Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 22 NOVEMBER 1988

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Allegations by Member for Merthyr Against Hon. N. J. Tumer 22 November 1988 2907

TUESDAY, 22 NOVEMBER 1988

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. L. W. Powell, Isis) read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m.

ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following Bills reported by Mr Speaker— Special Prosecutor Bill; Parliamentary (Judges) Commission of Inquiry Bill; Public Accounts Committee Bill.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT Audits Completed as at 31 October 1988 in Respect of Financial Year Ended 30 June 1988 Mr SPEAKER: I have to report that I have received from the Auditor-General his report on audits completed as at 31 October 1988. Ordered to be printed.

REPORT OF PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY COMMITTEE Mr SPEAKER: I have to report that I have received the report of the Parliamentary Library Committee for the period 1 July 1987 to 30 June 1988. Ordered to be printed.

PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE COMMISSION Appointment of Members Mr SPEAKER: I wish to advise honourable members of the proclamation of the Parliamentary Service Commission Act 1988 on 19 November 1988. I also wish to advise that, pursuant to section 6 of the Parliamentary Service Commission Act 1988, the Parliamentary Service Commission consists of seven members of the Legislative Assembly. The membership shall include Mr E. C. Row, MLA, Chairman of Committees; the Honourable B. D. Austin, MLA, Leader of the House; Mr E. D. Casey, MLA, who has been nominated by the honourable Leader of the Opposition; and myself Three other members shall be appointed from time to time by resolution of the Legislative Assembly. Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Nicklin—Leader of the House) (10.03 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That Mr A. A. FitzGerald, MLA, Mr T. M. Mackenroth, MLA, and the Honourable Sir William Knox, MLA, be appointed as members of the Parliamentary Service Commission." Motion agreed to.

ALLEGATIONS BY MEMBER FOR MERTHYR AGAINST HONOURABLE N. J. TURNER Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I wish to advise that I have received a letter from the Honourable N. J. Tumer, a former member of this Parliament. That letter is as follows— "Mr Speaker it is through your office and discretion that as a former member of this Parliament, 1 am permitted admission to the indelible record of Hansard. 2908 22 November 1988 Papers

I thank you. I would not seek such an opportunity were it not out of genuine anguish. 1 reflect on my years in political office as ones of contribution. There is a modest sense of pride and a belief that I served the public interest well. Above all 1 knew when I retired from Parliament I did so with a conscience clear of any thought that it might carry a wrong doing. It is therefore with complete surprise and amazement that one irresponsible statement made by the Member for Merthyr and Former Minister of the Crown, Mr Lane, brings with it the distinct suggestion that the sense of duty and responsibility I brought to that high office should be under a cloud. At the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry on the 15th November, 1988 Mr Lane alleged the possible misuse of Ministerial cash advances by a number of past and present Ministers. Mr Lane said and I quote 'I think Mr Turner' end of quote could have been involved. I refute his unfounded allegations which have no basis in fact. On no occasion have I ever misused a cash advance as a Minister of the Crown. In the name of decency and Justice I call on him to correct this injustice by committing to public record in this Parliament and to the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry that he had no foundation for such an allegation and at the same time apologise." The letter is signed "N. J. Turner".

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Compulsory Wearing of Safety Helmets by Cyclists From Mr Littleproud (11 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will legislate for the compulsory wearing of safety helmets by cyclists. Development of Moreton Bay From Mr Burns (63 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take action to make available for public scrutiny and debate all reports and recommendations affecting the development of Moreton Bay. Provision of Bus Services to Bayside Area by Brisbane City Council From Mr Burns (49 signatories) praying that the Pariiament of Queensland will take action to license the Brisbane City Council to provide bus services in the Bayside area.

Closure of Brisbane Valley Railway Line From Mr HamUl (818 signatories) praying that the Pariiament of Queensland wiU consider the interests of local communities, including Gatton, Wondai, Toogoolawah, Linville and Feravale before the closure of their railway stations or the discontinuance of rail motor services. Petitions received.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Reports— Board of Trustees of Newstead House for the year ended 30 June 1988 Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland for year ended 30 June 1988 Questions Upon Notice 22 November 1988 2909

Department of Employment, Vocational Education and Training for year ended 30 June 1988. The following papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under— Harbours Act 1955-1987 Health Act 1937-1988 Regulations under— Health Act 1937-1988 Food Act 1981-1984 Radioactive Substances Act 1958-1978 Cremation Act 1913-1978. Reports— Committee of Inquiry into the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1961-1987 of Queensland for year ended 30 June 1988 Dumaresq—Barwon Border Rivers Commission for the year ended 30 June 1988 North Brisbane Hospitals Board for the year ended 30 June 1988.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Enterprise North Queensland; Mr Geoff Moss Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Minister for Industry, Small Business, Communications and Technology) (10.07 a.m.), by leave: Last Friday, 18 November, the Cairns Post published an article concerning the newly passed enterprise zones legislation. It quoted an organisation caUing itself Enterprise North Queensland, as well as its chairman, Geoff Moss. Firstly, I would like to make it clear to the House, and hopefully to industry, the media and the general public, that neither the Queensland Govemment nor the Department of Industry Development has any formal connection with that organisation or its management. Secondly, although Mr Moss has expressed his support for the enterprise zone concept, I would like to point out that his organisation does not advise the Govemment in any way, shape or form as suggested in last Friday's article. My department has received many submissions and opinions from people and organisations in recent months conceming the enterprise zones legislation, and has taken this into account in the drafting of the Bill. In due course, the Government will decide upon the composition of the Cape York-North Queensland Enterprise Zone Board. 1 am keen for the people of north Queensland to support this new concept in the media, but must stress that the Queensland Govemment is quite capable of making its own announcements at the appropriate times. Enterprise North Queensland appears to be a professional lobby group and neither it nor its chairman, Mr Moss, is authorised to make public statements in respect of the Cape York-North Queensland Enterprise Zone, or any other matter, on behalf of the Queensland Govemment or the Department of Industry Development.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

1. Loss of Man-hours in Railway Department Mr LICKISS asked the Minister for Transport— "(1) What were the man hours lost by the Queensland Railway Department in (a) 1986/87 and (b) 1987/88 on account of (1) on-the-job accidents, (2) sickness 2910 22 November 1988 Questions Upon Notice

and other absenteeism not requiring doctors' certificates, (3) absences with medical certificate, (4) long-term injuries that are work-related and (5) strikes? (2) What were the number of employees on light duties in the Queensland Railway Department for each of the abovementioned financial years?" Mr I. J. GIBBS: (1) (1) 1986-87 1987-88 673 973 586 302 (2) 1986-87 1987-88 Paid sick leave 1 805 462 1 617 420 Sick leave without pay 578 104 439 716 The only means currently available of checking whether a doctor's certificate is submitted in support of any particular absence is to physically search every employee's individual file. The department does not have resources which can be diverted from essential work to undertaking a search of this magnitude. (3) See (2). (4) No data in discrete form can identify the extent of lost working time due to long-term work-related injuries, nor is there any definition of what constitutes "long term". Assembling the details sought would involve a physical search of files as set out in (2). (5) (1) 1986-87 1987-88 26 691 23 687 (2) 1986-87 1987-88 40 41 (2) These totals include all employees who were engaged on light duties for the entire year. The figures do not include persons who may have been allowed concessional workings for a limited time, nor do they include those employees who were employed in a different classification owing to their health not permitting them to continue in employment in a more demanding capacity.

2. Imposition of Dockage on Feed Barley Mr BOOTH asked the Minister for Primary Industries— "With reference to the present practice of the Barley Marketing Board of placing a dockage for quality on feed barley— Is it fair in view of the loss of weight already incurred?" Mr HARPER: High levels of screenings have been a particular problem this year for feed barley received by the Barley Marketing Board. As will be appreciated, when deliveries of barley with high levels of screening are made into storages, the average quality of the grain in store will be lowered by inferior quality deliveries as the grain is intermingled. This is taken into account by the various buyers of feed barley and growers who deliver standard quality barley should not bear the cost of such quality lowering of the common grain. In the case of screenings in barley, as defined in the board specification guide, the feeding value of the barley declines as the level of screenings increases. This specification, definition and dockage mechanism for screenings in barley has been unchanged for the past seven or eight seasons. No dockage is applied for less than 10 per cent screenings. Questions Upon Notice 22 November 1988 2911

While the board receives all feed barley regardless of the level of screenings, the maximum dockage is set at $ 12 per tonne.

3. Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry, Anti-corruption Advertising Campaign by Premier and Treasurer Mr R. J. GIBBS asked the Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts— "With reference to the anti-cormption advertising campaign planned by him to score political points from the Fitzgerald Inquiry— How much will this campaign cost and who wiU pay for it—the National Party or the public purse?" Mr AHERN: I am not aware of any such advertising campaign and can therefore give no costings. However, this Govemment has been involved in an anti-cormption campaign for over a year that began with the establishment of the Fitzgerald inquiry. Since its establishment, our support for it has been total.

4. Closure of North Queensland Fishing Grounds Mr STONEMAN asked the Minister for Primary Industries— "With reference to the recently expressed concem of professional fishermen in the Burdekin Region of North (Queensland in that the Northem Closure, as it now stands, has the following effects: (a) that it concentrates the fishing vessels of the east coast on the local fishing grounds and (b) that it causes unfair competition to local boats from vessels that have the capacity to withstand greater sea conditions— Are these concepts correct?" Mr HARPER: (a) The closures to prawn trawling in Queensland waters north of 22°S are designed to protect juvenile prawn stocks, particularly tiger prawns, as they grow to market size. In the southern areas in which there is a more general mix of prawn species, the king-prawn grounds are not closed. When a time/area closure is introduced, boats move into these areas on the opening date. In normal seasonal circumstances the resource is capable of withstanding such a pulse fishing effort. This is not a situation peculiar to the Burdekin region but occurs in all fishing regions throughout the world where closures are found to be beneficial. (b) The management policies of the Govemment and the Fish Management Authority for the prawn fishery recognise that biological protection of the resource is essential. There is no recognition by the Govemment of segregation of fishing effort based on area of residence of a boat. The choice as to whether a boat fishes in local waters or travels the coast is entirely one for the individual owner. This has been recognised in licensing arrangements for otter trawling since that fishery became a limited entry fishery in 1979. The decision as to where to fish is largely based on economic considerations of capital investment, operating costs, product retums and the personal preferences of the fishermen.

5. Importation of X-rated and R-rated Films and Videotapes Mrs CHAPMAN asked the Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts— "With reference to the recent decision of the Federal Labor Caucus on the matter of 'X' and 'R' rated films and video tapes entering this country via Canberra and as it is highly probable that material involving young children is amongst these importations— Will he give a guarantee that any person or persons found distributing such material in Queensland will be dealt with to the full extent of the law as it would appear that the Federal Govemment has no objections to such films being distributed, neither does it apparently object to people making profit from the exploitation of little children?" 2912 22 November 1988 Questions Upon Notice

Mr AHERN: I feel very strongly about excessive violence and sexual explicitness in films and videos. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister called an urgent Premiers Conference on violence and gun laws. The question of violent videos was rightly referred to the Standing Committee of Attomeys-General to resolve. On 30 June, the State Attorneys-General unanimously agreed to reject the Federal Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Video Material recommendation for a new non-violent erotica—NVE— film and video classification. The States also reconfirmed across-the-board bans on the distribution of the existing X-classified videos, which were legally sold or hired only in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The Deputy Prime Minister offered no objection to his State counterparts regarding either of those resolutions and he further agreed to take the States' recommendation to the Federal Labor caucus. Honourable members of this House have every reason to be highly incensed at the recent decision of the Federal caucus to yet again shelve its decision on pomographic videos indefinitely by resorting to the estabhshment of another parliamentary working party. This decision deserves vehement condemnation from all parents and citizens who are concerned about the effects of violent and pornographic material on society in general and young people in particular. My Government will enforce the film-censorship laws in this State to their full extent in dealing with offences involving the distribution of X-rated videos and R-rated films and videos prohibited by order of the Queensland Films Board of Review. Should any such material be distributed in Queensland, action may also be taken under the criminal law, should such material be indecent or obscene.

6. Investigation by Auditor-General into Expense Accounts and Cash Advances of Past and Present Ministers Mr MACKENROTH asked the Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts— "With reference to the reports that the Auditor-General has been told to investigate the expense accounts and cash advances of the Member for Merthyr, Mr Lane, during his term in Cabinet— Why hasn't he told the Auditor-General to conduct a similar investigation into the other past and present Ministers named by Mr Lane as misusing public funds?" Mr AHERN: The honourable member ought to know that I have no authority or power of direction over the Auditor-General to undertake any investigation. The Auditor- General is totally independent to the Executive Government, and the Auditor-General exercises his own discretion in such matters. Should the Auditor-General consider instituting any investigation of the nature referred to by the honourable member, the Auditor-General would no doubt have regard to matters before the Fitzgerald commission of inquiry and established protocols.

7. Vehicular Access to Albany Creek Road, Aspley, from Proposed Townhouse Development for Senior Citizens Mrs NELSON asked the Minister for Family Services and Welfare Housing— "With reference to a press article published recently in the Bayside Star in which a Brisbane City Council alderman claimed that the Queensland Housing Commission was responsible for a decision to disallow access for motor vehicles to Albany Creek Road, Aspley from a proposed townhouse development for senior citizens— On whose instmctions were the access road plans devised and what repre­ sentations have been made to him for changes to the latest road access proposals for the development?" Questions Upon Notice 22 November 1988 2913

Mr McKECHNIE: 1 am advised that the Queensland Housing Commission proposes to constmct 40 pensioner units on a site which has street frontages to both Albany Creek Road and Vallis Street. In December 1982, the previous owners of that property made representations to the Brisbane City Council for possible rezoning and development. At that time council indicated that "no access to Albany Creek Road would be permitted for any such development".The commission purchased the site in 1985 and requested Brisbane City Council concurrence with their proposed development prior to land settlement. At that time the council had no objection to the proposal subject to "the provision of an access restriction strip along the Albany Creek Road and Whye Street frontages". The commission is currently in the process of rezoning that land to allow the proposed pensioner-unit development to proceed. The Brisbane City Council has again been consulted and it has advised that "rezoning of the land to the Residential 'A' zone and development as proposed would be acceptable to Council subject to... provision of an access restriction strip along the entire frontage of Albany Creek Road." As can be seen, the Brisbane City Council has been consistently opposed to vehicle access to Albany Creek Road from that site. The commission's proposed development is in accordance with the council's wishes.

8. Development along Brisbane River to Brisbane Central Business District Mrs NELSON asked the Minister for Northem Development, Community Services and Ethnic Affairs— "With reference to the recent reports in the press conceming plans by QIT students for ideas for a 'Wharf Road' development along the Brisbane River in the area from Parliament House (Alice Street) to the Treasury Building (Queen Street)— What action is being taken by the Govemment regarding the future use of this historically significant and beautiful area of the Brisbane Central Business District?" Mr KATTER: The Government has made public its intention to enhance the important area between Queen Street and Parliament House and to increase public access to and utilisation of it. Amongst the most significant buildings is the 1829 convict-built Commissariat Stores, which is the second oldest serving structure in Brisbane, and probably Queensland. The Treasury Building and the Land Administration Building—formerly the Exec­ utive Building—together with Parliament House are arguably the State's most historically important public buildings. In addition, there is also the recently restored old Govemment Printery, Harris Terrace, the Mansions and the Oxley Library. It must be stated that the magnificent restoration program, which was undertaken by the Department of Works under Minister Gunn, John Bellert and the gifted State architect Ralph Bailey, has provided the springboard for what the honourable member has chosen to call the wharf road development. The old Department of Primary Industries building contains elements of the 1868 William Street immigration barracks and the old State Library building, which are both partially vacant and awaiting decisions as to their future. At our request a meeting was scheduled, and Cabinet subsequently established an interdepartmental committee includ­ ing the Honourable Deputy Premier and Minister for Public Works as chairman, the Honourable Minister for Local Govemment, the Honourable Minister for Environment, Conservation and Tourism and me to investigate the means by which the precinct could be enhanced and utilisation maximised. I congratulate the chairman of the Brisbane River Committee and her predecessor, the Honourable Minister for Health, for the commendable work that has been undertaken 2914 22 November 1988 Questions Upon Notice by her committee, without whose actions in securing public interest in the river and its environs such exciting projects simply would not be occurring. I publicly invite the committee to my office to view concept plans that have been prepared by QIT architecture students who—quite unbeknown to us—have undertaken that project. The Government's intention is to retain all the historical buildings and maximise public access to the area. Many people have put forward ideas such as the creation of gardens, walkways, coffee shops, restaurants, arts and crafts shops, tourist hotels, mooring facilities on the river, as well as many other proposals. At this stage the Government would most certainly not pre-empt any decision-making by that committee. I am proud to announce to the Parliament another project, which is indicative of the Govemment's strong commitment to our heritage and the preservation of the physical elements of our past. Probably the most exciting feature of this proposal is the fact that it will be designed around public usage. If the attendance of more than one million people at the Government-sponsored Colonial George Street festivals in the last three years is any indication of the public's interest in the precinct and Brisbane's past and what the QIT students have called the wharf road development, 1 have no doubt of the success of this project.

9. Appointment of School Crossing Supervisors Mr SMITH asked the Minister for Transport— "With reference to his statement on 16 November that school crossing supervisors, described as Lollipop Ladies although they are not necessarily women, are thoroughly trained by his department and reassessed at regular intervals and although I agree that the great majority of appointees are excellent citizens, I do not accept that what he said is in fact tme for all of the State and all appointees— (1) Will he therefore detail what specific minimum standards are set by his department in respect to appointees? (2) Is the claimed selection and training process applicable to provincial cities and country towns? (3) Are referees required and how long is any referee required to have known the applicant? (4) What instruction is provided to new appointees, how many hours of instmction are actually provided and by whom? (5) What checks are undertaken to ensure a person being considered for appointment has no recent record of mental instability or incapacity? (6) Is certification for suitability required from a medical practitioner and, if so, how long is that medical practitioner required to have known the applicant?" Mr I. J. GIBBS: (1) The minimum standards which must be met by a person to be appointed as a school crossing supervisor are— • minimum age 18 years; • maximum age 75 years; • the person must be approved of by the parents and citizens association or the parents and friends committee and the prinicpal of the school concerned; and • applicants must be of good health and character. Supervisors between the age of 70 and 75 are required to have an annual medical examination which certifies they are capable of performing the duties of a crossing supervisor. (2) Yes. (3) No referees are required. The screening of applicants for any position of school crossing supervisor is undertaken by the relevant parents and citizens or parents and friends committee and the principal of the school concerned. Applicants are generally well known to those people before they are selected. Questions Upon Notice 22 November 1988 2915

(4) New appointees receive a minimum of two hours of theory training foUowed by a practical training session, usually on the crossing at which they are to operate. The first session of operational control by a crossing supervisor on a crossing is supervised by an officer from the Department of Transport. All training is carried out by Department of Transport officers. (5 and 6) All application forms for employment as a school crossing supervisor must be accompanied by a medical certificate completed by a legally qualified medical practitioner indicating whether or not the applicant, having regard to the safety of the public generally, is medically fit to a degree sufficient to act as a school crossing supervisor. It is usual for applicants to obtain the medical certificate from their family doctor, who is well aware of their medical history.

10, Reticulation of Elecfricity to Housing Commission Subdivision at Stuart Mr SMITH asked the Minister for Family Services and Welfare Housing— "(1) How can he justify the fact that the Queensland Housing Commission ignores town-planning provisions of councils in provincial cities including Towns­ ville City Council in that all new housing subdivisions are, for reasons of aesthetics and cyclone safety, required to have underground electricity reticulation? (2) In particular, as electricity boards encourage underground reticulation for residential estates, how can he justify the non-compliance with council and electricity board requirements at the new Queensland Housing Commission Stuart housing subdivision where the electricity reticulation is of the outmoded and relatively unsightly and unsafe aerial type?" Mr McKECHNIE: (1 and 2) The Queensland Housing Commission endeavours to provide the most economical solution for its residential developments. The cost of underground electricity reticulation is approximately $1,000 per allotment in excess of overhead supply. The commission therefore generally provides overhead supply unless supplies to adjoining subdivisions are predominantly underground. The Townsville subdivision to which the honourable member refers was designed when there were no adjoining subdivisions. The power supply to the property was overhead. There was no underground reticulation in the immediate area. The commission could therefore not justify the extra expense to provide underground supply to its estate. Overhead supply is installed in accordance with the supply authority's structural and safety requirements.

11. Costs of Government Advertising Campaigns Mr De LACY asked the Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts— "With reference to the following State Govemment advertising campaigns (a) Expo, (b) the State Budget, (c) the Project Pay Packet, (d) the referendum, (e) the Olympic Games and (f) nurse training— Will he detail the (a) total cost (or total estimated cost) and (b) name of the agency receiving the business, for each of the above campaigns?" Mr AHERN: The information the honourable member is seeking is provided in the retums tabled annually in this place, showing all payments made by the Govemment to public relations agencies or consultants for the previous fiscal year stating the names of recipients and the amounts received separately. The retum for the 1987-88 year is presently being finalised. However, 1 point out to the honourable member that public information campaigns such as those listed by him are an essential part of good govemment. For example, the business investment campaign conducted during World Expo 88 was instmmental in attracting some $350m worth of new business to Queensland. 2916 22 November 1988 Questions Upon Notice

The State Budget information campaign enabled the public to be better informed about the details of this important area of Govemment business. Employment-related campaigns such as Project Pay Packet and the nurse-training program could not operate effectively without an appropriate public information component. The Queensland Government had an obligation on behalf of its constituents to present its case in the national referendum earlier this year to ensure that voters were fully informed on the real issues involved. As all honourable members are aware, voters throughout the nation agreed overwhelmingly with the Queensland Govemment in opposing the referendum questions. About a quarter of a million people throughout Queensland responded to the Govemment's call to support Brisbane's bid for the Olympic Games. These campaigns are aU about informing the public, not political aggrandisement as occurs in some other areas. I would point out to all honourable members that the Federal Labor Government spends in excess of $80m annually on advertising and promotional campaigns, or more than $5 per head of the population, compared with less than $4 per capita by this Govemment.

12. Cost of Attendance of Aboriginal and Islander Community Representatives during Debate on Northern Development Portfolio Estimates Mr De LACY asked the Minister for Northern Development, Community Services and Ethnic Affairs— "With reference to the estimates debate for the Department of Northem Development conducted in this House on 19 October— (1) What is the number of departmental personnel and what is the number of Aboriginal and Islander community representatives flown into Brisbane to admire the Minister's speech on the estimates? (2) Who paid for the travel and accommodation of the community representatives? (3) On what basis were these people selected? (4) From which departmental vote was the money made available? (5) What was the total cost of the exercise?" Mr KATTER: (1) My information is that executive members of the Aboriginal Co­ ordinating CouncU, the Islander Co-ordinating Council and the ACC executive director came to Brisbane. The honourable member's assertion that they came to hear my speech is incorrect, but undoubtedly my speech was one of the highlights of their visit. I am advised that the reason for their visit was to view the Expo pavilion, for which they were primarily responsible, and to discuss numerous bread-and-butter matters with various departments. (2) The Department of Community Services. (3) See (1). (4) See (2). (5) The visitors had to stay at Yungaba. No other accommodation could be found. Travel costs are the same as those for any other traveller. If the honourable member is miffed that they did not stay and listen to his speech, I feel sorry for him.

13. Railway Department's Confribution to Success of Expo Mr HENDERSON asked the Minister for Transport— "With reference to railway transport during Expo '88— What contribution did the Queensland Railways make to the success of EXDO '88?" Questions Upon Notice 22 November 1988 2917

Mr I. J. GIBBS: It will no doubt be recalled that planning for all aspects of World Expo 88, including transport arrangements, was based on projected figures of almost 8 miUion visitors. Of this number, about 70 per cent of visitors were expected to travel by public transport, with the majority of those using rail. Surveys undertaken in the preparation of working data showed that Queensland Railways could be called upon to provide transport for almost 45 per cent of all visitors to Expo—something in excess of 3 million persons. When considering the implications of this projection, it should be viewed in the light of the continuing and substantial increase in suburban rail patronage, which has been experienced since the commissioning of electrified services began in 1979. During the past eight years, the number of passenger joumeys per annum has increased from about 28 000 000 to almost 45 000 000. Consequently, the tasks during Expo would be boosted by the ongoing increase in addition to the specific Expo component. .As we now know, attendances at Expo were weU beyond even the most optimistic estimates, with more than double the original projected number of persons attending. Planning for the scheduUng of additional trains has been based on anticipated daily attendances of 47 000 on week days, and 60 000 on Saturdays and Sundays. Quite early in the life of Expo, it became obvious that the number of additional train services which had been calculated to meet projected attendance had to be heavily revised. In the final analysis, more than 18 000 additional suburban trains were operated during the six months of Expo. I believe that it is most important to keep in mind that while these additional services were operating to convey passengers to the Expo stations of South Brisbane and Vulture Street, Queensland Railways maintained its level of service for the commuters who use these suburban trains throughout the year. In fact, although full details are not yet available, it is clear that passenger joumeys throughout the suburban area between 30 April and 30 October exceeded 32 000 000. This is an increase of 40 per cent over the same period last year. My firm belief is that the quaUty of the services offered, the constmction program— which saw a substantially upgraded facility at Vulture Street and the faithfully refiirbished South Brisbane Station—and, possibly most important of all, the friendly and efficient treatment of passengers by staff throughout the area, all combined to create a favourable impression with Expo visitors so that they were in a receptive frame of mind to participate in and enjoy the premier event in the bicentennial year. The Commissioner for Railways and all of the staff involved are to be commended on a job which has been particularly very well carried out.

14. Citizens' Initiated Referendums in California Mr HENDERSON asked the Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts— "With reference to the recent Citizens' Initiated Referenda in Califomia— (1) What was the nature and result of the questions put? (2) What lessons could we in Australia leam from such an exercise?" Mr AHERN: (1 and 2) The California experience with citizens' initiated referendums does not inspire confidence in that system. Indeed, if Cahfomia's experience is typical, then it would seem to me that CIR is the very antithesis of proper, rational decision­ making. In order to have a law changed or a new law created in Califomia, it requires the collection of 372 178 signatures. A proposal, however whacky, then becomes the initiative and is placed on the ballot-paper for consideration by the electorate as a whole. Initiatives have become so popular that during the last election, long-suffering voters had to decide upon more than 60 propositions, and, as honourable members would appreciate, it is expecting too much for the voter to be able to give due consideration to such propositions 2918 22 November 1988 Questions Upon Notice whilst at the same time make rational decisions about the wider political issues and the election of representatives. Here is a brief sample of some of the recent propositions or initiatives the voters of Califomia were asked to deliberate upon— • the publication of the names of all those who test AIDS positive and their dismissal from the work-force; • advertisers forced to tell the tmth; • firms that break State laws be fined and the money used to pay for food for the homeless; • allow school boards to spend more money; • reform of car insurance; • all homosexuals dismissed from any public office; • all nuclear power stations be banned; • women should have the right to abortion on demand; and • State should pay for all child-care and health insurance. These examples, believe it or not, represent some of the more reasonable propositions. I think it is fair to say that while the principle of citizens' initiated referendums is commendable, in practice it can—and in Cahfomia's case does—lead to a situation where extremists, from both Left and Right ideologies, can foist outrageous propositions upon the public at large with the real possibility of some such propositions being approved by a public that has not had the opportunity to make a proper assessment of them.

15. Government's Policy on Queensland Enterprise Zone Mr BURREKET asked the Minister for Industry, Small Business, Communications and Technology— "With reference to the editorial in the Townsville Daily Bulletin of 17 November in which a Government spokesman has indicated that under the Enterprise Zone, the Government's stated objective is to direct heavy industry to the Townsville region but high-grade technology to the Cairns region— What is the official State Government intention on these two matters?" Mr BORBIDGE: I have seen the editorial referred to in the Townsville Bulletin, which is generally sound and extremely well balanced, reflecting the very favourable response to this (Government initiative. The statement that the Government's objective is "... directing heavy industry interests to the Townsville region and the booming high- tech trade to Caims", is, however, not correct. The Govemment has no intention of directing anyone to go anywhere. The eligibility criteria laid down for potential zone industries make no reference to any specific types of industries or their location. The Government has been consistently clear in its policy announcements, in the published zone management plan and in promotional material that the Cairns and TownsvUle regions will be treated equally. The zone will be promoted as a whole to the national and international business community. In fact, while the zone is centred on Townsville and Cairns, projects anywhere in north Queensland may be eligible for zone incentives if they meet certain criteria. The Cape York-North Queensland Enterprise Zone will be directed by a private sector oriented management, and client industry will locate wherever it is best suited commercially. This is a fundamental principle of this zone and successfiil zones world­ wide. Overall, the editorial and press response in north Queensland to the zone has been very positive, including that of the Townsville Bulletin. The fact that the legislation received all-party support, with some reservations of the minor opposition party, is indicative of the merit of the initiative and the enthusiasm that it has generated in north Queensland. Questions Without Notice 22 November 1988 2919

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Categorical Break-down of Ministerial Expenses and Cash Advances Mr GOSS: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to a document titled Expenditure Report for 1987-88 for the Department of Corrective and Administrative Services, a copy of which I will table, which shows information on ministerial expenses recorded under a number of categories, providing at least a partial break-down of spending by Ministers. Given that this information is readily available, I ask: will the Premier now agree to table in this House today similar information for himself and the other members of Cabinet for at least the last two years? Given that the Premier was able to release the total amount of cash advances drawn by Mr Lane for the last two years, will he also release similar information today showing the cash advances drawn by himself and other Ministers of Cabinet for the same period? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling on the Premier to answer the question—to regularise the proceedings, does the Leader of the Opposition seek leave to table the document? Mr GOSS: If I require leave, I seek leave accordingly. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr AHERN: Before answering the honourable member directly—yesterday. State Cabinet received a preliminary report from the Director-General of the Premier's Department in relation to his inquiries on this matter. A decision was made in principle to agree to the tabling of a full schedule of the ministerial expenses of my Govemment. That decision will be implemented as soon as possible. It is important to ensure that all the necessary details are collated in a form that is understandable and provides some comparison between various departments. That decision has been made and the schedule will incorporate the information that has been sought by Ministers of my Govemment.

Ministerial Expenses Incurred by Premier when Minister Mr GOSS: In directing a second question to the Premier, I refer to the ministerial expenses incurred and cash advances drawn by him in the period leading up to 1 December 1987 and when he served in State Cabinet alongside disgraced National Party Minister, Don Lane, and ask: are there any aspects of his ministerial expenses during that period that would embarrass him if they were publicly released, or are there any details of cash advances or travellers cheques during that period that he would wish to hide from public scmtiny? Mr AHERN: None of which I am aware. Coomera Film Studio Mr FITZGERALD: In directing a question without notice to the Premier, I refer to the Coomera film studio and I ask: did the State Govemment invest any public moneys in this project and what is the current status of the studio? Mr AHERN: I would appreciate it if the honourable member would put the question on notice. Mr SPEAKER: The question will be placed on notice. Forest Indusfries Campaign Association; World Heritage Listing Mr FITZGERALD: My second question is directed to the Minister for Environment. I refer to a report in the Courier-Mail of 19 November quoting Mr Comben, the Opposition spokesman on Environment, as referring to comments attributed to the executive director of Forest Industries Campaign Association in Melboume, and ask: is 2920 22 November 1988 Questions Without Notice the Minister aware of this report and its origins, has the executive director of Forest Industries Campaign Association made contact with him, and could he outline the Queensland Government's submissions to the World Heritage Committee? Mr MUNTZ: I am aware of the report in the Courier-Mail dated 19 November which referred to the submissions being put before the World Heritage Committee in Brazil next month. The article referred to a certain Mr Noel TurnbuU of Noel TurnbuU Associates. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mr MUNTZ: The report referred to Mr Noel TurnbuU of Noel TurnbuU Associates accompanying the Queensland delegation to Brazil. It is no secret that Mr TurnbuU will accompany that delegation, as he did in June to Paris. He has been engaged as a consultant by the Forestry Department for some months because of his experience in this regard and the forestry industry in general. » The origin of the report came to my notice, and I wish to refer to a letter of explanation written by Mr Paul Edwards, the executive director of Forestry Industries Campaign Association to the editor of the Courier-Mail. This shows the devious and bordering-on-criminal activities of Mr Comben in extracting information from people in such a position. The letter states— "I was most surprised to see a clipping from The Courier Mail of Saturday 19 November in which Opposition Environment spokesman, Mr Comben attributed a number of comments to me. 1 did not and never have spoken to Mr Comben and obviously the comments attributed to me by Mr Comben are not correct. I should advise you however that I did receive a call on Friday afternoon from a person identifying himself as Paul Finton from the Premier's office. He indicated he was not able to contact Pat Smith from Mr Muntz's Department and was after some information 'for the boss' regarding Noel TurnbuU. I made a number of comments to the person identifying himself as Mr Finton however a subsequent call to the Premier's office indicated that no such person existed either in that office or the Premier's Department. It seems that normal ethical standards have been ignored in this instance in a pathetic bid to undermine the hard work that Mr Muntz has done on behalf of the people of North Queensland on the World Heritage issue. I might add that despite the enormous economic and social dislocation that World Heritage listing will cause ordinary people in North Queensland—primarily those who would normally form the ALP's natural constituency—the State ALP has taken an astonishingly low profile on this issue. Their seeming lack of policy in this area might explain why Mr Comben is not prepared to talk about the issues but rather resorts to low and underhand tactics to discredit the position taken by the Queensland Government. I am sure the Queensland public must be shocked by this behaviour. I have advised Mr Muntz of the situation and I would be most grateful if you could bring it to the attention of your readers." The letter is signed by Paul Edwards, executive director of Forestry Industries Campaign Association. This is a typical example of the underhand and verging-on-criminal tactics adopted by a member of this Pariiament. He has used personnel within private industry to extract information and then placed it in the hands of the editor of the Courier-Mail, who printed it and told the worid. The truth should be told. I seek leave to table the letter and to incorporate it in Hansard. Leave granted. Questions Without Notice 22 November 1988 2921

Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following document—

21 November 1988 Facsimile to: Mr GREG CHAMBERLAIN Editor The Courier Mail

Courier Mail—19 November I was most surprised to see a clipping from The Courier Mail of Saturday 19 November in which Opposition Environment spokesman, Mr Comben attributed a number of comments to me. I did not and never have spoken to Mr Comben and obviously the comments attributed to me by Mr Comben are not correct. I should advise you however that 1 did receive a call on Friday afternoon from a person identifying himself as Paul Finton from the Premier's office. He indicated he was not able to contact Pat Smith from Mr Muntz's Department and was after some information "for the boss" regarding Noel TumbuU. I made a number of comments to the person identifying himself as Mr Finton however a subsequent call to the Premier's office indicated that no such person existed either in that office or the Premier's Department. It seems that normal ethical standards have been ignored in this instance in a pathetic bid to undermine the hard work that Mr Muntz has done on behalf of the people of North Queensland on the World Heritage issue. 1 might add that despite the enormous economic and social dislocation that World Heritage listing will cause ordinary people in North Queensland—primarily those who would normally form the ALP's natural constituency—the State ALP has taken an astonishingly low profile on this issue. Their seeming lack of policy in this area might explain why Mr Comben is not prepared to talk about the issues but rather resorts to low and underhand tactics to discredit the position taken by the Queensland Government. 1 am sure the Queensland public must be shocked by this behaviour. I have advised Mr Muntz of the situation and 1 would be most grateful if you could bring it to the attention of your readers.

Yours sincerely

PAUL EDWARDS Executive Director Forest Industries Campaign Association

Cash Advances to Minister for Corrective Services and Administrative Services Mr BURNS: I ask the Minister for Corrective Services and Administrative Services: what is the largest single cash advance that he has drawn since becoming a Minister of the Government? On how many occasions has he drawn such an amount of cash? Mr COOPER: Such information is not available to me at present. As has been reported in the Courier-Mail, 1 have already stated very clearly that there have been cash advances, as is the normal practice. They are all documented, all accounted for and all are subject to audit. There is nothing to fear and, as far as I am concerned, there is no problem. They are available to the tax man or any other body of that nature. There is no problem at all.

Effect of Pesticide Use on Fruit and Vegetable Exports Mr STEPHAN: In asking a question of the Minister for Primary Industries, I refer to a report in the Courier-Mail titled, "Spray Ignorance Export Threat", which states that the export of fmit and vegetables to south-east Asia will be seriously threatened 2922 22 November 1988 Questions Without Notice unless farmers are educated on the use of pesticides. Bearing in mind the concem of many countries about pesticide residue and the claim in the same article that two outlets at the Remington markets and other outlets in New South Wales are lacking information on pesticide safety, I ask: does he consider that adequate information is available in Queensland, and that producers are sufficiently aware of these dangers, to ensure that chemical residue is not found on our fresh fmit and vegetables in the market-place? Mr HARPER: In all sectors of primary industries, Queensland has an enviable record in its control of chemical residues, particularly in horticultural crops. I believe that adequate information about chemicals and their correct usage is available to primary producers, but I do note with approval and some degree of satisfaction that industry organisations and chemical companies themselves are beginning to initiate further means of informing primary producers of the effects of chemicals and of the need to be mindful. In that regard, 1 note the efforts that have been made in what are called the "three valleys" in the area of the Govemment Whip, Mr FitzGerald, where primary producers, of their own initiative and in conjunction with chemical companies and distributors in the area, have introduced a colour-coding system to identify chemicals and to bring about a very rationalised form of chemical usage. I certainly commend that program to other sectors of the industry throughout Queensland. The Queensland Government will continue, through extension services, to provide assistance and educational facilities in order to ensure that primary producers in this State have every opportunity to maintain the State's high reputation for chemical usage on all primary products throughout Queensland.

AIDS Education Program Mr STEPHAN: In asking a question of the Minister for Education, I refer to the AIDS education program in this State. I now ask: how does that program compare with those in other States? Mr LITTLEPROUD: Mr Speaker, you would be aware that in your time as Minister for Education the AIDS scare made it necessary for you, as Minister, to act very quickly to make sure that our young school-leavers were given some information about AIDS. In fact, I believe that at the end of 1987 every Year 10 and Year 12 child leaving school was given information. Since then the Education Department has produced its own video using some of the information coming from a program called Quantum but adapting it to be suitable for Queensland. It is interesting to note that, just recently, at an AIDS conference in Hobart, it was revealed that Queensland is the only State in Australia that is ensuring that all school- leavers are given direction and information about AIDS; so I can say that Queensland compares extremely well with the other States.

Monthly Computer Print-out of Premier's Department Expenditure Mr INNES: I ask the Premier: does his department produce a monthly computer print-out of financial expenditure, including expenditure relating to him as the responsible Minister? If so, for how long has it done so, to his knowledge, and what items are attributable to ministerial expenses? Mr AHERN: I am aware that there is regular monitoring, but I do not have with me the paper referred to and therefore cannot give the extent of it. I indicate to the honourable member that these matters are subject to stringent supervision within the department. I am quite comfortable in saying that all appropriate arrangements have been made. The issues are subject to the Financial Administration and Audit Act and regulations, and certain Treasurer's Instmctions; so I am completely satisfied in respect of this matter. However, as announced yesterday, the Government has indicated that a review will be initiated. That will include a public presentation of ministerial expenses generally that is at least as good as that in the Federal Parliament. At the end of my answering Questions Whhout Notice 22 November 1988 2923 this question, I will seek leave to table a document that indicates the level of reporting in the Federal Parliament in respect of this matter. For instance, the official car and air- charter costs of the Prime Minister are shown as $13,856 and $163,000 respectively. His staff costs are $143,000. The document includes travelling allowances for Ministers and the number of consultants and staff. The travelling expenditure by the Right Honourable R. J. Hawke was $174,978 and he had an establishment of staff consultants and others of 31. I have indicated that the system being developed here will be at least as accountable as the Federal one. 1 seek leave to table the document. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Monthly Itemisation of Government Expenditure Mr INNES: The purpose of my questions is to understand the systems of accountabiUty within the departments. I now ask the Premier: if a similar system of monthly expenditure itemisation is in operation throughout Govemment departments, is that system presided over by the Treasurer as the person who supervises (Government financial matters and for how long has such a system operated? Mr AHERN: As I indicated, all those issues are now under review. The whole matter will be brought back to a common system throughout the public service in respect of all Ministers' departments. One system will be put in place, which will be fully reported and accountable. At present, a system exists which is supervised within the departments by managers and by Ministers. However, concems have been expressed in relation to further improve­ ments being necessary. That has been accepted and that process now will take place. It will be fully publicly reported in terms of the quantum of amounts and also in terms of the process which will in future be used. Queensland Economy Mr HYND: In directing a question to the Minister for Industry and Small Business, I refer to an article on page 13 of today's Australian Financial Review which appears to contain many inaccuracies conceming the state of the Queensland economy relating to business and industry. Would the Minister care to correct those inaccuracies in order to set the record straight? Mr BORBIDGE: I read the article in this morning's Australian Financial Review. I reject it. The conclusions that have been reached by the joumalist in that newspaper are simply not substantiated by fact. The newspaper has alleged that Govemment in this State has been so preoccupied with the Fitzgerald commission of inquiry that it has not been out selling itself to the business community and attracting new investment and new business to this State. Such a proposition is quite clearly ludicrous. In terms of investment in new manufacturing industry, Queensland has had a record year—a year that has never been surpassed in the history not just of conservative Govemment in this State but any Government in this State. It is interesting that the article echoed some comments made by an official of the New South Wales Govemment, who was also trying to peddle that lie. Let us look at the degree of business confidence that has been demonstrated in Queensland by major corporations over the last few months. ICI has made an $82m commitment to a major new industrial chemical plant at Gladstone. NEC is putting a research and development centre in Brisbane. The Digital Equipment Corporation, one of the world's largest computer companies, is putting its communications, research and development facility into the research park adjoining Bond University. Connor Shea Napier closed its Sunshine operation in Victoria to relocate to Dalby in Queensland. Colgate Palmolive, one of those many companies that are household names, is closing down its Balmain operation in New South Wales to relocate to the Gold Coast. 2924 22 November 1988 Privilege

The figures for the quarter ending 30 September show that, so far this year, 76 companies have relocated or made a commitment to establish in Queensland. Mr Hayward: You won't even give their names. Mr BORBIDGE: I can understand the embarrassment of the honourable member opposite. Opposition members do not like the facts. Let us look at the employment that has been generated: 1 203 short-term jobs and 2 283 long-term jobs have been generated. They are simply facts of life that, unfortunately, our critics opposite and, on this occasion, the Australian Financial Review were not interested enough to check out. The key economic indicators show that Queensland is leading Australia in terms of exports, motor vehicle registrations, job vacancies and retaU sales. In the 12 months ending August 1988, Queensland had the highest retail sales turn-over of all Australian States, with 21.2 per cent compared with the national increase of 8.7 per cent. In the 12 months ending October 1988, Queensland created 86 200 new jobs, or 29 per cent of aU jobs created in Australia. With 16 per cent of Austraha's population, that is not bad. The article in the Australian Financial Review this morning is nonsense. It stands condemned by the facts. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has expired.

PRIVILEGE Comments by Member for Sandgate about Auditor-General Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate) (11 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. In the Auditor-General's report tabled in the House this morning, he is reported as saying— "Also, I recall at least one previous occasion (26th April last) when the Member for Sandgate delivered what I considered to be quite unwarranted criticisms of my performance." Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am attempting to listen to the member for Sandgate. I am not fussy about hearing others. Mr WARBURTON: I have examined remarks made by me in Hansard during the debate on the Financial Administration and Audit Act. I said on that occasion— "I hope that the Auditor-General takes my comments on board. If he wants to be critical of people who raise matters, if he wants to be critical of documents that somehow get out of his department or from wherever they might come, let me say this to him: if honourable members are not going to get the information in this Parliament, then that is his problem. Members of the Opposition wUl raise matters that they believe are in the public interest, irrespective of what the Auditor-General thinks." Considerable comment was made by me about the Auditor-General and his department. I concluded by saying— "Why were the rorts not detected?" That was in respect of the Callaghan affair. I continued— "Why were the rorts not detected by the Auditor-General's Department? Or is the Auditor-General going to say that his particular terms of reference, his guide­ lines, do not take him into that field?" 1 made quite deliberate comments in respect of the activities of his department. 1 stand by my comments made on 26 April 1988, and I regret that Mr Doyle has taken umbrage at what I regard as justified remarks concerning the weakness of the system of accountability over which he, as Auditor-General, presides. Matters of Public Interest 22 November 1988 2925

In my opinion, it was the responsibility of the Auditor-General to publicly Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is my belief that the honourable member is making a personal explanation and not speaking to a matter of privUege. Mr WARBURTON: Mr Speaker, may I conclude? Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the honourable member is raising the matter as a matter of privilege, I will mle him out of order. If he is making a personal explanation Mr WARBURTON: I am making a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate) (11.02 a.m.): As I was about to say, Mr Speaker, in my opinion, it was the Auditor-General's responsibUity to publicly express the concems that he outlines in today's report long before he decided to do so. In conclusion, if the Auditor-General claims that rorting of the system is not his responsibility and not his fault, then it must be the responsibility and the fault of the Ahem Govemment.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST Misuse of Ministerial Expenses; Expenditure of Department of Corrective Services Mr INNES (Sherwood—Leader of the Liberal Party) (11.03 a.m.): I am not rising today to make allegations of ministerial rorts; my purpose is to conduct an exercise in basic accountability, a principle that the National Party Government has failed to observe with vigilance in its five years of solo power in Queensland. My quest is not a witch­ hunt; it is a why-hunt. Two recent events have caused a cloud to form over current ministerial allowance practices. The first was the revelation that the Minister for Health, Mrs Harvey, used cheques from her departmental accounts to pay for attendance at National Party branch meetings and to buy Goldilocks comb sets. This money was taken out of funds that should be used to pay for more doctors and nurses to man our badly understaffed hospitals. This was a revelation Mrs HARVEY: I rise to a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is the Minister's point of order? Mrs HARVEY: Mr Speaker, the honourable member is misrepresenting the facts and the situation related to questions that were answered satisfactorily some time ago in this Chamber. I ask the honourable member to withdraw suggestions that there was any impropriety in the use of money by me. Mr Campbell interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bundaberg! Mr INNES: 1 have made no imputation. I just recited some facts. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Health has taken personal exception to the honourable member's remarks that she has been misusing funds. I ask the honourable member to Mr INNES: I withdraw whatever is necessary. Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. Mr INNES: The Premier and Treasurer failed to condemn the revelations relating to Mrs Harvey. Mr Ahern refused to say that Mrs Harvey should have made donations 2926 22 November 1988 Matters of Public Interest to the National Party or payments for functions out of her salary or electorate allowances, which the Liberal Party argues should be the case. All Mr Ahern could offer was that her use of public fiinds for political donations was within official guide-lines. The Premier treated the tax-payer with contempt by claiming, "We checked the cheques and they checked." Perhaps if members of the Liberal Party had checked, we might have found the checking chequered. Mr Ahem has steadfastly refused to table the guide-lines for ministerial spending, and it is now highly doubtful whether any exist. The second event of importance to this issue was the making of statements by Mr Don Lane to the Fitzgerald inquiry that former and current Ministers were using cash advances and other ministerial expenses in an improper way. I wish to say that Mr Lane's allegations against most Ministers were destroyed by cross-examination. However, his evidence raises once again the lack of scmtiny, or the problems relating to scmtiny, of ministerial expenses and the abolition of the "go-anywhere" Intemal Operational Audit Service of the Treasury Department. In the light of the public and parliamentary concern over ministerial expenses, even the Government felt obliged to make a political response. Extraordinarily, the Govern­ ment failed to refer this investigation to its brand-new Public Accounts Committee, or even the Auditor-General. Instead it landed in the lap of Mr Erik Finger, the newly appointed and promoted public servant in the Premier's Department. Mr Finger is charged with a review of ministerial spending and even a review of the spending of other parliamentarians. The point to be made is that the guide-lines for and limits on spending by back-benchers have a ceiling to them and are widely publicised. No such details are available with regard to ministerial expenses, and in recent times such spending has been shrouded in secrecy. Until yesterday, the Premier has continually refused to table documents relating to either the recent or current practices of ministerial spending. Those practices are being reviewed. Even now, the Premier has made only some vague commitment to tabling ministerial expenses in the Parliament to try to quell the growing public outcry, and that commitment is limited in time. He has dismissed the previous practice of detailing ministerial expenses as farcical. Let me show today that perhaps it is not so much a case of being a farce as a case that the tmth might hurt. I seek leave to table documents which constitute a computer print-out of the expenditure of one Govemment department, namely, the Department of Corrective Services. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the documents on the table. Mr INNES: The documents cover the whole of the financial year from 1 July 1987 to 30 June 1988 and the first four months of this financial year. They show that the Premier and Treasurer presides over a system, which he claims to be "farcical" accounting, that in fact identifies ministerial expenditure. It is an accounting system that clearly has existed intemally under the regime of Mr Ahern's predecessor. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, because the period in question is covered by those documents and presents substantially— in some cases precisely—similar material to that which has been maintained under the Treasurership of Mr Ahern. The accounting system tabulates ministerial expenses under generally consistent item headings. For each month, under the heading of "Ministerial Expenses" there are eight subheadings, as follows— "Minister Brisbane—Entertainment fuctions. Minister Brisbane—Liquor and other functions. Minister Brisbane—Other expenses. Minister Brisbane—Special purchases. Minister Australia—Hotel expenses. Matters of Public Interest 22 November 1988 2927

Minister Australia—Incidentals. Minister Expenses—Advances. Minister Travelling Expenses." The ministerial expenditure is totalled each month, and there is usually a mnning total. There is usually a tabulation and, in some cases, a total against each appropriation. There are also several columns that aUow comparisons of expenditure with the same month of the previous year and also a comparison of expenses for that month with the annual budget. There is also a special section for Ministers' overseas expenses involving four items, namely, accommodation, entertainment, fares and incidentals. All those items show expenditure from month to month, even where there is a zero entry. It is clearly in standardised computer form—an efficient form. The questions which arise, which I ask and for which I demand answers, relate to the broad principles of accountability. That is where I start. I ask— (1) Is the presentation of these monthly accounts in the Corrective Services Department standard procedure throughout Queensland Government Departments? I am sorry that the Minister for Corrective Services is the person who comes under the spotlight, but these are the only documents that came into my possession. Clearly, I am suggesting that the focus is on the total system. There is a system. Reluctantly, the Liberal Party is dragging that out. There is a system, and it should be revealed with regard to all Ministers. Further, I ask— (2) If it is not standard, in how many other departments are the accounts maintained in a substantially similar manner? (3) When did the practice of keeping accounts in substantially this form first commence? It was clearly in the Bjelke-Petersen era. (4) For how many years before that was that practice adopted? In fact, the details and items appear to be very similar to those items which used to be produced in an annualised form and which have been dismissed by the Premier and Treasurer as farcical. If it was farcical to produce those figures in the past, the Treasurer presides over a financial system that keeps currently, and monthly, farcical figures. The figures are not farcical; indeed, they are sensible figures to analyse and to isolate. Those figures are available for public scmtiny, if the Premier and Treasurer so desires. He should not be ashamed. He should disclose the figures and let the Ministers substantiate them. Further, I ask— (5) Does the Treasurer believe that the figures for ministerial expenses in the Department of Corrective Services are farcical? Let him deal with that direct question. Further— (6) Now that he can see that the accounts are readily avaUable, will he table the accounts of all departments, not just those for the Corrective Services Department? (7) As questions can clearly be raised with regard to the particular accounts obtained by the Liberal Party as far as the Corrective Services Department and Ministers are concerned, why does there appear to be no appropriation for ministerial advances untU the 1988 Budget? (8) What have the ministerial cash advances to the Minister for Corrective Services been specifically used for in each month? 2928 22 November 1988 Matters of Public Interest

(9) Why did the former Minister for Corrective Services, the Honourable Don Neal, apparently not need cash advances? (10) If a Minister uses the Government aircraft, is it shown in these or other accounts? There might be totally adequate explanations and answers for all those questions. I hope there are. In the interests of the tax-payer, and because of the confusion and reluctance that have been demonstrated over a period of months, I am entitled to raise these issues. On this issue, as on many other important matters of concern to Queensland, Mr Ahern acts like a general claiming public accountability as one of his strategies, but he always leads the charge from the back.

Assignment of Rights under Guarantees Mr HENDERSON (Mount Gravatt) (11.12 a.m.): Mr Speaker, I want to say how pleased I am to speak today in the Matters of Public Interest debate. It is not often that I speak to a packed Parliament and a packed media gallery. I thank them all for being here today. I have something important to say and they will probably enjoy it. The honourable member for Wolston wUl be disappointed. I am not going to talk about this morning's paper; rather, I am going to refer to a matter that I think is of considerable interest. Three instances have been brought to my attention, and I want to cite those examples in the House today. The first example that I cite is of a gentleman at Holland Park who happens to live in the electorate of the honourable member for Chatsworth and who purchased a second-hand refrigerator. When he purchased that refrigerator, the person who sold it to him had a sales docket on which it was recorded that the refrigerator had been repaired and that a 30-day guarantee had been given for the repairs. Mr R, J. Gibbs: I bet he bought it from pastor Klimionok. Mr HENDERSON: I can assure the honourable member that he did not. Good try! After the gentleman had purchased the refrigerator—I guess all honourable members know the story—it did not work. As it did not work, the man went to the person who had repaired the refrigerator prior to its being sold. He asked the repairer whether he was prepared to honour the guarantee that he had given to the original owner. Of course, the answer was "No." The repairer gave that answer simply because a third party to a contract cannot enforce any clause of a contract without the consent of both original parties to the contract, who in this instance were the repairman and the original owner of the refrigerator. So the new purchaser was left with a dud refrigerator. The second example I cite is that of a person who decides to sell a second-hand car that has some mechancial problems. Prior to selling a second-hand motor vehicle, a person might buy a second-hand motor, which usually comes with a guarantee. That motor is installed in a car, which is subsequently sold. In the process of the car's being sold, the guarantee is held out before the potential buyer. The person selling the car says, "The car is working. Here is the guarantee. Therefore you are buying a good car." Needless to say, the motor blows up very soon after and the car does not work. The person who has bought the motor car is somewhat aggrieved by those circumstances and cannot do anything about enforcing the guarantee. The third example I cite involves a home that could be for sale. If a home has been fumigated, it is possible that when it is sold, the fact that the home has been fumigated is held out as a condition of sale. The seller might say, "There are no white ants in the house. Here is a guarantee from the Flick company for 12 months." Of course, all honourable members know what happens when the house is bought by someone—it has white ants in it. The guarantee is unenforceable because the third party to a contract cannot buy any rights under the contract unless that is agreed to by the two parties. Matters of Public Interest 22 November 1988 2929

Simple solutions appeal to simple minds. The matter that I wish to raise concems assigning rights under guarantees. Usually, when a person gives a guarantee for a performance—whether it be in relation to a motor vehicle, a refrigerator, white ants in a house or whatever—the customer acts in good faith in the belief that that guarantee puts certain conditions on the sale. Sometimes, when the sale is complete, the person finds that the product that he bought is defective. The fact of the matter is that under the law of contract, the parties to a contract cannot assign any rights under the contract without the consent of all parties to the contract, which is a fair and reasonable principle. There could be one mUlion people to a contract, and it would be intolerable if one party to that contract—without any reference whatsoever to the other parties—attempted to assign to another party a right under the contract. If that occurred, the law of contract would break down. The parties to a contract all agree to the conditions of the contract. Whilst I sympathise with the gentleman with the refrigerator, it would be clearly intolerable if somehow or other he could go to the repairman and say, "You repair the refrigerator. Here is the guarantee that you gave the party to the contract, and I am now going to enforce that contract." In that case the law of contract would break down completely simply because any party could buy into a contract and purchase any rights under the contract without any referral to the parties to the contract. That would be unacceptable. The Law Reform Commission and the Attomey-General should consider the problem that arises in relation to guarantees that are given for work, and so on. I am advised by the two people whom I consulted in relation to that man with the refrigerator—one of whom is a lawyer in this House and the other an officer of the Justice Department— that the person who purchased the refrigerator does have an action against the person who sold it to him and can sue him and recover the cost of the refrigerator. I am advised also that if the seller of the refrigerator balks and says, "I refuse to pay", the purchaser could then take him to court—the Magistrates Court or somewhere else—and have the matter heard. Not only would the seller almost certainly end up having to pay for the cost of the refrigerator but he could also have to pay the costs of court, which would create a rather interesting situation. The party who is in the most invidious position—the most difficult position—is the original owner. If he is sued by the purchaser of the refrigerator, my advice is that the purchaser would almost certainly succeed in the action. As well, if any defence is raised, the purchaser would succeed in obtaining the costs of court. The second no-win situation in which the original owner finds himself is that, because he has tried to assign the contract to a third party without the consent of the repairman, he has now probably breached that contract in terms of the guarantee of repair. In any case, I gather that the 30 days has mn out and the repairman is under no obligation to repair the refrigerator even if the original owner takes it back. The Attorney-General and the Law Reform Commission should continue to consider this matter. I realise that it is a very difficult matter to resolve because it could lead to a bringing-down of some of the basic laws of contract that exist not only in Queensland but also in Australia, New Zealand, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and elsewhere. Some people in Queensland might say, "Be adventurous and have a go." However, by having a go it could bring down the entire law of contract, which would not be a good thing. Ministerial Expenses and Accountability; Auditor-General's Report on Audits Completed as at 31 October 1988 in Respect of Financial Year Ended 30 June 1988 Mr GOSS (Logan—Leader of the Opposition) (11.21 a.m.): Today during the Matters of Public Interest debate the Opposition will again expose the appaUing track record of this Government in delivering what the public of this State wants in terms of good government. In particular, the Opposition will deal with the lack of openness and 2930 22 November 1988 Matters of Public Interest accountability on the part of this Govemment and the lack of integrity in managing the affairs of this State. Next week it wUl be one year since the public of Queensland was promised Mr Newton interjected. Mr GOSS: I ask the honourable member to inteiject in English. A year ago next week, the people of this State were promised a vision of exceUence and a new era of openness and accountability. At that time the Premier said that the hallmark of this Government would be accountability. Today the Opposition will expose that track record. The honourable member for Wolston and I will deal in particular with certain aspects of this Govemment's track record in the light of the fact that down through the years we have advocated and consistently argued for the kind of safeguards and the stmctural changes that need to be made to the system of govemment in this State not only to provide honest government but also to let the public see that there is honest govemment. My colleague from Wolston will deal particularly with the need for a register of pecuniary interests, which, in the light of the revelations that have been made at the Fitzgerald inquiry, should be a matter of great interest to the member for Landsborough and the people of this State. I realise that you, Mr Speaker, would not allow me to canvass those particular revelations. Today, it is quite appropriate that I speak during this debate so that honourable members can see the way in which the Auditor-General of this State—an officer of the Parliament in this State—has exposed the Premier and the Ministers for the way in which they have failed to give accountability and the way in which this Premier and these Ministers have deceived this House and the public of Queensland by stating that their use of ministerial expenses and cash advances has been proper. When pressed, they will not table the details, especially for the period about which Mr Lane spoke. When further pressed, the excuse that they invariably offer is, "It has all been audited by the Auditor-General." The Premier has invited me to refer to the Auditor-General's report, so I will. Mr Ahern: Page 1. Mr GOSS: "Page 1", he bleats. I will refer to page 1. It contains some undue sensitivity on the part of the Auditor-General, who notes— "... assurances by the Leader of the Opposition that his comments in Parliament on Thursday, 10th November, impUed no reflection on me personally." He goes on to say that notwithstanding that, the comments Mr Sherrin interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mansfield! A Government member: What about the rest of it? Mr GOSS: I will quote the rest of it. The Auditor-General went on to say that it casts a slur on him ethically and professionaUy. Mr Ahern: What about paragraph 2? Quote that. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Government members inteijected. Mr GOSS: The Premier should keep quiet. I will deal with him in a minute. Matters of Public Interest 22 November 1988 2931

On page 1 of his report, the Auditor-General complains. The people down the back complain because they can see the polls, they can see the failure of leadership from the Premier. Mr SHERRIN: I rise to a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member's point had better be a point of order. Mr SHERRIN: The point of order I am making is that the "people down the back" to whom the Leader of the Opposition referred—and he was pointing at me—are not complaining about any news polls; we are complaining because the Leader of the Opposition is misleading the House and selectively quoting. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. Mr GOSS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In his report the Auditor-General complains, apart from me, about the member for Sandgate. As I did then—and I do now—I make it plain that we cast no reflection on him personally, but we say that the procedures for accountability in this State are deficient, and we will not apologise for saying that. We will not back away from our claim that there is no accountabUity for these people who have their fingers in the cookie jar and that no-one can see what is going on. No-one can be assured of accountability. What is their excuse? Time and time again they say Mr AHERN: 1 rise to a point of order. The honourable Leader of the Opposition has accused members of my Ministry of having their hands in the cookie jar. That is offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr Sherrin interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the member for Mansfield under Standing Order 123A. The Premier has taken exception to the remark made by the Leader of the Opposition and asks that it be withdrawn. Mr GOSS: It is offensive. I withdraw the comment. I substitute the euphem­ ism- Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Chatsworth! Mr GOSS: I substitute the euphemism: they used ministerial expenses and cash advances without accountability. Let me now quote further from the Auditor-General's report that the Premier has been bleating about, because it is important to nail the lie that has been fed to the public that the Auditor-General audits all these things and therefore the public can be assured that the expenditure has been proper. On page 3 of his report the second paragraph states— "There is clearly a misconception of the audit function (which I must say has also been evidenced over the years by Ministers citing audit by the Auditor-General as ipso facto proof of the propriety of Government affairs) and I can only express disappointment that my efforts in the past to keep Parliament and other interested parties informed about the role of my Department, its professionally sound and accepted methodologies and their underlying philosophies and objectives have apparently passed largely unnoticed." He is saying that down through the years and in recent days their accounts have been audited. The same comments were heard again today from the Minister for Corrective Services, who said, "I have got nothing to hide because it has all been 2932 22 November 1988 Matters of Public Interest audited." The Ministers have been blown out of the water by their own Auditor-General, who said that his functions have been cited by them over the years "as ipso facto proof of the propriety of Government affairs". The Auditor-General says that that is not tme. To drive the stake home, the Auditor-General goes on to make the point— "Contrary to popular belief the prevention and detection of fraud (in any of its forms) is no longer a prime objective of audit.. ." Mr Austin: That's not what he says. Read the next sentence. Doesn't he say Mr GOSS: No. He says "if indeed, it ever was." That is the lie that has been fed to the public; that because Ministers' use of ministerial expenses and cash advances has been audited, the public can be assured it is honest. The public have no assurance of honesty from this (Cabinet, from this Premier or from the Auditor-General. The members of the Cabinet have been exposed. The first year of the vision of excellence is now coming to an end, and still we have seen no economic strategy, no strategy in relation to cormption and no strategy to deal with cronyism. What we have is this belated announcement of a public works committee—Labor's policy. When will it be implemented? On a radio program the Premier spoke of having the courage and the guts to do it. Does he do it? Does he do it when he is not under pressure? No. He does it only when he has to, only once it becomes a matter of public concern, after the evidence which is nailing Mr Hinze down the other end of George Street. If the Premier is tmly honest and tmly wants to ensure that public tenders and contracts are dealt with honestly, why does he not do it before he is forced to? During the past year only one thing has changed—the strong and decisive leadership that used to be provided by the National Party is no longer provided. Now we have retrospective honesty—retrospective honesty when it comes to cormption, retrospective honesty when it comes to cronyism, retrospective honesty when it comes to tabling details of ministerial expenses and cash advances. Yesterday an undertaking was given that details of some expenses would be tabled. According to the documents that I have tabled today in relation to the Minister for Corrective Services, some of the detailed records show that, if the Government wanted to, it could table those records. However, it does not. As 1 understand my advice from the public service, it is that the records in relation to Mr Cooper's department do not include cash advances. Yet again today the Premier says that he will not answer these questions about cash advances. He will not deal with them. He was all too happy to drop Mr Lane in it, but as for the rest, he chose to cover it up. As for this openness and accountability, he will not go back to the time when he and 12 of his Ministers were spending ministerial expenses and cash advances in the way that Mr Lane was. Even though he says that there is nothing to hide, he hides the books. He will not go back to those days. That sort of retrospective honesty that only goes back to 1 December last year is not good enough. The public of Queensland are judging this Premier and judging the gaggle down the back in accordance with their failure to deliver honesty in govemment and a Government of integrity; and that judgment is coming. Time expired. Leader of Opposition's Attack on Government's Integrity; Home Loan Interest Rates Mr GATELY (Curmmbin) (11.31 a.m.): I was intrigued to sit here and listen to the gaggle from the Leader of the Opposition in this House. He stood up and said that this Government lacks openness and integrity. I challenge him on those points alone. The most open and far-reaching inquiry—the Fitzgerald inquiry—is being undertaken in Queensland. It is the most open and far-reaching inquiry of any that have taken place under any Govemment that has ever had enough tenacity to undertake one. The Leader of the Opposition cannot stand criticism and scmtiny on this matter. His comments are wrong and false. Matters of Publiclnterest 22 November 1988 2933

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the hallmarks of accountability, yet the track record of his own Labor colleagues right across Australia is very questionable. Let us see how fair dinkum he is; let us have him call for an inquiry in Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria and let us see where he stands. I understand that in New South Wales, Mr Greiner is doing exactly the same by looking into the affairs of his friends. Honourable members will notice that the Leader of the Opposition is taking no notice. He is burying his head in documents that he has, but that is okay. Later he will mn out and do another little grotty bit on television. He wiU not even stay in the House to listen and to be challenged; he has to mn away. That is the type of person the Leader of the Opposition is; he has not got the guts to stay in the House. I want him to show me his evidence to support his contention that there is something wrong with this Government. I want to know where he got the papers that he tabled in this House today. Are they in fact legal? Where did he get them from? Who gave them to him and who is accountable for having done that? Let us have a go at this and see just what evidence he has. He has not a shred of evidence, yet he comes into this House and attacks the Government that has had the decency to establish the best inquiry that has ever been undertaken. 1 challenge the Leader of the Opposition and his Liberal Party counterpart, Mr Innes, who sits behind me, to have the guts to go down and front Mr Fitzgerald and put any evidence that they have before him. Never mind hiding behind this House! They should go down to Mr Fitzgerald and put the evidence, if they have any, in front of him. They do not have any evidence; they are play-acting, which is all they ever do in this House. I want to talk about matters that concern the residents of my electorate as well as the general public right across the State. I refer to the high interest rates and the high value of the dollar. Every mral producer today is screaming out to the Federal Treasurer, trying to urge him to take some action to ensure that Australia's export industries are in fact protected. The coal industry and mral industry are two industries in particular that I refer to. Let us look at what high interest rates are all about. They do not have anything to do with keeping inflation down, but they are about ripping this nation apart and about ensuring that the public of Australia experience nothing except uncertainty and hesitancy. Members of the public now are not game to make the decisions that they would ordinarily make. Let me analyse what is happening when young people try to buy their own homes. They cannot afford to buy their own homes because of the high rate of interest. They are being put into a position in which the Federal Govemment is manipulating them. In my maiden speech in this House, I referred to words used by Bill Hayden many times. He said that the Federal Labor Govemment would redistribute the wealth of this nation by having interest rates at levels that will automatically force up the commercial rates of interest. That is what is happening, and nothing that will be to the benefit of the home-owner is being done. Last Friday on the Gold Coast, I had the opportunity of meeting industry leaders, developers, welfare organisations, other members of Parliament and local govemment representatives. We talked about the need for low-cost housing. We discussed the reasons why people are being thrown out of their homes. When we started to look at the reasons, we realised that many people want to own their homes but are unable to do so because of high costs of constmction and high interest rates. They are not game to take the plunge because they cannot be certain that they will not be put into a position in which the mortgagee will sell them up. Why are people being thrown out of their homes? It is not because they have not been able to find employment and it is not because they do not have the capacity to meet the payments that they contract to undertake. The reason is that over the past five years the Federal Govemment has been manipulating interest rates. If the members of the Opposition do not believe what I am saying, they should cast their minds back prior to the last Federal election. What occurred at that stage? Shortly before the election, a 2934 22 November 1988 Matters of Public Interest dramatic change occurred in interest rates to make them look good. When the interest rates looked as though they had decreased, people started to feel that they could tmst the Federal Labor Government. But, again, they were let down. Even during the last election campaign, Mr Hawke made a blatant statement on the Sunday program that although he had made promises, if it suited him he would break them. His promises are not worth a squirt. He should be condemned for his hypocritical statements that mislead the nation. He tells people that they should work together and go forward. What nonsense! He does not want people to go forward. He wants people to go backwards. He does not want people to be productive or to enjoy a life-style that will give them peace of mind. Uncertainty is what he breeds in this nation. If members of the Opposition do not believe what I am saying about interest rates, let me refer to one category to illustrate the point I am making. Although I have statistics on all categories of interest rates, I will not quote all of them. I have taken the trouble to find out the profits that have been made by some banks in Australia. I shall use the Commonwealth Bank as an example. In 1987, the bank's operating profit after tax was $ 197.2m Of course, the Commonwealth Bank is doing very badly—really badly! With the help of the Federal Government, its profit has increased to $273.4m, which has been derived from increased interest rates. If members of the Opposition want to claim that that is a fair dinkum advantage to the workers that they are supposed to support, I will walk from here to the back of Mr Milliner: Bourke? Mr GATELY: No, 1 will not go to Bourke because that is in New South Wales. I would have to go out near Charleville or a bit farther out. I will do it backwards and without shoes, too, because it is not possible to substantiate an increase in interest rates of that magnitude which is tearing the heart out of this nation. That is what is wrong. The Federal Treasurer is not satisfied with merely increasing interest rates for home­ owners; while he is about it he wants to attack farmers and everyone else. When issues related to housing were discussed at the week-end, one matter that was obvious was that increased interest rates do not affect only welfare recipients. The effects flow freely onto people in middle-income brackets and even onto young people who have good jobs but find it increasingly difficult to obtain accommodation at a reasonable price. It is little wonder that young people feel nothing except despair, especially when one considers the pressures that are imposed on them while they are trying to meet their commitments. The problem is that welfare organisations are being pushed to the hmit in an effort to provide accommodation. I pay special tribute to the people who attended that meeting on Friday, particularly to a young man called Terry Boume of the Lifeline organisation, who presented one of the most far-reaching insights into the problem that I have ever witnessed. He has undertaken a very comprehensive study of what is happening on the Gold Coast, which highlights the number of displaced persons who cannot afford rent accommodation. In every case it is due to these kinds of ramifications. The end result is that undue pressures are being placed upon the family unit. There is violence in marriage. Why the hell wouldn't there be? The Federal Government is uncaringly pushing up interest rates and taking away the spendable income that a family should have to buy everyday items. The family no longer has that spendable income because together Mr Hawke and Mr Keating have ensured that interest rates are so high that that income is taken away. The Federal Govemment says that it is redistributing the wealth. It is not concerned about what is happening, even though it pretends to be. The tmth of the matter is shown by the results. There are continuous break-downs of marriages owing to these problems and pressures. It is not fair for any person to have to meet such an imposition. The interest rates are being manipulated by a Government that should know better. In the end the ones who are really affected are the children of this nation. In the long term they are the ones who suffer, because they have no stability. I sheet the Matters of Public Interest 22 November 1988 2935 responsibility straight home to the Prime Minister of this nation and his Treasurer who together have forced interest rates up to a level at which families do not have enough income to enable them to live in comfort. Ministerial Code of Conduct Mr R. J. GIBBS (Wolston) (11.41 a.m.): Twelve months ago when Mr Ahern took office as the Premier of this State he talked about his so-called vision of excellence. One of the first statements that he made related to a code of conduct for Ministers. Today this code of conduct is a code of silence; a code of dissention which leaves the potential wide open in this State for high-level graft and cormption. I wiU use the conduct of the Minister for Corrective Services as an example of what the ministerial code of conduct means to Queenslanders today. In March of this year he drew the sum of $260 for ministerial expenses. In April of this year the amount increased to $680. In June—which was a poor month for the Minister—the amount dropped to $300. Mr Milliner: Whom are we talking about? Mr R. J. GIBBS: The Minister for Corrective Services. In August he had a big lash-out, spending $ 1,000 of the tax-payer's money, and in September he spent $690. In October there was the Big Daddy of them all—he took $1,989 out of the public purse and spent it on lurks and perks. That is more money than many constituents of mine take home in their pay packet for a month. After Mr Ahern became Premier, an article in the Courier-Mail of 9 Febmary 1988, headed "Code to be enforced: Ahem", stated— "Cabinet Ministers who breached a proposed code of conduct would be dismissed, the Premier, Mr Ahern said yesterday. But the code, agreed to in principal in Cabinet, would be confidential. It would require Ministers to declare real estate holdings, share portfolios and private company associations, and relinquish and company directorships.

Mr Ahem said Ministers were anxious to declare their interests and give effect to his undertaking that Queensland would have open, honest and accountable govemment." This is not accountable government. This is a deliberate rort on the tax-payers of this State. It is an abuse of the privilege of being elected to represent the people of Queensland or appointed as a Minister of the Crown. If the ministerial code of conduct or strange veil of secrecy laid down by Mr Ahem is worth anything, he should immediately remove the Minister for Corrective Services from the high office of a Minister of the Crown. Mr Gately: Mr Gibbs, did you ask him what he spent the money on? Mr R. J. GIBBS: I am not taking any interjections from that side of the House, particularly from the honourable member for Curmmbin. It is well known that he is slipperier than an eel in a bucket of snot. Mr GATELY: I rise to a point of order. I find that remark offensive. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I regard the final remarks made by the honourable member for Wolston as unparliamentary, and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr R. J. GIBBS: I withdraw them at your request, Mr Speaker. The ministerial code of conduct remains unknown, unseen and unsighted by the public of Queensland. On 16 December 1987 1 released an undertaking by the State ALP that a Labor Government in this State would not only be accountable to the people, but also be seen 2936 22 November 1988 Matters of Public Interest to be accountable. The Labor Party would give an absolute undertaking to introduce a Bill that would require the complete disclosure of the pecuniary interests of members of Parliament. The BiU—I will make it available for public scmtiny—covers many areas. For example, it covers those areas that are being deliberately hidden from the Queensland public by the Minister and the Premier himself The BiU requiring the disclosure of the pecuniary interests of members of Parliament will be introduced by a Labor Government and will require that the interests of every member of the family of the member of Pariiament, whether it be the spouse of that member, a child or adopted child, or a child or adopted child of the spouse of that member, be included in the list of member's pecuniary interests. A Labor Government would ensure that partnerships would include persons carrying on a business in common with a view to profit. The Labor Party would ensure that it covered partnerships and such things as personal property, share interests, other interests including land, people who are involved as trustees or otherwise and incorporations. The proof that it would be a totally open and accountable register is that the presiding officer who would have the responsibility to oversee this on a day-to-day basis would in fact be the Speaker of the Parliament. He would be responsible for the register and for Ministers and other members of Parliament lodging their total list of pecuniary interests. That register would be totally open for scmtiny by members of the public. Government members interjected. Mr R. J. GIBBS: Listen to them bellow, because they know that any proper list of pecuniary interests would absolutely blow apart the facade—the last remaining facade— of respectability that some on that side of the House are so keen to hold on to. The fact is that such a register would reveal the high-level graft and cormption that has taken place on that side of the House and it would reveal how members on that side of the Chamber have misused their offices. The legislation that would be introduced by a Labor Govemment would use the following definition of "relative"— "The parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal descendant or adopted child of that member or of his spouse." In other words, it would be impossible not to reveal to the public exactly what every Minister owns. A shining example of why this sort of provision is so drastically needed is the revelations at the Fitzgerald inquiry this week about a recent Minister of the Crown who has obviously used that office to further his own financial gain. The Labor Party would go so far as to ensure that every member, within the period of one month after the expiration of each return period, furnish to the Speaker of the Parliament a retum setting out the address or other information as may be sufficient to identify any real property, including leasehold interests in any real property, in which a member of this House or a member of his family was involved. As I said, the Labor Party would ensure totally open and honest accountability of any prescribed interests of a member of this House. For example, under the definition of "prescribed interests and benefits" the Labor Party would cover a person who has a prescribed interest in any property, if that person has any direct or indirect interest in that property. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, a person shall be deemed to have a prescribed interest in a corporation if that person is a director of the corporation, is a member of the corporation, has a prescribed interest in any share issued by that corporation, has any rights or powers conferred upon him in addition to his rights or powers as a member or a director of the corporation, controls or is capable of controlling that corporation or its voting power, or has a prescribed interest in a corporation that has a prescribed interest in, or association with, any contract with the Government of the day. The proof that the Labor Party is genuine in what it will do when in office in this State comes under the heading "FaUure to furnish information", which provides that any member who without reasonable excuse fails to furnish such information as he is Matters of Public Interest 22 November 1988 2937 required to fumish to clause 7 of our proposed Bill will be guUty of an offence carrying a minimum penalty of a fine of $5,000. The legislation that I have been advocating to the House today and that would be passed in the Legislative Assembly by a Labor Govemment would ensure that Mr Speaker and this Chamber would have the power and the authority to be able to gain information about members' pecuniary interests. The Bill, details of which I have put before the House, shows that a Labor Govemment in this State would be prepared to be open, honest and accountable to the people. I believe that is fast becoming recognised and respected in the community. Aboriginal Housing in Charleville Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (11.51 a.m.): Unlike my colleagues on the other side of the House, today I will not be politically grandstanding or tmmpeting. It is interesting that, although both the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Labor Party had a copy of the same document, the Leader of the Liberal Party had more pages. I wonder whether he forgot to give the rest of the pages to the Labor Party. The concern I express today relates to an electorate matter. If all honourable members tried to address those things and looked at politics in that light, perhaps we would all be better off. What I want to speak about is of importance to the Aboriginal people in my electorate who, through no fault of their own, are now being evicted from their homes. That has occurred simply because of lack of control by the Commonwealth Govemment. I wish to refer to Federal Hansard of 4 June 1987, when many questions were asked of and answered by, the then Minister, Mr Holding. Although 17 questions were asked, I will refer to only two, because they are the important ones that will help me to explain to the House what has happened. One question was— "Has an investigation been made of the Charleville Aboriginal Housing Company's auditors' reports and do these reports show that there were misappropriations of funds?" The Minister's answer was— "Yes. An investigation has been made which discloses evidence of extensive misappropriation, forgery of cheques as well as theft and misuse of funds. The audit reports and subsequent inquiries indicate gross incompetence in the conduct of Company affairs, including a failure to maintain proper records or report to the police evidence of criminal offences. Income derived from rental paid by the tenants of ADC/DAA funded houses owned by the Company appears to have been misappropriated by being applied to pay expenses incurred by Mr R. L. Robinson, Chairman of the Company. These expenses have included paying for Mr Robinson's telephone bill, fares and travelling expenses, as well as making him 9 personal loans ($ 15,000), apparently interest-free and for an indefinite period. In addition, income derived from rental also appears to have been used to make other loans to individuals, pay the wages of employees of other organisations, pay monies owed to Aboriginal Hostels Limited, purchase paintings, meet the cost of parties and other entertainment, and for capital expenditure (over $10,000) on the Charleville Community Centre. Personal loans appear to have been made, interest-free, for unspecified periods and without approval of the Company's Board at the time they were made. In December 1986, the ADC asked the Company for explanations conceming some 105 irregularities and qualifications raised by the auditor. To date, the Company has not provided satisfactory replies." Another question that was asked in the Federal House of Representatives on 4 June 1987 was—

"Has the ADC stopped funding the company?"

81407—99 2938 22 November 1988 Matters of Public Interest

The Minister's reply was— "I am informed the Commission has neither offered nor released funds to the Company during the past 12 months and does not intend doing so until it is satisfied as to the abUity of the Company to: (a) account for public funds, including those provided by the ADC; (b) abide by ADC terms and conditions of grant funding; (c) respond to audit queries to the satisfaction of the ADC; (d) conduct its affairs in a lawful and responsible manner; and (e) comply with ADC expectations in relation to its operations. The ADC tells me that it is most concemed by the irresponsible manner in which the affairs of the Company have been conducted while Mr Robinson has been in office. Rental arrears have increased by 239% over the past 2 years and, at 30 June 1986, apparentiy stood at $11,963 but may be considered higher. There are no records of any Board meetings having been held in 1985/86 or that the Board has deliberated on Company administration. With regard to its 1985/86 accounting responsibilities, the Company has failed to provide the ADC with an adequate audited Income and Expenditure statement; Balance Sheet; detailed list of Debtors and Creditors; certified accurate Assets Ledger; and certified accurate Insurance Schedule. ADC grant funding has not been recorded in the Statement nor are there reliable records to show how those funds were used. The ADC will not provide further funds to the Company until all previously provided monies have been accounted for and the Commission has been so advised." That is commendable and what should have been done. However, that was a long time ago. At this stage, it appears that no report has been made. If it has been made, it certainly has not been publicised. While we have been waiting for that report to be made, another issue has arisen. That has been caused by a media release by the Honourable the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Gerry Hand, who instigated action under article 29 of the articles of association of the company, which allows him to issue directions to the company involved. That media release states— "Information available to the Minister, if substantiated, would have very serious implications for the Company and for the Charleville Aboriginal Community. In addition, a large number of Charleville people had asked him to take this action." That is correct. The press release continues— "Mr Hand said he would await the auditor's report before considering what other actions might be needed." It is all very well to wait for reports and that type of thing. However, no real action is taking place to assist the people who will find themselves in a situation totally beyond their control in which they may be evicted from their houses. There is a possibility that the Aboriginal Development Commission will provide some funding. I will refer to that later. However, the people are being affected by the fights between the Federal Govemment and the management of that company. There should be some accountability to those people who are suffering in this issue. The regional manager of the ADC, Mr G. A. Miller, sent a letter to the local solicitor to inform members of the management of the Charleville Aboriginal Housing Privilege 22 November 1988 2939

Company that they had to comply with seven requirements before funding would be made available. The last sentence in that letter states— "Given the strong views of the present Chairman of Charleville Aboriginal Housing Company, there appears to be no point in Commission officers meeting with the present management of the Company until the Company has compUed with the requirements listed above, or until the management of the company has been changed." As was mentioned recently in this House by the Queensland Minister, the Honourable Bob Katter, and also in an article in the Courier-Mail, problems arose regarding a recent loan taken out through Mercantile Credits Limited, which is now foreclosing on those Aboriginal houses. It is also believed that Dreamtime Imports played a part in the negotiation of the loan. Mr Newton: A lot of rorts. Mr HOBBS: That is right. There seem to be many rorts occurring in that area which need to be looked at. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time aUotted for the Matters of Public Interest debate has now expired.

LEAVE TO MOVE MOTION WITHOUT NOTICE Mr HAMILL (Ipswich) (12 noon): In the light of the escalating road toU, I seek leave to move a motion without notice. Question—That leave be granted—put; and the House divided— AYES, 27 NOES, 55 Ardill Ahem Knox Braddy Alison Lee Bums Austin Lester Campbell Beanland Lickiss Casey Beard Lingard Comben Berghofer Littleproud D'Arcy Booth McCauley De Lacy Borbidge McKechnie Eaton Burreket McPhie Goss Chapman Menzel Hamill Cooper Muntz Hayward Elliott Neal McEUigott Fraser Nelson Mackenroth Gamin Newton McLean Gately Perrett Milliner Gibbs, I. J. Randell Palaszczuk Gilmore Row Shaw Glasson Schuntner Smith Gunn Sherlock Smyth Harper Sherrin Vaughan Harvey Simpson Warburton Henderson Slack Wamer Hinton Stoneman WeUs Hobbs Tenni Yewdale Hynd Veivers Innes White Katter Tellers: Tellers: Davis FitzGerald Prest Stephan ved in ihe negative. PRIV ILEGE Comments by Leader of Opposition about Privileges Committee Mr GOSS (Logan—Leader of the Opposition) (12.08 p.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. It relates to certain comments made by me in this Chamber on 10 November, as I recall, wherein I made a reference to the Privileges Committee of this Parliament 2940 22 November 1988 Education (Teacher Registration) Bill being a joke, or a similar term. I acknowledge that you, Mr Speaker, have drawn that comment to my attention. I want to place on record that in the debate that was going on at the time I made that comment against a background of my own experience of having been referred to that committee on a previous occasion and the view that I formed of the performance of that committee on that particular occasion, which I regarded as unsatisfactory as related to that particular case. Nevertheless, as you have pointed out to me, Mr Speaker, and as I freely and happily acknowledge in this Chamber today, the Privileges Committee is an important institution of this Parliament. On behalf of members of the Labor Party and myself— particularly myself on this occasion—1 record our continuing respect for that committee as an institution of this Parliament, in the same way as members of the Labor Party respect this Parliament as an institution. Those institutions should be respected. I certainly withdraw any reflection on the integrity of the members of that committee or on the operation of the committee as part of the institution of the Queensland Parliament. I just wanted to place that on record.

EDUCATION (TEACHER REGISTRATION) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 27 October (see p. 2108). Mr BRADDY (Rockhampton) (12.09 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to rise for the first time in this Chamber as shadow Minister for Education to debate legislation relating to education in this State. It goes without saying that education, if not the most important priority for this Parliament to keep in mind, is certainly one of the most important. It is therefore with great pleasure that members of the Labor Party consider particularly this Bill, and the accompanying Bills, as an indication that the Government is at least prepared to keep talking to educationalists and to people who are interested in reform of the administration of education in this State. I indicate at the outset that the Opposition generally supports the legislation. I will be making some criticisms of this Bill, and I foreshadow that a couple of amendments will be moved at the Committee stage in relation to its operation and, indeed, the operation of some of the other legislation that will come before the Parliament today. The Opposition supports the general thmst of the Bill. However, it believes that the Bill can be improved by some amendments. In the course of my speech now and during the Committee stage I shall indicate those areas in which the education Bills generally could be improved. That should not be taken to mean that Opposition members generally are strongly critical of the legislation. As I said, the Opposition supports the general thmst of what the Minister has put forward and welcomes the legislation. At the outset, I indicate that the legislation before the House is an improvement on the legislation that was previously foreshadowed. The improvement is the result of the longer period provided for consultation. It has been the Opposition's experience that when the Government allows a longer period and greater opportunity for consultation on education matters, the legislation and the measures that the Government undertakes are improved. Therefore, it is a pity that the Government, in its so-called devolution of powers to parents and teachers, did not travel the same road. Surely the Government's experience with this legislation and with the accompanying legislation has been that, by putting forward draft legislation, criticism can be taken into account. If the Government is not too thin-skinned to accept criticism of legislation, improvements can be made to it. 1 suggest that the Govemment did not provide enough time for discussion on the devolution of powers and that not enough emphasis was placed on discussions with the community. Therefore the Minister is receiving valid criticism in that area. Education (Teacher Registration) Bill 22 November 1988 2941

If the Government is going to bring about wholesale devolution and real involvement of parents and staff in the administration of teaching and of the schools in this State, a triumvirate is needed. Firstly, funding is needed, as it is needed for all areas of education. Adequate staffing is required to make sure that this new liberality, this new co-operation and this new involvement can take place. Of course, adequate training is needed for the people who will take part in the particular schemes. I suggest that it is a pity that the Govemment has not held enough discussions. If some of my criticisms had been heeded, the legislation could have been improved. At least there would have been time for the issues of training and staffing to be examined. As to funding—the Government has nailed its colours to the mast. The Budget and the Education Estimates outline the funding for the next 12 months. Everywhere I have been, I have noted that where discussion between parents and staff on the legislation has taken place, improvements have generally occurred. When the Government mshes in, perhaps because it is frightened of discussion and criticism, the measures that are introduced suffer. Real problems are caused by the devolution of powers. Even though the basic plan has already been implemented, I hope that the Minister and the Government will at least accept the criticism and listen to further suggestions for improving the legislation. The Bill is welcomed by the Opposition, particularly because it provides that relatively few members of the Board of Teacher Registration will be appointed by the Minister. It is proposed that people be appointed by virtue of their position. The Minister will not be placed in a position in which he will appoint the majority of the members of the Board of Teacher Registration. The provision dealing with the constitution of the board enables the Minister to appoint additional representation. The Opposition believes that that provision is not necessary. The people referred to in the legislation as constituting the board are sufficient and there is no need for the appointment of an additional person. Therefore, I suggest that that provision should be deleted. That matter can be discussed at the Committee stage. As to the constitution of the board—the Minister and the Government have not been fully fair or fully wise in respect of the provision for the nomination of teacher representatives on the board. The significant preponderance of State school teachers in the education system in Queensland is another reason why the provision relating to the constitution of the board is not fully fair and not fully wise. I foreshadow that I will discuss that subject further at the Committee stage. Bearing in mind that approximately 75 per cent of the teachers in this State are Queensland Teachers Union members, the board's constitution is a matter of significance to that union's members. It would have been fairer and wiser if two teachers were appointed as nominees from the Queensland Teachers Union, and the Opposition foreshadows an amendment to that effect. The abandonment of the idea of proceeding with the council on non-Government education is welcomed. The Opposition does not believe that that was a wise provision. The opposition that it attracted was warranted, and the Opposition welcomes the abandonment of that proposal as previously formulated. This legislation will enable teaching to be seen more as a profession. When debating the legislation we should consider it in the light of succeeding or failing because it establishes a legislative framework for teaching as a profession. We live in an age in which the subject of professions is frequently debated. In the past, teachers were not given the recognition of professional status to which they were reasonably entitled. Whether this legislation enhances the teaching profession, treats teachers as responsible people and gives them a reasonable say in the control of their profession must be critically considered and adjudged. This legislation is an improvement in that respect. The Board of Teacher Registration will comprise a majority of teachers, which recognises that teachers are responsible people who have a right to control their own profession in the same way as lawyers and doctors control their professions through legislation that applies to them. Although teachers will not be given the almost exclusive 2942 22 November 1988 Education (Teacher Registration) Bill say in the goveming of their professions, as do people in the medical and legal professions, this legislation is certainly an advance. It represents a challenge to the teaching profession to provide people who will be responsible members of the Board of Teacher Registration. I have no doubt that that challenge will be met by teachers from the State system, the private system and the religious education system. It is important that the board is composed of a majority of teachers, and I congratulate the Minister for that provision. At the moment the Queensland Teachers Union has only one nominee on the board. An additional nominee would have been better. The provision entitling the Minister to nominate an additional person should be deleted. If the Opposition's foreshadowed amendment on that aspect is not acceptable, I hope that, when the Minister nominates that additional person, he will bear in mind the overall responsibility of the teaching profession. Bearing in mind the nominees who come from various sections of the community, I hope that teachers will be given an equal opportunity of having a representative from their profession appointed as that additional nominee. One further criticism of the legislation is that there appears to be no provision for the board to monitor and oversee teacher education. If teaching is to be regarded more and more as a profession, teachers should have more say on the board that represents a majority of them. Through the Board of Teacher Registration, the legislation should provide for teachers to have a say in the overseeing and monitoring of their own professional education process. I commend that suggestion to the Minister and hope that it will be kept in mind so that, in the future, consideration will be given to amending the legislation in that manner. Although the Opposition does not foreshadow an amendment in that regard, that suggestion should be kept under review and discussed by the Minister, his departmental officers, the two teacher unions and the representatives from the various parents and citizens associations. The research function given to the Board of Teacher Registration, as outlined in this legislation, is too limited. Basically, it allows the board to undertake review and research as commissioned and funded by the Minister, or from its own funds, only with the approval of the Minister. The Board of Teacher Registration will be a responsible board set up to oversee education in Queensland. It should be given its own independent power to initiate research without the necessity of having to be directly commissioned by the Minister or, in a sense, having to go cap in hand to the Minister and ask for his approval. Therefore, the Bill should be amended to clarify that a responsible body is being set up, part of whose functions should be the opportunity to initiate its own research, just as the Queensland Law Society can, without having to obtain the Minister's approval or to be formally commissioned and funded by him. I am happy that a review and research function is to be vested in the board. My criticism is that it is too limited. I support the Minister's proposal that there be this review and research function, but why limit it? It is clear that most of the board's funds will be provided by teachers themselves, along the modern lines of the user-pays principle. It would appear that the majority of the funds will be raised from registration fees paid by teachers; yet the board will be limited in its research functions by excessive control by the Minister and the department. Certainly, an enlightened Minister—I would hope this Minister is such, and I see no reason why he should not be considered such in this regard—would give his approval willingly and would be loath to restrict it when it was sought. But why should it have to be sought in the first place? Why not have a review and research function with a user-pays principle, which enables a responsible board to carry out its own research? Obviously, in that respect a responsible board would be retarded and hindered by the amount of funds available to it. Therefore, a board could undertake that research only if it had funds available to it or if it could obtain them through a special grant from the Minister. There is every reason to be confident that the board set up under this legislation will be a responsible board. I find it somewhat strange that the research function should therefore be limited in the way that it has been. Education (Teacher Registration) Bill 22 November 1988 2943

Another unfair restriction contained in the legislation relates to teachers in State schools. The legislation provides that members of the board who are teachers in State schools will not be entitled to claim expenses in relation to their board activities. This provision does not apply to teachers from non-State schools. I do not suggest that members of the board should be paid. However, if board members who are State school teachers incur expenses associated with their service on the board, they should be entitled to be reimbursed for those expenses, as are teachers from other schools and other disciplines. I cannot understand why the legislation puts teachers from State schools in some sort of second-class category. Obviously they should claim only legitimate expenses such as travelling expenses. If they incur other expenses, they should be reimbursed for them. Why should they be treated in a different way from teachers in cathoUc schools or independent schools who also might incur expenses while serving on the board? I find that difficult to understand. In fact, I do not understand it. It is wrong. It should be changed. It is a diminution of the value of the service that is provided by State school teachers, who in fact constitute the significant majority of teachers in this State. As I said at the outset, the Bill's overall provisions are to be welcomed, particularly those that strengthen the enforcement powers of the board. This again relates to the professional capacity of schoolteachers and the schoolteaching profession. The provisions relating to the ability of the board to deal with teachers who are guilty of offences are responsible. We in the Opposition welcome them. The Opposition welcomes the provision allowing for the policing of unregistered teachers, in relation to which the powers of the Board of Teacher Registration have also been enhanced. Clearly it is in the interests of education and schoolchildren in this State that children be taught by competent and qualified teachers. The Opposition welcomes and accepts the need for an enhancement of the board's power to police teaching by unregistered teachers. Similarly, the Opposition welcomes the BiU's enhancement of the power of the board to intervene and ensure that teacher-registration requirements are met by all schools throughout Queensland, not just by teachers who are employed in the State education system. The Bill deals with the teaching profession as a whole, which is also welcomed by the Opposition. The Opposition also welcomes the fact that teachers from non-Govemment schools will be represented and that representatives from non-Govemment schools in the community are represented on the board. The overall balance of the legislation, as 1 have said previously, is substantially correct in the view of the Opposition; therefore, it merits substantial support from the Opposition, which is given unstintingly. The Opposition also offers a measure of praise to the Govemment for initiating this legislation. I have indicated areas in which the Opposition has problems inasmuch as the legislation could be improved. That comment indicates that the Opposition does not criticise the substantial parts of the legislation but concentrates on areas such as the constitution of the board and the functions of the board. The Opposition believes that greater thought should have been given to the legislation, and that greater benefits to the community and to the teaching profession should have been included by making various changes that I have foreshadowed will be the substance of amendments moved by the Opposition. As I have indicated, where the Opposition believes that amendments can be made, those matters will be debated at the Committee stage. The substantial thmst of the Bill is acceptable to the Opposition. I indicate that the Opposition supports the legislation to that extent. I indicate also that the Opposition will support the legislation but will be moving a couple of amendments at the Committee stage. Mr SHERRIN (Mansfield) (12.30 p.m.): I welcome the Opposition's indication of support for the broad principles contained in the legislation. I wish to pick up a few of the points that the Opposition spokesman made in relation to the Bill. 1 support the Opposition spokesman's perception that the Bill warrants the endorse­ ment and support of this House because it is a further endeavour by this Govemment 2944 22 November 1988 Education (Teacher Registration) Bill to enhance the professional standing and status of teachers. I believe that that principle is very clearly enunciated in the legislation because it comes through in many of the lead provisions. For that reason alone, I believe that the legislation deserves the whole­ hearted support of all political parties in the House. As this is the first of a suite of four Bills that relate to education to be debated in this Parliament today, I wish to preface my remarks on this Bill with a few comments about the production and preparation of those Bills because I believe that that matter warrants attention by honourable members. I believe that the Minister needs the strong endorsement by and congratulations from members of this House for the consultative mechanism that he set in place over approximately 12 months since he took on responsibility for the Education portfolio. The Minister should be congratulated for the way in which he called together all of the key players to discuss this legislation. 1 was privileged to be a member of one of the working parties established by the Minister. I was aware that at least three rounds of detailed consultation were undertaken by the Minister and included all the interested groups such as representatives from the Queensland Teachers Union, responsible statutory authorities that were affected by each of the particular Bills, senior officers of the Education Department, representatives from the Association of Independent Schools, Queensland, the Queensland Council of Parents and Citizens Association, the Association of Parents and Friends in Independent Schools and the Catholic Education Office, to mention just a few. I believe that the most interesting feature of the Minister's approach was that he started with almost a blank sheet of paper. In other words, the Minister did not merely say, "Here it is. Give us your reaction and kick us in the shins. Here it is, whether you like it or not." Instead, the Minister said, "Based on the earlier Bills that were passed by the Parliament last year, come back and tell us what your concerns are and we will see whether we can work through those concerns." Last year, at the time the earlier legislation was being considered by Parliament, I made it quite clear that I had some reservations about certain of its key areas. I believe it is to the credit of all the organisations 1 have mentioned that they were prepared to negotiate with the Minister and his officers. It was by working through that process, which was quite an open process, that this very creditable legislation is now before the Parliament. Perhaps the Minister can confirm this at a later stage: the confidentiality of those negotiations was respected at all times by all those players. Therefore, I believe that the way that those representatives partic­ ipated in the consultation brings great credit to themselves as well as to the Minister. I take this opportunity to commend a number of senior officers within the Education Department. Two of them are in the lobby today—John Tainton, who was responsible for the task force, and Frank Fanning, who is a senior officer of the department. Based on the experience I gained as an officer of the Department of Education before I became a member of this Pariiament, I believe that this legislation has undergone one of the best preparation processes that I have ever witnessed. In my experience of approximately two years as a member of Pariiament, I have become aware of legislation that has been prepared by other departments. 1 believe that the officers whom I have mentioned have brought great credit to the Department of Education for the preparation of this quite complex and also somewhat controversial legislation. The Director-General, Mr Ian Matheson, and other senior officers of the department also played a key role in bringing this legislation to fmition. I hope that today most honourable members will rise in their places and commend this legislation to the House. This Bill deals with the registration of teachers and is one of a suite of Bills that actually originate in the omnibus Act, the Education Act. As the Minister said in his second-reading speech, the Education Act has become very complex over the years. The time is certainly ripe to take away from the legislation certain important areas of responsibility and to arrange for them to be covered by specific statutory provisions. The legislation that honourable members wiU be debating deals with the establishment of the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies and the Queensland University of Technology which, of course, originates in the Board of Advanced Education heads of Education (Teacher Registration) Bill 22 November 1988 2945 power under the Education Act and the ministerial councU on curriculum legislation. The Minister foreshadows that next year the remaining areas of the Education Act will be brought before this Parliament for review. If the review of the remaining sections is as successful as I believe the propagation and generation of these particular discrete Bills that are presently before the Parliament have been, I beUeve that that legislation wiU best serve the education community in Queensland. I turn now to the specifics of this legislation. This Bill replaces the current Board of Teacher Education with the Board of Teacher Registration. It would be interesting to find out how many members of this House have actuaUy maintained their teacher registration. I certainly have and I know that the honourable member for Mount Coot- tha has. It has nothing to do with the vagaries of politics; it is something that we are very proud of I know that the member for Fassifem and the Minister have also retained their teacher registration. There is a certain amount of professional pride involved and many honourable members in this House who have engaged in teaching are very proud of their teaching origins. No matter what career I go into—either in Parliament or outside Parliament—my teacher registration is something that I wiU maintain. I am very proud of my origins and I know that many other honourable members who were teachers are also proud of their origins. This Bill plays a very important role in a very personal sense for many members of this House. Mr Dawkins has brought about the end of the binary system and 1 have referred to my support for this move. The responsibility for course accreditation, which now lies with the Board of Advanced Education in relation to colleges, and for teacher education courses has been delegated to the current Board of Teacher Education and will no longer be so important. The universities and remaining colleges will take responsibility for the preparation of their courses, as is currently done at the University of (Queensland. There are three areas of responsibility held by the current Board of Teacher Education, that is course accreditation, research and teacher education and registration of teachers. Two of these will no longer be important, and one of the reasons is the change in the area of tertiary education that is reflected around Australia and particularly in Queensland. If that area of responsibility is to be downgraded under the new Board of Teacher Registration, it is vitally important that the employing authorities—that is, the Department of Education and the main non-Govemment employing authorities—have a very large and direct say through the institutions as the courses are prepared. I beheve that, in the \ acuum left when the board pulls out after the binary system is abolished, universities and colleges should give employing authorities the opportunity to have a direct say in the content of the courses that will be undertaken in those teacher education institutions. The Department of Education has a very significant role to play and must let it be known that, as the employing authority for the graduates who come out of the system, it has certain expectations of the skills that those graduates will possess before going into schools. It worries me that, of all the professions, teachers are the only ones who seem to have the expectation that at the end of their course of study the State (Govemment or Education Department owes them a job. Engineers, doctors, pharmacists, veterinarians or physiotherapists do not share the same expectation; yet in the minds of many parents, and certainly of the graduates, there is an expectation that, after they have successfully completed a three-year course of study, they are guaranteed some form of employment by the State Govemment. That perception needs to be redressed. The State Government is in the business of providing quality education in the State school system, and I do not believe for one minute that it must employ every graduate who leaves Queensland's teachers colleges or universities. The Govemment has a responsibility to the tax-payers and to the parents and students of Queensland to be very selective about the teacher graduates it employs. If there is any fault with the courses of teacher education in some of Queensland's teaching institutions, the State Government as an employer and the non-C}ovemment employers have a responsibility to communicate those concems forcibly and directly to the tertiary institutions so that any problems in the courses can be redressed. That is certainly so with engineers. For 2946 22 November 1988 Education (Teacher Registration) Bill example, if QIT, which has a very fine school of engineering, turned out engineers who had a weakness in a certain area, I am sure that the major employers of engineers in this State would advise that tertiary institution in a very clear and strong voice where the fault lay so that it could be corrected. I have a few concems about the quality of teacher education in Queensland. For a number of years there has been a lack of emphasis on providing teachers with experience in class-room management. Many teacher graduates who are experts in their discipline, be it science, humanities or whatever, and are very well versed in the theory and understanding of the background of their discipline lack basic class-room management skills. As a subject-master, I have seen a number of teachers—I am not saying it is all of them, by a long shot—in their first year of teaching who have not been adequately prepared by their teacher education institution for managing a body of students who are learning. That includes not only managing the students in a disciplinary sense, but also managing and individualising their leaming. If this problem is shared by major employers, it should be communicated very forcibly to the tertiary educational institutions so that it can be redressed. When I undertook my Diploma of Education at the University of Queensland, I had a very enlightened acting principal at Toowong. The honourable member for Mount Coot-tha will recall that Toowong had a very interesting program. Instead of taking part in block teaching for a three-week period in one semester and three weeks in another semester, at that time the enlightened acting principal at the school Mr Prest inteijected. Mr SHERRIN: The honourable member knows very little about this. Mr Prest: You've got Mr Schuntner blushing. Mr SHERRIN: The honourable member should keep quiet and he will not be able to confirm his ignorance. We were based in the school for 40 weeks of the school year and were given regular teaching responsibilities within that school. The year during which I was undertaking my studies of the theory of education, educational psychology, measurement, evaluation and all those other very important aspects, I spent two days out of every five days of the week gaining practical, hands-on teaching experience at the school. A teacher was responsible for me, looking at what I was doing and providing me with feedback. Compare that with students who are released for a three-week block period—wham, bam, alakazam—and then retumed to their theory studies. It is very important that students are given an apprenticeship role out in the work-force with the practitioners for a long period of time and are able to tie that experience in with their theory studies. If that is required, then the employing authorities should communicate that fact very clearly to the tertiary education institutions as well. However, as the Opposition spokesman has clearly indicated, primarily the legislation focuses on teacher registration. I certainly endorse his remarks. If teachers wish to be regarded out there in the wider community as professionals, there is a greater need for self-regulation of their profession. Engineers, doctors and many other professional groups have it, and I believe it is certainly timely for teachers to have the opportunity to provide for the self-regulation of their profession. 1 shall turn to some of the specific matters raised in the legislation. The Opposition spokesman has already touched on the constitution of the board. That is a point that I want to touch on as well because it was something that occupied the minds of the Minister, his senior advisers and also many of the groups that were consulted at great length. The Minister should be commended for the way in which he has been able to arrive at the constitution of a board that, I believe, attracts the wide support of pretty well all the key players, be they from the union movement, parents or the employing authorities. The point that has already been alluded to has been the composition of the board, with the predominance being teachers who are actually practising class room Education (Teacher Registration) Bill 22 November 1988 2947 teachers. At present, 1 understand that the Board of Teacher Education has only three practising teachers out of 15 members. That would not be seen in any other profession or regulating body in Queensland. I believe that is totally unacceptable. The legislation provides for a minimum of nine out of 16.1 have taken note of the Minister's commitment in his second-reading speech that the chairman to be appointed by the Minister will be a practising teacher. That should be strongly commended and attract wide support from the teaching profession. Mr Schuntner: Will you support my amendment? Mr SHERRIN: I have not as yet seen the honourable member's amendment. Of course, that nine out of 16 is a bare minimum. The way the board is to be constituted under the Bill, it is possible for the appointees from other groups, if it is their wish, to be practising teachers. Therefore, that representation could increase from that nine out of 16, which honourable members would know, if their maths is good, is more than 50 per cent. Teachers wiU certainly have the predominant say about their profession. The second point I wish to make concerns the recovery of the main cost of the operation of the new Board of Teacher Registration from registration fees. It is interesting to have a look at the income of the Board of Teacher Education over the years. My source is that body's annual report for the financial year 1987-88. In 1983-84 the percentage of funds from registration fees was 56 per cent and the State Government endowment and other revenue from the sale of reports and things like that accounted for 44 per cent. In 1987-88 the amount brought in from registration fees increased to 71 per cent and other income was 29 per cent. From memory, I think that last year's endowment from the State Govemment was about $300,000. If the board is to be a self- regulating registration authority for teachers, it needs to be income neutral; it needs to raise its own funds to provide for that regulation. I am not aware of any State Govemment support for any other profession or regulating authority. I accept the Minister's comment that this will be phased in; it will not just drop in for next financial year. The board will continue to receive limited State Govemment support by way of assistance. I also note that the legislation contains provision for the Minister, and Executive Council, to approve of the level of registration fees. That will ensure that they do not get out of hand and that teachers will be protected against any sharp or sudden increase in fees. I believe that this supports the user-pays principle, which applies to many other professions, and it is timely that it should apply to teacher registration. I shall now speak about confidence in teachers. The Opposition spokesman has already touched on this. It is certainly something that is of community concern. The 1987 annual report shows that in that year six cases were considered. Out of all the teachers employed, that is a very, very small proportion. It is not something that I want to blow out of all proportion. 1 believe the overwhelming—I stress "overwhelming"— number of teachers are highly responsible. However, because of the effect that teachers can have on children, I believe that parents need to be assured that monitoring procedures are in place. I believe the legislation spells them out very clearly. At present I understand it is quite possible for a teacher to be dismissed from, say, the Queensland Education Department and, even though he has been the subject of disciplinary dismissal for incompetence or whatever other ground, to then teach in another, probably non- Govemment, school in the State. This will be redressed because, under this legislation, the employing authority will have the right to go to the new Board of Teacher Registration and direct its attention to the fact that a teacher has been dismissed. That board can then conduct its own investigations and hearings into the competence of that teacher. If the employing authority's grounds are proven to be of sufficient seriousness, that teacher can be removed from the roll of registered teachers. That wiU overcome one very grave concem. 2948 22 November 1988 Education (Teacher Registration) BiU

The legislation provides that teachers who are charged with indictable offences have the responsibility to notify the Board of Teacher Registration. That is a failing of the present legislation; teachers have no responsibility to notify the board, which has to find out about any charges in one way or another. That loophole will be closed. One function that occupies a large amount of the time of the board is the registration of the list of qualifications. There is quite a lot of mobility among teachers, particularly teachers who come here with overseas qualifications. The board provides a benchmark for the recognition of their teaching qualifications. That is a very important function, one that must be maintained under the Bill, and I see that that is the case. I sum up my remarks by saying that I certainly commend and strongly support this Bill, which will give teachers and their profession a greatly enhanced standing within the community. Mr SCHUNTNER (Mount Coot-tha) (12.53 p.m.): As previous speakers have said, this Bill is part of a package of Bills that comes to the Parliament after some two years of legislative turmoil and a couple of years of very controversial debate prior to that. The history of this issue goes back in some respects to the development of the document Education 2000, although I hasten to point out that this Bill on teacher registration is not as connected with that development as are some of the Bills that we will be dealing with later today. The P-10 concept was part of the Education 2000 proposals. After a great deal of controversy about that document and the P-10 proposals, the Bassett committee—a committee chaired by Professor Bassett—was established. I was a member of that committee. I have never seen a committee receive so many responses and submissions from interested parties as that group did. In all, it received 987 submissions. The general thmst of the submissions was that legislative moves along the lines proposed in the Education 2000 document should proceed very slowly. It is now approximately 20 months since the first Bill was brought in on April Fools' Day 1987 to change the education legislation. It is not particularly inspirational in terms of the confidence that one might have in the legislation that is coming forward that in April 1987 we had the Mark I version, in November 1987 we had another version, and now a third version is before us. However, I emphasise that the set of Bills coming before the House today is significantly superior to the Bills that have come before it previously. The Liberal Party will be supporting this Bill. At the same time, I foreshadow that at an appropriate time, when we are considering the clauses in detail, I will be moving a couple of amendments. I express my appreciation to the Minister for the very significant consultation that has occurred. The member for Mansfield mentioned that, too. It is important that, in looking at major changes, the relevant interest groups are consulted, that their views are heard and taken into account fully, and that any adjustments are made as a result of those consultations. Over a period of several months this year, widespread consultation has occurred. I also express my appreciation of the private and informative briefing that the Minister arranged to give to the shadow Minister for Education and me at the time when these Bills were introduced to the House. It is important for the House to understand why teachers are registered. That subject has not been canvassed in this debate. If one goes back 20, 30, 40 years or more, one finds that most of the teachers trained in Queensland were trained under a system in which the teacher-education courses, the lecturers, the certification of those courses—all of those things—were under the umbrella of the Education Department. In the 1960s, a serious problem emerjged with respect to that practice. If the employing authority in the case of most education, that is, the Education Department, is the same authority as the one that accredits courses and provides certificates to graduating teachers, the system is open to improper practices. By that I do not necessarily mean cormpt practices or something along those lines; I mean that the judgments made about the wisdom of the certification required for graduation as a teacher or the accreditation of a course could well be coloured by the fact that the employing authority is looking at those issues Education (Teacher Registration) Bill 22 November 1988 2949 through the eyes of itself being the employing authority rather than being at arm's length from that process. During the 1960s, a great increase occurred in the number of students at secondary schools. That was a reflection of the social values at the time, where society felt that it was desirable for students to go on to secondary education. Prior to that, it was commonplace for youngsters to finish their education at the end of primary school. Only a select few went on to secondary education, and an even more select few went on to tertiary education. In the middle of the 1960s, an explosion occurred in the number of students in secondary schools and the authorities were hard put to continue graduating a sufficient number of teachers to put in front of secondary classes. Around the end of 1967, the Education Department devised a scheme called the Emergency Adult Teacher Training Scheme. Under that scheme, which was implemented in 1968, people with no teacher- training background but with some tertiary education were recmited into the Kelvin Grove Teacher Training College, as it was then, were provided with one term of teacher- training and, at the end of that term, were graduated into the teaching profession as secondary school teachers. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. Mr SCHUNTNER: There was widespread opposition to the plan implemented by the Government to graduate teachers after a mere eight weeks of training. Those teachers became known as eight-week wonders. The result of this very great conflict was that the Education Department and the Govemment did not persist with their plans to have another eight-week training course later that year, that is, later in 1968, and within a short time there were moves within the teaching profession to have teachers registered, that is, registered by a body at arm's length from the Education Department. After two or three years, legislation was enacted by this Parliament that established the Board of Advanced Education, the Board of Teacher Education and the Board of Secondary School Studies. Of particular relevance in this debate is the reference to the Board of Teacher Education. That particular board has had powers to accredit courses, or to approve for forwarding to the Federal authority, through the Board of Advanced Education, courses on teacher education. The board has also had the task of registering teachers. With the removal of the binary system and the current steps towards the unified national system, it is appropriate that at this time the legislation affecting the Board of Teacher Education and the Board of Advanced Education is varied. I believe that the Bills to be debated later, that is, the Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill and the Education (Consultation on Curriculum) Bill are not as timely as the Bill that honourable members are presently debating. During the existence of the Board of Teacher Education and the Board of Advanced Education, the arrangement for the approval of courses has involved both those boards and a Federal authority dealing with the certification of tertiary courses and awards. That has been a relatively cumbersome process, but it has provided some mechanism for ensuring the adequacy and quality of the courses of teacher education. One of the previous speakers in the debate expressed concern that, with the abolition of the Board of Teacher Education and the enactment of legislation for a Board of Teacher Registration, there would be a loss of control within Queensland by the Queensland Govemment or statutory authorities over the quality of teacher education courses. That has been a matter of some concem to me, too. However, I do take some heart from that part of the legislation that makes it quite clear that, when the Board of Teacher Registration is examining whether a particular teacher training course should lead to registration, the quality of that course would be a matter of significant focus by the Board of Teacher Registration. So, indirectly, the Board of Teacher Registration can 2950 22 November 1988 Education (Teacher Registration) Bill have a very significant influence over the direction of teacher training courses within Queensland. If the Board of Teacher Registration does not believe that a particular teacher education course is adequate, then it must have the courage of its convictions and not provide registration for the graduates of that course. However, one would hope that it never gets to that stage and that long before students graduate from courses the problems will have been ironed out, so that when teacher education courses are embarked upon by students, those courses have already been examined by the Board of Teacher Registration and it has given its imprimatur to those courses as being adequate for teacher registration. The composition of this board reflects an evolutionary development towards greater self-regulation by teachers. That is not to say that it is by any means total self-regulation, and I think it is appropriate at this stage of the evolutionary process that the Board of Teacher Registration is constituted as it is in the legislation. I want to allay fears that some people may hold about the capacity of the profession to regulate itself My experience with the teaching profession—and I have had a very long experience, of course, amongst the teaching profession—is that teachers are very jealous of the accreditation and quality of the standard of the qualifications that teachers must have in order to graduate as teachers and remain as teachers. In fact, that was at the very heart of the debate back in the 1960s over the emergency adult teacher training course. The conflict arose because teachers did not regard eight weeks of training as satisfactory to produce an adequate teacher. 1 am pleased, therefore, to note that in this Bill there is a recognition of the increased professionalism that teachers have and are displaying. It is disappointing that at the time that this recognition is being shown in this legislation, the provision of resources to our schools is hopelessly inadequate and teachers are being prevailed upon in a way that has not occurred for many, many years. I know that some members of the Govemment are going to criticise that statement. Perhaps it will make them feel uncomfortable. Mr Sherrin: No. Mr SCHUNTNER: I ask the member for Mansfield, who has chosen to inteiject: when was the last time that he can recall a meeting of approximately 100 State secondary school principals unanimously expressing their grave discontent with the current situation? If the member for Mansfield is not aware of what happened last night at a meeting of State secondary school principals, I think it is time that he became aware of it. State secondary school principals are a very responsible and conservative group of people. It takes an enormous amount of pressure on schools for them to reach the situation in which 100 of them convene and unanimously express their strong discontent with the load that is being placed on schools at present. Moreover, they have developed plans for further action that they intend to take. If I had time during question-time this morning, I would have liked to ask the Minister what he wUl be doing to remedy that problem. I raise that point because, on the one hand, we have legislation that recognises the capacity and the professionalism of teachers; on the other hand, the teachers in the schools and the parents and citizens associations are treated very poorly in terms of resources that are provided to the schools. One of the matters that comes through in discussions on this Bill is the absence of any responsibility for in-service education. Part of maintaining a quality teacher-education service is the provision of ongoing teacher education as an in-service for those teachers. 1 hope that in his reply the Minister for Education will comment on how in-service education will continue to be provided. It has suffered badly in recent years. I fear that if in-service education is left merely to the employing authorities, the amount or quality of it that is needed for a top-class education system will not be forthcoming. Education (Teacher Registration) BiU 22 November 1988 2951

I tum to the definition of "tertiary education" in the Bill. I hope that in his reply the Minister will make some reference to the change in the definition of "tertiary education". I realise that there may be some implications in the change of definition connected with the requirements of the Commonwealth Govemment and its definition of these areas of education. I point out that in the existing legislation under which the schools currently operate—not the legislation that was carried last November but never proclaimed—"tertiary education" is defined as education that is beyond the fiiU range of secondary education or its equivalent. According to the definition in the Bill and in other Bills in the group that will be debated, "tertiary education" can mean technical and further education at a Year 11 level. I cast no aspersions at aU on any form of education. I think that technical and fiirther education deserves a definition that reflects the separateness of that form of education from secondary education and education in universities and colleges of advanced education. However, under the definition in the Bill, a youngster could leave school at the end of Year 10 with very low levels of achievement and at the age of 16 could be undertaking a course which is defined as "tertiary education" and which in nobody's eyes would reaUy constitute tertiary education. In clause 5, which deals with the appointment of three teachers, reference is made to the nomination of those teachers. I wonder what regulations might apply. Perhaps that could be spelt out in the Minister's reply. I have indicated that later I would like to move a couple of amendments, one of which relates to the appointment of the chairman of the Board of Teacher Registration. In his second-reading speech the Minister, when referring to the chairman of the Board of Teacher Registration, said— "... it would be my intention to appoint a practising teacher as chairman of the new board." I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that the legislation before the House does not contain any provision for ensuring that the chairman of the board will be a practising teacher. The Bill is strongly criticised from the Queensland Teachers Union sector for the underrepresentation that the union perceives to apply. That has been pointed out previously. I ask that the Minister give significant thought to the amount of mral representation on the board. I realise that at the end of clause 5 (1) provision is made for one additional person to be appointed. If the various organisations that nominate people to be members of the board have not provided for representation from the country, in exercising the authority to appoint an extra member I hope that the point that I have just made wiU be taken into account. As a person who has served as a member of the Board of Secondary School Studies for approximately eight years during the seventies, I know how easy it is for those boards to be composed of people from the Brisbane or south­ east Queensland areas. It is particularly important that there be some mral representation. Earlier in the debate reference was made to the need to ensure that members of the board and its committees who are teachers employed by the Govemment are given the opportunity to be reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in attending meetings of the board. Clause 21 (4) precludes payment of any fee, allowance or other expense to public servants. I am not against in any way having a fee or allowance not paid to people who attend meetings of the board, but it is wrong if somebody who must drive from Toowoomba to Brisbane is not reimbursed for the expenses that he has incurred. The Minister's second-reading speech contains a reference to a new provision to consider the competence of teachers. In his first reference to that provision the Minister stated— "I believe that the profession and the community at large will welcome the powers provided for the board to take action to ensure that the registration of teachers considered by employing authorities to be incompetent is appropriately reviewed." 2952 22 November 1988 Education (Teacher Registration) Bill

That does not quite state the position. The Minister's later reference to that provision is closer to the real position. He stated that the Board of Teacher Registration will not become involved in reviewing the registration of teachers who are regarded as incompetent unless the employing authority has actually dismissed that teacher. It is somewhat misleading if an impression is conveyed that there will be a major new thmst into the field of teacher competence. Some thmsts in that direction are indeed welcome and, in a very small number of cases, probably well overdue. But the Board of Teacher Registration appears to be able to move in that direction only if the employing authority has actually dismissed the teacher. The Bill provides for the registration of teachers in kindergartens. Because it is high time that teachers were registered more widely across the educational scene than at present occurs, I welcome that development. The view has been expressed to me that registration should also apply to day-care teachers, and I pass that view on to the Minister for his consideration. I reiterate that the key function of the board will be to ensure that teacher-education courses are appropriate. That will be done by ensuring that the registration of teachers is not automatic but occurs only after the board is satisfied that the courses of teacher education that are provided in this State are appropriate and proper for those purposes. With the unified national system there is a great deal more autonomy in the hands of the institutions and less control by other bodies with the removal of the Board of Advanced Education and the Board of Teacher Education. Through those boards the State Govemment of the day and its representatives appear to have less involvement with the quality control of teacher-education courses. As I see it, that control is through the Board of Teacher Registration, and I exhort the Government to ensure that that key function is undertaken extremely well by the board that will be set up under this legislation. The Liberal Party supports the Bill. I have foreshadowed a couple of amendments to the legislation. I would appreciate some clarification from the Minister on the various issues that I have raised during this debate. Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (Condamine—Minister for Education, Youth and Sport) (2.48 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate. I notice that there has been widespread agreement on most of the terms that will be included in the legislation. I am sure that that will be very much appreciated by those people who have had a fair bit to do with formulating this legislation. The Opposition Education spokesman, Mr Braddy, spoke about the consultation process that went on for approximately nine months. Although it was fruitful, it was certainly trying for all of those people involved, especially those close to me who were tied up with meeting various people within the education community, listening to what they had to say and trying to put together legislation that represented the majority view. 1 am sure that all honourable members would understand that when one starts talking about education and getting groups of people together, it is impossible to obtain a unanimous opinion; so one has to head down the track of doing the most good for aU and trying to accommodate special wishes. During this debate some honourable members voiced their opinions about some of the issues that have not been covered by this legislation. The Opposition spokesman referred to the devolution of power. Although it is not part of this Bill, I remind the honourable member that, since the initial announcements were made, during the past week or two as the school year winds down there has been considerable in-service training, about which people are becoming very positive. I sometimes suspect that some people—especially the Queensland Teachers Union—seem to put up barriers merely for the sake of being political rather than educational. Senior departmental officers move about the State, and because I am in close contact with regional directors and other people in the field, we are listening to what is going on. As to the constitution of the Board of Teacher Registration—I was pleased to hear all speakers say that this is a move towards making the Board of Teacher Registration Education (Teacher Registration) Bill 22 November 1988 2953 and the teaching profession really more professional. As a teacher of long standing, it has been my long-held desire that the teaching profession should enjoy a higher standard than it currently enjoys. Perhaps that has to do more with monetary remuneration than the quality of the work that teachers do. Teachers have a great effect on the lives of all young people. After attending recent speech nights at various schools, I was interested to hear various people comment on the wonderfiil qualities that were shown by those young people who were receiving prizes or providing entertainment for the night. Mr Braddy raised the question of the additional person whom I may appoint to the board if I see fit. Following lengthy discussions with my parliamentary committee and from talking to my departmental advisers, we are of the opinion that, first of all, I may appoint an additional person if I see fit. Secondly, after appointments are made by the various players in the field who are entitled to make nominations—and Mr Schuntner has commented on this aspect—if I feel that there is a need for some more balance to ensure country representation, I would exercise my right in that regard. However, I do not intend to do that directly. After the board has been up and mnning for some time, I can talk to the members of that board who can submit recommendations. As to the proportional representation on the board by the Queensland Teachers Union and QATIS—the board has been constituted not to be representative of a sectional interest but to be a professional body. When it comes to the cmnch—while most people are very supportive of the profession, they allow their sectional interests to override good judgment. I have tried to stand back from that sectional interest. When I first became Minister, I made a couple of public statements that I was Minister for all education in Queensland. This matter has been purposely discussed at length. Knowing that this argument would be raised, we discussed it when we met with the Queensland Teachers Union, the QCPCA and other bodies. In the final shake-down the Minister had to make a decision. What has been put together is a board that represents everyone, but not on a proportional basis, which is something that I did not set out to do. Mr Braddy also said that research-funding was too limited. That is tied up with the abolition of the binary system. Now all tertiary institutions will be Commonwealth funded, and they will be quite autonomous in deciding what sort of courses they provide. The universities and the remaining colleges of advanced education that are tied up with teacher education will, of course, be funded by the Govemment, and it is in their interests that they should ask for research-funding for teacher education itself Further in relation to research-funding, Mr Braddy mentioned that some of the money coming into the board could be by way of teacher fees. He said that if that money is supplied by the teachers, it should be their right to spend it. However, I believe that some teachers would also want the Minister to apply some sort of balance of power so that a check is in place in case an overzealous board, not by intention but by default, wants to do things that are not necessary. Teachers could complain bitterly that the scale of fees is much higher than they want. When the Bill was being framed, that was considered at length. Because in the last week or so in the House ministerial responsibUity has been called for, it is not unreasonable that it should be applied to this aspect of the legislation also. The member for Mansfield, Mr Sherrin, mentioned a matter that I intended mentioning. I endorse his remarks. He said that the preparation of the Bill was the result of great teamwork between people out in the community. I have referred to them already. They represent the p. and c. associations, the various teacher bodies, the schooling bodies and also officers of my department. It has been a long process, whereby we have gone out with a broad bmsh, put down ideas and then refined them until finally everything was presented to departmental officers under John Tainton, who had to put it into the language in which it could be brought into the House in Bill form. It has been a revelation to me to work through this process for the very first time and bring BiUs into the House. The long process of 2954 22 November 1988 Education (Teacher Registration) Bill checking, talking, amending and changing things has paid off, because all parties in the ParUament are saying that, by and large, what is happening is what should be happening. Mr Sherrin also mentioned that the massive Education Act is being broken up into small specialised Acts, which will make it much easier in the future to amend various parts of the legislation pertaining to education in Queensland. That will be welcomed by departmental officers, myself and whoever succeeds me in my portfolio in the future. Both Mr Sherrin and Mr Schuntner commented on the content of the teacher- education courses. The Board of Teacher Registration and the employing bodies, be they the Department of Education or the non-Govemment schools, will still have a very strong influence on the content of teacher-education courses. Educators, be they at the primary, secondary or tertiary level, do communicate with one another. It will behove the department as the employer in this case to talk to the institutions that are training our teachers and say, "We will only consider registering people who have certain qualities, certain subject knowledge and the class room management that we need." That will be reflected back through the courses. Honourable members will be aware that Mr Dawkins said that he will be funding tertiary institutions on the basis of a certain amount for teaching positions and teaching purposes and some other amount for research. Institutions will be competing against one another in making sure that they provide courses that are very much in demand. I imagine that they will respond to the sorts of requests that are made of them. Mr Sherrin also commented on the expectation that teacher graduates in Queensland have had for many years that, should they graduate from teacher coUege, they automatically receive a commission with the Education Department. The drastic cut in Federal funding last year put an end to that. People are now starting to realise that teacher graduates are just like graduates in any other professional skill. Even though they have a degree, they still have to go out into the market-place and sell themselves. To their credit, the Education Department and the non-Govemment sector continue to report to the teacher-educating institutions, telling them what sort of need exists for teachers. According to the likely demand, the institutions determine what their intake of students should be. Because of that, many people do not have to undertake three years' teacher training after which they find they cannot obtain a position. I expect that, next year, by the end of the first semester, most of the graduates can expect to find employment in the non-Govemment sector or the Education Department. That will be welcomed by them and their parents. Mr Sherrin also spoke about Govemment support for the Board of Teacher Registration. I point out that the Board of Teacher Education did a magnificent job, but because of the disappearance of the binary system and the institution of the unified system, as Mr Dawkins has urged, teacher education does not fall into the role of registration, so a change has had to be made. When negotiations were occurring with the Board of Teacher Education as to what should happen when its functions were limited merely to registration, it mentioned that every year the Education Department had been providing quite a substantial amount of money to help sustain it. 1 have agreed that over a number of years some funding will continue to be given to the new board to allow it to work towards total autonomy, when it wUl be supported only by its fee stmcture. However, a couple of weeks ago I received a deputation from the people who will be involved with the new board, and the possibility of giving them a substantial amount of money to replace their computer equipment is currently being investigated. They find themselves in a bit of a difficult situation. As a mark of goodwill from the Government, I am prepared to go down that track. I found the opening remarks of the member for Mount Coot-tha, Mr Schuntner, a littie difficult to understand. He spoke about legislative turmoil. I became Minister for Education on 9 December last year, which is almost 12 months ago. Since that time I cannot remember many times at all when this legislation has been featured on the front Education (Teacher Registration) Bill 22 November 1988 2955 page or even on page five of Queensland's newspapers. That being the case, I think that the honourable member could hardly call it turmoil. He then spoke about the history of teacher education in Queensland. Teachers are required to undertake training of various lengths of time before they are employed by the Education Department. The idea of teacher registration resulted from the fact that teaching, as a profession, needs to maintain standards. I regard what is being done now as a strengthening of that commitment. I noted that the member for Mount Coot-tha was very much in support of that. The honourable member spoke about a meeting of principals that took place recently, and I am not sure whether he refers to the principals' association or just a meeting of principals called together by the QTU. I understand that that meeting took place last night but I have no formal knowledge of it as yet. I will be finding out more about it later. I acknowledge that the teaching profession is under pressure, not so much because of what the Govemment is doing but because of the expectations held by the community. Recently I was out and around the ridges and I have been speaking at speech nights. I have made the comment that one cannot compare what teachers are doing now with what teachers used to do two years ago, or even 10 years ago. What has to be compared is what is being done in Queensland schools now with what is going on in schools in other parts of the world. The world is becoming a smaller place and Queenslanders owe it to young people to prepare them adequately so that they can go out into the world— the south-east Asian sector especially—and compete. That is the basis upon which comparisons should be made. Mention was also made of in-service training. Of course, the nature of in-service training has changed and I have no doubt that the topic will be raised in other legislation that will be debated today. However, I notice that with the assistance of improved technology, use can now be made of videos, satellites and a strengthened inspectorate. Whereas previously people had to travel in cars to a centre to attend a seminar, it is now possible to have material put onto a video or presented in a studio by experts, at great expense, to make sure that it is done particularly well. In that way, without the material having passed through two or three sets of hands or falling on two or three sets of ears, it is projected straight into the class room or into the staff room of each individual school. By employing those methods, the material can be presented in a better style and in a less expensive form. I believe that I have covered most of the points that have been raised. I thank honourable members for the contributions that they have made. Again I reiterate that many people, such as departmental officers, members of my committee and representatives of teacher organisations, employers' organisations and parents and citizens organisations, have been part and parcel of putting this legislation together. I am sure that they will all be thankful that the legislation has been presented because they have worked hard. This legislation represents an honest attempt on my part, and also on the part of members of my committee, to encompass most of the measures that were required. I am sure that it will be understood, however, that not everything that people wanted can be done. Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. B. G. Littleproud (Condamine—Minister for Education, Youth and Sport) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr SCHUNTNER (3.03 p.m.): I pose a question about the definition of "tertiary education". I might have missed a point that was made earlier. I would be interested to know whether the definition of "tertiary education" is presented in such a way that 2956 22 November 1988 Education (Teacher Registration) Bill it takes in some youngsters who are 16 years of age and are not attending a CAE or a university, but are undergoing a TAFE course. I notice that the word "or" was changed to "and" and that the present clause is different from the legislation that was passed at the end of last year. I do not know whether that matter is of any significance. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I can inform the honourable member that it refers to some of the people who are enrolled at TAFE as well. This is part of the definition and what it encompasses. Clause 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— Mr BRADDY (3.04 p.m.): As I indicated in the second-reading debate on the Bill, the Opposition believes that the balance of the Board of Teacher Registration would be improved by giving greater representation to 75 per cent of the teachers of this State— to approximately 25 000 teachers who are employed in State schools. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Burreket): Order! I have received a proposal for an amendment that relates to a provision that occurs before the one to which the honourable member's amendment relates. I call the member for Mount Coot-tha. Mr SCHUNTNER: My amendment relates to clause 5(1) (a). I move the following amendment— "At page 4, line 6, after 'Minister' insert— 'who shall be a practising teacher and'." If the amendment is accepted, the clause would read— "(a) One nominee of the Minister who shall be a practising teacher and who shall, on appointment, be designated and shall be chairman;" The reason I move that amendment is that at the second-reading stage, the Minister made it clear that it was his intention to have a practising teacher as chairman of the Board of Teacher Registration. If this board is to have credibility among the teaching profession, it must have somebody who is a practising teacher. If the Minister appoints someone from outside the schools, such as a senior departmental official or an academic from tertiary education, I believe that the credibility of this board will suffer enormously among teachers. From the point of view of the basic argument of whether the nominee should or should not be a practising teacher, I have no doubt that the nominee should be a practising teacher. Furthermore, the Minister indicated in his second-reading speech that that would be the case. I am anxious to see a provision to that effect included in the legislation; hence my amendment. Mr LITTLEPROUD: The honourable member is quite correct. I did make the statement that the nominee would in fact be a practising teacher. I think the fact that I did mention that in my second-reading speech signals my intention. I do not believe that it is necessary for me to amend the clause, because I am on record as having said that. Amendment negatived. Mr BRADDY: As I indicated previously, I believe that the balance of the Board of Teacher Registration would be improved by giving greater direct representation to approximately 25 000 teachers who make up about 75 per cent of teachers in this State. This BiU allows for only one nominee of that body of teachers to be on their own registration board and is an unnecessary restriction on those teachers. I take the Minister's point that he is not giving proportional representation. Indeed, if he did, the Opposition would be calling for significantly more than two nominees from the Queensland Teachers Union. I intend to put forward this proposal as an amendment. I have thought long and hard about the matter and discussed it with other people. Whilst no-one is entitled to direct proportional representation, bearing in mind that there is one nominee of the Queensland Association of Teachers in Independent Schools, Education (Teacher Registration) Bill 22 November 1988 2957

I believe that it would be proper for there to be two nominees from the Queensland Teachers Union. It is a question of balance, and I believe that the preponderance of the argument lies with that requirement. I move the following amendment— "At page 4, omit Unes 14 and 15 and insert— 'two nominees of the Queensland Teachers' Union, who shall be practising teachers in a State school;'." Mr LITTLEPROUD: I am opposed to that amendment. Clause 5 (1) (i) provides for three representatives of practising teachers, which will provide fair representation to members of the QTU. In addition, every three out of four teachers in (Queensland are employed by the Department of Education, and if I were to nominate someone else under clause 5 (1) (j) they might find that their representation is vastly increased. I have thought this matter through and was aware that this amendment would be moved. My department has had deliberations with its committees and is firm on what is contained in the clause. I reject the proposition. Question—That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 54 NOES, 28 Ahem Lester Ardill Alison Lickiss Braddy Austin Lingard Burns Beanland Littleproud Campbell Beard McCauley Casey Berghofer McKechnie D'Arcy Booth McPhie De Lacy Borbidge Menzel Eaton Chapman Muntz Gibbs, R. J. Cooper Neal Goss Elliott Nelson HamiU Fraser Newton Hayward Gamin Perrett McEUigott Gately Randell Mackenroth Gibbs, I. J. Row McLean Gilmore Schuntner MiUiner Glasson Sherlock Palaszczuk Gunn Sherrin Scott Harper Simpson Smith Harvey Slack Smyth Henderson Stoneman Underwood Hinton Tenni Vaughan Hobbs Veivers Warburton Hynd White Wamer Innes WeUs Katter Tellers: Yewdale Tellers: Knox FitzGerald Davis Lee Stephan Prest Resolved in the affirmative. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The question was that clause 5, as read, stand part of the Bill, since which it has been proposed to amend the clause on page 4, line 32, by omitting the word "practising" and inserting the word "registered". Amendment agreed to. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The question was that clause 5, as read, stand part of the Bill, since which it has been proposed to amend the clause on page A, line 33, by omitting the word "practising" and inserting the word "registered". Mr SCHUNTNER: Unfortunately, the amendment that has just been agreed to was dealt with just after a division and it was not easy to get to my microphone to speak to the amendment. However, I want to speak to the amendment that is now under consideration. I want some more detail on why "practising" is being changed to 2958 22 November 1988 Education (Teacher Registration) Bill

"registered". There is a heap of difference between a practising teacher and a registered teacher. It is about time there was some substance in the debate about why there is to be a change from "practising" to " registered". During the second-reading debate much was said by one member about the fact that many teachers retain their registration long after they have finished teaching. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! There is far too much audible conver­ sation in the Chamber. Mr SCHUNTNER: The member for Mansfield rightly pointed out that he is a registered teacher and he acknowledged that I am a registered teacher, too. That is fine. There are 10 000 to 15 000 or more registered teachers out in the Queensland community who are not practising teachers. I suggest that honourable members look at the definition so that they can see the big difference that there is between "practising" and "registered". A practising teacher must be not only a registered teacher but also on the staff of an educational institution. Surely those who are appointed to the board should be registered teachers who are on a school staff. This amendment, which will be passed in a moment, makes it quite possible for three members of this Assembly who are registered teachers but are not in educational institutions to be appointed to this board. I want to know why the Government is changing the wording from "practising" to "registered". If it is to be suggested that there is a role only for registered teachers, it should be possible to get around the problem. Mr LITTLEPROUD: My answer to that is that it is all about democracy. The honourable member alluded to the fact that there are about 20 000 people out there who will pay their fees to remain registered teahers. As the Bill stood, they would be denied an opportunity to play a role on the board because they happen to be registered, but not practising, teachers. Because the Government believes that another 20 000 people out there should not be disfranchised—that is, for the sake of democracy—the amendment is before the Committee. Question—That the word proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause—negatived. Question—That the word proposed to be inserted be so inserted—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 45 NOES, 37 Ahem Lingard Ardill Scott Alison Littleproud Beanland Sherlock Austin McCauley Beard Smith Berghofer McKechnie Braddy Smyth Booth McPhie Burns Underwood Borbidge Menzel Campbell Vaughan Chapman Muntz Casey Warburton Cooper Neal D'Arcy Warner Elliott Nelson De Lacy Wells Fraser Newton Eaton White Gamin Perrett Gibbs, R. J. Yewdale Gately Randell Goss Gibbs, I. J. Row Hamill Gilmore Sherrin Hayward Glasson Simpson Innes Gunn Slack Knox Harper Stoneman Lee Harvey Tenni Lickiss Henderson Veivers McEUigott Hinton Mackenroth Hobbs McLean Hynd Tellers: Milliner Tellers: Katter FitzGerald Palaszczuk Davis Lester Stephan Schuntner Prest Resolved in the affirmative. Mr BRADDY: I refer to the proposed amendment to clause 5 (1) G)- In the course of the debate, I noted the Minister's serious commitment to the possibility of appointing a practising teacher. Is that correct, Mr Minister? Education (Teacher Registration) Bill 22 November 1988 2959

Mr Littleproud: As chairman. Mr BRADDY: What about under clause 5 (1) 0)? Mr Littleproud: I made the comment there that there may weU be a teacher from a State school. Mr BRADDY: In the circumstances, I will not proceed with the proposed amend­ ment. However, I wish to speak to it. As my amendment in relation to the fiirther nominee from the Queensland Teachers Union was defeated, in the context of the Minister's commitment, I will not move my proposed amendment to clause 5 (1) (j). However, I note the Minister's undertaking to treat that clause in a manner whereby he may appoint a teacher from a State school. I wiU await the Minister's announcement in due course. Clause 5, as amended, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr BRADDY (3.31 p.m.): In the course of the debate I also referred to the necessity for the Board of Teacher Registration to have sufficient autonomy and financial power to initiate review and research in its own right without having to be either commissioned and funded by the Minister, as the Bill provides, or to go to the Minister cap in hand on each occasion that it wants to initiate review and research and obtain his consent. I heard the Minister say in his second-reading speech that he has to keep some control. I thought the very basis of this legislation was that the Govemment was giving to teachers as a profession a sense of responsibility. If the Government is establishing— as I believe it is—a responsible registration board, the majority of whose members are in fact teachers, surely the teaching profession, like any other profession, must retain the ability and the responsibility to initiate research of its own volition, particularly with funds which have been substantially contributed to the board by the teachers themselves. I believe that the amendment which I will move goes some way towards indicating that the registration and review procedure should be more autonomous. It does not say that the Minister shall not control it, but it does say something along those lines. It does say that more funds should be provided by Parliament in each year from consolidated revenue to upgrade the review and research of projects, to emphasise that it will not just be from the funds provided by the teachers themselves. The amendment does not go as far as saying that teachers can initiate the review and research, which I would prefer. However, it certainly indicates that teachers will not be left on their own, that with its being substantially a State function, there will be some definite indication that the Government will be contributing to substantial research for the teaching profession, a matter that is vital to the students of Queensland. I therefore move— "At page 5, line 23, after 'Act' add— 'and other funds provided from moneys appropriated by Parliament in each year out of the consolidated revenue of the State'." Mr SCHUNTNER: 1 believe that the amendment is reasonable and should be supported. Mr LITTLEPROUD: The second-last Une of clause 6 (1) (f) states— "... or funds provided by sources other than the Minister ..." I think that that in fact implies that funds can come from the Minister. The member for Rockhampton seems to want a definite amount of money to be made available every year. I had discussions with the Board of Teacher Education about this matter. An understanding was reached that it was desirable that the Board of Teacher Registration should work towards total autonomy—financial independence in its own right. That being the case, to accept such an amendment would go against the agreement that I stmck with the board. I talked to Dr Betty Watts and other members about that matter. 2960 22 November 1988 Education (Teacher Registration) Bill

I also point out that the board's budget must be submitted to the Minister for approval each year, and in this way, of course, the Minister's approval is had and obtained for research. I have given a commitment that, if recommendations are made lo me that funding is needed, I will give serious consideration to it. Amendment negatived. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7— Mr LITTLEPROUD (3.38 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 6, line 32, omit— 'practising' and substitute— 'registered'." Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 8 to 20, as read, agreed to. Clause 21— Mr SCHUNTNER (3.40 p.m.): 1 move the foUowing amendment— "At page 10, Une 42, omit— 'A fee, aUowance or amount by way of expenses' and insert— 'A fee or allowance'." The wording of the Bill as it currently stands would prevent payment of travelling expenses for, say, a teacher travelling from Warwick to Brisbane to attend a meeting. It would seem to me that that person would be regarded as an officer of the public service and that he would be precluded from having an amount by way of expenses paid for attendance at a meeting. That is grossly unfair. It is quite reasonable that no fee or allowance be paid to teacher members, despite the payments that are made to members of some Queensland Government quangos—it is traditional that public servants on such boards are not paid for attendance at board or committee meetings—however, I do not think that members of those boards should be out of pocket through having to travel from a country area, or wherever appropriate, to a meeting. Mr BRADDY: I agree with the amendment. As honourable members would be aware, I have given notice of a proposed amendment to this clause. It is proper that people who incur expenses as a result of serving on public boards should be reimbursed if other people receive reimbursement of expenses in similar circumstances. It is somewhat silly that a person who will be out of pocket in attending the meeting of the board cannot be reimbursed merely because he is a State school teacher, whereas non-State school teachers can be reimbursed. As honourable members know. Ministers have a very ready system of being reimbursed when they suffer any financial disadvantage or incur any expense. At least in this instance the State school teachers would have to prove that they have incurred some expense and that they are entitled to a fee or an allowance. As 1 believe that this clause should be amended, I support the amendment. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I think that there is a misunderstanding by the honourable member for Rockhampton and the honourable member for Mount Coot-tha. There is no intention of any members of the board not being paid fees. They will be paid fees by the Department of Education, not by the Board of Teacher Registration. Teachers from non-Govemment schools can stiU be paid fees. However, the Government is just making sure that there is no double-dipping. The State school teachers can be paid only by the Department of Education, not by the board itself The Government opposes the amendment. Education (Teacher Registration) Bill 22 November 1988 2961

Mr BRADDY: In the circumstances, on the basis of the Minister's undertaking that the fees will be paid from another source, I do not believe that the clause requires amendment. I note his commitment, which I accept. In those circumstances, I do not believe that I need to support the amendment any longer. Mr SCHUNTNER: Did the Minister say that the payment will be made by the Education Department to both Government and non-Govemment teachers? Mr LITTLEPROUD: I made the comment that teachers from non-Government schools can be paid by the board. However, teachers from Govemment schools will be paid by the Education Department, otherwise one could have a situation in which teachers from Government schools would be paid by the Education Department and by the Board of Teacher Registration. That would result in a double payment. Amendment negatived. Clause 21, as read, agreed to. Clauses 22 and 23, as read, agreed to. Clause 24— Mr BRADDY (3.45 p.m.): I move the following amendment— "At page 11, line 37, after 'moneys paid to the Board' add— 'including all moneys to be appropriated by Parliament in each year out of the consolidated revenue of the State for the purpose and paid to the Board'." The purpose of the proposed amendment is to give a degree of power and responsibility to the Board of Teacher Registration over the control of its own moneys. In recent times the Minister has indicated that parents, teachers and staff at State schools will be asked to budget and plan. Surely the Board of Teacher Registration can play a similar role. Those funds should be voted each year, because the board and its responsible members would be able to plan for funding and research, which is a line that I have taken consistently during this debate. If the board were to be made aware of the amount of money that it will be voted by the Government, it would become more interested in and responsible for research and be able to budget on the moneys that it will receive from teachers' registration fees. It is inconsistent for the Government to suggest that it is going to give financial responsibilities to schools at the coal-face whUe the Board of Teacher Registration will not be able to exercise that very same degree of financial responsibility. The board should be given financial responsibility and knowledge. Mr LITTLEPROUD: Clause 24 (2) states— "There shall be paid into the general fund of the Board all moneys paid to the Board." The word "all" is all encompassing. It would cover any money from the Government. We are repeating the argument that we had a little while ago, when the Opposition spokesman wanted an annual allocation of money for research coming from Treasury to the Board of Teacher Registration. I said that that sort of money would come only after application from the board and my approval of it. It would not come as a set amount each year but as I see fit as and when its budget is presented to me. Amendment negatived. Clause 24, as read, agreed to. Clauses 25 to 38, as read, agreed to. Clause 39— Mr LITTLEPROUD (3.49 p.m.): I move the foUowing amendment— "At page 18, Une 32, omit— 'IF 2962 22 November 1988 Ministerial Statement

and substitute—

Amendment agreed to. Clause 39, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 40 to 61, as read, agreed to. Clause 62— Mr LITTLEPROUD (3.50 p.m.): I move the following amendments— "At page 26, line 23, omit— 'practising' and substitute— 'registered'"; "At page 26, line 25, omit— 'practising' and substitute— 'registered'." Mr SCHUNTNER: A few minutes ago this issue was resolved by a division. I do not propose to seek a division on it again. However, I wish to make the point very strongly that the change from "practising" to "registered" is most unsatisfactory. This process opens the way for the Minister, the Government or the department to seek the election of people who are not practising teachers. It may very well be that all or some of those people who, in the design of the Bill, apparently were meant to be—if the word is to be believed—practising teachers will turn out to be not practising teachers but people in administrative positions or not even in the teaching service. That is wrong and I deplore what is happening. Amendments agreed to. Clause 62, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 63 to 84, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Littleproud, by leave, read a third time.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Policy Discussion Paper on AIDS Hon. M. J. AHERN (Landsborough—Premier and Treasurer and Minister for the Arts) (3.54 p.m.), by leave: The Commonwealth Department of Community Services and Health has prepared a policy discussion paper on AIDS. The paper is intended to help develop a national strategy for the management of AIDS. The Commonwealth is hoping to generate widespread discussion within the community about the disease, and all States have agreed to support this approach by simultaneously tabling the report in various Parliaments. Honourable members will be aware of the serious nature of AIDS; indeed in some parts of the world, the impact of AIDS has been nothing less than catastrophic. Here in Queensland there have already been in excess of 50 deaths and upwards of 600 notifications of the disease. Because AIDS is a sexuaUy transmitted disease, control is difficult. Its association with homosexuality has made community education yet more difficult; and although the Parliamentary Judges Commission of Inquiry 22 November 1988 2963 disease is now well understood, the early uncertainties about it led to unnecessary fears and inappropriate responses. We are now about to put AIDS into perspective and to approach it with confidence. It is important that the community generally understand the nature of the disease and that the individual can and must accept responsibUity for preventing himself or herself from becoming infected. Queensland has an AIDS control program in place and has taken a number of measures designed to prevent transmission and to manage people infected by the human immune deficiency vims; in addition, a number of groups provide not only medical but also social support of great value to sufferers. Although there is clearly a long way to go, it can be fairly said that the Queensland Government has addressed many of the issues associated with this disease both promptly and effectively. Tribute must be paid to those within Govemment departments, our hospitals, and the community at large who are working, often under diffiiclty, to control this disease and to provide both treatment and care. The discussion paper, which contains a wide range of pohcy options, contains, too, some suggestions that will no doubt be unacceptable—for perhaps legal or moral reasons— not only to those of us in Govemment but also to sections of the wider community. However, I would ask all involved to consider this paper with an open mind. In due course, copies will be made available to every member of the House. I now seek leave of the House to table the report. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table.

PARLIAMENTARY JUDGES COMMISSION OF INQUIRY Appointment of Members Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Nicklin—Leader of the House) (3.57 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Parliamentary (Judges) Commission of Inquiry Act 1988 the Right Honourable Sir Harry Talbot Gibbs, the Honourable Sir George Hermann Lush and the Honourable Michael Manifold Helsham being judges within the meaning of that Act be appointed as members of the Parliamentary Judges Commission of Inquiry and that the Right Honourable Sir Harry Talbot Gibbs be appointed as Presiding Member of such commission of inquiry." Mr WELLS (Murmmba) (3.58 p.m.): The Opposition greatly regrets that the Govemment has not consulted it on this question. The Opposition does not wish to reflect upon any of the leamed gentlemen who were mentioned in the motion moved by the Leader of the House. However, it wishes to comment on the Govemment's behaviour in this matter. It has broken a singular and explicit tmst which it undertook to the Opposition on this matter. On 15 November, in the House, the Honourable the Attorney-General, who has now gone overseas to points unknown, said— "The member for Rockhampton touched upon an important question. I agree with him. In relation to faimess in dealing with the two judges concerned, and also in the general public interest, I assure the honourable member that the final selection of personnel who will be considered for this tribunal wiU be discussed by the Opposition spokesman, the spokesman for the Liberal Party and me." He went on to assure the honourable member for Rockhampton that he had at that time approached no serving judges. He gave that undertaking to this House. He made that promise to this House only a few days ago. Just a little while ago, the Leader of the House made it known to members of the Opposition that he was going to appoint these three leamed gentlemen to the position. 2964 22 November 1988 Parliamentary Judges Commission of Inquiry

Mr Austin: I won't be appointing them; the Parliament will. Mr WELLS: The Parliament will be merely a mbber stamp for the Leader of the House. In this respect, this Parliament has gone back to the dark days of the Bjelke- Petersen Govemment. It has retrogressed. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Row): Order! The Chamber will come to order. Mr WELLS: As I was attempting to say, this Parliament has retrogressed to the dark days of the Bjelke-Petersen (jrovemment when the Parliament was nothing more than a mbber stamp for the Executive. The point is that the Honourable Leader of the House and the Honourable Attomey-General promised real consultation prior to the matter coming to the House. They promised to consult not when they got into the House, but before they got into the House. With the appointment of these three judges, the Ministers had an opportunity to remove for ever from the taint of political controversy the problems that the bench is facing at the moment. They had an opportunity to remove that problem from the political sphere. They had a chance to adopt a bipartisan approach to this matter. They had the chance of cleaning up this issue once and for all, with the consent and support of all political parties in this Parliament. They had that opportunity, but they blew it. Mr Casey: They have no idea of the concept of the Westminster system—no idea at all. Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable member for Mackay for pointing out that what they are doing is in breach of the concept of the Westminster system. In accordance with the Westminster system, certain matters are agreed; certain matters are settled policy; and certain matters are off limits to political debate except in extraordinary circumstances. That possibility exists only by virtue of the fact that, in certain circum­ stances, the Govemment is prepared to consult and that, in certain circumstances, the Government is prepared to take cognisance of the views of people on the opposite side of the House. It is not as though the Ministers did not promise that before they brought this motion before the House they would consult with the Opposition; it is not as though there is not a great deal to be gained from their keeping that promise. But they have chosen not to do so. Members of the Opposition will not reflect on the judges in the context of this motion. Government members interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr Austin: Why don't you sit down, then? You are grandstanding; that is all you are doing. Sit down! Mr WELLS: I thank the Leader of the House for his very limited understanding of the parameters of this particular political debate. Members of the Opposition will not reflect on the judges. What we are doing is giving notice that if any political controversy ensues, the appointments that the Govemment has made have been made without the consultation that was promised. It may be that if the Honourable Attorney-General had not gone overseas on one of his duty-free shopping trips, a better result would have been obtained from the Government. However, the Leader of the House, who has assumed the mantle of the Attomey-General in the Attomey's absence, is wearing that mantle with some discomfort and is wearing it most inappropriately. I say that because the Attomey-General made the promise, but the Leader of the House could not keep that promise. The Opposition, while not saying anything about these leamed gentlemen at this stage, gives notice that if the matter subsequently develops in such a way that the Pariiamentary Judges Commission of Inquiry 22 November 1988 2965

Govemment and the people of Queensland may regret it, we will be pointing out that we did not receive the consultation that we were solemnly promised, not only in this House but also on numerous occasions by spokesmen for the honourable gentlemen and ladies opposite. Mr INNES (Sherwood—Leader of the Liberal Party) (4.03 p.m.): Few things are more important than the impugning of the integrity and impartiality of the courts. At key stages in the development of the Fitzgerald inquiry. Commissioner Fitzgerald—very properly, I think—asked for consultation with the leaders of the three political parties to make sure that the matter was clearly apolitical. Similarly, the offshoot of the Fitzgerald inquiry is the special inquiry into matters touching on the judges. I have no doubt that it was in that sentiment and by the exemplary behaviour and impartiality of Mr Fitzgerald that the Attomey-General made a commitment to consult. I also will make no attempt to reflect on the high reputation of the three judges who have been named in the motion before this House, which is not to say that one would not have liked to have had some genuine constmctive discussions in consultation with the Attomey-General. Nothing could be more important to Queensland's Attomey- General, or to any Attomey-General, than solving a problem of this nature, and the proper and clearly impartial pursuit of the resolution that refers to a reflection on his courts. That has not happened, because of political expediency. An undertaking that I think was very properly and solemnly given has not been kept. That is the simple point, and one does not need to rave and fulminate about it. Honourable members simply have to realise the gravity of the issues involved, the solemn nature of the commitment involved, and the very good precedents for that commitment set by Commissioner Fitzgerald. I regret that one was not able, without the publicity, shall 1 say, of the House to constmctively hold conversations with the Attomey-General about his selection and any aspect that was considered relevant. There are things that are relevant and that people might consider relevant which could have been said and should be said in private, but which cannot be said and should not be said in public. The fact that I mention that matter does not mean that I reflect in any way on the position of any of those three distinguished former judges. However, if undertakings mean nothing, if the importance of the principles involved means so little that the Attomey-General can go off on a jaunt to Brazil via Paris, so be it; but it tends to be a hallmark or an indication of the word of the Government and of the style of the Govemment. The Govemment wiU continue to get into trouble as long as it acts in this way. Mr BRADDY (Rockhampton) (4.06 p.m.): As I was the person to whom the Attorney-General addressed his remarks and gave the undertaking, I wish to add these comments. The matter of judging judges is peculiarly a matter for the Parliament and not a matter for the Executive. The requirement, of course, is that the Parliament appoint these judges by resolution and that they in turn report to the Parliament, which will consider the report. In those circumstances I pointed out that this was a peculiar and just opportunity for the Parliament of Queensland to exercise its parliamentary powers, that the Opposition did not wish to surrender those powers, and that therefore this report would not go to the Executive with the Executive deciding whether or not the report would be handed to Parliament. The Attomey-General accepted that, agreed with my submission and said he would behave accordingly. Today the Government has come to this House with no apology or statement to say that it was an oversight, that is, that the Attomey-General has left the country and it should have been done but has not been done. The Government can never apologise, even when it makes a mistake. That undertaking was sought by me because it was a unique opportunity in Queensland for all members of Parliament to work together in the investigation and" judging of a Supreme Court judge and a District Court judge. Nothing could be more serious than that, and the Opposition behaved appropriately and seriously. 2966 22 November 1988 Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill

The Attomey-General has not honoured the undertaking that he gave to the Opposition. The Government has broken its word. Either it happened by mistake or it was deliberate. The Government has an obligation to tell the House whether the Attorney- General has broken his word deliberately or whether he has been negligent in his failure to carry out this consultation before he left the country and handed the names to the Leader of the House for presentation to the Parliament. It is either an error or a deliberate flouting of an undertaking given to the Parliament. No amount of shouting at the Opposition by the Leader of the House or any of the other members of the Government will gainsay the fact that the rights of the Parliament and the word of the Attorney- General have not been observed. The Govemment stands in shame for behaving in this way. Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Nicklin—Leader of the House) (4.09 p.m.), in reply: I am disappointed that the members of the Opposition have taken that view. There has been no attempt to gag this debate. Mr Wells: You didn't promise debate; you promised consultation. Mr AUSTIN: This is the place, not behind closed doors, where the honourable member for Murmmba or any other member of the Opposition has the right to say anything about the judges who will be appointed. If they want to say anything, they must have enough courage to stand in this place and say it publicly. The members of the Opposition have the opportunity now to say what they want to say and not do as the honourable member has done, that is, take part in secret consultation behind closed doors and say, "I will reserve my judgment as to whether they are suitable or not to another time." The Opposition has its chance now. The matter is before the Parliament and is one that the Parliament should vote on. Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION (SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDIES) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 27 October (see p. 2110). Mr BRADDY (Rockhampton) (4.10 p.m.): This is the second of the trilogy of education Bills. As I indicated at the outset of the debate on the previous Bill relating to the Board of Teacher Registration, the Opposition supports the legislation and compliments the Govemment on the basic tenor of the legislation. The Opposition believes that this is substantially proper legislation to carry out the task for which it was designed. There are some matters I wish to comment upon. The Opposition believes that it would have been better if the Board of Secondary School Studies was retained rather than creating the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. The Opposition believes that to try to separate the compulsory and post-compulsory years of education at a secondary level is artificial and sees no reason why it should be written into the legislation. This legislation is based on the idea that curriculum development and certification should be split. It is disappointing that the Government continues to view compulsory and post-compulsory education as separate entities. The separation of compulsory and post-compulsory education involves the real danger that there will be a difference in development between the two sectors. This legislation will exacerbate that. I do not believe that there is any good educational reason why there should be a differentiation between the compulsory and post-compulsory years and why they should be split in terms of development. To some extent this proposal puts in danger the idea of teacher involvement in curriculum development, accreditation and certification which has been developed over the Junior secondary years by the Board of Secondary School Studies. The legislation provides that the new Board of Senior Secondary School Studies will have control of Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill 22 November 1988 2967

Junior syllabuses and the issue of Junior certificates until otherwise determined. In fact, the Minister stated that this is intended as a temporary measure only. It appears that the Govemment has effectively pre-empted the findings of its own task force on the future of the Junior certificate. I believe—as do the vast majority of teachers and qualified educational people in Queensland—that a centraUy issued Junior certificate which can be handed out at the end of the compulsory years of schooling should be retained. This certificate is stUl of relevance to a fairly sizeable minority of students who do not go on to complete Years 11 and 12. I am somewhat disturbed by the indication in the legislation that the Junior certificate as a centrally issued certificate is only retained provisionally. It is not certain to be retained and could be taken out of the legislation at any time the Minister sees fit. Another matter of concem to me is the constitution of the board. Two positions on the board are reserved for practising teachers. In this case, that is not sufficient. Another three positions have been reserved for parents and two positions are for industry and commerce. In something as serious as carrying out the duties of the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies, it seems to me that more teachers than indicated should serve on the board. One of the first functions of the board is to advise the Minister on senior secondary education. It will also have the function to maintain syllabuses for those subjects for Junior certificates, to approve syllabuses, to determine procedures, and so forth. To make mandatory the appointment of only a couple of teachers is a very dangerous concept, and I believe that the Minister should be called upon to justify why the number is so small. It certainly appears to the Opposition that the number should be increased, and I foreshadow that at the Committee stage the Opposition will move some amendments in relation to that clause. It seems to me that, by having more qualified and practising teachers on the board, the quality of material coming before the board will be improved and, therefore, the debate and the deliberations will improve. I am concemed that the move to give people from industry and commerce a great say could become too intmsive. I certainly agree that industry and commerce should have a say on syllabuses, but certainly I believe that the number of teachers on the board should be increased. We must bear in mind the number of teachers in Queensland. There are some 25 000 teachers in public schools and approximately 7 000 teachers in private schools who are actually working at the present time. Therefore, 32 000 teachers are presently working in Queensland schools. To indicate that only relatively few of them should be, by requirement, appointed to the board is, to me, very disturbing. It is a matter that should be addressed. It is of interest that the first interim report of the Select Committee on Education in Queensland, known as the Ahem committee report, in talking about the constitution of the Board of Secondary School Studies, recommends that section 36 (2) (v) of the Education Act be amended to provide for two nominees of the Queensland Teachers Union on the Board of Secondary School Studies, as it then was. I believe that part 2.6 of the committee's first interim report is interesting. It reads— "The Select Committee believes that it is proper that the teachers, on whose co-operation the successful implementation of our educational policies ultimately depends, should be formally represented on the Board of Secondary School Studies through their major professional organisations. We are satisfied that the representatives nominated by these organisations in the past, have made substantial and useful contributions to the working of the Board, and are confident that they will continue to do so. We have, therefore, recommended that the right of the Queensland Teachers' Union and the Queensland Association of Teachers in Independent Schools to nominate members to the Board of Secondary School Studies be continued and supported." 2968 22 November 1988 Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill

I whole-heartedly support that statement of principle. There is also the other direct recommendation that there be two nominees of the Queensland Teachers Union. However, in this Bill the Govemment is proposing that there be two representatives of teachers' unions—the Queensland Teachers Union and the Queensland Association of Teachers in Independent Schools. Clearly, the Ahern report states that there should be two from the Queensland Teachers Union and that the Queensland Association of Teachers in Independent Schools should also be represented. Therefore, three people on the board should be nominated directly from teachers' unions. I do not believe that anything in the teaching community of Queensland has changed since the Ahem report was handed down. In fact, if anything, in the context of these matters, we are continually saying how responsible the teaching profession is these days and how we look to it to be more responsible, but what does the Government do? It wants only two representatives from teachers' unions on the board. Clearly, that is not good enough. It was foreseen by the Ahem committee as not being good enough. I think the Minister has erred and, accordingly, I foreshadow an amendment that will give an opportunity to this Parliament to restore to the Bill that is now before the House the sort of balance that was indicated in the Ahem report. Just to add to the point and as a matter of balance, bearing in mind the significant difference between the number of teachers employed in public and private schools, there ought not to be just the same, equivalent representation. Surely out of 25 000 practising teachers in State schools we can get two on the board. That would give an opportunity for two members of the Queensland Teachers Union from different parts of Queensland— that is, one from provincial or mral Queensland and one from the metropolitan area— to be on the board. Queensland is a very decentralised State. There must be the ability to have people giving nominations and ideas derived from the experiences that they gain from different areas. Overall, teachers are underrepresented on the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. If the Parliament passes later today the Education (Consultation on Curriculum) Bill, the Minister will have another advisory committee—on curriculum. The Board of Secondary School Studies should be more highly representative of the teaching profession and the realities at work in education in Queensland. Consultation on curriculum enables other ideas and programs to come to the Minister on an advisory basis only. However, that body is setting the curriculum and is very important in relation to both the compulsory and post-compulsory years for the future. It is regrettable that the board is not as representative as it should be. In those circumstances, I foreshadow an amendment and ask that the Minister give serious consideration to allowing some of the amendments relating to the numbers on the board. As well, we must make sure that the representative from the TAFE system will be a teacher or instmctor in a State TAFE institution or senior college. Merely allowing the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs to nominate a person is not good enough. It should be compulsory that the Minister's nominee be a teacher or instmctor from the TAFE system and not some friend or business associate of the Minister, or an employer. There may be aU sorts of reasons why the Minister would want to nominate someone other than a teacher. However, when only one nominee is provided by the Bill, it should be laid down by statute that the Minister's nominee be a teacher to present the professional information that a teacher can contribute. Other amendments could usefully be made to the constitution of the board. 1 have already spoken about the determination of the Opposition to keep the Junior school certificate as a centrally based certificate to be delivered. The Opposition does not wish to see that practice removed. I foreshadow an amendment to prevent its removal. I am also concemed about the functions and powers of the board. The Opposition believes that one of the functions of the board should be to approve syllabuses developed for students who are sitting for the Junior certificate and that that be a statutory Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill 22 November 1988 2969 requirement of the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies, spelt out explicitly in the legislation. I will be moving an amendment in relation to that. In the debate on the Education (Teacher Registration) Bill, the problem relating to fees, allowances and expenses was discussed. The Minister indicated that it was a technical matter. I intended to move an amendment in relation to that. However, I presume that the Minister will give the same undertaking that it is merely to prevent double-dipping and that teachers who are members of the board will receive, out of the Education Department budget, allowances for expenses incurred. The Minister is indicating to me that that is correct. In those circumstances, I will not be moving the amendment that I originally foreshadowed. I accept that that wiU be done. Mr SHERRIN (Mansfield) (4.27 p.m.): It is a pleasure to speak in the debate on the Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill. I have had a long involvement with the Board of Secondary School Studies, as it presently is, principally in my capacity as district review panel chairman for biological sciences in north Queensland. In that capacity, I had responsibility for assisting officers of the board in accrediting individual work programs for schools and also in monitoring, assessment and certification of students undertaking Board of Secondary School Studies programs. In my teaching days, I had a number of years' experience working with the board, particularly under the ROSBA system of assessment as we now know it. It is opportune to put on record in this place some of the tremendous advantages that the board has provided for teachers in schools. As is sometimes the case, advantages are hidden. The board should be commended—I have discussed the matter on numerous occasions with my Liberal Party colleague the member for Mount Coot-tha—on the tremendous value that has been provided to teachers in the area of in-service training. When we started with the old moderation meetings and the bringing together of teachers from State and non-State schools, no-one envisaged the hidden benefits associated with bringing together in a meeting 20 or 30 teachers from far-flung schools in the country who did not have the opportunity to participate in in-service training with their teaching colleagues. Those meetings provided an opportunity for teachers to exchange ideas, to be aware of what was happening in other schools, to see how their colleagues were attacking problems that they thought they might have been the only ones facing, and to discuss the provision of effective programs for students with particular needs. The meetings provided an opportunity to discover that the school down the road had identified a need and had already worked out specific programs to cater for it.

I believe that, more than anything else, the work of the board, particularly during the 1970s, has done a great deal to bring Govemment and non-Govemment schools together. I think that is something that was probably never envisaged when the initial legislation to set up the board was passed. However, I believe that is something that should be acknowledged in this debate as we consider moving on to the next stage of development and the Board of Secondary School Studies becomes the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. Despite all the kudos that I have just given, I believe that there are some areas of concern. I witnessed some of them at first hand in the 1970s and the early 1980s when I was teaching and working with the Board of Secondary School Studies, and I believe that they need to be identified now. The debate on this Bill is an opportune time to bring those matters to the fore. At that time there was a tremendous reliance by the Board of Secondary School Studies and the Education Department on teachers being curriculum-developers. I do not believe that teachers were trained to be curriculum-developers. They certainly were not in my day, and 1 do not believe that they are now. Yet under ROSBA great responsibility was placed on teachers to be course and curriculum developers and syllabus- writers. I do not beUeve that they had the required range of skills in that area. Honourable members who have had something to do with the education system might like to cast 81407—100 2970 22 November 1988 Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill their minds back to those early days under phase I and phase 2 of ROSBA. Because they had to write curriculums, I believe that many teachers were put under a great deal of stress. When the present Speaker assumed the office of Minister for Education, he did a very great service to teachers and schools when he provided additional hours of in- service training. At that time I was a teacher charged with the responsibility of writing four work programs for my school. I think each of them ran to more than 100 pages. A tremendous amount of work was involved in writing those programs, in addition to being a teacher and a subject master. I was certainly very grateful to the Minister and the officers of the department at that time who provided that additional support for teachers out in the field. I believe that that mistake should never be made again and that teachers should not be called on to be curriculum-developers. Some teachers do have that expertise; however, the whole school community does not. It is my belief that at that time the quality of education being delivered in some of our schools suffered as a consequence. It is certainly something that honourable members would not want to see revisited. The Board of Secondary School Studies also deserves kudos and praise, more so than any other similar statutory body throughout Australia charged with these responsibilities, for the breadth of course offerings that it has been able to provide to our students. The Minister, myself and a number of our colleagues have drawn to the attention of the House on many occasions the fact that Queensland leads Australia in secondary retention rates. The statistics show that the retention rate for students proceeding right through to the end of Year 12 in secondary schools in Queensland significantly exceeds that of the other Australian States. This State has already achieved the target set by the Commonwealth Govemment for secondary retention for Australia as a whole well into the 1990s. For example, in 1986-87, 74.9 per cent of students proceeded from Year 10 to Year 11. In 1988, that figure had jumped to 81.6 per cent, and I am told that the predictions are that in 1988-89, 91.5 per cent of students in Year 11 wiU go on to Year 12. I believe that in a very few years honourable members will see almost the entire student cohort from Year 1 pass through a full 12 years' education. In a very short period, that has brought a great challenge to Queensland schools and those charged with providing relevant courses for our students. In days not long past mainly academic courses were being taught in schools which were designed to prepare students for tertiary education. As a result of the rapid increase in secondary retention rates, the Govemment had to very quickly put in place a range of courses that cater for the academic and vocational interests of students. In the main, the bouquets for that must go to the Board of Secondary School Studies. However, the Department of Education has also developed in the curriculum section some of its own courses that deserve praise. A course in practical computing methods is one with which I have had some degree of involvement. A whole range of courses have been provided in the high schools that wiU cater for the needs of students whether they are going on to tertiary study, whether they are going on to further study at TAFE colleges or whether they are considering particular vocational training. I believe that the overwhelming majority of high schools in Queensland, be they State or non-State, offer courses that cater for the academic capabilities of students, their vocational interests and their destination interests post-school. This is one area in which I think the Board of Secondary School Studies needs to be congratulated. I have had some concem, and a number of people have expressed concem to me, about the past operations of the Board of Secondary School Studies. I believe that those concems have been significantly addressed in this legislation in relation to avenues for community input into the design of school syllabuses in the upper secondary schools and also in school courses. If honourable members examine the existing constitution of the Board of Secondary School Studies, they will find that there are certainly insufficient opportunities for parents Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill 22 November 1988 2971 and members of the wider community to have a say in course design or in the syllabus design of many courses. I believe that this legislation wiU alleviate that concem. I have expressed publicly in this Chamber and, if my memory serves me correctly, in the debate on the previous legislation at the end of last year, some concem about the board's responsiveness to change. The particular instance that I cited was English. At the time, a number of expressions of concem were received about the teaching of English in many of our secondary schools. At the time, I believe that the board had been somewhat lax in responding to that community concem. I hope that under the new arrangements the board will tend to be much more responsive to concem expressed by the wider community about the content and the nature of teaching of particular subjects in that area, particularly English. Many aspects of the legislation were referred to by the Opposition spokesman. Obviously, the first matter that catches one's attention is the elimination of responsibiUty for course development in Years 8, 9 and 10. As somebody who has been involved in that area, I can point out that most of the responsibiUty for student moderation is undertaken at the school level. I remember that when I was teaching at Kingston State High School as a staff teacher the overwhelming responsibility for student moderation had been delegated by the board to the school level, even down to the awarding of the number of students in Years 5, 6, 7 and so on, and the development of programs in line with the board's syllabus, which at that stage had not been changed for a significant number of years. Even just having a look to see whether the school work program fitted into the broad syllabus, there was very broad interpretation and very little oversight by the Board of Secondary School Studies. My colleagues still teaching now tell me that that has not changed at all and that probably that oversight has become more lax than it was in those days. What the Govemment is doing with this legislation—taking responsibility for the board over to Years 11 and 12 only—is really just a recognition of what actually happened in the market-place over many, many years. I do not believe that the Govemment is pre-empting in any way the review of the Junior certificate by the Minister's propagation of a Green Paper on that issue. I believe that it is a case for letting the market-place decide. Let us find out what the parents, the teachers and the employers want the Govemment to do with the Junior certificate. My personal opinion is that there will not be a great need for a Junior certificate in the next four or five years. But let the market-place make a decision about that. I do not believe that the Govemment should lead the employers on this matter. Let us get the feedback. As retention rates increase, as they have done over the last few years, there will not be a great need for the Junior certificate. If there is a need for some form of certification, I believe that that could quite capably be handled at the school level. The need for further developmental work on curriculum and the P-10 areas will be handled by the ministerial consultative councU on curriculum that will be debated shortly in this place. The new board will have responsibility for approving syUabuses for those subjects developed by schools, school systems, authorities and other institutions of the board itself which are designated or are to be designated board subjects on the Senior certificate. The board should undertake a marketing campaign with consumers, with parents and with the students to actually publicise as widely as it possibly can the content of the syllabuses and the work programs. It is not the sort of thing on which one needs to lavish $100,000, but it is an attitude that the board should have about marketing those courses, even down to the way that it expresses the content of those courses. The courses contain a tremendous amount of educational jargon. I would argue that the board needs to rewrite many of the courses for public consumption: keep them in their present form for use by the education practitioners, but have some way of getting across to parents and students the nature of the course of study that the students will be undertaking. That is something that is done extensively in the United States. It is certainly not done in Australia. I know that details of the courses are held in the principal's cabinet in 2972 22 November 1988 Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill many high schools, but that is as far as they get—parents do not receive an opportunity to see the content of the actual course that their sons or daughters will be undertaking. Greater emphasis needs to be given by the proposed Board of Senior Secondary School Studies to an identification of core studies in many of the syllabuses. The definitions of core studies in the existing syllabuses are very, very broad. Core studies could well be much more prescriptively defined. I issue a challenge to the incoming board to identify with the appropriate community input, and input from the profesional area of education, to identify those core studies so that there can be a much greater commonality in course offerings throughout Queensland schools without actually having every school offering the same core studies. Identifying 50 or 60 per cent as a notional area for core and making that much more prescriptive than it is now is something that I have heard the wider community argue for almost daily. The second point that I wish to raise about the functions of the board relates to its responsibility for approving work programs for those subjects that are designated or are to be designated board-registered subjects on the Senior certificate. I believe that the incoming board has a responsibility to circulate a register of those programs of study. I know that it is possible to access a register of subjects that are being developed by particular schools. I believe that the incoming board needs to undertake a much wider role in disseminating information on what courses of study have been developed in schools and getting that out to teachers and professionals, so that one does not have the classic situation that one sees in many high schools throughout the State in which people are continuing to reinvent the wheel. One can gain access to new technology for recording these programs and putting them on computer discs. They can then be disseminated around the State so that schools continually have an up-to-date listing and register of work programs and basically what they are—a precis of them—who is teaching them and who is the contact person in the school. Then if the board is interested in offering a course of marine studies, it knows that there are seven or eight schools in the State that have such courses and that those courses have particular characteristics that are unique. So that the wheel does not have to be reinvented totally, a student can select a course, contact the school and obtain a detailed statement about the course. As to the constitution of the board—obviously, the size of the board will be reduced. I think that the old board was composed of 21 members; the proposed board will have 18. To be quite frank, I would have liked to see fewer members on the board. I do not think that a board can operate effectively with a membership of 18. I understand that the former board had many problems. Many stake-holders need to be represented on the board. The first time that the constitution of the board was considered, close to 25 members were proposed. It was then necessary to whittie back that number. I believe that all the key people who need to have a say will be represented on the board. One area of significant change in the constitution of the board has been the reduction in the number of representatives of higher-education institutions. The existing board has five representatives: two from the senate of the University of Queensland; one from each of the other universities in Queensland; and one from the BCAE, if my memory serves me correctiy. That representation has now been reduced to two, which is a continuation of what has occurred during the past 20 years. In the past when Senior certificates were necessary for university entry, the universities controUed the curriculum that was taught in the upper high schools in particular. The extent of their say on the board was maintained with a representation of five out of 21. That representation has now been reduced to two voices out of 18, which is a much more appropriate mix that gives a wider community say in the work of the board. One aspect that is common to most of the constitution clauses of the Bills that we are debating is clause 5 (1) (j), which gives the Minister the power to nominate one additional person if additional representation is desirable. It may well be that people who are nominated by the various groups that have representation on the board may quite innocentiy select a host of people to be on the board. That may be done on the basis of a key factor such as sex. For example, there may be no ladies on the board. Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill 22 November 1988 2973

Clause 5 (1) (j) gives the Minister the prerogative and the ability to ensure that the board is representative of all interests within the community who need to have a say on the board. I support the Bill and urge all honourable members to give it their strong support. Mr SCHUNTNER (Mount Coot-tha) (4.47 p.m.): The Minister referred to my comments about legislative turmoil regarding education during the past couple of years. There has been no turmoil in legislation this year because no education legislation has come before the House. I was referring to last year when version No. 1 was presented to the House on April Fool's Day. Version No. 2 was debated in November. The Minister who introduced version No. 3 spoke very strongly in favour of version No. 2, which became an Act of Parliament but was never proclaimed. I wish to make it clear that I am not referring to some sort of dismption that has occurred this year in the legislative world of education. I have received quite fair support for the Board of Teacher Registration legislation. I do not observe that same degree of widespread support for this Bill and the one deaUng with consultation on curriculum. This Bill is pretty strongly criticised by the Govemment sector—particularly the Queensland Teachers Union—whereas the Education (Consultation on Curriculum) Bill is very strongly criticised by the non-Govemment sector. Because there is criticism from both sides, one might be tempted to argue that the balance is about right. I do not see it that way at all. This Bill and the next one that will be debated are somewhat premature. As I said when speaking to the Board of Teacher Registration legislation, the timing of that Bill was appropriate because there are moves afoot in the Federal sphere which impinge upon State institutions and refer to a unified national system. Tertiary institutions are moving towards greater autonomy. The roles of the Board of Advanced Education and the Board of Teacher Education had to move to accommodate the changes that are occurring. What move is occurring to create that welling-up of feeling amongst the education community or the wider community to say that we should be getting rid of the Board of Secondary School Studies and having a Board of Senior Secondary School Studies and a Ministerial Consultative Council on Curriculum? I do not observe any such thmst in the general community or the education community for that to occur. What has occurred is a movement towards the development of a P-10 curriculum and the outcome of various proposals in the Education 2000 document. It is important to consider this Bill in the context of the history from which it has emerged during the past 20 or 30 years. Many years ago the University of Queensland was the only tertiary institution in (Queensland. In the past the vast majority of youngsters left school after primary school. Very few went on to secondary school. Secondary schooling was very much directed towards entry to tertiary education. In those days during the early part of the century and weU into the 1950s, because the University of Queensland was the only tertiary institution in the State apart from teachers' training colleges, the agricultural coUege and the conservatorium, students aspired to attend that university. It is possible that I have omitted one or two other institutions. However, the general range of colleges of advanced education was not present in those days. To a very high degree the University of Queensland had a dominance over the extemal examinations. As time moved on, it was felt that the university control should be eased somewhat. As a result, the Board of Junior Secondary School Studies and the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies were established. I am not endeavouring to fiU in every point of history over the past 30 or 40 years; I am simply picking up the threads in the 1960s when there were two boards, namely, the Board of Junior Secondary School Studies and the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. In 1969-70, when the Govemment of the day decided that there should no longer be extemal examinations and that a new 2974 22 November 1988 Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill composite board should be established, those boards were eliminated and a Board of Secondary School Studies was created to look after education from Year 8 to Year 12. In the early years of the life of what was called the Radford scheme—the intemal assessment scheme—many problems occurred. They were detailed in a number of studies, the most significant probably being the one produced by Professor Campbell called "Some consequences of the Radford scheme", or a title similar to that. It was in about the mid-seventies that the Board of Secondary School Studies became much more aware of the problems that were being experienced. FoUowing that, a committee under Professor Scott was set up. As a result of that committee's report, some changes were made and ultimately the ROSBA system was introduced. At about that time a select committee was also established. It is quite interesting that that select committee, which was operating at about the same time as the Scott committee finished its studies, arrived at similar recommendations to the Scott committee. In referring to the history of this matter, I make the point that there was a great deal of value to the community in having, at the secondary school level, boards of junior secondary school studies and senior secondary school studies and then the combined Board of Secondary School Studies, which allowed the development of the syllabuses for Years 8 to 12 to occur without direct political intervention. The significance of that statement can be seen when one looks at the conflict that occurred in 1978 over the abolition of MACOS and SEMP. MACOS was a primary course of study—Man: A Course of Study. SEMP—a social education materials project—was associated with a study of society, which was a course for secondary schools—at least, for part of the secondary school spectmm. In 1978 the Govemment of the day, through the former Premier, said words to the effect that, "There's someone in the Education Department who doesn't seem to know what the Govemment wants taught." When that occurred and the Government banned SEMP from State secondary schools, the Board of Secondary School Studies had approved a syllabus, part of which involved recourse to those SEMP materials. At that time the non-Government schools were able to make an independent judgment about whether the banning of SEMP was appropriate. I cannot think of any non-Govemment school that followed the State Govemment example and banned those materials. Among the SEMP materials were a few examples which I, as a teacher, would not have used. The committee that was set up to look at those SEMP materials made a recommendation about what should be omitted and what should be included. Mr Simpson: Condemned by p. and f associations, though. Mr SCHUNTNER: That is not so. The SEMP materials were transported round the State and, with one or two exceptions, the people said overwhelmingly that, if they were used properly in the schools, those materials were quite satisfactory. Mr Simpson: Not in my electorate. Mr SCHUNTNER: I would not mind going back and checking that out in the honourable member's electorate. I am not aware of any electorate in which that did not occur. At the time I was very heavily involved with that matter. The point at issue is that the non-Government sector had a degree of freedom to make its own decisions about the banning or otherwise of materials which were banned from the State system. 1 am concemed that that freedom—that independence—that has existed for 100 years may be jeopardised by some parts of this Bill. In a few moments I will refer to the relevant sections. Over the last two or three years we have seen some degree of conflict between the Board of Secondary School Studies and the Education Department for a stronger control over the development of curriculum. There are those who have long been associated with education who have put to me the view that this Bill and the one that will be debated following it will destroy education as we know it. I realise that the Government will say that that is an overreaction to what is occurring. However, I am putting on Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill 22 November 1988 2975 record that that is what some people who know a lot about education are saying will occur, or is likely to occur. I have always found that, if a Minister for Education wanted to exert an influence on the Board of Secondary School Studies, any comment that he made, either directly or through his departmental representatives, was given the closest attention and the most serious consideration. I can never recall the Board of Secondary School Studies flying in the face of an expressed wish from the Minister for Education. In my opinion, major difficulties will occur at the levels of Years 8, 9 and 10. At this time, this legislation is being proceeded with unwisely, because there are those who wish to proceed with the P-10 and Years 11 and 12 stmcture, and there are those who want to keep intact the system of the Junior certificate for many years into the fiiture. Those two competing elements—and I think they are competing—do not sit comfortably together. This legislation is the embodiment of why they do not sit comfortably together. I foreshadow an amendment to that part of the legislation, which I think is right at the heart of what it is about, that is, the approval of syllabuses. It is worth noting that in the legislation there is a major difference between the clauses that deal with the role of the board in relation to junior syllabuses and those that deal with its role in relation to senior syllabuses. How can anybody explain adequately that, if this board is charged with the responsibility of issuing Junior and Senior certificates, it should have functions in relation to the Junior certificates different from the fiinctions it has in relation to the Senior certificates? It is quite illogical to have the board charged with the final responsibility of issuing certificates in its name while at the same time giving it different fiinctions and powers in relation to those two areas of education. In the non-Government sector, there is a massive degree of criticism of the way in which these two Bills will impinge upon co-operation at Years 8, 9 and 10 when teachers in both Govemment and non-Government sectors join, in a collaborative sense, to consider syllabuses, programs of assessment, and actual levels of assessment. Both sectors are very concemed that, following the abolition of the existing board and the creation of a new board that deals only with Years 11 and 12, a severe loss in educational effectiveness and co-operation will result. I point out to the House that the degree of educational effectiveness and co-operation that exists in Queensland is one of the major pluses of what has occurred in Queensland education in the last 18 years since the Board of Secondary School Studies was established. The legislation presently before the House really makes very clear that the Govemment is determined to get rid of the Junior certificate. I realise that people have different views on whether the Junior certificate could appropriately be eliminated at present or whether it should be retained. If the Junior certificate were abolished ovemight, I think that the large schools—both State high schools and non-Government schools—would probably have no difficulty at all. The Church of England Grammar Schools, the Nudgee Colleges, the Brisbane Grammar Schools, the Brisbane State High Schools and the other long-established State high schools in Queensland would have no trouble at all issuing certificates that would stand up well to scmtiny in any part of the community. However, what about the smaller country schools that offer education to Year 10 only? What about the smaller non-Govemment schools? They have severe reservations about the standing of their school certificates, if the Junior certificate is abolished. There is also a strong view among many people—that is, both the students and the parents—that, even those students going on to Year 12 and perhaps, ultimately, to tertiary education, want to see a Junior certificate awarded at the completion of that stage of education because it provides them with a statement that has some status and a degree of moderation applied to it that does not apply, or is not seen to apply, to certificates awarded without the imprimatur of the Board of Secondary School Studies. Another aspect of this legislation that disturbs me is that yet another load is to be thmst onto schools that wiU have to be bome and contended with by staff at a time when many other things are worrying staff and school administrators. For instance, the 2976 22 November 1988 Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill schools are severely underresourced, which is a matter that I have mentioned many times previously in this House. At present, the schools are working on the development of human relationships courses. I have supported the extension of human relationships courses and I will not move from that position, but I point out that it adds extra work to that already undertaken by people in the schools. I point out also that no additional resources have been supplied with which that task will be done. Schools are also being asked to draw up their own school development plans, which is additional work. P-10 syllabuses are being introduced. Senior secondary school programs are being rewritten. As the previous speaker mentioned, many, many hours of hard work are involved in the first set of programs. Schools are being asked to look into flexible staffing plans. If the Minister, the Govemment and the Department of Education are not aware that a meeting of high school principals was held to examine all the ramifications of these loads that are being placed on staff, I am afraid that that indicates they are not close enough to what is going on in the real worid of education. I believe that it will become more apparent to them in the days ahead. The problems are caught up with the underresourcing of Queensland's schools, coupled with the increase in loads over a whole range of areas. I have not perceived any widespread call for this legislation to be brought in, although it was obvious that steps were needed in teacher education and teacher registration. I mentioned earlier that I would retum to a point I made about the capacity of the Govemment to exert a direct control over board policy, to which clause 8 of this legislation refers. I recognise the argument that a Government may need to retain reserve power to issue instmctions to a board if it feels that the board is not doing the right thing; hence it can be argued that that particular clause needs to be contained in the legislation. I point out, though, that that clause merely continues the thread that has been in legislation previously, whether in the form of version 1, version 2 or version 3. I go back to version 1, which was introduced in April 1987, and point out that the authority of the Govemment and of the Minister was laid down in a very overt manner in many places throughout the legislation. It was mentioned in one of the very early clauses, even before constitution of the board was mentioned. That matter worried the non-Govemment sector enormously. As a result, the opposition became so obvious that it led to the eventual withdrawal of version 1 of the legislation. However, the same type of provision, in other shapes and forms, was again included in version 2. It has been moved around considerably in version 3 that has arrived on the scene, but it is still there. Another point I wish to make relates to the reference to practising teachers. I was extremely disappointed to note in the debate on the previous legislation that the Minister moved an amendment to change the word "practising" to "registered". If the same pattern is followed with this legislation, I expect that in a few moments amendments will be moved to change the word "practising" to "registered" in the relevant clauses in this Bill. It is absolutely vital that practising teachers be involved in these boards and committees. It is not good enough to have on a committee or board someone who is a registered teacher but is not presently teaching a class, developing assessment programs, marking tests and carrying out a whole range of other activities that are required. I was a member of the Board of Secondary School Studies for some time. In my early years on the board I was a teacher practising as an English subject master and later I was a deputy principal and acting principal. It was very important for there to be that input into the board. It would be instructional for people to learn how often a board of 20 people needs to look to the two or three members of the board who are actually involved in the day-to-day operations of education, attend moderation meetings— or whatever they might be called at any particular time—and carry out assessment programs. I predict that further amendments will be moved to this legislation, but I wish to place clearly on the record that in my mind the value of practitioners is not diminished in any way. I am not currently a practitioner, but I have argued this point for many years. I will be pleased if there are no amendments to this legislation. Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) BiU 22 November 1988 2977

Mr Littleproud: No amendments. Mr SCHUNTNER: I am pleased to hear the Miiuster say that. Perhaps he wiU be able to bring in further amendments to the Education (Teacher Registration) Bill, which the House has just passed and which will soon be an Act, to provide for practising teachers and not merely registered teachers on the Board of Teacher Registration. The Liberal Party supports this Bill. It recognises that the reserve power should properly be in the hands of the Minister. In speaking to it, I have expressed significant reservations about it. I believe that it is inappropriate to be moving in with this legislation at this point in time because of the uncertainty held by a significant proportion of people about how long the Junior certificate will be required. The P-10 concept could continue to be implemented through the present primary school arrangements and the present Board of Secondary School Studies. However, I welcome the idea that there should be a change in the legislation goveming the Board of Secondary School Studies, or whatever board there will be. Twelve years ago I, along with others, was part of a committee which recommended that that board include industry, commerce and parental representatives. I am pleased that moves have been made in that direction, even though it is 12 years later. The select committee report of 1978 made similar recommendations. I believe that a separate piece of legislation would be appropriate to establish a Board of Secondary School Studies and provide for the board to operate over Years 8 to 12. The constitution of that board could be similar to what is proposed in this legislation, although I recognise that there will be arguments with some of the clauses in this Bill. I am extremely cautious about the inclusion of clause 8 in this Bill. However, I expect that the Govemment will be very circumspect in the exercise of its powers under that clause and will do so only in the most extreme circumstances. The Govemment has the capacity to influence the board in a number of other ways rather than bluntly using this power. Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (5.12 p.m.): It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to congratulate the Minister on the generation of the Bill. In the past, education has been an emotive subject and one that touches every family in the State because it is fundamental to the future of all our children. Having recognised this, the Minister embarked upon a consultative process across the spectmm of education, educators and educational institutions. This is reflected in the Bill and the stmcture of the new Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. The new board will be a most representative one containing 18 members, although somewhat smaller than the board it replaces. That is not to say that the smaller board will be unrepresentative; on the contrary, the 18 members will be drawn from diverse sources. Parents—those most important people in the community—will be appropriately represented. One parent will be drawn from the QCPCA, one from the Independent Parents and Friends Council of Queensland and a third from the Parents and Friends Federation. This is a broad cross-section of parent involvement, and it is wholly proper that parents should occupy three of the places on the board. In addition, the legislation, states that those parent representatives must be the parents of children who are currently attending a Queensland school in either Year 11 or Year 12. One representative on the board is to be a nominee of the Minister and shall be chairman. Three representatives on the board wiU be nominees of the director-general, which indicates a considerable reduction in the number of nomineees of the director-general. The number has been reduced from eight to three, and those people will represent Senior education in the State sector. The board will contain two union representatives; one each from the Queensland Teachers Union and the Queensland Association of Teachers in Independent Schools. It goes without saying that teachers are an important and integral part of education. Indeed, they are probably the most important part, and therefore representation from this sector is vital. The Board of Teacher Registration, which was established by the previous Bill, is to be represented by a practising secondary school teacher with experience in senior 2978 22 November 1988 Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill secondary education. This clearly demonstrates the Minister's determination to give influence on this board to educators. There shall be a representative of the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs, or whoever succeeds him in that portfolio. This appointment clearly indicates that TAFE and the senior college sector is important in the decision-making process in education. The higher-education fomm will have two representatives, one of whom must be a practising teacher-educator. That will be an important link between the teacher- educators and the board, which ultimately exercises influence over curriculums in the State. Industry and commerce are represented. No-one can deny the common sense of that judgment, which will serve to ensure that the ultimate employers of the majority of our school-leavers can influence the philosophy of education in this State. Non-State secondary schools are to have two representatives. When one considers that around 25 per cent of all students in the senior years of high school in this State are in non-State schools, it would have been infamous indeed to fail to recogitise the important contribution made by this sector and to not recognise the specialist skills of private-sector schools. Honourable members will, I am sure, recognise and applaud the broad representation outlined and will recognise the great strength that this diversity will bring to education. Of recent years, the senior years of 11 and 12 have become more and more important, with the gradual change of emphasis from Grade 8 as the most common exit year, through to the time when Grade 10, or the Junior certificate, was held in high esteem by employers and others in the State. Now the retention rates of students proceeding from Year 10 to Year 11 in our high schools have increased, as was pointed out by the member for Mansfield, from 74.9 per cent in 1986-87 to an anticipated and quite incredible 91.5 per cent of students progressing from Year 11 to Year 12 in 1989. Clearly, Year 12 is the most common and desirable exit year. These are also the important link years that provide the basis for higher and tertiary education. More and more, high schools and TAFE are merging to provide Senior certificates that are appropriate to modem society and to the needs of industry. This highlights the major function of the board, that is, to approve and accredit curriculums developed by any institution, thereby ensuring uniformity and rationality throughout the system. No school will henceforth be using unapproved or inappropriate curriculum material and, of course, similarly, any institution developing its own curriculum material will not be disadvantaged by that. This offers the most flexible system possible, while at the same time ensuring the quality and appropriateness of the subject-matter. I support the Bill and am pleased to note that the efforts of the Minister and his staff have been largely rewarded by having the legislation widely accepted not only by educators, industry, parents and others but also by most of those who have spoken to it. Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (Condamine—Minister for Education, Youth and Sport) (5.18 p.m.), in reply: I thank members for their contribution and the comments that came forward in the debate. Similar comments were put to me when I met with the various parties with whom I consulted while drawing up the legislation. In the debate on the previous Bill I mentioned my thanks to those people for their input. As long, hard and tiring as the process was, we seem to have come up with something that most people want. Once again, some people have overiooked the broad picture and addressed their own particular interests and they have pursued those. I tum to the comments made by the Opposition spokesman, Mr Braddy. My comments here will be relevant to the Bill that is to be debated after this one. When speaking of the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies, the member for Rockhampton said that he would have preferred it if the old board, which dealt with Years 8 to 12, had been retained. The new board will deal only with Years 11 and 12. I remind him and other members of the House that a number of factors influenced my final decision. Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill 22 November 1988 2979

As has been mentioned by a number of honourable members, our young people are staying at school longer. Whereas once students had leamed the basics by the time they got to Scholarship, now it is accepted that that process continues to Year 10. It is educationally well accepted that the P-10 concept is the way things wiU develop. The member for Mount Coot-tha also acknowledged that. The Ministers for Education from the various States meet at the Australian Education Council. Members of the House would also be aware of comments made by Mr Dawkins and the Prime Minister calling for greater uniformity in our school systems from State to State because more and more of the population are transient and their children find it difficult to adjust to new education systems when they move interstate. In making that statement, the Prime Minister and Mr Dawkins were listening to the electorate. When we are thinking about putting together a syllabus for that section of schooling, which is in the compulsory years as far as P-10, that has to be taken into consideration. Much has been made in this House and elsewhere about the workload of teachers. By going back to the P-10 concept and with subject committees, which we have indicated will be introduced, that will reduce some of the workload on those teachers, especially those in the secondary schools, who have been complaining so much. On the other hand, it will still safeguard the professional input that teachers have indicated to me they want to keep. They love the idea of being able to actually go out there and help develop courses. That opportunity will remain because, even with subject committees drawing up the syllabus, it will be put together within broad parameters so that when it goes to a school the teachers themselves will have a chance to adapt the curriculum to suit the local community. That will answer the needs of the local community as well as provide for professional input from the teachers themselves. The honourable member for Rockhampton went on to comment about the Junior certificate. The member for Mount Coot-tha also made much of this subject. I think it is important to bear in mind that at present there is a task force that has this under review. The legislation is framed so that the Junior certificate will remain in its existing form. To go out and do otherwise would be to pre-empt the findings of the task force. In fact, the Bill is worded in such a way that it will not pre-empt the report coming from the task force, nor will it pre-empt what will come from the community at large. The Opposition spokesman on Education mentioned board membership and said that it should have three practising teachers. Under the present Act, only three practising teachers are on the Board of Secondary School Studies. The membership of the new board will remain the same. I understand the point that the honourable member made, that there should be more input from teachers. However, at the top is the board, which makes the policy; under that are moderation committees and subject committees. A large number of practising teachers are working on those committees at that lower level, as well as in the schools, and they have an input into what goes on. That should answer some of the honourable member's questions. With regard to the nominee of DEVET—it would be only responsible of the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs to consult with the Minister for Education. He would be keen to ensure that his nominee was in touch with what was happening and had a good overview of DEVET, rather than pluck out someone who was responsible for only one segment of DEVET. I would not hke to give another Minister directions as to whom he should nominate for the board. However, I have every confidence that the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affafrs would consult with me and that he would be looking for a person who knows all about DEVET—and who is senior enough in the TAFE sector to have a broad understanding of how it relates to what the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies is doing. The member for Mansfield recorded the role played by teachers in schools. He made some good points. Firstly, he made the point that teachers love to make an input into developmental programs. He mentioned that when teachers who were trained at teachers' colleges were directed in the art of teaching, they probably were not given much instmction in course development. Over the years, as the Board of Secondary School Studies has been operating, that has become obvious. Previously, it applied to 2980 22 November 1988 Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill the Board of Junior Secondary School Studies. The honourable member also mentioned that, by taking part in moderation committees and subject committees and drawing up their own work programs, teachers were going through a valuable in-service training program that helped to keep them very much abreast of what was occurring elsewhere and helped their own professional development. The member for Mansfield spoke about the workload of the Board of Secondary School Studies. I recognise that the members of that board work extremely hard. The number of students processed by the board has grown remarkably. This year, it has been confronted with two problems. Firstly, a problem occurred in the first ASAT test. That problem was not of the board's making; it was a problem of ACR, from which the board gets the test. Later, a problem occurred with the printers who printed the replacement test. Great strain was placed on the Board of Secondary School Studies. At present, I am reviewing those matters. It may be possible to make some new appointments to ensure that, should people leave or get sick, a difficult situation does not arise. The member for Mansfield also showed a full appreciation of all the workings of the Board of Secondary School Studies and the various committees involved. He understands the reason why the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies has been set up. The member for Mount Coot-tha opposed the concept of reducing the board's responsibility so that it now caters mainly for Years 11 and 12. However, I have already addressed that matter. Because of his background with the Queensland Teachers Union, 1 believe that he was speaking on behalf of the union. It is interesting that he spoke up on behalf of the non-Govemment sector. In the Estimates debate on Education, he did not mention that subject. Nevertheless, he has been listening to the debate, which is the job of a member of Parliament. The member for Mount Coot-tha also traced the growth of the retention levels in schools. He mentioned that the exit level from school was once Scholarship and then it was Junior. He also mentioned that at present 90 per cent or more of students are continuing on to Year 12. I listened with interest to his comment that early in the history of secondary school studies there was a Board of Junior Secondary School Studies and then a Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. It seems that we are now recognising that a split occurred there and that we are introducing another split, except that we are indentifying with compulsory and post-compulsory years. The member for Mount Coot-tha also referred to clause 8 of the Bill. He took exception to the fact that the Minister should give some direction. Of course, when troubles arise, the final responsibility rests with the Minister. However, mostly the direction of the Minister is of an administrative nature rather than that of directing educational policies. The honourable member would agree with me that neither the previous Minister nor I was ever guilty of exercising excessive power over the Board of Secondary School Studies in terms of policies. Mention was made of developments as a result of the Green Paper. These days, schools are preparing folios whereby they provide examples not only of schoolwork for students but also of their extra-curricular activities so that they can provide a broader profile to employers who want to know about young people as academic beings and also as total people. Last week, the task force gave me an interim report indicating that a large section of the community still wants some type of report at Year 10 level. The Govemment intends to respect that opinion. As I mentioned earlier when speaking about the comments made by the Opposition spokesman, the Government will be responsive to the task force's recommendations. It is Govemment policy to provide a Green Paper on these types of things. After the task force makes its final recommendations, a Green Paper may be prepared. The Bill has been worded broadly so that it does not pre-empt the work of the task force. The member for Tablelands provided a different perspective to the debate. He represents parents and communities generally. He is not an educator. However, he mentioned that it is most important that parents generally and the community at large Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) BiU 22 November 1988 2981 can see that the education system provides for the needs of their children. When considering what is being provided for their children, people are very carefiil. One of their greatest desires in life is to provide the best that they can for their children. Of course, the input by commerce and industry to the board was also commended by the member for Mount Coot-tha, who said that it was pushed for years ago. I am pleased that the legislation covers that. The Opposition spokesman was not quite so keen on it. I think he qualified what he said. Can I say that 1 certainly would also be guarded in relation to the extent to which industry and commerce could direct curriculum development? Commerce and industry should certainly be listened to, but they having been allowed to give an opinion, the formulation of the curriculum should be left to the educators, who have the expertise. I am sure there is room for closer consultation. I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I conclude by saying that discussions were held with the Board of Secondary School Studies. By and large, the board was happy with the framing of this legislation, and it appreciates the way in which things are changing in the education field. The board is quite prepared to work with the legislation as proposed. Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. B. G. Littleproud (Condamine—Minister for Education, Youth and Sport) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5— Mr BRADDY (5.31 p.m.): In the course of his remarks, the Minister referred to the fact that it is not necessary to have a larger complement of teachers on the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies because the teachers will be able to make their contribution at a lower level. I accept that the Minister seriously puts that forward. I have given consideration to that, and I believe that the fact that only three practising teachers wiU be members of this board, which has a complement of 18, is a definite disability and that the Bill should be amended to enable the board to be better constituted by a requirement that more members of the board be practising teachers. The amendment that I will propose to this clause, and the amendments that I will propose later to other clauses, would have the benefit of ensuring that at least six more teachers would be enabled to be members of the board. That would mean that about half of the board would be composed of people who are not experienced teachers and who are not currently practising teachers. I believe that it would not be amiss if approximately one half of the members of the board were practising teachers coming from different areas and different disciplines. I intend to proceed on that basis. Accord­ ingly, I move the following amendments— "At page 4, line 8, omit— 'three' and substitute— 'four'"; "At page 4, line 8, after 'Director-General' add— 'three of whom shall be practising teachers'." The clause would then read, "four nominees of the Director-General, three of whom shall be practising teachers". I believe that that requirement is a sensible one in the circumstances. To leave the constitution of the board in a state in which only three of the 18 members are required to be practising teachers would be highly remiss of the Minister, and I am strongly 2982 22 November 1988 Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill critical of that part of the legislation which enables that to take place, despite the subcommittees and other committees that will be feeding into the Board of Secondary School Studies. I therefore call on the Minister to accept that amendment in the spirit in which it has been put forward by the Opposition. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I cannot accept the amendment, because the three nominees coming from the director-general will, of course, be people of wide experience and seniority in the department who will have that overview. I stress again that the board at this level is in fact a policy board. People who have a broad understanding of the total education scene are needed. I am unable to accept that amendment. Question—That the word proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 53 NOES, 28 Ahem Lester Ardill Alison Lickiss Braddy Austin Lingard Bums Beanland Littleproud Campbell Beard McCauley Casey Berghofer McKechnie Comben Borbidge McPhie D'Arcy Burreket Menzel De Lacy Chapman Muntz Eaton Cooper Neal Gibbs, R. J. Elliott Nelson Goss Fraser Newton Hamill Gamin Perrett Hayward Gately Randell McEUigott Gibbs, I. J. Schuntner Mackenroth Gilmore Sherlock McLean Glasson Sherrin MiUiner Gunn Simpson Palaszczuk Harper Slack Scott Harvey Stoneman Smith Henderson Tenni Smyth Hinton Veivers Underwood Hobbs White Vaughan Hynd Warner Innes Wells ICatter Tellers: Yewdale Tellers: Knox FitzGerald Davis Lee Stephan Prest Resolved in the affirmative. Mr BRADDY: The next amendments I propose are to clause 5 (1) (c). I move— "At page 4, line 9, omit— 'two' and substitute— 'three'"; "At page 4, Une 11, omit— 'one each' and substitute— 'two'"; "At page 4, line 12, after 'and' add— 'one to be nominated by'." The purpose of the amendments is again to pay proper credence to the real situation in Queensland. Queensland has about 25 000 teachers who are employed in pubUc schools and who are members of the Queensland Teachers Union and about 7 000 members Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill 22 November 1988 2983 who are employed in (Tatholic, independent and other reUgious schools, making a total of about 32 000. Proper and reasonable representation of teachers is needed on the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. It is a question of what is reasonable. The Govem­ ment has put forward a proposal that allows only a guaranteed three teachers on the board. I have nailed my colours to the mast by saying that teachers are proper professional people who are required for discussions in relation to the fiinctions and powers of the board, including advising the Minister on senior secondary education and maintaining syllabuses. I believe that the amendments are an appropriate way of doing that. The Govemment has blocked my amendment relative to the nominees of the director-general. For the reasons I outlined earlier, I invite the Govemment to consider and to accept these amendments, which will, in effect, bring about a situation in which two nominees will come from the Queensland Teachers Union and one nominee from the Queensland Association of Teachers in Independent Schools. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I cannot accept the honourable member's amendments. Even with the three teachers put forward, those three persons would not have any significant effect on the voting power. It is important that someone from the QTU and the Queensland Association of Teachers in Independent Schools be appointed to the board. As I said earlier, it will be a policy committee. The honourable member moved an amendment to clause 5 (1) (b) that the number of nominees of the director-general be increased from three to four. I opposed that amendment. I did not take up his suggestion that an extra nominee of the director- general be appointed. Likewise, I cannot accept this proposal. Amendments negatived. Mr BRADDY: Because 1 have already canvassed this matter in the House during the course of debate on this Bill, I do not intend to spend much time on it. This particular clause relates to the requirement that the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs will have the right to nominate one person to the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. I move the following amendment— "At page 4, line 28, after '1988' add— 'who shall be a teacher or instmctor in a State TAFE institution or senior college'." It would be a serious mistake to allow the statutory requirement for the Minister to nominate someone from the TAFE category who does not come from the practising teaching category. I do not believe that we can fully rely on the Minister to come up with the appropriate person unless there is some statutory indication. At present only three teachers are required to be appointed to the board. I heard what the Minister said. Obviously, the relevant Minister would talk to him. Surely someone at senior level who is a practising teacher with administrative experience should be the person who is selected. At present, anybody at all could be nominated by the Minister for Employment. There is no requirement that that nominee should come from the TAFE system; it could be anybody—even a businessman who is a friend of the Minister. The Minister for Education has no control over that nomination. It is all very well his saying that he believes that it will be done in consultation with him; but there should be some statutory limit on the person who is nominated by the Minister for Employment. In the circum­ stances, the Opposition's proposed amendment is proper. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I cannot accept the proposed amendment. I reiterate what I said earlier, namely, that the Minister in charge of DEVET would be looking for someone with a broad understanding. It could well be that the Minister will nominate the sort of person who was just described by the Opposition spokesman; but it would not be proper for me to be prescriptive on the Minister for Employment. I have every confidence that whoever holds that position will ensure that he nominates a person of high standing. Amendment negatived. 2984 22 November 1988 Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill

Mr BRADDY: I move the following amendment— "At page 4, Une 33, omit— 'nominated by the Minister' and substitute— 'one of each to be nominated by the Queensland Confederation of Industry Ltd and the Trades and Labour Council of Queensland'." As presently framed, the clause requires that two representatives of the industry and commerce sectors, nominated by the Minister, should be appointed to the board. Industry and commerce should have some say in who their nominees should be. There is no requirement that the Minister should select those representatives. The purpose of this amendment is to recognise two very important bodies. As to the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies—the first important body to recognise is industry itself, which should have the right to nominate its particular member of the board. The Opposition sees no harm or problem with that whatsoever. The Confederation of Industry Ltd should decide who the appropriate person is without putting that decision in the hands of the Minister. The second important body to recognise is the trade union movement, which should also have a say in who constitutes the board. As to Junior certificates—I note that the Minister consulted the trade union movement, which gave advice through its represen­ tatives. Because the trade union movement will have something serious to contribute to secondary school studies and the training of people before they leave secondary school to enter the work-force or tertiary education, it is very important that it should be directly represented on the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. Accordingly, my amendment would allow both of those bodies direct representation by nominees of their own rather than through the Minister. Therefore, the Opposition believes that the clause should be amended to enable the Queensland Confederation of Industry Ltd and the Trades and Labor Council of Queensland to each directly nominate one member to the board. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I cannot accept the amendment. As it is worded, it is quite possible that a man of the standing of Harry Hauenschild, who was alluded to before and who made representation to the task force on the Junior certificate, could well fit that role. I am very much aware that people out in the industry are looking for different sorts of skills and attitudes—especially skills—from our young school-leavers than are those people in the commercial sector, be it retailing or the service industries such as banking and finance. That is why the legislation has been worded as broadly as it has in relation to the appointment of people from industry and commerce. I do believe that two different sorts of skills and requirements are needed. The way the clause is worded, the sorts of things that the honourable member has spoken about can still be taken care of Amendment negatived. Mr BRADDY: I now refer to clause 5 (1) (j). A similar provision appeared in the Education (Teacher Registration) Bill. In that case the Minister gave a certain commitment in relation to the person who would be nominated. Bearing in mind, as I say, that there are only three practising teachers who are now required to be members of the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies, 1 would like to hear the Minister's comments in relation to this clause. Mr LITTLEPROUD: This Bill obviously contains broader parameters than the Bill that was debated previously. The honourable member will remember that on the occasion when the Bill was being debated I qualified my remarks by saying that it could well happen that a person appointed under clause 5 (1) (j) would be a person who was a State school teacher, because three out of four teachers are State school teachers. In this case, we are talking about broader representation, but the possibility still arises that if I Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill 22 November 1988 2985 see a gap on DEVET or the practising teaching side, this clause will allow some balance to be given to the board after it is up and mnning. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr BRADDY (5.55 p.m.): I spoke earlier about the need to keep absolute certainty in relation to the Junior certificate. I move the following amendment to clause (6) (1) (b)— "At page 5, line 7, omit— 'until otherwise determined'." The amendment sets out to achieve that purpose. I believe it is appropriate. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I cannot accept the amendment. I think I explained when summing up at the second-reading stage that, because I am aware of the task force reporting on what should be done to amend the Junior certificate, the clause is worded specifically to keep it as broad as possible. I have indicated that the interim report of the task force has strongly suggested that it should be retained in some form. This sort of wording keeps the question open so that, whatever report that task force brings down, there will be no need to amend the Bill. Amendment negatived. Mr BRADDY: I move the following amendment to clause (6) (1) (c)— "At page 5, omit all words from and including 'maintain' in line 11 to and including 'determined' in hne 13 and substitute— 'approve syllabuses for those subjects developed by schools, school systems, authorities, other institutions, or the board itself which are designated, or are to be designated, board subjects on the Junior certificate'." The insertion of those words in that clause would provide an appropriate task for the board in the future. I ask the Minister to consider the amendment. Mr SCHUNTNER: This clause deals with the heart of the board's functions. If the Minister were genuine about saying that he did not want to see the Government pre­ empt the outcome of the task force on the Junior certificate, surely there would be legislative provisions that are equal for both Junior and Senior certificates. The syllabus arrangement should be the same, too. There is a clear differentiation between maintenance of syllabus for those subjects currently designated board subjects on Junior certificates and the responsibility in relation to syllabuses for Senior certificates, which is markedly different. They should be the same, otherwise there is a pre-emption of what is to occur. That should not be so. Clause 6 (1) (c) should be amended as proposed by the honourable member for Rockhampton. Mr LITTLEPROUD: The Govemment does not accept the amendment. The Bill seeks a maintenance operation only in relation to the Junior certificate to allow for a full review process to take place. The proposed amendment would simply mean business as usual for the board. The words "until otherwise determined" also demonstrate that the Govemment is serious about reviewing the type of Junior certificate that will be required. Amendment negatived. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clauses 7 to 54, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. 2986 22 November 1988 Education (Consultation on Curriculum) Bill

Thfrd Reading BiU, on motion of Mr Littieproud, by leave, read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.01 to 7.30 p.m.

EDUCATION (CONSULTATION ON CURRICULUM) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 27 October (see p. 2112). Mr BRADDY (Rockhampton) (7.30 p.m.): This legislation is another companion Bill to the two that were dealt with earlier today. Again I indicate on behalf of the Opposition that, basically, there is agreement with the Bill, but the Opposition has several suggestions that would improve it. However, the basic thmst and tenor of the legislation are acceptable to us. The matters that I find not fully acceptable are very similar to those that I raised in the debate on the Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) BiU. Therefore, I do not intend to canvass those matters at any great length. The matters that I wish to see included in this legislation are all matters that were canvassed in the previous debate. Again, one of the main problems is the unacceptably low number of practising teachers who are included, by virtue of the nature of their profession, on the board. Only three of the 18 members of the council are required to be practising teachers. During the previous debate, I heard the Minister say that there could be considerably more practising teachers as representatives on the board, but I do not believe it is acceptable to leave the Bill in its present state. I believe that the amendments proposed by the Opposition would cure that deficiency. The representation should be increased by the inclusion of several practising teachers. At the Committee stage, I wiU be moving amendments to make some minor alterations to the constitution of the board. The BUl is designed to set up a committee to advise the Minister, without the committee having any absolute right to have its views accepted or listened to. The committee will operate very much on a consultative basis but it will be a very important one, in the light of events that occurred in relation to the Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) BUl in which the curriculum is confined to a couple of years of secondary schooling. Whilst the Opposition accepts that the consultative committee approach is well worth trying, I suggest that the amendments proposed earlier by the Opposition would be applicable in this legislation also. It is noted that membership of this committee will be more widely representative than is the case with existing boards and the Board of Teacher Registration. I am concemed about the Govemment's desire to apply the user-pays principle to an excessive extent. That tendency is reflected in this legislation. The other matter that I wish to canvass relates to the concems expressed by the Catholic education community. I understand that a number of matters have been put to the Government but that those matters were not replied to in the way in which the Catholic community would have liked. I believe, therefore, that these matters should be canvassed during this debate to give the opportunity to the Minister to put the Govemment's position in relation to them. As I understand it, the situation is that the Board of Secondary School Studies will be abolished and its role in curriculum development for Years 8 to 12 will disappear. The Board of Senior Secondary School Studies, which has a curriculum development role for Years 11 and 12, will be substituted. Members of the Opposition and the Queensland Catholic Edycation Commission have no problems in accepting that. I understand, however, that the Government proposes that the curriculum development function for Years 1 to 10 will be handled by schools and by the various schools systems, but not by the proposed consultative council that is mentioned in this Bill. Of course. State schools wUl rely for discharging curriculum development functions for Years 1 to 10 on the Govemment-funded resources of the department. Education (Consultation on Curriculum) BUl 22 November 1988 2987

As I understand it, a problem arises with the CathoUc system because no similarly specific provision is contained in the Bill to cover that system of education. Therefore, the commission has put to the Govemment that access should be given to the resources of the Govemment, but the Government has said, "No". The Govemment has said that the commission will be given collaborative access through membership of departmental curriculum committees. The Catholic Education Commission believes that that proposal is not sufficiently satisfactory. The commission has sought, and is seeking, fiinds from the Govemment in lieu of the previous arrangement that applied to enable the commission to carry out the curriculum development work itself on the basis that the Catholic education system is different or, altematively, it is seeking an ironclad guarantee from the Govemment in the form of amendment of the legislation. I do not believe that the Govemment's proposals that I have seen to date have reached the stage at which they can be placed before the Parliament in the form of an amendment that I would be in a position to support, and I do not intend to do that. What I will do is indicate to the Minister that he should inform the House to what extent he is prepared to go along with the Catholic Education Commission's requests. I point out to the Minister that the Catholic Education Commission is responsible for the development of curriculum for many schools throughout Queensland. The Minister should also indicate that he is prepared to continue discussions with the commission's representatives in an attempt to arrive at a mutually acceptable formula for the fiiture. I know that so far those attempts have failed, and that the commission has expressed its regret that that is the case. I should imagine that the Minister also would not be completely happy that both sides have been unable to reach an agreement that is mutually acceptable. I call on the Minister to indicate tonight in this debate that he and his departmental officers are prepared to continue discussion in the hope that in the near future some acceptable resolution of the problem is arrived at. I do not believe that the matter should cease being discussed merely because the legislation is before the House tonight or that a sum of money has been voted. I hope that given goodwill—which I am sure the Minister has—continuing discussion might take place and someone might arrive at a formula that is acceptable to both sides. Certainly the schools conducted by the Queensland Catholic Education Commission and the Catholic Church in Queensland strongly deserve support. Frequently they educate people from the poorer segment of the community and do a great job. It would be a pity if discussions between them and the Govemment did not eventually arrive at some acceptable formula. I will be urging that the Minister continue these discussions, that the (Queensland Catholic Education Commission maintain its dialogue with the Govemment and that neither side should wash its hands of the other. The amendments that I propose to move to this Bill are identical to the amendments that I unsuccessfully moved to the previous Bill, but I will give more detail of these amendments during the Committee stage. Mr SCHUNTNER (Mount Coot-tha) (7.38 p.m.): Many of these matters that I wish to raise in relation to this Bill were touched upon in my speech during the debate on the previous Bill. I do not intend to repeat the comments that I made during that debate. The two Bills, that is the Education (Consultation on Curriculum) BiU and the Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill, overlap in Years 8, 9 and 10. The overlap occurs because the Junior certificate is continuing, despite a clear desfre by the Govemment to get rid of it. Mr Littleproud: I did not say that that was my intention. Mr SCHUNTNER: The words in the Bill imply that pretty clearly. The syUabuses for Years 8, 9 and 10 come under the advisory committee on curriculum. 2988 22 November 1988 Education (Consultation on Curriculum) BiU

As I indicated earlier, opposition to the previous Bill has been most strongly expressed by the Government sector, but opposition to this Bill is most strongly expressed by the non-Govemment sector. Mr Braddy referred to the views expressed by the Queensland Catholic Education Commission and his comments were an accurate rep­ resentation of the views held by that commission. I point out that it is not only the Catholic Education Commission that has expressed these concems. The non-Govemment sector—other than the Catholic Education Commission—has expressed similar concems and dismay about the loss of the curriculum development and approval function by this advisory council. There has been a significant movement from the position where Years 8 to 12 had their syllabuses developed and approved by the Board of Secondary School Studies. When that board becomes a board covering Years 11 and 12—that will occur under the Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill—the non-Government areas will not have the input to the same level of statutory council for Years 8, 9 and 10 as they have enjoyed for decades in the past. I say "decades in the past" because before 1971—the Board of Secondary School Studies has been in place since then—there was the Board of Junior Secondary School Studies and the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. For decades the non-Government sector has had an involvement in the process of developing and approving syllabuses at the secondary school level. It is the loss of its capacity to have that sort of input in the junior secondary area that is causing the non- Govemment sector so much concern. In failing to respond to some of the points made in recent weeks and months, the Govemment fails to recognise the point of concem expressed by the non-Government sector. Certainly the Government was not appreciative enough of the concerns expressed by the Govemment sector in relation to the previous legislation. In particular, I refer to the concems expressed by the (Queensland Catholic Education Commission in relation to this Bill. In a media release this aftemoon, the commission stated that it regards this new Bill as giving total control over curriculum development in Years 1 to 10 to the State Education Department. The media release states— "... our schools will lose access to the Curriculum development facility formerly carried by that Board." The release further states— "... we are apparentiy expected to rely upon the curriculum development resources available through the Education Department for State Schools." It is incumbent upon the Minister in his response at the end of this debate to allay the concems of not only the Queensland Catholic Education Commission, but also the whole of the non-Government sector in relation to this Bill. I wish to comment on a couple of points previously made by the Minister. One point was the reference to the new Board of Senior Secondary School Studies and to the fact that this was a move in the right direction, because there used to be the Board of Junior Secondary School Studies and the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. That might be correct if Queensland was provided with a board of junior secondary school studies with the same powers and authorities as the previous board, or the new Board of Senior Secondary School Studies. I would prefer a single body with the two combined so that there was a Board of Secondary School Studies, as there is at present, but with the powers and composition as provided for in the Bill that has just passed through the House. The other point to which I wish to refer is that, on a number of occasions now the Minister has referred to my speech in the Estimates debate and said that I made no reference to non-Government schools. That is certainly tme but, if the Minister had been able to look at my speech notes for that occasion, he would have found that there were probably about a dozen topics that I would have liked to have spoken about during the debate but, in the 20 minutes allowed, it simply was not possible to cover the whole range of education. Education (Consultation on Curriculum) Bill 22 November 1988 2989

The second-reading speech contains many comments about co-operation with the non-Govemment sector, but I point out that, in my opinion, from the feed-back and the consultation that I have had with the non-Government sector, it is not convinced that this will offset the words of the Bill and it feels that it will miss very substantially the capacity to have a major input into the development and approval of syllabuses, particularly at the Year 8 to Year 10 level. Mr SHERRIN (Mansfield) (7.46 p.m.): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Education (Consultation on Curriculum) Bill because it is rare that Parliament has an opportunity to debate a Bill that has as its primary focus—even though it ranges from Year 1 to Year 10—primary education. In the past, particularly in the 1970s and through to the 1980s, we have seen many changes in education. I am thinking of the assessment changes through the abolition of extemal exams and the Senior certificate, through to Radford and ROSBA, which have tended to focus many of the changes on secondary schools. Whilst, as a former secondary school teacher, 1 declare my own interest in that area, it is a pleasure to see a Bill that focuses attention on primary school education. I believe that this Bill has the groundwork contained within it to bring to primary school education many of the benefits which have accmed to secondary education through some of the changes that the Government has brought in since the early 1970s. I wish to go back to some of the comments I made on the Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill when I spoke about some of the hidden benefits associated with the operation of the Board of Secondary School Studies. I hope that these benefits would also accme to primary schools under this Education (Consultation on Curriculum) Bill. I spoke about the many benefits associated with bringing teachers from different schools and from different educational systems together to allow them to exchange ideas, to have a look at different curriculum packages that they are using and to have a look at different work programs. I am sure that all honourable members are aware that, in the last few years, the Commonwealth Govemment has cut back dramatically at a Federal level on the provision of funding for in-service programs. We would be the first to admit that, as a result of the Commonwealth Government's cut-back in the specific grants that it was making to teachers for in-service activities, in-service programs in our schools have declined. It would certainly be my hope that this Education (Consultation on Curriculum) Bill will enable teachers from across sectors and from different schools to come together and gain the benefits that I have seen at first hand and that have been gained by teachers in secondary schools. Those benefits are quite significant. The Bill should be commended if for no other reason than the potential benefit in that, area alone. I notice that other honourable members have been quite brief in their coverage of the BiU, but I wish to speak briefly about the constitution of the council. Honourable members will notice that the constitution of this councU is in common with the constitution of the boards that have been discussed previously this evening. A common theme mns through the membership and I will not elaborate on that, as 1 spoke about the composition of the boards in debate on the previous Bills. I wish to make a few comments about some of the functions and powers of the council. The first one states— "(a) to consult widely on all aspects of the curriculum taught or to be taught in Queensland schools from year 1 to year 10, and to report formally to the Minister not less than twice each year on curriculum issues arising from such consultations." 1 have already mentioned the benefits that have accmed through the Board of Secondary School Studies and from the informal in-service training and exchange, but there are also tremendous needs out there in primary schools to have some of the problems associated with primary education alluded to as well. Simply the coverage of the power of the legislation from Year 1 to Year 10 wiU also help focus on the perennial problem of the transition through the primary/secondary interface. Students see many 2990 22 November 1988 Education (Consultation on Curriculum) Bill changes when they proceed from primary schools to the totally different environment of high schools. Having a body that looks at curriculums across all of those issues and at the way that the students see the education will have significant benefits. I know that there is this sort of work going on in secondary and primary schools, but it is very important that one group has the primary responsibility for aiding the transition of students from one area to the other. I have a few suggestions that I wish to make on the specific areas that this group could investigate. In my speech on the Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill I mentioned the idea of investigating seriously the element of core in many of the syllabus documents that the Board of Secondary School Studies produces. The issue of core curriculums for primary schools could also be addressed. I was at a meeting last night at which many parents raised the subject of what are the key issues that should be taught in primary schools that are common right across primary schools, be they Government or non-Govemment, in any area of the State. Mr Speaker, one thing that certainly came to mind was citizenship education, which I know you were particularly interested in during your time as Minister for Education. It certainly came through to me during the recent referendum campaign when a survey showed that more than 60 per cent of Australians did not know that the country had a Constitution. When approached by the surveyor, many people started quoting sections of the United States Constitution that they had heard on various police television shows. It is important that our primary schoolchildren are taught in some depth about their political system, about the laws under which they all live, in particular about the nature of the federation of their country and about the Constitution, and the rights they have as citizens. As students proceed through school, that subject is covered in some depth in only one area—in Year 9 citizenship education. Unfortunately, that is an optional subject and many students do not have the opportunity to take it. It is possible for students to pass right through the school system and not receive instmction on citizenship education. In Years 6 and 7 in Govemment primary schools there is brief instmction. It is an area that can be looked at in some depth. The other area that parents continue to assail me with concerns basic skills. We need to look very seriously at the skills that our students require before they pass on to secondary school. At present, I am not aware of any statement or inventory of basic skills in literacy and numeracy that students should possess before they pass on to high school. That is another area that this council could investigate in collaboration with primary and secondary teachers, parents and others. It could look seriously at listing the basic skills that students must have before they pass on to secondary school. With those comments, I strongly support the Bill before the House. Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (Condamine—Minister for Education, Youth and Sport) (7.54 p.m.), in reply: In summing up the debate on this education BiU, it is appropriate that I acknowledge the attitude of the members who have contributed to the debate. They all acknowledge that the intent of the Govemment is very positive and that they are in general agreement with the direction that we are taking. However, they have individual ways of approaching the matter. I appreciate that, with different backgrounds in education, we adopt different points of view. Our attitudes to education are based on our different experiences. I tum now to the comments made by the Opposition spokesman. He talked about the Queensland Catholic Education Commission and also AISQ. In the communication that I had with both bodies on the legislation that was to come forward, I was aware that they were concemed. Many of those schools pick up children at Year 8. Under the existing circumstances, they had Years 8 to 12, which were covered by the Board of Secondary School Studies. However, I do not think that they really conceded that the role being played by the Board of Secondary School Studies for Years 8, 9 and 10 was almost non-existent and that the input was at the upper end. I appeal to them to think again. Although I do not doubt their commitment to education, I believe that sometimes Education (Consultation on Curriculum) Bill 22 November 1988 2991 they focus attention on their own personal interests rather than on the total education plan. The Opposition spokesman mentioned that dialogue should continue between the Catholic Education Commission and me. That will certainly be the case. I will continue talking to AISQ, as well as the parents and citizens organisations associated with those schools. In the last 12 months, the one thing that has become clear is that, despite the area of education from which one comes—whether primary, secondary or tertiary— there is a common understanding amongst all educators that they are there to serve the young people. During the past 12 months, I have been endeavouring to get those people to focus attention on the things that we have in common rather than fight about the few things on which we do not share a common view. Those people have told me in our consultations that, although they have some doubts about what is being proposed, they are not violently opposed to it. I have assured them that under the consultative council that is being set up I will be putting together a group of people who have a commitment to education and who draw upon a wide range of expertise. If those people, when they make their reports every six months, come up with suggestions that things should be changed, I assure them that I, as the Minister, will listen to those suggestions. I also believe that the council will put out a challenge to the schooling system. The honourable member for Mount Coot-tha said that the members of the public at large are coming forward with all sorts of messages. It is most appropriate that the council should be an official statutory body that has the necessary clout to make the suggestions to me as the Minister, to the Parliament and also to the schooling system by saying, "This is what the public thinks. Now, what are you going to do about it?" I believe that we—the department, professional teachers and the schooling system—have the capacity to listen to the council. Although it has been expressed to me that the non- Govemment sector has concerns and doubts at present, with the normal evolution of children staying at school longer, P-10 is the way to go. For the sake of uniformity throughout the nation, we must provide the basics. In the past, people left school after Year 7; now it is Year 10. By heading along the present path, we are addressing some of the problems that need to be addressed. Although there is a divergence of opinion on the matter, nevertheless, that is the way we are proceeding. I refer now to a press release today from the Queensland Catholic Education Commission. I wish to allay the commission's fears. The press release stated that curriculum development in the Years P-10 will be completely under the control of the department. I reiterate what I said in my second-reading speech. I give an assurance that those responsible for curriculum development within the department are answerable to the Minister. For Years P-10, I propose that there will be representation on subject committees from the non-Govemment sector as well as the Govemment sector. Those people will be drawing upon the expertise within the curriculum services section of the department, which has people with great expertise and resources. Certainly, I will be taking a close interest in curriculum development. As I said in debate on the previous Bills, 1 have taken the strong stand that I represent all education in Queensland, not merely the Department of Education, which represents approximately 75 per cent of students. The subject committees will be answerable to me. I will take a great interest in the matter. I will ensure that the non-Govemment sector, as well as the department, has an opportunity to make representations based on its expertise. My departmental officers are very much in agreement with that approach. 1 turn now to some comments made by the member for Mansfield. He spoke about curriculum development and said that note should be taken of the comments made by the community at large. He cited things such as the quality of teaching, the attainment levels in the basic subjects and the attitudes of children. He made mention of citizenship education and so on. I am sure all honourable members, when moving around their electorates and talking to people, pick up the same vibes. What the Govemment is attempting to do with this legislation—and I am sure will achieve it—is establish this 2992 22 November 1988 Education (Consultation on Curriculum) Bill consultative council, which will have have membership that is representative enough to ensure that those views are obtained and the problems are addressed. It seems to me that a real problem exists in the teaching profession. On the one hand, the people want the Govemment to provide education on a broader and broader spectmm, to include more and more in the five hours of school per day. They want consumer education, AIDS education, human relations education, road safety education, and a broader approach to mathematics. On the other hand, they want all the basics to be up to scratch, or even better than they ever have been. It is not a matter of judging what used to be and what is now; it is a matter of comparing what is being done now and what the public expects the (jrovemment to do now. It is becoming extremely difficult to do what the public wants. The longer that children stay at school, the more expensive it becomes for the Education Department. I honestly believe that the teaching profession as a whole is performing marvellously. However, society as a whole has to take a very hard look at what it expects of the teaching profession and the schooling system and probably has to reassess some of its expectations. Equally, it behoves the people who are administrating education, the members of the teaching profession, to take note of what members of the public are saying and address the problems as best they can. The Government then has to come up with the hard data to prove that what is being done for our young people is in fact first rate. I think I mentioned during the debate on a previous piece of legislation that it is more appropriate these days to compare how children in Australia are being prepared to go out into the big wide world with the way the children in south-east Asia and the world at large are being prepared, than to compare what is being done now with what was being done five years ago. After all the consultation I have engaged in and talking to my senior departmental officers, and from drawing on my own experiences, I honestly believe that what the Govemment is setting up now is aiming towards the future. I believe that with the right personnel—and I am taking great care to pick the right sort of people to play a prominent role—the consultative council will pass on the response from the public and direct the Govemment as to how it should proceed. In addition, by including the basics as far as Year 10, the Government is catering for what is happening in schools. Children are staying on at school longer and longer. Once children only had to stay to Year 7 to pick up the basics; now they have to stay to Year 10. I thank honourable members for their contributions. Motion agreed to. Commitiee Hon. B. G. Littleproud (Condamine—Minister for Education, Youth and Sport) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5^- Mr BRADDY (8.03 p.m.): The amendments that I propose were fully canvassed during the debate on the previous two Bills. Therefore I will be very brief I again suggest that it would be preferable to include more practising teachers—who are defined by the fact that they are practising and registered teachers—in the membership of this board. Accordingly I move the following amendments— "At page 3, line 30, omit— 'three' and substitute— 'four'"; Education (Consultation on Curriculum) Bill 22 November 1988 2993

"At page 3, line 30, after 'Director-General' add— 'three of whom shall be practising teachers'." This would in effect mean that there would be four nominees of the director-general, three of whom would be practising teachers.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: The honourable member and I have canvassed this aspect before. I have stated my point of view. I respect the point of view of the Opposition spokesman. However, the stance of the Govemment is still the same. I reject the amendments. Amendments negatived.

Mr BRADDY: A similar provision should apply in relation to clause (5) (1) (d). The clause presently provides that there be two representatives of teacher unions—one from the Queensland Teachers Union and one from the Queensland Association of Teachers in Independent Schools. Given the preponderance of teachers in the State system, I believe that it is appropriate that there be two representatives from that system. I have previously canvassed that, and the Govemment has already refused to accept it. However, I persist with my proposed amendment so that the position of the Opposition is clear in this respect. The Opposition believes that there should be greater representation of the public teaching system on the board. Accordingly, I move the following amendments— "At page 3, line 36, omit— 'two' and substitute— 'three'"; "At page 3, Une 37, omit— 'one each' and substitute— 'two'"; "At page 3, line 38, after 'and' add— 'one to be nominated by'." The effect of the amendments is that there would be two representatives of the Queensland Teachers Union and one representative of the Queensland Association of Teachers in Independent Schools on the council.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: My comments are the same as before. All I am seeking is someone from the Queensland Teachers Union to put the point of view of that union, not on a proportional basis. Similarly, I want someone from QATIS to put its point of view. If I increased the numbers by one or two on either side, it would still not have an effect on the overall vote. All I am looking for is representation of viewpoint, not proportional membership. I cannot accept the amendments.

Question—That the word proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause—put; and the Committee divided— 2994 22 November 1988 Education (Consultation on Curriculum) Bill

AYES, 51 NOES, 27 Alison Lickiss Ardill Austin Lingard Braddy Beanland Littleproud Bums Beard McCauley Campbell Berghofer McKechnie Casey Booth McPhie Comben Borbidge Menzel D'Arcy Burreket Muntz De Lacy Chapman Neal Eaton Cooper Nelson Gibbs, R. J. Elliott Newton Goss Fraser Perrett Hamill Gamin Randell Hayward Gately Schuntner McEUigott Gibbs, I. J. Sherlock Mackenroth Gilmore Sherrin McLean Glasson Simpson MiUiner Gunn Slack Palaszczuk Harper Stoneman Smith Harvey Tenni Smyth Henderson Veivers Underwood Hinton White Vaughan Hobbs Wamer Innes Wells Katter Tellers: Yewdale Tellers: Lee FitzGerald Davis Lester Stephan Prest Resolved in the affirmative. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I remind honourable members that there is a likelihood of further divisions and that they should remain within the precincts of the Chamber. For the next division the bells will be mng for two minutes. Mr BRADDY: In relation to clause 5 (1) (g), I move the following amendment— "At page 4, line 2, after '1988' add— 'who shall be a practising teacher or instmctor in a State TAFE institution or senior college'." I moved a similar amendment to a similar clause in the Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill. I indicated that the Opposition believed that the nominee from the TAFE system should be a practising teacher or instmctor in a State TAFE institution or senior college, rather than the nominee of the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Affairs, who would have the discretion to appoint anybody he so desired. As I advanced the reasons for that during the debate on the Education (Senior Secondary School Studies) Bill, there is no need for me to reiterate them. Mr LITTLEPROUD: The Minister for Employment is now in the Chamber. He may care to note that my eariier reply on this aspect was that the appointment of the representative of DEVET should, I believe, be made in consultation with that Minister. 1 have every confidence that the Minister will ensure that he nominates a person who has a great deal of expertise in and understanding of the total TAFE scene, and there is no need to be prescriptive on it. I cannot accept the amendment. Amendment negatived. Mr BRADDY: Clause 5 (1) (k) of the BiU provides that the councU shall consist of— "... two representatives of the industry and commerce sectors, nominated by the Minister..." As I indicated during the debate at the Committee stage of the previous Bill, I believe that those two representatives should be nominated by industry rather than by the Minister. One of them should be nominated by the Queensland Confederation of Queensland University of Technology BiU 22 November 1988 2995

Industry Ltd and the other one by the Trades and Labor Council of Queensland. I therefore move the following amendment— "At page 4, line 17, omit— 'nominated by the Minister' and substitute— 'one each to be nominated by the Queensland Confederation of Industry Ltd and the Trades and Labour Council of Queensland'." Mr LITTLEPROUD: My answer is the same as the answer that I gave during the debate at the Committee stage of the previous Bill. One of the good things about the drafting of these Bills is that there is a commonality of approach and it is easy to relate one Bill to another. My response on that occasion was—and my response now is—that it is most important that the council have representation from industry related to vocational skills and from commerce and retailing related to other skills such as handling people and serving people either in the financial industry or just selling goods across the counter. It is not beyond the capacity of the wording of this Bill for one of the people on the council to be a nominee from the trade union movement. I do not think that we should prescribe the nominees or restrict ourselves in the terminology. I cannot accept the amendment. Amendment negatived. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clauses 6 to 37, as read, agreed to. BiU reported, without amendment. Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Littleproud, by leave, read a third time.

QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 27 October (see p. 2104). Mr BRADDY (Rockhampton) (8.23 p.m.): Because this is the first occasion on which one of the colleges of advanced education in Queensland will be granted the status of a university, this is most important and historic legislation. On behalf of the Opposition and the Australian Labor Party, it gives me great pleasure to welcome this Bill and to welcome the Queensland University of Technology to the Queensland educational scene. The passage of this legislation will see the birth of the Queensland University of Technology and the passing of the Queensland Institute of Technology, which is of course a near neighbour of Parliament House. The general provisions of the Bill are indeed acceptable to the Opposition. It is obvious that consultations have occurred over a lengthy period. The conduct of the Queensland Institute of Technology has been such that it has earned the right to become a university. This legislation is welcomed very much by all sections of the community. The Labor Party joins in the congratulations that are due to the university staff and to the goveming body, particularly the full-time staff who have worked so hard and earned such an honourable name for their tertiary institution. I am sure that it is very gratifying for them to see this legislation before the House and to see it greeted by the Opposition's approbation and our indication that we support this concept and the future role that they will obviously play as part of a wonderful tertiary institution. 2996 22 November 1988 Queensland University of Technology BiU

I take exception to only a couple of matters, to which the Opposition thinks the Govemment's attention should be drawn. I foreshadow that at the Committee stage two amendments will be moved. Neither of them affects the realities of the Bill. It will only be a short time before Queensland has its fourth university. Brisbane already has two, Townsville has one, and this will be the State's fourth. Mr McPhie: There will be one in Toowoomba after this. Mr BRADDY: I understand that the Darling Downs institute at Toowoomba and the Capricomia institute at Rockhampton are both some way down the track towards applying for university status. It is to be hoped that both of them will be able to demonstrate sufficient quality to achieve that status. However, tonight congratulations are in order for the QIT as it moves towards the status of Queensland University of Technology. The matters about which I foreshadow amendments relate to the constitution of the council. Under the current goveming body regulations, provision is made for members from the general staff as well as the academic staff to take part in the deliberations and form part of the governing body. In fact, at present the council comprises one academic staff member and three general staff members. They represent 393 academic staff who are employed at the QIT and 552 general staff. In all, 945 full-time staff members are employed at the QIT. From that it can be seen what a substantial contribution the staff members make to life at the QIT. As the QIT moves into Queensland University of Technology status, they will remain with the new institution. No doubt they have contributed much. Throughout Australia debate has occurred about what the proper level of represen­ tation should be for staff members on goveming bodies such as the council. Encourage­ ment has been given by proper education authorities, including the Federal Minister for Education, to make sure that staff are adequately represented on the council. Therefore, the Opposition believes that this situation is not adequately addressed by this legislation. This Bill provides for only one member of the full-time staff other than academic staff to be elected to the council. In view of the considerable number of people who are employed and the different capacities in which they are employed, the Opposition believes that that provision is not adequate or just and that a proper representation would allow two members of the general staff to be members of the council. As I said, at present the council comprises three general staff members and one academic staff member. This Bill provides that three members of the full-time academic staff elected by members of that staff should also be on the council. The Opposition has no objection to that. However, in view of the numbers of the general staff and their considerable right to be represented in deliberations, the Opposition believes it is proper that two should be appointed. I foreshadow that, at the Committee stage, I wiU move an amendment to that effect. I propose to move another amendment in relation to the QIT Students Union as it is presently titled, and I will discuss that matter at the Committee stage. Other than the two matters in respect of which I will be moving amendments at the Committee stage, the Opposition has no difficulties or problems with the legislation. It is thorough legislation, and it has been framed in accordance with the objects of the new university. This legislation has obviously received a great deal of attention from the Minister and his staff and from the staff of the QIT, as it is presently termed. I reiterate that the Opposition welcomes the legislation. I take great pleasure and delight in welcoming the new university. The Australian Labor Party in Queensland wishes the Queensland University of Technology all the very best. Mr LINGARD (Fassifem) (8.30 p.m.): It is pleasing to note that, as Queensland legislates for its fourth university, the Opposition and the community generally support Queensland University of Technology BiU 22 November 1988 2997 this legislation. My first visit to the QIT was in approximately 1970. 1 was particularly impressed by the facilities that the QIT had at that time. I have always been impressed by the reputation that the Queensland Institute of Technology has enjoyed. Certainly, everyone must be impressed by the acceptance, not only by the Opposition but also by the general public, of the QIT's officially becoming the Queensland University of Technology. There is no doubt that the QUT, as it will become known, will take a very large number of students. It is envisaged that, by the tum of the century, possibly 17 000 students will be attending the QIT, whereas at present it has approximately only 9 000 students. As Queensland proceeds into the next decade and as more people accept university places over that period, the Queensland Govemment, by virtue of the special tasks carried out by the member for Mansfield which resulted in what is known as the Sherrin report, will be providing extra places in tertiary education institutions, in which great changes will take place and upon which greater demands will be made. The irony of this legislation is that the Federal Labor Govemment forced this move on the Queensland Govemment because it changed the binary system. That change sent shock waves throughout the nation, especially in Perth where the Murdoch University and the Perth University have had to amalgamate. 1 have no strong criticisms to offer about amalgamation because change is always taking place in education. 1 do not say that amalgamation is the wrong thing; I simply observe that the changes have certainly sent shock waves through Australia's academic institutions. Indirectly as a result of those changes, the Queensland Institute of Technology will become the Queensland University of Technology. The most amazing and impressive feature of this change is that a special group has been set up to consider the status of the Queensland Institute of Technology and that no qualms have been expressed about accepting the change. Moreover, no qualms have been expressed by students. As most honourable members would probably realise, such is the reputation of the QIT that some of Queensland's law students prefer the Queensland Institute of Technology to other institutions. As I said earlier, it is pleasing to note that the Opposition has no qualms about the QIT's becoming the QUT and about accepting that very high standards will apply in that institution. It is also pleasing to note the provisions in the legislation that will enable the Minister to take certain action in relation to the Queensland University of Technology Student Guild. Just as a student membership of the union was previously compulsory, it is intended that compulsory guUd membership will apply throughout 1989. However, this will be a transitional arrangement and will be changed when the new council has had an opportunity to develop and implement appropriate new sub­ ordinate legislation. As the Opposition spokesman mentioned in relation to the arrange­ ments that will be established between the academic staff and the general staff, 1 have no doubt that in the future the QUT will be able to accommodate the changes. Although I could talk at length about the binary system and the new systems that will be implemented, I particularly want to express a worry I have about a system that has emerged in education. The thought is that an application must be made to a particular body for funds. Because of the way in which that special appUcation system has crept in, especially in relation to special-program schools and schools for disadvantaged children, criticism has been levelled at the Federal Govemment. The system under which applications have to be made for specific allocations has crept into education-fiinding. I suppose that, although this phenomenon could possibly be explained as a devolution of authority and a devolution of curriculum development, it has been left to the schools to apply for special allocations for specific programs. This is an excellent system, provided schools make sure that their representatives are extremely conscientious and enthusiastic about applying for funding for specific programs and want to apply for the funds that are available. However, unfortunately, some groups can be left behind under a competitive, central system of fiinding. The extremely conscientious groups and schools that apply for money usually obtain the greatest benefit. There is no 2998 22 November 1988 Queensland University of Technology BiU doubt that, in that sense, the system works very well. However, as I said earlier, some groups can be left behind. Similarly, because the Federal Govemment has implemented a scheme of amalgam­ ation, university-based programs and applications for funding will be dealt with under a new central system. A group should be set up so that a responsible person will be immediately aware of the problems that could be built into the new system if great care is not taken. I have always been very critical of programs such as transitional education for the reason that a central funding system applied. However, I have been very impressed by the State Govemment's program called Project Pay Packet because a sum of $34m was actually allocated, not simply for specific programs in schools, but to actually increase the number of jobs that are available for young people as they enter the work-force. The Govemment should aim at making more jobs available. The difficulty has always existed in education that, although money has always been available for special programs, Govemment officials knew full well that, at the completion of those programs, jobs would not be available for some of the students. I will not deal in great depth with matters referred to in the Bill, but there are two points I would like to make. The first of those matters relates to the QUT, as it will be known. Parliament House and the general community and to developments at the "top" end of George Street in front of Parliament House. For a very long time it has been the intention that the area of George Street in front of Parliament House become a walkway to the Queensland Institute of Technology. This project was envisaged before Expo but was put to one side by the State Works Department. There is a magnificent opportunity to develop the area in front of Parliament House into gardens and walkways that will lead on to the Botanic Gardens. That would prevent vehicles from travelling along that section of George Street and parking outside the front of this building. That area has become a car park and drop-off zone for students of QIT. The Queensland University of Technology, as it will become, could have a walkway, sitting areas, a parade ground for ceremonial occasions and possibly a very small drop-off area for students attending the Queensland University of Technology. Two things must be accepted. Firstly, there needs to be an exit from Parliament House into George Street, a one-way system in George Street and a one-way system for some of the officials coming out of the (Queensland University of Technology. In addition, there should be an entrance on the freeway side of Parliament House so that students and officials enter the Queensland University of Technology only in that area. This project should be resurrected. Parliament House needs to discuss the matter with the Queensland Universfry of Technology and the Brisbane City Council. They are the three bodies involved. It is not an easy matter. I have previously been involved in some discussions which were very close to fmition. This project would make the end of George Street, the front of Parliament House and the entrance to the Queensland University of Technology a very special area for students and for members of Parliament. The second matter that should be resolved quickly relates to the position of old Govemment House, which, at the present time, is sited in the grounds of the Queensland Institute of Technology—unbeknown to many people. It is unused by the Queensland Institute of Technology and is a magnificent example of early architecture. This Govemment and the Queensland Institute of Technology should quickly resolve this matter and, if old Govemment House is to remain in its present position, there should be some kind of access to it. There is also the view that old Government House should be moved, because, if QIT is to become the very permanent QUT, old Government House will sit right in the middle of it. Perhaps this Govemment should consider very seriously the possibUity of moving old Govemment House block by block down into the Botanic Gardens or somewhere where the public can see it and realise its tme significance. It is a pleasure to see both the Opposition and the community accepting the move for the Queensland Institute of Technology to officially become the Queensland University of Technology . Queensland University of Technology BiU 22 November 1988 2999

Mr SCHUNTNER (Mount Coot-tha) (8.40 p.m.): After the differences that have been expressed during the debate on the last two BUls—although I point out that the Liberal Party supported the legislation despite those reservations—it is pleasing that this Bill brings forth fewer differences than either of the previous BUls. It is perhaps simUar to the first education Bill considered by this House today. I congratulate the Queensland Institute of Technology—soon to become the Queens­ land University of Technology—on its achievements in recent years and on attaining the status of a university. Credit must be reflected on the chairman, Mr Vic PuUar, senior administrators within the Queensland Institute of Technology, Dr Dennis Gibson and his deputy Dr Tom Dixon and the registrar Mr Brian Waters. It is no accident that over recent years this institution has achieved a good reputation. This reputation has been acquired after a lot of hard work and a great deal of expertise that are evident throughout all levels of the institute. Its becoming a university wiU not of itself create a new level of quality within the institution. The level of any institution depends on the quality of the lecturing, students and a number of other factors. However, QIT has the mns on the board, and I am sure that in the years ahead it will fiirther enhance its reputation. The Queensland University of Technology is a specialist university, as distinct from the more general and traditional universities on the education scene. This university has grown out of a technological background and makes no pretence at being a university to suit everybody regardless of their aptitudes and interests. The subjects it concentrates on are obviously taught very well. By becoming a university, as distinct from an institute, it will have a status throughout the world that is difficult to achieve for many institutions if they are known by another name—although the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has a worldwide reputation of the highest order. By becoming a university, QIT will be able to attract even higher-quality staff, which will be to the continuing betterment of that institution. Another point flows from the comments made by the previous speaker, the hon­ ourable member for Fassifem. As a result of the development of the unified national system, there will be a streamlining of the way in which courses are accredited. At present, the Queensland Institute of Technology has to go through the rather laborious process of discussing its courses with the Board of Advanced Education and then the various Federal bodies. Whereas the process of having a course accredited previously took two or three years, it will now take six months or so. That will happen because the institute will have autonomy and will be able to do this process within its own organisation. The annual report of the Queensland Institute of Technology reveals some very interesting information, and I just want to touch briefly on a couple of points. In the year to the end of December 1987, enrolments increased by a modest 4 per cent to 9 550, but those enrolments could be greatly increased if the funding had been provided and if the space was available. The institute is a very popular place for tertiary students to seek enrolment. For every first-year place that is available, there are three applicants. That is probably one of the best measures of the standing of an institution across the educational spectmm. The institute has been quite active in marketing its places in other parts of the world, particularly south-east Asia. In 1988 it has had approximately 50 students paying about $9,000 each for their education at the institute. I know that some other institutions have chosen not to go that way in 1988, but it is quite obvious that more and more institutions will be selling education courses to overseas fee-paying students. It is estimated that in 1988 those fee-paying students will spend in Australia approximately $750,000 on goods and services. So one can see that there is a flow-on benefit from those people being here. The tum-over in research and industry-related activity is up 75 per cent to $4.4m. I think it is noteworthy that, in the year of Expo, the Queensland Institute of Technology 3000 22 November 1988 Queensland University of Technology Bill was involved in a joint project with the Australian Institute of Export in winning contracts for the Expo Business Visitor Program. The Queensland Institute of Technology Foundation has been another successful facet of the institute's activities and it has significantly supplemented QIT resources. During the year to the end of December 1987, Q Search, another arm of activity within the organisation, undertook 196 projects, which were valued at $2.2m. That is an indication of the kind of increasing activity at the institute. Another matter that ought to be considered in judging the success of an institution is the unemployment rate among its graduates. Here the Queensland Institute of Technology is very successful, too. The graduate unemployment measure of some tertiary institutions is perhaps somewhat unfair because, if the institution is tuming out a large number of teacher graduates and if a funding decision of the Govemment of the day happens to cause, rather artificially, a large level of unemployment amongst teachers, that is revealed in the unemployment rates of the graduates from the relevant institution. However, putting that aside, the unemployment rate of graduates coming out of the Queensland Institute of Technology is quite comparable with that, say, of the University of Queensland and other long-established, high-reputation institutions in Australia. There are some problems in the legislation—although, as I pointed out, we will be happily supporting the Bill. I have had pointed out to me that in several areas the language in the Bill is repetitive and that not enough use has been made of the Acts Interpretation Act. For instance, I understand that the defintion of "Minister" is already included in section 33 of the Acts Interpretation Act. I am advised that some of the points included in the legislation could quite easily be streamlined and simplified without any loss in the legal terms of the legislation. One thing that distresses me somewhat is that, again, in this piece of legislation there is some tightening of control into the hands of the Minister. That is something on which I have commented in the debates on earlier legislation today and it is again evident in this Bill. Certainly, in comparison with the control in the legislation that applies to the University of Queensland and, in some respects, to the James Cook University and the Griffith University, ministerial control under this legislation is much tighter. I will have a few more comments on the details of the legislation when we move into a consideration of the clauses in detail. Mrs McCAULEY (CaUide) (8.51 p.m.): QIT, which is the common name for the Queensland Institute of Technology, was formed in 1965 to facilitate technology transfer between education and commerce, industry, govemment and the professions throughout the State. I will give the House a bit of history. The institute is located on a site bounded by the Brisbane Botanic Gardens, the Brisbane River and Pariiament House. This site has strong links with the historical development of Queensland generally and with the development of Queensland educational facilities in particular. The site was originally the grounds of old Government House. That building has been preserved and is now occupied by the National Tmst. I believe that the honourable member for Fassifem spoke about removing the building to another site. For many years the site has been used for educational activities. The University of Queensland, which was established in 1910, commenced teaching in old Government House in 1911. The State Commercial High School and the Domestic Science High School operated from buildings on site, and the area also served the original Central Technical College and the College of Art. All these institutions have subsequently transferred to other sites. As our next-door neighbour, all of us here at Pariiament House are aware of the QIT and the many students who flock down George Street to this highly esteemed inner- city centre of leaming. In fact, some 10 000 students attend QIT, many of them part- time students who work in offices in the city. My daughter was a student there. She completed a bachelor of business communications degree, which is very highly regarded in business circles. Queensland University of Technology Bill 22 November 1988 3001

The law course is another that is highly thought of among those who know about those things. I am pleased to know that the soon-to-be declared university now offers an MBA, which will fill a large gap in the Queensland educational sector. The fact that business firms have committed more than $250,000 to business faculty programs in recent years speaks for itself In recent years, joint degrees, such as those of accountancy/law and computing/ electronic engineering have been offered to keep up with the demand for combinations of skill. The QIT handbook says that QIT's top priorities for the future are—and I think they are worth quoting— "• to respond flexibly to the changing demands of educational, political, economic, industrial and commercial environments; • to contribute to the economic development of Queensland, Australia and the Pacific rim; and • to emphasise service to professions and vocations, such service to include a full range of courses and programs and the development and transfer of new technologies. To effect these priorities, QIT will enhance its national and international standing as a technological institute whose staff have international reputations in their fields. It will retain its practical bias and the balance between its technological/management programs." The legislation, which will make the QIT the QUT, will give the institution a more prestigious status and will help to attract fee-paying overseas students. This is a lucrative market which is only just beginning to be realised by our tertiary institutions. The QIT will now have the right to undertake applied research and to own an incorporated research and marketing company. The institute will also be able to self- accredit its educational programs rather than require approval from the Brisbane College of Advanced Education. Another result of becoming a university will be that QUT will be able to compete internationally for staff, research contracts and overseas students, and attract the best quality staff and students into technological and professional programs. University status will also attract more support for higher education to Queensland in terms of grants, facilities and research allocations, and bring about the added benefit of facilitating the development of a more diversified State economy. Most of QIT's students—and there are three applicants for every student place— are from the top 10 per cent of achievers. Last year, the average TE score of QIT students was 925. The institute boasts full or near full employment rates in fields such as accountancy, law, computing and mathematics. Mr Prest: They will all be coming from overseas. Mrs McCAULEY: The honourable member for Port Curtis went to the university. He used to pick up papers in the grounds. He found it very stimulating. I extend a warm welcome to this State's newest university. I know that it will continue the fine tradition that it has built up of offering quality education to the people of Queensland. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (8.56 p.m.): I join with other honourable members in congratulating the Queensland Institute of Technology on being granted university status. I am sure that it is a great boost to the morale not only of the staff but also of the students, particularly past students, who have over many years been educated at that place of learning. The granting of university status is no doubt a high point in the life of the Queensland Institute of Technology, and many people will look back very proudly on it.

81407—101 3002 22 November 1988 Queensland University of Technology Bill

The QIT, as it has been so fondly known, has offered courses which have led to graduates being held in very high regard. I am sure that as it moves on to university status it will in the future have graduates who are held in even higher regard in the community generally. That is important. It is all very well turning out graduates with degrees; but those degrees must be accepted by the community. The QIT can certainly look back very proudly on its achievement. It is no doubt one of the major reasons why today it is receiving university status. It is situated on an historic site in Brisbane; a location that has been associated with education in this city ever since the turn of the century. It is one of the prime real estate spots of this city, apart from being a major educational location. I wish to touch briefly on three matters: tertiary places, the upgrading of the area in front of Parliament House and voluntary student unionism. I am pleased to see that recently the Minister announced that the Government would provide additional tertiary education places. Although it might be said that the Government has sold out in a number of areas, particularly in relation to the amalgamation of universities and tertiary education places, to enable it to receive additional Federal Government funding for tertiary education places, I am sure that everyone is pleased to have the additional places, whether or not they are pleased to be part of the amalgamation of universities, which will take place in the near future. Queensland has the lowest number of tertiary places of all the States of Australia. I trust that the QUT, as it will be known, will be one of those universities that will help meet the shortfall in tertiary places. Of course, the blame cannot be placed solely on the State Government; the real culprit is the Federal Labor Government which, over many years, has refused to take action over the shortfall in tertiary education places in Queensland. Young people in Queensland have been penalised largely because of the attitude of the Labor Party to education. That has not been going on for one or two years; it has been going on for five years. Of course, it has not been getting any better recently. Mr Hamill interjected. Mr BEANLAND: Members of the Opposition are interjecting. I am touching a raw nerve. I can well understand their concern. They know how the Labor Party has penalised young people in Queensland. The Federal Labor Government has sold Queensland out for the benefit of Sydney and Melbourne. The Federal Labor Government sold Queensland out over the Olympic Games in the same way as it sold this State out on education. That is very clear when one considers the discussions that have taken place over a considerable period. It was only following the Liberal Party's taking up the call for additional tertiary places in the last couple of years—the Liberal Party Education spokesman, Mr Schuntner, travelled round the State with a number of senators and other Liberal Party personnel— that the State Government has been galvanised into action and held discussions in relation to additional tertiary education places. It is good to see that the Government has come to the party at long last. If the Minister is given a good prod, away he goes. Of course, that is what happened in this instance. He was given a good prod; the Government was given a good prod. Finally, the prodding produced results. I hope that honourable members can look forward to 15 000 additional tertiary places at universities and colleges of advanced education, because they are certainly needed. Perhaps it is all right if one is a student in South Australia or Tasmania, where people are begged to attend a tertiary institution to help make up the numbers. However, the position in Queensland is not very good. I know people who have travelled to Tasmania and South Australia just to get a university or tertiary place. I trust that in the future Queensland will be up with the other States, that it will have the additional 15 000 places within the next three years, and that this is not another fudging exercise. Only time will tell. Queensland University of Technology Bill 22 November 1988 3003

My electorate is particularly badly affected by the lack of tertiary places. Even though the University of Queensland is situated in my electorate, students in my electorate have to compete with other students throughout Queensland to gain places at that university. They have to cram and scramble, as do all students. Honourable members are aware of the concern that parents have for their children because of the enormous amount of work that they have to put into their courses to gain admittance to these places of higher learning. For many, many years it has been suggested that that section of George Street in front of Parliament House should become part of the Botanic Gardens. I am not sure whether the area was to be included as part of the Parliament House precinct or the Botanic Gardens. It does not particularly matter. The most important thing is that discussions have been held over a long period in regard to incorporating the area as part of the Parliament House precinct. Those discussions must continue and be brought to fruition. What better time than in the discussions that will ensue over the next couple of years when the Queensland Institute of Technology becomes the Queensland University of Technology? I believe that that is the time the Government ought to be considering incorporating that area as part of a broad landscaped precinct. A number of groups and organisations have to be included in any discussions, not only the Brisbane City Council but also the National Trust, because it has an interest in old Government House, Parliament House itself and the QIT. I know that in previous years these groups have held discussions but with little reward. I believe that with the changes that are now taking place and that will take place in the future, this is the time the Government ought to be taking action in this regard. I believe it is a matter of urgency. If honourable members look back in history, they will find that for more than 50 years discussions have been held about incorporating that area into the precinct. Of course, there would have to be some rearrangement of traffic flow, car-parking and access points to the QIT and this place. However, those matters can be resolved to the benefit of all concerned. I know that over many years the council has expressed delight that this proposition might go forward. I hope that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, might be able to take this matter up with the Government and Mr Speaker in order to bring to fruition what must be one of the most talked-about projects ever regarding beautifying this end of George Street. Let us hope that in 1989, as the QIT attains university status, there will also be an improvement in the front entrance of this magnificent building. The third matter that I want to raise is that of voluntary student unionism, because this Bill provides for compulsory student unionism. It is spelt out by the Minister in his second-reading speech. Voluntary student unionism is a matter of great concern to the student community and to all tertiary institutions throughout Queensland and Australia. The student unions in which students are enrolled infringe upon the right of freedom of association, one of the comer-stones of Australian society. Throughout Australia there are no exceptions to this rigidly enforced rule of compulsory student union membership—no union mem­ bership, no higher education. Of course, the Minister has put a few frills on it in this particular Bill and caUed it a guild. It is still a student union Mr Schuntner interjected. Mr BEANLAND: As my colleague says, the term "guild" is certainly gilding the lily. It is taken from one of the pieces of university legislation in Western Australia. The Minister has obviously had his staff doing some homework, and they have borrowed that term from the Western Australian legislation. Nevertheless, the body is still a student union. 3004 22 November 1988 Queensland University of Technology Bill

Student unions are not debating societies, as some honourable members think. They are highly politicised and generally highly inefficient bodies that are more concerned with advancing the careers of those who control them and pushing ideological causes which are very much out of kilter with mainstream Australian society than with advancing the interests of their membership which, in the main, is far more concerned with obtaining tertiary qualifications than becoming involved in student politics. Indeed, compulsory student unions are bound to be unaccountable and unrepresentative as students cannot express their disapproval of the organisation they are forced to join by withdrawing their membership and funding. Such withdrawals have occurred on a number of occasions. A number of very celebrated court cases have been held in relation to this matter. Tertiary education is a costly process for most students without their being forced to join student unions, to which they may very well not want to belong. I am not advocating the abolition of student unions; far from it. The Liberal Party believes that if a choice is available and if students believe that they will benefit from union membership, they will join; otherwise they will not and they will find better uses for their limited funds. If students can see the benefits of union membership and if it is attractive to them, they will have no hesitation in joining the union. I am sure that the Minister would agree with that. Student unions become objectionable when they are based on compulsory membership and fees. No amount of talk will get the National Party away from that concept. It is all very well for the Minister to rush over and to quickly brief the next speaker, the member for Mansfield, but that will not solve the problem. The Minister knows that because he is hung on this issue and cannot get away from it. The National Party is stuck because tonight the true story of how it strongly supports compulsory student unionism will come out. Compulsory student unionism goes a long way towards ensuring that student unions will be controlled generally by radical and minority groups. The majority of students are not interested in student politics. In fact, only 10 per cent to 25 per cent of students vote in student elections, with the result that student unions are vulnerable to being hijacked by vocal minorities that are willing to make that investment in political activity and self-interest to the detriment of the vast majority of ordinary students, who are far more concerned with obtaining their degrees. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEANLAND: My, oh my! How Opposition members get upset! This is a rule to which, unfortunately, there are very few exceptions. Under compulsory membership, these student politicians are able to utilise the funds of those who do not take part in student political life without any regard for whether that 75 per cent to 90 per cent of students who did not vote would approve of the use of those funds for particular purposes. Compulsory funding of student services also promotes inefficient use of student funds. Because student unions receive a very substantial subsidy from their membership, they can run those services so much more inefficiently. The fact that prices at union-run and subsidised refectories are often identical to those charged at off-campus retail outlets suggests that the whole of the students' subsidy goes into higher costs and inefficient practices and management. Voluntary student unions would not end those student services; it would force the unions to improve their performance and to offer students necessary, cost-effective services that would encourage students to join the union. That would be of great benefit to Queensland tertiary students and something that the vast majority would, I am sure, appreciate. Voluntary student unionism cannot possibly be an attack on students. After many years, they would be given the freedom to choose whether or not to join student unions. It is a freedom of choice—something that should be dear to the hearts of every member in this Chamber. Because of the lack of interjections that have been made in my raising this matter, obviously it is not dear to their hearts. Queensland University of Technology Bill 22 November 1988 3005

If Student unions are as beneficial to all students as they have claimed recently, they have nothing to fear from the introduction of voluntary student unionism. If their arguments have any substance, they would retain all students as union members. The Queensland University of Technology Bill certainly presents an opportunity for the Queensland Government to answer my call of late August and to show Queensland students that it is interested in protecting the rights and freedoms of the individual. The legislation gives the Government an opportunity to lead the growing band of students not only at universities but at tertiary institutions that are fighting for voluntary unionism, and to show its true colours. The Government cannot get away from what must be the most comprehensive, rigorously enforced system of closed shops in the nation—no union membership, no higher education. I foreshadow that I will be moving an amendment to give students that freedom of choice. In his second-reading speech the Minister indicated clearly that membership of the Queensland University of Technology Student Guild will be compulsory and will apply in 1989. It is worth while paying attention for a moment to what the Minister said. He said— "The existing union of the Queensland Institute of Technology is, by virtue of the legislation, transformed into the student guild of the university. Student mem­ bership of the union has been compulsory. It is intended that compulsory guild membership will also apply for 1989.

By the beginning of the 1990 academic year, I anticipate that the university council will have a statute in place providing for conscientious objection to com­ pulsory guild membership, as is currently the case with the University of Queensland student union." All honourable members know that providing for conscientious objection is no answer to providing freedom of choice. It may in some way go towards satisfying the Ministers and the Government's pangs of guilt in this area, but it does not in any way go towards satisfying students at the tertiary education institutions. Clearly, it will not solve any of those problems. Conscientious objection does not go anywhere near satisfying the requirements of students. Certainly, compulsory unionism is still there. After all, someone will have to sit and judge conscientious objections. They will be the very people who are insisting upon student unionism. The change to allow someone to conscientiously object to compulsory membership is a very slight one indeed. If a person is successful, he will still have to pay up the same amount of money. It is interesting to note that one of the arguments put forward by various groups is that they will still have to pay some service fees. Service fees will still have to be paid to cover such items as sporting and catering facilities that are provided by the university. But they are matters that are separate from student union activities. Uni­ versities and tertiary institutions find it convenient to allow the various student unions to run those functions simply because they find it expedient to do so and very convenient to get out of their own areas of responsibility. That does not get away from the fact that the running of those functions is really outside the normal role of student activities and does not solve the problem of compulsory student unionism. Voluntary student unionism will allow unions to demonstrate just how popular they are. If they are as popular as the Minister says they are, people will rush to join them. I am pleased that the member for Mansfield is now getting assistance from the Leader of the House, the member for Nicklin. I am sure that his speech is going to runneth over after he receives that further assistance. Mr SHERRIN: I rise to a point of order. The member for Toowong insinuated that the Leader of the House came over to give me advice. He did not come over to me. He did not speak to me at all. The honourable member for Toowong is misleading the House. 3006 22 November 1988 Queensland University of Technology Bill

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Alison): Order! I take it that the honourable member for Mansfield finds the words offensive? Mr SHERRIN: Most definitely. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Toowong will v^ath- draw the comments. Mr BEANLAND: Mr Deputy Speaker, at your direction, I will withdraw them. I am sure that the member for Mansfield needs a lot of assistance. He will certainly need some ministerial assistance with his speech that is to follow shortly. It is interesting to note that Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Labour Organisation Convention concerning Freedom of Associa­ tion and Protection of the Right to Organise. Those international agreements specifically outlaw compulsory unionism. All honourable members would be aware of how keen the Labor Party is to use international agreements. Bearing that in mind, I am sure that the Labor Party will be only too pleased to uphold those international agreements, particularly where they apply to student unionism and the freedom of students to choose whether or not to join a student union. Article 20 of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights states— "No-one may be compelled to belong to an association." That is one of the basic rights that is proclaimed by the United Nations. This legislation represents a compulsion to belong to an association. The United Nations resolution 217 (iii) of 10 December 1948 states— "Every individual and every organ of society shall strive... to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance." Some Government members might not be able to grasp the unsatisfactory nature of compulsory student unionism and might believe that this is just another attack on unions in general. It is certainly not. Student politicians in our tertiary institutions are in a position similar to that of directors on the board of a company. In this instance the value of the company is quite considerable. University student unions control budgets of the order of $600,000 to $ 1 m a year. For instance, this year the budget for the QIT student union will be in excess of $600,000. Student unions are presently running considerably large businesses. It is clear that the Government has a case to answer. In the past the Government has not answered that case. Once again, I appeal to the Minister to give students the opportunity to voluntarily join unions—whether they are called guilds, student unions or whatever nice term that the Minister cares to give them. When furthering their tertiary education, students must be given the option of whether or not to join a student union. This Bill gives the QIT a great opportunity. Those students who attend the QIT in the future will have a great opportunity to go from strength to strength. I know that all honourable members would wish them well. In the future, as a university the QIT will be something of which we can all be proud. Mr SHERRIN (Mansfield) (9.19 p.m.): I did not intend to participate in this debate. However, I wish to address a couple of the points that were made by the honourable member for Toowong. It needs to be put fairly and squarely on the record of the House. Tonight honourable members have witnessed a classic case of the Liberals engaging in rank political plagiarism. They have claimed credit for gaining the additional 5 000 tertiary places in this State next year. I have commented on this issue before; but if the Liberals persist in claiming that they gained for the students of Queensland the right to participate in tertiary education in common with any other student in any other State of this nation, I will have to refute their statements. Queensland University of Technology Bill 22 November 1988 3007

I have given due acknowledgement to the Federal Labor Government for listening to the case that was put forward by the Queensland Government through its Minister and Premier. I have to take some small credit for that through the committee that I chaired, because it provided the statistics that were used as the basis for Queensland's case. Acknowledgement needs to be given to the Queensland Government, and partic­ ularly to the Minister for Finance, for providing in the State Budget over the next three years the $25m that is necessary to enable Queensland to fund even further additional tertiary places. Earlier this year the Liberals jumped onto the bandwagon of the call for additional tertiary places for Queensland. They did nothing but make a lot of noise and create a lot of heat. They shed no light on the situation, but they tried to claim credit for securing those places. Queensland suffered the greatest shortfall in tertiary places under the Prime Ministership of the Liberal Prime Minister Fraser and the Liberal Treasurer Howard when they froze tertiary funding. It is rank political hypocrisy for the Liberals to claim that they care about Queensland students. That point needs to be made very clearly. I challenge the Liberal Party to come forward with any documentation that shows that it had made representations to any Commonwealth Government of any political pursuasion over the years to redress the imbalance of tertiary places for Queensland students. The Liberal Party knows that it cannot provide anything. The Queensland Government has letters, files, meeting agendas—the whole works—from a succession of Premiers and Ministers for Education going right back to 1974, when the Commonwealth assumed full responsibility for tertiary funding and since when Queensland has continued to argue the case in the interests of its students and their parents. The members of the Liberal Party did nothing until the beginning of 1988, when they paraded around Queensland and gave us their swan-song. They did absolutely nothing. Yet after the hard and prolonged work of the Queensland Government this year in negotiations with the Commonwealth Labor Government, and after a very satisfactory resolution of this pressing personal problem that our young people face had been arrived at, the johnny- come-latelies in the education field—the members of the Liberal Party—stand up in this House and insult the intelligence of all members by trying to take the credit for something that this Government and the Federal Labor Government have been able to resolve satisfactorily. Mr Austin: Did you see that Mr Schuntner voted against his union mates in the division this afternoon? Mr SHERRIN: Yes. I have noticed that many of his former colleagues on the other side of the House will be circulating that. Mr Schuntner has been quoted in the press as accusing the Minister for Education, Youth and Sport of being wimpish for allowing investigations to be undertaken into the possible amalgamation of Griffith and BCAE. His words were something along the line that the Government had sold out the institutions to take up the additional 4 000 places. I put the argument to the House: if the Queensland Government and its Minister are being wimpish by allowing the investigation into one amalgamation, what would the honourable member say about his Liberal colleague in New South Wales, Dr Metherall, who, at the request of the Commonwealth Minister for Education, has initiated seven amalgamations? He could not defend that at all. As a result of the Commonwealth's White Paper, seven amalgamations are under way in New South Wales. But Mr Schuntner does not want to know about that at all. He just wants to take cheap political shots that could in the short term and the long term put at risk the additional places that have been provided to Queensland students by the Commonwealth Government on the basis of the successful negotiations that the Queensland Government has undertaken. I congratulate the staff and students of the Queensland Institute of Technology. As a former student of that institution, I believe this is a fitting move. Its standards are equal to those of any other university in the country. One person who deserves special commendation in this House is the director, Dr Dennis Gibson, who has shown tremendous leadership to that institution since he assumed that office. I am very pleased 3008 22 November 1988 Queensland University of Technology Bill that the legislation makes allowance for him to be the first vice-chancellor of the new university. Mr SHERLOCK (Ashgrove) (9.25 p.m.): I feel as though I am the last man in to bat in what has been a long day in the field for the Minister. I want to say a few words in general support for this Bill. I find it an exciting prospect to have a university here in George Street. I, too, am one who graduated from the pharmacy college in the precincts of that institution. I want to say a few words also about the success story of one or two of the departments of the QIT. The QIT has a proud record of academic achievement. In 20 years it has made outstanding progress, tonight we have heard that in the 1960s the graduates received certificates and diplomas. In 1976 certain courses were recognised with degree status. It seems an appropriate progression, therefore, that in 1988, our bicentennial year, the institute should be granted university status. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the institute has been accredited by its peers. It has been judged to be worthy. This new title is not a perfunctory title that is being granted to it. I, too, pay tribute to the leadership of Dr Dennis Gibson and to the people such as Mr Eddie Codd, from whose entrepreneurial skills the QIT has certainly benefited. There are a number of reasons why the word "technology" should remain in the title of the new university, because the institute has developed an enviable reputation for its technological base, closely related to industry, the professions and commerce. Firstly, the principal changes brought about by this Bill include the university's ability to accredit its own courses. It is anticipated that there will be considerable advantage in achieving this speeedily. I am told that it will occur within some six months. Secondly, the institute will receive considerable benefits from conferring professorial titles and the important aspect of academic status and, of course, the introduction of doctoral work, which will spin off into research. Thirdly, the improved status will provide the opportunity to attract additional funds from government, industry, commerce and the broader community. I understand that 20 per cent of the funds for the QIT are currently received from outside bodies. With improved status, the institution forecasts that by 1992 it will attract one-third of its required funds from external sources, with the objective of increasing that level to 50 per cent by the year 2000, including funding from industry both in Australia and overseas. Already the QIT has been successful in achieving financial support. I understand that, from the engineering field, it has received $1.6m, and almost $lm from business, with the major sources being management courses, consultancies and so on. I take the opportunity to refer to the new MBA program, the prospectus for which is now available. I understand that this Master of Business Administration program will be available in 1989 and that some 700 inquiries have already been made for the 80 part-time places. Dr Peter Coaldrake has already been mentioned tonight as being the head of that school. We in the Liberal Party commend him for the work that he will do in that two-year full-time or four-year part-time course, 70 per cent of that program being core subjects and the remainder being electives and some very good small research projects. That will upgrade the business school and attract funding towards the university. I understand that a Queensland-based investment company has made available $2.5m to the department of medical laboratory science for biotechnical research into a vaccine project involving genetic engineering. During the past 12 months, the medical laboratory science department has received approximately $lm in non-contract grants and is the recipient of non-competitive grants from both national and international sources. For example, it has been in receipt of funds for human disease diagnosis from such sources as the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Health Organisation, which is recognition indeed. The recent Dawkins' White Paper advocates acceptable entrepreneurial activity, enabling tertiary institutions to raise more funds from across a broader spectrum in the community. That is particularly important to students who Queensland University of Technology Bill 22 November 1988 3009

have been asked to bear the brunt of the tertiary education fee/tax which was recently introduced by the Federal Government. This initiative in funding will not only assist the expansion of applied research for which the QIT has an envied reputation, but it will also raise the esprit de corps of the staff and students of the new university in George Street. I wish to take a few minutes to mention the university council. I understand that the council will have 22 members and that four of them will be nominated by the university. Three of those members will represent seven faculties, and one general staff member will provide an administrative perspective. Among many other matters, that was the subject of remarks made by members of the Opposition. However, I believe that it is necessary to keep the council's operations in perspective and understand that, after all, the QIT is an academic institution, not an industrial affairs club. I turn now to mention the health science faculty. As I have said, a number of reasons exist why the word "technology" should remain in the name of the university. I say that because of the QIT's strong technology base, which is closely related to industry, to the professions and to commerce. There can be no better example than the health science faculty. For a long time, Queensland has relied on its primary industries and its mineral resources. As everyone knows, one of Queensland's greatest challenges is to develop its industrial base. There is also potential for medical technology to be included in that development. Because of potential exports to international markets, the global market-place must be a clear goal for Queensland medical technology ventures in the decade that lies ahead. Examples of these medical technology ventures are already in existence at QIT. Queensland stands at the dawn of a new era of nursing education in Queensland. I believe that college-based training is here to stay for both enrolled and registered nurses. Of course, in the future, refresher and post-graduate courses will be required to cover various specialties. Clinical nursing career paths will be the way of the future. An underlying challenge is posed to nursing educators, and those who have been responsible for the design of the curriculum, to ensure that adequate and appropriate clinical training is provided for nurses and, more importantly, that care is taken to train nurses to cope with the transition from college-based training to the real world of the hospital. It must also be recognised that the QIT has pioneered college-based nursing training in Queensland. The role of the medical laboratory scientist is changing. People are dying from socially induced conditions such as drug dependence, motor vehicle and other accidents and conditions that are caused by stress and life-style, such as heart conditions, stroke and cancer. Twenty years ago, Australian death statistics were dominated by the category of infectious diseases. However, medical research has turned round that situation and, during the next decade, the health campaign will be dominated by the battle of life­ style. In the twenty-first century, life-style presents major challenges for everyone because it involves coping with changing life and health profiles in the community. One of AustraUa's greatest research challenges is to hold research personnel within its boundaries. For far too long, Australia has trained scientists only to export them to the northern hemisphere in which far better research opportunities are located. Although that may be fulfilling for the individual, it results in a great wastage of resources provided by the Australian economy and it is devastating in its effects on the medical research base in this country. Australia must learn to harness research with assistance from industry and commerce, and build its burgeoning medical technology industrial base. This very challenge has been met by the QIT and I have no doubt that more work in research will be undertaken in the future. The work of the researcher and of the practitioner go hand in hand and they are equally important. The maintenance of an adequate health status and the prevention of disease are the watchwords for the future. An increasing emphasis has been placed on physical fitness in the community. People are interested in, and are becoming increasingly aware of, diet and nutrition and are becoming better educated about diagnostic screening. 3010 22 November 1988 Queensland University of Technology Bill

Environmental health officers also have a part to play in the front line of the promotion of public health, which is an important aspect of the health-care system. Occupational health and safety workers will make a vital contribution to the nation's economy as recognition is given to the fact that greater productivity levels can be achieved by the creation of a stable and pro-active working environment. Environmental health officers, occupational health officers and others I have mentioned have all been trained at this very fine institution which is located in George Street. Research and development within the Queensland Institute of Technology are very good examples of the positive approach that is taken to science. Mention has already been made of the enviable reputation earned by the optometry faculty at QIT. Its achievements have attracted industrial and Commonwealth Government grants for eye and vision research. The medical laboratory science department has also undertaken a project for the purpose of developing a highly specific range of monoclonal anti-bodies for diagnostic, therapeutic and industrial applications in both medical and veterinary spheres. Of course, that research and development has been commercially exploited by Australian companies and has proved to be highly successful. Medical technicians and medical laboratory scientists in fields such as clinical microbiology and biochemistry, haemotology, histopathology and immunology are engaged in research as well as providing assistance to physicians in the detection, diagnosis and treatment of disease. Medical laboratory scientists that I have referred to are being trained at the QIT and increasingly are being introduced to the front line of combating new infectious diseases. I was grateful for the opportunity of speaking at the graduation ceremony that was held earlier this year at the faculty of health science. At that stage, in March, I forecast the change that would eventually be made to the QIT to bring it to university status. I am therefore pleased to have the opportunity of supporting this Bill. Before I conclude my remarks, I take this opportunity to pick up some of the points made by Mr Sherrin during the dying stages of his speech. Of course, members of the Liberal Party understand that these initiatives are being taken by the Government; after, all, that is the role of Government. The Government occupies the Treasury benches currently, but that will only be for a short time during this aberration of Queensland politics. Of course, members of the National Party Government are in the position in which they are able to take initiatives. However, I draw to the attention of the House the initiatives that were taken by the Liberal Party earlier this year, largely through the efforts made by Senator Warwick Parer and Mr Lyle Schuntner, the Liberal Party's Education spokesman. Senator Parer is one of the better known Senators in Queensland. He is a highly successful businessman who has moved in industry, commerce and trade circles and who has made a tremendous contribution to the wealth of Australia. He is now making an impact in the Australian Senate. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that Mr Schuntner and Senator Parer put together a task force that moved all around Queensland holding public meetings and highlighting the imbalance of tertiary places in this State. The reaction to that task force—and this is all factual—was the formation of the Sherrin committee. Mr Sherrin is concerned because he has read the opinion polls and knows that his seat of Mansfield is on the line. He is rightly upset and as a result he spoke in this debate tonight. I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill and I congratulate the Minister on it. Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (Condamine—Minister for Education, Youth and Sport) (9.38 p.m.), in reply: It appears that there are a lot of good feelings about tonight because Christmas is fairly close. Everyone is wishing QUT all the best, and so they should. As the debate continued, it seemed that there would be no dissension at all, but there has been a little bit of discourse across the Chamber, which is to be expected. First of all, I endorse the congratulations given to the people involved at QIT who have helped me put this legislation together. As was alluded to by the Opposition spokesman, the Government established the guide-lines as to what constitutes a university Queensland University of Technology Bill 22 November 1988 3011

in Queensland. The forum comprising the vice-chancellors and directors of Queensland's tertiary institutions came together and decided what the guide-fines should be. These guide-lines were applied by the Government and the review committee made an assessment and established that QIT has the capacity to achieve university status. This legislation is the result. The Opposition spokesman commented on the council representation and pointed out that the non-academic staff are great in number and deserve greater recognition. Under the legislation that formed the Queensland Institute of Technology there was no specific provision for any representation of non-academic staff. This legislation provides for one member of the non-academic staff on the council. I point out that at the University of Queensland the non-academic staff are represented by one person out of a total of 45. Under these guide-lines the QUT will have a better ratio than that. Recently I contacted the non-academic staff and suggested that this matter should be taken up with the first new council of the QUT. They may be able to reach some arrangement that is mutually acceptable and amendments to the legislation could then be introduced. At the present time, I believe that the legislation is acceptable. The honourable member for Fassifern commented about the tremendous growth factor and the fact that the QUT is expecting 17 000 students by the year 2000. That fact was highlighted by the provision of the extra tertiary places that this Government was arguing for. Mr Dawkins saw the need for these places and has helped my department along. My department provided the statistics and between us we worked it out. The honourable member criticised the Federal Government not only in relation to tertiary education, but also other areas of education because it is giving money to schools and institutions as long as those schools and institutions implement what the Federal Government wants. That puts the true independence of education, especially tertiary education, in Australia at risk. The honourable member paid tribute to my colleague the Minister for Employment and myself for our Project Pay Packet initiative, under which young people who are not in tertiary institutions but who wish to acquire vocational skills and obtain employment can be identified. The honourable member for Fassifem stole the honourable member for Toowong's thunder by referring to the old Government House in the precincts of QUT and the establishment of an open area in front of Parliament House and QUT where no cars are allowed. It seems to be another case of the honourable member for Toowong saying, "Me, too", but he came in second. The honourable member for Mount Coot-tha congratulated the QUT and acknowl­ edged the role of the chairman of the council, Vic Pullar and the director Dr Dennis Gibson. It is also appropriate that I pay tribute to Dr Peter Botsman of my department who was instrumental in establishing this fomm and working very closely with those people to provide the necessary legislation. The fine tuning was then carried out by Mr John Tainton and his panel to ensure that the legislation could pass through the House tonight without any hiccups. The honourable member for Mount Coot-tha referred to the definition of "Minister". My answer to his query is that the Govemment has endeavoured to define the term "Minister" in a broad fashion so that it covers not only me as the Minister responsible, but also any person acting in my capacity as Minister, should I be absent for some time. He also raised the matter of ministerial control. He appears to have a fetish that the Minister have absolute control over legislation. There appears to be an inconsistency in his camp because over the last three or four days the Leader of the Liberal Party has been jumping up and down about the accountability of Ministers. I am including in the legislation the fact that I will be accountable for what happens, even if it is only in an administrative way, and yet the member takes exception to that. My colleague the honourable member for Callide, Mrs McCauley, spoke out about the history of the present site of the QIT. She pointed out the fact that Queensland's first Government House is sited there, the area became the first site of the University of Queensland, then the site of the old Queensland State Commercial High School, the Queensland Central Technical College, the QIT and finally it is coming back to a university. The wheel has turned full circle. One of the speakers in this debate mentioned 3012 22 November 1988 Queensland University of Technology Bill old Government House and the decision as to whether it should be relocated or maintained on its present site. My own personal opinion is that, with the boundary fences removed, the gardens are enhanced. It looks extremely good on its present site, especially with the precincts of Parliament House in the vicinity. The honourable member for Callide also mentioned the fact that the granting of university status would allow the institute to increase its international standing. One of the reasons why QIT was keen to achieve university status is that it is trying to recmit staff from all over the world. If people know that they will be working for a university, it means more to them than merely working for an institute of technology. The stage has been reached at which everyone is happy. The member for Toowong was accused by the member for Mansfield of plagiarism because he wanted to take all the credit for the hard work that was done by Mr Sherrin's committee to make sure that these higher-education places are a reality in Queensland for the coming year and for the next three years, when Queensland should be up with the national average. The member for Toowong also spoke about the precinct in front of Parliament House, but unfortunately the member for Fassifern, Mr Lingard, had beaten him to the punch there, too. The major thmst of the member for Toowong was on student guilds. He commenced by saying that I had spoken about student unions. I did not use the term "student unions"; I used the term "student guilds". He coloured his argument to give it a little bit of razzamatazz, but then he admitted that I had used the term "student guilds". The reality is that the student body on that campus plays a significant role in co-operation with the council itself to help put together some of the facilities that are desperately needed. I can recall that not too many months ago I was asked to go to the QIT to open its very fine swimming complex. I took across a team of parliamentarians to take part in a raft race. We were given great hospitality by the people there. The member for Toowong was in the group. He came back here, did his hair, put on his suit and came into the House and bagged the whole institution. I can assure him that that was not missed by the people over there. They can still remember his visit but they remember more vividly his later contribution in the House. I will go down the same track as the member for Toowong did. Unfortunately, student unions on campuses have become too politicised. Those young people should be interested only in the things pertaining to that campus, but, over the years, mischievous people have made sure that student bodies have become politicised. That is why I have chosen to use the word "guild", in an attempt to get away from the stigma that is associated with the word "union", which is more appropriate to a workplace rather than a place of learning. I am sure that the member for Mansfield now feels much better after the 10 minutes he spent on his feet. He had to defend his position. I pay tribute to him for the very hard work that he did in chairing the committee that took three or four months to come up with the findings that were the basis for Queensland being able to pick up those much-needed places. The member for Mansfield also mentioned that the member for Mount Coot-tha referred to one of my actions of amalgamation being wimpish. The honourable member related that the New South Wales Liberal Government has proposed massive amalgamations before I have, but he failed to mention that my ministerial colleague in New South Wales has given those institutions until December this year to make their comments. I do not know whether or not my own actions are wimpish—I thought they were democratic—but I have given the institutions in Queensland until July next year to consult with each other and to come up with some sort of plan. Perhaps I am wimpish, but I like to think I am democratic. I do not think the two words mean the same. The member for Ashgrove, Mr Sherlock, spoke about the role of technology in this new institution. I like the points that he made. Australia has a need for research and for its innovations and inventions to stay on shore. There is also need for Australian manufacturers to make use of Australian innovations. Today I was at the Queensland Queensland University of Technology Bill 22 November 1988 3013

Museum opening Innovations 88, which is a display of 40-odd inventions by Queenslanders. There is a very real risk that some of those inventions, which have tremendous potential, will go off shore. The things alluded to by the honourable member for Ashgrove are quite correct. That is also pertinent to the QIT. That was one of the reasons it approached the Govemment to change the legislation. It wanted to become an incorporated body so that it could take financial advantage of the research and consultancy work that it does for industry. I thank members for their contributions. I am sure that the people at the QUT will be very happy tomorrow morning when they leam that this Bill has passed through the House. Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. B. G. Littleproud (Condamine—Minister for Education, Youth and Sport) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr BRADDY (9.56 p.m.): This clause deals with the functions and powers of the university. I want to take this opportunity to contrast this legislation to what is unfortunately happening with Griffith University and the proposed university of south­ east Queensland. As clause 6 (1) (c) states, one of the functions of this and other universities in Australia is "to encourage by study, research and other means the advancement and development of knowledge". It is important that universities, in order to achieve that status, have a significant research component. This is one of my concerns in relation to other developments in Queensland. In his ministerial statement made on 16 November, the Minister said that he was setting up a committee to investigate the proposed university of south-east Queensland. I have no difficulty with that. Amongst other things, he said— "I have suggested that serious consideration should be given to the potential resulting from the merger of some or all of three colleges of advanced education, namely the Brisbane College of Advanced Education, the Gold Coast College of Advanced Education, the Queensland Conservatorium of Music and Griffith Uni­ versity, to form a single university to operate from 1 January 1990. To this end, a committee has been established with the charter to investigate and to report, through me, to State Cabinet on the merits or otherwise of integration." Unfortunately, he went far beyond that. In his letter of 11 November 1988 to Mr Justice Macrossan, the chairman of the Griffith University Council, the Minister indicated that he was not setting up a committee but that he was setting up an interim council. In the letter, he stated— "It is intended that the proposed new university should commence on 1 January 1990." The letter continued— "It would be my hope that the major energies of all stake-holders will now be directed to 'how' the proposed university is to operate with maximum effectiveness and efficiency and the preservation of the distinctive character and ethos of the elements involved." He takes it much further in his direction to the chairman of Griffith University. It seems that the justification for that is the supposed statement that the Commonwealth Government has indicated that the 4 000 new places in Queensland will only be given if that takes place. I challenge that. I have spoken to the Speaker and I seek leave to have the letter dated 11 November 1988 from the Minister to Mr Justice Macrossan and the reply dated 18 November 1988 3014 22 November 1988 Queensland University of Technology Bill from the Registrar of Griffith University to the Minister tabled and incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the following documents— The Hon. Mr Justice Macrossan 11 November 1988 Chairman Griffith University Council Kessels Road Nathan Q 4111 Dear Mr Justice Macrossan I am writing to advise you formally that the Govemment has decided to seek to develop a new University of South-East Queensland which will be based on a number of existing institutions. These may include the Gold Coast College of Advanced Education, Griffith University, the Queensland Conservatorium of Music and the Brisbane College of Advanced Education. I have appointed under section 8A of the Education Act an Interim Council of five to oversee the development of a detailed plan of operation for the proposed new institution. It is intended that the proposed new university should commence on 1 January 1990. I will be directing the Interim Council to set up working groups and task forces to examine alternatives and facilitate consultation with all interested parties in the negotiations that should now ensue. I would hope that an operational plan can be completed by 1 July 1989 so that enabling legislation can be introduced in the August session of Parliament in 1989. Existing Councils and Senates will continue. All other existing arrangements will continue as far as possible during 1989. All presently enrolled students and new students enrolling in 1989 will be able to finish their programs and be able to be granted an award in the name of the institution in which they originally enrolled. All staff will be guaranteed employment conditions no less favourable than they presently enjoy. Finally, I stress that the total initiative outlined above is subject to the Commonwealth Minister for Employment, Education and Training, the Honourable John Dawkins M.P., agreeing to provide higher education places and funding as agreed to by the Joint Planning Committee. It would be my hope that the major energies of all stake-holders will now be directed to "how" the proposed university is to operate with maximum effectiveness and efficiency and the preservation of the distinctive character and ethos of the elements involved. I am hoping to convene a first meeting of the Interim Council within the next week or two to ask them to start the process of planning and negotiation. I look forward confidently to your full co-operation in this challenging, exciting and critically important project. Yours sincerely BRIAN LITTLEPROUD, M.L.A. Minister for Education, Youth and Sport and Member for Condamine GRIFPITH UNIVERSITY Nathan, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 4111. Telephone: (07) 275 7111. Telegrams: Unigriff Brisbane Fax G3: (07) 277 3759 Telex: AA40362 Registrar: Ref: G/AA210 J. Topley Telephone: 275 7180 18 November 1988 The Honourable B. G. Littlerproud, MLA Minister for Education, Youth and Sport P.O. Box 33 North Quay Qld 4002 Queensland University of Technology Bill 22 November 1988 3015

Dear Minister The Chancellor, Mr Justice J. M. Macrossan, has asked me to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 11 November 1988, concerning the Government's decision to seek to develop a new University of South East Queensland. Your letter was considered at a meeting of the Council of the University on 16 November 1988, and the Chancellor has asked me to convey to you the Council's response. The Council is deeply concerned at the lack of preliminary discussion with it, and protests strongly about the lack of sensible consultation and discussion of issues and possibilities before the Govemment moved so firmly in a direction which is likely to determine much of the stmctural and organisational outcome in any amalgamation. The Council re-affirms its strong preference to continue in the Unified National System as a free-standing institution. The University sees every reason for continuing as a separate university. The funding proposed for the University in the 1989-91 triennium by the AustraUan Govemment provides for strong growth, improved funding per student, and an expanded range of courses. Over the next three years, the University will introduce major Bachellors's Degree teaching programmes in International Business Relations, Micro-electronics, Applied Behavioural Studies, and Environmetnal Engineering; Graduate Diplomas in Finance, and in Business Computing; and a Masters Degree in Computing and Information Technology. It will also expand the number of places in its Bachelor's programme in computing. These will add substantially to the range of integrated teaching programmes it offers to the people of Queensland, and which are now widely recognised to be a unique contribution to the practice of higher education. The University's research reputation is high. On a number of performance indicators it ranks among the top universities in Australia. An amalgamated institution would considerably reduce that reputation. Griffith has made a specially valuable contribution to relevant, problem-oriented research because of its interdisciplinary structure. It would be difficult to preserve this in an amalgamated institution if other elements have overwhelming influence. This would be a serious loss for the people of Queensland and Australia. Through its teaching and research performance, the University has established a high reputation overseas and in other parts of Australia. That reputation would be diminished if it were ever disestablished and became part of a new institution. The establishment of a new institution takes time, and cannot be accelerated, particularly in a capital city which already has two large respected universities. It can be argued that Griffith has done better in Brisbane in its 15 years vis-a-vis the University of Queensland, than similar second or third universities in relation to the first university in other Australian states. To start again would waste 15 years of effort—a loss that Brisbane and Queensland cannot afford. The achievements of the University are based on the work of staff who are committed to its special character. This character is deeply embedded in its teaching, research, and administrative stmcture. The opportunity for staff, who have committed themselves to a career of teaching and research, to continue to engage in research might well be diminished in an amalgamated institution as proposed, because there would very probably be a shift of funds from the high achieving former Griffith element. The University's achievements are also based on the arrangements it has made to promote the intellectual and practical leaming development of its students, and for their social growth. The University has taken deliberate and managed steps to encourage its students to feel that — they are part of the institution and, in particular, members of their own academic School; — the teaching and administrative staff are approachable and interested in them; — they have a part to play in being responsible for their own education; and — their educational programmes are relevant to society's needs. The Unversity's students are, consequently, committed to the University and its approach to education in a way that is unusual in today's higher education institutions. A further consideration of the Council in establishing its position is that the the White Paper's expicit demands for consolidation are fully met by consolidation of institutions with 3016 22 November 1988 Queensland University of Technology Bill

student numbers below 2000. The White papoer does not make manadatory, the merger of larger instmctions The Council therefore advises the State Govemment that Griffith University does not wish to be part of the University of South East Queensland as proposed. However, the University is still actively investigating affiliation with smaller instructions which do not reach the 2000 EFTSU benchmark, namely the Gold Coasts College of Advanced Education, the Queensland Conservatorium of Music, and the Queensland Agricultural College, provided Griffith University's mission and identity can be maintened. The Council notes the setting up of an Interim Council to advise the Minister, expressess its concem at the constitution of the proposed Interim Council, and asks the Minister to include, at least, the Chief Executive Officer of each institution on the council. The Council calls for the establishment of tripartite consultative mechanisms in line with the Victorian and South Australian models and ACTU recommendations for regotiating any proposed restmcturing of higher education in Queensland. Yours sincerely J. Topley Registrar Mr BRADDY: No-one will oppose a unification where people do it voluntarily. However, if the colleges and universities are going to be marched at the point of a gun to a firing-squad and told that they must amalgamate because that is what the Minister in Canberra says shall happen, that will not happen. I do not accept that Mr Dawkins has said that it must happen. The conflict between the ministerial statement in this Chamber and the Minister's letter is clear. People are entitled to negotiate. The Griffith University letter makes it clear that the Griffith University Council does not accept that the university should have to follow that path. The letter states— "The Council therefore advises the State Government that Griffith University does not wish to be part of the University of South East Queensland as proposed." It further states— "The Council calls for the establishment of tripartite consultative mechanisms in line with the Victorian and South Australian models and ACTU recommendations for negotiating any proposed restructuring of higher education in Queensland." In conclusion, I say to the Minister that, if the interim council that he has set up has the status of a committee, that is fine. If the committee is representing the Government in the course of tripartite negotiations with the staff and the governing bodies of those various institutions, again that is fine. However, there must not be any gun at the head of any of those bodies. They must have time to sit down and negotiate without being told that they will be destroying the fabric of Queensland tertiary education if they do not. There is no ultimatum from the Commonwealth Government that says, "Amalgamate these institutions or else the 4 000 places in Queensland higher education new places are at stake." I do not accept that. Following inquiries, I have been told that that is not the case. I ask the Minister to pull back a bit; let his council negotiate by all means but on a fair level without any guns at the heads of the people. Mr LITTLEPROUD: With reference to the gun at the head, in my negotiations with Mr Dawkins and in negotiations between my departmental officers and his depart­ mental officers, we have repeatedly received this answer from the Federal Government: we are not going to force any amalgamations; but, if they do not amalgamate, they wili not receive full funding. As far as I am concerned, that is an ultimatum. In Queensland we are desperately in need of 4 000 places. As late as yesterday, I spoke with Mr Dawkins and he intimated that the numbers allocated for 1989 are firm but that the numbers allocated for 1990 and 1991 are subject to review. I interpret that to mean that, unless we do what he wants, we will not receive those full numbers. Mr Davis: Now! Mr LITTLEPROUD: Yes. It is just like water in the petrol; it can happen. Queensland University of Technology Bill 22 November 1988 3017

The Queensland Govemment is in a difficult situation. With regard to the interim council that has been set up and asked to negotiate, honourable members are aware that this year I have set up a fomm of the vice-chancellors and the directors of the tertiary institutions in Queensland and it has worked extremely well. About a fortnight ago, the four institutions involved, plus QAC—the chairmen, the vice-chancellors and the direc­ tors—had discussions with me. I put forward a proposition and we differed on that. We had discussions for three or four hours. We came up with the proposition that, unless we came up with a positive suggestion of what should be done, we would talk until we were blue in the face and get nowhere. So we came up with the positive proposition that we should aim for this to happen. It is the role of the vice-chancellors and directors and the people on the council to negotiate closely with their own academic staff, the other people and the students. In my role as Minister, I am too busy to talk to all parties. This matter has been going on for six or eight months. An instmction is going out to the interim council that it should set up working parties that will consult fully with the students, the academic staff, the councils and the vice-chancellors and directors of the institutions concerned. However, we are very much aware of the statement made yesterday by Mr Dawkins and to be published, I believe, on Thursday, saying that the places and funding available for 1990 and 1991 are subject to review. I interpret that to mean that, unless things go ahead and we make the institutions the size that he wants, we will not receive the full funding. With regard to the three criteria that we received in regard to size, 2 000 students is the minimum number to receive funding for teaching; 5 000 students will provide us with teaching funding plus some research funding; and, when we have more than 8 000 students, the Federal Government will give full teacher funding and will allow us to bid for full research funding. It behoves the Queensland Govemment to ensure that it maximises not only places but also research-funding. That is why we have put forward this positive proposition that will be examined during the next six months by the interim council.

Mr BRADDY: I will reply to that briefly. I do not accept the idea that the fact that the 1990-91 figures are subject to review is any indication that there is a gun at the head of the Commonwealth Minister. That is not my information. Mr Borbidge: Tell us. Mr BRADDY: I can also speak to the Minister and his staff The Government is not the only one that can do that. Mr Borbidge: Tell us your information. Mr BRADDY: I am telling honourable members my information, just as the Minister has. The Minister has had conversations with people in Canberra and so have I. My information is contrary to his information. My information is that there is no gun at the head of the Commonwealth Minister. As long as the Govemment uses its interim council to facilitate negotiations, that is fine—provided there is no absolute deadline with which it must comply. That is the impression that is given by the Minister's letter to the Griffith University. I think it is contrary to what the Minister said in the Chamber. It takes it much further; it is much tougher. I do not think it should have been expressed that way if the Minister did not put it that way in his statement in the Chamber. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7, as read, agreed to. 3018 22 November 1988 Queensland University of Technology Bill

Clause 8— Mr BRADDY (10.01 p.m.): I indicated earlier that I would be moving an amendment. I will not take up any time in relation to it. I move— "At page 6, line 13, omit— 'one member who is a member' and substitute— 'two members who are members'." This is the clause that relates to the constitution of the council. In line with the majority of institutions that are coming into being these days, with the worker partici­ pation ethic and the significant numbers of people who are employed—more than 500 people are employed at the QIT—the staff should have two representatives on the governing council. That is more in line with what is done in Victoria. The Minister has chosen the Westem Australian model or other models which are not in line with that. The majority of models these days give significant representation to the workers. They have three representatives under the goveming body now. The Minister will be reducing that representation to one. I think a fair compromise would be two. Therefore, I have moved that amendment. Mr LITTLEPROUD: In answer to that—I think I addressed this in my second- reading speech. This is going to be the same as the University of Queensland. The statute was drawn up this way after consultation with the council of the QIT. In the QIT legislation the non-academic staff were given no guarantee whatsoever. In this instance they are given one. The balance is about one out of 19, whereas in the case of the University of Queensland it is about one out of 45, so they are in front. Question—That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 54 NOES, 29 Ahem Lester Ardill Alison Lickiss Braddy Austin Lingard Bums Beanland Littleproud Campbell Beard McCauley Casey Berghofer McKechnie Comben Borbidge McPhie D'Arcy Burreket Menzel De Lacy Chapman Muntz Eaton Cooper Neal Gibbs, R. J. Elliott Nelson Goss Fraser Newton Hamill Gamin Perrett Hayward Gately Randell McElligott Gibbs, I. J. Row Mackenroth Gilmore Schuntner McLean Glasson Sherlock Milliner Gunn Sherrin Palaszczuk Harper Simpson Scott Harvey Slack Smith Henderson Stoneman Smyth Hinton Tenni Underwood Hobbs Veivers Vaughan Hynd White Warburton Innes Warner Katter Tellers: Wells Tellers: Knox FitzGerald Yewdale Davis Lee Stephan Prest Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 8, as read, agreed to. Queensland University of Technology Bill 22 November 1988 3019

Clauses 9 to 11, as read, agreed to. Clause 12— Mr BRADDY (10.11 p.m.): This clause relates to the constitution of what is now the students union at the QIT, which will be called the Queensland University of Technology Student Guild. This was the provision about which the member for Toowong waxed lyrical in one of his anti-union tirades. One would think that, before renaming a union, a responsible Government would consult the people concerned. I accept that discussions have taken place with the relevant people on most of the provisions in the Bill. However, discussions were not held with the union on this matter. When I first saw the Bill, I contacted members of the union and asked, "Were you consulted about the name change?" They said, "No." They forwarded to me a copy of the minutes of their meeting of 9 November 1988, which state— "The Renaming of the Union Members were advised that a name change from QIT Union to QIT Student Guild was included in the provision of the QUT Bill. The President sought members' advice on their preferred name for the Union. A majority of members expressed support for retaining the name Union. It was agreed, however, that given the political climate, this name was unlikely to be accepted. All members present agreed that the name Guild was not appropriate." The Government made no attempt to consult with the students' union about its preferences. Because of its attitude towards unionism, as some sort of sop perhaps to the Liberal Party and particularly to the member for Toowong and his fanatical anti­ union mates, the Government decided that it would change the word "union" to "guild". The students' union's first preference is "union", and I support what the students want. Therefore, with great delight, I move the following amendment— "At page 7, line 20, omit— 'Guild' and substitute— 'Union'." Mr LITTLEPROUD: I will not accept the honourable member's amendrnent. In my reply to the second-reading debate, I said that many people take great exception to being pushed into unionism. The word "union" has a great stigma attached to it because of the actions of members on the other side of the Chamber. Therefore I do not accept the amendment. Amendment negatived. Clause 12, as read, agreed to. Clause 13— Mr BEANLAND (10.16 p.m.): Mr Temporary Chairman The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Booth): Order! Before the honourable mem­ ber for Toowong begins his speech, I point out that it will be impossible to debate anything in detail unless there is less noise in the Chamber. If honourable members want a reasonable debate, the noise level should be lowered. Mr BEANLAND: Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. I presume that we are debating clause 13. It is impossible to hear from where I sit. I move the following amendments— "At page 7, line 37, after 'Guild' add— 'However, it shall not be compulsory for any student to pay fees to, or be a Member of the Guild or any other body and no benefit right or privilege shall be denied to or withheld from any student by the University by reason of his not being a member of the Guild.'"; 3020 22 November 1988 Queensland University of Technology Bill

"At page 8, line 1, after 'be' delete— 'the' and substitute— 'a'." My amendment to clause 13 (4) is complementary to my amendment to clause 13(1). I have moved those amendments for the reasons that I outlined earlier in this Chamber. I could not help but take note of the red herrings that the Minister tried to create in his speech. He seemed to confuse opposition to student unionism with opposition to compulsory unionism. As I have said on many occasions, I am not opposed to student unions on university campuses. The Minister has seen fit to refer to unions as guilds, but they are just student unions under another guise. The Liberal Party's amendment prohibits compulsory student unionism and removes the compulsion of student unionism. That is what it is all about; it gives people freedom of choice. Although I realise that the Labor Party will not support freedom of choice, I would have thought that the National Party would have supported freedom of choice in this instance. This is an occasion on which we will see who supports the freedom of choice that the Liberal Party's amendment will give to students. I have already outlined the various reasons for the Liberal Party's amendment and I do not intend to canvass them again. I say to the Minister that there is no way that non-compulsory unionism can be confused with anti-student-unionism. Our amendment will still allow the university to set up an organisation or group to charge the additional fees for both sporting and other activities that the university may wish to undertake. For example, it may wish to undertake catering activities on the university campus, for which all students would be charged a fee. This amendment will certainly do away with the compulsion on students to join student unions, guilds or whatever they might be called. Ms WARNER: The Liberal Party is just belting an ideological dmm for the sake of belting it. There is very little practicality in what the Liberal Party is saying. Mr Gately: What sort of a tune are they playing? Ms WARNER: The tune is fairly discordant. As honourable members would probably be aware, the Liberal Party has been playing that tune all night and it is getting fairly tedious. Although the National Party is not known for its support of unionism in any form, at least it has the wit on this occasion to understand that unless students are involved in the delivery of services on student campuses, enormous difficulties will be created, because an incredibly onerous task will be placed upon the administration of universities, which will create a great deal of time-wasting and probably result in the mismanagement of funds. The fact of life is that unless students are involved in the development and delivery of those services to students, the services become out of touch and are more wasteful. In terms of ordinary, practical common sense, it is absolutely essential that all students who attend universities make an equal contribution to the upkeep of those services; and, in the case of student unions, that means effectively compulsory unionism. My party and I believe that the idea that some people can get away with not being part of a union and yet benefit from the collective efforts of other people is immoral. That is what is being suggested by the Liberals in this amendment. Mr Hamill: The Liberals believe in non-compulsory tax payments as well. Ms WARNER: I imagine that that would be very much up their street. The Liberals have really exposed their real intentions, namely, to create a society for ideological purposes and not for any practical purposes of worth or value. On this occasion the Labor Party will be supporting the Government's position and hopes that Queensland University of Technology Bill 22 November 1988 3021 the Govemment maintains that position with some gusto and not in any half-hearted fashion. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I am amazed at the high moral ground that the Labor Party is taking. It says that consultation is needed and that students should be involved. I wish that the ALP would take that very same stance when it comes to involving wheat- farmers, the lAC inquiry and the sugar industry. The honourable member for South Brisbane is locked on the south side of the river. So much for the high moral ground of the ALP! In my second-reading speech I pointed out to honourable members that when subordinate legislation is being proposed and drawn up for this legislation we will act on assurances that were given by the QUT council that there will be a clause allowing students to opt out of union membership if they so desire, in the same way as students at the University of Queensland can do. The Govemment does not support the amendment. Question—That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted—put; and the Committee divided— AYES, 9 NOES, 72 Beard Alison McCauley Innes Ardill McElligott Knox Austin McKechnie Lee Berghofer Mackenroth Lickiss Borbidge McLean Schuntner Braddy McPhie White Burns Menzel Burreket Milliner Campbell Muntz Casey Neal Chapman Nelson Comben Newton Cooper Palaszczuk D'Arcy Perrett Davis Prest De Lacy Randell Eaton Row Elliott Scott Fraser Sherrin Gamin Simpson Gately Slack Gibbs, I. J. Smith Gibbs, R. J. Smyth Gilmore Stoneman Glasson Tenni Goss Underwood Hamill Vaughan Harper Veivers Harvey Warburton Hayward Warner Henderson Wells Hinton Yewdale Hobbs Hynd Katter Tellers: Lester Tellers: Sherlock Lingard FitzGerald Beanland Littleproud Stephan Resolved in the negative. Clause 13, as read, agreed to. Clauses 14 to 18, as read, agreed to. Clause 19— Mr SCHUNTNER (10.32 p.m.): I wish to ask the Minister why this clause has been included in the Bill. I am not aware of similar provisions in Acts applying to other 3022 22 November 1988 Queensland University of Technology Bill universities. I believe that this provision is a significant discrimination against this new university. The clause states, in effect, that if a group such as the academic staff or convocation, has a member on the council and that person serves two consecutive terms, at the conclusion of the second consecutive term, unless the Minister approves otherwise, that person will no longer be a member of the council. I put it to the Minister that in other tertiary institutions, such as the University of Queensland, a person could be a member of the council as a nominee of convocation and might have held mernbership for several consecutive terms. Why should that not be possible for this university? Mr LITTLEPROUD: I inform the honourable member that this clause was included with the concurrence of the QIT council. The idea is that the council will be progressive in its interpretation and that it will continually take into its membership people who are up to date. I point out to the honourable member also that the Bill contains a provision to enable members to serve on the council, but not in the same capacity as they previously served. It was with the concurrence of the QIT council that this provision was included. Clause 19, as read, agreed to. Clauses 20 to 43, as read, agreed to. Clause 44— Mr SCHUNTNER (10.34 p.m.): When I spoke during the debate at the second- reading stage, I said that the Bill seemed to be repetitious in a number of respects. I believe that this clause is an example of that repetition. Clause 44 (2) (d) contains a series of references to the powers, authority and duties of convocation, which are covered also in clause 34. Clause 35 refers to meetings of convocation and is located a mere three or four lines underneath clause 34. Quomms of convocation are covered in clauses 35 and 40, and clause 39 also refers to committees of convocation. I ask whether there is any specific reason for references to convocation that occur in clauses 34 to 40, which are then repeated in clause 44 (2) (d). Mr LITTLEPROUD: Clauses 34 and 35 refer to convocation. Clause 44 refers to statutes of the convocation. I inform the honourable member that the clause refers to statutes and not to the convocation itself Mr SCHUNTNER: I now wish to point out a problem that exists in clause 44 (3) (c) on page 18. I ask the Minister whether the clause means what I think it is meant to convey, or whether it means what the words state. Clause 44 (3) (c) is related to a relatively minor matter conceming motor vehicles. The way in which this clause is worded conveys the impression that it provides for the removal or disposal of the vehicles that are parked illegally or apparently abandoned on a site. Would it not be the intention of the legislation to provide for the removal of vehicles that are parked improperly and to dispose of the vehicles that have apparently been abandoned on a site? The way that the provision is expressed in the Bill seems to make it lawful for any vehicle that is parked illegally to be disposed of Have I illustrated the point well enough, or do I need to explain it further? Mr LITTLEPROUD: I understand that similar clauses also appear in the statutes of the University of Queensland in this form and that those provisions have been applied without any problems. I understand what the honourable member is alluding to, but I point out that the provision seems to be causing no trouble at the University of Queensland or at the QIT, which also appears to be quite happy with its operation. Clause 44, as read, agreed to. Clause 45, as read, agreed to. Queensland University of Technology Bill 22 November 1988 3023

Clause 46— Mr SCHUNTNER (10.38 p.m.): This provision aflowing for the formation of and participation in companies is extremely wide. At the top of page 20 of the Bill the clause states that the objects or purposes can include one or more of the objects or purposes that are listed from (a) to (g). Subclause (g) is wide open and states— "any other object or purpose not inconsistent with this Act which the Council considers to be appropriate in the circumstances." That provides an enormous width of possibilities in terms of the activity under that clause and I ask: is that the intention of the clause? Mr LITTLEPROUD: That is exactly the intent. The Government wants to make it as broad as possible and not impose any constraints upon them. Clause 46, as read, agreed to. Clause 47, as read, agreed to. Clause 48— Mr SCHUNTNER (10.39 p.m.): Clause 48 (c) is quite unworkable. If it were not a waste of time to write out amendments in this place, I would have written out an amendment to this clause that could have been debated at some length. However, that is a waste of time. Clause 38 states— "(a) formed by the University pursuant to section 46; (b) managed by the University; or (c) of which the University becomes a member, shall furnish the Council with such reports, returns and information . . .". If the company established by the university becomes a member of Mount Isa Mines by holding 1 000 shares in Mount Isa Mines, this legislation suggests that Mount Isa Mines would be required to provide such reports, retums and information relative to the company's affairs as are from time to time required by the council. That is an extraordinary and unworkable situation. I suggest to the Minister that clause 48 (c) be omitted as soon as possible because it is a piece of nonsense. Mr LITTLEPROUD: The advice that I have been given is that if the university is part of a company, then the university council wants to know what is going on. If the company established by the university buys some shares, that does not mean that it is part and parcel of the company that it has bought the shares in. I do not understand the concerns voiced by the honourable member. Clause 48, as read, agreed to. Clause 49, as read, agreed to. Clause 50— Mr SCHUNTNER (10.41 p.m.): In the other pieces of legislation that refer to universities, the annual report of those universities is provided to the Govemor in Council. Under this piece of legislation the report is to be provided to the Minister. It might be a relatively fine technical point, but I ask: why is it different? Mr LITTLEPROUD: I understand that the honourable member is saying that the other annual reports go to the Governor in Council and this one goes to the Minister. I do not believe that there is much difference, because if the report comes to the Minister it will then go to the Govemor in Council. Clause 50, as read, agreed to. Clause 51, as read, agreed to. 3024 22 November 1988 Queensland University of Technology Bill

Clause 52— Mr SCHUNTNER (10.42 p.m.): The Labor Party might be interested in this clause because there could be the problem of a clash with Federal legislation. The first part of clause 52 is quite satisfactory, but the second part, if put to the test, would run into conflict with Federal legislation concerning positive discrimination in certain areas. Whether one supports or does not support positive discrimination on the basis of sex or whatever it might be, the fact remains that this area is covered by Federal legislation. If anyone attempts to use the second part of clause 52 and it were challenged because of its conflict with Federal legislation, I maintain that the Federal legislation would prevail. Therefore this part of the clause is not sensible. Mr LITTLEPROUD: This is a standard clause that is contained in other legislation to cover similar situations and the Government is quite happy with it. Clause 52, as read, agreed to. Clauses 53 to 79, as read, agreed to. Clause 80— Mr SCHUNTNER (10.44 p.m.): This clause, which refers to casual vacancies on the council, contains quite a serious problem. In most organisations, if a casual vacancy occurs, it is the prerogative of the group that originally supplied the member to the board to fill the vacancy that has occurred. Clause 80 does not provide for that to happen; in fact, it gives the Minister the power to appoint the person to that vacant position. That is wrong. I oppose it. Mr LITTLEPROUD: The clause deals with the first council, which will consist of the group of people who now form the council of the QIT. When the Bill is proclaimed, they will form the first council, which wiU be in power for four or five months until such time as the first council of the university is put in place. So this provision caters for only that short span in time, that is, the transition period. The Government is quite happy with the clause. Clause 80, as read, agreed to. Clause 81, as read, agreed to. Clause 82— Mr SCHUNTNER (10.46 p.m.): This clause deals with the credit for the subjects done by a student of the institute of technology who becomes a student of the Queensland University of Technology. However, it does not cover what might appear to be a minor point but would in fact be an extremely important point for any student so affected. For instance, I am advised that, if a student of the institute of technology has previously been given credit by the institute for subjects undertaken at the Capricornia Institute of Advanced Education, the Darling Downs Institute of Advanced Education or some other tertiary institution and now moves to the Queensland University of Technology, tech­ nically the clause may be deficient and may not allow credit to be provided to him for the subjects previously undertaken at another institution. I am quite sure that that is not the intention of the legislation, but I would welcome some comment of reassurance for anybody caught in that position. Clause 82, as read, agreed to. Clauses 83 to 88, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Littleproud, by leave, read a third time. Primary Producers' Co-operative Associations Act Amendment Bill 22 November 1988 3025

PRIMARY PRODUCERS' CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS ACT AMENDMENT BILL Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn—Minister for Primary Industries) (10.48 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— "That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to amend the Primary Producers' Co­ operative Associations Act 1923-1986 in certain particulars." Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill presented and, on motion of Mr Harper, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. N. J. HARPER (Auburn—Minister for Primary Industries) (10.49 p.m.): I move— "That the Bill be now read a second time." I present to the House an amending Bill which will facilitate rationalisation of the dairy and other primary industries by enabling one or more Queensland and interstate primary producer co-operatives to form a federation registered in this State. Such a federation would have the capacity, if it so chose, to receive, process, package, distribute and market primary produce in Australia and overseas and to otherwise facilitate continued growth in the primary sector. On my instmctions, the principal Act is being extensively reviewed. No comprehensive review has been undertaken since the Act was first promulgated in 1923. A Green Paper on the operations of the Primary Producers' Co-operative Associations Act is being prepared and I expect to be in a position to distribute copies widely early in 1989. This is in addition to the Green Paper on the consolidation of legislation relating to the dairy industry generally, which I released last month and on which I have invited responses by the end of December. However, the amendments which are the subject of this Bill are required without delay to facilitate an importaiit commercial initiative involving a federation of co-operatives across State borders. This Government prides itself on the expansion of commercial development within Queensland resulting from its initiatives which seek to ensure continued growth in the private sector. The removal of barriers, as proposed in this Bill, is an important stage in that process. At the present time a major Queensland dairy co-operative association, Queensco, is of the opinion that a clear need exists for it to come together commercially with a New South Wales co-operative in order to enhance its trading interests. The Bill ensures that there are appropriate controls in place to ensure that such rationalisation of interests occurs only in concert with Queensland associations, and only with the approval of the Minister. In particular, this Bill will enable primary producer co-operative associations in other State or Territories to federate with Queensland co-operatives for the mutual benefit of their members. As such federations would be registered in Queensland, the continued membership of a Queensland primary producers' co-operative association will be required. Other co-operatives may apply to join a federation at a later stage but their acceptance will depend on the agreement of all existing member co-operatives. During the further review of the Act, consideration will be given to providing a means for co-operatives across State boundaries to amalgamate with Queensland co­ operatives. The review will also assess the areas where relevant provisions of the Companies Act can be adopted directly to legislation regulating primary producer co­ operative associations. However, those measures are complex and will proceed only after extensive consultation with the people associated with the primary producer co-operative movement. 3026 22 November 1988 Lang Park Trust Act Amendment Bill

In the mean time, it is important that viable commercial initiatives are facilitated and encouraged. The Bill will enable such initiatives to take place to the commercial advantage of producer members of participating co-operative associations. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Casey, adjoumed.

LANG PARK TRUST ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 27 October (see p. 2120). Mr EATON (Mourilyan) (10.53 p.m.): In his second-reading speech, the Minister said— "This is a short Bill that is designed to restmcture the provisions of the Lang Park Tmst Act 1862-1986." The Minister mentioned the word "restmcture". Does he intend to restmcture the provisions or Lang Park? Or is it merely a take-over of the Lang Park Tmst so that at a future date the Government can put pressure on it to do the Govemment's will? The Govemment has not said what will happen down the track, and that is of concem to many people in Queensland. Over the years, the Lang Park Tmst has developed the Lang Park ground on its own. It has brought it from practically nothing up to an international sporting field at which intemational Rugby League contests are held. The Lang Park Tmst has spent millions of dollars developing Lang Park without any Govemment aid. Yet the Gov­ ernment now wants to step in and restmcture the provisions. The Opposition is concerned that the Govemment may be trying to restmcture the tmst so that it can exert pressure on it to do the will of the Government. In his second-reading speech, the Minister went on to say— "The present tmst consists of five tmstees, being a representative of the Govemment, one from the Brisbane City Council, two from the Queensland Rugby Football League and one from the Queensland Rugby Football League (Brisbane Division). At the moment these are all nominated by the respective bodies they represent." Apparently that is the cardinal sin. For some reason, the Government has gone overboard in not wanting organisations or associations to select and nominate their own represen­ tatives. By this legislation, the Govemment will be able to exert pressure on the organisations who will be nominating representatives on the Lang Park Trust. It is humiliating to the people who have made a success of the Lang Park ground. Lang Park has risen from a cow paddock to an intemational sporting venue. The ground can be used for intemational contests in Rugby League, as well as other intemational sporting events. Yet the Government wants to move in and control the tmst. The Opposition is concemed at the manner in which the Govemment has gone about it. In the past, organisations have nominated a person who they feel is qualified to adequately and competently represent them. However, the Govemment does not tmst the organisations to nominate a suitable representative. It makes them nominate three persons. The Bill provides that, if the Governor in Council or the Minister does not like the three representatives, he can call for another three names. Those organisations will be humiliated by that procedure. In the past, the organisations have been represented on the Lang Park Trust by dedicated people. The Government had its own representative on the tmst. He was a competent man with a legal background who had proved himself over the years. He could report back to the Govemment if any shady deals were occurring. However, the Govemment intends to take one representative from the Queensland Rugby Football Lang Park Trust Act Amendment Bill 22 November 1988 3027

League. The tmst will now consist of six tmstees: one representative from each of the four organisations involved, and two Govemment representatives. In 20 years, the council has been represented by only three people: Mr Slaughter, a well-known name in local govemment; Mr Philbrick; and at present it is Mr Neil McPherson. The Lang Park Tmst has spent millions of dollars to provide a facility for the State. However, the Govemment wants to move in and control the tmst. In his second-reading speech, the Minister further stated— "It is the Government's intention that all groups competing at Lang Park be able to have an input into the administration of the tmst." Lang Park has been Rugby League headquarters for years. Initially, that was the aim of the tmst. Now that Lang Park has been developed into an intemational arena, the Government intends to bring in more groups. How will that affect seasonal sport? Will the sporting organisations that presently use Lang Park be intermpted? WiU the sponsors of the sporting groups be affected? Some businesses have contributed a great deal of money by way of sponsorship. The Queensland Ruby Football League and the Lang Park Tmst have granted a franchise to a prominent business organisation to market its product through advertising. Will the Bill override any of the agreements that have been made by the present Lang Park Tmst regarding franchises or trade agreements to sell certain products on the ground? Will those agreements be declared invalid? Will they have to be renegotiated? I would like the Minister to cover that area in his reply. Sport has become big business. In order to attain high-quality profile athletes, income through sponsorship is important. In fact, today in Queensland, as well as in other States, many large sporting organisations are going broke because they have overcom- mitted themselves. They have a lot of temperamental high-class international sporting stars who are egotistical and who let their success go to their heads. They have reached their aim in life, which is to represent their country. There is nowhere else for them to go. They have lost that incentive to keep improving.

Many of these stars become has-beens. They suffer some injuries, so they sign a big contract with a sporting club in which the poor local fellow tries to work his way up by playing his heart out. The high-priced egotistical stars, however, are loafing on the club as well as on their team-mates. That is something that I think has been handled fairly well in Queensland by the Lang Park Tmst. It has been involved mainly in Rugby League. However, other sporting events are now being held at Lang Park. Over the years, the facilities and the grounds have been built up from nothing. The tmst must not bring in too many other sports. I am not saying that there are not other sports that could not utilise that ground to the advantage of all, that is, the spectators and the sporting organisations involved. However, additional sports have to be planned. As I have mentioned, sport is seasonal. The football starts at a certain time. However, there are football codes other than Rugby League. On special occasions—say, for a mid-week fixture—soccer or some other sporting organisation could use that ground. I know it has been done in other places. On a Rugby League field in north Queensland the lines were redrawn for a big soccer game. The Rugby League goal posts were dug out and soccer goal posts were put in. All the Rugby League followers went along. It was a great boost to sport in general. It was a chance for the Rugby League followers to see the soccer stars. I do not doubt that a mid-week game could be organised at Lang Park. There could be two big crowds there in the one week for two different sports. I think that that great sporting facility could be used more often for the larger attractions, but

Mr Davis: You have to be a bit careful. They tried to put the moto-cross there once.

Mr EATON: Yes, care must be exercised. 3028 22 November 1988 Lang Park Trust Act Amendment Bill

Athletic events could be held at Lang Park. Overseas stars who are visiting Queensland could use that ground. I am sure that the tmst would appreciate any increase in income that it could get by holding these meetings. Mr Davis: They got rorted out of the greyhounds years ago, too. Mr EATON: Yes, that is right. If the cricket goes bung over at the Gabba, I am sure that it could easily be transferred to Lang Park. It is something that I think this Govemment will have to consider. My concem is that it is humiliating to the present members of the trust to have their names submitted on a list, Hke cattle itemised in a sale. That is what it aniounts to. The Minister will have the choice of recommending to the Governor in Council Mr Warburton: It is absolutely disgusting. Mr EATON: I think it is. It is humiUating to those men. It has not been easy to improve the Lang Park ground to its present condition. Many sacrifices have been made, many tears have been shed and there was a lot of heartbreak in getting that ground to the stage at which it is today. I do not want to see that ground taken out of the hands of those people who have brought it from nothing in the early days to today's international sports ground. Mr Gately: Would you like to tell us about how they ran the Sydney Cricket Ground? It was a similar sort of thing. Mr EATON: Yes, but the Opposition is concerned because it can see loopholes. The Opposition cannot see why the Government had to take away one Queensland Rugby League representative. The QRL could have been given two representatives, which it had in the past. As I have said, Queensland Rugby League has been the main user of the ground. It has spent millions and millions of dollars over the years to build up the facility that is there today. I repeat that it was not an easy thing to do. There was a lot of worry, a great deal of heartbreak and many sacrifices made not only by the officials but also by the supporters who were trying to help to build up this facility to its present standard. That is a matter of concern. The Government is going to put selection of trust members in the hands of one man. If the Minister does not want to recommend any names to the Governor in Council, he can knock them all back. If another three names are not nominated, the Minister then has the right to make his own appointment. That is why the Opposition is concerned. The Government says that it makes these laws to protect people, but I think that sometimes they protect the Government as well as the people. It is a double- edged sword. I urge the Government to be careful in the future. The Opposition would like to move some amendments, but I believe that the Government will not accept any amendments. Members of the Opposition are concerned, and they will be speaking to the clauses and dividing at the Committee stage. Mr BURNS (Lytton—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.05 p.m.): As the honourable member for Mourilyan said, this legislation is a Lang Park Tmst take-over Bill. It gives the Minister the right to appoint each and every member of the tmst. He has the right to select from the three names that are put forward by the QRL, the BRL and other bodies. It really will be a one-man-band. It is tme, as the honourable member for Brisbane Central said by way of interjection, that the Govemment has done little for Rugby League over the years. When Gordon Chalk was a member of this Parliament, all sorts of promises were made about greyhound- racing going to Lang Park. When the Lang Park Tmst proposed that there be high-rise Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill 22 November 1988 3029

office buildings on one section of the ground or even a shopping centre on another, there was opposition, and the Govemment took all sorts of legislative steps to stop development. Over a period, Rugby League has become very much a poor relation of many of the other sports in this State. That is because the National Party has had no sympathy for it, and, as far as I can see and as far as people involved in Rugby League can see, it has not supported it. When I was a lad I lived around Milton. I can remember the days when Bill Power was the Minister for Justice and the old cemetery was closed down and became the foundation for the area that is now Lang Park. It is tme, as the honourable member for Mourilyan said, that a lot of effort, time and money has been poured into Lang Park over the years, not only by the tmst but also by people who support Rugby League. People involved in all of the league clubs in this town have put their money, effort and time into providing a home ground for Rugby League. The people involved in Rugby League wanted their own home ground. I remember going to the tests at the Exhibition ground. We used to have to hawk Rugby League round the place to find somewhere to play intemational games. Finally, we got our own home ground at Lang Park. It was mn by a tmst, which ran it very successfully. When the Broncos came on the scene, they started to fight with the QRL over advertising rights. I can understand the QRL's point of view. I do not have an axe to grind with the Broncos. As far as I could ascertain, the QRL had arrangements, and advertising deals were signed, sealed and delivered. Somehow or other, the Broncos decided that they should be able to advertise Power's brew as against Fourex, which had made arrangements with the tmst. Deals of that type are done day in and day out by football teams, by football clubs and by football organisations throughout the nation. If some other organisations come along afterwards and they miss out on the deal because they are too late—bad luck! I suggest to the people organising the soccer at Perry Park, the Rugby Union at Ballymore and the Aussie Rules at Carrara that if the Queensland National Party Govemment decides tomorrow that it should intervene in the mnning of the grounds of those clubs, it will do as it has done with Rugby League—it will just interfere in their sport. This is political interference in the mnning of a sporting organisation. The Minister said that the number of members of the tmst will be increased from five to six and that the present representation of two by the Queensland Rugby Football League will be reduced to one. The Minister said— "The present Government representative is no longer to be defined as such. This position and the new additional position will be fiUed by the Govemor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister. It is the Government's intention that all groups competing at Lang Park be able to have an input into the administration of the tmst." The Minister referred to "all groups". I take it that that does not mean football clubs. I take it that the Broncos are not being put on the tmst. If all groups have an input into the administration of the tmst, perhaps the Sydney Rugby League wiU be entitled to representation on the tmst. The Sydney Rugby League competition is a group that competes at Lang Park and plays there fairly regularly. The Minister for Finance tells me that what he means by one of the appointments there is that it will be a players' representative. It will be interesting to see how the Government picks a players' representative or who will put forward the three recommendations for the players' representative. Mr Warburton: It says a representative from "the users". Mr BURNS: As the honourable member said, it says that there will be a repre­ sentative from the users. 3030 22 November 1988 Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill

Tonight Mr Austin told me that it was to be a players' representative. The suggestion in Rugby League circles is that it will be a Broncos representative—one particular club. I make the point that if the Govemment is to select one club, there are many good Queensland clubs and a lot of good Queensland Rugby League centres in Rockhampton, Townsville, Caims and other places that are entitled to have a say and to have an input into the administration of the tmst. People from those areas represent Rugby League in this State more so than the Broncos or any other club. The QRL has made a inistake. I think that it was forced into the Sydney Rugby League competition. My experience in Wynnum, where I come from, is that that has been a disastrous decision as far as local club football is concemed. It has taken away most of the major sponsorship money from the local clubs. If a person picks up the Courier-Mail during the football season, he will find that the back page of the Courier-Mail features a Bronco or a Sydney match every day. It publishes reports about Balmain or Canterbury; it is not about Wynnum, Ipswich, Norths, Souths or Brothers—it is about the Sydney competition. If a person turns on his TV at night, the football story is all about the Sydney competition. The local competition has been sadly neglected and poorly supported by the local people. I do not know what can be done about that. The decision has been made. I am worried about the future of the game in the area in which I live. Mr Gunn: All the clubs are the same. Mr BURNS: As the Minister said, all the clubs are the same. I raise briefly the situation in my own club at Wynnum and the problems that it has experienced. It is an important example to cite. I think that one of Wynnum's problems was that it started to win a few premierships. One of its other problems was that it decided to buy some players and started to pay very big money for them. In the days when I followed Wynnum, which was for a very long period, when we lost games and were not winning premierships, we were getting home games. We were doing fairly well out of the gate and the bar takings. However, when Wynnum started to win games and the players were sent in to town to play at Lang Park, the club found that there was not much money in that. In fact, at one stage I was told that the club was receiving about $1,000 for playing in town, whereas it used to make about $7,000 on the gate and bar at the home ground. The more games that Wynnum won and the more games that it played at the big ground in town, the less money Wynnum ended up with in its pocket. Of course, anybody connected with football would know that winning bonuses are paid. The more a club wins, the more it costs the club to keep playing in the game, espcially if it has some stars. In August 1985 our club president "Yogi" Brewer announced to everyone who had been supporting the club for years that the club was in financial trouble and that it owed a substantial amount of money. In December 1985, following a change in management of the club, David Green, who has been Wynnum's hooker for years, took over as the president. Early in 1986 the QRL decided to take over the club and to appoint a steering committee to mn the club because it was in debt. The club owed $700,000 at that time. So Wynnum then had a steering committee from the QRL mnning the club. By the end of 1987, the club owed $lm. The club has gone a further $300,000 into debt. By the beginning of this year the club owed $1.2m. The club is half a million dollars more in debt now than it was when the steering committee—the experts—took over the club to show the members how to mn the club and how to get it out of trouble. It was really helpful that the club has those "experts" to help it. Mr Davis: You should have been to see Russ. Mr BURNS: It is a pity that we did not see Russ. During that time when the debts were escalating by half a million dollars, the QRL suggested to the club that it ought to offer money to keep our stars in Queensland. In those days the club decided to assist when there was a move by New South Wales to Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill 22 November 1988 3031 steal some of the top players. I am told the QRL said to Wynnum that it would guarantee the payments for those players. Now that the club is in debt and is in the hands of the receivers, it is told that the QRL will pay after all the club's assets are sold. Only at that stage will the QRL come in and help us out. During that time when the QRL was in control of the club under the steering committee, we went into a deal with a bloke at Victoria Point whom we were told was going to help us make our club pay. I do not know whether these figures are correct, but a figure of $360,000 a year in rent was mentioned, and the club was supposed to make half a million dollars a year in profit. The proposal was for a three-year lease with an option to buy a sporting complex down there. The club was eventually placed in the hands of a receiver. The club owes money to the National Bank, the QRL and Hauser from Victoria Point. On at least two occasions Hauser has threatened to sell up the club and set the dates for the auction. However, on both occasions he has backed away. I think that on the last occasion they backed away, it was because Alderman Don Randall from our area has done a very good job of involving the Brisbane City Council in an arrangement to try to purchase the ground. Mr Gunn: Poor old rate-payers. Mr BURNS: I do not say, "Poor old rate-payers." It is a good idea for the city council to own those grounds and lease them back to the sporting clubs. When Clem Jones was the Mayor of Brisbane he implemented that type of scheme. There was a big escalation in the number of football grounds and cricket grounds throughout the metropolitan area that were owned by the council and are now the subject of a lease-back arrangement. At the time when the Wynnum club was taken over by the QRL, that ground was worth about $700,000, which was approximately the amount that the club was in debt for at that time. In reality, because a football club is in the game of playing football and not building up great cash reserves and freehold assets, it is not in the best interests of a football club to have so much money invested in a freehold property. The Wynnum old boys' club was able to raise $100,000. It borrowed $80,000 and contributed $20,000 of its own funds, which went to the receiver. However, the bill does not seem to have come down. The club is still in debt. The old boys have almost paid off that $80,000 in a very short time. Mr Warburton: It wasn't a non-repayable loan, was it? Mr BURNS: No, it was not a non-repayable loan. For the past 18 months the leagues club has been paying $7,000 per month into the receiver's hands. However, it stiU owes approximately $1.2m. I am a member of an organisation called Seagulls Must Survive. Other members include Con Sciacca, the Federal member, Don Randall, who is the local alderman. Ken Churchill, who is the president of the club, and Jim Ewer. The supporters of the football club have decided that an attempt should be made to save the club. We were worried that, when the auction came up, someone might auction off the football club and it would end up like the Brisbane Broncos, namely, privately owned and not a community club. The Seagulls Must Survive organisation approached the BRL, which said that if the club can pay its players, remain competitive and have a home ground, it would be only too pleased to have the club compete next year. A lot of problems that exist at Wynnum are not problems of the club's making. The QRL and some of the people who have been managing football in this State have made some decisions that will have fairly disastrous effects on the clubs around the State. For example, the Ipswich club is having problems. The Brothers club, with a couple of million dollars' debt, is being sold up. A number of other clubs have said to us, "Look, we are in grave financial trouble." 3032 22 November 1988 Lang Park Trust Act Amendment Bill

Rugby League owns the Lang Park ground, which represents a big investment. The football community is concemed, because the Government seems to be moving in to take over that ground, and the impression is that that is being done because of the Broncos' fight with the tmst. Some assurances are needed as to the Government's intention in that regard. I can understand the reason for getting rid of Sir Edward Lyons. I would never have had him on the tmst in the first place. I can understand also the reason for introducing the 70-year-old retirement mle. However, some explanation is needed as to which user groups are competing at Lang Park and why we must continue to put up three-man panels. With due respect to Mr Glasson, that means that the Minister will have the final say in who will be the representatives on the tmst. In other words, whatever the Minister wants, he shall have. That will mean that those people who are dependent upon him for their appointment will be directly influenced by Govemment decisions, which will be conveyed to them through the Minister. As to the Rugby League community—it is important that all of those people who are involved in the community are made aware of the Govemment's intention. Most of the people in the Rugby League community are very concemed about this move. They see it as a move to help one particular club to the disadvantage of large numbers of clubs and long-term supporters. If people want clubs to be controlled by free enterprise, and if football is going to go that way, so be it. That is a decision that the people who mn football will have to live with. The Opposition is concemed that a club that is involved in the Sydney Rugby League can have so much influence—or the potential to have a lot of influence—in this game. The fight that the Broncos had with the QRL and the tmst basically concerned a set of contracts that the tmst had entered into on the basis of its advertising. There does not seem to be anything wrong with the tmst's actions. I notice that on the Govemment side of the Chamber is the man who is paid by the Australian Rules organisation to broadcast Rugby League. Those people say that as long as he is broadcasting, Carrara has a chance of surviving. They pay him by letting him sell those old pies at Carrara. Mr FitzGerald: He's not selling them any more. He hasn't got the contract. Mr BURNS: I am told that he is not selling those pies any more. Mr Veivers: I'd better go back to my seat, because I'm not copping that. Mr BURNS: The honourable member had better hurry up, because I am sitting down. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong) (11.20 p.m.): Tonight honourable members must address their thoughts to what is good for Rugby League, which is really what this debate is all about. Early in the life of the Country/Liberal Party Government, I understand that a decision was made to make Lang Park the headquarters of Rugby League. Tonight we are considering changing and rearranging the composition of the tmst, which, in the long term, will have a very significant effect on the interests of Rugby League in this State. While some of those effects might be good, some of them will be bad and harmful to the long-term interests of the game. It is clear that this change has been brought about by the altercation between the Brisbane Broncos and the Lang Park Trust over advertising and other similar contracts. Although that might be so, there are other ways of cracking a nut than with a sledge-hammer. Tonight the Government is stepping in and using very heavy-handed methods in order to achieve a certain desired result—to allow the Brisbane Broncos to participate under terms that the Government believes are fair and equitable. The Brisbane Broncos have had a reasonably successful season and have helped once again to put Rugby League on the map both in Brisbane and in Queensland. Rugby League has certainly had its ups and downs, which were outlined by a previous speaker Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill 22 November 1988 3033

who mentioned various suburban clubs. The new competition in which the Broncos are participating has attracted people back to the game. The national league competitions will lead to greater success. It is fair to acknowledge that the Lang Park Tmst has experienced some problems. At the risk of reiterating some of the points that have been raised by previous speakers, I tmst that the Minister will provide honourable members with some answers about the rearrangement, who the user bodies will be and how he is going to select people from the user bodies to go on to the tmst. At the same time the Minister is considering a panel of three people being nominated from each group. At present the groups concemed nominate the individuals who will be on the tmst. This legislation represents a considerable change in that procedure and it certainly gives the Government increased powers. I am rather surprised that, in his second-reading speech, the Minister did not tell us the reason why that is being done. I trust that he will cover these points in his reply. Currently afl tmstees are nominated by the representative bodies. The Bill makes it clear that if the Minister is unhappy with the first three nominees, various representative bodies will be called on to nominate another panel of three, and so on. That certainly increases the power of the Govemment, particularly that of the Minister, and diminishes the power of the various representatives bodies. One of the groups whose role is considerably diminished is the Queensland Rugby Football League. Under this legislation, it will have its number of representatives diminished from two to one. At the moment the five tmstees comprise two representatives from Queensland Rugby Football League; one from the QRFL (Brisbane Division); one from the Govemment and one from the Brisbane City Council. From that composition it is clear that Rugby League has a majority of three out of five. However, under the new arrangement, it could very well be that the Government will clearly have the majority and the Rugby League groups, whether they represent the Rugby League itself, the BRL or even the Broncos, could easily be in the minority. Some clarification on these points needs to be given by the Minister. This legislation will certainly have a significant effect on the long-term use of Lang Park, the way in which the tmst is administered and the way in which Rugby League is administered. No doubt the Govemment sees the changes as a means of overcoming some of the problems. In April this year the annual report for 1986 was tabled, and at the same time—or at virtually the same time—the annual report for 1987 was also tabled. I could not help noticing that the 1986 annual report stated that the sponsorship received in advance from Castlemaine Perkins Ltd was $ 180,000. That raises a problem about how the Minister will overturn that particular contract and any other similar long-term contracts that the Lang Park Tmst may have entered into, especially if the Government's purpose in the significant alterations contained in this legislation is to overtum some of the advertising and contractual arrangements that the Lang Park Tmst has and with which the Broncos are certainly unhappy. By making some of these alterations to the legislation, the Government wiU not overturn the advertising contracts and other long-term contracts that the trust might have. I would be pleased to hear from the Minister how it is proposed to overturn them in order to allow the Broncos a greater role in the playing of Rugby League at Lang Park. As I said at the outset, tonight is all about Rugby League. Unless these amendments are to be in the long-term interests of Rugby League, then clearly it is not in the interests of the Government and all members that they be passed, because to do so could set Rugby League back. At the moment, because of financial problems, various suburban clubs have been set back. This legislation could set back Rugby League headquarters considerably also. I tmst that the Minister may be able to answer the various points that I have raised because they are very important.

81407—102 3034 22 November 1988 Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill

Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate) (11.27 p.m.): I participate in this debate mainly because I have a long background in Rugby League. I love the game. I do not want to see it messed up by amateurs, particlarly amateurs in the National Party. I want to confine my comments specifically to this Bill. I point out to the Minister that I mean every word I say. I am absolutely disgusted by this legislation. It is a clear case of political intmsion into the greatest game of all, an intmsion that I regard as despicable and something that, quite frankly, I find very, very difficult to understand. I cannot comprehend why the Minister and this Govemment would take the steps that they are taking. The best thing that I can recommend to the Minister, who sits opposite me, is that he pack up, forget that this happened, admit that it is all a mistake and let the Rugby League in this State mn its own affairs, because that is what it wants to do. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we are debating such a regressive piece of legislation. I really cannot understand it. The Bill under consideration is the result, can I say, of Rugby League politics National Party style. This legislation would never have seen the light of day if the heavy commercialism of the Broncos and the conflict that it caused with other sections of Rugby League in our State had not occurred. For some strange, unbelievable reason the Queensland National Party somehow beheved that it could capitalise on this issue. It has failed to understand the ramifications of what it is doing. It is putting offside every dedicated person who stands up for Rugby League in Queensland. It is not doing Rugby League a favour; it is not doing itself a favour; it is in fact doing exactly the opposite. The National Party Government has made it quite clear from the start that it wants to be seen, obviously for political reasons, to be supportive of the Brisbane Broncos. It wanted to help in solving what it described as perceived problems in the tmst's administration and relationship with the users. The concern about statements to that effect prompted both the Lang Park Tmst and the league to write to the Premier, Mr Ahem, outlining their views. The tmst and the league asked the Premier for a discussion to be held. They wrote a letter expressing their desire to discuss with the Premier concems about what was being said. They offered to make the files available to the Premier for examination, but that man did not even have the courtesy to acknowledge the letters that had been forwarded by the league and the tmst. That was the position at the end of October 1988, which was a date well after the date on which the letters were forwarded. I believe that that is still the position. The tmst and the league justifiably claim that the Govemment's statements are very unclear. The suggestion that there has been a problem with administration of the tmst is absolute nonsense. I do not know who has been peddling this propaganda, but I do know that it is nonsense to suggest that administration of the tmst had been deficient or that there was something wrong. The only problem that the tmst ever had in respect of its relationship with the users of Lang Park has been with the Brisbane Broncos. The Broncos' management claimed at one stage that it had been unfairly treated. I have no doubt that its dissatisfaction stems from the league's refusal, due to contractual arrangements, to allow intmsion by the Broncos' sponsor, namely. Power's brewery. I beUeve that a number of speakers have mentioned this matter tonight, particularly the shadow Minister for Lands, Mr Eaton. Honourable members would have read about this matter in the newspapers. Mr Davis: They knew fully when they contracted that Mr WARBURTON: I am about to clarify that position so that everybody under­ stands it. The fact is that, despite Rugby League politics that ensued as a result of that tussle, it was known that a legally binding agreement was involved. That knowledge is certainly more widespread now than it ever was before. However, the Lang Park Tmst and the Queensland Rugby League had arranged sponsorship with Fourex which took effect from early 1986. The deal was completed in 1985—long before the Broncos had the sponsorship arrangement with Power's brewery. Clearly, the almighty dollar has, unfortunately, effectively distorted the views of some people who have seemed to have Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill 22 November 1988 3035

forgotten that, for the sake of Rugby League itself, the game must come first. That is the position that I adopt tonight. The tmst's decision affecting the Broncos has been totally and unequivocally backed by the league and its divisions, which is a fact that this Government does not seem to understand. The tmst has been given the full support of Rugby League right throughout the State. A number of points that have been put to me need to be carefully considered. Firstly, the tmst, the league and the Rugby League Club, which is a separate entity, have injected millions of dollars into the Lang Park complex in the interests of Rugby League players and patrons. Secondly, the State Govemment—that is, the Govemment to which the Minister belongs—has not contributed one single cent towards the complex, but now is being seen to want to take over control of the league's assets that have been developed at the expense of the local league and the clubs over a period of many years. Thirdly, the Government claims that Lang Park has not been developed to an intemational standard. This is a furphy that has been bandied around. If that is the case, why has this Govemment not done something about it? Why has not the Government injected at least a few cents into Lang Park in a manner similar to the action taken by the New South Wales Govemment in respect of New South Wales' principal Rugby League ground? Other matters that need to be considered are that the tmst has written agreements— which is the point made by Mr Davis—for advertising in the grounds and for the sale of certain products within Lang Park—agreements that were in existence well before the Brisbane Broncos' team was formed. That is the important point. In addition, the Brisbane Broncos' directors were aware of those agreements. If they were not previously, they were made aware later. At one particular time, the suggestion was made that they were not aware of what was going on. I emphasise the fact that they were made aware, finally, of the agreements before they signed up with their major sponsor. Another point I wish to make is that surely the Brisbane Broncos cannot expect the tmst to break legally binding agreements simply to enable it to satisfy either the needs of the Brisbane Broncos or the needs of their major sponsor. I do not think that any honourable member would suggest that the Lang Park Tmst should set about breaching agreements that it has made in the interests of any other person who might wish to pursue certain objectives. Incidentally, the league right throughout this State is totally supportive of the tmst in that regard. I would add here and now that, indeed, it should be supportive. The fact is that, despite this Govemment's intervention into league affairs, the proposed new tmst would be bound by those legal agreements. That is a point that I doubt this Govemment understands. Mr Glasson: Don't be silly; of course we understand. It is a legally binding agreement. Mr WARBURTON: Then why change it? Why is this Government intervening? Because the Minister has interjected, I ask why this Govemment has intervened in the way it has. I will go further and show the stupidity of what this Govemment is doing at present. Apart from the matters of signs being displayed in the grounds, product sales and the question of charity collections—matters in which the policy of the tmst is in line with the policies of all major stadiums in Australia—all the various requests and demands made by the Brisbane Broncos have been met by the tmst. I want to put to rest once and for all the suggestion that has been circulating that antagonism exists between the Broncos and the tmst. Although some problems may have been caused initially, it would be absolutely untme for anybody to suggest that a need exists at this stage to pull the trust into line so that the Broncos can get going in the State of Queensland. That is an absolute lie. It is absolute nonsense. Another matter for serious consideration is the fact that the Brisbane Broncos— and this should be thought out by people who might be supportive of this proposition— are a Brisbane-based club playing in the Sydney competition that is controlled by the New South Wales Rugby League under a conditional licence issued by the QRL. That 3036 22 November 1988 Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill is the tme position of the Brisbane Broncos. Despite the aura that might surround the Broncos, there has been a heavy cost to club football. Anyone in Brisbane who is interested in club football would know that I am telling the tmth. The Broncos' management does not mn and control Rugby League in this State, and the sooner a lot of people understand that, the better it will be for Rugby League in Queensland. If the real position as far as the Broncos is concemed can be accepted, why should what amounts to a Sydney Rugby League club be entitled to have representatives on a tmst that controls and finances, with assistance, the Rugby League complex at Lang Park which has been established as the headquarters of Rugby League in Queensland? At this point it is interesting to note that the Australian Rugby League, which represents all of the Rugby League authorities, contributed something like $120,000 last year, whereas the Brisbane Broncos' contribution for 1987 was $104,000. Personally, I have no real objection to a representative from the Broncos being a member of the tmst. That is not the point at all. The management of the Broncos has shown some entrepreneurial skills and that would probably ensure that the management is kept abreast of tmst and Rugby League activities in this State. I make it clear that I have no real objection to the Broncos having representation. There can be no doubt that this proposed legislation is an absolute slight on Queensland Rugby League. When one examines the method proposed for the setting up of the new tmst—and this point was brought out by the shadow Minister for Land Management, Mr Eaton—one finds that the legislation has the potential to give the National Party Govemment complete control over the Lang Park complex. The Minister might say that that is a load of hog-wash, but the fact is that the legislation says exactly that. Why this Govemment would move in this direction is something for the imagination. If this Bill is passed through the House it will ensure that the National Party Govemment puts offside—and this is why I cannot tmly understand what is happening in this House tonight—all of those dedicated persons, such as the Rugby League bodies and clubs throughout the State, who have contributed financially towards the Lang Park complex. For the life of me, I cannot understand why any Govemment or any political party would want to do that. Mr McElligott: It does not make any sense at all. Mr WARBURTON: Absolutely. Firstly, the QRL and its Brisbane division should at least retain the right to nominate their representatives on the tmst. That point was also raised by the honourable member for Mourilyan, Mr Eaton. It is an absolute disgrace and an insult—and I am directing my remarks to the Minister—to expect the Rugby League bodies to submit to the procedures outlined in this Bill. Secondly, in my opinion the chairman of the Lang Park Tmst should be elected chairman of the Queensland Rugby Football League, but inherent in this Bill is a provision that could mean that that will not occur. Again the Government is denigrating the functions of the QRL as it presently stands. Thirdly, it is essential that the Lang Park Tmst continue to be controlled by the Queensland Rugby Football League, as has always been the case. They are the three points that I raise this evening in support of the Opposition shadow Minister, Mr Eaton. As I indicated initially, the political intmsion into the sport of Rugby League is to be despised. I cannot understand why the Minister who is sitting opposite me in this House tonight would introduce a Bill of this kind. There is no need for this legislation. The best thing he could do is pack up and admit that he has made a mistake. He is not doing the great game of Rugby League any service and is putting every person who is dedicated and tmly interested in the game in this State—except those who might see the dollar signs revolving in their eyes—completely offside. Irrespective of the lateness of the hour, the Opposition will have much more to say during the Committee stage of this Bill. Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill 22 November 1988 3037

Mr CASEY (Mackay) (11.43 p.m.): Most of the points that I wish to raise have already been well canvassed by the Opposition spokesman, Mr Eaton and other members of the Opposition, including the honourable member for Sandgate. In Queensland when one thinks of Lang Park, one thinks of Rugby League. This is natural for Queenslanders because Lang Park is the home of Rugby League in Queensland. Prior to the commencement in the early 1980s of the State of Origin matches, the best gates at Lang Park—apart from grand final day—were when country teams played in Brisbane terminating in a Country versus City game and a Queensland versus The Rest game. The ground would be packed and the money from the gates helped towards building the facilities at Lang Park in the early days. That must not be forgotten because those crowds were the people who set Lang Park on its way. The Broncos have been mentioned here this evening. I am a great supporter of the Broncos. I am one of those from the bush who stuck his neck out earlier this year to try to get a better deal from the ABC and others so that we could see more Broncos matches on television. Basically, country kids wanted to see their stars. Even though Queensland players were in New South Wales teams, they wanted to see the Queensland players. As well as being a great supporter of the Broncos, I am a great supporter of Rugby League. Like so many others in this Chamber, I am a former player. As has been pointed out, this Bill gives special consideration to a New South Wales Rugby League team, which is what the Broncos are. By removing one QRL member from the tmst the Government is giving New South Wales Rugby League the same say in the tmst of Lang Park, the home of Rugby League in Queensland, as has the Queensland Rugby League. I lay down a challenge to the Minister. I will bet every quid I have against his cash-drawings—perhaps I should not say that at this stage—that the Minister will not be game to stand in front of a State of Origin crowd at Lang Park and tell them that he is giving the same say in the mnning and operation of Lang Park to the New South Wales Rugby League—to the Blues—as he is giving to the Maroons. The crowd would tar and feather him; they would throw him out of the grounds, and he knows that. That is really what this Bill comes down to. The Government is giving New South Wales Rugby League the same say in the mnning of Lang Park—our home of Rugby League—as has the Queensland Rugby League. Mr Glasson: That is pure poppycock. Mr CASEY: That is not, and the Minister knows it. Queensland Rugby League will have one representative and New South Wales Rugby League will have a repre­ sentative on exactly the same basis. I am speaking about Queensland Rugby League, the representative of Rugby League for the whole of Queensland, including thie Minister's home town of Longreach and everywhere else where that great sport is played throughout the State. That is really what has happened. I am not a great supporter of the QRL and the way in which it has administered things over a period of years. I add that in some respects the QRL has contributed to the demise of country football through the way in which it introduced and promotes the State League. I hark back to my own playing days in the early 1950s, when contemporaries of mine in north Queensland, Jimmy Patterson, Kel O'Shea, Alan Gill Mr De Lacy: You were a half-back. Mr CASEY: No, I was a little bit big to be a half-back. Another was the late Graham Laird. Those friends and contemporaries of mine in the north were able to make not just a Queensland side but an Australian side from playing football in north Queensland. Mr John Eaton, a brother of the Opposition's spokesman, was able to make a Queensland side from playing in the north. Many other great players made their start in country areas. At that stage they could make Queensland and Australian sides from the bush. That cannot be done now. At this stage a player from country areas cannot even make a Queensland Rugby League team. Because of 3038 22 November 1988 Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill the way in which the QRL has restmctured itself, country players are not in the hunt. So I have no great sympathy for the QRL, which needs to get its act together. Mr De Lacy interjected. Mr CASEY: Mackay had an intemational referee, but he has now retired, too. Country football is declining. It is declining in Townsville, Mackay, the Minister's home town and everywhere else. Perhaps it is declining even more in the western and far-northem areas of the State. I can well recall that the area represented at one stage by the Opposition spokesman, that is, the tablelands, had five or six towns all supplying teams to compete in the Foley Shield competition in north Queensland. Now those teams are just members of the Caims or Innisfail Rugby Leagues. Those towns are even flat out getting teams for those competitions. There has been a distinct and definite decline and there will be a further decline because, through the State League, the QRL is taking all the young stars of the future and stacking them up in reserve grade, under-21 teams and different other grades here in Brisbane. The QRL is dangling the carrot of a great future in football and signing these kids up at a young age. The kids think that they have to come down here in order to make the big teams. In fact now with the advent of the Broncos—this is one of the other real problems—the young kids are being signed straight through to the New South Wales Rugby League. This year, a couple of very young lads in Mackay formed the basis of a team from St Patricks College, my old school in Mackay, which won the Confraternity Shield for the Brothers clubs throughout Queensland. The team also tied for what was the Foots Cup—there is a different name for it now—in Queensland Rugby League. Those two players have already been signed up to go straight to Sydney clubs virtually from school. Those players believe that that is the way things have to happen. The Broncos are out chasing some of the kids who played in those finals down here. They are stripping them out of the country areas. Not all of them can make the big sides and, unfortunately for them, many of them do not. What is happening is that country areas are being denuded of up and coming young players and, consequently, the standard of intercity football in the country areas of Queensland is declining. That is why it is becoming more difficult for the various zone teams in the State League to remain competitive. Again I hark back to my time when a north Queensland side went on tour and dished it out to any other side in Queensland. I remember that one team in the early 1950s defeated Brisbane, Toowoomba and Ipswich, such was the standard of country football. But the standard has declined considerably and will continue to decline under the QRL set-up. Mr Davis: Would you say the game is a lot faster now? Mr CASEY: Yes, the game has got a lot faster. I would be the first to admit that I would be flat out keeping up with the players now. Nonetheless, the game will get faster in the city and slower in the country, because the country is being denuded of its stars. That is one of the objections I have to the way in which the QRL has acted. However, that does not excuse the Government for the way in which it has denied country teams the opportunity to improve. The QRL was the only body through which they had any say in the mnning of the headquarters of Rugby League in this State. The QRL is the headquarters of Queensland Rugby League, not of the Brisbane clubs or anything else. That is the important point to the Opposition. If the Minister does as I suggest and gets out in front of the crowd in a State of Origin match and escapes unscathed, I will walk down the middle of the Queen Street Mall and perform the old drop. Mr ARDILL (Salisbury) (11.52 p.m.): I support the Opposition spokesman. Bill Eaton, and the member for Sandgate, Nev Warburton, in opposing the Bill. I cannot Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill 22 November 1988 3039 understand why it has been brought in in this form. It is the Newstead House Tmst legislation revisited, with the State Govemment taking over the function of a tmst that is operating to the benefit of the people whom it is intended to serve. The State Govemment is taking over a facility that does not belong to it. At Lang Park, without concem, the State Govemment is taking over a very important part of the community life of Brisbane. A major part of Brisbane is coming under the control of people who are not experts in the area and who will not serve the needs of the game—the greatest game of all, as some people say. Not only will the Minister be getting the followers of Rugby League offside, but also he will be getting offside the people of Downey Park and Perry Park, who could also suffer the same fate as the QRL is suffering under this legislation. Bill Eaton mentioned that Rugby League is a big business. It certainly is. Integrity and ability are needed to carry out the management of a big business. At one stage, the QRL proposed shops on the site of Lang Park, which I opposed for good town-planning reasons. To be able to deal with developers, people must have management ability and integrity. Some developers are anything but ethical. When I came into a position of influence in the Brisbane City Council, I remember being told that one developer would negotiate with the committee; however, if he was knocked back, he would ask for a private conference. I was wamed not to fall into that trap. I thought that it was a matter of the council people having a bias against developers in general. However, lo and behold, certain southern developers came in and had long negotiations with the com­ mittee. They said that they had the ear of the State Minister and the Premier and they thought that we should be able to assist them. When they did not get what they wanted, immediately at the end of the discussion, they said, "We would just like a private word with you." At the time, I said, "Anything that you have to say to me can be said in front of the Town Clerk and in front of Mr Borrows, who is the manager of town- planning." When the people on the Lang Park Tmst come to develop Lang Park fiirther, that is one of the problems that they will face. I believe that the same developer has been mentioned in the Fitzgerald inquiry. In the particular case in point, if Mr Hinze got $100,000 from him, he did not get his money's worth. Despite what was said in the Fitzgerald inquiry, the developer did not receive the relaxations that he hoped to get from Mr Hinze. During that negotiation, I was involved in the council. Because the developer did not obtain the facilities he wanted, I am still abused. I might mention that the same developer conned many poor, silly shop-keepers into going into a development that was never viable. However, I return to the prime subject, that is, the Govemment take-over of Lang Park. It does not make any sense. There is no reason why the Minister should require the QRL or the BRL to provide a panel of three people. If those bodies are not capable of deciding who should represent them and if the Brisbane City Council is not capable of deciding who should represent it, nor is the Minister or any other Minister who might follow him. I fear that prospect more than that of the present Minister. The only area in which I agree with the Bill is in the age-limit. I totally agree that an upper age-limit should be placed on people representing the Lang Park Tmst. The people on the tmst should be flexible and up to date. It is necessary that an age-limit be placed on the representatives. Mr Lee: What age? Mr ARDILL: The age of 70 years is quite satisfactory. That is laid down in the Bill. Other than that, there is no need for the Bill. The Minister would be well advised to have another look at it. After all, half of the Bills on this business paper will not be dealt with in this session. Why has the Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill been brought on for debate at this particular time? Why is it being pushed through when it contains such unrealistic 3040 22 November 1988 Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill and unsatisfactory provisions as the one for a reduction in the representation of the QRL? That body is primarily responsible for the development of Lang Park and conducting Rugby League and for the benefits that have accmed from the Lang Park Tmst over the years. Why should the QRL have its representation reduced? If the Government wants to change the representation to put in a representative of people who use the grounds, let it do so, but it should not reduce the representation of the QRL. If necessary, the Government can reduce the standard appointees of the Minister. It is certainly the job of the Minister to provide a Government representative on the trust, the same as on any other tmst. However, it is totally unnecessary, unrealistic and without any common sense whatsoever to reduce the representation of the major Rugby League body in Queensland and at the same time require that it supply a list of three names for the Minister to choose from. How in all conscience is the Minister going to be better able to choose who should represent the major Rugby League body if the members of that body cannot do the job themselves? As I have said, the Opposition totally opposes this Bill. The Minister would be well advised to reintroduce the legislation at a later stage in a more realistic form which would be acceptable and would not bring odium on this Government and everybody involved with it. Mr WHITE (Redcliffe) (12.01 a.m.): Members of the Liberal Party regret very much that this situation has been brought about because they cannot see themselves being in agreement with what the Government proposes in this legislation. I suppose the first point the Liberal Party wants to make relates to the intmsion by Government into the affairs of a sporting organisation. After all, Rugby League has been supported by the clubs of this State over the years. They have done an incredible job in building up such a marvellous sport. At this late hour I will not repeat the points that have already been made. The fact of the matter is that Lang Park would not be there were it not for the clubs who have built up that facility over the years. To my knowledge, the Govemment has not put one dollar into that facility, yet it proposes a change in this legislation which basically results in a Government take-over. I think that the most odious aspect—and I am sorry to have to say this—is that the Bill shows no respect for the constituent organisations, in particular the QRL and the Brisbane City Council. The Minister is basically saying to them that the Government does not tmst them to nominate a person with enough responsibility to play a significant role in the decision-making of the tmst. That is the bottom line. I think that is an indictment of the thinking of this Government. Unfortunately it is another example of arrogance, of overriding the traditional rights of people in this State. It is a philosophy that honourable members see enshrined in so many boards and so much legislation that emanates from the Government benches. It is an insult to those people who have worked hard over many years to build up this sport. For many of us who have played a role in Rugby League and other sport over the years, it is a terrible shame to see that the rights, interests and hard work of those people is not recognised to a very large degree by the Government today. Mr Lee: Which team do you sponsor? Mr WHITE: In reply to the member for Yeronga's interjection—one of my family companies is the happy sponsor of the Redcliffe Dolphins. Mr Sherrin: How are they going under your sponsorship? Mr WHITE: They are a very successful club. As a matter of fact, for the benefit of the member for Mansfield, that pip-squeak who always sings out across the Chamber, the Redcliffe Rugby League team won the club competition Mr SHERRIN: I rise to a point of order. I find those remarks offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill 22 November 1988 3041

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Burreket): Order! The honourable member asks that the remarks made by the member for Redcliffe be withdrawn. Mr WHITE: Because of the sensitivity of the member for Mansfield, I am happy to withdraw those remarks. However, he is constantly interjecting in an inane fashion. Mr Casey: He's pretty thin-skinned, too. Mr WHITE: He does not have a great sense of humour, if I can put it that way. I point out, for the benefit of the member for Mansfield, that the Redcliffe Rugby League Club won the club competition this year. It won the reserve grade and the C grade, and has been a significant Rugby League club for a long time. Mr Lee: They could not have done it without your help. Mr WHITE: I am very happy to play a role in assisting the club. Mr Davis: Just refresh my memory: when was the last time they won a premiership? Mr WHITE: It was in 1965 when Artie Beetson and Henry HoUoway Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Would the honourable member confine his remarks to the Bill? Mr WHITE: The fact is that, like so many other clubs, the Redcliffe Rugby League Club has been going through a very difficult period. There is no doubt that the advent of the Broncos has changed the whole face of Rugby League. I congratulate the Broncos for the job that they have done. I think that they are doing a fantastic job in marketing Rugby League. I am sure that over a period that will be good for all clubs. I think it will accelerate interest in Rugby League. The Broncos have certainly captured the imagination of young people today, and I think that they will do a lot to develop the sport. It is a shame that there has been this difficulty with the advent of the Broncos. I really believe that there has been a gross overreaction to the difficulties that have existed between the Broncos and the tmst. There certainly was room for change. However, to have change of this magnitude and to deny the constituent organisations that have traditionally made up the tmst the right to nominate their own people is an example of what one might call arrogance on the part of the Government. I do not like saying that, because I would have hoped that sport such as Rugby League could be non-partisan; but that is a fact of life. All of the major Rugby League clubs to which I have spoken are totally opposed to the legislation. As all honourable members know, the QRL has enunciated its views. Mr Casey referred to the country leagues, with which I have had no contact. However, it is a shame that those people have been overlooked. Over the years, the Govemment has made a long-term commitment to sport in this State. In fairness, I point out that over the years the Government has endeavoured to assist sport, particularly with its State headquarters. One might say that the legislation is simply an example of welshing on a deal and on an understanding that the clubs have had for a long time. I conclude by saying that, as has been said earlier, the Broncos have done a marvellous job. It is a shame that the Govemment did not play a role in bringing the Broncos management of Barry Maranta and his people together to resolve the dispute. The legislation is an overkill; it is a tragedy; and is another example of Governments getting involved in organisations in which there really should not be a role for Govemment. Mr DAVIS (Brisbane Central) (12.09 a.m.): As the local member for the area in which the Lang Park grounds are situated, I think it is only fair that I make some comments on the Bill. Most of the Opposition's main comments were made by its spokesman, Mr Eaton. Mr Warburton also gave a very fine recitation of the problems with the Bill. 3042 22 November 1988 Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill

If the Govemment is going to amend an Act, there must be reasons for it to do so. The Minister has not put forward any reasons why the Act should be amended. As has been pointed out earlier, the Queensland Govemment has not contributed one single cent to the tmst. Therefore, I do not really know why it would want to change the legislation. I think that the insertion of the age provision in the Bill, which requires that a person must retire at a certain age, was obviously to get rid of the great confidant of the Govemment in the past Mr Hamill: "Top-level". Mr DAVIS: "Top-level" Ted—Sir Edward Lyons. In one swoop, the Govemment has got rid of him. I am sure that the Minister is uncomfortable with the Bill. As has been pointed out very capably by the member for Mackay, the Govemment will get rid of one of the QRL representatives and appoint somebody from the Broncos. I noticed that when Mr Casey mentioned that, the Minister shook his head and said, "Oh, no, it will not be a member of the Broncos team." But I reckon that it will be well and tmly a representative from that team. It is a fact of life that the representative will be from the Broncos. Whether people like it or not, the Broncos are playing in the Sydney Rugby League competition. It is heresy if a person does not support the Brisbane Broncos. One gets sick to the teeth of hearing the panderings of the press to the Broncos. Day after day we hear the squabble between the QRL and the Broncos on what will happen with the selling of grog on the Lang Park grounds. That is basically what it boils down to. It is not only a question of the Fourex participation; the big thing is the selling of the grog on the grounds. If the other company gets a toe-hold on the sale of liquor, it receives the very big participation not only of the Broncos game but also of the State of Origin match, which is the biggest sporting event in Queensland. I have not always been au fait with the QRL. Even under the leadership of the late Ron McAuliffe, with whom I clashed on certain issues now and then, I can recall that I had a lot to say about the Lang Park Trust staging a moto-cross competition. The following day I received about 5 000 complaints. As honourable members know, Lang Park is located in a valley. Because of the dreadful noise caused by the motor bikes during the moto-cross, many complaints were received. When I complained, I had a fairly strong argument with the late Ron McAuliffe, who used some concessions against me for complaining. The Minister should be able to say, "The legislation is being introduced for a number of reasons. The change is being made because the Lang Park Tmst or the code would benefit from it." The Opposition has no objection to that. However, the Minister has not said that. If he said, "We are going to put a couple of hundred thousand dollars into the Lang Park Tmst and modemise it so that it is the best stadium in the State," the Opposition would say, "You are showing us something you can do." Over the years, Lang Park has received no help. I recall the remarks made earlier by Tom Bums when he referred to the granting of a licence when greyhound meetings were held at the Gabba. Brisbane has an undemtilised Lang Park, an under­ utilised Gabba, and a white elephant at the Exhibition grounds, which are used for about three weeks of the year. This is occurring in the same city as the one that made a bid to stage the Olympic Games. I agree entirely with what Mr Eaton, Mr Warburton and Mr Casey have said. The Bill is vindictive legislation. I am sure that the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of time, was uncomfortable in introducing it. I cannot see the legislation benefiting the QRL. I think that the Bill is designed purely and simply to assist some people who are supporting the Broncos.

Hon. W. H. GLASSON (Gregory—Minister for Land Management) (12.15 a.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The member for Mourilyan, Mr Eaton, stated that the action of the Govemment amounted to a take-over. I wish to make it perfectly clear that the Govemment does not intend to take over Lang Park as the headquarters of Rugby League in the State of Queensland. Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill 22 November 1988 3043

The death of Ron McAuliffe gave this Govemment an opportunity to take certain measures to endeavour to bring greater harmony to the game of Rugby League in this State and to limit the age of members on the tmst. Those were two positive steps. Despite the sentiments that were expressed by the member for Brisbane Central, no man did more for the game of Rugby League in Queensland than did the late Ron McAuliffe, who was Mr Rugby League in Queensland. The intention of this Government is to create greater harmony in the game of Rugby League in Queensland. No-one in this Chamber or outside the Chamber could say that disharmony was created by the conflict between the tmst and the Broncos. That is not the intent of this legislation. If honourable members care to read the Bill, they will discover that the tmst has not been interfered with in any way except that its membership has been increased from five to six. The Brisbane City Council will put forward three nominations of which one will be chosen. As with other codes, those nominees will be put forward in order of preference. I had an opportunity to speak with the president of the Queensland Rugby Football League, the chairman of the tmst and the secretary of the tmst, and I gave them an unqualified assurance that it would not be my intention to submit to the Govemor in Council the name of anybody who was not acceptable as a representative of the code. It is not always the case that the person who is appointed is totally accepted by the code. Mr Warburton: You want to vet them, don't you? Mr GLASSON: I understand that some people might be concerned that this is a devious move by the Government to take over Lang Park as the headquarters of Rugby League. I agree that it is not desirable to politicise any sport. That is not this Government's intention. We intend to bring greater harmony into football, which has been called the greatest game of all. As to contracts and the questions that were posed by no fewer than three speakers, including the Opposition spokesman and the member for Sandgate—I would not have believed that anyone would question the contracts that are in place. Those contracts of the tmst are legally binding and will not change. It is ludicrous to suggest that the new stmcture of the tmst will alter those contracts. Mr Eaton: Will Power Brewing, vrith a representative on the tmst, be able to put up Power Brewing signs around the Fourex sign? Mr GLASSON: If a contract is written with Fourex for $180,000, obviously one of the conditions of the contract would be that Fourex would be the sole advertiser. Until such time as that contract is terminated or expires, there is no way that that contract can be interfered with. I thought that the honourable member had been in business long enough to know that such contracts would be legally binding. I do not intend to elaborate further on that issue. I am quite aware that the honourable member for Redcliffe and the Dolphins club are opponents of the Bill. Mr Hunter told me that he would be lobbying every club in the State of Queensland, which he did. That is his due right and I do not deny him that right. I assure honourable members that if the person who is put forward in order of priority is a tme representative of the code and will do the best for the code, he will be supported and recommended to the Govemor in Council. This Government is not trying to destroy the game of football; it is trying to improve it. Motion agreed to. Committee Hon. W. H. Glasson (Gregory—Minister for Land Management) in charge of the Bill- Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. 3044 22 November 1988 Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill

Clause 4— Mr EATON (12.21 a.m.): As I said previously, this is a humiliating experience for a publicly recognised, competent and responsible administrative body. I felt that the Minister was contradictory in his reply to the propositions that were put forward. He took his hat off to the late Ron McAuliffe, and I agree with the sentiments he expressed. But now that Ron McAuliffe is gone, does the Minister feel that the members of the trust are not just as competent? Over the years, because they have worked with and under former Senator McAuliffe, a bit of the dust has blown off and they have become competent and experienced people. The humiliating part of this Bill relates to the submission of three names. They will have to be submitted in order of preference. The system existing under former Senator McAuliffe has proved itself The Minister has admitted that. During a period of 20 years, following a vacancy the council nominated only one name for the tmst, and in all that period it had only three different representatives on the tmst. The Brisbane Rugby League and the Queensland Rugby League had two representatives on the tmst. They did not have to submit three names. Two names were submitted and two were accepted. As I said, that arrangement proved to be very satisfactory. The representatives on the tmst have come through the days of selling tickets in chook raffles, stubby raffles and all those sorts of things. It has not been an easy job. It has been done the hard way. Without the provision of one cent from the Government, they have built up an asset that is worth millions of dollars. I ask the Minister: who instigated this Bill? Was it a request from the present tmst, the Broncos or the Queensland State of Origin team? The Minister's second-reading reply made me wonder whether it was on his own initiative; perhaps it was. The Opposition strongly opposes this principle, not because it is contained in this Bill but because, if a body is reputable, reponsible and has the ability to be a member of an organisation, it should be qualified to nominate a representative, and that representative should be acceptable. One only has to look at what happened when a Government representative was on a so-called responsible organisation. The organisation made it tough for the Government representative so that he did not attend meetings, thereby allowing the other members to manipulate its functions and do what they liked. I refer to the Peanut Marketing Board in Kingaroy. The other members did not want a Government representative. They made things hard for him so that he would not attend meetings, as a result of which they made controversial and detrimental decisions that just about broke the organisation. That is why the Opposition is concemed. It does not want that sort of thing to happen. Mr Glasson: Come back to football; don't worry about peanut-growers. Mr EATON: I am coming back to the football now. I am using that as an example. From speaking to the tmstees and the members of the Brisbane Rugby League, I am aware that the Government representative on the tmst has been used to advantage. The tmstees are appreciative of his work because on many occasions they have sought and accepted his advice. They hope that he stays there. They do not want to see a change. I hope that the present Government representative is reappointed to the tmst. Other members of the tmst have told me that they want him there. He is a very capable and qualified man. Mr Tenni: Do you support Richardson and the World Heritage listing up there? Mr EATON: I do not support the Worid Heritage listing. The Minister has got his interjection in. He wants to change the subject. That is the Opposition's concern. It is not happy at all with clause 4. Because of the problems that it is causing, we in the Opposition would like to see it deleted. We Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill 22 November 1988 3045 agree with the other clauses of this Bill. I am sure that the members of the Queensland Rugby League, the Brisbane Rugby League and whatever other user organisation is represented on the tmst, would all agree with every clause in this Bill with the exception of that relating to the nomination of three people. That is an interference with the rights of the organisation and the individual. Mr Warburton will address some remarks in relation to the secretary. We in the Opposition feel very strongly about this matter and we intend to divide the Committee on clause 4. It should be deleted. The cmx of the Opposition's argument against this legislation is the provision in clause 4 which forces people to be humiliated by having to submit three names. In his reply the Minister mentioned that they should be submitted in order of preference. The organisation submitting the names will have to say that it likes Mr so-and-so first, Mr so-and-so second and Mr so-and-so third. However, it could work the other way. If an organisation submits the names in order of preference and the Government chooses No. 3 on the list, that will be an insult to No. 1 and No. 2. Before submitting the names the organisation would have had a meeting and, because of the Govemment's request, it would have submitted the names in order of preference— one, two and three. If the Govemment decided to recommend No. 3 to the Govemor in Council, the organisation would think that it was a bad judge or that something was wrong somewhere. The organisation may not have seen it in the same light as the Govemment did. The Bill provides that nominations be made in order of preference. The Opposition is disappointed with that aspect. It would like the clause to be deleted. Mr WARBURTON: In his second-reading reply the Minister was most unconvincing in his argument and his support for what I regard as absolutely disgusting changes to the existing Act, namely, those set out in clause 4. The Minister is pretending, if I can put it that way, that no significant change is being made; that the Government is not involved in any sinister move to usurp the functions of the QRL; and that it is not involved in any move that has the capacity to ensure that it will have power over the Lang Park Tmst. That is a lot of mbbish. Of course it is. One only has to look at the make-up of the proposed tmst. From a first reading of clause 4, one could easily misinterpret what the position is. The Minister and this Government are reducing by one the representation of the QRL, the principal Rugby League body in this State. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong. This provision also states that the Government will nominate two people. This is a simple exercise in mathematics. I can assure the Minister that members of the Opposition can add up. The position is that if the Minister wants to pursue a certain outcome—and this is the point that I made originally—this provision has the potential to ensure that, in the wrong hands, Rugby League in this State will be subject to intervention by this particular Govemment. I hasten to add that I am not pointing particularly at the Minister in making those remarks. I wish to refer to what the Minister said in his second-reading speech, which reads— "The Brisbane City Council, the Queensland Rugby Football League and the Queensland Rugby Football League (Brisbane Division) will be requested to nominate a panel of three persons. In the event that no person on a panel is acceptable to the Minister"— I ask all members to take particular note of that part of the speech— "he may request a further panel of names to be supplied." The Minister took a further step in his second-reading speech and went on to state— "Where they are still unacceptable, he may then nominate a person who, in his opinion"— believe it or not— "represents that body. Such a person will be deemed to be a nomination of the relevant body. 3046 22 November 1988 Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill

As there is no formal organisation of users, the Ministers will nominate this tmstee from a person who, in his opinion, represents the users of the playing facilities." I can only reiterate what I said previously; the provisions of this clause are an absolute insult to an organisation such as the Queensland Rugby League that has guided Rugby League in this State of Queensland for many years. To suggest that the Queensland Rugby League has not sufficient integrity—and that is what the Minister is saying, whether he wants to believe it or not—or capacity to nominate its own tmst members, without going through what amounts to a degrading procedure, can only be described as despicable nonsense. The whole matter smells of political interference; at least, that is how it appears to members of the Opposition. I have put this to the Minister because this is the way that the QRL and its associated bodies view this situation. The whole thing has cast a slur on people that this Govemment has no right—I emphasise "no right"—to cast a slur upon. Mr DAVIS: I wish to follow up the points made by the member for Sandgate and state the reasons why members of the Opposition do not tmst this Govemment. To do so, I will provide the Committee with an example. The Minister stated in his second- reading speech that one representative would be chosen from a panel of three persons and that the Brisbane City Council had to nominate candidates for that panel. When that is all boiled down, it means that the Brisbane City Council has to put forward three names. Mr Tenni: You have already told us that. Mr DAVIS: That is okay. I have to speak very slowly to get the message through the honourable member's thick skull. Basically, this provision boils down to the fact that a body such as the Brisbane City Council has to send in three names so that the Minister can pick one of them. Other speakers have already mentioned the BRL and the QRL. I will give the Committee another example of why honourable members do not tmst this Government. When a Labor Brisbane City Council was in office, it nominated people to act as representatives on the hospitals board. The Minister at that time simply forgot about what the Brisbane City Council wanted, and selected a person of his own political ilk. That is why the Opposition does not tmst this Govemment. The simple fact of life is that if the Minister, Mr Glasson, were honest, he would say that representatives of the Broncos have this Govemment in their pockets. That is what they have been saying all around town. Mr Warburton: Are you referring to Barry Maranta? Mr DAVIS: I am referring to representatives of the Broncos, but I am not mentioning names. I simply state that the mmours have been circulating for weeks. It has been claimed that all that the Broncos have to do to settle this matter is go and see a member of this Govemment. That would be typical of what has taken place over the last three or four years. It is typical also of what has been revealed by the Fitzgerald inquiry. This legislation is simply another classic example of the way in which this Govemment works. Mr ARDILL: Members of the Opposition certainly oppose subclause (3) of clause 4. However, the most objectionable part of the clause is contained in subclauses (4), (5), (6) and (7) because in them the Minister requires a panel nominating three people. I do not know whether the Minister has had very much to do with sporting bodies but I point out that bodies such as the QRL comprise a large number of constituent parts and they have quite a deal of trouble in selecting representatives to become members of a committee. Mr McPhie: Why? Mr ARDILL: The reason is that the constituent parts have conflicting interests. Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill 22 November 1988 3047

The Minister is suggesting that not only will the QRL have to select the right representative to suit the Minister, but it will also have to select people who are not regarded as the best possible candidates to become representatives of the QRL. Not only has the Minister reduced representation from two members to one member and increased representation of the Govemment from one member to two members, but also the QRL will have to nominate three people for one position. The greater the number of people who represent a constituent body such as the BRL or the QRL, the better will be the chance of having aU of the opinions expressed within that body represented on the tmst. When strong people such as the late Ron McAuliffe, Bill Waddell and Ruby Robinson represent these bodies, the problem of reduced representation is not so extreme; however, when people who stand head and shoulders above all others are not available, the Govemment will put the BRL and the QRL in the position of having to choose people whom they really do not want to be their representatives on the tmst, and the Minister may appoint those people. That is not good enough, and there is no reason for it. The Minister may have some expertise and pick the right person, but he is committing those bodies to this condition for ever more. In three years' time—and it could happen every three years— there may be a different Minister, such as the honourable member for Nicklin, who might choose the representative. The Opposition would not want to see that happen. I do not believe that any member of the Liberal Party or the people involved in Rugby League would want it to happen, either. Despite the fact that the Minister said that this is an ongoing tmst, the Govemment is taking away one representative from the QRL and substituting its own representative. Forgetting about the Brisbane Broncos, one representative is being taken off the QRL and one is being added for the Govemment. In addition to that, the Govemment is refusing to accept the nominations of the QRL, the BRL and the Brisbane City Council. At the present time, the Brisbane City Council is represented by a totally apolitical public servant. He is the type of person who should represent the Brisbane City Council. Who wiU the Minister appoint in place of that totally apolitical public servant? During my time in the Brisbane City Council, a National Party member was appointed. Mr FitzGerald: He's not apolitical. Mr ARDILL: No, the National Party member was not apolitical. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr ARDILL: The honourable member for Lockyer should not be ridiculous and try to make light of the matter. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Alison): Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mr ARDILL: This is a very important part of the community life of Brisbane, and no matter what the Minister says, he is taking away tme representation from the bodies which have made Lang Park what it is. Mr WHITE: The Liberal Party outlined its objections to the Bill earlier in the debate. Under the legislation the new representatives will be one from the QRL, one from the QRL (Brisbane Division), one from the Brisbane City Council and a ground- user representative whom I presume will come from the Brisbane Broncos. Mr Austin: No, it is a player. Mr WHITE: It will be a player and not a representative of the Broncos? I thought that it would be Gary Balkin. Mrs Nelson interjected. 3048 22 November 1988 Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill

Mr WHITE: The honourable member for Aspley has suggested—and the Minister might take this on board—that someone from the Dolphins be appointed. That is a good idea. I was asking the Minister for Land Management the question, not Mr Austin. My other question relates to the two persons who are to be appointed by the Government, and I ask: will they be personnel from the Brisbane Broncos or will it be Don Lane, on the nomination of Mr Austin, when he gets out of this place? Mr Austin: You are trying to be unkind to me. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! There is far too much irrelevant cross­ fire in the Chamber. Mr WHITE: My other query is in relation to Bill Hunter. Will the Minister give him the axe? He is a constituent of mine who has been involved in Rugby League administration for a long time. What sort of people will the Government put on the board? Will there be marketing people? If something is to be done to promote the code, it is logical that someone with marketing skills be appointed. People such as Maranta or "Porky" Morgan could make a substantial contribution. I understand that Mr Austin will appoint his mate Gary Balkin, but there has to be a slot for someone else as well. The Minister might be able to advise what he has in mind. Mr GLASSON: One of the initial speakers asked the very same questions and I repeat; the last comes first. Clause 4 clearly states that there will be one representative of the Brisbane City Council, one of the Queensland Rugby Football League, one from the QRL (Brisbane Division), a person who is to be a representative of the players plus two members appointed by the Government. As set out in previous legislation, the Govemment representative is now chosen by the Minister. There is an attempt by the Opposition to engender fear in the minds of people as to the acts of this Government. I repeat: the thmst of this legislation is for the benefit of the game of Rugby League in the State of Queensland. Hopefully it will eliminate for ever the animosity that exists at present. Anyone who is not prepared to admit that there is animosity does not follow the game of Rugby League. This legislation is a genuine and sincere attempt to help the game of Rugby League in Queensland. When the tmst is in place and has been in operation for 12 months it will prove that what the Government is endeavouring to achieve is right. Mr DAVIS: I wish to straighten the matter out. Will the Minister clarify what he stated—and his offsider Charlie McCarthy echoed his statement—in relation to clause 4 (3) (d)? Subclause (3) (d) states— "a person nominated by the Minister who in his opinion represents the users of the playing facilities administered by the Tmst." The word "users" can mean many, many things. Mr Austin: Only if you are in the ALP. Mr DAVIS: The Minister for Finance said "players". Who is looking after the Bill—the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Land Management? I will address my question to the Minister for Land Management. To clarify the matter—will he accept "players" instead of "users"? Will he accept that amendment? Mr Glasson: No. Mr DAVIS: On the one hand the Govemment is saying "players", but the Bill states "users". I guarantee that it will be Maranta or one of the Broncos. I guarantee that it is a long time since Maranta played any football. Mr EATON: The Minister has misunderstood the Opposition. Through this Bill the Minister could have increased the number on the tmst by four or five. He could have left the QRL with its two representatives and all the others with one each. He Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill 22 November 1988 3049 could have given the users and anybody else representation on the board and it would not have made any difference.

Mr Austin: He is being fair, though.

Mr EATON: He is not being fair. By having two from the QRL there could be a mover and a seconder of a motion, but they could be outvoted by the representatives of the users, the Brisbane Rugby League and the Government. It would not make any difference to the Minister's argument. They could still be outvoted. What the Opposition is concerned about is the humiliating experience of having to submit three names for each position.

Mr Austin: Who is going to tell the player how to vote—only you!

Mr EATON: No. The Govemment wants three names. The Minister will make the decision. The Govemment will make ony one name available, and that will be it. The Government representatives will come from the only two names put up, but the Govemment is asking the other organisations to submit three names. As I mentioned before, the Minister could have increased the membership of the tmst by any number he liked and it would not have given the QRL any more influence by having two representatives. The Minister has reduced the QRL representation, provided for representation of users and increased the Government representation by one, which gives two Government representatives. The secretary will possibly come from the Government, too; that is not yet known. There are a lot of unknowns. That is why our concem was expressed. In his last remarks, the Minister more or less accused the Opposition of going haywire. We in the Opposition are concerned about three names having to be put forward. The Minister said that there would be one representative from each organisation. If the membership of the tmst had been increased, that could have still been the case without decreasing the representation of the QRL. In addition, the Minister could call for one nomination from each organisation and the Government could have accepted that nominee, as it has in the past.

Mr WHITE: I raised a matter before that the Minister may have overlooked. I again ask him: what will happen to Mr Bill Hunter, who has served Rugby League so well for so long?

Mr GLASSON: It is not for me to decide what will happen to Mr Hunter. When I receive those three nominations from the Queensland Rugby League, I sincerely hope that Mr Hunter's name is at the top of the list. If the honourable member for Redcliffe does not believe me, when he goes back to his electorate he should speak to Mr Hunter, who will relay to the honourable member what I told him.

Mr WARBURTON: In the past it has been the practice that the chairman of the QRL has chaired the Lang Park Tmst. Will that definitely be the case in the future or does the Minister foresee the possibility of change?

Mr GLASSON: The way I see the stmcture of the Lang Park Tmst, for the benefit of Rugby League in Queensland, I would see that position remaining as it is. Question—That clause 4, as read, stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— 3050 22 November 1988 Lang Park Tmst Act Amendment Bill

AYES, 42 NOES, 38 Ahem Lingard Ardill Milliner Austin Littleproud Beanland Palaszczuk Berghofer McCauley Beard Schuntner Booth McKechnie Braddy Scott Borbidge McPhie Bums Sherlock Cooper Menzel Campbell Smith Elliott Muntz Casey Smyth Fraser Neal Comben Underwood Gamin Nelson D'Arcy Vaughan Gately Newton De Lacy Warburton Gibbs, I. J. Randell Eaton Warner Gilmore Row Gibbs, R. J. Wells Glasson Sherrin Goss White Gunn Simpson Hamill Yewdale Harper Slack Hayward Harvey Stoneman Innes Henderson Tenni Knox Hinton Veivers Lee Hobbs Lickiss Hynd Tellers: McElligott Tellers: Katter FitzGerald Mackenroth Davis Lester Stephan McLean Prest Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 5 and 6, as read, agreed to. Clause 7— Mr WARBURTON (12.57 a.m.): I wish to comment briefly on proposed new section 4D titled "Secretary to the Tmst". It is further proof of what I suggested was deliberate political intervention into the affairs of the tmst and the affairs of the league in this State. At the moment, owing to a long-standing and sensible arrangement, the trust pays the Queensland Rugby League $20,000 a year to mn the whole operation. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Alison): Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. I am finding it extremely difficult to hear the member. The Chamber will come to order, or I will start naming people. Mr Prest interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member for Port Curtis! Mr WARBURTON: At present, the tmst pays the Queensland Rugby League $20,000 a year for the services of the secretary and staff and for the expenses involved in mnning the secretariat. As I indicated, that is a sensible operation. By virtue of this provision, there seems to be some suggestion that in future the secretary of the Queensland Rugby League may not necessarily be the secretary of the tmst. From my point of view, it is obvious that having the QRL secretary and staff look after the tmst's operations is essential and a reasonably inexpensive way of keeping the operating costs down. I do not know what the Minister has in mind; however, I have referred to the proposed amendments as a rather disgusting intervention into the affairs of the tmst and the league in this State. Does this provision, which indicates that the Govemor in Council shall, on the recommendation of the Minister, appoint the secretary, mean that in future the secretary of the QRL might not necessarily be the secretary of the tmst? Mr GLASSON: That is entirely a decision for the tmst itself The honourable member may notice that the wording is that the secretary may be paid. At present, as the member for Sandgate says, the tmst pays a figure to the QRL for the use of its secretariat. That may still be the case. However, the Government is not tying the hands of the tmst. That is a decision of the tmst that will be made at the appropriate time. Clause 7, as read, agreed to. Clauses 8 to 11, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Adjournment 22 November 1988 3051

Third Reading Bill, on motion of Mr Glasson, by leave, read a third time.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. B. D. AUSTIN (Nicklin—Leader of the House) (1.02 a.m.): I move— "That the House do now adjourn."

Government Policy on Northern Development Mr SCOTT (Cook) (1.02 a.m.): I have five minutes in which to talk about the lack of achievement of the Minister for Northern Development, Community Services and Ethnic Affairs. I would not need five minutes to point out that the Minister is hopeless; five words would do. He has no ability whatsoever. However, it would take hours to regale the House with the damage that the Minister has done in Aboriginal affairs and what he has not achieved in northem development. In this debate I can only touch on it Government members interjected. Mr SCOTT: I will touch harder, if honourable members like. This Minister and this Govemment have actively opposed northem development by compounding the high cost naturally associated with establishing and operating an industry in the more remote areas. Roads have been constmcted slowly. Few services— for example, water and electricity at Kammba and the infrastmcture for health and education—have been provided. When they have been provided, it has been done reluctantly. Fortunately the Federal Government has helped outback people. That Govemment has carried out road constmction. One needs only to consider all the bicentennial road- constmction signs that are out there as evidence. It has also helped with the provision of water supplies. The Federal Govemment came to the assistance of the Carpentaria Shire and provided water at Kammba. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is far too much audible conversation in the Chamber. Mr SCOTT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the fact that they take so much interest in the Cook electorate, but I would ask, as you have done, that they display that interest a little more silently. The Federal Government has come to the assistance of the Carpentaria Shire by providing water at Kammba. It has helped, and will continue to help, the Cook Shire. The Federal Government has spent considerable sums of money in the Cook Shire, and in the Cook electorate, I might add. Electricity is a State utility, and it is not supplied to everyone in Kammba. I was shocked to learn that when the promised transmission line is to be built in three years' time, a charge of $1,200 per kVA will apply to local industry. That is a scandalous state of affairs. Govemment members talk about promoting northem development. That will impose an additional burden on those people. It is another charge that they will have to pay. There are industries in remote regions—some successful, some stmggling. The Queensland Government has given no assistance at all to firms such as Comalco, which is most successful, or other enterprises at Weipa, Thursday Island or Cooktown. In the latter places, they tend to be stmggling, but they are working very hard. 3052 22 November 1988 Adjournment

The Queensland Govemment has now recognised that its policies have been totally hopeless in northem development, and with its enterprise zones legislation, it has headed in a totally different direction. It will have to incorporate the two Mr Borbidge: Is this the same speech you gave last week during the enterprise zones legislation? Mr SCOTT: There is more emphasis in certain places. I am not having a go at the Minister for Industry; I am having a go at his colleague Mr Katter. So the Minister for Industry is off the hook. The Govemment will heavily subsidise industry to set up in Townsville and Caims, where the life of industry is comparatively easy. This legislation would not be needed if northem development had been successful, but Mr Katter has failed. He has also failed in Aboriginal affairs. He has had two aims: to pay lip-service to self-management so that he can say he has achieved that long overdue goal and to push Aboriginal people into private enterprise. Aboriginal people have been set up in enterprises in communities—butcher shops, guesthouses and so on—and I vrish them well. I know them, and I like them. However, the enterprises are not being established on either a sound or fair economic basis. So the Aboriginal people are being misled, and I am afraid that they are being set up for failure by an uncaring Minister. Fortunately for Aboriginal affairs in Queensland, the Federal Govemment is also paying more than a fair share of the costs. As an example, it is helping Aboriginal councils with their operating costs. Those councils would not be able to work and would not have self-management if it were not for the Federal Govemment. The State Govemment gives them the right to self-management but not the wherewithal to achieve it. The State Govemment has let Aboriginal people down absolutely in regard to the provision of services. The only sealed roads are a few in Bamaga, which, unfortunately, are now falling apart. No sealed roads are to be found elsewhere in Mr Katter's communities. That is shameful. Mr Hinze did provide some sealing of roads in Aumkun. The Federal Government has provided sewerage in several communities. Such things as roads, sewerage and health are State responsibilities, and Mr Katter is not measuring up. I have demonstrated very clearly that Mr Katter has sadly failed to achieve as a Minister. Time expired.

Limitation of Debate on Bills in House of Representatives Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (1.07 a.m.): I join in the Adjournment debate to point out to the House what happened in Canberra on 9 November 1988. The Federal Labor Govemment invoked the guillotine to push 21 Bills through the House of Representatives in a minimum of time over two days. I can understand the pressures in a Parliament and how a Government must get legislation through. However, the actions of the Federal Government curtailed debate on 21 important Bills. On the first day, 9 November, 10 Bills were subject to the guillotine. Eleven Bills were subject to the guillotine on the following day. The Bills that were subjected to limitation of debate included the Govemment Business Enterprises (Miscellaneous Reforms) Bill; the Superannuation Amendment Bill, the debate on which was limited to 10 minutes; the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill, the second-reading debate on which had to be concluded by 6.10 p.m., the Committee stages by 6.20 p.m. and all the remaining stages by 6.30 p.m. on that day. The Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill was a very important Bill to all Australians. Honourable members are aware of the recent cut-backs in road-funding to all the States. I suppose that all members of the House of Representatives would have wanted to say something about what they Adjoumment 22 November 1988 3053 thought should be done with roads. However, the debate was cut back and members were not allowed to debate the Committee stages for more than 10 minutes. I can sympathise with Governments that have problems at the end of a session when they have to guillotine Bills. I do not say it has never happened in this House. However, it is absolutely scandalous that the Australian Centennial Roads Development Bill was included by the Federal Govemment with other Bills in the guillotine motion. Honourable members had virtually no time at all to discuss the Bill. They had only 10 minutes in which to debate the Committee stages and another 10 minutes before it passed through all stages. Mr Borbidge: They have different standards when they are in Government. Mr FITZGERALD: That is quite obvious. Mr Scott: He admitted that you have done the same. He has given the game away. Mr FITZGERALD: Opposition members are calling out. Mr Scott: You admitted that your Govemment does the same. Mr FITZGERALD: I say that there has been a time when it was necessary to use a guillotine motion. However, I have never seen such times as those used by the Federal Govemment. Ten Bills were passed through the House at the one time. It is absolutely scandalous. The Child Support Amendment Bill was included in the Federal Government's list of guillotined Bills. The Queensland Govemment passed complementary legislation in this House. Full and adequate debate was allowed. The Queensland Govemment did not apply the guillotine to the debate on that legislation. However, the Federal Govem­ ment allowed only a few minutes for its debate. Other Bills that were subject to the Federal Government's guiUotine included the Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill and some agricultural Bills that were whacked through one after the other—the Triticale Levy Bill, which went through in a few minutes; the Triticale Levy Collection Bill, the debate on which was limited to 10 minutes; the Rural Industries Research Amendment Bill, which was given 10 minutes; the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill, the debate on which for all stages was limited to 10 minutes. Honourable members and the people of Queensland should be made aware of exactly what happened in the Federal Parliament. On the following day, 11 Bills were subject to a limitation of debate. Included among that legislation was the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill; the Broadcasting (Limited Licences) Fees Bill; the Broad­ casting (Retransmission Permits and Temporary Transmission Permits) Fees Bill; the Broadcasting (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill; the Radio Licence Fees (National Metropolitan Radio Plan) Bill; the Naval Defence Amendment Bill, on which I am sure many members wanted to speak; the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill; the Income Tax Rates Amendment Bill; the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill; the Lands Acquisition (Repeal and Consequential Provisions) Bill; and the Migration Amendment Bill. There is something wrong if a migration Bill cannot engender debate in the Australian Parliament at this stage. I know that many members would have liked to speak about that subject. The time allowed for the debate was totally inadequate. The action taken by the Federal Government was disgusting. The Federal House of Representatives is an important House of Parliament in Australia. More time should have been allowed for debate on that legislation. It is obvious that the business of the House of Representatives got behind. Mr Beazley was the Minister who declared that the Bills were urgent. At one minute past 10 a.m., which was obviously when the debate got under way, he moved for the suspension of Standing Orders to allow debate on the Bills to take place on the one day. Mr Fife spoke to the motion. At the end of the debate on that motion, only a few minutes remained during which the first Bill could be debated. I know that the House divided a couple of times on that issue. It was necessary for Mr Fife to bring to the attention of the Australian 3054 22 November 1988 Adjournment

public that the Federal Labor Govemment tried to get through 21 Bills in two days of sitting. It shows that it has not planned its program properly. It is good that the Queensland Parliament will not have to go through that mad msh by putting through 21 Bins Mr Scott: How many on your notice paper now? Mr FITZGERALD: Bills will remain on the notice paper for the next session of the Parliament; that is for sure. Time expired. Closure of Atherton-Ravenshoe Railway Line Mr EATON (Mourilyan) (1.12 a.m.): I bring to the Govemment's attention the problems caused by the curtailment of rail services and the transfer of railwaymen. A meeting that was held in Ravenshoe was attended by people from many areas of north Queensland, including the inland and coastal areas. In the Tablelander Focus of last week, under the headline "Emotional meeting on rail closure", the following report was published— "An emotional meeting attended by concerned people from a wide area of the Tablelands and the coast was held at Ravenshoe on Sunday aftemoon to discuss the closure of the railway line between Artherton and Ravenshoe, and the cessation of passenger services west of Cairns. The majority of people attending felt that the closure was made worse following the loss of jobs in the area due to World Heritage listing and the Premier and State Govemment must take a great deal of the blame. The people said they were concerned as there was little warning of the impending closure and had been lulled into a sense of well being by the Railways recent spending of $250,000 on renovating the ballast of the line. Those attending the meeting felt that there was a cormpt influence with the Railways Department and people with road transport affiliations, because a definite pattem has emerged when looking back to previous line closures throughout Queensland. Legal advice is being sought. The meeting was told that the Railways made $79 million profit last year and to say that the feeder lines do not add to the overall revenue is a complete nonsense. The general consensus of opinion was that the rail motor time table should be changed from the present ridiculous one to a service that tmly encouraged people to make use of it. The railway system belongs to the people and is there to be of service especially to those folks who cannot drive themselves, such as the aged, poor, children, cripples and people needing to visit their doctor or hospital, organisers said. Closure would mean an increase in traffic on our inadequate roads, causing increased road carnage and an increase in the costs related to their upkeep and more pressure on our inadequate hospital systems, they said. With the advent of the TuUy Hydro scheme the Ravenshoe area has prospects of enormous growth causing an increased demand on rail. With this in mind Tableland people cannot understand the reasoning of those people in control. Concerns were expressed that an increase in freight rates will force local prices up as there will be less competition and goods sent north by rail will have to be off loaded onto road transport to their destination. Residents of Ravenshoe and Herberton will have to place their parcels on road transport to go on the rail at Atherton. A Far North Queensland businessman spoke to the meeting at length about the possibility of mnning a tourist steam train Adjoumment 22 November 1988 3055

between Ravenshoe to Atherton because the route is one of the most scenic branch lines left. He said that it was painfully obvious that we have to move very quickly because anything not in use quickly deteriorates, giving the authorities more excuses to pull up the rails. The meeting decided to look into various avenues of protest and in the meantime asks all concerned citizens to write to their local MP and the State Minister of Transport, Mr Ivan Gibbs." The Govemment is spending a lot of money in the north of the State. Large sums of money are being spent on upgrading the railway line from 40 pounds to 60 pounds to carry heavier loads. The sum of $250,000 was spent on ballast and upgrading of the line. The Govemment intends to increase rail freights, which will either bring more income to Govemment or decrease the use of the railway services and drive customers to use road transport, which is in competition with the railways. Concems have been expressed to me about the future of the Forsayth-Einasleigh railway line once the Government increases rail freights. I have mentioned this matter before in this House. Ravenshoe has one station-master and no porters or assistants. Its turn-over from passengers, parcels and freight was in excess of $100,000. No-one can tell me that that station-master would have received more than $100,000 in wages. Business people in that area are trying to organise a tourist-train service between Caims and Ravenshoe with a return service by road to cover not only the scenic attractions along the railway line but also the lakes and other scenic attractions that are situated away from the railway line. The Kuranda tourist train has been a tremendous success for the private businessman who is making the most of it. He has developed it into a very good tourist attraction. Time expired. Road Toll Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (1.17 a.m.): Early yesterday the member for Ipswich tried to suspend Orders of the Day by seeking to move a motion without notice with the idea of talking about the road toll. I notice that the honourable member is not taking this opportunity, which is available to every member of this House, to highlight that particular problem within our society. Mr Scott: He didn't get a guemsey. You only allow three speakers. Mr STEPHAN: The honourable member's name is not even on the list of speakers for the Adjournment debate. It must be realised that Orders of the Day take precedence and one cannot blame the Government for voting against the proposal. For quite some time many honourable members have been concemed about the road toll. When talking about the road toll I cannot help thinking about the Gympie driver-education training centre and the many people who had the foresight to establish that centre. Mr Borbidge: I think they have an outstanding chairman. Mr STEPHAN: They have a good chairman as well as a good committee. I look forward to receiving a great deal of assistance from that committee. It must be remembered that that educational program was established in an endeavour to keep the road toll down. While we can blame drink-drivers and inattention by drivers, every member of the community must assist in lowering the road toll. It must be remembered that people are neither machines nor systems. If attention and encouragement are given to the education of drivers, that will go a long way towards keeping the road toll down. 3056 22 November 1988 Adjournment

Education survives when what has been leamt has been forgotten. Although that may seem to be a bit contradictory, education is engraved in our minds far more than we realise. Leaming in old age is just like writing in the sand. Learning in youth is like engraving in stone; it is there for a long time to come. That does not mean to say that we should not try to teach older folk. It does not mean that older folk need not bother trying to leam the finer aspects of the driver-education program, including the handling of their cars and coping with various road conditions. Education has a very real part to play when it is linked to the main strategies that are directed at the reduction of traffic-accident injuries. I refer to the strategies of exposure control, crash prevention, behaviour modification, injury control and post-trauma management. In the context of road safety—through education this Government is trying to inform and train people and punish offenders. Evidence exists that Government support for traffic safety education in the school system can wax and wane and evaporate altogether if it is not implemented in the correct way. It must be remembered that the problems of education in particular and the modification of behaviour generally should be the responsibility of both the Govemment and private sectors. People cannot rely solely on the Government or individuals. They must rely on the general attitude of the public and those people who are using the roads. The welfare of the work-force should always be the concem of an efficient company. Companies themselves should be encouraged to introduce effective safety programs, for example, the bulk purchasing of helmets and high-mounted brake lights. Education programs about appropriate road-user behaviour is also important and necessary. Time expired. Job Losses in Capricornia Electricity Board Region Mr PREST (Port Curtis) (1.22 a.m.): I am concerned that further jobs and job opportunities will be lost in the region under the control of the Capricomia Electricity Board. Those job losses will be additional to the jobs that have been lost in the industry whilst Mr Tenni has been the Minister for Mines and Energy. It appears that he gets great delight in seeing workers thrown out of the workplace and also the hardships that are caused to their families. Mr Tenni will deny that jobs will be lost when the board implements the decision to close down many offices and scale down the operations in other larger offices and depots, following his direction that the CEB must cut administration costs by 25 per cent. On 26 April this year, Mr Tenni denied that a section of the Gladstone Power Station would be shut down, a shut-down that would cause a reduction in staff of more than 100. I am concemed that, with the shut-down or, in other areas of the CEB region, a scale-down in the board's country or branch offices and depots, not only will that cause a loss of jobs for the employees who have given years of their working lives to the industry, but it will take away job opportunities for young people. However, it will no doubt reduce the service that the consumers have been receiving in the past, a service that the paying public are rightly entitled to. I understand that agents are to be apppointed to collect the payment for the supply of power, but the agent will not be receiving complaints of faults in supply, so a consumer must contact a CEB office somewhere to lodge a complaint or inform the board of a fault and hope that sooner or later a maintenance crew will arrive to rectify the fault. However, I am told that the main concem of the board will be for its major consumers and that the ordinary domestic consumer comes last as far as priority for the rectification of faults is concemed. I am further concemed that with the agents receiving only a small fee for collecting the payments for the board, as soon as all of the board's offices have been closed and staff have been sacked, those agents will soon demand a higher fee. The stage will soon Adjournment 22 November 1988 3057

be reached at which the board will have to pay increased fees. It will then be seen that no savings have been made, just job losses and hardships for families and a reduction in service received by consumers. I understand that in some areas where the agents have already been employed, they have been very slow in sending the money collected and notifying the office of payments made, and at times consumers in some areas have had their supplies cut off because their payments have not been received from the agent. Let us remember that electricity boards do not send out reminder notices, nor do they notify the consumer that his supply will be cut off. It is possible that a consumer who is away from his place of residence could retum and find that his power has been cut off. People in remote areas cannot go to the agent with a complaint because the agent is not interested; he only collects payment of the bill. Therefore the consumer must contact a CEB office in the city which, when it can contact a CEB employee, has him contact the agent and inquire about the consumer complaint that his bill has been paid. After the agent has proved to the CEB office that the consumer had paid the bill on time, the office then must arrange for an employee to go to the area and reconnect supply. However, that might take a day or so, or it will at least take some hours. In the mean time the family is without supply. Can honourable members imagine that happening and the inconvenience that it would cause to a person living in an isolated region? I remind them that CEB takes in the hottest and driest part of central westem Queensland. Just imagine the concern of a mother with a young baby. But is Mr Tenni or Mr Watts concemed for the families in these areas? No! Mr Keith Watts denies that the action his board is taking is in response to Mr Tenni's instmctions. A newspaper article states— "Claims that Gladstone residents will have a reduced electricity service were rejected by Capricornia Electricity Board manager, Keith Watts. Mr Watts said the board was not looking at reducing services now or in the future." Time expired. New High School, Gold Coast; Beach Protection Mr GATELY (Curmmbin) (1.27 a.m.): I wish to speak about the dire need for an additional high school at the southern end of the Gold Coast. Recently I spoke on this matter and sought the assistance of the Govemment for the purchase of land in the area. I understand that a block of land in the Elanora/Palm Beach area has been earmarked for this project. I am also mindful that in this year's State Budget funds were not available, the reason being that the Federal Government has severely cut back our funding. The Govemment has taken a responsible attitude by providing additional teachers to ensure the maximum number of teachers and the smallest number of students in classes. Last Thursday evening I attended the speech night at a high school which is attended by more than 1 700 students. That school was originally built to cater for 600 students. It suffers from severe overcrowding and a very severe need exists for logically increasing the number of high schools in that region. At the speech night I gave an undertaking that I would approach the Premier the following morning. I did that in a phone call to him at 25 to 7. I requested that the Government consider the possibility of providing an amount sufficient to build a new high school. The estimate that I have been given by the department is somewhere between $8m and $10m. I would like the Premier to give an unequivocal undertaking to provide that sum from the moneys that were set aside by the Government, which were stated by him in the press to be $20m, for the promotion of Brisbane as the Australian city to host the 1996 Olympic Games. As I understand it, that money was available for that purpose and is still available. As that purpose is no longer relevant, I therefore strongly request that this Government give an unequivocal undertaking to 3058 22 November 1988 Adjournment allow the amount of $8m to $10m to be made available forthwith to facilitate an immediate start on the constmction of the proposed new high school. Mr Hobbs: Spend it in Warrego. Mr GATELY: I am not very concemed about Warrego because I have enough trouble with an electorate whose population has been growing at the rate of 25 per cent since the 1986 election. I have to accommodate schoolchildren in class rooms instead of having them out on the playing-field. I am really very sorry if the children who live in the Warrego electorate are suffering any lack of facilities, but I am quite sure that the honourable member for Warrego is quite capable of coming to the Parliament and making representations in a very strong and positive way. I was rather intrigued that after I had given an undertaking to the people who attended the speech night that I would approach the Premier, one of the aldermen on the Gold Coast City Council thought it was such a good idea that he would pinch the idea and dart into the council chamber with it on the following Friday. He conned his aldermanic mates and put forward a proposal that $4m of the funds I have mentioned be made immediately available. It is rather interesting that he acknowledges that I come up with some good ideas. It is incredible that he lives off them. The point I make, however, is that he wants to spend the money by wasting it on sand replenishment on the Gold Coast. The Gold Coast City Council recently spent approximately $2.4m dumping sand in the middle of the ocean somewhere. That sand has never made it to the beach and I am not sure that it ever will. I have received a deputation from people whose properties have been endangered by erosion and wave action. Before any more money is spent by this Govemment in the provision of subsidies that are provided from public funds, I want to be given the assurance that proper studies have been undertaken which will ensure that additional money will be spent wisely and will result in sand being deposited onto the beaches at Kirra and Bilinga. If a sand by-pass is to be constmcted, the Queensland Govemment should continue its talks with the New South Wales Govemment to engender co-operation that will result in problems caused by the lack of sand being overcome. The Gold Coast City Council says that insufficient sand is being deposited in the vicinity of those beaches, but I say that there is an abundance of sand in the area. I can prove what I am saying by offering photographic evidence. Since the training- walls were constmcted, the sand is being brought into that area. Time expired. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 1.32 a.m. (Wednesday).