Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1803

TUESDAY, 2 MARCH 1993

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

PETITION The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petition—

Housing Commission Project, Redlands Heights/Moreton Vista Estates From Mr Mackenroth (23 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will not allow the Queensland Housing Commission to proceed with the building of rental houses in the Redlands Heights/Moreton Vista estates area until certain matters have been resolved. Petition received.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS In accordance with the schedule circulated by the Clerk to members in the Chamber, the following documents were tabled— Electricity Act— Electricity (Prescribed Electrical Articles) Amendment Order (No.1) 1993, No.47 Health Legislation Amendment Act— Proclamation—Certain provisions of the Act commence on 1 March 1993, No.45 Local Government Act— Reference of a local government matter to the Local Government Commissioner in relation to the common boundary between the City of Brisbane and the City of Logan, dated 11 February 1993 Local Government Act and Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act— Orders in Council amending the planning schemes for various local authorities throughout the State of Queensland by the rezoning of certain land. The Orders in Council approve amendments to the planning schemes for the following local authorities: City Councils: Bundaberg, Brisbane, Ipswich, Thuringowa, Toowoomba Shire Councils: Albert, Belyando, Broadsound, Caboolture, Cardwell, Crow's Nest, Douglas, Emerald, Fitzroy, Kingaroy, Laidley, Maroochy, Moreton, Mulgrave, Redland, Rosalie, Sarina, Torres, Woocoo Mineral Resources Act— Mineral Resources Amendment Regulation (No.1) 1993, No.46 Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Act— 1804 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Notice requesting the Governor-General of the Commonwealth to make regulations under section 47(1) of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 of the Commonwealth, No.40 Proclamation—Certain provisions of the Act commence on 1 March 1993, No.39 Public Trustee Act— Public Trustee Amendment Regulation (No.1) 1993, No.43 Racing and Betting Act— Racing and Betting Amendment Regulation (No.1) 1993, No.48 Statutory Instruments Act— Statutory Instruments Amendment Regulation (No.1) 1993, No.41 Stock Act— Stock (Avian Influenza) Repeal Regulation 1993, No.42 Supreme Court Act— Supreme Court Rules Amendment Order (No.1) 1993, No.44.

PAPERS The following papers were laid upon the table of the House— Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Casey)— The Livestock and Meat Authority of Queensland—Report for 1991-92 Proposed New Meat Industry Legislation—Outline of the regulatory and structural aspects.

REGISTER OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier and Minister for Economic and Trade Development) (10.02 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That notwithstanding anything contained in the resolution agreed to by the Legislative Assembly on 27 November 1990— (1) a member must, within one month after the first sitting day of a new Parliament, give to the Registrar of Members’ Interests— (a) a statement of the member’s interests; and (b) a statement of the interests of related persons; (2) a member must notify the registrar in writing of any change in the details contained in the statement of interests given by the member for the life of the Parliament within one month of becoming aware of the change; and (3) a member is required to include in a statement of interests details relating to the interest of a related person only if the member is aware of the interest. Motion agreed to. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Four-year Parliamentary Terms Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1805

Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier and Minister for Economic and Trade Development) (10.03 a.m.), by leave: As honourable members will be aware, during its first term, this Government took a referendum to the people seeking to extend the maximum term of the House of Assembly from three years to four years. The concept of four-year terms won support from the three major political parties in Queensland, as well as broad community support, including strong endorsement from the business sector. Unfortunately, the chance for reform was lost because there was not cross-party support on how to achieve an extension of the term of Parliament to four years. The Government’s preference was for a simple four-year maximum. That view was supported by the Liberal Party, but the National Party insisted on a three-year minimum. Those differences led to a vigorous campaign which eventually saw the proposal lost by the narrowest of margins. I believe that recent developments provide us with a new opportunity to again consider the issue of four-year terms. First, the National and Liberal Parties have entered into coalition and are developing uniform policies. As I said when the issue was last raised, if the conservative parties could agree on a single policy, the Government would consider seriously providing bipartisan support. I believe that because of the advantages that would flow from such a reform, it would be in the State’s long-term interests to again consider four-year terms. Mr Szczerbanik interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Albert will cease interjecting. Mr W. K. GOSS: At the moment, Queensland is the only State Parliament which does not operate on a four-year term. The Commonwealth stands with us in having a three-year maximum. However, there is now a clear signal that this may well change in the near future. On Sunday, the Federal coalition Leader, Dr Hewson, released his justice policy, which proposes a referendum to change the Commonwealth Constitution to provide for four-year maximum terms for the House of Representatives. There is now clear common ground between the Government and the Opposition at the Federal level. This could well lead to reform within the next three years. Such a reform would leave Queensland as the odd Parliament out, providing all other jurisdictions with a distinct advantage in respect of long-term planning and the provision of greater surety to the community, especially the private sector. I have today written to the Leader of the Opposition seeking his comments on whether agreement could be reached between the Government and Opposition parties on the issue of four-year terms. If such support were forthcoming, it would be desirable to have a referendum on the same day as a national referendum was held, reducing costs and making the chances of reform as uncomplicated as possible. Although such a reform is not the most pressing facing us as a State and as a nation, I believe that if the opportunity for reform through renewed and bipartisan efforts at a national level were to arise, we should not allow it to simply pass us by for a second time.

MOTION OF CONDOLENCE

Death of Hon. W. D. Lickiss, QGM Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier and Minister for Economic and Trade Development) (10.07 a.m.), by leave: I move— “(1) That this House desires to place on record its appreciation of the services rendered to this State by the late Honourable William Daniel Lickiss, a former member of the Parliament of Queensland and Minister of the Crown; and (2) That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to the family of the deceased gentleman the above resolution, together with an expression of the sympathy and sorrow of the members of the Parliament of Queensland, in the loss they have sustained.” 1806 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Bill Lickiss moved to Brisbane in 1938 and attended the University of Queensland. He married Elma Campbell in 1948 and had two daughters, Robyn and Glenda. During World War II, he served in the Royal Australian Air Force as an air crew navigator. After the war, Bill Lickiss worked as a sugarcane and pineapple farmer, and as a company director. In March 1954, Mr Lickiss was one of three men who were involved in a uranium strike near the Adelaide River in the Northern Territory. That region proved to be one of Australia’s richest uranium sites. Bill Lickiss then joined the Commonwealth Public Service as Chief Draftsman until his election to public office. He was elected as a Liberal Party representative to the seat of Mount Coot-tha in 1963. Following the 1986 redistribution, he represented the seat of Moggill. Bill Lickiss retired from politics in 1989, not contesting his seat in the State election. His reason for doing so was to spend more time with his family. Mr Lickiss served as Chairman of Committees from 1972 to 1974, before being selected as Minister for Survey, Valuation, Urban and Regional Affairs. He held that portfolio from 1975 to 1976, before becoming Minister for Justice and Corrective Services. He remained in that position until 1980. In 1974, he was awarded the Queen’s Gallantry Medal for rescuing a soldier in the Brisbane floods. William Lickiss served on the Select Committee of Privileges from 1976 to 1980, and acted as Deputy Leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party from 1983 to 1986. He also acted as the Liberal Party spokesman for land management, macro planning and the environment. Bill Lickiss was a well-respected politician who possessed an extensive knowledge and expertise in matters of justice and constitutional reform. On behalf of the Queensland Government, I extend sincere condolences to the family of the late Bill Lickiss. Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (10.10 a.m.): On behalf of the Opposition, I second the Premier’s motion of condolence for the former Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Bill Lickiss. Bill was an outstanding member of Parliament and had a long history of service to this State and this country. In common with Vic Sullivan, whose passing we noted in this House last week, Bill served in the Second World War with the Royal Australian Air Force. He served as a navigator, navigation instructor and officer in charge. Later, he served in the Cartographic Unit in the RAAF and, subsequently, during the war, he worked as an intelligence officer. Bill was very interested in photography and worked as a draftsman in the Queensland Survey Office and as Chief Draftsman in the Department of Territories in Darwin. During his busy life before he became a parliamentarian, Bill was a valuer and company director. As the Premier indicated, he was also involved in sugarcane and pineapple farming—two industries that are synonymous with Queensland—owning his property from 1956 to 1969. Bill was elected as the member for Mount Coot-tha in 1963 until the redistribution in 1986, and as the member for Moggill from 1986 until 1989. He was well aware of his responsibilities to the people of his electorate, and the importance of being a member of Parliament. During one of his first speeches in Parliament, he stated that he saw Queensland’s development as being important to all Australians, and pledged to do all in his power to promote it. Bill worked hard as a Liberal backbencher, and served as Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker. In 1975, he was appointed Minister for Survey, Valuation, Urban and Regional Affairs. The following year, his abilities as an able Minister were recognised, and he was elevated to the important Justice and Attorney- General portfolio, and served in that position until 1980. In the Justice portfolio, Bill was responsible for negotiating Commonwealth/State matters, and travelled to Britain to discuss vital constitutional issues of the day. He was also a member of the parliamentary delegation to the Australian Constitutional Convention in 1976 and 1978. Bill also held the Welfare portfolio for a short time. He served his party well as Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party between November 1983 and November 1986. He had a strong sense of duty to others and to the people of his electorate. I note that in 1975, he was awarded the Queen’s Gallantry Medal for rescuing Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1807 a soldier during the horrific floods of 1974. At that time, Bill was engaged in flood relief operations in his area, and was working from an army vehicle when it came into contact with powerlines. Bill, two soldiers and a civilian were thrown into the floodwaters. Although the floodwaters were 10 metres deep, and tension wires were around him in the water, Bill persisted in trying to rescue the man, and brought him to the vehicle. The courage that was displayed by Bill was typical of his willingness to help people and, in this instance, at considerable risk to himself. Bill had a very full and colourful life. On his retirement at the 1989 election, he had notched up 25 years as a member of Parliament, and also a very impressive career. He was a dedicated parliamentarian, and made a massive contribution to years of strong conservative Government in Queensland. In some ways, his quiet manner disguised his considerable personal courage and determination. On behalf of members of the Opposition, I extend our sincere condolences to Bill’s wife, Elma, and to his family. Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (10.14 a.m.): In speaking to this condolence motion, I express sympathy to Elma Lickiss and her daughters, Robyn and Glenda, for the loss of her husband and their father, Bill Lickiss, who, of course, was also a former long- serving member of this Parliament. Mr Speaker, in attending Bill’s funeral along with the Deputy Premier and yourself, although it was a sad occasion—as funerals always are—for many of the former members who attended, it brought back many thoughts and memories of their association with Bill Lickiss throughout a long period in this House. I wish to speak briefly about my earliest memories of Bill Lickiss. When I came to this House in 1969, he was among a group of Liberal members of Parliament who had become affectionately known throughout this State and, indeed, throughout other branches of the Liberal Party in this nation, as the “Ginger” group. They were the original “Ginger” group. I know that the name was given to others at a later stage, during Terry White’s era, for example, but they were the original “Ginger” group. They used to sit at the back of the Chamber on the Government benches. They were a group of fairly intelligent men. However, they were out of sorts with the leadership of their party at that time. Most of them persisted, in common with Bill Lickiss, and most of them, with the exception of John Murray and Geoff Chinchen, at one stage or another achieved ministerial ranking in this House in the coalition Government before it disbanded in 1983. They are a part of the history of this place. Bill Lickiss was one of the very clear leaders. He was very solid and stocky in his build, and he was very solid in the way in which he approached his work as a member of Parliament. Whilst not always agreeing with him, I always listened carefully and intently to his contributions in the House. He did contribute very well indeed, which is all that we can expect of members. Bill Lickiss was very capable, particularly in relation to local government and planning legislation. Even as to rural legislation—he and John Murray, who came from the Ingham area, were two of the few Liberal members at that time who really knew rural affairs. Their contribution was very good. What I must say about Bill—and I mean no disrespect to any past or present holder of the position—is that he was the first of the “Ginger” group to be promoted. In 1972, he became Chairman of Committees of this House. I must say that he was probably the best Chairman of Committees under whom I have served. He was very thorough in his job and very knowledgeable of the Standing Orders. He always made sure that he kept down the level of conversation in the Chamber. I know that you, Mr Speaker, have a bit of difficulty with that at times. Bill Lickiss was also never backwards in throwing members out of the House if they were a bit too rowdy. I did not have a great deal of contact with Bill in the portfolios in which he served in this Parliament. My own speciality in the Parliament has always been rural and provincial affairs. The position of Attorney-General carries a heavy administrative portfolio, but does not take the relevant Minister out to the country areas of this State. Bill Lickiss was a great contributor to this Parliament. His example was one that all members could well look to in so far as their careers are concerned. 1808 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Leader of the Liberal Party) (10.18 a.m.): I rise today to speak of a great fighter and a great Liberal in Bill Lickiss. While best remembered for his 25 years in politics at the top level in this State, Bill Lickiss should also be remembered for his many achievements outside politics during his life. One of the little known facts about Bill’s life was that he played A grade football in three codes, Rugby League, Rugby Union and Australian Rules, in Brisbane. He was a lifesaver with the Kirra Surf Club, and a gold fossicker who did not find a lot of gold, but struck it rich by finding a uranium deposit with a few friends. Bill was a surveyor and map maker who left a senior position in the public service to enter the insecure world of politics. However, it was a career move in which he revelled and which benefited the State as a whole. As the member for Mount Coot-tha, and later Moggill, Bill Lickiss proved to be a friend, confidante and champion for the people of his electorate for more than 25 years. He was a dedicated member of the Liberal Party and a hard worker. This I know from personal experience after being a member of his campaign committee in the early 1980s. My family and I worked on Bill’s campaigns. Bill and Elma became close family friends and confidantes. I often turned to Bill for words of advice. Bill Lickiss first won the seat of Mount Coot-tha in 1963, and was the member for that seat until 1986, when he moved over to Moggill after a redistribution. He was the member for Moggill until 1989, when he retired. Bill Lickiss offered a great deal to the Liberal Party during what were often very turbulent times. He was Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker from 1972 to 1974, was elevated to Cabinet as Minister for Survey, Valuation and Urban and Regional Affairs in 1975, and became Minister for Justice and Attorney-General in 1976, a position that he held until 1980. Bill Lickiss was Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party during difficult times, as I said, from 1983 to 1986, and was an example to the party of how to cope with crisis. For if there was one thing that Bill Lickiss was not short of, it was courage. Whether it was the courage of conviction or personal courage in the face of great danger, Bill Lickiss was not a shirker. During World War II, he was a navigator in the RAAF, and later became an intelligence officer and officer in charge of the RAAF Cartographic Unit. But the greatest example of his bravery came during the 1974 Brisbane floods. His action in diving into 10-metre-deep swirling floodwaters to drag a soldier’s body back to an amphibious vehicle was truly heroic. The action was even more amazing when one takes into account the fact that Bill Lickiss himself had been stunned when the vehicle had hit high-voltage powerlines. Although the soldier later died, no single action epitomises Bill Lickiss more than this act of selfless bravery. Bill Lickiss was awarded the Queen’s Gallantry Medal for his action. I quote from the citation which was written for the award— “In going unhesitatingly to his assistance and struggling against the danger present, Mr Lickiss displayed courage of an extremely high order. The physical demands of the situation were extremely enormous and Mr Lickiss’ own life was in considerable danger.” It is to Queensland’s and the Liberal Party’s great benefits that Bill Lickiss did survive that extremely dangerous situation to serve for another 15 years in State Parliament. As I mentioned earlier, Bill Lickiss was a hard worker in his seat, as well as a Minister and a senior Liberal. I remember reading once of Elma’s wish that perhaps the family could get through dinner without the phone ringing or could sometimes be spared dealing with constituents at home at night. Elma said that she loved meeting the people, but rued politics’ effect on family privacy. In that article, though, she said that Bill Lickiss loved his job as a politician and loved helping the people of Mount Coot-tha, Moggill and Queensland as a whole. Elma loved peace and quiet, but recognised that Bill had to make a contribution to Queensland, a contribution which meant that the family’s private life could not be as quiet and peaceful as perhaps they both would wish. She was a great support to him during his successful career. I know that Bill often used Elma’s commonsense approach to life and her rapport with ordinary Queenslanders as a sounding-board to complement him in his work and policy decisions. I offer my condolences to Elma and daughters, Robyn and Glenda, and know that they are as Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1809 proud of the achievements of their husband and father as we are of our time spent with him during his life in politics. Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party) (10.22 a.m.): I also wish to briefly pay my respects to the late Bill Lickiss. When a party is as small as the Liberal Party currently is in this place, the passing of a former member, and in this case a favourite son, is very hard felt. Much has already been said about Bill's detailed record in this place and outside of it by people who served with him for a longer period than I did, so I will not be repetitive in outlining his achievements, which were many and of great quality and value. Instead, I wish to mention briefly a few personal impressions which will linger on long after the date of Bill's sad departure. I had the honour of serving with Bill in this place for a short time, and I am happy to say that I believe I am the better for having done so. As a newcomer to Parliament in May 1989, I was grateful of Bill's friendship and support—and the guidance which he always offered to those of us who were coming to grips with the complexities of parliamentary life. Bill Lickiss was, to many in the Liberal Party, an elder statesman. He was one of the few people whom I have met here who truly appreciated the tradition and spirit of Westminster. I well remember coming into this Parliament at a time of great political turbulence and happenings. Among many happenings, I witnessed within six months the disbarring of a judge, the replacement of a Premier, the handing down of the Fitzgerald inquiry report and the replacement of a Speaker under very controversial circumstances, to say the least. The constitutional and parliamentary significance of all those and other events was enormous and, for someone who had only recently arrived, required many detailed explanations. It was at that time that Bill developed the role of a constitutional mentor and was able to guide not only the inexperienced but also the many very experienced members through the constitutional maze which the tumultuous events of the second half of 1989 created. He was sensitive to the intricacies of what was happening and it was indeed a pleasure to sit with him and gain from his very many years of parliamentary experience and his understanding of Westminster. And not only did he understand that tradition and spirit; he sought to uphold it on a daily basis. Others in this debate have already spoken of his conduct and actions which earned him a reputation as a person who respected the institution of Parliament. New members to this place will well appreciate that, when they arrive, the learning curve is a short and steep one and they need to quickly come to grips with a lifestyle and modus operandi of Parliament that, to say the least, is unique. Together with other eminent Liberals such as Sir William Knox and Norm Lee, Bill Lickiss provided support and encouragement to his parliamentary colleagues, and shared his intimate knowledge of the cut and thrust of this strange life we all lead. That I was able to be one of these people makes me one of the lucky ones. Most of all, I will remember Bill Lickiss for his decency. He certainly did not fit the popular image of a politician, I am sad to say. I say “sad to say” because Bill was the sort of politician, the sort of parliamentarian, I think many of us would like to be, and the sort of person we hope others see us as. Bill was not a mud-slinger or a muck-raker, but a hard-working man who stood up for what he believed in. His successful service in the Air Force, his professional career and his ministerial achievements—particularly his time as Attorney-General and Minister for Justice—stand as a testament to Bill's success. But, as the awarding of the Queens' Gallantry Medal for his bravery in the 1974 floods showed, Bill Lickiss was very much a man who saw his role as one of service to the community. To see how earnestly Bill believed in this, one need not go past his very first words in this place as found in his maiden speech, when he said— “I do earnestly hope that we will put aside petty plans and selfish aims when we think of essential development. Names on foundation stones or brass plates affixed to walls may serve to gratify someone's vanity, but they may mean little unless the structures that they adorn will be of real benefit to us, to our children, 1810 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

and to our children's children. That is the real test in all our thinking on planning and development: what will it achieve now, and in the future?” Bill was also a devoted family man who tried not to let the demands of this place overshadow his responsibilities as a husband and a father. This philosophy of service to his family, to his community, and to his State was the motto by which Bill lived his life. In all my dealings with him during my years in the Liberal Party, I found him to be someone on whom I could rely for advice and support. He was a natural on the campaign trail, where I think people recognised his inherent honesty and goodwill. I well remember Bill trudging up and down the hills of Ascot, Hamilton and Clayfield in the tough days of 1986 and 1989, helping me as the Liberal candidate at a time when Liberal candidates were not very popular. He similarly helped many other Liberal candidates, which brings me to one of the most important points I wish to make about Bill, that is, that to his very last day he was faithful and loyal to his party. In the uncertain and depressing days of the early and mid eighties, he was not tempted and did not stray from the Liberal fold—instead, he chose to remain loyal to his principles and his roots. That, perhaps more than any of his other and many achievements, will secure for Bill a place in the hearts of all Liberals in Queensland. In my view, loyalty is still one of the most precious and admirable human qualities—almost no other human attribute can ever come close to loyalty as a distinguishing quality. Bill Lickiss was a loyal man. I extend my sympathies to his family and many friends and know that Bill Lickiss will be remembered in this place and in the community as a true gentleman and a good friend. Dr WATSON (Moggill) (10.28 a.m.): I rise to join in the condolence motion for the Honourable William Daniel Lickiss, QGM. I do not intend to traverse his long and outstanding record, but wish to offer a few personal insights into the man and parts of his record. I must admit that I did not expect to ever have to speak on a condolence motion for the first member for Moggill. It is indeed a shock and a sad time for me. Bill Lickiss was a Liberal colleague, a neighbour and a close friend of me and my wife. Bill was, in every sense, a gentleman. He always demonstrated respect and empathy for the individual. He was highly regarded and well liked in the electorate. As a young man, Bill Lickiss was a keen sportsman. He participated in a wide range of sporting activities—swimming, boxing, weight-lifting and athletics, where he was a hurdler and a sprinter. He played A-grade in three football codes—Rugby Union, Rugby League as a winger, and Australian Rules. In this latter code, he was a Queensland representative in the State Schools Carnival held in Hobart in September 1939—the time of the outbreak of World War II. The team travelled to Tasmania by ship, and I remember him telling me of how they had to black out the ship at night—they were concerned with submarines even at that early stage of the war. A synopsis of some newspaper reports of that time gives a clue to his sporting prowess. Let me quote— “Easily the outstanding player in the P.S.C.H. (Past State Commercial High) team was W. Lickiss. This lad was a Rugby player in Sydney Schools. When he came to Brisbane he became interested in the Australian game and within three months had earned himself a place in a schools carnival team. This is his first season of senior football.” A later report states— “Bill Lickiss was again Commercials tireless spearhead of repeated attacks. Rarely beaten, this youthful player was consistently brilliant. There is a big future football career for Bill.” Bill did not pursure a football career. Instead, at the age of 18, he volunteered for the Air Force and trained as a navigator, although he did manage to make the combined New South Wales-RAAF Rugby team in 1942. After completing his navigator, bombing and gunnery training, he was posted to Darwin. Bill completed his first operational flight in August 1943. Pictures taken after that flight show a smiling Bill Lickiss, together with his pilot and gunner, with the simple message underneath, “We got back.” His pilot on that flight, Lloyd, was later killed in Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1811

England. One of the photographs in Bill’s wartime collection shows a harbour in, I presume, the Indonesian islands. Under the photograph, in Bill’s handwriting—and typically understating the achievement—are the words— “Fluke. We hit the target . . . for once. Destroyed wharf Bandaraira 1944.” Bill, in common with most men of his age who went to war, did not think of himself as a hero. He simply did what he considered to be the right thing. He was like many in the community who go through life making courageous decisions without any fanfare, but decisions which nevertheless make a crucial difference to our way of life. The same attitude was in evidence when he dived into the floodwaters in 1974 to rescue an unconscious Army corporal who, like Bill, had been thrown into the water after the army duck that they had been using to distribute supplies hit the high voltage transmission lines that cross Moggill Road near Pinjarra Hills. Bill saved himself, but then returned to the floodwaters to save that fellow human being. Bill was awarded the Queen’s Gallantry Medal for that effort and he was extremely proud to have been honoured in that way. But he was not conceited about it—he had simply done what he thought was the right thing to do. At that time, Bill was the member for Mount Coot-tha and Chairman of Committees. In 1963, he had been elected to the seat of Mount Coot-tha. Bill had earlier contested the seat of Bulimba in 1957. He had agreed to run as a Liberal to fly the flag in a strong Labor seat. He never expected to win, but in typical style he put all his energy into campaigning, including street meetings at the meatworks on the back of the pick-up truck. They were apparently rowdy affairs and, although they did not vote for Bill, he gained their respect by his manner and efforts. To the surprise of everybody, including Bill, he nearly won that election because of the Labor split. He used to say to me that not winning was one of his luckier political moments. There would have been no long- term future for a Liberal member in Bulimba. Bill Lickiss was a man of principle, and that was reflected in his political career. In the last Parliament, Matt Foley, when introducing the Parliamentary Papers Bill as a private member’s Bill, remarked that it was the first private member’s Bill for some time—the last one having been introduced by Bill Knox in the 1970s. The genesis of that latter Bill had been formulated by the then Attorney-General, Bill Lickiss. It concerned an amendment to the Criminal Code with respect to the termination of pregnancy. Between Cabinet approval of the Bill and its presentation to the Parliament, certain groups got to the Premier and had the Bill altered. Bill Lickiss refused to introduce the amended Bill into the Parliament as it had significantly changed the intent of his Bill. So it became a private member’s Bill and the Attorney-General and others combined to defeat the Bill on the floor of the Parliament. Despite the pressures, Bill Lickiss stuck to his principles. Bill Lickiss also stuck to his principles when it came to the recommendations for the appointments of the Chief Justice and the Senior Puisne Judge. Cabinet discussions had taken place and it became obvious that the Premier wanted a particular person to be nominated. It was suggested that the Attorney-General withdraw his nominations and that the question be considered at the Cabinet meeting the following week. Bill Lickiss agreed to defer the consideration of his nominations but, in doing so, he remarked that his nominations would remain in the Cabinet bag as they would be exactly the same the following week. At the next Cabinet meeting, his nominations were accepted without comment. Without any fanfare, Bill Lickiss stuck to his principles. It was not a lesson understood by all subsequent Attorneys-General. I had the opportunity to get to know Bill well during the 1983 State election campaign. By that time, we were neighbours. It was a tough campaign, made all the tougher because many Liberals left the party and joined forces with the Nationals. Bill was deserted by a number of his campaign team. As the votes came in on that election evening, most people had conceded Mount Coot-tha. However, Bill and I had designed a simple scrutineer’s form to track precisely the preferences of the Democrat candidate, David Delgarno, which we thought would be critical, and they were. Our analysis 1812 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly showed that Bill would win by about 258 votes. We did not finish until about 1.30 a.m. Within a few hours of arriving home, the telephone rang. Bill asked, “Do you think we could go through those figures once again?” Bill was painstakingly meticulous. At times, this would frustrate me, but at other times I was was the beneficiary of that same careful approach. I will conclude after one more comment. That comment is in relation to the CJC inquiry and the report on members’ allowances. Bill was one of the 54 members whose face was blazoned across the front page of the Courier-Mail after they had been scrutinised by the CJC, tried by the media and left as victims of a political campaign. Bill Lickiss was hurt immensely by that episode. After all, this was a man who had risked his life for his country and also to save a fellow human being, who upheld all the fine traditions of the Parliament as a member and the laws of the State as Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, and whose honesty and integrity were beyond reproach. A number of people are yet to take full responsibility for their part in that episode. Bill was a very patient man. I am sure that he will be waiting for them to do so. There is a verse which reads something like this— “Some people come into our lives and quickly go. Some stay for a while, leave footprints on our hearts and we are never the same.” Bill was one of those rare individuals who left indelible footprints on the hearts of many who came in contact with him. I know that he did so with Elma, Robyn and Glenda, and their families, as he did for Shirley, myself and our family. I feel honoured that my life was enriched by having come to know him so well over the past decade. I join in extending to Elma, Robyn and Glenda my sincerest condolences. We will all sorely miss him. Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly) (10.37 a.m.): I suppose I could reasonably claim to have known the late Bill Lickiss longer than anyone else in this Chamber. It was therefore with real regret that I learned early on Monday, 22 February, of his sudden passing. I was associated with Bill Lickiss in the Ryan Division in the western suburbs of the Liberal Party from the time I first joined the party over 26 years ago. He was then, and he remained until 1989, the Liberal member for Mount Cooth-tha, or Moggill as it became in 1986. Few men or women have the privilege and the opportunity to serve in this Parliament for more than a quarter of a century. No-one here today has been a member for that long, with only the Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Casey, the father of this House, approaching that period. Bill Lickiss served continuously for some 26 and a half years. In that time, he witnessed what may be reasonably termed the highs and lows of the parliamentary Liberal Party in Queensland. Notwithstanding the turbulent period that the Liberal Party had endured, Bill Lickiss always remained totally loyal to the party. After our most difficult period—the 1983 election—he served with credit and with loyalty as Deputy Leader to Sir William Knox. Even in retirement, he maintained a keen interest in the Liberal Party and State politics. I know he gave valuable advice and assistance to the present member for Moggill, Dr David Watson, who succeeded him in 1989. As has been mentioned, Bill served as a Minister, including as Minister for Justice and Attorney-General in the coalition Government from 1974 until 1980 when he was dropped from the Ministry by the then leader, Dr Edwards, in controversial and, many would argue, regrettable circumstances. Even though he took his removal from the Cabinet very badly because he believed he had been most unjustly treated, he continued to work very hard for the Liberal Party in his own area and throughout Queensland. With the interests of the people of Queensland in mind, he worked hard indeed. In 1976, when I was elected to the Brisbane City Council, Bill Lickiss was one who gave me some very sound advice about the demands and requirements of public office. The same occurred when I joined him in this Chamber after the 1986 election. Before I conclude, I want to make reference to the tremendous and very courageous work done by Bill Lickiss during the 1974 floods in Brisbane. Those floods caused great damage to large parts of the Mount Coot-tha electorate and Bill Lickiss Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1813 worked around the clock for days assisting with rescue and relief work. It was during this rescue work that Bill Lickiss displayed the courage which was to be later recognised by Her Majesty when he was awarded the Queen’s Gallantry Medal. I regret very much that Bill Lickiss enjoyed just over only three years in retirement because his service to this State, in the Air Force during World War II and his dedication to his family surely deserved a greater reward. I join in expressing my sorrow to his widow, Elma, who gave him tremendous support right throughout his political career, and his family on the very sudden loss they have sustained. I hope they will gain comfort from the knowledge that the late William Daniel Lickiss served Queensland and the Queensland Liberal Party in particular very well indeed. Mrs EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha) (10.41 a.m.): I rise to join with other honourable members to convey my condolences and sympathy to the family of the late Bill Lickiss who held the seat of Mount Coot-tha from 1963 to 1986 before moving to the electorate of Moggill following the 1986 redistribution. While not really knowing Bill personally, I understand that he was a respected and well-liked representative of the people of Mount Coot-tha. Prior to his election, he had led a varied and interesting life, including distinguished military service in the RAAF. Bill Lickiss became patron of The Gap RSL and remained in that role through his retirement even after several redistributions that took The Gap outside his electorate area. It was in that capacity that I met Bill Lickiss at Anzac Day services and lunches over the last three years. While little of Bill Lickiss’ Mount Coot-tha electorate remains in the present electorate, on behalf of the constituents of Mount Coot-tha, I extend condolences to the wife and family of Bill Lickiss. Motion agreed to, honourable members standing in silence.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (10.42 a.m.), by leave: On Friday, the Premier accused me of being implicated in an alleged scandal in respect of the Trinity Inlet proposal. Among other things, he alleged that legal advice in respect of Government compensation was not obtained. I realise that what I am about to do is unprecedented, but I now table 1989 Cabinet documents that prove that the Premier has indulged in a disgraceful smear. These documents disprove the Premier’s claims and raise serious questions as to the conduct and credibility of both the Premier and the Solicitor-General. These documents damn the Premier and his cowardly allegations of last Friday and show that it is his actions, not those of the previous Government, that may have exposed Queensland taxpayers to a considerable compensation claim. These documents show that the Premier is now exposed as the emperor with no clothes.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr COOPER (Crows Nest) (10.44 a.m.), by leave: On Friday, in this House and outside it, the Premier made a cowardly attack on my personal integrity and the integrity of my 1989 Government in relation to the Trinity Point hotel matter. I was accused of impropriety. This morning, the Leader of the Opposition has tabled in this House—in a totally unprecedented, genuinely open and accountable manner—the full and unexpurgated Cabinet documents of both meetings that dealt with this matter which tell the real story about how my Government dealt with it. We cannot be more open than that. These documents show conclusively that if the State of Queensland faces a major damages suit over my Government’s decision to scrap that project, then that threat has far more to do with the ego of the Premier, the incompetence of the Solicitor-General, and their mutual efforts to twist the truth to their own particular ends than with me. I table a full copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Shepherdson of 5 February on the issue 1814 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly of the ex gratia payment, which further reveals the role of the Premier’s ego and the Solicitor-General’s incompetence in the mess that the current Government has created for itself and the Queensland taxpayer. I will take these matters further in the Matters of Public Interest debate.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC WORKS

Report and Transcripts Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (10.45 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the Parliamentary Public Works Committee’s report titled Kirwan Psychiatric Rehabilitation Centre. I also lay upon the table of the House the transcripts of evidence taken at the hearing conducted in Townsville on Monday, 7 December 1992, to be included in the Parliament’s archives of information. The committee had the opportunity to evaluate the need for this project in mid-1991 when it conducted an inquiry into the community attitudes towards the construction of such an establishment. Having agreed to the proposal to construct this centre, the committee felt that it should return and look at the administration of the project. I thank all members of the committee for their contribution to this matter—the deputy chairman, Mr Len Stephan, Mrs Margaret Woodgate, Mr Terry Sullivan, Mr Peter Beattie, Mr Bruce Davidson and Mr Vaughan Johnson. The committee records its thanks for the assistance given by the staff of the committee secretariat, in particular, Mrs Monica Hayes, and records its appreciation of the fine work of the research director, Miss Carol Keliher. I move that the report be printed. Ordered to be printed.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Budget Restrictions in Public Hospitals Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Minister for Health, I refer to the admission from the Government last night that some people on public hospital waiting lists have died and his reported claim that it is not as many as 12, and I ask: what action has he taken to find out how many Queenslanders on waiting lists have died, and will he now admit that budget restrictions in place in Queensland hospitals will place further lives at risk? Mr HAYWARD: The claim by the Opposition, which was apparently based on some information supplied to it by the Australian Medical Association—which I think during the past few months has shown itself to be a highly dubious organisation—is absolutely wrong. The Prince Charles Hospital is aware of two people who have died during the past few months while awaiting cardiac surgery. The important point to think about is that they did not necessarily die because they were awaiting cardiac surgery. Mr Elliott interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cunningham! Mr HAYWARD: Cardiac surgery, in common with any other surgical procedure in Queensland, is based on the notion of medical need. The determination of when a person is to present for a particular operation is made by the cardiac specialists. It is determined by the people who are involved with the patients. As honourable members heard earlier, people do have heart attacks; people do die. It is unpredictable as to when that will happen. The simple and the important thing to understand about an issue such as this is that, firstly, the Australian Medical Association—and then with the connivance of the Opposition—has tried to make something out of something that did not happen; secondly, it then assumes that, somehow, we can anticipate, and cardiac surgeons and specialists can anticipate when someone is going to die. That cannot be done. Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1815

The point very clearly is that the assessment of a patient’s need for surgery and the timing of that surgery is made by a cardiologist, and that is based on the available evidence about the patient’s condition and other treatment priorities at that time. All honourable members should recognise the very unpredictable nature of cardiac disease. When we recognise that, we then must recognise that even the most highly skilled specialists—and they are the sorts of people who work at Prince Charles Hospital—cannot always predict accurately the surgical needs of every patient.

Budget Restrictions in Public Hospitals Mr BORBIDGE: I ask the Minister for Health: how can he justify a situation in which a heart patient is denied surgery due to lack of funds and subsequently suffers two heart attacks, and what action has he taken to ensure that such a situation does not recur? Mr HAYWARD: The particular case to which the Leader of the Opposition refers is that of a Mr Harders. I made this point very publicly yesterday. Very clearly, what has happened in the case of Mr Harders is a prime example of how the system of medical priority ensures that people such as Mr Harders receive treatment when they need it. Mr Borbidge: He had two attacks after six months. Mr HAYWARD: Let me go into the details. When members of the Opposition rely on their AMA mates, they are often not told the full facts. Quite simply, Mr Harders has the Queensland public hospital system to thank for his being alive. We need to look at the facts of this case. On 17 December last year, Mr Harders had an angioplasty at the Prince Charles Hospital. That was on 17 December, and I notice that Opposition members did not mention that when they were talking either now or previously. On 9 February, after suffering heart pains, Mr Harders was admitted to the Prince Charles Hospital. He had an angiography on the same day. On the next day, 10 February, he had a follow-up consultation with a specialist who performs angioplasties. It was apparent that he would require further treatment, as is the case with 15 per cent to 30 per cent of angioplasty patients. It was arranged the next day, 11 February, that he would have surgery on 1 March, and he was discharged. On 13 February, Mr Harders suffered a heart attack. On 16 February, he was transferred from the Mater Hospital to the Prince Charles Hospital and, on the second day—that is 18 February—he underwent a procedure called an arthrectomy. That is an important point to note, because it has been only in the past 12 months—if the Leader of the Opposition would listen to this important point—that such a procedure has been available at the Prince Charles Hospital. Mr Mackenroth: He doesn’t care about the people you save. Mr HAYWARD: Exactly. It is unbelievable. It is important to recognise that development in the case. As I said, the arthrectomy is a relatively new procedure, in which the surgeon uses a small drill to clean out arteries and which, in many cases, can obviate the need for bypass surgery. The important thing to understand is that Mr Harders was discharged from the hospital on 25 February. That means that, from the time of his consultation after he had his heart attack, he had to wait nine days for his treatment and then his discharge. I think very clearly that recognises the strength of the Queensland public hospital system. I make the point again that cardiac conditions are notoriously unpredictable. The fact that he had his treatment after his condition deteriorated indicates how well the notion of medical priority works.

Effect of Fightback on State Budget 1816 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr PITT: In directing a question to the Treasurer, I refer to a Queensland Treasury Department assessment that shows that the Federal Opposition’s policies as outlined in Fightback would cause a $370m black hole in the State’s Budget, and I ask: is he aware of any evidence to support claims by Dr Hewson and the State Opposition that the Queensland Treasury assessment is flawed? Mr De LACY: I thank the honourable member for the question. Just let me say that in all of the debate that transpired in this House last week, nothing was said by members of the Opposition which would give comfort to me or to the Government that there will not be, firstly, a substantial cut in Federal Government funding to the States if John Hewson is elected as Prime Minister; and, secondly, that Queensland will not be grossly discriminated against by a Hewson Government. The question is: is there any independent evidence to support the Queensland Treasury assessment that it will cost us $370m? New South Wales Treasury has done an assessment of the potential impact of the Federal coalition’s Fightback package, and the bottom line is that the total impact to the New South Wales Budget will be $314m. That, primarily, is comprised of a reduction in financial assistance grants—— Mrs Sheldon: Tell us about the latest one as well. You always work on old ones. Mr De LACY: I will take the honourable member’s interjection in a minute. I was hoping she would interject. That, primarily, is comprised of a reduction in financial assistance grants of $181m and an adjustment for the payroll tax abolition grant of something in excess of $100m. I note that the Leader of the Liberal Party is interjecting and saying that it has been changed. Last week, she said something to the effect, “Yes, Mr Treasurer, the compensation formula is totally different from the three-year average of collections mentioned in the original Fightback package.” I presume from that that we can assume it is no longer a three-year average, that it has been changed. That means that New South Wales will not be disadvantaged to the extent of something in excess of $100m. I found out why New South Wales was going to be disadvantaged in the payroll tax abolition grant by $100m. Everybody knows that, during the last three years, that State increased its payroll tax from 5 per cent to 7 per cent. So when the Federal Opposition proposed a three-year average for the payroll tax abolition grant, no doubt in New South Wales they started to scream because they were going to be discriminated against. Then, in February, Dr Hewson invited Mr Borbidge and Mrs Sheldon down to Canberra for the so-called jobs communique. What they agreed to was a change which would remove the disadvantage against New South Wales. So the two Queensland representatives were down there agreeing to a change in the Fightback package which removed the disadvantage from New South Wales. But did they do anything to remove the disadvantage in the Fightback package against Queensland? I would just like to point out to honourable members that, last week, I wrote a letter to the Leader of the Liberal Party requesting further information in a whole range of areas. Mrs Sheldon: It got to my office at 5.30 last Friday. Mr De LACY: I am waiting with bated breath for her response. On the evidence that is available, there are four or five areas in which the Federal coalition’s package grossly discriminates against Queensland. I have requested clarification of those issues and a whole range of guarantees, and I wait with bated breath. If I can just conclude on the New South Wales Treasury’s assessment—one other thing that it made reference to was the Federal coalition’s proposal to remove the excise on fuel. What it said is that that will not really affect New South Wales because its petrol franchise fee is a fixed amount. But then the New South Wales Treasury goes on to say that because of the Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1817 reduction in fuel prices, petroleum consumption would increase by 5 per cent and therefore New South Wales could expect to get more revenue because of this reduction in excise. The New South Wales Treasury also says that it is important to note that with such a large decrease in the price of petrol, there will be some scope for the State Government of New South Wales to increase the petroleum franchise fee. The New South Wales Government sees this as a window of opportunity. That is how the Liberal and National Parties look at these things—as a window of opportunity to increase petrol taxes on the people of New South Wales. Sugar Industry Package Mr PITT: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries: what will be the effects on Queensland of the sugar industry package agreed to between the Federal and State Governments? Mr CASEY: I will answer very briefly because there is only a short period remaining in question time. This package was put together over a period of three months at Government-to-Government level, and it underwrites for the sugar industry a guarantee that a $55 a tonne tariff will continue until such time as world markets are fixed and the distortions in world markets caused by other countries are placed on the outer. Suddenly, because that was such a winner in the sugar areas, the Federal coalition said a couple of weeks later that it would like to do something. It will completely do away with tariffs after a period of two crushing seasons. This will cause disastrous financial loss to the Queensland sugar industry, especially to cane farmers in this State. It does not matter what the coalition has promised, such a major package has never been negotiated with the Queensland Government. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has expired.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Trinity Point Development Mr COOPER (Crows Nest) (11 a.m.): Last week, the most hypocritical, venal, vainglorious person to ever set foot in this Chamber adopted his favourite stance: the outraged, flushed—— Government members interjected. Mr COOPER: I want Government members to hear this—the outraged, flushed, Princess Di impersonation, and made one of the most cowardly attacks under parliamentary privilege that I have ever witnessed. It was an attack on me, on the Leader of the Opposition and on a former member of this House over the way in which the previous Government handled the issue of compensation resulting from my decision in 1989 to stop the proposed Trinity Point hotel project in Cairns. The implications were that we had prostituted the proper processes, had paid out our mates and had left the State of Queensland open to a claim of $120m in damages via a decision improperly taken at the eleventh hour. He was joined in this particularly obnoxious use of coward’s castle, via a clever little ruse, by another of his clever little type who displays many of the same propensities as the Premier. I refer to the petulant, the bruised, the miffed Crown Solicitor for the State of Queensland, Mr “Okay”—or should I say Mr O’Shea. I inform Mr O’Shea and the House that the facts are these: on 12 October 1989—not, as the error-prone Mr O’Shea suggested in a letter riddled with variations on the facts, during the State election campaign, but well before it—I announced that the project would not go ahead. I did not promise compensation, as the Premier has implied and as Mr O’Shea has claimed. I promised discussions to determine the company’s 1818 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly rights to compensation. Those discussions took place and, on 23 October, Cabinet met and discussed a long submission on how the Government should proceed to deal with the matter in the light of an indication from the developers that they would sue for foregone profits if the Government did not agree to two conditions, which were— reimbursement of moneys spent on the project under the investigative lease; and compensation based on the unimproved capital value of the land comprising the lease. The Cabinet submission shows—and I recommend the Cabinet documents to all of those who are interested in the truth in this matter—that the course upon which the Government embarked to deal with this threat was exactly the course recommended to it by the Acting Solicitor-General. The relevant Cabinet document, which is submission No. 52507, stated— “My officers have sought the advice of the Acting Solicitor-General on the company’s claim and in discussions the following advice was provided— (a) because the developer has indicated that if his terms are not accepted he will seek legal redress, the appropriate response suggested to inquiries is that the matter has been referred to the Acting Solicitor-General for his advice, and his advice is that as litigation has been threatened, no further discussions should take place until he further advises; nor should casual statements be made publicly about the matter. (b) it is open to conjecture whether the developer yet has grounds for action as no formal Government response has been provided to his development lease application. This being the case, the Solicitor-General’s advice is that action should continue to process the lease application in accordance with the lease. In the immediate future, the appropriate course of action is to analyse the views of the advisory bodies in relation to the study reports lodged and establish whether there is either— (i) clear grounds that the developer has not and cannot satisfy the lease conditions; or (ii) clear grounds that the developer has not satisfied the lease conditions but a significant likelihood that, given more time, he could.” In the light of that advice from the Acting Solicitor-General, the submission goes on to observe— “Failure to adhere to this course of action could expose the Government to legal action to recover damages for breach of contract. Should such claims be successful, enormous damages could be awarded, including the court’s assessment of loss of potential profits. If this process is followed, it is felt the Government would be protected against major damages and the developer would not be entitled to any compensation except on an ex gratia basis. At that point, it might be appropriate to make an offer to the developer of an ex gratia payment to acquire for the State the ownership of the data assembled for the feasibility studies. These reports contain material that is of significant value to the ongoing management of Trinity Inlet.” So much for my unilateral decision during the election campaign which, by the way, had not even started! That day, Cabinet voted on a recommendation totally in line with the advice of the Acting Solicitor-General. On 20 November, the then Minister for Land Management and the then Minister for Maritime Services provided the analysis called for by Cabinet on 23 October, again in line with the advice of the Acting Solicitor-General. They presented over 40 pages of information from a wide variety of Government departments and local government authorities, all of which—I repeat, “all of which”, including a long submission from the ALP-dominated Cairns City Council and one from Tom Pyne’s Mulgrave Shire Council—pointed to various failures of the developers to meet the requirements of the Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1819 lease. For anybody interested in the facts, all of those submissions are available to be studied now that they have been tabled in the interests of truth by the Leader of the Opposition. They have been tabled along with the entire and unexpurgated contents of the relevant Cabinet submissions of 23 October and 20 November. That is genuine freedom of information— something of which Government members have never heard! The result of the analysis provided on 20 November was that Cabinet voted to accept the recommendation from the Ministers that it recommend to the Governor-in- Council that the development lease for the project not be granted. So, there you have it. Cabinet, quite properly and very explicitly, followed the advice of the Acting Solicitor-General in the way it should go about handling the issue of the lease. It accepted the independent advice of senior bureaucrats in the Government, Labor’s Cairns City Council and Labor’s Mulgrave Shire Council that the developers had not satisfied the terms of the investigatory lease and should not move to a development lease. So much for looking after our mates! The issue of the ex gratia payment must now be visible in its proper context. It was clearly not related to the potential threat of a claim for major damages; it was a separate issue. It is a poor attempt at witchcraft for the Premier to claim, with the support of Mr “Okay” O’Shea, that the former Government’s failure to link the ex gratia payment to an unconditional guarantee from the company that it would not seek major damages was somehow a crucial shortcoming that laid the State open to a massive damages claim. The fact is that the Government had adopted the course suggested by the Acting Solicitor-General as the best means of protecting the State against such a major damages claim. The ex gratia payment did not come into that issue then, and it is not relevant to that issue now. We are left with the ex gratia payment in isolation—where it belongs. The simple fact is that the Cabinet voted to provide reimbursement of the company’s expenditure on a vast compilation of principally environmental studies concerning probably the single most important tourism location of this State—the water environment on the edge of Cairns City and the Trinity Inlet. That is the material that was facetiously referred to by the Premier and Mr “Okay” O’Shea as the “information”. Its purchase was a good and proper investment in the Queensland tourism industry and the City of Cairns. It was also just. In common with me, Martin Tenni was unable to defend himself when the Premier made his personal attack on him. The Premier has implied improper behaviour on behalf of Mr Tenni and me. Anybody who followed politics during the era in question would know that Martin Tenni and I were not mates. People should look at the press clippings to understand that fact. I ended Martin Tenni’s ministerial career. I blocked the project that he wanted to go ahead. However, today, I join Mr Tenni in challenging the Premier to refer this matter to the CJC. If he has something to say, and as his Princess Di in drag impersonation suits him so comfortably—he has lost the wherewithal to express matters out in the open like a man— he should report the matter to the CJC. He should go ahead and be a real bitch. He should pout and pirouette, and refer the matter to the CJC. The fact is that Martin Tenni wanted that project to go ahead. After he left this place, he worked as a consultant for the Trinity Point company. He has never sought to hide the fact that, on behalf of that company, he had contact with the Premier’s Department during the final days of the former National Party Government. In the final analysis, the payment is the type of compensatory payment with which the Premier is very familiar. When he stopped logging on Fraser Island—after he said that he would not—it cost Queensland taxpayers $16.5m, and when he stopped the Orchid Beach development on the island, it cost taxpayers $8m. He paid out his little mate Peter Laurance for sandmining leases that cost taxpayers $2m. I wager that the CJC would find those matters a far more fruitful proposition than any investigation of the Trinity Point matter. Goods and Services Tax Mr ROBERTSON (Sunnybank) (11.13 a.m.): Last week, the Honourable Minister for Housing and Local Government set the record straight on how the 15 per cent GST 1820 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly could be applied to council services. However, despite his analysis of the increase in rate bills, the Opposition has either ignored the facts or has made gross distortions of the facts, thereby confusing ordinary Queenslanders. As the member for Sunnybank, which is a seat situated principally within the boundaries of the Brisbane City Council, I wish to take the opportunity to build upon the information that was provided by the Minister so that the people of Brisbane, including the ratepayers of Sunnybank, Runcorn, Kuraby and Calamvale, are under no misapprehension about how much more they will have to pay under Dr Hewson's insidious tax.

The Liberals’ GST will be an unmitigated disaster for the ratepayers of Brisbane. In a most embarrassing display of ignorance of their own policy, the Federal shadow Minister for Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald, was finally forced to admit that the GST will apply to water and sewage as well as cleansing charges, the effect of which will be passed on to the ratepayers of Queensland every time they turn on a tap, every time they flush a toilet and every time they receive their rates bill. However, before the effects of Dr Hewson’s insidious 15 per cent GST are considered, I refer to the length of time that it took for the Liberals to finally come clean with the people of Brisbane. In June 1992, the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Alderman Jim Soorley, wrote to Dr Hewson outlining his concerns about how the GST would affect Brisbane ratepayers and the Brisbane City Council. He received no reply. On 4 December last year, the Lord Mayor, who was still concerned about the effects of the GST on the ratepayers of Brisbane, again wrote to Dr Hewson. On that occasion, he included the council’s own assessment from its finance branch on how it believed the council would be affected. Again, the Lord Mayor received no reply from the Liberal Party, until he released publicly the finance branch figures. Those figures revealed that under the GST, on average, the ratepayers of Brisbane would have to pay $226 per year extra through their rates bills.

It was only then that Dr Hewson replied to the Lord Mayor. He stated that he had referred the BCC's concerns to the shadow Minister Senator Macdonald. However, last week we heard an accusation by the State Opposition that this Labor Government is not interested in local government. On that point, the Liberals and the Nationals have much to answer. One would think that when the largest local authority in Australia—a local authority that has a budget larger than that of Tasmania—raises a legitimate concern with the Federal Opposition Leader, after seven months of waiting, he would do better than refer its concerns to his Opposition spokesperson. That demonstrates both contempt and a lack of concern not only towards the ratepayers of Brisbane but also—as we will see—the whole of Queensland. It took seven months for the Lord Mayor to receive a reply from Dr Hewson, and how disappointing and contemptuous that reply was! However, to Senator Macdonald's credit, Lord Mayor Soorley was finally provided with a reply to his concerns that he detailed in his letter to Hewson. An AAP press release outlined what Senator Macdonald had to say about the GST. It states— “An announcement was imminent on how much of the local government rate bill could attract a 15 per cent goods and services tax under a coalition government.” It is important to note that in that statement, Senator Macdonald avoids the question of the application of the 15 per cent GST on council services such as water and sewage. However, as he claimed in that press release, “An announcement was imminent”. I refer now to the Urban and Local Government conference which was held on 18 February this year. From all reports it was a most unfortunate conference for Senator Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1821

Macdonald. From 10 February, local authorities had waited with bated breath for the impending announcement from the Opposition about the application of the GST on council services, only to be told eight days later at the ULG conference that it was too difficult and that they would have to wait until after the election. Is it any wonder that local authorities became upset at the ULG conference? Is it any wonder that Senator Macdonald tried to evade questions from conference delegates? Finally, is it any wonder that he was not let off the hook by the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, who was the conference chair during that session.

Thankfully for the ratepayers of Queensland, the local authority delegates who attended that conference stood up to the increasingly evasive Senator Macdonald, and under heated questioning by delegates, he was finally forced to admit the following— “If you want an answer, I have to say ‘Yes’, the GST will be on that section of the rates bill which pays for water and sewage.” The cat was finally out of the bag, and what an expensive cat it was! However, if honourable members had listened to the speech made by the member for Callide last week, they would think that this admission had never been made. She ignored this most important issue, and the cost implications upon her constituents. I might add that she also ignored the protestations of the Mayor of Gladstone, who is one of her own party colleagues and a virtual neighbour in central Queensland. The Federal Liberal and National Parties had tried so hard over the previous nine months since Lord Mayor Soorley first wrote to Hewson to keep this quiet and not admit to the effect of the 15 per cent GST on council services that they almost got away with it. They almost made it to 13 March without having to be open and honest with ratepayers about the effect of the GST on their rates bills.

But what will be the effect of the 15 per cent GST on the ratepayers of Brisbane? The Brisbane City Council acknowledges the benefits of the proposed abolition of payroll tax and fuel excise, that is, $6.264m and $5.146m respectively. Interestingly, these were the very figures quoted last week by the member for Callide, and they were about the only figures that she did get right. But what follows are the figures to which the member for Callide did not admit, conveniently ignored, or just did not know. In the letter from Lord Mayor Soorley to Hewson in December 1992, under the heading “Disadvantages to Brisbane City Council”, the Finance Branch lists the following— “This is the effect that Dr Hewson’s 15% GST will have upon the ratepayers of Brisbane: Loss of Road Funding $7.036m Reduction in Financial Asst Grant $800,000 Administration Costs $200,000 Additional Financial Service Costs $500,000 Loss of Better Cities Funding $7.5 million A total of $16.036 million” But then comes the sting—the sting finally admitted by Senator Macdonald but conveniently ignored by the Queensland Liberal/National coalition. Those are the direct effects on the ratepayers of Brisbane of the 15 per cent GST— 1822 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

“GST on water — $22.133 m GST on sewage — $14.107 m GST on cleansing — $ 8.336 m GST on public transport — $ 7.044 m GST on other services — $ 6.870 m Add BCC costs previously identified — $16.036 m Total gross costs — $74.526 m Less the saving for payroll and fuel tax previously identified of $11.410m gives you the net extra costs to be passed on to Brisbane ratepayers of $63.116m. Divide this figure by the number of ratepayers in Brisbane (279,000) gives you the average extra cost per ratepayer in Brisbane of $226.22 per year.” These are the figures which Senator Macdonald dismissed as “mere speculation”, but only nine days later he had to eat his words when he admitted at the ULG conference that the GST will apply to water and sewerage. But it is not solely Lord Mayor Soorley who has raised these very real concerns with the Liberals’ GST. I ask members to consider the comments by the President of the Local Government Association of Queensland, who said on 19 February— “I am worried about the impact of GST on water and sewage on urban areas within councils. What about the situation where farmers take the town water supply for both domestic and agricultural production—how will we differentiate in that situation?” How will we, indeed! But apart from the extra $226 per year that the average ratepayer will pay under the 15 per cent GST, what is most insidious about this tax is that it will be applied to the soon to be introduced citywide kerb-side recycling scheme. So just when Australians have recognised the importance of the environment and embraced the philosophy of think globally, act locally, and just when they are looking forward to a workable, affordable, citywide kerb-side recycling scheme, Dr Hewson is even going to tax that at 15 per cent. How the council opposition leader, Bob Ward, must shudder at the effect of the policies of his Federal counterparts upon the ratepayers of Brisbane. Can one imagine how poor Bob Ward must feel? He has just announced that he will not recontest the ward of Runcorn—much to the relief of the people of Sunnybank, I might add—and undertake the folly of challenging for the Lord Mayoralty next year. Can one imagine how poor Bob Ward feels since he learned that his own party wants to impose a tax upon the council’s recycling scheme? Is it any wonder that he was not prepared to debate the GST in the council chamber last Tuesday? In conclusion, let me highlight one important point. And it may explain the member for Callide’s selective quoting of the effect of the 15 per cent GST on council rates. I have already taken members of this House through the time frame that led to Dr Hewson’s admission on 19 February. Unfortunately, no-one told Tim Fischer. Remember him? The Dan Quayle of the Federal coalition. Three days after Hewson’s embarrassing admission, on 22 February, there was poor old Tim being interviewed on 4QR. I shall just relate what the ABC newsreader had to say— “The National Party leader claims there will be little impact on ratepayers if the coalition decides to charge the GST on water. Guests at a conservative function in Brisbane today questioned Tim Fischer about claims that the GST will push up the cost of services like water and sewage. Mr Fischer says”— and I ask members to bear in mind that this was three days after Dr Hewson’s admission— “that decision (on water and sewage) won’t be made until after the election.” Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1823

Sorry, Tim. The Liberals had already made that decision. Is it not a pity that no-one told the Nationals? Time expired.

Alleged Debt to Tricontinental by Laurance Group of Companies Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly) (11.20 a.m.): The Premier and the Minister for Tourism are covering up an $80m debt owed by the Laurance group of companies—Pivot Group Ltd and Q-West Pty Ltd—to Tricontinental and, therefore, the taxpayers of Victoria. This is another John Cain/Joan Kirner debt owed to the taxpayers of Victoria. This is the very same John Cain who is Wayne Goss’ idol. After all, he said, “I want to do for business in Queensland what John Cain has done for business in Victoria.” This is also the very same Joan Kirner with whom the Premier campaigned two weeks ago in Victoria. On 12 November last year, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Premier whether he was aware of the $80m loss to Tricontinental by companies associated with Mr Peter Laurance, the Chairman of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation. The Leader of the Opposition went on to ask the Premier whether he was aware that Mr Laurance’s companies had a $150m indebtedness to Tricontinental when he appointed him as chairman. The Premier advised, “No”, he had no knowledge one way or the other at the time of the appointment of Mr Laurance in relation to the private commercial dealings between companies. Later, during the same question time on 12 November last year, the Minister for Tourism had a Labor backbencher ask the Minister a Dorothy Dix question for comment on the accuracy of material contained in the 7.30 Report on Mr Peter Laurance and his allegedly owing $80m to the taxpayers of Victoria. In answering the question, the Minister tabled a document, and then addressed a number of issues. The document that the Minister tabled was a facsimile from Tricontinental Holdings Ltd’s Mr Olaf O’Duill, dated 11 November 1992, which stated— “Re: Peter Lawrence Pivot/Q West Group of Companies Dear Minister, This is to advise you that the obligations the above individual and companies had to Tricontinental Corporation Limited have been fully discharged. Yours sincerely Olaf B O’Duill Managing Director” The Minister, Mr Gibbs, then went on to say— “The arrangement between the Chairman of QTTC, Laurance, and the bankers are his business.” Now, I had no interest in this matter until the Minister tabled that document—which I table again for the information of members—the purpose of which was clearly to create the impression that there was no money owing to Tricontinental Holdings Ltd by Mr P. Laurance. The facts are that Mr Laurance’s companies, Pivot Group Ltd and Q-West Pty Ltd, owe Tricontinental Corporation Ltd, that is, the Victorian taxpayer, around $80m. For the information of members, I table a statement of claims lodged in the Supreme Court of Victoria at Melbourne between Tricontinental Corporation Ltd, as the plaintiff, and KMG Hungerford and Peat Marwick Hungerford, the defendants. The document is dated June 1992. Further, I table papers from the final report of the Royal Commission into the Tricontinental Group of Companies dated 31 August 1992, which show the Peter Laurance group of companies, Pivot Group Ltd and Q-West Pty Ltd, which are listed in an appendix which I also table, as companies involved with transactions that were privately viewed as involving substantial loan losses. What we have is the situation in which the Victorian Cain and Kirner Labor Governments agreed to enter into an 1824 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly arrangement to write off loans of around $80m owed by the Laurance group of companies, and have the taxpayers of Victoria pick up the $80m debt. Mr Borbidge: A Peter Laurance tax. Mr BEANLAND: I think it is only fair to call this Labor mateship at its best, or, as the Leader of the Opposition says, a Peter Laurance tax. I followed up this matter. I looked a little further into the history of Mr Peter Laurance. He was a journalist on the West Australian newspaper before working for Mr Alan Bond for five years. He left Bond in 1972. He has said that he learnt what to do in business and what not to do in business from Bond—he certainly did, as recent events prove. Now enter the number-cruncher of the New South Wales Right, Senator Graham Richardson, who has given a whole new meaning to mateship. Senator Richardson endorsed the controversial plans to mine an environmentally sensitive area of Shoalwater Bay, despite his department’s strong reservations and opposition from three other Federal Government departments. The sandmining leases were held by Pivot Group Ltd, a company owned by Mr Peter Laurance, who sold them the same month they were approved by Federal Cabinet. At the time, Mr Laurance’s companies owed around $80m to the Victorian Government’s failed Tricontinental merchant bank. Those are the debts that I indicated have been written off at the expense of the Victorian taxpayers. In February 1990, Senator Richardson endorsed Pivot’s plan to mine 6 349 hectares of the Shoalwater Bay military training area north of Rockhampton. Shoalwater Bay is listed on the Register of the National Estate and is one of the few pristine wilderness areas on the eastern Australian coast. Senator Richardson said then that his decision was based on a detailed assessment of an environmental impact statement prepared by Pivot consultants. The proposal was also opposed by the Army, the Australian Heritage Commission and the CSIRO. Cabinet approved 21-year sandmining leases over the area in October 1990, just prior to Pivot Group Ltd having sold them, along with its other sandmining interests, including parts of Fraser Island. The Goss Government paid Pivot Mining $2.2m in compensation when it cancelled the Fraser Island leases. The chairman of Pivot Mining agreed that Pivot was the beneficiary of a great deal. Last month, Labor agreed to halt mining pending the outcome of an inquiry into Shoalwater Bay—the same Shoalwater Bay sandmining agreed to by Labor’s Senator Richardson, for which an environmental impact assessment had already been done, according to Senator Richardson. What a farce! What a sham! It is abundantly clear that, in this House, the Minister for Tourism set out to protect his mate and misled the Parliament. He should resign over this disgraceful situation. As for the Premier—he must have been aware of the situation and is just as guilty of misleading this Parliament. If the Premier says he did not know, then he is guilty of incompetence and maladministration. As has been shown, Labor will go to any lengths to support and protect its mates, even when they owe $80m to the long-suffering Victorian taxpayers. As for Mr Laurance—he should do the decent thing and resign from one of the real plum jobs this Government has handed out. How can the people of Queensland have confidence in Mr Laurance when his corporate debts of $80m are being met by the Victorian taxpayers? Finally, a proportion of this debt will ultimately be borne by the taxpayers of Queensland, because the debt restructuring being undertaken by the new Victorian Government requires an input from national revenue. The next time the Premier weeps crocodile tears about Queensland having to indirectly pick up the bill for South Australia’s problems, he should also apologise to the people of this State for the fact that they are helping to pay off the debt of one of this Government’s extremely well-paid mates—Peter Laurance—as well. The Premier must end this hypocrisy and get a new QTTC chairman now.

Trinity Point Development Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1825

Hon. W. K. GOSS (Logan—Premier and Minister for Economic and Trade Development) (11.30 a.m.): I rise to make certain comments about the Trinity Bay development that has been canvassed in this House over the last two sitting days. I think that all members would have been struck by the remarkable performance by the member for Western Downs this morning, and I think that the language— A Government member interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: I am sorry; the member for Crows Nest. I think that both the language that he used and the emotion shows that there is something very sensitive in relation to this matter on the part of the member for Crows Nest and the member for Surfers Paradise who participated in the improper Cabinet decision. The key issue is this: they have erected a smokescreen of documents and history—— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Crows Nest was heard in relative silence. I suggest that honourable members give the same consideration to this side of the Chamber. Mr W. K. GOSS: They have erected a smokescreen designed to cover up this issue. The advice that they received was not on whether to pay, but how to pay. Mr Cooper claims that the Supreme Court vindicated his position. Not so. The decision that he took vindicated the court decision, because by the time it got to court he had, unfortunately, improperly or incompetently—he can take his pick—committed the people of this State to an unnecessary multimillion-dollar payout. What neither he nor the Leader of the Opposition has offered to members of this House or to the public is the legal advice that says that there was an obligation to pay money to the developer. Certainly, they got legal advice on how to do it; how to justify it; how to make it look legitimate; how to implement it; but not advice on whether or not the State was liable to pay it. One might think that they had something to talk about and defend, if they said, “In exchange for the money we got an assurance that there would be no damages claim for the $120m”. But they did not. When were the decisions made? Were there key decisions made during the caretaker period? Today, the member for Surfers Paradise tabled a big bundle of documents related to a Cabinet decision in which I understand that he participated, and which the Crown Solicitor says was improper and I say is improper. The minute of the decision proves my point. Paragraph 4 stated that an offer to purchase the material contained in the study reports on the basis of the reimbursement of actual costs and expenses be made to the company subject to the amount of the offer not exceeding $5m. That was made on 20 November, right in the middle of the caretaker period, only less than two weeks before the State election. That was the key decision. It should be noted that they also acknowledged in that same Cabinet minute that the developer had not complied with the Government requirements. They say that themselves. They say that the feasibility study and the impact assessment study were not satisfactory; that the proposal was not acceptable. In view of the deficiencies identified in the studies, no acceptable proposal could be negotiated for this site. In other words, the documents that the member for Surfers Paradise has tabled show two clear things: the developer had not met its requirements and was not entitled to develop the site and, furthermore, they made the significant decision to pay up the $5m right in the middle of the caretaker period, improperly, and the Leader of the Opposition is involved in it up to his neck. I will table a couple more documents, because I was expecting the member for Crows Nest to engage in that performance today. I will not use any adjectives to describe it such as the type of language that he used. I table a further memorandum from the Crown Solicitor dated 1 March. I will not read it all, but there are certain important key sections. Paragraph 5 states— “The initiative to enter into this contract”— that is, to pay them up to $5m— 1826 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

“came from the client, not from me. I have never advised that the State was under a binding legal obligation to make the offer which it did on 30 November 1989.” Paragraph 6 states— “My advice to the previous Government”— that is Mr Cooper and Mr Borbidge— “(given after consultation with Senior Counsel and evidenced by a Cabinet Submission well before the offer of 30 November 1989 was made), was in fact that if Special Leases 09/47886 and 09/49764 were duly terminated, any payment to the Company by way of compensation would be an ex-gratia one.” “Ex gratia” means out of grace. It means that one is not liable to pay it; one is giving it to them when they are not entitled to it. Mr Cooper gave the game away when he used the term “ex gratia” today. He used that term himself. The Crown Solicitor goes on to say— “When forwarding the draft letter of offer of 30 November 1989 to the Premier’s Department I would ordinarily advise in such circumstances that as a matter of tactics, the offer to purchase the material should be conditional upon the company agreeing to renounce all claims it may have against the Crown . . .” Did they do it? Mr Foley: Common sense. Mr W. K. GOSS: As the member for Yeronga says, “Common sense”. Paragraph 9 states— “On 12 October 1989, the then Premier, Mr. Cooper, made his announcement in Cairns that the Trinity Point development would not proceed. This announcement came as a bolt out of the blue, so far as my Officers and myself are concerned.” He goes on to make some important points. I will let honourable members read those for themselves, because I have some more documents here. I table a letter dated 30 November from the head of the Premier’s Department, under Mr Russell Cooper at that time, making an offer to the company. In other words, they made the offer on the Thursday before the election—— An Opposition member interjected. Mr W. K. GOSS: I have the letter and I will table it. The company accepted it on the Friday before the election. Were they rushing to get the deal done before Saturday or not? Mr Cooper: Table it. Mr W. K. GOSS: I table the letter from the Premier’s Department on the Thursday before the 1989 State election in which the offer was made. Members can look at that in respect of what was secured in terms of the damages suit. To demonstrate further their desperation to get the deal done before midday Thursday, 7 December—the day in 1989 when this Government was sworn in—I point out that on Wednesday, 6 December, which was after Mr Cooper lost the election and while he was shredding documents and cleaning out his drawers—— Mr Cooper: So much for tabling it. Mr W. K. GOSS: He could not get rid of the Cabinet documents. On 6 December, which was four days after he had lost the State election, he wrote to me. The letter was delivered urgently to my office. I still had not been sworn in. It was a three-page letter, which I table, and which concludes— “The company has indicated its intention and ability to comply with the State’s requirements during the course of business today.” Boy, they were busy in those last days! The letter goes on to state— Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1827

“Subject to such compliance and completion of the necessary legal formalities, it would be my intention to sign the deed on behalf of the State of Queensland today and I seek your concurrence.” In other words, he was going to sign a deed handing over millions of dollars four days after he had been thrown out of office by the people of Queensland for behaving in just such a manner as this. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr W. K. GOSS: On the next morning, 7 December, I wrote to him and stated— “I would request that further action be deferred so that I may have an opportunity to obtain and consider detailed legal advice from the Crown Solicitor.” They got advice on how to pay the money; they never got advice on whether they were legally obliged to pay the money.

Trinity Point Development Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Leader of the Opposition) (11.39 a.m.): Never before in the life of this Parliament have we seen such a desperate, conniving Premier—a man whose actions, and whose actions alone, have exposed the taxpayers of Queensland to a $130m potential compensation claim. A Government member interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: I have tabled my documents. I challenge the Premier to table his Government’s Cabinet documents. He will not do so because he knows he is not game to do so. The simple facts are that in the dying days of the previous administration, Russell Cooper was making sure that the incoming Premier was fully briefed and fully understood the consequences of failing to honour the course of action that the National Party Cabinet adopted on 23 October. For the benefit of the fickle fool opposite, I point out that 23 October was nowhere near the caretaker period in terms of the 1989 election. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he should use parliamentary language. I know that the member for Crows Nest has used some very colourful language, but I think that is enough for today. Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, we can be accused of impropriety and all sorts of things, but I would expect that in this place we have the right to defend our position. Mr SPEAKER: Sure. Mr BORBIDGE: Following the wild and unsubstantiated allegations made on Friday by the Premier, I sought Cabinet documents. The Cabinet documents that relate to the specific allegations of the Premier totally discredit what he said on Friday and what he has repeated today. They raise serious questions about the credibility of both the Premier and the Solicitor-General. I suggest to the honourable member opposite that he should get out of the gutter and read the documents that have been tabled. At all times, the former Premier followed the advice of the Solicitor-General that the Solicitor- General is now saying he really did not give. Those Cabinet documents prove the lie. Those Cabinet documents discredit the Premier’s credibility. Mr W. K. GOSS: I rise to a point of order. This will take just two seconds. Mr BORBIDGE: Sit down and cop it! Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr W. K. GOSS: I rise to a point of order. This is just a point of correction. I think the Leader of the Opposition meant to refer to the Crown Solicitor. I would not want to see a report that mentioned the wrong person. 1828 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Crown Solicitor and Solicitor-General are two different people. Mr BORBIDGE: I accept the point of fine law from the suburban solicitor, Mr Speaker. I will go through the documents which have been tabled today and which have been referred to by the honourable member for Crows Nest. One states— “My officers have sought the advice of the Acting Solicitor-General . . . ” There are two Cabinet decisions—23 October and the subsequent Cabinet decision of 20 November. Of course, there were procedural matters to be dealt with as a consequence of those Cabinet decisions, but for the Premier to rise in this place and say that those decisions or that administrative decisions arising from those Cabinet decisions which were made well outside the caretaker period were improper is a total and absolute nonsense. Already today, we have seen how this Government has no difficulty at all when it comes to compensation for Peter Laurance; when it comes to compensation for Fraser Island; when it comes to compensation for the Orchid Beach Resort, where this Government buys a resort and then closes it. There are no problems with those proposals at all, but when the previous Government, acting on the advice of the Acting Solicitor-General, enters into a course of action where a company is reimbursed and the feasibility studies, including the environmental studies in respect of Trinity Inlet, become the property of the Crown, all of a sudden it is improper. What hypocrisy! What double standards! There is one rule for Peter Laurance and another rule for everyone else. One rule for Fraser Island and one rule for Orchid Beach, but another rule for us. Typical hypocrisy! Typical double standards! When I tabled those Cabinet documents today, I did not do so lightly. It is the first time in my 12 years in this Parliament that I can recall Cabinet documents being tabled. Mr Livingstone: You were caught out. Mr BORBIDGE: No. The honourable member is caught out. I invite the Premier to table his Cabinet documents in respect of this matter and do so today—to be as open and accountable as we have been. This is the first time that Cabinet documents have been tabled in this Parliament. It is not good enough for the Government. What the Government will do to prop up that desperate leader whose credibility has been so badly dented by that pathetic, wimpish smear, that disgraceful smear, against the member for Crows Nest and members opposite yesterday! Those documents destroy the Premier’s claims. As I said before, they raise serious questions about the competence, the conduct and the credibility of both the Premier and the Acting Solicitor-General. Those documents show that, unlike the Premier and this Government, the Opposition has nothing to hide. The Opposition has tabled the relevant Cabinet documents. Those documents show that the then Premier, Russell Cooper, did not negotiate with the developers for potential compensation before—I repeat, “before”—seeking advice from the Government’s legal advisers. Mr W. K. Goss: On how to do it. Mr BORBIDGE: The Premier should sit and cop it. He is a wimp. The documents show that, in announcing the decision to scrap the project on 12 October 1989, Mr Cooper indicated only that negotiations would be undertaken with the developers to determine their right to compensation. Despite the wild allegations of the Premier and the Acting Solicitor-General, the documents also show and confirm——— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am becoming increasingly annoyed. Any member who is found to have a beeper in the Chamber will be sent out of the House for a month. Mr BORBIDGE: Those documents also show that the Acting Solicitor-General provided such advice to the Government in October before the honourable member for Crows Nest formulated any offer. In particular, those documents show that the then Government was mindful of the potential to the State of a major damages claim and had properly sought legal advice on ways to meet that threat. Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1829

The Premier stands exposed as a political coward who indulged in a disgraceful smear and has been caught out. Worse still—and this gets to the real heart of the matter—his actions—not the actions of the member for Crows Nest, but the actions of the Premier—may have exposed Queensland taxpayers to a substantial compensation claim that the honourable member for Crows Nest had sought to avert. It is a fair comment to make that the honourable member had tried to convince the incoming Premier of the seriousness—the danger—of the folly. Since Friday, we have seen a carefully orchestrated attempt by a fragile Premier to try to make sure that, if a compensation claim is made, it will not be on his head; somehow, the member for Crows Nest, the previous National Party Government, John Hewson or someone else will be blamed, but it will not be the Premier. After the ruling, the situation in which the Premier found himself was not good enough, so the Government went off to the court and Mr Justice Shepherdson ruled against it. Mr Justice Shepherdson ruled against the Government—another $1m over and above what had been negotiated by the previous National Party Government. The Premier is walking out of the Chamber. He is walking out of the Chamber because he knows that he can smile, he can sneer, and he can laugh, but his actions have exposed the taxpayers of Queensland to a potential $130m threat. As the Premier runs away to his office, I say to him: if he has claims to the contrary—as the member for Crows Nest said—he should put them before the CJC and put them before the Parliament. However, for the Premier to use this place as he did last Friday would be one of the most disgraceful, one of the most sickening and one of the most despicable smears by an incumbent Premier in this Parliament to save his own political neck and to make sure that his precious credibility remains intact. The Opposition has nothing to hide. Time expired. Industrial Relations Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (11.49 a.m.): After the vigorous and spirited performance by the Premier in this debate and the histrionics of the members for Crows Nest and Surfers Paradise, such a mundane matter as the one about which I am going to speak, that is, the industrial future of this country, would seem to pale into a position of subordinate significance. Today, I rise to alert the working men and women of Queensland to the danger posed to their work conditions and quality of life by the policies of the Federal coalition. Just what is the Hewson agenda? Australian workers should not be fooled that their current award wages and conditions will be protected under a Hewson Government. Dr Hewson’s industrial relations policy is designed to take away many things that workers now take for granted. If Dr Hewson has his way, penalty rates, shift allowances, award superannuation, set daily working hours, rest and meal breaks, long service leave, redundancy provisions and other conditions may be lost or reduced. What about wages and penalty rates? Dr Hewson’s policy gives employers the power to cut the wages of workers. Employers will be able to sack workers and then rehire them at lower minimum rates. There is nothing to stop employers reducing the paid hours worked, replacing permanent employment by casual employment with no guarantee of minimum income, and employing people at wage rates well below the set minimums. Just who will be most affected by those changes in industrial relations? By pushing workers into individual bargaining contracts, Dr Hewson wants to remove the right of workers to be represented by their unions. Workers with low bargaining power and low-skilled and unskilled workers will be affected most. Women, the young, migrants, disabled people and casual workers will, indeed, be the most vulnerable. Much has been said of the Hewson do-it-yourself bargaining program. Dr Hewson wants to push workers into individual employment contracts. That means that workers will be forced outside the award system and will not be allowed back without the written consent of their employer. That will weaken the position of employees and give 1830 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly employers a free hand. Employers will be able to determine the conditions of employment and present workers with the choice of a contract or the sack. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! The House will come to order. Mr PITT: It is a take it or leave it policy. Dr Hewson’s policy is bad for workers and it is bad for the Australian economy. It destroys a vital link between workplace bargaining and workplace reform, which will slow down the long-term productivity growth in this country. It is a policy of confrontation. It will lead to fragmentation and eventually to industrial chaos. Let us look at some contrasts. Firstly, let us contrast the industrial record of the Government with what Dr Hewson has to offer. Under Labor’s industrial relations system, the total value of award wages and conditions of employment cannot be reduced. However, under Dr Hewson, wages and conditions can be reduced. There is nothing to stop unscrupulous employers forcing their workers out of the award system and pushing them, as I said before, into individual employment contracts. Labor has an umpire—an umpire to protect the workers from exploitation. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission plays an important role in ensuring that workplace agreements are fair and that those agreements do not put workers in a position of disadvantage. Dr Hewson does not allow workers to have access to the umpire unless their employer lets them stay in the award system. The employee advocate proposed by Dr Hewson would be totally inadequate as a mechanism to enforce agreements. The current Australian Industrial Relations Commission is a cheap and accessible system for enforcing agreements and determination of award wages and conditions. However, Dr Hewson will have workers pursuing their case through the courts, with average claims taking six months to resolve. Mr Santoro interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Clayfield! Mr PITT: If the employee advocate does not think workers’ claims are legitimate, they are on their own. Labor is promoting long-term productivity improvements. The aim is a high wage/high skill economy. This model delivers productivity with fairness. On the other hand, Dr Hewson’s conflict-based policy is a low wage/low skill approach. His system of employment contracts is based on cutting wages and employment conditions rather than on developing long-term strategies to improve productivity. The Labor Party recognises the difference in power between an employer and an individual worker. It recognises that there is a fundamental imbalance in the bargaining power of an employer and that of an individual worker. But Dr Hewson shows that he has no regard for the need to protect workers. He will only allow individual workers to be signatories to employment contracts, and unions cannot be signatories even if they are chosen by the workers to represent them. Through its Accord relationship with the ACTU, the Government has an effective wages policy which has committed the Accord parties to a low inflation target. This policy has delivered, as everyone is able to see. In reality, Dr Hewson has no wages policy. The only way he can deal with the inflationary impact of the GST is to raise interest rates and give employers the freedom to cut wages and conditions. Just what is in the legislation that John Howard and John Hewson will bring in? Are we to be subject to some sneaky, middle-of-the-night trick as performed by Kennett in Victoria? Only a year ago, Mr Howard promised on several occasions that he would release his industrial relations Bill. According to theBusiness Sunday of December 1991, he said that the coalition would be producing a Bill “well before the next election”. Now Mr Howard is back-pedalling furiously. First, he said he could not produce his Bill “for one simple reason”, that is, he does not have access to the resources of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. The Government has said that this can be arranged, and an offer to make those resources available has already been made. Mr Howard then declined. He found another reason. In the Australian of 12 November 1992, he said— Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1831

“No other Opposition has ever produced a bill like that and there is no way we are going to.” This is just another excuse. In fact, the Opposition released several industrial relations Bills in the last few years. Senator Fred Chaney released details of an Industrial Relations Amendment Bill in 1990, the Industrial Relations Directions to Stop Industrial Action Bill in 1989, and the Conciliation and Arbitration (Compliance Provisions) Amendment Bill in 1987. Given the “big bang” nature of the Opposition’s policy and the very real danger that it poses for the living standards of many workers, Australians should question why the Opposition has not delivered its draft legislation, warts and all, as it promised. The shifting sands of the coalition agenda are quite obvious. Where is the industrial relations Bill? The coalition had the opportunity to launch that Bill at yesterday’s Liberal Party policy launch. It missed that opportunity. I suggest to members that the coalition is going to do exactly what Jeff Kennett did—bring down an industrial relations Bill in the middle of the night. The coalition not only hates unionists but also hates unionism. Dr Hewson and John Howard blame unions for the present economic difficulties Australia is experiencing. They ignore the international nature of the recession. They ignore the role that some of our high-flying entrepreneurs have played. The coalition aims to reduce union power by discouraging workers to join it and by promoting individual workplace agreements. On the other hand, the Government recognises the important role of unions. Workplace agreements would lead to fragmentation and industrial chaos. The coalition wants to remove the right of workers to take industrial action to protect themselves. The Government has worked closely with unions. Consequently, the number of industrial disputes has declined dramatically. The coalition sees unions as a barrier to productivity and suggests stripping away their power base to marginalise their role. The cooperative relationship with the trade union movement in this country has enabled the unions to identify and respond to problems facing the country. Mr Santoro interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Clayfield. Mr PITT: The last decade has seen massive industrial reform in this country without massive dislocation. This has been achieved through a series of Accords. What are the choices? The contrast between Labor and the coalition has seldom been starker. The choices are between a Labor Government which has transformed the wages system to encourage productivity and efficiency while maintaining fairness for employees, and a Hewson Government which wants to give employers the freedom to cut the wages of workers with no safety net for individual employees and their families. There is a choice between a Labor Government which has reformed the award system in cooperation with unions to improve workplace practices and a Hewson Government which would end the safeguard of the award system and a meaningful role for unions. The choice is between a Labor Government which has allowed and encouraged fair and equitable workplace bargaining and a Hewson Government which would push workers into individual employment contracts where all the power rests with the employers. It is a choice between a Labor Government working in accord with unions to ensure that Australia’s economy is more efficient and growing and a Hewson Government which would smash unions, cause industrial chaos and destroy the working conditions of most workers. The coalition pins its hopes on workplace bargaining. Let us have a look at exactly what the coalition will do if it is elected. Besides pushing workers into individual employment contracts, it will put employers in inequitably strong bargaining positions. Employers could determine all the conditions of employment and impose them on employees. The coalition will break the link between workplace bargaining and workplace reform, which will slow down the long-term productivity growth we have entered into. The Opposition will also eventually abolish the award system and entrench the power imbalance between employers, who have the power to hire and fire, and employees, who have only their skills and the sweat off their backs to offer. The 1832 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly coalition will also exclude the umpire and end a meaningful role for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. As I said, the system of advocacy will not work, and I doubt very much whether Dr Hewson and John Howard have designed it to work. On the matter of wages, the only minimums are a base hourly minimum rate, four weeks’ annual leave, two weeks’ non-cumulative sick leave and maternity leave. Time expired.

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Fourth and Fifth Allotted Days Debate resumed from 24 February (see p. 1569). Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (12 noon), continuing: During my speech last week, I referred to juvenile crime, the rural recession in south-west Queensland, in particular in my electorate of Warrego, and the coalition’s solution to the problems of debt and prices for those affected by drought and for those in the wool industry. I referred also to the plight of rural towns suffering because of the recession. I turn now to the beef industry, which is a very important industry in rural Queensland. Beef producers are receiving less for their product now than they were 10 years ago. It is difficult to implement a better selling system than the one which already exists, but the costs to that industry can be cut. Last week, during the debate on the goods and services tax, many of these issues were canvassed, but I want to mention a couple of them during this speech. One area in which beef industry costs can be cut is the waterfront. Under a coalition Government, it will cost less to export each kilogram of beef. Under the Fightback package, there will be a 50 per cent reduction in meat inspection costs. In addition, the costs of running a meatworks will be reduced dramatically. At present, Australia has the highest meatworks running costs. As a result, it is very difficult to compete on the world market. Running a meatworks in Australia is three times more costly than it is America and about twice as costly as it is in New Zealand. Cotton is another very important industry in the electorate of Warrego, particularly in the St George area. It is an excellent industry which has a big future. However, costs in that industry are also increasing. In 1975, a farmer had to produce 1.75 bales an acre to break even. In 1993, he must produce 2.5 bales an acre to break even. Cotton farmers must become more efficient. It costs them approximately $1,000 an acre just to get their crop to the stage at which it can be harvested. In the St George region, some 20 000 acres of irrigated crops are usually planted. This year, because of the lack of water in the area, only 17 000 to 18 000 acres have been planted. St George has received no good rain for the past couple of years. Additional water storage facilities are needed to restore confidence to the region. The Anchorage project, which is a 100 000- megalitre storage facility, is a worthy one. A joint funding scheme, with growers contributing on the one hand and the State Government contributing on the other, should be considered. The project will cost $8m. A fifty-fifty contribution from the State Government and from growers would facilitate the development of a project of enormous benefit to that region and to Queensland. The State Government paid $6m to enable the Orchid Beach resort to be closed down, and Peter Laurance received $2m for sand-mining leases at Shoalwater Bay. Those two projects alone cost taxpayers $8m. The Government should contribute that sort of money to a project which will be permanent and from which Queensland will derive benefit. In the future, shire councils may not be collecting the rates to which they are entitled because of the difficulties being experienced by ratepayers in rural areas, particularly those who own more productive land. Under the present VG system of valuation, rates in some shires are extremely high. Most of the people subject to those rates are wool producers, and in the years to come they may not be able to pay their rates. Assistance will have to be offered in that regard. Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1833

The level of resources being provided to schools in my area is of great concern. Never before in the history of Queensland has the school year started with 60 schools having no principal appointed. The south-west region seems to have been the worst affected, because 11 schools in the area do not have headmasters. At Moonie State School, a preschool teacher is acting as principal. I do not doubt that that lady is very qualified. By the same token, such a scenario does not give parents much confidence. I believe that five people applied for the position of principal, but none was accepted. That is a bit of a disaster, and some attention should be given to it as soon as possible. Generally speaking, good educational facilities exist in my electorate. However, airconditioning is needed desperately in some schools. The St George school is one that comes to mind. Many western schools are airconditioned. In this day and age, it is only fair that airconditioning be provided as a matter of urgency. In many cases, students go from airconditioned homes and motor cars to a non-airconditioned school. They are expected to learn under those extremely intolerable conditions. Recently, the St George school had to close down for a certain period during the day because it was just too hot. In addition, more accommodation for teachers working at those schools is needed urgently. I turn now to emergency services. Problems have been experienced across the State due to staff shortages. Low staff morale is a problem. One can see what is occurring. People are not enthusiastic about supporting the ambulance services in fundraising ventures. Although I accept that in the ambulance budget not a large amount was sourced from voluntary work, those funds were definitely appreciated. It must be borne in mind that the support of the people is of paramount importance to the ambulance services. If that support is lost, the whole scheme will fall down. The Charleville Ambulance Service was directed to send $195,000 to Brisbane. That sort of circumstance does not help matters. The Emergency Services portfolio had in the vicinity of $42m allocated to its budget. In the end, it was heading for a $19m loss. That is evidence that those funds are just not being managed competently. Health is a very important issue, and one matter that I wish to raise during this debate is the need for a second medical officer at Cunnamulla. During the 1989 election campaign, the then Opposition spokesman for Health stated that a second medical officer position would be created at Cunnamulla. The then Premier, Russell Cooper, also stated that a second medical officer would be appointed to Cunnamulla. A doctor arrived in Cunnamulla and acted in a private capacity. Although the matter was resolved temporarily, that second medical officer position was not filled officially However, that doctor has left Cunnamulla and the department has not filled the second medical officer position, which is needed desperately in Cunnamulla. The railways is most important to the Warrego electorate, as it creates much employment in the area. However, jobs in the railways are being slowly eroded. When the Minister, or a member of the Government, visits my electorate, he states that there will be no more cutbacks and that railway employees are as right as rain. After they have heard that, they go away thinking, “At least that is over and we can relax.” However, every time people are given that assurance, a job disappears. I have obtained a memo that refers to negotiations going back for several months about cutbacks in the railways. While the Minister has been saying to the people of my electorate that nothing will happen, the department has been chipping away, and now seven positions will be lost in Charleville. In fact, some of those positions have been abolished already. My electorate cannot tolerate a continuation of the erosion of rail services. The Minister for Transport should be honest and offer a firm commitment on jobs in the railways. At present, his word is not worth two bob, which is a shame. The workers have no job security and no confidence. The Minister really should look very carefully at where he is going, because he is going down the wrong track. Of course, Q-Link has been a disaster and is losing business in most areas. Occasionally, it has a rush of blood to the head and offers to cut $10 a tonne off its rate, thereby putting a local businessman, who has been serving the town for quite a long time, temporarily out of business. Six months later, the rate goes up. The Government 1834 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly really cannot handle the business side of Q-Link. It tries to compete with truckies, but it cannot win. Truckies carry out their own maintenance, they work long hours, and they are able to keep going. The Government cannot beat them. No union rules will ever let the Government compete and beat the trucking industry. Quite frankly, Q-Link has been a total disaster, because it disrupts other businesses in country towns. I refer now to the Western Outreach Rehabilitation Camp, which allows prisoners to work and rehabilitate in a low-security environment. Because of damage created by floods, the first camp was created in Charleville, and it worked very well. Unfortunately, a rumble of concern has developed in the community. I suppose that the WORC scheme has to learn its lessons as it goes and make sure that people are happy. However, I have been a supporter of the WORC and I believe that it has merit. Recently, a public meeting was called to discuss the objectives of the scheme in general and, after a spirited discussion, a vote of support was given to the scheme. It was a democratic way of determining the camp’s direction on local issues. Unfortunately, the whole scheme is being torpedoed by members of the local ALP, particularly those who sit on the Murweh Shire Council. The disruptive, ego-seeking actions of those people are an indictment on the process of local government, which has elected members to carry out the wishes of their constituents. Time expired. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes) (12.12 p.m.) I rise to participate in this debate on the Address in Reply to the Governor’s Opening Speech of this Forty-seventh Parliament, and to support the motion that is before the House. I do so in an environment very different from that of previous Parliaments. Indeed, the Goss Labor Government is continuing its record of sound management, and it is a very cohesive Government. However, the parliamentary environment has changed because the Opposition parties, with which the Government deals, have changed. The Opposition now has a council of deputies. However, the two parties have also changed in character. We do not have the same old National Party that we knew and loved so well over past years. In the good old days of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, we knew what to expect. We knew that Joh would stand up for Queensland, run off and fight the terrible hordes in Canberra, and fight for every cent of money that he could get for Queensland. Mr T. B. Sullivan: Underfunding of schools and underfunding of hospitals. Mr FENLON: Of course, what happened to that money after it came to Queensland was a different story. I take the interjection from the honourable member that the money was disbursed in different ways and, in particular, went to the Premier’s mates. Today, there is a very different scenario in Queensland. The Nationals in Queensland are not in the same category as their forebears. They have gone off and sold out Queensland to their Liberal mates. The change in the Opposition parties does not stop there, because the Liberals in this State have changed their attitude and the way in which they perform. The Liberals in Queensland have pinned their colours on the Federal Hewson bandwagon, which comprises very dangerous people. They are extremists, because they are among the few people in the political sphere in this country who actually believe the full import of their extremist propaganda. Mr T. B. Sullivan: And there is not one of them in the House. Mr FENLON: Indeed, there is not even a Liberal member in the House at present, and only one National Party member in the House will take part in this debate. The reality in Queensland is that each of the political parties has a very changed political profile. I am very proud to say that, essentially, there will be a continuation of more of the same within this Forty-seventh Parliament of Queensland. Within the last Parliament, we saw the pursuit of the very highest standards of economic and financial management, the overhauling of the electoral system for Queensland to provide fair and honest boundaries, and the improvement of public sector efficiency and productivity to give taxpayers far better value for their contribution to the running of the State. There is a great contrast in the way in which the various parties in this State have approached these matters. Today, the Goss Labor Government has really adopted and maintained Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1835 full carriage of that drive for economic efficiency and competency. That is particularly evident in the areas of great reform within the public sector and in moves towards corporatisation. This illustrates the great contradiction within the conservative parties in this State. They claim to be the captains of industry, the people who hold all the secrets and knowledge pertaining to management and the efficient running of the State, yet throughout their 32 years in Government they were incapable of providing any of those reforms, or they did not have the will to do so. The reforms are continuing in this Government’s term of office with the provision of responsible economic management directed towards the promotion of economic growth, the improvement of education and health facilities, the provision of a safe and secure community, and the protection and conservation of our environment. In particular, the economic discipline that existed in the past is maintained through the principles espoused within the Leading State document, which was released last year. The basic principles embodied in that document will be seen to continue throughout this Parliament. It is essentially an approach to market enhancement. For example, there will be the implementation of a two-stage increase in the payroll tax exemption level from $600,000 to $700,000, with the first increase to $650,000 to apply from 1 January 1993. The second increase to $700,000 will apply from 1 July 1993. These are very fundamental, practical ways in which this Government is showing the way in terms of enhancing the market and encouraging it to perform. This initiative alone will benefit an estimated 6 000 Queensland enterprises employing 100 or fewer people. In addition to these special measures, the Government will pursue a $3.3 billion capital works program. I am very proud that these measures are being undertaken in Queensland, because they will flow through to the economy not only in terms of employment, particularly through the private sector, because 80 per cent of the work will actually occur in that sector, but also in terms of providing much-needed facilities throughout Queensland. The Youth Conservation Corps is another innovative way of addressing the unemployment problem. The essentials of putting in place the ingredients of recovery in this era are very much within the training sector. The training initiatives being undertaken in Queensland are very much a part of ensuring that as we come out of recession, people are on the ground, in place, and, most importantly, trained in a compatible way for the sort of demands and initiatives that will develop as the economy continues to respond and improve. In past epochs, that aspect has been neglected, and very important opportunities for recovery have been missed. The hospital refurbishment program will continue. That program is funded by the tobacco licence fee increase, which also contributes to other sectors throughout the State such as education by way of the capital works programs undertaken within schools. Security in the home is a very important issue for all Queenslanders. I am very proud that the initiatives being undertaken by this Government within this Forty-seventh Parliament will have a great impact on that issue. Very recently, I spoke to representatives of two Neighbourhood Watch organisations that are being set up within my electorate of Greenslopes about the initiatives in community policing, the importance of Neighbourhood Watch in that context, and how this approach fits precisely within the community policing principles that are now being adopted throughout the State. Members who visit any police station within the State are very likely to see the new on- line computer arrangements that are being established. The officers would be able to explain to members that the principles behind that system are based upon intelligence, local intelligence and rapid communication of that intelligence. This fits precisely into the information network created by the use of Neighbourhood Watch facilities. When the Juvenile Justice Act and the Childrens Court Act come into force shortly, those new laws will play an important part in not only reforming offenders but also establishing community projects, which will receive the support of major youth organisations and church and community groups. During this three-year term, the findings of the Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Royal Commission will also be advanced, with the allocation of $10.5m. The reforms that were commenced in the first term of the 1836 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Government will continue, particularly in areas of reform initiated through the EARC process. This year, many of those reforms will be finalised. Another important initiative that the Government will continue relates to housing. The important work carried out by the Deputy Premier, Mr Burns, will be furthered during this Parliament. I am proud to be part of the innovative initiatives introduced by the Government during its first term. The Government deliberately stopped building public housing in the same mould as the old Housing Commission houses. I was shocked by and completely ashamed of many members of the Liberal Party who publicly opposed the Government’s initiatives to improve the living circumstances of people in public housing. They were saying that the new structures were too good for the working people who occupied those dwellings. Mr T. B. Sullivan: What a disgraceful attitude! Mr FENLON: I take that interjection. It represents the height of bigotry. Those people attempted to ferment trouble and division within communities by arguing that the dwellings were too good for those people. I remind honourable members that those dwellings were being constructed at a comparable price to that at which previous houses had been constructed. By injecting its will and creativity into the process, the Government achieved that improved housing at a cost comparative to the cost of those houses that were built formerly. I have one such development in my electorate at Tarragindi, of which I am proud, and which has been built on the Green Street model. It provides a very fine living environment for those people who live there and it fits very well into the local community. I turn briefly to some matters that were discussed last week in this Chamber about the Fightback package. The prospect of that package coming to this fine State is grim. Queenslanders should be aware that it means a complete disaster for Queensland and for Australia. Last week, we heard a range of conflicting claims over the impact of the goods and services tax. Essentially, it was a debate of the degree of the impact of that tax upon the Queensland people. During that debate, the conservative parties admitted that some commodities would increase and some would decrease; it was only a matter of degree as to how much. On behalf of the constituents of Greenslopes, I remind honourable members that the belief of the people in the street is that the degree by which those prices will increase as a result of the goods and services tax is very high. There are two elements: firstly, the actual flow-on of the tax; and, secondly, the integrity and the will of business to arrive at a proper calculation of the tax and to honestly pass on any savings. People in my electorate are cynical about that prospect, and rightly so. Recently, constituents in my electorate of Greenslopes put strongly to me an example of the increase in the tobacco licence fee, which was the subject of great rorts. I have documented evidence that the increases associated with the tobacco licence fee were exploited widely by many retailers in the suburbs. Under Fightback, most commodities will be affected by a goods and services tax. I am not surprised that people are cynical about those taxes being collected fairly. The problem is compounded by a number of factors. Apart from the actual tax and the dishonest increases that might be expected, we can also expect that the real value of wages will decrease. Last week in this House, many of my colleagues made competent mention of what could occur in terms of decreasing wages. While the real purchasing value of ordinary working people in the State is decreasing, prices are increasing. So the real increases are there. It is the pea and thimble trick. No matter what they say about gaining on one side, it is inevitable that the losses will occur somewhere else and that people will be worse off. The bottom line is that the conservative forces in the State are proposing a redistribution of wealth to the people who are already better off than others. A number of factors need continual adjustment because the merry-go-round keeps going round. One factor is the sheer inefficiency of the tax system, which has to be discounted in some way, and those discounts have to be passed on. The collection system itself is cumbersome not only in terms of the number of people who have to Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1837 administer it, such as small-business operators, but also in terms of the army of tax collectors who intimidate people day after day. Those factors must be kept in mind by the public of Queensland. At this point, I pause to acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of a very fine group of students from St Elizabeth’s School at Ekibin, which is not far from my electorate, who are accompanied by their teacher, Sister Kieren. We welcome them and hope that they enjoy their visit. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Mr FENLON: There is also the prospect of a higher interest rate in terms of the overall impact of this tax. In other countries in which the goods and services tax has been implemented, we have seen strictures placed on the economy to stop wage increases being claimed as part of that overall measure. That resulted in strictures on interest rates. The manufacturing industry will suffer greatly, because the efficiencies that it has gained will be lost through the tariff arrangements that the Opposition is proposing. It comes down to a continuation of the history of the conservative parties over the last 100 years. Very clearly, the conservative parties in this State grew out of the same type of forces that were developed 100 years ago in Queensland when they really did stand for a particular class of people who were based in Melbourne—the financiers and the owners of the great grazing leases. Nothing has changed, because they still represent those people and they want to shift the distribution of wealth to those people. The appreciation of history by the conservative parties in this State and nationally comes back to their naivety in regard to a statement that the then Treasurer, Mr Keating, made some time ago, and which the conservatives in this place love to quote. I refer to his comment about the “recession that we had to have”. That comment was, indeed, a controversial one at the time, but never have we heard any of the conservative forces in this State or nationally make any attempt to analyse that statement. Mr FitzGerald: What do you reckon it meant? Mr FENLON: I take the interjection. It meant that Mr Keating was acknowledging the major forces that were operating outside Australia and that impacted upon Australia to create the recessionary forces. It was also about putting in place the very real measures to restructure our economy. In restructuring the economy, some very simple things need to occur. We must create new work processes where previously there were no work processes, because we are entering new overseas markets. It might come as a big surprise to members opposite, but one of the large elements of unemployment in Australia—within those million people who are unemployed—is a sector of people who are qualified for jobs and who performed jobs which no longer exist. That is because we are not producing that way any more, and because we have gone into new economies and new modes of producing goods and services. Is the corollary of what members on the other side of the Chamber have said today that we should have held everything in place; kept to the old ways of producing goods and services; not looked beyond our shores; not looked at entering into other forms of production; and stagnated in such a way that we would be very poorly equipped to come out of a recession? Is that the corollary of what they are saying—that we should not have had the restructuring within the economy and the effects of that restructuring at all? I doubt that that is the case. If they were probed enough, I suspect that members opposite would say that, ultimately, those things had to happen and the restructuring had to occur. The effects of the recession—the unemployment, etc.—are the direct consequences of getting on with planning and putting in place the building blocks for future international competition and trade, and for a good future for the youth of this country. Fundamentally, the coalition has failed to explain that, essentially, GST is a tax on consumption. Somehow the facts that consumption is related to production and that it kicks domestic consumption and production in the teeth seem to have eluded members 1838 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly opposite. As the economy is going through a very fragile recovery, a consumption tax is not desirable at the moment. In New Zealand, a conservative Government was elected on propaganda that only its members believed. Afterwards, the fragile recovery that was under way was flattened because of its draconian policies. In conclusion, I turn to a couple of very important points which form part of the infamous Fightback package and which affect the tertiary sector of this State. The future of children in this State—some of whom are in the gallery presently—would be put at risk as a result of the changes and the dismantling of tertiary education, as proposed by the Fightback package. It would be a complete disaster which would mean that young people who undertake tertiary education would be paying it off for the rest of their lives. They would be in debt, and once again tertiary education would favour children from privileged families. Another interesting element of the proposals that have been coming from the conservative parties in this country is the voucher system of tertiary funding. Under that proposal, each student who is eligible for a tertiary place will be given a voucher which is equivalent to money and which is designed to allow him or her to proceed through tertiary studies. From that point, everything associated with university training will change. In the past, a rolling triennial system of grants was based on intelligent predictions of what is occurring in the market and what is being demanded by students, together with what is right for the State and for the rest of Australia, but all of that will change under a voucher system which is based on complete faith in the market. This is another example of the archaic belief of members opposite in their own propaganda. They believe that the anarchy in the market is the dominant force that must be followed. This will mean that when the Courier-Mail publishes on its front page that there will be a great demand in three years’ time for archaeologists, the demand for courses in archaeology will jump. Time expired. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel) (12.42 p.m.): Madam Deputy Speaker—— Government members: Good to see you! Mr LESTER: When the odd occasion arises that I am not in this House, I am on the telephone addressing the issues that are important in the electorate of Keppel. Because of the poor representation of Labor members in nearby electorates, I am flat out all the time, and I make no apology for that. Since being elected the member for Keppel, I have been fighting tooth and nail for improvements, as everybody in the electorate would acknowledge. I can tell Labor members that if a ballot paper were distributed in the Keppel electorate now, I would win by 60 per cent. There would be no risk about that, and members of the Labor Party know that very well. Quite frankly, the Labor Party has lost its way in Rockhampton. Members of the Labor Party do not seem to know how to deal with issues such as law and order and do not seem to be able to address the issues that really concern the people. Since my election, people have come to respect my ability to address these issues, which is why frequently there are 15 or 16 people waiting to see me at any one time. The runs are already on the board. A great number of public meetings have been held about various issues. All I can tell honourable members is that the people of the Keppel electorate appreciate the efforts that I am trying to make. I do not claim to be able to solve all the area’s problems, but, goodness me, I am making a strong effort. Although I have no axe to grind in relation to the speech made by a member who preceded me in this debate, I am interested in the comments he made about members of the Opposition not being interested in people who live in Housing Commission units. I strongly reject that suggestion, because since I was elected as the member for Keppel, people who live in Housing Commission accommodation have found a new father who will look after them and help them. Let me turn to a specific issue concerning the Rockonia Road units. There are approximately 70 units at the site. At times, difficulties have been experienced at that site. I have been working with those people, although I will not take all the credit for all that has been achieved. Some of the credit must be Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1839 given to the previous member for his efforts in that respect. I am not biased. I have continued that effort. I know that we were both asked to meet with the committee. I dealt with the problems; the previous member got cranky with them, and the people voted for me. It is as simple as that. Indeed, so happy are those people with what I am trying to do that my family and I were invited to their party last Christmas. We were able to work out a few more things that could be done to make life better for those people in the Rockonia units. It is wrong to say that the Opposition does not care about people who live in Housing Commission homes. I receive many representations from people who need improvements made to their homes. Rockhampton needs at least another 300 Housing Commission homes. I ask the Labor Government to take a really careful look at that issue. Many people do not have homes to go to. Many families have expanded and need larger homes. The Government should take a hard, soul-searching look at that particular issue. On the floor of this Parliament, I very proudly emphasise some of the attractions of the electorate of Keppel. There is our internationally famous crocodile farm. The owners have won the Australian small business award for companies with six employees or fewer. We are very, very proud of that company. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr LESTER: I most definitely did write to the owner to congratulate him. I am most proud of it. It would not hurt the honourable member for Brisbane Central to do the same, because he is a good man. Ferns Hideaway, in the Byfield area, is a magnificent little complex that has a restaurant and tennis courts. People can go in little boats to Water Park Creek and camp overnight. The Nobb Creek pottery is one of the best potteries in the world. The Bishoprics, who run that pottery, liaise and work with the Japanese. Honourable members know how good the Japanese are at pottery, and yet they come to the Nobb Creek pottery for lessons. That is pretty good. We are very proud of the wilderness at Byfield. We would like better roads to be able to get to there, and to Stockyard Point and adjacent places. That would help. We are working on that. We are fiercely proud of Shoalwater Bay, and I make no apologies for my stand on sandmining. Before the election, I said that no sandmining should be allowed in that region, and I stand by that statement entirely. I do not care what happens in this Parliament; I will not vote for sandmining. The reasons for my stand are very simple. If the sand dunes were mined, that could affect the system of water trickling through the sand, and Water Park Creek, which supplies water to Yeppoon, could be polluted or made salty. We would then have to get water from Rockhampton, which would cost $70m or $80m. More importantly, Rockhampton does not have enough water for itself, so we would really be, pardon the pun, up the creek if the system became polluted. That is a pretty good reason why we should not support sandmining. No mining company has been able to give me any evidence that sandmining will not affect the water supply. I challenged RZ Mining, Geopeko and the other companies involved to a public meeting, but they did not have the guts to face it. That is how frightened they are. I reiterate that call to the mining companies that wish to carry out sandmining in the region. Particularly now that a Federal Government inquiry into the matter is being conducted, those companies should have the guts to face the people and tell us what they are about, or forever stay out of it. I must take RZ Mining to task. I made comments about sandmining prior to the election and again after the election. The Green Party supported me in the election. I received 60 per cent or more of its preferences. Being as good as my word, after the election I went in to bat. RZ Mining did all sorts of things to try to shut me up. It went to the Leader of the Opposition and told him that he would have to tell me to shut up. RZ Mining went to the management committee of the National Party and tried to get those people to tell me to shut up. However, our party is democratic and people know that I have a job to do. So RZ Mining can go to blazes. I hope that I have made that abundantly clear. The general manager of RZ Mining is not worth a pinch of dirt. I hope that I have made that clear. I had better leave the unparliamentary comments about the 1840 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly rest of them to myself, I suppose, but members know the general thrust of what I think about the issues. Another very good tourist attraction is the singing ship at Emu Park. The wind hums through the ship and people can hear the singing noises. It is well worth having a look at. People can fish at the causeway at Kinka. The Iwasaki Capricorn International Resort is a good, low-cost accommodation unit, which offers services similar to those offered by the Mirage and those sorts of resorts. It is not quite as up-market, but it is nowhere near the price, either. That is fair enough. The Capricorn caverns and the other caves nearby are well worth having a look at. I recommend them to anybody. At Gangelook, clocks are stored and refurbished. The Mount Archer lookout is located in my electorate of Keppel. With the cooperation of the very ably led Rockhampton City Council, prisoners have been used to redevelop some of the Mount Archer area. Alderman Lee Taylor and his conservative aldermen in the City of Rockhampton are doing an absolutely outstanding job. I recognise the Lakes Creek meatworks and the Narinbera meatworks, which are open for inspection. They play a major role in the export of meat from our country. The St Christopher chapel, where the Americans worshipped during the war, is nearby. I have mentioned just a few of the areas of interest in my electorate. One always gets into trouble mentioning only certain areas of interest when there are so many. I have mentioned just a few to whet the appetite. The two good information centres, one on the approach to Rockhampton and the other on the Capricorn Coast, can tell people all about the many points of interest. The electorate of Keppel contains three very well run high schools. Although Glenmore, which I count as one of the three, is not quite in the electorate, it does fulfil the education needs of many students who reside in Keppel. I visit those schools quite often. Recently, I attended the swimming carnival at the Glenmore school. Mr Pearce interjected. Mr LESTER: No, they did a really good job. I pay a high compliment to the school for the spirit that exists there. It was good to see that most of the students actually went to the carnival and were shouting for their teams right until the end of the day. It was good to see the students wearing sunblock and hats. That was appreciated very much by the principal and the teachers who were operating the public address system. I was made to feel wonderfully welcome at this truly great high school. I think the people there realise now that they have a member who cares a bit about them. I will be working hard to obtain for that school a covered open area and an open assembly area. I do not want to overpoliticise what is needed at those schools. However, I am working, through my own methods, to obtain what is needed. I turn now to the North Rockhampton State High School, which is in the Keppel electorate. It is a very big high school. Over the years, it has been renowned for its preponderance of students who excel in the musical field. That school’s string bands, fife bands and goodness knows what have all won Queensland competitions. That school is even better than some of the schools in Mr Gibbs’ electorate, so that means it has got to be good. I am particularly proud of that school. There are a few dingy buildings around the school, so a bit of work has to be done there. A new administration area has been provided. It was not built during my time as member but previous to that. However, that does not matter. It is an upgrading of the school. I will continue to pay a lot of attention to the North Rockhampton State High School. It is with great anticipation and eagerness that I look forward to 15 June when I will be presenting the badges to the captains of that school. I will deal now with the Yeppoon State High School. Last year, I received an invitation to make a speech at that school’s speech night, and I was very pleased to be able to do so. The day on which that was held coincided with the day on which the vote was taken for the Speaker of this House. About a quarter of an hour before that vote was taken, I had to catch a plane to return to my electorate and look after the people of Keppel. A couple of members made a bit of a noise about that. By gee, I might add that Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1841 they got themselves into strife about that because while they went and watched the Melbourne Cup after Parliament rose that afternoon, I was working in my electorate and doing the right thing by my constituents. I put the electorate of Keppel before the Melbourne Cup. Even Mr Beattie has acknowledged what I did. He has just said that I am a good bloke for doing it. Beat that! If he did the same thing, I would say that he was a good bloke for doing it, too. I was given a lot of accolades for doing that. I will leave it at that. The honour board at the Yeppoon High School does not have sufficient space for any more names. Guess who has been asked to donate the new honour board? It is Vince. It will cost many hundreds of dollars; nevertheless, I will do it. That honour board will be there as a memory for those students who do ever so well in the future. While I am speaking about the Capricorn Coast, I should refer to its need for a TAFE annexe. At present, it has a temporary TAFE annexe—that is about all it could be called. I give credit to the people who work in that TAFE annexe. The building, not the quality of service given by the teachers, is a bit behind the times. When I was Minister, I arranged with the Livingstone Shire for a TAFE annexe that would allow for additional TAFE facilities. Do honourable members know what this Labor Government did? It took that facility away. I think that was dreadful. That has gone over very badly. That was one of the things that helped me to win the electorate of Keppel. Mr PEARCE: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is misleading the House. The Labor Government has not taken the TAFE annexe away. At the time when the honourable member was a Minister, there was a recommendation from the department that that TAFE annexe not go ahead. The honourable member is misleading the House. I ask him to withdraw that comment. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): Order! There is no point of order. Mr LESTER: There is nothing to withdraw. Poor old Mr Pearce has got it all wrong again. He continues to get things wrong. It is about time that he gave up trying to have a go at me because he comes off second best every time. However, that is his problem, not mine. I say shame on the present Labor Government because for the moment it is not going to build a new TAFE facility on the Capricorn Coast. Matt Foley came up with the greatest heap of “goobledegok” figures—— Mr Beattie: “Gobbledegook”. Mr LESTER: Gobbledegook, that will do. I mean, it is so “gooblede-gopplede- gobblede-gookie” that one is not sure what it is. Anyway, it does not matter. The simple fact is that the area does not have the new TAFE annexe that it needs. The population there is growing. Before too long, 23 000 people will be living on the Capricorn Coast. Why on earth should they have to go to Rockhampton? It is just not fair. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. Mr LESTER: I welcome to the Keppel electorate the new school at Tarangabah. It is a very modern State school. It will do an excellent job of providing education to the young members of the community of the Tarangabah area, which is between Yeppoon and Emu Park. At the Yeppoon State School, much work has to be done to upgrade some of the buildings, but an excellent nature reserve has been developed there. I commend all who have taken part in that project. The Farnborough and Byfield schools are both supported by very strong parents and citizens associations. I congratulate Jackie Collins from the Byfield school, who last year won the 800-metre zone championship and did very well at the Queensland championships. The schools at Keppel Sands, Cawarral, Coowanga, Mount Chalmers and Narimbira all band together to provide a fabulous service to the community in the area between Emu Park and Rockhampton. They are renowned for organising what is called the Keppel Sands “Crabtastic”, in which crabs are tied up and all sorts of other competitions are held. Through that event, valuable money is raised for charity. I am donating $250 to this year’s Crabtastic. I hope that amount will be matched so that the prize money is even greater. That event will be called the “Vince Lester Backwards Walking Race”. Much interest in the race has already been generated. Various sporting 1842 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly clubs intend to participate, and it will be a very big show. It is quite possible that many other people or groups will donate to the show. The organisers are hoping to have prize money in the vicinity of $1,000. The event has created an enormous amount of interest. Those schools are most happy with my donation. It will help the event become stronger so that the locals have another interest, in addition to the young footballers and other athletes. Many other very good schools are located in Rockhampton, including the Lakes Creek State School, which I visited the other day and to which I presented a Queensland flag. Yvette Dawson is acting principal while Keith Evans is away for a short time. That school is going from strength to strength. During one of the school’s p. and c. meetings, I was most impressed with the absolute commitment that those people have to the school. The ladies in the tuckshop are doing a jolly good job. Mount Archer school is an old favourite of mine. Sid Goodsall, the school principal, is doing a heck of a good job. Mr Livingstone: Have you been there? Mr LESTER: I have been there many times. The honourable member need only ask the members of the p. and c. association. In the last six months, I have visited that school at least seven or eight times. Not too many members of Parliament could match that record. They keep asking me to come back, because every time I go there I get something for the school. They like having me as their member. One of the achievements has been the provision of lollipop ladies at the crossing at the back of the school. That has made a big difference, and hopefully nobody will be hurt now that those ladies are there. Frenchville State School, under the leadership of Alan Knox, is going very well. However, at present, that school has a problem. An area of land next door to the school needs drainage and a lot of work done to it. On behalf of the school, I am taking that up with the department. Mr Keith is the principal at the Parkhurst State School. I understand that he is known to Tony FitzGerald. He is also a very good principal. Recently, new amenities have been completed at that school. Mr Comben, the Education Minister, opened those amenities, which was appreciated. Last year, that school won the march-past competition. It was really great to be there to see those students win that competition. They were all dressed up very nicely, and I was very proud of them. The Caves school has a bit of a problem. It is a jolly good school. The p. and c. association had a dollar-for-dollar subsidy works program for the school playground area. The program was all ready to go, but the Government said, “Wait a minute. We have not got quite enough money at the moment for that subsidy program.” I hope that the Government is not going broke! The local community was not very happy about that announcement. Ann, the principal of The Caves school, is doing a very good job. Two excellent Catholic schools are located in my electorate. One is the Catholic school at Lammermoor Beach and the other is St Anthony’s school, whose principal is Dr Davis. If honourable members ever want to see a good sports carnival, they should visit St Anthony’s school. I was there last year, and I could not believe how good it was. Dr Davis really ran it like nobody’s business. I thought it was an Army operation. Every student was disciplined—— Mrs Woodgate: Better than your speech. Mr LESTER: There are no problems with my speech. That is why Government members interject so frequently: they cannot cop the fact that I am a politician who comes back and talks about the needs of the people and gives credit where it is due. I do not get caught up in the abstract rubbish that goes on sometimes in this Parliament. I am out there with my people and I am battling for them; I am fighting for them and I am trying to get a better deal for them. They recognise that. Not too many members of Parliament have covered their electorate in the short time that I have. I have spoken to many groups—the police, the ambulance and the fire brigade. They all know that I am about, and they are very happy to see me. Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1843

I compliment the ambulance officers at Rockhampton. In the past, Emu Park has not had an ambulance service, which is a problem in a place of its size. Recently, a young kid was bitten by a brown snake. His condition was touch-and-go, but the child is okay. To try to rectify the absence of an ambulance service at Emu Park, I called a public meeting. I have called a heap of public meetings, and I have found that they are the way to go. If any honourable members have not used that technique, they should do so. Public meetings allow the people to get involved in what is going on. I called a meeting at Emu Park, which the Rockhampton ambulance officers attended. The result was that Emu Park now has an ambulance vehicle. The next step is that some people will have to be trained for the voluntary ambulance service. That was a very good result all round. Councillor Fay Owens has been placed in charge of the steering committee to ensure that it will work. On 17 May, I will hold another public meeting at which—if anybody would like to come along—we will finalise matters. This means that the local volunteers for the ambulance brigade could go to the scene of the problem immediately. In the meantime, the ambulance brigade from Yeppoon could be contacted and, with its superior equipment, come to the scene. However, the local volunteers could stabilise the patient. I am not bigoted on the subject of Government matters, and I believe that this is a fair compromise. I told the people at the public meeting that they have a reasonable arrangement, and to get out while they were in front. They are very happy about the arrangement. However, the people in my electorate are concerned about the fire brigade service in the area. An inquiry is being conducted into that service. Emu Park has an outstanding fire brigade building, which was built during the term of the National Party Government. It was opened by Mr Tenni, and I was present on that grand occasion. There has been some suggestion that my electorate may lose its fire brigade officer. I would like to believe that that will not occur, because I can assure the Government that World War III would start if it does. Everybody is mobilised already. All I can say is: heaven help the Government if that fire brigade goes. I support the idea of housing the ambulance vehicle in the fire brigade building, if it does not stay in the possession of the voluntary officer, who will be issued with a beeper. I see no problem with that—it is only common sense. However, I will monitor that situation very, carefully. Recently, Brian Lutterell, who is the District Manager of the Central Queensland Region of the Department of Transport, met with me at Lammermoor Beach. Following that meeting, we may achieve some results there also. The Roads Division has drawn up plans to widen the road following the construction of the new Tarangabah school. Some people have different ideas about how they want the road-widening carried out. Consequently, I have called another meeting to be held on Monday night, 15 March, which is the night before Parliament resumes. At that meeting, people will produce their plans and we will peruse them. I look forward, early in the new financial year, to that road being widened in a way that will suit the majority of the community. That is the best I can do for the moment. As to Byfield road, much work was carried out bitumening that road during Denis Hinton’s time. He was the former National Party representative for that area. Very little work has been carried out during Labor’s term, but I am trying to see if I can get a bit more work done. We have a hidden treasure at Byfield, but currently it is damned difficult to get there. The road is not very good and the Livingstone Shire Council does not have sufficient money to maintain it. Yesterday, Councillor Barbara Wildon told me that I had to get into that mob in Brisbane and get them to give the council more money to maintain the road. I agree with her entirely, and I will be working on that very, very hard. However, I would like to see a more permanent bitumen laid, and then I will help to get that road widened. I give credit for the work that has been carried out on the road between Emu Park and Rockhampton. However, a lot more work needs to be done on it, and I will make sure that it will be done. It is necessary because many people travel on that road. Other problems on that road are caused by bicycles and trains. People have to be careful that they do not run into them. 1844 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

As to police—we need more police in central Queensland. There is a break and enter problem at Koongal and at Lakes Creek. The problem has not been resolved. It is terrible to see little old ladies, who are frightened to go out because something may go wrong, locked in their houses in the heat of the day. I am working on that problem, and I expect to achieve some results. We need more police and more liaison officers to overcome this problem. In the meantime, I give every assurance that I will continue to work like blazes for the people of the Keppel electorate because they deserve good representation. Mrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (2.42 p.m.): Words fail me. I wish to participate in the debate on the Address in Reply on behalf of the people of Whitsunday, which is a slightly different demographic region to that of the electorate of Whitsunday about which I spoke in my maiden speech approximately three years ago. In industry terms, my electorate is the most diverse in Queensland—coal mining, tomatoes and small crops, beef cattle, sugar, fishing and, of course, tourism.Whatever event occurs politically, on either a State or Federal level, is of great interest to all the people of my electorate. In rising to support Governor Leneen Forde’s Opening Speech, I do so with a great deal of pride. I remind members that Governor Forde was appointed by the Goss Labor Government as the first female Governor of Queensland. I note also the fervent allegiance of Opposition members in this debate, as speaker after speaker vowed, with hand over heart, support for the flag, loyalty to the Queen and to the royal family. Yet in this place this very morning, in his speech in the Matters of Public Interest debate, the member for Crows Nest, Russell Cooper, made the most snide, derogatory and insulting reference to Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, Lady Diana. I am disgusted that in the Chamber of the Legislative Assembly a National Party member, especially one who has spoken publicly, and with such loyalty and affection, of the royal family, used the name of a royal person in such a vehement and condescending way. Sitting on the same side of the House was his smirking leader, the member for Surfers Paradise, who as recently as 23 February acknowledged loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen. In referring to women—I am especially proud of the gains that have been made for women in my electorate over the past three years. I remind members that in 1989, the former member for Whitsunday, Geoff Muntz, who, members would recall, was once a Welfare Minister, boasted publicly that the fast-growing tourist areas of my electorate required no welfare assistance. He said that the Salvation Army had everything under control; that it had no welfare problems, especially those concerning women. He said also that no special services were required. Clearly, the Salvation Army was doing more than its share. It was stretched to the limit, but for the most part, it was a matter of: out of sight, out of mind. Since the election of this Government, much has been done not only in tourist areas but also in areas supported by other industries. We have crisis accommodation, emergency support for women at risk, and the appointment of a very skilled and hardworking social worker at the Proserpine Hospital, Julia Tapperall, who has proved to be an untiring, professional and generous worker who is well skilled in all aspects of welfare and community development. The appointment of the Regional Director of Health, Mel Millar, has been the greatest asset to my region, both in a research and educational way. Her attitude has been one of concern for the tremendous lack of facilities and funding under the previous Government to working in a pro-active way with a sensible and professional attitude in an electorate such as mine. Some errors of fact and omissions that gloss over the true impacts of Fightback and GST especially are being peddled by coalitionists throughout this State. The GST is actually the same as a value-added tax. Dr Hewson prefers to call his tax a goods and services tax, because it sounds more palatable. In fact, Hewson’s GST is a tax on employment—value-added at every stage of production—except that his rate is 15 per cent, and not the payroll tax rate of 5 per cent. The Liberal Party suggests that the full cost reductions to the end of excise tax on petrol will be passed on to consumers. Not Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1845 in a million years! In common with many others, I suspect that the coalition would have to introduce a user-pays scheme to fulfil its obligations. I remind the Opposition that most of the OECD countries that have introduced a GST or a value-added tax have raised their rates after its introduction. For instance, in France, the standard rate was raised from 12.6 per cent to 18.6 per cent; in Austria, the rate rose from 8 per cent to a clear 20 per cent; in Denmark, it went from 10 per cent to 22 per cent; in Germany, it was increased from 10 per cent to 15 per cent; in Italy, it went from 12 per cent to 19 per cent; and in New Zealand, it went from 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent. The British value- added tax was introduced at 10 per cent, but it has now reached an amazing 17.5 per cent. Budgetary difficulties being faced by the conservative UK Government suggest that it is now also considering extending its value-added tax to currently exempted goods, including food, publishing, domestic fuel and children’s clothing. In the UK, Margaret Thatcher funded her budget by a massive privatisation policy, which saw public assets sold off at a bargain price. Sounds familiar, does it not? Dr Hewson admits that he will pay for his income tax cuts by embarking on a similar sell-out of public assets. Hewson’s problem is that his figures on assets sales simply do not add up. Dr Hewson believes that privatising Telecom will reap him $20 billion, which would make it the largest asset sale in Australia, and equivalent to 6 per cent of Australia’s GDP. This must be compared with the largest public asset sale ever undertaken in Australia, when 30 per cent of the Commonwealth Bank was sold for $1.6 billion. We now know that Mr Hewson’s assessment of Telecom’s value was overpriced by $4 billion. As well, we could be subjected to timed local calls. Dr Hewson has also to compete with Victoria, where Premier Kennett is having his own asset fire sale of $8 billion. When Dr Hewson runs out of money and assets to sell, he will have no option other than to increase his 15 per cent GST or revoke his GST exemption on food. Sugar is an important industry in my electorate. It is important to place on record in this place the true scenario surrounding the brouhaha over the resignation of the National Party member for Dawson, Ray Braithwaite, from the front bench of the Opposition over National Party conflicts of interest in the matter surrounding the sugar tariff. On the one hand, the Whitsunday sugar growers were demanding from Mr Braithwaite a commitment to tariff retention. On the other hand, he was publicly making his commitment to Fightback Mark I and a zero tariff level, both in the Financial Times and the local media. As part of its State campaign, the National Party was holding its shadow Cabinet meeting in Mackay. Also in Mackay at the same time, the Labor Party was holding its regular Federal Executive meeting. That meeting publicly condemned Ray Braithwaite for his two-faced attitude. With repeated calls from the community and members of both State and Federal Governments, Braithwaite had no option other than to resign from the Opposition front bench. Without that pressure, Braithwaite would still be sitting silently on the front bench of the coalition. Braithwaite was no martyr, as he pretends. He did not resign out of any moral stand; he resigned because the sugar constituency forced him out because of the hypocrisies that the National Party displayed at that time and continues to display, even today. Further, in Canberra, on a delegation to the Minister, Simon Crean, sugar industry representatives witnessed further the hypocrisy of the National Party when the Senate debated the topical and vital issue of sugar tariffs. Not one National Party senator from Queensland was present. Senators O’Chee, Bjelke-Petersen and Boswell were nowhere to be found. Mr Bredhauer: Ron Boswell does not even put sugar in his coffee. Mrs BIRD: Indeed, Boswell does not take sugar in his coffee. None of the National Party senators was present. They did not stand up during the debate and speak for their canegrowers, nor did they vote on the issues. But they are now claiming to have a born-again attitude, which was clearly absent when it would have been most effective. Dr Hewson and the coalition have underestimated the intelligence of the canefarmers. They are neither naive nor stupid. They will give you a go. They are not blinded now to the twisting and turning of the coalition’s attitude to tariffs. Canefarmers know that the coalition is not to be trusted. 1846 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

I turn to the impact of Fightback on Medicare. The Labor Party fought hard to establish Medicare as an affordable universal health insurance system which treats all Australians equally. The health policy in Fightback would undermine this principle of social justice and care, and reduce every humanitarian service to benefit the rich upper crust. Who can forget the Menzies and Fraser years when access to health services was determined by ability to pay? Many Australians could not afford health insurance. There are some points that I believe I should make about Government policies and initiatives. Under Medicare, every Australian is guaranteed access to fundamental medical and hospital services for no out-of-pocket cost, as well as necessary medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The 1992 Budget improves and strengthens Medicare. The Government has committed extra funds to ensure a strong and viable public hospital system as well as building strong community-based health services. It also wants to improve the linkage between health and aged care services to better meet the needs of our ageing population. All of this can be done whilst controlling expenditure on health through Medicare. The Liberal and National Parties want to shift the focus of health care funding to the private sector and responsibility for health care to the individual. They would subsidise private health insurance with a system of tax credits and penalties which would cost the Australian taxpayer an extra $1.4 billion a year. That is in addition to the $1.5 billion already paid. Bulk-billing would be dismantled for all but four million pensioner health care card holders and the disabled. Even for them there are no incentives for doctors to bulk-bill. In fact, Fightback would introduce major financial incentives for doctors to refuse to bulk-bill. Pensioners risk becoming charity cases. In addition, the Liberals and Nationals intend to make all Queenslanders, with the exception of pensioners, pay up front for health care. It will be illegal to bulk-bill, except for pensioners. The Liberals and Nationals intend to cut the Medicare rebate from 85 per cent to 75 per cent. They have the philosophy that the bill is between the doctor and the patient and that doctors can charge whatever they like. They have a myth about choice which fails in rural areas. They intend to reduce public hospital budgets by $1.3 billion—$221m in Queensland, or 1 730 hospital beds. That will mean run-down services, closure of small hospitals, deletion of staff training and research, and increased waiting lists. Through the newly signed Medicare agreement, over five years Labor is giving the States an extra $4 billion a year for hospitals. That will enable waiting lists for elective surgery in public hospitals to be reduced. Under the coalition, private insurance, despite rebates, will cost the average family $22 a week more. Fightback also contains major financial incentives for doctors not to bulk-bill. They are not compelled to bulk-bill, and some will undoubtedly refuse to bulk-bill pensioners. That will mean that pensioners will become charity cases or be forced back into the public hospital outpatients system. It will mean a loss of choice and put pressure on the public hospital system with the additional burden of funding costs. It gets worse. After the first term, the coalition intends to abandon hospital funding to the States, which will put the total financial burden on States such as Queensland. Honourable members should contrast that with Labor’s commitment to universal health care, including the announcement of dental care under Medicare. The only people in the health arena to benefit under Fightback are doctors in the AMA, who will gain 60 per cent increases in already bloated incomes. They will also be able to buy cars exempt from GST. The coalition will even have a GST on many non-prescription drugs and ancillary medical aids. Let me make it clear: Fightback is a cynical attempt to shift the tax burden from the rich to the poor by shifting the burden from income tax to consumption tax. Labor has a philosophical commitment which says that everybody is entitled to treatment, that those in greatest need should be treated first, and that we do not want people being afraid to go to the doctor or chemist because they cannot afford it. We need a healthy Medicare, and Labor believes that the Australian people, particularly pensioners, value and appreciate Medicare. Our health is too important to have it messed up in this fashion by an Opposition that will not come clean about its full agenda. Federal Labor has a system Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1847 that works and is fair. Federal Labor is committed to continuing to improve Medicare so that it meets the needs of all Australians. The way to do that is to keep Medicare healthy. Hon. N. J. TURNER (Nicklin) (2.58 p.m.): Madam Deputy Speaker—— Mr Barton: Tell us the horse poem. Mr TURNER: If the honourable member listens, I will pad up my speech with a bit of horse poem as I discuss my electorate. In speaking in the Address in Reply debate, I first of all pledge my loyalty to the Crown, to Queen Elizabeth II and to the system under which we live, unlike our present unelected Prime Minister who seeks to introduce a socialist republic into Australia in line with Mr Hawke’s lecture which was delivered many years ago when he was ACTU President, in which he stated that he did not understand what State rights were, that he believed that they were an anachronism and that all State Governments should be abolished. If their leaders had their way, Government members would not be here, because their leaders would abolish State Parliaments and create a gigantic Federal Government running everything from Canberra. I am amused at Mr Keating’s concern in recent days about the resignation of the Prime Minister of Canada. He has used the pretext that, after 10 years of GST in Canada, it would be fatal to introduce a GST in Australia. If he was going to use that criterion, he should also use it in relation to his moves to change this country into a socialist republic by the year 2001. Republics everywhere have failed—Russia, Poland and East Germany. The Prime Minister is some 50 years behind the times. Mr Bennett: Has France failed as a republic? Mr TURNER: Is the honourable member in favour of a republic? Is he in favour of this country becoming a socialist republic? Perhaps, as one of the new, knowledgeable, young members in the Chamber, he will be able to tell us where there is a socialist republic anywhere in the world that has more freedom or affluence or is a better country to live in than Australia, because it does not exist. He is as much behind the times as his noble, unelected leader in Canberra. Mr Keating wants also to change the flag. I read in the press that Mr Goss will support any move to change the flag. He wants to change the flag and the Constitution. The Australian flag is one of the few flags in the world which bears any Christian significance. It depicts the three crosses of the patron saints of England, Ireland and Scotland embodied in the Union Jack. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I rise to a point of order. I point out to the member that St Patrick was not a martyr and not entitled to a cross. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): Order! There is no point of order. I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. Mr TURNER: I can understand the member’s concern. It must be hurting a little bit because I am getting close to the truth. If honourable members’ shoes are pinching, they should sing out. I cannot tell when they are in pain. Mr Bennett interjected. Mr TURNER: The honourable member might be able to help me in relation to Mr Keating’s flag. He would probably suggest that Mr Keating have on the flag a banana or an IOU signed by him. I object to competitions that do not include our present flag. Why should there not be, if anything, a referendum to see whether people want the present flag or not, rather than a competition to pick a new flag? There is no reference to the flag under which so many people have fought and died and served this country well for so long. In spite of the babble and rabble, we still live under one of the best systems in the world. Mr J. H. Sullivan: Bring on a flag debate. Mr TURNER: We do not need a flag debate. The people will debate the flag at the coming election. They will debate it when they vote at the polling booth. That is when honourable members opposite will find out the truth. The system that we have lived under is one of the best in world. It has served us well for 200 years, although one 1848 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly would not think so when listening to the members opposite. We speak the English language, and we have a British system of Parliament, justice and democracy. Their idea and Mr Keating’s idea seem to be that, instead of having an appointed head from the monarchy, we should have a Government-elected king or president in Canberra. Honourable members opposite would want Mr Whitlam, Mr Halfpenny, Mr Carmichael or Mr Gallagher. I do not want to make a parochial parish pump speech. However, In the limited time left, I turn to some areas of concern within the electorate of Nicklin, which is one of the most beautiful areas of this State and Australia. We must be constantly vigilant to retain that beauty and the uniqueness of the area. One concern relates to the extractive industries in the Glass House mountains region. There has been some controversy and concern about the moves by the Caloundra City Council in that regard. The problem—and Mr Sullivan opposed it—was the possibility of siting a radioactive dump in that part of the world. As we have gone through all of that with Gurulmundi and other dumps, it is hardly necessary for me to go over it. For any matter anywhere in Queensland, we must strike a balance between conservation and development. The disposal of waste is of major concern to society at present. I commend the Maroochy Shire Council, in particular, for the recycling dump that it has constructed at Nambour, because it serves a very useful purpose. Other technologies exist for the disposal of different types of waste. As well as incinerators, there is plasma arc technology. Technology is used to produce methane from sewage and to cleanse it so that the water can be spread onto other areas where it can be used. Unemployment in the State is massive, as it is throughout Australia at present. It is creating a tremendous problem in the Nicklin electorate, as it is throughout Queensland. I find it incredible that the Federal Government, the State Government or any Government thinks that the answer to the unemployment problem is to stand back and throw money at it and think that the problem will go away. At present, there are 800 000 small businesses in Australia. If the Government was to give some incentive and initiative to small businesses to create employment, it would soak up all the unemployment that exists at present. Primary industries in my electorate are suffering. Although some people think of the area as only a tourist or a holiday region, there is a significant number of primary industries in the Nicklin electorate. They have been suffering as all other primary industries have, due mainly to the policy that allows the importation of cheap products, such as pineapples, oranges and bananas, from slave labour countries. Turning to tariffs—if a Government was prepared to use its countervailing duties and anti-dumping laws, it could do much to prevent the impact of the importation of products into the country. Mr Dollin: No more tariffs. Mr TURNER: I thought that honourable members opposite would have been the last people to talk about tariffs. I suppose the honourable member is referring mainly to the sugar industry. The members opposite reduced the tariffs to $55 a tonne, so I did not think that they would be keen to mention that. In Nicklin and right throughout Queensland, in many ways crime is out of control. The reform program does not appear to be working. We should apply appropriate criteria to ascertain whether or not it is working. We should ask ourselves, “Are crime figures down? Are people and property safer today? Is it as safe to walk down the mall with one’s wife today as it was 10 years ago?” If the answer to all these questions is, “No”, the Government should wonder whether or not its reform is succeeding. Corporal punishment has been abolished from schools. Police officers are afraid to touch a criminal or a hoon for fear of being reported. Certain people cannot be arrested for using obscene language, but the police are expected to drive them home. This State has whistleblower or dobber legislation which means that when a policeman pulls up a motorist, the motorist does not say anything but later telephones the CJC to report the police officer and say, “I suspect that he is a drug addict involved in trafficking drugs.” Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1849

In that event, there is a good chance that that police officer will be investigated, stood down and possibly lose his entitlements. It is therefore little wonder that morale in the Police Service is at its lowest ebb of all time. It is a poor reflection on society that after parties were held during the New Year period, the Maroochy Shire Council carted away 10 tonnes of broken glass from Maroochydore and Mooloolaba. Broken glass was left everywhere on the beaches. This is a problem that must be addressed. I do not know the complete answer to the problem; I only know that it is a problem. Elderly people live in fear for their lives. This is the case not only in my electorate but right throughout Queensland. It is now almost an everyday occurrence to read in the newspaper that elderly people have been bashed, tortured, raped or robbed. Although I commend the Government for taking action in this regard, I believe that providing $1.5m to elderly people so that they can barricade themselves in their homes—thereby giving rise to a risk of not being able to escape fires—is the wrong way to approach the problem. I believe that in many areas, support for police should be provided in many ways. For example, there should be more discipline in schools. In addition, the Government should look closely at its open-door philosophy in prisons which virtually allows prisoners to walk out the door. The punishment must fit the crime—and that is not something that I have just thought up. Many people are advocating that offenders found guilty of serious crime should serve longer periods of their sentences instead of being given early release which enables them to reoffend. It is fair to say that as a result of cutbacks and the closure of milling operations in the region and, in particular, the closure of the prison, Woodford has suffered some detriment. Whereas compensation was paid by the State and Federal Governments when logging operations on Fraser Island and at Ravenshoe ceased, it is criminal that the State Government has never seen fit to pour any money into the Woodford area to assist in its rehabilitation. I have been informed of the possible construction of a dam on the Mary River. A few weeks ago, I attended the official opening ceremony for the Kenilworth bridge performed by the Minister for Transport, Mr Hamill. Approximately 12 months ago, the previous bridge was washed away. I take this opportunity to commend the Government and the contractors on the speed with which they carried out construction of the new bridge. The proposed dam on the Mary River is a matter of tremendous concern to many of my constituents. I believe that this proposal emanates from the Government’s difficulty, having stopped construction of the Wolffdene dam, of providing a secure water supply in the south-east region. A report has been compiled on the possibility of a dam site on the Mary River, but that report has not been released in spite of the Government giving an indication that it would be released before the last State election. I believe that the Government has a number of other options to consider, such as desalination of sea water; pumping water from Fraser Island that is presently draining into the sea; the use of rainwater tanks; water conservation; and, as I mentioned earlier, greater use of treated sewerage water for irrigation of parklands. Presently, erosion is a matter of grave concern in the Mary River region. Recently, I attended a number of meetings in the Kenilworth area. River banks that are situated approximately a mile from Kenilworth, on the Doyle and Webster properties which are on opposite sides of the river, are the sites of horrendous erosion problems. Erosion has to extend only another 5 feet and the river will break through and flow straight into Kenilworth. I have already brought this matter to the attention of the Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Casey. I have also supported the Maroochy Shire Council in its efforts to approach the Minister and point out that although the Government receives royalties from the extraction of sand from the riverbed, it has stated that responsibility for the stabilisation of the river banks rests with the local authority and the local people. I fail to see how anyone could justify the Government’s position. While the Government is receiving royalties and the extraction process is undermining the banks, the Government should also be contributing to the stabilisation of the river banks. I believe that my electorate is one of the greatest population growth regions in this country. I believe, therefore, that the Government should identify future problems and engage in future planning. The possibility of siting a new university on the north coast is 1850 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly causing concern. Sippy Downs had been chosen as a site, and the Deputy Leader of the Coalition will probably refer to this matter at a later stage. As I understand it, insufficient funding was provided in the past and it now seems that the QUT is considering the possibility of constructing a university on some other site. Nambour has been suggested as a possibility, bearing in mind that it already has a TAFE college. The infrastructure that presently exists and is readily available must be a ground for giving reasonable consideration to siting the university in that town. Nambour has a rail link, a road corridor, a hospital, service clubs, sporting grounds, catering facilities and accommodation. I understand that a decision will be made before the middle of the year. I am hopeful, irrespective of what transpires, that the Sunshine Coast will be given a new university in the near future. The region is such a high population growth area that it will be important to have the university up and running. Transport is another major issue in my electorate. I implore the Transport Minister, Mr Hamill, to consider the provision of additional buses to transport people from the hinterland to the coastal rail sidings. There also needs to be a great expansion and improvement, generally, in the present rail system. Although two electrified rail lines extend from Brisbane as far as Caboolture, only one extends to Nambour and beyond. The Government should be looking to the future and planning for the hundreds and thousands of people who will live in the region by the turn of the century. It should be catering for people who require fast transport to Brisbane. Unfortunately, in its latest round of fare increases, the Government increased only minimally the fares for travel between Brisbane and Caboolture but increased significantly the fares for travel in the region north of Caboolture. In many ways, the Government seems to be pricing people off the railways and putting them back onto the roads. It would be better if we could cart more people by rail. Some problems arise with fruit loading, particularly at Palmwoods and Woombye, which I have brought to the attention of the Minister. Roads, and the Obi Obi road in particular, need constant upgrading. Throughout that region, tourism is increasing at a rapid rate, with people travelling particularly into the hinterland. The sugar industry is of tremendous importance as a primary industry. The Moreton mill is one of the few sugar mills so close to a major city. For tourism, it is a must to maintain that mill. Road funding will be an ongoing problem that the Government must address. The hospital at Nambour is fantastic. It is well run and it functions well. There has been talk of funding cuts. I have spoken to the head man at the hospital. He advised me that he hopes towards the end of the year to have the overexpenditure brought back into line. Certainly, additional parking is needed at the hospital. Recently, in the shuffle that took place to put teachers into some schools and to take them away from others, 13 schools in that region lost the services of a teacher. That has caused a great deal of heartburn. I do not wish to be like another member, but I refer to a covered area for the Nambour State High School, of which Mr Comben is well aware. I see the honourable member for Whitsunday smiling. If someone could give her a lemon, she might suck it to take the smile off her face. I thought that the Minister might read my speech and do something about that matter. I turn to State issues. Mr Barton: What about the horse poem? Mr TURNER: I might have to pad up my speech towards the end. The honourable member will want the horse poem after I get into this. We hear so often of the wonderful job that the ALP is doing in running the economy of Queensland. Let us look at the facts. If one had been sitting in a satellite over this part of the world in the past 30 years, one would have seen that every Labor Government has been a total disaster and failure economically, whether those Governments were led by Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Wran, Cain, Kirner, Burke, Dowding, Bannon, Lawrence or Lange. If they like, honourable members can go through the lot. They were all a failure. The only success story in Australia was Queensland, where the previous Government abolished probate and gift duty, where we held the successful Commonwealth Games and Expo and where we electrified the whole of the Brisbane railways as far as Rockhampton and beyond. Who built the railway sidings? Honourable Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1851 members should go to Toowong. That railway station was built when the National Party was in Government. Honourable members should look at the interchange at Roma Street and ask who built it. The National Party Government did. Honourable members should go to Central Railway Station, the Brunswick Street Railway Station, the Beenleigh Railway Station or wherever they like to see the development. They should have a look at the five bridges over the Brisbane River—the Gateway Bridge, the Captain Cook Bridge near Parliament House, the cross river rail link, the Victoria Bridge and the bridge at Jindalee. The previous Government managed development with a totally balanced Budget. Mr Livingstone: Balanced Budget? Rubbish! You borrowed millions to balance the Budget. Mr TURNER: The honourable member cannot read. He did not do his “goes-into” tables at school. The four years that the honourable member spent in Year 1 at school must have been the worst years of his life. This is what Mike Nahan said in Around the States— “Queensland success is in large part a consequence of superior management by successive Queensland Governments, which have pursued a policy of small government and balanced budgets. It has achieved a balanced budget in eight of the last 10 years.” Mr Livingstone: Borrowed money. Mr TURNER: The honourable member has not been in Government that long. He should not let it get to him. His lights are on but there is no-one at home. The article states further— “It has also adopted a practice of fully funding superannuation, worker’s compensation and third party liabilities. As a result, by 1990”— note the year— “its budget sector had accumulated financial reserves, net of all liabilities, of $2.4 billion. In contrast, all other State Governments, but particularly those in the deep south and the west”— and I suppose that Government members will tell me that they were all National Party clones— “adopted policies of high spending, large deficits and not setting aside funds to meet liabilities. As a result, these States entered the recession in 1990 having accumulated and being forced to service $67 billion in loan, superannuation, worker’s compensation, and third party insurance liabilities. This is equivalent to a debt of $23,000 for each family outside Queensland, while each Queensland family remains government debt-free with $3,300 in the bank.” I suppose that Government members will tell me that the tooth fairy put that money there. I will now take the time of the House to indicate some of the so-called reforms and achievements of the ALP State Government. One of its first actions was to make it legal for two consenting adult males to have homosexual sex and get married, as the happy couple did at Buderim. A Government member: What? Mr TURNER: The honourable member should have a look at the article that I have. When the Labor Party came to Government, that was one of its first actions. At the same time, the Government made it illegal for two consenting adult males to have a voluntary employment agreement. The Government made it illegal for two consenting adults to smoke in a taxi. I could own a taxi and the passenger could ask me whether I would mind if he smoked. I could say that it would be all right. If we were to pull up at traffic lights and the police were to observe him smoking, they could book us both and give us 1852 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly an instant fine. We could put the traffic ticket in our pockets, drive up into the park and make love to each other, and that would be legal. The Government has lost its priorities. The Government abolished the penal provisions of the Drugs Misuse Act. It released 18 out of 19 hardened drug traffickers who dealt in drugs. According to the report on illicit drugs in Australia, Queensland is now the cocaine and heroin capital of Australia. Aboriginal land rights legislation has been introduced under which Aborigines can claim parks and reserves. We saw the spectacle of the gates being smashed down at Parliament House. Those are some of the wonderful achievements of the Labor Government! The Government has achieved World Heritage listing of Fraser Island and Ravenshoe, so the Government has given away control of some of our country to another country overseas. The Government has introduced anti-discrimination legislation. Mr J. H. Sullivan interjected. Mr TURNER: Government members should listen and they might learn something. They did not listen when the legislation was being passed. The honourable member will have his chance later. Under the anti-discrimination legislation, if a person wants to rent out his or her unit, and if someone comes along to whom that person objects—it could be two chaps who are loving each other—and the owner says, “I am not going to rent it to you”, that person faces being accused of discrimination against someone on the grounds of sexual preferences. Labor seems to be heavily into the areas of “save the trees”, “save the seals”, “save the whales” and “kill the kids”. In the QIDC Compass deal, the Government put into saving Compass $10m of venture capital that would have and should have gone to primary industry and small business. The Government put $100m into poker machines. It is going to have a FootyTAB, casino and gambling-led recovery. It has whacked $40m into the Indy car race. It put $10m into refurbishing the floor in the Executive Building that is used by Mr Goss. He has a Cabinet secretariat of 100, whereas Joh, Cooper and Ahern had five. The Minister for Primary Industries—— Government members interjected. Mr TURNER: Listen! Take it in! I was Minister for Primary Industries for three years. I had two staff—a private secretary and a press secretary—and some stenographers. Under this Government, the present Minister has seven staff—a senior ministerial adviser, a ministerial media adviser, a policy adviser, an assistant ministerial media adviser—— Mr Stephan: He needs them all. Mr TURNER: He needs them all. He also has an executive officer, a personal secretary and an executive secretary. That is an increase of 350 per cent in the number of staff that I had. I guess a similar 350 per cent applies to all the Ministers. Between 400 and 500 jobs have been cut out of the productive sector of the Department of Primary Industries, but the main thing that the Government should be doing is creating some jobs. Before the election, Mr Goss said—and although members opposite have heard this before, I ask them to listen to it because they will love it— “Labor’s message to the Queensland business community is simple and to the point. Just as Australian business had nothing to fear under the pragmatic economic management of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, and just as business has prospered under the economic stewardship of John Cain in Victoria and John Bannon in South Australia, so too will business prosper under a Goss Labor Government in Queensland.” We are certainly prosperous! The Government has destroyed so many jobs that it is incredible to see what has happened in this State in the period since Labor has been in office. Mr Campbell: In Queensland? Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1853

Mr TURNER: The Government lost the multifunction polis; it lost the space station; it lost the China steel deal, the aircraft facility in Townsville, Leisuremark’s proposal and the projects at Peregian and Boondall. Do members opposite want me to go on? Of course, the Government has created some jobs in employing cronies; there is no doubt about that. The Government has attacked the hollow logs. The Premier is another John Cain revisited. The Government has got into $100m in the Auctioneers and Agents Fidelity Fund and $120m in the Nominal Defendant Fund. It is into the Police Superannuation Fund; it is into Lotto and the Golden Casket. One could go on and on. I would like to touch very briefly on the Joh jury matter. When Joh defeated that particular charge, there were calls from eminent politicians and lawyers for an inquiry into the Joh jury, but there has been no call for an inquiry into the Murphy jury. I have the newspaper articles here. After Lionel Murphy was charged and found guilty, one of the jurors wrote to him and said he was sorry that the jury had rendered that verdict. So Murphy was awarded another trial. I would like to read what the Hawke Government did in relation to Lionel Murphy. A newspaper article states that the— “ . . . Government showed its support for Mr Justice Murphy when the Acting Attorney-General, Senator Evans, said it would make ‘a substantial ex gratia payment’ towards Mr Justice Murphy’s legal costs, recently estimated at more than $500,000.” The article continues— “Senator Evans said ‘special features’ of the case justified the decision to pay the costs of Mr Justice Murphy’s committal, criminal trial, appeal and retrial proceedings since December 1984. ‘In essence, to the extent that Mr Justice Murphy was only subjected to the ordeal of criminal prosecution because of the high office he held, it is appropriate that he and his dependants not be required to bear the very large financial burden of defending the prosecution,’ Senator Evans said.” So the Government took him in, propped him up in the court and he received an extra $1m or $2m of superannuation by spending an extra day in the court. If one analyses what is going on, one will see that it is absolutely incredible. Government members interjected. Mr TURNER: I will not have time for the poem if members opposite keep interjecting. I would now like to touch on the “world’s greatest Treasurer”, now the world’s greatest con man. I will not say “liar”, I will say he misrepresents the facts. The J- curve man—“the recession we had to have”, “we’ve never had it so good”, “our cup of effervescence is flowing over”—has promised to fix up small business. He has done more to destroy small business than anyone else has. Then he turns around, sees some women in a corner and says, “I’ll spend $240m giving you money so you can stay home and look after your little kiddies.” What a joke! It is the biggest joke I have heard from an Australian Prime Minister in the history of the nation. We cannot afford to re-elect another Labor Government. With the national debt and the way that this country has been destroyed under the leadership of Mr Keating, we have no alternative but to remove him, and I am sure that he will be removed on the thirteenth of this month. Mr J. H. Sullivan: Horse poem—quick! Mr TURNER: Yes— “Gaily in front of the stock whip, The horses come galloping home, Leaping and bucking”—— Time expired. Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate) (3.28 p.m.): I take this opportunity in this Address in Reply debate to congratulate Her Excellency the Governor on her appointment to such a distinguished office. On 14 February this year, I had the privilege of Her Excellency 1854 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly the Governor visiting my electorate by way of attendance at a dinner hosted by the Chinese Club of Queensland in its celebration of its fortieth birthday. In the Governor’s Speech in opening this Parliament, mention was made of this Government’s commitment to building on its major reforms to the State’s industrial relations system. Regretfully, however, the Federal coalition’s policy, which has yet to be put forward in this Federal election campaign, will seek to destroy the concept of harmonious industrial relations. In his column in last Saturday’s Courier-Mail, Peter Charlton said— “This election should be about a multitude of issues, not least of which is industrial relations. Yet so far, Dr Hewson and his team have done their utmost to ensure that industrial relations does not emerge as a significant issue. The coalition’s industrial relations policy has not yet been issued; nor, does it seem, will it be before the election.” He went on to say— “There is also a concern that the coalition has made little or no attempt to discuss their policies with the union movement which has had 10 years of close co-operation with government. And, as well as these concerns, there is the difficulty of determining with any precision what the coalition’s policy is. Last year, Mr Howard agreed that the industrial relations policy would be publicly available, to be analysed and dissected, so the coalition would have a clear mandate for change.” However, that policy still has not been released. The coalition is hiding. Dr Hewson claims that the changes to Fightback have been motivated by his new- found concern for those affected by the “pain and hardship” flowing from the recession. Although some of the newly announced measures would soften the impact of the original policies, Fightback Mark II retains unchanged many proposals which, especially in their combined effect, will increase the difficulties confronted by those in the weakest or most disadvantaged positions in our community. In reality, Dr Hewson has not departed from his fundamental belief that if the strong are to prosper, support for the weak must be diminished. The coalition’s IR policies are supposedly premised on the need to introduce additional flexibility. In practice, however, they would introduce only one additional area of flexibility which is not available under existing arrangements: the flexibility for wages to go down. The policy restricts the operations of unions, constrains the right to strike and allows employers to determine whether workers are forced off awards and required to renegotiate their penalty rates, leave loadings, redundancy payments and other hard- won conditions. In other words, the “reward” for the coalition’s IR policies would be greatly increased industrial confrontation, a larger gap between high and low-income earners, and no improvement in employment growth. At a time when the cost of living is increasing as a result of the GST, the wages of the lowest-paid would be falling. The recent report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has warned that the gap between male and female rates of pay would widen under a deregulated industrial relations system. The historical concentration of women in industries where there is an excess of labour and the high proportion of women in part- time work places them in a relatively weak position in a collective bargaining system. In the United States, for example, female earnings are about 70 per cent of male earnings, compared with the current Australian relativity of 83 per cent. The coalition will propose a system of youth wages based on an hourly rate of $3 for those under 18 years of age and $3.50 for those between the ages of 18 and 20. Dr Hewson has made an extraordinary assertion. He has stated— “You can solve youth unemployment with the youth wage. There’s no doubt about that.” Again, this assertion is not supported by any facts. Despite this, the Fightback policy is to provide for reductions in the wages of all young people—not just additional entrants Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1855 to the work force but also the three quarters of a million who are currently in work. On 8 July 1992, John Howard stated— “Some young people in jobs could end up with lower wages than what they are getting now . . . (it) may not be a politically astute thing to say but it happens to be the truth.” Particularly hard hit will be young people in structured training such as apprenticeships which involve a proportion of time in off-the-job training. The youth wage is an hourly rate applying only for time at work. The more time in training, the less the wage. The wage of a 17-year-old retail trainee, for example, would be more than halved, from $194.60 a week to $85.50 a week. Apart from the increased disadvantage which would result for young workers, especially those supporting families, there would be a substantial disincentive to undertake structured training. This would reduce the numbers undertaking such training and lead to downstream shortages of skilled labour in this country. There is no safety net. Dr Hewson is at odds with at least 80 per cent of Australians. Why? He wants to take away the protection of the award for workers. He wants to give employers the power to cut employees’ wages. Dr Hewson wants workers to bargain directly with their boss. Workers will be forced outside the award system into individual employment contracts. Employers will be able to simply impose the conditions of employment on workers. Workers who refuse the employer’s contract will be sacked. Employers will be able to sack workers and then rehire them at a lower minimum rate. There is nothing to stop employers reducing the paid hours worked, replacing permanent employees with casual employees and employing people at wage rates well below minimums. If Dr Hewson has his way, penalty rates, shift allowances, set daily working hours and rest and meal breaks will be lost. Mrs Woodgate: Back to the sweatshop days. Mr NUTTALL: Exactly; back to the sweatshop days. There will be no minimum time off between shifts. If a person works a 10 or 12-hour shift, at present he or she is entitled to a 10-hour break. That is for safety reasons. Under Dr Hewson’s policy, that person will work that 10 or 12 hours, go home, have a few hours’ sleep and will be dragged back again. Dr Hewson will take out the independent umpire which protects the rights of workers. This will weaken employees and give employers a free hand. Workers with low bargaining power and the low skilled and unskilled workers will be affected the most. Too many Australians do not realise how frightening the Howard/Hewson industrial relations policy really is. The policy is designed to cut workers’ wages, to end the safety net of the award system and to make unions powerless. Let me turn to some of the choices. The contrast between Labor and the coalition has seldom been starker. The choice is between a Labor Government which has transformed the wages system to encourage productivity and efficiency while maintaining fairness for employees, or a Hewson Government which wants to give employers the freedom to cut the wages of workers with no safety net for individual employees and their families. The choice is between a Labor Government which has reformed the award system in co-operation with unions to improve workplace practices, or a Hewson Government which would end the safeguard of the award system and a meaningful role for unions. The choice is between a Labor Government which has allowed and encouraged fair and equitable workplace bargaining, or a Hewson Government which would push workers into individual employment contracts where all the power is with the employers. Australia could have a Labor Government that would work in accord with unions to ensure that Australia's economy is more efficient and growing, or a Hewson Government that would smash unions, cause industrial chaos and destroy the working conditions of most workers. The coalition's Jobsback policy would, by forcing harshly treated workers into expensive courtroom battles and having to rely on the common law, deny Australians a fair go. It would demolish the protection that is offered to both sides by the Industrial Relations Commission. Dr Hewson says that individual workplace bargaining will lead to 1856 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly a freeing up of labour, workplace reforms and improved efficiency. In reality, his policy would have devastating effects on workers as well as on the economy. If the Federal Opposition is elected, the following will occur: workers will be pushed into individual employment contracts; employees will be weakened and employers will be given a free hand; employers in strong bargaining positions could simply determine the conditions of employment and impose them on employees; employees would be faced with the choice of the contract or the sack; the link between workplace bargaining and workplace reform will be broken, which will slow down long term productivity growth; workers would be forced outside the award system, and not allowed back in without the written consent of their employer; the award system will be abolished and the power imbalance between employers, who have the power to hire and fire, and employees who have only their skills to sell will be entrenched; the umpire will be excluded and the meaningful role played by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission will be ended. As to wages—the coalition’s policy is designed to give employers the power to cut the wages of workers and undermine the stability of employees’ incomes. Employers will be able to sack workers and then rehire them at a lower minimum rate. The only minimums are a base hourly minimum rate, four weeks annual leave, two weeks non- cumulative sick leave and maternity leave. There is nothing to stop employers using the threat of the sack to force workers to sign contracts which reduce their wages and working conditions. Under Dr Hewson’s proposals, in terms of wages and conditions, most workers would lose out. In the long term, most Australians would be losers. The winners will be employers. Employers will be able to impose wages and working conditions; drive down wages; determine conditions of employment without reference to an award or the union; be able to replace permanent employment with casual employment; be able to take advantage of high unemployment; employ the unemployed at wage rates well below minimums and create new groups of unemployed; and make money out of decreasing workers’ living standards. The losers will be: workers with low bargaining power; the low skilled and unskilled workers; women; the young; migrants; and disabled and casual workers. The following conditions may be lost: overtime and penalty rates; shift allowances; holiday loading; superannuation; redundancy provisions; limits on daily working hours; reduction in paid hours worked; the length of the working week; rest and meal breaks; long service leave; and permanent employment. Mr Santoro interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): Order! The member for Clayfield will cease interjecting. Mr NUTTALL: Dr Hewson and John Howard blame unions for the present economic difficulties that Australia is experiencing. However, the facts are that the coalition aims to reduce union power by discouraging workers to join them and by promoting enterprise bargaining units. The Government recognises the important role of unions. Enterprise bargaining units would lead to fragmentation and industrial chaos. The coalition wants to remove the right of workers to take industrial action to protect themselves. The Government has worked closely with the unions. Consequently, industrial disputes have declined dramatically. The coalition sees unions as a barrier to productivity and suggests stripping away their power base to marginalise their role. The Labor Government has had a cooperative relationship with the trade union movement that has enabled the unions to identify and respond to the problems facing the country. As to training and skills—the coalition relies on market forces and the farsightedness of employers in its approach to training and skills development. There is a real danger of large and growing sections of the labour force facing lower wages and lower skills. The coalition relies on the market to provide training opportunities for workers. It does not provide the safeguards or any incentives to encourage training. On the other hand, the Government provides the means and the incentives for workers and employers to invest in skills through the award restructuring process. The coalition would undermine the training reforms. Its AUSTRAIN proposal provides for a reduced wage without any provision for training. On the other hand, the Government has Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1857 provided the training reform associated with award restructuring, which is essential in producing a skilled work force. Mr Santoro interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Clayfield will cease interjecting. Mr NUTTALL: The coalition wants to reduce youth wages to decrease youth unemployment. There is no guarantee of training and skill formation. On the other hand, the Government combines training opportunities with payment at award rates, which ensures that youth will be protected as well as trained. The coalition proposes to sell the Trade Union Training Authority—TUTA—or disband it if there is no sale. The Government supports TUTA because it helps to develop the skills of workers and management. I now compare the best and fairest with Jobsback. Those two totally different approaches to industrial relations will be the issue at the next election. Labor wants managers, employees and their unions to work together to make Australian workplaces the best and the fairest. Labor will protect awards which provide the basic safety net of minimum wages and conditions for millions of Australian wage and salary earners. The coalition refuses to recognise the crucial link between fairness and efficiency. The main purpose of its industrial relations policy is to give employers the freedom to lower wages and reduce employment conditions. Jobsback is aimed at ending awards that protect minimum wages and employment conditions, and removing the independent umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission. It will do this by forcing the vast majority of employees into individual employment contracts. The main features of the coalition’s policy are that all employees would be thrown outside the award system and onto individual employment contracts unless their employers agree to let them remain on awards. Mr Santoro interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Clayfield has had his turn to speak. He will now listen to the member for Sandgate. Mr NUTTALL: Members of the Opposition get very touchy when we discuss industrial relations matters, do they not? Once outside the protection of awards, there is nothing to stop employers using the threat of the sack to force employees to sign contracts that lower their wages and reduce their working conditions. Only a few basic minimums are provided by the coalition for individual employment contracts, that is, the base hourly minimum rate of the old award, and annual leave, sick leave and maternity leave protections. The following award conditions would be up for grabs: penalty rates, overtime rates, shift allowances and holiday loadings. I shall give members an example. A nurse working a normal shift roster would lose about a quarter of his or her pay if penalty rates were removed. Award superannuation and redundancy entitlements would be removed. There would be no limits on the number of hours worked per week or the number of hours worked per day. Under those contracts, an employee with young children could be forced to work a 60-hour week at any time of the day or night with no overtime or penalty rates. There would be no guarantees of paid public holidays. Rest and meal breaks could be eliminated. Permanent employment could be replaced by casual employment. No-one would be required to check the individual employment contracts to make sure that they are fair. Employees forced into employment contracts would not be allowed to go to the independent umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission, if they were being treated unfairly. If any problems arise, employees would have to deal with their employer under the common law, representing a return to the outdated laws of the nineteenth century, which were based on master/servant relationships. They would have to use the ordinary courts and face the costs and delays that this involves. The coalition’s proposal to create an Office of Employee Advocate would be of little use to most employees. For example, it would not help employees who are sacked 1858 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly for not accepting a contract that lowers their pay. I repeat: it would not help employees who are sacked for not accepting a contract that lowers their pay. There is no redress against unfair dismissal under common law. The coalition would abolish any general increases to minimum rates of pay. This means that, even if a person’s employer lets that person stay on his or her award, that person might never get another pay increase. Individual employees could be fined up to $5,000 if they breach their employment contract. What happens if the employer goes up to an employee, rips up the contract, and says, “You are out the gate”? Nothing! Where is the equity in that? Only individual employees would be able to sign employment contracts. Unions would not be allowed to sign contracts, even if they are specifically chosen by employees to represent them. The coalition’s policy would create distrust and fear in Australian workplaces. It would lead to a return of widespread industrial disputation not seen since the Fraser years. Many employees would no longer be willing to participate in improving the productivity of their workplaces. They would be too busy fighting to keep their basic wages and main employment conditions. Let me consider the main issues. The Liberals are proposing an industrial relations system forcing workers out of the award system and pushing them into individual employment contracts. This will weaken employees and give employers a free hand. Let me summarise the main issues. Workers will be forced out of the award system; the safety net will be removed; the threat of retrenchments will increase; award conditions will be lost; and workers will have to negotiate directly with the employer. Opposition members interjected. Mr NUTTALL: The truth hurts. The rates of pay would be driven down; the stability of employees’ incomes would be undermined; penalty rates and shift allowances would be lost; overtime payments would be lost; and the youth of this country would be paid $3 an hour. The 38-hour week may be replaced by a longer week on just minimum hourly award rates. There is no guaranteed minimum time off between shifts. Workers could work all day without any meal or rest breaks. Other conditions that workers would lose include award superannuation and redundancy entitlements. Workers’ bargaining power will be lost under the coalition’s system. There would be no access to the umpire. The coalition will try to cross the unions, but it will not succeed. There will also be no award protection. The coalition would lower wages and skills in this economy, and decrease productivity. There would be a high level of confrontation. But the coalition has no wages policy. The workers who are most likely to be exploited include those with low bargaining power; female workers; migrants; young workers forced to work for $3 per hour; and desperate people who will work for lower wages, replacing other workers. Labor believes that for workplaces to be world competitive they must be both efficient and fair. Best and fairest are not separate options in this country. Employees must feel that they are respected and that their jobs and wages are secure if they are to wholeheartedly contribute to efforts to make their workplace world competitive. The most successful companies are those which make full use of their employees' first-hand knowledge and experience. These companies know that it is not only managers who have good ideas on how to improve quality and productivity—they listen to ideas and suggestions from all their employees. They encourage their employees to take responsibility for ensuring a high-quality product or service. In this country, we have management’s Holy Grail—the right to manage. They believe that they have the right to manage and that they have all the good ideas. That is not the case. If they cannot improve productivity, they call in a consultant, who gives them some ideas, charges $100,000 and moves on. Management tells the work force to implement the ideas and, when they do not work, they say that the work force is lazy. What they should do is talk to the people who make the product. They are the people with the ideas and who can improve productivity. Labor is committed to creating workplaces which are the best and the fairest. We will continue to encourage workplace bargaining, with wage increases linked to improvements in productivity in individual workplaces. We do not support a narrow, cost-cutting approach to workplace negotiations. Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1859

Mr Santoro interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr NUTTALL: Rather, we encourage managers, employees and their unions to work together to come up with positive measures to improve productivity. Increasing productivity is a much better way of reducing a company's unit costs and improving its competitiveness than cutting wages or reducing employment conditions. As John Corboy, the Chief Executive Officer of SPC in Shepparton, Victoria, has said in relation to the Kennett Government's removal of penalty rates and holiday loadings—— Mr Santoro interjected. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Clayfield under Standing Order 123A. Mr NUTTALL: John Corboy stated— “It's a well demonstrated effect. If you can improve your productivity by 5% then you add up to 30% to your profits. There's more than one way to improve your profits than by slashing wages. I personally don't believe it's very intelligent to ask people to perform by cutting their wage. There are much more intelligent ways to get them to do that.” How true that is. Under a Labor Government, an independent umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission, will continue to protect employees' interests, assist in settling disputes and examine workplace arrangements to make sure that employees are not disadvantaged. For example, in a number of workplace agreements, penalty rates have been replaced by a higher all-up wage rate—but the Industrial Relations Commission has looked at each agreement to make sure employees have not suffered any reduction in take-home pay. Labor's system of workplace bargaining allows management and employees all the flexibility they need to negotiate agreements which suit their own particular circumstances. For example, 12-hour shifts have been introduced in many companies, and capital equipment is being utilised around the clock. Ordinary time hours are being calculated over longer periods—instead of 38 hours per week, some agreements now have ordinary time hours calculated over a fortnight, one month or even six months. This means employees can work more hours in one week and less hours in another week at the ordinary time rate, depending on fluctuating workloads and employee preferences. Labor guarantees that award wages and conditions of employment will be protected—no employee will suffer any reduction in wages or employment conditions. The Prime Minister announced in December that the Government will legislate to extend the protection of award wages and equal pay, and protection against unfair dismissal to employees who would not otherwise be covered by awards. The Government has also legislated to make it easier for employees to move to the protection of Federal awards if their State award wages and employment conditions are threatened. Labor supports periodic adjustments to minimum wage rates in awards to protect the living standards of all employees, especially those with weak bargaining power. Under Labor, unions will continue to have the right to protect their members' interests. Labor will continue to support cooperation and communication between employees, employers and unions as the key to achieving more flexibility and efficiency at the workplace. Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Leader of the Liberal Party) (3.58 p.m.): In speaking in this debate, I again on behalf of the electorate of Caloundra acknowledge loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen, to her representative, the Governor, and to the democratic institutions of the State of Queensland. I thank the people of Caloundra who asked me to represent them in this Parliament. I give them a commitment that I will reflect their aspirations and raise their concerns within this Parliament, just as I did in the previous Parliament. Since 19 September last year, Queensland’s Labor Government has stumbled through the mire of a bigger bureaucracy of decreasing efficiency, but this blundering around with health, failing in education and criminal neglect of law and justice 1860 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly hides an even bigger disaster, that is, the hopeless mismanagement of the Queensland and the Australian economies by successive Labor Governments. I wish to speak on matters vital to all Queenslanders—of the 26 000 unemployed youth, the 40 000 long-term unemployed—we did not hear Mr Nuttall speaking of them—the 44 000 families left without an income, and the balance of the 152 000 Queenslanders conscripted into Labor’s army of unemployed. This Government is doing in Queensland what Federal Labor has so disgracefully achieved in 10 years of Government. I will point out how this Labor Government’s programs are destined to fail even under its own Leading State document. I will show why Labor is not working. I will use the Premier’s very own Government assessment of where Queensland is heading to highlight that the State is just drifting while the whirlpool of growing Government debt and unemployment closes in to drag us all down. In a study conducted by the SEQ 2001 task force, it was revealed that between 540 000 and 620 000 jobs will need to come on stream in south-east Queensland from now to the year 2001. The paper bases those figures on projected population growth in the south-east corner, together with the projected unemployment rate for this period. The paper considers the impact of all the Government’s programs on its ability to address that projected growth and the continued unemployment problem. The paper is damning for the Government. It states that the Premier’s programs will be able to provide employment for only 36 per cent of that growth demand. Put simply, his programs have been failed by his own task force. He is deliberately setting out to sell out Queenslanders in south-east Queensland in a short-term and narrow-minded strategy that was never going to work. The paper found that the combined State and Federal Government programs under Labor were unlikely to generate the jobs necessary to match the projected population growth. The paper goes on to state that the 64 per cent shortfall in jobs will be handed to the region as the Government’s total contribution. It is up to the regional authorities, off their own bat, to realise any economic growth opportunities which the Government has found too hard. I ask the Premier: is that what he means by regionalisation and micro-economic reform? The Leading State economic development initiatives are a sham, and the poor management by the Government of its public servants has resulted in anarchy, inefficiency and apathy. The economic mismanagement by both the State and Federal Labor Governments has left the Queensland voter with one choice on 13 March, that is: put Labor last. As late as Monday of last week, the Treasurer stated in Business Queensland that he was confident that his forecast of State growth would be in excess of 4 per cent. I hope he is listening to this. Government members interjected. Mrs SHELDON: Possibly the Labor backbench rabble would like to listen to a few truths. The truth is that Queensland can never sustain near 4 per cent growth while Keating remains in office. As Goss’ Leading State document so rightly states— “Queensland’s economy is linked and is dependent on the national and international economies. The Queensland Government needs to recognise the limitations in their capacity to affect the overall Australian economy.” The fact is that the Treasurer’s projection is a joke, and his own document delivers the punch line. One has to ask: does the Treasurer listen to economic advice? Even worse, does the Treasurer understand the most simple economic relationships? Last Friday, the Treasurer played his little joke on Queensland when he downgraded the growth forecast from 4.1 per cent to 3.5 per cent. In common with the rest of the Labor Treasurers who helped ruin Australia, Mr De Lacy is offering to borrow overseas to build infrastructure; however, it will be the next generation, our children—mine and those of the honourable members opposite—who will be parted from their money. He talks of generating income streams to service debt, but the Treasurer did not say which debt he was going to service. I suspect that he is talking about the excessive short-term debt and other maturing long-term debt facilities. Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1861

Essentially, Mr De Lacy is mortgaging our children’s future for short-term political gain, in common with all other Labor Treasurers, particularly the great Mr Keating. Ultimately, all Queenslanders will have to pay, and that can only translate to inevitable increases in taxes. The secure position of Queensland that Queenslanders have enjoyed for decades is drawing to a close under this Goss Labor Government. The Treasurer says that he will not let social infrastructure, such as hospitals and schools, be run into the ground through cutbacks, but we know that those institutions are creaking under the weight of too much bureaucracy and too little funding. If the funding is not going to those vital institutions, then where is all the money going? Mr De Lacy should show us the books; declare the foreign loan facilities; declare the Government’s entire domestic and foreign borrowings portfolio; and declare his strategic debt repayment and debt retirement plans. The Queensland public want to know how the Queensland Treasury Corporation is juggling our financial heritage. The State/Commonwealth relationship on virtual fiscal equalisation is not an issue under a Hewson Federal Government. This has already been demonstrated many times, to the satisfaction of Richard Court’s Government in Western Australia, Jeff Kennett’s Government in Victoria, Ray Groom’s Tasmanian Government and John Fahey’s Government in New South Wales, and that takes in the small States as well as the big States. The Treasurer’s problem is that he still has not read the 10 February jobs communique, which recession-proofed the coalition formula to compensate the State for the abolition of payroll tax. He keeps bleating about being short-changed by an incoming coalition Government; yet he has not read the new formula for the biggest compensation deal Queensland stands to gain from the Liberal/National Party Government in Canberra after 13 March. He is derelict in his duty as State Treasurer, because there is more than just State funding hanging on this deal. The Brisbane-based stock brokers and financial planners Morgans have estimated that Dr Hewson’s deal on payroll tax will see at least another 34 000 jobs in Queensland. With the additional benefits to industry and our export trade through a single GST replacing Labor’s seven regressive taxes, another 53 400 Queenslanders will be in productive work within three years of a coalition victory. That is a total of 87 000 new jobs in Queensland as a direct result of the economic and tax policies of a Hewson Government. That estimate is from an economic analyst in the private sector who earns a living by getting things right, which is very different from the way Treasurer De Lacy does business. Yet, he will not even read the documents which form a basis for those predictions. I table the Morgans paper, as other members do not share the Treasurer’s contempt, I am sure, for Labor’s unemployed and may want to apprise themselves of the facts. Mr Welford interjected. Mrs SHELDON: I suggest that the economic moron who made that statement discuss it with Morgans. Mr WELFORD: I rise to a point of order. I was the person who interjected to ask what the Leader of the Opposition proposed if the advice of Morgans was wrong. The honourable member made some inane, nonsensical remark. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bredhauer): Order! What is your point of order? Mr WELFORD: I require her to withdraw the comment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I concur that the expression “moron” may not be regarded as proper parliamentary language. I ask the Deputy Coalition Leader to withdraw that remark. Mrs SHELDON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I think in this case, it is very right; but if you have any concern about it, I will withdraw. Mr J. H. Sullivan interjected. 1862 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Caboolture will cease interjecting. I did not ask for a qualification; I asked for a withdrawal. Mrs SHELDON: I said I would withdraw. Possibly, the member with the great lack of any financial expertise who sits at the back of the Chamber may wish to discuss this matter with the directors of Morgans. I am sure that they would be very interested in his slightly-less-than-able input. Mr De Lacy can stop this fear campaign. Labor has lost the upper hand. He is running scared, and he knows it. The abolition of payroll tax under a Hewson Government will be replaced by a payroll tax abolition grant which will be resourced from GST revenue. That statement is in print, and the Treasurer has it. Unlike the Keating package, Fightback is fully funded. Hewson goes one step further by declaring up-front that the financial assistance grant cut of 5 per cent across all States is in response to the need for Government to downsize. Government is not an island. It must be responsive to the changing economic environment. Private business has been downsizing for years by cutting cost and improving productivity. For this tax-paying, wage-paying productive sector of the community, it has been a matter of survival. As for the Government sector, it is time that the Auditor-General became involved in auditing productivity, and not just the accounts. Only then will we see the true picture. The Treasurer, Mr De Lacy, admits some support for a consumption tax because it encourages savings. He said this the other day and then, in the same breath, he said it is a regressive tax. So how about being honest, Mr De Lacy! If Labor could have had it all over again, Mr De Lacy’s mate Keating would have introduced the GST after the tax summit in 1985. Recently, I attended a CEDA lunch where the speaker was Trevor De Clune, the Labor Minister for Finance who brought in the GST and tax reforms in New Zealand. His main theme was the GST. He spoke very well and said that businesses in Australia were being disadvantaged by the fact that New Zealand had the GST and was upgrading its productivity to such a degree that companies in Australia were locating offshore in New Zealand because they could no longer be productive under Labor’s regime in Australia. He also said that it is vital to this nation that tax reform and GST come in. I remind honourable members that this was being said by a Labor Minister. After he made his speech, the following question was put to him— “Just in the unthinkable instance that Mr Keating does get back in federally, what’s going to happen then to the productivity of our businesses?” Labor members should listen to what Mr De Clune said— “Undoubtedly, Mr Keating will get a call from on high to tell him that the best way to go is to put in a GST. You will have a GST in this country, regardless of whether Hewson is in there or Keating is in there.” And that is the truth. Labor members should wait and see. They have badmouthed tax reform and GST in this House and they will find that, regardless of who is the Federal leader, it will come in. I hope that members opposite, including Mr Goss and Mr De Lacy, live to eat their own words. Mrs Woodgate: Pause for applause! Mrs SHELDON: I thank the honourable member for the applause. I did appreciate it. Hewson goes one step further by declaring up-front that the financial grant cut of 5 per cent across all States is in response to the need for Government to downsize. I think I have already said that. I do not have to look further than at Mr De Lacy’s own economic advisers, let alone seek independent advice, to demonstrate that a GST will remove inequities within the current taxation system. I also quote from the paper written by one of Labor’s most eminent mentors, Mr John Freebairn, Professor of Economics, Monash University. In a paper written in 1990 for the Office of the Economic Planning Advisory Council, Mr Freebairn said— “The reality is that Australia is already half way down the track towards implementing an expenditure tax. Australia is already well on the road. It has achieved this through equity financed investments in owner occupied housing which is not taxed on income earned. It has achieved this through the immediate Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1863

expensing of business outlays on repairs and maintenance, product promotion and human skill development even though they may earn income over several years.” That is exactly what should happen under a direct expenditure tax. I point out to the Treasurer, Mr De Lacy, that Mr Freebairn is talking about a GST. He is talking about eliminating the existing distortions in Australia’s unworkable and inequitable taxation system. Under another three years of Keating, large Queensland companies would join small businesses on the downhill slide. Before the end of each fiscal year, 50 per cent of each year’s company tax is required to be paid. In addition, lodgment of income tax returns would have to be made three and a half months earlier than required under the present system. Under another three years of a Keating Government, dividend imputation for Queensland companies would be affected adversely. The lowering of the company tax rate would reduce the level of imputation credits that can be passed on to local domestic investors. These investors would adjust their investment strategies to seek higher incomes to offset an increased tax liability. In addition, the Keating tax plan will force a change to private companies’ dividend policy, effectively forcing companies to raise their dividend payouts or face the chopping block by the superannuation fund managers. Labor’s campaign in Queensland against Fightback has been lies, lies and more lies. We have heard more than a week of them in this Parliament. Quite frankly, it disgusts me to listen to “Whingeing” Wayne Swan’s blatant attempts to mislead Queenslanders, or see another picture of the Premier campaigning in some southern State, trying to prop up Paul Keating’s re-election campaign. However, despite all that, surely one of the most disgraceful acts of the campaign has been the use of female ACTU executives to spread fear among women of the effects of the GST. The union bosses trotted out their token woman executive in the form of ACTU assistant secretary, Jennie George, to spread Labor propaganda. Ms George was described in a newspaper article as being given her position by the ACTU only because she was a woman—I would like to hear what the Labor women think about that—not because she was the best person for the job. However, she has been doing the job of her ACTU bosses in travelling the Queensland countryside conducting the unions’ scare campaign against Fightback. Her whole campaign is based on the premise that women are too empty headed to negotiate wages and conditions outside the male-dominated union structure. Ms Power: “Too powerless” were the words. Mrs SHELDON: She said those words. The honourable member is evidently quite happy to keep up the myth that women cannot look after themselves, that we need the men to do it and that, without them, we would get nowhere. That sort of nonsense frankly disgusts me. That campaign is not only patronising beyond belief—“patronising” is the word—but it is also dishonest in the extreme. It makes my skin crawl that supposedly intelligent women will take the bosses’ dollar—in this case the union bosses—to go out in the workplace and spread such mindless garbage on behalf of the boys in the ACTU. On the orders of her union bosses, Ms George went out of her way to try to bring fear into the election campaign—fear that is totally unjustified, fear that has no basis in fact and fear which is just part of a baseless scaremongering campaign by Labor. Ms Power interjected. Mrs SHELDON: I have not heard one Labor woman stand up and say that it is nonsense. This campaign is even more disgraceful when the Premier, “Patronising” Wayne Goss; his former State secretary, “Whingeing” Wayne Swan, and everyone else in the Labor hierarchy know that what they are saying is untrue. I stand today to speak about the many, many benefits for the women of Queensland and Australia from the Federal coalition’s Fightback package. Under Fightback, Queensland women will be better off, their children will be better off and 1864 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly their families as a whole will be better off. That is over and above the glaring advantages for the hundreds of thousands of Queensland working women. The coalition has given a commitment that women will be recognised for their contribution to Australia, whether they are in the paid work force, in unpaid work at home or in the community in voluntary work. That commitment is rock solid, unlike Paul Keating’s series of so-called commitments over the past 10 years, which have caused heartache, unemployment and despair for tens of thousands of Queensland women. I will start with the coalition’s policy for women at home. The coalition wants to relieve the burden on Australia’s battling families. Above all, we want to hand to our children, as our parents did to us, an Australia with rising living standards and expanding opportunities. Family allowance will double for families with combined incomes—— Ms Power interjected. Mrs SHELDON: If the honourable member would listen to these few facts, she may learn what the coalition has in place to look after the women, children and families of this nation, who Labor for 10 years has absolutely ignored. The Labor Party has a Prime Minister, Mr Keating, who the honourable member would have to agree has been patronising in the extreme to women of this nation. All of a sudden, he has discovered us. Wow! There are women. Women are 52 per cent of the voting population. Let us throw a few cookies in the tin for them, shall we? What patronising codswallop, and people such as Ms Power are prepared to put up with it. Family allowance will be doubled for families with combined incomes below $30,000—50 per cent on 1 July 1993 and 50 per cent on 1 October 1994, providing an extra $1,500 a year for a three-child family. Family allowance will increase by 50 per cent for those earning between $30,000 and $40,000, and it will increase by 6 per cent for those who earn above $40,000. Social security pensions will increase by 8 per cent in two stages—4 per cent from July 1993 and 4 per cent from October 1994. Other social security benefits will increase by 6 per cent in two stages—3 per cent from July 1993 and 3 per cent from October 1994. When Hewson gets in, those benefits will come in on 1 July this year. The dependant spouse rebate will increase by $300 a year to $1,679, and sole parents will get more than $24 a fortnight extra in their pension. Match that, Mr Keating, champion of the women! Petrol will be 19c a litre cheaper. That is about $11 cheaper for a full tank. When the GST is introduced, the average family will be about $48 a week better off. The cost of feeding the family—which is of vital interest to most women in this nation—will fall with no GST on basic food. Food prices will go down by about 2 per cent across-the-board because the coalition will get rid of existing taxes that affect prices on all food. There will be no GST on child care, health, education, rent, financial transactions and council rates which are non-commercial. With the tax-free saving scheme, interest on new savings will not be taxed up to $2,000 for couples; up to $1,000 for singles. To get people to save, particularly our young people, would be a distinct advantage. Of course, Government members would not be interested in that. Government members interjected. Mrs SHELDON: How the rabble bays! First home buyers earning less than $40,000 will get a $2,000 one-off payment under the first home owners scheme, and it will be possible for young Australians under 35 to access their superannuation to help buy their first home. The office of the family—that wonderful word, “family”—will be created to assess the impact of Fightback on families and to provide family impact statements for Cabinet. In the first term of a Hewson Government, an extra $300m will go to voluntary agencies for emergency relief, crisis care and counselling. The coalition wants an Australia in which older women have financial security and respect. The up-front increase in age pensions will help older women who experience declining incomes with increasing age. All pensions—age, service, disability, war widows, etc.—will increase by 8 per cent with a bring-forward recession-buster increase of 4 per cent on 1 July 1993; that is this year. That will be followed by another increase Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1865 of 4 per cent in October 1994. Those not covered by pension increases or tax cuts will receive special GST tax credits. From October 1994, the effective tax-free threshold for self-funded retirees earning less than $30,000 will be brought into line with that for pensioners to $10,060 for singles and $16,980 for couples. A deferred pension plan will give all those who wish to stay longer in the work force a bigger pension. For example, a two-year deferment will result in a 16 per cent increase in pension. This will mean an improved standard of living for older women. Mr Nunn interjected. Mrs SHELDON: Obviously the members opposite are not interested in an increased standard of living for older women. Women aged over 60 years earning less than $30,000 will be eligible for a one-off payment of up to $1,250 to protect the value of savings they have accumulated for retirement, and more than compensate for the effect of GST. Women aged over 65 years and single who earn less than $12,000 will be provided with a health insurance subsidy of $400. Married couples earning less than $14,500 will get a subsidy of $800. This will provide substantial reductions in health costs for those privately insured and will effectively meet the cost, under a coalition Government, of private health insurance for those not already privately insured. Women over 65 years and single earning between $12,000 and $20,000 will get a subsidy of $250. Married couples over 65 years earning between $14,500 and $20,000 will get a subsidy of $500. Those aged over 65 years with annual incomes of $20,000 to $30,000 will receive a subsidy of $400 for couples and $200 for singles. Dr Hewson is really looking after the forgotten people whom Labor has ignored. An extension of the pharmaceutical benefits card to the half a million people aged 65 years and over whose income is less than $40,000, single, and $50,000, married, and who have no current Government concession will correct the inequities created by present arrangements and assist these people by up to $250. A work-for-benefit payment, available upon approval from a local employment board, for those who are unemployed and over 55 years and who work actively for a voluntary agency or in a community service, will recognise the valuable contribution of volunteers and I will absolve them of the need to satisfy the Jobsearch requirements. This will provide substantial reductions in health costs for those privately insured and will effectively meet the cost, under a coalition Government, of private health insurance for those not already privately insured. The coalition recognises the contribution made by our nation’s women during Australia’s involvement in war, much of which has gone unhonoured. We will assist in the establishment of a memorial in the national capital commemorating the service given, and the many sacrifices made, by women as a result of Australia’s involvement in war. It is time women started recognising that these non-representative groups have no idea of the real benefits of Fightback for Queensland women. Instead, they are just used by the Labor Party to trot out Keating’s lies and mislead the women of Queensland. Mr Barton: Nonsense! You don’t know anything about the women of Queensland. Mrs SHELDON: And the honourable member does know the first thing about the needs of women! It is time the women of Queensland were given the opportunity to truly stand on their own two feet. It is hard to do that when more than one million Australians are out of work. It is hard to do that when 10 years of Labor oppression has destroyed thousands of businesses and left the rest struggling under a mountainous tax burden. It is hard to do that when patronising Paul Keating is in The Lodge pretending to be the friend of Australian women. Well, Paul Keating is no friend of mine and he is no friend of any woman of Queensland and Australia when he creates an economic environment which causes massive job loss, despair and a lack of hope in the community. The only growth industries under Keating are tax collection and fundraising by charities caring for Paul Keating’s new poor. It is time to put an end to the lies which are being told to Queensland women by the Labor Party. It is time the facts of the Federal coalition’s Fightback policy were told, without being perverted and distorted by 1866 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly the ALP. The facts are that all working women in the low and middle income brackets will receive 25 per cent cuts in income tax. Time expired. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba) (4.28 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to take part in this Address in Reply debate. Mr J. H. Sullivan: Don’t forget the Queen. Mr PURCELL: Thanks for the help. The people of Australia are being asked to place unprecedented trust in one man—John Hewson. People are being asked to trust Hewson to implement a consumption tax which clearly discriminates against the majority of Australians. The Bulimba electorate has a high percentage of people on a fixed income who rely on Governments to be honest and to sustain a decent standard of living. Hewson’s policies would take away their peace of mind and dignity. One must question the morality of taking away from those who can least afford it. People are also being asked to trust Hewson when he says he will reduce income tax. What Government of any political persuasion has ever reduced income tax? And we are being asked by Hewson and his henchmen to trust him when he says this! One cannot fool Australians that easily. We have also been asked to trust Hewson to fulfil his so-called pledge to eliminate other taxes despite the gaping financial hole in his financial estimates. I predict that, if Hewson were ever to get hold of the Treasury benches, within a month he would turn around and say to the people of Australia, “Having spoken to the Treasury, things are much worse than we thought and as a result some of these taxes will have to remain.” And what about the $12 billion hole in Hewson’s plan to sell Telecom to finance his other election commitments? Twelve billion dollars is bigger than the entire annual Queensland Budget. Yet Hewson and Reith seek to simply sweep this little discrepancy under the carpet as if it does not matter. We are being asked to trust these men with the economic future of Australia. We are also asked to believe that Telecom will not be sold to foreigners. Never in the history of the Australian capital market has $12 billion been raised for a float for such a huge public sector enterprise as Telecom. If the Australian domestic capital market cannot finance it, there is only one alternative, that is, to sell it overseas. Presumably, Hewson will entrust the future of Australian telecommunications to the long-term credit bank of Japan. Hewson asks us to trust him. Not only is Telecom a viable corporation; it is also one of the biggest employers in this country, employing many thousands of Australians who pay taxes and contribute to consolidated revenue. Can we trust Hewson to sell off one of Australia’s most profitable assets and believe that this will benefit Australians? If Hewson ever gets hold of the Treasury benches of this country, I can see timed telephone calls just around the corner. We are also being asked to trust Hewson when he claims that he will never raise the GST above 15 per cent. We are asked to believe that Hewson alone among all the political leaders around the world will resist the temptation, having introduced a goods and services tax, of milking it for as much as he can to prop up the coalition’s budgetary position. But we are told that Hewson will be an honourable man, one whom we can trust; and that Thatcher, Bolger, Mulroney and others were less trustworthy than the Ferrari-driving professor who would be Prime Minister of Australia. In Canada, the cost of implementing the GST has been estimated at $20 billion a year, and the promised income tax cuts were shelved. For what else are we being asked to trust this man? He is asking us to trust him with the future of Medicare, a national health scheme which, although not perfect, is regarded around the world as one of the best. Only last week, a constituent phoned my office to congratulate the Government and Medicare on the great job that they are doing. He told me of a small baby near death and the parents being flown to Brisbane for the baby’s life-saving liver transplant operation. The baby was operated on immediately upon arrival at the hospital, and within hours of the operation being Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1867 completed the child was a healthy colour and doctors were extremely optimistic of a full and healthy life for the baby. The flight, the accompanying doctor, the operation costs, hospital accommodation and financial assistance for the parents to stay in Brisbane were all being met by Medicare. No price is too high to place on the life of a small child. This is life in Australia with Medicare. Sure, there is a waiting list, but it is a waiting list based on need, and fair treatment is given to all. Under Dr Hewson’s system, there will be no money, no treatment. That is not the Australian way. We have been asked to trust Hewson when he says that he will keep Medicare and improve it. Why is it that Dr Hewson repeats almost on cue that he is interested only in improving Medicare? It is not because he believes in Medicare, and it is not because he believes in the principles which underpin a system of universal health insurance for all people in this country, irrespective of their economic means and irrespective of the level of their physical impairment. The reason that the good doctor wants us to believe that he will improve Medicare is that the Liberal Party’s political market research company has told him that is what the people of Australia want to hear, even though he and the Liberal Party intend, bit by bit, to destroy it. Dr Hewson’s health policy is the policy of the AMA, for the AMA and by the AMA. It is a Liberal Party policy to ensure that he and Dr Bruce Shepherd make doctors into millionaires, with pay rates of $3 a second as opposed to the rates of $3 an hour that Hewson would pay young people. The average, hardworking GPs who genuinely care for their patients are not in favour of this policy. Dr Hewson’s is a policy aimed at enhancing the lifestyle of a select group of medical practitioners who, in common with him, have predispositions towards fast cars and fat bank accounts. We are being asked to trust this man with the health of 17 million Australians, the vast majority of whom are not rich and are battlers whose income does not allow for extras. Health care should not be an extra. Hewson asks us to trust him to reform our industrial relations system. What a joke! It is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. He asks us to trust him, but Hewson’s ploy is to take us back to the bad old days of master and servant and to destroy the principles of a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay, which has underpinned the development of Australian society over the past 100 years. The Hewson/Howard policy will end the award system. Employers will be able to use the threat of the sack to force workers to sign contracts which will reduce their wages and working conditions. Everything is up for grabs. Overtime, penalty rates, shift allowances, holiday loadings, superannuation and redundancy provisions are all placed in jeopardy. All of this means that the standards of living of workers and their families will have no option but to fall dramatically. The number of hours worked per day or per week are also up for negotiation, which will further drop the living standards of Australians and their families. Dr Hewson asks us to trust him that he will respect the principles of working people who ask of their employers only that they be treated fairly and that they have safe working conditions so that they can enjoy their share of the great wealth that this country generates. Workers will be stuck with what is in their contracts, no matter how unfair. They will not be able to use the advocate to have their contracts reviewed. They will not be able to get a speedy hearing before a court. Mr Howard has stated that individual workers will not be liable for more than $5,000 in damages for breaches of their contracts. Well, thank you, Mr Howard! I am sure that the workers of this country will find that a great comfort. Guaranteed paid holidays are removed; rests and meal breaks have to be negotiated; and permanent employment can be replaced by casual employment at the stroke of a pen. Howard and Hewson claim that employers and employees can negotiate as equals. One need only look at New Zealand—Hewson’s role model—and the first individual work contracts in Victoria to see how this so-called negotiation really works. The only principle Hewson respects is that of the market. If the market destroys a person, so be it, because a person has no worth other than what the market dictates, according to the doctrine of Hewson. Hewson dreams of an age in which people will 1868 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly once again know their place; in which people will be forced or required to tug their forelocks to those who employ them and to lose their self-respect. The Hewson/Howard system is inferior, it is legalistic and it is based on common law. In Victoria, Kennett refused to release his industrial relations Bill before the election. For nearly two years, Mr Howard promised to release the Federal coalition’s industrial relations Bill well before the election. He has now refused point-blank to do so. Australians have every right to ask what Hewson and Howard are hiding. Under a Hewson Government, workers would need the help of unions more than ever. Hewson will sideline unions so that employers will be given a free hand to cut employees’ wages and conditions. Hewson wants to return to the golden age when organised labour did not exist. Does he really believe that the forces of capital have suddenly humanised themselves to the extent that they will now treat human beings as human beings, rather than simply as an economic commodity? Does he believe that human beings have a worth other than the price of their labour as determined by a totally unregulated market? Hewson is the doctrine of the market defined—a market of cold, hard steel that has no heart or compassion. If people do not compete effectively in the market, in his world view, they are nothing. They are devoid of economic value and, therefore, in his world view, devoid of social worth. Those are the matters that Hewson asks Australians to entrust to him now and into the future. Our lives and our livelihoods will be in the hands of a man who seems to regard weakness and youth as a sin. Hewson’s Liberal Party is not the Liberal Party of Menzies or even Fraser. It is a new Liberal Party that represents the triumph of personal greed over compassion for the community. It is a triumph of the Ferrari over public transport. It is a triumph over those whom he believes to be second- class citizens and who, for whatever reason, choose to live in rented accommodation. Remember, it was Hewson who said, “You can always tell the rented houses in any given street.” What gives him the right to be judgmental? His judgments reveal what he really thinks of the battlers of this country. Hewson’s liberalism is a triumph of the self- righteousness that is associated with the bigotry and prejudice of an era in Australian politics long gone. Remember again, it was Hewson who said that Bob Carr in New South Wales was not normal because he did not have children. The difference between Labor and conservative politics in 1993 is greater than it has been at any time since the birth of the Labor Party 100 years ago. During the course of that 100 years, the Labor Party has made mistakes. The Labor Party has also changed dramatically with changing national, international, political and economic circumstances. However, for all its mistakes throughout its history, the Australian Labor Party has never lost its heart. It has listened to the people, represented workers and, for the last 10 years, has been responsible for the best industrial relations harmony that this country has ever seen. Under Hewson, the Liberal Party has become a party without a heart. Let me say loudly and clearly that if Liberal politics become a reality in this country, it will polarise the Australian community into a nation of haves and have-nots. Australia will no longer be one nation, but two. The policies of the Liberal Party will destroy this great country’s social fabric. It will create such a breeding ground for massive upheaval in this country that the political stability that we have treasured for two centuries will no longer be able to be taken for granted. The simple reality is that if a man has no food when he is hungry, he will steal. We all know the history of Australia’s early settlers and we have read with horror the severe punishments that were inflicted on people who stole so little as a loaf of bread or poached a rabbit to feed their starving children. The only employment created under Hewson’s policies will be the building and staffing of gaols. When the policies that Hewson espouses have thrown Australians on to the dungheap of human history because they failed to compete in the markets in which Hewson’s Liberal Party placed such faith, the Liberal Party and its members will stand condemned forever. Law and order in the community has become a problem irrespective of which Government has been in power. Unemployment makes that problem worse. When a country has unemployment—as Australia will have for some period—and it does not Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1869 provide properly for those who are out of work, or for those who are sick; when it does not pay decent wages and provide safe working conditions; and when it does not provide public housing, the country’s social fabric is destroyed. This will be our collective ruin, not just the Liberals, as a discredited political party. Politics is about power, and how that power is used to distribute the wealth to the community in as a fair and even-handed way as humanly possible. The Liberal Party is hell-bent on using the great power of public office in this land to take away public resources from the community and to put them in the hands of the pockets of a few. The born-to-rule mentality of the Liberal Party is still alive and thriving. That is not the kind of Australia that I want for myself or for my children. Mr PERRETT (Barambah) (4.43 p.m.): I rise in this Address in Reply debate to again pledge my loyalty to Her Majesty, and to express my hope that she will reign as Queen of Australia for many years to come. I also express my loyalty to the office of Governor of Queensland as representative of Her Majesty. I also wish to thank the electors of Barambah for giving me a third vote of confidence. They were obviously totally unimpressed with the constant letters to the South Burnett Times by the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Primary Industries. Indeed, the latest effort from the Minister for Primary Industries reached new heights. It was so hysterical and far-fetched in its claims that country people support Labor that the editor was moved to point out in print the extent of my win. Again, I thank the people of Barambah for their overwhelming support, and I pledge to them my continuing hard work on their behalf. The people of regional Queensland are a fair-minded bunch. When Labor came to office in Queensland, most people were prepared to give it a go. They were ready to stand back and see how Labor would treat them before they made up their minds. I have to tell the House today that the jury is back, and that regional Queensland has found Labor guilty. The indictment has thrown Queensland’s great primary industries and rural and regional towns and cities to the wolves. Rural Queensland has realised that there is only one Australian Labor Party. Its national head is Paul Keating, the architect of a depression symbolised by more than one million decent Australians who cannot find work. Its Queensland head is Wayne Goss, who has ripped the heart out of Government services outside the Brisbane area and squandered the legacy of 32 years of growth and prudent economic management. Both men were considered the bright young hopes of a tired old party, happy to remain hostage to the tired old power players in the union movement. Both have failed the electors who experimented with Labor. Paul Keating will pay the price in just under 11 days. Wayne Goss faces another two and a half years pretending that it will work out in the end. But it will not. The people of rural Queensland have already had enough. There is an alternative to one million unemployed. There is an alternative to a national debt equal to $33,000 for each and every Australian. There is an alternative to hidden deficits for a State that started with plenty of cash in the bank. There is an alternative to a crumbling State health system and a rising rate of crime. There is an alternative to stripping away necessary support mechanisms such as research and extension for primary industries. There is an alternative to crumbling highway systems and shires having to turn local roads into gravel tracks in order to maintain them. There is an alternative to rising charges that inhibit our ability to export and redress the balance of payments deficit. There is an alternative to rising State charges for regulations and controls that industries can do without. There is an alternative to Labor. After Labor’s 10 years in control in Canberra and its three and a half years at the helm in Queensland, everyone knows that the policies of both come from the same book. It is a book made especially weird by trying to marry up the ideas of all the strange bedfellows making up the Labor Party. There are the old-time socialists, the standover artists, the union leadership, the trendy young professionals looking for a cause, and all the special interest groups that Labor chases for the sake of votes. When a policy book tries to accommodate so many conflicting interests, it cannot possibly be rational. Rural and regional Australia has found that out. I watch in dismay while Labor spends mad amounts of money promoting its pet schemes and favoured stooge groups in the cities. At the 1870 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly same time, it cuts back savagely on the services that it owes to regional areas, which produce the bulk of our State’s wealth. The Barambah electorate is typical of those electorates that are doing it tough under Labor. The people in that electorate are getting a double dose of Labor at the present time, and they are certainly starting to wilt under the strain. Since the 1989 election, the Barambah electorate has expanded quite considerably. In addition to the Kilkivan, Murgon, Wondai and Kingaroy Shires, which made up the old Barambah electorate, we have Nanango and Kilcoy Shires, parts of the Esk and Rosalie Shires, and the Aboriginal community of Cherbourg. Agriculture is still the lifeblood of the electorate, and will remain so. Mr T. B. Sullivan: As long as we get some rain. Mr PERRETT: I am pleased to point out to the honourable member that, over the weekend, the Kingaroy area received five inches of rain, and once again the crops are looking very good. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr PERRETT: I point out to the honourable member for Brisbane Central that it just goes to show that God really does live in Kingaroy. The area is very diverse. It produces many crops, ranging from cereal crops in the wintertime to maize, sorghum and beans, including soya beans and navy beans. It also produces cattle. The area is a big pork-producing region. Of course, we cannot forget peanuts. In recent times, the area has come under a lot of strain. Because of the cheaper housing, many people from the cities are now moving into the area, where there has been a lot of rural residential development. But that rural residential development has brought with it many problems. It has added to the unemployment rate and the waiting time for rental housing in the area. Many of the people who develop those rural residential blocks have been used to city living. They do not really understand the trials and tribulations that are experienced during droughts, when they have no water or other services to which they have become accustomed in the cities. In some cases, people have blamed local authorities for not providing those services, without checking out the situation before they bought the land. A delegation from some of those people came to see me one day. They pointed out that the developer in question had been very eager to sell them the blocks of land, promoting it through glossy brochures, and so on. Some of them had bought blocks sight unseen, and really did not know what to expect when they arrived. Many have found that they have insufficient funds to build decent housing, and have incurred the wrath of the local authorities. Unemployment is also a problem in my electorate. Many people who have come to live in the area have found it almost impossible to obtain work, even though some of them are highly qualified tradesmen. The Wide Bay/Burnett area has an unemployment rate of 14 per cent. The January figures showed 12 600 unemployed, representing an increase of 35.5 per cent since Labor won Government in December 1989. That is horrifying. But I am more concerned about the youth. Youth unemployment in the Wide Bay/Burnett region is running at 30 per cent. But in the Barambah electorate, it is estimated at about 50 per cent. Mr Pearce: How are you going to get these people jobs under Fightback? How are you going to get jobs? Mr PERRETT: We know that under Fightback the business sector will be stimulated and that businesses will make a lot more money. Of course, they will be able to afford to employ. For instance, if every farmer in that area could employ one person, the area would not have an unemployment rate. All those people would be employed. This is what Fightback will do. Today, Mr Owen Jennings, the president of the federated farmers organisation in New Zealand, addressed a meeting in Bendigo. He referred to the way in which Fightback had given New Zealand an edge in trade over Australia. He said that farmers are striding ahead in leaps and bounds in New Zealand, and that they are leaving us in their dust. Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1871

Regionalisation is a disaster. As to health—in my electorate, waiting lists are getting longer and longer. That is not unusual; it is occurring throughout the State. As to law and order—the Shire of Kingaroy has a population of almost 11 000 and has no 24-hour police service. When the station is closed, calls are diverted to Gympie. If action is required, the calls are relayed back to Kingaroy, which causes a delay in police officers attending the scene of the crime. Recently, a resident of Nanango complained that the police did not respond to a call. After making a second call, she discovered that they had gone to the wrong address. That is not good enough. People should not have to tolerate those events, but they do not have any option. As a result of regionalisation, the administration of public housing has been transferred to Bundaberg. Kingaroy has an acute shortage of rental housing and people are experiencing many difficulties. I pay tribute to bodies such as St Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army, which assist in extreme circumstances. Ms Warner: St Vincent de Paul is funded by my department. You realise that, don’t you? Mr PERRETT: It is not funded totally by the department. Much of the funding is collected locally. Those bodies certainly do a good job. Rail services in my electorate have been seriously curtailed. The only time that trains come to my electorate is when grain has to be transported. Light freight is carried by road through Q-Link. Some people argue that there are some benefits associated with that service, but many people are not happy with it. A failing of the cutback in rail services is that many families have left various towns. Those families have sold their houses and left the towns, which means that less money is spent in the towns. I turn to the Department of Primary Industries. Being a major agricultural area, South Burnett needs a virile Department of Primary Industries but, once again, as a result of regionalisation, that service has been transferred to Nambour. I have always said that that is wrong. We have far more in common with the Toowoomba region in terms of crops produced, livestock industries and so on. We have lost our dairy adviser, our pig adviser and our horticultural adviser. Mr T. B. Sullivan: And you’ve lost your direction, too. Mr PERRETT: It is interesting that the Department of Primary Industries seems to have lost its direction, particularly in the areas of research and extension. No funds are available for those items any more. In view of the cutbacks that have occurred, one wonders where agriculture lies on the list of priorities of the Labor Government. We have problems with education. When new people come to the area, it puts a strain on the education system—not only the State schools but also the private schools. The Government should maintain adequate education facilities for children. I have received many complaints about the Ambulance Service in my electorate. As a result of regionalisation, its headquarters are now in Bundaberg. Services have been cut to the bone. The only advantage that I can see from regionalisation is that the South Burnett area now has a training officer to give ambulance officers additional training—that is, the ones who are left. They seem to be getting very thin on the ground. Last Saturday, I visited Kilcoy to commission a division of the St John Ambulance. They are filling the void in first aid and training that is no longer being carried out by the Queensland Ambulance Service. I mention the saga of the stolen ambulance. In last Friday’sSouth Burnett Times , an article was titled “Town seethes over ‘stolen’ ambulance”. The town of Goomeri, with about 800 residents, has lost its ambulance. The article stated— “ . . . the local ambulance establishment committee, which bought the original car through years of fund raising with raffles, fashion parades and jumble sales, is miffed that they were not consulted or even told about the moves. The committee raised $4,000, and with a matching grant from the State Government, bought the second-hand car from the Murgon Ambulance Service. 1872 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

‘The general feeling is that it has been stolen,’ fumed local councillor Margaret Angel. ‘A lot of people worked very very hard in recent years to establish that ambulance so we had some form of medical aid on hand.’ ” At its half-yearly conference last Friday, the Burnett District Local Government Association decided that it would protest to the State Government about cutbacks in ambulance services. An article in today’s South Burnett Times titled “Ambulance protest” states— “Delegates from 17 constituent councils in an area stretching from Bundaberg, to the North, Central and South Burnett, have endorsed the protest action.” The article claims that a once efficient and effective country ambulance service has degenerated into a poor service. It continues— “We should let QAS know what we, as community leaders, feel about such actions. Unless we, as civic leaders, protest there will be repetitions of community- funded vehicles and equipment being removed from rural centres . . . the former ambulance service with local committees had provided an efficient and much appreciated community service.” The article continued to point out the disgust of those 17 shire councils represented at the Burnett District Local Government Association conference. It is obvious that many problems exist in that area. At present, my electorate office has a very heavy workload. I pay tribute to my electorate secretary, Mrs Sue Duncan. Kingaroy has no Federal member’s office and no Social Security office, which creates a heavy workload for my electorate secretary. The fact that Mr Goss has failed to implement the EARC recommendations does not help us look after the 46 schools with the 72 school bus runs, the 13 police stations, the 8 hospitals, the DPI network and all the other Government offices about which we receive many complaints. Farmers are a unique bunch of people in that they cannot affect the returns that they receive for their labour. Prices depend on world markets and domestic sales in competition with subsidised produce from overseas. The only way in which a farmer can affect profitability and even viability is to reduce the cost side of the equation, and that is where Fightback comes in. The Government can reduce costs by removing taxes and by refraining from raising charges. That is the lifesaving promise of Fightback for regional Australia. In indirect tax savings alone, Fightback will deliver savings to primary industry in the order of $1.025 billion per year. It will relieve the massive burdens in the form of input costs and give real increases in farm business incomes ranging up to 29 per cent for a northern cattle producer. It will also treat farm families in the same way as urban families in severe financial hardship with real advances in the farm household support scheme and genuine increases in family allowance. The coalition will not treat farmers and their families as second-class citizens as Labor does. The most damaging competition facing our farmers is coming from subsidised production overseas. The levels of support our competitors receive ranges from adequate to totally outrageous. Farmers look to Government to help them fight the worst excesses. I want to make it clear that our farmers are not looking for subsidies on their own production. That has been made clear by every producer group I can think of. What we do want and what we will demand from any Government in power in Australia is a fair go. Some would suggest that a fair go includes making sure subsidies are taken into account when Canberra considers claims that primary produce is landing in Australia at unfair prices. I emphasise that we have no commitments yet from the Federal coalition on that, but I know that some groups will be looking for them before long and certainly deserve them. Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1873

Producers in my area are still up in arms over the decisions on imported Chinese peanuts and Canadian pork. How on earth can we ever expect to get value added industries encouraged into our rural areas if we cannot receive any commitments from the Federal Government about the effects of such imports? The peanut industry is vitally concerned with the importing of Chinese peanuts which have a lack of quality, do not comply with the same health standards as the Australian produce and, therefore, place ours at a serious disadvantage. Producers were rocked by the anti-dumping authority ruling that Canadian pork was being dumped in Australia. The authority wriggled out of the correct ruling by ignoring the fact that the most significant inputs to producing that Canadian pork were heavily subsidised by the Canadian Government. I know the incredible damage that those imports have done to producers in my own area. I know that the damage will be repeated whenever a few particular producers decide to drive local prices down even further. It is a matter of record that since the Canadian pork started coming into the Australian market, Australian farmers have seen prices to them drop by around 25 per cent. It is even worse in some markets. In most cases, processors have been able to cut prices to producers by 50c a kilogram. Since imports began, quantities have fluctuated monthly but last year peaked at 700 tonnes a month. It is beyond belief that both the Customs Service and the anti-dumping authority could believe that the imports and the price drop were not connected. It is equally unbelievable that they could find no material damage. Both bodies have sought to play down evidence of the subsidies paid to Canadian farmers. The facts are that feed accounts for 70 per cent of the cost of producing pigs. Canadian pig farmers get a 49 per cent subsidy on barley and a 26 per cent subsidy on corn. No matter how the Canberra bureaucrats play with figures, the facts speak for themselves. Australian producers are now faced with funding an expensive Federal Court appeal against the decisions. They cannot afford to accept a continuing subsidised assault on their livelihoods. Although imports are down to a trickle at the moment, that situation can be put down to the importers awaiting the outcome of the anti-dumping inquiry. Processors’ coldrooms are just about empty now, but they will quickly fill with Canadian imports now that Canberra has given the green light. The current trickle will turn into a flood and prices will be pushed down even further if action is not taken. The dilemma facing Australian producers is finding the quarter of a million dollars needed to fight the case. They are well aware that while the Australian Government has never supported them, the Canadian Government has stood right behind its producers and importers. So far, the Canadian Government has met the huge legal bill involved in keeping imports flowing into Australia. Producers could be excused for wondering how much damage has to be done before Labor Governments decide to back them. Farmers have always realised that Labor Governments had them low on their list of priorities. They have had some pretty good examples of that in the past few years, in particular from the Queensland Government and its Minister for Primary Industries. He is the man who stood under a parasol and declared the middle stages of a current drought “a bit of a dry spell”; he is the man who steadfastly refused all pleas for drought relief rules that would have saved the breeding herds and flocks by allowing a subsidy on the forward movement; he is the man who has steadily raised water charges in the midst of the worst drought in many years; he is also the man who now threatens to obstruct moves by the incoming coalition Government to secure the future of the sugar industry. The member for Mackay has a strong ally against the sugar industry in the Federal member for Hinkler, Mr Brian Courtice. He is man who has ratted on the sugar industry time and time again. He wants justice for the industry only if Labor hangs onto power in Canberra. Mr Randell: He’s an opportunist. Mr PERRETT: He certainly is an opportunist, and I will tell honourable members more about him. He is happy to dump the sugar industry—the lifeblood of his electorate—in the event that Keating gets his just deserts on 13 March. Courtice has openly supported the Casey threats that he will not allow the coalition sugar package to 1874 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly be implemented in Queensland. It is perfectly consistent for Courtice to take that view. The instant that he hit Canberra, he started belting primary producers. Farmers are well aware that Courtice played a big hand in reducing effective drought relief measures. He, more than anyone else, was responsible for drought being deleted from the natural disaster list. The coalition will restore severe drought to that list as an urgent priority. Farmers also know that he totally misrepresented them in his diatribes. Members may remember this statement from the House of Representatives on 18 April 1991, when farmers were despairing of any real drought relief. He stated— “The other issue that I have not forgotten but which the National party would love to forget is the $30 million drought rort that went into the pockets of a bunch of greedy graziers. That money could well be used now to help those farmers who are in need. They have not got rid of the McEwenism disease that imposed a massive weight on farmers and affected our ability to export.” He concluded by saying— “The National Party has never had the courage to get into microeconomic reform.” It is a fact that not one farmer was charged, let alone convicted, of rorting drought relief, despite Labor Governments in Canberra and Brisbane. It is also a fact that drought relief cutbacks inspired by Courtice and the member for Mackay have caused untold hardship for decent, honest, Queensland farming families.The member for Hinkler took the same hate-the-bosses party line when he “me too-ed” every Keating attack on the sugar embargo and on the tariffs. When Keating abolished the embargo, Courtice was one of the happiest men in the House of Representatives. He launched a bitter attack on canefarmers’ leaders on 4 August 1988. He said— “We found that when protection was lifted the Queensland Cane Growers Council was unable to cope. It saddens me that the Cane Growers executive in Queensland has adopted such a myopic view of its own industry.” Mr Courtice at least told the truth on 24 November 1988, when he told Parliament that the embargo decision should begin a new era for the Australian sugar industry. You bet it did! It threw the sugar industry to the wolves of corrupt international competition. Australian growers, having to take prices as low as 7c a pound, saw the Australian market exposed to foreign competitors who were enjoying domestic subsidies of 30c a pound in the case of the European Community, 22c in the United States, and 21c for the multinationals running the Thai industry. When the Nationals under Ron Boswell’s leadership in the Senate forced Hawke and Keating to agree to some tariff protection, it was Courtice who could not cope. Keating unilaterally slashed the tariff in March 1991 and committed Labor to zero tariffs by the year 2000. Brian Courtice almost died with joy. He was like a kid with the keys to the lolly shop. On 18 April 1991, he had a fine time in the House of Representatives when he took swipes at canefarmers, the industry as a whole, the National Party for supporting tariffs, and even newspapers in the sugar-growing areas. I will give honourable members one example that the member for Hinkler is no doubt hoping everyone will remember on election day— “The National Party has caught itself out. A classic example of this has been the argument on tariffs. For years and years, the National Party has politicised the Government’s attempt to bring down tariffs and to get the tariff monkey off the back of farmers.” The same speech contained an attack on the National Party member for Dawson, Mr Ray Braithwaite—“Sugar” Ray as the industry now calls him. Courtice has never had the courage or the commitment to his constituents that Ray Braithwaite showed when he gave up his shadow Ministry in support of the sugar industry. He stated— “To be a short term populist, the honourable member for Dawson has made himself look like a goose on this issue. The only other person in north Queensland Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1875

who has supported him on this is his ridiculous mate, the editor of the Proserpine newspaper.” But Brian Courtice’s favourite memory must relate to a speech made just a week earlier on 10 April 1991. His poor heart almost burst with pride as he stood in the House of Representatives and delivered the 13 words which best sum up his attitude to the sugar industry and to his constituents. He stated— “I have always led the charge to reduce tariffs in the sugar industry.” His saying stuff like that and his eagerness to help in the hatchet job on Hawke made him a Keating favourite. Keating displayed his callous disregard for canefarmers by letting the member for Hinkler remain at the helm of the sugar industry task force. He chose well, because the report—which was deliberately kept secret for so long by the Labor Government—contained recommendations that Courtice was happy to sit on, to the ultimate detriment of the industry he falsely claims to represent. It is history now that Keating and Courtice have jumped the fence—that they have had a total public change of mind about the sugar industry on the way to the Federal election. Both men thought they could dump the sugar industry while they thought they were home and hosed in electoral terms. That is why they sat on the report for so long. They were hoping against hope that they would not need the sugar industry. Mr Randell: All members on that side of the House are supporting Mr Courtice. Mr PERRETT: They are, and that shows how misinformed they are. A few short weeks ago, reality set in. Labor did the unthinkable and adopted a large part of the National Party’s policy on sugar. Of course, because old hatreds die hard, Labor members did not go all the way. It must have galled both Keating and Courtice to have to back the industry that they had under consistent attack for so long. The sincerity of that backing is shown by their past words and actions in respect to the sugar industry. Labor’s lack of real commitment was demonstrated by the member for Mackay and Minister for Primary Industries when the coalition released its own sugar industry package. That package represented a practical answer to all the hard work that National Party members and senators have done on behalf of this vital industry over a number of years. Unlike Courtice and Keating, the Nationals have had no political deathbed conversion. They have never given up the fight for the sugar industry. When it came to responding, at least Simon Crean tried to argue the merits of the two packages in some sort of rational way. All Mr Casey could think of was playing the schoolyard braggart by saying, “Take your bat and ball and go home. I’ve got the stumps. Play it my way, or there won’t be a game.” That did not work, but it showed the real level of Mr Casey’s concern for an industry he should be looking to nurture. Everyone in the sugar areas saw that Mr Casey was more interested in the welfare of the Labor Party than in the people of the north—even in his own electorate. Time expired. Mrs EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha) (5.13 p.m.): Firstly, I must say how disappointed I am that the reply to the Governor’s address has been used in a disgraceful and unsubstantiated smear campaign of a Federal member. However, it is with much pleasure that I rise today to speak in reply to the address by the Governor. In doing so, I wish to thank the people of Mount Coot-tha for the wonderful vote of confidence they expressed in me in the 1992 State election. The Mount Coot-tha electorate boundaries, as is the case elsewhere, have changed quite drastically. While I regret not being able to represent the many friends I made in Chapel Hill, Indooroopilly and The Gap, the electorate is now a much more coherent region, consisting of the older inner suburbs of Petrie Terrace, Paddington, Milton, Red Hill, Auchenflower, Bardon, Rosalie, Rainworth, Toowong and small parts of Taringa and Ashgrove. These suburbs have a strong community of interest and lie in the shade of the central feature of the electorate, Mount Coot-tha. I must congratulate EARC on its extremely sensible, workable and, above all, fair electorate boundaries. 1876 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

In accepting the responsibility of this electorate, I repeat the commitment I made in the 1990 Address in Reply debate, namely, to serve the people of Mount Coot-tha to the utmost of my ability—every man, woman and child, regardless of their political persuasion. That the people of Mount Coot-tha have appreciated my commitment is reflected, I believe, in the increased voter support achieved in 1992. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my campaign director, Manfred Cross, for his tireless support; my campaign workers, friends and especially my family for their efforts and tolerance during the campaign. Mr Deputy Speaker, in preparing for this debate I reflected on many of the issues that I raised as important to Mount Coot-tha in 1990 to see what progress had been made with them. One of the major concerns of residents in the area, and indeed across Brisbane, was the increasing spread of housing development up the slopes of Mount Coot-tha, leading to complaints at the negative visual impact this made on what is the dominant landmark of Brisbane. I am pleased to acknowledge that my many letters and speeches on the subject have been rewarded by the Brisbane City Council introducing planning for a conservation zone and development control plan to maintain this important green space and aesthetic backdrop to the city. I readily acknowledge that this was initiated by the previous Liberal administration of the Brisbane City Council and continued by Alderman Soorley and the Labor administration. I place on record my thanks to both administrations and all who lobbied for this result. Mr Deputy Speaker, another issue dear to my heart was the right of children to safe passage on their way to school. In several capacities for many years, as a parent, as a member of this House and also as a member of the ministerial transport committee, I urged the introduction of reduced-speed zones around schools and in residential areas. I have been delighted that every primary school in Mount Coot-tha now has safety zones and that the Brisbane City Council and Transport Department are seriously considering 40 kilometre an hour zones as a more suitable speed limit for all residential streets. Such a move would definitely increase the safety of residential areas and decrease the impact of traffic noise on inner-city residents. Research by Newman and Kenworthy et al shows that decreased speed adds only minimally to trip times but rather smooths the speed. It reduces acceleration and braking and thereby reduces noise while improving fuel efficiency, lessening engine wear and, all importantly, improving safety in residential areas. I realise this will not meet with universal approval, and I have already experienced that over the implementation of school safety zones. One chappie—I will not say “gentleman”—called me on his car phone to express his disapproval in language considered generally unparliamentary when he encountered his first school safety zone. He informed me that his large, expensive, imported car—the kind that plays havoc with both the overseas debt and the environment—could not be driven at 40 kilometres an hour. I politely expressed my regret at this obvious deficiency in manufacturing— especially overseas manufacturing—and suggested that he try looking on the floor for a pedal in the middle that he might push. I am afraid I have little patience with people who show such a lack of any concern for the safety of children. Mount Coot-tha is an electorate that places great emphasis on education, with long-established schools and attractive treed grounds and with active parent groups who have welcomed the opportunity to be involved. Prior to 1989, most of these schools were disadvantaged because of their small sizes. Being under the magic cut-off figure of 300, they had no specialist services of teacher/librarian, music teachers, PE teachers and the like. I am delighted that these services have now been extended equitably to all State schools in the electorate, regardless of size. Because of the age of the schools, maintenance is a major problem, and that had been seriously neglected. In early 1990, the former Minister for Administrative Services, Ron McLean, accompanied me on an inspection tour of the schools leading to many urgent maintenance problems being addressed. This led to such a boost in the morale of parents and citizens, teachers and children with the obvious improvement to the schools’ appearance that I took the first opportunity to welcome the present Minister and Deputy Premier, Tom Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1877

Burns, on a similar inspection tour of the schools included in the Mount Coot-tha electorate following the last redistribution. Maintenance levels have been poor for decades, leading to lengthy delays of repairs, and often tragically so. At one school that I have first-hand experience with, handrails arrived so long after an urgent request that the disabled child who needed them had not only left the school but, sadly, for several years before he left the school, had been in a wheelchair and unable to benefit from them. No doubt, some day they will be of use for some other child, but too late for that laddie. This recent inspection allowed active participation by parents and school staff in determining priorities for maintenance and refurbishment under the tobacco tax fund. As well as providing jobs to local tradesmen, this welcome funding to accelerate the maintenance program has met with enormous approval. Several schools are being painted in heritage colours to befit the age and reflect the heritage character of the suburbs and look very, very smart. I constantly get remarks flattering to them. I make no apology in stating that Toowong State High School will be a top priority with me over this term. Toowong High was built about 30 years ago and barely touched since then. It has an enthusiastic and dedicated principal and parent and citizens group and school council. While it has achieved high academic standards as well as introducing an innovative TAFE accreditation program, it is hampered by obsolescent equipment, shabby furniture and classrooms that do not meet current safety standards. I defy anyone to maintain students’ attention when the children’s bottoms are being pinched by old, cracked wooden stools. Over the last few months, both Education Minister, Pat Comben, and Administrative Services Minister, Tom Burns, have inspected the school and agreed to meet its most urgent needs. In the last Budget, $400,000 was designated for a new machine shop under Capital Works Program, and the many refurbishment projects approved by Tom Burns will be a major step forward in giving the Toowong community a school befitting the efforts of the students, parents and teachers. Mr Deputy Speaker, in 1990, I highlighted the need for State housing in Mount Coot-tha. At that time, there was no form of State housing available, and yet with a high level of aged people in particular, there was an obvious need. The aged and, indeed, low-income families were forced out of the area by the high cost of private rental—forced away from the city, the doctors they know, their friends and their families. Since then, 10 pensioner units have been built in Rosalie, handy to shops and transport and ideal for the aged. Sixteen more units have been started in Paddington in a housing group that will also include five four-bedroom family houses. These are most welcome housing initiatives in my electorate. It also makes good economic sense to build pensioner units and family housing close to facilities not on the edge of the city. It is sensible to provide family accommodation near already existing schools and bring families back to the inner city. I welcome changes in attitude that now design State housing to fit within its community and streetscape rather than the ugly ghettos of the past. I realise that members opposite disapprove of such initiatives and in the past have opposed them being in their electorates. These services would suffer the axe under a Federal coalition. But the lengthy periods that pensioners and families are waiting to gain access to public housing shows their need, and I realise just how difficult it is for anyone to manage with private rental in inner-city suburbs. Rental houses in Bardon and Paddington, for example, start at about $160 a week—a huge bite out of anyone’s budget. Traffic and transport problems have been major issues in Mount Coot-tha, just as they are in all inner-city suburbs. Traffic generated by the outer reaches of the city pass through our suburbs on the way to the central business district. Mr Randell interjected. Mrs EDMOND: Prior to 1989, the solution by the members opposite, such as Mr Randell, and the Liberal city council was to build a series of ring-roads cutting a swathe through the residential suburbs. One of these, Hale Street, has been partly completed, with devastating results. In 1990, the Minister for Transport stated categorically that 1878 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly there would be no freeway along the roads designated as Route 20. This was welcome news to the many people throughout these suburbs. Acknowledgment was made that some safety problems would need to be addressed. In the lead-up to the last election, the Liberal Party attempted to whip up a furore over work planned for a mere 600 metres of steep, dangerous hill on Kaye Street, Bardon. However, the local community has overwhelmingly supported this work, and I will be pleased when the road is completed and safer for all who use it, including the many local residents, driving to schools, shops, family and the nearby suburbs. The need remains, however, for a western bypass, and a route is being investigated for such a bypass road west of the city limits. An early initiative of the Minister for Transport was to form the SEPTS report, to examine on a regional basis the passenger needs of south-east Queensland now and into the future. I believe strongly that we should support all moves to improve public transport as a prerequisite to reducing the impact of traffic on residential areas. A major obstacle to increasing commuter train services has been the inadequacy of the tunnels between Central and Roma Street Stations. It is pleasing to see that work on the duplication of these tunnels is well under way. Rail services are being improved and stations are being upgraded. Toowong Station benefited from a refurbishment in 1992. Milton and Auchenflower Stations, also in my electorate, have major rebuilding plans for early next year as part of a program to improve public transport across the city. At the Brisbane City Council’s request, the Department of Transport is investigating methods of improving access and giving buses priority. To improve patronage of public transport, it is important to facilitate its movement and to make it attractive. I welcome the initiatives in these directions and also recent joint ventures to increase bicycle paths throughout the city, especially those suitable for commuter routes. The last couple of years has seen the impact of the poker machine on sporting clubs and their surrounds. Everywhere I go in Mount Coot-tha I am told of their success. The largest club in the area is the Broncos, which has been smartly refurbished, but there are many small clubs benefiting, too. Funds flowing from these machines would appear to provide substantial benefits to all the clubs that have acquired them, and these benefits have flowed through to the community with increased jobs, obvious club improvements and a wide variety of services being provided. I must place on record my appreciation to the Broncos club for its ongoing generosity within the local community and its attempts to minimise adverse effects of its popularity on neighbours. There are still some thoughtless patrons who drive off like hoons in the wee small hours. I am sure the club will attempt to address that. Opposite the Broncos clubhouse is the Ithaca TAFE, which has established a record for excellence in the TAFE system over the last three years. I have had a close working relationship with the previous director, Allan Betts, and I look forward to a similar role with the newly appointed director, Alex Gamble. The role of TAFE has been greatly expanded over the last few years and it is set to play an increasingly important role in the education and training of our young people. Ithaca TAFE has been a leader in meeting the needs of industry and has also been prepared to be innovative and meet the challenge of new technology. It boasts Australia’s first renewable energy centre, designed to educate and train technicians in those areas. I welcome the recent Federal Government policy to encourage the use of solar energy units by paying for them through our electricity accounts. This system has been used in California and in other countries with great success in reducing electricity consumption. It has always been a disappointment to me that Queensland, with its high capacity for solar energy, has been dragging its feet in this area. Ithaca TAFE has a record of excellence in the areas of cabinet-making, motor vehicle industries and computing. It provides a wide range of training from horticulture to a full diploma in computing, and I know that it will continue to be a major provider of tertiary education in the electorate. Last year in particular saw a significant boost in TAFE funding as the importance of this training was recognised. While Opposition members may criticise efforts to train young people, I believe it is vital. While job prospects at the moment are difficult—and no-one is denying that—it is also obvious Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1879 that skilled workers are more able to gain employment. Also, it is important that trained workers are available once the economy picks up. In the past, in periods following slumps there has been a shortage of trained and skilled workers. The suburbs of Mount Coot-tha have formed areas for trialling a new form of policing over the last few years, with welcome results. A new police cluster has recently been announced and is working the Red Hill, Bardon and The Gap areas, leading to a doubling of police numbers as patrol cars and extra police services are moved to the cluster and pooled. Under this system, police will continue to provide counter services at existing stations, but most police will be rostered on mobile patrols providing a much more visible police presence. A similar cluster has been formed based on the Toowong Police Station, including Torwood, Taringa and Kenmore Police Stations. That trial saw a 20 per cent reduction in crime. The cluster system is aimed at getting local police working in their own areas, even during the night, and therefore reducing response times and maximising local knowledge. This form of policing is an integral part of community policing, I believe, and I will do everything possible to support it. Several new Neighbourhood Watch programs have also been established over the last three years. They are working well by increasing vigilance and community spirit. I believe that Neighbourhood Watch programs are a great step backward—backward to the days when we knew our neighbours; backward to the days when we had time to have a chat over our fence and keep an eye on our elderly friends and neighbours without feeling that we were intruding. They have also made a positive impact on police/community relationships. I think that it is important to encourage and assist Neighbourhood Watch programs in practical ways by helping with photocopying, etc., yet they should not be politicised, as has occurred in some areas. I have even heard members of this House talk about “their Neighbourhood Watch programs” and how they control “their” Neighbourhood Watch programs. All of those initiatives require the goodwill and adequate staff numbers of police services, and they have been made possible by the significant increase in police numbers since 1989. This Government has put an additional 1 200 police officers on the streets since it came to Government. The Opposition has harped constantly at the increased numbers and increased pay rates paid from the public purse; yet without those extra numbers there would not be enough to act as community liaison officers and facilitate these worthwhile projects. In fact, community policing as a whole would be in jeopardy if the cuts to the State Budget foreshadowed by the Federal coalition eventuate. The Opposition has missed no opportunity to criticise the work of police in our communities, making outlandish claims that crime was out of control and that the Police Service was ineffectual. We heard that just recently from the member for Nicklin. I place on record my appreciation of the hard work, interest and courtesy that forms part of the police work in my electorate. Unlike the Opposition, I commend a Police Service that is efficient and has high morale. Perhaps the low morale of police in Opposition electorates is because they are fed up with being constantly bagged by those Opposition members. As I mentioned earlier, the electorate of Mount Coot-tha has a high number of senior citizens in its suburbs. One of the most popular initiatives of the Government has been the introduction of Seniors Cards with their range of discounts and reductions. I am pleased that the Minister for Family Services is in the Chamber, because this is one of her initiatives that has met with great success. Following their introduction with an emphasis on Government charges and services, private businesses have joined in with offers of discounts on taxi fares, haircuts and the like. It is a pity if these benefits are to be buried under the increased costs of a GST. New eligibility criteria has meant an increase of more than 70 per cent in the number of people receiving concessions which help reduce daily living costs and provide practical and useful recognition of the contributions that seniors have made and continue to make in our communities. 1880 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

The Opposition latched on to this scheme during the last election campaign although it had no part in its implementation and did not ever attempt to support it. My concern is that those private businesses that have recognised the benefit of these concessions will not be able to continue their discounts following the introduction of a GST and other penalties to small business. With no other effect even considered, the GST increases accounting costs substantially, as has been shown in the United Kingdom. In that country, when the VAT was introduced, costs went up 25 to 30 per cent for small business, and I am not talking about the small businesses to which the Liberal Party refers—the ones which have payrolls of a million dollars or more—but the real small businesses: the single operator, the second-hand shops, the corner shops, the hairdressers, etc., who do not have accountants on hand, do not have accountants on their staff and who have to do their books on Sunday. It is hard to believe that just three years ago, Queensland was seen as dragging its feet on equal opportunity. The increase of women in this Chamber shows that times must change and that they are changing. In 1990, the Women’s Policy Unit was set up to coordinate the actions of Government at every level. Women’s Infolink began operating on a Statewide basis through its 008 number to give advice on child care, health, finance, employment, domestic violence, legal matters or whatever else is needed. This busy service is a welcome source of inspiration to rural and remote women, too, who have been so often neglected in the past. Information forms an important part of empowering women to make their own decisions. A consultative council of women listens to the opinions and needs of women across the State and will have a major say in determining what must be done and the priorities involved. Previously, few women held executive positions or had access to decision makers. Now, the decision makers themselves and executives can be women. The Labor Government has appointed the first woman as a director-general of a department; Supreme Court judge; master of the Supreme Court; District Court judge; industrial commissioner; police superintendent and inspector; and finally, of course, we had the investiture of the first woman Governor. At this point, I place on record my congratulations to the Governor and recognition of her undoubted ability. Anti-discrimination and equal opportunity policies introduced in the last few years mean a fair go for everyone, regardless of race, religion or sex. Again, members opposite, even today, have ridiculed these reforms as not being important. They trivialise them. Mr Randell interjected. Mrs EDMOND: We heard the member for Nicklin trivialise them and abuse them. I believe that all human beings have equal rights. I believe that it is one of the most important rights, and it is the enshrinement of those rights in laws that distinguishes a civilised society. One area of concern that sometimes gets forgotten when we speak of the needs of the aged and the disabled is the role of the carer. I know from personal experience just how draining, both mentally and physically, caring for either an aged or a disabled loved one can be. Mount Coot-tha is fortunate in having a number of aged respite centres. The Blue Nurses has one in Ashgrove; the Brisbane West Senior Citizens Centre has one in Paddington; and the Uniting Church has another in Paddington. The electorate has also one of the few centres for young disabled, Westcare, which is run by the western suburbs Catholic diocese. I must pay tribute to the work that these centres do for the people of the Mount Coot-tha electorate. I know that they will never have enough time, effort or money to provide all of the services that they wish to, but they are doing a grand job and I think that it should be recognised. Mount Coot-tha is not an electorate in which successful representation is measured by capital works. The people do not expect to see new schools, new hospitals, new factories or new freeways in the suburbs as a sign of progress. They will not herald in glee any major five-star tourism development hanging off Mount Coot-tha. Mount Coot-tha is an established electorate dominated by residential suburbs, and Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1881 where success is measured by quality of life. It is because of this that I am truly concerned about the social impact of the policies which are proposed by the Federal Opposition and which are linked to those members opposite. I am constantly asked to predict the impact that the Liberals’ Fightback policy and its GST package will have on people. The question that they ask the most is, “If everyone is going to pay less tax, and we are all going to be better off, how on earth are we going to pay for the services?” Well may they ask, because I have not heard anything in the debate over the last few days that gives an answer to that question. I do not have the answer. I know, as we all know in this place, that if tax income is reduced, services must be reduced. That impacts on those who need those services the most—the aged, those with young families, the underprivileged and those people who have disabilities and difficulties. I happen to believe that it is right for those people with higher incomes to pay more tax. That goes against the grain of those members opposite; I know that they support fully the tax minimisation schemes of their leaders. That is why I am on the Government side of the House. The GST is a tax on supposedly discretionary spending, and that is its basic flaw. It is a tax on discretionary spending, and it will hit hardest the working poor and the families that are on lower to middle incomes, where there is virtually no discretionary spending. Although members opposite may not have experienced it, I can remember what it was like to have three small children, one income, a mortgage and a dog. Every bit of expenditure was essential. There was not any discretionary spending. Everything that we spent money on had to be itemised and prioritised—generally spending on the kids first and everything else came afterwards. The people to whom I have referred are the people without options, and they are the ones who will be hurt the most. Many of those people live in my electorate, and I feel desperately sorry for them. I will continue to fight for their rights, as well as the rights of the more articulate and more privileged in society. I can only hope that their rights are not abandoned on 13 March. Dr WATSON (Moggill) (5.40 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to enter the Address in Reply debate and, in doing so, I wish to extend my best wishes, and the best wishes of my constituents, to Her Excellency the Governor during her term in office. I wish to speak about two issues, the first being a local issue concerning the potential closure of a local police station or, at least, its downsizing. Although it is a local issue, it is important to my constituents and a matter that is causing considerable agitation to many of them. The second issue about which I wish to speak is the devastation of the Australian economy under the Labor Party over the past 10 years, as investment and savings have been reduced significantly, as the current account deficit and foreign debt have increased and, of course, as unemployment has caused significant problems to the average Australian family. I take this opportunity to raise the issue of the Kenmore Police Station and its apparent imminent downgrading to a shop-front station. I am extremely disappointed that I have to raise this matter in Parliament, because I have attempted to work in conjunction with the Police Service on this issue over the past 12 months. As many members would know, currently, the metropolitan north region is being reorganised. As part of this reorganisation, clusters have been established to facilitate more efficient operations and administration. During 1992, a pilot cluster project was undertaken in my area, with the cluster centre being Toowong. The object of cluster policing is to put more police cars on the road in Brisbane and to improve the efficiency of the Police Service itself. One could hardly quarrel with those objectives. In fact, with the extra operational police coming on line, the area should have a greater police presence. However, a number of concerns have been raised by various people in the region. Because of this, the Speaker, who is the member for Ashgrove, the Honourable Jim Fouras, arranged a meeting at Parliament House with the Police Service and those members of Parliament who have electorates that are situated in the metropolitan north region. That meeting took place on 25 November 1992, and it was addressed by Inspectors Dick Conder and Ross Gorrie. Inspector Conder explained the idea of the 1882 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly multidivisional policing concept, which is the clustering system, and its benefits. He also distributed a briefing paper, which in summary states— “There will be no reduction in policing services at any station. All existing personnel remain at, and operate from their current station. With the additional personnel allocated to the area it will naturally flow that some stations will experience an increase in staffing. Where are the additional Police coming from? These personnel will be redeployed to the multi-division areas from the District Mobile Patrols. This will not have a negative impact on Police operations as the geographic areas required to be patrolled by the mobile patrols have been greatly reduced as a result of each cluster of divisions now providing 24-hour patrols within their respective areas.” During this meeting, I inquired of Inspector Conder what the strength of the Kenmore Police Station would be, and when that strength would be increased. I was informed that the staff at the Kenmore Police Station would increase to between 10 and 15 officers, and that that would take place around the middle of January 1993. He indicated that he would forward information to me in January 1993. On 20 January of this year, I telephoned Inspector Conder because I had not received any advice from him. Although he was surprised that I had followed up the issue with him, he promised to send me the details that I requested. On 22 January, I received a facsimile from Inspector Conder indicating that I could speak to a Sergeant Trevor Moore at Toowong for additional information, because he had been fully briefed. Inspector Conder also enclosed two releases on the clustering concept. On 25 January, I spoke to Sergeant Moore at 10.30 a.m. He had no idea of any of the issues that I raised with him, but promised to get back to me with full details, including details regarding the extra officers who were to be stationed at Kenmore in two weeks. When I had not heard from Sergeant Moore, I telephoned him again on 10 February 1993. He informed me that he still could not answer my questions or elaborate on the commitments made by Inspector Conder on 25 November 1992. He said that he would contact me later. Following questions now being raised by constituents about the closure of Kenmore Police Station, or its downgrading to a shopfront as of 15 March 1993, I attempted to contact Inspector Conder on 22 February 1993. He was interstate for a training program. I spoke instead to Inspector Ross Gorrie. I am concerned about the following issues that this string of episodes raises. Firstly, one cannot help wondering whether there was a deliberate attempt on 25 November 1992 to mislead members of Parliament so as to divert attention from the reorganisation and allow the downgradings to proceed without protest during the Christmas/new year period. Secondly, even the most charitable interpretation of these events demonstrates a prevarication not worthy of the Police Service, or an inefficiency that raises serious issues about the competency of police planning. I still have not had any official word on what is happening, or any substantive justification, despite my numerous requests for detailed information. Thirdly, it raises concerns about the philosophy of policing the areas covered by my electorate. I have been contacted by numerous constituents, including clergy, social workers, members of the Kenmore Police Community Consultative Council and others, expressing concern about the downgrading. They are concerned about the depersonalisation of the Police Service. The community wishes to know its police. One cannot command respect and cooperation from the broad community by putting police in a central location and having them drive around in cars. People want to know their police. They want to know that the officer they see at the station or at the scene of a crime is the very person they see on the beat or meet in the street, the person who attends their Neighbourhood Watch, or is the local school’s Adopt-a-Cop police officer. It appears to me that the concept that is now being implemented, as against the concept that was first contemplated and which had my support, is designed purposely or Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1883 otherwise to move the police a step further away from the community that they serve and of which they should be an integral part. I believe that these events raise serious issues with respect to the type of community policing that we are to have in the Metropolitan North Region, as well as serious issues concerning the interaction of the Police Service with members of Parliament. Having now raised the issue in this forum, I trust that the Police Commissioner will take action to rectify the current inappropriate implementation of the police clustering concept, and that the Police Minister will demand an explanation as to why members of Parliament appear to have been misled. The second issue that I wish to address has been the concern of many members here over the past few days with respect to the performance of the Australian economy. In considering this, we ought to think about what the situation was like when Labor gained power in Canberra in 1983. First of all, we must remember that in the mid seventies the economy was virtually devastated by the Whitlam Government. Mr Robertson: Rubbish! Dr WATSON: The member might think that it is rubbish. But all the economic statistics and measurements available at that time reveal that the economy in Australia deteriorated disastrously. That is why in 1975 that Government was dumped so unceremoniously by the Australian people. Mr Randell: They had their say in the end. Dr WATSON: The people had their say, and they said it with a very loud voice. From 1975 onwards, the Australian economy started to recover. Mr Davidson interjected. Dr WATSON: They probably all voted for Fraser. They have gone down since then. From 1975 through to 1982, a couple of things started to occur. First of all, investment in Australia started to recover. Investment in capital goods in Australia peaked in 1971. In 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975, under a Labor Government and under an ACTU run by Bob Hawke, investment in the Australian economy fell drastically. When one considers the way in which capital goods started to fall, one also notes that at the same time—as one would expect with a lag of 18 months or two years—the level of unemployment started to increase. Ever since then, despite the increase in private capital investment in Australia from 1976-77 through to 1982, and despite the fall in the level of unemployment that resulted from that in the short term, private fixed capital investment in Australia has been at a lower rate than it was when Whitlam left Government. The second issue that we must understand is that in 1983, Australia was coming out of a recession into which it had followed the rest of the world. Australia’s economic history reveals that, since the 1890s and perhaps even the 1860s, Australia always followed the rest of the world into recession. The unique thing about this recession is that we led it. Labor policies instigated this recession in Australia. That is a totally unique experience for the Australian economy, at least in the past 100 years. Mr T. B. Sullivan: It can’t be totally unique; it is either unique or it is not. Dr WATSON: It is unique in the past 100 years. The third thing that it is well worth remembering is that Australia was in the grip of a major drought and, fortunately for the farmers, that broke about nine months after the Labor Government was elected. I do not suggest that that was the reason why the drought broke; it was one of those lucky coincidences. The fourth thing that occurred at that time was that, because the world economy was picking up, there was an upturn in our terms of trade. In other words, we were starting to receive more for our goods and services overseas than we were getting in a relative sense before that upturn. The demand for our commodities was increasing and, likewise, our commodity prices were rising. The fifth thing that occurred, and what Labor inherited, was the wages pause that was introduced by Malcolm Fraser. The effect of that was a significant reduction in unit 1884 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly costs of production and labour costs, which was extremely important. Because it occurred at the end of the Fraser period in Government, the Labor Party was the beneficiary. The interesting point about it is that, despite the mutterings of Government members and despite all the protestations of the Labor Party, the Accord process has actually accentuated that fall in real wages in Australia. In that sense, it has helped control costs and increase productivity in Australia. A consequence also of that decrease was that, as unit prices fell and costs came under control, inflation fell. The problem was that Labor took those advantages and blew them over the next few years. At that stage, although Hawke was the Prime Minister, Keating, the Treasurer, claimed that he was running the economic program in this country. Immediately Labor came to Government and produced a significant Budget, there was a record deficit. That occurred not only in 1983 but also in 1984 and 1985. We had record Budgets—— Mr Davidson: Deficits. Dr WATSON: We had record Budget deficits. I thank the honourable member. There were also record Budgets in terms of outlays and receipts, but the Budget defecits were the critical part. That had the effect of increasing the money supply and, inevitably, leading to a significant increase in demand for goods in Australia which we could not support and, of course, a significant increase in inflation. Mr Ardill interjected. Dr WATSON: That is exactly the kind of thing that occurred. During that period, our debt increased significantly, inflation increased, the economy expanded much faster than we could cope with with our own productive resources and we sucked in the goods and services from overseas. That led to a couple of things. First of all, over time our current account deficit and our overseas debt increased significantly. The problem was that Labor did nothing. Except for the control of labour costs, there was no other activity which made investing in Australia by private businesses worth while. That is why we saw the capital stock in Australia continue to fall and, over time, because we were running down our productive stock, we also had an increasing unemployment level. The problem is that the Labor Party does not understand what it takes for a business to invest. It does not know how to encourage investment. Labor Party members do not know what to look for. Mr Welford: They haven’t invested for 30 years. It doesn’t matter what investment you give them if they are not prepared to invest in capital stock. Dr WATSON: First of all, we have to look at what the fundamentals of investment are. We have to look at the after-tax returns that people will get from investment. That is why arguments about tax structures are important. If the rates of return they get on investment are not sufficient to take account of the risk of investing, businesspeople do not invest. The important factor is the after-tax rate of return. That is why the tax system is so important. Labor has done little to the tax system which will encourage investment. The second matter that must be considered is unit costs. We must consider the costs of production of the enterprise. I admit that there is no doubt that the Accord has controlled direct wage rates, but the other things which are directly under the control of the Government and which the Labor Governments in Canberra, and in Queensland, have tended to increase are the add-on costs such as the superannuation levies, the training guarantee levies and payroll taxes. Those represent significant on-costs to labour. If the Government wants to encourage investment, it must bring those things under control. Similarly, the Government must improve our international competitiveness. If we want to encourage exports and business investment in Australia, we must be internationally competitive. Although “internationally competitive” means a whole range of things, it means that, when something is produced, there is the ability to get it to the market without having major disruptions. It is no good being a primary producer of fresh fruit wanting to supply the Tokyo market if one is not sure that the pallet will leave the airport because of a fuel strike or other problems. Not only will the producer lose that sale, but he will also lose the ability to compete in the market in the long term. Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1885

Mr Davidson: Lose confidence in the market. Dr WATSON: Exactly. International competitiveness means a whole range of things. The feedback that I receive from overseas markets about Australia is that they cannot rely on delivery. That is another issue in which the Labor Party has a significant part to play, to the detriment of this country. Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m. Dr WATSON: Before the dinner adjournment, I was talking about what we can do to encourage business investment in Australia. It is important to look at exactly what has happened to business investment over the past 10 years. Honourable members should consider what is happening, for example, in the mining and manufacturing sectors. The information was recently published in one of the Access Economics bulletins. Australian investment in mining and manufacturing as a percentage of gross domestic product is now at an almost record low. In fact, Australia is only just above the disastrous lows of the Whitlam period, about which I spoke about earlier. If honourable members consider the recent Market Insights by Westpac, and examine what has happened over the 1980s and what is happening at present with investment, they will notice that during the 1980s average business investment in plant and equipment was something like 5 per cent of GDP; business investment, 5.3 per cent on average; plant and equipment, 5 per cent; and construction, 5.9 per cent. At present, because we are in the depths of a recession, that is a negative figure. Business investment actually fell in 1991 by nearly 14 per cent; in 1992, 11 per cent; and in 1993, it is expected to fall by about 2 per cent. The best estimate is that business investment will not pick up until 1994 or 1995. Mr Hollis: Don’t you ever understand that in talking down the economy—— Dr WATSON: We cannot talk the economy down any more than it already is. Those are not my figures; they are the figures produced by independent people, whether it be Access Economics, economists at the Westpac Bank or the National Australia Bank, or even figures produced by the Federal Treasury, which comes under the responsibility of the Government’s Federal mates in Canberra. They all show the same things. The Government cannot hide the fact; there is no use running. If it is going to try to overcome the problem, the first thing the Government has to do is face up to reality. That is what John Hewson was talking about when he released the Fightback package. He said that the first thing that we have to do is to face the problem. The Government cannot find a solution if it asks the wrong questions, and it cannot ask the right questions until it faces up to the fact of where we are. At present, business investment is in a trough. It will continue to be in a trough if the Government persists with its present policies. Honourable members should consider what happened after the recessions of the last 25 years to 30 years. One or two years after the recessions we saw significant growth in business investments. After the 1961 recession, we saw growth of nearly 12 per cent in equipment and 9 per cent in construction; after the 1975 recession, 6 per cent in equipment and 4.3 per cent in construction; after the 1982-83 recession, 6.4 per cent in equipment and 8 per cent in construction. What do we find now? We are in a recession that has been going on for at least half a dozen quarters. We now have business equipment running at zero per cent, in terms of net investment, and construction at minus 3 per cent. That is the current situation. Over the period, business investment deteriorated, and it has continued to run low. The flip side of investment is savings. One will find the same kind of disastrous performance in the savings area as in the investment area. A recent ANZ Bank report on savings quoted some quite disturbing figures. The latest figures for the September quarter of 1992 marked the sixth consecutive quarter that Australia has run down national wealth in order to finance consumption. I bet honourable members that when the figures for the December quarter come out we will witness seven consecutive quarters in which we have actually had national dis-saving. Since the ANZ figures have been compiled, the only other time that there was negative saving was in the 1982-83 1886 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly recession, and that was only two quarters. This time, we have had six quarters, and we are likely to have more. How can we encourage investment in this country? How can we ensure that there is sufficient money available at reasonable interest rates to encourage Australian investment if we adopt economic policies which encourage people and firms to dis- save, in other words, to run down their savings and their accumulated reserves? There is absolutely no way the Government will create the climate for increased investment and bringing down unemployment at that rate. National savings—— Mr Davidson: Are there any? Dr WATSON: There are no national savings. Even private savings have been flat over the past five or six quarters. Mr Nunn: Get your hand out of your pocket. Dr WATSON: No problem. Private savings have also fallen, although not to the extent, of course, of public savings, that is, Government savings. In fact, they have fallen to such an extent that the Government dis-savings override the amount of private savings. That is why the net dis-saving is occurring in this country. The other disturbing aspect of this recession is the increased dependence on personal benefit payments. In the two years of this recession from 1991-92, personal benefits have increased to something like 22.6 per cent of wages and salaries. In other words, the amount that goes into pensions and welfare payments in the country has now risen to 22.6 per cent of wages that are paid to workers. That is one of the reasons why national dis-saving is occurring. Last Thursday, when I spoke during the GST debate, I referred to problems with the taxation system. There is absolutely no doubt that the taxation system in Australia is biased against savings. That is one of the issues that must be addressed in any reconsideration of Australia’s economic performance and its taxation system. Mr Bredhauer: How will a higher tax on spending improve the position in relation to savings? Dr WATSON: I will talk about that because it is a very good question. At the moment, the problem is that reliance on income tax actually encourages consumption and therefore discourages savings. It favours present consumption over future consumption. Under the personal income tax system, we tax income when it is earned. If it is saved, the earnings on the amount saved are taxed. This actually discourages saving. Mr Bredhauer: That is all right for the people who have a choice about saving or spending. What about the people who don’t? Dr WATSON: That relates to the personal level, but there is also a disincentive for saving at the company level. One of the problems that occur in the Australian taxation system at the company tax level is that companies are taxed on their income, and if the retained earnings are reinvested to increase the value of the company, that increase in value increases the value of the shares, and the shareholders are taxed on capital gains. Again, there is a disincentive for companies to save because there is a double taxation on the income that is retained—admittedly, through capital gains and share prices. Nevertheless, there is this double taxation process which also encourages firms not to retain earnings but simply to dissipate them through dividends. Mr Bredhauer: But you want to tax at a high rate and put GST on top of that. Dr WATSON: Part of Fightback addresses that problem. What it will do is reduce the amount of overall income tax. It will move the taxation system away from income tax, which discourages saving, to a consumption tax which encourages saving. Time expired. Mr BENNETT (Gladstone) (7.40 p.m.): I am very pleased to participate in the Address in Reply debate. On 20 February 1993, I had the pleasant task of opening the Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1887 new wing of the Gladstone Christian Community School, Archer Street, Gladstone, along with the Federal member for Hinkler, Brian Courtice. On behalf of the Federal member for Hinkler, I take this opportunity to congratulate the school on building the extension after four years of operation. Special attention must be given to Stewart Lanyon, president of the school board, and school board members, the principal, Bob Fraser, and staff and the Gladstone Baptist Church. I wish the school well and encourage the school administrators in their vision of opening a high school in the future. While on the subject of schools, I will take the time to thank a former member of this Parliament, Rob Schwarten, on the fine work he has undertaken in my electorate in liaising with me, school principals and Q-Build in implementing the school refurbishment project which amounts to $933,000 for school refurbishments in my electorate, and $740,000 in a neighbouring electorate, Callide. School principals have communicated their thanks to me for the project. I also point out that, under the National Party Government, Gladstone always missed out, but I notice that Callide is not missing out under the present Government. I think that shows the big difference between the two Governments. Mr Littleproud: Millions in Government money went into Gladstone over the years—millions. Mr BENNETT: I will take that interjection because in the early 1980s thousands of Gladstone workers had to march in the streets to highlight the then inept National Party Government’s lack of infrastructure spending. It was only after community revolt that Gladstone received a $50m package. The member should not sit in this Parliament and tell me how he looked after our city. No way! As I was saying, I compliment Rob Schwarten on his role and thank him for the assistance he has given me in relation to schools in my electorate. Brian Courtice, who was also at the original opening of the school four years ago, has been a great supporter of schools, TAFE colleges, the University of Central Queensland and the Gladstone Marine Campus since he was elected on 11 July 1987 to represent the people of Hinkler. He firmly believes that people elect politicians to get a job done and that politics is about people, quality of life, how children are educated and whether or not they have improved facilities to carry out their day-to-day activities. Brian will continue to give decent and honest representation to the people who place him in a position of high trust in Federal Parliament. During his term in office, Brian has had wonderful support from his wife, Marcia, and his four children. His work for the Prime Minister’s country task force, the primary industries and resources committee and, more recently, the sugar industry task force frequently takes him away from home. The people of Hinkler can gauge Brian’s measure by the battles he has fought for them since he gained office in 1987. With the help of Monto residents, Brian worked to stop mining of the Cania Gorge. He also campaigned against a decision to scale down the Port Curtis dairy. Over the last few months, he has worked extremely hard to put together a package to assist the sugar industry. In Gladstone, Brian initially formed the Gladstone task force to bring representatives of business, local government and unions together so that they could work collectively and achieve greater levels of prosperity and development for the Gladstone region. Five years later, the Gladstone task force is still working and has a very positive attitude towards the future prosperity of the Gladstone area. Mr Nunn: In stark contrast to the four-time loser, Mr Neville. Mr BENNETT: I will speak about Mr Neville later. Since May 1990, Brian has been chairman of the Prime Minister’s country task force and has since travelled the length and breadth of Australia to listen to, and take submissions from, people in rural areas who have a genuine grievance or concern. The task force reports directly to the Prime Minister on issues of importance to country people. The pace and direction a man sets for his life can tell people a lot about his inner spirit. Those closest to Brian Courtice value his integrity, judgment and determination to take the right path as he sees it. Indeed, since his election, Brian has been a great supporter of Gladstone, with his Government’s 10 per cent development allowance for major industrial projects. That 1888 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly represents a major boost to the $2.6 billion worth of projects on the drawing board for Gladstone. However, what should be a major worry for Gladstone citizens is that Hewson’s laissez faire economic policy does not support Government incentives to get industry established. Projects such as the Gladstone special steel mill, the Boyne smelter expansion, the magnesium metals pilot plant and the Southern Pacific commercial demonstration plant for shale oil, which would receive a major boost under the present Australian Government, will all be put at risk by a Hewson Government. What a tragedy it would be for the people of Gladstone if those projects, for which everyone from the Chamber of Commerce to the Gladstone Promotion and Development Bureau, the Gladstone Port Authority, DBIRD and the Gladstone and Calliope Councils have worked so hard, were to be put at great risk by a future Federal coalition Government. Last night, I had the pleasure of being at a candidates forum for Hinkler, which Brian Courtice and the other candidates attended. I asked Brian Courtice about the 10 per cent development allowance and he stressed how important it was for Gladstone and the industries that we have there. However, honourable members should listen to this: the National Party candidate pooh-poohed the development allowance. Obviously, he does not care about jobs in our region and about future industrial growth. Mr Nunn: He has had four attempts at getting himself a job. Mr BENNETT: That is right. He has had four attempts at it and at the fifth attempt he will not succeed, either. I noticed that in his contribution to the the debate, the Leader of the Opposition talked about micro-economic reform and dismantling the present industrial relations system. I have clear evidence that micro-economic reform under the Federal and State Labor Governments is working without the bloody-minded attitudes of the Federal coalition and the State opposition parties, which are keen to attack organised labour because of their inability to understand what organised labour is all about. On 21 December 1992, I had the opportunity to witness the reforms at the Boyne smelter wharf. I was invited by the manager of the Gladstone operation of the stevedoring company, Conaust, and by Mick Watson of the Waterside Workers Federation, who together doubled the productivity of their operations at the Boyne smelter wharf. In November 1991, Conaust and the Waterside Workers Federation entered into an enterprise-based agreement, and the transition from the old system to the new enterprise-based agreement has been very smooth and of benefit to employers, clients and the company. I am damned sure that is a lot different from what would be the position under any future Federal coalition Government. Prior to November 1991, members of the Waterside Workers Federation were employed as pool labour on a minimum guaranteed weekly wage. Now, enterprise-based conditions are one supervisor and five specialists, who are now employed by Conaust, and the balance of the labour to work the vessels is drawn from a casual list. No ancillary labour is drawn from Brisbane, as it was in the past, and the jobs are run completely by Gladstone personnel. Suitable persons on the casual labour list are trained at Conaust’s expense to be competent to operate ships’ gear and to drive semitrailers. That adds to the skills of the person and enables him to be proficient in his work. The end result of that training and development is a trained, competent and dedicated work force, something which honourable members opposite fail to understand. Those people need training and those industries provide training under enterprise-based agreements. On the occasion when I visited the Boyne smelter wharf, the Japanese ship, the Calliope Maru, was the one hundredth turn-round for Conaust for the year, representing a 100 per cent increase in productivity. That productivity came about from initiatives of workers and management working together to streamline the loading process at the wharf. What has also been an innovation is Waterside Workers Federation staff, with Conaust management, actively seeking new work at the port—obtaining the movement of pine logs and gypsum, to name a couple. The Federal Government’s micro-economic reform is clearly working. The manager, Mr Elliot, is clearly happy with the direction of the enterprise-based agreement at Conaust in Gladstone. That agreement came about Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1889 not through bludgeoning the Waterside Workers Federation but by workers and management clearly cooperating for the benefit of both. What a contrast that is to Hewson’s policy—or should I say John Howard’s policy, as he is waiting to exact his revenge on the Australian workers. To emphasise the point on how productivity has improved at the Conaust wharf, Mr Keith Law of Boyne Smelters Limited in correspondence to Mr Rob Elliot of Conaust, stated— “As you are aware, some shippers and shipping lines believe we are equal to or the best on a world scale . . .” and are at least in the top three. That proves to me that essential reform is happening under a Federal Labor Government in a sensible and honest approach. In contrast, Hewson’s only plan—or should I say Howard’s plan, again—for Australian workers is to drive down wages by abandoning the arbitration system. Diverting from my previous subject, I wish also to bring to the attention of the House the Gladstone College of TAFE. The recent visit by the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations, Matt Foley, on 18 February, gave him the opportunity to witness a unique program being carried out by the Gladstone College of TAFE under its director, Mr Bob McCallum, and Toolooa State High School principal, Mr Graham Williams. The pilot program involves students from Toolooa State High School undertaking their Year 11 and Year 12 studies at the TAFE college. They undertake engineering courses, maths, science and English studies that all count towards apprenticeships and prevocational courses. Mr Foley: A very fine project, too. Mr BENNETT: I take that interjection. Mr Foley came with me to interview the students, and he knows how proud and pleased they are to be part of the course. May I take the opportunity to congratulate the Gladstone College of TAFE and the Toolooa State High School for putting together that program, which I believe is the way of the future for trade and engineering studies. The students undertake engineering courses, maths, science and English studies that all count towards apprenticeships and prevocational courses. Indeed, since 1990, the TAFE college has made a great impact on the Gladstone/Callide region, with students’ contact hours almost doubling from 367 600 hours to 632 611 hours. These figures represent a massive boost in productivity in anyone’s balance sheet. The Gladstone College of TAFE has two main campuses—a main campus at Gladstone and a TAFE centre at Biloela which is accommodated in the old Callide A Power Station. It offers vocational courses in full-time and part-time post-Year 10 and prevocational courses in electrical machinery, metal fabrication, automotive, plumbing, carpentry, and catering and hospitality, trade courses in electrical machinery, fabrication, automotive, plumbing and gas, full-time and part-time certificate courses in business, and associate diploma courses in computing, business, office, accounting and management. The Callide Dawson TAFE centre provides a range of part-time and full- time courses in commercial and office studies, prevocational engineering, advanced electronics, senior secondary studies and personal enrichment. Currently, there are four teachers and five administration and ancillary staff at the centre, and the campus head is a principal teacher. With all the major industries now engaged in award restructuring, the Gladstone TAFE College is actively cooperating with the industries in the region which are pursuing a policy of increased efficiency through new technology, restructuring and training. As a result of restructuring, the impact on the college in terms of demand from industry for courses specifically designed to meet their needs is now significant. Courses have been developed and conducted for Boyne Smelters Limited, Queensland Cement Limited, Queensland Alumina Limited, the Gladstone Port Authority, the Gladstone Area Group Apprenticeship Scheme, BHP Gregory Coal Mine, ICI, BHP Saraji Mine, Gas Corporation, Department of Business and Industry, School Support Services, Callide Coalfields Pty Ltd, Queensland Electricity Commission, DEET, Carbon Consolidated Industries, South Blackwater Coal Mine, German Creek Coal Mine, QMag, 1890 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Monadelphous, Murray Instrumentation and Electrical, Queensland Ambulance Brigade, Moura Mine, Callide Coalfields, Tarong and the Forestry Department. Many of these have been conducted on site in industry. In addition to those courses, staff have been extensively involved with local industry in developing training needs and multiskilling staff. The college has also trained staff of local industries to enable them to adopt best practice and third-party accreditation. Whilst these courses cover a diverse range of curriculum areas, the most prominent demand has been from the gas industry. Gas safety courses are now being conducted on a regional basis on site in central Queensland industries, utilising the human resources of the Mackay, Rockhampton, Central Highlands and Gladstone Colleges of TAFE. The college is able to offer an extensive range of courses as a result of the availability of excellent physical resources. The Gladstone campus boasts completely furnished workshops for fitting, machinery, electrical, metal fabricating, carpentry and joinery, plumbing, a hairdressing salon, a professional kitchen and restaurant, microcomputer facilities, an open area business section, modern classrooms, a gymnasium, an Olympic-size sports oval, a library, a canteen, an amphitheatre, a bookshop, an administration area and a theatrette. In contrast, the Callide Dawson centre facilities include a business studies and computer training centre, engineering workshops for fitting, machining, welding and electrical, an administration and library area, staff rooms and a student recreational area. The Gladstone College of TAFE is one of the cleanest and tidiest colleges in the State. This is in keeping with the city’s profile as the winner of six Tidy Towns awards over the past seven years. The college is proud of the high profile that it has established in the community and its strong links with local industries, authorities, other sectors of education and the general community. College facilities are extensively utilised by the community and the college has hosted Work Skills competitions, gas expos, careers markets, homemakers’ fairs and many other activities. Gladstone area school children, the Little Athletics Association and the Gladstone Athletics Club frequently access the college oval. College students are continually involved in “live work” activities and the community benefits greatly as a result of this involvement. Projects undertaken range from the construction of basic facilities such as a pergola built for the Chanel College to extensive construction and maintenance work carried out for the Calliope historical village. These activities are designed to be as practical as possible and to develop skills utilised in industry. Four years have been spent at the college developing a philosophy that “if you look after the people, they will look after the work”. Considerable energy has gone into developing staff to ensure that they have the skills to perform tasks efficiently and effectively. Multiskilling of teaching staff, particularly in the technology area, has a high priority. In-service emphasis is placed on this area. As a result, considerable efficiency gains are now being realised. The college has also received great support from the Commonwealth. The Federal member for Hinkler, Brian Courtice, is a great supporter of the TAFE college and, indeed, is regarded very highly by the TAFE college staff and students. The Keating Government provides approximately half a million dollars in Commonwealth-funded courses. To give the members of this Chamber the extent to which the Commonwealth is involved, I will outline the schemes funded by the Federal Government. The courses under the Prime Minister’s One Nation initiative and other Commonwealth-funded ventures are as follows: rural construction, a bar course, new start literacy, kitchen attendant skills, engineering studies and services, restaurant service course, rural maintenance, farm workers’ course, carpentry, joinery and wet trades course, hospitality course, information technology course, computer uses course and a machinery operator course. I have gone and met the people undertaking these courses and they believe that they give them hope for the future, because without skills they are virtually unemployable with today’s advance in technology. In recent times, I, too, have undertaken electronics courses at the TAFE college. I recommend highly the college facilities and its teaching staff. Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1891

But John Hewson has a different plan for TAFE. He released his plans for TAFE in Fightback Mark II, the coalition’s “Strategy for Jobs and Growth”, on 24 July 1992. The first Fightback promised only a one-off increase of $77m for TAFE. Increasing concern over youth unemployment and the need for more training opportunities shamed Dr Hewson into rethinking his commitment to TAFE. The key to his new policy is providing $400m worth of vouchers for young people to exchange for training. This follows the direction of his higher education policy of funding individuals and not institutions. The plan is vague. No-one yet knows how the voucher system would operate. I have continually asked Opposition members in this place how it operates and how much a voucher is worth, and they have never come up with the goods. Mrs Edmond: They don’t know. Mr BENNETT: That is correct, they do not know. In answer to all of my questions to members opposite, they have never explained what a voucher is worth. I would be pleased if one of them would get up in this House and tell us what a voucher is worth. I do not believe that they ever will. They do not know what costs it would cover or indeed who it would cover, apart from those young people who take a job at the Opposition’s $3 or $3.50 an hour wage rates. Vouchers fit the ideology of the Opposition, but they do not fit the practical reality of today’s Australia, which needs structured and industry-responsive training. Dr Hewson’s plans would lead to an overall decline in the level and quality of training for young people because workers who receive vouchers would have to negotiate time off with their employer and find appropriate training at either a TAFE college or a private training school. Dr Kemp, a well-known Right Wing ideologue, stated that the voucher system would “empower the long-term unemployed to get the kind of training that suits them”. The training may suit the employee but may not be relevant to the needs of industry, and may not be accredited and structured to deliver the skills required for Australia to develop. What use would such graduates be? The plan leaves young people vulnerable to unscrupulous training providers. There is also the danger of people taking shorter and cheaper courses to avoid the possibility of top- up course fees if vouchers do not cover the full amount. That is not the way to ensure quality training for future careers. In contrast, Labor’s new TAFE agreement with the State ensures that training is responsive to the needs of industry and that it is genuine, is structured, is of high quality and is coordinated nationally. With student numbers dependent on decisions made by individuals, institutions such as TAFE could not plan effectively for capital and other infrastructure growth. Effectively, under the Opposition’s voucher system, such institutions will just decline further and further. The voucher system is a complete nonsense! What do Opposition members intend to do? Will they get together and say, “We need a new teacher at the TAFE college”? I know how much money would be gathered if the hat were sent around—none! It is silly. I do not know how Opposition members can come to terms with it. It has got me beat. If workers could negotiate time off for training, their total income would fall even lower than the $114 or $133 per week levels proposed by Dr Hewson for young full-time workers. A young person undertaking a one day a week TAFE course—a first year apprentice, for example—would be earning as little as $91, which is much less than the present Jobsearch allowance. Funding individuals through vouchers sends a clear message to industry that individuals and the Government should bear the costs of vocational education and training. Vouchers give industry the opportunity to transfer their training programs off the job. All the ground gained over the past five or six years in award restructuring would be lost. Under Dr Hewson, people who currently pay for private training may substitute public-funded vouchers to pay for their training. The Opposition has stated that it would reduce general purpose payments by 5 per cent. Currently, the States spend $1.5 billion on vocational education and training per year. If States make widespread reductions in the face of the 5 per cent cut, spending by States on TAFE would be cut by $75m. In effect, the $77m that Dr Hewson promised in 1892 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Fightback simply replaced the $75m a year that would be cut from State spending alone. The $400m-odd that he promised in Fightback II remains unfunded. That is another hole which will have to be filled by as yet unannounced taxes or by abandoning spending such as GST compensation. Mr Pearce: He is going to be like a dentist—he will have so many holes to fill. Mr BENNETT: There is a $10 billion hole in the spending promised by the coalition. From where will it come? The coalition has not spelt out what services will be cut, but it will target areas such as TAFE for sure. It would be a shame if those Commonwealth courses to which I referred earlier, which are in tune with the needs of Gladstone’s industry and community, were put at risk by the election of a Hewson Government. The Gladstone College of TAFE and its staff are a great asset to the Gladstone/Callide region. I congratulate them not only on their fine work but also on their vision for the future. However, that vision for the future will be very limited if, by any trick of fate, a Hewson Government is elected. Mrs GAMIN (Burleigh) (8.05 p.m.): In joining this Address in Reply debate, I express my loyalty and allegiance and that of my constituency to Her Majesty the Queen and to her representative, Her Excellency the Governor. I take this opportunity to congratulate Her Excellency on her appointment to that high office. Since the electoral boundaries were changed, the former South Coast electorate, which I had the honour to represent, albeit briefly, in this Parliament between 1988 and 1989, has disappeared entirely. The new electorate of Burleigh has been formed. It is basically an urban electorate. It comprises the suburbs of Palm Beach, West Burleigh, Burleigh Heads, Burleigh Waters, part of Miami, Andrews and most of Stephens. Its residents cover a wide cross-section of occupations and income levels and encompass all age groups. It is a very family-oriented electorate. It has always prided itself on providing beach holidays for family people. Family holiday-makers return to the seaside towns of Miami, Burleigh and Palm Beach year after year and from generation to generation. The electorate is not part of the Gold Coast “glitter strip”. I do not want honourable members to think that we are parochial in the Burleigh electorate; it is just that we consider the central Gold Coast to be the best part of south-east Queensland. I cannot hope to emulate my colleague the honourable member for Keppel as he waxed lyrical in praise of his electorate, but I will try to give honourable members some background to my electorate and its surrounding districts, even though not in the lyrical terms of the honourable member for Keppel. The electorate of Burleigh contains a complete cross-section of society, and I am proud and honoured to have been elected as its representative in the Queensland Parliament. I am very much aware of the wants, needs, hopes and aspirations of the whole community of the electorate. The Burleigh electorate includes also the magnificent Burleigh Headland, which runs down to the sea; the national park and the Tallebudgera greenspace network; and an increasing amount of undeveloped land now permanently set aside for purely environmental purposes. Many environmental matters are being well handled in the electorate of Burleigh, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to that great naturalist and conservationist, Dr David Fleay, who came to Burleigh 40 years ago and set in train the preservation of so much of our natural heritage. David Fleay has long retired and is not in good health. However, when my husband and I settled in Burleigh with our young family 25 years ago, David Fleay was our friend and neighbour, and he still is. Eventually, in order to preserve his fauna reserve from predatory developers, he sold it to the former National Party Government for a song. For several years, it has been operated by National Parks and Wildlife, which is now part of the Department of Environment and Heritage. Not only in Burleigh but also throughout the Gold Coast and hinterland much attention is now being paid to the background of the area, and the history of the Gold Coast and the surrounding countryside. Albert Shire Council has published The History of the Five Rivers. Gold Coast City Council, through the efforts of Alderman Paul Gamin, has published the background to Burleigh, called The Heart of Paradise. The Uniting Church has published a booklet on the history of Tallebudgera. There are Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1893 numerous publications of specific localities and of sporting clubs such as the Pacific Lifesaving Club at Palm Beach. John Elliott of the Gold Coast Historical Society has also had works published, as has Alexander MacRobbie. The recent publication, Letters from Bundall, is of great interest. The work of that great photographer Fred Laing, who died recently, will be of enduring interest for generations to come. Over the past year or so, I have got into the same historical act as well by putting together a rather more light- hearted browse around some of the background of the Gold Coast, snippets of history and bits and pieces of our lifestyle that have caught my own interest over the almost 30 years that I have lived on the Gold Coast. As we look at the Gold Coast, even in a rather superficial way, it is sad to see that so much of its past history has been smothered by roadworks, stormwater drains, buildings and general development. Very few old buildings and not much unspoilt countryside are left. Most of the larger-than-life personalities that helped to shape the Gold Coast have moved up to that great tourist resort in the sky. They were great characters, and some of them could well be figuring out how to wring a few concessions out of St Peter, or even trying to charge an admission fee to tourists waiting to enter the Pearly Gates. Some of those old entrepreneurs were rough diamonds and real characters. They were experts at making a quick quid. However, after 150 years, people on the Gold Coast are starting to grow up and become sufficiently mature to pay some attention to their beginnings, to document them and to put together their history for those who will follow them. Captain Cook had noted Mount Warning on his voyage up the Queensland coast, but the earliest of the other coastal explorers missed completely the Tweed, Currumbin and Tallebudgera entrances and the great major entrance to The Broadwater. The very early settlers to the Gold Coast came other than by sea. The first point that must be remembered is that red cedar—those magnificent trees now sadly so rare in the hinterland forest—and convicts were the main factors that brought about settlement to the Gold Coast hinterland. Of course, the Gold Coast was never a convict settlement. But from the south up through the Tweed came the timber getters, who were roughest of rough and rum drinkers to a man. Some of them would do well in this House. Many of them were ticket of leave men, emancipists or runaway convicts. From the north, from the harsh penal settlement of Moreton Bay came military patrols hunting other runaway convicts. The famous Captain Logan established a post at Point Danger for this very purpose. Later on, farmers came to work the land, particularly for dairying, beef and market gardens. Around the early 1840s, two youths, Edmond Harper and William Duncan—who are strongly established in the myths of Gold Coast history and to this day Duncan’s descendants live around the Gold Coast—came to the hinterland, set up good relationships with the local Aborigines, and established their timber camps firstly along the Tweed and then into the Nerang Valley. Cedar was their first find and then pine. Logs were floated down the rivers and creeks or carted down by bullock dray. Indeed, the last of the bullock drays was still bringing down timber from the hills up until the 1950s. As farming developed, the little hinterland townships started to establish and take hold. In 1991, a national census was conducted. However, some of the population figures of more than 100 years ago are interesting to note. In 1879 at Nerang, there were 39 inhabited houses containing 138 males and 49 females. At Mudgeeraba, there were five houses containing 20 males and 13 females. At Tallebudgera—which for many years was pronounced and spelled, and is still shown on some old maps, as “Tallebuggera”—no houses were listed, although there were 21 male and 15 female residents. At Currumbin Creek there were two males. The little coastal towns were starting up also. In 1875, 30 people lived between Southport and Broadbeach, eight between Mermaid Beach and Burleigh Heads, 14 between Palm Beach and Coolangatta, making a total of 52 permanent residents along the actual seaside section of the future Gold Coast. For anybody who has been adding up those figures, the total comes to 310 so far, and there were approximately another 100 or 150 north of Nerang up to 1894 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Oxenford and Coomera. That gives a total of approximately 500 people who lived in the greater Gold Coast area during the 1870s. Even if my figures are a bit out, it is still not very many people. However, that state of affairs did not last long. In 1990, the population for much the same area was 250 000, and growing rapidly. That is a population growth of a quarter of a million people in 100 years. The prediction for the year 2010 is one million people for the Gold Coast corridor. During the very early days of coastal settlement, anyone who lived close to the sea only ventured on to the beach to fish or to gather oysters. However, the firm beach sands were also considered ideal for horseracing, and Burleigh was considered to be a great place for racing between the two headlands. Tallebudgera village was well in place long before anything started in Burleigh. The Tallebudgera farmers had shops and a church in their township. They were unique in also having their own beach racecourse at Burleigh. It took many years before the locals became aware that they could also have a lot of fun on the sand and in the surf. It was the arrival of Cobb and Co. that opened up the whole area. In approximately 1875, there were services six days a week from Brisbane to Nerang and Tweed Heads. That was a pretty rough and bouncy ride. In 1882, that service extended into Southport, and then Southport started to go ahead. Blocks of land in Southport increased from the top price of 20 pounds in 1878 to 150 pounds in 1883. Southport went ahead quickly. Schools opened up. In fact, a couple of years ago, the Star of the Sea Convent celebrated its 90th anniversary. Churches were built, boarding houses sprang up, advertisements appeared for holiday excursions, the railway arrived, and surfing became fashionable. In 1885, the Southport and Nerang Divisional Boards, which were the forerunners of the local council, passed by-laws that attempted to enforce swimming costume standards on men and women—neck to knee, of course. Body surfing was described by a Brisbane newspaper as a “daredevil pursuit”. Those early councillors must have turned in their grave 60 or 70 years later when Paula Stafford’s bikinis appeared on the beaches. By the end of World War I, hotels and guesthouses were scattered right along the tourist strip—wooden buildings, of course. In 1923, along came the famous Jim Cavill, the father of Surfers Paradise, who saw good sense in establishing a hostelry there—Cavill’s Hotel—where the Paradise Centre is now, and the Ramada Hotel. The old humpbacked bridge, the Jubilee Bridge, linking Southport to Main Beach, which was built in 1925 and not replaced until 1966, went across the Broadwater from about where Sundale now stands. Then motorists started to brave the long day’s journey from Brisbane. And it was a long journey—lunch on the way. Even into the 1950s and 1960s, when the journey was much easier, there were many old ladies who still expected to break their journey from Brisbane to Main Beach and have a cup of tea on the way. The original railway line came down to Ernest Junction, which is now a big industrial estate at the back of Southport. Then it branched to the Southport line, right into the town, or else it went south through Nerang, Mudgeeraba, West Burleigh, Elanora, Tugun, Bilinga and Coolangatta. All those houses along Coolangatta Road between Land of Legend and the airport are built on former railway land. That was where the line ran. At Coolangatta, behind the Department of Health building, one can still see some of the old railway lines embedded in the bitumen of the car park. There was a pub beside the railway line at West Burleigh. It burnt down in the sixties. It became a fashionable competition for young blades to dash down from the train, see how many quick beers they could sink, and hop back on as the train started to move off again, and hopefully not get left behind. We lost the railway in the 1960s. At that time, the Government of the day, in its wisdom, decided that road transport between Brisbane and Coolangatta was the answer to transport problems, especially as rail use had dropped off. Southport businessmen were particularly incensed at this decision, and formed a deputation to wait upon the Minister of the day to push their case for the retention of the railway. The Minister patiently heard them out, and then asked the 64-dollar question: “Gentlemen, how did you travel up to see me today? By rail, I hope.” As they had all gone by car, that was the end of the argument and the railway line was closed down. Governments have always Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1895 underestimated the growth potential of the Gold Coast. Now that we are getting a new electrified rail link to Robina, it will be very much welcomed when it is finally completed. In the 1920s, blocks of land were selling in Burleigh Heads for 15 pounds. By the 1930s, we had established beach resorts, with businesses to service the needs of local residents as well as visitors. Some of those businesses were started off by old pioneering families. Some still exist to this day. Descendants of the original old farming, pioneering and business families are still scattered throughout the Gold Coast. After a while, the regular visitors took on a proprietary interest, and started to look upon themselves as pioneers. Indeed, this habit still persists in the 1990s, as some of the regular visitors complain more about the Gold Coast and its services than do the local residents who live there all the time. Lifesaving clubs were formed. The earliest came about from the efforts of visitors. For instance, Burleigh Heads was serviced or cared for by some visitors from Mowbray Park in East Brisbane, and to this day the club on the beachfront is called the Burleigh Heads/Mowbray Park Surf Life Saving Club. The Neptune Lady Life Savers Club was formed in 1928. Its first clubhouse was at Currumbin. In the thirties, it engaged in parades and displays, but did not start patrolling along Tallebudgera Creek until 1959. This club, too, had its origins in Brisbane, as it was initially formed to give summer recreation to the lady members of the Brisbane Gymnasium Club. New fashions started to appear in bathing suits. We were getting away from neck-to-knee costumes. At Coolangatta, men were not allowed to wear topless bathers or to walk in the streets in their bathers unless modestly covered by a beach robe or a dressing gown. It looked perfectly ridiculous to see grown men getting around in Griffith Street wearing dressing gowns and with bare feet. However, Southport was more tolerant to those modern fashions. Men could roll down the tops of their bathers. Eventually, because of Coolangatta’s tough rules on beach wear, Coolangatta found that it began to lose seaside business to the more emancipated beaches at the northern end of the Gold Coast. Mr De Lacy: Did you go to the pyjama parties with Bruce Small? Mrs GAMIN: I will tell the Treasurer about the pyjama parties in a moment. The local councillors gave in, and Coolangatta decided that it had better treat the situation in a commercial rather than a moral light, and business in Coolangatta picked up again. During the Depression, money was tight, and mass entertainments became the fashion—free amusements and free beach concerts. Cavill’s original wooden hotel in Surfers Paradise burnt down in 1936. Wooden buildings were always such a dreadful fire hazard—dry timber, alcohol, kerosene lamps. But Jim Cavill promptly rebuilt, and this time he included a ballroom, a cabaret and beautiful gardens. The original zoo was saved from the blaze, and became a very famous attraction for many years. In 1932, my husband’s grandmother built a house at Main Beach before anyone knew much about beach erosion. But she built well back. There were three rows of sandhills and a gazetted road between the house and the sea. By the time that we honeymooned there 25 years later, the sandhills had gone, the house had been moved back twice, and the fixed brick incinerator and clothes line found themselves in the front yard instead of the backyard. In the 1930s, blocks of land at Mermaid Beach—the R. G. Oates estate—were selling for five pounds. Local people and regular visitors thought that was a simply terrible price. The war years were quiet, although our servicemen came for a bit of R and R. The Gold Coast started to boom in the 1950s. That is when the boarding houses at Coolangatta came into their own. Coolangatta became the great place for honeymooners. Some members’ parents might have honeymooned there. It was also the home of that dance called the hokey pokey and the song that went “If it’s hot in Brisbane, it’s Coolangatta.” The land speculators moved into Surfers Paradise. The old Lennons Hotel went up at Broadbeach. It looked quite silly sticking up out of the sand all by itself. It was a great white elephant in every sense of the word. That is where the Pan Pacific Hotel and the Oasis shopping centre are now. The Chevron Hotel was built before Lennons. That has 1896 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly gone now, too. Stanley Korman developed Chevron Island as residential housing. Then came the great pyjama parties—Bernie Elsey at the old Beachcomber. How modest they really were when we look back. The police would be called in, and there would be sensational stories all over the front pages of the Gold Coast Bulletin, and all the time the party goers wore their swimsuits under their pyjamas. Fair dinkum! So I guess that we have almost reached modern times, within living memory, so to speak. The Gold Coast has always been a place for boom or bust. Although we are in deep recession now, some of the old-fashioned businesses are still operating; other businesses have opened and closed. It has always been a place where a good, stable and solid living can be made and a place where absolute fortunes could be made and lost just as quickly. It has taken us a long time to learn some hard lessons on the Gold Coast. For instance, earlier settlers and developers and councillors simply did not have the faintest idea that building straight onto the sand dunes would cause so much damage. Beach erosion is an enormous problem right along the eastern seaboard of Australia. On the Gold Coast, both the State Government and the local council have poured millions of dollars into beach restoration and beach protection—sand pumping, boulder walls, and beach protection fencing to hold the remaining dunal systems together. We no longer send bulldozers onto the beaches to mine for mineral sands—and I hope we never will again. All our beaches were mined from the 1940s onwards, right down into northern New South Wales past Kingscliff. Mining was still taking place in the 1960s in front of the Kurrawa Surf Life Saving Club at Broadbeach. At Currumbin, the old tin shed and mining operation near Elephant Rock closed down only a few years ago. Every time the dozers moved in, the protesters came out and lay down in front of them, and there are still prominent citizens in Gold Coast City who first made their public profiles by blocking bulldozers. Although the restoration of those areas was done as well as possible in the circumstances of the times, we certainly do not want to see it all happen again. I will lie down in front of the bulldozers myself if necessary; so will hundreds and thousands of others, because we cannot afford to have heavy machinery excavation of our beaches again. Surfers Paradise itself had changed radically by the 1980s. Old buildings came down—no great loss, some of them—new ones were built and demolished again. There are some quite exotic architectural examples in Surfers now—but also lots of empty building sites as the boom-and-bust cycle has taken its toll. The whole hinterland behind the beach strip—the green behind the gold—has just mushroomed with residential developments extending right back through Albert Shire, the fastest-growing local authority in Australia. And that growth pattern has happened because people want to come and live on the Gold Coast, they like us, they like our climate and they like our lifestyle. The Gold Coast has its knockers, of course. That is because we have grown so rapidly that perhaps we are a little bit brash—at least, that is what our detractors say. Of course, we quiet, steady locals do not agree. All sorts of people live on the Gold Coast now—settled permanent residents, quiet families, retired people from the unkind climates of the southern States and working families with children. And we still have our share of the con men and the spivs, just like any other city. We have still got our cowboys, too, who will put the bulldozers in first, knock off the top of a sand dune or demolish every tree in sight and worry about the flak afterwards. The local authorities are now giving attention to tree preservation and looking at heavy fines for infringements, and not before time. However, most of us who choose to live on the Gold Coast do not live in the fast lane. Our economy, though, needs the glitter strip with its sun, surf and sand image to promote tourism. Those tourists come to Surfers Paradise, and there are now many other tourist attractions to the north and south of Surfers. However, many others come for peaceful family holidays to the little seaside towns such as Miami, Palm Beach and Burleigh Heads, which in many ways are still like villages or small country towns. The Gold Coast is in fact made up of a whole series of little country towns linked together. Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1897

The Gold Coast economy is based on tourism. Our service industries rely on tourism. Our building industry is geared to providing accommodation for visitors as well as locals. It is pleasing to see that we are now broadening our economic base and extending into other manufacturing and high technology industries that will bring permanent benefits. And simply because of our wonderful climate—quite apart from the unemployment caused by the depression—we have the downside of the visiting unemployed, just like Cairns and Airlie Beach. Street kids and homeless youth are an increasing problem. Welfare services and the marvellous voluntary agencies are working to the limit, because we are a city now in our own right and we have the problems suffered by all major cities. But we also have the advantages of the infrastructure of a major city—it is all there for us—and we no longer have to rely on the State capital for our goods and services and our professional or commercial facilities. To us, the Gold Coast is home; to others, it is a playground, with its cafes, bars, restaurants and international hotels, its motels and high-rise apartments, its casino, its cabarets and its clubs. We have superb sporting facilities, including an enormous number of golf clubs. We have museums and art galleries, beautiful long beaches, churches of all denominations, excellent schools both public and private, first-class tertiary establishments, some of the best shopping in Australia and major tourist attractions. Newsworthy events happen on the Gold Coast. Successful investments have attracted more investments—and those days will come again, although we hope without the extravaganzas of previous boom times. The Gold Coast and its hinterland is no longer an unknown, exotic and unspoiled region justifying a long day’s journey. Its appeal has been self-generating, and now it satisfies an almost nationwide demand for a playground in the sun, not only for first-time visitors but also for the families who return here from generation to generation for their holidays. And it has all happened in 150 years. But for us, it is home. All Gold Coasters will tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that they would not live anywhere else. And we in Burleigh electorate will tell you that the central coast is the best part not only of the Gold Coast but the best part of the whole of south-east Queensland. It is our place, and it is a great place. From the central coast and the whole of the Gold Coast, we say to our visitors: “You’re welcome. We like to share it with you. Come and enjoy it, too.” To conclude my browse around the background of the Gold Coast, I want to go back even further in time than the arrival of the white man. Long, long before the white man came to the Gold Coast, it was the home for large communities of Aborigines. Some Aboriginal tribes around the Moreton Bay islands may have been quite fierce, but our people—our local tribe, particularly at the southern end of the coast, the Kumbamari—were not warlike at all. They were a very gentle people. Many aspects of their heritage have been carefully preserved. The Gold Coast has always had a great winter climate, and we are told that that attracted the nomadic tribes from the damp and frosty hills, and even perhaps from much harsher areas. In summer, the heavily shaded river and creek banks and cooling sea breezes must have been preferable to the scorching heat of the hinterland. Our local tribe lived on fish and shellfish. Aboriginal middens are scattered on Burleigh Headland and along the banks of the creeks. There are still some existing canoe trees, showing the scars of where the Aborigines carved out their boats. They must have been a bit like primitive surf skis. What an idyllic life, sitting up on Burleigh Headland looking at the Pacific Ocean and eating seafood, perhaps with a bit of variety from wallaby, or the fruits and nuts found in the tropical and subtropical pockets. What a place to live in comparison with the homes of the more spartan tribes of the west or the far north. I would not be at all surprised if the western tribes looked on the coastal blokes as a bit soft, just as country people look on the Gold Coasters of today as enjoying an easier lifestyle. It is a mistaken view, of course. My constituents see the electorate of Burleigh as just the same as anywhere else. We work hard, we take care of our families, we worry about our kids and whether they will get jobs, and we watch the specials at the supermarket. But I have to say that the climate is a lot better than that of many other places. Historians tell us that our local Aboriginal tribe was so far from warlike that they actually made welcome visitors from 1898 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly other tribes, so back in those far off times long before the white man, what we now call the Gold Coast was a spot for local Aborigines to live in and enjoy, and a place of recreation for others from more unkind climates as the locals kindly allowed outsiders to visit and enjoy local facilities. So what is new? Nothing has really changed. That is just what we do today, too. We live there and enjoy it, and we make others welcome, too. Mr NUNN: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member is giving a travel talk without the benefit of slides. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Davidson): Order! There is no point of order. Mrs GAMIN: Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. In conclusion, I trust that all members of this House who visit the Gold Coast will take the time to visit the electorate of Burleigh. They will find it a beautiful experience, and we make all our visitors very welcome without exception. Mr BUDD (Redlands) (8.32 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to speak in the Address in Reply debate. I congratulate Her Excellency the Governor of Queensland on her appointment. At my first official engagement two days after the State election, my wife and I had the pleasure of meeting Her Excellency and Mr McDonald at the Redlands tourism awards. From the warmth of the reception there, I have no doubt that she will go on to become one of Queensland’s most loved Governors. When I was originally elected to Parliament on 19 September, I assumed that it would be during the Address in Reply that I would make my maiden speech, as is traditional with new members. Events dictated, of course, that I led off as the first of the parliamentarians in the Budget debate on 5 November 1992—a day which is already memorable in parliamentary history for things other than my maiden speech. I came to the Parliament like most new members full of ideas and enthusiasm. Now, a few short months later, although I still have ideas and enthusiasm, it would be fair to say that I have also learnt some very valuable lessons about just what being a member of Parliament is all about. I have worked out how to juggle my responsibilities so that I can balance my obligations to my constituents, my electorate and my family. I found a way to get 26 hours out of every day and, most importantly, I have learnt that one cannot please all of the people all of the time. I have become aware of the fact that people have enormous expectations of a member of Parliament and that they do not always recognise the difference between the three different levels of government and, consequently, I have found myself dealing with matters ranging from social security to water rates. It is somewhat of a sobering experience to have admit to people who have complete trust in one’s judgment that one is not an oracle on every subject matter known to man and cannot advise them on medical, legal and financial matters, but only try to point them in the right direction. In these hard economic times, every single day, members of Parliament hear tales of human tragedy, of homes or jobs lost, and we can no longer take for granted the advantages that Australia enjoyed during the boom years. For this reason, I have always taken great pride in the fact that the Goss Labor Government has always given a high priority to not only expanding and improving public housing in Queensland, but also to providing loans through its Home Owned and Home Shared Schemes. The State electorate of Redlands has very little public housing and, consequently, the waiting list for accommodation in this area stretches, on average, over three to four years. Hardly a day goes by that I do not receive at least one telephone call from a constituent seeking assistance in this area. The circumstances of many are extremely tragic—marriage break-ups, ill health or loss of the family income. Regrettably, there is very little that I can do to assist them other than to explain that most people on the list are in equally difficult circumstances and that if they are patient, their turn will come. This gives me a feeling of not only helplessness but also anger; anger at the consistent neglect that successive National Party and coalition Governments gave to the area of public housing. Prior to 1989, the electorate of Redlands had the misfortune of being represented by National Party members and, as a consequence, received very little public housing during that period. The fact is that most National Party members do not Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1899 want Housing Commission homes in their electorates. The waiting list for public housing in Redlands is so long that when families get into difficult circumstances, they are faced with a choice of taking their children out of schools and moving to areas away from their work and friends or hanging on in the desperate hope that something will turn up. Fortunately, the Labor Government recognises that people who live in public housing are entitled to some choice as to the areas in which they live, and have the same dreams and aspirations as everybody else. As a result of the desperate need for public housing, I was delighted when I received a standard letter from the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning, the Honourable Terry Mackenroth, informing me that the Department of Housing had recently purchased two blocks of land in a developed estate in my area. I was astounded, to say the least, when a deputation of local residents arrived at my office complaining angrily about the proposed houses. They were all decent, honest, normally fair-minded people who sincerely believed that the presence of two Housing Commission homes on their estate would lower the tone of the area and cause disruption to the neighbourhood. I was somewhat at a loss as to how to deal with this problem. Although I was able to demonstrate to them quite clearly through the proposed house plans that the houses would be of a comparable standard to those already established, I found it difficult to convince them that the future tenants were just ordinary people. The fact is that there would be a number of members in this House who grew up in Housing Commission homes. I know that the Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development, the Honourable Jim Elder, grew up in a Housing Commission home in Inala. My own family was less fortunate than Jim’s. We never managed to reach the top of the list, and I spent my childhood moving around from one place to another while my father sought work as a canecutter or a sharefarmer. I can well imagine the joy my family would have felt if they had been offered one of these new homes in Redlands. The point I am trying to make is that the kind of person one is has nothing to do with the type of home in which a person lives. People develop these prejudices because previous Governments dealt with their obligations to public housing by throwing up hundreds of homes in outer suburbs such as Woodridge and Inala and providing their occupants with no facilities. Then they wondered why problems were created. The Goss Labor Government has recognised that public housing should be integrated, not segregated; that public housing should be built to standards comparable to those houses surrounding the development; and that all people are entitled to a decent standard of living. I have no doubt that the preconceived prejudices that people have against the Housing Commission tenants will quickly be overcome because all Australians are basically fair-minded people who are prepared to give everyone a fair go. I also have no doubt that the two families who receive these homes will become an asset to our community, and I look forward to welcoming them as constituents. Mr Szczerbanik: And that will be four more votes. Mr BUDD: Exactly. What I fear most is the impact of the election of a conservative Federal Government and the effect that would have on the numbers of people who need to seek assistance from the Queensland Housing Commission. Will all the progress made by the Goss Labor Government in this area since 1989 be wiped out as the cost of building private homes and interest rates rise? How many more families will lose their homes through no fault of their own? For how many families will the dream of buying a home become unattainable? There is no doubt that the impact of the GST on the housing sector will be enormous. The net price effect is estimated at 2.5 per cent of the purchase cost of new homes—assuming, of course, that the saving achieved by the abolition of existing indirect taxes is passed on to the consumer. The GST will apply not only to building materials but also to legal fees, finance charges, establishment fees, real estate agent’s commission, carpets, blinds, light fittings and all the other many expenses with which people are faced when establishing a home. 1900 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Let us assume that somehow people manage to overcome all these difficulties. People are then faced with the problem of finance as inflation and interest rates soar. One does not have to be an economist to work out that if housing costs and interest rates rise, most prospective home-buyers will be forced out of the market and that those already in homes will be placed under increasing pressure as their loan repayments increase by $100 to $200 per month. Just where are all these families going to live? How will people be able to provide homes for their families? While I have the greatest admiration for my colleague the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning, I must admit I have considerable reservations about his department’s capacity to deal with the influx of many thousands more people who would undoubtedly need to come to the department looking for help. The pros and cons of the Fightback package have been referred to constantly throughout this debate, but let us be quite clear on one matter: this is not about the differences in ideology between the Labor and conservative parties; this is about the enormous human costs which Dr Hewson’s package will exact from the people of Queensland who I, for one, am proud to represent and fight for. The introduction of a GST will affect every person in the community—from the young to the very old. I wish to relate a simple story to illustrate just what the impact of the Fightback package would have on one young man in Queensland. In common with most parents, my wife and I have always tried to encourage our children to learn the value of working and saving towards goals. I was extremely pleased when my 15-year-old stepson, Sean Hipkins, went out on his own initiative and got himself a casual job at a fast food outlet. He works for two hours each Friday night at $5.25 per hour, making a total amount of $10.50 per week. His goal is to acquire a guitar which he has seen and priced at a local store at $300. He is a determined young man, and each week he banks $10 in order to pursue his dream. With the confidence of youth, he has told me that in 30 weeks’ time, the prize will be his. His enthusiasm is overwhelming. Regrettably, he is not yet aware, of course, that outside influences could upset his carefully laid plans. Under a Liberal/National Party Government and the introduction of the Fightback package, his dream—together with the dreams of many young Australians—could well turn into a nightmare. He will, of course, become subject to the youth wage of $3 per hour which will reduce his weekly pay to $6 which will extend the saving period for his $300 guitar from 30 weeks to 50 weeks. Let us not forget that the GST will mean that his $300 guitar will cost $345, which will further extend his required saving time to 57.5 weeks. The increase in inflation must also be taken into account. For all practical purposes, the savings period involved has effectively doubled from 30 weeks to 60 weeks. I ask members of the Opposition to answer honestly this question: how do they expect parents to teach their children decent work ethics when the Opposition seems so determined to sell our youth into slavery for pursuit of profit? Probably the most significant lesson I have learnt in the past five months is the difference between being a candidate and being a member of Parliament. As a candidate, one’s main role is to establish a profile, become involved in issues in and around the electorate and, of course, to achieve the ultimate goal of getting oneself elected. One great advantage, of course, is that a candidate can be fairly selective in the choice of issues that are raised and pursued. As a member of Parliament, one does not have that luxury. It is the job of a member of Parliament to take on all issues and try to help all people who request assistance. To quote the campaign slogan of my good friend the Federal member for Bowman, Con Sciacca, a member of Parliament learns “to put people before politics”. In this regard, Con Sciacca has been a shining example to me. Premier Wayne Goss, while speaking at a recent function, said— “Con Sciacca is a man who puts people before politics. More than once he has taken on the State and Federal Labor Governments in the interests of his constituents, and more than once he has won.” Con Sciacca bears the distinction of being the first Italian-born member of the Australian Parliament, having arrived in this country in 1951 at the age of four with his parents and Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1901 his younger brother. Together with many other migrant families, his parents came to Australia with no knowledge of the language and very few personal possessions, but they brought with them that most valuable of assets—a vision that through hard work, determination and tenacity, their children would succeed and achieve what it had not been possible for them to achieve in their own country. Con Sciacca more than fulfilled that vision of his family. Through his capacity for hard work and his natural talent, Con Sciacca went on to establish his own prominent legal firm here in Brisbane. By Liberal Party standards, Con is the epitome of the Australian dream come true—a man who has achieved prosperity and the recognition of his peers through the stint of his own labours. But Con Sciacca is a Labor man, and that is the basic, fundamental difference between Labor and Liberal ideology. The Liberal Party believes that those who achieve have the right to enjoy the fruits of their success without obligation; whilst the Labor Party believes that society has a responsibility not only to those who are able to achieve but also to the disadvantaged and the battlers. Con Sciacca, as member for Bowman, has sought to put that into practice. He is a man of great warmth and compassion, who has a natural gift not only to listen but also to care about and identify with people’s problems and then take up the fight on their behalf. Members of the Labor Party in Bowman have a reputation within the party for being somewhat parochial. It is an attribute that is passed on to us by our Federal member. Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Jim Soorley, made the comment— “When the Brisbane City Council was given Commonwealth funds for job creation, Con was on my door immediately. He left with nearly a million dollars for sporting clubs and other community projects. I have never met a bloke who is so tenacious in getting money for his electorate.” Ian Findlay, coach of Olympic silver medallist Glen Houseman, said— “All Queensland swimmers owe Con Sciacca a debt of gratitude. He put himself on the line and went in fighting. Personally, he stuck by me when others were backing away. He will always have my respect for that.” Those stories could be multiplied many times over. Con Sciacca commands enormous respect and affection throughout his electorate because, in the words of one of his constituents, he is a man who cares about people and the problems that they face in their everyday life. As president of the Bowman Federal Executive, I have no doubt that, on 13 March, Con Sciacca will carry with him the good wishes of not only his party but also the many thousands of people in Bowman who have cause to call him “friend”. I also have no doubt that Con Sciacca will continue to represent the people of Bowman and the Australian Labor Party with dignity and honour in the Federal Parliament for many more years to come. In my maiden speech, I referred to a number of matters that were of concern to me on which I believe some progress has been made. I spoke about the Venman Park Fauna Sanctuary and the enormous contribution made to the community by Jack Venman in preserving that area for posterity. Jack, who is 81 years of age and takes much of the responsibility for administering the area himself, recently suffered a bout of ill health and was having considerable difficulty doing the manual work required to maintain the reserve. I thank the Minister for Environment and Heritage, the Honourable Molly Robson, who, when informed of Mr Venman’s predicament, immediately set aside the time to accompany the member for Cleveland, Mr Darryl Briskey, and me to visit Mr Venman at his home and to listen sympathetically to what needed to be done. I am delighted to say that the Minister not only listened but also acted speedily and allocated workers from the new Youth Conservation Corps to help maintain the reserve. I can assure the Minister that she has made many new friends in the Redlands area including, of course, the many admirers of Jack Venman and his work. I further raise the question of volunteer rural firefighters having to pay part of the cost of their own equipment. Again, I thank the Minister for Police and Emergency 1902 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Services, the Honourable Paul Braddy, who advised me that the Government has provided $440,000 in the 1992-93 Budget to outfit with protective clothing 570 rural fire brigades, of which I am happy to say Lamb Island is one, and that the remaining 1 030 brigades will be equipped over the next two years. I also spoke about the need for a State high school in the Victoria Point area, where the children are forced to travel many kilometres to the nearest high school at Cleveland. That is a continuing need, which I will be pursuing with full vigour. I have found the life of a parliamentarian to be extremely gratifying. I have learned that, while as a humble backbencher one cannot change the world, one can change some people’s world by resolving their problems. One can also fight to stop the lives of the people of Queensland being devastated by GST, cutbacks to State funds, destruction of the tourist industry, crippling interest rates, loss of jobs and the destruction of Medicare. I know that I speak for every member on my side of the House when I say that we will fight tooth and nail to protect the interests of Queensland against Dr Hewson and his ravaging hordes. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory) (8.50 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure tonight to speak in this Address in Reply debate. On behalf of my constituents, I swear my allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. In that regard, my constituents totally support me. I also give my respect and sincerity to Her Excellency the Governor of Queensland. I trust that the Parliament will relay my good wishes to the Speaker of this House on his re- election this year as the Speaker. However, tonight I wish to speak first and foremost on the electorate of Gregory. Since the redistribution, the electorate of Gregory has become one of great magnitude. Prior to the last State election, it covered an area of 430 000 square kilometres. Now, under the EARC redistribution, Gregory is a more diversified electorate of 360 000 kilometres. I want to speak for a little while about the electorate, because it is very diversified and probably one of the most important in Queensland. Mr McGrady: The second most important. Mr JOHNSON: I heard the honourable member for Mount Isa say that his electorate is very important. No doubt it is, because many great people live in that electorate. Some great wealth is generated from the electorate of Mount Isa, as is also generated from the electorate of Gregory. The electorate of Gregory now incorporates 12 local authorities. It always incorporated 12 and part of a thirteenth local authority. Now, the boundaries are extended to the east, and Gregory incorporates the Shires of Emerald and Bauhinia to the east and, to the south, the new part of Blackall from the old Warrego electorate. I am happy to say that I represent those people with great pride. I thank the people of the Gregory electorate for re-electing me to the Forty-seventh Parliament of Queensland. I can assure them that they will have here one fighter who is fighting every problem that confronts them in that great electorate. I have just mentioned the diversification of the Gregory electorate. The main areas of the electorate are probably its rural areas. However, I want to make mention of the new areas that my electorate has adopted at Emerald, which is a coal mining area. Emerald has the second-highest growth rate in Queensland, with a 10.6 per cent population explosion last year. It is a dormitory town to the great mines of Gordonstone and Gregory. In the very near future, it will also be a dormitory town to the new mine of Crinum that will open up. Last year, Emerald’s population grew by more than 1 200. Certain problems exist within the town of Emerald, but I will address those later. Mr Pearce: You look after the mines and I will look after the workers. Mr JOHNSON: I will look after the workers. I am pleased that the honourable member for Fitzroy mentioned the workers. The one thing about the Labor Party is that it has lost sight of its real base. It no longer represents the workers. The National Party represents the workers. As the great American civil rights leader, the late Dr Martin Luther King, said, “When you get to the top of the mountain, don’t forget the valley below.” That is exactly what members opposite have done; they have forgotten the valley below. Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1903

Mr Nunn interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Davidson): Order! The member for Hervey Bay will refrain from interjecting. Mr JOHNSON: As the honourable member for Fitzroy just said, “Don’t forget the workers.” There is not a chance in the world that I will forget the workers. Nobody in this Chamber has been up more dry gullies than I have, I will give him the mail. The one group I will not forget are the workers. I have worked with all facets of people within the rural industry. I understand their problems fully, and they are problems that still confront them today. Many of those problems are the result of the efforts of the Government in Canberra. However, I will give members opposite the mail: after 13 March we will try to resolve some of those problems. As I said, the electorate of Gregory covers a very diversified area. The main rural pursuits are probably wool growing and beef growing. We extend from the great Shire of Diamantina in the far west through to Comet in the Emerald Shire in the east. I would like to speak briefly on each of those subjects. The Emerald Shire is a very big horticultural shire, thanks to the vision of the former National Party Government when it gave the people of that area the Fairbairn Dam. That has enhanced the opportunity of people in that region to engage in horticulture. It is fast becoming one of the most important areas in Queensland. No doubt, the cotton industry in that area will become gigantic in the near future. It is almost the largest cotton-producing area in Australia at the moment. I believe that it will overcome the cotton-producing area of northern New South Wales. There is one industry that I want to pay a fair bit of attention to tonight, and that is the wool industry. The wool industry is probably the one industry in Queensland and Australia that is important to everybody. For the last 200 years, this nation has ridden on the sheep’s back. We can talk about our coal mining industry and we can talk about our mineral industry right across-the-board, the iron ore industry in Western Australia—the whole deal. But tonight I want to talk about the wool industry. Mr Nunn: You are riding on the back of the workers. Mr JOHNSON: Would the honourable member just listen to me for a minute, because I am addressing the worker. Mr Nunn interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hervey Bay! Mr JOHNSON: I will give the honourable member the mail now: it is not a laughing matter. The wool industry is on its knees. That worries me greatly. Just a couple of years ago, we saw the rug pulled on the floor price of wool. Now the industry is not only on its knees but on the bones of its backside. The one thing that I want to talk about tonight is the plight of the people within that industry. That industry governs a very large part of my electorate—the western part. My concerns are for those people who are in the industry and who are related to the industry. When I say “related to the industry”, I refer to the shearers, the ringers, the fencers, the drovers, the business people in town—the whole deal. Another thing that I want to point out to members opposite and make them conversant with is that if the graziers in places such as Longreach, Winton, Blackall and Barcaldine, which are wool-growing centres, are not spending their money in their respective towns, the towns feel the pinch. Those towns are on their knees. The business people in those towns are on their knees, and this is something about which we are greatly concerned. I am concerned about it. Every day, people come to me with their problems. I heard the honourable member for Redlands mention that people are coming through his door with problems. I can assure honourable members that those problems are widespread. No doubt members opposite have experiences of people coming to them with problems. We on this side experience that, too. But the one thing that I want to say about the wool industry—— Mr De Lacy: They’re a lot easier to solve from your side, aren’t they? 1904 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr JOHNSON: What was that? Mr De Lacy: They’re easier to solve from your side. Mr JOHNSON: The Treasurer thinks it is a joke. He is the greatest joke in this place. He is one pink feather short of being a proper galah. I would be quiet if I were him. I want to talk about the plight of the people in general. The wives of wool growers have been classified today as second-rate citizens. Those women have to help their husbands in the paddock. They assist with the drafting of sheep. They come home late at night and then they have to cook a meal. They also have to get their kiddies to bed. In addition, they have to educate their kids; worry about how they will pay the bills; and worry about how they will live for the next week, let alone for the next year. This applies to all women in the wool industry. It is of great concern to me, and it should be of great concern to every member of this Chamber. No doubt problems are being experienced in all rural industries, but I am concerned particularly about the wool industry. As honourable members are no doubt aware, in the near future, that industry will be in the vanguard of the fight back of this nation. If Government members were wool growers, I am sure that they would be listening to what I am saying. At present, time is running out for many of those people. Foreclosures have been executed by banks, the QIDC and agents—the whole deal. That is sad, because one cannot get blood out of a stone. Wool growers are in that predicament through no fault of their own. I turn now to Emerald which, as I mentioned, has the second fastest growth rate of any town in the State. Last year, that town had a 10.4 per cent population explosion. The schools in Emerald are facing certain difficulties. Last year, Emerald State High School had—— Mr Nunn: Very poor representation they’ve got. Mr JOHNSON: No, they have not. Last year, the Emerald State High School had 630 kids enrolled; this year, it has 690; and next year, it is expecting to have 815. Just prior to Christmas, that school had the rug pulled from under its public works program. Mr Welford: Oh, you want another school? Mr JOHNSON: I just want the facilities at the existing schools upgraded. The public works program was—— Mr Welford interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members will not interject from other than their usual seats. Mr JOHNSON: The rug was pulled from under that public works program. The situation is very grave at present. The public works program for the new financial year is to be submitted very shortly, even though last year’s program has not been honoured. That is a very unsatisfactory situation. The other point that I want to address—— Mr Livingstone: We were like that for 30 years in Ipswich. We never used to make the list. Mr JOHNSON: I will take up the point made by the honourable member. He wants to talk about Ipswich, but he should just listen to me for a minute. Earlier, I mentioned the growth in Emerald, which is attributable to the coalmining industry. That is the same source of growth as occurred in Ipswich 100 years ago. However, the honourable member is knocking the people of Emerald. Mr Livingstone interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Ipswich West! Mr JOHNSON: General education problems are being experienced throughout the Gregory electorate. I refer in particular to a little school which is located about 200 kilometres south of Longreach in a place called Jundah. That school has 22 kiddies and one teacher, as one would expect with that enrolment level. However, two special education children attend that school. Those students are very bad cases and they Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1905 need special attention. It has been difficult to obtain the additional assistance necessary so that those kiddies may have a decent education. Mr Welford: You are just so subtle, aren’t you? Mr JOHNSON: I would like to see the honourable member say that to the people who are faced with that problem. He represents the people of Stafford. I wonder how many people in the electorate of Stafford have children who need special education, yet he is treating this as a joke. He is a hypocrite. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Everton will cease interjecting from other than his usual place. Mr JOHNSON: I am very concerned for the families of those kiddies. I seek extra support so that those kids can receive some form of education. The teacher at the school arrives at work at 6.30 a.m., and on some afternoons he does not leave till 5 p.m. or 5.30 p.m. Considering the oversupply of graduate teachers available in this State, that is a shocking state of affairs. I turn now to health. Prior to the last State election, the Government promised an upgrading of the Barcaldine Hospital. That upgrading is long overdue, but I will be patient about it. I trust that, in the very near future, the public works program will announce a commencement date for that project. The Emerald Hospital causes great concern also. Unlike the schools in the area, due to the growth in population an upgrading program was carried out at the hospital a couple of years ago, and I will admit that it was done under the Labor Government. The upgrading resulted in what was formerly a 56-bed hospital having available how many beds? Only 37! However, that hospital needs a maternity section desperately. I believe that such a section will be constructed in Stage 2 of the redevelopment program. I will be patient about that, too, and trust that it will be forthcoming. Last year, some 300 infants were born at the Emerald Hospital. As more young families move into the region, no doubt an increase will occur in the number of children being delivered at that hospital. I mention also the dental services at the Emerald Hospital. There is a long waiting list at the public outpatients dental clinic. Ray Jonassen, the manager of the hospital, is doing a great job in trying to alleviate some of those problems. He assures me that in a very short while, with the construction of Stage 2, those problems will be addressed. I turn now to the Royal Flying Doctor Service. At present, the State Government is reviewing the Royal Flying Doctor Service. To date, no report has been available. Because it has not yet finalised what the Medicare payments will be, the Federal Government is hedging about its contributions to the Royal Flying Doctor Service. At present, the grants to the Royal Flying Doctor Service from the Labor Federal Government are in jeopardy. Last year, the Royal Flying Doctor Service aircraft in this State flew a total of 5 226 hours, which is an average of 14 hours for every day. The Royal Flying Doctor Service does a great job over a long period under difficult circumstances. For the 1990-91 financial year, the service showed a deficit of $1.19m, which caused a shortfall in the operation’s income. This was mainly due to the additional services that were provided in the Cape York region, with the agreement of the Minister for Health, and also the extra demand that arose because of the regionalisation of Queensland Health. Last year’s operational funding, excluding depreciation, comprised State Government funding of $2,536,695, which represented 36 per cent, and the Federal Government’s contribution of $2,251,695, which represented 32 per cent. A grant to the service, which amounted to $2,190,547, represented 32 per cent. In real terms, if the Federal Government’s 32 per cent contribution is withdrawn, the Royal Flying Doctor Service in the far west of this State will be in jeopardy. The Royal Flying Doctor Service is proud of the mantle of safety that it provides for people throughout the western and northern regions of Queensland. The honourable member for Barron River would know that the Royal Flying Doctor Service operates in Cairns; my colleague the honourable member for Mount Isa would know that the service 1906 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly has a base in that city; and my colleague the member for Warrego would know that the service has a base in Charleville. The Royal Flying Doctor Service carries out great work. I emphasise that the Government should pay attention to this service and that it should not let its funds be eroded away. It is vital that this service continue. It is of paramount importance to the people who live in those remote areas that this service be available to them. The other services that I want to mention are the Flying Surgeon Service and the Flying Gynaecologist Service. They provide a great service to all parts of the State, and it is essential that those services be continued in their entirety. One Flying Surgeon is based in Longreach and another Flying Surgeon is based in Roma. Both of those doctors—Dr Bob Spence in Longreach and Dr Tony Paul in Roma—do a fantastic job. I cannot pay a high enough tribute to those men because they work under very difficult circumstances and for prolonged hours. They do not know whether they can have a day off or a weekend off from one day to the next. They live by the telephone; that is how they live their lives. They are at the beck and call of the people in the far west, who cannot say enough about what those surgeons do for them. They appreciate greatly the doctors’ efforts. At this point, I want to make special mention of Dr Jim Baker, the Flying Gynaecologist. For many years, Jim Baker was a general practitioner based in Blackall. Recently, he has resided in Roma and has provided medical attention to the women of the west. I cannot speak highly enough of Dr Jim Baker and the service that he has given to the women in the far western and inner western areas of Queensland. Previously, some of those women had to travel to the coast for medical attention which, as honourable members would appreciate, was at great expense to themselves. Currently, because of the economic circumstances that confront people in the regional areas of the west, they cannot afford to travel to the coast to receive that attention. I owe a great deal to both the Royal Flying Doctor Service and the Flying Surgeon Service. I can safely say that had it not been for those services, I would not have a wife and two daughters. I nearly lost my wife when my first daughter was born in 1972. Thanks to the services of the Flying Surgeon, my wife was saved and my daughter was brought into the world. For that reason, I speak highly of that service and I speak very highly of the people who have worked in it since 1957. When the honourable member for Thuringowa, the Honourable Ken McElligott, was the Minister for Health, he unveiled a plaque in Longreach that paid tribute to the people who carry out that great service. On that occasion, I related that story about my wife and daughter. Also, when my second daughter was six weeks old, she had an acute attack of German measles, and her life was saved thanks to the Royal Flying Doctor Service. I use those two examples to illustrate how important the Royal Flying Doctor Service is to the western part of this State, and how important it is that it be retained as it presently exists. Mr De Lacy: We’re retaining them. You keep carrying on all the time, and we’re retaining them. Mr JOHNSON: I am pleased to hear the Treasurer say that. However, I am terribly worried about his Federal counterparts. Can he tell me what their intentions are? I want to make special reference to the aerial services in the west of the State. No doubt my colleague the Minister for Transport, who has just left the Chamber, will refer to the survey that was carried out in relation to aerial services in the far west of this State. That service receives financial assistance from the Government so that it can operate. However, as I mentioned to the Department of Transport officials when they visited me in Longreach, one of the most remote areas in Queensland is the little township of Birdsville, which is located in the far-western shire of Diamantina. It is approximately 900 kilometres from Longreach. If the Flight West aerial service could fly to Bedourie once a week, it would be of great benefit to the people who live in Bedourie. It would give them a once-a-week mail service from the eastern seaboard, and that is what we are all about—providing a service. Currently, their aerial mail service is provided by Augusta Airways from Port Augusta in South Australia. It takes nearly three weeks for their mail to Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1907 get from Port Augusta to Bedourie. The service then goes on to Mount Isa and back again. The mail then goes back through Adelaide, Melbourne and Brisbane. Those people are very disadvantaged. I hope that when the Government reviews submissions on those services, it will ensure that the people of Bedourie receive a weekly air service. The other aspect about which I wish to speak tonight relates to the cutback in funding by the State Government for the regional art development fund. The total funds available this year to all local authorities in the State have been around $150,000, due to declining interest on the $5m capital fund by which the program is funded. This issue is of importance to the people in the far-western part of this State. Many people in that area are involved in cultural societies and little cultural groups. There is one in Windorah called the Cooper branch or the Cooper region branch. It does a very good job. It provides ladies in that area with some sort of social outing. They travel a long way to attend at those groups. I know that one lady was travelling in from Mount Leonard station, which is about 200 kilometres west of Windorah, so that she could take advantage of that facility. It is a great set-up. I hope that in its forthcoming Budgets the Government will address this issue. Local authorities have been asked to pay for the adoption by this State of the freedom of information manual for use by councils. I do not know what the problem is with the Attorney-General’s Department. I notice that the Attorney-General is in the Chamber tonight. Local authorities in the west of this State are under enough pressure without asking them to pay for various bits and pieces for which they should not have to pay. This issue is of great concern. However, I simply raise these matters and trust that the Attorney-General will address them. I shall touch briefly on transport. No doubt, members have been waiting for me to get onto the subject of the GST. The transport problem in the Gregory electorate involves the demise of the railways. In the past four years, railway services in the west of this State have been cut back to nearly nothing. The small sidings are going. Jericho is almost nonexistent on the map. The maintenance on the line between Jericho and Blackall is just about zilch. I do not know whether the Transport Department is trying to close that line to Yaraka; but I give it the mail: I will keep reminding the department about that. This matter is of great importance to the Channel Country around Windorah, Birdsville and further out. Those areas do truck cattle out of Yaraka when they go through to Rockhampton and the central line. It is absolutely paramount that that facility be maintained as it is. When I became the member for Gregory, there were about six or seven railway houses in the town of Jericho. I was there recently, and I believe that the number is down to about two railway houses. One is about to go, and the gang is about to go. I am frightened that the school will also go because there will be no children left in the town. That will have a snowballing effect right across the community because of what is happening to those small communities. Mr Elliott: That’s their policy. That’s exactly what they’re trying to do. Mr JOHNSON: That is exactly it all right. I also want to talk about Queensland Rail’s attitude to the road transport industry. I have spoken at length with the general manager in Toowoomba. There is no greater supporter of QR than me. I have used its services all my life. From Quilpie I have trucked cattle, sheep and wool by rail, and will continue to do so. But Queensland Rail should stick to what it knows best, that is, steel wheels on steel tracks. It should let the road transport people deliver those goods to the railheads in those respective centres. In the past three years, we have seen the total disintegration of railway infrastructure and railway output in the remote and far-western parts of this State. It is a sad state of affairs. This Government has lost sight of where the dollars are generated. The minority provides for the majority. Time expired. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN (Chermside) (9.21 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise to contribute to this Address in Reply debate. I pay my respects to Her Excellency the Governor and wish her well in her work. However, I look forward to the day when this nation becomes a republic; a time when we can still have a Governor, but that 1908 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Governor’s role would be that of a titular head of State without the constitutional powers that currently reside in the role. Just as 1 January 1901 was an excellent date to start a federated Australia, so I believe that 1 January 2001 will be an excellent birth for our republic. In my maiden speech, I detailed my interest in the service industries. I shall confine my remarks mainly to these aspects of our Government in this debate. As well, I shall highlight how adversely Dr Hewson’s and the coalition’s Fightback will affect Queenslanders. The National and Liberal Party members of this House have taken pride in the financial management of their parties and Governments over the years. One key element, however, of Joh’s low-tax State was the low-service State. This was seen in the money allocated—or rather not allocated—to the service industries of police, nursing and teaching. Before 1989, the police were among the lowest paid in Australia, our nurses were the lowest paid in Australia, and our teachers were also the lowest paid in Australia. Since 1989, under the Goss Labor Government—one of Queensland’s greatest reforming Governments—our police have the equal highest pay. For example, a senior constable with 15 years of service has had a salary increase of about 26 per cent. The Government has allocated a record $452m to the Police budget, an increase of 9 per cent in just one year. Nurses have received pay increases of 14 per cent to 32 per cent, averaging 25 per cent, bringing them to the Australiawide standard. As well, our teachers, who were the lowest-paid teachers in Australia, have received average increases of 17.5 per cent, with principals’ salaries increasing by 30 per cent. As the Treasurer pointed out earlier, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Borbidge, is saying, “Look at this high-spending Government.” Of course we are spending money. We are spending it on police salaries, on nurses’ salaries and on teachers’ salaries—something which Opposition members, when they were in Government, did not do. It is an absolute disgrace when Mr Borbidge postulates in this place and accuses us of spending too much money, yet all his backbenchers cry out, “We want more police here. We want more nurses there. We want more teachers here.” They should get their act together and at least sing the same tune. The Goss Government has provided major increases in salaries for teachers. For 20 years I was in the teaching profession. It was sad to see the profession bleeding. Teachers were leaving the service. It was a shame to see such talent leave, often to private enterprise. Mr Elliott interjected. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: There is an annoying flea in my right ear. It sounds like the honourable member for Cunningham. Under this Government, that bleeding of the profession has stopped. The profession now has an extremely high retention rate. Teachers are saying, “We are being paid what we are worth. We can compare our salaries with those of our fellow teachers around Australia. We are satisfied.” Under the former Government, they were not satisfied. I wish to point out one dark side of the equation. A few police, nurses and teachers have simply taken the money, done little to improve their productivity and, in some cases, have become the most vocal critics of this reforming Government. They are people who, under the previous Government, did not raise a whimper in defence of their profession—did not raise their voices in one squeak of opposition when Joh was in power; yet, when they have a Government such as we have at the moment, they take the money and run, and then criticise. Some police, nurses and teachers need a brief lesson in modern history. They should remember the pathetic funding that came from previous National and coalition Governments into their professions and the service industries, and the absolute control that was exercised over staffing, transfers and funding in those industries. Often the staffing and transfers were based more on the political allegiance of the member than on the needs of the electorate. To that small minority of teachers, I say, “Wake up to the realities of Government, recognise the beneficial changes brought about by this Government and be constructively critical if there is something wrong. Do not throw the immature political tantrums that some of you are throwing.” To the vast majority of police, nurses and teachers I say, Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1909

“Congratulations. You have great responsibilities thrust upon you. You take up those responsibilities and carry out your job well. You are making a significant contribution to the quality of life of Queenslanders. We thank you for that.” I turn now to education. If Dr Hewson were to have his way, backed by the Liberals and Nationals in this House, the 5 per cent cutbacks to the Financial Assistance Grants would mean a loss of between $90m and $189m to Queensland’s education system. Let us look at the practical realities of that. The member for Gympie was talking about needing more of this and more of that. I invite him to finish his conversation and listen to my comments. If he and his colleagues get their way, class sizes will increase to 40, many small schools with fewer than 120 students will be closed, services will be cut, and many of the current 886 instrumental music teachers will have to go. If ever his coalition colleagues in Canberra get into Government, Queensland will lose from $90m to $189m in education. That includes cutbacks on LOTE, on maintenance, on capital works and to the Remote Area Incentive Scheme, not to mention the GST on uniforms, textbooks and bus travel. Recently, I asked a member of the Opposition for some information on the GST’s impact on education. It took a couple of days to come, and it is still not clear. Even if the GST is zero rated and people can claim back the GST they have paid, at the start of a school year when parents’ pockets are pretty empty after Christmas, they will still need the extra money up front to buy the school shoes, uniforms and books. That is if—it is a big “if”—a coalition Government zero rated that tax and there were a system whereby it could be claimed back. Mr Nunn: The parents can’t claim back. They can’t claim back. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: That is what an Opposition member who has a fair knowledge of economics told me. That is why I said “if”, but I am prepared to give him some leeway. Mrs Woodgate: He speaks with forked tongue. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: Since I have had a lovely meal at the canteen with my wife and family, I am feeling in a generous mood. Under the Goss Labor Government, the parents and citizens grants have risen 30 per cent to $4.2m. I grant that we have given the p. and c. associations more responsibilities, so it is not a total 30 per cent increase, but it is still a significant increase. As well, I would like to see Opposition members go back to their constituents and say, “Because of Dr Hewson’s cutbacks, we will have to cut the $52m computer program and the other programs that we wanted to introduce.” It is a disgrace. Under Dr Hewson’s Fightback plan, there will be a shift of school funding. This is a fairly delicate area. The non-Government schools will receive an extra $300m in recurrent grants and $80m in capital grants. Non-Government schools are very important. I taught in them for more than 20 years and my children attend local Catholic schools. I believe they have a role. But what was missing in Fightback was a commitment from the coalition to Government schools. There was no commitment to them. Just as in health, they are saying, “We’re shifting the balance of funding.” Mrs Edmond: There’s no guarantee to the parish schools, either. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I thank the honourable member; I was coming to that point. Even within the shift to the non-Government sector, the schools that are currently the best off are going to get the best deal under Dr Hewson. The vast majority of non- Government schools are the local parish schools which have the same problems as the local State schools. That is typical of what Dr Hewson, his coalition and the members on the other side of the House have supported. Under Labor Party policies, both Federal and State, all facets of education receive the extra funding. I agree with the increased funding to the non-Government schools. But, in common with this State Labor Government’s guarantee, there should be the concomitant increase to the Government schools. Without that guarantee, it is an unfair allocation of resources. Under Dr Hewson, there is no reference to funding of Government schools, which cater for about 70 per cent of our school population. 1910 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr Ardill: In the country it’s 100 per cent. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: Yes, in some of the remote areas it is 100 per cent, but some of the independent schools pick up some of that slack through the boarding schools, too. There is a little bit of give and take there. Under the Liberal’s plan, the cut in funding to the States will be a loss for education, and I deplore that. I turn now to the issue of police. Mr Horan interjected. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I take that interjection from the member for Toowoomba South. He said that with less tax there will be money in peoples’ pockets. I can hear the Catholic Education Commission and the Department of Education in Toowoomba saying, “We need four extra teachers there and two there. You’ve now got from Dr Hewson X dollars in your pocket. So we’ll now pass the hat around at Harristown High and Saint Xavier’s because Dr Hewson, under our plans, has given us this extra money in our pockets. I’ll get some money from you and we’ll employ the extra teacher.” What a farcical position. Honourable members opposite do not believe that it will happen; I know that it will not happen. That is what Dr Hewson has done. Mrs Woodgate interjected. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: Mrs Woodgate knows that it will not happen. It is a farce. It is the same thing that the Opposition spokesman on Health would have us do, too—“The same money in the pockets situation. We’ll whip around for some more nurses at St Vincent’s Hospital and Toowoomba General for the outpatients.” Let us wake up to the land of the living. Even an amateur fisherman from the north coast would know that it would not work. Prior to that interjection, I was about to speak about police. The National Party and the Liberal Party persistently call out in this House for more police and more resources. What a lovely, hypocritical statement! That is the group who, when in Government, allowed corruption to flourish to the very highest levels of the Police Service, and allowed morale in the Police Service to drop to the very lowest levels. I am glad to see that the Leader of the Opposition has come into the Chamber. The Opposition criticises us for not having computers connected to all police stations; yet, when it handed over the Police Service to us, what were the police using? They were using manual typewriters! That was the standard that was passed onto us, and the Opposition has the utter gall to criticise this Government for not having computers connected throughout the State. I cannot believe the thought process of people such as that. As well, some members opposite are crying that the crime rate is the worst that it has ever been. Wrong! Let us consider the crime figures. I will refer to the maiden speech of the member for Mount Ommaney, a former police officer, and if I am wrong he will certainly correct me. Do honourable members remember the “Under 100” book up at Mundingburra station was it, Mr Pyke? Mr Pyke: Yes. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: At that police station, if the crime related to articles valued at less than $100, and if there was no suspect and no witness, it was recorded in the “Under 100” book. No crime statistic number was allocated to that crime. After 12 months, it was wiped from the records. When Russ Hinze and other frauds stood up in the House and cited the crime figures, they were based on deceptions such as that. Those are the very crimes—the purse snatching, the break and enters, the petty thefts—which are now being mentioned at each Neighbourhood Watch meeting, month after month. They are now saying, “Purse snatched from a car in White Street. House broken into, some jewellery taken.” The very crimes which we are now allowing to be publicly spoken about, which have become part of the crime statistics, were not even admitted by Opposition members when they were in Government, and were fraudulently kept from public knowledge. That is a disgrace! The Liberals have a lot to answer for in relation to how they have treated our senior citizens. They have deliberately run a scare campaign targeting older people, especially Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1911 widows living by themselves. Some unprincipled Liberals and Nationals have taken over their local Neighbourhood Watch groups across the State and, in a planned and concerted effort, have tried to use fear as a political tool. The recent State election campaign is ample evidence of that. Honourable members would all remember the coalition advertisements about law and order. They would all remember the tactics of, “Let’s scare the old ladies. Let’s scare the elderly.” I refer to an article in the Courier-Mail dated 24 February on crime figures, which states— “Queensland is one of Australia’s safest states, according to the latest national crime survey. Queensland recorded Australia’s third-lowest rate in the Crime in Australia report, part of the International Crime Victims Survey last year . . . according to the survey of 4 018 Australians by Institute of Criminology researcher John Walker. . . . Mr Walker said the Canberra-based institute had found that Australia’s crime rate was generally better than most other industrialised countries. He said the survey showed Australia’s crime was widespread but mainly involved minor incidents which were not considered violent. ‘We don’t have the extremes of poverty and racial hatred as other countries, so generally our crime rate is better,’ Mr Walker said. The report rejects a previous survey by the Dutch Justice Ministry . . . Only 2.5 percent of the 883 elderly surveyed said they had been 1992 crime victims, while teenagers had the highest victim rate of 37.3 percent. . . . But Mr Walker said the amount of violence in Australia had been exaggerated by groups who had a vested interest. ‘The media selects the sensational violence, security companies need to sell their products, police need to increase their resources, politicians want votes, so there is an understandable vested interest in exaggerating crime.’ ” And the Liberals have turned into experts at that. Although there is a problem—and every Government member recognises that there is a problem—members of the Labor Party will not sink to the depths portrayed by Dr Hewson yesterday in his campaign launch. We will not rise to power by stepping on the bodies of victims as some members of the Opposition would wish to do. Fightback would result in the loss of approximately 563 police officers throughout the State if, according to Dr Hewson’s promise, his 5 per cent cutback becomes a guarantee. I hope he does break this promise if he ever gets into power. He has indicated there will be cutbacks in State grants of 5 per cent, and Treasury estimates that this will slash approximately $370m from this State’s Budget including approximately $31.7m from the police budget. This typifies the hypocrisy of some of the Opposition members on my right who continually call for more police officers while supporting Dr Hewson’s claim which will lead to a reduction in police numbers throughout the State. Moreover, the Leader of the Opposition jumps up and accuses this Government of spending too much money on police, nurses and teachers. It is no wonder that the opposition parties are represented in such low numbers in this Parliament. The people of Queensland do not take them seriously when they argue in that manner. Because of its decentralised nature, Queensland would suffer most, and the rural areas would suffer more than the urban areas. It therefore surprises me that some members of the Opposition have not jumped up and down about that. Crime will certainly flourish because massive cutbacks to vital police services will have to be made. The Goss Labor Government has recruited an extra 1 200 operational police officers since it came to office, but under the coalition’s plan, many of them would have to be sacked. 1912 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

I turn now to health services. Under the last five years of the previous National/Liberal coalition Government, the increase in health spending in this State was less than the CPI increase. Although this State had one of the fastest-growing rates of population increase of any State in Australia, the group of people who are now in the Opposition—and this is one reason why they are in the Opposition—could not even match the CPI increase for health funding. Mr Budd: What hypocrisy! Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: That is correct, and that is one of the points I have made. The low tax State about which Joh skited was based on the low levels of service given to Queenslanders in the three major service areas of police, nurses and teachers, and a fourth area of government, namely, family services. Mr VEIVERS: I rise to a point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Davidson): Order! There is no point of order. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: Under the Goss Government, there is an extra—— Mr VEIVERS: I have risen to a point of order. The honourable member will sit down. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I inform the member for Southport that there is no point of order. Mr VEIVERS: I rise to a point of order. This gentleman—the honourable member for wherever he comes from—related to Mr Hinze as a fraud, and I would like that remark withdrawn because it is unparliamentary. I would like him to withdraw it because it is most unparliamentary and untrue. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I will not withdraw. I said that the way that the figures were presented had been proven to be fraudulent, and that is factual. Mr VEIVERS: I rise to a further point of order. It is not parliamentary, and I ask the member to withdraw it. Mr CAMPBELL: I rise to a point of order. A member can only ask for withdrawal of a remark if it relates to him or her personally. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Southport can only ask the member for Chermside to withdraw the remarks if the words used were spoken against him. In this case, they were not, so there is no point of order. The member for Chermside may continue. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: As I was saying before that interruption, I can understand Mr Veivers’ loyalty to his former friend. There are many things that Mr Hinze did that benefited this State, but I will not resile from the fact that there are some elements which were not good. That has been proven to be one of them, and there is no need for me to apologise in any way. When things are done well, I will praise them; when they are done badly, I will criticise them. In the 1992-93 year alone, an extra $80m will be allocated to the health budget in this State. Over the last four years, the total increase has been $393m. There has also been an increase in staff, including an extra 700 nurses, just in the four-year life of this Government. In 1992-93, over 550 000 patients will be treated in this State’s hospitals—a record number, and an increase of 10 per cent over last year. Of course, the AMA and other disaffected groups have been leaking information to some members of the Opposition which would indicate that the Government’s programs are not working; yet, they are. Fightback would cut 11 per cent from the health budget—11 per cent. That is the equivalent of closing down the Prince Charles Hospital and every child and maternal welfare clinic across the State, and that is what these people are supporting. That is the policy these people are saying, “Vote for”. What a ridiculous state we would have. Fortunately, we have the Medicare agreement signed, which has great financial benefits to the State. Even the Liberal Premiers have signed it. They got in fast. They Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1913 knew that the Medicare agreement and the Medicare system were going to be beneficial. Queensland will receive an extra $69m in the first year under that agreement. Of course, bulk-billing would be abolished for the majority of Australian families under the coalition. I can just see the average Australian family saying, “Right, little John’s sick. Mary’s got the flu. Let’s duck down—oh, we can’t bulk-bill. Have you got $32? No? We’ll leave it go for the time being. We will see if she can make it through the night. We will go to the Rediteller first thing in the morning.” This is an absolute disgrace. Mr Bennett: They’ll turn to the hospital system—outpatients. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: Of course, and because they cannot bulk-bill, they will then go to the outpatients, to a system whose budget has been cut by 11 per cent by people who support Dr Hewson. The mind boggles. There is no logic. Under the threat of Dr Hewson and Fightback, most families will be worse off. There will also be the reduced Medicare rebate, and the $800 tax bill if one does not take out private health insurance. As someone said to me, the rich will get better and the poor will get sicker. It is not a system that I support, but it is a system that the AMA supports. Who is the AMA? It is one of our powerful unions in the State. It represents only about 22 per cent of doctors in Queensland and its union boss, Dr Bruce Shepherd, and some of the other leaders probably bring the union movement into a bit of disrepute. In every walk of life, we have our good and our bad people—politicians, teachers and doctors, and here we have these union leaders who, under the guise of the AMA, basically are doing the work of the Federal Liberal Party, because some private doctors and some specialists will be better off under Fightback. Let there be no mistake as to what the AMA is all about. It is a political action group. One has only to read in the AMA journal of the Toowoomba branch of the AMA skiting about how it took on Dr Flynn and how it used its political clout to get rid of someone who only had a 200-vote majority. Members of the AMA finally came out of the closet. What had they done? They were cowardly. They hid behind patient care. What were they protecting? They were protecting their hip pockets. Mr Horan interjected. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: It is a bit of a shame that a person who is not an unreasonable guy—the member for Toowoomba South is not a bad sort of person and I have great respect for him—was sucked in by the half-truths and the lies of the AMA. He, Mr Borbidge and Mrs Sheldon have been jumping up, selectively asking questions and being knocked for six by the Health Minister. Yes, they can get one little bit of information, but when they get the whole picture, when they see what is being done, it does not stand up. I would prefer the AMA to be honest and say, “We are here as a union to get better pay and better conditions for our members and we will take on the Labor Government.” If the AMA were more honest, I think that it would be more palatable, but it is not. As I said, it hides behind patient care, and that is not what it is there for. Mrs Edmond: They should just come out and say, “We just want a mere 60 per cent pay rise.” Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: That is right, a mere 60 per cent pay rise. The AMA is saying, “Our doctors can’t speak out. They’re being silenced by our Health Minister.” The same rules apply to public servants now as they did when members on the Opposition side of the House were in Government. There are lots of things to say. Our public health system was well managed under the previous Health Minister, Mr McElligott, and it is being well managed under Mr Hayward. The public hospitals are more efficient than the private hospitals. The public hospitals are also the training hospitals without which the private hospitals could not screen off the people whom they want. The Government has also been criticised for its administration of the regional health authorities. Under regionalisation, only 0.8 per cent of the total health budget goes to the regional offices. I am proud to be a member of this Government—a Government which has put money into the service industries. It has backed the 1914 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly teachers. It has backed the police. It has backed the nurses. It has not done what the Liberals and Nationals did for years. I support the Government. Time expired. Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (9.51 p.m.): I have pleasure in taking part in this Address in Reply debate. I would like to pledge my loyalty and that of my constituents through the Governor to Her Majesty. It is a pity that a few more members on the Government side do not think along those lines. I was horrified to hear the previous speaker in the debate also espousing republicanism. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr ELLIOTT: I will tell honourable members about my police stations in a minute. I would like to talk about a few subjects in relation to the last election campaign. In common with many other members in this place, I represent a very changed area and an electorate that is very different from the electorate that I had represented for many years. I take this opportunity to thank those people who assisted me in the campaign to win that changed electorate. In particular, I thank my family for the sacrifices that they have made. I know that all honourable members are in the same position. Because of our particular choice of jobs, our families go through hell at times. Some spouses were lucky enough to choose to marry a politician but most of them are what one might call conscripts. As such, they might not necessarily enjoy that at all. Honourable members must all remember that. I also thank my secretary. Because of the change in the Cunningham electorate, the electorate office had to be located somewhere other than where the original office was in Oakey. As it turned out, we opted to put the office in Pittsworth because the services are probably more central to the electorate and more people can get to the office more easily than if it were located anywhere else. My secretary was with me for 12 years. She had to change her employment because it was not practical for her to drive from her home every day to Pittsworth; it was just too far. I place on record my thanks to her for the tremendous loyalty that she has shown to me during all of that time. It is a long time to work for anyone, particularly in this job. Mr Beattie: Particularly for blokes like you. Mr ELLIOTT: That is right. That is probably what she is thinking, but never mind. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr ELLIOTT: We take them in good faith. The old story is that if one gives it out, one has to take it occasionally. All of us should be aware of just how much voluntary assistance is given to us by members of the community in respect of our various campaigns. I would like to thank my joint campaign directors, one of whom was my campaign director for 20 years. He was actually the chairman of my electorate council before I was elected to Parliament. He has been either secretary or chairman of the electorate council for 20 years, which is a fair while. He has only just given it away. Mr Beattie: And he has had to put up with you all that time? Mr ELLIOTT: I found him very easy to put up with; I hope that he found me as easy to put up with. His name is Peter McIntyre. I thank Lila Hanlon, who has been the campaign secretary and my electorate council secretary all of that time, too. I also thank Paul Antonio, who at the last election was the other joint campaign director. He has taken on the electorate council chairmanship. I thank all of the other committee members and people who were involved in the campaign. I certainly look forward to the challenge of this changed electorate. It is very different. I am enjoying it immensely. In particular, I find it interesting and rewarding to represent Goondiwindi. I know that the people of Goondiwindi have been very fortunate in having had the now member for Warwick and previous member for Carnarvon as their very able representative. They speak very highly of him. When he was first running for that electorate, many people said that he was too young and that he was this and that. But he showed all of the other candidates a clean pair of heels, as he did in Warwick. No Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1915 doubt he will do the same at the next election and in every other election in which he runs. Regardless of his age, he is very capable. He gets in there and does his job. After all, that is what people expect their representative to do. As I said, I am finding the Goondiwindi part of my electorate particularly interesting. The people who live in the remote Waggamba Shire in my electorate have not had very easy access to politicians and their offices. Many of us who have represented electorates in the Darling Downs area find that people greatly appreciate any work that is done for them. I find that when I have worked on a problem that those people have, they are—— Mr Beattie: Very good people. Mr ELLIOTT: They are good people. That is right. They are very appreciative of what people do for them. I am finding that particularly rewarding. I am also delighted to have had returned to my electorate the whole of the Clifton Shire, which the electorate lost in the previous redistribution. I guess that I never really lost contact with those people. I always used to go to the Clifton Show, anyway. I used to take part in the brick-carrying contest at the show. Mr Beattie: Did you win it? Mr ELLIOTT: I used to win it regularly, but I must confess that, in the last two years, I got rolled. It is a rather sore point. However, I came second. Mr Beattie: You’ll have to start using your head. Mr ELLIOTT: I will have to get out there and train. I used to be able to come in off the grass and do it. Those days are obviously gone. Maybe I will have to get out there with Wayne and run up and down the road. Mr Beattie: On the bike. Mr ELLIOTT: I will not get on the bike with him in all that traffic. I will do it out in the sticks somewhere. I am also pleased to have the whole of the Cambooya Shire back in my electorate. I have always represented part of it. Before the second-last redistribution, I used to represent the whole of it. I was sorry to lose the Rosalie and Jondaryan Shires. It is one of those things. One never looks back. It is the old story: he who carries a grudge carries a weapon against himself. I think all members in this place ought to remember that, if they remember nothing else. I picked that up from Bob Moore. Bob Moore used to say all sorts of fairly outlandish things in this place and sometimes people took umbrage at some of them. However, underneath all of his bluster, Bob Moore had a lot of down-to-earth, good common sense. I found that to be one of his best sayings. A member should not wander around this place with a sour look on his face being concerned about the things that happen to him, because they will happen to him every day of the week. Somebody will do something to someone, and that person will not like it. If that person cannot walk out of here, walk away from it, go home and forget it, then he is in real trouble. He should not be in this place. He does not belong in here, believe me. That is something that everyone has to consider. Mr Gibbs: Can you just repeat that. I want to write it down. Mr ELLIOTT: I will not bother. I will tell the Minister afterwards. If he comes and sees me afterwards, I will give it to him in fine detail. I now find it interesting to represent parts of Toowoomba. Approximately 8 500 people who live in Toowoomba are now in the Cunningham electorate. Many people in other parts of the electorate are critical of that. However, I am finding it interesting and rewarding. Every time I come to Brisbane I drive through Toowoomba, and I often attend functions in Toowoomba, so it is easy for me to go and see people there. They live in a relatively small area. That is one of the interesting things about representing such an area. When a member suddenly has to work in an area such as Toowoomba, it is relatively simple for him to go to someone’s home rather than having to get that person to come to his office. Because it is such a small area, it is just as easy to go to someone’s home to see him personally. I am finding that that is probably the easiest way to handle that patch. The main schools in that area are the State schools of Drayton, Middle Ridge, Gabbinbar and Darling Heights. All of 1916 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly those schools are placed under great strain because of the growth that is occurring in that region. There are plenty of growth areas in this State. If the Government does not keep up services— particularly educational services—in such areas, young children will suffer the consequences of its inaction. I want to touch on a couple of specific problems that have been brought to my attention. Recently, I visited the Drayton State School. That school needs a new toilet block desperately. It does not speak well for this Government if it does not ensure that Q-Build—— A Government member: Did you make representations? Mr ELLIOTT: Yes, I have. Mr T. B. Sullivan: What sort of maintenance has gone on in the place for the last 10 or 15 years? Mr ELLIOTT: Very good maintenance. However, the very steep increase in the population and the new development occurring in the area results in a huge influx of children each year. The school is finding it difficult to accommodate the increasing population. I urge the Government to assist in that regard. As all honourable members are aware from recent publicity, the police are certainly facing an uphill battle. From the statistics contained in the Police Service annual report, it is evident that the police in Toowoomba are more effective than those in just about any other area in the whole of Australia, let alone in Queensland. The clean-up rate of the Toowoomba police is higher than that of any other area. The Toowoomba police are assisted in that regard by Neighbourhood Watch and similar programs. It ill behoves the Government not to provide the necessary resources to enable the Toowoomba police to continue their fine efforts. The level of police resources provided in Queensland is much lower than that provided in other States. Toowoomba has certain trouble spots, such as the mall and some of the inner city areas, but the police have those areas well and truly covered. The aim now is to maintain a police presence in the outer areas of Toowoomba and around the schools. Recently, an extremely bad case of vandalism occurred at a school in the Toowoomba area. To achieve that aim of a police presence around schools, whether the Government likes to admit it or not, an additional police vehicle is required in the Toowoomba area. In addition, to keep that vehicle operational at all times, some 10 extra personnel are required. The Toowoomba police deserve support so that they can continue the fine results that they are achieving. I would not like to see Toowoomba become the Bronx of Queensland. At present, things are nowhere near that bad, but with the social problems that are emerging and the rising unemployment rate the potential is there. Toowoomba is more likely to be subjected to crimes such as vandalism than the sorts of other crimes that are committed in Brisbane. The crime rate is of great concern to everyone. I am calling tonight for those extra resources to be provided. The members who represent the various parts of Toowoomba have long called for those extra resources. My colleague the member for Toowoomba South and my colleague the member for Toowoomba North have been part of that call, as has Russell Cooper, as the Opposition spokesman on Police and Emergency Services. We are all acutely aware of the need for those resources. Having been Toowoomba’s most popular radio announcer and having had the public talk to him regularly, the member for Toowoomba North, Graham Healy, has long had an appreciation of that need. It is important that the Government recognises the need and does something about it. I turn now to health services in Toowoomba. In common with my colleagues, I am concerned about the way in which services in country areas are falling apart. It is happening up in Mackay and all over the rest of the State. It is occurring because the Government has appointed a completely new middle-level bureaucracy at a regional level which has caused an enormous cost impost. In the past, the members of hospitals boards who worked for a plateful of sandwiches once a month fulfilled the role that the Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1917 middle-level bureaucracy is now carrying out in regional centres. Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg, the Gold Coast—— Mr Stephan: Gympie. Mr ELLIOTT: Gympie as well, and inland at Toowoomba—all of those centres now have that middle-level bureaucracy. As with any bureaucracy, there is a tendency for people to empire build; to try to build their little areas into a bigger and more important centre. Whether Government members like it or not, that happens in the public service if it is not kept under control. Because of the establishment of that bureaucracy and the resultant huge salary increases, which were not budgeted for, health services in regional areas are being shot to pieces. Treasury did not allocate the money for those salary increases, and the Government is trying to recover that money by cutting services to the public. The Government is reducing elective surgery for patients in Brisbane. Many of my constituents travel to Brisbane to try to have elective surgery performed, which means that the Government is also reducing services to those people. Elective surgery at the Princess Alexandra Hospital and the Mater Hospital will be suspended for two weeks, while at the Royal Brisbane Hospital it will be suspended for three weeks. Many problems are occurring with outpatients centres in many of the major hospitals throughout Brisbane, which are suffering from staff shortages. Those people are at the coalface and do all the work. They are not the bureaucrats, who do not cure anyone. They only push around paper and tell other people what they ought to be doing—and not always very successfully. I suggest to the Government that it gets back to the basics and does something about the health system in this State before it falls apart totally. I turn now to the EARC report. Quite frankly, when Labor members were in Opposition, they posed and said how they were going to support the findings from the Fitzgerald inquiry and the recommendations in the EARC report. However, when those Labor members came to power, they did not do a thing. They are a mob of wimps. They said that it did not concern them. The member for Mount Isa, Tony McGrady, and the member for Cook, Mr Bredhauer, are the only Labor members who have been affected greatly by the redistribution. However, because Tony Mr McGrady is a Minister and has ministerial staff, he can get by. Labor members who were previously members of the Opposition said that they believed in reform. However, they went on television—and I saw them—mouthed platitudes and said that there would be no problems with the larger electorates, because the members of those electorates would be given two, maybe three, electorate officers, and that the members for those larger electorates could even use helicopters or aeroplanes. I saw those Government members on television saying those things. I will get the footage and show them if they do not believe what I am saying. They will rue the day that they said those things, because they will have to eat their words. The Labor Government has done absolutely nothing about the larger electorates. My electorate is small compared with the electorates of my colleagues the member for Gregory and the member for Warrego. Their problems are far greater than mine. Mr Ardill: Who needs assistance? Mr ELLIOTT: The members for those electorates do need assistance. I could ride a bicycle around the honourable member’s electorate in five minutes. In my electorate, I have to look after part of a city. My electorate also contains Goondiwindi, Millmerran, Pittsworth, Clifton and Cambooya and many other smaller towns. I am trying to deal with the same types of problems that occur in the city. The Labor members in Bundaberg and Rockhampton deal with the same problems. The same problems occur in Toowoomba. Mr Ardill: You wouldn’t know. Mr ELLIOTT: Hundreds of people from throughout the State come to me asking for Housing Commission houses in my electorate. My electorate has a waiting list for Housing Commission houses that is as long as my arm. Electorates such as mine are not looked after; they only acquire the problems. Labor members have placed Housing 1918 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Commission houses in their own electorates, and electorates that are held by Opposition members do not receive any. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr ELLIOTT: The member for Brisbane Central is saying something which is totally untrue and which is not becoming of him. Time and time again I made representations for more Housing Commission houses in my electorate. Housing Commission areas can be placed in many parts of my electorate because the need for them is great, and it is important to understand that electorates such as mine have housing problems. Members of country electorates need backup and support. We were told that we would be given four-wheel drives. However, they have been give only to a handful of members. To represent my electorate properly, I have had to buy myself a four-wheel drive. I am not complaining about that. Mr Vaughan: How often do you really need a four-wheel drive? Mr ELLIOTT: Time and time again, because I drive on unsealed roads. I drive off the highway onto dirt roads. I have to meet my commitments at the other end of my electorate the next day or later the same day. At the moment, my electorate is in drought, but when it rains again—which it will—it will flood, and water will be running over the roads because the Labor Government has not built the bridges that are required. In common with the members in the north of the State along the coastal highway, my electorate experiences such problems. Members of country electorates need more charter allowances. Quite often, I have to fly to Goondiwindi and Yelarbon as well as meet commitments in the other parts of my electorate. However, I cannot do that unless I spend my own money—which I do. However, I am saying that Labor members are a mob of frauds. They postulated and said that they would support EARC and the members in far-flung areas. I do not consider myself to be in a far-flung electorate. However, my electorate is the thirteenth largest electorate in this State, which is not very big when it is compared with the electorates of my colleagues. Mr Mackenroth: We gave you a 008 number. Mr ELLIOTT: Yes, and I thank the honourable member for that. I appreciate it. Mr Mackenroth: More than you ever gave me. Mr ELLIOTT: Obviously, the Leader of the House was not present when I said, “He who carries a grudge carries a weapon against himself.” He has demonstrated that fact. He is a bitter and twisted man. He is still carrying grudges from the early 1980s. I am saying that members of large, country electorates need car phones. I have spent a fortune in a powerful set up. I have a small telephone that I can use in Brisbane, but it has a booster, and when I am in my car, people can contact me when I am driving around. People in Toowoomba want to contact me. The Leader of the House was a member of Cabinet that said that it would support the provision of car phones to members. However, the Government has not delivered. Once again, this Government is long on promises and short on delivery. Mr Mackenroth: We are moving on that. Mr ELLIOTT: That is good. I am pleased about that. As members, we need a lot of electronic equipment to back us up so that we are accessible at all times to our constituents. Why should the constituents of Opposition members be any different from those of Government members? Why should my constituents not be able to get hold of me if they have a problem? Mr T. B. Sullivan: You had the chance to do this in Government. Why didn’t you do it then? Mr ELLIOTT: In 1989, Mike Ahern gave the Opposition a whole lot of services. The member knows that. He must admit that Mike Ahern was the first person to break the old attitudes towards the Opposition. I turn now to roads. There has been a virtual collapse of shire roads through the channelling of funds into national highways. That started in the days of Whitlam, and carried through into the Hawke era. Hawke’s Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1919 tremendous approach to local government has seen a whole generation of shire chairmen and other people working in their shires and giving their time for nothing. They are just about destroyed. They feel that they are wasting their time. In many cases, shire roads are reverting to gravel. While the Deputy Premier is in the Chamber, I should like to address a few points. Over four weeks ago, I wrote to him and suggested the establishment of a joint parliamentary task force to go out and talk to councils, chambers of commerce, primary industry bodies, locals, farmers, traders, pensioners, and so on. I told Mr Burns that I was prepared to organise such a task force. I told him that the Opposition was prepared to put politics aside in the interests of working towards services for the community. But what has happened? Not a whisper have I heard back. In over four weeks, I have not even received a letter from him. The claims by this Government that services are not being cut is a whole bagful of cowardly lies. The Government must face up to this problem, and act now. But it is doing nothing about it. The Deputy Premier must see the problem for himself and speak with people. Occasionally, he visits country areas. But he must have his ears closed. He should be dragged—kicking and screaming, if necessary—out there so that his naive illusion will be shattered. Small towns have virtually been paralysed. Operating a business in that area now is like being in a straitjacket. This problem does not relate solely to my electorate. All country people have the same sorts of problems, such as the scaling back of ambulance services and escalating crime. I ask members to consider what is happening with police districts and the shortage of police numbers. What about the cutback in the DPI? Country courthouses are gone. I have already mentioned the health regionalisation, so I will not go over that issue. Primary producer assistance is totally inadequate. The whole DPI has been shot to pieces. Youth unemployment is 6 per cent higher on the Darling Downs than it is in other country areas. The Government has stripped services without providing alternatives for people. People have to drive hundreds of kilometres to get things done. My office is inundated with complaints. Luckily, I have set it up in an area where people can actually reach me—not in Toowoomba. That is important. The Deputy Premier, Mr Burns, should stop cowering. He should face up to his responsibility and stop treating those people like dirt. He would be aware that there are human lives and families living beyond the Great Dividing Range. We need positive action, not just people who talk about it. The Government should be doing something about those people’s lives, not scoring political points. We can work together, and it is about time that we did. The people expect all members to work together on this issue, even if we do not on any other. They are not interested in politics. What they want is action. And when do they want that action? They want that action right here and now. I challenge the Deputy Premier to stop postulating. He goes out to those areas, puts on a big hat and some elastic-sided boots, and pretends to be interested in the problems. He is a likeable fellow. He and I get on well. We have discussions about fishing and all sorts of things. I find him very pleasant company. But I must say that although he goes out to those areas, he does not deliver when he comes back to Brisbane. Time expired. Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (10.21 p.m.): It is really disappointing to come into this Chamber and listen to members of the Opposition who will not acknowledge what has been done. Mr Elliott interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): Order! The member for Cunningham has already had a fair go. Mr CAMPBELL: Last year, when I went to Charleville, I saw the great work that was done by the Goss Labor Government in that town. A town that was devastated was changed, cleaned up and given services that it had never had before. That was a great tribute to this Government and what it does for rural people. It annoys me to hear members of the Opposition say that ambulance services are being run down. There are now 102 local ambulance committees whereas, when this Government came to office, 1920 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly there were only 96. Queensland now has an aerial ambulance service which, even from Bundaberg, will service the most western parts of Queensland. That aerial ambulance service covers a larger area than ever before. Yet Opposition members have the temerity to say that people in remote areas are receiving fewer services. The member for Gregory spoke about the number of hospital beds. That is how he measures services. The number of hospital beds is being reduced in some areas because the services that are being provided are getting people out of those beds more quickly. Secondly, hospital beds are not being used for nursing home beds. In the past, hospitals were built and used as nursing homes. We have the Flying Doctor, the Flying Surgeon, the Flying Gynaecologist, and now the mobile breast-screening clinics. Queensland has more rural health services than ever. Opposition members should not make generalisations that are not based on fact. Opposition members raised the question of public health services. The basic rural health services are public health services. There are no private health services in the country. If Opposition members want to maintain those services, the best thing they can do is to oppose Fightback. The spokesmen for the coalition said that the coalition will be taking $1 billion out of the public hospital system. Mr T. B. Sullivan: 1.3 billion. Mr CAMPBELL: Yes, $1.3 billion. That will mean that services will be cut in country areas, probably more than in the city, because country areas rely on the public health system. Mrs Edmond: They will be forced to pay for private health that they don’t have access to. Mr CAMPBELL: That is so. They will have to use the Ambulance Service, which now covers the whole of Queensland. I am sure that all parliamentarians, after they have been here for a while, realise that they are here not only because of the work that they have done but also through the hard work that is done for them by many dedicated people. All honourable members can recall the people who have worked hard for them. In Bundaberg, there are people who have worked for the Labor Party for decades, not merely for one or two election campaigns. I wish to acknowledge Gerry Goding, who has had a fall and is not in the best of health. Gerry is a life member of the AWU and of the Australian Labor Party. Even during the Labor split, he remained loyal to the Australian Labor Party. When times are tough, we realise why we are here. We are representing a people’s party, a party that believes in social justice and works for the workers’ movement. Those people have put the time into the party and we owe it to them. I pay tribute to people such as Matt Tallon and Jim Blake who have served the Australian Labor Party for decades. As well, Opposition members could recall people whose services they appreciate. That is what they work for. Earlier today, I listened to the debate on the condolence motion for Bill Lickiss. Bill had a great love for the Westminster system. At times, I become concerned at the culture that we have in the Parliament. I do not know if it is going the right way. We need a parliamentary system which basically provides a place in which to speak. That implies that, if members are to speak, other members should listen. Often, I hear members speaking for hours in this Chamber late at night and no-one is listening to them. In the United Nations, delegates speak about peace, yet today we have more wars in the world than we have ever had before. Mr FitzGerald: It’s hard to listen when they just read speeches. Mr CAMPBELL: I am not reading my speech, which is important. Members of Parliament should consider seriously parliamentary sitting times. I think that Parliament sits for too long each day. At present, late-night sittings are the norm rather than the Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1921 exception. I believe that we should sit for four days and not sit late at night. It has reached the stage at which members are rostered to be present in the Chamber. That is not what Parliament is all about. It is about representing the people; it is about having something to say to which people will listen. If some members were to speak less, other members might listen more. During this session, Friday sittings of Parliament have been scheduled. I believe Fridays should be days on which we debate only legislation, notice of which has been given the previous night. Because political parties like to pull stunts, the Opposition does not trust the Government and the Government does not trust the Opposition. As members elected to make good laws for the people of Queensland, we should consider setting aside Fridays solely to deal with legislation, without the antics and the cut and thrust of politics. Due notice should be given of the Bills that will be debated. If that legislation is finished by 4 o’clock, we should adjourn; if it is finished earlier, we should adjourn. In that way, we would spend a minimum period to produce a maximum amount of legislation. I turn now to the goods and services tax. I raise the aspect of the impact of that tax on small business. Until I spoke to a person today, I did not realise the costs that he would incur as a result of that tax. In the past, Opposition members were outraged that the new land tax arrangements would increase rents. Will not GST increase rents? Yet Opposition members support that tax. They support a massive increase in rents. Mr Horan: It’s a rebated cost. Mr CAMPBELL: It is all rebated, but it still has to be paid. Landlords will pay the goods and services tax on water, electricity, sewerage, general rates, and so on. Do honourable members believe that, when calculating rent, landlords will take into account each specific item of goods and services tax that they pay? Mr Slack: But why is the Small Business Association supporting it? Mr CAMPBELL: Because of its political affiliation. The person who was concerned about an increase in his rent—the person about whom Opposition members are not concerned now with the goods and services tax—told me that he will have to pay $2,000 for a cash register to be able to collect the tax. With land tax, the increase in rent was outrageous to Opposition members, but now they do not mind an increase in rent to take account of the GST. That is a cost that the small businessman will incur and which he will have to pass on to other people. I represent the Bundaberg sugar industry. It is interesting that many honourable members have talked about the different sugar packages proposed during the election campaign. The Federal member for Hinkler received a bashing from several members on the other side of the Chamber, especially the member for Barambah. However, the member for Gladstone gave sterling support for the honourable member for Hinkler. It is difficult to accept that the National Party candidate for Hinkler, Mr Paul Neville, is prepared to accept the sugar deal that the coalition is proposing, and say that it is a better sugar deal than that which the Government is proposing. The Bundaberg area, which is mostly land-locked, is one area that is disadvantaged by the coalition sugar package. It is disadvantaged because most of its sugar is in the No. 1 Pool. If the coalition cuts out the tariff, that will dilute the price of the No. 1 Pool and reduce proportionally the income of the Bundaberg sugar industry. It is pathetic that a member of the National Party wants to represent that sugar industry and is prepared to accept a package which will adversely affect the sugar industry, thereby reducing the sugar income to our district. 1922 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Mr FitzGerald: Bonanno made statements. Mr CAMPBELL: Some districts will be better off and some districts will be worse off under the coalition, and the Bundaberg sugar industry is one that will be worse off. Mr FitzGerald: Where does Bonanno come from? Mr CAMPBELL: He comes from Childers, which is a cooperative mill area and one that can expand when they have water. It is a different story altogether. Mr FitzGerald: Is that in Hinkler? Mr CAMPBELL: Yes, it is in Hinkler. It is a pity that he was speaking about what he regarded as the whole industry rather than the district. It is disappointing to know that a prospective member of the National Party who wants to represent Hinkler is prepared to accept a package that will reduce the income of those involved in the Bundaberg sugar industry. Do honourable members know what the international year of 1992 was? It was the International Year of Space. It would have been a great year to have had concrete plans for a spaceport in Cape York. I say that because I believe that there is a future in Queensland for space industries. I believe that the added impetus for a space industry may come from the latest report for the development of the RAAF base Scherger at Peppan, Cape York. Perhaps a great deal of the infrastructure for that base would also complement the Cape York spaceport. They did look in some detail at some of the aspects by which we could combine the RAAF base up there—— Mr FitzGerald: Who is “they”? Mr CAMPBELL: It is the report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, which was released in late 1992. That committee looked at the development of the RAAF base Scherger at Peppan, on Cape York peninsula in Queensland. It looked at the development of a spaceport, including the distance from the RAAF base to possible spaceports sites; the possibility of an RAAF and spaceport using common facilities at the RAAF base; and problems which may arise as a result of the location of a spaceport on Cape York. In its conclusion, the committee found as follows— “The use of the site at Peppan by the RAAF would not be incompatible with, and could be complementary to, future space port developments on Cape York.” I believe that the Parliament should take the initiative and see what can be done to take positive steps to develop that spaceport in Queensland. The spin-offs are not just for the spaceport, but for industries throughout Queensland and Australia. When a rocket leaves Cape Canaveral, the components in that space rocket come from 25 states of America, which demonstrates that one does not have to just be at the spaceport to reap the benefits of it. I recommend that a parliamentary committee look at the development of a space industry in Queensland. While serving as a member of Parliament, several things have happened that disturb me and that I do not like happening in Queensland, such as the personal liberties of individual Queenslanders being attacked. I was reminded of that when the Trinity Bay issue was raised, and when Mr Lester, the member for Keppel, raised the issue of the CJC and said that he was going to protect it. He said, “Don’t touch it.” What hypocrisy from that person who, as Police Minister, gave the approval for the CJC Chairman and the Police Commissioner to destroy thousands of Special Branch files on individual Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1923

Queenslanders. That was one of the most regrettable days in the history of Queensland. Many people’s lives and careers had been stopped; they had not been given a chance in Queensland, and they never had a chance to find out what adversely affected them. Mr Bennett: Or defend them. Mr CAMPBELL: Or to defend them. I believe that that was one of the worst actions that was taken. I believe that some of those reports may be with ASIO. I say to Queenslanders that if they feel that they have been given a bad deal in the past, they should find out if they can see those files. Many lives have been destroyed by the Special Branch of the CJC. I was reminded also that the CJC had an overview of Operation Trident. I believe that that was one of the most disgraceful episodes that ever occurred in the history of the police force. To think that that body oversaw the actions of police in deliberately stealing cars from Queenslanders and that they thought they had the right to do it! I think that that is something of which we should all be ashamed. To think that we allowed that type of operation to be conducted by the police! I will wait with extreme interest to read the Carter report. But I believe that all members of Parliament have a responsibility to ensure that a similar incident does not happen again and that neither the police nor the CJC will ever again have the powers that will enable them to deliberately take from the people of Queensland. I was even more concerned that under the present Act the Parliamentary Committee for Criminal Justice had no chance of stopping an operation of that type. I do not know whether any briefing was given in relation to Operation Trident, but what if a committee member had raised his concerns publicly? If he had, he could possibly have faced criminal charges brought by the Chairman of the CJC, whereas with hindsight it could well be considered that the issues were raised justifiably, because the incidents, in terms of civil rights and individual rights, were evidently bad. I do not believe that the privileges of Parliament should be subjected to the whims of someone such as the Chairman of the CJC. There was no other way, apart from the media and the Courier-Mail in particular, that Operation Trident could ever have been stopped. Queenslanders suffered thousands of dollars in loss, stress and mental hardship which was all caused by a system that allowed it to happen. I believe that honourable members should take on board the situation concerning Operation Trident and make certain that it never happens again. The citizens of Bundaberg are privileged to have received services from the Goss Government. Construction of the Burnett River traffic bridge is being undertaken. Already, the prestressed beams have been manufactured. Bundaberg also has a great TAFE college and a marine college that is probably the best in Queensland. My electorate now also has child-care services that were developed through TAFE last year and have been developed this year through the YMCA, which will give us some of the best child-care services in Queensland. A police station that was put on hold for over a decade by the previous National Party Government—and it was needed during that decade but even more so now—has been planned. The area also needs a DPI facility. A matter that has concerned me greatly is what is being said by members of the Opposition about the public health system. Times are tough and we should be trying to bring the resources of the public and private health systems together so that the provision of those services becomes more efficient and effective. However, the AMA is effectively dragging those two service spheres apart. I believe that the AMA should be ashamed that it is putting its own pocket and greed before the needs of the people of Queensland and Australia. I say that because more health services are being provided in the Bundaberg area presently. For example, a psychiatric unit was constructed and 1924 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly opened as recently as last year in Bundaberg. Probably within the next three years, there will be the total redevelopment of the Bundaberg Hospital. Some of the facilities at the hospital are 60 years old but in the near future Bundaberg will have one of the most modern hospitals in Queensland. The services that are being provided are better now than they have ever been before. Other services that I think the people of Bundaberg would have to be pretty happy with relate to tertiary education and the provision of university campuses. In Bundaberg, the State Government provided the land to give impetus to the development of a permanent centre and campus for the University of Central Queensland. The Commonwealth Government and the State Government have provided $1.25m each to ensure that the project comes to fruition this year. When the university is established, I would like to see as part of the campus a faculty of agriculture which will major in horticulture. Because of the climate, Bundaberg has the potential to become the leading horticultural research centre in Australia. That is my vision for the university which will be located in the Bundaberg electorate. Overall, in spite of the difficult times, a Government must provide services for the people. Under Fightback, services will come under attack. As a result, the people of Queensland will suffer greatly if the Federal coalition wins Government. I believe that the people of Queensland will not leave the Labor Party and will ensure that the good services and the strong work of the Goss Government will continue for many years to come. Debate, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (10.43 p.m.): I move— “That the House do now adjourn.”

Rail Services in North Queensland Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (10.43 p.m.): Recently, I rose in this Parliament to speak on the subject of the wind down of railway services in the electorate of Tablelands, particularly west of Kuranda. The Minister for Transport, Mr Hamill, stated on local radio in my electorate that I did not know what I was talking about. However, ministerial bluster notwithstanding, the evidence is that rail movements have been and are being wound down in the region. I am referring particularly to the movements of rail wagons. If a rail wagon is taken as an individual rail movement, then the implications are that the service is being wound down quite considerably. At the present time, I know that the QRX operations handling loading in Atherton are now road/railing from Innisfail to Atherton. The goods are transported by rail from Brisbane to Innisfail and then by road to Atherton. Some time ago, the Maize Marketing Board was contacted in respect of an option of sending maize, which would amount to approximately 10 000 tonnes of grain, in bulk tankers by road to the rail terminal at Innisfail. I know that in April this year, the first experiments will be undertaken in relation to the road/rail operations as they relate to the tobacco industry—a load of about 13 000 tonnes a year—which will mean that tobacco will be transported by road from Mareeba to Cairns where it will be put on rail. There is some serious doubt about the continuation of services for the cattle industry in terms of the numbers of wagons, and there have been strong and persistent rumours that, after August or, at the latest, December of this year, cattle coming out of the Mareeba live-weight selling centre will be on road. Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1925

I have mentioned those few matters as a background to the prospect of another problem that has been raised with me by constituents in respect of the Peanut Marketing Board operations in Tolga. Members would be aware that the far-north Queensland section of the peanut industry is based in Tolga, and it takes peanuts from Lakeland Downs and from the upper tableland region. About 8 000 tonnes of rail freight goes from Tolga to Kingaroy annually, and there is now serious doubt about the viability of that peanut industry if the rail link is either closed or curtailed in some way. Tonight, I am calling for a commitment of some description from the Minister that the railway operation will either continue as a pure rail operation for the bulk rail handling of peanuts, or it will become a road/rail option to take the peanuts in bulk containers from Atherton to either Innisfail or Cairns to be put on the rail, or it will become a road bulk cargo operation from Tolga to Kingaroy. We simply can no longer put up with pedantics or with half-smart answers that do not give a clear definition of what Queensland Rail is about to undertake in that region. The reason is simple. The Peanut Marketing Board is about to undertake a considerable expansion of its loading operations involving quite an amount of capital. That industry cannot stand to have any investment whatsoever in its outloading operation which will become redundant in 12 months’ time, two years’ time or five years’ time. We must know in the very near future what is the prospect for rail services in that region. That expansion has currently been put on hold by the Peanut Marketing Board until it gets a sensible answer out of the Minister and out of Queensland Rail. I believe that it is not too much to ask that the Minister be prepared, for once in his life, to come out and tell the people of the tableland region, and the peanut industry in particular, what the future is and what it holds for that industry in respect of railway services. Pine Rivers Shire Council Mrs WOODGATE (Kurwongbah) (10.48 p.m.) I am going to speak about a matter in my electorate which gives me some cause for concern, and I refer to the recent decision by the Pine Rivers Shire Council to opt for 10 single-member wards or divisions in the shire. Prior to the Goss Government’s winning the Treasury benches in December 1989, we ratepayers in Pine Rivers Shire were obliged to be part of a disgraceful gerrymandered system of boundaries for the local authority elections. In my maiden speech in March 1990, I made mention of this malapportionment and gave the example of how it took only 1 100 voters in Division 3—the rural area around Dayboro—to elect two councillors; whereas it required over 40 000 voters to elect just five councillors in the urban areas of Strathpine, Lawnton, Bray Park, Petrie and Kallangur. For the last council election in 1991, the council opted for no divisions and we now have the present situation in which 10 councillors represent the entire shire on an undivided basis. It has been quite obvious that this system has failed miserably, and the council has forwarded its 10-boundary proposal for submission to the Minister for Housing and Local Government. When I was a Pine Rivers Shire councillor, I was an avid supporter of single- member wards and, with the present Federal member for Fisher, Mr Michael Lavarch, who was also a shire councillor with me, we were instrumental in the council forwarding the proposal for single-member wards to the then Minister for Local Government, the late Russ Hinze. Unfortunately, our submission was ignored by the Minister of the day. Perhaps “ignored” is the right word because what in fact happened was that the then local member for Pine Rivers, Yvonne Chapman, interfered and was in no small way responsible for the council’s submission for single-member wards being put in the “do not proceed with” basket. However, to get us to the present situation—like all fair-minded people resident in our shire, I was very pleased to learn that the council had decided to bite the bullet and proceed with a plan for single-member divisions, but unfortunately this pleasure was short lived when I saw the planned divisions. Sure, they met the guidelines on the 10 per cent tolerance, but as for any semblance of community of interest, there just is not any. We have the silly situation in which suburbs have been divided in two. Lawnton is a 1926 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly case in point. French’s Forest has been divided, as has been Kallangur. No wonder the local newspaper has been inundated with stories of boundary bias with seemingly nobody except the local council on the side of boundaries splitting communities. I will quote from the front page of the Northern Times of 27 January— “Petrie-Kurwongbah Progress Association vice-president Jeremy Ryman said the boundaries proposed for that area were designed to give two councillors a seat each.” He went on to say— “I thought this kind of electoral boundary rigging went out with the last State Government in Queensland.” Let me point out that this progress association supports the introduction of fair and equitable boundaries in a ward system. To make matters worse, we have the situation in which we have the Shire Chairman, one Rob Akers, openly blaming the State Government for splitting the communities. He went in the local paper and said that the criticism is legitimate but that it has to be levelled at the State Government. This is what he said— “It’s the State Government legislation that says numbers are more important than community of interest.” What a load of rubbish! I have a copy of part of the Local Government Legislation Amendment Act, and in section 7A (2) (a), it says— “The review must take into account— (a) community or diversity of interest.” On a page headed “Procedure for the Review of Electoral Arrangements for the 1994 Triennial Elections”, it states in (4)— “The Local Authority will also have to certify that its proposal takes account of factors such as community of interest”— etc. Talk about a load of hypocrisy from the Shire Chairman Akers! I think it opportune—— A Government member interjected. Mrs WOODGATE: Still a Liberal. I think it opportune that I place on the public record my dismay that the council has opted to retain its full complement of 10 councillors as at present, and, in light of the fact that the proposed single-member wards will only hold 5 500 to 6 000 voters, I am strongly of the view—as I pointed out in a letter to the council—that the interests of the ratepayers would have been better served had consideration been given to reducing the number of wards and the councillors to six to seven, as has happened in the neighbouring Caboolture Shire. I see from the Caloundra Observer that the Caloundra City Council has voted to do the same thing, that is, reduce the number of councillors. They will have 5 500 people to represent—and it is not as though they are not financially compensated for their work. Honourable members should have a look at the last shire council budget. The amount of $489,000 was expended on councillors’ meeting fees, allowances and lunches. Divide that up between the 10 councillors and one chairman. That is not bad if you can get it. It is almost as much as what a State member is being paid, yet they are looking after 5 000 people in a ward that is 2 kilometres square. I agreed with Pat Camilleri, the Caboolture Shire Chairman, when she said that single-member wards do make councillors more accountable. One of the main benefits of a ward system is that it gives ratepayers better representation, and elected representatives are totally responsible and accountable to them. They are not able to blame any other divisional councillor for non-action on a particular matter. An editorial in the local paper hit the nail on the head when it questioned the statement by council that we are stuck with divisions in Frenchs Forest and in other communities such as Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1927

Kallangur because that is how the numbers fall. Why are we stuck with it? Why does it have to be all or nothing—10 wards or no boundaries at all? Time expired.

Small Boat Safety Mr LAMING (Mooloolah) (10.53 p.m.): I rise to talk briefly this evening on small boat safety in inland waters. It is a problem that perhaps does not affect the majority of Queenslanders but it does affect quite a few, and I am sure there are in the House tonight members who represent areas that do have beaches, rivers and canals. The problem to which I refer is one that is becoming greater, namely, that of small dinghies that are speeding in rivers and canals. The modern motors and the modern design of boats can mean that boats for which the operators do not require a speedboat driver’s licence can hit quite a fast speed. Many of these boats are being driven at night and a lot of them are not fitted with lights. Indeed, if one looked closely, one would see that these boats are being operated by children, some of them as young as 10 and 11. This is quite a problem because it can cause, firstly, accidents. I know that in my own area in the Mooloolah electorate and in adjoining electorates, there is a very good chance that a very serious accident will occur unless this problem is addressed. Problems also arise if vessels have accidents and cause property damage. In addition, vessels operating at those speeds create a wash in the water which causes damage to the adjacent banks of rivers and canals. I believe that the existing laws are to be looked at later this year when the Queensland Marine Safety Bill will be introduced into the House to replace the marine legislation. I want to refer to the existing brochure, which defines a speedboat as being “any vessel powered by a motor exceeding 4.5 kw brake power or 6 Horse Power and capable of a speed in excess of 10 knots”. In other words, it has to do both. It has to have an engine exceeding that size and exceed 10 knots. The problem is that many outboard-powered dinghies in the canals and rivers of Queensland can travel at a great rate of knots—up to 20 to 25 knots—and do not require a licence. In addition, they have no lights and they also have a lot of young operators driving them. This is a real problem. One day, quite a terrible accident will occur. There will be a loss of young life and people will wonder afterwards why this situation was allowed to exist. It is a pity that the Minister for Transport is not in the Chamber, but I will raise the matter again later. I suggest a reduction in the rating of the motors back to 4 kilowatts, which is about 5 horsepower, or bringing the speed back to 10 knots. I believe there is a suggestion to remove the practical test for people undertaking a test for a speedboat driver’s licence. I think the practical test should be maintained. Consideration should also be given to the introduction of a juvenile speedboat driver’s licence so that young kids of 14 or 15 can use the waterways safely and have a licence that can be suspended if they kick over the traces and do not handle that boat with responsibility. I think there should be the introduction of on-the-spot fines for people found breaking the laws on the water. This does not happen very often at the moment. I think that parental responsibility should be included. An honourable member interjected. Mr LAMING: I did hear a faint interjection from behind me that it is a police matter, which brings me to my next point, namely, that I believe that Mooloolaba should have a Water Police depot. We do not have one at present. We have not seen a Water Police presence on the Sunshine Coast for the whole summer. A Water Police depot in that area would be very good. I think these introductions would be beneficial. I hope to speak to them when the Queensland Marine Safety Bill is brought before the House. It will encourage responsibility in young people if laws are introduced to accommodate the modern uses to which young people put marine equipment, and it will encourage them to be responsible citizens in the future, which is something towards which all of us should be aiming. 1928 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly

Waiting Lists for Elective Surgery Mr DOLLIN (Maryborough) (10.58 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak in the Adjournment debate. Yesterday, Dr Hewson paraded on his political stage people who have been waiting for elective surgery. We have these kinds of people waiting in the Wide Bay area as well. Allow me to explain to honourable members of this House why we have this long waiting list for elective surgery in our region and, I believe, in most other regions in Queensland. It is simply because many of the specialists choose to keep putting public patients back to the bottom of the list while they use the public hospital facilities to treat their private patients. Patients in Maryborough who approach specialists for such things as hip replacements, shoulder joint surgery and spine fusions are told bluntly by the private specialists, “If you have cover or can afford the cost of the operation, no problem, three to four weeks and we’ll have you fixed up. But if you have no cover and no money, it will be eight to 12 months or longer. Hooray. Don’t call me; I’ll call you.” The waiting list for elective surgery has absolutely nothing to do with shortages of anything. There are plenty of beds in our region, plenty of staff, plenty of the latest equipment and the bits and pieces to carry out these operations. The waiting time for elective surgery has to do with the greed and political agendas of specialists and the AMA who are using the Queensland public hospital system as target practice for their political agenda of promoting private health care. They have no compassion for the suffering which patients must endure while those doctors and the AMA play their selfish, greedy games. Dr Hewson and the AMA want to end our State’s free public hospital system, deny Queenslanders free hospital treatment and force them into an expensive private system that would look after the rich and damn the poor. I give honourable members proof of how far some specialists will go to get their hands into the pockets of poor pensioners and rob them of the few dollars that they have. I seek leave to have this document incorporated in Hansard. I believe that the Speaker has already viewed it. Leave granted. Dr John A. Noble J. A. NOBLE PTY. LTD. M.B., B.S., D.O., F.R.A.C.O. ACN 010 263835 Ophthalmic Surgeon Wide Bay Capricorn Bldg., Prov. No. 228064Y 5 Torquay Rd., Pialba. Qld. 4655 CATARACT & INTRAOCULAR LENS OPERATIONS COSTS. HERVEY BAY HOSPITAL UNINSURED PATIENTS CHARGE MEDICARE AMOUNT YOU REBATE HAVE TO PAY THEATRE FEE 189.00 NIL 189.00 VISION PAK 60.00 NIL 60.00 (Due at Pre-op) LENS 145.00 NIL 145.00 OPERATION 904.00 565.50 338.50 $727.50 ANAESTHETIC 165.60 113.85 51.75 The account for your Anaesthetic will come from DR. FRANK PYEFINCH of 26 Crofton Street, Bundaberg. This account can be claimed through Medicare. NON PENSIONERS THE COST OF ANAESTHETIC WILL BE SLIGHTLY EXTRA. The account for your Lens will come from CYCANAMID, a week or so after your operation, and payment is to be sent DIRECT TO CYCANAMID. OPERATION DATE: 24/2/93 WEDNESDAY Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1929

It is a quote for medical treatment which was given to a pensioner in the Wide Bay region, who is losing his sight because of cataracts. The quote is from Dr John A. Noble, whose qualifications are listed as MB, BS, DO, FRACO. I do not know what those letters stand for, but I can think of a few names that would suit him. He is an eye surgeon. He has listed the items under the headings “Charge”, “Medicare rebate” and “Amount you have to pay”. Remember that this quote was given to an aged pensioner who is nearly blind. Theatre fee, $189; Medicare rebate, nil; cost to the pensioner, $189. Vision Pak, $60; Medicare rebate, nil; cost to the patient, $60. Lens, $145; Medicare rebate, nil; cost to the patient, $145. Operation, $904; Medicare rebate, $565; cost to the patient, $338.50. That is the amount that the specialist is asking above the approved fee: $338.50. Anaesthetic, $165.60; Medicare rebate, $113.85; cost to the patient, $51.75. The total for an operation on one eye is $779. I consider this to be an indictment on the medical profession. “Dr Noble” by name, but not “Dr Noble” by nature. I wish that the late Fred Hollows was here to describe this gentleman in his colourful language. This is why we have waiting lists. The people who Dr Hewson had perform on the stage at his policy launch would probably be in the same sort of circumstances as this person. It is not the Government; it is not the system; it is the specialists who are out to fatten their pockets and to try to denigrate the system. They do not give a damn how much people suffer. I know four or five people who have been waiting four or five months for hip joints, spine fusions, etc. If they cannot pull $700 or $800 extra out of it, doctors are just not interested. The pensioner to whom I referred should have been able to simply go to a public hospital, sign a piece of paper and walk away with his eyes fixed up. Instead, he is still stumbling around blind because he cannot afford the operation. I think that the medical profession and the AMA ought to be ashamed of themselves. Time expired.

Commonwealth/State Relations Mr GRICE (Broadwater)(11.03 p.m.): Tonight, I accuse the Premier and leading members of his Cabinet of wilfully selling out the best interests of Queensland. They fully support a man who they know will make this State more and more subject to Canberra. Paul Keating is a typical centralist and is proud of it. He is also a vengeful man who despises the clique running the ALP in Queensland. If Government members are aware of their Labor history, they will know that Keating will punish them, and all of Queensland will pay. Ask John Cain and ask Rob Jolly. It is not John Hewson whom Wayne Goss has to fear. Paul Keating is the one who does not trust the States. Honourable members should consider Mr Keating’s speech at the National Press Club in Canberra on 22 October 1991 and then wonder about Wayne Goss’ support of him. Keating turned on the States and made it perfectly clear that they could not be responsible economic managers. I wonder to whom he was referring—Carmen Lawrence, Joan Kirner, John Bannon, and add Wayne Goss and the only Treasurer who takes his shoes off to count past 10. Keating stated that it would be a disaster to let them get their hands on significant revenue powers. Within hours, Mr Goss sent out Keith De Lacy to defend him. Mr De Lacy started off by calling Mr Keating “a bit patronising”. According to Mr De Lacy, Keating’s speech was— “ . . . based on the premise that all wisdom resides with the Commonwealth and that the States are economic vandals.” That statement was made by the Treasurer and it appeared in the Courier-Mail on 23 October 1991. Mr De Lacy also told Wallace Brown that Keating’s views were “patently wrong” and that a better balance had to be found between Commonwealth and State revenue raising powers. Of course, that was the theme of Bob Hawke’s new federalism, which was supported so strongly by a number of Premiers, including Wayne Goss. Keating’s diatribe left nobody in any doubt about how he saw the States: they were a nuisance. They just got in the way of good government, which Keating regarded 1930 2 March 1993 Legislative Assembly as centralised government—centralised in Canberra, of course. Keating stated that Canberra needed revenue domination to enforce policy domination. He further stated— “So far as I am concerned, grants should only be tied while the necessary bureaucratic structures are being set up and the policies being put in place at the State level to achieve agreed national goals.” That was a very nice comment by the national leader! States can have autonomy, but only after Paul Keating is sure that they are doing exactly what Canberra wants. Why bother with elections in the States if they cannot implement their mandate? Keating wants that sort of control, and Wayne Goss is happy to give it to him on 13 March. Nothing that Keating has done since October 1991 gives any indication of a change of heart. Since that time, Australia’s political map has changed radically, as Victorians and Western Australians have rejected Labor decisively. If Keating survives as Prime Minister, he will soon have only one ally at Premiers Conferences. In that climate, why would a man with Keating’s record do the States a favour? Queensland will suffer with the rest. Paul Keating has a long memory. Remember in 1985 at the tax summit, when Keating tried to sells a goods and services tax and went home with his tail between his legs? Hawke, the ACTU, Labor’s welfare fronts and the Victorian Labor Government ganged up on him. Keating never forgot John Cain and Rob Jolly. He gave them a dose of the good old Labor factional justice. The Labor historians and apologists, Considine and Costar, explained it as follows— “The most important outcome for Victoria was not fiscal but political. It had earned the displeasure of Keating and his Department and when it sought Federal financial assistance later the debt was repaid with interest.” To punish Cain and Jolly, Keating made ordinary Victorians the suffering pawns of his vicious game. The Deputy Premier told the ALP National Executive 23 years ago that Keating obtained his seat in Parliament through fraud. Not two years ago, he threatened to expose that preselection which, according to Tom Burns, was achieved through cemetery votes. Goss’ enforcer is the union leader, Bill Ludwig, who threatened the endorsement of Federal members for backing Keating. The local organisation is headed by Wayne Swan, who joined in enthusiastically in the attacks by Goss, Burns and Lugwig. Time expired.

Gladstone Port Authority Mr BENNETT (Gladstone) (11.09 p.m.): Having listened to the member’s speech, I feel that he should be a member of the Confederate Action Party, not the National Party, and start wearing swastikas down the street. I bring the attention of this House to a matter that concerns the citizens of Gladstone, and that is a part of the Fightback proposal under the Hewson Government to privatise Australian ports. This is of great concern to Gladstone because it denigrates the services of the Gladstone port. In 1914, the Gladstone Harbour Board was formed, with the Government providing a 30-year old dilapidated wharf and five pounds for petty cash. In 1993, the Gladstone Port Authority has a written-down value of $300m and is generating $65m in revenue. Not one cent of consolidated revenue from Government has been used to acquire those assets. They have been acquired through surpluses, loans and port user contributions. For over 30 years, members of the Gladstone community have suffered massive coal dust problems. For over a quarter of a century, they have seen their foreshores reclaimed and they have been disturbed by continual train movements and shunting activities. It has only been during the past decade that the Gladstone community has seen a return from the activities of the Gladstone Port Authority. Queenslanders have only benefited through the economic activity created by initiatives of the Gladstone Port Authority and, in addition, over the past five years, the Gladstone Port Authority Legislative Assembly 2 March 1993 1931 has provided levies of $13.7m. As well, owing to trade created by the Gladstone Port Authority, the Queensland Government collects conveyancing dues of approximately $1m per annum. The Gladstone Port Authority is a proven, internationally competitive port with a highly satisfied customer port-user base. The GPA has a policy of providing multiuser port facilities, which it owns and operates, to ensure the maximum utilisation of capital and labour and, as such, the lowest cost to users. To achieve that, the Gladstone Port Authority owns and operates wharf facilities. It is the only port authority in Australia that is still doing this, and it has proven to be the best arrangement under which a regional port can achieve the greatest efficiency. The Gladstone Port Authority has a 50-year strategic plan in place to meet the demands of industry. In line with the policy to which I have referred, that can assure the international competitiveness of the port. The commercial efficiency of the GPA is proven. Privatisation will bring the GPA policy of multiuser facilities, which it owns and operates, to an end. The losers will be the Queensland economy and the international competitiveness and efficiency that privatisation claims to promote. There can be no honest economic argument that privatisation in the form that is proposed can do anything to assist the GPA and its international competitiveness. I ask honourable members: why should a community asset be sold off to overseas investors when there is no clear economic evidence for so doing, only the bloody mindedness of the Hewson coalition? The point that has clearly been overlooked is the amount of community work that is carried out by the GPA for schools, sports clubs, interest groups and charities, which will be stopped by privatisation. Mr Speaker, a recent edition of the Port Development International magazine stated that the election of a Liberal/National Government will see a privatisation program of Australian ports. It cites the American port of Felixstowe, which is a container terminal that has changed hands twice already. It is now owned by a Hong Kong firm called the Hutchinson Whamptoa Group. If Australian ports are privatised, they will end up in overseas hands. It is interesting to note that the only countries that privatised fully their ports—and this illustrates the good company that Hewson wants to get in with—are Columbia, Venezuela, Brazil and Mexico. I do not believe that Australia wants to join that group of countries. Clearly, to privatise ports is a backward step. The money will end up in coffers in Canberra, not in Queensland. The Gladstone Port Authority has been built up by the people of Queensland, particularly the people of Gladstone, and they do not want to see their money going down to Canberra. We are pro Queenslanders, pro Gladstoners, and we are proud of it. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.