Legislative Assembly 5961 18 November 1993

THURSDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 1993 PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC WORKS Report and Transcript of Evidence Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. Fouras, Ashgrove) (10.03 a.m.): I table the following report from read prayers and took the chair at 10 a.m. the Parliamentary Committee of Public Works: Report of an Inquiry into the Construction of PETITIONS New Government Office Accommodation in Rockhampton. I move that the report be The Clerk announced the receipt of the printed. following petitions— Ordered to be printed. Ms SPENCE: I also lay upon the table of Cunnamulla/Eulo Festival of Opals the House the transcript of evidence of an From Ms Robson (561 signatories) inquiry into Government office praying that the Parliament of Queensland will accommodation in Rockhampton, and the ensure that the Cunnamulla/Eulo Festival of transcript of proceedings of a public hearing Opals is granted an exemption from the terms held in Rockhampton on 7 September 1993. of the Nature Conservation Act 1992 in order The Public Works Committee has recently to hold the Annual World Lizard Races. completed its inquiry into the construction of a multi-storey building in Bolsover Street, Rockhampton. The project will provide Remedial Unit, Establishment additional Government-owned accommodation From Mr Beattie (3 184 signatories) in the city and will redress the imbalance which praying that a remedial unit be established as has existed between Government-owned and prompted by the Fitzgerald inquiry, to be rented accommodation. I must stress that the headed by a panel of retired judges and committee has been most impressed with independent citizens. quality of the end product, not only in terms of its functionality but also in the way it harmonises with its surroundings. Primary School, Burpengary In conducting the inquiry, the committee From Mr Hayward (745 signatories) became aware that there was some local praying that the Parliament of Queensland will disquiet at further accommodation being ensure that a secondary primary school is provided in Rockhampton, as well as some established immediately at Burpengary. criticism of the tendering arrangements. The committee believes that these problems could have been avoided had there been a greater Aboriginal Deaths in Custody level of community awareness of the project From Ms Warner (1 689 signatories) and a greater understanding on the part of praying that the Parliament of Queensland will the tenderers of what was being sought. ensure that all 339 recommendations of the The committee has therefore made Royal Commission into black deaths in recommendations in relation to maximising custody be implemented and ratified as law. the benefit which can be given to regional Petitions received. economies, as well as the need to ensure full and proper community consultation and awareness. In its recommendations, the PAPERS committee has also addressed the need for The following papers were laid on the clear tender documentation and for evaluation table— processes which can be seen to have been just and reasonable. Minister for Housing, Local Government and Planning (Mr Mackenroth)— I would also mention that the committee was dismayed at the apparently unnecessary Reports of the Local Government expenditure of over $200,000 for design work Commissioner in relation to reviews of Internal (Electoral) Boundaries— which was latter superseded. This stemmed from the fact that there was a desire to speed City of Ipswich the project as quickly as possible and, Shire of Beaudesert. because of this, initial design work was carried out at a time when final requirements were not 18 November 1993 5962 Legislative Assembly fully known. Again, this matter is dealt with in bus. Very clearly, this is where the accident some detail in the report. problem exists, and this is where Government The committee is pleased to see the and community efforts should be focused. construction of such a quality building in Finally, this report contains Rockhampton. I would like to thank all of recommendations which are required to be those who made submissions to the responded to in this Parliament by the committee and who were able to appear responsible Ministers, pursuant to section 10 before it as witnesses. I commend the report of the resolution which established the to the House. Travelsafe Committee on 12 November 1992. I commend the report to the House and look forward to the relevant Ministers’ responses to TRAVELSAFE COMMITTEE the committee’s recommendations in due Reports and Transcripts of Evidence course. Mr ARDILL (Archerfield) (10. 07 a.m.): I table the 1992-93 annual report of the Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee. I move QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE that the report be printed. 1. Australian Friesian Sahiwal Ordered to be printed. Tender Process Mr ARDILL: I table a report from the Mr LINGARD asked the Minister for Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee on the Primary Industries— safety and economic implications of permitting “With reference to the Australian standees on urban and non-urban bus Friesian Sahiwal tender process, in which services. I move that the report be printed. invited tenderers were given an indication Ordered to be printed. of the stock available but with a disclaimer that it was subject to change Mr ARDILL: I also lay upon the table of because of the nature of the business the House the transcripts of evidence taken at and while such changes are the committee hearings during its inquiry into understandable to a certain extent for bus standees. Hearings were held in natural causes— Bundaberg on 16 August; Cairns, 17 August; Rockhampton, 18 August; Biloela, 19 August; (1) Is he aware that in the last week of and Brisbane, 7 and 8 September 1993. September 1993, about a week before tenders closed, options were This report on bus standees I have just taken over 400 embryos? tabled makes important recommendations on various aspects of bus travel as it relates to (2) (a) Who has the options on these standees. It should be stated that the report purebred and supposedly does not recommend that standees be unavailable embryos and (b) why banned. The safety and economic factors were they allowed to be taken out a associated with bus travel simply made this week before tenders closed?” type of recommendation impossible for the Mr CASEY: I table the answer and ask committee to consider. that it be incorporated in Hansard. Bus travel is the safest form of road- Leave granted. based transport, despite repetitive media references to tragic accidents involving long- (1) No options were taken over 400 Australian distance coaches. School bus travel has a Friesian Sahiwal embryos in the last week of September 1993. There are no options safety record second only to scheduled over any such embryos in my department domestic airlines. The large amounts of and nor has my department made any Government and industry funds required to commitment to supply embryos. completely eliminate standee passengers on buses quite simply cannot be justified in either (2) There are no options on Australian Friesian Sahiwal embryos. Australian road safety or public health terms. However, Friesian Sahiwal embryos are not the committee believes that the unavailable. My department sells recommendations of this report will address Australian Friesian Sahiwal embryos which some of the community concerns and further are surplus to the requirements of the improve on an already high level of bus Australian Friesian Sahiwal breed standee safety. improvement program. The previous National Party Government had an In the committee’s opinion, any moneys spent on improving the safety of bus travel identical policy. should be directed at improving safety off the 2. Australian Friesian Sahiwal Legislative Assembly 5963 18 November 1993

Tender Process Mr SANTORO asked the Minister for Mr LINGARD asked the Minister for Lands— Primary Industries— “(1) (a) What was the establishment cost “With reference to the operations of of his 34 miniÐTitles Offices and (b) the Australian Friesian Sahiwal Project— what are the annual running costs, including wages, rents, travel (1) How many of each purebred and expenses, additional telephone and crossbred stock were produced courier expenses and relocation under this project in the financial expenses and all other onÐgoing years (a) 1990-91, (b) 1991-92 and expenses? (c) 1992-93? (2) (a) How many Titles Office dealings (2) How many of each purebred and were lodged in each of the 34 crossbred stock were sold in each of miniÐTitles Offices and (b) how many the above financial years? dealings were lodged at the Brisbane, Rockhampton and (3) In terms of the numbers sold, how Townsville Titles Offices in October? many have been paid for and what was the total revenue in each of the (3) How many search requests were above financial years? lodged at each office? (4) What system does the department (4) What are the detailed costings made have for auditing stock numbers by his department of the cost of under this program and how many providing the DOCFAX service? physical checks, if any, are (5) How many requests for access to the undertaken annually to ensure stock working maps held at each numbers are correct?” miniÐoffice originated at that office? Mr CASEY: In view of the statistics (6) How many requests for access to contained in the answer, I table it and ask that those same working maps originated it be incorporated in Hansard. from offices other than at the office Leave granted. where they are held?” Mr SMITH: I seek leave to table the (1) Purebred stock produced in 1990-91 were 270, in 1991-92 were 222, and in 1992-93 answer and have it incorporated in Hansard. were 298. Production figures for Leave granted. crossbred stock are only available on a calendar year basis commencing in 1991. 1(A) There are three Titles Offices in Crossbred stock produced in 1991 were Queensland, located in Brisbane, 904, in 1992 were 1659 and in 1993 were Rockhampton and Townsville, as part of 1830 to 31 October 1993. wider Lands Department offices. In addition, eleven other Lands Department (2) In 1990-91 there were nil purebred and 18 offices provide a title lodgement service. crossbred stock sold for export. Searching can be arranged by Doc-fax In 1991-92 there were 35 purebred and through any office as it can be through 333 crossbred stock sold for export. many private sector offices throughout the State. In 1992-93 there were 2 purebred and 203 crossbred stock sold for export. The three Titles Offices have existed for over 100 years, so establishment costs (3) All animals sold have been paid for and are historic. The limited services through the revenue in 1990-91 was $12 600, in the other centres have evolved 1991-92 was $322 894 and in 1992-93 was progressively since this initiative was $146 350. started by the previous Government in 1989. (4) At least one physical count of all stock is made just prior to 30 June each year. In Establishment costs have been a very addition, monthly stock returns are small component of the overall costs of prepared which record additions and amalgamating Lands Department services deletions to the livestock inventory which in the centres involved. is then reconciled with the annual physical (B) The direct 1992/93 operating costs by count. region of the provision of titling services is as follows: 3. Titles Offices Region Operating Costs $ 18 November 1993 5964 Legislative Assembly

Far North 6814 a result statistics are not kept on requests Northern 71840 for access. Mackay 2185 6. Requests for working map information Central 74448 originating from outside a centre are Wide Bay 20910 estimated to vary between 5-15% of Sunshine Coast 13908 overall requests with many of these Brisbane 1723993 originating from other offices within the South Coast 7642 same region. Darling Downs/West 8971 In some centres these costs include equipment and ancillary items. General QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE overhead costs are only material in the Prostitution Laws three Titles Offices and would not be affected if the service did not exist in the Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to other locations. Apart from the Titles the Minister for Police, I refer to claims by the Offices, the service provided typically ALP State President, Ian McLean, that the involves only part-time staff commitment Minister’s prostitution laws contain “loopholes, under the Lands Department’s multi- were being ignored by operators and were skilling initiative. The full-time staff causing police big difficulties in enforcement”, equivalent is typically one or less. and I ask: in view of criticism from magistrates, 2(A) & (B); 3.—Figures for October 1993 are: police, academics, lawyers, civil libertarians Centre Searches Lodgements and, now, the State President of the Labor Cairns 880 1218 Party, does the Minister continue to have full Atherton 157 confidence in his prostitution legislation and Innisfail 11 does he still hold to his view that the Townsville 7691 4892 legislation will not need to be reviewed until Charters Towers 0 two years after its introduction? Cloncurry 3 Hughenden 8 Mr BRADDY: This Government has made Mt Isa 0 it very clear that, to our knowledge, no society Mackay 652 682 has been able to completely eradicate Rockhampton 10109 2642 prostitution. That will occur only if Queensland Blackall 0 becomes the only society in history to no Emerald 10 longer provide a market for prostitution. This Longreach 7 Government has made its policy clear. Sole Maryborough 597 561 operator prostitutes are legal, as they were Bundaberg 510 528 under the previous Government. This Gayndah 29 Government has decided to target large scale Gympie 236 Kingaroy 98 illegal brothels. Members opposite and others Caboolture 743 551 continue to say, “You have not completely Nambour 825 429 solved prostitution.” This Government never Brisbane 59241 32870 maintained that it could do so, and it never will Ipswich 1644 338 be able to. Many of the critics whom the Beenleigh 461 341 Leader of the Opposition quotes were Bundall 1301 1497 opposed to what we were doing in the first Toowoomba 605 991 place. I invite the same critics to observe the Dalby 29 way in which the so-called wonderful system is Goondiwindi 20 operating in Melbourne, Victoria. At present, Inglewood 0 Stanthorpe 20 there are three times as many illegal Warwick 121 prostitutes operating in Melbourne as there Roma 22 16 were before the laws changed in that State. Charleville 6 Mr Connor interjected. Cunnamulla 2 Monto 5 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Nerang will cease interjecting. 4. Doc-fax was established in 1988 to improve client access to the register. Mr BRADDY: In Queensland, we have Fees were struck to fully recover costs, significantly reduced the number of brothels. on the basis of advice from the then That is clear. It is also clear that a number of Government Management Consultancy them have moved over the New South Wales Bureau. Since that time fees have been border to the Tweed. We have arrested reviewed in line with Government policy. significant numbers of people for street 5. Free access is provided to working maps; prostitution, and the statistics also are clear in however charges are made for copies. As Legislative Assembly 5965 18 November 1993 that regard. I repeat that we do not have the does he not support the Prime Minister’s ability to abolish prostitution. However, we Mabo response? have reduced it and we are examining future Mr W. K. GOSS: At this stage, I can say directions. Of course, we need to ensure that that the Federal legislation dealing with Mabo the laws are being fully applied, and that is a is complex and difficult to understand. That is matter for magistrates. We need a system a matter of concern. The legislation is difficult whereby the Court of Appeal can rule on to understand for people who have been matters of law in relation to magistrates’ working closely in this area for the last year. decisions as it can rule on matters of law in relation to District Court and Supreme Court Mr Borbidge: So Richard Court might be judges’ decisions. We are moving to provide right. for such a system, and that is appropriate. Mr W. K. GOSS: Richard Court is not As to the other changes that will be made right; the member should not be silly. in time after the rulings of the Court of Mr FitzGerald: You already know that, do Appeal—if they are appropriate, the you? Government will consider them. However, one Mr W. K. GOSS: Yes, I do. The point is fact is very clear. Prostitution is better that the legislation is very complex and it is controlled now than it was under our difficult to understand. Over the last 24 hours, predecessors opposite. Another very clear fact officers from the Cabinet Office team who are is that our opponents do not have a policy on working on this matter have been in touch with prostitution. On Colin Greatorix’s show, the our interstate counterparts. They are also shadow Minister for Police, Mr Cooper, finding the legislation very difficult and very announced the Opposition’s so-called policy complex. That view has also been expressed on prostitution. Mr Greatorix said, “We may by other people, including the chief executive even want to vote for you, Mr Cooper. Tell us of BHP. what your policy is.” It was a wonderful policy! The Leader of the Opposition engages in Mr Cooper: We won’t let you off the vacuous bleating about caving in to Canberra. hook. I think we adequately dealt with his credentials Mr BRADDY: The member should be on that topic the other day. In the past 48 quiet, because he will be very embarrassed by hours, Mr Kennett has made very positive this. The shadow Minister said, “We have a comments about the Federal legislation, and policy, Colin. I think it was in 1988 that the the National Farmers Federation has National Party decided at its conference that supported the legislation. It clearly contains prostitution existed and it always will.” That elements that are worthy of support. My was the first plank of the Opposition’s concern and the concern of the Queensland platform. The shadow Minister then outlined State Government is to be positive and the second plank of the policy. He said, constructive and try to achieve an outcome “Secondly, Colin, what is needed is a degree that not only responds to the High Court of regulation. I cannot go any further than decision but also is practical and workable. I that, Colin. Prostitution exists, and we need a will not, just because of some vacuous degree of regulation. One of these days, we bleating by the Leader of the Opposition, will go on and we will move on from that.” outline a position before we have had an What a joke the Opposition is! opportunity to completely study the legislation. Mr Nuttall interjected. We will announce our position on the legislation in detail when we are good and Mr Cooper interjected. ready. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the member Sandgate and the member for Crows Nest will for Mulgrave. cease interjecting. I warn them both under Standing Order 123A. Honourable members, I Mr Borbidge interjected. insist that answers be heard in silence. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition under Standing Order 123A. I will not call members to ask questions and Mabo allow other members to interject while they are Mr BORBIDGE: I direct a question to the asking them. Premier. In view of the fact that he, his 500 Bag Checks departmental officers and the 92 staff of the Cabinet Office have now had several days to Mr PITT: In directing a question to the consider the Federal legislation dealing with Deputy Premier and Minister for Consumer the Mabo decision, I ask: does the Premier or Affairs, I refer him to the issue of bag checks 18 November 1993 5966 Legislative Assembly at supermarkets or other stores designed to “Checking” means that the staff can look but catch or deter shoplifters, and I ask: has the not touch. Customers may be asked to assist Office of Consumer Affairs addressed this in the check by removing obstructions to visual issue? If so, what steps are being taken to inspection. Staff are not supposed to delve ensure a balance between the rights of their hands into customers’ bags or to search honest customers and the rights of store them. If customers refuse to allow their bags owners? to be checked, they can be asked to leave the Mr BURNS: From time to time, bag store and not return. The shopkeeper can only checks have always caused trouble. I am detain a customer and call the police where pleased to inform the House that the voluntary the shopkeeper is sure that an offence has code of conduct negotiated between the been committed. If a shopkeeper or his Office of Consumer Affairs and the Retailers employee forcibly detains a customer who has Association of Queensland last year has not committed an offence, or forcibly searches started to work. Each year in Queensland, the customer’s goods, the person who has $300m worth of goods is stolen from shops. carried out such an act may be liable for to be Those costs are eventually added to honest charged with assault. If consumers have such customers’ bills. Sooner or later, the a complaint, we advise them to make a shopkeeper has to do something about complaint to the police or to consult a solicitor passing on those costs, and the cost of immediately. stealing is just too much for the ordinary As I said, these measures are not the retailer to bear. The retailer is entitled to do necessary answer to the whole of the something to protect himself. Of course, the problem. However, it is very important that consumer is also entitled to privacy, and major stores clearly show a sign informing protection from the invasion of that privacy. customers that bag checks are to be carried The Office of Consumer Affairs and the out. These signs should also inform Retailers Association of Queensland have consumers of their rights. They should be developed a bag check advisory code as a available for customers to read. compromise between the interests of privacy for consumers and the protection of retailers. Bus Services The purpose of the code is to provide some principles and practices so that Mr PITT: I direct a question to the shoppers and retailers are aware of their rights Minister for Transport and Minister Assisting and obligations. Clearly, not all conflicts will be the Premier on Economic and Trade avoided. There will always be trouble. The Development. Can the Minister advise the store must notify the customer of its intention House of the benefits to provincial city to conduct bag checks by a prominent sign residents from the changes to bus services that customers can see clearly before they proposed by the Government’s passenger enter the store. A shopper who enters a store transport review? that displays such a notice implies that he or Mr HAMILL: The member for Mulgrave is she accepts the store’s conditions for entry. A certainly very interested in and concerned sign is displayed, the bag check code is laid about the availability of passenger transport out, and the sign is reproduced in small form services in the Cairns area. In the Cairns area of which people can take a copy. The code there are four existing bus operators. says that agreeing to bag checks is a Unfortunately, there is not much coordination condition of entry and that the checks are across those different operators and not much conducted only on bags, parcels, cartons and responsiveness to passenger needs in the containers. Under the code, the shopkeeper Cairns area. The proposals which are currently agrees not to check a personal handbag being discussed with operators around the unless it is larger than the size of foolscap State, including Cairns, foreshadow significant paper. A sheet of foolscap paper is supposed increases in patronage to passenger transport to be available. I have just discovered that services upon their implementation. Indeed, in foolscap paper is no longer produced in large the Cairns area it is projected that over three quantities, so we might have to rearrange the years there will be an increase in patronage in code. That is a decent-size handbag for the order of some 27 per cent through the anyone to be carrying. revamping of those bus arrangements in that A customer has the right to know before very rapidly growing area of the State. entering a store that the store does conduct bag checks. Customers have the right to Townsville is another area where bus refuse interference with their personal bags. services have been quite inadequate for quite They have that right under the code. a long time. There are two operators providing Legislative Assembly 5967 18 November 1993 services in Townsville. Again, the existing and $23m in extra interest repayments on ridership levels are relatively low. We project State debt, I ask: what further price is the that in three years the ridership will double in Government prepared to pay to that time. I think that would be a very accommodate delays and difficulties imposed significant achievement and one which is on development in this State caused by the commensurate with a growing urban area the Commonwealth’s confusing Mabo legislation? size of Townsville and Thuringowa. Mr W. K. GOSS: The Deputy Leader of There have already been substantial the Coalition has started off the day with a improvements in bus services in Gladstone. confusing question. I will do my best, but I am Again, we should see ridership in Gladstone not sure about the link that she seeks to make increase in the order of 120 per cent over between State debt and the Mabo legislation. three years. Mackay is in a similar position. In I will try to outline a response and see whether fact, in Mackay, a very important pilot program she finds it satisfactory. is being operated whereby the local taxi My Government has consistently taken company has been offering demand the view that we need to accept the decision responsive services. This has really covered a of the High Court and to work within its particular need which has existed in the framework. That much of what is in this Bill is Mackay community, where people have been close to what was put to the Prime Minister in unable to obtain passage on off-peak bus the COAG meeting in Melbourne. Beyond services. That trial has been put in place with that, as I have already said this morning in the full concurrence of both the Department of answer to the honourable member’s Transport and the Mackay bus operators. It leader—— may well provide a worthwhile model for the Mrs Sheldon: I asked you a specific future. Certainly, as we put the bus operators question. onto performance contracts, there will be no Mr W. K. GOSS: Well, this is the answer. reason why—— Mrs Sheldon: No, it is not. Mr Johnson: You haven’t answered the Mr W. K. GOSS: The legislation is question about the shambles in Cairns yet. complex and it is not well drafted, and in that Mr HAMILL: I presume the shambles in respect both the Commonwealth and the Cairns that the honourable member refers to States may face administrative difficulties. This is the fact that, for 30 years, nothing was done debate has been going on for 12 months. I to address the appalling provision of am not happy about it. Like most people, I am passenger transport services. sick and tired of it. We have only had the legislation for two days. It is very important Mr Johnson interjected. that we study it in detail now and make sure Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member that we can make it work in this jurisdiction. It for Gregory under section 123A. I know what I would have been preferable to have am going to do about that. complementary Federal and State legislation. I do not know whether we can get that. Mr HAMILL: What I am outlining is a However, we should still try to do that. program to address a long overdue need in As far as Queensland is concerned, we that area. I understand that the member for are not in a position to move until such time Gregory would be embarrassed, because this as the Commonwealth legislation is passed is a clear example of nothing being done over and we get an understanding of it ourselves 30 years of a National Party Government about how it will affect our jurisdiction and professing concern for the needs of people in what positions we should take. We are provincial Queensland. This Labor working intensely on that. We have had Government will deliver. It will deliver improved people working on this for 12 months or so. passenger transport services. The people of Those people are now studying the legislation. provincial Queensland will benefit, and the Even though they are amongst those in the National Party, including the member for country who have the best understanding of Gregory, will be further embarrassed. this whole issue, they are finding the Mabo Commonwealth legislation difficult to understand. This Government is going to take Mrs SHELDON: I direct a question to the considerable care before we enact legislation Premier. Given that delays caused by in Queensland. uncertainty over the Mabo decision have now In terms of the impact on cost Queensland taxpayers between $13m Queensland—as outlined in the member’s 18 November 1993 5968 Legislative Assembly question, unless she is able to explain herself Mr Kennett says— a bit more clearly, I think we will all have to “Validation of titles issued before 1 remain in a state of confusion. January 1994—in so far as Victoria is concerned, the Commonwealth Bill would Mabo appear to meet our requirements.” Mrs SHELDON: I direct a question to the The key question in relation to certainty is Premier. I table the following excerpts from the validation of title. It appears as though the Commonwealth Government’s Native Title Bill legislation does that. that we have just been able to review. They I should stress that our concern about the are: section 11, which imposes retrospective complexity of the legislation relates more to powers over the States; section 195, which the future regime and the extent to which this shores up the Commonwealth’s position if may or may not impose delays and expense sections of the legislation fail and the Bill is for development projects in the future. As I challenged by the States; and section 208, have said twice already, we are going to study which has been amended at the last minute this legislation in detail and will provide a to draw legitimate State-based legislation into response when we are good and ready. We conflict with section 109 of the Australian hope to do something this year that is Constitution. Given that the Premier’s stated complementary or in step with what the priority is to provide certainty and security of majority of other States and Territories are investment in Queensland, which of these doing. three sections does the Premier support? I believe that Queensland has played a Mr W. K. GOSS: As I have already said, leading role in terms of trying to get some we will provide a formal response to the uniformity, practicality and workability into this legislation when we are good and ready. A bit legislation. Unfortunately, the Commonwealth of backward, bush-Liberal-lawyer legal advice legislation is much more complex than people that the honourable member is purporting to expected. I suspect that it is much more put before us—— complex than it needs to be. But we will be Mr Foley: It wouldn’t have happened working on those matters, taking them up with under Angus Innes. the other States and the Commonwealth and legislating to validate titles in this place as Mr W. K. GOSS: Angus Innes, Bill Knox soon as is reasonably appropriate. and people like them in the Liberal Party had a bit of backbone. They have now been swallowed up by the “pineapple party”—a Tourism party that now can only command the support Mr LIVINGSTONE: I ask the Minister for of one in five people outside metropolitan Tourism, Sport and Racing: can he inform the Queensland. What a joke the Liberal Party House of the latest Bureau of Tourism has become. Research figures on the health of In relation to the Liberal Party position, let Queensland’s domestic tourism industry? me tell honourable members what Jeff Mr GIBBS: I believe that the latest BTR Kennett—that white knight of the Australian figures are an absolutely outstanding Liberal Party—has had to say. Let me tell the achievement for Queensland in terms of Leader of the Liberal Party—if that is what it is holiday numbers. As at the June quarter last still called in this State—what the white knight year, there had been approximately 456 000 of the Liberal Party in Victoria says. For interstate visitors to Queensland. During the example, in relation to the definition of “native same period this year, visitor numbers have title”, the Leader of the Liberal Party in Victoria gone absolutely through the roof. For the says— June quarter this year, we reached 550 000. “The Victorian Government’s In other words, there has been an increase of assessment is that the Commonwealth 96 000 interstate visitors to Queensland in the Bill is similar to its own in this respect. In past year. For the past 18 months, domestic terms of validation of title, which is travel generally in Australia has been on the absolutely crucial in terms of providing decline due to the state of the national certainty”— economy. But, regardless of that, Queensland the issue raised by the honourable member— continues to perform in the tourist industry. “validation of title is at the heart of In relation to Sunlover Holidays—for the security of title and security of past two months, we have recorded a 32 per investment.” cent increase in sales through our Sunlover packages. The other great news is that, Legislative Assembly 5969 18 November 1993 generally speaking, about 40 per cent of course corresponds with the opening of a new Australians who go interstate do so for holiday motel complex in February 1994. It is hoped purposes. This year, around 54 per cent of that that complex will employ many of the Australians who took holidays interstate came course participants. to Queensland. I believe that those figures show that Queensland is still holding its own—well ahead of other States. That is not Port of Brisbane Road Link due in any small way to the excellence and Mr PURCELL: I ask the Minister for quality of the people employed at the Transport: could he please advise the House Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation what planning is currently under way towards and the great support that this Government the road link to the port of Brisbane, and what gives to the QTTC through record sums of benefits will be forthcoming as a result of the money provided in this year’s Budget. construction of that road? Mr HAMILL: I draw the attention of the Tourism Industry Training House to an article that appeared in the Brisbane Weekend Times on 13 November Mr LIVINGSTONE: In directing a question this year. It canvasses a number of the to the Minister for Employment, Training and developments that are taking place in what is Industrial Relations, I refer to his recent urging quite an extensive area of land adjoining the of the tourism industry not to become area operated by the port of Brisbane. That complacent about training for employees, and area is owned by the port, the Department of I ask: can the Minister inform the House of Business, Industry and Regional Development examples of any new Government initiatives in and the Brisbane City Council. What is relation to training for the tourism industry? emerging there is a very substantial industrial Mr FOLEY: As my colleague the estate. The article to which I refer stated— Honourable Minister for Tourism, Sport and “The area from the Gateway Bridge Racing indicated, the tourism industry in to the port (south of the Brisbane River) Queensland is strong, but it is vital that represents the largest stock of training be innovative and ongoing in order to undeveloped industrial property in ensure that that strength continues and Brisbane. While flood-prone land, develops. To that end, my department has piecemeal development and lack of been working with bodies in the tourism general amenities have caused concerns industry. For example, a grant has been made for potential buyers, the port and rail available to Dive Queensland Incorporated to plans have transformed its prospects.” run a bilingual diving instructor and dive master training program. That project is aimed Indeed, that is the case with the completion of at providing training for unemployed foreign- the standard gauge rail link and the language-speaking Australians to become tremendous expansion that is taking place in qualified dive instructors and dive masters, the port of Brisbane. The port of Brisbane is and thus replace the need for the diving one of Australia’s fastest growing container industry to bring foreign nationals to Australia. ports. The impetus exists for a number of That project will run for a period of 12 months industries to relocate their enterprises to that in Cairns, Townsville and the Whitsundays, area. That stimulus also exists for a number of with six training modules being completed transport companies. I am having discussions during that time. That is an example of the with several of them about locating their sort of innovative project that deserves warehousing and distribution facilities in that encouragement. area. Therefore, it is absolutely vital that we plan appropriately to service those areas. Similarly, the department has recently Anyone who knows the state of Lytton Road made available funding to the Central would know that it has a very poor alignment. Highlands Promotional and Development That road really has difficulties coping with the Organisation to run a hotel, motel and current pressures—— restaurant hospitality training course to service the needs of the hospitality industry in the Mr Connor: A bit like the Gold Coast Central Highlands. That course, which will be highway. based in Emerald, is of six weeks’ duration. Mr HAMILL: The member has difficulty Participants in that course will take part in live, enduring the pressures that this House places on-the-job training as well as formal training upon him. A lot of work has been done, in sessions. This has been planned to enable consultation with the Brisbane City Council, participants in that course to seek between my department, the port, DBIRD and employment, because the completion of their the Premier’s Department, looking at the 18 November 1993 5970 Legislative Assembly needs of that area to ensure its development artists who have potential. Now, more than in the interests of all south-east Queensland. ever, the arts are speaking with the authentic The outcome of that is that we need to look voice of the Queensland bush. Increasingly, for a long-term alternative to Lytton Road if we arts funding is being directed towards fostering are to service adequately that expanding established and promising artists within industrial estate, which is going to provide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander many thousands of jobs in the future. To that communities. Very shortly, I will be end, the Department of Transport is currently announcing $2.7m worth of grants for projects undertaking negotiations with a number of and individuals throughout Queensland under property owners in that area to ensure that the the Arts Program. option remains open for such an alternative All this is being done without detriment to corridor to Lytton Road. Already there have the traditional performing arts, whose cause is been negotiations for purchase with the advocated by the honourable member. This Nadco group near the Hemmant Railway year, the Lyric Opera received $1.1m—the Station, and negotiations have also taken largest ever single grant made to an place with property developers, the Howard independent organisation by Arts group, regarding property that they have Queensland. The Queensland Ballet, which along Lytton Road. It is in the interests of all was also referred to by the honourable people, both in that area and in the rest of member, received $747,100—the full amount south-east Queensland, that this that was requested in its application. In Government’s initiatives in generating new addition, it received a special touring grant of employment opportunities through the $90,000 to enable it to travel throughout expansion of the port of Brisbane are Queensland. As far as the arts are concerned, supported by adequate provision for the Queensland is state-of-the-art. necessary infrastructure for this State’s future.

Bardon Professional Development Centre Arts Funding Mr QUINN: In directing a question to the Mr PURCELL: In directing my second Minister for Education, I refer to the sale of the question to the Minister for Arts, I refer to Bardon Professional Development Centre. I recent announcements of increases in arts ask: will the Brisbane City Council be allowed grant funding and, in particular, to the new to consider the necessary rezoning application emerging artists and art forms and to rural and for that site? Or will the Government bypass regional artists. While I commend the Minister this process and apply a ministerial rezoning, for his efforts in spreading the available thereby denying any right of public objection? funding to ensure greater access and support for an increased number of Queensland Mr COMBEN: This question ought artists, I ask: will he assure the House that this correctly to be addressed to the Minister for process of bringing arts to the people will not Administrative Services. He is my agent in this be at the expense of the more traditional matter. performing arts such as the ballet and the opera? Bardon Professional Development Centre Mr WELLS: Throughout this land, the Mr QUINN: I direct to the Minister for honourable member for Bulimba is known as Administrative Services the same question a robust advocate for the fine arts. As he said that I asked of the Minister for Education. to me the other day, the arts are a civic ornament which adorn the body politic and Mr MILLINER: Expressions of interest prove the health and vigour of the State of were called for the sale of the Bardon Queensland. Professional Development Centre. A number of people expressed interest in purchasing The process of democratisation of the that particular centre. Obviously, they did so in arts to which the honourable member for the knowledge that, if they were successful in Bulimba referred has been going on since the their tender, they would have to comply with first term of the Goss Labor Government. The certain things. Regional Arts Development Fund provides regionally based artists with the opportunity to Mr Quinn interjected. participate in the arts more than ever before. Mr SPEAKER: I warn the member for Funding for this program is being increased. Merrimac under Standing Order 123A. Over the next two years, the funding will be increased from $5m to $10m. Increasingly, this funding is being used to give a start to Women and the Law Legislative Assembly 5971 18 November 1993

Mrs WOODGATE: I have two questions Sea. Its Chinese subsidiary has engaged this morning, the first of which I direct to the SIMTARS to conduct a series of tests on the Honourable the Attorney-General and Minister oil to predict weathering characteristics and to for Justice. I refer the Attorney to the examine ways of cleaning up the oil in the $200,000 which has been provided this year event of a spill. Basically, the company is to enhance the position of women before the analysing how to handle spills before they courts, and I ask: how will this money be happen. expended? I point out that this is the second contract Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable that SIMTARS has had with Ampolex. Similar member for her question. I thank her also for tests were done last year for a Western the advice and assistance that she has given Australian oil reserve. I believe that this is me in developing this particular program. My recognition of SIMTARS’ ever-growing status department has in fact budgeted $200,000 and capabilities in these technical areas. It is this year and $300,000 in subsequent years especially pleasing to support an Australian for this initiative. These funds will be used to company that is selling our technology to the establish a unit which will deal with violence biggest market in the world. I believe that the against women. It will comprise two legal staff, initial project will be completed early next year. two administrative staff and a coordinator. This SIMTARS is generating a national unit will provide specialist training to legal staff capability within this State to cater for the in matters relating to violence against women. development of research that will enable oil The staff of the unit will provide information on explorers to proceed in a planned and court processes and general information to environmentally responsible manner. The women who are victims of violence. They will Government will encourage this capability, advise victims of the options that are legally both in this field and in others, so that full use available to them and keep them up to date can be made of this excellent facility. Right with information relating to the processes of round this nation, SIMTARS is being the trial. acknowledged as a centre of excellence, and The $200,000 this year and the it is performing extremely well. On behalf of $300,000 in subsequent years will also be the director of SIMTARS, I encourage used to prepare a sexual procedures manual members to pay a visit to the centre to see for relating to legal matters and an information themselves the excellent work that this booklet to help victims and families organisation is doing in our State. understand court processes. They will establish a database of sexual offences against females. They will also play a part in Port of Townsville facilitating the voluntary participation of Mr BENNETT: In directing a question to members of the judiciary in training programs the Minister for Transport and Minister relevant to this particular issue. This is an Assisting the Premier on Economic and Trade important program. When it comes to this Development, I refer to the performance of program, the Government is putting its money the port of Townsville. I ask: can he inform the where its mouth is. We are concerned that the House of the economic contribution that this principle of equality before the law should be port is making to the Townsville region? maintained, and that is the purpose of this Mr HAMILL: No-one in this House would program. better know the economic impact of a thriving port than the member for Gladstone. SIMTARS Certainly, the port of Gladstone is contributing very substantially to the economic growth of Mrs WOODGATE: My second question is central Queensland, and the same can be directed to the Minister for Minerals and said for the port of Townsville in northern Energy. I ask: can the Minister outline any Queensland. As I told the House earlier this work being done by the SIMTARS research week, the port of Townsville has recorded six station in relation to a new oilfield near China? consecutive record years of trade. Last year, Mr McGRADY: I thank the honourable the port of Townsville actually outstripped its member for that question. I am happy to budget projections by some 5.8 per cent. confirm that SIMTARS has successfully The trade through the port is to do with tendered for an oil testing project associated the maintenance of a substantial processing with a newly discovered oilfield off the coast of of not simply nickel ore at Yabulu but a wide China. The Australian-based company range of other products. The port services the Ampolex is considering the development of hinterland of the Townsville region, including the new oilfield at Lufeng in the South China 18 November 1993 5972 Legislative Assembly the Burdekin area. Indeed, a new trade record School. In October this year, some $79,000 was established in sugar exports through the was provided to all schools across the port, which amounted to almost 900 000 electorate of Gladstone. This year, in the tonnes last year. Three years ago, the record Gladstone electorate, computers have been was 630 000 tonnes, so last year’s figure provided at a total cost of $117,351. represents a very substantial increase. It demonstrates very clearly the synergy between the expansion of the port of Private Health Insurance Townsville and the expansion of the sugar Mr HORAN: In directing a question to the industry in that part of north Queensland. Minister for Health, I refer to the decreasing From time to time, the Minister for Primary levels of private health insurance participation, Industries has referred to the substantial with Queensland’s level of participation the contribution that will be made in the future, by lowest of all States at 38.2 per cent; to the the Burdekin area, to this State’s primary fact that low income earners have to compete industries. The infrastructure development that with the wealthy on public hospital elective is taking place in the port of Townsville is also surgery waiting lists; and to the fact that low generating jobs in the area. The $90m income earners who struggle to take out expansion in terms of the eastern harbour private health insurance are disadvantaged by project and the new rail links are ensuring not excess costs that are not covered by current only that the port of Townsville will be able to private health insurance arrangements. I ask: meet that sort of growth but also that it will does he or does he not support the proposals have capacity for the future. outlined by the Federal Minister for Health, I place on record my appreciation of the Senator Richardson, to improve private health efforts made by the board of the port of insurance arrangements, thereby reducing Townsville in developing the port, as well as pressure on Queensland’s public hospitals my appreciation of the cooperation provided system? by the Commonwealth Government without Mr HAYWARD: I thank the honourable whose funding for infrastructure development, member for the question. I think I should put in providing the rail link to the port, the future into context the situation in Queensland. In expansion of Townsville would not have been fact, the level of private health insurance assured. participation in Queensland is a little more than 32 per cent. In real number terms it has been steady, if not increasing, in recent times. Computers in Schools Program I assume that most members of this Mr BENNETT: In directing a question to Parliament would know that, traditionally, the Minister for Education, I refer to the Queensland has had a free public hospital Government’s new $40m Computers in system for more than 50 years. Schools Program. I ask: can he inform the Mr Horan: It used to be 42 per cent. It’s House of the progress of implementation of dropped 10 per cent. this program, in particular the way in which it has benefited schools in the Gladstone Mr HAYWARD: It is a pretty ordinary electorate? assumption to state that Queensland is somehow the same as the rest of Australia. Mr COMBEN: I thank the honourable When Medicare was introduced in 1983, there member for his question. The Goss was a drop in private health insurance in this Government’s pre-election commitment to the State—there can be no doubt about that—but Computers in Schools Program will enhance what has happened in other States is that the considerably the provision of computers to rate of private health insurance has continued every upper primary and high school student to decline. That has not been the experience within five years. The program not only at all in Queensland. provides major benefits for students by providing them with new skills and training but The honourable member also asked also relieves the P & C associations of a major whether or not I agree with the proposals that fundraising burden. have been put forward by Senator Richardson. I have not seen the proposals This year, the Government has that have been put forward by Senator committed the sum of $9.2m in addition to Richardson. All I have seen is some media last year’s initial $2m outlay on computers. In comment. May this year, in Gladstone, the new program provided $11,750 to the Clinton State School; Mr Horan: You must be the only person $13,630 to the Gladstone South State who hasn’t. You know what they are. School; and $12,455 to the Kin Kora State Legislative Assembly 5973 18 November 1993

Mr HAYWARD: Let me make it very clear Mr Horan: I thought they were worried that all I have seen is some media comment. about their patients. Senator Richardson certainly has not delivered Mr HAYWARD: It is unfortunate that the his proposals to a Health Minister’s conference honourable member allows himself to be or to Health Ministers. Dare I suggest that he dragged into such an argument. No-one can may be floating these comments in the media argue against the suggestion that there is to see what sort of a reaction he can get. We mounting pressure on cardiac facilities. When all know the sort of reaction the proposal has examining that issue, one has to take into received from the Prime Minister so far, so let account the history of the problem, and it us think about the issue in that context. Let indicates that the Opposition in this State me just say that what I assume the member is must be condemned. This Government has asking is whether or not I support an increase moved to address that problem. Firstly, and in the levy for people who are higher income importantly, it has ensured that a public earners. cardiac unit is now available in north Mr Horan: Those who don’t have private Queensland. That it was not available health insurance. previously is a reflection of the lack of foresight Mr HAYWARD: In general terms, I do not and the absolute desire of Opposition support that, but I think I could be convinced members not to plan. Wherever possible, it on that issue provided there was an reacted to the screams of a few people and understanding as to just what the cut-off point said, “Let’s feed them some money. If we do was. At this stage, we do not know what the that, they will remain quiet for a while.” That is cut-off point is. All honourable members would not the way to run a public hospital system. It know that, when schemes are introduced with has to be run on the basis of health priorities, cut-off points, the cut-off point tends to be not the priorities of individual doctors in reduced time and again and, in the end, that individual areas. impacts very strongly on people in our society The pressure on south-east who are least able to afford health insurance. Queensland’s cardiac facilities will be relieved in the new year when the cardiac unit opens in north Queensland. That unit will cater for Princess Alexandra Hospital approximately 25 per cent of Queensland’s Mr HORAN: I ask the Minister for Health: cardiac patients. Currently, the Prince Charles as he has been formally advised by the Hospital—which is a world-class centre, and I Southside Local Medical Association of the would hope no-one would argue with totally unacceptable situation at Princess that—treats people from north Queensland. Alexandra Hospital, where cardiac patients The opening of that unit in north Queensland who need urgent surgery within 24 hours have will relieve the burden on tertiary health to wait five days, where chronic cardiac waiting services which, historically, have been periods are 9 to 12 months, and where the neglected. number of procedures allowed to be I want members to understand that performed are well below the needs of the although south-east Queensland has a population served by the hospital? Will he demanding population, a growing population take immediate steps to redirect funds or seek and an ageing population, we have to provide Treasury funds urgently to fix this life- those tertiary services in the northern parts of threatening problem? the State so that people in those areas have Mr HAYWARD: Again, I thank the an opportunity to access those services. honourable member for his question. The Extra funding has been made available Parliament should know that no cardiac to Prince Charles Hospital to increase the surgery is performed at the PA Hospital. The number of procedures it carries out and to hospital provides a limited cardiac provide new equipment and facilities to angiography service which has been improve patient throughput. I know that that developed to meet the emerging needs for may not be satisfactory to the people who cardiac services in Queensland. Let us be work at the Princess Alexandra Hospital, but frank about what this is all about. It is all about we have to be able to deal with the resources a group of people who, for want of a better that we have. Over the last four years, Health term, are shroud-waving to try to attract has received increases in its budget and attention to their particular neck of the woods increases in resources. Consequently, it has in an attempt to have funds redirected been able to provide those very important towards their particular pet projects. cardiac services in north Queensland. 18 November 1993 5974 Legislative Assembly

The issue is important; I understand that. Mr BRISKEY: In directing my second However, this Government has been able to question to the Minister for Education, I refer deal with this very important issue by putting in him to the Bardon Professional Development place those facilities in north Queensland so Centre, and I ask, what is the Minister’s role that people have access to them, and now in relation to the sale of that centre? expanding the facilities that are available at Mr COMBEN: I thank the honourable the Prince Charles Hospital. member for appropriately directing the question to the Minister for Education and not Water Transport to Bay Islands to the Minister for Administrative Services. I declared the Bardon Professional Mr BRISKEY: I ask the Minister for Development Centre—— Transport: with reference to water transport to the bay islands within my electorate, what is Mr Slack: Why don’t you answer the the Minister doing presently to ensure that the question. best possible service is provided for people Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for who journey between the mainland and their Burnett! That is highly disorderly. I am on my homes? feet. I warn the member for Burnett. I am not Mr HAMILL: The member for Cleveland going to have members talking while they are has maintained a very active interest in the walking around. I warn the member for Burnett welfare of the people who live on the bay under Standing Order 124. It is highly islands. On a number of occasions, he has disorderly. raised with me the subject of ferry services. Mr COMBEN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In Recently, I had the pleasure of accompanying reply to the Leader of the Liberal Party, who the member for Redlands on an inspection of said that I did not know the answer, I stood by a number of those facilities on the islands to the Standing Orders of this place and said ascertain at first hand whether there was a that it was not a question for the Minister for need for improved infrastructure to serve the Education. I said nothing about not knowing needs of what are quite significantly growing the answer. communities on those islands. In answer to the honourable member I am sure that the member for Cleveland now, some months ago I declared the Bardon would be pleased to know that, whereas in the Professional Development Centre surplus to past there has been no facility for the licensing needs. That decision was taken and endorsed of ferry operators—indeed, the provisions of by the department. On Monday, it was the State Transport Act, which were enacted endorsed by Cabinet, and Parella in about 1960 were actually struck down in the Development Pty Ltd was selected as the courts—the current review of passenger preferred purchaser. Cabinet’s statement that transport services, which has been the subject Parella was the preferred purchaser also of other questions asked in this place that included a statement that the Government tended to focus on discussions about bus would seek to negotiate benefit and services, is equally applicable to the provision advantage for the Bardon State School, which of ferry services. For the people who live on adjoins that site. the bay islands and, indeed, the people who The Bardon community and the Bardon live on Magnetic Island, their passenger State School are concerned about a number transport link is by water. It makes eminent of points. Those include traffic on the road, a good sense to bring those ferry services within set-down area for the school, a buffer zone the general ambit of the passenger transport between the development and the school, provisions. Under the current passenger access to the land that is being sold for transport review, that is exactly what we environmental and other activities and studies propose to do. by the students, and the use of the centre by That review will focus—as it does with bus the students. I have had a number of services—on service frequency and on the discussions with the local community and with quality of the vessel that is being used to its local member, Ms Edmond, to seek exactly provide that service with the overall objective what is required and what we can seek as a of improving the access and the quality of compromise that is reasonable in all the passenger transport services available to circumstances. Over the next months as communities such as those on the bay negotiations go on and as my agent, the islands. Minister for Administrative Services, negotiates the sale, my role will be as advocate for the community and the Bardon State School, and Bardon Professional Centre as a member of Cabinet. Certainly, I will be Legislative Assembly 5975 18 November 1993 supporting Ms Edmond in all her moves to inefficiency, duplication and fragmentation obtain benefit for her community. that the Government inherited. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted The achievements to date are for questions has expired. voluminous when one considers that, in just three years, all the functions concerned with transport services have been placed within TRANSPORT PLANNING AND one ministry. This has enabled the COORDINATION BILL development of a properly integrated State Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for transport system, free of the duplication and Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier fragmentation of the past. For the first time, on Economic and Trade Development) (11.10 Queensland’s economic, commercial and a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— social development is being supported by an “That leave be granted to bring in a efficient, cost-effective and integrated Bill for an Act about the planning and transport system. Now that the Government coordination of transport.” has achieved an integrated approach to transport matters, it has become imperative to Motion agreed to. establish a legislative structure which outlines the strategic role that the Government has in First Reading strategic planning and management across all forms of transport. Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Bill, on motion of Mr Hamill, read a first time. As part of the Government’s commitment to and recognition of removing inefficient, ineffective and redundant legislation, I have Second Reading committed my portfolio to a complete overhaul Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for of transport legislation and to the elimination Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier of legislation which serves no useful purpose on Economic and Trade Development) (11.11 or the cost of which imposes a heavy burden a.m.): I move— on industry, the community or Government administration. Regulatory reform is an “That the Bill be now read a second important part of the process of structural time.” adjustment and improving competitiveness. This Bill represents a culmination of the As part of these endeavours and the significant achievements already made in the integration of the State’s transport functions, it way that the transport system of Queensland is planned to rationalise the current 55 Acts has been managed since the election of the administered by my portfolio to approximately Goss Labor Government in December 1989. 20 Acts. Recent reviews have seen the repeal The Bill establishes a legislative framework for of the Roads (Contribution to Maintenance) the planning and management of transport Act 1957; the Carriage of Goods by Land throughout the State. It provides further focus (Carriers’ Liabilities) Act 1967; and a further 12 to the Government’s commitment to a truly redundant and obsolete transport-related Acts integrated system of transport for in the recent Statute Law (Miscellaneous Queensland. Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1993. Following the election of the Goss Labor Over the next two years, legislation will be Government, the former Departments of introduced into this House which, when Transport, Main Roads and Harbours and passed, will eventually lead to the repeal of 25 Marine, that is, the marine and ports functions Acts, including the Harbours Act 1955; the of that department, were amalgamated to Transport Infrastructure (Roads) Act 1991; the form a new Department of Transport. To Transport Infrastructure (Railways) Act 1991; ensure that a cohesive, streamlined, efficient the Queensland Marine Act 1958; the and effective transport sector prevailed in Pollution of Waters by Oil Act 1973; the State Queensland, the new Departments of Transport Act 1960; the Urban Public Transport and Queensland Railways were Passenger Transport Act 1984; the Urban placed within one ministry to enhance the Passenger Service Proprietors Assistance Act planning, management, development and 1975; the Traffic Act 1949; and the Tow-truck coordination across all facets of road, rail, Act 1973, as well as a host of other maritime and air transport systems. The single legislation—all of which represents a total ministry provides the basis for an integrated rewrite, upgrading and modernisation of the approach to transport in Queensland. This State’s transport laws. The new legislation, reflects sharply with the patchwork of when enacted, will reflect current State policy 18 November 1993 5976 Legislative Assembly objectives and will accord greater an overview of each of the component parts harmonisation and uniformity with the that make up this Bill. transport laws of all other Australian Transport Coordination Plan jurisdictions. This will ensure that the development of the State’s transport system Concerning the strategic planning will reflect the needs of its industry and people provisions of the proposed legislation, the Bill leading into the twenty-first century. requires development of a Transport Coordination Plan. This plan will give effect to The complex and interactive nature of the Queensland economic statement, transport requires an innovative approach in “Queensland—Leading State”; ensure the order to develop an effective management best return on the Government’s financial and structure. The Government, particularly my other resource investments in the State’s portfolio, must be capable of dealing with the transport system; difficult issues facing transport infrastructure and services in this State, and must look provide an environment for greater portfolio ahead to meet the future needs of the accountability and public transparency in the business sector and the broader community. way resources are allocated and used; As such, the Transport Planning and reinforce and give further focus to the Coordination Bill is an integral part of this Government’s objectives for integrated strategy. planning, development and management of the State’s transport system; significantly The Transport Planning and Coordination increase the predicability in Government Bill comprises three key components: firstly, a strategic planning; drive internal cultural requirement to develop a Transport change to ensure a whole-of-portfolio Coordination Plan to provide a strategic perspective; focus the portfolio’s activities on framework for the planning and management outcomes rather than inputs, and allow the of transport throughout the State; and, Government to more objectively prioritise the secondly, consolidation of existing property use of finite resources. Each successive plan acquisition powers throughout Acts will provide a firm basis for the Minister to administered by the Department of Transport provide advice to Treasury and Cabinet on into this legislation. Also, powers of budget priorities. compulsory property acquisition for transport- related Government owned corporations, Under the Public Finance Standards, the commonly known as GOCs, have been chief executive of each department is required centralised. Thirdly, there will be the to prepare a strategic plan. This legislation establishment of an interim merits-based expands on the requirement for a appeals process for all transport legislation, departmental strategic plan. The existence of pending consideration of a State Government- a legislative commitment in the transport wide, merits-based appeals system. portfolio’s legislation to strategic planning will be more meaningful to departmental staff The objectives of the Transport Planning than the Public Finance Standards and Coordination Bill 1993 essentially are to requirements for a strategic plan. This coordinate transport in a way that provides commitment will facilitate internal portfolio economic and social benefits. These are cultural change. broad objectives which are supplemented by more detailed objectives within the primary The proposed legislation will require the supporting legislation, that is, the Transport Director-General, Department of Transport, to Infrastructure Bill 1993 and four proposed bills prepare a Transport Coordination Plan which concerning transport services. must include: firstly, a statement of the specific objectives sought to be achieved by This family of legislation will contain a the plan; secondly, criteria for deciding hierarchy of objectives which become priorities for spending on transport; and, progressively more specific. In particular, the thirdly, appropriate performance indicators for supporting legislation contains mode-specific determining whether, and to what extent, the legislative objectives, and further objectives objectives of the plan have been achieved. are contained within the mode-specific strategies and programs which give effect to The Transport Coordination Plan will also the higher level objectives. These objectives provide, firstly, an adequate framework for the will be met by achieving overall transport coordinated planning for transport; and, effectiveness and efficiency through the secondly, a way of achieving effective and strategic planning and management of efficient use of land for transport purposes. transport resources. I would now like to give The development of each Transport Coordination Plan must be consistent with, and be developed within, the Government’s Legislative Assembly 5977 18 November 1993 overall strategic planning objectives for To develop such a plan, all components Queensland, and must take into account: of the portfolio must be involved and national transport strategies; regional transport committed to the overall strategy. The and other development plans; local mechanisms and processes for the government interests; the Government’s land development of the plan must include use planning; and the Government’s appropriate recognition and involvement of all environmental policies. of the portfolio, including Queensland The Transport Coordination Plan will Railways and the proposed GOC ports. All provide a framework for the strategic planning Government-supported transport infrastructure and coordination of the most important and transport services issues will have to be transport infrastructure and services in taken into account in the planning process. Queensland, especially those controlled by Performance obligations will be imposed on the Department of Transport. Each plan will transport-related GOCs in the construction, establish its own objectives, but such maintenance and operation of all objectives will be consistent with the objectives Government-supported transport infrastructure proposed to be established in this legislation. for which each such organisation is Each successive plan will be prepared in responsible. consultation with other Government In order to reconcile planning differences departments, local government and key within the portfolio, the coordination industry and community stakeholders. mechanisms will include appropriate resolution The development of the plan will be processes. The Transport Coordination Plan coordinated with other Government strategic would provide a framework within which planning processes. For example, it does not transport-related GOCs might develop their constrain consideration by Government of the own strategies. Accordingly, it is fundamental transport initiatives stemming from the that the proposed transport-related GOCs Regional Planning Advisory Group would take the plan and other strategic issues recommendations for south-east Queensland. into account when developing their corporate plans and annual statements of corporate The spending criteria to be developed intent. within a Transport Coordination Plan will facilitate allocation by Government of the Acquisition of Property available funds between Government- This legislation will empower the chief supported transport infrastructure and executive for the State to acquire property for transport services in order to achieve the best transport purposes. In respect of transport- overall transport system for Queensland. Also, related GOCs the power only applies to the the Transport Infrastructure Bill and other compulsory acquisition of property. The chief proposed future transport services legislation executive for the State is to have the power to will incorporate criteria concerning the acquire, hold, dispose of or otherwise deal allocation of funds between the differing with real or personal property for the purposes transport modes, including between the of transport or for an incidental purpose. The Department of Transport and the transport- only additional power sought is the related GOCs. This will ensure that compulsory acquisition of property for Queensland gets the best return on its transport-related GOCs. The chief executive financial and other resource investments in may lease, sell or otherwise dispose of land the State’s transport system. acquired under this Act for the operations of a A typical Transport Coordination Plan transport-related GOC. This is consistent with would include the following elements: the Government Owned Corporations Act mechanisms for advising Cabinet and 1993 and the Government’s GOC policy Treasury of priorities in budget allocations directions. Otherwise, all of the acquisition between infrastructure and services, between powers contained in this Bill reflect existing different transport modes and between powers under the Transport Infrastructure projects; planning and coordination of (Roads) Act 1991, the Urban Public transport infrastructure and services; planning Passenger Transport Act 1984 and other and coordination of large scale transport- transport-related Acts. related economic development; integration Merits-based Appeals with other Government strategic planning; Provision has been made for the planning of transport environmental issues; establishment of an interim merits-based and integration of land use planning with appeals process for all transport legislation transport requirements. pending consideration of a State Government- wide, merits-based appeals system. A 18 November 1993 5978 Legislative Assembly schedule of reviewable decisions will be and into the various transport infrastructure identified within each new transport Act such strategies developed within the Transport as proposed in the Marine Safety Bill and the Infrastructure Bill and the various transport Transport Infrastructure Bill. It will also be services strategies which will be developed necessary to include in each new transport Act within other proposed future transport services specific merits-based appeals provisions to legislation. Each Transport Coordination Plan, supplement the appeals provisions of this Bill. and reports on its subsequent effectiveness, Government policy, as expressed in the will be required to be laid before Parliament. Legislative Standards Act 1992, supports the This Bill, along with the Transport provision of appeal mechanisms in new Infrastructure Bill and the other proposed principal legislation. However, to ensure that future transport services legislation, will further existing transport legislation also provides for ensure that funding priorities in transport must merits-based appeals, the provisions of this be properly determined and be consistent with Bill also provide for further specific merits- the State’s economic and social development based appeals provisions and a table of and regional needs. No longer are transport reviewable decisions, to be identified by projects determined by whose gate is at the regulation, for existing transport legislation. end of the road. This legislation will help The regulations would be made under the ensure that those days never return. This relevant transport Act concerned. This Government aims for better value out of its arrangement will ensure that transport-related transport dollars. The legislation will help legislation, whether new or existing, has ensure that all Queenslanders are getting provision for merits-based appeals. maximum benefit from every dollar spent. Given the EARC Report on Review of I commend the Bill to the House. Appeals from Administrative Decisions, and the prospect of a comprehensive State Debate, on motion of Mr Johnson, Government-wide, merits-based appeals adjourned. process arising from that report, these interim arrangements have been adopted as the most efficient and timely way of ensuring as TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE BILL many transport-related administrative Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for decisions as possible are subject to merits- Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier based review. on Economic and Trade Development) (11.25 Delegation Powers a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— A general administrative power has also “That leave be granted to bring in a been made to allow myself, as Minister for Bill for an Act about transport Transport, and the Director-General, infrastructure.” Department of Transport, to delegate certain Motion agreed to. powers under any legislation to any appropriate person, including the power to on- delegate. The power to on-delegate will apply First Reading when the delegation authorises the on- Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and delegation of the power. This power of on- Bill, on motion of Mr Hamill, read a first time. delegation has been provided to ensure administrative efficiency in the operations of the Department. Second Reading Conclusion Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—Minister for This Bill imposes a legislative obligation Transport and Minister Assisting the Premier on myself, as Minister for Transport, to on Economic and Trade Development) (11.26 operate strategically, and in a transparent a.m.): I move— way, across the various complementary but, in “That the Bill be now read a second many ways, competing forms of transport, and time.” to be accountable for that. The legislation will require the performance of Queensland’s It is my pleasure to introduce the transport system to be able to be measured Transport Infrastructure Bill, which, as I against defined objectives and provide a basis foreshadowed in the second-reading speech for effective parliamentary scrutiny and public for the introduction of the Transport Planning accountability. This will be achieved through and Coordination Bill, is the supporting the development of performance indicators to legislation to that Bill and is part of a family of be built into the Transport Coordination Plan legislation covering the Transport portfolio. Legislative Assembly 5979 18 November 1993

As indicated previously to the House, objectives are to be contained within the there is a major review under way of the mode-specific strategies which give effect to legislation across all of the transport functions the higher-level objectives. within my Ministry. That review will result in the This Bill’s overall objective is to provide a rationalisation of some 55 Acts down to framework for the effective integrated planning around 20 pieces of legislation. The key to this and management of a system of transport plan is to establish peak legislation for the infrastructure. This framework is required to be portfolio, namely the Transport Planning and consistent with the broad economic and social Coordination Bill. The primary supporting objectives of the Transport Planning and legislation will be this Transport Infrastructure Coordination Bill. The Transport Infrastructure Bill and four proposed Bills concerning Bill also has an objective of allowing a transport services. Appendix A of the strategic overview by Government of the Explanatory Note tabled with this Bill provision and operation of all transport incorporates a graphical representation of the infrastructure and provides specific objectives legislative structure for the Transport portfolio. for each transport mode. Among other things, this legislation will As well as the effectiveness objectives of replace the Transport Infrastructure (Roads) the Transport Infrastructure Bill, Chapter 3 Act 1991. At the time of introduction of that contains efficiency objectives to ensure that Bill, I indicated to the House that there would value for money is obtained in the provision be further changes required to the roads and operation of Government supported legislation. Since that time, I have concluded transport infrastructure. This applies to the that legislation can be a most effective tool in activities of the Department of Transport as facilitating strategic planning across the entire well as to the transport GOCs, excepting Transport portfolio, covering the diverse where their infrastructure program is financed activities of the Department of Transport and totally within their commercial operations, the transport-related Government Owned without any form of Government support. In Corporations—commonly known as accordance with this Government’s GOCs—namely, Queensland Railways and commitment to accountability, each of the the various port authorities. Accordingly, I am Government transport organisations will report commending to the House a Transport on compliance with the value-for-money Infrastructure Bill which will cover roads and, requirement in their respective annual reports. eventually, rail and ports and miscellaneous forms of infrastructure such as airports and In the past 18 months, the Government monorails. has undertaken the most fundamental reform of the management of roads in Australia This Transport Infrastructure Bill will be through an initiative known as Road Reform. developed in stages, with this initial stage Clearly, we are now recognised as national covering the core obligations and powers for leaders. The policy direction established at the all forms of transport infrastructure, together time is now reflected in this legislation to with the detailed obligations and powers ensure a continuing commitment to— covering the strategic management of roads. However, at this time, the Bill will not cover the effective prioritisation of work to be done; franchised roads and bridges, such as the and Logan Motorway and the Gateway Bridge, delivery of work at best value for money which are covered by the Motorways and being able to prove it! Agreements Act 1987 and the Gateway In relation to roads, the Bill seeks to provide a Bridge Agreement Act 1980 respectively. basis by which control can be exercised These are to be included later. directly by the department over the most As indicated in the introduction of the significant roads, and influence exerted over Transport Planning and Coordination Bill, the the total road network. In addition, relatively objectives are to coordinate transport in a way broad objectives are included for the transport that provides economic and social benefits. GOCs which might need to be expanded These are broad objectives which are upon when those elements are incorporated supplemented by more detailed objectives into the Bill at a later stage. within the primary supporting legislation, that Again, as indicated in the introduction of is, the Transport Infrastructure Bill and the four the Transport Planning and Coordination Bill, proposed Bills concerning transport services. that legislation incorporates a legislative This “family” of legislation contains a hierarchy obligation on the Director-General of the of objectives which become progressively Department of Transport to develop a more specific. In particular, this Bill contains Transport Coordination Plan which will provide mode-specific legislative objectives and further 18 November 1993 5980 Legislative Assembly a framework for the strategic management of sensible alternatives to spending even more transport across the State, including the money on particular State-controlled roads. integration of plans of the Department of This is a good example of the way in which Transport with those of transport-related this Bill seeks to make the most effective use GOCs, namely, Queensland Railways and the of the finite amount of public funds that can various port authorities. be made available for roads. Each year, the Appendix B of the Explanatory Note annual report of the Department of Transport tabled with this Bill incorporates a graphical will report on the results of the roads representation of the strategic planning implementation program. structure for the portfolio. As the Minister The Transport Infrastructure Bill charged with the responsibility for the transport recognises the dual roles of the director- functions of Government, my approval of such general to both directly control a set of roads a plan will be required and there will be a that are of national and State significance and statutory obligation on me to table that plan in to exercise influence over the total road the Legislative Assembly. network. Both roles are important to ensure In line with the Government’s that the key roads are managed consistently commitment to openness, there will be and well, and the influencing role is transparency in the way that transport appropriate in that it ensures that local planning will be coordinated, and there will be governments retain their autonomy in relation an accountability to the Parliament for how to roads, but do so with the confidence that well that plan is achieved. I am sure that the Department of Transport is endeavouring members will not be backward in telling me to optimise the spending of the scarce public about it if I fail to deliver what is promised. funds available for roads. This Transport Infrastructure Bill will The roads of State significance are to be impose a further obligation on the Director- called State-controlled roads, and they include General of the Department of Transport to national highways, which are fully funded by develop transport infrastructure strategies for the Commonwealth Government. The term the Transport portfolio that are designed to “State-controlled road” replaces the term give effect to the Transport Coordination Plan “declared road”, which is a rather meaningless under the Transport Planning and term that has been used since the 1920s. Coordination Bill. Again, as the responsible Until now, no-one has seriously tried to Minister, I will table these strategies in the determine criteria as to which roads should be House for the purposes of transparency and controlled by the State Government and which accountability. These strategies will include should be controlled by local government. goal statements and, in relation to only roads Consequently, the set of roads that is at this stage, the strategies will incorporate the managed by the Department of Transport on criteria for determining my financial and behalf of the State Government is a mish- management accountability for achieving the mash of roads that range from the highly road system objectives, that is, there will be strategic roads of major economic importance performance indicators for measuring road to the State to minor local roads, which really system performance. Also, the strategies will ought to be controlled by local government. incorporate the criteria for determining what This is a situation that the Government roads are to be State-controlled roads—the has inherited and, while I am prepared to say successor to declared roads—and the criteria that any new State-controlled roads will be the for advising Treasury and Cabinet on where only ones that meet the criteria, there is no funds should be invested. agenda for a wholesale shedding of Again, in relation to only roads at this inappropriate State-controlled roads to local stage, each year the Director-General of the government. Department of Transport will be required to In controlling a set of State-controlled develop, for my approval, roads roads, the Department of Transport can be implementation programs for that year and regarded as the road system owner. In that predictions for probably the next four years. role, the director-general has an obligation to These roads implementation programs will obtain value for money in the construction, include a program of projects for implementing maintenance and operation of transport the transport infrastructure strategies for infrastructure. As an example of the roads. application of this, the director-general already I draw to the attention of the House that has commenced the bulking-up of roads this program of projects can include projects projects so that contracts can be let in more on local government roads, if they are economic-sized lots. Also, the director-general Legislative Assembly 5981 18 November 1993 is to retain the role of road referred to the Department of Transport, the builder/maintainer/operator, using his own director-general will issue guidelines as to labour force. However, in line with this Bill’s when local governments should forward such requirement of him to obtain value for money, applications. then any work performed by the Department While this may seem to be an imposition of Transport must be provided on a price on local government, the director-general will competitive basis. determine permission criteria which will allow For decades, local governments have local governments to automatically apply the acted as agents for the Department of conditions which attach to the criteria, without Transport—in its current and previous forms. referral to the director-general. It is expected In accord with the commitment to value for that, over time, the criteria will be refined such money, this Bill formally recognises the that the significant majority of applications will change in relationship from 1 July 1993 that not require referral to the department. local governments will be contractors to the In line with this Government’s Department of Transport. In this way, local commitment to open and accountable governments will be encouraged to become government, there are mechanisms in this Bill more efficient and, indeed, they will retain any for a local government or any developer to surpluses realised on work done for the lodge a merits-based appeal against a refusal Department of Transport to invest in their local by the Department of Transport to approve a road network. development application or a decision of the Conversely, they can lose money on the Department of Transport concerning the contract work, but there are safeguards imposition of conditions. against damaging results for local Another key feature of this Bill is that it governments that could not sustain significant endeavours to provide flexibility in the way that losses. Also, we have been sensitive to the roads are managed. It does this in clause 24 communities which rely heavily on Department by giving the director-general the same of Transport roadworks as a major factor in the powers over his State-controlled roads in any local economy. In those situations, the local government area that the local director-general can guarantee work for the government has over its local government local government on a fixed-price basis that roads in that area and, in clause 41, by requires the adoption of efficient work empowering any local government with the practices. The Bill brings the force of statute to same authority over State-controlled roads in arrangements already agreed with the its area that it has over its own local Queensland Local Government Association. government roads. In short, both the director- This Bill also provides that a local general and the local government will have government may make financial concurrent powers over the State-controlled arrangements with the director-general for roads in any local government area. improvements to a State-controlled road However, the director-general must where that is sensible for the local road determine which organisation will exercise network. In this way, a local government may which powers, and, in this way, he will be able contribute to the upgrading of a State- to readily authorise the most cost-effective controlled road for the use of local traffic as an solutions to the management of the various economic alternative to providing or upgrading functions on State-controlled roads. This is but local roads. a further example of a real commitment to A significant aspect of this Transport maximising the benefits from the available Infrastructure Bill is that it seeks to maintain roads funds. the integrity of the State-controlled road Members will have noted the many system by requiring local governments to gain significant and subtle changes within this Bill. I the written approval of the director-general have presented the substantive matters only before approving development proposals and rely on the very detailed explanatory note which would have a significant adverse impact that accompanies this Bill to provide the on any State-controlled road, or on the necessary comment on the intent of the planning of an existing or future State- provisions of lesser significance. I commend controlled road. this Bill to the House. The conditions of approval may include a Debate, on motion of Mr Johnson, requirement for compensation, whether adjourned. monetary or otherwise, for the impact of the development. To aid the local governments in determining when such applications should be CRIMINAL JUSTICE AMENDMENT BILL 18 November 1993 5982 Legislative Assembly

Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba— Minister Justice Act in the light of the reports and for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister recommendations of the Parliamentary for the Arts) (11.37 a.m.), by leave, without Criminal Justice Committee, submissions by notice: I move— the CJC, and other relevant matters. The “That leave be granted to bring in a amendments in this Bill adopt those Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal recommendations of the Parliamentary Justice Act 1989.” Criminal Justice Committee which are considered to be technical amendments. They Motion agreed to. are non-controversial. They will better facilitate the operation of the Act pending full First Reading consideration of the substantive recommendations of the Parliamentary Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and Criminal Justice Committee and any other Bill, on motion of Mr Wells, read a first time. issues which are identified as requiring examination. The amendments have been Second Reading developed in close consultation with relevant Government agencies and the Criminal Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba— Minister Justice Commission. for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts) (11.38 a.m.): I move— Commenting now on some of the principal amendments—the Bill extends the “That the Bill be now read a second confidentiality provision of section 6.7 of the time.” Act to former commissioners and officers of The principal objectives of the Bill are: to the commission and former members of the provide for a number of technical parliamentary committee. Although persons amendments to the Criminal Justice Act 1989 employed or engaged by the commission are which have been recommended by the under a contractual obligation to maintain Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee and confidentiality, the current provisions of section the Criminal Justice Commission which will 6.7, under which it is an offence to wilfully clarify the Act and facilitate its administration; disclose information except for certain to extend the confidentiality provision of purposes, do not clearly extend to “former” section 6.7 of the Act to former commissioners commissioners or officers of the commission and officers of the commission and former or “former” members of the parliamentary members of the parliamentary committee; to committee and to the persons mentioned in authorise the legally qualified commissioner to sections 2.54 and 2.55 of the Act. preside at hearings in his or her own right; to Some of the investigations conducted by authorise former judges and other eminent the Criminal Justice Commission are very members of the legal profession to preside at sensitive. Because of the nature of the hearings without having to make them officers investigations and the sensitivity of the of the commission; and to make it an offence information gathered, it is imperative that for a person to make a false allegation, adequate confidentiality provisions apply to all causing a commission investigation. persons who have, or have had, access to The Criminal Justice Act 1989 was that information to protect the integrity of the assented to on 31 October 1989. However, investigations and the identity of informants the commission really commenced operations and witnesses. The amendment to section 6.7 on 22 April 1990, when the major parts of the will clearly extend the offence of wilful Act came into operation. disclosure of information to the persons Apart from two amendment Acts in 1992 mentioned. which granted the commission a discretion not The next matter concerns the to investigate all cases, and extended the commissioner, who is a legal practitioner. The grounds of appeal from the Misconduct Act requires that there will always be one Tribunal operating in its original jurisdiction, the commissioner, apart from the chairperson, only other amendments to the Act concerned who is in actual practice as a legal practitioner. interim measures for whistleblowers and Currently, that commissioner is Mr Lew Wyvill, clarified the validity of certain appointments. QC. However, under the current provisions of The Parliamentary Criminal Justice the Act, when the commission is conducting a Committee has released a number of reports hearing, only the chairperson sitting alone out of which these amendments arise. The may constitute the commission for the amendments in this Bill represent the first purpose of conducting the hearing. Other stage of a phased review of the Criminal commissioners, whether legally qualified or not, acting alone, cannot constitute the Legislative Assembly 5983 18 November 1993 commission. This excludes Mr Wyvill from instituted under this section. It is essential that alone constituting the commission to conduct the commission’s resources be directed to a hearing. There is no logical reason why this complaints and information made to it in good should be so when the chairperson can faith and not be dissipated by being required authorise an employed officer who is a lawyer to investigate knowingly false complaints. to conduct a hearing alone, but the Not all frivolous or vexatious complaints commissioner required by the Act to be a legal can be proved to be false. Therefore, it is practitioner in actual practice—and in the necessary that, in addition to the existing present case, who is a Queen’s section 6.11, a provision be made for wilfully Counsel—cannot conduct a hearing alone. false complaint or information which causes a The next matter concerns the commission investigation. A similar approach appointment of former judges or other to that contained in section 10.4 of the Police eminent lawyers to conduct investigations. On Service Administration Act has been adopted, at least four occasions, the CJC has that is, to create a separate offence relating to considered it necessary to appoint former a wilfully false complaint or information judges to conduct investigations. Under the causing a commission investigation. current provisions of section 2.17, the I commend the Bill to the House. commission, when conducting a hearing, must be constituted by “an officer of the Debate, on motion of Mr Beanland, Commission who is a legal practitioner, adjourned. authorised for the purpose by the Chairperson”. Therefore, if a hearing is LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL required to be conducted during the course of the investigation by a former judge appointed Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH for that purpose, to comply with the provisions (Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, Local of the Act, it is necessary to suspend the Government and Planning) (11.46 a.m.), by appointment under section 2.55 and make leave, without notice: I move— the appointee an officer of the commission “That leave be granted to bring in a merely to enable the appointee to proceed Bill for an Act to provide for local with the hearing. The appointee performs no government in Queensland, and for other function of an officer. related purposes.” Apart from this process being Motion agreed to. cumbersome, it also raises questions about the perception of independence of the person appointed to conduct the investigation. A First Reading primary purpose for making these Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and appointments is to ensure the independence Bill, on motion of Mr Mackenroth, read a first of the investigations. This independence is time. open to question if the person appointed is then required to be made an officer of the commission. It is likely that appointments of Second Reading former judges or senior members of the legal Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH profession to conduct hearings will continue to (Chatsworth—Minister for Housing, Local be made from time to time. Government and Planning) (11.47 a.m.): I Finally, there is the matter of wilfully false move— complaints. Section 6.11 is the only provision “That the Bill be now read a second which enables the commission to take any time.” action against a person who gives information I introduce the Local Government Bill or makes a complaint to the commission 1993. It gives me great pleasure to bring this otherwise than in good faith. However, this is Bill before the House—a Bill to repeal the strictly limited in its operation to frivolous and existing Local Government Act and replace it vexatious complaints which are substantially with a new Local Government Act. Before I the same as an earlier complaint by a person outline the legislation, I would like to pay who has been notified by the commission in special tribute to staff of my Local writing that the complaint appears to be Government Department who have worked frivolous or vexatious. The obvious failing of hard over a number of years to get this Bill to this provision is that persons are not inclined where it is today. In particular, I would like to to repeat substantially the same complaint thank the Director of Local Government after receiving such notification. Therefore, it is Services, Maurie Tucker, who has worked not surprising that no prosecution has been 18 November 1993 5984 Legislative Assembly tirelessly on this Bill. I also wish to thank his system that is adaptable and can meet the staff: Rob Bathgate, Harry Wadley, Geoff coming challenges for all Governments; and a Baker, Terry Gibson and Craig Allen and any system where councils can achieve their other officers in the department who have potential and where mutual respect exists assisted with the Bill. The Parliamentary between the State and local governments— Counsel, John Leahy, and his staff also where we work together as partners. The deserve special thanks for the long hours they proposed new Local Government Act sets out have put in to ensure the Bill reached the to capture these aims; to balance increased Parliament today. autonomy and flexibility for local governments Throughout the consultation period, with an appropriate level of accountability. many people played their part in assisting to In a sense, the Bill brings together much bring forward a modern piece of legislation. of the general reform agenda of the State Councillor Jim Pennell and Greg Hallam from Government, some from the Commonwealth the Local Government Association, the Government, as well as reforms that either Institute of Municipal Management, the AWU reflect community expectations or which local and the ASU unions and all councils and governments have been seeking. When the individuals who provided submissions on the proposed legislation is fully implemented, proposed new Act—I thank them all. I can Queensland will have the strongest and the assure each and every person who provided a best system of local government in Australia; submission that they were all given due one that we can all be proud of. However, it consideration. will be a different system. The manner in which local governments operate will change, The present Local Government Act was along with the functions they choose to introduced in 1936, when the principal focus perform. There will also be more scope for of local government was on providing basic community participation and an increased community infrastructure and property-related emphasis on performance and accountability. services. Whilst these functions are still crucial, there is a growing expectation that councils Essentially, the provisions of the Bill will should play a greater role in the social, commence in two stages. All those provisions economic and environmental wellbeing of their concerning the preparation for and the communities. There is a desire for councils to conduct of the 1994 local government build better communities in all senses—not elections will have force and effect from the just the physical. time of royal assent. The remainder of the Bill will commence on 26 March 1994, which is Significant changes have also occurred in the day set for holding the next triennial recent years in the manner in which elections. This is the logical time for the Governments organise themselves, the way majority of the reforms to commence. The they operate and behave and the levels of newly elected councillors will be charged with accountability that apply. A more mature the responsibility of carrying forward the reform relationship between levels of Government agenda for local government. Setting such a has also developed, along with a recognition commencement date will also provide us with that functions should be devolved to the most the necessary time to prepare appropriate appropriate level. To try to keep up with such training programs to support the changes, frequent amendments have been implementation of the reforms in the new Act. made to the existing Local Government Act Councils also need time to consider the over the years. However, these amendments implications of the reforms and to start looking have mostly been short-term solutions to at adjustments to their existing practices and specific problems and have not given local procedures. government a solid platform on which to build and prepare to meet the challenges we face. The elections to be held next March will be conducted on the fairest set of electoral The Local Government Act sets out the arrangements that have ever applied to our framework of the local government system. It local government system. The Local was decided a number of years ago to Government Commissioner has been completely overhaul the present Act, to build conducting an exhaustive review of electoral on the current strengths and develop a new arrangements and his recommendations are local government system that can take us into currently being processed so that a final the next century. Our aim is to have a local decision can be made before Christmas. government system that is open, accountable and has the confidence of the people; a To complement the new electoral system that enables the efficient and effective arrangements, action has also been taken to delivery of quality services to the community; a review the existing provisions in the Local Legislative Assembly 5985 18 November 1993

Government Act which control the actual a by-election is to be held where a conduct of elections. When the Electoral and vacancy occurs in a councillor’s office Administrative Review Commission examined before 1 March in the year preceding the the local authority electoral system, it triennial election; recommended local government elections where a vacancy occurs after this time, should remain under the Local Government the vacancy is to be filled— Act, but the election rules should be amended to achieve consistency, as far as practicable, by a qualified person nominated by with the State requirements. This general the political party that endorsed the philosophy has been followed in the member vacating office; or preparation of the electoral provisions in the if the member was not endorsed by new Local Government Act. However, a political party, by a qualified person continuing recognition has been given to a appointed by the local government number of intrinsic differences between the following the calling of expressions of State and local government systems. For interest; example, the system of optional preferential those entitled to vote at a local voting that applies for State elections can only government election will be the same be used for those local government elections who would vote under the Electoral Act where a single councillor has to be elected. 1992 for a State election; and As a result of a more rigorous approach the Governor in Council is also to achieving consistency between the two empowered to direct that a fresh election electoral systems, both in terms of layout and be held when— content, it has been necessary to significantly rewrite the existing rules in the Local a local government is dissolved; Government Act. The provisions in the Bill are an amalgamation takes place; or designed to give greater assistance to electors a major change is made to external voting at local government elections. The boundaries or other electoral increased uniformity in voting procedures and arrangements. other changes that have been made also provide electors with a better chance of The balance of the provisions of the Bill are casting a formal vote. The key provisions in those which will apply to councils after the the Bill are— 1994 elections. councils to be elected triennially with the I will start by commenting on the issue chief executive officer of each council that seems to have attracted the most acting as the returning officer; attention. To me, this was rather surprising, given the nature of the issue when compared optional preferential voting is to be used to the magnitude of the reforms proposed where the local government area is throughout the Bill. The issue is the name that divided into single member divisions; should be applied to the head of a shire in all other local governments, first past council and the elected members of a town or the post voting will apply; city. In future, every head of a council will be in determining the electoral arrangements called the mayor and every elected member a for an electorally divided local councillor. So there will be no distinction government, a margin of allowance of 10 between the names given to elected per cent is to apply to the quota for members of cities, towns or shires. electing a councillor in a local government Although the title of a council has been with more than 10 000 electors and 20 retained, for example, Murilla Shire Council, all per cent in a local government with less councils will generally be referred to as local than 10 000 electors. These criteria were governments rather than local authorities. This introduced into the existing Local is in recognition of the fact that councils Government Act last year to enable represent a genuine system of government. redistributions to be held for the next As to the general jurisdiction of local elections; government, no more will the Act contain if a political party registered under the pages of specific matters over which a council State Electoral Act endorses a candidate may exercise control. For example, the at a local government election, that present functions of local government are set endorsement is to appear on the out in section 30 of the current Act. If the nomination form and the ballot paper; function was not listed in the old Act, legal arguments would occur on whether or not a council could actually perform the function in 18 November 1993 5986 Legislative Assembly question. Amending legislation was also a common process of development and necessary to expand the list of functions. In implementation. the proposed new Act, each local government The first stage of achieving this end are will have the jurisdiction to make local laws the provisions in the Bill that refer to by-laws and otherwise ensure the good rule and as local laws and set out the various steps government of its area. In exercising its which must be followed before a local law jurisdiction, the local government has a law- becomes operational. Similar provisions are making role and an Executive role. expected to be incorporated in the new Local The only general limitation on a local Government (Planning and Environment) Act government in the exercise of its jurisdiction is next year. Some of the basic principles in the that a council has no power to make a local Local Government Bill dealing with local laws law which the State Parliament could not include— make or attempts to limit the future law- it is the local government that finally making role of the local government. Where makes the local law and brings it into any inconsistency occurs between a State law operation and not the State Government. or a local law, the State law would prevail over This is a further enhancement of the the local law to the extent of the autonomy of councils to make their own inconsistency. This is the same philosophy in decisions about local matters and to be the Australian Constitution that applies to accountable for those decisions; Commonwealth and State laws. This is an extraordinarily wide charter for local the power of the State Government to government and represents the most intervene in the law-making process is autonomy and the broadest general limited to matters of State interest which competence power granted to any local are defined in the Act; government system in Australia. accountability to the local community is A local government exercises its full maintained through the requirement to jurisdiction within its area—its basic territorial advertise draft local laws for comment unit. A local government may also exercise its before a final decision is made; jurisdiction for a place outside its area that is the local law comes into operation after a put under its control or has been acquired by resolution of the local government and it. Such a place is called an additional the publication of an appropriate notice in territorial unit and a local government may the gazette. Copies of the local laws are only exercise its jurisdiction over that place for then open to inspection and can be the purpose for which it holds it. An example purchased from the council; of this limited jurisdiction would be the the Bill also provides that a council can cemetery of local government A which is make policies under a local law to located in the area of local government B. The facilitate the detailed implementation of planning scheme of B could apply to the land the objectives of the local law. Such whilst the local law of A dealing with policies are binding on the local cemeteries would govern the day-to-day use government and must be made using a of the cemetery. The term “local law” will be process that involves public consultation. new to most people. Another change has been to increase the At the moment, procedures for making maximum penalty that may be fixed for an by-laws under the Local Government Act differ offence under a local law. At the moment, the from the procedures for making town planning maximum general penalty for a by-law offence schemes under the Local Government is $5,000. However, it is still up to the courts to (Planning and Environment) Act. Areas of decide the penalty to be applied in particular major difference relate to the time by-laws and cases. In addition, there are people who town planning schemes are required to be would be prepared to risk the penalty because advertised. The difference in advertising of the advantage they gain by breaching the procedures has caused legal problems where provisions of the law. It is therefore proposed a matter which should rightfully be controlled to increase the maximum penalty under a under a town planning scheme is sought to be local law to 850 penalty units, or $51,000. controlled by by-law. The reverse could also However, it will no longer be possible to apply. The introduction of a single system of generally specify a maximum penalty for all local laws would overcome this problem and offences under a local law. also give councils increased flexibility in the way they control activities in their areas. It is Each provision that attracts a penalty for therefore proposed that by-laws and town non-compliance will have to be identified, planning schemes will become local laws with along with the relevant maximum penalty. It Legislative Assembly 5987 18 November 1993 will be up to the courts to determine the of involvement by the community in its penalty that is to apply in each case. Some preparation could easily lead to the council areas where maximum penalties are expected pursuing directions that do not have general to be significantly higher than those currently support. prescribed would be the destruction of A key factor in the success of any woodland contrary to a tree preservation local organisation achieving the goals in its law or the demolition of a locally designated corporate plan is the quality and level of heritage building. financial and management information To assist in the implementation of a available. In this light, it is recognised that the system of local laws, my department is also systems of financial accounting within local preparing a set of model local laws which will governments are in need of reform. The City be available for adoption by councils, if they of Brisbane Act was amended last year to so wish. This initiative will permit a council to provide the Brisbane City Council with the quickly modernise its local regulatory flexibility necessary for efficient and effective requirements and, at the same time, promote financial management in today’s rapidly increased uniformity in the content of local changing environment. Those provisions have laws across the State. In accordance with the been largely adopted in the new Local State Government’s regulatory reform Government Act. agenda, the Bill requires councils to review all In addition, the Local Government existing by-laws for archaic and redundant Finance Standards to be made under the Act provisions within a three-year period. Failure to provide for the phased introduction of accrual review a by-law will ultimately result in it accounting, which is accepted as being more ceasing to have force and effect. All levels of useful to councillors, staff and the community Government are being required to account for in showing the financial position and their activities to the community, and the performance of a council. Accrual accounting increased autonomy and responsibility being recognises income and expenditure when it proposed for local government has to be becomes due rather than when the cash balanced by measures to improve transaction takes place. It also reflects the accountability. At present, the annual budget changing value of assets. The finance is the only statutory requirement to ensure a standards will also contain principles to be local government plans the allocation of its followed for the presentation of accounts, as resources. However, a budget by itself is a well as call up established Australian limited accountability document as it only accounting standards. Local governments will explains what the council said it would spend therefore comply with modern accounting on what items, and what it actually did spend. practices. The Bill further provides that a For the local government system to be council is to adopt its annual budget between more accountable, people have to have June and August each year. The budget must knowledge of the council’s forward planning contain particulars on the financial year for and decision-making processes. They need to which it is adopted and outline in general be more aware of the performance of their terms the estimated revenue and expenditure council. Accordingly, the Bill requires each for the next two financial years. council to prepare a corporate plan as the Councils currently operate under a basis of exercising its jurisdiction. The system of fund accounting with budgets being corporate plan will set out the council’s mission adopted for a large number of separate funds or reason for existence and identify the goals created for particular functions of local it wants to achieve over a three-year period government. Examples would include general, and the strategies or major actions it will take water, sewerage, separate rate and general to deliver its promises. This will not be an reserve funds. While the current system of academic document that a local government fund accounting ensures some transparency could pay someone else to produce and then in the financial management of particular put it in the bottom drawer. functions, it does not assist in the Local governments will be required to development of an integrated approach to advertise their draft corporate plans before decision-making and financial management they are adopted. It is also expected that across a council. The abolition of fund each council would consult widely with, and accounting will result in the decision-making involve its community in, the preparation of focus switching to the whole organisation. It is the corporate plan. Failure to do so could therefore proposed that a local government result in an adverse public reaction and loss of should have only two funds—an operating office at the next elections. A council’s budget fund and a trust fund. This is the same must be based on its corporate plan, and lack 18 November 1993 5988 Legislative Assembly approach that was implemented last year for Before making a contract for carrying out Brisbane City. work or for the supply of goods and services, a For end-of-year reporting, a council is local government will also be required— simply required at the moment to prepare to seek tenders for contracts over cash-based annual financial statements. Only $100,000 by newspaper advertisement, the Brisbane City Council is obligated by law to allowing at least 21 days for submission prepare an annual report on its activities. An of tenders; annual report is one of the primary means by to issue written invitations to at least three which a local government can assess and persons who can meet the requirement report on its performance in relation to the at competitive prices, where the value of goals in its corporate plan. It is therefore the contract is between $10,000 and proposed that a local government must $100,000; and prepare an annual report outlining its financial performance and detailing its activities during in relation to contracts under $10,000, the year. Other matters that would need to be the council would need to adopt a policy included or disclosed in the annual report which takes into account the five include— principles just mentioned. the annual financial statements certified The Bill also provides that a local by the Auditor-General; government can enter into a contract without open competition in certain circumstances, a list of registers held by the council which including— are open to inspection by the public; where it resolves that it is satisfied a sole details of the council's revenue-raising supply situation exists; policies; where it resolves that a genuine the rationale adopted by the council for emergency exists; paying remuneration to its elected members; where it resolves to purchase through auction; the total remuneration received by each elected member and the number of where the contract is made with the meetings attended; Crown or another local government including contracts for the purchase of information or rebates and concessions goods or services under arrangements for rates levied; with the Crown or another local the success of implementing the council's government. EEO management plan. In addition, a local government will not Another major area of financial reform have to call tenders or obtain quotations for relates to contracting. The proposals in the Bill the provision of professional services if— have been developed from the legislative it engages a preferred provider from a provisions applied to the Brisbane City Council panel of suitably qualified providers; or last year. The contracting requirements in the current Local Government Act are very it resolves that the professional services prescriptive, with little emphasis being placed to be provided are of such a specialised on modern management approaches, as is or confidential nature it is impractical or the case with the State Purchasing Policy. To disadvantageous to the local government balance greater flexibility in contracting with to call tenders or obtain quotations. appropriate accountability mechanisms, the A further discretion has been granted to Bill proposes that when entering into councils to state in a tender advertisement purchasing contracts for the carrying out of that all tenderers could be invited to modify work or the supply of goods and services, a their tenders to take account of any change in local government must have regard to the five the tender specification. A local government principles taken from the State Purchasing can also seek expressions of interest before Policy. They are— calling tenders where it resolves it is in the open and effective competition; public interest to do so. After expressions of interest have been called by notice in a value for money; newspaper, the local government can prepare enhancement of the capabilities of local a short list from those who lodged business and industry; submissions and only invite tenders from environmental protection; and persons on the short list. ethical behaviour and fair dealing. Legislative Assembly 5989 18 November 1993

Greater flexibility has also been provided Councils will also have the discretionary power in the Bill for the disposal of goods and land. to limit increases in general rates and to levy In this respect, a local government must special rates and charges, where only some dispose of goods or land worth more than land benefits from the activity; separate rates $1,000 by tender or public auction. However, and charges, where the whole area the open competition requirement does not benefits; and utility charges for the provision of apply in certain cases, including the disposal water, sewerage and cleansing services as of goods or land— well as general charges. Provision will also be to the Crown; made for— to another local government; discounts for the prompt payment of rates and other incentives to encourage to a community organisation, which early payment; means a non-profit entity or one that exists for a public purpose; or the payment of rates by instalments; where the Minister or a regulation grants the compounding and remission of rates an exemption. and charges to pensioners and to other people where the council considers it to If goods or land are offered for sale by be appropriate; tender or public auction and they are not sold, the local government may also make the sale the deferral of the payment of rates until by private contract, but at a price at least some future date; equal to the highest bid or tender. the provision of rate rebates and The final area of enhanced financial concessions to encourage economic flexibility relates to the rating powers of a development, the preservation of council. The new rating provisions simplify and heritage properties and to support arts modernise the current complex requirements. and cultural development; They also represent the most far-reaching and the remission of rates in respect of lands flexible revenue-raising powers granted to any providing accommodation for pensioners local government system in Australia. where the owner makes a declaration Many of the reforms have been that any relief will be passed on to incorporated in the City of Brisbane Act and pensioners; the Local Government Act over the last year the adjustment of rates relating to a or so. Councils will still levy general rates previous year to overcome the difficulty of based on the unimproved capital value of the keeping up with rates levied when land fixed by the Valuer-General. The current subdivisions, etc., occur; provisions relating to the averaging of the exemption from rating of land which is valuations at the discretion of the local deemed by regulation to be used for government will also be retained. However, religious, charitable, educational or public rather than keep this power as a separate Act, purposes; and the relevant provisions have been incorporated into the Bill. council borrowings and investments to be fully subject to the Statutory Bodies A local government will be empowered to Financial Arrangements Act. levy a general rate, or any number of differential general rates, and for each general The enhancement of the financial rate, it may fix a different minimum general operating framework for local government will rate. This means the existing rural rate, rural improve the decision-making ability of residential rate and differential urban rate councils. Better information will be available on powers will be repealed as the same end the financial position and performance of each result can be achieved by using the differential council as well as the actual cost of supplying general rate powers. Where differential services to the public and the status of council general rates are to be levied, the council is to assets. categorise the land subject to each rate or Another mechanism to improve the may call on the Valuer-General for this service. decision-making processes in councils is the Rights of objection against incorrect approach taken in the Bill to spell out the categorisation will exist to whichever body different roles of the key players in a council. made the initial decision, and a right of appeal The elected members represent the public will also be available if a person disagrees with interest. Collectively, they also comprise the the decision on the objection. council and determine the need for services, formulate the corporate plan, approve policies and exercise the law-making and Executive 18 November 1993 5990 Legislative Assembly powers. The chief executive officer The remuneration provisions dealing with implements the decisions of the council and what may be paid to a councillor have also the mayor has a responsibility to ensure been reviewed. Again, the approach taken implementation. has been to give councils more autonomy and The Bill also provides that the chief flexibility, balanced by increased executive officer is responsible for establishing accountability. At present, the mayor and a system to provide advice or assistance to deputy mayor can be paid allowances, with the council and individual elected members— the other councillors only being eligible for a system that basically manages the interface meeting fees and expenses. The Brisbane between the elected members and the staff. City Council is the only local government which Only the mayor will have a right to operate can currently pay salaries and arrange for outside this administrative system. It is quite normal superannuation for elected members. likely the role relationships in some councils To address the diversity that exists will change as a result of these new between local governments and the differing provisions. This may take a little adjustment, demands that can be placed on councillors, but the end aim is more effective decision the Bill simply provides that councillors are making. entitled to the payment of fees, allowances The elected members should not be and expenses necessarily incurred in involved in directing or organising work. They performing the duties of office. It is up to each should also spend less time on ad hoc council to set the remuneration for councillors. decision making and more time on making the However, the local government must specify major decisions and assessing the the purpose for the remuneration, the persons performance of the council. It is up to the chief entitled to payment, the amount or basis of executive officer and the other staff to the payment, the principles of the implement the council’s decisions to deliver remuneration system, and the reasons for the goods. adopting the principles. Each elected member will face a major The accountability mechanism is that, new requirement after the elections in March when a local government proposes to make a 1994. In its report on codes of conduct, the resolution dealing with remuneration, it must Electoral and Administrative Review firstly set down the detailed arrangements it Commission recommended amendments to wishes to adopt. These arrangements have to the Local Government Act to require be publicly notified for a period of between councillors to register their interests and the four and six weeks before the council formally interests of related persons on a similar basis adopts them. as that which applies to members of the In relation to the provision of Legislative Assembly. The proposed new superannuation entitlements, it is again up to Local Government Act therefore provides that the council to decide whether it wishes to a councillor must register financial and other make normal superannuation payments in personal interests and the interests of related respect of its elected members. A council can persons, upon assuming office. do so by setting up its own scheme, joining The Bill also provides that an elected other local governments in establishing a member must not be present in a meeting or scheme, or through participating in an existing in the public gallery when a matter in which scheme. However, the Bill limits the the member has a material personal interest is percentage level and proportion of being considered. A member convicted of contributions on behalf of a councillor to no voting while having a pecuniary interest in a more than that applying to payments in matter can also be subject to severe respect of its employees to the scheme set up penalties. Further obligations are also placed under the Local Government Superannuation on elected members not to act improperly. Act. As I have already mentioned, details of the remuneration and superannuation The proposed legislation dealing with the payments must be spelt out in the annual registration of interests is an essential part of report. ensuring public confidence in the integrity of decision making in local government. Such As a result of the Freedom of Information requirements are a fact of life for State Act and the Judicial Review Act, additional parliamentarians and for elected accountability mechanisms apply to the representatives elsewhere in Australia. It is an decision-making process and decisions of expectation the public now has of politicians at local governments. The Bill further supports all levels. this approach by providing for open decision making at local government meetings. Such Legislative Assembly 5991 18 November 1993 meetings are the primary means by which a Some councils currently make financial local government exercises its law-making and contributions to adjoining councils for the executive powers. At present, council provision of services that benefit both areas. A meetings are open to the public, but the factor inhibiting greater use of these council may resolve to consider any business arrangements is that the council making a in camera. There is also no obligation in the financial contribution has no opportunity to current law to hold committee meetings in directly participate in decision-making on the public. Open council and committee meetings service because the council receiving the are fundamental to ensuring that the funds is responsible for the service. One community has the opportunity to scrutinise approach to address this issue would be to and be informed of the decision-making establish a joint local government, but this process. Therefore, the Bill provides that all involves the creation of a separate legal entity meetings of a local government and its to perform the service. The Bill provides committees are open to the public, except in another and less formal approach to address certain specified circumstances where a local this issue. It will allow the council directly government or a committee could resolve to responsible for the provision of the jointly meet in camera. funded service to form a joint standing The Bill also provides for public notice to committee. Such a committee would include be given of meetings and that the list of items members appointed by the councils funding to be discussed be open to inspection. To the service as well as the host council. The enhance local government decision-making host council would also delegate its final and to allow for community involvement in the decision-making powers in relation to the decision-making process, the Bill also allows a service to the joint standing committee. local government to appoint members of the As a further initiative in the area of public to advisory committees. The ability of cooperation, the new Act will permit the local governments to cooperate with one Brisbane City Council and Aboriginal and another has also been addressed in the Bill. Islander councils to become members of a The existing legislation relating to joint joint local government or a joint standing boards has been retained to allow councils the committee and for their general participation flexibility to operate on a formal basis and with local governments in the joint provision of within a regional framework. Joint boards services. The existing powers that permit local currently carry out specific functions of local governments to engage in commercial government, such as maintaining activities have also been retained in the Bill. aerodromes, bulk water supply, saleyards and Members will recall that in 1992 the Local libraries. The Bill replaces the name “joint Government Act was amended to enable local board” with the term “joint local government” governments to engage in commercial and continues to provide for the Governor in activities and enter into joint ventures with the Council to approve its establishment. Joint private sector subject to certain limitations. local governments are able to carry out a The existing powers relating to the role and particular function or functions of local responsibility of the local government government in two or more areas and have commissioner and the role he is playing in the the same legal status as a local government. structural reform of the local government Once established, jurisdiction over the relevant system have also been retained in the Bill. function transfers from the component local How well a local government performs is governments to the joint local government. going to be very dependent upon its Regional cooperation between local employees. I have already mentioned the governments can also occur under the steps taken in the Bill to clarify the respective existing legislation through voluntary joint roles of elected members and the staff. The action. However, ministerial approval is Bill further provides that it is up to the council required prior to certain powers being to establish a corporate structure appropriate exercised. To enable local governments to for the conduct of its affairs and to allocate the enter into autonomous joint arrangements, resources necessary for the employment of the Bill simply provides that councils have a staff. A council must also employ as its chief joint responsibility for works on their executive officer a person with the ability, boundaries, and that councils, by agreement, experience, knowledge and skills to effectively can extend services into another area. The perform the role for that particular council. need for ministerial approval has been In relation to the qualifications of the chief removed. executive officer—there will be no requirement for a person appointed to the position to hold 18 November 1993 5992 Legislative Assembly a certificate from the Local Government Clerks implementation of the Commonwealth’s Board. The traditional role of the clerk has proposal to set up the new labour court. When been expanded in the Bill to recognise the this happens, the appeal against dismissal responsibilities and requirements of a modern procedures in the Local Government Act will manager. It will be up to the council to choose cease to operate. the best candidate from the broadest possible However, action has been taken in the field of applicants. Bill to permit a council to take other disciplinary However, as some councils still want to action against employees who engage in rely on such a certificate as being an external misconduct or are incompetent or neglect their indicator that the person can at least perform duties. The action taken could be a written the traditional duties of a town or shire clerk, it reprimand, a deduction from salary of not has been decided to retain the existing more than $120 or a demotion. The certification system on a non-mandatory basis. expectation is that, if an employee had The proposed new Act will also deem all behaved in an unsatisfactory manner, the current town and shire clerks to be the chief matter would be raised with the employee executive officers of their respective local before any disciplinary action was taken. governments. At this sensitive stage in the However, if disciplinary action is initiated, the reform of the local government system, it employee will have a right to appeal to a would be far too disruptive to spill these tribunal set up under the new Local positions and have councils advertise for chief Government Act. executive officers. I think all would agree that appropriate Other proposals in the Bill also impact on provisions should exist to deal with employees local government staff. At present, the who may have a financial interest in a matter appointment and dismissal of staff is the that is before the council. The Bill therefore responsibility of the council, with no statutory requires declarations of interest by senior staff, obligation to apply the merit principle in and this extends to the interests of related human resource management. There are also persons. The approach taken is consistent no powers for a council to discipline an with the obligations placed on elected employee other than by dismissal. Rights of members. The Bill also provides that, if an appeal against dismissal are available, with employee has a material personal interest in the compensation formula limited to a an issue to be dealt with by the employee in maximum of four weeks’ salary for each year the course of that person’s duties, the of service in local government if the council employee must immediately inform the chief exercises its discretion not to reinstate the executive officer. There are also other employee. There is also no obligation on staff obligations placed on employees to act with to register pecuniary interests. They must integrity, to show a proper concern for the simply disclose their interest. public interest and not to act improperly. The Bill therefore provides that local I would also clarify for members the governments must treat their employees on provisions in the Bill concerning State the same basis applying to other public sector intervention in the system of local employees. For instance, a local government government. Reserve powers of intervention will have to follow the principles of merit, equal are justified on the basis of State interests and opportunity, fairness and equity in the for protecting public confidence in the system recruitment and treatment of staff, and of local government. However, unlike the councils above a certain size will need to current provisions of the Act, the Bill basically prepare and implement an equal employment provides that, before a reserve power is opportunity management plan. exercised, written notice must be given to the In a further endeavour to clarify the role local government for comment. Such notice relationships between the elected members must give reasons for the exercise and the and staff, the Bill also provides that councils time within which the council should respond. only exercise powers of appointment, After consideration of any submissions discipline and dismissal in relation to the chief received, a final decision can then be made executive officer and other senior executive on whether to proceed no further or to officers. The appointment, discipline and exercise the power as proposed. This process dismissal of all other employees will be the can only be set aside if the action is being responsibility of the chief executive officer. On taken at the request of the local government, the subject of dismissal, the current appeal or the Minister is of the opinion that giving the procedures to a tribunal in the Act will be notice is likely to defeat the purpose or no retained for up to two years pending the useful purpose would be served by the action. One such reserve power is the ability of the Legislative Assembly 5993 18 November 1993

Governor in Council to dissolve a local As numerous statutes contribute towards government. the jurisdictional responsibilities and powers of In addition to the process already local government and the legislation mentioned, the Bill now provides that a council framework in which they operate, the Bill also may only be dissolved if the Minister is provides for consequential amendments to satisfied the local government— those Acts. These amendments are mostly of a technical or legal nature due to terms and has acted unlawfully or corruptly; references under the present Local has acted to put at risk its capacity to Government Act being superseded by the exercise its jurisdiction; provisions in the Bill. Where it is considered is unable to effectively exercise its that provisions contained in the current Local jurisdiction. Government Act would sit more comfortably in other Acts rather than the new Act, the Where a local government is dissolved, an opportunity has been taken to transfer the administrator must be appointed to exercise provisions to those Acts. The reverse has also the jurisdiction and powers of the local applied in some instances. government until a fresh election is held. It is intended that a fresh election would be held I have already mentioned the as soon as possible. The existing power of the incorporation of the provisions dealing with the Governor in Council to repeal a by-law—now averaging of valuations in the Bill. In addition, called a local law—has been retained. action has been taken to repeal the Local However, action has again been taken in the Government Grants Commission Act and to Bill to limit this reserve power by providing that repeat the relevant provisions in the body of the Governor in Council may only repeal an the new Act. Clauses 764 and 765 have been existing local law if a matter of State interest is inserted to enable the amalgamation of involved. Mackay and Pioneer Shires to proceed at the next election. This is necessary as the Local The other reserve power that has been Government Commissioner has made a retained is the power of the Governor in recommendation based on the introduction of Council to rescind a resolution of a council. this legislation. The provisions I just mentioned about giving notice of intention to the relevant council The explanation I have given of the new would also apply here. Other existing powers provisions in the Bill is not exhaustive. relating to holding formal inquiries or carrying However, the major reforms in the legislation out investigations and inspections have been have been covered. The proposed reforms retained in the Bill. However, the existing have been the subject of widespread powers of State intervention dealing with the consultation with local governments, the key prohibition of expenditure by councils and the players in the local government system and repayment of fees have not been carried the public over some years. I believe there is forward into the Bill. Accordingly, the proposed strong support for the direction we have taken. powers of State intervention are not as The Local Government Association and others extensive as in the current law and are have indicated their endorsement of the Bill. nowhere near as unfettered. This is a No doubt there will still be some people who reflection of the maturity of local governments argue there is not enough autonomy being and the relationship between the State granted to local government. There will also Government and local government. be others who argue for more accountability or more prescriptive requirements. All along, we The opportunity has also been taken in have been looking for the right point of the Bill to apply a number of the reforms to balance between more autonomy and the Brisbane City Council—for example, the flexibility for local government and an wide charter or general competence power appropriate level of accountability. and the new provisions dealing with local laws and the registers of interest requirements for As I said earlier, the aim is to have the elected members. As the Brisbane City best possible system of local government for Council has traditionally operated under the Queensland; a system that is democratic and City of Brisbane Act 1924, that statute is being one that is open and accountable and has the retained. However, I propose to thoroughly confidence of the people; a system that review the City of Brisbane Act next year to enables the efficient and effective delivery of pick up all the remaining parts of the reform quality services to the community; a system agenda from the proposed new Local that operates with fairness and equity; a Government Act. system that is adaptable and can meet the challenges that face all Government; a system where councils can achieve their potential, 18 November 1993 5994 Legislative Assembly and mutual respect exists between the State the second-reading debate that will occur if and local governments; and a system where and when this motion is passed. The only we work together as partners. I believe this thing members are allowed to debate now is most important piece of legislation delivers whether we allow this motion to suspend these aims. Standing Orders. I commend the Bill to the House. Mrs EDMOND: I rise to a point of order. Debate, on motion of Mrs McCauley, The words used by the Leader of the adjourned. Opposition are unacceptable to me. I ask him to withdraw them. He is misleading the House. I said no such thing. LANG PARK TRUST AMENDMENT BILL Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will withdraw the comment. Remaining Stages Mr BORBIDGE: I would be delighted to Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH withdraw, and I do so. When the honourable (Chatsworth—Leader of the House) member speaks in this debate or any (12.42 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I subsequent debate, she might like to tell the move— Parliament the assurances she gave the people of her electorate. We look forward to “That so much of the Standing and finding out where the member votes on this Sessional Orders be suspended to particular motion and where she votes on the enable the Lang Park Trust Amendment divisions in the House later today. Bill to pass through all remaining stages at this day’s sitting.” Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I warn him Mr GIBBS: I second the motion. now that if he does not speak to the motion, I Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise— will have to follow the Standing Orders. Leader of the Opposition) (12.43 p.m.): The Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, I appreciate Opposition intends to oppose the suspension your ruling. Can I say that this is the of Standing Orders today. It does so for very mechanism that the Government intends to good reason. I believe it is an indictment on use to by-pass the process that it was elected the administration of this Parliament by the to implement. I will quote the words of Premier Leader of the House that, in the dying days of Goss in 1989. It is only two short sentences, this parliamentary sitting, at close on midnight but I believe it is relevant to this debate. I want we saw introduced into this place legislation Government members to be aware of what which will do what the Premier promised never they are putting aside today. The local to do. What we have before us today in this government policy of the Australian Labor motion moved by the Leader of the House is Party in 1989 stated— the mechanism to do that—to make sure that the proper administrative and appeal process “Labor’s policy position is that town for the citizens of Brisbane and the Brisbane planning matters are properly the City Council simply cannot be honoured and responsibility of local government. There cannot be fulfilled. shall be no ministerial rezonings unless specifically requested by the council.” I also make mention of the fact that this matter is before the House despite the fact I accept your ruling, Mr Speaker—— that the member for Mount Coot-tha told a Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to warn public rally in her electorate on Sunday that it the Leader of the Opposition for the last time would not be before the House and that that he must debate the motion. Actually, I proper and appropriate—— was very lenient. For the last time, I suggest Mrs EDMOND: I rise to a point of order. that the debate be on the motion. The member is misleading the House. I said Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, I appreciate no such thing. your lenience. The point that is of concern to Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of the Opposition today is the simple fact that we order. I would like to remind the Leader of the were led to believe, as people throughout Opposition that we are debating the Brisbane were led to believe and, indeed, as suspension of Standing Orders to enable this the Brisbane City Council was led to believe, Bill to go through all remaining stages at this that there would not be unilateral action, that day’s sitting. We are not debating the the Parliament would be given substantive motion. Under the Standing appropriate—— Orders, members are not allowed to pre-empt Legislative Assembly 5995 18 November 1993

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the this motion about why Standing Orders are Opposition will resume his seat. I would ask being suspended is the Bill that is before the that we debate the suspension of Standing House. If it was not the fact that the Orders, not the substantive motion. I am Government is completely enshrining going to be firm on that. ministerial rezonings, why would we be Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Leader of debating this Bill now? Why would Standing the Liberal Party) (12.49 p.m.): Today’s Orders be suspended to debate this Bill if it debate on whether or not Standing Orders were not going to enshrine in legislation should be suspended to push through a ministerial rezoning by the Labor Party. ministerial rezoning of the Lang Park An honourable member interjected. redevelopment is one that most Mrs SHELDON: Indeed it is, because Queenslanders, I am sure, would be very with the suspension of Standing Orders to disappointed with. Queenslanders really had debate this Bill, we are going to see this 40- the strange belief that when the Labor Party day normal appeal period that the people—— said in 1989, and every year since—— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Coalition will get back to the motion or of the Coalition will resume her seat. I am on resume her seat. Standing Orders do not my feet. allow me to accept the motion by the Leader Mr Nuttall: They don’t understand. of the Opposition that the member be further Mr SPEAKER: Order! I can do without heard. It was worth a try, but it was not a good the help of the member for Sandgate. I ask one. I call the Deputy Leader of the Coalition. the Deputy Leader of the Coalition to get back Mrs SHELDON: Because the level of to debating the substantive motion before us. debate is very narrow, possibly the Leader of Under Standing Orders, members are not the House could explain to members the allowed to pre-empt debate that will occur in necessity for having to suspend Standing the House. Members may talk only about their Orders to debate a Bill so that Minister Gibbs concerns about the motion that Standing and the Premier can railroad their non-mate Orders be suspended so that this Bill may Jim Soorley. pass through all stages today. That is all Mr LINGARD (Beaudesert—Deputy members are allowed to debate. Leader of the Opposition) (12.51 p.m.): Quite Mrs SHELDON: Mr Speaker, I may need obviously, members are being asked to your direction from time to time. When we are suspend Standing Orders simply to suit, firstly, debating this question of Standing Orders the whims of a Minister and, secondly, the being suspended, I understand that the whims of a Government. The Opposition community perception is that the Government would have no qualms about suspending can railroad through Parliament anything it Standing Orders to allow this legislation to wishes at any time. This Bill was not even on pass through the House short of seven days if the notice paper. It is proposed to suspend it was obvious that all members of the House Standing Orders so we can debate a Bill that agreed upon the urgency for the suspension is clobbering the rights of the citizens of of Standing Orders. But every member of this Brisbane. The Minister for Tourism, Sport and House understands that there is a person on Racing and the Premier are romping and the Government side of the House who does stomping all over Jim Soorley and other not believe that this legislation should be people, and to do that a motion has been passed urgently. It is quite obvious that moved for the suspension of Standing Orders members of the public do not believe that it so that we can debate their infamous Bill. should be passed urgently and, quite Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will put the honestly, it is obvious that members of the motion. Opposition do not agree that it should be passed urgently. Therefore, Standing Orders Mr BORBIDGE: I move— should not be suspended. “That the Deputy Leader of the If all members agreed to this, there would Coalition be further heard.” be no worries about it; we could pass the Mr SPEAKER: The Leader of the legislation urgently. However, quite obviously, Opposition does not have to do that. As long the Standing Orders of this Parliament are as members speak to the motion, that is fine. supposed to protect all members. We have I am not going to gag anybody. these rules to ensure that legislation that is Mrs SHELDON: I am endeavouring to put before the House is presented in speak to the motion, but surely at the heart of adequate time to ensure full, detailed and meaningful debate. I say to every member of 18 November 1993 5996 Legislative Assembly the Government: if you are going to slam this House—to present to the Parliament reasons through, suspend Standing Orders and give for riding roughshod over Standing Orders and the Opposition less than seven days within clearly breaking a requirement of democracy. which to consider the legislation, that cannot No adequate period has been given for be done. That is why we have a Parliament consideration of this legislation. Standing and why the people elect us to represent Order 241 (d) allows democratic principles to them. They elect us to ensure that every piece apply and gives the Opposition time to sit of new legislation affecting their lives is fully down and consult. This Government would not considered by us. I say to you, Mr Speaker, I know the meaning of that word. No adequate say to the Parliament and I say to everyone period has been provided for members to truly listening that there is no way that we can do go out and talk to and consult with the this correctly if we have legislation sitting on community. In common, I am sure, with most the table of the House for only three days. members on both sides of the House, I was Everyone understands that it must sit there for not aware until teatime on Tuesday seven days. afternoon—it could be called “Black Today, the suspension of Standing Tuesday”—that at midnight on that Orders abrogates the public’s trust and our Tuesday—36 hours ago—the Minister was responsibilities. The only reason that Standing going to introduce this legislation. Since that Orders are being suspended today is to take time, members have not had adequate time away the people’s democratic right to object to to go out and consult in the broad community the proposed actions of this Labor and to discuss with a wide range of people Government and to prevent us, as an this very important piece of legislation. Opposition, from fully debating this issue in a Mr Beattie interjected. timely and informed way. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mr SPEAKER: Order! I congratulate the Brisbane Central! member for Beaudesert on speaking to the motion. Mr BEANLAND: Members are talking about people’s democratic rights. This Bill talks Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly) about people’s democratic rights. That is what (12.54 p.m.): I rise to strenuously oppose this I am talking about here—the rights of motion moved by the Leader of the House. At members to go out and talk to and the outset, let me say that the Leader of the adequately consult with people about the way House has given no reason for the in which this Bill should be handled. It is a suspension of Standing Orders. Standing sham on the principles of democracy. I am not Order 241 (d) states— surprised that a lot of rabblerousing has been “Further Debate on the Question going on among Government members in ‘That the Bill be now read a Second Time’ relation to this legislation. shall be adjourned for a period of at least Mr Elliott: Arm twisting. six whole calendar days.” Mr BEANLAND: It is arm twisting all right. Today, this House is overriding that specific As I said, no explanation whatsoever has Standing Order. Clearly, what has happened been given as to what are the emergent here is that 36 hours ago—not even two days circumstances—the reason for this. The ago, but a total of 36 hours ago, almost to the Opposition and, I suggest, most Government minute, in fact—the Minister brought this members have not been given sufficient time legislation into the House. Now, 36 hours later, to go out into the community and consult he is proposing to ride roughshod over the widely with the community as to how this Standing Orders. No reason for this has been matter should be handled. Members know given by the Leader of the House. What that this overrides the democratic rights of this exceptional circumstances have arisen since Parliament as set out in the Standing Orders, that time? What emergent circumstances and it overrides the democratic rights of the have arisen since that time that require the community at large. Government to rush this legislation through the Parliament? Members know that the Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (12.58 p.m.): I Minister has a supreme headache over this am totally opposed to the suspension of whole exercise. He has a headache over Standing Orders. As was correctly pointed out some of his backbenchers, and he has a by the member for Indooroopilly, the relevant headache over the Lord Mayor. No reasons at Standing Order is 241 (d). In the past, all have been given for overriding Standing Standing Orders have been suspended when Orders. I believe that it is incumbent upon the urgent matters have come before this House. Minister—in this case the Leader of the On some occasions, we had the agreement of Legislative Assembly 5997 18 November 1993 the Government and the Opposition. I can should be suspended, except that the Minister remember a number of occasions when the wants to get this legislation off the agenda National Party was in Government and urgent today. I do not believe that the Minister has legislation had to be passed during the night. put forward one particular reason for this. For instance, on one occasion the suspension Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the of Standing Orders was necessary to close a member for Lockyer. I am sitting right next to bank account because fraud had taken place. him. If I cannot hear him, members at the It was agreed by all members that they could back of the Chamber must be having trouble not leave that legislation on the table of the hearing him. I am intent on all members House for six whole calendar days. So the hearing what the member for Lockyer is then National Party Government agreed with saying. Does the member intend to continue the Opposition. much longer? Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr FITZGERALD: Yes, I do. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Mr SPEAKER: Order! In that case, the House! chair will be resumed at 2.30. Mr FITZGERALD: After the banks had Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m. closed on that day, that Bill was introduced. Later, with the agreement of the House, Mr FITZGERALD: Before the recess, I Standing Orders were suspended. Before pointed out to the House why this motion midnight, that legislation passed through all should not be carried. The motion is that we stages. A flier went out to Government House. suspend Standing Orders in order to debate Within a couple of hours, that legislation the Lang Park Trust Amendment Bill. The became law. Then, officers of the Premier’s reason that I put forward was that I could see Department turned up at that bank and, no urgency for doing so. No urgent reasons before the doors opened the next morning, were put forward by the Leader of the House were able to advise the bank manager that when he moved the motion, nor by the the legislation had been passed overnight. seconder of the motion. I think he just This meant that, with the full concurrence of seconded pro forma; I do not think that he the House, we were able to implement that had his heart in it. I point out to the House very important piece of legislation. that, during the luncheon break, I was able to look at this morning’s mail. That mail included The Leader of the House is well aware of the Votes and Proceedings for yesterday, what happens when we start talking about which normally arrives the morning after. With industrial legislation. If the Government that Votes and Proceedings came a copy of believes that, as a result of a particular piece the Lang Park Trust Amendment Bill. It turned of legislation, there will be turmoil and riots in up with the Votes and Proceedings that the street, it uses its numbers to pass that arrived on my desk this morning. On 16 legislation. The Leader of the House is a November, I was in the House and took my numbers man. He is the one who says, “We copy of the Bill. I do attend Parliament. Why have the numbers here today and we are was it distributed with the Votes and going to test whether or not Standing Orders Proceedings? It was for the benefit of those will be suspended.” If that is the case, and if members who were not in the Chamber so he thinks that there will be riots in the streets that they could know what legislation is and a breakdown of law and order, he will ram coming before the House. Therefore, that Bill the legislation through the House. That has landed on my desk this morning. That gives been done by previous Governments. But an idea of why there is a rush. I looked at the they always face the consequences of their Votes and Proceedings—— actions. Mr Welford interjected. How is the Leader of the House going to face the consequences of his actions? How Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for on earth can he face the consequences of his Everton. actions? The question is: why must he Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of suspend Standing Orders? Are there going to order. Last night, I told the Opposition be riots in the streets? Are there going to be spokesperson that we would be debating this problems in the Lang Park area? Is a football Bill today. Surely, he should have given his game being held up? Is a Madonna concert members that information. coming to Brisbane for which that ground Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. must be prepared? Is it something as important as that? No, it is not! Members have Mr FITZGERALD: I certainly recognise not heard one reason why Standing Orders the courtesies that were extended to me last 18 November 1993 5998 Legislative Assembly night by the Leader of the House. I Lingard, McCauley, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Randell, acknowledge that and thank him very much Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stephan, for it. The point I raise is whether the House is Stoneman, Turner, Veivers, Watson Tellers: Laming, short of legislation to debate. Is that the Springborg reason? No urgency has been demonstrated. Resolved in the affirmative. Are we short of Bills to debate? At present, 25 Bills are before the House. Four of those Bills were introduced today, so 21 are on the Second Reading business paper. Fourteen of those Bills came Debate resumed from 16 November (see in on 9 November and 10 November. Two Bills p. 5871). came in on 16 November—the Gladstone Mr VEIVERS (Southport) (2.40 p.m.): If Power Station Agreement Bill and this Lang democracy is functioning in the right way, as it Park Trust Amendment Bill. We know that is supposed to be, I really cannot understand Goprint has been busy. If the Leader of the how the Opposition lost that division. As we House considered this a very urgent matter, know, under this Government, it is not. As I why did he not get the draftsman to draft it on told the media yesterday—— time? No, he did not do that. The Government has pushed forward 25 Bills, so there is no Mr Purcell: One scrum too many! shortage of legislation. Mr VEIVERS: Yes. As I was saying, this During the luncheon recess, I made a Bill represents the sort of action that would whip-round to determine who is and who is not have made my old mate Russ Hinze turn pink going to support this motion. I assure the and blue. This Government talks a lot about House that all the members of the coalition openness and accountability and honesty, but parties—the National Party and the Liberal when we get right down to it, this Government Party—have indicated to me that they are really does not give a damn about any of that. going to oppose this motion before the Expediency and a ham-fisted approach win House. I only need another 10 from the through every time with this Government— Government side. Is the member for Mount don’t you worry about that. The extraordinary Coot-tha going to support the motion that is feature about the Government’s action that before the House? It is very important that she makes it doubly intriguing and revealing is that place on record whether or not she believes it overrides one of the first reforms of the Goss that this matter should be left out in the public Government. domain for six calendar days. Will she support Mr Rowell: What happened to civil the gagging of the normal procedures of rights? Parliament? Or does she believe that it is not Mr VEIVERS: They have been crushed worthy of consideration by sitting there for six under the bulldozers at Lang Park. calendar days? I want to be sure that the Government members who are going to Mr Randell: Would you call them support this motion have it on their conscience hypocrites? that they are not interested in the proper Mr VEIVERS: Absolutely. I would call procedures of this House. Standing Orders are them hypocrites. As the member says, and as being torn up here today. Standing Order No. I am saying, civil rights have been crushed 241 is going to be overridden. I place on under the bulldozers that have been knocking record that I am totally opposed to the down the grandstand at Lang Park. One suspension of Standing Orders in this wonders whether a permit was obtained to do instance. that. Everything that this Government does is Question—That the motion be agreed in the name of reform—or at least, that is what to—put; and the House divided— we are told—but now, not one of those reforms is safe. I cite FOI as an example. I AYES, 48—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bennett, Bird, reckon it is on the way to becoming Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Budd, Burns, Campbell, Comben, D’Arcy, Davies, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, “FFI”—freedom from information. Under this Foley, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Government, reforms rapidly become former Mackenroth, McElligott, McGrady, Milliner, Nunn, reforms or, to borrow a term used by the Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Pyke, member for Kedron when he was describing Robertson, Robson, Rose, Smith, Spence, Sullivan dead parrots, they are ex-reforms. J. H., Sullivan T. B., Szczerbanik, Vaughan, Warner, In fact, we are dealing with two former Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers: Pitt, Livingstone reforms. One is the right of objectors to a 40- NOES, 33—Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, day period in which to exercise their right of Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Goss appeal in relation to the Lang Park J. N., Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, redevelopment. The other is that when this Legislative Assembly 5999 18 November 1993

Government came to power, it said that the chance to object. I know that the Minister will days of legislation hitting the deck late at night say, “Well, there were only two objectors”, but and being rammed through by a suspension how long have they had to object—36 hours? of Standing Orders were all over—allegedly. They have not had any time at all to object. As we can see this afternoon, that is not the Mrs Edmond: Oh, rubbish! case. We would have been into this debate a lot earlier, unfortunately, if it were not for the Mr VEIVERS: The member for Mount good grace of the Opposition Whip, Mr Coot-tha will have her turn. FitzGerald, who eloquently told the Labor Government members interjected. Government what he really thought of it Mr VEIVERS: This Labor Government before the luncheon recess. He was has crushed the rights of objectors. It has tremendous. This Government reckoned that crushed them. it was too pure to do that sort of thing. Mr Budd interjected. Mr Beattie: And it is. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mr VEIVERS: And pigs might fly! We are Redlands! being subjected to this legislation. When the National Party occupied the Government Mr VEIVERS: The Minister has used a benches and Russ Hinze was putting through 25-pound hammer to crush a nut; that is what those good ministerial rezonings—and I he has done. The Government has moved for emphasise the word “good”—we never the suspension of Standing Orders so that this promised that we would not do that type of Bill can be rammed through. thing, but the mob on the other side of the Mr SPEAKER: Settle down. Chamber did, and the Minister for Tourism, Mr VEIVERS: Mr Speaker, I beg your Sport and Racing stands condemned. pardon. I was making my comments through Mr Horan: We allowed people to appeal. the Chair and I thought I was on track. I Mr VEIVERS: The member for thought I had not made any mistakes yet. Toowoomba South has covered the situation As all honourable members would know, nicely, but the Minister in charge of this it is far from the first time that this undertaking Bill—old “bazooka”, as he will become has been broken by the Government. The known—will not allow any appeals to be irony is that quite apart from the blatant lodged. hypocrisy of this move, we are now debating Mr Beattie interjected. the death of a reform that this Government itself brought in. Members of the Labor Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member Government brought in the very reform for Brisbane Central to cease interjecting. I will relating to redevelopment, and they are now look after the member for Southport. riding roughshod over it. That reform is not Mr VEIVERS: Mr Speaker, I thank you for worth a pinch of salt, just like all the rest of the protection given to me by the Chair, them. If the reform gets in the way, they will particularly when the interjection is coming dump it and they will dump it quickly. from a former Chairman of the Parliamentary The Minister says that this Bill will not Committee for Criminal Justice. The member cause any great problems because there are for Brisbane Central is hooting and hollering in only two objectors, as I mentioned earlier, and this Chamber, and he is saying that it is a they have already indicated that they would good thing to crush the rights of people who not appeal. If that is the case, then why does live in the areas around Lang Park in the the Minister bother to use a bazooka to kill an Mount Coot-tha electorate represented by Mrs ant? As the “ant” told us yesterday—the “ant”, Edmond. of course, is the Lord Mayor, Mr Soorley, or at Mr Lingard interjected. least that is what Mr Gibbs said he was and I Mr VEIVERS: I cannot go into that, but am only repeating what the Minister said—the she lost her cool and she lost the plot. I advise point is that this Government is not prepared honourable members to take a good look at to be accountable any more than it is the member for Mount Coot-tha at the back of prepared to be—and here is another the Chamber because she will not be here catchword—consultative. after the next election. Apart from the fact that This Government claims to be we should not be debating this legislation at accountable in the same way as it claims to all, we should not be debating it today, as the consult. One only has to look at the Leader of the Opposition said. It should have circumstances in which this bazooka Bill was been brought before the Parliament at least smuggled into the House in the dark of night 40 days hence so that people could have a to crush basic rights of appeal. Not 48 hours 18 November 1993 6000 Legislative Assembly earlier, half the Cabinet was doing Uriah Heep that part of the city are beginning to wake up impersonations over the rail closures. They to this Government. I am reminded of the were positively wriggling all over each image of the member for Brisbane Central other—like the inhabitants of the factory when tramping up and down Hale Street. the “ant” had a handful of them the other Mr Beattie: It was a great image. day—to see who was going to be the most humble. Half of the Cabinet memorised the Mr VEIVERS: The member should have chapter in the task force report headed, seen it from behind. I am reminded also of the “Lessons for the Government”, including, no double cross in relation to the Bardon doubt, the “bazooka” who sits opposite me, Professional Development Centre. I who is, of course, naturally a very humble recommend to the bird-watching member for person. Half the Cabinet received a plus for Kedron, that if he wants to see a rare Mount humility. The member for Logan topped the Coot-tha parrot for the last time, he had better class with a distinction in humility which is not bring his binoculars into the Chamber. likely to be bettered while this Government is One of the most offensive aspects of this in power. smelly legislation is that it is so premeditated The member for Lytton has been and cold. While it has all the hallmarks of a hit- rewarded for his display of caring humility with and-run raid, it obviously was not one of a new chair in humbleness at the those. On Tuesday afternoon, the legislation Rockhampton TAFE but, 48 hours later, what was ready to go. Government backbenchers do we see? His reaction to the railway debacle are quiet. The cat has their tongues. They can was about as sincere as the non-aggression see it all tumbling down. Poor old Tom Barton pact between Stalin and Hitler. Humility, has only just became a member of this place, consultation, accountability, sincerity, reform— and there is a good chance that he will get the all of those were shot out the window. It is flick. He will have to return to taking that union clear that the members of this Labor money. It is a lot better than it is in this place, Government never meant one word, and that is it not, Mr Barton? is really sad. The extra Cabinet meeting and the extra If we are to believe the member for caucus meeting pointed to the hit-and-run Mount Coot-tha, apparently it was not only the raid, but the preparedness of the virtuous residents who live near Lang Park who have souls opposite to go along with it is more been dudded by this Government. The reminiscent of the Baader-Meinhof group. A member got a direct hit from the “bazooka” nice touch is the position of the Lord Mayor, or right between the eyes. As recently as last the “ant,” as the “bazooka” called him Sunday, the poor, misguided, soon-to-be the yesterday. This whole thing has very little to do ex-member for Mount Coot-tha was telling with football and everything to do with the two residents near Lang Park—— Labor teams in the local kickboxing championship. Mr Beattie: She’ll be around longer than you’ll ever be. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr VEIVERS: She has not been around Mr VEIVERS: Getting into the ring with longer than I. the member for Brisbane Central would not present any trouble. It would be like upturning Mr Beattie: She will be, though. a damp Sao biscuit. In one corner, the Mr VEIVERS: If the member for Brisbane George Street “bazookas” and, in the other, Central supports this type of legislation, he the King George Square “ants”. How they hate may not be around for much longer, either. each other. I am told that even the Premier’s Fancy a former Chairman of the Parliamentary henchmen are carrying out secret audits of Committee for Criminal Justice supporting this the city council’s books. I understand that Bob sort of rot! He ought to jump in his brand new Ward is finding that quite helpful, too. Saab and go for a ride. I will return to the Bill. The cunning plan As I was saying, as recently as last from the baldrics of George Street—and, I Sunday, the member for Mount Coot-tha told might add, they really are missing Wayne residents who live near Lang Park— Swan—was that the Lord Mayor would have “Of course, the State Government to cop it sweet. The reasoning was that, with a won’t override this appeal process.” city council election in March, the Lord Mayor needed a battle with a State Government of She told those people that both the the same colour like a hole in the head. Premier—the Premier, mind you—and the Hatred is a powerful emotion, particularly in “bazooka” opposite had given her their word politics. I am sure that we have all heard of that they would not do that. People who live in Legislative Assembly 6001 18 November 1993 the singing nun. The Lord Mayor may not be authority must make a decision on certain able to strum along to her lyrics—I am not planning matters will also be deleted. The aware that he is into stringed instruments—but local authority will now have the discretion Government members should be aware that to extend the decision making period.” there is a very big and powerful organ in City Is not that something? The old “bazooka” did Hall suitable for accompanying mass not hear what I have just said, or he has choruses. However, I digress. I will return to earplugs in his ears. the Bill. Mr Beattie: He’s going to blow you away. Government members interjected. Mr VEIVERS: I have been hit by experts, Mr VEIVERS: Government members and the Minister falls well short of them. howl, whine, buck and whinge when I hit them Apparently, the Government did not really with it. I will return to the bazooka and ant mean the last part of that quote. Events are story. I will remind honourable members of demonstrating that it was just another element statements that were made by the member in the game of mirrors that this Government for Lytton when he dealt with amendments to believes passes for governing. The member the Local Government (Planning and for Lytton stated further— Environment) Bill in this House in May last year so they can see quite clearly the level of “The Minister will, however, have the hypocrisy in this legislation. Mr Burns said—— power to issue a written direction to shorten or cease the extended period if a Mr Beattie interjected. local authority is not exercising its Mr VEIVERS: Government members decision making responsibilities in a bona should listen to this and cop it sweet. He said fide manner.” these words; I did not. Mr Burns, the Deputy If the “ant” was not acting in a bona fide Premier said— manner, why do we need this legislation? The “The Government is committed to Minister passed it that afternoon. Why could reducing red tape and streamlining the not we have a ministerial direction? I do not planning decision making process in highlight this matter to make the suggestion. accordance with the principles of the A ministerial direction would be equally as development approvals systems review.” repugnant as this legislation is to the rights of So far so good. Mr Burns stated further— the people who have been aggrieved. However, it shows that this legislation is not “Where provisions in the Act for only repugnant but also totally unnecessary. ministerial involvement do not add to the The only explanation that can be given by the quality of local authority decision making, Government, which lives totally off and where matters are of a local or perceptions, particularly the perceptions of the administrative nature the Government media, is that it has decided that that should not be involved.” legislation looks a bit more parliamentary and, Did the member for Brisbane Central get that? therefore, somehow more proper than the use The Government should not be involved. of the reserve powers accorded to the Minister Mr Stephan: Who was the fellow who in the Local Government Act. said that? It is also interesting to go back to the Mr VEIVERS: The Deputy Premier, Mr Labor Party’s 1989 election platform on local Tom Burns—all pious and wringing his hands. government, particularly when it talked about It gets better. Mr Burns stated further— ministerial rezonings. During the election campaign, the Labor Party did not speak “The Bill therefore provides for about anything else but ministerial rezonings. removal of ministerial powers in matters Russ Hinze was copping it from everywhere. of an administrative nature. The Minister’s The policy document states— power to request details of recordings of expenditures of trust fund monies and to “Labor’s policy position is that town enforce the observance of a works planning matters are properly the contract made between a local authority responsibility of local government. There and a developer will be deleted.” shall be no ministerial rezonings unless specifically requested by a council.” The Government members did not read that? They have gone quiet. I will continue to quote Mr Beattie: This is not a ministerial the Minister’s statement— rezoning. “The Minister’s approval of an Mr VEIVERS: That is how dopey the extension of time within which a local member is. If it is not a ministerial rezoning, what is it? If I can recall, Mr Soorley did not 18 November 1993 6002 Legislative Assembly request any help. The policy gets better! The Mr VEIVERS: The poor member for very next sentence states— Mount Coot-tha, Mrs Edmond, cannot talk. “Even in those circumstances —” She will get a chance to speak. I could not believe that she did not stay on the of a specific request— Opposition side of the House when the “it would need to be clearly demonstrated division was held. that the rights of all parties were Mrs Sheldon interjected. protected.” Mr VEIVERS: It is going to be. I know that we are not talking specifically about a ministerial rezoning, but we are talking Mr Beattie: Have you lost your oomph? about how “precious” this Government Mr VEIVERS: No, I have not; I never lose purports to be when it comes to protection of my oomph. The football argument simply basic rights. The next sentence of the policy does not stand up. I am all for football. Pulling is, therefore, even more relevant. Under the down the stands and building new ones is not heading, “Compliance by the Council”, the what matters; it is the way in which this is ALP’s policy makers stated— done—that is, the rules under which this is “A Labor Government will ensure that done. The Minister has crushed them. the Crown is bound equally with other The Sydney Cricket Ground has been citizens in complying with local undergoing redevelopment for well over two government by-laws, town plans, and years, but sporting fixtures continue there. ordinances.” Redevelopment of the Gabba did not stop the Mr Borbidge: Is this the document with playing of sport there. What is wrong with Wayne Goss’s signature on the front? using the ANZ Stadium for some of these football games—or just the one, if it is a State Mr VEIVERS: That is the one with Mr of Origin game—if Lang Park is not ready. Goss’s signature on the front. The Leader of the Opposition is exactly right. The policy How many games in the State of Origin states further— series will be played at Lang Park? Honourable members opposite really do not “Where councils are required to know. There will be one played in Sydney, one enforce State legislation, then they will be in Melbourne, and one here in Brisbane. Why provided with adequate powers to deal not split the difference and play the game at with offenders.” the ANZ Stadium? That would be too easy a It is all sweetness and light, but they are business deal for honourable members explicit undertakings that do not mean a thing. opposite! Why not wait until Lang Park is The policy states further— ready? The ANZ Stadium holds 60 000 “The Queensland National Party people now. Government has made a habit of making Lang Park is a magnificent stadium. With decisions to satisfy its friends rather than a minimum of commonsense, arrangements the public at large. By contrast, a State could have been made that would have Labor Government will give local overcome the problems. But those opposite authorities more autonomy, and power to did not really want that. The fact is that the make their own decisions.” Government does not want Jim Soorley to Is not that a beauty? Is not that something? steal any sort of a march by having any major Then again, the Minister did not ask; he just events staged at the ANZ Stadium. It is went swish, and stiff-armed the poor old Lord prepared to go to any length to frustrate the Mayor of Brisbane. Clearly, local authorities Lord Mayor. That is the problem we are really can make their own decisions only as long as dealing with. The development going on at it suits the Government. If it does not, then Lang Park has got some of the local residents reforms quickly become former reforms. quite upset. In a photograph beside a Courier Mail article by Cheryl Thurlow, one of the As I have stated, this Bill is not about objectors, Anne Boccabella, is portrayed as football or about saving time; it is about surveying Lang Park yesterday. She is quashing people’s rights. Principle and reported as having stated that— morality in Government! Honesty, open, accountable Government! That was coming “The Government has ignored the from the Labor members before last election. concerns of residents.” They were really thumping it. Is that not the first thing that happens to a Mrs Edmond interjected. Government in its demise? The article also stated— Legislative Assembly 6003 18 November 1993

“Development conditions aimed at Mr Borbidge: Because Wendy Edmond protecting the lifestyle of residents near didn’t tell her about this legislation. Lang Park could no longer be An honourable member: She had the guaranteed . . .” chance. Lord Mayor Jim—the “ant”—Soorley is Mr VEIVERS: That is right. She had the reported as saying yesterday that— chance to tell them and she did not. She said “. . . the State Government’s decision to that it was all “roses and carnations”; said that override its own legislation and accelerate she was able to get on top of the “old the $15million stadium redevelopment bazooka” and Mr Goss. She said that she was”— would look after these people’s interests. But as we have always said— what happened? I do not like to say this, because I know even the “bazooka” would not “ ‘like shooting an ant with a bazooka’. touch a woman, but he stiff-armed her and He denied that the project was knocked her clean out. ‘bogged down’ by council. It was only two days ago that the Goss The scheme was approved by the Government said that this type of decision council’s building registration committee would never be taken again. I am referring to hours before late night legislation was the railway debacle. That was two days ago. introduced in State Parliament on The Government then came into this House, Tuesday, which effectively removed all went “crunch”, and tried to take away the council control.” rights of the people. It has done exactly that. The article also stated— It has no objection to doing that. What about the environment and what about noise “Residents yesterday condemned abatement? At Lang Park, the developers will the decision, which also removed the be ripping into construction, with jackhammers right of two formal objectors to appeal in going all day and night. What about the the Planning and Environment Court. residents? Those opposite have not even One of those objectors, Mr Ray thought about that. All the Government has Cooke, who lives opposite the ground, thought about is running over its own reform. said yesterday he would have considered What a disgrace! I cannot believe that the a court challenge.” Government would do such a thing. What These are the people that the Government is happened to open, honest and accountable affecting. The article continued— Government? “Council Opposition leader Bob Ward Mr Beattie: That’s us; you got it in one. said the State Government had broken Mr VEIVERS: Did the honourable its promise not to interfere in local member say, “Not any more?” If that is what government. he said, he is right. ‘And it has all been brought to a Mr Beattie: I said, “You have got it in head because of the bad blood between one.” Jim Soorley and several government Mr VEIVERS: I see. I thought that the Ministers.’ honourable member said, “Not any more.” I Paddington Traders’ Association thought that he had got it right at last. I spokeswoman Anne Boccabella”— wonder what developers around Queensland about whom I just spoke— are thinking as they see this legislation rammed through while they are bogged down “said the Government had ignored the in red tape somewhere in any one of Goss’ concerns of residents.” bureaucratic nightmares he calls She covered them pretty well. “departments”. What will they think? “Uncle Mr Budd: Why didn’t she object in the Tom” brought all of his reforms so that he first place? would be able to protect these sorts of people. But what do we see? They have been ridden Mr VEIVERS: This covers the honourable over roughshod and crunched into the member, too. She stated— ground. The fact that the ordinary people of “Those dinosaurs in their Jurassic Lang Park get crushed in the scrums means Park are imposing their will on everybody nothing to these people. That is the real else.” tragedy of this legislation; the people have got An honourable member interjected. in the way of politics, and when that happens under this Goss Labor Government there is 18 November 1993 6004 Legislative Assembly only ever one result: the politics wins. It is a appeal by the Lang Park Trust to the Planning disgrace. We oppose the Bill because it is and Environment Court would have been dishonest and unnecessary—and it stinks! bound to succeed. The court is obliged to look Mrs EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha) at legal precedents and pre-existing usage (4.08 p.m.): Earlier in this debate, members of more than the political issues considered by the Opposition indicated some eagerness to council. hear me speak. I would welcome their quiet Some of the residents have raised anticipation further to listen to me speak. We genuine concerns and issues, such as traffic have seen much huffing, puffing and management, littering and the behaviour of pompous posturing on this small Bill by football fans. I have told the Minister that I will members of the Opposition. When the insist on being involved in ongoing Opposition was in Government, this Bill would consultation to address those issues. not have been debated; it would have just Consultation has not stopped, but it will now gone through in the middle of the night. There be directed at the issues that involve the would have been no debate, no discussion residents. The meetings that I have attended and no consultation with the local people; it so far have been dominated by would-be would have just gone through. So concerned political aspirants who live nowhere near the were they about this development that they complex. They are cynically using the real could not think of one question to ask in the concerns of the locals to try to beat up an lead-up to this legislation. issue. Who are those rent-a-crowd perpetual Instead, we heard the honourable candidates? The first meeting that I member for Southport feigning outrage—more attended—at which the Lang Park Trust outrage and, again, more outrage—while at explained the proposal to the people—had in the same time he was careful that he did not attendance about 100 people from all over say anything to upset the football boys; Brisbane. That number attended after careful not to say anything that might lose him advertising and letterboxing. More political his freebie box at Lang Park. He will be parties were in attendance than there were fighting his way through to the Lang Park people. Trust box on his way to the first game. What a The meeting held last Sunday to discuss mockery! That tear in his eye is about the possible solutions to the issues raised at the thought of losing his place in the box; it is not earlier meeting was attended by at the most about outrage or lack of consultation. He 50 people. When I organised a rally for CART, knows nothing about the Planning and we did not make the newspapers unless a Environment Act, which is why he made a fool couple of thousand people attended. Those of himself in his speech. He is worried about 50 people attended after the distribution of his spot in the box. 1 500 leaflets and public advertisements by Those opposite know this is no ministerial the Lang Park Trust. Of those 50 people—and rezoning or ministerial overruling. The members opposite should listen to this—about Brisbane City Council had already made a 12 represented different Government or decision to support this development before council departments involved—the police, the legislation was drawn up. This is about Transport, Queensland Rail, planning, etc. I facilitating that council decision; to fast-track had asked those representatives to attend the that accepted council development. There meeting to explain the issues and how we have been a lot of misquotes about what I were handling the matter. Another half a said on Sunday at a residents’ meeting. dozen people were elected representatives— of whom I was one, and two aldermen were in Mr Johnson interjected. attendance, as well—and representatives of Mrs EDMOND: If the member wants to the Lang Park Trust. I identified at least eight hear what I said at that residents’ meeting, he players who are political candidates—failed should be quiet and listen. At that meeting, I political candidates, persons who hope to be said that this Government would not use political candidates or who failed to get legislation to overturn a council decision on nomination to be a political candidate. They this matter. We are not. We are facilitating were all there. It was this group who have that council decision. Let us make that clear attempted to set the agenda and who have once and for all. People should not bother effectively prevented the residents from misquoting me again. The council, of course, sorting out their problems with the Lang Park would have great difficulty in opposing a Trust. development of a site for an existing usage of Let me say that I have the utmost such long standing. Such a decision would admiration for genuine members of the Green merely have prolonged the process, as an movement—the Australian Conservation Legislative Assembly 6005 18 November 1993

Foundation, the Wilderness Society, the might add is the only time that I have been to National Parks Association, the Rainforest Lang Park. Protection Society, and my many hardworking It is interesting to note the applause that friends in those organisations. But in recent greeted the announcement of the new stand years, we have seen the advent of the jump- in February 1975 that took the capacity of the up greenies. They turn up a few months away ground to 40 000. What are we talking about from an election—any election; I am surprised now—a capacity of a very similar number. This that they were not there for the New Zealand redevelopment of the outdated facilities was election—and start jumping on local issues first mooted some 18 months to two years and trying to take them over. They embarrass ago, with significant media attention to the the real residents. In fact, I have heard that architects’ models, etc. As I remember it, there anyone concerned about a real issue now tells were full-page spreads in the Courier-Mail. It Drew Hutton, Will Bach and the other jump-up has not been a secretive event. The move by greenies to go away and not to go near them, the Broncos to the QE II stadium, following a because those jump-up greenies clearly sponsorship disputation, put those proposals discredit their causes. Everyone knows what to upgrade on the backburner until such time they are on about. They make genuine local as new major league teams were formed, and issues about which people are concerned look these games are scheduled to start next like political stunts just because they are there. season. To those residents, I say: they will go Planning advertisements for those who away. After the election, they will go away so were interested were placed openly and fast that no-one will know they have been according to all legal requirements, and an there. Once the election is over, no-one will extended objection period was allowed. The ever see or hear of them again—until the next member for Southport demonstrated that he election, whether it is local, State or Federal, does not understand the Local Government because then they will try to use the residents (Planning and Environment) Act when he again. I say to those political hopefuls: get out referred to—— and let us work with the residents to handle their needs, to handle their concerns, without A Government member interjected. the political stirring and posturing. Mrs EDMOND: Yes, he shows a lack of I have no problem whatsoever in saying interest in these proceedings. During this that I wish that this legislation was not formal process, two objections were received necessary. Obviously, I would prefer that the by the council. It is my understanding from the time frame imposed by the seasonal nature of council that one of these objectors has Rugby League would allow the process to indicated that his concerns have been met follow the course that this Government has set and that the other objector is very hard to find, in planning procedures, but it does not. Sport with residents at his listed address denying all plays a major role in the lives of knowledge of him. He is not on my electoral Queenslanders, and Rugby League is an roll, which he should be if he lives there, and I important part of that sporting life. Lang Park have checked the electoral rolls for both has played a significant part in the sporting before and after the objection period. He is a history of this city. It started off as a cemetery, phantom objector. went through stages as a dump and a playing Mr Gibbs: The secretary of the Lang field, and later became the home of Rugby Park Trust this morning went around and League. As the member for Southport said, knocked on the door of the address, and he Lang Park is a magnificent, internationally has never been heard of at that residence. recognised Rugby League field. Mrs EDMOND: That confirms my Rugby League is identified as the suspicions that he was just a put-up job. dominant football code in Queensland, ever However, there were two objectors, and that since it was first played in 1908. That is just a means that the Local Government (Planning few years before the graves were finally and Environment) Act allows a 40-day period moved from Lang Park in 1913. While the for these two formal objectors to review the grounds had been used for football for many council’s approval and comment on it. I stress years before, Queensland Rugby League that this 40-day period would not allow new signed its first 21-year lease with the Brisbane objectors; it would not allow those who have City Council in 1955. Certainly, by the time I not already made objections to make an arrived in Brisbane in 1964, Lang Park was objection; it would not allow the Opposition to the established home of Rugby League. I was rush out and find a few objectors; it would only one of the record crowd to watch the Great allow those two original objectors to have a Britain versus Australia test in 1966, which I further say on what the council has proposed. 18 November 1993 6006 Legislative Assembly

Of those two original objectors, one no longer Government, Planning and Environment Bill objects, and the other has disappeared into and the very words of the Deputy Premier on thin air. That is what we have overruled. This is 20 May 1992, but they have also betrayed what the huffing and puffing is about. This is their own policy in regard to local what the mock outrage is winning Oscars for. government—a policy that has a photograph The State Government will abide by all of Wayne Goss and his signature on the front. relevant building standards. The building will The member for Southport reminded the be in accordance with all relevant by-laws and House of that commitment in 1989. I want to standards. This Government is not shirking its remind those members who have come to this responsibilities. Consultation with residents place since of part of the platform on why they over traffic and other issues will continue won their seats— without it being made a political football. This “Labor’s policy position is that town legislation simply allows for the fast-tracking planning matters are properly the exercise of a development that has already responsibility of local government. There been approved by the Brisbane City Council. It shall be no ministerial rezonings unless kills off a 40 day-appeal period that was not specifically requested by a Council. going to be used. Had that 40-day appeal Even in those circumstances it would period gone ahead, the construction company need to be clearly demonstrated that the would have worked around the clock to meet rights of all parties were protected.” the June deadline. That is the last thing the residents wanted or needed. For those They are the very words, the very platform, out reasons, I support this Bill. of Labor’s 1989 State election policy which is endorsed by their Premier and by each and Mr BORBIDGE (Surfers Paradise— every one of the honourable members who Leader of the Opposition) (3. 21 p.m.): Every stood in that 1989 election. The people of now and then in this Parliament we find a Queensland were told that there would be member of Parliament who decides to sign his new standards of accountability, that the rules or her own death warrant. I found it of the past were not good enough. However, appropriate that the member for Mount Coot- suddenly, when it suits this Government, it tha reminded the House today that Lang Park changes the rules to suit itself. was once a cemetery. Her contribution to this debate today and the actions of her I was interested to hear the quite pathetic Government could well put her in a political defence of the member for Mount Coot-tha in cemetery at the next election. This debate respect of assurances that she gave to the today—— people of her electorate on Sunday. I can only quote the reported comments of the Mr Beattie interjected. honourable member— Mr BORBIDGE: If the member for “Of course the State Government Brisbane Central wants to join in the debate, won’t override the appeal process.” he should do so, but he should have the decency to stand up and do it. This debate The member said that she had the assurance today is not about the project; it is all about of the Premier and of the Minister who sits the processes—the proper processes—of the opposite. What is their word worth? law that Labor won Government over in 1989. Mr Gibbs: Oh, stop pouting in feigned Where is the member for Logan? Where anger. is the member for Lytton? Where are the Mr BORBIDGE: What is the word of the people who, week after week in this Premier worth and what is the word of the Parliament during the late eighties, were member for Mount Coot-tha worth when they critical of processes under the previous so deliberately deceive the people in the city National Party Government and who directed of Brisbane? The Minister and the member the Labor Party venom against the can protest all they like but what we are Government of the day on these very issues seeing, once again, is the duplicity and the of ministerial rezoning; and where is the double standards of the Goss Government. Premier who, when he was Leader of the We will be reminding the electors of Mount Opposition, sought to link rezonings with Coot-tha what the honourable member said smear, innuendo, and implications of today and how she votes in the divisions in corruption and wrongdoing, and who promised which she will have the opportunity to vote, that, under Labor, there would be no more and we will be reminding them of the ministerial rezonings? commitments that the Labor Party gave in Today, Labor Party members have not 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991—indeed, right only betrayed the principles of their own Local through to 20 May 1992, when introducing the Legislative Assembly 6007 18 November 1993 legislation that this Bill today will overturn. The Mrs McCauley: They are holding up Deputy Premier of this State said— projects all over the State because of that “Where provisions in the Act for legislation. ministerial involvement do not add to the Mr BORBIDGE: The member for Callide quality of local authority decision making quite properly informs me that the legislation and where matters are of a local or the Government is so eager to overturn today administrative nature, the Government is holding up major development projects from should not be involved.” one end of Queensland to the other—major What have we heard from the Government development projects where people in the benches today? We have heard criticism of a private sector—— 40-day period under this legislation. We have Mr Johnson: For years. heard the Minister describe it as bureaucratic Mr BORBIDGE: For years, I am and cumbersome. The Minister was a Minister reminded—where people in the private sector in the Cabinet that approved the legislation. It are paying interest on borrowed money, was members of the Australian Labor Party waiting for the approval process that this who voted for the legislation, which was Government enacted itself and to which it will introduced as recently as May 1992, and they not subject its own agencies, its own now seek to denigrate and override it. They members, its own Ministers and its own talk about consistency, about standards, and departments. That is the great tragedy of this about political morality. This is another legislation. If the Minister and the member for example of the way this Government will bend Brisbane Central do not like the legislation and the rules and change the rules to suit itself. if they are prepared to recognise that it is The proper administrative and appeal process causing very real difficulties, they should that was so important that it had to be change it, and change it for the sake of all enacted in benchmark legislation in this place Queenslanders, instead of pushing through in May 1992 is now deemed to be irrelevant specials—suspending the Standing Orders of because it does not suit the Government. It is this place and rushing through legislation—to all very well to say, “People could have suit themselves. objected.” That is not the point. The point is that the Government is overturning a law that I am sure that no Government members it says applies to everyone else in the State of would accept two sets of rules in their Queensland except itself and its mates. If we electorates. They would not accept the fact were debating the Cairns casino, it would that a person living next door to them must overturn the law. abide by one set of rules whereas, if the Minister decides that a project down the road Mr Randell: They should hang their is worthy of special treatment, those people heads in shame. could have all the red tape slashed; they Mr BORBIDGE: As the member for Mirani could have special legislation passed through says, they should hang their heads in shame. the Parliament at midnight; they could have What we have is massive duplicity. The small the Standing Orders of this place suspended, people of this State have to go through that the Bill guillotined and, no doubt, rushed out planning process. They have to meet all the to Government House for royal assent. But we requirements of the Local Government do not have two Queenslands. There should (Planning and Environment) Act, they have to be one rule for everyone. If Government go through the appeal process, and they have members do not like the rules under which to go through the objection period, but the they operate—or under which they are forcing Government does not, and nor do its mates or Queenslanders to operate—they should acquaintances. There are two sets of rules. change them. If the Government wants to change the Mr Fenlon interjected. legislation of which it is so critical today; that Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Briskey): the Minister says he no longer supports; that Order! The member for Greenslopes will cease the member for Brisbane Central says he no interjecting. longer believes in; and that the member for Mount Coot-tha says is irrelevant, then it Mr BORBIDGE: I had hoped that all should change the legislation. The legislation members of this place had learned something has the Government’s brand name on it. The from the lessons of the Fitzgerald commission Government enacted it. If the Government of inquiry. I had hoped that, because of that does not want it, if it does not like it, and if it is commission of inquiry, the party that won not working, it should change it. It should not Government in 1989 would have held in make special rules to suit itself. sacred trust the lessons of that commission of 18 November 1993 6008 Legislative Assembly inquiry. But today, this Government has to that member, “We will see how you vote betrayed the mandate that it received in 1989. today. We will see what your commitment is to It has betrayed its own policy documents, its accountability and proper processes.” The own Local Government (Planning and Opposition will also be watching the voting Environment) Act, its own local government record of the member for Mount Coot-tha, policies and its own principles. I am not going because we know that this will not be the last to argue about the development or of this type of action. We know that Bardon is redevelopment of Lang Park. That is properly in the next round for the member for Mount a matter for Government. This debate is all Coot-tha. We know the deals that are being about the processes—— done there; that proper processes will most Mr Veivers: The morality. likely be overturned. This is not a one-off. Mr BORBIDGE: It is about the morality What about the Brisbane Casino and the and the ways and means of achieving that Cairns Casino? Today, we are talking about redevelopment. Members in this place who Lang Park. We will be discussing Bardon in a are supporting this legislation—which, in my few weeks’ time. What is next? Whose view, prostitutes their principles—were so electorate will be next? What special little vehement, so vindictive and so vicious in arrangement will be arrived at? I say to the criticising the actions of the previous honourable member for Mount Coot-tha, “If Government in regard to ministerial rezonings. you do not like the rules, change them. You No doubt Government members will say that are part of the Government. If you do not like this is not a ministerial rezoning; that it is a the legislation, don’t do special deals for Government rezoning or a parliamentary special circumstances, but let the law apply rezoning. But I will tell them something: under equally to all Queenslanders. In particular, let a ministerial rezoning, at least we had the right it apply to all those people from one end of to object to the Minister. At least we had Queensland to the other—all those people reference to Executive Council. This who want to spend money in this State, who Government is taking that step a quantum want to get development projects up and leap backwards. It is proving that it has learnt running and who want to create jobs but are nothing. This legislation is a massive political hopelessly bogged down by this very fraud that goes to the heart of this legislation which the Government must admit Government’s alleged commitment to making it has had to circumvent in terms of a project sure that the proper processes of that is dear to its heart.” Those are the administration and review are implemented reasons that the Opposition, in a very and acted upon in post-Fitzgerald determined fashion, will be opposing this Queensland. legislation. This is not about the rights of Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate) (3.37 p.m.): The Government to make decisions. I do not Leader of the Opposition mentioned the question that. But I do question the way in words “special deals for special which this decision is being handled and the circumstances”. Let me talk about some processes that have been adopted— special deals for special circumstances. The processes over which each and every member member wants to talk about legislation and who was here prior to 1989—and I will forgive what this Government is supposedly doing to a certain extent those who came wrong. Let me talk about the Kangaroo Point later—each and every one of those members land development Bill. Let me talk about what never let up on the previous administration. happened with that. Do members remember Today, those members have the massive the old Evans Deakin shipyard at Kangaroo hypocrisy and blatant duplicity to say, “This is Point? The former National Party Government a matter of principle. We have to overturn our used the land acquisition Act to get an Order own policy. We have even got to overturn our in Council to resume 10 properties around that own Act. We have even got to overturn our shipyard. Five of those properties were sold own basic principles”—— through the normal channels. The owners of those properties which the previous Mr Veivers: Philosophy. Government resumed did not want to sell Mr BORBIDGE: And philosophy. What a them. That Government took those people lame duck excuse! What a pathetic excuse! out of their homes for its own benefit. One of Mr Barton interjected. those property owners obtained a legal opinion, which stated that the resumptions Mr BORBIDGE: The member who were illegal because the Government wanted interjects was as vocal a critic of the previous to resume those properties for private Government as was any other member. I say purposes—for private gain—not public use. So Legislative Assembly 6009 18 November 1993 the Government had to stop resuming those 1935 to 1960, who worked extremely hard for properties. In the middle of the night, that the development; and Frank Bourke, the then Government introduced the Kangaroo Point manager of the Queensland Golden Casket. land development Bill, so that it could The Frank Bourke stand has now gone, but continue with the resumptions. Even after a he was deeply involved in the development. legal opinion had stated that what that There was support from Toowoomba: Duncan Government was doing was illegal and Thompson and the Brown family from Brown’s immoral, that Government used this House to Transport in Toowoomba. Those people were resume those properties through legislation. great supporters. Mr Palaszczuk: When did they introduce Mr Ardill: You are allowed to use his the Bill? nickname. Mr NUTTALL: The Bill was introduced in Mr NUTTALL: No, I think the nickname the middle of the night. that Mr Brown had in those days is probably Mr Palaszczuk: After midnight? not appropriate to use in the House. Mr NUTTALL: It was after midnight. It was Mr Barton: Put a bit of colour into it. introduced in the early morning. But to make Mr NUTTALL: I have seen other things worse, that Government told the people members get into quite a bit of trouble over of Queensland that that was for the Expo that and I have decided not to go down that site—knowing full well that it was trying to path. enhance the value of that property so that it Mr Palaszczuk: You are a true could flog it off to developers. statesman. To the credit of the local member at that Mr NUTTALL: I thank the honourable time, Jim Fouras, he found out about that member for his kind comments. The then scam. At the end of the day, that Bill did not president of the BRL and QRL was a go through the Parliament. Opposition gentleman by the name of Jack McMahon. I members cannot talk about the impropriety of am pleased to say that his daughter Cath this Government. There is no impropriety on Taylor is one of my constituents. Jack the part of this Government. McMahon, along with Tom Purtell, who was Let me tell members a few more facts then the president of Western Suburbs, did a about Lang Park. Lang Park first started in the lot of work in starting off Lang Park. It is early fifties. I say to honourable members that incorrect for people to say that Lang Park was Lang Park is an institution that we have all an old cemetery site. I am told that basically it grown up with. It has been a great institution. was an old dump site and the cemetery was Some honourable members have played just in one corner. It is not true to say that it football on it and some have pretended to was purely a cemetery site. I am told that Jack play football on it. Let me say that when the McMahon and Tom Purtell used to actually development of Lang Park was started in hand mow Lang Park in those days. They those days, it had the full support of all the used to do all the hard yakka. political parties in this State. That support was Mr Budd: They would go out and chew not only at a State level but also at a local the grass. government level. In the early days, the Brisbane City Council did everything that it Mr NUTTALL: That is right. In the early could to encourage the development of Lang days, of course, the Western Suburbs Football Park, as did the New South Wales Rugby Club built the canteen and bar at Lang Park. League. They put a lot of work into the At that time, Western Suburbs ran the encouragement of development at Lang Park. canteen; however, they later, foolishly, leased The Town Clerk of the day, Jim Slaughter, sat that bar to the Valley Football Club. on the Lang Park Trust to assist with the Mr Veivers interjected. development. Mr NUTTALL: If you listen, you will There were a number of people involved understand the importance of Lang Park to in those days from right across the spectrum the people of Queensland and to the people of business—Ernie Keefer, the then secretary of that electorate. The only people who are of the Queensland Egg Board; Mr Weedman, complaining about this development and the business manager of Allan and about this Bill are you people sitting over Stark—some of us here are old enough to there. There are no people of Queensland remember Allan and Starks; they used to jumping up and down screaming about the advertise on the back of the tram tickets—Bill development at the moment. Power, the ALP member for Baroona from 18 November 1993 6010 Legislative Assembly

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Briskey): member is supporting what I am saying. That Order! The honourable member for Sandgate is one of the beauties of having Lang Park is reminded to direct his comments through where it is. It can be accessed by many the Chair. people through the public transport system. Mr NUTTALL: In its early days, Lang Park Another advantage that should not be was the home ground of the Western Suburbs forgotten is the job creation. The Lang Park Football Club. The Government has some redevelopment will create 300 jobs. The memorabilia of that. It has a couple of old Government is not prepared to sit back when stalwarts in its ranks. Believe it or not, Bobby there have been two objections and when Gibbs used to play on the wing for Western senior officers of the council have said that Suburbs in his day. Of course, he is built more those two objections have been satisfied. It is like a Sam Backo these days, but in his not just a matter of black and white; it is a heyday he was certainly a fleeing winger. They matter of getting on with the job. That is what used to call Glen Milliner “The Flash”. I the Government is trying to do with this Bill. It suppose that is why he has lost all his hair. He is trying to get on with the job and put those used to play for Western Suburbs, and what a 300 people into full-time employment. That is great football team it is. Not long after, Lang what it is all about. A number of the seats Park was taken over by the QRL. from the Frank Bourke stand have found their Mr Gibbs: Was he called “The Flash” way into my electorate in one of the parks that because of his speed? is being developed for a multi-purpose sports facility. Some of the memorabilia of Lang Park Mr NUTTALL: One would hope so. Lang is actually in my electorate. Park is not just used for senior football. Schoolboy football, club football, State Something that really irks me, and it was football, Test football and even last year the mentioned by the member for Mount Coot- World Youth Soccer Championships were held tha, and the member for Southport rose and at Lang Park. They were a great success. waved a newspaper clipping, is the media That is what this development is about. It is grabbers—the media seekers—coming out of about enhancing Lang Park so that those the woodwork. Anne Boccabella thinks that sorts of games and club matches can the redevelopment is terrible and should not continue to prosper there. Baseball matches go ahead. She refers to the Government as have been held there. When the athletics “Those dinosaurs in their Jurassic Park”. Ms track was there, the GPS and TAS athletics Boccabella had six weeks to lodge an competitions were held there. Recently, it has objection, but we did not hear “boo”. Did she been used for religious rallies. People went get in touch with any member in this House? along and were baptised in a large bathtub. Not that I know of. Did she get in touch with All of those kinds of things happen at Lang members of the Brisbane City Council in Park today. As the Minister mentioned in his relation to her concerns? Not that I know of. second-reading speech, it is about using it as Instead, she grabs the first opportunity to a multi-purpose facility. It is not just for jump on a pile of dirt at Lang Park, gets her football; it is proposed to enhance the facilities photograph in the newspaper and says that at Lang Park not only for the people of the Government is “imposing their will on Brisbane but for all the people of Queensland. everybody else”. It is not correct to stand there Now that the Frank Bourke stand has gone, and say that sort of thing. the redevelopment will improve the facilities at Mr Vaughan: It is not a good photo, Lang Park. either. Another advantage of Lang Park is its Mr NUTTALL: The member for Nudgee is proximity to public transport. The train station correct; it is not a good photo, either. This Bill is nearby and people from as far away as is all about completing the work at Lang Park Ipswich—— within a time frame. It is about job creation. I Mr Beattie: Even Sandgate. believe that it is a courageous step by the Minister to bring this Bill into this House. I Mr NUTTALL: As far away as Sandgate, congratulate him on his leadership and I Caboolture, Redlands, the Logan area, the congratulate him on his initiative. Beenleigh area—not just the Brisbane metropolitan area, but all of those adjoining Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Leader of shires—— the Liberal Party) (3.50 p.m.): Great eloquence has been heard from the Mrs Sheldon interjected. Opposition side of the House today and will Mr NUTTALL: I did mention Caboolture. I continue to be heard in and following my am pleased to see that the honourable speech. I wish to make a few brief points Legislative Assembly 6011 18 November 1993 because they are important in the interests of Environment) Act to get square with Jim justice, fairness and looking after the people Soorley. of Brisbane. Mrs Edmond: Ha, ha. Mr Gibbs interjected. Mrs SHELDON: The 40-day objection Mrs SHELDON: I can see that the period was introduced by this Government to Minister agrees that there has been great protect residents from shonky development eloquence from the Opposition side of the deals. The concept of the 40-day objection House today. This debate is on a Bill that will period is very good, but we now see that it will push through a ministerial rezoning to facilitate apply only when Ministers of this Government the redevelopment of Lang Park, and is want it to apply, and not when the people of therefore really one in which most Brisbane and the people of Queensland want Queenslanders would be very disappointed. I their rights. They have their rights and, within refer the Minister to his second-reading that 40-day period, the Government may find speech on the Lang Park Trust Amendment that more appeals are lodged. Bill in which he stated in the first paragraph— Mrs Edmond: The phantom objector? “Brisbane’s Lang Park is an Mrs SHELDON: I point out to the important public facility which has been member for Mount Coot-tha that the people of held in trust for sporting and recreation Brisbane have their rights, even if she purposes for more than 30 years.” abrogates their rights by rezoning. The important part of this legislation is that Mrs Edmond: But they couldn’t have Lang Park is being held in trust. The Minister objected. and the Premier are betraying the trust of the people of Queensland by railroading through Mrs SHELDON: Then I suggest that the a Bill to get the drop, as one might say, on member for Mount Coot-tha has an answer for their not-so-friendly Lord Mayor, Jim Soorley. the people who voted for her and to whom she has lied. It is very obvious that the Queenslanders have held the strange protection of the 40-day objection period has belief that, when the Labor Party said in 1989 failed, because this Bill applies to the and every year since that it was a cleanskin shonkiest development deal of them all. Government and an accountable Government, that was the truth. Lang Park was greatly eulogised by the member for Sandgate, and I agree with his Mr Beattie: Yes, of course. comment that it is a great part of the history of Mrs SHELDON: Unfortunately for the Brisbane. I do not suggest that a member for Brisbane Central, and as he well redevelopment of that area for Rugby League knows, the people of Queensland now see is at all the wrong thing to do, but this that that was a lie. Can Labor members Government, by virtue of this legislation, is imagine the disappointment of really doing a Bellevue bulldozing job on the Queenslanders, who voted for Labor, when residents of Paddington. Although the they see the return of the infamous ministerial Opposition is trying very hard, we can do rezoning, which is all that this legislation is? nothing about it, because the members of this Imagine their disgust when they see a Government are quite happy to support this Government which professes to be infamous action. I am sure that the residents accountable to the people railroading through of the Mount Coot-tha electorate will be sadly a midnight ministerial rezoning. Imagine their disappointed in their member, Mrs Edmond. despair when they see that this midnight Mr Cooper: Their ex-member. legislation abolishes, in relation to the Lang Park redevelopment, the 40-day objection Mrs SHELDON: I agree with the member period for residents. for Crows Nest. I think that the member will indeed lose her seat. The saddest feature of I refer the Minister to his second-reading this Bill is that the reason why the legislation is speech where he stated— being pushed through is really not for the “. . . the Local Government (Planning and greater good of the people of Queensland. Environment) Act prescribes that the That is really very sad. It is being done so that council must still give the objectors 40 the Minister can get his own way. This Bill is days to appeal against approval of the not even intended to be for the greater good development . . .” of the people of Brisbane or for the status of The undertaking is even set out in his own football in this State, in spite of the fact that speech, but this Minister is overriding the the Minister in charge of the Bill is the Minister Local Government (Planning and for Tourism and Sport, and should be looking after the interests of football and the people in 18 November 1993 6012 Legislative Assembly this State who play football. The reason why elections next March. If I had friends such as this Government is presenting the Bill—and I the Premier and Mr Gibbs, I would not be am sure that all Labor members are quite thanking my lucky stars. The Premier and the aware of this—is that the Premier and the Minister for Sport introduced this Bill because Minister do not like the Lord Mayor, Jim they knew that Lord Mayor Soorley would be Soorley. caught between a rock and a hard place. Ms Spence: Rubbish! Mr Gibbs: Miaow! Mrs SHELDON: That is the real truth Mrs SHELDON: I realise that the Minister behind this disgraceful episode. If the member has certain feline characteristics, but he for Mount Gravatt does not think so, then the should not miaow in the State House. boys on the Government side have pulled the Mr Gibbs: I am just a regular tom. wool over her eyes. The truth is that the Premier, Wayne Goss, and the Minister for Mrs SHELDON: The Minister thinks he is Sport, Bob Gibbs, despise Jim Soorley, and I a regular tom, does he, and not just an have been told that the feeling is mutual. As a ordinary feline? He may know better about result, the people of Queensland—and the that than I. Lord Mayor Soorley does not want people of Brisbane in particular—are having to get involved in a Labor punch-up four their rights overturned. This is not being done months away from the local government for any high moral reason but because of elections because it just does not look good. petty bickering between three massive Labor The malicious Premier and his malicious egos who do not like each other. It is a sad Minister for Sport knew that, if they romper- day when this House is reduced to debating a stompered all over the top of the Lord Mayor Bill about Labor egos, and that is what this Bill on the issue of the Lang Park redevelopment, is all about. Alderman Soorley would have his hands largely tied. I am sure that he could make a Ms Spence: No. This is about football. token protest. We have already heard that Mrs SHELDON: Obviously, the member feeble response, and that will be about it. As a for Mount Gravatt knows nothing about result, the rights of the people of Brisbane will football. This is a case of who can get one on be shunted aside because of Labor infighting. his opponent first. Firstly, the Lord Mayor This arrogant Premier, his bulldog whacked 40-odd conditions on the Minister for Sport and the member for Mount redevelopment of Lang Park to annoy the Coot-tha, who has sold out her electors and State Government and to prop up his pet the people who voted for her, have no QE II. Let’s face it, boys: I am speaking the hesitation in stepping on people’s rights or truth! Then the Government comes back with hurdling the high moral ground to get their a Cloudland-bulldozer Bill and goes right over own way—truly the efforts of the Minister for the top of the Brisbane City Council. Sport. In fact, this entire Government believes Mr Beattie interjected. in the principle of do as we say, not what we Mrs SHELDON: You would be well aware do. An earlier example of this was the of that. Brisbane casino development when we saw that great effort in community consultation Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): and in taking into account the community’s Order! I remind the Deputy Leader of the points of view. A later example was the Cairns Coalition that she should address her casino project. When we are speaking of comments through the Chair and to refer to development projects, I am reminded that the members by their electorates and not by their Minister said in his second-reading speech— names. “The State Government cannot Mrs SHELDON: Thank you, Madam stand by and watch a development which Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, the State will create 300 jobs on site and inject Government has done this to show Lord $15m into the community unnecessarily Mayor Soorley who really is boss. This is the bogged down by a futile bureaucratic game being played by the big boys, and that exercise.” is the reason why the people of Paddington have had their appeal rights violated. This is So I assume that when various developers on really a petty little factional brawl between the the Sunshine Coast come to me and say that AWU-backed Wayne Goss—and he knows it their developments are unnecessarily bogged because I can see him nodding at me and he down by a futile bureaucratic exercise that, knows that what I am saying is exactly similarly, the Minister will act in his capacity right—and a Lord Mayor who will be battling to and make sure that a ministerial rezoning will hold his position in the local government take place for them as well—or is this one just Legislative Assembly 6013 18 November 1993 for the Minister particularly? The Minister electorates, yet he has allowed Minister Gibbs would have to agree that he has set a to ride roughshod over Mrs Edmond in order precedent. I am sure that he will listen to to perpetrate a payback on Jim Soorley. That Opposition members when they come to him is how the Premier operates. He only picks on and tell him that people in their electorates people who cannot fight back, whether it is a want to supply jobs and basic infrastructure for Lord Mayor who has his hands tied, the areas that are growing rapidly, but that they people of Paddington, who have now lost all are unnecessarily bogged down—and some rights of appeal, or his own backbencher, the of them have been bogged down for two member for Mount Coot-tha. This little piece of years—by a futile bureaucratic exercise. I am nasty work has left a trail of railroaded rights sure that the Minister will say, “We will and broken promises. suspend Standing Orders, I will rush in a Bill Obviously, the coalition cannot support and everything will be rosy.” So they will be the suspension of what it regards are the very pleased when I tell them about that. rights of the people of Queensland. Certainly, What is so pathetic about this Bill is that the people of Queensland will not be allowed the laws and conditions which this to forget, nor must they forget, what has Government is stomping on are laws and happened in this House today. conditions which it introduced in a great Mr VAUGHAN (Nudgee) (4.04 p.m.): As fanfare of publicity to show how accountable it the Minister stated in his introductory speech, was. What a joke! It is a very sad joke for the Lang Park has been a public sporting and people of Queensland. Whether it is the recreation facility for more than 30 years. Heritage Council, the Brisbane City Council or Since it was established, it has been regarded even the Freedom of Information as the home of Rugby League. It has had the Act—although today, someone rightly called it advantage of being located close to the the freedom from information Act—this centre of the city, from which it is easily Government has shown that it will throw the accessed by public transport or, for those so rules out the door whenever it suits. With this inclined, by a comfortable walk. action, the hypocrisy of this Government has reached a new low. However, as with all such venues, parking for those who might be optimistic of finding a Of course, as the Leader of the park, has always been a problem not only for Opposition has mentioned already, the poor those who drive their cars but also for the Labor member for Mount Coot-tha, Wendy people who live on the streets surrounding Edmond, has also suffered from all of this. Lang Park. The same situation exists when Poor Wendy; she made the mistake of events are held at Ballymore, the Milton tennis actually believing the Premier and the Minister courts, Perry Park, Eagle Farm Racecourse, for Tourism, Sport and Racing when they said and even the ANZ Stadium, where there is a that they would consult with her and the large parking area. people of Paddington over the Lang Park redevelopment. In fact, the member for Mount Because Lang Park has always been Coot-tha believed it so much that she told a such a popular sporting venue, because of its public meeting on Sunday—and it was quoted future potential and because of the age and in the newspapers—that the State condition of some of its original facilities, it was Government would not railroad through the inevitable that upgrading and refurbishment redevelopment and that the residents would would have to be undertaken at some time. have their say. The Minister must not have Although the move by the Broncos from Lang known that he was leaving the poor member Park to the ANZ Stadium appeared at the for Mount Coot-tha high and dry on the rocks. time to be prejudicial to the future of Lang However, that is what he has done. He has Park, the impending entry of the south railroaded through this redevelopment. What Queensland Crushers into the Winfield Cup a joke! I wonder what the residents around competition and the need for international Lang Park really think about “having their say”. standard facilities in which to stage major That was another lie by this Government, and sporting and cultural events has determined this time to one of its own backbenchers. I am the need for the redevelopment of the Lang amazed that the other Labor backbenchers Park complex. have not really supported Mrs Edmond on this As Lang Park has been and was recently issue. I take it that they have bowed to confirmed as the continuing venue for the ministerial pressure. Also, the Premier, Mr State of Origin series, any redevelopment Goss, gave caucus members—and they know work had to be carefully scheduled. The that this is the truth—an undertaking that no Minister has indicated that the Lang Park ministerial rezonings would occur in their Trust lodged a consent application with the 18 November 1993 6014 Legislative Assembly

Brisbane City Council on 19 July, and lodged adverse effect on the progress of the State, further particulars as required by the council have occurred. on 20 August. Despite the fact that this legislation will Unfortunately, notwithstanding that all the circumvent town planning provisions, the work impediments to the trust’s redevelopment involved in the redevelopment will still be application have been overcome, final subject to all standard building by-laws, council approval, which will effectively enable work to standards, and health and safety proceed, will not be granted for some time. requirements. The tripartite review committee The result will be that, in all probability, there that has been formed will also consider issues will be insufficient time for the necessary work such as traffic and the amenity of the area. to be completed by June 1994 to enable the As I indicated, it was my understanding State of Origin series to be played at Lang that there were two objectors to the Park. Although it is unfortunate that this redevelopment application, and their concerns legislation has had to be introduced, it would had been satisfied. I note in today’s press that be economically stupid to prejudice the one of those objectors is now claiming that he redevelopment program and thus jeopardise would have considered a court challenge. the future viability of this valuable sporting Since Lang Park has been in existence for 30 asset. As the Minister indicated, the years, one cannot but wonder if this objector redevelopment work that will be carried out has lived with Lang Park for 30 years or has between now and June next year will provide recently moved to his present residence. The employment for 300 people, and will inject member for Mount Coot-tha has pointed out $15m into the community. In my opinion, it that person, who was quoted in today’s paper, would be ridiculous to prejudice those jobs is not even on the electoral roll and, as has and the future of this valuable sporting facility been indicated, cannot be found. for the sake of complying with a timetable that is of no real consequence since, as has been Mrs Edmond: Not that person. That stated by the Minister, there were only two person has talked to the trust, and he is okay. objectors to the proposed redevelopment It is another one who does not exist—the when the application was advertised. The other objector. concerns that were raised by both of those Mr VAUGHAN: The other one of the objectors have been satisfied. wholesome two. Unfortunately, many people Of course, as would be expected, those move into an area knowing full well that they opposed to the Government—those on the are close to an airport, a sporting facility or a Opposition side of the House—and those busy road, and then complain. For example, opposed even to Lang Park’s continued recently, a person moved into a house in my existence, let alone any redevelopment of the electorate, which was located about 60 metres complex, are critical of this legislation because from the railway line, and then complained to it exempts the Lang Park Trust from the me about the noise created by the trains. necessity to comply with the requirements of Lang Park is located close to the city, and any town planning scheme, and allows the it is very accessible. If it were to be closed redevelopment to be fast-tracked. Although down, as some residents and businesses in there is no denying what the legislation does, the area want, another complex would have to and although the critics are entitled to have be built at some other location—preferably their say, the fact is that the legislation is a one close to the city. In this regard, I recall practical approach to a situation that could be mention being made of the Roma Street very expensive to those concerned if positive railway yards. This would cost many millions of action was not taken. dollars. Without a doubt, many people would However, this exercise illustrates clearly be opposed to that proposal. No matter what one thing, and that is the need to consider we do, we will upset someone. The decision fully the possible impact down the track of has been made to redevelop Lang Park, and provisions in legislation that provide for such it should be allowed to proceed in the most things as 40 days for appeals to be lodged by efficient manner. objectors when, as in this case, there were However, I expect that the review reportedly only two initially, and the concerns committee, which consists of the Department of both those objectors were satisfied. In my of Transport, the Lang Park Trust and the opinion, this applies particularly to Brisbane City Council, will take whatever steps developments that will benefit the State and are necessary to address any problems that create jobs. Too many instances of delays residents in the area have had in relation to and procrastination, which have had an the operation of Lang Park—for example, with traffic and hooliganism. I cannot see why Legislative Assembly 6015 18 November 1993 existing car-parking facilities away from the between this Government and the Lord complex cannot be used. People could be Mayor. The ill feeling is so great that the transported to Lang Park from these facilities. Minister still does not trust the Lord Mayor, I am sure that, with a bit of goodwill, any such even though the Lang Park Trust has the problems can be resolved to the satisfaction town planning approval in its hand. I think that of all concerned. speaks volumes. It is not as though the town Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly) planning approval is still coming; the trust has (4.02 p.m.): No-one can doubt that Lang Park received the town planning approval, but the is a magnificent Rugby League ground, nor Minister still does not trust the Lord Mayor. He can anyone doubt the importance of Rugby still believes that there will be delays and League to Queensland—even though the humbug placed in the way of getting this Broncos now occupy the ANZ Stadium at project off the ground. QE II. We are not debating the contribution Therefore, this legislation is all about the that Rugby League has made to Queensland, breakdown in relations between the nor for that matter are we debating the Government and the council. That breakdown importance of Lang Park to Rugby League in has passed the point of repair. Further, this this State. We are not debating the right to legislation is being guillotined through the redevelop the site and to upgrade facilities Parliament today in a manner that again because, if we believe there is insufficient highlights how dead the Fitzgerald reform time, then it is quite clear that the Government process is under this Government. That is would have brought forward the timetable. apparent from the way in which the guillotine That cannot be the issue. As we know, Lang has been used. We have not seen it used in Park Trust has made a town planning such a way for some time. The Bill has been application in relation to building on this site. If brought on for debate in the House only 36 the application was put in too late, then it is hours after it was introduced into the quite apparent that this Government and its Parliament. Today, the Standing Orders have poor planning and poor management are to been swept aside. The guillotine has been blame. used in order to allow the Government to ride This legislation is about the Goss Labor roughshod over the democratic processes and Government not trusting the integrity of its to railroad the legislation through the House own Labor Lord Mayor. The Government with the sheer force of numbers. believes that he is not sufficiently unbiased to Mr Veivers: Against their own reforms. deal with this application. The Government Mr BEANLAND: As the honourable has no trust and no confidence in the integrity member for Southport reminds me, this is of the Labor Lord Mayor because of his certainly against the Government’s own conflict of interest in that the Brisbane City reforms—the reforms instituted as a result of Council owns the QE II sports centre and the the Fitzgerald process. The introduction of this ANZ Stadium, which is the home of the legislation was a black Tuesday. Today, no Brisbane Broncos Rugby League team. reasons have been given as to why this Because of this direct conflict of interest, there legislation has been rushed through in this has been a complete breakdown between the form. As I have already indicated, if the two levels of Government. We all know that Minister is using the excuse of having to stick some other major issues have been raised. to a timetable, then it is the Government’s Last year, without telling its own Labor Lord own poor planning and management in the Mayor, the Government even went so far as first place that is the reason for this situation. to have Treasury staff carry out a thorough investigation of council finances. I understand There have to be some other reasons for that the Lord Mayor found out about that only rushing this legislation through the Parliament. a few days ago. It cannot be because of a lack of approval from the council, because that approval has The Minister for Tourism, Sport and been received. It is about time we cut out the Racing carried on with a tirade against the hoodwinking and got down to the real reason, Labor Lord Mayor over a range of issues. that is, the bad blood between the They were calling each other names, such as Government and City Hall, and particularly “bazooka” and “ant”. It is ironic that, in the last between the Minister and the Lord Mayor. As I few days, the Lang Park Trust’s town planning have already indicated, under Standing Order application to the council was approved. Now 241 (d), this Parliament is entitled to have six that approval is being shoved aside—swept clear days between the introduction of aside—after the trust went to all the expense, legislation into the House and the debate on time and effort of getting it. That approval is that legislation. Because there have not been being swept aside because of the bad blood 18 November 1993 6016 Legislative Assembly six clear days since the introduction of the Bill, Brisbane Central was getting very disturbed. not only has there not been adequate He probably feels that he has sold out the consultation but also the people who live in people in his electorate, too. I can understand the area are most upset. why he was becoming irritated earlier and In the past 24 hours, a number of interjecting. It is pricking his conscience. He is statements have been issued in the media. A guilty about the whole thing. I can see that spokeswoman for the Paddington Traders there is agreement around the Chamber in Association stated— relation to that. “Those dinosaurs in their Jurassic I want to place on record the statements Park are imposing their will on everybody that the member for Mount Coot-tha made else.” over the weekend at a residents’ meeting. I am about to relate the perception of the A number of other people from the area people present at that meeting. She stated surrounding Lang Park have made that both the Premier and the Minister for statements. Tourism, Sport and Racing would not override This breaks many promises given by the their appeal rights. Of course, we now know Labor Party when it was in Opposition—and exactly what has happened in that respect. since it has come to Government—in relation The rights of those people have been totally to ministerial rezonings. It is all very well for swept aside. The member for Mount Coot-tha Government members to stand up and say, has rolled over and is now going along with “Well, it is not a ministerial rezoning.” It this legislation. She has not spoken out and certainly has all of the effects of a ministerial has not raised a hand against it. In fact, it has rezoning. The only difference is that it is even been left to Bob Ward from the Brisbane City cleaner and swifter. It is sweeping away all the Council to speak out about this matter. As he rights that might have existed under a has pointed out, because of the ministerial rezoning. With this legislation, the Government’s treatment of the local residents Government has certainly swept away the on this issue, it has broken a number of the necessity for building approvals and commitments that it made prior to the last environmental approvals. So it is even more election. sweeping than a ministerial rezoning. That This Government prides itself on coming cannot be denied. up with one set of rules after another. It When the clauses are debated at the expects the community and the private sector Committee stage, the Opposition will point out to comply with the red tape that it puts in that this has far more power than a ministerial place. In this instance, the Government has rezoning would ever have. It comes with a far taken a knife and cut away the red tape in greater degree of swiftness. The Building Act order to legislate through the maze of itself is being swept aside, as are all requirements that would normally apply. This environmental requirements of the council and legislation avoids the maze of town planning, the Government, in order to allow the building and environmental requirements. Government—and the power will now be in That is what makes this legislation so horrific. the hands of the Minister—to rush this It allows the Government to avoid all the usual legislation through the Parliament and over restraints in order to get this redevelopment the head of the Labor Lord Mayor. moving. Despite any argument that the As part of its election platform prior to Government cares to mount, the rights of the attaining office in 1989, the Labor Party said— people have been swept aside. Not so long ago, Government members were parroting “Labor’s policy position is that town away about the fact that the Local planning matters are properly the Government (Planning and Environment) Act responsibility of local government. would contain provisions that enabled people There shall be no ministerial to object to a particular development. rezonings unless specifically requested by Regardless of whether there are two objectors a council.” or 200 objectors, the democratic process That speaks for itself. should prevail. Those objectors—regardless of their numbers—still have a right to their day in We have heard a great deal by way of court under the legislation. However, this interjection from the honourable member for Government has swept aside that right. The Mount Coot-tha, who has rolled over on this numbers are irrelevant; the principle is at issue after having given a number of stake. undertakings to her own constituents. I can understand why the honourable member for I did not believe that this Government would disregard the views of the residents in Legislative Assembly 6017 18 November 1993 the vicinity of Lang Park who have supported with an in-group; it is their creed and their Rugby League for many decades. This belief. Football is definitely not just a game. Government is using a steamroller to crush I am told that football demands great any say that those people might have. I never things of people, and today another great believed that I would see the day when this action is being undertaken in the name of Minister would treat those people in that way. football by the passage of this Bill. I commend After all, for many years many of them have the Minister for assisting the Lang Park Trust put up with large traffic volumes, noise and to substantially upgrade and refurbish the other problems. Some of those residents lived stadium complex to ensure its viability as a in the area before Lang Park was used for long-term multipurpose facility. Brisbane has Rugby League. However, they like living there the need for two large football stadiums. We and are prepared to put up with the noise and are a growing city. We have huge influxes of the other annoying features associated with football-loving southerners. We cannot afford living near the stadium. However, those to allow a major stadium to stand idle through residents believed this Government would lack of initiative, lack of confidence and lack of allow them to have a say in this resources to provide an upgrade to ensure the redevelopment. That is certainly not the case. ongoing success of an asset for its This Government—and in particular the owners—the taxpayers of Queensland. member for Mount Coot-tha—has swept those people and the concerns that they hold under Responsible Governments take care of the carpet and treated them like trash. I feel public-owned infrastructure. Today, this great sorrow that those residents have been Government is again demonstrating the treated in that manner by the Labor Party. I extent of its responsibility by passing this am aggrieved that the legislation on this very legislation to allow the fast-tracking of the important matter is being treated in such a development of the stadium. Rules are rules cavalier fashion. and laws are laws. The member for Surfers Paradise would have us believe that there can Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) (4.24 p.m.): never be a deviation from a rule or a law. As Brisbane’s Lang Park is an important public members of Parliament, we all know that facility. It is the home of Rugby League in this situations arise in which some flexibility is State. As we were told earlier by the member warranted. This is one of those occasions. I for Sandgate, to many people in Queensland have to commend the Minister for Tourism, it is a very important place. The measure Sport and Racing for moving quickly in being undertaken by the Government today in bringing this legislation to the House as soon removing the necessity for the Lang Park as he realised that the obstacles that Trust to wait for the 40-day objection period threatened to delay this project were from the Brisbane City Council—— threatening the viability of the stadium. Mr Nunn: And 40 nights. I acknowledge the concerns of the local Ms SPENCE: And 40 nights. One point community over the repercussions on their that the Opposition has failed to pick up is that neighbourhood of an enlarged stadium. I can the redevelopment of Lang Park has already speak with some authority on this subject, as been approved by the Brisbane City Council. the QE II stadium complex is in my electorate. This legislation has been brought about by the When plans were proposed to turn QE II into necessity to fast-track the redevelopment of a superstadium, local residents were similarly the stadium in time for the football season concerned that traffic, noise and drunken next year, and in particular the State of Origin football fans would spoil their weekends and games. destroy their property values. I am pleased to Many great feats have been achieved in inform the House and the people who live the name of football in this State. I have to around the Lang Park Stadium that none of say that I really did not understand the that has eventuated. Despite crowds of up to importance of football before I became a 57 000, the crowd management at the QE II member of Parliament. I must confess that I stadium has been an exercise in good thought it was just a ball game played on a planning. From day one, the Brisbane City field. However, many football presentation Council liaised with local residents to discuss evenings have taught me the foolishness of the best way of managing possible problems underestimating the game to that degree. I before they occurred. At each game, a group have learned that, for a large number of of volunteer local residents scoured the Queenslanders, football is a way of life. It is up nearby suburbs in order to monitor parking, there with family and work in terms of crowd behaviour, noise levels, litter and so on. importance; it is their method of identifying 18 November 1993 6018 Legislative Assembly

I place on record my appreciation to Paul expertise in the art of ministerial rezoning Fitzgerald, Harry Martin and David Crowe, who would have alerted them to the fact that this is are the stalwarts of the community no such thing. consultation team. Their post-match reports The Opposition shadow Minister— presented to me, the Brisbane City Council besides talking about singing nuns, big organs and the police have been invaluable in in City Hall and other trivia—did attempt one identifying problem areas requiring further serious question: why not have all the games action. The whole ANZ stadium experience played at the ANZ Stadium? He overlooks a has to date been a lesson in the absolute number of facts. The ANZ Stadium risks necessity for community consultation. With a overuse, with 22 weekends of home games bit of goodwill all round, the problems can be as well as numerous trial and special event solved. games in any one year. The strain on the At this point, I acknowledge the fine infrastructure, such as transport and local efforts of the Lord Mayor, Jim Soorley, and his environment near the ANZ Stadium, would be staff in ensuring that the transition of the little- acute if that happened. He is suggesting used QE II stadium into the multipurpose oft- Rugby League become a southside event, used ANZ stadium has been neighbourhood denying the northern suburbs access to friendly. I do not have anything but the Rugby League. He also forgets the fact that highest praise for Jim Soorley for his handling Lang Park, as the home of Queensland of the community relations and community Rugby League, is its principal source of consultation process. I know that I speak for income to enable it to foster and administer the local residents when I make that Rugby League throughout Queensland. For comment. Joan Sheldon might reckon that many and varied reasons, it would not be best Jim is a creep, but I can tell her that she does to move all of Rugby League to the ANZ not speak for the majority of Queensland Stadium. For that reason, the upgrade of the women in expressing that opinion. I have to Lang Park stadium is imperative. I commend say that, as a woman, I have always found the Minister on these moves today to ensure the Lord Mayor to be charming, that that upgrade proceeds without delay. communicative, compassionate and an Mrs McCAULEY (Callide) (4.33 p.m.): understanding colleague. As to an This Bill has a lot to do with the macho world assessment of his performance as Lord of “fellas and football” and it highlights the Mayor—I simply say that he is the best Lord subculture that is alive and well in Mayor that Brisbane has had since Clem parliamentary circles, from which members Jones, Brian Walsh, Frank Sleeman and Roy such as myself, the previous speaker and Harvey. Madam Acting Speaker as well, are usually Back to Lang Park—I am pleased to excluded. learn that the trust plans to make the No-one has ever offered me free tickets redevelopment environmentally friendly. The to a State of Origin match so I could be seen redevelopment will include special plans for in the right places, and no-one has ever asked crowd and traffic management. Currently, a me to share a corporate box at Ballymore so tripartite group from the council, the State that he or she could discuss the affairs of Government and the Lang Park Trust is State with me. Nor have I ever been asked to working on that key aspect. lunch at the Brisbane Club with my Noise attenuation is also high on the colleagues. I would not be let in if I was! agenda for the redevelopment, as the local Perhaps the local member may not have residents’ rights are clearly understood, and a been so summarily dispatched by a head-high significant level of landscaping and area tackle if she had had a certain appendage beautification is a key part of the and played football. However, she has been redevelopment plans. The need for the sin-binned, and quite spectacularly so, by her renewal of the inner city area is a real issue own party, and she will again be clobbered and that is being acknowledged by the Lang when the Government—her Government— Park trust. does another ministerial rezoning on the In conclusion, I would say that I found Bardon Professional Centre site. Do not get the Opposition’s mock outrage at the me wrong, I love football—but Rugby League, introduction of this legislation today has been not Rugby Union. Coming from a family where caused by a complete misunderstanding of all the men in my family play or follow—— what this Bill is about. Opposition members Mr Beattie: What about soccer? keep talking about ministerial rezonings. I would have thought the National Party’s Mrs McCAULEY: Soccer—the honourable member must be joking! Coming Legislative Assembly 6019 18 November 1993 from a family where all the males either play or a change of attitude, and of priorities, follow Rugby Union, my husband decided that than that change of name. That very I needed some education in this field. One change of name holds out hope to those Sunday he took me to Ballymore to watch of us who, over the years, have opposed Australia play France. When we got home I the previous development-at-any-cost heard him say to our two sons, “I am never Government and the scatterbrained, going to take your mother to Ballymore again”. matey adhockery of the Brisbane City Being suspicious young lads, they asked, Council.” “Why? What did she do?” The reply was, “She I hope she has to eat those words. was very embarrassing. She kept sitting there, saying, ‘Go, Wally, go, Wally.’” Of course, it The member for Brisbane Central in the was not true. I was not terribly impressed with same debate said— Ballymore. I would much rather be at Lang “The residents of the City of Brisbane Park. applaud the provision in this Bill which I might add that my husband is one of provides for public objection and appeal the boys when it comes to football. I still recall rights in respect of an amendment of a the time when he was given two tickets to a development control plan which affects State of Origin match and he asked the local particular parcels of land.” shire chairman instead of me to go with him. I He also should eat his words. will not tell members what happened, but For my part, as a Rugby League fan, I neither the shire chairman nor I went. welcome the refurbishment of Lang Park. It is It seems to me that this legislation is an easy place to get to and it is simple just to designed to help Father Jim at City Hall out of walk back to the city after the game—and if a bind, and that is so far off side that even a your side has won, you can call in at some New South Wales referee would not allow it. watering holes on the way and celebrate. The Brisbane City Council has already agreed Making your way home on foot is a pleasant to the project to refurbish Lang Park going exercise. By car it is probably a nightmare— ahead, so why did the Minister need to step in and impossible by cab. However, as for the and prove his credentials to the boys’ club? residents of the area—I think they would have Does he have a problem with his masculinity, to be rabid football fans or they would have to or is it just something about football that simply sell out and move somewhere else. brings out the Rambo in him? Their lives must be a misery on the weekends Mr Gibbs: No, it is the smell of those dirty and State of Origin nights with the noise and old jock-straps. the traffic. It would be impossible to pretend it was not there. Mrs McCAULEY: Whatever the answer, this little piece of action by the Labor State It is interesting to see what previous Government—the grand daddy of ministerial members from the other side of the House rezonings—has to take the cake in hypocrisy. said, again, when this legislation was first The local member said on television that she debated and how scathing they were about would be lynched if she did not support it. By the National Party. Mr Heath—and I had to whom I wonder? By her party colleagues? The think for a minute who Mr Heath was; but he member for Mount Coot-tha will learn in time was that member for Nundah who decided he that her party colleagues do not vote her into did not really want to be a member of the office, but her constituents do—those people Labor Party and vanished—said— whom she has totally left in the lurch. They will “I turn now to a provision of the Bill give her a clear message at the next election, which, when enacted, will bring an end to believe me. the unfettered exercise of ministerial It is the job of the local member to stand rezoning power that was so relentlessly up for the residents in her electorate and she used by former Ministers such as the has failed them. What she says today is quite Minister for thoroughbreds and putting different from what she said in 1990 when this highways through the Oxenford Hotel’s legislation that is being overturned first went bottle shop, Mr Russ Hinze.” through. She said— He went on to say— “It is highly appropriate that tonight we “None of the provisions mentions are debating a Bill that, with the change ministerial rezonings for the benefit of of Government, changed from the developers.” proposed planning and development Bill I wonder what he would think today. to that now before us—the planning and environment Bill. What more could signify Finally, from Dr Clark, who is still with us— 18 November 1993 6020 Legislative Assembly

“One very important aspect of this obnoxious precedent on the part of this legislation which will be welcomed by both Government. It lays bare the hypocrisy of the local authorities and the general public is ALP in relation to ministerial—call them the limitation on the power of the Minister rezonings, but it still smacks of ministerial to rezone land. This power was intervention—and it lays bare the bitter and undoubtedly abused by the National political, bloody conflict that is currently taking Party Government and resented by place between this Goss Labor Government residents who had to stand by and watch and the Jim Soorley administration. decisions made by their elected Unless I am provoked by numerous representatives overturned by the interjections during this contribution, I will not Minister.” take my full 20 minutes. I am speaking during Well, well, well. I wonder what she thinks now. this debate because I am disgusted. The Her name is significantly absent from the people in the community are disgusted, as is speaking list. anybody else who knows anything about this They are so righteous and such deal. Through their many calls during the past hypocrites, but, of course, this is different—this 36 hours or so, many of my constituents have is football. Because of the ineptitude of City demanded that I place on record in this place Hall in this matter, this legislation has been their outrage. brought in to fast-track the whole exercise Mr T. B. Sullivan interjected. because, if it is not ready by June next year, where will the population worship? The lack of Mr SANTORO: The member for opportunity to bond with their fellow men in Chermside laughs. But this is true; people the spirit of Fourex and Dencorub could have have been ringing me about this issue. It has long-lasting repercussions and cause great not been just one or two calls. I have received stress to at least the male population of the about a dozen calls in my electorate office city. about this matter. Members know that when Mr Gibbs: This is a very anti-male speech we get a call, there is something happening you are making. out there. When we get half a dozen calls, we know that we should be concerned. When we Mrs McCAULEY: It is not at all. I am get about a dozen calls, we know that the sorry the Minister is so sensitive. I am not public consciousness is awake to what the opposed to ministerial rezonings as such, Government is doing. I say to Government because there are times when they are members, “The people do not like what you necessary. What I am opposed to is a are doing.” The people are outraged and, on Government that says one thing and does their behalf, I wish to express their outrage. another. It is ironic, however, that there are hundreds of projects throughout the State Somebody in this place must represent which are being held up by this Government the poor unfortunate constituents of Mount because of red tape and regulations, but this Coot-tha because, with all due respect—and I project is to be bulldozed through Parliament did not think that I would ever say this about tonight. Every local authority in Queensland the poor member for Mount Coot-tha—they should deplore and fear this action today. So have got a dud. Her Government, her Minister this legislation must proceed, and the Minister and her Premier let her down in the will cop it on the chin like the true man he is. breathtaking space of about two or three He will cop the allegations that he is a days. On the weekend, she will say, “Don’t you hypocrite and that his Government cannot be worry. Everything is going to be okay.” trusted, because it says one thing and does Dr Watson: Don’t you worry about that! another. He will wear all that for the sake of the great god football. Next June, he will Mr SANTORO: I take that interjection. Do probably be carried around the oval, shoulder members remember how mocking members high, in a Broncos jersey, with a wreath of opposite were when a particular fellow who mouthguards on his head. On you, Bob! was a member of this place for many years said, “Don’t you worry about that”? They were Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—Deputy Leader mocking of that little phrase. But when they of the Liberal Party) (4.41 p.m.): Today is a say, “Don’t you worry”, they want to brush that very sad day for the State of Queensland for aside and say that it did not matter. But that is several reasons. It is a sad day because this as hypocritical today as it would have been at Bill undermines the authority of local any time. As I said, somebody must represent government. It deprives citizens—particularly the good constituents of Mount Coot-tha, and the citizens of Mount Coot-tha—of their members on this side of the House are very democratic rights. It sets another absolutely happy to do so and to let them know that Legislative Assembly 6021 18 November 1993 there is a better alternative; that there is a little I ask members to listen to that light on the hill. word—“democratised”. The document went on I have heard my honourable colleagues to make some very specific commitments on this side of the House who have spoken under a section headed “Fundamental before me make many relevant quotes. But I Principles”. The then Opposition said— want to drive the points about consultation, “Labor is committed to the commitment and principle a little further. I refer recognition of Local Government in the ALP members opposite to a document Constitution Act of Queensland.” headed “Local Government Policy Under The document states that Labor is committed Goss. Local Government Policy under a Goss to the “protection of the elected status of Government. Recognising Local Government”. Councils” and “maximisation of local decision- And there on the document is the pretty face making by Councils elected by and drawn of the then Opposition Leader, Wayne from the local community”. I ask the Minister Goss—“Wayne Goss and Labor. The only to listen to this. According to this document, change for the better.” That was the promise Labor is committed to “autonomy in all matters on every document and brochure that the that are the province of local government”. It is ALP distributed—the only change for the also committed to “consultation on all matters better! that are the province of local government” and Members of the Government should ask “consultation on all matters that effect local the people of Mount Coot-tha and those who government.” have become interested in and very Under the heading “State Intervention”, concerned about that slogan, “The only the document stated— change for the better”, whether they believe it is a change for the better. They should ask “As far as possible Ministerial Mrs Boccabella and others who have been responsibility will extend only to matters slandered during this debate. It seems that, if such as the overall effectiveness of the the Government does not like the message, it local government system and its shoots the messenger. If the Government contribution to the well-being of the does not like what people are saying, even inhabitants of the State.” though they are exercising their democratic Those are the general principles in relation to rights to protest and make their views known local government with which members on that to Government, it defames them. It does not side of the House went to the people. Those matter if they did not lodge an objection, were the commitments that they made. I invite through their local authorities they still had the Government members to have another look at opportunity—if this legislation was not being that policy. They know, Jim Soorley knows, the rushed through the House—to have a say people of Paddington know and the people of through their local representative, including Mount Coot-tha know that all those Mrs Edmond. Those people still deserve the commitments have been broken. Jim Soorley opportunities which, prior to this legislation, is smart. He knows that the major objective of were legally available to them. this Bill—apart from the overtones that relate I remind the Minister, this Government to football—is for this Government to dump on and anybody else who cares to listen, him. He knows that one of the objectives of particularly members opposite, what the this Bill is to politically kill Soorley. So, over the commitments of this Government were. When past couple of days, I have been somewhat the ALP released this document to the public, surprised by the moderate reaction from it said several things about local government. Soorley. He clearly does not want to draw to It stated— the attention of the public how members opposite are trying to undermine him politically “Most of the features that distinguish with a view to seeing him defeated. That is Queensland local government from other what he is saying by his moderate response. State systems of local government in Australia were shaped by State Labor Of course, Jim Soorley does not want to Governments and in the first half of this highlight just how bankrupt this Government is century.” in relation to its commitments. How many times over the past 36 hours has Jim Soorley It stated further— said, “I did not know that this Bill was being “Similarly, it was Labor in introduced. I had no idea. It appeared out of Queensland that democratised local thin air”? That was said by the Lord Mayor of government in 1920 by introducing adult the largest city council in Australia, and franchise and triennial elections . . . ” possibly the world—the largest municipality. 18 November 1993 6022 Legislative Assembly

That Labor Lord Mayor says, “I don’t know Opposition Justice spokesman criticised: a fast that they’re shafting me.” tracking of development. That case referred to Mr Veivers: Hoodwinked by his own a commercial development; today it is a party. sporting complex development. There is absolutely no difference between the intent of Mr SANTORO: “Hoodwinked” is an this amending legislation and what occurred in uncharacteristically moderate expression from those days. The Government is fast tracking. the honourable member. It is only his The then Opposition Justice spokesman and gentlemanly aspect that is coming forward today’s Premier bucketed that practice. and not allowing him to express himself with even greater gusto. Lord Mayor Soorley does To get a little closer to what people have not want the people of this State, and said in this Parliament since the Government particularly of Brisbane, to understand that the came to power, I will quote Mr Beattie— commitment of the Labor Party in relation to “When Russell Hinze was the local government matters and—as other Minister for Local Government, the members on this side of the House have National Party was only too willing to said—in relation to railways is worth nothing. sanction ministerial rezonings. This Government has no commitment to . . . that for blatant political purposes the stated principles or its own backbenchers, one National Party rezoned a large block on of whom, two days before the event, said, St Paul’s Terrace, the site of the National “Don’t you worry. Everything is going to be Party’s Spring Hill headquarters.” okay.” But two days later, the Government shafted her, too. It is the sheer hypocrisy of the way the Government goes about these matters that The people of Queensland are beginning offends me. When they were members of the to realise that this Government has no Opposition, it suited them to say one thing; in commitment, so what is the use of voting for the lead-up to Government they made many it? That is the message that Soorley does not commitments that have been broken time want to get across and that is the message after time; and in the Parliament they try to that we are going to get across, that is, that it shove the noses of members of the National is not worth voting for Soorley, that it is not Party back into the mud by reminding them of worth voting for Ms Edmond, and that it is not ministerial rezonings and ministerial worth voting for the Labor Party because it intervention. Now they are devastating the cannot keep its commitments. I draw the Standing Orders of the House. Everything is attention of honourable members to a quote rushed through without any consultation and that is even more relevant to this debate. The with utter contempt for the democratic article appeared in the Daily Sun, that process. Yet members of the Opposition have regrettably now defunct newspaper. The to put up with being lectured day after day headline gives the context. It states— about the virtues of the Government. Now the “The State Government and Local Government presents us with this legislation. Government Minister Mr Hinze have been It is just not good enough. The accused of treating the courts and local Government may think that like all the other authorities with contempt after recent little episodes, this one will go away. Members ministerial rezonings.” of the Opposition will keep at it. Like a dripping The article goes on to state— tap, they are going to get to the Government. “The ALP yesterday accused the People will realise that there is something government of trampling local council smelly and something fishy about this regulations to rezone Brisbane’s Cannon Government. The Government’s fate is being Hill Drive-In and north Queensland beauty sealed. It is making mistakes that are based in spot Taylor Point. arrogance, contempt and a total disregard not only for consultation, but more importantly Opposition justice spokesman also for the statement of fundamental Wayne Goss said yesterday that principles. What an absolute joke! developers Hudson Conway had been given a fast track around the Brisbane Government members have been saying, City Council Town Plan to build a “This is not really a good Bill, but it is shopping-centre extension and necessary. Flexibility is needed.” Laws are entertainment fair on the drive-in site at made to be broken; in this case, amended by Creek Rd.” stealth in the dead of the night by breaking every other rule that exists in this Parliament. Mr Goss said that they had been given a fast track. That is what today’s Premier, the then Legislative Assembly 6023 18 November 1993

Mr T. B. Sullivan: Is this the dead of the with a maniacal attempt to undermine the night? Lord Mayor. I have Cabinet sources and they Mr SANTORO: This is not the dead of the tell me that a report is before Cabinet that tells night, but the Government is trying to put that the total indebtedness of the Brisbane through the Bill at a time when it hoped that City Council is substantially above the average people would not notice. A great number of of that of other local authorities, and a lot Government members were so outraged and more than the State debt services from upset that they started to leak to the consolidated revenue. Opposition how disappointed the caucus was Mr T. B. Sullivan: You’ve got another and how furious was the debate. Yet some one wrong. Government members rise and say, “It is not a Mr SANTORO: The honourable member good Bill, but it is necessary. It is not a good knows that when I posed the question to the Bill, but we are prepared to cop it.” Where is Treasurer yesterday, I knew what I was talking the Government’s courage? Where is its guts? about. This is a direct quote from a Cabinet Where is its determination to stand up for report. principle? Why does it not carry on the fight? When the House is called to divide, Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): Government members should do the Order! The Chair has been reasonably tolerant courageous thing and stand up for their with the member. He will return to the Bill. constituents, their Lord Mayor and those Mr SANTORO: I acknowledge that people who put their trust in them. I Madam Deputy Speaker is a very tolerant respectfully suggest that by fast tracking they occupant of the chair. I wanted to link those are letting down the side. The Government will two strands of my argument. This is politics at reap the rewards of that action at the next its crudest and most brutal. The Government poll. is sacrificing the member for Mount Coot-tha, This Bill is all about political power plays. who is a very close friend and associate of Mr It fits in with all the other things that we have Peter Beattie. Not only are they trying to heard in this Parliament, including the secret remove Lord Mayor Soorley, but they may as investigations into the city debt and the well also remove somebody else who does subsequent report that, although it was made not quite toe the line. I remember well, from a year ago, the Lord Mayor did not even know my CJC days, the independent stance taken about. This is all part of a package to shaft by the honourable member for Mount Coot- Soorley and replace him with Hinchliffe, the tha. She showed considerable courage and man who would have been mayor had independence. Soorley not won and who wants to be the next Mr Veivers: What happened? Lord Mayor of Brisbane. The plot is fairly Mr SANTORO: Like Mr Beattie, she is still obvious. De Lacy, Michael Kaiser and Wayne sitting on this side of the Chamber. It is called Swan are still trying to manipulate the race. purgatory. For some of them, it is hell because This Bill ties in with everything else that is they are never going to get out of it. That is going on. Yesterday, Mr De Lacy, just like the what this Bill is all about: the breaking of Minister for Tourism, tried to hide the real principles, the breaking of promises, political reasons why that secret report had been assassination and a Labor Party that these commissioned. This Government does not days is bankrupt of anything good. Mark my trust its own Lord Mayor and, at taxpayers’ words, the suggestions that this proposal is expense, it commissions secret reports. okay; that it provides a bit of the flexibility that Mr T. B. Sullivan: You’d know all about is needed; and that Labor members do not not being trusted. like it but will put up with it, will come back to Mr SANTORO: I take that interjection. haunt Labor members, and so will the many Members of the Opposition do not have any other promises that Labor members have problems with the Government undertaking a made and broken. The Opposition will keep study of the Brisbane City Council’s finances. the Government honest by continually quoting It can be argued that that is a good thing, but the Cabinet studies. We know what we are what I do say is: release it and make the talking about because, all of a sudden, this reasons obvious. Government is starting to leak like a sieve. Labor members are giving the game away, A Government member interjected. and when the next election is held, the people Mr SANTORO: The honourable member of this State will give them away. should not worry. I am linking it all in. As some Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Bundamba— Minister Government members have said to me, this is for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (5.01 p.m.), in all linked in with a power play. It is all linked in 18 November 1993 6024 Legislative Assembly reply: This afternoon, we have heard some of carcass of the National Party. It is a stench the worst attempts at feigned anger, false that still hangs over the Opposition. indignation and, quite frankly, blatant The fact is that a Labor Government hypocrisy that I have ever witnessed in this introduced this Bill at a time of night that Parliament. The simple fact is that the allowed the Bill to be open to scrutiny. member for Southport, Mr Veivers, and the Moreover, a couple of hours prior to the Leader of the Opposition came in here today introduction of the legislation, a number of and spoke about poor old dead Russ Hinze, media representatives were advised by my as they had been doing for the last 36 hours. office of its imminent introduction. The reason He was a comrade of theirs only since he why it was introduced at that time of night was departed a couple of years ago. They, and simply because of the way in which the not the Government, resurrected him. Standing Orders of this Parliament operate. Let me deal very briefly with why we have On that particular day, the proceedings of the witnessed such a blatant exercise in hypocrisy Parliament were arranged to allow for proper on the part of the Opposition. The vast and democratic debate on matters relating to difference between what is occurring with this the State Budget. legislation and what happened in the During today’s debate, various speakers past—and, to use the words of the Leader of have referred to two objectors to the Lang the Opposition, the reason why so many Park redevelopment. One was Mr Cooke, who people are seated on the Government side of was spoken to yesterday by the Chairman of the Parliament today—is the Fitzgerald the Lang Park Trust. Mr Cooke has no inquiry—only to a certain degree, that is true; problems with the redevelopment of Lang but the reasons why the Fitzgerald inquiry was Park. I acknowledge, however, that he has set up should never ever be forgotten. The one very genuine major concern. He said that real reason why we are in Government is that some time ago after a Broncos match at Lang there were numerous instances when the late Park, somebody urinated in his yard while in a Russ Hinze, supported by some of the state of drunkenness, and that he did not members opposite, indulged himself in appreciate that sort of behaviour. We have ministerial rezonings. Do honourable members already given an undertaking to cover that remember the rezoning that was done for Mr situation, and I will repeat the undertaking. We Iwasaki and his resort near Rockhampton? will make sure that, after the game, an The debate started at 9 p.m. and went adequate number of police officers patrol the through until 6.30 the following morning. Do area to control that type of unruly behaviour. honourable members remember the debacle and public scandal over Sanctuary Cove and For the past 48 hours, we have been the Toowong Village project? trying to find out who the other objector is so that we can speak to that person, go through The major difference between those a process of consultation, and perhaps projects and the Lang Park redevelopment is placate that person. We took the time and that the ministerial rezonings of the previous trouble to do that in spite of the fact that we Government were done for two purposes: one were advised by a senior officer of the was for the benefit of friends and colleagues Brisbane City Council that all concerns of both of the National Party, and the other was for objectors were covered by the original the great big brown paper bags that were submission presented by the Lang Park Trust placed on former Premier Bjelke-Petersen’s to the Brisbane City Council. But can we find desk at election time. That is what the this second objector? No way in the world! previous Government’s ministerial rezonings This morning, the secretary of the Lang Park were all about, and that is why members of Trust went around to the address of this the National Party are in Opposition. Their person and knocked on the door. This person spots have not changed. has never been heard of, has never lived at Honourable members should mark my the address, and nobody knows him. Neither words. If something were to happen and the landlord nor the neighbours had heard of tomorrow members of the National Party him. We checked the electoral roll, and his found themselves again occupying the name does not appear anywhere on the roll Government benches, they would be back to for the electorate of Mount Coot-tha or any of indulging in the same old filth and corrupt the surrounding electorates. Members can practices—the same practices in which they perhaps make up their own minds about who indulged for 33 years. The people of or what was behind the phantom objector. Queensland have not forgotten the stench Consultation with residents who live in the and the rottenness of the stinking political precincts of Lang Park will continue. In a Legislative Assembly 6025 18 November 1993 broad sense, consultation has already been that fact has been forgotten by Opposition undertaken on at least four occasions members. Never let it be forgotten that Lang between the Lang Park Trust and the Park is the State headquarters of Rugby residents. I personally gave an instruction to League. Through the Queensland Rugby the Chairman of the Lang Park Trust—in fact, League, this Government and previous to the full trust body at a meeting that was Governments have disbursed hundreds of held a number of weeks ago—that a circular thousands of dollars to junior Rugby League was to be distributed to residents who live teams throughout Queensland for coaching, within a one-mile radius of Lang Park. The for outfitting teams with appropriate gear, etc. purpose of the circular was to invite citizens to That will continue so, of course, Lang Park a public meeting so that we could talk to the should remain the headquarters of the residents, listen to their problems, understand Queensland Rugby League. In making that their objections and address those problems. point, I should also stress that the decision to That exercise has been undertaken. Since hold State of Origin matches and test that meeting, there have been two meetings matches has not been my decision or the with concerned residents in the area. I decision of this Government but, rather, a reiterate the point that was made so decision made by the Australian Rugby eloquently by the member for Mount Coot-tha League, which comprises representatives from during the debate. The unfortunate fact is that New South Wales and Queensland. They are as a result of my department and this the people who sit down together and decide Government undertaking very democratic on the venues they wish for Rugby League processes, tragically, a number of professional matches. political fence-sitters have come out of the The honourable member for Southport woodwork and their irresponsible behaviour mentioned some concerns that have been has had a disruptive effect on the consultative expressed in relation to noise. I inform the process. honourable member that the redevelopment A couple of times during the debate, the proposal submitted by the Lang Park Trust name Mrs Anne Boccabella was mentioned. I included the commissioning of Vipac do not intend to embark on an exercise of engineers, who are specialist acoustic character assassination, but I simply make the consultants, to provide an acoustic impact point that she pretends to be a representative assessment. The aim was to provide for noise of and spokesperson for the traders mitigation in a redeveloped Lang Park. That association in the Lang Park area. In other will continue as the redevelopment takes words, she claims to represent small place. We will do our utmost to ensure that businesses. I ask honourable members to any noise problems from Lang Park will be as excuse me if I am wrong about this, but I have small a concern and inconvenience to the always believed that the success of small public as is possible. business depended on customers coming The Building Act which, as a result of the through the door and upon having people Bill, has been dispensed with, is not being come into the area to see the products that swept aside; only the necessity for council are being advertised for sale. I can tell approval is. It must be remembered that, as honourable members that Mrs Boccabella no has been said, the Brisbane City Council has more represents the traders in the near vicinity already approved the redevelopment of Lang of Lang Park than I represent the man in the Park. The council has attached a number of moon. Numerous traders from the precincts of conditions to that approval which, quite Lang Park, including owners of hotels, small frankly, I cannot agree with. Had we continued businesses, restaurants and cafes absolutely and vehemently support the retention of test down this track, it would have meant several matches and State of Origin matches at Lang more weeks of consultation and probably, in Park because those events fill their coffers. the end, still no guarantee that this project They love those events, and they will continue would be under way before Christmas. In a to support Lang Park as the venue for them. nutshell, that meant that the grounds would not have been ready to host the State of The other point that all members of the Origin match next year. That game is going to Opposition missed is this: Lang Park is the be held at Lang Park, and the development State headquarters of the Queensland Rugby will be finished in order to ensure patron and League. player comfort in excellent surroundings in Mr Veivers: We know that. June next year. Mr GIBBS: I am glad to hear it, because It will still have to comply with those it is obvious that, somewhere along the line, building standards. Inspections and variations 18 November 1993 6026 Legislative Assembly under the Building Code will be handled by I draw members’ attention to a list that the Department of Administrative Services. I was published in the Sunday Mail on 14 point out to members that the last time the November 1993 in an article titled, “As Department of Administrative Services channels lift game fights and footy top of the exercised this control, its requirements were bill”. The list titled, “The shows we loved” rates more rigorous than the requirements of the the programs from No. 1 to No. 25. I will read Brisbane City Council. The last time such an out to members the first eight shows that we exercise was put into the hands of the loved—and I am referring to members of the Department of Administrative Services was the Queensland public. No. 1, Rugby League, redevelopment of the South Bank precinct. New South Wales versus Queensland, match Giving the control to the Department of one; No. 2, Rugby League, New South Wales Administrative Services will ensure that the versus Queensland, match two; No. 3, New standards are going to be adhered to. Zealand versus Australia, match three; No. 4, The Brisbane City Council also Rugby League, New South Wales versus cooperated in issuing the demolition permit. Queensland, match three; No. 5, Rugby All people who wished to object to this League, Australia versus New Zealand, proposal were given adequate time to object. second match;No. 6, Rugby League, Winfield Only two objections were received, and I have Cup, first minor semifinal; No. 7, Rugby mentioned those already. The Opposition League, Winfield Cup, Preliminary final; No. 8, seems to think that, by dispensing with the 40- Rugby League, Winfield Cup Grand Final. The day period in which to lodge appeals, the first eight out of 25 shows were spectacular Government has abrogated the rights of spectator sports for television audiences who people to further object to the development simply love watching Rugby League. Next taking place. That is not correct. The only two year, they will be able to watch better people who could have appealed against the broadcasts from Lang Park than has been redevelopment were the two original objectors. offered in the past. They certainly will not hear I have outlined those objections. To me, it the honourable member for Southport talking would have been a farce to wait another 40 about players “lacerating” down the sideline. days and see that project become bogged Instead, they will hear a professional down. commentary from people ensconced in wonderful broadcasting conditions for Rugby Let me say, in relation to the honourable League commentary in upgraded facilities at member for Mount Coot-tha, that, as has Lang Park. been reported correctly in the media and, I suspect in some cases, reported to members I will finish on this point: I can understand of the Opposition parties, she fought a good the concerns of the member for Callide, Mrs fight in the Labor caucus. Let me tell McCauley. I must say to members that I can honourable members that she had a pretty now understand why she has not been invited decisive win because, for example, part of the to a corporate box at Ballymore to discuss original legislation would have deleted the matters of State. Quite frankly, after her requirement to adhere to the Noise references today of appendages and leather Abatement Act. Because of her and what I regard as a dreadful attitude representations to me and her concerns that towards the male population, I would be very her constituency could experience noise frightened to sit next to her at a Rugby problems during the building stages of this League match. I commend the Bill to the reconstruction, the noise abatement House. requirements were not removed from the Question—That the Bill be read a second legislation. I have given her an undertaking time—put; and the House divided— that not only will there be further consultation AYES, 48—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bennett, Bird, between us but also that she will be involved Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Budd, Burns, Campbell, fully in the consultative practices and the Clark, Comben, D’Arcy, Davies, Dollin, Edmond, future meetings with the Lang Park Trust and Elder, Foley, Gibbs, Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, the community. I can assure members that, Mackenroth, McElligott, McGrady, Milliner, Nunn, as this project gets under way, there will be Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Power, Purcell, Pyke, Robertson, Robson, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., very little for the community to be concerned Sullivan T. B., Szczerbanik, Vaughan, Warner, about, even if that concern relates to noise or Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers: Livingstone, Pitt to the redevelopment itself. Nobody should NOES, 32—Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper, overlook the excellent role that the member Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Goss for Mount Coot-tha has played in this matter. J. N., Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, Legislative Assembly 6027 18 November 1993

Lingard, McCauley, Perrett, Quinn, Randell, Rowell, now forced to meet the Minister’s timetable at Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stoneman, the eleventh hour. Turner, Veivers, Watson Tellers: Laming, Springborg During the second-reading debate, I Resolved in the affirmative. indicated that had this legislation been handled in an appropriate manner, these Committee amendments would not be needed today. I am anxious to hear why the planning was Hon. R. J. Gibbs (Bundamba—Minister done so late and why the timetable was so far for Tourism, Sport and Racing) in charge of behind that we have been forced into the the Bill. position of having to amend this clause. Clause 1— Question—That clause 1, as read, stand Mr VEIVERS (5.25 p.m.): The Opposition part of the Bill—put; and the Committee does not believe that there is any real reason divided— for having this Bill. That is why it opposes the AYES, 47—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bennett, Bird, clause. All afternoon, the Opposition argued Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Budd, Burns, Campbell, that this was definitely unnecessary. If the Clark, Comben, D’Arcy, Davies, Dollin, Edmond, Government’s management had been right, Elder, Foley, Gibbs, Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, this legislation would not need to be rushed Mackenroth, McElligott, McGrady, Milliner, Nunn, through the Parliament. The Government has Nuttall, Pearce, Power, Purcell, Pyke, Robertson, ridden roughshod over the 40-day period for Robson, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Sullivan T. B., Szczerbanik, Vaughan, Warner, Welford, Wells, lodging objections. Woodgate Tellers: Pitt, Livingstone Mr Beattie: Forty nights! NOES, 32—Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper, Mr VEIVERS: We could go for 40 nights, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Goss too. I did not think the honourable member J. N., Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, was so religious. If the proper process had Lingard, McCauley, Perrett, Quinn, Randell, Rowell, been followed, there would have been no Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stoneman, need for all of these amendments. As it is, we Turner, Veivers, Watson Tellers: Springborg , Laming will have to go into overtime to push the legislation through by the required time, so Resolved in the affirmative. there will be an extra cost. I cannot see any The CHAIRMAN: Order! I remind reason why one State of Origin match could honourable members that, for all future not have been played at QE II. The State of divisions, the bells will be rung for two minutes’ Origin series could have gone back to Lang duration. Park after the completion of the upgrade. That is why the Opposition objects to the short title Clause 2— of the Bill. It is that simple. To use the Mr VEIVERS (5.34 p.m.): Why amend Minister’s own words—“You poor political the Act unnecessarily? Two nights ago, the ignoramuses cannot really understand that.” Brisbane City Council passed the development scheme, so why is this Mr BEANLAND: This amendment legislation necessary? It is totally unnecessary, highlights the poor planning by the and it goes against the grain. My argument in Government in relation to the Lang Park Trust. opposing this clause is the same as that which As the shadow Minister has already indicated, I advanced in opposing clause 1. This poor planning and a lack of management are legislation will mean added expense. If the the reasons that the short title of this Bill is Government cannot see that, something is before us today for amendment. seriously wrong. This legislation is Government members interjected. unnecessary and unwarranted. Unfortunately, The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Committee this matter has gone too far, but the will come to order! Opposition will continue to fight the good fight. By steamrolling this legislation through, Mr BEANLAND: The Minister has given Government members are riding roughshod no indication today—and I have not heard over the Local Government Act. from the Minister yet—of his reasons for this. There has been ample time to have a Question—That clause 2, as read, stand timetable and a planning process put in place. part of the Bill—put; and the Committee It can only come back to a lack of divided— management on the part of the Minister in the AYES, 47—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bennett, Bird, first place, and to his incompetent handling of Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Budd, Burns, Campbell, his portfolio responsibilities. The Parliament is Clark, Comben, D’Arcy, Davies, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley, Gibbs, Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, 18 November 1993 6028 Legislative Assembly

Mackenroth, McElligott, McGrady, Milliner, Nunn, “The application is of no effect and is Nuttall, Pearce, Power, Purcell, Pyke, Robertson, taken to have never been made.” Robson, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Sullivan T. B., Szczerbanik, Vaughan, Warner, Welford, Wells, That wipes out the recent approval of the Woodgate Tellers: Pitt, Livingstone redevelopment by the Brisbane City Council. NOES, 32—Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper, Proposed new subsection (4) states— Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Goss “The Trust is taken to be a statutory J. N., Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, body declared under section 4 (5) (a) (iii) Lingard, McCauley, Perrett, Quinn, Randell, Rowell, of the Building Act 1975.” Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stoneman, Turner, Veivers, Watson Tellers: Springborg, Laming Proposed new subsection (4) clarifies that the Lang Park Trust is a statutory body within the Resolved in the affirmative. meaning of the Building Act. That removes Clause 3— the necessity for it to seek building approval Mr VEIVERS (5.39 p.m.): Mr from the Brisbane City Council. Consequently, Chairman—— even though the trust has to comply with the standard building by-laws, it will not be Mr Beattie: No. 3; it comes after No. 2. concerned about whether the Brisbane City Mr VEIVERS: I inform the honourable Council grants approval. As the trust has to member that we do not need any help from abide by the standard building by-laws, one him. As I have stated numerous times, the has to ask the $64 question: why not have the Opposition is not in favour of this legislation. redevelopment subject to BCC building This entire process represents a contradiction approval; the simple reason being that there is of one of the many reforms that the such bad blood between the Government and Government has implemented since its the Lord Mayor. The Government will have election. nothing that will hold up this operation. It is Mr Beattie: All good. riding roughshod over the council. The Government is so determined to get this Bill Mr VEIVERS: No, they are not all good. up and running that it is taking no notice of Proposed subsection (5) of proposed new the bad planning and management that section 9A states— occurred in the first place. The Government “To remove any doubt, the carrying has overridden the town plan. As the member out of the work of redeveloping the site is for Southport says, it is the “bazooka” crushing not unlawful by reason only of the the “ant”. absence of an approval by the Brisbane This amendment applies also to the City Council.” Building Act. We see in this clause that the How ridiculous! The Brisbane City Council has planning scheme has been swept aside. Even already approved the redevelopment. I do not though the Lord Mayor and the council have know why that provision is contained in the given approval for that scheme, it has been legislation. Perhaps it was included before swept aside. The whole operation is moving Wendy Edmond was consulted. There are forward under the Government. That is one of mistakes in this legislation hand over fist. We the reasons why I say that this legislation is do not support this clause, because we do not more far-reaching than a ministerial rezoning. support the entirety of the Bill. This legislation It is more far-reaching than a ministerial is a real scam. This Government boasts rezoning could ever be. Proposed subsection continually about being open and (5) states— accountable, then it comes skulking into this “To remove any doubt, the carrying place and proposes this sort of trash. It is out of the work of redeveloping the site is totally unnecessary. not unlawful by reason only of the Mr BEANLAND: This clause is the crux of absence of an approval by the Brisbane the Bill. The contents of this clause allow the City Council.” Minister to ride roughshod over the council. That wraps it all up. The Government is For example, proposed new subsection (2) of saying, “Forget about the council; this process proposed new section 9A states— will proceed.” The council has no role in this “Despite any other Act, the planning operation at all. scheme— Proposed subsection (6) states— (a) does not apply to the site; and “The Governor in Council may make (b) is taken not to have applied to regulations for the purposes of the site from 1 July 1993.” redeveloping the site.” Proposed new subsection (3) states— Legislative Assembly 6029 18 November 1993

So, even if one looks to the regulations, one requirements, guidelines, approvals— will find that the whole issue is taken out of the whatever they might be—to enable this council’s hands. That is why this Bill has far Government to make up for lost time, to make more power than a ministerial rezoning could up for its incompetence and its failures, and to ever have; it gives the State Government put in the applications in plenty of time to get control over approvals that are usually these approvals through. It is simply going to required from local government. rely upon legislation and regulations pushed Today’s Courier-Mail contains a through this Parliament to get this scheme up newspaper article carrying the headline, and running, even though over a long period “Soorley condemns Lang Park takeover”. It the council has played a major role in the certainly is a takeover by the State playing of Rugby League at Lang Park. As I Government. The role of the city council has have said, this clause shows that this Bill is not been totally wiped out. It is like shooting an about the playing of Rugby League at Lang ant with a bazooka. Jim Soorley denied that Park; it is not about the support of members the project would become bogged down by of this Parliament for Rugby League; and it in council. Consequently, one can be left with no not about support or otherwise for the other belief than that the Government is redevelopment of the site. The manner in determined to press on with this Bill. which this Government is going about this process proves that it is riding roughshod over Over a long period—decades—we have the council. seen various political parties in office at City Hall. Over the years, there has been a wide For six years, day in and day out, we cross-section of support from City Hall for have heard the rhetoric of this Government. Rugby League to be played at Lang Park. I We have heard it from this Minister and other believe that, in the past, there have been Ministers, Minister Burns, the Local some identities from council—both aldermen Government Minister, Mr Mackenroth, and, of and senior staff members—who have been course, the Premier himself. That same involved with the Lang Park Trust and have rhetoric is being swept aside. Well might the played a major role in the way in which Rugby Ministers hold their heads in shame at what League has been played. The council has they are doing today. been very supportive over a long period. Yet It is sad to see Lang Park, the Brisbane now we find this Labor Government adopting City Council, the people who live in that area a Big Brother attitude and wanting to sweep and Rugby League itself being treated in this aside the authority of the council. The fashion due to the incompetence of this Government is just incompetent. That is the Government. simple fact. The Government should have Mr Veivers interjected. gotten itself into gear in sufficient time so that all the planning applications could be Mr BEANLAND: As the honourable approved and it could meet its timetable. The member for Southport says, the rights of the council and the people in the Lang Park area people are certainly being trampled on are now having to pay the penalty for that because of the incompetence of this incompetence. They are having their rights Government. That is what this legislation is all taken away from them. about. This Government has failed to provide adequate time for this legislation to be We hear so often from this Government discussed and, perhaps, passed to enable the that private enterprise must abide by the Local development to take place in time for the Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1994 football season. and its rules and guidelines. However, when it comes to the Government itself, it does not Mr VEIVERS: I was wondering what the like it. In spite of the Standing Orders and the overtime cost will be if the redevelopment is Fitzgerald reform process, it does not take the going to be pushed through and the workers Government five seconds to sweep aside the are going to be required to work long hours. authority of the council—36 hours, to be That will involve double time and time and a precise—by introducing legislation and half. How much extra money is it going to cost railroading it through the Parliament. The the Lang Park Trust or the taxpayers of Government has swept aside the authority of Queensland? the council and carted it out the door—no Mrs McCAULEY: The local government, trouble at all! planning and environment laws which are This clause shows that the Minister and being overturned tonight by this amendment the Government are hell-bent on sweeping Bill were introduced by this Government in aside all of the Brisbane City Council’s 1990 to provide for very careful and uniform development throughout this State. The 18 November 1993 6030 Legislative Assembly provisions within those planning and the Government is putting in additional environment laws were not unreasonable. soundproofing at Lang Park with a view to They included such things as allowing 40 days holding rock concerts there in the future. In in which to lodge objections. These sort of go- the past, various concerts were held there. steady provisions existed not only to ensure That often caused some concern. I believe that the rights and wishes of the local that there is a great deal of interest in what ratepayers were respected but also to ensure the Government’s policy will be on this subject. that the rights of the local authority concerned I would like to know what soundproofing is were respected and that the State would not being installed and whether rock concerts will ride roughshod over those rights. That is what be held there in the future. has happened tonight. The CHAIRMAN: Order! The question is In his second-reading speech, following that clause 3, as read, stand part of the Bill. his reference to the Local Government Mr BEANLAND: Mr Chairman, with (Planning and Environment) Act prescribing respect, I am waiting for the Minister to answer objectors being given 40 days in which to my question. appeal, the Minister described that as an intolerable situation. I suppose that because it The CHAIRMAN: Order! The member will is such an intolerable situation, the Minister will resume his seat. The question is that clause be speaking to the Local Government Minister 3, as read, stand part of the Bill. Those of that to have that Act amended so that this does opinion say, “Aye”, to the contrary, “No”. I think not happen in the future. If he does not, then the “Ayes” have it. he is the greatest hypocrite of all time. I could Mr BEANLAND: Mr Chairman, I am hardly believe my ears when I heard him say entitled to speak for a third time. that, if it were not for actions of the member The CHAIRMAN: Order! I have already for Mount Coot-tha, the Government would put the clause. have waived the provisions of the Noise Abatement Act. I presume that would have meant bulldozers working right through the Reporting of Bill night and upsetting residents for many miles Mr GIBBS (5.55 p.m.): Mr Chairman, I around. move— I cannot believe the arrogance of a “That you do now leave the chair and Government that would even consider doing report the Bill without amendment to the something like that. I do not consider it a pat House.” on the back to the member for Mount Coot- tha that she managed to avert such an Question put; and the Committee occurrence. I think it is a disgrace that it was divided— even raised in the first place. I cannot AYES, 47—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bennett, Bird, comprehend a Government that is so arrogant Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Budd, Burns, Campbell, that it would even think of having bulldozers Clark, Comben, D’Arcy, Davies, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley, Gibbs, Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, working through the night and disturbing the Mackenroth, McElligott, McGrady, Milliner, Nunn, peace and tranquillity of that area. That would Nuttall, Pearce, Power, Purcell, Pyke, Robertson, have been an absolute disgrace. This whole Robson, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., Sullivan T. legislation is a disgrace. I look forward to the B., Szczerbanik, Vaughan, Warner, Welford, Wells, Minister speaking to his Local Government Woodgate Tellers: Pitt, Livingstone colleague and having him amend this NOES, 32—Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper, legislation so that this does not happen again. Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Goss I must tell the Minister that I would not be J. N., Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, seen dead with him anywhere, not even at the Lingard, McCauley, Perrett, Quinn, Randell, Rowell, football! Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stoneman, Mr VEIVERS: I ask the Minister: how Turner, Veivers, Watson Tellers: Springborg, Laming much extra cost will be involved with overtime Resolved in the affirmative. on this project? It will be considerable. The Bill reported, without amendment. Minister might like to tell me about that extra cost. Mr BEANLAND: Likewise, I have a Third Reading question for the Minister. When the member Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Bundamba— Minister for Callide raised the issue of the Noise for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (5.58 p.m.): I Abatement Act, that raised in my mind the move— matter of soundproofing and whether or not Legislative Assembly 6031 18 November 1993

“That the Bill be now read a third the Minister to start answering some of the time.” questions and issues that have been raised Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly) today. That has not happened, yet the (5.58 p.m.): I rise to speak against that motion guillotine has been used to rush the debate for the simple reason that there has not been and legislation to this point. I appeal to the adequate debate on this particular legislation. Government, once again, to give some It has been railroaded through this House in indication to members in the Chamber of the 36 hours. This afternoon, members have seen real background behind the rush to get this another exercise in railroading. Members have legislation through, and to provide the reasons been denied their legitimate right under and emergent circumstances, which have not Standing Orders to rise and speak in this been provided to date. place, particularly at the Committee stage, Question—That the Bill be now read a when they are entitled on three occasions to third time—put; and the House divided— rise and speak to a particular clause. That AYES, 45—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bennett, Bird, right has been denied to members in this Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Budd, Burns, Campbell, Chamber as the guillotine has been used over Casey, Clark, Comben, D’Arcy, Davies, Dollin, and over again. In the melee that followed the Edmond, Gibbs, Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, refusal to allow members to speak for a third Mackenroth, McElligott, McGrady, Milliner, Nunn, time at the Committee stage, that clause 3 Palaszczuk, Pearce, Power, Purcell, Pyke, was put and passed, with a call for a division Robertson, Robson, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., being refused. Again, this highlights how Szczerbanik, Vaughan, Warner, Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers: Pitt, Livingstone frantic this Government is, and how desperate it is, to railroad this legislation through the NOES, 28—Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper, House. Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, McCauley, Mr Veivers: The arrogance. Perrett, Quinn, Randell, Rowell, Santoro, Simpson, Mr BEANLAND: As the member for Slack, Stoneman, Turner, Veivers Tellers: Southport says, the arrogance is coming Springborg, Laming through loud and clear this evening— Resolved in the affirmative. arrogance to override the little people. It is no wonder that the Lord Mayor quite publicly condemns the takeover and how this Title legislation is being railroaded through the Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Bundamba— Minister House. for Tourism, Sport and Racing) (7.38 p.m.): Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members who wish The testing moment of truth. I move— to speak to the third reading of the Bill may do “That the title of the Bill be agreed so, but the sitting will now be suspended. to.” Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 p.m. Mr BEANLAND (7.39 p.m.): We have Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member now reached the title of the Bill, yet the for Indooroopilly to continue his speech on the Minister, in the whole process, has failed to motion for the third reading of the Bill, I advise answer one of the questions that have been members that I will not allow tedious put to him. It is all very well for Government repetition. They will be able to speak for 20 members to laugh because today it has minutes if they so wish. However, I will not trampled over the democratic processes from allow them to repeat things they have said in the very outset. Several questions have been the second-reading debate or in Committee. I put to him. Again, I ask the Minister to rise warn members about that. and answer those questions, and give the Opposition the information that they have Mr BEANLAND: Before the dinner break I sought throughout this debate. was saying that the reason I rise and oppose this question presently before the House Motion agreed to. is that we have seen the Government this afternoon come into this place and not allow FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AMENDMENT sufficient debate even at the Committee BILL stage. We have not been able to raise all the questions and the Minister has refused to Second Reading answer questions. We are now moving into Debate resumed from 9 November (see the third stage of this Bill, yet there has still not p. 5477). been sufficient debate on a piece of Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly) legislation of this nature. It is not too late for (7.40 p.m.): The Fitzgerald reform process has 18 November 1993 6032 Legislative Assembly certainly taken a battering from the Labor documents that were created for the purpose Government today. This could also well be the of submitting them to Cabinet. case in relation to the Bill that is presently One can just imagine how wide the before the House. Government intends to cast the net. The This day could well go down in history as sponsoring Minister will not have to provide Black Thursday because this will be the day proof that it was his or her intention of that the Labor Government finally buries the proceeding to Cabinet in relation to the Fitzgerald process. Throughout today’s documents that have been brought into proceedings, the principles of open and existence. As part of the Cabinet exemption, accountable government and accountability of any briefing notes for a Minister about an government in this State have been killed off. issue that is proposed to be or that has at any The reform process has died, and I suggest time been proposed to be considered by that if this legislation is passed this evening, Cabinet will also be included. On top of all we will be participating in its burial. The people that, the words “factual or statistical” have of Queensland are no longer getting freedom been given a wider definition under this of information. By virtue of the amendments legislation as they now mean “statistical, that are before the Parliament this evening, scientific or technical” matters. It is plain from people are getting freedom from information. the new exemptions that are being regarded This Labor Government has turned secrecy as “Cabinet material” and by the extension of into an art form, and that is what these the terms that the net is being cast very wide amendments represent. indeed. At the outset, let me make it clear that This Bill is being presented because the the Opposition opposes the Bill. This Government found that it did not like what the amending legislation has been proposed by Information Commissioner was doing. One the Government simply because it cannot only has to look at some of his rulings to know stand the heat in the kitchen. For quite some that this would be the procedure and process time, a great deal of rhetoric has been heard in the first instance, and the Government from this Government about freedom of indicated when it introduced this legislation information, openness and accountability, yet that it would either stand or fall by this today we have seen this Government in all its legislation. It did not take long for this glory wanting to bail out immediately it Government to fall by the legislation. In fact, it became too hot in the kitchen. Because the has not been 12 months since the legislation Government has discovered that its wheeling was introduced, and this Government has and dealing could be placed in the public fallen already. spotlight, it is rushing to cast the Cabinet By virtue of the wider definitions privilege net far and wide to ensure that its contained in the Bill, the Minister has now decision-making process—rather, its lack of a reached the stage of calling on conventions of decision-making process—is not revealed to collective and individual Ministerial the public. If this legislation is passed, responsibility as an excuse for introducing this Queensland will be the most restricted State in Bill. He has even referred to the Westminster this nation by far in relation to the so-called system in an attempt to bail himself out. He freedom of information laws. These laws will stated in his second-reading speech— certainly become the freedom from information laws. “A purpose of collective ministerial responsibility is to ensure that Cabinet is The heart of this amending legislation is responsible to Parliament and, through the widening of the exemptions that apply to the Parliament, to the electorate.” “Cabinet matters” or “Cabinet material”. This means that all documents that come before I wish to refer to what Commissioner Cabinet will automatically fall within this Fitzgerald said about these conventions, why category of exemption. In addition, it means these principles were incorporated into the that any document that was created for the legislation originally, and how this Government purpose of being submitted to Cabinet and is expected the legislation to function. After 12 or was proposed to be submitted to Cabinet months have elapsed, this Government can will also be exempted. Even at this early no longer live with the legislation. I wish to cite stage, I expect that members will start to see some statements made by Commissioner just how wide this net is being cast. It is not a Fitzgerald because I believe this is a very requirement that proof be provided that the important aspect of the whole debate. The sponsoring Minister had a current intention of following extracts are the crux of the matter, proceeding to Cabinet in relation to and they highlight the hypocritical way in which is Government is trying to hoodwink the Legislative Assembly 6033 18 November 1993 people of Queensland. Commissioner can only be truly effective if there are Fitzgerald stated— structures and systems designed to “Although ‘leaks’ are commonplace, ensure that it is properly informed. A it is claimed that communications and Government can use its control of advice to Ministers and Cabinet Parliament and public administration to discussions must be confidential so that manipulate, exploit and misinform the they can be candid and not inhibited by community, or to hide matters from it. fear of ill-informed or captious public or Structures and systems designed for the political criticism. The secrecy of Cabinet purpose of keeping the public informed discussions is seen as being consistent must therefore be allowed to operate as with the doctrines of Cabinet solidarity intended. and collective responsibility under which Secrecy and propaganda are major all Ministers, irrespective of their individual impediments to accountability, which is a views, are required to support Cabinet prerequisite for the proper functioning of decisions in Parliament.” the political process. Worse, they are the No-one questions that statement. He went on hallmarks of a diversion of power from the to state— Parliament. “It is obvious, however, that Information is the lynch-pin of the confidentiality also provides a ready political process. Knowledge is, quite means by which a Government can literally, power. If the public is not withhold information which it is reluctant informed, it cannot take part in the to disclose.” political process with any real effect.” The legislation before the House is a prime That is exactly what is happening here today. example of that reluctance. He went on to It was easy for the Government to state— establish freedom of information laws and “A Government can deliberately begin a pattern of openness and obscure the processes of public accountability, but that pattern did not even administration and hide or disguise its last 12 months before quite horrendous motives. If not discovered there are no amending legislation was presented to the constraints on the exercise of political Parliament to take away much of the public’s power. right to know. As I will explain later, the Government proposes, by introducing this The rejection of constraints is likely to legislation, to cast the net so wide that, apart add to the power of the Government and from one or two specific areas, other matters its leader, and perhaps lead to an will be able to be put into the category of increased tendency to misuse power. “Cabinet material” or “Cabinet matters”. The risk that the institutional culture This amendment will ensure that the of public administration will degenerate Government will no longer have to worry about will be aggravated if, for any reason, being embarrassed by the release of including the misuse of power, a contentious and sensitive documents or about Government’s legislative or executive having its wheeling and dealing—or lack of activity ceases to be moderated by it—exposed. Recently, this occurred on a concern for public opinion and the number of occasions. Only matters that relate possibility of a period in Opposition. to an individual’s personal affairs will not be As matters progress and the subject to this legislation, as has been Government stays in power, support will discussed in the past. Personal affairs and probably be attracted from ambitious documents are a person’s personal record people in the public service and and include such matters as medical and community. Positions of authority and health records. According to the Government, influence and other benefits can be some 75 per cent of the total FOI applications allocated to the wrong people for the fall within the ambit of this description. wrong reasons. If those who succeed One has only to look at the most recent unfairly are encouraged by their success list of figures tabled in Parliament in relation to to extend their misbehaviour, their the release of documents. Under the FOI law, example will set the pattern which is 6 300 applications were made, with 80 per imitated by their subordinates and cent of them being fully satisfied. Of those competitors. applications, 93 per cent were fully or partly The ultimate check on public met. Of the total, 75 per cent were maladministration is public opinion, which applications for personal information. Of 18 November 1993 6034 Legislative Assembly course, those applications were satisfied. That It’s called freedom of information and it is leaves 25 per cent of applications for nothing of the sort: it is a smokescreen of information about Government and statutory a variety only politicians and bureaucrats bodies unsatisfied—and that is what we are could dream up. What has been provided talking about this evening. Almost all claims to The Courier-Mail—after months of for personal information were filled. What inquiry and appeals under the Act the casts a serious question over the Goss Government has so fulsomely Government’s so-called openness is that, of praised—is revealed on page 1 today. all the claims for information from the Readers will note that it amounts to Government, 20 per cent were filled entirely, nothing of substance: so much for the 50 per cent were partly filled and 30 per cent people’s right to know. were rejected. In other words, almost one-third So much for the rich promises of of those applications were rejected outright—a accountability and openness, too. Labor far greater number, in fact, than the number came to power in 1989 in large part on of applications that were totally successful. the promise of its intention to provide The Australian, the Courier-Mail, the Gold accountability, open administration, and Coast Bulletin and other media outlets vast sweepings away of rules and throughout the State have made applications regulations that trample upon this public under FOI. Many of those applications that right to know. We now know, from this have been partly or barely filled relate to sorry testing of intent and performance, contentious matters. Proponents of freedom that the party which in opposition was the of information legislation will note with concern people’s champion is, in government, just that the amendments to certain clauses go a another political collective whose dearest long way towards defeating the purpose of the wish is to remain in power unbothered by current Act, which is to enable members of the such impediments as public public to gain access to matters that are inquisitiveness.” considered by the Government. This is a It goes on to state— classic case of a political party advocating one course while in Opposition and taking another “We also have—the height of course when in Government. administrative farce and the depths of public disquiet—letters exchanged I want to refer to articles from newspapers between Minister Dean Wells and that have been trying to obtain information Premier Wayne Goss which contain the from the Government. Newspapers are some following information: ‘Dear Sir’ and of the most frequent users of the freedom of ‘Yours faithfully’. This turn-out shows that information legislation. I am not talking about Freedom of Information legislation in people’s personal records; I am talking about Queensland is a mockery.” a huge amount of very sensitive, important material that goes to Cabinet, or perhaps is Fancy the Government, in providing included in Cabinet documents. I refer to information to a media outlet that has material that relates to the functioning of this requested information under an FOI State. The Government has cast its net so application, supplying a document containing wide as to exempt most material that could in only the words, “Dear Sir” and “Yours some way relate to the workings of faithfully”. That is certainly making a mockery Government; for example, material relating to of the legislation. Of course, under the railways and roads such as the eastern toll amendments that we are debating this road, and I am sure that that information will evening, the Government goes so much be classified because at some stage it will further and casts the net wider. The Courier- require Cabinet approval.The Government will Mail editorial goes on to state— be able to cast its net across areas such as “. . . as FOI is found to have feet of clay. the railways, environmental issues, the health Aside from the question of the costs system and hospitals. They will all be covered attached to making inquiries—the by this legislation. Media outlets and people in Government’s user-pays principle is the community who have, in the past, sought suspiciously similar to a user-don’t information and have been unsuccessful in bother—there is the fact of obtaining it might as well not bother in future impermeability. For Freedom of because, as the Courier-Mail editorial of 10 Information read Freedom From September of this year stated— Information. The people have been had.” “The joke on FOI, we’ve all been That is just one newspaper that, time and had. The joke is alive and well in time again, has certainly been had by this Queensland. Only this one is a new joke. Government. Earlier this year, an article in Legislative Assembly 6035 18 November 1993 relation to the Gold Coast Indy Car Race hospital services planning project and a appeared in the Gold Coast Bulletin under draft report on a feasibility study into huge headlines titled “What are they hiding?”. relocating the Mater Children’s Hospital.” The editorial in that paper titled “Public interest One could well ask why there is secrecy in is paramount” went on to editorialise in a relation to that sort of information. Wherever similar fashion how the Government is failing one looks, one finds these matters receiving to honour its commitments under FOI the same type of treatment from this legislation. Of course, under the amendments Government. Recently, it became so bad that that are before the Parliament, media outlets the QIDC was refusing to provide information will not even bother to make those to the Information Commissioner. It said that it applications. Under this legislation, what would would decide what was exempt under the be the point? Those applications will be wiped. legislation and what it would provide. It was They will not even get past the first post. only after a great deal of insistence that the Applications will simply be classified as Information Commissioner was, in fact, Cabinet material. At some stage, most furnished with the documents so that he might material comes before Cabinet. make a determination. After all, his job is to Earlier this year, an article appeared in make determinations on appeals. There was the Australian titled, “Health department an appeal process in relation to this matter quarantines FOI material”. The Australian went and, even then, as I say, the QIDC was through the same experience. It had identified endeavouring to deny the commissioner this 352 pages of information on how hospitals information. were coping in south-east Queensland, but Wherever one looks, right across-the- the department denied access to every word board there have been so many cases of every document, claiming that any involving the Government’s refusal to make disclosure would be contrary to public interest. information available to the community. In Of course, under this amending legislation, relation to this legislation, the Minister has the Government will simply be able to say that gone to great lengths to point out in the requests for information cover Cabinet Green Paper that cost savings will be made matters, Cabinet documents or Cabinet and that the costs of the Government’s material, and claim an exemption under that implementation of this are neutral. There are category. This Government has cast its net cost savings, because there will be a very wide. As I say, the department denied considerable drop-off in the work that will have access to every word of those 352 pages yet, to be done by the Government. All of this as the article went on to state— information will not get past first base. As soon “In introducing the legislation last as it is submitted, it will be considered out of year, the Queensland Government had order, because Cabinet documents are promised the public a greater involved. Material will be able to be classed as involvement in policy-making and a Cabinet documents under the broad ambit of philosophical shift in the bureaucracy’s the legislation. That will save the Government liking for secrecy.” a great deal of money, as it will not have to We have had a return to secrecy in a very big find requested documents. way indeed. The article states further— I will address the issue of consultation. It “The Minister for Health, Mr Hayward, is interesting to note one amendment of some said he had nothing to hide, but importance. However, it not as important as explained his bureaucrats’ decision was most of the other amendments in this due to the fact that some documents legislation. I refer to the amendment on which were part of the deliberative process of this Government consulted the Information policy-making.” Commissioner. There was not a word about consulting the Information Commissioner on As I explained before, most of this material will the other issues—or anyone else, for that come under some aspect of policy making, or matter. The Government was too concerned the Cabinet net. The article continues— to rush the legislation into the House—to get “The request was for documents its tail covered—before someone had the relating to assessments or advice on the audacity to appeal to the Information adequacy of the public hospital system in Commissioner against one of its decisions not south-east Queensland now and in the to make certain information public. immediate future, given the huge influx of This Government operates on the interstate migrants. Included in the principle of secrecy—and none other—and it documents identified by the department will continue to operate on that principle. That were a draft report on the Queensland 18 November 1993 6036 Legislative Assembly is the reason for the amendments. The Mr BRISKEY (Cleveland) (8.06 p.m.): Attorney-General can stand up and chortle Honourable members would not be surprised about the Westminster system as much as he by the bleatings of the honourable member likes. I have already pointed out the for Indooroopilly. Once again, on behalf of the comments of Mr Fitzgerald in his 1989 report. coalition in Opposition, as though it were the He did not think very much of the Attorney- champion of freedom of information General’s comments at that time. He was legislation, he talked about secrecy. How anticipating the type of thing that the Minister hypocritical! These are the same people who is bringing forward this evening. were criticised when they were in Government The current FOI legislation was for refusing to enact freedom of information considered time and time again by the legislation, even when it dealt with people’s Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and own private affairs. Administrative Review. But now, having been Mr Pyke: The Special Branch. through that whole process, when the Mr BRISKEY: Exactly! This is the same Government finds that the matters are not to Opposition which, when in Government, tried its liking, we see a classic case of the ALP to veto, paralyse and frustrate the advocating one cause while in Opposition but Commonwealth Government’s attempts to something altogether different now that it is in implement FOI in the early 1980s. Government. It is good to try it for 12 months, but it now believes that the situation is out of Mr J. H. Sullivan: Has Mrs Sheldon been hand. It believes that the legislation is down to the Health Department to look at that inhibiting its operations and the way that it 18,000 bucks worth of stuff yet? wants to wheel and deal, and so it is putting Mr BRISKEY: I thank the honourable up these amendments which will take away member for reminding me of that; I will the rights of Queenslanders right across-the- address that point later on. Cabinet papers board. must be confidential. Government in Access to personal information is the only Queensland is based on the Westminster area that will remain the same. As soon as we system. That system is centuries old, and is move away from that, the public’s right to one that this Government respects and know will be crucified—and it will be buried upholds. here tonight. The Minister is burying it this I will refer to the conventions of ministerial evening. I am sure that, as the Minister rams responsibility. Opposition members often bleat this legislation through—because the long and hard about this, although they were Opposition will be opposing strenuously—— never worried about those conventions when A Government member interjected. they were in Government. I am sure that they cannot really understand them. Cabinet is Mr BEANLAND: The Government is responsible to Parliament, no-one else, and ramming this legislation through this evening; through the Parliament to the people of honourable members should make no bones Queensland. about that. If the Government really had the public’s interest at heart, it would withdraw I might assist honourable members of the these amendments. The Government knows Opposition by reading a quote from An what it is doing—it is adding to its processes of Encyclopedia of Parliament, by Norman secrecy. People are finding out information Wilding and Philip Laundy, revised fourth that the Government, the Premier and the edition, 1972, in which it quotes Sir W. Ivor Ministers do not want exposed in the public Jennings, when he said of Cabinet— arena, so the Government has brought “The Cabinet is the core of the British forward amendments that will impose constitutional system. It is the supreme restrictions that are not already contained in directing authority. It integrates what the legislation. People who have read the would otherwise be a heterogeneous amendments have seen for themselves the collection of authorities exercising a vast way in which the net is now being cast to variety of functions. It provides unity to ensure that a wall of secrecy is put up. the British system of government.” I will certainly be dealing with the clauses As honourable members would be aware, the in some detail at the Committee stage. The word “Cabinet” itself originally meant “a small broadness of each clause in this Bill is room or closet”, and thus came to signify a designed to give the Government a comfort body of persons meeting together to zone in which to rest its tired and weary deliberate in secret. Wilding and Laundy go bones. on to say— Legislative Assembly 6037 18 November 1993

“Cabinet proceedings are of a strictly remain confidential. If they do not, Ministers secret nature as it is obviously essential will not wish to convey to the Cabinet that all ministers should be able to speak important information that they may have at with complete frankness.” their disposal. That would obviously be In the House of Representatives Practice, detrimental to the governing of Queensland, Quick and Garran are quoted with respect to and obviously would be contrary to the time- Cabinet and the time-honoured and pre- honoured system of government in this eminent features of Cabinet in which the rules country, which is based on the Westminster of Cabinet discipline and government are system. referred to. They stated— The main amendment before the House “The proceedings of the Cabinet are relates only to Cabinet and Executive Council conducted in secret and apart from the documents. Queensland still has the best Crown.” freedom of information legislation in Australia. Queenslanders have unlimited access to Mr FitzGerald: No worries about that at personal information and, most importantly, all. that information is free. People do not have to Mr BRISKEY: I am glad the honourable pay a fee to obtain that information, as they member agrees with that. The Queensland do in other States of Australia. Access by Cabinet Handbook, under “Reasons for others to other documents is available upon Security Procedures”, states— payment of a fee. This Bill is not about “The matters discussed by Cabinet Government information being kept from the (policy, appointments, legislation, etc.) general public; it is about preserving the have significant implications for the State, secrecy of information before Cabinet and companies and individuals. The before the Executive Council. Members unauthorised disclosure of these matters opposite need to understand the difference. can be damaging to public interest, and They need to understand the system of can be detrimental to the companies and democratic Government that operates in individuals affected by the decisions. Australia, which follows time-honoured traditions. For these reasons, security over the preparation and retention of Cabinet Before this Government came to power documents must be given high priority by and introduced freedom of information Ministers and Chief Executives. It is their legislation, a belief was held by the previous responsibility to impress upon their staff Government—which unfortunately was in the importance of security for Cabinet power for 32 years—that everything about documents.” Government should be secret. That belief extended to local authorities. This I am pleased that the member for Lockyer Government has opened itself to scrutiny and stated by way of interjection that the has also ensured that all local authorities are Opposition agrees totally with the need for open to scrutiny by the general public. Now, all secrecy of Cabinet documents. On 5 August Queenslanders can ask for information that 1992, during the second-reading debate on was kept secret until this Government came to the Freedom of Information Bill, on behalf of power. The people of Queensland will not the Opposition, Mr Littleproud, the member for forget—and nor should they forget—that they Western Downs, said— had absolutely no right to information before “. . . I and other Opposition members the Goss Labor Government was elected in appreciate that Cabinet minutes must be 1989. As well, citizens can appeal against a exempt from disclosure . . .” decision by a Government departmental I do not know how members opposite can officer not to release information. Citizens state on the one hand that Cabinet minutes have a further right of appeal to the should be exempt from disclosure and on the Information Commissioner. other hand claim that they should be released This evening, the Opposition carried on in to the media and to other members of the a most hypocritical manner. It bleats about public. Cabinet deliberations and all open Government, but for 32 years it kept documents prepared for Cabinet must remain Queenslanders in the dark. People can rest secret. The Freedom of Information Act never assured that, if this Government had not been intended to allow confidential Cabinet elected in 1989 and Queensland was still run documents to be released. Ministers take by the National Party or the coalition, certain opinions to Cabinet and relay those Queenslanders would still not have freedom of opinions to other Cabinet members. information legislation. Our freedom of Therefore, Cabinet deliberations should information legislation is the best in Australia, 18 November 1993 6038 Legislative Assembly and it works. There have been many In March this year, the honourable instances in which information has been Deputy Leader of the Coalition was informed denied and, on appeal, such information has that her application had been processed, but been supplied. For example, the Brisbane City she did not bother to inspect it or collect it at Council’s Maunsell report was initially not that time, and she still has not done so. In available for publication. On appeal, that excess of $18,000 of public money was report was provided to the Courier-Mail. That wasted by a member who does not care proves that this State’s freedom of information about freedom of information one little bit. I legislation is effective. am sure that, had the request by the Deputy The complaints about freedom of Leader of the Coalition been denied, the information legislation relate only to media would have heard about it. She would documents that have not been released and have told the media, “This is just another that should not be released. Unfortunately, example of an application of mine being some whose applications had been refused denied.” However, she did not, because the spat the dummy and complained because application was granted. The only problem is they did not get their own way. I would have that, $18,000 later, she could not be bothered thought that, by now, members opposite to collect the information or even have a look would have learned that one cannot always at it. get what one wants. The Deputy Leader of Mr Bennett: It should come out of her the Coalition whinged about certain salary, that sort of abuse of privilege. documents that she was not able to obtain Mr BRISKEY: It is an absolute abuse. I from the Health Department. That whingeing remind the people of Queensland that the was most certainly only for the benefit of the Deputy Leader of the Coalition wasted media. She did not mean what she was $18,000 of Department of Health funds. That saying. The FOI applications made by the money could have been applied to more Deputy Leader of the Coalition are obviously important areas. only a sham. One of the most famous FOI applications for which she obviously did not This Government’s freedom of want answers—another sham—was that which information legislation should be considered in took departmental officers 415.5 hours to the light of the information that has thus far process. The cost to the Government been released. Such information was never department involved was in excess of allowed to be released before this $18,000. Government came to power. Of course, some information cannot be released. In all Mr FITZGERALD: I rise to a point of jurisdictions in which freedom of information order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your ruling. I has been introduced, certain information has understood that freedom of information been kept secret, and so it should. I only wish applications by any citizen were not to be that honourable members opposite could bandied around this Chamber. I thought that understand that certain information cannot be was the basis of freedom of information. I made available. Every time information that is challenge how the member found out about sought to be released is refused, applicants that application. have the opportunity to appeal against that Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): decision. Further appeal is also available to Order! There is no point of order. the Information Commissioner. These appeal Mr BRISKEY: I will inform the member of processes are open to all, and when an my information source. That application is appeal is rejected, applicants should accept documented in the Sunday Mail of 1 August the umpire’s decision, and not spit the dummy 1993. It took departmental officers 415.5 every time they do not get their own way. hours to process that application, and in What cannot be denied is that there was excess of $18,000 of public money was no freedom of information legislation in wasted because of that application by the Queensland before this Government was Deputy Leader of the Coalition. She does not elected. This Government’s freedom of care about freedom of information; neither information legislation, because of its does the Opposition. Nevertheless, during this unlimited retrospectivity, is second to none in debate members opposite have bleated Australia. To prove that it is second to none in about how they are the bastions and Australia one only has to look at the statistics champions of freedom of information and how in the short time that our freedom of they would do things differently. They did do information legislation has been enacted. things differently—they did nothing about The figures show that, at the end of freedom of information. October, 7 660 freedom of information Legislative Assembly 6039 18 November 1993 applications had been received in 11 months commissioner with the ability to use his or her of operation and 5 865 of them have been discretion when deciding whether to notify decided. About 75 per cent of applications interested third parties about applications for have been for personal information. The FOI information. It is extremely important that the legislation is being well used by members of commissioner have this discretion so that the general public in Queensland. I am sure undue trauma which may be caused to a they thank the Government for that. Almost person does not occur. This has occurred in 100 per cent of those applications for personal domestic violence situations. This amendment information have been handed out. Keeping should be welcomed by all concerned. I am in mind that the previous Government refused glad that the Opposition is welcoming that to let people have information at all on itself, particular amendment. this Government has done an excellent job for The third amendment provides for the the people of Queensland. partial transfer of applications between Only 162 of the total 7 660 applications agencies. This is a minor amendment and have been refused in full, that is, just over 2 one which will be welcomed by all agencies per cent of applications have been refused. and applicants alike. I have great pleasure in The Opposition bleats and carries on in this supporting the Bill. House as the champion of the FOI legislation. I finish with these comments by Rod What hypocrisy! These figures provide Campbell of the Canberra Times on 21 July irrefutable evidence that the freedom of 1993.— information legislation and, importantly, information that people ask for and “The seekers of government secrets information about people’s personal affairs, is will be looking forward to the day when being accessed because of this Government’s freedom of information cases are decided freedom of information legislation. Members Queensland style. It was not very long of the Opposition accepted, and I am sure ago that Queensland had the most they still do, that Cabinet decisions and secretive government in the country. The discussions should be secret. I cannot idea that it might provide the model for understand why they jump up here this government and bureaucratic behaviour evening and say that they should not be. was laughable.” When the FOI Bill was debated, they Time expired. accepted that. I cannot understand why they Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (8.26 p.m.): I do not still accept that. This House has before join in the debate this evening on the freedom it today a Bill which ensures that the long- of information legislation. While I will later standing traditions of Westminster debate those issues raised in the legislation, I parliamentary democracy continue with would like to make some general observations respect to Cabinet secrecy. first about the speech made by the I am advised by another honourable honourable member for Cleveland. The member—and no Queenslander should forget member for Cleveland ended his speech with this—that the despicable waste of in excess of a round of applause for the freedom of $18,000 by the Deputy Leader of the Coalition information legislation that Queensland has at could have paid for two bypass operations by present. He used as his author somebody the Department of Health. Two bypass from interstate. What are we doing in operations have been lost because of money changing one of the principal parts of that wasted by that honourable member—an legislation that received such a round of honourable member who could not even be applause? The Government wants to change bothered to go and have a look at the it because it wants to make it tighter. The information she asked for. Government does not want to have to abide The amendments that are before the by that same legislation that received the House with respect to Cabinet secrecy amend applause. Why are we changing it if the section 36 (1) and section 37 (1) of the Act Government thinks it was so good? and provide definitions of what can be I ask the Minister to answer some regarded as Cabinet and Executive Council questions for me, if he can, in his reply. The matters. All honourable members now can questions I want to ask are: if a person makes readily see that the matters referred to within an application under freedom of information, this clause are related to Cabinet and, is that information available to the general therefore, should be secret. public? If I were to make an application under The second amendment in this Bill is an freedom of information about a general issue, extremely necessary one which provides the does everyone in the Labor Party, the Parliament, or people down the street know 18 November 1993 6040 Legislative Assembly that I have made an application, what it was parliaments. Its potential to make about and what it cost to prepare? I ask that administrators accountable and keep the question because I think it is a very serious voters and Parliament informed are well point. understood by its supporters and The second question I want to ask is: enemies.” would the Minister responsible for that What happened? We know that EARC made department be advised that the member for a recommendation to the Speaker and the Lockyer made an application with regard to, Parliamentary Committee for Electoral and say, the Warrill View Research Station? In Administrative Review. That was a report on circumstances such as that, is the Minister for an issues paper released in May 1990. Public Primary Industries advised of that submissions were accepted, and the report immediately, or is he advised of the content of was handed down by EARC in December the application and what information was 1990. Immediately, the parliamentary passed to the member for Lockyer? Is that committee called for submissions. Its report automatic? I want to know what the rules are, was presented by April 1991—only a couple of and I want all members of this House to know. months later, excluding the Christmas break. Mr Gilmore: It is automatic. The Bill was introduced into the House on 5 December 1991. That was a pretty fair Mr FITZGERALD: I understand it is break—April 1991 to December 1991. automatic. I just want to know what the Cabinet decision has been. Are we privy to When did the debate continue? The that decision or do we not know what that second and third readings of the Bill occurred information is? Can there be freedom of in the House on 5 August 1992. Members information so we know what the information would be aware that there was an election on is? There are two fundamental issues in those 19 September 1992. We know that, under the questions and I ask those questions early so provisions of the legislation, the Government the Minister will have time to get his advisers had three months’ grace before the legislation to work out exactly what the answers are. was to be implemented. The commitment of this Government to freedom of information The member for Cleveland made quite a was: “Information, provided we do not have to long statement that this Government had give it to anyone.” Fitzgerald said that introduced freedom of information legislation. I information was important so that the people acknowledge that this Government introduced would know what the Government was doing. freedom of information legislation. Once By their actions, Government members have again, I will point out to the honourable condemned themselves. member that the Fitzgerald process was set up under the previous Government. Mr Welford: Nonsense! Mr Beattie: Only because you had to. Mr FITZGERALD: The member was sitting there and he understood exactly what Mr FITZGERALD: There were a lot of this was all about. He knows that freedom of pressures on the Government to do that, I information was not introduced. I remind admit. A guarantee was given that we would members that this very Minister was prancing implement the major findings. That guarantee around and making excuses such as, “We was given, and the honourable member for have to have another look at it”—for month Brisbane Central acknowledges that. after month after month. But following the Now we look at the record of this Minister’s second-reading speech and all Government. How did it go about those months of inaction, what amendments implementing the reforms? We know what the did he come up with? I do not believe there process was. On page 129, the Fitzgerald were any substantial amendments. It would report states— be different if he had come up with a large “The professed aim of such number of amendments in August 1992, but legislation is to give all citizens a general no, he did not. That proves that this was just a right of access to Government time-wasting exercise on the part of this information. Government, which is supposedly committed to freedom of information. . . . A great deal was said by the member for The importance of the legislation lies Cleveland to the effect that all other in the principle it espouses, and in its Governments have freedom of information ability to provide information to the public legislation. The record shows that the Federal and to Parliament. It has already been Government introduced freedom of used effectively for this purpose in other information legislation in 1982. Other Legislative Assembly 6041 18 November 1993

Governments introduced it at the end of the raise this issue at the Committee stage. The 1980s. In terms of parliamentary history, legislation says in part that a matter is exempt freedom of information legislation is an if— extremely recent innovation. While I welcome “. . . its disclosure would involve the it, I want to see it working. I am committed to disclosure of any deliberation or decision it. I do not want to see it being choked off in of Cabinet, other than matter that has the way that this legislation is choking it off. been officially published by decision of Members have raised the issue of the Cabinet.” secrecy of deliberations and decisions of That is fair enough. But what this Government Cabinet; and why Cabinet should be free to is trying to do is absolutely outrageous. It is discuss things vigorously with a view to trying to stifle everything. Someone could be achieving Cabinet solidarity, even though preparing for a Cabinet submission an Cabinet members may express differing views. investigation into road legislation or any other I totally support that concept. If I am not subject. Under this legislation, proposed accused of breaching PCEAR discussions, I Cabinet submissions or documents that may shall say that Mark Stoneman and I, who were in the future be the subject of Cabinet in Cabinet together, supported the principle of deliberation will be exempt. Why was the Cabinet confidentiality. Even though a present legislation not good enough? decision may not be unanimous at first, all members know that Cabinet members must Members know about that case when the accept the decision or resign from Government got miffed because it was Cabinet—as Ministers have discovered in the overruled. Of 11 issues that were in dispute on past, sometimes to their peril. They must one FOI application, the commissioner accept those decisions and live by them. released nine of them and said that two were Those Cabinet deliberations must be kept exempt. So the Government said, “This is secret. I totally support that concept. But does terrible.” I do not believe that any of those this legislation say that? No, it does not. I documents exposed how a Minister spoke or point out to members how extremely wide this exposed the views of individual Ministers. It legislation is. The Bill states that a matter is was nothing like that. An independent exempt if— commissioner was appointed. Fred Alberts was made the commissioner for freedom of “. . . it was prepared for briefing a Minister information, and then the Government got about an issue proposed . . .” upset about a ruling that he made. So what I shall run something past honourable did the Government do? It said, “We will members. Recently, there was discussion change the legislation.” Of course, the about whether or not some railway lines Government had the right to do that. It was should be closed. Cabinet made the decision, not happy with the legislation. I know that the “Yes, we will close them.” Then someone said, Government has the numbers tonight. But the “We will let you off the hook. We will have a people of Queensland had better be warned look at them again.” Members were running that, if they do not play by this Government’s around trying to identify exactly how much rules, the legislation will be changed again. traffic used those lines and what the returns What happened with freedom of were from those lines. It could argued information legislation in other States? successfully before the commissioner that the Spencer Zifcak, who I believe is the chief Cabinet was looking at that issue; that the information officer in Victoria, was tied up with Cabinet was considering closing lines. It was the former Labor Government in Victoria. I do looking at the returns per line and the gross not know what his politics were; he seemed a takings per line. The Bill states— perfect gentleman. He wrote a freedom of “. . . it was prepared for briefing a Minister information paper and presented it at the about an issue proposed, or that has at Lakeside Hotel in Canberra during a workshop any time been proposed, to be on 29-30 April 1991. He expressed some considered by Cabinet . . .” views that I believe are very pertinent. On the Doesn’t that provide an exemption! Does the subject of the Commonwealth legislation, his Government realise what it is doing to article was headed “Freedom of Information, freedom of information? Torchlight but not Searchlight”. That is exactly what this Government is turning this into; it is Mr Barton: That’s a longbow to draw. turning the searchlight into a torchlight. Mr FITZGERALD: Does the member want An Opposition member: Candlelight. me to read the exact words? I will, if Mr Deputy Speaker will allow me to do so. I shall Mr FITZGERALD: It will be candlelight. That is what this Government is turning it into. 18 November 1993 6042 Legislative Assembly

In regard to Cabinet decisions, Spencer Zifcak evidence to the Senate Committee said— (1979): “What is less clear is how the term In terms of a simple Cabinet record ‘Cabinet documents’ should properly be holding, we have long taken the view defined.” that a document is not a Cabinet He went on to say— document simply because it is pinned to the back of something that “In my view, it follows logically that is marked ‘For Cabinet’. There has documents related to Cabinet should be certainly never been any assumption exempt only if their disclosure would have that reports and attachments the effect of undermining the convention automatically gain a Cabinet stamp of collective ministerial responsibility. That in that way . . . I think that the final is, they should be exempt only if they draft of the submission, signed by disclose the ‘views or votes of members the Minister would clearly be of Cabinet expressed or given in Cabinet’. intended for Cabinet. I think that any Further, the decisions of Cabinet should earlier drafts probably ought to be be exempt since the proper forum for handled under other provisions of their announcement is the Parliament.” (the Freedom of Information Act).” So, in other words, hold off the decisions. He Mr Santoro: That’s a very authoritative said further— opinion. “By contrast, documents whose Mr FITZGERALD: I think that he is a very disclosure will not breach the unanimity experienced person. Recently, I met Spencer rule, even though they relate to the Zifcak at a legal conference. I believe that he Cabinet process, need not be exempt as is coming to the Griffith University in Cabinet documents, although they may Queensland. He is a most authoritative person be caught by other provisions. on the subject of freedom of information. I Pursuant to a similar view, the was very impressed by his report, from which I Senate Standing Committee on have just quoted. Constitutional and Legal Affairs (1979) It is important to consider the issue of concluded that to protect everything that whether the Cabinet should be able to is submitted or proposed to be submitted deliberate properly. The member for Cleveland to Cabinet would go far beyond what was and other Government members said that reasonably necessary to protect the that is what this Bill is all about. I agree with viability of the Cabinet process. It is only that. However, I disagree with the wording of those documents which if released would the amendment, which throws the issue wide reveal the deliberative processes of open. It says that Cabinet can squash Cabinet, not those which provide the ‘raw anything if “it was prepared for briefing a material’ for those deliberations, which Minister about an issue proposed . . .” How deserve protection as Cabinet wide is that? documents.” Mr Santoro: It’s outrageous. He went on to say— Mr FITZGERALD: That is the line that the “Hence, the Cabinet documents honourable member gave me before. It is exemption is now interpreted far more absolutely ludicrous. It is definitely atrocious. broadly than is necessary to protect the This Government is squirming away from convention of collective ministerial Fitzgerald as fast as it can. It is trying to limit responsibility. Protection should be the Information Commissioner in what he can accorded only to documents created release. It does not like the legislation that expressly for the consideration of Cabinet was prepared. I supported that legislation, and and documents recording Cabinet’s the Government obviously does not. deliberations and decisions. Others, which simply paint the backdrop for Mr Borbidge: The media today described Cabinet discussion, should be accessible this as the most restrictive FOI legislation in if not immediately then after the decision the country. to which they relate has been made. This Mr FITZGERALD: My leader says that the is not a radical view. It reflects faithfully media today described this as the most the opinions of the former Secretary of restrictive FOI legislation in the country. What the Department of Prime Minister and action has this Government taken with respect Cabinet, Sir Geoffrey Yeend, who said in to the open and accountable Fitzgerald process? What did this Government say to Legislative Assembly 6043 18 November 1993

EARC when EARC wrote to the Government had to deliberately mislead the House. I will and asked how much the Government spent now explain why. on the media? EARC was researching the use Mr WELLS: I rise to a point of order. I of the media by the Government. What find that statement offensive. I ask that it be happened? The Government returned a withdrawn. coordinated response. The EARC commissioners had to demand answers from Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Palaszczuk): the Government because it wanted to squirm Order! The Minister finds the remark offensive. away from open accountability. He asks that it be withdrawn. I ask the member to do so accordingly. This is another example of the Government running away from freedom of Mr SANTORO: I will certainly withdraw, information, just as it is running away from but I will explain why I made that statement. In EARC in regard to the use of the media and his second-reading speech, the Attorney- how much it spends on the media. The General and Minister for Justice said— member for Cleveland rose to talk about the “It was never the intention of the “terrible, rotten National Party”. He said that Queensland Legislature to compromise the National Party did not introduce FOI. the fundamental convention of collective However, the initial work was done by it. In the Ministerial responsibility by allowing the future, Government members will hang their accessibility of a significant amount of heads in shame. They squirmed away from Cabinet material under the FOI Act. the media report, which is before the Yet the effect of the Fencray parliamentary committee. Opposition decision is to have that very result.” members are all waiting to see what the Government does about that one when the It was always well understood by people parliamentary committee brings down its administering the FOI Act that some material findings. The fact is that the Government forwarded to Cabinet for its consideration wanted to keep it secret. This is an indication would be available for access under the FOI that we have a secretive Government. Act. The current section 36 (1) (a) only exempts a document that has been submitted This is a Government that says anything to Cabinet for its consideration if it was also proposed to be discussed in Cabinet—the created for that purpose. As the member for briefings for a Minister of anything that is Lockyer has just stated, many documents are proposed or may be proposed—— attached to Cabinet submissions that were not Mr Welford: It doesn’t say that. created specifically for the purpose of Mr FITZGERALD: I am sorry. It says, “was submission to Cabinet. The Bill proposes that prepared for briefing a Minister about an issue any document that is actually submitted to proposed, or that has at any time been Cabinet will be exempt, even if it is already in proposed, to be considered by Cabinet.” How the public domain—for example, a Green wide is that? I am not allowed to discuss the Paper. clause in detail, so I am referring only to those This amendment will render the FOI Act a words. I think the rest of the words are dead letter in so far as achieving one of its irrelevant to the point that I am making. stated aims of enhancing Government The Government stands condemned for accountability. From this point onwards, any the action that it is taking. It is miffed because sensitive document, or any document that is of the case that came to it from the damaging to the Government, need only be Commissioner, that is, Fencray Pty Ltd v. attached to a Cabinet submission and it will be Department of the Premier. automatically exempt from disclosure under the FOI Act. Time expired. Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—Deputy Leader Mr Welford: That’s ridiculous. of the Liberal Party) (8.48 p.m.): I join my Mr SANTORO: I hear the honourable colleagues the shadow Minister, the member for Everton bleating. He will have his honourable member for Indooroopilly, and the chance, because I will quote Fencray and I will honourable member for Lockyer in opposing quote the High Court. The honourable this amendment to the Act because I believe member is the lawyer. He can produce a very that it entrenches freedom from information in specific legal counter to what I am saying. this State rather than freedom of information. In fact, the Bill is an atrocious, outrageous Mr Welford: Absolutely. piece of legislation—so much so that, in his Mr SANTORO: I take that interjection second-reading speech, the Attorney-General because this speech, together with the 18 November 1993 6044 Legislative Assembly honourable member for Everton’s speech, will Commonwealth Department of the be read by many people, including the people Attorney-General. who will administer the provisions of this Decision-makers should be careful, legislation. however, when using Commonwealth Mr Welford: They’ll see just how far case law, as there is a slight difference in wrong you are. the wording of the two provisions. The Commonwealth exemption has been Mr SANTORO: They will see and accept held to extend to any document the honourable member for Everton as the submitted to Cabinet. In Queensland hypocrite and the sustainer of unaccountable such a document will only be exempt if it practice that he has proven himself to be. was also brought into existence for that The second-reading speech—in my view, purpose.” mischievously—tries to deflect all of the blame That is an extract from the Attorney-General’s for this onto the Information Commissioner’s own manual, and that sort of provision reflects decision in Fencray. Yet the interpretation the intention that this legislation is trying to cut given to the current section 36 (1) (a) in down. In other words, the Government’s Fencray accords precisely with the instructions to its own public servants were interpretation given in the Justice that section 36 (1) (a) should be interpreted Department’s own FOI Policy and Procedures exactly as it was interpreted by the Information Manual. Honourable members may be Commissioner in the Fencray decision. I refer interested to know that I have a copy of that, honourable members to paragraphs 25 to 27 and I will quote very specifically from it. That of that decision. In fact, in referring to the manual was prepared by Dean Wells’ own department’s justification for the non-provision department and submitted to Cabinet for of certain information, the Information approval before it was released to all Commissioner stated—and I will quote what Government agencies. I will quote directly he said for the benefit of the honourable from this manual to prove my point. On page member for Everton so that he can respond 110 of the manual it says— and try to counter this point— “S36 (1) (a) provides that matter “These comments by the cannot be exempt simply because it has Department reflect the misapprehension been submitted to Cabinet for its that a document submitted to Cabinet to consideration or proposed by a Minister assist deliberation within Cabinet would to be submitted. It must also have been disclose the deliberation of Cabinet. brought into existence for the purpose of There may in fact be no debate within submission for consideration by Cabinet.” Cabinet at all on certain parts of the I notice that the Attorney-General is wandering Cabinet submission. Revealing the around the Chamber trying to figure out quantity of deleted text will, in my opinion, whether or not it is true. I can inform him that I disclose nothing about the extent of have copies of his manual and that I am deliberation by Cabinet under certain quoting directly from it. headings. It will only disclose the extent of material that was submitted to Cabinet Mr Wells: What I’m trying to work out is to assist in its deliberations in respect of who writes your material. that heading.” Mr SANTORO: Nobody needs to write my In my view, the Minister has also been material. People leak the documents to the mischievous by telling the Parliament about Opposition because they are disgusted by the High Court case of Commonwealth v. what this Government is doing. I read the Northern Land Council. The reference to “the material and form my own conclusions, but deliberations of Cabinet” that recur throughout the Attorney-General does not like that. I am the passages quoted by the Minister in his quoting from the Attorney-General’s manual, second-reading speech is a reference to the and I will continue to do so. The manual actual discussions of Cabinet. The High Court states— was careful to make it clear that the “Under the equivalent provision in documents in issue in that case were, in its Victoria, the Attorney-General’s opinion, “documents which record the actual Department has adopted the view that deliberations of Cabinet or a committee of any document is exempt if, at the time it Cabinet” and not “documents prepared was prepared, it had submission to outside Cabinet such as reports or Cabinet as one of its purposes. This is submissions, for the assistance of Cabinet.” consistent with the view of the Legislative Assembly 6045 18 November 1993

The amending legislation presently integrity of the Act. The Minister can before the Parliament is the result of a undertake a witch-hunt, but he will have to kill hysterical and an unjustified overreaction to a lot of people. Plenty of people are leaking the Fencray decision by senior officials in the documents to the Opposition, and the more Office of the Cabinet, Premier’s Department the Minister likes to witch-hunt—and this is and Treasury who detest the idea that for the occurring in the Titles Office now—the more first time FOI could subject their work to public leaks we get, the more information we have, scrutiny. Cabinet has been only too willing to and the more we can stick it to him. That is go along with it, but there is no justification for exactly what he used to do to us, and we will it in principle. The Minister has had to resort to keep doing that to him because the public informing the Parliament in an attempt to service is becoming disenchanted with the cobble a justification that sounds members of this Government. The Opposition plausible—but which is not—under the rubric is being sent information by the truckload, yet of the convention of collective ministerial the Minister accuses the Information responsibility. The Information Commissioner Commissioner of giving a broad ruling about in Fencray actually engaged in a very careful what may amount to “factual matter” and and learned discussion of the appropriate “seriously undermining the convention of limits of Cabinet secrecy. collective ministerial responsibility”. The Information Commissioner in Fencray There is nothing dangerous about the interpreted “factual matter” in section 36 (2) in Information Commissioner’s approach. a way that is consistent with a judgment of the Paragraph 61 of the Fencray decision states— Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. “. . . merely factual matter is generally to The Information Commissioner stated— be distinguished from matter expressing “Thus a commonsense approach the opinions and recommendations of should be taken to the task of individual Ministers on policy issues and characterising matter as factual matter or policy options requiring Cabinet otherwise, according to its substance (i.e. determination. Factual matter which its substantive nature or character) rather merely provides the factual background, than merely to semantics (i.e. merely by or informs Cabinet of relevant facts, so as reference to the particular terms in which to assist its deliberations on policy issues it is couched). Material which contains will generally constitute ‘merely factual elements of judgment or opinion matter’.” concerning purely factual matters may still So there we have it. The Attorney- be capable, depending on its context and General and Justice Minister’s argument has its purpose in that context, of properly been torn to shreds by direct reference to his being characterised as merely factual Act and the policy and procedures manual of matter.” his department—of which he would have had Yet Minister Wells accuses the Information to approve—not to mention the opinion and Commissioner of giving a broad ruling about the decisions of the High Court that we are what may amount to “factual matter” and being urged constantly by members opposite “seriously undermining the convention of to observe and respect these days. Observe collective ministerial responsibility”. There is and respect! That is done only when it suits nothing dangerous about the Information the ideological bent and paranoia of those Commissioner’s approach. opposite. When it does not suit, then they Mr Wells: We know. We know who wrote say, “To hell with the High Court and its it. deliberations and decisions.” Mr SANTORO: I take the Honourable As the Liberal Party shadow Minister Minister’s interjection. What he is saying is that when the legislation was introduced, I a witch-hunt is on the way. Of course I complimented the Minister during my speech received advice about this matter! because the Act that he introduced was substantially better than the legislation that Mr Beattie: But you don’t understand it; existed at the Federal level. As I have said, that’s all. the Minister has removed my reason for Mr SANTORO: I take the interjection. As I sustaining that compliment because he is now go through this material and quote it, the making the Queensland legislation as Attorney-General has not got an answer. He restrictive as the Federal Act, and for that he is knows that the people who understand and being condemned. He should remain work with these provisions despise him condemned. because he is undermining the intent and 18 November 1993 6046 Legislative Assembly

Before concluding my remarks, I wish to weeks after I made my FOI request. I want to comment on a further hypocrisy that is simply say that there was a complication with practised by this Government and its another aspect of that FOI request. I was able Ministers. On 8 October this year, I forwarded to answer that query about two weeks after to the FOI officer in the Department of that complication arose. Nevertheless, even if Employment, Training and Industrial Relations the entire FOI request that I made had been a request for a breakdown of the budgetary held up because of that query, there was still allocations to the TAFE colleges of three weeks before the Estimates debate Queensland and the rural training schools. I started in which to receive an answer. made this request under FOI because the However, the day after I placed that question information provided in respect of these on notice—a far more complicated matters in the State Budget papers is very question—volumes of paper appeared. I give scarce indeed. So much for the credit to the Minister for that. comprehensive information that is supposed Mr Welford interjected. to be provided to members of the public in the new, you-beaut open Budget documents! I Mr SANTORO: I will come to the point wanted this information so that I and other that was made by the honourable member for members of the Opposition could make an Everton. The conclusions can only be twofold. informed contribution during last Friday’s The first is that the FOI section in the Estimates debate. Alas, five weeks after the Minister’s department is grossly overworked information was requested, it was not and understaffed, so much so that it cannot forthcoming. properly satisfy reasonable and, in my case, important requests for information. If that is In the Minister’s reply to the Estimates, to the case, then the Minister and the my speech and to statements that I had Government stand condemned for not previously made publicly, he proceeded to enshrining the FOI spirit in a reality that is well- lecture me and told me how much I had got it resourced and responsive to the public’s need wrong in previous statements I had made for information. The second conclusion that about the TAFE system. In his speech, the one can make—and I make this conclusion Minister did not produce the college-by-college with regret—is that the Minister and the figures that were necessary to sustain his Government are, at best, dragging their feet arguments. At this stage, the important on the provision of information and, at worst, question I ask is: could the information have deliberately holding back information for been made available to me in good time for political reasons. I see the honourable the Estimates debates under the cover of my member for Everton shaking his head. As the FOI request? Undoubtedly, the Minister and honourable member for Lockyer said, perhaps his department people will say, “No.” In fact, he also may have access and knowledge to their singular lack of action in response to my the details of my FOI request, and perhaps he FOI request suggests that this would, indeed, may want to detail to the House what else he be so. knows about FOI requests by members of the However, I decided to test this and, last Opposition. Thursday, I placed a question on notice to the My question on notice proved that the Minister for Employment, Training and information that I requested under FOI Industrial Relations requesting a detailed provisions was immediately available within breakdown of the specific funding provisions the bureaucracy. Six weeks later, I still have for TAFE colleges and rural training schools. not received the information that I requested The questions I put on notice were far more under FOI. Yet when I ask for the same detailed—and I stress that—than my original information and much more via a question on FOI request tendered five weeks before the notice, I receive it the day after. So much for Minister’s Estimates debate. I am happy to open government, which was the principle acknowledge that, the following day, the espoused by Government members when Minister provided a most comprehensive reply they were in Opposition, particularly the stretching into many pages of information. I Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, and am in the process of determining the validity his parliamentary colleague Mr Foley, the of the information provided by the Minister in Minister for Employment, Training and his reply to my question on notice, and I will Industrial Relations. leave discussing this aspect until a later time. I suspect that this Government and its However, the important point that I wish Ministers are deliberately holding back the to make is that this information, which was information which should be made available provided to me by the Minister the day after I via FOI legislation. I submit to the House that requested it, was not provided to me for five Legislative Assembly 6047 18 November 1993 they are doing so for political reasons—for fear member for Clayfield and the previous of being exposed as the lousy managers they speaker, the member for Lockyer. are, and because they wish to avoid Firstly, I want to lay the background so embarrassment from the official revelation of that honourable members can recall the their mismanagement and deceit. This is what climate within which freedom of information this Bill is all about—the further erosion of the was brought into place in this State. The rights of the people of this State to information backdrop was 32 years of secrecy, corruption, as promised by members of the Goss under-the-carpet dealing, brown paper bags, Government when they were in Opposition and not a scent—not a whiff—of freedom of and since they came to Government. This information laws under the National Party, intent can only be regarded as despicable which now sits in Opposition, and deservedly and, for this reason, the Opposition will so. oppose the Bill. The Minister can go on all the witch-hunts that he wants to conduct. He can Commissioner Fitzgerald found that the harass as many poor public servants as he Queensland Government, its public servants wants, and he undoubtedly will. and its law enforcement agencies were imbued with a culture that was inimical to the Mr WELLS: I rise to a point of order. That public interest in open debate and democratic proposition is untrue and offensive. I ask that decision-making. That was the outcome of the it be withdrawn. Fitzgerald inquiry—an outcome about which, Mr SANTORO: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am for decades, most of the members now sitting very pleased to withdraw that remark on the Opposition benches did nothing when unconditionally. By doing that, the Minister they were in Government. Yet they stand here has placed on record in this place that no in Opposition today and piously advocate, public servant will be harassed as a result of from the white-knighted position of Opposition, this legislation. So I am very happy to see the that they now want everything disclosed. Why Minister put his feet on the sticky paper, would they not? because this speech will be read. As members Mr Santoro: We’re not saying that at all. opposite have said, it will be read and it will be circulated to all the relevant people. The Mr WELFORD: Tonight, the member for Minister’s words will be taken note of, and we Clayfield said that he could not receive look forward to seeing whether he is able and information under freedom of information. willing to keep his word. What a tragedy! He rattled off a litany of adjectives—despicable, disgraceful, We oppose this amending legislation outrageous. All he had to do was ask one because the Minister has gone back on the question in Parliament and what happened? propositions that he put in this place, which He complains that, the very next day, he the Liberal Party supported, when this FOI received pages of information. If only for one legislation was introduced. I wish that we were moment he knew that all he had to do was not opposing this Bill but, because the ask a question in Parliament to receive the Attorney-General is going back on his word information. The reason he did not and because the provisions in this legislation understand was that he simply did not are beginning to reflect the Commonwealth’s understand the freedom of information law. provisions which are more restrictive than He had not read the Act, he was not involved Victoria’s, and which are certainly more in the debate, and he did not read the EARC restrictive than what exists currently in report. He did not know what FOI laws were Queensland, we oppose the legislation. We about. They are not about open-ended fishing will circulate widely all of these comments so expeditions requesting information. That is not that they can be read and tested in practice. what freedom of information laws are about. Mr WELFORD (Everton) (9.06 p.m.): Mr Ardill: He still doesn’t know that. What an extraordinary embarrassment the member for Clayfield must be to the Mr WELFORD: He still does not Opposition. He runs off to some boggle- appreciate that FOI legislation is about the minded legal eagle in his constituency, then disclosure of documents. One does not make comes into this place and recites parrot-like an FOI request just to ask for broad bundles this child-like dependency that he has upon of information. One does not submit an FOI advice from other people. In reciting those application and say, for example, “Please give speeches, which have been written by other me all the figures of all Government people, he demonstrates his absolute and departments and all expenditure in all TAFE utter ignorance of the law. In a moment, I will colleges over the last five years.” That is the return to some of the points made by the sort of ludicrous suggestion that the honourable member for Clayfield would put, 18 November 1993 6048 Legislative Assembly simply because he does not understand that Mr WELFORD: The honourable member that is not what that law is about. That is what for Lockyer, in his speech—and he raised the question time is about; that is what questions point again now—pointed out that the on notice are all about. After months and freedom of information commissioner has months of exercising those intellectual cogs of been overruled. What an extraordinary his that are rusted in place, perhaps one of his surprise. I did not understand the Information constituents came to him and said, “Oh, Commissioner to be making the law; I Santo, why don’t you just ask a question in understood the Parliament to be making law. the House.” So he did. The very next day, like It was the Legislature’s intent that this pennies from heaven, all of this information amendment is now the proper interpretation of suddenly drowned him. And he now the law. If the freedom of information complains that it was all too much for him to commissioner scurries off on a frolic of his own handle. to interpret the law in a way that is clearly out Now the Honourable Minister for Industrial of step with the Commonwealth jurisdiction Relations is condemned, firstly, for not and out of step with the intention of this satisfying the idiosyncratic freedom of Legislature, it is only proper that we now bring information request from the honourable in amending legislation to clarify the law to member for Clayfield, and then for giving him make it absolutely clear, not only to the too much information when he really knew the freedom of information commissioner but also proper way to ask for it. What an absurd to every Government bureaucrat, precisely situation for honourable member for Clayfield what the definition of Cabinet documents to find himself in. Just as he depends on the constitutes and what this law allows and advice of his own constituents about the legal exempts. jargon that he recites in his speeches that I accept the fundamental position that they write for him, he now leans with child-like the Opposition is arguing—that is, that dependency on the Leader of the Opposition, essentially freedom of information laws are who snuggles up next to him in the debate about providing information. That is what the and says, “Santo, you are okay. You will law says—subject to special circumstances— survive; you can handle it.” If I were the that prima facie all documents that the Leader of the Opposition, I would distance Government holds are open to scrutiny. The myself, too. primary purpose of freedom of information The fundamental objective of this laws is to protect individual citizens against legislation, the amending Bill we have before adverse Government decision making—in the House tonight, is simply to do no more particular, administrative decision making; not than to clarify, as the honourable member for Cabinet decision making; not policy decisions Clayfield pointed out, precisely what the law is of the Government or the Executive of the under the Commonwealth Freedom of day, but administrative decisions that Information Act. The Commonwealth was the adversely affect citizens. first jurisdiction to introduce freedom of This law is designed to allow citizens to information legislation in 1982. It is not a new get access to the documents that form the concept; it has been operating for some time. basis of the decisions that bureaucrats make. To a considerable extent, the experience we It is not designed to disclose the internal are now gaining from the application and deliberations of the Cabinet. It is not designed implementation of Queensland’s freedom of to disclose the deliberations of a Minister in information laws is dependent upon the preparation for Cabinet and for Cabinet interpretation of the Commonwealth deliberations. That is what the Opposition Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the needs to understand. Although the Act, prima Commonwealth courts in relation to the facie, says that all documents of Government operation of the Commonwealth law. are discloseable, they are discloseable subject All we are doing with this amending Bill is to the very specific range of exemptions clarifying Queensland’s law to bring it into line outlined in the Act. with Commonwealth legislation. What we have If members were to look at the Act, they heard from the Opposition tonight is nothing would see what sorts of documents are more than a political stunt, because it knows exempt—for example, matters affecting that there is nothing in this Bill. It is designed relations with other Governments. If simply to bring the law into line as it should be documents pertain to that issue, they are interpreted to protect the principle of collective exempt. Matters concerning operations of and individual ministerial responsibility. particular agencies, such as commercial Mr FitzGerald interjected. agencies of the Government—Suncorp and the like—are exempt. The documents relating Legislative Assembly 6049 18 November 1993 to matters concerning law enforcement and been properly interpreted in accordance with public safety are exempt. Matters affecting the Commonwealth principles—would not legal proceedings that may be sub judice, or have resulted in the necessity for the for other reasons, are properly not subject to amendment we have tonight. public disclosure. Matters relating to the That paragraph stated— deliberative process of Government departments are exempt. Matters relating to “‘36. (1) Matter is exempt matter if— the personal affairs of individuals, trade . . . secrets, business affairs, and matters (g) its disclosure would involve communicated in confidence are exempt the disclosure of any under FOI. These exemptions are specifically deliberation or decision of designed to protect a range of documents Cabinet, other than matter that are quite clearly prepared in two contexts: that has been officially firstly, where they are prepared for the published by decision of purpose of the deliberative processes of Cabinet’.” Government to bring about changes in policy; and, secondly, to protect confidential In my view, having regard to the principle communications, not just communications that that the provision is designed to protect, are provided in confidence, but which are namely, the collective and individual ministerial confidential by virtue of the personal affairs of responsibility, a reasonable and proper individual citizens which those documents interpretation of that provision would have might disclose. They are the fundamental ensured that documents that have been provisions under which exemptions apply. prepared for Ministers, including Ministers other than the Minister making the particular The other broad category—it is really a Cabinet submission, by way of briefing notes relatively narrow category—is that of Cabinet to address an issue proposed to come before documents. The purpose of that Cabinet, would tend to disclose the categorisation, as outlined in the Explanatory deliberations of Cabinet. It is quite clear that, if Notes to this amending Bill, is to ensure that a document is prepared by way of briefing the deliberations in Cabinet, in accordance notes for the purpose of an issue that is with the conventions of Westminster proposed to be deliberated upon in Cabinet, parliamentary democracy, which we largely that document would, on any reasonable follow, are protected by ensuring that Ministers interpretation, be likely to disclose the can go about their preparation for Cabinet deliberations of Cabinet. deliberations with candour; so that they can go to Cabinet and candidly put their view and It has been interpreted that that put their department’s arguments without provision—previously paragraph (e) and now those matters being disclosed in the public paragraph (g) in the amending Bill—says that debate before the Government announces its the document has to disclose the precise decision. extent of Cabinet deliberations and indeed disclose the arguments actually put in That is a simple process. It is patently Cabinet, not just arguments prepared in a clear not only to Government but I am sure briefing note in preparation for Cabinet also to Opposition members who take a discussion. That fine distinction is simply moment to reflect upon it. Those are properly untenable. It is a nonsense to say that matters exempt from disclosure. What has paragraph (e) is confined to a document that happened here is not an opening of the precisely describes what in fact was floodgates. The honourable member for deliberated in Cabinet. That was never the Lockyer and the honourable member for intention of the Legislature in drafting that Clayfield, in quoting passages provided to provision. Paragraph (e) was designed to them by other people outside the House, catch what we have now been forced to mentioned that matters simply attached to a define by reference to both paragraph (c) and document marked “for Cabinet” are not paragraph (g) in amending section 36. It is necessarily exempt. That is absolutely right. designed to capture those briefing notes that Nothing in the amendment put before the Ministers take with them to Cabinet—whether House tonight undermines that principle. The or not they are for the submitting Minister—in mere fact that something is marked “for preparation for an issue that is proposed for Cabinet” does not necessarily determine that it discussion in Cabinet. That is what Cabinet is a part of Cabinet’s deliberations. In my view, responsibility is about. a proper interpretation of the existing paragraph (e), which now appears in the It is a nonsense to suggest that Ministers amending section as paragraph (g)—if it had should be required to disclose briefing notes 18 November 1993 6050 Legislative Assembly that are effectively the arguments that that Mr GILMORE (Tablelands) (9.26 p.m.): Minister may or may not advance in Cabinet There are only two ways in which this deliberations on any issue. If the interpretation Government has been wrong since it came to that the Information Commissioner proposes power: everything it has said and everything it to place upon paragraph (e) does not has done. Tonight, we have seen further effectively cover those quite sensibly exempt examples of that. We have heard documents, clearly the single paragraph sanctimonious bleatings from various amendment that we are proposing tonight is Government members. I will deal with the the only and eminently sensible and contribution by the member for Everton responsible way of achieving what was always shortly. As to the member for Cleveland—what the objective of the Legislature in its original a wimp! Where did the Government get him? draft. Some of the comments that emanated from The simple fact is that members of the that young gentleman were absolutely Opposition are using this as a stunt. The pathetic. What have we heard about during member for Clayfield and the member for this debate from those sanctimonious Lockyer do not understand the operation of gentlemen and what did we hear about from the Act. They have sought to use the Act in Government members when the Freedom of ways in which it was not intended to be used. Information Bill was debated? We heard It is not about fishing expeditions; it is not about 32 years of National Party Government, about claiming broad access to information; and we heard about brown paper bags. but it is about access to documents. Any Tonight, we heard a similar contribution by the reasonable request under the FOI Act must at member for Everton. least give some particularity as to the In fact, as was pointed out by the documents sought. It must give some member for Clayfield, freedom of information indication as to the nature of the documents is a relatively new phenomenon in this being sought, not just a broad request for country. It applied from 1982, in the Federal information. If the Opposition seeks certain jurisdiction, and the other States picked it up information, it can ask for that information in the late 1980s. This Government came in either on notice or without notice on any here full of sanctimony and great intentions, parliamentary sitting day. As the member for and made statements about the failure for 32 Clayfield has discovered—much to his years of the former Government to introduce surprise—he actually obtains the information freedom of information, when freedom of he seeks. information is a relatively new principle. I am I urge upon members opposite, including not against the principle of freedom of those who will follow me in this debate, that information, but I would like to set a couple of they try to understand that this legislation is matters straight. about providing access to documents—prima Mr Wells: The only chance you had to facie all documents, but subject to very clear do it was the seven years between 1982 and exemptions. The amendment being made 1989. tonight is achieving no more than clarifying the Mr GILMORE: I ask the Attorney: when law as it was always intended by this did the other jurisdictions introduce freedom of Parliament. It is not designed to open the information? floodgates to any blanket exemption or any blanket secrecy of the type that the Mr Wells: The first one was 1982. Was Opposition practised assiduously when it was Victoria the next year? in Government. This amendment is designed Mr GILMORE: What about the rest of for one purpose and one purpose only; that is, them? The Minister is the expert. to bring Queensland law into line with the Mr Wells: No, no. Commonwealth jurisdiction, as it has properly been interpreted, and to uphold those Mr GILMORE: I am glad that at last the Minister has admitted to this House that he is principles of Cabinet solidarity and Cabinet not an expert on anything. He is useless. unity, the failings of which were the undoing of the previous Government but which in any An Opposition member: He’s event were never conventions of the dumbfounded. parliamentary democracy to which it Mr GILMORE: For the first time, the subscribed. The Opposition does not Attorney is lost for words. As I said, I am not subscribe to those conventions to this very against freedom of information, but I want to day. make a few comments about some of the requests that I have made on my own Legislative Assembly 6051 18 November 1993 behalf—indulging in the fishing expeditions for and behold, what do we have now? We have which the legislation is supposedly not got freedom of information now. There is not a designed—and on behalf of my constituents. single public servant in this State today who is Mr Borbidge interjected. prepared to show anybody a file—not even their own—unless an application has been Mr GILMORE: Yes, for which one has to made. So what do we have? We have pay a considerable amount of money. I will developed a bureaucratic nightmare—another cover that matter shortly, as well. The member cork in the neck of the bottle. While it was well for Everton claimed that freedom of intentioned and while it may well be a information was not designed for fishing wonderful thing, it has gone too far. People expeditions. Heaven forbid that somebody should still be able to access their might find something out! The member for documentation without a freedom of Everton said that it was designed for personal information application. matters. That is not so. Freedom of information has two purposes. One most I am astonished that Government certainly relates to personal matters, so that members would sit here tonight, full of individual Queenslanders can approach a sanctimonious bleatings about how wonderful department, gain access to their files and it all is, without understanding that what they examine the contents. However, freedom of have managed to do is stop the flow of information applies also to administrative information to individuals in the community. matters, so that bodies, such as Her Majesty’s They have managed to slow it down. Opposition, the Courier-Mail and others can Applicants have a 30 or 40 day wait that can access documents. be extended without appeal to 60 days if it pleases the information officer in the The member for Cleveland referred to an department. These are the sorts of problems application by the Courier-Mail for a that people have faced. document. He was proud of the fact that, after access to that document was initially refused, I have made a number of applications to an appeal was lodged and the document was the Lands Department, the Department of released. That is what it is all about. However, Minerals and Energy, the Transport the member for Everton claimed that such Department, the Department of Primary applications should not be made, because Industries, and the Department of Health. Let that is not the spirit of the legislation. Of us talk about Health. What a debacle that course that is the spirit of the legislation. was. When I applied for the release of a report into the health services on the tablelands—the As was pointed out by the member for two hospitals, the health services, the dental Clayfield, this amending legislation represents services, etc.—that report had been floating a diminution of the original spirit of the around for some considerable time. It legislation. Freedom of information is appeared that everybody had it but me. So I designed to keep Governments honest. That applied under freedom of information for the point was made earlier by a Government release of that document. My application was spokesman. refused. Finally, after an appeal, I managed to Mr Purcell interjected. get the document released. Lo and behold, Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): after spending $30, plus the cost of copying, Order! The member for Bulimba will not the document was released to the public at no interject from other than his usual seat. cost the day before it was released to me. That is what freedom of information is about Mr GILMORE: Interestingly enough, under this Government. It has nothing to do when I was a member of the National Party with individual rights; it has everything to do Government, I had no problem with accessing with protecting the secrecy of this information. I could take my constituents to a Government. That was the type of information department and obtain full access to their I managed to get out of the Health files. Never once was I refused, and never Department. It was an absolute disgrace. once was I charged. Let us talk about the Lands Department. Mr Ardill: Did you ever get the The member for Cleveland said that two and a information specified in clause 5? half per cent of applications to that Mr GILMORE: I cannot see to which department have been refused. information the member is referring. He is Mr Campbell: When you were in waving a document around. Never once was I Government, what did you provide in terms of or one of my constituents refused such access to information? access, and never once was I or one of my constituents charged for such information. Lo 18 November 1993 6052 Legislative Assembly

Mr GILMORE: I had no problem getting Mr Johnson: A good submission it was. access to documentation; neither did my Mr GILMORE: It was a dandy, but it constituents. Maybe that was because they would have been better if I had been allowed had a decent member of Parliament. The access to information. I have a copy of the member for Cleveland told this Parliament that letter with me. It is a an absolute beauty. The two and a half per cent of these applications files were searched and here it have been refused. Is it not curious that it is—“Thousands and thousands of sheets of happened to me and to one of my paper were found, all relevant to your request, constituents? Last week, one of my but you cannot have them.” I thought that was constituents made an application to the great. I asked, “Why can I not have them?” Department of Lands for access to information The reply was, “First of all, you have not paid about a railroad crossing as a legal level us $624.50 a week for a public servant to crossing to his property. That application was search out these documents”, which they had refused totally, simply because it was too already identified. That was the curious part of much trouble. Under the auspices of the it. They already knew what the documents legislation, the department wrote back and were. They gave me a list. They said, “Now it said, “Look, it is all too hard, it is going to be is going to cost $624 a week and it is going to too inconvenient for the bureaucrats in the take six weeks to discover these documents.” department and we are not going to give you If that is not a mechanism to stop me getting anything.” It was refused outright, even access to information, I will eat my hat. Of though it was personal information he was course it was. It was a misuse of this seeking. legislation that this Minister so piously says is Mr Briskey: Ninety-seven and a half per great. He refused access not just to me. I cent of applications have been okayed. made that access application on behalf of my Mr GILMORE: The member for Cleveland constituency, because I believed that the is the hypocrite here, because he stood up information that I sought would have been and said it was wonderful. This poor wretch important in convincing the Cabinet and Mr has now been denied access to his own files. Burns’ task force that the original decision was wrong. It was wrong because it was wrongly Mr Campbell: Give me the name of that based. However, how could I prove that person and I’ll help them. without access to the information? Mr Briskey: Did they appeal? Did they I have here another application I made go through the appeal process? in respect of the Department of Minerals and Mr GILMORE: The member for Energy. I will just tell honourable members Bundaberg has just indicated that there is why I was refused access. It gets to the heart corruption in this Government. He said, “Give of this legislation. me the name of that person and I’ll get the Mr T. B. Sullivan: Tell us what you information.” I would not give the member for actually asked for, because unless you tell us Bundaberg anything. First of all, my what you asked for, we don’t know what the constituent would be screwed into the ground, response is to. and if the member has access to the personal information of one of my constituents that my Mr GILMORE: The mouth from constituent does not have access to, then Chermside is at it again. The application was a there must be corruption—there must be a comprehensive one in respect of matters that leakage of information within the Government. were of great importance at the time, so the There is no question about that kind of a department identified all of the documents thing. The member has just raised the subject that I had sought. Then it said, “Here is a list and I have put it to bed. of documents, the first one is available for sale, so we cannot give you that one. Another In respect of the railways information that one can be purchased at the Commonwealth I sought, a number of people in this printing office, so you cannot have that one.” I Parliament would recognise that a couple of have bought those documents, so I have months ago, Cabinet made a decision to them in my file, anyway. close half the railway lines in Queensland—maybe a little more; I know There were 12 documents identified and there was a lot of them. It was a matter of documents 5 to 12 were refused to me. Here fundamental importance to the economy of are the grounds on which they were refused— my electorate. Being a good member of “Document (5) was prepared for Parliament, I decided to make a submission to consideration by Cabinet on 16 the task force on behalf of my constituency. December 1991 and would be exempt under Section 36 (1) (a). The statistical Legislative Assembly 6053 18 November 1993

and factual data contained herein is think that such documentation might actually inextricably contained within the content become available to somebody for scrutiny! of the total document and its contents We considered that those documents were have not been officially published.” important, because they may well have Therefore, I could not have it. Let me tell concealed information that was important and honourable members that I received this letter needed to be made available to the public. in May 1993. The document that was The document before the House amends prepared for consideration by Cabinet was the legislation to ensure that the Information never considered. It was prepared for Commissioner will never again so offend this consideration by Cabinet some 18 months Government as to actually make a decision before. It was never considered, but it was still that confounds the Minister in his attempts to exempt under the legislation. The grounds keep information secret. It is a wonder that he continued— has not been sacked. It is a wonder that he “Document (6), although it was not has not been given a job as a white ant presented to Cabinet, nevertheless, it inspector of the dingo barrier fence, because was prepared for submission.” that is the kind of thing that happens to people who offend this Government; the Mr T. B. Sullivan: Tell us what Joh Government changes the legislation and then released. What did Joh release from his hunts the offender to the far reaches of the Cabinet? Sweet nothing! kingdom. Mr GILMORE: The member for As I have already indicated, the Freedom Chermside would not understand. It is too of Information Amendment Bill provides some technical for a little brain like his. The grounds information to individuals, but not all continued— information to all individuals who are seeking “Document (7), although not redress in their own affairs. It has slowed down presented to Cabinet . . . the flow of information, because documents Document (8) contains the same that are innocuous—the sort of stuff that one matter as (11) and was brought into should be able to get across the desk at any existence for the purpose of submission Government office—are no longer available for consideration by Cabinet.” unless accompanied by a freedom of information application. That was never presented to Cabinet. It was never considered. Eighteen months later, it is Mr T. B. Sullivan: Did you release it? Did still a secret. It was important information in the Nats release it? Answer “Yes” or “No”. respect of the material I was working on at the Come on. Did your Government used to time. Further— release that information? “Document (10) was brought into Mr GILMORE: Yes. That is the point that existence for submission, and was I made a while ago. That information was submitted.” always available. One could walk into a courthouse and get that information. I am This one was actually submitted 18 months talking about every piece of information that before. I still could not have it. Further— anybody wants now. One must lodge a “Document (12) was prepared for, freedom of information application simply and proposed by the Minister to be because there is not a public servant in this submitted to Cabinet and even though it State who is game to give information across did not proceed, it still meets the criteria the counter. Public servants are terrified that, set by Section 36 (1) (a) and is therefore now that we have freedom of information considered exempt.” laws, every document must be subject to the That is why we are here tonight—because provisions of those laws. That is a ridiculous somebody challenged one of those rulings state of affairs. That is the second thing that and went back to the Information freedom of information has managed to Commissioner. The Information Commissioner achieve for this State. quite properly determined that the decision The third thing is that, on the first was incorrect and that these documents occasion that information looked like sneaking should, therefore, be made available. under the skirt of the Government, what did it So this Government and the Attorney- do? It scurried back into the Parliament and, General and Minister for Justice scurried off as sanctimoniously as anybody, said, “All we into a corner to figure out how they could get are doing is saving the day. We are protecting around such an infamous decision from the the information that might have gone”—— Information Commissioner. What a disgrace to 18 November 1993 6054 Legislative Assembly

Mr Borbidge: This is not the Westminster gave a tour de force of some aspects of the system. Westminster tradition of parliamentary Mr GILMORE: The Westminster system democracy, to which members on the other is being raped here tonight. We are no longer side of the House never paid the slightest bit able to scrutinise the business of this of attention when they were in Government. Government. The whole of the community Do I need to remind those members just how had been told by this Minister, “Of course you much their former leader understood about can scrutinise this business.” The Fitzgerald the doctrine of the separation of powers and document, which was referred to earlier, how very much unstuck they came? stated that, prima facie, all documents held by Mr Briskey: The what? Government should be open to scrutiny. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Yes. He said, Mr Wells: No, it didn’t. It spelt out the “What?” principle of Cabinet confidentiality. Mr Bredhauer: “You tell me, and I’ll tell Mr GILMORE: I am glad to see that the you if you’re right.” Minister is awake. I have provoked him and Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is right. actually disturbed his eyelids. The centrepiece of this amendment—the part Mr T. B. Sullivan: You little worm. He’s that is causing the most heat—is what the been awake all the time. Attorney referred to in his second-reading Mr GILMORE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I speech as the first of the aims of the Bill, that find that remark offensive and I would like it is— withdrawn. “to clarify the original intent of the Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Power): Legislature in relation to the Cabinet and Order! The member will withdraw the remark. Executive Council exemptions in sections 36 and 37”. Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: I withdraw. That is the first of the three aims of this piece Mr GILMORE: Members are finding that of legislation, and that is what is causing the a principle that was brought into this House most heat. I believe that it is proper for the some 12 months or so ago—having been Government to do this. The Government is dragged in very slowly so that nobody could entitled to have its interpretation of its own get access to information prior to the last legislation take precedence. If people in other election—and promoted to the people of positions take a different interpretation from Queensland as being access to information that of the Government, the Government is has now been wound up so tightly that similarly entitled to bring into this place an nobody will be able to investigate and find out amendment to ensure that its interpretation information that this Minister and his takes precedence. That is what is happening Government try to hide. They are saying, here. “Nobody can investigate this Government any further. We have sneaky business afoot, and I listened to the member for Tablelands nobody is going to find out what it is—not and his complaints about having to pay for through this legislation and not under this freedom of information. The member for Minister.” Indooroopilly spoke at great length in this Parliament on his need to be able to get Mr J. H. SULLIVAN (Caboolture) whatever information he needs for free. (9.45 p.m.): I enter this debate to support the Members have witnessed the abuse. The amendments. I do so latterly, having recently member for Cleveland spoke about abuse. added my name to the list of speakers, During the Estimates debate, I mentioned the because I must admit that I was provoked abuse of the member for Caloundra, who beyond restraint by the contribution of the caused the Department of Health to spend member for Tablelands. The member $18,000-plus gathering information. In commenced his contribution by criticising January this year, the member for Caloundra Government speakers as being went to the media and told them what a sanctimonious. That is classic! That comment wonderful job she was going to do. She said came from the sultan of sanctimony, who she was going to test the freedom of accused Government members of being information law. The freedom of information sanctimonious. law was not found wanting, but Mrs Sheldon Mr Wells: Hypocritical in the extreme. was found wanting. However, she still Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Exactly. The managed to get the media to indicate that member paid particular attention to the she was going to test the law. The member for contribution of the member for Cleveland, who Legislative Assembly 6055 18 November 1993

Tablelands was obviously also going to test never lived up to the rhetoric, or even tried to. the law. Now it seeks to amend the legislation; but for In some ways, I look forward to a return the worse, not the better. to Treasury benches by members opposite—I Journalists in particular have managed to hasten to add: should I live that obtain some useful information by intelligently long—because I would be interested to see pursuing information under the provisions of the member for Tablelands standing up here the Act. There has, however, been good in this place and moving that these cause for concern that the Act allowed the amendments that we are discussing today be Government too much latitude in pursuing reversed. I would bet quids—and would cover-ups of matters which had the potential accept any odds—that he would not do that. to embarrass it. The member made gratuitous criticism of I cite two examples of the way the hardworking members of this Government, Government has used supposedly democratic namely, the members for Cleveland and legislation to thwart the efforts of the Gold Everton, who are excellent members of the Coast Bulletin. There is the infamous matter of Attorney’s committee. To top it all off, the the request for a probity report related to the member could not even, with any sort of Brisbane casino licence. It is hard to think of a finesse, visit insults upon the member for document more deserving of release under Chermside, who was interjecting during his freedom of information provisions. But the contribution to the debate—no finesse at all. Government has done nothing but duck and In conclusion, can I say that the member weave on this. We have even had the for Tablelands could aptly be described as ridiculous situation where the Government being akin to a ferret in a trouser leg. If one refused either to confirm or deny the existence has a ferret in one’s trouser leg, one feels very of such a report. The Bulletin would not be put apprehensive. However, history shows that off, and appealed that response. It then found they never do any harm. a breathtaking impropriety. Mr GRICE (Broadwater) (9.50 p.m.): The The decision maker was the person in actions of this Government are founded on charge of the unit that prepared the report. deceit. It came to office promising honesty, The appeal officer was the secretary of the openness and accountability. We are still Government’s casino licence selection waiting to see any of those fine words put into committee. The Government might like to practice. Of course, many people fell for the argue the propriety of that, but I reckon that rhetoric and they had their hopes raised when those two people were right out of court even the Government legislated for freedom of laying a finger on the application. The story information. There was a lot said about a right does not end there. The Government ended to know. There was a lot said about six months of effort by the Gold Coast Bulletin information being automatically available by the act of the Attorney-General issuing a unless there was good reason for certificate under the Act, which halted an suppression. The Minister boasted that the appeal to the Information Commissioner. Queensland FOI legislation was the most free Given the public controversy about the of all and that exemptions were the absolute casino licence, and given the potential for minimum required. people to wonder whether something might Mr T. B. Sullivan: Who said that? be amiss, that probity report should clearly be Mr GRICE: The honourable member’s in the public arena. That it is not raises Minister. The Opposition has always accepted questions about the honesty and the need for some sensible exemptions, accountability of the Goss Government. The including that applying to genuine Cabinet fact that the Government used so many documents. These amendments are designed devices, including clearly inappropriate people to allow the Government to crawl back behind to knock back the information request, is a the secrecy shield. They are designed to put further indication of something quite smelly. the important Government decisions well out The second major case involving the of the reach of informed criticism. Under the Gold Coast Bulletin involved documents revised rules, the freedom of information relating to the commitment of $6.25m of becomes the freedom from information. Under public money to pay Channel 9 to televise the the revised rules, every dirty little deal can Indy car race. Treasury opposed the release once more be protected from the public gaze. of the documents on the basis that they had The Attorney-General got the rhetoric been communicated in confidence. A total of right when he brought in the original freedom 180 documents was involved in the two cases of information legislation. His Government has and some of the reasons for refusing were 18 November 1993 6056 Legislative Assembly almost laughable. About the most and deliberations are candid and unconvincing was that particular documents unrestricted. Part of the convention could lead to what the Treasury FOI decision therefore recognises that Cabinet papers maker referred to as “unproductive debate”. are confidential.” Consider the two matters that were Nobody on the Opposition side of the House involved: the granting of a casino objects to ministerial responsibility. We do not licence—virtually a licence to print object to candid and unrestricted discussion in money—and a multi million dollar contract to Cabinet. I have already said that we do not broadcast the Indy race. If they are not proper object to the confidentiality of genuine Cabinet subjects for public debate, I do not know what documents. However, I personally object subjects are. It is towering arrogance that a strenuously to the Attorney-General’s public servant in Treasury should decree that reference to those things as a reference for that debate would be unproductive. I suggest erecting a wall of secrecy around practically the public servant who took that attitude had a every aspect of Government administration. little guidance. I further suggest that the I am not deceived by all the fine words guidance came from a political master with about conventions that the Government totally more than a little to hide. If it was all on the up ignores as a matter of routine. I am not and up, the documents would have been deceived that this legislation is about released and the story would probably have protecting the confidentiality of Cabinet gone away. discussions. I know it is all about a The Information Commissioner has been Government doing business the same way no more impressed with the Government’s that a cockroach does—in the dark and in attitude to FOI than has the Bulletin. In his constant fear of discovery. report on an appeal earlier this year, he The people of Queensland should be referred to bureaucrats as “elitist and offended that the Attorney-General has the paternalistic”. That was in response to a gall to talk about the Westminster convention rejection that claimed that the release of of ministerial responsibility. If the Goss Labor material would confuse the public. Those Government believed in that convention, the bureaucrats and the Government that gives current Minister for Primary Industries would them their riding instructions should remember not be in the Cabinet now. Nor would the the basis of our democracy: power flows to Lands Minister or the Health Minister. They elected members and the Parliament from the would all be making room down at the back in people. Bureaucrats and Governments only the aviary for the Minister for Family Services use power conferred by the people through and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs, and for a the Parliament. few others. If the Goss Labor Government Newspapers like the Gold Coast Bulletin really believed in ministerial responsibility, it and the Courier-Mail have had difficulties in would act against all of those people and it the past with our sham FOI laws. They are would regain a bit of public respect. It would about to find just how difficult this Goss Labor also please a few people who reckon that they Government can be to penetrate and just how should get the nod for the best seats up the desperate it is to operate out of sight. front. A moment ago, I mentioned deceit. This Access to the information held by amendment Bill provides a prime example of Government is a relatively modern deceit. In his second-reading speech, the phenomenon. In Australia, it dates from the Minister put great store on how this Bill was Whitlam/Fraser era in Australian Government designed to enhance ministerial responsibility. and, as the Minister said, took a long time to I still cannot believe that he said that, and I percolate through the whole system. It has am sure that other members cannot, either. always met with a lot of opposition from the So, I will quote him just to make sure— public service, based on the traditional “The conventions of collective and relationships between Ministers and the public individual ministerial responsibility are servants in their departments. fundamental to democratic Government Before Labor Governments began to based on the Westminster system. A erode the positions of public servants and, purpose of collective ministerial indeed, the Westminster traditions of responsibility is to ensure that Cabinet is responsible government, things operated very responsible to Parliament, and through differently from the way they do today. Public the Parliament, to the electorate. In servants gave advice on the basis that they arriving at the collective position of the were part of an apolitical career service with Cabinet, it is essential, that discussions high professional standards. Advice to Legislative Assembly 6057 18 November 1993

Ministers was given honestly and objectively The new exclusion includes, as part of on the basis that the Minister and Cabinet the Cabinet exemption, any material about an would accept the consequences of action issue which has been proposed as a matter taken or not taken on that advice. Anonymity for Cabinet. In an extreme case, just about was essential because the politicians, rather anything a department deals with would than the public servants, should conduct the qualify for secrecy under this amending Bill. public debate. Secrecy was part of the With this Government’s record, we can compact between politician and bureaucrat, certainly expect the most severe restrictions. but Labor Governments right throughout The comfort of the Cabinet and its political Australia have changed the relationships advisers is no imperative for secrecy laws. The between Ministers and public servants. They Attorney-General and others in the Cabinet have mounted a sustained attack on the make a great noise about democracy, but I concept of an apolitical public service. They submit that secrecy does not imply have also steadily eroded concepts of democracy. It is a firm indication of the ministerial responsibility. opposite. The Goss Government has politicised the As the Gold Coast Bulletin stated recently public service as part of the so-called in a review of FOI, democracy relies on a well- Fitzgerald reform process which it uses to informed public. Even the Fitzgerald report justify everything it does. That politicisation made that point. Most things that this applies particularly at the policy levels of the Government does are prefaced with a public service where ministerial advice is reference to Fitzgerald as a means of generally prepared. The policy areas of most attaching some sort of legitimacy to them. But departments are now sheltered workshops for the Attorney-General is only a fair-weather ALP hacks, and there are plenty of those. The Fitzgerald apostle. In common with the rest of Goss Labor Government can no longer claim the Government, he invokes Fitzgerald when it that secrecy is necessary to protect public suits and ignores him when it does not. In servants from exposure of their advice. It can case the Attorney wants to recant, I will no longer credibly claim that it keeps its provide him with this suitable quote from deliberative process a secret in order to Fitzgerald— prevent the exposure of public servants to the “A Government can use its control of political process. Parliament and public administration to Public servants who are involved in giving manipulate, exploit and misinform the policy advice now are generally members of community, or to hide matters from it. the Labor Party, appointed to their positions Structures and systems designed for the because of just that fact. Any move back to purpose of keeping the public informed secrecy can only be explained in terms of must therefore be allowed to operate as protecting the Government and its hack intended.” advisers from informed public debate on their As far as the Goss Labor Government is actions. It is probably highly significant that concerned, “democracy” is nothing more than this legislation comes before the House after a convenient word for use in Opposition. In the recent troubles of the Minister for Primary Government, it becomes a nuisance, to be Industries and the Health Minister, to name dispensed with as soon as possible. just a couple. Mr Dollin: You’re in Opposition. We should remember the magnificent work done by the State Public Services Mr GRICE: The member should pay Federation earlier this year in exposing the attention. After all, this is the second example Government’s vicious attacks on the in one day of the Goss Government in action. productive areas of the Department of Primary Only a short time ago, we had the spectacle Industries. Without freedom of information, of the Goss Labor Government using its almost none of the material used in the numbers to trample on the rights of people union’s campaign would have been available. living in the vicinity of Lang Park. In common When this amendment becomes law, there with honesty, openness and accountability, will be none of that information. Because of and ministerial responsibility, Labor has found the way in which these amendments have a new definition for “democracy” in been written, the minutes of the DPI senior Queensland. When Labor uses its numbers to management group would be excluded from force this legislation through the House, it will FOI, and so would the minutes of the be revealed to all Queenslanders for what it is. prioritisation workshops. That material would It is a Government bent on doing its dirty work clearly be a candidate for a Government claim in secret, no matter how else it wants to paint of exclusion. it. This legislation simply proves that. 18 November 1993 6058 Legislative Assembly

Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba— Minister collective Cabinet responsibility. In every single for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister case, they have said, “No, we are not going to for the Arts) (10.05 p.m.), in reply: The great release those documents.” I put it to thing that has come out of tonight’s debate is honourable members that members of the the very novel experience which we on the Opposition have one rule for the Government Government side have had of being able to sit and another rule for themselves when they back and watch honourable members of the were in Government. Liberal Party and the National Party mouthing Mr Springborg: Tell us about the Cooke words such as “honesty”, “open government”, Inquiry. “accountability”, and “freedom of information”. Mr Rowell: Tell us about the Hanger Mr Bredhauer: There must be a Report. ventriloquist over there. Mr WELLS: I would tell the honourable Mr WELLS: I accept the remark made by members opposite all sorts of things if they the honourable member. An even more novel were relevant. However, I might refer to some experience is hearing them stand up and of the remarks that were made by honourable make set-piece speeches in which they all members opposite. Before doing so, I should purport to take the high moral ground. They thank the honourable member for Cleveland, quote Fitzgerald as though it came perfectly the honourable and learned member for naturally to them. They quote the desirability Everton and the honourable member for of the free flow of information. These people Caboolture for their very worthwhile who were converted to accountability of contributions. The refutations that they have government on the very night of the election delivered in response to the farrago of in 1989 are now making these remarkable nonsense that was provided by honourable speeches.To adopt the words of Samuel members opposite has made it unnecessary Johnson, the speeches they make about for me to go into as much detail as I would accountability and open government are “a bit otherwise have done. But I should say this: like a dog walking on its hind legs. It doesn’t there are two important principles to which this do it very well. The amazing thing is that it can Government must subscribe. These are the do it at all.” principles of accountability and the principles I would like to know, though, whether of the maintenance of the Westminster they are prepared to put their money where conventions. That is what the Fitzgerald report their mouth is. They stand up and talk about was about. how the doctrine of Cabinet secrecy should be Although the Fitzgerald report was eroded, how it should be cut away at the quoted ad nauseam by honourable members edges, and how little bits should get in there opposite, they failed to notice the balance that and so forth, but do they practise this was contained in the Fitzgerald report. themselves? I would like to hear from the Explicitly, Mr Justice Fitzgerald, as he now is, Leader of the Liberal Party or the Leader of referred to the necessity of maintaining the the National Party about what they do when secrecy of Cabinet deliberations. That is a very they are asked under the freedom of important and crucial element of our information machinery whether they object to democratic system. The Preamble to this Bill a Cabinet document dated prior to 1989 being spells this out and this is a great principle released. Is it the case that every single time without which this House and this democracy they say, “No”, or is it the case that they could not function. The Bill states— sometimes say “Yes”? “Whereas— I do not actually know the answer to that question because, contrary to the imputations (1) The Westminster system of made by honourable members opposite, I government is based on the responsibility have not asked the sort of questions that of Cabinet to Parliament and Parliament would elicit the response. I have not asked the to the electorate; public servants that question. However, I have (2) The purpose of the convention of asked the Leader of the National Party and Ministerial responsibility under the the Leader of the Liberal Party to stand in this Westminster system is to secure the Parliament and deny that they do that, collective responsibility of Ministers to because I suggest that that is precisely what Parliament; they do. I suggest that the reason why we do (3) The collective responsibility of not see very many Cabinet documents that Ministers is only possible if Cabinet originated prior to 1989 is precisely that they debate is candid and unrestricted; have, in detail, subscribed to the principle of Legislative Assembly 6059 18 November 1993

(4) An object of Parliament in reversing a decision that was made by the enacting the Freedom of Information Act Information Commissioner was in some way 1992 was to ensure that the convention skin off the nose of the Information of Ministerial responsibility was preserved; Commissioner. It would not be skin off the (5) It is, therefore, the intention of nose of a judge of the Supreme Court if a Parliament to make provision, by decision of a judge were to be reversed by this amendments included in . . . this Act, to Parliament. Judges constantly expound the remove any doubt that Cabinet view that they interpret the legislation as they documents and discussions are to believe it should be interpreted. They say, “If receive a level of confidentiality our interpretation does not accord with the appropriate to preserving the convention intention of the Legislature, then it is of Ministerial responsibility intended by competent for the Legislature to change it.” Parliament.” That is a standard procedure in the legal system. It is a standard move in the In other words, that Preamble is saying that, jurisprudence of our courts. to a very considerable extent, these amendments are declaratory. They reaffirm That is what is occurring tonight. A the original intention of this Parliament when determination of the Information the Freedom of Information Act was passed. Commissioner had the effect that certain They reaffirm the original intention of the Cabinet documents were to be made widely Fitzgerald report, which can be clearly seen available. That decision established a even from the excerpts which were quoted precedent which could have the effect that from the Fitzgerald report by Opposition many more Cabinet documents would members. They honestly and fairly read out become widely available. The effect of that the whole excerpts, although they lowered would be to undermine the Westminster their voices and mumbled a bit when they convention of Cabinet secrecy—a convention were reading those parts where Fitzgerald without which our democracy cannot work. I refers to the necessity of the balance and make no criticism of the Information where Fitzgerald refers to the necessity of Commissioner for interpreting the legislation maintaining the secrecy of Cabinet according to his lights—according to the way deliberations. Nevertheless, it was there and he sees it. His job is to interpret the legislation clear for everybody to see. as he sees it. Our job is to protect the public interest, and it must be clear to every member The principle of Cabinet responsibility and of this House, if they consider it rightly, that the principle of accountability are two the public interest demands that Cabinet principles without which one cannot have deliberations should be secret and, if they Government. It is essential to find the accept that, then they will agree to take the balance. This night’s debate is not a contest necessary remedial action. between those two principles. This night’s debate is about where that balance is to lie. The proposition to the effect that this The Government submits that the balance lies night’s work is in some way a retreat from the where Fitzgerald says that it should lie. The Freedom of Information Act of 1992, or that it deliberations of Cabinet should and must be is in some way a retreat from the Fitzgerald secret. Without the secrecy of those recommendations, is simply false. It is nothing deliberations, one cannot have the candour of the kind. It is a restoration of the original which the people of this State are entitled to intention of the Parliament. It is a restoration expect from Ministers when they go in a of those Westminster conventions without Cabinet meeting so that all points of view are which our democracy cannot be sustained. adequately expressed. It is not an either/or I would like to refer to some of the situation between accountability and the particular points that were made by Westminster conventions; both are honourable members opposite. I will start with accommodated by this legislation. If the honourable member for Indooroopilly. I honourable members opposite were to be note that he very properly referred to the frank with themselves, they would say that necessity of secrecy of Cabinet documents, those amendments merely reinstate the and he quoted Fitzgerald as saying that that original intention of the Parliament when it was necessity existed. He mentioned personal unanimous in passing the freedom of affairs documents and suggested that, information legislation. somehow, this legislation was going to affect Mention has been made of Fencray’s those. case. It has been suggested by Opposition Mr Beanland: No, I said it excluded members that the fact that Parliament was them. It has no relationship with those at all. 18 November 1993 6060 Legislative Assembly

Mr WELLS: Good. I thank the I move on to the remarks made by the honourable member for that clarification. I honourable member for Tablelands. He said point out that 75 per cent of all applications that the other States have only recently that are made under freedom of information brought in freedom of information; therefore, are for personal affairs documents. These are the previous Government which failed during free. They are the freest in Australia; they are its period in office to bring in freedom of the easiest to get in Australia. However, the information was not out of step with the other honourable member seemed to suggest that States. That is what the honourable member the media were the big users of freedom of said. That is incorrect. He pointed out that, in information in some way. I point out that that 1982, the Commonwealth brought in freedom is not actually the case. Since the legislation of information. I supplied the information that, came in, the Australian and the Courier-Mail in 1983, Victoria brought in freedom of between them have made less than a dozen information. It was in 1988 that New South applications for freedom of information. As the Wales brought in freedom of information. In honourable member says, the big users are 1989, the ACT brought in freedom of the citizens of this State—the people who information. So there were four other have the greatest vested interest in the jurisdictions during the period that the maintenance of Westminster democracy. conservatives were in power in this State that They are the big users of freedom of had Freedom of Information Acts. information. Those are the people whom we Mr Borbidge: How long did it take you? are protecting tonight. They are the big users of freedom of information: the people who Mr WELLS: It took the Opposition seven profited from the introduction of freedom of years to do nothing. It took this Government information legislation in this State; the people two and a half years to introduce the who come daily into members’ electorate legislation, and it did a thorough job. offices and say, “I now have this information Mr Borbidge: It took you two and a half about my life” or “I now have this information years to do nothing. about my family that I was not able to receive Mr WELLS: I am happy to take the in the dark days of the previous Government.” interjection by the honourable member for Every member of this House would have had Surfers Paradise, because I would like it on the experience where somebody has come record what an asinine and dopey remark it into his or her office and said, “My life has was. Two and a half years to do nothing! been changed by the Freedom of Information Act.” They are the people who have the This freedom of information legislation is greatest vested interest in the maintenance of the most advanced freedom of information the Westminster principles which we are legislation in Australia. It is state-of-the-art upholding tonight. freedom of information legislation. It is freedom of information legislation that was Mr Stoneman interjected. recommended by EARC. It was Mr WELLS: The honourable member recommended by members of the honourable would no more know what time it is than he member’s own political party. Honourable would know what day it is. However, the members are not held in high esteem by the honourable member for Lockyer made some Leader of the Opposition. We know that he points to which I would like to refer. He asked does them down when they come to a some questions, and he asked that I answer different point of view from his when sitting on those questions. I will answer them. He asked a parliamentary committee. whether the general public have access to What is he doing again? He is disowning information about who has applied for the work of his own members who sat on the freedom of information, and the costs of the EARC committee that recommended this application. The answer is that, of course, freedom of information legislation and these people can make a freedom of information doctrines. The Leader of the Opposition is application about anything. They can make a going around the State and around the freedom of information application about who country—— has made a freedom of information application. If they do that, they will receive Mr T. B. Sullivan: If he dumps his own the answer. The other question the member members, they might even dump him soon. asked was: will the Minister, as a matter of Mr WELLS: I thank the honourable course, hear about an application that is member for Chermside for his interjection; he made in his or her own department? The should try to come up with another. The answer is, “No.” honourable member for Surfers Paradise is going around the State and around the whole Legislative Assembly 6061 18 November 1993 country talking up the idea of amalgamation under freedom of information requests. I am between the Liberal Party and the National sure that the honourable member will accept Party. With such a paucity of ideas as is this reply in good faith: that is not so. Section exhibited by the Leader of the Opposition, no 14 of the Freedom of Information Act actually wonder he wants to do something like that. encourages public servants to give information But that is not as good as the arrangement outside of the freedom of information that was in place when his mentor Bjelke- guidelines. It is provided for in the statute. Petersen was in power. Mr Gilmore: That might be true in the In those days, a number of the Liberals Act, but it is not happening in practice. were persuaded to rat and join the National Mr WELLS: I am advised by the Party. But these days they are opting for Freedom of Information Unit that many amalgamation. Amalgamation is not as departments that give out information are effective for his purpose, because it is IQ saying to people, “Do not go this way; it just neutral. At least when he was getting the takes a whole lot of paperwork that you do not Liberals to rat and join the National Party, need. We will give the information to you there was a net increase in intelligence of both straightaway.” coalition parties. Honourable members should think about it. Mr Gilmore: But they do not. The honourable member for Clayfield was Mr WELLS: If the honourable member complaining about the time it took for him to wants me to, I will have the matter taken up get a response from the Department of by the Freedom of Information Unit in my Employment, Training and Industrial department, and we will get back to him if he Relations. He said it took five weeks—that is has specific instances. only 35 days. Under the FOI Act, which Mr Gilmore: Next time it happens, I’ll honourable members opposite voted for, the drop it in to you. decision makers have 45 days before their Mr WELLS: That would probably be a time is up. I do not know why the honourable reasonable way of handling the matter. As for member thought he should be given special the honourable member for Broadwater—I treatment over and above other members of can pay him the maximum amount of respect the community—the ordinary people who are by saying that there was very little that he said trying to find out information about their own that was at variance with what his colleagues lives. had previously said. The Department of Employment, Training I would like to sum up in this way, and Industrial Relations is one department because I know that honourable members will that is absolutely inundated with freedom of divide the House. I know that they think they information requests. It has had 2 250 are onto a good thing. I know that they are requests since freedom of information started. revelling in the completely novel experience of Our freedom of information legislation is attributing to themselves a certain degree of extremely popular with the people for whom it self-righteousness. They think that they have was intended. It was used by more people in convinced the people of Queensland that they Queensland in its first year of operation than are on the high moral ground. They think that similar New South Wales freedom of if they can cynically oppose Cabinet secrecy information legislation was used in its first while nevertheless maintaining it in private year. Considering the difference in population, every time a pre-1989 Cabinet decision is that is remarkable feat. The people of made known to them, they will score a few Queensland have voted with their feet in political points. favour of freedom of information. We have legislation that is working well. Mr Gilmore: How many people on this side of the House said that we opposed the The honourable member for Tablelands production of Cabinet documents? also made a point about which I may be able to offer him my assistance. He said that Mr WELLS: I think it is becoming very information was provided at no cost before clear that this is what honourable members freedom of information legislation came into opposite are doing. operation. It is still provided at no cost in the Mr Borbidge: How many documents case of personal affairs documents. He went have you tabled? on to say that people were able to see their Mr WELLS: The honourable member for own files in the glorious days of the Bjelke- Surfers Paradise has bitten. None— because Petersen Government, and that now no public we are openly advocating the Westminster servant will provide information other than convention of Cabinet secrecy. But whenever 18 November 1993 6062 Legislative Assembly he is consulted on the question of whether any of the National Party’s Cabinet documents Committee should be released, I put it to him that he always says “No”. Hon. D. M. Wells (Murrumba—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for Mr Borbidge: I have tabled three in here. the Arts) in charge of the Bill. Mr WELLS: I put it to the honourable Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to. member that he always says “No” whenever Clause 4— he is consulted. Does the honourable member deny that? I have asked the honourable Mr BEANLAND (10.37 p.m.): Clause 4 member seven times. He has not denied it. I amends section 36. This clause is the heart of would like Hansard to record that he has not the amendments before us this evening. An denied it. examination of the current legislation reveals that—— Honourable members opposite can cynically undermine Westminster conventions The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr if they like. If they wish, in the short term, they Bredhauer): Order! The Committee will come can try to get some favourable media publicity to order. out of their cynical abandonment of Mr BEANLAND: At present, section 36 Westminster conventions. While they are in states— Opposition—and they will be for some “Matter is exempt matter if— time—they can trade on this sort of thing. They can posture; they can adopt these (a) it has been submitted, or is proposed positions that they know they will not have to by a Minister to be submitted, to make good—they will not be standing on the Cabinet for its consideration and was Treasury benches asserting the rights of the brought into existence for the people of Queensland. They can do that as purpose of submission for much as they like, but they know that the consideration by Cabinet; or Westminster conventions are being protected (b) it forms part of an official record of and defended by the Goss Labor Cabinet; or Government. (c) it is a draft of matter mentioned in Honourable members know that the paragraph (a) or (b); or integrity of the Fitzgerald process and the (d) it is a copy of, or contains an extract EARC process is being reasserted by these from, a matter or a draft of matter amendments. They know that we have the mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b); or best freedom of information legislation in (e) its disclosure would involve the Australia. They know that any Queenslander disclosure of any deliberation or can go anywhere else in Australia and say, decision of Cabinet, other than “We in Queensland abide by the Westminster matter that has been officially conventions. We uphold those Westminster published by decision of Cabinet.” conventions, even while it is temporarily unpopular to do so. We have the best The amendment that is proposed in this freedom of information legislation in Australia.” legislation reads— Question—That the Bill be now read a “Matter is exempt matter if— second time—put; and the House divided— (a) it has been submitted to Cabinet for AYES, 47—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bennett, Bird, its consideration; or Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Budd, Burns, Campbell, (b) it is or was prepared for submission Casey, Clark, Comben, D’Arcy, Davies, Dollin, to Cabinet for its consideration and is Edmond, Foley, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hollis, proposed, or has at any time been Mackenroth, McElligott, McGrady, Milliner, Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Power, Purcell, Pyke, proposed, by a Minister to be Robertson, Robson, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., submitted to Cabinet for its Sullivan T. B., Szczerbanik, Vaughan, Warner, consideration; or Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers: Pitt, Livingstone (c) it was prepared for briefing a Minister NOES, 27—Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper, about an issue proposed, or that has Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Grice, at any time been proposed, to be Healy, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, McCauley, considered by Cabinet; or Perrett, Quinn, Rowell, Santoro, Simpson, Slack, Stoneman, Turner, Veivers Tellers: Springborg, (d) it forms part of an official record of Laming Cabinet; or Resolved in the affirmative. (e) it is a draft of a matter mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d); or Legislative Assembly 6063 18 November 1993

(f) it is a copy of, or contains an extract As I have indicated, in no way will this from, matter or a draft of matter provision affect the 75 per cent of applications mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) for personal information. It will affect the other or (d); or 25 per cent—the contentious and sensitive (g) its disclosure would involve the matters, a small percentage of which the disclosure of any deliberation or Government may want to sweep under the decision of Cabinet, other than carpet. That will certainly be possible because matter that has been officially of the broadening of the exemptions provided published by decision of Cabinet.” for under this clause. The Opposition strenuously opposes this clause. Because of its importance, I thought it desirable to read out that provision. It is the The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I heart of these amendments. It widens ask the Committee again to come to order. If considerably the exemption of Cabinet matter. honourable members want to have In layman’s terms, this clause means that all conversations, they should have them outside documents that come before the Cabinet will the Chamber. automatically fall within the exemption Mr WELLS: If the effect of this provision category. That is fair enough. But it means was in fact to exempt all the documents to further that any document that was created for which the honourable member referred, I can the purpose of a submission to Cabinet and is understand why he would oppose this clause. or was proposed to be submitted to Cabinet In fact, this clause is not about exempting all will also be exempted. Proof is not required those documents. I ask the that the sponsoring Minister had a current honourable member to look at the first line of intention of proceeding to Cabinet in relation proposed new section 36 (1), which states— to documents that were created for the “Matter is exempt matter if—” purpose of a submission to Cabinet. The widening of the exemption category is clearly I ask the honourable member for Indooroopilly evident. If the Minister had an intention that a if I could possibly have his ear for a moment, document was to go to Cabinet, that because I may be able to clarify this matter. document will be excluded. In addition, the Mr Beanland: You have my ear. I am Cabinet exemption includes any briefing notes reading your document. for a Minister about an issue proposed or that Mr WELLS: I cannot hear the member. has at any time been proposed to be considered by Cabinet. As well, this provision The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! will be retrospective. The Minister is having difficulty in hearing. I request for the final time that conversations in In very succinct terms, this clause is the Chamber cease, otherwise I will begin significant because it widens the exemption warning people under the provisions of the provisions substantially. I understand the Standing Orders. argument of the Attorney about the principles of the deliberations of Cabinet and Mr WELLS: It is not about the exemption accountability. No-one questions the need for of documents; it is about the exemption of secrecy about the deliberations of Cabinet or matter. The documents containing all of the the need for accountability. However, through matter that is not relevant to the Cabinet this clause, the Attorney is ripping the heart decision are still accessible. Only the material out of what was freedom of information, so that relates to the Cabinet decision and that that it now becomes freedom from throws light on the workings of Cabinet is information. It cannot be more clearly stated. exempt. It is not the exemption of documents. The Minister will rip the heart out of freedom of So, I can perfectly understand why the information, which has been scrutinised by member would be hostile to this if it were the EARC, the Parliamentary Committee for case that the documents were being Electoral and Administrative Review and this exempted, but it is not about the exemption of Government. However, now the Attorney is documents; it is about the exemption of bleating that the Information Commissioner is matter which would expose those matters taking freedom of information further than was which were the subject of Cabinet secrecy. expected. I suspect that the true picture is that Mr FITZGERALD: Obviously there is there is too much heat in the kitchen for the some confusion about exactly what is exempt Cabinet. Consequently, Ministers want to bail and what is not. In his second-reading out now and broaden the exemption speech, the Minister highlighted a case where provisions. the Commissioner of Information released information. I understand that an application had been made for 11 items and that he has 18 November 1993 6064 Legislative Assembly released nine of them. Subsequently, Cabinet The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! To decided that it wants to amend the legislation read that quote again I would regard as to stop that information being released. What repetitious. It is in Hansard, it has been heard was contained in those nine items was by the Minister, and I rule accordingly. subsequently released under the freedom of Mr BEANLAND: Mr Temporary Chairman, information legislation. As to those nine items I thank you for that. That is very generous of the Commissioner of Information released you, because that means that what I have against the wishes of the Premier’s already read into Hansard is correct, and I Department, I ask: could the Minister give this accept that. That was taken off the Minister’s Committee an indication of what they were so briefing notes. I thank the Temporary that members on this side of the Chamber Chairman for that. It quite clearly proves the can make up their minds as to whether they point I made to the Minister and the believe that the legislation needs tightening in Committee. the way that the Minister proposes? Mr Wells: What does it prove? I am not Mr WELLS: The kind of information which following you. can be released subject to the determination in Fencray includes items relating to the Mr BEANLAND: It quite clearly proves deliberations of Cabinet itself. These items what the broadening of the net is going to do might be, even in certain circumstances, in regard to Cabinet matters. I think that is expressions of opinions by Ministers, if those exactly what we are all about this expressions of opinions are sufficiently mixed evening—discussing what is going to fall within up with statistical or factual information. That is this broad net of exemptions that the Minister the danger of Fencray’s case. I say again, as I is proposing here. That is exactly what I read said before, that there is no criticism of the out a few moments ago from the Minister’s Information Commissioner for interpreting the briefing notes. It is now incorporated in statute as it seems to him proper that he Hansard, and I thank the Temporary should interpret it. It is simply a set-piece Chairman for confirming the point that I have move in the legal system if there is a been doing just that. I leave it at that. My case determination of a tribunal—typically a rests. I suggest that the Minister go back to court—which is not what the Legislature his own briefing notes to find out what his own intended, for the Legislature to come back legislation is all about. Clearly, from the and declare the law. That is what the Minister’s own mouth, he does not know. Government is doing in this case. Mr WELLS: I would ask the honourable I would emphasise that it is not ruling out member, in the most cooperative spirit with this particular section large scads of possible, to have a look at proposed section documents. It is ruling out matter. Matter is 36(1)—“Matter is exempt matter if . . .” It is exempt if it was briefing a Minister about an about “matter”; it is not about documents. It is issue proposed or that has at any time been about matter in a whole range of categories proposed to be considered by Cabinet. It is which, if released, would reveal the contents the matter, not the document. The document of a Cabinet discussion. If the honourable is available, but if the matter casts light on member wants the contents of a Cabinet what was going on in Cabinet, as indicated discussion to be revealed—then, fine, that is here, then I cannot believe that members of his choice; but I cannot really believe that he the Opposition would want that matter to be does. released. Mr BEANLAND: I listened intently to the Clerical Error Minister’s explanation in relation to Cabinet The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr matters and documents and I just want to say Bredhauer): Order! Honourable members, that I was quoting from the Minister’s own before I put this clause, I advise members that briefing material, not from something I dreamt the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has up. For that reason, perhaps I need to go advised that there are two typographical errors through it and quote it again so the Minister in the Bill: at page 5, line 14, proposed gets it straight. This is not a document which I subsection 36 (1) (b), omit the word “is” after produced. It has come from the Minister as “it”; and at page 6, line 10, proposed part of the material that has been circulated. It subsection 37 (1) (b), omit the word “is” after is the Minister’s material that I was reading “it”. into Hansard a few moments ago. I will do so again for the benefit of all members so that Question—That clause 4, as read, stand there is no question of what is involved. part of the Bill—put; and the Committee divided— Legislative Assembly 6065 18 November 1993

AYES, 47—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bennett, Bird, refers to a public authority. Government Braddy, Briskey, Budd, Burns, Campbell, Casey, members have said that the internal review is Clark, Comben, D’Arcy, Davies, Dollin, Edmond, done by the department; that it has nothing to Foley, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, do with the Minister, and it is a matter for Mackenroth, McElligott, McGrady, Milliner, Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Power, Purcell, Pyke, public servants. We all know how the system Robertson, Robson, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H., works, but I understand that this relates to a Sullivan T. B., Szczerbanik, Vaughan, Warner, case in which matters come within the Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers: Pitt, Livingstone Minister’s office—not within the departmental NOES, 27—Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper, area. I am relying on that being correct and Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Grice, hope that it will not be used in some Healy, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, McCauley, mischievous way to interfere further in the way Perrett, Quinn, Rowell, Santoro, Simpson, Slack, in which information is made available to the Stoneman, Turner, Veivers Tellers: Springborg, public. Laming Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 7 to 9, and Preamble, as read, The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! I agreed to. advise that for all future divisions of the Bill reported, without amendment. Committee on this Bill, the bells will be rung for two minutes. Clause 5— Third Reading Mr BEANLAND (10.56 p.m.): This clause Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba— Minister is, in fact, a repeat of clause 4, except that the for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister wording relates to the Executive Council rather for the Arts) (11 p.m.), by leave: I move— than Cabinet. Naturally, the Government “That the Bill be now read a third would want to make a similar amendment with time.” respect to the Executive Council. As with the Question put; and the House divided— previous clause, this makes the legislation retrospective. In other words, any applications AYES, 49—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bennett, Bird, Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Budd, Burns, Campbell, currently within the system will be picked up by Casey, Clark, Comben, D’Arcy, Davies, Dollin, this amendment. Current freedom of Edmond, Fenlon, Foley, Goss W. K., Hamill, information applications relating to the Hayward, Hollis, Mackenroth, McElligott, McGrady, Executive Council will be covered by these Milliner, Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Power, provisions. Purcell, Pyke, Robertson, Robson, Smith, Spence, I point out that I have been reading from Sullivan J. H., Sullivan T. B., Szczerbanik, Vaughan, Warner, Welford, Wells, Woodgate Tellers: Pitt, the Minister’s own notes. If he disputes what I Livingstone am saying, he is actually disputing his own notes. I thank him for making it quite clear that NOES, 28—Beanland, Borbidge, Connor, Cooper, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin, Gilmore, Grice, I have been reading from his notes and Healy, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, McCauley, having them incorporated in Hansard. I Perrett, Quinn, Randell, Rowell, Santoro, Simpson, believe that this makes it quite clear that the Slack, Stoneman, Turner, Veivers Tellers: Minister does not really know what legislation Springborg, Laming is before the House this evening. Resolved in the affirmative. Mr WELLS: Since the honourable member has expressed a willingness to read my notes, perhaps I will draft some speeches CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL for him and he might get some better material Debate resumed from 9 November (see on the record. p. 5474). Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly) Clause 6— (11.07 p.m.): The Opposition supports the Mr BEANLAND (10.58 p.m.): According concept of stalking legislation and will support to the Minister, this clause is a technical with grave reservations this legislation before amendment. I trust that it will be a technical the House. Our grave concerns relate to the amendment and that, in some way, by actual wording of the legislation and the failure including the words “or a delegate of the of the Minister to adequately consult the Minister”, this will not allow the Minister scope broad community, apart from the Domestic for more interference in the internal review of Violence Resource Centre and the Women’s matters as they come before the agency Legal Service. I had hoped that the Minister within each department. The term “agency” may have withdrawn the legislation and had it 18 November 1993 6066 Legislative Assembly redrafted, because I have consulted a number Government. Although there has been of people in relation to it and I am told that adequate time to consult, appropriately, those there are a number of shortcomings with the experts in the profession whose job it is to legislation, as I perceived myself when going produce correctly worded legislation, we see through it and going back to the current instead that the legislation is far from correctly Criminal Code wording. worded. In fact, it is full of generalities and For some months now, I have been vagueness. In fact, it reminds one of the calling on this Government for stalking prostitution legislation that was introduced into legislation that will deal with situations such as this House some time ago by this Government those that have been outlined in the and which is causing the Government all types legislation. The legislation is needed to protect of problems. All members would be very a person from being harassed, threatened, familiar with the failure, the catastrophe and followed or put under surveillance by another the disaster that that legislation has turned out person. Incidents of this nature may arise to be, as the coalition warned it would be. following the breakdown of a personal I should give the Minister one last relationship when the person not responsible opportunity to withdraw the legislation and for the break-up of the relationship feels consult more widely, as he should have done constrained to continue the relationship by in the first instance, and bring back this following, harassing, putting under surveillance legislation within the first couple of weeks of or threatening the person causing the break- the next session. After all, the Minister has up of their personal relationship. This law is, abundant resources which would enable him therefore, needed to assist and safeguard to do that. If he did so, I am sure that he people who are in real danger following the would bring back legislation to this House that break down of a marriage or de facto has vastly different wording and is far superior relationship, domestic problems, the simple to this fundamentally flawed legislation, of break down of a casual relationship, or an which all members should be ashamed. Other obsession. Opposition members will speak in detail about Generally, it is fair to say that the person the variety of situations in which stalking can who is causing the problem would be occur. In view of the lateness of the hour, I will obsessed or, at least, determined to make life not take up the time of the House by miserable or dangerous for the other party. discussing them. Unfortunately, these changes to the law are I understand that the Queensland Law necessary in response to the sad reality of Society is one of a number of groups that has society today. It is imperative that the written to the Minister expressing its grave Parliament and the law respond in a way that concerns. Obviously, the Attorney is turning a affords the greatest possible protection to blind eye to its submission. Because I, too, innocent citizens. Only recently, a woman was have received a round of submissions in murdered by her defacto husband two days relation to this issue, I will spend a little time after a restraining order had been taken out on some of the matters addressed by the Bill. against him. Until the concept of this In so far as criminal law deals with criminal legislation, the police have been powerless to responsibility, it should be value free. That is a deal with the situation of stalking unless the fundamental principle in the drafting of penal stalker committed some other crime. That statutes. To describe the person accused as meant that the person being stalked was living the “offender” and the complainant as the in constant fear. “victim” offends against this principle and is I will spend some time addressing the objectionable. lack of consultation, as there was none in the The Criminal Code Review Committee real sense with the broad cross-section of the appointed by the Minister, which reported in community who have an interest in the matter, June 1992, has done an excellent job in its apart from the two groups that I mentioned. final report by omitting gender distinctions The Minister certainly did not consult the from the criminal law and in presenting draft Queensland Law Society or the Criminal Law sections that are simple to understand and Group of the Queensland Law Society. The interpret. Nowhere in the committee’s Criminal Code Review Committee, likewise, proposals are references such as “offender” or has not been consulted. Nor, indeed, it would “victim” to be found. The language adopted in appear from the wording of the legislation, has the Bill usurps the function of the jury and the Queensland Law Reform Commission. presumes the guilt of the defendant. Again, we see a breakdown of the Fitzgerald The proposed amendment is a drafting reform processes, which nowadays is a nightmare and will create extraordinary and constantly recurring theme of this Legislative Assembly 6067 18 November 1993 unnecessary problems for both prosecution This legislation contains so many and defence. A number of States in the generalities and complexities of proof that the United States of America have introduced community would be better served by referring such offences as are referred to in the report the issue to the Criminal Law Review Rougher Than Usual Handling which was Committee to be settled in language that is provided to the Minister by the Women’s consistent with that adopted throughout the Legal Service. I understand that the American Queensland Criminal Code. No provisions have been drafted with recommendations in respect to the offence of considerably more restraint, and are of much stalking were contained in the committee’s more certain application, than the provisions final report. As I said at the outset, the contained in the Bill introduced by the Opposition strongly supports legislation that Minister. deals with stalking. For some time, we have To illustrate the problems of the Bill, let us been calling on the Government to introduce consider the requirements necessary to prove it. Unfortunately, it would appear that this the elements of the offence contained under legislation has every prospect of going the the definition of “unlawful stalking”. A court same way as the prostitution legislation, would need to be convinced that the course of namely, becoming unworkable because of the conduct “would cause a reasonable person in Minister’s failure to have the correct words the victim’s circumstances”—which is a difficult used in drafting. The Opposition supports the test involving both objective and subjective concept of the legislation. approaches—“serious concern that an Mr BRISKEY (Cleveland) (11.16 p.m.): I offensive act”—or a “concerning act”—“may am pleased that the Opposition supports the happen”. Perhaps the Minister will advise this Bill that is before the House this evening. It is House what “circumstances” mean in that an extremely important Bill and it is one that provision. Does the term embrace physical many Queenslanders would be very pleased and psychiatric characteristics, emotional to see introduced. Everyone has the right to states, economic standards, personality, live in peace and to go about his or her sexual or personal history? Presumably, in business without being harassed or feeling each case, the Crown will be required to prove intimidated. Restraining orders have been what the victim’s circumstances were. used, but there have always been a few What is a “serious concern”? How people who have ignored them and who have “serious” is it? The drafting raises interesting continued to harass their former partners. and difficult questions of degree for a court to Honourable members would be aware of determine. Of course, the “serious concern” the movie Fatal Attraction, which I notice is must be that “an offensive act may happen”. being shown on television on Friday evening What degree of likelihood is necessary for an this week. Of course, that movie depicts an offence to be committed? The elements of extreme case of what is commonly called the offence also require the court to be stalking. Unfortunately, cases of fatal convinced that “a concerning act” has attraction occur more often than anyone occurred on at least two occasions, and that a would like. Relationships often end without “concerning offensive act” may happen. Each one of the persons involved having any of these new terms is an element which would knowledge of why the relationship has broken need to be explained to, and understood by, down. As well, very rarely is any counselling a jury. My comments should serve to illustrate provided for the parties involved. the complexity of the proposed offence. Unfortunately, because of the rapidly To succeed, the prosecution would need changing society in which we live, extended to prove all of the elements, together with the families which used to provide comfort and further circumstances of aggravation created counselling for their members are now a thing by section 359A (6). It is also observed that of the past. For example, 1 000 people a the ultimate qualification of the “concerning week are moving from the southern States to offensive act” limits the offence to live in Queensland. These people are leaving circumstances in which the victim has a behind extended families from whom they had serious concern that an unlawful act of been able to obtain support, guidance and violence may happen. Many circumstances of help in times of crisis. harassment or nuisance would thus not be Unfortunately, when relationships break covered. A spurned, obsessed ex-lover who down, there is nowhere for a person to go to repeatedly followed someone would not obtain help or support. As well, most people commit an offence unless there was a have had little or no relationship education, reasonable concern that violence may occur. especially education on how to cope when a relationship breaks down. If a relationship 18 November 1993 6068 Legislative Assembly ends for a person who is having other frequently—and it will continue to happen. problems, then this can be the straw that After this Bill is passed through this House, breaks the camel’s back. Therefore, that those who stalk will be brought before the person may do things that he or she would courts, because there will be in the Criminal not normally have done. People in Code an offence of stalking. Those who work relationships have many pressures upon them with domestic violence groups will applaud this such as work-related problems or problems action because both their clients and related to being unemployed. People also themselves have been subjected to stalking. have other problems within relationships, and Because of the fear that those who are the cause may be of a sexual nature or of a being stalked live in, they believe that the monetary nature. In a lot of cases in which person who is stalking them is behind every one partner decides that a relationship should corner and their lives and everything that they end, that can be enough to make the other do becomes a nightmare. They do not know person—no matter to which social class that what to expect next. They cannot do anything person belongs—act or react in ways that they without wondering if the person who is stalking would normally not act or react. them is behind the next corner, or wondering It is imperative that people understand what is going to happen next to them, or to why other people break down and do things their loved ones. There are many examples of that they would not normally do, but violence what people have had to put up with in being or stalking cannot be condoned. As a society, stalked. Of course, there is the example of a we must ensure that no-one within our society Brisbane woman who was sent satanic cards has to live in fear. There can be no excuse for and was pestered with anonymous phone violence being committed against others, calls. There were also approximately 40 even if a person feels that the reason for the posters plastered in public places by the relationship ending was one particular party’s stalker—her former husband. Victims of fault. There can be no excuse for one party stalkers can include not only the person making the other party—the former closely related to the stalker but also other partner—live in fear. Of course, people who family members, friends, refuge workers, find themselves in the circumstances that I Family Court lawyers and media personalities. have described need counselling. Domestic violence liaison officer, Constable Liz As Brisbane psychologist Rosalind Brown, said that one of the worst cases that Nutting says, those who stalk are “people who she had witnessed was when a woman had to cannot let go of a relationship. It is the move 14 times in six years and change her obsession to get the person back again.” Most name to escape her stalker—her former de cases that Ms Nutting has seen involve facto husband. In other instances, people people who suffered from emotional have had to give up their jobs, or move abandonment or rejection by their parents. interstate or overseas to avoid stalkers. The She said that people who suffer from what Domestic Violence Resource Centre receives she calls a “love addiction” could learn to up to 50 calls a month from woman who are break the cycle by working on their self- considering moving away from their homes esteem and getting their lives together as and their families to escape stalkers. Every individuals. Ms Nutting believes that the day, people are being followed, or are being legislation that is presently being debated will watched, or are being approached on the help break down the cycle of stalking and that street. Every day, they are receiving abusive the legislation “will force them into doing and threatening phone calls. Every day, something about stalking, to break down people are being followed to their place of denial and get counselling and therapy. There work, and are having their friends and is a lot that can be done.” workmates harassed by stalkers and, every day, offensive material is being left around in I certainly agree with Ms Nutting. I believe the general public area for others to see. After that stalkers need counselling before they the passing of this Bill, all these and other acts either end up hurting the person or persons of harassment and intimidation will be illegal. whom they are stalking or, as a result of this legislation, before they go to gaol because of This Bill provides for a new crime of their stalking behaviour. unlawful stalking. I am certain that every Queenslander will applaud this change to the There can be absolutely no reason or Queensland Criminal Code, which provides for excuse for anybody stalking another and the this crime of unlawful stalking. Importantly, resultant fear that this engenders in the Queensland is the first State of Australia to person whom he or she is stalking. introduce such legislation. This amendment to Unfortunately, it happens—it happens all too the criminal law of Queensland came about as Legislative Assembly 6069 18 November 1993 a response to widespread community concern Under this legislation, there are two levels about stalking and those people in our of the stalking offence and, accordingly, community who live in fear. This Bill before the differing severities of punishment. The first House is positive proof that this Government level of unlawful stalking means that an listens to the people of Queensland, and that offender could be convicted if he or she it takes appropriate action. The crime of engages in a course of concerning acts unlawful stalking does not relate to simply a against persons or property on two separate one-off occurrence of following somebody; it occasions; the offender intends that the victim relates to two or more related separate acts of be aware that the course of conduct is stalking. It is my hope that, as a result of this directed at the victim; the victim is aware of new law, those who are involved in stalking will that course of conduct; and the course of no longer do it, and seek help. conduct will cause a reasonable person in the However, if the final outcome of a victim’s circumstances to believe that an person’s stalking is that that person receives a offensive act is likely to happen. A “concerning term of imprisonment, then that outcome is a act” includes loitering, watching, telephoning much better one than having another person someone, interfering with property, leaving living in constant fear and suffering the mental offensive material and acts of harassment. torment and obvious psychological damage This offence carries a maximum penalty of that is being inflicted on people who are being three years’ imprisonment, and could be dealt stalked. I compliment the Attorney-General with in the Magistrates Court by police and his departmental officers for their speedy prosecution. presentation of this Bill to the House following The more serious offence of aggravated the submissions and recommendations stalking carries a maximum punishment of five received from the community after the release years’ imprisonment if the offender, in carrying of the final report of the Criminal Code Review out concerning acts, also unlawfully uses, or Committee. It is my great pleasure to have threatens to use unlawful violence against been able to speak to this amendment in this another person or his or her property; has House, and to give my unqualified support to possession of a weapon; or threatens to this legislation. contravene an injunction or court order. This Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore) more serious offence would be dealt with in (11.25 p.m.): I applaud the amendment’s the District Court. intention to toughen up long-forgotten It is obvious that the threats under provisions of the Criminal Code, and to give section 359 of the Criminal Code or the Peace the law teeth where, previously, there have and Good Behaviour Act were insufficient to been weaknesses in other Acts. There has cater for some of the horrendous things that always been a provision in the Criminal Code have been occurring in the community. As the to deal with violent threats made against Minister knows, I have constituents who have people, but it has seldom been used. Its suffered severe and deliberate harassment, maximum penalty was one year’s which has destroyed their lives. Under the imprisonment, or a $400 fine. This existing laws, those people were powerless to amendment to the Criminal Code will help receive real justice. It is also important for victims who are not covered by the domestic people to realise that through other existing violence laws, or have not been helped by provisions of the Criminal Code, it will be an peace and good behaviour orders, to receive offence for people to procure others to commit some justice. acts of stalking. It will also be an offence to Domestic violence restraining orders only cause that offence to be committed from cover spouses, ex-spouses and, under certain across State boundaries. In other words, one conditions, their children. The only other Act cannot go over the border to New South under which people have been able to restrain Wales and ring a mate and ask him or her to other people was the Peace and Good commit offences without breaking the law. Behaviour Act. That Act was very weak, and There is a need for a law such as this, as offenders who breached it were seldom long as it is administered properly. The only pursued in court. If it was pursued, the offence question I raise, and which I direct to the was treated like a civil matter, and carried a Minister, is: what protection is there against maximum penalty of imprisonment for only people who are maliciously and falsely one year. Hopefully, this new law will give the accused? With all laws there is the risk of police some power to deal with offenders who abuse, particularly with such broad categories have been stalking or harassing people, of loitering, watching, approaching another particularly with the threat of violence. person, or telephoning the alleged victim. I have had concerns raised with me by people 18 November 1993 6070 Legislative Assembly in the legal profession about the poor wording restraint, or an offender follows a person other of the legislation, which does concern me. I than within the residence of the person, or hope that the intent of the Bill is not thwarted places a person under surveillance by by the poor drafting. remaining outside his or her school, Mr J. H. SULLIVAN (Caboolture) (11.28 workplace, vehicle or home. That is a fairly p.m.): I am pleased to enter the debate this long-winded definition. evening to support the amendments to the There are a number of other definitions, Criminal Code that provides for the offence of such as those used in New South Wales and stalking. in South Australia. But one definition that I like Mr Beattie: You and Fiona are on the was reported in the Canberra Times. It quoted same side. the Queensland Attorney-General talking about stalking being an issue of public safety. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is most He said— unusual. I say at the outset how pleasing it is that the shadow Attorney-General, Mr “We’re taking about a studied and Beanland, is more enlightened than the practised syndrome of behaviour where Attorney-General of New South Wales, who somebody deliberately sets out to cause sees no need for stalking laws in that State. I fear and to cause terror to another citizen commend the shadow Attorney-General not and a citizen’s family.” only for his support for this legislation but also That fairly succinctly sums up what we are on for being far-sighted over the last seven about here this evening. There are plenty of months in calling for the inevitable introduction other definitions but, in view of the hour, I will of this legislation. It was inevitable that we in not mention them tonight. Queensland were going to introduce It is important for us to acknowledge that legislation in respect of this offence. The first the offence of stalking is not one solely visited legislation of this type was introduced in the by men upon women and that there is a large United States in 1990 in the State of California element of protection from women in stalking and has, since then, been introduced in 30 laws. That is admitted quite freely in America, States in America. This type of offence is not where some 30 States have now introduced something which is quarantined in the United legislation as part of a rapidly spreading effort States of America; it is visible throughout the to protect women from the terrifying advances world. However, I say with some regret that we of obsessed men. have inherited some concern about this offence from the United States. The issue of women’s safety is of some concern to us because statistically—in North The offence now carries the title America at least—30 per cent of all female “stalking”. We would all know, if we checked homicide victims have also been the victims of either the Macquarie Dictionary or the Oxford some degree of stalking. In Brisbane, it is Dictionary , that the verb “to stalk” carries with reported that up to 50 callers a month are it some element of stealth. The criminal contacting the Domestic Violence Resource activity of stalking requires that there be no Centre with news that they are considering stealth; that it be quite overt. It is interesting to moving interstate or overseas to escape being have a look at some of the different ways that stalked. That is a horrendous figure—up to 50 it has been explained. The Attorney-General callers per month in Queensland. We should in South Australia, Mr Sumner, when he be concerned about that. This legislation introduced similar laws into the South shows our concern. Australian Legislature, said that it would be a difficult crime to prove—and I think we all A Brisbane psychologist, Ms Rosamond accept that—but that that was “no reason not Nutting, has told us that the widely held belief to proceed with it.” The Attorney-General of that it was only men who stalked was New South Wales felt that, because it would incorrect. She said that many women stalked be difficult to prove, it should not be men by sending them cards and telephoning proceeded with. them. As I understand it, the legislation in Mr FitzGerald: Did you ever see the film Queensland is somewhat loosely based on Fatal Attraction ? the legislation in the State of Illinois in Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Yes, I have seen the America, in which illegal stalking is considered film. There is a considerable amount of to have occurred if someone transmits a evidence that women are stalking men as threat with the intent to place that person in well. But I have a view that—and whilst it may reasonable apprehension of death, bodily not be a politically correct stance to harm, sexual assault, confrontation or take—there is a very large degree of Legislative Assembly 6071 18 November 1993 protection of women involved in bringing in this Bill, and I look forward to these kinds of legislation to counteract this offence. protections being afforded to all of the citizens Some very interesting comments were of Queensland. made by Bettina Arndt in an article on stalking Mrs GAMIN (Burleigh) (11.28 p.m.): I am in the Australian Magazine . I do not have the pleased to join the debate on the Criminal date, but I am sure members would be able to Law Amendment Bill. The shadow Minister obtain it from the library if they wish to do so. has outlined some of the deficiencies in Honourable members will recall my somewhat drafting. The Bill may well need to come back peeved reaction to the malapropism or the to this House for amendment but, incorrect use of the word, “stalking”. Bettina nevertheless, I support the thrust of this Arndt tells us that psychiatrists call this legislation. I have previously made mention in behaviour “erotomania”. That is the word that the House of the problems some women they use to describe the somewhat bizarre experience from stalkers. In some instances behaviour of stalking. They talk in terms of “an this can reach such serious proportions so as intense preoccupying infatuation in the face of to result in violence, injuries and sometimes persistent rejection, an infatuation that death. involves persistent pursuit that severely Although I see reports of other States disrupts the lives of both the pursued and the looking at this matter, Queensland is the first pursuer.” Again, we are told that we should State to draw up stalking legislation. We all not consider that it is only men who are know that the Criminal Code is being erotomaniacs. We are told in psychiatric overhauled. But I am pleased that this literature that erotomania has been legislation is coming forward ahead of the traditionally regarded as a women’s disease. completion of that review. This legislation Psychiatrists used to call it “old maid’s applies not only to stalking between people in insanity”. I would never do that, but they did. domestic relationships where the threat is from Ms Spence: Shakespeare referred to it a family member or someone in a live-in as unrequited love”, and it was not very relationship but also to erotomaniacs pursuing popular amongst men in the Middle Ages. strangers. Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: It probably was. The first is the most common, that is, There are some of us who are approaching where an offender is so enraged at the break- middle age rapidly. I want to mention one up of a relationship that he refuses to let the concern that I have, that is, that stalking as a victim go, refuses to leave her alone and crime is only proven if people believe that continues to cause serious alarm, intimidation, there will be some physical damage or danger harassment or fear. This can take many to their property or to themselves. I do not forms, such as following her around, think we should be underestimating the surveillance, persistent telephoning, entering a disruption that this kind of behaviour can victim’s property and sending objectionable cause to people with these fears. This kind of material. There are all sorts of methods of obsessive—and, I suggest, ludicrous— reminding the victim that she is not free from behaviour on the part of a number of our attentions, no matter how unwanted those citizens severely disrupts people’s lives. attentions may be. As difficult as the legislation has been to There are also far too many recorded arrive at and as difficult as the offence may be histories of obsessed offenders who harass to prove, it could be under constant review, as women who are scarcely known to them or the honourable member for Indooroopilly said. women they have not even met. Perhaps the I do not believe that this legislation will be any stalker has been rebuffed; perhaps the different from any other piece of legislation fantasy of unrequited love is all in his own that we have in Queensland. Our entire mind. There are many reported cases, statute book is under constant monitoring, including that of an equal opportunity both internally from within Government and commissioner from another State—in externally from outside Government. We common with the member for Caboolture, I admit that this is a difficult area of law. We read the article in the Australian admit that we need to have a new approach Magazine—who, 20 years ago, found her life to this kind of behaviour—one that certainly made absolute misery by a stalker. They had cuts it out. been out a couple of times together. She told As has been mentioned by other him that she was not interested in pursuing a speakers, there have been many occasions relationship. He would not take “no” for an on which violence could have been prevented answer, and so the harassment had there been laws such as this. I support began—phoning late at night or early in the 18 November 1993 6072 Legislative Assembly morning; sending flowers and unwanted become aware of this conduct; and there presents; waiting outside her door; watching must be a definite awareness of this conduct her all the time; and following her to work and on the part of victim, who must also be everywhere she went, culminating in seriously concerned that violence may occur. screaming, abusive and terrifying telephone Other speakers and the Minister have already calls. She was a mature, professional woman, dealt with the penalties applicable to this and she was terrified. Eventually, she took offence. action. A lawyer friend sent the stalker a Over the past few years, much has been solicitor’s letter threatening legal action. Other done in the field of domestic violence in friends backed her up and exerted more and providing women with some avenues of more pressure on the man until the protection against domestic violence. This is harassment stopped. She was lucky. Other another step in providing protection for victims, women have not been so lucky. Their stalkers whether from a broken domestic relationship were more dangerous, more psychopathic, or from that sort of pathological infatuation more obsessed. known as erotomania. In the United States, Psychiatrists say that erotomania has two most States have recently introduced laws elements: a pathological infatuation, and/or making stalking a felony, typically punishable an erroneous delusion of being loved. This by up to three years in prison and a A$15,000 sort of behaviour is quite bizarre. fine. For aggravated stalking involving a Nevertheless, some victims of stalkers have deadly weapon, physical injury or violation of a been sexually assaulted, some have been protection order, prison sentences increase to assaulted and some have been killed. Until more than five years. now, the law in Australia has offered little The New South Wales Opposition has protection against stalking. It has not been recently moved amendments in Parliament to illegal to follow someone, watch them or outlaw the stalking of women. It is pester them with unwanted calls, letters and disappointing that legislation has not yet come gifts. It has been difficult to obtain a forward in that State. Queensland is the first restraining order unless there is a threat of State to draw up anti-stalking legislation. This personal injury or damage to property. Often, legislation is welcomed by women who are such orders have been unavailable, except victims and by welfare workers who are where the threat is from a family member or involved in assisting women victims. We are someone in a live-in relationship with the not trying to say that these new tough laws will person seeking protection. Even when there is keep the terror away. Would-be stalkers will a threat of physical violence, restraining orders still be able to discover where their victims live have proved of little benefit in protecting or work. However, these laws will help to break people being stalked by others intent on down the cycle of stalking. Stalkers will be physical harm. confronted. Treatment can be obtained for Stalkers have been known to sit outside a people with compulsive or addictive victim’s home, photographing everyone who behaviours. went in or out. Family Court actions have Although my remarks have been frequently resulted in serious stalking addressed towards men stalking women, in problems. Confidentiality provisions have little common with the member for Caboolture, I effect, as stalkers go to extraordinary lengths recognise that there is plenty of evidence to to obtain information about their victims. show that women can also offend by stalking Women can live in fear and despair as they men, although this harassment rarely reaches see no escape from the ongoing threats, the level of violence that has made this torment and violence. I have had cases legislation so important and necessary. It is through my electorate office in which women another step in protecting particularly women have moved from place to place, from refuge who are in dangerous and potentially to refuge, from State to State, still to find that dangerous situations. they have not escaped. Mr PYKE (Mount Ommaney) The Criminal Code has not extended (11.46 p.m.): It is with a sense of pride and protection in most of the circumstances that pleasure that I rise to support the historic are known as stalking. This legislation causes Criminal Law Amendment Bill, which provides an offence of stalking to be introduced, and for pioneering anti-stalking legislation. Why is it this will be of benefit and protection to women such a pleasure for me? Ever since I was and children who live in fear of their lives. The sworn in as a police officer in 1976, in offender must engage in a course of conduct common with many other people, I have been consisting of two or more separate acts; the involved in a war against the dreadful crime stalker must intend that the victim should Legislative Assembly 6073 18 November 1993 that is domestic violence—the brutalisation, Steve turned his attention to both of us. degradation and intimidation of women by He stalked me and my new boyfriend cowardly men. Now that I am a member of Gary. After months of persistent Parliament, my part in that war continues in harassment, abuse and death threats, just the same way. While as a police officer I Steve eventually shot Gary.” was once at the front line—in the trenches, so As a former policeman, I knew that to speak—in this war, now I have the privilege changes to our criminal law were the only way of operating in a more impactful theatre of to really help the victims of domestic violence war, that of the Legislature. As a junior officer, to escape and survive abusive relationships in a training officer and after that the founder which they had become ensnared through no and manager of the Queensland Police fault of their own. Police have too often been Service’s unique women’s safety project—a powerless in too many cases where women unit dedicated to the prevention of violence victims of domestic violence have tried to against women—I saw at first hand and acted escape. Concerned police have had to see to try to prevent many cases of domestic women give in and go back after months— violence that sickened me and made me even years—of unbelievable harassment of understand very clearly how dangerous life themselves and their families and often any can be for many women in our community. other person involved with them or trying to Even as a member of Parliament, I still see help them begin a new life. After those such survivors. My office will always offer innocent survivors had made the break—often sanctuary to any woman seeking to escape a against very difficult circumstances—they had domestic violence situation. been forced to go back. In Queensland, police To try to help honourable members will no longer be powerless when cowardly understand how very dangerous and men harass and intimidate their former frightening life can be for too many innocent spouses, girlfriends or their families and women, I shall quote directly from a recent friends, or any other involved party. edition of the official magazine of the For some time now, under the Goss Queensland Police Service, the Vedette, Government, Queensland has enjoyed the which stated— most powerful anti-domestic violence “Stalking is like hunting. The legislation and police policy and procedures in offenders target their victims and pursue our country. Now our judiciary shall indeed be them relentlessly with constant following, provided with legislation that will enable the spying, harassment, intimidation and gaoling of cowardly men who stalk their former even death threats. In Australia, police girlfriends, spouses or even complete have been powerless to help.” strangers. That is the way these men need to In that article, three young women share their be treated. experiences of a phenomenon that is much Our Government has taken a most more common than many people think. I will worthy, principled and consistent stand, to relate two of those cases. Andrea was stalked quote the Attorney-General, “against violence by her ex-boyfriend. Andrea had been seeing against women and children and against all Greg for about a year. She decided to end the forms of violence and abuse in our relationship, but Greg would not accept it and community.” So seriously does our constantly harassed her and her family. She Government, the Attorney-General, the changed her telephone number to a silent members of the Minister’s legislative number, but he managed to obtain the silent committee and our Labor caucus feel about number. He rang her office up to 20 times a this issue—about the need to protect innocent day and repeatedly hung up. He followed her women from violence and abuse—that we home or to the shops on foot and in the car. have not waited for the full review of the He abused her in the street and even Criminal Code to be introduced into this threatened to kill her. Greg would never leave House. We have pushed this Bill hard to have her alone. He stalked her day and night. it passed as quickly as possible, without delay. Melissa’s ex-boyfriend, Steve, hid in the For too many cowardly, violent men, even neighbour’s trees and watched her through our excellent domestic violence protection binoculars. Melissa says— orders have been just pieces of paper to be “If I went to the shops, he was there. ignored when it suits them. Too many of these If I went to the movies, he was there. His cowardly men see themselves as being the constant attention became obsession. It only person of any importance in their world. no longer intimidated me; it frightened Nothing matters to them—neither courts, nor me. When I began seeing someone else, 18 November 1993 6074 Legislative Assembly police—except the relentless pursuit of their and the examples that they have given, which prey. clearly illustrate why it is needed. In too many instances police have been It is interesting to note that the definition unable to act to protect. Too many women of “stalking” provides that persistent following, have died or continued to suffer horrific abuse. threatening and terrorising behaviour of one This very useful Bill, introduced by a sensitive, person by another constitutes criminal caring and pioneering State Government—a behaviour, whether that person is male or Government that is committed to ensuring female. That definition is important. It that Queensland women enjoy equal status encompasses the definition of “stalk” in both with men—will provide a great mantle of safety the Oxford and Macquarie dictionaries. Overt for Queensland women and enable them to behaviour is a necessary element in proving go about their lives in peace and safety. the offence. This Bill clearly signals to all men that the Like all members of this House, I am Goss Government is serious about enabling alarmed to see that statistics reveal more than women to enter into or remain in relationships 24 000 instances of women in this State being only by mutual consent and not by fear, seriously and chronically battered by their intimidation, harassment and violence. This spouses. I know from my years of practice in Bill will be welcomed by my former colleagues the legal profession that there is a very thin in the Queensland Police Service who will use line between love and hate. One of the this law to great effect, primarily in the reasons why I decided to stop practising law prevention of domestic violence and violence and go into politics was that I had a number of against women. bad experiences in the family law area. I saw I commend this Bill to Queensland police spouses involved in property disputes, and encourage them to use it courageously to maintenance disputes, and access and safeguard Queensland women, their children custody battles trying to use children as and their families from cowardly, violent men. I pawns. I saw them indulge in the most horrific commend the Premier, the Cabinet, the behaviour towards one another. It is because Attorney-General and our Government for of such situations that there is a need for acting so quickly to put this additional protection of people in those circumstances, safeguard in place in our community. On otherwise the deaths and other problems that behalf of the community, all Queensland have occurred will continue to occur. women and the survivors of far too many An article in the Courier-Mail on 11 May instances of serious and sustained domestic this year stated— violence, I say a very sincere thank you to our “A man suspected by police of Government for introducing this Bill. I also say murdering Kirra callgirl Melissa Ryan is to all cowardly, violent men who stalk or intend believed to have been stalking Gold to stalk their former girlfriends or spouses that Coast prostitutes for several weeks before their days are numbered. They will be able to her brutal death in a motel room. Two be prosecuted for their actions, and they will Surfers Paradise prostitutes working be gaoled. under the names of Michelle and Sasha Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central) yesterday said their telephone numbers (11.54 p.m.): Bearing in mind the lateness of were identified by police on a telephone the hour—and also since it is my birthday—for bill belonging to the suspect.” the first time in my parliamentary career, I will I table that article for the information of be brief. I know that will surprise all honourable members. What we have is a death that members. appears to be the result of stalking. That is the Mrs Bird: That was brief! reason why this legislation is so important. The Mr BEATTIE: I will be a bit longer than honourable member for Indooroopilly did that. make the point that he thought there had not been enough consultation. I do take him up I rise tonight to speak in favour of this Bill. on that point. The Criminal Code review has A number of people in my electorate have been going on for quite some time, and there approached me in relation to this matter, has been a considerable amount of including a number of community groups, one consultation. I am mindful of the fact that a of which is based in New Farm, as the Minister publication was released by an organisation would be aware. I congratulate the Minister on interested in this subject, which stated— the legislation. I endorse the comments of all members on both sides of the House who “Public and media support has been have spoken about the necessity for this Bill considerable and attention to the issue has resulted in increased calls for help Legislative Assembly 6075 18 November 1993

from women and their families who are For example, I am concerned that people experiencing the torment of stalking.” who are constantly the victims of stalking do I table that article also for the information of not have the opportunity that exists now to go the House. I do not want to make a great through something that happens in the point of it, but there has been a great degree witness protection area, that is, a change of of consultation. If honourable members look identity. I know that that is a fairly extreme at the illustrations, they will understand the measure. I can understand why that course enormity of the problem. For example, an must be considered at great length. But if article in the Sunday Mail by Ken Blanch on victims can establish that they are being 31 October this year stated— pursued in such a way that they need to change their identity, I believe that they “A stalker recently raided rubbish bins should receive the assistance of the State at an anti-domestic violence organisation Government to make that change. I know that in Brisbane seeking discarded documents under the police witness protection program that might lead him to his former partner. there is a scheme whereby people can be Another sat outside a refuge all day transferred interstate. and photographed everyone who went in A Government member: It’s not your or out. birthday any more! Vehicles taking former spouses from Mr BEATTIE: No, it is not my birthday any Family Court hearings have been more. Does that mean that I have to be followed, and people escorting parents to quiet? Those people can be transferred custody access rendezvous have been interstate, and their qualifications can be photographed. altered. If a person is a teacher, the name on Stalkers have posed as social his or her degree can be changed. The workers to try to get leads to the change of identity is important so that those whereabouts of former partners.” people can lose themselves if they like. This It continued— makes the activities of a stalker much more difficult. “The centre made a submission about stalkers to the Attorney-General, I referred to the four provisions of the Bill. Mr Wells: ‘At this centre alone, staff I support totally what the Attorney has done. members have been followed home and Those four elements require some degree of had death threats made against them.’” satisfaction. That is necessary from a civil liberty point of view. When the Attorney I table that article. That is another example of consulted with the Council for Civil Liberties, I the experience of an anti-domestic violence can understand why it wanted to make certain organisation that shows in the most graphic that people were not being pursued under this terms the enormity of the problem. People legislation without the case being properly involved in organisations such as the established. I understand clearly why the Domestic Violence Resource Centre have elements are drawn in this way. However, they carried on their activities over a long period are reasonably difficult elements to establish if under considerable difficulties. Frankly, I think one is a victim. This problem must be they have done an excellent job. I applaud considered. One of the necessary elements is them for their efforts. that the offender must intend that the I want to make a couple of points to be potential victim be aware that the course of considered after the legislation has been in conduct is directed at him or her. I can operation for some time, because this understand the reason for that, but that is Attorney-General has shown himself to be difficult for a victim to establish. I have said on someone who does remain constantly vigilant many occasions in this House that I have about the operation of the legislation for which enormous respect for this Attorney. He has a he is responsible. All honourable members proud record of reform. I know that he will know—and the Attorney-General has made it keep a close eye on these elements during very clear in his second-reading speech—that the implementation of this Bill. My constituents there are really four elements to this Bill that who have raised these issues with me are need to be established before the stalking delighted with this Bill, and I am delighted to charge can be proved. I do not intend to go support it in the House tonight. through them because a number of members Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt) have already read them into the record. (12.03 a.m.): It gives me great pleasure to Hopefully, the legislation will work in its current speak to this Criminal Law Amendment Bill. In form, but I see a few problems in the long common with previous speakers, I intend to term. 18 November 1993 6076 Legislative Assembly be very brief as, again, it is after midnight. The police were very good throughout the Firstly, I congratulate the Minister on whole case, but they said to her, “Look, our introducing this legislation, which follows a hands are tied. We really cannot do much for review of the Criminal Code. I understand that you.” On the few occasions that they did arrest extensive consultation was undertaken with that fellow and took him to court for breaking a the Women’s Policy Unit, the Women’s Legal protection order, he was fined those paltry Service, the Domestic Violence Unit in the sums. police force and other women’s groups. I have This legislation is long overdue for spoken to many of those groups that have Queensland women. Many women have been been waiting for this legislation. They are calling out for stalking-type legislation for a pleased with the consultation that has long time. However, it is no good members occurred. I make the point to the Minister that, standing here tonight and passing legislation in common with many other women, I am that provides for penalties of imprisonment for disappointed that there are no women on the three years and five years only to see Criminal Code Review Committee. However, I magistrates and judges not use those acknowledge that the committee has penalties to their full effect. The real test of undertaken consultation before making these these laws will be in the courts. I am confident recommendations. that the police will gather the evidence and will I shall speak particularly about the help get those stalkers into the courts. penalties provided in this legislation. The Bill However, the real test will be whether our defines two types of stalking: straightforward judges and magistrates are prepared to enter stalking, with a maximum penalty of three into the spirit of this legislation and hand out years’ imprisonment, and aggravated stalking, tough penalties to those men who are doing which has a maximum penalty of five years’ the stalking. imprisonment. I believe that the penalties are I also acknowledge that the offence of particularly important, because for too long stalking does not relate just to domestic members of this Parliament have been talking violence cases. We do not have any statistics about domestic violence, posturing about how in this State about the types of people who dreadful it is, and giving the courts the are stalking. I acknowledge that there are opportunity to impose tough penalties, only to people who are stalking. Members have heard see magistrates and judges not handing out about the erotomaniacs—people who have those tough penalties to offenders. obsessive infatuations with others. We have In 1991, during a Matters of Public also heard about stalking of high-profile Interest debate, I talked about a woman—a personalities. I acknowledge that there are constituent of mine—who had recently been many types of stalking, but I really do believe divorced. She had gone through the property that the most important use for this legislation settlement and had gained custody of her will be to help women who suffer from children, yet her former husband continued to domestic violence. harass her. He kept coming around. He I congratulate the Minister on the speedy abused her. He watched her. He stood in her introduction of this legislation. Once again, yard. He yelled obscenities at her. She took Queensland is at the forefront of law reform in out protection orders. On the first occasion this country. I hope that we see a swift that he went to court, he got a $50 fine. On implementation of this legislation. the second occasion, he was fined $100. I pointed out that those fines were less than a Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba— Minister speeding fine and less than what one would for Justice and Attorney-General and Minister be fined for crossing a double white line on for the Arts) (12.08 a.m.), in reply: I thank the the road. That woman was crying out for help Government members who took part in this from a system that imposed on her former debate—the honourable members for husband very paltry penalties. Cleveland, Caboolture, Mount Ommaney and Mount Gravatt. I thank the honourable A couple of months after I made that member for Indooroopilly for his support for speech in 1991, her former husband went to the Bill, and the honourable members for her home and shot her and killed her Noosa and Burleigh. boyfriend, Michael Rapley. Fortunately, that fellow is now in prison. However, had this Miss Simpson: Maroochydore. stalking legislation been introduced at that Mr WELLS: Maroochydore, I am sorry. I time, I believe that Jeanette would have had a particularly thank the honourable member for better opportunity of keeping that man away Brisbane Central, who took a little time out on from her. Each time that he sat outside her his birthday to speak to this Bill, and did not house and abused her, the police were called. finish his speech until the next day. The Legislative Assembly 6077 18 November 1993 honourable member for Indooroopilly requirement that a reasonable person placed suggested that there were a number of as the second person is placed would be put technical defects in the Bill. By now, he will in fear in the circumstances. The three-fold probably be aware that, some time ago, I test is the safeguard. It is an unusually circulated a number of small drafting stringent safeguard. For this kind of offence, amendments that answer his concerns. I am that is needed. very happy to take them up, and will move Mr BEANLAND: I notice that proposed them at the Committee stage. I thank all new section 359A (4) has the exclusion “(a) members for their participation in the debate industrial dispute”. I can understand the and support for the Bill. second exclusion (b) “political or other public This is an historic occasion. Queensland dispute or issue carried on in the public will be the first jurisdiction in this country to interest.” Perhaps the Attorney would care to introduce this type of legislation. I believe that indicate to the Chamber the reason for the we can all be proud of this night’s work. exclusion of industrial disputes. Motion agreed to. Mr WELLS: Because we are not purporting to oust the jurisdiction of the various industrial relations Bills passed by this Committee Parliament. Hon. D. M. Wells (Murrumba—Minister for Amendments agreed to. Justice and Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts) in charge of the Bill. Clause 3, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments. Clause 3— Mr WELLS (12.13 a.m.): I move the Third Reading amendments numbered 1 to 6 circulated in Bill, on motion of Mr Wells, by leave, read my name. a third time. “At pages 4 to 6, in proposed section The House adjourned at 12.16 a.m. 359A— (Friday). omit ‘offender’ (wherever occurring), insert ‘first person’. At pages 4 to 6, in proposed section 359A— omit ‘victim’ (wherever occurring), insert ‘second person’. At pages 4 to 6, in proposed section 359A— omit ‘victim’s’ (wherever occurring), insert ‘second person’s’. At page 4, line 23— omit ‘serious concern’, insert ‘to believe’. At page 4, line 24— omit ‘may’, insert ‘is likely to’. At page 6, line 24— omit ‘offender’, insert ‘accused’.” Miss SIMPSON: I direct a question to the Minister. I ask: what provisions are there in the Criminal Code to provide protection where there may be malicious and false complaints? Mr WELLS: The Bill provides a three-fold test. There is the objective test, the reasonable person test and then there is a requirement that the first person must be intending the second person to know that the second person is being stalked. There is the