Legislative Assembly 4512 7 November 1990

NOTE: There could be differences between this document and the official printed Hansard, Vol. 316

WEDNESDAY, 7 NOVEMBER 1990 ______Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 2.30 p.m. PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions— Free Rail Travel, Private School Students From Mr Ardill (29 signatories) praying that free rail travel for private school students be maintained. Brisbane City Council Rating System From Mr Foley (9 signatories) praying that the Parliament empower the Brisbane City Council to introduce a fairer and more equitable rating system. Literature and Films Boards of Review From Mr King (118 signatories) praying for the maintenance of the Literature and Films Boards of Review and for a continuation of controls outlawing the sale of all pornographic matter. Innes Park Boating Facilities From Mr Campbell (92 signatories) praying that the boat ramp facilities at Innes Park be upgraded. Milk-vendors From Mr Foley (96 signatories) praying that milk-vendors be allowed to continue to operate and that price widening be not increased. Free Student Transport From Mr Vaughan (466 signatories) praying that free school transport be provided to all students to the school of their choice. Amalgamation of Pioneer Shire Council and Mackay City Council From Mr Burns (558 signatories) praying that the Pioneer Shire Council and Mackay City Council be amalgamated to form one local authority to be known as Mackay City Council. PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Reports for the year ended 30 June 1990— Builders Registration Board of Queensland Local Government Grants Commission Legislative Assembly 4513 7 November 1990

Rental Bond Authority Queensland Recreation Areas Management Board Legal Aid Commission of Queensland Department of Lands Financial statements for the year ended 30 June 1990— Trustees of the Queensland Housing Commission Debt Redemption Fund Trustees of the Local Authorities Debt Redemption Fund. The following papers were laid on the table— Orders in Council under— Summer Time Act 1990 Land Act 1962-1990 Land Act 1962-1989 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975-1989 Financial statements of the Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund for the year ended 30 June 1990 Ordinances under the City of Brisbane Act 1924-1990 Proclamations under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975-1989. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Overseas Visit by Minister for Education to the People's Republic of China, Japan and Hong Kong Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Minister for Education) (2.35 p.m.), by leave: As honourable members would be aware, the Goss Government places a high priority on the expansion of foreign language and culture studies in Queensland schools. In the recent Budget, an additional $5m was allocated for this initiative, which has a particular emphasis on countries in the Asia/Pacific region. As Education Minister, it is my aim that by the year 2000, foreign language and culture studies will become a part of the core curriculum of primary schools in Queensland and that at least 20 per cent of secondary school-leavers will have completed 12 continuous years of study of a foreign language and culture. Under the new policy, five major languages will be emphasised—Japanese, Chinese, Indonesian, German and French. It was therefore appropriate that my first overseas delegation as Minister for Education was to China and Japan, two of the most important countries in this ambitious program. The principal purpose of my visit to the People's Republic of China was to sign the 1991 planning agreements on teacher and academic exchange with the Governments of Shanghai Municipality and Hubei Province. In April this year, the Deputy Premier visited China and signed an initial agreement with the Vice-Mayor of Shanghai on educational cooperation between Queensland and the Shanghai Municipality. Under the 1991 planning agreement that I signed last month in Shanghai, the first Government educational exchange between Queensland and Shanghai since the signing of the sister-State relationship, 15 schoolteachers from Queensland will spend up to one year teaching English in schools and colleges in Shanghai Province and 15 teachers from Shanghai will assist in teaching Chinese in Queensland schools for a similar period. All exchange teachers will be given the opportunity to formally study the language and culture of their host country, so it is expected that teachers returning to Queensland will develop core skills which can be fully maximised for the benefit of Queensland students. In addition, subject to negotiation between relevant institutions, Queensland and Shanghai will exchange one academic for cooperative research projects related to language development, three academics for a cooperative project on science and technology, and Legislative Assembly 4514 7 November 1990

two officers to review the project and collect resource materials to support the teaching of languages and cultures. Further, as a result of negotiations, direct agreements between institutions in Shanghai and Queensland will be established in research on economics, management studies and Australian studies. Under the Hubei agreement, five teachers will be exchanged for up to one year, and up to 20 teachers will undertake a special three-week immersion course in Chinese language and culture. Through coordination with the Hubei Education Commission, one language expert and three academics working in the areas of science and technology will be exchanged for periods of up to three months for involvement in cooperative research programs. Additionally, the Hubei Education Commission has agreed to assist Queensland curriculum officers to collect relevant Chinese resource materials for use in Queensland schools and officer-level visits will be introduced to monitor exchange arrangements. I am pleased to say that both Shanghai and Hubei are keen to maintain these agreements in the future and, like the Queensland Government, both are willing to expand the number of teachers, subject to continuing evaluation of the quality of learning and instruction provided through these arrangements. Following the signing of these agreements in China, the delegation travelled to Tokyo and held discussions with a number of important bodies, including the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, the Japan Foundation, the Saitama Prefectural Board of Education, the Bunka Institute of Language, the University of the Air, the Hills Education Foundation, and Mainichi Communications Co. Ltd. The delegation also met briefly with officials in Hong Kong and discussed a number of education issues, including the possibility of teacher exchanges with Hong Kong. The visit provided a great opportunity to promote the Queensland Government's new languages and cultures program overseas and has provided a solid foundation for future exchanges and further cooperation in education with our regional neighbours. The Government's languages and cultures initiative is based fundamentally on the notion that Queensland students should be given the opportunity to not only speak the languages of other countries but also understand and appreciate their culture. Exchange programs and other cooperative measures allow Queenslanders to gain a better insight into the cultures of these countries and I can assure honourable members that the skills and experience gained by returning teachers will be fully utilised in the class room for the benefit of our students. The delegation also provided for greater exchange between universities, and the presence on the trip of Professor Alan Rix from the University of Queensland and Professor Walter Wong from the Queensland University of Technology allowed for productive discussions on cooperation between Queensland universities and tertiary institutions in both China and Japan. Details of such discussions and other relevant information on the delegation are contained in my full report. I seek leave of the House to table this document. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Indemnities Against Prosecution Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—Attorney-General) (2.41 p.m.), by leave: Over recent years in Queensland, there has been an increase in the number of applications for indemnities against prosecution made by people who have themselves committed offences but who may be in a position to provide vital evidence for the prosecution against other alleged wrong-doers. In appropriate cases, it may well be in the interests of justice to grant an indemnity against prosecution to a self-confessed offender in order to obtain otherwise unavailable evidence against another alleged offender who may, but for such evidence, escape justice altogether. Legislative Assembly 4515 7 November 1990

There are two types of indemnities which have been recognised in Australia. The grant of an indemnity to an applicant for immunity against prosecution is essentially a bargain. In return for applicant offenders promising to waive their own privilege against self-incrimination, the prosecution undertakes either— (1) that the applicant's evidence will not be used against the applicant in any subsequent proceedings against the applicant--this is known as the "use" indemnity—or (2) that the applicant will be granted immunity from prosecution in respect of some or all of the offences the applicant has committed. This is known as the "transactional" indemnity. The use indemnity is an undertaking by the prosecuting authority not to use against the applicant offender any confessional statement the applicant may have made. On the other hand, the transactional indemnity is an undertaking by the prosecuting authority that the applicant offender will not be prosecuted for some or all of the offences the applicant may have committed. Theoretically, in the case of a use indemnity, the prosecuting authority will be free later to prosecute the applicant offender in respect of some or all of the offences the applicant may have committed, on the basis that there is sufficient evidence independent of the applicant's testimony. Thus, there is a significant distinction between the use indemnity and the transactional indemnity, the latter of which is based on conferring an immunity from prosecution in respect of the offences specified in the undertaking. While the common law has recognised that an Attorney-General has the power to grant a transactional indemnity, in Queensland to date there have not existed any objective standards by which an application for an indemnity against the prosecution may be assessed, nor have there existed any guidelines by which the ethics of a particular application can be measured. The whole issue of indemnities against prosecution involves not only a very careful assessment of the facts but also ethical questions concerning the administration of justice. For reasons of public safety, or other reasons relating to security, it is sometimes impossible to make public the details of indemnities or, indeed, even confirm that an indemnity has been granted. However, the criteria by reference to which these decisions are taken should be exposed to the clear light of day , not enveloped in a dark shroud of Government secrecy. It has been and remains the policy of this Government to ensure that, wherever possible, the principles governing the administration of the law are clear and widely known, not just throughout the legal profession but also throughout the whole community of this State. As Attorney-General, I am responsible for the criminal justice system of this State and remain accountable to Parliament for decisions made in the prosecution process notwithstanding that, for most purposes, those decisions are in fact made by the Director of Prosecutions. However, in order to assist the Director of Prosecutions in this area of law concerning applications for indemnities against prosecution, and in order to ensure public confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole, I have decided to issue and make public new guidelines which from now on will govern the consideration of any application for an indemnity against prosecution. I hereby table those guidelines. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Trade Measurement Legislation Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (2.45 p.m.), by leave: On 1 August 1990, when introducing the Trade Measurement Bill, I informed the House that it was proposed that the three Acts which made up the trade measurement legislation were to commence on 1 January 1991. This legislation implements the national uniform agreement on trade measurement. Legislative Assembly 4516 7 November 1990

I am advised by the Chief Inspector of Weights and Measures that it would now appear that the projected commencement date is unattainable in that a majority of the States have yet to enact the legislation, and that the States which have, namely, New South Wales and Queensland, will require more time in which to put in place the necessary administrative arrangements. Consequently, in the interests of uniformity, the projected commencement date is now 1 July 1991. Naturally, I will keep the House apprised of any developments in this area. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Findings of Public Sector Management Commission Review of Department of Manufacturing and Commerce Hon. G. N. SMITH (Townsville East—Minister for Manufacturing, Commerce and Small Business) (2.46 p.m.), by leave: Yesterday in this place, I outlined the findings of the Public Sector Management Commission's review of the Department of Manufacturing and Commerce. I indicated how the department had been used and abused by a succession of National Party Ministers. The review of my department highlighted—as did reviews of the Premier's Department and the Treasury—the poor management practices adopted by the previous Government and reflected the years of neglect of significant sections of the State public service. Since my statement to the House, the member for Surfers Paradise, who was one of those National Party Ministers, both in this place and through media statements has tried to wriggle out of trouble. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing the Minister's statement. Honourable members will allow me to do so. Mr SMITH: Two aspects of the honourable member's comments are of particular concern. Firstly, he has either confused defence contracts with offsets or deliberately attempted to fudge the facts. Yesterday in my statement, I made it clear that under his stewardship the performance of Queensland in gaining civil offsets was well below that of other States. I was not referring to defence contracts. Let me repeat what I said yesterday. In 1987-88 when the member for Surfers Paradise was the responsible Minister, New South Wales gained offsets worth $200m. In Victoria the figure was $156m. Queensland got $5m! Even the ACT did better than Queensland. The figures for 1988-89 are similar. Secondly, I indicated yesterday that this Government will be scaling down the industrial estates program and developing a more flexible program of assistance to targeted industries. The PSMC review of the industrial estates program reinforces the findings of an independent consulting firm—Coopers and Lybrand—which I commissioned earlier this year. Both reviews have established that the program under previous Governments located too many estates in low-demand areas. Both reports reinforce my belief that the National Party Government and, in particular, the honourable member opposite relied almost entirely on a cargo-cult approach to industrial development. Former Ministers such as the member for Surfers Paradise believed that if they built enough industrial estates, industries would somehow magically appear on them. The reality is that that mentality did more to hinder genuine industrial expansion than to help it. This Government freely acknowledges that some worthwhile results have been achieved through the assistance provided to some firms under the program. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Surfers Paradise will cease interjecting. Mr SMITH: Firms that have been appropriately assisted are located in high value added, export- orientated industries. However, a substantial amount of taxpayer assistance has been granted to firms that are not included in that category. In addition, a significant Legislative Assembly 4517 7 November 1990 number of estates are underutilised. At least four estates have no tenants and at least seven have only one tenant. For all that, the taxpayer is providing across all the estates a subsidy that was recently estimated at $33m per year. The member for Surfers Paradise has claimed that agreements with some of Queensland's major companies may now be placed at risk because of the Government's decision to scale down the industrial estates program. The only risk to the current attractiveness of Queensland as an industrial base is that caused by the wild statements of the honourable member opposite. He is so desperate to grab any headline that he can and to discredit the PSMC that he cannot even get his facts right. He has now stooped so low as to use one of the major companies in this State to indulge in his campaign. The honourable member has claimed that, because of the scaling-down of the industrial estates program, Minproc Holdings' dealings with the Government in respect of its activities at Gladstone are at risk. Minproc Holdings is not even on one of our industrial estates. It is on freehold land that was purchased privately. Minproc Holdings is concerned. It was concerned enough about the comments by the member for Surfers Paradise to telephone my office this morning to refute his statements. This Government is serious in its dealings with Minproc and similar companies in Queensland. I take this opportunity to apologise to Minproc on behalf of the member for Surfers Paradise. PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (2.51 p.m.), by leave: I have been savagely maligned by the Minister for Manufacturing, Commerce and Small Business. The pathetic Minister opposite, who refuses to bring on a debate, has deliberately sought to misrepresent my performance as the former Minister for Industry in respect of the value of contracts placed on Queensland companies by the defence contracting office in Queensland. I hereby table and seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard an extract from the annual purchasing information of the Department of Defence, which shows that, under my stewardship of the department, the total value of defence contracts for Queensland rose from $28.6m to $67.8m. For the benefit of the honourable member opposite, I point out that offsets are accumulated only by Governments that purchase offshore. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I warn him under Standing Order 123A. He will resume his seat while I am on my feet. The honourable member is not making a personal explanation. He is debating the issue. I give him leave to table the documents, but they will not be incorporated in Hansard. Mr BORBIDGE: I table the document that proves that the Minister is lying. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That was unparliamentary. The honourable member will withdraw the comment. Mr BORBIDGE: I withdraw the comment. I table the document that shows that the Minister has misrepresented the facts to the Parliament. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr CAMPBELL (Bundaberg) (2.52 p.m.), by leave: I have to correct some statements made by the seemingly very sensitive member for Burnett. Yesterday, he gave a biased account of a conversation that we had after he had obtained a reply in question-time. As I was aware that the person subject to the court injunction had been in contact with the member for Burnett, I caught up to him to advise him of the existence of a court injunction issued in respect of a secretly taped conversation concerning the matter he had raised by his question. I accept that the member for Burnett has every right to raise any issue that affects his constituency, and I respect that right. Legislative Assembly 4518 7 November 1990

QUESTION UPON NOTICE Milk-vending Industry Mr PALASZCZUK asked the Minister for Primary Industries— "What is the Government's intention relating to the milk vending industry in Queensland?" Mr CASEY: (1) In recent days, as a result of misinformed reporting from a supposedly leaked Cabinet document, there has been a great deal of confusion among milk-vendors and the public. For the benefit of all Queenslanders, I reiterate that it is not the Government's intention to phase out milk-vendors or to order the replacement of bottles with cartons. Those views are held by some people in the dairy industry, but they are not shared by the Government. It is no secret that some milk-vendors are in financial trouble, but, as a result of the plan accepted by Cabinet, they will have an opportunity to leave the industry voluntarily, with dignity and with money in their pockets. I stress that, if milk-vendors want to stay in the industry, they may do so. That is fine, but they cannot expect the consumer to continue to prop them up financially. The rationalisation plan is now being devised by the Queensland Dairy Industry Authority, not by the Government. It was requested by representatives of the industry at a meeting that I held with them at Parliament House on 4 September this year. However, it may interest honourable members to learn some of the human costs that have been associated with the supposed leaking of a misleading document. My office has been contacted by hundreds of vendors who were told three weeks ago about the rationalisation fund and who accepted it. However, the incorrect reporting of the demise of the plan has led to vendor-run contracts falling through, the cutting off of vendor finance by some lending institutions and, most alarmingly, at least one case of a stress-related heart attack by a concerned vendor—all the result of political grandstanding for whatever reason. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Ms D. Swan Mr COOPER: In directing a question to the Premier, I remind him of his presence at an ALP administrative committee meeting in May last year, at which it was agreed to pay legal expenses of the now Industrial Commissioner Deidre Swan, the same expenses already having been paid by the AWU, and I ask: does Ms Swan's action in not reimbursing the AWU until some months after the second payment was received fall far short of the expected standard for someone occupying a judicial position and receiving a salary equivalent to that of a District Court judge? Given that he apparently supported the committee's decision to pay Ms Swan in order to avoid embarrassing court action in the election campaign, does the Premier condone such a practice? In view of the Premier's past stance on the need for judicial propriety, will he now act to stand aside Ms Swan until all matters surrounding her actions on possible tax fraud and this apparent case of double-dipping are investigated? Mr W. K. GOSS: There is no basis for the question or for the action proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. The arrangements that the person concerned has between herself and the AWU are a matter for her and the AWU. In terms of any alleged breach of the law, I note the quite improper remarks by the Leader of the Opposition in this place, which were repeated on the radio in what I believe to be a defamatory way, that an offence had been committed, or that cheating or double-dipping had occurred. The Leader of the Opposition should try to climb out of the gutter. I know that, for internal reasons, he is desperate. However, in respect of that office, the attitude of the Government will be to adopt the only proper course of action open to it, that is, to be guided by the chief judicial officer of the institution concerned, Mr Justice Moynihan, the President of the Industrial Court. In the same way as the Chief Justice dealt with other matters Legislative Assembly 4519 7 November 1990 in previous years, the Government looks to the president of the institution for guidance. It will not interfere with the judiciary or the Industrial Commission. The Leader of the Opposition suggests that the Government should override Mr Justice Moynihan, reject his advice and interfere in a political way in the Industrial Court. The other point to be made is that, despite the false and deliberately dishonest claims made by the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Liberal Party and the would-be Leader of the Liberal Party, no offence has been committed as far as the community or the Government is aware. Mr Cooper: What about Vasta? Mr W. K. GOSS: Members of the Opposition continue to talk about abiding by the Cooke inquiry. Mr Cooper: Who stood aside Vasta? Mr W. K. GOSS: No. If they are capable, members of the Opposition should try to lapse briefly into logical thought—just briefly. Opposition members should remember the fact that the commission of inquiry has not yet reported or made any findings, and the individual—or anyone else associated with the transaction about which the Leader of the Opposition has complained—has not been convicted. There are processes which must be followed. This Government will follow the proper processes and will not be stampeded by this dishonest campaign. Implementation of Recommendations of Cooke Inquiry into Trade Unions Mr COOPER: I refer the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations to his public statements yesterday and today that he would implement the recommendations of the Cooke inquiry, and I ask: does that mean that the Government will accept the recommendations of the Cooke and Hanger inquiries in relation to political objects funds so as to ensure that a union cannot expend money for political purposes unless it maintains a political objects fund that is separate and distinct from other funds of the union, and, if so, when can we expect such measures to be implemented? Mr WARBURTON: I am not sure—in fact I am absolutely not sure—— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am amused by the Minister's comments. Mr WARBURTON: I am not sure that the Leader of the Opposition's introductory remarks are correct. In recent times, he has been somewhat incautious about his remarks. As I have said on a number of occasions, and as the Premier indicated, to some extent, when answering the last question, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Cooper, should really be cautious as to how far he goes. He has a tendency to reach the line and go over it. The position is clearly this: the recommendations of the Cooke inquiry, and the two reports that I have before me at the moment concerning the recommended legislative changes, will be duly considered. They are under the scrutiny of people in my department at this time. As honourable members opposite should know, under the new Industrial Relations Act this Government has put into place for the first time ever a tripartite body known as the Industrial Relations Consultative Committee. It is my intention to refer some of the issues which have been raised by Commissioner Cooke to that committee as soon as possible. At this stage, I give no commitment, except the commitment that each and every one of those issues raised by Mr Cooke, including the matter of the problems arising out of the Moore v. Doyle case of many years ago, will be very seriously considered. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we do not accept that anybody—and I mean anybody—should be in a position where he or she can flout the laws and take Legislative Assembly 4520 7 November 1990 advantage of a movement such as the trade union movement, which has a philosophy—one that is supported by members on this side of the House—of doing what it can for working people in this State and their families. As far as I am concerned—and I know that this is supported by my colleagues on this side of the House—if anybody, whether he or she be a union official or whatever, takes advantage of his or her position and does something that deliberately harms the organisation or the people whom it represents, that person will be brought to justice, and I am prepared to turn the key. I conclude by saying that each and every one of the recommendations that have been put forward by Commissioner Cooke will be properly taken on board and dealt with by my department. Regulation of Non-bank Financial Institutions Mr PREST: I refer the Treasurer to the Special Premiers Conference agreement on the regulation of the NBFIs, and ask: can he explain what has been proposed, and how this will benefit Queensland? Mr De LACY: I am sure that honourable members know that the need for uniform standards for non-bank financial institutions, or NBFIs, was on the agenda at the Special Premiers Conference, partly because of the urging of the Queensland Government. Members will recall that in the Prime Minister's national press conference when he signalled the need for the Special Premiers Conference, he drew attention to the need for uniform standards for building societies in particular, but non-bank financial institutions in general. Of course, this was in the climate of the collapse of and problems surrounding building societies in Victoria. Coincidentally, at the same time, the Queensland Government was undertaking a review of non- bank financial institutions. The review committee was chaired by Mr Brady, who was previously the person in the Reserve Bank who was responsible for supervising building societies. The Queensland Government offered to help get the matter on the agenda and advance it. A paper was prepared and a lot of negotiations took place during the preliminary steering committee meetings. At the beginning there was not a lot of agreement. The industry itself and some other States would have preferred a national system or a system that was supervised by the Federal Government, in the same way as banks are supervised by the Reserve Bank. However, the Reserve Bank and the Commonwealth Government did not want to play a part in the supervision of building societies and other non-bank financial institutions. The model that this Government proposed was a State-based prudential supervisory system with nationally coordinated standards and practices, together with a national industry-funded liquidity support system. I am pleased to announce that, at the Premiers Conference, a steering committee was appointed. A very strict set of terms of reference has been given to the steering committee that takes into account those objectives that I have just spelt out—the objectives of the Queensland Government. The Government is hopeful that by next March, when the steering committee has to report, we will be very close to having a national system for the supervision of building societies. The other point I would like to make today is that it has been suggested in the press that the progress towards the reform of the building society industry in Queensland will stall as a result of the Premiers Conference. I would like to say that it will not stall. Within the next fortnight, the Brady committee will present the final report to Government. The Government will then begin to take action to reform the non-bank financial institutions industry in Queensland so that it can be more competitive and so that, as soon as a uniform system applies throughout the country, the Queensland industry will be more competitive and will be able to compete with interstate bodies that seek to move to Queensland. Legislative Assembly 4521 7 November 1990

Comments made by New South Wales Minister for Corrective Services Mr PREST: I ask the Minister for Justice and Corrective Services: is he aware of comments made last night on ABC television by the New South Wales Corrective Services Minister, Mr Michael Yabsley, about the administration of Corrective Services in Queensland? If so, could he inform the House about the nature of those comments? Mr MILLINER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I would be pleased to inform the House about Mr Yabsley's comments, but, before I do, I might remind the Liberal Party members of this House that Mr Yabsley is a Minister in the New South Wales Liberal Government. It may come as a surprise to the honourable members for Toowong and Nerang that Mr Yabsley's views on the administration of Corrective Services in Queensland are poles apart from the rubbish constantly regurgitated by them and others in the Queensland Liberal Party. Let me cite what was said by Mr Yabsley on national television last night, which is as follows— "If I were to refer to an example in Australia that I think we should be following I would actually identify the Queensland prison system. Our difficulty in New South Wales is that you cannot do that, you cannot go down that path, and I think it is a very desirable path that Keith Hamburger has just described, in a system that is out of control . . . I think that some of the circuit breakers that are being used in Queensland, such as the establishment of Borallon prison, and if we can have some examples like that to give us a bit of a beacon in the darkness, then I think over the next five years we can look to a dramatically different and dramatically improved prison system." I think that Mr Yabsley's comments are a very clear—and, I might add, thoughtful—endorsement of the policies that this Government is pursuing in the reform of Corrective Services in Queensland. This reform agenda has the support of National Party members in this House, and I commend them and thank them for that. It has already resulted in Queensland achieving a reduction in the number of offenders in prison in this State and in Queensland dropping from the third to the fourth highest State in terms of imprisonment rates behind Western Australia, the Northern Territory and New South Wales. Perhaps the Queensland Liberal Party could take a leaf out of Mr Yabsley's book and start supporting the reform process in a constructive and meaningful way. Cooke Inquiry Report Mr BEANLAND: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to paragraph 4.21.6 in the Cooke report, which states, in relation to the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union, as follows— "The union did not maintain a political objects fund at any time during the period covered by my Terms of Reference. This failure was in breach of the law." I ask: as the ALP benefited to the extent of $128,000 from this breach of the law, will the Premier recommend that his party repay this money to union members? As the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing received $1,000 from the union and the member for Caboolture received $100 as a result of this breach, will the Premier insist that those two members repay the money? Mr W. K. GOSS: Was that paragraph 4.21.6? Mr Beanland: Yes. Mr W. K. GOSS: I know it well, Mr Speaker. I am not familiar with that paragraph, but I think I have the gist of the question. I want to make two points. Firstly, as far as I am aware—and I have not read 4.21.6—there has been no illegality and no impropriety whatsoever, either on the part of the Australian Labor Party or on the part of the two members of Parliament who have been referred to in the question. I repeat—"no illegality and no impropriety". Legislative Assembly 4522 7 November 1990

Donations have been received in the normal course of events and in the normal way—in the same way as the member for Toowong and the Liberal Party have received numerous donations from various sources which they are not prepared to disclose. They have been properly received, legally received, accounted for in the normal way and quite openly. In relation to any offence that may have been committed in respect of those funds, I point out that it all remains to be seen; but, if there is some offence, then the persons who committed the offence should be liable to refund any moneys wrongfully used or wrongfully expended by them as a result of that offence. This Government will pursue those people to the letter of the law. Cooke Inquiry Report; Delays in Prosecution Mr BEANLAND: I ask the Attorney-General: is he concerned at the so-far six months' delay in the laying of charges against five people named in the first Cooke report into the affairs of the FEDFA, including ALP vice-president, Ken Goodhew? Does he agree that such a length of uncertainty creates great hardship for those five people and their families and that they would welcome an end to that uncertainty? Mr WELLS: I am pleased and surprised to hear the Leader of the Liberal Party's sympathy for people who are at risk in relation to their trial. However, while I am surprised by that, I would say that, with respect to his concern about the period of time that has been taken, the matter is with the police. The material that the commissioner provided to the Director of Prosecutions Office was neither in the form, nor of the kind, nor of the quantity, that would be sufficient to enable him to determine whether or not to bring charges against the people who were named in the first Cooke inquiry report. Recently, the commission made a request for additional police resources to gather that material, in particular statements and other evidentiary material, which needs to be put before the Director of Prosecutions in order to enable him to make a determination. When that material is available to the Director of Prosecutions, he will make a determination. He cannot make a determination until the necessary material forthcoming from the Cooke inquiry and from the police investigations is put before him. Radioactive Source for Gladstone-Rockhampton Pipeline Mr PALASZCZUK: I ask the Minister for Health: will he explain to the House the actions of his department in seizing a radioactive source from a contractor working on the Gladstone-Rockhampton pipeline? Mr McELLIGOTT: Earlier, the member for Callide gave notice of a question calling for an immediate explanation, which seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. I am not sure how she can give notice calling for an immediate explanation. I thank the honourable member for Archerfield for the question, which will enable me to give the explanation immediately. Brian Hunter, from Hunter Consulting, representing Inspection Testing and Certification Pty Ltd—ITC—a contractor working on the gas pipeline, made contact with my office at 6.30 p.m. on Monday, 5 November. A radioactive source is required to operate gamma ray equipment for inspection of pipe welds. ITC is not licensed for that purpose. Mr Hunter claimed that there was a small problem in relation to incomplete paperwork in terms of the licensing of the source to perform that job. On that basis, I agreed to a 24-hour stay of execution to enable documentation to be finalised. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr McELLIGOTT: I brought in this information in anticipation of a question from the member for Callide. Mr Stephan interjected. Legislative Assembly 4523 7 November 1990

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gympie will cease interjecting or I will warn him under Standing Order 123A. Mr McELLIGOTT: However, the inspection officer from the Division of Health and Medical Physics, who performed inspections to ensure compliance with legislated safety requirements, had departed to Gladstone and was unable to be contacted. On site, there was no responsible person representing the licensee, and the source was seized. Previous advice from my department to the company had stated that an amendment to the radioactive source licence would be provided subject to Australian standards of safety being ensured, required modification to the work practices involved in using the source being undertaken, and safe and secure storage of the source being available. I understand that none of those requirements had been complied with by the company. The applicant for a licence for possession of the source was unable either to confirm or deny that safety standards were being complied with and was unaware of the use of the source for the inspection purpose in Queensland. The departmental officer will return today to Brisbane with the source. As soon as safety standards have been met, my department will undertake to expedite amendments to the licence for that company. Hunter Consulting, representing ITC Pty Ltd, misled my office in the claim that all that was required was for paperwork to be fixed. My department would need to be satisfied that any modifications, if required, will be put in place on site to comply with safe storage and working practices with the use of that radioactive source. I suggest that no member of this Parliament would suggest otherwise. Conservation of Road and Rail Reserves and Stock-routes Mr PALASZCZUK: In directing a question to the Minister for Environment and Heritage, I refer him to a recent announcement by him and his colleagues the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Land Management of a program to enhance the conservation values of thousands of kilometres and hectares of road and railway reserves and stock-routes throughout Queensland. I ask: will he explain to the House the details of that new conservation program? Mr COMBEN: I thank the honourable member for a very good question, because it is about a cause that has received a lot of support across Queensland. Members on the Opposition benches seem to think that there is something scurrilous about protecting the stock-routes of Queensland. The question implied that I was enhancing the stock-routes. I do not intend to enhance the stock-routes. Together with Mr Hamill, the Minister for Transport, and Mr Bill Eaton, the Minister for Land Management, I will be protecting the stock-routes so that we will have a system containing 1.7 million hectares of land—— Mr Cooper: That's how you got up to 4 per cent. Mr COMBEN: No, it will not be part of the 4 per cent. I want more than 4 per cent. We will have 1.7 million hectares of the stock-routes properly managed for conservation purposes so that they will continue the great tradition of the stock-routes. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego and the member for Burdekin will cease interjecting. Mr Stoneman interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Burdekin under Standing Order 123A. Mr COMBEN: The great traditions of the stock-routes of Queensland—the long paddock of Queensland—that have been in place for over 100 years will remain. We Legislative Assembly 4524 7 November 1990 are saying that there will be a twofold improvement in their management. We will not sell them off, nor will we clear them, as the Opposition did. Mr Cooper: Oh, God! Mr COMBEN: If Mr Cooper would like me to send him a letter outlining his alienations and clearings, he can have it. However, he chose not to protect the conservation values of the stock-routes and road reserves. We will be taking the same protective measures as occurred in 1969 in Western Australia. The National Party Government was 21 years out of date with the rest of Australia. These same protective measures have been taken in South Australia and Victoria since 1985. Together with Mr Eaton's department, Mr Casey's department and Mr Hamill's department, we will properly manage the Crown reserves of this State for conservation purposes. It will be an enhancement to the conservation values of this State. We will manage them with the Rural Lands Protection Board, the United Graziers Association and the Cattlemen's Union. Mr Hobbs: You have not even spoken to them. Mr COMBEN: We will be speaking to them next week. We have already spoken to them a number of times. We will be properly managing them. It will be an adjunct to the national park estate, which will be doubled in the first term of this Government. Civil Offsets Program Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Minister for Manufacturing, Commerce and Small Business, I refer to his ministerial statement earlier today. In view of that statement, I ask: can he explain the operations of the civil offsets program? Is it correct that offsets accumulate only when Governments procure from overseas? If so, can he explain his criticism of Queensland's relatively low offsets figure? Does that merely indicate that previous Governments have not been involved in incurring major expenditure or had been spending at home rather than abroad? If so, will he now apologise for misleading the House? Mr SMITH: What an indictment! The honourable member was the Minister responsible for the department for two years and he does not know what he is talking about. He does not understand the difference. if the honourable member was not able to understand the difference after being the responsible Minister for two years, I do not think that I will be able to teach him in two minutes. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Do honourable members want to have another couple of minutes of question-time? Defence Department Contracts Mr BORBIDGE: I accept the assurance from the Minister in charge of offsets that he does not know what they are. In directing a further question to the Minister for Manufacturing, Commerce and Small Business, I refer to media reports in yesterday's Courier-Mail attributed to Government sources that his department only secured $1.6m in defence contracts for Queensland last year, and I ask: is the Minister aware that official Department of Defence figures show that the value of contracts increased from $28.616m in 1987-88 to $67.863m in 1989-90? Will the Minister now take this opportunity to defend his department from the misinformation campaign emanating from the Premier's office, and does he now accept that there is no relationship between defence contracts and offsets? Mr SMITH: I did not know that the honourable member has a hearing problem as well as a problem in understanding. Legislative Assembly 4525 7 November 1990

The honourable member is looking at a newspaper article. I have now on two occasions—both yesterday and today—spelt out the difference. I have spelt out the actual cost. The honourable member refuses to accept it. He chooses to look at and compare the figures that appeared in the Courier-Mail. I have given the honourable member the correct figures, not on one day but on two days, and I do not intend to do so a third time. Educational Facilities on Sunshine Coast Mr BARBER: I refer the Minister for Education to the continuing rapid population growth on the Sunshine Coast, and I ask: can he advise what action the Government will take to ensure that adequate educational services and facilities are in place to cater for the growth now and in the future? Mr BRADDY: I thank the honourable member for his question. The honourable member, of course, is particularly interested in the educational facilities of the Sunshine Coast region. As a result of the tremendous school population growth in that region—something like 32 per cent—in its recent State Budget the Government allocated $7m for capital works not only in the honourable member's electorate of Cooroora but also in the electorates of Gympie, Landsborough and Nicklin. Honourable members will note that the non-Labor electorates in that region similarly received a significant education capital works component. This is important to the honourable member's electorate. There will, of course, be a need for a new high school to relieve the burdens on the Noosa and Pomona district high schools and also for a new primary school in the Mudjimba/Pacific Paradise region. This primary school is a high priority. It is anticipated that it will be in the capital works program for the next financial year. I thank the honourable member for his significant interest in the educational facilities of the Sunshine Coast region, the provision of which certainly needs to be given a high priority. National Park at Mount Coolum Mr BARBER: I refer the Minister for Environment and Heritage to his pre-election commitment to declare a national park at Mount Coolum on the Sunshine Coast. The Sunshine Coast has been waiting for 10 years for the declaration of this significant park. Will the Minister give an assurance of and commitment to the creation of a Mount Coolum national park? Mr COMBEN: I thank the honourable member for Cooroora for a very good question. It is a perceptive question at a very appropriate time. I am very pleased to be able to tell the House and the honourable member that the Mount Coolum national park should be gazetted later this month. It is a substantial national park. It is one that would not be in place if Labor was not in Government, because the former Government tried to quarry it to start with; then it wanted to put a cable-car up there; and then it wanted to log it, but there were no trees there. The new national park at Mount Coolum will be 600 hectares in area. It is part of the hinterland of the Sunshine Coast; it is part of the backdrop of the Sunshine Coast. There are some marvellous walks over Mount Coolum. I challenge honourable members opposite to walk up Mount Coolum and not to swing from the trees, as they did last time. What the Government will be bringing to that area is proper management of that marvellous mountain national park up there. I thank the honourable member for his assistance, along with that of the Honourable Minister for Land Management, Bill Eaton, in obtaining that national park. It will be a good adjunct to the nature conservancy of the honourable member's electorate and to that of the rest of the Sunshine Coast. Legislative Assembly 4526 7 November 1990

Sacking of Mr J. O'Dwyer Mr SANTORO: I ask the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations: will he confirm the sacking on Monday of Mr Jim O'Dwyer, the Director of the Division of Workers' Compensation? Could he explain why Mr O'Dwyer was sacked in view of the fact that the Minister has recently boasted that the workers' compensation system in Queensland is the most efficient in Australia? Could the Minister explain why, after being a loyal public servant for as many as 30 years, he was given only two hours' notice of dismissal? Could he confirm who has replaced Mr O'Dwyer? Could he tell the House the qualifications of this person and whether or not he believes that those qualifications are suitable? Mr WARBURTON: I will answer as much as I could hear. I understand that the honourable member has asked a question about the dismissal of a person in the Division of Workers' Compensation, Mr O'Dwyer. The situation is this—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired. At 3.30 p.m., In accordance with the Sessional Order, the House went into Committee of Supply. SUPPLY Estimates—Tenth Allotted Day Estimates-in-Chief, 1990-91 Transport Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development) (3.31 p.m.): I move— "That there be granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year 1990-91, a sum not exceeding $66,087,000—Education, Department of Transport (Consolidated Revenue)." The past 11 months has been a time of fundamental reform and achievement in the new Department of Transport. Those achievements are spread across the department's areas of responsibility and have produced direct and quantifiable benefits to the Queensland community. Whichever area of operations one chooses to examine—whether it be roads, road safety, public transport planning, community consultation, rail, ports or the vitally important area of customer service—the runs are on the board. During this debate, I will examine those subject areas in a systematic and detailed manner. As all honourable members of the Committee are aware, this Government has given top priority to road- safety issues. Its importance is best demonstrated by the Government's moves to raise road safety to divisional status in the structure of the new Department of Transport, and to ensure, through this year's Budget, that it has the funds to do the job. In the Goss Government's first Budget, funding for road safety doubled from $7m to almost $14m, and that does not include more than $7m in extra funding negotiated with the Federal Government as part of the Prime Minister's 10-point road safety package. The Government's major road safety initiatives include— national licensing of heavy truck and bus drivers; speed limiting heavy vehicles; zero blood alcohol limit for novice drivers; a graduated licensing scheme for young drivers; Legislative Assembly 4527 7 November 1990

the introduction of compulsory bicycle helmet wearing; legislation to introduce "red light" cameras at dangerous intersections; and a Statewide baby capsule hire scheme to give parents affordable access to capsules to protect infants. I add that this scheme has been a resounding success and well received by the community. Another priority area for the Goss Government is in the micro- economic reforms introduced to improve the efficiency of Queensland's transport network. The Government initiated a wide-ranging review of the State's port authorities and waterfront operations. This resulted in a report listing 57 recommendations for administrative changes which have been endorsed by Cabinet. The recommendations, which are presently being implemented, cover areas such as port administration, the environment, financial practices, an integrated port strategy and direct local community input in port operations. To introduce genuine competition at the port of Brisbane, State Cabinet approved the purchase of an additional crane which has produced immediate results. Because of the prospect of competitive container operations at the port, a major French shipping line has selected the port of Brisbane as its only port of call in Australia. During the past 11 months, Queensland Railways has undergone major financial and management restructuring to ensure a more businesslike approach to rail's transport operations and make it more responsive to customer needs. The employees of Queensland Railways are involved in this process at the job level and through the ministerial consultative committee, which gives employees direct access to the decision-making process through employee representatives who meet regularly with myself and senior rail management. Their contribution is vital to the success of the reforms that are aimed at rejuvenating Queensland Railways and ensuring a viable rail network into the next century. Planning for the small freight project is now well advanced. This project is developing a network of major freight centres and door-to-door delivery services to win back small freight business that has been surrendered to other forms of transport during the past three decades. By increasing the amount of business done by rail, and reducing the overheads, the Government can reduce the present unsustainable loss of $480m on Queensland Railways general freight and livestock operations. As well, the Queensland Government has given in-principle agreement to participate in the national freight initiative. While this initiative will have little direct impact on the operations of Queensland Railways, being only concerned with the standard gauge interstate line linking Brisbane with New South Wales, it will produce significant benefits for Australia as a nation, particularly when the port of Brisbane is linked to the national network. Moving on to roads—the strategic road plan review is under way to establish clear guidelines for the better targeting of road funds to reflect economic and social priorities. The need for community consultation before major road works projects are undertaken has been recognised under this Government. I have implemented extensive consultation processes covering works along Route 20 and the Cavendish Road rail crossing. They will provide the model for future consultative processes. In the area of public transport, in January, the South East Queensland Passenger Transport Study was established and is examining the passenger transport needs of the region stretching south to the Gold Coast, west to Toowoomba and north to the Sunshine Coast. This is obviously a thumbnail sketch of the activities and achievements in the Transport portfolio which have established the change of direction in public policy which Queenslanders demanded at the poll on 2 December. The regional nature of the State, combined with a relatively small total population, has meant—and will continue to mean--that the process of economic development in any one location will rely heavily on trade between other regions, States and nations. Trade in Queensland requires the carriage of people and goods over substantial distances, with correspondingly high costs. The cost disadvantage makes it essential that Queensland has in place a transport infrastructure which is efficient both in the allocation of resources and in their subsequent use. To merely maintain the transport system that the Government inherited, which is, in many cases, inadequate and disjointed, will seriously handicap future investment and Legislative Assembly 4528 7 November 1990 economic growth in Queensland. The Goss Government's transport policies are therefore framed around the economic and social imperative of coordinating a convenient, reliable and reasonably priced network of transport services. The integration of the former Departments of Harbours and Marine, Main Roads and Transport to form the one Department of Transport was the first step in the reform of the State's transport system. For the first time, Queensland has a coordinated approach to transport issues. A coordinated transport network will give the Queensland community access to a comprehensive, reliable transport service with the flexibility to meet the varying requirements of both business and the general community. Road and rail networks can be developed with a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the other land transport mode. The linkages of land transport to port facilities will finally receive attention. As there was no formal connection in the past between this State's policy administration of land and sea transport, the concept of mutual interdependence was regrettably overlooked. Ports were there to dock ships, railways to run trains, roads to carry trucks. The point is that ships, trains and trucks all carry goods with transport requirements that frequently extend beyond the use of one particular mode. An integrated approach will ensure that all links in the transport chain receive attention. But not only has the integration of the department resulted in a more coordinated approach to the transport system, it has also produced considerable operational and administrative savings—savings that are worthwhile outlining because the new Department of Transport is concerned about the needs of its customers. It therefore places great emphasis on delivering high-quality services. A major part of the client services program is the development of a Statewide network of one-stop shops. The one-stop shop allows for a wide range of business, which in the past involved visits to three different Government offices, to be undertaken at one convenient location. People are now able, under the one roof, to renew drivers' licences, motor vehicle and boat registration, along with a wide range of transport-related business. So far, 10 one- stop shop services have been provided across the State, with an additional 13 expected this year. This move has not only improved the delivery of services to the Queensland community but it has also saved the Queensland taxpayers a substantial amount of their hard-earned money. It is estimated that savings of more than $500,000 will be achieved with this initiative alone. Amalgamation of the department's corporate services facilities led to an immediate saving of 48 positions. The availability of these positions has enabled significant new initiatives in policy and planning functions and the critical road safety area to be resourced. A program of strategic planning and review of existing functions will result in further staff savings. The former Government was very good at using sections of the public service as a propaganda machine. Each department devoted a huge amount of resources to churning out endless streams of material, which in many cases had more to do with self-promotion of Ministers than providing useful information for the public. The Goss Government has changed the focus of the department's public relations activities. This change of emphasis to education and information has resulted in savings in my department of $148,000 a year. A staff saving of seven positions was also achieved in this area. Amalgamation of service delivery in the Business Services Division has led to significant savings. For example, rationalisation of four departmental libraries into two has brought direct savings of $100,000 a year. By this process, valuable resources have been made available to higher priority areas of the department's operations. Yesterday in this Chamber honourable members saw another example of the cost-saving benefits of the amalgamated department when I tabled the department's annual report. This year's report cost less than $50,000 to prepare and print. That compares to last year's total cost of $171,000, and I will let the 1989 figures speak for themselves. The former Department of Transport $35,818 Harbours and Marine $34,265 Main Roads $51,109 Legislative Assembly 4529 7 November 1990

Queensland Railways Full Colour $25,000 Staff Copies $25,000 TOTAL $171,102 Those figures not only demonstrate the advantage of integrating the former departments but also show this Government's greater concern for how taxpayers' money is spent. The department has also reduced its vehicle fleet. At just one location, Transport House in the Valley, a motor-pool operation was introduced, leading to a five-vehicle reduction. When Statewide pooling is introduced by the department, it is estimated that the total pool will be reduced by 50 motor vehicles. In addition to these direct savings on the motor-vehicle fleet, a conversion to an operating cost method of fringe benefits tax calculation is expected to realise a saving of more than $30,000 this financial year. Other significant savings have been made through the introduction of multiskilling in the department's work force. I am sure every member of the Committee shares the community's concern about heavy vehicle safety and the enforcement of safety regulations. The Department of Transport is developing a Statewide enforcement strategy aimed to ensure that transport regulations are observed. As part of this strategy, 82 officers have been trained in alternative enforcement areas in addition to their specialised area. In addition to the obvious road safety benefits, the multiskilling of these officers has provided savings so far of $115,000. And the list of examples of greater efficiency and cost-saving directly attributed to the successful integration of the various former departments goes on. The Division of Roads, which has a decentralised administration, has been well placed to provide a wide range of technical services to other divisions of the department. The district material laboratories of the division are undertaking testing in certain regional centres for Queensland Railways, a task that previously had to be undertaken by private laboratories. The regional geotechnical units are providing to Queensland Railways and the Division of Marine and Ports expertise which was previously provided by private consultants. District workshops are carrying out repairs on certain items of railway equipment, as well as servicing railway vehicles. In the Yeppoon area—which is in the electorate of my colleague the member for Broadsound—the Roads Division is undertaking the construction of a boat-ramp on behalf of the Division of Marine and Ports, resulting in savings of about $20,000. A further $10,000 is being saved in north Queensland by Roads Division officers supervising repairs to two Division of Marine and Port barges. Before integration, inspectors and engineers from Brisbane would have been required to supervise the work. In the Emerald and Barcaldine areas, Queensland Railways is now carting road-building material for the Roads Division. This is expected to result in substantial savings in transportation costs and, importantly, reduce the number of heavy vehicles on central Queensland roads. The integration and regionalisation of bulk stores is presently being examined and should provide significant long-term savings for the department. It is clear from these examples that the formation of an integrated department has been a huge success. The community is receiving improved services, resources are being used more efficiently and there have been substantial savings. The Goss Government's aim of increased delivery of services at decreased costs is certainly being achieved in the Department of Transport. Transport reform I would like to turn now to reforms within major sections of the Department of Transport—rail, roads and the waterfront. The need for micro-economic reform of Queensland's transport system is clear. If our economy is to grow and prosper, if it is to become more internationally competitive and if we are to continue to deliver services to the community, wide-ranging reform of the transport system is essential. This Government has not shirked its responsibilities in this area. Legislative Assembly 4530 7 November 1990

Railways This year Queensland Railways celebrates its 125th year of operation. However, the network was threatened with a slow, lingering death until we took the steps necessary to secure rail's future. Recent decades have seen the development of a functional road network which has enabled the growth of a road transport service which offers, in comparison to rail, quicker times and competitive prices, albeit at some hidden cost. For rail to avoid the fate of the bullock drays, it must respond to the challenge of road transport and reorganise its operations to meet the market requirements of speed, flexibility and value. The rail industry has a major role to play in the provision of transport services to Queensland. Given the intrinsic advantages of rail, the question becomes one of how Queensland Railways can be placed in a position of responsiveness to the market. The answer is to design the organisation to reflect a market emphasis and meet the needs of the community—our customers. Restructuring/Commercialisation—Principles The management of Queensland Railways has been characterised by an excessive focus on the engineering and operational aspects of the service, with the assumption that the market for its service was fixed and immutable. Also, it must be said that the petty involvement of Government in operational matters did not encourage rail management to overcome this inertia. In response to this technically sound but misguided culture, I have initiated a comprehensive reform of Queensland Railways from its relationship with Government through its internal organisational structure to the essential nature of its operations. Queensland Railways is undergoing major organisational and structural changes. The present top-heavy bureaucracy, which has 17 levels of administration, will be reduced to seven. Railways management will report to a board of directors, and that board will then report to the Minister on the achievement of predetermined performance criteria. The role of the Minister will retreat from the day-to-day operational involvement of the past and concentrate on the formulation and monitoring of strategic policy. New Accounting Procedures The nature of financial management and reporting is also undergoing fundamental change. Whereas in the past receipts and expenditure were paid into and extracted from the Government's consolidated revenue, Queensland Railways accounts will now be self-contained, that is, receipts and expenditure will be handled together in a trust fund separate from consolidated revenue. The system of accounting will be altered from a cash to an accruals basis, thereby requiring the organisation to properly budget for its long-term liabilities and investment requirements. In line with its commercial charter, Queensland Railways will be expected to fund its full economic costs from its own revenue sources. When referring to economic costs, I include a suitable profit margin to provide both a return on investment to the Government and a flow of earnings to be retained for subsequent investment. There are a number of rail services which the Government will require Queensland Railways to retain on the basis that rail is the best means of honouring its perceived obligations to maintain non-viable but socially and economically important transport links. The provision of such services will not continue to be cross-subsidised by other railway revenue, but rather will be directly funded from the recurrent budget of the Government. Queensland Railways should therefore be free to pursue its commercial charter without, at the same time, funding political priorities from its own revenue base. Organisational Restructuring Queensland Railway's divisional structure is presently undergoing a complete overhaul. This restructuring entails the reorientation of QR's approach towards an emphasis on service provision by flattening the hierarchy and dividing operations on the basis of product or service groups. The coal and minerals, passenger and travel, and freight Legislative Assembly 4531 7 November 1990 groups will be operated as business units or profit centres. The general managers of those groups will have direct responsibility and control over the staff, assets and the bulk of administrative tasks relevant to the provision of the particular service. The business groups will be located in that region of Queensland which is dominated by their activity. Head office will be a lean operation providing corporate services and coordinating and overseeing administrative procedures. Decision-making will be devolved to the business groups in the regions. In the past, the reporting of Queensland Railways' operating results has been nothing short of deceitful, as previous National and Liberal Party Governments sought to hide the true picture of Queensland Railways' financial position. The performance of individual services was hidden from view, and even the total result was clouded by coal and mineral freight revenue policy and some neglected interest repayments. A serious consequence of that reporting style has been the absence of accountability and the growth of complacency. Responsibility for performance essentially did not exist. No one, except a few divisional heads in QR and perhaps the Treasury, was aware of the true picture. It was a very cosy situation. Nobody got hurt—except the customer and the Queensland taxpayer. The operational guidelines of the new organisational structure will require individual product groups to calculate and report their operating results. Those results, together with other measures of productive and organisational performance, will be open for public scrutiny. For the first time, QR's share-holders—the Queensland public—received a clear picture of QR's operations in the 1990-91 annual report, which contains a full and frank disclosure of QR's financial position. The divisional and executive management will become more directly accountable for their performance. The commercial charter of management will not be muddied by vague political commitments. Services that have an essential role in facilitating long-term social or economic stability and development will be identified for direct community service obligation funding. Those changes will help to bring about a change in the culture of Queensland Railways. In its place will be a focus on the provision of a transport service. QR remains overreliant on the revenue from coal haulage. This has concealed substantial losses in other parts of QR's operations from both the community and even QR's employees. A typical comment has been, "Well, things could be done better, but they are making an operating profit, so what does it matter?" It matters a lot! If things can be done better, those things better be done! Losses in one area of railway operations should not be ignored simply because the books show a large surplus in another. The $480m loss in general freight operations is simply intolerable. The small freight project, which I announced in September, is one important recent initiative aimed at rationalising the handling of small consignments of general freight. I have announced that QR will invest in at least 23 modern, well-equipped freight centres to serve as a focus for freight traffic. I have also made it clear that, upon the completion of a comprehensive process of consultation with the affected communities, other centres will be added to the list. The aim is to ensure that the network of centres will adequately serve the full range of Queensland destinations. Instead of stopping at every station on the network, freight trains will service the major centres along the route, load and unload much more efficiently and allow small trucks to complete the service. It is important to point out that the trucks to be generally used in the distribution network—those in the 4-tonne to 7-tonne range—do only slightly more damage per kilometre to the road than does the average family car. This move will win back freight to rail. It will help to reduce the pressure on the State's road network by reducing the amount of freight moved long distances by heavy vehicles, with obvious economic and road safety benefits. Emerald, where the integrated road-rail network was introduced in 1988, provides an excellent example of how the system works. Towns serviced from Emerald now receive more frequent deliveries than they did in the past, and it is a service that is tailored to meet customers' needs. Rail freight in the Emerald area has increased by 30 per cent. A similar operation has been introduced to Biloela, and initial indications are that the Emerald experience is being repeated, increasing rail freight and providing a secure future for rail employees. Those changes in the handling of small freight are Legislative Assembly 4532 7 November 1990 necessary to ensure the long-term survival of Queensland's rail system. The loss of almost half a billion dollars is simply unsustainable. It is a half a billion dollars that could be used for investment to upgrade rail infrastructure through improved rolling stock and track alignments but instead is pumped down a seemingly bottomless pit of Government subsidy. The changes being put in place in Queensland Railways will make it into a stronger, more competitive organisation that will be in a position to win business from its transport competitors. It will be an organisation that has a direction and in which its work force can feel secure about its future. Ports We should never overlook the importance of our port network. Ports are Queensland's economic life-lines and links to the world economy. In 1989-90, $10.4 billion worth of exports and $4.3 billion worth of imports passed through them. This Government is strongly committed to the process of waterfront reform. As part of that commitment, my department has undertaken a review of Queensland's port authorities. The review of Queensland's port system revealed a number of significant and disturbing shortcomings in the administrative arrangements for the State's ports. The magnitude of those problems varied from port to port, but common elements were found in matters such as poor communications with port-users, non-structured approaches to marketing, insufficient focus on core-business operations such as asset maintenance, and a totally inadequate planning framework for individual ports and the port system as a whole. Many of those problems have evolved because of a lack of strategic oversight by the State Government. The charter and role of port authorities is not spelt out clearly in the present legislation. Therefore, confusion has replaced certainty in relation to what port authorities are intended to achieve. Port authorities will be required to submit a corporate plan to the Minister for approval. Through that approval mechanism, the Government will proceed to relax operational controls over port authority activities, while still maintaining an appropriate level of strategic oversight. The Government is keen to promote real competition between ports, but overcapitalisation of port facilities must be avoided. Implementation of the port review's 57 recommendations is well advanced, and the port authorities are responding positively and enthusiastically to the administrative reform package. Many of the reforms will be established well in advance of the introduction in the next 12 to 18 months of the recommended new Port Management Bill. The Government has retained a port administration system with a mix of locally based port authorities and centralised administration by the Harbours Corporation. Local interests are served by the appointment of local business and community representatives to boards. Those board members are in a position to oversee, interpret and respond rapidly to changing conditions. Port-user groups, representing the various interests related to the port, are being established to monitor the operations of the boards. At each of their meetings, the boards will be required to consider reports from the port-user groups. The Government's role is not to be involved in day-to-day operations but to provide strategic oversight of the port system and port authorities. To that end, a port services branch is being established in the Division of Marine and Ports to provide centralised services on port-strategy development, technical, commercial and industrial advice and port administration. It will be a focal point from which port authorities from around the State can seek assistance on matters that they do not, on their own, have the resources to address. Its aim is to enhance port performance, not to hinder it through involvement in day-to-day operations. Resources have been allocated to ensure that a significant proportion of the review recommendations will be implemented by July 1991. My department has prepared a Green Paper on regulations for all classes of vessel operating in Queensland waters. The aim of that Green Paper is to produce one set of clear regulations for each category of vessel designed to meet the requirements of the Act and the duty of the Marine Board of Queensland in ensuring the safety of life at sea. The boating fraternity comprises an important client group of my department. There are 106 000 small craft registered in Legislative Assembly 4533 7 November 1990

Queensland. As a group, the boating fraternity has a proud record of self-help, with a range of voluntary organisations set up to ensure safety on our waters. We support their initiative and back their efforts with a significant boating-safety program. Roads One of my first tasks as Transport Minister was to undertake a thorough review of departmental budgets. During that process, because our predecessors in Government had held a fire sale of income- earning assets so that they could pork-barrel in the lead-up to the election, I discovered a $90m shortfall in road-funding for the present financial year. Through prudent budgeting, I was able to increase road-funding for 1990-91 to $570m in Federal and State road funds, an increase of $540m on the previous year. Despite the difficulty involved in maintaining road-funding levels, it is essential that the Government continue to invest in roads to maintain those important economic and social life-lines. In the past, road- funding was haphazard, lacking any overriding strategic direction. Roads that could offer significant economic benefits if they were of good quality were often overlooked as local authorities engaged in a mad scramble for funds. In response to that, my department is currently formulating a road network strategy to the year 2001. Its objective is to provide strategic direction to the allocation of funds for the development and management of those roads for which the State is responsible. That will ensure we are using our scarce resources to best effect and that our annual programs are driven with a longer-term, strategic focus. The road network is the major transport link for a large part of Queensland. Despite what some people think, the majority of road funds are not spent in the south-east corner of the State. In recognition of the vital role that roads play in linking Queensland's rural and remote communities, approximately 80 per cent of the funds are spent outside the Brisbane metropolitan area. Roads are an important transport link for the State's rural exports. In north Queensland, the Government has allocated $108m for 1990-91, compared with $91m in 1989-90, an increase of approximately 20 per cent in that region alone. What the south-east corner does receive is the bulk of the funds for public transport. The region needs a reliable and well-serviced public transport system. An efficient public transport system that takes pressure off the road network allows for the bulk of the road funds to be spent outside the region. The Goss Government has a strong commitment to improving the public transport system, not only in the south-east corner but also across the State. That commitment is demonstrated through its continued funding of bus and train operations throughout Queensland. This year, the State Government will contribute an estimated $22m to the operation of the Brisbane City Council's bus services and, in 1989-90, the Government met the $98m loss on suburban rail. For the first time, a study is examining the public transport needs of south-east Queensland. The findings of the South East Queensland Passenger Transport Study will be invaluable in planning to meet the demands that rapid population growth makes on our infrastructure and transport services. Conclusion Under this Government, there is accountability right across the board. The Department of Transport has responsibility for spending approximately 30 per cent of the funds provided by the Queensland taxpayers who are the share-holders in all of its activities. The Government must ensure that Queenslanders receive full value for every dollar spent and that they can see how their money is spent. Positive steps have been taken to improve efficiency and service, and I guarantee that that program of reform will continue. Those reforms are vital for Queensland. The Government has shown its commitment to make the hard decisions, and I can assure all honourable members that this Government will continue to make those hard decisions in the best interests of all Queenslanders. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! I desire to inform honourable members that, on the Vote proposed, I will allow full discussion on all of the Minister's departmental Estimates (Consolidated Revenue, Trust and Special Funds). Legislative Assembly 4534 7 November 1990

For the information of honourable members, I would point out that the administrative acts of the department are open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs) (4.02 p.m.): I am pleased to take part in this Estimates debate. The Transport Department has travelled a very bumpy road. There have been many controversies surrounding this Government, and some of the most significant involve the Transport Department. It is my view, and the view of those people to whom I have spoken, that the Transport Department is far too big and cumbersome to be overseen properly by one Minister. His portfolio includes main roads, the Marine and Ports Division, railways, road safety and transport. In addition, I believe that to some extent the Minister is preoccupied with his other role of Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development. I am not sure how successful he is with that portfolio. I am not trying to make my speech a personal attack on the Minister in any way, but I simply point out that problems do exist. No matter where I go, when I meet people involved in some way with the Minister's department, they say that the Minister is not communicating with them and that he does not appear to be able to communicate at their level. They say that the Minister does not appear to understand what they are talking about and they are all very apprehensive. They do not know what is in store for them next. The Minister commented that a lot of consultation was taking place, but I do not know with whom, because if one talks to the ordinary fellows working on the railways, main roads or at ports, they all make the same comment; they do not know what is happening and are very worried about their jobs. They do not believe that the end result will be any better. It is my personal view, and the view of many people I have spoken to, that up- market businessmen with expertise should be engaged to help the Government along. The Minister says that to some extent he is doing that, but I thought that the sacking—which is literally what it was—of Jock George from the Port of Brisbane Authority was totally beyond comprehension. Mr Beattie: Have a bit of a look at the future, not the past. What is the matter? Mr LESTER: That is what I am trying to do. Under Jock George the Port of Brisbane Authority increased its net profit in 1987-88 from $3.9m the previous year to $17.1m. In addition, he took on a study of work practices and he reduced timber costs by 75 per cent. The story continues as to what Jock George did when dealing with work practices and increasing the profitability of the Port of Brisbane Authority, but he went a lot further than that. It is clear to me—and to those who have told me—that the unions were behind the push to get rid of Jock George. Obviously this Government listened to the union, and a good man who was doing a good job was sacked. That is very wrong and this Government will feel the consequences of this. There is no doubt about that. The Government cannot go on sacking people who have performed and done a good job simply because they have stood on the toes of some of the union people. In addition, the Government's actions in relation to some of the other harbour boards is beyond comprehension. Mr Fenton at Gladstone was a good man but this Government replaced him with Mr Zussino, who is the head of the ALP in Gladstone. The Government put its own ALP hack in charge of the Gladstone Port Authority. Mr Prest: They called him "1 per cent". Mr LESTER: I heard the comments made by the honourable member for Port Curtis and they will be recorded in Hansard. The ALP president in Gladstone is now the head of the Gladstone Port Authority. In Cairns Mr Earl was doing an excellent job and was a very responsible man, but the Government sacked him as well. In Townsville this Government has put in charge Mike Reynolds, who is another eminent ALP person, and yet there were people with the expertise such as Professor Scott and Fred Tritton on the Townsville Port Authority. Legislative Assembly 4535 7 November 1990

They are two brilliant people, but what happened to them? They got the sack. In Mackay Edgar Cliffe—who is another brilliant man and who was doing a good job at the Mackay Port Authority—also got the sack. These port authorities were doing well. They were handling the unions' practices and getting ahead. Yet, because the unions told the Government to jump, it asked, "How high?" I turn now to look at Queensland Railways. This Government has really upset people involved in Queensland Railways. The Minister just does not seem to want to communicate with the people working on the railways. These people do not know what is going on and are very worried about the possible loss of some 4 000 jobs. These are not my comments. I am citing public comments made in the press by union personnel. They are concerned that jobs will be lost, and they do not seem to know what is happening. I do not know where consultation is taking place, but the average railway person does not have any idea of what is going on. Letters from disgruntled railway people are floating all over the place, including one from a gentleman from Pialba who has written to every member of Parliament stating what he thinks of the Labor Party and its broken promises. These people have families to support, yet they hear that their jobs are going to be lost because of the cut-back in services and the reduction in the number of railway stations from 312 to 23. Is it any wonder that these people are worried about what will happen? Sure, it is reasonable to expect experimental activity to reduce costs, but to apply cut-backs on the scale of reducing the number of railway stations from 312 to 23 is absolutely ridiculous. For example, goods will be transported from Emerald to Blackwater, in spite of the fact that Blackwater is a larger town. I do not know what the Minister intends to do about Alpha, which is a very important centre that does not even have a railway station. The move away from rail transportation obviously comes at a time when the Federal Government is talking about increasing taxes on road transport to supposedly stimulate Australian rail freight services. The Federal Government is saying that road transport costs will be increased and that more trucks will be on the road. The Minister is saying that there will be fewer trucks on the road, but that is a lot of rubbish. That cannot be the case, because the Minister intends to cut down the number of railway stations and the number of loading facilities for sheep and cattle, which means that trucks will have to travel further to get to the nearest rail head. Obviously, there will be more trucks on the road, and they will be hit with increased costs to which I will refer later. Many of the problems associated with rail transportation are due to the fact that in recent years the Federal Government has given nothing in terms of revenue to the States for rail services. Mr Beattie: Give it a bag, too. Mr LESTER: Yes, one could well bag the Federal Government for what it is doing, because it says one thing and then does the opposite. The Minister is quick to blame country general freight, grain and livestock freight and country passenger services for losses in rail revenue. On a number of occasions, he has stated this in the newspaper, but he does not mention that coal freights are making a profit or that the suburban services are losing up to $93m a year. In addition, the Government plans to provide additional services for Redcliffe, the Gold Coast and Inala. A moment ago, the Minister said that more money had to be spent on urban transport systems, which would obviously include rail. I do not knock that proposal, but I urge the Minister not to make statements to the press and belt the people who live in the country areas by saying that, in his view, it is their fault that Queensland Railways is making a loss. The Minister must remember that country people are important. They produce primary goods and contribute heavily to the economy. While I do not suggest that there should be a reduction in passenger services, I have noticed advertisements in the newspapers stating, "Help the environment--Take a train". By taking that action, the Minister is sowing the seeds of cutting back country railway services, in spite of the Legislative Assembly 4536 7 November 1990 fact that there will be an increased number of trucks on the roads and a resultant increase in the need for road maintenance. I am also led to believe that rail freight charges will rise, which will also result in an increased use of road transportation. There has been discussion in the press about the fact that the Sunlander carries a great number of pensioners. I regard this type of media comment as the thin end of the wedge in the move to take away pensioner concessions. In spite of the fact that in previous years pensioners worked and paid their taxes, the Minister is complaining in the press about free rides being given to pensioners by Queensland Railways. Country people have also been particularly unhappy to see an outright attack being made on the Midlander, the Westlander and the Inlander services because of losses being sustained by Queensland Railways. I notice that the Minister did not dare to mention the position in relation to suburban passenger transport. The criticism was yet another attack on country people, whereas so much more could be done with the excellent passenger services provided by Queensland Railways. For example, a person could take a trip on the Spirit of Capricorn to Rockhampton, travel during the day on the Midlander service to the Stockman's Hall of Fame, and then return to Rockhampton to spend a day there. After that, he could travel back to Brisbane on either the Capricornian or the Spirit of Capricorn, and that would be one of the great railway journeys in Australia. In spite of that possibility, the Government does not seem to want to promote the service. At one time, it was suggested that the Midlander service would be discontinued, but it was discovered that its passenger numbers had increased. From time to time, I have asked the Minister to increase the Midlander services, but he has refused. I find it difficult to understand why the Government does not run additional Sunlander services to Cairns. The Capricornian stops in Rockhampton on Monday morning and lies idle until Thursday night. It could be used—as it sometimes is during the school holidays—as a Sunlander service to Cairns. The other Capricornian train based in Brisbane could also be used to provide a Sunlander service. By using the existing rolling stock, there is scope to increase the Sunlander services, which would provide great benefit to a large number of people. It is ridiculous that, unless people book three months ahead, they cannot obtain sleeper accommodation on the Sunlander. Queensland Railways personnel must be kept better informed. They are attempting to do a good job. I have the utmost respect for the people who work on the trains and look after the passengers so well. In Queensland, we should not be taking away small services. I have received complaints from pineapple-growers in Woombye, Nambour, Beerburrum and Wamuran. I understand that Queensland Railways is considering not carrying any more pineapples to the cannery from those sidings. Those areas produce thousands of tonnes of pineapples. Many more trucks will be on the road. Because those trucks will return empty, it will not be a profitable service. Under the new administration, Queensland Railways does not appear to have time to mess around with pineapples and cannot find time to do the shunting. If the Government thinks that, at the end of the day, it will have more people using rail to freight goods, it has another think coming. It simply will not happen. We should be expanding our railways. At present, there is talk of building a railway line from Alice Springs to Darwin. In Queensland, we should be pushing to have a railway line from Mount Isa to Darwin. That is not such a stupid idea. The people of the Northern Territory use approximately 600 000 tonnes of domestic goods each year. Approximately 250 000 tonnes of goods are exported through Darwin to south- east Asian countries. Yet many of the goods that go through Darwin come from Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. The goods from Brisbane have to go almost to Adelaide—to Crystal Brook—to Alice Springs, and then by road transport to Darwin. It would be much more economical to transport goods from Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane by a new railway line through Mount Isa to Darwin, a line that could be built at a cost of approximately $700m. That type of activity would help Queensland greatly, would be more economical for the carriage of freight and would be a positive initiative in these days when Governments are having difficulty keeping people employed. Legislative Assembly 4537 7 November 1990

Coal-owners are concerned that, because diesel fuel is used, freight rates will escalate. Because the price of diesel has increased recently, the Treasury has collected a windfall of from $30m to $50m. I seek leave to table a small communique from the coal-miners association and ask that it be incorporated in Hansard. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! I will check the table to ascertain if it is in order to be incorporated in Hansard. Mr Hamill: That's not consolidated revenue. Mr LESTER: It is going to Queensland Railways. However, the Government is getting money under false pretences and something should be done to overcome the problem. The taxi industry is concerned that little action has been taken on safety for its drivers. Recently, three drivers have been killed. Something should be done to ensure that safety mechanisms are installed in the taxis to make them safer. It is a pity that we have reached this stage in Queensland. However, we need to pay more attention to that matter. I understand that the Minister has made some efforts to address the problem, but we need the issue to be solved as quickly as possible. I turn to the Travelsafe Committee, which is working particularly well under the chairmanship of the member for Salisbury, Len Ardill. One initiative that could be introduced to Queensland would be to provide more rest areas on the sides of roads. Another initiative would be the provision of more road-safety signs. Recently, during inspections in other States, I noted that some of the signs on the sides of the roads were "DDD—Drowsy Drivers Die", "RIS—Rest If Sleepy", "DSAD—Don't Sleep and Drive", "BTDSA—Break The Drive Stay Alive", and "SRV—Stop Revive Survive". Those signs are easy to read and are a constant reminder for people to drive safely, not to get drunk and to stop when they feel sleepy. Bus safety is also a great concern. We must ensure that legislation is enacted quickly to ensure that bus seats are safe. At present, the seats are installed into a cast iron bracket. When a crash occurs, the seats go flying, which is the reason why so many people are killed. Ultimately, seat belts will have to be provided, but they are of no use unless the seats are securely installed. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! Unfortunately, the document that the honourable member wanted to incorporate in Hansard does not comply with the guidelines. If the honourable member wishes to read the document, he may do so. Mr LESTER: I will just table the document. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr LESTER: I turn now to main roads. The Minister appears to be in a little bit of bother with the Tollbusters at present. The chairman of Tollbusters, Suzelie Connelly, made the following statement— "Before the election, labor promised that if they were elected there would be no toll on the Sunshine Motorway. As soon as they won power they broke that promise. Tollbusters are determined to force them to keep faith with the people of the Sunshine Coast. The broken promise is the first plank in our platform but there are other important issues. A toll anywhere on this road splits up the community of interest of the coast. The small townships north of the Maroochy River are still part of our Shire. People living there would be cut off from the business, cultural and social heart of the region by a toll on what is, effectively, a suburban road bridge over Maroochy River. That bridge is a vital link in the infrastructure of the area and it has been promised to us for 20 years. Legislative Assembly 4538 7 November 1990

The Mountain Creek plaza is forcing traffic over Buderim. Many of our older residents have trouble coping with this increase in traffic flow. A toll is a tax which discriminates against people who must use a road. What of Labor's hollow promise of no new taxes? The principle of 'User Pays' is often applied to this road by those seeking to justify tolls." The simple fact is that this particular toll-road will not pay. It seems to be an enormous mess. When the Minister promised to give consideration to cases of hardship, he said, "The Tollbusters do not want that." I have a small amount of information relevant to that issue. I seek leave to table that material and have it incorporated in Hansard. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! I ask the honourable member to continue with his speech while I examine the material to see whether it comes within the guidelines. Mr LESTER: The Opposition does not quite know what is happening in regard to some of the information that it is getting from the Roads Division. Only today a person from the Kingaroy Shire rang John Gralton, the Roads Division engineer in Gympie, and asked him how much money was being made available for the Kingaroy Shire. Mr Gralton told this person that that information was not be able to be made available. The poor fellow seemed to be under some stress when he said that. Obviously he is being put under some pressure by the department. I might add that that same person rang the Minister's office. Apparently the information was not given out by the Minister's office. The person concerned was told that it was a political question. I am only repeating what I have been asked to repeat. I think that this sort of thing should be attended to. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will tell honourable members how much money is going to be allocated to the Kingaroy Shire, if that is the way one has to go about seeking such information. I mention also that a number of people in the Nerang area want the highway between Tugun and Nerang upgraded to a four-lane highway as soon as possible. The Minister's support is needed in trying to get the Federal Government to do something sensible to bring down the price of fuel. Only a short time ago the cost of fuel a barrel was $US23; today, it is $US33. That has meant a windfall profit of more than $1 billion to the Commonwealth Government. The entire road maintenance program for Australia does not amount to much more than that. If that money could be returned to the States, a lot more could be done to maintain our roads. I cannot understand why—and I do not think anybody else can—Australia has to stick with world parity pricing when 80 per cent of our oil is produced locally and 20 per cent is imported. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The material that the honourable member sought to table and have incorporated in Hansard does not come within the guidelines for incorporation. Would the honourable member like to just table it? Mr LESTER: I do not agree with that, Mr Temporary Chairman, but I accept your ruling. I seek leave to table that material. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Could I read out the guidelines so that the honourable member is aware of them? Mr LESTER: I will not worry about it now. I will talk to you about it later, Mr Temporary Chairman. Recently, the cost of fuel in Queensland has risen from 55c a litre to 74.9c a litre—a rise of 19c. In the United States the price of fuel has risen from 28.6c a litre to 34.64c a litre. The price rise in the United States has been in the order of 6c, yet in Brisbane Legislative Assembly 4539 7 November 1990 there has been a rise of 19c. Obviously, it is a matter of great concern that nothing constructive appears to be being done to lessen the burden on the motorist. It means another windfall to the Federal Government of more than $1 billion. It is not going to do anything about it. The Federal Government should forego those excise profits until such time as the difficulties in regard to oil prices are overcome. I want to comment on the ISC report, which is of grave concern to the Opposition. I again ask the Minister to stop hiding behind the Federal Government and shelving everything by handing it over to the Federal Government. The Federal Government is going to introduce a registration fee that is going to mean an increase in haulage truck registration of approximately $12,000 to $16,000 a truck. The truck- owners just cannot afford to pay this increase. As 75 per cent of goods in Queensland are carted by road transport, that is going to mean a considerable increase in the price of goods to consumers, particularly country people. Queensland will also lose out because the Commonwealth Government is going to take over State taxes. In New South Wales and Victoria the State fuel tax is in the order of 10c a litre. Queensland does not have a State fuel tax. I understand that the intention is to average out this tax, which means that Queensland motorists will have to pay at least an additional 6c a litre for fuel. That will have to be paid by the ordinary motorist. Country people will be hurt more than anyone else by this increase because they have to travel the longest distances. Mr Beattie: Wrong. Mr LESTER: I am not wrong. I can assure the honourable member that that is what the Federal Government has in mind. What is going to happen under this new spirit of Federal cooperation is that Queensland will be ripped off. It has already been ripped off under the Medicare scheme because of the free hospital system in this State. Queensland will be ripped off again. I turn to stock transport. The owner of a trailer with three dogs will be paying up to $45,000 a truck in registration fees. I also want to voice the grave concern of the farmers, who have seen their truck registration fees increase at a time when their trucks are only used part-time for the cartage of grain.They have certainly taken great exception to those increases and, they were not too impressed when the Minister visited Emerald and indicated that he would do something about it, only to find out after the meeting that those increases had already been agreed to. Mr Hamill: That's rubbish. Mr LESTER: It is not rubbish. That occurred on the previous Thursday at the meeting of Executive Council. Mr Hamill: They were already gazetted. Mr LESTER: That is right, but the Minister did not say that to those people. That is just the point I am making, that they had already been gazetted and that the Minister did not tell those people. He gave them some hope that something might be done about these charges. They took those Minister's comments very seriously and, to say the least, they were very upset about what happened. I wish that more efforts were made to improve the quality of country roads. Queensland needs a second inland highway from Cairns to Charters Towers, Clermont, Emerald and Roma. Such a highway would relieve the traffic flow on the coastal highway. More money should be spent on inland roads, particularly the road through the Carnarvon Ranges and the stretch of road between Clermont and Charters Towers. If that work was carried out, Queensland would have a viable, second-alternative, near-coastal inland road. Time expired. Mrs EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha) (4.32 p.m.): Honourable members listened to the member for Peak Downs spend several thousand million dollars. If members of the Legislative Assembly 4540 7 November 1990

National Party ever, ever get back into Government, I wonder how they would afford to pay for those programs. Would there be an increase in petrol taxes? Many members in this Chamber will be well aware of my interest in transport, traffic management and traffic safety. I know that the member for Somerset, Mr Gunn, received a pile of letters from me over the last few years. Maybe he has a few of them tied up with a ribbon. Another former Minister for Main Roads also received many letters from me. I was the member of a community fighting the possible devastation of a major highway through old established suburbs. we called for a number of initiatives to convince us that a freeway was needed and that it would be beneficial. Because it was believed that improved traffic management would eliminate the need to destroy those suburbs, the committee asked for an increase in community involvement in decision- making, a study of freight movement, a study of south-east Queensland passenger transport and a united transport department. As all of those initiatives are now in place, and as I join in this Estimates debate, there can be few more satisfied members in this Chamber. One of the early steps taken by the Goss Labor Government was the merging of all areas of transport into the unified Department of Transport. To those citizens concerned with traffic management, this was a huge leap forward. In the past, various transport sectors were competing for clients, with no respect for rationale or the wider community effects. The Department of Main Roads became the main player in road transport and traffic management. With the best will in the world, it was obvious that a Main Roads engineering solution to any given traffic management problem was to build a bigger road, another bridge or a fly-over, and then to give itself an award for doing just that. The Toowong fly-over is one monstrosity that remains as a reminder to everyone of the sheer stupidity of those solutions, the waste of public funds and the absolute foolishness of the members who were photographed on it. The amalgamation of the various sectors has allowed consultation and integration of transport and traffic management planning, and I applaud the Minister for that. This amalgamation has allowed for a freight study to provide accurate information and data on commercial freight operations through city streets. The study will consult closely with industry and the community to develop options to alleviate the effect of commercial freight traffic on the urban environment. The transport of container trucks through the narrow, winding streets of Mount Coot-tha has been a major source of discontent in my electorate. In the past, Governments have tried to insist that this traffic was all from the local traffic area. Now, I know that a charolais stud and a potato-chip manufacturer are hiding in the green hills of Bardon, but I cannot accept that those premises receive hundreds of truckloads of primary produce every day from Jandowae, South Australia and other places. Mr Littleproud: What do you get from Jandowae? Mrs EDMOND: I would be interested to hear. An investigation has also begun to look for a western route to by-pass the city of Brisbane—not through the city, but around the city—to provide for the improved movement of through traffic, especially heavy vehicles. A major initiative has been the policy of integrating community consultation into the transport planning process, a policy that hitherto was unheard of. The community consultative process has been designed to give community input into broad transport strategy and local roadworks programs. Local area consultative committees have been formed along Route 20, where road safety problems have been identified and must be addressed. A committee has also been established at Cavendish Road, Coorparoo, to look at road issues. This process has been established by the Transport Department as a result of the controversy surrounding Route 20 and the high Legislative Assembly 4541 7 November 1990 community involvement. It will involve independent facilitators to help establish local area consultation and give local residents a say in significant decisions that affect their lives and life-styles. In recent years, the Brisbane City Council has carried out its own extensive traffic study—the Brisbane traffic study. To say that that study created controversy and concern is an understatement. It was designed to accommodate car usage for all. In doing so, it advocated a heavy traffic-engineering approach that would have seen the middle and inner residential suburbs reduced to small islands of residences surrounded by an ever-enlarging plethora of roads, bridges and car parks. The Brisbane traffic study served the very useful purpose of educating members of the community to Liberal Brisbane City Council intentions and rousing their anger. A number of active community groups emerged as they realised the full horrors of the BTS. However, it made the community aware of the need for an appropriate south-east Queensland passenger transit study that would look not only at how to fit in more roads in Brisbane, but also at how to best address the needs of passengers in the metropolitan area, while recognising the impact of the rapid urban growth areas outside the Brisbane City Council limits. The community, if not the Brisbane City Council, understands that increasing the number of roads merely increases traffic and all the noise, pollution and other environmental damage that that entails. I congratulate the Minister on his establishment of the SEPTS study, with Bill Crofts as its chairman. SEPTS is designed to look at the transport needs of the people in the area from the Gold Coast, north to the Sunshine Coast and west to Toowoomba. It has been structured to allow for widespread community input, together with local authorities, transport-operators, Government instrumentalities and special interest groups such as the disabled and the disadvantaged. I know that these groups have not been included in previous studies. The study recognised the need to address the social and environmental impact motor vehicles have on Brisbane and its neighbouring cities and suburbs and is therefore conducting local area studies to develop the passenger transport options that people want and will use. If patronage is to be increased, particularly during the peak driving periods, the community transit network must become more client oriented for the benefit of its passengers. The dependence on the private car must also be reduced to avert the damaging pollution and congestion problems experienced in other major cities. In this regard, Los Angeles is always the first to spring to mind. In saying this, I acknowledge that the western suburbs that I represent are among the worst offenders in terms of single- occupancy, peak-period car usage to the city. Reducing car usage will need an increase in public transport, and this is reflected in the funding available to extend the Brisbane suburban electrified commuter networks to service the outer growth areas, namely $23.2m for duplication of the existing railway line to Kuraby and Beenleigh, $10.5m to duplicate the inner-city tunnels—a present restriction to increasing urban rail transport—and $7.7m earmarked for land acquisition for the proposed Brisbane to Gold Coast railway line. I hope the Minister will in the future also consider the possibility of a light rail system to the western suburbs. Other major urban transport projects are the extension of the rail interchange at Petrie and the continual acquisition of new City X-press buses. The safety of children is of the utmost importance to me. It overrides the rights of parents and individuals. Although I am usually a very placid individual, as I am sure all honourable members will agree, I must confess that seeing motorists driving about with young children unsecured or babies sitting on someone's lap in the front of the car makes my blood boil. I sometimes think that the brain death studies I did on young infants in South Australia should have perhaps been performed on the parents who allowed their children to travel in that condition. The introduction of the Statewide baby capsule hire scheme gave parents affordable access to baby capsules. This scheme is being expanded to all Department of Transport offices throughout Queensland. Parents hiring the capsule will automatically receive further advice on child safety restraints Legislative Assembly 4542 7 November 1990 when their infant outgrows the capsule. But the education program must be continued to reinforce the importance of child restraints and, of course, seat belts for adults. It is estimated that between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of road-users do not use seat belts, but this group is way overrepresented in fatalities, with 43 per cent of fatalities involving people who were not wearing seat belts. Last year, nine infants and children under the age of 9 were killed on Queensland roads. Six of these were not restrained. I find this neglect unforgivable. In 1990, Queensland's road toll continued to slide, which is encouraging and indicates that Queenslanders generally are responding to the road safety message and becoming more responsible on our roads. It also means that the time is right to implement the Federal Government's 10- point road safety package. I congratulate the Minister on his acceptance of this challenge. The package includes a graduated licence scheme for young drivers and measures aimed specifically at improving heavy vehicle road safety with uniform licensing and penalty point accrual. This program will inject a welcome $16m into "black spot" road repairs. Another area addressed by the 10-point package is the compulsory wearing of helmets by cyclists. I cannot endorse that strongly enough. Contrary to the general decline in road statistics, there was an alarming increase in the number of bicycle-rider deaths from seven to 19. These grim statistics should also serve as a warning to all bike-riders and the parents of school-age children who ride bicycles that helmets should be worn. As a parent, I realise the cost of purchasing helmets for a growing family. As a member of the transport committee, I will be urging the Minister to minimise these costs by implementing a plan similar to the baby capsule scheme. I have no doubt as to the ultimate value of helmets, and I have been pleased to note that most schools in my electorate are already insisting on helmets for school cyclists. However, I do want to make them readily available at the minimum cost. I will also be urging the Minister to introduce throughout school zones speed limits of 40 kilometres an hour. Safe transit to school is surely a basic right of all schoolchildren. I believe this measure will be a start in reducing traffic trauma in the school-age group. I advocate reduced speed and traffic restraints in the form of speed inhibitors around the schools as a means of also reducing traffic congestion. A survey at Ithaca Creek State School, which my children attend, showed that about 75 per cent of parents drove their children to school because traffic made it too dangerous to allow them to walk or ride, although the same parents had deliberately purchased houses close to the school. Making it safe for their children to make their own way to school would not only be beneficial to their social and physical development but also would reduce peak-hour car trips by some 400 per day at this small suburban school. Multiply that number by the number of schools around Brisbane alone and we have a significant traffic management and environmental impact. Another safety measure that could be taken, especially in the city, is to permit cyclists to use footpaths. I accept that this will cause an outcry by the Opposition that "elderly people will be run down". I hear it now. But I have also been watching footpaths for years and believe them to be enormously underutilised and that there is room for both pedestrians and cyclists. Although shared tracks are common in other cities, there has been no recorded serious incident from collisions between pedestrians and cyclists. Separating cyclists from motor vehicle areas is a prime move in increasing cyclists' safety at a time when communities are encouraging cycling as an environmentally friendly means of transport. I congratulate the Minister on allowing bicycles to be carried on metropolitan trains. That is a long overdue improvement. I have discussed some aspects of the Transport Estimates in which I have been personally involved and interested. No doubt, my colleagues will discuss their areas of interest. In conclusion, I again congratulate the Minister on his achievements to date, especially his recognition that freeways are counterproductive in inner-city areas, that communities have a role in decision-making that directly affects that community, and the need for wide-ranging safety measures and education. I am grateful for his total rejection of the Opposition's plans to upgrade Route 20 to freeway status. I support these Estimates before the Committee. Legislative Assembly 4543 7 November 1990

Mr J. N. GOSS (Aspley) (4.45 p.m.): On the day that the Transport Estimates were conceived, they were really shot full of holes and in a shambles. The Minister's budget heralds hard times ahead. The cut-back in funds will force some major changes—good and bad—in the transport system in Queensland. The first section to feel the Hamill hatchet is the railways. The changes have already commenced with the mass closure of freight depots, the attack on school travel, the discouragement of business on unprofitable rail lines, the planned retrenchment of hundreds, if not thousands, of railway workers, the planned disposal of rolling stock and the closure of a number of rail lines. I do not know what has happened to the planned Redcliffe rail link. Yesterday, the Minister stated that, because the rail service does not carry sufficient freight, Queensland cannot afford a fast rail service. That is typical of the negative thinking of the Minister and his department. It is a chicken-and-egg situation. Until the railways can offer a faster, more efficient service at a competitive rate, they will not have the freight to carry on the service and will continue to lose business to road transport. It is difficult to compare different rail services. However, if Queensland Railways is to survive, the rail service must be very fast to make up for the vast distances involved. I acknowledge what the Minister said yesterday in his ministerial statement. I have obtained a number of books about the development of overseas rail services. Queensland Railways should consider adopting German rail technology, which I believe is far more practical than the French system, and retaining the traditional two- rail system. I urge the Government to take a closer look at German technology. Mr Hamill: You have been reading my speech of yesterday. Did you just have a look at it? Mr J. N. GOSS: If the Minister had listened he would have heard me say that I have obtained a number of overseas magazines about German technology that is ideal for Queensland. I realise that ALP Governments do not want passenger rail services to compete with their mates in the airline industry. That would be one reason why the Federal Government has not made a strong commitment to the development of a very fast rail system throughout Australia. In terms of track upgrading and development, this State is 25 years behind the times. Instead of aiming for a track design speed of 150 kilometres per hour, this Government should be seeking new rights of way to construct tracks designed for speeds of 200 and 300 kilometres per hour. The slow freight trains in Germany travel at 120 kilometres per hour and have been doing so for over 25 years. The cost of developing a track for a speed of 300 kilometres per hour is only slightly more expensive than it is for a track that is designed for speeds of 200 kilometres per hour. Because a problem exists with our narrow gauge, we would have to consider a lower centre of gravity on wagons and carriages and a greater ratio on the curves than the standard gauge system. Tracks that could be considered for high-speed trains are Beenleigh-Gold Coast, Ipswich- Toowoomba and Bundaberg-Gladstone. Urgent upgrading of the Bundaberg line is necessary. It would have been far wiser to upgrade the track between Brisbane and Cairns to a high-speed track instead of electrifying the line between Brisbane and Rockhampton. The Very Fast Trains in New South Wales, which are diesel powered, cannot attain their maximum speeds because of poor track. Although the track between Brisbane and Bundaberg has been upgraded, it still needs a substantial amount of work done on it. I am concerned about pensioners who use long-distance train services between Brisbane and Cairns. It has been rumoured that although a ban will not be imposed on pensioners using those services, a strict limit will be placed on the number of pensioners who can book on them. The remaining pensioners will be placed on a stand-by system similar to that used by the airlines with cheaper air tickets. That will give full fare paying passengers preference over pensioners. To save his budget, the Minister's hatchet soon fell on the schoolchildren. One of the first groups that he picked on was school students. At a time when students in this country are being encouraged to seek higher standards Legislative Assembly 4544 7 November 1990 of education, the Minister brought down his hatchet to squash the aims of many students. It affects not only students attending non-Government schools but thousands of students attending State high schools with courses of excellence. The Minister has awoken a tiger. I am sure that he will face a severe mauling if he continues to pursue that proposal. Mr Fenlon interjected. Mr J. N. GOSS: I realise that the honourable member does not care about road safety around schools and does not want to hear about it. However, if travel restrictions are imposed on students the increased vehicle traffic around schools will increase the risk of accidents. All honourable members would be aware that most road accidents involving children occur between 3 and 6 p.m. Does the ALP Government care about that? No! During hard economic times, the parents of many students who attend non-Government schools have to undertake part-time or additional work to pay the fees. The ALP does not care about that. What would happen if the parents of students attending non-Government schools enrolled their children at State schools? The Government would face an additional $150m in wages alone in the Education budget. Perhaps the Minister does not want to see any more Rhodes scholars in Queensland. The difference between road-funding allocations and the amount collected by the Federal Government in fuel excise and taxes is an absolute disgrace. The money allocated for black spots was peanuts. The Liberal Party agreed to the 10-point plan only to get what were peanuts compared with the cost of eliminating two major black spots in a city the size of Brisbane. The department has estimated that it would cost $14m to overcome one black spot. The Government cannot have it both ways. A decision must be made to improve transport. Is the Government committed to safer transport, road safety, better roads, port efficiency and a fast and viable rail system? Although a lot of rhetoric is being spoken, the Estimates contain no hard facts. The Minister's broken promise in relation to the Sunshine Motorway is an example of the way in which he accepts his responsibilities. When people who travel north approach the turn-off to the motorway, the direction signs indicate that the only road to Maroochydore and Noosa is the motorway. I have been reliably informed that local residents have informed the Minister's office that those signs are misleading. However, nothing has been done about it. It is a very deceitful way of getting tourists to contribute to the tollway. I hope that the Minister will look into that. The proposal to build another tollway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast will no doubt see the down-grading of the existing highway, which will force more people to use the proposed tollway. The proposed route for the tollway is through one of the most sensitive regions on the Gold Coast. The ALP Government is determined also to see the demise of the trucking industry. Its aim is not to provide a good, efficient rail service, but to increase road-freight costs by the introduction of a user-pays system to cover any road damage. If all transport is to be treated equally, and if road transport is to be run under a user- pays system, the rail service should also be operated under a user-pays system. It is of concern that a number of rural families can now expect to pay hundreds of dollars a year more for such basic items as clothing. Mr McGrady: What would you know about a rural family, really? Mr J. N. GOSS: I am glad that the member asked me that, because for many years I lived 800 miles north of Perth. Mr Sullivan: In which place? Mr J. N. GOSS: In Exmouth, North West Cape. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the honourable member to address his comments through the Chair. Legislative Assembly 4545 7 November 1990

Mr J. N. GOSS: I thought that they were going through you, Mr Chairman. The road costs in Western Australia were horrific. Country families will pay more for items such as clothing, food and fuel. They can ill-afford to pay any more for fuel. Most roads in Brisbane are the responsibility not of the Main Roads Division, but are the Brisbane City Council. The Main Roads Division shed its responsibilities to the Brisbane City Council. I cite the example of Creek Road, which required a million dollars worth of maintenance, and after the Main Roads Division had finished with it, was gazetted back to the Brisbane City Council. Mr Hamill: When was that? Mr J. N. GOSS: That was a few years back, now, but it is typical of the attitude of the Government. Mr Hamill: Was it the coalition that did that? Mr J. N. GOSS: No, it was not. The policy remains that the main roads in Brisbane will not be extended. Within the capital works section of the Estimates, it appears that the duplication of the inner-city rail tunnel has taken another back seat, with only a small allocation being provided for it. The Government should consider the construction of a station in the tunnel between Brunswick Street Station and Central Station to service Centenary Place and Petrie Bight. Brisbane needs a loop rail service, but not the useless proposal that was put forward by the member for Brisbane Central. A loop rail service would have to cater for the more densely populated areas. For example, it should include Central Station and Roma Street Station, go underground to Balmoral and then go under the river back to Newstead. The extra station would be ideal to service that rapidly developing part of Brisbane. I can see the time fast approaching when the Government will have to take over the Brisbane City Council bus service. Until people can use a single ticket for buses and trains, they will continue to use their cars. The Enoggera interchange does not work. Buses bring people there; people get off the buses and wait for their trains. If the buses are held up in traffic, people miss their trains. A better system is needed, and a single-ticket system would meet that need. Time expired. Mr NUNN (Isis) (5.01 p.m.): It is with great interest and a considerable amount of pleasure that I take part in this important debate. Never before has so much emphasis been placed on the need to upgrade and maintain our roads to a standard that enables goods and people to be moved swiftly, safely and economically. Development of the road system in Queensland is a formidable task that has been made even more formidable by years of selective neglect and the lack of a cohesive roads policy on the part of the previous Government. Queensland is indeed fortunate that it now has a Minister who is prepared to plan a road-funding strategy and make decisions that will ultimately benefit all Queenslanders. This State Government recognises that effective road development has an important contribution to make to both the economic and social growth of Queensland. In a vast and decentralised State such as Queensland, industry and tourism place a heavy reliance on roads for their transport needs. These industries need a road system that will allow traffic to flow. Queensland's road transport system operates over 169 000 kilometres of public roads, 34 000 kilometres of which are the direct responsibility of the State Government, and this 34 000 kilometres includes the major highways and arterial roads. These roads cop the biggest hidings from overloaded transporters travelling at speeds well over the limit and which are a danger to others using the roads. the Government works closely in cooperation with local government for the upgrading and maintenance of the remainder of the roads. Because of the ineptitude and neglect of the National Party when it was in power, and because the inadequacies of the present system are so apparent, this Government fully appreciates the size of the task it faces in road management. Unlike the previous Government, this Government will not spend road funds willy-nilly with the only Legislative Assembly 4546 7 November 1990 obvious criteria being the positioning of electorate boundaries. This Government recognises that effective road development has an important contribution to make to both the economic and social growth of Queensland. In this Government's vocabulary, the upgrading of roads does not mean pork-barrelling and blatant electioneering; it means that the Government recognises how important roads are as part of the social and economic infrastructure of this State. It means that Queensland will no longer have the stop-start method of road construction that was the hallmark of the National Party's roads policy, where one could travel on near-perfect roads in one electorate, only to find a bottleneck of traffic bailed up on bad roads in the next. This Government will approach its road responsibilities in a rational manner. This Government will ensure that the money is spent where it is needed and where it will give all Queenslanders a better deal. Given the size of Queensland's road network, it is always a difficult task to make the roads dollar stretch far enough and, at a time when fiscal restraint is called for, this becomes even more difficult. Great praise has been heaped upon this Government for its preparedness to practise fiscal restraint, and time will show that its determination to abolish the wasteful practices of the previous Government will help to provide this State with the modern road system to which it is entitled. Nevertheless, Queensland roads have done well out of the Budget. Combined Federal and State funding has allocated more than $570m for road upgrading and maintenance, which is a $30m increase over the previous year. There is a belief that most of this money is to be spent in and around the metropolitan area. The truth of the matter is that a conscious decision has been made—based on needs—to spend more money on rural roads than has been collected from the rural community. More than 80 per cent is to be spent outside the metropolitan area, despite the fact that only 60 per cent of vehicles are registered outside Brisbane. This Government has put its money where its mouth is and the electors of Queensland have shown their appreciation in the opinion polls. Honourable members should turn their attention to the major upgrading projects that are scheduled for 1990-91 which include— $20m-worth of major works on the Bruce Highway, including the completion of the Nambour and Maryborough by-passes and work further north at Babinda, which also includes the construction of two bridges over Babinda Creek and Giddens Creek; development of the Goondiwindi by-pass including bridges over the McIntyre River; widening of the Landsborough Highway between Tambo and Blackall; and development of the Flinders Highway between Hughenden and Richmond. These major works will facilitate the free flow of traffic on long-distance runs and relieve traffic congestion in those towns that are by-passed as a result of these works. This Government has not neglected the northern part of the State and has demonstrated the importance it attaches to north Queensland and its faith in the region's future by including in this Budget such major road construction and important works as— $1.7m for three works projects on the El Arish to Mission Beach road; $1.5m for improvements to the Coen to Weipa road; $1.5m for the Garbutt to Upper Ross road; $480,000 for the second stage of the Cloncurry to Dajarra road; $3.4m for works on the Bruce Highway between Innisfail and Cairns; and $1.2m for completion of reconstruction of an intersection between Ingham and Innisfail. Local authorities will also do well in 1990-91. Local authorities are the arm of government that is closest to the people and is charged with the responsibility of maintaining the greater part of Queensland's road system. Local authorities are happy that this Government has decided to continue the State matching grant scheme for local authority roads and in 1990-91 $20m is to be provided under the scheme. This is an increase of $15m over the previous year and, if it does nothing else, it demonstrates Legislative Assembly 4547 7 November 1990 what a niggardly lot the Opposition was when in Government. It is a great shame that the National Party was so parsimonious in its attitude to local authority funding and yet so profligate when it came to the matter of ministerial expenses. At this point it is timely to note the funding provided for the two local authorities in my electorate. These local authorities are by no means the largest in area in Queensland, however the total matching grant allocated to these shires amounted to $592,000, which was made up of $444,000 for the City of Hervey Bay and $148,000 for the Isis Shire. This is in addition to any subsidies that were forthcoming. I must say that I have never heard such a load of tripe as that spoken by the member for Peak Downs when he referred to some poor old chap who could not get information about money that was available to his local authority. I can inform the Committee of how challenging the task is. When I wanted to obtain that information, I telephoned the clerk at the Hervey Bay City Council, who gave me the information. Then I telephoned the clerk at the Isis Shire Council, and he gave me the information relating to that shire. That was truly a "challenging" task. I think that the honourable member for Peak Downs should change his companions because they seem to be a dumb lot. Unlike the previous Government, the Goss Government is aware of the benefits of cooperation, rather than confrontation, with Canberra. It is because this Government can act responsibly and with maturity that road safety will also be linked to the road development program. Under the Prime Minister's black spot road safety program, Queensland will receive an additional $7m, which will be specifically targeted towards eliminating those sections of roadway in Queensland that have a high fatality and injury record. The Federal Government has estimated that for each expenditure of $500,000, one life a year can be saved. Black spot funding is a good example of the way in which the Queensland Government is working with the Federal Government to achieve a better roads deal for Queensland. Roads development is not just about the quantum of funding available. It is also about effective management of funds and, in this respect, the Government is well advanced in the development of a road network strategy for Queensland. The objective is to provide strategic direction in the way in which funds are allocated for the development and management of the declared road system. This will ensure that scarce resources are used to their best effect and that annual programs are geared to a longer-term strategic focus. The Government has also decided to continue with the fifth review of the road plan, which was initiated by the previous Government. The review is aimed at clarifying the boundary between declared and undeclared roads; that is, between State and local government responsibilities. One issue that has been brought into focus for this Government in the course of this review is that existing classifications within the declared roads system have little or no relevance to funding priorities. Clearly, an easily identifiable road hierarchy is needed, with funding linked to the determined priority. Accordingly, it has been decided that a reassessment of road classifications needs to be done. The reality is that, for funding purposes, the Queensland roads program follows Federal road categories, not State categories. It makes good sense to get the two systems more closely aligned. As yet, no decision has been made about the form that the new classifications will take, but I hope that that will not be delayed long. Recently, the Minister mooted the possibility of a system that will group declared roads that are principally the responsibility of the State Government and put them into two sets, that is, State arterial and principal local roads. State arterial roads would encompass major arterial roads that do not currently fall within the ambit of either the Federal categories of national highways or national arterial roads. Under this proposal, the bulk of funding would be directed to State arterial roads, with funding for principal local roads being concentrated on maintenance and minor improvements, which are areas that need attention and funding. It is envisaged that the revised classifications will be in place by July 1991. Another initiative that the Government is undertaking in respect to roads is the rewriting of the Main Roads Act. For many years, much of the Act has remained Legislative Assembly 4548 7 November 1990 unchanged. It is clear that an overwhelming need exists for the legislation to more closely reflect current road operations. Honourable members can rest assured that in the case of all these initiatives, the Government will ensure that adequate consultation takes place with all interest groups. I commend the Minister for his presentation of the Estimates. I am sure that they will be well received by all. Hon. R. C. KATTER (Flinders) (5.13 p.m.): The proposal for the National Rail Freight Corporation to take over interstate transportation of freight and all freight transportation in this State is one of the very important watersheds in the history of this State. I point out to the Minister that the Prime Minister made the proposal quite clear. I have collected a large number of press reports that repeated his statements and communiques indicating that other freight haulage in this State will be made available to the National Rail Freight Corporation on a competitive basis. Mr Hamill: You are wrong, wrong, wrong. Mr KATTER: I am not wrong. The Prime Minister is wrong. These are not my words. I am simply quoting verbatim from the extracts of releases circulated by the Prime Minister. I would be only too happy to make available to the Minister or to any other honourable member the exact extracts of communiques that emanated from the Premiers Conference. If the Honourable Minister doubts what I am saying, then I call for greater rapport between himself and the Premier, who has already overruled the Minister once during the last week. Mr Hamill: I was actually there at the Premiers Conference and that point was discussed. I can assure you that you are wrong. Mr KATTER: I am quite astounded by what the Minister has said. The CHAIRMAN: Order! This debate is on the Estimates. Mr KATTER: Mr Chairman, I am most certainly talking about the Estimates. I cannot think of any subject that would be more relevant to the Estimates than the loss of registration revenue to the State of Queensland and also the loss of revenue obtained from freight haulage. Mr Elder: You have a fertile imagination. You really have a fertile imagination. Mr KATTER: I will not take many interjections because I have important things to say, and I want to continue. While interjectors say that I have a fertile imagination, I point out that I have visited railway workshops in this State and places where railwaymen work. I have sat down and listened to what they have had to say. I now have a stack of documents 2 inches high. Those documents have been leaked to me by union officials in this State and in the State of New South Wales. To those honourable members who enjoy the support of railway workers in this State and depend upon their votes to get re-elected, all I can say is "Good luck" for the next election. They will need it. Not once since I became a member of Parliament have I previously had material leaked to me by senior trade union officials. I might add that the material is coming from four or five separate trade unions. I turn to road transportation. As a result of the ISC recommendation, the road hauliers and the motorists of this State will pay an additional 9.4c a litre for fuel. It appals and disappoints me deeply that the media in Queensland considered that that imposition was not worth reporting to the people of Queensland. Although oil is the same price as it was when the Hawke Government took office, the people of Queensland are paying twice as much for their petrol. If that money is not being expended on oil, where is it going? It is going to the Government in taxes? In his policy speech in 1982, when the price of petrol was 42c a litre, Mr Hawke promised that he would reduce the price by 3c a litre. At present, depending upon where one purchases petrol, it costs between 79c and 83c a litre. That represents an increase of 40c, not the promised decrease of 3c. Legislative Assembly 4549 7 November 1990

A proposal has been put forward for a 9.4c a litre increase in the price of motor spirit, a 6.4c a litre increase in the price of diesel and a 1 000 per cent increase in registration fees for the average heavy transport vehicle on the road. The hauliers to whom I have spoken have informed me that, on average, most of them pay approximately $3,000 in registration fees and that, in future, they will be paying something like $20,000. If that figure is grossly exaggerated, I would like to hear from the Minister that it is. Mr Hamill: Yes, it is. Mr KATTER: All I can say is that the papers that have been presented to us by the hauliers of Queensland are very well documented. Approximately 75 per cent of Queenslanders choose to use road transport. I assume that good reasons exist for them to use that system of transport. I am sure that it is not because the people of Queensland are in love with the truckies. However, we are looking at an additional 10c a litre on the cost of fuel, a 1 000 per cent increase in registration fees and a plethora of new regulatory provisions to be put out by a Federal body. Heavy vehicles are being pushed off the highways. The Courier-Mail contained a most spurious article—— Mr Schwarten: Oh, dear! Mr KATTER: I use strong language, because the article stated "The truckies must pay". The truck-drivers and motorists of Australia are paying $6,000m a year to Canberra and only $1,000m is returned for the benefit of road-users. They are paying almost 500 per cent more than they should be paying, yet the media has the incredible lack of integrity to publish a headline that the truckies must pay. That is unfair to those extremely hard-working risk-takers who have created one of the most efficient industries in Australia. They are about to be pushed off the road and everything is to be transported by rail. A proposal has been put forward that a State Government owned monopoly should carry all goods. A further sinister proposal has been put forward by certain parties. We are investigating that proposal and the relationship between certain people in the Federal Government and certain people in transport. I warn Government members to be careful with whom they are seen in public. In a moment, I will lend substance to my comments. Government members should wait with bated breath. Why suddenly do we have to run the railways at a profit? During the years that I have been in this place, I have heard continuously from Labor Party members that the railways should be provided as a service for the people of Queensland who pay taxes for that service. When we were in Government, for nearly two decades that was bleated from the Opposition benches. Suddenly, the ALP has abandoned its former position. Suddenly, in 1990, there is a hell-bent stampede to ensure that Queensland Railways runs at a profit. Mr Fenlon: Are you standing by the past performance? Mr KATTER: Yes. The past performance was two years ago when Queensland Railways was run at a profit. I have documents which reveal that Queensland Railways ran at a profit of $66m. Mr Hamill: I bet you've got fairies at the bottom of your garden! Mr KATTER: The Minister will have to take the matter up with the Auditor-General, because he audits the reports for Queensland Railways. Perhaps the Auditor-General was telling lies! I would not know. The CHAIRMAN: Order! It is a very inappropriate comment to suggest that the Auditor-General would be telling lies in his reports. Mr KATTER: I profoundly believe that the Auditor-General was not telling lies. The implication of the interjection was that he was telling lies. I said, "Well, let that be upon your heads." The interjector will have to withdraw those remarks. I move on. It is curious that there is so much concern about profit in a year when Gordontown and Ensham are expected to come on stream and produce up to $80m for Legislative Assembly 4550 7 November 1990

Queensland Railways that was not earned previously, and without much additional outlay. Approximately $100m will be generated from those two mines. The Minister could back up what I am saying. On past trends, it appears that, by not replacing people who retire, 1 000 to 2 000 jobs a year can be saved. With an offer of an attractive handshake, that figure could be increased to 3 000 jobs. The economists tell us that 3 000 jobs represents $100m. Next year, Queensland Railways could make a saving of $150m to $200m by improving the operations of the rail system. Why is there a great panic? The answer to that question is given very clearly in the minutes of the ATAC conference. The Minister was a party to the document; his name appears on page 8. That document states— "The Ministers considered the concept of establishing a National Rail Freight Corporation (NRFC) with the aim of commencing operations on 1 July 1991." That date is not very far away. For the benefit of those members of the Government who are bleating about whether there will be privatisation or not, I point out that I am not quoting from my document, I am quoting from the minutes of the ATAC conference. The document goes on— "Its corporate goal would be to earn a rate of return sufficient to fund all investment from non-government sources." Only one possible construction can be put on that sentence, and that is that the NRFC will be partially privatised at the very least. What we are talking about are some private-enterprise corporations, which are involved in the development of the National Rail Freight Corporation—— Mr Fenlon: Don't you believe in the spirit of free enterprise? Mr KATTER: I most certainly do not when the free-enterprise operation will enjoy a monopoly, and what we are talking about here is a monopoly on surface transportation in Australia. I strongly recommend that members of the Government read the transcript of the ABC Four Corners program on the aviation industry and the proposed take-over of that industry by a certain corporation in Australia. The interview was in 1987 and its transcript is a very interesting document. It is now 1990 and every single prophecy made then has come to fruition. In fact, that corporation now dominates in all ways and respects the aviation industry of Australia. Honourable members are rising in their places in this Chamber today, in the year of our Lord 1990, making the same allegations about the surface transportation industry as were made about the aviation industry. I, for one, will not be accused of being a party to the transport industry engaging in the same sort of activities that have taken place in the aviation industry. Unfortunately, certain members of the Government do not adopt that position. A total of $50m has been allocated to this. I was pleased to hear the Minister giving assurances on north Queensland radio that no people will lose their jobs. However, that is in sharp contrast to the ATAC document. Page 2 of the ATAC document clearly states— "Ministers noted that an Australian Rail Industry Advisory Council (ARIAC) will be established by the Federal Minister and that Federal and State officials . . . are to provide further advice on the remaining recommendations which deal with . . . a national plan for workshops, services and programs to assist unemployed railworkers." The Minister assures honourable members—and he may be doing so in all good faith—that there will be no cut-back in railway workers' jobs. However, there is not a single railwayman out there who believes that statement. The Victorian Government has officially requested from the Federal Government a $200m package to look after its unemployed railwaymen. So all these railwaymen in Victoria will be unemployed but the railwaymen in this State will not. The Minister must be very clever if the Victorian Legislative Assembly 4551 7 November 1990

Government needs $200m but the Queensland Government does not need $200m. We will see. Mr Hamill interjected. Mr KATTER: On the contrary. I hope very much that the Opposition receives an assurance from the Minister. Mr Elder interjected. Mr KATTER: The honourable member is saying that I do not know what I am talking about. I have simply quoted from a document which has the Minister's name attached to it. The honourable member cannot say that I am wrong. All I have done is read from the document; I had nothing to do with it. Fifty per cent of the general freight in this State is carried by QRX, which is owned and controlled by a certain southern company which is figuring very, very prominently in all of the NRFC proposals. All the railway stations have been closed, so goods cannot be carted on the railways. If the heavy road transports are forced off the road, the only people left to carry goods and provide services are the overnighters, and four of the six such companies are owned by the same corporation—— Time expired. Mr SULLIVAN (Glass House) (5.28 p.m.): It is a pleasure to join this debate on the Estimates of the Transport Department, which were very capably presented by the Minister. It is also something of a pleasure to follow the member for Flinders in one of his infrequent forays into the forum. I noticed that the honourable member spoke, albeit briefly, on matters pertaining to aviation. I commend him for that because it is on matters pertaining to aviation and the State's responsibilities in that regard that I wish to speak today. Aviation matters get very little airing in this place. The Queensland Government has very significant responsibilities and obligations in relation to the provision of air services in this State. It is quite natural that these obligations and responsibilities are managed for the Government by the Transport Department. As I have said, over the years very little has been heard about the department's considerable powers in that regard. To many Queenslanders, particularly rural Queenslanders, air services are much more than a means of transport from one place to another. For them, air services are the primary means by which communication and quality of life are maintained. Without air services, many people who live in the remote areas of Queensland would not have regular access to mail, educational needs, medical supplies and fresh food. That is not to mention general freight and passenger transport services, which I mentioned a moment ago. In order that links can be maintained in remote areas and western Queensland, the Government provides subsidies through the Transport Management Program. In this budget, the amount of that subsidy has been increased by 13.1 per cent to $2.725m. Only $20,000 of this has been allocated for services in the channel country of the State's far south west. The bulk of the subsidy money will be paid to Flight West Airlines, which services 18 rural centres, stretching from Brisbane to Birdsville, Brisbane to Mount Isa, and from Townsville to Mount Isa. Historically, in Australia airlines have been permitted to withdraw from unprofitable routes, while under the Federal Government's now disbanded two-airline policy, they have been guaranteed a monopoly on profitable routes. In the period from 1985 to 1989, the Government's trunk-line carrier, Australian Airlines, dropped 11 destinations from its network; Ansett and its affiliate companies dropped 8 destinations; and East-West Airlines, an Ansett affiliate, also dropped 8 destinations. All told, in the last 10 years, 275 markets were dropped by air carriers. Many of those are located in Queensland, and smaller companies such as Sunstate, Sunbird and Flight West have moved quickly to offer replacement services. Generally, communities quickly come to appreciate the new air services because they are geared Legislative Assembly 4552 7 November 1990 much more to the community's own requirements. Initially, after a service has been dropped by one of the major airlines, because the public's perception is that those aircraft are better service providers there seems to be an element of unhappiness over the loss of the bigger aircraft. The secure investment environment created for Flight West by the continuing subsidy scheme has enabled it to acquire the more sophisticated new generation Brazilia aircraft for use on its core routes. In this way, western users will have available to them not only an air service that is better attuned to their needs, but also one that offers increasing levels of excellence. Flight West Airlines is also involved in the development of administration and maintenance facilities at its Brisbane airport base, which is another sign of its confidence in this State's services. For obvious reasons, many members on this side of the House mourn the disappearance of what was known as TAA from Queensland's western routes. This is particularly so because that airline, when it was established in 1946 by a Labor Government, was to provide air services for the people of Australia. In later years, the airline's direction refocused more on competition with the Ansett conglomerate, with the original charter somewhat ignored. It is no wonder then, under that new focusing, that when the former Premier, Bjelke-Petersen, indicated that his Government would not subsidise intrastate services by TAA, as it was a Federal Government airline, that the airline took a decision to discontinue its western services using Fokker aircraft. At that time, the former Premier indicated that he would be prepared to subsidise the airline that was then the flavour of the month in Queensland, one East-West Airlines, to operate those services. I cannot recall if at that time a certain gentleman was on the board of East-West Airlines. By all reports, Flight West, which took over when the renamed TAA, Australian Airlines, was unable to successfully operate smaller aircraft, has made a decent fist of the job. Mr J. N. Goss: There is no enthusiasm. Members have gone to sleep. Mr SULLIVAN: One has to take an interjection from the member for Aspley. The member has been quite correctly named in this Chamber as the "black hole", lacking energy, and if he wishes to sleep in the back of the Parliament, then he is entitled to do so. With the exception of those subsidised routes and the vital links between Cairns and Weipa and Cairns and Horn Island, Queensland's intrastate air routes are deregulated. Subject to airline-operators satisfying specified quality standards, they will be licensed to operate over those deregulated routes. Several benefits could flow to passengers as a result of such deregulation where the introduction of competition has occurred. However, the abolition of the two-airline policy will impact on Queensland's services in a way that will affect no other State. Based on Federal Department of Transport and Communications' data, Queensland has one intrastate route, Brisbane to Townsville, in the top 10 passenger traffic routes Australiawide. It has two others, Brisbane to Cairns and Coolangatta to Cairns, in the next seven of those routes. Of the next nine biggest routes, in terms of passenger numbers, four are Queensland intrastate routes. They are Brisbane-Rockhampton, Brisbane-Mackay, Brisbane-Proserpine and Townsville-Cairns. In all, seven of the top 28, or 25 per cent, are Queensland intrastate routes. The only other intrastate route in Australia on that list is the Alice Springs-Darwin route. Under Federal deregulation, no longer will there be restrictions on the importation of aircraft. Already, both of the most likely new entrants in the domestic market have indicated that they will serve three Queensland cities. Compass Airlines have indicated that they wish to serve Brisbane, Coolangatta and Cairns, while Capital Airlines hopes to serve Brisbane, Coolangatta and Townsville. Queensland's intrastate routes offer significant opportunities to those and other new entrants seeking to establish a market presence. Whilst on the one hand that may seem to be an attractive prospect for the State, offering greater seat availability, lower costs to travellers and increased flight frequency, there are problems. Writing in the influential airline industry magazine Air Transport World, aviation journalist Perry Flint states— ". . . drawing on the experience in the US and Canada, no-one is betting on the long term prospects for any of the start-ups." Legislative Assembly 4553 7 November 1990

Failures amongst new airlines operating over routes controlled by the Government will have an impact on ordinary Queenslanders. The existing major carriers, Australian and Ansett, will be doing what they can in this area to protect their own interests. Speaking of new entrants, Ansett's general manager, Graeme McMahon, threatened to "knock them over every time they put their heads up". The power of major carriers in this regard has been demonstrated by the way in which British Airways and Pan American, or Pan-Am, destroyed Laker Airways, the brainchild of pioneer discounter, Sir Freddie Laker. These days, the Australian market is a much more volatile place and that means that the department will need to exercise its powers in regard to route licensing with great discretion. The other regulated air routes, Cairns-Weipa and Cairns-Horn Island, are currently the subject of expressions of interest for continuation as the current licence expires on 31 December. Those routes are regulated to ensure the viable operation of larger aircraft to those remote centres, with Australian Regional Airlines, Queensland, the current licensee, utilising Fokker F27 aircraft. There have been suggestions that existing scheduling of aircraft to Horn Island through Weipa has led to reduced opportunity for Torres Strait Islander residents to access the services of ARAQ. I trust that while a great many other factors, such as incumbency, will be taken into account by the Minister and his department when reissuing those licences, some directive will also be made to assist Torres Strait residents to a service viable to them in terms of availability. In all, the department currently licenses 23 scheduled air service operations and 156 air charter operations within Queensland. In themselves, those figures are evidence of the dependence on air services experienced by the people of this State. The current Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, Dick Smith, proposes that Australia adopt a concept of “affordable safety”. In my view, this represents an abrogation of responsibility to passengers in favour of economic consideration. The Transport Department has the power, through issuance or non-issuance of licences, to continue to impose on Queensland operations the only safety level acceptable to the people of this State—that is, absolute safety. Two of Queensland’s major airports are also administered by local port authorities. This year, airports at Cairns and Mackay will both undergo redevelopment projects which require considerable investment levels and indicate the confidence of the Government and the local people with regard to growth in air services in this State. I will deal now with some issues that affect my electorate of Glass House. With the electorates of Nicklin, Cooroora and, I guess, Landsborough, the electorate of Glass House shares a unique organisation in this State. The organisation is the Sunshine Coast Commuters Association. Mr Elliott: Are you talking about toll-busters? Mr SULLIVAN: I am talking very specifically about the Sunshine Coast Commuters Association, an organisation unique in Queensland but one that has its roots in similar organisations formed in New South Wales. The Minister has taken the opportunity to meet with members of this association. We look forward to the outcome of the feasibility exercise regarding the establishment of a looping railmotor to augment electric services on the railway corridor between Nambour and Caboolture. Such a service will provide access to the electric service from Caboolture. I was pleased to notice that, earlier in the debate, the member for Peak Downs mentioned the pineapple siding stations in my electorate which are definitely causing great concern to the growers and to the growers’ organisations. For the edification of the honourable member, I point out that the name of the place is Wamuran. I am sure that the spelling of that place will appear correctly in written reports. Those people will be very pleased that the honourable member has also taken on board their case. I look forward to perhaps working alongside Mr Lester to ensure that these very vital services, which are necessary for the economic viability of small towns within my electorate, are fought for and retained. Legislative Assembly 4554 7 November 1990

The Glass House electorate has a number of significant road needs. Just recently, I was afforded a briefing by Mr Gralton, who is responsible for roads in south-east Queensland. The Roads Division has established a system of minimum tolerable levels. Perhaps the Minister should look at those minimum tolerable levels because the criteria that are taken into consideration in establishing them seen to be very narrow and not open to some local conditions that may apply. I mention in particular the Caboolture to Bribie Island road. Although, under those levels, that road is adequate, the criteria do not take into account the nature of the traffic which, by and large, is very slow moving and comprises cars towing caravans or boats and cars being driven by elderly drivers. Nor do the criteria take into account the fact that the road lacks safe overtaking areas. In fact, it never ceases to amaze those of us who use the road regularly that it has not, in the past, been responsible for more road fatalities. In the past 12 months, the department has undertaken some significant works in relation to wharves and boat-ramp facilities. Time expired. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory) (5.43 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Estimates of the Transport Department and to point out what a disastrous course this Government is taking in relation to transport in this great State of ours. The crunch issue of the day and main topic of conversation across the country is the proposed Inter-State Commission report in road-use charges and vehicle registration—a national scheme. Although my honourable colleagues Bob Katter and Vince Lester both touched on this matter, I want to elaborate on it a little because I realise that many people in this State are not aware of what the consequences of that report will be. It recommends the end to the dominance of the efficient road transport system over the inefficient and, in many cases, non-existent rail service in the inland areas of Queensland and Australia. If this report is implemented, it will mean a complete change to the land transport system in Queensland and in Australia. The report recommends a national scheme for registering all motor vehicles including private vehicles, and a national scheme for allocating road-funding and a national system applying a user-pays on all those who use Australia’s roads. Therefore road transport will become a Federal problem, not a State problem. I am sure that the Minister would not like to lose hold of his portfolio because—— Mr Hamill: Where were you last week? Mr JOHNSON: Last week I was in the west. I heard what went on. Everyone agreed with the Prime Minister and the Land Transport Minister. As a result of this scheme, vehicles will be registered and all taxes and charges will be paid to Canberra. All funds for road maintenance will be allocated to the States by Canberra. Therefore, road spending will be concentrated in the areas where there are most votes—the major cities and, in Queensland’s case, the south-east corner. For transport-operators it means increased fuel taxes, increased costs to run their vehicles and increased paperwork. The transport-operators will become unpaid public servants and they will have no guarantee that there will be better roads to compensate for the higher operating costs, especially in rural Queensland, about which I am greatly concerned, where transport is used every day to get livestock and produce to railheads and coastal markets. Therefore, the inland road system will miss out again. The ISC has recommended the establishment of an independent body to collect and administer the funds, and the body would then allocate the funds back to the States according to an agreed formula based on a combination of the fuel sales volume and the number of registrations. In May this year the ISC released its first report; after some of its members listened to anxious and concerned operators, graziers, farmers and businesspeople across the State, it released its second report in July. All those people are on the bones of their you-know-whats because of an incompetent, irresponsible Federal Government that does not understand private entrepreneurs and small business—it understands only unions and their heavyweight, stand-over merchants who want to Legislative Assembly 4555 7 November 1990 run the organisations. I mean that! I hope that the Minister will take a guts attitude and stand up for the right to retain the past practice in Queensland. The Minister knows as well as I do that the report was compiled by people of theory. If healthy reports are to be produced, there must be practical input; but there has been no practical input in this case. In general, the people who compiled the report told the ISC members that no more cost could be sustained and that, if the scheme is implemented, there will be mass bankruptcies in all rural areas amongst people from all walks of life. It will affect transport operators, graziers and small-businesspeople. At present, because of the current economic recession, shearing contractors are wondering how they will employ their men tomorrow, fencing contractors are wondering how they are going to pay off their plant and equipment and earth-moving contractors are wondering how they will make the interest payments and redemption on their heavy machinery. Mr Fenlon interjected. Mr JOHNSON: The honourable member knows as well as I do that this is true. When this Government wakes up to the fact that this country is facing major problems, it might change its attitude and get on with the job. All levels of government—Federal, State and local—made representations to the commission on the impact of its initial report. The representatives from the Inter-State Commission listened, but that is all they did. In July, the final report of the commission was released. Its members learnt very little from all their listening. Although there have been a few changes and concessions from the original proposals, very few of them will make any difference to the operators in the transport industry and those people living in communities that are serviced by that industry. What does all this mean to the transport industry? There will be three components to the charges and taxes that the operators of heavy vehicles pay to the Government. Firstly, registration fees will be greatly reduced to around $50 to cover the cost of plates, stickers and administration. That is the good part. Now for the bad part. Mass/distance charges are calculated according to the size and weight of a trailer plus its load. Each trailer is assessed and charged separately. For example, for a 40-foot freight trailer that is registered at, say, 34 tonnes—the combined weight of the load and the trailer—the annual mass/distance charge will be $18,600. I assure honourable members that those semitrailer operators do not earn $18,600 in a year. For a type 2 road train, which hauls three trailers, the annual mass/distance charge will be a massive $42,000, compared with the current Queensland registration fee of $6,200. A new schedule of charges for road trains and trailers that are permanently fitted with stock crates has been drawn up. On average, livestock transporters will be paying about $3,000 less in mass/distance charges for a trailer than a general freight carrier will be paying. Mr Katter: This is micro-economic reform. This is going to save us money! Mr JOHNSON: I can tell the honourable member for Flinders that it is going to cost us. Those lesser charges will be imposed because of the large amount of time that livestock operators travel empty. I understand that they travel loaded on 54 per cent of their journeys, so they travel unloaded for 46 per cent of the time. That compares with general freight carriers, who travel loaded on 86 per cent of their journeys. Those charges, which will be payable quarterly, will be based on an average distance travelled. If an operator drives further than the average distance, he will have to pay even more. If he drives fewer kilometres, he will receive a rebate at the end of the year. That will create more paperwork. As a result, transport operators will need to fit hubometers to their trailers to monitor the exact number of kilometres travelled. If they are not fitted, the charges will be increased by 20 per cent. The Inter-State Commission has made one concession. For the first two years of the scheme, operators will be charged only half of Legislative Assembly 4556 7 November 1990 the mass/distance charges in order to make the transition easier—if that is possible. From July 1992 to July 1994, an operator will be paying about $9,300 annually to register a 40-foot trailer, rather than the proposed charge of $18,600. From July 1994, they will pay the full $18,600. The third part of the equation involves a Federal Government fuel excise. I ask honourable members to listen to this. Operators are currently paying 24.9c a litre in Federal Government fuel excise. According to the original report, that situation was not going to change. However, in the latest report the commission recommended that a further 6c a litre be added onto the cost of diesel fuel to compensate for the loss of revenue while the initial charges are being phased in. In other words, whereas the commission has accepted that the charges will be a big burden and must be phased in, it has introduced another charge to compensate for the cost of fuel. The commission is hitting the transport industry from both directions. To use an old analogy, the commission will probably pick up on the roundabout what it has missed on the swings. On current figures, diesel fuel excise will increase to 30.9c a litre. Petrol has also been hit with an increase of 9.4c a litre in Government tax, which takes the Government excise from 24.9c a litre to 34.3c a litre. Isn't that lovely! People in the Birdsville area already pay $1.07 a litre. What will they be paying in the future? The Government has made fuel more expensive and abolished the diesel fuel excise for rail. The Minister says that there will be no new taxes. However, I assure him that if this system is implemented there will be plenty of taxes. In a nutshell, the plan is to make rail cheaper and road freight more expensive in an effort to push more freight onto the rail system and off the roads. However, the rail system cannot be made more efficient by making the road transport system less efficient. Australia's freight task cannot be taken away from an efficient, privately owned and operated system and put in the hands of a Government- controlled monopoly. It is not difficult to realise that that proposal has no future. Some of the concessions that have been made include a recommendation to reduce from 20 per cent to 10 per cent sales tax on new trucks and tyres, and an acknowledgment that transport operators, especially livestock-carriers, travel extensively on private roads. Provision has been made for rebates on that travel. The commission has recommended transferrable and temporary licences for operators who find themselves with a job that involved carrying a heavier load or using more trailers than they have registered. Volume-loading, which affects mostly livestock-transporters, is still being considered by the commission. The report suggests that motorists will contribute to road-funding through a national registration fee of $50 to pay for plates and stickers and through an increase of 9.4c a litre in Federal Government fuel excise. Therefore, inner-city motorists who drive an average of 20 000 kilometres a year will pay far less to maintain Australia's roads than do motorists in rural areas who travel long distances every day. Local council and Government vehicles that currently receive concessional registration through the State Government registration scheme will also be affected by the national scheme, under which all vehicles will have to be registered at a cost of approximately $50. Councils will continue to pay the Federal Government excise through the fuel pump. On 7 September, the proposal was discussed by the State and Territory Transport Ministers. No doubt, the Minister was there. Although some State Ministers expressed grave reservations about the scheme, the Federal Minister for Land Transport, Mr Bob Brown, received an in- principle agreement on the concept of a national land transport system. The timetable for the necessary State and Federal legislation has been drawn up, and the public servants in Canberra are waiting to be handed Australia's road transport industry on a silver platter. An efficient private-enterprise industry will be crippled by overtaxing and overregulation. I do not have to tell honourable members of the dramatic effect that the cost increases will have on Australia's rural community. Transport operators will go broke. Where are the finance institutions and banks now? I do not know what they will Legislative Assembly 4557 7 November 1990 do with all the semitrailers that they will repossess. How will people be fed? What will happen when their families apply for the dole? It is a real problem. I would like to see some Government members confronted with the same problem, because the effects will flow into Brisbane. The rail system will not be able to cope with the increased freight that it will have to carry. Commodity prices to consumers will increase dramatically and rural townships will disappear. At the beginning of September, the plan went into action with the in- principle agreement, and it is intended that it will be fully operational by July 1992. The Federal Land Transport Minister is setting up an all-Government task force to work on the establishment of a national vehicle registration scheme. That task force will examine the recommendations of the Inter-State Commission report and the national uniform road charging principles. In the first half of next year, the task force will report to Federal, State and Territory Ministers. It is up to all honourable members to try to ensure that, in two years time, the national road transport system is not owned and operated by Canberra. I ask the Minister to try to get that decision reversed. Rural Queensland and rural Australia will go broke. The Minister knows that as well as I do. Road transport operators cannot pay their way now. The Labor Party may have had the unions on side before, but it will have them off side now. If the ISC report is implemented, the Government will have a confrontation with the TWU, the teamsters. Members of that union are normal people with wives and children, and they want to lead normal lives, as other Australians do. Please God, if the ISC report is implemented, I hope that the Minister will streamline it and that he will have more say in it. The report will be detrimental to the transport operators and to the future well-being of Queensland. Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 7.30 p.m. Mr HEATH (Nundah) (7.30 p.m.): In the Goss Government's 1990-91 Budget there have been many new opportunities created in the maritime transport area. As we are all aware, the Queensland Budget has been balanced with no new taxes or borrowings from the private sector. This has been achieved in the case of maritime transport by providing incentive for port authorities to maximise commercial opportunities and to compete for the transport dollar. Queensland's port authorities will become more entrepreneurial in their approach and more efficient in their operation in the coming year. This is in line with the recent review of the Queensland port system recommendation that stated— ". . . a program of corporatisation of Port Authorities, and the port management role of the Harbours Corporation, be instituted in accordance with emerging Government policy for Government Business Enterprises." In principle, corporatisation lessens the burden on the public purse, which is a wish that I am sure is shared by all members. However, it must be carried out in a very cautious and responsible manner to avoid the job losses which are associated with its implementation in other parts of the world and in other States within Australia. Great attention must also be paid to retaining any community service obligations performed by the corporatised body. The maritime estimates also allow for the maintenance of Queensland waterways, to provide the optimum level of quality boating facilities for recreational purposes, and to enhance boating safety. Today, I will outline the Government's spending on the maritime areas of the Transport Department Estimates. I will also nominate how funds have been allocated for the construction, maintenance and operation of our port systems and leisure boating facilities. Total expenditure on Queensland maritime transport for 1990-91 is estimated to be $169.3m. This is an increase on last year's expenditure, which was $163m. The 1990-91 figure includes an intra-public account transfer of $12.3m from the Harbours and Marine Fund to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. So the estimated expenditure, excluding this transfer, totals $157m. However, out of the total funding from Consolidated Revenue, Trust and Special Funds, a larger proportion will come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, that is, 32 per cent in 1990-91 compared to 7 per cent in 1989-90, which Legislative Assembly 4558 7 November 1990 reflects this Government's recognition of the importance of both shipping and safe recreational boating facilities to the people of Queensland. Two things are important in recreational boating—enjoying the water and enjoying it safely—and this Budget provides for both. Firstly, provision has been made for many quality boating facilities so that more people can enjoy recreational boating. Funds have been allocated for new boating facilities at Townsville, Cape Tribulation and the Gold Coast. In Townsville a boat-ramp will be built at Pallarenda. It replaces a one-lane ramp constructed there by the Townsville City Council in 1970. A site for an all-tide boat-ramp is being sought at Thornton Beach at Cape Tribulation as an alternative to a gravel launching site presently used by local residents for launching boats into Coopers Creek at high tide. Meanwhile on the Gold Coast, a two-lane boat-ramp at Jabiru Island at Paradise Point is expected to be completed this financial year. Also on the Gold Coast, construction is expected to commence on a four-lane ramp north of Sea World at Main Beach. These are all important existing recreational boating areas and, with these new facilities, they will now have the potential to cater for more of the boating public and boating tourists, and therefore help develop water-based tourism in these areas. Apart from new facilities, all boating and navigational aids and associated infrastructure will be maintained to meet the needs of the boating public now and into the future. These include upgrading boat-ramps at Bowen, Cardwell and Hinchinbrook. In Bowen, the Greys boat-ramp, which was built in 1964, is being upgraded to increase its launching capacity. Work is expected to be completed by 11 December 1990. The Cardwell project will involve upgrading the Hulls River head boat-ramp, which was built in 1965. Currently, it is a single-lane ramp and is one of the ramps serving the Hinchinbrook Shire, including Mission Beach, which is attracting an increasing number of tourists. Upgrades on the ramp are expected to be completed by the end of this financial year. The Taylors Beach boat-ramp, which was built by the Cardwell Shire Council in 1970, serves the Ingham area and is popular with boating people who are heading to Hinchinbrook Island. Funds have been approved to upgrade this ramp to two lanes. A major aim of the maritime budget is to provide safety programs to promote the safe and responsible use of navigable waters. Therefore, this Government will develop and implement an online marine licensing system, thereby making marine licences available from all Transport Department offices. The Government will continue boating safety awareness programs such as a series of TV commercials on boating safety that will hit our screens just before the peak boating periods, that is, Christmas and the Australia Day weekend and the Easter break next year. Research and development has also begun on junior boating safety, aimed not only at the young boat-driver, but also at young passengers in boats. The Government will continue to provide the public with information on recreational boating through publications that are currently all being revised to provide the most up-to-date information and advice directly to boat- owners at public gatherings such as local shows and boat shows and through marine dealerships and boatyards throughout the State. The other major area of the maritime budget is expenditure on Queensland ports. They were probably underutilised in the past and not sufficiently considered as a general income-earning area for the State. The Goss Government intends to change this. New port, boating and navigational aids will be built so that Queensland's port systems can operate efficiently and effectively. Expenditure on marine port construction will be increased from $25.2m in 1989-90 to an estimated $26.1m in 1990-91. This will include further development of the Mourilyan harbour to cater for larger vessels, development of port infrastructure at Thursday Island, and construction of a new fendering system for the Cairns marlin jetty. Maintenance of port, boating, navigational aids and associated infrastructure has been vastly improved. The seriously neglected state of public assets in the industry will be addressed. The Government will ensure that Queensland's port and marine systems are maintained to service standards that are appropriate to meet present and future needs Legislative Assembly 4559 7 November 1990 of facility users. Therefore, expenditure on marine and ports maintenance will be increased from actual expenditure of $11.1m in 1989-90 to an estimated $16.5m in 1990-91. Major projects will include dredging at Weipa using cost-saving methods identified in a recent engineering study. Funds have also been provided for the maintenance of all Harbours Corporation port infrastructure, and several dredging projects have been identified such as Port Douglas, Wynnum Creek and Rosslyn Bay boat harbour. Rosslyn Bay usually has regular maintenance dredging every four years and was last dredged in 1987. However, to provide the necessary depth in the navigational channel and at the moorings, it has to be dredged a year early. Dredging is also required at Wynnum Creek to maintain access for small craft. All of these dredging projects have been selected for the efficient and safe maintenance of Queensland waterways. The main aim of expenditure on port operations is to maximise trade through Queensland ports. The marine and port operations program will provide efficient pilot services for shipping in Queensland waters and continued development of a safe, efficient, competitive and environmentally acceptable shipping industry. If Queensland's port system is to cater—and, indeed, enhance—this State's trade opportunities, all these elements are essential requirements. To make Queensland's ports more competitive in the transport market, the Government will be seeking efficiency gains across all aspects of port management operations. Therefore, expenditure on marine and ports operations will be trimmed slightly to $114.4m in 1990-91. To achieve these savings, the recommendations of the review of port administration will be implemented. The review was undertaken to determine the way in which to respond to regional and economic trade development needs while taking into account environmental and social considerations. Briefly, some of the 57 recommendations arising from the review will maintain locally based port authorities, but will centralise the administration of the authorities. A strategic port development plan, corporate plans, performance auditing and marketing plans are all to be developed and implemented. These are just some of the recommendations made by the review which will make Queensland's port management more efficient. Because of other major initiatives, Bowen will be re-opened as a trading port—providing a welcome boost for the town and surrounding areas. Major navigational aids projects and maritime capital works programs will be continued. The port corporatisation initiatives that I have mentioned are not new. Government organisations can become more efficient and profitable when competing in the marketplace if the social costs of job losses can be avoided. It is time to realise the potential of Queensland's waterways by maximising commercial opportunities to create a competitive port system. The Government has also recognised its obligation to recreational and commercial boating by retaining maintenance and safety measures in the 1990-91 Budget. Queensland has some of the best waterways and marine attractions in the world. Marine and port expenditures in the Transport Estimates by the Government and by the Minister have been carefully planned so that the best use can be made of both. Mr COOMBER (Currumbin) (7.43 p.m.): The Labor Party—and Mr Hamill, as a member of the Labor Party and now as the responsible Minister—went to the polls on 2 December last year on a platform of open and accountable government. Nothing could have been further from the truth. In a letter to my colleague the member for Nerang dated 20 February 1990, Mr Hamill gave the full and firm commitment of himself, his department and the Labor Government to ensuring that the Gold Coast would be linked by rail to Brisbane by the end of 1994. I emphasise the words "full and firm commitment". I seek leave to table the letter dated 20 February 1990. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr COOMBER: Following statements published in the press approximately four months later, Mr Connor sent another letter to the Minister and again requested assurances Legislative Assembly 4560 7 November 1990 from the Minister that he would honour his promise. The Minister sent a reply dated 26 July 1990, which I seek leave to table. Leave granted. Whereupon the honourable member laid the document on the table. Mr COOMBER: In that letter, the Minister stated— "The Gold Coast Railway has not been excluded from this review, which is currently underway in the lead up to the State Budget. . . . I am not in a position at this time to confirm or otherwise the previously stated timetable for completion of the Gold Coast Railway." Honourable members will note that the Minister quite clearly knew very early in the piece that the funds would not be available. The Goss Labor Government inherited the best State economy in Australia; yet, because it knows that there are no votes for it on the Gold Coast, the proposed rail link has been axed. It is interesting to note comments made by the Minister in the Gold Coast Bulletin yesterday. The Minister stated— "Mr Hamill said plans for the extension of the Brisbane suburban commuter system to Robina was on schedule to be finished by 1995-96." Honourable members will note that in that article the year of completion is not 1994, but 1995-96. That is what this new Labor Government is all about. Funds that were earmarked for the Robina rail link, which would have secured investment on the Gold Coast, have been diverted to pork-barrelling by directing them to marginal electorates to prop up the gaggle of oncers who now inhabit this Chamber. The Gold Coast rail link, quite rightly, will go down as Labor's ghost train, because that is exactly what it is—a ghost train. The Robina rail link has its terminus near the future Robina town centre. The proposed rail line crosses flood plain associated with the Nerang River. It is of concern that the rail embankment may affect flooding in the Carrara area and suburbs of the Gold Coast. I advise the Minister that there is currently available an updated computer model which studies flooding in the Nerang and Mudgeeraba catchments. The proposed rail embankment could be integrated into that computer model to ensure that flooding is not increased, or at least is able to be mitigated. The $7m in the Budget for land acquisition is an obvious token amount, but is being used by the Government as a go-slow tactic. The rail corridor may well end up being a road corridor instead. It is also obvious that this Government has taken the position that a cost of $200m to construct this railway line cannot be serviced by the end user. Recently, the Minister announced a study to establish a second freeway to the Gold Coast, linking the Gateway Arterial to the Gold Coast via a coastal route. We on the Gold Coast support the concept of the proposed eastern transportation corridor study and realise that that corridor has been part of the Albert Shire's strategic plan for many years. What concerns the people of the northern Gold Coast suburbs is the proposal's impact on sensitive environmental wetlands surrounding Coombabah Creek and the Coombabah waste water treatment centre. In his contribution to this Estimates debate, my colleague the member for Aspley referred to those areas. The proposed route dissects one of the most sensitive environmental areas on the Gold Coast. Only two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of showing the Minister for Environment, the Honourable Pat Comben, the proposed route from the air. He indicated to me that he was concerned at that proposed corridor. Traffic studies show that the Pacific Highway is approaching its ultimate load limits and that solutions have to be found to cater for future growth. The Pacific Highway has the capacity to be widened to six lanes, and work should begin immediately. Being cynical of this Government, it would seem to me that no funding will be available for Legislative Assembly 4561 7 November 1990 road-widening or rail construction and that this Government will see its salvation with yet another toll-road called the eastern corridor. I must state in this Chamber that the local authorities affected by the proposed eastern corridor do not support the proposed route and would prefer the road corridor to follow the rail corridor from Saltwater Creek to Smith Street. That corridor would remove the proposed road from all environmental areas. I must congratulate the Minister on the amount of maintenance work being carried out on main roads at night, particularly between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. It is common sense and saves considerable time and energy. It is not uncommon to see lines of traffic stretching for kilometres when roadworks are in progress during the day. One of the first decisions made by this Government was to axe the Gold Coast Waterways Authority. The Liberal Party supported the thrust of the legislation, but is still concerned about the transfer of trust funds accumulated by the authority away from the Gold Coast. The Minister may like to identify in the Budget where the trust fund in the Harbours Corporation has been established to ensure that moneys raised on the Gold Coast are being returned to the Gold Coast. The Gold Coast Waterways Authority was in the process of developing a management plan for the Broadwater. That plan has been scrapped or integrated into the Moreton Bay strategic plan. I suggest that the Minister obtain advice from the Gold Coast City Council as to a suitable town-planning zone for the Broadwater. Local government town- planning powers cease at the high-water mark and, in the past, town-planning powers have been usurped. I take the opportunity to mention the possibility of a water bus service from the Gold Coast to Brisbane being put in place as an alternative method of transport from the Gold Coast to Brisbane using the waterways of Moreton Bay and once again relieving pressure on the Pacific Highway. The Special Premiers Conference held in Brisbane last week tried to address problems associated with differing standards between the States. There is no greater example of problems associated with differing standards than our railways. To have three different railway gauges in the eastern States is ridiculous. I welcome the feasibility study into a two-State standard rail link between Queensland and New South Wales which passes through the Gold Coast. Although the Robina to Brisbane link is essential in the short term, the much bigger picture of non-stop travel between Sydney and the Gold Coast would be of benefit to all sections of south-east Queensland. Tourism is still the biggest growth industry in Queensland and the rest of Australia. The number of people visiting the Gold Coast is generated mainly from the southern States. Having rail as an alternative source of travel would ease congestion on our national highways and help reduce CO2 emissions and the greenhouse effect. This planning fits perfectly for the introduction of the Very Fast Train which, at this stage, may not proceed, but at least part of the infrastructure will be in place to allow consideration of the Very Fast Train principle in the future. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the documents referred to. Mr ARDILL (Salisbury) (7.53 p.m.): The subject on which I wish to speak is road safety in Queensland. In 1989, the road toll in Queensland resulted in 428 deaths and 4 075 serious injuries, as well as innumerable so-called minor injuries and property damage at a total cost calculated at $1.137 billion—which, I might add, is much more than the fuel tax collected in this State. On average, in a community of 6 500 people—an average Brisbane suburb—someone will die on our roads within the year. So far this year, more than 300 people have been killed, and there appears to be no end to this warfare. The Government is not allowing this battle to be lost by default. The Transport Minister, David Hamill, has taken an active stand on road safety and has introduced a number of initiatives, for which he deserves the utmost support and praise. One way in which this war can be prosecuted successfully is for the media to support the Minister instead of reacting negatively, as has been usual in the past. I have been involved in this fight for more than 15 years, and the number of media outlets that have provided positive support to road safety campaigns to try to obtain public notice and support have been singular and noteworthy. It is much easier to home in on a gruesome picture Legislative Assembly 4562 7 November 1990 than to package a positive message that would prevent accidents. The former Brisbane Telegraph newspaper, some suburban newspapers such as the Southern Star and some radio stations have been the exception to the rule and have been very successful in this area. It is possible to reduce the number of road accidents to a major degree, even up to 50 per cent, as happened in the late 1970s as a result of a concentrated effort on the three E's of traffic management—engineering, education and enforcement. The Goss Government, and the Transport Minister in particular, have set about fighting this war in a big way. The ongoing campaign, while directed at the whole community, is aimed directly at the 17 to 25 year age group. Thirty-three per cent of all fatalities are in this age group, which represents only 13 per cent of the population. Even more significantly, 45 per cent of all fatalities involving a positive alcohol reading were in this age group. The all-age figure is approximately 20 per cent but, as can be seen, it is much higher in the 17 to 25 age group. The Minister has launched two new film commercials on this subject, and five new radio commercials are in the pipeline. Overall, though, the community is reacting favourably to the BAC campaign, and a much more responsible attitude is apparent amongst the population in general and amongst hoteliers. It is a great shame that the same sense of responsibility has not been engendered in nightclubs and establishments catering for younger people. I turn to bicycle safety. The department has allocated more than $200,000 to encourage the wearing of helmets and to generally upgrade bicycle safety. It is patently obvious that a great number of parents have no idea of the risks that their children are taking on that brand-new bicycle that the child has been given. Very few children understand road rules or that they must obey them anyway. Parents should not allow their child on the road until they have examined her or him themselves to see whether the child has any road sense or road knowledge. There is no doubt that boys are less responsible on bikes than girls, and many have started on the decline from road responsibility on their new bike, which will eventually result in their being irresponsible drivers when they graduate to cars. Bicycle-riders should always indicate clearly what they intend to do by hand signals; they should obey traffic lights and signs; they should never ride straight on into traffic without checking to see if the way is clear; they should never ride across a pedestrian crossing; and they should realise that often they cannot be seen by an overtaking motorist who is following a large or bulky vehicle. Every day on our major suburban roads hundreds of cyclists are putting themselves at risk by ignoring these matters, and parents obviously are unaware that their child is flouting the rules and is in danger. In the last year, 15 cyclists have died. I would not allow a child of primary school age to ride a bicycle on a major road. If a minor street or a bikeway is not available, it is far better for young children to dismount and push their bike. The Brisbane bikeway system is still totally inadequate and has fallen further behind because the Liberal council has not given it the priority that it deserves. My attitude, as an alderman, was that 1 per cent of the road funds should be spent on bikeways. I had a system planned that has still not been completed in my area after five and a half years. Bikeways should be given a higher priority. The Government does provide a subsidy. While I am on the subject of schoolchildren, I point out that it is essential that road safety around schools be upgraded. Many schools are on major roads, which is a problem in itself. However, even those on minor streets are a gross hazard to children because of the irresponsible attitude of parents dropping off and picking up their own children. Parking bans, imposed for the sole purpose of improving road safety, are flouted by a minority of parents, who are universally detested by the majority of reasonable parents who obey the law. When the police book these irresponsible people, which they do every now and again, it is everyone else's fault. One way in which safety outside schools can be improved is by adopting a safe set-down area that is properly designed to allow turning movements to be carried out Legislative Assembly 4563 7 November 1990 safely with good visibility. No new school should be built without a traffic engineer's plan of the frontage of the school being incorporated into the design. I refer not to the useless lay-bys that the National Party has been cutting off the frontage and handing over to local councils for a decade but a properly designed area which, in most instances, is very simply adapted for the particular topography of each school. At the end of my speech I will table a standard plan. Such a simple matter can save lives. The schoolcrossing supervisor system, which I promoted for many years after seeing it in operation in Melbourne in 1976, is now firmly established in this State. In those days, in desperation, I introduced a flagged crossing system, using flag brackets and road markings as a second-rate alternative, when the Liberal/National Party Government—and I emphasise that it was the Liberal Party that opposed this—refused to budge, claiming that children operating patrols was the best method. The National Party demanded that I cease using the flagged-crossing system, but I ignored the Government, and other councils throughout Queensland started using it—just as they followed my initiative in using roundabouts in the 1970s. The Liberal/National Government then relented and adopted the crossing-supervisor scheme, which was what I wanted, anyway. This Government has a much more enlightened attitude than the previous Government had, and this year David Hamill has allocated $2.6m to expand the scheme—a 17.7 per cent increase over last year's Budget allocation. There are now over 700 such crossings in Queensland, which were not considered sensible when I first promoted the idea 14 years ago. This Budget provides for an additional 80 crossings. I thank the Minister for that initiative. Another great initiative of the Goss Government is the baby capsule hire scheme. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of centres from which baby capsules can be hired. Mr Temporary Chairman, I have already shown it to a previous occupant of the Chair. Leave granted. OFFICES BY REGION METROPOLITAN Fort. Valley Rosalie Coorparoo Ipswich Logan City Cleveland Redcliffe SOUTH EAST Maroochydore Bundaberg Maryborough Gold Coast Hervey Bay SOUTH WEST Toowoomba Warwick Roma CENTRAL Rockhampton Mackay Gladstone Legislative Assembly 4564 7 November 1990

Emerald Blackwater NORTHERN Townsville Cairns Innisfail Mr ARDILL: The aims of the scheme are— to ensure the availability of baby capsules to parents of all newborn babies at an affordable cost, having regard to the high purchase cost of a baby safety capsule for only six months' use; to ensure safer travel for babies in the birth-six months age group; to encourage a wider use of seat belts and child restraints generally; to reduce the number of infants killed or injured in road accidents; and to pre-empt the introduction of legislation requiring the mandatory use of restraints for infants under 12 months of age. Those aims are in keeping with the Road Safety Division's aims of creating a safer driving environment and education for all road-user groups. The scheme is now in its sixth month of operation and has been well received by the public and health authorities. It is presently available at 23 departmental offices. During this financial year, it will be extended to Tewantin, Kingaroy, Goondiwindi, Dalby, Charleville, Longreach, Mareeba and Atherton. Mr Veivers: Down the Gold Coast, how many are you going to have? How many are you going to have? That is all I ask. Mr ARDILL: The Government has one at the Gold Coast at present. Mr Veivers: But how many of those baby capsules? Mr ARDILL: That I cannot tell the honourable member. The scheme is under way and the honourable member should be thanking the Minister for what he has done. To date, 1 650 capsules have been hired. The demand for capsules is increasing, with approximately 1 700 reservations for capsules presently held for the period November 1990 to April 1991. Mr Veivers interjected. Mr ARDILL: But how many the Gold Coast is getting out of that, I cannot say. At the other end of the age scale is the other group over-represented in road trauma. While only 15 per cent of the population is aged 60 and over, 18 per cent of fatalities are in that age group. Elderly people are particularly vulnerable as pedestrians, with one-third of fatalities in the 60 years and over age group being pedestrians. Overall, only 19 per cent of road victims are pedestrians. Many elderly people are safe drivers, but they seem unable to see or hear adequately, or judge distances, as pedestrians, and that suggests another problem that needs to be considered and tackled. I have yet to meet a traffic engineer, an elderly pedestrian, a careful driver or a parent who is satisfied with the 60 kilometre per hour speed limit in residential streets, yet it is persisted with. The speed limit used to be 30 miles per hour, which is 48 kilometres per hour, in residential streets when they were long, straight and devoid of shrubs. It crept up to 35 miles per hour, which was midway between what was sensible in residential streets and what was safe on major roads. With the introduction of metres and kilometres, it crept up again to 37.5 miles per hour or 60 kilometres per hour. Clearly, there is a need to separate the residential speed limit from that for major traffic arteries, even if only to discourage rat-running. However, the overwhelming need is to reduce the speed in Queensland's curving residential streets, which now follow the Legislative Assembly 4565 7 November 1990 contours of the land or curve around to avoid four way intersections. Those streets have visibility problems and are full of obstacles such as parked cars, shrubs, dogs, bicycles, pedestrians and children at play. I have repeatedly checked the speed of my car and that of prudent drivers in those circumstances and only the inexperienced, the foolhardy and the careless travel much above 50 kilometres per hour. I have been promoting a reduction in the residential speed limit for 15 years, without success, but perhaps the push for more realistic speed limits on the open road may be helpful in reducing the speed limit in residential streets. The only impediment in both cases is the need to erect realistic speed signs on major urban roads and major highways. The cost is well and truly justified. I would also like to commend the department for increasing the number of penalties that will be incurred by drivers who illegally and unsafely park their vehicles in clearways, bus stops and loading zones. However, I am disappointed that, at the same time, the penalty for overstaying at a parking meter has been increased. I firmly believe that the nexus between illegal parking, creating a danger and overstaying at a parking meter should be broken. The penalty for overstaying at a parking meter should reflect the revenue foregone and the inconvenience imposed on other motorists, whereas illegal parking is a dangerous offence and should be severely discouraged. This year, the "red light" camera scheme will commence operation in Queensland. A policeman living in my area—a very courageous and community-minded man—lost both legs due to a motorist running the red light, and I have had personal experiences of that practice. Crashes at intersections in Queensland represent a significant road safety problem and a sizeable proportion of those crashes are caused by drivers disobeying a red traffic signal. Another aspect of road safety that deserves a mention is the wearing of seat belts. Very clearly, Australia has led the world in the compulsory wearing of seat belts and the statistics prove that it has saved lives. This year, David Hamill has allocated $400,000 for promoting the correct wearing of seat belts and the provision of child restraints. This is a most productive allocation of funds and will help to reduce Queensland's road toll. Against the community cost of $1.137m for road trauma, it is easy to see that the Minister's doubling of funds this year for road safety to $13.9m is well and truly justified. The Minister should be congratulated. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the documents referred to. Mr RANDELL (Mirani) (8.08 p.m.): It is with great pleasure that I rise to take part in this debate on the Transport Estimates. Mr Hamill: Welcome back. Mr RANDELL: I thank the Minister very much. It always gives me great pleasure to have the Minister for Transport opposing me. It also gave me great pleasure to look at what he said when he was shadow Minister for Railways. When the Railway Department Estimates were being debated in 1988, his opening remarks were— "I had hoped that, in this new age of the vision of excellence, reports such as the annual report of the Transport Department, which landed on our desks only this morning, would have been available to members long before this debate commenced. If it had, honourable members would have had an opportunity to analyse the report and give the Estimates full and adequate consideration." Mr Hamill: You had it yesterday. Mr RANDELL: I got this last night—and I had to go looking for it. Looking through it, I was amazed to see all the blank pages. I invite the Minister to look at them. I really like the annual financial statement. The Minister should have a look at it. It is a full page of nothing. This page is supposed to outline the locations of the offices. It is a page of nothing. Mr Hamill: That's for you to colour in. Legislative Assembly 4566 7 November 1990

Mr RANDELL: These things have come back to haunt the Minister. When he made his statements on a previous occasion, he was a bit lax. Mr Hamill interjected. Mr RANDELL: The Minister should not talk about that; he should talk about his own department. This annual report of the Director- General of the Department of Transport contains blank pages. This is supposed to be the annual financial statement. I notice that, on page 27 of that statement, reference is made to section 23, which relates to transfers. It states— "The Department of Main Roads was abolished by Order in Council dated 7 December, 1989 and ceased its accounting function on 31 December, 1989. The transfers of $410,044,000 and $8,587,000 represent the unexpended portion of moneys transferred to the Department of Transport and the Department of Tourism, Sport and Racing respectively, by an Order in Council dated 29 March, 1990 . . ." If that amount was transferred to the Racing Department, that is quite all right. Is the Minister absolutely certain that money from the Department of Main Roads went to the Department of Racing? I would like him to check that. I note that when he became Minister for Transport he decided to set up a working party and commence a study—in August—to recommend the Government's changes in the organisational structure of Queensland Rail. Mr McGrady: It is a good idea, too. Mr RANDELL: I did not say that it was not. I understand that, in the brief to the working group, Mr Hamill stressed that managers must concentrate on financial performance and be accountable for their own bottom-line results. It seems as though the Transport Department is taking massive cuts in funding due mainly to Mr Hamill's obsession with the department having to operate on a commercial footing. Of course, all of us throughout Queensland—including people in Mount Isa—know that this is not always feasible when considering the State's geography and the huge distances over which passengers and freight have to be carried throughout the State. That also has to be taken into consideration. The effect of the Transport Department's cuts, so far as we have seen, is the proposed closures of rail freight depots throughout the State—and I will say more about that later—with consequent loss of jobs—and I will say more about that later, too—and massive farm vehicle registration increases. I think everybody would know about the massive rebellion against that. On 21 June 1990, a newspaper article headed "Farmers jeer Casey on rego" stated— "Hundreds of angry farmers yesterday hurled insults at the Primary Industry Minister, Mr Casey, over big rises in farm truck registration fees. The growers have accused the State Government of trying to sneak through registration increases of between 400 and 1200 percent without consulting the industry." Mr Casey acknowledged this and said that the Government had pledged no increases in charges above the Consumer Price Index, which is what the Government promised. He said— "However, there are anomalies in the system which we have to address." At a businessmen's luncheon later that day—and the Minister might care to listen to this—Mr Casey said that the Transport Minister, Mr Hamill, had acted wrongly by moving without consulting the industry. It seems as though the Minister's colleague is taking issue with him. Mr Stephan: But the Minister didn't go up there to that meeting at all, did he? Mr RANDELL: I do not think so. I do not think he would have been game. Mr Hamill: The grain-growers asked that we abolish flat-rate charges. Legislative Assembly 4567 7 November 1990

Mr RANDELL: The Minister has been taking it a bit easy. I am just livening him up a bit. Then came his aborted attempt to abolish subsidies on suburban rail travel for school students. In relation to that, I think he was steamrollered into the ground by Mr Goss in the Cabinet. We all remember the pre- election promise by the Government to lift toll charges on the road on the north coast. One has only to drive up there, as I did recently, and see the toll-busters to know what retribution the Government will receive in that area in the future. In that regard, I refer to newspaper headlines such as "Shire attacks State over toll-road move"; "Tollbusters stop toll-road workers"; "Toll road protest hots up" and "Toll-road protesters dig in for long stay". Mr Hamill: Did you pay the 60c? Mr RANDELL: The honourable member will get his time. The headlines stated also "Road maker seeks truce in toll clash" and "Goss stands firm over toll". Mr Goss vowed that the Government would stand fast on its controversial decision to push on with a toll for the new Sunshine Coast Motorway. He rejected calls from protesting citizens. Other headlines were "Toll rebels might sue Goss" and "Tollbusters snub Hamill offer". It appears as though the Minister made some offers to the people involved but they were rejected. I could go on and on. The Minister certainly has himself a lulu. This and many other events have been caused by the Minister's determination to get the user-pays principles operating in the transport system. There is no doubt that freight costs being passed on to primary producers and others will result in inflation and an increase in the cost of products to consumers. Considering the contempt in which rural producers are held by this ALP Government, that is not surprising. We have now witnessed the recent announcement of the closure of some 300 rail freight depots throughout the State, leaving 23 major regional freight centres to handle the same volume of freight. I draw the Minister's attention to his comments in the debate on the Estimates of the Railway Department in 1988. He might care to listen to them. During that debate, he said— "A whole range of classifications of railway employees has been reduced. The impact on many small country towns in Queensland is really quite devastating. It is not only taking jobs, income and business away from many small country towns but also leaving a very demoralised labour-force in the railways. Those employees expect further cut-backs in employment in the coming year. If the Budget papers are any indication, further loss of employment can be expected in the railways." But what did the Minister do after that? He did twice as much as he accused the National Party of doing during its time in Government. There has not been a word of apology from him. Very shortly, I will relate what some railway people are saying about him. By his actions, the Minister is transferring rail freight to a road system. This must lead to the deterioration of rural roads and to a greater cost for those using the system. That makes sense. Apart from the loss of jobs by railway people at the depots that have been closed, it seems to me that the recent escalations in fuel costs will make this transfer to road very inefficient and unwise. I cannot understand the Minister's thinking in trying to get freight off the railways and onto our deteriorating road system. It is ironic that, at the recent conference between the State Premiers, the Prime Minister and the Federal Treasurer, Mr Keating, here in Brisbane, an agreement was reached that a concerted move be made to get heavy traffic off the roads and back onto the railways. This Minister is doing exactly the opposite. I understand that the move was supported by Mr Goss. A newspaper article about the Special Premiers Conference stated— "Railway employee numbers will be reduced and road transport charges increased under sweeping national reforms planned by the special Premiers Conference which ended in Brisbane yesterday. Transport groups last night warned that the measures would inevitably result in dramatically increased food prices in Queensland. A total of $800 million will be channelled into rail infrastructure over five years. Legislative Assembly 4568 7 November 1990

A national rail freight corporation will be set up as a commercial body to undertake interstate rail freight services. Provision will be made for eventual equity participation by private enterprise, as well as by governments, in the new corporation which will start operations next July 1." I could go on and on. There is no doubt that the hidden agenda in all those moves is the privatisation of Queensland's railway system. That is what people are thinking about. A total of 289 rail freight depots throughout the State will go, leaving 23 major regional freight centres to handle the very same freight volume. Railway employees have traditionally been strong supporters of the Labor Party, but even they are turning against their party. Because I am unable to incorporate in Hansard the circular from Mr Vince Challenor, I shall read some sections of it. Mr Challenor, who is one of the Labor Party's loyal supporters, stated— "I am an employee of the Qld Railways, on a very moderate income. I am paying off my home and up to this point of time, I have been a reasonably proud employee, who enjoyed the challenges which confronted me, like thousands of other rail employees, on a day to day basis. Like those other thousands of railway people, I now find my future very uncertain because of your Government's onslaught into recognised rail traffic by the implementation of the Rail Rationalization and Freight Integration Policy. I find it very, very difficult to come to terms with the policies of your Government in the area of rail transport. You see, my grandparents were foundation members of Labor in Qld, foundation members of the first branch formed in Cunnamulla, my parents helped form the first branch in Quilpie, and my family carried on that tradition up till now. Of course, those old founders were true believing Labor people—they considered people, and their problems, and their feelings, and their wishes, as the real meaning of Labor—Not so now! We appear to put our ambitions of personal academic achievements as No 1 priority. Please understand me when I tell you that there is an awful bitterness out there against your Government and against your Transport Minister. I know you might find that statement a bit extreme. Well, go out to the people directly affected"— as I do— "and see if they agree with you or me. . . . All I ask for, is a fair go! Take a couple of hours to talk to your unions—your people—and try to hold your marginals in the next election—whenever that may be. My belief is that on present feelings, you might find it hard to retain seats like Maryborough, Isis, Bundaberg and you might be surprised at the fall away in Gladstone, Rockhampton, Mackay and Townsville areas." Mr Hamill: Is that Vince Challenor? Mr RANDELL: That was Vince Challenor. Mr Stephan: They sacked him. Mr RANDELL: I suppose they did sack him. The closing-down of those 289 rail freight depots is claimed by railway unions, rural townspeople, farmers and freight-users to be counterproductive. I understand that in my electorate the depots at St Lawrence, Carmila, Koumala and Flaggy Rock will be closed down and that all freight from those areas will go through Sarina or Rockhampton. Legislative Assembly 4569 7 November 1990

Can the Minister honestly tell me that people will save by the double handling of freight at Sarina and Rockhampton? From where will the freight be carted? Who will do that? What transport will be used? Will QRX transport or private transport be used? How will money be saved by doing that? Will the Government cart goods in opposition to private operators? Mr Hamill: Yes. Mr RANDELL: The Government receives concessions on fuel and registrations. That is unfair competition. This Government should make up its mind. It will cripple private enterprise. Pat Dunne, the secretary of the railways union, is concerned about the future of 16 000 blue-collar railway workers. Mr Dunne has forecast drastic reductions in services, with road transport being used for distribution. He predicts that small towns that house railway employees will be affected, and that that will flow on to local economies that are already reeling from the effects of a rural depression. That makes sense. This Government claims that it will provide jobs. However, once those people leave those little towns and take their families with them, that will affect small stores, schools, police stations and small businesses. This Government will cripple the little towns in rural communities, but it could not care less. If the Minister can tell me how money will be saved to provide improvements in other places, I will listen to him. This is one of the most stupid moves that I have ever seen. It will not save money. Rank-and-file railway employees who have voted Labor all their lives have come to me and said, "Jim, we will be voting for you next time." According to an article that appeared in Queensland Country Life on 20 September 1990, Mr Hamill said that the main aim of the project was to achieve the most efficient combination of road and rail transport, win back business for the railways system and cut back the number of heavy vehicles on the roads. How can that number be cut back when this Government wants goods to be carted by road? It will mean a double handling of freight such as livestock, which will have to be transported by road for hundreds of miles and then transferred onto rail at another centre. Mr Hamill: You are anti-rail. Mr RANDELL: I am not anti-rail. The traffic must be taken off the roads and put onto the railways. However, this Government is putting more traffic onto the roads. Mr Hamill: You are exposed. Mr RANDELL: The Minister is exposed. He cannot tell me what he is doing. I know what he is doing. Because of the Government's plan, his flock is threatening industrial action . Mr Dunne wants a guarantee that the plans will not cause hardship to railway employees, who have also complained about a total lack of consultation and communication. Many employees learnt of the plans from the media. That has promoted confusion and anger. This Government says that there will be no loss of jobs and that workers will be transferred. What about the small towns that will be left behind? This Government is leaving them to the wilderness. It does not care about rural people or rural roads. I am concerned about the Main Roads Department's falling within the Minister's Transport portfolio. I hope that, in the future, there will be funding for each individual department and that the issues will not be clouded. I am concerned that all registration fees in Queensland, which total in excess of $310m, will go to consolidated revenue. Will the Minister give a guarantee that at least that sum will be paid out of consolidated revenue for road improvements? Those fees have always been earmarked for roadworks. However, this Government is putting all that money into consolidated revenue. Because the States have to fight with the Federal Government to obtain road-funding, this Government does not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting it. Time expired. Legislative Assembly 4570 7 November 1990

Mr FENLON (Greenslopes) (8.22 p.m.): I rise in the Estimates debate to compliment the Minister for Transport on a very fine budget for a very large portfolio. It is obvious that the Minister is handling very well that great reconstruction that has been achieved under the Goss Government. The results can be seen in the budget. I will deal with the theme of railways. A concern for my local community in Coorparoo that is being dealt with under the new budget, and to which the member for Mount Coot-tha has already alluded, is the local area consultative committee that has been established as the first major step in dealing with the Cavendish Road railway crossing. Recently, at a public meeting at the Coorparoo RSL that committee was established and, last weekend, held its first formal session at which members were briefed on the processes of consultation and on their new role. The committee was set up independently by private consultants that were engaged by the Department of Transport. I congratulate the individuals who were elected to that committee. I thank the members of the initial working party that was set up to work with the consultants to establish the local area consultative committee, which comprises of 12 members. Nine of those members come from specific neighbourhoods, one from the community of schools in the area, one from local industry and one from the local traders. Ultimately, the State Government must make a decision about suburban railway crossings and ensure that the community is well informed at every stage in the process. We have left behind the era marked by community confusion and division as to the future of sound traffic planning. The move represents a fresh start to this matter that the Premier promised in June 1989 at a meeting at the Coorparoo RSL. The wider issue of railways is certainly a major element in the budget. Firstly, I refer to finance and administration of the railways. Central to the reforms are changes in the systems of accounting and reporting. In previous years, the revenue and expenditure of Queensland Railways was paid into and extracted from consolidated revenue in completely separate transactions. It would be instructive if the member for Flinders was in the Chamber so that he could hear more about this. He certainly lacked an appreciation of what is being considered by the Government. As part of the commercialisation of Queensland Railways, the system of financing will become internal to that organisation; that is, revenue and expenditure will be matched against each other within the books of Queensland Railways. It would be instructive for the bastions of private enterprise to learn something about accounting principles and accountability. Queensland Railways will operate within an autonomous trust fund, supplemented where necessary as a result of losses incurred or as part of CSO policy by consolidated revenue. In line with those changes, the system of accounting will move from a cash flow to an accrual basis. In retrospect, it is easy to understand the reluctance of the former National Party Government to tighten up accounting in this way. The notion of matching revenue with expenses is central to establishing and understanding levels of performance and monitoring performance within the system. In past years, the converse position was a cash-flow system of accounting, which is a system that makes convenient provision for the hiding of incompetence and lack of accountability. A system of accrual accounting involves the recording of costs and revenue in the period in which they are incurred rather than in the period during which the actual cash transaction took place. The new system will enable provision for depreciation, future superannuation, and other liabilities, which will facilitate the process of financial and organisational planning. Because those principles are obviously very new to the members of the Opposition and so that they can be well briefed on those principles, I suggest to the Minister that he set up some tutorials in accounting for them. This year, enhancements of the existing railway network will account for $45m of recurrent expenditure. Although that figure is $2.5m less than last year's figure, it is more than offset by the increase in network development expenditure. The budget for enhancements includes expenditure on a continuation of major deviation works in Mackay and Bowen. As a result of those projects, 16 level crossings in the Mackay urban area will become redundant and trains travelling directly from Mackay to Townsville will save half an hour in travelling time by by-passing Bowen. The budget provides also for the purchase of modern materials handling equipment to be installed in the new Legislative Assembly 4571 7 November 1990 network of regional freight centres. A concentration of freight volumes towards the chosen centres will enhance considerably freight terminal efficiency. The new machinery will enable Queensland Railways to take full advantage of the economies of scale in handling offered by the freight-centre concept. The Mount Isa railway line will be upgraded to improve reliability during wet weather. A total of $392m will be spent on the development of the railway network, an 18 per cent increase in nominal terms over last year. The sum of $173m will be paid out of the Trust Fund as recurrent expenditure, representing a 67.7 per cent increase in funding from this source last year. Capital works allocations for this year total $218m, representing a small drop of another 5 per cent from last year's total. The total value of capital works projects on rail infrastructure currently being undertaken, excluding main line electrification, is $1.255 billion. The four stages of main line electrification are now commissioned and in operation. A residual amount is provided for this year to address some major system deficiencies which have arisen. A feasibility study into extending the electrified network north of Rockhampton was recently completed. The results were not encouraging and highlighted the requirement for substantial revenue over short distances, such as bulk coal haulage, to ensure viability. Implementation of the driver-only project will continue with an investment in the alteration of infrastructure to allow for the safe operation of trains by one person. The expansion and upgrading of the Brisbane urban network involves projects with a total value of $363m. This year $43m will be spent, with a further investment of $305m scheduled for subsequent years. The duplication of the inner-city tunnels will allow for four tracks through the busy Roma Street to Brunswick Street section, on which traffic growth is expected to be significant. Activity this year on the Gold Coast railway will include substantial progress on the duplication of the track between Kuraby and Beenleigh and the finalisation of resumptions in the Beenleigh-Robina corridor. Major redevelopment of freight facilities at Acacia Ridge will facilitate the rejuvenation of the intrastate freight network and place Queensland in a position to contribute strongly to the National Rail Freight Corporation, which will be responsible for interstate freight from the middle of 1991. The major role of Queensland Railways in the development of mineral extraction industries in Queensland will continue, with further contributions to projects nearing completion at Blair Athol, Stanwell and Jellimbah and the initiation of a $151m rail infrastructure project for the recently announced Gordonstone coal development. In terms of operations, the total estimate for expenditure on railway operations is $1,242m, representing a 4 per cent real reduction over last year. Real reductions were achieved in both administrative costs and salaries and related payments. The full-time equivalent number of employees for railway operations dropped by 3.2 per cent to 19 812. Last year, freight haulage amounted to 82.5 million tonnes, an increase of 2.5 per cent over 1988-89. Of this total, 67.8 million tonnes was in the form of coal freight. Freight haulage is expected to increase by 9.9 per cent to 90.7 million tonnes this year as new mineral projects come on stream. Last year patronage on passenger services was estimated to total 44 million people, with 0.9 million on the various country services and the rest on the south-east regional network. I turn now to corporate services. For Budget purposes the corporate services area essentially covers the head office operations of Queensland Railways, including commercial, finance and administration, projects and planning, information systems, personnel and industrial relations divisions and sections. For accounting purposes some contracted executives who are not located in head office are also included in this program area, whereas previously they were included in the railway operations program. The total estimate for corporate services is $56m, representing a real increase of 4 per cent. A major reason for this increase has been the fact that many of the contracted executives were transferred to this program half- way through last financial year, that is, contract costs for this year are for the full 12 months, whereas last year they were for only six months. Also, there has been a transfer of some ancillary staff from the railway operations Legislative Assembly 4572 7 November 1990 program to the corporate services program. Importantly, there was a real reduction of 10 per cent in administrative outlays in corporate services. Further reductions in head office expenses are envisaged when the organisational restructuring has been completed. While some of these savings will be offset by the continuation of some functions at the divisional or product group level, it is hoped that the corporate functions will be streamlined in favour of operations. It is clear that many of the principles being adopted here are consistent with the proposals for corporatisation. This is indeed a positive step. It will be a step towards providing real accountability in the railway network. It will put the system on to a real business basis and bring about restructuring. Indeed, as the Minister has repeatedly pointed out, this will have to be achieved in a sensitive manner and it will not be helped by the sensationalism and destructive suggestions and comments that have come from the Opposition. In addition, together with these proposals there will be compatible organisational restructuring in order to put in place the appropriate marketing and management approaches for the new system. The organisational structure of Queensland Railways is currently in the process of transformation from a series of divisions based along functional and regional lines into a smaller group of business units with sole responsibility for the transport of particular products. These new divisions will have separate accounting systems and be directly responsible for the performance of operations related to its product group. Administrative and operational tasks will be handled by the individual divisions to the maximum feasible extent. Indeed, I am very pleased to commend to the Committee these Estimates as they relate to Queensland Railways. I believe that the actions that have been taken in relation to the preparation of the Budget will bring great benefits for many years to come. Time expired. Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (8.38 p.m.): I realise that very little time is available for my speech, but there are only two points I wish to raise in relation to the Transport Estimates. Earlier this year, in answer to a question, the Minister for Transport gave an assurance that additional revenue gained from farm vehicle registration would be returned to the areas from which it was gathered. I took that assurance on board and wrote to the Minister. I reminded the Minister of the assurance he had given and also reminded him that the Chinchilla Shire had been badly done by because Government funding had been cut from $1.9m, in addition to a special grant of $200,000 for repair work, to $1.3m. I must say that I was disappointed with the answer given by the Minister because he reneged on his assurance and stated that it was not possible to return the revenue to the areas from which it came. The Minister also commented that the shire was lucky to get what it had received and reiterated that it was not possible to return the funds. Mr Hamill: What I said was that the amount of money from registration charges in that shire was far less than the amount of money that we were spending on roads in that shire. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I am sure that that happens in many places, but I remind the Minister that he will have his quarter of an hour later on. The Minister refused to honour his agreement. It has now been pointed out to me that a great deal of the money allocated to the Chinchilla Shire is spent on the Condamine Highway. The Minister may not be aware that the Condamine Highway extends along the southern boundaries of the Chinchilla Shire and provides access from western Queensland to Brisbane. It provides very little benefit at all to the Chinchilla Shire because it does not provide access to any of the towns within the shire other than Kogan—— Mr Ardill: It is a road train route. Mr LITTLEPROUD: Except for road trains going through to Dalby, which is not located in the Chinchilla Shire. Legislative Assembly 4573 7 November 1990

The point I make is that when the Minister considers the revenue that is expended in the Chinchilla Shire, he takes into account the amount of money being spent on the Condamine Highway. I point out that the highway is a transit route for traffic from western Queensland, but it is being counted as expenditure in the Chinchilla Shire, which is not fair. The money should be spent on providing services to the community in the Chinchilla Shire. The other issue I wish to raise before my time expires is the issue of school transport. I wish to trace the history of this matter because it is a very contentious area of the Minister's portfolio. In January 1988, I took a recommendation to Cabinet and pointed out that the blow-out in costs associated with school transportation was excessive. I recommended that something be done about it. I realise that the Minister is now addressing this problem, but I wish the Committee to know the history of this matter. A former Minister for Transport, Ivan Gibbs, and I commissioned a review to find out where the money was being spent. We discovered that there was huge abuse of the system on the part of principals—although it was probably inadvertent. They were handing out free rail passes. When the passes were introduced initially, the procedure was closely scrutinised. Later, however, the stage was reached at which the passes were simply handed out. A great deal of the funding allocated for school transportation was being spent on licensed bus runs. Approximately 80 per cent of the funding was being spent on 20 per cent of the children. The major purpose of the review was to transfer all the responsibility for school transportation to the Minister for Transport. He inherited that responsibility. Mr Hamill interjected. Mr LITTLEPROUD: I remind the Minister that he will be given 15 minutes later. It took six or eight months for the transfer to be effected. At that time, former Ministers realised that the improper use of rail passes had to be addressed. We undertook to make the players in the education field—especially the non-Government sector—understand that the way in which Government money for school transportation was being spent had to be rationalised. Additional negotiations took place. We initiated discussions with the Catholic Education Office and began to talk to representatives of independent schools throughout Queensland. The representatives realised that a terrific blow-out in costs had occurred and that the financial burden looked as though it would become horrendous in the years to come. Together with the Government, those representatives were working towards resolving the problems. Conversations I have had during the last couple of weeks indicate to me that negotiations being carried on between the representatives of independent schools and the Minister are symptomatic of the way in which the Minister handles many of the issues that come across his desk. All the goodwill that had been built up has apparently gone out the window. The people involved are now up in arms and totally against the Minister. Apparently the Minister has had to go back on an assurance that he had previously given. Having had responsibility for school transportation for approximately 12 months—— Mr Hamill: Are you saying that I went back on some assurance? Mr LITTLEPROUD: They are the words used by one of the people who spoke to me about the issue. All types of negotiation that were possible previously have now been set back. I am surprised that the Minister has asked the Minister for Education to contribute funds to meet the costs of school transportation because the rationalisation could not be worked out. To my mind, that is very unfortunate. Mr Hamill: Why? Mr LITTLEPROUD: Because the Minister has a Transport budget and he can obtain funds from that. If the Minister had followed the course of decent and sensible negotiations, he would have been able to gain the understanding of the people involved and would have got them to admit that there was a better way of administering the scheme. Ministers of the previous Government were working towards that aim but, Legislative Assembly 4574 7 November 1990 because of the brash style of this Minister—the style demonstrated in the Sunshine Motorway toll issue and the reduction in rail freight centres throughout Queensland—he is putting people offside. The Minister has turned those people against him. It would not surprise me if, when negotiations start in the future, representatives of the independent schools are dealing with a new Minister. Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development) (8.44 p.m.), in reply: The debate has been most instructive, if only for one reason; that is, to demonstrate that the Opposition has no clear thinking on the subject of Transport and on the important subject of micro-economic reform, which is the vital area being addressed by this Government with respect to the Transport portfolio. It astounded me to hear speakers ranging from former Ministers of a National Party Government—who I thought might well have had a better grasp of the issues on which they spoke—to those who perhaps have not had much experience in this Parliament. The common theme was a total lack of understanding and a total ignorance of the issues. I was also very disappointed at the way in which certain key initiatives had been grossly misrepresented. One can only describe some of the claims made in this Chamber this afternoon as nothing short of scurrilous. I refer to the comments made by the member for Flinders with respect to a very important initiative, namely, the national rail freight initiative. It seems to me that at a time when the Berlin Wall is coming down and a variety of Stalinist regimes are disappearing from Eastern Europe, the reds- under-the-bed conspiracy is a bit out of fashion. Even the League of Rights theories on Judaeo-communist plots to enslave people are a bit out of place. However, the member for Flinders is suggesting that there is now a private enterprise plot to enslave Queensland Railways. Of course, the member for Flinders mentioned these secret documents—the cabal of the Australian Transport Advisory Council—where these evil players, these State Transport Ministers, were huddled around working out how to carve up the national railway system and hand it over to—dare I say it—private enterprise. It was quite extraordinary to note the posturing which we saw from the member for Flinders. It is only appropriate that we put on record yet again for the honourable member the facts in relation to the national rail freight initiative. Contrary to the scaremongering which the member has been carrying on with in north Queensland—on Monday it is 3 000 jobs, on Tuesday it is 4 000 jobs and, by the weekend, it is 14 000 jobs disappearing out of north Queensland rail—the fact is that Queensland's part in the national rail freight initiative is very minor indeed. I stress to all honourable members that Queensland's part in it is the interstate rail freight component of Queensland Railways business. That involves that part of Queensland Railways business which loses $14m a year, that part which involves about 60 jobs only, and, furthermore, that part which operates between Acacia Ridge and the New South Wales border. It demonstrates quite clearly the lack of grasp of reality of the member for Flinders. The national rail freight initiative is not some devious plot to hand over Queensland rail—far from it. It is a long-overdue initiative to make the national interstate rail systems far more effective and thereby make them far more competitive for winning over the transport task. As a part of its commitment to the upgrade of rail facilities in this State and this nation, this Government has been seeking to build into that initiative a standard gauge rail link to the port of Brisbane. I suggest that is a fundamental element of micro-economic reform: linking in land transport with a port, with the opportunity to develop the port of Brisbane as a major gateway port in north Australia, one which will enable a significant increase in freight and container movements, which will generate jobs and income to Queensland. I am not ashamed of that objective. Another area of scaremongering and misinformation was with respect to the Premiers Conference decision on a national registration system for heavy vehicles. One of the clear problems that has faced land transport in Australia has been the inequities, in that different modes of transport bear unequal shares of the cost of providing their infrastructure. That is what has held railways back in this country. For all those who posture that they Legislative Assembly 4575 7 November 1990 are concerned about the welfare of railways, let all members recognise that the parlous state in which Queensland Railways finds itself today is a parlous state that saw thousands upon thousands of rail workers turned out of jobs in this State over the last five to six years with no hope for the future whatsoever. I contrast our initiatives. Our initiatives are about providing a real future for Queensland Railways and a real fighting future for security of employment in railways. I return to the Premiers Conference decision. It is a critical decision that has been made by Premiers not only of Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia but also by the Premier of New South Wales on behalf of the Liberal/National Government, and Marshall Perron, who is of Opposition members' ilk, in the Northern Territory. They all recognised the importance of getting the reform in road pricing right. That is why all the Premiers and Chief Ministers agreed to national registration charges to get over the problems that exist with differential rates being charged in different States and the real contribution going back into the road formation of the country not being paid by those who do most damage to it. The other matter that was quite evident from the debate this afternoon was that the cargo cult is alive and well on the Opposition benches. Those who would posture as financial managers seem to have lost the grasp of the simple fact of knowing where the money is to come from. We had the Opposition spokesperson talking about building a rail line from Mount Isa to Darwin and a super highway down through the rest of the State. The member for Aspley spoke of building underground railways. The member for Currumbin bemoaned the fact that the Budget was so tight that it has forced a rescheduling of the Gold Coast railway. I make the point that this Government is not profligate; it is not irresponsible when it comes to economic management; it will not borrow funds for social infrastructure which has no way of servicing the debts. That leads me to that vital point, the Sunshine Motorway. That is the classic case of the way in which the National Party in Government handled financial affairs. Its then Finance Minister, Mr Austin, said, "Don't worry about the funding arrangements. Don't worry about the $80m we have borrowed. We'll fix that up after the election." When we came to office and Treasury asked me, "Where is the money coming from?", I had to make the responsible decision and say that the debt is not going to be forgiven and, therefore, those who benefit have to pay. We are not going to run away from those hard decisions. If we do run away from those hard decisions, we will see Queensland's economy go the way of that of other States. We are not prepared to do that. We are not prepared to compromise and we are not prepared to go along the cargo-cult road which has been so laid out by the National Party and the Liberal Party in this place this afternoon. The other point which I stress—I thank Government members for their support on this matter—is the support for the plan we have laid out to revitalise Queensland Railways. There is a real feeling of hope in the community that at last Queensland Railways has rounded the bend, that it will not simply disappear down the plughole of continued subsidy, continued bad money being thrown after bad money and continued rundown of services. This Government will see a revitalisation of Queensland Railways in the freight business, and that will be good news for Queenslanders, particularly country Queenslanders. I was intrigued to hear the honourable member for Aspley state—quite correctly—that Queensland Railways was 25 years behind the times. I can only ask: what was happening in this State for the last 32 years that allowed that to happen? That is the tragedy. There is no willingness or competence on the Opposition side in trying to grasp the nettle for the future. This Government is going to lead this Parliament, kicking and screaming, to the realisation that the world does not owe us a living, that the rest of Australia is not going to owe us a living, that we have to get out there and do it for ourselves, and this Government is going to do it in a very fiscally responsible manner, providing a quality service to the people of Queensland. I thank members of the Government for their support. I thank the members of my parliamentary committee for the constructive work that has gone into road safety initiatives and other matters. I commend the Estimates to the Committee. Legislative Assembly 4576 7 November 1990

At 8.55 p.m., The CHAIRMAN: Order! Under the provisions of the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 3 October, I shall now put the questions for the Vote under consideration and the balance remaining unvoted for Transport. The questions for the following Votes were put, and agreed to— $66,087,000—Education, Department of Transport (Consolidated Revenue). $1,041,939,000—Transport, Department of Transport (Consolidated Revenue). $1,666,086,000—Transport, Department of Transport and Railway Department (Trust and Special Funds). Progress reported. QUEENSLAND SMALL BUSINESS CORPORATION BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 24 October (see p. 4221). Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (8.56 p.m.): At the outset I express some surprise at the fact that the Bill has been called on tonight. On Tuesday's business paper the resumption of the second-reading debate of this Bill was listed as No. 8, and today it suddenly jumped to No. 2, immediately after the Estimates debate. I point out that that has been done without any consultation with the Opposition. However, I can assure the Minister that if he wants a debate, the Opposition is more than pleased to raise a number of issues of concern in relation to his administration of the Small Business Development Corporation and also the legislation that is before the House tonight. In a way, it is quite surprising that the Minister has again been prepared to face the Parliament today, after the enormous turmoil that has been generated within his Department of Manufacturing and Commerce over the last week or so, particularly this week. I suggest that over the past few months, during the review process, that turmoil has spread through the Small Business Development Corporation. I suggest also that, slowly but surely, it is all falling apart for the Minister, who I understand may soon be called upon to put a date to that unsigned resignation that now sits in the Premier's top drawer. The Opposition will not oppose the Queensland Small Business Corporation Bill. However, I will outline to the House the series of events that have preceded its introduction to the Parliament—a series of events that do neither this Minister nor his Government proud. This Bill is the result of a review conducted into the former Small Business Development Corporation. In March this year, when the Minister announced that review, I referred to it as the beginnings of a political hatchet job. It was a review introduced for the sole purpose of ridding the organisation of key personnel and installing a board that would be sympathetic to this Minister and to this Government. Mr Hayward: That is outrageous. That is unfair. Mr BORBIDGE: This review was not about effectiveness; it was a political review conducted by politically inspired people to achieve but one purpose. For the benefit of the honourable member who interjects, I refer to sworn evidence before the State Industrial Commission when the officer who conducted this review admitted that he was a card-carrying member and a branch official of the Labor Party. This review was not about increased accountability; it was not about efficiency or about providing a better service to the small-business community of this State, it was about getting rid of Coleene Anger and getting rid of the former board of the corporation under the chairmanship of Bruce Siebenhausen, OBE. Mr Beattie: Tell us whether he is a member of the National Party. Legislative Assembly 4577 7 November 1990

Mr BORBIDGE: No, he is not. This Minister had no grounds at all to sack Coleene Anger. He had no grounds to sack the members of the previous board. The corporation was efficient and had produced results, so he had to find another excuse. I was not the only one who thought that things were operating very satisfactorily at the SBDC. I will read to the House the views of the Honourable David Beddall, the Federal ALP Minister for Small Business and author of the Beddall report, which is now regarded as something of a Bible in respect of what should be done to assist small business in Australia today. Mr Beattie: You are supporting Beddall, are you? Mr BORBIDGE: Yes, I am pleased to support the comments that David Beddall made in support of the Small Business Development Corporation under its previous board and under its previous management. At a function hosted by the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce for the Canadian small-business experience—and for the benefit of the honourable member for Brisbane Central I will quote word for word—Mr Beddall had this to say about the Queensland Small Business Development Corporation— "I am always proud, as a Queenslander, to say that the best Small Business Development Corporation in Australia was in Queensland; the second best in Western Australia; the worst in Tasmania and they vary in between." On 1 February this year, in Sydney, Minister Beddall also reiterated those comments at the national launch of the Report on Small Business by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. It was not only the National Party Opposition that considered that the Small Business Development Corporation was doing a satisfactory job. Back in February of this year, the Minister had unsuccessfully attempted to sack the general manager of the corporation, Mrs Coleene Anger. Apparently, he had asked the former chairman of the board to ask Mrs Anger to resign, but the Minister was unable to give a reason as to why she should resign. He simply said, "I want her to resign." Mr SMITH: I rise to a point of order. I resent the words used by the Opposition spokesman. He well knows that I did not order the chairman to dismiss the general manager. It is a deliberate untruth and he is misleading the House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister seeks a withdrawal of these words. Mr BORBIDGE: I withdraw those words, but it would appear that the Minister is incredibly sensitive, and I would hope that he would allow the debate to continue without the sort of nonsense that is going on. He has knifed Coleene Anger; he has now knifed Peter Ellis; who is going to be next? He is knifing everyone in his portfolio in a desperate bid for survival. I ask the House: what sort of manager must this Minister be to simply call for someone's resignation but be unable to justify or substantiate any reasons behind his call and then not have the courage to face that person himself? Not unexpectedly, and in view of the fact that Mrs Anger was given no reason to justify her resignation, she refused. The Minister was confronted with a dilemma. He was under direct pressure, which emanated from the Premier's office, to get rid of Mrs Anger, but he did not have a case. So, the best way of doing this was to conduct a review, to tell the members of the review committee what he wanted the recommendations to be, and then to let them go off and write the report. Legislative Assembly 4578 7 November 1990

Back in March, while I was warning that the review was politically inspired, the Minister was saying that it would provide for a better service to small business in Queensland. He has clearly misled this House by claiming that the review process was designed to provide a better small-business service, when its real motivation was to get rid of the corporation, its general manager, its chairman and its board of directors. The Bill proves beyond all doubt that the review could not fault the effectiveness of the Small Business Development Corporation. In reality, this Bill does little more than change the name to the Queensland Small Business Corporation. Despite the hopeless bleatings of the Minister, the truth is that most of the programs initiated by the previous Government and managed by the previous board and management are still in place today, merely 12 months after the change of Government. Despite the fact that the Opposition considered the review to be a witch-hunt, it decided to provide a comprehensive submission to the Minister to prove that, unlike the Labor Party in Opposition, it was prepared to substantiate its comments and criticism, to prove that it is prepared to back up its claims. I wish to take a few minutes to acquaint honourable members with that submission. At the outset, the Opposition pointed out that the purpose of the review process should be to provide for a better small-business service to the small-business community of this State. It argued strongly for the continuation and expansion of the Small Business Development Corporation as the centrepiece of the State Government's small-business service. The corporation that this Bill will replace has been the principal administrative and policy implementation arm of the State Government's focus on small business since 1980. In view of that, it is important to consider the performance of the Small Business Development Corporation since its inception a decade ago. A perusal of the former corporation's annual report would alert honourable members to the fact that the corporation regarded its basic philosophy as developing more successful performances in as many small businesses as possible. Within this broad philosophy, the corporation sought to encourage appropriate persons into small business and help them to do so effectively; to seek out business with potential growth and help in the development of appropriate improvement programs; to foster and coordinate the delivery of effective learning programs to satisfy small business needs; to effectively implement business development processes throughout the State; and to provide an advisory service to small business in respect to finance and to business development programs. The Opposition's view was that those strategies were vitally relevant to the small business community in Queensland. The basic strategies of a business service must allow it to be both reactive and proactive. It must be able to respond to a call for help, but at the same time be educating to eliminate the need for that call. It was the Opposition's view that, in broad terms, the strategies employed by the former Small Business Development Corporation were appropriate for the market that it was addressing. The next part of the Opposition's submission dealt with small-business awareness. It argued that the small-business community in Queensland needs an identity. It has to be aware that a commitment exists on the part of Government to recognise its unique characteristics. As David Beddall pointed out in his review—the small business sector lacks a definition and therefore Government policies proposed to assist them have been targeted to the wrong audience. The Opposition considers that this problem would have been accentuated if the identity of the Small Business Development Corporation was to have been compromised in any way. Mr Smith: You will admit that you asked for extra time to prepare your submission and I granted it? Mr BORBIDGE: I concede the Minister's point, but again I believe that the Minister should have been appreciative of the fact that the Opposition did put a great deal of Legislative Assembly 4579 7 November 1990 work and thought into that particular submission. I was very pleased indeed that, in the final outcome of the review, some of the key recommendations contained in the Opposition's submission were adopted by the Government, and that includes reverting to an actual Ministry of Small Business and keeping the Small Business Development Corporation a separate statutory authority away from the mainstream public service. The Small Business Development Corporation was an agency for small business; it had a target market and defined small business in generally the same way as Beddall outlined in his report. It was therefore important that the review protected the independence of the small business agency. Indeed, it was encouraging that the weight of public submissions in effect forced the Minister and the Government to concede that it is best for the Small Business Development Corporation to operate as a statutory corporation outside of the mainstream public service. Earlier this year, we in the Opposition were very critical of the Government's moves to abolish the title "Minister for Small Business". In our view, this detracted from the image of small business and downgraded its standing in Government. It is understood that the Minister and his masters at the Public Sector Management Commission pointed out that small business was adequately covered by the term "commerce". This is clearly not so and further confirms that the Minister and his gurus at the PSMC have no understanding of commerce and business. It was encouraging that our review was supported by the Beddall report and by the small business community, which argued strongly for the re-creation of a Small Business Ministry. Once again, the Minister had to bow to the weight of opinion, and as a result of the SBDC review, a Ministry of Small Business was re-created and the Minister's title was redesignated, completely in line with the recommendations proposed to the Government by the Opposition. In creating the SBDC review, the Minister outlined that its terms of reference would be, firstly, to assess the degree to which the corporation has met its goals and objectives in an efficient and effective manner; secondly, to evaluate the degree to which it meets the Government's policy objectives; and, thirdly, based on the Government's approach to statutory bodies and public sector management, identify options for the form of the organisation and its relationship with the Government system. I will now address these terms of reference individually. Perhaps the best guide to the effectiveness of the Small Business Development Corporation was delivered by David Beddall, as I outlined earlier. For the benefit of honourable members, I will repeat that, because it is significant. Beddall said— "I am always proud, as a Queenslander, to say that the best Small Business Development Corporation in Australia was in Queensland". The Opposition agrees with and endorses fully those statements of the Federal Minister, Mr Beddall. The success of the SBDC can be directly correlated to its awareness by the community. Since 1980, the Small Business Development Corporation has exhibited solid growth as its awareness in the general community has increased. The previous Government was responsible for raising the public awareness of the corporation through numerous seminars and contributions to the media. Let us consider the growth of the corporation under the previous board and management. Between 1986-87 and 1988-89, the number of telephone inquiries increased from 41 000 to 64 500. The number of consultations increased from 3 462 to 6 051. The number of information kits distributed to clients increased from 2 978 to 9 650. By any objective yardstick, that is not a bad effort. Honourable members might be interested to know that, during that particular period, although the workload facing the corporation increased dramatically—and contrary to some of the propaganda perpetrated by the Labor Party—staff numbers grew from only 35 to 49. In fact, at present there are fewer people working for the Small Business Development Corporation than the number of staff who haunt the fifteenth floor of the Executive Building servicing the Premier of this State in a largely personal capacity. Numerous surveys proved that the SBDC initiatives are simple and cost effective and have an immediate impact in raising awareness among business operators and Legislative Assembly 4580 7 November 1990 helping them to function more efficiently, thereby reducing the impact of business failures on the State's economy. The State Opposition contends that there was no information to suggest that the SBDC was not operating efficiently. When fairly placed against any measure available, the Small Business Development Corporation has proven its efficiency. The former board and senior staff of the corporation were professionals recruited from the private sector whose ability and integrity were jeopardised by the sloppy way in which the Government handled the review process. I now refer to the second term of reference, which relates to the degree that the SBDC meets the Government's policy objectives. Mr Hayward: How come you're so negative? Mr Beattie: Talk about something positive. Talk up the economy. Mr BORBIDGE: I will talk about the Labor Party for a while. I am being shamelessly provoked by honourable members opposite, so against my better nature I will have to talk about the Labor Party. Mr Hayward interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Caboolture! Mr Hayward interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Caboolture will cease interjecting. Government members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! At the moment it may be a little bit dull, but I am keeping awake quite easily without interjections from my right. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, I thank you for your protection from the rabble opposite. I will try to liven them up a bit. At no time during the last election campaign did this Premier and this Minister refer to any review of the SBDC. On 4 October 1989, when State Parliament engaged in the corresponding Estimates debate of the portfolio of Industry, Small Business and Technology, the now Minister was presented with an appropriate opportunity. At no time during that debate did he refer to the Small Business Development Corporation or, in fact, small business. Mr McGrady: That is not true. Mr BORBIDGE: If the one-timer from Mount Isa wants to challenge what I am saying he should read the Hansard record of the Estimates debate from last year. It was not deemed important enough for the member for Townsville East to address the issue of small business. If things were as bad as the honourable member thought, why did he not raise the issue last year when he had the opportunity? All of a sudden, this Minister became interested in the issue. Let me consider the Labor Party policy documents and compare what the Labor Party went to the people with and what it is now delivering in Government in respect of the SBDC. The documents state— "A Goss Labor Government will increase funding to the SBDC . . . A Goss Labor Government will introduce a planning scheme . . . and a Goss Labor Government will introduce a marketing scheme." No mention was made of a review of the corporation. The final term of reference dealt with the corporation's relationship with Government. In that respect the then Opposition was adamant that the SBDC should remain a statutory corporation, which gives the SBDC the option of attracting senior, private- sector, professional staff, and improves the Legislative Assembly 4581 7 November 1990 marketing thrust; and it is more likely that members of the public would approach a statutory corporation than they would a Government department. On many occasions during my term as Minister, the Small Business Development Corporation undertook programs at Mount Isa. On every occasion that I visited Mount Isa the then mayor was two steps behind me clinging on to everything that the Small Business Development Corporation was doing. Was that because he supported it or because he wanted to be elected to this Parliament? I am proud to say that at least the member for Mount Isa appreciated what the Small Business Development Corporation and the previous Government were seeking to do by taking Small Business Week to centres such as Mount Isa. However, this year under this Government there has been no Small Business Week in Mount Isa. When the National Party was in Government, it was servicing the people of that great city. Mr Johnson: The new Minister is going to speak next, so he will probably tell us about it. Mr BORBIDGE: I understand that the "Minister" is to speak next. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gregory will interject from his correct seat. Mr BORBIDGE: The Opposition is pleased that the Government has not sought to departmentalise the Small Business Development Corporation. Surely, the critical question is: what has the review of the Small Business Development Corporation achieved? Mr Lester: They are going to put it in the hands of the public service. Mr BORBIDGE: The member for Peak Downs was a very good Minister for Small Business. He knows a lot more about small business in this State than does the current incumbent. Mr Prest interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: Honourable members are very excited tonight. The member for Port Curtis has come straight from the graduation ceremony at the charm school. On 12 May this year, the first announcement of the results of the review were provided not by the Minister but by the member for Townsville who, as all honourable members know, is the pretender to the Minister's position. According to the Townsville Bulletin of 12 May, the member for Townsville said— "The State Government will retain the Small Business Development Corporation." The article states further— "The reason for the review was to establish whether the Government was getting value for money." It concludes by saying— "It is important an organisation like the corporation is available." In May of this year, the Minister was still silent. At that stage we should not have expected too much from him, because he was still coming to grips with the massive public backlash in his electorate as a result of his decision to scrap the Cape York-North Queensland Enterprise Zone. May passed, and still nothing was heard from the Minister. The only public statements that were made thus far came from the member for Townsville. One may well ask whether all the speculation is healthy for the staff of the corporation or the small-business community at large. Suddenly, out of the blue, the Minister got his act together. On 4 June, he announced that the SBDC would be retained as a statutory body and that the only major change would be to its name. What has the Minister done in almost a year? He has changed the name of the corporation and purged senior staff. At the same time, the Minister Legislative Assembly 4582 7 November 1990 took the opportunity to sack the majority of the board. Out went the former chairman, Bruce Siebenhausen, OBE, and in came Mr Ian Ovens. How did Mr Siebenhausen learn of his dismissal? As in the manner of this Government, he read about his sacking in the Courier-Mail, just like all the others whom this arrogant, vindictive Government has sacked in the middle of the night. After board members had read about it in the Courier-Mail what did they receive on that Monday morning—a hand-delivered letter saying, "Thanks for your services. You are no longer required." If the Minister continues that disgraceful tradition of this Government of public executions of decent, honourable Queenslanders who have given enormous service to the people of this State, that will show a distinct lack of common decency on his part. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member for Gregory that, if he wishes to interject, he should do so from his correct seat. I suggest that he obeys that ruling or consider going to have a coffee or something. Mr BORBIDGE: It was a spineless decision. People who have given a great deal of service to Queensland have been treated with contempt. The Minister says that they have not given service. Mr Smith: You said they learnt about it in the Courier-Mail. Mr BORBIDGE: They did. Mr Smith: They were hand-delivered on the Sunday night. Mr BORBIDGE: Those people received their letters on the Monday morning. This is another indication of the Minister's bad timing. He managed to leak the information to the Courier-Mail before be posted the letters. I place on record my appreciation of the efforts of Bruce Siebenhausen during my period as the Minister for Small Business. He gave outstanding service to this State, and it is unfortunate that the Government has decided that it could not use his services. According to the Minister's second-reading speech, a major change to the Small Business Development Corporation revolves around reverting to core services and abandoning export advice. Yet again, in his second-reading speech, the Minister said— "It is often assumed that small business is not export-oriented or internationally competitive." Under the new Government, at a time when the Minister in his second-reading speech said how important export advice is, the Small Business Development Corporation is being excluded from giving it. At the press conference at which the Minister announced the changes to the Small Business Development Corporation, he was reported by AAP—and I ask honourable members to listen to this gem—as saying— "The importance of changing the name was the dropping of the word 'development'." The Minister went on to say—— Mr Stephan interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: As the member for Gympie says, the Labor Party has some difficulty with the word "development". The Minister went on to say — "The SBDC has been involving itself in things such as in house training and export promotion schemes." What a scandal! What a disgrace! The Small Business Development Corporation involved itself in assisting small businesses to export! Yet, in his second-reading speech the Minister emphasised the importance to small business of export development. The Minister simply does not know what he is doing. In that same spectacular press conference, the Minister alleged that there had been a Budget blow-out. He said— "The bid for this financial year represented a 77 per cent increase." Legislative Assembly 4583 7 November 1990

Similarly, the Minister has demonstrated his difficulty with the concept of offsets in defence contracts; he does not know the difference between the Budget and a budget bid. Serious questions arise about the Minister's understanding of the role of the Small Business Development Corporation. At the press conference, the Minister made another memorable statement that I am sure will be indelibly etched in the minds of anyone who will read the memoirs of Geoff Smith. He said— "One problem with the previous board was that all members were small business people." Mr Lester: So they should be. Mr BORBIDGE: So they should be, as the member for Peak Downs said. Then, in his second- reading speech, the Minister claimed that the previous board did not adequately represent small business. What are honourable members to believe? Are we to believe the Minister when he walks out of Cabinet and holds one of his exciting press conferences, or are we to believe the Minister in his second-reading speech? Again, he has completely contradicted himself. It is clear that the Minister has no understanding of what went on in the review. It was foisted upon him by the minders in the Premier's office. Clearly, his motivation for setting up the review was to make changes to the board and to the senior management of the corporation. Mr Beattie: Get to the point. You've only got 58 minutes left. Mr BORBIDGE: I might take every minute of it, too. In another section of his second-reading speech, the Minister referred to an offer by him for a briefing on certain aspects of the review. I point out that it was I, not the Minister, who suggested that a briefing would be appropriate. Unfortunately, parliamentary proceedings on that day did not enable me to attend a meeting that was arranged to provide that briefing. In the meantime, many aspects of the review were aired at an Industrial Commission hearing concerning the reinstatement of Mrs Coleene Anger. At that hearing, a number of important issues arising out of the review and directly related to the legislation were canvassed. In summing up, Commissioner Bougoure said—— Mr Hayward: Is this a whinge about her job? Is this a whinge? Mr BORBIDGE: For the benefit of the honourable member, I am quoting a commissioner of the State Industrial Commission. They are not my words; they are his. He said— "There seems to be no doubt that the corporation functioned satisfactorily under Mrs Anger's management in terms of the former Government's policies in relation to small business." I again refer to his second-reading speech wherein the Minister claims that the Government's review of the SBDC was conducted in a completely professional and apolitical manner. I would contrast the Minister's statements in this House with the further findings of Commissioner Bougoure, who said— "The applicant challenges certain of the findings made in the review, but it is also submitted that Mr Sargeant, who is in charge of the review, was likely to be biased against Mrs Anger. There is evidence that Mr Sargeant has substantial professional qualifications and appropriate experience but there is also evidence"—— Mr Smith interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: I can understand the Minister's sensitivity. He does not like this. Mr Smith: I will give you a full explanation at the appropriate time. Mr BORBIDGE: I look forward to the Minister's explanation, but he had substantial time in the State Industrial Commission to provide an explanation. He was represented and these are the findings of Commissioner Bougoure. If the Minister does not agree Legislative Assembly 4584 7 November 1990 with the statements made by the commissioner, he should have the courage to come out and say so. Mr Smith: I will give your evidence to the House later on. You had some things to say. Mr BORBIDGE: No. I am quoting the commissioner, not my words. The commissioner continued— "There is evidence that Mr Sargeant has substantial professional qualifications and appropriate experience but there is also evidence that he is the secretary of an ALP branch and was the acting private secretary to the relevant Minister for Manufacturing and Commerce from approximately December 1989 to February 1990. Mr Sargeant maintains his review is not biased. However, in my view even if the review is not in fact biased, there is a reasonable basis for the view by reasonable people that it can be seen to be biased. Upon the evidence before me I do detect the possibility of some bias against Mrs Anger by officers of the Department of Manufacturing and Commerce." These are not the words of the Opposition; they are the words of a commissioner of the State Industrial Commission. Mr Bougoure goes on to say—— Mr Hayward: What is the point of this? Mr BORBIDGE: The point of this is that the review was the basis for this legislation and this review has been discredited before the State Industrial Commission. Mr Hayward interjected. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The members for Caboolture and Brisbane Central! Mr BORBIDGE: The commissioner goes on to say— "In my view it was at least unwise for Mr Sargeant to be in charge of the relevant review, and a more independent review would have been more appropriate. However, this does not mean that the findings of the review should be entirely disregarded, but rather that I consider the findings with caution and assess their weight accordingly." Quite clearly there has to be a massive question mark over this review. The State Industrial Commission heard evidence for some days on behalf of the Minister and his department and from other people. That was the conclusion that was arrived at by the commissioner in the State Industrial Commission. I believe that if the Minister wanted a fair dinkum, honest, independent, objective assessment of the performance of the Small Business Development Corporation—— Mr Hayward: He would have asked you. Mr BORBIDGE: No, not at all. To be fair, what he should have done was to get some outside consultants to come in. I am not reflecting on the officer concerned in regard to his professionalism at all, but the fact remains that the review was carried out by a branch official of the Labor Party who had acted in the capacity of private secretary to the Minister for Manufacturing, Commerce and Small Business. I suggest that is Caesar getting too close to Caesar and that the report is certainly biased. If the Minister wanted a review of the Small Business Development Corporation he should have had a proper independent assessment carried out. Having said that, the Opposition will not be opposing the legislation that is before the House tonight. The Opposition does have some questions it would like to raise Legislative Assembly 4585 7 November 1990 during the Committee stage. I trust that so much of the uncertainty that has bedevilled the Small Business Development Corporation since the change of Government can now be overcome and that the problems confronting the small-business sector can be appropriately addressed. However, I express some concern that, by reverting to core services, the Government will be exiting from areas that are of genuine concern and need to the small-business community. When someone involved in small business wants to talk about exporting, that person would be more confident about talking to people who have had private-sector experience in a statutory authority such as the Small Business Corporation than he would having to go to some massive bureaucracy housed within the Executive Building. It is interesting to note that most of the small-business inquiries that have come to my electorate office since the change in emphasis was announced relate specifically to exports. The Minister said in his second-reading speech that exports are important, but there has now been a reversion to core services, which I hope does not mean a restriction of the proper roles and functions of the Small Business Corporation. I trust that this is not a forerunner of what might happen in the future in respect to Budget increases, and that the Treasurer and the Minister responsible for small business do not have the opportunity to justify cutbacks or incorrect increases in real terms to the corporation on the basis that that is an area that the Small Business Corporation should not be involved in. Mr DAVIES (Townsville) (9.37 p.m.): I have listened with a great deal of interest to the honourable member for Surfers Paradise in his flights of fantasy. It is worth noting that both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have been moving around the Chamber and chatting to other members of the Opposition. The members on the Government back bench have been wondering if there is a leadership challenge on. Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition finally making his move? If he is and he wins, who will take over when he loses Surfers Paradise at the next election, or will he do a Don Lane and Brian Austin in reverse? Mr FitzGerald: You're a bit off the Bill, aren't you? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Townsville will resume his seat. I inform the member for Lockyer that I am capable of deciding when a member is not addressing the Bill and that I was about to talk very briefly to the member for Townsville in an attempt to get him to speak to the Bill. I thank the member for Lockyer for his advice, but suggest that he does not give any more of it. Mr DAVIES: The Queensland Small Business Corporation Bill essentially does two things: it provides the community with a new Queensland Small Business Corporation, and it does away with the Queensland Small Business Development Corporation. The background to the new Queensland Small Business Corporation is associated with a summary of findings of the review of the Small Business Development Corporation handed down on 4 June 1990. All honourable members would know how important small business is to the national and Queensland economies. It is therefore important to establish a body that actually helps small business. The findings of the review and the high levels of business failures certainly cast significant doubt on the operations of the SBDC. In fact, I would strongly argue that the SBDC had lost its way and that the Government was not getting value for money. The taxpayers of this State are entitled to value for money. Mr Connor: Weren't you a consultant to that? Mr DAVIES: It is good to see the level of the honourable member's knowledge. He does not even understand what the term "consultant" means. The Small Business Development Corporation displayed an attitude of "She'll be right, mate", but that is not the way in which the real world works. Goals have to be set and there have to be results. It is relevant to consider the findings of the review of the SBDC. The review found that the corporation was too remote from Government; that it was not meeting the Government's needs in terms of advice and reporting; that Legislative Assembly 4586 7 November 1990 it was growing too quickly in size and budget; and that it suffered from a lack of effective or accountable management systems. Mr FitzGerald: Where did you get a copy of this from? Mr DAVIES: I inform the member for Lockyer that I do a bit of reading. Mr FitzGerald: It has been released, has it? Mr DAVIES: It has been released. The review also found that provision of core services, business advice and the facilitation of training and education should continue in a statutory body; that too much effort and too many resources had been diverted away from core areas into peripheral activities; and that there was little support for in-house training courses and it was decided that they should be—— Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, could I ask that the document being referred to by the honourable member be tabled? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member can ask, but it is up to the member for Townsville whether or not he wishes to table it. Mr DAVIES: I am quite happy to table it, but I am reading from it at the moment. As soon as I am finished reading the document, I will be quite happy to table it. As I was saying, the review found that there was little support for in-house delivery of training courses and it was decided that that should be left to the established providers and that the corporation's role should be limited to coordination, facilitation and advising on curriculum development. The review also found that the Small Business Development Corporation's services overlapped with outside agencies in the area of business and export advice, and management training. The corporation's research direction and capability were found to be not meeting the Government's needs and had no effective way of passing information to the Minister and to the Government. The review also found that educating people in the development of core skills was generally regarded to be the corporation's focus for the future. The review also found that the standard of service measured by client satisfaction was good, although the cost-effectiveness of this service had not been tested by the charging of a fee for service. Although it had improved the skills and proficiency of individual businesses, it had not been effective in promoting a sectorwide improvement in the use of sound business practices or in reducing the incidence of business failures. The review also found that board membership qualifications should be widened to include people with expertise in areas such as education, training, accounting or management, and should also include a Government representative. To give the corporation a change of direction and provide a break from the past, a change of name to the Queensland Small Business Corporation was considered appropriate as part of the restoration of the corporation's positive image in the small business sector. It is also important to get into perspective the importance of small business to which I referred earlier. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for 1986-87 show that out of a total of 732 400 business enterprises in Australia, 580 900 were involved in small business. The ABS statistics also show that small business with fewer than 20 employees had employed 2 062 300 people out of the 6 853 900 people who are employed in business as a whole. Small business accounts for 96 per cent of all firms, half of all private sector employment, and a third of all employment in Australia. Although firm estimates of the contribution of small business to gross domestic product in Australia cannot be made, it is considered to be of the order of 30 per cent. The small business sector abounds with different forms of employment, including subcontractors, the self-employed, family helpers, casual employees, part-time employees, outworkers or home-work employees, and people simultaneously holding jobs in both the large and small business sectors. The extent of small business employment creation Legislative Assembly 4587 7 November 1990 may be understated in official figures owing to the complexity of covering all categories, for example, those engaged in clandestine activities. Over the last decade, self-employment was the fastest-growing type of employment. If the number of self-employed people and unpaid family helpers were added to estimates of the number of people involved in small-business employment, the total contribution of the small-business sector becomes considerable. Small business is a culture. To many people, it is a life-style. The typical small business is managed directly by owners who make nearly all the important decisions and also oversee the execution of those decisions. Small-businesspeople quite often stay in declining businesses because of the independence it gives them. There may well be a link—it has been suggested that there is a link—between the desire of independence and entrepreneurial spirit. Small businesses are the vehicles for entrepreneurial activity in that people can develop a hobby or interest into a business opportunity. Small businesses also provide the foundation from which large companies can grow, and often do grow. They often fill niche markets that larger companies consider too small to bother about. Currently, Queensland has approximately 102 000 small businesses, or 17.51 per cent of the Australian total. Since 1986-87, there has been a 14.21 per cent growth in the number of small Queensland enterprises as opposed to no growth in the number of large firms. The industry division of small business is: mining, 0.5 per cent; manufacturing, 6.24 per cent; construction, 17.55 per cent; wholesale trade, 7.67 per cent; retail trade, 26.08 per cent; transport and storage, 6.73 per cent; finance, property and business services, 16.14 per cent; community services, 7.25 per cent; and recreation, personal and other services, 11.65 per cent. In Queensland, 52 per cent of the labour force is employed by the small-business sector. There are 217 000 small-business proprietors and 262 000 wage and salary earners employed in small firms. From 1981 to 1986, small business grew faster in Queensland than in the rest of Australia. Between 1986 and 1990, the annual growth of small-business proprietors in Queensland was 15.10 per cent. Queensland has approximately 36 per cent of wage-earners in small business compared to 32 per cent in the rest of Australia. The black cloud on the horizon for small business traditionally has been its survivability. Although the figures are well known, it is worth repeating that for new business ventures there is an 82 per cent chance of surviving the first six months, a 68 per cent chance of surviving one year, a 54 per cent chance of surviving two years, a 43 per cent chance of surviving three years, a 39 per cent chance of surviving four years and a 34 per cent chance of surviving five years. The fact that those figures have remained basically unchanged during the nine years of operation of the old SBDC indicates that not enough attention was paid to educating small business to survive. Not enough preventive work was done by the old SBDC. There was too much glamour, too much hype associated with the old SBDC. The budget grew and grew, and staff did likewise, with no consequent improvement in the survivability rate. By 1989-90, expenditure had increased to $4.08m and staff numbers had increased to 56. That compares to the State of Victoria, where expenditure was $4.9m--marginally above Queensland—and staff numbers had increased to 55. Nevertheless, the $4m figure would be reasonable if the form had been on the board in terms of the survivability rate, but it was not. There is no doubt that the corporation did some excellent work in the first six to seven years, but it then lost direction. Possibly that was associated with the change in leadership of the Small Business Development Corporation. This Government intends to put it back on track. One of the areas in which we wish to improve the activities of the QSBC is as an advisory body to Government to reflect the concerns of the businesspeople of Queensland. Under the chairmanship of Mr Ian Ovens, a partner in KPMG Peat Marwick, the QSBC will focus its activities on business advice and the promotion and support of training and education. The corporation will withdraw from the arena of regional economic development, which will now be incorporated in the Bureau of Regional Development. The Bureau of Regional Development will now be part of the newly announced Legislative Assembly 4588 7 November 1990

Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development, headed by the Minister, the Honourable Geoff Smith. It is interesting to note that the review found little support from private or public sector agencies for the corporation to continue providing in-house delivery of training courses and showed a marked preference for the established providers in the private sector and in the TAFE system, with the corporation playing a facilitatory role in terms of the development of curriculums. Small business makes a major economic and social contribution to Queensland. Small firms can be specialist suppliers of parts, subassemblies, components and the like to large firms. They can provide competition that serves to check monopoly profits and, thereby, inefficiencies in the economy. They can provide a variety of products and services, as they are able to survive in industries where the optimum firm size is small because the market size is too small for large firms to operate economically. Small business can contribute to innovations in products, services and techniques. In terms of the social contribution it makes, the small-business sector tends to attract people who are enterprising and who seek independence through self-employment. Under certain market conditions, small firms reduce unemployment, as they tend to require less capital in the form of fixed assets for the creation of each new position. Thus they contribute positively to the economic and social aspects within their geographical areas. In small enterprises, practical experience occurs in the complete environment compared to the compartmentalisation in large-scale enterprises. Labour and human relations play a major role within the small enterprise because there is greater manager-worker contact, fostering improved communications. The small-business sector contributes heavily to economic and social advancement in Queensland by being much more geographically dispersed—decentralised—than the larger firms that tend to congregate in capital cities. In terms of employment, because of the great diversity of the small-business sector, the full extent of its contribution—particularly its social contribution—to the nation is not fully quantifiable. However, the level of contribution to national employment is obvious. The Australian Bureau of Statistics uses the quantitative definition of fewer than 100 people in manufacturing and 20 people in other industries. The ABS figures for non-farm employment in small firms from 1986 to 1987 reveal the level of total employment contributed by small business in each State. Those figures are: Queensland, 30 per cent; New South Wales, 33 per cent; the ACT, 24 per cent; the Northern Territory, 24 per cent; Victoria, 32 per cent; Tasmania, 30 per cent; South Australia, 31 per cent; and Western Australia, 34 per cent. It is for all these reasons that it is important for the Government to help small business to get back on the rails by having the Queensland Small Business Corporation do what it is supposed to do, that is, help small business, both directly and indirectly, by advising the Minister. For those reasons, I support the Bill. Mr CONNOR (Nerang) (9.54 p.m.): It is interesting to note that Queensland was the first State to have a Minister for Small Business and the first to lose one. I think probably the most one could say about this piece of legislation is that it is certainly not a big change from the previous legislation and, on that basis, the Liberal Party will be supporting it. Even taking into account the amount of funding and time spent on the inquiry into the running of the Small Business Development Corporation, not many problems surfaced. However, I will return to the problems with this Bill in a moment. Small business is inextricably linked to the economy and the consumer's confidence in Australia. I think all honourable members would agree that at present times are very tough. As I understand it, consumer confidence is now at the lowest level that it has ever been in post-war years. This is hurting small business more than anything else, and it is one of the reasons why the level of bankruptcies and business closures is so high. I am not suggesting that the ALP Government in Queensland or the Minister for Manufacturing, Commerce and Small Business have had much to do with creating the present situation; I believe that the majority of the blame can be laid at the feet of the Legislative Assembly 4589 7 November 1990

Federal Labor Government, whose economic policies have caused those casualties in small business. Small-businesspeople are very angry—that is, the ones who are still left—because they did not share in the boom. They had no access to the funds that were released during the madness that went on within the financial and big business communities following financial deregulation. Money was spent on convertibles, luxury yachts and so on. The spending of all that money forced up the cost of money and the cost of labour to the small-businessman at a time when he was really not seeing any great benefit or any meaningful additional expenditure in his area following deregulation. The stock market crash followed shortly after, and within a short time the Government saw fit to throw money back into the system. That resulted in a speculative frenzy, mainly in real estate, which did not create any wealth, and the small- businessman missed out again. The Federal Government made the mistake of deregulating financial institutions without the proper checks and balances—which the Liberal Party did not support—and then it overstimulated the economy. A speculative frenzy was followed by the Federal Government seeing fit to use monetary policy, through high interest rates, to squeeze the life-blood out of business. Most small-businesspeople felt that it was necessary to keep their market share during the speculative bubble after the stock market crash in 1987 and later in 1988. They invested heavily with borrowed funds. They put themselves out on a limb to maintain their position in the marketplace. However, without warning and in quite an ad hoc and drastic manner, the Federal Government then inflicted a high interest rate policy, the likes of which had never before been seen in Australia. Business was not ready for it; it did not know how long it was going to last. It did not necessarily affect the spending patterns of the general population, but it did squeeze the life-blood out of business, especially capital intensive industries. The manufacturing industries had to invest a great deal in new machinery. I might add that that is the sector of the economy that we most need to develop in Australia, yet it is the sector that was hit the hardest by the Government's high interest rate policy. So for 20 consecutive months Australia had record real interest rates coupled with a stagnant or generally shrinking spending pattern in small business. Many small-businesspeople assumed when they leased their new equipment that they would have at least three or four years of reasonably buoyant times. However, the people who purchased this equipment in mid-1988 really had only 12 months of a buoyant economy during which to try to recoup some of the money, and then came the squeeze. After many years of Labor Governments, which imposed more and more costs and regulations on the business community, they were squeezed harder and harder. That squeeze was really the straw that broke the camel's back. That is why we are seeing business after business going bankrupt. As the Prime Minister has said, he has now pulled back interest rates by 5 per cent. However, the damage has already been done. Those businesses were no longer viable and businesspeople had to borrow more to cover higher interest rates. Now businesses have to bear such a high interest burden that many of them are no longer viable. They may now have a $300,000 overdraft, whereas they previously had a $100,000 overdraft. The cost of servicing such a loan is such that it makes business no longer viable. The damage has been done. Honourable members should not imagine for a moment that the drop in interest rates has been reflected in the cost of money to those small-businesspeople who are in trouble. They get on an interest rate merry-go-round. In the good times one can negotiate reasonable interest rates. However, when one gets into trouble and one is desperate to get extra funds, the banks charge a 2 or 3 per cent premium because it is considered to be short-term lending, not fully secured lending. It is not unusual, even now, to be paying 20 per cent interest or more on borrowed money. When people hear of the poor home-owners paying around 15 per cent, they should think about the poor small-businessman who is paying 21 per cent or 22 per cent—and that is from the banks. He may be paying considerably more than that from other financial institutions. It is all very well and good for the Federal Labor Government to say that businesses should be viable and flexible, but viability and flexibility rely on a Legislative Assembly 4590 7 November 1990 certain amount of stability. They cannot keep shooting at a target that is kept moving very quickly by the Federal Labor Government. One minute the Federal Labor Government is trying to expand the economy as fast as it possibly can with huge monetary stimulation; the next minute it takes off; and the next minute it is putting it off-on again. Then the business community is hit with high interest rates. Business cannot adapt quickly enough to keep up with the economy. In the present economy, business is far better off to sit on the minimum demand that it requires—and damn the difference. Let someone else worry about the ups and downs, which means greater imports. I can speak on this subject with a certain amount of expertise because I had my own manufacturing business for 13 years. For the last six of those years, trying to do business in Australia was quite unbelievable. I have never seen a target move so fast. If honourable members really want to understand the reasons for the demise of small business, I point out that dramatic structural changes have occurred too quickly and too haphazardly within the economy. That is weakening Australia's business community. Individual businesses may have different reasons at different times for their failures, such as high interest rates or Government overregulation. Basically, it comes down to the Federal Labor Government's lack of understanding of how the business community works. It is a pity that the Beddall report was completed so late in the life of the Federal Labor Government because it is an excellent document. If its recommendations were implemented, many of the problems associated with small business would be relieved. Mr Hayward: Have you read it? Mr CONNOR: Yes, I have. Mr Hayward: Where did you get it from? The library? Mr CONNOR: That is correct. It is interesting to note that in the last Federal Budget only one of the recommendations by Mr Beddall, the Federal Minister for Small Business, was implemented, namely, to extend the time for payment of sales tax. I certainly commend that decision, which was not before time, but it was one of the very minor ones from over 60 recommendations. Returning to the changes in the present legislation—it is important that it is looked at in the present context, and that is the present shape of the business community, which is on its knees. The former Small Business Development Corporation came into contact with small-businesspeople at a number of different stages of their careers. Quite often they were intenders, in which case the SBDC would steer them in the right direction to start up a business. Then came the expansion stage where the SBDC could perhaps help with funding, additional expertise in running a bigger operation, potential markets and contacts. People were getting into trouble. At the moment, that is happening more and more. Presently, the corporation will find that its primary service that will be to help desperate businesses avoid collapse. As a small-businessman looking at an organisation that is in place to help organisations when they are in trouble, the last group that I would turn to would be public servants because, generally, as a small- businessman, I considered that the majority of my problems were caused by the Government sector. As I saw it, it was taking too big a slice of the cake and it was requiring my business to adhere to too many regulations. When I had my business, I had to answer to 27 different Government departments. Towards the end, I spent far more time dealing with Government regulations and departments than with creating wealth, building up a business and dealing with my customers. Therefore, how could I go to an organisation full of public servants and say, "Look, I am here for your help. My problem is that you are causing me all the trouble." Legislative Assembly 4591 7 November 1990

Obviously, it is difficult to deal with that problem from that point of view. This is where the Small Business Development Corporation really deserved full marks, and the Beddall report acknowledged its value. In fact, it considered that other States should use the Queensland SBDC as a model for their own small-business organisations. As I said, the last person a small-businessman wants to deal with is a public servant. The SBDC had people who were drawn from industry, people who in many cases had had their own businesses and who possessed substantial tertiary qualifications. They could sit down and talk to the businessman across his desk with an authority that a career public servant could never have had. That was one of the great successes of the SBDC. I visited many of the SBDC's offices throughout Queensland. When those ex- businessmen, who are now consultants and who are employed by the Small Business Development Corporation, heard that the review was occurring and that they might possibly end up as public servants, almost to a man and woman, they decided that they would rather be unemployed than be employed under those circumstances. They knew that, if they became public servants themselves, their effectiveness and ability to deal with the problems of the small-business sector would be severely limited, if not destroyed. I have no doubt that the Minister was aware that that was the general mood within the SBDC. He had the common sense not to move down that path. However, one aspect of this legislation that worries me is the quiet movement of the Queensland Small Business Corporation towards the bureaucracy. The Director-General of the Department of Manufacturing and Commerce is to be a member of the board. Previously, this was the case, but it was not compulsory. This move adds that air of bureaucracy to the corporation. Clause 2.11 states— "Corporation subject to direction of Minister. (1) In the exercise and performance of its powers, functions and duties, the Corporation is to be subject to the general control and direction of the Minister." That is just another way of giving the Minister more authority to control the chairman. It also means that, by having the Director-General sitting in on all the board's decisions, the Minister is really tightening his grip. Previously, the chairman always had to report to the Minister, but the Minister did not have the power of direction. Effectively, the board just becomes an arm of the Minister. Previously, the SBDC was separate from the old Department of Industrial Development, now known as the Department of Manufacturing and Commerce, and reported directly to the Minister. Now that the corporation is effectively a part of the Department of Manufacturing and Commerce, a level of bureaucracy is built into it, and that is worrying from the point of view that it is bureaucratising the corporation. That is quite dangerous, really, because the moment the business community has the perception that the corporation is no longer an autonomous and separate authority to look after small business, to take on business issues with the Government, and is a part of the public service, it will lose its efficacy. As a result, I believe that we will see its role change dramatically and we will not see the small-business community making use of its service the way it should. There is another facet to it. I applaud the Minister's fight for additional funding for the SBDC. But that funding is not being reflected by efficiency. The number of additional clients the SBDC is dealing with does not match the additional funding it is receiving. I put much of that down to the already perceived bureaucratising of the system. The bureaucracy will always find a reason why it needs additional equipment, additional staff and additional resources to do a job. A small-business attitude is, "Let's see how we can do a job with fewer resources, less equipment and still make it happen as well, if not better." That is the general philosophy of small business—"Let's do it better with less." The bureaucracy's position is, "Let's get it done, let's make it look better than we're doing and let's do it with a lot more resources and a lot more flair." I can assure honourable members that small business is not interested in flair and it is Legislative Assembly 4592 7 November 1990 not interested in the trimmings; it is interested only in the cold, hard reality of the business world. It is also interesting to note that, for their funding, small businesses are more reliant on financial institutions. They cannot raise their equity capital on the stock market in the same way as public companies do. As the Minister stated in his second-reading speech, the proportion of small business in Queensland is greater than that of most other States—probably because of Queensland's size and its remoteness. That means that small business, which is being hit the hardest in Queensland, is also the biggest part of the business sector in Queensland. So Queensland is effectively being hit hardest by the Federal Government's policies. That is also being reflected in Queensland's unemployment level which is running at over 1 per cent higher than that of the rest of Australia. Now that the Federal Government is starting to talk about unemployment levels Australiawide approaching 9 per cent, Queensland may be forced to look at an unemployment rate which is in double figures. I believe that the Minister for Manufacturing, Commerce and Small Business should be concentrating right now on ways and means to limit the repercussions of his Federal colleagues' policy and get the small-business community rolling again in a big hurry, otherwise he will be facing a major economic catastrophe in Queensland in the form of massive runaway unemployment. I believe we are looking at that happening just around the corner. I believe that, by February or March next year, Queensland will be looking at double-digit unemployment figures. At this stage, the only way in which that could be limited is for the small-business community to be stimulated immediately. Two of the bigger employment areas in Queensland are tourism and building. They are the two areas on which I believe the Minister should start concentrating very closely and very quickly, otherwise he will see a backlash the likes of which he has never seen before. One of the ways in which he will not help small business is by increasing land tax, as has occurred already. In most cases, retailers are looking at paying a 40 per cent increase in their land tax payments this year. The other way in which the Minister will not help is by playing around with workers' compensation. I know that that matter is in the hands of the Minister for Industrial Relations. However, it overlaps into the small-business community because it pays workers' compensation as well. In addition to that is payroll tax. The Minister may also wish to look at the holiday-leave loading. It has reached the stage at which a number of people have to bite the bullet. One person's holiday-leave loading may be another's job. At a time when businesspeople are going out the back door in a big hurry and unemployment is rising at a huge rate, two factors, leave loading and flexi- time, probably have more effect on the employment viability of business than anything else. Clyde Cameron, who was in fact the Federal Minister who introduced both leave loading and flexi-time during the Whitlam era, has publicly acknowledged that they have been a failure and that they have dramatic and negative impacts on our economies. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said that the corporation was remote from the Government. Is that such a bad thing? If the Small Business Development Corporation or, as it is now to be called, the Queensland Small Business Corporation, is going to properly represent small business, it really needs to be quite independent and not seen as being part of the Government. It is also interesting to note that, with the change of name, the word "Development" has been removed from the title. That matter was mentioned before. It is also interesting to note that the Minister said that some appointments were clearly party political. One has to suggest that he is referring to one of the previous directors. I might add that Ms Coleene Anger was a very, very capable administrator and was very successful in her own small business. She brought a very effective management to the SBDC, so much so that the Minister's Federal counterpart saw fit to wish to employ her. I believe that decision to remove Ms Anger from the corporation was not one of the Minister's better ones. I also feel disappointed in that the Minister saw fit to formally advise the National Party shadow Minister for Small Business of the findings of the review, yet did not extend the same courtesy to the Liberal Party. I find that quite unacceptable and I hope Legislative Assembly 4593 7 November 1990 that, in the future, the Minister sees fit to extend to me the same courtesies as he gives to the National Party. Or is it only the squeakiest wheel that gets the most oil? The Minister said also that concerns had been expressed that in some instances the role of providing business advice to small business had gone too far. I must agree with the Minister that there are quite sufficient business advisory groups—— Time expired. Mr LIVINGSTONE (Ipswich West) (10.15 p.m.): The importance of the Bill before us tonight needs to be put into perspective. To do this, I will quote to the House some figures which highlight just how important small business is in this State. Small business operations are generally regarded as those businesses which employ fewer than 20 people. Queensland has more than 100 000 small enterprises, which represent some 17 per cent of the total of small businesses in Australia. In this State, some 26 per cent of small-business activity is in retailing, 17 per cent is in construction, 16 per cent is in finance, property and business services, and 11 per cent is in recreation, personal and other services. On average, there is one small business to every 22 people in this State. Some 52 per cent of Queensland's labour force is employed by the small-business sector. That is the positive side of small business in Queensland, which is a very important part of the State's economy. Generally, small business gets on with the job of making a dollar and employing people. Just as the figures as to the positive aspects of small business in Queensland are impressive, the figures on the negative side are equally as eye opening. When one considers those figures, one appreciates the need to give people starting in business a referral point for specialist advice. Earlier, my colleague the member for Townsville mentioned some figures. I am sure that the member for Surfers Paradise would not have understood them. For his benefit, I will repeat them. For new business ventures in Australia there is a 68 per cent chance of surviving one year; a 54 per cent chance of surviving two years; a 43 per cent chance of surviving three years; a 39 per cent chance of surviving four years; and only a 34 per cent chance of surviving five years. I hope that the honourable member for Surfers Paradise is listening. Mr Borbidge: You got that out of one of my speeches. Mr LIVINGSTONE: The member for Surfers Paradise spoke about how the National Party will change things when it regains Government. Perhaps the honourable member should consider the opinion polls, which confirm that the National Party has already become a mere item in the trash cans of history. The National Party looks like being in Opposition for a long time. As to new business ventures—this is where the Government comes in with the Queensland Small Business Development Corporation. No doubt honourable members have read media reports—which the Government has had to put up with—about the recent problems experienced with former senior corporation staff. However, because of the importance of small business in Queensland, especially during the current tough economic climate, there is a need for the Government to ensure that the new revamped corporation gets on with the job. All honourable members know that it takes a lot of guts to start one's own small business and employ approximately 20 people. My colleague at the back of the Chamber would know what it is like. In the past, I opened several business. At one stage I had approximately six successful businesses. Mr Stephan: Did you last long? Mr LIVINGSTONE: If the honourable member spoke through his mouth I would be able to hear what he is saying. I am sorry that I cannot reply to his interjection. I remember what it was like to be in small business. When I was setting up those businesses, I was concerned and worried and had many sleepless nights. At one stage I employed 29 people. I know what it is like to be in small business, but many other honourable members do not. A very real demand exists for the Government to provide some advisory services for small business operators. Clearly, small business needs the Government to provide a new direction in relation to the corporation. That is highlighte Legislative Assembly 4594 7 November 1990

by the fact that the Queensland Small Business Development Corporation was established in 1980. However, until recently it had not been subject to a review despite its having grown dramatically over the decade. The former Government stands condemned for that neglect. Despite the fact that the Small Business Development Corporation was funded by the Government, the National Party Government was not really interested in where the money was spent—at least not until close to the last State election when, all of a sudden, it considered the situation and decided to commission a review of the corporation. That review found that the organisation was "remote from Government". That is a pretty damning finding when one considers that the Government funded the corporation. It leaves a lot to be desired. It is a bit of a joke that the Government had no representative on that board. Once again, the poor old National Party Government had no idea about the meaning of "accountability". The review found that some board appointments were "clearly party political". Members of Government must learn that they cannot put all their mates on every Government board. Overall, the review found that the corporation had grown into an out-of-control animal, which the animals in the former Government did not really want to control. The corporation was not using its resources efficiently or effectively. There was a significant overlap with other Government service deliverers. Communications with the corporation's regional officers were bad. The list goes on and on. Basically, the business community was not getting the best possible service—far from it. Clearly, this legislation has the support of the business community, which is seeking assistance. The findings of the review were placed before the business community and received its full support. The review has been conducted. This is the legislation which will ensure that the corporation reverts to its original purpose, namely, to provide initial business advice and facilitate training and education. Because the Goss Labor Government welcomes community input, the new corporation will be expected to play a greater role in advising the Government on private-sector views of small-business issues. Side issues in which the previous corporation was involved, such as regional development and export advice, will be handed over to other Government agencies or left to the private sector. The thrust of this Bill will ensure that Government-provided services in that sector do not overlap or compete with the private sector. However, the corporation very rightly will remain outside the public service, which will ensure that the corporation retains its close ties with the business community. As a direct result of recommendations made in the review, a small research and policy unit has been established within the Department of Manufacturing and Commerce. That unit will develop new policies for small business and provide recommendations to the Government based on the needs of small business as expressed by people in small business. It took 10 years for the functions of the corporation to be reviewed. This legislation will ensure that a similar situation does not recur. Under this legislation, on 31 December 1995, the Act governing the corporation will expire. Before that date, a further review will be undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the QSBC. A review that led to this legislation found that there was in the past no overall strategy for regional office location. It found also— "The absence of an office in Rockhampton is an obvious gap in the regional office network." In light of the finding of the review that the corporation had been politicised, I suggest that an office was never located in Rockhampton because that city voted Labor at local, State and Federal levels. That is how bad it was in the old days of the National Party. Ipswich copped the same raw deal. The Government's mates in various departments, on various boards and within certain corporations saw to it that the parts of the State in which people voted Labor received a raw deal from the Government. Now, with a fair-minded State Government, Queenslanders everywhere can look forward to a fair deal. Even some outback electorates that are represented by members of the former Legislative Assembly 4595 7 November 1990

Government will be treated fairly, a concept about which the former National Party Government knew nothing. Under the former Government, the Queensland Small Business Development Corporation had grown into a large animal compared with similar bodies in other States. In the last financial year the Queensland corporation employed 56 people and had an annual budget of $4.08m. That is a lot of money and people compared with the South Australian operation, which employed only 15 people and had a modest $950,000 budget, and the Western Australian operation to assist small business, which employed 32 people at a cost of $2.45m. Most of Australia's small businesses operate in New South Wales, where the Small Business Development Corporation operates only in an advisory capacity. It is probably fair to say that it is fine that the Queensland corporation is very large if Queenslanders receive value for money. But many people have questioned whether that was the case. It is ironic that the Queensland Small Business Development Corporation which was established to assist small business, in the end became a minibureaucracy. Perhaps it all got out of hand because the former National Party Government was so keen for Queensland to be recognised as the ultimate free- enterprise State in Australia. Therefore, it followed that Queensland would need the largest Small Business Development Corporation in Australia. Apart from a first-contact place for those people seeking to establish a small business or to upgrade an existing one, what more can, or should, a Government do to fund the operation? The Government must be able to talk to those people and give them advice. After that advice is given, the people have to help themselves. If those people cannot accept that they have to seek advice from accountants and solicitors, there is nothing that the Government can do for them; they are probably doomed from the start. All the Government-funded business development corporations in the world will not save some of those people. In the current economic climate, Governments at all levels throughout Australia have to examine closely their expenditures. In relation to the Queensland Small Business Development Corporation as it existed under the former Government, the question needs to be asked whether the taxpayers of Queensland received a good return for their investment. A lot of the data suggests that they did not. A review of that corporation indicated that a lot of money had been spent, but did not find much evidence of concrete results. Under the Goss Labor Government, good ideas like the Queensland Small Business Corporation will not be allowed to get out of hand. Times are tough and the Government must consider carefully how it spends millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. It was not good housekeeping that the former National Party Government brought down a Budget with a $4.8m allocation to fund the Queensland Small Business Development Corporation, which employed 56 people. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs) (10.28 p.m.): Before I begin, I will correct the comments made by the last speaker in the debate that the former National Party Government was so biased that it refused to put small business offices into Labor electorates. When I was the responsible Minister, the first branch office was built in Townsville. It is reasonable to say that that is a Labor electorate. When the member for Surfers Paradise was the Minister, an office was built in Cairns. It would be reasonable to say that that also is a Labor electorate. Under this Government, an office has been programmed for Mackay, the electorate of the Minister for Primary Industries. Government members should not say that the former National Party Government put offices only into National Party electorates. That is not true. Let us set the record straight. It is a sad time for small business. Queensland has the highest increase in the rate of bankruptcies in Australia, which very much affects small business. In Rockhampton, again when I was Minister, it was suggested to me—— Mr Smyth: That is when it got out of hand, when you were the Minister. Mr LESTER: No, it did not get out of hand; it was very well run. It was suggested to me that an office could be located in Rockhampton or Townsville. Because I lived Legislative Assembly 4596 7 November 1990 near there, I chose not to locate an office in Rockhampton. That is the sort of thing that a decent Minister should do. Yet I was criticised by the member for Bowen, who said that, at times, I put too much into my own electorate. When I located something in my electorate, he criticised me. Yet, when I decided that I would not put an office into my electorate, he says that I should not have done that either. The honourable member does not know what he is talking about. This is a sad time. Small business is in a catastrophic mess. Queensland has the highest number of bankruptcies in Australia, and that figure is increasing. Rockhampton is a coastal centre that services a fairly rich hinterland that contains mining areas. It is difficult to obtain rental housing in Rockhampton, which is regarded as a fairly viable city at the present time and whose economy is pretty good when compared to that of other cities. In recent days, information has been released that the Toyota dealer and firms such as, Chippindale Motor, the Record Printing Co which has been in business in Rockhampton for a long time, and Country Air, are all going into receivership. This shows how serious the recession is, because these firms are all highly reputable. Between them, they employ many people. Some of them are still trading, but under very strict supervision. It makes one wonder where we will end up. A great deal of effort must be put into working out what can be done to ensure the survival of small business. Small business employs 60 per cent of the work force, which is why it is so terribly important. If small business fails, we will find ourselves in all sorts of strife. Mr Smyth: Wouldn't it be true that when you were a small-business person in a bakery, you did not pay a proper wage? Mr LESTER: That is not correct. The honourable member tried that silly rot once before. He is talking through his hat. This reminds me of the time when I first ran for election to this House. I would like to stray for a moment to clarify this point, Mr Speaker, if I may. The members of the Labor Party decided to come out to Clermont. The late Kevin Hooper—God bless him—and a number of other people were in the hall listening to the Labor Party's election speech. All of a sudden the late Kevin Hooper said, "The Lesters don't own their bakery." We did not even have an overdraft and he did not realise that there were no Labor Party people in the hall; they were all National Party people. My wife and I were there as well as our bank manager. At that point Kev Hooper did not know who I was. We stopped him and asked the bank manager to tell the meeting whether we owned our bakery or not. When he realised what had happened it was too much for Kev Hooper. The Labor Party candidate, Jim Turner, tapped him on the shoulder, and they broke up the meeting. The honourable member for Bowen should not go on with this sort of thing, because he is talking through his hat. I thought that he had stopped going on with all this silly rot. At one point the honourable member had a go at a member of the Opposition for hiring a car. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest the honourable member debate the Queensland Small Business Corporation Bill. Mr LESTER: He provoked me. Mr SPEAKER: I am sure he did. Mr LESTER: Yes, he did. All honourable members must somehow ensure that these people at least make sufficient profit to continue in business. There is one difficulty as I see it, and that is the large number of people who are being retrenched. The latest retrenchment I have heard about is that of Mr Jim O'Dwyer from the Workers Compensation Board. He is a great man. Thousands of people throughout Australia have been retrenched. All of a sudden they decide to start a small business, but they do not know what it is about. They have never worked the sorts of hours that small-businesspeople work or dealt with people as a small-business owner. Suddenly they find that they are adding to the list of bankruptcies. It must be ensured that anyone starting a small business receive some form of training. Legislative Assembly 4597 7 November 1990

The cost of renting premises is very high, and another problem is that some people are so desperate to start a small business that they will agree to pay almost any rent for their premises. They do not read the profit and loss sheets of the business properly and they find that they are not making a profit, either. The message must be got across somehow. It is a bit like planning defensive driving courses. They are very good courses, but most of the time the people who turn up are the ones who own Volvo motor cars and have never had an accident in their lives. The hoons or the people who should be attending these courses do not turn up. The same applies to small-business seminars that are designed to assist small- businesspeople; normally, only successful businesspeople turn up, not the people who need to receive more tuition. The Government could certainly help by scrapping payroll tax. This would help the larger small businesses to an enormous extent. When the previous Government was in power it introduced voluntary employment agreements. Two of Queensland's largest small businesses, Power Brewing and the Metway Bank, as well as some of the smaller ones such as Mini Movers, were doing very well. They created employment and exported commodities from this State to other States and overseas. This in turn gave the employees an incentive because, by negotiation with the company, they could choose the hours they worked. Sometimes they worked only four days a week for 10 hours a day and were paid for the hours that they worked. This is the type of thing that must be done to maintain these people's interest in the profits of the business. That is very important. Pressure should be exerted on the Federal Government to break down interest rates, because they are a killer. Hopefully, interest rates will be able to be reduced at some time in the future. People are encountering difficulties because, when economic times were better, they bought businesses and paid a great deal of money for them. One of the big problems associated with the failure of small businesses is that the owners cannot now afford to meet the repayments. I, too, am a little disappointed at the manner in which the Government has chosen to put the knife into people who played an important role in liaising with small-businesspeople and in providing them with an understanding of what small business is all about. I understand that an indication was given to the board that Coleene Anger should be sacked. The board refused to do that so the Government sacked the board and appointed its own people, and then the sacking occurred. I offer my congratulations to Bruce Siebenhausen. I thought he was a very able leader of the board. He had certainly seen all sides of business operations. He had worked as an industrial inspector and he knew what the public sector was all about. He knew how to check on businesses in terms of wages books and he also had experience in private enterprise. Bruce Siebenhausen was very definitely an excellent leader and I was sorry to see him go. He did a good job and he should be given credit for that. Frankly, I cannot understand why Mrs Coleene Anger was sacked. Small-business organisations need people who are intelligent, experienced and educated. Mrs Anger had been very successful in small business. She operated a grocery store and was successful in gem-mining, veterinary services, aerial spraying and a trucking business. She had done particularly well in all those businesses. She was also a qualified journalist and had good communication skills. She had been a senior radio announcer on radio station 4HI. She was the type of person that small-business organisations need to take charge of managerial positions. She had managerial experience and was also experienced in a number of other fields. In all her endeavours, she was very successful. I hope that the new appointees will do their jobs well because first things must be put first. Members of Parliament should do all they can to ensure the survival of small business, bring back confidence and provide small-business operators with goals. Small-business owners should be able to think that, at the end of the day, they will do very well, expand their businesses and be able to employ people. These days, it is much more difficult to be successful in small business than it was in the past. In my day, it was simply a matter of finishing an apprenticeship as a baker, obtaining a small loan to start a small business, expanding the business and going on to other things. I would like to think that that great Australian tradition will continue and that this Government will Legislative Assembly 4598 7 November 1990 assist people in small business. Small business is in the doldrums and things are not getting any better. This Government faces an enormous challenge to ensure that small business is given a boost so that small-businesspeople can rediscover their ideals and their goals and will once again want to go out and beat the world. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (10.43 p.m.): The passage of this Bill will repeal three Acts, namely, the Small Business Development Corporation Act 1980, the Small Business Development Corporation Act Amendment Act 1983, and the Small Business Development Corporation Act Amendment Act 1986. The Bill under consideration has been drafted following the conclusion of a wide-ranging review of the operations of the Small Business Development Corporation. It also fulfils the promise made by the Labor Party in Opposition to undertake a process of public sector reform. Concerns had been expressed about the operations of statutory authorities that are divorced from ministerial and Government control. The previous Government must be congratulated, however, for the innovative step it took in creating the Small Business Development Corporation. Although its establishment warrants credit, the failure to adequately monitor its growth, progress and performance is not acceptable in a rapidly changing world. In the last 10 years, the functions of the SBDC altered considerably in breadth and depth. Because it was funded from consolidated revenue, in effect, the SBDC took on a life of its own. At times, its direction and accountability appeared not to be in sync with the policies of the Government of the day. Surely, a situation of that type is hardly acceptable. The economic policy of the Government should be linked closely to the direction taken by its statutory authorities. Considering the vital role played by small business in the economy of this State, I am of the view that this nexus takes on even greater significance. The legislation superseded by this Bill did not allow for Government representation on the corporation. This Bill addresses that issue in clause 2.2 and allows for membership of five to seven members, including the director-general and other individuals who have "experience in owning or operating a small business; or providing services to small business." The appointment of the chairperson of the corporation rests with the Governor in Council. Because of its involvement in activities that are not considered central to its core function, considerable criticism has been levelled at the SBDC. A great deal of emphasis had been placed on regional development and export advice. These functions either have been transferred to other departments, or have been left in the capable hands of the private sector. The Queensland Small Business Corporation will confine its activities to two very important areas of operation. By concentrating on giving initial business advice and the on facilitation of training and education, the corporation will avoid competing with private sector initiatives. Duplication of activities that are provided satisfactorily by the private sector is an inappropriate use of public sector resources. It is widely recognised that small business represents by far the most significant employment and production group in this country. In fact, on a national scale, small business represents 95.46 per cent of all business enterprises and the Queensland figure for this category is even higher—96.48 per cent. Some 52 per cent of the labour force in this State is employed by the small-business sector. In real terms, this translates into 262 000 wage and salary earners employed by 217 700 small-business proprietors. Given these impressive figures, the viability and continued successful operation of small-business enterprises deserves the attention of this Government. Unfortunately, the survival rate of businesses is a matter of great concern in today's economic climate. Figures indicate that only 54 per cent of operations survive their first year, with the rate dropping to a low 34 per cent over a 5-year period. That high failure rate is attributable to some extent to the poor initial training in the principles of small-business enterprises along with a distinct lack of continuous education for the employees. It is my intention to concentrate my further comments tonight on training and education. Information obtained through the Royal Netherlands Embassy would indicate that we have much to learn from the prerequisites set in that country for those wishing to commence a business. The Middenstands diploma must be obtained before an Legislative Assembly 4599 7 November 1990 individual is permitted to register a business and engage in commercial activity. Although I do not for one moment suggest that Government in this State should intervene to that extent, the Netherlands experience does highlight the importance of education and training. The business community itself, in the consultations carried out during the recent review process, also seized upon that aspect of corporation involvement. It is necessary for a person to be qualified before he or she can practice as a lawyer, a plumber or in any other profession or trade. However, no qualification or licence is necessary before someone sets up as a businessman. If some would-be business-owners were aware of the pitfalls of small business and of the preparation that should be done before launching into business, they would never set up shop in the unprepared way that many do. As a consequence, there would be fewer failures with their disastrous social and economic fallout. A survey carried out in 1987 at the James Cook University of North Queensland by Joyce Berryman on north Queensland owner/managers produced results consistent with national studies. Berryman found that only 17.5 per cent of owner/managers had received formal training in management, whilst just 23.7 per cent had received training in book-keeping. The TAFE system in this State has offered many courses which recognise the need for a complementary blend of theoretical managerial programs as well as modules of a more practical nature. The Queensland Small Business Corporation will work closely with the Bureau of Employment, Vocational and Further Education and Training as well as the Department of Education. The objective will be to develop appropriate curricula for small-business studies in our secondary schools and TAFE colleges. The corporation itself need not become directly involved in the delivery of courses. It can play a vital role by facilitating existing and future courses through curriculum development. I might point out the good work being done in this general area though the initiatives put in place by the Federal Government. The Commonwealth Training Guarantee Act passed early this year will ensure employers in Australia will spend a minimum amount on structured training every financial year. The aim of that, of course, is to increase the skills of the Australian work force. A more skilful work force should see the productivity and competitiveness of Australian industry improve in the years ahead. Under the legislation, businesses that spend $200,000 or more in salaries will be required to spend a minimum of 1 per cent on structured training, with that rising to 1.5 per cent in 1991-92. The report on industry and training in Australia commissioned by John Dawkins formed the basis upon which the Commonwealth Training Guarantee Act was formulated. It has brought home to both Government and industry the need for greater emphasis on training, and it is in that context that the Queensland Small Business Corporation will be able to do its share. To successfully establish and operate a small business requires not only a good idea matched by skill, hard work and, of course, an element of good fortune. To conduct a small business today, more than ever, one requires a sound knowledge of good business practices. Without that knowledge, an enterprise—even one with great potential—can easily come to grief. Book-keeping knowledge is an obvious essential for small-business operators. It is important for a small business to select a record-keeping system best suited to the type of operation being undertaken. Key elements would also include control of cash flow and the ability to provide basic estimates of assets and liabilities along with profitability projections. Small- business operators also need to have a fundamental understanding of legal aspects through such topics as contract law, industrial law, insurance, taxation and consumer protection. They need to be able to maximise their accountancy advice to best serve their business interests. It is important that the thrust of small-business management courses in TAFE colleges be directed towards the improvement of day-to-day managerial capabilities of small-business operators. An awareness need also be developed about issues which affect the performance and the long-term potential of the business. Courses must therefore be flexible in content and sensitive to specific needs as well as providing room in more Legislative Assembly 4600 7 November 1990 specialised courses to examine specific problems more deeply. TAFE courses should provide practical training that encourages potential owners or managers to assess their plans in realistic terms. The courses must aim to increase the ability of small-business operators to control their own businesses and to use professional assistance in an informed manner. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call on the member for Warrego— because this will be a long debate, I refer honourable members to Standing Order 141, which provides that a member's speech should not be irrelevant or contain tedious repetition. We have already heard debate about the effect of the economic climate and the removal of members from the board. I ask honourable members not to keep regurgitating the same points. I do not want to have to invoke Standing Order 141. Although honourable members can leave the Chamber for a cup of coffee, I have to listen to all of the speeches. Mr HOBBS (Warrego) (10.51 p.m.): Mr Spealer, I will try not to be repetitious. I am pleased to speak to the Queensland Small Business Corporation Bill. In his second-reading speech, the Minister pointed out that there would be a slight name change of the Small Business Development Corporation. He also stated— "The purpose of the Bill is to assist, encourage and promote the efficiency and expansion of small-business activity in Queensland with a view to enhancing economic growth and employment opportunities." I agree with that. That is the way it should be. Later, the Minister stated that the Beddall report found that small businesses accounted for 96 per cent of all companies and half of all private sector employment. He stated— "However, Queensland has an even higher incidence of small business than Australia as a whole." That says something for Queensland, and it certainly says much for what had been happening in Queensland under the National Party Government. Earlier, a member mentioned that Queensland was the first State to introduce a Small Business portfolio. The way that it is going at present, Queensland will be the first State to lose that portfolio. That is a shame, because small business is the backbone and the engine room of the economy of this State and this nation. The first page of the Minister's second-reading speech is quite good. He mentions that Queensland leads the field in small business in Australia. However, there has been a change since the days when the National Party ran the Small Business Development Corporation. I want to relate to the House the experience of a man in my electorate. He is a small-businessman who comes from Blackall, which is a little town in the central west of Queensland. His name is Brian May. He has a small operation called May's Machinery Sales. Mr May developed a wool press that is quite revolutionary. He used to repair broken wool presses, and then he was able to come up with a new concept. He launched his new wool press in August at the Dalgety Ram Day in Blackall. Mr May won the inventor's award for the relevant category at the Farmfest. That certainly was an achievement. He put a lot of time and effort into developing this wool press. Mr May accepted an invitation to New Zealand and talked to people over there who are very interested in his wool press. Mr May contacted me for assistance. I told him that previously assistance was certainly available but that I was not sure what assistance was now available. I contacted the Minister's department. I will come back to that shortly. Mr May wanted assistance with freight, electricity charges, business plans, marketing, a consultancy subsidy and so on. I suppose everyone seeks capital assistance, which is always very hard to provide. However, joint venturing would have been a method by which this chap could have been assisted. The end result was that he was not able to obtain any assistance. The other day the Minister answered my letter. He said— "It is believed that the multi-national company is keen to get the project started and there is a strong possibility that this may occur. Legislative Assembly 4601 7 November 1990

The department, unfortunately, cannot assist Mr May in the provision of funds." Mr May was not just seeking funding. Although I appreciate the fact that the regional office did contact Mr May after my initial approach, the fact remains that a small-business man in a remote town who has the opportunity to provide many people with employment—probably to be one of the biggest employers in his town—is not going to be able to produce his wool press. A multinational company will take his product and build it in Adelaide. There is no reason why that wool press cannot be built here in Queensland. It looks as though the Small Business Corporation is not going to work as well as it should. There is certainly something wrong when businesses are prepared to operate in Queensland and want to stay in Queensland but look like having to go interstate. As was mentioned earlier in the debate, small business is certainly in trouble. High interest rates have been cited as being one of the problems in that respect. High interest rates over a long period obviously have a detrimental effect on any business. I believe that the Small Business Corporation should contact the Federal Government in regard to the provision of taxation incentives. People will do anything if the incentive is there. One can make a child do most things with an incentive, such as an ice-cream. If people have the incentive to do something by themselves, they will do it. I think it is most important to provide taxation incentives. I invite honourable members to cast their minds back to the time when—— Mrs Edmond: When we had 66 per cent just a few years ago. Mr HOBBS: As a matter of fact, I was thinking back to the time when a 200 per cent taxation deduction was offered on investment in the production of movies in Australia. It was found that money was then channelled into that industry, which got it going. The same sort of thing can be done in other industries. I am not suggesting that a figure of 200 per cent is appropriate in all cases. However, if people have the incentive, they will put up risk capital and they will get the show on the road. That is definitely needed in small business. Taxation of rural industries is far too severe. That is why many people in the industry get into trouble. They just cannot put aside enough money for capital expenditure because they are taxed out of existence. They are not able to put capital into structures so that they can survive the downturns in the industry. I think that that is an important point. The provision of taxation incentives would be a more positive move than any I can think of at present to assist rural industries. The small-businessman is the best judge of where to put the money. The Government is not always the best judge. Sometimes the State Governments, but usually the Federal Government, tend to channel money into various areas that lead to it being wasted. The small-businessman knows what to do with the money. The Government should take some notice of him. I wanted to talk about two other matters. One relates to Mrs Coleene Anger. I take this opportunity to congratulate her on the work that she carried out as the general manager of the Small Business Development Corporation. I believe that she was innovative, resourceful and efficient. It is interesting that she was dismissed by Labor—— Mr Borbidge: She was knifed. Mr HOBBS: "Knifed" is probably the right word. This woman was working her guts out to try to achieve something in her life. The ladies on the Government side should support her. She was fighting for her rights—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think that the case for Mrs Anger has been well canvassed. I suggest that the honourable member moves on to another matter. Three previous speakers have mentioned Mrs Anger. Legislative Assembly 4602 7 November 1990

Mr HOBBS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just echoing my support for Coleene Anger. Another aspect of the Small Business Corporation I wish to mention—this one is rather a long way around, too—relates to the Sporting Shooters Association in Gladstone, which contacted me about a problem relating to the Department of Manufacturing and Commerce through this organisation. That association has 100 members, with 60 active members. Two years ago, it applied for a lease on an industrial site and also applied for incorporation as a body carrying out the functions of a sporting shooters association. Mr Smith: As a what? Mr HOBBS: As a sporting shooters association. At that time, that organisation was told by the Lands Department that it more or less had the okay to carry out improvements on its land and that the lease application was proceeding and would eventually be granted. As honourable members know, an election occurred around that time. Approximately three and a half months ago, the Lands Department advised that organisation to vacate the land—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can the honourable member suggest to me how this is relevant to the Small Business Corporation? Mr HOBBS: Yes, right now. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I hope the honourable member will get around to it. Mr HOBBS: That organisation was told to vacate the land and remove those improvements. The Lands Department was asked for its reasons and it advised that it was because the Department of Manufacturing and Commerce had requested that organisation to vacate the land. Mr Smith: Is that it? Mr HOBBS: It is close enough. I believe that this decision should be well aired. The department said that the land was not suitable for the particular purpose. I ask the Minister to look very carefully at that issue. I believe that that organisation has been badly done by and that its application should be reconsidered. Mrs EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha) (11.03 p.m.): In speaking to this Bill tonight, I acknowledge that small business is not an area in which I have experience or in-depth knowledge. Because of this lack of knowledge, I was researching material on small business and came across some interesting data on the problems of small business. Mr FitzGerald: Are you only filibustering? Mrs EDMOND: I tell Mr FitzGerald that, going back to 1971, almost every discussion paper on small business highlighted the enormous failure rate of small business. Honourable members have heard a lot about that tonight. It is supposed to be a recent advent. In fact, the failure rate for small business in 1971 was 60 per cent—that was the accepted, and expected, figure for failures. In his study of businesses from 1973 to 1985, Professor Alan Williams of Newcastle University also quoted a figure of 60 per cent for business failures in the first three years. So nothing has changed. Professor Williams confirmed that the major cause of small business failure was financial and managerial incompetence. Such incompetence may include such problem areas as poor credit management, poor pricing and costing and scant stock control. Other major factors were shortage of capital and general economic conditions. Additional problem areas were the reluctance to seek outside help, personnel problems and a lack of adequate marketing. The most crucial of those areas is the need for small-business operators to acquire management and general business skills, because even when those adverse factors exist, expert management skills can keep a small business out of difficulties. Legislative Assembly 4603 7 November 1990

It is of interest to note that the increasing number of women in small business are actually faring better than their male counterparts. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mrs EDMOND: Mr FitzGerald should listen. In business, women have a success rate of 47 per cent compared with a male success rate of 24 per cent. That is almost double the success rate of men. I know that that figure would be a problem for members opposite to cope with. With a growth rate of 20 per cent for women in business, the greatest number of business start-ups come from women in the 35 to 44 year age bracket, just as they are entering their peak of experience and business acumen. That is a jolly good age. The motivations for women commencing their own businesses are similar to those of men: to make money, to be independent, and to improve job satisfaction and working flexibility. However, women tend to have more life experience before starting businesses and generally start up a business that they know well and understand. They frequently start slowly, often at home with small overheads, and expand only with caution as demand arises. Mr Hayward: They are supplied with long lunches, too. Mrs EDMOND: Yes, probably long, boozy lunches, too. Male small-business operators frequently look for a start in high profile, highly expensive franchise arrangements and look for rapid expansion. Ironically, while many women still complain about discrimination in both legal and financial markets, the subsequent heavy reliance on personal savings in the early stages of business is cited as a major reason why female-owned businesses have a significantly higher survival rate. Studies have also indicated that women are more likely to seek informed planning advice before actually going into business and more likely to seek adequate and appropriate legal, accounting and marketing advice early if trouble strikes their business venture. Male small-business operators are traditionally reluctant to seek professional advice at early stages—pride and egos interfere with their business acumen. It is obviously appropriate for Governments to provide an advisory service to small business. It is a recognition of the important role small business plays in the Australian economy, but it is also important that this service be an appropriate one, one directed towards the needs of the small-business community. The Small Business Development Corporation was designed to provide those services. The recent review of this corporation showed the need for evolution and improvement to further meet the needs of small business. Although the review showed a general satisfaction with the core services offered by the corporation's business advisers, there were areas of serious concern. The massive increase in the costs associated with the Small Business Development Corporation appeared to be a sign of gross empire- building and a corporation out of control of its own management and that of the Government. This was shown, too, in a decrease in the effectiveness and accountability of the SBDC management. There was no clear strategic direction to the corporation or adequate advice from the corporation to the Government on small-business issues. The corporation had delusions of grandeur as it moved from its small-business service brief to export advice and development areas. This Government is recognising the importance of small business, and the new corporation is succeeding the old to highlight this importance. The Queensland Small Business Corporation will have a well-defined and controlled role to service the small-business community. The functions of the corporation are spelled out in clause 2.10. These well-defined functions will ensure that the best services are provided to small business without competing with the private- sector consultants. The corporation will act as an advisory body to Government, to reflect the concerns and wishes of businesspeople. It will gradually withdraw from the arena of regional economic development, which is better served by the Bureau of Regional Development, while the role of export advisory Legislative Assembly 4604 7 November 1990 services will be transferred to the Trade Division of the Premier's Department. This rationalisation of services, together with an increasing use of private- sector consultants, will result in a vastly improved service to the targeted area—the small-business community. I take pleasure in supporting the Bill. Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (11.10 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I stand and debate the Bill that is before the House. I will not cover a lot of the ground that has been covered already by other speakers. However, I will take the opportunity to rebut some of the remarks that have been made by members opposite. I do not intend to continue the battle of the sexes into the Small Business Development Corporation, as the member who spoke before me did. I think it is absolutely ridiculous to keep the battle of the sexes going in that area. Complaints have been made by members opposite that there has been a budget blow-out in the Small Business Development Corporation. We have heard a number of speakers refer to that. I think I should remind the House of the Labor Party's policy in the run-up to the last election. It is my clear recollection that the Labor Party promised to maintain funding for the Small Business Development Corporation and that it committed the Government to an expenditure of $12m in the life of a Goss Labor Government. So the bleatings from members opposite that there has been a budget blow-out and that they are now finding the amount of money that they are spending uncomfortable just do not rack up. The problem is that the Government made a commitment and, like many other commitments of this Government—the one-term Government—it has not been honoured. The member for Mulgrave, who I notice has left the Chamber, said that, in relation to small business, Holland should be used as an example. However, at present I would ask him not to give me any examples relating to Holland. Many small businesses in the Lockyer Valley will suffer great hardship because of what is happening in Holland at present. I refer to Australia's glut of potatoes. Potatoes are grown on the Atherton Tableland, in the Lockyer Valley and in the southern States. But what are the fish and chip merchants in Brisbane buying at present? They are actually buying frozen chips from Holland. In the name of goodness, the small-businesspeople are paying $21 for a 15 kilogram pack! The small- businesspeople in the Lockyer Valley are suffering because of the Government's actions in allowing this to happen. In addition to that, the McCain chip factory, which has been built in Ballarat with a Federal Government subsidy of $2m, is importing products. Members opposite should not cite Holland as an example of how small business should operate. Earlier in the debate, the honourable member for Townsville referred to, and said he was quoting from, the findings of the review of the Small Business Development Corporation. He made some comments about that. When challenged by interjection, he said that he was referring to and quoting from the review. He was asked whether he would table the document. All he tabled was page 3 of a joint statement by Wayne Goss and Geoff Smith of 4 June 1990. That was the review! One page! He said he was quoting from a review. It was not a review at all. It was a joint statement by the Minister and the Premier. I believe that the honourable member for Townsville misled the House. I do not believe that the review has been released. If the Government has a review, I am sure it has it tucked right up under its wing and nobody will see it. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the member for Townsville misled the House. I will not cover the aspect about how important small business is to the community and how it plays its role in the economic future of Australia. However, I want to raise the fact that small business relies on apprentices. It relies on the skilled work force coming forward to keep a small business in operation, whether that apprentice be a carpenter, a plumber, a hairdresser or whatever. Since 1981, a group apprentice scheme has been developed that has helped small business no end. In fact, at present there are more than 100 of these schemes throughout Australia, 23 of them in Queensland. With the assistance of small-businesspeople, they have generally been founded in the provincial areas of Queensland. A problem has now arisen in relation to the equal funding from the Federal and State Governments for the maintenance of these group apprentice Legislative Assembly 4605 7 November 1990 schemes. The Governments have found that the schemes are becoming a little bit expensive. A review has been carried out. I have been advised that, as from 1 July next year, one-third of the administrative funding will be cut. By the following year, it will be cut by another one-third, and the balance will be cut in the third year. No funding is proposed from the State and Federal Governments for group apprenticeship schemes. That was announced on 16 October this year in Toowoomba at a group training meeting. Queensland has approximately 3 251 young people participating in the group training scheme. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to advise how this relates to the Queensland Small Business Corporation Bill. Mr FITZGERALD: With respect, as I said in my introductory remarks, small businesses rely on a skilled work force being made available to them at all times. Small-businesspeople are directors of the companies that are involved in group training schemes. Small businesses in Toowoomba, Roma and other areas of Queensland rely on those schemes. The member for Mulgrave spoke at length about the training guarantee. I will mention that firstly, because I intend to rebut his arguments. He said that a training guarantee levy of 1 per cent has been imposed on employers with a payroll greater than $200,000. He stated also that, in 1992, that levy will increase to 1.5 per cent. Many people in small business agree that that is a fair levy. I contend that it is not very fair in some areas. A vegetable-grower who employs unskilled labour to pick his potatoes and onions could easily have a payroll in excess of $100,000. I am not sure how that levy would be used to train people to pick potatoes and onions. Many people who work in the vegetable-picking and fruit-picking industries are unskilled seasonal workers. Those industries are labour intensive. Those operators who pay over $200,000 in wages will be paying a training guarantee levy to teach people how to pick grapes, pears, apples, potatoes, beans and onions. It is unfair that they should pay that levy, which is another impost upon farmers. As to the group apprenticeship scheme—23 companies of small-businesspeople in Queensland rely on apprentices who are trained through that scheme. The Government is losing money by disbanding those companies. For example, in the Toowoomba area the director is Mr Noel Williamson, who is also the chairman and joint managing director of Downs Office Equipment. Mr Moor represents the Master Plumbers Association. Alderman John Osborne from the Toowoomba City Council is also involved in small business. Mr Templeman is the despatch and assembly manager at the Toowoomba Foundry, Mr W. W. O'Brian is the executive director of the Defiance Milling Company, Mr C. G. Docherty is the area manager of Barclay Mowlen Construction Ltd and a representative of the Master Builders Association and Mr P. Nicol is the manager of Western Publishing Company. The consultants are a group of very respected people, including the Mayor of Toowoomba, Mr N. Swan, the secretary of the Toowoomba Trades and Labor Council, Mr Wincherster, who is the officer in charge of the technical college, Mr A. Hertel, the accountant for Ludgate and Ludgate, Mr R. Davies, who is a training consultant with DEVETIR and Mr Denis McCarthy who is the manager of the CES in Toowoomba. Those respectable people are involved in the training of apprentices whom they supply to small businesses. Mr McGRADY: I rise to a point of order. I am the chairman of the Mount Isa group apprenticeship scheme. I have been trying to catch the member's attention. I ask: where does he have a group apprenticeship scheme? Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr FITZGERALD: The honourable member will have to join in the debate himself. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I take Mr Fitzgerald's point that the training of apprentices is important to small businesses, Governments, large businesses and whatever. He has made that point. I suggest that he return to the debate on the corporation. Legislative Assembly 4606 7 November 1990

Mr FITZGERALD: Mr Speaker, I bow to your ruling. I have great confidence in your position. I realise that the hour is late. I do wish to labour the point a little longer, because I am raising fresh material. I have had some connection with the corporation since it was established by the previous Government. Comments have been made about the number of bankruptcies in Queensland and how the corporation was not working. I do not believe that the success of the corporation can be judged by the number of bankruptcies or the number of small businesses that are saved. How the corporation offers advice, the number of people that it advises and how people are reacting determines its success. Because of the enormous number of small businesses in Queensland, that small group of people cannot prevent all bankruptcies. However, it can provide a facility where people can seek information if they wish to help themselves. I shall make no further comments, Mr Speaker. I will let you have an early night. Mr PALASZCZUK (Archerfield) (11.22 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to rise to support the Minister for Manufacturing, Commerce and Small Business in one of the more creative reforms of his department. I go back 10 years to the inception of the Small Business Development Corporation. One of the original reasons for its establishment was to give the Minister an unbiased opinion on the state of small business in Queensland. It was believed that the establishment of a non-Government body would allow the Minister to receive unbiased opinions without their being filtered through the public service. Some time after the Small Business Development Corporation had been operating, it was decided to ask various heads of Government departments to be observers at the corporation's board meetings. The Director-General of the Department of Manufacturing and Commerce was one of the observers. However, after a while it was found that the presence of those observers stifled discussion at board meetings and, at times, injected a negative attitude into the meetings. Some departments adopted Small Business Development Corporation proposals, thus preventing the corporation itself from running them. It should be remembered that industry is not synonymous with small business. The Department of Manufacturing and Commerce tends to concentrate on large-scale manufacturing business. The operation of that type of business is completely different from that of small business. In his report on small business in Australia, my good friend David Beddall, the Federal member for Rankin and Minister for Small Business and Customs, said that many people do not appreciate the unique size-related problems faced by small business. That is particularly true of Government departments and large businesses. Regulations cause the most resentment amongst small-businesspeople and are often imposed at State and local government levels concerning licensing, planning, health and safety. Those regulations have the most impact on businesses, as they require forms to be completed, negotiations to take place with fairly junior officials and minor charges to be paid, all of which consume proprietors' time and money. The main problem lies with compliance costs, which represent a significant proportion of the management resources of small businesses. The necessity of adhering to regulations places a heavy burden of paperwork on proprietors of small businesses, which significantly reduces the time that can be spent on productive, value-adding activities. The member for Lockyer would appreciate that. At present, he is experiencing a problem with the export of potatoes and the import of frozen potatoes from Holland. If he had any common sense, he would try to establish a value-adding industry in the Lockyer Valley to process those potatoes for the local market. The Confederation of Australian Industry estimates that the paper-burden cost to business is twice that incurred by Government. The growing range and complexity of regulations mean that small businesses have to contend with an increasing amount of paperwork and have to rely on costly professional advice. Mr Ardill interjected. Legislative Assembly 4607 7 November 1990

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Salisbury is having an effect on the honourable member. I suggest that he stops commenting. Mr PALASZCZUK: In the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in January 1990 entitled Small Business in Australia: Challenges, Problems and Opportunities, David Beddall argued that a case could be argued for compensation to small business where it acts as the agent of Government in the collection of revenue. Small businesses are particularly conscious of the effects of maladministration. They suffer substantial but unqualified costs as a result of overregulation and oppressive administration. David Beddall identified that a principal complaint of small business pertains to badly drafted legislation and regulations and slow, inefficient and capricious administration. He concluded that regulations, particularly their compliance costs, on small businesses should be reduced as far as possible. The removal of those minor charges from the Stamp Act, which returned little to the State compared with their enforcement costs, will take some of the regulatory burden off business, allowing proprietors more time to run their business. With the establishment of the business regulation review unit that was announced in March by the Minister for Manufacturing, Commerce and Small Business, the number of business regulations and licences should be reduced further. Currently, 869 business licences are required in Queensland. Australia's economic survival is dependent upon it forging greater trading relationships within its geographical region. Fortunately, our neighbours in the Asia/ Pacific region are experiencing rapid economic growth. That trend is predicted to continue for some years. If Australia is to take advantage of its position in that region, it will have to develop an export culture and suitable marketing strategies. During the period 1968 to 1987, the importance of resource commodities in world trade declined, which led to Australia's share of world trade declining from 2 per cent in 1968 to 1 per cent in 1987. That decline is a reflection of new sources of supply and changes in production processes that allow for substitution. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Archerfield should try to relate his speech to the Queensland Small Business Corporation. Mr PALASZCZUK: Certainly, Mr Speaker. This certainly has to do with the Bill. That decline implies that, despite recent price increases for some commodities, no country can rely for its future success on the sale of primary products. The relevance of that for Australia becomes apparent when one considers that, over the same period, world trade expanded 237 per cent. Another significant development is the increase in worldwide capital flows and investment, highlighting the fact that businesses—and small businesses—are increasingly viewing the whole world as a single marketplace rather than limiting their activities to their own domestic market or geographic region. In Queensland, small firms dominate the State's business environment, and 96 per cent of Queensland's enterprises employ fewer than 20 people. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am pleased that the honourable member finally got to the subject of small business. Mr PALASZCZUK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Approximately 99 per cent of small businesses employ fewer than 100 people. One in every two private-sector employees works in a small firm. Small firms are an important source of economic growth, employment and innovation. Yet, whilst many have the potential to be internationally competitive, small firms are generally not involved directly in international business. The Queensland office of Austrade has on its database 2 333 Queensland firms, of which 1 813 are regarded as committed exporters. The remainder have expressed an interest. Those figures, however, represent only those firms that have approached Austrade. Unfortunately,. the major commodity groups of food and live animals, crude materials, minerals, fuels and lubricants, manufactured goods and machinery, and transport equipment are not strongly represented by small business. Research suggests also that 34 per cent of small Queensland exporting firms are located in the Legislative Assembly 4608 7 November 1990 southern suburbs of Brisbane, 29 per cent in the northern suburbs and 6 per cent in the city. It appears that 69 per cent of internationally involved small enterprises are located in the greater Brisbane area. This is disproportionately high in relation to the population of the State, and I might remind honourable members that the State was governed by the National Party for the last 32 years. Only 45 per cent of the population of Queensland are resident in the Brisbane area and 69 per cent of internationally-involved small-business enterprises are located in the greater Brisbane area as well. The location of the 10 major exporters by industry group in relation to Queensland's 13 postcode divisions is shown on a document that I intend to table at the end of my speech. Knowing where these internationally focussed enterprises are located permits the appropriate location and provision of Government support services. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member is distracting the member for Archerfield. Mr PALASZCZUK: As a matter of fact, the table was prepared for me by the member for Port Curtis. When the location of major exporters is considered by industry groups as well as by postcode, the picture then becomes less clear. As I said previously, despite a concentration of small businesses within the greater Brisbane area, the 10 major exporting industry groups are reasonably represented across postcode divisions with the clear exceptions of Cairns and Mount Isa. Considering all industry groups, Townsville, Mackay and Rockhampton also appear to be underrepresented. It is apparent that Australia cannot rely solely on exports of primary products, as members opposite would have us believe. World trade is now largely dominated by the export of manufactured products, and, because Australia has not developed its manufacturing base sufficiently, its share of world trade has declined. Australia is fortunate to have a significant developing world economy as its neighbour—the Asia Pacific region. By selecting the correct marketing strategies, Australia should benefit from this close association. Australian Governments, and in particular the Queensland Government, must play a pivotal role in developing this market. Their policies must encourage an export culture for small business in Queensland. When formulating these policies, the significance of small business to the Australian economy should not be forgotten. Mr Prest interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: Policies encouraging greater cooperation will be most beneficial for small business. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the document referred to. Mr BEANLAND (Toowong—Leader of the Liberal Party) (11.33 p.m.): This evening I would like to touch briefly on a couple of issues. Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point of order. The honourable member for Port Curtis is accusing me across the Chamber of being guilty of taking slush funds. I object most strenuously to that accusation, even though it was an aside. I ask him to withdraw it. Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member for Port Curtis to withdraw. Mr PREST: If it was true, I could not withdraw. No-one mentioned Mr FitzGerald at all. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member's comments were aimed across the Chamber at Mr FitzGerald. I heard the comment. Who where they aimed at? Mr PREST: Generally—the National Party. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Port Curtis should withdraw, and I ask him to withdraw the statement. Legislative Assembly 4609 7 November 1990

Mr PREST: I will withdraw it. If Mr FitzGerald takes offence to it, I will withdraw it. Mr BEANLAND: I want to touch briefly on a couple of issues concerning small business and the Small Business Corporation. According to the fine words of the Minister, the purpose of the Bill is to assist, encourage and promote the efficiency and expansion of small-business activity in Queensland with a view to enhancing economic growth and employment opportunities. These are words that I am sure any honourable member in this House would use when it comes to assisting small business. Because of that, I would like to make a few suggestions about a few areas that the new corporation might look into at the outset. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. I suggest that members keep quiet. Mr BEANLAND: I suggest to the Queensland Small Business Corporation—as it will shortly be known—that there are two or three areas that it might investigate when it comes into being. Firstly, I wish to refer to the land tax issue. This matter is very much related to small business, and I challenge this new corporation to take up the cudgels on behalf of small business in relation to land tax. One of the great issues confronting small business in this State over recent years has been land tax. If one looks at the Budget figures, one finds that back in 1986-87 the Government received $47m from land tax. In 1988-89, that figure increased to $75m. Last year, it increased to $136m, even though the figure was only budgeted to be something like $98m. This year the Government has budgeted for $190m, an increase of some 40 per cent over the last 12 months and, I might add, an increase of 400 per cent over the last four years. The significant effect that land tax is having on small business can be seen from those figures. If the Minister is serious when he used those fine words in his second-reading speech, then this is certainly one of the areas that the corporation needs to have a good hard look at and come up with ways to assist the Government to give some relief to small business. Over coming years it will not be good enough to allow land tax to increase at its current rate. History shows that the advent of annual valuations has brought about hikes in land tax. This has occurred in recent years to such an extent that many small- businesspeople suddenly find that they are confronted with increases of 50, 100, 150 per cent or more in land tax each year. This may not be a large amount to members of Parliament who sit in this Chamber, and I have heard some of them say that they have had very little experience in small business. However, any member in this House who has some knowledge of the effect that land tax is having on small businesses would appreciate the concerns expressed by small businesses in the community. They are particularly concerned about the large increase in land valuations in places such as the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast, parts of Brisbane, Port Douglas and Cairns. Those are the sectors that are being confronted with large land tax bills. This presents a challenge to this Government and to the new corporation that is being set up by this legislation. It must not be forgotten that, over a period—during the campaign and in more recent times, particularly after the presentation of the Budget—the Government stated that any increases in existing taxes or charges would be kept at or below the inflation rate. I cite the Government's own policy on small business that was circulated prior to the last election and which sets out that promise. It can hardly be said that the Government has kept its promise in relation to land tax because on a daily basis, many small- businesspeople are being confronted with increases. I am sure that the Minister would be receiving complaints—as are other members of Parliament—from members of the small-business community who are being confronted with the ever-growing problem of increased taxes. This problem will not go away. I challenge the Government to devise ways of attacking the problem of land tax to ensure that it is not made the subject of huge hikes. The history of land tax indicates Legislative Assembly 4610 7 November 1990 that the original intention was not to cripple small business. I believe that the Government should look seriously at this matter, especially in terms of engendering economic growth. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Chair has recognised the relevance of land tax to the issue of small business, but I believe that the point has been laboured enough. I remind the honourable member that this is not a debate on land tax. Mr BEANLAND: No, Mr Speaker. As I indicated in my introductory remarks, part of the debate revolves around the issue of efficiency. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point has been well made, but I suggest that the member return to the Queensland Small Business Corporation Bill. Mr BEANLAND: I certainly will, and I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged that the increase in land tax is well above the existing rate of inflation and is a problem for small-business people. Another challenge faced by the corporation and the Minister is one that will also have a grave effect on small business and on the role that the new corporation will play. This year, in spite of the fact that the Labor Party's policy on small business states that there would be no new taxes, a new tax was introduced by this ALP Government. I refer to the increased costs of electricity supply which are a major cost component for small businesses—in effect, a tax. The Government receives $17m from electricity charges or, to use the Treasurer's term, a capital guarantee fee. This charge will be passed on to the small-business community and will increase the hardship and concerns felt by small-businesspeople. If the Government intends to enhance economic growth, that is certainly not the way in which to go about it. A brand new tax has been imposed on small business and, at the end of the day, small business will be forced to pass on the costs to the consumer. Electricity costs are not the only area in which the increased taxes will apply. For example, increases in port facility charges, local government charges and railway charges will also apply to small business. As the new corporation takes over the reins of encouraging and enhancing the role of small business in this State, the issue of new taxes should be of major concern to it because these problems will confront the corporation right at the outset of its operations. Another issue I wish to address is the policy adopted by the Government of increasing charges to small business based on the rate of the Consumer Price Index. There is no legitimate reason for the Government choosing the consumer price index as an automatic mechanism for increasing charges paid by the small-business community. I point out that small business cannot pass on increased charges in the same automatic manner in which the consumer price index increases are passed on. If the Government is serious about enhancing economic growth, it should take steps to curb these increased charges. Mr Coomber: It is market-driven. Mr BEANLAND: Small business is market-driven and competition-driven, and is not driven by the consumer price index—as this Government seems to be. Although the use of the CPI might be a convenient way in which to pass on increased charges, I pose a challenge to the Government, the Minister and the new corporation to tackle the issue head on and come up with a far more realistic way of assessing increased charges. Not once has the Government expressed any concern about the efficiency and effectiveness of Government operations; nor has it demonstrated any attempt to ascertain whether annual increases are in any way justifiable at all. It may be the case that the charges have no basis whatsoever. If one listens to the rhetoric spoken by the Minister, one would expect the charges to be reduced, which would be one way of enhancing economic growth and small business. I wish to address ways in which Government and semi-Government operations can assist small business in this State. I wish to examine the role of the Queensland Treasury Corporation. I regularly receive complaints that small business has missed out because the Queensland Treasury Corporation deals with people in the southern States and is Legislative Assembly 4611 7 November 1990 not dealing with agents in, for example, the property market in Queensland. All honourable members would know that in recent times the Queensland Treasury Corporation has moved into the area of large-scale purchases of interstate property. In some cases, the property consisted of very large buildings and amounted to several hundreds of millions of dollars. That is all very well, but it does not do very much for the small-business community in this State. One must ask whether or not the Government is serious in assisting small business when a major instrumentality such as the Queensland Treasury Corporation invests in properties south of the border instead of investing in the business community in this State. To illustrate the point I am making, I only have to refer to what happened in relation to the electricity employees superannuation scheme that was taken over by the Queensland Treasury Corporation. It has been stated clearly that the QTC will move out of the small end of the property market and into the large end of the property market. That means that, again, the small-businesspeople in the community will miss out. It is all very well to have the rhetoric, but the Minister must put up something of substance to go with the rhetoric. Over the past 11 months, we have not found the Government doing a great deal in that area at all. One merely has to consider what is occurring in Cairns, which is where the Treasurer comes from. I refer honourable members to the major ship-building firm in that area, NQEA Australia. It is worth while noting that that business operation and dozens of small businesses in the Cairns area which are so reliant on that firm have been missing out. The Government has moved away from that ship-building company and has acquired a patrol craft from Perth. In the past, NQEA has built fantastic little fishery patrol craft for the State Government. Yet the Government has moved right away from that firm. NQEA is hardly a small business, but many small businesses that rely on it are missing out. The Federal ALP Government also wiped NQEA when awarding defence contracts and gave them to other parts of Australia. This evening, we have had much rhetoric and many fine words; however, at the end of the day the Government can do a great deal by its own actions to assist small business in this State. It does not matter how many corporations it sets up or how many fine words it utters, at the end of the day it comes back to its own actions. I call on the Government to get serious about small business and about Queensland operations generally. Mr Coomber: We will soon have local authorities in competition with small business, as well. Mr BEANLAND: We certainly will. Not only will local government be in competition, more importantly, local authorities will be charged a borrowing fee which will be then passed on to the ratepayers. That is something that they should be really concerned about. I will refer to another couple of points that are relevant to this debate. A great deal of economic uncertainty exists in the community. We cannot get away from the fact that small business is certainly at the entrepreneurial end of the marketplace. No matter what occurs, there will be many small businesses that cannot make ends meet. Previously, a member mentioned education and training as being important in the small-business area. However, if the economy is poor and the Government does not support the small-business sector of the community, it does not matter how much education and training people receive. I trust that the Government will put a great deal of emphasis on education and training, as the previous Small Business Development Corporation did. I trust also that the new corporation will move in that area to encourage the activities of not only the TAFE colleges but also the many industry organisations which have in the past run training programs. In today's economic climate, training and education is important to small-businessmen. Although Mr Keating and the Government might think that the numbers are beautiful, the small-business community would assure them that they Legislative Assembly 4612 7 November 1990 certainly are not. Regardless of the training and the education that is put into the small-business sector, those people are fed up, as the rest of us are, with the bankruptcies, the unemployment and the number of people who are going to the wall. I conclude by saying that, in view of its fine words and rhetoric this evening, I look forward to this Government's changing its attitude to small business in the coming months. Without that change of attitude and change of direction, I am afraid that the setting-up of the Queensland Small Business Corporation will achieve very little indeed. A number of fine people have been appointed to the board, and I congratulate them. However, even with those fine people on the board, at the end of the day they will not be able to do the job without the support and assistance of the Government. That support for small business has been so sadly lacking for the past 11 months in this State. Let me say how disappointed I was to see the Minister, without any real justification, get out the knife and take to a number of people who were previously on the board, including the general manager of the Small Business Development Corporation. That was a sad affair for small business in this State. I leave it to the Government to prove that it is concerned about small business and to assist small business in this State, as it is able to do in so many areas. Debate, on motion of Mr Hayward, adjourned. ADJOURNMENT Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) (11.51 p.m.): I move— "That the House do now adjourn." Government Hypocrisy Mr PERRETT (Barambah) (11.52 p.m.): I propose to address the question of hypocrisy—the hypocrisy of the Goss Labor Government. The Goss Government is almost one year into its term and already its pre-election grandstanding, when suitably compared with its performance, has exposed its hypocrisy, its utterly incredible shallowness and its betrayal of its most trusted supporters. Labor members campaigned loud and long about public sector tenure and the evils of the dreaded contract system. But what have we today other than the dreaded contract system well entrenched to intimidate senior officers, and the great principle of tenure now is in tatters as more and more career servants are made redundant, retrenched and thrown aside. All this is costing the taxpayer big money in settlement packages which Labor is paying as a sweetener, but which it roundly condemned a few years ago in its attacks on the contract packages. What hypocrisy! We were told that nobody would be retrenched under the Goss Labor Government, but daily that is happening throughout the public service. What hypocrisy! The Goss Labor people complained loud and long about the legislative sausage-machine, but we are now trapped in just such a sausage-machine. What hypocrisy! Consider the first report of the Public Sector Management Commission tabled in this House by the Honourable the Premier. I concede, along with some of the Government's union supporters, that to date this new Labor Party-endorsed body has not achieved very much except stir the union pot and blow its own horn. If anything, it proves that swelled egos are alive and well and thriving under the Goss Labor Government of self-opinionated, academic whiz-kids and self-serving carpetbaggers from the failed Labor Party States in the deep south. Honourable members should just take a glance at the report and note all the personal references and horn-blowing from those who once could only talk about Government but now have their hairy hands on the machinery of government and may be actually required to produce results. And look at the results! One reference is made in this report to the Premier of Queensland. That is good enough. However, 74 references are made Legislative Assembly 4613 7 November 1990 to bureaucrats new to the system—Finger, Coaldrake and all the rest. There is one reference to Premier Goss and 21 references to the commission's top political appointments—Dr Peter Coaldrake, David Shand and Dr Glyn Davis. Dr Coaldrake has managed to do what the authors of most other Government reports have historically failed to do, that is, mention himself in photograph and print some nine times. Usually, Government career servants under the Westminster system do not mention themselves at all. There is just one reference to Premier Goss in the main body of the report and two minor references in blow-downs of official documents. However, there are no blow-downs for the bureaucrats or Dr Coaldrake. I invite honourable members to compare this report with the reports of other departments to this Parliament and ask why this body is so fascinated with pushing its own names and faces. It is a classic bureaucratic ego trip—a push to big-note itself at public expense. We have not seen the like since the days of that failed arch egoist, Gough Whitlam, who has lived as a Labor Party crony ever since he was rejected by the Senate, the Governor-General, and the people. The results are there for all to see—a public service in turmoil, with morale at rock bottom. Cronyism and political favourites are now synonymous with criteria for merit. It is in the eye of the beholder. It means slipping one's name into print and one's face into photographs in Government-funded publications to impress the gullible, the staff, the boss and the politicians who appointed them. This again highlights this Government's transparent hypocrisy. I say "hypocrisy" because this Government was elected on promises to entrench tenure, but whole sections of career servants are being axed to make way for carpetbaggers and Labor Party cronies; because it pledged to reclaim public sector confidence, but instead the public service is in turmoil and close to industrial action—industrial revolt; because it was pledged to entrench merit, but the sacking of the Government Printer really indicates that merit has nothing to do with appointments under Labor and that experience and ability mean nothing when party loyalty and cronyism is a career requirement under Labor. Indeed, no public servant was a more consummate expert in his field than Sid Hampson, who took the Government Printer from a backwash next to the Executive Building in George Street to a modern and efficient Government enterprise in South Brisbane. Under this Government, the selection panels are stacked from the top down. Sid Hampson is just one more victim of that stacking. This Goss Labor Government reeks of hypocrisy after just a year in Government and a very extended honeymoon with the media. Even its strongest supporters in the union movement are up in arms at its broken promises, its humbug and its hypocrisy. Can I say more to underline my thesis? Because of its hypocrisy, this Government will be a one-term Government. Its doors are closed to the people, just as its mouth was closed on vital moral and other issues before the last election. Time expired. Redland Shire Council Mr ELDER (Manly) (11.57 p.m.): Tonight, I want to draw to the attention of the House the selective way in which the Redland Shire Council services its ratepayers. The council has long operated on the principle of what you get depends on where you live. I will cite a classic example of how this system operates by comparing the two bayside suburbs of Thorneside and Raby Bay. Thorneside is one of the oldest divisions in the Redland Shire. Most of its residents have lived there for a long time and their houses and gardens are well established. It is a delightful suburb and is full of character. The people share a real sense of community spirit. Unfortunately, it is also a suburb that has suffered decades of neglect from successive Redland Shire Councils. Many residents of Thorneside lack even the most basic amenities. There is little kerbing and channelling. There are open storm-water drains, roads full of potholes and poor drainage. After the slightest downpour it is almost impossible to walk a few yards along the footpath without sinking up to one's ankles in mud. Of course, after rain, stagnant water hangs around for days. Legislative Assembly 4614 7 November 1990

Mr Hayward: Does it have something to do with the council? Mr ELDER: It has a lot to do with the council. In the past, the Leader of the House has had a lot to do with the Redland Shire Council. He knows only too well the exploits, escapades and questionable activities of that council. Up until a few years ago, the residents of the main thoroughfare, that is, Mooroondu Road—dare I say it in this day and age—had outdoor toilets, that is, outhouses. Obviously, on the Redland Shire Council, there are no men with the vision of Clem Jones. I invite honourable members to compare this with the palm-treed approach to Raby Bay—that synthetic, pseudo-Sanctuary Cove of which the Redland Shire Council is so proud. It is the council's pride and joy. These recent arrivals in the Redland Shire lack for nothing, from artificial beaches to landscaped approaches. Their influence has now reached the point at which Cleveland businesses are being told that they should move back their premises from the main approach into Raby Bay and camouflage them with bushes and trees because they spoil and downgrade somewhat the approach to the suburb. I have been told that these fortunate few have recently formed their own progress association to protect themselves against the resentment of other Redlands ratepayers. It is little wonder that the other residents of Redlands stare in envy like deprived siblings, watching the favoured child getting all the attention. Similar situations exist throughout the rest of the shire. Alexandra Hills, for instance, suffers from very poor water pressure, while in Victoria Point the lavish fountains of Cascades Park gurgle merrily away. One can guess which of those divisions is represented by—— Mr Heath: Did EARC recommend any changes to the Redland Shire Council? Mr ELDER: I will come to the recommendations of the EARC later. One can imagine who represents who—— Mr Springborg: Is it true that they call you and Mr Briskey Tweedledum and Tweedledee? Mr ELDER: That is rather unkind. The Redland Bay area is another example. Because of a lack of streetlights, it plunges into almost total darkness when the sun goes down, yet in nearby Mount Cotton there are more streetlights than there are residents. This goes back to the days when all the divisions in the Redland Shire got an equal number of streetlights. Fortunately for Mount Cotton, it received a number of streetlights, but Redland Bay received virtually none at all. As I have said, there are almost as many streetlights as there are electors in the Mount Cotton division. Capalaba, the gateway to the shire, has no beautification program or planned development other than of a commercial and industrial type, despite the fact that it is recognised as the centre of population and has more than half the shire's residents. There are no council facilities, not even a basic library. The residents have to wait for the bookmobile to come once a week. On the other hand, Cleveland boasts palm-treed sidewalks, a showpiece library and a cultural centre, the main purpose of which was to host National Party campaign launches. Little wonder that the residents of the forgotten divisions are angry when they compare the facilities with which they have been provided with those of some of their more fortunate neighbours. However, they need to be patient for only a little longer. The Redland Shire Council will shortly be called to account by the ratepayers and, since EARC has decreed that people are not property values, it will determine council boundaries in the future. I believe that the Redland Shire itself is in for a number of rude shocks. I look forward so much to the Redland Shire Council's activities in the coming months. Brisbane Correctional Centre, Drug Videotapes Mr CONNOR (Nerang) (12.02 a.m.): I notice that the Minister for Justice and Corrective Services is in the Chamber. Last Thursday, the Minister tried to mislead the Assembly about the Boggo Road drug tapes. Those drug tapes did not affect Operation Legislative Assembly 4615 7 November 1990

Pigeon, which was the operation mentioned in the document that the Minister tabled later last Thursday evening. The Minister said that the videotape pertained to that investigation. That statement was not true, for two reasons. Firstly, the External Investigation Unit of the Corrective Services Commission has acknowledged that the videotape did not pertain to that investigation; in fact, it was not aware that videotapes showing drug movements around the prison even existed. Those tapes had been stopped from getting to the EIU. Secondly, Operation Pigeon relates to a prison officer who, as a result of that investigation, was transferred to another prison. The videotape that I tabled in the Chamber did not relate to that prison officer. Not only did the videotape not relate to him, but also the Minister's own tabled document clearly shows that Operation Pigeon was called off on 31 July this year, three months before the videotape was tabled in the Chamber. So, Operation Pigeon had already been called off and it had nothing to do with the videotape that I tabled. The Minister, who described those drug investigations as major drug investigations, had freely acknowledged on the Henshaw program on 4QR that he was not aware that the investigation was even under way. So, the Minister was trying to mislead the Assembly with a document that had nothing to do with the videotape. His minders did not even consider the videotape important enough to show it to him, or even tell him that it pertained to major drug dealings in the most notorious gaol in Queensland. What did Mr Milliner do as a result of that videotape being made available to him? He decided to crucify the messenger. He commenced a witch-hunt to find who leaked the tape. Where is his independent investigation into those drug transactions? Last year, following the so-called Boggo Road fun run breakout, the then National Party Government commenced an independent inquiry to establish what happened. Touche Ross carried out an independent inquiry. Where is this Government's accountability and where is its independent inquiry into the drug dealings in Boggo Road? Instead, the Minister gets the External Investigation Unit, the police, to start a witch-hunt for the people who had the intestinal fortitude to release the tapes because nothing was being done. For four months they sat there doing nothing. In his speech in reply to the debate on his Estimates last Thursday week, the Minister stated— "The report shows clearly that the police and the Criminal Justice Commission had full knowledge of the videotape that was tabled by the honourable member for Nerang." Yet a report in the Courier-Mail two days later shows that the External Investigation Unit, the police in charge of the investigations of the prisons, knew nothing of what was on those tapes. In fact, those tapes had been stopped from getting to the External Investigation Unit by someone in the Corrective Services Commission, and that was acknowledged in the Courier-Mail article. It was also subsequently backed up when I contacted the External Investigation Unit. The Courier-Mail article further states— "Detective Inspector Keith Smith said the Brisbane Correctional Centre Intelligence Section should have told police of the tape contents so investigations could have been made. He said the Unit knew that the goal's internal intelligence section were making the video but had not revealed the contents of the tape to the police." This was not the security officers fault; they were required to alert the management first, and that is who stopped them. The crucial part of the Courier-Mail article states— "The Corrective Service Commission spokesman said prison management did not tell the EIU of the tape because they did not think it related to an investigation they were conducting at the time." That is the real truth of the matter. This is a total whitewash by the Minister. The document that the Minister tabled quite clearly stated that the investigation had been called off on 31 July. The Minister is effectively saying, "We can't get the drugs out of the prison system. We'll gloss over it; we'll cover it up; we'll deny it; we won't investigate it and we'll just make sure that Legislative Assembly 4616 7 November 1990 we keep as much of it as possible out of the public eye, and anyone who dares to try and make it known that this is going on, we'll get rid of them." It all comes back to the Minister. Was the Minister aware when he tabled that document last Thursday week that it was a total fabrication? Was he aware that what he was saying was untrue and that he was misleading the Assembly? If so, he should resign. Or was it someone in the department or the commission who did that? Did they fabricate that document and mislead the Minister? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Campbell): Order! The honourable member's time—— Mr Milliner: I move an extension. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Under the Standing Orders that is not allowed. Sunshine Coast Motorway Mr BARBER (Cooroora) (12.06 a.m.): This morning, I rise to inform the House about the toll bridge that grew into a monster. Honourable members will be interested to know that the Sunshine Motorway started out its interesting life as a toll bridge, an idea hatched by some locals in Maroochydore—good National Party people, as it turns out. Russell Hinze, the then Minister for Main Roads and the "colossus of roads", thought it was such a good idea that he took it out of the hands of his friends, paid the five designers $50,000 each for their troubles and, in consultation with his minders, decided that the toll bridge would become a toll-road. At the time, the public service was looking around Queensland for a place to impose some user-paid roads, and one Brian Austin decided that the Sunshine Coast was just the spot for such a road. He said, "We will have one up here" and, in due course, it eventuated.The Sunshine Coast would have the honour of having the first toll-road in Queensland. However, there were problems involved with the construction of Stage 1 of the Sunshine Motorway. I want to contrast them with the handling of Stage 2 of the motorway by this Government since it came to office. First of all, the costs of construction blew out from an estimated $40m to somewhere around $75m. The burghers of the Sunshine Coast will have to bear this increased cost blow-out, a bungle inherited from the former National Party Government. This blow-out will have to be collected in tolls. Because of the lack of planning that occurred, it is unavoidable. Secondly, during construction, the construction company allowed a fire to rage through the Mooloolah national park, seriously damaging the national park. The environmental record of the construction of Stage 1, with the wide swathe of tree-clearing, is a sad legacy of the sort of construction that the former Government used to impose upon people. Thirdly, political football was played with the toll plazas. The highway toll plaza and the Mooloolaba toll plaza were scrapped and a booth was placed on the northernmost extreme of the motorway system, just over the river, in the seat of Cooroora. Poor old Gordon Simpson would have to put up with it. That was the way in which the former Government played political football with the whole deal. Poor old Gordon and my electors were going to have to pay the toll. I want to contrast Stage 1 with the way in which the Government has handled Stage 2. Upon coming into office, Minister David Hamill said that Stage 2 would not proceed, except after consultation, when the community may tell him that it wanted the road. Secondly, the community had to understand clearly that the road could be constructed only as a toll-road. That consultation has occurred and is continuing to occur. An east side consultative committee was established regarding the route of Stage 2, as proposed, from Peregian north to Noosa Heads. Represented on that group were such lobby groups as STOP, the Noosa Parks Association, the Sunshine Coast Environment Council, the East Side Motorway Group, Maroochy Shire Council, Noosa Shire Council and others. All year, that consultation has occurred regarding the proposed route of the Legislative Assembly 4617 7 November 1990 motorway from Peregian north and regarding a future local road through the proposed Weyba national park. As I understand it, that committee will shortly finalise its recommendations. Recently, a Coolum consultative committee has been established by the motorway company to discuss and liaise regarding the proposed motorway route around the Coolum area. It consists of representatives from the primary school p. and c., the high school p. and c., the chamber of commerce, residents of Havana Road, the environment council, Maroochy Shire Council, me and others. Originally, there was loud and almost unanimous approval that Stage 2 should proceed to take the traffic pressure off the out-of-date David Low Way that was constructed under a shonky deal back in the late 1960s. Lately, there have been misgivings about the motorway. I am pleased that this consultative process shows that the community can grapple with the motorway and the fact that it must be a tollway and get back to the Minister and advise him of its desires. Most recently, people are saying that if there are two toll booths imposed on Stage 2 south of Coolum, then the road will not be used. It has been said that one booth south of Coolum is a possibility, and that will have to be investigated. Time expired. Sunshine Coast Motorway; Atherton Forestry District Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (12.12 a.m.): It is quite interesting that I should follow the member for Cooroora after listening to either chapter 2 or chapter 3 of the toll-road episode. I remind the honourable member that, before the election, the Labor Party promised that there would be no toll on that road. It said that the project had been completely costed and that it was a quite feasible and economic proposition. Letters signed by the then Leader of the Opposition were sent to every person in the Cooroora electorate stating that no toll would be imposed. Now the honourable member is trying to think of ways of getting out of that promise. However, I have the very distinct impression that that will not save him. It is the Labor Party's promise that he has to wear and of which he will be reminded. Whether the honourable member writes chapter 3 or chapter 4, or whatever it might be, that promise will come back to haunt him. However, I did not rise to speak about that particular matter. At present, I am concerned about the result of some proposals relating to the purchase and processing of hardwood milling timbers in the Atherton forestry district, an area which has recently had problems. It is not being suggested that there is anything more sinister involved in this particular episode than the public being used as pawns in an interdepartmental power play. The following is not a scenario but an actual case history of events now in progress which, if carried to their stated conclusion, would be a complete travesty of the honest intentions of the system of Government tendering and could form a chapter in a manual titled "How to use Treasury guidelines to achieve any desired result in a tendering situation". The proposals, which closed on 22 August, related to making an offer and inviting proposals for the harvesting of 10 000 cubic metres of hardwood per annum for five years. On 19 September, one particular person, who was in fact the preferred proposer, received an unusual phone call asking if he would accept 3 000 cubic metres per annum instead of 10 000 cubic metres. On 3 October, an officer of the Forest Service in Brisbane rang him and told him that, as a matter of courtesy, he was informing him as the preferred proposer that unfortunately the National Parks and Wildlife Service had expressed a belated interest in an undefined part of the area contained in part of the offering and therefore two of the lots would be withdrawn and would be offered at a later date. Written confirmation of that was to follow. As a result of some of his own inquiries, the preferred proposer then established the area in which the National Parks and Wildlife Service was interested. On 24 October, he received from the department a telephone call in which he was informed that the department was obliged to readvertise the offering. Legislative Assembly 4618 7 November 1990

It is interesting to note that the original proposal is being readvertised in its entirety and is identical in every respect to the original tender that closed earlier this year. Several questions must be answered. Did the Forest Service confer with the National Parks and Wildlife Service prior to the offering? Why did the National Parks and Wildlife Service apparently express no interest between 22 June and 22 August 1990? Why did the National Parks and Wildlife Service apparently express an interest after the opening of proposal documents? How was a belated, undefined interest able to circumvent and disrupt the tendering process? What is the purpose of the secrecy, sealed envelopes and an absolute closing time for proposals and tenders if tenders cannot be recalled at any time? How can the proposers who submitted costly and time-consuming proposals in good faith be other than grievously disadvantaged if the offering is readvertised? The problem is that, after the tenders had closed, they were readvertised and the whole world knew about the submission and what the tender price was. Does the Government claim that there is no problem? Mr McGrady interjected. Mr STEPHAN: I hear the member for Mount Isa interjecting. Surely that is not the way that he operates in his electorate. Time expired. Trueline Aluminium Pty Ltd Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton North) (12.18 a.m.): I rise to bring to the attention of the House an advertisement for Trueline that appeared on 24 October 1990 in the Capricorn Local News. I encourage Opposition members to listen to this, because it may impact upon their electorates—if it has not already. The article states— "Asbestos, the chief component in fibro houses, can be any of a group of soft thread-like mineral fibres found in certain types of rock." What an amazing statement! Mr Livingstone: Mr Stephan lives in a fibro house. Mr SCHWARTEN: One can see what has happened to him. The article continues— "It is known as a major contributor to the diseases of asbestosis, cancer and mesothelioma. . . . Even relatively small exposure to asbestos can cause health problems, many of them insidious to start with and not being apparent for several years. . . . Recent reports show that old fibro homes often contain dangerous asbestos fibres. Over time, these fibres can be released into the atmosphere as the fibro sheeting cracks and deteriorates. Of course, sanding down old fibro homes also poses a health problem. The fine dust created often carries minute asbestos fibres. . . . If you would like more information on these products and how Trueline Home Improvements can make your home safe and protect your health, call (079) 27 2777." When that advertisement appeared on the front pages of newspapers, early one morning at least three people contacted the Consumer Affairs Department. A written complaint was submitted. My office phone ran hot, as did that of the Minister for Education, Mr Braddy. The people who live in fibro houses are mostly the elderly, who are absolutely concerned about their health and welfare. I can understand why they, having read that advertisement, arrived at that conclusion. They were not in a position to obtain any other information on the subject. I can also understand why they would want to contact Trueline to make their houses asbestos free. Legislative Assembly 4619 7 November 1990

When I contacted the Honourable the Minister responsible for consumer affairs, he was very decisive and immediately instituted an inquiry into the matter—as is his usual course of action. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: The Halloween pumpkin! The Minister got back to me and assured me that his office had carried out a very thorough investigation into the matter. He was able to reassure people in my electorate that they will not suffer any great fate from living in fibro houses. Mr Stephan interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: I believe that the honourable member lives in a fibro house. It has not affected his lungs, but it has affected his brain. I have some real difficulty with that, and there might need to be a further investigation. Those elderly people were absolutely frightened out of their wits that, by living in fibro houses, they would come into contact with asbestos and would suffer a very untimely death. The Minister has assured me that that is not the case. I thank him for that. The Minister stated that, from a health point of view, the occupational health unit could see no benefit in cladding houses that contain AC sheeting if the existing AC sheeting is in good condition. Trueline has been advised of that and, to its credit, it has withdrawn the advertisement. I hope that that sort of unscrupulous behaviour and misuse of advertising will not recur. I trust that members of the Opposition will take that on board. If such advertisements appear in their local newspapers, they will now be well briefed and well acquainted with the truth of the matter, namely, that people who live in those houses have no immediate health risk. I thank the Minister for his decisive action in the matter. Time expired. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 12.22 a.m. (Thursday). Legislative Assembly 4620 7 November 1990