy in the face of the worst economic circumstances that have faced this country in many years. Mr Beanland: Labor’s recession. Mr BREDHAUER: That is the sort of inanity that I would have expected from the member for Indooroopilly. He talks about Labor’s recession. Earlier, the member for Beaudesert spoke about declining foreign investment. He is correct; there has been declining foreign investment in Australia. That is not Labor’s recession; that is the international recession. Perhaps the member for Indooroopilly does not read the newspapers or watch the news and does not know about the recession in the United States, in Japan and in Germany. Perhaps he does not know about the international recession. The Prime Minister is very competent. Australia’s place in the international economy has not dragged the world down into recession. It is about time some honourable members opposite realised the inanity of the statements that they make. The honourable member spoke also about the size of the work force and the number of people who were unemployed. However, he refused repeatedly to take an interjection from the Minister relating to the increase in the size of the work force that has occurred in Queensland under this Government. We are not proud of the fact that 150 000 people are unemployed. That is why we have programs such as the $150m jobs program, the $3.3 billion special accelerated capital works program and the $143m hospital rebuilding and refurbishment program, so that we can do our bit towards improving those issues. We understand that jobs, jobs, jobs is the No. 1 priority, but honourable members opposite have to understand that over the past two years 83 000 Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3017 jobs have been created in Queensland. The work force has expanded by that much. It is about time honourable members opposite started to be a bit truthful and realistic about the performance of the Queensland economy. The honourable member spoke about the Government increasing the levels of State debt. He does not know the facts. In successive Budgets in Queensland we have reduced our levels of State debt. I turn to the $3.3 billion special accelerated capital works program and to an important successor to that capital works program. I acknowledge that foreign investment in Australia has declined and that there are problems with business confidence in Queensland and Australia. However, the Government is not just sitting back and taking it and allowing the Queensland economy to bump along without any stimulus and input. That is why we have recognised the importance to the Queensland and Australian economy of the building industry. I notice the member for Bulimba in the Chamber. No-one would know better than he that, for generations in Australia, the building sector has been looked upon as one of the most important barometers of economic health. That is why the Government has invested in programs such as the $3.3 billion capital works program. Whether honourable members opposite like it or not, the State Government has a responsibility to ensure that there is stimulus to the building sector. Because of its sound financial management, the State Government is in a position to do that. In other States where they have not had the degree of sound financial management that we have, they have not been able to invest in those programs. It is because of our sound financial management that we have been able to put on extra police, extra nurses and extra teachers. Members on the opposite side of the Chamber berate the Government for achieving its important social justice objectives, but they do not knock back the nurses, teachers and police when they are appointed to hospitals, schools and police stations in their electorates. Mr Bennett: They ask for more. Mr BREDHAUER: They welcome them with open arms and call for more, as the member for Gladstone said, because they want more of them. When we attempt to honour our social justice objectives, they say that we are not doing enough; yet, when we put more people on, they say that we are creating phoney jobs in the public sector. It is just nonsense, and the people know that it is nonsense. I turn now to the health capital works program that was announced recently by Cabinet. On top of the $3.3 billion special accelerated capital works program, that is our next big stimulus to the building industry and to employment. As was mentioned in the House yesterday by the Premier, it is anticipated that, in the next 12 months in the important building industry, that program will generate 86 626 person weeks of employment. But it is not merely the building industry that is being stimulated; that money is being spent throughout the regional economies of Queensland, and the money makes money as it goes around the community. The building sector supports local businesses in each area and makes an important contribution to the multiplier effect of that money in the local regional economies. Mr Purcell: Fifteen to one. Mr BREDHAUER: The member for Bulimba suggests that the multiplier effect is 15 to one. When honourable members consider what the Government does through its efforts in capital works and take into account the multiplier effect, they will realise how important it is for the regional economy. The Government has stimulated the regional economy across the State. Because it is of great significance to me, I will talk about the allocation of special capital works through the health rebuilding program in the Cook electorate. I am talking about it today only from the perspective of employment, because that is the debate that is before the House. I could talk about the health aspects and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health policy of the Government and the employment conditions for remote area health workers, but I want to talk about the capital works and employment provisions. The program includes facilities for health at Injinoo, Seisia, Umagico and New Mapoon, where we are spending $980,000 which will generate 700 person weeks 3018 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly of employment. It also provides for the first stages of the reconstruction of the Thursday Island Hospital at a cost of $3.6m, generating 2 554 person weeks of employment. We can talk about the remote area accommodation for health workers that we are building, spending nearly $5m and generating 3 566 person weeks of employment; we can talk about the primary health care centres that are being built in eight centres in the Cook electorate at a cost of $7.7m, in the first year generating 5 522 person weeks of employment; and we can talk about the community health centre that is being built at Cooktown at a cost of $837,000, in the first year generating 598 person weeks of employment. Let me tell all honourable members: in an area in which health facilities have been neglected by 32 years of National Party Government—when it was supposedly looking after the people in the bush; but not looking after the most remote people in Queensland, the people in the Cook electorate—just as we have done with education and police, this major injection of funds—$18m in the first year—into the health rebuilding program will generate 12 940 person weeks of employment. Not all of that will reach businesses that are based in the Cook electorate. Through the regionalisation processes of this Government, a significant portion of it will go to far-north Queensland businesses and, because of the multiplier effect in the economy, those remote areas throughout the Cook electorate in which businesses have been struggling will all benefit. That is what this Government is doing about jobs. It is not sitting back; it is not just waiting for foreign investment to pick up; it is not just waiting for business confidence to pick up; it is recognising that, in the absence of those things, a State Government has to do more and that is why it has introduced the $150m jobs program. That is also why it has introduced the $3.3 billion capital works program. Time expired. Mr STONEMAN (Burdekin) (4.24 p.m.): I join in this debate to place on the record the facts of the matter. The facts are that this program will not deliver a return on the investment of that $150m. Later, we will be debating in this House a return on investment by the Government under its Government Owned Corporations Bill. The sad fact of the matter is that the $150m Jobs Plan is only that—a plan; it is a process that will spend money and overlook the major components of need within the economy. Let us compare the last 12 months—April last year with April this year. Last year, full-time workers in this State accounted for 1 013 800 persons. This year, the figure is 1 044 900 persons—a growth of 3.07 per cent over the year. Mr Beattie: What’s the source of them? Mr STONEMAN: The source of these figures is the Commonwealth statistician, the Civilian Labour Force, States: Seasonally Adjusted Series from April 1992 to April 1993—the most up-to-date figures available. During the time that this Government was in office—and it cannot blame the poor old National Party and previous conservative parties forever—144 000 people were unemployed as of April 1992. As of April 1993, the figure was 151 000 people—as my colleague the member for Indooroopilly said—representing a growth in unemployment of 4.86 per cent. How can Government members disprove the fact that there is a growth of 3.07 per cent in the work force, but a growth of 4.86 per cent in unemployment? Let us consider the participation rate. In April 1992, the participation rate in the community was 63.1 per cent. In April this year, it is 63 per cent. It has gone backwards; there is a diminution. One year ago, the unemployment rate was 9.7 per cent; it is now 10 per cent, if we compare the same figures for the same period. Off the top of my head, about 30.7 per cent of young people are unemployed. Those unemployed young people have been trained. They have come through an education system that is far different from the system that the vast majority of us came through. They have come through a system that recognises the need for additional training. Yet, we see a situation in which almost one third of the young people in this State are unemployed, and honourable members opposite suggest that all is well, that this is working and that Labor is wonderful! Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3019

A moment ago, the honourable member for Cook spoke about the Prime Minister being right. He overlooked the fact that all the economic indicators have moved backwards. In Queensland, we are not comparing good with good; we are comparing bad with worse. It would be a tragedy if we were to delude ourselves into the thought that because we are ahead of the other States that have been made basket cases by former Labor administrations that all is well in Queensland. I say that we are comparing bad with worse. We need to produce more than it costs to generate that production. That is the key to investment; the key to making more jobs available; and the key to getting this State off the disastrous track that it is on. Let us consider some of the indicators. For Australia, the Pulse Survey stated— “Pulse Survey respondents anticipate that over the next six months unemployment will continue to increase (according to 52 percent of respondents) . . . ” Mr Bennett: Whose survey? Mr STONEMAN: This is the Queensland Confederation of Industry Quarterly Pulse Survey published in March 1993—the latest figures. It continues— “. . . or remain at current levels (40 percent).” That is, 92 per cent of the population believe that unemployment is going to get worse, or not get better. It continues— “Only eight percent of respondents thought a decline in unemployment levels would occur. Longer term problem areas continue to be in the 15 to 19 year age group and among displaced workers over the age of 45.” Let us now consider current investment conditions in Australia as they relate to Queensland. According to the Pulse Survey, only 6 per cent of people surveyed thought that the investment conditions were very good; 22 per cent thought they were good; 28 thought they were satisfactory; and 38 per cent thought they were poor. I repeat: 38 per cent thought they were poor. If the other 6 per cent is added to make a total of 44 per cent, 4.5 people out of every 10 who responded to the survey said that the investment conditions in this State are poor or very poor. However, there was some good news, namely, that over the next six months the expectation is for improved business activity. Honourable members should listen to this: the survey respondents expected improvements but did not expect them to be brought about by higher levels of Government spending. Companies commented in the survey that they were concerned that Government spending policies which are funded by borrowed money would exacerbate Australia’s chronic overseas debt problems. As the honourable member for Indooroopilly said by way of interjection, the hollow logs have been raided. The same process for which members of the Labor Party have congratulated the Prime Minister is acknowledged around the world as bringing Australia into incredible disrepute. The following quote is the key to the employment process— “Pulse survey respondents highlighted the need for Australia to be ready when the United States economy picks up.” I know that the United States, European and Japanese economies are not good, and that is something with which all of us have to live. The report goes on to state— “Business is still calling for the speeding up of microeconomic reform, restructure of the taxation system and speeding up of labour market reform. Respondents made a strong point that Australian business must be in a position to take advantage of a world economic upswing which could follow improvement in the United States economy.” The fact of the matter is that we have an economy that is based on production and support of commodities such as cotton, wool, coal, wheat, beef, lead and oil. The prices for all those commodities are down, and the only light at the end of the tunnel is the 3020 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly price for gold which, at the moment, is going up. One would hope that the price for sugar will achieve some sort of improvement. The fact of the matter is that, irrespective of how many hundreds of million of dollars are put into it, a jobs plan cannot be operated unless the productive sector is supported and has the capacity to attract investment. The Government should give confidence to existing businesses, which will encourage them to employ more people. Unless the Minister bites the bullet and implements those necessary reforms and unless he supports the people who are the income-generators of this State and this nation, the unemployment situation will not improve. We must have schools, but all the school buildings in the world will not generate revenue. They are a cost burden that is imposed on the community Mr Bennett: It is an investment. It is an investment in our future. Mr STONEMAN: I take that interjection. It is an investment in our future, but it produces no financial return that can be converted to revenue which can be used to employ people who are being trained in what I believe is a farcical system that does not go far enough. This Government’s commitment to labour market reform is zero. This Government pays lip-service to labour market reform, and unless market forces are able to prevail and employers in the productive sector of the community are able to generate profit and provide jobs, in the long run there will not be enough money to pay for the schools. Across this State, this Government will be doing what it has done to the Mount Elliott State School in my electorate. The books, pencils, rulers, blackboard and sticky tape were sent out. When the Goss Government came to power, what it did do? It sent out a truck to pick up the pencils and rulers, etc., and took them away from the little kids. Mr Davies: Oh, come on! Mr STONEMAN: The honourable member can ask the mothers. The member for Thuringowa who was in the Chamber a little while ago knew about it. That is the sort of thing this Government does. It has a payback system. This Government has to recognise the fragile balance of the economy and should not say that more jobs can be created while at the same time training young people and older people for jobs that do not exist. The fact of the matter is that until the Government recognises that business confidence has to be improved and until it bites the bullet of labour market reform, there will be no improvement. Unfortunately, next year we will see a rollover of the figures to which I have already referred, except that we will be comparing 1993 to 1992. Time expired. Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) (4.34 p.m.): The tragedy of unemployment is the single greatest social challenge which our community faces. In Queensland, we have a rate of 10 per cent unemployment, which is below the national rate of 10.7 per cent. It is significant to note that over the past year to April, Queensland has experienced a 2.3 per cent increase in employment compared to a reduction of 31 900 for the nation overall. If one takes that rate over the last two years, one sees the stark contrast referred to by the Treasurer a few days ago. He pointed out that in the past two years, Queensland has created 61 000 jobs, despite the impact of the international recession and the drought. This compares with 108 000 jobs lost in New South Wales alone during the same period. The importance of generating jobs cannot be overemphasised. It is thus passing strange that the honourable member for Burdekin should refer to a $150m jobs scheme as somehow spending money and overlooking the major component of need. I would have thought that jobs were a major—if not the major—component of social need in our community at this time, and this debate is an important opportunity for the Parliament to reflect upon the action being taken by the Government. Let me deal with some of the points made by previous speakers in the debate and then, in the time that is available, deal with some aspects of the implementation of the Jobs Plan. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3021

The honourable member for Beaudesert opened the debate with a misstatement. He echoed the misstatement that the honourable member for Caloundra made yesterday in this House, that the Government had promised to create 28 000 jobs through this scheme. That is not correct, and I quote from the promise— “Immediately upon its re-election, the Goss Government will therefore provide a $150m jobs and training package which will in its first year assist more than 28 000 Queenslanders.” That is relevant to the debate because, as well as generating specific jobs through a range of programs, a whole series of other forms of assistance has been provided in accordance with the promise given to the Queensland people. Accordingly, the honourable member proceeded upon a fallacy. Having created a doubt, he then sought to take the benefit of it—a familiar but not persuasive form of argument. The honourable member for Gladstone drew attention to the significance of the $150m Jobs Plan in terms of the commitment of the Labor Government. I compliment him for his contribution to the debate. He referred in particular to the impact of the Schools Refurbishment Program and the Safe Bikeways Program and made a telling point that, without skills, one has no hope of finding a job. The honourable member for Indooroopilly made an important contribution to the debate when he praised the western suburbs Skillshare. I have had the pleasure of visiting that Skillshare with the honourable member. They are a fine group of people, doing fine work and, indeed, they are supported by the Government with funds under the $150m Jobs Plan. The honourable member claimed in debate that other programs were not being implemented. When I challenged him by way of interjection, he replied that he would come to that. We waited in vain for him to come to that point. It was a claim unsupported by evidence and a claim that is not borne out by the facts at all. The honourable member for Cook dealt with the $3.3 billion Capital Expenditure Program. That program generates jobs and also provides the infrastructure for nurses, police and teachers to deliver the important services that they do. The honourable member for Burdekin made a contribution to the debate, suggesting that the Jobs Plan would not deliver a return on investment. However, he did not support that contention with any evidence or argument that could be described as cogent. Let us turn to what the $150m Jobs Plan is. It is, of course, in addition to those other very important employment generation programs, such as the $3.3 billion for capital works and all of the other measures outlined in the Budget. It refers not only to short-term matters but also to long-term matters, including payroll tax incentives administered by the Honourable the Treasurer. Indeed, the Government promised to increase the payroll tax threshold from $600,000 to $650,000 from 1 January 1993 and to $700,000 from 1 July 1993 and to extend a rebate to employers who take on people up to the age of 25 years and who have been unemployed for at least nine months, also effective on 1 January 1993. That has been put into practice in accordance with the assurance given. In December 1992, the Office of State Revenue sent a circular to all employers setting out that matter. At this early stage, it is not possible to quantify with precision the number of jobs that have been generated by that. It was foreshadowed that it would generate 9 000 jobs by December of this year, but for obvious reasons those matters cannot be quantified accurately at this stage. On this very day, it is indeed the eighth month after the election of the Government. In the brief time that we have available, let me deal with some other aspects of the $150m Jobs Plan. It is directly and indirectly creating further jobs through public infrastructure projects, with a significant proportion of the work being undertaken by the private sector. To date, that has included 273 public sector apprentices and trainees, 459 people employed on the Schools Refurbishment Program, 282 on the Safe Bikeways Program, 193 on the Jobs for the Environment Program and 482 full-time equivalent TAFE tutors and demonstrators. Yesterday, I indicated to the House the figure of 401. They are full-time people and the others are part time. Put together, they 3022 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly make up a full-time equivalent of 482. There are also 23 job placement officers in the TAFE system. In addition to that, provision is made under the Jobs Plan for State labour market programs. Through those, we have seen 181 apprentices in the housing industry trade training, 872 under employment and training through community groups, 345 through the Self Employment Venture Scheme and 2 259 people placed by youth employment coordinators. In terms of the promise with regard to training—some 1 939 people have been placed to date. That includes 1 461 placed by the youth employment coordinators, 123 through community programs and 345 through the Self Employment Venture Scheme. Further, other employment and labour market advice was foreshadowed, and some 5 903 people have been assisted to date. That includes 1 902 by youth employment coordinators, 3 586 through the Self Employment Venture Scheme, through business planning workshops, and 415 through community projects. Those figures give some rough guide at this stage, which is still a preliminary stage, but they indicate to the House that the Government is honouring its commitment to the Queensland people to deliver upon its fundamental election promise to do something positive to generate employment, to provide opportunities for our young people and to provide opportunities for the mature-age unemployed. The Government is delivering upon its promise to do something positive with that tobacco licence levy, and those figures demonstrate that the Government is very serious about doing whatever it can to combat unemployment, to generate employment in this State and to give our young people a future. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bredhauer): Order! The time allotted for the Special Public Importance debate has expired.

GOVERNMENT OWNED CORPORATIONS BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 12 May (see p. 2713). Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Leader of the Liberal Party) (4.44 p.m.): I rise to speak on the first Bill to be presented to the Parliament under the new Wayne Goss republic of Queensland. That is right; the Government Owned Corporations Bill is the first Bill to commence with “The Parliament of Queensland enacts” preamble, about which we heard so much from the Premier last week. And what a difference it has made! No doubt every Queenslander today feels that this is the dawning of a new era for the State and that everything will all be all right; everyone will have a job; no-one will be unhappy; and the world will be a better place because the Government changed five words in the preamble so that it reads, “The Parliament of Queensland enacts”. Surely it was worth the abandonment of question time and the uproar in the House that it caused last week. Surely it was worth saving Police Minister Paul Braddy’s neck by introducing it to block Opposition questions over the Blizzard affair. After all, it is such an important change, isn’t it! No, of course it is not. Mr Deputy Speaker, I was, of course, being sarcastic. The new preamble, fought for so arrogantly by the Premier, means nothing. It is just a device to give the Premier—— Mr T. B. Sullivan interjected. Mrs SHELDON: When the honourable member has had his say, I will continue. A Government member: It is called a pregnant pause. Mrs SHELDON: I am just pausing for the moron at the back of the Chamber—Mr Sullivan. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3023

Mrs SHELDON: It is just a device to give the Premier something to talk about and to stop people talking about the Police Minister’s ineptness last Tuesday. It is meaningless drivel which this Government passes off as something of importance. This Bill being debated in the House today is something of importance. Unfortunately, it is more important for what it does not do rather than what it achieves. Given what a proper corporatisation Bill could have achieved, what we have before us today is a very sad document. I will address 18 key points of concern and conflict which exist in the Bill and the White Paper. Due to the Government’s attempt to gag debate on this Bill by jamming it through the House in the shortest time possible, the Opposition has opted to respond to the Bill—which is so seriously flawed and fettered—by passing over the many secondary concerns which we have identified. In fact, this Government’s treatment of this Bill is a true indication of its contempt for any parliamentary reform. The Opposition was given seven days in which to analyse this Bill, which is probably the most important piece of legislation to be introduced by this Government in this term; seven days in which to detail the many faults, the many underlying problems and the many outright mistakes in this legislation. So much for parliamentary reform! Mr T. B. Sullivan: What about the White Paper in 1992? Mrs SHELDON: We in this Parliament debate Bills that are on the table. The honourable member obviously does not know that, but that is the procedure. So much for parliamentary reform! This is a disgraceful situation and one of which the Government should be ashamed. I will now focus on the inadequacies of the Bill and the policies both expounded in the White Paper and those unwritten. Mr Barton: Explain them to us. Mrs SHELDON: Yes, I am going to, and I suggest that the honourable member listen. The first is competition and industrial relations policy. The most serious question to be asked of the Government owned corporations is: will they be competitive? The short answer is, “No”. In fact, the White Paper does not address the issue of economic efficiency of Government owned enterprises; rather, it sets up Government enterprises as revenue-raising mechanisms. This mechanism will result in the raising of revenue for the Government without increasing taxes directly. In time, all Queenslanders will become aware of the real objective of this process, because this really is a form of indirect taxation. The Labor Government is not interested in increasing the efficiency of enterprises. The White Paper and this Bill fail to address the issues of improving efficiency or labour market reform. However, the White Paper and the Bill are specific on the mechanisms of revenue raising. The fettering of the process, the policies and the legislation by the unions and Trades Hall is evident. It is clear that the unions have had an unbridled influence over the establishment of the policies for corporatisation and in the development of the legislation. In their books, labour market reform will not be implemented at the expense of their members or to the detriment of the unions. In that context, let us look at three issues when considering the process of corporatisation. These are the separation of the commercial objectives of these enterprises from the community service obligations and the removal of the regulatory requirements that Governments have traditionally imposed. There is ample evidence to suggest that the Labor Government is not going to do this. The driving force of our economy is competition. The Government has been making motherhood statements for the last 18 months suggesting that this will be implemented. However, the reality is that true competition is unlikely to be introduced into the equation. For corporatisation to work, competition has to be introduced in areas which are going to make a difference. The most important of these areas of reform is the labour market reform. If these corporatised entities are not allowed to compete on the same level or to operate in the same way as equivalent private companies, then the Government is not going to get the efficiencies that have been promised by the Treasurer. For example, the Queensland Investment Corporation, which is perhaps the most clearly corporatised entity under the Government’s model, still operates under the public service rules for employment 3024 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly conditions. For effective corporatisation, reforms have to be implemented to achieve the best outcomes for the corporate entity, the consumer and the benefit of all Queenslanders. To achieve this, the enterprise has to be able to utilise people in the best way possible. These corporate entities have to be able—— Government members interjected. Mrs SHELDON: Yes, do trivialise the Bill. I will bet that none of the members who are interjecting are speaking on it. They would not know how to. These corporate entities have to be able to employ people under terms and conditions which will reward them and so ensure that they are selecting the best people with the right skills. On the other hand, public service employment conditions are developed to run the public sector. This is very different from how one would utilise people to run an efficient private enterprise. Flexibility is vital in the marketplace. If the Government owned corporations do not have flexibility, they will not be able to compete. The major area of flexibility needed by corporations is the ability to use their workers to maximise efficiency and profit. However, this Government denies GOCs that flexibility. There is no flexibility in working hours, holidays, pay structures, and generally the process of how people are employed or retrenched, and so on. Without real and effective reform, any attempt to introduce a private-sector culture would fail. This flexibility is not provided for under the public service employment structure and as such these constraints in the labour market mean there can be no worthwhile increases in efficiency or any increase in productivity. That is to say, GOCs will not be opened up to survive in a world of total competition. GOCs as a revenue-raising mechanism will face another problem which will impact on the consumers of these services. I speak of the conflict between the Government’s intention to raise revenue and the GOCs’ ability to operate competitively in the marketplace without labour market reform. Corporatised entities will have imposed on them a requirement to achieve a return on their assets which will in turn require them to introduce a pricing structure which is not based on competitive pricing structures but instead will be based on the need to generate revenue. Mr Robertson: “Turn to page 7.” Mrs SHELDON: This approach does not promote efficiency, but rather entrenches inefficiencies. I inform the honourable member that it is actually page 9. Prices are based on the return to the Government of the revenue it requires at the expense of the consumer. That is to say, all Queenslanders will have to subsidise these inefficiencies in order for GOCs to meet the stated revenue targets that the Government sets. This is tantamount to an indirect tax. As such, the pricing of individual services provided by a GOC may not achieve market realities. Therefore, the supply and demand relationship will not be adhered to, as full marginal long run economic costs of services will simply not be a factor in the equation. Another stumbling block to the successful application of corporatisation is the lack of pressure to minimise costs. This has been identified in the Commonwealth Treasury Economic Paper No. 14. The paper states that this is a particular problem where the public enterprise is a statutory monopoly. Evidence suggests that even after the enterprise is introduced to private sector competition, the problem of cost minimisation is unlikely to be a consideration. Although competition may largely determine prices in the various segments of the market, scope for inefficient cost practices will depend on the degree of looseness in Treasury’s capacity to financially monitor the GOC. That is to say, the inefficiencies may continue to exist simply because of the inability of Treasury to develop and implement financial monitoring procedures which would emulate completely the capital market’s environment. To confirm those fears, Mr De Lacy has not identified any measures for implementation which would result in Treasury acquiring the necessary skills for the establishment of such complex financial monitoring; nor is there any expectation within Treasury that this will be done. The Treasurer has consistently made remarks in regard to the capacity of the proposed GOCs to achieve high rates of return. The White Paper refers to an economic Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3025 rate of return on the $25 billion worth of assets of between 7 per cent and 11 per cent. I refer members to page 73 of the White Paper. Given that this is the expectation and given that the current return on these assets would not exceed 3 per cent, one would have to say that many of the GOCs would be unable to achieve that level of productivity. This suggests that the setting of prices by GOCs will not be based on a sound foundation. The Commonwealth Treasury economic paper No. 14 states that price setting should be undertaken independent of any target. It states further— “It is important to avoid inappropriate input mixes that can arise from the mechanical setting of prices in order to achieve a particular target rate of return.” The thrust of the legislation is to establish commercial enterprises operating in a competitive commercial environment. However, the complete fettering of so many of the clauses and a distortion of the whole corporatisation philosophy by the Government and the unions will ensure that this will not be achieved. One of the key reasons for this is that the bodies will still be subject to the direction of Ministers of the Crown and will operate within a regime different from that which applies to all other commercial bodies. Mr Beattie: Your only alternative is to privatise; that’s why we don’t agree with you. Mrs SHELDON: The alternative is to corporatise without a hidden agenda. The process is flawed. The Bill lacks necessary technical amendments. Before I start on a thorough examination of the issues, I feel compelled, for Mr De Lacy’s benefit, to point out two basic requirements needed in this Bill. First, the process laid down under the legislation requires a GOC to go through the following process: nomination of a GOE for corporatisation by the Premier; drafting of a corporatisation charter; implementation of the corporatisation charter; and, finally, a declaration as a GOC. There are only two compulsory steps—nomination and declaration. It may well be that the Government could simply nominate a number of Government organisations and then have the Governor in Council declare them as a GOC without having gone through the other steps in the process. Secondly, the Bill, being enabling and regulatory, will enable the establishment of GOCs and will regulate them. The Act will commence on a day to be fixed by proclamation. The introduction of the Act by itself does not guarantee that the corporatisation process will actually commence. There is a need for action independent but nevertheless under the auspices of the Act to be taken to start the process. I turn now to committees for the preparation of corporatisation. The corporatisation process is flawed from the top down. In any organisation which is motivated purely by financial gain and which is self-regulated, the manipulation process starts at the top. This Bill provides for that money-grabbing process. Trades Hall plays a role in this process, too. For example, the Treasurer and only one other Minister are responsible for the selection of the preparation committee. Those committee members are not required to have any particular technical knowledge; nor are they to have any particular relevant industry background. It is anticipated that Trades Hall union officials will dominate on these committees and other committees down the line. If the process does not go off the rails here, it is likely that the process will ultimately be destroyed by the unions at the next step. I turn now to the appointment of the board of directors. As with the selection of the members of the preparation committee, the establishment of the board of directors is equally contrived. Board members are appointed by the shareholding and portfolio Ministers, and are expected to deal with the day-to-day running of the business. Under such circumstances of appointment, it would be hard to believe that these directors would be operating at arm’s length, given the Blizzard debacle, in which only those who think alike may conduct their duties without interference. I turn now to the appointment of CEOs. Under the Bill, the selection of the chief executive officer is akin to the selection of the police commissioner himself. The mechanisms are in place for complete fettering of the selection process for this position. With Trades Hall officials in place at board level, it now only requires a suitable and like- 3026 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly minded candidate to be installed to the position. The thumbprint of the organisation culture is now established. Mr Beattie: A very cynical view. Mrs SHELDON: The member for Brisbane Central would appreciate that; he knows all about organisational cultures. The trade unions are secure. The Government gets its money and all are satisfied—all, that is, except the consumer and the taxpayers of Queensland. It is clear that for a successful corporatisation process to be implemented, it would require a bipartisan parliamentary committee approach to the selection of the preparation committee. If the Government had allowed interested parties to address this Bill in the same way that the Government had given in respect to the consultation process following the release of the White Paper, we would have dealt with this matter in a more active and consultative way. However, the agenda is clear. We know that the Government simply wants to expedite the Bill so that it can get on with the process of revenue raising. All Australians remember only too well what can happen to significant and sizeable Government assets if they are poorly run and badly managed. I draw to the attention of members at the back of the Chamber—particularly on the Government side—WA Inc and Vic Inc. Just as we have proposed a way of dealing effectively with the selection of the preparation committee, so we propose to reach through to the appointment of the board of directors. As it stands, the Parliament will not scrutinise the corporatisation process. The Treasurer will say that the Parliament will see the statements of corporate intent and the annual reports. However, because there are no mechanisms by which the Parliament can scrutinise the process effectively, it will operate independently of Parliament. Under those processes, such disasters as the Bank of South Australia debacle and the Trico debacle can be averted. I now refer to the Trades Hall influence. The entrenched influence and, sometimes, the overriding control of Trades Hall in the process of Government, which is a basic tenet of this Labor Government, means that reform cannot be achieved within these GOCs. That has been highlighted by seven wage accords and an abdication of State power to the unions. Those are not the ingredients to produce significant increases in productivity. The arrangement will result in the unions, and not the corporate entities, dictating the pace and direction of workplace reform. Employers, employment bodies, the Industrial Relations Commission and some senior public servants believe that the relationship between Dawson Petie’s Trades Hall and this Labor Government has been too close and that it has, to a degree, corrupted the political process. A classic example of the corrupting of the process is the establishment of the Queensland corporatisation process. There can be little doubt that the Dawson Peties of this world have wielded enormous power during the reign of the Queensland Labor Government and, in particular, during the development of the GOC White Paper and the Bill. Another sign of the growing influence of Trades Hall is that confidential departmental advice to Ministers ends up on desks in Trades Hall headquarters or in individual unions. I am sure that even some of the Ministers of the Labor Government feel compromised by this infiltration of Trades Hall. Recently, a statement leaked to Federal shadow Minister John Howard highlighted the problems of Government and Trades Hall collusion in this regard. The document stated that the 1.4 per cent and 1.5 per cent economic adjustments of March 1993 and 1994 involved absolutely no productivity efficiency concessions by staff. It adds that it is difficult to dismiss inefficient staff, and that it takes six to 12 months longer than it does in the private sector. Mr Beattie interjected. Mrs SHELDON: I know that the member for Brisbane Central agrees with me. Those agreements between the unions and Government seem to be an example for others to follow, and represent the usual inefficient outcome when Government and Trades Hall collude. With industrial relations reform being at the heart of any Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3027 productivity gains of the prospective GOCs, what hope does the Queensland corporatisation program have of succeeding? I now refer to the off-Budget process. When individual enterprises are corporatised, it will mean that the debt associated with those enterprises will be taken off the State’s balance sheet. The State would record only the value of the shares that it holds in the individual corporatised bodies. The effect may well be to show the State’s finances to be in a better shape than they are. The budgetary implications of the corporatisation process will result in the financial enterprise going off- Budget and, as such, its accountability is one which may fall foul, such as occurred in the WA Inc or Vic Inc fiascos. As to global borrowing—the Government has used this process with its motorway companies, which are then placed outside the global borrowing limits. That leaves the door wide open for Government siphoning of assets and reserves, while the corporation is forced to borrow, and borrow more, to keep up with the draining of funds by a money-hungry Labor Government. The financial implications for Queensland taxpayers from this Government’s practice are frightening. This Government has been watching the review of the Australian Loan Council with great interest. The Senate select committee’s investigation of the capacity of the State to rort the system has revealed some interesting findings. This review has been under way for some time, and it has made some startling revelations already about State Labor and Federal Labor Governments. I am sure that if Mr De Lacy was listening, he would be watching this process with a view to modifying the way in which corporatised entities are structured so that they may carry out borrowing which will not trigger the net public sector borrowing requirements. In this way, the Government can acquire debt off- Budget, and debt that is not caught by the Australian Loan Council. That is a very cosy position, is it not, for a Government looking for cash? However, it is a very worrying position for all Queenslanders. Under the company GOC structure, the Government elects five shareholding Ministers to hold equity for and on behalf of the Government. One of those Ministers is the Treasurer; another Minister is the respective portfolio Minister; and the other three Ministers will hold non-voting shares and will be any Ministers in the Labor Government. Among them lies the GOC’s corporate governance. In addition, they have the ability to alter the memorandum and articles of association. The portfolio Minister and the shareholding Ministers do not need to refer any of the matters involved to any other authority, and do not need to seek permission from any other person. This ownership structure allows for the manipulation of the objectives of the GOC, as well as the manipulation of the way in which the GOC does business and of the way in which the GOC conducts its internal affairs. At all stages during the corporatisation process, the board of directors of the GOC is subject to direction by a Minister. However, the legislation provides that the Minister is not to be “treated as a director of the GOC”. In other words, Ministers are going to give themselves the ability to run commercial organisations without accepting the responsibility that goes with that ability. What does the Treasurer say to that? In addition, the board of directors of each GOC will be under an obligation to the portfolio Minister and the Treasurer, because the portfolio Minister—who is the Treasurer—has the power to issue directions to the GOC board. It is reasonable to assume that the GOC will be under an obligation to the party politics of the day. This whole GOC process is a charade. It will not result in true corporatisation of Government enterprises. Instead, there has been a shedding of the blame, such that the Minister will be in a position in which he can simply issue directions on all facets of the operations of the GOC without fear or favour, and the board of directors of that GOC will simply have to carry out those directions. It is the board that will carry the blame ultimately—a very clever ruse. The Bill is silent on the process of freedom of information. Given that several prospective GOCs are statutory monopolies, one would have to ask the question: is this in the public interest? One would certainly think not. The Bill is silent on role of the 3028 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Trade Practices Act. We await with great interest to see just how competitive these GOCs actually are. The big question is: will these entities be allowed to operate in an environment where market forces and productivity reside? I find it quite amazing that with a Bill of this magnitude and importance, and when the Opposition spokesperson is speaking, the Treasurer seeks to carry on some idle chitchat with another member of the House. The Government has provided an environment in which two types of GOC legal structures can be created: statutory GOCs and company GOCs. Judging by the efforts of the Labor Government to allow only selective accountability, one may expect that the statutory corporate structure will be the favoured model. The statutory structures will be based on their own legislation. In this way, the Treasurer can control all processes better than under any company structure. On the other hand, the GOC company structure exposes the GOCs to the corporations Act, although it is expected that a number of areas of the Act will be circumvented through the enactment of specific GOC legislation. Either way, these company GOCs will be vulnerable to manipulation. Community service obligations are probably the first provision of a service by a GOC to fall under attack once the process is complete. The policy is ambiguous on whether the GOC should carry the expense of the CSO, or whether the community service obligation should be carried by Treasury. It is claimed by the Treasurer that Treasury will fund the CSO through a transparent process. The determination of ownership of a CSO is clear. Treasury will argue during the creation of a GOC that most CSOs will have to be funded from within its operations. If these responsibilities are passed back to the GOCs, then the provision of these community service obligations will come under threat. I ask the Minister to remember that a GOC is not rewarded for promoting its community service obligations. The Bill is silent on the process of identifying new CSOs which may arise over time and in times of changing circumstances. One could imagine that the level of community service obligations to be provided will never be more than they are now. Again, there are no rewards for a GOC to identify new community service obligations. Mr Robertson: Is this an anti-privatisation speech? Mr Barton: It sure ain’t about the Bill! Mrs SHELDON: In fact, it is very much about the Bill. But the honourable member would not know that, because he has not read it. The Government will generate its revenue through the receipt of dividends and through the payment of taxes by the GOC. Under a company GOC structure, Commonwealth taxes are required to be paid. These are supposed to be remitted back to the State pursuant to an agreement—an agreement that does not yet exist. There are a number of concerns about this process, and all of them are open ended. Dividends are paid to the shareholding Ministers on a pro rata basis of the number of shares issued. The amount of dividend that the Government can receive can be manipulated by the Government. This is part of the money-grabbing process. The Bill provides for additional shares to be issued, and thus the Government will receive more cash. Similarly, any class of share can be issued and any number of shares can be issued. The Government may issue classes of shares to itself which simply represent a form of quasi debt. This quasi debt would command a higher rate of dividend than the ordinary voting shares. Similarly, the Government can skew the debt burden towards the GOC, thus requiring the GOC to operate a high-debt capital structure. The Government may do this to transfer its debt-servicing obligations from the State Budget to the GOC. No provision is made in the legislation for the Government, as the ultimate shareholder of the GOC, to contribute further capital to meet the expansion needs, etc, of those GOCs. When private companies are looking to raise capital, they look to raise either debt or equity capital. It would seem that the GOCs will not have those alternatives. They will simply be required to raise debt capital. This will impact significantly on their financial performance. These are just a few examples of the methods that the Government will employ to gain access to the cash Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3029 generated by GOCs. Many other mechanisms exist, and no doubt will be implemented to meet the Government’s grab for cash. It could be argued that the corporatisation process represents the third stage in the Government’s raiding of its own coffers. Stage 1 was obvious, as it constituted the raiding of the classic hollow logs. These included the skimming off of working capital from public sector entities and the access of capital stored within these entities. Stage 2, which is still in process, is the raiding of the public sector trust accounts and the special funds. This is being achieved through the collapsing of these trust and special fund accounts into the Consolidated Fund. Stage 3, corporatisation, represents the biggest source of revenue raising by this Government. These reserves, which the Government is methodically raiding, were built up over 20 years during the reign of conservative Governments. Within a couple of years, I expect many of these public sector entities and the GOCs to be cash strapped and capital deficient. The problem with this is the steady reduction of the services to the community and the decline in social and economic infrastructure. Under Federal Labor, the country is slipping into the category of a Third World country. In Queensland, the Government is doing its bit to get us there even faster than it has been doing over the past three years. The Queensland Treasury Corporation is already managing the State’s massive $10 billion debt, and soon it will have to mortgage our future generations by borrowing more. Labor’s fiscal strategies are flawed, and this corporatisation process will be the biggest mistake that any Queensland Government has ever made or is likely to make. The question is: can Labor be trusted to manage the present and future wealth of the State? The answer very obviously is, “No.” Let us examine the private sector investment strategies of the State Government over the past three years to see if this corporatisation strategy is any different from the financial debacles it has got itself into so far. Compass was a $10m embarrassment and a clear example of poor process and bad decision making. Indy, a $63m loss, is a better example of a poor process and an even bigger example of bad financial decision making. Gondwana land is the showcase of disasters for this Government. Located just across the river, I hope that it stands as a symbol to the Government of the need for caution and restraint. This says nothing for the need for financial resources in other areas of the community. The classic example of this is the rural sector. This process of continued bad investment decision making is not a series of one-off disasters but rather a problem inherent in this Government. The problem stems from the fact that public servants who advise on private sector investment decision making are not skilled at making such decisions. Public servants trained in the process of public sector decision making cannot simply translate their skills into the private sector arena. The rules are different and their experiences in decision making do not translate well—as we have seen, and as the Government can testify. The Opposition cannot support this Bill. It is ill-conceived, open to massive manipulation and blatant cash grabs by the Government, and will leave GOCs unable to actually fulfil their statutory aims. The coalition believes in corporatisation. In fact, in the case of Suncorp, QIC and the QIDC, those entities should be privatised because they are already out there competing in the marketplace. But we do not believe in the corporatisation structure which this Government has put forward. Mr De Lacy: The old flogger-offers—sell it all! Mrs SHELDON: Only Suncorp, QIC and the QIDC, which are now out there competing in the private marketplace. There is no benefit to the Government, apart from revenue, to have them non-privatised. This Government will milk those corporations of their reserves and their assets. That will force them to borrow and to increase the prices of the services they provide. Electricity charges will increase. Mr De Lacy: All you want to do is tax the people—you and John Hewson. Mrs SHELDON: That is what the Treasurer will do: tax the people by stealth. He will not be seen to do it; it will be the GOCs. He will blame the managers for it. He will 3030 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly say, “It is not me. I am the Treasurer. Blame the terrible people on the boards of the GOCs. They are the ones who are putting up the electricity charges and increasing port handling costs.” It is called raising taxes by stealth. Instead of making the corporations more efficient, the Government is doing exactly the opposite. Lastly, this Government, and successive Labor Governments in other States of Australia, have given us no reason to trust them when they have the taxpayers’ money in their hands. We do not trust the Treasurer, and he has given us no reason to trust him. As we have seen, the terms have been defined widely. Recently, the Public Bodies Review Committee of the Victorian Parliament listed 27 different interpretations of the terms. The Queensland Labor Government has now introduced a further dimension to those interpretations, that is, the cash grab corporation. The coalition does support corporatisation; however, the coalition does support privatisation. That is to say, the coalition does not support the Queensland Government’s model, as it is so fettered and tainted by Trades Hall that it is not a model but a simple process of arm’s length revenue raising. Instead, the coalition’s model is based on the creation of true competition and the implementation of true labour market reform, which the Treasurer will not deliver. I will expand on that under a number of headings. Firstly, I will refer to the goals of corporatisation as we see them. The profit motive will be introduced to optimise economic efficiency in addition to the creation of a level playing field by achieving true input and output markets. Pricing, costing, tax considerations and investment incentives must reflect market disciplines, otherwise there is no incentive for performance to improve and no clear commercial benchmarks to gauge performance. Mr Beattie interjected. Mrs SHELDON: The honourable member does not understand what competition is all about and what productivity is all about. Labor Governments cannot understand those complex issues. The foundation of those incentives is couched in the principles of productive and allocative efficiency. Productive efficiency is the production of goods and services in such a manner as to utilise the least amount of resources. In commercial terms, productive efficiency involves maximising the market value of the particular assets under management. Focusing on lowering costs and improving efficiency and productivity does not in itself provide a complete picture. The level and range of services provided must reflect what society demands. To have consumers correctly communicate their demands for goods and services requires allocative efficiency. Allocative efficiency can be defined as achieving a mix of goods and services which will yield maximum consumption benefits to society over time. That is achieved through pricing goods and services at their true cost of production. I will next deal with our concept of managerial authority. Clear, consistent objects on their own are not sufficient; they are required to be accompanied by managerial authority and autonomy from ministerial meddling in operational issues. Any organisation’s key internal decisions must be made by individuals with strong incentives to maximise the value of the organisation. That requires directors to be appointed solely for the contribution they can make on account of their business management experience, knowledge and skills. In order for an enterprise to behave commercially rather than politically, management—not politicians—must have the authority to make the operational decisions affecting the performance of the enterprise. Mr De Lacy: Everybody agrees with that. It’s in the legislation. It’s in the White Paper. Mrs SHELDON: The Treasurer has not implemented the recommendation in the White Paper; he has done everything except that. Those decisions would cover such things as the terms and conditions of staff employment, the termination of the enterprise’s organisational structure, deciding where inputs should be obtained and, importantly, making the pricing, investment and borrowing decisions of the enterprise. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3031

I turn now to rewards and sanctions. Quite clearly, a vigorously applied system of managerial rewards and sanctions is essential to provide directors and management with the proper incentives to perform. We went out and asked business; the Government did not. The appropriate rewards and sanctions must be predefined, understood and strongly applied if they are to motivate management to maximise the performance of their enterprise. The reward structure needs to cover such things as directors’ fees, managers’ salaries, non-cash rewards—that is, the dirty words “fringe benefits”—bonus schemes, profit sharing arrangements, promotion criteria and the like. Rewards and sanctions need to be related directly to the extent an enterprise’s actual performance exceeds or falls short of its commercial targets, such as an adequate rate of return on assets. Aligning board salaries to market levels is part of that process. I will deal now with our concept of competitive policy. In both resource input and product output markets, GOCs should be subject to no special advantages or disadvantages by virtue of Government ownership. In other words, there should be no privileges or handicaps as a result of belonging to the Government. To ensure competitive neutrality, Government equity in the GOC needs to be costed on the same basis as that supplied by private investors to privately owned enterprises. This is done by setting the target return on Government equity at a rate equivalent to that earned in the private sector for an enterprise with a similar commercial, that is, market risk profile. Government enterprises should not be subject to any restriction on labour resources, that is, award pay and conditions, and should not apply to private sector enterprises. In other words, no Government sanctioned featherbedding. Only through competition will the right mix of commercial goods and services be supplied in the least costly fashion. The coalition would privatise the QIDC, the QTC and Suncorp. This would be done because those enterprises already have competitors in the marketplace and, as such, there is no need for the Government to own them. It is unnecessary that those enterprises should remain in the ownership of the Government. It is unnecessary, but Labor Governments cannot help but meddle. Mr De Lacy: Did you say “QTC”—that you would privatise the QTC? Mrs SHELDON: No, “QIC”. Mr De Lacy: You said “QTC”. Mrs SHELDON: Well, I meant “QIC”. If the Government is in need of the services that these enterprises provide, then the Government can go to the marketplace and call for tenders for the provision of such services. In regard to the other Government enterprises that Mr De Lacy signalled to be corporatised, the coalition would also undertake to corporatise them, however, the coalition would use a different model. We would use a model which is based on true competition and true labour market reform. In addition, the coalition does not see those enterprises as revenue raisers and employment vehicles for the unions, and would seek to ensure that they function as truly efficient service providers for all Queenslanders. The coalition is mindful of the Government’s majority in the House and its ability to jam through the House anything it wishes. As such, it can only question the Government on its hidden agenda and put forward progressive and meaningful recommendations. Mr Bennett: That’s what “majority” is all about. Mrs SHELDON: That is why the honourable member’s Premier does not want an Upper House and that is why his Premier wishes to abolish the Senate. It is called “unfettered powers, have the numbers, ram it through; let us have no point of review; let us not be answerable, just in a thug-like manner get our own way”. That is not what democracy is all about. The coalition will put those questions at the Committee stage, and I will go through the various clauses of the Bill in detail. 3032 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

A Government member interjected. Mrs SHELDON: The honourable member’s Premier does want to abolish the Senate—he said that himself—even though his illustrious Prime Minister, Mr Keating, does not. There seems to be some discrepancy. Firstly, I want to put on record the recommendations which we will make in regard to this flawed Bill. I recommend that the Bill be amended to incorporate these points— provide for the shareholding Minister to be a director of the board and for the Treasurer to be personally liable; reward the GOCs for identifying community service obligations which may arise in the future—— A Government member interjected. Mrs SHELDON: The honourable member obviously knows nothing about corporate law or he has been well advised and decided that he will distance himself from the restrictions that other directors have to face out there in commercial enterprises. The points continue— produce and publish a statement on labour market reform for each and all target GOCs; upgrade the Treasury’s GOC Unit so that it has the ability to create the artificial market forces so necessary for the creation of a competitive corporate monopoly enterprise; delete a clause which refers to the safety net for employees so that if they do not perform they can be sacked; create a GOC parliamentary committee for the establishment of the GOCs, appointments to the board, and the appointment of the CEO; utilise a GOC parliamentary committee to review any changes to the memorandum and articles of association—which the Government can now change at will— changes to the share structure—which indeed it can change at will—dividend policy, and capital structure; utilise a parliamentary committee to stimulate a GOC annual general meeting so that the management of the companies can be scrutinised. This will require the shareholding Minister and the board to appear before the Parliament for questioning. At present, the Minister is not subject to scrutiny by Parliament whatsoever. He has given himself unprecedented powers. The points continue— require the GOC to provide full disclosure of all information, material or otherwise, in the quarterly and annual reports. So honourable members can see that the coalition is not being negative about corporatisation in Queensland. What we are negative about is this Government’s absolute botch-up of the legislation which is before this House today. We would have liked to have supported corporatisation—we certainly support the concept—but we cannot under these circumstances. The people of Queensland will suffer for this piece of glorified tax collection by this State Labor Government; therefore, we must oppose it. I can only hope that the Government is removed from power before it does to Queensland with this legislation what other Labor Governments have done in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia with the same sort of cash grabs. Mr DAVIES (Mundingburra) (5.27 p.m.): It really hurts those members on the other side of the Chamber that they have a Labor Party in Queensland that is committed to efficiency. The crowd on the other side cannot stomach the fact that we are committed to efficiency and making public sector enterprises in Queensland operate effectively. They are the private enterprise party, yet they are all here tonight opposing Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3033 this Corporatisation Bill. They have about 19 or 20 speakers who are all going to tell us how they are opposed to our efficiency measures through this Bill. Mr Vaughan: And say the same thing. Mr DAVIES: Undoubtedly, they will say the same thing. I am interested to note that one of the speakers tonight is the honourable member for Noosa. He has been pretty active in the last couple of weeks. He is really opposed to these measures, and he has stated publicly that all the politicians in Queensland get paid too much and that all they are worried about is their superannuation—— Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order. What has this to do with the substance of the Bill? It is totally irrelevant. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr DAVIES: Yet the Deputy Leader of the Coalition, Mrs Sheldon—— Mrs SHELDON: I would like the honourable member to keep to the subject. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. I warn members that this legislation for corporatisation covers quite wide ranging issues. I will give some leeway as I have already given to the Deputy Leader of the Coalition. I will extend that courtesy to other members as well. Mr DAVIES: The Deputy Leader of the Coalition is saying, “We want more politicians.” The member for Noosa says, “We have too many and we’re all paid too much”, but the Deputy Leader wants more; she wants an Upper House. So to make us more efficient, she wants to impose an Upper House which would cost us $40m or $50m a year. I can tell the Deputy Leader that we do not need an Upper House to become efficient just as the National Party and Liberal Party Governments of the last 32 years before we were elected did not need an Upper House to run this State efficiently. If there are any lessons—— Mrs Sheldon interjected. Mr DAVIES: We have no problem with that. If there are any lessons to be learned from the past 32 years, they would indicate that we do not need an Upper House to run this State properly. Unfortunately, members of the coalition have not got out of the agrarian socialist mode. They are still stuck in a time warp. They really need to get out of the time warp. I will address a few matters mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Coalition. Dr Watson interjected. Mr DAVIES: I point out to the member for Moggill that she spoke of community service obligations as though no-one pays for them. Let me inform the Deputy Leader of the Coalition that they are paid for, irrespective of which bin the money comes out of. At the end of the day, someone writes a cheque for them. Even in Queensland, community service obligations are not free. They are free nowhere else in Australia and they are certainly not free in Queensland. She also implied that this Labor Government created the rural crisis; in other words, we are responsible for the fact that it does not rain in Queensland. In the near future, we may all have to do a Joh Bjelke-Petersen and go to church on Sunday to pray to the bloke upstairs and hope that it rains soon after. Mrs Sheldon: If you did pray. Mr DAVIES: If we have to do that, I can inform the Deputy Leader of the Coalition that we will do that; but I must ask her not to imply that the Labor Party is responsible for the fact that it does not rain in Queensland. At one stage of her speech, she also declared herself to be in favour of privatisation. I made a note while she was speaking which states, “Will she privatise the Queensland ports?” I will ask her the question. I know it is not question time, but I will ask her the question and give her the opportunity to respond. Would she privatise the Queensland ports? Mr Connor: Would you? 3034 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr DAVIES: No, I would not privatise the Queensland ports, and if the member for Nerang says that he would, then he stands condemned. The reason why I would not privatise Queensland ports is that they have made, and continue to make, a tremendous contribution to regional Queensland. Dr Watson: Are they effective? Mr DAVIES: They are effective. What they are doing very successfully is building regional Queensland, and I am unashamedly in favour of anything that builds regional Queensland. Government members interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Government members will cease interjecting. Mr DAVIES: By their remarks, Opposition members have shown that they would be prepared to sell the ports in Townsville, Gladstone and Cairns—the three major ports outside Brisbane. Members of the coalition are saying that they would be prepared to sell them, and that is what would happen. If they are in favour of privatisation, to which I will refer in a minute because the Deputy Leader of the Coalition seems to be confused, they would sell enterprises such as Suncorp. I notice that the Deputy Leader of the Coalition is not staying in the Chamber to listen to the debate from the Government side of the House. Ms Spence: She can’t stand the heat. Mr DAVIES: As an honourable member correctly interjected, she cannot stand the heat. If Opposition members are in favour of privatisation, it means that they would sell enterprises such as Suncorp. Members on the Government side of the House know how much members of the Liberal Party and National Party Governments of the past loved Suncorp. I have to say that I am pleased that Suncorp was retained and that the previous Government did not sell it. We are not going to sell it, but we are going to make those sorts of enterprises more efficient through direction and through agreed policies. If members of the Opposition are in favour of privatisation, they would also sell Queensland Rail. What would happen if they did that? Quite simply, if that happened, they would shut down most of the regional rail services in Queensland because, other than coal rail lines and lines that are used for freighting other minerals, there is not a railway track in Queensland that makes a dollar in profit. Members of the coalition would say that they will close down Queensland Rail, but members of the Goss Labor Government will not do that. We just will not do that. If members of the coalition privatise QEC, what effect would that have? They would get rid of cross-subsidisation, and again they would kick regional Queensland. Members on the Government side of the House support public ownership unashamedly. Members on the Opposition side of the House are trying to have two bob each way. Mrs Sheldon spoke in favour of privatisation and then said she supports corporatisation, but not what the Government is proposing. Is she in favour of privatisation? Is she in favour of corporatisation? Quite frankly, from listening to her speech, I have not got a clue. Mr Pyke: She doesn’t know. Mr DAVIES: As the member for Mount Ommaney correctly interjects, she does not know. The two terms are not interchangeable and she is trying to use them interchangeably. Mr Beattie: That’s what happens when she reads a prepared speech. Mr DAVIES: That is the tragedy of that type of practice. As the honourable member for Brisbane Central can see, at this point I am not reading a prepared speech. She also said that she does not understand competition. Mr Connor: She didn’t say that. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3035

Mr DAVIES: I am sorry. I will correct myself. I think she said that we do not understand competition. During the Deputy Leader of the Coalition’s speech, the honourable member for Brisbane Central was trying desperately to get in an interjection, but he could not; so if he wants to interject now, I am prepared to wait for it. If he has forgotten what it was, I will refresh his memory. He said something to the effect of, “Well, Mrs Sheldon, we do understand competition on the Government side of the House. We understand that we’ve got 54 and you’ve got nine.” Obviously, that was a reference to the “imposing strength” of the numbers representing the Liberal Party of Queensland in this place. Mr Randell: I can remember when you had 11, and it will be back that way, too. Mr DAVIES: I take that interjection. From memory, I think that happened in around about 1972 or 1974. We are talking about 20-odd years ago. Mr Randell: It will be less than that, too. Mr DAVIES: I do not think the member for Mirani will be around to see us return to that. I can certainly tell him that I will not see it. Judging by the good example set by this Goss Government, we will never return to that. The corporatisation program will be successful. It is through initiatives such as corporatisation that the Labor Party will be in Government, not forever and a day, but for a long, long time. Mr De Lacy interjected. Mr DAVIES: As the Honourable the Minister correctly interjects, we will be here forever, let us hope. I want to place on record some important comments. I am on the Treasurer’s committee. I compliment the Treasurer for the wide consultation that he has had with the broader public, the trade union movement, his parliamentary committee and members of caucus. There has been extensive consultation, probably as much on this Bill as there has been on any other Bill, and that is appropriate because this is an incredibly important Bill. The Bill will change public life in Queensland. A Government member: A change for the better. Mr DAVIES: It will be a change for the better. Since we came to Government on 2 December 1989, we have made many changes for the better. When we came to Government, we said that we would provide a better, fairer deal for all Queenslanders through a substantial reform program. For the past three and a half years, that is what the Government has been doing. Those reforms have delivered real benefits to Queensland families, despite serious economic constraints on the State’s finances while the Government has met fundamental election commitments to improve education, health, police and the environment. Those basic reforms underpin the Government’s commitment to economic and social justice. We believe that a good education, a clean environment, adequate accessible health care, a helping hand for those in need, a secure community and a chance to earn a living are fundamental to a fair and decent society. In the most fundamental change, the Government abolished the notorious gerrymander. That is all that I will say about that. The Government has also maintained its commitment to the Fitzgerald report. Of the 127 relevant recommendations in that report, 117 have been adopted and implemented. In public life, the Government has made people more accountable. We have scrapped the ministerial credit cards and the cash advances. We have a written code of ethics for Ministers, an open register of pecuniary interests for members of State Parliament, and the list goes on and on. Nowhere is the Government’s commitment to accountability more important than on the economy. We have to be and we are accountable to the taxpayers of Queensland. The Government has maintained the three key principles outlined in the first Budget to ensure sound financial management through the funding of social assets such as schools and hospitals through revenue and not through borrowing. The Government has sufficient asset reserves to match accruing future liabilities such as workers’ compensation and superannuation, and borrowing for economic infrastructure is undertaken only when that infrastructure generates income to repay debt. 3036 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

As I said, the cornerstone of the Queensland Government’s record is its disciplined financial management. The Goss Government’s financial management is based on the trilogy of low taxation, full actuarial funding of long-term liabilities and restricting borrowing to economic assets. Under that approach, Queensland now has by far the lowest per capita tax collections of any State, by far the lowest State debt and is the only State—I repeat, the only State—to have reduced State debt in each of the past three financial years. Forecasts by Access Economics suggest that, under the current State Government policies, Queensland will be virtually debt free by 1995-96, whereas the combined State debt of the other States will be $93 billion. That statement is significant. By 1995-96, Access Economics thinks that Queensland will be debt free compared with the accumulated debt of the other States by then of some $93 billion. Mr De Lacy: Access has revised that in the light of the changes that were made in Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales. It’ll now be $88 billion, they reckon, in the other States. Mr DAVIES: $88 billion. Mr De Lacy: But Queensland is still net debt free. Mr DAVIES: The Treasurer deserves to be complimented for the way in which he has been steering the Queensland economy. One of the most important contributions— and I am sure that the Treasurer will agree with me here—— Dr Watson interjected. Mr DAVIES: I am sure that the member for Moggill will agree with me as well. One of the most important contributions that the Government can make to the business and industry sectors in Queensland is through the comparative advantage that it provides in the level of taxation compared with that of other States. The taxation policy of the Goss Government provides that competitive edge to business in Queensland by holding the line on payroll tax with the lowest rate and the highest threshold while other States have increased the rate and dropped their threshold; by refusing to join the other States in imposing a fuel tax or a financial institutions duty—FID; and by maintaining the lowest overall tax collections per capita. The latest figures from the Commonwealth Grants Commission indicate that, if Queensland had imposed the average taxation policy of all States in 1991-92, this State would have raised an extra $800m in additional revenue. The Government does not do it. That is our commitment to financial management. The Goss Government is committed to maintaining Queensland as the low-tax State. The Queensland Government has also been firmly committed to wide-ranging micro-economic reform to improve the efficiency of the State economy. The main focus of that has been on streamlining the public sector and improving its performance. Public sector efficiency is being enhanced by progressive corporatisation of Government owned enterprises. The detailed policy guidelines to govern the process of corporatisation were released by the Treasurer in early March 1992 in the White Paper on corporatisation in Queensland, yet we sat here a little while ago and heard the Deputy Leader of the Coalition—I think that is her title these days—— Mr Hollis: She’s up in the press gallery. Mr DAVIES: In the press gallery. Honourable members sat here and heard her say that there had been no consultation. I remind members of the House that the process started with the release of the White Paper in March 1992. Here we are, 14 or 15 months later, putting the Bill through the House. During that period of time, there has been an incredible process of consultation. The Goss Government has adopted a policy to encourage the private sector provision of public infrastructure. The policy guidelines for that were published on 5 May 1992. I want to say a few things about the Government Owned Corporations Bill. Firstly, corporatisation provides the centrepiece of the Goss Government’s second-term micro public sector reform agenda. Secondly, the case for micro-economic reform is inexorable. Thirdly, if we do not take charge of reform in Queensland, it will be imposed Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3037 upon us, anyhow, by the Federal Government. Commonwealth funding will probably be tied to State adherence to Industry Commission and National Competition Policy Review proposals. Fourthly, if we stand still in Queensland, the world will force change on us. I would be interested to know what the alternatives are that will come from the other side in this debate. If we stand still—— Mr Pearce: We will go backwards. Mr DAVIES: We will go backwards, as the member for Fitzroy said. However, if we stand still, change will be forced upon us. We are now ranked the twenty-first out of 33 countries in international competitiveness, down from twelfth in the early 1980s. Dr Watson: All under Labor. Mr DAVIES: No, it was the old farm gate mentality going back to Menzies—“She’ll be right, mate.” Australia rode on the sheep’s back. The Liberals did not worry about secondary industries or tertiary industries. All they worried about was the sheep’s back and tripping over to the UK to see the Queen. As Bill Kelty succinctly put it recently: “If you don’t change and don’t restructure, then you will be restructured.” Other States are moving. Queensland is on top and we have to stay on top. But the challenge for us is to catch up with our international competitors. Time expired. Mr LINGARD (Beaudesert—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (5.47 p.m.): The biggest flaw—and the biggest contradiction—in this Bill is the deliberate and interlocking web of mechanisms to protect public sector employment standards in Government owned corporations. The folly that this contradiction represents goes to the very heart—the very pretence—of the Government, or any Government, for corporatising Government businesses. The stated intent of any such process is to generate genuine and substantial improvements in the efficiency of Government businesses on behalf of the taxpayer, and for the benefit of the entire State. This need is now one of the guides for public administrators around the world. In Australia, recognition of the need for action on this front developed throughout the eighties, and some of the biggest advances were made here in Queensland by the former National Party Government. At the time, we were the first Government in the country to move. The process of streamlining management of our electricity industry after the industrial turmoil of the early eighties is the clearest case in point. The benefits that accrued to the people of Queensland from curbing the power of the Electrical Trades Union and reforming that industry were immense. We went from having the worst record of industrial disputation in the industry nationwide to the best and, chiefly through labour market reform, we began to produce the cheapest non-hydro power in the country, and we produced it reliably. A system of employment contracts, of contracting out certain works to the private sector, and management changes were important elements of the reforms at that time and have since been widely adopted elsewhere. Another key factor, and arguably the largest single factor in boosting productivity, was the matter of reducing the size of the work force in concert with variations to work practices. Now, there is no argument from this side of the House—no argument whatsoever—that there remains a great deal to be done to further improve the efficiency of Government enterprises. We owe it to the taxpayer to improve on the 4 per cent return of just over $1 billion achieved by our seven largest Government businesses on an asset base of about $25 billion in 1989-90. The level is way below the return on assets of which the private sector is capable, and which the public sector must increasingly emulate. The issue is simply how best to achieve that goal of ongoing public sector reform, and the demonstrable fact is that this Government’s motives and methods, as they are reflected in this Bill, are a joke. They are a disastrous and deceptive trick on the people of Queensland. This Government is demonstrably not really interested in improving the efficiency of Government businesses. It is interested in 3038 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly revenue, and only in revenue. This Bill represents the largest revenue Bill we will see from this Government in its second term. Corporatisation, as it is envisaged in this Bill, has the capacity to become the largest single source of State-based revenue in the Budget within the space of just a few years. Under this Bill, Government owned corporations will be charged full State taxation, full Commonwealth tax equivalents, full dividends, and levies on any borrowings guaranteed by the Government. Within the space of a couple of years, they will be paying hundreds of millions of dollars into consolidated revenue. That is the Government’s real plan for corporatisation in Queensland. It wants to turn Government businesses into the biggest milch cow in the history of this State. We are not dealing with an efficiency drive. We are dealing with a revenue drive disguised as an efficiency drive. The huge impost that the Government is set to impose on Government owned corporations via this Bill brings us back to the key issue of labour market reform and the most glaring weakness in this Bill, the weakness that proves to any thinking person that what we are dealing with is a revenue grab that has nothing to do with efficiency. We have two mature examples of the corporatisation process in our own region, and countless others around the world, to draw on in establishing beyond any doubt whatsoever that the principal means of providing Government owned corporations anywhere with the means to increase their efficiency and cost effectiveness to a level which will enable them to afford big demands from Government is genuine, substantial and rapid labour market reform. The history books show that without genuine, substantial and rapid labour market reform, we might as well not bother with corporatisation. If the whole point of corporatisation is to improve the efficiency of organisations, and then the largest single means by which they can effect those gains in efficiency is neglected, the matter is not being taken seriously and there must be another motive for all the rhetoric. The language of the Government throughout the longwinded process of planning leading to this Bill has shown a steady deterioration in its position on labour market issues under pressure from the public sector unions, from an already soft interpretation of the requirements in the Green Paper, to total submission. The Government’s push to protect public sector conditions in corporations was made clear as early in this process as April 1990. On page 2 of the Green Paper published at that time, this quotation appeared, which is the kiss of death to any meaning in the entire process. The Green Paper stated— “The Public Sector Management Commission will continue to have a role in setting public sector standards of employment.” I repeat—“public sector standards of employment”. It could not be expressed more clearly or more unambiguously. The whole basis of corporatisation is to get away from public sector standards of employment. If that is not part of the process, the whole reasoning behind it falls down. From the very beginning, from the Government’s first detailed public pronouncements on corporatisation, protection for public sector standards of employment was already enshrined. With those standards protected, the Treasury and the PSMC authors of the Green Paper went on to calm any concern in the unions that they might have to face one of the other basic imperatives of corporatisation—job losses. Employers and employees in the private sector have had to suffer the trauma of very substantial cuts in employment to make their operations more efficient. However, the Government—while trying to sell this package as an efficiency drive, ostensibly as a bid to cut costs for the taxpayer—is at pains to reassure the unions on job losses. Having promised a continuation of public sector employment standards, which removes one of the two major avenues of increased productivity via labour market reform, the Government shuts off the other. Downsizing of work forces is the classic means of rapidly boosting unit productivity. We might as well throw this Bill away, for all the good it will do the taxpayer. In fact, this Bill represents the biggest single threat to the taxpayers of Queensland ever seen in this House. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3039

The Government will bleed the GOCs dry via its revenue demands, while keeping them in a straitjacket that will deny them the only means by which they could possibly afford to meet those demands. That denial becomes ever more explicit the further the development of Government policy leading to this Bill is followed. By the time the Government’s White Paper on corporatisation was released in March last year, the degree to which the Government had bowed to the public sector unions was totally unambiguous and extremely detailed. In the White Paper, GOC employers have been tied down to reduce their ability to vary labour market conditions from public sector norms. The only pretence at trying to keep the truth of that position secret was a bit of lame double-speak. In the overview of the White Paper, this sentence appears— “Vigorous competition and the removal of special advantages and disadvantages—in the goods and services market as well as in labour and capital markets—would be important for improving GOE performance.” I am sure that will be a reference used by the Treasurer in his continuing bid to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of Queensland. But then this statement appears—and it must be read with the clear statement in the Green Paper in mind— “The Government is committed to ensuring that best practice standards of equity, merit and impartiality are adhered to in all Queensland Government employment areas. Thus, the Government would not allow its GOEs to establish inappropriate precedents in relation to employment and industrial relations arrangements.” That is a deceptive effort. I say that because the White Paper goes on to make it clear that any IR move with a GOE which might have public sector-wide implications would come within the ambit of inappropriate precedents. To ensure that GOE management avoided such situations, the White Paper indicated that they would need to consult with the Public Sector Management Commission and the Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations. As if the blanket protection promised in the Green Paper was not explicit enough to seek any variation from public sector standards, GOE managers will first have to get past Peter Coaldrake, Matt Foley and a Cabinet dominated by old union people. They also have to get past the Cabinet, because the “statement of corporate intent” for each GOE, which will be subject to dictate by Ministers, will also demand that an IR plan be included. Yet another specific protection for public sector employment conditions under corporatisation ALP-style appears in the overview. The context of the following comment is that the paper proposes that GOE management—that band of people who will have, according to the rhetoric, substantial autonomy and authority—will have a responsibility to “negotiate appropriate remuneration packages with relevant unions”. The paper then states— “These packages should consider all the benefits to which public servants or Crown employees were generally entitled.” One can hardly get a clearer direction than that. An indication of how insidious and far-reaching the Government is prepared to be in extending political control of the IR process is that the White Paper also indicates that Ministers will even be able to ensure that public sector employment conditions apply at the level of directors. According to the White Paper, boards will have the power to determine the terms and conditions of employment for the chief executive and senior executives of their respective GOE. Needless to say, the autonomy and authority of the board in this matter, as in every other matter, is qualified. Shareholding Ministers and, through them, the Cabinet, will have the power of veto where they consider either a proposed appointment to the rank of chief executive or senior executive or the terms and conditions of such an appointment are—and I quote again directly from the White Paper—“not in the best overall interests of the public sector”. Even the issue of who can 3040 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly be a chief executive and on what terms is the subject of political review and interference to ensure the maintenance of public sector standards. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m. Mr LINGARD: The limit on the ability of GOE management to offer contracts is another form of control over senior appointments and the conditions that apply to them. Senior executives will not have tenure which is, at least, one departure from the current treatment of the mainstream public sector Senior Executive Service under Dr Coaldrake. Honourable members might recall that, before the 1989 election, the Premier promised a contracted SES, and a system of remuneration was developed with the use of consultants that was meant to reflect private sector standards and to provide compensation for movement away from tenured positions. After the election, the Premier, on advice from Dr Coaldrake, did a backflip and, in fact, most positions in the SES are now filled by public servants who enjoy not only the enhanced conditions of the package developed by Cullen Egan Dell but also tenure. Contracts are applicable only in very limited circumstances in the SES. In GOEs, there is a variation on this curious theme in that senior executives will be denied tenure, and will also be denied contracts except in exceptional circumstances. So the Government gains another valuable tool to control employment practices at this very senior level, at which we will have the curious circumstance that contracts, which are now the norm at senior levels in the private sector, have been denied GOEs specifically. Of course, the result will be highly vulnerable chief executives and senior staff who can, by the various mechanisms provided by Government policy, be dumped at any time. They will have virtually no protection. Government control of those personnel by the appointment mechanisms hardly augers well for any degree of real independence. It would be a brave or foolish chief executive or senior manager who sought to display any genuine autonomy or authority on any matter, let alone what is obviously the sacred cow of this Bill, industrial relations. In terms of another specific condition of employment in the public sector, superannuation, the White Paper even establishes a mechanism to protect public sector superannuation in GOEs. Although GOEs certainly will have the ability to develop their own superannuation plans according to the White Paper and the Bill, anyone who transfers to a GOE from the public sector—and I take this to mean either at the time of inception of a GOE or at any other later stage—will have the option of remaining in the Government scheme, and the GOE will be bound to make a contribution to the Government fund at the rates applicable to that fund. Public sector appeal mechanisms will effectively be protected. Although disciplinary appeals and promotion will be potentially subject to some variations from public sector norms by GOE management, its room to move will, in fact, be curtailed substantially by the PSMC which will—and I quote again from the White Paper—“monitor the situation to ensure the GOE employees are generally satisfied with their appeal mechanism”. Since the principal point of contact for the PSMC under a Labor Government, which has, pointedly, established a closed shop in public employment in Queensland, will be the public sector unions, everyone knows that the satisfaction of employees that the PSMC will be providing will be the satisfaction provided by existing public sector conditions. So there exists in Government policy on labour-market issues as they relate to GOEs an intricate cross-referencing of controls—some subtle, some direct—to ensure the protection of all conditions of public sector employment. A nicety, and perhaps the most subtly powerful of all of those controls, does not appear in the White Paper. It is the ultimate safety net for the unions, and it has apparently been imposed on the Government since the White Paper. I refer to clause 175 of the Bill that relates to the rights of public servants employed by a GOE to return— potentially, at any time—to the public service. The clause states that any public servant employed by a GOE who wants to return to the public service not only will be able to do so at any time he or she wishes in the first year and at any time thereafter at the discretion of the Minister but also he or she will be regarded as having remained a Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3041 member of the public service for the duration of his or her employment with the GOE. That is the real coup de grace for any would-be board member, or senior manager, who embarks on his or her task with any misunderstanding that he or she will be able to change the public service culture of the organisation. Every public servant who enters a GOE at the time it becomes a GOE or afterwards does so as a public servant and will, to all intents and purposes, remain a public servant. Any move by any GOE to vary any public service condition of employment based on that catch-22 situation, let alone all the other interlocking protective mechanisms, will clearly be hopelessly restricted. The unions will have the GOE by the throat in a variety of ways, but perhaps none are more powerful than that provision. The Opposition is aware that the Government knows the path that it has adopted is really folly. The Opposition knows that, very early in the piece, the Government even made a half-hearted effort to get away from public sector employment conditions. The Opposition is even aware that some of the Premier’s most senior advisers, including none other than Kevin Rudd and his principal economics adviser, Paul Woodlands, are well aware that the course that the Government has adopted is a political cop-out that, for reasons glaringly obviously to everybody, will ultimately cost the State dearly. In terms of improved efficiency, the protection of public sector employment standards in GOEs is a total contradiction, and it is absolute madness if the aim is to reasonably achieve major revenue gains on the back of such efficiency gains. Protection of those standards only makes sense if people have a Government like the one that they have today which desperately wants to get its hands on very large sums of money quickly, with absolutely no sense of responsibility whatsoever about the long-term impact of what it is doing. Under this Bill, Queensland is facing a situation in which the Government wants revenue, and will take that revenue with no regard whatsoever to whether the corporation will be able to afford to pay it. Saddled with public sector employment conditions, Queensland’s GOEs will not be able to afford those payments. The plan is clear: for a few years, the Government will be able to get away with it. Corporations will meet the Government’s demands by selling assets and running down reserves. However, the inevitable result will be that they will be run into the ground, and will progressively become cot cases which, down the track, will place a massive burden on Queensland’s taxpayers. By this Bill, the Government is stating quite clearly that it does not care. It is displaying the same irresponsible spending habits and the same irresponsible approach to the future that, for over a decade, has marked every other State Government of the same political persuasion in this country. Ultimately, the result be exactly the same as that which occurred in those other States. Time expired. Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (7.37 p.m.): The two Opposition members who have spoken to this Bill, that is, the member for Caloundra and the member for Beaudesert, have continued the theme of demeaning the worker. They continued the theme that they, the coalition—the Nats and the Libs—are born to rule, and that they are the only ones who can be the directors, because nobody else has the skills to do the work for Government owned enterprises. That is all garbage. Let us examine what they said. Time and time again, they continued to say that public sector workers cannot be as efficient as workers in private enterprise. What a ridiculous proposal! Can they tell me that the Commonwealth Bank is any less efficient than Westpac? Westpac, which is a private enterprise organisation, has written off millions of dollars through bad debts. How can members opposite claim that someone who works in private enterprise is more efficient than someone who works in public enterprise? The underlying assumption is that a worker in private enterprise is more efficient than a worker in the public sector. I reject that outright. Those members implied that an operation conducted in a private hospital is a productive service, whereas an operation conducted in a public hospital is just a cost to the community. How outrageous! They also implied that a lamb producer is a productive part of our society, whereas a meatworker who cuts that meat into a good side of lamb that can then be sold is just a downright ignorant worker. Clearly, this is nonsense. 3042 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

I say to those members: do not judge this Government by yourselves. For decades, members opposite have tried to manipulate organisations. I cite the example of Graham Tucker, who resigned from the QIDC because he would not toe the Opposition’s line. He knew that he was there to do a proper job, and he left out of disgust. He is now doing a good job with Suncorp. Members opposite claim that for an organisation to achieve productivity and become efficient, it must enter the private sector. How ridiculous! All three Government owned enterprises in Queensland are performing above the industry average. Last year, the QIDC made a profit of $15.5m on a $70m capital investment by the Government. Last year, Suncorp provided a return to the Government of $80m, representing an increase of 15 per cent on the figure for the previous year. Members opposite demean the directors of organisations such as the QIC on the basis that they might have a background in the trade union movement, yet the QIC has been gaining three points above the industry average as a return on assets. If we can put union people into organisations and achieve three percentage points above the industry average on investment, I will have them any day. I will have them before the Bonds, the Skases and the Elliotts—those Liberal directors. Members opposite should not blame the workers. It is not necessary to privatise an organisation in order to make it more efficient. As a Government owned enterprise, the railways have improved productivity per person. For the first time, the railways have returned a profit. We are going the right way. Both Opposition spokesmen claimed that what this Government is doing represents a money grab. How hypocritical! Does the House know what those two members want to do? They want to sell all those organisations—get rid of them. That is the money grab. They have said in this House that they will sell the QIDC, the QIC and Suncorp. That is the money grab. They should not be hypocritical, because they are the ones who are playing the double dip. The Opposition spokesmen also said that this is all about labour market reform, and complained about having to have an industrial relations plan. An industrial relations plan means that there will not be industrial relations conflict. Those members lived on industrial relations conflict. Under Labor, with a State Labor Government and a Federal Labor Government, we have had the lowest number of strikes and the lowest number of hours in lost time in decades. That is on the record. I would rather have industrial relations plans, which mean fewer strikes, fewer lost hours and greater productivity. Another argument put forward by the Opposition spokesman is that we must go into private enterprise and sell off the assets of the people in order to create a level playing field, so that market forces can drive prices. Members have seen so many adulterated markets that they know that we cannot rely on market forces to drive prices down. In actual fact, it is the monopolies in private enterprise that maintain higher prices. We have seen that again and again. Opposition members attacked any directors of corporatised Government enterprises. They also implied that a public servant is somehow not as good as someone who comes from private enterprise. There are good directors in the public sector. Leo Hielscher spent something like 34 years in the public sector, and I believe that he did as credible a job as any captain in private industry or any director of any company. Mr Littleproud: Who has attacked him? Mr CAMPBELL: Throughout this debate, Opposition members have attacked him by saying that the Government will appoint directors on a basis other than merit and that they will ensure that these corporations do not operate to the best of their ability. Under the Labor Government, major labour market reforms have occurred. Unions have amalgamated, which has meant a decrease in the number of demarcation disputes. What has also occurred is that, through the Accord, workers have made sacrifices and accepted reductions in real wages. The honourable member should not say that it is always the workers’ fault. For some unknown reason, there is a perception that public sector employees are inefficient. I reject that. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3043

Mr Littleproud: Who said that? Mr CAMPBELL: It has been said again and again. I have found most public servants to be dedicated and hard working. Often in the past, they have accepted lower wages for something that I believe in very much—security and stability. I do not agree that people should be entering into contracts and selling themselves off to the highest bidder. I believe in the old ethic of the public service of accepting lower wages in exchange for security and stability. Honourable members opposite and rational economists might disagree with me, but that is an important part of my Labor philosophy, and I will stick by it. I will deal further with the perception that public servants cannot be efficient. If public servants are given a chance to be efficient, they will be. It is always the system and the management that hold them back. For example, in 1988, the cost of producing a page of Hansard was $156.81. In 1993, the cost has been reduced to $37.50. Why would anyone want to change a system that has been able to achieve such efficiency in the public sector? I cite the example of Q-Build. I become annoyed when I hear that, in my electorate, Q-Build is not allowed to take on more contracts, because often it can do the job more cheaply than, or as cheaply as, private enterprise can. What is more, we know that it will do a good job, because it has to come back and fix any lousy jobs. An important aspect is that the subcontractors are always going to get paid. Mr Littleproud: Sometimes they are a bit late in paying. There are some people out there who are complaining about them being late in paying bills. Mr CAMPBELL: That is interesting. When the honourable member was in Government, it took three months to pay subcontractors; under this Government, it takes 14 days. The important point is that subcontractors get paid. There is nothing worse than having a subcontractor who is working on a project go into liquidation because he has not been paid for the work that he has performed. An underlying assumption is that people from a union background are not as efficient or effective as are the captains of business. If people do the right thing, the Government acknowledges their efforts. In the Queensland Investment Corporation, the Government reappointed Ben McDonald, who was a National Party trustee, simply because he was doing a good job. This Government does not crucify people, as the former Government did when it hounded Sinclair out of Queensland simply because he did not agree with its policies. Opposition members should not judge Government members by their own standards. Another aspect I raise is that the productivity gains that have been made should be maintained. Over the past 10 years, the number of customers of the Wide Bay-Burnett Electricity Board has increased by 38 per cent. At the same time, the number of employees has decreased by 23 per cent. The number of new connections has increased from 2 000 to 3 000 a year—an increase of 50 per cent. Electricity sales over that period have increased by 105 per cent. In other words, the number of customers per employee has increased from 121 to 215. In effect, that organisation has been making major productivity gains. The Government will ensure that those types of gains continue in future. Corporatisation will ensure that those gains continue by allowing more flexibility. My concern about corporatisation relates to certain aspects of accountability. I am concerned that, when they are corporatised, GOEs will be required to be too accountable. GOEs should have the same accountability measures as do organisations in the private sector. Since the days of Fitzgerald, Government entities have been expected to be too accountable. We must ensure that organisations are able to operate. For instance, the administration costs involved when members of Parliament incur expenses in servicing their constituency—salaries, office costs and so on—are $84,000 a member. That is outrageous, but it occurs because the system has to be so accountable to everybody and it is difficult for the system to be efficient. I would like to see the administration of Parliament House corporatised so that those administration costs are reduced from 72c in the dollar to 25c in the dollar, which would be a saving of 3044 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

$55,000 a member. We must ensure that we do not go overboard on accountability. If Government bodies are to enter the private market and be competitive, they must be able to operate in a manner similar to the way in which private enterprise operates. As many performance indicators are financial, we look at productivity and efficiency. Other aspects should be considered. Although economic goals are important, we often forget things such as security and stability. I think that when things really become difficult we have to make certain that we have a system that also provides for security and stability. As I have said, we have to get away from over-accountability. It is important in the running of a good, efficient and productive organisation that directors or executive directors are able to use their own judgment. Often, the systems currently in place take the responsibility of judgment from management. It is that innate commonsense or understanding that allows one to make the right decisions, the good decisions. We cannot just rely on facts and figures; we must allow people that flexibility to make a judgment. Regardless of whether an organisation is called a Government owned corporation, a Government owned enterprise or some other type of public body, if people are going to be in the same positions doing exactly the same job, there is no change. Inefficient people can be at the top in the private sector, in large companies and in the public sector. We must ensure that we have the right system and the right management to allow people to achieve their full potential. That is an important aspect. I suppose that tonight we are debating corporatisation. Let us consider what it is. It is the structural reform process which changes the conditions under which Government owned enterprises operate so that they are placed as far as is practical on a commercial basis in a competitive environment while allowing the Government, as owner, to continue to provide broad direction by setting key financial and non-financial performance targets and community service obligations. If we keep in mind that the Government is going to retain ownership with the people—the Government does not want privatisation; it does not want to play a money grabbing role and go in the direction in which the Opposition wants to go—and the Government is going to set the financial performance targets and ensure the maintenance of proper community service obligations through greater efficiency, we will provide more services to the people of Queensland. Dr WATSON (Moggill) (7.55 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Government Owned Corporations Bill 1993. As indicated already, the Opposition will not be supporting this Bill. We did not come to this decision lightly. The Liberal Party and the National Party, both in Government and in Opposition throughout Australia, have indicated that they support the commercialisation, corporatisation or privatisation of Government commercial activities whenever appropriate. What is extremely disappointing is that the Queensland Labor Government has failed to produce a Bill on this critical area which can command the support of the Opposition, even though the Opposition is philosophically attuned to the concept of corporatisation. The Government has squandered an historic opportunity to introduce a reform which will truly enhance the efficiency of this sector of Government and which had, at the same time, the Opposition’s support. What I intend to do over the next several minutes is two things: firstly, I will outline what the absolutely critical steps are for embracing a successful corporatisation program; and, secondly, I will demonstrate, by reference to the Bill, why Queensland Labor has failed. The critical steps for a successful corporatisation program are not ones that I have devised so as to make it impossible for the Government’s proposal to pass. They are, in fact, the key points made by numerous commentators on this subject, and ones which feature prominently in the Government’s own White Paper on corporatisation. The three critical points are: firstly, the separation of commercial objectives from the broader social objectives of the Government, that is, the community service obligations and the regulatory framework; secondly, the establishment of competitive markets in which the GOC operates, particularly its product market and labour market and, to the extent possible, its capital market; and, thirdly, the effective Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3045 monitoring and control of the GOC through a commercially competent and truly independent board of directors. I will outline briefly the Opposition’s view on each of these issues, then specify why the Government has failed to satisfy the Opposition with this Bill. The primary key to successfully reforming Government commercial activities is to clearly separate the commercial objectives from the social objectives, generally referred to as community service obligations. If this is not done, as is the situation with most traditional Government departments, it is impossible to measure quantitatively the performance of the Government organisation in meeting its commercial objectives. Consequently, it is impossible to judge its economic efficiency. The traditional departmental organisation is an organisation with mixed objectives—one in which commercial objectives, regulatory requirements and community objectives are interwoven. The one Minister is responsible for running a business enterprise, regulating fairly the business environment in which the Minister’s own department also competes and, finally, achieving the social objectives of the Government in the area of ministerial responsibility without, of course, sacrificing the commercial aspects of the task. Overall, this is a wholly unworkable scenario and one guaranteed to be economically inefficient. Effective control of managers and the monitoring of their performance requires that they be given a clear set of non-conflicting objectives against which their performance can be measured. This is achieved by separating the commercial objectives from the other objectives and establishing separate entities to achieve the commercial objectives. Quite separate Ministries should be responsible for achieving the Government’s legitimate social objectives and for monitoring the regulatory environment for the industry. Competition is the driving force for greater efficiency in a free enterprise based economy. Consequently, in order to gain most from reforming the organisational structure of Government commercial activities, competition must be enhanced in each of the markets within which the entity acts. When competition is not introduced or where monopolies are maintained, it must be concluded that improving economic efficiency is not the primary goal of the Government. Other goals such as maximising a revenue stream must then be considered as the major reason for corporatising the entity. For simplicity, three markets can be identified: the product market, the labour market, and the capital market. Product market competition ensures that the prices for the product or service will be driven down close to the cost of supply of the most efficient producer. Any enterprise that cannot achieve this level of productive efficiency will lose market share, sustain losses and eventually go out of business. Product market competition also helps to discipline the investment planning of enterprises, thus ensuring an appropriate long-run industry capacity. It is important to note that a market can be competitive even though there is only one producer in the market. Providing it is easy for other enterprises to enter the market—meaning there are few barriers to entry—the mere threat of entry can effectively discipline the market. In this case, the market is referred to as “contestable”. Many Government commercial activities operate in neither a competitive nor contestable market but are protected from competition by Government regulation. In order to gain economic efficiency, it is crucial that such Government-inspired barriers to entry are removed. Economic efficiency will be enhanced as more such artificial barriers are removed. In order to attract the appropriate personnel with the optimum level of qualifications and experience—particularly at managerial levels, professional levels or in the skilled trades—Government commercial enterprises must be able to compete for employees in the same manner as private sector employers do. Without this flexibility, it is likely that Government enterprises will have to choose their personnel from a smaller pool of applicants or from ones with less experience or expertise. In addition, if these organisations cannot provide competitive remuneration and other conditions, it will be difficult for them to retain skilled personnel. Actions, rules or regulations that arbitrarily restrict which individuals can be recruited, retained or removed reduce the ability of an enterprise to be completely competitive and, thus, over the longer term, reduce the 3046 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly ability of the organisation to react to changing market conditions. This lowers the economic efficiency of such organisations. Consequently, it is important to remove barriers such as public service employment conditions from Government enterprises with commercial objectives in order to permit these entities to contract with their own employees in an optimal fashion. Economic efficiency will be enhanced to the extent that labour market conditions for Government commercial activities parallel those for private enterprise activities. The major distinction between a corporatised Government commercial activity and a privatised activity is the degree of competition each faces in the capital market. A fully privatised activity is subject to the ultimate capital market discipline, namely, a change in its ownership if performance is unsatisfactory. A corporatised or commercialised Government activity is simply not subjected to this test. However, some degree of competition can be introduced even for corporatised entities. For example, such entities can be required to raise debt capital on the open market. They can also have removed any Government guarantee privileges. Government corporatised entities can be subjected to the same taxation and financial ratio requirements as are private firms, the same financial reporting requirements, and the same regulatory requirements. In short, these enterprises can be required to operate in an environment of competitive neutrality vis-a-vis competition between private enterprises and Government-owned enterprises. The closer that the capital market competitive environment is to one of competitive neutrality, the more economic efficiency will be enhanced. The process adopted to monitor and control a GOC can be divided into two parts: firstly, appointment of a board of directors and, secondly, monitoring of the ongoing performance of the GOC. The duties and responsibilities of the board should be similar to those of any private corporation, namely, to manage the GOC in the best interests of the owner, which in this case is the State. The relationship between the board and the State should be governed largely by an Act of Parliament. The relationship between the board and the rest of the company is determined by normal commercial practice. The board should have broad authority over the operations of the GOC. There should be no specific constraints or limits placed on the board by the Government that do not also apply to other enterprises that are not owned by the State. Finally, because the board is expected to operate as any business board does, the members of the board should have the requisite commercial, business and professional experience to monitor and control professional managers. Provided that the commercial objectives are clear and are not confused with social objectives, neither Ministers nor public servants need to be appointed to the board. The central feature of any monitoring regime for a GOC is the annual preparation of the Statement of Corporate Intent—the SCI—by the GOC and its review by the shareholding Ministers. The key elements of an SCI must include— the nature and scope of the business activities of the GOC; the performance targets for the next three years; the level of the dividend to be paid; the information to be provided to shareholding Ministers during the year; the procedures to be followed when the GOC invests in any other company or organisation; and any non-commercial objective—that is, community service obligation, and any compensation that the GOC expects to receive from the Government for pursuing such objectives. The SCI must be made public. This is to ensure an adequate flow of information to the public so that they can make judgements regarding the performance of the corporation. Because there are no private incentives for investors to gather information on their own initiative—which, of course, contrasts with the situation of investors in private enterprise firms who can gain from their own investigations—a more formal and Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3047 explicit public reporting mechanism on the expectations of the organisation and its performance must be established. The primary obligation rests with the board to ensure that the SCI meets the objectives and criteria laid out in the governing Act. Ministers may provide comments or suggestions concerning the SCI, but should not be able to require a change to be made except by issuing a formal directive. Such a directive must be made public. This ensures that other objectives do not contaminate the publicly specified objectives of the GOC and thus interfere with monitoring the performance of the organisation. Having outlined briefly how the Opposition sees the critical issues for corporatisation, I will now turn to examining how the Government's Bill fails to satisfy those fundamental criteria. Mr Randell: It fails badly, too. Dr WATSON: The honourable member for Mirani is right. The first issue is the clear separation of objectives. While the Government has stated this principle in clause 19 (a) of the Bill, this is systematically restricted in subsequent clauses, namely, clauses 79, 123, 124, 159 (3), 161 and 163. Clauses 123 and 124 are exceptionally broad clauses which allow public sector policies and other Government policies to interfere with the running of the corporation, if the shareholding Ministers determine it is in the public interest to do so. Once this is done, the GOC board is compelled to operate in what a Minister determines is in the public interest despite the fact that this may interfere with the GOC meeting its commercial objectives. As there is no objective definition or guide presented in the Bill as to what it means to be acting “in the public interest”, one can only conclude that this permits an arbitrary interference in the conduct of the GOC's affairs. Again, clauses 161 and 163 represent a direct interference with the GOC and a blurring of its objectives. Mr Vaughan: We are not in Committee yet. Dr WATSON: I am not talking to those clauses; I am just talking generally about them. The honourable member should know that. He has been a Minister and he has been in this place long enough. The restriction placed on a GOC regarding disposal of an asset—which is deemed by the GOC board to be no longer required in order to meet its commercial objectives at the direction of a shareholding Minister who does not have to specify any reason for doing so—is clearly contrary to the principle of clarity of objectives. Similar reasoning applies to clause 163—the acquisition or disposal of a subsidiary. Finally, under certain conditions, clauses 79, 159 (3) and 162 could also have a similar impact. The second issue concerns the introduction of competition. This is addressed by the Government in clause 19 (d), Principle 4—competitive neutrality. Although that clause outlines the principle in an appropriate form, other aspects of the Bill and the Treasurer’s second-reading speech give cause for concern with respect to the Government’s real commitment to the concept of competitive neutrality. The Government’s attitude to labour market reform raises the greatest of concerns. Here, there is demonstrated a desire to make the GOC conform to a predetermined industrial relations position. First, under clause 171 the GOC must consult with the Public Sector Management Commission and the Government department that deals with industrial relations. These are clearly additional burdens for the GOC that are not required of private enterprise corporations. The reason for their inclusion is clearly to subject the corporation to pressure to conform with Government policy in the area and to inhibit open negotiation between employees and the GOC. Second, it is both pertinent and noticeable that in clause 171 a direction under subclause (6) by the shareholding Ministers is not required to be made public. That stands in stark contrast to a number of other clauses in the Bill where directions by a Minister must be made public, and in contrast to the principle of public accountability for performance. The only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that the Government intends to direct the industrial relations policy of the GOCs in a way that reduces labour market competition and saddles the GOC with unnecessarily restrictive work practices. 3048 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr Connor: They can keep that quiet. Dr WATSON: They can keep that quiet as it is explicitly not mentioned in the Bill. As any student of corporatisation around the world will tell honourable members, if a Government restricts labour market reform, it will not gain increased economic efficiency with corporatisation. Finally, the bail out provision in clause 174 also raises questions about the Government’s commitment to industrial reform, especially during the first 12 months of operation of a GOC. A second major concern is the Government’s lack of commitment to increasing competition in the product and capital markets. The Treasurer has stated explicitly that corporatisation should not be construed as a step towards privatisation. Consequently, we cannot assume that the entity will eventually be privatised and, in that process, the Government monopoly eliminated and the potential for competition enhanced. There is no other explicit attempt to introduce competition in the product markets. As the Bill is meant to define the principles of corporatisation, the absence of any elaboration on the establishment of competition in that area is a serious deficiency. Without further guarantees that Government-imposed barriers to entry will be eliminated, it must be assumed that the Government intends to maintain minimal or zero competition in the areas corporatised and intends to use those corporations to raise revenue in an unhindered fashion. Finally, to be fair, the Treasurer has introduced in clauses 154, 155, 157 and 158 aspects which add to the competitive neutrality of the capital market area. However, those will be insufficient to overcome the major deficiencies in the labour and product market areas. The third and final area of concern is in the composition and independence of the board of directors. The principles outlining the accountability and management of the GOCs are stated in clauses 19 (b) and 19 (c). Although the Opposition would support the general statements contained in those subclauses, those principles are effectively undone by clauses 96 (2), 123, 124, 132, 159 (3), 171 and clauses 1, 2 and 15 of Schedule 1. As discussed earlier in this speech, clauses 123, 124, 159 (3) and 171 permit significant direction by the shareholding Ministers of the board of directors. Clause 132 even allows the shareholding Ministers to delete what they consider—note, not what the board considers, but what the Ministers consider—to be commercially sensitive information from the annual report. Once again, that direction does not need to be made public. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Miss Simpson): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Dr WATSON: In addition, both the chairman and deputy chairman are appointed by the Governor in Council rather than being elected by the board itself. That permits further undue influence on the functioning of the board. The Bill also makes it possible for public servants to be appointed to the boards, which further inhibits the independence of the boards. That possibility is not only not excluded, but also clause 15 of Schedule 1 makes explicit provision for officers who leave the public service to be automatically terminated as a director. As public servants have an overriding responsibility to a Government department, and thus a Minister, it is totally unreasonable to expect them to act as independent commercially oriented board members. Finally, it is noticeable that the Government makes no pretence that it will establish boards that comprise only commercially competent individuals. Clause 96 (2) permits the appointment to the GOC boards of individuals who have skills related to commerce or to the matters included in the statement of corporate intent. Given that the SCI includes industrial relations matters and other community service obligations, there is no doubt the Government intends to appoint its union mates and its Left Wing running mates to those boards. That will ensure that the boards are denied a full range of appropriate commercial and professional experience, as well as ensuring that issues of a non- commercial nature are introduced to the decision making on a regular basis at the highest levels of the organisations with no way of explicitly determining how that has influenced the decisions of the board. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3049

In conclusion, the Government Owned Corporations Bill has failed to address satisfactorily the three key steps for the successful corporatisation of Government commercial activities. The Government has failed to ensure: firstly, that the commercial objectives of the GOC remain uncontaminated by other Government objectives; secondly, that the GOCs can implement employment practices that are commercially sound; and, thirdly, that a commercially competent and truly independent board of directors is appointed. Although the Government has made the pretence early in the Bill, in clause 19, that it is establishing a truly commercially oriented GOC, many of the remaining clauses severely compromise the intent expressed in clause 19. The inability of the Government to stick to the principles enunciated in clause 19 raises the issue: what is the real motivation of the Government? The only possible conclusion is that the Government is driven by the desire to gain significant extra revenue from that source over the next five years. Although the Government may very well gain the extra revenue, it will not gain the extra efficiencies that it requires. Queenslanders will inevitably face either higher prices for the services provided by the GOCs or reduced quality of service. Mr D’ARCY (Woodridge) (8.15 p.m.): It is interesting that in the debate on this Bill the Opposition has to be philosophically aligned with the proposals of the Government, yet it has indicated that, on technicalities, it will oppose the legislation. This Bill is probably the most significant financial measure introduced by the Goss Government in its time in office. It is legislation that every constituent and every member of Parliament should be supporting. The technicalities to which the Opposition refers are related largely to the two matters that the member who has just resumed his seat mentioned. One is that this legislation is a money grab. In an endeavour to be efficient, what Government would not be accused of money grabbing? In fact, money grabbing is only an issue when the money is misused. Any taxation is only about efficiency, competency and how that money is used. Governments collect money. It is part of the job. That is why all members here are elected. Members opposite should not forget that. This Bill aims for efficiency and seeks to streamline some of the things that should have been done many years ago. Those provisions will make this State a better place. For the Opposition to oppose the Bill in principle on technicalities is probably one of the worst efforts I have seen in my 20-odd years in this place. It is a disgrace for the Opposition to say about a Bill that is doing something for everybody in Queensland, that is doing something to make taxation more efficient in every area, “We are opposing this on technicalities.” Members opposite should shudder when they oppose this Bill on the floor of the House tonight, which is their indication. As I said, they spoke about this Bill being a money grab. That means nothing. It is taxation, which is a part of the efficiency of Government. All Governments levy taxes. It is how the end figure is arrived at that is important. The other area that has been attacked by the Opposition is the labour market. Members opposite said that the labour market is a major point in this Bill and that the way in which the Government has handled that aspect within the Bill is different. It is not different. That is the point that should be made about the labour market. The same negotiations are undertaken with every operation in the State, whether it be a private enterprise operation, a new tourist operation or any other operation. The fact of life is that the labour markets are always negotiable. Under this Bill, they are negotiable. Within the Bill there is protection for workers, and there should be. As I said, that is always negotiable. The main thing about the Bill is that it is a Bill about efficiency, streamlining operations and accountability. Most members would not really be able to come to terms with the pressure that has been brought to bear on any Government in Australia today to make sure that it is accountable. Accountability in Government at the highest level is probably one of the most important things that we are facing in the next decade. I think it has been pointed out that if the Government had not introduced this Bill, this legislation would have been forced on it because of accountability in the national sense. In today’s age, one cannot have an accountability situation that does not have a bottom 3050 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly line, that has hidden drawers and has the hive-offs for accountability. Since members opposite have been in Opposition, they have continually accused the Government of raiding the hollow logs. To a large extent, this Bill does away with that. This Bill discloses the hollow logs that the honourable member for Moggill spoke about. The Bill is about accountability. The honourable member has been harping on about that. This Bill ensures it. One of my complaints about the Bill is that, because it does give accountability in each of those areas, it would allow a future Government of a conservation persuasion to sell off the birthright of Queenslanders by actually taking these things, privatising them and selling them off. That is a possibility for a future Government. Governments have to be accountable. This Bill achieves that. Some people on this side have been apprehensive about this Bill. I cannot blame them. We have heard about the CSOs and the obligations that all Governments have and how they are built into Government and into taxation. They are certainly built into this Bill. They are certainly built into some of the candidates which will be put forward for corporatisation. The fact is that that is a worry for everybody here. Because accountability for this legislation does come back to the Parliament, I was convinced that this Bill was sound not only in its application but also for the people of Queensland. The accountability comes back to the people who are elected. That is one of the major things that all of us can look at and say, “Well, we are going to corporatise. We are going to make things efficient. We are going to find many things that we didn’t know existed and make them more accountable.” But when we do that, we are not going to follow the model that was followed in South Australia, Victoria or even New South Wales, where the Governments distanced themselves from the corporations which were introduced and which had access to Government funds and could spend and borrow on behalf of the Government. The bottom line in the system that has been worked out within this Bill is that there is an accountable Minister. In fact, there are two accountable Ministers—the portfolio Minister and the Treasurer. With them as the shareholders, they will deal with a board which has been appointed, but which is a corporate board that oversees. I have heard most of the previous speakers in the debate and I do not think anyone has really understood the structure of what is proposed. The structure is that it comes back to that board that oversees the running of the corporation. By that consultative process, we are dealing not just with bureaucrats but with business people with acumen, people who have the capacity to be able to be appointed to those boards and who have the capacity to understand the industry that they are in and the Government’s needs in that industry. That is tremendously important. It underlines something of which we in Government and all those in business are aware. Any operation is only as good as the personnel who are appointed to it. I have made the point with the Treasurer—and he does not agree with me—that he must appoint to these boards people who have a real commitment to the aims of the Government in relation to corporatisation. That will be achieved only if board appointees divest themselves of other corporate allegiances while they are serving the Government at a corporate level. Those people can undertake their duties as a public service, as they do in other countries. Any organisation is only as good as the people who run it. Even after this legislation is passed, it could well sit on the shelf. The legislation means nothing until a candidate is put forward. The legislation adopts the global model for candidate GOCs. The Treasurer has suggested several bodies as candidate GOCs. Those candidates make sense. Most of them are presently heading towards corporatisation. The candidates include the QIC, the QIDC, Suncorp, the QESI, the Harbours Corporation, the port authorities and QR. They have a low component of CSOs. That is important, because the model must work. It can be adjusted. At times, shortcomings will be identified. Although the Opposition has raised some technical objections, I am confident that the vast majority of Queenslanders are in favour of this legislation and the concept of corporatisation. That is the most important thing to me. The rubbish that the Opposition has been carrying on with and the technicalities to Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3051 which its members have referred do not really matter. They do not matter at all. The claims of members opposite during this debate have really just been pipedreams. This is an important Bill. Members opposite should not procrastinate. If they want to object to technicalities, they should do so briefly. However, by opposing this Bill, they are making fools of themselves. They are not allowing this debate to flow as it should. I was amazed to hear the member for Caloundra announce that the Opposition wants a parliamentary committee to oversee one of the processes. The Opposition has discovered committees only since it has been on the other side of the Chamber. For the first 20 years of my time in this place, when the National Party was in Government, we could not make the Government accountable in any way. This legislation represents the direction in which government is heading these days. It is the proper way to go, and it is an accountable system. Those are the major observations that I want to make. This is a tremendously important Bill, and it will have a long-term effect on Queensland’s future. For almost two years, a process of conciliation has been carried out within the Government and with the public. This legislation has been drafted and redrafted. Most of the speeches by members opposite appeared to refer to the White Paper, which has been out for a very long period. It has been amended and changed significantly. It is disappointing that the Opposition is attempting to block this legislation. I think that all Queenslanders realise that this step had to be taken, no matter which party was in Government. It is sad that the Opposition opposes the legislation on technicalities. The fact is that the Bill will work. It is not privatisation, and in that sense it is probably not what the Opposition would have hoped for. However, privatisation is not the policy of this Government. This measure will work better for the people of Queensland. The obligations that we have to the community in various areas—the CSOs—can be protected under this legislation. Mr RANDELL (Mirani) (8.28 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to speak on this very important Bill. I am pleased to follow the member for Woodridge. Even though he deviated a couple of times, he was honest enough to state the position as it is. He stated also that he has some misgivings about this legislation. The Opposition also has misgivings, and we would be failing in our duty if we did not bring them to light. I am proud to follow the excellent and concise contribution by my colleague the member for Moggill. I suggest to Government members that, if they obtain a copy of that speech and read it impartially, they might learn something. In common with my Opposition colleagues, I oppose this legislation because I believe that it will be to the detriment of the citizens of this great State. I believe that the taxes that have already been imposed directly and, more importantly, indirectly by this Government should be sufficient to supply the services required by the citizens of this State, without further burdening them with a user-pays system. No doubt exists that the National Party Government left this State in a superb economic condition. After four years of Labor, this State is slowly starting to slide back—just as Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia did. Mr Stephan: No more hollow logs. Mr RANDELL: That is right—they have just about run out of them. What a legacy this Government will leave for the citizens of this State and their children! In Victoria, the ALP and the unions have left the people with a debt of $30 billion. That is $45,000 a head, and we are certainly going down the same track. A Government member interjected. Mr RANDELL: I love that sound. It means that I am getting under the Government’s skin. However, the Government has not copped it all yet. Corporatisation is certainly not favoured by the vast majority of people in this State, and possibly one of those people is the Government’s favourite son, Dr Coaldrake. When Dr Coaldrake addressed the State conference of the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants, a report stated— 3052 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

“State Government should be wary of the pitfalls which corporatisation and regionalisation of government agencies may present, cautions Dr Peter Coaldrake. . . . Although supporting the concept of corporatisation, Coaldrake believes those translating the State’s policy on Government-owned enterprises into fact do not understand some ‘inherent difficulties in the public sector’.” These are the words of the Government’s favourite son, Dr Coaldrake. The report stated further— “The process of transition to corporatised status in some agencies will have to be handled with care.” We all know how much care this legislation has been handled with. The report continues— “But, Coaldrake says, while the targeted agencies and staff may be happy to work in an environment unshackled by the restraints of the public service, the engineers of corporatisation ‘are dealing with a public service unaccustomed with changing its habits and a community with strong expectations of maintenance of services’.” That is it in a nutshell. The general public of Queensland expect the maintenance of services that were left by the National Party Government in this State. The report stated— “In addition to the changes wrought by corporatisation, Coaldrake says, public service managers must remain aware of the effect regionalisation will have on communities.” The Government does not have a clue! If Government members go further out than Indooroopilly, they need a white stick to get along. The report further states— “ ‘And how will regional communities and towns react to the prospect of offices closing?’ Coaldrake asks. ‘In small communities, government agencies work closely with their clients within the fabric of the community.’ ” Mr De Lacy: Who is this new-found expert you are referring to? Mr RANDELL: I am referring to Dr Coaldrake. Has not the Treasurer heard of Dr Coaldrake? The report goes on to state— “ ‘While the Government tries to underpin efficiencies, withdrawal of services is a difficulty and one the public service managers must look at carefully. . . . “Coaldrake says the ‘very real human costs’ must be addressed by public service managers implementing the policy. ‘As public service managers we have an obligation to ensure the corporatisation agenda is managed well.’ he says. ‘Improved services will be readily accepted, but corporatised units will have to guard against bringing in charges for unimproved services that were previously free of charge.’ ” That is what this is going to do right throughout the State. Services might not be cut in Brisbane, but I will refer to that later on. I would like to say that although I do not agree with Dr Coaldrake on many matters, I agree with what he said at that conference there because I believe that the Government has a hidden agenda. It is not what has been said or written, it is what has not been said and has not been written. It is certainly a fraudulent grab for finance with a hidden agenda to short-change the citizens of this State. For example, Queensland Rail—and the fine, proud tradition that it has—has always been recognised by the people of this State, and certainly by my party when it Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3053 was in Government, as a service to be used for the benefit of the citizens of Queensland, and to service the productive areas of Queensland for the benefit of Queensland. When I talk about productive areas, I talk about wool, wheat, sugar and many other rural products that had to be encouraged, even though in some cases it meant a small loss. Queensland was built up through those services. It was built up by a network of rail lines that provided a necessary service for the people throughout this State. I think that is now going to be torn to pieces. In many areas, it was the only means of transporting products to market. By doing that, it ensured that thousands of jobs were created. This Bill will erode further the services to the ordinary people of this State. This Government has closed railway lines and railway stations, and jobs have been lost in the interests of a false economy. Mr De Lacy: Name a railway line we closed. Mr RANDELL: Of course, the Government has closed them, and the Treasurer knows that. What about the one at Pioneer Valley? What about the railway stations? What about the impact that that has had on small business? I would like to tell honourable members about the little town of Carmila, where fettlers had brand new houses built for them—good, modern accommodation. The Government took six fettlers and their families out of that little town. The effect that has had on that town has been felt by its shops, hotels, school and police station. However, that is happening throughout Queensland, and it has had a snowballing effect. It has occurred all in the interests of economy, without a thought for the welfare and the rights of the people of Queensland, and without a thought for the welfare of those workers that have been put out of their jobs. The Government is supposed to be looking after workers, but that is what it is doing. It was also recognised that some services would show a profit, such as those in the central region—the minefields, with revenue from coal freight—but some services would have to operate at a loss because they provided a service to the community. The Opposition recognises that, but the Government is going to take those services away. I keep talking about the services to the community—the people of Queensland. At this stage, I would like to ask the Minister: what is going to happen to the subsidy on the railways and other transport in the Brisbane area? I have been told that rail services in Brisbane are subsidised to the tune of $80m. I have no quarrel with that. I am not begrudging that. However, if the Government is going to cut rail services in country areas, will it cut rail services in Brisbane? I know that the Minister will answer that question in his reply. I am not saying that subsidising rail services in Brisbane is wrong, but I think that it is unfair that, when services are cut in rural areas, the people of Brisbane receive an advantage that is paid for by other people. When I see railway stations close in my electorate, I wonder what the main objective of it all is—stations which Government members have never heard of but which are all part of little communities, such as Carmila, Orkabie, West Hill, Koumala, Kalarka, St Lawrence and Ogmore. I could go on about the rail service to those little communities. They are productive areas. A Government member: What about the Sarina Hospital? Tell us about that. Mr RANDELL: The member gets to me, because I hear a dull clunk, I look about and I wonder what it is. He is talking, and two minutes later, his brain gets into motion. His big, rusty brain goes clunk, clunk, clunk. All goods are taken to Mackay and then road freighted back to Sarina. How can that be economical? A train with the goods on board travels past the town and on to Mackay. They are then transported by road back to Sarina. Mrs Edmond: It gets them there a lot faster and more efficiently. Mr RANDELL: The member should not talk absolute rot. For instance, in Sarina, the publicans tell me that they cannot get a carton of beer carried by rail. It has to come back by road from Mackay. Sarina has a great little railway station in a major rural area, but it has been closed down, except in daylight hours. 3054 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Women and children go to that station at night. There is no-one on duty. There are no station lights. The toilets are closed. They cannot sit in the dark in the waiting room because of the fear of attack, so they sit locked in their cars. There are no public telephones available at the station for the public to use to find out if the trains are running late, or to ring relatives and advise them that they have just arrived and wish to be picked up. A person cannot even go to that major station and buy a railway ticket. People have to ring a particular number. This is what is happening to the railways in rural areas. The Minister should admit responsibility for this. There is now a deviation through Mackay, but there is no railway station parallel to it. I draw the attention of members to several letters to the editor. The member for Whitsunday, Mrs Lorraine Bird, would be aware of this. Two of those letters are headed “Railway station ‘disgrace’ ” and “New station fails to impress passenger”. Why was a station not built there? Mr De Lacy: Why don’t you talk about this Bill? Mr RANDELL: I am talking about the Bill. In the interests of economy in this State, the Government is cutting out services to the public. It is cutting services to those men and women with kids who get off the train. There is no shelter at that station in Mackay, which is a major centre that is represented by a Minister of this Government. Do Government members want people to sit in the cold wind? They would not have a clue what is happening in Queensland, and they could not care less about people. At least the previous Governments provided a service, and created an economy that this State will never have again. Mr Stephan: Until we get back again. Mr RANDELL: Until we get back again. It does seem to me as though the ALP Government’s tunnel vision with the dollar sign at the end, whereby it will do anything and cut any service to get that dollar, is completely wrong. The Minister might answer this: when does the relevant Minister assume responsibility for his portfolio? If everything is corporatised, is the Minister still in charge? Is he still going to direct it? Or when he is asked a question in this Parliament, will he say, “I am sorry. I do not know. It is corporatised”? If he can put the blame onto the board or corporation that runs these facilities, will be also direct them? Will those facilities be given the independence to properly conduct their affairs as commercial enterprises? The Minister does not want to end up like Senator Bob Collins who, with the fiasco that is going on in Canberra, wants a pat on the head; but when he gets a kick in the butt, he blames his staff. That is a golden rule for a Minister. The head of a department accepts the praise, but he must also accept the responsibility, and should never hide behind his staff. That is what will happen with GOEs in Queensland. The Treasurer states that, unlike the rest of Australia, the reform of GOEs in Queensland is not revenue driven. According to the Treasurer, Queensland’s finances are in a sound position. But he must admit that they are sliding. He has already raided the hollow logs. Let us get the truth about Queensland’s finances out into the public arena. Let us examine how well Queensland is really doing. In 1988-89, the last full financial year in which the National Party was in control of the State’s finances, the State’s total revenue was $7.164 billion, of which the Commonwealth Government provided $2.985 billion. Less than $5m came from intra-public accounts transfers. Mr De Lacy: This is hopeless. This is dreadful—a dreadful performance. In the old days you were a lot better than this. Mr RANDELL: We will see. The Treasurer should take note of what I have said. He knows that the Government is short of money. It is corporatising these things to recoup funds, but it is not telling us how it will pay subsidies in Brisbane. It is not game to take the subsidy off rail services in Brisbane. However, that is what we have come to expect. In all, the Commonwealth Government provided 41.5 per cent of Queensland’s revenue in 1988-89, and unrequited transfers provided 0.07 per cent. But what do we find in 1992-93 under this ALP Government? Total State revenue is $9.582 billion, of Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3055 which the Commonwealth Government is to provide $4.814 billion. The Commonwealth is now providing 48 per cent of the State’s Budget. We have gone from a situation in which Queensland relied on the Commonwealth for 40 per cent of its revenue to one under Labor in which half our revenue now depends on the whims of the Commonwealth. That is what will happen this year. The Government will not get the money, because Keating has not got it. This Government is going to be in an awful lot of trouble. On top of this, we find that public accounts transfers are now $163m, or 1.7 per cent of revenue—up from $5m under the National Party Government. According to the 1991-92 records, that figure was $389m. As some of my colleagues have said, this Government relies on raiding hollow logs, transferring funds from statutory authorities, and handouts from the Commonwealth to survive. It is not financially responsible. It pawns the family silver and relies on a doting uncle, Paul Keating, to hand out money. Let us examine how well this State is really going to be doing next financial year. The effects of the drought will cause a massive drop in the State’s revenue. The double- dip recession will also cause a further loss in revenue. But more importantly, how long will Paul Keating go on propping up Wayne Goss? The Government must come back to what it is doing here to get money to cover itself. This is what is happening in Queensland. The Government is going down the drain, and grasping at every way of getting some money. Our citizens pay taxes to get services, but this Government will make them pay double, and it is not even giving them a service. What have I said about the citizens of Sarina and Mackay? They are not getting a service. I wonder if the Treasurer is aware of the latest annual report of the Foreign Investment Review Board. An article in the Business Review Weekly of 7 May states— “Queensland was the big loser from the latest slump in foreign investment in Australia. This week’s Foreign Investment Review Board annual report shows the Sunshine State has lost its status as the top target of overseas investors. Expected overseas investment fell 60% from the $5 billion recorded in 1990-91, chiefly because of the fall-off in Japanese investment in tourism.” They can see the clouds on the horizon and have to do something. They will cut the service to Queensland in order to get more finance, and that is what is happening. It is a shameful act. Government members interjected. Mr RANDELL: Government members who inanely interject do not comprehend the matter. The Government is making a grab for more finance on top of the tax it already imposes, and the people of Queensland have to foot the bill to finance the extravagance of the Government. Once again, the productive sector will be hit to leg. I warn the Government that this Bill will come back to haunt it; it will come back to bite it. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes) (8.46 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Government Owned Corporations Bill. This Bill represents proposed new laws which will provide new standards, principles and processes for the operation of enterprises owned by the Queensland Government. They are laws which will ensure higher levels of accountability and performance than ever before contemplated within Government owned enterprises—GOEs—in this State. The first term of the Goss Labor Government embarked upon a wide-ranging task in terms of following through systematic reform of the electoral and administrative law and practice, as well as the criminal justice system. Much of this reform was a continuation of the inertia created by the Fitzgerald royal commission and the implementation of reform based upon Australian Labor Party policy relating to these spheres. That first term from December 1989 until September 1992 also encompassed fundamental initiatives in micro-economic reform. They included major reform to industrial relations law and practice to provide for greater flexibility in workplace bargaining, reform of the public service to provide a universal career structure and improve performance, and fundamental reforms within Government owned enterprises 3056 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly which established principles and processes for greater commercial orientation of Government owned enterprises, systems of accounting and performance evaluation akin to the private sector, rationalisation and upgrading the skills of the work force within those institutions, and enhancement of training initiatives to cater for future needs. In this second term of the Goss Labor Government, much of the reform which arises out of the Fitzgerald royal commission is now complete or near completion. The major agenda now before the Queensland Government is job creation. A fundamental key to job creation in the longer term is micro-economic reform, that is, reform throughout our workplaces—reform to our industrial laws and awards, to the skills that are applied at work, to the structure of our public and private enterprises, to the management practices within our public and private enterprises, and to principles set in place to regulate our public and private enterprises. As it sets the conditions for future competition of our local production in goods and services, this micro-economic reform agenda is extremely important. The Goss Government has added momentum to this reform process within the public sector by its specific initiatives in relation to budgetary and financial reforms, such as the Public Finance Standards, program evaluation systems, the release of guidelines for the private sector involvement in infrastructure projects, project evaluation guidelines for public sector investment, and a review of Government approval systems. While the private sector must undergo its own reforms, and indeed unions and employer organisations are now well focused upon their reform objectives, government cannot be left behind. The efficiency and effectiveness of Government departments and Government owned enterprises is just as important as any other sphere within which micro-economic reform is taking place. The competitive profile that we can offer to the world as an Australian State is very dependent upon the general level of charges that are levied upon business as well as the efficiency and effectiveness of the services that are provided by Government and the general rigour of the State's infrastructure. This Bill sets out to take this micro- economic reform process a further and substantial step forward so it therefore represents the centrepiece of the Goss Labor Government's second term micro- economic reform agenda. While many of the initiatives contained within the principles of corporatisation appear very logical and we are left to question why such initiatives were not implemented many years ago, it is now clear that in a general sense the economic stringencies imposed by prolonged recession and the common social will to climb out of economic malaise have contributed significantly to the inertia that the corporatisation process has gained. The forces that now push Queensland along the road towards corporatisation are inexorable. They manifest themselves immediately in terms of pressure from the Commonwealth Government by way of tying Commonwealth funding to State adherence to Industry Commission and National Competition Policy Review proposals. It also arises from maintaining a close watch upon our international competitiveness in a very economically dynamic world. Australia has in fact dropped from twelfth in international competitiveness in the early eighties, to a position where it is now ranked twenty-first out of 33 countries. This trend is also reinforced by the fact that, even though, as an example, the Queensland electricity supply industry is the most efficient in Australia, it still falls short of world best practice, according to various agencies which make international comparisons. But it is the other side of the ledger that is perhaps the greatest driving force during this recession as even greater demands are put upon our capacity to deliver social services to the community in terms of police, education and training, and health. Corporatisation means an increased share of our efficiency returns that we can derive from our public assets and thus direct such social services to the community. For instance, a 20 per cent increase in productivity within GOEs as a group in Queensland would benefit the State by $600m annually, which can be returned to alleviate the continuing budget pressures upon such areas of social need. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3057

The achievement of various social objectives via enhanced budget capacity is, in fact, a secondary spin-off from the corporatisation process. Other social objectives are directly relevant and integrated within the corporatisation process. While corporatisation places GOEs on a commercial and competitive basis as far as practicable, it is the efficiency of the public sector in the delivery of its commercial and non-commercial objectives that is a major component of the corporatisation strategy. The strategic focus will be upon creating an operating environment for improved commercial performance and increased efficiency in terms of the delivery of community service obligations, or CSOs. For the first time, Queenslanders will know the precise point of distinction between the commercial operation of a GOE and a financial contribution that is being made by the taxpayer to fund a service to a particular community or a sector of the community at large or to a geographical region. Having a clear perception of these distinctions will enable Government and the community at large to make better decisions about the delivery of services and do so within a far more efficient structure. The allocation of CSOs becomes, for the first time, a very distinct and public decision of the Government in terms of budgetary allocations, rather than being lost within broad accounting procedures, which in the past was the case where such detail was lost within a morass of accounting that was prepared upon a simplistic line accounting basis. The process of corporatisation that is envisaged by this Bill must be strongly contrasted with the varied responses that have been made in other States of Australia and in overseas nations, that is, to situations where other Governments have been faced with the imperative of reforming GOEs that are outmoded and ineffective. Those responses have ranged from various forms of sell off by way of privatisation to the holding of such GOEs by Government, but under poorly designed modes of regulation that failed any test of efficiency or public accountability. The starkness of this contrast is particularly pertinent when we compare Queensland with those other States that have travelled the road of sell off of major Government assets to meet major budget deficiencies. With Queensland’s finances now in such a sound position, the best approach for Queensland can now be made without any distraction of financial hardship. The approach toward corporatisation by this Government has been painstakingly careful, and it has had the benefit of watching the successes and failures of other States and countries before and during preparation of this particular blueprint for reform. This process has delivered the Queensland Government to a very clear position in relation to GOEs, that is, to a commitment to public ownership. Far from being a forerunner to privatisation, it is a clear alternative to it. In fact, the concept of corporatisation by its own dynamic will result in the preservation of public ownership. That is, the only way that public ownership will exist in future is via increased efficiency. The entrenchment of inefficiency will only lead to more draconian solutions to the problem where less control can be exercised over the outcomes. Under corporatisation, control is indeed the key word, as it allows Queenslanders to control the agenda of how GOEs are to be managed and reformed to cope with the demands that will be placed upon them in the future. The Treasurer, the Honourable Keith De Lacy, upon introducing this Bill, has provided even greater clarity regarding this corporatisation agenda by way of his clear declaration during his second-reading speech. He has indicated that the prime candidates for corporatisation within this term of Government are the Queensland Industry Development Corporation, for which the corporatisation process is already well developed; the Queensland Investment Corporation; Suncorp; the ports of Brisbane and Gladstone; the Harbours Corporation; the Queensland Electricity Supply Industry; Queensland Rail; remaining Queensland ports; and the State Gas Pipeline. It is envisaged that major progress towards corporatisation will be effected to water resources and forestry within this term of Government. Although there are no plans for any other specific Queensland Government departments, or parts thereof, to be dealt with directly under the proposed new laws in 3058 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly the future, the application of many of the principles embodied in corporatisation will, I am sure, continue. The process should be seen as a continuum of efficiency measures ranging from the first steps away from the traditional line accounting approach to the full embodiment of the corporatised model. That is, it should be seen as a process, where practical and appropriate, of putting into place various building blocks of reform until all of the blocks are in place. The full assembly of the building blocks under the corporatised model falls into place by virtue of attaining the full range of elements that comprise the model of the modern private corporation. This is attained by a process of replicating the characteristics and competitive environment of the modern private corporation in every respect that is possible. Ultimately, it is the creation of the competitive environment, as is the case in relation to private enterprise organisations, that sets the parameters of performance. By exposing the GOE to the same pressures of competition that are provided within the commercial marketplace, the GOE must make appropriate adjustments to its practices in order to reach the necessary levels of efficiency and effectiveness. It has been via such practices that Government authorities in other jurisdictions have achieved radical turnarounds in their performance. For example, the Hunter District Water Board in New South Wales deferred a $150m to $200m capital expenditure for 40 years; the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand was able to reduce average real electricity prices by 14 per cent; and the Grain Corporation of New South Wales was able to reduce an $8m loss in 1987-88 to a $9m profit in 1989-90 while prices fell by 20 per cent. In replicating the structure and environment of the private corporation there are four key principles that are pursued: firstly, there is “Clarity of Objectives”. Here, the elements include the establishment of a statement of corporate intent under which the GOC will have clear, non- conflicting objectives. The GOC will be set specific financial and non-financial performance targets for its commercial activities. These are generally established upon the basis of similar standards of performance that exist in the same industry within Australia or overseas. Activities which generally fall within the domain of Government policy formation or which are of a regulatory nature are, wherever possible, transferred to a regulatory authority or to some other agency. Further, all community service obligations will be clearly identified within the statement of corporate intent, and costed, and specific performance targets set for them accordingly. Second, there is the principle of "Competitive neutrality". Here the elements include action to ensure that each GOC competes on equal terms with the private sector, that is, that there are no special advantages or disadvantages applicable to the GOC because of its public ownership, or else its market power over private sector firms will be removed, minimised or made apparent. Where a GOC has excessive market power, in fact it may be necessary to initiate structural reform in order to increase competition and initiate special monitoring to prevent market abuse. Further, the GOCs are required to calculate and pay Commonwealth taxation equivalents to the State so that the specific tax conditions are also replicated. The calculation and payment of dividends back to the State completes the range of elements that in effect mimic those same processes and structures of the private corporation. Third, there is the principle of "Strict accountability for performance". Here the elements include the requirement for the GOC board to be accountable to the shareholding Ministers for the GOC’s performance. Again, the board structure is modelled upon the principle of replicating the board of a private company to the extent that there is accountability to the shareholding Ministers for the GOC’s performance in meeting the requirements of a statement of corporate intent. Further, performance will be monitored by Government in a fashion which compensates for the absence of other corporate regulatory mechanisms that affect the private sector by way of the share market and Commonwealth regulatory agencies. Corporatisation is a two-edge sword which develops accountability concomitantly with economic performance. In its highest form, it is accountability for performance. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3059

The ultimate accountability standards prescribed within this proposed law are very sound, with ultimate accountability to the Parliament via two shareholding Ministers—that is, the Treasurer and the Minister responsible for the portfolio area to which the candidate for corporatisation belongs. There is also accountability via the Public Accounts Committee upon which I currently have the honour of serving. As well, there is further accountability to the Parliament via the Auditor-General. This principal accountability of the shareholding Ministers to the Parliament is via the tabling of directions which the shareholding Ministers have been required to effect. Fourth, there is the principle of "Management autonomy and authority". Here the elements consist of the various requirements that ensure that balance is maintained between ministerial direction of GOCs and the strategically commercial operations of the GOC. This is achieved by clearly defining the distinct areas of responsibility of boards of directors as opposed to the responsibilities of shareholding Ministers. This means that ministerial reserve powers will be required to be exercised in an open manner via the Parliament, and strategic monitoring will maintain balance via its replacement of direct management decision-making. There are some further matters that require particular mention. The effect of this legislation upon industrial relations is clearly an area of the legislation that will continue to attract wide interest. I believe that the Bill now before the House will have very positive effects within the industrial relations sphere because it will facilitate the micro- economic reform process that is already developing a sound momentum across the private and public sectors. These laws will ensure that employees are covered by the current legislation that applies to all employees, that is, the Industrial Relations Act. Those industrial laws are currently well tuned to the micro-economic reforms that are now being delivered in the workplace in terms of the achievements of enterprise bargaining. Also, sound industrial relations between the GOCs and their employees must be developed just as this Bill now before the House has been developed—through a rigorous process of consultation. Under the Bill, the GOC must consult with unions, employees, the Public Sector Management Commission, and the Department of Vocational Education, Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. Government employees who become employees of a GOC will have their fundamental industrial rights protected under the Bill. The drafting of this Bill has had the benefit of considered experience of a range of other models of GOE reform in other States and nations, and it is superior to them by virtue of that opportunity. These positive elements include application of an industrial relations plan within the overall corporate plan. There is a clear process provided in the first chapter of the Bill for the systematic management of the corporatisation process whereby a particular GOE proceeds to become a GOC. The Bill also provides a clearer outline of the objectives of corporatisation. I commend the Treasurer and his officers for their extensive and excellent work in bringing this Bill before the House for it represents a very significant development in public sector management. It represents a radical change in the regulation of government that will result in far higher standards of management. This is critical, as good government in Queensland in the future will mean good management of Government endeavours, whether of a highly commercial or entrepreneurial nature or not. Corporatisation is a process by which our management of GOEs will become more scientific. In the future, we must be ever cognisant of this reality and continue to develop that science of management such that it meets the fundamental political tests of corporatisation, that is, accountability and performance, and that ultimate political test, adaptability over time to various changes in the economy as a whole. This is indeed important as corporatisation of our GOEs must protect our public assets for future generations. I believe that this Bill provides those foundations. I support the Bill before the House. Mr COOPER (Crows Nest) (9.06 p.m.): The more I hear from members on the other side of the House, the clearer it becomes that members of the Labor Government 3060 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly recognise that they need a revenue stream. They are running a bit short and are looking down the track to see where they can find these revenue streams. One of the reasons why the Government does not have any money is that the productive sectors have just about dried up. They have been belted from pillar to post and have suffered very deeply from not just the drought but also collapsed overseas markets. Being the profligate spenders that members of the Labor Government are, they have to look at ways and means of continuing and legitimising their habit. That is what the Government is doing by undertaking this revenue grab, which is all this Bill is. It has been pointed out very clearly by members on the Opposition side of the House that this Bill is a revenue grab that is designed to legitimise the Government’s habit of profligate spending. Mr Campbell: You want to grab more. Mr COOPER: I point out to the member for Bundaberg that what this Government is doing is putting profit before service. More services will be out of reach of people because the charges for those services will have to be increased enormously to pay for the Government’s 7 per cent to 11 per cent investment that it hopes to rip off in taxes, charges and dividends. This Government is going to take services away from the people, and that is counterproductive. That is exactly what this Government is doing. In the Government’s grab for funds, it is taking the profit, it is taking away the service, and that is tragic. As time goes by, when the legislation starts to bite—and unfortunately it will take a while to bite—an awful lot of damage will be done to the people—the electors, the ones whom we are supposed to serve. That is why it is so sad and cruel. When the Government sets up those milking cows—those GOEs or GOCs—so that it can milk them every day and get a bit more out of them, it seems to say that it has a monopoly on caring for the public service. That is absolute rubbish. The Government is putting enormous pressure on the public servants because every day the Government will go back, as the Bill allows it to do, to ask for more. It reminds me of the pommy who owned a raft of sheep properties in Queensland in the fifties when wool was booming. From his base in London, he would not have known which end of a sheep bleated. He received the proceeds from his shearing. Shearing was pretty good, the wool clip was up and the price was through the roof. When that dumb idiot was told that everything went well, he cabled back and said, “Excellent, excellent. Shear them again.” That is exactly what the Government will try to do every day. It will keep trying to get the money coming in all the time, but the Government will bleed the GOEs dry and it is the public servant who will be flogged. The Government will flog the hell out of the public servants. It will flog the daylights out of the sweated labour and say, “We want more. We want more.” If the public servants do not produce, what will the Government do then? It will sack them. Under the Bill, that is exactly what the Government can do, and it does not even have to give a reason. Did Government members read the Bill? The Government does not have to give a reason; it can simply give the public servants the sack. What sorts of people are Government members? The honourable member for Greenslopes spoke about accountability. What sort of accountability is it when all the accountability is taken away from the Minister? He gets off scot-free. He can do what he likes and sack whomever he likes. He can milk them for more and take no responsibility whatever. That is what the honourable member talked about. He thought that the Government had a monopoly on those reforms. He mentioned EARC and the CJC. Those Bills were passed when I was in Government. This Government did not have any responsibility for them. This Government has responsibility for freedom of information legislation, which has been a total dud. People cannot get any information. The Government has made very sure of that. So much for the Government’s reforms! Another reform is prostitution legislation. That is a terrific reform! The Government is going beautifully. It decriminalised the homos. The Government is going well. Now, it introduces corporatisation that it thinks should have happened years ago. Government members said that it should have happened years ago. Corporatisation would have happened years ago if it had been any good, but it was not. The combination of the departmental system and the public servants meant one thing: service to the people at a reasonable cost. There was nothing wrong with it at all. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3061

The Government is taking it away because it is getting short of money. That is all that the Government is doing it for, and the Government will not get away with it. The Bill is the most longwinded, hypocritical, cowardly cop-out of ministerial responsibility ever brought before the Parliament. That is exactly as it is and Government members know it, or they will learn that gradually when it starts to bite. Spread throughout the 113 pages of the Bill is a list of ministerial prerogatives and powers of which any dictator—call him Stalin, call him what you like—would have been proud. One can see it written in the Bill. It stands out very clearly. The Government can dictate this; it can dictate that and, if Government members cannot sleep at night, the Government can fall back on the good old veto. The Bill is full of vetos. There is a veto on almost every page. At the end of the day—and that is the real beauty of this document—someone else carries the can. The Minister does not. It is the poor old public servants. The Government will bleed them, milk them and sack them if they do not do the job. The Bill shows that the Government can do whatever it likes and have no responsibility at law whatsoever. I say to the member for Bundaberg—wherever he has gone—that the workers wear that. Government members will sit back and pull all the levers. If they do that, they should watch out because they could go blind. If the Government happens to be a few hundred million dollars out in its sums after a couple of years, it should not worry about that. The Government can blame the board, blame the directors, blame senior management and then sack them. It is not the Government’s fault; it is the fault of the board, so the Government will sack those people. That is exactly what the Government will do. The Bill specifically provides that those people can be sacked for any reason or for none. The Government does not even have to give a reason. Boom! They are out the door. They did not perform. They did not give the Government enough money. The Bill is written in beautifully clear, simple language. The Government can sack them for no reason at all. The Bill also contains, for the first time, the words, “The Queensland Parliament enacts”. We could replace that with “Off with their heads”, because there is a no-nonsense quality about it. It is good, plain Aussie language, and it is good enough for anyone. It is here 20-odd times throughout the legislation. Absolute power is wonderful, is it not, particularly when the only place to which the Government is responsible is the Parliament, where once again it has the numbers. That is where the responsibility should be, in a sense—the Parliament. The Government has the numbers in the Parliament, so what sort of accountability will we get? The Government could not get it better. No freedom of information legislation can touch the Government. Even if the Government wanted to let it get in the way, the legislation could not get in the way; because the Government would not allow it to apply. There is no CJC, and no judicial review. Where is the accountability of the Government? There is, of course, the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee, but the Government has the numbers on that, too. It has the Auditor-General, but that is when the good old veto can come into play and come to the rescue. Why do Government members not read the Bill? They are getting worried. Suddenly they are thinking, “Jesus, what have we done?” It is another disastrous piece of reform. The Government can get rid of anything troublesome because it can excise anything from the annual report that, in deep and meaningful consultation with the board, of course, might be deemed commercially sensitive. So the Government can excise anything it likes from annual reports. The corruption and the cover-ups that we are going to see out of this will be unreal. The plain fact is that, under this Bill, Ministers seek effective total control of the corporatisation process from beginning to end while absolving themselves of all responsibility. They have got it made. Oh brother, yes! We can read the Government like a book. Let me detail some of the means by which the Government sets out to achieve this. The first total absolution of ministerial responsibility is covered in clause 32, subclauses (1) and (2), in Division 2 of Part 3 of the Bill, which deals with the preparation of the corporatisation charter. So the Government is getting in nice and early. Clause 32 states— 3062 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

“(1) The responsible Ministers of a candidate GOC are not to be treated as directors of the candidate GOC or any subsidiary or proposed subsidiary of the candidate GOC. (2) A Minister does not incur civil liability for an act or omission done or omitted to be done honestly and without negligence under, or for the purposes of, this Act in relation to a government entity that is to become a GOC or a subsidiary of a GOC.” That clause keeps Ministers totally removed from any legal responsibility whatsoever in relation to the formation of a GOC. Clause 85 (1) extends that indemnity to their role in GOCs, their subsidiaries, or any proposed subsidiaries. So that is the scope of ministerial corporate responsibility from cradle to grave in relation to GOCs. The Government has really worked it out. It is no wonder it has taken so long for this legislation to appear, but I suppose that the Government has spent a fair bit of time planning for the future. The picture is very different in relation to ministerial powers, which are spread throughout the Bill, from one end to the other, just like confetti. Ministers control and drive the process from go to whoa and have authority over every substantive deliberation both before and during the operation of any GOC or any GOC subsidiary. I will go through these powers step by step. Firstly, Ministers can decide whether to require a candidate GOC to undergo the process of preparing a corporatisation charter. If the Ministers decide on a corporatisation charter, the Ministers can then dictate—and that is the word that I used in the very first place: “dictate”—to the GOC anything that appears necessary, or even desirable, to them to enable the draft corporatisation charter to be prepared. They can have a committee established to carry through this process. If the Ministers do decide on a committee, then its members will be appointed by the Ministers and they will hold that office on any terms of appointment determined by the Ministers. The Ministers have got it made. Ministers can terminate the appointment of a member of the charter preparation committee “for any reason or none”. They can please themselves. I did not believe that members opposite could stoop so low, but they are fair dinkum, aren’t they! Under the requirements of the Bill, the committee must—and I repeat “must”—comply with any direction given to it—and I repeat that provision: “any direction given to it”—and even to any determination made by the responsible Ministers. So ministerial power and control, to this point in the preparation, is absolute. It simply continues to expand the further one goes. Having established all of the ground rules, and having appointed all the members of the committee, over whom they will have total authority via an ability to sack, with or without reason, any member not smart enough or honest enough to toe the line, the Ministers will then approve or disapprove the draft corporatisation charter at their pleasure. The next step will be the appointment of a charter administration committee to ensure that the charter is implemented in what the Bill describes as “a timely, efficient, and effective way”. For that one should read “as the Ministers dictate”. The Ministers dictate all the way through. This committee may conduct its business in the way that it considers appropriate as long as it again complies with any direction given to it, or any determination made, by the responsible Ministers. Again, all members of the implementation committee hold office on any terms of appointment determined by the responsible Ministers and, as with the committee in charge of the draft corporatisation charter, members of the implementation committee may also have their appointment terminated by the Ministers at any time for any reason, or for no reason whatsoever. The responsible Ministers may give the candidate GOC directions in relation to any matters that appear to them necessary or even desirable in relation to the implementation of the charter. According to the Bill, these directions must be complied with. So now we have gone a step further and the charter has been implemented to that point with ministerial control absolute. There is absolute control. And the grip does not weaken. The memorandum and articles for the entity are adopted, or amended, by the Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3063

Ministers as they see fit. The Ministers, as sole shareholders on behalf of the Government, can then put resolutions to the board confident that they will be acted upon because the Bill says that any such document will be deemed to be a resolution passed at a general meeting of the GOC, just as long as it carries the signatures of both Ministers. There need not even be the pretence of a meeting because such a document will be deemed to be a resolution at the time when the second Minister’s signature is attached. The board structure deserves special attention. I refer to the structure of the board of directors, which allegedly extends the autonomy and authority of management in the operation of Queensland Government businesses. This allegedly serves two purposes: it ostensibly helps place Government owned enterprises on a footing more akin to a private sector company and, also ostensibly, it helps produce the Government’s desired imagery of corporations operating at arm’s length from Government. However, ministerial power extends deeply into the operation of the boards in a number of ways. For a start, boards will be nominated by Ministers and will be appointed by the Governor in Council. As with all other appointments relating to the process of establishing a GOE, board members can be sacked at any time, and once again, for any reason or for no reason at all. This effectively makes the requirement that, in the case of directors, any sacking be sanctioned by the Governor in Council an absolute dead letter. If the board member can be sacked in accordance with the Bill for any reason or for none, then there is really no protection that can be offered to those people by the symbolic issue of the Governor in Council oversighting that process. If no reasons for a sacking are required, then there will be nothing for the Governor in Council to question. It is quite neat; it is quite easy; it is all there. The development of the corporate plan for the enterprise by the board will then be subject to ultimate ministerial alteration, before it is put in place, or be revised by simple direction thereafter. The same ministerial powers also apply to the statement of corporate intent, which will specify in some detail the financial and non-financial performance targets for the relevant financial year. Together with the corporate plan, it will establish clearly all of the major operations of the GOE for that year and, by definition, will therefore bring ministerial control of all and every major decision of the GOE under direct ministerial control. So much for the arm’s length rhetoric! Matters that will ordinarily be covered in the statement are extremely wide-ranging and will include any proposals from management in relation to industrial relations matters. Once again, in relation to the statement, Ministers will have the ultimate authority over its final form and can either require or remove the requirement for the inclusion of any element of the statement. In other words, they can please themselves what goes in and what comes out. That power is retrospective and can be exercised at any point during the life of the statement. Over and above those effectively global powers granted to Ministers, there are also a host of specific provisions, particularly relating to revenue issues. We really start rubbing our hands together now! The requirement for GOEs to pay full State taxation and Commonwealth tax equivalents are being dealt with elsewhere in this debate, but it is interesting to note that the tax assessor, who will make an annual judgment of the liability of GOEs for Commonwealth tax equivalents, will be appointed not by the board; that person will also be appointed by the Minister. There are also specific provisions for absolute ministerial authority concerning the payment of dividends, notwithstanding that this issue will be covered with the statement of corporate intent, over which Ministers have ultimate, absolute authority. The scale of the dividend to be paid to the Government annually will ordinarily be recommended to the shareholding Ministers by the board within four months of the end of the financial year for which the dividend is to be paid. Notwithstanding that provision, which will require consultation with the Ministers, Ministers can not only reject the recommendation of the board and impose a dividend which they establish unilaterally; they may also direct at any stage of the financial year that an interim dividend be paid 3064 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly and direct when it is to be paid. Again, it is the old milking cow—every day she is trotted out and rounded up, but eventually she will run out of milk. About the only legal constraints on the scale of the dividend Ministers might seek is that it may not exceed profits for the year after provision for tax. I think that specification may be a response to the situation which occurred in Victoria recently under the Cain/Kirner Government, in which the Auditor-General reported in relation to the last financial year that dividends charged by the Government actually exceeded annual profits. He really got stuck into them down there. If it is the Government’s intention by those clauses to calm fears that dividends may be excessive, they will have much more work to do than just that. Charging dividends up to the level of profits may take slightly longer to destroy the viability of a corporation than charging them in excess of profits, but I do not know of any organisation which could survive for long on a rate of dividend equalling annual profits. By pure definition, such an organisation will run down—it has to. Time does not permit a more detailed run-down of the extraordinary powers granted to Ministers by this Bill, but it is clear from the summary of those dealt with here that they are mighty. The Government is virtually admitting now that this is a money grab and it is a revenue raiser for a Government that just loves to spend money. However, the damage that this will do to the people of Queensland—those we are supposed to represent—will be irreparable. Time expired. Mr BARTON (Waterford) (9.26 p.m.): I support the Government Owned Corporations Bill. This is one of the most important Bills that this Parliament will consider during this term. Contrary to the views of some Opposition members, this Bill involves efficiency of the public sector; better returns to the Government on its investment, its property; better service to the public; and fairness to Government employees, who prefer to work in better-managed organisations, gain more satisfaction while at work and be paid better wages and salaries as the Government owned corporations’ performances improve. This Bill demonstrates the clear difference between the Government and the Opposition—although it is a real misnomer of the English language to call them an “opposition”. The Bill retains the assets as public assets—assets which provide a real return to the public and a good service to the public; assets which will provide even better returns as the GOCs’ efficiency improves. This Bill will allow new management skills to be developed within the public sector. The State public sector workforce is looking forward to its benefits. By comparison, what would the Opposition do? It would sell the farm. That has come across loud and clear from many Opposition members, particularly from the acting Leader of the Opposition, the member for Caloundra. She made it very clear that the Opposition would sell the QIC, Suncorp and the QIDC. I must ask: what else would it sell? The only excuse offered by the acting Leader of the Opposition for those sales was that those organisations are competing with the private sector. We must examine closely the performance of those organisations at this time. Quite frankly, they are performing very well. To sell them would mean less revenue to Government and more money from taxes to pay for services that are being provided by the revenue raised by those very efficient organisations. What would happen after those assets were sold? Those organisations would still need to exist; their services would still be required. If they were sold, we would be renters of our own property and would be gaining less service and less revenue. This legislation represents an important philosophical difference between this Government and this Opposition. The Government believes in the public retaining its assets. There is nothing wrong with that. The assets of the people of this State should not be flogged off to someone who simply wants to buy the future profits of those organisations. That is precisely what is being proposed by the Opposition. It proposes to privatise those organisations. It would sell them selectively. It would sell to its friends the dynamic and profitable sections of the public sector, and it would leave in the public Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3065 sector those bodies that were not capable of making profits. There would be no cross- subsidisation. The people of this State would be left with the debt and the ongoing costs of those bodies that are not profitable. I think that the people would be left with only those areas that had to maintain very heavy community service obligations. The Bill is about making the public sector even more efficient than it is. The people on the Opposition side of the House missed the point about the big improvements that have been made to the public sector in this State over the past three and a half years. They have missed the boat, because they simply do not go out and see for themselves what is happening in the public sector. This legislation will improve the public sector even more. It will become even more efficient than it is currently. Who will be the beneficiary of that? The people whom we are all supposed to represent as members of this Parliament—the people of Queensland. They will gain better services, higher quality services, and profit from the Government owned corporations will go back into consolidated revenue which, in turn, will enable the provision of even more services to the public. It will also lead to more jobs, more secure jobs, jobs that provide more job satisfaction, and better paid jobs. The Government owned corporations will draw on the best commercial standards, the best commercial management that is currently available and the best management techniques that have been developed in the private sector to enhance further the public sector. They will also employ the best commercial operators as directors. That has been the history of those bodies that have been commercialised in this State, and the one corporation that currently exists. They will also be able to get the best managers to work for those organisations, because that is where those people who are good managers will want to be—in the dynamic new corporations that are doing things in the best State in Australia and the fastest growing State in Australia. From my experience with the QIC, I can also tell honourable members that people are prepared to come to Queensland and work for lower salaries in order to enjoy Queensland’s better lifestyle, and to be part of this growing and dynamic State. Most people in the work force are looking forward to this change. This legislation is not about trade union heavies dominating the corporations. They are the leadership of the work force. People in the workplace want to work more effectively. They want greater job satisfaction and the greater job security that comes with Government owned corporations becoming even more efficient than they are now. I wish to talk about the matter of consultation, because it was raised tonight by a number of speakers on the Opposition side and it is another one of the major differences between the Government and the Opposition. Throughout the life of this Bill, genuine consultation has taken place between all parties—the Government, the management of the bodies that will become Government owned corporations and the business sector. I ask the member for Caloundra to listen to what I am saying because she made the point that the business sector had not been consulted. I want to drive home very firmly the point that throughout the life of this Bill—as a Green Paper, a White Paper and then draft legislation—the business sector has been consulted extensively. Of course, the Opposition cannot accept that the union movement has also been consulted because it represents the work force of these bodies that will become Government owned corporations. I remind the Opposition of that consultation, because it seems to forget how extensive it was. In October 1990, a Green Paper was issued, upon which extensive consultation occurred. Out of that consultation came a White Paper in March 1992. There was then set up a corporatisation steering committee, and for the benefit of the member for Caloundra, I point out that it involved such people as Bob Flew, who is the chief executive of BHP Coal. He happens to be a fairly significant business leader in this State, and he was directly involved in the process. Another person who was involved was Dawson Petie. Initially, he was my deputy, and he then succeeded me. He also received a slanderous message from the Deputy Leader of the Coalition. But as the leader of the trade union movement in this State, Dawson Petie was also involved in the corporatisation steering committee to—most properly and most effectively—take into account the concerns of the work force in the public sector of this 3066 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

State. At all stages, extensive consultation with all of the stakeholders, the major parties at all levels, including significant business leaders, has taken place. Earlier tonight, the Deputy Leader of the Coalition, the member for Caloundra, said that the Opposition had heard about this Bill only seven days ago, and that it had only just received it. It is a pity that the Deputy Leader of the Coalition had not looked very closely—or the advisers who prepared her speech had not looked very closely—at the White Paper and at all of the extensive consultation that had taken place. If they had, then they might have understood the Bill that they received seven days ago, because it reflects very accurately the White Paper and that extensive consultation. By the way, I also find it quite galling that Opposition members in this House complain about the lack of consultation when they are the very same people who, in 1985, 1986 and 1987, not only passed Bills within seven days but also introduced Bills during the middle of the night. Mr Bredhauer: We’d wake up in the morning and find out. Mr BARTON: I take that interjection from the member for Cook. We would wake up in the morning and find out that they had introduced legislation in the middle of the night, suspended Standing Orders to gag debate, and pushed the Bill through. In fact, without any consultation whatsoever, the members opposite introduced some of the most horrendous, anti-worker, anti-employee legislation that this State has ever seen. As the assistant secretary of the Trades and Labor Council, I would come down to this House and meet with Vince Lester the next morning, bright and early, and ask, “Vince, why did this happen? Why was there no consultation”. All he could say was, “Well, I was given the Bills to introduce. I am sorry that we did not discuss them with you”. These same people complain about lack of consultation, when the consultation in respect of this legislation has been going on for two and a half years. However, that only shows how slow they are. The consultation took place over two and a half years and—would members believe it—they missed it! It went right over their heads. Another important factor of this legislation relates to international competitiveness. It is about making the public sector of this State more efficient. As bodies such as the electricity industry, the railways and the port authorities become more effective, they will improve Queensland’s international competitiveness. It will help to attract major new business operations to this State. It will also help to attract business from the other States of Australia to Queensland. I believe that most members on the other side of the House are missing that point, which is crucial to this legislation. It will help this State become even bigger and better than it is at present. I turn now to the GOC boards, which have received a few serves tonight from members on the other side of the Chamber. One of the key factors in ensuring that Government owned corporations are effective is making sure that we get the best possible people on those boards. To date, the Government’s record in this area is excellent. I shall talk about a body that has already been referred to quite extensively by members on the other side of the House, that is, the Queensland Investment Corporation Board. Before it became a corporation, it was known as the Queensland Treasury Corporation Investments Advisory Board. Most of the board members were appointed by the Ahern Government. Last year, they were reappointed by this Government, and there have been only a small number of changes. Before I talk about the quality of the people on that board, who were reappointed by this Government—when people talk about how bad Government owned corporations can go, it is interesting to note that, in the past 12 to 18 months, the QIC had to write off over $100m because of investment decisions made by the last National Party Government before that board was formed. Against all the advice that it was given, that Government bought extensively into Quintex, Kern and a number of other Queensland- based companies purely on the basis of old mates’ activities. Eventually, over $100m of State employees’ superannuation funds had to be written off by the board. The board took it on the chin. Because those decisions were made by a former National Party Government, it affronts me that members opposite can talk about how those boards Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3067 would not be effective and that they would be controlled by Government. One has only to consider the track record of the National Party in Government before it deservedly lost office. Mr Davies: They criticised us for our little investment in Compass. Mr BARTON: Members of the National Party criticised us, but we know their track record. They have the hide to criticise this Government about its supposed lack of investment skills when, in fact, they were the ones who lost a large amount of this State’s money. The Queensland Investment Corporation has a very extensive board. It includes the chairman, Jim Kennedy, who is a member of the Commonwealth Bank board and the Pacific Dunlop board, to name just two; Ken McDonald, the deputy chairman, from Feez Ruthning; Alan Coates, a former chief executive of AMP and chairman of CSR, CRA, Pacific Dunlop and Brambles; John Allpass, the receiver extraordinaire in this State; Charles Goode, from Potter Warburg in Melbourne; Ben Macdonald, also on the AMP board, the Alan Piper Group and, more recently, the Brisbane Bears, which are now becoming successful; Henry Smerdon, the Under Treasurer; Don Sanders, a former chief executive of the Commonwealth Bank; and, of course, Dawson Petie, the current Secretary of the Labor Council. Dawson Petie replaced me on that board. I will stand on my record on that board against the accusations of trade union heavies being on boards. Dawson Petie is on that board for the very same reason as I was on it, that is, for his commercial experience, a whole range of superannuation investment issues and other commercial activities in which he has had broad experience. All those board members were appointed for their commercial experience—no other reason. There is one public servant on the board, and one union official who was appointed because of his commercial experience. The rest of the members of that board comprise a Who’s Who of the current business leadership in this country. They were not appointed for other reasons. Some of them are not politically aligned to the Labor Party, they are aligned elsewhere. But that did not stop the Labor Party from reappointing them, because it wanted the best people with the best commercial experience. Similarly, in relation to the railways board—although it is not yet corporatised, it has been commercialised. On that board are people such as Ted Edwards, the resident director of TNT; Jim Andersen, who is the Chairman of Queensland Cement Ltd; and Dave Harrison, the assistant secretary of the metal workers union, who, regardless of what Opposition members think, has extensive commercial experience. That is something that Opposition members cannot seem to understand. Just because people are trade union leaders, that does not mean that they have not had extensive commercial experience in this country. Mr Robertson: Never a truer word was said. Mr BARTON: I thank the member for Sunnybank for his interjection. Yes, never a truer word was said. I would like to compare some of the trade union leaders in this State with some of the people on the other side of the House in relation to their commercial experience. I know who would come out worst; it would be the people on the other side of the House. In terms of the QIC—those bodies are already exceptionally client focussed. In terms of return, the Queensland Investment Corporation is leading the investment houses in this country. In the past three years, it has returned better than 12 per cent. In this financial year, it is in the top quartile of funds managers in this country. It is cost effective, with low administration costs. Because it is a State entity, it does not pay tax, so that benefit is passed on to the members of those superannuation funds that are its clients. As well, it saves this Government money in terms of what it has to put in to meet the defined benefit requirements of those superannuation funds. The QIC also has a critical mass. It has over $8 billion invested, and it is managed in this State. Together with Suncorp and the QIDC, the QIC has the critical mass that attracts the major overseas funds managers, the rating houses and the chief executives of major 3068 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly international corporations to come to Queensland to talk about business in this State. Members on the other side of the House would do away with all those benefits that come to Queensland simply because the Queensland Investment Corporation is a State- owned entity. That is an example of what a Government owned corporation can do. It is the first, and it is going very well. If that is what corporatisation is all about, we can all be very comfortable with it. Much has been said about labour market reform. The QIC has been a major player in terms of conditions for its employees. It has not transferred across public sector conditions, as was said earlier by the member for Caloundra. There is a single union enterprise award that has been determined by the board in conjunction with the relevant union. In terms of senior management structures, there are innovative contracts for those employees that also include salary sacrifice and other issues similar to those that apply in the private sector. Those issues are determined by the board. Certainly, there is consultation with DEVETIR, but those issues are determined by the board in negotiation with the relevant union. The Government owned corporations provide labour market reform opportunities— new structures, a new board, the development of a corporate statement of intent, an annual contract between the shareholding Ministers and the Government owned corporation, and an industrial relations plan which is developed through consultation with unions, employees and DEVETIR. But it is up to the Government owned corporation to finally determine the matter. Members of the Opposition fail to understand that, because they still see industrial relations as bashing employees and bashing unions. In closing, I simply say that this is good legislation. It has come about after the widest possible consultation. The Treasurer and his staff are to be congratulated on the Bill. Time expired. Mr LAMING (Mooloolah) (9.46 p.m.): My few remarks will be based mainly on the Treasurer’s second-reading speech and the White Paper. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said that this Bill will provide the centrepiece for the Goss Government’s second-term micro-economic reform agenda. Members on this side of the House agree that this is a very important Bill about a very important subject. There will be other debates on other Bills that follow. However, the list of speakers reveals that only one- sixth of the Government members will speak on the Bill, and no Ministers will join the debate. Opposition members will have to wait for the combined wisdom of the Treasurer. Mr Davies: We rely on quality, not quantity. Mr LAMING: The member for Mundingburra says that the Government relies on quality, not quantity. I remind him that from this side of the Chamber he will get quality and quantity. My main concern is not so much with what is outlined in the Bill, but what we do not see. In his second-reading speech, the Treasurer stated— “It prescribes conditions under which these corporatised entities will operate . . . ” Further on, he stated— “GOEs in Queensland contributed around $3,100m—or around 6 per cent—to gross State product in 1990-91.” He went on to say— “An increase of 20 per cent in the productivity of Queensland GOEs, as a group, would benefit the State by $600m annually.” Is the Treasurer saying that our GOEs have been operating at 20 per cent less than efficiency? As the Treasurer has been responsible for the GOEs over a three and a half year period and he is saying that they have been operating at 20 per cent less than efficiency, that question requires an answer. As well, I would like to know how those efficiencies will be achieved. I have read the second-reading speech, the Explanatory Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3069

Notes, the White Paper and the Bill, and I cannot for the life of me see from where those efficiencies will be extracted. The Treasurer emphasised that, unlike in other States, the reform of GOEs in Queensland is not revenue driven. I can only say that I do not believe him. Why will not these GOEs become like the Gateway Bridge Company? I am on record in this House as saying that $24m has been syphoned off into consolidated revenue from the Gateway Bridge Company for franchise fees and service fees. Is that the future direction of Queensland Rail? I would like the Treasurer to comment on that. In his second-reading speech, the Treasurer also stated— “In this . . . a key consideration of the corporatisation process will be the extent to which a GOE should be subjected to increased competition . . . ” I wait with bated breath to see this competition with the ports of Brisbane and Gladstone and the electricity supply industry. I do not know who will compete with Queensland Rail. Perhaps the Government is relying on road transport and Queensland Rail to be competitors. I would like the Treasurer to explain exactly what he means by that competition. The Treasurer stated further— “The replication of private sector operating environments for GOEs requires that the legislation strike the right balance between GOC Board accountability on the one hand and authority and autonomy on the other.” I would have thought that would have been the role of the statement of corporate intent. Would not that be the adequate place to strike that balance? The Treasurer also mentioned “operating parameters”. I would like him to explain precisely what that means. Moreover, “autonomy” is used quite often in the Treasurer’s second-reading speech. I fail to see in the second-reading speech, the White Paper or the Bill where autonomy will actually be a reality. The Treasurer stated— “. . . GOCs will be required to report on a quarterly basis to shareholding Ministers who will be advised by a specialist GOE monitoring unit established within my department.” We have a new creature here—a GOE monitoring unit. It sounds like a pretty soft sort of authority and autonomy to me. I would like to know—this is a specific question for those who are making notes—how many people are to be involved in this monitoring unit and what will be the total annual cost of that monitoring unit. Let us see what the White Paper says on the matter. At page 12, it states— “As far as practicable, the GOE would operate at arm’s length from the Government and its Ministers in order to ensure managers have clear objectives, autonomy and were accountable for performance.” Yet, he tells us that we need to fund this full-time monitoring unit. Later, in his second- reading speech, the Minister stated— “. . . the Auditor-General will undertake GOC audits. GOCs of both types will be subject to the Public Accounts Committee Act.” I am reassured, and I wonder why we have to have this monitoring unit to perform what, I would imagine, is a very similar function. We have some more monitoring, too, and this is not mentioned in the speech or in the Bill in any detail. It is the shareholding Ministers. I refer to page 59 of the White Paper in which it describes their function— “Essentially, Shareholding Ministers should evaluate GOE investments in the light of relevant financial information. In the private sector ‘concentrated shareholders’ have the ability to change the Board and can withdraw their investment. Shareholding Ministers would, essentially, have these powers.” So we have these autonomous GOEs that have, as well as their autonomy, a management; a board; and a monitoring unit within the Treasury Department. We then have the Minister; the shareholding Ministers; the Auditor-General; and, of course, it 3070 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly should not be forgotten that they will be watched by the Opposition. So there will be about seven sets of controls on this autonomous body. I think it might have been the member for Bundaberg who said that he felt that these corporations had too much control on them. I refer again to the Treasurer’s second-reading speech. In it, he stated— “The Government will be able to require GOCs to undertake community service obligations (CSOs) with funding provided direct from the Budget. . . ” That is okay; that is as it ought to be so that these things can be closely identified. He continued— “. . . in some cases, by reducing the GOC’s targeted rate-of-return.” I believe that the last part tacked on the end weakens what was ostensibly quite a good sentence. I would like the Minister to explain how that fits in with accurate performance monitoring if, in some cases, the GOC’s targeted rate-of-return is reduced. Once again, I refer to the White Paper. One has to continually refer to it because the second-reading speech and the Bill do not provide all the information required. It states— “So fulfilling these multiple objectives, especially if they happen to be conflicting, diminishes the effectiveness of management and diffuses the lines of responsibility and accountability.” I would have to agree with that. To continue—I suggest that reducing a GOC’s targeted rate of return is possibly the best way to defuse and confuse the lines of responsibility and accountability. The White Paper devotes six pages to community service obligations; the Bill devotes two small sections out of 187 sections. I suggest that the Government—— Mr Budd: Put some feeling into it. Make it interesting. We’re falling asleep. Mr LAMING: Yes, I have noticed that on other occasions. The Government has, I believe, lost sight of what these enterprises are all about, and that is to provide service to the community. They are not for providing revenue; they are not for employing public servants; they are to provide service to the community; yet, here we have two clauses out of 187 devoted to what the Government owned enterprises are supposed to be all about. Once again, I return to the second-reading speech. It states— “. . . the statement of corporate intent provides for the formulation of an Employment and Industrial Relations Plan which is to specify”— I repeat the word “specify”— “all major employment and industrial relations issues for the GOC. It is not the intention of the Government to become involved in day- to-day industrial relations issues between GOCs and their employees.” How ridiculous! The Government does not have to get involved because it has already set it out in its industrial relations plan, which is said to specify all major employment and industrial relations issues for the GOC. The Government’s own White Paper on page 15 goes a little bit further. It states— “. . . the Government would not allow its GOEs to establish inappropriate precedents in relation to employment and industrial relations arrangements.” What a great shame it would be if they did anything inappropriate. Once again, some autonomy! I just wonder whether these are real corporations or some mickey mouse type corporations, because they do not seem to have much autonomy and, as I said, they have seven different levels of checks and balances on them. For those who are following closely, page 113 of the White Paper goes on to state that— “Inappropriate human resource management policies could adversely affect morale and reduce the ability of enterprises to achieve good economic performance.” Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3071

I find this unbelievable. While we have the Government saying things like this, we have private enterprise—— Mr Robertson interjected. Mr LAMING: The member for Greenslopes should be listening to this because it is an area that is close to his heart. That is why he is interjecting. Out there in private enterprise, we have companies that are putting up with massive restructuring—— Mr ROBERTSON: I rise to a point of order. I have been referred to as the member for Greenslopes. I can assure the member that that is not the case, and I ask that he refers to me by my proper title which, of course, is Sunnybank. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Davidson): Order! There is no point of order. Mr LAMING: I will refer to the honourable member by his correct title. That was a good point of order, because it has everybody awake again. I would not like them to miss this next point. Out there in private enterprise land we—— Mr Quinn: No-one wants to be the member for Greenslopes. Dr Watson: No-one wants to take responsibility for the performance. Mr LAMING: These honourable members are supposed to be on my side. Private enterprise has had to undertake massive restructuring and shedding of workers to stay profitable while this Treasurer says that we cannot have inappropriate human resource management policies that would adversely affect morale and reduce the ability of enterprises to achieve good economic performance. This Bill allows and encourages the cocooning from reality of these Government owned enterprises. I turn now to refer to the boards. I have searched the second-reading speech, the Explanatory Notes and the Bill and have found no useful information at all. I hope the Treasurer has his pencil sharpened so that he can explain to me how these boards will be put together. I had to resort to the White Paper for information, and I might add that the White Paper is not part of the legislation. It is no good members of this Parliament later saying, “It was in the White Paper”, because it is not in the Bill. The Treasurer should lift ideas from the White Paper and put them in the Bill so that they become law and we know what we are dealing with. Presently, I have to refer to the White Paper to get some indication of what is going on with these boards. Page 62 states— “These Boards would be the representatives of the Government on behalf of the people of Queensland in general. They would not be the representatives of particular interest groups.” Mr Hollis: What is wrong with that? Mr LAMING: I will believe it if I hear from the Treasurer in his reply that there are no representatives of particular interest groups on these boards. It is stated in the White Paper, but it is not stated in his speech and it is not in the Bill. Therefore, I would like to hear the Minister’s comments on this matter in his reply. I turn now to ministerial responsibility. Once again, nothing of substance on this matter is contained in the Treasurer’s speech. The Bill states that Ministers will not be treated as directors. They will be directing and will have all sorts of controls over people who will not be autonomous because they will be directed by the Ministers, but the Ministers will not have the responsibility of being directors. They will have all power, but no responsibility—which sounds very familiar, as it is similar to other sorts of legislation that this Government has brought forward. I put this question to the Treasurer: will these Ministers resign if they fail as investors? We are told that they are not directors and are responsible only for being investors on behalf of the Government and on behalf of the people of Queensland. If their investment turns bad, I would like to know from the Treasurer whether or not they will resign. The final point I make is one to which I referred earlier, namely, the consumer. If a consumer has a problem with the service provided by a Government owned enterprise, for example, Queensland Rail, he or she can go to his or her friendly member of 3072 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Parliament— an Opposition member or a Government member, which is one of the good things about democracy, namely, that a person can go to his or her member who can take the problem to a Minister and obtain some redress. Mr Davies: Some members think that that makes you almost a Government member. Mr LAMING: I like to think that we on this side of the House are Government members because it will not be long before we will have to get into stride, and we will be able to hit the ground running. After this Bill is passed, an individual person’s redress will be made much more difficult because these Government owned enterprises will be insulated. People will approach management personnel of the enterprise who will say, “No, that is the Minister’s responsibility.” People will talk to the Minister, and the Minister will say, “No, that is the responsibility of the Government owned enterprise.” I have seen this happen with the motorway companies. When a person tries to pick the thread of one approach, he gets lost; so he goes the other way and runs up against a brick wall. I fear that this will happen because the Ministers will not take responsibility. Mr Davies interjected. Mr LAMING: I have no time to take interjections. To summarise the points I have made, let me say that I am against this Bill not so much for what the Bill contains but for what is not in the Bill. I am against this Bill because I do not think it will achieve what Government members think it will. I think they are dreaming. I am against this Bill also because I believe it is a naked revenue grab. I do not believe that there will be any competition. Nothing stated in the Bill or in the White Paper convinces me or any other member of the Opposition that there will be any competition at all, and without competition it will not work. These corporations will not be autonomous. They will have seven layers of controls. No detailed information has been provided in relation to community service obligations. There is no plan for labour market reform, which means that the legislation will not work. No information has been provided on the selection of the board, and it is very short on information on ministerial responsibility. As a matter of fact, there is no ministerial responsibility, and I think that is a disgrace. Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) (10.06 p.m.): Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your elevation. It is good to see the member for Noosa in that role. My remarks will be brief, so it will be only a short congratulatory remark. I rise tonight to make a contribution to the debate on the Government Owned Corporations Bill. In doing so, I remind honourable members— particularly the honourable member for Caloundra whose contribution I listened to earlier—that when it comes to the issue of micro-economic reform, the Queensland Government has been firmly committed to wide-ranging micro- economic reform to improve the efficiency of the State economy. The main focus has been on streamlining the public sector and improving its performance. Public sector efficiency is being enhanced through progressive corporatisation of Government owned enterprises, or GOEs. In terms of financial management, the cornerstone of the Queensland Government’s record is its disciplined financial management. The Goss Government’s financial management is based on the trilogy of low taxation, full actuarial funding of long-term liabilities and restriction of borrowing to economic assets. If one examines the record of economic achievement of this Government, one would see that the Government has maintained key principles which have allowed the economy to remain stable. These principles have ensured sound financial management by funding social assets such as schools and hospitals through revenue and not through borrowing, which is a very sensible way to go about it. Sufficient asset reserves are there to be maintained to match accruing future liabilities such as workers’ compensation and superannuation, and borrowing for economic infrastructure will be undertaken only when that infrastructure generates income to repay debts. It is unfortunate that the honourable member for Caloundra is leaving the House. Mr Hollis: Again! Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3073

Mr BEATTIE: Again. What I have said amounts to an approach from the Queensland Government that has given Queensland the lowest per capita tax collections of any State and by far the lowest State debt. It is the only State to have reduced State debt in each of the past three financial years. Forecasts by Access Economics suggest that, under current State Government policies, Queensland will be virtually debt free by 1995-96, whereas the combined debt of the other States will be $93 billion. One of the things that annoy me about this debate and other debates that we have on economic matters is that the conservatives in this House, that is, the members of the Liberal Party and the National Party—particularly the Liberal Party members, and we saw it tonight with the honourable member for Caloundra—have a born-to-rule attitude. They have always assumed that they are the only ones who can run an economy. I am here to tell them—and the track record of the Government demonstrates it—that these days the Labor Party is the party of Government. The Labor Party—not that lot on the Opposition side—is doing something about getting economies going. Based on what the honourable member for Caloundra said earlier, honourable members would have to accept that she has lost the plot. Not only did she read a prepared speech, which showed very little understanding, but also the reality is that she lost the plot. What did members of the Liberal Party and the National Party say in the debate? They sort of supported the Government owned corporations legislation. Mr Connor: No. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, they did. I do not know where the honourable member has been. He did not listen to his own leader, which probably figures. She said that coalition members support corporatisation but that they do not like the way in which the Government is doing it. Members opposite support the legislation before the House but they do not like the way in which the Government is doing it. It is the typical two bob each way. No sensible alternatives were put up. Mr Laming: You’re the Government. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, but we have put up a proposal. All that members opposite do is whinge. As an alternative Government, they should put up a platform so that people can see what they would do. Based on what we heard, all we hear is the “flogger- offers”. That is what members opposite are. Their approach to economic rationalism is like a dinosaur, disappearing into history. Frankly, the legislation is commonsense. We cannot leave things as they are. If Queensland is to have a vibrant economy, if the Government is to continue the public sector efficiency strategy which is being pursued by it and which is desperately needed, we need the legislation. I expect that members of the Liberal and National Parties privately accept that, which is why they are giving half-hearted support to the legislation. Essentially, the legislation provides for a process under which GOEs can be corporatised. Corporatisation is a structural reform process which changes the conditions under which GOEs operate so that they are placed on a commercial basis in a competitive environment. Corporatisation is a major component of the Goss Government’s program to improve the efficiency of the public sector in the delivery of its commercial and non-commercial objectives. Public ownership of GOEs will remain. Tonight, I want to restrict my comments largely to the area of transport, Queensland Rail and ports, as we have had some fairly wide-sweeping contributions made by other members in the House. In terms of transport—the former Departments of Main Roads, Harbours and Marine, Transport and Railways were amalgamated as part of the Government’s reduction of 27 departments to 18 to form the new Department of Transport. That move was made in a bid to cut the duplication and fragmentation of transport services in this State and to bring about a more far-sighted approach to transport planning—something that was long overdue. Under the direction of the Goss Government, Queensland Transport is close to completing a comprehensive transport policy document. It will set goals and help map out the direction that Queensland Transport will take to best meet the transport needs of this and future generations. 3074 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Queensland Transport is leading the way in developing performance-based legislation to cover all modes of transport. Effectively, the legislation will ensure that transport infrastructure and services are provided in a more commercial manner with an eye to saving money for the Queensland taxpayer, as well as being more responsive to community needs. In terms of Queensland Rail specifically—the Transport Infrastructure (Railways) Bill was passed in Parliament on Tuesday, 21 May 1991, replacing the old Railways Act, which was introduced in 1914. The new Act puts Queensland Rail on a more flexible commercial footing. Together with the Transport Infrastructure (Roads) Bill, it will result in an integrated transport system which will eliminate duplication and cost inefficiencies. A new management and administration structure was devised with three major business groups—freight, coal and minerals, and passengers. The structure now has a competitive edge and profitability objectives and controls similar to those in private enterprise. The strategy Rebuilding our Business—which is the title of the strategy—focuses on a major restructuring of rail operations coupled with a $2 billion investment program through to the year 2000. Three major capital works programs will see $670m spent on the south-east Queensland passenger network, $526m on the north coast line and two western grain lines, and $1,000m on upgrading rail infrastructure for coal and minerals haulage. The success of the reform strategy for rail is underlined by the dramatic turnaround in its financial position. In 1991-92, Queensland Rail achieved its first profit in almost five decades. Nowhere in the debate did the conservatives acknowledge that turnaround. The $8m surplus recorded for the year compared with a deficit of $130m in 1990. The last time that Queensland Rail recorded a profit was during World War II. Strong growth in coal and mineral traffic resulted in a record 76.7m tonnes carried in the 1991-92 financial year. That is the largest tonnage of a single commodity handled by an Australian railway. A $22m rail link was opened in June 1992 to enable the new Stanwell Power Station to tap into the vast reserves of central Queensland coal. The Queensland Government will build a $75m standard-gauge link to the port of Brisbane. To ensure that the local communities are not disadvantaged, the project has undergone an extensive process of community consultation. It is clear that the link has the potential to greatly boost trade through the port. As a measure to ensure trade union input into the reform of Queensland Rail, a tripartite ministerial railways consultative committee was established in 1990. The committee membership includes the Minister, Queensland Rail management and union representatives. The consultative committee meets regularly and discusses all aspects of the reform of QR. A Queensland Rail staff redeployment plan and voluntary early retirement scheme is being offered to Queensland Rail employees. The scheme is considered to be the most generous package ever offered to rail workers in Australia. The package was formulated after extensive consultation with rail unions and the Trades and Labor Council. Following consultation with business, local government and trade unions, Queensland Rail announced its modernised small freight network in September 1991. Under the new system, there are now 49 freight distribution centres throughout the State. Priority freight trains to major centres combined with the introduction of a door- to-door service means that customers receive their goods faster and more efficiently than ever before. Queensland Rail is working to develop closer links with South East Asia, where a lack of infrastructure is inhibiting growth. Already, a major contract worth $3m has been signed with Vietnam National Railways to purchase 20 Queensland Rail locomotives, as well as technical assistance and training. Queensland’s first enterprise bargaining agreement—EBA—was introduced by Queensland Rail on 1 October 1992. The EBA represents a formal agreement between the unions and Queensland Rail which is overseen by the Industrial Relations Commission. The EBA will provide the framework for the long-term commercial future of QR and provide secure, fulfilling work for staff. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3075

The first step taken by the Goss Government to reform Queensland’s port system was a comprehensive review of Queensland’s port authorities. This review produced a list of 57 key recommendations, nearly all of which have been implemented. Generally, the review encouraged ports to implement a more commercial approach to their operations. The Goss Government has actively cooperated with the Federal Government’s Waterfront Industry Reform Authority to make Queensland ports more efficient. Enterprise-based agreements for the three major stevedoring services operating at the port of Brisbane have been signed. Agreements have also been signed at the regional ports of Gladstone, Rockhampton, Townsville, Cairns and Mackay. Queensland Marine International— Q-Marine—was formed by the Government to bring together the State’s ship and boat builders, naval architects, ship repairers, suppliers of machinery and fittings for vessels, consultants and others working in the marine sphere. The move is expected to increase export sales of marine goods and services. As I said, Government enterprises in the transport industry are already well down the path towards corporatisation. In 1991, the Transport Infrastructure (Rail) Act was introduced to make Queensland Rail a modern, customer-driven statutory authority. The new Act created a board of directors responsible for the day-to-day operation of the railways. Mr FitzGerald: They run around, carting goods by road, then they go and put buses on the railway lines up in my area, and you call that a railway! Mr BEATTIE: Well, it is a lot more efficient and effective than it was when members opposite were in Government. During that time, when I was a union official, I took a delegation to one of their Ministers and he slept through half of it. The board is responsible to the Minister for Transport, who sets the strategic direction of QR through the mechanism of an annual corporate plan. This gave QR the autonomy and purpose to begin its program of rail reform—restructuring the organisation into business groups, improving the quality, speed and reliability of services, and reviewing management and work practices. The seven port authorities distributed along the Queensland coastline were the subject of the Queensland ports review, completed in 1990 by the Department of Transport. Again, the port authority boards were given more autonomy to undertake day-to-day operations. Community and industry consultation was enhanced through the establishment of port advisory bodies which had direct access to the board. The port authorities provide information on port performance to the Department of Transport on a quarterly basis. Most have also now submitted long-range strategic plans mapping out what they perceive to be the infrastructure needs of the port well into the next century. These initiatives have been undertaken prior to the finalisation of the GOC legislation to get the ball rolling on transport reform. This Government recognised at an early stage that the dabbling and interference of past administrations into the dealings of their enterprises had to stop. The railways and the port authorities needed to quickly achieve a level of autonomy to allow them to concentrate on managing their respective businesses. But with greater autonomy must also come greater accountability. And this is where the GOC legislation currently before the House takes on its importance for the transport enterprises. This Bill essentially confirms the arrangements put in place by the new rail Act and the Queensland ports review process, but it adds to those initiatives by establishing a clear and detailed mechanism by which GOCs account for their operations and report back to the Government. The Bill lays out the fundamental principles for the valuation of assets, the recording of expenses, the calculation of profits, the negotiation of dividends, and the identification and payment of community service obligations. It introduces the concept of the annual statement of corporate intent, which will be the central mechanism for the communication of the Government’s strategic direction. But, just as importantly, the statement of corporate intent will be the central mechanism for monitoring the performance of GOCs in meeting financial, productivity and service targets. These performance targets will be disaggregated to 3076 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly the business unit level so that business managers will be directly accountable for their success or otherwise in meeting Government objectives. So while corporatisation distances the relationship between the Government and the GOC to arm’s length, the Government has not let go of its commercial enterprises, and nor should it. Under these conditions, QR and the port authorities will be free to address the commercial performance of their enterprises within the strategic framework identified by the Government as the representative of the Queensland public. That is the most sound economic strategy that could be introduced by any Government in the 1990s, and it will prove itself through the test of time. Earlier in the debate, there were contributions by the honourable member for Caloundra and others who spoke about the old WA Inc and Vic Inc. I did not know what Vic Inc was. I thought it must have been related to Bic. I thought it was some sort of pen. Mr Stephan: It has got to do with Mr Cain. Mr BEATTIE: Listen, you will get a “cane” if you don’t stop interjecting! The point that needs to be made is that, under corporatisation, the Government will continue to be involved in the key strategic decisions concerning GOC activities and functions, and I have tried to make that clear. That is the key difference between our approach and what happened with WA Inc. There are a lot of major differences between our approach and interstate approaches. The Government will abrogate any involvement it may have had in the past in day-to-day management to enable the board and management to focus on clearly prescribed commercial objectives, but it will still continue to be involved in the key strategic decisions concerning GOCs’ activities and functions. I think that answers the inquiry by the honourable member for Mooloolah about why that was in the legislation. It is included in the legislation so that that level of accountability can still exist, yet the system also has flexibility. The honourable member for Caloundra talked a lot about flexibility. This Bill provides flexibility. It provides for the sort of approach that will make certain that, in the long term, the public good is served by the efficient operation of these public utilities. I want to make a couple of further comments about the contribution by the honourable member for Caloundra. She talked about flexibility, and I have covered that. She advocated destroying the award system that operates in this State and in this country, and she attacked in the most vitriolic way the trade union movement. I would hate to see her negotiate her wages based on her performance. The reality is that the only way—— Mr Hollis interjected. Mr BEATTIE: That is quite right. A sensible industrial relations system can be achieved only by consultation and by the commonsense flowing from the Accord, which in recent times has been supported by the Government. One member referred to stability. The longest industrial relations stability experienced in this country took place over the past 10 years, particularly during the Hawke Government, because the Accord was in place. The Minister for Transport has spent a great deal of time travelling and talking to railway workers in the west about the changes occurring in QR. Recently, the honourable member for Mundingburra, the Minister for Transport and I took a train trip from Townsville to Mount Isa, stopping along the way at all the major centres and talking to rail employees about those changes. All members will know of my involvement with and, indeed, my affection for QR. The clear message to QR employees was this: if we want a railway service that will take us into the next century, that will be viable and that will produce a return that will guarantee their jobs for the future, change has to occur. That is the change that I outlined in the plan which the Government has been pursuing and which is enhanced by this GOC legislation. I support this legislation. I know that this type of legislation will always spark debate. I have to admit that I am confused about the position taken by the Opposition. I note that it supports the legislation in general terms but opposes it in the particular. At the Committee stage or at some other time, I hope that the Opposition sets out in detail Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3077 its proposal to bring about a more viable public sector in this State. The people of Queensland are entitled to a vibrant public sector. This is the only legislation that will bring it about. This legislation contains sufficient safeguards to protect the public interest and to ensure that it receives returns from the process. When we look at these issues, I hope that we move away from the senseless debate—— Time expired. Mr GRICE (Broadwater) (10.26 p.m.): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—— A Government member: Come on, rev her up. A Government member: This will be riveting. Mr GRICE: Government members have started already. So far, they have had a lovely day. The Premier has confessed his paranoia and has confessed that he sees a psychiatrist. A Government member: Have you been sniffing your petrol tank again? Mr GRICE: As I have said once before, the only fumes in this place do not come from petrol; they come from my left—and I mean to the “Left”. During a speech by an Opposition member, the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing imitated a cat by hissing and clawing at the air. I do not know what sort of cat he was imitating or what fixation he has, but it was evidenced clearly today. The Opposition acknowledges that this is without doubt one of the most important Bills to come before the forty-seventh Parliament. Mr Hollis: Where is the coalition leader? Mr GRICE: The honourable member knows where the coalition leader is. For that reason, the Opposition—— A Government member: Where? Mr GRICE: I take the interjection. If the honourable member examines the sheet which sets out the seating arrangements of this Chamber, he will realise who the coalition leader is. A Government member interjected. Mr GRICE: The honourable member wants to have another shot; he got it wrong the first time. In February, the shadow Cabinet established a corporatisation task force, of which I am a member, which is examining the issue of corporatisation and privatisation. Following consideration by that committee and discussions undertaken by the shadow Cabinet, the Opposition has decided to oppose this legislation outright. We oppose it on three major grounds: that it fails to place Government owned enterprises on an equal footing with their new competitors; that it is a half-hearted response to the issue of privatisation and it does not define ministerial responsibility; and, quite simply, that the Treasurer cannot be trusted. This legislation is typical of the approach to business which has been adopted by this and by other Labor Governments. It is legislation of compromise, of half intents, and it just will not work. The underlying theme of this legislation is the maintenance of Government control of State owned enterprises at a time when the Treasurer wants those enterprises to compete in the private sector. We understand that. However, it is a half-baked approach to the principle of privatisation, which has even been embraced by the Keating Labor Government in Canberra. The Treasurer’s rationale is to send corporatised bodies out into the real world, but to say to them, “No, you cannot have real world industrial relations; no, you cannot have real world work practices; no, you are to stay locked and trapped in an industrial relations time warp with its roots in the fifties, and you have to stay there while the rest of the world moves forward.” Something of which I was not aware is that every Minister and every member of the Government has to be and is a member of a union. Mr Welford: No, they don’t have to be at all. You do not know what you are talking about. 3078 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr GRICE: They have to be. The 18 Ministers are members of unions. Mr Beattie: Are you questioning us or telling us? Mr GRICE: I am saying that that is a fact. With very few exceptions, Government members are members of factions. That is typical of the way in which this Government and other Labor Governments do business—the well-worn track of “Brother” Cain, “Sister” Kirner, Burke and Bannon. It is a well-worn track, and an approach that is typical of the Labor Party protection of its union constituency at the expense of true reform, true efficiency and true accountability. The Treasurer says that corporatisation will reap real rewards for this Government, and that it will bring about true reform of our State owned enterprises. Although it is true that the Government will reap financial rewards from corporatisation, it will, in fact, be forcing corporations to operate in a schizophrenic environment. Mr Beattie: Why schizophrenic? Mr GRICE: The member will have to look at the dictionary to find out what it means, but he really should know. A Government member interjected. Mr GRICE: We have already had confessions today from the Premier about his paranoia. Our State owned enterprises will exist in an environment in which they are dictated to by market forces, but are restrained by Government policy; a hostile environment in which success is determined by one’s ability to react and to respond to market pressures; and a business environment which is unfamiliar to the members of this Labor Caucus. The Opposition will have no part of a Bill that serves only to prop up the financial position of this Government. It is important to consider the background in which this Bill is framed. Queensland has a Labor Government that is in its fourth year of a massive spending binge which, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, has seen outlays increase by more than 20 per cent since 1991, smack bang in the middle of the worst recession in 60 years. This Bill has been prepared against a background where all the hollow logs have been raided. Even the poker machines have been brought in to try to get some money back into those hollow logs. The good Labor moles have been in the hollow logs and in the deposits of Treasury. When the Government has begun to levy corporations, raise existing taxes and create new taxes; when the Government has increased the size of the public sector; when the size of the Premier’s own department has now topped 500; when the Government’s own media units include more than 191 people; when the Government has squandered millions of dollars on failed business enterprises—— Mr Beattie: We have? Mr GRICE: The member’s Government has. Indeed, the Opposition is suspicious of the Government’s rationale for introducing a Bill of this type. It believes that it is nothing more than a revenue grab to prop up the Government’s future budgets. Mr Beattie: Would you stop the Indy? Mr GRICE: I will happily take that interjection. I have always said that the Indy is a great thing for the Gold Coast and for Queensland. In fact, in answering that interjection, I will go further and say that before the last election, the Leader of the Opposition went on record as saying that the race would stay on the Gold Coast for five years and it would then be reassessed. However, as of today, we cannot get an undertaking that the race will continue. The only criticism that I have ever made of the Indy is that it must be sustainable, it must be managed properly and it must be affordable to the people of Queensland. I have never been against the Indy, nor has the Leader of the National Party, Mr Borbidge. The race must be affordable and, therefore, the Treasurer will have to do his homework and his housekeeping. However, the Opposition supports the Indy, and it has done so since before the election. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3079

I will return to the Bill. The Opposition believes that it is nothing more than a revenue grab, to bleed dry the Government owned enterprises at a time when the hollow logs have been emptied. I touched on that point previously. Nothing more clearly demonstrates the half-hearted nature of this legislation than its application of the concept of ministerial responsibility. That old tradition has been lost in the Labor Party, from Bob Collins and his pay TV fiasco down to Ed Casey and his DPI incompetence. We have been told that officers of the corporations will be out in the marketplace—— A Government member interjected. Mr GRICE: I will take that interjection also. I have never seen such a disgraceful document as the Auditor-General’s report. It is an incredible thing about which Government members will hear a lot more from the Opposition side of the House. We have been told that officers of the corporations will be out in the marketplace making market-based decisions at arm’s length from the Minister, yet they will still be appointed by the Minister, dictated to by the Minister and controlled by the Minister. They are still Government bodies. Who in this Parliament is responsible for this legislation? Government members interjected. Mr GRICE: Yes, the boys on the Government side of the House are having a nice time. It is good to see that they are awake. Will they confess to paranoia as well? It is apparent that they will not confess. I suspect that it will be more a case of responsibility according to the issue. When a port makes a decision to raise prices, when the QEC makes the decision to raise electricity tariffs, when the price of rail tickets goes up, who is responsible? I bet the Minister will not be lining up at the gate. It will be a case of this Minister saying that he has no control over it. He will be saying, “No, that is the responsibility of the board. I have nothing to do with it”—just as we have seen occur on other occasions in this Parliament. Ministers, Government members and matriculated unionists who make up the great majority of the members of the Government are not the people who should operate in private enterprise. Look at the people who run private enterprises—— A Government member interjected. Mr GRICE: Some Government members are still reading their Phantom comics, so I will be very clear. Peter Bartels, the Managing Director of Myers—is he a member of the union? No. Ted Kunkel, Managing Director of Carlton United Breweries—is he a member of the union? No. Dean Wells, Managing Director of CC Amatil—is he a member of a union? No. Are Government members starting to see a pattern yet? Lindsay Fox, Managing Director of Linfox—is he a member of a union? No. Ross Palmer, Chairman of Palmer Tube Mills—is he a member of a union? No. Are Government members starting to see a pattern yet? Has the penny dropped? Bill Hamill, Managing Director of General Motors Holden—is he a member of a union? No. John Sharp, General Manager of Qantas—is he a member of a union? No. Has the penny dropped yet? Has anyone got the message? Have the lights come on? Michael Porter, Managing Director of Valvoline Australia—is he a member of a union? No. Bob Jane, of Bob Jane T-Marts—is he a member of a union? No. Have Government members got the message yet? These people who will be charged with the responsibility of running corporations will be controlled by unionists—by factions—because that is the way that the system works. But when the issue demands ministerial attention, when a corporatised body makes a decision detrimental to a Labor electorate, I am sure that we will see the Minister taking a far more active role. Again, we have this schizophrenic approach to corporate decision making which is neither in the corporation’s interest nor in the public interest. Another example of this is the power that the Minister has to delete commercially sensitive information from annual reports and accompanying documentation. Clause 132 (1) states— “If a GOC’s board requests the shareholding Ministers to delete from the copies of an annual report of the GOC (and accompanying documents) that are to be made public a matter that is of a commercially sensitive nature, the shareholding 3080 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Ministers may delete the matter from the copies of the annual report (and accompanying documents) that are laid before the Legislative Assembly or otherwise made public.” Mr Turner: A new method of accountability. Mr GRICE: Indeed, a new method of accountability. So if a Minister and the GOC board get together and decide that a matter of Government and ministerial responsibility is not deemed appropriate for public consumption, they will have the power to order its withdrawal from the public record. Once again, the factions of the Government will have control over what the public sees. Where is the accountability in that? In a matter that touches at the heart of this Government’s commitment to accountability, members of this Parliament are being told in this legislation that Ministers have the power to censure annual reports. This aspect of the legislation is a disgrace, and further evidence of the Government’s half-hearted confidence trick. The other deficiency of this legislation has been raised before and will continue to be hammered home. We cannot expect corporations to compete in the real world when they are restrained by out-of-date work practices and when they have been told that existing public service conditions must be maintained. It is a bit like putting a boxer in the ring and tying his hands behind his back. No, it is worse; it is like saying that he cannot head butt, either. Efficiency gains come in a large part through reforms of the labour market and breaking down outdated work practices. Within the limitations of Government, the private sector is coming to grips with this concept. The corporations will not be able to. This is a basic and fatal flaw in this legislation. It seeks to appease Labor’s traditional constituency at a time when Governments need to be tackling the tough issues. The Government has attempted to justify this legislation by saying that corporatised bodies will operate at arm’s length from the Government and Ministers. The question that honourable members must ask themselves is: can we believe the Treasurer? This is the very same Treasurer who said that the QIDC would operate at arm’s length, that the QIC would operate at arm’s length, and that the Government would not become involved in corporate decision making. But this is also the very same Treasurer who instructed the QIDC to invest more than $7m in Compass. This is the very same Treasurer who instructed the QIDC to invest in the Gondwanaland theme park. These are examples of deliberate and calculated Government interference in the operation of those so-called independent bodies. What assurances do we have that the same thing will not happen after this Bill has been passed and corporatisation comes into effect? Absolutely none! We have a genuine suspicion that, in the true traditions of an emerging Queensland Inc, it will continue. This Bill is a half-hearted public relations exercise that does nothing to address the real issues of efficiency and accountability. It does nothing about making Government smaller and more focused on doing the things that it should be doing. It does nothing about letting the private sector do the things that the private sector does best. For those reasons, the Opposition opposes this Bill. Mr HOLLIS (Redcliffe) (10.43 p.m.): The previous speaker adopted quite an incredible approach to the Bill. He seemed to indicate that, as members of the Government, we cannot be members of unions or members of factions, and that the workers for the Government—the public sector employees—should work for nothing. That seemed to be the general theme of his speech. In joining in this debate on the Government Owned Corporations Bill 1993, I want to point out that it is particularly important for members to focus on the major reasons for this move. This initiative by the Government is yet another step in improving Queensland’s overall economic performance. The improvements generated by this course of action will enable the Government to deliver its social objectives. Corporatisation is a method of improving the efficiency of GOEs while retaining public ownership. It is not a forerunner to privatisation; it is an alternative. It is not the ownership of an entity per se that determines its efficiency, it is its operating Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3081 environment. But we believe in public ownership. Therefore, we support initiatives to make public entities efficient. We understand that we cannot preserve public ownership by entrenching inefficiency. The theme of the whole corporatisation Bill is to turn us around from a not-so-efficient public sector to one that concentrates and focuses on efficiency, so that the employees of those corporations will know they must make a profit for that corporate body so the dividend is then returned to the Government, and so we can then pursue the social objectives that any good Government should pursue. Queensland is the only jurisdiction left in Australia that is committed to public ownership. We believe that public ownership is the only way to go, the only way to ensure the rightful profits of those public sector entities are returned to the people who own those GOCs and need the results from them. Other jurisdictions are pursuing privatisation for reasons of ideology and/or fiscal imperatives. The claim of the Deputy Coalition Leader that we are ramming this legislation through is completely false. We have had a fleeting glimpse of her at odd times tonight and it is a shame that, although she complains that we are ramming the Bill through, she does not have the courtesy—and not even criticism by members of the Government can force her to accept the responsibility—to be in the Chamber while a Bill for which she is shadow Treasurer is being debated. The consultation process for this Bill has been extremely comprehensive. In 1990, a Green Paper was issued, followed by a process of consultation. In March 1992, a White Paper was issued. Further consultation took place with the TLC and the AWU. Those unions were consulted on the White Paper and the legislation, and many amendments and compromises were agreed to by the Government. Over the past 12 months, a corporatisation steering committee with representatives from both industry and trade unions has been closely involved in the development of the GOC legislation. This Bill is actually version No. 29, which reflects the input from all the relevant parties. In terms of Government risk, corporatisation is aimed at preventing, not causing, the financial institution fiascos that occurred in other States. Section 1.1.4 of the White Paper stated— “In order to guard against the emergence of financial problems—such as difficulties in meeting interest or minimum dividend payments—the Government would assess the financial position and performance of GOEs on a continuous basis with a number of financial indicators. The financial indicators would be based on financial ratio analysis. This is a standard technique which is widely used by the private sector and by some Governments for summarising large amounts of financial data and comparing performance. The operational requirements for GOEs . . . would also play an important role in this regard.” It went on— “Various leverage and liquidity ratios would be useful in assessing financial health. These measures would assist the Government in assessing the capital structures and credit exposure of GOEs to ensure consistency with private sector norms.” In other words, there are going to be checks and a regular assessment of the financial viability of the GOEs. That is another focus by the Treasurer to make sure that what occurred with the Bank of South Australia and WA Inc cannot happen in Queensland. The Bill also establishes proper relationships between the Government—that is, the shareholders—the board and management. It establishes the right balance between accountability and management autonomy. In terms of accountability, some special features of the legislation are that there are ministerial reserve powers to direct; there is an annual statement of corporate intent, or performance contract; the reporting requirements are spelt out; and the Auditor-General is the auditor. The Auditor-General will continue to be responsible for the audits of all Government owned corporations. In my view, that is an appropriate course to pursue, as it is consistent with the Government’s stated policy in that regard, and it acknowledges the fact that public 3082 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly accountability of State owned entities is paramount. Under this approach, the accountability cycle will remain intact, with the audit by the Auditor-General, independent reporting to Parliament by the Auditor-General and the attendant rights of the Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts to fulfil its functions and duties under the Public Accounts Committee Act 1988. In Victoria, where they have corporatised some entities, they have a special committee of the Parliament which is called the Committee for Public Bodies Review. It specifically attends to the public corporate bodies in that State. In a State the size of Queensland, we do not need another committee; the Public Accounts Committee will be able to handle the situation well. I turn to the functions and powers of the Public Accounts Committee. It is important that the Public Accounts Committee in this State take an active role and observe and question. With the new corporate bodies, even the Treasurer would acknowledge there will be reservations amongst many people that possibly a State Bank of South Australia or WA Inc situation could occur. With the checks and balances in place in this State, the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee will be taking great interest in the activities of the corporate bodies so they can assess whether that situation may occur; however, with the various checks and balances, it should not. Section 13 of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1988 gives the committee power to review annual financial statements and other financial reports and documents, whether or not those documents are associated with, explanatory of or supplementary to those financial statements and reports for financial years, which have been laid before the Legislative Assembly in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977-1988 or any other Act or law or direction issued thereunder to the extent that those statements, reports and documents relate to matters occurring on or after 1 December 1987. The section goes on to stipulate the different ways in which the committee can look at those matters, including the Treasurer’s Annual Statement, the annual and other reports by the Auditor-General and any documents that were tabled before the Legislative Assembly identified by the committee in the committee’s review, and other areas which, in the opinion of the committee, have or could have adverse implications in respect of the probity, economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the collection and expenditure of moneys and the management and control of assets and liabilities. That and other powers of the committee, I believe, are very good insurance that the corporate bodies will be kept under fairly close observation. Accountability, of course, is also assured, as I said previously, by the retention of the Auditor-General as the external auditor of Government owned corporations and with the Public Accounts Committee as the scrutiny arm of the Parliament. I believe that one of the difficulties experienced with the State Bank in South Australia was that it took charge of its own corporatisation and its own audit functions, and the Government per se, through the Auditor-General or through the Minister, had very little knowledge of what was going on within the bowels of the bank. That is how difficulties can occur. Corporate identities in this State will have to report to the Minister at least every three months on the viability of the corporate body and how its efficiency, etc., is going. Clause 127 of the Bill provides that the Financial Administration and Audit Act also applies to a statutory GOC as if it was a statutory body within that meaning of the Act. Clause 128 provides that the Financial Administration and Audit Act, relating to audits and the tabling of annual reports that are prescribed by regulation applies to a Government owned company as if it were a statutory body within the meaning of the Act. It provides also that the Public Accounts Committee Act applies to the annual reports and financial statements of a company GOC in the same way as it applies to annual statements and financial statements of a statutory GOC. So we have some very good protection there. The other protection is for the GOC itself. The Bill allows for the deletion of commercially sensitive matters from the annual reports of GOCs at the request of the GOC’s board to the shareholding Ministers. If the information that is sought or provided Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3083 could have a serious adverse effect upon the commercial interests of a public sector entity or reveal trade secrets of that public sector entity, under section 104 (1) of the Financial Administration and Audit Act the Auditor-General must not disclose the information in a report but must, instead, include it in a report to be given to the Public Accounts Committee. Section 104 (2) of that Act also states that this section has effect despite anything in this or any other Act. Following on from that, section 92 (3) (a) of the Financial Administration and Audit Act allows disclosure of the information by the Auditor-General to the Public Accounts Committee, thus waiving the confidentiality requirements under section 92 (1) and section 92 (2) of the Act. Firstly, it protects the Government owned companies so that they can trade on the open market without fear of their financial dealings being passed onto other competitors; and, secondly, it gives the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor-General the knowledge of what is going on within that Government owned corporate body. They are able to keep those checks and balances so that we do not experience the difficulties that have occurred in other States. Quite a lot has been said today about the grab for money. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we are talking about efficiency, effectiveness and accountability, not generating revenue. Corporatisation would lead to lower prices and better service. Successful corporatisation should lead to greater profits and increased dividends for the State Budget. The increased revenue can help the Government to deliver better services such as education, health and police. This Bill does not corporatise any Government enterprise; it is purely umbrella legislation which will cover all the facets of corporatisation as it proceeds through the Parliament. I am sure that members opposite will have plenty of opportunities to debate the various entities that will be corporatised over the next couple of years. In conclusion, more efficient Government owned enterprises mean lower costs, a more competitive economy and, ultimately, more jobs, because the bulk of the labour shedding has already occurred in our major GOEs. The shedding has already occurred in QESI, in the railways and in other entities. We now have bodies that are already efficient and proceeding towards corporatisation. I congratulate the Treasurer on taking such a progressive step for the economic future of Queensland. Other speakers have mentioned the consultation process that has gone with this Bill. As a backbencher, it has been good to be able to understand what the Bill means, what the thrust of the Bill is and what the end result will be. If the Opposition were to receive similar information, I am sure that the standard of debate would improve. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (10.59 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to join in this debate this evening, particularly as members opposite seem to be placing a great deal of emphasis on Government owned corporations costing less without placing much emphasis on the services that will be provided, or the lack of them. At a later stage, I will refer to the matter of services, but now point out briefly that a lack of service has been evident lately in the railways and in the Department of Primary Industries owing to the Government’s cutting back on services to reduce costs. Sure, the Government is cutting costs, but it has forgotten what it was set up for in the first place. The member for Woodridge is almost asleep, but he might wake up in a minute. Mr Livingstone: You are the one who is putting him to sleep. You put me to sleep. Mr STEPHAN: I saw the honourable member open his eyes immediately the word “Woodridge” was mentioned and he again came to life. During his speech, the member for Woodridge referred to the practice of raiding hollow logs, which is one of the hallmarks of this Government. The Government appears to be running out of hollow logs. Perhaps Government members do not know where any more can be found, otherwise they would be into them, too. Over the last 18 months, the Government has raided hollow logs to the extent of a couple of hundred million dollars and is now looking for ways to generate other funding to try to maintain the level of spending it engaged in when the hollow logs were full. 3084 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

In the Minister’s second-reading speech and in the remarks made by some honourable members, reference has been made to Queensland’s economy being sound. Sure, it is sound, but that is because of 32 years of conservative Government in this State. The previous Government was able to pass on to the Labor Government a stable economy that has enabled this Government to provide services to the people, with the assistance of several raided hollow logs. I wonder what will happen when the Government runs out of hollow logs. Government members should not forget that they inherited a sound economy that had been developed over a long period by the previous conservative Government. The member for Brisbane Central made the comment that Labor Governments are the ones that are running the economy in this State and in this nation—no doubt à la the Victorian, South Australian and Western Australian Labor Governments of previous years. I remember when the Premier, Mr Goss, stated that Labor would do for Queensland what Cain had done for Victoria and John Bannon did for South Australia. I hope that Queensland’s Premier will not manage this State’s economy along those lines. Mr Livingstone: What about your support for Skase? What about the ones you supported? Mr STEPHAN: I am talking about management of the economies of various States, not whether Mr Skase ran into difficulties. Sure, Mr Skase had problems, and who was running the national economy at that time? At this stage, Labor members claim that this Government is running Queensland’s economy at a higher level of efficiency than is the case in any other State in Australia. The fact is that this Government’s performance does not match its rhetoric because Labor members are not putting in the work or taking the action that is required. The member for Waterford referred to efficiency, but his definition of “efficiency” sounds very much akin to a recipe for high administration costs. The Government will appear to be running these corporations according to the book and will give the impression that everything is in place, but the cost of implementing these schemes will mean that his definition of “efficiency” will be the same level of efficiency as applies in other areas, that is, the costs of administration will be much higher than he expects and that members of the Opposition would hope for. I hope that the efficiency that has been brought to light in other areas of government in this State is not the same type of efficiency that will be a feature of the way in which this Government runs these corporations. Time and again throughout the Bill, reference is made to the fact that the ability of private enterprise to compete is hampered by a number of disadvantages. I understand that, by regulation, the Government will exempt GOCs and subsidiaries of GOCs from the liability to pay State taxes. In this instance, the Government is providing assistance and support that is given to no other business in this State, namely, approval not to pay tax. A lot of business people would be able to make a far better fist of things if they did not have to continue to pay taxes and pass money into some sort of reserves as demanded by this Government, but this Government does not operate in that way. I become concerned when the Government offers exemptions to GOCs to enable public sector institutions to compete whereas the private sector’s ability to compete or even to survive is being severely hampered. Q-Link is not competitive, even with the advantage of a high level of Government assistance in the form of a taxation exemption. I also note that the Bill contains reference to the Minister giving complete authority to the corporations to run their own affairs and manage their own administration. When one examines this legislation, it can be seen that there is power reserved to shareholding Ministers to give directions “in the public interest”. This is a term that is mentioned in a number of places throughout the Bill. What constitutes “public interest”? Who determines what “public interest” is? This term provides the shareholding Minister with a mechanism for giving directions to the corporations by saying, “In the public interest, I direct you to take a particular course of action.” The Government has done this in other areas. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3085

Mr T. B. Sullivan: It is called governing. That is what governing is about—making decisions. Mr STEPHAN: In one breath, the Treasurer is saying that these corporations will be given a free rein and in the next breath he is saying that they will be told what to do and be given guidelines to which they must adhere. In recent times, the Minister for Local Government adopted a similar approach in relation to the amalgamation of local authorities. He said that those involved in the discussion on amalgamations would have the ability to decide, but the point I make is that they can decide only in terms of the guidelines that have been set by the Local Government Minister. That approach gives people no room to manoeuvre because they are being told that they shall amalgamate under certain conditions. The Minister then turned around and said that the Government did not do that, that it was not his responsibility and that the local authorities themselves decided on that particular action, which is not the case. The formula in the Bill is exactly the same as what the Minister did in those instances. It is not good enough. If the Minister is giving the Government owned corporations free rein, it should give them free rein. The Government should not try to hide behind the legislation and say that when the corporations run into trouble, it is their fault; but that if the Government wants some assistance or some more funding, it can put its hand in the bucket and get whatever it likes and whatever it can out of the GOCs. Those are the sorts of matters that concern a lot of people and me when we read through the guidelines that have been set and when we see the agenda that the Government is trying to follow. I commented earlier on a couple of the areas that the Government is attempting to delve into. In his second-reading speech, the Minister states that the Government is looking at QIC, Suncorp, the ports of Brisbane and Gladstone, the Harbours Corporation, the Queensland electricity supply industry, QR, Water Resources and Forestry, among others. When I try to work out what the Government will do, that list gives rise to a great deal of concern. I cite the example of QR. Recently, one railway worker was sitting in my office. He said, “I have never voted for you, Len. You are not one of mine, but those characters in Brisbane are not doing much for me at the present time.” I asked him if he was still working for the railways. He said, “I am still working, but I do not know for how long. I do not know what tomorrow brings and what it holds.” That is not the type of confidence that the Government should give people. That is a shocking position in which to put people. Where are we going when the Government takes that attitude? What about the so-called service that QR is giving at the moment? If, for example, a person sends a parcel from Maryborough to Rockhampton, where does it go? It goes from Maryborough to Brisbane to be sorted, then it goes on a train up to Rockhampton. Under those circumstances, is it any wonder that not too many goods go by rail and/or by Q-Link? I came across another extraordinary situation on one of the branch lines. One of the producers used to send some lettuce from one little station to another about 20 miles up the track. Although the train was running along that same line, even that lettuce had to go to Brisbane to be sorted before it went further along the line. Is that the type of service that people can expect from the Government’s so-called efficiency and so-called better productivity? We certainly do not see too much productivity, nor is it in the forefront of the mind of the Government. The State itself is in a very difficult position. Although the country regions are in difficulties, so too is the rest of Queensland. One thing that Government members must realise and that we must get through their skulls is the fact that there are problems out there. It is no good saying that the problems will go away or trying to give the impression that no problems exist if the Government is going to keep on pulling them down. I say that because I am concerned about Water Resources coming under the GOC legislation. I begin to wonder, and a lot of the producers begin to wonder, what is in store for them in terms of the costs of water resources. What will happen when—not “if”, but “when”—the Government must construct more weirs or dams or create more 3086 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly water storage capacity? Who will be expected to pay for that? Will it be the primary producers, the first users? Will the Government say that they should pay $400 or $500 a megalitre for an application form and then another $60 or $70 a megalitre for each year that they use it? What will be the story? If Water Resources comes under the corporatisation legislation, what is going through the mind of the Government with respect to costs? If the Government starts imposing extraordinary costs along those lines, it should bear in mind that far more people than the first user get the advantage of the water that will be stored, and it will be there for generations and generations to come. Surely, that is one very good reason why the community as a whole should give assistance. That is one reason why people pay taxes—to give assistance and to put in place water storage facilities or some other facility that will be there for generations and generations to come. It is no laughing matter. I know that the Minister is grinning about it, but it is no laughing matter. If the Government constructs a facility that will be there for a long time, the present generation and the present users should not be expected to pay it off in a short period. Our water resources and water storages have been playing an enormous and very important role in the community and will continue to do so for another hundred years or even more. Why would the Government think of putting Water Resources or Forestry into Government owned corporations? The way that the Government is going with revocation of forestry land and taking so much of it away from the present Forest Service, not much of the forestry will be left. A lot of concerns and a lot of problems arise with this piece of legislation. It is a concern of the Opposition that must be highlighted and brought to the notice of the Government. It is no good saying that the system is very efficient and that the Government has administration under control when in fact the Government is not giving a service at all. A number of Government members have made the comment that the Government is getting a return and that the service is not costing as much. However, I did not hear too many of them making the same comment when they were talking about passenger rail services in the Brisbane area. Will that pay its way in the same manner as the country rail service must pay its way? Mr Beanland: My services certainly are. They are being cut right out. Mr STEPHAN: Is the Government telling people to travel by road or walk? When it comes to giving service to the community, it is false economy for the Government to continue to cut costs and services and think that that will not have an effect on the community. Mr PYKE (Mount Ommaney) (11.16 p.m.): I rise in this Chamber tonight to speak on behalf of the good people of Mount Ommaney in support of the Government Owned Corporations Bill, and I will not waste words. This Bill is about a smart enterprising Government doing smart business in a very enterprising way. This Bill, the Government Owned Corporations Bill, is a Bill which simply takes Queensland further along the very important path of micro public sector reform, a path that, I add, our community has expectations the Goss Government will continue to travel along. The potential gains from corporatisation of Government owned enterprises are immense. Even a 1 per cent increase return on our public assets will yield an additional $250m which will be able to be directed to greater service provision to our community, and that is very good business. The objectives of corporatisation are to improve our great State’s overall economic efficiency and performance and to improve our Government’s ability to deliver social objectives by improved efficiency and improved accountability. Ensuring that Government owned corporations operate in the same commercial manner as private commercial enterprises, in the same competitive environment, while the Government retains ownership, is good business, too—good for Queensland and good for Queensland people. I commend the Treasurer and our Government for their initiative in introducing this useful Bill. Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly) (11.17 p.m.): There are several key issues that I want to refer to in this debate. In particular, I want to refer to the issue of accountability Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3087 within this legislation. I do that because I am generally interested in a number of aspects of accountability, and I will say more on that in a moment. I have looked through this legislation. However, first of all I want to refer to the freedom of information legislation. I assume that the FOI legislation will apply to these particular Government owned corporations. At the moment, the FOI legislation does not apply to the Queensland Investment Corporation, the Queensland Industry Development Corporation and so on, because they are excluded under that legislation. Is it the case that the FOI legislation will apply to those organisations that are not spelt out in this legislation as being exempted? In other words, have the exemptions or the applications of the freedom of information legislation changed in any shape or form? Mr De Lacy: No, the FOI will be taken up on a case by case basis when we do the portfolios. Mr BEANLAND: I thank the Treasurer for that. So what we might find is that when the legislation comes forward for the corporatisation of particular Government enterprises, the Government will look at it on an individual basis, but for the time being the FOI legislation as it stands applies. Mr De Lacy: Yes. Mr BEANLAND: Fine. I thank the Treasurer very much for clearing that point up. My next matter relates to ministerial accountability. I presume that the Treasurer will say that ministerial accountability still applies to these corporations. I mention that because in the past I have found so often that when Ministers are asked a question in relation to one of these corporations, they say, “That is a commercially sensitive matter and we must not answer that.” Of course, that is always a good way to avoid being accountable for these things. I have also heard said, “Look, we are only the shareholders. The board of directors is responsible.” I presume that, at the end of the day, Ministers will still be accountable in this Parliament when questions are asked about these organisations. I am very serious about this because some of the Minister’s colleagues in other States got into problems over this very aspect, because they fudged the issues as they came along. In some cases, they told untruths, as we know, about some of these things. So, Ministers will be accountable to the Parliament and we will not find any fudging under “commercially sensitive matters”. I mention this because I notice in the legislation that there will be deletions from some of the annual reports of matters that are commercially sensitive before those reports are tabled in this place. Mr De Lacy: We didn’t say there will be. Mr BEANLAND: It allows an opportunity for the Minister to delete matters. Mr De Lacy: You people talk about private enterprise as being on a level playing field. Mr BEANLAND: That is a very good point, and I will come to that in a moment. Mr De Lacy: You can’t have it both ways. Mr BEANLAND: I am not trying to have it both ways. I am trying to define exactly what we are going to have in terms of accountability in this place and what we are not. Mr De Lacy: You are not suggesting there is no accountability? Goodness gracious! Mr BEANLAND: I think if we have a little look at what has gone on elsewhere in relation to the Treasurer’s so-called pride and joy called corporatisation, it leaves a lot to be desired. There has been a total lack of accountability for all sorts of, what the Treasurer would term, good reasons. I notice also that the Treasurer intends to move amendments at the Committee stage. One of the amendments deals with—— Mr De Lacy: A bit more accountability. Mr BEANLAND: It does not, in fact. It refers to the application of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act of 1974. I will not deal with these amendments in detail because they refer to particular clauses. However, I notice in the amendments that have 3088 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly been circulated that the Treasurer says that the Parliamentary Commissioner Act of 1974 does not apply as a general principle but in relation to some aspects to do with the statutory corporations it will apply. I raise this point because it is very serious. If people in the community want to go to the Ombudsman, particularly about company GOCs, there will certainly be no opportunity for the Ombudsman to become involved. However, in relation to statutory GOCs, the Treasurer has watered down to a minor degree, I would say, the opportunity for the Ombudsman to become involved. Some minor changes have been made. I presume that they enable a watering down of the provision relating to statutory GOCs. The list of amendments state also that the Parliamentary Commissioner Act does not apply to GOCs as a blanket rule. Mr De Lacy: No. We have changed that. We have amended it. Mr BEANLAND: The entire clause is to be removed. I thank the Treasurer for clearing up that matter. I am pleased to see some watering down of that provision. However, the Criminal Justice Act will not apply to a company GOC but it will apply to a statutory GOC. That does not allow for any accountability. I notice that the Public Accounts Committee is still able to investigate GOCs. In addition, GOCs are subject to the Financial Administration and Audit Act. In that respect, some of the matters to which I referred earlier come into play. GOCs will have some accountability to this House, but I trust that a further follow-up on that will take place. Mr De Lacy: And the Public Accounts Committee. Mr BEANLAND: I hear what the Treasurer is saying, and I have already mentioned the Public Accounts Committee. However, that Committee is not this Parliament; it is not this Chamber. At the end of the day, we must ensure—— Mr De Lacy: What? The Public Accounts Committee is not in this Chamber? Mr BEANLAND: I did not say that. Mr T. B. Sullivan: No, you said that. Mr BEANLAND: I did not say that. I think that we have already heard enough from the member for Chermside. He has demonstrated that he knows nothing of this matter. I suggest to him that he read the legislation. Now that I have cleared up some accountability issues, I want to ask the question: can Labor handle other people’s money? A number of Government members—and the member for Brisbane Central was one of them—have gone to great lengths to claim that one cannot equate the Labor Party in Queensland to the Labor Party in the other States. The member for Brisbane Central went on to state that Labor is the party of Government. New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia can certainly attest to that! Those States now have to clean up the disasters created by Labor Governments. The member for Brisbane Central stated also that members of the Liberal Party have a “born to rule” attitude. My response is this: at every level of government at which the Labor Party is in power, its arrogance comes across loud and clear. The results of Labor Party arrogance are huge losses, debts to taxpayers and a waste of taxpayers’ money. Mr Quinn: Born to squander. Mr BEANLAND: As the honourable member for Merrimac said, the Labor Party is born to squander, and he is quite right. The member for Waterford waxed lyrical about the big improvements that corporatisation would bring. In fact, his performance reminded me of John Cain. I am sure that the member for Waterford took his speech from John Cain—or perhaps it was Premier Bannon. Many of the statements by the honourable member for Waterford were similar to those made by those two Premiers when they introduced so-called corporatisation. If this legislation takes effect, Mr Goss may well achieve his stated aim prior to the 1989 election. He announced, “I want to do for business in Queensland what John Cain has done for business in Victoria.” Certainly, that is a record which this State does not want to emulate. As many Opposition members have already mentioned, this is a revenue-raising measure. It will indeed be a very lucrative revenue raiser. In the White Paper, the Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3089

Treasurer stated the expected economic rate of return from GOEs will be in order of 7 per cent to 11 per cent. I understand that that figure is currently 3 per cent. The Treasurer will no doubt claim that efficiency will be improved to that degree, although the method by which that will be achieved is not contained within the legislation. The Treasurer will no doubt claim that all sorts of efficiency improvements will bring about that return. It must be remembered that competition will not exist in many of these areas. I think it is fair to say that, without that competition, the fees and charges of these organisations will increase markedly across-the-board. Of course, once that occurs, the Treasurer will wash his hands of the matter. I have seen him do that so many times before. In fact, on more than 3 000 occasions, he has weaseled money out of the Queensland taxpayer and in the process has broken the Government’s electoral promises. He cannot deny that. Of course, in some cases, land tax has increased by a huge 1 000 per cent. However, I have no doubt that the Treasurer will say, “It is not my fault; it is a user-pays principle. I wash my hands of the whole situation.” Mr De Lacy: I wouldn’t deny anything at this stage. Mr BEANLAND: The Treasurer will not deny anything, because he knows that it is true. That is typical of the Treasurer. He is the biggest duck shover this State has ever seen. He is not a Treasurer’s bootlace, and he knows it. Time after time in this Chamber, he has carried on in the same fashion: “It is not me. It is not me. It is never me. It is never my responsibility.” Whose responsibility is it, then? The Government will use this as a revenue raiser; the Treasurer has admitted that this evening, and I thank him for that. I am pleased that, at long last, the public will find out the truth about him. No economic efficiency is included in this entire process. What is more, the competition required to bring about economic efficiency will not exist. In the end, the deficit will be passed on to the consumer. On the other hand, we will find that there will be cuts in services. Several members have referred to cuts in railway services. For the Minister’s edification, I point out that those cuts in services are occurring throughout the city. The railways are looking down the track and, in a few months’ time, will be slashing services. In some cases, the service during peak hours will be slashed by more than half, and generally, services throughout the city will be reduced. I am not talking about a reduction in services during off-peak periods, but peak periods. The trains are packed already. No doubt, I will hear eventually that the reduction in services is all part of the new corporatisation of Queensland Rail—that it must introduce a user-pays system because it cannot afford to buy new rail stock and it cannot increase its fares any more. Therefore, it will cut some of its services. At the end of the day, costs will balloon out because a cut in services means increased road traffic. The bus system is inadequate, but the Government does not care because at the end of the day, somebody else will pick up the bill. As long as its books are balanced, that is the end of the Government’s concern. Already, services have been reduced, but they will be reduced in other areas. Recently, the Minister for Transport, in answer to a Dorothy Dix question, tried to make out that the reduction in rail services was a figment of my imagination. However, I understand that the draft timetables are available, if people are fortunate enough to be able to get their hands on them. But no consultation has taken place. A survey has been carried out. That was Labor’s consultation! It went out and conducted a survey and, of course, if people are asked whether they want an express service from one station into the city, naturally they will say “Yes, we would like an express service.” That is only human nature. Of course, at the end of the day, someone has to pay for it. Consequently, what is occurring in Queensland Rail will happen to services across-the- board. I heard some of the members of the Labor Party waxing lyrical about corporatisation—the added benefits that would flow from a bigger return; that the State’s taxpayers were going to become shareholders; that they were going to be the major winners out of this exercise; and that at the end the day they were going to receive a golden egg. Of course, taxpayers in a number of other States were led to 3090 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly believe this also, and we know exactly what the Treasurer’s colleagues in those States did to those taxpayers. What we have is a simple exercise of revenue grabbing that will increase taxation. I am not talking about an increase of a couple of hundred million dollars, I am talking about an increase of between $1.5 billion and $2 billion if the Government carries out the process that is outlined in the White Paper. That will mean major tax increases across-the-board and increases in the cost of services across-the- board for the community at large. It cannot be achieved in any other way. At the same time, the services that are provided currently by a number of entities that will be corporatised in order to meet this Government’s tax dividend that it will require as a shareholder will be reduced. I think the Bill speaks for itself. I know that the members of the public of this State will be watching this legislation very closely, as are we on the Opposition side of the Chamber. In relation to the liabilities that may be incurred, but, as I understand it, will not appear in the Government’s balance sheets—I trust that we will continue to receive a breakdown of all of those matters at the back of the Treasurer’s Annual Statement. If new liabilities are incurred, they should be spelt out very clearly in that statement, and are not left out, so that if the guarantees by the State for these corporations have ballooned out, we as members of Parliament and the public at large are aware of them. So I would like some indication from the Treasurer that those items will continue to be listed in that statement and that we will be given notice of exactly what corporations the Government is guaranteeing. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN (Chermside) (11.36 p.m.): I rise to support this Bill. I admit that I had initial reservations about the whole notion of corporatisation. It is almost two years to the day that I first came into Parliament, and the Green Paper on corporatisation was one of the first major documents that I read. At that stage, I had some discussions with Treasury officials, with the help of the Treasurer. When the White Paper was released in March last year, I felt much better and was more at ease with the process. However, I was still worried about how the ideas would be translated into legislation. I congratulate the Treasurer and his department on this Bill, because I believe that it can achieve the stated goals. Of course, the Government has a Treasurer who encourages patient, painstaking and rational discussion. The Leader of the Liberal Party moaned that the Government had brought on this legislation so quickly and that she had very little time to consider it. Who is she kidding? The Leader of the Liberal Party has had 33 months since the Green Paper was published. The Opposition has had 14 months since the White Paper was released. If members of the Opposition cannot receive advice from their own parties, and particularly from their own back bench during that time, they could have had a novice research assistant compare the White Paper to the legislation. It would have taken only two days. But, no, the Leader of the Liberal Party, in her usual whingeing, moaning, whining way, had a go at the Treasurer. Again, she was totally out of order. Mr Fenlon: It was the worst speech she has ever made. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: No, I can remember another one that was much worse. It may have been close. The members for Caloundra, Gympie and Indooroopilly compared Queensland with other States—“Victoria is this, Queensland that.” Down south they might have had Cain, but here we have Abel. Unlike the biblical story, this Abel—our able Treasurer—is alive and well, and he will be around for many years to come. So members on the Opposition benches might as well get used to him in his position as Treasurer, because he will run that ship for a long time. Why are we dealing with corporatisation? What is it all about? According to the White Paper, in some cases Government owned enterprises have meant that the community has not been served as effectively or efficiently as it could have been. That is right. We have—and had—inefficiencies. From those inefficiencies, we have less revenue to work with. Our spending on debt repayments or other wasteful areas of Government enterprises meant that every dollar wasted was a dollar that we did not spend where we should have. In the past few years, this Government has given a huge Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3091 boost to some of the major services, that is, police, nurses and teachers, especially in relation to the salaries of those three groups. I applaud that. While I am on my feet, I shall give a plug to the Treasurer that from the efficiencies of these coming enterprises, he will put a special effort into Family Services. As the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs knows, of all the departments in which Queensland was behind other States, Family Services was the worst. For example, whilst South Australia was spending roughly $90 per head on Family Services, the National Party and Liberal Party Governments were spending about $19 per head. That is how far behind Family Services is. We know that our teachers were behind the eight ball—the lowest paid; we know that our police were the lowest paid; and we know that our nurses were the lowest paid. But the total spending on Family Services was the absolute worst situation that this Government inherited. Although we have come a long way, I encourage the Treasurer to use some of the benefits that we will gain from these GOEs in the Family Services sector. Corporatisation is not privatisation, nor is it a step to privatisation, as some members tried to claim. This Bill provides for continued public ownership of the entities as part of the process. I support public ownership, and so does my party. It allows the State, on behalf of the people, to provide the direction in which we should be going. In fact, the State owns all the shares on behalf of the people. We are not paying dividends to individuals, we are paying dividends back to the Government for the services that we can provide in all departments. A very important element of the legislation which I support strongly is the community service obligation. Again, according to the White Paper, CSOs are the non- commercial activities which the Government owned enterprises are directed to pursue by Governments. They are activities that could not be undertaken in a purely commercial environment. This is the difference between Government and private enterprise. Private enterprise has one major focus, that is, the profit for the individual owner or for the shareholders. This Government has more obligations than that. It has the obligation to redirect that money to the people and to provide services for the people in more than a purely commercial way. As has been said also, the CSOs would be separated clearly from the commercial objectives of the Government owned enterprises. One National Party speaker asked, “How can we interfere yet leave them by themselves? What are we doing?” It is very clear in the documentation. With those objectives that are purely commercial, the people who are running the show will run it on a commercial basis. But the shareholding Ministers, the Treasurer and the portfolio Minister, will direct the specific community service obligations. That is where the difference lies. That is where we will govern. That is where we come in, and our social policy objectives are met. That is where we can account for the disadvantaged. It surprises me that members on the Opposition side of the House do not support that. Many of their constituents are in geographically disadvantaged areas. They are in the most remote areas of the State which, on a commercial basis, could not sustain many of the services that the Government provides. So, if the community service obligations are helping anyone, they are helping the constituents of the National Party. This Treasurer and this party say, “We believe that services must be available to everyone in the State, and we support those community service obligations.” The Government, through the Ministers, will have the final say. There is no doubt about that. It is very important that the statement of corporate intent is built into this legislation. Every GOC must have a statement of corporate intent, and it will spell out both the financial and non-financial performance targets. That statement of corporate intent will talk about the objectives of the GOC, the nature and scope of its activities, the dividend policies, the major infrastructure investments, the outline of its borrowings, and so on. It will have direction from the Government. We are not abrogating our responsibility to govern the State. We are setting it in legislation and defining it in the Act. As well, the Ministers will have some reserve powers. I stress the word “some”. I do 3092 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly not want to go back to the days of the National Party when Ministers could step in and have a ministerial override just to help their friends, whether it be in Main Roads or in the placement of a teacher. Mrs Sheldon: Ask Mr Mackenroth about it. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I am sorry, I missed that whine. What was it? Mrs Sheldon: Ask Mr Mackenroth about it. He’s the one who makes ministerial rezonings. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I might be fairly new to this House—— Mrs McCauley: You sure are! Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I certainly am not as old as the honourable member. The Leader of the Liberal Party preceded me into the House by a few months, but I have learnt in my short time here that there are differences in a lot of things. Where a Minister has responsibility to act with discretion, that can be handled, as with any discretionary power, in a fair, reasonable and ethical way, or in a dishonest and one-sided way. If Opposition members want to take examples of where main roads were run past taverns that were conveniently owned by friends, or where ministerial rezonings were made because friends of the Liberal Party or National Party had a pocket of land from which they made a bundle, that sort of thing is not on and that is not what we are on about. Mrs Sheldon: Ask Mr Mackenroth about it. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I am afraid that, if the Leader of the Liberal Party cannot see that, she really does have problems. The shareholding Ministers will have reserve powers to give directions to the boards, but in limited, specific circumstances; it will not include an ambit power to intervene at will. That is set in legislation. If the Leader of the Liberal Party had only taken the time to read that, she would have confidence in it. Otherwise, she is saying that this Parliament cannot operate. Of course this Parliament can implement its legislation, and it will. In formulating the statement of corporate intent, especially the community service obligations, backbenchers have a special role. It is up to us and the Ministers, who will be mainly busy with their portfolios, to listen to community groups, to be the channel through which our constituents can have some input into this process. Through the formulation of the SCI, and especially the community service obligations, the social obligations can be met. If we as backbenchers fail in this process, any failure will be on our heads. I encourage the Treasurer, with his fellow shareholding Ministers, to implement a process whereby the input from the community through the backbenchers will be readily available. In terms of looking at the success of a GOE, it is to be measured in both the financial and non-financial terms. Mr Connor: Don’t you mean a GOC? Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: Yes, a GOC. The non-financial performances can be in delivery of service, the availability of service—a whole range of things. I support the provisions which the Treasurer has included in the legislation in that respect. As I said at the commencement of my speech, two years ago I had reservations about this whole notion, but I feel much more at ease with it now. Through the work of the Treasurer, I find that I can and I do support this Bill. Provided that our community service obligations are properly implemented through the statement of corporate intent; provided the funding for those is separate as outlined in the White Paper; and provided the MLAs and other interested parties present their views in a determined way to the shareholding Ministers, corporatisation can and will work. That should bring about a more efficient, effective and accountable Government. We will be in an even better position to spend any increases in revenue where we should—on the people of Queensland. We have an honest and capable Treasurer. Some people say that he is cold and hard-hearted; he is not. He has a warm heart, but he has a difficult task and he has to do it in a very determined and disciplined way. Mrs McCauley interjected. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3093

Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: The member for Callide should listen. Because the Treasurer has a warm heart for the people, we will have more funds to spend on our people. He will work for Queenslanders and give them the best services and the best quality of life. I support him in that; I support the Ministers who will be his shareholding Ministers; and I support the Bill. Mr CONNOR (Nerang) (11.50 p.m.): I rise to speak on this Bill on the basis—and directed at the fact—that I believe that the majority of the members on the other side and, for that matter, on our side, do not wish to see Queensland go down the same path as that of Victoria or Western Australia. In other words, they do not want to leave a massive debt to future generations purely to fund a current social agenda and prop up a Government that has not got the political will to levy the taxes necessary to deal with its current expenditure. In his second-reading speech, the Treasurer stated— “There will be increased levels of accountability to ensure that corporatisation provides sufficient protection against the future of accountability experienced by some Government-owned enterprises in other States.” Obviously, the Treasurer has similar fears in relation to the path that this Government is moving down. The Treasurer brought up the issue of Government owned enterprises, Government authorities and corporations in other States, and I believe that that really is one of the key issues in this debate—that we need to try to learn from other States where their problems arose and try to deal with those issues. No amount of legislation can guarantee honesty, but obviously we need to ensure that there are the checks and balances—the accountability to deal with the issue. Today, I propose to look firstly at what has happened in Victoria, the position they are in now, what contribution corporatisation and Government owned enterprises had to that position, and then look at recommendations and how this Bill has dealt with those problems. I will also touch briefly on the Western Australian position. Firstly, I would like to relate some of the aspects of the Victorian Auditor-General’s report for the 1991-92 financial year, that being the last full financial year of the previous Cain/Kirner Labor Government of Victoria. The summary stated— “The importance of this summary cannot be overstated, it effectively is the wrap-up of the State Labor Government and its financial disaster.” It is not a political document, as I said. It is the Auditor-General’s report; the same Auditor-General who was there under the previous Labor Government. As honourable members will hear from this report, for many years the Government had been funding its recurrent expenditure through borrowings and a series of deferments and disguises, and this kept the extent of its indebtedness and excessive expenditure off the balance sheet. Under the analysis of reported financial results, it states— “The consolidated fund deficit for the year described in the financial statement as a shortfall of receipts was 2.2 billion dollars, that compared to the previous financial year of 1.6 billion dollars. Day to day running expenses of 1.2 billion were funded from borrowings in 1991-92. The former Government adopted various strategies, including deferring payment and advancing revenues during 1991-92 and in previous years, which conveyed a healthier cash base result of the consolidated fund for the year by at least 1.5 billion. Significant State financial obligations relating to the Victorian Equity Trust were transacted outside the consolidated fund, with the fund immediately assuming the associated debt of 712 million dollars. The failures of the State Bank, Tri-Continental, Farrow Group of Building Societies, VEDC (Victorian Economic Development Corporation) and the Victorian Investment Corporation have cost Victorian taxpayers 4 billion dollars, of which 2 billion will remain a burden on taxpayers well into the next century.” It goes on to say— 3094 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

“Budget sector indebtedness to be funded by general taxpayers exceeds 41.3 billion, and was”—— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bredhauer): Order! This is not relevant to the Government Owned Corporations Bill which we are discussing. I ask the honourable member to come back to the Bill before the House. Mr CONNOR: With respect, I just mentioned the VEDC and the Victorian Investment Corporation, which are Government owned corporations. I am speaking directly—— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have listened to what the member has said for four minutes. I have ruled that it is not relevant to the Bill. I ask the honourable member to come back to the Bill before the House. Mr CONNOR: I also mentioned what the Treasurer himself said in his second- reading speech— “. . . there will be increased levels of accountability to ensure that corporatisation provides sufficient protection against the failure of accountability experienced by some Government owned enterprises in other States.” He was the person who brought up the subject of corporatisation in other States, and I am answering that by quoting his second-reading speech. He was extended that level of consideration and—— Mrs EDMOND: I rise to a point of order. This is a reflection on the Chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I ask the honourable member to confine his comments to matters that are relevant to the Bill. Mr CONNOR: I will be speaking directly to the Bill, specifically on corporatisation and corporations of other States, as the Treasurer did in his second-reading speech. It continues— “Budget sector indebtedness to be funded by general taxpayers exceeds 41.3 billion, and was, on 30 June 1991, 38 billion . . . These amounts did not include non budget sector net debt of 13.4 billion to be funded from revenue raised by public bodies”— they are corporations— “and Work Care unfunded liabilities are 1.8 billion to be funded from employer contributions. He went on to state that— “The level of public authority dividends”— that is what we are talking about here— “and contributions required to be paid to the Consolidated Fund during 1991-92 by the State’s major public authorities exceeded in most instances the level of profits achieved by those authorities. As commented on in my October 1991 report on the 1990-91 Financial Statement, Audit does not question the legality of these strategies adopted, however the financial impact of such strategies needs to be highlighted in order to effectively explain the financial statement. The collective financial impact of strategies adopted during 1991-92 and in previous years which have led to the reporting of a healthier cash-based result of the Consolidated Fund at the 30 June 1992 was at least 1.5 billion dollars.” As can be inferred from this summary of the 10 years of the Cain/Kirner Government, a major financial calamity was the result. It demonstrated the failures of the State Bank, Tri-Continental, the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, the Victorian Investment Corporation—all Government enterprises corporatised by the Labor Government in Victoria that have cost Victorian taxpayers $4 billion. That is what we are looking at today; we are looking at Government corporations. Some of those entities are very similar to those corporations that this Government intends to create. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3095

There is the Victorian Investment Corporation, and we have the Queensland Investment Corporation. Under this model, the VEDC—the Victorian Economic Development Corporation—is potentially very similar to a corporatised Queensland Industry Development Corporation. So without a doubt, if we are considering this issue of corporatisation, it is essential that we look at corporatisation in Victoria and Western Australia. Those words were uttered by an independent Auditor-General appointed by a Labor Government to set the record straight. Since those statements were made, further investigations have been conducted in Victoria, and the level of public indebtedness was found to be far greater then even the Auditor-General was aware of, in the order of $70 billion, and estimated to have indebted every household in Victoria to the tune of over $45,000. It has been estimated that if every household paid $10,000 per year, almost $200 a week towards the repayment of this debt, it would take until the turn of the century to repay it. That is one of the potential consequences of what we are debating today, and something that Government backbenchers need to consider could be the legacy that they will leave to future generations of Queenslanders. It is up to them to be vigilant to ensure that it does not happen in Queensland. Certainly, the Opposition will do its part, but we will not be in a position to obtain the sort of information that Government backbenchers will. They will be on a number of Government committees. It is up to them to keep an eye on and to understand the full implications of what the information may lead to. I want also to relate some of the aspects of Western Australia Inc because what we are talking about here is the potential for a Queensland Inc and, again, we need to analyse how Government corporations aided the Bourke/Dowding/Lawrence Labor Governments to experience a collapse similar similar to that suffered by Victoria. We need to look at how companies interact with Government corporations and what the money and the assets of those corporations were used for. I quote from a section on Bond, Connell and the Argyle diamond deal in a book titled Western Australian Inc.—The Executive State, which states— “Bond was determined to get a stake in the media. He did this by selling his 5% holding in Argyle Diamonds to the State Government for approximately $42 million in a secret Government business deal masterminded by Bourke, the then Premier of the State, and Connell.” It goes on further to state— “With the $42 million, Bond was able to buy the Channel 9 Network in Perth. This brought the media directly into Western Australian Newspapers”—— Mr ARDILL: I rise to a point of order. It is midnight, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I thank the honourable member. There is no point of order. Mr CONNOR: As I was saying— “This set the pattern for future media dealings”—— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am trying to hear the point of order being stated by the member for Archerfield. I ask the member for Nerang to resume his seat. Mr ARDILL: As it is midnight, perhaps we can understand why the member is straying from the point. He is certainly well off the point because the matter that he is talking about has nothing to do with a Government owned enterprise. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have warned the member for Nerang on a couple of occasions to come back to the Bill. I am allowing him some latitude. Basically, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the member for Archerfield. I ask the member for Nerang to come back to matters that are relevant to the Government Owned Corporations Bill. I remind the member for Nerang that if he does not get back to the Bill that is before the House, I will rule that he resume his seat. 3096 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr CONNOR: I am speaking directly to the Bill. We are talking about Government owned enterprises, which is how the $42m came into being. The book also stated— “The America’s Cup ball, family celebrations, champagne and caviar breakfasts, etc., and royal visits alike were all suitably garnished with satirical notes.” Another area in which a Government corporation was used related to the West Australian newspaper. Again, I wish to quote from the book which states— “Western Australia has only one morning newspaper for the whole of the State. The huge holdings of Western Australian Newspapers Pty Ltd were, at the time of the election that was in 1989”—— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! These matters are irrelevant to the Bill. The member for Nerang will resume his seat. I call the member for Maroochydore. Mr CONNOR: Government owned enterprises were being used to do these things. Mr Deputy Speaker, I appeal to you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have asked the member for Nerang to resume his seat. I warned him four times to speak about matters that are relevant. I call the member for Maroochydore. Mr CONNOR: I am talking about Government owned corporations. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I warn the member for Nerang under Standing Order 123A. I call the member for Maroochydore. Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore) (12.02 a.m.): Beware of Bolsheviks bearing corporatisation documents! They wrap them up in lots of nice, slick terms such as “greater efficiency” and “user pays”, but what the people in the street and private businesses understand by these terms is totally different from the terms espoused by this union-dominated Government. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bredhauer): Order! The House will come to order. Mrs Edmond interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mount Coot-tha! The House will come to order. Miss SIMPSON: When the Minister stated in his second-reading speech that Government owned enterprises should be subjected to increased competition to create the right climate for further efficiency gains and improved performance, I immediately thought how proud he would be of Q-Build. As one of the many members who had to wait approximately three months before the Government, through Q-Build, provided an electoral office, I have learnt that the Government’s concept of efficiency and efficiency in the real, competitive world are two different things. A Q-Build employee told me that he and other employees now had to act like a real business which is supposedly competing against some imaginary competition, yet the process of getting an electoral office ready took three months, which is much longer than it took under the previous Government. Mr Davidson interjected. Miss SIMPSON: That is right. For example, under the Goss Government’s definition of “efficiency” which the Government is trying to apply to this Bill, it took two Q-Build architects and a draftsman to come up to the Sunshine Coast to do a floor plan for construction that amounted basically to knocking a hole in the wall and putting in a folding door. While on the subject of this Government’s concept of efficiency, I am reminded that this morning the Premier suggested that we would wait a year or two to see how the Mabo decision panned out. That is the height of efficiency, isn’t it? The Government is trying to say that, by corporatisation, it is moving into a more efficient user-pays system. Let me examine how that works under the Goss Labor Government. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3097

Mr Barton: What has it got to do with corporatisation? Miss SIMPSON: It is all tied in with what Government members think is a competitive structure, and they have referred to the user pays principle. I am saying that we should examine this Government’s definition of “user pays” and the way in which it operates. Next year, the Government will impose a toll of $1.50 on the existing Sunshine Motorway bridge over the Maroochy River which will supposedly finance the new Stage II. How strange! If the residents of Pacific Paradise, Marcoola and Mudjimba want to use the bridge to their south, they will have to pay for a road to their north which they cannot properly access. Yet the Government’s concept of user pays means that these residents who want to use a road for which they are paying will have to pay $3 to go north. That is discrimination, and it is a good example of the way in which this Government will use the users in relation to this Government Owned Corporations Bill and impose higher taxes. Mr Davidson: They will rip off the working class. Miss SIMPSON: That is right. They rip off all the blue-collar workers they used to look after. Mr BARTON: I rise to a point of order. I do not think that this member has referred to the Bill at all. I ask you to rule that she return to the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Miss SIMPSON: The higher fees charged by these GOCs will be taxes. I will repeat what I was saying because I was talking to the Bill. A tax by any other name is just as thorny. Queenslanders will be ripped off by a double-dipping Government whose agenda does not include basic services. Earlier in the evening, the member for Woodridge made an interesting statement when he tried to defend the milking provisions of this Bill. He basically said that it was the role of Governments to grab money, and that money grabbing was wrong only if the Government misused the money. I thank the member for his enlightening comments. I am concerned that this will always be the Government’s justification for ripping off people who have already been taxed by other means. I am sure that Joan Kirner used the same justification, and she probably still thinks that she has not ripped off the people of Victoria. Mr Davidson: Wasn’t she gaoled? Miss SIMPSON: It is amazing that she was not. As to the Government’s assurance that these corporations will have built into their charter community service obligations, let me say that, once again, it will be interesting to see what the Labor Government’s definition of “community service obligation” really is. Mr Barton: What do you say it is? Miss SIMPSON: I will tell the honourable member. I think of the struggling, drought-affected farmers whose backs are just about broken, and what is the Government doing? It is hiking land rents. It is a pity that there is not a union for land tenants of the Government. Government members: There is. Miss SIMPSON: Not when it comes to the real interests of graziers. The Government tried to tell us that it will take account of its community responsibilities and make sure that Government owned corporations do the same, yet it cannot even get a grasp on present community obligations. On another point—my colleague the member for Broadwater mentioned that, on the basis of the Government’s past performance, how farcical was its rhetoric about how those new corporations would be free from Government interference relatively speaking. The examples cited were the fact that the QIDC was directed by the Government to put millions of dollars into Compass and, of course, the $7m worth of taxpayers’ money that the QIC put into Gondwanaland. My colleagues also mentioned that the Government’s so-called push for corporatisation could not mean true efficiency 3098 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly while the staff of those bodies are still employed as public servants with public servant conditions. That is pertinent because the increases in wages in the public sector have far outstripped increases in the private sector. At times, the difference has been two to one. How can the Government be serious about greater efficiency in its publicly owned organisations while staff are bound by awards that favour the unions and not the greater public? Do not confuse movement with action when observing the Government’s move to push the Bill through the House. This is not a great reforming Bill to bring about a new, more efficient public sector. It merely offers the Government a new cone of silence to shield itself from the scrutiny of questions. In clause 132 (1), the Bill states— “If a GOC’s board requests the shareholding Ministers to delete from the copies of an annual report of the GOC (and accompanying documents) that are to be made public a matter that is of a commercially sensitive nature, the shareholding Ministers may delete the matter from the copies of the annual report (and accompanying documents) that are laid before the Legislative Assembly or otherwise made public.” What a loophole asking for abuse! In regard to the question of composition of boards—in addressing the Bill, the member for Woodridge stated that the Minister “had to get people onto the board who have a commitment to do what the Government is about.” What could he mean by that? I will translate. It means that, according to Labor members, the Government must make sure that the boards directing those new Government owned corporations are packed with Labor cronies to do the Government’s bidding. I am sure that, when it comes to the Government’s choice of how those boards are dominated, their mates, particularly from the unions, will be clambering for the positions. There is no way that the Goss Government, which is the most union-dominated Government that this State has seen, would leave its mates out on that one. Wherever the nation has seen the unions driving the agenda, the corresponding inefficiencies have been glaringly present. The bottom line is: will Queenslanders be better off or will they be paying more for less? While the unions are in the driving seat of the Government, there is no doubt that corporatisation means a less accountable Government with bigger taxing powers. Queenslanders can only end up paying dearly for such an abuse of power. Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (12.11 a.m.): When I was doing my research for the legislation, I read an article entitled “Corporatisation: the NSW Experience”, written by Percy Allen of the New South Wales Treasury. He said— “Corporatisation, like heaven and hell, is an international phenomenon.” He went on to explain that it is a remedy that has been embraced as the answer to public sector inefficiencies and the need by Governments for more revenue. That struck a cord with me—a trend, a worldwide universal panacea for problems. Hang on, is that not a bit like the new world order that people are starting to worry about, or the level playing field philosophy of economic rationalism that is fast becoming discredited? Is this not the path down which the Labor Government in Western Australia gingerly trod led by Carmen Lawrence, and did not Labor’s Joan Kirner in Victoria tread the same path also, and Labor’s Roger Douglas and David Lange in New Zealand? With credentials such as those, it is no wonder that we in the Opposition are very wary of the Bill and Mr De Lacy’s answer to the cash flow problems of Queensland. In opposing the legislation, I would have to start from the premise, tried and true, that a Labor Government could not run a pie stall in Queen Street. It could not run a pie stall in Queen Street. Mr T. B. Sullivan: You’re an uncharitable lady. Mrs McCAULEY: The honourable member in particular could not run a pie stall in Queen Street. It is an unfortunate truism, but one has only to look at the track record of previous Labor Governments in other States to see exactly what I mean. Victoria will Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3099 take years of work, cost cutting and job pruning to get back to a sound financial basis. Western Australia ditto, and South Australia is in exactly the same boat. With a Treasurer who has been mentioned in White Mercantile leading the corporatisation push in Queensland, we could be forgiven for not being brimful of confidence in what he is proposing. But let us look at what the Treasurer is proposing. Government owned enterprises were originally established to overcome perceived shortcomings in the market or to deal with monopoly situations. However, the Queensland Confederation of Industry believes that most of those circumstances no longer exist and has trouble identifying any monopolies that would require ongoing involvement by the State Government. Clive Bubb of the QCI says— “It is wrong for the Government to assume corporatisation is accepted as the best available option by the business community. The business view on this issue is that corporatisation will not nurture a private sector mentality. Only privatisation can spark genuine competitiveness, and thereby achieve more significant productivity improvements and cost benefits to the community.” Strangely enough, that arch architect of disaster within the public service, Dr Peter Coaldrake, agrees with him. In an address to a conference of accountants, he said that the public service may find it hard to adapt to and deliver what is expected of it by corporatisation. He said— “One wonders if the public service understands what the objectives of corporatisation are.” He signalled job losses and the withdrawal of services in small communities through the implementation of corporatisation as some of the results that will flow on from corporatisation. Mr T. B. Sullivan: That says that an education program is needed. Mrs McCAULEY: Why don’t you crawl back under your rock and leave me in peace! A good example of this is the price of electricity around the world, with Australia being the third-cheapest country for this commodity ahead of some 14 other OECD countries. Queensland’s electricity prices are even better, and sit in second spot worldwide. An American Public Power Association report clearly spells out that the average industrial prices of the public power companies’ tariffs continue to be 4 per cent cheaper than other options such as the privatised systems. In the case of the QEC, I cannot help thinking of the old adage: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The QEC has been run very well and very successfully for a number of years, and even this Government has not yet managed to stuff it up, although it did milk some millions from it last year to help balance the Budget. However, I guess that if we give the Government long enough, it will stuff it up and we will eventually go down the same track as all the other Labor States in this country. We have already seen what the lack of forward planning in the electricity industry has done in this State when the Government has to look at reopening Callide A Power Station to make up for an expected shortfall, but I will talk about that tomorrow in the debate on the Electricity Amendment Bill. It is interesting to note that in Western Australia the Liberal/National Government is looking at reversing the trend towards private enterprise finance for power stations and investigating the prospect of funding the $2 billion coal-fired Collie Power Station itself because “the commercial reality is that Governments can finance projects cheaper”, according to the Western Australian Minister. The crux of this legislation is the way in which the Government has kept control of the entities through the provision of shareholding Ministers, so they can cream off the profits, but intend to be seen, to the public at least, to be operating at arm’s length so they cannot carry the can or take any blame whatsoever for any problems which arise. This is called having your cake and eating it too—nice work if you can get it, but the public will not be fooled for too long, believe me. I can understand why a lot of Labor Party members on the other side of the House have had trouble agreeing with this legislation, and it must have been an interesting 3100 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly party meeting when this Bill was discussed. I share those concerns in the area of community service obligations and I am not lulled into acceptance by the Treasurer’s assurance in his second-reading speech that the Government will continue to implement its social reform agenda with all the extra money it gets from corporatisation. I cannot believe that the less-populated—therefore rural—areas will not suffer from a cutback in services as Coaldrake predicted. Rail services will be curtailed. I am firmly of the opinion that there are certain rail services which should be provided by the Government even though they are run at a loss. This is done in the city for commuters, so why should it not happen in the bush? The fact that there are fewer people to service does not change the fact that country people are not treated as generously as their city counterparts. Nor do I believe the assurances that the electricity equalisation scheme will be retained by this Government after corporatisation. There is no doubt in my mind that electricity prices and the cost of connections will surely rise as a result of corporatisation, and schemes to bring power to rural areas will be deemed “not commercial” because of the small number of users, and such schemes will become very rare indeed. This is something that Labor members do not understand at all. Most of them would not have a constituent who did not have the power on, whereas in electorates such as mine there are many. It is not that these people do not want electricity, they just do not have the opportunity to have the power because of the remote area in which they live. If this Government tries the user-pays trick on these people, they will never be able to afford to have the power connected. It is already very expensive, if they can get it. It costs up to $10,000 and more for many people, and the average connection fee is about $8,000. These are not people who live too far off the coast, either. Some of them are in the Wartburg/Rosedale area, which is in my old electorate. That area is not very far away from the major metropolitan area of Bundaberg. Corporatisation will bring no joy to country people. I was chilled to read in the Green Paper the comment that “some difficult political decisions may have to be made”. There is no doubt that rural Queensland will not be considered by this Goss Government when these hard decisions are made, despite the bleatings of some of its token country members. The other concern with the introduction of GOEs is of course the fact that this Labor Government has provided solid guarantees to public sector unions of a continuation of public sector standards in employment, when in fact the experience in both New Zealand and New South Wales shows that corporatisation will give the maximum benefit only if implemented in conjunction with labour market reform. But God forbid labour market reform. It is anathema to all Labor subscribers. This innovative move in Queensland is hobbled from the very start. It will not succeed as it is supposed to and, quite frankly, I hope that I am not in this House to see it when it falls in a heap. It will take a few years, but it will happen eventually, and the conservatives will have to pick up the pieces as they are trying to do in Victoria and Western Australia. What a shame this Labor Government in Queensland is not writing to its mates in those States and getting hints from them on where they went wrong. It would certainly save Queensland and Queenslanders from a lot of pain in the future. Mr PERRETT (Barambah) (12.21 a.m.): This Bill which is before the House tonight represents the heart and soul of what socialist Government is all about. These great economic managers certainly do not have a good track record in recent times. I will not keep repeating what has happened in Canberra or in other States throughout Australia, but that should be borne in mind when we are debating this Bill. I am gravely concerned that the Government is considering corporatisation for important areas of the Primary Industries portfolio. My colleague the member for Gympie spoke earlier tonight about his concerns of what might happen in the area of water resources and forestry. Before I come to specific concerns about those areas and the possible impacts on primary industries, I want to make some general comments about this whole process of corporatisation. I think it is time we understood what this Bill is all about. It is time to cut away what a friend of mine called the other day the jargon of the new-age guys. The Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3101 rhetoric is all about efficiency and accountability, but the facts are different. Under Labor’s so-called reforms of the public sector, efficiency has gone out the window. Labor’s new-age administration is costing Queenslanders in the vicinity of a million dollars extra every day. Mr Campbell interjected. Mr PERRETT: The member for Bundaberg knows it very well. The evidence is in the appropriations for unforeseen expenditure, which come before the Parliament regularly. Labor has built in a whole series of inefficiencies. The Bill we are debating carries on that trend. One need only consider the provisions for staffing the newly corporatised bodies. An employment and industrial relations plan must be included in the GOC’s statement of corporate intent. That plan must run the gauntlet of the Public Sector Management Commission, the Department of Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and the interested industrial organisations—the unions, in other words. The clincher is that the shareholding Minister can direct the GOC on the preparation or review of the industrial relations plan. Does any member of this House really believe that a Labor Party Minister will accept the sort of efficient rules which prevail outside the public service? On top of that, the corporatised bodies will be subject to the Equal Opportunity in Public Employment Act—another little piece of Labor social engineering. No true privately owned and operated corporation could hope to operate efficiently and profitably under the feather-bedding restraints imposed on the Government owned corporations. The only way in which these so-called corporations will operate profitably is by raising the charges for their services. That is what this Bill is really all about, and it wastes no time in making that clear. That appears on page 24, where the objectives of corporatisation are canvassed. Those objectives boil down to this: to improve the ability of the Government to achieve social objectives. What is the greatest need in Labor’s social engineering agenda? It is money, and more money! Mrs McCauley: And lots of it. Mr PERRETT: Corporatisation will yield plenty of it, as the member for Callide correctly states. This profligate Labor Government has spent its inheritance in just three years. It has raised taxes and charges well past the threshold of pain. It has done that at the same time as it has reduced services. I must say that the reduction in services has been felt keenly in the rural and provincial areas of the State. The service delivery sections of departments have been pruned to the very stem. There is little fat left in the areas which actually try to help the public. However, plenty of fat has been built up in the management levels, where Labor has parked its mates on the public payroll. The way in which Labor has dealt with the public sector so far puts the lie to claims that it is looking for efficiency. There are no more savings to be made without putting the mates back to work. To raise taxes and charges much further is not a viable political option. The alternative is to turn parts of the public sector into revenue factories for Labor’s pet social projects. The method is easy; it is spelt out in this Bill. The corporatised service provider is charged the equivalent of the Commonwealth taxes. The difference is that it is paid to the State Treasury. If Paul Keating keeps an election bribe, soon that payment will be 33 per cent. Taxes are paid on profits, and they are hard to come by with the sorts of inefficiencies that the Government is building in. The solution lies in raising the charges levied for services. It lies in charging at least what the traffic will bear. This Bill is based on dishonesty. It is not based on efficiency, because massive inefficiencies are built into it. It is not based on accountability, because Ministers will still pull the strings but will blame the corporatised entity for anything that goes wrong. The Bill is based on Labor’s insatiable hunger for more and more money to fund more and more vote-buying social engineering programs. It is based on Labor’s decision to raise that money by stealth. Labor lacks the courage to be open about plundering the public coffers. It lacks the courage to be open about raising the extra taxes that its vote- buying demands. Instead, it will hide behind the corporatised bodies. When the scream 3102 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly goes up about increased charges, it will simply blame the independent board appointed to be the toadies of the Labor Party, appointed to raise its funds for it. The Labor Government will decide at Budget time how much each of these corporatised bodies will be required to sling the Treasury or its former home department, and charges will rise to a level needed to meet that call. No doubt we will hear much about these bodies having to be efficient and to meet the market on charges. What rot! Many of these bodies will not have to face real competition. They will be monopoly providers of services, and they will be able to charge whatever they like. I hold that fear particularly in respect of the possibility that Water Resources and Forestry will be part of the corporatisation push. Opposition members have well- grounded fears about the implications of corporatisation on water resources. We must be extremely careful that any such proposal does not disadvantage traditional water users or result in extra costs for water users. The Treasurer should bear in mind that the original reason for the State going into the water supply business was to ensure reliable and affordable water supplies for agricultural and pastoral users. Indeed, the name of the old Irrigation and Water Supply Commission was an accurate reflection of why the unit was set up. Water is almost as important as land as one of the essential inputs to primary production. Producers need water to stay in business, and they have no option but to pay whatever charges are demanded by the monopoly provider. The real danger for producers lies in a couple of facts of life under a Labor regime. The first is that Labor makes Water Resources very much responsible for supplies to local councils, including, of course, those in the south east, where Labor has its power base. That is also where Labor tries hardest to buy votes. The other factor to consider is Labor’s determination that the user should pay. There is the frightening potential that Labor will force primary producers to pay for most of the operations of Water Resources. In other words, we face the real possibility that Labor will buy urban votes by making farmers cross-subsidise the provision of cheap water to cities such as Brisbane, Logan and Ipswich. An honourable member: You can almost see it coming, can’t you? Mr PERRETT: One does not have to be very smart to see it coming. Blind Freddy can see it coming. Given that any cost involved in primary production has many impacts, that would be very shortsighted. I cite the example of a tomato grower in the Lockyer Valley. That grower spends money on seed and that money goes around in the local economy. He spends money on wages, and that goes around in the local economy. He buys fertiliser and he spends money getting his produce carted to the market. Plenty of people make money out of that crop, and they pay taxes to Governments. That producer also buys water from the Water Resources Commission, but who is really the user? Who benefits? Of course, everyone benefits. Without it, there would be no crop, there would be no reasonably priced tomatoes at the Brisbane Market and there would be no benefits to anyone. If the Government gets too greedy with the charges that it imposes, it could prevent that crop being grown. There is good precedent for the Labor Government milking the bush for all it is worth and doing untold harm in the process. One needs to look no further than the charges that the Labor Government imposes for that other monopoly that it has on leasehold land. It has raised leasehold rents by as much at 1 100 per cent at a time when producers can least afford to pay them. I point out that the Government has what amounts substantially to a monopoly on supplies of standing timber in this State. Timber is a valuable commodity indeed, and it must be managed for long-term supply before profit and cash flow are even thought about. I shudder at the thought that a Labor Government, strapped for cash, might be tempted to allow a fast sell off of timber—to prematurely turn it all into woodchips and send it to Japan or some other place that has not preserved its forests. The State has a proud record in managing both native and plantation forests for the long-term stability of supply, and at reasonable cost. Queensland cannot trust a board of politically appointed stooges to manage that Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3103 resource in the way in which it should be managed. This Bill is a billion dollar shonk that Labor has perpetrated on the people of Queensland and I, for one, cannot accept it. Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (12.33 a.m.): Much has been said both in the Minister’s second-reading speech and tonight about the consultation process that has been undertaken in fulfilling the Government’s responsibility to the people of Queensland prior to bringing this legislation into the House by way of a Green Paper, a White Paper and various other methods. Let me say a little bit about the consultation that has taken place in respect of the electricity industry as part of the corporatisation of that industry. For some months now, consultation has been taking place with industry groups, dairy farmers, and industrialists in Cairns and other areas. Departmental officers have been arriving on the scene with a little white document which contains four proposed models for the corporatisation of the electricity industry. Mr McGrady: That is restructuring. You’re getting mixed up. Mr GILMORE: It amounts to the same thing, ultimately. I will tell honourable members how this Government conducts consultation, because it is entirely relevant to the matters that have been discussed in this place tonight. This document that departmental officers were using as a means of consultation contained four options— none of which were adequate and none of which was the option of leaving the QEC alone. As a matter of courtesy to the department, I thought that I would try to discover the implications of those options. In fact, I thought that it might be important for the future of this State that those persons who were presumed to be consulted ought to know about the financial implications of those options. After all, the QEC has for many years issued annual reports. We know what the indicators are, we now how it functions and we know where it is going. However, departmental officers were travelling up and down the coast, being very proud of themselves, and consulting people using a three-card trick. They were saying, “Here they are, pick a number, whichever one you like. You cannot look at them. We will not tell you what they mean, but you have a couple of weeks to choose, and then we are going to do something about that.” So that I might find out what it was all about, I made a freedom of information application. I found out some interesting things, but I did not receive any information, which was entirely predictable. The exercise cost me $60. I had to make a FOI application to the Minister’s department. Officers of that department knew nothing, so they had to send the application to the QEC. The QEC then transferred it to the Treasury, which refused to accept my FOI application unless I paid a further $30. Mr Littleproud: Another hidden tax. Mr GILMORE: So, faithful to the end, and knowing that I was being ripped off with another hidden tax, I paid the $30. I paid it to the Minister’s department and, in a minute, I will tell him the answer that I received. It is interesting. For the elucidation of members, I will tell them what I asked for because it has quite a punch line. I asked for the following four groups of information— “A All details of costings and cost benefit analysis associated with the Government’s proposals to corporatise/restructure Queensland’s electricity industry. B All internal memos and reports within the Treasury Department concerning the costs associated with or financial analysis of the proposed restructuring. C All working documents, correspondence, etc. between the Q.E.C. and Treasury on the financial implications of restructuring of the Q.E.C. D Details of forecasts of possible dividends or other payments to the Treasury from each of the proposed corporate models as outlined in the Draft Discussion Paper on the Future Structure of the Queensland Electricity Supply Industry.” 3104 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

I think that members would agree that that is a fairly comprehensive FOI application. I will tell honourable members the answer that I received. I have a letter from the Queensland Electricity Commission that states— “FOI application from Mr T. Gilmore MLA I refer to my letter of 10 March 1993 wherein I transferred to your Department . . .” This is written to the Department of Minerals and Energy— “Senior officers of the Commission, in particular those that are members of the various corporatisation/restructuring work groups, have advised that the Commission holds no documents pertaining to Mr Gilmore’s request.” Mrs McCauley: They haven’t done a financial costing of all this. Mr GILMORE: It appears that that may well be the case. Mrs McCauley: It just bears out what we’ve all been saying. Mr GILMORE: Exactly. And I have the documentary evidence here on the department’s letterhead. Mr De LACY: Did you get all that for $30? Mr GILMORE: It cost me $60. But I have not revealed all yet. Wait until I get to the Treasurer’s department. Mr De Lacy: I’ll have to talk to my department. They’re getting soft. Mr GILMORE: And the Treasurer’s head is getting soft. The very organisation that is the subject of this restructuring and corporatisation, the one that is likely to produce most money to our money-grubbing little Treasurer, does not even have any documents and does not know what is going on—unless it lied to me under the freedom of information legislation. What is the truth? Or does the Minister not know, either? He is not in charge of this little boat. He is not even driving the agenda. It is coming out of the Treasury Department. Mr Casey interjected. Mr GILMORE: You only have a pink umbrella. You would not know what was going on. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Miss Simpson): Order! The member will address his comments through the Chair. Mr GILMORE: Things are crook in Tallarook, and they are not much good in the Minister’s office, because he does not know what is going on. He had to write to me and tell me that. However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. I got a letter from the Department of Minerals and Energy. It said, “Yes, we have some documents, but you cannot look at them.” The only useful document that the department managed to find was No. 5 on its list, the Electricity Audit Impact Assessment Steering Committee Report on Impacts of Corporatisation of the Queensland Electricity Supply Industry and on Possible Industry Structures, November 1991—some 147 pages. The department said, “We have discovered that this document is in our possession, but you cannot look at it. So there!” That cost me $30. Mr FitzGerald: $30 in Queensland, but in most other States it’s free. Mr GILMORE: I did not mind paying that $30. It was worth it for the fun I am having. Mr De Lacy: Don’t bet on it. Do you know how much that would cost in the Commonwealth? Mr GILMORE: Madam Deputy Speaker, would you please tidy that man up? The very same application went to the Treasury Department, which wrote back to me and said, “Thanks for the 30 bucks. It was nice of you. We have identified a couple of Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3105 documents, but you cannot look at them.” It actually identified two documents. In 1991, there was a report, but I cannot believe that it would be a lot of use to me. There was a memo from Mr Breslin, the boss of the department, to Mr Smerdon. I can look at that. But the rest of it—the useful documents—are hidden from view. I wonder why. I ask this Parliament: where is accountability? Where are the numbers? Does the Minister know what is going on? I very much doubt it. He is not in charge of what is happening, so why would they tell him, anyway? Forget about it. That is consultation Labor Government style! Much has been said about dividends and taxation being paid to the people of Queensland from their investment in Government owned corporations in this State because it is important to get the full benefit of those corporations so that we can use that money on the social schemes that are planned for this State. Wonderful stuff! It seems to me that there is a pool of funds. Apparently there has been for some time, because the QEC managed to build some power stations out of its revenue, and has been able to provide the cheapest power in mainland Australia. It has been able to do all sorts of things. But if we start to take the money, one of two things must happen: either we increase the prices or we reduce the efficiency of the operation. We cannot have it any other way. The Minister, who is struck mute by the power of the debate that I am putting forward tonight, is in charge of an organisation that is out of control, because the Treasury has its hand up his skirt and is taking all the money. Last year, the Treasury took $15m out of that Minister’s organisation, and he did not even lead the debate in the Parliament, the Treasurer did. It was an Order in Council which said, rather cutely—— Mr De Lacy: Do you know how much they took out in New South Wales? Half a billion dollars! Mr GILMORE: I have not finished with the Treasurer yet. When I want him to bark, I will rattle the chain. That Order in Council, which was taken out of an obscure section of the legislation, section 36E (i), said that it shall be a function of the QEC to provide $15m to the Treasurer. What did the Minister do? “Yes, sir, ma’am. Take her away.” I am prepared to bet that, this year, it will be between $60m and $100m. Last year, the Treasurer put his toe in the water, and it felt fine. So he will be back, believe me. Mr De Lacy: What if you’re wrong? What will you say then? Mr GILMORE: I will not be wrong. Do not worry about that. In five years’ time, the Treasurer will have his hand in the tin to the tune of $500m or $600m. And I am not wrong about that, either. What the Government is introducing tonight in this Parliament is a new tax on the electricity consumers of this State. The Minister is sitting there asleep. He is going to allow that to happen. He is going to allow the people of this State who have paid for the assets of the QEC to be ripped off. The people of this State will have to pay a dividend on the asset that they already own. The Treasurer has not put two bob into the QEC. It has been paid for by the consumers of this State. It has assets of about $8,000m, with a minuscule debt of about $3,000m being paid for regularly every couple of months by little old ladies down the street. Their meters are ticking away and they faithfully pay for it. And who wants to put his hand in the tin? The Treasurer, so he can pay for all the social schemes from the people on the back bench. Wonderful stuff! It is good management, I have no doubt! But the price of power in this State will increase for the little old lady in the street because there is no other way it can happen. There is no doubt that the price of power will increase, because it has increased in other jurisdictions that have followed this same road. Until we get a Minister who has some backbone and is prepared to stand up to his Government, that is bound to happen. However, he will not stand up to his Government because he does not have any backbone. I turn to the possibility of ministerial intervention and the effect that it might have on board decisions. What if we set up a corporatised body and give it autonomy, except for the Minister or the Premier or whoever is running the show, and the very first 3106 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly decision as a corporate body is to build the Tully/Millstream hydro-electric scheme? What are we going to say then? We do not have a Government with the backbone to build that project. Are they going to stand back at arm’s length and say to this newly formed body which stands alone, “Sure, go ahead and build the Tully/Millstream.”? Pig’s ear, they are. The first thing that they will do is say, “Hell, that decision is wrong”, and make a ministerial decision. Then what is the next decision that will be right or wrong? Who knows? Immediately, we will have ministerial or Government intervention in the business. Mr Bennett: You’re only driven by economics. Mr GILMORE: The member from the charm school should be quiet and listen. The Treasurer stated that the justification for corporatisation of the electricity industry was to lock in the gains of recent past years so that we could proceed with further improvements. Mr De Lacy interjected. Mr GILMORE: I did not rattle the chain. I want to ask the Treasurer something. I am rattling it now. Can we lock out the effective recent interference by the Government which is going to cost Queenslanders increased electricity charges? At present, we are looking to build gas turbine generation equipment in Townsville and at refurbishing Callide A and any possible opportunity to get power into the homes of Queenslanders in 1998. All of those options are expensive. Is the Government going to lock out those failures that it has already locked in, or are we going to truly and properly stand back and say that this organisation that we are setting up—this corporate body—is going to truly be at arm’s length from the Government? The Treasurer has gone back to sleep; he cannot answer that question. The problem that we have with ministerial and Government intervention into the business of corporations means that we will get a double whammy in the cost of electricity—the high cost of the capital equipment that we are looking at, the high cost of the power that we are going to generate, and the low efficiency of liquid fuel generation. And, because there are very long lead times in the electricity industry, the failures of the Government to properly plan for the electricity industry will not be known for some time. By then it will have been able to take the soft options and the little old lady will not know about it and, as long as the meter keeps ticking, she will let the Government off the hook. I will move on to a couple of other issues. Earlier, mention was made of the horrifying prospect of the corporatisation of the Water Resources Commission in this State. It would not be proper of me to sit down without making some comment about that. We have already seen the Labor Government in Queensland increase the cost of water to the irrigators of this State, and it has denied this State a quiet considerable rice industry in far-north Queensland. Mr Nunn: Is that up in the Isis, by any chance? Mr GILMORE: I did not hear the honourable member. Mr Nunn: Was it in the Isis? The Isis irrigation scheme, was that where we increased the cost of the water? Mr GILMORE: In the Tinaroo irrigation scheme right in the middle of my electorate. Mrs Edmond interjected. Mr GILMORE: Professor Henry Higgins would have a fit at the thought of trying to turn the honourable member into a lady. I will inform the honourable member about the cost of water to the people of far-north Queensland and the implications of corporatisation. Mrs Edmond interjected. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3107

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Miss Simpson): Order! The honourable member will cease interjecting. Mr GILMORE: The implications of corporatisation are that the Queensland Water Resources Commission will be expected to make a profit out of corporatisation. That will be its charter. There is no doubt that water charges will increase for the irrigators of north Queensland. Having said that, I can tell this Chamber without fear of equivocation that the cost of water charges has cost us a rice industry, and it is threatening other industries in far-north Queensland. Mr Casey: Have you really asked the farmers in your area why they changed from rice to sugar? Mr GILMORE: The Minister could not find them, much less talk to them. Mr Casey: They moved from rice to sugar because they get more money out of sugar. Mr GILMORE: The cost of the water put them out of business in the first place. There are people in my irrigation area who cannot afford to turn on the water wheel. By the time they pay their statutory charges and their allocation fees, they refuse to irrigate their land. Mr Perrett: Shame! Mr GILMORE: The member for Barambah said, “Shame!” Of course it is a shame. It is an absolute disgrace, because the Minister for secret droughts—— Mr Casey interjected. Mr GILMORE: There was a drought that was three months old before he even discovered it. As well, he has created a drought in far-north Queensland by charging so much for the water that nobody can afford to use it. The effect of that is that farmers who are already impoverished are going to lose their farms. Mr Casey: Farmers all over the tablelands are breaking their necks to grow sugar. Mr GILMORE: Thank the Lord there is something for the poor buggers to grow. Does the Minister think that he invented that? The sugar industry was developing up there long before he woke up. It was not because of anything he did. I am just hopeful that maybe they will survive, but it will not be with any thanks to the honourable member. The way he handles his department is a disgrace. His picture will be in the hall of fame for blooming villains in this State long before he dies! Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate) (12.53 a.m.): I think it is about time that we were more sensible about this debate. I will give the member for Tablelands a bit of advice so that he can save some money on his FOI fees. In regard to the information that he was seeking in regard to corporatisation of the electricity industry—only a few months ago, straight across the road from the QEC, the Minister held a consultative meeting. People from business, industry, the union movement and the general community attended that meeting and received a full briefing on the corporatisation of the electricity industry. Mrs Edmond: Free of charge. Mr NUTTALL: It was free of charge and the Minister was there. All the member for Tablelands had to do was knock on the Minister’s door. However, he did not go anywhere near the Minister to talk to him about what corporatisation would mean in the electricity industry. Tonight, he talked about the lack of information that has been supplied to him. It is very easy to obtain information when all one has to do is go down the road and knock on the door. Mr Pearce interjected. Mr NUTTALL: Information on corporatisation in Queensland has been available since August 1990. Three years ago—in August 1990—this Government released a Green Paper on corporatisation. All we have heard during this debate since 5 o’clock this evening is that not enough information has been provided. Members of the 3108 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Opposition do not understand what is going on. If they had read the White Paper issued by this State Government, they would understand what the corporations Bill is about. It is quite clear by their comments tonight that they do not understand what is happening. I want to talk about a couple of issues in relation to consultation, particularly as the member for Tablelands placed great emphasis on that. In relation to the electricity industry, there was a great deal of consultation with employees. They have been involved as far as possible in the pre-corporatisation process. The Minister has written two letters to all employees to explain what it is all about, and he has also issued an industry newsletter that has been widely circulated. Quite obviously, the member for Tablelands has been unable to read any of those. All employees were involved in the consultation process in this industry structure. We travelled up and done the State. We went to Brisbane, Rockhampton, Townsville and Cairns—all in early February—to talk to employees and to talk to members of the public about the effects of corporatisation. There is a union representative on the steering committee overseeing the investigation of corporatisation-related matters because union members do have a role to play. The work force also has a role to play in corporatisation. I turn now to the role of the boards in corporatisation. The seven regional boards in this State have been fully consulted and have been very supportive of the process. They will continue in a corporatised QESI. The Government does not intend to get rid of those boards. There will be no scaremongering such as has been occurring in some of those regional areas. A discussion paper on future structures of the Queensland electricity supply industry was issued. It was envisaged that the boards could become subsidiaries of a new Government owned corporation embodying a significant part of the QESI of today. In establishing a corporatised industry, the Government does not plan to alter the existing geographic break-up of any of the boards. However, over a period, we need to review where those boundaries are because of the growth in the State. As I said, electricity boards and management were involved in consultation as far back as February, and the electricity board representatives are also on the steering committees and working groups examining the corporatisation issues. There will be a number of benefits for the consumers from corporatisation of the electricity industry. We will lock in the efficiency gains in the electricity supply industry of the last three or four years. I intend to speak further on this matter when the Electricity Amendment Bill is debated in this House. We will ensure that Queensland consumers continue to receive the lowest cost electricity in mainland Australia. The improved efficiency and effectiveness of the industry which will come with corporatisation will translate into a greater downward pressure on costs and prices. The unions have been involved in the steering committee, which was established to advise the Minister on matters relating to corporatisation. The Minister invited representatives of unions, business and the conservation movement to join that steering committee. Again, I stress that there has been a strong consultation process throughout the entire briefing. Those representatives, together with others from the industry and relevant Government departments, will bring their own perspective to bear when examining the proposals for the corporatisation of the Queensland electricity supply industry as developed by the working groups. Earlier this evening, the member for Beaudesert referred to reforms in the electricity supply industry instituted by the National Party Government back in 1985. Unfortunately, once again old wounds have been opened. I will elaborate on that when the amendment to the Electricity Act comes before this House. The reason why the Opposition continues to claim that legislation that it introduced into this House in 1985 somehow improved efficiency in the electricity supply industry escapes me. The member for Beaudesert said also that major job losses would occur as a result of corporatisation. If the member for Beaudesert had done his homework, he would have realised that Queensland Rail, the electricity supply industry and the Port of Brisbane Authority have already suffered a lot of pain in terms of redundancies and restructuring Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3109 within those industries. The effect of going through that pain earlier in the piece will mean that when corporatisation hits the deck in those areas, it will be up and running fairly smoothly. The member for Maroochydore also referred to the stacking of boards. Page 63 of the White Paper refers to the structure of the boards, their responsibilities and the way in which they should operate. Up front, the Government is saying that there will be no stacking of boards. The member for Tablelands mentioned that if the board decided to take certain action and the Minister did not approve of that, it would amount to some sort of ministerial intervention. Again, that reflects a lack of understanding of what the Bill is all about. The Bill refers to the corporate statement of intent that will be discussed and negotiated by the board and the Minister in terms of the objectives of that Government owned corporation in the ensuing 12 months. Those matters will be spelled out 12 months ahead, up front. In conclusion, I make the point that the member for Broadwater stated that this is the most important Bill to come before the Forty-seventh Parliament, and I agree with him. However, it is very unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition has managed to have himself banished from the House this week, knowing full well that the Bill was coming before the Parliament. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party is presently in Disneyland and he, too, knew that the Bill was coming before the Parliament. What we have had is “Darth Vader” on the Opposition side leading the charge of the 18 other stormtroopers who are trying to belt hell out of the Treasurer, “Luke Skywalker”. They have no hope of achieving that because, at the end of the day, this legislation will bring great benefits to the people of Queensland. The money that is saved by corporatisation will be used to improve the quality of life of Queenslanders as a whole. Mr SPRINGBORG (Warwick) (1.02 a.m.): I move— “That the debate be now adjourned.” Question put; and the House divided— AYES, 27 NOES, 49 Beanland Ardill McGrady Connor Barton Milliner Cooper Beattie Nunn Davidson Bennett Nuttall Elliott Bird Pearce FitzGerald Braddy Power Gamin Bredhauer Purcell Gilmore Budd Pyke Grice Burns Robertson Healy Campbell Robson Hobbs Casey Rose Horan Clark Smith Lester D’Arcy Spence Lingard Davies Sullivan J. H. Littleproud De Lacy Sullivan T. B. McCauley Dollin Szczerbanik Mitchell Edmond Vaughan Perrett Elder Warner Quinn Fenlon Welford Rowell Foley Wells Sheldon Gibbs Woodgate Stephan Hamill Stoneman Hayward Turner Tellers: Hollis Tellers: Watson Springborg Mackenroth Pitt Laming McElligott Livingstone Resolved in the negative. Mr MACKENROTH: I move that the debate be now adjourned. 3110 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point of order. I understand that under Standing Orders, once an adjournment motion has been negated, the mover must then seek leave of the House before he moves the motion. Mr MACKENROTH: I seek leave to move a motion. Leave granted. Debate, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, adjourned.

Allocation of Time-limit Order Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (1.11 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That so much of the Standing Orders and Sessional Orders be suspended to enable the Government Owned Corporations Bill to pass through all its remaining stages by 2 a.m. this day.” Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (1.12 a.m.): Government members have indicated that this is the most important piece of legislation to come before the Forty-seventh Parliament. Mr Casey: You wanted to adjourn it. Mr FITZGERALD: The adjournment was till tomorrow. I take that interjection, but I do not want to use up too much debating time. The point that I am making is that this is the most important piece of legislation to come before the Forth-seventh Parliament. Last week, the Leader of the Opposition was removed from the Parliament for a period of seven days. It is rather disgraceful. First of all, the motion that put him out for seven days meant that he then had to miss the debate on the most important piece of legislation to come before this Parliament. Therefore, it is right that, if we were to adjourn the debate and continue the debate at a sensible hour tomorrow, it would be much more fitting. The Leader of the Opposition should have every right, as the Leader of the Opposition, to speak his mind and to put forward his views. This House should debate the Bill at a sensible hour tomorrow. Mr LINGARD (Beaudesert—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (1.13 a.m.): One of the most despicable things that has been done tonight is that the—— Honourable members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. Mr LINGARD: The Government has taken the opportunity of having one of its members speak last and, with at least seven members of the Opposition still to speak, that has meant that an Opposition member will not be the last person to speak in the debate, which is obviously a breach of etiquette. As the Leader of the House says, the Opposition moved the adjournment of the House to allow the Leader of the Opposition to take part in this very important debate when he returns to the House at 10.55 tomorrow morning. If the Government wishes to gag the debate with the Leader of the Opposition and seven members of the Opposition still wishing to participate, let that be on the Government’s own head. Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (1.14 a.m.): I want to make the point that the Government was prepared tonight to let the debate go until such time as everybody had made a contribution. The Government was then going to adjourn the debate and discuss the Bill in Committee tomorrow. However, the Opposition has been playing games all night. It did not have enough speakers. Half an hour ago, the Opposition added another five speakers to the list and then, completely without precedent, a member of the Opposition stood up and moved that the debate be adjourned. Mr FitzGerald: It’s our right. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3111

Mr De LACY: Of course, it is within the Opposition’s right, and what the Government is doing is quite within its right. Opposition members have been playing games all night. They started this game. The Government would have let the debate go for as long as Opposition members wanted. As long as they put speakers up, they were entitled to speak. If Opposition members want to play games, the Government can enter into that game, too. They have had enough time. I have never heard so much tedious repetition and so much utter nonsense in a debate, yet members were standing up saying that it is the most important piece of legislation to come before this Parliament. The contributions of the members of the Opposition tonight did not reflect that statement one little bit. They talked about irrelevant things that had nothing to do with the legislation at all, and now they are outraged at the fact that the Government has decided to call the finish. Let it be on the record that the member for Warwick started this business. He was not on the list of speakers. He stood up and called for the debate to be adjourned. Well, if members opposite want to go to bed, we are assisting them to go to bed. Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (1.16 a.m.): In taking part in this debate tonight—— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am assuming that the member for Cunningham—— Mr Lingard interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Beaudesert under Standing Order 123A. I was assuming when the member for Cunningham jumped that he wanted to speak on the motion which is before the House. Mr Livingstone: He is not allowed to speak. Mr ELLIOTT: I rise to a point of order. I rose to take part in the debate, not to speak on the motion. It is my mistake. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Question—That the motion be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 48 NOES, 28 Ardill McGrady Beanland Watson Barton Milliner Connor Beattie Nunn Cooper Bennett Nuttall Davidson Bird Pearce Elliott Braddy Power FitzGerald Budd Purcell Gamin Burns Pyke Gilmore Campbell Robertson Grice Casey Robson Healy Clark Rose Hobbs D’Arcy Smith Horan Davies Spence Lester De Lacy Sullivan J. H. Lingard Dollin Sullivan T. B. Littleproud Edmond Szczerbanik McCauley Elder Vaughan Mitchell Fenlon Warner Perrett Foley Welford Quinn Gibbs Wells Rowell Hamill Woodgate Sheldon Hayward Simpson Hollis Tellers: Stephan Tellers: Mackenroth Pitt Stoneman Springborg McElligott Livingstone Turner Laming Resolved in the affirmative. 3112 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Second Reading Debate resumed. Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (1.23 a.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. Some contributions were better than others. It just so happened that all of the poor contributions came from Opposition members and all of the informed contributions came from Government members. For a Bill which has been touted as the most important Bill to come before the House this term, the quality of the debate from the Opposition was just plain second rate. I was disappointed with the standard of the debate. Given the amount of time that the Opposition has had to research this issue and to get across this issue, one would have thought that it would have made a much more informed contribution than it did. It really was very disappointing. I think that it says a lot about this State Opposition. It demonstrates why this Opposition has the poorest performance and is the most poorly regarded Opposition in the whole of Australia. In October 1990—two and a half years ago—the Government released a Green Paper. This measure has gone through the whole process—Green Paper, White Paper, extensive community consultation and now legislation. Despite that, it appeared to me that the Opposition did not even understand what it is all about. Some of the claims made during this debate were quite extraordinary. Opposition members read things into this legislation which simply do not exist and which cannot be justified either by reading the legislation or by quoting anything that has ever been said about it. The Leader of the Liberal Party, the Acting Leader of the Opposition—— Mr Mackenroth: They obviously do not have any confidence in her, from what they have been saying. Mr De LACY: Yes. She made a number of points. However, whenever it suited her, she changed her references from the Green Paper, to the White Paper, to the legislation. If the legislation had rectified something, but something which she found to be objectionable was contained in the White Paper, she picked on the White Paper, then picked on the legislation—she swapped from one to the other. On this occasion, we really were debating the legislation. Mr FitzGerald: How much difference is there between the White Paper and the legislation? Mr De LACY: There is a lot of consistency. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lockyer will cease interjecting. Mr De LACY: After 12 hours of solid debate, I do not know where the Opposition stands. Its members say, “We support corporatisation, but we do not support this corporatisation. We support some of it, but we do not support all of it.” After 12 hours, I do not know what the Opposition stands for—except privatisation. The only clear statement from the Opposition during this whole debate was made by the Leader of the Liberal Party, who said that if the Opposition was in Government—heaven forbid—— Mrs Sheldon: We will be. Mr De LACY: I advise the honourable member not to hold her breath. She said that, if the Opposition was in Government, it would privatise the QIDC, the QIC—at one stage she called it the “QTC”—and Suncorp. Her statement came on top of the assertion during the last election campaign by the Leader of the National Party that he would privatise the ports of Queensland. The Opposition would privatise the ports and the financial institutions, which is consistent with the position in New South Wales and everywhere else. However, members opposite need to understand that, in Queensland, we do not have to privatise. We do not need the money. We do not have to go racing out to grab the money. The fiscal imperative is not there. Opposition members need to understand—and I am surprised that they have not understood it yet—that we balance our Budget, we pay our debts and our financial situation is getting better day by day, Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3113 year by year. It is quite extraordinary to listen to members opposite claim, “The Labor Party is getting Queensland into trouble. The Labor Party is going down the Victorian track, or the Western Australian track.” The facts are that, when we were elected to Government, the net debt in Queensland was $3.4 billion. It is now $1.8 billion. Mr Connor: That is on the balance sheet. Mr De LACY: That is net debt. It takes into account all of the cash balances that are there. During this debate, one after another, members opposite claimed that the Government was getting into the hollow logs. Net debt takes account of the so-called hollow logs, the cash assets and the cash balances that are there. If we take the cash balances from somewhere, they figure into the net debt equation. After three years, this Government has reduced net debt by $1.6 billion. Mr Connor: It is not guaranteed by the Government. It gets around the Loan Council. Mr De LACY:That is all of our debt. That is on national account standards, which includes all of the debt minus the cash assets of the Government. That is what net debt means. All of the borrowings, including not only the Budget sector but also the business enterprises, minus all of the cash assets, and in each of the three Budgets that I have brought down, the Government has reduced net debt by something like half a billion dollars. Yet the Government still has this crazy parroting from the Opposition that it is getting Queensland into trouble. Did the honourable member read what the IPA wrote a week or two ago? It stated that Queensland is the only State in Australia that is reducing debt, reducing taxes, increasing funding on public works and creating jobs. Mr Connor: What about the Courier-Mail ? Mr De LACY: Only the honourable member and Richard Laidlaw—— Mr Connor: It is the editorial. Mr De LACY: Talk about privatisation—like Richard Laidlaw, one presses a button and privatisation comes. He writes the editorials in the Courier-Mail. He has UDKs—user define keys—on his computer. He presses the “P” button for privatisation, and there it is—the Government ought to privatise—and he has another editorial. The same amount of thought has gone into his editorial as goes into the member’s contributions. Mr Connor interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nerang will cease interjecting. Mr FitzGerald: When are you going to sell off the assets? Mr De LACY: Let me say this about privatisation: if the State had massive debt problems and its debt was blowing out, the Government would have to look at ways of reducing the debt. It could sell off the assets. The Liberal Party is starting to develop that thinking. However, Queensland does not have a debt problem, so why should the Government sell off its assets? By keeping the asset, firstly, it is maintained; secondly, it can be used to deliver social obligations; and, thirdly, the income stream from that asset is maintained. The Opposition wants to flog it off, receive an amount of money and reduce debt, yet the income stream is lost. Not only that, under the arrangements that this Government has with the Federal Government, by having a public enterprise the Government receives also the dividend stream from the profits and tax equivalents. Mrs Sheldon: Where is that in this Bill, that we are going to get it? Where are the procedures set down? It is a vague hope. Mr De LACY: I am telling the member that Queensland receives the tax equivalents in lieu of Commonwealth tax. The Opposition wants to sell off the assets to the private sector, let the Commonwealth get the tax and then take its chances and see what it could get back. I really cannot understand the logic. Anyway, that is a matter for the Opposition. As for the argument about the money grab—one after the other, Opposition members said, “This is a money grab.” As I said recently in answer to a question, if it is a 3114 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly smokescreen for a money grab, it must have the slowest gestation period in the history of all money grabs. The Government has been working on this legislation for almost three years. If it wanted to be a money grabber, it would do what the Liberal/National Party coalition does in New South Wales: it would go to the electricity authorities and say, “Give us half a billion dollars.” That is how much the New South Wales Government takes out of the electricity authorities in that State. Yet the member for Tablelands, Mr Gilmore, stated that the Queensland Government takes $15m out of the Queensland Electricity Commission by way of a guarantee fee. In New South Wales, without corporatising them, the Liberal/National Government takes $500m out of the electricity authorities. It just says, “Give us the money.” If this Government was into the money grab business, it would say, “Give us the money.” However, it is not into that. Mr Beanland interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Indooroopilly will cease interjecting. Mr De LACY: When the Government gets money out of its corporations, it will, because they are returning a profit and because they are running efficiently. Sure, unashamedly, the Government will get money. What better way to get money than from a decent return from Government assets! The Opposition would sooner put its hands in their pockets and tax them. I think that it is highly amusing that we have the old Liberal Party not wanting to run Government enterprises efficiently and to get dividends from them. It wants to tax the people. I can tell the Opposition that the people would sooner have these enterprises running efficiently, making a profit and providing a return to the owners. Opposition members keep saying that the owner of the enterprises is the Government. The owners are the taxpayers of Queensland, and there is nothing wrong with them getting a return on their asset. They deserve a return, they should get a return, and it is absolutely the best way of generating revenue to pay for education, health and a whole range of social services. Mr FitzGerald: Now you are coming clean. Mr De LACY: I have never denied that one of the benefits of this whole process is that the Government will eventually get increased revenue. But it will only get that revenue when those enterprises start making profits. As they become more efficient—— Mrs Sheldon: Where are they going to get money from to fund all your grandiose schemes? Mr De LACY: The Government has been funding all of its grandiose schemes without getting dividends from these enterprises, or without getting big dividends. Last year, I think that the dividends were approximately $130m. In New South Wales, the dividends from Government enterprises were $1 billion, and that Government’s Budget deficit at the end of the year was approximately $1.25 billion. That Government took $1 billion—— Mrs Sheldon: Tell us about Neville Wran and your Labor mates. Mr De LACY: I bet the honourable member cannot even remember who was the last Labor Premier of New South Wales, it was that long ago. Mr Elder: Unsworth. Mr De LACY: The Minister remembered. Mr Fitzgerald: Where is their economy now—2.9 beyond the national average of 3.2. Mr De LACY: Three years ago, the New South Wales economy and the Queensland economy were equal. Now the growth rate in New South Wales has decreased and Queensland’s has increased. Did members hear those Opposition members who stood up one after the other and said, “Yes, you have a good economy, but that was because of the National Party Government we used to have.” Members can imagine them as old men saying, “It was caused by the National Party Government.” Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3115

The other issue that those members carried on about was labour market reform. Does that not excite them! They said, “We want a plan of labour market reform.” Those are trendy words, but they do not know what they mean. However, corporatisation will mean that we do have discrete entities. We do give unfettered power to the boards to negotiate with their work forces. It is a prime situation for enterprise bargaining. That is where we will get efficiencies. One of the most important ways in which we can get efficiencies is through negotiations between the management, the board and the work force. That is what it is all about. Nothing in this legislation prevents that from happening. It is encouraged, and it will happen. As to the contribution made by Dr Watson—as he usually does, and as a true accountant usually does, he stood up and dissected the legislation absolutely. But he missed the whole point. He does not understand what it is all about. He pulled it to pieces in a pinpricking way, and then said that to have proper corporatisation we must separate commercial from non-commercial objectives. Of course! I agree. It is in the legislation. Most of what the honourable member said was correct, so I presume that he agrees with this. I cannot imagine what he said that this Government is not doing. Dr Watson: It is in the legislation in clause 19, and then you systematically restrict it from there on in. That is the point. Mr De LACY: The commercial and non-commercial objectives must be separated. That is absolutely fundamental to this whole process. I cannot argue against that. All that I can argue against is the honourable member’s statement that this legislation does not provide for it. Of course, it does. And it provides for the separation out of the regulatory powers. That is fundamental. I agree. But we are doing it. Mr Cooper spoke at great length—as did a number of other members—about the powers of the Minister to put his sticky fingers on it. The honourable member must have read a different piece of legislation from the one that I read. It is true that the Ministers have a lot of power over the process that is spelt out in the legislation, that is, the process between nominating a GOE as a candidate and moving it along until it is fully corporatised. The member spoke about some of the committees and how Ministers have the unfettered right to sack them—just as we have the unfettered right to sack committees at any time. But the real test is the powers of the Minister when we have a fully corporatised entity. This is good legislation, because it has the right balance between autonomy and authority of the management and the board, on the one hand, and accountability for performance, on the other. As to ministerial powers to direct—there are some, but they are reserve powers. They are explicitly stated in which areas they can direct, and they are limited. Any direction given by a shareholding Minister to the board must be recorded in the Queensland Government Gazette within 21 days and tabled in Parliament with the annual report. I put it to members that that fetters greatly that reserve power to intervene. Mr Beanland interjected. Mr De LACY: Mr Beanland spoke about a lack of accountability. I have never seen so much accountability built in. Mr Beanland interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bredhauer): Order! I warn the member for Indooroopilly under Standing Order 123A. Mr De LACY: All of these great, robust, free enterprise people talk about public sector employment standards and this Government imposing them on a corporatised entity. Then they want all of these public sector accountability mechanisms imposed on it. They cannot have it both ways. Which way do they want it? Are they going to be operating on a fair and equal basis with the private sector, or are they not? If members read this legislation carefully, they will learn that, once again, we have the right balance. When the Leader of the Liberal Party was in here for a short time—— Mrs Sheldon: Like yourself, I was here all the time. 3116 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr De LACY: I was here all the time, much to my chagrin, because of the level of the debate. It started badly, and it deteriorated amongst members on the other side of the Chamber. The Leader of the Liberal Party made seven or eight recommendations about what the Opposition would do if it were in power. First of all, she said that shareholding Ministers should be directors. Have members ever heard such an absurd recommendation? This is all about getting the right relationship between shareholders, directors and management. That is fundamental to this whole issue. Great care has been taken in this legislation to ensure that the board directors are not interfered with; that they have the right to make all the administrative decisions. For the benefit of honourable members, I shall point out the different roles. The Ministers set the broad strategic direction, but the directors have the unfettered right over the day-to-day management of these operations. Mrs Sheldon: They are answerable to you. Mr De LACY: Yes, of course they are. Who should they be answerable to? Mrs Sheldon interjected. Mr De LACY: It is all covered in the legislation. There is a liability on behalf of Ministers, if they so direct. There is a special provision which transfers that liability to the Government, so there is no individual who does not have access to that liability. But there are special obligations on the part of the directors. If they receive a direction from the Minister, they have a number of requirements, duties and obligations to ensure that they operate in such a way. For instance, if they get a direction which they feel jeopardises their capacity to achieve the objectives, they have an obligation to spell that out. If they feel that one of the directions threatens the viability of the enterprise, they notify the shareholding Minister under the legislation, but that absolves their responsibility under law. Mrs Sheldon: It is like absolving you of your responsibility. Mr De LACY: No. It transfers it back to the shareholding Minister. Mrs Sheldon: Yes, but you have absolved your own. Mr De LACY: No. The Leader of the Liberal Party should read the legislation. The shareholding Ministers have the obligation. If the Leader of the Liberal Party does not understand it, she should come and see me and I will explain it to her. The second suggestion was that the GOCs should be rewarded for identifying new CSOs. What a crazy suggestion. The fact is that the Government identifies social objectives—CSOs. We have the responsibility for identifying them and for delivering them. In the past, some of them have been delivered and we did not know what they cost or whether they were effectively delivered. This system will specifically identify CSOs and explicitly fund CSOs; but, in addition, we will set the standards at which they will be delivered, and we will develop performance standards to ensure that they are properly delivered. People should be under no illusion that our commitment to corporatisation in any way diminishes our commitment to the delivery of social objectives. Mr FitzGerald: Your members are saying that they are going to raid the funds. Mr De LACY: I would have taken the honourable member’s interjection, but if it is going to be a nonsensical interjection, I am better off continuing to explain matters to members opposite who want to listen. I have not seen much evidence that they have understood anything at all. The third suggestion is that a statement on labour market reform should be published for each GOC. It is called the industrial relations plan. It is required to be published for every GOC, and annually. I accept that it should be done, and it will be done. Mrs Sheldon: What is your plan? Instead of gagging the debate, tell us your plan for labour market reform. Come on, enlighten us. Mr De LACY: A short while ago, I explained the industrial relations aspects. I said that the directors of the board have the full and unfettered right to negotiate workplace agreements with their workers. That is called enterprise bargaining and that is what it is Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3117 all about. Just because we have insisted in our legislation that they must meet proper industrial relations standards, all the members opposite were saying, “It’s a sell-out to the unions. The TLC wrote this.” We are saying that they must meet basic standards. I stand by that, and everybody on this side of the House stands by that. Any good enterprise must meet those proper industrial relations standards. Mrs Sheldon: What did the people you consulted in business say about marketplace reform? Mr De LACY: I am answering the questions from the Leader of the Liberal Party. Her fourth recommendation was that we should resource the Treasury GOC unit with skills to effectively monitor GOCs. We should, we are and we will. That is why we are doing it better than every other State has done it, because we have that central unit. We have two shareholding Ministers and a central unit. We will have the consistent application of principles across all the GOCs which are corporatised. In other States, each of the GOCs corporatised themselves, and they did it to their own agenda but not in the public interest—in their own interest. Mr FitzGerald: It hasn’t worked in any State. Mr De LACY: It has not worked altogether successfully. We have learnt from the mistakes in every other State. Mr FitzGerald: You are going to get it right? Mr De LACY: Yes, just like the Goss Government always gets it right. I know that honourable members opposite have a lot of trouble accepting that, but we are doing it right. Mr FitzGerald: It is a big ask of faith, isn’t it? Mr De LACY: No, it is not about faith; it is about hard work and good legislation. The fifth suggestion was to delete from the Bill the clause which provides a safety net for employees who do not perform. I do not know what clause the Leader of the Liberal Party is talking about. There is none there that does that. It is just a nonsense comment. If she is talking about the right to return to the public service, that is for a department which is being corporatised. Mr Mackenroth: They did it in Government, with Suncorp. Mr De LACY: Yes, with Suncorp. That has happened with all of those people. It may happen in future with the two that we have telegraphed, Water Resources and Forestry. But all the rest are in their own entity now. There is no question of them going back to the public service. It is a total and deliberate misreading of the legislation. The next recommendation is to create a GOC parliamentary committee for the establishment of GOCs, and the appointment of the board and a CEO. They want us to do all that through the Parliament. The next suggestion is that the parliamentary committee review changes to the memorandum and articles. I heard somebody say that that is going to be kept secret. The only occasion on which you have a memorandum of articles is if it is a company GOC, and it must be lodged with the Australian Securities Commission. Anybody has the right to access the Australian Securities Commission. If the Leader of the Liberal Party thinks that that is keeping it a secret, perhaps she does not understand what is going on. The next suggestion is that we utilise a parliamentary sitting to simulate a GOC annual general meeting so that the management of the companies can be scrutinised. So what we are going to do is call Parliament together, bring in the board like a big annual general meeting, and start asking the board questions. These are the people who only found Parliament in the last couple of years! In conclusion, members opposite got something right tonight—this is important legislation. The objective of this legislation is to improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of our Government enterprises. It is an important reform; it is not a reform that we are taking lightly. It is something that we have done a lot of work on and we believe that we have it right. We accept the need to continue to improve the performance of the 3118 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly public sector in Queensland. We have studied all of the models, and we believe that this is the most appropriate policy response to the need for structural reform. Time expired. Question—That the Bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 48 NOES, 28 Ardill McGrady Beanland Watson Barton Milliner Connor Beattie Nunn Cooper Bennett Nuttall Davidson Bird Pearce Elliott Braddy Power FitzGerald Budd Purcell Gamin Burns Pyke Gilmore Campbell Robertson Grice Casey Robson Healy Clark Rose Hobbs D’Arcy Smith Horan Davies Spence Lester De Lacy Sullivan J. H. Lingard Dollin Sullivan T. B. Littleproud Edmond Szczerbanik McCauley Elder Vaughan Mitchell Fenlon Warner Perrett Foley Welford Quinn Gibbs Wells Rowell Hamill Woodgate Sheldon Hayward Simpson Hollis Tellers: Stephan Tellers: Mackenroth Pitt Stoneman Springborg McElligott Livingstone Turner Laming Resolved in the affirmative. Mr LINGARD: I rise to a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the clock, which shows that it is one minute past 2. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bredhauer): Order! I call the Treasurer. Mr LINGARD: I rise to a further point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. I call the Treasurer. Mr LINGARD: I rise to a further point of order. I am asking for a decision on the Standing Order which says that at 2 o’clock this Bill will be passed through all its stages. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! My ruling is that there is no point of order. I call the Treasurer. Motion to Go into Committee Mr De LACY (Cairns—Treasurer) (2.02 a.m.): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move— “That you do now leave the chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the Bill in detail.” Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. K. E. De Lacy (Cairns—Treasurer) in charge of the Bill. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! The Committee will come to order. Mr Connor interjected. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! I warn the member for Nerang. Mr Connor interjected. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! I warn the member for Nerang under Standing Order 123A. The question is that clauses 1 to 187, the Treasurer’s amendments as circulated, and Schedules 1 and 2 be agreed to. As many who are of that opinion say “Aye” and to the contrary “No”. I think the “Ayes” have it. Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3119

Mr LINGARD: Divide! Question—That clauses 1 to 187, the Treasurer’s amendments as circulated, and Schedules 1 and 2 be agreed to—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 48 NOES, 28 Ardill McGrady Beanland Watson Barton Milliner Connor Beattie Nunn Cooper Bennett Nuttall Davidson Bird Pearce Elliott Braddy Power FitzGerald Budd Purcell Gamin Burns Pyke Gilmore Campbell Robertson Grice Casey Robson Healy Clark Rose Hobbs D’Arcy Smith Horan Davies Spence Lester De Lacy Sullivan J. H. Lingard Dollin Sullivan T. B. Littleproud Edmond Szczerbanik McCauley Elder Vaughan Mitchell Fenlon Warner Perrett Foley Welford Quinn Gibbs Wells Rowell Hamill Woodgate Sheldon Hayward Simpson Hollis Tellers: Stephan Tellers: Mackenroth Pitt Stoneman Springborg McElligott Livingstone Turner Laming Resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported, with amendments. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr De Lacy, read a third time.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Leader of the House) (2.09 a.m.): I move— “That the House do now adjourn.”

Nurses Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South) (2.09 a.m.): The Minister for Health is infamous for his massive bungling this year of Queensland’s hospital budgets. Now he has thumbed his nose at Queensland nurses as he continues in his inflexible and pig-headed attempt to crush rural and remote nurses with the most unrealistic cost increase that one could imagine for their board and lodgings. Under their award, nurses in rural and remote areas are charged board at the rate of $47 a week. Mr Hayward intends jacking that up 400 per cent to $187. Accommodation and working conditions for those nurses are a far cry from what they would have in the city. Although most senior health employees such as doctors and dentists in remote areas have an airconditioned house, the accommodation for nurses can be a one-bedroom flat in nursing quarters with shared facilities. In many instances, the quarters are reached simply through a door in the hallway of the hospital. Directors of nursing are expected to be on call for unlimited hours. If they do not have a double certificated nurse on their staff, they are likely to be called at any hour. When the hospital bell rings, they must be there. Casual staff are often not available in the bush, and directors of nursing can work up to three shifts in an emergency. 3120 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Overtime is not always taken due to the wraps over the knuckles if their budgets are overbudget, and remember that hospital budgets are struggling under the unfunded wage costs that have been imposed upon them in Mr Hayward’s great budget disaster. In many cases, nurses’ board should just about be free. On top of that, rural and remote nurses are usually in isolated areas without the social life of nurses in the large cities. For them, a trip to the shops or a party can involve hundreds of kilometres. They face substantial security problems, particularly in the cape and gulf areas. The support services of a larger hospital are not available in remote areas, adding to the range and responsibility of work that must be undertaken by those nurses. Alternative opportunities to find share accommodation are rare or non-existent. In remote townships, food costs are high and the availability of accommodation is poor. Rural and remote nurses do not have the accommodation options that city nurses have. When it comes to holidays or visiting families, it means travel of hundreds or thousands of kilometres—another one of the costs and burdens borne by those nurses. A first-year enrolled nurse has a take-home pay of $220. There is not much left after she takes out $187.40, not even a bus fare home to see her parents. How will the Government ever attract nurses to isolated areas with living costs such as those imposed? What about the nurses who come in long distances for the limited casual work that is available and of necessity have to stay over in the hospital accommodation? It would not be worth their while at Mr Hayward’s five-star rates. Mr Hayward has attempted to introduce those mammoth increases as part of the Queensland Health plan to offset the cost of the introduction of the 38-hour week for nurses. He knows that it is impossible to offset totally the cost estimated at almost $40m per annum, yet he persists in trying to extract that money from the relatively small number of nurses working in remote areas. The increases are totally opposed by the Queensland Nurses Union, yet Mr Hayward thumbs his nose at it, too. Queensland Health and the Queensland Nurses Union had entered into a cooperative trial in an endeavour to meet the policy of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission of cost minimisation for the introduction of the 38-hour week. That is a more realistic approach, but Mr Hayward and Queensland Health have thumbed their nose at those arrangements, too. Officers of Queensland Health have tried to bulldoze through those increases, but they cannot be imposed unless the nurses award is varied. Mr Hayward talks about equity and full cost recovery. He does not seem to understand that accommodation provided to nurses in most cases is of a far lesser standard than that provided to other employees of the Regional Health Authority, whose rental payments come under a completely different award. In addition to the panic and concern that the Minister has caused nurses in rural areas, many have already started looking around for vacant farmhouses to avoid those potentially crippling costs. He has probably wrecked the cooperative approach to the 38-hour week issue. The Queensland Nurses Union has now been forced to gain dates for a hearing in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on the 38-hour week, as it realises that it has been doublecrossed by the Minister and by Queensland Health. The union can probably see that, if the Minister continues to back off the agreed cost minimisation basis for the 38-hour week implementation and moves to a full cost- recovery method, it will be the individual nurses who suffer. They will get a gain of one day off a month but, in return, they will see their staff levels trimmed to the bone, making their jobs unpleasant, and they will see the quality patient care that they like to provide deteriorate. Already, the Parliament has received petitions from nurses asking that the 38-hour week not be implemented because they know that the Minister’s cost recovery economic rationalism will see them slaving to cover staff days off that are not covered by any replacement staff. The Minister is out of touch with the nursing profession in his attempt to impose those massive increases. He has thumbed his nose at Queensland nurses, at the Queensland Nurses Union, at the 38-hour cooperative trial and he has even thumbed his nose at his own Labor Party nursing policy. It is no wonder that the Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3121

Queensland hospital budget system was such a disaster this year. Now the nursing profession will be penalised to help cover up that enormous financial mess. Time expired.

Sugar Conference, Mackay Mrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (2.15 a.m.): Yesterday, Mackay was the host city for a rather unique conference. Yesterday in Mackay, the 1993 Sugar Conference, the brainchild of Mackay-based public accountancy firm, Brown and Bird, took place. The conference was coordinated by well-known public relations firm, Cox Inall Communications, and chaired by Neil Inall, the presenter of the rural television program, Cross Country, and director of that firm. The conference drew an attendance of 250, consisting of growers, bankers, millers and industry personnel. It is great to see that a conference of this type can be organised and planned by an independent group to explain to sugar growers the cost and production problems the industry faces and propose likely solutions. The program contained world-class speakers of renown, as well as local growers and accountants. Other speakers at the conference included Michael Pascoe, Finance Editor of Channel 9 Television Network, well known to all for his detailed business analysis on the top-rating Business Sunday program. He spoke on the world economy and Australia’s place in it. There was also John Barneby, Managing Director of Czarnikow Sugar Limited, London, who was flown from London by the organisers for this conference. Mr Barneby gave a detailed analysis of world trends in the sugar industry. Three top sugar producers, namely, Ian Ritchie of Mackay, Winston Chappell of Bundaberg and Alan Mann from the Burdekin, delivered papers discussing the techniques they use to increase profits. Bob Sutton, Chairman of the Queensland Sugar Co-operative, addressed the conference on such matters as deregulation and its likely effect on profitability. Richard Brooks, South East Asia and Pacific Regional Director of Coca-Cola Amatil Beverages, discussed market share of sugar and alternatives from the perspective of a major consumer. Two local harvesting contractors, John Wright and John Powell, who are also growers, discussed new harvesting techniques and their effect on profits. Stewart Wood, the Regional Director of the north Queensland DPI, spoke on the more effective use of water. Kerry Mort from Telecom wrapped up with a perspective of how the sugar industry can use best practices to improve profit. All speakers were subjected to questions and debate from the audience. The conference commenced with a definitive analysis of sugar-growing costs over previous years. The sugar comparative analysis delivered by Don Graham, a partner of the accountancy firm of Brown and Bird, contained detailed analysis of average income and expenditure per hectare and per tonne, comparisons of contract and own harvesting costs, comparisons between irrigated and non-irrigated farms, and comparisons of production costs of farms by size. It also contained a comparison of the top and bottom 20 per cent by area and by tonnes. The comparative analysis quite clearly showed the absolute essential nature of water to the sugar industry, with 90 per cent of the growers in the top 20 per cent in the Mackay district using irrigation compared with 25 per cent in the bottom 20 per cent. It is absolutely vital to the Mackay district that the Teemburra Dam project be commenced as soon as possible and further plans be implemented by the DPI for future projects to meet demands, as well as the DPI implementing research into more effective ways of conveying water with maximum efficiency and retention. This initiative by a local accountancy firm, Brown and Bird, to combine with Cox Inall Communications to promote a sugar conference for growers and attracting world- class speakers is to be congratulated as the sort of initiative that is needed to encourage development of the sugar industry in this State in a profitable manner. I also note in concluding that the conference received sponsorship assistance as well from Case IH, the Commonwealth Development Bank, Incitec, the Mackay Sugar Co- operative Association Limited, McDonald and Murphy Mobil and the Queensland Sugar 3122 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

Corporation, in addition, of course, to the sponsorship of Brown and Bird and the coordination and implementation by Cox Inall. I understand that another conference is planned for two years’ time to make these events a regular part of the sugar industry. I congratulate those who took the plunge to take this innovative step to assist and promote the sugar industry.

Auditor-General’s Report on Audits of Aboriginal and Island Councils Mr GRICE (Broadwater) (2.20 a.m.): I would like to bring to the attention of the House a document that all of us have received only today. It is the report of the Auditor- General on audits of the Aboriginal and Island Councils. I point out that it is for the financial year ended 30 June 1992, but we have received it only today. The Auditor- General, Mr Rollason, explains to some degree why it is a very late document. He said that it involved auditors who are contract auditors employed in the northern part of Queensland and who had a lot of different and difficult country to cover. However, the Auditor-General does say— “I am somewhat disturbed that this situation should have continued for a second year without appreciable improvement.” He says later— “The audit findings for 1991-92 have revealed a worsening situation in relation to the financial management of the Councils.” He states further— “. . . it is noted that there was a change of policy by the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs from May 1991 . . . The effect of this change in policy has meant a lessening of departmental assistance to councils.” Some examples of those irregularities, which I am sure would make up one of the most damning indictments to come before this Parliament by an Auditor-General, include the Auditor-General’s statement that— “Audits continue to reveal many irregularities and shortages relating to receipting, banking, creditor and wages payments and stock control issues. It is not always possible to quantify shortages due to lack of or unreliable records. Reported irregularities, weaknesses and inadequacies in financial controls included— ¥ cash shortages of collections totalling $26,995; ¥ cash and/or stock shortages from enterprise operations amounting to $277,561; ¥ payments to creditors totalling $871,958 not supported by adequate documentation; ¥ lack of supporting paysheets and timesheets for wages approximating $519,000 and $90,000 respectively. In addition cash wages of $7,593 were overdrawn . . . ” And so it goes on. Today, the Minister flagged that this has been a problem for a long period, but said that it was a problem under the previous Government, and therefore it is okay. The fact that it happened last year, the year before, the year before that and perhaps during the period of the previous Government provides evidence that the Minister does not have control of her own department. That was an absolutely damning report from the Auditor-General. Ms Spence: What do you know about Aboriginal communities? Mr GRICE: I know more about them than the honourable member may imagine but, more importantly, I am endeavouring to find out as much as I can about them. While Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3123

I am in this Chamber, I do not read comic books, as Government members appear to do. I am happy to read those figures into Hansard, because we will be hearing much more about them.

Road Workers’ Safety Mr SZCZERBANIK (Albert) (2.24 a.m.): I want to talk about road safety in the Albert electorate. Recently, this Government embarked on several road upgrading projects along the Pacific Highway. I bring to the attention of the House my concern for the safety of road workers on that project and other projects around this State. Recently, the State Government launched the Queensland Road Safety Strategy, which lists six main objectives for a more efficient road system in this State. Its guiding principle is to aim for workable strategies which will help reduce our road toll and provide a more efficient road system for all its users. Its second objective is— “To foster the development of safer attitudes, skills and behaviour amongst users of our roads.” The development of safer attitudes and behaviour amongst motorists is the only way in which we can produce a safer workplace for road workers. Two months ago, a very unfortunate accident, which affected me greatly, occurred on the Pacific Highway at Ormeau. A road worker was killed while just performing his job—upgrading our roads for the common good. I do not wish to attribute any blame; I will leave that job to the coroner. The fact of the matter is that this man was killed while carrying out his job. The very nature of a road worker’s job is dangerous, but we should do all we can to ensure that accidents do not occur because of the negligence of road users. I take this opportunity to call on the Minister for Transport, the Honourable David Hamill, to investigate urgently ways of creating a safer workplace for road workers and, in particular, to look at measures to encourage motorists to reduce their speed when passing roadworks sites. As part of the second objective of the Queensland Road Safety Strategy, the topic of speeding is discussed. The strategy states that, as a Government, we should— “Investigate the feasibility of introducing new enforcement technology targeting speeding.” This Government is all about efficiency and doing the job properly. I call on the Minister for Transport to investigate the introduction of speed cameras. Those cameras could be moved about roadworks sites to ensure the safety of road workers. No matter what speed limit is set for the vicinity of roadworks sites, some people will always speed. It is those whom we must target. It seems that the only way to curb their speeding is to hit them where it hurts—their hip pocket. Before I am accused of trying to introduce a Government revenue raiser, let me remind honourable members of the facts. People who disobey the speed limit are unnecessarily putting at risk the lives of those working to improve our roads. If people know that a real threat exists, that the next time they speed through a roadworks site they will receive a fine in the mail, they will slow down. One need only consider the danger in which workers are being placed at Springwood. At present, the Government is widening that section of the Pacific Highway to six lanes. That work is being carried out under extremely dangerous conditions. Every time I travel that route, I follow the signs and proceed at 60 kilometres per hour. Yet every time, some idiot will abuse me as he passes me in the right-hand lane. Those idiots will not slow down for anyone and they are certainly oblivious to the lives which they are placing at risk. The usefulness of speed cameras could be proven easily at that site. Some may ask, “Why not use radars and have police booking offenders?” That does not solve the problem; it only compounds it further. That is a waste of police resources, and it serves only to slow down traffic more, which may increase the number of accidents. 3124 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

The only answer is the introduction of speed cameras. This Government is about efficiency and doing the job better and safer. Why have policemen standing around waiting for the next speed offender? Let the police get on with the job of curtailing serious crime, and let the introduction of speed cameras reduce the number of accidents and fatalities on our roads.

Interpreters for Deaf Community Mr HEALY (Toowoomba North) (2.29 a.m.): I wish to bring to the attention of the House a major problem confronting Queensland’s deaf community, particularly those living in provincial and rural areas of the State. In my electorate of Toowoomba North and the adjoining electorates of Toowoomba South and the part of the electorate of Cunningham that takes in the boundaries of the city, there are approximately 200 deaf adults or people suffering from a hearing impairment who are in desperate need of the services of extra trained adult interpreters. At present, the Queensland Deaf Society is able to provide only one qualified interpreter, who comes from Brisbane to Toowoomba once per month to provide a service to the city’s adult deaf population. They may need that service to convey information to professionals such as doctors, solicitors and accountants. In fact, only two adult qualified translators are available to service Queensland’s deaf community of 4 000. Only two people in Queensland are fully qualified to the level 3 standard. The visiting interpreter’s fee is normally around $25 per hour for a four-hour session, plus $15 per hour travelling time. The interpreter must be sanctioned by the Queensland Deaf Society, and obviously, must hold the highest level of qualification. Herein lies one of the problems: the only place where courses are available for the interpreters to gain the necessary qualifications are in Melbourne, Sydny and Perth. If one studies the figures for interpreters for other States, Victoria has between 18 and 20 of these interpreters, and New South Wales has 12. In Queensland, to service the 4 000 people in the deaf community, there are only two. Members of the House could probably understand that it is fairly imperative that the interpreters hold these very high qualifications when communicating on behalf of a deaf adult, who is accessing the services of a solicitor, doctor or accountant, to ensure that every fine detail is addressed. I realise that the Government does fund emergency interpreters if a deaf person falls ill and is in need of an emergency interpreter. But in the case in which a deaf person may be suffering from the sort of problem that may not fall into the emergency category, there is no provision for an interpreter. Another problem is that in Toowoomba the only visiting interpreter is a male. This situation is most uncomfortable for deaf ladies who wish to visit their doctor, for example, to discuss personal medical problems, and need a interpreter to help them communicate. As one might imagine, in a legal case where an interpreter is needed to decipher a legal opinion, then that person has to have a certain qualification. I have also been advised that there are many people in the community who are willing to, or who have indicated that they would undertake the necessary courses, but are hamstrung because of the unavailability of these courses in Queensland. Perhaps the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations will take this information on board and investigate the possibility of some of our TAFE colleges in Queensland setting an agenda to introduce these important courses that will enable more qualified translators and interpreters to be made available in provincial and remote areas of the State by the Queensland Deaf Society. I should say that this problem of interpreters, or the lack of them, is mainly of concern to the adult deaf population. Children in Toowoomba are fairly well catered for through the excellent work being done by teachers at the two Hearing Impaired Units attached to both the Wilsonton State School and Centenary Heights State High School. Although those interpreters are there, they have only attained a certain level and, of course, cannot be made available to interpret for the adult population. I was also amazed Legislative Assembly 19 May 1993 3125 to learn that only one of the three emergency services in the city of Toowoomba has acquired the necessary technological capability to receive emergency calls from a deaf person. The apparatus, or TTY connection or TDD unit, as it is sometimes referred to, should be an essential piece of equipment in the communications section of the emergency services in a city the size of Toowoomba, particularly as I believe that at least one Brisbane Pizza Hut has one of these units installed to receive calls from customers. That illustrates how ridiculous the situation is. These issues are important for a small, but important, number of people in the community, inflicted with a handicap that for some time has seen them totally disadvantaged and perhaps even discriminated against. Liberal/National Party Coalition Mr BUDD (Redlands) (2.34 a.m.): I rise in this Adjournment debate to express my deepest admiration for the the acting Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Caloundra. The honourable member is an example to us all. How many people, I wonder, would be prepared to take over the leadership of the Opposition on a lowly backbencher’s pay, knowing full well that not only is the Deputy Opposition Leader earning $16,000 a year more, but even the Opposition Whip is getting an extra $7,000. What unselfishness! What humility! But then, humility is a quality that the Liberal Party and its leaders have demonstrated they have in abundance, particularly when it comes to their coalition partners, or would it be too cruel to say, coalition masters. Indeed, for an outsider like me, it is hard to work out at any given time just what the status of the coalition and the Opposition really is. For example, when the Leader of the Opposition is absent, as was the case this week, the Liberal Leader is the acting Opposition Leader. However, when the Leader of the Opposition is here, as was the case last week or, at least, for part of last week, the Liberal Leader is not his Deputy Opposition Leader, Mr Lingard is. At this point, the Liberal Leader becomes his deputy coalition leader. According to my dictionary, a coalition is a combination of alliances, especially a temporary one, between persons, political parties, States, etc. An Opposition is an opposing group or body. Can we assume from this that when the Opposition Leader is present, the Nationals alone are the Opposition group while the Liberals are just part of a temporary alliance, but when the Leader of the Opposition is absent, the Liberals not only become part of the Opposition, they become its leader. It is complicated. However, where does that leave the poor old member for Clayfield? Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr BUDD: Sorry, Mr Mackenroth. He is the Deputy Leader of the Liberals, but he does not get a jersey as a reserve deputy leader of the Opposition or the coalition. I cannot work out who is being short-changed. Is it Mrs Sheldon who gets the glory but not the money, or Mr Lingard who gets the money but not the glory, or Mr Santoro who gets nothing? An honourable member interjected. Mr BUDD: Yes, Mr Davidson could split his pay and help them out. I put it down to the fact that the basic difference between the Liberals and the Nationals is more of a personality trait than one of ideology. The Liberals are romantics and the Nationals are materialists. After all, who but a Liberal would pay a $100 a head to attend an election night dinner to celebrate a defeat? Who else but a Liberal would explain the party’s devastating defeat in the last Federal election, and the lemming-like approach of Dr Hewson, as Mrs Sheldon did at the Liberal Party zone conference, when she compared Dr Hewson to Don Quixote tilting at windmills. Mrs Sheldon stated— “Dr Hewson is an economic warrior who tried to fight on all fronts and lost but with honour.” Unfortunately, that was not how the hardheads in the National Party saw it by any means. As senior National Party MP, John Sharp, said, “Dr Hewson will have to pay the price for the Liberals’ poor election performance.” Mr Macdonald, President of the Queensland Nationals stated— 3126 19 May 1993 Legislative Assembly

“The Nationals believe that Liberal membership just gets their supporters entry to a couple of cocktail parties a year.” I ask honourable members: is that kicking someone when they are down or not? My personal advice to the Liberal Party, although it probably will not appreciate it, is to get out of the coalition. After all, Liberal Party members prop up the National Party members across Queensland with their preferences. They cop the blame for any defeats, and do not get the credit for any victories. Of course, I use the word “victories” in the past tense. If members of the Liberal Party are determined to keep on copping the flak and stay in the coalition, they need to face up to an important fact, which is that Mr Borbidge has to go. After all, when he is here, they are out, and when he is out, they are in. So members of the Liberal Party should either get out of the coalition and run their own little show just the way that they want to, with lots of cocktail parties, hat parades and economic lemmings—sorry, warriors—or if they want to make the first team every week, they should get rid of Mr Borbidge. He is the chink in the armour, and he should get under the house. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 2.38 a.m. (Thursday).