Legislative Assembly 11107 21 March 1995

TUESDAY, 21 MARCH 1995 7 March 1995— Explanation for the granting of an extension of time for the tabling of the Anti- Discrimination Commission and Human Rights Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) and Equal Opportunity Commission Annual read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m. Report 1993-94; and Queensland Industry Development Corporation—Government Schemes Division— ASSENT TO BILLS Venture Capital Fund—Financial Statements for Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable the period 1 July 1994 to 31 October 1994. members, I have to inform the House that I have received from Her Excellency the PETITIONS Governor a letter in respect of assent to certain Bills the contents of which will be The Clerk announced the receipt of the incorporated in the records of the Parliament. following petitions— GOVERNMENT HOUSE, Agricultural Mulch Disposal 7th March, 1995 From Mrs Bird (357 signatories) praying that immediate action be taken to introduce Dear Mr Speaker, control measures for the disposal of I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly that agricultural mulch (black plastic). the following Bills, having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and having been presented for the Royal Assent, were assented Parking Stickers for Disabled to in the name of Her Majesty on the dates indicated: From Mr Davidson (6 signatories) praying that action be taken to waive the $10 "A Bill for an Act to protect Queensland's marine fee to be paid by pensioners for the new and coastal environment by minimising disabled parking stickers. deliberate and negligent discharges of ship- sourced pollutants into coastal waters, and for related purposes"—3rd March, 1995 Hemmant Port Road Environmental "A Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts Impact Assessment administered by the Deputy Premier, Minister for Emergency Services and Minister for Rural From Mr Purcell (826 signatories) Communities and Consumer Affairs of praying that serious consideration be given to Queensland, and to repeal certain Acts"—3rd extending the time frame for the proposed March, 1995 Hemmant Port Road Environmental Impact "A Bill for an Act to amend the Crimes Assessment. (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1989"—3rd March, Petitions received. 1995 "A Bill for an Act to continue Anzac Day as a day of commemoration, and for other PAPERS purposes"—3rd March, 1995 The following papers were laid on the Yours sincerely, table— (Sgd) Leneen Forde Acting Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Gibbs)— Governor Queensland Fish Board—Final Report for the The Honourable D. J. Fouras, M.L.A., period 1 July 1994 to 27 January 1995. Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Parliament House, STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS BRISBANE QLD 4000 In accordance with the schedule circulated by the Clerk to members in the PAPERS TABLED DURING RECESS Chamber, the following documents were tabled— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, I have to advise the House that the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals following papers were tabled during the recess (Queensland) Act 1994— in accordance with the details provided on the Proclamation—the provisions of the Act Daily Program circulated to members in the that are not in force commence 15 March Chamber— 1995, No. 51 21 March 1995 11108 Legislative Assembly

Agricultural Standard Act 1994— Residential Tenancies Act 1994— Proclamation—the provisions of the Act Proclamation—the provisions of the Act that are not in force commence 15 March that are not in force commence 3 April 1995, No. 50 1995, No. 35 Credit Act 1987— Residential Tenancies Regulation 1995, Credit Amendment Regulation (No. 1) No. 36 1995, No. 48 State Housing Act 1945— Environmental Protection Act 1994— State Housing Amendment Regulation Environmental Protection (Interim) (No. 1) 1995, No. 37 Regulation 1995, No. 46 Sugar Industry Act 1991— Proclamation—the provisions of the Act Sugar Industry (Assignment Grant) that are not in force (other than the Guideline 1995, No. 52 provisions mentioned in the Schedule) Superannuation (Government and Other commence 1 March 1995, No. 47 Employees) Act 1988— Exotic Diseases in Animals Act 1981— Superannuation (Government and Other Exotic Diseases in Animals (Avian Employees) Amendment Regulation Influenza) Amendment Notice (No. 2) (No. 1) 1995, No. 33 1995, No. 44 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act Fisheries Act 1994— 1990— Fisheries (Changeover Day) Regulation Superannuation (State Public Sector) 1995, No. 56 Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 1995, No. 32 Fisheries Regulation 1995, No. 34 Workplace Health and Safety Act 1989— Justices Act 1886— Workplace Health and Safety Amendment Justices Amendment Regulation (No. 1) Regulation (No. 1) 1995, No. 41 1995, No. 45 Workplace Health and Safety Land Act 1962— (Certificates) Exemption Amendment Land Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1995, Notice (No. 1) 1995, No. 53 No. 49 Workplace Health and Safety (Codes of Local Government Amendment Act 1994— Practice Approval) Amendment Notice Proclamation—the provisions of the Act (No. 1) 1995, No. 43. that are not in force commence 10 March 1995, No. 54 Nature Conservation Act 1992— MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Nature Conservation (Protected Areas) Appointment of Ministry Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1995, No. 42 Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier and Minister for Economic and Trade Nature Conservation (Protected Areas) Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 1995, Development) (10.03 a.m.), by leave: I desire No. 55 to inform the House that on 23 February 1995 Nursing Act 1992— Her Excellency the Governor appointed Frederick Warren Pitt as a member of the Nursing Amendment By-law (No. 1) 1995, No. 40 Executive Council of Queensland and as the Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Officials in Parliament Act 1896— Development. Proclamation declaring that certain officers of the Crown liable to retire from I lay upon the table of the House a copy office on political grounds are capable of of the Gazette being elected members of the Legislative Extraordinary of 23 February 1995 containing Assembly and sitting and voting in the the relevant notifications. Legislative Assembly at the same time, No. 30 Place Names Act 1994— MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Place Names Regulation 1995, No. 39 Gold Coast Indy Car Grand Prix Proclamation—the provisions of the Act Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Bundamba— that are not in force commence 1 March Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) 1995, No. 38 (10.04 a.m.), by leave: It gives me great Public Sector Management Commission Act pleasure to be able to inform honourable 1990— members that the 1995 Gold Coast Indy Public Sector Management Commission Carnival has proved to be yet another Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1995, No. 31 outstanding success for Queensland. Legislative Assembly 11109 21 March 1995

Preliminary financial estimates for the $9.2m—at least $600,000 higher than the event show that Indy continues to live up to its 1994 net revenue figure of $8.6m. In addition reputation as Queensland's premier sports to the $31m in direct economic benefits to and entertainment event and justify the Queensland, preliminary estimates indicate Government's ongoing support for the Indy that the $14.8m promotional impact of concept. Record corporate sponsorship and overseas media coverage for Queensland that ticket sales, perfect Gold Coast weather, the event achieved last year will be matched phenomenal television interest and a nail- and surpassed in 1995. Television interest in biting race finish this year all combined to the 1995 Indy race, both at home and abroad, make 1995 Indy's best year to date. No-one was phenomenal and reflects the event's who attended the four great days of the Indy growing stature as a national and international Carnival, or watched Sunday's race on sporting attraction. The race was shown in television, can possibly dispute that Indy has some 130 countries, 25 countries more than truly cemented its future as a feature of the the previous year, with a potential viewing Queensland events calendar and a major audience of approximately 1 billion people. drawcard for overseas and interstate tourists. Once again, this proves that Indy is Preliminary figures prepared by financial unquestionably a cost-effective promotional consultants Ernst and Young indicate that the tool for Queensland in the world's largest total economic impact of the 1995 Indy outbound tourist markets, with North America Carnival on the Queensland economy will obviously chief among them. Indy was also a exceed $45m, compared with the total of big television hit with Australian viewers. $37.8m achieved in 1994. I will now detail Figures provided by the AC Nielsen group some of the figures that show why Indy is such show that the 1995 Indy race rated 24 in a winner for the taxpayers of Queensland. I Brisbane at its peak on Sunday. The coverage must emphasise that these figures are also rated solidly in Sydney, Melbourne, preliminary and essentially conservative, but Adelaide and Perth, with peak ratings of 16, are expected to increase when Ernst and 15, 16 and 12 respectively. Young completes its final report next month. I turn now to the question of the Predictive figures for 1995 identify that the Government's investment in the event. The direct economic stimulation to the Queensland Government's investment in this year's event economy from Indy can be conservatively is estimated to be between $8.1m and placed at $31,787,260 gross State product. $8.6m—at the very least, a $500,000 saving This figure is more than $8m higher than the on the $9.1m invested in 1994. This $23m result achieved in 1994 and is expected investment takes into account the additional to grow even larger when catering and $1m spent on improving facilities in the track merchandising returns for the 1995 event are and race precinct, including $300,000 for hire finalised and added to the account. of the 10-metre high Trident big-screen The Gold Coast region alone can expect televisions to ensure that race patrons missed direct economic stimulation in excess of none of the action. $29,434,900 from Indy this year. So much for Our support for the Indy concept has the misguided critics who claim that Indy is no always been on the basis of a medium to good for the Gold Coast and is merely an long-term investment in an event which is far annual inconvenience to local residents and more than just a car race. Even our most tourists! churlish critics cannot claim that a $45m return Record corporate sponsorship and ticket on an $8m Government outlay is not a sound sales for the 1995 Indy also prove beyond investment for Queensland taxpayers. doubt that Indy gets better every year and is In many ways, 1995 was a watershed here to stay. Net ticket sales for 1995 will be year for the Indy Carnival. Confirmed approximately $3.5m, compared with last Government investment, a four-year year's takings. Corporate support for the event promoters agreement and a more stable continues to grow each year, and this year management structure at Indy, under corporate sponsorship sales will be a net chairman Ron Richards and chief executive $5.7m, compared with $5.4m net in 1994. In Glen Jones, are providing a sound platform anyone's language, that is an impressive from which to increase the quality and result for an event that, at present, does not economic benefits of the event. It is high time have a naming rights sponsor. that the leaders of the National and Liberal Parties got fully behind what I believe is an Taken together, net corporate event with a spectacular international future sponsorship and ticket sales for 1995 will total that will help to enrich our State's future. 21 March 1995 11110 Legislative Assembly

MOTION OF CONDOLENCE In more recent times, Mr Lane was Death of Mr D. F. Lane engaged as a freelance journalist and was by all accounts successful in his agricultural Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier endeavours. Sadly, Mr Lane will probably be and Minister for Economic and Trade more remembered in history for his dramatic Development) (10.09 a.m.), by leave, without admissions to the Fitzgerald commission of notice: I move— inquiry and subsequent conviction. Mr Lane "1. That this House desires to place has certainly left his mark on Queensland and on record its appreciation of the services on this place. Let us today remember the man rendered to this State by the late Donald for his significant accomplishments. Mr Lane is Frederick Lane, a former member of the survived by his wife and children and their and Minister of families. On behalf of the Parliament, I extend the Crown. my sympathy and that of this House to his family. 2. That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to the family of the deceased Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise— gentleman the above resolution together Leader of the Opposition) (10.13 a.m.): I rise with an expression of the sympathy and to second the motion moved by the sorrow of the members of the Parliament Honourable the Premier. It is with sadness that of Queensland in the loss they have I speak on the passing of . Don was sustained." born in Toowoomba on 18 July 1935 and joined the Queensland police as a cadet when Donald Frederick Lane was born on 18 he was 16. He was awarded the Queen's July 1935 in Toowoomba—the son of commendation for bravery in 1964 when, as a Frederick and Mary, who were both Warwick detective senior constable, he disarmed a retailers. Mr Lane was educated in Brisbane. man who threatened to shoot police in an At the age of 16, Mr Lane joined the police incident at Highgate Hill in 1962. force as a cadet, serving initially in the remote Don entered the Queensland Parliament, regions of Queensland. In 1962, as a winning a by-election on 24 June 1971 for the detective senior constable, he was awarded the Queen's commendation for brave conduct seat of Merthyr. This followed a career spanning nearly 20 years in the Queensland for his role in disarming a man threatening to police force. As a backbencher he worked shoot police in an incident at Highgate Hill. In hard for issues, both minor and major, with 1962, he married Beryl Pankhurst, and notable representations on issues ranging together they had a son, Steven, and a from hoteliers serving watered-down scotch to daughter, Robyn. the funding of fire brigades. His strong sense Mr Lane was serving within the police of self seemed to underlie much of his Special Branch when he was chosen as the motivation in the parliamentary arena. He was Liberal candidate for the Merthyr by-election in a strident advocate of a member's right to an 1971. On 24 July 1971, he was elected to unencumbered point of view free of partisan represent Merthyr in this House. In January pressures. The responsibility to act as a private 1980, he was elevated to Minister for member was the overriding rule, not the Transport, a position he held for three years exception, in his book. As a backbencher and until August 1983. Honourable members will a Minister he maintained a high profile as a recall that, following the 1983 election, he left hard worker and an innovator. the Liberal Party to join the National Party and Rail and road reform under Don Lane as so enabled the National Party to gain office in Transport Minister from 1980 was both forward its own right. He was soon reappointed as thinking and inspirational. There was never a Minister for Transport—a position he held until too-hard basket in Don Lane's office. He made December 1987. Mr Lane resigned from this decisions, and he delivered. He was both a House on 30 January 1989. visionary and a builder. The modern As Minister for Transport, Mr Lane will be Queensland Rail is his monument. As a result most favourably remembered for of the PA Consultants report he personally achievements during his tenure as Minister, commissioned into the railway administration which include the electrification and and industrial management, the Queensland modernisation of Queensland Railways; Government realised Queensland Rail's huge initiating the air-space development of earning potential. An operational profit of Toowong Railway Station; and as Chairman of nearly $118m in 1986 was followed by a $1 the Queensland Road Safety Council from billion windfall in his last year as Minister in 1981 to 1987. 1987. He was overseer of the State's railway Legislative Assembly 11111 21 March 1995 mainline electrification scheme, which was his wife, Beryl, son, Steven, daughter, Robyn, revolutionary for its time. He secured the and family during this sad time. development of the Brisbane Transit Centre Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister and the Toowong Village air-space for Education) (10.18 a.m.): I join in this development—both strategically placed to motion of condolence on the death of Don mask stark rail lines in the middle of the city Lane and refer particularly to his time as and a busy suburban district. Reform of road Transport Minister in this State. As a person transport through the State and reliable air who has attended quite a number of services to regional Queensland were other ministerial councils in transport over the years, priorities of his term in office. I have found that it is certainly one of those Don was not a whinger. After matters portfolios in which one sees a fairly high arising from the , he said that turnover of Ministers. But Don Lane had the he accepted the jury's verdict. He wrote and honour to serve in that portfolio for almost published an account of his time as a young seven years. As has been mentioned by the policeman and later as a politician in Trial and Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, he Error. This provided some relief for him during will be remembered chiefly for his work in his period of incarceration, albeit traumatic at Queensland Rail. times, recounting the later years as a Cabinet No-one could say that Don Lane was very Minister. This book is not a stream of far from controversy. Indeed, I remember that recriminations, nor does it serve as a tool of as a newly elected backbencher in this self-justification or delusion. He quite Parliament in 1983, Don Lane was one of lightheartedly included as the first line to the those hard men of the old National Party introduction a quote that reflected his stoic wit Government. My early recollection of him in and his incisive intellect. It reads— this place is that, just after he changed sides "There are moments when from the Liberal Party to the National Party to everything goes well—don't worry it won't deliver the National Party that majority in 1983, last." that earned him the enmity of many of his erstwhile party colleagues and certainly did not He was also once quoted as saying that "there lift the respect within which the Labor is nothing so ex as an ex-politician." At the Opposition held him, either. However, I believe time of his resignation from Parliament on 30 that it is important to give credit where it is January 1989, he was the second-longest due. Don Lane felt very strongly for the serving member on the Government side. This Transport portfolio. He had a vision of where was a tribute to his contribution to the he saw that area of reform going. As a Parliament and the State of Queensland and member who had a large railway constituency also a testimony to his resilience, dogged in Ipswich, I can assert that at the time the PA determination and commitment to public life. Consultants report was a very controversial I came to know Don Lane well. As a new document and one which did not earn Don backbencher in 1980, I served on his Lane too many friends in Queensland Rail. ministerial committee. I came to respect his Indeed, the Transport portfolio was dogged depth of knowledge and his pragmatism. He with controversy. Nevertheless, in the early could be very different from his public image. 1980s, very important reforms were put in At his memorial service last Friday, mention place which assisted the ongoing reform of was made of his gentle side, his commitment that great public enterprise. to the Italian community, to his electorate and I occasioned some contact with Don Lane to his family. This was the other side of a man following his time in this place. It was quite who was a formidable parliamentary debater, obvious that he enjoyed maintaining an a competent and astute Minister. Don Lane interest in matters pertaining to transport. I had a sad end to his political career—very would often see him at functions of the much a victim of the times who deserved Chartered Institute of Transport or at functions much better. This period of enormous strain organised by societies such as the Railway placed great pressure on his family—a very Historical Society. His interest, therefore, was close-knit family. A large and widely not simply an occasional one because he had representative congregation attended his held the Transport portfolio, but one of a memorial service last Friday at St John's deep-felt interest in the welfare of the transport Cathedral, proving that respect for Don Lane industry as a whole. stretched beyond political, social and I recall that, upon being sworn in as economic boundaries. I offer my sincere Minister for Transport in 1989, a condolences and those of the Opposition to communication came to me from Don Lane 21 March 1995 11112 Legislative Assembly wishing me well for that portfolio. Although one Apart from his dedication to public service could never have said that we were political and particularly to improving the State's friends by any means, I certainly appreciated transport systems, he had one other love. Don that message of well wishing, because it Lane spent the last few years on his much- demonstrated that the gentleman actually did loved farm near Warwick, where he died. I have a concern for the area for which he had again offer my condolences to wife, Beryl, and been responsible during his time as a Minister Don Lane's children, Steven and Robyn, on in this place. the loss of their husband and father. Although, as I said before, Don Lane was Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly) never far from controversy, on an occasion (10.24 a.m.): I wish to join in expressing my such as this it is indeed proper and fitting that sympathy to Mrs Beryl Lane and her family on we remember the positive contribution that he the very sudden passing of Don Lane, whom, made, particularly in the area of transport, to I believe, I knew longer than most members of the future of the State. the House. We met some years before he won the Merthyr electorate for the Liberal Mrs SHELDON (—Leader of Party in 1971. At the time he was actively the Liberal Party) (10.21 a.m.): I rise today to involved in the party's campaign for the offer my condolences to the family and friends Ashgrove electorate, where the sitting member of Don Lane. He was a member of the Liberal was the late Doug Tooth. I was involved in the Party for 16 years and a Liberal Minister for campaign for , the member for the three years before moving to the National adjoining seat of Ithaca. Party. He was a member of the Liberal Party State Executive and was elected as the After I was elected to the Brisbane City member for Merthyr in a by-election in 1971. Council in 1976, Don Lane gave the new Before entering Parliament he made his name Liberal council team a tremendous amount of in 1962 as a detective senior constable of assistance. Anyone who has been through a police when he won an award for bravery for major split in their party, or a coalition to which his part in disarming a man who threatened to they belong, will know it is a divisive and shoot police. difficult experience, with those whom one regarded as colleagues and friends becoming Don Lane was particularly interested in political enemies virtually overnight. We went the individuality of members of Parliament and through that unpleasant experience in 1983, was opposed to the caucus system. As when the coalition which had served this State Transport Minister, he pushed through the so well split, and subsequently when Don electrification of the Brisbane rail system, a Lane changed parties. major achievement and one of which he was However, it must be said that, when the very proud. He had a right to be proud. Don Liberal team led by Sallyanne Atkinson was Lane also perfected the integration of public voted into office in Brisbane City just 18 transport within the city, making the system months later and I became the deputy mayor, much more effective for Brisbane residents. we were able to develop a sound and After his dismissal from State Parliament necessary working relationship with the then and his gaol term, Don Lane remained State Government and with Don Lane as dignified and refused to debase the system Transport Minister. It was then that I came to which had judged him. He suffered much appreciate even better his political and during and after the Fitzgerald inquiry, but was administrative skills. In the deputations we more concerned with the effect on his family took to him, and the various meetings and friends. In a submission he made to this between the council and the Government House after his dismissal he stated— which took place, the advisers and bureaucrats were on tap, not on top. There "The humiliation and public scorn was no doubt that Don Lane knew his Ministry that my family and I have suffered as a well, just as there was no doubt that his word result of these events, many of them was final when it came to putting the State's beyond my control, has been devastating. position. In addition it has been both abhorrent and distressing for me to have had to Given the events which had taken place name former colleagues." in 1983, the relationship between the National Party State Government and the Liberal Party I think this quote sums up Don Lane's feeling city council could have been a very difficult about the difficult period leading up to and one. It was through the efforts of people such after his leaving this place, and I say no more as Don Lane that we were able to work about it. together reasonably well for the good of the Legislative Assembly 11113 21 March 1995 city. Even though I differed with him on some former electorate of Merthyr covering New of the projects he implemented, there can be Farm, Teneriffe, Merthyr and Newstead. no doubt that he was a very successful and Accordingly, it would remiss of me if I did not effective Transport Minister, especially in areas make some comments on the public record such as rail electrification, modernisation and from a local perspective. road safety. Even some of his harshest critics I do not intend to refer to matters before have acknowledged that fact since his death. the Fitzgerald inquiry or Don Lane's When I was elected to this House in subsequent conviction or gaoling; although I 1986, I was the Liberal spokesman on was present during the Fitzgerald inquiry with Transport. Even though we clashed at times, I barrister Matt Foley when Don Lane confessed appreciated the highly competent way he went to the inquiry his misuse of ministerial about his ministerial duties. When he became expenses. one of the victims of the Fitzgerald inquiry and Don Lane brought out strong passions the prosecutions which followed, Don's life and views—some positive, some negative— changed dramatically. I believe it ought to be from his former constituents. As members said that, regardless of those events, one had would expect, views were especially strong in to admire that he accepted his penalty without the Labor Party, particularly from families such complaint. When he was taken to prison, he as the Dawson family, which included some refused protective custody which would have legendary Labor Party people such as former been available in view of the positions he had Brisbane City Councillor Beattie Dawson and held, including that of a police officer. Many her daughter Barbara, who ran against Don have said that Don Lane was a tough man, Lane in Merthyr on several occasions. I recall, and I am sure he would never contest that as ALP secretary, having to mediate and claim. No doubt that toughness actually become involved in a number of disputes served him well in the prison system, as it did which arose because of the level of intensity of after his release when he published a frank those contests between the Dawson family account of his political life and his period in and the Lane camp. I remember those prison. instances only too vividly. He went about renewing acquaintances Nevertheless, there was an acceptance and getting his life back together in a robust by many locals that Don Lane had worked and successful way. I saw him only hard to try to assist his electorate, from the occasionally, at the races or past members construction of the oval at the New Farm State functions, and it was quite evident then that School to financially assisting the Metropolitan he was doing all he could to rebuild his life, as Senior Citizens Centre in the Valley. he was entitled to do, having paid his penalty. Indeed, Sunday 19 March, the festival of The late Don Lane as a politician gave no St Joseph, is a very important day for the quarter in debate, nor did he ask for any. He Italian community in New Farm. While I was at was an extremely effective grassroots that festival, a number of people spoke to me campaigner, something amply demonstrated about Don Lane's passing. Don Lane's by the fact that he won the marginal seat of passion was New Farm Park, and in particular Merthyr in seven successive elections. The the rose gardens in the park. I think it was in fact that some 700 people attended his 1992 that he rang me and arranged an memorial service, which was presided over by appointment to discuss New Farm Park and, Archbishop Peter Hollingworth, demonstrates of course, the rose gardens. He made that he did rebuild his life and did gain proper repeated references to a Cabinet decision recognition for his significant achievements in initiated by him that he said provided for the public life as Minister for Transport. extension of New Farm Park into the old power station adjoining it. Even though Don Lane He is survived by his wife, Beryl, who was no longer a member of Parliament, had stood most loyally by him in good times and served time in gaol and knew my view in tough times, his son, Steven, and his relation to matters involving him in the inquiry, daughter, Robyn. I extend my sympathy to he still maintained his love of New Farm Park. them, to the other members of his family and In fact, when he visited me he took the to his many friends. opportunity to be critical of the former Lord Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) Mayor Sallyanne Atkinson for not (10.28 a.m.): I wish to speak briefly in this implementing that Cabinet decision, which he condolence motion for Don Lane. As supported, to extend the rose garden. members would be aware, I now represent in I pass on my condolences to the Lane this Parliament a large part of Don Lane's family and the condolences of those of his 21 March 1995 11114 Legislative Assembly former constituents in New Farm who electrified railway system to Caboolture, remember him well. Doomben, Cleveland and Beenleigh; the Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—Deputy construction of new railway stations at Leader of the Liberal Party) (10.31 a.m.): I Boondall, Carseldine, Bray Park, Birkdale, wish to support this condolence motion, and I Thorneside and Albion; the deregulation of do so with much sadness. Most members in road transport throughout the State; reducing this place would appreciate that I knew Don the annual road toll from 609 in 1981-82 to Lane well. In fact, it pleases me to say that 442 in 1987, when Don Lane ceased being Don Lane was one of only three or four the Minister for Transport; the extension of Queensland politicians who had a Brisbane River ferry services; the introduction fundamental impact on the way I operate as a of school crossing supervisors; the introduction parliamentarian in this Parliament and in my of share riding in taxis; and the negotiation of electorate. reliable air services to western Queensland. Today, I wish to focus my remarks mainly Those are impressive achievements by on Don Lane when he was the local member anyone's ministerial standards and a clear of Parliament and as a member of the Liberal indication of the reasons why Don was fiercely Party, for it was within those contexts that I proud of the contribution that he made to the came to know Don very well. In doing so, from greater public good. the outset I wish to acknowledge the However, at the same time, and right from magnificent contribution that Don made to the the time he entered Parliament on 24 July greater good of Queensland. Others who have 1971, Don showed singular and unswerving spoken before me in this debate have made commitment to his electorate of Merthyr. He fulsome reference very adequately to Don's showed up-and-coming politicians how to look achievements as a Minister of the Crown. I after what, after their families, is their most think achieving that status of Minister was important constituency—that which enables us Don's crowning glory and one which allowed all to serve in this place—their electorates. him to define the concept of public service in a way that was admired by the vast majority of It is perhaps because I had much to do Queenslanders. with him in the five years leading up to 1983 Today we often hear mention of the lack that I came to regard Don as one of the best of proper planning and major infrastructure grassroots politicians I have known. For him, development by previous National Party and the electorate was in a political sense coalition Governments—a notion that I reject everything, for he, like us all, understood implicitly and one that certainly did not apply to intuitively that if our electorates do not stand Don Lane as a Minister. In Don Lane's final behind us, we will go nowhere in politics. He speech in this place, which was incorporated in was immersed totally in the life of the many Hansard on 14 March 1989 by the then communities of Merthyr and his interest and member for Mulgrave, Mr Menzel, Don Lane support for what they were about was produced a brief list of what he thought were recognised and reciprocated amply. The most his achievements as a Minister. obvious example of this interest and support perhaps was his intimate association with the That list was kept brief deliberately but very substantial Italian community of Merthyr was still an impressive one and included and wider Brisbane. Many associations within achievements such as obtaining Government the Italian community, including those within approval for and supervision of the State's Don's electorate, benefited greatly from his railway main line electrification scheme, which interest and patronage. Those associations cost approximately $1 billion but which included the Corale Guiseppe Verdi, Casa became virtually self-funding and which Italia, ANFE, Fogolar Furlan, the Italo introduced significant new technology to Australian Centre, Brisbane City Soccer Club, Queensland; the construction of the interstate the bocce clubs and the many other culture railway across the Brisbane River to the city and sporting clubs and associations that called and securing the development of the Brisbane on Don regularly for assistance and counsel. Transit Centre and the leasing of railway land for that purpose; initiating the $100m air-space Don Lane was also very heavily involved development at Toowong Railway Station, with the churches and cultural and religious now known as Toowong Village; the festivals. As only one example, the annual appointment of industrial safety officers, spectacular of the Feast of St Joseph just occupational nurses and a medical officer in would not have been the same without the major railway workshops; personally securing appearance of Don and the delivery of a fiery Federal and other funds to expand Brisbane's speech which, although not delivered totally in Legislative Assembly 11115 21 March 1995

Italian, was invariably understood almost his full attention and support. Irrespective of entirely by all present. That was Don's public whether it was Ascot State School, New Farm association with the Italian community. His less State School, the Newstead Special School, public association was equally recognised and the Spastic Centre or the dozen or more other appreciated, and it also brought him much private and State schools within his electorate, credit. Many Italians still appreciate the they all knew that Don Lane was interested in assistance Don gave the many sons, promoting their interests within Government daughters and breadwinners of families to find and he obtained many concessions for them a job. That assistance was also extended to through his diligent and effective many others within his electorate irrespective representations. of racial origin. As a result of those I have mentioned particularly Don's associations, many members of the Italian dealings and connections with the Italian community came to regard Don and his family community, the elderly, the young and the as very close friends. That fact was very disadvantaged within his electorate. However, evident at many a wedding, christening and that should not take away from the fact that all funeral within the Italian community. organised groups and individuals in Don's Those members of this place who electorate were important to him. The sporting remember the composition of the old seat of clubs, such as the Australian Rules Football Merthyr will also remember that the make-up Club in Mayne and Brothers Rugby Union of the seat boasted a very senior Club, service organisations such as Rotary and population—very senior not only because it Lions, cultural organisations such as the was the home of many captains of industry English Speaking Union and, most and commerce, senior members of the importantly, individuals all benefited from judiciary and senior public servants—all of Don's attention to their concerns and requests whom were extremely well served by their local for representation to the Government and the member, Don Lane—but also very senior in bureaucracy. Even today, many of my terms of age. In fact, the seat of constituents speak to me affectionately about Merthyr—and, to a similar extent, the current the work of Don Lane long after he stopped seat of Clayfield—had within it a great number representing them. I think that all honourable of nursing homes, retirement villages, war members would agree with me that that is a widows units and homes, senior citizens great tribute to a man who claimed to be, and centres, pensioners clubs and many other indeed was, a servant of the people. organisations and situations within which I now wish to turn briefly to Don Lane's senior citizens lived and associated. Those service to the Queensland Liberal Party. In organisations and senior citizens were paid a fact, I first met Don when in 1978 I was very special form of attention by Don Lane, campaigning for preselection for the then safe who always maintained that if we look after the Labor Brisbane City Council ward of Central young and the elderly within our community, City. During that preselection and in the then society will be the richer for this. election which I subsequently contested, Don Given Don's background as a policeman, gave me much support and encouragement security of person and property as it applied to and I learned many a campaign skill as I senior citizens was a prime concern to him, as watched Don the politician in action. Don was his belief that senior citizens should be believed in nurturing young people with encouraged to participate fully in the life of political interest and ambition, and the fact their local communities and that they should that he did that with me is something for which be kept well informed of developments within I will always be grateful. From 1978 onwards, the Governments of Queensland and and particularly through our joint interests and . The residents in the many halfway work within the Italian community, our houses, hospitals and welfare associations relationship and friendship grew right up to were also looked after extremely well and 1983 when, unfortunately, events and served very well by Don. He was one who decisions made in that year overtook many a cared for the lot of the mentally impaired within personal and political relationship. our community and for the lot of those who The year 1983 was a difficult year for had come upon hard times. Queensland Liberals. It was in that year that I made the decision that I would seek to contest As I said before, Don loved to make the next election in the seat against Don connection with the kids, he loved to be with Lane. That he beat me in the 1986 election by them and to be more than just the local 31 votes was because of the relationships that politician. He was a constant visitor to the he enjoyed with his electorate, about which I schools within his electorate and all received have spoken already. 21 March 1995 11116 Legislative Assembly

I will not pretend and say that the contest ran remained strong after he left Parliament. was a smooth one and devoid of bitterness. He remained on my Hansard mailing list, and There certainly were some very tense every year I forwarded to him copies of annual moments during that eventful campaign, reports and other documents that I thought including the two re-counts of the close vote, would be of interest to him. From time to time, when I learned much about scrutineering as I he visited my office, and we enjoyed a cordial watched Don in action. In fact, the 1986 personal relationship right up until the time of campaign showed clearly to me what an his death. effective and consummate politician Don was, Don Lane will be remembered for many and one had to admire the sheer things that he did during his time in politics determination with which the Minister and the and in this place. He can be remembered for member went about his re-election business. many good things and he can be It was the same determination and single- remembered for many controversial things. As mindedness which contributed to keeping the someone who benefited greatly from the good north side of Brisbane a Labor-free zone for things that he will be remembered for and who much of the 1970s and 1980s. Together with also suffered at the hands of his political skills Bill Knox and , Don Lane formed a and expertise, I will choose to remember him triumvirate in north Brisbane, which eventually for the great amount of good that he did for saw the north side boasting three senior the general public of Queensland and in Liberal Ministers in the former coalition particular for his electorate of Merthyr. To his Government and a demoralised Labor Party. wife, Beryl and his children, Steven and In fact—and I am sure that members opposite Robyn, I extend my sincere sympathy and will not mind my saying so; indeed, the wish them well for the future. Honourable the Minister for Education said this Motion agreed to, honourable members also—Don Lane really fought the Labor Party standing in silence. and fought it hard. He was never overly boastful of his successes, but he always enjoyed winning the political battles against his QUESTION UPON NOTICE ideological enemies. Brisbane Exhibition and Convention Within the Liberal Party his achievements Centre were many, and the positions he held within Mr LINGARD asked the Minister for the organisation were very senior ones. Apart Administrative Services— from occupying at one time or another every possible position for office bearers at a branch "With reference to the report to the and campaign level, Don served as a member Parliamentary Committee of Public Works of the State Executive between 1969 and on the selection of the operator manager 1975; Chairman, Brisbane Area Executive; at the Brisbane Convention Centre which Parliamentary Delegate to Central Campaign detailed how 27 submissions were Committee; Parliamentary Delegate, received and this was finally reduced to Redistribution Committee; and the two proposals and the committee set up Parliamentary Delegate to the Liberal Party to do the selection then explained how it State Executive from 1971 to 1975. Through did detailed evaluation of those two these positions and his genuine involvement submissions which were Convex and and interest in Liberal Party affairs, Don had a Brisbane Expo Centre— fundamental impact on policy debates within What the report did not tell the the party, preselection outcomes, the election Parliamentary Committee of Public Works of party office bearers, electoral redistribution was the fact that those two companies submissions and membership development. were both subsidiaries of the same group, Through his pursuit of his parliamentary which is International Facilities Group and ministerial duties, he was very much a which is part of Queensland Leisure public face of the Liberal Party and a face Group. which brought much credit to it. In spite of his (1) Why didn’t he give this advice to the decision of 1983, no Liberal who knew and Parliamentary Committee of Public worked with Don Lane can deny this, and Works? today I am pleased to go on the public record (2) Will he outline to the House what as one of these Liberals. projects this company, with As the Honourable the Minister said shareholders such as the Ryan earlier, Don Lane's interest in politics and the Family, the Lister Family, Jacobsen performance of the departments that he once Holdings, Pilbeam Family, Michael Legislative Assembly 11117 21 March 1995

Edgley and Leo Williams, are any information at that time, which was about involved in with your government?" August 1993, was quite simply that I was not Mr MILLINER: This question the Minister for Administrative Services in demonstrates how lazy the honourable August 1993. member for Beaudesert is. Had he taken the time to do some very fundamental research, QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE he would have seen that the premise on which the question is based is incorrect. In his Mater Hospital question, the honourable member referred to Mr BORBIDGE: I refer the Premier to the operator of the Brisbane Convention the fact that the Mater Children's and the Centre and the short-listing of the companies. Mater Adult Public Hospitals will close, in the He said that the two companies that were case of Mater Children's for the first time in its finally short-listed were both subsidiaries of the history, for purposes of elective surgery for two same group, the International Facilities Group, weeks over Easter and again for two weeks in which is part of the Queensland Leisure May because of underfunding by his Group. I am informed that that is totally Government. I ask: will he ensure that these incorrect. hospitals receive sufficient funds to avoid Of the two short-listed companies, it was these closures? discovered that there was a joint shareholding Mr W. K. GOSS: Although I was by one of the participants, and that was fully absent during this public debate, I point out divulged to the assessment committee. That that it is clearly yet another case of an emotive information was passed to the Parliamentary and misleading public debate generated by Committee of Public Works. Interestingly, the people such as the Leader of the Opposition Parliamentary Committee of Public Works and his Health spokesman. I think it is examined this matter and produced a instructive that people understand the record unanimous report. Members of the Opposition of this Government in terms of funding were on that committee. I repeat that it is hospitals in general. I have referred to that interesting to note that it was a unanimous before, and I will not give members opposite report. chapter and verse unless they really ask for it. That unanimous report stated that "this Mr Beanland interjected. committee has examined the evaluation Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the documentation and has no criticism of the final member for Indooroopilly under Standing decision". That was the unanimous finding of Order 123A. the Parliamentary Committee of Public Works. Interestingly, when this matter was being Mr W. K. GOSS: However, I think it is considered, a letter was written to the instructive that we give the history in relation to secretary of the convention and exhibition this Government's very strong support of the centre, which I now table. That letter stated— Mater public hospitals. Funding from the State Government for the Mater public hospitals has "On behalf of the State Opposition, I increased from $84m in 1989-90, when the would like to indicate that IFC has, in my Leader of the Opposition was in Government, opinion, demonstrated that it has the to an allocation of $119.43m in 1994-95. That appropriate expertise and proven track is an increase of over $35m, or over 42 per record to competently carry out the role cent, on the level of funding that the former sought." Government provided. Our record is It also went on to say— dramatically superior. Those are the facts. "Without seeking to prejudice the Furthermore, that 42 per cent increase in deliberations of your committee, I wish to funding to Mater public hospitals compares indicate the Opposition's support for IFC's very favourably with the 36 per cent to 37 per capability to fulfil this important role and cent for other public hospitals. In other words, the associated economic benefits it would the Mater public hospitals have done bring to Queensland." dramatically well under this Government It is signed by none other than Mr Kevin compared with the funding that they received Lingard, Acting Leader of the Opposition. under the former Government. Had the member done some very basic Mr Horan interjected. research, he would have also found out that Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the the reason that I had not provided the member for Toowoomba South under Parliamentary Committee of Public Works with Standing Order 123A. 21 March 1995 11118 Legislative Assembly

Mr W. K. GOSS: They have also done governing board, Mr Ryan. One section of that better than the State public hospitals. statement reads— Furthermore, contrary to the misleading "The chairman of Mater Hospitals, Mr assertions by some members opposite in the Kevin Ryan, said he appreciated the media, during recent meetings between the priority attention given to the Mater Director-General of Queensland Health and Hospital situation by the Minister." the chief executive officer of the Mater public hospitals, the chief executive officer clearly I am sure that Mr Ryan appreciated also the stated that the Mater was not demanding extra funds on top of this Government's record additional funds but that it was seeking a financial support for Mater Public Hospitals. responsible means of balancing its own budget. Public Hospital System With the very strong and much better Mr BORBIDGE: I refer the Premier to support—the much improved support the crumbling public hospital system in this compared with the record of members State, highlighted by the planned, historic opposite—that we are giving the Mater public closure of the Mater Children's Hospital and hospitals, those hospitals will continue to the Mater Public Hospital for two weeks over provide an excellent public service, as does Easter and two weeks in May. I ask: can the the whole of the Queensland public hospital Premier assure the House that no other public system. We have an excellent public hospital hospitals in Queensland will close over this system in this State, as was confirmed recently period? by former Liberal Health Minister Llew Edwards. Mr W. K. GOSS: I can assure the House—and the Leader of the Opposition— Mr Cooper: You're having to dig deep now, aren't you? that, as I have indicated, the Government will continue to provide record support for public Mr W. K. GOSS: What sort of a slur is hospitals in this State—in terms of both the that on Dr Edwards? Russell still hates all Mater hospital and public hospitals. However, Liberals with a passion. the day-to-day management of hospitals and An Opposition member: Bring back adherence to budget is a matter for the Tories. managers, not a matter for politicians. Mr W. K. GOSS: The honourable member suggests that we should bring back Evatt Foundation Survey the Liberals to clean up the mess. I thought that Llew Edwards was a pretty good Health Mr LIVINGSTONE: I refer the Minister. Obviously, the member does not Treasurer—— share that view and does not think that Mr Mr Elliott interjected. Edwards has a contribution to make. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Obviously, the member does not believe in member for Cunningham under Standing bipartisan support. He is into trying to scare Order 123A. Honourable members are aware members of the public and trying to that I will not allow interjections to be made undermine confidence in the public hospital while a question is being asked. The member system. for Cunningham is well and truly warned. Honourable members interjected. Mr LIVINGSTONE: I refer the Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable Treasurer to the Evatt Foundation state of members, the level of interjections is Australian Government survey, which rates unacceptable and I will not allow it to continue. South Australia ahead of Queensland. I ask: Mr W. K. GOSS: I conclude by can the Treasurer inform the House whether endorsing the very competent way in which this is an accurate portrayal of Queensland's the Minister for Health has handled this economic and social performance? matter—— Mr De LACY: The Evatt Foundation has Mr FitzGerald interjected. come to the conclusion that South Australia is the best-performing State in Australia. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Lockyer under Standing Order Mr W. K. Goss: Who'd swap? 123A. Mr De LACY: As the Premier said: who Mr W. K. GOSS: —which is underlined would swap? In fact, if South Australia had not by the joint statement issued by Mr Elder and qualified to play in the Sheffield Shield final, the chairman of the Mater health service's Legislative Assembly 11119 21 March 1995 we would have hardly known that that State again in per capita terms, Queensland had a existed! 34 per cent increase per annum. The next As I said earlier this morning, I believe best was New South Wales with 24 per cent, that the only way in which the foundation followed by Western Australia with 19 per cent, could come to such a conclusion is if its South Australia with 18 per cent, Tasmania members spent all day in the Barossa Valley with 18 per cent and Victoria with 9 per cent. and wrote the report that night. The Evatt In conclusion, allow me to refer to the Foundation is one of those groups that best measure of social performance, that is, believes that, if taxes or debts are increased, the creation of jobs. If there is one thing that a that is good social policy. If that is how the Government can do for the people of its State, foundation measures good social policy, it is it is to create jobs. Since we have been in no wonder that it put Queensland at the Government, 169,000 new jobs have been bottom of the list. created in Queensland. In other words, I am disappointed most of all by the fact two-thirds of all new jobs created in Australia that the foundation used the Commonwealth over the past five years have been created in Grants Commission for its basic statistics but Queensland. I rest my case. It does the Evatt then deliberately misused those statistics. The Foundation no credit at all to put together a survey referred to social policy and stated that bodgie study which endeavours to prove the Queensland is underfunding in relation to the unprovable. rest of Australia. To a certain extent, that is Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the member right, but where the foundation is wrong, and for Ipswich West to ask his second question. where it is dead wrong, is in the fact that Mr Borbidge interjected. Queensland is increasing spending in social areas at a much faster rate than the other Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have just States of Australia. The foundation does not warned the member for Cunningham about give credit where credit is due. interjecting when a question is being asked. Now the Leader of the Opposition is doing the The Leader of the Opposition asked same thing. I ask him to restrain himself. questions this morning about health, and the Premier said that we are increasing funding in health at a very much faster rate—— Mr C. Skase Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr LIVINGSTONE: I refer the Minister Mr De LACY: It is in respect of the for Tourism, Sport and Racing to reports from Mater. Is the Leader of the Opposition saying Spain that Christopher Skase is planning to that the Mater is not properly managed? relaunch his tourist business from the island of Majorca. I ask: how does the Minister view Mr Borbidge: No, we're saying the these reports, and would any business Health Department isn't properly managed. associated with Mr Skase be welcome in Mr De LACY: We are talking about the Queensland's tourist industry? Mater. Is the Leader of the Opposition saying Mr Veivers interjected. that it is not properly managed? We have done our job. We have increased funding by Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for 40 per cent. If the Leader of the Opposition is Southport! saying that it is not working, he is saying that Mr GIBBS: Whatever it is that Mr Skase the Mater is not managing it properly. has been sniffing through the oxygen bottles The Evatt Foundation measures good for the past 18 months, the Opposition social policy on inputs—the amount of money obviously needs a healthy whiff of it. Look at that is spent. In respect of health I will take the difference it has made to Mr Skase! figures from the report by the Commonwealth In short, Mr Skase would not be welcome Grants Commission brought down just a in Queensland, and neither would anybody couple of weeks ago. In the past five years, associated with his businesses. The fact is that Queensland has increased spending in per Mr Skase left a trail of debt in this State from capita terms—so this is taking account of the small to major investors through the Qintex fact that we have the fastest population organisation. In addition, along with people growth—by an average of 14 per cent per such as Bond, Mr Skase did an incredible annum; Victoria by 2 per cent; Western disservice to the tourist industry in Queensland Australia by minus 7 per cent; South Australia, in terms of casting doubt on financial which got top marks, by 7 per cent; and New institutions, which during the 1980s were South Wales by 12 per cent—Queensland prepared to put money into tourism first, daylight second. In respect of education, development and infrastructure. All 21 March 1995 11120 Legislative Assembly honourable members would be aware that it protracted consideration did the Goss health has been very difficult to encourage financial system manage to come up with a few institutions and superannuation funds back hundred thousand dollars to keep a into investing in the tourist industry, particularly reasonable level of access to those services in over the past six to eight years. place. I can only reiterate what I have said. I can It has to be stressed that the problems for assure the House that Mr Skase is not the Mater Mothers elements of the complex welcome here—although I am sure that he under the Goss health system simply are not would be very welcome on the basis of being going to go away and are likely to steadily answerable to his former shareholders—and worsen. That is because the problems which any company which believes that it has some threatened the recent reductions in contribution to make to this State's economy confinements were linked to far more than the or to the tourist industry and which is in any cut in allocation for the hospital from the 1994- way associated with Skase is also not 95 Budget. They are to do, as is almost welcome in Queensland. everything, with the universal and chronic Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for mismanagement of the entire Health portfolio, questions with or without notice has expired. which has had a domino effect right across the entire public health system. I refer in particular to the loss of maternity beds which occurred MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST with the closure of maternity services at the Annual Hospital Closures QE II Hospital, which added massively to the Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise— pressures on the Mater's maternity facilities. Leader of the Opposition) (11 a.m.): Today, That was a simple, clear lack of planning to the Opposition calls on the Premier to find take into account basic commonsense. If the immediately a small sum of money—a sum Government lops off maternity services at that the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing QE II, then other hospitals providing maternity would regard as mere petty cash—to prevent services are going to come under increasing pressure and are going to need more, not the impending closure of elective surgery at less, funds to absorb that pressure. One does the Mater Children's and the Mater public not need to be Einstein; a degree of hospitals for a month. They will be closed for commonsense is all that is needed. Did we two weeks at Easter and two weeks in May. see that from the custodian of the Goss health What a disgrace! system this morning in this place? Again, no! It I am sure that there will soon be was nowhere to be seen. announcements from other public hospitals in Brisbane in relation to what has become an The fact is that the mismanagement of annual ritual—an annual feature event—of the the massive taxpayer investment in the health Goss health system, that is, annual closures system is now so chronically locked into a for a number of weeks of all elective surgery. spiral of bureaucratic nonsense—and a lack of That is the 45-week-a-year, coordination under the leadership of Wayne hospital system. Goss—that, under this Government, the Mater's hopes for reasonable funding are now For two reasons, the Mater is a particularly accepted by it to be so forlorn that it is now poignant case in point in relation to this considering long-term constraints on maternity chronic onset of closures. Firstly, this will be admissions. Even for the final months of this the first time in its proud history that any financial year, the hospital will provide element of this magnificent hospital complex confinements only to women who are already has actually had to shut down services even booked in. temporarily. Secondly, these closures come on top of another set of problems for the hospital So the problems in the maternity area are in delivering the degree of service for which it anything but temporary, and the same is true is famous in a second major area, thanks of the surgical list. Exactly the same lack of again to this Government's ongoing and commonsense applies to the evolution of this monumental mismanagement of the health problem. On a declining budget under this system. I refer, of course, to the recent Government, it was expected to absorb the dramas concerning the maternity section, impact of the loss of six operating theatres where the hospital was forced into considering across the city. In this place this morning, the cancelling the confinement of literally stupid, foolish Treasurer hops up and seeks to hundreds of women because it simply did not blame the management of the Mater. He said have the money to provide a bed for them in that it had nothing to do with the Government; which to have their babies. Only after he accuses the Opposition of misrepresenting Legislative Assembly 11121 21 March 1995 the facts. Six theatres have been lost at the fixed up this dreadful mess that it inherited. PA and at the RBH, and the Government is The Government's argument is that it was alleging that the Opposition is saying that the actually the coalition that wrecked the health hospitals should not have to live within their system. That is what we have been hearing for means. It is not the hospitals that are closing six years. So what is the Government's the theatres, it is the Government. response? It appoints a former conservative Again, we have the situation where the Health Minister to fix it up. It takes one of the Mater Public and the Mater Children's men from one of the parties that allegedly Hospitals are supposed to deal with more created the problem in the first place and patients with less funding, and the Treasurer gives him the up-front job. What a vote of no- and the Premier say that it is nothing to do confidence that is in the Director-General, Dick with the Government. Again, it has been the Persson. Mater's bid to meet that demand foisted upon An Opposition member: And Mr it by the lack of planning and the domino Elder. effect of hospital budget cuts, not some alleged disrespect for the budget itself within Mr BORBIDGE: I am coming to Mr the hospital, as implied by the Government, Elder. What is Mr Persson doing in Health which has created the problem that the entire fresh after giving Queensland the disaster of Mater complex now faces. HOME? What have all those legions of well- paid bureaucrats, spread through 13 Taj So in that sense, the fate of the Mater is Mahals the length and breadth of the State, a microcosm of all that is wrong with been doing that Sir Llew has had to come to Queensland Health under the Premier's the rescue? What a vote of no-confidence in alleged leadership, and in fact a fair this Minister, his Director-General and his microcosm of all that is wrong with the entire department. leadership of this State under the Premier. The ingredients are increasingly common and The challenge from this side of the House chronic. First, as we heard again this morning, is for the Government to actually find a very take a fistful of dollars. Second, invent some small amount of money and do something fiction about how it is going to be spent. Third, genuinely constructive with it. For this mob distribute the fiction widely. Fourth, forget opposite, that would be a novel experience. about the problem—walk away from it. That is The Government should find some money the story of the Goss Government. That is and fix something. It should avoid the shut- evidenced everywhere, in any portfolio one down. The Premier should stop trading public may care to examine. relations stunts for leadership. It is his Government that redesigned Queensland Today it is Health, but tomorrow we could Health. It is Wayne Goss' health system and write the same speech about the Police his health crisis. It is his creation. He can Service. There is a lot of money, press sprout about how much extra money he is releases and rhetoric, but no police! The same putting into the Mater and the Mater Children's applies to the Education Department and the Hospital; that is not the issue. During the Department of Environment and Heritage. We lifetime of the previous coalition Government, have national parks but no rangers. The the Mater Children's was never closed at Mater, the PA, the RBH, Prince Charles Easter. It has never been closed before. It is Hospital and the Maryborough Base not a question of money, it is a question of Hospital—wherever one looks, it is exactly the management. same story. There is lots of money but no management, and when it goes wrong, as the Government members should remember Premier said in this place today, it is always that, back in 1988, Bob Hawke commissioned someone else's fault. As he said, "It is nothing the Economic Planning Advisory Council to to do with me, it is a matter for management." carry out an assessment of the standard of What about his management? What about health care across Australia. That EPAC report the Queensland Health Minister's to Bob Hawke said, "Yes, the Queensland management? Time and again we see the National Party Government is spending common ingredients. There is lots of money considerably less than the national average on but poor management. health." However, in terms of primary patient When it comes to Health, we see the care and service delivery, the council rated the ultimate irony. The Government's logic is, as Queensland public health system in this State usual, so tortured. Allegedly, the health as equal to or better than that being provided system has not been destroyed by this anywhere else in Australia. Government. This Government says that it Government members interjected. 21 March 1995 11122 Legislative Assembly

Mr BORBIDGE: Government members In order to get more police officers out cannot argue with EPAC or Bob Hawke. from behind their desks and onto the streets Time expired. and highways of Queensland we have increased by 50 per cent the number of civilians employed by the Queensland Police Police Resources Service. The additional civilian staff are freeing up police officers to devote their time to Mr ROBERTSON (Sunnybank) fighting crime. That is the pattern across the (11.10 a.m.): Following that speech of fiction, I State. Of course, police numbers in some intend to inform the House of the facts about regions have increased more than in others, police resources in Queensland. Nobody could and the reason is very simple. Generally, they deny that law and order rank among the most reflect the fluctuations in local population important issues in the world today. Equally, numbers. In situations in which there are nobody could deny that this is not a special circumstances, these have been taken Queensland phenomenon; it is a worldwide into account when establishing police numbers phenomenon. There are countless theories to for the districts. explain why criminal behaviour has been flourishing, and there are many hypotheses A sampling of some of the increases in about the ways to counter the problem. But police numbers around the State includes: a one thing that is certain is that there is a need 51 per cent increase on the Gold Coast; a 43 to get more police out and about. When police per cent increase on the Sunshine Coast; a 27 are visible in the community, they serve the per cent increase in Cairns; a 36 per cent dual purpose of providing a deterrent to some increase in Ipswich; a 34 per cent increase in and, for those who are not deterred, a quick Mareeba; a 30 per cent increase in response when needed. The Goss Labor Toowoomba; a 27 per cent increase in Government has been very successful in both. Maryborough; and police numbers have more Not only have we seen an increase in our than doubled at the police stations that service crime clear-up rates, but our police are also the Sunnybank electorate. catching more offenders in the act of Funding for police work in the various committing crimes. There is absolutely no police districts around the State has increased doubt that the Goss Government takes law by a range of 12 per cent to 78 per cent since and order very seriously and has boosted the 1989. The total budget for the Queensland Queensland Police Service in response to the Police Service has increased by 70 per cent, problem. from $295m in 1989 to $503m in 1994-95. In Contrary to the claims made by the other words, the Goss Labor Government is Opposition, the Goss Labor Government has spending $208m a year more on policing than confronted the law and order problem and is the National Party spent when it was last in taking positive steps to address it. To Government. What is particularly important to demonstrate that point, the first fact to note is that we are not just putting additional consider is that the Queensland population resources into the Police Service; we are has increased by 11 per cent since the Goss making much better use of the resources Labor Government was first elected in 1989. allocated in the Police budget. One of the Since 1989, the number of police officers in initiatives we have introduced is an on-line Queensland has increased by 18 per cent. computer system called the Crime Reporting More importantly, the number of operational Information System for Police, or CRISP, police officers—that is, the police who are which was successfully trialled last year in visible in the community, as opposed to being areas including Sunnybank. That computer hidden away behind desks in office buildings— system has effectively put 400 more officers has increased by 35 per cent. That gives us a on the street by replacing the amount of 35 per cent increase in real policing strength, paperwork involved in advising police around while the population has increased by 11 per the State about the details of police activity cent. Put another way: 78 per cent of the total which may affect their districts. police force of 5,282 officers in 1989 were on These days we hear a lot of criticism from operational duties; today, more than 89 per the Opposition about police numbers. But cent of 6,224 police officers are on operational unlike the hysterical statements of the duties. So there are more police overall, and Opposition, the information that I have more of them are doing the kind of work that provided today is the true picture. Let me add matters to most Queenslanders. Statewide, to that picture the fact that, in the Opposition there are now 1,500 more police carrying out Police spokesperson's own electorate of Crows operational duties than there were in 1989. Nest, the Goss Government has provided 40 Legislative Assembly 11123 21 March 1995 per cent more funding for police work and 41 started whingeing about a chronic shortage of per cent more police officers than his former Gold Coast police. The empty vessel making National Party Government provided. In the the most noise is a tag worn with distinction by Surfers Paradise electorate of the Opposition that honourable member. Leader, Mr Borbidge—and unfortunately he The Goss Government has not only has left the Chamber, so he will not hear this increased police numbers on the Gold Coast particular fact—— by 50 per cent, we have also provided a new Mr Beattie: He doesn't want to hear it, Gold Coast district headquarters, which is anyway. located at Surfers Paradise, upgraded Mr ROBERTSON: Mr Beattie is quite communications equipment at Broadbeach right; the Opposition Leader does not want to and introduced Police Beat shopfronts in the hear the truth. In his own electorate, funding Cavill Mall and Australia Fair in Southport. for policing has increased by 60 per cent, and At this juncture it is worth informing the police numbers have increased by more than House about another duplicitous statement 50 per cent since 1989. made by another party leader in this House, Mr Bennett: And he whinges. namely, the Liberal Party Leader, Mrs Sheldon. Over the past couple of months, Mr ROBERTSON: And the Opposition there has been a virtual parade—dare I say Leader has the hide to whinge. "circus troupe"—of Liberal Party With those facts about police numbers in spokespersons whingeing their way through mind, it is worth recalling this— my electorate of Sunnybank making the dogs bark and scaring the children. Their favourite "As I see it, it is not the job of topic seems to be to knock the announcement members of Parliament to make loud of a police shopfront soon to be opened at noise in the media about a possible Sunnybank Plaza. I would have thought that shortage of police when so much can be any initiative to increase the police presence in achieved by quiet and constructive work Sunnybank would have been welcomed by behind the scenes." the Liberals; but no. In their desperate and Who said that? It may surprise those people tawdry attempts to win votes, they have who have heard him carrying on about police whinged and whined about this worthwhile numbers as if it were his favourite subject that initiative. Clearly, the Liberals do not support this was the view expressed in this House by police shopfronts, or do they? the Leader of the Opposition when he was in In the absence of any announced policies Government in 1981. It does not surprise me, by the coalition, we can only go by what the because I have grown accustomed to his respective party leaders say on any particular capacity to hitch a ride on any bandwagon; it issue. What has Mrs Sheldon, the Liberal is one of his most endearing qualities. But it Party Leader, had to say about police may surprise some people who thought he shopfronts? Recently, on a visit to the south was sincere in 1981. What was it that the coast, that media junkie from Caloundra could National Party Leader said again? He said— not help herself and let the cat out of the bag. "As I see it, it is not the job of On the John Miller radio program on 2 March members of Parliament to make loud this year, the Liberal Leader was asked what noise in the media about a possible additional police resources were needed, in shortage of police when so much can be her opinion. What was her reply? "They achieved by quiet and constructive work needed a shopfront presence." There it is; the behind the scenes." Liberal Leader's endorsement of the Goss Government's Police Beat shopfront program. Now look who is making the loud noises! The only question that remains is why the Mr Johnson: Because there is a Liberals think that a police shopfront is such a shortage. good idea on the south coast but not in Sunnybank. Perhaps it is just another example Mr ROBERTSON: Mr Johnson clearly of the dishonest electioneering tactics that we was not listening when I talked about a 50 per have come to expect from the Liberal Party. I cent increase in police numbers in the hope that if the Liberal Party Leader wants her electorate of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr party to be seen as a credible alternative to Borbidge never made a sound about the lack of adequate police numbers on the coast the Goss Government, she will immediately contact the Liberals' candidate in Sunnybank. when he was in Government; but almost as soon as he found himself in Opposition he Time expired. 21 March 1995 11124 Legislative Assembly

New Tax Burden on Home Buyers and The latest Goss Government impost is the Builders introduction of grossly inflated charges on Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Leader of every new housing estate—charges that are to the Liberal Party) (11.20 a.m.): For some time be passed on to home buyers through a the Opposition has warned the Labor savage increase in the price of each lot. The Government that it is losing sight of the first of these charges is now on trial around economic fundamentals in Queensland. Labor Cairns. It is the so-called transport policies are focused not on the needs of infrastructure levy. It will be followed by new business and industry or the needs of the levies on house blocks for schools, police community in general. The Labor Party in stations and dozens of other services that are Queensland is not about catering for the the responsibility of the State. needs of this State. It is about using The transport infrastructure levy is adding Queensland resources to cement itself in up to $12,000 to the cost of housing power. It is about using the wealth of this allotments in Cairns. It is to be spread State to cultivate its own political patronage. It Statewide and the consequences will be is a Labor Government of the old school—a higher home prices, especially for first home tax-and-spend Government that uses buyers, more building industry bankruptcies, backdoor methods to burden the community. and unemployment. It redistributes those funds according to a Those consequences should be of vital political agenda designed to curry favour for concern to the Treasurer and his mates, but the Labor Party and to serve its interests they are not. In this case, Mr De Lacy is above all others. revelling in the misery of home builders and Those are not the priorities that built this buyers because he will have succeeded in yet State. Our State Government should another move to keep tax increases hidden appreciate more than most the importance of from the public. The levies are a huge slap in small business and a strong and vibrant the face for home buyers and the building housing sector here in the Sunshine State. industry. Already both are reeling from the Across Queensland, the housing sector, along impact of higher interest rates. If I turn to with private sector spending, contributes the Saturday's Cairns Post, I find a warning to far- lion's share of growth to our gross State northern builders from the Housing Industry product. Their only rival is in-house Association. Its Cairns manager, Geoff Smith, bureaucratic activity, of which too much is stated in an article in the Cairns Post that they directed at traditional red tape and political could "severely mark down their sales activity and too little which contributes to the expectations and job hiring plans." In the public good. article, Mr Smith further states— Years ago, Australia was said to ride on "Cairns has been leading the the sheep's back. Today, Queensland rides on percentage increases in building the back of the building industry. Yet in the approvals in the State quarter by quarter, late 1990s, the Goss Government treats but we've finally hit a wall." builders, subbies and home buyers like sheep. Sure, Mr Speaker, if you were a subbie, you What a coincidence that the wall should would not have four legs but, according to appear in the wake of interest rate rises your Treasurer, you could live on nothing and introduced by Labor Prime Minister Keating every year Treasurer De Lacy and his boss and new development levies imposed by cocky in Canberra would fleece you for every Treasurer De Lacy, the member for Cairns. cent they could get their hands on. Do not take my word for it, Mr Speaker. The building game in Queensland came There are plenty of others around Cairns who of age many years ago. Of all Australian have seen the impact of this new levy and are States, our building industry is unique in that concerned about the consequences. The new for more than a decade it has been driven by Mayor of Cairns, Tom Pyne, also had his say strong interstate migration. In its privileged in the Cairns Post on Tuesday. The article position, with the good fortune of having a stated— thousand new clients coming across the "I am quite concerned that this does border every week, the Queensland housing have a big impact on the price of housing industry, which flourished under previous and blocks of land in this area. I will be conservative Governments, should be very concerned about the level of costs steaming ahead. Yet, under Labor, it is imposed on development because in lots treated as merely another source of State of cases, first home buyers bear these Government revenue, and it is suffering. costs." Legislative Assembly 11125 21 March 1995

He supported exactly what I said, and he I have been given copies of the State supported it publicly in the press. Government's plans for LA-style flyovers and This is a selfish, short-sighted grab for roundabouts, not paid for by vehicle cash by Treasurer De Lacy. It strikes at the registration or other associated charges, but very heart of the Queensland economy. Our built into the cost of every new housing block housing sector is in a slump, but the Treasurer in the far-north region. Across Cairns and the wants it on its knees. The article in the Cairns surrounding areas the figures vary, but, with Post stated— prices already through the roof, the impact is devastating. Buyers will pay an extra $1,500 a "Only one in four builders reported lot in the Redhill to Edmonton corridor, $5,000 current sales at higher levels than six a lot around Gordonvale, $12,000 a lot in the months earlier, while sales had fallen for Goldsborough Valley area, $4,500 a lot in 42% of tradesmen." Redlynch Valley and between $6,000 and The article continued— $8,000 on the Marlin Coast. New child-care "Sales were expected to fall across centres around Cairns have been required to all sectors of new home building with 35% contribute $40,000, while other commercial of multi-unit builders and 30% of builders and light industrial developments have had to in the first home market looking at pay in excess of $100,000. So this new tax reduced sales. extends beyond housing to strike at small business and business investment in general By contrast, Queensland builders and, of course, hits at jobs. had a gloomy view of their sales prospects with nearly half anticipating That such a policy would be considered in fewer sales in the next six months. On the Queensland shows how far Labor has strayed jobs front, about four in 10 builders in from the path of economic responsibility. Queensland and WA intended to lay off Treasurer De Lacy will have the joy of filling the people in the next six months." State Government money bin with the proceeds, but the only person cheering him on Mr De Lacy stood in this House today crowing will be his mentor as Treasurer, Prime Minister about his great supposed record of finding Keating. The prospect of a slump in the jobs. Yet he is going to lose a massive housing industry has brought a smile to the number of jobs by not supporting the builders face of the Prime Minister. In the Cairns Post and subbies and first home buyers in this on Friday, he was crowing about how a State, and he does not care. "declining trend" in the housing sector was Against this dismal background, Mr De proof that the national economy was slowing. Lacy has launched a scheme to take He must be over the moon with the thousands of dollars from the pockets of every performance of Treasurer De Lacy. He must young family trying to establish a home in new be ringing the Goss Government to estates from Gordonvale to the Marlin Coast congratulate them. Here they are in the State and all over Queensland when this project is most dependent on housing and they give put in place. Soon, under the guise of their loyalty not to young Queensland first infrastructure payments, he will have his hand home buyers but to the Prime Minister. They in the pockets of almost every new home are working to help Mr Keating's desperate buyer in the State. He has authorised those attempts to fix the national economy by recessive charges on the grounds that they will sacrificing the Queensland economy. pay for massive new roadworks, as grandiose The best one can say for Mr De Lacy is in size and scale as they are ugly and of that he does have a guilty conscience. He will questionable worth. not own up to his actions by applying the levy Up on the Marlin Coast at Poolwood directly. In Cairns and elsewhere throughout Road, the so-called transport infrastructure this State, the levies will be applied by local cost is adding up to $8,000 to the cost of authorities whose hands will be tied. They will allotments a stone's throw from where earlier be obliged to pass on the Government's developments paid a maximum of $350 a lot backdoor taxes or pay the difference out of in headworks. We have not heard one word their own pockets. In very little time, this from the member for Barron River, Lesley disgusting scheme will cripple the State's Clark, against this move by the Treasurer to vibrant housing sector at a time when it is tax the ordinary Queenslander and people in most vulnerable. To the tens of thousands of her electorate to the level of $8,000 to builders, subbies and suppliers across $12,000 a block. She obviously does not care Queensland this scheme is poison, introduced and certainly does not care about first home by a Government that cares nought for the builders. consequences, apart from the short-term 21 March 1995 11126 Legislative Assembly impact on its own coffers. It is a great worry to House. The member makes statements such see Labor turn against the industry that as, "The once great Queensland health contributes to so many jobs and opportunities system." What a furphy! in Queensland. All honourable members will be familiar On many occasions Treasurer De Lacy with the shocking revelations that came out of has begrudgingly acknowledged that, the Townsville Ward 10B inquiry. The shocking compared to other State economies, treatment that was handed out to patients at Queensland's is especially reliant on the the Maryborough Base Hospital, in particular housing sector. He has said that our reliance the residents of the Wahroonga Nursing on housing will decrease, but until now Home, was equally bad. One would expect to Queenslanders have expected the change to read about such happenings in one of Hitler's occur through added growth elsewhere, not concentration camps. Upon my election to through Government-induced cuts to housing. Parliament in 1989, I was inundated by people In the December quarter, housing starts in informing me of the terrible goings-on at the Queensland dropped 7.8 per cent, compared nursing home. I found many of the with drops of 5.8 per cent in South Australia accusations hard to believe but they were so and 4 per cent in Western Australia. The persistent that I asked the then Health number of housing starts increased by 1.8 per Minister, the Honourable Ken McElligott, for an cent in Victoria and 4 per cent in Tasmania. investigation. The then Minister ordered a More than one in four young people in report into the operations of the Wahroonga Queensland are out of work, yet the State Nursing Home, which was subsequently tabled Government is resigned to massive cutbacks, in this House on 10 November 1992. as well as bankruptcies and lay-offs in the I now ask honourable members to housing sector. This new State-imposed prepare themselves to be shocked when they burden will simply accelerate the trend. hear these allegations. Some were proven to For the past three years, Queensland has be correct; others were not. The complaints reaped a huge windfall in stamp duty and covered a wide spectrum of treatment ranging other collections because of the housing from cold showers and delays in the provision boom. It did so because it physically increased of medical aid to callous, vicious treatment of the burden of stamp duty to maximise its inmates. I will outline the details of the return. If we compare these last three years complaints in the form in which they were with the previous three, we find stamp duty handed to me. Firstly, sick patients at revenue rose from $2.13 billion between 1989 Wahroonga Nursing Home have to wait up to and 1992 to $2.64 billion between 1992 and two days before a doctor can see them. 1995. That is an increase of $506.2m or 23.7 Sisters tell patients that there is only one per cent. The Government should be thinking doctor to go around and, "You can die for all I about reinvesting that money for the good of care." A gentleman whose mother is 91 and the economy and for the good of currently resides in the home feared that if he Queenslanders. The cash should be put to identified himself, his mother would be work to build stability in the industry and for the victimised further. He did not visit her for 10 thousands of Queenslanders still looking for a days and when he did visit her, he found that job. her eyeglasses were so dirty that she could not see out of them. The nurses did not clean Time expired. her teeth or brush her hair. Secondly, relatives complain of old, lazy Health staff. Patients are propped up in bed and in chairs. Numerous people have complained Mr DOLLIN (Maryborough) (11.30 a.m.): about seeing patients falling out of chairs and When discussing health matters, one often not being picked up for some hours, despite hears Opposition members, and in particular witnesses approaching the staff and the member for Toowoomba North and requesting assistance. One lady informed us shadow Minister for Health, Mike Horan—a that when she approached the staff, who were nice enough chap but terribly misguided and busy playing cards, she was told to "piss off". misled—— Almost all complaints involve bumps, bruises Opposition members interjected. and cuts on patients as a result of rough Mr DOLLIN: The member for handling. Toowoomba South. He has been terribly Thirdly, staff who were employed at the misguided and misled by the AMA. It is a nursing home have claimed that they have left great pity that Mr Horan is not present in the because they could not instigate any changes Legislative Assembly 11127 21 March 1995 to the place. They claim that patients were I wish to inform honourable members that stripped in their rooms and, totally naked, were the great majority of the nursing staff of the wheeled in their chairs down corridors to home were caring and professional, but the showers. They were then showered and, still management was slack, non-caring and naked, brought back to their rooms and perhaps even lazy. The board was stacked dressed again. with National Party members, as was the Fourthly, relatives claim that they visit their management. I was told by several relatives of families at meal times so that they can prop patients that when they complained to the them up to eat. Otherwise, the patients are left National Party member for Maryborough at flat on their backs and there is no physical way that time about their concerns, he would reply, they can eat. They are then viciously growled "If you believe the care is not up to standard, at by staff when they do not eat their meals. take them home." That had the effect of Fifthly, no-one cut up any meals for the shutting them up. patients. If they were incapable of cutting up Mr Ardill: It's not the only place where their own food, most of them did not eat. this is happening. In the sixth instance, almost all callers, Mr DOLLIN: It is not the only place. I including staff, told of people being given cold could go on about that nursing home, but I showers if they wet the bed. It was claimed turn now to the Lady Musgrave Maternity widely that buzzers were put out of the reach Hospital. This is the great hospital system that of patients. Hence they soiled themselves. Opposition members skite about! I refer to an When staff discovered what had happened— article about gynaecologist Dr Stokes that often hours later—patients were yelled at and appeared in the Maryborough-Hervey Bay given cold showers. Others claimed that Chronicle just prior to the election in 1989. It patients who had false teeth had them states— removed as punishment if they were naughty. "Conditions at Maryborough's Lady That made eating difficult for them. People Musgrave Maternity Hospital are so grave witnessed patients ringing buzzers for literally and facilities so inadequate that patients' hours before they received attention. lives are at risk, according to a city In the seventh instance, one person who obstetrician and gynaecologist. went to visit her mother found her missing The doctor's concern was serious from her bed. Upon reporting this to the staff enough for him to withdraw his services they said, "She'll come back, the silly old until the situation improved and bitch." The daughter then spent one and a emergency operating facilities were made half hours looking for her mother and was on available. the verge of reporting her missing to police when she found her on the road at the bottom In the doctor's opinion, all that was of the grounds. She was very distressed. required to open a temporary emergency facility was the provision of surgery gowns, In the eighth instance, many callers have surgical instruments and the corridor been concerned about the financial affairs of around the emergency theatre clear of the patients. They claim that, in some cases, clutter. the hospital takes all of the patient's pension. . . . Recently, the increase in pensions was taken up in full by the hospital. Others say that they For the past fourteen months, if a received a few dollars a week from their patient needed an emergency caesarean pension. section at Lady Musgrave, an ambulance is called, the ambulance then has to drive A previous staff member, who is sending to Lady Musgrave, the patient has to be written evidence, claims an account called an transferred from the bed to a trolley, accrued patients amenities fund, which was loaded into the ambulance, driven to the supposed to be used expressly for the benefit main hospital, transferred to another bed, of the patients, was a slush fund for the carried up a flight of stairs, into the hospital and/or the board. The staff member elevator and up to the main operating claimed that, although the home did buy a bus for the patients, when that staff member theatre. left, there was in excess of $200,000 in the The doctor was angry that he had fund. been forced into taking the action he had. In the tenth instance, patients within days . . . of death are being forced to feed, shower and My major concern is that both the care for themselves. foetus' and the mothers' lives are put at 21 March 1995 11128 Legislative Assembly

unacceptable risk. Complications such as The Nationals should be like Tom Dooley; they a prolapsed umbilical cord, a severe should hang their heads and cry in shame. abruption, placenta parevia or foetal Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr distress may arise suddenly and under Palaszczuk): Order! Before I call the such circumstances, maternal transfer is honourable member for Western Downs, I unacceptably hazardous. point out to the honourable member for The doctor said that before he came Maryborough and other members in this to Maryborough about two years ago House that the honourable member used two Lady Musgrave had been managing for terms that the Chair considers to be years with an operating theatre at the end unparliamentary. I ask the honourable of a corridor. He said there were several member to withdraw. problems: A hole in the roof through Mr DOLLIN: I quoted exactly from the which insects flew during a caesarean report. section operation, congested working area which restricted anaesthetic Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It does supervision and paediatric resuscitation, not matter whether the honourable member complete absence of a clean area around quoted from a report. the operating room and inadequately Mr DOLLIN: How am I to quote from the organised storage for drugs and report? instruments." Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have In contrast, in the time remaining to me, I asked the honourable member to withdraw. would like to outline briefly what this Mr DOLLIN: I withdraw. Government has done in Maryborough since it came to office. Opposition members may be able to make a comparison between the Intervention in Fire Services by sloppy system that existed under their Minister for Emergency Services Government and what we have now. State Cabinet has approved a regional health capital Mr LITTLEPROUD (Western Downs) works package of about $60m for Wide Bay, (11.41 a.m.): Today, I want to talk about an including the redevelopment of the overzealous Minister and allegations of a huge Maryborough Hospital area; a new 130-bed bungle by the Queensland Fire Service. Hervey Bay Hospital at an estimated cost of Bureaucratic bungles are becoming so $30m; the redevelopment of Bundaberg common in the Goss Government that they Hospital, at an estimated cost of $18m; the are now a feature of that administration. redevelopment of Maryborough Hospital, at an These two issues fall into that category. estimated cost of $6m; and the establishment The first issue that I raise today involves of the Wide Bay hospitals group laundry at the Deputy Premier and his role as Minister for Maryborough at an estimated cost of $4m. Emergency Services. Mr Burns overstepped The services offered at the new Hervey Bay his role and ignored his own Act. He showed Hospital will address the projected needs of scant knowledge of correct departmental the expanding Hervey Bay community and procedures and trod all over the authority of complement the services provided at the an officer of the QFS. Let me elaborate. redeveloped Maryborough Hospital. On 9 February 1995, Mr P. Stafford of The anticipated commissioning date for Wynnum West wrote to his local member, the Hervey Bay's new hospital is mid 1997. The Honourable Tom Burns, whom he knew to be redevelopment planned for Maryborough will the Minister for Emergency Services. Mr enable the hospital to provide a broader range Stafford complained about smoke coming of specialist services at higher levels and will from timber being burnt on a nearby property. include the development of a regional acute It appears that bulldozed timber had been rehabilitation service. The details of exactly placed in a pit and then burnt. Mr Stafford which services are involved will be finalised in complained that the correct procedures for conjunction with the final planning of the new such a burn had not been followed. Hervey Bay Hospital. As any good local member would, Mr I think the report into the Wahroonga Burns wanted to help, and he promised to Nursing Home would be the most damning intervene. Firstly, he found that the application thing honourable members would ever read. I form for a permit to burn under the Fire could go on like Blue Hills; the report is 58 Service Act 1990—his Act—needed to be pages long and contains cases of neglect redesigned completely. That is fair enough. As similar to the ones to which I have referred. the Minister, he has the right to order the Legislative Assembly 11129 21 March 1995 design of new forms. He can change the "I told him that the burn was regulations and amend the Act; he is the completed last week. Mr Burns stated that Minister. any one wanting a burn off permit must Mr Beattie: There is nothing wrong with be approved by him." that. The letter continued. In that statement, it Mr LITTLEPROUD: No, wait. Mr Burns should be noted that officer Noel Smith wrote to Mr Stafford on 17 February 1995 and insisted that the conditions of the permit were advised him of his intentions. He went on to met satisfactorily. In spite of this, Mr Burns say that he told the fire officers at Wynnum insisted that the permit should be revoked. that they were not to issue another permit "Too late", Mr Smith lamented, "It was without first talking to him. This is where Mr completed last week." The overzealous Burns acted in an overzealous manner. In Minister came in over the top, yet it was too particular, the words "without first talking to late to help. me" are the words that led Mr Burns to create I make this point: Mr Burns acted quite a minefield. improperly in interfering in this issue in the way Are honourable members to take it from he did. He showed scant regard for the proper that that any fire warden anywhere in procedures, and was just plain bullying an Queensland when issuing a permit to burn officer of the QFS. The firefighters of the QFS must first seek the Minister's permission? Will were not impressed. I now quote an open a fire warden at Boulia, Muckadilla or Woop letter that officers wrote to the Minister, which Woop ring Tom every time he wants to issue a stated— permit? That is what Tom was indicating. The "Tom you are a likeable old bloke but Act and regulation do not specify that your handling of the 'Burn Off' issue has procedure. left your credibility in tatters. At the very least you owe your loyal Fire Officers an Government members interjected. apology. If you have again been mislead Mr LITTLEPROUD: It is hurting. All of by your 'little mate', then be man enough this information came from the office of a to see the fault and clean out the 'rats good Labor Party member. nest' at Forbes House." The Act allows the Fire Commissioner to An Opposition member interjected. overrule a warden, but certainly not the Mr LITTLEPROUD: It is not bad stuff at Minister. I think Tom—the local member—was all. throwing his weight around! In fact, I have proof of it. On the same day, 17 February The second issue that I raise is better. It 1995, Mr Burns rang the fire station at involves the Commissioner, Mr Geoff Skerritt. Wynnum West and gave an officer a real Some weeks ago, an article appeared in the serve. I have in my possession a QFS Courier-Mail headed "State's new fire trucks memorandum from Senior Station Officer Noel fail to measure up". In that article the QFS Smith dated 17 February 1995, which states— Commissioner, Geoff Skerritt, admitted that there had been "crossed wires" on "Subject: Phone call to Wynnum Fire specifications for tankers ordered by the QFS Station by the Minister. from Victoria. The article went on to admit that Sir, I wish to advise I received a a pool of Victorian-built tankers worth almost phone call at Wynnum Fire Station at $1m had been grounded in Brisbane when about 0815 hours this morning. On the Department of Transport refused to give answering the phone I was speaking to them clearance for road use. In this article, Mr the Minister Mr Tom Burns. Skerritt claimed that only five of an order of 17 He told me that several complaints trucks did not comply and needed had been received in relation to a permit modification. issued for a pit burn at 120 Crawford He is reported as saying also that it would Road Wynnum West. cost only $5,000 per vehicle to modify them. On first impressions, one would admire the I advised him that the conditions of honesty of the commissioner. However, I must the permit were satisfactory and he told admit that at the time I wondered whether he me the permit should be revoked." was taking the rap for his Minister. After all, the The Minister does not have any right to say buck stops at the top. But then again, if it is that such a permit should be revoked. The bad news, if it would reflect badly on Mr Burns, letter continues— why not have someone else cop the blame? 21 March 1995 11130 Legislative Assembly

Maybe that was the reason that the It is imperative that he reveal whether commissioner made this small admission. disciplinary action has been taken. Since that article appeared, serious Mr T. B. Sullivan: It's so serious that allegations have been made by the editors of you don't have the facts. the publication CODE=INE. That publication Mr LITTLEPROUD: I heard an stated— honourable member say that I do not have "The Queensland purchase of the the facts. Interestingly, the publication standard Victorian, Country Fire Authority CODE=INE, which I seek to table, is closely pumper/tanker was complicated by the associated with the United Firefighters Union, officer responsible, Assistant which has been associated closely with the Commissioner Stan Harrison, insisting on Government on many occasions. The word is a severe alteration to the standard CFA that the publication is printed in the office of a design. The standard CFA model, which local Labor member. I seek leave to table has been proven in service over some ten those documents. However, before I do, I will years in that State, is based on an Isuzu refer to them further. The documents refer to truck body and chassis which is then certain vehicles that could not be put on the assembled as a standard rural/urban fire road because they did not comply with weight engine. In extending the contract, Skerritt limits. This was around the time of the bad and Harrison had made a mysterious fires on the north coast, on Stradbroke Island 'arrangement' with Mitsubishi to supply and in the southern parts of Queensland. the chassis for the appliances. Thus it Despite the fact that they did not have evolved that against wise counsel to the approval from the Minister for Transport, those contrary from the CFA designers, the vehicles were deployed to fight those fires Queensland version was at Harrison and because things were so desperate. Those Skerritt's direction, to consist of a vehicles were found to be dangerous. In a Mitsubishi chassis to which was added AN couple of cases, the people driving them ISUZU BODY! The consequence of the experienced real problems and as a result unlikely mating, was that the all up they were recalled. However, in the article appliance was too heavy because the which appeared in the Courier-Mail, the body and the chassis loadings were NOT commissioner claimed that the muck-up over THE SAME! So much for the attempt to the "crossed wires", the delay in having the blame the CFA with the 'crossed wires' vehicles put on the road and their having to be and 'paper work bungle' story!" modified did not really interfere with the That was the story reported in the Courier-Mail. firefighting capabilities of the Queensland Fire The article continued— Service. What a lot of rot! "Apparently, the most economical I reiterate that the Honourable Tom solution which could be found in order to Burns, the Minister for Emergency Services, rectify the 'Mitsu/Suzu' fiasco was the has to meet his responsibilities. He has an purchase of new Mitsubishi bodies to fit obligation to inform Parliament of exactly what the Harrison ordered Mitsubishi chassis. occurred over the purchase and modification Accordingly, new Isuzu chassis would be of these vehicles, who was responsible and bought to mate the original order of Isuzu what has been done about it. bodies. Each of the replacement bodies will cost $40,000 and the replacement chassis $30,000." Mater Hospital That is a long way from the $5,000 admitted Hon J. P. ELDER (Capalaba—Minister to in the Courier-Mail. That is a very for Health) (11.50 a.m.): I feel that it is convenient admission to take the heat off. important to respond on the record to the These are very serious allegations from people scaremongering drivel that we heard earlier in the know in the Fire Service. from the Leader of the Opposition about the Mater Hospital. The tactics adopted by the Mr Beattie: It's very serious. Leader of the Opposition were typical of those Mr LITTLEPROUD: My word it is. that have been adopted by the Opposition on These are serious allegations. They are so health issues for some time, that is, the politics serious that it is imperative that the of fear. On health issues, members opposite Honourable Tom Burns respond and table the have been employing scaremongering tactics documents relating to the purchase of these for some time now. We have seen those vehicles, the replacement bodies, the real cost tactics adopted regularly by the member for of this bungle and the waste of public money. Toowoomba South and again today by the Legislative Assembly 11131 21 March 1995

Leader of the Opposition with his prepared Today, the Opposition Leader was reinforcing text. that point. That claim was wrong, it was The simple fact is that the Mater Hospital scurrilous and it was yet another example of has increased its services in a whole range of the politics of fear. areas, including day-surgery services. The When he found out that he was wrong on Mater offers a first-class service in many fields. that issue, what did the member for At times, the hospital has difficulty managing Toowoomba South do? What did that the demand for its services. I will not stand scaremongerer do? What did that person who back and whinge. From the first day that I took has no pride in the Queensland public hospital over the Health portfolio, I stated that I am system do? He came out with another prepared to get in and solve problems. At the outrageous claim. He stated that all services end of the day, I have been successful in offered to adults would close, including the doing so, and that is what irks members accident and emergency section—an integral opposite. I successfully resolved a problem part of the hospital's operations. The member that the Mater Hospital was experiencing with claimed that the outpatients section would the demand for its services. close for a month and that ambulatory Today, we saw only the third policy services would be redirected for a month. statement to be enunciated so far by the Wrong again! But did we hear an apology Opposition. From the comments made by the from the member for Toowoomba South for Leader of the Opposition, it is obvious that the undermining the system? No, we did not! Opposition intends to take over the Mater Mr Purcell: He is a liar. because it is not happy with its management. I Mr ELDER: I take that interjection. do not manage the Mater Hospital, and neither does Queensland Health. The Mater We have managed to resolve a problem Hospital manages its own affairs. This year, by working with the professional management the Government has provided the hospital with team at the Mater. As I stated earlier, from funding to the tune of $120m. This morning time to time the hospital does experience the Leader of the Opposition stated that, some demand-management problems—as because I sat down with management and does every hospital. There are 150 public resolved certain difficulties and those extra hospitals in this State, a $25 billion budget for funds were provided, the Mater cannot health and from time to time we will encounter manage its budget. problems. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Toowoomba South, when The outrageous claim that the Mater problems occur I will not stand back and Children's Hospital will be closed this year over whinge and whine and knock. That is all that Easter for the first time in history is factually the Opposition has going for it. It has no policy wrong. If members opposite would wake up, except the policy of fear. they would realise that over holiday periods, because of a lower demand for its services, I challenge the Opposition to outline its the Mater Children's Hospital has from time to total health policy. So far, it has claimed only time scaled down its operations. This year is that it might replicate this Government's capital no exception. Quite simply, all that will occur is works program. Recently, the member for that elective surgery will be wound back over Toowoomba South claimed that the Easter. That is a practice that occurs in Opposition would do away with regionalisation hospitals right across the State—— and once again centralise the decision-making processes, as occurred under the National Mr T. B. Sullivan: That happens all Party years ago. Were such a policy adopted, around the place. the rural and regional electorates of members Mr ELDER: As the member says, that opposite would be disadvantaged. The only occurs all around Australia, whether it be other policy that the Opposition has been Sydney, Melbourne or Adelaide. That is prepared to outline is that it will place the common practice over Easter and other Mater Hospital under the wing of Queensland holiday periods. Health. The Opposition had better get on the Three weeks ago, the scaremongerer front foot and state whether it denies that that opposite, the member for Toowoomba South, is its intention. claimed that the Mater Mothers would close. The member for Toowoomba South He stated, "If you are 30 weeks pregnant, start constantly undermines the public health looking for another hospital, because they are system in this State. Recently in the cutting services back at the Mater. You won't Toowoomba Chronicle, the member made get a spot. Look for another bed." Wrong! some outrageous claims about the 21 March 1995 11132 Legislative Assembly

Toowoomba Base Hospital. I have checked around Queensland, I have discovered that the claims that he made in that newspaper the member for Toowoomba South is on the concerning a shortage of anaesthetists at the nose with our doctors, with our nurses and with Toowoomba Base Hospital. I have discovered the professionals in our system. He is on the that the member was wrong again. In fact, an nose in a big way because he is prepared to adequate number of anaesthetists was say anything to undermine the system. The available at that hospital. member has no pride at all in the public hospital system. As I travelled around for Without checking the facts, the member those three weeks, that is what I learned. I for Toowoomba South attacked the have not been sitting at the headquarters of professional integrity of those who work in the Queensland Health; I have been out there in public health system in Toowoomba. He the Opposition's territory, listening to doctors attacked the people who underpin the system: and nurses about the approach that the our doctors and our nurses, the people who member for Toowoomba South and the have pride in the public hospital system—pride Leader of the Opposition take to health. I can that the member for Toowoomba South and inform the House that the member for the Leader of the Opposition lack. The Toowoomba South is on the nose in a big member for Toowoomba South attacked way. those professionals with deliberate, misleading and untrue remarks. At the end of the day, I I heard the Leader of the Opposition say did not have to correct the untrue statements this morning that it was the Opposition's fault. made by the member. Dr Ken McLeod, the He was so right! It is the Opposition's fault, director of the department of anaesthesia and and it has been its fault for 32 years. In the intensive care at Toowoomba hospital, did the past five years, this Government has job for me. Does the member for Toowoomba increased health funding well beyond the South disagree with the remarks that he national average. This Government has been made? Was he wrong? Even if he will not driving the capital works program. I will cite a admit it, I can assure the House that the classic example in terms of capital works. In its member was dead wrong. last five years, the previous Government spent $250m on capital works. That was during the Dr McLeod chastised the member for eighties, and we all remember the booming Toowoomba South in the Toowoomba eighties. In the five years since Labor has Chronicle, and deservedly so, because the been in Government—during the recession, member ran those professionals down. I will during a downturn in the economy—we have inform the House what Ken McLeod said spent $350m, and in terms of the $1.5 billion, about Mike Horan. He stated firstly that the 10-year capital works program, we will be member's remarks were irresponsible—as all spending $150m for each year beyond that. his remarks have been to date—and secondly That is the commitment that we made during that they cast aspersions on the professional an economic downturn. integrity of all members of his department. In other words, the member for Toowoomba During the eighties, the mob opposite South is off side up there in a big way. spent 30 per cent less on capital works than this Government has spent so far. One sees Whom is the member for Toowoomba the evidence of that underfunding when one South going to knock this week? What travels around the State and visits hospitals. In "constructive" policy will he come forward with some hospitals, I saw ventilators that had this week? As usual, we will probably just see been sitting there for 20 years. Why were they more evidence of the politics of fear. sitting there for 20 years? I saw monitors that Mr Horan: Get back to the Mater. had been sitting there for 20 years and X-ray equipment that had been sitting there for 20 Mr ELDER: I have been through the years. This Government had to take up the Mater. The Opposition should have directed cudgels to ensure that that situation was any question on that subject to me, but it did rectified. We have led the charge in terms of not have the courage to do so. The Leader of re-equipping and rebuilding the hospital the Opposition went straight to the Premier. If system. The Opposition let down the system. the Opposition had any courage, it would have The Opposition let down the staff. It underpaid asked me the question. nurses. It did not provide enough doctors in The member for Toowoomba South is the regional areas. It left the hospitals bereft of scaremongerer who worried those pregnant equipment that was needed desperately. Yet women and the other people who use the members opposite have the nerve to knock services of the Mater. As I have travelled the system! Legislative Assembly 11133 21 March 1995

The Opposition Health spokesman is a connected with the Business of the big joke, and he will remain so until the House on the Business Paper of Opposition presents some policies and which the Member has charge; and actually explains to the people of Queensland (b) to the chairman of a committee what it has to offer instead of knocking and relating to the activities of that whingeing. If members opposite direct committee, however such question questions on health issues to me, I will tell shall not attempt to interfere with the them what I have seen around the State in committee's work or anticipate its the public hospital system. If members report or refer to any evidence taken opposite ask me questions, I will tell them just or documents presented to such how much the Opposition spokesman is on committee. the nose throughout Queensland. The Opposition should have the courage to ask 67C No Debate on Asking Questions me questions on health matters instead of the In asking a Question, no argument or Premier. Members opposite do not have any opinion shall be offered, or any fact bottle; they do not have any guts. They should stated, except so far as is necessary to ask me the questions and I will answer them. explain the Question. Time expired. 67D Number of Questions Allowed each Sitting Day REFORM OF PARLIAMENTARY The number of Questions which may be PROCEDURE asked by any Member without Notice, Sessional Order shall not exceed one on any sitting day except for the Leader of the Opposition Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH who may ask two questions without (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (12 noon): notice. I move— 67E Notice of Questions "That the following sessional orders be agreed to by the House— A Question on Notice from a Member is to be delivered to the Clerks at the Table. Omit Standing Orders 67A to 70 and insert new Standing Orders. A Question on Notice shall be typed or fairly written, signed by the Member, and 67A Questions to Ministers answered and supplied to the Table Questions may be asked orally without Office within 30 calendar days with a copy notice or on notice for written reply. supplied to the Member and Hansard. Immediately prior to the time appointed 68 Rules for Questions for the House to proceed to the Orders of the Day, Questions may be put to a The following general rules shall apply to Minister without notice relating to public Questions. affairs with which he or she is officially (a) Questions shall be brief and relate to connected, to proceedings pending in the one issue. Legislative Assembly, but discussion must (b) Questions shall not contain— not be anticipated, or to any matter of administration for which he or she is (i) arguments responsible. (ii) inferences The total period allowed each day for the (iii) imputations or asking of Questions without Notice shall not exceed one hour. Every Member is (iv) hypothetical matters entitled to ask one Question on notice (c) Questions shall not ask— each sitting day, which should be lodged (i) for an expression of opinion with the Clerks at the Table within two hours from the commencement of the (ii) for a legal opinion day's sitting. (d) Questions shall not be asked which 67B Questions to Members reflect on or are critical of the character or conduct of those A Member may put a Question of which persons whose conduct may only be Notice has been given, in lieu of a challenged on a substantive motion. Question to a Minister— (a) to any other Member of the House (e) Questions shall not contain relating to any Bill or Motion, statements of fact or names of 21 March 1995 11134 Legislative Assembly

persons unless they are strictly A copy of every petition received by the necessary to render the question House is to be referred by the Clerk to the intelligible. appropriate responsible Minister who may (f) The Speaker may direct that the forward a response to the Clerk for language of a Question be changed, presentation to the House. A copy of this if, in the opinion of the Speaker, it is response shall be printed in Hansard and unbecoming or does not conform be supplied to the Member who with the Standing Orders. presented the petition. (g) Questions shall not be unduly 238B Name of principal petitioner lengthy. Every petition must indicate the name and address of the principal petitioner on 69 General Rules for Answers the front page. The following general rules shall apply to PROTECTION OF PERSONS REFERRED answers: TO IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (i) In answering a Question a Minister or (1) Where a submission is made in Member shall not debate the subject writing to the Speaker by a person to which it refers. who has been referred to in the (ii) An Answer shall be relevant to the Legislative Assembly by name, or in question. such a way as to be readily (iii) If, in the opinion of the Speaker, the identified: Answer is too long, he may direct the (a) claiming that the person or Minister or the Member to cease corporation has been adversely speaking. affected in reputation or in 70 Questions not put to Speaker respect of dealings or associations with others, or Questions may not be put to the Speaker. injured in occupation, trade, Standing Order 219A is omitted and the office or financial credit, or that following Standing Order is inserted. the person's privacy has been unreasonably invaded, by 219A Form of Petition reason of that reference to the A Petition shall be in the following form:- person or corporation; and "PETITION" (b) requesting that the person be TO: The Honourable the Speaker and able to incorporate an Members of the Legislative Assembly appropriate response in of Queensland. Hansard, The Petition of ... and the Speaker is satisfied: (c) that the subject of the (a) citizens of Queensland submission is not so obviously or trivial or the submission so (b) residents of the State of frivolous, vexatious or offensive Queensland in character as to make it inappropriate that it be or considered by the Committee of (c) electors of the Division of .... Privileges; and (State Grievance) (d) that it is practicable for the Committee of privileges to draws to the attention of the House ... consider the submission under Your petitioners therefore request the this resolution, House to the Speaker shall refer the (State action required) submission to that Committee. (Here follows the Signatures) (2) The Committee may decide not to Standing Order 238A is omitted and the consider a submission referred to it following standing orders are inserted. under this resolution if the Committee considers that the 238A Copy of petition to responsible subject of the submission is not Minister sufficiently serious or the submission is frivolous, vexatious or offensive in Legislative Assembly 11135 21 March 1995

character, and such a decision shall (b) shall not contain any matter the be reported to the Legislative publication of which would have Assembly. the effect of: (3) If the Committee decides to consider (i) unreasonably adversely a submission under this resolution, affecting or injuring a the Committee may confer with the person or corporation, or person who made the submission unreasonably invading a and any Member who referred in the person's privacy, in the Legislative Assembly to that person manner referred to in or corporation. paragraph (1); or (4) In considering a submission under (ii) unreasonably adding to or this resolution, the Committee shall aggravating any such meet in private session. adverse effect, injury or (5) The Committee shall not publish a invasion of privacy suffered submission referred to it under this by a person. resolution or its proceedings in (9) A corporation making a submission relation to such a submission, but under this resolution is required to may present minutes of its make it under their common seal." proceedings and all or part of such submission to the Legislative Parliamentary reform in Queensland has Assembly. always been promised, much discussed, greatly hoped for but seldom delivered. That is (6) In considering a submission under why today I am pleased to be associated with this resolution and reporting to the the Government's proposed reforms contained Legislative Assembly the Committee in this notice of motion. Under the shall not consider or judge the truth National/Liberal Party Government, the of any statements made in the Queensland Parliament had hardly altered in Legislative Assembly or the style, practice and structure from the submission. nineteenth century. (7) In its report to the Legislative The Fitzgerald inquiry clearly identified Assembly on a submission under that there was a need to strengthen and this resolution, the Committee may revitalise this Parliament. As part of this make either of the following Government's mandate, we have recommendations: progressively introduced a number of new (a) that no further action be taken procedural reforms which are specifically by the Committee or the aimed at enhancing the accountability of the Legislative Assembly in relation Executive to the Parliament and improving the to the submission; or effectiveness of Parliament. Some of the (b) that a response by the person significant reforms we have already introduced who made the submission, in include: enhancing the Parliament's scrutiny of terms specified in the report public finances and improving the and agreed to by the person or accountability of public administration by the corporation and the Committee, introduction of Estimates committees, giving be published by the Legislative backbenchers greater opportunities to speak Assembly or incorporated in in Parliament through the introduction of Hansard, Matter of Special Public Importance debates each Wednesday and having a second and shall not make any other Adjournment debate to close the sitting each recommendations. Wednesday, introducing new sessional orders (8) A document presented to the which provide that committees must comply Legislative Assembly under with the rules of natural justice when dealing paragraph (5) or (7): with witnesses, and changing the time limits (a) in the case of a response by a for debates. person or corporation who For many years there has been criticism made a submission, shall be of the operation of question time. Today, we succinct and strictly relevant to are seeking to rectify the deficiencies by the questions in issue and shall providing the opportunity for more members to not contain anything offensive ask questions without notice. In the past, in character; and questions without notice have been 21 March 1995 11136 Legislative Assembly dominated by a few members. By providing a Thursday because Wednesday and Thursday system where members can ask one question would be taken up giving answers to the on notice each day, members will be able to questions that were placed on notice on get access to more detailed information and Tuesday. That is how the system worked. more members will benefit from this new We then had a reform which enabled procedure. If all back bench members were to members to simply place questions on notice use this system of questions on notice, it by naming the Minister to whom the question would provide information and accountability was directed. So the member would stand up on a scale never before seen in the and direct a question on notice to the Minister Parliament. for whatever portfolio and the Minister had the I refer back to the system as it operated right, the next day, to stand up and simply when I first came into this Parliament. Mr have it incorporated in Hansard. That was a Speaker, as you would well remember, when right of which no Ministers ever took Parliament first sat in February 1978, for the advantage. They continued to get up and first time a roster system of members asking read out their answers. It is only since we have questions was introduced. That was the first been in Government that, in the main, we time that it had ever been introduced. The have seen Ministers incorporating answers in reason that it was introduced by the political Hansard. parties at that time was to enable all members Mrs Sheldon interjected. of the Parliament to get the opportunity to ask questions because, under the system by Mr MACKENROTH: I did say that it which the Speaker simply called whomever he was in the main. I am not criticising, I am saw, if a member did not get on with the looking back at the way the system has Speaker, he would never get the call and operated and the way it has changed. I think therefore never get to ask a question. that the system that we are proposing now, which is one that we proposed when we first At that time, the system was based won Government in 1989 and which, at that mainly on questions on notice. We had a time, the Opposition rejected, is one that I system that, each day, members would get up think is certainly worthy of a trial in this and place a question on notice. Because of Parliament. the way the Standing Orders read at that time, members had to actually read the question Tom Burns is the second longest serving out. That was the only way to put a question member in the Parliament. I can remember on notice. Many times, the full hour would Tom saying to me, "What are you doing that consist of maybe two or three questions for? I would love that new system that you are without notice with the remainder of the hour proposing if I was in Opposition." I said, "I being taken up by members putting questions think that it is a fairer and better system for this on notice. They would stand up and read out Parliament." the question; they would not receive an Mr FitzGerald interjected. answer because the question was on notice. Mr MACKENROTH: Well, I had been Members would have to wait until the next day in Opposition for 12 years and Tom had been to receive an answer. Sometimes up to 60 there for 17 years. Having been in Opposition questions had been placed on the Notice for that long, one certainly knows a good thing Paper. when it comes along. The system that we are Under the Standing Orders, the only way proposing is a good system for the Opposition. that those questions could be answered was In a full parliamentary year, there is the for the Ministers to stand up and read the potential for an extra 3,000 questions to be answer. We all saw instances of that. I can asked in this Parliament. I do not see how any remember one member, Claude Wharton, Opposition could knock back that opportunity who had two questions to answer in one day to ask those extra questions. and he gave one answer to a member which Every day we will still get at least the should have been an answer to a question same number of questions, if not more, asked half an hour later. without notice because we will still have the full An Opposition member interjected. length of question time. The Leader of the Mr MACKENROTH: I am not having a Opposition has said that question time is go at him. Because of the way the system going to be cut in half. We are not cutting it in worked, nobody knew the difference, anyway. half, we are giving twice the number of It was just the way that the system worked. members the opportunity to ask questions. I Members would ask questions on Tuesday do not want to embarrass some members but, and they would not receive an answer until because of the way the system works, there Legislative Assembly 11137 21 March 1995 are members in this Parliament elected at the "A lengthy/tabular answer was last election who have still not asked a provided. Copies are available from the question. It is not their fault, but because of Bills and Papers Office." the way the system works today, they have So the cost will certainly be kept down. not had the opportunity to get into the pecking order within either the Opposition or the Mr FitzGerald: Why didn't you put that Government. At present, the system works in the motion? against most members of this Parliament Mr MACKENROTH: I am just telling getting information that they want. The system the member how the system will work. The full that the Government is proposing will enable text of the answer will be provided to the them to obtain that information. member. This is a major reform to question In terms of time, the system works the time. same way it always has. Of all the Parliaments As to other parts of the motion—the in Australia, the Queensland Parliament is the popularity of the petitioning process has not most generous when it comes to allotting time waned over the years, and we still continue to for question time. In most Parliaments, receive over 200 petitions each year. question time is 45 minutes, not an hour. In Reviewing the language contained in petitions one Parliament down south, only 10 questions is long overdue. The new features of the without notice are allowed on a particular day petitioning process include identifying the and then question time is over. On average, principal petitioner so that people can be over a full year, about 16 questions a day are aware of the person and organisation asked in this Parliament. Opposition members sponsoring a petition. The other initiative should not say that this Parliament should be provides that Ministers can table a response to like other Parliaments because, under the the petition. current system, they already get a fairer deal and, under the Government's proposal, they In relation to the right of response will get an even better deal. It surprised me procedure—there have been complaints about that, when I gave notice of moving this the use made by members of Parliament of motion, the Opposition knocked the reforms their right to freedom of speech. It is difficult to that we propose. If Opposition members vote say why the phenomenon is a recent one, against this motion, they will be voting against because freedom of speech in debate in themselves getting a better and fairer deal in Parliament goes back to 1688 and beyond. It this Parliament. may be that society has become more I would like to explain briefly the way that abrasive and that some believe that the system will work. To ensure the smooth sensational claims are justified. But whatever transition to this new system, the following the reason, there has been ongoing concern operational guidelines will be adopted for about the rights of those who may be subject questions on notice. Answers will be provided to unfair attacks. There are powerful reasons by Ministers on floppy disk to enable the that mitigate in favour of the argument that material to be incorporated in Hansard without freedom of speech and debate in Parliament any rekeying. Departments will provide four should be absolute. All matters that impinge hard copies: one for the Table Office, one for on the public interest must be capable of Hansard, one for the member and one for the being debated in Parliament without fear or media. The hard copies will be distributed to favour. Freedom to speak out must not be the member's office when the House is sitting. inhibited by the possibility of legal At other times they will be sent to a member's consequences either by way of civil damages electorate office. Members might note that, in or criminal prosecution. The purpose of the accordance with this motion, questions need privilege is to ensure that Parliament can carry to be answered within a month. That is not a out its function free from obstruction and parliamentary month; it is a straight calendar impediment. If matters cannot be freely month. So, if we had a situation like the one debated, remedial action in respect of them that arose at the end of last year, when Mrs cannot be taken by Parliament. Sheldon put a question on notice, she would As matters stand in Queensland, the only not need to wait three months, because she restraining influence against abuse of the would receive an answer before then. freedom of speech and debate in Parliament Questions and answers will be included in are: the restrictions in Standing Orders the Weekly Hansard. Answers that exceed governing the rules of debate, including more than a page in length or consist of prohibition of the use of offensive or disorderly tabular material will not be incorporated in words; the disciplinary procedures of the Hansard but will be shown as— House itself, including the possibility of 21 March 1995 11138 Legislative Assembly members who abuse this privilege being are in no small way a credit to what you wish censured or suspended; and the political to see in the reform of this House. consequences that may flow from flagrant or I ask all members to seriously give these repeated abuse. These factors have not reforms a chance to work; give them a chance guaranteed that an individual, rightly or to see how they operate and not condemn wrongly, will not suffer injury during them before they have given them that parliamentary proceedings. We all know that opportunity. They should give them a chance even with the greatest care sometimes this for the remainder of this term, because I am can happen. In these circumstances, the only sure that, following that opportunity for a trial, avenue available for remedying the difficulties all members will welcome them as a that have arisen is for the Parliament itself to permanent change to the Standing Orders of implement a procedure to moderate the this Parliament. I commend the orders to the waging of unwarranted and baseless attacks, House. but one that ensures that the power remains for parliamentary debate to be robust and Ms POWER (Mansfield) (12.16 p.m.): I wide ranging. have much pleasure in seconding the proposed sessional orders put before the The new procedures would provide that a House today by the Leader of the House. I person or corporation referred to in the reinforce the notion that these are sessional Parliament who claims to have been adversely orders that are on trial to give members a affected by reason of that reference can seek chance to see how they work. They will then to have a response incorporated in Hansard. go to the Standing Orders Committee. So Initially, the person would forward a before Opposition members start barking submission to Mr Speaker, who would have to about this not going to the Standing Orders be satisfied that the issues raised were not Committee, I point out that these are trivial, vexatious, frivolous or offensive. If there sessional orders; they are on trial, and they is a legitimate concern, the matter would then should be used for that purpose. be referred to the Privileges Committee. The Committee of Privileges would then have the I have been interested to hear some of discretion to either confer with the complainant the arguments about sessional orders. It or the member involved, and then the seems that Opposition members are big on committee would report to the Parliament on rhetoric but not too good on the reform whether no further action be taken or whether process which they now suggest that, after a the person's response in terms agreed by the few years in Opposition, they would put into person and the committee should be place if they were returned to the Government published or incorporated in Hansard. Full benches. While the Leader of the House was details of this reform and its guidelines are speaking, I noticed that Opposition members clearly set out in the proposed sessional had not done their homework; they did not orders. understand the sessional orders. That is probably indicative of why some Opposition These are all significant reforms that backbenchers are not speaking during this deserve the support of the House. They debate. The big winners from most of these introduce greater fairness and accountability changes will be backbenchers—both and are a clear sign of this Government's Government and Opposition. I suggest to commitment to the ongoing reform of the some Opposition backbench members that parliamentary process. These proposals are they have been sold out by the Leader of the being introduced on a trial basis for the Opposition and a couple of the big high-fliers remainder of this term of Government and, in on the front benches of the Opposition. light of the experience that we have from that, they have the ability to be changed following I turn firstly to question time. If members the next election. do their mathematics they will know that there are 54 Government members and 35 In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I place on the Opposition members. So every day, the parliamentary record the work that you have chances of a Government member getting to done in ensuring that these reforms have ask a question are severely limited simply by come before the Parliament. Mr Speaker, you the number of Government members have been like the oil on the squeaky wheel, compared with Opposition members. Basically, making sure that they did come forward. I most of question time is taken up by questions know that, over the past couple of years, you from Opposition shadow spokespersons. have kept it at the forefront of my agenda to Backbenchers on both sides of the House ensure that we did reach a position where we really play a minor part in question time if they were able to introduce these reforms, which get a chance to ask questions. Sometimes a Legislative Assembly 11139 21 March 1995 member wants to ask a question about a Fitzroy electorate or whether the power was burning issue. If that member does not ask turned on in the Gladstone electorate; they that question during that week, it is irrelevant are more interested in what happens to them by the next week, and the opportunity has in the Mansfield electorate. If I have not had a been lost. chance to ask their question, they think that I New South Wales and Western Australia have let them down. The reforms that have have systems that are similar to our proposed been put forward today give backbenchers like system. The average number of questions me, and those on the other side of the House, over a period in New South Wales is 54, and a chance to put questions in writing and have the average in Western Australia is 53. On the them answered by the relevant Minister. other hand, Queensland's paltry effort is 18 Many times we have had the argument questions. The member for Nerang and others regarding how many questions can be asked, say, "Well, if you gave us the full hour and you and it always seems to be the same person did not do this and you did not do that, we playing the game. When the now Leader of would get more questions asked." I point out the Opposition was deputy leader, question to those members that the number of time was not changed because he wanted to questions asked on any one day relates not to ask his two questions. Today, he is still having the time allotted but to how questions are his say; we have had to pander to him to allow asked and how they are answered. If the the two questions. I know—and I have heard it Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader around the ridges—that he thinks there is of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal something wrong with the system and that he Party and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal should be allowed to ask his two questions. In Party are always given a chance to ask the other States, the Leader of the Opposition questions, then a poor backbencher on the is entitled to ask the first question, with Opposition side has little or no chance of questions then alternating between the asking a question. Even as an Opposition Government and the Opposition. In Victoria, shadow spokesperson, the member for the Leader of the Opposition asks the first Nerang must take a fairly quick draw to see if question without notice, with questions then he can ask a question on any particular day. alternating between the Government and the It will not matter whether it is an hour or Opposition. In Tasmania, the Leader of the whether it is 10 minutes or 15 minutes; the Opposition has a really good deal; he gets to members on the front benches will ask those ask all the questions if he likes, because he questions. In the same way, we on this side of can keep asking supplementary questions. the House usually give preference to our The Leader of the Opposition might try Whips to ask the first four Government Tasmania, which has a different system. questions and the backbenchers take their A Government member: Anywhere turn. The changes to the question paper but here. mean that, on any day, a backbencher who Ms POWER: Yes, anywhere but here has a question about a burning issue can put would be preferable. In South Australia, the it in writing and submit it to the Clerk and be Leader of the Opposition asks the first given an answer that will be recorded in question. In Western Australia, the Leader of Hansard. Of course, because it will be the Opposition asks the first question and then recorded, the candidates in the Opposition will the questions alternate. The same system not be able to run around saying that we operates in the House of Representatives and never raise an issue or speak to an issue in the Senate. So, in fact, we are not taking the House. anything away from the Opposition; most of Out in the real world, people do not the States have a similar system. I think the understand the processes of Government. Leader of the Opposition wants to ensure that They do not understand that members have he always gets his say, but he is not too to take turns to ask a question and that there worried about his backbenchers. As I have are priority Government questions and priority reminded people on my side of the House, a Opposition questions. They think it is really member does not become leader unless there important that the member for Charters are a lot of backbenchers behind that person Towers or the member for Mansfield asks their keeping him or her in that position. important question that relates to their I think that there is a great deal of electorate. No matter what I might say to them hypocrisy on the Opposition benches. They about how important all the other questions want to talk about the reform process. They were, the people of Mansfield do not worry want more questions but, for whatever reason, about whether mining was carried out in the they will not allow the system to be changed. 21 March 1995 11140 Legislative Assembly

They think that they will just be able to ask nilly thinking, "Anyone can sign this petition; questions. On many occasions, the member who cares?" and nobody has actually taken for Nerang has said, "Give us the hour." That responsibility for that petition. The changes to cannot always happen; protocols have to be the sessional orders require somebody to take followed. Major changes to the Standing responsibility; there must be a principal Orders would have to occur if we were to have petitioner. That will indicate how serious a an hour of questions every day without other person is about the issue. By the same token, business being dealt with. I think that some of the principal petitioner will receive a response our former colleagues would think it a bit harsh to the petition. If those people are like some of of us if we were to suddenly say that we are the hardworking people that I know who have not going to acknowledge in this House the circulated petitions on issues, somebody will passing of former members because be responsible. The Minister will respond in Opposition members want to have an hour of regard to what action is being taken in relation question time because they think that that will to the matter that the petition pertains to. Over enable them to ask a few more questions. the years, thousands of people have I turn now to the subject of petitions. As a submitted petitions, and those people are member who has tabled a number of petitions probably still waiting for a response. This is a and who has received numerous petitions in big change that people will welcome, but the her office, I have always hedged around a little petitioners themselves will have to take some when people have said to me, "Well, what responsibility. happens?" I give them that great phrase, The third matter relates to the citizen's "Well, they are tabled in the Parliament." They right of reply. I have heard the members of the then say, "Yes, and then what happens?" Opposition say, "You can't have this; we don't Quite truthfully, if I was going to be really have all those protections." Of course we do! honest with them, I would say, "Nothing As members, we have particular rights in this happens. They are tabled. We all know that House. We are protected at all times by a they are on the table and we all sleep easier series of Standing Orders. I know that there at night because that has happened." We may be some members who do not know that take no responsibility for petitions and we do we actually have them, but we do have not have to provide a response. Yet Standing Orders. somebody out in the community cared about Mrs Sheldon interjected. an issue—and I know this has happened in my electorate—and walked the streets over Ms POWER: The honourable member and over at night-time or stood outside a should not start to interject. The Standing shopping centre for three or four hours on a Orders are there to protect members at all Saturday morning to get 600 or 700 times. It is interesting to note that Standing signatures, and all that person got was a piece Order 114 protects people from being of paper that was then tabled in the interrupted while they are making their Parliament. speeches. Under Standing Order 115 a member may rise to speak to a point of order The changes to the sessional orders or upon a matter of privilege, and under require the petition to be written in plain Standing Order 119 members are protected English. In the past, because of the way in from offensive language. It is interesting that which they were worded, it was quite a difficult the members of the Opposition would make task to write some of the petitions. I guess that those comments because, in fact, the only wording was probably included for a reason; it time that a member in this House is not stopped some people from wanting to protected is the moment that that member participate in the process. Now that petitions leaves the chair to report to the Speaker—as must be written in plain English, it will be much the member for Beaudesert demonstrated in easier for people to write a petition and people this Chamber not so long ago. However, at will be keener to participate in that process. most times in this place, we are free to make The petition will be tabled and referred to the our comments and have our say with little or relevant Minister. The relevant Minister will no recourse on the part of the general public. then have to respond. That response will printed in Hansard and it will be sent to the Unfortunately, members of the public do principal petitioner. not have that same right. I have sat in this Chamber and heard members make It is interesting to note that there will be a comments about public servants, members of principal petitioner. While petitions are a right the public in general and business houses, of citizens, I think that some citizens have with little or no recourse being available to exploited that right and have gone out willy- those people. Certainly, some of those people Legislative Assembly 11141 21 March 1995 may not be all that they are cracked up to be. Standing Orders Committee in the life of this They may not be the worthy citizens that we Parliament—and that request was rejected. would have hoped they would be, but they still Mr Mackenroth: You can't get a bigger have a right to reply to the comments that committee than this Parliament to decide have been made in this House, just as we something. members have a right, if we feel that we have been maligned in the newspaper or in this Mr BORBIDGE: What we have is a House, to rise on a matter of privilege or to Government which, in this election year, is take a point of order. trying to distance itself from parliamentary scrutiny. It is trying to prop up its weak So again we will see in the proposed Ministers; it is trying to shield them from sessional orders a chance for some reform so questions. that the public, whether that be an individual or a corporation, can make some appeal to Mr D'Arcy interjected. the House. Of course, the sessional orders Mr BORBIDGE: The interjection that outline that if the complaint is frivolous, the the member for Woodridge has just made has Speaker can rule accordingly and if the been the longest speech he has made in this complaint is a serious matter then it can be place for years. referred to the Parliament's Committee of This proposed sessional order is not Privileges. So under those changes, people about the rights of backbench members on will have a number of opportunities to make either side; it is all about protecting Ministers. It their response. has nothing whatsoever to do with I think that overall the proposed sessional parliamentary reform; it has nothing to do with orders that we see before us today are accountability. If this were a proper and another attempt to reform the Parliament, to accountable reform, the Government would open it up to the public, for responses to be have progressed it through the proper made by the public and for the public to channels. That is what the Standing Orders participate in the Parliament. It is my pleasure Committee is all about; it considers changes to to second and, in fact, commend the the Standing Orders so that the interests of all proposed sessional orders to the House. members are taken into account and not Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise— trampled over by the Executive. Yet this is Leader of the Opposition) (12.30 p.m.): What what this Government and you, Mr Speaker, we are witnessing in the Parliament today is have allowed to happen. I ask quite simply: another Labor con job. This proposed what is the point of having a Standing Orders sessional order proves once again the Committee? The Leader of the House arrogance of this Government and the high- interjected, "Well, we will talk about it in the handed way that it treats the Parliament. Committee of Parliament." If that is his attitude, what is the point of having a Standing Under the guise of some sort of Orders Committee? benevolent parliamentary reform which will make life easier for the Opposition in the This is all about taking the Government's run-up to an election, what we see is a sham, weak-performing Ministry out of the spotlight a fraud and a blatant act of censorship of the and out of the public glare—the Ministers who Opposition in an election year. But worse than do not perform, have not performed, cannot that, it is a blatant subversion of the proper perform and will never perform: the Haywards, roles, duties and functions of the Standing the Wells, the Braddys, the Smiths, the Orders Committee, which has not met in the Hamills—the list goes on and on—the failures, life of this Parliament. the duds of public administration in this State who must be shielded and protected in this I place on record that, prior to this debate crucial election year. They are the Ministers today, the non-Government members of the who the Premier and the Leader of the House Standing Orders Committee requested a are attempting to protect by rushing through meeting of that committee. Regrettably, Mr this sessional order prior to the election so that Speaker, I have say that I am very Ministers can pass the buck to their public disappointed that you decided not to convene servants, who then have up to 30 days to such a meeting because the role of Speaker, prepare a response or to mask the truth in above all else, should be to defend the role of bureaucratic gobbledegook. members and the rights of members in this place from the excesses of Executive This morning, we heard the admission Government. Yet the non-Government that we can ask a question that may be members of the Standing Orders Committee answered in 30 days. It does not even requested a meeting—the first meeting of the necessarily appear in Hansard. If people want 21 March 1995 11142 Legislative Assembly to find out the answer and if it is over one return to the heady days of 1989, when we page in length, then they have to go along to had the promise by the Goss Government of the Bills and Papers Office. I am sure that the more open and accountable Parliament. After people in Winton, in Cooktown, or in other two terms of Labor, what has been the reality? remote areas of this State would be delighted We have a Parliament that is less to go to the Bills and Papers Office to find the accountable, less responsive and controlled answer to a question. exclusively by the Executive. The Executive Under this new system, we are not even controls the Budget and it tells the Speaker going to have a complete Hansard of all the what the cutbacks in services in this place will questions asked. The proper questions and be. Now, instead of the Standing Orders the proper answers will not be contained in Committee, it is controlling the rules of this Hansard. If the answer is a bit too long or a bit place because it has effectively done away too embarrassing—and I am sure that in 30 with that committee. The Executive effectively days Ministers will be able to provide an controls the administration of the Parliament. answer that is over one-page long—if people Like so many of the Government's 1989 want to know about it they will have to knock promises, the bold new world which was on the door of the Bills and Papers Office promised has evaporated quickly. because they will not see it in Hansard. Under these proposals, question time will The Government simply does not want to simply be less effective. Already, we have a answer questions about its failed Criminal situation in which question time has become a Code, about the health crisis or the lack of farce. Ministers do not answer questions and planning for Queensland's future power when they do, they usually twist the questions supplies. It wants the public servants to around and focus on abusing the Opposition answer the tricky questions. during their answers. Of course, Opposition members respond and then the Government Sure, there is a case for the reform of tells us how we are bringing the Parliament question time in this place. However, we have into disrespect. For example, I ask members the situation now in which if an Opposition to consider a question asked recently by the member—or, for that matter, a member of the member for Tablelands to the Minister for Government—wants to pursue a matter, he or Minerals and Energy concerning the Moura she can do so. In question after question in disaster and the lack of mine inspectors. It is a this place, a member can pursue that matter. serious issue, yet one which the Minister not If that member requires a follow-up question to only did not address but turned around into a be placed on notice the following day in diatribe of abuse directed at the member for Parliament, that member could ask the Tablelands. I suggest that that is one question today and receive the answer performance of which the Minister should not tomorrow and follow up those questions be proud and one that in due course will accordingly. rebound on him and his Government. I wish to We all know, and the member for touch on certain other matters contained in Mansfield admitted it, that what is an issue this sessional order. today is fish and chips wrappers in 30 days' Mr Cooper: It is very depressing, isn't it. time. Yet under this particular sessional order, that is the protection that the Ministers are Mr BORBIDGE: It is depressing. I giving themselves and that is what they are would have thought that, had this aspect been denying the Opposition and the backbench taken into consideration by the Standing members of the Government. They want the Orders Committee, we could have had a public servants—the apparatchiks; the Kevin workable package. I have referred already to Rudds, the Dick Perssons—to be answering the fact that a question asked tomorrow need the tricky questions and 30 days later, that will not be answered until 30 days later. I have do. What we have is a deliberate attempt to mentioned that answers to certain questions cut back the opportunity for members of the are not included in Hansard but are available Opposition, particularly shadow Ministers, to from the Bills and Papers Office. follow through and follow up questions without Mr Mackenroth: And available to the notice. media, and they can do whatever they like. After six years, the cracks have opened And if it's dynamite, it'll end up in the paper. as to what is happening in this State. The Mr BORBIDGE: Is the honourable trickle has become a flood. Nothing that member ready? Government members do in this place to try to dodge their accountability responsibilities will Mr Mackenroth interjected. mask the truth. It is important in this debate to Mr BORBIDGE: I have plenty of time. Legislative Assembly 11143 21 March 1995

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is the Leader of example in which the Government numbers the Opposition seeking my protection? Order! I on the Parliamentary Public Works Committee ask the Leader of the House to cease were used to prevent an investigation into interjecting. serious allegations of cost overruns. Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, with due Mr Santoro: They have a lot to hide. respect, I will never need protection from Mr Mr BORBIDGE: As the member for Mackenroth. Clayfield said, they have a lot to hide. If we I express concern at the deletion of the see the Parliamentary Privileges Committee prayer from petitions. We heard the member and Government members of this House for Mansfield say that we will have a great new acting in the best traditions of this Parliament, format for petitions. One of the great traditions that will be fair enough. However, if we are of the Parliament is the inclusion of a prayer in going to see a kangaroo court in which the the form of petitions. Parliamentary Privileges Committee can be Government members interjected. manipulated by the caucus or by the Executive, this reform, which has merit, will be Mr BORBIDGE: Government members absolutely and totally prostituted. I say that in are laughing. However, many people take the all sincerity. The precedent has been set in issue seriously. Although the member for this place. Mansfield and the Government members who are interjecting might support the deletion of Mr Welford: What a slur upon the the prayer, I happen to believe that, as is the Opposition members of the House! case with the prayer at the beginning of each Mr BORBIDGE: The honourable sitting day, this tradition is important. This is member was not even here when the power still a Christian country, and the prayer should was used by a former National Party Speaker. remain in the format for petitions, even if the The Speaker of the House already has the member for Mansfield wants to champion its power to activate a citizen's right of reply. removal. I also happen to believe in the sanctity of Mr Ardill: Absolute claptrap! parliamentary privilege. I ask Government Mr BORBIDGE: The member for members to look at the history of the Archerfield said, "Absolute claptrap!" Parliament. From time to time, there have Obviously, this issue is unimportant to him. been abuses, and members have or have not The other point that I wish to raise relates acted in good faith. But there is no doubt that to the right of a citizen to respond to matters parliamentary privilege has righted a great raised in the Parliament. What we are seeing many wrongs. It has focused the attention of today is basically embroidery, because this the Parliament and the public on injustice, convention already exists. Although it is rarely criminality and corruption. I would be most used, I can recall an incident in which Mr reluctant to see a Government manipulating Speaker Powell activated the right of a the Privileges Committee in order to protect citizen's reply in this place. Effectively, the people who may have a good case at the time power to allow a citizen's right of reply is but who down the track may be exposed for already vested in the Speaker. what they are, and for members of Parliament to be publicly castigated for fulfilling their Mr Beattie: Why are you opposing it, constitutional and moral obligation. then? Mr Speaker is nodding. Mr Speaker, you Mr BORBIDGE: I will come to that. might like to participate in this debate. You In my view, what we are seeing is a have been the architect of part of these situation which will depend very much on how reforms. I remember the Kevin Hoopers of this Government members of the Parliamentary Parliament and the early days of the Fitzgerald Privileges Committee perform their duties. inquiry. Mr Beattie and the Albert Shire Council Recently, we have seen a range of decisions elections last year is another example that in relation to which the Government has used comes to mind. I am not saying that any of its numbers in the committee system-—— those people did not act in good faith. Mr Welford: They were unanimous. Mrs Sheldon: Welford. Mr BORBIDGE: They were not all Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Welford is another unanimous. The Government has used its one. What we have to defend in this place is numbers to prevent inquiries and the sanctity of parliamentary privilege. investigations and to steer something in a Mr Beattie interjected. particular direction. I refer to the most recent 21 March 1995 11144 Legislative Assembly

Mr BORBIDGE: To the benefit of the Mr BEATTIE: The member should go honourable member who is interjecting, after back and read it. The Fitzgerald report was he maligned someone during the election he very critical of the way the National Party used had the decency to apologise. to run this place as a rort and a disgrace. One From what I saw in the years that I have need only peruse the report to find reference been in this Parliament, Kevin Hooper would to the fact that Fitzgerald wanted to see this have always been inside the Parliamentary place operate the way it was meant to Privileges Committee room. In great fairness operate. These changes to the sessional to that late member of this Parliament, I point orders provide an opportunity to achieve that out that he righted a hell of a lot of injustices. desire of Fitzgerald. He exposed a hell of a lot of corruption. He Page 45 of the EARC report of December was fearless in seeking to right wrongs. 1991 referred to the fact that— Before we start to play with these "Question Time has traditionally privileges, I point out that we have to be very been regarded as one of the key careful, particularly when members acting in mechanisms in the process of executive good faith can find themselves summoned accountability. Its importance has derived before a kangaroo court on which Government from its nature as an opportunity for the members have the numbers to embarrass that obtaining of information from the member and, if they so wish, to protect those executive within the public forum of perpetrating an injustice. Parliament." Mr Beattie: Where does it say that in These changes provide a more effective here? You obviously haven't read it. Where question time and a better opportunity for the does it say that? Opposition to do its job. It is an absolutely Mr BORBIDGE: I suggest that the extraordinary state of affairs that the honourable member read it. Opposition is opposing these changes. At no time in the 32 years that the National Party Mr Beattie: It says "may". and Liberal Party were in office would they Mr BORBIDGE: The honourable have even considered introducing such member says, "It says 'may' so don't worry; it democratisation of the operation of this is not going to happen." The Government's Parliament, but the Opposition Leader is defence is that it "may" happen. opposing these measures. I am not saying that there is not merit in Mr Mackenroth: They still don't know it some of the proposals contained in this when they see it. That's the real problem. sessional order. What I am saying is that the Mr BEATTIE: Exactly. The proper role of the Standing Orders Committee extraordinary thing is that Opposition has been prostituted. There must now be backbenchers really are not in a position to serious questions as to whether that particular make any determination on this. Most of them committee should continue to operate; it has have never been involved in the process not met in the life of this Parliament. If we are because they have never had an opportunity to change the Standing Orders by a trial of to ask questions; they are all hogged by the sessional orders and if Mr Speaker, as leadership of the National Party and the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, Liberal Party. is not prepared to convene a meeting to at least discuss these matters when he receives Ms Power: Where are they on the a written request from non-Government speaking list? members in this place to do so, some very Mr BEATTIE: That is exactly right: serious questions are raised as to the where are they? They have not had an motivation behind this sessional order. opportunity to contribute. The facts are that Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) these sessional orders will give backbench (12.49 p.m.): The Fitzgerald report highlighted members of the National Party and Liberal the fact that there needed to be major Party a greater opportunity than they have changes in the operation of this Parliament to ever had before to ask questions in this make it more relevant. The report indicated Parliament. There are some Government that parliamentary reform was long overdue members who think that some of us are crazy and was very critical of the way this Parliament for supporting these changes because they operated under the National Party and the provide the Opposition with that increased Liberal Party for 32 years. opportunity. I can see from their nodding heads that some of my colleagues agree with Mr FitzGerald: Where did it say that? me. Legislative Assembly 11145 21 March 1995

Let us have the standing of these As the Leader of the House said, in changes clearly on the record. The proposed essence this system provides an opportunity changes are only sessional orders. They do for 3,000 or thereabouts extra questions on not constitute permanent changes to the notice to be asked each year. Who could Standing Orders. If they did, then the Leader possibly argue against that? Let us not talk in of the Opposition might have a point, but he general terms about the situation in other does not, because they are not permanent States. Let us look at what actually happens changes to the Standing Orders. They are elsewhere. Let us take the year 1993. As to only sessional orders. These proposals are the number of sitting days—Queensland had being introduced on a trial basis. In light of the 58; New South Wales had 45; Victoria had 62; experience of their operation, the Standing Tasmania had 69; South Australia had 51; Orders Committee can then meet and make and Western Australia had 53. So we were the the appropriate recommendations for third most regular sitting Parliament of all the improvement or change. The Standing Orders States, but there was not much difference. As Committee has not been excluded from this to the average duration of question time in process. It will have an opportunity to make 1993—in Queensland it was 50 minutes; in the final recommendations based on how New South Wales it was only 45 minutes; in these sessional orders operate in practice. Victoria it was only 35 minutes; and in Western Australia it was only 35 minutes. Those were The reality is that this Parliament is the body that makes the decisions. There is no the time periods. more important committee or meeting than Let us consider the average number of this Parliament itself, and it is the body that questions without notice answered per day. In should be making the decisions and is indeed Queensland, they numbered 17; in New South doing so in terms of these changes to the Wales, they numbered 10.3—— sessional orders. The final changes, based on Mrs Sheldon interjected. experience, will go back to the Standing Mr BEATTIE: The member for Orders Committee and the final Caloundra need not interject. If her prologues recommendations will come to the House. It is and introductions to questions were not so totally irrational and wrong to argue against a long, the Opposition might get a few more in. trial period, which is all that this is. No-one can deny that it will be useful and valuable to Mrs Sheldon interjected. gather both experience and information before Mr BEATTIE: The member takes up considering and deciding on permanent the time of about three questions every day. If changes after the trial period. This action will she did not carry on, the Opposition would get give the Standing Orders Committee the at least three more questions in. In New South practical experience of seeing how the new Wales, the number of questions without notice system operates. The knowledge and answered numbered 10.3; in Victoria, they experiences will then be useful in making the numbered 8.3; in Western Australia, they final decisions when the changes come before numbered 10.5; in South Australia, they this House. numbered 16.2; and in Queensland, they It is important that we try to look at these numbered 17. In relation to the number of types of debates objectively. Having heard the questions without notice answered in 1993, contribution from the Opposition Leader, it is Queensland stood very well compared with the very hard to understand where he is coming rest of Australia. Where do we need from. I am not trying to be smart when I say improvement? that. We all know that, on a previous occasion, A Government member: A better the Standing Orders Committee endeavoured Opposition. to change the question system. It failed Mr BEATTIE: That is not the only area because Mr Borbidge was then the Deputy in which we need improvement! We need Leader of the National Party and he was improvement in the number of questions on concerned that he would lose the opportunity notice asked. Let us consider the average to ask two questions a day. The proposal, as number of questions on notice that were we all know, allows the Leader of the answered in various States. In Queensland Opposition to ask two questions and one there were 113, and in Victoria there were question from then on. His opposition was 128. In the States that operate a similar based on that. The reality is that he does not system to that proposed in Queensland, the lose questions, but that was the way he saw it. numbers of questions on notice asked present Out of that opposition, we continue to see his a stark contrast. In New South Wales there opposition to the proposals before the House. were 2,062, and in Western Australia there 21 March 1995 11146 Legislative Assembly were 1,762. That is the sort of benefit that will because if we look at the precedents in other be gained under the mechanism suggested in States, we will find that the recommendation the proposed changes. For the first time, every of a 30-day period is better than in any other day Opposition backbench members will be jurisdiction in Australia. able to ask a question that they are not able The Leader of the Opposition wants to to ask now. I cannot believe that the Leader of see the retention of a system in which a the Opposition opposed these measures! If I Minister can have a question put to him or her were an Opposition backbencher, I know what on notice at the end of one year with the I would be thinking. I would not be terribly well possibility that it will not be answered until the disposed to the leader of my party attempting next year. He whinges about a 30-day period to prevent me from having the opportunity to which, as I said, will be the best in Australia, put questions on notice. It is outrageous that yet he is prepared to support a position where the Opposition is opposing these measures, a question can remain on the notice paper and its opposition is based on petty political from one year to the next, with a long period point-scoring and not on substance. of delay. Under those circumstances, when Let us examine a few of the other the Minister answers the question, what does scenarios. We could talk about these statistics he answer? He answers a number on the all day. When the Nats were in office in 1987, notice paper. People in the gallery would have there were 496 questions without notice. As no idea of what the question was. The Minister an aside, I mention that in that year there would stand up and say, "The answer in were only 45 sitting days. relation to question no. 4 is . . ." Often, the Mr Lingard: What was the average per answer will be incorporated in Hansard. That is day in that year? a nonsense of a process, but that is what the Leader of the Opposition is supporting. For Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to come back questions on notice, he supports the to that, because I have all those statistics. I continued answering of a question by ask the member to bear with me. I am happy reference to a number. to place them on the record. Realistically, Mr Borbidge is saying that, Mr Lingard interjected. unless he gets his way on the Standing Orders Mr BEATTIE: If the member wants me Committee or unless he gets his way in to provide the information, he should just belt relation to these reforms, he does not want up and I will get to it. I happen to have it all any part of them. He did not get his own way, here. The member should discuss this so he wants to stop the reform of the Standing information in his party room tomorrow. He will Orders and the process of this Parliament. find that he is better off supporting what we That type of petulant behaviour is not are doing rather than opposing it. acceptable in modern politics. If that is the view of the National Party—and we have not Mr Santoro: You should be ashamed heard from the Liberals yet, but presumably of yourself speaking in support of this motion. their view will be the same—— Mr BEATTIE: I used to say to people Mrs Sheldon: But you're looking that the member's leader was so bad that he forward to it. would be better. It is a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledumber! Mr BEATTIE: We are certainly looking forward to it. The Leader of the Liberal Party Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. should actually pick up the spirit of liberalism, Mr BEATTIE: Before the luncheon in its true form, and actually support the recess I was referring to some statistics in Government. She should demonstrate a bit of relation to questions in other State true liberalism and independence and support Parliaments. Before I return to those statistics, these reforms. If the National Party and Liberal I think it is important that I put on the record Party oppose these reforms, they are simply that members who listened to the Leader of scoring a few cheap points and stopping the the Opposition could well ask the question, desperately needed reform of this Parliament. "What would have been the point of taking the I return to the statistics. I referred earlier matter to the Standing Orders Committee, to the statistical position. If we examine the anyway?", bearing in mind his total opposition statistics, we will find that the Leader of the to this reform and change since it first went to Opposition will be denying his back bench the that committee some years ago. His argument opportunity to ask a question a day every time was really very fickle. He raised the issue that this Parliament sits, which could amount about the 30-day period for answers to to as many as 3,000 questions on notice a questions on notice. I will refer to that later, year. Last year, in New South Wales, 1,785 Legislative Assembly 11147 21 March 1995 questions on notice were answered. In 1994, system will be clearly better than that in New 3,117 questions on notice were answered in South Wales. the Western Australian Parliament. Those I refer now to the Victorian Parliament, statistics are similar to what is expected under which has 45 minutes for question time on these new reforms. every sitting Tuesday and 30 minutes every If the Western Australian model is other sitting day. That Parliament gets only 30 followed, the Leader of the Opposition is minutes of question time every other sitting denying the people of Queensland the day. There is no set time limit for the opportunity for the answers to 3,117 answering of questions on notice by the questions. responsible Minister, however four weeks is Mr Welford: Give him what he wants! the norm. The norm is four weeks, but there is no set period for the answering of questions. Mr BEATTIE: At the end of the day, if Our provision is better than that. we gave him what he wanted, he would deny his backbenchers the right to ask more I refer now to the Tasmanian Parliament, questions. Let me be clear about this. I hope which has 60 minutes for question time—the that every National Party and Liberal Party same as our Parliament—but there is no set backbencher knows that their leaders are time limit for the answering of questions by the telling them that they cannot put questions on Minister. Our reform states a limit of 30 days, notice papers about their local schools, which is better than the Tasmanian practice. hospitals, police stations, fire stations and In South Australia there is no set period ambulance stations—all the questions that for the Minister to answer questions on notice. their constituents want answers to. The Leader We are better than South Australia. In of the Opposition is saying that they cannot Western Australia, on Tuesdays 45 minutes is put questions on the notice paper and get allotted for question time and 30 minutes on answers within 30 days. That is what the all other days. There is no set time limit for the Opposition leaders are saying. If I was on the answering of questions upon notice by the Opposition back bench, I would have a lot to responsible Minister. Four weeks is the norm, say in the party room tomorrow, because I but there is no set period. So we are better would not be happy. I say to the people of than Western Australia. Queensland who are represented by I refer now to the House of Opposition members that the Opposition is in Representatives and the Senate. The position fact voting today against these provisions is the same; in the House of Representatives which will make its members less effective there is no set time limit for the answering of than they otherwise could be. They are voting questions by the responsible Minister. So we to be incompetent. If they vote against these are better than the House of Representatives. changes today, they are voting to be As to the Senate—there is no set time limit for ineffective, incompetent members of the answering of questions in the Senate, Parliament. That is what they are seeking to either. However, after 30 calender days the do. senator asking the question may ask the Mr Borbidge spoke a lot of nonsense Minister to provide an explanation to the about the 30-day period for answers to Senate as to why the question has not been questions. The reality of that is that, if a answered. So we are better than the Senate member has put a question on notice, it is a and any other State in Australia. So what is matter of public record. Members can release the Leader of the Opposition whingeing the question. If the Minister takes 30 days to about? That is the question we have to ask answer, the member can say to his or her ourselves. constituents or the press, "Hang on, I put it on My time is running out, so I would like to notice and I am waiting for an answer." Where refer to a couple of other matters. The Leader is the pressure in that? Mr Borbidge said that of the Opposition complained about the that is letting Government Ministers off the removal of the prayer from petitions. He tried hook. What that is doing is putting to jump on that bandwagon. That is a phoney Government Ministers on the mat. It is the argument. Petitions have not been able to be complete reverse of what he is saying. tabled in this House because the prayer on I refer now to the position in other States. them was wrong. We are talking about In New South Wales, Ministers are required to empowering people so that their views are answer questions on notice within 35 days. known in this Parliament. So because They get only 45 minutes for question time, or someone technically got the prayer wrong, the answering of 10 questions in the House. some petitions have been knocked out and So there is no argument. The Queensland the views of the people have not been heard. 21 March 1995 11148 Legislative Assembly

That is what the honourable Leader of the Opposition at heart. While I am prepared to Opposition is supporting. listen to many of the things that Mr Beattie I do not know if he is appealing to the might say, I believe that he lacks a certain extreme Right Wing of the constituency when degree of credibility with Opposition members, he complains about the prayer being and I am amazed that he could say it with a removed. There happens to be a lot of straight face. Christians on the Government side of the I really do find it hard to restrain the anger Chamber, including myself, who are quite I feel at having to debate this motion today. I happy to see a prayer anywhere, but this is find it difficult to restrain that anger, because about simplification and empowering people even at its worst, its most cynical and its least so that technical procedures do not knock accountable, there are few times that this petitions out. That is what these reforms are State Labor Government has matched the about. It is a nonsense argument to come in depths it has sunk to with today's effort—and here and get out the violin and try to pretend to think that this Government was elected on a that taking the prayer out is in some way an platform of reform and a platform of unchristian act. What a lot of nonsense. This is accountability! I do not believe that anyone about giving people their rights and should forget that this Labor Government was empowering them and also getting ministerial elected on a platform of electoral purity. It was responses to petitions, instead of, as the elected by the people of Queensland because member for Mansfield said, having them it told the people that it would be clean, open thrown into the petition bin where they are and accountable. It has lied to the people never heard of again. This is about doing again. Yet here we have that very same Labor something about petitions. How Opposition Government—less than six years later— members can oppose that amendment is bringing in these cynical changes to sessional beyond me. orders. Next, I refer to criticism of the Public From listening to Mr Beattie, one might Works Committee. While I am on the subject think that the Labor Party is looking after of committees, I am delighted to see that we Opposition backbenchers. Mr Beattie must are allowing the chairmen of committees to have mistaken the fact that, this morning, Mr answer questions. Members would be aware Mackenroth said that if questions were over that the first Parliamentary Criminal Justice two pages long they would not be Committee in recommendation 1 in its report incorporated in Hansard. Call me a cynic, but I in December 1991, report no. 13, would think that if any answer that showed recommended just this. I am delighted to see some flaw in that otherwise very pure Labor that it is happening. However, I conclude by Government, that political point would be on saying that I find it offensive that we have page two and hence would not be attacks on certain parliamentary committees incorporated in Hansard. If not, why is Mr when they do their job properly. Mackenroth limiting the answers in Hansard to one page when, again and again, the full 20 Finally, to give citizens a right of reply as minutes or one hour of every speech made by part of the accountability process is long members in this House is recorded? overdue. It has worked in the Senate. It does Mr T. B. Sullivan interjected. not take away a member's rights. We all have rights in this place to defend ourselves. Mrs SHELDON: I know that the Standing Orders provide members with the honourable member does not really right to make personal explanations and raise understand any of the actions of Parliament, points of privilege; we can explain ourselves in but Ministers have always been able to this House whenever we like. All those incorporate in Hansard their full answers to amendments do in terms of giving citizens a questions on notice, if they so desired. I right of reply is to make it fair. It does not believe that these answers should be fully affect privilege in any manner, shape or form, incorporated in Hansard, because the Minister it just gives them a fair go. does not have to present them; they will be provided by bureaucrats. If they are wrong, I Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Leader of guess that the Ministers will blame the the Liberal Party) (2.40 p.m.): What an bureaucrats. Let us face it, this Government incredibly impassioned performance by the never blames itself for anything; it is 100 per member for Brisbane Central. Is it not a great cent wonderful, according to itself. pity that he did not get it right? He has been asking us to believe that "Godfather" Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mackenroth has the interests of the Mr SPEAKER: Order! Point of order. Legislative Assembly 11149 21 March 1995

Mrs SHELDON: Is the honourable Mrs SHELDON: I thought so—until the member interjecting, or not? election. Dear me! How appropriate. This Mr Mackenroth interjected. Government has been in power since 1989, yet only a few months before an election Mrs SHELDON: Then the member these so-called reforms are coming into place. should stand up—or does he not know what And this Government wonders why it has no he should do in this House? Mr Speaker, I credibility in the marketplace. People do not thought you said the member was taking a believe it. They are not as foolish as this point of order. Government may think. People realise that by Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, the no means does the Executive stamp of power honourable member is not taking a point of mean democracy. So we will have this order. He is asking you to take an interjection. so-called trial. Mrs SHELDON: It is up to me as to How convenient to introduce such a trial whether or not I take his interjection, and I will when this Government has been under not take it. Why should I take the rubbish he unprecedented attack for its failures in Health, hands out? law and order, Education and Transport. One can see them now sitting around the top floor Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of of the Executive Building—the Premier, Mr order. What I wanted to say was that as Mrs Mackenroth, the general and others—trying to Sheldon is complaining so much, and in the figure out how they can limit exposure to spirit of ensuring that this gets a fair trial, we public questioning for their bunch of duds on will incorporate all the answers to all the the frontbench—duds such as Mr Elder, who questions for the rest of this term. keeps saying, "I am new to this. I do not really Mrs SHELDON: I am delighted to hear know what is happening in the Health that Mr Mackenroth has seen the error of his Department. Please don't ask me any tough ways, as pointed out to him by the Opposition. questions." Mr Hayward is saying the same I give credit where it is due. He has been sort of thing in Transport. Mr Pitt does not prepared to listen to this, but I do believe that have the remotest idea what DBIRD really is all we must have that in writing, otherwise it may about. Those are the Ministers of the Crown never be delivered. I will have the promise of who are supposed to be looking after the Mr Mackenroth in writing, thanks, as part of interests of the people of Queensland. the motion. As the great minds ticked—and by golly, Mr Borbidge: Hansard has been speaking of great minds, we have some sitting expunged before. on the Government side of the House, do we not—someone came up with this wonderful Mrs SHELDON: That is quite true. plan to limit Opposition front and back Hansard has been expunged before, so let us benchers, with the exception of the Leader of get this in writing from Mr Mackenroth. the Opposition, to only one question without Why is this Labor Government able to notice. In that way, if the Government make these cynical changes to sessional continues its previous form of 15-minute orders? I will tell honourable members answers to dorothy dixers, particularly why—because it has bypassed the well- questions from the two Whips, whom we could established and time-honoured conventions of call Dorothy One and Dorothy Two, and time- Parliament in Queensland. Changes such as wasting in every other way possible, the this should have been passed through the number and continuity of questions asked by Standing Orders Committee, which includes the Opposition will be decreased. But that is representatives from both the Opposition and only part of the plan. the Government, including the Premier, Mr The other part of the plan is to allow each Borbidge and me. But this cynical Government member of the Opposition to also ask one weaseled its way around these well- question on notice during question time, but to established precedents by claiming that these give Ministers and their departments 30 days changes to question time are only a trial. within which to answer those questions—one Would I be too cynical by asking: is this trial month to answer questions they previously only until the next election? When does the had to answer in one day. Yes, there may be trial finish? Is Mr Mackenroth prepared to more questions, but nevertheless, if a member answer that question? needs information, he or she needs it now, not Mr Mackenroth: I said the trial will be 30 days down the track. One month should up until the election, and then we will decide safely put any difficult questions out of the way after that. until, hopefully for the Government, the issue 21 March 1995 11150 Legislative Assembly is no longer relevant when the answer comes the Opposition, not satisfactory. We would back—one month to answer questions that have much preferred to have spoken to you the Minister does not even answer, because and to the other members of the Standing his department does. This means that, once Orders Committee about our concerns before again, instead of the Minister being this debate took place. It may well have meant responsible, the emphasis is shifted back onto that the debate was of a different nature, but public servants within the department. With we were excluded from meeting as a Standing the Ministers having to answer fewer questions Orders Committee. Of course, we have not without notice, and the departments being met, as you would be aware, in the life of this given a month to answer questions on notice, Parliament. It is over two and half years since the Labor Ministers have much less scrutiny to we have met. I wonder why that is so. If we worry about in this election year. That is what need committees such as the Standing Orders this is really all about. As I said, this is all about Committee, surely we should meet and limiting public scrutiny and public discuss the issues pertaining to the Standing accountability. This is about this Government Orders. attempting to hide its deficiencies and abusing The Premier also has rejected these calls. the Parliament in the process. He is a member of the Standing Orders Mr Speaker, I wish to draw attention to Committee and has refused to convene that the letter sent to you and signed by me, Rob committee since September 1992. As I said, Borbidge and the Deputy Leader of the that committee was appointed by Parliament National Party, Kevin Lingard. We wrote— itself. It was established to oversee matters "Dear Mr Fouras exactly like changes to the sessional orders. I refer to the announcement to the There are other matters included in the media following yesterday's Caucus proposed changes to sessional orders which meeting and the subsequent Ministerial are also worth considering. For example, statement to Parliament by the Leader of under the heading "General Rules for the House concerning a proposed Answers" are the following three points— sessional order to change the format of "(i) In answering a Question a Minister Question Time. or Member shall not debate the We, the undersigned, formally subject to which it refers. request a meeting of the Standing Orders Committee to consider this matter. (ii) An answer shall be relevant to the question. As Chairman of the Committee and as custodian of the rights of members of (iii) If, in the opinion of the Speaker, the the Legislative Assembly we consider that Answer is too long, he may direct the you have an obligation to take this course Minister or the Member to cease of action. speaking." We remain extremely concerned that These are classics! Numbers one and two are the Leader of the House has indicated like extinct dinosaurs resurrected to remind us that you have had a high level of of how things once were, and maybe could be involvement in the proposed changes again. In answering a question a Minister shall without reference to the Committee that not debate the subject. Can you imagine it? the Parliament has appointed to consider This crew opposite have never really answered such matters." a question without endeavouring to debate it. That Standing Orders Committee was They have all learnt from the Wayne appointed by the Parliament, yet it is being Goss school of question time etiquette. The ignored. The letter continued— Wayne Goss school of question time etiquette "It is now a period of years since you also has three rules— have convened such a meeting which is (1) Never, never answer a question. considerable cause for concern. (2) Verbally bash the person who asked We await your prompt response to the question as much as possible. this formal request for a meeting to be convened prior to the resumption of (3) Drag the answer to the question out Parliament." as long as possible, including debate, vitriol, meaningless statistics, I table that letter. electioneering and the obligatory verbal Mr Speaker, I know that you did answer bulldust so the Opposition's time to ask that letter, but the reply was, in the opinion of questions is limited as much as possible. Legislative Assembly 11151 21 March 1995

Mr SPEAKER: They haven't been without notice, and then follow it up with a changed. supplementary question without notice. Often, Mr Borbidge: Was there an interjection that is what one needs to do, because the from the right? answer that has come from the Minister sets itself up for a supplementary question through Mrs SHELDON: I think there was. If which we could really find out what the answer members think back and check Hansard they is. will see that all other members of the Ministry These so-called reforms come from the have gone to Wayne's school, and they have all passed. For many on the Government Executive. They are the ones who make the frontbench it was the first thing they ever rules and they are the ones who punch their passed—or are likely to pass. rules through. It is a joke, and a bad joke at that. As to point (ii) of the "General Rules for I believe that these changes to the Answers", which states "An Answer shall be sessional orders introduced today are not relevant to the question", I again refer reforms. They are a deliberate attempt by the members to my three previous points from the Government to limit the scrutiny of Ministers by Wayne Goss school of question time the Opposition and the public. They are a etiquette. In case honourable members have deliberate attempt in an election year to limit forgotten them, they are— the public accountability of Ministers. They are (1) Never, never answer a question. a deliberate attempt to limit the number of (2) Verbally bash the person who asked questions without notice Ministers face during the question as much as possible. an election year. (3) Drag the answer to the question out If this Government was truly interested in as long as possible, including debate, parliamentary reform it would be making real vitriol, meaningless statistics, changes—genuine changes. It would be electioneering and the obligatory verbal making question time more relevant so that a bulldust. definitive minimum of questions can be asked, regardless of time. Or it would be limiting the Relevance is very rarely a strong point length of answers by Ministers so that time- when it comes to Ministers answering wasting does not occur. questions. Rules for answers should be the After giving us the questionable benefit of same as rules for questions and not be able to his input, Mr Beattie has left the Chamber. include arguments, inferences, imputations or The reason members of the Opposition are hypothetical matters. However, if they could not rising to ask questions—either shadow not include hypothetical matters, I suppose Ministers or backbenchers—is that Ministers that we would never get an answer. filibuster and take up the time of question time What I find incredible about these so that, deliberately, the number of answers is changes is that the Leader of the House, Mr limited. Mackenroth, described the changes as reform. If this Government was truly interested in I ask you, Mr Speaker, how can these parliamentary reform it would be allowing the changes be considered reforms? They are broadcast of Parliament by radio and restrictions; not reforms. Reforms do not limit television. I feel very strongly about this. I scrutiny; they do not limit accountability. brought this up at the first Standing Orders Reforms are supposed to make the Committee that I attended and I have raised Government and the Parliament more the matter subsequently. I believe that it is accountable, not less accountable. Just to important that question time in our House is remind members, previously a member of the televised so the public can see how pitiful the Opposition was able to ask two questions. bunch opposite really is and so the people of Opposition members had the option of either Queensland can properly scrutinise their asking two questions without notice, two elected representatives. If the Parliament has questions on notice, or one of each. That no problems with that, why do we not do it? I flexibility allowed Opposition members to add that that is a move that the Premier would decide which forum best suited their question. not allow, and one I pursued on the odd Answers to questions on notice had to be occasions that the Standing Orders provided on the next sitting day. Committee has met. A range of reasons was These farcical so-called reforms will mean put up as to why that would not be that members of the Opposition have no acceptable. One reason was that the House, option of how to ask their questions. They will because it is a heritage building, could not be have no option of whether to ask one question successfully wired. I subsequently found out, 21 March 1995 11152 Legislative Assembly

Mr Speaker, as I am sure you are aware, that, members of this House to be accountable to when this House was renovated, provision was the people of Queensland who elected us. made to install cabling because those involved Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) thought that that would eventually happen. (2.59 p.m.): It is interesting to follow the The cost of televising Parliament was then member for Caloundra in this debate. I have raised. So I went to the various commercial observed that it is the conservatives who channels and the ABC and asked whether supposedly have a mortgage on Christian they would be interested in putting up funds to morals. It is interesting to note that, when they do this and they were quite happy to do so. were in Government, they also believed that Mr Mackenroth: I would support they had a mortgage on Christian morals. I televising if they would promise that they can definitely say, from watching their would put you on every night. behaviour for 10 years, that they have no Mrs SHELDON: I would support that, mortgage on Christian morals. too. I am sure that that could only elevate the This is not a permanent change to the tone of this House. If the honourable member Standing Orders; it is a change to the agrees with me that we should televise sessional orders. It is very important that question time, I am sure that I can get the members understand that this change to the commercial channels and the ABC to pool sessional orders and the way in which it affects their resources and record this place with one many important aspects of the procedures of television camera. Similarly, we should be able this Parliament will be trialled and considered to broadcast question time. If we really did and then the Standing Orders Committee will believe in accountability then surely this would make a decision on whether such a change follow. I believe real accountability is a long, should be put firmly in place. long way away in Queensland, despite the promises made by Wayne Goss six years ago. It was interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition imply that the period allowed Finally, I will refer to changing the format for a reply to a question on notice is somehow of petitions. People did have problems with immoral and in some way different from what the format of petitions, basically because they is accepted in other Parliaments. In every did not know the format and did not realise other Parliament, plenty of time is given in that one existed. Pamphlets have been which to reply to questions on notice so that published that show how a petition should be they can be answered properly. For example, worded. In my electorate through the the Parliament of New South Wales allows 35 newspapers I informed people of this so they calendar days in which to answer questions on would not waste time filling out petitions notice. Why does the Opposition declare that incorrectly. They can collect a proper petition allowing 30 days in which to reply to a paper from our electorate offices and I am question on notice is somehow wrong? There sure that all members, if they are properly is no basis upon which to say that in the serving their electorates, would let their Parliament of Victoria four weeks is the constituents know that. I know that members average time in which to reply to questions on of the Opposition have done so. notice, and there is no set time limit. It is It is hypocrisy to say that because the interesting to note that members of other words "we pray" was included in the petition it State Parliaments of the same party and was not worded properly and the petition could convictions as members of the Queensland not be submitted. That is a nonsense. I Opposition allow a reasonable time in which to believe that it is another method of trying to answer questions on notice, but somehow that get rid of tradition in this House. It is becoming is not right in this Parliament. a godless House, where traditions and Mr T. B. Sullivan: Perhaps their Christian ethics are being ignored more and colleagues in New South Wales should be told more. I am amazed that the member for of their position on this. Mansfield was quite prepared to ignore Christian ethics and throw them out of this Mr CAMPBELL: As well as the place. So much for her commitment to Parliament of New South Wales, the anything that Christians really stand for. Parliaments of Tasmania and South Australia have no set period in which to answer All I can say is that I am disappointed questions on notice, but members are usually that on this day this Labor Government, a given an answer in two weeks. couple of months out from an election, has seen fit to alter the proceedings of this It is also interesting that the Opposition Parliament under the guise of changes to believes that somehow the Government would sessional orders and will not allow the be more accountable if the proceedings of Legislative Assembly 11153 21 March 1995

Parliament were televised. I have never seen Mr Veivers: You are saying I am television coverage make any Government corrupt? more accountable. However, what does make Mr CAMPBELL: We will have to look at Governments more accountable is the ability the time that we will allow for questions without of members to be able to ask more questions. notice. The member for Southport talks about However, it seems that, in this place, the being morally corrupt. I was a member of this Opposition is prepared to vote against a House when the Opposition was in system that will allow for more questions on Government and I heard Ministers of that notice. Question time provides members with Government make those same accusations. an opportunity to obtain information about So the member should not come in here what Executive Government is doing. It pretending to be all white and pure. I had to sit ensures a workable system of Parliament. The in Opposition and cop it from his party. It is new system will be an even better and fairer interesting to note that someone who is so one. moral has to have a loaded gun under the The Opposition wants to retain a system seat in his car. which, in the 1993 and 1994 parliamentary Mr VEIVERS: I rise to a point of order. years, allowed an average of only 2.1 and 2.2 My point of order is that the gun was licensed. questions on notice per day respectively in the Queensland Parliament. It is interesting to Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point note that the Parliament of New South Wales, of order. which allows questions on notice to be Mr CAMPBELL: Honourable members, answered in a manner similar to that which we I want to set the record straight. The member are proposing, was able to have 46 questions had a licensed gun under his seat. on notice answered per day in 1993 and 41 questions on notice answered per day in Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that we 1994. Yet the Opposition in this State wants to leave the gun out of the debate. retain a system under which very few Mr CAMPBELL: Under Standing Order questions on notice are actually answered. 67B, it is proposed that members be allowed In relation to the procedure of question to ask questions of other members, and this time—since 1983, there has been no major will include members of committees. We will change to the Standing Orders. In March have to be very careful to ensure that 1983, the number of questions asked by questions to members of committees are members was limited. In August 1984, about procedural matters only. In fact, if members want to question a committee about another minor amendment to the Standing something that is happening, it should be Orders occurred, which actually ruled out done by way of a proper debate. We have to supplementary questions. I have observed be very careful to ensure that questions about various Parliaments which allow committees are confined to questions about supplementary questions, and I believe that procedural matters such as the time when a those questions add a little bit of cut and committee may be reporting to the Parliament. thrust to question time which is often lacking in our Parliament. As the honourable member for Beaudesert would appreciate, members of the Under the changes proposed, question Opposition make references to Government time will now be comprised totally of questions without notice. To my knowledge, no other members leaving this House after they have Parliament allows one hour for question time. made a contribution to a debate. It is very Most Parliaments allow only 45 minutes. I can interesting to note that the member for see the problem occurring—and we may have Caloundra, who highlighted an example of a to rely on the use of the Speaker's Government member leaving the Chamber discretion—that we will not be able to fill the after contributing to a debate, left the hour with questions. Chamber herself immediately after she made her contribution. Mr Veivers: What did you say before—that we are morally corrupt? Mr Santoro: Do you think it had anything to do with you getting up to speak? Mr CAMPBELL: I am just saying that the Opposition has no mortgage on morals. Mr CAMPBELL: It probably did. The member probably does not appreciate good, Mr Veivers: How come you are not still logical debate. She is very cynical. The Deputy Speaker? member for Caloundra is worried about Mr CAMPBELL: The member is no whether we will publish two pages in Hansard better than anyone else. or whether we will not publish it. She referred 21 March 1995 11154 Legislative Assembly to material having to be expunged from within 30 days to the Clerk for Hansard. One of the worst cases of having to presentation to the House. A copy of this expunge material was when a National Party response shall be printed in Hansard and backbencher incorporated in Hansard what be supplied to the Member who could be regarded as nothing more than presented the petition." pornographic filth. We had to expunge that. This would have been a more appropriate Opposition members know the person to change to the Standing Order for petitions. whom I refer. Members of the Opposition who That proposal also suggested that the name have made accusations against the of the principal petitioner should be on the Government in this regard should look at the front page of the petition. That proposition is actions of their own members. quite reasonable and I support it. When The member for Caloundra referred to petitions are circulated, often the front page is the form of answers. It is accepted by Erskine not signed by petitioners, who often do not May and the House of Commons that know who is circulating a petition; they just Ministers cannot be directed to answer sign it. Perhaps the name of the principal questions in a particular manner. That is an petitioner could be on all pages so that, when accepted procedure and rule in all individuals sign a petition, he or she would Parliaments. So, really, the member's know who is sponsoring it. argument does not carry weight. Mr Veivers: Are you going to move an Changes will be made to the format of amendment? petitions, and I think it is good that those changes have been included in the sessional Mr CAMPBELL: No, I am just raising orders. However, I am concerned that we have points about which I would prefer to see some not gone as far as was proposed in the changes. discussion paper on the petitioning process. I now refer to the protection of persons When we were in Opposition, a committee referred to in a legislative committee. When called the Transition to Government the discussion paper on these proposals was Committee also looked at procedures. The released, I had a few concerns about giving a recommendations of that committee and also right of reply to an aggrieved person. After those included in the discussion paper on the having looked again at the arguments for and reform of the petitioning process put out by against giving a citizen a right of reply, I now the Speaker may have been followed. feel that it may be worth while if these I will discuss some of the views about procedures are adopted. petitions raised in the discussion paper, and However, I wonder why we still need such these would be shared by most honourable a provision in an adversarial system. If a members. It stated— member makes a statement about someone "The lack of any formal responses to in this place, an aggrieved person with a valid petitions has been raised by several point to make could do so via a member on petitioners who feel a degree of the opposite side of the House. That has frustration at the considerable effort spent happened quite often. If people are aggrieved in preparing and circulating petitions to and they have a valid point to raise, we have have no further action taken. to ask why it has not been raised by other One way of redressing this situation members of this House. Members of this would be to amend the standing orders Parliament have more opportunities to do so to provide that Ministers should respond than members in previous Parliaments. For to petitions and to impose a time limit on example, we now have two Adjournment the receipt of those responses. Once a debates. If someone is aggrieved, there is response to the House has been time for a member from another political party received, it should be published in to put that person's point of view. That is what Hansard in a similar manner to answers we are doing here; we are representing the to questions on notice." people in our electorates. Those debates provide the opportunity to do that. It then went further to suggest a proposed change to the Standing Orders. The proposal Mr Bredhauer: Would you trust them suggested in the discussion paper stated— to put your message across? "A copy of every petition received by Mr CAMPBELL: No, I would not. The the House is to be referred by the Clerk to standard of the performance in Parliament by the appropriate responsible Minister who members of the Opposition is probably why must forward the Government's response this provision has to be included. Legislative Assembly 11155 21 March 1995

Even if allegations are made against is still no fully-fledged committee system members in this place, we have to accept and operating in the State's single-house understand that those members, under Parliament . . . it is perhaps not surprising Standing Order 110, via a personal that as it becomes used to the comforts explanation, or under Standing Order 115, via of the government benches, the Goss a point of privilege, have the right to reply. Government may be less willing to Generally, we should not be too concerned surrender to Parliament the breadth of about giving aggrieved members of the public powers necessary to properly scrutinise an opportunity to have their views put in this it." House. It continues— These changes are major, and we have "Equally important is the need to not had major changes to the Standing Orders give Parliament the ability to play its role for a long time. We should commend the in scrutinising the actions of executive Leader of the House for introducing these government. A unicameral parliamentary changes via a sessional order. This will enable system needs adequate review us to trial the provisions to see how they will processes." operate. We will be able to see the pitfalls and advantages that will arise from this sessional We have heard today that the Standing order. Orders Committee has not even met. However, this Government is ready to go Question time will be improved, and ahead—although, as one speaker mentioned, members opposite will have a greater chance it is a sessional order—and use its power to to ask questions on notice. All honourable implement this sessional order. We have seen members, especially those from the over the past five years how many Opposition, will have the chance to put one recommendations of EARC and PEARC have question per day on notice. I find it very not been implemented. difficult to accept that members of the Opposition, for reasons other than some One of the most important cynical point scoring, could possibly vote recommendations was in relation to the against these provisions. The Opposition's Auditor-General. We do not have an resistance to making our Executive Auditor-General giving performance-based Government more accountable by having advice to this Parliament. This Government still more questions placed on notice is something makes its Auditor-General a person who that I cannot understand. checks the invoices and financial statements and says, "Everything is correct." However, the Mr LINGARD (Beaudesert—Deputy Auditor-General does not refer to the Leader of the Opposition) (3.15 p.m.): The performance of departments. Recently, we Goss ALP Government came to power riding saw the PAC and PWC acting in a blatantly on the back of the white horse of politicised way by voting simply on party lines accountability. Continuously today we have and not referring matters back to this heard the Leader of the House refer to Parliament for decision. accountability. However, the Opposition has asked continuously: how can the Government Later, I will criticise this Goss be accountable by means of a committee Government's failure to introduce a proper system when the Government has not even committee system, despite its promise of convened a meeting of the Standing Orders accountability, which was given to the people Committee to refer the decisions of the of Queensland. There is one aspect of the Standing Orders Committee to the House. proposed sessional orders to which I wish to refer. There are many others, but they have Today, we heard the Leader of the been covered by the previous speakers. House ask: "What better committee is there than this Parliament itself?" And that is the One proposed sessional order states that difficulty that we in Queensland—and we in questions may not be put to the Speaker. I the Opposition—are now facing. As this ALP know that four or five previous Speakers have Government becomes extremely comfortable made rulings about whether a question may in power, it does not want committees to be put on notice to the Speaker—Speaker scrutinise it. Taylor, Speaker Houghton and Speaker Nicholson. Mr Speaker, you have made a I refer to the editorial in the Australian of decision that there will be no questions on 24 January this year, which stated— notice put to you. This sessional order "It is disappointing that more than confirms that decision. This is one of my five years after Labor was elected, there criticisms of what is going on in this 21 March 1995 11156 Legislative Assembly

Parliament. I believe very much in the principle sessional order has not been sanctioned by of the impartiality of the Speaker. any other Speaker, but this Speaker has If I or anyone else wishes to ask a made that decision and it is reflected in this question about the Parliamentary Service motion. Commission, we cannot ask the Speaker. We I turn to the actions of this Government cannot ask the Speaker about any of the roles regarding the Standing Orders Committee and of the Parliamentary Service Commission. One the committee system generally. The Goss of those roles is providing essential support in Government's draft Parliamentary Committees the processing of and assent to legislation. Bill 1995 reveals its departure from key EARC Another role is providing information, research, and PEARC recommendations and flags a education, protocol, administrative and significant erosion of committee powers. messenger support services to members of Fitzgerald recommended the role of the the Parliament. The Opposition will now have committee system. EARC wrote a report which to ask questions on anything relating to the basically supported the Fitzgerald Parliamentary Service Commission of the recommendations. The PEARC committee Leader of the House. How is that upholding based its report on those recommendations. the separation of powers? The Leader of the But now the Government has come up with its House plays an active role in Cabinet, own Parliamentary Committees Bill outlining participates in budgetary decisions, serves on the procedure relating to committees. the Parliamentary Service Commission and The committees will play one overriding controls the business of this House, yet we general role. There will be no power invested must direct any questions on the role of the in them which is not invested initially by this Parliamentary Service Commission to him. Parliament. This Parliament will decide what Another role of the Parliamentary Service the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Commission is to oversee the Table Office, Works Committee will investigate. It will decide which provides the procedural and how the Auditor-General will be selected. That administrative support necessary for the is a move away from the recommendations of proper conduct of the business of the Fitzgerald, EARC and PEARC in this regard. Legislative Assembly. However, in future we The result will be a system that is incapable of may direct questions relating to the operations vigorous and thorough review of Government of the Table Office only to the Leader of the policies and decisions. House, because this—— The Labor Party always criticised the Mrs Woodgate interjected. previous Government for not allowing a Mr LINGARD: Under this sessional vigorous and thorough review of its policies order, that is not possible. This sessional order and decisions. However, by endorsing these does not allow a member to ask a question of measures Government members are doing the Speaker. That power has been taken exactly the same thing. This Government has away. bypassed the Standing Orders Committee. It has not even convened it; the committee has The committee office provides assistance not even met. These new sessional orders will to parliamentary committees in the conduct of be passed by this House without reference to their inquiries. Under this sessional order, the that committee. only person of whom members may ask questions about the committee office is the The 1989 Fitzgerald report and Leader of the House. What answer will we subsequent EARC and PEARC reports on receive from the Leader of the House? We will parliamentary reform maintained that the be given the answer that reflects the attitude introduction of a comprehensive parliamentary of the Cabinet, the answer that reflects the committee system was necessary to enhance attitude of the Parliamentary Service the ability of Parliament to monitor the Commission and the answer that reflects the efficiency of the Government. That is not attitude of this Government. That is not the being done. The Auditor-General will not role of the Speaker. The role of the Speaker is undertake performance auditing. The to act in an impartial manner to protect the members of the Public Accounts Committee role of Opposition members, regardless of and the Public Works Committee will vote on what Government members believe the party lines. The Premier has repeatedly Opposition should be doing. But if members of affirmed that a strong parliamentary system is the Opposition cannot ask impartial questions part of the Government's reform package, but about the operations of a particular body, then he has rejected the Fitzgerald/EARC I believe that the rights of the Opposition have recommendation that the powers of the been taken away. The position taken in this Auditor-General be boosted to include Legislative Assembly 11157 21 March 1995 performance auditing of departments on the whoever else had any part in framing this grounds that the parliamentary committee sessional order. The proposal provides only system will perform that role. In terms of the that, once the system has been tested, the draft Parliamentary Committees Bill, the Goss Standing Orders Committee might be able to Government is robbing the parliamentary have a look at it—three years down the track. committee system of the tools with which to PEARC supported the recommendations perform such a task. A similar situation has of EARC relating to scrutiny committees and occurred with this sessional order. Government incorporated those recommendations in part 2 members know full well that the Standing of its Queensland Parliament Bill. That section Orders Committee has not even met. The states— committee has not sanctioned these measures; the House has instead a sessional "A person may be ordered to attend order presented by the Leader of the House. before, or attend before and produce a document to, the . . . committee"—— Following its review of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission's findings, Mr Welford: What is the relevance of PEARC unanimously adopted a draft this? Queensland Parliament Bill in line with its own Mr LINGARD: In effect, the power of recommendations. However, the Government committees to generate their own inquiries by went against those recommendations in the calling for witnesses and documents has been draft Parliamentary Committees Bill. The Bill subordinated by a requirement—and this is states— the relevance of it—that the Legislative "The Legislative Assembly may Assembly must authorise such action. Of authorise a statutory committee to call for course, that is exactly what the Government persons, documents and things." has done today; it is exactly what it has done with committees so far and it is exactly what it In the future, this Parliament will provide intends to do with committees in the future. committees with their terms of reference. What will occur if the Standing Orders Committee The Government is saying that this does not meet? What will occur if the catering House will authorise what the committee will committee does not meet? What will occur if do. It will authorise what the PAC will do. It will the Parliamentary Service Commission does authorise what the PWC will do. It will not meet? Will we merely bypass all of those authorise what the Auditor-General will look at. procedures and let the Parliament vote The Government is saying that it will not allow whichever way it likes? That is not what EARC the Auditor-General to look at the recommended, it is not what Fitzgerald performances of each department; it will recommended, and it certainly is not what merely let him check the invoices and PEARC recommended, yet Government statements and report back to the Parliament. members are prepared to vote in support of That is not in keeping with the this change to the sessional orders that has recommendations of Fitzgerald, EARC or been proposed by the Leader of the House. PEARC. The proposal outlined in the draft This is substantially undermining the Parliamentary Committees Bill represents a independence and powers of committees and major departure from EARC and PEARC leaving the door open for political interference recommendations and represents a in potentially politically damaging committee substantial curtailing of committee powers. investigations. That is exactly what has EARC recommended that scrutiny committees happened. I do not want to go any further with have the following general powers— that particular point, but I am sure that Government members would understand that "the power to call for persons, papers and there is merit in what I have said, and they records and to examine witnesses; have allowed that to happen today. They the power to generate their own inquiries might think it is a joke that the Standing and accept references from the House." Orders Committee has not met; they might What role has the Standing Orders Committee think it is a joke that Opposition members played in formulating this change to the have not been consulted. At the end of the sessional orders? What role have we as day, everyone will know that Government Opposition members on the committee members supported a proposal drafted by the played? Absolutely none. We have not been Leader of the House, the Speaker and a few consulted; this matter has not been referred to other people. us. We simply must accept the wishes of the I want to make a couple of other points. I Speaker, the Leader of the House and believe that there should have been a 14-day 21 March 1995 11158 Legislative Assembly rule in relation to responses to questions on also made those statements, yet it has taken notice. The Government can introduce five years to do this. Why now? I believe it is complex legislation to this House and it sits on clearly to gag the Opposition. The the table for only seven days, or fewer in some Government has had five years to fix this up. I cases. Opposition members, with the limited quote examples of the number of questions resources provided to them, must wade which were asked of previous Governments. I through such legislation and be ready to refer back to 1987-88 when, on a daily debate it in detail within that short time frame. average, the Government then answered well In such circumstances, 30 days is far too long over 20 questions per sitting day. In 1988-89, a period in which an answer to a question on the number was well over 20. Today, the notice must be provided to the Opposition. numbers 17 and 16 have been quoted. In It is common knowledge that, when a 1994, the average number of questions for a member asks a question on notice, that day was 13.7. I believe that that is something member is seeking detailed and relevant that could have been improved by the information. The member may need that Government and the Speaker, even if the information immediately for work within his or House adopted the system adopted for the her electorate or work within this Parliament. Estimates committees. Members were allowed For a question on notice to be answered 30 to ask a question within a certain time and a days down the line is absolutely ridiculous. It is Minister had only three minutes to answer that irrelevant whether that is the same time period question. Something could have been done to adopted in other States. Clearly, this provision improve the standard of question time. reinforces the power of the Government to We have seen the Premier and some of control the Opposition. The Opposition has the Ministers take up to seven minutes to only seven days within which to absorb major answer a question. I do not believe that that pieces of legislation—and the Budget is a shows good control of the House. I repeat pertinent example—yet this Government, with what I said before: I do not believe that this the massive departmental and ministerial Government has implemented the committee resources at its disposal, claims that it cannot system as per the EARC or PEARC answer questions on notice in fewer than 30 recommendations, and certainly not as per days. Mr Speaker, I put it to you that the Fitzgerald's recommendations. It has come to Government is either lazy, incompetent or power riding on the back of the white horse of quite simply wants to take the political heat out accountability. Government members talk of question time. about that all the time, but there is no Mr Santoro interjected. accountability in what this Government is doing in this House. Mr LINGARD: The Government will do anything to make sure that the Opposition Mr WELFORD (Everton) (3.35 p.m.): does not have any advantage. If that is what Government members have had enough. We the Government is doing, then clearly that is want a good Opposition. For the first time in not what EARC, PEARC and Fitzgerald the five and a half years that we have been in recommended. The current system of Government, we are saying, "We have had answering questions on notice in one day is a enough. We want an Opposition." For the first system that has worked fairly for both Labor time since we have been in Government, we and the coalition in Opposition. There is no are saying to Opposition members, "Look, we logical or reasonable argument to dump it. want to help you. We are going to give you a Surely if the Opposition can debate complex leg up. We want to do something for you that legislation after seven days' preparation, you have never done for yourselves, that is, Ministers can answer questions under 30 give you a question time which you might days, or indeed in one day, as has been the make some use of." system in this Parliament for decades. Has the This sessional order is about doing the Government opted for this choice? No, it has very thing that the Opposition has complained opted for the unreasonable and unworkable about for so long but opposed belligerently for 30-day model. It wants to do everything it can so long. The only reason these issues have in its power to gag the Parliament and to gag not come before this House before now is that the Opposition. the very Opposition Leader who now stands in I am also concerned about members this place and opposes these sessional orders asking questions. Mr Speaker, before you opposed the very same proposals when they were even elected as the Speaker, you made were put to him years ago. He has had ample statements in the press about what you were opportunity to work for a so-called workable going to do with question time. The Premier package which he said he could have nutted Legislative Assembly 11159 21 March 1995 out if only the Standing Orders Committee had Mr WELFORD: The honourable met. Well, the Standing Orders Committee did member for Southport would appreciate the meet years ago and he was not the slightest analogy. Opposition members are like bit interested. The Leader of the Opposition members of a football team walking onto the had no interest in any reform to Standing field and undoing their laces as they walk on; Orders that would, through question time, they are giving up before they start. make the Government more accountable. He Opposition members are not saying to had not the slightest interest in expanding the themselves, "There is an opportunity under opportunities for questions from the this new mechanism for us to line up 3,000 Opposition because he was concerned with questions a year. We will line up from the front only one interest—not the Opposition's bench for our backbenchers to whip in and ask interest, not the interest of the Parliament to questions on notice and questions without keep the Government accountable, not the notice." They are saying, "We will not interest for an expanded and more coordinate our questions to take advantage of accountable question time, he was concerned this opportunity. No, we will give up." They are only for his self-interest and preserving for putting their feet in the air and saying, "Sorry, himself the privileged position that he now it is too hard; we don't want it. We do not want enjoys above every back bench Opposition the opportunity for extra questions; we do not member in the Parliament. want the backbenchers of the Government Mr Veivers interjected. assisting us in running a decent Opposition. We have given up." Mr Speaker, Opposition Mr WELFORD: And he continues to members have given up. This Government sustain a position which deprives the wants to help them. We want them to have honourable member for Southport, a lowly the opportunity to ask questions. We yearn for Opposition front bencher, and every other a better Opposition, but members opposite backbencher on the Opposition, the chance to just have not got what it takes, because they get a decent say during question time. have given up. Every member of the Opposition knows We have heard Opposition members that this sessional order will expand their before me—and we will hear Mr Santoro after access to ask questions in question time, but me—say, "We love the silver platter, thanks, they are not in the Parliament because they sit but we just don't want it. We want to flick pass in their rooms in shame that their own leader it. It is too hard. Don't give me the ball; it is a would be so self-interested and so petty that hot potato. It is too hard for us in Opposition. he does not want to give them the chance to We don't want the chance to do any better as ask questions. Opposition members know an Opposition than we do now. We are happy that, at the end of the debate, they will have being a bunch of losers." That is what they to come in here and vote against the very are, and what they are doing today confirms in amendment to Standing Orders—temporary the minds of every one of us—and especially as it may be—that gives them, for the first time Opposition backbenchers—how pathetic their since they have been in Opposition, the leadership is that they do not grasp this chance to ask questions in the House every opportunity and run with it instead of running day. away from it. Mr Lingard interjected. The Leader of the Opposition said that this was a subversion of the Standing Orders Mr WELFORD: If the member for Committee. He wanted to know what the point Beaudesert ever thought that there was a joke of a Standing Orders Committee is. That is a about Standing Orders, this has to be it, that good question. As the Standing Orders he is standing up here and prepared to Committee is currently constituted, one would deprive all of the Opposition backbenchers of have to ask what value it has been to the last the chance to put questions to the Parliament. We know it has been of no value Government every day. to this Parliament, because it has not met. But The most disappointing feature of this why would it meet when the one crucial test debate today is that we see a desperate that it had during the course of the last Opposition. It is a sign of a desperate Parliament was to try to get together—in Mr Opposition that has given up before it has Borbidge's words—a workable package of even started. Where else in the world would reforms with respect to Parliament and there be a parliamentary Opposition giving up question time? What did Mr Borbidge do? He before it has started? stonewalled it from the start. He did not want to be part of it. Now he is asking questions Mr Veivers interjected. about the Standing Orders Committee being 21 March 1995 11160 Legislative Assembly effective. Now that the Government has taken news today and fish and chip paper tomorrow. the initiative and said, "Look, we will do The sad tragedy is that most of the questions something about it with a temporary trial of asked by Opposition members in the past five sessional orders", Mr Borbidge says, "I now years that I have been a member of this place want the Standing Orders Committee to have been questions today and fish and chip meet." He has not had the slightest interest in paper in 30 seconds. That is how effective letting the Standing Orders Committee their questioning has been; it has been operate effectively in the past. Now that the pathetic. We are trying to give them an Government has grasped the opportunity to expanded opportunity to improve the strategic do something about it, all of a sudden Mr approach they take to question time, but they Borbidge wants the Standing Orders are passing it up; and even worse, they are Committee to meet. He even wrote to the trying to resist that opportunity. Speaker obsequiously saying, "Mr Speaker, isn't this awful. The Standing Orders The proposition that this initiative is about Committee has not met. Surely we can get Executive control is laughable. The reality is together a workable package." The Leader of that if the Government took no initiative on this the Opposition has had his opportunity, and and if Mr Speaker had not been encouraging he knocked it back twice. We are going to do the Government to take any initiative on this this and do it properly. That is what this motion no change would ever occur. Where is the change going to come from if the Government is about. does not move the motion for the sessional There is another issue that Opposition order? The Opposition has not attempted to members have raised. In fact, the member move a similar motion. Not once during his who spoke prior to me was very concerned speech today did the Leader of the Opposition about this. I refer to the rule that questions on put forward any element of the so-called notice must be answered within 30 days. I workable package that he reckons he could note that the Opposition has conspicuously now get out of the Standing Orders avoided including backbenchers on its list of Committee—if only it would meet at his speakers—— behest. Not once did he indicate one element Dr Watson: I'm scheduled to speak. of a so-called workable package of reforms to Mr WELFORD: I look forward with question time which he says he wants. He was interest to the former Federal parliamentarian happily doing a bagging job of every element the member for Moggill ever having something of the proposed sessional order, but he to say about this. I presume he will tell us that offered not one alternative—not one the Federal Parliament's role and procedures constructive suggestion as to how he and the are no good, because we are effectively Opposition could effectively use question time putting them into place. Opposition members to make the Government more accountable. I have raised the issue of whether answers believe that is indicative of the extent of the should be given within 30 days. The member Opposition's seriousness about this matter. It for Beaudesert needs to make up his mind. is an indication of its genuineness. Opposition He wants the answers to be supplied within a members could not care less if question time day and says that this system has worked well did not change for another century. elsewhere. On the other hand, he is always The very same situation applies to complaining about the adequacy of answers petitions. Opposition members are happy for given by Ministers or the bureaucracy. If the the wording on petitions to remain the same, member wants proper answers—full and because they do not give a damn whether the accurate responses—to questions on notice, petitions that members present are ruled out there must be a reasonable time within which of order. They do not care. They did not care Ministers can ensure that those answers are when they were in Government, and they do prepared. Thirty days for the provision of an not care about the effectiveness of petitions answer to a question on notice is the standard now. If they did care, they would be saying, practice in every other Parliament in Australia, "Yes, we acknowledge the need to reform the give or take a few days, yet Opposition wording of petitions to make it simple, plain members want answers tomorrow—answers English and accessible to all of Queensland's that are potentially inadequate. They cannot citizenry." But no, they want to keep the have it both ways. They cannot expect archaic language because it suits their answers to be provided tomorrow and for them interests not to have a more effective to be full and accurate. Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition says that questions answered within 30 days can be Mr Veivers interjected. Legislative Assembly 11161 21 March 1995

Mr WELFORD: The Parliament is not hold, that the privileges of members of this effective now to the extent that Opposition House should not be unduly curtailed. I do not members are such failures; that is right. see anything in the sessional order that Everyone knows that the performance of this amounts to that in any way whatsoever. The Parliament is limited by the weakness and proposition that the Privileges Committee has incompetence of this Opposition. It is a any sort of serious adjudicative role in tragedy that when opportunities are provided determining matters when a citizen applies for to improve the capacity of Opposition or makes a submission to have a right of reply members to collect petitions and have them is completely misguided. It will not be the role presented and ruled valid and when the of the Privileges Committee to put the opportunity is provided for every member of member on trial whenever a citizen makes a the Opposition to put a question on notice submission for the right to be heard. By and every day that Parliament sits, they run away large, I think that all in this place should feel from it. perfectly comfortable with the idea that, if we I cannot for the life of me understand get up in this House under privilege and make what motivated the totally misdirected attack criticism—fair or otherwise—of a person by the Leader of the Opposition on some of outside this House, all things being equal, their the parliamentary committees of this place. right of reply should be respected. The comments that the Leader of the Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say that that Opposition made about the Privileges right of reply should be subject to some Committee are thoroughly without foundation. restriction. It should not be a completely I cannot understand what he was driving at unfettered right of reply. when he suggested that the Privileges As experience is developed, we will need Committee's role in respect of any of the to look to the practice of the Senate in respect matters dealt with by this sessional order could of the right of reply which is, as I understand it, be anything other than a constructive role. Of granted very cautiously and very sparingly. all the reports that the Privileges Committee Over time, we will need to develop some has submitted to this Parliament—and I think principles which will determine when it is there are about four of them—three of them appropriate and when it is not appropriate for were unanimous. If I may be so indiscreet as a citizen to have a right of reply. I believe that to stray ever so slightly on the privacy of the the starting point should be that, all things committee's operation, I might say that the being equal, the right of reply should be fourth one went very close, too. granted unless there is good reason not to Let me be the last to say that the fourth grant it. Possible reasons for not granting it, report lacked unanimity only because of the and I am not trying to pre-empt the intervention of the Opposition Leader. Let me deliberations of the Privileges Committee or be the last to suggest that. Of course, when it any future ethics committee in this regard, are suits the Leader of the Opposition he will the guidelines set out on page 5 of the complain all day, arguing by assertion that the discussion paper issued by Mr Speaker in Government intervenes in the operation of October last year. The guidelines set out on parliamentary committees by Executive that page are not repeated in the draft motion pressure on Government members. I believe in that discussion paper, nor in the sessional that the only pressure that has ever been orders motion which we are debating today. exerted on the operation of the committees of However, they are worthy of note. I will make which I have been a member has been clear what those broad, suggested guidelines exerted by the Opposition leadership for purely are. Firstly, that the procedure be available to political purposes because, despite the fact individuals and corporations; secondly, that that its members on those committees were the procedures relate only to statements wanting to reach unanimous decisions in made in the House and be available only in committee, the Opposition had a political circumstances in which the statements can position it wanted to take and it would not reasonably be considered actionable in a court allow its members to agree. of law had they been made outside the House; thirdly, that the Privileges Committee In the last few moments I have to speak, consider the submissions and in doing so I will dwell on the citizen's right to reply. With adopt the practice of not attempting to respect to this matter, I must say that I and determine the truth or otherwise of the initial the Leader of the Opposition have some allegation or subsequent response—that third measure of agreement. But it only goes to the element is, of course, in the sessional extent that I share the concern, which I think order—and, fourthly, that the rules covering every member of this House might justifiably the content of replies be similar to those for a 21 March 1995 11162 Legislative Assembly member making a personal explanation, that the Government, as opposed to coming up is, they must be succinct and strictly relevant with something that was workable and to the issue. acceptable to everybody. So it is no use the All of those principles are useful starting honourable member for Everton coming into points for the consideration of those matters. I this House and making the suggestion that it particularly emphasise the one that is not was in the court of the Leader of the incorporated in the sessional order formally, Opposition to come up with something that is, the requirement that the procedure workable some time ago, because when a relate to those cases where the statements proposal is presented as a fait accompli before might reasonably be actionable outside the any committee, and particularly if there has House. For example, if a member in the been no consultation and no attempt to reach common ground, it is rejected by people on House makes a criticism based upon a proved this side and that is precisely what the Leader fact or something that is an established fact of the Opposition did. He has the support not and accepted as true by everyone in the only of his front bench but also his entire back community, then it seems to me to be bench. pointless that the person who is damned by that truth should have a right of reply simply Today, we are witnessing a travesty of because the truth about them is reported in parliamentary procedure. In our view, this is the Parliament. However, all other things being another step by this Government to subjugate equal, where it has not been proved in a court the Parliament to the will of the Executive. of law or established in some other form, that They are clearly the actions of a Government right of reply should be allowed. that is worried. The member for Everton suggested that the Opposition was out of Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—Deputy touch, worried and had given up before the Leader of the Liberal Party) (3.55 p.m.): I will game is started. How utterly and totally untrue. contribute briefly to this debate and I say from The major reason the Government is resorting outset that I support totally the contributions to introducing an order such as the one we are made by the previous three speakers from this debating is that the Government is worried. It side of the House. I have never heard such is worried about the effectiveness of repetitive diatribe as that which we have just Opposition questioning and it is worried heard from the honourable member who because there will soon be an election. This preceded me. It seem that when the procedural order seeks to reduce the Government is on a losing argument, its effectiveness of Opposition questioning. If the members repeat themselves in personal Government was fair dinkum about achieving abuse against speakers such as the its often-stated goal, as repeated in this honourable Leader of the Opposition, who debate by members opposite, why did it not made perfectly good sense when he move for the amendment of Standing Orders condemned the lack of action of this by granting to each backbencher the Government in relation to the Standing Orders opportunity to put a question on notice? If the Committee. It is no use the honourable Government believes that the Opposition is so member who has just spoken saying that this ineffective under the current form of Parliament had to act because the Leader of questioning, why not leave us to our own the Opposition refused to give his support to ineffectiveness? Why not very simply amend exactly the same proposal when it came Standing Orders so as to allow every before the Standing Orders Committee, backbench member to put a question on because it is obvious that the Leader of the notice every day? Opposition finds it totally objectionable today and he rose in his place and said so. He Mr Welford: That's what we're doing. obviously found it totally objectionable when it Mr SANTORO: I take that interjection. came before the Standing Orders Committee. That is not what the Government is doing. It is He was well within his rights at that time to doing that by this procedural amendment, but object to it and he did so. Nothing magical has it is also curtailing the effectiveness of the happened since the time when, in the true questioning that is occurring at the moment. It spirit of bipartisanship, the Standing Orders is doing two things. It is destroying the system Committee should have got together and tried of questioning that exists at the moment and it to work out a solution that was sensible and is implementing a system of questioning that acceptable to everybody on both sides of the suits the Government. The reason it suits the House. That particular committee, for whatever Government is that it is an election year and reason—and only cynical people would the whole concept of "temporary", as suggest this and I suppose that I am reflecting expressed and defined in this debate, is a the views of cynical people—wanted to please facade. It is only temporary—— Legislative Assembly 11163 21 March 1995

Mr Quinn interjected. Parliament, show consideration for our Mr SANTORO: I take the interjection backbenchers and not the two appointed from the honourable member for Merrimac. It people—the Whip and the Deputy Whip of the hides the logs—the incompetence that is Labor Party—who never once in this place manifested every day by Ministers as they have given way to the rest of the Government attempt to answer even the simplest of back bench. questions. They bumble and they fumble and Mr Quinn: The invisible back bench. want somebody else to get them out of it. Try Mr SANTORO: I take that interjection— as they may, they never quite succeed. the invisible back bench. The other point that The whole concept of this procedure has been raised in this place is the interstate being temporary is rejected by this side of the experience of questions on notice. House. It is simply a convenient ploy to protect Government members have said that more the Government during the sensitive period of questions are asked in other Parliaments than an election year and an election campaign. All are asked in this place. The question that we I can say is that if the Government is really fair must ask is, why in this place is the figure dinkum about wanting to amend question down to as low as 2.1 questions per day? time, it has had six years in which to do it. As Again, that is not because of a problem with the member for Beaudesert has said, the the Opposition or because of a problem with Government has come into this place the present Standing Orders. It lies in the proclaiming that it is a reforming Government, problem of Ministers rising and answering yet it has taken an election year to do this. questions in a longwinded and filibustering The Government knows that we have only way, which means that question time in this another three weeks or four weeks of sittings place is not fulfilled in the way that the spirit of in this place before we go to the people, and it the Standing Orders intends it to be fulfilled. knows that the Opposition is going to question That is the major reason why the number of it on the tough issues, such as the closure of questions on notice asked in this place is so hospital wards, the closure of police stations low in comparison with the number of and the downfall in all areas of Government questions on notice asked in other States. service delivery. The Government does not like Of course, throughout this whole debate, that because it believes that the Opposition's the Opposition has been leading up to the argument is beginning to bite. It is right; it is precise question: what is the role of beginning to bite. The Opposition is not going Parliament? I have heard some arguments to submit to this facade. It is not going to put by Government members and by other agree that the Government needs to be people in this place that one of the major protected. It will not support this procedural reasons why questions can be excluded from amendment. It is just not on. Hansard is the cost. I say that there is no more I listened to some previous speakers tell permanent record of what happens in this us how we on the Opposition side, particularly place than Hansard, and Ministers should be on the front bench, deprive our backbenchers eventually and essentially accountable to of opportunities to speak. providing the answers to questions, whether Mr Welford: You in particular. they are on notice or without notice, asked in this place. It is in this place that the whole Mr SANTORO: Day after day, the accountability process must essentially come pattern is never broken in that the Whip and to rest, not within the Clerk's office, not within the Deputy Whip of the Labor Party ask the the Bills and Papers Office—respectable as questions. Where are the opportunities given those offices and officers may be; I am casting to Government backbenchers by those two no aspersion on them. Eventually and people who hold official positions? Day after essentially the whole process of accountability day, never once do they give way to the ALP must find its solace within this place. I do not back bench. It does not matter how much time accept that the cost of producing a slightly is consumed, particularly on Tuesday, by the larger Hansard as a result of the incorporation longwinded answers of Ministers. I ignored the of answers to questions on notice should be honourable member for Everton when he said used as a reason to exclude the incorporation to me, "You in particular." However, let me of those answers in Hansard. remind members of the many times that Mr Lingard and I, as the deputies of our own If members of the Executive Government parties, give way not just to our own shadow and members of the Ministry are fair dinkum ministerial colleagues but also to our back about reducing the cost of incorporating bench when the need exists. We are the ones answers in Hansard, they should make sure who, within the practical workings of this that their answers are relevant, that they do 21 March 1995 11164 Legislative Assembly not try to hide the truth—as these days they placed on Mr Peter Beattie, the Chairman of so often do within an incredible amount of the Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee, meaningless verbiage—and that they give the when he, as a very ethical chairman of that Opposition proper answers. That is the answer committee, was subjected to enormous to the question about the cost of incorporating pressure to do the bidding of Executive many answers in Hansard and instead Government. Government members know providing them to some other officers of the that, time after time, that occurred. So let us Parliament, not the officers who help us run not have it from the honourable member for this Parliament. Everton or from other Government members It is not on that the answers are available that it is Opposition members who seek to to the press and to other people who make influence the due process and the integrity of inquiries. There is nothing more immediate to parliamentary committees. After all, it is the the press than an answer to a question that is Government members who control the presented in this place during question time numbers on those committees and it is when most of the members of the press Government members—the latest example gallery are, in fact, listening to what is being the Public Works Committee—who use happening. Government members may not partisan means to come up with partisan like what I am saying, but it is the truth. results from the deliberations of committees. Eventually and essentially it is in this place that Mrs Woodgate: Oh, rubbish! the Ministers and the Government should be Mr SANTORO: I take the interjection accountable. from whoever said that it was rubbish. The When one looks at the way in which the public record speaks for itself. It is available to Standing Orders Committee has been treated, everybody and all the intelligent, expert I concur totally with other Opposition members commentators on the workings of this place who have said that the treatment of that understand clearly that what I am saying is the committee, or the lack of meetings, is again truth. They will continue to write it up in that representative of the attitude of this way and eventually it will sink in to Government towards the whole committee Government members that the respect that system. I heard the honourable member for they show for the system of parliamentary Everton have the hide to suggest that one of committees cannot be measured because it four reports of the committee which he chairs just simply does not exist. was not unanimous because of interference Earlier, when the whole issue of by the Leader of the Opposition. telecasting Parliament came up, I listened with Mr Welford: I said, "Let me be the last great interest to an exchange between the to say that." Leader of the House and the Leader of the Mr SANTORO: I take that interjection. Liberal Party. I support the telecasting of In a facile, cynical, sarcastic and meaningless Parliament, because I agree with other way, the member tries to cover himself, as he members on both sides of this House that the usually does. I should say that, always broadcasting of Parliament would lead to a unsuccessfully, the member tries to qualify his more decorous performance by all members inane comments and invariably he has egg within this place. Again, that exchange was and embarrassment on his face. another disgraceful attempt by members opposite to personalise the debate, to seek to Let me remind Government members of render it meaningless and bring it down to a the time when the full weight of Executive common denominator, something that Government came to weigh very heavily on members on this side of the House will neither the shoulders of the Chairman of the Public participate in nor cooperate with. Accounts Committee when he was forced to renege on the unanimous conclusions and I said that I would not take up my entire findings of his own committee only to be time during this debate. As I am always true to reminded by members of his committee of my word, I am about to conclude. The what his committee's report was. He had the Opposition absolutely rejects that this decency, and certainly in my eyes and in the sessional order is the way to achieve what the eyes of other members of the Opposition he Government and members opposite want to distinguished himself when he, in fact, achieve. reversed his public statements and decided to Mr Welford: What's your solution? support the committee. Mr SANTORO: I will tell the honourable I urge honourable members to refresh member what my solution is. My solution is their memories of the pressure that was that, if the Government is fair dinkum about Legislative Assembly 11165 21 March 1995 giving back benchers their 40 questions per was one which involved accountability of those day, or whatever number of questions is commissions to the Parliament by their possible, I suggest that the Government leave parliamentary committees. the Standing Orders as they are and amend The point is that the role of Parliament in them to the extent that every backbench making laws, in making the Executive member of the Parliament on both sides of accountable and in determining the the House will be allowed to ask a question on expenditure of public money is fundamental to notice. I suggest that those answers should be the rights and liberties which we enjoy as provided within a reasonable time. In individuals. But it must be said that the concurrence with other members on this side institution of Parliament does not go through of the House, I suggest that 30 days is a history in a pristine, unchanged state. Each ridiculous response time. That is how the generation must reinvent the Parliament to Government gives effect to its major make it relevant to modern times. arguments in favour of this sessional order. I point out to the honourable member for As I listened to the debate throughout Everton that this is my solution. I do not think the day and heard the arguments advanced that any reasonable member would argue with by the Opposition, I was struck by the tender it. irony of an Opposition arguing against the availability of additional questions during Mr Welford: What about questions question time. What a deep embarrassment it without notice? must be for the supporters of the once proud Mr SANTORO: We want questions Liberal Party in Brisbane to have its advocates without notice to stay precisely as they are, standing here without a blush of because that is the way in which we have embarrassment passing across their faces been keeping the Government honest and arguing against additional questions being accountable. That is the crux of this debate. permitted in question time! Their argument is The Government wants to hide and does not the argument for business as usual. If there is want to be accountable, in particular during one thing we know from this debate, it is that this very sensitive election year. We will do our business as usual is by no means the best of very best to keep it accountable. Being as all possible worlds. bankrupt as it is of any morality in relation to This is a reform. Throughout the world these issues, I am sure that we will succeed in different parliaments try different ways to that attempt. ensure that question time is meaningful and Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—Minister contributes to the public life of their for Employment, Training and Industrial jurisdictions. This is an attempt to ensure that Relations) (4.13 p.m.): I rise to support the we in Queensland make reforms to ensure motion. This reform is part of a long process of that this institution remains relevant. Times repairing the damage to the institution of change, workplaces change, families change Parliament done during the Bjelke-Petersen and societies change, and Parliament must era. It is part of a process of attempting to change with them if it is to remain relevant. restore this Parliament to its rightful place at Let me turn to several matters contained the centre of debate on matters of public in the motion. The provision for additional importance to the Queensland people. questions on notice will be strongly welcomed, It is a process that dates back to the I am sure, by all backbench members of the reforms recommended by Commissioner Government. I well remember in the previous Fitzgerald in 1989. Central to that report and Parliament the difficulties in ensuring that to the endemic corruption which that report matters of topical relevance to one's own found was the need to restore this House to its electorate could be aired at the time when central role in public affairs—the need to they were relevant to issues of the day. restore accountability of the Executive to the Mr FitzGerald: Thirty days later. Legislature. When one reads the Fitzgerald report, it is important to remember that the Mr FOLEY: I hear the honourable vehicles set up in the wake of that member for Lockyer referring to the 30-day report—namely the Electoral and rule. I would have thought that that is a Administrative Review Commission and the necessary consequence of dramatically Criminal Justice Commission—were not ends extending the range of questions capable of in themselves but were means to an end, that being asked. One really wonders at the logic end being the restoration of a healthy of the Opposition that it is driven to such parliamentary democracy. The structure that modes of argument. Of course there will need Mr Fitzgerald, as he then was, recommended to be some further time. If one is to allow 21 March 1995 11166 Legislative Assembly every member of Parliament to ask a question That is, I think, something which every day, this will take a little more time. But Parliaments around the world have tried to the trade-off is the tremendously enhanced grapple with. There is no easy solution to the opportunity for each member of Parliament problem of reconciling the privilege of free representing his or her constituency to ask the speech with the rights of individuals to be free Executive about matters of importance, either from defamation, but this mechanism is a in the general public interest or of interest to serious attempt to strike that reasonable his or her electorate. I would have thought that balance. This Parliament is a place for the that is a small price to pay and one that will be debate of matters of public importance and welcomed well and truly by Opposition back public interest, for ensuring that the great benchers who grace question time all too debates of our time are conducted in a way seldom in this House. which is representative of all interests in the That having been said, I think that the community and not merely conducted through motion has a message for all of us, both in the the organs of the mass media, who may Opposition and in the Government. In the represent only a very limited proportion of our Government, the provision of general rules for community. So this function of Parliament as answers reminds Ministers that answers are to being a place of wide-ranging debate must be be relevant to the question and that matters protected, but in the process individuals can are not to be debated in answers. From time be hurt. This is, I think, an important attempt to time, we all need to be reminded of the to ensure that there is some redress of importance of following these rules. I hope grievance. that that message is driven home to members In conclusion, I make the point that these of the Opposition. Also, the provisions dealing are reforms to the letter of the Standing with rules for questions provide that questions Orders. For real progress, we need continuous shall be brief, relate to one issue and shall not improvement not only in the letter but also in contain arguments inferences, imputations or the spirit of Parliament. Reforming the letter of hypothetical matters. the law is an important step in ensuring a Under the Bjelke-Petersen regime, we better spirit in the Parliament, and for that saw how Parliament could be damaged by an reason, I strongly support the motion and arrogant, overbearing Government. It is encourage all members of the House to do equally true that Parliament can be damaged likewise. by an arrogant, rabblerousing Opposition that Dr WATSON (Moggill) (4.24 p.m.): It fails to respect the dignity of the institution of gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise to the Parliament. I respectfully submit to the speak on the changes to the sessional orders House that in this motion there are matters moved by the Leader of the House. After which both sides of the House could well take listening to the contributions by some note of if we are to raise our game to a level Government members, I wonder whether they that the Queensland people expect of us. were really listening to what the Leader of the Finally, let me turn to the reform relating Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party, to matters of parliamentary privilege. As the the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Chairman of the Parliamentary Privileges Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party said. The Committee in the previous Parliament, this central thrust of their argument was that this matter did cause me some trouble. The right was a political stunt; that there was no attempt of free speech in the Parliament was a right to use the existing instrument of the House, that was hard won indeed, and the English the Standing Orders Committee, to address Civil War some three centuries ago burnt into this issue. Government members harked back the consciousness of the English-speaking to the previous Parliament. The affairs of the peoples the need to ensure that people may Standing Orders Committee of the previous speak freely in Parliament without fear of Parliament are irrelevant to this Parliament. being called into question in the courts of the The critical issue is the role that the Standing land. That is important because of the role Orders Committee could have played in this that the Parliament plays in those three particular Parliament. areas—the making of laws, the accountability of the Executive to Parliament and in the The question that needs to be addressed expenditure of public moneys. But it happens is whether or not this is a genuine attempt to all too frequently that individuals can have introduce—or to trial, as the member for their reputations damaged in the course of Brisbane Central and other members have that debate, and the mechanism which has said—some changes to the sessional orders been proposed is an attempt to provide some or whether it is just a political stunt leading up remedy. to the next election. I suggest to the Leader of Legislative Assembly 11167 21 March 1995 the House that, if he is serious and if he is not provisions but simply by adding another being disingenuous, then he will accept the alternative. The alternative is this: if a member reasonable proposals which I have put forward wants to forego his or her question without and which I have circulated in the Chamber. I notice by placing a question on notice during formally move the following amendments— question time, that question will be answered "1. Standing Order 67A Questions to on the next sitting day. What is wrong with Ministers that? If a member asks a question without notice and if the answer turns out to be more Add at the end— complex than expected or the member needs 'A Member may ask during Question a slightly more detailed answer, that member Time a question on notice for the next should be able to say, "I forgo my right to a day of sitting, in lieu of a question without question without notice and place that notice'. question on notice." The Minister can then 2. Standing Order 67E Notice of answer the question the next day. That is no Questions different from the current procedure, and it seems to me to be a reasonable suggestion. Second paragraph, third line, omit '30', insert '14'. My second amendment is to proposed Standing Order 67E—the third line of that 3. Standing Order 69 General Rules for paragraph—and changes the response time Answers from 30 days to 14 days. I have heard Add the following sub-paragraphs— members get up in this House and say, "Look, '(iv) Notwithstanding standing order 69(iii) no-one expects it to take 30 days for an an answer shall not be longer than 3 answer; we all expect the answer to come a minutes; little faster than that." This is a trial period, so we should set a realistic time, and that time is (b) If a Minister requests a question be not 30 days. That would be okay for this placed on notice it is to be answered sitting, because we are sitting for two weeks at the next day of sitting'. and we will be sitting again in May—in more 4. Standing Order 70 Questions not put than 30 days' time. However, we sit again on to Speaker 23 May and go through to early June. Omit 'Questions may not be put to the Potentially we would have finished that sittings Speaker' and insert 'A question on notice before we get any answers to questions on may be put to the Speaker relating to any notice. matter of administration for which he is The member for Everton spoke about the responsible'." scrutiny of Government. If Government I want to address some of those amendments members are really talking about that, then and some aspects of the motion moved by during that Budget period they ought to be the Leader of the House. prepared to have questions put on notice and to have Ministers answer them within a The Leader of the Opposition did not reasonable time frame of 14 days so that they suggest that there was no merit in the can be used again in the Estimates committee proposals presented by the Leader of the process or in the parliamentary process. What House. All members acknowledge that the is the Government hiding from? When it procedures of the House ought to be comes to the Budget period and Estimates changed. The point that was made by the committees, why does the Government want Leader of the Opposition is that there has to say that a question on notice does not have been no consultation. If the Government is to be answered for 30 days? Why do Ministers serious about changing parliamentary not just answer the questions? procedure, it should sit down with the Opposition and try to come up with something Mr Littleproud: These are the people that is acceptable to both sides of the House. who shut down Parliament after bringing down the Budget. Let us assume for the moment that the Leader of the House is serious; that we have Dr WATSON: That might be right. Then here a serious attempt to make the it would not matter whether they had 30 days procedures of the House work a little better. I or 30 minutes to answer a question. Under have suggested some amendments that those circumstances, any time would be too would enhance this proposal even further. For long. That is the question that has to be example, in the first instance, I have asked. Why do we not have a reasonable time suggested that Standing Order 67A should be period? It does not matter when the adjusted not by changing its present Parliament is dissolved for the next election. 21 March 1995 11168 Legislative Assembly

Government Ministers will never be able to time to time Ministers ask for questions to be satisfy everyone by providing answers to their put on notice—and it is agreed that the questions, but at least the Government could question be put on notice, it ought to be be a bit more honest and say that its intention answered the next sitting day. The would be to answer those questions within a Government's proposed sessional orders do reasonable period. not refer to a Minister who wants a question to I accept that it would be unreasonable to be put on notice—if it is agreed to by the expect details to be provided within one day if member asking the question—having to 50 or 60 questions had been put on notice in answer that question the next sitting day. The one day. Along with everyone else, I would only provision is that the question must be accept that. Thirty days is too long. Under answered in 30 days because it has been put those circumstances, the onus is not placed on notice. That is a particular weakness that back on the Executive to answer questions ought to be addressed. and, in the context of the parliamentary sitting My final suggested amendment provides period, it does not get the question answered for questions on the administration of the within an appropriate time frame. Parliament being put to the Speaker needing When it comes to question time, the to be on notice. The member for Everton thing that drives everyone crazy and makes mentioned the House of Representatives. If the Government less accountable is not the he looked at the Standing Orders of the way that the questions are structured, by House of Representatives, my dear colleague either Opposition or Government members— would find that the Speaker can be asked a even though I am sure that sometimes that question without notice concerning the could be improved—the abuse of question administration of the Parliament. As members, time comes from the length of Ministers' we ought to be able to ask the Speaker a answers. Ministers often filibuster because question about the running of the Parliament. they do not want to be asked another I agree that, to maintain the decorum of the question, or senior Ministers filibuster so that House, the Speaker should not be asked other Ministers do not get cross-examined. questions without notice, that any question to That is the abuse of question time. If the the Speaker should be given only on notice. Government is going to restructure question That would give him a reasonable time to time, that central issue needs to be investigate the issue and also ensure that the addressed. At the moment that is not being Speaker is not put in a politically invidious addressed. That issue is addressed in my third position during question time. I accept that amendment. position. I think that it is appropriate that the Speaker be given a reasonable amount of Of course, sometimes Ministers filibuster time in which to answer questions. However, I right from the word go. In those do not accept that a member of this place circumstances, the Speaker ought to be given should be barred from asking of the Speaker a the discretion to sit the Minister down question about the administration of the place straightaway. It does not matter whether the in which we all serve. I do not think that that is Speaker believes it or not, we have to put the being sufficiently accountable. responsibility on the Minister that he or she has to give a relevant answer in a precise One has to think that the issue that has fashion. That is what my proposed Standing been placed before us is a political stunt Order 69(iv) is designed to achieve. From that, because, if Government members were really the expectation is that a Minister ought to be interested in reforming the Standing Orders of able to answer a question in three minutes or this place, they would ask a far wider set of less. They do not need to ramble on. They do questions than those that have resulted in the not need dorothy dixers that go on for 10, 15 motion put forward by the Leader of the or 20 minutes. They do not need a Premier or House. any other Minister to ramble without Mr Welford: Will you vote with us if we addressing the central issue in the question. If accept your amendments? Government members want to address Dr WATSON: Yes. If the Leader of the question time, they have to put the House accepts all of my amendments, I will responsibility on the Executive to ensure that vote for the package. answers are relevant and concise. That is what my amendment endeavours to achieve. Mr Welford: Not all of them. Finally, while talking about Standing Dr WATSON: All of them. If Order 69, my amendment (v) proposes that if Government members are serious about a Minister cannot answer a question—from changing the sessional orders, they will accept Legislative Assembly 11169 21 March 1995 these amendments. It is only a trial period; if they be given to introduce Bills and have them they do not like it, they can change it. They debated? If the Government is really talking have got the numbers in the place; what are about reforming the Standing Orders of this they worried about? place in a serious way—in a way that is A Government member: Nothing. designed to make this place function better and a way that is designed to ensure that the Dr WATSON: Then the Government Executive and the bureaucracy are ought to be willing to accept the changes that accountable to this place on behalf of the I have suggested. If Government members people—then those are the issues that ought want to address the issue of the Standing to be addressed. Orders, they ought to have a committee—I would suggest a backbench committee of The Government cannot blame the equal Government and Opposition Leader of the Opposition and other members numbers—— on this side of the House who say that this is a political stunt designed to do something Mr Beattie: Equal numbers? before an election. If it is not a political stunt, Dr WATSON: Yes, equal numbers, the Government will accept these reasonable because both sides are in the House. It is an amendments. If it is not a political stunt, it will appropriate time for a committee of equal set up a backbench committee of equal representation to actually look at the Standing numbers to address the Standing Order issue. Orders and bring forward a proposal that could But if it is a political stunt, this Government will be debated in this place. Again, if the reject everything that has been put forward— committee presents proposals not to the all those concepts—and there will be a division Government's liking, the Government has got of the House, in which Government members the numbers and any proposal would not be will vote without any consideration of the adopted. It seems to me that, in that situation, Opposition's amendments or the it is appropriate to have a committee of equal reasonableness of those amendments and will representation. end up voting against them. So that is the Let us examine the issues. For example, challenge—it is either a political stunt, or not. let us look at the sitting times and the pattern The Opposition has offered reasonable of sitting. Why do we run our parliamentary amendments. The Government should accept business today in the same way that it has them, if it is game. always been run? Before I came to this place, Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (4.42 p.m.): when Labor was in Opposition, I know that its It is with pleasure that I second the members criticised previous Governments amendment moved by the honourable about how the place was run. Why do we not member for Moggill. I have had discussions come up with something? Is it beyond our wit with the honourable member on some to come up with a reasonable set of proposals proposed amendments to the motion before upon which we can have agreement across the House. I have made some contribution to the House? We should look at the times we those amendments, and I totally support the start and finish. We should look at the way package that has been put to this House by and the order in which legislation is debated. the Opposition as a very reasonable package We should look at when ministerial statements so that we can get bipartisan support for the are made in relation to question time. All of recommendations that have been made to those issues are central to running this House. the House. I believe that these are only minor They are issues that we should be able to deal amendments to the motion moved by the with. Leader of the House to put in place a Mr Laming: Maybe it should go to a sessional order. As the member for Moggill committee. said, if the Leader of the House is quite Dr WATSON: That is what I suggested. genuine in his attempt to trial something that I thank the member for Mooloolah for is completely different from what we have reinforcing that point. been used to, it is well worthy of a trial if the Government accepts the Opposition's The member for Bundaberg spoke about amendment. the extra time that private members have in this place. That is an issue that we should It is very reasonable that a member address even more. How much time should should be able to ask for a detailed answer to private members or, if one likes, backbench a question if he or she forgoes asking the members—non-Executive Government question without notice. The Leader of the members—have to speak in this House, and Opposition has proposed that the sessional on what issues? What opportunities should orders contain a provision that members of the 21 March 1995 11170 Legislative Assembly

House can ask one question each every day, notice. I know that, in good faith, the Leader except for the Leader of the Opposition, who of the House has asked that it be 30 days. In has the right to ask two questions. I believe New South Wales it is 35. In other places that all members should have the right to there is no time limit. Generally, answers are forgo that right to ask for a detailed answer on provided within about four weeks when no the next day of sitting. It is not unusual for a time limit is set. There is no time limit in the member to seek details on some matter and Federal Parliament. In some States, after two not want to wait 30 days for an answer. A calendar months a member has the right to Minister may not be expected to be rise in the House and draw to the attention of competent to answer a question in detail. The the Speaker that he or she has not received backbencher, the private Government an answer to a question. member or the private Opposition member This is going to be a bit of a suck-it-and- may want the facts, so he or she can forgo the see exercise as to how many questions will be right to ask a question. Of course, the member asked. The Minister says that 3,500 questions must get the call. That is not a right that every could be asked in a year, because there are member has. Members must get the call of 35 non-Executive members on this side of the the Speaker or the cooperation of the Whip to House and there are about 35 on the put them on the list, and then they can forgo their questions without notice, and those Government side—about 70 members. If they all asked a question every day, obviously the questions are placed on notice through the departmental officers would have problems. I Speaker, as at present. That would be very understand that, in 1993, this system was tried reasonable. in New South Wales. I understand that 2,062 Likewise, there is a parallel. A Minister questions on notice were asked for that might not wish to answer a question without particular year. In 1994, 1,785 questions on notice straightaway; it might be too detailed, or notice were asked—a substantial number of the Minister may require a more accurate questions. Last year in Western Australia, briefing on the matter. I see no harm in a 3,117 questions on notice were asked. Minister asking that a question be placed on the notice paper. I have no problem with that. In Victoria, members can ask many more It is far better to have an accurate, concise questions than they can in New South Wales answer delivered the next day of sitting rather or Western Australia. In Victoria, the Leader of than a rambling tirade from a Minister who is the Opposition is allowed to put four questions trying to defend a position he knows nothing on notice every day, and every other member about. I have seen this happen amongst of the House can put three questions on Ministers from all parties. I am not only critical notice every day. That does not require the of Ministers of this Government; I am critical of call of the Speaker; they are lodged with the previous National Party and Liberal Party Clerk. Last year, there were 26 questions on Governments. I have seen Ministers get up notice in Victoria. My advice is that there was and belly-ache and carry on with answers that no Government action to curtail the number of just fill in time and contribute nothing to questions on notice; it was just that members debate in the House or the knowledge of the did not take that opportunity. So even though House. It would be more constructive if a nearly 2,000 questions were asked in New Minister said, "I ask that the question be South Wales, in Victoria, which has a more placed on notice." It is a historical fact that generous system, there were only 26. I do not some of the best Ministers we have had in this know why members did not take that place in years gone by were those who did not opportunity. Government members should talk try to answer questions without notice; they to their Labor mates, who are in Opposition in asked that the question be placed on notice Victoria. During the previous year in Victoria, so they could give a more accurate answer the only 128 questions were put on notice—under next day. They very rarely got into any trouble a more generous system than that offered with the press or their constituencies. That here. became a reasonable answer for a Minister to The Leader of the House does not know give. He or she was always able to give a what workload he is creating for departmental more accurate answer. In the past, I think it officers. On behalf of most members of the was always a he, because we did not have House, I suggest that whereas we want many female Ministers. I think Yvonne accurate answers to our questions, I hope we Chapman was the first in Queensland. could get them within a week, if possible. The The member for Moggill spoke about Government could easily explain that there will whether it should be 30 days or longer or less be a delay because there have been 70 for answers to be provided to questions on questions a day, especially if one department Legislative Assembly 11171 21 March 1995 is being targeted or a lot of information is Mr Mackenroth: Could you imagine if being sought from a particular department. the Speaker in this Parliament did that? You We would not expect extra officers to be people would whinge like you wouldn't believe brought in to cope with that workload, which it. may not exist for very long. That would be a Mr FITZGERALD: Kerry Burke was a legitimate explanation. I believe that the test very good Speaker and a culture must have of the good faith of the Government in developed in previous Parliaments, because— introducing this sessional order will be if it tries and I could not believe it—when a Minister to provide the answers as quickly as was sat down, he did not try to get in an extra reasonably possible. If all the Ministers provide couple of sentences. The members of the their answers on the twenty-ninth day, it will be Opposition did not try to continue; they sat in seen for what it is—a stalling tactic. I hope the their places and said, "That is fair enough." Government does not use stalling tactics. We That is the culture that had developed. will wait and see how the Government handles it. I would like to see "14 days" instead of "30 We are not too bad in this House. days". After a trial, it will require only one Sometimes we complain about rough motion and it will be accepted. treatment in question time, but one has only to look to the Federal Parliament to see how Government backbenchers and rough question time can be. I suggest a trial of Opposition backbenchers often complain Ministers' answers being limited to three about the length of time that Ministers speak. minutes. The Honourable Leader of the House The coalition has provided some Ministers who would have no trouble with a three-minute set an excellent example of filling up time. limit. I do not know whether he has ever Who can forget Bob Katter filling up five, six or spoken for longer than three minutes when seven minutes at the end of question time? answering a question. I compliment him on Mr Cooper: He wasn't a patch on Matt the way he answers questions. Generally he Foley. gives a very concise answer. He gives the facts, then sits down. He is not like some of his Mr FITZGERALD: He was not a patch colleagues who get up on their hind legs. I am on the Honourable Minister for Employment, saying that a competent Minister can always Matt Foley; I know that. Mr De Lacy, the give an answer in three minutes. Any lengthy, Treasurer, is fairly good at going on with long, verbose statement is an admission that that rambling answers. It is a different case if person is incompetent and cannot think up a information is being hammered out, but concise answer. It is true that if a Minister does honourable members should not forget that I not know the answer, the answer is even am discussing questions without notice. How shorter. I believe that that should be given a on earth can a Minister give a long, detailed trial. Let us try it. The Leader of House said answer to a question without notice? If we are that the trial of the changes to the sessional going to have a fair dinkum trial, how about orders will be conducted for only a couple of trying to hold Ministers' answers down to three months—for the rest of this session. At this minutes? I know the Speaker has every right stage, there are not too many sitting days on to ask a Minister who is giving a lengthy the calendar. If the Budget is brought down, answer to sit down. Of course, under Standing we will debate the Estimates and during those Orders the Speaker has a lot of rights. hearings the time for questions is limited. So I I would like to compare our system with cannot see any reason why we cannot give the system I saw operating in New Zealand. I this a really decent trial. observed a question time under the Labor I do not understand why under Standing Speaker, Kerry Burke. It became the culture of Order No. 70 a question may not be put to the the New Zealand Parliament that the Speaker. I do not remember members of the questions to be asked were distributed about Opposition asking the Speaker too many 45 minutes before question time. Both the questions about his responsibilities. I do not Government's questions and the Opposition's see the sense in that change. I cannot questions were distributed and members knew remember Government backbenchers or what the six major questions for the day would members of the Opposition asking the be. Members had the opportunity to ask Speaker about a matter for which he has supplementaries across the Chamber. If the responsibility. Is something being covered up? Speaker thought the questions were being Why is this change being made? I think the repeated, or a Minister was starting to repeat option of asking a question of the Speaker himself or herself, he stood and said, "Next should remain in the Standing Orders, just in question." case someone really wanted to do so. We on 21 March 1995 11172 Legislative Assembly this side of the House have respect for the Legislative Assembly. I note the speech by the Speaker. I think we should have the right to Minister for Employment and Training. I stand ask a question on notice of Mr Speaker, and I by the right of members in the Parliament to do not know the Leader of the House's raise issues. Some members will be more intention in wanting to insert that sessional liberal with their right as a member to raise order. issues and, at present, members of the I would like to know what form the notice general public and people from companies of question paper will take. Under the present can ask for a right to have their side heard. I system, the list of questions placed on notice think we have to be very cautious in this is distributed to honourable members when regard. I think that the ruling made by Speaker they come into the Chamber so they know Powell is reasonable in regard to a letter being who is going to answer the question. sent to the Speaker and the Speaker having Honourable members also read the question the right to stand and say, "I received this that is going to be answered and if the letter from such and such a citizen" and read Minister does not table the answer, but that letter to the House without comment if he chooses to read it, as happened this morning, thought that that needed to be done. He members know what the question is. I may exercised his right as Speaker to do that and it have missed the point, but I do not think the was left at that. It was not debated, but the Leader of the House raised it. How are person's remarks were heard. They were members going to know what questions are limited as to how extensive they could be. placed on notice? Seventy members can ask They could not enter into debate, personal questions on notice. Those questions can be abuse or any of those things that we do not on the notice paper for 30 days. It would be want the general public to use in Parliament. ridiculous for me to ask a question about an Members are elected to this Parliament and alternative route up the range if the they have certain rights and privileges. The honourable member for Toowoomba had Parliament would not be a Parliament if we placed it on notice a week before, and it would threw away those rights and privileges. That is be silly for the member for Toowoomba South very important. to ask the same question two days after I had. Some members mentioned the former I need to know who is asking questions and member for Archerfield, the late Kev Hooper. when those questions are due to be Kev came in here and acted without fear or answered. I want to see an up-to-date list of favour. Generally, he began his speech, "I questions on notice, with questions being have it on good authority", which meant that it added as they are asked and removed as had turned up in a brown paper bag, and he they are answered. I do not think that those then went on with the latest expose. He questions will be printed in Hansard, because missed the mark many times, but he may if we have two weeks of sitting per month, have hit it a lot of times. I know that the questions for eight days of that month may member for Mount Ommaney is looking on possibly appear in Hansard. It is not printed with interest, because Kev Hooper may have every day and members need to know the hit the mark a number of times. questions that have been asked on notice. Mr Cooper: Mr Mackenroth had the We need a list of current questions on notice same feelings as Kev Hooper. to ensure that there is no doubling up. In my position as Leader of Opposition Business, I Mr FITZGERALD: Yes, Mr Mackenroth have to make sure that the members on this had the same feelings. Kev Hooper did that. side are alert and do not ask a question that a But members are elected to this place and member on the other side of the House has they had the right to disagree with his remarks. already asked. It has happened before. When They had the right to defend themselves if I was the Government Whip, I was given a they wanted to. I know that one late member question which I was ready to ask the Premier, may soon be joined by another member, but it when, lo and behold, the Leader of the will be up to the electorate to decide those Opposition asked the question before me. So issues. members have to have enough wit to say, I believe that we should be very, very "Aha, that question has been asked, therefore cautious in setting up a method by which the we will substitute another question or we will general public can debate a matter any time put a supplementary question." I believe that there has been an allegation made against a is very important. company. I can imagine what is going to In the sessional order motion that is happen. A couple of times a month the before the House, reference is made to Minister for Consumer Affairs cranks up a protection of persons referred to in the press release. That press release might be Legislative Assembly 11173 21 March 1995 about someone who is painting roofs or are from the Opposition front bench. So the spraying down the sides of houses back bench of the Opposition has very, very fraudulently, or someone who is ripping off little opportunity to partake in the little old ladies. It is a regular occurrence and parliamentary processes. the Minister feels motivated to warn the Mrs Edmond: Maybe they don't want general public about some terrible, fly-by-night to. company. If all of those fly-by-night companies demanded the right to come into this place Mr NUTTALL: Maybe they do not want and put forward their side of the story, it would that. Maybe part of the reason the Opposition be ridiculous. We are putting the Speaker in does not want its back bench to become the position in which he or she will have to involved in the parliamentary process is that decide whether the Minister for Consumer certain backbench members have significantly Affairs is stepping outside the parameters of more talent than the people on the front his ministerial responsibility and using this bench. Those members will not allow their Parliament to barrel somebody when he backbench colleagues to be involved in the should be doing it outside and running the risk process. If those members think I am wrong, of being taken to court. they should look at how many of their backbench colleagues are here now. We have I believe that this privilege could be numero uno. The member for Burdekin also abused. I am very, very cautious about the sunk like a stone when he went onto the back handing over of the rights of a member of bench. Parliament to a member of the public. I believe that the Speaker is going to be given As for the opportunity for people to ask the added responsibility of having to sort the questions during question time—when I first wheat from the chaff. There will be an came to this Parliament, it surprised me that expectation that all of these companies that one of the first things that happened was that are named by the Honourable the Minister for the Whip came to the new backbenchers and Consumer Affairs will have their day in said, "Look, this is the process. You will have Parliament. opportunities to ask questions in the Parliament. You will have opportunities to ask Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate) (5.02 p.m.): I questions that are relevant to your electorate." look at this debate today from the perspective That is exactly what we do. of a new member of the House. All the previous speakers in this debate have had As a result of the reforms that are being quite extensive experience as members of this put forward today, if we have only one House. As a new member, the Standing Rules question from each member, that doubles the and Orders are something that I continue to number of shadow Ministers who will have the learn more about every day. opportunity to ask questions without notice. That gives them a greater opportunity and it I was surprised and somewhat gives their back bench a greater opportunity to disappointed to find out who the Opposition ask questions. As members would recall, the speakers would be for this debate. We have only time the back bench of the Opposition heard from the Leader of the Opposition, the were able to ask questions in this Parliament Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy was when we as a Government allowed the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Opposition the entire question time in which to Leader of the Liberal Party. The list of ask questions. On both occasions, the Opposition speakers is indicative of what the Opposition struggled to ask 60 minutes' worth Opposition does to its back bench. It tries to of questions. suffocate its back bench; it does not allow its back bench to speak on many issues at all. The other reason the Opposition is The Opposition does not allow its back bench opposing this motion so strenuously is that to be involved in question time, and I believe some Opposition members, particularly the that that is part of the reason why the leadership, are keen to stay in the limelight. Opposition is opposing strongly these reforms They are keen to make sure that they are at that the Government wants to implement in the forefront on all occasions, and they are not this Parliament. keen to see other Opposition members perform in this Parliament. If one looks at the list of speakers for the Matters of Public Interest debate, one would Mr Vaughan: Except the member for see that, again, the majority of the Opposition Aspley. front bench spoke. I have the speakers' list for Mr NUTTALL: Yes, except the member the Adjournment debate, which will be held for Aspley. A lot has been said about later tonight. Again, two of the three speakers Government Ministers allegedly procrastinating 21 March 1995 11174 Legislative Assembly and lengthening their answers. One of the see whether they are working, and we can amendments put forward by the member for take it from there. Moggill is that answers be restricted to three Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly) minutes in length. In 1994, the number of (5.10 p.m.): The new sessional orders answers that were given to questions without proposed by this Labor Government will see a notice was 15.9. So if we say that 16 answers transfer of power from the Parliament to the are given over the period of an hour, that Executive arm of Government—the Ministers equates to approximately five minutes an of the State. We have seen this happen on a answer. So one really cannot say that number of occasions under this Government, Government Ministers procrastinate in their and it is exactly what is transpiring with the answers. I believe that the Ministers are amendments before the Parliament today. reasonably to the point. However, part of the reason Ministers take five minutes to answer a Therefore, I welcome and support question from the Opposition is that strongly the amendments moved by the Opposition members continue to interject member for Moggill and seconded by the when the answer is being given. They member for Lockyer. The amendments go continue to interject and they do not allow the some way to bringing back to this House some Minister to answer the question. During the of the powers of Ministers. The Government last sittings of this House, the Deputy Leader has said that it will reform question time. of the Coalition was thrown out for that very Obviously, an election is just around the reason—for not allowing Ministers to answer corner. However, these sessional orders have questions. So if the Opposition wants to ask not been referred to the Standing Orders more questions, I say that the easy answer is Committee. I understand that the Standing to allow the Minister to give a response. Orders Committee has not met during this term of Parliament. If that is the case, that is Another matter that I would like to touch pretty shameful and dreadful. on briefly is the process of presenting petitions. I think that one of the welcome Nevertheless, the amendments to the reforms, which so far has not been referred to Standing Orders moved in the form of in this debate, is the insertion of a new sessional orders by the Leader of the House Standing Order 238A, which states— are designed to take pressure off Ministers. If we examine the Standing Orders, we see that "A copy of every petition received by they go to the nub of the issue—to give the House is to be referred by the Clerk to Ministers some 30 days in which to reply to the appropriate responsible Minister who questions on notice. We know that it is much may forward a response to the Clerk for easier for Ministers to fob off questions without presentation to the House." notice than questions on notice. Questions on That response must be given within 30 days. notice often concern contentious issues. After The new Standing Order states further— 29 days, most of the contentiousness surrounding an issue has passed by and it "A copy of this response shall be becomes old hat—yesterday's news. This printed in Hansard and be supplied to the sneaky, little sessional orders proposal moved Member who presented the petition." by the Leader of the House, Mr Mackenroth, I think that is a very welcome reform. Far too will save the Government from many often petitions are presented in this House embarrassments. and, basically, they get lost in the system. This The issues addressed by questions on reform will certainly do away with that. notice will fade away during the 30-day As to the new wording of petitions—on response time. Clearly, this is an example of quite a number of occasions I have been the sort of scheme that the Government disappointed when, after listening to dreams up from time to time and in relation to representations from constituents, I have been which tries to pretend that it is assisting presented with an inaccurately worded petition Parliament and democratic processes. that cannot be presented to the Parliament. Mr Cooper interjected. People put a lot of work into preparing Mr BEANLAND: As the member for petitions. We are trying to simplify the process Crows Nest said, sometimes in politics 24 for presenting petitions to the Parliament so hours can be a long time. We are talking that it will be easier. about 30 days! The whole issue will be dead All in all, the reforms are good. They will and buried and will not be a source of be in place for a trial period. Certainly, at the embarrassment to the Government when an end of the trial period, they can be reviewed to answer is given. Legislative Assembly 11175 21 March 1995

I appreciate and support the Premier, only fronting up to the occasional amendments being proposed today. Under question time. Perhaps the next thing we will the amendments, when a question is put on see is some sort of roster system. notice—when a member decides to do that The point is that this will do nothing to instead of asking a question without notice—it improve the functioning of Parliament, to will be answered on the next day. That will improve the testing of Ministers or to make overcome the very glaring error in the Ministers and the Executive arm of sessional order proposals. Government more accountable to this place. Apart from the Leader of the Opposition, At the end of the day, that is what the public members will be able to ask only one question of Queensland want to see. Deep down, that each. A few moments ago, we heard a great is what I believe all members of Parliament deal from the member for Sandgate. However, want to see—an Executive arm of he did not inform us how many of the Government that is more accountable to the questions he has asked in this House were his Parliament. That will certainly not happen own questions and how many were dorothy under the proposed sessional orders. dixers supplied by Ministers. We always hear The Leader of the Opposition will have dorothy dix questions being asked by the opportunity to ask a supplementary Government members. question. That is what second questions were We have not heard how these sessional originally designed for, that is, as a follow-up orders will assist in the process of testing opportunity that members need to be able to Government Ministers. After all, in the test the Minister further, because the Minister Westminster system that is what question time has failed to answer appropriately the first is all about. It is about putting Government question or has tried to wriggle out of it. That Ministers to the test to ensure that they are provision will now apply only to the Leader of accountable to the Parliament of this State. the Opposition. Other members who have Not once has there been any attempt to legitimate reasons for asking a second indicate how that will be achieved. All we have question—and that occurs quite often—will not heard is that the sessional orders will allow be able to do so because the opportunity will more members to ask questions. That may or not be there. Clearly, the whole situation is may not be the case. one designed to provide benefits to the In the case of Government members, this Government and to assist Ministers. will simply mean that more members will ask In conclusion, I notice that the sessional dorothy dix questions. In the case of members orders will delete the prayer from the format for of the Opposition, this may or may not petitions. Once again, we are changing and provide—depending on Ministers—an tearing up symbols. We have heard a lot from opportunity for one or two additional members the Labor Party on other issues about to ask questions. And this may or may not symbols, yet one of the symbols is the prayer include backbenchers; it may include at the end of petitions. No indication has been members of the shadow Cabinet. That given as to the reason for its deletion. remains to be seen. But there are no Currently, the Standing Orders state that guarantees in this exercise at all. For the Ministers should report to this House in Leader of the House to try to pretend response to petitions. Generally, that has not otherwise is stretching the truth. happened in the past, and only time will tell These changes to sessional orders have whether it happens in the future. However, at arisen because the Government has failed to the end of the day I think we are worse off for take up any of the other propositions to reform the removal of the prayer. Another symbol of this House put forward over time by EARC and this Parliament and of this State will be the various standing committees. The Premier removed from petitions, something else for refuses to allow Parliament to be televised. which no reason has been given. The Kremlin is televised, as is every other Mr D'ARCY (Woodridge) (5.18 p.m.): Parliament around the globe, but not good old Today, I take the opportunity in this debate to Queensland. We cannot televise Parliament point out to the House the hypocrisy of the because the press and the folks at home may Opposition, the likes of which I have never see Government Ministers, in particular the before seen. The Opposition's resistance to Premier, in not such a good light. The Premier change has not altered. may wind up appearing like his Federal leader, I will relate to the House a bit of the the Prime Minister of this country, who has history of this Parliament. In the past, the become a part-time Prime Minister. Who Standing Orders governing question time in knows, we might end up with a part-time this place were the worst in Australia. Under 21 March 1995 11176 Legislative Assembly the Nationals, this Parliament had the worst not apply them in the Parliament. During this question time in Australia. Under the former debate, Opposition members have called for a Government, when I and most members meeting of the Standing Orders Committee. participated in question time, when asking a Such a meeting occurred in 1980-81, and the question on notice we had to stand up and committee of the time was prepared to read it out in full. The next day, the Minister change the rules in a similar fashion to that answered it by referring, for example, to proposed today. question No. 1. It was an absolute disgrace. I believe that the amendments moved by However, that procedure has changed the Opposition are merely a furphy. These significantly. changes are being offered to members I want to relate a story. In 1980-81, the opposite as an interim measure. The changes then National Party Speaker, Mr Muller, was will apply for a trial period to see whether they very anxious to ensure that his mark was left work. Although the proposed amendments on this Parliament. During the debate on this may contain a couple of reasonable motion, various members have referred to the provisions, they do not address the whole transfer of power that will occur under these problem. The proposed changes reflect the proposals regarding the Standing Orders measures that the former colleagues of Committee. In 1980-81, that committee was members opposite were prepared to accept as composed of the Premier, Joh far back as 1980. Anyone who saw Vince Bjelke-Petersen; the Deputy Premier, Llew Lester on his feet today would realise that he Edwards; the Leader of the Opposition, Mr has not understood the Standing Orders since Casey; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, he came into this place. myself; the Leader of the House, Claude I have referred to one occasion on which Wharton; the Liberal Party Chairman of an attempt was made to reform parliamentary Committees, Mr Miller; and the Speaker, Mr procedures. The National and Liberal Parties Muller. On that committee, the Government opposed those changes then, and it is well and truly had the numbers. disappointing that today they are opposing After several meetings of that committee measures that are designed to offer them which all members attended, it was proposed substantial benefits. It is sad to see the that there be a change to the Standing Orders continuing resistance to change displayed by regarding question time to allow questions to members opposite. be tabled in this Parliament—similar to the Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) proposal presented by the Government today. (5.22 p.m.): I rise to support the motion moved That proposal was accepted by the Standing by the Leader of the House to adopt sessional Orders Committee. It was accepted also by orders designed to bring about an the committee that Ministers could respond to improvement in the way this House conducts those questions in the Parliament. The only its business. Too often we hear talk of person who opposed that proposal was parliamentary and procedural reforms which Claude Wharton, the Leader of the House. just never happen. Even Harry Evans, the Those members who were here at that Clerk of the Senate, has said that all time—and it was 1981 by the time it was Parliaments are slow to change, but the brought forward—may remember that the changes we are debating today are evidence proposal was presented to the House. of a commitment to make this House work However, in the meantime—in company with better, to give all members greater his ally of that time, Des Booth—Claude opportunities to question and to guard against Wharton had approached the National Party unwarranted and unintentional abuse of the backbench members and convinced them that House's privilege, all of which makes the their Ministers were not capable of handling opposition to this motion very remarkable. themselves in the House under the proposed changes to question time. We know that question time is a valuable tool for discovering information and for making When the ballot took place in the Governments accountable. The method of Parliament—and the Standing Orders asking questions on notice has eaten into that Committee actually brought the Bill to the valuable time, and this Government is going to Parliament—it was a fiasco, because Claude redress that situation. Under the proposed had organised for the National Party back sessional orders, it will no longer be necessary bench and some of the Liberals to oppose to ask questions on notice in the House. those changes. So the changes were not Instead, they will be handed in to the Clerk instituted at that time, but the Standing Orders and questions and answers published in were so bad that the Clerk of the time could Hansard. There are two advantages attached Legislative Assembly 11177 21 March 1995 to this new system. First, it allows more time questions without notice. That is what we are for those valuable questions without notice. proposing here today. The Liberal Party More time means that more questions can be suggested that answers to questions on notice asked and the Government is made more should be printed in Hansard and in the daily accountable. All members on this side of the proofs and not be read to Parliament. That is Chamber have expressed their disbelief today what we are suggesting here today. The that this Opposition plans to reject this Liberal Party suggested that, as questions proposal, which gives them the opportunity to often seek detailed information, there should ask more questions and make this be neither a requirement nor expectation that Government more accountable. answers be provided on the next sitting day. The second advantage is that all That is what we are suggesting here today. It members will be permitted to ask at least one is indeed surprising that, considering that the question on notice each day. I suggest that proposals suggested today take up so many some members opposite try to remember of the Liberal Party's suggestions to EARC in when they last had an opportunity to ask a 1991, they should then choose to oppose this question. The way will now be open for them. motion. This amendment expands the rules regarding It is truly astonishing that the Opposition the asking of questions. As a result of the lack should be opposing these reforms, because of rules regarding the asking of questions, we question time is obviously a vital mechanism see members asking long-winded and for it to extract information from the Executive. complicated questions without notice— These reforms will give the Opposition greater questions which are designed more to give the opportunity to ask questions—more questions questioner an opportunity to gain political on notice and more questions without points rather than elicit answers. notice—and yet members opposite are Opposition members interjected. opposing it. These people opposite, who displayed an unhealthy reluctance to reform Ms SPENCE: The same questioner the performance of this Legislature and the then complains that the Minister's answers are scrutiny of the Executive during their 32 years too long or that the Minister has not answered in Government, have not shaken off the the question, and I hear the Opposition shackles of their past. The absolute lack of complaining of that right now. Perhaps they progressive policies of reformist zeal that ought to look at the way they ask the characterised them then remains with them if questions. they oppose these reforms today. Under these proposals, the new rules direct that questions should be brief, not As part of these reforms, as chairman of contain arguments, inferences, imputations or a committee, I will continue to be subjected to hypothetical matters; nor should they be questions on notice and, through them, will be unduly lengthy, express an opinion or ask for a answerable to the House. There is nothing legal opinion. Rules such as these are long wrong with that. The member for Beaudesert overdue to help ensure that members receive chose to use much of his speaking time today the information they want. All members who to yet again criticise the operations of the have taken part in this debate have expressed committees of this Parliament. May I say that I the shared sentiment that question time is a believe that the member for Beaudesert is a very important part of our Westminster-style hypocrite and he is also factually incorrect Parliament. In common with the Leader of the when he talks about some of the committees. House, who spoke earlier in today's debate, I The member for Beaudesert represents a am proud to be a part of the important reforms party that did nothing to promote the put forward today. committee system in this Parliament. He I note that chapter 4 of an EARC report continually publicly criticises the work of the published in December 1991 was devoted to Public Works Committee because on three the issue of question time. On page 51 of the occasions that committee has voted on party report, we have an extract from the Liberal lines. I think the member is trying to suggest Party's submission to EARC to improve that for that reason there is some political question time. I want to read a number of the interference in the workings of the committee. suggestions that the Liberal Party made to What the member for Beaudesert chooses to EARC at the time. The Liberal Party ignore is that, in the last five years, the Public suggested that questions on notice should be Works Committee has presented over 28 tabled only, thus removing the need for them reports to this Parliament, all of which have to be read into Hansard, consequently taking been unanimous. When his party was in up the time of members wishing to ask Government, the Public Works Committee 21 March 1995 11178 Legislative Assembly brought down only one report, and that was allow the majority of MLAs to represent their the report on the Wolffdene Dam, and that electorates more effectively. These changes was not a unanimous report. I understand that will especially help backbenchers to represent there was a dissenting report. So, when his their electors by giving them greater ability to party was in Government, there was only one ask questions which are relevant to local report from a Parliamentary Public Works issues. Currently, there are time constraints on Committee. It was split along party lines and our question time, and there are about 70 there was a dissenting report. members, both non-Government and During the Labor Party's term in Government who are not Ministers of the Government, there have been more than 28 Crown, who are able to ask a Minister a reports, all of which have been unanimous. question, but because of the time constraints, The fact that on three occasions four the number is limited to a very few from each members of the committee voted one way side. and three members of the committee voted The proposed changes will give each of another way does not at all suggest political us the ability to ask one question on notice interference, it suggests that, after extensive each day. It is true that this process could be briefings on a particular issue, four like-minded abused. If Opposition members decided to people felt one way and three like-minded flood a Minister's office each day with 35 people another way. That does not necessarily questions, this would create a log jam, and the suggest political interference. Indeed, I would Minister's offices could find the workload so ask the member for Beaudesert to consider heavy that this system could fail. If that in fact that, if there is political interference in the is what the Leader of the Opposition and the business of committees, it does not have to Opposition want, they could probably try to come necessarily from the Government side of achieve that, but that would show a mean- the committee, that indeed it may well come spirited, feeble-minded approach to the from the Opposition's participation in the workings of this Parliament. These reforms particular committee. provide a legitimate chance for members to These sessional orders are not just about have a say about issues that are relevant to committees. They go a lot further than that. their electorate. I would hope that members of They are also about giving more rights to the Opposition especially do not abuse that. backbenchers. At long last, they involve a There has been some criticism of the chance to bring the form of petitions into the provision that Ministers have 30 calendar days present by ridding them of the antiquated and in which to make a reply. I am certain that, if subservient language that used to be the members of this House are reasonable required. No longer will petitioners humbly with their questions, the Ministers will be pray, they will now simply and appropriately reasonable with their replies, and 30 days will ask the House to take action. not be needed to reply to members' written Petitions will now have to have the name questions. The proposed changes will allow of the principal petitioner on the front page. members to highlight local issues, to gather The advantage of this lies in allowing those information from the Executive Government, who are approached to sign a petition to know to get the Minister to address an important exactly who is promoting it. I believe that any matter and to have a response on the public petition presented can only be a genuine record. The fact that a copy of the Minister's request, an indication of feeling, if those who reply will come to Hansard and to the member have signed it know all the details of the ensures that it is publicly available and that the situation being petitioned, and that includes Minister is more accountable. As some of my knowing the proponent's name. When colleagues have said, it is very hypocritical of petitions are presented, the Clerk will forward a National Party members to call these changes copy to the responsible Minister, who can a means to reduce the workings of this arrange for a response to be made and Parliament or reduce a member's accessibility printed in Hansard if it is required. to Ministers. By these reforms, the Ministers Again, we are seeing changes which will be much more available to backbenchers. make the Government more accountable to As the member who spoke before me this Parliament and, through its members, to said, an additional feature of these reforms is the people of Queensland. I am very pleased that a question can be directed to chairmen of to support the motion. committees. I welcome that. There are Mr T. B. SULLIVAN (Chermside) limitations and reservations on the new (5.33 p.m.): I welcome these reforms and rise questioning process, and I believe that it is to support them. They are reforms that will essential that these parameters be set. Legislative Assembly 11179 21 March 1995

Proposed Standing Orders 68, 69 and 70 matters can be aired without fear of legal basically outline the format, or restrictions, on retribution is in Parliament. Sometimes, MLAs the way questions can be asked. They are will get things wrong. but there are ways in legitimate limitations and I would hope that which an irresponsible member of Parliament none of the overt critics of the Government in can be brought to task. They have the the media or in some of the civil liberty groups opportunity to apologise in the House and will jump on the bandwagon and say, "You do they are accountable in a number of ways. not have limitless ability to ask whatever you The media will act as a watch and a brake on want." Of course we cannot do that, otherwise irresponsible actions by parliamentarians and, the process would not work. The Minister has most importantly, our voters can decide every proposed workable procedures that can be three years whether our actions within this achieved. House are responsible or irresponsible. The I am also happy to accept the changes to proposed reform gives any citizen the the format of petitions, which will make opportunity to respond to what he or she petitions clearer, more reasonable and make considers is an adverse comment in them more in tune with everyday language. Parliament, and it is a much-needed change. Having the principal petitioner's name on the I was going to say that I was amazed at front of the petition is a good idea because it some of the things that Mrs Sheldon said, but gives a focus for response by the Minister or I am not amazed. She has shown herself to by the local member. be such a newcomer to this House that she Mr Budd: You're a very generous and really does not know what went on understanding man when it comes to the beforehand. I am pleased to have been part Opposition. of a Government that has made significant changes from some of the disastrous practices Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I hope we are of the past. Mrs Sheldon's criticism that these generous and understanding. I am sure we will are not reforms but restrictions leaves me be. dumbfounded. She consistently limits the I wish to comment on statements made number of Liberal Party members who can ask by a couple of members of the Opposition questions in this House by asking two about the removal of the prayer. I can questions herself and then limiting the number say—and I am sure that my colleague, Mr of members who can ask questions. The Purcell, who is joining me in approving this Leader of the House has proposed a system motion will agree—that, as a practising whereby every Liberal member can ask a Christian, I have no objections to the removal question of a Minister, but Mrs Sheldon from the petition of the formal prayer. Mr opposes this. She is illogical, and she does Purcell and I would prefer to be judged more not really know how this Parliament works. by our actions rather than by a pro forma These reforms will make the workings of prayer written and presented in a way that has Parliament even more relevant to each no bearing on our actions. member's constituents. I support the reforms. Opposition members interjected. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I hear members (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) opposite complaining and whingeing. Let (5.41 p.m.), in reply: It surprises me that them jump on their high moral horse, but they Opposition members are not supporting this will be judged by their actions, not by a motion. standard pro forma which they are now Mr FitzGerald: You support ours; we'll arguing is an essential part of our society. support yours. I also agree with the proposal for the Mr MACKENROTH: Show me yours protection of persons referred to in the and I'll show you mine! Opposition members Legislative Assembly. I have never agreed are really not prepared to measure the reforms with the view expressed by some people that that we are proposing and to decide whether Parliament is a coward's castle. The real they are something that will be better for this cowards are those people in the community Parliament, for members of this Parliament who hide behind the legal system to protect and, probably most importantly, for the their illegal or immoral activity. Powerful people Opposition in this Parliament, because they use laws of defamation and other civil legal are the people who will get the most benefit action to scare off victims upon whom they from them. prey. The cost of legal action prevents many Opposition members really should aggrieved citizens from speaking out against consider that very few questions are placed on injustices in our society. The one place where notice, and not many questions have been 21 March 1995 11180 Legislative Assembly placed on notice over the past couple of allotted. We have set a limit of 30 days years. The system has not been used in this because we really do not know the workload Parliament over the past couple of years. We that will be placed on individual departments. have moved more and more towards The potential exists for Opposition members to questions without notice. Opposition members get their act together and plan something. claim that fewer questions without notice will They could place 35 questions on notice to be asked. That will not be the case. In fact, one Minister on one day, 35 to that very members have the ability to ask an extra Minister the next day—— question without notice each day, because the Mr FitzGerald interjected. occasional question on notice will not be read out. So the actual length of question time is Mr MACKENROTH: I am saying that not being altered. What we are saying, there is the potential to place 140 questions though, is that all of that time is being devoted on notice to one Minister in one week. How to questions without notice. At the end of the would a department cope with that? That is day, the Opposition will be able to ask exactly why we have said that there should be a 30- the same number of questions without day limit. It is not to try to stop an issue from notice—if not one more—as it asked last getting out. week, the week before and the week before I had 12 years' experience playing the that. We are taking absolutely nothing away Opposition game. If an Opposition member from the Opposition. has an issue that is so big that it is not going If there is an issue which, in the opinion to be an issue in 30 days' time, that member of the Opposition, is going to bring down the is not going to place that question on notice; Government, Opposition members can ask a he or she will ask it without notice. If the question about it and then get somebody else Minister does not answer that question, that to ask another one and somebody else to ask member will go straight outside screaming another one. If the issue is sustainable, it will about how he or she has asked that question not make any difference, because the and received no answer. The reality is that this questions will be asked and the issue will be is more about getting the question asked than out in the public arena. That is what question about getting the answer, anyway. That is all time should be used for. We are not in any the Opposition really wants to do. way stopping the Opposition from doing that. Mr FitzGerald: Is that how you do it? We are providing an opportunity to those Mr MACKENROTH: Perhaps I should members who do not usually get the not let out too many secrets. That is the opportunity to ask questions. We are going to reality. Opposition members will still ask their double the number of members who ask questions, and if it is really a major political questions each day. Whereas the number of issue of the day they will get it into the media. questions will be the same, we will double the I always believed that if I did not get a run in actual number of members asking questions the media the question was not worth asking, without notice. We are also saying to every anyway. member in the Parliament, "If you want to, you can place a question on notice every day." In I have been a member of Parliament for a full parliamentary year, that has the potential seventeen and a half years. During all my time to mean about an extra 3,000 questions being as an Opposition member and during my time asked in the Parliament. in the Ministry I have never had one person walk up to me and say, "Listen, Terry, I read According to the Opposition's proposed Hansard the other day. Jeez I was impressed amendment, if a member does not want to with that question you asked" or, "I was ask a question without notice, that member impressed with that question you answered." can ask one question on notice by standing in Even my father reads Hansard. Opposition the House; he still has the right to put one members have made all sorts of claims about question on the table, but the question that our denying the right of people to read what is the member asks by standing in the House in Hansard. If they are really honest they will all must be answered tomorrow, and the other agree that what I am saying is right; that it just one would be answered within 14 days. How does not happen like that. many systems do we want operating? Surely, if a member has a question to ask, he or she In my introductory remarks today, I said will ask it without notice. Nobody has been that we were going to table answers that are taking great advantage of putting questions longer than one page. That was done on notice in this Parliament. I believe that a because we have a very frugal Speaker, who member should be able to place a question has estimated that if answers are longer than on notice and obtain an answer within the time a page it could cost us somewhere between Legislative Assembly 11181 21 March 1995

$20,000 and $40,000 extra each year in Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley, preparing Hansard, and he wanted us to limit Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Rowell, Santoro, that. But because the Opposition has made Sheldon, Simpson, Stephan, Stoneman, Turner, such a point of it, I have said that we will not Veivers, Watson Tellers: Springborg, Davidson do that. Therefore, for the remainder of this Resolved in the affirmative. term, while we are trialing this system, we will Mr SPEAKER: Order! I advise put all the information into Hansard. honourable members that the bells will ring for Mr FitzGerald: Tell the Ministers to two minutes. keep it short but, won't you? Question—That the motion be agreed Mr MACKENROTH: I have always to—put; and the House divided— worked on the basis of telling the member as AYES, 47—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bennett, Bird, little as possible. So he can be assured that Braddy, Bredhauer, Campbell, Clark, Comben, mine will be very short. D’Arcy, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Fenlon, Dr Watson: Good, open and Foley, Gibbs, Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Mackenroth, McElligott, McGrady, Milliner, Nunn, Nuttall, accountable Government. Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Power, Purcell, Pyke, Mr MACKENROTH: My real problem is Robertson, Robson, Rose, Smith, Spence, that no-one asks me any questions. I sit here Sullivan J. H., Sullivan T. B., Szczerbanik, Vaughan, every day shivering and waiting for the attack Warner, Welford, Wells Tellers: Livingstone, Budd to come. If Opposition members want NOES, 30—Beanland, Cooper, Elliott, FitzGerald, three-minute answers, they should ask me Gamin, Gilmore, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan, some questions, and they will get answers of Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, McCauley, less than three minutes. With the system that Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Rowell, Santoro, is working today, whereas some answers are Sheldon, Simpson, Stephan, Stoneman, Turner, longer than three minutes, many are less than Veivers, Watson Tellers: Springborg, Davidson three minutes. We are probably looking at an Resolved in the affirmative. average of three minutes. On some Sitting suspended from 6.01 to 7.30 p.m. occasions, I have said to my colleagues, "Give them a fair go today. Let's keep the answers as short as possible." The real problem is that TREASURY LEGISLATION the Opposition had no questions to ask us. On AMENDMENT BILL a couple of occasions we have really had to Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns— keep the answers going in order to keep Treasurer) (7.30 p.m.), by leave, without question time going for the full time. notice: I move— We ask the Opposition to give the "That leave be granted to bring in a proposal that we have put forward a chance to Bill for an Act to amend Acts operate in this Parliament. At the end of this administered by the Treasurer, and for term we can assess how it has operated as we other purposes." have proposed it. We ask them to give it a fair go for themselves, because I believe it is Motion agreed to. going to be to their benefit. At this stage we will not accept the amendments that have First Reading been moved by the Opposition. We will accept considering them after what we have Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and proposed has had a fair trial. Bill, on motion of Mr De Lacy, read a first time. Question—That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question—put; Second Reading and the House divided— Hon. K. E. De LACY (Cairns— AYES, 47—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bennett, Bird, Treasurer) (7.31 p.m.): I move— Braddy, Bredhauer, Campbell, Clark, Comben, "That the Bill be now read a second D’Arcy, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Fenlon, Gibbs, Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Mackenroth, time." McElligott, McGrady, Milliner, Nunn, Nuttall, The activities previously undertaken by Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Power, Purcell, Pyke, Treasury with regard to the direct Robertson, Robson, Rose, Smith, Spence, administration of legislation affecting various Sullivan J. H., Sullivan T. B., Szczerbanik, Vaughan, types of non-bank financial institutions and Warner, Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers: cooperatives have been progressively Livingstone, Budd transferred to more appropriate supervisors NOES, 30—Beanland, Cooper, Elliott, FitzGerald, over the past three years. The Bill provides for Gamin, Gilmore, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan, amendments to the remaining legislation 21 March 1995 11182 Legislative Assembly administered by Treasury in this area, "That the Bill be now read a second consistent with the above objective. time." The Queensland Office of Financial I take great pleasure this evening as the Supervision—QOFS—is being given newly appointed Education Minister in responsibility for the administration of presenting to the House my first piece of legislation affecting cooperative housing legislation in that role. The Bill provides for societies and terminating building societies, in amendments to the Education (General advance of, and in preparation for, new Provisions Act) 1989 and the Education legislation which is currently being developed (Senior Secondary School Studies) Act 1988. to regulate cooperative housing societies in Members will recognise it as a most particular. important piece of legislation, as it will provide This is achieved by making necessary one of the major building blocks to Shaping amendments to the Co-operative Housing our Future. The Bill will give the Government Societies Act 1958 and the Building Societies the legislative base to introduce major reforms Act 1985. These new areas of responsibility recommended by the Wiltshire review into are seen as being consistent with the existing curriculum. The review was the most activities already being undertaken by QOFS comprehensive study of its kind in the history in relation to permanent building societies, of Queensland education. credit unions and friendly societies under their Members should be well aware by now of respective legislation. the review committee which was established The responsibility for administration of following a 1992 election commitment. legislation affecting general cooperatives and Headed by Professor Ken Wiltshire, the three- other similar activities is being given to the person committee conducted a rigorous review Department of Emergency Services, that is, leaving no stone unturned in its search for the Office of Consumer Affairs, with excellence. Following the Report of the Review appropriate amendments being made to the of the Queensland School Curriculum Co-operative and Other Societies Act 1967 (Shaping the Future) in March 1994, a period and the Loan Fund Companies Act 1982. of public consultation occurred, culminating in The completion of the transfers of Cabinet's decisions in November last year to responsibility provided for in this Bill and the support a major reform of the curriculum. repeal of the Administration of Commercial The Goss Government has quickly begun Laws Act 1962 will conclude Treasury's direct implementing the major recommendations of involvement in this area. I commend the Bill to that review. Much to the displeasure of those the House. opposite, the reforms have been widely Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald, welcomed by the community and educators adjourned. generally. It stands in stark contrast to the education policies of conservative Governments in other States which are EDUCATION LEGISLATION bringing about change by slash and burn and AMENDMENT BILL closing down schools. Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister Improving efficiency and quality of for Education) (7.33 p.m.), by leave, without education to meet increasing demand can be notice: I move— met through altering work practices and school "That leave be granted to bring in a operations rather than adopting draconian Bill for an Act to amend certain legislation policies. about education." The major areas which I will see Motion agreed to. implemented are— the need to put the three Rs—reading, writing and arithmetic—back on the First Reading agenda; Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and the "back to basics" approach—the Bill, on motion of Mr Hamill, read a first time. cornerstone of that package; the tackling of issues—in the form of Second Reading literacy and numeracy—as a priority; and Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister the appointment of 425 new teachers this for Education) (7.34 p.m.): I move— year to smoothly implement the reforms. Legislative Assembly 11183 21 March 1995

It is the most comprehensive education referred earlier. The council will be an reform package ever— intersystemic and representative preschool to totalling more than $300m over six years; Year 12 ministerial advisory council comprising representatives from major stakeholders it will place Queensland at the leading including the non-Government sector, parent edge; and bodies, business and industrial organisations. a State of innovation, not desecration— The major role of the council will be to advise as witnessed in Victoria where 155 me on preschool to Year 12 curriculum schools are planned for closure. development. Parents and teachers will have more One important role of the council will be information about their charges' progress as to develop, endorse and then recommend to there will be running records of students' me a strategic plan for preschool to Year 12 achievements, diagnostic testing and more curriculum development. The council will also accountability overall. hold two forums annually. One forum will be a All these reforms expose the failures and State industry/schooling forum for the purpose lack of imagination of former conservative of considering major schooling/industry Governments that allowed our education curriculum issues. The second forum will be a system to wallow in neglect. I can assure the distance education/open learning forum to House that under this Government's policies ensure that open learning and distance there will be no chance of neglect. All our education issues are included within education programs will have regular reviews mainstream curriculum development, so and input of new and innovative people and debunking a constant ill-informed criticism from ideas so that we can keep pace with the members opposite that distance education is rapidly changing world in which we live. not on the agenda. Today's legislation will provide the overall The membership of the council reflects framework for a much-improved system of the Government's commitment to provide a consultation with the education industry and forum to enable the views of major community. stakeholders to be taken into account in I believe that the Wiltshire review proved educational planning and decision making in beyond doubt that we need a better and more relation to curriculum development issues. The broadly based discussion at the local and Bill provides for the council to comprise 15 State level about how we can better shape our members appointed by the Governor in education future. This Bill will allow that to Council and six official members who will be occur. The main objectives of the Bill relate to members by virtue of the offices they hold and the establishment and operation of a new authorises me to appoint any additional curriculum management structure—the members that may be necessary. Queensland Curriculum Council—and for changes to the role and functions of the Board The council will not be a statutory body, of Senior Secondary School Studies. In and to remove any doubt the Bill provides for addition, the Bill includes minor alterations to this to be declared in the Act. both Acts relating to matters of an The Bill also heralds some important administrative nature. changes to the Board of Senior Secondary The establishment of the Queensland School Studies, and as a consequence Curriculum Council provides for the proposes changes to the Education (Senior representation of all major stakeholders in the Secondary School Studies) Act 1988 by management of curriculum development in expanding the board's role in post-compulsory Queensland and is an integral component of schooling to include the authority to undertake the curriculum management structures model accreditation, recognition and registration supported by Cabinet. The model provides for functions for vocational education programs the establishment of two new curriculum for senior secondary education (Years 11 and management structures—the Queensland 12) that are delegated to the board under the Curriculum Council and the Queensland Vocational Education, Training and School Curriculum Office and also provides for Employment Act 1991. These changes changes to the responsibilities of the Board of provide for the board to play a more significant Senior Secondary School Studies. role in the convergence of vocational and Cabinet endorsed this model as part of academic education in Queensland schools as the Shaping the Future initiatives following its a recognition of the changing needs of both consideration of the Report of the Review of our student population and the needs of the Queensland School Curriculum to which I society. 21 March 1995 11184 Legislative Assembly

Currently the board's principal functions the Baha'i, Buddhist, Jewish and Muslim are to approve and develop syllabuses, to faiths. accredit work programs, to administer an The Act provides that every parent of a appropriate system of student assessment, to child of the age of compulsory attendance certify and disseminate the results of who does not attend a State or non-State assessment and to administer the Core Skills school because of prescribed reasons must Test. In view of the board's new responsibilities cause that child to be enrolled with the School for vocational education programs for senior of Distance Education or any other State secondary education, the Bill provides for the educational institution offering distance membership composition of the board to be education. The Bill provides for the term "to be amended to provide for a member of the enrolled" to be defined as the requirement to Vocational Education, Training and return completed papers to the School of Employment Commission to be a member of Distance Education to close a loophole in the the board to replace the nominee of the Board Act whereby some students enrolled by simply of Teacher Registration. registering their names with the School of In accordance with the curriculum Distance Education. management structures model supported by The Bill also provides for other minor Cabinet, the board will cease to have a role in amendments to the Education (Senior junior secondary school curriculum (Years 8- Secondary School Studies) Act 1988. The Act 10) as this responsibility will be assumed by currently provides that members of the board, the proposed Queensland School Curriculum other than the chairperson, shall hold office for Office. As a consequence, the board will no three years. The Bill provides for the members longer issue a Junior Certificate as of to hold office for no longer than three years, 1 January 1996. which will ensure that in future the terms of In light of the significant changes to the office of the members of the board will have a board's responsibilities, the Bill provides for the uniform expiry date. The Act provides that a existing members of the board, including the person is not eligible to be a member of the board in the same capacity for more than two chairperson, to go out of office to allow for the consecutive terms of appointment. The Bill reconstitution of the board. The Bill clarifies the provides for me to have discretion in this relationship between the board and the matter. Queensland Curriculum Council by providing that the board must submit its program for In summary, the main purpose of the Bill curriculum development in Years 11 and 12 to is to amend existing legislation to provide the the council for endorsement and inclusion in basis for reforms in Queensland curriculum the council's strategic plan for preschool to development. The changes will provide a Year 12 curriculum development. marked increase in the participation of significant stakeholders in educational decision The Bill also provides for some other making and strategic planning in relation to minor amendments to the Education (General curriculum development, and enhance the Provisions) Act 1989 which are necessary to convergence of vocational and general reflect important changes to the context in education in Queensland schools. which Queensland education is now operating. Currently, the Act does not permit me to The changes will provide for the delegate certain of my powers relating to significant reforms this Government is making granting dispensation from compulsory to education in general, and curriculum in enrolment and attendance provisions with particular, in this State. It will place respect to home schooling and enrolment in Queensland in the vanguard of the curriculum schools of distance education. The Bill reform in this nation and prepare Queensland provides for these restrictions to be removed. students to confidently face the challenges of the coming decade. I commend the Bill to the The Education (General Provisions) Act House. 1989 provides that instruction in accordance Debate, on motion of Mr Fitzgerald, with regulations shall be given in State primary adjourned. and special schools during school hours in selected Bible lessons. The Bill provides for "shall" to be replaced with "may" to better WORKERS' COMPENSATION reflect current practices in schools, and has AMENDMENT BILL been supported by all major religions through Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—Minister the Ministerial Religious Education Advisory for Employment, Training and Industrial Committee. This includes all major Christian Relations) (7.45 p.m.), by leave, without religious groups as well as representatives of notice: I move— Legislative Assembly 11185 21 March 1995

"That leave be granted to bring in a private sector. For instance, Government Bill for an Act to amend the Workers' workers who claimed compensation in 1993- Compensation Act 1990." 94 took an average of 21.9 days on Motion agreed to. compensation at a cost of $2,953, compared with the private sector average of 18.7 days at a cost of $2,120. First Reading Various steps have been taken to control Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and statutory and common law claims numbers Bill, on motion of Mr Foley, read a first time. and costs in the private sector, including— the promotion of the benefits of early Second Reading return to work; Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—Minister the implementation of workplace for Employment, Training and Industrial rehabilitation programs; Relations) (7.46 p.m.): I move— the implementation of new financial "That the Bill be now read a second penalties and revised incentives; and time." the continuing review of the management of common law damages claims with a The amendments to the Workers' view to reducing legal and other costs. Compensation Act 1990 contained in this Bill will require Government agencies to hold The review of Government claims costs policies of accident insurance for workers' pointed to the potential for significant compensation in the same manner as private improvements if the public sector could be sector employers. The purpose of this change exposed to a similar system of incentives and is to improve significantly the financial penalties as the private sector. Furthermore, incentives for Government agencies to this is in line with the general policy of the manage actively their workers' compensation Government in expecting a level of claims, to implement effective rehabilitation performance from Government agencies programs for Government workers and to equivalent to the private sector. minimise the risk and cost of work-related Therefore, the result is this Bill, which will injury and disease. This initiative complements allow for Government agencies to be initiatives by the Government to effect incorporated into a premium-based workers' continuous improvement in the workers' compensation scheme from 1 July 1995. A compensation system generally to optimise premium rating system has been developed performance of employers in the area of which will maximise the incentives for prevention, claims management and Government agencies to reduce the incidence rehabilitation. of illness and injury among employees through Most Government agencies have never appropriate risk management strategies, and been required to hold workers' compensation to otherwise better manage their claims costs policies. Government statutory claims have through, for instance, the implementation of been administered and paid by the Workers workplace rehabilitation. Compensation Board, which has then A separate fund as well as separate recovered claims costs plus an administration premium rates and pools have been designed fee from the relevant agency. It has always which will ensure that the risks and liabilities been the responsibility of Government associated with Government claims continue agencies to manage their own common law to be isolated from the private sector. In order claims. This contrasts with the private sector, to allow the introduction of the premium-based where employers are required to hold a policy system for Government agencies, of accident insurance with the Workers amendments to the Workers' Compensation Compensation Board and pay annual Act are required to provide authority to— premiums for insurance cover in respect of incorporate Government agencies into a both their statutory and common law claims premium-based workers' compensation liabilities. scheme; and The changes proposed as part of this Bill enable the transfer of funds between the follow a detailed review by Queensland Workers' Compensation Trust Fund and Treasury and the Workers Compensation the separate provision account within the Board of the current system for public sector Consolidated Fund for the purpose of compensation claims. The review highlighted transferring Government premium the relatively poor average claims cost history collections and paying Government for Government claims compared with the claims. 21 March 1995 11186 Legislative Assembly

This Government is committed to a shaping of their working conditions and sustained reduction in the incidence of injury arrangements, is being embraced in the and disease amongst its 165,000 employees. private and public sector in Queensland as a Therefore, I do not see these initiatives as the proven means to bring productivity boosts in end of the Government's drive to improve its exchange for wage rises. performance in this area. Rather, I see these Within the Queensland public sector, initiatives as a part of continual improvement 148,000 employees enjoy wage increases as and change in the public sector. a result of enterprise bargaining. This not only This move to a premium-based system provides benefits for the Government in terms for the Government sector is further evidence of increased productivity but also benefits the of this Government's commitment to community of Queensland through a more preserving an efficient and effective workers' client-focused, responsive public sector. The compensation scheme in this State. I Bill currently before the House is a further step commend the Bill to the House. along the path to enterprise-based decision Debate, on motion of Mr Fitzgerald, making and improved productivity. It provides adjourned. for amendments to enable public sector units to assume greater day-to-day responsibility for the management of their own industrial INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS relations, including representation before LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL industrial tribunals. Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—Minister Currently, the Act provides that exclusive for Employment, Training and Industrial right of representation in industrial tribunals Relations) (7.51 p.m.), by leave, without rests with the chief executive or a nominated notice: I move— officer of my own Department of Employment, "That leave be granted to bring in a Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Bill for an Act to amend the Industrial Relations. If other Ministers seek to have Relations Act 1990 and the Public officers or agents of their departments appear, Service Management and Employment they are obliged under current legislation to go Act 1988." through the cumbersome procedure of making written requests to the Minister for Motion agreed to. Employment, Training and Industrial Relations. The proposed amendment allows for First Reading departments or agencies to send their own officers or agents to tribunals. By devolving to Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and agencies the responsibility for their own Bill, on motion of Mr Foley, read a first time. internal industrial relations, my department will be able to concentrate, as the central Second Reading industrial relations agency, on strategic policy development focusing on effective sector-wide Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—Minister workplace reform strategies. In this role, my for Employment, Training and Industrial department will continue to handle sector-wide Relations) (7.52 p.m.): I move— industrial matters. "That the Bill be now read a second The Bill also makes a related amendment time." to the Public Service Management and The industrial relations reforms introduced Employment Act. This amendment seeks to by this Government over the past five years facilitate workplace reform in the public sector support the international competitiveness of by providing Government departments with Queensland business and industry and the capacity to vary specific entitlements and concomitant jobs growth while providing a fair conditions of employment of officers of the and socially responsible framework for the public service, currently provided for in regulation of employment. determinations made by the Governor in This Parliament's legislation reflects and Council, through their enterprise bargaining encourages a move towards enterprise-level agreements. For example, payments of motor bargaining, with protections in the form of an vehicle allowance, which are currently made independent umpire in the Queensland on fortnightly claims, could be annualised, Industrial Relations Commission, guaranteed reducing administrative costs. This will increase minimum standards and a strong award safety the flexibility of departments to apply the net. Enterprise-level bargaining, where those conditions of employment contained in the involved in daily operations are central to the determinations to suit their organisational Legislative Assembly 11187 21 March 1995 requirements, thus resulting in enhanced powers of each court and to confer power to productivity. make rules of court in relation to ADR I commend the Bill to the House. processes. Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald, The Bill contains amendments to the adjourned. following legislation: Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991; District Courts Act 1967; Magistrates Courts Act 1921; and COURTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT Judicial Review Act 1991. The amendments to BILL the Supreme Court of Queensland Act, the Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba— District Courts Act and Magistrates Courts Act Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and provide the framework for ADR processes. As Minister for the Arts) (7.56 p.m.), by leave, the amendments relating to ADR processes without notice: I move— are uniform, I will discuss them together. The separate amendments to the rule-making "That leave be granted to bring in a powers are discussed below. Bill for an Act to amend various Acts to provide for court annexed mediation and Framework for ADR processes case appraisal, and for other purposes." The amendments clearly define the Motion agreed to. various terms integral to the ADR scheme. The amendments specify the objects of the introduction of ADR processes. It is made clear First Reading that the primary object is to provide an Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and opportunity for litigants to participate in ADR Bill, on motion of Mr Wells, read a first time. processes to achieve negotiated settlements and satisfactory resolutions of their disputes. To achieve that objective, further objects are Second Reading to provide the necessary framework and Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba— protections for the ADR processes in the court Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and system. Minister for the Arts) (7.57 p.m.): I move— The concepts of ADR process, mediation "That the Bill be now read a second and case appraisal are defined in detail by the time." amendments. The amendments clarify that two kinds of ADR processes will be used and This Bill introduces alternative dispute that the purpose of their use is to help the resolution processes into the court system. parties to achieve an early, inexpensive The Bill provides for court annexed mediation settlement or resolution of their dispute. and case appraisal. The Queensland justice Mediation is then defined as a process under system will be improved by the inclusion of which the parties use a mediator to help them alternative dispute resolution processes in the resolve their dispute by negotiated agreement court system. This Bill recognises that there without adjudication. Case appraisal is a are many ways to resolve a dispute. Some process in which a case appraiser provisionally disputes can be resolved by agreement, decides a dispute. Case appraisal is known by others can be resolved by an independent other names, such as early neutral evaluation. appraisal of each party's case and others can be resolved only by a court determination. The amendments then establish the process for administering the ADR process. This Bill will provide the court with the The amendments to the Supreme Court of tools of mediation and case appraisal. The Queensland Act 1991 provide that the Senior aim of using these processes is to give parties Judge Administrator, in consultation with the an opportunity to participate in ADR processes Chief Justice, may approve or refuse to to try to achieve negotiated settlements and approve a person as a mediator or case satisfactory resolutions of disputes. A appraiser. The amendments to the District settlement achieved through an ADR process Courts Act 1967 provide that the Chief Judge is likely to be cheaper and faster than shall undertake these functions. The proceeding to trial. The Bill will introduce amendments to the Magistrates Courts Act uniform ADR provisions in the legislation 1921 provide that the Chief Stipendiary governing the Supreme Courts, Districts Courts Magistrate shall perform these functions. and Magistrates Courts. Uniformity of procedure tends towards a more accessible The amendments provide that the judicial justice system. The opportunity has been officer with power to approve a mediator or taken in this Bill to modernise the rule-making case appraiser also has power to revoke that 21 March 1995 11188 Legislative Assembly approval. Where approval is revoked, a The amendments spell out some of the statement of reasons must be provided. The sanctions available when a party impedes an amendments provide for a review process ADR process. The sanctions include ordering against refusal to approve or to revoke the that the claim for relief by the defaulting party approval of a person as a case appraiser or is stayed until further order. mediator. The amendments provide an appeal The amendments provide more detail as to the Court of Appeal, by leave of that court, to the procedure at a case appraisal. The against the decision of the Senior Judge amendments make clear that the case Administrator or the Chief Judge and an appraiser has discretion as to the procedure to appeal to the District Court from the decision be used. They spell out the limitations on the of the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate. Because powers of the case appraiser to determine the of this specific review process, the procedures to be used at a case appraisal. amendments make clear that these decisions The limitations are of three kinds. Firstly, that may not be the subject of judicial review. case appraiser may receive evidence, The amendments require the examine witnesses and administer oaths only maintenance of a register of information about in special circumstances. Secondly, the court ADR processes. The register must at least may give directions at any time about the contain the name and address of each procedures to be used at a case appraisal. mediator and case appraiser. In the Supreme Thirdly, a person may only be subpoenaed to Court and District Court, the register must be appear at a case appraisal by order of the maintained by the Supreme Court Registrar. court. The amendments specify that the The amendments confer a power on the decision of a case appraiser may not be Senior Judge Administrator to decide if further judicially reviewed. The amendments make information is to be entered on the register. In clear that a person may not be subpoenaed to the amendments to the Magistrates Court Act appear at a mediation. 1921, it is made clear that the Chief The amendments clarify that the court Stipendiary Magistrate may nominate a may cancel a reference to an ADR process registrar of a Magistrates Court in Brisbane to where the court is of the opinion that a party is keep the register of information about ADR unable, because of their financial processes. The amendments confer power on circumstances, to pay the party's percentage the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate to decide if of the ADR costs. The amendments provide other information should be entered on the for the action to be taken at the completion of register. an ADR process. The amendments ensure that the parties The amendments make clear that any can agree to refer their dispute to an ADR agreements reached at mediation must be written down and signed by the parties and process. They confer a power on the court to the mediator, and that a party may apply to order a dispute to mediation or case appraisal. court for an order giving effect to any The amendments allow the court to require agreement reached at mediation, as long as the parties to attend before the court to the agreement is filed. In any event, the enable the court to decide whether the parties' amendments provide that the mediator must dispute should be referred to an ADR process. file a certificate about the mediation. The Under the amendments, the court can order a amendments provide for the filing of a dispute to an ADR process, regardless of the certificate about the case appraisal and the parties' consent. Some of the matters which a case appraiser's decision. court may take into account when considering whether to refer a matter to case appraisal are The amendments provide that a party specified by the amendments. may apply to court for an order giving effect to a case appraiser's decision. The application The amendments indicate precisely the can only be made if the time prescribed for obligations of the parties once a dispute is filing of an election to go to trial has passed. referred to an ADR process. The obligations The amendments allow the application to be are to attend before the appointed ADR brought before that time if all parties agree. convenor and that a party must not impede The amendments provide for the the ADR convenor in conducting and finishing protections and safeguards to be afforded to the ADR process within the time allowed in the ADR processes. Three kinds of protection are referring order. The concept of impeding is afforded. Firstly, the amendments impose an intended to include only the formal aspects of obligation on the ADR convenor to maintain participation. It is not intended to include the secrecy about information coming to the degree or extent of participation. convenor's knowledge during an ADR process. Legislative Assembly 11189 21 March 1995

Certain circumstances which constitute a "That leave be granted to bring in a reasonable excuse to disclose information are Bill for an Act to amend or repeal Acts set out. Secondly, the ADR convenor, parties administered by the Minister for Justice and witnesses are afforded by the and Attorney-General and Minister for the amendments certain protections and Arts." immunities. For example, a witness attending Motion agreed to. in an ADR process has the same protection and immunity as a witness appearing before the relevant court. Thirdly, the amendments First Reading ensure that evidence of anything said or done, or admission made at an ADR process, is Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and admissible at the trial of a dispute or in Bill, on motion of Mr Wells, read a first time. another civil proceeding, only if all parties agree. Second Reading Rule-making powers Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba— The Supreme Court Act of 1991, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and District Courts Act of 1967 and the Magistrates Minister for the Arts) (8.09 p.m.): I move— Courts Act 1921 are to be amended to confer "That the Bill be now read a second specifically a power to make rules of court in time." relation to ADR processes. The opportunity has been taken to This Bill contains minor amendments to consolidate the rule-making power of the the following legislation: Acts Interpretation Act Supreme Court. The power to make Supreme 1954; Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950; Court rules exists in several pieces of Electoral Act 1992; Judges (Pensions and legislation and different methods for making Long Leave) Act 1957; Justices Act 1886; rules of court are specified. This amendment Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for provides a streamlined procedure for making Declarations Act 1991; the oaths legislation, Supreme Court rules under any of these Acts. that is, the Oaths Act 1867 and the Oaths Act Amending Acts of 1876, 1884 and 1891; and The amendments to the Supreme Court Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991. of Queensland Act 1991 define the role of the Litigation Reform Commission in reporting on The Department of Justice and Attorney- rules of court made under that Act or any General is responsible for the administration of other Act. The amendments make clear that a some 157 statutes and, as a result, there is a report and recommendation must be obtained necessity for a number of minor amendments from the commission or a division of the to be regularly made to various legislative commission when rules of court are made provisions to ensure that the statutes continue under that Act or another Act or a regulation is to operate in the manner intended. made under that Act. The only exception is To facilitate this, an annual departmental when rules of court for the Court of Appeal are miscellaneous provisions Bill is prepared so made under section 32 of the Supreme Court that the minor amendments needed can be of Queensland Act 1991. In that case, a report effected by means of one statute. This and recommendation from the Litigation ensures that much needed statutory reform is Reform Commission is not required. not delayed and that the time of the The opportunity has also been taken to Parliament is not unnecessarily expended on streamline the procedure for making District dealing with a number of disparate pieces of Court rules. The amendment will ensure that legislation, each of which could be more District Court rules need only be approved by appropriately combined in the form of six District Court judges, of whom the Chief legislation we are now considering. Judge must be one. The amendment to the Acts Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald, Interpretation Act 1954 firstly omits and inserts adjourned. a new section 29A which has been redrafted to have regard to the Parliamentary Papers Act 1992. The new section makes it clear that JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL out of session tabling can occur at the most (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL appropriate time and not just at the time a Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba— report is received. It may not be appropriate to Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and immediately table a report at the time it is Minister for the Arts) (8.08 p.m.), by leave, received because, for example, a report may without notice: I move— recommend prosecutions, and such 21 March 1995 11190 Legislative Assembly prosecutions may be prejudiced if a report is statute law revision amendment to section immediately tabled. The amendment will 111(1) of the Electoral Act 1992. enable the report to be tabled as soon as The amendment to the Judges (Pensions appropriate, for example, when prosecutions and Long Leave) Act 1957 omits and inserts a have been finalised, without having to await new section 15(5) to provide that judges who the resumption of the Parliament. have accrued a long leave entitlement of not The new section allows the Clerk rather less than six months and who wish to take this than the Speaker—as is the current leave in parts can take the long leave with the provision—to authorise the printing of the approval of the Governor in Council in two or report. This is consistent with the Clerk being a more separate periods. permanent officer of the Parliament and a The amendments to the Justices Act do person who is authorised to publish a number of things, including: documents under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1992. inserting a new section 268A to remove any doubt as to the validity of the The amendments to the Acts approval of certain forms approved on 18 Interpretation Act 1954 also amend section June 1993; 33A(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act to make it clear that that subsection does not apply to inserting a new section 271 whose the Acts Interpretation Act 1954. In addition, purpose is to remove any doubt and the amendments amend section 36 of the declare that, despite the enactment of Acts Interpretation Act 1954 to include a the Justice Legislation (Miscellaneous definition of "Speaker" and to relocate Provisions) Act 1992: sections 48 and 52, which deal with the mode the boundaries of each Magistrates of pleading affirmation instead of oath and the Court district or division before the form of oath of allegiance respectively to the commencement of the relevant Oaths Act 1867. There are further provisions of the Justices Legislation amendments to the oaths legislation to which I (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992 will refer later. continue to be the boundaries for The amendments to the Commissions of the district or division; Inquiry Act 1950 relate to section 32 of that a division of the Brisbane district Act and have regard to the revision of section continued to be a district; and 29A of the Acts Interpretation Act already every place appointed in each referred to. The amendments to the division of the Brisbane district Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950 also repeal continued to be a place appointed the existing regulation-making power, section for holding a Magistrates Court. 26, and insert a new regulation-making power in accordance with modern drafting practices. The amendments to section 5 of the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for The amendments to the Electoral Act Declarations Act 1991 deal with the 1992 omit and insert a new section 172(1) to membership of the Justices of the Peace create an additional offence where a person Council. The amendments to the Justices of fails to promptly post or send by facsimile a the Peace and Commissioners for request under section 111 by an electoral Declarations Act 1991 also amend section 12 visitor to vote as an electoral visitor voter. This to enable the appointment of deputy registrars is in addition to the existing offence of failing who will have the same powers and functions to promptly post or send by facsimile a request as the registrar. Finally, the amendments to by an ordinary postal voter for a ballot paper the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners and declaration envelope. It will create for Declarations Act 1991 amend section 16 to consistency between the obligation to enable a retired magistrate to apply to be promptly post or send by facsimile a request appointed as a Justice of the Peace by an ordinary postal voter for a ballot paper (Magistrates Courts) without having to undergo and declaration envelope and the obligation to the compulsory training course, provided the promptly post or send by facsimile a request application for appointment is made within five by an electoral visitor voter to vote as an years of the date of retirement. electoral visitor voter. The amendments also A considerable number of provisions of omit and insert a new section 172(2)—offence the Bill are taken up with the amendments to to not promptly post a declaration envelope— the oaths legislation, namely the Oaths Act redrafted in accordance with modern drafting 1867 and the Oaths Act Amendment Acts of practice. The amendments also make a 1867, 1884 and 1891. Firstly, the Legislative Assembly 11191 21 March 1995 amendments amend section 13 of the 1867 I am pleased to introduce the Freedom of Act to provide that the provision applies to Information Amendment Bill 1995. The Bill has declarations taken for Queensland law two aims: to remove any remaining ambiguity wherever those declarations are taken. They regarding the Cabinet and Executive Council also amend section 3 of the 1891 Act to exemption; and to make the amendments enable the same people who can take retrospective. Sections 36 and 37 of the declarations to take affidavits. They also will Freedom of Information Act were amended in enable interstate barristers and solicitors to 1993. The amendments followed the decision take Queensland affidavits, something which of the Information Commissioner in Fencray v. has been prohibited since the ruling of the Department of Premier, Trade and Economic Supreme Court in the decision of re Ocean Development. In 1993, I advised the House Industries. The other amendments to the that amendments to the FOI Act were oaths legislation contained in the Bill deal with necessary to prevent the undermining of the the consolidation of the Oaths Act convention of collective ministerial Amendment Acts of 1876, 1884 and 1891 responsibility. The decision in Fencray into the Oaths Act 1867 and minor statute law potentially allowed the release of Cabinet revision amendments as a result of that material which may have revealed the consolidation. particular position adopted by a Minister or Finally, the Bill seeks to amend the Ministers during Cabinet deliberations. It was Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 to the Government's intention, as stated in the make amendments to Schedule 2 of that Act. Explanatory Note to the 1993 amendment, Honourable members will recall that Schedule that the purposive test would be removed from 2 of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act the Cabinet exemption, and that all 1991 repealed a number of provisions of the documents that actually come before Cabinet Supreme Court Act 1921 no longer relevant will automatically fall within the exemption. because of the creation of the Court of The present amendments have the same Appeal. This amendment makes it absolutely aim as the 1993 amendments and are clear which part of section 7 of the Supreme intended to remove any doubt regarding the Court Act 1921 is being repealed by the operation of the Cabinet and Executive Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991. Council exemptions so that all matter that is I commend the Bill to the House. submitted to Cabinet and Executive Council is exempt. They are intended to prevent inquiry Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald, into what takes place in the Cabinet room. adjourned. They will safeguard absolutely the confidentiality of the Cabinet and Executive FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Council process. AMENDMENT BILL The objects of the Freedom of Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba— Information Act, as stated in section 5, Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and recognise the detrimental effect that the Minister for the Arts) (8.16 p.m.), by leave, disclosure of particular information would have without notice: I move— on essential public interests as well as the public interest in promoting open discussion of "That leave be granted to bring in a public affairs. The FOI Act recognises the Bill for an Act to amend the Freedom of need to strike a balance between the two Information Act 1992." competing public interests. Motion agreed to. For Cabinet to work as efficiently and effectively as possible it must have the ability to consider issues without the threat of access First Reading to Cabinet documents under the Act. As I Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and advised the House in 1993, the High Court in Bill, on motion of Mr Wells, read a first time. the case of Commonwealth v. Northern Land Council recognised the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the Cabinet Second Reading process. The effect of the amendments is that Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba— all matter, including statistical, scientific or Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and technical matter that is submitted to Cabinet, Minister for the Arts) (8.17 p.m.): I move— is exempt from disclosure under the Act. "That the Bill be now read a second "Submit" has been defined in the new time." section 36. The definition makes it clear that it 21 March 1995 11192 Legislative Assembly is necessary only to bring matter to Cabinet in "That leave be granted to bring in a a physical sense for it to be exempt under the Bill for an Act to amend the Local Act. It is then a matter for Cabinet as to Government (Aboriginal Lands) Act whether and to what extent it considers the 1978." material before it. The amendments make it Motion agreed to. clear that it is not permissible to attempt to second-guess the reason that documents were submitted to Cabinet. Such inquiries First Reading strike at the heart of Cabinet confidentiality. Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and The Bill extends the exemption to matter Bill, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, read a first prepared for briefing chief executives in time. relation to a matter submitted or proposed to be submitted to Cabinet. This reflects the fact that in Queensland chief executives may Second Reading receive detailed briefing on material that is submitted to Cabinet. Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, Local I would also draw your attention to the Government and Planning and Minister for new section 36(1)(e). This subsection, when Rural Communities) (8.22 p.m.): I move— read in conjunction with the definition of "consideration", prevents the disclosure of "That the Bill be now read a second matter which would reveal a decision or time." deliberation of Cabinet. However, it is intended The Bill amends the Local Government to go further than this and will protect any (Aboriginal Lands) Act in two ways. Firstly, it matter which would prejudice the operations or addresses the particular concerns of the considerations of Cabinet. It will, for instance, Aurukun community in relation to the prevent disclosure of matter which would availability of alcohol in the shire. Secondly, a indicate that an issue had been discussed by number of miscellaneous amendments are or submitted to Cabinet. The Executive proposed to reflect Government policy in Council exemption has been amended in the relation to the establishment of liquor facilities same terms as the Cabinet exemption. In the in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Government's view, it is equally important to communities and the issue of personal safeguard the integrity and confidentiality of prohibition orders on individuals consuming the Executive Council process. alcohol. The Bill has been developed directly The Bill applies retrospectively. I make no in response to a request from the Aurukun apology for that. The FOI Act was never community for a legal framework to assist in intended to provide a vehicle to inquire inside the control of alcohol. the Cabinet room. The Queensland As part of the process of designing an Government does not accept that this would appropriate system, extensive consultations be a legitimate purpose of freedom of have occurred with the community. The information legislation. The Bill is retrospective proposed system is the first of its kind as it because it gives effect to the intent that this attempts as far as possible to take into Parliament always had, that is, to protect the account one Aboriginal community's unique confidentiality of Cabinet and Executive social culture and geographic setting. Because Council deliberations and decisions and all the approach taken is in the nature of an documents physically submitted to, or experiment, the legislation will only be in force prepared in relation to, Cabinet and Executive for an initial period of two years. Its success will Council. be evaluated before the end of that period to I commend the Bill to the House. decide whether it should continue in operation. Debate, on motion of Mr FitzGerald, The primary objectives of the legislation adjourned. include the establishment of a system to declare places in the shire area where alcohol can be taken and consumed, a deterrent to LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ABORIGINAL the illegal sale of alcohol and the minimisation LANDS) AMENDMENT BILL of alcohol-related disturbances in the Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH community. There is broad community support (Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, Local in Aurukun for a system which will allow Government and Planning and Minister for individuals or groups of people to have alcohol Rural Communities) (8.21 p.m.), by leave, prohibited or controlled in their homes or on without notice: I move— their homelands. Legislative Assembly 11193 21 March 1995

It is considered the current liquor laws The way in which the Law Council have not been sufficient to deter the illegal conducts its business and makes its decisions sale of alcohol in Aurukun. Policing of the is up to it. Where the Law Council considers it illegal sale of alcohol, commonly referred to as appropriate, it may take into account "sly-grogging", is difficult because the burden Aboriginal tradition in making decisions. of proof required by the courts is set at a level However, the Bill specifies the majority of the which cannot easily be obtained in a members of the Law Council present at a community such as Aurukun. The clear meeting must be in agreement to decide a intention of the Bill is that the proposed question. system to control alcohol in certain places In effect, the Bill establishes a specific should not result in a total prohibition across purpose alternative governing structure to the shire. control the possession or consumption of The Bill establishes a decision making alcohol in the shire area. This step has been body called the Aurukun Alcohol Law Council, taken as it became clear during detailed which I will refer to as "the Law Council". The community consultations that representation main function of the Law Council is to decide on the shire council and other community which places will be declared dry, that is, organisations was not seen as a particularly where the presence of alcohol will be appropriate basis for the composition of a prohibited, and which places will be declared body to make decisions about alcohol. These controlled, that is, where the possession or consultations occurred as part of a pilot consumption of alcohol is restricted through community planning project being undertaken directions which set limits on the quantity or in Aurukun under the Government's type of alcohol brought into the place. Alternative Governing Structures Program. The Law Council may also make a The issue of alcohol and a legislative direction which allows the possession or framework to deal with its availability has been consumption of alcohol in a controlled place if the focus of the first stage in the planning it is in accordance with a permit. For example, project. The approach taken in the Bill is the Law Council may decide to make a consistent with the Government's policy to direction about a public place such as a park explore alternative management structures in which allows a group to apply for a permit to Aboriginal communities in close consultation have more than the allowed quantity and/or with those communities. The Law Council is type of alcohol when a special event is to be accountable to the Aurukun community and held. must report on its activities at least once every The Bill places a number of obligations six months and notify the community that on the Law Council to ensure the community copies of the report are available. A number of is informed about its proposals and its provisions in the Bill are also specifically decisions. The Law Council will also have a designed to ensure the community is given an role in advising the State Government and the opportunity to participate in the decision- Aurukun Shire Council on the operation and making process. effectiveness of the system and generally on There are two categories of places which the administration and enforcement of the the Law Council can declare dry or controlled, legislation. public places and private places. Public places Members of the Law Council will be the are the roads; places under the control of the elders of recognised traditional groups whose shire council such as parks, the airstrip and the names will be published in the Gazette by the barge landing area; and places under the Minister. These groups are recognised under control of the Government such as the Aboriginal tradition and collectively make up hospital and the school grounds. Applications the people particularly concerned with the land to declare a public place dry or controlled may in the shire. Each traditional group can be initiated by the Law Council or it may nominate at least one elder as a receive an application from the shire council or representative on the Law Council. The from a Government department in respect of Minister must publish the names in the places under their control. Gazette as well as a description of each Private places are places such as a recognised traditional group which forms the house in Aurukun which is occupied by a basis for the composition of the Law Council. person, a group of persons or an entity other Although more than one elder may be than the shire council or the Government; nominated to represent a traditional group, places such as a homeland area to which a only one elder from each group may attend a person or a group has the authority to control meeting of the Law Council. access under Aboriginal tradition; any other 21 March 1995 11194 Legislative Assembly place that is not a public place. Applications to undertaking the administrative support declare private places dry or controlled may function to the Law Council. The administrative only be made to the Law Council by an costs of operating the Law Council will be occupier or by a group of people who have a divided equally between the council and particular connection with a private place Aurukun Community Incorporated. The under Aboriginal tradition. company is an Aboriginal corporation which Once an application is received by the operates the general store in Aurukun Law Council or it decides to initiate an township and undertakes other commercial application about a public place, the details of activities. The directors are members of the the proposal must be put in a notice and Aurukun community. displayed in a prominent place in the town and Penalties are included in the Bill as a if possible at the place where the declaration is deterrent to possessing or consuming any proposed. The same public notification alcohol in dry places or where it is not in process is applicable where it is proposed to accordance with directions or a permit made amend or revoke a declaration. for a controlled place. The maximum level of penalty is set at 250 units or $15,000 to target The Law Council may also initiate offenders who trade illegally in alcohol. For the consultation within the community. For purposes of enforcing declarations, an instance, it may discuss with the occupier of a authorised officer is a police officer or a private place the need for a declaration over member of the local Aboriginal police specially that place and then invite the occupier to authorised by a police officer for that purpose. make an application. The Law Council's ability to invite applications gives flexibility in A range of other offences is included in circumstances where the occupier or traditional the Bill to assist authorised officers in the owners may be reluctant to make an exercise of their powers. Many of these are application but where there is wider community based on the powers of entry provisions which support for a declaration. were incorporated into the Local Government Any adult resident of the shire may Act 1993 late last year by the Local express an opinion objecting to or supporting Government Legislation Amendment Act a proposed declaration about a public place. 1994. The objection or supporting statement may be The Bill also enables a court to order expressed in writing or be given verbally after alcohol or vehicles used to transport alcohol to requesting a personal interview with the Law be forfeited to the shire council where a Council. For a proposed declaration over a breach of the Law Council's decision has private place, submissions about the proposal occurred. Disposal of such goods is dealt with are limited to the occupiers or people using by the council under the Local Government the place or neighbouring place or people with Act. Any proceeds from the sale of forfeited a particular connection with a private place property must be used to offset the cost of under Aboriginal tradition. providing administrative support to the Law Council. In addition to receiving submissions, the Law Council may decide to use other Provision is made for a person to apply to consultation mechanisms such as calling a the Law Council for a review of its decision public meeting about any proposal to declare where that person's interests are affected by a place. A public meeting would serve two the decision. The person is entitled to a purposes. It could be used to ensure the statement of reasons for the decision. An community has another opportunity to fully appeal against the decision on review may be understand the proposal as well as to obtain made to a magistrate within 28 days after the the views of the community or people with a decision is given to the person. particular interest in the proposal. It is intended To facilitate the implementation of the that other consultation mechanisms would legislation a strategy is being finalised and will provide greater flexibility to the Law Council to be put in place prior to the date of ensure community understanding and a commencement. The major tasks to be higher degree of ownership of its decisions. undertaken include— The secretary to the Law Council is the facilitating nominations for membership of officer in charge of police at Aurukun or his the Law Council; nominee. The secretary may advise the Law Council on any matters and is responsible for establishing administrative systems; and arranging the keeping of minutes of meetings. undertaking a community education The Aurukun Shire Council is responsible for program. Legislative Assembly 11195 21 March 1995

Once the new system is operating, a solutions to the control of alcohol. The success monitoring and evaluation strategy will be put of these provisions is very much dependent in place aimed at assisting the Government upon the commitment of the Aurukun and the community to assess the extent to community to ensuring the Law Council and its which the legislation's objectives have been membership of elders is recognised as the achieved. appropriate authority to determine where The decision-making framework alcohol can be taken and consumed in established under the Bill is designed to Aurukun. I commend the Bill to the House. empower the whole of the community to Debate, on motion of Mrs McCauley, participate in decisions through recognition of adjourned. Aboriginal tradition. The extent to which the legislation can bring about a reduction in the incidence of sly grogging and alcohol-related ADJOURNMENT crime will also depend on a broad commitment Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH within the community to bringing about (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) change. (8.36 p.m.): I move— In my opening remarks I indicated there "That the House do now adjourn." are other miscellaneous matters dealt with in the Bill. The Bill amends the Local Government (Aboriginal Lands) Act to provide Electricity for Aboriginal police officers to be indemnified Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (8.37 p.m.): from legal liability during the exercise of their Tonight, I rise in this Adjournment debate to duties. Aboriginal police officers are appointed bring to the attention of this Parliament and by the shire council to assist in the the people of Queensland the dreadful failure enforcement of local laws and can also be of the Goss Labor Government in planning for authorised officers under the new provisions the future of electricity supplies in this State. dealing with the enforcement of declarations Over the past five years, this Government has of the Law Council. Similar provisions were failed absolutely in respect of the future of inserted in the community services Acts in industrial and domestic power supplies in 1994 to provide for indemnification of Queensland. community police in the other Aboriginal and Islander communities in Queensland. Let me remind members that, five years ago when the Goss Labor Government came The Bill also repeals several provisions to power, the electricity industry in Queensland which are no longer consistent with other was the best in this country. It was recognised Government policy. The Liquor Act 1992 nationally and internationally as the best. We introduced a process for the establishment of had the cheapest power in mainland liquor facilities in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Australia—we could not compete with the Islander community areas and the local hydropower in Tasmania. So I ask this government areas of Aurukun and Parliament: what has happened in the last five Mornington. The Mornington Shire Council and a half years that has gone so badly, badly currently operates a liquor facility under wrong? In Queensland, we had the existing provisions of the Local Government Queensland Electricity Commission, which was (Aboriginal Lands) Act dealing with beer highly regarded as probably the finest and canteens. The Bill repeals these provisions most competent planning and construction and authorises the facility operated by the authority in this country. That Queensland Mornington Shire Council to be a general Electricity Commission was charged with a licence under the Liquor Act. number of things to do. First of all, it had to The Bill also repeals sections of the Act establish; secondly, to maintain; and, thirdly, which enable the Aurukun and Mornington plan for the future electricity generation, Shire Councils to issue prohibition orders on transmission and distribution in this State. individuals consuming alcohol. The provisions When the Labor Government came to of the Bill have been fully discussed with the power in this State, it closed down the QEC shire councils and extensive community planning authority. From 1989 when this Goss consultation has occurred in Aurukun on more Government came to power, there was no effective controls on alcohol. planning done—none whatsoever—until about I believe all members will agree that this 12 months ago when the penny dropped and Bill contains a number of innovative provisions the Minister realised finally that Queensland which are designed to assist the Aurukun would be in deep trouble in 1998. Let me community to determine more effective assure members that everybody else in 21 March 1995 11196 Legislative Assembly

Queensland knew that we would be in trouble Government will have to scramble to find a in 1998 in that the QEC, in no less than four solution. The Government has not been able consecutive annual reports, said that, if a to put together a package to make it work. definitive decision was not made by July 1991 The Opposition has put together such a in respect of the construction of the next package. We have shown the lead in this power station in this State, we would have matter. We can demonstrate how we can power shortages in 1998. The first of those keep the lights on after 1998. I have the reports was the 1988-89 annual report. It was document in front of me. Where is the quite a clear statement and documentary Government's Minister tonight? Why has he evidence was presented in that report for the not stood up in the House and said what he is incoming Government. There were no secrets going to do to keep the power and the lights about that. on in Queensland? A month ago we saw Mr Deputy Speaker, you can bet your life 60,000 houses in Brisbane without power—a that the first discussion that this incoming blackout in Brisbane for the first time. Government had with the QEC was along the Time expired. lines of, "Hey, we need a new power station on line in 1998. We need 350 megawatts of power from that date on. If we do not get that, Coalition Energy Policy then there are going to be brownouts; there Dr CLARK (Barron River) (8.43 p.m.): are going to be blackouts; there are going to The National Party conspiracy of trying to be problems." delude the people of Queensland into thinking The first decision that this Government that they have a reasonable environmental made was that it would not construct the record has come to an abrupt end with the Tully/Millstream hydroelectric scheme, which release of the coalition's energy policy. There was an essential part of the planning process. have been no conversions on the road to It was peak demand power—600 megawatts; Damascus after all. The old National Party that and that is the shortage that we will be facing we know so well is back in form. It never did in 1998—for the proper management of the give up its dream of putting a dam in the Wet grid in Queensland. Tropics World Heritage area, and it is So where are we going? Let me go back determined to succeed where the Tasmanian a little in history to when the former Labor Liberal Government failed. Government in this State was thrown out of The National Party has never supported office 37 years ago. It left the electricity the Wet Tropics World Heritage listing or even industry in this State in a shambles. It was the concept of World Heritage. In fact, when nineteenth century stuff, with the Brisbane City the National Party was in Government it sent Council generating power for the south east of its Environment Minister, Mr Muntz, to Paris to Queensland. Our Government tidied it up, put oppose the World Heritage nomination. it on a central grid under a single authority and started to turn the industry around. It started to A Government member: And Rio. construct the Gladstone, Tarong and Stanwell Dr CLARK: And Rio as well; that is right. Power Stations. The National Party opposed it in 1987 At the moment, the Stanwell Power after it pushed the road through the Daintree, Station is coming on line. The third generator and it opposes it now. Nothing has changed. will be commissioned within a month or so. The National Party has not changed. I have That is in the process of being done. The long experience of the National Party. It was fourth generator will be commissioned in mid an environmental vandal when Martin Tenni 1996 and will provide 350 megawatts of was the Minister for the Environment, and it is power. I remind honourable members that that an environmental vandal now for its support of power station was brought on line by a the Tully/Millstream dam. National Party Government. On its opening No doubt the National Party's mate Bob day, the Premier claimed responsibility for it Katter will run around the Federal Parliament and everything that went with it. He claimed trying to get the Federal coalition to support its the responsibility and did not have the scheme. Interestingly, I suspect that at the decency to say that we were the ones who same time its Green Party mate Drew Hutton brought it on line. will be running around trying to convince Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to ask you: people that there is no need to worry about what will happen after next year? There is not the coalition's energy policy, because the another generator planned for this State—not Federal Government will not let the National a single sausage. What will happen? The Party dam the Wet Tropics World Heritage Legislative Assembly 11197 21 March 1995 area, if by some miracle it becomes the backward step, which must be a gross Government in Queensland. understatement. I can assure Drew Hutton and the Mr Welford: A backward leap. National Party that conservationists do worry Dr CLARK: Absolutely! about the coalition's energy policy, with good reason. As for Drew Hutton's statement I am now calling on Chris Neilson, the quoted in today's Australian that a dam in the recently endorsed Green candidate for Barron Wet Tropics World Heritage area is no worse River, to say what he thinks of the proposal to than Oyster Point, who could possibly believe flood the tropical rainforests of the World that? What a pathetic excuse for the Heritage area and whether he thinks Green Opposition's environmental vandalism! supporters of far-north Queensland should Statements like that simply damage the give their second preferences to a party that credibility and standing of the Green parties supports the Tully/Millstream dam. Their still further. No amount of apologies will hide president, John Metcalfe, said today in the the bankrupt environmental policy of the Cairns Post— National Party or its appalling environmental "What the National Party is asking us record. to do is to destroy our precious far-north While the Government pursues the policy Queensland rainforest to supply peak of demand side management and energy hour power to the rest of Queensland." efficiency, the National Party wants to destroy This is the party to which the Green Party World Heritage rainforests. The National Party intends to give its preferences. Shame on had a chance to redeem itself after the Paris them! debacle in the 1980s but, no, it opposed the World Heritage listing of Fraser Island in the 1990s. A new decade but the same old Queensland Electricity Industry attitudes! Dr WATSON (Moggill) (8.47 p.m.): In 1992, Mr Borbidge said in the Obviously, the member for Barron River is Maryborough Chronicle that he regarded particularly concerned. Having left the Greens World Heritage listing of Fraser Island as for the Labor Party, she has found that she is unnecessary. This should hardly come as a now in a position where the Labor Party has surprise when three years before he said— simply failed to deliver on any of the promises "As to logging the record of forest that it made with respect to the environment. management on Fraser Island speaks for People are starting to realise that, at least with itself. In fact, while providing a valuable the coalition, what we say we are going to do resource, sustained selective logging we actually do. We actually deliver. The actually enhances some parts of the Government promises the world and delivers island." very little. That is amazing stuff. Even the then I also wish to speak about the Environment spokesman, Tony Elliott, Government's failure to provide an appropriate opposed the World Heritage listing of Fraser electricity supply industry. The member for Island. He said— Tablelands has identified a particular problem "The Government has accepted that Queensland is starting to face. There is a recommendations that pandered to one failure, it seems to me, in at least three areas. section of the community, and had Firstly, the Government has failed to plan adequately for an increasing demand for accepted a 'massive overkill' of what was electricity in this State. The member for needed to adequately protect Fraser Tablelands clearly demonstrated that in his Island. The Opposition therefore opposed speech. World Heritage listing." In Cardwell, while supporting the Oyster Secondly, this Government has failed in Point project, the National Party denounced its attempt to keep prices for electricity in World Heritage listing for the Hinchinbrook Queensland competitive. And we will discuss Channel, saying it was born and bred that in a moment. Thirdly, every now and overseas and controlled in Paris. The National again there is a failure to provide adequate Party has not changed. I hope that the Green services in return for the significant charges movement is waking up to it and remembers imposed on consumers. what it is really like. I know that John Metcalfe Last week in my electorate, an issue from the far-north Greens has described its arose that was dissimilar to the brownouts that proposal to dam the World Heritage area as a everybody in Brisbane, including those in my 21 March 1995 11198 Legislative Assembly electorate, faced a few weeks ago. Gladstone Region Nevertheless, it is an issue worth raising. Most Mr BENNETT (Gladstone) (8.52 p.m.): members would probably understand that Recent studies undertaken during the Telecom and Telstra, the company which is consultation phase of the Aldoga industrial putting in cables for pay TV—— land use study showed that an overwhelming Mr Welford: Do you know who they number of residents in the Gladstone region are? are in favour of further industrial development. Dr WATSON: Yes, Telecom and the I believe that that response is indicative of the Government's mate, Rupert. industrious nature of people in the Gladstone region. People are prepared to do the hard It is of concern that a Federal yards in ensuring that industrial development Government corporation is failing to prepare is encouraged and facilitated. If I may indulge adequately for some of the calamities that will in a well-used cliche, the Gladstone region's eventually occur. Last week in Chapel Hill, civic leaders, business people and unionists Telecom managed to sever a power cable and have a can-do attitude. cut electricity to a large section of that suburb. I am not concerned about the fact that such In common with many people before me, incidents will occur, but I am concerned about I went to Gladstone as a young, unemployed the fact that no adequate planning has been tradesman following the industry that went to undertaken to cater for such occurrences— Gladstone. That industry provided me and my neither by Telecom nor by SEQEB. family and many other families with a good quality of life, with our children now having the I would have thought that both of those opportunity to obtain a tertiary education in our bodies would have planned for back-up region at our own university campus—an measures in the event of such an occurrence. education relevant to the needs of Gladstone Most of my constituents were of the view that industry and environs. It is clear that, although the response by SEQEB was less than residents favour further industrial pleasing. The incident occurred at 3.30 in the development, they do not want development afternoon. There was little response until at any cost. I believe it is important that this numerous complaints were directed not only to Parliament should be made aware of the Goss SEQEB but also to my office. It was not until Government's environmental credentials in the about 7.30 in the evening that any attempt Gladstone region. was made by SEQEB to provide a generator The first area on which I wish to to service the people of that suburb. Most concentrate is the gazettal of national people are of the view that, given the way in environmental parks. As promised by the Goss which Telecom is going about trying to install Government, the area of national parks across the cables, such an event was inevitable and the State has doubled. In the Gladstone proper planning should have been electorate, parks have been declared at undertaken. Most people were disappointed Rundle Range, 2,170 hectares; Curtis Island, also that the problem was not addressed until 1,550 hectares; and a 44-hectare Boyne quite a number of complaints were made. Island environmental park. The Goss That is a local issue. Of more concern to Government also fulfilled election promises people should be the fact that the and declared a 580-hectare Wild Cattle Island Queensland electricity industry is becoming National Park and saved it from sandmining. less competitive. In August last year, in an That fragile island could not have supported address to a benchmarking conference held in sandmining and in fact it would have Melbourne, the principal economist of the devastated its flora and fauna. Other less Bureau of Industry Economics, John fragile resources were used not far away. That Whiteman, indicated that in the industrial decision had the widespread support of the electricity arena Queensland was falling Boyne/Tannum community. behind Victoria and, more recently, New South The Goss Government has established Wales. In fact, he stated— an air-monitoring program for the Yarwun "The cheapest Australian State for industrial estate and for Gladstone City and industrial electricity . . . (is) Victoria . . . " publicly releases the findings of that Victoria still lags a fair way behind the rest of program—something that the National Party the world, but the fact remains that that State Government continually opposed. Through the has now taken over from Queensland as the Department of Environment and Heritage, the cheapest State for industrial electricity. Government coordinated the Gladstone Dust Committee—a voluntary group of potentially Time expired. polluting industries set a task to reduce dust Legislative Assembly 11199 21 March 1995 and pollution, even though air monitoring has I firmly believe that one of the most not recorded readings even close to important resource documents which was international limits. recently released by the Minister for Last year, the port authority Environment and Heritage, Molly Robson, is commissioned a multimillion-dollar coal dust the Curtis Coast study. The Curtis Coast study suppression system at its R G Tanna terminal was established as a joint initiative by the to ensure that coal dust does not blow over Department of Environment and Heritage and the city in high winds. The Goss Government the Gladstone Port Authority in mid-1992 and recognised as far back as 1990 that meets their respective individual commitments something had to be done about the to the environmental policy for Queensland emissions from the Gladstone Power Station ports and the coastal protection strategy. It and put in train a program to eliminate dust has investigated and documented the emissions. As part of the sale contract of the resources of the Curtis Coast between the Gladstone Power Station to NRG Comalco, Fitzroy River and the town of 1770 with an aim the company has been required to refurbish of developing a strategy plan which will seek to dust-emission equipment at the station by establish the management of the coastline on December 1997—a popular decision well an environmentally sound and socially received in the community. Already, part of responsible basis. The Curtis Coast has high that work has been completed on one unit, conservation values, and I compliment the and I will be visiting the station to inspect its Goss Government on its work in that regard. operation. Time expired. Enhanced water quality monitoring of the Boyne and Calliope Rivers commenced in 1993 as part of the implementation of the Electricity Industry $1.5m Clean Waters Plan. A Port Curtis water Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (8.57 p.m.): monitoring group was established in early In joining in the Adjournment debate tonight, I 1994 comprising representatives of the wish to respond to some of the remarks made Department of Environment and Heritage and by the member for Barron River, who earlier all companies and authorities currently expressed to this House her views on the discharging waste into Port Curtis. Local Tully/Millstream project. The question is: who governments have received $81,000 for speaks for the Government—the member for recycling, and $15,000 was granted to the B Barron River or the Premier? Earlier this year and M Kerr recycling plant for a paper when speaking on a 4CA program in shredder for newspapers. As well, $7,500 has Cairns—a program that is hosted by John been allocated to local councils for the Mackenzie—the Premier stated that he purchase of pollution-monitoring equipment. personally was in favour of the Tully/Millstream The Capricorn Conservation Council has been project. granted $32,000 between 1991 and 1994, I note that the Honourable the Minister and $37,000 has been allocated for dune for Business, Industry and Regional management programs in the Gladstone Development is supporting my contention. I region, proving that the Goss Government is know that the Minister personally supports the doing its bit in the Gladstone area. project. I realise that he is now confined to As chairman of the Gladstone Marine commenting on matters related to his portfolio, Resources Advisory Committee, I was pleased but as a backbencher the Minister made it well that we were used as a vehicle for the launch known in this House that he personally of the Calliope River study by the Department supports the Tully/Millstream project and of Primary Industries. That study is now an believes that it has a lot going for it. Of course, important resource document, and the next in that respect the Minister is in agreement step for the department is to set up a fish with 78 per cent of north Queenslanders. I habitat reserve in that area. The Gladstone understand that the Cairns Post undertook a Port Authority has also set in train a policy of survey which indicated that 78 per cent of the no net loss of mangroves in the Gladstone people of north Queensland are in favour of Harbour, so that any mangroves that are the Tully/Millstream project. removed in the expansion of the port will be replaced with mangrove planting. Gladstone The question that the electors of Barron has a very keen recreational fishing River have to ask themselves is: who speaks community which would expect no less from for the Government? Is it the Premier, is it the the port authority, because mangroves are newly appointed Minister, or is it the sitting recognised for their importance to the marine member? The electors have to make their up environment. their minds on that issue. I will leave my 21 March 1995 11200 Legislative Assembly comments there, but I just wanted to draw generate the most efficient electricity industry those points to the attention of the House. in Australia and keep jobs in Queensland. Mr Bredhauer: I would have thought Government members say that they are you should ask the Minister for Minerals and going to trade in electricity. They say that, with Energy. one 330 kilovolt line, they are going to trade in Mr FITZGERALD: The honourable electricity. According to them, it will flow one member for Cook, who is not sitting in his way for the next 10 years. The Government is usual place, referred to the Minister for going to trade because it cannot sell. It has Minerals and Energy. The coalition policy on nothing on which to convey the electricity, yet electricity has now been released. The Government members criticise members of Government keeps asking the coalition to the Opposition when we say, "To trade, you outline its policies. will have to build another line." Of course, no decision has been made to build another line, Mr Bredhauer: We've already done but the Minister adds the proviso "at this most of that. stage". However, even though we will be Mr FITZGERALD: I inform the importers of electricity, the Government is honourable member that the Government has going to trade in power. So not only is the not done most of what is contained in that Minister for Minerals and Energy, who has just policy. In the five years that it has been in entered the Chamber, at fault, but so also is power, this Government's only decision has his predecessor. been to cancel the Tully/Millstream project. The Government's electricity industry The Government then decided to construct policy is an absolute sham. Public servants Eastlink in order to obtain one-tenth of employed in the electricity industry are terrified Queensland's power from New South Wales that they will lose their jobs because, if this under the guise that it will trade in power. The Government gets back into power, it will blame honourable member must understand that no those employees for the lack of planning. The decision has yet been made on that issue. Minister will say, "Yes, the industry has failed The decision has been made to set aside a to plan." The Government is screwing corridor but not to build the line. The everything out of Swanbank Power Station. Government has made a decision to trade in Government members told us that they were power; however, for the next 10 years it will going to get 100 per cent production out of suck power out of New South Wales. that power station. That cannot be achieved This Government will export 1,200 jobs to because it has not been designed to give 100 the New South Wales electricity industry. I per cent. The Government will try to drag every remind the honourable member that that ounce of power out of every electricity station it decision has not yet been made, but it will be has, and it will fail; then it will blame the made in the near future. Despite denials from engineers. the Government that the decision has yet to Time expired. be made, landowners in the electorate of Warwick and the electorate of Lockyer are well aware that towers will eventually be running Premeditated Bankruptcy across their properties. That is the decision Mr D'ARCY (Woodridge) (9.02 p.m.): I that the Government has made. It has no rise tonight to speak about the bankruptcies policy on that. The next Queensland that have been plaguing our nation. There is a Government, which will be a National Party deep and genuine concern in the Queensland Government, has released its policies on the and Australian electorate that we, as their sites of new power stations and what options political representatives, have failed to address will be available. The first thing that a National the problem of premeditated bankruptcy. I Party Government will do is stop Eastlink. We refer specifically to people who plan to defraud will not give our jobs to the people of New by bankruptcy. South Wales. The publicity associated with the Bond When the National Party lost and Skase companies has heightened public Government, Queensland had the most awareness of bankruptcy. The public have a efficient electricity industry in Australia and the genuine expectation that we will come up with cheapest power on mainland Australia. So, some of the answers. Since State under a National Party Government those jobs Governments over the last decade or so would not be lost. I notice that the member for handed over much of the administration of Warwick is here to support me in this debate company law to the Federal Government, we tonight. A National Party Government will can rightly say that it is largely its problem, but Legislative Assembly 11201 21 March 1995 we do have a role to play through the must bear some of the burden. The average ministerial councils, the pressure that we can Australian citizen who wants to borrow money put on Federal colleagues and some of the has to deal with the local bank manager, then laws that we still oversee. the local credit agent for the bank. He has to On many occasions in the Parliament I have all of his documentation in place. These have raised the problem of premeditated high rollers and high-fliers are dealing with the bankruptcy in the building industry. My friend, people at the top. They are able to walk away the late Hans Althoff, and his wife, Erica, of E because they do not have to meet the criteria A & S Plaster, have campaigned strongly for a that the average person is forced to meet. change in laws. Suppliers and contractors are Often in cases of bankruptcy, it is these very at risk from unscrupulous entrepreneurs and banks and institutions that foreclose too builders. For example, once material is readily on people who could trade out of their delivered on site, it is the property of the problems. At the same time, many of these developer or the builder, whether or not he people are planning bankruptcies while they has paid for it. There are numerous cases are wining and dining people on boats and where material has been rushed to sites by yachts. It is those types of circumstances that builders who then declare themselves show premeditated bankruptcy. The Australian bankrupt. public want some of those banks that have To a large extent we have overcome lent that money to bear some of the many of the problems associated with responsibility and culpability. subcontractors, and the law in that area is As to company laws—family trusts were working fairly well. Although we have set up to cover some of these premeditated registration of builders and companies, credit bankrupts. There are probably some members checks still leave a lot to be desired. I of this House who have family trusts, but they understand, for example, that in my area a are a method of defrauding; they are a builder by the name of Les Wilson has traded method of keeping taxation at the lowest at various times as Mustang Homes, Our possible rate. However, they are not much use Homes and Wilson & Wilson and on three to the average person. That was the vehicle occasions during the past eight years has used by Skase, and particularly Bond, to make been declared bankrupt, leaving behind huge use of the five-year law. If a person can debts. Credit checks should be tightened and premeditate a bankruptcy over five years, the Builders Registration Board given greater which obviously occurred in those cases, he or power to get the unscrupulous builders out of she can transfer assets within family trusts the industry. Building materials that have not and, at the same time, be immune from been used should revert to the supplier prosecution. So that time limit should be provided that they have not already been changed. We should look seriously at family used in the construction. trusts. The bankruptcy laws actually go back to a The receiver situation is a joke and it 1542 Act. They were an attempt to deal justly needs addressing. We know that in relation to with a genuine bankrupt. None of the following Skase a trustee was appointed by a group of suggestions regarding bankruptcy are creditors, mostly florists and restaurateurs, who intended to deal with those cases, but they were owed a total of $80,000. He got his would make it much harder for the passport, etc., even though he owed the premeditated bankrupt to operate. On each banks a great deal of money. The fact was occasion of premeditated bankruptcy, it is the that the banks moved too slowly. They were public that suffers. Public moneys are used to pursue the bankrupts; financial institutions that his mates. They were owed $190m, yet they face massive losses increase their rates and did not get to appoint a receiver. We have charges to the general public to cover these seen many examples of this problem, and it is losses; and thousands of honest Australian getting out of hand. families have been forced into debt because Today, on behalf of the electorate, I have of the actions of these people. outlined a genuine concern that premeditated Probably the worse thing that occurs is bankruptcy is hurting our nation. that, because of existing laws, a bankrupt is Time expired. able to thumb his nose at the Australian public. There are several areas of the law that Motion agreed to. can be tightened. The financial institutions The House adjourned at 9.07 p.m.