Legislative Assembly 2013 24 October 1991

NOTE: There could be differences between this document and the official printed Hansard, Vol. 320

THURSDAY, 24 OCTOBER 1991

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

PETITIONS The Acting Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

Child-care Legislation From Mr Ardill (8 signatories) praying that the Parliament will support the Child Care Bill 1991 and promote the development of associated regulations. Similar petitions were received from Mrs Woodgate (38 signatories) and Mrs Bird (101 signatories).

Importation of Tropical Rainforest Timbers From Mrs Bird (168 signatories) praying that the importation of tropical rainforest timbers be selectively banned, that only timbers that can be harvested from plantation or secondary regrowth be imported as raw timber and that Queensland give support to international action to protect rainforests.

Radioactive Material Storage From Mr J. H. Sullivan (32 signatories) praying that no new or temporary radioactive storage facility be established anywhere in south-east Queensland until a more suitable site is found in another area.

Abortion Law From Mr Elder (502 signatories) praying that action be taken to ensure that the law prohibiting abortion on request be enforced.

Air Pollution From Mr Vaughan (108 signatories) praying for immediate action to prevent the discharge of fumes, waste and low-toxic particles into the air.

Aboriginal and Islander Housing From Mr Katter (164 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will reject the report of the Parliamentary Committee of Public Works and conduct further consultations with the Aboriginal and Torres Islander people so a report may be tabled which genuinely addresses the housing needs of Aboriginal and Islander people in Queensland. Petitions received.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Legislative Assembly 2014 24 October 1991

Reports for the year ended 30 June 1991— South Bank Corporation Department of Education Department of Lands. The following papers were laid on the table— Financial Statements of the Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund for the year ended 30 June 1991 Regulation under the Public Service Management and Employment Act 1988.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Barley Crop Exemption Hon. E. D. CASEY (Mackay—Minister for Primary Industries) (10.04 a.m.), by leave: I wish to advise the House that, after consultation with the Barley Marketing Board and GRAINCO directors, I have just approved an exemption for the 1991-92 Queensland barley crop under section 15 of the Primary Producers’ Organisation and Marketing Act. In view of the drought situation in the south east, the board believes that grounds exist to issue a general exemption from delivery of feed barley. However, I have agreed with the board that the exemption should not extend to malting barley and seed barley as this is not considered to be in the long-term interests of the industry. The exemption from delivery requirements means that feed barley will be allowed to be used at the point of production and may also be sold to livestock-producers for feed purposes without reference to the Barley Marketing Board. I am also pleased to announce that for local drought feed, the Government has retained, with the cooperation of GRAINCO, about 10 000 tonnes of grain sorghum which was previously destined for overseas sale. This is particularly important news for dairy producers as grain sorghum is strongly favoured as a feed supplement. GRAINCO proposes to release 3 000 tonnes in central Queensland through its Gladstone terminal, and transport the remaining 7 000 tonnes to strategic southern depots. Both these measures confirm the high level of cooperation that is occurring between the State Government, marketing instrumentalities and the rural community through its representative organisations.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Absence of Ministers during Question-time Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Minister for Education) (10.06 a.m.): I advise the House, as I did yesterday, that the Deputy Premier, Minister for Housing and Local Government, Mr Burns, the Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development, Mr Hamill, and the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Mr Mackenroth, will be absent during question-time because they are engaged in ministerial business elsewhere.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr VEIVERS (Southport) (10.06 a.m.), by leave: Mr Speaker, in this morning’s Courier-Mail under the headline “MPs warned to improve their behavior”, my name was included as one of those who had “conducted themselves in a manner which left the Legislative Assembly 2015 24 October 1991 people of Queensland in no doubt whether Members of Parliament could honor” their ability to respect this House. Mr Speaker, as you will recall, on Tuesday I was asked to leave this Chamber by you although I had not been warned under any Standing Order. Mr Speaker, you will also recall that you subsequently reversed that decision, and correctly so. As a fourth generation member of a pioneering Australian family—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member must say how he has been personally affected. Mr VEIVERS: I am just about to do that, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr VEIVERS: I rise to a point of order. I have not yet got to the point, Mr Speaker. Please give me that chance. Mr COOPER: I rise to a point of order. With the utmost respect, Mr Speaker, I say that the man has not even had the opportunity to come to the point that he was trying to make. Mr Speaker, would you mind allowing him at least the courtesy of doing so? Mr SPEAKER: Order! What about the time of other members? Mr VEIVERS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a fourth generation member of a pioneering Australian family, I have great respect for the traditions of this place—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr VEIVERS: Unlike some members—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Southport will resume his seat. He is not showing how he has been personally misrepresented. I note the point of his concern about his name being mentioned in the article, but I could have the same situation with six other members rising in their places and making five-minute speeches in the House when the House has to deal with other business. Mr VEIVERS: I rise to a further point of order. Mr Speaker, I have to say that I have not got to my point in relation to how I have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Obviously, all that the member for Southport is entitled to do is say how he has been personally misrepresented. He is not allowed to make a speech about his family, or about his views on parliamentary democracy. Mr VEIVERS: I have traditions within my family and I do not go around pulling down flags associated with the traditions of this Parliament. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr VEIVERS: Many of my relations, Mr Speaker, died for that flag. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Southport under Standing Order 124. Mr W. K. Goss: The honourable member wants to get thrown out. Mr VEIVERS: I do not want to get thrown out at all. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Southport will resume his seat.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr DUNWORTH (Sherwood) (10.09 a.m.), by leave: Last night, at approximately 8.45 p.m., the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing, in his summing up of his department’s Estimates debate, made the most extraordinary personal attack on me. He referred to me as a “maggot” and “rotten meat” and alleged that I had criminally assaulted a seven-stone man and walked away from paying rent. I was unable to defend these charges as they were made when I was in the public gallery with some of my constituents. I completely refute these allegations as being totally unfounded. They are completely Legislative Assembly 2016 24 October 1991 without substance. The Minister has obviously confused the untruths he tells of other people’s lives with the sad reality of his own. The Minister’s language was totally unbecoming of Parliament, particularly in view of Mr Speaker’s ruling in this House yesterday. It is no wonder that the Premier refuses to televise Parliament. He does not want the foul mouths of Ministers and Government members to be exposed to the public gaze.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Solicitors’ Trust Accounts Funds; Tabling of Submissions Mr HAYWARD (Caboolture) (10.10 a.m.): On Friday, 11 October 1991, as part of the Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts inquiry into the management of solicitors’ trust accounts funds in Queensland, the committee conducted a hearing in Parliament House. Witnesses from the ANZ bank, the Bank of Queensland, KPMG Peat Marwick, Westpac Banking Corporation and the Department of the Attorney-General were examined. In accordance with Standing Order 205, I am pleased to table the transcript of the proceeding of that hearing.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC WORKS

Report Mr McGRADY (Mount Isa) (10.11 a.m.): I have pleasure in tabling a report of the Parliamentary Committee of Public Works on the construction of the new Kirwan psychiatric rehabilitation unit. This report follows a submission from a group of concerned citizens in Townsville and highlights the very important change in politics in Queensland in recent times. It demonstrates to me the new relationship between Parliament and the people of this State. I wish to place on record my thanks to my fellow committee members, officers of the Northern Health Authority, the group of concerned citizens from Townsville, and, in particular, my research director, Ms Carol Keliher. I move that the report be printed. Ordered to be printed.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr FOLEY (Yeronga) (10.11 a.m.), by leave: In today’s Courier-Mail, there appears incorrectly a statement that an amendment moved by me in Labor caucus was not supported by any women. The true position is that it was supported by the honourable member for Springwood, Ms Molly Robson—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is not a matter of personal explanation. The member for Yeronga should resume his chair. Mr Santoro interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Merthyr. I have just called for order. Legislative Assembly 2017 24 October 1991

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr HOLLIS (Redcliffe) (10.12 a.m.), by leave: Yesterday, in this House the Leader of the Liberal Party stated that I had misled Parliament. Today, on my fax machine in my electorate office I received a threat from Peter Kidman, Denver Beanland’s private secretary, and it says— “Ray, you will never be allowed to forget your statements in the House last night—no doubt you will join the long list of ALP one (1) term members.” I received that threat from a fax machine numbered 229 3490. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a personal explanation. The honourable member should resume his chair. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the honourable member for Surfers Paradise under Standing Order 123A.

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE Mr SPEAKER: Before I ask the Ministers to respond, I suggest that, if they have long answers, they may consider—although it is their prerogative—tabling those answers and having them incorporated in Hansard.

1. Demolition of Glenmore Power Station Mr BEANLAND asked the Minister for Resource Industries— “With reference to the removal of asbestos from the old Glenmore Power Station in Rockhampton and the demolition of the building by Denevil Destructions who have recently been the subject of a damaging report by the ABC program The Investigators for their lax work practices and cynical disregard of the health of their employees— (1) Does Denevil Destructions intend to imminently demolish the power station shell by using explosive charges and, if so, at what time? (2) Will he guarantee that all asbestos has been removed from the site and that there is no chance of the atmosphere of Rockhampton being contaminated by exploded asbestos? (3) What implications will claims made by up to 200 employees affected by asbestos have for the Workers' Compensation Board?” Mr VAUGHAN: (1 to 3) Crown law advice is that there is currently a prosecution before the courts involving Denivel Destructions. In the interests of fairness, it is not appropriate for me to discuss the matter. However, within those limitations I can provide the following information. Firstly, no, Denivel does not intend to use explosives to demolish the power station. Secondly, Denivel has been instructed to remove all asbestos from the site. Some material remains on site which may or may not contain asbestos. This is to be disposed of within the next week. As there are to be no explosives used, the second part of the question is not applicable. Thirdly, the Workers Compensation Board, which is part of the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations, advises me that it has no asbestos-related claims before it against Denivel Destructions and has no knowledge of any prospects of the claims to which the member refers. Legislative Assembly 2018 24 October 1991

2. Pacific Film and Television Corporation Mr BORBIDGE asked the Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts— “(1) Has an organisation known as the Pacific Film and Television Corporation received any funding from the Queensland Film Development Office? (2) If so, for what purpose, who authorised this funding and who are the principles of this organisation?” Mr W. K. GOSS: (1 and 2) I have a typed answer to the question that will be distributed shortly. I can give the member the essence of the answer, and that is, in short terms, no. However, I should say that there is a proposal that has come to me for consideration for some funding to go from the Film Development Office budget to this particular program as part of the Queensland Pacific technology program, which is being run by the Government. Whether or not that funding does go will depend on further discussions which are to occur in the near future between Sir Llew Edwards and me. In relation to the second part of the question, therefore, that is not yet applicable, but I was somewhat amused to receive this question yesterday because it coincided with information that came to me from another source that a former colleague of the honourable member for Surfers Paradise would be using him to ask questions in this place to put pressure on the Government for funding in respect of a project that that former colleague of Mr Borbidge has submitted to the Government. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order under Standing Orders 119 and 120. The comments made by the Premier are untruthful, they are offensive, and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr W. K. GOSS: I am reporting what was told to me. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Premier to withdraw. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members are bringing the House into disrepute. Mr W. K. GOSS: I withdraw any element of what I said which is personally offensive to the member, but I do say that information to that effect was conveyed to me. Mr SPEAKER: Order!

3. Sand-mining Leases, Fraser Island Mr LESTER asked the Premier, Minister for Economic and Trade Development and Minister for the Arts— “With reference to payments made to companies who have held sand mining leases on Fraser Island as a result of the Fitzgerald Report into Fraser Island and the Great Sandy Region— (1) What payments have been made and to whom? (2) Were independent valuations carried out and will he table these valuations? (3) Are further settlements pending and to whom?” Mr W. K. GOSS: The answer is as follows— (1) The mining leases on Fraser Island were held by Pivot Projects Pty Ltd. Under a negotiated settlement, the State paid $2m in consideration for a full surrender by the company of its leases. This is a settlement of which this Government is particularly proud, because we have ended for all time the threat of sand-mining on Fraser Island. Legislative Assembly 2019 24 October 1991

(2) The basis of the $2m payment to the company was reimbursement in current dollar terms of actual costs incurred by the company over the last 14 years. These costs included rentals and fees paid to the Department of Resource Industries, costs incurred by the company in making submissions to the Fraser Island commission of inquiry, and so on. There was no payment for the leases as a separate asset or for loss of potential profits. This approach was in line with the principles for compensation set out by Mr Fitzgerald in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Conservation, Management and Use of Fraser Island and the Great Sandy Region. Mr Fitzgerald stated that provision should be made for compensation for those whose rights or values are adversely affected by implementation of the report’s recommendations. He went on to say that the principles for compensation should be fair not only to those entitled to compensation but also to the general community, and the balance which is struck between individual and public interests should not focus upon theoretical assessments or potential profits or other factors without regard for real opportunities. Given the uncertainty which surrounded any opportunity to undertake sand-mining on Fraser Island, valuations based on theoretical assessments of potential profits were not relevant to the negotiation. (3) No. The mining leases have been surrendered, and the matter is finalised.

4. Breast Cancer Detection Units Mr LESTER asked the Minister for Health— “With reference to breast screening units of which there are three permanent units and two mobile units in Brisbane and as other permanently based units are being built at Southport, Toowoomba and Townsville— (1) When can it be expected that mobile units will be placed in bush areas, for example, operating out of Rockhampton and Mackay? (2) Will these units include a proper educational service on all aspects of early breast cancer detection and what other information will he provide?” Mr McELLIGOTT: (1 and 2) The Queensland Breast Screening Program is a Commonwealth/State-funded preventive program designed to provide the highest standards of breast- screening and assessment services to reduce deaths from breast cancer. The new initiatives grant of $1.3m announced in the recent State Budget and Commonwealth funding for the Women's Cancer Prevention Program will enable this program to be developed on a Statewide basis. The provision of mobile mammography services for women in country areas is a priority of the Queensland Breast Screening Program. The breast-screening clinics currently available are at the Royal Women’s Hospital Breast Screening Clinic, which is a public clinic, the Wesley Breast Clinic, which is private, St Andrew’s Breast Clinic, which is also private, a mobile mammography unit that is currently operating in the Brisbane north region, a mobile mammography unit that has been allocated to the Darling Downs/south west region, and the Northern Queensland Breast Screening Clinic at Townsville. Breast-screening clinics currently being established are in the south coast region at the Gold Coast Hospital, planned for completion in December, a mobile mammography unit for the northern and peninsular regions, planned for completion in October, and the Darling Downs region at Toowoomba, planned for completion in December. Breast-screening and assessment clinics are planned for establishment in this financial year in the following regions: Brisbane south; Sunshine Coast and central/central west located at Rockhampton, to which will be attached a mobile mammography unit. It should be noted that the lead-time to plan and establish these high-quality facilities is 6 to 18 months, depending on the infrastructure available and the specialist staff in the area. Education counselling services are an important component of the Queensland Breast Screening Legislative Assembly 2020 24 October 1991

Program. Every woman who attends for screening will receive a booklet containing information about screening mammography and the importance of the early detection of breast cancer.

5. Police, Fortitude Valley Mr BEATTIE asked the Minister for Police and Emergency Services— “With reference to recent approaches to him by the Valley Traders Association— What action has he taken in recent times to improve policing numbers in Fortitude Valley including Chinatown and the Brunswick Street Mall?” Mr BRADDY: On behalf of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the answer is as follows— The effective policing of the Fortitude Valley area, in particular the Brunswick Street and Chinatown malls, has been addressed by the assistant commissioner, metropolitan north region. On 28 August, members of the Fortitude Valley Business Association met with Assistant Commissioner McGibbon to discuss problems which the association felt affected the attractiveness of Fortitude Valley as a place to visit. The matter of security was also discussed. Since the initial meeting, continued liaison meetings have been held between the association and officers of the Metropolitan North Regional Office. The problems have been identified, and strategies have been developed to address the issues. Fortitude Valley is policed by the permanent staff attached to the Fortitude Valley station. Additionally, the area is policed by the Brisbane Central patrols, Brisbane Central District Traffic Branch, and the Brisbane Central District Criminal Investigation Branch and Juvenile Aid Bureau. Recently, eight trainee police were reallocated from city station to Fortitude Valley to provide a high profile police presence in the Brunswick Street and Chinatown malls. These recent actions have contributed to an improved policing service to the area. The assistant commissioner advises that the situation will continue to be monitored and, when necessary, strategies will be altered to meet any situation change. The liaison meetings with the Fortitude Valley Business Association and officers of the Metropolitan North Regional Office will continue on an ongoing basis.

6. Railway Fire Hazard Mr HORAN asked the Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development— “With reference to community allegations that fires have been caused by trains operating in areas below the Toowoomba Range, at Gowrie Junction and in the Warwick district— (1) What action has he taken to ensure sparks emanating from diesel trains are eliminated? (2) What programs are in place for the burning off of railway line corridors during winter?” Mr COMBEN: (1 and 2) I note that the answer is two pages long and of a technical nature. On behalf of the Minister for Transport, I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Legislative Assembly 2021 24 October 1991

During the past period of dry weather conditions there have been a number of allegations that Queensland Rail’s diesel- locomotives have been causing fires by emitting hot carbon sparks from exhaust stacks, including the Gowrie and Warwick Districts. Queensland Rail has been advised by a Brisbane Solicitor that he is acting for a number of landowners in the Warwick District in respect of a potential $8m claim against QR arising from the fires. The Crown Solicitor’s Office has been requested to act on behalf of QR. I have directed that a full investigation be carried out into the allegations that bushfires have been started by trains. In addition all Queensland Rail’s operations are being reviewed to identify if there are any further measures which can be taken to reduce any fire risks which may otherwise have been created. The Crown Solicitor has advised that until the results of the investigations are known we are not in position to make any real comment on the allegations. Nevertheless, Queensland Rail is taking very seriously the allegations that bushfires may have resulted from the passage of locomotives through tinder dry areas. A range of measures is being undertaken by QR to prevent any possibility of bushfires. They include: Investigations are underway to find out a means of determining if any of QR’s locomotives have unusually high spark emissions which may cause fires or whether hot axle boxes or brakes have any fire causing potential. Gangs have been instructed not to burn off beside rail lines in areas where a high fire danger exists. Engines suspected of causing sparks are being taken out of action for full service and inspection. Additional fire-fighting equipment is being supplied to track gangs in fire-prone areas. Spark arresters have been fitted to some of QR’s locomotives and loco manufacturers have been consulted on the latest equipment available in this area. All excursion trains hired with steam engines have been cancelled after consultation with the Rural Fires Board. In some very dry areas, for example the Dawson and Callide valleys, trains are being followed by a motor and trolley equipped with a water spray tank. In the longer term a comprehensive fire protection policy is being developed as part of the general review of QR operations. Under the current restructuring of the maintenance workforce fire prevention is taking a high profile and will be carried out automatically.

7. Eastern Corridor Study Mr BRISKEY asked the Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development— “With reference to the study presently being undertaken by Rankine and Hill and Planning Workshop into the need for an Eastern Corridor— What is the current status of that study and when is it anticipated that it will be providing its final report to him?” Mr COMBEN: On behalf of the Minister for Transport, the answer is as follows— The study being conducted by Rankin and Hill into the possible need for an eastern corridor will report its findings to the Minister for Transport in January 1992. No decision has been made on any routes for a possible eastern corridor, nor has any decision been made as to whether an eastern corridor will eventuate at all. So far, the study has Legislative Assembly 2022 24 October 1991 highlighted a need for additional transport capacity between Brisbane and the Gold Coast and has spelled out a number of possible options, but each of those will have to be fully evaluated before the Government makes any decision on the feasibility of a corridor. The needs assessment process, which comprised the first stage of the study, has been completed and now three corridor options will be evaluated. This process of route evaluation will be Stage 2 of the study. The three options are— an upgrade of the Pacific Highway to eight lanes; a partial eastern corridor south of the Logan River a few kilometres east of the Pacific Highway, connecting to an upgraded Pacific Highway north of the river; and a full eastern corridor incorporating the partial corridor south of the Logan River and north of the Logan River, following either an inland route to the east of the urban areas which lie adjacent to the Pacific Highway or a route closer to the coast near the future population centres of Redlands. These options have varying benefits and implications which need to be further evaluated before a preferred solution can be identified. Stage 2 of the planning study will evaluate and fully test the three options against a wide range of environmental, social and economic criteria.

8. Bicycle Helmets Mr BRISKEY asked the Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development— “With reference to the need for children to wear bicycle helmets when riding and their potential to save lives— What has been the outcome of the recent advertising campaign and what else has been done to ensure that children wear bicycle helmets?” Mr COMBEN: I note that this is a lengthy answer containing details of a technical nature. On behalf of the Minister for Transport, I seek leave to table the answer and have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. Road Safety Research has shown that the use of bicycle helmets is the single most effective means of reducing death and injury, particularly among younger bicycle riders. Of the 17 bicycle riders killed on Queensland roads in 1990, 9 suffered from severe head injuries. In light of these statistics and considering the trauma that is associated with these deaths, it is of extreme importance that all Queenslanders, and especially our children, be encouraged to wear bicycle helmets. The introduction of the compulsory wearing of bicycle helmets has been well received. The legislation, combined with the extensive helmet advertising campaign, has resulted in a substantial increase in bicycle helmet wearing rates in this state. In fact, recent surveys conducted by REARK RESEARCH for the Department of Transport indicate that 97 percent of bicycle riders were aware of the new legislation while 76 percent of riders had seen or heard the “Heroes wear Helmets” and “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” advertising in the last 3 months. In the same surveys it was also reported that helmet wearing rates had doubled from about 18 percent prior to the campaign to about 40 percent after. There are encouraging signs that the legislation-education approach adopted by the Government is helping to reduce bicycle fatalities in Queensland. This is evidenced by the latest road toll reports for 1991 which showed a 16% reduction in fatal bike accidents in the year to September. Legislative Assembly 2023 24 October 1991

In a bid to further reduce the road toll through helmet wearing the Government will renew the advertising campaign before Christmas and will run a statewide poster competition in conjunction with the ABC in November.

9. Open-heart Surgery, Waiting List Dr WATSON asked the Minister for Health— “With reference to a report in early 1991 published in The Courier-Mail which indicated that there was a waiting list of some 350 public patients who needed open-heart surgery— (1) How many public patients are now on such a waiting list? (2) How many patients on the original list are no longer in a condition to be able to undergo or benefit from such surgery?” Mr McELLIGOTT: Open-heart surgery is a lay term which may have a different clinical definition at any number of different hospitals. At the Prince Charles Hospital—the hospital to which I presume the member is referring—the term applies to surgical procedures in which the patient is placed on a heart pump, a machine which mimics the heart's functioning. Prince Charles Hospital is Queensland's premier cardio-thoracic referral hospital and performs the greatest number of cardiac surgical procedures of any hospital in Australia, including heart transplants. Prince Charles Hospital has earned its reputation as one of the leading cardio-thoracic hospitals in Australia. The answer to the question is as follows— (1) As with many highly specialised, technologically demanding and expensive procedures, patients undergoing cardiac surgery procedures are placed on a waiting list. Currently more than 30 patients are operated on each week—a significant increase over previous years. With respect to the claim by the member for Moggill earlier this year that there was a waiting list of 350, as of today there are 370 patients on the waiting list, 15 per cent of whom are private patients. (2) The physical condition of any patient who is on a waiting list for surgery is continually monitored. If patients deteriorate rapidly, for whatever reason, they are switched to the urgent list to undergo the necessary procedure. I am advised that no statistics are kept on the number of patients whose condition has deteriorated. It is impractical to define and collect such data when the very point of clinical management is to accelerate surgery should this become necessary. Quality care and accessible care are two of the central planks of my Government's health policy. Prince Charles Hospital is leading the way in bringing together diagnostic technology and specialist clinical management to provide quality cardio-thoracic care for all Queenslanders.

10. Myora Fish Habitat Reserve Dr WATSON asked the Minister for Environment and Heritage— “With reference to the proposed revocation and construction of a sand loading conveyor belt and jetty at the Myora Fish Habitat Reserve— (1) What investigations did he and his department carry out into the conservation value of the Myora Fish Habitat Reserve prior to April 1990? (2) What specific community groups did he consult? (3) What was the extent of any consultations? (4) What alternative sites were inspected? Legislative Assembly 2024 24 October 1991

(5) Why did he recommend to Cabinet the revocation of portion of the Myora Fish Habitat Reserve?” Mr COMBEN: (1 to 5) The substantive parts of these questions are the statutory responsibility of the Minister for Primary Industries, the Honourable Edmund Casey, and should be directed to him. However, in general, my Department of Environment and Heritage is constantly consulting with community groups, looking at alternatives for all forms of activity in this State, and is aware of the conservation values of the Crown estate and protected areas of Queensland. Any recommendation that I made to Cabinet would take those matters into account.

11. Family and Individual Support Program Ms POWER asked the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs— “With reference to the fact that society is undergoing great change and that families are under pressure— What initiatives has she introduced under the Family and Individual Support Program to respond to community needs?” Ms WARNER: I thank the honourable member for her question, because it is very timely that I inform the House of changes to the Family and Individual Support Program. Over the past few decades, dramatic demographic and social changes have taken place in our society that affect families and their ability to cope. People live longer; women increasingly exercise their right to an equal place in the family and workplace; young people more actively pursue options for personal growth and opportunities to impact on their adult future; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people seek to enliven their own culture and values; and people from non-English speaking backgrounds explore options to participate in and contribute to Australian social life. As a result, families and individual relationships have become more diversified in structure, roles and relationship patterns, placing pressure on families and individuals. The Family and Individual Support Program was established on 1 July 1990. The aim of the program is to prevent families and individuals from experiencing significant crises or break-downs which could lead to the need for services such as emergency accommodation, supported accommodation, child abuse services, domestic violence orders and criminal justice responses. The financial costs to the community and the social costs to the people involved in domestic violence, homelessness and child abuse are very high. The financial costs could exceed $1 billion in Queensland each year. Services which prevent those social ills, or provide early intervention, are considerably more beneficial to the people involved. The FISP program was established through the consolidation of several previously discrete funding programs, including the Family Support Program, the Family Welfare Community Development Worker Program, the Subsidy for Social Workers Scheme and the Neighbourhood Centre Program. That consolidation has meant a more streamlined process, which cuts through some of the bureaucratic red tape that existed under the previous fragmented approach to funding. Currently, approximately 119 services receive funding from the consolidated Family and Individual Support Program. In the 1991-92 Budget, the Government has allocated growth funds of $1.24m for a full year to the program. That is the first time since the Commonwealth’s withdrawal from the Family Support Program in 1988 that that program area has received growth funds. Those funds will be used to assist church and community groups and local authorities to— provide direct services including counselling, home support, advocacy and brokerage services; Legislative Assembly 2025 24 October 1991

provide information and community education activities to families and individuals on such things as parent education, domestic violence and the availability of community services; and develop formal community networks, address issues of community concern and enhance coordination among existing community services and other Government services. The member for Mansfield would be aware of the pending opening of a neighbourhood centre in her own electorate at Mount Gravatt. I am aware that she has done much to get that neighbourhood centre going, as has the member for Mount Gravatt. I am hopeful that, through the program’s continuing support for the work of those types of centres, those community organisations will be enhanced.

12. Bureau of Ethnic Affairs Ms POWER asked the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs— “What are the new initiatives and programs being undertaken by the Bureau of Ethnic Affairs?” Ms WARNER: Mr Speaker, as the answer to this question is fairly lengthy, with your indulgence I seek leave to table it and have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. I would like to thank the Member for Mansfield for this question and her interest in this area of my portfolio. The Bureau of Ethnic Affairs has introduced a number of new initiatives recently, and expanded its responsibilities of providing support and assistance to migrant people in Queensland. The Bureau now, not only provides initial accommodation and assistance for newly arrived immigrants, but has enhanced its policy advisory role to the Government and other organisations, and works on projects of state-wide and national significance. The aim of the Bureau is to improve the quality of life and participation of migrant people in Queensland society. Its efforts are focussed on eliminating discrimination and prejudice towards ethnic people, and facilitating their involvement in the community and political processes. The Bureau’s work, thus, is integral to the Government’s social justice agenda. The Bureau has shown particular sensitivity and responsiveness to the needs of isolated ethnic community groups and particularly to the needs of non-English speaking background women. For example, under its grants program the Bureau provided financial assistance for the Central Queensland Filipino Australia Association to conduct a three day conference for groups dispersed throughout the State to address issues of concern to them. Also, an officer of the Bureau has been given specific responsibility for issues relating to women from a Non-English Speaking Background. Education and awareness programs are central features in the Bureau’s strategy to improve the integration of ethnic people into Queensland society. An important initiative in this area has been the establishment of a Mobile Cross-Cultural Awareness Training Unit jointly sponsored by the Commonwealth and the State. This Unit has already begun to travel to schools and community centres across Queensland, and will have a very positive impact on community relations, especially in rural areas. Other such initiatives also include the proposed establishment of a MultiCultural Resource Centre at Yungaba; the provision of cross cultural awareness training by Bureau staff for Legislative Assembly 2026 24 October 1991

officers in Queensland Government Departments; the publication of the newsletter, “BEA Features”, to inform ethnic communities of Government initiatives; and the Directory of Ethnic Community Organisations, which is regularly updated. Community Assistance Grants are available to ethnic groups from the Bureau to ensure they receive a fair share of Government assistance to meet their needs. Priority is given to initiatives designed to promote contact, education and awareness within communities, to generate activities and encourage a more active participation in the community, especially with isolated/or emerging groups. During the past year, the Bureau was called upon to help with issues of a national and international significance, such as establishing a special “hot-line” during the Gulf War to enable members of the community who were experiencing harassment or discrimination to report on these events. The Bureau, as you can see, is involving all aspects of the ethnic communities in its work, and providing a high quality of services to these communities.

13. Sunshine Motorway Mr KATTER asked the Treasurer— “(1) What are the names of all of the companies in receipt of funds for the management and/or maintenance of the tolls, toll collection and tollways on the Sunshine Coast? (2) Is it his intention to replace the existing administrators and collectors with other operators? (3) Has he entered into discussions with alternative operators?” Mr De LACY: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer to the Honourable Member's question is as follows: As Treasurer I have responsibility for the financing aspects of the Sunshine Motorway. The questions asked by the Honourable Member go to operational matters which are the responsibility of the Minister for Transport and accordingly the questions should be redirected to that Minister.

14. Townsville-Mount Isa Railway Line; Steel Sleepers Mr KATTER asked the Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade Development— “(1) What is the purchase price of a steel sleeper? (2) How many sleepers are there laid on track between Townsville and Mount Isa? (3) How many of these sleepers are now concrete? (4) How many are now steel? (5) What is the total number of people employed in track maintenance between Townsville and Mount Isa? (6) From what company does Queensland Railways purchase these steel sleepers? (7) In what town are these sleepers manufactured and are they purchased directly from this town?” Legislative Assembly 2027 24 October 1991

Mr COMBEN: On behalf of the Minister for Transport, I will read the answer, as it is riveting stuff, and the issue is not a sleeper. On his behalf, the answer is as follows— (1) The price for railway sleepers ranges from $45 to $55, depending on the size of rail and the type of rail-fastener used. (2) The track length between Townsville and Mount Isa is 963 kilometres, with an average of 1 640 sleepers per kilometre of track. The total is therefore, just approximately, 1 579 321. As the honourable member for Flinders is not in the House today, I wonder whether he is out there counting. Mr McLean: Or asleep. Mr COMBEN: Or asleep. (3) Approximately 62 000 of these 1 579 321 sleepers are concrete. (4) Approximately 50 000 of the 1 579 321 are steel. The remainder are wood. (5) The number varies on a day-to-day basis, but currently about 380 men are employed on track maintenance on the Townsville to Mount Isa section. (6) The most recent purchase of steel sleepers was from BHP Rail Product Pty Ltd. (7) The sleepers were manufactured in Adelaide and purchased through the normal procedures. I do not know how many sleepers they passed over to get to Mount Isa.

15. Land-ownership by Aboriginals and Islanders Mr FOLEY asked the Minister for Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs— “With reference to the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 and the Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991— (1) What steps have been taken to implement these Acts with a view to assisting Aboriginal and Islander people to gain ownership of land? (2) In particular, what steps have been taken in order to make available to Aboriginal and Islander people the details of the nature and location of parcels of unalienated Crown land so that they might consider whether to make claims in respect of such land?” Ms WARNER: (1 and 2) I thank the honourable member for his question on the progress of the implementation of the Aboriginal Land Act and the Torres Strait Islander Land Act. Since this legislation was enacted by the Parliament in June, officers of my department and officers in the portfolio of my colleague the Minister for Land Management have made substantial progress in putting in place the systems to ensure that the legislation works smoothly, equitably and economically. My colleagues the Minister for Land Management, the Minister for Environment and Heritage and the Minister for Resource Industries have agreed on an administrative arrangement for sections of the Acts which will affect agencies under their control. The small unit set up by the Premier to implement the legislation has now translated this agreement into work programs for the various agencies. Staff positions for the programs to administer the Acts in the Department of Lands and the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs have been advertised and recruitment will proceed as quickly as possible. I have introduced a Bill into the House in this session to propose consequential amendments to a number of pieces of legislation. These amendments are machinery provisions that will enable existing legislation relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait land to continue to operate effectively. I expect that appropriate regulations to assist in the implementation of the Acts will also be introduced in the near future. I am confident that Legislative Assembly 2028 24 October 1991 arrangements for the gazettal of transferable lands and claimable lands will commence this year and that Aborigines and Torres Strait Islander people will have access to appropriate resources to enable them to make successful claims to land. I realise that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have waited a long time for the opportunity to achieve some justice over their land. I do not believe that the Government could have moved any faster. It has been my goal to ensure that we will have the best system and the best people possible to put this important social justice initiative into action. The honourable member may also be interested to know that, as part of the process of implementing this new legislation, I have asked officers of my department to prepare information so that interested members of the public may be informed accurately about it. I am concerned that the community is not misled by rumours and misinformation about the legislation. The implementation of the Aboriginal Land Act and the Torres Strait Islander Land Act will deliver some measure of long- awaited justice to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander members of our community. It will not threaten the interests or property of any other Queenslander.

16. Language and Aboriginal Culture Education Mr FOLEY asked the Minister for Education— “With reference to the desirability of students in Queensland schools learning languages in addition to English, and to the special importance of students learning about the culture and languages of Aboriginal Australia— (1) What steps are being taken in order to encourage students in primary and secondary schools to learn languages other than English? (2) In particular, what steps are being taken to assist students in primary and secondary schools to learn the culture and languages of the Aboriginal tribes native to Queensland?” Mr BRADDY: I thank the honourable member for his question, and in doing so I acknowledge his genuine interest in not only languages other than English but also the welfare of Aboriginal people. (1) Prior to the 1989 State election, the Labor Party promised to introduce a comprehensive program of foreign language and culture studies at both primary and secondary level. Since coming to office, the Goss Government has provided more than $15m for the expansion of foreign language and culture studies in our schools. If Queensland is to continue to prosper in the 1990s and beyond, it is vital that future generations of Queenslanders understand and relate better with other countries, particularly those in the Asia/Pacific region. Under the Government’s program, foreign language and culture studies will be available to all primary students by the year 2000. In addition, at least 20 per cent of Year 12 students will have completed 12 years of continuous foreign language studies. Since the Goss Government came to office, the number of students involved in language and culture studies has increased by more than 50 per cent, from 45 000 to more than 68 000. At the primary level, the number of students has more than trebled from 8 500 in 1989 to more than 29 000 in 1991. Under the Goss Government, Queensland has the finest foreign languages and cultures program of any in Australia and it is important to note that steps are being taken to ensure that all students, regardless of where they live, benefit from the program. (2) Aboriginal languages are part of the Government's languages and cultures program. In addition, an audit and evaluation of Aboriginal and Islander education is currently under way. This process has been conducted over the last four months and a Legislative Assembly 2029 24 October 1991 report will be provided to me by the end of this month. If the audit makes any recommendations regarding Aboriginal languages, I will give that matter my serious consideration and report back to the honourable member.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Cape York Space Base Project Mr COOPER: I refer the Premier to his belated recognition of the need to facilitate major projects as a means of combating unemployment and remind him of the potential benefits to Queensland’s economy in the Cape York space base project, and I ask: in view of condemnation of his Government’s inaction on this project by a Senate committee public hearing in Brisbane last week, when will he redress that situation? When will he meet the other expressed concern of the committee, namely, lack of legislation, to make the project attractive to developers and private enterprise? Mr W. K. GOSS: In relation to legislation—all that needs to be done can be done under existing legislation. However, if there is a request by a proponent for special legislation, and the Government comes to the conclusion that there is a need for such special legislation, then we will not have a problem in passing it. Despite the continual knocking and the undermining of general confidence in relation to the space base—particularly from the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy—the future of the spaceport depends wholly and solely on whether or not there is enough confidence in the private sector—either in this country or overseas—to put in the money. As recently as last night, I met with Senator Button. We both continue to maintain a very positive attitude in relation to the space base. I meet with the various proponents and interested parties whenever they want. They are quite happy with the attitude of the State and Federal Governments. They see their main task as securing the funding. That is what it comes down to. It is a private sector project, and unless they can generate private sector confidence, it is not going to go anywhere. Mr Borbidge interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Surfers Paradise will cease interjecting. Mr W. K. GOSS: One of the highest profile proponents is the predecessor of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Ahern. During the past week, I have spoken to Mr Ahern twice in relation to the progress of his particular syndicate. They are not looking for special legislation. They are not looking for anything from this Government beyond what it has done already. They are more than happy. They are pursuing the key element, that is, funding.

Sale of Pornographic Material Mr COOPER: In directing a question to the Minister for Justice, I refer to his Government’s intention to introduce what it would have the public believe are tougher laws against pornographic material, and I ask: is it not the case that, in regard to Categories 1 and 2 material, the ban that has existed for decades in Queensland will simply remain, while other material previously banned under Queensland law but okay by Canberra standards will now be allowed in and, although it was previously unavailable to minors, will now be available to them? Is it not the Government’s true position that what it proposes will actually weaken Queensland’s stance against pornographic material? Mr MILLINER: I thank the honourable member for his question, because it gives me the opportunity to put the record straight. We will be introducing tougher legislation Legislative Assembly 2030 24 October 1991 than existed previously. In the past, there was a reactive policy, but this is a pro-active policy. We are putting in place very clear guidelines on Category 1 and Category 2 material, and unrestricted, which will be picked up by the Commonwealth censor. Category 1 and Category 2 material will not be available for retail sale in Queensland. As to the purchase of pornographic material by persons under the age of 18—under the previous legislation there were no guidelines, and people under the age of 18 could purchase that material. In the past, someone had to object to particular literature, and the police then had to go around and decide whether they thought it was in fact obscene. The matter then went to a magistrate, and he had to determine whether or not it was obscene. It would be wrong to suggest that the previous situation was clear cut. When I owned a newsagency, I had to operate under that very difficult system. The system that this Government is about to put in place will define clearly the categories, because it will pick up the Commonwealth censorship classifications. As I said, Category 1 and Category 2 material will not be available in Queensland.

Opposition Criticism of State Budget Mr PREST: I ask the Treasurer: is he aware of criticisms by the Opposition that the State Budget is a big-spending Budget? Is it not the case that the current Estimates debate is the ideal opportunity to outline where cuts can be made? Can the Treasurer inform the House of what spending cuts have been outlined to date by the Opposition during the Estimates debate? Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. I refer to the tradition in this place that it is not usual for questions to be asked in respect of matters that are the subject of debate before the House, or before the House in Committee. The Estimates for the Budget are clearly on the notice paper. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr De LACY: If that tradition were followed, many of the questions from Opposition members about budgetary matters would also have to be ruled out of order. It is appropriate that this question be asked at this time because, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, we are half-way through the Estimates debate. The only criticism that was levelled at the State Government about its Budget was that it was a big-spending Budget. The Opposition did not like the fact that Queensland is the only State in Australia that was able to increase funding on services, in stark contrast to what the Opposition’s mates in New South Wales are doing, including selling off assets, sacking public servants and winding back services. If the Opposition criticises a Budget for being big spending, and if it is to have any credibility, it ought to offer up savings initiatives that it would apply in Government. Although we are half-way through the Estimates debate, I have not yet heard anything from the Opposition as to how it would wind back expenditure. During the remaining half of the Estimates debate, the Opposition will have an opportunity to tell us how it would cut back expenditure. The Liberal Party has offered up an unfunded promise to abolish land tax. But it is the same old recipe: increase spending and decrease taxes. I guess that is the prerogative of the Opposition, but it will not have any credibility unless it uses this opportunity to spell out where it would save Government funding and how it would wind back the so- called big-spending Budget of the Goss Government.

Education Funding Mr PREST: I ask the Minister for Education: is he aware of criticisms by members of the Opposition about the amount of money spent on education in this year’s Budget? Legislative Assembly 2031 24 October 1991

Does the Minister agree with the implication of this criticism that teaching and education are not a productive part of the State economy? Mr BRADDY: Yes, I am particularly aware of the direct criticism of the Government’s education and other spending made by the member for Barambah in a column in the South Burnett Times in Kingaroy on 15 October 1991. Mr SLACK: I rise to a point of order. I would like an explanation and a ruling from you, Mr Speaker. We are debating this question in Supply today. In light of that, is it a fair question? Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. With respect, I ask the Speaker for a ruling on whether it is now acceptable for members to ask questions relating to any Bill or any matter that is on the notice paper or that may be subject to debate in the House or in Committee. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member may not ask me for a ruling on that. There is no point of order. Mr Borbidge: Who do we ask then? Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister for Education. We will have question-time. Mr COOPER: I rise to a point of order. It is a fair question. The Opposition needs to know as a matter of consistency whether it will be possible to ask questions about matters or legislation before the House. That is a fair and reasonable request. Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are wasting question-time. The point of order that Opposition members are trying to take would be so broad that no debate would happen in this House; no question could be asked. This matter is not legislation. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have made my ruling. I ask the Minister to continue with his answer. Mr BRADDY: In relation to the attack made by the member for Barambah on education and the future of this State—it is quite clear that Opposition members will have an opportunity to put their case. It is very interesting that in that article the member for Barambah states— “While the total budget outlays (what the government is spending overall) went up 9 percent, spending on social policy areas went through the roof, and spending on the productive sectors fell alarmingly. . . . Queensland has now clearly joined other Labor State Governments in putting welfare first, and productive activities last.” It is interesting to note what the honourable member calls “welfare”. He continues— “While we all want to have the best possible education, health and welfare systems, we have to accept that these do not add immediately to production and jobs in the State. There are times when we should simply be holding the line, and putting the maximum effort into maintaining productive activity. This is that sort of time.” Queensland has a growing school population. It now has the greatest growth in school population of any State in Australia, yet when the Labor Party came to Government, Queensland had the lowest education spending per capita of any State in the country. I challenge Mr Perrett and other members of the Opposition to tell members Legislative Assembly 2032 24 October 1991 today, in the debate on the Estimates of the Department of Education, which areas of the Education budget they would cut. Mr SLACK: I rise to a point of order. We will debate this in the Supply debate this afternoon. Fair go! Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a further point of order—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will talk to the Acting Clerk. I ask the Minister for Education to resume his seat. I call the member for Toowong. Mr BOOTH: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker has allowed the Minister to complete his answer, even though the matter will be debated this afternoon. He was allowed to debate it in question- time. For as long as I have been a member of this Parliament, a precedent has never been set of allowing that to occur. The answer that the Minister gave should be erased from Hansard. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister got to the point of the Budget only in the latter part of his answer. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. I refer therefore to the point of order that I took in regard to the question to the Treasurer, which is obviously in the category of a ruling on the matter raised by the member for Warwick. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have given my ruling on that. I call the member for Toowong.

Police Prosecutions Mr BEANLAND: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer to the report in today’s Courier- Mail that police have been asked to ease up on prosecutions for breaches of the law. Although I am sure that no member of this Parliament wants police spending all of their time chasing drunks on roller- skates, I ask: does the Premier nevertheless agree that a system in which police are given wide-ranging discretion over whether to prosecute for clear breaches of the law could lead to problems similar to those exposed by the Fitzgerald inquiry? Mr W. K. GOSS: The short answer is “No”, but the question involves a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the document involved. No directive has been given by Commissioner Newnham to police. There has simply been the circulation of a discussion paper, and the letter itself stated that the purpose of Commissioner Newnham in circulating that discussion paper was to help senior officers reason through some of the problems in making quality decisions about prosecutions. I also refer to a comment made by Commissioner Tony Fitzgerald in his report when he said— “Whether operational skills and abilities are wisely applied by young officers in confronting the full range of policing circumstances will depend primarily on factors such as personal attitude, social values and disposition . . .” The Government is trying to enter a new era of the thinking police officer. Today’s policemen and policewomen learn sociological, legal and psychological skills. The discussion paper—not “directive”, but “discussion paper”—that was circulated by the commissioner is a part of that process. It is an important part of the process in terms of moving the force towards higher educational standards and, in the matter of deciding upon prosecutions or whether to lay charges, ensuring an appropriate sense of balance. In that sense, the Government supports the commissioner completely. We support the commissioner because, in our view, the police should be directing their resources towards serious crime. As far as I am concerned, if Queenslanders want to roller-skate in tutus, Legislative Assembly 2033 24 October 1991 they are welcome to do it. Queensland’s police will get on with the job of attending to serious crime.

Effect on Budget of Government Spending on Natural Disasters Mr BEANLAND: I draw the attention of the Treasurer to statements by the Premier at last week’s Toowoomba rural summit that natural disasters have placed an unprecedented demand on Government resources, including costs of $750m in lost production from the drought, $33m in drought assistance and $160m for the Charleville and Rockhampton floods, and I ask: in the light of those statements and the fact that the Government discovered the drought only four days after this year’s Budget, and assuming the figures provided by the Premier are correct, what effect will that have on his Government’s expenditure for 1991-92? Mr De LACY: Those figures refer to reductions in output in the State economy. The drought is of such a magnitude that there will be a reduction in gross State product of between $750m and $1 billion. In respect of the impact on the State Budget, I have said often enough—and this Government has demonstrated by its performance—that we have the Budget under control. We have always had it under control and always will. We will continue to make whatever adjustments need to be made to our program to ensure—— Mr Beanland: What effect on the expenditure? You tell us you’ve got it under control—that’s not answering the question. Mr De LACY: I wish to make the point in passing that this question appears to be one about the Budget and members of the Opposition have just said that questions about the Budget should not be asked. An Opposition member interjected. Mr De LACY: It is totally different? It appears to be the same to me. The Opposition’s questions about the Budget are different from our questions about the Budget. In brief, we have made a substantial provision in the Budget for natural disasters, including money for drought relief. We have announced our drought relief package. The whole issue is being kept under review. As has been the case in other years, there will be a midyear review of the Budget position, but the people of Queensland can be confident that this State Government has the Budget under control.

KJB Constructions; Payment of Subcontractors Dr FLYNN: I ask the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations: is he aware of an article in today’s Toowoomba Chronicle detailing the probable collapse of the Warwick building firm KJB Constructions, with substantial losses for a large number of subcontractors? As the Minister responsible for the coordination and development of a discussion paper on security of payment to subcontractors, would the Minister advise the House of the progress made so far in solving once and for all this devastating problem for subcontractors? Mr WARBURTON: I thank Dr Flynn for that very important question and for his continued and deep interest in this matter that is of great import to each and every member in this House. I am aware of the particular matter to which the member refers because I am coordinating this project. KJB Constructions is based on the downs, although I am not familiar with the actual site. It is doing work on eight contracts worth almost $2m. Fortunately, I have heard that, despite the fact that receivers may be called in, some attempts are now being made to resolve the issue, hopefully with success. Legislative Assembly 2034 24 October 1991

This is a repeat of what has been happening in this State for a considerable period. Because of the restructuring that has gone on in the building industry for at least the last 10 years, the position is not improving. Once the situation was that the principal builders in this State and the other States of Australia employed the people, but today a builder sits on the thirtieth floor of a central city building and employs subcontractors, who in turn employ the employees. We as a Government and a Parliament have to make a decision very quickly. Who is it that we have to help? Are we going to help the people who go into insolvency and cause great difficulties for the subcontractors and their employees, or are we going to act as quickly as we possibly can to try to resolve the issue? I must say that no other Government in this country has ever really braced itself and attempted to do something constructive. This Government has done so, and it is my sincere hope that the discussion paper, which is the result of a very large conference of building and construction industry representatives held in May, will be distributed in the near future. The problem raised by the honourable member today of this contractor suddenly disappearing and leaving subcontractors, employees and their families in an obvious state of suffering is one of the matters we have addressed in the paper. I am not in a position to discuss that issue fully at the moment, but it is my own personal opinion—and this is something I would like all honourable members to consider—that when progress payments are being asked for by contractors, as far as I am concerned it is incumbent upon the builder to ensure that the payments in respect of the progress period for which payment is being asked are passed on to the subcontractor. This is one of the solutions that we would ask the industry and politicians to look at. That is a very simple solution. In conclusion, this is a tremendously important issue for the whole of this State. There are people out there who have suffered for years because of the restructuring in the building industry. As a Parliament, we owe it to those people to find a solution or at least help the industry. That is what this Government is about. We are not pursuing issues or pushing issues on to the industry. We are developing a discussion paper so that the industry itself can resolve its own problems. I commend the honourable member for asking that very important question. At 11 a.m., In accordance with the provisions of the Sessional Order, the House went into Committee of Supply.

SUPPLY

Estimates—Eleventh and Twelfth Allotted Days

Estimates-in-Chief, 1991-92

Education Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Minister for Education) (11 a.m.): I move— “That there be granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year 1991-92, a sum not exceeding $2,106,700,000 for Education, Department of Education (Consolidated Fund).” Today, it is indeed an honour for me to begin the debate on the Estimates of the Department of Education for 1991-92. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Will honourable members resume their seats, or quietly leave the Chamber? Legislative Assembly 2035 24 October 1991

Mr Palaszczuk: It is the gallery. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I remind the honourable member that I am in charge. Mr BRADDY: This year’s appropriation of more than $2.1 billion represents yet another landmark in education under the Goss Government. This year’s allocation is the largest in Queensland’s history and, as such, the fulfilment of the Labor Party’s promise to increase education-funding by $250m in its first term. Despite difficult economic times, the Goss Government has more than met its promise; in fact, it has exceeded it. Education-funding has grown by more than $260m in real terms in only two Budgets. This achievement is all the more remarkable when the savage cut-backs which have been imposed on education in other States are considered. In Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia, thousands of teachers have been sacked, and schools have been seriously disrupted by strikes and other stoppages. In contrast to that, the Goss Government has increased the number of teachers in Queensland by more than 1 500, and our schools have continued to operate free from industrial action. Between December 1989 and October 1991, the Goss Government provided 822 additional primary teachers, 197 additional special education teachers and 464 additional secondary teachers in Queensland schools. It is also significant that, at a time of great hardship in rural areas, the Goss Government has provided 637 additional teachers in schools outside the south-east corner of the State, and more than 200 of these have been placed in schools situated west of the Great Divide. Next year, even more teachers will be allocated to rural and remote areas because this year’s Budget has provided 472 additional teachers across the State. However, Mr Chairman, as any parent or teacher will tell you, it is not only the number of teachers that matters but also the quality of the education they provide, so we must offer a career structure that attracts and retains teachers of the best quality available. To do this, we must provide in-service, professional development and better salaries. In the first 18 months alone, the Goss Government spent more than $22m on professional development. This year’s Budget will expand this important initiative, and will build on the improvements provided through award-restructuring by allocating more than $1 billion for teacher salaries. It is worth noting that under previous National Party and National/Liberal Governments, Queensland teachers were the lowest paid of any teachers in Australia. Mr Littleproud: Come on, tell the full story. Mr BRADDY: Our long-suffering teachers were subjected to the utmost in contempt by our predecessors who refused to see the value to our community of having experienced, well-trained professionals in the class room. Mr Littleproud: Tell the full story. Mr BRADDY: For many years, Queensland teachers were the victims of callous neglect by our predecessors. Unlike its opponents, the Goss Government values teachers and values the input of the Queensland Teachers Union. I refer to the contribution made by the member for Barambah who, on 15 October this year, stated, in writing, that we should cut our education-funding. I will be interested in circulating that comment to the teachers in the electorate of Barambah and nearby districts. Since coming to office, the Goss Government has provided teachers with input on a number of important bodies, including— the Viviani Review of Tertiary Entrance; the Curriculum Management Review; the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee; the Collaborative Teacher Performance Review; Legislative Assembly 2036 24 October 1991

the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Gender Equity; the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Special Education; the School Management Working Party; the Work Experience Advisory Committee; the Occupational Health and Safety Committee; the Advisory Committee for the Gifted and Talented; the Employee Assistance Scheme; the Board of Review; the Senior Officers’ Forum; and the Promotions Working Party. As Education Minister, I have welcomed the contribution of teachers, and I totally reject the anti- education and anti-teacher philosophies of the National and Liberal Parties. Mr Littleproud: Oh! Mr BRADDY: The honourable member did not have teachers on promotions boards. He took them off, and we restored them. Once again, this year’s Budget has proved that only Labor can deliver a Budget which serves the real interests of not only teachers but also parents, students and the wider Queensland community. This year’s Budget represents another significant step in the Government’s long term reform of education. As the Courier-Mail stated on 6 September— "An extra 472 teachers would be employed from the $2.1 billion education budget that had been increased by 9.8 percent as part of the Government’s determination to rectify past neglect." The Queensland Teachers Union gave a similar endorsement— "The Goss Government’s real increase in funding for education is an accomplishment which deserves recognition in these difficult economic times and stands in contrast to the general pattern of funding for education across the other States . . . " I will allow my parliamentary colleagues to elaborate on some of the specific initiatives in this year’s Budget, but I would like to identify some significant initiatives which deserve particular mention, which are as follows— The amount of $3.2m has been provided for a remote area incentive scheme for teachers. This represents the fulfilment of one of the Government’s major promises in education and once again shows that the Goss Government has a major commitment to improving the quality of education in rural Queensland. Funds have been doubled in this year’s Budget for the Government’s foreign languages and cultures program. $11.9m will be provided in 1991-92 for this ambitious program, which has wide support among parents, which is the finest of any in Australia, and which will guarantee that young Queenslanders will understand and relate better with our Asian neighbours This is a particularly important initiative for Queensland’s future. The amount of $5.1m will be provided for literacy and numeracy initiatives in 1991-92. These funds will be used to provide teaching resources, literacy and numeracy testing in schools, and greater parental involvement in reading and writing. The Goss Government places a high priority on literacy and numeracy. This was clearly illustrated by the recent release of a Statewide survey of literacy in Queensland schools, which showed that while literacy among Queensland students is Legislative Assembly 2037 24 October 1991

reasonably good, we need to do our utmost to maintain and improve those skills. This survey, and a related survey in the area of numeracy, were the most comprehensive ever undertaken in Queensland’s history. For the first time ever, we have been able to establish benchmarks of performance so that we improve standards in the future. Funds for computer education have been increased in this budget by 26 per cent. These funds will be used to maintain and upgrade computers in primary and secondary schools and expand the use of computers in important areas such as foreign languages and reading and writing. $7.1m has been set aside for the development of the new Student Education Profile to replace the TE score. The new system, which was devised after widespread community consultation and support, represents the fulfilment of the Government’s commitment to replacing the TE score with a fairer and simpler system. Rural Queensland will benefit from a number of significant initiatives, including the new remote area incentive scheme, the establishment of 45 school support centres in locations across Queensland, $2.1m for new facilities at schools of distance education and $1.3m for the development of the open learning network to help students in rural and remote areas gain access to higher education. It is worth pointing out that despite the rhetoric of the National Party, Labor has done more for education in rural areas in under two years than the Nationals and Liberals did in more than three decades. When I first became Minister, I visited the Brisbane School of Distance Education and was amazed to learn that no-one at the school had ever heard of any National Party Education Minister visiting the facility. This neglect was similarly reflected during my recent visit to the School of Distance Education in Mount Isa. In 32 years the Nationals and Liberals never revised the curriculum taught by schools of distance education. During my visit, I found the most appalling examples of textbooks which were written more than 30 years ago. These even included books which confidently predicted that man would one day land on the moon! The Goss Government will not tolerate this callous disregard for the welfare of ordinary Queenslanders in education in rural areas. New up-to-date materials have been developed and students will have access to the same quality education as that enjoyed by their colleagues in the city. When it comes to education in rural Queensland, our opponents are long on rhetoric and short on action. As I indicated earlier, this Budget represents the fulfilment of the Government’s promise to introduce a Remote Area Incentive Scheme for teachers. In the National Party’s last Budget in 1989, it promised the introduction of the scheme, yet allocated no funds whatsoever for it. All it provided was a glossy brochure full of empty promises. Departmental officers have told me the hilarious stories about how the members of the previous Government were scrambling around on the day before their last Budget trying desperately to cobble together any sort of scheme. The ink was still wet on the glossy brochures when they were delivered to Parliament. There is nothing sticky about the Goss Government’s Remote Area Incentive Scheme. It is a real commitment to improving the quality of life in rural Queensland. $3.2m will be spent on the scheme in 1991-92 to provide incentives to attract and retain experienced and well-qualified teachers in remote schools. These incentives include improved teacher housing, grants for further study, improved travel concessions, emergent leave and special induction programs for teachers about to start their service in remote areas. Parents in rural areas will also appreciate the extra financial assistance that is being provided by the Goss Government. This Budget provides more than $21m for school textbook allowances and more than $40m for school grants to assist hardworking p. and c. groups. Under previous National Legislative Assembly 2038 24 October 1991 and National/Liberal Governments, parents were forced to dig into their own pockets for even the most basic items for their children’s education. The Goss Government recognises that Governments can never relieve parents of all the costs of their children’s education, but at a time of recession the additional funds being provided in this Budget are a welcome helping hand for Queensland families. Those extra funds, of course, have now been denigrated by the member for Barambah, who calls for a cut in education-funding. I challenge members opposite to state where they would cut the budget, or whether they deny the claims of their colleague. This Budget shows once again that we are living in an era of great change in education. However, as a Government, we have to be conscious of the impact of those changes on the community. As I travel the State, teachers, parents and students invariably tell me that they are pleased that education is finally the No. 1 priority in Queensland. However, these positive changes would not be possible without changes to the way the Department of Education is run. During the process of restructuring, some concerns have been expressed, and as a reformist Government we must be aware of those concerns and listen to the community’s views. The whole “have your say” process was based on the notion of consultation. Now that the new structures are being put into place, the Government must continue to listen to what the people of Queensland are saying about what they want from their education system. It was, of course, very easy for Labor’s predecessors in Government. They simply allowed Queensland’s education system to run down and forced hard working parents to pick up the tab for the basic essentials for Queensland’s schools. For years, Queensland spent the lowest amount per capita on education of any State in Australia. In only two Budgets, the Goss Government has turned the situation around. Queensland now has the brightest educational future of any State in Australia. In less than two years, Queensland has caught up with, and will soon overtake, the other States in education spending. It is therefore hypocritical for the National and Liberal Parties, which for 32 years allowed Queensland’s education system to fall into a state of neglect, to attempt to score cheap political points by criticising the reform process currently under way in education. The member for Fassifern and the member for South Coast in particular have consistently made statements both inside and outside the Chamber which are blatantly untrue. As these statements relate to the expenditure of education funds in 1991-92, it is appropriate in this debate to once and for all put to bed some of the outrageous and deliberately scurrilous nonsense being put about by the National and Liberal Parties. First, in the area of non-Government education, the member for Fassifern has made a number of outrageous statements regarding interest assistance subsidies. This Budget, in fact, provides approximately $20m for interest assistance subsidies in 1991-92. All ongoing projects and projects fully approved before the Budget will be funded by the Government. This represents expenditure of more than $46m over the term of the assistance program. In 1992-93, following exhaustive consultation with non-Government school authorities, a new needs-based system of capital works assistance will be introduced. These authorities have indicated that they will assist the Department of Education in the development of the new scheme, and indeed, those discussions have already begun. Opposition members have falsely claimed that funding has been withdrawn for this scheme. It is therefore important for honourable members to be aware not only that these claims are untrue, but also the reasons why the Government has moved to reform the program. Under previous National and National/Liberal Governments, non-Government schools were able to claim 10-year interest subsidies for capital projects. The scheme was open-ended, and there was no consideration of the educational value or genuine needs of specific projects. Invariably, wealthier schools with a greater capacity to borrow funds profited most from the scheme, while less well resourced schools missed out on Legislative Assembly 2039 24 October 1991 funding. This inequity was compounded by the fact that funding for the scheme had blown out of all proportion. In the 1989Ð90 Budget, which we inherited, $9.9m was required to fund the scheme, yet in only two Budgets this had blown out to approximately $20m. Even worse, because the previous Government cared little about the plight of poorer schools, many schools were missing out on vital funds. No Labor Government could tolerate that situation. That is why the Goss Government moved to bring fairness and stability to the system. To ensure that no school was unfairly disadvantaged the Government decided that all ongoing projects would be fully funded. Contrary to the absurd suggestions of the Opposition, no school has been refused funding. Any new projects which have not been given final approval will be considered under future funding arrangements to be determined in cooperation with non-Government school authorities themselves. It should be stressed that this action is necessary because of the appalling financial mismanagement of the National and Liberal Parties. Another area which the Opposition has sought to misrepresent is higher education. This Budget provides more than $44m for higher education in 1991-92. The member for Fassifern has on a number of occasions made ludicrous comments about the shortage of higher education places in Queensland. For the benefit of the honourable member, I would like to remind him that the provision of higher education places is a Federal responsibility, and the Goss Government is continuing its determined high-profile campaign to secure an additional 2 000 places from the Commonwealth. However, unlike the previous National Party Government, this Government will not turn its back on young Queenslanders. In 1990 and 1991, the Goss Government provided 2 300 university places for young Queenslanders. This Budget provides $17.6m for 2 000 students continuing their studies this year, including many students in regional areas who would have missed out on a university education if the Goss Government had not intervened. Another false rumour which needs to be dispelled is the absurd view of the member for Fassifern that small schools will be closed. This is indeed ironic, as the Goss Government has actually reopened a number of schools which were closed by the National Party, including the school at Eromanga, the furthest town from the sea in Australia. This Budget provides for an additional 11 new schools to open in 1992 as part of the largest capital works allocation for schools in Queensland’s history. This Budget is clearly the greatest result for education in Queensland’s history. However, the Goss Government will not become complacent. Regardless of the false accusations of the National and Liberal Parties, I believe there is room for the Government to look closely at what is happening in education and learn from the changes that are being made. I believe that reform is effective only when the community has an understanding and ownership of the changes being made. No-one ever suggested it would be easy to reform our education system, and certainly some legitimate concerns have been raised during the restructuring process. However, I believe that parents, teachers and students are starting to reap the benefits of an education system emerging from a long period of stagnation. We cannot hope to put our education system right in only two years or two Budgets, but the Goss Government has made a solid start on rectifying the long years of neglect of the National and Liberal Parties. The important task facing the Government now is to continue to listen to the views of the Queensland community and to push on with the reforms which will benefit not only the students of today, but also future generations of Queenslanders facing the difficult challenges of the twenty-first century. This Budget is another positive step toward that aim. Legislative Assembly 2040 24 October 1991

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I desire to inform honourable members that on the Vote proposed I will allow a full discussion of all the Minister’s departmental Estimates (Consolidated Fund, Trust and Special Funds). Mr LINGARD (Fassifern) (11.21 a.m.): Early last year, I warned in this Chamber that the Queensland Education Department had become a nest-egg of cronyism and politicisation. This opinion was recently confirmed by the regional director, Les Treichel, who said that the Education Department is now wrought by political bastardisation, political engineering, and blatant cronyism. There is no doubt in my mind that this is happening in Queensland, and this thought is shared by the majority of teachers. The backlash by the teaching staff has been amazing, and honourable members become aware of it when they talk to teachers as they also react against the political appointments from interstate and the appointments of cronies from areas which have no semblance at all to the Education Department. This Government set out deliberately to politicise the public service right from the start. It introduced into this place a piece of legislation which made it imperative for a person applying for a position as a commissioner to state both his present and his past political affiliations. The Government says it has not politicised the public service, but it has politicised the Education Department. It brought in a regulation which stated that any public servant could have his position spilled as soon as any award-restructuring occurred or any change occurred in his designated duties. That means that any Minister of the Government can spill the position of any public servant by simply changing his job designation or restructuring the award, which is what has occurred in the Education Department. By initially sending high-ranking officers to the correspondence school, the Government deliberately set out to get rid of them. It then set about creating a new structure so that all jobs became redundant and incumbents had to reapply for new positions. We have seen that occur in Parliament House. When the commission wanted to get rid of a person, it changed the format of his job and made him reapply for it under different criteria. It got rid of that person by changing the structure of the organisation and simply appointing another person. That is what happened in the Queensland Education Department. The Minister wanted to get rid of many of his high-ranking officers. He sent some of them to the correspondence school and forced them to resign. For those who would not resign, he changed the structure so that they had to reapply for their positions and he got rid of them. In the presentation of the Education budget, the Minister has been completely and utterly deceptive in a couple of areas. He tried to pretend that all the people who resigned have received a pay-out from the superannuation fund and it has not affected his budget. That is a complete and utter lie. The Minister has been deceptive to the teachers of Queensland. The CHAIRMAN: Order! It is unparliamentary language to call another member a liar. I ask that the honourable member withdraw the comment. Mr LINGARD: I withdraw. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I also ask other members who will participate in this debate not to make personal references but to stick to the Estimates. Mr LINGARD: The Minister’s statements have been utterly deceiving. When a person takes a severance pay-out, he is entitled to one and a quarter years’ severance pay. In most of those positions, that amounts to $120,000, which does not come from the superannuation fund. Of the 130 school inspectors, 118 were forced to resign. In addition to receiving Gosuper worth $100,000, they received from the department $120,000 as a gift, which allowed them to retire with a special gift of $220,000 on top of their ordinary superannuation. The Minister has politicised the Education Department and, because he Legislative Assembly 2041 24 October 1991 has not mentioned those matters, he has been deceptive in the presentation of the Education budget. Because of the way in which the Education budget has been presented, I have no doubt that an Education watchdog committee should be set up immediately to investigate thoroughly the deception that is so obvious. It is obvious to those who know what is happening in the Education Department. At present, the Education Department reeks with discontent; it reeks with uncertainty; it reeks with cronyism; and it reeks with politicisation. I remind honourable members of the Minister’s comments to Rod Henshaw on a talk-back radio program. Rod Henshaw said, “I believe that at least 80 people will resign.” The Minister replied, “No way in the wide world. There are certainly not 80 going from the Education Department.” I point out to honourable members that, out of a total of only 130 school inspectors, 118 left. The Minister gave each of them a gift of at least $220,000 on top of their superannuation. He restructured the department. He could not restructure the principal positions because they were set. When he could not restructure those positions, he introduced special regulations into this Chamber. In order to get rid of them, he brought in a special regulation which allowed him to spill the principal positions. Initially even the Queensland Teachers Union said, “Hey, you can’t do that.” Why did not the Queensland Teachers Union fight harder? It allowed the Minister to bring into this Chamber a regulation which allowed him to sack any of the school principals. The Minister brought in a regulation which allowed him to sack any number he wanted to. Therefore, indirectly, he could have said, “I won’t sack any”, or, “I will sack only two.” He did not do that; he sacked the whole lot, because it suited his format under the present scheme of restructuring the Education Department and getting rid of those positions. He has hidden in the Education budget the severance pay-outs that were made to those people. Most of the Government’s new appointees have been placed on contract. The Minister’s comment that it was the previous Government’s policy to offer contracts is, once again, deceptive. He placed those people on contracts himself. They have entered into contracts for at least a year. Therefore, the contract system that the Minister criticised certainly did not contribute to the fact that those people had to go. The true position was that the Minister did not have to spill any positions or declare any new positions. At the beginning of the year, he tried to sneak in through the Queensland Government Gazette a regulation which allowed him to declare any public service position spilled if there was a change in job designation or award-restructuring. Already contained in section 22 was a provision which provided that any upgrading of any office creates a vacancy in that office. If the Minister had wanted to, he could have used that provision. Even the Queensland Teachers Union suggested that he do that. But that was not good enough for the Minister. He wanted the ability to spill any position, and in doing so he brought it in for all public servants. The new provision allowed the Minister to decide whether or not positions would be spilled. Therefore, the Minister can decide that positions do not have to be spilled. He could have stopped every resignation that has occurred—and there have been hundreds. Resignations of school inspectors cost at least $1m in severance pay. The Minister could have stopped those. He did not have to restructure the Education Department or to change their jobs. The contract system had absolutely nothing to do with it. When the school inspectors started to run, the Minister turned the blame onto them and onto the former Government. If the Minister’s bureaucratic cronies had not wanted the blatant cronyism and blatant politicisation of the Education Department that we have seen, that would not have been allowed. The Queensland Education Department has been taken over by Minister-appointed cronies and bureaucrats who have become so vindictive that the Minister has lost control. Two weeks ago, at an ICPA conference in Longreach, Queensland teachers and parents witnessed surely one of the most embarrassing and one of the most humiliating Legislative Assembly 2042 24 October 1991 slaps in the face any Minister for Education could have received. Three times a motion was presented at that ICPA conference, and three times the Minister and one of his personally appointed cronies spoke against the motion, and three times the motion was carried unanimously by over 300 people in the room. That happened with a Minister, a director-general and an executive director sitting at the front of the room, all speaking against the motion. The motion was carried unanimously against what they said. The first motion related to the desire by teachers and parents to retain the inspectorial system, a system that the Minister has done away with completely. There is now no way at all of monitoring between schools the ability of teachers. Mr Littleproud: I thought that was the consultation process. Mr LINGARD: Well, one of the fantastic things about inspectors was that at least they came into a school and said, “You are not up to scratch. This is why you are not up to scratch. These are the systems that I have seen in other schools.” The Minister has scrapped that system completely. He will see a fantastic and an amazing reaction from the AST teachers, whose nominations close tomorrow. Surely honourable members opposite have felt what has occurred. The inspectorial system has been scrapped. The second motion related to the opposition of the ALP at both Federal and State levels to provide all non-Government schools with support for capital improvements. Country people want to be able to send their kids to secondary boarding schools. They do not send their kids to private schools and boarding schools because they are rich; they send their kids to those schools because they have to. They want to overcome the isolated conditions that they face. They want the standard of education that their kids receive to compare favourably with that received by city kids. The Minister is utterly wrong in turning around and saying, “We are funding all non-Government schools.” The Government is not funding all non-Government schools. It is funding some non-Government schools. The Minister loves standing up and saying, “I am giving all of this extra money to the non-Government schools.” The Government is giving extra money to some non-Government schools. As yet, the Minister has not determined which non-Government schools will receive that money. As a result, those schools are hanging by a string and are being told, “We have increased the money.” The Minister knows as well as I do that he has not told them which schools will receive the extra funding. He talks about increases in funding, but only to some non-Government schools. The third motion on which the Minister was done completely related to his decision to renege on the previous Government’s decision to build a school of distance education at Emerald. The Minister and his cronies tried to explain why they wanted hub centres. The Minister tried to explain why those centres would be better. On three motions, he got done 100 per cent by the conference. So the Minister thought he had better get out. As a result, he left the fourth motion, which related to religious education, to another of his cronies to deal with. The Minister is now allowing into Queensland schools a system under which Year 4 students are all put in together and taught for six weeks by a person of the Baha’i faith. For the next six weeks, they are taught by a Muslim; then they are taught by someone else who wants to conduct a religious course. The Minister was rolled on that motion also. People do not want to see the present system changed. The Minister loves saying—and he tries to pretend that it is true—“We have not changed the present system.” I know that he has not changed the present system because still, in a school, any religious person or any person of any faith is allowed to come in and instruct students in his particular religion or faith. As a high school principal, I have always accepted that. But this is a new course which is coming in. This is a new thing which the Minister is allowing. The Minister is allowing, in some trial schools, all Year 4 students to be put into a group which is taught by a person of the Baha’i faith or any other faith. Ms Power: What’s wrong with that? Legislative Assembly 2043 24 October 1991

Mr LINGARD: A Government backbencher asks, “What’s wrong with that?” The Minister has said that if this trial is successful, it will be extended to pupils in Year 1. As a result, Year 1 students will be sat in front of a person of the Baha’i faith and they will have to listen to his religion for six weeks. For the following six weeks, they may have to listen to a Muslim. I say to the Minister that that is completely and utterly wrong. There should be a return to the previous system under which the Baha’i people may come in and take students of their own faith away to their own classes, and a Muslim person may take students of his faith away to their own classes. And if it be a humanist or if it be an atheist, let him take his own people. But I do not believe that Year 1 and Year 4 students should be forced at that age to listen to people of another religion. Because of the new system, they are being forced to do that. The Minister was rolled completely at the conference—100 per cent. Mr Braddy: You know you are telling untruths. Mr LINGARD: I am not telling untruths because it is happening in my electorate and the Minister should probably realise that it is happening in his. Dr Ikin of Victoria refers to what happened in Victoria. This Minister referred to the fact that Queensland is doing very well. This Government is trying to restructure in exactly the same way as Victoria did. Look at what happened in Victoria. Dr Ikin likens the waste in the areas of education to the losses suffered by the Tricontinental Bank, the Pyramid Building Society and the National Safety Council. He talks of the massive Budget waste on education-restructuring and says that the outcome of all the restructuring has been needless expenditure of scarce funds, loss of valuable programs, projects and services, loss of productivity, loss of morale and the inevitable loss of talented and conscientious staff. If the Minister cannot relate those comments to Queensland education at this stage, he is looking at a different system from the one I am looking at. The Education Department is losing talented and conscientious staff. The doctor talks of career public servants with no experience, qualifications or even interest in education using restructures to gain promotion and then ship out to other departments. Look at some of the other sections of the Education Department. One of the departments on the north shore is now administered by a person from the Main Roads Department. That person is now looking after the transfers of teachers. The person in charge of an education system in Toowoomba is a lady who has come from Berlei bras. Mr Braddy: What rubbish! That is a lie. Mr LINGARD: It is absolutely true. Mrs Bird: She is probably very supportive. Mr LINGARD: I would not be surprised. I remember that honourable member taking a point of order last year because she did not like feminist jokes. Now she is talking about these sorts of things. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Honourable members will not make personal reflections. Mr BRADDY: I rise to a point of order. The member is telling a deliberate untruth in that he knows that the person in charge of education in Toowoomba is the executive director of regional education, Mr Geoff Greene. The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister will have a chance to reply at the end of this debate. Mr LINGARD: I certainly know that Geoff Greene did not come from Berlei bras. That is for sure. I know enough about the Education Department to know that. I did not say that it was Geoff Green from Berlei bras. There are also people from institutions, such as the Darling Downs institute, who are coming into the Education Department for only two Legislative Assembly 2044 24 October 1991 years, to upgrade themselves under John Dawkins’ plan of appointing SES and CES people. That is what this Government is allowing to happen to the Education Department. Dr Ikin also speaks about the education system being plunged into rounds of position-spilling, job prescriptions, expressions of interest, interviews, appointments and appeals. If the Minister has spoken recently to any of the teachers and asked them what they think about this interviews and appeals system, he will know that I am being completely honest. I am correct in comparing it to what happened in Victoria. Dr Ikin said— “With every ‘spill’ (in Victoria) there has been the accompanying application preparation, rumour-mongering, loss of trust, hostility and recriminations. These have been not only highly divisive but have cut huge inroads into productive time and morale. Colleagues have been set against colleagues in competition for positions and places on selection panels.” The Minister knows that that is what has happened in the past 12 months in Queensland. That is why teachers are extremely upset. Dr Ikin said also— “This distasteful manoeuvring has had various outcomes. Most obvious has been the use of superficial and hastily fabricated personnel practices. Selection panels have been assembled of which the members have had no prior experience in the area in question . . . ” I remind members of what happened in Toowoomba. One of the people on the selection panel had no knowledge of the education system. Dr Ikin continued— “Antiquated methods, with written, unverified applications followed . . . ” The Minister knows that the AST teachers positions close tomorrow. Look at the teachers who are filling in those forms. There are reports of the preparation of curriculums vitae in Brisbane costing $1,000. People are paying $1,000 to have their curriculums vitae prepared for applications for AST positions that are worth possibly an extra $1,200 per annum, and probably $700 once tax is taken out. Mr Braddy: Why do they do it? Mr LINGARD: The Minister asks: why do they do it? I have said before that the Minister does not understand the education system. The director-general has had nothing to do with administration of the education system. The trouble is that the Minister is being led by the nose by political cronies. It is about time that the Minister woke up to the whole thing. Referring to Victoria, Dr Ikin said— “Another unsavoury feature of recent restructures has been the downgrading of hard earned experience and formal study as legitimate criteria for appointment.” No AST teacher can now refer to anything that happened more than 10 years ago. Whatever a person did 10 years ago in his or her education career cannot be referred to in an AST application. Dr Ikin continued— “Whereas previously job specifications had called for extensive experience in an area and the formal study of the craft at postgraduate level, latterly there have been gross examples of highly demanding and well paid positions being advertised with only minimum experience as a requirement. If any educational qualifications have been required, they have often been only basic teacher training. This has resulted in the promotion of inept junior officers to senior positions, much to the detriment of the system and of professional officers forced to endure the immaturity and incompetence of their newly ‘bumped up’ bosses.” Legislative Assembly 2045 24 October 1991

In his article in Australian Business of 16 September 1991, John Gilmour referred to the rise of the incompetents. Look at what is happening in Queensland, not only in the education system but also in the Health Department, the Police Department and the Primary Industries Department. This Government has conducted a system of cronyism and politicisation. Dr Ikin stated further— “Apart from the implicit losses associated with productivity, morale and good-will, there have been quite explicit costs which can be counted in dollars and cents. The cost of physically relocating hundreds of staff, equipment and services every year or so, the payment of ‘salary maintenance’ to displaced officers . . . ” Once again, in this Budget the Minister has hidden the cost of bringing interstate people to Queensland for those interviews. Why does he not say honestly how much it has cost to fly those applicants to Queensland for their interviews? The other day, I asked the Minister how much it has cost to hire a whole floor of the Gazebo Hotel for those interviews. What honourable member could honestly say that he or she does not believe that Education House in Mary Street or other premises in Margaret Street have the facilities for interviewing people? Why does a complete floor of the Gazebo Hotel need to be hired for those interviews? What is the cost of relocating those people from interstate—those Mexicans? The Opposition has given a guarantee that it would not have them. Dr Ikin stated— “The victims of the many losses in the school system have been the thousands of loyal teachers and principals, the parents, the schools and inevitably the children of the State. They have been systematically denied ready and reliable access to administrative, curriculum, student and school services, materials and advice.” That is Victoria. That State is in a shambles with a system that this Government has tried to repeat in Queensland. The difficulty is that the Labor Government has the extremists of its Left Wing entering the education system. Those extremists are now starting to run the department. I cite the example of Matt the Bear. A couple of extremist teachers said that Matt was a koala, not a bear, so the Mater Children’s Hospital could not go ahead with the Matt the Bear program. Because those teachers made those complaints, the Minister listened to them and cancelled the implementation of the Matt the Bear program. A couple of teachers made a complaint and said, “Listen, we do not believe that Matt is a bear; Matt is a koala, and we are trying to teach kids what koalas are about.” So the arts council, through the Minister, stopped that whole program. Mr Braddy: I restored it. Mr LINGARD: The Minister restored it after he cancelled the initial program. On top of those disasters, the Minister has practised deceit and deception in other areas. I have outlined the disguise of the severance pay. Let us consider the Minister’s statements on the textbook allowance scheme. On 14 March 1991, he wrote to p. and c. associations and stated— “In addition, the School Textbook and Resource Allowance has been substantially increased. Parents with students in Years 11 and 12 will receive”— and I repeat “will receive”— “an additional $300 to help cover the costs of necessary books and other items over these two years.” An additional $300! Anyone who knows the system would know that parents of students in Year 11 already received $120, which was increased to $150. Parents of students in Year 12 already received $50, which was increased to $150. The Minister has increased that amount by only $130. Parents were not receiving an additional $300. The Minister Legislative Assembly 2046 24 October 1991 practised blatant deception in saying that to p. and c. associations and also to the public of Queensland. That is utterly despicable. Let us consider the despicable act of the Minister in writing to private schools on 5 September and telling them that the loan interest assistance subsidy scheme would be replaced with a needs- based capital grants scheme, with the new capital grants scheme indexed at $15m per annum. Within minutes of 2.30 p.m. on 5 September, the Minister wrote to those schools and said, “Gone, out, no more.” What happened to those people who had made all of their architectural plans? Those plans were put on hold. The Minister did not say that the schools would not receive any funding; he said that they might still receive something. He knows as well as I do what the needs-based assessment scheme will do. It will categorise those schools. The Minister knows already in what category the schools will be placed, but he does not tell them that. He is deceptive in saying to the schools that they might still receive a subsidy. Those schools have to work under that sort of a scheme. Members should consider the Minister’s position on the Gazebo Hotel matter, to which I referred. They should consider his deception on the accelerated capital works program. It was always a policy of the National Party Government that two new high schools be built each year. I remind Labor Party members that, when the Labor Party was in Government previously, for 30 years it did not build one high school in Queensland. I repeat: for 30 years, Labor did not build one new high school. When Government members talk about cronies and say that the National Party might also appoint cronies, I remind them that, when there was a change of Government to the National Party, the director-general of the 1950s continued in his position until 1962. It is not true to say that the National Party sacked those sorts of people; it kept them. However, Government members cannot say the same now. When they took office,the director-general probably lasted about two days. For 30 years, the then Labor Government did not build a high school in Queensland. Now, Government members say that next year, under the accelerated capital works program, four new high schools will be built. However, they do not say how many high schools will be built in 1993, because no new high schools will be built in 1993. The Government has brought forward the building of those schools. Government members have deceived the public by saying that four new high schools will be built next year—just before an election—when they know jolly well that no new high schools will be built in 1993, just after an election. Similarly, money is about to be transferred from the Department of Administrative Services to the Department of Education for repairs and maintenance to school grounds. Under the user-pays system, each school will be allocated a certain amount of money. Decisions on maintenance will have to be made by the school principals, and any extra costs will have to be carried by the p. and c. associations. Once again, that is a direct con of the school principals of this State. For the Minister to say that he will take the money from the Department of Administrative Services, give extra money to the Education Department—give it to the schools—and tell the principals that, under the user-pays system, they must look after their own maintenance is honestly deceptive. It is completely wrong. The Government is moving responsibility away from itself and trying to put it on to the principals. That is completely and utterly wrong. The same applies to the school grant cheques. The Minister tried to hand out the school grant cheques to members of Parliament so that they could hand out the cheques personally. Time expired. Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (11.51 a.m.): I will begin my speech on the Estimates by addressing the subject of restructuring, in respect of which the member for Fassifern spent his half hour giving us a tirade of objection. I can appreciate that the member for Fassifern objects to the process of restructuring in the Education Department. I can Legislative Assembly 2047 24 October 1991 appreciate that his mates have been asked to reapply for their jobs and to apply for new positions. However, it is important to remember how one received promotion in the Education Department under the National Party Government. First of all, one had to be a man, preferably a man who played football. It did not matter whether it was Rugby League or Rugby Union. A football-playing male was high on promotional lists in the Education Department. I concede that some women did get promotion. During the 32 years of the National Party Government, there were a couple of women inspectors. However, those women inspectors were home economics teachers. They came from no other fields. Why were home economics teachers chosen? They were regarded as true ladies and they were malleable for the men with whom they worked. That was what promotion was like under the National Party system. How not to get promotion under the National Party—basically, be a woman. When we came to Government we inherited the following statistics: 73 per cent of primary teachers were women, 56 per cent of secondary teachers were women and 78 per cent of specialist teachers were women, but only 4 per cent of class 1 principals were women, only 6 per cent of class 2 principals were women and only 9 per cent of class 3 principals were women. These statistics in themselves reveal that the Education Department needed a shake up and a restructuring. If some of these men had to reapply for their jobs, then so be it. If some of them did not get their jobs back, then basically it meant that better people came along and took their positions. Ms Power: Better women came along. Ms SPENCE: And in some cases, they were better women. I can appreciate that there is some uncertainty and unrest within the teaching profession which has been generated by the restructuring process. This is due to a number of factors. Firstly, the size and complexity of an organisation as large as the Department of Education will always lead to difficulties in any restructuring process. This is a department which employs more than 40 000 people and controls an annual budget of more than $2 billion and changes to such a large and significant structure will never be plain sailing. Secondly, the nature of education is such that the impact of change on the community will be greater than with other departments. Education is a basic social service. It touches the lives of more Queenslanders both directly and indirectly than any other Government activity. Staff involved in education are constantly in contact with their communities, which in turn have a significant sense of involvement in and ownership of the education process. Thirdly, like all bureaucracies, the Education Department is conditioned by its own culture. The sole purpose of the reform process is to give the people of Queensland the best education system in Australia. The sorts of principles which have characterised the focus on the school process have not always sat easily with the pre-existing structures, processes and some individuals. The head of the Public Sector Management Commission, Dr Peter Coaldrake, recently observed that the Education Department has experienced a clash of cultures, particularly in regard to the concept of merit selection. Dr Coaldrake proffered the view that the answer to some of the difficulties which have emerged through the restructuring process is a greater sensitivity to the particular culture of the department and an acknowledgment that a level of genuine concern exists about the array of changes that are taking place. I agree with this view, and I know that the Minister has instructed the director-general and his staff that he would like to see the restructuring process completed as soon as possible to avoid the uncertainty and concern that necessarily exists because of this process. I know from talking to teachers in my own electorate that there is uncertainty out there about the restructuring process. They are having difficulties because the faces have changed. In fact, in my electorate the region has changed significantly and people are facing some uncertainty about that. They are keen to see school support centres up and running next year. In due course, that uncertainty will settle down. Legislative Assembly 2048 24 October 1991

The member for Fassifern talked about political bastardisation of the education process in Queensland today. He actually referred to the spill of the principals positions. I agree that that was an unsettling experience for many preschools and school communities, but if the member looks at the results of that principal selection criteria and the people who actually got the jobs in the 36 superschools, he will see very clearly that there was no political bastardisation in that process. Certainly members of the National Party and Liberal Party remain principals of those 36 superschools in this State. I refute very strongly his claims on that matter. This Government gives the provision of high quality education which allows individuals to maximise their potential and achieve economic security, a high priority on its social justice agenda. We can justifiably have pride in our spending on education, which has rectified the past neglect of the State education system and brings Queensland’s education-funding in line with national standards. Our election promise of increasing education-funding by $250m in our first term has already been exceeded in this, our second Budget. Education-funding has been increased by $260m in real terms and the $2.1 billion for the Education budget this year is an increase of 9.8 per cent on our last Budget. This money will fund 768 extra teachers, new school buildings, a doubling of expenditure on foreign language teaching, the appointment of an additional 100 specialist teachers, literacy and numeracy programs in schools and computer education. In addition, this budget fulfils the Government’s election promise of introducing a Remote Area Incentive Scheme for teachers. This is another promise that the National Party made but on which it never delivered. This scheme, which has been allocated $3.2m this year, will benefit rural and remote Queensland as better qualified and experienced teachers will be encouraged to remain in remote areas. Our spending on non-Government schooling is the largest in our State’s history, as is our assistance to parents. Funding for school grants has been increased so that hard-working p. and c. associations are relieved of the burden of providing basic items for their school. The sum of $21m has been provided for the school textbook allowances, which have increased from $65 to $68 for Years 8, 9 and 10 and from $150 to $156 for Years 11 and 12. Finally, this budget sets aside $7.1m for the new Student Education Profile that will replace the old TE score. The new system, which was developed after consultation with parents, teachers and education experts, means that the present Government has fulfilled its pledge that students will no longer have 12 years of schooling reduced to a three digit number. The Labor Government’s spending on education has important social justice implications. It means that Queensland children will no longer be disadvantaged in comparison with other Australian children. It means that those born into disadvantaged circumstances will be given equality of opportunity in the school system. It means that the student from Weipa is provided with a range of opportunities that is equally as wide as that enjoyed by a student at MacGregor. The Labor Government is investing in this State’s future by investing in this State’s most important assets—our children. I believe that history will record the priority we have given to education as one of this Government’s finest achievements. I turn now to speak briefly about the LOTE program, which is a program of teaching languages other than English. This program, which has gained support from the wider community, is extending the teaching of foreign languages into primary schools. I agree with the suggestion that this is another improvement that the National Party Government spoke about, but had never actually acted upon. There is certainly a great deal of public support for teaching Asian languages in primary schools, particularly in my own electorate where the languages of Japanese and Chinese are being widely taught. This Government has allocated $11.9m to the Languages Other Than English program. It is instituting initiatives that will support and extend LOTE programs, and in 1994 pilot projects will begin Legislative Assembly 2049 24 October 1991 with a view to having a continuous LOTE program from Years 6 to 8. In order to achieve this, the Government is employing 100 additional teachers to allow for an increase in the number of schools that are offering a LOTE program at the Year 6 level, and to extend the LOTE program into Year 7. It is also the Government’s intention to provide a planned, coordinated in-service program to upgrade teachers in the areas of proficiency, methodology and retraining to ensure a sufficient supply of quality LOTE teachers. Because there are insufficient numbers of teachers who are available to teach the Languages Other Than English program, scholarships are being offered to people commencing final year degree studies in 1991 or 1992 in order to improve the supply of teachers for the LOTE program. The Government is also expanding the teacher exchange program by providing support for a number of Government-to-Government agreements, such as offering scholarships in overseas countries and teaching assistants from France, Germany and Japan. By providing ongoing support to two secondary schools offering French emersion programs and a third secondary school introducing German in 1992, this Government is being very supportive. In demonstrating a commitment to the Languages Other than English program, the Government is placing a great deal of money into the program and is giving support to teachers involved in it. As a parent, I am very pleased that my son’s school is now teaching the Chinese language and that he will be given the opportunity of learning Chinese at primary school. People have known for years that the younger students are when they are taught a foreign language, the better equipped they will be to gain proficiency in that language. For too long, insufficient emphasis was placed on teaching French and German languages in secondary schools and, as a result, there has been no enthusiasm for foreign languages in Queensland. I believe that a new emphasis on languages other than those two basic European languages will certainly change Queensland culture and make this State a truly multicultural State. It will also change the attitude of Queenslanders towards our Asian neighbours and our place in the world. I commend the Minister for Education for the initiatives he has introduced in getting the LOTE program up and running so very quickly. I support the Estimates before the Committee. Mr QUINN (South Coast) (12.05 p.m.): I rise today to participate in the Estimates debate on the Education budget, and at the outset acknowledge the increase in funding to education in Queensland over the past two Budgets. However, although the total expenditure in an endeavour such as education is important, how that money is expended and what it is used to achieve are also important. It is in the administration of those funds and the policies that drive the programs outlined in Budget Paper No. 3 that this Government is failing. Despite substantial salary increases and more promotional opportunities being opened up, teacher morale is the lowest it has ever been. The restructuring process instigated by this Government has seen high school principals sacked and more than 100 senior officers at regional and head office level choose early retirement rather than work in a department that lacks stability and has lost direction. Restructuring has seen cronyism become entrenched in the upper echelons of the department, and educational objectives replaced by a politically driven social agenda. Gender equity and social justice are the catchcries echoing throughout the system. Those issues have assumed god-like status, with every aspect of education now being subjected to their overzealous application. The pursuit of academic excellence has been replaced by a Government policy of acceptance of mediocrity. Selection of personnel from senior officers to the newly created AST positions at school level is characterised by the reliance on a written submission, with previous experience and success being ignored. Legislative Assembly 2050 24 October 1991

The PSMC selection criteria have absolutely no credibility in the teaching profession at school level. Inexperience and indecision are now plainly obvious and are filtering down to adversely affect the quality of education provided to children. Further confusion and acceptance of mediocrity was clearly shown by the Minister when the results of the latest literacy and numeracy tests were published recently. These showed that a third of the students were unable to read effectively and a quarter were unable to communicate their thoughts on paper. Incredibly, the Minister defended these results as “encouraging”, and stated that spelling did not count when literacy was being tested. Whether the Minister recognises it or not, the reality is that being able to spell does matter in a world where quality education is becoming increasingly important. This is the second Government report showing that the standard of literacy and numeracy skills in students is falling, yet all that parents receive are excuses and ministerial reassurances that cannot be substantiated. The $5m allocated in the Budget this year to improve literacy and numeracy will have very little impact, since similar programs in previous years have led to the present situation. Obviously, the current methods are failing and this fact ought to be recognised by the Government. There can no longer be any doubt. The evidence is irrefutable. The department’s own random tests and the recent review of adult literacy carried out by the Bureau of Employment, Vocational and Further Education and Training prove this conclusively. The time for excuses and procrastination is over. But what does this Government do? It defends the results, papers over the problem, and continues to con parents into believing that the standards are being maintained. It is time to be honest and admit that literacy standards in Queensland’s schools are falling. Students with literacy problems are not being recognised early enough and the problems are being compounded as those students move through the school system. By not giving all students the best opportunity to learn to their full potential, this Government is failing in its most basic of educational responsibilities. To prevent the continued abrogation of responsibility, all students should be diagnostically tested at least twice in their years of compulsory schooling, preferably in their second and fifth years of primary education. The results of these tests should then be reported to parents so that they are aware of their children's standards and progress. Informing parents of the facts is the way to make the system accountable and responsive. The woefully inadequate number of support or remedial teachers in Queensland’s schools has also contributed to the present appalling situation. Mr T. B. Sullivan: Your coalition! You cut them! Mr QUINN: The Labor Government has been in office for two years. What has it done? Nothing! Nothing in two years. More of these teachers must be employed so that students identified as having problems can be given immediate help to get them back on track. New South Wales, which has compulsory testing, has just released this year’s results which show a significant improvement among 45 000 students, including Aboriginal children and those from non-English speaking backgrounds. So, the system works. Compulsory testing does lead to higher education standards and stands in direct contrast to Labor's steady-as-she-sinks policy. The poor standards of literacy and numeracy in our schools can no longer be ignored or defended by the Minister. The implications for students are too grave. I turn now to a topic related to the one I have just discussed, and that is the provision for foreign languages to be taught in primary schools. The Queensland Liberals support the learning of other languages in schools, but it should be attempted only by those students who are fully conversant with the English language. With standards of literacy now falling, the Government has its priorities wrong by concentrating on teaching a foreign language to all primary school students. Indeed, to those students struggling to learn English, trying to learn another language causes confusion and is a waste of scarce Legislative Assembly 2051 24 October 1991 resources. English is the language students will be using most in their adult lives. It is a better policy to have all students literate in English and some students fluent in a foreign language than some 25 per cent to 30 per cent of students illiterate in two languages. Unfortunately, that is what is happening under this present Government. The allocation of $12m for foreign languages and only $5m for improving numeracy and literacy clearly shows that that is a wrong priority. The next items I wish to address are the new tertiary entrance procedures and the provision of tertiary places in Queensland universities. When the Viviani report into tertiary entrance procedures was released, the Queensland Liberals were highly critical of some of its recommendation. Many educators, educational groups and the Liberal Party saw the field positions as an additional unnecessary complication. It is now history that the Minister destroyed the integrity and credibility of the report, and its author, when the Minister increased the number of field positions from four to five, despite the report itself recommending against more than four fields, as the assessment procedures would be too unwieldy and complicated. The fact that students are forced to make subject choices at the end of Year 10—and this predetermines their university courses—is an inflexible system going directly against the prevailing educational wisdom that encourages students to make career choices as late as possible. To alleviate this straight-jacket approach, universities are starting to see benefits in allowing students to complete a broad first-year course before specialising. The dentistry faculty at Queensland University has decided that it will not accept any students in 1992, preferring instead to select students into second year dentistry in 1993. Among those students selected will be students who have completed a year's university study, preferably as a science student. This approach allows students an extra year to make up their minds before entering a professional course and is educationally sound. Also, it is fully supported by the Viviani report, which clearly acknowledges that the best indicator of how students perform at university can be obtained only at the end of the first year of tertiary study. If other faculties adopt this commendable approach, the field positions will become redundant—not that they are currently used a great deal now, anyway. This process could be greatly hastened if the Government honoured an election promise to secure more tertiary places for Queensland students. Before the last election, the Labor Party boasted that its special relationship with the Federal Government would mean more places in Queensland universities. Both Mr Baddy and Mr Goss have been dismal failures in this regard. So much so, that the number of Year 12 students entering universities has started to fall, both as a percentage of first year enrolments and in real numbers. At the beginning of the 1990 academic year, 48 per cent of first year enrolments, or 11 012 students, were Year 12 students. At the beginning of this academic year, the figures had fallen to 42 per cent, or 10 186 students. This means that 826 fewer Year 12 students actually enrolled this year than in the previous year. Last year saw very high TE score requirements for most courses due to 51 000 applications for 22 500 places. An equally desperate situation faces school-leavers at the end of this year, when the Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre estimates that there will be 57 000 applicants, which is 6 000 more applicants than last year, competing for the same number, and if not, fewer places. What will be the result? Higher TE requirements and fewer Year 12 students entering universities. It was this squeeze for tertiary places which produced distrust for the TE score amongst parents and students in the first instance, and it will have the same effect on the student education profile unless the number of places is substantially increased, or moves are made to secure a fair share of places for Year 12 students. In the current circumstances, many high school graduates this year will be squeezed out of university and face the bleak prospect of joining 20 000 other young people aged between 15 and 19 currently unemployed in this State. They will be denied a decent start in life, and Legislative Assembly 2052 24 October 1991 the blame can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of the Labor Governments at both State and Federal level. I turn now to the issue of funding for non-Government schools, and the sudden and unexpected changes to the Loan Interest Rate Subsidy Scheme which was announced in the State Budget. This deliberate and underhanded attack on the non-Government school sector has left many schools with unexpected debts running into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Schools which were moving to the contractual stage with building programs suddenly found the ground cut from beneath them by a deceitful Government which allowed them to incur unnecessary expenditure by not indicating that funding changes were imminent. Many schools will not be funded under the new proposals. Inevitably, parents will have to pay for this Government's deceit. On the question of recurrent grants, funding is up by 10 per cent on last year's figures. However, given that there have been significant salary increases and that the non-Government schools are enrolling an increasing proportion of the State’s student population, this funding will not cover the running costs of these schools. For the second year running, teacher salary increases have been funded for six months only. In fact, as a result of the Budget, many non-Government schools have already advised parents that fees will rise next year, most well in excess of the CPI. Parents must retain the right to enrol their children in the school of their choice without undue financial penalty or lack of facilities and resources at schools, and this can only be guaranteed by adequate funding from the State Government. Starving the non-Government sector of resources will only see the proportion of students enrolled in the State system increase, placing greater strains on its budget. Another matter which will affect State schools is the application of the Workplace Health and Safety Regulations to educational facilities. No-one would argue that school environments should be other than safe, but since almost all schools will need expensive modifications to playground equipment or buildings, the question is: will the unsafe facilities be upgraded to a safe standard by the Government, or will school parents and citizens associations be forced, because of lack of funding, to remove unsafe equipment? This question has a particularly sharp edge, given that the minor works and maintenance budget for Education has been slashed by some 40 per cent this year. In general, these cut-backs will lead to repairs, maintenance and small improvements to schools not considered urgent being continually postponed, leading to shabby classrooms and poor learning environments in general. The final matter which I wish to raise is the issue of school councils for State schools. Funding should have been provided in this budget to enable parent groups to move towards establishing school councils. These bodies are a positive way of forging closer links between schools and their local communities, and they enable parents and other community members to participate in the governance of schools. In summary, this Education budget has concentrated on symbolism rather than substance. Standards need to be raised for all if we are serious about offering quality education. Time expired. Dr CLARK (Barron River) (12.20 p.m.): I would like to begin my contribution to this Estimates debate by congratulating the Minister on the Education budget this year of approximately $2.1 billion, a record for Queensland. The member for South Coast has given us his description of that as a symbol, not substance. How he can describe an increase of $260m in this Budget as merely a symbol, I am totally unable to understand. The funding of tertiary education is generally regarded as a Commonwealth responsibility. However, this year the State Government has allocated $45.74m to the tertiary-education sector, an increase of $6m. The assistance to the tertiary institutions program Legislative Assembly 2053 24 October 1991 coordinates and facilitates the planning, development and implementation of educational programs in higher-education institutions through the provision of policy and planning advice and a range of support services. The program has five components: the Office of Higher Education; certificates of tertiary courses; the Queensland Tertiary Education Foundation; external studies; and payment to tertiary institutions. I will examine these programs in some detail. Firstly, relative to the Office of Higher Education—higher-education enrolments in the State in 1991 exceeded 86 000, an increase of more than 10 000, or 13.3 per cent, on the 1990 figure. Notwithstanding this increase, there is still remaining, we recognise, a very significant unmet demand for higher education in the State, with nearly 11 000 qualified applicants not being able to obtain a place. We believe that currently Queensland is receiving a relatively favourable proportion of the Commonwealth’s increased allocation for higher education, but it is still inadequate to meet the demands arising from the higher retention rate of school students in Year 12—the highest in Australia—the increase in Queensland’s population due to sustained interstate migration, and the desires of those who have yet to participate in higher education to obtain qualifications necessary for their employment. Representations have been made from the Premier down to get a better deal for Queensland, and those representations will be continuing. However, in the face of shortfalls, the State Government has not washed its hands of the matter and said, “Well, that is not our worry. We will just keep asking Canberra for more money.” This Government has got in there and provided the money. Since the Goss Government assumed office, it has funded 2 300 additional commencing places in higher education directed to school-leavers undertaking studies on a full-time basis. This year’s Budget provides $17.57m to support those students in their studies. The State Government has also funded the transfer of basic nurse education to the university sector, which began in 1989 with an intake of 693 students. The 1990 intake was 1 200, a figure which will be maintained until 1994. Our contribution to those 1 200 students in 1992 is some $23m. After 1994, the Commonwealth will assume full funding responsibility for the program. We are more than maintaining our share and contribution to higher education. Another important program in the tertiary education sector is the Queensland Tertiary Education Foundation. In 1989, that foundation was created by the Minister for Education to act as a catalyst to develop and enhance direct links between business, Government and the education and training institutions. By providing funding subsidies, it is a practical mechanism for developing effective and long-standing partnerships between education and business, which will further the economic development of Queensland through increased access to tertiary education. The foundation encourages, in particular, proposals from business and industry sources. In that way it can give business the opportunity to directly influence education and training in this State to ensure that the specific needs of the business community for a better-skilled work force are met in the most effective way. I believe that the role of the Queensland Tertiary Education Foundation has not been sufficiently recognised. It is important to look at some of its achievements. In 1990-91, the foundation funded 24 proposals with a total value of $4.6m, of which the board’s contribution was $1.25m, meaning that institutions and industry contributed cash and in-kind support of some $2.70 for every dollar of foundation money. That is the sort of partnership that we want with industry and business, where they are working with the Government. This year’s Budget allocation of $2m will enable the foundation to continue its excellent work. For example, in Rockhampton, the University College of Central Queensland has established a mariculture training centre on about a hectare of land leased from the Koorana Crocodile Farm near Keppel Sands in central Queensland. That complex has received a $303,000 grant from QTEF and will provide Legislative Assembly 2054 24 October 1991 short, intensive, non-award courses and training in prawn and other maricultures, including all aspects of pond management and product marketing, as well as enable research to be undertaken. At the TAFE college in Cairns, an innovative business management program received sponsorship from Daikyo and the Queensland Tertiary Education Foundation to offer special blue ribbon courses to business and industry in that region. In Townsville, the need for tropical marine and environmental chemistry courses has seen Queensland Nickel and QTEF join forces to help establish a post-graduate program at the James Cook University of North Queensland. QTEF and Queensland Nickel have provided $120,000 towards the cost of honours and graduate courses over the next two years. The role of environmental scientists is considered crucial as the region’s population continues to grow and its sensitive ecosystems are placed under increasing development pressures. The program of external studies has seen the first stage of the open learning network completed during 1991, with some 33 centres established throughout the State. Under the second stage, which follows acceptance of the report of the review conducted by Professor Willett, the operations of the centres will be extended to include other users, such as the Police Service, the Department of Health and Telecom. Those centres will become essentially self-funding in future. However, an allocation of $1.3 has been provided in this year’s Budget. On behalf of the people of far-north Queensland, I express our appreciation of the $3.5m allocation for a building for the use of the Cairns campus of James Cook University which is currently on the Cairns TAFE site. The Government has assisted with the provision of land for the relocation of the Cairns campus out to a site at Smithfield just north of Cairns City. Federal funding to support the construction of buildings on that site is expected to be announced next month. James Cook University has been giving very serious consideration to the future expansion of the Cairns campus, which has grown at an average annual rate of 35 per cent since 1987, when 117 students were enrolled. As at March this year, 396 students were enrolled in courses leading to a Bachelor of Arts degree, a Bachelor of Commerce degree, a Bachelor of Social Work degree, a Bachelor of Psychology degree and a Bachelor of Community Welfare degree. On Saturday, 26 October, at a forum in Cairns, the question of the status of the Cairns campus will be explored. Professor Ray Golding, Vice-Chancellor of James Cook University, has expressed his view that the Cairns campus should move towards a complementary equality with the Townsville campus within the framework of a one university multicampus model. I place on record my support for that model. A number of important developments will be occurring at the Cairns campus, starting next year. Developments that have already been approved include the introduction of the first year of the BEd course, the completion of the first year of the Bachelor of Commerce course, the third year of the Bachelor of Community Welfare course and the appointment of a lecturer in mathematics and statistics. The appointment of rolled-over lecturers from 1991 in psychology and politics is anticipated, and access courses for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are to be introduced in the second semester. In 1993, developments anticipated include further developments in education, commerce and economics, and possibly geography, anthropology and an Asian language. The availability of some laboratory facilities by 1994 or 1995 would permit the introduction of the first year of the Bachelor of Science course. An interest has already been expressed in offering geology, with a strong environmental emphasis, as well as computer science. An interest has also been expressed in the introduction of a Bachelor of Visual Arts course. Legislative Assembly 2055 24 October 1991

The concept of the James Cook University being one university with multicampuses is a concept well accepted in the United States, where federal multicampus universities are commonplace. In 1971, the President of the University of Wisconsin said— “The university system should be more than simply the sum of its parts, although the constituent institutions are, of course, its core and its reason for being. The system has a responsibility to shape and apply policies, enhance relations among institutions, facilitate contact between the institutions and state government, and represent to the citizens and the state the needs of higher education in Wisconsin.” In Australia, this model has been embraced by the University of New England and is being considered by the University of Western Sydney. There is no reason why this should not work for Queensland and James Cook University. We can explore and negotiate a relationship between the Cairns and Townsville campuses of the one university, we can ensure that appropriate growth occurs in Cairns. In some quarters, there is a feeling that Cairns should have its own university tomorrow. It will not happen tomorrow; it will not happen until quite some time in the future. It seems to me that the best model for us is that, in the foreseeable future, Cairns should be a campus with James Cook University, but a campus on an equal footing with that in Townsville. We are currently exploring the means of providing greater representation for the campus in Cairns on the governing structures of the university, such that with its council we want to achieve for greater representation from the Cairns area. Returning to the question of tertiary education and the Budget—the Government’s commitment to tertiary education is also seen in its commitment to a fair system of selecting students for study at our higher education institutions. Total funds of $7.1m have been allocated to the continued implementation of the recommendations proposed in the Viviani report. This incorporates funding for the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies, the Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre and the Tertiary Entrance Procedures Authority. TEPA has been established to keep tertiary entrance procedures and practices under continuous review and advise the Minister for Education on all matters relating to tertiary entrance. The authority will also undertake and commission research on tertiary entrance issues. From the end of 1992, the authority will be responsible for issuing tertiary entrance statements to all eligible students at the completion of Year 12. The authority acts in a most valuable role, providing an interface or bridge between all parties which play a role in the tertiary entrance and university selection process. It liaises closely with the Board of Senior Secondary School Studies, the Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre and universities and schools. During 1991-92, the authority will address several issues of importance, including university procedures for admissions of students who did not complete Year 12 in the previous year; university appeals procedures with respect to admissions decisions; reporting of the results of the core skills test; and design and development of procedures and materials for issuing tertiary entrance statements. TEPA is providing the opportunity that was necessary and required in Queensland for the implementation of a fair system for selecting students for tertiary institutions. It has been recognised and welcomed by the schools. The inquiries that I have made of schools indicate that that procedure is moving smoothly and is being accepted by the community. Queensland is playing a very significant and fundamental role in providing the enhancement of tertiary education in this State. In conclusion, I place on record thanks for the assistance that I have received from the Minister personally and from his officers in the Office of Higher Education, Mr Bevin Pope and Miss Leigh Tabrett. I thank them for the assistance that they have provided to Legislative Assembly 2056 24 October 1991 me and the Cairns community in our endeavours to improve higher education facilities for the people of far-north Queensland. Mr LITTLEPROUD (Condamine) (12.34 p.m.): In rising to speak in this debate on the Estimates of the Department of Education, I begin by saying that it is always the responsibility of the Government of the day to meet the educational needs of the society it serves. Without doubt, that has always been a challenge. It is worth while looking back at what the challenge has been and what we have achieved. It is documented that, in the preschool area, a higher percentage of children in Queensland have access to preschool education than in any other part of Australia. It is documented that we have already met the challenge in terms of secondary education in that, of all the States of Australia, Queensland has the highest level of retention of students in Year 12, and is beaten only by the Australian Capital Territory. When the Queensland Government controlled universities, of all the States of Australia, Queensland had the highest percentage of participation at university level. In recent years, starting in the post-1972 era, that level has slipped. Since the Federal Government began controlling universities, Queensland has been battling to regain the position it held. I know that it is frustrating for the present Government—it was also frustrating for me when I was the responsible Minister—to see the situation deteriorating. But the record is there. We have had challenges and we have met them. The challenge for the future is something different. People are now staying at school longer. Before they can go out and play a meaningful role in society, they need more education. That will put great demands on tertiary education and vocational education. Perhaps it will be necessary for the Government of the day to look very closely at the link between TAFE and tertiary education and how they interface with secondary education. That is the need and that is the challenge that has to be met. When we were growing up in the 1950s and the 1960s, the challenge was to provide secondary school education right across the State. We did that, and we did it well. The new challenge is in the area of higher education. We already know that only a certain percentage—approximately 20 per cent to 25 per cent—will receive tertiary education. The people going into the other aspects of higher education, whether it be prevocational training, advanced vocational training or retraining because of a change of vocation, have to be catered for. I can recall that, about two years ago, the high school principals of Queensland met and produced what I think was called the corporate statement of senior secondary school schooling. They made statements about the need for change in the construction of education in the post-compulsory years of education and how they would go about meeting this new challenge. I think that to date the Education Department can take some credit for what it has done. Although I refer to the Education Department, I mean education as a whole because education is now the responsibility of two departments, that is, those departments administered by Mr Warburton and Mr Braddy. The same circumstances existed under the National Party Government with Mr Lester and me. A network of TAFE colleges is being spread across the State. However, I am concerned that, in more recent times, the allocation of those colleges has been concentrated in the urban areas to the detriment of the country areas. There is also in place the possibility of providing annexes of TAFE. Mr Warburton acknowledges that that is a good way of providing TAFE facilities in the smaller towns. There is also TAFE-Link, which provides TAFE access to high schools. In more recent years, good use has been made of modern technology. As a result of the Sherrin report, which was produced in 1988, there are now open-learning centres. At present, I think—and I stand to be corrected—there are in the order of 40 open-learning centres throughout the State. Telelearning was also developed. It provided tremendous advantages in secondary schooling. There are all sorts of possibilities for improvements Legislative Assembly 2057 24 October 1991 in meeting the new challenges in education such as an interface between post-secondary compulsory schooling and TAFE and tertiary education. In more recent times, a proposal has been put forward by John Dawkins for a closer link between TAFE and universities. He talks about a two-by-two system: two years at TAFE, after which people can obtain a certificate or associate diploma. They get credits for that study, and can gain entry into university. That sort of system appeals to me. Obviously, a place at a TAFE college is much cheaper than one at a university. It costs probably $4,000 for a place in a TAFE college, and perhaps $8,000 to $10,000 for a place in a university. That is almost an advantage of two for one. Some people have a dream of undertaking tertiary education, but when they do they find that it is not what they expected or wanted. At times, there is a wastage rate of 15 per cent or 20 per cent amongst first-year places. It would seem that if we put those people through the hoop of an associate diploma course or a certificate course at a TAFE college, they would gain some knowledge and understanding of exactly what they want in life and may, in fact, be more content to undertake technical training rather than professional training. I hope that the Minister and his department consider closely that proposal from John Dawkins. Recently, Mr Warburton acknowledged that proposal and stated that he will think about it. The biggest challenge that the Minister faces in the near future is providing this sort of new educational need in rural Queensland. The big need is finding the wherewithal to make sure that there is equity in access. At present, the real danger is that the new poor—the new disadvantaged—in Queensland will be the children of rural Queensland. At present, they are going through a financial crisis. They have been squeezed extremely hard. It is quite obvious that there is no future for most of them in the rural areas. They must acquire the sorts of skills that will fit them for urban life and urban living in what we hope will become the clever country. All sorts of incentives must be put in place for those people. If we continue down the very same track of using the technology that is available, we have a fair chance of putting together the sorts of TAFE colleges that are needed in the bigger provincial towns, providing annexes in the smaller towns, and using open learning centres and Telelearning. By using the two-by-two system with TAFE colleges and universities—two years at TAFE and two years at university—we can provide opportunities for people in rural areas to become part and parcel of the demands of education in the 1990s. I urge the Government to build more facilities and use technology to deliver the very best quality of education. Most of all, I urge Government members to talk to their colleagues in Canberra and press them to adopt a more commonsense approach to the way in which they allocate subsidies or assistance—be it through Austudy, remote area allowance or travel entitlements. There really is a crisis out there at present. The Minister must be aware that enrolments at boarding schools across Queensland are dropping, and next year will drop dramatically. Because of the situation in which rural families find themselves, entire careers are at risk. As yet, the Federal Government is not acting quickly enough to give them relief. It behoves those Government members who believe in social justice to act quickly and press their Federal colleagues to do something about it. I turn now to the personnel of the department. Since the change of Government in Queensland, there has been major disruption in many Government departments. It is true to say that there is great unhappiness in the public service in general. Morale is low. In fact, there is a quiet determination amongst many public servants to bring down the Goss Government. It gives me no delight to say that the unrest is worst of all in the Education Department. In two years, I have watched officers and former officers of the Education Department age 10 years. Their careers have been ruined; their health has suffered; there have been premature retirements; and people are absolutely devastated. Mr Palaszczuk: How many class room teachers have retired? Legislative Assembly 2058 24 October 1991

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I am talking about the expertise at the top of the Education Department—people who had years to give. I am talking about professional people in their early forties and early fifties—— Mr Palaszczuk interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Stephan): Order! The member will cease interjecting. Mr LITTLEPROUD: Mr Temporary Chairman, the member is pretty irresponsible. Many of those people in their forties and fifties had much to offer to education in Queensland. But out of complete disgust and a great sense of loss, they have walked away from their chosen careers. In his presentation of the Estimates, the Minister gave a very carefully worded delivery—30 minutes of half- truths. He left out the other parts and did not fill in the details. Obviously, the Minister wanted to give an impression that everything that has happened in the Education Department was for the best. He told only half the truth about what is actually happening. Members got a better picture when the member for Fassifern and the member for South Coast started to put together some of the pieces. Let me give members a good example of some of the devious acts that have occurred. I was pretty keen to see further improvements in the education sphere. I support many of the things that are still going on in the Education Department. However, I have been concerned about the treatment of its personnel. I refer to Education: Have Your Say. I read carefully through the questionnaire and filled in about two or three pages before I closed it in disgust. I came to a determination that that questionnaire had been very carefully constructed so that the Government would get the responses that it wanted. That questionnaire was constructed so that it would allow the Government to make decisions in a predetermined way on those responses. They were motherhood statements. From that, it would be possible for the people who are pulling the strings to make all sorts of statements that would suit the aims and leadership of the new department. When I started moving around the State and spoke to some of the people in the education system, I found that they held a similar view—that it was a useless document used for a devious purpose. More recently, some p. and c. associations have complained that they did not get a chance to look at the document. It seems as though it was taken over by the staff of some schools and the p. and c. associations did not get a chance to participate in the questionnaire. That may not have occurred Statewide, but certainly there was criticism about that. One thing that is happening within the education system that I cannot support is the abolition of the inspectorate. In my term as Minister for Education, it was brought home to me that one of the greatest strengths of the Education Department in Queensland was the inspectorate. My predecessor, Lin Powell, increased the number of inspectors in our schools. The National Party Government also changed the role of inspectors to 50 per cent in terms of assessment and 50 per cent in terms of the professional development of teachers. Those inspectors had expertise. They travelled from school to school picking up ideas. They knew what was necessary and they could help in the professional development of other teachers in the State. It is also necessary, in my opinion and in the opinion of many people, for the person doing an assessment to walk into the class room, see what is going on and feel the tone of the school. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr LITTLEPROUD: The honourable member would know that that is necessary. By the present proposal—a division of evaluation—the Government is walking away from the inspectorate, and it is taking a backward step. I was interested to hear the comments made by the member for Fassifern, who went to the ICPA conference at Longreach, where Legislative Assembly 2059 24 October 1991 a group of people who are vitally interested in education proposed that the inspectorate be reinstated. Although they heard the argument put forward by the Minister, by 300 to nil they said, “No, we want the inspectorate.” I strongly support the idea of the inspectorate being retained. I suggest that, when the National Party returns to Government, the inspectorate will be reinstated. All sorts of evaluations are needed, but it is the style of evaluation that is most important. The hands-on and eyes-on inspectorate stood by the National Party Government for many years. Comment has been made by both the member for South Coast and the member for Fassifern about the new method of applying for jobs. The member for Fassifern spoke about the amount of money being spent by teachers on putting together their CVs to make job applications. The same comments have been made to me by teachers in my home town. They have said that they will need to spend more time in developing more skills to look after their careers than in honing their teaching techniques. Mr Braddy: They can’t write a curriculum vitae on their own, are you telling me? Mr LITTLEPROUD: The Minister should talk to those people about their fears. Mr Braddy: If they can’t write their own curriculum vitae, they shouldn’t be applying for the position. Mr LITTLEPROUD: And the Minister says that he cares for his teachers! Now that I have the attention of the Minister, I refer to a question that was asked yesterday in the House by one of the members of the Liberal Party about the principal at the Toowoomba State High School. There was some suggestion that the principal had been provided with a car. I did not understand from the Minister’s answer yesterday whether that is a rumour or a fact. When the Minister sums up, he might like to alert honourable member opposite to the real facts. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (12.48 p.m.): It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak in the debate on the Education Estimates. The Goss Government has made education an area of high priority, and rightly so. When in Opposition, the Labor Party saw a great need for dramatic improvement in resourcing and funding to address serious shortfalls that had begun to become quite obvious and apparent in the declining years of the previous conservative Governments. Also when in Opposition, the bold claim was made that, in its first term, a Goss Government would inject an extra $250m into education. That commitment has been met in the first two years of the life of this Government. With $2.1 billion allocated to Education in this financial year—representing a 9.8 per cent increase over last year’s allocation—we find that Queensland now leads the way in education spending in this country. At a time when other States are contracting their Education budgets, Queensland continues to forge ahead. This is not wide-eyed, socialist big-spending, as our conservative opponents would have the public believe. This is a realisation that a functioning, well-resourced education system is at the very core of a modern and progressive society. That is especially important in these harsh economic times when competition for jobs will mean that employers are more selective and can justifiably impose higher qualifications as an employment entry requirement. The economic downturn will not last forever. Like droughts and other calamities, history proves that these events are cyclical. When the wheel has turned full circle and the economy is again picking up, it will be those States or countries that have the skills base that will be in the best position to take advantage of that upturn. I am confident that Queensland, whose economy is faring better than any other in the country, will be in a most enviable position and that the pre-eminent economic position will become further entrenched. Money spent on education is, in reality, a most sound investment in our future. Legislative Assembly 2060 24 October 1991

The Department of Education is charged with the forging of a true partnership between itself, parents, employers and the community at large to ensure that students in this State receive the highest quality education possible, which is designed to meet their needs in an ever more complicated social environment. More than ever, the department must use valuable resources in a most efficient manner to develop the full potential of students so that they may become morally and socially responsible citizens capable of gaining worthwhile employment and, in the process, make their contribution to our society. I point out that the Government is sticking firmly to its policy of not borrowing for social capital assets such as schools, thus moneys for that purpose are drawn from the Consolidated Fund. It is not intended to burden future generations of Queenslanders with a debt brought about by unrestrained spending, regardless of the obvious need for financial accountability. The Treasurer is to be congratulated for setting that overall responsible fiscal framework. I extend to the Minister for Education my congratulations on his ability to deliver real advances in the resourcing of education in this State, given the economic difficulties that we face. Although it is obvious that many in the community view the commitment of any Government to education in the light of capital works, I must point out that nothing is more fundamental to the quality of education than the provision of capable, highly trained professional staff. It is the personal relationship between student and teacher which is, in the final analysis, responsible for the delivery of a good education. Elsewhere in Australia, as I said earlier, Governments are cutting back on education spending, and that is no more apparent than when one looks at the reduction in teacher positions in other States. In South Australia, some 800 teaching positions have been shed; in New South Wales, also 800; in Victoria, a massive 1 500; and in Tasmania, 500. However, that 500 in Tasmania represents one-tenth of the total teaching force in that State. In Queensland, though, we are able to paint a much brighter and more positive picture. This Budget will enable an additional 372 teachers to be employed in 1991-92. Those teachers will meet the demands brought about by enrolment growth and the new initiatives and facilities provided by the Government. In addition, a further 100 teachers will be added to the work force to continue the implementation of the LOTE initiative. The teaching of foreign languages in this State is fast reaching the point at which we will become by far and away the nation’s focal point in that area. In addition, some 20 extra preschool teachers are to be employed, representing an increase of 12 in existing institutions and an additional eight to staff the new facilities announced by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech. Primary schools will benefit by the employment of 69 extra teachers, 39 of whom will meet enrolment demands in existing schools and 30 will staff new facilities which are to open their doors at the start of the 1992 school year. Moving on to the secondary sphere, teacher numbers are to be boosted by 260 and 217 of those will be allocated to existing schools and 43 to the new facilities. The higher proportion being allocated to the secondary sphere reflects the trend to a higher retention rate and the need therefore to provide adequate resources. Children with disabilities need resource levels in excess of those provided for mainstream students and this budget sees 23 teachers being provided for that specialist role. Not only has the Goss Government boosted the number of teachers in this State—I might add that it was in the order of 1 070 in some 18 months—but it has provided those professionals with an enhanced salary package, along with better career opportunities through award restructuring. Before this Government came to power, teachers in Queensland were the worst paid in Australia, but now we can proudly point to the fact that this disgraceful situation no longer applies. Queensland teachers are now on an equal or better footing than teachers elsewhere in the country. The last Budget allocated some $900m for teacher salaries, Legislative Assembly 2061 24 October 1991 which for some professionals meant a long overdue pay increase of up to 30 per cent. This Budget sees $100m specifically earmarked for the achievement of a national benchmark pay standard. To emphasise the advances made in teacher salaries, I point out relevant figures over the last three Budgets. Under the National Party in 1989-90, the figure stood at $806m. Under Labor in 1990-91, the figure was $900m, and in 1991-92, the figure was $1,013m. These increases far surpass CPI calculations and are a stark reminder to all that this Government has delivered on its promise to improve the career opportunities of teachers. Having served in the more remote communities in the State, I am pleased to be part of a Government that has begun the process of addressing the needs of teachers and other public servants who are transferred to these areas. A viable Remote Area Incentive Scheme is absolutely necessary if qualified professionals with the right motivation are to be found to staff these schools, which in themselves have special needs. An amount of $3.2m has been set aside in this Budget to commence a Remote Area Incentive Scheme. The feedback I receive from my former colleagues is positive indeed. Those serving in remote areas are appreciative of the Government’s initiative, whilst other colleagues are also most supportive. The aim of the scheme is to encourage teachers to remain in the more remote areas of the State for longer periods. That sort of stability is necessary for the children in those schools if they are to receive the quality of education received by children elsewhere. As well, the package offered will go a long way towards attracting quality teachers to those schools, thus providing the students with the enhanced education enjoyed by their colleagues in other parts of the State. The break-down of funding for this important initiative is that the Government will spend $2.5m on housing; scholarships for various teachers will cost $250,000; the sum of $250,000 will be spent on improving emergent leave conditions, and specialised induction programs, an area I am keen to see advanced, will take up $200,000. Some 89 schools will benefit as a result of this scheme. They represent schools that were identified by the joint Queensland Teachers Union/Department of Education working party as being rated 7, 8, 9 or 10 on a scale of remote disadvantage. There are five major components of this scheme. The first is that teacher housing, as I said, will benefit by the injection of $2.5m to improve its quality. There is ample evidence of substandard housing existing in these schools, and these funds should provide teachers and their families with a far more satisfactory accommodation and environment. An interesting innovation is the decision to provide a remote area scholarship in the form of a $2,000 after-tax cash payment per semester to teachers who are awarded scholarships to undertake further tertiary study. Additionally, the department will pay the HECS fees of students and will contribute an amount to the costs a teacher incurs when dependents accompany the teacher to compulsory vacation schools. Anyone who has studied by correspondence will realise the importance of those vacation schools and the dislocation that accessing those facilities creates for the teacher’s family. Travel concessions are also offered and their restrictions have been eased. A better set of options is to be put in place. Under the scheme, teachers may continue to have regional offices make bookings for concessional travel in the form of one return air fare for the teacher and dependents to Brisbane and to the nearest coastal centre, or reimbursement may be made for travel, or yet again a cash grant to the value of the airline tickets may be acceptable to the teacher. In the past, emergent leave provisions have provided three days’ leave for teachers to access a major centre for medical and other personal reasons. The new scheme sees a more realistic allocation being made and the number of days available for this purpose has been increased to eight. I am sure that is most welcome to the teachers who serve in those areas. Personally, I have never been satisfied with the level of pre-remote service training given to our teachers. In many cases, they have merely been thrown in the deep end with Legislative Assembly 2062 24 October 1991 little or no information of any worthwhile value being given to them prior to taking up remote service. Thankfully, the regions themselves will now have sufficient funding to do more in this area by providing specifically targeted induction programs designed to adequately acquaint the transferee with the situation into which he or she has been placed. This is a wonderful initiative and I commend the Minister for making this positive start. Obviously, as time passes there will be a need to reassess and no doubt enhance the incentives provided, but I am sure teachers throughout the system appreciate the fact that the Government has begun this onerous task. I am also sure that they understand the financial restrictions now applying and that teachers everywhere accept the fact the Government can only stretch its resources so far. Over the past 12 months, a great deal of work has been done towards delivering on the Government's commitment to establish school support centres throughout metropolitan and regional Queensland. Funds are provided in this budget for the establishment for 45 school support centres strategically located to be in the best position to respond to the specific needs of the school communities they are called upon to serve. They will also enable teachers, administrators, school clusters and the wider school community to be more closely involved in the development and implementation of educational ideas relevant to their particular needs. This is a far cry from the previous circumstance where we had a trickle-down effect and everyone on the tail end of these ideas had no real input into what should actually apply in their local area. In essence, school support centres must be places of educational cooperation and must be organised in such a way as to enhance creativity. They should not—indeed, they must not—be allowed to become another bureaucratic focus simply disseminating predetermined programs to their client group. As I understand it, there will be an important focus on the special needs of students with disabilities. The school support centres are taking on the role of coordinating and enhancing the delivery of services which are presently provided by education centres specially serviced offices in the districts and in other facilities, such as education resource centres. The Minister has indicated that professional associations will be encouraged to play an active role in the provision of services at the centres, and in decisions relating to resourcing and other forms of curriculum support. Non-State schools will not be disadvantaged through this particular program. They will have, where spare capacity exists—and I emphasise “where spare capacity exists”—access to services, activities and resources available at the centres, which are being provided on the basis of equitable cost-sharing. As one moves further from Brisbane, the number of independent or non-State schools seems to increase. Those schools work well together, and this particular initiative will enable that arrangement to become even further entrenched. Parents and non-teaching staff—who have a valuable contribution to make—will also be able to access school support centres and become involved in programs which impact upon their needs. Two special Statewide centres are to be established over and above the 45 regionally based support centres. Because of their Statewide import, these two centres will, by necessity, be located in the metropolitan area. One will be responsible for development of open access education, while the other will provide support for learners with needs specifically related to physical impairment or impairment of hearing. Over the past 18 months, on a number of occasions I have raised in this Parliament the issue of literacy and numeracy. Whatever else our education system delivers, there is nothing more fundamental than providing for the population the wherewithal to be functional in the areas of basic computation and communication in the form of reading and writing. This year’s Budget sees $5.1m allocated to initiatives in the field of literacy and numeracy. Last year, we saw $5m also provided—representing an increase of 300 per cent on the allocation given by the previous Government. It is obvious that the Goss Legislative Assembly 2063 24 October 1991

Government is determined not to shirk its responsibilities. It is important also to indicate clearly where the Budget allocation will reside. An allocation made directly to regions to support staff development including the training of key teachers will be in the sum of $450,000. Also made directly to schools to support resource provisions at Year 3 level will be a further payment of $900,000, and $2.4m will be provided to support staff development and other school initiatives. Additional grants to support new schools which are being brought on line will be in the order of an extra $20,000. Right from day one, the Goss Government committed itself to providing funds and resources at the coalface, so to speak. It has been equally committed to the concept of not overfunding central office initiatives. Time expired. Sitting suspended from 1.03 to 2.30 p.m. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South) (2.30 p.m.): This debate on the Education Estimates comes at a time when the Education Department has gone through a period of substantial change. Some of this change—particularly the move to regionalisation—had been initiated by the previous National Party Government. However, any good that should come out of education reform has been clouded by the mismanagement and politicisation that has occurred throughout the process. On top of this, the inspectorial system has been removed, which leaves no way of identifying and comparing accurately the existing teaching standards and abilities, or of providing support and advice to teachers. The mismanagement commenced with the disastrous spilling of the 36 top-band high school principal positions, and demonstrated the heavy-handed approach of this Minister and his department. Despite warnings from the Queensland Teachers Union that the spill was not necessary; despite warnings from the parents and friends committees and indications that they did not want principals changed; despite the fact that this entire process would occur midway through the students’ term; and despite the fact that some of the schools received only one or two applications, which meant that the process could not really achieve the Minister’s stated aim of getting the very best principal for each school, it all went ahead, with the calamitous result at Toowoomba State High School of a teachers strike, a public rally and a march in protest. When the normal six-monthly administration cheques were distributed—and this usually occurs each January and August—we saw the politicisation of the education system because they were sent to Labor parliamentarians to hand out publicly at schools in their electorate, whereas cheques to schools in electorates represented by National Party and Liberal Party parliamentarians were sent in accordance with the usual system, that is, through the mail. Mr Nunn interjected. Mr HORAN: They never did that. Any number of excuses offered by the Minister cannot cover up this act or stop it from being seen for what it is. It is a blatant propaganda exercise designed to advantage of one side of the political spectrum only at the expense of the teachers and staff of the schools. Schools lost time, and interest on the funds was also lost because the cheques were not presented immediately. Moreover, the Government lost credibility. They were the only outcomes of that exercise. Judging by the number of complaints received by members on the Opposition side of the Chamber, including me, the teachers were all well aware of the reasons behind this move. The Government’s promise of an increase in funding for education of $250m in its first term has been achieved, and credit must be given where it is due. No doubt the massive campaign of letters from p. and c. committees to the Treasurer and Premier helped to keep them honest in delivering on this election commitment. With regionalisation came a number of teething problems that seem to be gradually working out. The Darling Legislative Assembly 2064 24 October 1991

Downs regional education staff, under Mr Geoff Greene, are working extremely hard towards making the new system work. Generally, the teachers feel that regionalisation will be a better system because it brings decision-making closer to where the education is actually occurring. However, a director for the regional support centre has still not been appointed, although I understand the process is partly completed. This is causing some concern to many of the schools. The selection of advanced skills teachers, while a good concept, will cause many difficulties during the selection process, which involves the school principal, an elected staff member, a union representative and a representative from outside the school. After the unpleasantness of the spill of high school principal positions in the top band, hopefully the spills in other bands will not occur. The Budget has provided major capital works funding for urgent programs in a number of schools in my electorate—in particular, three rapidly growing primary schools. Darling Heights is to receive a new double teaching block. Middle Ridge will receive a new administration block, which will result in the old administration area being freed up. The Glenvale school will receive a new teaching block. All those schools are located in very rapidly growing areas and they urgently require those improved facilities. However, there are still some unmet needs, particularly at Harristown State High School, where the domestic science students are accommodated in old facilities and use plastic buckets for washing-up. The school desperately needs a metal trades shop and it also needs repainting. I am pleased that the Minister for Administrative Services, Mr Ron McLean, has responded to my invitation to visit the school to inspect these needs. The Harristown primary school recently received new covered walkways. Hopefully, a new tuckshop will be on the agenda for next year. The Drayton school still needs a new toilet block. Basically, the requirements of other schools in my electorate are relatively minor compared with the facilities needed by those three schools in rapidly increasing population areas. The right to education in non-Government schools is an important part of the Australian education system. In Toowoomba, 58 per cent of students attend non-Government schools. This must be compared with the Australian average, which is 30 per cent. Among the seven high schools located in the Toowoomba South electorate, there are six non-Government schools. Many of these are boarding schools that provide education for many students who are not able to obtain access to a high school or secondary school of their religion. For example, there are no Catholic high schools providing Year 11 and Year 12 education outside Toowoomba. It is often the case that courses available at country high schools are limited, owing to the small size of these schools. There seems to be a misconception that non-Government schools exist for the more advantaged people of our society. In fact, many children who attend these schools do so only because their parents undergo extreme financial hardship by both of them going to work or by borrowing the required education funds. The Catholic parish high schools in Toowoomba, under the instructions of the bishop, endeavour to provide education that is accessible by all. Term fees are limited to $70 per term. Non-Government education is all about freedom of choice and the desire to obtain education with a particular religious background. The changes in this year’s Budget to the method of providing financial assistance to non-Government schools have the potential to cause great damage to this efficient non-Government education system which is renowned for its high standards. One of the most important aspects of this year’s Budget has been the change in the provision of funding of capital works to non-Government schools. Prior to the Budget, this funding had always been on a non-discriminatory basis and provided interest assistance and per capita grants to each of the schools. At 2.30 p.m. on the day the Budget was delivered, independent and Catholic schools were advised that the interest assistance Legislative Assembly 2065 24 October 1991 scheme was finished and that any contracts not signed at that time would not be eligible for any further interest assistance. A number of schools were completely caught out by this move. The Minister must explain exactly where these schools stand. Schools such as Concordia College had spent $20,000 on preliminary professional fees for a much-needed boarding house. The school has to meet a further $100,000 for initial work, and has now put on hold a project that would have cost $2m, which would have resulted in bringing employment opportunities to Toowoomba as well as creating an important school asset. St Mary’s Christian Brothers College has signed a contract for a new teaching block which is under way, but, under the usual business practice, has not yet signed contracts for at least $70,000 worth of furniture and fit-outs. Catholic education is in a similar situation, with a primary convent at St George. The Interest Assistance Scheme has been replaced by a needs-based capital grants scheme and funding has increased from $13.3m to $19.9m, but included in this amount is $1.5m which was previously allocated to grammar schools in Queensland. What must happen now is that the immediate problems facing schools caught by the closing of the interest assistance scheme on Budget day should be addressed. The needs basis of the capital grants scheme is to be determined by the block grant authorities of the AISQ and Catholic education, but there are some real problems in trying to provide a fair allocation of these funds. For example, if the scheme is to be based upon the Federal Government system of 12 levels of schools, there will be extreme disadvantages to those schools that have a low rating and have planned capital works. The recurrent grants to non-Government schools have been frozen, but a needs-based top-up of $3m has been added. The needs have been determined as isolation, socio- economic factors, and special education needs. But the percentage of these break-downs have yet to be determined. The $3m top-up will provide $1.5m for each half-year, but certainly will not go far in meeting schools costs that have increased through inflation, particularly when one considers the number of non-Government schools throughout Queensland. An amount of $6.1m has been provided to meet the award-restructuring costs of non- Government schools, but these funds will cut out in December of this year. Non-Government school awards have increased in line with State awards, plus increases have been provided for advanced skills teachers, positions of added responsibility, and principals. Many of these increases are substantial and, in the case of principals, can be up to 20 per cent. The Federal Government has agreed to provide 41 per cent of these increases under the community standards system that applies. This State Government funding will provide 29 per cent, but only until the end of this year. Thus, schools may have to pick up the tab for up to 59 per cent of this increase resulting from award- restructuring. It can mean only one thing, and that is increased fees. Schools rated below level 10 under the Federal system will fare even worse, as those schools will receive smaller percentages of subsidies towards award-restructuring. This can only mean that non-Government education will become harder to afford and will not be available to those for whom it is designed. There is a particular problem with the Toowoomba Grammar School. In common with Queensland’s eight public grammar schools, this school comes within the Grammar Schools Act of Queensland and is also subject to the Financial Administration and Audit Act. It is subject to heritage Acts, and will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Grammar schools were subject to a 25 per cent capital subsidy, which has been wiped, along with the interest assistance scheme. The total amount of that subsidy for Queensland for the last financial year was $1.5m. The Toowoomba Grammar School had planned projects for the future in good faith, for which a subsidy would have been approved. As Toowoomba Grammar School is rated a level 7 school under the Federal Government’s needs-based system, it is highly likely now to suffer, both under the State Legislative Assembly 2066 24 October 1991 capital grants system and under the per capita grants system. If the school had raised the 25 per cent of capital funds that would then be regarded as income by the Federal Government, and the school loses out further on Federal funding. For example, if $400,000 was raised and spent, this would mean a loss of $300,000 in Federal Government funding. The only way to avoid this loss would be to let the fund-raised money sit in a building fund account and not spend it on construction. The anomalies surrounding this capital funding for the Toowoomba Grammar School require urgent talks between the Government and the school in an endeavour to solve this problem. The school provides boarding accommodation for 380 students, of whom 300 are rural children from most grain-growing areas, with little likelihood of their parents being able to meet any increased fees. One of the most exciting events in Toowoomba education this year was the announcement of full university status being given to the University of Southern Queensland. With an enrolment of 4 500 full-time students and 6 700 external students, this university makes an enormous contribution to the Toowoomba education industry. The university is also a leader in distance education and is performing a vital role in assisting in the development of the Cunningham Rural Doctors Training Centre at the Toowoomba General Hospital. I would like to add a word of praise for the teachers at the special schools. It has been quite an eye-opener for me in my first term to visit special education schools and to see the dedication of these teachers and the difficulties that they face, particularly at those special schools which cater for students with a large degree of intellectual disability. I think it is worth while to bring this to the notice of the public. There are three special schools in Toowoomba, including one at Clifford Park, which has just been officially opened, that caters for children who have severe disabilities. Finally, I hope that the remarks that I have made about the importance of non-Government education in Toowoomba can be heeded and acted upon. It is an extremely important part of the Toowoomba education industry. Some 58 per cent of Toowoomba students attend these schools. There are extreme ramifications, particularly for the Catholic education system, and I know that that system has had meetings with the Minister for Education and the Treasurer in an endeavour to try to iron out the problems that face this expansive system of education. Ms POWER (Mansfield) (2.44 p.m.): Education is the top priority of this Labor Government. The highest standards of education are necessary to achieve social and economic justice and strong economic growth to benefit all Queenslanders. That is why in this second Labor Budget there is $2.1 billion committed to education-funding, making it the largest in Queensland’s history. Despite hard economic times, this Government has increased education-funding by more than $260m in real terms in only two Budgets. This year’s Budget will have enormous benefits for schools. The highlights of the Budget include massive capital works; increased teacher numbers; extension of LOTE; programs to improve literacy and numeracy; expansion to computer education, and assistance to parents through textbook allowances and school grants. Prior to the Budget, I visited schools in my electorate to speak with principals, members of p. and c. associations, and teachers. Overall, schools in Mansfield were enjoying the benefits of additional funding to education, especially in the area of LOTE. Most primary schools have either Mandarin or Japanese being taught and Mansfield high is successfully introducing the Immersion French Program. On a recent visit to the electorate, I had the pleasure of showing a number of these successful language programs to the Minister. Mandarin at Eight Mile Plains with the Year 7 students was a pleasant introduction to the language. At Mansfield High, Year 9 students were taking a revision lesson in astronomy in French. Legislative Assembly 2067 24 October 1991

While most schools in the electorate have not been the recipients of major capital works, they have certainly appreciated the cooperation between the Education Department and the Administrative Services Department to ensure building maintenance through the restructured Q-Build. On my visits to schools, principals generally were pleased with Q-Build. Mansfield State School sought and gained subsidy to build an activity hall, which will be opened in late November. I attended a meeting of the p. and c. last year to be briefed on the project, and I was pleased to make representations on its behalf to obtain approval for the building. The p. and c. had done its research, and the school will enjoy a variety of learning experiences in the building. I am very proud of the learning in the schools in my electorate. At some other time I will elaborate further on their achievements. Whether it is at the preschool, the special school, the primary or the high school, students, parents and staff work cooperatively to provide a positive learning environment. While travelling with the Premier’s rural and northern task force, I was confronted with the major educational concerns of people living in those areas. Most of the issues raised could be slotted into the following headings— (i) the Remote Area Incentive Scheme; (ii) distance education; and (iii) school support. This Government is committed to ensuring that all students have equal access to quality learning programs, regardless of geographic location. This budget addresses these concerns, and I would like to highlight these initiatives. In 1992, a Remote Area Incentive Scheme will be introduced, at a cost of $3.2m, to attract teachers to, and retain teachers in, schools in remote locations of the State. For many years, a Remote Area Incentive Scheme has been discussed in teacher circles, but it was always put on the back burner because it was too costly. When the Opposition introduced it into the 1989-90 Budget, it was nothing more than a political stunt to try to buy a few votes, but it failed because there was no money given to its implementation. A QTU/Department of Education 1990 working party reported on the RAIS, but the number of schools was extensive, and it also had repercussions and flow-ons for other public servants. To be responsible, these issues and others had to be addressed, so in last year’s Budget we had $100,000 allocated to review the implementation of RAIS. This year’s Budget fulfils the Government’s promise to introduce the scheme for teachers in 89 schools which are rated seven, eight, nine or ten in the joint working party report. The Remote Area Incentive Scheme has five components. These are— (a) improved teacher housing—a major building program to eradicate substandard housing in remote locations is planned and $2.5m allocated; (b) a remote area scholarship—cash payments of $2,000, after tax, per semester will be made to teachers who are awarded scholarships to undertake further study. In addition, the department will pay HECS fees, and an amount as a contribution to costs incurred for dependants travelling with the teacher to vacation schools. The allocation for that will be roughly $250,000; (c) an easing of restrictions on travel concessions—teachers will have the option of regional offices continuing to make bookings for concessional travel, one return airfare for teacher and dependants to Brisbane and to the nearest coastal centre, being reimbursed for travel, or receiving a cash grant to the value of the airline tickets; Legislative Assembly 2068 24 October 1991

(d) increased provisions for emergent leave—emergent leave for urgent personal business is to be increased from three days to eight days and again $250,000 has been allocated; and (e) induction programs—funds will be provided to regions to allow them to significantly enhance induction programs for teachers appointed to remote schools, and again $200,000 has been allocated to conduct those programs. Further details on the scheme have been explained in a brochure produced by the department, and inquiries regarding the scheme can be directed to the project officer for the Remote Area Incentive Scheme. The scheme will be well received, I believe, and will benefit rural and remote Queensland as better qualified and experienced teachers are encouraged to remain in remote areas. This Government will continue to provide localised and personalised services through the schools of distance education. A sum of $2.1m will be allocated for facilities at the schools at Longreach, Charters Towers, Cairns and Brisbane. While travelling with the Premier’s rural and northern task force, I was able to inspect the new School of Distance Education in Charleville. I might say I had seen the previous one after the floods. This facility is a modern building, and will ensure the delivery of a quality education service. It is part of the complex which includes the School of Distance Education, the high school and the College of the South-West. Planning for the refurbishment of accommodation for the Brisbane School of Distance Education and the support unit is continuing, and it is proposed that work will commence in the near future. Planning is in progress for the School of Distance Education at Cairns, and work is due to commence on that building shortly. The building for the Mount Isa School of Distance Education is completed. The communications network for Mount Isa will be completed for use from the beginning of the 1992 school year. In the Capricornia region, funds will be used to develop an education model and communications system with a view to establishing distance education facilities initially in three, and subsequently in five schools in strategically located towns. Funds will allow the schools of distance education support unit to continue the development of a new whole language program for Years 1 to 7, including elements of language arts, social studies, science, music, art, and health and physical education. Previously, the amount of work that could be covered by schools of distance education was quite restrictive. I have seen the initial kits that have been prepared in Brisbane, and I have been very impressed with the overall program. This review of distance education curriculum means that children in remote areas will be able to study the same subjects as students in urban areas, and will have access to the most modern and up-to-date resources—not the textbooks from the sixties which the previous Government had forced on them. Funds are provided for the establishment of 45 school support centres throughout the State to provide services to schools and to respond to the needs of school communities. School support centres will provide further opportunities for individual teachers, administrators, school communities and groups of schools to share, develop and implement educational ideas and expertise in cooperative and creative ways. Each of these school support centres will respond to the identified needs of all learners in the schools which network to the particular centre. There will be an important focus on the special needs of students with disabilities. The school support centres will coordinate and enhance the delivery of services provided at present by education centres, district special service offices, education resource centres of various kinds and other similar facilities. School support centres will provide curriculum support to teachers, school administrators and school communities through curriculum and resource development projects which respond to system and school needs. Legislative Assembly 2069 24 October 1991

Professional associations will be encouraged to play an active role in the provision of centre services and resources. Non-State schools will have access to centre services, activities and resources where spare capacity exists, on the basis of equitable cost-sharing. Non-teaching staff and parents will be involved in various programs directed towards their needs offered through the centres. In addition to these 45 school support centres, two Statewide centres will be created: one for the development of open access education; the other for the support of learners with low-incidence educational needs, for example, hearing impairment or physical impairment. Those two centres will be located in Brisbane. They will see the responsibility for services being taken to the local area, and service will relate to local needs. The coordinators are now in place and the centres will be fully operational in 1992. As they provide access to specialist services not always available previously, they are a unique reform. One of the most exciting initiatives to service rural and northern Queensland is the open learning centre network. This year’s budget has allocated $1.3m for the further development of this network in rural and remote areas. In the past 12 months, 33 centres throughout the State have been set up and have brought tertiary education within the reach of many people who did not have such ready access before the centres were established. The Queensland Open Learning Centre is an initiative of this Government aimed at making tertiary education more accessible to people in remote areas. There is nothing like it in any other State. It has been achieved in cooperation with all tertiary institutions. The centres allow students access to lecturers and information virtually at the flick of a switch. All the rumours being spread by the coalition about how services in the bush are being run down have no credibility when we look at the services being provided in education by this Government. I turn now to the area of gender equity and the measures the department is taking to address this very important issue. When Labor came to power in 1989, women made up 70 per cent of the Queensland teaching service, but there was not one woman in the important senior positions in the Department of Education. For too long, women within the education system were regarded only as class room teachers, which meant that the formulation of policy was being determined almost solely by men. In effect, it was men deciding what was taught and women doing the actual teaching. To redress this inequality, significant reforms in the department’s personnel practices have been made. Those include— (1) The development of an equal employment opportunity plan—EEO—for the Department of Education. (2) The development of selection for promotion on the basis of merit. This will mean a greater pool of talent is available within the department, and a positive consequence of this policy will be more equitable outcomes for women. (3) As part of the restructuring process, the top 22 jobs within the department were declared vacant and, for the first time in history, women have been appointed to senior positions in the department. (4) The Government has created the very senior position of Director of Equity (Workforce and Studies) within the Education Department. The creation of such a position will mean that equity principles will have a permanent place in the education system. I commend the Minister for that action and I wish Eleanor Ramsey well in her job. The Government has also made reforms in the area of gender equity as it relates to students. Those reforms include— (1) The establishment of a Ministerial Advisory Committee on Gender Equity which at last gives those involved in gender equity a real voice in future reforms and Legislative Assembly 2070 24 October 1991

policies. The matter is under the guiding hand of Paige Porter and the executive officer is Judy Attwood, both of whom I know quite well. I am confident that it will be in good hands. (2) The Government is currently running a number of gender equity projects of State significance. These projects aim to remove some of the barriers hindering girls from achieving their full potential. They are outlined in the women’s Budget statement prepared by the Office of the Cabinet. (3) The Government has sponsored a Statewide maths and science summer camp for girls to encourage girls to continue with maths and science subjects in Years 11 and 12. (4) Since coming to power, the Government has significantly upgraded the State/Commonwealth Government’s Women at Work Register, which provides schools with female guest speakers from non-traditional occupations. There is no doubt that schools have an important role and responsibility in contributing to the achievement of equality between the sexes and expanding the opportunities available to girls and women. Although much has been done in these two years, much still needs to be done. To that end, $799,000 has been allocated across a range of gender equity activities including— $652,000 for research and programs to address gender equity issues; $100,000 for production and distribution of RAZZ, a magazine for all Year 8 students which promotes equal opportunity for girls and boys; and $47,000 to maintain the Register of Women at Work. It gives me much pleasure to support the Estimates for the Department of Education. I congratulate the Minister, the Honourable Paul Braddy; his ministerial staff; the Director-General, Professor Scott; and the many departmental officers for their achievements in ensuring good quality education for Queensland students. I support the Estimates before the Committee. Mr SLACK (Burnett) (2.59 p.m.): Earlier, somebody said to me that, when I speak to the Estimates presented to the Committee, it would be interesting to hear what my wife’s views on education were. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr SLACK: I assure the Minister and the member for Archerfield that the views that I express come from many teachers to whom I have spoken throughout my electorate and throughout the State. They do not necessarily reflect the views of my wife. For the information of honourable members opposite, I point out that my wife did not write my speech. When I stand to speak about education, I do not do so with any great pleasure. From the feedback that I have been receiving, I have noted that the position in Queensland at present as to the administration of education is not good. I am in a position to support the Opposition spokesman on Education, the member for Fassifern. In his introduction, the Minister referred to his view of the situation when the National Party Government was in power. He informed the Chamber of the amount that was being spent on education at that time and tried to draw a comparison between the results of the amount spent on education in this State with the results of the amount that is being spent in other States.There is no way in the world that, in relation to the amount of money spent on education, any comparison can be made between the results obtained in Queensland and those obtained in other States. Over a period, I have seen children come from other States to enter into Queensland’s private education system, and their standard of education has not been accepted by the private sector in Queensland. In fact, it was far below the Queensland Legislative Assembly 2071 24 October 1991 standard. I have plenty of evidence to suggest that that is correct. There is no way in the world that a monetary comparison can be made between Queensland and other States. At a time when money is being withdrawn from education in other States, we have seen an expansion of the money provided in Queensland. I have no argument with that whatsoever—none at all. But it is a matter of getting value for money that is very important for education. The feedback that I have received from teachers and people involved in the system indicates that this State’s education system has gone from being recognised as the best administered in Australia bar none to one of the worst. Mr Beattie: Oh! Mr SLACK: The honourable member may sit in this Chamber, but he should go out and talk to some of the practising teachers and get the feedback of what is happening. Mr Beattie: I do get the feedback. That is not true. Mr SLACK: I am about to cite an example. I attended the annual meeting of a creche and kindergarten at which Dr Roger Scott was the guest speaker. I heard him say—and I would like to hear him deny that he said it—that, on a comparative evaluation, the results in Queensland compared favourably with those of any other State. That is a fact. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr SLACK: If the member for Archerfield does not wish to accept that, that is his prerogative. However, that is the feedback that I am receiving. There is no doubt that when Labor came to Government and the Minister for Education took up his position, they went forth with many high ideals. The Education Department expected that those ideals would be met. But along the way, what did we see? We saw resignations. The Opposition spokesperson referred to them. Some 130 senior staff and 118 inspectors are no longer there. There were mass resignations. When one sees that, one realises that something is radically wrong. Teachers were saying to me, “All right, we are seeing change for change’s sake.” There is no doubt that uneasiness was evolving within the education sphere. We saw what happened with the applications for principals’ positions. We saw what happened in Toowoomba. We saw the theory where a shire clerk, for argument’s sake, could apply on the basis of the position being administrative. Such a case did happen when a person applied and was granted a job. The honourable member for Fassifern made reference to somebody from the Transport Department being appointed to such a position. All of this has occurred at a cost. And what was the cost? The fares of applicants from wherever within the State were being paid so they could come to Brisbane for interviews. The total costs, which have not been itemised, are estimated to run into many millions of dollars. If a calculation is done on the number of people who have resigned and the amount of money that was paid to them, one arrives at an astronomical figure. In addition, the cost in appointing other people to those positions is quite high. There is no doubt that there is bitterness and unhappiness at a time when morale is reaching an all-time low. I happened to come across this little gem that is circulating the staff rooms of schools. It sums it up fairly well. All right, it may not be as complimentary of the National Party as it could be, but it is very damning of the Minister, his staff and the Labor Party. Mr Barber: Will you table it? Mr SLACK: I am quite prepared to table it. It reads— “In the beginning there was Joh and darkness was upon the face of the earth. And it came to pass that Joh fell from grace and his legions were scattered by Gos, who came forth from the wilderness. Legislative Assembly 2072 24 October 1991

And Gos commanded his generals to govern his people and he spake unto one among them, Paul, and said, ‘Go ye and govern the Chalkites well, for did not our enemies promise them many shekels, and did they not promise those who laboured in the field wondrous things without becoming overseers?’ And Paul chose one from Canberra, Roger, to be his left arm, and one from among the Chalkites to be his right arm, and he spake unto Frank saying, ‘Find ye that for which the Chalkites hunger’. And Frank bade them have their say. And it came to pass that the Chalkites had their say, and verily Frank inverted a triangle as a symbol of their covenant. Two years the Chalkites waited for the darkness to be lifted from their land. Two years did Frank beseech them to follow the inverted triangle. Two years and it was yet, as it was in the beginning. And the Chalkites laboured the fields as they had always laboured. And the overseers were given gifts more bountiful than ever before. And among those purged by Paul some, it was said, ought to have been spared: and among those spared, many ought to have been put to the sword. And the people grew restless and they lifted up their voices unto Frank and unto Roger, and even unto Paul, and they said unto them what they might do with their inverted triangle, be it ever so painful. And darkness stayed upon the land.” Government members interjected. Mr SLACK: Do members opposite like that? I thought they might. There is no doubt that teachers were originally happy with the pay increases. But then came the change. Then came the uneasiness. We saw what happened with the school grant cheques being presented by Labor members in Labor electorates. What did the National and Liberal electorates get? No cheques! It is politicisation of education. Mr Beattie: Ha, ha! Tell us about the Wood brothers. Mr SLACK: The member for South Brisbane cannot, in honesty, deny that. What happened in the non-Labor electorates? Cheques were sent out with a little covering letter commencing “Dear” and followed by the Christian name of the principal of the school. The principals had never spoken to the Minister, yet the letters were sent out on the Minister’s letterhead, not the department’s letterhead. That is politicisation of education. Anybody who dared to speak out was in trouble and was reprimanded. Then we saw the dismantling and reorganisation of regional offices. As I mentioned, school inspectors had to go. School support centres had to be established. The member for Mansfield spoke in glowing terms about those school support centres. Terrific! They were to be the be-all and end- all. There are 45 of them. As of April 1991, they were to have a certain staffing level. They were to be staffed by one coordinator—— Mr Braddy: They haven’t started yet. Mr SLACK: I know that they have not started. The Minister should listen; he might learn something. Mr Beattie: Not from you, though. Mr SLACK: Look, I have the document here. Mr Beattie: Table it. Legislative Assembly 2073 24 October 1991

Mr SLACK: I can table it; no problem. Here is the document that states what the staffing was to be as of April. Then, the centres were to be staffed by one coordinator, two administration staff, two clerical assistants. What has happened since then? In October 1991, the staff numbers were reduced to one coordinator, one senior assistant, one administrative assistant and one part-time administrative assistant. Now, nobody is responsible for curriculum being taught in schools. I ask members to remember that there are no inspectors. The senior officer for teacher support is not available. Teacher support has been withdrawn when morale is at an all-time low. But the workload is to be increased. It is no wonder that people involved in education are very disillusioned. I was asked to table these documents and to be able to verify what I am saying. As I understand it, a letter was sent from a school support centre in my electorate to the Executive Director of the Department of Education. It states— “Dear Mr”— whoever— “At the last meeting of the Wide Bay Northern School Support Centre the members expressed deep disappointment regarding the small number of staff which would be attached to the Centre, and at the lack of increase in support personnel. I have listed our concerns below, and hope that you will advocate on our behalf with the Minister and the Directorate of Human Resources. During the past several months our Steering Committee has been planning for the provision of services to students in our district. Our basis for planning has been the six key functions of School Support Centre as outlined in ‘Focus on Schools’. We have kept in mind also that Districts will be responsible for a number of services previously undertaken by Central Office. The release of proposed staffing levels is causing our committee a great deal of concern. We believe that with the proposed structure our Support Centre will be unable to undertake adequately all the key functions assigned to it. Indeed, we anticipate difficulties in sustaining present levels of services, such as resource provision, rather than enhancing services as schools are expecting. Some areas likely to cause difficulties are:- The cut to middle management numbers. This will increase the workload on Coordinator and Assistant, lessening their direct involvement in schools. The lack of a Support Officer-Curriculum will mean the expressed needs of schools for help with school-based curriculum development will largely go unmet. The lack of adequate administrative staff will mean that routine duties must be performed by management and consultants, leaving less time for school support. As there is no allocation which corresponds to the present teacher aide at the Education Centre, there is a real danger that services which schools access heavily may be curtailed. Communities have been advised that School Support Centres will lead to enhanced services for schools, but as only the existing number of support personnel will be employed, and as other services have been cut, the nett result appears to be a lowering of assistance to schools. Coordination of services and service integrity in the Social Justice key result area could be impaired because of the loss of seniority relative to other Departmental personnel of classified staff.” The letter goes on, but I am running out of time. What response did the support centre get? Not a response to explain the situation or how it could possibly be overcome, but a memo saying that it was not to speak outside the school system. Where is Focus on Legislative Assembly 2074 24 October 1991

Schools? Where is all that involvement of the community? The Minister spoke so highly about community involvement and adopted such a moral, high standard towards it. But what did the Government come up with? A memo saying not to talk about it. The memo, which outlined the position of people in the Education Department, said in part— “ . . . the Crown has ownership of the intellectual physical property involved.” Mr Nunn: We didn’t reinstate all our mates who were convicted for drugs, did we? Mr SLACK: I am sorry I cannot reply to that interjection from the member for Isis, but time is getting away. This is a ridiculous situation. Look at the position in which advanced skills teachers find themselves. Virtually every day, they receive a different memo that changes the rules. Confusion reigns absolutely supreme. Those teachers do not even appear personally before a panel. How can they be assessed on their teaching skills without being observed in the class room? They must be judged purely on their own word and on that of a referee. They have no personalised interview. Most of them are not even bothering to fill in the very complicated form. Talk about creating uneasiness and resentment within the teaching profession! This is an unreal situation. There are over 30 schools in my electorate. I doubt that there would be one to which the Minister for Education could go and from which he would get a positive feeling. I can get major complaints from every one of those schools. It gives me no pleasure to say this. But that is the ridiculous situation in which the education system in this State finds itself. It has gone from the best to the worst. It is the future of our kids that will suffer. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN (Nundah) (3.13 p.m.): I am pleased to be speaking to the Estimates debate on Education. I will concentrate mainly on the Estimates allocated to the non-Government school sector. It has been my privilege to have spent most of my working life in this area of work. For more than two decades, I shared directly in the life of five schools, from a small country school at Warwick to St Laurence’s at South Brisbane, Brisbane Boys College, Iona College at Lindum, and for almost 13 years at Nudgee College. Two of these schools also provided boarding facilities—which have been raised by some of the members opposite—catering for metropolitan, country and overseas students. As well, for about 13 years, I was involved with QATIS, the Queensland Association of Teachers in Independent Schools, which is the union for the independent schoolteachers. This brought me into contact with scores of schools, hundreds of teachers and thousands of students across the State. I believe that I have some understanding of the needs and aspirations of this sector of education. As well, for six years as a member of the Board of Teacher Education, which is now the Board of Teacher Registration, it gave me exposure to Government and non-Government schools from Townsville to Toowoomba, from the Capricornia campus to the Carseldine campus. I was able to visit schools and teaching institutions campuses, and I saw first-hand what Opposition members did when they were in Government. There were some good things, but the Government made some terrible decisions. To hear some of the criticisms of Opposition members today—which I will allude to later in this discussion—is really quite laughable. I wish to state clearly that I do not see Government and non-Government schools competing with each other, and I will not embark on some false path of contrasting the two systems, trying to see which one is better, or which one is worse. In fact, I encourage students, teachers and parents to promote the unique advantage that each system offers rather than denigrate the other system or another school, because each system caters for its own changing clientele and each system plays a vital role in the educational picture across the State. The two systems complement each other. Some people mistakenly believe that all non-Government schools are flush with funds. This is not true. The real picture, I would suggest, is that there are well-resourced Legislative Assembly 2075 24 October 1991 schools and some very poorly resourced schools in both the Government and the non-Government sector. The contrast between, for example, Ascot State School and Wooloowin State School is as stark as the contrast between, say, St Agatha’s, Clayfield and Holy Cross, Wooloowin. Those contrasts could be made in your own towns, in your own cities across the State. The inequalities within each school system constitute a powerful reason for exploring some needs-based funding. There are many ways of implementing needs-based funding, but a commonly accepted one is that we retain some base per capita payment for all schools, or students, and then add to this the needs-based element. The real debate then comes: what percentage of the total picture will come on the basis of needs? When the time for this debate fully arises, I hope that everyone involved will approach the discussions in an open and even-handed way. The two main avenues of Budget assistance to the non-Government sector are recurrent funding and capital assistance. I applaud the Minister for establishing the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Non-State Schooling, which was established mid-1990 to promote better communication between the State and the non-State sectors and to advise the Minister. During 1991, that committee—MACNSS, as it is known—has been examining the introduction of needs-based funding for non-State schools, and in carrying out this task, the committee has consulted widely in the non-State sector on the nature and implementation of needs-based funding. This has escaped some of the members opposite because I do not believe they understand what the word “consultation” means. The Government has been criticised. They are saying, “You’re leaving schools up in the air. The schools don’t know what to do.” That is because, under this Minister, under this Government, the schools are being asked for their views, and discussions are taking place. It is not a sign of weakness. It is not a sign of indecision. It is a sign—— Mr Pearce: They’re happy about it. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: Yes, they are happy about it. It is a sign that the Minister puts trust in parents—the consumers of our education product—and is prepared to listen to them. That is a sign of strength, not a sign of weakness. As a result of the committee’s recommendations, a modest component of needs-based funding will be introduced from 1992. The needs-based component will be based on identified needs of the school population. The student characteristics on which these needs components are to be based are yet to be finalised. To allow for the introduction of this needs-based component, per capita grants will remain as they have been at $582 for primary school students and $933 for secondary students in 1991-92. Funds have also been allocated to meet the State’s contribution to the costs associated with the restructuring of the teachers’ award. A very important move was the restructuring of the teachers’ award. It was phased in over three periods: December 1990, March 1991 and July 1991. Commonwealth and State Governments agreed to share the costs of the restructuring, with the Federal percentage being about 41 per cent, the State being 29 per cent and the private effort about 30 per cent. This is generally accepted throughout the independent sector as their carrying a fair share of the burden. The Budget allocation of $6.1m that this Budget is putting towards the restructuring is that percentage of the total cost of about $21m. In capital assistance, we found that, prior to 1991-92, capital assistance to State schools was appropriated under the Budget of the Treasury for grammar schools and then Administrative Services for the loan interest subsidy scheme. From this financial year, capital assistance will be the responsibility of the Education Department. I will take a minute to talk about the grammar schools. There are only eight of them in Queensland—two in Brisbane, two in Ipswich, two in Rockhampton, one in Toowoomba and one in Townsville. These schools have been given capital assistance for many years and the Budget provides for the honouring of existing projects and projects that were Legislative Assembly 2076 24 October 1991 irretrievably contracted before the Budget. I believe that some of the criticisms coming from members opposite may come from people who are attending these schools. I think a better understanding of where these eight schools fit into the Queensland education system would help in the discussions. The grammar schools will still be able to receive Government-guaranteed loans and this will enable the schools to gain more competitive interest rates from the banks. It is estimated that they are getting about a 3 per cent better rate of interest, which works out at about $54 per student on the roughly $11.7m in loans outstanding this year. As well, I have an attached sheet, which I ask permission to table, which shows over the last three financial years the per capita allocation of capital assistance to grammar schools compared to non-State schools. A cursory look at these figures reveals that in 1988-89 the grammar schools under the capital assistance program were getting roughly $168 per student whereas other non-State schools were getting less than $90—$168 compared to $90. The following year, roughly $147 was allocated for the grammar schools; $82 for other non-State schools. So, in fact, the grammar schools have had a fairly generous allocation in the past and they will still have access to funds in the future. Some of the bleating that came from members opposite, I believe, is based on some of those schools perhaps not getting the lion’s share for a small number of schools, which they had been in the past. I support the continuing access to funds by those schools but I just want to put it in the context of the whole Statewide independent sector and, in fact, the whole of the State funding. The loan interest subsidy scheme provides the non-State school authorities with assistance in meeting the interest charges on loans raised towards the building costs incurred in providing essential teaching space or residential accommodation for students, and in this Budget $19.9m will be allocated to the scheme. Again we have heard criticism from some members opposite. Apparently, they have not understood that the scheme tended to favour schools that could establish or service large loans. So those schools which had the better facilities already, and had the larger populations, were able to borrow more and were able to get the greater subsidy. Approximately one-third of independent schools in Queensland were receiving no benefit at all under the old system. Because a few schools could be worse off under the system that this Government is introducing in this Budget, we hear complaints from members opposite. Why were they not complaining about the 122 schools out of roughly 400 schools that were getting absolutely no benefit at all under the previous system? Mr Quinn: We were complaining about the way it was done. There was no consultation telling them about the changes. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I was listening very carefully to what the honourable member for South Coast said and that did not come from him or from two members opposite. A small number of schools were getting the lion’s share not only in terms of the number of projects but also in terms of the total funding. The new system will give greater access to more schools and will be a fairer system. Mr Littleproud asked if access and equity were important issues. Yes, they are, and that is why the Minister has made these important changes. The two old schemes of loan interest subsidy and grammar school subsidy will be replaced by the new capital works program and existing commitments in relation to the two previous schemes will be honoured. Operational guidelines to be used to implement the new program will be developed in consultation with the non-State school authorities. Some comments came from members opposite that I would like to address at this stage. The member for Fassifern spoke about many matters, some of which almost made sense. He was talking about poor morale in the schools. Just recently I was talking to some friends about morale. This person was a teacher a few years ago in a large Legislative Assembly 2077 24 October 1991 secondary school on the outer southern suburbs of Brisbane. There was tremendous political interference in that school. There was criticism by the principal of adjoining schools and teachers were scared to speak openly. In fact, at one stage the school was used almost as a campaign headquarters. Mr Bredhauer: Sounds like Kingston High. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: Mr Lingard might recognise the school, because he was the principal of it at the time. It was Kingston State High School. We have had to suffer listening to his comments, just as some of his staff had to suffer at that stage. The restructuring of the teachers’ award has brought some uncertainty. Members on this side of the Chamber and on the opposite side of the Chamber have raised the matter, and it is true. Under the former Government there was not the same uncertainty. The reason is that under the National Party and Liberal Party the teachers’ pay award was the worst in Australia. There was no hope, no movement and nothing to look forward to. There was an apathy and a deadening of the teachers’ spirit which was really poor for the profession and for morale. Mr Quinn interjected. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: At least this Government has the fortitude to face the changes and bring them about. There will be some uncertainty. In my union work over the last 13 years I have been involved from the word go in a whole lot of changes that have come about and the employer groups have consistently opposed every single change. While teacher groups in other States were already granted their 3 per cent superannuation, the Confederation of Industry said that it would not even speak to the union. That is the open-minded attitude coming from people on the honourable member’s side of the Chamber, and he expects us to wear it. It was a most pathetic display of industrial relations and the member for Merthyr, who sits behind the member for South Coast and who applauds the Confederation of Industry so much, would not even know what was going on. It is an absolutely pathetic approach. Mr Santoro: I am devastated again. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: The honourable member is not really, because one has to have sensitivity to be devastated. The honourable member does not have that sensitivity and therefore he cannot really appreciate it. His words ring hollow and false. I have a warning for some of my colleagues in education because of the uneasiness at the moment. After decades of low pay, unfair promotional programs, poor maintenance in metropolitan schools and low spending on education, the expectations of teachers from this Government were very high. Much has been done and much is yet to be done. I ask my colleagues, parents and teachers to be patient. The National/Liberal coalition have nothing to offer the people of this State. History shows they cannot get it right and they will not get it right in the future. I support the Budget Estimates. Time expired. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr J. N. Goss): Did the honourable member for Nundah seek leave to table a document during his speech? Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: Yes. Leave granted. Mr SANTORO (Merthyr) (3.29 p.m.): It is with some pleasure that I join this debate. I will not be unkind to the numbskull for Nundah who keeps on denigrating people for absolutely no reason. If the member for Nundah feels that I am so insensitive to the needs of my electorate—— Legislative Assembly 2078 24 October 1991

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! That is a personal reflection. It is unparliamentary to call the member for Nundah that name. I ask the honourable member to withdraw it. Mr SANTORO: I withdraw it out of respect for the Chair. If the honourable member really feels that I am insensitive, I invite him to come and contest the electorate of Clayfield. I will be very happy if the people of that electorate put his contention to the test. However, the member for Nundah has abandoned Nundah, and I very much look forward to the pleasure of representing it. The point I wish to make right at the beginning of my speech is one that I had intended to make and, despite provocation from Government members, I still intend to make. I appreciate the courtesies that have been extended by the Minister to schools in my electorate and to me. I do not mind stating that the Minister in charge of the Estimates is one of the more approachable in this Government. I will be kind and pay him the compliment that was not paid to me by the member for Nundah by saying that he is one of the more sensitive Ministers with whom I have had to deal. I place on record my thanks to the Minister for the courtesies that have been extended, in particular, to the schools in my electorate. During my speech, I will raise several issues that have been brought to my attention by people in the school communities that I represent. One of the issues is the withdrawal of the library automation software package known as Resource Assistant from Queensland State schools. I know that, recently, the Association of State School Principals wrote to the Government but, to the best of my knowledge, the association still has not received a satisfactory reply to its queries. I wish to place on the parliamentary record the exact content of the query as detailed in a letter dated 4 September. I invite the Minister to respond to the queries in his reply. The Resource Assistant package was developed by Department of Education personnel in the Brisbane north region in 1988 and was regarded highly enough by the department to be included in a departmental software package submitted overseas and interstate in the form of tenders by the Department of Education. Resource Assistant was provided on request and free of charge to any interested school. Support was provided by the Department of Education, and user groups have been established. At least 70 schools have installed Resource Assistant and have found that it meets their needs admirably. As a result of Education Department directives, schools wishing to introduce library automation find that they can no longer use Resource Assistant; nor can existing users gain access to support which was once available. The effect of these directives is to deny access by schools to a free software package that has been developed by the department. This will force those schools to turn to commercially produced alternatives ranging in cost from $5,000 to $24,000. Further, the companies that provide these packages offer phoneline support only, which is grossly inferior to the level of support once provided for Resource Assistant. Given the limited financial resource available to schools, this situation is regarded by most of the people who have spoken to me as most unacceptable and, in fact, quite curious. It would appear that this situation arises from the advice given by the Division of Curriculum Services to the Education Department which enters into an exclusive contract with a small number of commercial suppliers of library automation packages. The schools with which I have had contact raise the following queries: why were exclusive contracts entered into with commercial suppliers of software without any consultation with schools as to needs and preferences? Furthermore, this is the only contract that the department has entered into with software suppliers, to the best of the knowledge of those people and, through them, to the best of my knowledge. They want to know why there was no analysis made of the impact that these departmental directives Legislative Assembly 2079 24 October 1991 would have on schools, particularly those that have Resource Assistant already in place. They also ask why Resource Assistant was not included in the contract list. They want to know why support has been withdrawn from schools which have Resource Assistant in place. How can equity issues be said to be addressed when the cost of commercial packages places them beyond the means of all except the larger and wealthier schools? I invite the Minister to respond to these genuine concerns that exist in many Queensland school communities and in many of the p. and c. committees that serve them so faithfully. The other issue I wish to touch upon is one that relates to the concept of electronic learning centres. It would seem that present thinking is that primary schoolchildren should become familiar with computers as early as possible, and should definitely have a working knowledge of them by the time they reach high school. Members of the Liberal Party and I do not deny the validity of this thinking. In today’s age of ever-increasing technology, we support children being educated in relation to computer literacy as soon as it is possible for that to be done. However, I suggest that the department does not provide the essential equipment to primary schools and students that is necessary to improve computer literacy. Most of the computers used by children in many State schools, where they exist, either have been bought by the p. and c. committees or have been obtained through the recent Coles/Apple promotion. The cost of purchasing a class room pack of laptops is very high and, of course, when it is remembered that all funds raised by p. and c. committees come from tax-paid dollars, the assessment of costs must soar. The suggestions are that the Education Department’s budget contains a specific item for the provision of computers to schools and that this should be done not just for those schools considered to be disadvantaged—and, of course, I acknowledge that that allocation is made from time to time. It is also suggested that further funding be given to provide teachers who are dedicated to computer education to each school. While I am discussing the issue of automation, I mention that it has also been put strongly to me that the Education Department needs to address the presently inadequate support and advice given to schools and teacher-librarians on library automation. Much professional time is wasted by trial and error because many teacher-librarians have received no previous training in library automation. Teacher-librarians need ongoing assistance throughout the process of automating a school library. Again, I invite the Minister to respond to these queries that have been raised with me, and now by me, in this place. Members would appreciate that I represent an electorate comprising older and established suburbs such as Ascot, Hamilton, New Farm and Clayfield. The three State schools in my electorate—Eagle Junction, Ascot and New Farm State Schools—are located on sites that have been well and truly outgrown by the schools because of the demands made upon them. The Minister and the Education Department may wish to consider consolidation of some property resources, and may wish to give further attention to expansion of campuses and to the funding of building improvements for schools in the older, established areas where the school population has increased in recent years. Of major concern to both teachers and parents in schools in my electorate is the lack of class rooms and space at the schools. No doubt, this situation is repeated in many schools in the older, established areas that are represented by members on both sides of the Chamber because of an increase in the population of young people and a subsequent overloading of the schools. For example, only today I sent a letter to the Minister seeking his favourable consideration of a proposal submitted by the Ascot State School for the department to fund the acquisition of several private residences that are now available for purchase in the immediate vicinity of the school. This move would provide immediate relief, and would be an answer to the inadequate space problem at the school. It will also prove to be a very smart long-term move in this high population increase area. Legislative Assembly 2080 24 October 1991

At this point, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge two areas of progress in the area of class room and property expansion that have occurred in my electorate. I refer particularly to the great degree of constructive planning and consultation that is occurring between the officers and members of the Eagle Junction State School p. and c., which I readily acknowledge the honourable member for Nundah has a constructive interest in, and officers of the Administrative Services Department and the Education Department. This is as a result of the desire by this school to expand its facilities in order to meet the needs that the certain future growth in the Clayfield, Eagle Junction, Kalinga and Nundah areas will create. A delegation from the school recently outlined to the Minister a realistic and necessary expansion program which hopefully will culminate in the school’s centenary year. The principal and the p. and c. committee at Eagle Junction State School are grateful for the Minister’s courtesy and the interest that he displayed at the meeting. Stage 1 of the project has seen work commence on the building of a toilet block and the whole school community hopes for and looks forward to the provision of the necessary and appropriate capital funding allocations which will enable the provision of extra class rooms, gymnasium facilities, the assembly hall and, of course, the relevant landscaping. This is to occur in conjunction with the centenary year. The other specific matter I wish to raise in my contribution to this debate relates to the New Farm State School. I do not mind placing this particular point on the record, as I do not think it has been placed on the record yet, but thanks mainly to the efforts of the previous member for Merthyr—and I must admit that I had to prod a little bit after the Merthyr by-election for it to come to fruition—the previous Government—and I again give credit to it—made available Government-owned properties close to the New Farm State School. These properties, when combined with the partial closure of Hawthorne and Heal Streets, have seen the blossoming of a good sized new grassed playground which has seen the students of New Farm State School at long last enjoy true playground recreation. As honourable members opposite can see, despite the fact that I do not believe I will be representing that school after the next election, I still do take the time and pay them the courtesy of looking after their interest and representing them in this place. I will continue to do so until I take over responsibilities in my new electorate. I look forward very much to the contributions that other honourable members will make, and I will pay particularly close attention to how much the honourable members in this place will look after areas—and we all have legitimate reasons as to why we change electorates, including the honourable member for Nundah, and the honourable member for Pine Rivers who sought to have me accept her interjection—that they also, for whatever reasons, are abandoning. Returning to the New Farm State School, the imminent incorporation of a further two Government-owned houses into the New Farm State School precinct will see further valuable storage space added within the boundaries of this school. Before concluding, I wish to say that one of the most enjoyable aspects of my parliamentary duty is the relationship that I enjoy with the school communities within my electorate, be they private or State schools. Due to time constraints, and of necessity, I have had to concentrate on the affairs of the State schools that I represent. However, at a future, but hopefully near date, I intend to canvass at length the challenges being faced by the private schools within my electorate. I can assure the Minister that those schools are well and truly beginning to feel sold out by yet another Government, this State Government. An article in today’s Sun is headed “Catholic schools to slug parents”. That did not just happen out of the blue. It is the result of years of continuing neglect of private schools by Labor Governments. Despite the bleatings from the honourable member for Nundah, who preceded me in this debate, that somehow or another previous Governments had neglected the lot of State schools, I challenge the honourable member to match the record as detailed within the reports of the open press and compare the performance of the Labor Government with the previous Government. He will see that his type of Legislative Assembly 2081 24 October 1991

Government lags far behind the contributions of other Governments. I look forward to the Minister for Education’s comments in reply to the issues that I have raised with him in this speech and I thank him in expectation of those comments. Mr PALASZCZUK (Archerfield) (3.44 p.m.): On 26 April 1976, a leaky wooden fishing boat limped into Darwin Harbour. It was completely unnoticed by the harbour authorities. It anchored close to a middle-class harbourside suburb for the night. The next morning, it approached the city’s main wharf at Stokes Hill. Binh Lam, the refugee leader on the boat, welcomed the Government officials with these words that he had practised for months— “Welcome to my boat. My name is Binh Lam. These are my friends from South Vietnam and we would like permission to stay in Australia.” In 1976, when I was a schoolteacher at Serviceton South State School teaching a Year 7 class, I was fortunate enough to have two Vietnamese students join my class. I boast that I probably would have been the first schoolteacher in Queensland—and maybe in Australia—to teach Vietnamese students. Of course, their English was not all that good, but they have certainly made up for it by their work ethic that they brought with them from their country of origin. I must add that when those two boys left my class, their English was quite reasonable. The stories that the young lads were able to tell us about the trip from South Vietnam to Australia would make anyone’s hair stand on end. The boys and girls who are up in the gallery at present would not understand the problem that these young children had on the boats, cramped with adults, coming to Australia. One of the lads, Hung Tran, became a very successful young man. As a matter of fact, I have kept in contact with him. He is an engineer in the professional field, and he has also played volleyball for Australia. He certainly is a great addition to our nation. The April 1976 arrival was the first reported to the authorities. Over the next few years armadas of boats crammed with Vietnamese refugees arrived at our shores. This exodus from Vietnam signalled the greatest refugee influx by any one people in our history, even eclipsing that of my nationality, the Polish nationality, when 63 000 Poles fled Europe for basically the same reasons—to escape from communism and fascism. Honourable members probably would not realise this. That is why I felt appalled and angry when I heard the member for South Coast denigrate the LOTE language program that had been introduced by our Government. Honestly, the member for South Coast is no better than a former Leader of the Liberal Party, John Howard, who in 1988 stirred up the racial debate to such an extent that not only politicians but also journalists had their cars smashed and slogans written in red over their homes. Apparently the member for South Coast would like to see a return to those days. Well, I certainly would not! Of the three million Vietnamese refugees who left the southern shores of Vietnam, only one million reached their destination. Two million perished along the way. The influx of Vietnamese into our State—and in particular into Brisbane where most of them have settled—has transformed parts of Brisbane suburbs into the equivalent of small Asian towns. In the Station Road shopping centre in Darra, a suburb of the proposed new electorate of Inala, nearly every shop is Vietnamese-owned. Those shops range from fruit shops, clothing stores, fastÐfood takeaways and restaurants to a pharmacy—where, I might add, my number two daughter Catherine is working part-time with a Vietnamese pharmacist, Kim. They get on extremely well, and the stories my daughter brings home of the struggles some Vietnamese people have to meet their commitments would cause anyone concern. The local doctor, Dr Ha, who is a very good friend of mine, is highly respected not only for his medical expertise but also his involvement in community activities. The Darra experience has also been repeated at the Inala Civic Centre where a travel agency has begun to be operated by a Vietnamese family. I understand that around Legislative Assembly 2082 24 October 1991

10 000 Vietnamese people have settled in the greater Brisbane area, with the majority concentrated in the proposed new seat of Inala. Having given that background to the Parliament, I would now like to speak on behalf of the Vietnamese people about the study of foreign languages. I am referring to our Government’s brand new LOTE program. I believe it to be one of the most successful initiatives of this Government. It has been very well received by the general public. In fact, it has been so successful that before my eldest daughter Annastacia left for China on Monday, my number four daughter Julia was able to give her the basic knowledge she needed in Chinese. Sitting in the car with them and listening as they were talking about what Annastacia had to remember in Chinese certainly brought home to me how successful our LOTE program is. One really has to understand the customs and cultures and traditions of the Vietnamese people to fully appreciate their educational needs. In relation to the LOTE program, I consider it to be educationally sound to introduce a language of a particular ethnic group as a LOTE language in an area where there is a large concentration of students of the same ethnic group. I believe there is such a concentration of Vietnamese in the proposed new seat of Inala. As I said before, out of the 10 000-odd Vietnamese people living in Brisbane, the majority of them chose—and I must add that it was an impeccable choice—to settle in the suburbs of Inala, Durack, Darra and Carole Park. Mr Elder: Hear, hear! Mr PALASZCZUK: I welcome the support from the member for Manly. To the Vietnamese, their language is their first language, with English being their second language. I would like to quote from page 21 of Time magazine of 8 April 1991, which states— “The language problem”— being experienced by these people— “has caused large-scale unemployment and serious problems in schools that are short of English-as-a-second-language teachers. Even refugees with professional credentials often find their qualifications unacceptable.” With this in mind, I would strongly suggest that serious consideration be given by the Minister and his department to fast-tracking Vietnamese as a LOTE language in my area. A curriculum is available, as are suitably qualified Vietnamese teachers. It is most unfortunate that German has been introduced into my area, into the Inala cluster of schools, as the LOTE language. This means that Vietnamese students will lose precious English teaching-time to study German in the LOTE program because, as all the former teachers in this Chamber would know, the time allocation for German comes directly from the time allocation for the English language. That means that Vietnamese students basically have three languages to master at school. I might add that English is the most important. I do not believe that to be sound educational policy. As I said, LOTE time comes from the English allocation, leaving less time for the teaching of English, our language of communication. I do not believe that German as a LOTE language is a success in the Inala cluster of schools. I have not brought this matter to the attention of the Committee lightly. Recent studies have revealed that Vietnamese students excel in science subjects and do poorly in the humanities subjects, which further emphasises the need for the teaching of English to the Vietnamese in an endeavour to improve their standards in the humanities subjects. As an example, I refer to the awards night at St Mary’s College to which I was invited. On that occasion, the daughter of a very close friend of my family, Ngoctuyet, received awards in the following subjects for Year 12: chemistry, physics, maths II, and health and physical education; and she was just pipped at the post for a maths I award. That is the Legislative Assembly 2083 24 October 1991 way that the majority of Vietnamese students appear to be going with their studies at high school. They are excelling in the sciences. We should try to help them do the same in humanities. Ngoctuyet’s results were a great contribution. I am quite sure that her mother is very proud of her and that Ngoctuyet will do just as well as her two elder sisters are doing at present at university. Whatever happens, the Vietnamese people will continue to make up a sizeable proportion of Australia’s immigration intake. The member for South Coast should be aware of that. It is predicted that, within 50 years, Australia’s population will be 26 per cent Asian compared with 5 per cent today. In Durack, a suburb in which I live, the Asian population, which is predominantly Vietnamese, makes up 33 per cent of the suburb. In Darra, the percentage is more like 50 per cent. Therefore, I believe that my Government will be safeguarding the future by pioneering and concentrating on Asian language—in particular, Vietnamese—in schools in my area. The Minister would remember that, last year, I led a delegation of leaders of the Vietnamese community to a meeting with him. I believe that the delegation presented an excellent case. Likewise, the Minister made an excellent contribution and gave an undertaking to ensure that efforts would be made to introduce Vietnamese as a language in the 1991-92 year. I might add that, after that meeting, the leaders of the Vietnamese community said to me—they have said it in their own community, as well—that for years and years they approached the National Party and asked it to consider Vietnamese as a language in schools and the blunt reply always was, “No”; “No”; “No”. Yet, with a sympathetic Minister—a Minister who is prepared to bite the bullet to introduce the LOTE program—they received a favourable reply. That is a pleasant and refreshing change in our Education Department. However, I qualify that remark by saying that I believe that the wheels of bureaucracy have been moving too slowly. We should bite the bullet and fast-track the introduction of teaching the Vietnamese language in my electorate. I turn now to the subject of learning technology that was mentioned briefly by the member for Merthyr. Our Government has taken great steps in bringing to the attention of the community and of the department the emphasis that has to be placed on learning technology. In 1989-90, $1m was allocated for the maintenance of the learning technology resource base in our secondary schools. In this Budget, $2.5m was allocated to the same area—a huge improvement. In 1988-89, $120,000 was allocated for repairs to class room computer equipment compared with $525,000 in 1991-92. This year’s allocation for the learning technology competency program for primary teachers was $500,000. In 1990-91, up to 45 teachers in each region participated in professional development exercises to give them either essential or extended competencies in the operation and application of information technology for learning. Since World War II, 90 per cent of all knowledge that has been acquired—— Time expired. Mr BARBER (Cooroora) (3.59 p.m.): It pleases me to join in the debate on the Estimates of the Education Department, as I am the son of an educationist and feel that education in the Goss Government is one of our most significant portfolios for reform in Queensland. I want to address particularly the bricks and mortar allocations contained in the Budget Estimates as they refer to the seat of Cooroora. Although that might sound like a pedestrian approach to education, I really think that bricks and mortar are an important part of delivering education to our students. Educators tell us that the learning environment we give our children sends silent messages to them about how highly we value the education environment. For that reason, bricks and mortar issues are at the fore. In 1989, Paul Braddy was the only politician to give an iron-clad promise of a high school for the town of Noosa in the first term of the Goss Government. That school will open in 1992. Apart from being a school at the cutting edge of public education in Australia in its construction, it will be unique in the “campusing” of facilities that will occur in the Legislative Assembly 2084 24 October 1991

Giraween estate at Noosa. That “campusing” is due in no small means to the foresight of the town- planning department of the Noosa council, which has provided for the following schools in that precinct: the St Thomas Moore Catholic primary school, the Sunshine Beach primary school and preschool, and, in 1992, a new high school in the Giraween estate. Those schools are in a position to share facilities that have also been provided to that precinct. They are the Bicentennial Hall, within walking distance of all of those schools, and the Noosa Rugby Union ovals, again within walking distance. Future playing fields are proposed for that area, which all of those three schools can pitch in and use. I think it will be a unique education “campusing” area in the State of Queensland. I look forward to it. Finally, there is a space for TAFE to move over to the Girraween estate, if it only would decide to do so. I urge TAFE to join in the “campusing” of education facilities at Noosa, to shift over to Girraween and to swap its present site with the Noosa council so that the council can use the former TAFE site for sporting purposes. I will be urging the Minister to have it adopt that course. When the Goss Government came to power, more than 700 students were bussed daily out of Queensland’s premier resort town, Noosa, to high schools at Coolum and Cooroy. That still happens, of course. They travel along the rickety roads that three decades of conservative Government left the seat of Cooroora. Next year, that will change. I said that, from the quality of the buildings that are provided for them, students get silent messages about education. At home, their parents provide them with wall-to-wall carpet, a pleasant bedroom, a living area and pleasant surroundings. If those children are sent off to Third World type buildings in which to learn, they can only assume that in life education is not important. I think towns can draw the same silent messages from the way in which Governments provide them with services. In the case of the town of Noosa, I suggest that in Noosa education just did not rate until the election of the Goss Government. I want to outline briefly what the town can look forward to in a modern high school at Sunshine Beach in 1992. The building layout has been made as compact as possible to reduce travel distances between facilities and improve circulation of staff and students; reduce site development costs and minimise the cost of services. The buildings have been grouped around a series of three courts. The first is the central court, incorporating core facilities. Core facilities are administration, resource centre, student canteen and amenities. The second is the general studies court, incorporating general studies and commerce facilities, with outdoor learning areas grouped within the main court area. The third is the creative studies court, incorporating facilities for fine arts, practical and performing arts, the student centre and associated outdoor learning areas. Smaller student courts will be located on the campus between the main courts and will provide covered areas for general student use, with sports facilities and free play areas outside the building zone. Student and staff amenities are provided at corner positions, providing good access for students and staff and supervision of court areas and adjacent buildings. The complex has been designed to achieve a distinctive campus atmosphere appropriate to centres of learning and to support the emerging role of the high school as a nucleus within its community. The building designs allow considerable flexibility of space usage and can readily be adapted to meet changing needs. I turn now to the matter of valuing education. Certainly, the Goss Government values education, but I want to ask a question regarding the school campuses at Coolum in the central part of my electorate. Why is the Transport Department so intent on shafting education at Coolum high school and the proposed North Coolum primary school? The last time they spoke to me, officials of the Transport Department advised me that they wished Stage 2 of the Sunshine Motorway to pass along the western boundary of the present high school site and the proposed western boundary of the primary and preschool sites. On top Legislative Assembly 2085 24 October 1991 of that, a motorway link road is to run along the northern frontage of the proposed high school and preschool. If that is not bad enough, thirdly, traffic from the Coolum Ridges subdivision, which is only an approval and not yet constructed, is to fall out via a slip road along the frontage of the existing high school. If that is not bad enough, finally, the fourth boundary of the school’s precincts at Coolum will be the busy David Low Way. Under the Transport Department’s proposal, there will be an island of schools in a sea of busy roads. It is trite to say that schools and roads do not mix. I think the Transport Department has acknowledged that fact this year in the Schoolsafe program, and that only begs the question further: why is the Transport Department intent on the Sunshine Motorway creating an island of schools at Coolum Beach? All of those things would not be so objectionable if the motorway route was not swerving to avoid traversing a private subdivision parcel and swerving towards the schools precinct. That is, in order to avoid the sacred ground of a developer, the motorway is being required to take a dogleg towards the schools. The Transport Department is saying that developers who had its ear years ago are more important than 1 500 school students. On all major indicia—even the interests of the developer, if only he knew it—the road should avoid the schools and take a more westerly route—Alternative 1, as it has been described—which was designed by a Noosa councillor. In this regard, I will continue to advocate for the children of Coolum and Coolum schools. The Goss Government’s emphasis on education can be no more clearly apparent than in the case of the Pacific Paradise primary school, which is referred to in the Minister’s Estimates. The sum of $210,000 has been budgeted for the construction of a preschool, and $260,000 for a special education unit. The sum of $3.5m has also been budgeted for the primary school at Pacific Paradise. The parents in that part of the world are excited that the very best in modern school facilities are coming to that town. It will create a school community and a focus in that town that perhaps did not exist before. Again, I must advocate for the children who will attend that school, because historically Maroochy Shire Councils have ignored the roads and drains in Pacific Paradise. Blending the school into the town support structure is proving very difficult for the Maroochy Shire Council. Earlier councils voted funds away from that town to places such as Mooloolaba and Nambour. Since parents first brought these concerns to the notice of the Education Department at an information evening, the department has grasped the nettle. So far, the regional office has convened two meetings of all interested parties. I praise the cooperative approach of all players to solving the infrastructure problems surrounding the school. I also praise the work of the Pacific Paradise school safety committee in raising concerns about pedestrian safety. I believe that committee will go on to form the core of the school steering committee and future p. and c. associations at that school. The parents know that it will be a great school that will give their children a great start in life. They will learn how to learn. They will also learn skills for life and for adapting to change in a world that is rapidly changing. Finally, I will outline the bricks-and-mortar allocations in other schools in my electorate for which parents are very grateful. The Tewantin school has received an extension of teaching space. The Coolum State School has received a very welcome covered play area and tuckshop. A new library has been allocated to Cooroy State School, and an amenities block to Mapleton State School. Backbenchers will know that it is a great day when the facilities—about which they hear time and time again in lobbying—finally come to fruition. The completion of four learning areas at the North Arm State School is also budgeted for. New amenities are to be provided at Pomona State School, and the amenities at Sunshine Beach State School are to be extended. Finally, Legislative Assembly 2086 24 October 1991 the Budget provides for a replacement amenities block at the Noosa District State High School. I believe that bricks and mortar are at the core of delivering education to our students. If students are not comfortable, and if their surrounds are not amenable, they are not going to value education themselves. I thank the Minister for his attention to education in the burgeoning Sunshine Coast region, which needs constant attention. Once again, this Budget goes some way to delivering the very best in public education to the children of the Sunshine Coast. Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (4.11 p.m.): In the few minutes that are available to me, I shall talk about the Estimates of the Education Department and commend the Minister and his department for their efforts in the past two Budgets. In 1989, during the State election campaign, I thought that it was a brave promise to increase education funding by $250m in our first term, although I believed that the state of the education system at that time merited such a commitment. For us to have achieved that commitment—and, in fact, to have exceeded it—in our first two Budgets is quite a remarkable feat. I commend the Minister for that. One aspect that has been particularly pleasing for me is that much- needed educational facilities and resources for remote areas in the Cook electorate have been provided through those two Budgets. I acknowledge that children throughout Queensland, wherever they live—even in the most remote parts—are entitled to equality of educational opportunity. With this Government’s commitment to equality, the provision of resources to remote areas is much appreciated. I mention briefly two initiatives from this year’s Budget, namely, the Horn Island school and a replacement school for Murray Island. For quite a number of years, the Horn Island Ratepayers and Residents Association, and Agnes Fox in particular, have been campaigning for a school for that island. In the past two years, I have been working closely with them. The allocation of just over $1m in this year’s Budget to commence construction of that school is most welcome. I assure the Minister that the next time he visits the Torres Strait, the people of Horn Island will welcome him. They are awaiting the opportunity to commend him for that initiative. Murray Island was the only island on which a new school was not built under a Federal Government program following a visit in 1983 by Susan Ryan after the Federal Labor Government was first elected. Land problems in the region have delayed the building of that school, but the people of Murray Island are very happy about the allocation of $800,000 for a replacement school there. The allocation of money for the Remote Area Incentive Scheme honours a promise that has been made repeatedly by Governments over a number of years. I remember the negotiations between the union and the department about the incentive transfer scheme—as it was then known—which commenced in 1975. I must say that teachers were sceptical when, a couple of months prior to the 1989 election, the National Party promised $25m for a Remote Area Incentive Scheme. I assure the Minister that the start of the scheme, which has been pledged in this Budget, has been well received by people in my electorate. Teacher accommodation enhancement is also well received. I refer to the 1986 teacher housing dispute in Mount Isa. The member for Mount Isa, who was the mayor at that time and supported the teachers in their quest for better accommodation, will well remember that dispute. Greg Smith and others who were involved with me in organising that dispute to draw attention to the accommodation needs of remote areas will be very pleased to see the progress that is being made. One of the most significant things for me was a letter that I received late last year from one of the teachers at the Thursday Island high school, Larry James. In that letter, which was printed in the Torres News after our first Budget, he said that, for the first time in over 10 years, the Thursday Island high school had not had to hold a fete during the previous year to raise money for essential items for that school. As the fete organiser, he Legislative Assembly 2087 24 October 1991 really appreciated the rest that he had been able to get from not having to organise the fete because of the facilities that have been provided by this Government. I support the Minister’s Estimates. Time expired. Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Rockhampton—Minister for Education) (4.16 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. In the short time available to Ministers in which to reply, I cannot possibly reply to the specific requests that have been made for comment and information, but I assure the honourable members that I have asked officers of the Education Department and my ministerial staff to go through with me each of those speeches and, where requests are made for such specific comment and information, we will do our best to supply it by letter. I wish to take the time to reply to some of the more sweeping and general comments that have been made, particularly by the member for Fassifern and, to a lesser extent, the member for South Coast. The member for Fassifern continued with his usual policy of misrepresentation, starting with a sweeping claim about officers of the Education Department being sent to Siberia—the correspondence school. I challenged him by interjection to name one officer of the Education Department at the time when the Labor Party came to office who was sent to the correspondence school. Of course, he did not, because he could not. No officers of the Education Department were sent to the correspondence school—not one single such officer. That is the standard of misrepresentation to which the member for Fassifern has become accustomed. In relation to his sweeping claims about abandoning monitoring by changing the system of inspectors—again, it is total misrepresentation. Certainly, the position of inspector has been abolished, but not the system of monitoring. Monitoring of the system is now the responsibility of the Review and Evaluation Directorate, led at central office by an executive director, a chief review officer, a chief auditor and a chief research officer. That group will be supported at the centre by senior review officers, review officers, operational auditors and research officers. In regions, there will be senior review officers, review officers and internal auditors. In central office, therefore, 25 people will be attached to the Review and Evaluation Directorate; 61 will be located in the regions. It is simply another misrepresentation—an untruth—for the member to say that there will be no monitoring of the system. I turn to another one of those little items—the attempt to spread prejudice, fear and bigotry by his reference to the Baha’i education program. The truth relating to that is this: six schools have been approached by members of that religion and permission has been granted for them to run such courses. Students who attend such classes either belong to the Baha’i faith or their parents have given express written permission for them to so attend. In all of those six schools, there is available also the normal range of Christian religious education. In relation to officers leaving the department—again, misrepresentation. The number is not 118, as the member for Fassifern said, or 130, as the member for Burnett said. To date, the contracts of 68 officers have been terminated. Again, the misrepresentations are clear. By the maladministration of the previous Government, 150 officers were placed on contract, and the Government has had to consider that situation. The placement of public servants under contract is not the policy of the Government. Instead, it has had to arrive at a solution for those who were on contract and, under the restructuring, had to change. For some of them who entered into new arrangements prior to 1 July 1991, a limited contractual term of 12 months was entered into from the date of appointment, after which time those officers will be placed in a tenured position. All those appointed after 1 July 1991 have been placed in a tenured position, and that is the correct position. Legislative Assembly 2088 24 October 1991

Much was made by several members of the Opposition—particularly the member for Burnett—about AST positions and about what the Government and the department have done about the process. The Queensland Department of Education favoured a selection process that would include an interview for persons short-listed from the initial review of written applications. That was our preferred model. However, teachers themselves through their industrial union argued against that. The Queensland Teachers Union, representing teachers, argued strenuously that such a process would discriminate against the less articulate people, and the union asked and argued for a common pro forma, written application process. The Government did not tell teachers to do it that way. We suggested that they go the other way. However, the Queensland Teachers Union and the teachers asked for that. In the end, the department agreed, and teachers must wear the result of their own actions. It is improper and ridiculous for teachers to argue after the event if a process has been set in place which they themselves sought. For members to come here and argue forcefully that they have been overlooked in that regard is also clearly improper. The member for South Coast tried to create the impression that the Education Department is in crisis and that people are leaving in floods—perhaps catching the boats back to Vietnam on which Mr Palaszczuk’s constituents came out. What a lot of nonsense! The facts are these: under our predecessors in Government, in 1987-88 the resignation rate in the Queensland Education Department was almost 6 per cent. To be precise, it was 5.96 per cent. In 1990-91 under Labor, the resignation rate has more than halved. It is now only 2.86 per cent. Far from many more teachers leaving because they are dissatisfied, we have the opposite problem. We do not have the resignation rate that we used to have. The whole position has been turned around. In addition, for the benefit of the member for South Coast—if he is prepared to listen to the truth for a change—as he said that the Government has done nothing in relation to remedial teachers, I point out that in July 1989, shortly before the Labor Party came to office, 456 remedial resource teachers worked in this State. In 1991, we have 503—an increase of 10 per cent at a time when the school population in those two years grew by only 2.2 per cent. The growth in the number of remedial teachers has far outstripped the growth in school population, and I can only hope that the member for South Coast is prepared to listen and tell the truth on those figures. I also reject the comments by the member for South Coast concerning diagnostic assessment because this is most effective when it involves direct interaction between teacher and learner. Little value is gained by compulsory whole cohort testing. It would be extremely expensive, giving only limited educational return. He also misrepresented the figures in relation to literacy. He quoted figures from Year 5, and any educator or fair-minded person would know that if education is of benefit it will show up in the later years. In other words, education makes a difference. In Year 5, 65 per cent of the students performed at the more sophisticated reading levels. However, by Year 9, 90.7 per cent were performing at the more sophisticated levels. Similarly, in the writing task, 73 per cent of Year 5 students were performing at the more sophisticated levels, and by Year 9 it was over 90 per cent. His claims of about one-third illiteracy were wild, extravagant, erroneous and unfair and reveal him to be a person who wishes to talk down the Education Department for which he worked for so many years. What is the truth about the Mexican invasion that the member for Fassifern is always talking about? Out of the 173 senior appointments in the Education Department under this Labor Government, only 11 appointees are from interstate. He foreshadows this great Mexican invasion, but it is typically erroneous and unfair. He is not interested in knowing the truth. He is only interested in spreading the misrepresentation for which he has become famous. Legislative Assembly 2089 24 October 1991

It is clear that under the Labor Government the Education Department has made great progress and will continue to make great progress because it has the support of the people. We will increasingly have the support of the people as we explain the changes and how beneficial they are. Change is always difficult, and it is not helped along by misrepresentation by members of Parliament who do not understand the meaning of fairness or integrity in political debate. I thank honourable members from the Government side for their support, not only in this Chamber but also out in the community. The Goss Government will proceed with education reform using the ability that it has demonstrated to date. At 4.25 p.m., The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! Under the provisions of the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 1 October, I shall now put the questions for the Vote under consideration and the balance remaining unvoted for Department of Education (Trust and Special Funds). The questions for the following Votes were put, and agreed to— $2,106,700,000—Education, Department of Education (Consolidated Fund). $709,984,000—Education, Department of Education (Trust and Special Funds). Progress reported.

Business, Industry and Regional Development Hon. G. N. SMITH (Townsville East—Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development) (4.27 p.m.): I move— “That there be granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year 1991-92, a sum not exceeding $45,123,000 for Economic Services, Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development (Consolidated Fund).” The Queensland economy Against the background of international and national recession, the Queensland economy has performed well in 1990-91 when compared with other States. The Queensland Government’s economic management strategy has created the best business environment in Australia. As far as business is concerned, Queensland is the low-tax and high-cooperation State. The latest unemployment figures show that we have the equal lowest unemployment rate in Australia. A recent National Australia Bank survey on business attitudes found that Queensland was leading Australia out of recession. Two-thirds of businesses rated their trading performance as satisfactory or better. The international credit agency, Moody’s, has also voiced uncompromising praise for Queensland’s economy. Perhaps some of the members opposite—who are only too ready to cite Moody’s as an authority when it suits them—should note what the agency had to say recently about the Queensland economy. Moody’s managing director in Sydney told a conference there in July that— “Queensland shows up very well. . . it’s very strong.” The structure of Queensland’s economy is dominated by the mining, agricultural and tourism sectors, and that is likely to remain the case for the immediate future. Approximately two-thirds of manufacturing in Queensland is related to processing, servicing or provision of machinery and equipment to those sectors. The Queensland Government’s policies for economic development centre on supporting sustainable growth and maximising higher value-added manufacturing and tradeable service industries. We are particularly encouraging manufacturing diversity and expansion into Legislative Assembly 2090 24 October 1991 greater value-added and leading-edge technology industries. They include areas like food-processing, information technology and communications, biotechnology and micro-electronics. The manufacturing sector comprises 13.5 per cent of gross State product in Queensland. Over the past decade Queensland manufacturing has increased its share on a national basis from 10.6 per cent to 11.5 per cent. The year 1990-91 was one of reorganisation, reassessment and refocussing for the Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development. Under the Goss Government, my department has a new strategic focus, leading to a more productive and efficient relationship with business. Significant developments during the past financial year included— The establishment of the Queensland Business and Industry Council to provide an effective channel of communication between the Minister, and business and industry in the State. The review of the Industrial Estates Program to ensure that industries and businesses are assisted and encouraged to establish and develop in the most appropriate locations consistent with desired economic development and social outcomes. The initiation of an Information Technology (IT) Industry Strategy designed to develop a more effective, efficient and export-oriented IT industry in Queensland. The commencement of an Advanced Science and Technology Infrastructure Project to investigate the introduction of supercomputing facilities and associated fibre-optic networks for the State. There was also established within my department a Women in Business and Industry Program to assist females seeking to enter non-traditional areas of the work force. Ultimately, the choice of career rests with individual women. The program’s aim is to ensure they have equal opportunity to implement that choice. A Major Projects Incentives Scheme was introduced to help attract significant industrial projects to Queensland by reducing certain establishment costs and Government charges. The Government funded four new projects under the National Teaching Company Scheme, and funding for several projects which started in the previous financial year also continued. The Business Regulation Review Unit was officially launched in March. The Queensland Grants for Industrial Research and Development scheme, QGRAD, was created to accelerate private sector research and development activity in the State’s manufacturing and traded services sectors. Public Sector Management Commission review The former Department of Manufacturing and Commerce was reviewed by the Public Sector Management Commission over the period July to September 1990. A comprehensive review report, including 120 recommendations, was accepted by the Government last November. So far, more than 90 per cent of the recommendations have been implemented, or substantially implemented. The remainder have been partially implemented. Major areas identified in the review process as requiring fundamental change and which have been, or are being, addressed are— a refocused strategic direction, based on closer industry consultation; a new senior management team, with a good balance of public and private sector skills; Legislative Assembly 2091 24 October 1991

a review of all programs and program delivery mechanisms, as part of implementing the new organisational structure, assisted by a better client focus and targeted program delivery; significant enhancement of regional service delivery; a recognition of the need to direct resources at activities which will expand and diversify our manufacturing and traded services base, with particular emphasis on major project development; and a Human Resource Management plan with a Performance Evaluation and Review Program which are in the advanced design stage. Under this Government, the department has a strategic direction, an organisational structure reflecting that direction, and a human resource strategy. All three attributes will equip it to achieve its mission of broadening the State’s economy through developing manufacturing and traded services; expanding the business sector; and encouraging the regional economic development of the State. The DBIRD budget The 1991 Queensland Budget continues the State Government’s success in making Queensland the low-tax—therefore low-cost—State in which to do business. The overall allocation for DBIRD is $74.6m, comprising $45.1m from the Consolidated Fund and the balance of $29.5m from Trust Funds. Major initiatives in this year’s Budget include a 25 per cent increase in expenditure for the department’s Business Program to almost $6.8m. A new Regional Development and Services Program, which facilitates economic development in regional Queensland, receives almost $15m, and that includes $6m for the National Industry Extension Scheme, known as NIES, which assists industry to be more internationally competitive by improving productivity and efficiency. There is also $9m for a capital works program, which incorporates strategic industrial estate work at Lytton and Narangba, and an allocation for new factory construction. The Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development is in a better position now than ever before to assist the economic development of Queensland. Whether that be the big picture type of industrial development or strategically important regional economic development, the people of Queensland now have access to the necessary programs and advice. Queensland Business and Industry Council The Queensland Business and Industry Council has been formed to provide independent advice to the Queensland Government, through me, on all matters relevant to business and industry development. The 17 committee members comprise a cross-section of business, industry and community members, all of whom possess particular expertise. They also reflect wide management, union, and regional Queensland representation. The objectives of the council are to ensure that the Queensland Government is aware of issues affecting the development of business and industry policy in the State; contribute to the formulation of business and industry policy for Queensland; and ensure the private sector has the opportunity to be informed on State Government policies and programs for the development of business and industry. The grassroots work of the committee is done through four subcommittees covering the areas of regulatory efficiency, science and technology, regional economic development, and sustainable development. Each subcommittee is chaired by a member of council and the remaining membership includes people with specific business, community or academic expertise. The sum of $141,000 has been provided in the budget for the activities of the council. Legislative Assembly 2092 24 October 1991

Major Projects Incentive Scheme As part of this Government’s determination to develop Queensland’s large-scale industrial base, $2m has been provided as assistance to major projects funding, which ensures Queensland has the necessary framework to compete on a commercial basis with other States and countries to attract industry to establish in, or to relocate to, Queensland. The scheme has already proved its worth. Incentive packages have been provided to three projects now established in Queensland. They are the Fisher and Paykel whitegoods factory at Cleveland, the Minproc chemical plant at Gladstone, and ICI’s sodium cyanide plant, which is also at Gladstone. A fourth project—an ICI ammonium nitrate plant—has received major projects approval but has not yet made any claim. The total investment secured by these incentives is more than $200m, providing new employment opportunities of more than 200 jobs. Further incentive packages are under negotiation with a number of project proponents. Elements of the incentive packages offered under this scheme may include reduced rentals on industrial estate sites for the initial years of the project; concessions on payroll tax, stamp duties and land tax for the initial years; relocation assistance for expenses to move operations to Queensland; other non-monetary assistance with project development arrangements—for example, environment impact studies. These incentives may be offered by the Government on a case-by-case basis depending on the extent of the project and its estimated benefit to the State. Regional Projects Investment Program Before coming to Government, the Labor Party made a strong commitment to regional economic development. We have stood by that commitment and have delivered the programs to back up the promises. This year, $2.5m has been allocated to the Regional Projects Investment Program. The program encourages and accelerates the development of greater value-added, export-orientated enterprises in this State. Initially, the program provides assistance with grants for the conduct of prefeasibility studies of major new regional investment opportunities. There is provision for follow-up grants for the marketing of potential projects to Australian and overseas investors. The program has already allocated almost $400,000 in funding for a dozen prefeasibility studies. These studies cover a diverse range of opportunities including: export fruit and vegetable processing on the Darling downs; aircraft maintenance facilities at Cairns and Townsville; clay deposits on the Sunshine Coast; wool- scouring at Roma; soya bean processing at Murgon; and beef-processing at Clermont. The Regional Projects Investment Program replaces the former Government’s flawed enterprise zone. Unlike its predecessors, this Government is representing the whole of Queensland. Its commitment to the prosperity of Queensland business and industry extends well beyond favouring selected areas of the State. This Government’s concern is to ensure that all areas of Queensland have the assistance they need to give them a fair and equal chance of attracting economic development to their particular regions. Regional development and services The Regional Development and Services Division of DBIRD was created to give effect to this Labor Government’s commitment to the economic development of Queensland. The division has responsibility for the delivery of all departmental programs at regional level, the National Industry Extension Service and the Regional Economic Development program. The substance of this Government’s commitment to the regional economic development of this State and to the regional delivery of Government services stands in stark contrast with the shadow of the previous Government’s commitment. The former Department of Industrial Development bequeathed to this Government in December 1989 an employment situation of only 12 officers outside Brisbane. The new Legislative Assembly 2093 24 October 1991

Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development will employ 44 officers outside Brisbane during this financial year. That is an increase in regional human resources of almost fourfold. Regional offices have been established at Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton, Mackay, Maryborough, Toowoomba and Brisbane. New offices were recently established at Mount Isa and Bundaberg, and offices are scheduled to open during 1992 at Gladstone, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast and Ipswich. Those offices provide access for regional areas to the wide range of business, industry and economic development assistance programs provided through my department. National Industry Extension Service Most of these assistance packages are solely State funded, but some are joint arrangements with the Federal Government. One of the most successful is the National Industry Extension Service, or NIES. NIES is directed towards improving the competitiveness of companies in the manufacturing and trade and services sectors, especially those with an export orientation. Mr Borbidge: A good program. Mr SMITH: Yes, I agree. The principal operation of NIES is to provide grants, usually on a dollar-for-dollar basis, to companies to improve their performance and skills. For firms located outside the Brisbane and Moreton Statistical Divisions, this Government has recently tripled the NIES grant to $3 for each $1 spent by the company. The higher subsidy rate recognises the higher costs that these companies face when they have to access expert consultants who may have to come from south-east Queensland. It exemplifies this Government’s commitment to making sure regional businesses and industries have every chance to succeed. Grants are usually directed towards improvements in the areas of strategic planning, financial management, design, marketing, quality, manufacturing methods and the introduction of new technology. The Accelerated Company Export Service—ACES—is a new program provided under the NIES scheme. ACES is designed to encourage leading Queensland manufacturing companies with the resources and capacity to succeed in overseas markets to increase their level of exports. It is deliberately targeted at successful companies with the potential to become strategic, non-opportunistic exporters in the short to medium term. Sectoral studies The key to successful economic development is the early recognition of opportunities and the preparation of a plan for exploiting them. More than $300,000 has been allocated for a program of sectoral studies including studies on information technology, aerospace, environmental management and food-processing. These industry studies have two main purposes: to review their current status, and to provide a plan for future development of those industries.The majority of the studies are being supported by a significant private sector involvement. This is to ensure that the studies will truly reflect the needs of industries. A key element of all of them is that adequate resources be made available to implement the recommendations of the studies. Technology infrastructure Information technology is one industry sector in which Queensland has been given a kick-start by the far-sighted policies of the Goss Labor Government. Facilitation of the development of technology infrastructure supports the knowledge-based industries so vital to the future of this State. Those industries will be of significant benefit to the economic development of Queensland. This Government has a economic commitment to working with the information technology industries to ensure Queensland maintains its profile as Australia’s information technology leader. As part of that process, this Government has initiated an information technology industry strategy. The strategy will outline what needs to be done for Queensland to gain the maximum benefit from the range Legislative Assembly 2094 24 October 1991 of opportunities opening up in the information technology field. It has been undertaken with the endorsement and cooperation of industry practitioners and with significant input from them. The strategy draft will be released tomorrow for industry and public comment. However, there has already been widespread praise for it and the policies being implemented by this Government. The Queensland President of the Australian Information Industries Association, Roger Worthington, has described it as “the most important development for the industry in recent times”. Leon Tighe, Queensland vice- president of the Australian Computer Society, says— “The Queensland Government is to be applauded for its efforts to set in place strategic planning activities which, in turn, assists the industry to do their business planning.” There are many potential opportunities from information technology, and the key to making the most of them will be cooperation between the public and private sectors. The IT and communications industries in Queensland can be assured that they have that cooperation from this Government, and will continue to have it. Funding for technology-based initiatives is provided through the Technology and Innovation Fund, for which $695,000 has been allocated this year. One of the technology infrastructure projects which my department is involved in supporting is the new stereolithography unit at the Plastics Skills Centre at Mount Gravatt. The high-tech modelling system will allow manufacturers to bring products to market faster and much more cheaply. This is only the second such facility in Australia. This Government has spent $225,000 to bring the project on line this year. That is on top of $125,000 provided as initial funding in 1990-91. Funds are provided, or have been allocated for— the Tropical Resource Centre at James Cook University in Townsville; the Space Industry Development Centre at Griffith University; and the Key Centre for Software Technology at the University of Queensland. All these centres have tremendous practical benefits for industry and the potential to generate export income for Queensland. This Government also has a range of suitable sites available on research, technology and aviation parks located throughout Queensland. Funding has been provided for the publication of a research and development directory. Cooperative research centres As part of its commitment to technology development, this Government has been an eager participant in the Federal Government’s Co-Operative Research Centres Program. The program was introduced in 1990 to encourage research and development cooperation between academia, industry and Government, with particular emphasis on commercialisation opportunities. The CRC Program will be built up over five years from 1990-1991 to 1994-1995, by which time up to 50 centres around Australia will be established. The CRC selection process includes three separate rounds of applications. The first round has been completed, and Queensland gained two cooperative research centres. They are the Centre for Mining Technology Equipment and the Centre for Tropical Pest Management. The Government has agreed to provide funding of up to $1.15m in 1991-92 towards successful Queensland CRC projects which seek State support in rounds two and three. We have also indicated continuing support for the following two years. Queensland Grants for Industrial Research and Development Scheme One of the most enduring condemnations of the previous Government was the way it allowed Queensland industrial research and development to drift into Third World status. That neglect left Queensland with one of the OECD’s lowest levels of expenditure for Legislative Assembly 2095 24 October 1991 industrial research and development. As part of this Government’s long-term plan to redress that shameful situation, we instituted the Queensland Grants for Industrial Research and Development Scheme. Funding of $7.5m over a five-year period is budgeted for the scheme, with expenditure of over $3m allocated this financial year. The objectives of the QGRAD scheme are an increased level of private sector industrial R and D as a basis for internationally competitive manufacturing industries and development of cooperative private/public sector research arrangements to provide an increased level of commercial development from public sector research. In July $1.7m was committed for 10 projects approved in the first round of applications. Applications under the scheme are assessed by an independent panel of technical experts including, I am pleased to say, Dr Rhonnda Jones of James Cook University. A broad cross-section of industries is being supported, including lightweight metal casting, veterinary and medical diagnostics, information technology and products for the electricity supply industry. Projects are being supported from diverse geographic areas of Queensland, for example, Townsville, Hervey Bay, the Gold Coast and Murgon, as well as Brisbane. QGRAD is yet another example of how this Government is meeting its commitment to sustainable economic development, not just in the south-east corner but throughout the whole State. QUESTnet Another example is the expenditure of $691,000 this year to extend the Queensland Education Science and Technology Network, or QUESTnet, to regional centres. Within the next month, James Cook University, Townsville, and the University Colleges of Southern and Central Queensland at Toowoomba and Rockhampton respectively will have access to the high speed information technology transfer link. Additionally, an estimated amount of $235,000 has been earmarked for next year to be paid as a start-up subsidy for the three new network members. This extension of QUESTnet demonstrates the Goss Government’s commitment to facilitating the development of a Statewide technology infrastructure. We believe that technology does not belong only to large city-based institutions, and that all Queenslanders have a right to access the potential available through information technology advances. The initial stages of QUESTnet have involved academic institutions because of their expertise in, and demand for, high-speed networking, which is well advanced. In addition, these institutions have industrial partners and affiliates that are able to access QUESTnet via the academic centres. The work scheduled to be undertaken this year paves the way for even greater industry participation in the network. Industrial Estates Program As part of its role in facilitating growth and development of manufacturing industries, my department administers a number of industrial estates throughout Queensland. They provide essential assistance to a range of manufacturers in their early stages, enabling them to generate jobs and economic activity for their respective regions. It is not the intention of the program that Queensland taxpayers provide long-term, artificially low rents on Crown industrial estates at the expense of other industry on private land. The Industrial Estates Program is currently being reviewed to make it more efficient and responsive to clients’ needs. Local authorities and regional development boards have been invited to participate in the review process. Land-holdings no longer relevant to the program’s new thrust are being progressively disposed of. We have the former Government to thank for this legacy of vacant Crown land through its practice of establishing industrial estates in areas where political considerations were more important than commercial reality. Some of the estates created by the previous Government have never had a tenant on them, nor was there ever any chance that they would. That is well documented. A new property-based assistance scheme is currently being developed. The scheme will provide a range of assistance measures allied to the core function of making Legislative Assembly 2096 24 October 1991 concessional land available to new businesses. It will also include flexibility to acquire development and lease land for eligible projects. Concessional rental may be negotiated in special circumstances. Queensland Industry Information Service The hallmark of this Government’s dealings with the business and industry sectors has been the provision of practical, targeted assistance. An example of that policy in practice is the Queensland Industry Information Service—QINDIS—a database promoting the products and capabilities of the State’s industry to end users. This year, $585,000 has been provided in the Budget for further development of the service. QINDIS, which already incorporates more than 6 000 listings, will be particularly beneficial to manufacturers in accessing suppliers of components or services. It will also provide listings of potential markets. The service will be launched in November in Brisbane, Rockhampton and Townsville. Business development Business is being well served by the Goss Government through the provision of worthwhile assistance programs. A new Business Development Branch is now operational and focuses on matters of business policy and liaison. An amount of $50,000 has been provided for the Small Business Research Grants scheme. Individual grants of up to $20,000 will be available. The scheme’s immediate objectives are— to generate research which can be implemented through more beneficial small-business policy; to stimulate innovative research ideas; and promote an effective communication and liaison network between Government, small business and the research community. Ultimately, all three will work together to improve the competitiveness and efficiency of the Queensland small-business sector. Queensland Small Business Corporation The day-to-day needs of the small-business sector will continue to be met through the Queensland Small Business Corporation. The corporation, like the department, has been the subject of reorganisation, and now has a more focussed and efficient outlook. Its role now is more directed towards keeping businesspeople informed about where they can get specific information and training, rather than actually trying to provide it. That does not mean, however, that there has been a lessening of the services being provided by this Government to assist the small-business sector. Some of the corporation’s previous functions are now undertaken in the department’s new business division. That transfer of functions is reflected in the corporation’s budget. In conjunction, the two bodies are providing a better service more appropriately suited to the needs of the small-business community in Queensland. Main Street Program An additional assistance program taken up by the corporation is the Main Street Program. The Government has begun a pilot of the program, based on a successful Canadian model. The thrust of the Main Street Program is to provide retailers and service-providers with access to the resources they need to operate their businesses in the most competitive manner. This is more than just a coat of paint on historic buildings and a few new seats. It is about improving the skills and attitudes of Main Street retailers so they can maximise the opportunities offered by their particular shopping environments. Maryborough has been chosen as the first pilot study, with others to be announced soon. Legislative Assembly 2097 24 October 1991

Business Regulation Review Unit This Government recognises that an impediment to business success is compliance with outdated or irrelevant regulations. Unlike the previous Government, however, when we recognise a situation we do not just talk about it—we do something. To confront the task of making business regulation more relevant, in March this year we established the Business Regulation Review Unit. The unit highlights the Government’s policy of ensuring that barriers to the development of an efficient economy in Queensland are removed wherever possible. Confirmation of this Government’s actions comes from no less an authority than Sir Ernest Savage, author of the most authoritative report ever done on Government regulation and legislation. Time expired. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I inform honourable members that, on the Vote proposed, I will allow a full discussion on all the Minister’s departmental Estimates (Consolidated Revenue, and Trust and Special Funds). Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (4.57 p.m.): The Estimates of the Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development will give me an opportunity not only to comment on the Minister’s handling of his portfolio but also to provide a broad outline of the substantial package the Opposition will place before the business community of Queensland before the next election—initiatives that should be taken up by this Government if it was at all interested in job creation and business expansion. Mr Palaszczuk: With a consumption tax? Mr BORBIDGE: In response to the honourable member who is interjecting—providing this outline is possible because there is little point in my wasting much time criticising the performance of this Government and its non-existent Minister. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I take that as a personal reflection on the Minister and I ask the honourable member not to make personal reflections. Mr Littleproud interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I warn the honourable member for Condamine under Standing Order 123A for interjecting while I am speaking. I am attempting to get the debate away from personal reflections on members and Ministers and back to the Estimates. Mr BORBIDGE: The Minister has done little. He is a Minister who, under the Government structure endorsed by the Labor Party, is ranked 17 out of 18 in the ministerial pecking order and, on his record, on which I am entitled to comment, is continually rolled in Cabinet deliberations in respect of his constituency. He is a Minister who has had his title changed three times to accommodate Dr Coaldrake’s assessment of how the Queensland business community should be served—a Minister and a Government who have gone to sleep during the worst recession in 60 years, at a time when the business community needs direction and focus, when we need to be creating jobs and when we need leadership and initiative. We have a situation in which this department and, unfortunately, this Minister have become lame ducks. This Labor Government does not support the business community of Queensland. It does not support manufacturing industry, it does not support small business, and it believes that regional development begins and ends in George Street, Brisbane. It scrapped the Ministry of Small Business soon after it re-created it. While it has not created one single job and it cannot claim one significant regional development achievement, it continues to stall major projects in this State. The record speaks for itself. This Government cannot put its signature on one major economic development project anywhere in Queensland. The Legislative Assembly 2098 24 October 1991

Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development has been gutted. It now stands in name only, with the major decisions affecting the business community taken by the Premier’s Department and by Treasury. The Opposition estimate of 65 000 potential new jobs lost last year continues to grow day by day. There is absolutely no input into the Cabinet process from this department. In terms of the Premier’s priorities, it is an unnecessary appendage existing for the sole purpose of providing employment for its Minister. It used to be responsible for trade and investment; it used to be responsible for the Centre for Information Technology and Communications, the Queensland China Council, and an effective, not a gutted, Crown industrial estates program. Even when the Minister recently made his yearly major announcement of a review of Government regulations affecting business, he had to have his minder, the Deputy Premier, by his side. Why he needed the Housing Minister defies logic. There is no direction from the top. As a result, there is no action from below. This department is without morale. It has little to do, and when it does do something it is usually overruled by Mr Rudd and his mandarins in their soon-to-be refurbished palace at the Executive Building. Minister Smith is a victim of the Premier’s style of government, his vanity and his arrogance—a style that is more about public relations, fairy floss and glitter than about substance and achievement. This message is rammed home in the department’s annual report, which lists the only significant departmental achievements as the opening of the Fisher and Paykel plant at Cleveland and Colgate Palmolive’s plant at Labrador. A Government member: Oh! Mr BORBIDGE: I will take the interjection from the honourable member who is displaying both his naivety and his ignorance. Both of those projects, as well as the expansion of ICI and Minproc at Gladstone, were negotiated by the previous National Party Government. They were sod-turned prior to the election on 2 December 1989. Like most of the so-called achievements of this non-performing Government, the ribbon was made by the National Party and it was cut by the Premier. Even the so-called major review of business regulations is a public relations attempt to reinvent the wheel. As a result of the Savage report in 1986, the Regulatory Reform Act was enacted, with responsibility resting with the Premier. I ask the Committee this afternoon: if red tape is such a problem for Queensland business that we have to have this major new policy initiative, what has the Premier, as the responsible Minister for the Regulatory Reform Act, been doing since 2 December 1989? Likewise, the Queensland Business Licence Information Centre was initiated by me as Industry Minister, with funding secured in the 1989 State Budget. The cupboard of initiatives is now bare and the Premier is becoming paranoid that there will be nothing to open and no sods to turn in an election year. He has no-one to blame but himself. Aside from National Party initiatives, the only other activity the department seems to be involved in is having itself reviewed or reviewing itself. It started with the review by the Public Sector Management Commission, a review which set the department back 10 years, a review conducted by industrial development dunces without practical experience or understanding. The results speak for themselves. There were reviews of business regulations, reviews of the Crown industrial estates program and registers of investment opportunities, but absolutely nothing of job-creating, recession- busting substance. There was nothing to create jobs. The Queensland Small Business Corporation in its old form, prior to being made efficient, if we believe the words of the Minister and Labor Party members in Government, was acknowledged by Federal Small Business Minister David Beddall as the best agency of its type in the country. Mr Springborg: And they weren’t even in Government. Legislative Assembly 2099 24 October 1991

Mr BORBIDGE: And Labor was not in Government at that time. The Small Business Corporation has gone missing. The Minister has presided over a 6 per cent reduction in its budget and after nearly two years in office he has not been able to produce one major small-business initiative of substance. What has the corporation done to arrest Queensland’s spiralling bankruptcy rate? What has the corporation done to reverse Queensland’s forced closure rate, which is double that of any other State in Australia? While land tax is crippling the small-business sector, the Minister was rolled by the Treasurer. There has been no comment, no expression of concern and no leadership. Land tax is crippling small business in many areas of Queensland, more particularly on the Gold Coast. It was good enough for the Western Australian Government to freeze the tax, but when it comes to Queensland there is no action whatsoever. The National Party will abolish land tax in a move that will allow business—in particular small business—to redirect profit from taxation to investment and jobs. The Small Business Corporation now faces a fight for its effective survival as certain bureaucratic power-brokers transfer more of its responsibilities to the mainstream public service. The National Party will restore the Department of Business and Industry to the position of prominence that it once held in this State. Our Minister will also carry Small Business in his commission to give that sector an identity that is now denied to it. We will place the portfolio under the control of a senior Cabinet Minister and we will restore responsibilities for trade and economic development and other responsibilities purged from the department after the last election. We will put substance and leadership back in the department and make it a place where people want to work again and a place where the business community feels comfortable, not the end of the line, the last-resort place to go when all other avenues have been exhausted. The rest of our policy commitments will follow from this simple yet important starting point. The political minders and the apparatchiks will be expunged. An important deficiency in this State has been the lack of seeding capital for potential manufacturers. There seems to be a mentality pervading Government that if somebody comes to the Government with an idea that has potential, it has to do everything in its power to restrict the development of that idea. In a number of cases, the smallest amount of seeding capital may facilitate a project which has the potential to earn valuable export revenue for this country as well as employ Queenslanders. Too many of our most important inventions—and I am sure most honourable members opposite would agree with me, and I would hope that the Minister would—from the airline black box to the Sarich engine, have been lost off shore because of lack of support at home. I am not talking about the Victorian experiment where Governments tried to pick winners and losers at enormous cost to the taxpayer. I am not talking about raiding superannuation funds, as proposed by the Premier as Leader of this Government. I am talking about the use of tax breaks and incentives to encourage greater private-sector participation in venture capital. I am also talking about home-grown initiatives to ensure that people can be given a kick-start. In all of this scenario, what a dismal failure the Queensland Industry Development Corporation and its new venture scheme have been in relation to manufacturing and small business. In the middle of this worst recession in 60 years, we must remember the successes of the former Industries Assistance Commission. It must also be remembered that, in the old days—pre- QIDC—a Government guarantee—a piece of paper, not an investment in taxpayers’ funds—could be used to propel a local manufacturer onto the world stage after careful and independent assessment. I refer to some of the those companies that have taken on the world and won because of a Government guarantee. I think of people such as Ross Palmer of Palmer Tube Mills. Mr Palaszczuk: The same, tired old speech. Legislative Assembly 2100 24 October 1991

Mr BORBIDGE: I am disappointed that a dill such as the member for Archerfield would make such an inane interjection when I am seeking to suggest to the Government some initiatives that it could well be taking. We must remember that selectively targeted tax breaks generate, and do not consume, tax revenue. It is revenue forgone that can be replaced tenfold if it creates an industry and generates employment. The concept of the level playing field is a myth. If a person wants to establish a manufacturing plant in Thailand, Europe or the United States, that person can negotiate substantial tax holidays. But not in Australia. Overseas, if a person wants to negotiate employment conditions that best suit his business, he can. But not any more in Queensland. As part of this Government’s quaint commitment to the level playing field, the Crown industrial estates program, which, over the years, has returned its investment in terms of jobs, payroll tax and wealth, is effectively being dismembered. The program should be preserved. It should not be subject to the horrendous attack that is under way at present. It should be reintroduced in the form in which it existed at the time of the change of Government. Under a future conservative Government, it will be reintroduced in that form. It will also be reintroduced together with voluntary employment agreements, which will produce a flexible and competitive work force of the 1990s—not the 1950s model developed by Labor’s Warburton and endorsed by Industry Minister Smith. The clumsy ineffectiveness of this Government’s inability to deal with business was amply demonstrated in the latest edition of Business Queensland. The great China trade advocate, Premier Goss, has done it again. Locally based company Magna-Tek has claimed that it is the victim of unnecessary political interference in negotiations with a China-based company. It is a clear case of why the Premier should have stayed at home, and why the Minister for Industry is not interested. Mr Palaszczuk interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: The member for Archerfield could not give a damn that a local company’s negotiations in China have been sabotaged by the Leader of his own Government. If that is his commitment to job creation, I feel sorry for him. He should hang his head in shame. It is clear why the Premier should have stayed at home. It demonstrates the urgent need for venture capital. I want to report to the Committee a sad and sorry tale. Earlier this year in Shanghai, claiming credit for the sister-State agreement signed in May 1989 by the Ahern Government, the Premier decided to intervene. He decided to assist a local manufacturer. As a result of the Premier’s clumsy intervention, the Chinese company involved directed particular questions to Magna-Tek that required the Premier’s response. Magna-Tek’s plans are now in jeopardy, because the Premier—after his bungling interference in a commercial venture—will not facilitate a resolution to the problem that he and he alone created. He will not even answer his mail. Five letters later, there is no response from either the Premier or the Minister for Industry. The Premier’s only response, which was relayed through a party apparatchik—one of his 29 staff in the Executive Building—was— “It’s impossible to say if the Premier’s mention of Magnatek in a speech could hurt the company. There will be no follow up discussions.” What a disgraceful attitude to adopt towards a local company that is seeking to export and grow offshore! What a shabby, hollow commitment to the sister-State agreement between Queensland and Shanghai! I have news for this Government: the Premier’s comments did hurt the company. I say to Minister Smith: “You are the Industry Minister.” The Government created the problem, and it must rectify the situation. The Premier personally is liable, and his credibility is on the line. One cannot generate business capital without initiative. One cannot build up local industry by subscribing to the level playing field. One Legislative Assembly 2101 24 October 1991 cannot expect a turn-around in our abysmal lack of venture capital unless one is prepared to give incentives. In the real world, if we are to maintain and expand our manufacturing base, we must use as the lever the tax system at local, State and Federal levels. Government members would not be aware of this, but at the present time a very successful Queensland manufacturing industry based on the Gold Coast is expanding into Europe and the EC through Malta. That industry can walk into Malta and—providing it meets the criteria—secure a 10-year tax holiday. It can also secure land under programs such as the former Crown industrial estates program. It can also secure very necessary and essential tax breaks. Over a period, that assistance has been phased out. If a Queensland manufacturer wants to move into Asia, he can negotiate a deal with the Government of Thailand on five-year tax breaks. Mr FitzGerald: That is where metal-processing will take place over there for sure. Mr BORBIDGE: As the honourable member said, that is where metal-processing will take place. The Minister, the State Government, the Federal Government and the economic rationalists on both sides of politics have missed the plot. They are not living in a real world. There is no level playing field. If we are to preserve and expand our manufacturing base, we must get in there and match it with those countries that are now not only competing for manufacturing investment off shore but also competing for manufacturing investment onshore. We run the risk of losing some of our own home- grown companies. The tax system at all levels of government is the lever that we should use. In respect of regional development—I say to the Government that it cannot implement workable programs from Brisbane. The enterprise zone concept, which involves the local community as well as Government in fostering business growth, is the only way to go. Regional programs must be locally driven, otherwise the Government will not achieve the degree of local commitment necessary. The Cape York-North Queensland Enterprise Zone was the perfect example, with more than 19 projects on the books when it was unceremoniously dumped last year by the Minister. It was the first time that Townsville and Cairns had worked together in the common interests of north Queensland development instead of wasting resources competing with one another. The loss of the enterprise zone will be crucial as Australia’s aerospace industry develops on the back of the Cape York spaceport project. Government members interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: Do Government members not believe in the Cape York spaceport? I ask the honourable member who interjected: do you not believe in the Cape York spaceport? The honourable member for Salisbury and the honourable member for Archerfield do not believe in it. It is good to see on the public record that the Labor Party caucus sitting on the Government benches does not believe in, does not support and is prepared to laugh at the Cape York spaceport. It is good to have that on the public record. I feel sorry for those members and I feel sorry about their lack of commitment and understanding. I say to Government members that, if they are fair dinkum about doing something to support the Prime Minister’s commitment to the clever country, Queensland has the opportunity to be at the forefront of an aerospace industry, but the Government will have to provide incentives for potential investors in north Queensland. The enterprise zone enabled north Queensland to market itself in the board rooms of the world. Now that region will be in direct competition with a revamped Northern Territory zone, which is eyeing off the potential to attract aerospace industry to service the spaceport. A National Party Government will be committed to reintroducing the Cape York-North Queensland Enterprise Zone. It will also consider other enterprise zones, and the Opposition is currently considering submissions for zones based on Gladstone and elsewhere. The regional projects investment program of the Government has been a Legislative Assembly 2102 24 October 1991 failure. It is a marketing nightmare. Not even people associated with industry know that it exists. Unlike the Government, the Opposition has a blueprint for Queensland’s economic development. That blueprint will be overwhelmingly endorsed by the business community of this State. It is designed to facilitate development, to take the Government’s hand out of the pockets of the business sector, to redirect profits from taxation to investment in capital and employment, to facilitate a flexible, relevant and skilled work force, to develop initiative through the use of venture capital, to aggrandise this State’s manufacturing base by recognising that the level playing field does not exist, by matching packages offered by our regional competitors and, most importantly, to become relevant in the world in which we live. Mr PITT (Mulgrave) (5.20 p.m.): I am pleased to speak to the Estimates of the Department of Business Industry and Regional Development. I will preface some of my comments on small business, which I intend to address later, with a general discussion on the environment for business in Queensland. The policies of the Queensland Government for economic growth and development centre on supporting sustainable growth and development and desire to maximise the higher value- added manufacturing and tradeable service industries. In an effort to improve the economic environment and the competitiveness of our industries, the Government is actively pursuing policies of low taxation and micro-economic reform. Those policies complement the initiatives of the Federal Government. The State Government is also encouraging expansion of the State’s manufacturing base into a range of value-added industries. Investment in major manufacturing projects has continued in 1990-91. Projects that commenced operation include the ICI and Minproc chemical plants in Gladstone, the Fisher and Paykel whitegoods factory in Brisbane and Stage 1 of the Colgate Palmolive detergent-manufacturing complex at the Gold Coast. Manufacturing projects currently under construction include a ceramics plant in Brisbane, an industrial resins operation at Ipswich and an ammonium nitrate chemical plant in Gladstone. The State’s manufacturing sector is also diversifying and expanding into high value-added and advanced technology industries, such as food-processing, information technology and communications, biotechnology and micro-electronics. Prospects for the Queensland economy and for manufacturing in this State are brighter than many would have us believe. Against a background of international and national recession, the Queensland economy performed relatively well in 1990-91 when compared with other States and the Commonwealth. Although I admit that unemployment in Queensland has been somewhat higher than elsewhere, that is likely in reality to be a temporary phenomenon, as job creation remains quite high and Queensland is likely to recover from the recession faster than other States. It is expected that in 1991-92 Queensland will have positive economic growth well in excess of the national average. That is due in no small part to the structure of Queensland’s economy. We understand that it is dominated by the agricultural and mining sectors, and approximately 66 per cent of manufacturing in Queensland is related to processing, servicing or provision of machinery and equipment to those sectors. The manufacturing sector constitutes only 13.5 per cent of gross State product in Queensland. Over the past decade, Queensland manufacturing has increased its share of the national manufacturing sector from 10.6 per cent to 11.5 per cent. That is an achievement in itself, and that sustained growth has been reflected by increased manufactured exports in recent years. No doubt as the State emerges from recession in the forthcoming year, Queensland’s manufacturing sector is likely to show its strongest growth since 1988-89. The Queensland Small Business Corporation came into being by means of an Act of Parliament in November 1990. It arrived after 10 years of operation under the name of the Legislative Assembly 2103 24 October 1991

Queensland Small Business Development Corporation. The new corporation has actually refined its direction and it is now in the business of guiding Queensland’s small businesses into a new era of growth and success. The legislation I mentioned gave the corporation a clear direction to build on the good work of the past. It also desired to discontinue activities of low priority need for small business. The new corporation extended the range, quality and impact of its business advisory services, changed its management training focus away from providing training for small-business managers towards the focus of facilitating that activity, and upgraded its information services for both Government and the small business community. In the area from which I come, that is, far-north Queensland, the corporation has been quite active. Many members would not realise that if the areas of Victoria and Tasmania are combined, they still fall short of the 378 000 square kilometres that comprises far-north Queensland. In that area, advisers from the corporation have been very active visiting many of the very small communities and businesspeople in those communities throughout the far north. They have made great inroads in three major areas. The first is the area along the cape—Thursday Island, Weipa, Cooktown, Laura, Mossman and Port Douglas. To the south of Cairns on that coastal strip the corporation is active in Gordonvale, Babinda, Innisfail, Mission Beach, Tully and Cardwell. In the hinterland, it is active in such places as Ravenshoe, Herberton, Atherton, Malanda, Millaa Millaa, Yungaburra, Kairi, Mareeba, Dimbulah, Mount Garnet, Georgetown, Normanton and as far west as Karumba. All those places have received visits from the advisers, which is an indication of the extent of the network. The corporation has also monitored the progress of certain regional issues that may affect small business. The first of those is the Tully/Millstream hydroelectric scheme. I again place on record—as I have done on many occasions—that I am fully supportive of that scheme. It would be a sheer disaster if that project did not go ahead. Far-north Queensland needs the economic input that scheme will provide, along with the guaranteed electricity supply. The corporation has also been looking at the effect of World Heritage listing on the timber industry. I hope that progress is made in that area, because we certainly need to replace some of the jobs lost due to that change of status. Also, Aboriginal communities are being looked at by the corporation in an attempt to develop a degree of self-management in business within those communities. I think we underestimate the entrepreneurial skills of some of our community people and I am sure that, with the good advice and assistance of the corporation, those people will realise those skills. There has also been input from the corporation with regard to domestic and international tourism. Far-north Queensland has a very healthy promotions bureau, which I know works quite closely with the corporation. Recently, I attended a function to launch an export drive to Papua New Guinea. It was attended by the Premier, who led the delegation. The reports I received back from people in small business who were in attendance that day showed that the exercise was well and truly worth while. I applaud both the Minister’s department and the Premier for taking that initiative. Small business management training has been one of the focal points of the corporation’s activities in the far north. The corporation has stopped the in-house training courses it used to run and is now working with established and potential State and private sector training providers in order to development small-business courses. Over the past year, the TAFE colleges at Cairns, Port Douglas and Mareeba have successfully conducted the corporation’s 21-hour business management course. I believe that the TAFE college at Johnstone may be added to the list next year. Another area where the corporation has been very active in the far north concerns the introduction of small-business courses into schools. The corporation is working with teachers and business representatives in the region and it is introducing small-business studies into the Legislative Assembly 2104 24 October 1991 curriculum of high schools in far-north Queensland. I hope that project continues. It is a great boon to our young people to be provided with the necessary skills to participate in the challenging occupational area of small business. I have spoken in this Chamber on many occasions regarding the lack of training that people have when they enter into small business. It frightens me to think that people with a good idea and a willingness to work rush out and get involved in these circumstances without really knowing what they are getting themselves into. If the corporation and the Department of Education can cooperate at that level and give these young people some sort of grounding before they make that choice later in life to follow that career path, we will be serving them well. The corporation delivers its primary functions through its regional and metropolitan office structures. There are a number spread right across the State. Many were introduced under the previous Government and the list has been added to during the life of this Government. In the last couple of years, central Queensland has been added to the list, as well as the Sunshine Coast and Brisbane’s north and south sides, to name a few. I wish to comment on some of the stated functions of the Queensland Small Business Corporation. One is to provide initial advice and counselling. It has been quite successful in doing that. In the last 12 months, the number of advisory consultations has increased by some 28.4 per cent on the previous year and telephone consultations now total 74 272. I believe some 13 481 information kits have been distributed. The corporation is really getting out there, getting among business and doing its share to keep these people educated about the procedures that they need to follow. The front line advisory staff are supported by the information services division of the corporation. It provides current, accurate information and statistical data. In addition, the division monitors current issues impacting on the small-business sector, It researches those issues internally and ensures accuracy and consistency of response by the actual advisory staff. To improve awareness and disseminate information on sound business management practices, the staff of the corporation have conducted seminars, undertaken speaking engagements and participated in forums, workshops, etc. A total of 9 880 small-business operators—those who tend to enter into the world of small business and private sector providers—did in fact attend QSBC speaking engagements, which is an increase of 63 per cent on the previous year’s attendances. I think that the message has been driven home to people that small business must participate in the process of educating its members if it is to take advantage of a commercial situation. There has also been the establishment of both free and sponsored practical business advice columns. This has been taken up through awareness programs and segments in the print and electronic media. If the media space and time were costed, I believe that, at normal commercial rates, this would equate to, in reality, a sponsorship of approximately $3.9m per annum to small business in this State. The corporation also participates in trade fairs, expos and business opportunity workshops that have either been sponsored or provided free of charge. On an annual basis, the sponsorship equates to $250,000. I also understand that the QSBC is in the business of promoting the development and utilisation of private sector management services. This has been achieved through engaging in joint initiatives with major professional bodies, such as the Law Society and major accounting bodies in this State. The QSBC has also been involved in the development and facilitation of training. As I said earlier, the major difficulty it faces is the establishment and acceptance in the TAFE system of the 21 Hours course for business intenders. I am sure that if that course can be established throughout the State, it will provide an excellent service. There are some contentious issues confronting the small- business sector in this State, and one relates to finance. I understand that, over the years, the corporation has received many complaints regarding the attitude of some banks to their customers. In many cases, banks have Legislative Assembly 2105 24 October 1991 tightened their credit to such an extent that it imposes an unreasonable constraint on the management of these businesses.I have always been interested to note that, in good times, the banks are willing to lend, lend, lend; but, when times are not quite as buoyant as we would like them to be, they are not prepared to be a little bit patient about getting their money back. Retail trading hours have become the focal point of attention in some business communities. Traders on the Gold Coast and in Cairns are largely in favour of extended trading hours. However, some opposition is still being expressed by small operators who find it difficult to stay open in shopping centres when the large stores are open. Obviously, that is not an easy issue for them to resolve. I understand that there is a degree of apprehension in response to the impact of the 3 per cent superannuation levy. I believe that the paperwork requirements of the scheme are particularly onerous. Apparently, this is the case in relation to businesses that have one or two staff members only. I wonder what would really happen if the conservative parties were to win the next Federal election and introduce a goods and services tax. I am sure that the paperwork involved with that would not be small bickies and would create difficulties. Solicitors’ fees have been the subject of recent debate. A number of cases has been reported to the corporation regarding either excessive charges or, more importantly, the poor quality of legal advice. Apparently, it is a case of people entering the legal field, in which they have no place. Lawyers have been advertising their services as business advisers. There appear to have been instances of solicitors who have failed to refer their clients to accountants or other financial advisers in relation to management problems. Time expired. Mr CONNOR (Nerang) (5.35 p.m.): Mr Chairman—— Mrs Woodgate: This will be good. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr CONNOR: Thank you, Mr Chairman. An honourable member: They are very rude, aren’t they? Mr CONNOR: Yes, they are. It fills me with great sadness to witness the current plight of small-businessman in Queensland—and in Australia, generally—because the fight has almost gone out of them. During the period 1984-86, when I was involved in that part of the business sector, I would say that small business had reached a peak. It was certainly no problem to assemble thousands of small- businesspeople at one location. When I was involved in the Australian Small Business Association, that was done a number of times when rallies were being organised to protest against the policies being introduced by the Hawke Labor Government. We tried to tell the Federal Government where its policies would lead us, but we reached that destination in spite of the protests and the fight has been knocked out of the small-businessman. If he or she still exists—and the previously large number of them do not exist now—it is more than likely to be the case that it is a battle for him or her just to survive. The present definition of a successful small-businessperson is, “One who is going broke slower than his or her opposition.” Generally speaking, the demise of the small-business sector cannot be blamed totally on the State Government, with a couple of exceptions, such as tourism-related fields that have been hit with dramatic increases in property values and astronomical increases in land tax. I will not debate at great length the effects this has had on the small-business sector, but let me simply say to the Minister that there is no time to lose. The measures that the Treasurer intends to implement will do nothing to assist small-businesspeople. The Treasurer, Mr De Lacy, has said that the proposal will affect new leases only, but hundreds of small retailers will go to the wall as a result of Queensland’s Legislative Assembly 2106 24 October 1991 inflated land tax rates. An illustration of the point I am making is the Coolangatta shopping mall. I am sure that the Minister is aware of what has happened there, and I concede that it cannot all be blamed on land tax. However, I believe that that example is symptomatic of what has happened to others in Surfers Paradise—I will not mention them by name because it may harm them—that are in big trouble, and land tax can be blamed for a lot of those problems. Land tax and the present attitude adopted by the Government to small business—especially the retailers—has eroded confidence. As a result, the retailers are not occupying the shops, which are being left empty. They cannot—— Mr Hollis interjected. Mr CONNOR: I have not gone public with this sort of information, as the Minister rightly knows. One could very easily go out and talk doom and gloom, and the Minister knows that I have not. I also put on record my total rejection of the idea of the quarantining of land tax. It will not work. It will only cost the small retailer more in the long run and it will do nothing for the confidence of investors in the commercial property market. I am more interested in trying to express to the members of the Committee why I believe the small-business sector is so important in Australia and also where small business and big business differ. The main difference between small business and big business is generally the fact that small businesses are owner-operated compared with big business where there is a distinct demarcation between ownership and management. As a result, the philosophies of small business and big business differ. Most big business operators are wage and salary earners themselves and do not quite have the same feel for the profit motive as the owner-operator of a small business. Secondly, small business differs, by necessity, from big business in that it has to be innovative because in many established markets big business has taken a huge market share and can generally, through the economies of scale, be more competitive than its small business counterpart. So, small business, by necessity, is innovative. In this competitive and everchanging commercial world, it is essential that industries move and develop. Big business is very good at taking over a small business and making it efficient, but generally big business is not good at coming up with new ways of doing things, such as establishing niche markets to be developed in the future. As I have said, small business must take those risks. This is why the small business sector of Australia is the most important sector of all. If people do not have that competitive edge, new ideas, and the ability to establish niche markets to be developed later, Australia and Queensland will go nowhere. The traditional small-businessperson who establishes a new business is someone who has developed an expertise or a specialty in his or her field and believes that that expertise has the potential to make an amount of money. But generally that person with a specialty or expertise does not have the business acumen. I have always said that the only person who should be in business is a businessperson. What I am saying is that one does not just have to have the necessary skills or specialties, one has to think like a businessperson. One should not be in business if one does not think like a businessperson. One should stay as a wage or salary earner. This brings me to one of the activities of the Queensland Small Business Corporation, formerly known as SBDC. The most important area of the Queensland Small Business Corporation is the intender’s course. I would gauge the success of the Queensland Small Business Corporation not by the number of people who do the intender’s course, but by the number of people who complete that course and do not go into business afterwards. Most people in the business world are well aware of the failure rate of small businesses. Many figures are tossed around, but generally 80 per cent do not survive their first five years in business. Mr Hollis: The first two years. Legislative Assembly 2107 24 October 1991

Mr CONNOR: As I say, a lot of figures are tossed around. So, only 20 per cent will succeed, but in the meantime those other 80 per cent quite often lose everything they have on the way. It is not an efficient use of resources, and it certainly causes great social upheaval in families. I am not suggesting that the Government should take away the right for someone to go broke. Not at all. The Government must allow people to have the right to have a go, and also the right to go broke. For a number of years through the Small Business Association I counselled people who were intending to go into business. I felt that I was successful if I could dissuade about four out of five of those people from going into business, because that was generally the number that were going to fail. What I saw over those years was that the main quality lacking in people who were most likely to fail was enthusiasm. That is the general quality that is missing in most of the people who do fail. If people still had enthusiasm after I had brought up all the problems that they were likely to go through, and all the necessary items and resources that they would need before they could even have a hope of succeeding, and they still went ahead and went into business, then hopefully there was not as large a proportion of those people going broke compared with people across the board. I remember the establishment of the SBDC, with Jim Kennedy as its chairman, and the great strides it made in acknowledging that there was a big difference between small business and big business. Members in this Chamber probably do not realise that before 1985 small business really was not even acknowledged. People did not realise that there was a difference between small business and big business. It has only been in the last six or seven years that Governments have woken up to the fact that there is a difference between small business and big business. It was not until about 1986 or 1987 that the first Small Business Minister was appointed in an Australian State. I might add that that Small Business Minister was Mike Ahern and the State was Queensland. He was the first Small Business Minister in Australia. The SBDC led the way and was a model for similar organisations in other States. It does sadden me that in some respects the QSBC has lost its small-businessship, if one could call it that. I do not want the Committee to take this the wrong way, but I do not believe that there should be union representatives on the board of the QSBC. John Hogg is a member of the board. He joined this year and he is a nice fellow. I have known him for years. He is a most suitable person to be on the Retail Shop Leases Tribunal. Mr T. B. Sullivan: Why not? Why shouldn’t he be? Mr CONNOR: I will tell the honourable member why. He has a wealth of understanding in the retail field, especially to do with industrial relations. However, he has little or no understanding of the plight of the small-businessman. He has never had to look to the profit motive—— Mr Fenlon: You have just contradicted yourself. Mr CONNOR: I talk about—— Mr T. B. Sullivan: You say the small-businessman’s plight has nothing to do with the conditions of the workers, and that is where you are so blinkered. That is what the problem is. Mr CONNOR: There are very few small-businesspeople who have problems with industrial relations. However, he has little or no understanding of the small-businessman’s plight. No-one knows more about small-business than the small-businessperson himself, and what I feel is unfortunate is that very few members of the present board have true, hands-on, small-business experience. Mr T. B. Sullivan: But that is only experience on one side. Mr CONNOR: If the honourable member wishes to interject, he should go back to his seat and I will take his interjection. Legislative Assembly 2108 24 October 1991

The CHAIRMAN: Order! Please come back to having a dignified debate. Interjections shall be made from members’ correct seats. Mr CONNOR: In the early days, the main role of the SBDC was to act as the grease between the wheels of Government and small business. Mr T. B. Sullivan interjected. Mr CONNOR: I will take the honourable member’s interjection if he returns to his correct seat. The last thing that small business normally wants is to have anything to do with Government, because there is the old saying about the three greatest lies. One is, “The cheque’s in the mail”; another is, “I’ll respect you in the morning”; and the other is, “I’m from the Government. I’m here to help you.” That is how most businesspeople see the Government. They see the Government as a bureaucrat with his hands out and wanting more forms to be filled in. So when a consultant from the Small Business Corporation fronts to try to help the small-businessman, the last thing he wants to see is a bureaucrat. He wants to see someone who has had real, hands-on business experience. That is why it is absolutely essential that the Queensland Small Business Corporation keeps at a distance from the public service and a Government department, and that it continues to have consultants who have had their own experience in their own businesses. The other area that concerns me is the lack of profile of the Business Minister, Geoff Smith. I think the Minister’s heart is in the right place, and I think he works very hard, but in today’s economic climate, if the Minister cannot get the plight of the small-businessman up on the State agenda, he really is not trying hard enough. The Minister should remind his own Cabinet colleagues that the small- businessman is paying one way or another about half the taxes that are being spent to provide for the social infrastructure of this State. If small businesses go bad, it does not matter how hard the Ministers work, because they will not have the money to do anything. About two years ago, when I originally took over this shadow portfolio, I shuddered when I found that there were 800Ðplus business licences in Queensland. The opening of QBLIC was a great idea, but all it has done is allow the bureaucracy to be able to trace and coordinate all the business licences even more efficiently than they did before. Every one of those forms has to be filled in and the licence fees paid. It is just another nail in the coffin of small-businesspeople. I would like the Minister to tell me what the present review has achieved regarding business licences and regulation review. I would like to know how many business licences he has been able to do away with, and whether he has any plan to improve the method of Government regulating business. I think that is the bottom line. The other policy that was a matter of concern when I entered this Parliament—and which I discuss with small-businesspeople at every opportunity—is the standard retail lease. I am not suggesting that anyone should have to use these leases. I am not suggesting that it will not have the ability, like the REIQ, to have tenancy agreements, the ability to add on clauses, or to have options. What I am saying is that we need a standard lease that will deal with most strip shopping centres and major shopping centre situations so that at least what is already printed on that lease is legal. Honourable members would be surprised how few people know their legal rights—— Time expired. Mrs EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha) (5.50 p.m.): In rising tonight to speak in this Estimates debate relating to the Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development, I wish to focus in particular on an area of special interest to me—that of new technology. I do this because I firmly believe that this is the area where Australia’s, and, indeed, Queensland’s hopes for economic growth lie. Facilitation of the development of technology infrastructure supports the knowledge-based industries so vital to the future of this State. These industries will be of significant benefit to the economic Legislative Assembly 2109 24 October 1991 development of Queensland. There are several areas of technology infrastructure which the Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development is involved in supporting. The first is the Tropical Resource Centre at James Cook University in Townsville which houses the instrumentation centre, specialised research groups and the Research and Development Institute, or RADI. The prime purpose of this institute is to identify and commercialise suitable technologies by acting as a coordinator between university researchers and the business community. Its functions can be stated as: product and market identification; business planning; contract negotiation; marketing and market research; establishing business entities when justified by business conditions; and provision of facilities. The institute contributes to international competitiveness by identifying research projects, promoting joint ventures and licence arrangements aimed at exploiting new commercial opportunities, networking business relationships domestically and overseas, and identifying markets and commercial opportunities for new technologies. Several projects which RADI is involved with which have outstanding potential are: oil slick containment systems; JCU tropical biotechnologies, of which I will speak later; and the giant clam project which some honourable members might have seen featuring on television recently. The Space Industry Development Centre at Griffith University is another venture. The Griffith University, CSIRO’s Division of Radiophysics, the University of Queensland and the microwave engineering company Mitec Limited, have joined forces to set up a company to be called the Space Industry Centre in Microwave Technology, or SICMT. Its mission is to become the foremost supplier of components for satellite communications packages. There are two areas in which SMC can hope for some competitive edge. One is in the fabrication of solid state microwave devices, and the other in beam-forming networks. The Australian Space Office, an instrumentality of the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, which oversees the space industry, has committed $5,000 a year to the venture over the next three years. Nowhere is the concept of networking new technologies more important than in these emerging IT industries where we now have several small but excellent IT companies that have joined together to enable them to compete for large tenders nationally and internationally. A major plus in this process has been the quality assurance program initiated by the department that has made acceptance by other countries easier for these network ventures. The Key Centre for Software Technology is another venture that I would like to promote. The objectives of this key centre are to conduct research in key aspects of software technology, to promote high level education in software technology at graduate and undergraduate levels and to increase the accessibility of software technology courses to industry. It encourages collaborative research as a means of technology transfer and interchange and it has now undertaken a significant number of consultancy assignments in industry, for example, with BHP, Telecom and ICL. As my husband is a lecturer in software technology, I must say that I have a personal interest in that program. The Queensland Research and Development Directory is another major project of significant benefit to the economic development of this State. It will be used to identify potential benefits to Queensland, including commercialisation opportunities, technology transfer and collaborative ventures. It will also be utilised to minimise duplication of research activity. The Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development has worked in close cooperation with the private and academic sectors to produce this directory, which is expected to be released in early November. Information technology now forms a significant segment of the economy. The latest estimates indicate that information technology industry sales in Australia for this calender year will reach $11 billion. It is therefore very important that Queensland assess how it Legislative Assembly 2110 24 October 1991 can best be involved in this multibillion-dollar industry. The IT industry strategy was commenced in April 1991 and is scheduled for completion by November 1991, when it will be submitted for Cabinet consideration. The IT industry strategy will be a living document which will be updated regularly to take account of the dynamic nature of the industry. It will be an action-oriented document, providing achievable strategies and action plans to develop the industry over the next 5 to 10 years. The strategy consisted of two stages, the first involving the formulation of visions and goals for the industry for the next 5 to 10 years. Stage 2 developed strategies and action plans to achieve these visions and goals. Both these stages have now been completed. The project is now moving into the final drafting phase, producing a joint industry/Government report which will be available from tomorrow for public comment before Government considers the final recommendations later this year. It must be acknowledged that IT strategies are not unique to Queensland—most States have IT strategies put in place with varying degrees of success. However, Australian Information Industries Association’s President, Roger Worthington, says that this industry strategy is the most important step in recent times. And I believe that it is also obvious that, without such a strategy, we will have little chance of competing with more organised States. The importance of this strategy is that it has been jointly developed by the IT industry itself and the Government, which I believe is unique in Australia. It has been encouraging to have the excellent initiatives in training for women in non-conventional areas as outlined by the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations recently in the Parliament. These attempts to break down stereotypes are welcome and meld well with steps being undertaken by the Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development. The Women in Business and Industry Project was established in 1990 to develop cooperative strategies with business, unions, and education and training providers to improve the employment situation of women. An advisory committee drawn from the key groups was established early in 1991, and in July a successful Forum on Women in Non-Traditional Areas of Work was co-sponsored by DBIRD, the Metal Trades Industry Association, the Trades and Labor Council and the Department of Employment, Vocational Education, Training and Industrial Relations. In 1991-92, the department will seek to build on the successful Nuts and Bolts Forum on Women in Non-Traditional Areas of Work which examined issues affecting the employment of women in industry and technical jobs and presented examples of Australian and Queensland best practices which are overcoming barriers to women’s participation. In particular, the department will focus on two elements— working with education and training systems to improve students’ access to information about, and experience of, business and industry occupations; and funding research and practical activities to provide improved information about women’s position in Queensland industry, to support measures to improve the role of women in business and industry, and to enable Queenslandwide application of developments. I commend the Minister on those initiatives and encourage the department to continue the good work in this area. It has been of concern to me that Australia and, to a greater extent, Queensland have a very low level of industrial research and development in the private sector in comparison with other OECD countries. This deficiency needs to be addressed if Queensland is to achieve economic growth through the development of its manufacturing sector. The QGRAD system is designed to address this problem. The objectives of the QGRAD scheme are— Legislative Assembly 2111 24 October 1991

an increased level of private sector industrial research and development as a basis for internationally competitive manufacturing industries; and development of a cooperative private/public sector research interface to provide an increased level of commercial development from public sector research. Grants are provided by the Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development upon the recommendation of an advisory committee. The grant will be provided for up to a maximum period of three years. The maximum rate of assistance will be 50 per cent of agreed total expenditure, and the total expenditure for the R and D project must exceed $50,000. The advisory panel has recommended 11 projects be supported, committing up to $l.75m so far this financial year, and legal agreements have been executed with 10 project proponents. A broad cross-section of industries are being supported including lightweight metal casting, veterinary and medical diagnostics, information technology and products for the electricity supply industry. Projects are being supported from diverse geographic areas of Queensland, for example, Townsville, Hervey Bay, the Gold Coast and Murgon, as well as Brisbane. While it may be argued that Commonwealth schemes are already available to Queensland industry, there is still a very low level of R and D performed by Queensland’s manufacturing sector. The QGRAD scheme will seek to reverse industry’s attitude to research and development by— (i) promoting awareness of the importance of research and development to international competitiveness and industry growth; (ii) promoting an awareness of the availability of research and development assistance through the Commonwealth schemes; and (iii) providing partial funding for worthwhile research and development projects which are financially constrained. Further, the QGRAD scheme will recognise Queensland’s strategic priorities, as against the national priorities of the Commonwealth, in the provision of supplementary funding to Queensland industry. If information technology was the highlight of the l980s, then surely the coming highlight of the 1990s will be the high-tech world of bacteria, especially designer bacteria. This is an area of great excitement, with the possibility of solutions to some of the world’s trickiest environmental problems. Some of my constituents are working in this field and keep me well informed on progress. A number of joint research projects involving industry and various Government departments are well under way with promising results. Research has, for example, confirmed that many organic contaminants, including organochlorides, at present such a difficult problem to deal with, may be treated by the process of bioremediation. Bioremediation is the process of seeding the contaminated soils with selected microbial or fungal species capable of metabolising the contaminants and rendering them safe. Biodegradation is a process of treating oil spills by encouraging the activity of marine bacteria, moulds and yeasts that can use oil as a source of carbon and energy. By stimulating this process, the half-life of oil persistence can be greatly reduced, reducing environmental damage. Biofiltration by bacteria can be used to filter out toxic chemicals in gases generated by sewage and industry. Specific bacteria can and are being developed, through bio-engineering techniques, to consume specific compounds or to target specific types of waste. It is this aspect that is so terribly important and so exciting to me. These methods are highly suitable for the treatment of meatworks’ effluent and waste and can, from this highly undesirable waste product, create organic garden fertilisers and compost. I have mentioned these areas as I believe they will be important growth areas in the near future, and well worth encouraging in the interest of sustainable development in the present. Already, this Government, through the Department of Business, Industry and Regional Legislative Assembly 2112 24 October 1991

Development, is funding a sectoral study into such innovative waste-management opportunities for Queensland industries. A major joint Government and industry initiative in 1990-91 was the development of a stereolithography network for Queensland which is set to give Queensland manufacturing a boost. Stereolithography enables solid acrylic resin prototypes to be built layer upon layer directly from data images stored in a computer. It utilises a laser beam to repeatedly trace cross- sectional slices of the image onto the surface of a bath of liquid acrylic resin. As each successive cross- section is formed and solidified, it is bonded to the one before it and the object is thus formed. A grant of $350,000 has been made from the Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development, with the remaining $300,000 coming from the Queensland Tertiary Education Foundation. Other funding is coming from VIPAC Engineers and Silicon Graphics, both companies being forerunners in this technology and both actively involved in the project. The new Plastics Skills Centre, established to accommodate this revolutionary technology at Mount Gravatt TAFE College, will tap into complementary advanced computer workstations and advanced design and analysis software at the University of Queensland, the Queensland University of Technology, the University of South Queensland and the James Cook University. Access to the Plastics Centre Stereolithography Apparatus means that these institutions will be able to offer an advanced design and analysis for local industry. The network will be extended in the future. Time expired. Sitting suspended from 6.05 to 7.30 p.m. Mr BORBIDGE: Madam Chair, I rise to a point of order. I draw your attention to the state of the Committee. Quorum formed. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (7.31 p.m.): I join in this debate on the Estimates of the Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development. I believe that that particular title itself emphasises the enormous importance and great value that should be placed on this particular sector of Queensland and just what it means to the future development of Queensland. That word “Development” at the end of the Minister’s portfolio is very important. We must realise that unless we are prepared to develop, prosperity goes out the door, and so do the jobs that go with it. The member for Mulgrave spoke about the great need to replace the jobs lost through the World Heritage listing of north Queensland rainforests. But jobs are being lost right throughout Queensland. The Premier has made a statement about creating real jobs. In much of Australia, real jobs are not being created or made available for the many people who seek to undertake real work. It is a pity that we are suffering this downturn, but the Government does not appear to be enthusiastic about encouraging the creation of real jobs. Comments have been made that the economy is about to turn around. But recent newspaper headlines indicate that, in September, new home sales slumped by 9 per cent. That demonstrates the lack of confidence in the economy. Mr Nunn: Thanks for your concern, but we are doing all right. Mr STEPHAN: We are not doing all right. That is the point that I want to make. I am concerned about the lack of confidence in the economy. The projected, so-called soft landing is turning out to be a little bit hard on the ankles and everywhere else. The Minister has just released a document relating to regional development planning and guidelines for assistance. I shall comment on some aspects of that document. Certainly, we should be providing guidelines for assistance. As to eligible expenditure under those guidelines—grants can be spent on the salary component of staff, which is quite important; travel costs; research studies and surveys that may be required; purchase of Legislative Assembly 2113 24 October 1991 information and data; workshop, seminar and meeting costs; printing and publication; related advertising; related data entry and verification, computing software or computing costs; and related organisational expenses—for example, typing, postage and photocopying. As to activity assistance—the document describes the initiatives that are eligible for assistance and the financial assistance that is available, who can apply, and the initiatives that are eligible for assistance. This sector is very important. Many members of the community would be aware that the greatest assistance that can be offered does not necessarily relate to jobs or projects that are available. Many private individuals have a good idea of what is required in the community. The greatest need lies in the incentives that are available. Tied in with that are low-interest, long-term loans to private individuals. When my constituents come to me for guidance, one of the first things that they ask is not what they can get in the hand but what assistance is available to them by way of low-interest loans. I point out to them that, under normal circumstances, low-interest loans are available to them at approximately 13.5 per cent, unless—because of particular circumstances—they are eligible for loans at lower rates of interest. Not many incentives are available for young people. Many of them see the opportunity for advancement through some form of development. However, because of the interest rates that are charged, they cannot get it off the ground. Only recently, interest rates came down to 13.5 per cent. I am concerned that those rates are inclined to go much higher than that. For example, in the past couple of years, people who have done their cash flows and worked out their repayments at 15 per cent or 16 per cent found that they ran into great difficulty when those interest rates started creeping up. One could imagine why that is happening. The member for Archerfield is shaking his head, but that is what is happening. The Government can do all the cash flows that it likes. However, if costs are increasing and they are not within the control of a business, those businesspeople cannot be blamed if they run into financial trouble. That is only one of the problems. One of the other problems faced by businesspeople is costs. Mr Palaszczuk: You are totally confused. Mr STEPHAN: Costs will always be a factor. It does not matter whether people use a computer or a pencil and paper to work out costs. If the cash flow is worked out on an interest rate of 15 per cent or 13.5 per cent and the rate then increases by 2 per cent or 3 per cent, naturally the costs of businesses will be higher. Mr Palaszczuk: Is this the goods and services tax? Mr STEPHAN: Taxation is another problem. Australia needs a review of its taxation system. Surely, the member for Archerfield would not say that the present taxation system is very acceptable. It is not acceptable to businesshouses, to individuals—to anybody in Australia. If the honourable member says that he is prepared to continue paying the tax that he pays now, I feel sorry for him. Taxation is one of the problems in the community that need to be addressed. I am surprised that the honourable member thinks otherwise. Mr Borbidge: We all feel sorry for him. Mr STEPHAN: We all feel sorry for him, yes. No matter what new tax system is proposed—whatever it may be called—the present taxation system needs an extensive overhaul. Mr Palaszczuk: You are supporting a goods and services tax. Mr STEPHAN: I support a change in the taxation system to make industry more competitive and to give employers and employees an incentive to live, not what we have now from the honourable member’s friend, Mr Hawke, who is prepared to tax people out of Legislative Assembly 2114 24 October 1991 business, to take away incentives from them and to make it very, very difficult for them to survive. That is what the honourable member stands for, and he should be ashamed of himself for saying that he is prepared to tax Australians out of existence. The Government must not go down that track. Mr Hollis: Do you support a consumption tax? Mr STEPHAN: I have just been talking to Mr Palaszczuk about that. The member for Redcliffe also wants to tax Australians out of existence. I do not, and I will not support extra tax. Mr Borbidge: Mr Goss’ friend, the Chairman of the QTTC, supports a consumption tax. Mr STEPHAN: There is every possibility that Mr Goss’ friend supports the consumption tax. Mr Goss himself would be very keen to gather extra taxation to pay for some of his schemes and try to save himself from a lot of embarrassment. It is a problem that the Government must address. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said in his speech, the Government must take cognisance of the issue of land tax. Unless it is prepared to take some initiatives and to give some assistance, the same problems will arise. Initiatives in capital and trade development are needed not only to assist those who are starting up businesses but also to give people who are trying to stay in business room to move. The tax rates that are available in some other countries need to be introduced in this State. Government members keep talking about one particular tax, but the Government must take a long, hard look at many aspects of taxation. It must realise that, if Queensland is to survive, we cannot continue down the same track. In relation to the rural sector—people talk about the level playing field. There is no such thing as a level playing field in this country or in our competitor countries overseas. If Government members want to talk about a level playing field, they should also consider some of the incentives being offered overseas—the subsidies that Americans receive and that our competitors in Europe receive—and they will then realise that Australia is not competing on a level playing field. If Government members expect businesses in Australia to compete with those cheap imports, I feel sorry for them, because we will not be able to live as we wish to live and as we have grown accustomed to living. I turn to training. Change is occurring. We need to consider other possibilities. The annual report indicates some of the sectors that have been encouraged, particularly TAFE. Assistance and encouragement is being given to people to take on some of the new jobs that are available and to take advantage of new opportunities. I note the small-business awareness program. I note that, in its first year of operation, 1 173 attendees took part in that program. The business courses, hospitality courses and other courses offered by TAFE should also be encouraged and need every support not only from this Chamber but also from those in business and those in the community who are looking for work. Again, this is just one step in the right direction. It is just one example of how the Government can help. It is not much good training people to be in peak condition so that they can play a football game if there is no game to be played. Similarly, it is not much good training people for a job if no jobs are available. It is very important that we give the encouragement that is required. The member for Mulgrave commented on the need to create employment in areas in which logging has ceased. One cannot expect any individual or company to invest millions of dollars—which is what they will have to do—in a project or a business only to find that the sustainable resource has been taken away. Logging has ceased in the Gympie area, and I am still waiting for an answer from the Premier and the Treasurer as to what they actually intend to do about this matter. As I pointed out yesterday, when the Treasurer Legislative Assembly 2115 24 October 1991 was in Maryborough he made the unilateral comment that no compensation will be paid for the cessation of logging unless it was taking place on Fraser Island. Mr Borbidge: Was that the night he got booted out of the hall? Mr STEPHAN: That is the night he got booted out of the hall, and rightly so. Prior to that, the Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Casey, wrote a letter stating that he was looking forward to the day when he could put in place a package that would give assistance to those who have had their business taken away from them. Time expired. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes) (7.47 p.m.): It is a great pleasure to join in this debate on the Budget Estimates of the Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development, particularly in relation to a major theme of this portfolio, that of information technology. This is an area of great significance in this epoch, because it is the main factor driving this era of replacing capital in terms of the long cycle of fixed capital. There have been epochs in the past that have been driven by major technological revolutions. We can almost measure history by them in terms of the epoch driven by the introduction of mass steam technology and the other epochs driven by the mass production of mechanical machines. Indeed, this is a new era, and history will show that very largely it will be driven by the revolutions occurring in information technology and the miniaturisation of technological devices. It is within that theme that I wish to pursue some of the achievements of this Budget. One area concerns the Queensland Industry Information Service, or QINDIS. The Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development has for some time produced a publication titled the Queensland Manufacturer’s Directory. Through this service, clients were able to obtain information about industry categories in specific volumes. During 1989-90, a project to replace this book with a more comprehensive, up-to-date and flexible service was developed. The new project is known as the Queensland Industry Information Service, which is involved in surveying a mailing list of some 10 000 organisations, the coding and entry of the responses onto a database and the development of the associated software. The database will be used to promote business opportunities and match the capabilities of Queensland companies with defence or aerospace opportunities or to overseas suppliers seeking offsets business partners. It will also assist the department in developing sectoral plans and in delivering its service to manufacturers. When completed, QINDIS will form the basis of a much wider information service that will effectively link information on all client-related activities within the department. The database will be accessible by many users concurrently and the department has commenced linking some of those client-related activities as this year’s project. The current position is that the department has officially accepted the VAX QINDIS system from the software developers. The department is currently involved in testing the PC QINDIS system before acceptance, which is actually due on 14 October. To maintain the integrity of the data, it is planned to carry out an annual survey. QINDIS staff have commenced surveying for 1991-92, and a number of regional launches of this system are forthcoming. QINDIS will also be available via all departmental offices. The Budget allocation for this particular project is $585,000. I wish to raise what I believe is a very new dimension in compiling information for future development in Queensland. This is an area that has not been effectively taken up in the past, and I commend it to the Minister. I ask him to look into it and examine whether this is a viable project for the future. I suggest that what is appropriate in Queensland is to develop a public register of research needs which would be set up in Queensland and would create a better match of university research with the specific needs of business and Government in Queensland. The public register would be set up under the State Government as a facility for various Government departments, businesses and other interested persons to publicly register needs that require sophisticated research at Legislative Assembly 2116 24 October 1991 university level in order to, for instance, develop a commercial product or assist a Government department to discharge its responsibilities more effectively. Students and graduate researchers at universities often pursue their research goals without conscious regard for the needs of the State as a whole. While it can be argued that pure research can often proceed in this manner, there are many subject areas that are far more concrete in nature and could be better matched with the public interest. Increasingly, the Federal Government is placing demands on universities to pay their way, and this proposal would be an appropriate mechanism to ensure that universities fulfil these demands, thereby playing an important part in generating social and economic advances for this State. By maintaining such a simple register, there is a better prospect of cross-fertilisation of ideas, and researchers would also gain a healthier prospect of obtaining viable and valuable employment at the completion of their work. The register would have wide application to any academic area of endeavour, such as the parasitic organisms in the prawn-farming industry, or the financial administration of Government-owned enterprises. I am not suggesting that university research data is not valuable; I am suggesting that there is scope for dovetailing research more specifically to meet contemporary needs. When university researchers have a variety of research topics from which to choose, they may make more informed choices about what is an appropriate subject. Such a register would be a great innovation for Queensland. I turn now to the Major Projects Incentive Scheme which was introduced in mid-1990 to provide assistance packages to new major industry developments in this State. For a project to be eligible for assistance, it must be demonstrated that it could not proceed in Queensland without assistance, but nevertheless has long-term viability without the provision of ongoing incentives. The other criteria are that the project must involve value-adding to Queensland’s resources, generate approximately 25 additional jobs, and involve at least $2.5m in new capital investment. The elements of the incentive package may include the following: reduced rentals on industrial estate sites for the initial years of the project; concessions on payroll tax, stamp duties and land tax for the initial years; relocation assistance expenses to move operations to Queensland; assistance with the negotiation of electricity tariff concessions with supply authorities, and non-monetary assistance with project development arrangements. These incentives may be offered by the Government on a case-by-case basis, depending on the extent of the project and its estimated benefit to the State. Four projects that have been established in Queensland have been offered major project incentive packages. Fisher and Paykel was offered a package in 1989 to locate its whitegoods manufacturing plant at Cleveland. In 1990, ICI Australia was offered concessions to secure an ammonia nitrate project at Gladstone, which also covered the ICI sodium cyanide chlorine plant which was nearing completion on the same site. In early 1991, similar concessions were extended to Minproc at Gladstone. The total investment secured by these incentives is more than $200m, and the new employment will result in more than 200 jobs. Total value of concessions will amount to approximately $2.2m over a four-year period commencing this financial year. Further incentive packages are under negotiation in relation to a number of projects, but owing to commercial confidentiality factors, details have not been released at this stage. Mr Ardill: So Mr Borbidge’s statement was not correct? Mr FENLON: Mr Borbidge is still living in the same fantasyland that is depicted on the cover of the previous reports that were circulated when he had some association with the department. Indeed, the would-be captains of industry have a great deal of difficulty coping with the reality that the Labor Party is surpassing them in this sphere. The other area in which I have a direct interest is the contract research centre at the Mount Gravatt Research Park. As a member of the Griffith University Council, this is a very important Legislative Assembly 2117 24 October 1991 area of interest for me and, of course, I take an interest in seeing this project come to fruition. The member for Surfers Paradise, Mr Borbidge, had better pinch himself again because this is another real example of the achievements that this Labor Government is registering in Queensland. Agreement has been reached with the Griffith University for DBIRD to construct a contract research facility at the Mount Gravatt Research Park. Major activities will involve pharmaceutical research, principally involving plant screenings, cardiovascular research and micro-electronic research in a joint venture with Hitachi Data Systems. The project was first proposed in 1988 by Griffith University to provide a building for contract research which could not be accommodated within university facilities. DBIRD considered that this might be an appropriate opportunity to develop a business incubation unit in association with a contract research centre. A study carried out by DBIRD in 1989 concluded that it was desirable to have a business incubation facility for commercialisation of research located at the research park. A proposal to develop both activities together and share the infrastructure was then developed. The business incubation proposal was dropped when funding did not receive Budget approval. However, subsequent negotiations with the Griffith University proceeded for the establishment of a contract research facility for its exclusive use. The Griffith University prepared a business plan for the operation of the facility, and $3m for the project has been included in the DBIRD budget Estimates. The sum of $2m will be provided over the next two years at a rate of $2m during the current Budget period and $1m for the 1992-93 financial year. The current situation is that agreement on the formal documentation and lease has been reached. It is currently being bound for execution by both parties. Formal proposals have been received from three consultants for design and supervision of the project, and these have been assessed. I believe that approval has been given for the final phase of design and construction of the facility. That, I believe, will be a great centrepiece for the research activities on that campus. Some of the specific activities that have been referred to within that research facility of the Queensland Pharmaceutical Research Institute include computer-assisted drug design, drug discovery/screening, cardiovascular pharmacology, microbial enzyme technology, molecular recognition, plant biotechnology, and peripheral and central nervous system research. I wish all concerned in that very worthwhile project the very best, because I am sure that it will be of great benefit to Queensland. I congratulate the Minister on his very fine effort in relation to the preparation of this budget. I believe that it will stand the test of time by winning significant projects for Queensland in the future. Time expired. Mr SLACK (Burnett) (8.02 p.m.): As honourable members are aware, this is another department that has undergone major changes through the input of the Public Sector Management Commission. From that, naturally, there has been the fall-out of uncertainty and major changes. Probably this department has had bigger changes than any other department. As everyone would realise, over 100 recommendations came forward from the Public Sector Management Commission, which meant, in effect, that there were ongoing reviews and changes. That has led to instability, some unhappiness in changes of positions, and a general instability. I hope for everybody’s sake that that is being worked through and it is settling down. As a result of these changes, and as is the case in other departments, morale is very low. I can say to the Minister that I have not spoken to everybody in that department, but I have had some feedback that indicates that morale is low. At this stage, there appears to be a lack of direction, and until those problems are sorted out, the department cannot be as effective as it should be in the role that it plays as a coordinator of departments, as an adviser to industry, as a collector of information Legislative Assembly 2118 24 October 1991 for the benefit of industry, and as a collector and disseminator of information for other departments. It is a pity that this has happened at a time when, as honourable members are aware, Queensland is experiencing the worst recession in 60 years, when there is a need for stability in Government departments, when there is record unemployment, when there are ongoing bankruptcies, and when the spokesperson for small business is the spokesperson for Business, Industry and Regional Development. These major changes have occurred in the department. The department has had three name changes. The person in business who is concerned about making a quid and just staying viable cannot help but be confused in this type of environment. I hope for everybody’s sake that the department settles down. that it is going to stick with that name and that it is going to give some direction. The fact that the department is located in two different premises adds to the confusion. The position is not helped when people are alternating between Albert Street and Enterprise House and personnel have been shifted up to eight or nine times. All I can say is that this is the claim that has been made to me, and I will be quite happy if the Minister can deny it. I hope that it is not true, but that is the claim that has been made. The department is not big. There are roughly 300 staff members. There are nine personal assistants on the staff. The department should be working fairly efficiently; but, by the same token, irrespective of whether eight or nine shifts have occurred, there have been quite a few shifts and there have been interchanges between those two premises. There has also been a change in name for the department. So, there is general confusion. The department’s role as a coordinator between other departments is a worthwhile one if it works, and I hope that it does work, because one of the things that struck me when I was in Government was that there was a lack of coordination between departments. I believe that there is still a lack of coordination today. This problem needs to be overcome, and this department is in a position to do that. This problem needs to be overcome very much from the point of view of small business so that small-businesspeople have somewhere to which they can go to get information as to what department they should approach. That is a very important role that somebody must play. I know that the Minister’s department has a problem in defining what its responsibility is and, for argument’s sake, what the responsibility of the Premier’s Department is, and whether there is any overlapping of roles is open to question. In the minds of the members of the public there is some confusion as to whether they should go to the Minister’s department or the Premier’s Department for help or advice. The problem is that one department tends to make decisions relevant to its own particular funding, charges, and activities so that it can become more cost effective, but it does not think of what impact that decision will have on another department or the general business community. Those decisions do have a direct effect on small business. While I am on the subject of small business—as everyone will appreciate, I come from a country electorate which is made up of farmers, graziers, people who service rural industries, retirees—just about anybody one would like to name in any industry. Primary industry is a small business just as much as any other industry, and it encounters the same problems as those faced by other small business. I know that solving many of those problems is not the Minister’s responsibility directly, but within the work force his department deals with the problem of trying to maintain employment, problems arising as a result of Commonwealth Government decisions—such as its decision on superannuation—and even the problem of filling in forms. Although tax file numbers and the fringe benefits tax are Commonwealth matters, the Minister has certain responsibilities in relation to them. The retraining aspect is coming in now, and all these things mean more paperwork, more hassle. Apart from the drought and the general recession, the feedback that I am Legislative Assembly 2119 24 October 1991 getting in my area is that the average fellow out there just does not want to employ people because of the hassles he is being faced with. The average employer is not looking to employ people. In the family farm situation and the small family business situation, all they are looking to do is retrench staff, manage it within the family, and cut back their operations. That is sad. It is a matter of confidence. The Government has to be able to get it across to the general public that there is some hope out there. It has to be able to come up with figures that show a basis for some hope. I know that in the farming sector, and the small-business sector which services that farming sector, there is a major problem with confidence. There is just no hope and no confidence at all. It is a very sad thing. The community talks about value-added products; the Minister’s department talks about value- added products; and the Premier’s Department talks about value-added products. We hear,“That is the way to go, gentlemen. It is going to solve our problems”. Fine, it is—provided that the productivity is there so the Australian work force can compete and lift its productivity. In my humble opinion, the only way that can be done is through enterprise bargaining and enterprise agreements, along with reforms on the wharves and so on. It is all very well to say that we are going to have value-added products and that we are going to be able to sell them overseas, but in the present situation we cannot compete on the international market. There is a lack of productivity in the Australian work force. I am not blaming the individual worker, who is in a situation in which he cannot make ends meet with what he takes home, even though he may be the best manager in the world. The fact remains that with the level of productivity in Australian factories, etc., and the problems with the wharves, we just cannot compete on the international market. Many primary producers, whether they be mineral-producers or producers of wool, wheat, sugar, small crops or whatever, are really worried that if we go into the value-added stream—which is the only way we can go—the sale price will be determined by the world market and they will have to carry the cost of the lack of productivity in the Australian environment. They are concerned that their base price will be reduced even further. If an item has a price of 20c, for argument’s sake, and the cost is 15c, they are making 5c, whereas if the item was exported they might be making 10c. Mr Smith interjected. Mr SLACK: What I am saying is that it is the way to go, but we have to address problems in our labour market and problems with productivity levels through enterprise bargaining or whatever, and sharpen up the procedure on our wharves. These are some of the things that the Minister’s department is going to have to address to give the employers and small- businesspeople some confidence. There are major problems. They need to see micro-economic reform take place on the Australian scene before they can have any hope of competing on the world markets, which the Government is encouraging them to do. That is the problem they are facing. In the Bundaberg area there is unemployment of over 11 per cent. Queensland has an average unemployment rate of 9.8 per cent. There are some very, very good small businesses in Bundaberg, which produce some good value-added products. These include Toft brothers, the bag factory, and the brickworks—of which honourable member would be aware—and many, many others, but they are struggling in this climate, as the Minister is well aware. Those businesses need every incentive and all the assistance they can get. While in America I was impressed with the encouragement for industry to establish in Kansas, a mid-west State, which was considered to be a farming State. The factories sprang up on the plains there. We went from factory to factory, and when we asked the reason why this was happening and why they were proving to be successful, we were told that there were two reasons. One was their enterprise bargaining procedure, and the other one was a right-to-work law in that particular State which ensured that an individual had Legislative Assembly 2120 24 October 1991 the right to go to work. That was different from the position in many of the other States in America, and it is different from the position in Australia and in Queensland. The fact remained that there was a big increase in production in Kansas for the reason that that State had introduced that law in its Parliament, and it was working successfully. Mr Smith: Why didn’t you try it over the last 32 years? Mr SLACK: I am just putting it to the Minister. This State is now in a desperate position. Mr Borbidge: Far, far more desperate than two years ago. Mr SLACK: That is right—far, far more desperate than two years ago. We are looking at going down the tube, down the gurgler—call it what you like. It is much more serious than many people realise. When I travel around my electorate and I look into the faces of the people I see a hopelessness there. They say to me, “Well, Doug, what’s the future? Can you give us some heart about what is going to happen down the track? If we felt we had some future, yes, we would be prepared to get in there and get some confidence, but we have no confidence at the moment.” Until that confidence comes back, there will not be productivity, and there will not be productivity until some measures are taken to give people some heart and to demonstrate that this Government is fair dinkum about establishing the ground rules so that business can thrive and expand. People need to be able to see that they are going to make some profits before there can be genuine free enterprise. They are not in business for the fun of it. They want to make money. They do not need to be hassled with red tape restrictions and forms to fill in. They need to see some action. They want to see some incentives so that they know that, at the end of the day, their work will reap a reward through profit. Until the Minister starts to promote business and provide incentives, those people will not have the heart to put themselves on the line. At present, it is easier to forget about business and employing people. People prefer to survive on their own. When people who are third or fourth generation businesspeople cannot survive, it is a terrible dent in their pride. However, the major problem is that they see no cause for hope. Mr T. B. Sullivan: Why is your leader talking down the economy all the time? Mr SLACK: The honourable member could accuse me of talking down the economy, but I am not; I am looking at the position as it really is. Some people are not looking at the real position. They go around with rose-tinted glasses claiming that everything will be all right next year, but it will not be all right next year unless something drastic happens and the Government takes some initiatives to stimulate the work force and to inject confidence into business. Time expired. Mr PALASZCZUK (Archerfield) (8.17 p.m.): It is a pleasure to speak in the Estimates debate. I congratulate the Minister on his most efficient and effective office and on the smooth running of his department. That success can be attributed to the man himself. One of the great compliments paid to this Government was, “There is a level playing field under this Government.” The words were uttered by none other than Mr Jim Kennedy, who has ably served Governments of all political persuasions. The comments are incisive, because they mark the great alternative facing the people—the Goss Labor Government or the coalition. People view our Government on what it stands for—basic decency and straight dealing. Under this Government, there have been no ministerial rezonings to favour political mates, or the slingers of a few dollars, such as a crook like Hinze got up to with Herscu. There has been no horse-trading in knighthoods and no donations have been received. The Bjelke-Petersen Government got up to all those shenanigans with Sir Justin Hickey. There have been no brown-paper bags delivered to Parliament House or to the Executive Building. Legislative Assembly 2121 24 October 1991

Mr Borbidge: Tell us about the poker machine pay-off. Mr PALASZCZUK: This is where the member for Surfers Paradise will differ with me. This is a refreshing change—a change that is not understood by him nor appreciated by other members of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition’s weekend McCarthyism statement about the Bjelke- Petersen trial shows that he still cannot satisfactorily answer the question on the separation of powers, and that question was put to him two years ago by Quentin Dempster. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. We are supposed to be debating the Estimates for the Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development, not trials before courts, including certain trials that may still be under way. I suggest that the honourable member is out of order. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Archerfield confine himself to the Estimates. Mr PALASZCZUK: Thank you, Madam Temporary Chairman. I will explain that a failure to learn such a basic lesson shows that they cannot be trusted with fair dealings in business directly under the administration of this Minister. They are the same shabby old crew—the fag end of the cheer squad who never seriously questioned the excesses of the Bjelke-Petersen Government and its business dealings. Therefore, these Estimates underscore the difference between our Government and the former Government. Under this Government, we have seen projects such as the Gordonstone mine, the Goonyella North mine, the south west gas project, the Century mine, the Hong Kong Jockey Club, Colgate Palmolive, the Kunawarra maganese mine, the gas pipeline to Rockhampton—the list goes on. In his speech, the member for Surfers Paradise did not refer to any of the initiatives that have been taken up by this Government under this Minister and have come to a successful conclusion. Even in my electorate we have seen the establishment of Detroit Diesel, Saab, Scania, Mack Trucks, Sterling Carpets, and a Franklins warehouse. As well, a new Coca-Cola plant that will employ approximately 600 people will be established. All that activity is proof that those projects have come to fruition under the level playing field of the Goss Government. The new State purchasing policy now gives small firms throughout regional Queensland a stake in and a chance to win a share of Government contracts. Small business has also been helped by the tax initiatives outlined in the Budget reforms to payroll tax and land tax. All that has been achieved in a Budget surplus, which is an impressive performance and no doubt due to the wonderful representations by the Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development. Those opposite criticised the Budget for being a big-spending Budget. To date, we have not heard one proposal to reduce Government spending. I challenge any Opposition member following me in this debate to provide at least one initiative that they have proposed. I bet that they will not find anything. The coalition, which includes the member for Nerang, now wants to abolish land tax—something it could never bring itself to do in more than 30 years of Government. Even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who was going to burn the midnight oil to reform land tax in 1989, managed a massive land tax increase when he was in the Minister’s chair. Mr Borbidge, the land tax vandal of 1989, now parades himself as the land tax angel of 1991. As usual, it has been left to the Labor Party Government to fix up the mess that has been left to us by members on the conservative benches across the Chamber. The guilty men of the last three decades come out now with a completely unfunded proposal to abolish land tax, and the only inference that can be drawn from this proposal is that they will face a Budget deficit unless it is funded by another tax. That is where members on the back benches come in. Mr T. B. Sullivan: Which tax? Legislative Assembly 2122 24 October 1991

Mr PALASZCZUK: Someone asked, “Which tax?” A New South Wales Liberal Minister blew away this charade—this approach—when he said that the only way land tax abolition can be funded is with—would members believe—a goods and services tax. It is therefore appropriate to look at the goods and services tax and its subsequent impact on small business. The member for Nerang, being a small-businessman of some repute himself, would appreciate what I am about to say to the Committee this evening. Every Queensland business would have to change its accounting system. Many small businesses do not have the administrative systems or management skills to handle the added burden of complying with a consumption tax. The cost of amending the computer software used in many small businesses now is said to be about 10 per cent to 30 per cent of the cost of the original software. Mr CONNOR: I rise to a point of order. Mr PALASZCZUK: What is the mug up to now? Mr CONNOR: I draw to the attention of the Committee the relevance of the honourable member’s remarks to the subject that we are talking about. He is talking about a Federal issue. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order. I ask the member for Archerfield to proceed. Mr PALASZCZUK: The “Nerang-outang”—good heavens! The price on each item will change overnight. Mr CONNOR: I would just like to say that I do not necessarily find that offensive, but I do not think it is quite parliamentary and I would ask that it be withdrawn. I find it unparliamentary and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr PALASZCZUK: In deference to your good self, Madam Temporary Chairman, I will withdraw. Retailers of fresh fruit and vegetables, for which prices fluctuate regularly, will be changing the tax rate over and over again. Small business will have to spend more time on paperwork and less time on making money. I ask the member for Nerang: is it not the primary aim of small businesses to make money? Is that wrong? They will have to move from wealth creation to paper-shuffling. I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he returns to the Gold Coast—the Gold Coast that he represents; those glistening towers of paradise which are God’s own waiting rooms—and issue a press release saying how he could not lift the land tax burden when he was a Minister but in Opposition will abolish it and use a consumption tax to fund it. Mr Borbidge: A question. Mr PALASZCZUK: I have too much to say this evening. All this comes about because we have in this place an Opposition that is too lazy and too bereft of talent to sit down and work out a decent policy response. The member for Surfers Paradise was so predictable today that the member for Salisbury was only two minutes out in his prediction of when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was going to mention the space base. At question-time, we have a cacophony of noise and rowdy behaviour as a substitute for serious questioning of the Government. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition wanders around the basement of the Executive Building, character mugging public servants who cannot defend themselves. Mr Bobby Borbidge is too lazy to do the hard grind of decent research for better policy development. He simply launches into personal politics, not against the Government but against public servants. Mr Dunworth interjected. Legislative Assembly 2123 24 October 1991

Mr PALASZCZUK: The honourable member has been here for over a year. He is sitting in the wrong place. For goodness’ sake, if he wants to interject, he should go back to his correct seat and have a go. The member for Surfers Paradise continually refers to Mexicans while trying to disguise the fact that he is the worst example of a Victorian/Mexican in this place. I say to the Minister: do not take any notice of “Basement” Bob. All that fury in him, that nervous yelling at question-time, the itching and the scratching that he goes on with is caused by jealousy. He would love to be presiding over these Estimates. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the honourable member not to make personal reflections on any other member in the Chamber. I ask him to return to the Estimates or else he will be sat down. Mr Borbidge interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member for Surfers Paradise had no need to make that comment. I ask him not to make any further comments like that. Mr PALASZCZUK: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I appreciate your protection. I would like to turn now to the initiatives that have been introduced in the small-business area by my friend and colleague the Federal member for Rankin, who is presiding over a most successful Small Business portfolio in the Federal Government. Mr Connor: Sixty-six, and he got two of them. Mr PALASZCZUK: Methinks that the member for Nerang is a little bit concerned that—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member shall make those comments through the Chair. Mr PALASZCZUK: —in the latest Federal redistribution, Nerang has been included in the seat of Rankin. The member for Nerang is very, very worried that for once the Federal member for Rankin, a Labor Party member, will move his office into Nerang. That is the reason why the member for Nerang is very concerned. Let me refer to the initiatives of the Federal Government over the last 12 months. We have had improved consultative mechanisms. We have had a national small business forum. We have had taxation reform that members of the Opposition will not believe in. That reform has included reduced compliance costs, better administration and consultation, and remittance relief. Progress has been made in trade practices and tenancy with the extension of section 52A of the Trade Practices Act. It has included access to finance and the inclusion of small business in the Industry Commission inquiry. In relation to Government purchasing, there has been success in “meet the buyers”. In relation to information and awareness, there has been the first annual report on small business in Australia and a proposed ABS database on small business. In the Budget, there was positive news for small business. SME development was funded to the tune of $14m, which will help set the future direction. Funding has been provided for structured assistance to help exports. Over the next three years, 250 to 300 firms will benefit. The national business referral service now provides easy access to advice and services. NIES has been extended to the services sector to meet a growing demand in the services sector and to enable the development of a strategy to raise management skills. The list goes on. Training has been provided to small business. A study has been conducted into tax compliance. Funding support for the franchising task force has also been provided. In conclusion, I point out that it really gets to the member for Surfers Paradise that he has to drive himself from Surfers Paradise to Brisbane and cannot sit in a ministerial car. All he does is think about formulating and carrying out decent policy outcomes. Let him wander around the corridors of this Parliament House, bumping into a few of his Legislative Assembly 2124 24 October 1991 mates, thumbing through a few articles in the Parliamentary Library, making himself a cup of coffee in his room and throwing away his young life on the shattered decades of Opposition that lay ahead of him. Mr SPRINGBORG (Carnarvon) (8.31 p.m.): It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise tonight to participate in this debate on the Estimates of the Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development. Mr Smith interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: I am sure that my colleague did a very good job. I believe that the Minister presides over an extremely important portfolio that determines the future of many people in Queensland. That portfolio probably should be given far more profile within the Cabinet than it is—instead of being rated seventeenth, as members have been told. I believe that, by following the right policies, this Government could certainly advance the welfare of people not only in provincial and metropolitan areas but also in rural areas. One of the great problems from which people are suffering, particularly in rural areas, is the mass exodus of people from the land and from small rural communities—some rural communities far more than others. This is caused basically because of the rural downturn, drought, low commodity prices and very high costs over a long period. I appreciate that this is not a very easy situation to reverse, but this subject is very close to my heart. Hopefully, by the time that I finish my contribution tonight, we may have been able to go some way down the track towards making some recommendations and talking about some of the ideas that may help to arrest that rural exodus. Government members have made much about what a great economy we have in Queensland. Much has also been said by Opposition members about our economy being in such a state because of the good economic management of Queensland by the previous National Party Government and, prior to that, for many years, the coalition. I believe that that fact is recognised by the pragmatic Government members. They often say that the Opposition never gives credit where it is due. I try to give credit where it due. Government members ought to be able to reciprocate and give the appropriate credit. If they do not believe what I am saying, they have only to read Courier-Mail editorials that were written in the past 18 months and which Ministers and other Government members wave around with great gusto whenever they feel that it will advance their cause in this place. I refer to one editorial a few months ago that stated that the credit for the great state of the Queensland economy must go to the National Party. It is important to remember that. Government members talk about Queensland being a low-tax State. But, let us face it, Queensland is a low-tax State because the National Party left it that way. Hopefully, this Government will be able to improve on that and eventually lower taxes even further. Mr Nunn: They didn’t do anything. Mr SPRINGBORG: That is certainly a matter of opinion. Many businesspeople and others who have flocked to Queensland over many years say that they came here because the Queensland Government had a minimum of red tape, was good towards business and allowed it to invest here. The former National Party Government had very active decentralisation policies. I believe that the member for Isis has a huge chip on his shoulder the same size as one of those blackbutt trees—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr SPRINGBORG: I am sorry, Mr Chairman, I will not be personal. However, I would ask that if anybody gets personal with me, you accord me that same privilege. I turn now to specifically address an issue that is very dear to my heart. I refer to providing opportunities and jobs for young people in my electorate and in other rural areas. Legislative Assembly 2125 24 October 1991

Mr Palaszczuk: You’re after a new job, are you? Mr SPRINGBORG: I do not know. In three or four months’ time, I might be back on the farm chasing sheep. As I said, one of the problems that we face is the mass exodus of rural families who cannot afford to stay on the land. They are actually advising their sons and daughters not to stay on the land. I know of families on farms who have said to their children, “Don’t stay here. We will give you a university education, because there is absolutely no future here.” Mrs Edmond: That’s not new. It happened in the fifties and forties. Mr SPRINGBORG: It is becoming more prevalent than it was in the past. Although it is a great way of life, it is certainly not a living. I have suggested an enterprise zone. I know that the Minister has had a bit of a look at my concept, but for various reasons he is not prepared to support it. I think that he believes what he is doing is the right thing. That is his right. I believe that the programs offered by the Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development go some way towards enhancing investment in Queensland. However, the Regional Projects Investment Program has limitations, as did the enterprise zone concept for north Queensland. It was restrictive as far as small investors were concerned. As to the Regional Projects Investment Program—we are looking at a minimum investment of $2.5m and a work force of about 25. I believe that the north Queensland enterprise zone involved something like $5m. There were also other restrictions, including the fact that it was export-based. With the Regional Projects Investment Program, a person must be able to show that the particular commodities that will be produced will be internationally competitive. Once again, that is aimed at an international market. Let us face it, not everybody has $2.5m to invest. I am talking about small investors who may have only $100,000 or $200,000 to invest—or less in some cases. There is not very much for them out there. They may want to employ only three or four people. When considering the exodus of people from rural areas, the important thing to remember is that if those three or four people are employed, they put money back into the community because of the ancillary services that crop up. They go to the hairdresser, the drapery, the hotel and the restaurant. They also have to buy food. That money stays in the community and goes around. That is better than paying them dole money. I am sure that the Minister would appreciate that. Mr Welford: You missed the hairdresser. Mr SPRINGBORG: I would certainly rate that as a personal attack upon my character. It is for my own being as to what sort of haircut I would like. I enjoy a nice short haircut so that I can feel the wind through my hair. Mr PALASZCZUK: I rise to a point of order. This has nothing to do with the Estimates. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I am certain that the honourable member for Carnarvon will get back to the Estimates very quickly. Mr SPRINGBORG: No doubt. I was provoked. Mr Chairman, I know that, being the person that you are, you are giving me a chance to defend my person—the same chance that the honourable member for Archerfield would expect to be given but that he does not want to give anybody else. As I said before, the Government must provide those positive opportunities. My idea of an enterprise zone would be something that would be overseen by a local group comprising representatives from the local district promotions group, the chamber of commerce, shire councils, producer groups and a representative from the Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development. Mr Nunn interjected. Legislative Assembly 2126 24 October 1991

Mr SPRINGBORG: Here is the perennial knocker from Isis. If he would sit there and listen, he might learn something. That package of incentives that would be offered to those people would comprise land tax and payroll tax incentives, freight concessions, electricity concessions and a range of other concessions. I reject the notion that the package is all about creating an unlevel playing field. Let us face it—rural areas do not compete on a level playing field. They do not have the same amount of infrastructure or infrastructure support as do the more built-up metropolitan and provincial areas of Queensland. People in rural areas do not have the same access to markets or transport as others have. Nevertheless, they have comfortable transport, a good supply of electricity, generally a good supply of water, generally good road services and a good rail service, but not what people in metropolitan areas would expect. I am talking about levelling up the playing field. I certainly reject the notion that the package is about providing unfair incentives to one group at the expense of others. Government members run around Australia and Queensland espousing egalitarian attitudes, that is, that everybody deserves a fair chance. I am just saying here that I want a fair chance. When members of the Opposition come into this place and offer constructive suggestions, we are derided. Mr Welford: No, you’re not. Mr SPRINGBORG: We are. I have heard many constructive suggestions derided in this place because they are seen as impractical or nonsensical ideas. When Opposition members come into the Chamber, we are told that we are knocking the Government and that we never have anything constructive to say. Mr Welford: We all love you, Lawrence. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Honourable members of the Government will please restrain themselves. Mr SPRINGBORG: They will throw me and I will not know what to say. Mr Palaszczuk: You’re very provocative. Mr SPRINGBORG: I am not very provocative. I am a pretty restrained fellow. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member will speak to the Estimates. Mr SPRINGBORG: Certainly, Mr Chairman. This idea would certainly help. The package of incentives that I propose would be administered by that local committee. It would be based on the fact that a particular industry that is given incentives was not going establish itself in that place to start with. We are talking about attracting new industries into an area to provide opportunities. Those incentives would be phased out over a period of five years but would give that initial boost, which is so important. Government members may say that the package is subsidising and giving an unfair advantage, but the Government will pick up the benefits in other areas. The Federal Government will not have to pay out as much money for the dole. Mr Nunn interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: All I would say to that interjection is that very desperate times require a very different approach to the way in which the Government administers its business policies. I am suggesting to the Minister an idea which would be helpful and, if it does not work, it would not cost very much. A local committee would be established, which would be given the package of incentives and would follow the guidelines. If nobody were to take up the package, it would not cost the Government anything. If somebody were to take it up, the Government may sustain a short-term revenue loss with regard to payroll tax, land tax and those freight and electricity concessions. However, that loss will be picked up in the future through other benefits. When more people are on the payroll, a business will produce more income and more income tax will be paid. Hopefully, the Legislative Assembly 2127 24 October 1991

Government will be able to pick up those sorts of things when the Premier bargains each year at the Premiers Conference. The Government must be forward thinking and must consider all of the different aspects. A certain amount of leeway has been given in regard to members talking about the way in which Federal issues impact upon Queensland. I would like to talk about the underfunding of the CSIRO over a number of years. We are talking about the development of industry, technology and new ideas. The matter has nothing to do with the Minister, but I know that he probably has some sway over his Federal colleagues. The matter is very important because, if more funding can be given to those areas of industry, Queensland will stand to gain in the future. Organisations such as the CSIRO should certainly not be starved of funds. My last point relates to existing businesses. They are doing it very tough, as are ordinary wage- earners and farmers. They need packages of incentives to see them through the hard times. Assistance is available through the QIDC, but many people who have applied for it are told that their businesses are too viable, or they find that the criteria are far too restrictive. That is another matter that the Minister should consider. Giving assistance is far better than having a business go bankrupt. I know that a fine line is drawn when deciding who will be kept in business and who is not worth helping and will go out of business. The Minister should consider that matter, because I am talking about creating confidence and incentives and a future for the young people in this State—something that I believe in very much because I am a young person. Honourable Government members are aware of that fact. I am certainly aware of that fact. The opportunities need to be created. We can do it by embracing projects such as those I have mentioned. Mr Fenlon: Would you have the Friends of Joh on the local committees that you’re proposing? Mr SPRINGBORG: If a Friend of Joh was an outstanding local councillor or is an outstanding member of the local chamber of commerce, yes, I would, just as many outstanding members of the Labor Party may be on the committees. Mr Palaszczuk: Would you put him on a jury? Mr SPRINGBORG: That is a matter that is not covered in the Estimates debate. As I said, by embracing these ideas, the Government certainly can create a better future for our young people and for people who have been in those industries for a long time by providing them with more opportunities. It is the Minister’s obligation through his very important portfolio to keep chasing up those things with his Cabinet colleagues and embracing those ideas. If he does not, Queensland will be a very, very sad State in the future. Mr DAVIES (Townsville) (8.45 p.m.): I have sat here listening with interest to the man who may be the future Opposition shadow Treasurer, because he certainly does a better job than Mark Stoneman. I did not quite agree with some of his agrarian economics. Mr Palaszczuk: It could be the haircut. Mr DAVIES: Yes, it could be the haircut. I do not agree with some of the agrarian economics coming from the opposite side of the Chamber. I wish to turn to some of the points made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is a shame that he is not in the Chamber to hear me talk about these points. Mr Pearce: They aren’t in the Chamber. Mr DAVIES: Yes, the honourable member is right. Opposition members are not in the Chamber when they should be. The member for Surfers Paradise has probably gone home. Legislative Assembly 2128 24 October 1991

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member will stick to the issues. Mr DAVIES: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke about the enterprise zone. I, for one, wish to put this old red herring to rest tonight. We have been hearing about it for two years, ever since this Government decided to abolish the zone. In its regional economic development strategy announced on 23 March 1989, the Labor Party said that the north Queensland enterprise zone would probably be abolished but that we would review it. The Government did review it and did abolish it because it felt that the zone was not serving all of Queensland. The Government needed a strategy that would service all of Queensland. Therefore the Minister correctly introduced the Regional Projects Investment Program, which now covers all of Queensland and not just a particular part of north Queensland that happens to be the part of Queensland that I come from. I think the Minister and Cabinet decided correctly, but because he has never identified them I would have liked to ask Mr Borbidge to identify all of these phantom projects that he has been talking about for so long. The Government went through that list of projects and there was only one that was a real, live project. In cooperation with the Federal Government, we have been working on that project—the aircraft maintenance facility—for two years now. It is a huge project. Mr Springborg referred to packages of incentives. The Minister and his department have worked on a package of incentives and the Federal Government has come to the party as well. Now it really is in the hands of private enterprise, particularly Matrix Engineering of Hong Kong. The list of phantom projects was a mile long. One has to say in all honesty that if Opposition members thought of an idea, they simply wrote it down and it became a real, live project. Mr Elder interjected. Mr DAVIES: That is exactly right. That is exactly what they did. Hopefully we can put this old issue that Mr Borbidge keeps dragging up, together with land tax, to bed. Mr Connor interjected. Mr DAVIES: We have only been in Government for two years. During last year’s Estimates debate, I sat next to the Treasurer and asked Mr Borbidge what the land tax rate was. At that stage it was 2.1 per cent and now it is 1.8 per cent. He could not tell us what the rate was. That is how much he knows about land tax. Mr Elder: Intellectual midgets. Mr DAVIES: I agree with you. They are intellectual midgets. Mr CONNOR: I rise to a point of order. I find the remarks made by the honourable member offensive. He is not supposed to—— The CHAIRMAN: Order! I could not hear anything that was going on. I ask the honourable member for Townsville to speak through the Chair to the whole Chamber. The honourable member for Nerang need not bother interjecting, either. Mr DAVIES: I was talking about comments made by Mr Borbidge. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I now ask the honourable member to refer to members by their electorates. Mr DAVIES: I was referring to comments about land tax made by the member for Surfers Paradise, not the member for Nerang. Last year during the Estimates debate, Mr Borbidge did not even know the rate of land tax. I find it incredible that he can calculate that the National Party would get rid of land tax when he does not even know what the rate is. He must know what the rate is before he says, “We will get rid of it.” I turn now to the Queensland economy, which is diverse, resource rich and has enormous potential. Queensland is located in a region of opportunity because it forms part of the Asia/Pacific rim. It is strategically located close to the newly industrialised Legislative Assembly 2129 24 October 1991 countries of Asia, which have some of the fastest growing economies in the world. Much of Queensland’s prosperity has been built on its primary industries and resource sectors. Those two sectors generate much of the State’s export income and are closely interrelated with the other sectors of the economy. Primary industries and resources are at the base of manufacturing in this State. They underpin the financial and business services and are major users of the transport and construction sectors. As a result, the Queensland Government’s policies for economic growth and development centre on supporting sustainable growth of the primary and resources sectors and maximising development of higher value-added manufacturing and service industries based on the strength of these two sectors. The other significant sector is tourism, but I will leave that alone for tonight. Those three sectors, primary industries, resources and tourism form the mainstay that will take the Queensland economy into the twenty-first century and will form the core of the Government’s strategy for economic management. In addition, the manufacturing sector is being encouraged to diversify and expand into high value-added and high-technology industries in fields such as biotechnology, engineering, electronics, information technology and medicine. Within that context, the Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development has a leading role in developing policies and programs designed to help Queensland’s manufacturing and internationally traded services sectors and actively promote sustainable regional economic development. The major goals of the department are to provide services which help firms raise their efficiency and increase productivity; provide focused mechanisms which help expand and diversify the State’s manufacturing and traded services base; influence and improve the environment in which business and industry operates; and promote and support sustainable regional economic development. The range of services provided by the department covers such things as advice on the State’s economy, industry and infrastructure; information on industry trends, conditions and capabilities; industrial land incentives; major project assistance; regional economic development services; assistance to help firms boost productivity and competitiveness; research and development grants; and information on business licensing requirements. The department administers a wide range of programs such as the Queensland Industry Information Service, the Industrial Land Incentive Scheme, the Business Regulation Review Unit, the National Industry Extension Service, the Queensland Grants for Industrial Research and Development, the Regional Projects Investment program, the Industrial Business Licence Information Centre, the Accelerated Company Export Service, the National Procurement Development Program, the Quality Assessment Unit, and the Register of Manufacturing Investment Opportunities. That is not an exhaustive list, but it gives an indication of some of the programs administered by the department. I will concentrate on three of those programs only, namely, the National Industry Extension Service, which is known as NIES, the National Procurement Development Program, and the Accelerated Company Export Service. The National Industry Extension Service is a joint Commonwealth/State program aimed at improving the competitiveness of companies in the manufacturing and traded services sectors. The principal modus operandi of NIES is to provide grants—usually on a dollar-for-dollar basis—to companies to improve their performance and skills in areas such as strategic planning, financial management, design marketing, quality control, manufacturing methods, and the introduction of new technology. The grants are provided to meet the costs of expert consultants. NIES also provides funding for agencies, such as the Queensland Innovation Centre, to promote awareness of best practices in management. The NIES grant will be increased from 1 October to $3 for every $1 spent by the company for firms Legislative Assembly 2130 24 October 1991 located outside the Brisbane and Moreton statistical divisions. The higher rate of subsidy recognises the higher costs faced by these companies in accessing expert consultants based in south-east Queensland. The authority to approve applications under the NIES program will be delegated to regional offices in 1991-92, and the NIES trust fund budget for 1991-92 is $5.919m. The National Procurement Development Program is a major Commonwealth/State and Territory initiative which is aimed at improving the efficiency and international competitiveness of Australian industry. The program is administered by the Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development. Within that framework, firms can work with a Government partner to develop and trial internationally traded products, systems and services. The program will fund up to 50 per cent of the cost of the project. The grants base scheme supports research, development, trialling and demonstration of innovative Australian products that can be bought by Government agencies that work as partners with companies to develop products—not only products for Government, but also products that have a sustainable competitive advantage in international markets. Applications for the NPDP grant are made jointly by the Government and a commercial partner. Projects that are eligible under that program will be assessed to determine the capabilities of the project team, the ability of the commercial partner to exploit the project results—particularly in overseas markets—the potential flow-on benefits to the Australian economy, and the degree of innovation in the project, as well as the likelihood that a new or improved product or service will result. The third program to which I wish to refer briefly is the Accelerated Company Export Service, which is a new program provided under the joint Commonwealth/State National Industry Extension Service. ACES is designed to encourage leading Queensland manufacturing companies possessing the necessary resources and capacity to succeed in overseas markets to increase their level of exports. It is deliberately targeted at successful companies that have the potential to become strategic—not opportunistic—exporters in the short to medium term. It provides grants of up to $50,000 on a dollar-for- dollar basis to enable companies to adopt existing products, or to develop new products for export markets. The grant may be applied to activities such as product design, testing, certification, market research, export marketing, training, and the implementation of product management methods. The grant may not be used for capital expenditure. The budget for that particular program this year is approximately $300,000. Before concluding my remarks, I wish to refer to one of the other popular projects that the member for Surfers Paradise likes to talk about, namely, the Cape York space base. Mr Palaszczuk: Surprise, surprise! Mr DAVIES: As the member for Archerfield would know, the previous Premier, Joh Bjelke- Petersen, launched that project with great fanfare approximately 10 years ago. Members of the National Party talked about this project for about eight years. Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. There are certain matters relating to what the honourable member is referring to before the courts at present. I understand that they are due for resolution within the next two days. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I do not know of that personally, but I think that the honourable member for Townsville has made fair comments about the space base, and they were made previously. I will allow him to continue. Mr DAVIES: Mr Chairman, I am dealing very briefly with this matter. As honourable members would know, in recent times discussions have been held in relation to the Cape York space base, and this Government is committed to the project, which is very much a Legislative Assembly 2131 24 October 1991 private-enterprise endeavour. The Government will be giving this particular project all the support it needs. Mr Borbidge interjected. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourable member for Townsville is not accepting the interjection. Mr DAVIES: At the recent Senate inquiry into satellite-launching facilities, Peter Jones stated that in the long term, 4 280 jobs would result from development of the project, and more than 3 000 would be created for the benefit of Queenslanders. For that reason, this Government supports the project. I would also like to comment very briefly on one other project but, before doing so, in case I run out of time, I will congratulate the Minister on the presentation of these very fine Estimates. I also congratulate his staff who are headed by Ron Boyle. In the last two years, they have gone through the recommendations made following the Public Sector Management Commission’s review and have structured the department in a magnificent manner. In the future, the people of Queensland can expect good things from this department. Time expired. Mr COOMBER (Currumbin) (9 p.m.): It is a pleasure to participate in the debate on these Estimates tonight to debunk the theory that this Labor Government is leading Australia and Queensland out of the recession because this Government would have people believe that the economy is gathering momentum. As people would know, the only way one gathers momentum is by going down hill. That, of course, is the way that Queensland’s economy is heading. I would like to demonstrate why this rhetoric that is being heard from everyone on the Government side is false and is rubbish. One only has to look at the Business Stress Index, which is a quarterly document released by Ernst and Young that highlights how businesses in Australia are going. It compares these businesses Statewide. These figures relate to the stress sales of businesses and the stress sales of property assets. Everybody has a giggle when we are talking about Victoria and the way business is in Victoria. But in fact, the figures of stress sales in Victoria have decreased from a factor of 36 in 1990 to a factor of 26 in 1991. If one looks at the figures for Western Australia, the Government of which people also deride, one notices that its figures have improved from 9 to 4. If one looks at South Australia, its figures have improved from 12 to 5, and in New South Wales, 26 to a factor of 19. Let us look at Queensland. It is the only State in which the stress sale index has increased. During the September quarter in the industry sector the share of total stress sales represented by the manufacturing sector rose to 46 per cent compared with 37 per cent in both the June and September quarters of 1990. So, one can see that this myth that is being generated by the media and this Government that the economy in Queensland is recovering is exactly what I said it is, a myth. During the last three months Queenslanders have seen a slight easing in monetary policy. During that period, the Queensland Confederation of Industry survey shows that it has not lifted Queensland companies’ expectations. In fact, during the September quarter a total of 44 per cent of companies in Queensland reported below average performances, with some 42 per cent of companies recording an average performance. In fact, only 14 per cent of respondent companies performed above expectation during the quarter. The Minister must be talking to people in the boardrooms of different companies from those to whom the Queensland Confederation of Industry, Ernst and Young and Business Queensland have spoken. They are showing that business is not leading this State out of recession. In fact, the Queensland Confederation of Industry survey showed a total of 54 per cent of companies regarded the environment in Queensland as poor or very poor, Legislative Assembly 2132 24 October 1991 while only 10 per cent of respondent companies regarded Queensland’s State economy as good or very good. The environment for investment in Queensland was described by 52 per cent of respondents as poor or very poor, with 20 per cent of companies describing the investment climate as good or very good. Trends show that this position has worsened since the last quarter survey, so when one looks at Queensland industry by sector, one sees that in the retail sector, 64 per cent expect below average performance in the next quarter; in the construction industry, 53 per cent believe they will have below average performances in the next survey period; in the mining sector, 50 per cent expect below average performances; and in tourism, 45 per cent expect below average performances in the next survey period. Of course, the reason why Queensland’s industries see the Queensland economy as having a worse performance level in the future is that there will be a fall in demand. Seventy-nine per cent of companies believed that there will be a fall in demand. A total of 36 per cent believe that the cost of materials is going to rise. Although interest rates have eased in the last three months, 34 per cent of respondent companies believe interest rates are a problem. There are further problems on the export front. Twenty-five per cent of respondent companies expect export revenue to decline over the next six months. During the survey period there has been a drop of full-time employment in the mining, manufacturing, construction and retail sectors, which are major employment areas. Part-time employment was also seriously affected in the mining, construction and tourism sectors. Casual employment also fell in the manufacturing and tourism sectors. These are damning statistics. The next most important indicator of further activity within an economy stems from expectations of capital investment. Over the last 12 months, Australian national account figures indicated a reduction in private equipment expenditure of 20 per cent, while non-dwelling construction expenditure declined by 12.1 per cent. In Queensland—and this is what we are interested in—52 per cent of companies surveyed regarded the environment for investment as poor or very poor. That is a disgrace to this Government. Mr T. B. Sullivan: What is the date of that survey? Mr COOMBER: It is the current survey for the September quarter. In fact, these are the latest survey figures. During the September quarter, only 4 per cent of surveyed companies increased expenditure on buildings, compared with 11 per cent just three months earlier. Thirty-five per cent of respondent companies had actually reduced capital expenditure during the quarter. All these figures debunk the myth that this State is coming out of a recession. The results in September seem to indicate a return to the uncertainty which, in the Queensland Chamber of Industry’s view, results from a number of causes, including wage increases and the decision to boost compulsory superannuation. Eleven per cent of companies increased investment in plant and equipment during the September quarter. That is in fact a decline from the June quarter, when 14 per cent of companies increased investment in plant. Therefore, the September figures are well below the expectations of the June survey when 24 per cent predicted an increase in plant and equipment expenditure. The list goes on, but I think these figures are important and should be recorded in Hansard. Thirty-one per cent of surveyed companies reduced their expenditure on plant and equipment during the September quarter. The August current account figures reflected a lower level of imports of machinery, transport equipment, and the components for manufacturing. If investment on plant and machinery does eventually increase, it will take at least another 12 months for the new equipment to produce, and then we may see an increase in output in the Queensland economy. Articles are appearing every day in the paper which show that what this Government is saying is not being believed by either business or the people of Queensland. I refer to an article in Business Queensland dated 14 October 1991, so it is right up to date. It reads— Legislative Assembly 2133 24 October 1991

“Doubts above recovery. Tentative indications that Queensland’s corporate sector was preparing for an end to the recession have all but been snuffed out according to the latest Business Queensland quarterly business confidence survey. The December quarter survey, independently prepared for Business Queensland and Channel 9 by leading accounting firm Coopers & Lybrand,”— and that is not a bad accounting company to get to work for you— “reveals the hesitant confidence in economic recovery expressed in the previous quarter by 200 local business leaders is evaporating.” It is no wonder that business confidence is at a low ebb, especially when one looks at one of the latest issues for this Premier to address, namely, daylight-saving. It affects the tourist industry, which, of course, is Queensland’s major employer. The editorial in the Weekend Australian of 5-6 October stated— “Queensland’s Premier, Mr Goss, has added to perceptions that he is unwilling to take tough decisions—and then stick with them—by his backtracking over daylight-saving. It is disconcerting to see a Premier with such a high personal approval rating—72 per cent according to the Morgan Gallop Poll—failing so comprehensively when an issue requiring leadership arises.” That is the position that Queensland business finds itself in—a lack of direction. Businesspeople know that, although there one set of rules is in place this week, there is a fair chance that those rules will be changed next week. The Liberal Party is interested in creating jobs and finding jobs for the unemployed. How many people are unemployed in Queensland? The number increases every day. I turn now to the poker machine and the gaming machine industry. I noted that, today, the Sun reported that the Treasurer was going to purchase some 5 000 gaming machines. Perhaps the Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development is not the right Minister to whom I should direct my question. However, I ask: is he aware of the set-backs to all manner of firms in the marketplace seeking to trade with the expanded club market, including firms manufacturing and marketing items such carpets, curtains, furniture, drink dispensers, coin dispensers, business computer software, electronic firms and security services? I would imagine that the set-backs have arisen not only in respect of the supply of gaming machines. Although a decision was made nearly 12 months ago to introduce gaming machines into Queensland, the delay in their introduction has meant that it is almost Christmas-time and the gaming machines are still not in hotels and clubs. Mr McGrady: Whose fault is that? That’s the Opposition’s fault. Mr COOMBER: The fault is not with the Opposition; it is with this Government, because it has been vacillating for years over most issues. Members opposite have been in Government for two years. They took over by default. The problem is that most people in Queensland did not believe that poker machines would be introduced into this State. But now we are being blessed with them, let us get them into the club and hotel industry, because they will create jobs. I should explain that for many years the Liberal Party has endeavoured to rectify the matter regarding payments to subcontractors and suppliers. Various Ministers from both the National Party and the Labor Party have promised to examine the problem, but that is about as far as it has gone. A number of issues are involved, including the inadequacies of the law in respect to suppliers and subcontractors, and the outrageous costs associated with any legal action to recover moneys owing. One also has to look at the way Legislative Assembly 2134 24 October 1991 receivers and liquidators bleed the remaining structure dry and wax fat on the work of others. The Government has failed to accept responsibility for its share of debt, particularly when it has full voting rights as a share-holder and financier. Due to the trying economic circumstances in which some companies find themselves, the urgency for this action cannot be overemphasised. Members of the Liberal Party are particularly opposed to the way in which the QIDC has handled some matters. We would hope that the Minister acts upon this immediately. Mr Davies: That is the Treasurer. Mr COOMBER: I realise that, but we are dealing with the Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development. The actions of Government statutory bodies are affecting businesses and the subcontractors who deal with them every day. Smaller companies, including those operated by families, are being taken to the wall. While people are losing their homes and other assets, this Government is standing by and watching it happen. Later, I will be handing on one case to the Minister to see how he performs. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I will wait and see how he acts. It is disturbing that the QIDC is a quasi State Government bank. I am sure that the Government is fully informed on this matter and no doubt will be called upon to explain its intentions in what I guess could be called a debacle. The QIDC, as a major share-holder, is not taking its full share of blame for poor business management and, even worse, its deception of subcontractors, stockists and suppliers. Business collapses occur. If the QIDC is the financier and a share-holder in a business that goes broke, the subcontractor is left to carry the can. Mr McGRADY (Mount Isa) (9.16 p.m.): I am pleased to join this debate, for the Estimates which we are discussing have an enormous effect on regional Queensland; and, of course, regional Queensland has a major effect on the economy of the State. Let me say at the outset that I am pleased that this portfolio is in the hands of the Minister, because I believe he is very capable and has certainly handled the portfolio extremely well over the last 18 months. Let me say also that I am somewhat sad at the apparent lack of interest of some members of the Opposition who represent regional areas, for they have not seen fit to come into this Chamber to listen to or participate in this debate on a subject which I feel is important. Queensland is the most decentralised State in the Commonwealth. South Australia basically centres around Adelaide; New South Wales basically covers Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong; Victoria is Melbourne; and 75 per cent of Western Australians live in Perth. But in Queensland we have major regional cities based on large regional centres. Therefore, the Estimates of this portfolio are of tremendous importance to the development of Queensland. Regional development, of course, spreads into many portfolios, because to have a successful regional development program we need the infrastructure designed to encourage people and businesses to locate or relocate from the capital city into the regional centres. Because much of the infrastructure is already out in those regions of Queensland, we are fortunate. But we still need better roads, better housing, better health services, better community facilities, efficient ports and a transport system to meet the needs of the next century. With the regionalisation of health services, ambulance services and police services and the new desire by this Government to bring better housing to the people of the regional centres, we can see this Government taking positive steps to bring a better quality of life to the people in those centres who were neglected for so long by the previous Government. If people think for one moment that we will encourage people to move into these regional centres without the necessary services and facilities being available to them, they must be kidding themselves. Today, people rightfully demand and expect those facilities to be available to them. I believe that this portfolio can, and does, show leadership to the business community in this time of recession. Small business is the backbone of the economy of Legislative Assembly 2135 24 October 1991

Queensland, but I do not believe that sufficient people around this State understand the true significance of the small-business community. Queenslanders are fortunate in the way in which the various regional centres have been developed over a long period. From Weipa at the tip of the State, we come down to Cairns, which is obviously the tourist capital of north Queensland, and its potential is enormous. The far-sighted decision by the Cairns Port Authority some years ago to construct a new international airport has done much to make Cairns the tourist destination which it is today. The Cairns Port Authority also provides an efficient port which takes sugar and other materials from the hinterland and exports them across the world. As we move down the coast, we come to the port city of Townsville, which is the second-largest city in Queensland. Its port plays a major role in the economy of north Queensland. That port handles sugar from the Burdekin areas and, of course, the minerals from the Mount Isa mineral field. In fact, 30 per cent of the throughput from that port comes from the Mount Isa field. Therefore, as well as providing employment in the port area, Mount Isa also provides direct employment for those people who work at copper refineries and in Townsville transport services and, of course, the railways. One could continue going down the coast giving examples of regional communities which play such a vital role in the development and economy of this State. I am pleased to be part of a Government which has recently set up new offices around the regional centres of this State. The Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development was created in late 1990 by the amalgamation of the Department of Manufacturing and Commerce and the Bureau of Regional Development. The DMC had regional offices located in Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Maryborough and Toowoomba. The bureau offices were in Cairns, Townsville and Mackay. The Government has made it clear that it wants to take a role in regional economic development. In line with Government policy, delivery of departmental programs will be at a regional level to the maximum extent possible. As a result of that, the Government has recently set up new offices in Mount Isa, Gladstone and Bundaberg; and, later this year, it will set up offices at the Sunshine Coast, Ipswich, the Gold Coast and Brisbane. By early 1992, the department will have a network of regional offices in 13 locations compared with six under the previous Government. Staff numbers in the regional network have been increased to over 80 persons, compared with fewer than 40 provided by the previous Government. That has been achieved mainly by relocating positions and staff from head office. It is important to ensure that those new officers of the department go out into the marketplace and actively encourage the people in the regions to take advantage of all business opportunities and to promote their own region. It is not simply a matter of opening a new office in the centre of town and staffing it. Those people have to be seen by the local community to be leading the revival of business in those centres. I believe that this present downturn gives them the opportunity to go forward. In Mount Isa, given the right conditions and the leadership, I see tremendous potential. If we get the total support of some of the small mining companies which have come into the area in recent times, I believe that we can create jobs. Over a long period, Mount Isa Mines Limited has had a policy of spending substantial amounts of money in the local community, thereby assisting in job-creation programs. Recently, the Mayor of Mount Isa and I convened a meeting of some of the smaller mining companies to bring home to them the fact that they have a duty and a moral responsibility, where possible, to purchase goods locally. When I say “locally”, I mean in the Cloncurry Shire and in the City of Mount Isa. When these small mining companies come into these centres and extract the wealth from the area, I believe they have a responsibility to do some of their business in and buy goods and services from the local Legislative Assembly 2136 24 October 1991 communities. Naturally, I do not demand that they do that. I believe that the local business houses have to sharpen their pencils and ensure that the price is right. One of my great concerns is the red tape and bureaucracy faced by all businesses, but more importantly those in regional centres. From listening to some of the Opposition speakers tonight, anybody would think that this has only just happened. Of course, it has been imposed by Governments over a long period. Recently, I opened a new business account for an organisation to which I belong and which has a turn-over of many millions of dollars. The officials of that organisation had to parade before the local bank manager, carrying with them passports, drivers’ licences, marriage certificates and everything else. I asked myself: where else in the world would a new business trying to start be forced to take these sorts of actions? Mr Borbidge: It is because of the Federal Government. Mr McGRADY: I know that it is a Federal matter. I also know that if the Federal Opposition would have supported the Federal Government on the Australia card, people would not need to go through this bizarre operation. There is nothing at all that members opposite can take any comfort from. I am afraid that unless bureaucracy comes to realise the impact of some of the requirements that it is placing on businesses, both large and small, we could be legislating for the closure of some business houses. As I said earlier, I see the role of the Government and, in particular, this Minister and the department, as being there to help, assist and promote business in the regional centres. I would suggest that the Minister and his committee look closely at ways and means of cutting out the red tape to which I referred. I recall that, back in 1985, I fought a very successful council election with the promise that my team and I would eliminate red tape from the council. All members of the council were returned. In fact, over the following years, we embarked on that campaign against red tape. I would say that today the Mount Isa City Council has a reputation right throughout this State as being a council with a minimum of red tape. Whilst we can talk about the role that small business plays in the development of regional Queensland, we must not forget the very important role played by the local media and other organisations in those centres. In north-west Queensland, the media comprise radio, newsprint and television services, which actively promote the regions and local business and are certainly the champions of our part of Queensland. All too often, we take those organisations for granted. They play a very important role in promoting the region. I believe that the Government can play a major role in the expansion and development of the regions. In particular, I would suggest once again that Government departments such as hospitals and schools be encouraged to shop locally when the price is right. On a previous occasion in this place, I made a plea that members of Parliament be allowed to purchase their stationery requirements from local business houses, again provided that the price is right. I have been most impressed with Minister McLean for the way in which he seized this opportunity. He has in fact made a number of inquiries to see whether this would be possible. We can go further and suggest that some of the Government work which is handed out to businesses and professional people in the Brisbane area could be shared around the State and not necessarily at all times be given to those professional people in the capital city. Yesterday, the member for Salisbury and, tonight, the member for Townsville, spoke about the potential for outback communities with the development of tourism. Already, Mount Isa, Cloncurry and Boulia have recognised this potential and have identified the market. Boulia has the Min Min lights and the beauty and friendship of an outback community. Cloncurry has developed the Mary Kathleen museum, which has a large selection of rock specimens housed in attractive surroundings. Mount Isa has its mine and its natural attractions. In recent times, many people have jumped on the tourist band wagon. Tonight, I want to pay tribute to a pioneer of Mount Isa, a lady of great wisdom and Legislative Assembly 2137 24 October 1991 great vision, Mrs Christine Arnfeldt, who back in the very early seventies realised the potential of tourism and worked unpaid for many hours a week. She is one of the unsung heroes of our district who started the tourist industry in Mount Isa. Also tonight, I pay tribute to Petrina Dorrington, who is the former manager of the North Queensland Tourist Bureau and in fact is married to the Federal member for Kennedy, Mr Rob Hulls. I also pay tribute to Mr George Apps, the present incumbent in that position; to Dell George from Boulia, who has played a major role in promoting tourism in the outback; and, of course, to Councillor Noel Robinson of the Cloncurry Shire Council. In conclusion—I believe it is important for this Committee to examine some of the problems on the horizon for regional Queensland. I believe that one of the greatest threats to regional Queensland today is the Federal Opposition’s proposal, supported in this Chamber here today by both opposition parties, for the imposition of a consumption tax. Many of the small regional centres do not have K marts and Woolworths and they do not have the competition. The people on the land will have this tax imposition placed on them. As has been said before, from the cradle to the grave people in regional centres will be smacked with this consumption tax. Regional Queensland will be crippled. We may as well draw a circle around the south-east corner of this State and declare the rest of Queensland a no- living zone. Because of the imposition of the consumption tax, business will be prevented from moving into the regional centres. At this late stage, I appeal to the opposition parties in this place to come over and join with us on this side in complete opposition to this tax. In the short space of time that I have left, I congratulate the Minister, his committee, and his officers and staff who have been more than happy to help members of Parliament such as me. I believe that the department has gone from strength to strength. I am pleased to be associated with this Estimates debate. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South) (9.31 p.m.): The Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development is one of the smaller Government departments, but it has the potential to contribute in a far greater way than it does to the prosperity of and employment in this State. Any real achievements by this department could have a major impact on the burgeoning unemployment and associated welfare problems facing our country. In Toowoomba in particular, we would love to see a major new manufacturing development that would have the potential to employ semiskilled labour. Such an enterprise could add greatly to the financial returns of the raw products of the downs. Daily, products are carried by rail through the city and exported overseas. A new manufacturing development in Toowoomba would also soak up some of the large groups of unemployed, particularly youth unemployed. Youth unemployment is running at well over 30 per cent. With the current drought, Toowoomba is facing a financial drought. Because there are absolutely no winter crops throughout the downs, later this year there will be hardly any cheques coming into the city to be deposited into building societies and banks or, indeed, to be spent on vehicles and other equipment. Likewise, livestock-producers have seen all their profits filter away with escalating feed costs. Earlier this year, Toowoomba’s unemployment figures were well below the State average, but tonight I heard a disturbing and unconfirmed report from the executive of the Toowoomba Regional Development Corporation that the Toowoomba CES district unemployment figures are the highest of any area in the State. That district takes in a number of other areas around Toowoomba, including South Burnett, but if these figures are true then there is no doubt that the double-barrelled effect of the drought and the recession on rural areas is now starting to bite into the cities. It disturbs me greatly to learn about the plight of businessmen in Toowoomba. We seem to hear only about the plight of those on the land. But industries such as car dealerships are really feeling the pinch, some of them to the extent of being right on the verge of putting off many of their staff. Legislative Assembly 2138 24 October 1991

DBIRD in Toowoomba could play a most important role in creating a diversity of industry in Toowoomba and other parts of Queensland so that we could have a manufacturing base on which we could rely, in addition to the rural, mining and service industries upon which we are so reliant at the moment. One has only to strike a drought such as this one to see the effect that it has upon the State. DBIRD in Toowoomba is a relatively small office; there are only two executive officers and two support staff. That office has a big task ahead of it. I know that the manager, Royce Brown, and his assistant, Lindsay Coghill, are extremely well respected by the clients who use their services, as well as for their enthusiasm and their ability. Over the years, that office has made some significant achievements. The Toowoomba Regional Development Corporation has had a good working relationship with DBIRD. During this debate, I shall recognise some of the achievements of the staff of the DBIRD office in Toowoomba. Recently, they developed a networking, in association with the Toowoomba Regional Development Corporation, of Agricultural Machinery Manufacturers. This has been developed to seek alternative markets. Last year, in association with the development corporation, DBIRD and Agricultural Machinery Manufacturers visited Western Australia and achieved sales of almost half a million dollars. Although that is not much at this stage, it does have the potential to grow. The University of Southern Queensland, the Regional Development Corporation and DBIRD are looking at the feasibility of establishing at the university an agricultural research centre that will have the potential to sell agricultural machinery technology, in particular to Korea and Russia. DBIRD officers in Toowoomba have supported the development corporation with a move aimed at one single marketing area within Japan. This is a dormitory area of Osaka called Takatsuki, which has a population of 400 000. The first enterprise targeted has been education, which naturally fits in very well with Toowoomba being Queensland’s major regional education centre. Thirty students have already been committed to a special course at the university. That course is called ELICOS—English literacy intensive course for overseas students. It is estimated that, in January next year, the students will contribute $100,000 to the Toowoomba economy through course fees and money spent in the city during their four-week stay. The famous McGregor summer school at Toowoomba, which is conducted at the university by Unilink, is also expected to benefit from business attracted from Takatsuki. At present, the Toowoomba Regional Development Corporation has a proposal before DBIRD with which I am sure the Minister would be familiar. The proposal is for funding of $20,000 as part of an estimated $100,000 to take a trade mission to that Japanese city. The development corporation has projected the generation of business worth $4m per year by 1996 as a result of this trade mission. It is imperative that DBIRD, which I understand supports the concept in theory, reaches a quick decision on that amount of money to enable proper and early planning of the trade mission. The time taken for decision-making is a fair complaint from the Toowoomba Regional Development Corporation in an otherwise good relationship with DBIRD. Under the land program, whereby industrial land is leased and then freeholded, in the past 12 months there have been two approaches. This is continuing the tradition established by the National Party Government whereby many industries were established on the Wilsonton industrial estate, such as the major pecan nut plant, the Pixie ice cream factory and the brickworks. Under the NIES scheme there has been an upturn in applications, especially since the 75 per cent subsidy has been offered for that export-oriented consultancy scheme. The national teaching company scheme, which is jointly funded by the Federal and State Governments, provides up to $50,000 for the employment of graduates. In the past two years, there have been six approvals for that scheme in Toowoomba. Perhaps the best prospects of really achieving some hard, export- Legislative Assembly 2139 24 October 1991 earning industries has come through the Regional Projects Investment Program. That program provides up to 100 per cent of the cost of the feasibility study for projects that have the potential to employ 25 people, engender export income and have a likely expenditure of up to $2.5m in their establishment period. Three projects that have received 100 per cent funding of their feasibility are an organic flour mill at Goondiwindi, a Toowoomba plant for the processing of fresh frozen vegetables to South East Asia and a wool scour topping plant at Roma. The exporting of fresh vegetables to South East Asia is one particularly exciting enterprise. The idea developed amongst farmers in the Condamine irrigation area during the grain slump of the mid-eighties. A number of farmers banded together under the enterprise of one farm leader. At this stage, the enterprise is providing for some 70 pay-packets a week in the Brookstead area on that horticultural enterprise alone. At the moment, the farmers export to Japan two containers a week of horticultural products, and they see an immediate potential of 20 containers a week if they can receive some further funding and assistance, particularly from the Federal Government. That funding would be for the construction of a major manufacturing plant in the western suburbs of Toowoomba. The Toowoomba office of DBIRD assisted the Toowoomba Regional Development Corporation and the University College of Southern Queensland with the presentation of a successful business and technology expo this year. I know that those two organisations were particularly enthusiastic about the support that they received from DBIRD officers. Recently, the Business Regulation Review Unit was established in Toowoomba, and small businesses are making a modest use of the Queensland Business Licensing Centre through the 008 number that is available. The Queensland Industry Data Service, which hopes to provide a database of 7 000 manufacturing businesses, is about to be launched, so at this stage I cannot comment on its usefulness. The enterprise of innovative businesspeople in Toowoomba is shown by the fact that two Toowoomba firms—Wagners Quarry Products and Matilda Foods—received first and second places in the recent export awards. The potential to achieve real export markets in South East Asia and to create real jobs in the manufacturing sphere is enormous. The small size and budget of DBIRD is a sad reflection on the priorities of the Government. That department should have some real teeth and free enterprise oriented staff out in the field getting things happening, creating markets, bringing together local business entrepreneurs and assisting with initial setting-up. It can be done if the will and the priority are there, as demonstrated by the small unit of DBIRD in Toowoomba, particularly if one segment of a market is selected and aggressively acted upon. I would like to comment on the work being undertaken by the Toowoomba Regional Development Corporation, which is a community organisation that employs a full-time executive officer and some support staff. It is a most important organisation within the City of Toowoomba and performs a role parallel to DBIRD. In addition to its involvement in the Takatsuki project and the machinery- manufacturers project, the corporation has worked in conjunction with the TAFE college to develop a training course for the thoroughbred industry, which is well known on the downs. That course will cover aspects of the training of trainers, jockeys, stablehands and thoroughbred industry support staff. The corporation is now considering assisting the Toowoomba TAFE to establish a unique Australian first in a wheelwright and coach-restoration course, which would be associated with the Cobb and Co. museum, which is located on the new TAFE campus at the old showgrounds site. The Toowoomba Regional Development Corporation has involved itself in the considerable public debate about the demise of the RAAF 7SD base in Toowoomba. That base, which is in two sections, comprises a domestic section with a substantial number of houses, messes, lecture rooms and so forth, and a service base, which contains huge Legislative Assembly 2140 24 October 1991 warehouses, each probably covering one and a half acres or two acres, and a large number of sheds and packaging plants. To this stage, the debate has been an endeavour to make the Federal Defence Department see the reason for not closing down 7SD. The base provides warehousing and support to the army aviation centre at Oakey, to the Amberley air force base and to the air force base in Townsville. Under the rationalisation program of the Defence Department, the base will be replaced by one complex at Moorebank in the western suburbs of Sydney. Despite the fact that some 170 people are employed at the base—that is, civilian people, apart from the RAAF service personnel—the Defence Department is going ahead with the closing of the base, and the corporation’s last stand has been in an endeavour to get the department to keep open a portion of the base. That portion would include the packaging plant and a major warehouse. It would save 20 jobs and, at the same time, service the army aviation base at Oakey. All of that is leading to the idea that has been proposed by the Regional Development Corporation to obtain from the Federal department the domestic section of the base as a university student village, which would assist in solving the accommodation problems in Toowoomba. It would also have the potential of bringing overseas students to Toowoomba. The main thrust of the corporation’s argument is to form a steering committee to develop the service centre of the base into a science centre. With those huge warehouses, the corporation believes that the base has incredible potential for an education facility and tourist resort based on a science centre. The corporation is endeavouring to obtain for 7SD a portion of land for the RSL to develop a war veterans’ home and also to retain that section of the grounds for the army aviation centre at Oakey. To date, the Premier’s Department has given no response to an invitation sent by the Regional Development Corporation for a representative of that department to be a member of the steering committee. Another task undertaken by the development corporation was the establishment of an enterprise centre, which has given a number of small businesses the opportunity to establish themselves in a centre that already has secretarial support staff and, after 12 months, to be able to move out on their own and develop their own successful small businesses. The development corporation now wants to establish an industrial enterprise centre, but it is not getting the support that it would like for that from DEVETIR and DEET. In conclusion, I summarise by saying that that relatively small department has a huge job ahead of it to encourage and support manufacturing industries in the regions of Queensland. I have endeavoured to be constructive in my speech to encourage the task of the Toowoomba officers and those other regional development officers throughout the State. I would like this Government to free up its attitudes and policies towards free enterprise so that we can get back to the days when Toowoomba was regarded as the place to go to establish business. People were given every encouragement to establish and succeed in business and, as a result, Queensland led the other States of Australia in generating employment. Time expired. Hon. G. N. SMITH (Townsville East—Minister for Business, Industry and Regional Development) (9.46 p.m.), in reply: One of the characteristics of this debate tonight has been the very favourable recognition of the role of the department. That has been expressed not only by Government members, but also—and significantly—by members of the Opposition, and that is certainly appreciated. The debate has generally been conducted with good grace, with a touch of humour here and there. At times, some information, which will certainly be beneficial, came out of the debate. A number of the contributions made by Opposition members were covered or responded to very effectively by members of my committee. Therefore, I will not take up Legislative Assembly 2141 24 October 1991 additional time by replying to them. They have been dealt with once already. I will deal with the comments made by various speakers in the order in which they were made. The first speaker on the Government side was the member for Mulgrave. He has had considerable experience in small business himself. He paid tribute to the role of the QSBC and focused particularly on the fact that the corporation had been active in north Queensland where there has been some unemployment as a result of World Heritage listing. He also focused on the cooperation between the corporation and TAFE, and the results that have been achieved to equip young people to better understand how to make their way in the world of small business. He also talked about the professional standards of the corporation and, without saying too much about it, that is the way the organisation is conducted today. The political rhetoric of old and the Federal Government bashing that occurred previously are totally absent. Opposition members would have to agree that there is no politicisation whatsoever of the QSBC. The next Government member to speak in this debate was the member for Mount Coot-tha. She certainly brought her professional knowledge to bear in contributing to the debate. She detailed the industry opportunities in the field of technology, particularly in biotechnology, and she correctly pointed out that this Government has directed resources into the information technology area and into opportunities in waste management technologies. She recognised our efforts to raise the level of research and development in Queensland and has a very strong interest in the lot of women in industry. The member for Greenslopes, Mr Fenlon, put forward the suggestion of a State register of industry research needs. The Government is soon to release a directory of research and development in Queensland, which will provide a comprehensive list of research and development capabilities in both the public and private sectors. That will go some of the way towards providing the environment for cooperation between industry and the Academe where there are still problems in identifying the actual needs of industry. I thank the member for his contribution and for his continued efforts in his role as a member of the Griffith University Council and his interest in the Mount Gravatt research centre which we hope will come into being in the not too far distant future. The member for Archerfield, Mr Palaszczuk, certainly should be commended for acknowledging the benefits of this Government’s new State purchasing policy, and this department obviously has some role to play, particularly in the policy area. He also touched on Mr Beddall’s role as the Federal Government’s Minister for Small Business and said that there is a degree of overlapping interest. He correctly pointed out that the opposition parties, while suggesting tax cuts and expenditure increases for the State Budget, have yet to indicate what assistance measures provided to business and industry and regions of the State will have to be abolished to pay for those tax cuts. He pointed out that today the Government operates in an open and accountable way. That is well recognised throughout the business community and is often mentioned to me in an appreciative way as I move around the board rooms of the State, and particularly in Brisbane. The member for Townsville, Mr Davies, laid to rest the myth of the enterprise zone and its projects, which were put about by the previous Government. If any member had any reason to be delighted if some of those phantom projects were brought to fruition, it would be Mr Davies. As he said, very few projects really stood up to the cold scrutiny of economic analysis. He also commented on the range of services provided by this Government and he identified that those services are being delivered throughout Queensland. The member for Mount Isa, Mr McGrady, is a passionate advocate for provincial Queensland and a very able spokesman for those people who do not enjoy the luxury of living close to where the services are available for the great bulk of the population. I Legislative Assembly 2142 24 October 1991

always listen with great interest to what he says, because Queensland is a diversified State and it is very important that we recognise the contribution that the provincial and western areas make. The Government has a responsibility to service those areas adequately, and there needs to be a reciprocal gesture because great wealth is generated in those western regions. It would be fair to say that no previous Government has done as much for the Mount Isa area as the Goss Labor Government. The member for Mount Isa pointed out that over time the regional office network will be extended from 6 to 13, which will add significantly to the department’s capacity to deliver services. Time is going rapidly and I want to touch on a couple of matters very quickly. Many of the opening remarks made by the Opposition spokesman were rhetoric, but I understand that because I have been in Opposition myself. When referring to matters of substance, the Opposition spokesman claimed that regional development begins and ends in George Street under this Government. In fact, this Government has funded a Regional Development and Services Program with the provision of $15m; it has allocated $2.5m to the Regional Projects Investment Program; and it has increased the number of departmental officers operating in the field by a factor of four. He accused this Government of inactivity and failing to reduce the burden of Government regulation and legislation on business. However, what this Government is doing is in stark contrast to the inactivity of the previous Government. Sir Ernest Savage said it all. His statement reads— “What the Business Regulation Review Unit is doing now should have been done five years ago. They are making a genuine attempt at doing what our report recommended.” I think that statement is particularly significant. Land tax is really not part of my portfolio, but because the matter was mentioned during the debate, I feel obliged to respond. The Western Australian Government has imposed a freeze on land tax, and the exemption level in that State is $5,000 whereas in Queensland it is $160,000. Queensland has the second-lowest land tax regime in this country. For the first time in 20 years, there will be a genuine cut in the rate as at 1 January 1992. The loss to Government revenue of those concessions is $40m. I can only assume that anyone who claims that an alternative Government would completely eliminate land tax must be thoroughly focused on the concept of introducing another tax, such as GST. During the debate, examples were given of just how much damage such a tax would do in the community. The honourable member for Surfers Paradise also mentioned tax breaks, and I remind him that he was dealing with a matter that is rightly the responsibility of the Federal Government. I saw the statement setting out what he proposed by way of State Government concessions but, quite frankly, I believe that they mirrored exactly the type of programs that are in place under this Government at present and added nothing. I turn now to the comments made by the honourable member for Nerang, Mr Connor, who is not the official Liberal Party spokesman. Mr Elder: I don’t think he is the official anything, actually. Mr SMITH: He has shifted around a bit. However, he made a bit of an attempt to contribute to the debate. He made one statement with which I must take issue. He said that he did not believe that the QSBC should have a union representative on its board. I point out to him that Mr John Hogg is the secretary of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association and has vital knowledge of the retail industry in Queensland. In common with all other board members, he brings to the QSBC a wide range of expertise and skills. Legislative Assembly 2143 24 October 1991

Time expired. At 9.56 p.m., The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hollis): Order! Under the provisions of the Sessional Order agreed to by the House on 1 October, I shall now put the questions for the Vote under consideration and the balance remaining unvoted for Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development (Trust and Special Funds). The questions for the following Votes were put, and agreed to— $45,123,000—Economic Services, Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development (Consolidated Fund). $29,470,000—Economic Services, Department of Business, Industry and Regional Development (Trust and Special Funds). Progress reported.

CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLICATIONS BILL Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (9.58 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act relating to the classification of publications, and for related purposes.” Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Milliner, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (9.59 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” The law regarding the censorship of literature is presently contained in a number of statutes. In essence, however, the underlying principle of law is that persons are prohibited from selling or distributing publications which are indecent or obscene. Honourable members’ attention is drawn in particular to the provisions of the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act which contains a number of sections dealing with the printing, publishing or distribution of obscene material. The mechanism for ensuring that these principles of law are adhered to is by police action and, eventually, a court determination whether a particular publication seized is, or is not, obscene. There have been numerous court cases on the meaning of the term “obscenity”. Generally, the test of obscenity is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene is to deprave and corrupt those minds open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a publication of the type may fall. Other court cases have emphasised the indecent or disgusting nature of a publication and whether it offends good taste and decency, irrespective of whether it is likely to corrupt or deprave anybody. In short, the very concept of whether something is obscene or not is a difficult matter which ultimately rests upon the views of the magistrate or judge who hears the case. A system of censorship which depends upon police prosecution and court determinations of a nebulous legal concept is not satisfactory and is not efficient. The reality is that such a Legislative Assembly 2144 24 October 1991 system amounts to nothing more than a legal lottery. Such a system is not satisfactory. It puts the police in an invidious position because they have to carry out the role of primary censors. This is a task which most police, I am sure, would wish not to fulfil. It also places the judiciary in a very difficult situation because, instead of interpreting a clear statutory requirement, they have to make moral decisions clothed in legal jargon. The system is not efficient because there is not a systematic mechanism for ensuring that the vast majority of publications are subjected to scrutiny. A system placing total reliance on prosecutions is a hit-and-miss affair. Finally, it is not effective because unscrupulous persons can take advantage of the sporadic enforcement process to sell or distribute material which may well be obscene. It was in an endeavour to deal with the unsatisfactory nature of the law that the Objectionable Literature Act was passed in 1954. Provision was made in that statute for censorship of literature by legislatively mandated administrative procedures in addition to criminal prosecutions. Whilst the emphasis in the Vagrants, Gaming, and Other Offences Act is on obscene material, in the Objectionable Literature Act it is on objectionable literature. It may seem strange nowadays, but the factor which lay behind the enactment of this statute was the paperback revolution in the publishing world. In the early 1950s, great concern was being expressed in Australia at the importation of crime comics. Apparently in Queensland in 1954, the Dragnet comic was seen as a threat to society, and so soon after the Act was passed the Literature Board of Review banned it. Honourable members interested in this piece of social history may wish to peruse the decision of the Literature Board of Review v. Invincible Press 1955 Queensland State Reports at page 525. The Full Court unanimously held, on an appeal from a decision of the Literature Board of Review, that Dragnet comics were objectionable within the meaning of the Act in that they unduly emphasised matters of crime and had a tendency to deprave or corrupt persons of immature mind amongst whom they were intended or likely to be distributed. In fact, the definition of the term “objectionable” in section 5 of the Act is breathtaking in its scope. The board is given power to ban, amongst other things, publications—to quote the Act—“calculated to injure the citizens of this State”. The scope for political censorship was thus enormous and during its history the Literature Board of Review was not backward in banning publications. For example, from June 1954 to June 1981, 607 banning orders were made and in only six instances were appeals heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the board on four occasions, and overturned two decisions, one in 1957 over the ban of the popular magazine Weekend and once in 1958 over the ban of the magazine Gals and Gags. In 1954, the Commonwealth did not have a well-structured system of literature classification. It now does. Under this Bill, it is proposed to replace the Objectionable Literature Act with a new piece of legislation establishing a more efficient administrative structure, but at the same time ensuring that material offensive to most citizens will not be allowed to be sold or distributed in this State. The Commonwealth censor classifies literature as either unrestricted, Category 1, Category 2, or refused classification. I seek leave to table a document which outlines the classification guidelines utilised by the Commonwealth censor for literature. Leave granted. Mr MILLINER: Under this Bill, the decisions of the Commonwealth censor will be picked up but only material falling into the unrestricted class will be allowed to be sold in Queensland. This equates roughly with the present law, but it does improve it in a number of respects. The Commonwealth censor does not classify all publications distributed in Australia. The Commonwealth system is a voluntary one, and as such a considerable amount of literature is sold without being classified. Under the Bill, provision is made for codes of conduct to be drawn up governing the activities of distributors and sellers of Legislative Assembly 2145 24 October 1991 literature. For example, it is intended that a code of conduct will be developed with the newsagency council with respect to the activities of newsagents. The Bill also provides that a distributor who agrees to be bound by a code of conduct and who is a fit and proper person can be approved by the State publications classification officer. The beneficial impact of such an approval will be explained shortly. I return now to the situation of a distributor or seller dealing with a publication which has not been classified by the Commonwealth. Let us assume that a member of the public sees a publication and finds it objectionable. Under the Bill, that person can complain to the State publications classification officer. The publications classification officer will check to see if the publication has been classified by the Commonwealth. If it has been classified by the Commonwealth censor as Category 1 or higher, the persons selling and distributing it may be prosecuted, subject to special provisions exempting distributors, retail sellers and advertisers in clause 19. If the publication has not been classified, the classification officer will be empowered to classify it himself using the same criteria as the Commonwealth censor. If it is classified as higher than unrestricted and it has been distributed by an approved distributor then neither the distributor nor the newsagent will be prosecuted, subject, of course, to the publication being withdrawn. If the publication was distributed by a non-approved distributor then both the seller and the distributor may be prosecuted. If approved distributors regularly distribute material which is classified by the State classification officer as higher than unrestricted, then the question will arise as to whether the approved status of the distributor will be withdrawn, with all of the consequences which would flow from that. In short, the Bill provides an incentive for distributors and sellers to abide by the law and, in addition, ensures that bona fide newsagents operating through reputable distributors will not be subject to prosecution. Great care has been taken in drafting the Bill to protect the interests of newsagents and booksellers who are placed in an invidious position elsewhere in Australia due to the fact that much of the material they sell has not been classified by the Commonwealth and they have no means of knowing how it may be classified. Under this Bill, through the establishment of a State classification office and limited immunity from prosecution, the approval system ensures that this deficiency in the Commonwealth scheme is overcome. Of course, the Government would like to see as much uniformity in decisions as possible between the Commonwealth and Queensland, and for that reason the classification officer is empowered to review his decisions at any time. The Bill also has regard to the fact that there is some material falling within the Category 1 and Category 2 type which is presently being used by health authorities in AIDS education and otherwise educating persons against the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. It is not the intention of the Government to in any way hinder bodies carrying out this activity, and accordingly pursuant to the Bill the publications classification officer is empowered to exempt a body from the Bill, or specified provisions, with respect to either a single publication, a number of publications or a class of publications provided they are publications of a medical, educational or scientific character. It is intended that the publications classification officer be given sufficient latitude to ensure that the activities of bona fide organisations who are distributing educational, medical or scientific publications are advanced. This clause will help not only organisations involved in the area of combating and treating sexually transmitted diseases and providing birth control advice, but also universities, bodies of advanced learning and other bodies which are producing, distributing or selling socially beneficial publications which otherwise would be prohibited. In common with the Classification of Films Bill, specific provision is made for combating child pornography. Honourable members will note that the Bill makes it an offence for a person to knowingly have in his or Legislative Assembly 2146 24 October 1991 her possession child pornography, as well as procuring a minor for the making or production of a prohibited publication. The penalties in the Bill have been drafted so as to ensure that persons responsible for child pornography receive the highest range of sentences. Under the Bill, it is an offence punishable with one year’s imprisonment or $18,000 or both to knowingly have possession of a child abuse publication. In other words, possession of itself will be a criminal act. This provision mirrors a recommendation of the Australian Law Reform Commission report on censorship procedure. In that report the commission said— “The mere possession of child pornography should, however, be an offence . . . The production of child pornography is likely to involve child sex abuse and is often associated with child sex abuse offences. The prime concern must be the welfare of children. Australia’s obligations in this respect have been emphasised by its ratification of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Under article 34 signatory States undertake to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. Particular mention is made of measures to prevent the inducement or coercion of a child to engage in unlawful sexual activity and the exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials. The commission suggested in the discussion paper that the best way to safeguard the welfare of children is to eliminate the production of and market for child pornography. It proposed that the possession and production of child pornography, regardless of its intended use, be prohibited. The commission received many submissions in support of this proposal and recommends that it be adopted.” The Government is in full agreement with the commission, and is determined to take every responsible action to protect our State’s children from the activities of paedophiles. One aspect of enforcement procedure requires explanation. Under the Bill, if a person complains to the publications classification officer and the officer determines to investigate the complaint, provision is made for an inspector or a police officer to enter the place where the publication is being sold, seize it and forward it for classification purposes. This power is absolutely necessary because otherwise persons wishing to evade the Act could easily do so by refusing entry to an inspector and disposing of the complained publication. As many publications are issued weekly or monthly, it is critical that inspectors and the classification office be empowered to speedily investigate complaints and resolve them. If a power of this type is not provided for in the legislation, the integrity of the Bill would be diminished. As I said at the outset, the object of this Bill is to improve the law, not to fundamentally alter the type of publications sold or distributed in Queensland. The Objectionable Literature Act 1954 was rightly criticised as being drafted in a vague and potentially dangerous manner. There was appropriate criticism that Queensland should have more regard to the administrative system of classifications established by the Commonwealth. Finally, there was justifiable criticism that newsagents should not be the subject of action by the police when they had no means of knowing in advance whether or not the magazine lawfully obtained by them was obscene. This Bill will remove any doubts as to what is or is not acceptable, relieve the police of the task of being censors, but at the same time ensure that the genuine concerns expressed by many people about publications which ought to be sold in Queensland are given effect to. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Slack, adjourned. Legislative Assembly 2147 24 October 1991

CLASSIFICATION OF FILMS BILL Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (10.10 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— “That leave be granted to bring in a Bill for an Act relating to the classification of films, and for related purposes.” Motion agreed to.

First Reading Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Milliner, read a first time.

Second Reading Hon. G. R. MILLINER (Everton—Minister for Justice and Corrective Services) (10.11 p.m.): I move— “That the Bill be now read a second time.” The Bill before the House deals with the law governing the classification of films, video tapes, video discs or other forms of recording from which a visual image can be produced. Since 1949, Queensland has allowed the Commonwealth censor to classify films for it. In fact, at the present time the Commonwealth censor has the responsibility for censoring films for each Australian State as well as for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. This Bill is intended to ensure that this uniform approach continues, and that the Queensland legislation governing the classification of films is updated to reflect agreements reached by censorship Ministers and to ensure that the close cooperation which has existed between Queensland and Commonwealth censorship officials continues. Schedule 2 of the Bill saves this agreement, but provision is made for a substitute agreement to be reached with the Commonwealth in the future. Although the Commonwealth has been the primary censor for films in Queensland since 1949, in 1974 a secondary State layer of censorship was created in the form of the Films Board of Review. From its creation in 1974, the Queensland Films Board of Review regularly exercised its power to ban films. Some of the films were banned due to the amount of violence they depicted. However, most were banned because the board thought they were too sexually explicit or just unsuitable for viewing. A number of the films banned by the board caused Queensland to be the subject of ridicule throughout Australia. One film falling within this category was The Last Temptation of Christ. Legislation establishing the Films Board of Review will be repealed by this Bill. All sensible people recognise that some films classified by the Commonwealth censor should be the subject of further consideration. Under this Bill, and also in the Commonwealth ordinance, there is provision for an appeal to the appeal censor. In addition, this Bill contains a new provision allowing the censor to review a previous decision after two years. Finally, the appeal censor is also empowered upon application or at his or her motion to revoke the classification of a film or the refusal to classify a film. In other words, the Bill contains a number of mechanisms designed to ensure that evolving community standards are given effect to. In line with all other Australian States, X-rated films and videos will continue to be banned. Although some persons and groups have argued that non-violent erotica should be freely available for adult persons, it is the view of this Government that sexually explicit material of the type falling within the X category is unacceptable to the majority of Queenslanders and indeed to the majority of Australians and should not receive the sanction of legislation passed by this Parliament. The Bill contains a number of provisions dealing with child pornography. The existing censorship legislation is silent on this matter, as is the relevant Commonwealth Act. Legislative Assembly 2148 24 October 1991

However, the Government is of the view that every effort should be made to stamp out this pernicious activity, and consequently the Bill criminalises the mere possession of child abuse publications, the procuring of children for objectionable films and the showing to a child of an objectionable film. I am sure all members of this House and all decent Queenslanders would support every move that can be made to wipe out the activities of paedophiles, and this Bill, by providing for gaol terms for these individuals, hopefully will send a message that every effort will be made in Queensland to protect children from the activities of these deviants. I should also point out that, pursuant to article 34 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, signatory States undertook to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. The provisions of this Bill meet Queensland’s international obligations. The child pornography provisions contained in the Bill are intended to operate in conjunction with the offences contained in section 228 of the Criminal Code. The intention underlying the insertion of these provisions in the Bill is to ensure that there is the greatest possible scope for the police to deal with this criminal activity. Provision is also made in the Bill for full dissemination of information to persons about the classification of films. Inquiries in recent years found widespread lack of knowledge among Australians about the classification system and what specific classifications actually meant. Censorship Ministers agreed in 1988 that video cassette covers, advertisements and film trailers should carry pertinent consumer information about the classification of a particular film and what that classification means. In response to this decision, the chief censor issued determinations requiring the provision of such information on video covers and advertisements for films. These determinations are given a statutory basis by specifically drafted clauses in the Bill. The definition of “film” specifically excludes computer programs. The question of classifying computer games is to be determined by censorship Ministers in the next 12 months and, in the absence of a national agreement, the status quo is maintained by the Bill. In reaching a decision, censorship Ministers will have regard to the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission in report No. 55—censorship procedure, which has only recently been released. The commission recommended that computer programs be subject to the Commonwealth Classification of Publications Ordinance. The commission did point out that “there are physical difficulties in classifying computer programs”. Their interactive nature means that what is accessed is determined by the player. To view the entire contents of the program may not be possible. Concerns were expressed that serious delays would be experienced by importers if computer programs are classified. It was pointed out that distributors who import computer software under licence agreements compete against unlicensed importers who import the same product simultaneously. Any delay in classification will disadvantage licensed importers compared with unlicensed operators. The Australian Law Reform Commission recognised that implementation of this recommendation will require additional resources for the Commonwealth Office of Film and Literature Classification. For example, the Films Board of Review will need sufficient computers to allow it to examine the variety of computer software available. Consequently, effective national classification of computer software will need not only a commitment by all jurisdictions but also—just as importantly—agreement by the Commonwealth to upgrade funding for the Commonwealth censor. As I have indicated, unilateral State action in this complex area is not proposed, nor do I believe it to be feasible. Any move towards censoring computer games must be coordinated with the Commonwealth if it is to succeed because, apart from the above issues, the fact remains that computer games are available in two forms: firstly, computer software bought over the counter and, secondly, games accessed over the telephone Legislative Assembly 2149 24 October 1991 from a bulletin board by using a modem attached to a computer. This telephone accessed material can only be dealt with by the Commonwealth and, as I have said, if this issue is to be addressed comprehensively, it will need the cooperation of all levels of government in Australia. I do assure honourable members that there are laws in existence preventing the sale and distribution of adult computer games. For example, the Customs (Prohibited Import) Regulations prevent the importation of software containing sexually explicit or violent themes. The general criminal law is also applicable. However, the issue is not whether these games are legal or not, but whether a comprehensive classification regime should be put in place. On that point, the commission recommended against classifying all computer programs but, rather, only those that are likely to be classified higher than G. This is a complex and difficult area, and to ensure that it is approached responsibly and comprehensive solutions are developed, it is essential that all levels of government, the industry and the community work together. The Bill also provides for the registration of exhibitors and distributors of films and videos. Registration already is effected by the Censorship of Films Regulations 1985. The issue as to whether video outlets should be licensed was considered by the Commonwealth joint select committee on video material. In evidence to the committee, the Australian Federal Police recommended that all video traders be licensed and distributing points registered. The Australian Federal Police argued that registration would assist in policing and ensuring that illicit or illegal activities were minimised. The committee endorsed this approach and specifically recommended that all video outlets, including mail order outlets, be registered under the Commonwealth ordinance, and it be made an offence to trade without a certificate of registration. The Bill before the House ensures that not only video outlets but also exhibitors and distributors of films will be licensed, and inspectors appointed under the Act will ensure that the law is being complied with. The Commonwealth has no specific constitutional head of power to censor films or videos. However, for the past four decades, all Australian jurisdictions have recognised that it is sensible and appropriate that there be one authority censoring films for Australians. There is a difference between the situation pertaining to films and that with respect to literature. No national consensus has ever existed with respect to literature and this, in part, is caused by the fact that much of the literature subject to classification is produced in Australia, whereas very few films, in comparison, are locally produced. The legal difference is that the Commonwealth, through its power over imports and exports, has a more secure constitutional foundation to censor films than it does with respect to literature. Indeed, the first attempt by the Commonwealth to censor films was in 1918 when a Commonwealth Censorship Board was established and, from April of that year, all imported films were reviewed before a compulsory certificate of registration was granted. Locally produced films were not investigated by the Commonwealth until 1926 and, even then, only on a piecemeal basis. Now, as most members would be aware, all films produced in Australia for exhibition and distribution must be classified and subject to scrutiny by the Commonwealth censor. The current Commonwealth legislation is the Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983. This ordinance was promulgated following agreement by State and Commonwealth Ministers. The ordinance was designed to give effect to the following principles— adults are entitled to see what they wish in private and in public; people should not be exposed to unsolicited material offensive to them; and children must be adequately protected from material likely to harm or disturb them. The ordinance does give effect to these principles. As I have said, the Bill before the House in almost all respects applies the Commonwealth ordinance so far as it relates to films as the relevant law for Queensland and deems the Commonwealth censor and the Legislative Assembly 2150 24 October 1991

Commonwealth appeal censor to be the relevant film and video censors for Queensland. The Commonwealth scheme replaces the cumbersome process of court actions to determine whether a particular film is obscene, with an administrative structure which sets out clear legislative guidelines as to what films will be classified, the various levels of classification and the bases upon which decisions to classify are made. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table outlining the various classifications adopted under the Commonwealth ordinance and the guidelines for the classification of films and videotapes adopted by the Commonwealth censor. Leave granted. OFFICE OF FILM AND LITERATURE CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES FOR FILMS AND VIDEOTAPES

G General (suitable for all ages) Parents should feel confident that children may view material in this classification without supervision, knowing that no distress or harm is likely to be caused. The following are permissible— Language: The mildest expletives, but only if infrequent and used in exceptional and justifiable circumstances. Sex: Very discreet verbal references or implications, provided they are justified by the narrative or other context. Violence: Minimal, mild and incidental depictions, provided they are justified by the context. PG Parental Guidance (parental guidance recommended for persons under 15) Films in this classification may contain adult themes or concepts which, when viewed by those under 15 years, require the guidance of a parent or guardian. The following are permissible— Language: Low level coarse language is acceptable, provided its use is not excessive. Sex: Discreet verbal and/or visual depictions, and references to sexual matters. Violence: Depictions of violence must be mild in their impact, and/or presented in a stylized or theatrical fashion, or in an historical context. Other: Discreet informational and/or anti-drug references. Mild supernatural or “horror” themes may warrant ‘PG’. Minimal nudity if in a justifiable context. M 15+ Mature (recommended for mature audiences 15 years and over) Material which is considered likely to disturb, harm or offend those under the age of 15 years will be classified ‘M’. While most adult themes may be dealt with, the degree of explicitness and intensity of treatment will determine what can be accommodated in this classification. Language: Crude language may be used, but not when it is excessive, unduly assaultive, or sexually explicit. Sex: Sexual intercourse or other sexual activity may be discreetly implied or simulated. Violence: Realistic violence of medium intensity may be depicted, but violent depictions with a high degree of realism or impact are acceptable only if contextually justified. Legislative Assembly 2151 24 October 1991

Other: Drug use may be depicted, but not in an advocatory manner. Supernatural and “horror” special effects usually warrant an ‘M’ classification. R 18 + Restricted (restricted to adults 18 years and over) Material considered likely to be harmful to those under 18 years and possibly offensive to some sections of the adult community warrants an ‘R’ classification. Language: There are virtually no restrictions on language in ‘R’ films. Sex: Sexual intercourse or other sexual activity may be realistically implied or simulated. Depictions of sexual violence are acceptable only to the extent that they are necessary to the narrative and not exploitative. Violence: Highly realistic and explicit depictions of violence may be shown, but not if unduly detailed, relished or cruel. Other: Drug abuse may be depicted, but not in an advocatory manner. Extreme “horror” special effects usually warrant an ‘R’. X 18 + Contains sexually explicit material (restricted to adults 18 years and over) No depiction of sexual violence, coercion or non-consent of any kind is permitted in this classification. Material which can be accommodated in this classification includes explicit depictions of sexual acts between consenting adults and mild non-violent fetishes. Refused Classification Any film or video which includes any of the following will be refused classification: (a) depictions of child sexual abuse, bestiality, sexual acts accompanied by offensive fetishes, or exploitative incest fantasies (b) unduly detailed and/or relished acts of extreme violence or cruelty; explicit or unjustifiable depictions of sexual violence against nonconsenting persons (c) detailed instruction or encouragement in: (i) matters of crime or violence (ii) the abuse of proscribed drugs. Mr MILLINER: As honourable members will note, the Bill picks up these classifications with the exception of the X category. As I mentioned at the outset, this Bill does not fundamentally alter the law or administrative arrangements underpinning the current regime governing film censorship. Apart from abolishing the legislation creating the Films Board of Review, the major aim of this Bill is to consolidate and improve the law but leave the underlying policy in place—a policy, I might add, enshrined in Queensland legislation since 1947 and which is fundamentally sound because it is premised on cooperative federalism. Laws governing censorship must always strike an appropriate balance between allowing individuals the right to hear and see what they choose but at the same time ensuring that community standards are upheld and that persons are not exploited. It gives me great pleasure to introduce this Bill because it consolidates and updates the law regarding film censorship but at the same time strikes the right balance between the rights of people in a free and democratic society to view what they wish and creative artists to depict what they please with the right of the State to protect its citizens from exploitative and offensive material and to ensure that, to paraphrase the American Supreme Court, the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society are upheld and strengthened. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Slack, adjourned. Legislative Assembly 2152 24 October 1991

LANDS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 23 October (see p. 2004). Mr QUINN (South Coast) (10.26 p.m.): This Bill, the Lands Legislation Amendment Bill, will introduce into the law a number of the recommendations contained in the Wolfe review of land policy and administration in Queensland, tabled in this House in November last year. Since February last year, freeholding of Crown leasehold land has been frozen. The passage of this Bill will enable freeholding to recommence but under different conditions. It also alters quite dramatically the method used to determine Crown rentals over leasehold land. By unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of the existing leases, the Government has broken its contract with the lessees. A very dangerous precedent has been set, and one that should not be discounted lightly. Imagine the uproar if Government broke commercial contracts with the business community. Yet this is what this legislation will do with many hundreds of individual lease-holders. Under existing leases, rents are determined for 10-year periods. This legislation introduces a system that permits the Government of the day to alter the rentals at its own whim. The new system calculates rent at a prescribed rate or percentage of the unimproved capital value of land as determined by the Valuer-General. The Bill fails to document the prescribed rate and the Minister offers only a statement in his second-reading speech to indicate that some consultation with industry groups may take place before the prescribed rate is struck. Under these conditions, it is impossible to determine whether or not this legislation will result in undue hardship for many rural producers. Agreeing to this facet of the legislation is like signing a blank cheque, and with a Labor Government only too eager to write in the numbers, nobody would contemplate such an act. The Wolfe report recommended prescribed rates for the various categories of leases, and the Minister should have brought those rates, or his own version of the rates, into this House so that the fairness of what he is proposing can be accurately assessed. Relying on the unimproved capital value as a fair base for rental determination is also a risky proposition under this Government, because we have already seen the Government manipulate unimproved capital values for land tax purposes by dispensing with the annual valuations for most of Queensland. By keeping the unimproved capital value high in a falling property market, this Government has given itself undeserved revenue. The same tactic could be used to keep lease rentals artificially high on Crown land. Even if the unimproved capital values drop, the Government will be tempted to increase the prescribed rate to maintain the level of rental returns. While some may argue that this system will allow the Government to reduce rents in times of hardship, I doubt that this will occur. The Wolfe report also recommended “a moving average of the latest 3 years of unimproved capital value” as being fair to both the lessee and the Crown, but this formula was not followed in the Bill. Instead, if he considers that the new rental would be an undue increase, the Minister may average the valuation over the number of years he considers appropriate. Again, the discretion for the size of the rental increases lies in the hands of the Minister, and this is at odds with Wolfe’s recommendation that the rental system should operate automatically and not be subjected to ad hoc political decisions. On the matter of freeholding—the Minister must, under this legislation, consider a number of additional factors in relation to any application received after 5 February 1990, the day that freeholding was frozen. Environmental and land-care issues are now to be taken into account. Bearing in mind a record that is somewhat wanting in this regard, I Legislative Assembly 2153 24 October 1991 believe these new considerations to be a step forward and a practical solution to land degradation. The terms of agricultural farms and grazing homestead freeholding leases are to be no more than 30 years—incidentally, Wolfe recommended up to 50—and capital repayments will bear interest at prescribed rates, but again there is no clue as to what that rate will be. The discount available for early payment is changed and these new conditions will make it less attractive for lessees to move to freehold tenure. The Crown’s reservation of quarry material such as stone, gravel and sand found upon land being freeholded by application after 5 February 1990 also bears examination. Although it is a Wolfe recommendation, it has the effect of the Crown issuing two types of deed of grant. This restriction does not apply to existing freeholding leases or where the application was received before 5 February 1990. Again, this provision has the effect of discouraging lessees moving to a freehold situation. The new hardships provisions for natural, artificial or economic disaster granting the Minister powers to defer annual rentals or instalments seem reasonable, but the new section dealing with the destruction of trees raises some fears as to the spirit of how it would be enforced. A $24,000 penalty for the destruction of a single tree seems oppressive and unrealistic, especially when a similar penalty does not apply to grazing homestead freeholding leases or freehold land. There are many positive initiatives in this Bill. Proper land management and land-care practices will be encouraged. The various terms and conditions of the land tenure system will be rationalised and simplified and, if administered such that a balance is struck between ensuring an adequate return for the Crown and the need to support and encourage those who contribute to the State’s economy through use of land, this Bill has much to recommend it. However, if the Government’s objective is to apply commercial rates in such a manner that the lessees are constantly unsure of their security of tenure, the Bill is a backward step. Allied to this is the fact that, over the past 30 years, Australian farm incomes have continued to fall in real terms, and the world economy is such that the trend towards continued low commodity prices shows no signs of abating. Because the assessment of the unimproved capital value always trails the property market movements by at least 12 months, adjustments in Crown rentals will always trail farm incomes down, thus keeping lessees under constant financial pressure. It is on this basis that the Liberals will be opposing this legislation. Mrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (10.33 p.m.): The Land Legislation Amendment Bill 1991, which is another step in the reform of land administration and policy in this State, is based largely on the findings of the Wolfe report. On 27 March 1991, the Land Policy Administration Committee was appointed by the Minister, and delivered its report on 7 September of that same year. The terms of reference were quite clear. The appropriateness of various types of leases and their terms and conditions, along with matters relating to freeholding, were to be looked into. The committee also addressed itself to the basic principles covering breaches of lease conditions and, indeed, the conditions themselves. The administration of Crown land cannot reasonably be expected to proceed without some conflict, and the committee considered principles for the resolution of grievances which surface from time to time. Because by their very nature Crown lands are public assets, and the people of Queensland should be able to expect a reasonable return when those assets are leased or converted by individuals, the methods of revenue determinations were also investigated. The Wolfe review represented the first major review into the Acts and policies relating to Crown land in this State for over 30 years. When the committee presented its report, the matters raised were considered by an interdepartmental committee. As a result of these considerations, and with the support of the Cabinet, the Minister has introduced this very important piece of legislation into the House. In all, 95 recommendations were made in the Wolfe report. However, it is not Legislative Assembly 2154 24 October 1991 practical for all to be adequately addressed now. I am sure that, in due course, the Minister will introduce further legislation as part of an ongoing reform. The amendments in this Bill relate most specifically to the issue of freeholding and previous contracts that have been entered into, the changes in rental and the need for a phasing-in process, taking into consideration situations of hardship. The legislation will also address issues relating to land protection and a range of environmental issues. As well, by amendment, the legislation will give force to several changes proposed in respect of regionalisation and the need for greater administrative efficiency on the part of the Department of Lands. Page 155 of the report, under the heading “Efficient Administrative Procedures”, states— “Changes to the Department’s present structures and procedures will gain the support of the community which perceives a need for some of the decision making process to be made at the local level. The present centralisation of decision making in Brisbane is criticised as in some instances it has been seen as not providing an opportunity for discussion at a local level before decisions are made.” Where have we heard that before? Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr Elder interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The members for Warrego and Manly will cease talking to each other. They can go outside if they want to. Mrs BIRD: For years, our political opponents, who now occupy the Opposition benches, have berated Labor Governments as being centralist, yet we find that it is indeed they who stripped away from the people living outside the south-east corner any real opportunity to have meaningful input to decision-making. Since the election of this Government, our commitment to regionalisation has been steady. One needs only to look at sectors such as education, police, ambulance services, fire services and health to find examples of that commitment. However, I must say that mere regionalisation without effective monitoring will not bring the efficiencies expected of it. The Wolfe report acknowledges this danger. Page 155 of that report stated further— “In any such process there of course needs to be some limitations on, and clarification of, the decision-making process and the exercise of the power of delegation. Appropriate checks and balances and consistency in applying policy in decision making are very relevant issues.” The Minister has already moved on the issue of regionalisation. This Bill will give legislative force to those decisions that have already been made. The desire to make the workings of Government departments more relevant to those that they service makes the process of regionalisation imperative. As I understand it, the last major changes to the Land Act were achieved some 30 years ago. Since then, numerous amendments have seen the Act change on an ad hoc basis, resulting in a legislative framework that is out of keeping with the needs of a modern society. In his second-reading speech, the Minister highlighted some of those deficiencies, and they bear repeating. He said that the legislation, because it was not consistent or sequentially structured, led to a degree of administrative complexity with the obvious results being high and sometimes unnecessary costs. He said also that the Act and its amendments are obviously a product of a bygone era. Queensland society has changed dramatically over the intervening years. Our economic base has altered. Our attitudes to the care of the land have undergone change. There is within society a realisation that Crown land belongs to all Queenslanders and is not simply in existence for the sole use and unchecked exploitation of a few. Legislative Assembly 2155 24 October 1991

This Bill is wide-ranging in respect of the issues that it addresses. In the time available to me tonight, I wish to address most of my comments to matters relating to rentals and to also consider processes of alleviating hardship. The Wolfe report clearly identifies that rentals were being inconsistently applied across different Acts and also across a large number of differing tenures that apply in this State. Under our predecessors, and for reasons known only to them, the department failed to ensure that rentals being charged kept pace with the cost of administration of leases. Most rentals are artificially low and the lapsed time between assessments, being usually 10 years, has led to large increases which, quite understandably, drew a negative reaction from the lessees. Unfortunately, Government has more often than not caved in to that pressure and continued to put off matters until another day. I do not for one moment suggest that rentals should be unduly harsh, nor do I suggest that compassion should not be applied when genuine hardship is identified. However, it is equally important that an equitable and methodical approach be taken to the striking of rent rates and their frequent reassessment designed to reflect costs. In addition, the Department of Lands must take some blame for the degree of confusion that exists in the minds of lessees and the general public. In the past, public education as to how leases are structured and rentals applied was dismally poor. In respect of those shortcomings, the Wolfe report made a number of significant recommendations. Rentals should be more commercial in their application, and there is a definite need for a significant increase. Rentals should be adjusted on an annual basis. Rentals should also be based on the unimproved capital value of the land. There should exist one standard valuation amount for all revenue-raising purposes, including land tax, rents and rates. Other recommendations were that a single grievance mechanism be established and that the Minister be given the power to use a moving platform of unimproved values should it be observed that an increase in values after assessment has an adverse impact. I wish to deal now with the recommendation to apply, that is, UCV or unimproved capital value. Wolfe recommended the adoption of unimproved capital value as the base for the calculation of rentals for almost all Crown leaseholds as the fairest and most efficient method of rental assessment. She also said that, in the longer term, it would be possible to change from the system based on unimproved capital value to a system based on site value if that value is to be applied in other circumstances in Queensland. The adoption of a standardised basic approach to statutory valuations should result in a reduction in the number of appeals. Unimproved capital value is theoretically the value of land before any improvements. Land value represents the value of unimproved land but includes permanent siteworks such as reclamation, retaining walls and the enhancement of soil fertility. Various arguments have been put in favour of UCV and, of course, there are those who would speak against it. On the positive side, UCV encourages the development of land to its highest potential use, as vacant land is rated at the same level as occupied land. That provides a disincentive to hold vacant land while not penalising in any way the development of the land. Because the same rate of taxation applies to all land—and the fact that work carried out benefits all land in the area—the owner of land obtains an unearned increment and, in reality, should pay for that by means of rates or rents. It is also argued that the provision of a valuation based on unimproved capital value is less costly than other valuation bases as mass appraisal techniques can be used. There is also less need to physically inspect properties. Furthermore, land value is used for the calculation of State land tax so that the cost of providing land values can be argued in some way to be shared. Legislative Assembly 2156 24 October 1991

A significant advantage of using unimproved capital value for all rentals lies in the fact that general economic trends can more accurately be reflective, that being achieved by taking advantage of the capacity to vary rates either up or down to keep them in line with fluctuations in the market. There are also some negatives, and I will list them briefly. UCV is only a partial measure of the value of the owner’s property and it may be argued as an unreliable measure of the owner’s capacity to pay. UCV is largely a theoretical value, and that is particularly the case in metropolitan areas where few vacant blocks of land remain, thus giving rise to problems in understanding by the general public. I also flag some concerns regarding possible inequities arising when one compares owners of freestanding homes with owners of non-strata title premises and multiresidential properties. The latter tend to benefit in comparison, as it is difficult to levy rates on individual units whilst the owner of a freestanding home pays rates on the basis of his entire block of land. Page 126 of the Wolfe report states that staff from the district offices of the Department of Lands met at a conference in Longreach and considered in detail the merits of the existing rent mechanism and explored a range of alternatives to it. The net rate system was obviously riddled with problems. Some 18 areas were identified. However, I will list only a few. Obviously, relativity within districts and between districts over a period of years had become unbalanced. The 10-year rental period was suggested as being too long, and the system operated with limited flexibility, impacting adversely on both the lessees and the Crown, as evidenced in the Carter report. The system more accurately addressed circumstances applicable to a State in its pioneer stage of development, rather than coming to grips with today’s circumstances. A development-driven mentality had pervaded the department, resulting in limited acknowledgment of the changes to the carrying capacities of the Crown estate. Unfortunately, communication between the department, land-holders and interest groups had been truncated, giving further currency to the “us versus them” syndrome. It is accepted that, although a rural rent system based on a percentage of unimproved capital value is perceived as the fairest method of rental assessment, implementation problems made it unattractive. However, Wolfe argues that— “The practical limitations of using unimproved value for all rural lands have now been largely overcome. The unimproved capital value method is now a viable alternative as estimates of unimproved capital value were introduced in 1988, and objectively determined financial rates of return for rural enterprises have been available from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Research Economics (ABARE) with continuous annual measurements since 1977-78.” Wolfe also points out that sales evidence is now more readily available; information and communication systems have advanced and thus made administrative procedures far more efficient; road access and property inspections are much simpler; and most lands in Queensland are now past the initial development stage. There no longer appears to be any need for rentals to be based on stock carried during the developmental period. The Bill being debated tonight will result in rentals being adjusted on the basis of annual valuation after 1 July 1993, bringing all rentals into line on a percentage of valuation. Consideration will also be given by the Minister in respect of non-competitive leases and special leases after that date in their first period for investigation and development. The Minister will have discretion in relation to charitable organisations and non-profit sporting and recreational organisations. Providing the amount is not less than the prescribed minimum, the Minister may set the rental accordingly. There are provisions in the Bill for remissions of rent on the grounds of hardship for residential leases where the residence is the principal place of residence. Also, through this legislation, the Minister Legislative Assembly 2157 24 October 1991 will now have at his disposal a much wider provision to defer rentals or annual instalments in cases of hardship. This hardship consideration is clearly defined within the legislation and refers to such things as serious illness or accident befalling the lessee. It will also take into consideration a natural or artificial disaster, which would obviously include things such as drought, flood, fire and cyclone. I am especially pleased to note that the Bill also enables the Minister to take economic questions into account. Of significance is the fact that recessionary effects, along with problems in relation to the marketing of produce—so long as they are directly related to the purpose of the lease—may be argued as valid grounds for ministerial consideration. Furthermore, the legislation will give authority to the Governor in Council to waive penalties on the total of the annual rent or a portion of the annual rent on grounds of hardship within the parameters outlined in the Bill. Whilst on the subject of penalties, it is worthy of note that the Bill puts in place a new commercial penalty rate for the non-payment of rents by the due date. It has been ascertained that the rate which currently exists—that is, 10 per cent—is substantially less than commercial rates. As a consequence of this, the Bill leaves room for a new rate to be prescribed. As the Minister pointed out in his second-reading speech, these rates and the rental rates themselves at this stage have not been set. Because of the time-lag between the introduction of this legislation and 1 July 1993, there remains sufficient time to give further consideration to the figures which should apply. The Minister has indicated his intention to consult with industry on these issues and has given an assurance that these rates will be promulgated in sufficient time for them to be absorbed prior to the date of commencement of the new system. This Bill amends several other Acts. The Miners’ Homestead Leases Act 1913 is amended to allow for the remission of rent for people such as pensioners in case of hardship where they occupy their own home, and at the same time brings up to date certain provisions regarding execution and transmission. In addition, the amendments allow for business, residence and market garden areas to come under the Act and, with certain exceptions, these areas are subjected to the same provisions as are miners’ homestead perpetual leases in such matters as forfeiture and registration of dealings. With minor amendments, the Valuation of Land Act 1944 will now allow the use of valuations under the Act for the purposes of rent under the Lands Act. In conclusion, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the members of the Wolfe committee on the excellent contribution they have made on the matter of land tenure in this State. No issue could be more fundamental to the operations of Government than to come to grips with land ownership, whether it be freehold or access to Crown land by way of some other tenure. The Bill before the House is long overdue—some would say decades overdue. I therefore have much pleasure in adding my voice to ensure its smooth passage through the House. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (10.53 p.m.): The member for Whitsunday paid lip-service to a speech that was written for her and that, obviously—judging by the comments she made—she did not fully understand. For example, she referred to “full consultation”. I do not know what her definition of “full consultation” is, but I am sure that the land-owners and the UGA and Cattlemen’s Union representatives were not aware of the contents of the Bill until the Opposition spokesman handed it to them. When interest groups are informed only after the Bill has been presented in the Parliament and would otherwise not know what was going on, I would not classify that as “full consultation”. The member for Whitsunday said that she did not like the rentals based on real valuation, and I take it that she meant rentals based on market valuation. Mr Palaszczuk: When your party was in Government, we saw Bills two minutes after they were introduced into the Parliament, and we had to debate them. Legislative Assembly 2158 24 October 1991

Mr STEPHAN: The honourable member is getting carried away with his own rhetoric. The previous Government provided ample opportunity for consultation when the Mineral Resources Bill was being prepared and, as a result, many changes were made during preparation of the final Bill. The member for Archerfield should not talk to me about consultation. The Minister has referred to the concept of real valuation and the imposition of rentals at a commercial rate, and I shudder at the thought of it. I get the impression that members of the Labor Party do not like the concept of the freeholding of land at all. They are doing all they can to stop it. If the Government is going to add 3 per cent to the real valuation, that will impose a considerable burden on the land-owner in respect of the rates that will have to be paid to the Crown to secure the right to occupy the land. The member for Isis, Mr Nunn, stated in his maiden speech that he thinks it is immoral for people to own their own land. Furthermore, he suggested that land should be treated in exactly the same way as we treat the air we breathe. I make it very clear that it is not the policy of the National Party to deprive people of the right to own their own land. People have the right to own their own land in much the same way as they own any other type of property. Mr Nunn: I will explain it to you later. It is common sense. Mr STEPHAN: It is not common sense. It is a sample of the honourable member’s rhetoric. During the Minister’s second-reading speech, he referred to rental assessment. He stated— “This Bill proposes to amend the basis for rental assessment by introducing a standard method of calculating rentals as a percentage of the unimproved capital value of the land.” This comment is not in keeping with the views expressed by the member for Whitsunday. Just the thought of the amount that will be paid as the annual rental lease rate frightens me. In many instances, property-owners are not in a strong financial position. I acknowledge that the Government is prepared to make allowances for periods of hardship and is prepared to adjust rental rates from time to time, and that proposal is very welcome. However, I am sure that the Minister realises that there would be many times when hardship caused by economic or climatic conditions would go unnoticed and that, under those circumstances, the land-owner would find himself in great difficulty. Yesterday, I noted the comments made by the member for Maryborough, Mr Dollin. Some of those comments are worthy of mention. He said that until two and a half years ago, timber sold on a lump-sum basis was not taxable. Mr Dollin: Sold? Given away! Mr STEPHAN: I am in agreement with those comments. The honourable member should not think that because I mention his remarks, I will necessarily disagree with them on every occasion. He stated that following the introduction of full taxation on timber sales, many farmers were no longer inclined to selectively clear the land. Those comments are quite correct. Government policy makes a difference to the attitude of farmers. If the Government does not offer taxation incentives to farmers or property-owners to sell their timber, that type of approach more or less encourages destruction when it need not necessarily be carried out. I agree with the comments made by the member for Maryborough, Mr Dollin, in relation to that matter. He also went on to say that, presently, millers are having difficulty in obtaining sufficient sawlogs to maintain employment and production levels. For quite some time now, members of the Opposition have been saying exactly that, and that is why we ask the Government to explain the reason why it is going out of its way to close up State forest areas. This type of Government action ensures that many timber-growing areas will be unproductive and that much of the timber industry will go out of business simply because, as the honourable member rightly pointed out, there are insufficient timber products available to meet demand. Legislative Assembly 2159 24 October 1991

This fact is made patently clear when one remembers that Australia imports timber from overseas to meet local demand. The honourable member for Maryborough went on to say that conservationists and others were urging the Government to exercise greater control over the use, and misuse, of Crown land. I believe that statement sums up the attitude that has been adopted in many quarters. I fear the provisions contained in the environmental protection legislation and the effects they will have on the land-owner’s ability to remain in business. However, as those matters are not the subject of the provisions contained in this Bill, I will confine my remarks to the Government’s attitude to dealing with requirements and conversions under the provisions of the Bill presently before the House. I congratulate the Opposition spokesman on his speech because he devoted considerable effort to addressing the contents of the Bill in detail. There are a couple of matters with which I wish to deal specifically, and I would like the Minister to answer some queries I have in relation to the application for conversation. I ask the Minister to consider certain matters when dealing with applications to convert grazing homestead perpetual leases to grazing homestead freehold title. In particular, I ask him to address the issue of whether any land or part of land is required to be set apart and declared as a State forest, or whether any part of land is better suited for forest management and for the production of indigenous timbers. Having raised those matters with the Minister, I wonder who the Minister thinks will grow the timber and sawlogs for future milling, bearing in mind that the Queensland Forest Service is being denied vast areas of land for use in the production of timber. Apparently, the Minister expects the land-owner to provide the land that will be necessary to grow the timber. I believe that every encouragement to produce timber should be given to land-owners. I believe that, in the long term, and sometimes in the not-so-long term, timber does have the potential to become a viable industry. I do not believe that, when the Government is considering freeholding, lease- holders should be denied the right to freehold because the land has timber-growing potential. The Government is taking the right to freehold away from people. The Government is going to utilise all the land that is required for the production of timber by keeping it as Crown land, and yet it gives a great deal of State forest away. Other areas of State forest might be required for environmental and conservation purposes. This issue will be raised again when the environmental protection legislation is introduced. The risk of land degradation is also a matter that needs some care and attention. In this area, a number of great strides have been made by the various land-care groups that are operating in various parts of the State. They are doing quite a good job. These groups are receiving a great deal of support, but they need a lot more support in the work that they are doing, which is very necessary. When one looks at the way some land has been utilised, nobody would argue that there has been some abuse, but one also has to realise that the land is there for future generations. It is very important that this Government makes sure that the land will be there for future generations of Queenslanders and that if erosion by wind, water or whatever has occurred that that land is capable of being built up. There are a couple of other ways that I believe the Minister is able to set land apart. For example, if that land has the potential for uses other than grazing or agriculture, and there could be many different uses, the right to freehold that land could be denied. When one is setting the value of timber on a property available for lease or surrender against the total value for commercial timber, the amount which is set by the Minister as the value for commercial timber-growing on that land on the day of surrender shows, I believe, that the Government is putting its hand out when, perhaps, it is not warranted. The same terms and conditions apply when it comes to applications to freehold land. Again, I point out that Legislative Assembly 2160 24 October 1991 there is wide scope for the Minister to deny the right to freehold title, if the public’s interest is seriously affected. That could mean any one of a number of different things. If a substantial part of that land is at serious risk of degradation, then again the same provisions as were mentioned previously apply. I turn now to the matter of quarry material. I point out that quarry materials recovered from mining leases on Crown land remain the property of the Crown. Quarrying material on freeholded leases is also reserved to the Crown. I believe that that is not what people expected would be the case. Again, that provision ensures that the Crown is has a great deal of influence over the land which was previously owned and controlled by the land-owner or what normally one would have expected, under freeholding procedures, to be under the authority of the freeholder. I will just spend a few minutes discussing miners’ homestead leases. The provision appears to me to be a little bit confusing. I know that there is confusion at the present time as to what is the future of miners’ homestead leases. I take the point that residential areas, business areas and market garden areas have been transferred as though they were miners’ homestead perpetual leases, as have the rights of lessees at the present time to freehold these leases at the 1980 Valuer-General’s valuation. Without going into that issue to any great degree, I was very proud to be involved with the move that enable freeholding under those conditions. I do issue the warning, first of all, that there will be a big difference if in fact these leases are not freeholded at the end of the two-year period. There will be a big difference in the amount of the lease that the lessee will have to pay. There will be a big difference in the amount required to be paid if those people want to freehold after that period. My advice to all miners’ homestead perpetual lessees in mining fields is to apply for freehold before the expiration of this two-year period. I ask the Minister: what is to become of the miners’ homestead leases? The Bill does not really make the position clear. It does not really specify if it is going to be transferred to the Lands Department, or if it is transferred, under what terms and conditions and whether it will be done in the short or the long term. As I said, this uncertainty is causing a great deal of concern to miners’ homestead lessees, not just in Gympie, but in other areas as well. I would like clarification on what is going to be the outcome after this two-year period. Mr De Lacy: This is an awful speech! Mr STEPHAN: As I pointed out, this uncertainty is causing great concern. I am sorry if the honourable member is upset and cannot understand what is going on with miners’ homestead perpetual leases, but if he went to some of the old gold fields he would realise that there is a problem there. An Opposition member interjected. Mr STEPHAN: There are a couple of problems on the other side of the House. That is the biggest problem that the National Party has to overcome. If honourable members do not believe that there is a concern in the community, then I feel sorry for them. I just want to emphasise that point. I will be certainly following it through to ensure that these people are not disadvantaged. Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (11.08 p.m.): Tonight, I want to make comments about the Bill, but I also want to make a few comments about the speech that was made last night by the shadow Minister for Land Management. I will comment also on some of the things which I think the member for Gympie was talking about. The House should not underestimate the importance of this Bill as it deals with what is arguably Queensland’s most important resource—land. It represents the first major overhaul of State land policy for over 30 years. Undoubtedly, the administration of land matters in Queensland has become a complex maze of periodic amendments to the principal Act, and a comprehensive review and rationalisation was long overdue. Above all, it is essential that Legislative Assembly 2161 24 October 1991 the management of our most significant physical resource reflects the most up-to-date practices available and represents the changing nature of our industries and economy. I recognise that some people in the rural sector have expressed concern about various features of the Wolfe report and about the prospect that some of its recommendations will find their way into land policy. It must be appreciated, however, that the review was a public one which provided the opportunity for widespread public and industry input. I refer to the speech by the Opposition spokesperson, the member for Warrego, last night. The problem for Mr Hobbs is that one of the old National Party icons is under attack—that is, a rental system used by the Nationals for years to maintain electoral support. During this period of reform in Queensland, as we dismantle the instruments of their abuse of power, the honourable member is valiantly trying to defend the last vestiges of a system that has been outdated and largely irrelevant for years. He can stand in here and mouth the same tired old platitudes that he did during the argument about the Carter rents. His understanding was limited to a deliberate fear and misinformation campaign directed at the very people he pretends to understand and represent. One of the things the rural task force found during its travels through the honourable member’s territory was that people were glad to see a politician because they had not seen their local member, Mr Hobbs, for some time. The member for Warrego claims there has been no consultation with industry groups. I want to deal with that, because that was raised by the member for Gympie. There have been numerous consultations with the United Graziers Association seeking views on the Wolfe report. The Minister attended the United Graziers Association conference. There have been consultations with the Cattlemen’s Union. The Minister attended the Cattlemen’s Union’s conference to discuss the issues, and there has been correspondence between the UGA, the Cattlemen’s Union and the Government not just on the Wolfe report, but on the issue of the draft legislation and the Bill which is before the House tonight. Numerous meetings have been held with a cross-section of industry representatives. The unfortunate thing for the member for Warrego is that it would seem that the industries with which he claims to be so closely involved regard him as an irrelevance. They do not tell him they are involved in negotiations and consultations with the Government over the issues about which he seems to know precious little. One of the things I can mention is that the honourable member stood in this House last night and claimed that the Government spent $3.5m on the review of the land system so far. I would like to advise Mr Hobbs that the actual figure is somewhere close to $500,000, not the $3.5m. I suspect the honourable member has been to the same school for arithmetic as the member for Flinders, Mr Katter, because he just thinks of a number, doubles it, multiplies by seven, subtracts the first number he thought of—and that is how the honourable member for Warrego comes up with his figures. Like all major reforms, this Bill and subsequent ones on land matters will have its opponents—most of them on the other side of the House, I might add. Like all major reforms, this Bill may cause certain people some pain—and obviously the member for Warrego is in agony. Nevertheless, in the interests of ensuring that the management of Crown land, a resource which belongs to all Queenslanders, is placed on the soundest possible footing, the reform must proceed. Land-related issues are among the most prevalent and significant with which I, as the member for Cook, must deal. I have a great deal of respect for the grazing industry in my electorate, and I know that many graziers and cattlemen as well as managing their own properties contribute significantly to industry groups—— Mr Elliott: They won’t vote for you when they read your speech. Mr BREDHAUER: You just wait and see! As well as managing their own properties, they contribute significantly to industry groups such as the Cattlemen’s Union Legislative Assembly 2162 24 October 1991 and other organisations, and through these they make considerable efforts to positively influence land management at a Government, industry and community level. I emphasise “positively”, because instead of getting out there and tearing things down and doing everything negatively as Opposition members do, the people in my electorate who are interested in the industry get out there and participate in the consultation processes that are going on. They are involved constructively in those processes to try to influence them positively in terms of the outcomes for their industries. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr BREDHAUER: I do not necessarily see eye to eye politically with all the graziers in my electorate, and neither do we always agree on numerous land-related issues. I recognise, however, the important contribution that they make and their genuine commitment to representing their industry. I could mention, for example, Bill Tincknell, Fran Seagren, Wilma Watkins, and others with whom I have regular dealings on behalf of the Cattlemen’s Union. I could mention Bill Raymond from the Cape York Peninsula Development Association, and the representatives of the Gulf Local Authorities Development Association, including executive officer John Courtenay. One of the major reforms of the Bill relates to the standardisation of rents and rental periods. Such standardisation will make administration of pastoral leases a much simpler process, and must eliminate much confusion about rental levels in the minds of lease-holders and the general public. Mr Hobbs claims the Bill is forcing on rural land-owners a system that is neither accepted nor enforced in the majority of urban areas of Queensland. That is just nonsense. How does he think rural and urban rates are arrived at? The only areas where the unimproved capital value is not used is for grazing homestead perpetual leases and pastoral holding leases. I find it surprising that Mr Hobbs is still stoutly supporting the net rate system. I wonder if he understands it. Is he honestly suggesting that the net rate system plus all other factors as a method of valuation is more accurate than using unimproved capital value? Apart from the fact that unimproved capital value is used to calculate rents on almost all other leases in Queensland, there is also the issue that unimproved capital value relies on hard evidence. The net rate system uses hypothetical standards. Basically, it is academic mumbo jumbo that is understood only by a few old codgers at the Land Administration Commission. The member for Warrego claimed that the present rate of assessing rentals based on the net rate system is much fairer and reflects the ability of a particular piece of land to produce. He responded quoting the Cattlemen’s Union and the United Graziers Association, whom he claims to represent. Those are the industries that he claims to be in touch with. That is the problem: it is all wild claims. In fact, in its submission to the Wolfe inquiry, the Cattlemen’s Union stated— “The Cattlemen’s Union recommends that rentals be based on a percentage of unimproved capital value.” The problem is that Opposition members do not know what the Cattlemen’s Union and the UGA are putting in their submissions. Basing land rentals on unimproved capital value has a number of distinct advantages over the current method based on carrying capacity. The first of those is that a percentage of unimproved capital value can be administered across-the-board, that is, to all types of agricultural enterprises without ambiguity. Rates are currently determined using unimproved capital value. If both rates and rentals are determined using that method, unnecessary and wasteful duplication of human resources and taxpayer revenue could be eliminated. Last night, Opposition members did not understand how the system would simplify the process and save money. If he listens, he will find out. Overestimation of carrying capacity by the Land Administration Commission may, in the past, have created an expectation and encouraged land-holders to overstock Legislative Assembly 2163 24 October 1991 in an attempt to realise an acceptable return on their rental outlay. That may be a factor in causing land degradation. Although I acknowledge that any rental increases, particularly those which occur in times of economic hardship in rural industries, will be resisted by land-holders, it is often difficult for people from non-rural areas to empathise with that position. A standard annual rental period commencing on 1 July 1993 and an annual rental based on the most recent valuation multiplied by the prescribed rate provides a logical and concise approach to rent determination. Further, rents may rise and fall appropriately in accordance with fluctuations in valuations. I welcome the capacity which the Minister has—— Mr Elliott: Look at the problems it’s got the local authorities into. It’s been a hopeless situation for years. Mr BREDHAUER: Mr Speaker, it is difficult to continue with my speech with the peanut gallery so vociferous. Nevertheless, I will try to continue. I welcome the capacity that the Minister has to average valuations over a number of years to avoid undue rental increases on the basis of valuations. This is particularly important to protect genuine lease-holders from the undesirable influence of speculative property acquisitions such as those that have occurred in recent history in Cape York Peninsula. Another key feature of this Bill will be the recision of the freeze on freeholding imposed in February 1990 and the establishment of comprehensive guidelines for the freeholding of leases. This puts paid to the rantings of the harbingers of doom opposite who traversed the State last year whipping up apathy by claiming that this Government was opposed to freehold tenure of land and would abolish same. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr BREDHAUER: Mr Hobbs was saying that before the review started. He said it during the review, and he is still saying it after the report has been completed. The trouble is that he has so much egg on his face he cannot see through it, or at least he cannot read the legislation. If he had read the old Act, he would know that many of the criteria we have outlined were applied under the fuzzy and wide-ranging heading of “public interest” which is in the previous legislation. With this legislation, we have specified precisely the areas that need to be considered. We have told the people what the criteria are, rather than taking the Nationals’ cowardly way and using the excuse of “public interest”. In Queensland, the days of uncontrolled and indiscriminate freeholding have long passed. Contrary to the assertions of the members of the National Party, there has existed—particularly in my electorate—great concern about the freeholding practices of the previous Government, particularly in Cape York Peninsula. The freeze on freeholding was welcomed by many as a mechanism to provide a breathing space in which we could rationally consider the long-term ramifications of those freeholding practices. At that time, the Liberal Party had members of integrity and principle in this House, and Angus Innes, for one, made considerable efforts to focus public attention on this important issue. Earlier, I mentioned that the Bill outlined criteria relating to freeholding. Among those considerations are such factors as the environmental or conservation features of the land, whether land suffers or is at risk of degradation, and heritage importance. It is interesting to hear members opposite talk about the possibility of soil erosion by wind, water and so on, yet they defend practices such as those of the developer George Quaid—about whom the honourable member for Maryborough spoke last night—who clear-felled 50 square kilometres of land on the banks of the Mitchell River. Of course, another of these conditions relates to compliance with lease conditions. I mention this specifically because I know that compliance with lease conditions has been a contentious issue, particularly in cases in which it is evident that a lease has been purchased with a view to freeholding for purposes other than grazing. Clearly, some Legislative Assembly 2164 24 October 1991 property developers have purchased property with little interest in grazing but with an eye on other uses such as tourism or subdivision. Non-compliance or incomplete compliance with lease conditions has the capacity to affect the carrying capacity of the lease in question, but poor management also has the capacity to impinge on neighbours. I urge the Minister and his department to assiduously and conscientiously ensure that lease conditions are complied with. I could not leave this discussion of converting land tenures without mentioning a particular case that has occupied much of my time in recent months. Some months ago, I was approached by Mr Alan Holmes acting on behalf of the owners of the Kalinga pastoral holding in the lower cape. The owners of that property have proposed a considerable investment program to make pasture and property improvements to increase the carrying capacity and profitability of the holding. Such investment obviously requires a long time-frame to recognise a return on the investment and, as such, a change of tenure has been sought and diligently pursued by Mr Holmes. I have taken up Mr Holmes’ case with the department and the Minister and, to be truthful, my efforts and representations have had a few rocky patches. However, I appreciate Mr Holmes’ perseverance and patience. I am now advised that an offer may be on its way to him. In the near future, I hope to conclude this matter. The terms and conditions of grazing homestead freeholding leases are also covered in the Bill, and I note that the purchase price of the lease will be in accordance with the unimproved value—which seems to be a major bone of contention of Opposition members—of the lease as determined elsewhere in the Bill. However, no longer will vast tracts of valuable land be able to be flogged off to mates of members of the National Party at inconsequential prices, as occurred under its Government. I recognise that, in essence, graziers carry a primary concern and responsibility to care for their land, which is their livelihood. I recognise that graziers have cared for land from one generation to the next. However, as the property-owners themselves know full well, land management practices evolve with the passage of time, the development of technology and the acquisition of knowledge through research and development. So, too, must land practices of Government evolve to respond to industry needs and to safeguard the long-term future of our resources. Other factors which impinge on management practices include the prevailing economic circumstances, the climate, currency levels and commodity prices. All of these factors are working hard against rural industries and placing enormous pressures on farm incomes at present. Just as the pressure is on to get another year out of an ageing tractor or to pinch pennies in the household budget, so, too, is there pressure to work the land harder or longer in an effort to eke out a reasonable existence. Farm incomes are significantly depressed to their lowest levels for many years. The Government does have a responsibility to provide assistance, which responsibility it is meeting through restraining taxes, drought aid, rent deferrals and the like. Undoubtedly, however, such factors as recession and commodity prices are cyclical and the most important initiative that we can take as a Government is to work with the rural industries to manage land as a resource and to position ourselves to take full advantage of the turn-around when it comes. If the National Party was serious about helping rural industries, it would recognise this. To me, the member for Warrego’s problem seems to be pretty clear. He claims he is out there dancing with the wolves, but in reality he is sparring with the ghosts of Governments past. Debate, on motion of Mr Perrett, adjourned. The House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.